 So we are recording now. Okay, thank you. So welcome to the meeting of the Amherst Historical Commission on Wednesday, June 23rd. My name is Jane Wald and I'm chair of the commission. As preamble, this is an entirely virtual public meeting and pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021, this meeting will be conducted by a remote means. Members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so in the following manner. The best way to find the link to this meeting for both video zoom and for telephone participation is to go to the town of Amherst, the government website, scroll to the bottom of the homepage where you'll find the calendar of events, find the Amherst Historical Commission calendar listing. The agenda and links to this meeting will be found in that calendar listing. No in-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 via technological needs. In the event that we are unable to do so for reasons of economic hardship and despite best efforts, we will post the proceedings on the Amherst Historical Commission's website, posting an audio or video recording, transcript or other comprehensive record of the proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting. So with that, we'll call the meeting to order at 6.36 p.m. Wednesday, June 23rd and we'll begin with roll call attendance of the members. Let's see, Patricia Off, not present. Robin Fordham, present. Sorry, I'm trying to say that Pat wrote back that she couldn't get in on a link on the webpage online, but I just forwarded her the email with the link. And if not, Ben, she asked if you could help. So let me just tell her that I forwarded the link. Okay, thank you. This will work. We'll continue with attendance, come back to Pat, if and when she's able to join us. Janet Marquardt, thank you. And Hedi Startup. Hello, President. Okay, and Jane Wald, I am present. Let's see, we have a pretty full agenda this evening with several significant topics for, I think for moving through this agenda, we will have a period of public comment after the major agenda items. And I'm getting the... Yeah, that makes sense. Ben, would you mind putting the agenda up on the screen? Yeah, certainly. Quickly. There's Pat with my name under her. Oh, welcome, Pat. Thank you. I've been trying for 15 minutes. The link on the website for the town is not the full complete link, unfortunately. I can't send me, anyway. I'm glad I'm here. Thank you, Jan. Okay. Pat, you'll need to change the name on your screen because for some reason, since you used that link, I didn't understand it already. The picture I'm looking at has my name on it. Oh, yeah, I just changed it. Thank you. Thanks, Ben. Sorry, sorry. I was there twice, that's so exciting. I had a double for a second. So we'll see if there, we'll begin by seeing if there are any announcements by any members or Ben on behalf of the planning department or town. Yeah, yeah, I guess I would just add, I think I mentioned this over email, but just to reiterate it and for the public meetings will be held over Zoom at least until September. That's following the governor's order and guidance from the town manager and that's, we're kind of following the role, guidance of the town council as well. So we will be meeting over Zoom. Okay. And the writer's walk sign. Yeah, so the happy to announce that the writer's walk signs which have been in the works for quite a while now, eight out of the 12 signs are either installed now or will be installed in the next day or two. I went around to a few of the sites after work today and I didn't see any signs up but they had put the posts in or I guess the bases in and then they just need to screw on the sign. So that's certainly the most important. Biggest advancement we've seen in a while and it's exciting to see it come together and yeah, I think hopefully by this weekend there will be eight signs out there. And maybe at the end of the meeting when we're picking a meeting date we could also just choose a launch date since we're just gonna use one that's in and then that way I can go ahead and let the bookstores know and the people at UMass and John Olson can let student, former students who wrote it know we could get a newspaper article out about it because we'll need some leave time. Yeah, exactly. Okay, we can, if there's time at the end of this meeting we can come back to specific arrangements about that. I think that would be good with other business or unanticipated items. The first significant item on the agenda is the plans for 11 East Pleasant Street and their impact. Ben? I was gonna ask, I can take like detailed notes just writing as I go but is there anyone willing to take minutes during this meeting? Just types notes, if at all possible. Don't I'll speak at once. Bob and I each did it once. I can take, so if I take notes will you turn them into minutes, Brent? Yeah, I was gonna say like I'm no stranger to watching the recordings afterwards and kind of just detailed, making the minutes more detailed after but it's really helpful to have some notes to start out from. So if I take notes, you'll actually create the minutes? Yes. Okay, then I'm in. Thanks, Robin. Thank you, Robin. Thank you. So the impact of 11, the plans for 11 East Pleasant Street on the cemeteries is the first item. So I'm going to, I'm going to have after discussion of 11 East Pleasant Street after each of these agenda items in turn. 11 East Pleasant Street, the Jones Library preservation restriction and review of the revised bylaw for preservation of historic structures. We'll have a period of public comment after each one of those items so we can sort of keep comments throughout the meeting kind of linked to their subject so we can keep better track of where the discussion is going. All right, so we can begin with 11 East Pleasant Street. Let's see. Ben, would you want to kind of give us a thumbnail or a synopsis of change your notes since? Yeah, exactly. And I also wanted to ask Jane, it's I guess up to your discretion that Kyle Wilson, the developer of the project is in attendance. Very thankful for that. So, you know, because he's not really he's kind of he's a member of the public, but it's also his project. And I'm just wondering if we should invite him in as kind of to have this more as a conversation, bounce questions off of him or kind of like have talk as the commission and then speak at the end. Yeah, I think why don't we do it this way? If Ben, if you could just kind of quickly update us since maybe since our site visit. Yes, then we can invite Kyle to participate in a conversation. Yeah, sounds good. OK. So, yeah, since our site visit, I guess, Archipelago Investments, Kyle Wilson's company, they have since revised their plans and have resubmitted a proposal to the planning board for consideration for site plan review and special permits. The project is, you know, quite similar to what was submitted earlier with adjustments to kind of more of the interior spaces, number of units and size of bed units and bedroom counts. The retail space is also adjusted and the facades are essentially the same. But the building initially was five feet from West Cemetery and it's now proposed to be 10 feet back from West Cemetery. And so that's just one, you know, one update since the since the last site visit and last time we discussed this. We've also, Chris Breastrop, the planning director and I have met with Alan Snow, who's the tree warden and grounds and maintenance director for DPW. And I've included Alan's kind of notes from the conversation that we had with Alan in the field. And so, you know, Alan's view is essentially that there's kind of a few things going on. One is that right now I can bring up a map in a second, but the metal fence and the property line don't directly overlap a line. I think the fence is slightly closer to the cemetery than where the actual property line is. And so it's Alan's view that it kind of creates some maintenance problems because who maintains that space between the fence and the property line. And so, you know, Alan's view is that we should really take this opportunity to align the fence with the property line. And that would that that's in for that reason alone, trees would need to be removed because the trees are currently right in that area where the property line sits. And then it's Alan's view also that, you know, I think whether it's five feet, 10 feet or, you know, possibly even 20 feet from the property line to the building, there's going to be heavy machinery back there. There's going to be a lot of earth work. And there's going to be damage to the roots of the trees. So it would be hard to save them, you know, independent of the fence issue, but just because of the sheer amount of construction. And so Alan did identify two or maybe three trees, kind of slightly to the south of the project, closer to One East Pleasant Street. That definitely we should encourage them to be saved and could be certainly saved in our nice specimen trees and are definitely like within the fence on the cemetery side of the fence. And yeah, so I think our, you know, I've mentioned this before, but the role of the historical commission is kind of informal and advisory in this capacity. There's no mechanism for, you know, historical commission review per se, but because it's obviously the West Cemetery is one of the most significant historical sites in the town on the national register. The, you know, the historical commission can offer suggestions to the planning board who is the entity that grants approvals for this project. And so the historical commission, I would imagine like could, you know, we could take a vote tonight on a set of suggestions that we could put in a memo and send to the planning board about kind of the treatment of that back edge and how we would like, how the commission would want to see the edge treated in construction. And so I think the issues to consider are the trees, the fence replanting of trees. And then also the planning board will be discussing whether to grant a permit to grant a waiver essentially on the setback. So right now 20 feet is required, 20 feet setback, but Archipelago is asking for a waiver to make that 10 feet. And so I think independent maybe of the trees, maybe just think about kind of where do we want that building to sit in relation to West Cemetery? So I know that was a lot, but there's, you know, it's a lot to consider, I guess. So. Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you. So let's invite Kyle to join us and Kyle, is there anything you'd like to add or to say about the project? Good evening, everybody. How's everybody? I can add as much or as little as you like. I know you have a full agenda, so I don't want to waste anybody's time. I think, you know, we've submitted this building twice. The first time was relative to the West Cemetery, a bit closer, a different grade situation. This most recent time is a bit further away and trying to raise that grade out back, which has historically just been cut down relative to the street. So the trees that we're dealing with out back are all on this slope. There's up to five feet of grade change relative to the historic, you know, the West Cemetery, which is the historic landscape of Amherst that has not been affected and then the asphalt grade that's cut into that. So there's a five foot grade change. With the revised plan, we're trying to reconcile that a bit and raise that up and reduce the delta between the cemetery and the BG district. I think that the latest revision also shows the plantings that are on the 11 East Pleasant property line. We did see Allen out there and we discussed the fence and its location and, you know, the fence is on the town's side of the property and the reason that's the case is because it had to be installed on the town's side of the trees because all the trees had grown up on the property line. You know, the reason that the mural is on one East Pleasant is because the mural was on the carriage shops and the reason the mural was on the carriage shops is because there were some leggy evergreens that grew up and then had to get cut down and then, oh my goodness, we're looking at the back end of the motor lodge. And so the mural went up. So our location relative to the property line has increased from five feet to 10 feet. The existing building is about a foot and a half off the property line. So we're significantly further than the existing structures that are on the site. One East Pleasant is five feet off the property line. The 20 foot setback is a element of our bylaw that is BG relative to the residential districts. Obviously that's relevant on, that setback is directly adjacent to residential homes in some areas of BG in this area relative to West Cemetery. It's obviously next to a cemetery. So the nearest home is hundreds of feet away. I think the 20 foot setback is something that does impact any property that's effectively north of One East Pleasant and impacts the property we're discussing today. It obviously would make the property north of us a 20 foot setback would significantly impact the redevelopment opportunity of that site. So I think that we obviously are interested in doing what we think would be best for this facade of West Cemetery. I think One East Pleasant is one step in that direction. This property is another. The 15 East Pleasant property is the third and the property north of this is the fourth. So those four will make up that West side of West Cemetery. And obviously we're playing a role in that. So I can answer any question you have about what we've proposed and if there's any confusion on what's before you and hopefully that can be helpful. Okay, thank you. So correct me if I missed something, but it sounds like the points that we want to most discuss or have an opinion on are the setback question, defense question, what happens with the trees? Did I miss anything? Is it mostly those three? Okay. Commissioner, do you have questions or comments? Well, I'm