 So we can go ahead and get started and maybe any join us. So I'll give the usual opening called order. Welcome to the Amherst Historical Commission meeting. I've got to change my screen just a little bit. So this public meeting on Monday, August 10th, 2020, based on Governor Baker's executive order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law signed Thursday, March 12th, 2020. This meeting is being held virtually using the Zoom platform. My name is Jane Wald and as Chair of the Amherst Historical Commission, I'm calling this meeting to order at 6.03 p.m. This meeting is being recorded and minutes are being taken as normal. We'll take a roll call of commissioners in attendance. And as you hear your name called, just answer affirmatively. And we'll begin with Patricia All. Present. Robin Fordham. Present. Janet Marquardt. Present. Jane Scheffler. Not present. Heady startup. Okay. No, not there. And Jane Wald, I'm here. So you can use the raise hand function to ask a question or make a comment. And I'll call upon you then. And after speaking, just remember to re-emute yourself. Opportunity for public comment will be provided during the general public comment period toward the end of our agenda. Please be aware that the board will not respond to comments during the general public comment period. If guests wish to make a comment during that time, you must join the meeting via the Zoom teleconferencing links, which can be found on the town calendar listing for this meeting. When called on, please identify yourself by stating your full name and address and put yourself back into mute when finished speaking. Residents are welcome to express their views for up to three minutes and get the discretion of the commission chair. So with that, we can turn to our agenda. Beginning with announcements. Are there announcements? No, I don't have any. Okay. I don't, I don't have any. And moving right on to a discussion of the bylaw for preservation of historic structures. And so all of you received a draft that Ben and Jane and I think also Robin were working on. And so there's several changes to various sections that we've seen in draft before. So I think the way we'll go about this is to just to take them one section at a time, go through section by section. And those who've been working on the bylaw, I think it's unfortunately Ben can't be with us this evening and Jane is not with us yet. But maybe at the beginning of each section, Nate, you could give us a little overview of that section and of the proposed changes. And then we can just discuss those in general. So beginning with intent and purpose. I'm wondering if since Rob is here, he's attending, right? Rob more. I'm just wondering if you know the flow chart we were sent, the PowerPoint, whether he could explain why he made, what his, how his differs from what we are proposing and why he thinks it's good before we go through this, because they all, after a while, they all sort of look the same to me. I mean, there are such slight differences and I realize we have a lot more detail in our definitions and things. But I was just wondering about his in particular and if he wanted to explain it since he's here. Let's see, he may not have Ben made these flow charts and I could always maybe try to speak to them. Is this, can everyone see that what I'm sharing now? Yeah. So Ben's not coming to the meeting. Right. I think, so I think the, I mean, I can speak to what we've talked about. Ben and I also met and then I talked about it. You know, right now we, there's, there's not really a clear two-step process and there's really not a clear administrative process for what goes to the commission or what staff could review. So, you know, it's, it's been, if you read the by-law as it is literally almost anything should go to a public hearing, you know, removal of one piece of gutter. And so there's been some interpretation of that and some changes to the rules and regulations of the commission without, say, being inconsistent with the by-law, but some of these steps are not, you know, clear. So someone has to read the application form, the by-law and the rules and regulations to know exactly how the process works. And so, you know, with the workshop with Chris Kelly and then with the revision of the by-law, you know, I think the hope is that there is a clear, clear steps in the process. So first is like, what is the threshold to submit an application? What's the administrative review piece? And then if there is a two-step process... Right, and I'm just wondering exactly where his differs from our proposal because his comes right after our proposal, the one that says historical commission members, right? And he must have been working from our proposal when he was coming up with his. And it would just help as we went through our proposed changes if we knew what he preferred and why, since he said it. I'm not going to talk speak to Rob, but I do think that my suggestion is that we drop a definition of significant alteration and alteration altogether and just have a definition for demolition and then exemptions. Because I think Rob was also working on a previous version. And I think the nuances of all of a sudden we're having alterations or significant alterations, to me, it becomes confusing. So my recommendation would be to have just a good definition of demolition. And so I think Rob was basing it on a previous version and other versions that the commission had, but he and I haven't discussed it yet. Okay. Rob, because of the hand raised. Rob? Hi. Yeah. So the anything that has my name on it is actually something I was worked on quite a while ago. And that was my attempt to update what we currently have in the bylaw. So it doesn't at all, you know, respond to what the commission have been working on lately. I don't, you know, I just actually gave it to Ben just a couple of weeks ago. So I think he was trying to summarize it. But to what Nate was talking a little bit about there, you know, one major difference in the draft that I was working on is that, you know, we continue using the concept of demolition through this bylaw, even in the draft that you're working on now, section 13.5 is about demolition, the permit is a demolition permit. But where the structure starts to break apart a little bit is when you create this significant alteration and something different than demolition. And that's why I would suggest maybe when you get to your bylaw draft to look at, keep that in mind and look at that because it doesn't flow well through the structure of the bylaw based on demolition. So, you know, for example, in my original draft from a couple of years ago now, significant alteration was part of the demolition definition. So you're trying to keep, you know, keep the trigger being demolition, whatever demolition ends up to be. Full removal of a structure or some percentage of a structure. But, you know, using that, and really that was just to simplify and not have to change throughout the bylaw, you know, different types of permits or different types of basically approval to proceed with work, not demolition to proceed. So that was, that's one major difference between the two and eight to two drafts. So, Rob and commissioners, I know that, so the definition section is the very next section after intent and purpose. And I hope, Rob, you'll help us out when we get to that section on definitions because I know that this issue about the sort of contradictory tendencies of significant alteration and demolition is something that we'll want to sort out right there in the definitions to begin with and then how it flows through the bylaw. So, we're going to get to that as soon as we get past intent and purpose. Okay, sorry, now I have a better sense. I didn't realize he'd written that so long ago. I thought it was- No, that's really helpful to know that. And yeah, and it's true, we're looking at something different tonight. Nate, do you want to sort of give us a little setting for the intent and purpose as it's expressed here? It's a little different from the last draft. Right, I think, you know, one thing the town attorney will say that the intent and purpose of a bylaw is really important to help if there's either an appeal or questioning of a decision. And so, I think, not that it has to be so broad and then it captures everything, but, you know, I think this is important because it's up to the commission to decide, you know, I think there are many purposes for historic preservation, but then specifically for preservation of structures that people want to demolish. So, you know, it bleeds into a little bit of the definitions in terms of what we're trying to do, but, you know, Ben added what's in the track changes. And I think there's economic benefits, there's cultural benefits, and then, you know, some sustainability. And we could make this a little bit more robust with either bullet points. It doesn't have to be in a prose form, but I think the idea is to say that it's more than just preserving historic character of a community, you know, there's economic benefits that could be, you know, through cultural tourism, through, you know, architecture preservation of districts. And so, I think the previous bylaw said a few of those things, but, you know, having a few of these key terms in there, I think could be really important. So, I just, and I think it's up to the commission then to decide like, what is the intent and purpose of a demolition bylaw? Is it so narrow that it's, you know, okay, we're only gonna preserve buildings, but are there other benefits or reasons to have this? And so... I like the addition, the encouraging sustainability addition. I think what's important here too, is the idea that there's a public purpose and a public benefit to preserving something that's private. And I don't know whether the language of preferably preserved buildings was in there prior to these, but I think that was something we talked about with the seminar of that using that term that it had some impact. Yeah, I think the current bylaw, this sentence through this bylaw, owners of preferably preserved buildings are encouraged to seek alternative options. I don't think that was in the intent and purpose, it is in the intent and purpose of the current bylaw. And it only appears once you get all the way through the whole public hearing process and the outcomes. So I like that it's here right up front into the purpose. Let's see. We would have to change, you know, demolition permit is what we're, you know, if we're not paying what we're calling them, but... Well, we're not changing the name of the application, right? We're just changing the name of our bylaw, right? I think that's right, yeah. Yeah, that's what we want to call it. They're still applying for demolition, but we're just not calling this a demolition bylaw. So this phrase to make that... Making the town a more attractive and desirable place in which to live and work. You'll recall what Chris Skelly said about historic preservation actually having an economic benefit. I wonder if we should bump up that for to make that phrase a little bit more robust. Right. Yeah, besides sustainability, there's just also... A number of economic advantages. One is the better materials they represent, the older buildings, bringing people to the town. Business is because of the historic buildings. There's a number of things. I don't know how we would express that succinctly. Yeah, I do think that would be a place. This would be a good place to add it though, just making a note on the document at least a little. Mike, we might refer to... Oh, there you look like you're almost adding it there, cultural tourism. Yeah, I was gonna say cultural