 And I think we're all set and I was going to share the legal ad to start. Okay, so while you do that, I will welcome people to the Amherst Historical Commission public hearing and public meeting on in 24th 2020 at 5pm. Based on Governor Baker's executive order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law signed March 12 2020 this hearing and meeting is being held virtually using the zoom platform. My name is Jane Wald and as the chair of the Amherst Historical Commission. I'm calling this meeting to order at whatever it is 504. This meeting is being recorded and minutes are being taken as normal. So I'll, I'll now take a roll call of permission members present so members is a year, your name called just answer affirmatively. Patricia all present. Robin Fordham present. And Mark. Present. Jane Shetler. Jane, you might have done yourself. Present. Hi. You can. Okay. And Jane walled on present. Thank you. Thank you. The opportunity for public comment will be provided during the general public comment period and at other appropriate times through throughout the meeting. But please be aware that the commission will not respond to comments during the general public comment period, which comes later on the agenda. And I'll also provide a referencing link, which can be found through the town calendar listing for this meeting. Please indicate you wish to make a comment by clicking the raised raise hand button when public comment is solicited. If you have joined the zoom meeting using a telephone, please indicate you wish to make a comment by pressing star nine on your phone. And then you can address and put yourself back into mute when finished speaking. Residents are welcome to express their views for up to three minutes and at the discretion of the commission chairs. So, now we'll move into public hearings for three with three requests for demolition permits. And the governor's March 12 2020 order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law and the governor's March 15 order imposing strict limitations on the number of people that may gather in one place. This public hearing of the town of Amherst historical commission is being conducted by a remote participation. A number of members of the public is permitted but the public can listen to the proceedings by clicking the link on the town's web page. In accordance with provisions of mass general laws chapter 40 a and article 13 demolition delay of the Amherst zoning bylaw. This public hearing has been duly advertised and notice thereof has been posted and mailed parties at interest. The mayoral commission is holding these public hearings to provide an opportunity for interested citizens to be heard regarding the following demolition application requests. One from 30 fearing street from Martha Jamison request to demolish a circa 1930 attached one car garage and extended exterior renovations to the house. North Pleasant Street historic renovations request to demolish a circa 1880 post and beam building behind the main house. And 117 Amity Street request from Susan Haas for partial demolition of a circa 1927 attached garage. In these cases open a public hearing. The whole discussion and offer opportunity for public comment and then I'll close the public hearing at which point members of the historical commission will deliberate on the criteria set out in article 13 of the Amherst zoning bylaw. And take a vote on the disposition of the demolition application. And so we'll go through each of the three. And then we'll go through the application requests in that way. So we'll begin with 30 fearing street request from Martha Jamison to demolish circa 1930 attached one car garage and exterior renovations and I could call on the applicant. The other person else knows for the attendees, the, if you'd like to raise your hand, you can hover over your name or maybe then to the right there is a button to raise hand to speak and then as each application is being presented will promote the applicant or representatives to to a panelist so that way then you can speak freely with a commission. And so if a public has any comments you can continue to raise your hand so Martha I'm going to promote you to panelists. I'm going to share the application. Can you hear me. Yep. Oh good. It's always nice when technology works. And I think for the commission, I think them helpful pieces. The, here's the narrative. Let me just go down to the following pages just so people can see the garage. So here's some other pictures, Martha. So usually we, you know, we, as James said, we'd like the applicant just to describe the project. As you can see that if you continue to flip through the garage pages, the garage is not in usable condition. And it is a sort of strange structure. It's a single story with this sort of higher wall on the back and one side but not on the side facing the neighbors and the floor sort of roof slash floor there is tilted. So everything drains toward the neighbors. I can't begin to tell you what they had in mind. It's certainly not a roof terrace, but in any case, because the garage is very small and in pretty bad condition, there's a lot of water damage in the corner you see where it attaches to the house in this picture and the wooden doors have long since ceased to function as they were planned to do. We would like to pull it down and resize the then exposed part of the back of the house with stucco and add substantial number of windows. If you're familiar with this house at all, you know, spectacular tulip tree in the backyard and it would be great to be able to see that tree from inside the house, which is what this would allow. Otherwise, there's really no view into the backyard. So that is what we're trying to accomplish. And does anyone have any questions. So for the commission's benefit, if you can see the PDF in red is the is the garage. I just do that so the, the, the higher walls are where you can see the mouse. You know, this is the driveway, zoom it down a little bit here's the driveway here and then you come in behind the house and the higher walls are here and then to the south and the tool of tree. This is just as here it really is actually a one of probably one of the largest tulip trees in Massachusetts in this prop on this property. And so, you know what's being demolished is not part of the main house but this this garage right here so if we go back to the