just, I'm just with question, this new plan proposes a 10 foot setback and the bylaws of the town require a 20 foot setback. And the property line is not clearly marked. And so I guess part of my concern is what would it take for the town to clearly mark the property line? So the distance from it, the setback could be accurately gauged. Should I? Yeah, I believe that's something that the historical, that commissioners had talked about asked for at their site. Is it, so Kyle, do you have a response or Ben? Oh, does that, Kyle has provided a stamped and certified survey of the property. So, and that's working with the town and our DPW to identify exactly where the property line is. I think that's here. And so obviously, it's hard to, this is just a piece of paper on a computer. It's hard sometimes to understand how that is translated to actual space. But I think with a surveyors have, can accurately show depict where the line is in real space. And so we have an accurate drawing here that does show the property line in relation to the fence. So would there be a visual demarcation of it? I'm just thinking it's one thing to have a set of plans, but it's another thing to dig a hole and build a building without being able to accurately measure the setback. It's simplistic, but. I would just say that there's no question as to where the property line is. There is a concrete pin that is in place on site that you can see on Google Earth or you can see on the site visit that's shown on that survey, that is between lot one and lot two. So the property line is exactly demarcated and shown and there's no question as to where it is. We saw that on the site visit. Pat, were you there with us? I was, yes. We did see that marker. I remember seeing it. It's just not as visual as the fence would be going down that line. That's all, I'm at the point I'm trying to make, considering that they're going to request a setback that is not the 20 feet. That's less than that. So it just seems like that it would be better if there was something more than just a pin. So if I, Pat, it sounds to me like you're asking if it's possible to put pin flags along the property line that we can go see, is that? Well, yes, whatever is most feasible, Jane, but I think for our sake, the town's sake and for the developer's clarity, more than one pin would, in my opinion, be helpful. And I just have to, I mean, there's a pin on either end of this property that is existing, that is shot in place, that is flagged, that is located on a straight property line. I think that that's, it's very apparent where the property line is. Jan, do you have a question coming? Yes. A couple of other things that Alan said in his report. He asked if we have to take trees down, some heat shirt are dead, some are in bad shape or invasive, and it's true that they may all get hurt by the digging, but he asked a couple of questions. One was that the fence be on the property line, which Pat would solve the problem for you of having it visually demarcated. And since, and he said, the opportunity to do it is now. If that happens though, I see in archipelago's plans to put trees, as you said, Kyle, on that land, which would be on the archipelago's side of the fence. What about the ones in the cemetery that are lost? Because those ones that would go in are tall and narrow. They're not gonna cast the kind of shade, they're also small at this point, that is being cast by the trees that are there now. Would archipelago be willing to help pay for the retaining wall, the replaced fence in the correct position, and trees that have been removed being replaced on the other side, on the cemetery side. I also think, sorry, that 20 feet setback is a minimum here in terms of the grave proximity to this particular place. One East Pleasant graves were further away. The mural was already there and people wanted it again, so having it closer, the five feet setback made sense so people could see the mural. And it's right at the entrance there where there's a lot more space. Once you get a little further down, we're in a section of the cemetery where the graves are very close to the line. And I think it's more important that we allow more space there and have as many shady trees to keep up the feeling of that older section that's there now. So that was a whole lot of things at once. But I think Alan's question about, is archipelago going to help replace the trees? And if we do the fence and the retaining wall that we all thought was necessary, if we move it and add a retaining wall, since we're having to do it because of this building, can archipelago help the town pay for that? I would say that the concept of a retaining wall may no longer be necessary. I think that what we're attempting to do by pulling the building back further to 10 feet is be able to fill that in between the building and the cemetery so that there is not a need for a retaining wall. I think that the vocation of the... Sorry, Kyle, would it be sloped down? Is that what you're saying where it's fill in? I'm not sure what you mean. I think if, Ben, I don't know if you have an image other than the photo that you've shown from the cemetery side, do you have an image of like Google Earth or something from the property side? Because all of those trees are... That's fine, actually, thank you. You can see there that the center of those trees that are shown in the image are on the property line effectively. So that those trees historically grew up on the property line. The grade was cut right there. So Pat, the pin that we're talking about is a little further up and it's this concrete thing that's sticking up in the middle of the cut in the grade. So by us trying to fill in on that side where you see kind of the back of the existing cousin's building and trying to bring that grade up, we're gonna be backfilling against the roots of the trees that have grown up on the property line. So I think long-term construction is gonna work against them. I think backfilling is gonna work against them. I think long-term we have opportunity to fix the delta between the cemetery and the commercial, the BG district so we can reduce the difference in the grade. We could move the fence and we'd be willing to talk about that. I think that the location of the fence on the Gaylord Gate side is right on the property line. It deviates from there as it comes north and gets further away from the property line, which was to get around the leggy evergreens that were outside of the carriage shops and then to get around these trees that grew up on the property line. In talking with Allen, if that fence was moved then there would be some opportunity to plant on the grave side because those you can see the line of graves as they are there. So we'd be willing and interested in working with the town obviously in any way shape or form to improve the view from West Cemetery. I think that the building that we're proposing does that. I think that the existing condition that we're looking at is there, which is liquor bottles, nips in the back end of a concrete block building. I think the 20 foot setback is another discussion. I think that as we presented with the planning board the BG district is extremely precious in the town of Amherst and that a very, very, very, very small percentage of all of our land is approved for new housing. And we have a housing crisis and housing is really important and we need to build housing. And this is one of the very few areas we can build housing. And I think imposing a 20 foot setback, which if you look at table three in the bylaw it's actually a 10 foot setback. The 20 foot setback is elsewhere and is applicable only to where it abuts RG districts, which the cemetery as we've discussed is in. I think if a 20 foot setback is applied on that whole, from here looking north to all of those properties you are in a great way inhibiting the ability for the town to produce the housing that it needs to produce. So I think that the optimal arrangement is similar to what we've done at Winnie's Pleasant where we're able to build a new building, replace an old dilapidated building, replace a mural, begin to reconstruct the relationship between the cemetery and the BG district. We're trying to do the same thing here with a little different approach to pull the building back, bring the trees along the side, potentially discuss the fencing. I think there's further discussions that will happen when the redevelopment happens north of here. But I don't think that a 20 foot setback is in the best interest when all of the things that the town is trying to balance are working to be balanced. Can I just ask one more time? I'm not trying to be up to that. I wanna understand exactly how you plan to change the grade. So you said you'd backfill against the trees. So then would you be putting a retaining wall or would you be sloping it down to the level of the building? So effectively right now there's no retaining wall because the grade is just so sharp, right? It just kind of falls apart there. So where we're looking right now is about 293, 295. Down on the 11 East Pleasant side is about 290. So there's about a five foot grade change. We'd be looking to reduce that to a two foot grade change. And so we'd be obviously, we're not changing the grade on the town's property. We'd only be changing the grade on private property. We'd be filling up against the building to reduce the cut that happened in the fifties or sixties when they, you know. So it would be flat. Well, it'd be slightly graded, slightly slanted, but it would be against the building, not a wall. Correct, it would just be against that first floor. It's our hot water. It's one of the apartments on the south side, but we'd be able to backfill in it and there'd be three feet higher than the slab on the first floor. Does that make sense? I see. Okay, that makes sense. Thank you. I'd like to ask for a clarification of something you said about whether it's a 10 foot setback or a 20 foot setback. And Ben, perhaps you could address that also from the perspective of the planning department. Just real quick, on my side, if you look at table three in the BG district, there's a 10 foot rear yard setback listed. And in our case, we're replacing existing building. In the case of Wendy's pleasant next door, we are replacing existing building. Both of those buildings were closer than 10 feet, much closer. So elsewhere in the bylaw, it says a 20 foot setback shall be applied if it's next to the RG district. And so that is the discussion we're having. So what we've applied for is because we've got an existing non-conforming use that's on there, that's a couple feet from the property line that our building that is much further back, which is 10 feet is within the rights of the planning board to approve and proceed with. Does that answer your question, Jane? Not quite. Yeah, so essentially, if you look in like the dimensional regulations in table three, so most every building in the BG business, general business district needs a 10 foot rear setback. However, there's another paragraph that says, if where the BG abuts the RG, which is the residential general district, there needs to be a 20 foot setback. And I imagine that's to kind of create a little bit of a buffer between businesses and homes. And so Kyle, they're applying for a special permit or a waiver of that requirement from the planning board. Okay, the cemetery being RG. Right, correct, thank you. So the variance request is not five instead of 10, the variance request is five instead of 20 in this case. The dimensional special permit request from the planning board is for the ability to rebuild a new structure in the place of an existing non-conforming structure. The delta in terms of feet is the bylaw states 10 foot setback in table three. It states 20 foot setback relative to RG. We're asking for 10 foot. Basically, you'd be asking that the cemetery not be considered RG in this case. It's kind of what it comes down to, right? No, we're asking that the that there's an existing building that's two feet from the property line. So the redevelopment of this prior soul, which is within the, which is by right within the bylaws law to proceed. I'd like to ask if Hedy or Robin or Pat, if you have questions, comments. I think my comments and questions are related to the setback and that will be the decision of the planning board, but 10 feet is about as close as I could possibly imagine it being. The question of moving the fence to the property line and who would pay for that and how soon would that be done? The question of replacing trees in the cemetery property to replace those that are lost to the construction. And I think if we don't move the fence right now because of the construction, I think the property line needs to be more clearly marked. Well, I do not have any additional questions. Jane, I don't think I do either at this time. I'm concerned about some of the correspondence that has come in regarding this development. I don't think it's appropriate to address that now unless you say it is. Let's see. So I think what I would like to do at this point is to take public comment on this for a period of, let's say, six minutes. And if any members of the public wish to make a comment, please raise your hand and Ben or I will recognize you. Then please state your name for the record and make your comment. And we'll observe a two minute limit on each of those comments. I think within this public comment period, it would be an appropriate time to introduce correspondence that's been sent to the Historical Commission. During a public comment period, commissioners do not need to respond to comments. It's an opportunity for the public to make their views known. So with that, we'll open up a period of public comment. I see Hilda Greenbaum. I just wanted to make a quick comment about non-conformities. One of the things the legislature didn't like when the various zoning bylaws were written starting in 1920 and most