tourism. Maybe just change that sentence that you read, Jane, to making the town a more economically attractive and desirable place, visually desirable place in which to live and work. Economically attractive and visually desirable or something like that. Rob, what do you think about that having some more language and the purpose? The purpose. Be reputed. Yeah, no, absolutely. That's a good place to fill that out a little bit there. Yeah, I don't have any answers right now, but we can work on that. Yeah, we may not generate perfect language. Right. But it'll come. Right. If we get our ideas, we can refine them later. Right. Yeah, I think that's important. You know, I think, especially if someone reads this, but we can have an app can read this and it'll help them understand to why they're applying, which right now I think the idea is, you know, I think some people don't understand historic preservation, so they question, you know, why even having this permit in place? So I think this can get to that. So somehow there needs to follow this public welfare if we're still gonna continue to use that term. Needs to be expanded to include the economic, the tradition, culture, and the visual characteristics. But I think we kind of cover, we give that prelude when we're talking about streetscapes, protecting significant buildings, streetscapes and neighborhoods. This just further defines what we mean by that, I think. Yeah, I can work on some language with Ben to put that in there. Is there anything else we think we're missing if there's part of the purpose? I think those are good additions. We don't wanna say too much in the preamble because it's just an introduction. We can fill it out more later. All right. So we'll move on to definitions. And so Rob has already framed this point about alteration or significant alteration and demolition. And Nate, do you wanna give us any more context or point to anything specific before we dive into this? Yeah, I think this is gonna be a really important section. Rob, when we had Chris Skellion about a month ago, he was surprised, I think two places in this is that we define both a building and a structure, which we're, and then it's so vague that we're not even actually defining anything. And then he thought we didn't clearly define demolition. So, I think those are two points that I think the commission can really discuss. What is meant by demolition? Is it, the knocking down of a building, the raising of a building, is it removal of some of it, of just trim and architectural features? I think Chris Skellion said that if we really wanna become a design review board, then it's a local or sort of district or different tools throughout town, if you kinda regulate aesthetics so carefully, if it's, so I think that's important. I think defining a building is important. And I think dropping the ideas of alteration and the definitions altogether and just having a clear definition for demolition and then exemptions, I think that would make it a lot easier to interpret. You're saying drop these definitions? I would say that we have to eliminate the definitions for alteration altogether. We don't define alteration at all. There's no such thing as an alteration or a significant alteration to spy a lot. It's either a demolition or it's not a demolition. And we have clear parameters of what is meant by demolition. And then just our exemptions kind of define that. Well, for instance, Chris Skellion said, mass historic template is a demolition is removal of a roof, removal of 25% of the exterior walls or I don't know, whatever, there's another piece. So right now we're saying it's removal of any piece is what it says. You take off your shutters, that's supposed to be a demolition. Under demolitions definition, could we say something like, could we add significant alteration in that definition, in demolition as part of our defining? Well, I'm saying, I'm recommending not to. I think that's something for the commission to discuss. And then I think hand in hand is, what are we demolishing? What's the difference between a building and a structure? So right now, if someone takes down anything from outdoor art or a fence to a barn to a house, that's all caught under this. And do we want a demolition bylaw to apply to everything that's vertical or is it really only houses? Is it barn, is it barn? So how do we define what is a building or a structure? You know what, the demolition definition that I'm looking at right now, doesn't speak to the nuance of alterations. I think if we could add the demolition is, includes significant alteration too, and then the definition of significant alteration. Because I think we could be, challenged if someone decides they're going to take down something that signifies by scroll work or whatever, that it's a Victorian building or colonial shutters or whatever. We could be challenged if we don't speak to the significant alteration as being included in the, as part of the definition of demolition that if we don't do it separately. Well, I guess that's the question. Do we want to have a demolition bylaw review this? Chris Skelly would say no, that a demolition bylaw really doesn't, someone removing trim, that's not really the place for a demolition bylaw. That's a local historic district or a neighborhood preservation bylaw. I think mass historic has changed to say that a demolition bylaw is really about demolishing or really demolishing a building, not removing pieces of it or the character of it. So... Well, I kind of agree with that in terms of how making it easier for us to have strict boundaries, but I still think that the definition of demolition leaves open the option for somebody to say, well, I didn't remove or raise 25% of my structure. I just changed it. I left windows, I just made them different or I left a roof on it, I just put a different look of a roof or something. And I think that's why if you could say any act of pulling down, destroying, removing, raising or significantly altering 25% or more of a building would keep them from being able to say I didn't actually remove it, I changed it. You see what I mean? Yeah, I think we're kind of trying to get to the same point where the definition for demolition as it is now doesn't satisfy me because of the nuance that could be and whether we'd be challenged just as you described. Right, but we can take those two definitions for alteration and significant alteration out if we just put them as part of a 25% under demolition. Right, right. And that's what I was suggesting that you expand the demolition to describe what we mean by that. Just exactly what I had said, I mean, I think you're absolutely right. So if we put, but significantly altering it in this definition, would we need to define that? No, my thought is we would. No, I don't think so. If we're saying altering 25% of a building, that's pretty clear. That's pretty clear. And then to me then we would remove the definition of alteration anyways. Yes. Right. I think that could work. My only thought there though is, people don't have to take out a building permit or any permit to do some of this stuff. So what's the mechanism to do this? I think most people don't know that they need to, for instance, they're taking down a fence. They don't know that they need to pull a demolition permit. They're repainting their house and while they're doing that, they're gonna take down a lot of the decorative trim work because they don't wanna paint it. There's no permit required for that. And so to me, it becomes a really difficult thing to enforce or to educate the owners about this 25% removal of architectural features. And that becomes to me, almost more like a local historic district, not a demolition permit. Maybe we need to run an article once a year that says, remember, if you have a home 50 years or more older, you need to keep this in mind. And if you're gonna do anything, you have to get a permit. I mean, it may, aren't you saying that they're actually not required to get a permit? Right, right. I mean, if someone is removing some decorative trim, there's no permit really required for that. Right, so they're not in violation of anything. If it's 25% or more. But that, yeah, if they, right, if it's 25% or more, they would be on this bylaw. Yeah, and that's why I'm saying if we just educate people. So Robert, if you missed the conversation, Robert, we were saying in the definition of demolition, fold in significant alteration. Right, no, I didn't miss it. I was listening. I mean, it seems like the historical commission's position is leave that out and address it elsewhere, which seemed to be what you were suggesting that we have, you know, that we have more than one way to achieve our goals and that the significant characteristics that don't necessarily fall under a demolition permit would be projected through a different mechanism. Is that what I'm understanding? Right, I think that's what Mass Historic recommends now. So I think to me, the significant alteration right now, the act of changing, modifying or removing important architectural elements becomes very difficult to enforce or define. So, you know, someone, you know, I just think that, you know, someone is putting, you know, they're redoing their front porch. Is that a demolition? I mean, this is what we struggle with now. You know, someone is tearing down their front porch and they're putting in a new front porch. Is that a demolition that we want to review? Someone is replacing their windows. You know, they're putting in replacement windows. Maybe they're removing the outside trim, maybe not. Is that a demolition? And so all of a sudden if they would be considered a significant alteration, so all of a sudden that becomes a demolition. And to me, the staff and the commission is in the same place all over again, are reviewing a lot of applications. It's not really simplifying the process at all. I mean, we could write a bylaw so that the steps are simplified. So an applicant understands how it'll be reviewed, but in terms of what's being reviewed, it's not simplifying it. Well, but it's our purview. I mean, it may not be simpler, but that's why we exist to keep things from being historic buildings, from being ruined, so to speak, or too updated. So my question is just not so much that that's not our purview, but is there a different mechanism, like we've talked about, that there is a different mechanism for demolition by neglect that the suggestion from the Historical Commission is that that should be a separate bylaw. Is this something that we're trying to cram into a demolition bylaw that should be managed somewhere else? I mean, that's the question I'm asking Nate, essentially. I mean, I think so, because I think that if all of a sudden, we'll be coming to a design review board where someone's changing out all the doors in their house and it's more than 20, it's like, is that a significant alteration? I just, I feel like- Right, so I would say from the, I mean, then I would then argue from the Historical Commission perspective that we focus on kind of the large chunk of demolition and then establish that without it getting too complicated and too muddied. And then if we feel like we need something for character alteration, we start to explore ways that that can be preserved and people can be educated or if there's any sort of bylaws that, does that make sense? I mean, to go kind of from the large piece out and not get everything in here that we feel like we need to. I think that's, I mean, that's the discussion point, right? So what is the, so what does the commission want to review? Does the commission want to continue reviewing changes to some of these things? So someone replaces all their