recently, I guess in 1975 is to increase non-conformities. And I guess the 10 foot isn't increasing it, but the use is being increased incredibly. The structure, not so bad, but the use from the store that was open a few hours a day to a residential apartment building is a considerably more intense change of view. So what you really ought to be considering is the finding that the board has to make that the change or allowing this non-conformity to be increased, that is to say the use being, is that it's not substantially more detrimental. So that's really where you should be addressing your comments of the planning board and which way this change of use or if I believe the 24th setback should be considered even though the cemetery isn't housing, it is a precious resource. So you really should be thinking in terms of is this change substantially more detrimental than what exists now? I thank you for your comment. Okay, I see no more hands, but we have received at least one, let's see, one piece of correspondence that I guess we could, I don't know, Ben, we could put it up on the screen I suppose. Yeah, I'm trying to find it. Okay. Oh, I have it, do you want me to put it up? Sure. Okay, oh, maybe I can't share my screen as I can. I mean, I think as long as permission members read it. Yeah, we all have it, I believe from, everybody has this item dated June 22nd from Jennifer Taub, 259 Lincoln Avenue, essentially urging that the historical commission maker recommendation to the planning board, not that the, to maintain the 20 foot setback from the property line. Isn't there another letter as well that relates to some other kinds of sensitivities that perhaps we would be interested in investing in related to the recent commemorations that were held in the cemetery. I'm talking about the letter from, is it Ira, someone? Ben? Yes, Ira Brecht did send a letter which I forwarded to commission members. You know, history is always remade and people continually encounter it and that cemetery is incredibly important. And I'm glad that Archipelago made the effort to create, recreate the mural, but we lost the carriage shops which were also really an interesting part of the history of Amherst. And I guess I would just like, I don't have a question to ask of Kyle at this point, but I just have a comment that I think in this case it's a special case in terms of who is buried in that cemetery, where it is in town. And I think we should do everything we can to try and preserve its boundaries, which to some people in our community, some people understand those boundaries to be sacred as sacred as anything in the cemetery. So, you know, this is way beyond our official capacity in terms of, you know, where we can question, comment or come to agreement, but at least 20 feet gives us that cushion and allows people to see something sort of that hasn't been interfered with really. And backing up with my other commissioners, I do think a more visible property line, pegging out would help in this situation and nothing replaces specimen trees. It's going to take 30, 40 years for other trees to grow in that. And I'm still can't really see in my mind what that slope of two to three feet does at the back of your scheme. I'd like to think I can envision it in my head, but I'd really like to see what that drawing looks like. I think it could be pretty weird. I'm concerned about runoff and water for your building. It just, it just feels like a very unresolved in terms of the levels that we're trying to address there. That's my two cents. Okay, thank you, Heddy. Let's see, I don't see any, let me see. Let me recognize Jan. Kyle, what would happen to one East presence drop in grade? Would you feather it across that or does it change significantly enough that there'd be a sudden change when you came from one to 11, right on that back area? Ben, I just emailed you a couple of Google Earth images. Were you able to pull those out? Could you post those somehow some way, please? Either one is fine. Probably the one that shows the back is, the other one's probably better, sorry. Okay, 50, 50, 90. So this is the back of the property line that we're discussing. So Heddy, I think to your point, these are the specimen trees that we're talking about. These specimen trees grew up on the property line. A number of them are on our property. A number of them are on the line. The grade change here is five feet behind the brown dumpster. The grade change behind the blue dumpster is about three and a half feet. Got it. The exposed water line is trying to reconcile the grade. So you can see the cemetery beyond, that kind of pitches in this way to the right, which is to the south. And so that will pitch, Jan, to your question towards One East Pleasant. So the grade change from the cemetery side to the private property side is the least at the connection between One East Pleasant and Eleven East Pleasant, right where the Piper building is, which is the little building that got built between the two properties there. So we're trying to pitch both of those there. We've pulled the propane tanks out of there because we're trying to take the building all electric. So that whole area will become plantings and that is the natural area where the grade change is least extreme. What we're saying here is that if you look at the existing building that gets very close to the property line at the south side there, that is the most extreme grade that we would see the difference between what we're proposing and the cemetery. So we would build a building that is acts as a retaining wall and we backfill against it and the only big grade change would be effectively where that brown dumpster is. And we would kind of feather out that grade in the same way that it's feathered out right now just in that one little location at the northeast corner of the building. So to restate, there is zero discrepancy as to where the property line. There is no discrepancy that makes us think that anybody has any question as to whether or not the cemetery is being disturbed or anything sacred is being disturbed on public property. No discrepancy, there's pins in each property line corner. All of that is very straightforward and clear. The history of this site is such that it was cut down and we're trying to reduce that cut by the building of 11 East Pleasant. So this is, we're trying to improve the current situation. Anybody who's been back there knows what activities occur back there right now. We're trying to make it a bit better. We're also trying to obviously work with all the other issues Amherst is trying to balance in this very limited BG district. Thank you guys, that answers my question. Thank you. I just have one question as we're looking at this Google Earth picture. What is the setback? What is the distance between the cemetery property line and the, this yellow building? This building that we see. Yeah, so the property, they're not, they're not parallel. Right. So at its closest point, it's a couple of feet. And at this point, I don't know what this corner is. The survey would tell us, Ben, if you had that survey to pull up, you could see that corner, Pat, on the, on the survey. You can see it there. So that actually, if you, I'm sorry, if you could go back to that, actually, that'd be, that's helpful. Wait, what was I on? Sorry. You had a picture, it was a photo. Oh yeah. So that white portion there with the graffiti on it, that's the Piper building. So that's the little building that the antique shop was in and the nail shop. And then that is five feet from the property line as is one, he's pleasant. So you can see we are gonna be, we'd be further back than that existing building by the same distance that that is currently from the fence. So that fence is a couple of feet from 18 inches to two and a half feet on the town's property. So if you can imagine the property line, if you see the end of David's mural there, our property line is just like, the property line is like a foot towards the mirror on the mural side of the fence. And then it extends down the centerline of all those trees that grew up on the fence line. So the trees that are on the town line, we're not obviously proposing to impose upon at all. We'll do as much as we can to preserve the roots on our property. The trees that are on the other side that are on the town property, we're proposing to take down because some of them are obviously tilting over the property significantly, but others would be impacted by their construction. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Kyle. I think at this point, we should move the discussion to the commission members. There are three principal issues, I think. Four, if you include the sort of obvious first one, which is the historical commission may make recommendations or comments to the planning board, it is not obligated to do so. So I guess our first decision is whether we want to do that. And then there are three major issues, one, the second, the fence, and third, the trees, not necessarily in that hierarchical order. Our decision tree could be different. We can comment on any one, two, or three of those. We don't need to comment on all of them unless we want to. So each of these concerns has a, you know, there are multiple interests, multiple points of view on them. So, for example, Kyle has described one approach to the trees, Alan Snow has described a very different one. So I think that means that we probably need to prioritize these issues. So I'd suggest tackling the setback first. The trees and the fence, but that can be a little bit arbitrary. So if there's a better way to approach that, please suggest one. First though, maybe we can get just a sense of the commission about whether we want to make a recommendation to the planning board. I, for one, would like to make a recommendation on those three topics. Okay. I agree. Okay. So does that make sense to think about the setback issue first? Sure. You want to move, do you want a motion that says that we're going to make a recommendation and then discussion will be what it'll say or do you want to wait until we're ready? I think this is a little bit complicated. So maybe we need some discussion first and then a motion. Okay. You know, it's got a lot of parts to it. Okay. So a sense of the commission about recommending a 20-foot setback or a 10-foot setback. Ideally it would be a 20-foot setback, but it appears that that ship may have left the port. Depending upon what the planning commission decides, but I think anything less than 10 feet would not be an acceptable setback at all. Well, archipelago has already established that they're willing to do a 10-foot setback. Right. It occurs to me that any change in setback, even the one that they've just done is going to impact the square footage of the internal spaces in the building. And I'm wondering how much it already did and whether we could split the difference and talk about 15, whether it's still be possible to build the apartments and the rooms that are necessary to make the building viable. It certainly is worth the recommendation and the thought because 10 feet is not very much. I mean, I'm just thinking that it'd be nice to be reasonable. Trying, you know, it's hard to make everybody happy obviously in town, but if it would be possible to come up with a middle ground that both the planning board, archipelago, and the opponents in the town could agree to, it might be worth our recommendation suggesting that. If I could just offer it, you know, I don't, I think we can easily get caught up in like the commission being and trying to be a mediator between all these different groups. But I really think the commission should just kind of focus on what do you think is best that, you know, as the historical commission, rather than trying to think about all the different players. And I think that's more a role for the planning board. And the historical commission would be one entity that they consider. Okay, that makes sense. So in that case, I mean, we are the spokespeople for the cemetery. We are the town cemetery spokesfield and that's our primary purview here today. And Jen, just to your point, if you reduce the square foot, do you reduce the units? No, I don't think we wanted to get into designing a building. So, you know, all right. So am I correct in kind of sensing that our preference is a 20-foot setback? We can state it as a preference. We can state it as a strong preference or a weak preference or a... I think I'm not sure how this is better said, Jane. If we set a preference for the 20-foot setback, which would be ideal, but a minimum setback of the 10 feet. Nothing less than a minimum setback of 10 feet would be acceptable in my opinion. Okay, I think that's fairly simple language we can begin with. So thank you, Pat. Shall we go to trees now? So trees and fence are... It seems like they are kind of really tied together. If the fence doesn't move, then there is probably greater opportunity just to save a slightly larger number of trees, but not, I think, not a great number of trees. If the fence does move, there will be significant impact on the trees. I would just offer to Jane, if the fence does move further away from the cemetery, that's also more room that the town can plant trees in between the graves and the fence as it bumps out. And with those on our property, we'd have more control over watering and maintaining them. Yeah, thank you, Ben. I think, yeah, just taking the tree question on its own, there's what value do we attach to the existing trees, or, alternately, is a nicely appointed tree line as a long-term desire, is that just as viable for the commission? In my opinion, because I think I started out with the property line concerns, I think moving the fence while we have the opportunity to the property line is an important thing at this moment in time. And then to work with Archipelago to replace some of the trees that are lost to construction and with our town to replace trees that are lost to disease and so that we can recreate a tree line inside of the fence, which would then be on the property line. So there wouldn't be any question in the future as to what the property line was. Nicely put, Pat, thank you. You're welcome, Heddy, thank you. And I would suggest that if that be the case and we plant inside the fence on the cemetery property that Archipelago would not plant because they could end up growing up too close to each other. You could end up with roots tangling in upper areas having to be cut way back. And instead to ask for Archipelago to collaborate with us on moving the fence and planting as mature trees as possible after the fence is moved so we would have as big and as ask Alan the best species that would get big and be shade trees again to be planted. And then instead of spending the money to plant on your property, Kyle, help us afford to plant on that cemetery property. And then you wouldn't have the care and upkeep on your property, but would help us put it back in the cemetery. So we'd be willing to defer to Alan Snow. I think he has a very good sense of what is probably best here for shared maintenance in long term. And we'd be willing to defer to him. Great. OK. Then we may already have answered the last remaining question about the fence location. How do you all feel about that? OK. Move the fence. Sorry? I think so. Yeah. OK. OK. All right. I think maybe now we're at a point for a motion for the components of a recommendation to the planning board. Robin, you've been taking notes. Do you want to do it or do you want me to take a stab? I can give it a shot. So as far as the setback, the recommendation was a 20-foot setback with a strong recommendation for no less than 10 feet. Trees recommendation is to request that this is a complicated one. To recreate a tree line on the inside of the property if the fence is moved, requesting that Archipelago not plant trees on their side of the fence and instead collaborate with the town on planting optimal trees on the town side, the cemetery side. And recommendation to move the fence to the town property line. And could we add to try and save the two most southern trees that are on the cemetery side now and ask for Archipelago to help defray the expense of moving the fence and replanting trees? OK, hold on one more time. They have the two most southern. You can see them in the photo right now. The two most southern trees that are on the cemetery property. And request that Archipelago help defray the expense of moving the fence and planting mature trees on the cemetery side in place of those lost. Kyle, could you wait just a moment until we finish the motion? Thank you. Right, is there a second? It all second. OK, thank you. Paul in favor, is there any further discussion? Is everybody happy with that? I think it summarizes our discussion and our goals and recommendations and our other than goals, recommendations to the planning board. I think the actual recommendations can be, I mean, that language can kind of fill out and maybe include some of our high points of our discussion and rationale for those points, yeah. A little choppy right now. But all right, then, all in favor, I will just call the roll for the vote. Pat. Yes, in favor. Thank you. Robin Fordham, in favor. Janet Markworth. Yes. Heddy, start up. Hi. And Jane Wald, yes. OK, thank you. And Kyle, did you have a comment that you would like to make? Just to clarify on what trees you were commenting on in the motion, I think it was clarified subsequently. OK, thank you. OK. Well, thank you, Kyle. We'll come in and talk with us about this. We really appreciate it. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it, everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Have a good night. Good night. Bye-bye. Thank you. OK, next on. Next up is the Jones Library Preservation Restriction. So we have the text of that, as well as some correspondence. And let's see. I think for this, I'll also ask Ben to give us a brief summary of activity around this and goals for us. And maybe we can focus on sort of the key items in that deed restriction, take public comment, and then come back to a discussion among commission members about our next steps with that. Yeah, that sounds good. Thanks, Jane. So, yeah, essentially, this is like another project that predates me by many, many, many years. So I've been trying to get up to speed. But my understanding, and I've talked to Nate and Chris Brestrup and Dave Zomak about this quite a bit and kind of have a better understanding than I did last week, last meeting. But essentially, as I imagine, you all know when a project gets funded with CPA money for historic preservation, most often a preservation restriction is required to receive that funding. So I know North Amherst Community Farm, the JCA, have been two more recent projects. The Jones Library got CPA money in 2010 and 2011. And I really don't know all of the history, but for whatever reason, it has taken nearly 10 years to finish the preservation restriction. There's been a lot of back and forth with the Mass Historical Commission with town attorneys, with the Jones trustees and bouncing around. And we're at a point now where we have an approved version. Mass Historic is the body which kind of gives the preservation restriction a stamp of approval, essentially, to say it's good to go. We've, in the past few months, we've had our town attorney take a close look at it. And they've given it their approval. The Jones Library trustees are set to meet next Tuesday. And this is on their agenda. They're also, as the grantors, they need to approve it and sign it as well. So they're looking to do that as soon as next week. And so the role of the Historical Commission, the Historical Commission is acting, I guess, on behalf of the town, which holds the preservation restriction, I guess, or enforces the preservation restriction through the Amherst Historical Commission. And so the Historical Commission is required to accept the preservation restriction. And that will require the Commission to hold the vote to approve it. And I will need you all to sign it. And I think there's a get a notary stamp as well. So it's a very important document for the town, for the library, and it's been a long process. The preservation restriction, essentially, recognizes the 1927, 1928 library as very obviously important architecturally and culturally for the town. It really focuses on the original portion of the library, not the 1993 edition, and essentially gives the historical that says that the Historical Commission, well, one, it puts a restriction on major changes to the exterior of the original library. And then there's a suite of changes that can be done with approval from the Historical Commission. And then there's other much more minor changes, like replacing or cocking or really minor things that can be done without approval. I think it does not focus as much on the interior. It's really exterior focused. Some landscaping is included as needing review from the Commission. So yeah, I think we can, I don't know if folks have had time to go through it. It's certainly a hefty document with a lot of legal jargon. But we can certainly kind of start by having maybe an overarching discussion. And if folks have any specific questions, we can go from there. So then it's my understanding. I'm sorry, Jane. So why don't we go ahead and use Ray's hands? So yeah, I think that would be helpful to us on Zoom. So, Pat, please go ahead. I have kind of an idea of what we could do to go through the document. But please go ahead, Pat. I just wanted to clarify and confirm that the town's attorneys have read the document and legally approve the content. Yeah, that's what I've been told. OK, thank you. OK, Ben, do you know who compiled this document? Was it originally with the town attorney or did it originate? Yeah, so I think Mass Historic has a template. And then I believe over the past 10 years, Nate has done most of the heavy lifting to fill out the content of the restriction, working closely with the library and consultants to get baseline information. OK, right. So I guess my thought is that there are a few areas in this document where the historical commissions probably most pronounced interest enters in. Some of it has to do with the definition of what is subject, what is principally subject to the restriction, the nature of major and minor alterations, and I think it would be useful to look at some of the appended exhibits as well, because they provide context and definition. Are there, does that sound all right? Are there other other things you would like to include as we go through? I think that's a good place to start, Jane, because that is our purview. Yeah, OK. OK. Then I guess I would just, first of all, kind of focus on the bottom of page one that kind of gives the basic definition of the building and of architectural, historic and cultural significance and ask, you know, do we have any concerns, questions or need clarification on any of that? I'll just say that I was happy with it. As I read through it, it didn't raise any red flags for me. So I'm comfortable with it for everybody else's. I agree. That's why I have no comment. But I should have made one like as you did, Jan, to say that I think it describes the exterior of the building and why it's significant. OK, contributes to the town. Yeah. All right. I think the next the next paragraph that seems to me to be important is two point one and two point two, the covenant to maintain. And I think what's important here is that the obligation to maintain shall require replacement, repair, reconstruction and where necessary, replacement in kind by the grant or whenever necessary to preserve the building in a good sound and attractive condition and state of repair. There need to be permissions for new landscaping or new gardens, new surface materials on paths or drives as provided for in a subsequent in a subsequent paragraph. And importantly, that these activities would need to be conducted in accordance with the Secretary of Interior's standards for the treatment of historical properties with guidelines for preserving, rehabilitating, restoring and reconstructing historic buildings. And as I'm sure you will know, the secretary, the secretary of the interior standards are the. Well, they are the standard for for workmanship and treatment of historic structures. So this is very consistent with the goals of the preservation community. They are the standards that preservation community as a whole adopt. This is there would be nothing that we would recommend then Jane, other than what's written here because it is the standard. Yes, I think I mean, that's that's that's my feeling that these are so universally. Recognized and employed. That there is no. I don't think we face. I think there is no reason for us to consider adding to or subtracting from them. In fact. OK, and then the prohibited activities in paragraph 2.2. Are fairly specific and clear. Then section three and section. Four have to do with what needs to be approved by the grantee by us. And so this begins with. That the that the library should not make any changes to the exterior of the building, including additions to and the alteration, partial removal, construction, remodeling or other physical or structural change to the facades of the building and any change in design, material or color thereof. So this is and then a little further down there's a reference to. Minor activities, which are minor in nature that help to maintain the exterior of the building. Regular maintenance is not. Is not subject to the grantor's approval. It's just considered regular maintenance. So Jane, three point one gives us. The we would be the entity to grant express written approval for any changes that are not allowed without our approval. Right. That's exactly what three but one says, right? Yes, right. Yeah. And so in general, in a preservation restriction. Activities are can be identified as major activities or minor activities. And so this has already kind of spelled out what the minor activities are. And in this in this language, it indicates. So far it's indicating that the major. Major changes are predominantly applied to the exterior of the building. And not and not so much interior structure that I that I can then I that I can see in here. So just a question aside, given that we're you're. Looking toward possible addition to the library, the original 27, 19, 27, 19, 28 structure would have to remain visual. As it is, and any addition would could could complement that. Without special permission, any addition is very significant. So that that would require our approval. So we would be as part of the planning for the addition to the library. At some point, the plans would come to us for for approval. Yes. Provided that this preservation restriction has been. Finalized, approved, notarized and filed with after 10 years. Yeah. And Jane, is it unusual that there's no, there's little to the mention of the interior? Or or to ask a different question, is it should we should we have any concern in that regard? So the preservation restrictions that that I know of are a little bit mixed on that. There's some there's some variations where interior structural changes are. Matter sub that are the subject or are subject to approval by the. The grantee and. In my experience, it's been the State Historical Commission, that's the grantee in this case, it's. You know, we are acting on behalf of the town. In some cases, any. Any dis any disturbance of the soil, any subsurface disturbance is also subject to. Regulation by the state archaeologists and ultimately approval. For that reason, and there is a reference down here, just a little further down. Conditional is 3.3 conditional rights requiring the approval of the Massachusetts Historical Commission and that. In general, in this language, that has to do with with archaeology, which is. Licensed by regulated by the State