windows. Is that a demolition? And, if it is, then what does that mean and how do you define it? Is removal of a porch demolition? Removal of a porch or demolition? Can I ask Rob, Mara, can you see a way to, I mean, what would the impact be for you if we included in the definition of demolition significant alteration or modification of 25% of, I don't know the volume or where put in your, of a building? Yeah, so that's actually the way I proposed it. You know, so the demolition definition to be the act of pulling down, destroying, raising a structure or a change to a portion thereof that results in a significant alteration. And then you go on and define significant alteration to what you want it to be. So we know, you know, full removal is demolition. We know that 25% sounds like everyone's in that agreement that 25% is a reasonable number to start with. It's just how much further than that do you go in the definition of significant alteration? And that would be, you know, your decision to make. But I personally like that in the demolition definition because again, it follows through this bylaw that we are ultimately getting to a demolition permit. And what is, what is demolition? The authorization to move ahead with whatever results after the review through this bylaw is called demolition. Right, but I think Rob, I guess one question would be how would someone know that they're actually doing a significant alteration if they don't really have full permits to do some of that work? Well, that's where we get into, that's, you know, if it's 25% alteration of 25% of the building envelope roof, windows, whatever walls, it's likely going to be a building permitable item. You know, in more cases than not, I mean, even removal of deciding is going to require a building permit. So that's likely going to capture it. If, you know, if you move further along into a definition like what's in the document on the screen, that's where we definitely get into areas where work could happen, you know, without the permit because the contractor or a person doing the work knows that a permit is not required. So there wouldn't be any reason to ask or come to the town to learn that there's this process. Right. But that's not really much different than what we deal with with the LHD and, you know, other things that are regulated that way that don't necessarily require permits. You know, we have zoning bylaw, you know, whether it's a fence or a shed or, you know, aboveground swimming pools, things that don't require building permits. You know, it's the same thing really. We have that parking lot modifications don't require building permits necessarily. We have these zoning requirements that are in play. And Rob, you listed all the things in the definition of significant alteration. You said the building's exterior envelope, including walls, restructured doors, windows, stooped sporches and similar elements. Whereas we list them down in 13-point, what is it, 3-1, as exemptions. Do you think we would need them up in the definition or just leave them in exemptions? Well, I was going for a little bit more, I guess, direction to the person interpreting the bylaw. You know, with the 25%, what does that really mean? And I would suggest that 25% of something, the area of the exterior envelope of the walls, roof at a minimum, you know, just to get, you know, and that may not be how it's worded, but giving the inspector or the applicant or architect something to start with, because with the 25%, I mean, this is used in, this similar language is used in other communities and what it ends up with is some sort of a brochure that describes how the building department defines that or applies that. So if we can get that a little bit into the bylaw, at least it, you know, it's a measurable item if we're looking at the square footages of the envelope systems. You're thinking of all sides, because we've always said just visible from the street. I noticed that, yeah, I hadn't been thinking visible from the street, but I did notice that in your draft, I underlined it and I, you know, that's fine. It's just, I would want that in the definition. Yeah, it's just a lot bigger amount if you're only looking at, say, the front and you say 25%, then if you're looking at all the way around and you say 25%, right? Well, it's not necessarily just the front, right? It's whatever is from, you know, yeah. No, I'm just saying that the public view. There could be a lot more of what you're seeing if it's 25% of that rather than the whole thing. I don't know, maybe not. I do think that's... Where it gets complicated is that the resulting structure, say, in addition, might be visible from the street. A lot of it might be visible from the street. It might come up higher than the existing roofline. It might have an impact on the architectural value of the building, but the demolition isn't visible from the public view. So is there a trigger there? You know, so that's just where, you know, we just got to be careful on how... We need to decide whether we're going to look at what's going to be replacing what's demolished. But Rob, to your point, I think... I'm sorry. Yeah, we have to qualify the 25%. We have to qualify the 25%, right? So I think, to Rob's point, like, how do you interpret that? Is it 25% of the exterior area? That's one. Is it 25% of a unique feature? So that means if they're replacing, you know, removing or altering 25% of a feature, so that might be... We have to define a feature. Is it 25% because... Like of a cupola or something. Right, or they're redoing their front porch. Is that part of the building on the roof exterior? Is that the porch itself something? So to me, I mean, I know that the 25% is used. I just see right now, if we left it the way it is, 25% or more of a building, someone could say, well, you know... What if it were 25% of any side? Yeah, I mean, I'm not sure how to say it, but right, so... I don't think we want to look at it then. Do we change? I mean, if it's like the back, you know how sometimes we've said that addition or that porch back there, we can't see it anyway, what difference does it make? I mean, do we want to look at all those? Well, so when I think about a historic building, I really think about the entire building. Yeah. And the integrity of that building. And I'm not sure I would want it actually written into the bylaw that it is only what we see from the street. That's what the... I think that's what the local historic district can mention the guidelines do. But for... If we're talking about preserving significant buildings, significant examples of architecture, I think I wouldn't limit it to just what's seen from the street. We could end up with a bunch of Potemkin facades. Yeah. And I think we... I agree with Jane looking at the whole building, but Rob, when he started out, gave it kind of a synopsis definition that talked about demolition and or significant change to 25% of and then some description. I think we could... I'm back to where I started. I think we could incorporate the significant changes under demolition if they're incorporated and defined that way. But, and I also agree with Jane that we start by looking at the whole building. And we recently had a situation where there was a attached garage, the age of which we couldn't determine. And it wasn't significant architecturally in the way that the building, the house was. And so, I think our discussion was, well, let's look at the whole building and then decide. And that's where I come from on these things. I think it's important. It's not just a streetscape. Streetscape is part of it. And we've taken a look at issues based on streetscape. But I think those things all need to be included. I think the whole structure, that's the right, the appearing street one is a good example. I think it becomes relevant if the commission does the two step process and then is looking at preferably preserved. And part of the stuff you're looking at is what's the future plans for the property. Because if what's not visible from the public way is just being proposed to be demolished, then it doesn't matter what it's being, if there's something replacing it because if it's not part of your review, the commission isn't looking at it. So, yeah, I thought when I saw the visible from the street, I don't know if that's just pulling in the local historic district rules or if that's the way new bylaws do that. But I think, and then, so yeah, I think we would just say it's based on the entire structure. And then it becomes something that the commission or staff, if there's a two step review, could determine whether or not, you know, when it goes to a hearing, the commission could maybe walk through it pretty quickly, you know, determine whether or not that can be demolished or not. So, but I think it'd be very hard to say that that's exempt or not part of the review. And then the commission wants to review what's going in its place or do something else. And Hedy joined us, she had her hand raised for a bit, but she. Hi Hedy, do you wanna speak? Yeah, sorry, I just, I was just trying to make an argument for the sort of streetscape idea of sort of walking by something and maybe seeing two facades of a building, whether there's any merit in trying to sort of consider that as an option. But, you know, that's often how we see buildings as we walk by or drive by that we get this sort of, yes, we get the front facade, but we don't want to promote sort of facadeism, but what you get with streetscape is often two sides, you know, a corner. And often when you think about architectural photography, you always want a shot of a significant structure that shows that, because it has more, it gives you more information. I don't know quite where I'm going with this. I'm just trying to sort of play with what really 25% is. I have a really hard time with 25% because is it 25% of the front door or the first floor or the second floor or? Yeah, we've talked about that. Have you dealt with all of that? I'm sorry to be late, as I said before, but it just, you know, it sounds like it would be helpful to have a bit more detail. In this bit. Yeah, so I think, you know what? Yeah, I agree. I think if we were saying 25% then I think we need to qualify it a bit more. I think that's the discussion the commission can have. So, you know, Chris Kelly's example was very clear of what he defined as demolition. And then everything else was just not in the review. So who cares if someone's tearing down their porch? That's not part of demolition. And so I think the commission, you know, that's, to me, that's a really important point is does the commission want to review those types of changes? If it does, then, you know, we figure out how we write a bylaw, whether it's significant alteration is folded into the definition of demolition. If we don't want, if the commission doesn't want to review those things, then we just leave it out, right? We leave those as exemptions or something. So, you know, the mass historic template was, you know, you remove a roof. So basically like you have to lift the roof off a building or you tear down 25% of the exterior envelope. So you take down a wall or more than one side of a build. You know, if it's four sides, you take down 25% or more of the exterior walls. Everything else seemed to be exempt from review. And the way that Rob wrote it, it's without replacement. So you could argue that you're not actually altering a review if you're replacing it. Well, right. So then. It doesn't say that what you replace has to look the same. So let me, that's in, yeah. So I think then, right, we'd have to be pretty clear on how we define things or our wording. So if we said pulling down or raising 25% of the envelope, meaning for a simple four-sided house that could be one entire side, one entire wall. And that seems, I mean, is that a low threshold or is that a high threshold? I feel like it's. Would we then fold in the definition of significant alteration? So then do we add is, you know, part A of demolition is 25% and then part B is the significant alteration piece. So, I mean, Rob, what do you think if we said 25% of a building's exterior envelope, how is that interpreted? Yeah, so that's going to calculate the area of the roof and the walls as a total cumulatively to determine the percentage unless you specify it differently. Right, right, to exclude the roof or something. Right. And so what about if someone was, if someone was, said they had a front porch and they want to take it down, unless it's considered a significant alteration, it wouldn't, it may not reach the 25% threshold. That's right. That's why we still need to have the definition of significant alteration in there, even if we add that wording to demolition. Right? Yeah. I think that's right, either that or 25% of any facade and that could get complicated for more complicated kinds of buildings. I'm just thinking under your definition of a four-sided structure, if you have four side, equal sides and a roof, they could say the roof was only 20%. You know what I mean? I think that the fifth piece, so. What would they, so you're saying what? They could demolish the roof, change the roof from, say, cave to a gambrel and that would not qualify. Right, if they left all the other four sides the same, they could say that was only 20% of the exterior envelope. Especially if it's like a 1940s house with a flat roof and they decide they're gonna put cables on. Yeah. So that, but if we had a significant alteration definition which says that the modification or removal of significant historic design elements isn't allowed, then that catches it, right? Right, that's why it has to be either separate as it is or part B of the demolition definition. Yeah, I would take out the alteration definition, put in significant altering in the demolition definition and leave significant alteration as a separate definition. Or would we just call it demolition? And so that every time, you know, throughout the bylaw, it would just say demolition. So that way there's no confusion. Oh, I'm doing a significant alteration. No, you're actually doing a demolition. Right. So you just fold it all into demolition. Right. Part A, part B. Yeah. So I think everyone was kind of saying 25% of buildings. Okay, we're gonna say building, but then we define building or structure, but I'm gonna say buildings exterior envelope. And for now, I'm gonna say parenthetically, including roof and that's part A and B is significant alteration, which we've pulled into the definition. This is all under demolition. Yes. Yeah. So why don't we under building, why don't we say anything about the exterior envelope? Because we just wanna talk about the three-dimensional form itself. I mean. Well, let's just, for a significant alteration, or we're saying, I just wanna get to what- I'm sorry. Do we like the act of changing, modifying or moving? Is it, are we saying 25% again? Or what are we saying is significant alteration? No, I think we should leave it the way we have it. Important architectural elements from a structure, or maybe it should say from a building. From a building, yeah. Yeah. Elements define the historic integrity of the design except for the exemptions. Can we, I think we could start with that. Okay. I think, you know, I think the combination, expanding the definition of demolition and keeping it all together is much better than having two separate definitions. Yep. Plus the exemptions, that makes it, that makes it fit together nicely. It does. And I think the next question then is, we have a building definition. It says, I mean, it's just really anything. And then we have a definition for. Except we're taking out structure on wheels. And then we say eligible building. And then we have the definition of, say significant structure and then structure. So to me, it's really inconsistent again. So I think we either just say, we call it a building for the purposes of this bylaw and we define what that means for this bylaw or we call it a structure. And then we just say structure because right, Rob, I mean, I think the building code has different definite, right? I mean, a building, I mean, we're not, we're not bound, if we say a building here and a building commissioner inspector looks at it, they're going to go by building code, right? Well, they're going to go by building code only if there isn't a definition here. So we can define it differently. So obviously having them, if you ended up with just building, then that obviously doesn't capture things like fences or walls or things that might be different than a building, that's a structure. You could use structure and capture at all. You know, building could be a structure. I think that's, yeah, I mean, right now the definition of structure is any combination of materials constructed to make an object or building located in the built environment, which requires a permanent location on the ground. And so that just becomes, you know. That could be anything. Anything. The demolition delay guide from the Historic Commission says, a typical definition is any combination of materials forming a shelter for persons, animals or property. That's what we have for building. Yeah. Right. We already have that, but that. Oh, okay. So now you're adding. I like the one for structure better. Well, one refers to, one refers to it's sort of the human embodiment. Right. Architecture and the other one refers to something more neutral and to do with function. I mean, I think it's kind of interesting just to see these two things and maybe there's a reason for that. Well, I think Chris Galli was concerned or shocked that we define both because it can mean anything. And so he was, during the workshop, he was kind of saying only an emmerist has ever seen a town define a building and a structure separately that could mean anything. So I think, again, kind of like the definitions, I mean, does the commission want to review the removal offenses? Does the commission want to review the removal of walls of maybe statuary and, you know, or is it really just the taking down of, you know, of buildings as, you know, what would be typical barns, carriage houses, sheds and houses? When I spoke to him previously, and I said the guide, it says, you know, to utilize other tools. He said that for specific things, I would think especially in a town the size of emmerist, for example, the fence at the Salem Place property, that a single, that a proactive, single building historic district is a, they view that as a better tool for the protection of things like landscapes and things like fences that don't fall under the definition of building. I wonder how practical it is to try to use structure to capture fences and walls. You know, who's gonna know to, if it's not part of some larger project, who's gonna know to apply for a demolition permit? Yeah, it's a good point. I mean, it does start to be splitting hairs and maybe making us a little too powerful, in a way, you know. I guess what I thought would be, not that we could inventory everything the properties, but, you know, there are by a handful of fences or, you know, kind of secondary or tertiary structures that would wanna be reviewed on a property, right? I mean, there could be other things that aren't a building that the commission would wanna review. So what I thought would be though, if we did say that, you know, for instance, like, so say we did say a structure, I mean, how many fences are over 50 years old? So if we're clearly saying it has to be at least 50 years old, it doesn't really matter then if they're removing a fence, if it's not 50 years old. So is it okay for now to have a structure or some definition because, you know, maybe a future commission would have to refine that. You know, so are there, I don't know, fences or walls that are less than 50 years that the commission really wants to see or over 50 years that the commission wants to see preserved? And if so, then we have maybe a more encompassing definition. You know, right, I mean, how many are there out there that the commission would wanna see? So right now, we have definition for building. We have a definition for built environment. Yes. We have a definition for structure. And significant structure, which- And significant structure. An eligible building and significant structure in contradiction too. Yeah, an eligible building, right. You know, so somehow, I don't know that we need those separate definitions if we could, you know, one says human made, another is the structure one is really broad. But do we need that many definitions? Can we not combine it into one that it's- I think we could combine it into one and drop all that, right? And include what's important of each one of them. Yeah, I mean, I think the eligible one is interesting. To me, we would have that be part of the process and say here's what would be the trigger for an application. You know, Chris Kelly already said, don't use a National Register nomination because that's taking something that's honorary and you're tying it to a regulation. So they advise against that because it's not the intention of some of that is more educational and not, you know, regulatory. So the idea of having a National Register District isn't to say any structure in a National Register District now has to go to a demolition application or demolition hearing and so- It would be picked up by the 50 years. Yeah, so maybe- So where do we, but we need to get 50 years kind of up front in the bylaw, so. Well, maybe eligible buildings should take out numbers one and two and do 50 years and then take the line from significant structure. A building found by the Amherst Historical Commission to contribute to the historical architectural heritage or resources of the town pursuant to section 13.5. So I think wouldn't we just delete eligible building altogether? Well, it's in, we have to keep it if we're gonna use it, we have to define it, right? It comes up right away. I don't think we would. I think we would just say. For a significant structure or for a building. To me, this becomes down here, the procedure seems always strange then. No demolition permit will be issued, you know. To me, why wouldn't we just have a clear definition of a building or structure as Pat said and then just say if anything is over 50, if whatever it is, a building is over 50 years old or older, you apply for a demolition application and that way there's no ifs ands or buts and you know, it's just very clear. That's true, it becomes circular. Right there in the procedure, no demolition permit for a building over 50 years old shall be issued without following. Yeah, that's good. And take out misspelled eligible building. It would be building or structure because if we're going down to the structure. We're gonna take out the structure I think and add that into building. All right, so let's go back then to the definition. So I'd like to clean up the definition of building or structure, whatever we're calling it. Yeah. And so, you know, my thought is in the definitions we delete eligible building now because it's just. Yes. Not necessary. Right. Yes, and delete structure unless you want to do fences. All right. I think practically speaking, I doubt there is a wooden fence that is actually more than 50 years old. There might be stone and iron ones. Iron, metal, iron ones, right? Yeah. I mean, you still know if it's on a scenic road it becomes