Secretary of State's office, the Historical Commission. So Robin is is your question related to whether or not there should be some. Either section or something included with in the first category, the speaks to the exterior that that the interior is not included. Or. I am excluded. That understanding is that the public view is usually the main and Jane can correct me if I'm right or wrong. The problem is that main usually the main concern, but that sometimes there are restrictions to the interior. So again, Greenfield, the first national bank has a preservation restriction, which restricts development of the interior because of its architectural significance. Being a large open space in particular architectural style, but my when I learned about that my sense was that that that is unusual to have a restriction on an interior space, would you say that's correct Jane. I would say. i'm not sure how to answer that I think in general, I think more I think it is correct that. Maybe the majority of preservation restrictions focus on the exterior and a minority also include. Interior major structural changes, but the the restriction doesn't necessarily mean that changes can't be made, it just means they they are subject to review. Right, right, so this one this particular restriction is the exterior is subject to review, but the interior there's no there's no clause for review of any interior changes unless I unless I've listed. Jan your hand up. It seems to me that that kind of restriction on the interior would depend on the building so if we're talking about a house museum or about something where the interior is integral to its historical components. Right, and it would make sense, but in a library obviously over time a library has to change it needs to change because of the size of its holdings or the way it's used. And it would be more appropriate for library trustees to make that decision because they're they're integral to the collection. Understanding, whereas we are not we wouldn't have you know the expertise, so this makes perfect sense to me that we would be dealing with the exterior. And anything that goes on on the interior which relates to the function of the library should belong to those who handle it on a daily basis. I guess i'm sorry I need to put my hand. um here we go. I guess the question that that I triggered Robin's comments triggered for me is is it enough that this says just clearly that it's the exterior it's the streetscape it's the historical exterior or does there have to be something that says this does not include this excludes interior renovation or. The fact that it doesn't say anything at all. yeah yeah okay. yeah I mean I think it's a good question because there is a. variety of practice. it's a good good thing for us to. be talking about within our area of responsibility. And and then can you remind me this particular restriction was the result of a previous CPA funding. yeah 2010 2011 I think for roof and then chimney work. So will there be another one if the Jones library project were to go forward. Another restriction yeah no no this is this will be the preservation restriction. In perpetuity. Okay, so it's one one per building. yeah okay right. um so I'm just quickly trying to take a look at okay exhibit F this is standard restriction guidelines, this is on page 36 and this is. This is very this is exactly the kind of exhibit. That we see in all. In all preservation restriction agreements that that I know of there's. And this is where. If interior changes are included they would they would definitely be spelled out here okay. Clearly relates to the exterior. Yeah I think the only thing I see that could relate to the interior is the HVAC and plumbing systems. But even that even that refers to resulting in major exterior appearance changes right. And not so much interior at the Dickinson Museum it's different we. We have a whole section on interior changes that need to get reviewed. Okay, let's see. Yeah I was just did a quick little control F for interior the word interior and it does I think section five here does. Give the Jones library who's the grander. The right to make any change any changes of any kind to the interior of the building provided that such changes do not alter the exterior. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, or affect the structural integrity that's kind of important to but yeah yeah. Okay, I think there's paragraph four about standards for review which we've touched on. So there's some. I think it's it would be good for us to. Yeah, section five grantor's reserve rights good for us to understand what is is really not that we don't govern without further approval. So that's that's use its maintenance and repair and changes to the interior of the building. Okay, that's just some other minor things I think the this restriction runs with the with the property, rather than the Jones library so if you know one unfortunate very sad day that Jones library doesn't use that building anymore and it becomes any other use that the restriction sticks with the building. So in perpetuity. I think I can't seem to find it right now I believe there's also a clause in here that gives the historical commission the right to grant give another qualified entity responsibility to or responsibility over this restriction if it becomes too burdensome or it doesn't make sense anymore that commission can grant the these powers to you know another local state or federal body who I guess needs to be willing to do that but maybe one other thing to look at in here is paragraph 13 content concerning inspection that also so that gives gives us the the right to enter the property including the interior of the building to inspect if the building is being maintained and good structural condition so there's that that thing a structural condition again and sound state of repair. And if any change made to the interior of the building materially alters the appearance of the exterior of the building. Okay runs with the land and I think. I think much else here is, I think much else here is what I would maybe refer back to planning department or the legal towns legal counsel to make sure. Is are dotted and teaser crossed. As long as we have a, you know, approve this or enter this with a full understanding of what, what that says. Let's see so important exhibits that are appended the exhibit see comprehensive description of exterior appearance becomes. Including elevations and character defining features. In this case becomes kind of the benchmark as for the restriction going forward and deviation or variation from this is what the historical commission would review and approve. Does this Ben is was that you think that was composed by Nate description. Yeah. I would assume so but yeah, yeah, I think so. Okay. So do you all feel that you have a good understanding of the preservation restriction. At this point, I think I do. Yes, I feel much better informed than I did before this meeting. Okay. Okay. I read it carefully today and everything that you went over is what I would have highlighted as well and I agree with you said. I'm pretty comfortable with it. The only thing Ben is if we approve this document, the signature page for me as my name is filled. Oh no. Okay. So if you guys I'd be willing to go ahead and make a motion that we are just somehow say in the minutes that we're willing to approve it and we'll sign it. Okay. There may be some things to adjust or tighten up. I think this may be a good time to open. Open the discussion to public comment. And so if there are those attendees who wish to make a public comment, when you're recognized please state your name for the record and make a comment and try to limit your remarks to to two minutes. And then we'll see what what the what the lineup of public comment might be and and we'll go from there. I should say that we have received. Is it one letter or two letters from the key. Ben has forwarded to all of us. Thanks, Jane, we have two hands raised so I'm going to invite Sarah. Okay. Okay Sarah would you like to make a comment. I wouldn't thank you very much and thank you to the Historical Commission and Ben for going through this so carefully. I have long, I have long waited to see this day. Just nearly a decade in fact, I would just suggest that the text of this make clear that the work has already been done. It is not to be done. It's just as it lends confusion when we get the tense off there. There is there are a couple of legal points that I've noted in what I sent in. I have tried to get a copy of that. The library trustees their their emails don't work right now. I have one to the town manager. And these are not points for the Historical Commission unless you want to hold this up which obviously is not a good idea. And I will try to get those try to make sure that I get those to the trustees before they deal with this next week. So thank you all very much and thanks. Thanks to Ben for his update on the historic preserve. Sorry, the historic structures report on the Jones library that too has been years in the making go not as long as this and I look forward to seeing it. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. I think. Yeah, thank you for your for your memo and comments about points that should be taken care of before the final before the final version is approved. And we'll get it will get back to that after the public comment, because we'll need to, we'll need to make some choices or decisions about the version that we formally approve. I also see held a green bombs hand. I just have two questions Jane one in one. I don't know if it's still there when the plans are not but in the earlier versions of the plans. There was notice of some kind of a plastic or acrylic acrylic some kind of canopy or with a front door which would sort of go through the Connecticut Valley. I'm just wondering my question for that would be it would something like that be allowed on the south facade under under this plan that you're reading today. It might be something removable but it wouldn't be particularly attractive on the south side would that be something that that would be covered by just document that it wouldn't be allowed or come before you or how would that be handled just one question. And then my other question is with regard to the new construction would you people have jurisdiction over the streetscape over what the new building looked like next to this one. Those are my two questions. I believe for the, I believe for the first question that that we would see that and that would be subject to approval, it would be. Especially if it's a permanent feature of the exterior that would be should be included in the plans that are submitted to the Historical Commission. For the second, the Historical Commission would not have a formal role with, you know, design decisions about the addition. So our, our, I believe our purview there would be would be as to whether the, the removal of the existing addition. You know creates any injury to the architectural significance of the 1928 building. But also whether an addition, a new addition is going to affect the view of any of the four sides right. Yeah, that they are that's true. Yes whether it affects the, the exterior the facades the exterior facades, right. The picture on their website puts that new addition, right in the same view as the West facade that's why I was curious about that. So we would, you know, I'm sure that would be something you would look at you would have something to say about that. Yes. Glad to hear that. Thank you. Let's see. Sarah, I see your hand is still up and if, if that's leftover that's fine if you'd like to make another comment that's fine too. Okay, thank you. So, you know, ultimately, we would approve, we would, of course, approve the final version of the preservation restriction. We, you know, we can approve it in principle provided and with provision or on condition that say the, the town, the town legal counsel reviews it carefully. Addresses comments, questions from either from the Historical Commission or, or those that from members of the public, we could say, we could say that, you know, we approve it in principle and feel that to be respond, you know, to be a responsible. We are the grantee, we are the grantee. To be a responsible grantee, we should approve it when it is completely wrapped up. So that those are kind of our choices I guess I tend in the direction of, you know, wanting to make sure everything's has been addressed, everything's taken care of and that we're looking at a final text, but Jane, you can say both that we approve it in principle, but we'll only give final approval after the legal department and the planning board. Yeah, I mean, this has passed through our town attorneys. I, the library trustees are the one are going to be reviewing this and potentially approving it as early as next week. So, you know, I think certainly I need to like respell, you know, spell Jan's name correctly like minor changes like that. I'll talk to me about why they why there's issues with the tense, because it says like work to be completed when it's referring to the 2010 CPA projects that have clearly been completed already so just maybe adjusting the tenses there. Maybe she raises may have to go back to legal in her in her memo that may right need their attention. Yeah, I mean, I, my sense is that's more of a concern for the town manager and for the town library trustees certainly I can't even pretend to know anything about indemnity clauses or how liable in certain situations. And I'm not even sure exactly why that's in a preservation restriction per se. But, I mean, I think if, if, if the commission doesn't necessarily have a concern about that clause, then we could approve this document. And if there has to be a change, approve it again, I guess, or wait for it or we could, you know, wait for the trustees to vote first, something like that. Yeah. You know this. This is going to carry a