a part of the scenic road by a law, right? So I mean, there's a number of scenic roads in town. Could you modify building to say something about any combination of materials forming a shelter for persons, animals or property and its surrounding? What would it be? And whatever surrounds it or whatever marks off the property, whatever. I mean, could you just add something there that allows for structure? What do we say? Well, there's something to be said for the combination of what's in built environment with building. And then some wording from structure to include fences. Any combination materials forming a shelter for persons, animals or property and the surrounding built environment and its surrounding built environment. That works. But we need to, then would we leave the definition of built environment in? I mean, are we? No, come on. People can figure this out. Let's see, homemade structures, buildings, infrastructure, families in the space, people live and work. Oh, come on. But we have that in there, which is. I know. I would take out built environment too. I mean, people can figure that out. Look it up, you know? I don't know. I think for administering it it might be better to have such as in there. Oh, that's a good point. Yeah. So building, we're saying any combination of materials from a shelter for persons, animals or property and its surrounding built environment, such as halls, gates, fences, something like that. Yeah. No fences, gates. Rob, what do you think about something like that as the definition for building? And that would be the only definition that runs in this by-law. So, you know, we wouldn't call it a significant structure, right? We would say a significant building. I mean, we would have to then tailor it all to this. But it seems like you're going to capture a lot more than you want to. Even if, you know, how so? Well, so, I mean, anything that is in the surrounding built environment that's 50 years or older would trigger the review. So like a chicken coop, you mean that kind of thing? Yeah. I mean, a sign. A sign. I mean, I kind of like the, I thought maybe Nate, you were going in the direction of, you know, and 13.3 demolition permits shall be issued for a building or significant structure and then inventory those significant structures. Well, that's one way to go about it, but we'd have to then inventory the whole town. Is that doable? No. What if we go back and add the 50 years in what we just did and take out gates, fences, et cetera, because we talk about a built environment? Well, I think what we do down below is we're ready to find a building. So in process, we'd say, you know, demolition permit for a building 50 years or older. So, you know, it'd be, you just refer back to the definition of building. On your 13.3, you don't need it because the next sentence says, if a building is of a known age, it'll be assumed the building is over 50 years old. I mean, Well, we would just, I mean, we would just delete this altogether and write a new. Well, I mean, Jane simplified it nicely. No demolition permit shall be issued without the following provisions of this bylaw. And then we go on and do the provisions. But we're taking out the 50 years of the building definition above because we took out eligible building. That's correct. And I was suggesting putting 50 years into the first sentence under 13.3. So, again, no demolition permit for a building. We just deleted it. For a building. Oh, I thought you had said that. Okay. 50 years or older. Shall be issued without. Oh, okay. I didn't hear that. Sorry. Okay. Well, then let's just leave building the way it was without the surrounding built environment and see what happens. If I mean, I suppose we could always go back later and modify things. So, I mean, so this would be a lot easier then. So we're going to delete this and we just, this would be here. We're going to delete this. We're going to delete eligible building. Yeah. We're going to delete structure. And then we would call this a significant building. I mean, if we're, because that's what we're, that's what we're fine. I have a quick question. Is it helpful or unhelpful to maybe relate the building to the property boundaries? Is, does that pick up some of the kind of concerns we have about walls and fences and chicken coops and a statutory landscape features, wonderful trees, you know. Well, we're not, I mean, right now the commission doesn't review trees, but I think right here the building, the definition of a building is any combination of materials forming a shelter for persons, animals or property. Is that, is that? If we just added in the built environment without adding the such as. Well, Rob was saying though, the built environment would mean anything, signs, chicken coops. So that's complicating for us. Right. It's too broad. Yeah. I think. Okay. I mean, yeah, I'm happy with the definition, this short succinct definition of building. Why do we need to have a definition for significant building? Aren't we going to say properly preserved is giving the significance? So right now under this definition of building now, right, you know, a fence, a sign wouldn't be, they wouldn't need a permit, but a chicken coop or a barn, maybe. Would, yeah. And what about a corn crib or a grain house? I don't know, a blacksmith shop. I mean, I'm just, you know, are we? Yeah. I mean. Yeah, a lot of things that people use as sheds used to be historic things like ice houses and things like that. Right. That's the thing like, you're right, there's been the one in Cushman, it was possibly an old blacksmith shop. You know, is that, that, you know, is that is, so someone has like, you know, 10 by 12 building on their property. Is that really for the shelter of a person, animal or, you know, what is that? Well, property, yeah. A property, I guess. A shed could be for property. Rob, what were you gonna say? No, I was just saying, it seems to me that it would be. It would be, yeah. All right, so we... So why do we need significant building? Aren't we gonna move that into, oh, I thought we're gonna put it somewhere else, but maybe... Oh yeah, here's, we'll move this to, I have that, the alteration into the definitions. Part B of demolition. Yeah, and then the significant building, I guess the question is, you know, if there's a two-step process, you know, the idea is someone submits an applicant, you know, an application is submitted, and then there's a finding that it's a significant building as an administrative staff. So this is really, this is a really big change, right? So that's what Chris was saying. Yeah, we've moved significant alteration into demolition, but significant building is a different kettle of fish. Right, so then, you know, I guess, you know, Rob, I think you're aware of this, but it's something we, you know, so, you know, the way the bylaw would work now is that, you know, it defines whether it's staff and or our representative from the commission would determine that building significance. And then the commission is determining whether or not it needs to be preferably preserved. And so, you know, that's a big change because most of the commission's work right now to hearing is to determine if it's significant. And so I just want to make sure that everyone, you know, that that's, everyone understands that, that that's a, you know, a really big change from what we do. Yeah, right. And so, yes, both of those steps need to be represented, one by significant building and the other by preferably preserved. Yeah. So if we go back. So if it preferably preserves, it's to say significant building. I just want to go back to the top of definitions just to see, oh, we're deleting alteration altogether too, right? Yes. Applicant application, building, building commissioner, business day, I guess if that's, we use that in the bylaw, commission, demolition, demolition delay, okay. So we're just saying a three, you know, a year long delay where, you know, we're not. Well, we still need to talk about the possibility of 18 months. I think that's too long without having any more incentive for an owner. Yeah. But so, you know, Chris clearly said, there's no reason why we have to tie this to 40 a process. And if we move this out of the demolition or the zoning bylaw, then, you know, some of these things become important like a business day. So we define our own notification process or things. So, all right, so let's see, demolition, we'll just for now, demolition delay, a demolition permit, demolition by neglect. And that's, you know, I guess we'd have that in there. Yeah, I think so. Yeah, we're not, this bylaw wouldn't regulate it though. Right. We need to define it. I think that makes sense. A hearing permit, why do we need a permit? We define demolition permit above. Yeah, that's crazy. Everybody knows what a permit is. I would take that out. We've got demolition permit. Right, preferably preserved. You're saying a significant building. Yeah, and capitalized building by the curbs. And there's a second use of the word structure in there also. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah. And then we define significant alteration, which has moved, I'll just... We're gonna move that under demolition, like part B. Yeah. And then we define significant building. And we need to change the word structure in that definition. I think that word structure shows up in the bylaw. Everywhere. We just see the speak and change. Yeah. And so Rob, my thought is if we move this to the general bylaw, I've always thought that one of the reasons to do that is then the action of the commission results in a permit where as now, under zoning, it really doesn't, right? I mean, there's nothing that is done after the demolition, right? It's just, it sits until you issue something. But are we, I guess the question is, the way it's actually worded now, there's no, the only thing that's still issued is a demolition, a permit to demolish. But is that different than what's happening now? So... Well, right now, a permit to demolish is what, building permit to demolish is what's issued if the applicant follows through with the process. And if in this new bylaw, it would be the same thing that's issued? It is as long as you are, I mean, you've pulled back the scope quite a bit just during this discussion to be those, that bigger type of activities. So as long as it remains something that would require a building permit, then that would be the same. So under demolition permit, we should take out the word structure and just say for the demolition of a building, period, right? His structure is getting into the walls and cooked in. And buildings that define term. Yeah. And demolition as a defined term for this purpose. Right. Maybe demolition should be capitalized there because it is a defined term. I think so just to make it clear that it has to refer back to... The internal definition. And then, all right. Yeah. And under demolition delay, the 365 capital D delay should say a 365 demolition delay. Let's find the commission, right? The building, yeah. Yeah, take out structure. Building or structure. So structure comes out of there too. We just need to do a find, find and replace. Yeah, I think we'll get a new draft and then... At the end of demolition delay, there's another structure to take out. I think I just did that. Oh, okay. Sorry, I'm working on it at the same time. I just keep finding them. Do we need a definition for street state? Since it's... I think, so yeah, I was saying that for instance, if we took this out of the zoning by-law and put it in the general by-law, you know, maybe, right? I think we so maybe we'd want to define an appeal process or other things that it's not in here, right? We could define it. I mean, we could define it. Aren't we only defining the things that apply specifically to that our process for determining whether or not it can occur or whether it's an exemption because something like streetscape is just a descriptive term in the intent and purpose, right? Jane, or is it coming up somewhere else? No, yeah, I think it's in the intent and purpose, but if we are now, if we're now applying demolition only to buildings, should we take streetscapes and neighborhoods? Well, yeah, I'm not sure what to say about that. Oh, I think we're saying preserving and protecting, yeah. Buildings within streetscapes, known streetscapes and neighborhoods or something like that rather than making them separate elements. Right, right. Because if we make them separate elements, it seems like we have to follow through on the rest of it. Right. By preserving and protecting significant buildings which are part of Amherst streetscapes and neighborhoods. And we can build things which are part of. Yeah, so that they're not separate, something like that. Does that make sense? Yeah, I think that's clear, yeah. We'll just, okay, we'll leave it like that for now. It may come up when, you know, I was surprised when Chris Kelly said that if staff administratively or there's an administrative staff to determine significance and then the commission determines perfectly preserved, but there's no criteria for that. I think that's, to me, I find that to be a little strange. So I would think in this by-law, if we have parameters for a public hearing to determine perfectly preserved, the commission could list things like, you know, the impact to street, the streetscape, you know, the impact to the historical surroundings or the context. And so maybe have a few parameters, which I don't know if they then become defined terms, so we can, you know, circle back if we need to. All right, so here's the commission appointments and powers. I just, you know, I think I just deleted structures or sites, what it used to say. I think this has it, I think the big difference would be these procedures here if we think we can, I just want to- Are we advising the billing commissioner? I thought we were advising the planning commission. No, the building, the building commissioner issues the permit. Okay. So we have no, our stuff doesn't go to the planning commission. Oh, that's interesting. I mean- I mean, design review board does, why don't we? Hard to advise. Well, it says to advise the building commissioner with respect to the issuance of demolition permits. So the commission can still advise the planning board on matters or other things. Do we- Oh, but it's not specifically about the demolition by law. Right. Presentation. So we go on to procedures. As I said, it's 720 and there's a few other things on the agenda, but maybe we spend a little bit of time with this 13.3 and then we can- Yeah, let's do a little canvas for a time check. Sometimes our meetings have gone as long as two hours which would take us to eight o'clock. Is that too late? Sometimes they've gone as long as three and a half hours. We're not doing that tonight. So, Pat, are you willing to go to eight or is that too long? No, no, I'm willing to go to eight. But I agree with Nate that maybe we finish this part of it after this section because then we have to look at other agenda items as well. Yeah, we have the 132 Northampton Road. I just pulled up the agenda, comments on the cell tower. I had received a few, but we could just discuss those. And then there's a few updates. And then there's this demolition application. What about if we did those and then came back and spend as long as we had on this? Oh, yeah, we could do that. Yeah, okay. Robin and Heddy, are you okay for eight o'clock or is that too long? Eight o'clock is good for me. If I'm here to late, I can stay till nine. So we might as well just keep it moving. I have a lot of my chickens out. They're not going to put them. Oh, thank you. Okay, so 132 Northampton Road, content is permanent. Yeah, so there is an existing structure there and the LICDC presented this in November, December. And see, Rob, the idea now is to, they want to demolish the entire structure on the property to put a new building in. And so as a comprehensive permit, they don't have to come to the commission for the demolition permit. It can all be done through the zoning board of appeals. And so the ZBA will probably meet for another month or two on this, but they looked to the commission for a recommendation on whether or not the structure should be demolished or preserved. And so they came to us in November, right? And we basically said, it looks fine, keep going. We probably would approve it. Right. So can we just stay with that or do we need to rehash the whole thing? No, I mean, I think for now though, just because it's actually a formal application to the ZBA, I mean, if there was a motion that the commission, you know, reviewed this or was shown the plans and thought that the demolition was, you know, was permissible or something. I mean, it's just, you know, it could be as simple as that. Does everybody remember that meeting? I do. Yes, I do. If someone will make a motion. Yeah, if there was an emotion, I think the ZBA would, you know, eventually they would ask the commission or they might delay the process because they would want to wait to hear from you. How do you want it to read? You know, I can move that really simply. Yeah, that's fine. I think it could be pretty simple. We approve the comprehensive permit that includes demolition of the existing structure. Our commission, I don't want to say approve the permit that the commission approves the demolition request of the structure or something just specific to the demolition. Jan, are you frozen? I think Jan might be frozen. So I don't know if I can make a motion as chair, but if somebody wants to move that this Amherst Historical Commission approves the demolition request for the structure at 132 more Hampton Road. Right. Yeah, I just modified Jan's motion to say that. So then I'll be glad to second that. Let me say. Jan is left, though, so maybe in a minute she'll rejoin us. Yeah, she probably just lost her connection. But we need to. I can ask if there's any discussion. Technically, there's no quorum. Right. Yes, we can't vote. Can we put that on pause and go to other things on the agenda? We could. Come back to it. Yeah, the cell tower. Yeah, does anyone have comments on the cell tower at that intersection? Route 116 in West Conroy? It's a pretty developed corner in an odd way, my opinion. It's got some residential mixed-use office buildings. It's got a strip mall. And then it has a big farm behind it that I think is actually a company that does landscaping and other work. And so it doesn't seem to be particularly a corner if it's set back that would be intruded upon, my opinion, intruded upon by a cell tower. Yeah, I think Jan had driven by and did say that there is the Taylor Davis property, which is an older farmhouse. And then across the street, there's an older farmhouse. And so my thought would be the cell towers in the middle of the property, they could try to push it north a little bit just to get it away from West Conroy. And so it's just a shift north towards Amherst Office Park. That would be the only if they wanted to have it on the property, that would be a suggestion we could make. As opposed to having it, for instance, when they go to do it, they decide they want to bring it all the way south and have the tower right on West Conroy. Yeah, that would be intrusive. That would be intrusive. But I was going up, we talked about it being pushed further north to a corner of a property the last time. So that's the basis in which I'm making my comments. OK, that's good. Then I'll just make sure that that's transmitted. Robin or Heddy, do you have comments on? I don't really know this particular project very well. I'm not familiar with the building that is there currently. I've just picked up on some of the things that are happening now with it programmatically. But I don't really have anything to add, Jane. No comment to add. OK. I think our message has been formed. Jane hasn't emailed me, and she hasn't. Let me see if I can just email her quickly. And what else did we have? The Civil War tablets, I can just give an update on that. The war is going to be a site visit to Ruckston, which is the building in North Amherst by Puffer's Pond where they're stored. And they're all leaning against the back wall with each crate is stacked on top of each other. And it's really difficult to see them. The backside is what's facing out. And the conservators recommended moving the tablets to a climate-controlled place. And so we have a new director of facilities. And he and Ben have been looking at different town buildings. And so the hope, actually, is that maybe within the next month, by the end of the month, that the tablets may be moved possibly to the bank center, possibly to a school building, but move somewhere where they're in a controlled climate and then they could be more easily viewed. So I think if they're not, we could schedule a site visit to Ruckston, but the push has been in the last two weeks to actually find a new location to store them. And we've let Anika know that. But I think, to me, that would be a really good thing to get them in a better location. Sounds great. Sounds really good. Yeah, I mean, I was joking around that there's parts of this, we have South Amherst campus, which is an older school building. I was like, well, what if we just put them in a classroom and then we can make them visible? But the town may not want to, the idea is we want to move them once and let them be able to stay there for a few years until a project comes along where they can be displayed. So we're trying to figure out what's a good place where they can stay safely. Sounds good. Update on West Cemetery signs? No, the artist was interested, and there's been a few tries to reach the developer, and there hasn't been any correspondence. But I just want to keep it on there. Yeah, yeah. Oh, here, I'm texting Jan. I've emailed her, and I haven't heard. But if her internet's down, then. OK, campus pond, this is, I mean, I thought this was sort of more informational for us. Do we need to respond at all? Yeah, there's been the UMass would like to, I'm not sure they want to make it more historic, but they'd like to clean the pond in a way and clean the edge and possibly dredge. And so because of that, it triggers some permitting. I think the commission has the ability to provide comments if we want it. We don't necessarily have to do it tonight, but I think it is an ongoing project that they're hoping to work through. I still think they're still trying to do it. The materials you sent us, Nate, indicated that they were going to do the dredging and everything, but they were going to leave the pond and replace any plantings and landscaping that was destroyed in the process so that it would look the same as intended when it was developed. Is that a correct understanding? Yeah, I mean, previously they had already done some new plantings around the pond. And I guess what seemed a little different here was at one point they were trying to almost recreate the historic landscape of what the pond looked like in terms of plantings. And it's not clear that that's what they're doing. It seems like if they dredge, they will replace what was there. But when the UMass inventory, their campus, a few years ago now, the pond is an area that was identified as an inventory. And so I guess it's just a question of what's the intent of the replacement? So there are some older trees and landscape there. Are