current date on it. So I think that to avoid confusion the question of tense should be resolved. At the very least, and yeah, maybe the maybe that's the best course of action is to approve it in principle. Have the library trustees address the questions that are really more pertinent to them and then how, and then bring it back for the commissioners to review and sign. So we're only going to, we're only going to sign and have it notarized once, I think. Yeah. I'm in favor of that approach. Yeah. Ben this is trivial, but if when you're changing jans spelling could you add a middle initial J to my name. There is another Patricia auth on this earth. Yes. If we're comfortable, besides some of these minor changes and the indemnity clause if we're comfortable if you guys are comfortable adopting this in principle. I think it would be good to vote on that just kind of for messaging for the library trustees just to know that the commission historical commission is on board. Outside of a few minor changes but in principle, and then they can have that knowledge going into next week. Okay. Let's go ahead and do that. Good plan. So, could we move to approve this in principle on the can pursue it to the library trustees final revisions or something like that. Well the legal department and the trustees because the tense needs to be reviewed by the legal department. That wording needs probably to be. I don't know if it has to store if the trustees and Ben can do it but I think that can be referred back to the planning department. Yeah. So, the library trustees and planning departments final revisions. So pursuant to those and then after that we would actually sign. We would review it again and then approve it. Yeah, I think I'm I still sharing my screen. Yeah, like that would be the, I guess, hopefully at our next meeting that would be the day that the date that we actually put here. And that's the day we adopted this document and final version. And that's after the board has met and finished. Yeah, the library through the trustees. Hopefully, yeah. Yeah. Okay, great. I have the motion reading to approve the preservation restriction for sale to the library trustees and planning departments final revisions is that after with a second review, or something like that with a final review after those are completed before signing. Amos historical commission before signing. Well, yeah, that's understood I know but yeah. Is that your motion. I guess I so move. Is there a second. Second. All in favor, beginning with Pat off in favor yes, Robin Fordham favor. Janet Marklart. Yes. Heady startup. You're on mute. Sorry I muted myself. It's a bit noisy here. Um, yes. Jane wall. Yes. Great. Thank you. And selling is page 15 just if you're curious it wasn't the page you were showing. Okay, yep. All right, so now we're up to bylaw. And this is. Once again, Ben, I turned to you to talk about where we are in that process. There's there's something coming up, I think, right with them. Yeah. Let's see with the bylaw. The, obviously it's been a while since the commission has talked about it since then. I've, what did I do, I presented. I had two different times where I was supposed to present and then I ran out, they ran out of time. So, but then I actually was able to present to the planning board. They gave me a good chunk of time and then the CRC, which is the subcommittee of town council. I went over the changes to the bylaw with those two groups. And kind of gave them an overview of what changes we're looking to make, why we are looking to make them, you know, giving them a better understanding that this is part of a much, a longer process over the past few years. It was a little bit, I think the planning board. So kind of like the process from here on out is that the, the next step, I guess, would be to kind of make final, finalize the bylaw. And then we would kind of present it to town council, the full town council. The town council, because it's, this is different than other zoning bylaws because we're taking it out of zoning and then adding it to the general bylaw. And so we would need to have kind of two separate processes to play out. One is to remove it from zoning. And the other is to add it to the general bylaw. But ultimately the town council would refer it to for, for review by the planning board, the CRC, and then another subcommittee of town council, the GOL. And so, and then we, we would, we would, we would, we would present the bylaw to those subcommittees, they'd hold a public hearing. And then get, they would give their recommendation to the town council. I will say we're internally in the planning department. We feel, feel like that we wanted to have the town's attorney look at the bylaw. And so what we're trying to do with zoning and general bylaws is to have the town attorney review it for, you know, making sure it's legal and can be, can be upheld in court. And, you know, we have a new appeals process. There's a new definition of demolition. There's the process for staff to. Determine significance. And then we have the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the attorney opinion. And that is still pending. I think we, we pinged him like. A week and a half ago. And they're still, still waiting feedback. So. That is kind of the status now. And I think you actually, Jane, Jane was able to attend the. The legal review process here there. And so I'm, I'm not sure if I'm, I'm not there anyway, luckily for the. Dixon museum projects. So that worked out well. But I think I mean, one thing I wanted to ask was. You know, the, I've, I've been kind of presenting the bylaw as a. Planning department slash historical commission. Like document or, you know, proposal. Um, I don't know. Um, I don't know how long those meetings are and, um, certainly invite commission members to attend. Um, I think I guess I'm wondering if, if this is ready for prime time and ready for adoption. If, uh, if we. You know, do we want to think of this as, um, either, you know, planning department proposal, historical commission proposal, or is there a way to kind of. You know, this is all still pretty novel. The town council is a new body. They've only adopted so many new zoning bylaws, just a handful. So I think the process is still a little bit. Uh, being figured out, but I think there's certainly. Uh, you know, a way that this could be done like in a collaborative sense. So. Yeah. Um, I think, uh, I had, I sent the, I included like a clean version of the bylaw in the, the packet for this meeting. Um, I, the things I highlighted in yellow were the areas that we asked the town attorney to look at more closely. Um, And. Uh, I guess I'll just stop there and kind of open it up for. Um, discussion or however you want to proceed, Jane. Um, I think, let's see. Maybe we, maybe there are particular. Um, are there areas of this version, Ben, that we as a group haven't talked about? I'm thinking partly of the appeals process. Um, And I believe there was another kind of procedural section that. Um, You were trying to work out that perhaps we haven't. Discussed together yet. Oh, and one thing. Paragraph. See. Two. Is highlighted. And I guess I would just be careful about. Saying that. The staff determine. Whether it's a significant building. Yeah, it's a, it's a, you know, Citizen and staff. Yeah. I guess, um, My reason for highlighting that was just because it's, uh, It's out. My concern is, is. And I want the, the town's attorneys. The town attorney's opinion is that's a process that's happening. Potentially out of public view or out in a public forum. Like, uh, is there any issue? I guess with that. So, and, um. Yeah, that's, that's, yeah, I agree that it's definitely town, town staff and a member of the commission on jointly coming to that conclusion. Um, but I guess, you know, part of this. Part of this proposal is to reduce the. Um, the case load for the commission that goes that actually are sent to public hearing. So. Like, um, Wanting that process to be made wanting the. Determination of significance to happen quickly. Um, requires it. You know, it's hard to convene a meeting and, and all of that. Um, so. That was kind of a point, but I just want to make sure that's, Yeah, I agree. So, could you point us to the appeal's process? Yes. Is. Person agree. Does that in the. Is that in the definitions now? Yeah, I did add that in. So. Um, and I, I did adopt some language from the local historic district. Uh, appeals process. So. historic district, uh, appeals process. So, yeah, person agreed is the applicant, um, an owner of an adjoining property, an owner of property within 300 feet of the building, and then potentially any charitable corporation, which one of its purposes is the preservation of historic places, structures, buildings, or districts. So, this is, so I want to sort of talk this through a little bit. Um, so a person agreed that status comes after the determination, after a determination by the Historical Commission of whether or not to grant preservation order. Um, I'm wondering how the owner of an adjacent property or how the owner of a property within 300 feet could be aggrieved by an approved change or demolition of a property that they do not own. I, I'm not sure that I, I don't, I'm not sure that that is, I'm not sure I'm for that. I'll put it that way. When, uh, Jan, you have your hand up. I've been wanting to address that, among other things. Um, it, it's not a definition of person agreed. It's just a definition of a butter or someone concerned. If you wanted to find a person agreed, you're going to have to continue the definition to say something who is unhappy with the decision of the, the, um, the decision about the demolition permit or something like that. I mean, to follow through whether or not we want this in there, the definition has to define person agreed. All you have is person defined really at this point. Um, like a person with standing, I guess, standing. Yeah. I mean, the relationship of the person to the, the property, but then agreed would be how they feel about it. Right. I mean, it's two different things. Um, the other thing I just want to mention is at some point, the comments from Janet McGowan show us that we need to be able to parse this pretty carefully, um, and compare the old and the new. And I think it's tough. One, one or two of us is going to have to become really familiar with what we did and what we had so that if we are in front of a body, like the council or the planning department or the planning commission, we can answer those detailed questions like she asks. And I don't think any of us are quite up to speed on that yet. So we might want to make a decision tonight about how we're going to handle that. And at what point are we going to address someone like her questions? Will she become, will this be entered into say, you know, the deliberation at one of those two levels or because just answering her in a meeting like this isn't really enough, right? That's, she's bringing it forward in order to have one of those bodies consider it. So those are just things I wanted to, wanted to mention. Um, Pat. Well, that was what Jen just said is one of the things I was going to comment on. And, and maybe that would be wise for us to take that letter and to seriously look at the questions and have the answers for them because that, that actually could be part of the presentation about the change. And, and so it gives us a guide of what maybe she and other people in the community are thinking and need answers, but, but maybe as part of our presentation to address what the, the demolition is when it was known as that had and why we changed it and why we changed the name that she had a lot of different points in it. But I also agree that the person agreed is the applicant who has status has, has, has rights with the property that the decision that the Amherst Historical Commission has, has rendered and is, is not in agreement with it. And then the butters, I don't know whether they can bring a grievance. And the only way I can think about that is if there's a building that's falling apart in it, in it, and it changes their whole property escape or a building that, that really is part of the streetscape and shouldn't be demolished. Um, and we would come to that conclusion first, but can someone file a grievance who is in this, all this other category now? No, there's not a, there's not a grievance procedure now. Um, I think those, the butters, that is, that's, I think, is that, that's language from a local historic district, isn't it? Where the disc, where there is a lot more regulatory purpose. Um, and I'm, I'm not sure that that's, um, that's connected with a specific, you know, defined area, but what we're doing is town-wide. So I'm, right. It's, but I think they're too separate. There's the aggrieved person who has that ownership is, uh, invested, investment in the property, not financial, but, but has a right to, to present it for demolition and a right to be grieved. And then there are the other applicants who, who are, um, in all those other categories and, and do we give them a right to, to grievance with the new, um, changes? Well, we do say in the document that we'll notify butters and the idea is that they can come and state their piece, right? Right, as part of a public hearing. As part of a public hearing and that's all we've ever done is take their point of view into consideration and then make our decision and that's the end of their participation. Right. And they don't, they don't have the right to agree with this process. No, well nobody. No. At this point. Right. And even the, even the applicant doesn't have a right to it. But, but the applicant should be, be the primary person that has to agree, agree with this. Right. So we have to make a distinction. Right. Between who can be grieved. Who has a right to be agreed. Right. Right. And so this is kind of a mix, you know, everyone's in the same boat here, Ben, and, um, but, but it can be worse. And, and, um, you know, it can be, be another category of, they have a right to public comment at, at the Amherst Historic Commission meeting when this, this property is being read. I think there's, yeah, there's a, there's a few things going on. One, um, so I'll have to read up on like planning law 101, but I do think a butter's outside of what's mentioned in a bylaw, a butter, a butter's within 300 feet generally do have standing, um, to, to appeal and that would go straight to court. So I mean, anything in the general bylaw can be appealed to court, whether it's the process is stated clearly or not. Um, the zoning bylaw, I, that can be appealed, yeah, unless there's another process laid out, that can be appealed to court by the applicant or by, um, a butter, a group of a butter is generally. Um, whether, whether the court agrees to take it or not, that's kind of dependent on how valid the, uh, their, the claim is or how egregious it is. Typically the, uh, the, the zoning board of appeals will, uh, be the first stop to, to, to, uh, parse out any, any issues or appeals. Um, and so I think what, what we did essentially was there, there's a process in the local historic district where, uh, these, you know, people who are, can be agreed, the applicant, the, you know, butters, charitable organizations, um, and in the local historic district there's a process where, um, uh, the, the regional planning agency, uh, the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission, they have, uh, experts in historic preservation, uh, they are, we have an agreement with PVPC, um, where they actually act as like an independent arbiter of any appeals. Um, and if anyone followed the Amherst Media case, um, that, that's exactly how that played out, where, um, PVPC was the arbiter in, in, uh, in the, um, Amherst Media case. And so, uh, I think essentially what we did was, um, and it, you know, basically in the local historic district, PVPC can be an option if that's what the applicant or the person in grieve wants to do, but they also have the option to go straight to court, um, and, and, you know, uh, typically, uh, and a person in grieve would, would want to go straight to court. I'm not exactly sure what happened in the Amherst Media situation, um, but, uh, yeah, I just, I think that's kind of why we put it in there was to say that, uh, these are the people that have standing. This is the process, um, if you want, you know, if you, for, for how the bylaw states this is the process for kind of how, uh, you know, the timeline for, for seeking, um, um, an appeal in court, you know, 45 days, uh, yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. I should do my raise my hand. I'm sorry. Um, if we were to change a person to grieve to the person who has interest in the properties with the property, and, and stick it to that, would, could we add another sentence here that says butters have a right to appeal through the, uh, as outlined in the bylaws of the town, zoning planning, planning board, zoning board, and court of law. When I just put a sentence like that and that covers the things that you put in the person to grieve but don't, don't really belong there. I see. Yeah. So just, um, don't just kind of, uh, revert back to what the town bylaw. Right. Right. That, that a butters people was 300 feet, that, that, everything else you put in there could be another small paragraph here would, um, have a right to appeal, um, as outlined in the bylaws of the town. Jan. Um, I, I don't feel like this belongs here. I think we're very different from the local historic district, um, because we are a town, um, entity. I would say that the fact that it goes to the zoning board of appeals is much more direct. And if you say anything under appeals, I would say, you know, any people, any person with standing may appeal to the zoning board of appeals. I don't think you should have to say anything else at this point. So, um, zoning board of appeals is the default for zoning bylaw, but if this is in the general bylaw, um, then it still could go there, couldn't it? It could. Um, I have to look into that. Um, I mean someone might just, everyone, anyone has the right to just kick it straight to court if they, if they want. Well, maybe I should just say that then. I feel like it's starting, it gets very Byzantine when, um, we make a determination and now we've set up that they can come back and appeal to us or they can go to court or they can go to the zoning board of appeals. Um, you know, let's keep it as clean as possible. If you want to just say any person agreed or any person of standing, whatever, is free to go to court. You know, I just think 45 days and then, you know, another appeals career court, it goes on and on and on. It just, it just feels like it's, it's, uh, stringing out something that will eventually end up in court anyway. Right? I don't know how everybody else feels, but it's, um, it outlines the process. I hear what you're saying, Jan, and maybe you just don't have a process and just say that they can appeal, um, according to the bylaws of the town, because they must be, they must be written out elsewhere What I'm saying is that if we're not in the zoning bylaws, we're separate, so which, which bylaws of the town is the question? That's, that's my question now to Ben. What, what, what, we could just say the bylaws of the town and let them free shirt out, or we could, we could point them in the right direction. Yeah, I'd be the general bylaw. But why haven't the process at all? That's my question. Why add a layer? We don't have a process now. No, except with the zoning, the zoning board, the planning board. Yeah, but that's not ours, and that's not our process. And that just becomes a general bylaw, right? But we have an appeals process, yes. No, not really. We invite applicants to come, to come back to us, if they feel they've moved the needle on whatever the, the reason for the delay was. Yeah. Can we say just, can we just use that wording, Jane? And we already have that in there. Okay, then this is redundant. I'm sorry, that's an English use of the word redundant. This is, this is, this is confusing then. Is there a reason why there was an appeals process for a local historic district because the decision is longstanding? I mean, at a certain point, your demolition delay has been expired. Well, I think that's a good point. I, you know, in a way, I think having an appeals process written into the bylaw can be, can strengthen the bylaw, can make it seem, it can make it look like it serves the applicant more in a way that is more specific than what's in the current bylaw, which can be reassuring. But, but I also, I think, so I'm, I guess not my concern is about two things. One, that, you know, whoever has standing, the person of grief, and then I feel that the beginning and the third line for a review by a person or persons of competence and experience in such matters, acting as arbitrator and designated by the regional planning agency, I think I would, that seems like we might want to get to the point earlier if we keep this language. Can I ask a question? Can I finish my thought? Oh, yes, sorry. So review by a person or persons of competence and experience in such matters could, we could just say review by a qualified, a qualified preservationist designated by the regional planning agency or designated by the Pioneer Valley Planning Agency and just, and just make it more precise that way. We're adding work, we're adding work, you know, we were trying to cut down on the number of meetings and work and this would add to it. That was going to be what my question was, whether or not this is standard across other communities to have an appeals process, it sort of, I mean I get the sense that the point of a demolition delay was to kind of hold people off, I mean you turn somebody down and the next thing they're going to do is turn around and, you know, and have an entire appeals process that's outside of court. I mean, so my question is, is it, my question is, is it standard or would it be unusual to leave it out or would it be unusual to have it in in terms of other communities and what the historic commission, Massachusetts Historical Commission recommends? That's helpful, Robin, I think just to ask that question and, you know, we do have other, this whole other layer that we're trying to address in terms of the memo from Janet McGowan. I don't know, my concentration is really fading at this point. I'm not sure I can really offer anything, it's been a very long day so. Also it seems, Robin, what you said about the one year, it's, if we ask for a delay, it's not really good to do anybody any good to go to court, it'll take longer to do that than to just wait out the delay. It seems to me that the only time somebody would have any grievance that would make it worth going to a court and following any of this is if we don't do a delay and somebody at a butter wants us to, if we don't take action. Pat, can we just say that then? With that, is that too transparent? Pat? I was just going to ask Ben, if it'd be possible, you at some point in this process had reviewed demolition bylaws from various towns that you thought were well written just to do a quick review of some of those towns to see if they have an appeals process and what it looks like. Just to help us add to, you know, number one, do they have it? And if they do, how complicated is it? Yeah, yeah, certainly. So I think I've just been doing a little bit more research while you all have been talking. So I'll just say, this is my browser here, the Zoning By-Law, this is the Amherst Zoning By-Law where our demolition delay currently sits. So this is section 10.1 and it does outline, I'll zoom in. This is the appeals process for the entire by-law and if anyone agreed, I guess, by a demolition delay ruling can kick it to the Zoning Board of Appeals. I don't know if that's ever been done, but that's kind of how the process is laid out in the Zoning By-Law. And that's for somebody who's applying and doesn't get the permit. That's not for someone who doesn't like it, that we do give a permit. Correct, yeah. Does it make sense just to adopt this in our appeals process? Because it's simple. Yeah, and so we could specify that appeals go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. I think the reason why the local Historic District has language, I think one, it's because they do have a lot of regulatory power. And there's, I did do just a quick little cursory search in the general by-law. There's actually not really a appeals process for general by-laws. I think it's assumed it just goes straight to court. But I think the reason the local Historic District has its own kind of unique process is to allow for this arbiter from PVPC to give a ruling rather than everyone in the town, the applicant, incur the expense of going to court and to make it potentially more timely. So I guess the question is if this is moving to general by-law or the demo delayed by-law. So we could either stay silent and it would, on appeals and it would be assumed it would go to court. We could introduce the idea of an independent arbiter from PVPC or I think it would be potentially awkward but we could say it would be the zoning board of appeals that also makes, could make a ruling on a appeal. So and maybe if yeah we could essentially table this for later brain power is running low. Yeah I'd vote to remain silent and let somebody who is unhappy that we didn't demand that we didn't grant affirm it go to court. I would say I don't know if that's saying completely silent. I do, I do get the argument that you know local Historic District is a you know has a very long term consequence and you know our preservation order doesn't but if we could just just maybe keep the language about going to court. Yeah I also I think too I mean I'm just kind of playing out a scenario where no butter is very aggrieved by a demolition authorization because as soon as the commission grants the demo authorization the building commissioner can grant the demo permit and demolition could begin immediately. So I feel like someone who's that angry about it would they would probably want to go to court to get like an immediate injunction rather than if they go to an independent arbiter like I feel like I'm I guess what I'm saying is we would need to say that when someone appeals to for this independent arbiter that would delay the process or that would they don't do it right away the building could be down by the time they get to town hall to sell. Yeah yeah yeah so one more thing one more wrinkle I guess 45 days I mean it's toast by then it's been. Yeah and so that's all the more reason that someone might just want to go straight to court. For that reason. So the question is do we want to address appeals or do we want to just be silent. Where where else do we have that language in here not not about court but that applicants can come back to the commission. We have that if we put a delay with conditions they can come back to show us they've met conditions and I think that's the only thing in there. Right yeah. All right then I I would I guess I would lean in favor of keeping this item but you know cutting it way down to the court remedy. And maybe referring to the other place in the general bylaw where that's stated right. Yeah if I can write it out right. Since this would be part of the general bylaw and that's in the general bylaw you just say C section whatever right. Yeah I just I did a quick little like search and I didn't oh yeah actually here's something about animal welfare officer you can make a complaint. Yeah okay I guess there are certain references throughout the bylaw I just need to look at it more closely. I don't really deal with the general bylaws at all mostly zoning bylaw so. Jane would that feel okay to you if we put that as a heading and then if it is in the general bylaw it says to go to court we just say C section whatever line whatever. Sure yeah that'd