they trying to recreate the historic landscape or just replace what is there currently because there was a plan or an idea to... So I mean, I think that's, to me, that's the question of the project. That's the question that has yet to be answered. Is that what you mean? Yeah, to me, for me, I'm not sure right now. Okay, yeah. So should we come back to that? We could. But in another meeting and... You know, Bennett reached out to the consultant. Just frame a letter that asking them what their intent is. No, I had an idea. Bennett reached out to the consultants. Unless you heard back, I think that's a question we could pose to them in an email before the next meeting. Oh, fine, yeah. Okay. Is it replace what's there or make it more of the historic landscape and then see how they respond, how they answer that? Okay, yeah. Okay, just an email. That's very nice. Not everything has to be so formal. Oh, Jan says she has no phone or internet and she might try calling on cell phone. All right, and then there's the, as we're looking at the agenda, there's 348 North Hampton Road, submitted an application. And the, this is already the owner, I think they own the property, has submitted, has gone through the ZBA to put a mixed use building on the property. And so they may not have known they needed to, I'm surprised they are applying for a demolition permit at this time, but so I was trying to pull, yeah, it's on this, you know, on the corner of Route 9 and University Drive South, there's a brick building, a cape. That's probably a better picture. It's not a very good picture. Oh, I can, hey, Jan, can you, I can't allow to talk. Okay, let me just do that. Jan, is that you? I'm gonna unmute you. Yeah, I got it. I didn't have a personal ID, so I had to find out what the combination of, but I'm on, can you hear me? Yes. Okay, great. The best I can do is my cell phone. Sorry, I have no internet phone. I tried to email you and then realized if you didn't have internet, well. Right, but Jane got me through texting on cell. So this is what I can do for the moment. And I've pulled up all the materials that you're showing, so I should be okay. Great, so we're looking at Northampton Road right now, the 348. Okay. I was saying that they've already gone through the ZBA to put a mixed use building here with the idea of demolishing the building. And so, they're coming in after the fact, asking for a demolition permit. Does the commission want to have a hearing or does, with this acquire a hearing? So there is the main structure and some outbuildings, which I'm not sure there are any pictures of the outbuildings, they're in pretty rough shape. Here's the bottom. Yeah, I don't even see it. Remember, there's a bar and tuck back in there. It's all pretty, it's pretty wet through here. So it's, and it's pretty overgrown. So this isn't, I don't think that building is visible at all from the street. Well, I think it's a pretty undistinguished building. I've always found sitting at that signal that it was rather an eye storm. I mean, maybe that's just the way the property's kept up, but it, yeah, it isn't like some great mid-modern design. Yeah, I think it's been a rental property for a lot of years and it's somehow looks neglected. The house and the surrounding properties have always been neglected to me. Do we need a, is this just a consensus or do we need a motion to hold a hearing or not hold a hearing? I think it probably didn't, to not hold a hearing, right? So then that just allows it to proceed. Well, last time I tried to make a motion, everything crashed and burned, so maybe somebody else should. I saw a move. Thank you, Robin. Is there a second? I second. Second. Thank you, Heddy. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Am I on video here? And a post. That's staying. Okay. We're disposed of that agenda item. So, Jan, we decided to put a pause on the motion you made so that you could come back and vote, because. Oh, okay. Did you get my motion? We, I modified it a bit possible. I said move that commission approve of the demolition request for the building at 132 North Hampton Road. Great. Cause I was in the middle of asking Jane, if that's what it should say. So whatever, that's great. And Pat, you had seconded it. I had seconded it. Yes. Okay, great. All in favor of the motion. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstain. Motion carries. All right. And we, Jan, while you're gone, we just, we mentioned that the cell tower, you know, we'll recommend keeping, trying to move it north on the property, not bringing it south to the road. And that's about all that there was to say about, you know, that. South to Pomeroy? You mean? No, keeping it, trying to move it north, you know, and not move it south. But even if it were, I went by there. I don't know how many people went by there. Even if it were at the very north edge, that property is just the little minimal, right? Not the, the office complex that's north of it, right? Because even if it's at the very north of that property, when you see it, any, any view towards that barn, it's going to be in the way. And that barn is actually in really nice structure. That's the second thing on Pomeroy going west. Did anybody else go look? I go past there all the time. And I had the attitude that, that if they moved it more north and that it wasn't, that it might not obstruct the barn. I don't know how. If you're on top, but if you're on west, right? You can see the barn up for on west between those two properties. Right. But, but I, I guess, I guess it's hard to know exactly what the property edge is if we're suggesting that they, if they put it smack on Pomeroy, I think it would be obstructing the barn. Both, you know, visually, this, this, this streetscape. But if it's, if it's back on the, on the property, it didn't seem to me that it would be that problematic. It's here. I can only see the screen here now. I'm sharing the map, right? Is that, is that visible? Yeah. Yeah. So right, you know, where the mouse is now, you know, right above Valley Transporter is where they're proposing it. The recommendation was to push the tower north up here. You know, if Jan is saying that it still could be visible as someone looks through to, you know, this is the Taylor Davis property with the barn. And here's another older farmhouse, but. Why this property? Is it that this owner is selling the rights to whatever company is putting up the cell tower? Or is the cell tower picking the property? Cause they could go somewhere else then, couldn't they? They could probably go somewhere else. I think, you know, the owner, the owners are probably Lisa getting, you know, Lisa agreement and getting a payment from the cell tower. So. The owners of the property on the corner there. Yes. The mini mall. My thought is they're getting, right? They're entering into some agreement to get a payment every month or year for the cell tower. Right. Yeah. So, you know, if I'm not sure that there's much to do, it may have to go through local permitting, but sometimes cell towers with the FCC and other, you know, other regulations, it's hard to regulate a cell tower. And so the historic piece is one that actually can, because it's, you know, if the state has, you know, the SHPO, the state of historic preservation office, you know, massive store, they can actually weigh in on if there's, if we think there's an impact. So, if we think it could impact the view to the historic homes on West Amaroy. I, you know, if it's moved north, close to that whole complex there, I think there's like a USDA building and other office buildings there. Here's actually the view, you know, here's the north end of the property. Here you can, you know, see the barn in the back. So that would be if the cell tower would be right where this truck is going, if it was to the north, but. That wouldn't obstruct the barn. And the other fact is, and I think it's a really, a barn that's representative, but it also is surrounded all the time by heavy equipment. It's not, it's not a pastoral scene of a barn because of the business that's housed on it. So I just kind of took all this into consideration. Yeah, we're going to take a little road trip. Can we go down West Amaroy? No, we can't go down West Amaroy. There's no Google street view on West Amaroy. No, there isn't. Wow. You could actually see the overview. I mean, here's what you'd see. I mean, here's what Taylor Davis has right. Lined up along the edges all. I just don't, yeah. I think, you know, the real view of the, of the barns that's meaningful on West Amaroy is from West Amaroy. And we'll say that the cell tower is proposed to be 94 feet. So, you know, this is there. It'll be, it'll be pretty tall in the background. Yeah, yeah, that's true. Well, I mean, I don't know what we're supposed to actually do, whether it's just reclandation, but I'm personally against it. I'd rather see it like on that proper, the next property North way further West and North or something away from that. Although I don't know what's, what might be there. That the golf course and the Fort River landscape then might be impacted. I don't know. Yeah, I think the, you know, you know, it might be, right, so here's the Amarist office park if we're going North. I mean, is there, would there be an opportunity if, for instance, to put it right here between the parking lots? You know, I don't know what their requirements are for cell tower location, but, you know, would the owner be willing to have a cell tower here? Is that what you're saying, Jan? So then it's already within these buildings. Well, yeah, just at any other place that's located, we're gonna have to look at what else, then what else it's near and what other viewpoint it affects, you know? Right, well, what if, say, for instance, you know, you're looking up into Amarist office park and between these two parking lots, right back here, is a cell tower, and is that? You mean it's still back at the very northwest corner of this property. Right. Yeah, I mean, I, they're big, they're big structures. I still think it's going to be, right, it's gonna affect the view, you know? If you're coming east on West Pomerai and you're looking at the barn at an angle, you're gonna see that thing sticking up behind it. I don't know. Maybe I'm being too protective of Bards, but that's my role on this commission. No, I mean, I do think, right, I agree, I mean, at 94 feet, it is, I guess I'm saying, it is a tall structure. I don't really know, you know, if the commission's been, that this is not a good location, I'm not sure what, you know, what the process is or what they will do. Heddy, do you have? I'm just looking, I'm looking at the map on my phone and sort of trying to picture that intersection. I mean, isn't it a case of NIMBY, really? Of what? Not in my backyard. Oh. A bit of issue, partly. I mean, it might, it would be good if it wasn't right, visible from that intersection, you know, perhaps, I think, going further north would help. I'd rather see it visible from the intersection if all I could see were commercial buildings, but, you know, putting it anywhere within there, as soon as you go one address west, you've got the barn and you can see the barn glimpses between buildings when you're going up West Street. So, I don't know. It's not a city, you know, we're more rural than we are commercial. Yeah. I have a question for you, Jen. Nate, what is our role with this? Because I'm not proposing or a proponent for a pair. I just have lived in South Amherst for 30 years and I know that there was a tower that a property on West Bay Road was intended to be built and the whole neighborhood did petitions and whatever else and it was going to be visible from