be all right. And then just leave it up to kind leave it up to kind of just like the state the state bylaw is kind of like dictate who has standing. It's usually the applicant or potentially a butters. Well then let's just leave it let's leave it to the state I mean is that at chapter 40C? Um I would have to look yeah. So if there I mean if there is a general statement in the in the general bylaw about that appeal process that's fine if it's buried in some bylaw about an animal welfare officer or maybe we could just make our own statement that is very concise. Can we leave that in your hands Ben? Yeah yeah that sounds good. Sorry to take apart what you did but. Okay I just wanted to start start from somewhere and. Yeah okay um so let's do uh let's do a sort of sense of the meeting right now it's um it's 10 pass nine um I don't know if we've gotten we probably have we see the address the new stuff right um there's um we we could we could have a short discussion about how to prepare for presentation or who should be preparing for a presentation. I think is it so we now what's left on the agenda after that would be um North Pleasant Street District Dakin property approving minutes and miscellaneous what's your what's your tolerance for how much longer do you want to continue? I'm going to speak up and say I'm toast. I'm happy to take another meeting that's my item and I'm just spent. Yeah I've been up since five um I would love to prove the minutes and get those out of the way so that Ben can post them maybe make a decision about how we're going to prepare for presentation and leave the rest. Okay how does that sound? Sounds good good okay all right um well since we have just been talking about bylaw let's talk about how to prepare what's what's the first first step is there a first update for that Ben? Um well the not at this point um the town council was potentially going to first hear the presentation um next week the 28th I think but uh I'm Nate and I are both on vacation next week so and then also we're still technically waiting for the town attorney to to weigh in um so I think we'll probably try to get on a early to mid-July uh agenda um for the town council. Okay okay but can I ask again something I asked you a couple months ago when you go to present the two of you is there going to be somebody who can really parse the old versus the new and why because we've been discussing this for what five years and people are going to ask questions about how we came to some of these decisions and I don't know that either one of you remembers all those detail well you don't if you weren't there and Nate has has had so much happened since right I just think you're you're going to go and you're going to face a firing squad and you're not going to have any armor on and I think somebody from the commission who maybe has more detail it would be helpful maybe if not this meeting the next meeting to be ready to answer some of these questions. Oh it'd be very helpful in our case I think. I think someone uh the idea of co-presenting that you began with Ben I think that's I think we should do that. And you want to be the co-presenter? Well uh I would I would defer to anybody else who wishes to do that um and if there is not um a positive active enthusiasm on the part of anyone anyone else I I would do it but I don't necessarily I think I think one of us needs to go back through a lot of the old minutes and look at some of our thought processes to remember because I look at some of these and I think yeah what I agree but how do we get there you know because we went back and forth I mean McGowan has to put the two against each other and I mean you almost can't because we try to do that redlining you know I don't think it's helpful. My thought about that is about some of the points raised in that in that summary um are that we don't we don't really necessarily have to defend a change from the old bylaw we just need to state positive reasons that we've done what we've done yeah it would be kind of falling into the trap of you know but starting you know starting over again and I don't think we need to do that. Well and sometimes the positive reason is that the previous bylaw was inaccurate right right yeah yeah well what about then you're beginning to go what I'm wondering is Jane would you have time we could sit down and do this together and then decide after we get it ready which one of us is better able to to do it um you know like just just sit and go through them and point by point be clear and then at that point decide which vessel is that good might be easier because we dedicate some time we hold each other accountable and we put through it faster. I think Ben's summary is um you know your power point did a good job of summarizing very concisely uh what we found difficult about the the current bylaw and what we were trying to accomplish with the new one and I sort of think that's a really good starting place is to get that out rather than starting with side by side. Yeah exactly honestly when I when at the two times I presented it was like information overload for the two two bodies I think Janet was one of the only members of either body that had any kind of substantive I think everyone better to kind of say here's what we're doing and we're improving on this and then let questions come and if they don't come great leave well enough alone but if they do come be really prepared to answer them right. Pat did you have your uh I just Jane and Jan you both have been on this commission the longest and you were on the commission when the the thought came that needed to be changed in the bylaws and so would it be um gratuitous for you to present together with Ben just because you could play you know you could play off one another you you have different experiences and the changes but but you've been on you've been there through the whole process I've come to it at the last stage of the process as have Robin and Hedy um and so we we don't have the history we haven't lived the history of why the changes we just have lived the history of making the changes and why they're right. Lucky you. I know I know so I'm not but but but I think the two of you make a very strong team in favor of of what what what didn't work why the why we are presenting what is now or one of us could co-present with him and then if questions come we could be a team that was there to answer it the other could step up. Right. Yep. Because it's it's more of a show of force from the historical commission and I think Jane earlier on you said you you really want the town council and all these other committees to know that this is the historical commission this isn't the town requesting these changes it's the historical commission through its work with the support of the of the planning board and I think there's a difference how it gets presented but I think if you were a team however you did it you have the history you've lived this yeah we could all show up and be in the audience but as long as it was done soon. They're matching outfits and do a song and dance. That's right that's right we cheer. Jane and Dan the duo. All right so there's uh that's uh that's fine I I'm happy with that. Ben could you send me your PowerPoint? Yeah I am right now actually. Great thanks okay um let's see shall we go two minutes? I move we approve the minutes for oh I can't see the agenda read the dates then March 25th April 21st and May 9th 2021 okay so we looked at them Robin went run I did one and I forget the third one thank you. Yeah yeah and then I edited it which you accidentally left in the title the dot jam yeah I'm gonna second that motion good any discussion All in favor Pat? I okay Jan? Yes. Robin? Hi. Heady? Yes. Jane yes. Yay. Okay um we do I do believe we need just one quick final well one quick final opportunity for public comment if there is any um you see Hilda you have your hand up but that might I don't think so. Okay all right no oh no I didn't mean to no okay thank you all right then I was just gonna mention um I know it's getting late but for Heady and Pat um related to the uh the north pleasant street um district uh the local historic district did take a vote last meeting like I think last week to uh authorize I guess the chair of that commission Jennifer Taub to write a letter to the town council um letting them know that they're going to pursue the enlargement of the Lincoln Sunset district in conjunction with uh the historical commission um specifically Pat and Heady who's like kind of this ad hoc group um yeah they're putting two members from theirs on and creating a four member right and and Ben there was there was some conversation about it being a joint letter from Jane and Jennifer that right that this ad hoc committee was being formed to study this and um you know I I think that I've gathered a lot of information I think I sent it to Ben and to Heady and to Jan because Jan is kind of ad hoc to the ad hoc but but did did a review of the properties and who owns them and and pulled the plan the the b-form etc etc so I think I think we're we're good to start working with the local district on this and and the nicest thing to hear was that they said originally they wanted to include those properties in the Lincoln Sunset and there was a pushback about that so there could very well be a pushback again because those properties are all owned by people who have an interest in developing them many of them all not all not all many of them are um I yeah I corrected myself many of them are but um I think it's worth pursuing and we'll see where we get with it yeah and I think this time might be different because there's a different sense from the town of of this kind of development down there and there may be more support from the town and some of those those buildings are you know that some of them have have ground level storefronts etc added to them but the buildings themselves are a classic architecture to the late 1800s not much before that but they're classic and it would be a shame to have them replaced by concrete buildings yeah just a shame but in any event so Jane I don't know how you feel about that and whether you and Jennifer want to talk and how you do a joint letter or if Ben thinks that that one from the Lincoln Sunset but I think they need to know that you support our role on the ad hoc committee yes I have email from Jennifer about that did you oh great that's great okay all right um is there anything else for tonight shall we try to set another date I think I know we usually do Wednesdays and I think that was partly because I think early on I asked if we could do Wednesdays but through August Wednesdays are complicated for me um with other commitments and so um Thursdays work just fine and most Mondays work just fine for my calendar in general so I don't mean to be personal about it but okay and we would be looking at probably I have a mic calendar that we had or I had penciled in the week of the 21st the Wednesday so yeah um can we move to Monday or Thursday that week this is would one of those work for others Monday is not good for me I could do Thursday that week is that the 22nd yes yes yes shall we just shift to Thursday the 22nd and I think we'd been starting at 6 30 partly because of my schedule on Wednesday but I don't have that kind of conflict on Thursday so if you'd like to start earlier I might be happy to do that might be better for Ben you're are you free on Thursday Ben and would it be easier for you work wise to start earlier closer to when you finish at the office and yeah yeah I'm available on Thursday the 22nd and um yeah whenever that's the day I move I've just realized oh my god I'm moving house how amazing that I would make be in such denial about that oh my god um I'm moving I'm just moving around the corner but I'm moving um that day July 22nd that's so embarrassing um so what about the week before that the 15th that's better Thursday the 15th Thursday the 15th sorry about that how does that relate to the library advisory board or the library trustees and the restriction document date if we're going to be signing as of that date when do they meet anybody know yeah they're meeting uh next week on the 29th okay so it's plenty of time after that unfortunately I can't meet on the 15th what about Monday the 12th I can do that not good for me oh they're just never good for you Robin okay yeah and the other night yeah about the 28th I mean the 29th I will be out of town on the 29th but if you have a quorum it doesn't mean we need more members can you not meet on the 21st Pat I could except I have a I have a commitment for tonight and I'm not keeping because I'm here and so I just was looking to change from Wednesday through the summer that's all so you'd have to quit again on the you'd have to miss it again on the 21st the same commitment the same commitment let's see but if that's the change the meeting time if we were earlier with that help my commitment is from five to eight oh okay yeah I think I'm also busy on the 21st I think I'm doing the planning board meeting that then do you want to send a doodle sounds like it yeah yeah we haven't talked about Tuesdays yet though Wednesday does the 20th or the 13th work for anybody those are Tuesdays Tuesdays work for me I could do that I could do the the 13th let's do the 13th and then if we have to we have the rest of the month to figure it out can we keep it at 6 30 I'm coming back from Greenfield on those days that 6 30 really does help me get some food in my mouth yeah okay it makes a great sense 6 30 the 13th great great well done everybody I vote I can I make a motion to adjourn the meeting I think this is your first motion I think I think Kenny's afraid if she does it will be anxious I'm just trying to stay awake here second okay all in favor love and bye bye okay thanks everyone I'll email you about getting together okay yeah great okay thank you thanks everybody yeah everybody thank you Ben thank you thank you everyone