Applewood. And they ended up putting it on the Norwatic Sport Club property where it really isn't visible to anybody. And so, Jen is making a good point. It's just very visible here. And so, I hadn't thought about it impacting the barn only because the barn is an interesting structure but that property is always so overrun with heavy equipment that I never passed it thinking that I was ideally in the country. So, you know, I could make a recommendation to say that it's a problematic there. I'm not firm in an opinion one way or the other. Let me just, hang on just a second. I just want to ask Robin if she has some thoughts about this. I just want everybody a chance to weigh in. Thank you. I was just trying to look at it on the computer again from the road. I'm thinking. I'm having the thought, lots of thought. I'm having thoughts that everyone else is having. All of them. I think the commission's role though is just, you know, it's an advisory role to reduce historical connections. So, you know, the commission, if we'd want to send any correspondence, we would just, you know, we could do it through email to the consultants at Mass Historic on this project. Is that who raised the question to us, Nate? Right. The applicant was required to send the local historic commission notice of this project. Because it triggered a, you know, a federal review or review of potential impacts to historic. It's just as, you know, as part of their, I think any cell tower permitting has to submit something to the local preservation, the state historic preservation office. And some of that is then sending it to the local historical commission asking if there's impacts. And so it's, you know, it's a- So we could just reply to their notification by saying that we are not thrilled with their choice of location because there is an impact, a visual impact. I mean, they'll take it or leave it, right? Right, right. It is kind of interesting that right behind that open area, one of the buildings is listed as a USDA rural development institution. A little bit of a sort of ironic. Some irony there. Yeah, sure is. But, Jan, I like your wording. I do, too. We are, we have some concern because we believe that there would be an impact to the neighborhood and the rural nature of local historic barns. Because that's what we're working on. Yeah, something like the rural streetscape of West Amherst. The rural streetscape and the location of historic barns in the vicinity, whatever. Yeah. So, Nate, can you write a letter? Do you want one of us to write a letter for you to send them? No, I can, Ben and I can work on it. It might just be an email. I think that's fine. But, Jane can sign. Yeah, Jane, I will work, oh, Jane, I'll look with you and we can send something. That summarizes the conversation. Okay, so now we're up to public comment. There's no, there's no, there's no, there's no public. You did all the updates while I was off? Yes, yes. Okay, good. So, Civil War tablets, they're looking for a new location, a climate controlled location for those. Okay. Nothing new on West Cemetery signs and for the UMass campus pond, Nate and Ben will find out whether they're, the intention is to sort of refresh for the historic landscape there or to just replace vegetation. Okay, great. All right, then, so it's, well, it's just a few minutes to eight. So, I think probably we won't get back to the, by-law review, but we can send. We don't have any public commenting? No. There's no public comment. Can I bring an unanticipated item? Sure. I talked to Nate about this earlier. There's still, nobody's answering, there's nothing going on with the bids for the Ryder's Walk signs. As Jane, you saw my email, if we don't get these things fabricated, we're not gonna get them installed before freeze again and this is going on, what, five, six years now? I don't know what to do to get this guy, Delaney, to do something to respond, whatever. I tried copying Paul Backelman. Apparently I wasn't supposed to do that. I did and I didn't get a response from anybody. What do we do next? Who do I go to? Yeah, that's very frustrating. I mean, would it be better to go to Dave Zomek than to Paul Backelman? Can I just go and start asking people, who is this guy's direct supervisor? Yeah, I think, Jane, I'm trying to let you mention that. Maybe, I know sometimes some staff don't, they don't like getting emails from border committee members. They prefer to get it from staff. So I can email Dave and Chris and Jane, I'll copy you as chair and just say that we've had numerous inquiries about getting this out to bid. It's been ready for quite a while now and just see if Anthony can, if that'll get Anthony going. Cause you had asked, right? It's not only that he's gotten queries by email and phone from me, you have too, right? Oh yeah, no, yeah. We even had a meeting a week and a half ago. There's like four projects he's working on for me. And one of these, one of them is this one. And he said that it was going to be all set. And I never, I haven't heard back on any of them. So... He told me the bid thing was going out May 15th. Yeah. And it still hasn't happened. I mean, what's the hold up? He's got it. That's what we all written. That's three months ago. Right. Yeah. The documents have been all set for a long time now. So, Nate, if you email Chris and Dave, I'll follow up with just an endorsement of your email. Okay. Great. It's the perfect COVID era outdoor cultural enrichment activity. It is. Perfect. Yeah, put that in the email. We're missing an opportunity. Yeah. I mean, it really, it's specific to our town and it's some of its most interesting people in the past. And I just think it would be a wonderful way to see more people socially distanced, enjoying Amherst. Yeah. It's also an example of the perfect COVID related pretending this is affecting one's job shirking. Okay. Yeah. You know what I mean? Okay. It's like, there's no reason why this had to be held up because everybody had to work from home, but I bet that's going to be one of the excuses, you know. Yeah. It might be. I think the, um, Yeah. Let me send this email. Hopefully we can get that. I thought, I agree. I thought, you know, I was under the impression that bids are going to be due. You know, two months ago and we would have someone making them right now. And so. It's probably been about, you know, eight to 10 phone calls, emails, maybe more, uh, trying to get a status on this. And it's really hard to get. Get one. And so. Um, you know, you know, it's only seeking three quotes too. So it's not even like we have to put this out to a formal bid. It's just, you know, Yeah. Yeah. It should be easy peasy. And then we should be able to immediately have it fabricated because we're totally ready. Right. I even have the new hyperlink ready. It's already up and running. Right. And that's been modified in the artwork. No, I let Seth know. We also found another mistake in the signs. He called West cemetery wildwood cemetery. Oh, okay. Ben and I noticed that last week or actually Ben noticed it. And so we, um, we've been emailing Seth. So I think, uh, But other than that, we're good. I almost hesitate to do another review of the signs, but it was nice to have Ben take a, have a fresh look. Yeah. Ben's doing great. He did really nice editing on this. By law thing. So let's. Okay. Well. On top of it. For a next meeting. I think we have a date. We do. Yeah. What? 26. Yeah. And is that so good? So we still think that's a good one. August 26th is that. It is for me at, you know, at this point. Jane, are you okay with that? Yeah, that's fine. That's in the evening. She probably won't be available. So. We need a quorum. It's a win. Me. Six. Six PM again. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We can do that. I promise I won't be late next time. Do what you can. Sorry. All right. August 26th at six PM and then I'll work with Ben to get the bylaw going and thanks for all the discussion on it. I think, you know, you know, we've go through even a few sections at each meeting, you know, the thought is after a month, we could have two months. We could have a draft that. And then we could, it may have to be shopped around to town council and others as, as a zoning change. So. I think there is. I have to say, after working on this, like three years, this felt like the first really significant and usable. Discussion we've had. I mean, this, this feels like we're really getting a good draft now. You know. No, I, I, yeah, I mean, I think. I think it's having just clear, just simplifying the definitions is really huge. You know, that's, yeah. That's a great step. So I have the bylaw. But I think yet next time, you know, as part of the agenda, we can talk about the process and the exemptions. I think that would even getting those, you know, going through those again would be great. Yeah. Yeah. I think, I think. I think we might actually pick up speed on it. Yeah, I agree. We can get excited. Yeah. Nice to have a completed version. I have to study those flow charts. I do confess. I got a little lost them, but. Yeah, I think, you know, Ben was doing that to help him understand it. And. Yeah, I think there was someone accurate, but. You know, there is a little bit of a circular process. I'm not sure we can get away with that. I don't know if it can be a strictly linear process, but. They all look the same until you look at that inside each box for details. So it took me a while. I had to open it multiple times and set them against each other. Right. I think for next time, you know, my thought would be if we. Get through enough, enough of it. I mean, if we like the two step process, I think we should try to think of ideas. Or parameters for the public hearing. To determine preferably preserved. And so, you know, I, I don't want to have that become. Something where if we're proposing this, you know, town council or others think that commission could just make. Kind of an arbitrary decision, you know, they, you know, say, oh, well, right missionaries don't want to have a new building. So they're just going to delay it. But if we have. You know, even if it's like, even if it's like three to five. Points to help guide the decision. And Chris Kelly said, he'd be happy to work on some. So if we, you know, we could even send him a draft list. Great. That'd be great. Yeah. Is there something in the, is there something in the Massachusetts historical society draft that we could start with from that? No, that's the thing. They don't have any. Okay. There's nothing. Okay. So they have, you know, standards for designation as significant, you know, they have nice, they have things for that, but they don't have anything to determine. That's weird. Yeah. Well, this has been really nice to spend a couple of hours with you all this evening. Oh, Jane. Should we send, should we send Jane something in San Diego? Is that appropriate? So is it personal? And we should just do what we. You know, I just, I hadn't realized how, how, how, how heavily pregnant she was. So when she described why she wouldn't might not be joining us tonight, I thought, Oh my God, you know, this is big. Well, and that trek across the country. I know, you know, Pat. Yeah. But, but I think your sentiment is on, on target heading, but maybe now is not necessarily the time, maybe just private messages and we'll wait and see how things go and hopefully we'll all be excited. Yeah. And when, when she comes back, we could see what she had and then maybe give her something for the new baby or baby. That would be nice. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So thank you everybody. So I make a motion that we adjourn. Thank you. They're second. All in favor. Hi. Thanks everybody. Bye.