pictures right Martha is I understand it's just this garage. You're completely correct. And then, you know, one other piece sorry just to, you know, once they take down the garage they're going to, there will be some windows and doors put in but that's, you know, there's no. That's not part of the review because it's, you know, part of the garage where the garage was. Well it's not visible from the street anyway. Correct. Right. So I walked by today you can see the garage doors from the street. Well I mean if they put windows and doors on the back of the house. Yes, right. The addendum says that it's a maple tree. Maybe it was misidentified as a. Okay. Any other information from from you Nate. There's the narrative that was provided and I don't have any more I mean I do think the garage is an odd, it's an odd, whether or not it's contemporary it's an odd style the way they built it. And if it was ever modified to try to have a roof deck on top it's just it's an odd configuration. Yeah, you know I don't have anything else to add then what was put in the narrative there. Oh, there was one little curious thing in the in the narrative about restrictions on the property. I think mostly having to do with addition about buildings or utilities. There's an easement on the far the. If you're looking at it would be to the left for access utilities to Dora Fearing's house that is access from a different street that's the building sort of directly behind to the best of my knowledge that easement is not being used but it is not something that we'd be touching in working on the garage. And I think if you can see the mouse somewhere back here in the back third of the property there's easement over the property but it's not involved with the house. I believe the easement actually runs from Fearing Street straight back on the left border. The line across the middle there was explained to me by someone someone in the assessor's office who I believed said that there was a an application at one time to subdivide the property and that was going to be the line, but the application was never persisted. So the property was not subdivided, but the little shows on the plan at least that's what was explained to me when we were buying. No no you're I might write that might be a former property line and not an easement line. That's my understanding. Okay. Even say the easement doesn't show up on our assessor's information. Yeah, I learned about it from the neighbors. All right, any other questions or comments from commission members. So I think we're probably ready to deliberate on this. So I guess I need to have a motion to close the public hearing. If we close the public hearing and start looking at the standards for designation. I second. All right, thank you all in favor. Hi. Hi. Any opposed. Any abstentions. Okay. So this purpose. Nate, let me ask you. If we're as we look through the designations. As a significant structure is the structure considered to be the house, including the garage or the structure in this case considered to be the garage only. I would say both. There is an attached garage. I will mention that the, this is also in the local historic district so that, you know, the local historic district commission is reviewing this project next week as well. So it's a, you know, the demolition process is separate from local historic district review. So there's two, two reviews happening for this project. And for those. Martha for your benefit and for the others who may be listening in. According to the current bylaw, the historical commission first determines whether a structure should be designated as a significant structure. And then following that finding of whether or not it. It should be designated as a significant structure. Members of the commission then vote on the disposition of the demolition application. In other words, significant structure. It's significance may convince the historic commission to make sure that the demolition delay should be in order. But the commission may also decide that it's significance does not affect the outcome that the demolition permit should proceed. Okay, so in this case, we can determine that a structure be designated as a significant structure if it meets one or more of the following criteria. The first one that we're going to look at most is whether it's listed on the national register of historic places. Is with or is within an area listed on the national register of historic places or is the subject of appending application for listing on the national register. So this is both part of a local historic district and a national registered district. Is it the, is it in the Lincoln? Is it Dan or Jason? I was just going to verify that right now. I thought it was outside of it. Let me. Well, then which local historic district is also looking at it next week. Well, there's one district commission. And so they look at, you know, any. Within any, so this is in the Lincoln, you know, sunset. But it's, you know, that so it's not in a national register district. So the link at the local historic district covering Lincoln sunset is bigger than the national register district. So it'll, it's not in a national register but in a local historic district. Okay, so 13.40 is no. Is no correct. Oh, correct. Yeah, it's not. Not it's not the national register is just the local. Right. Okay, so then we move on to criteria that historical importance architectural importance and geographic importance. And if, if any of the sub heads under each of three, these three designations of the commission votes. Yes, on any of the three sub heads, then it is considered. Then we will have determined that it's a significant structure so we can begin with historical importance. And I think, let's see. I think maybe we should. This is virtual and I can't see everybody on the screen at once probably I will need to just, you know, follow your name and ask you to indicate yes or no for each of these. So, the structure. Do you consider that it has character interest or value as part of the development heritage or cultural characteristics of the town of Amherst Commonwealth for the nation. So I'll go in order and ask Pat for your, for your determination. I think if we're looking at the garage, which is the focus for the demolition request, I would say no. Robin. Can you come back to me I need I'm trying to pull up the criteria here. Okay. The criteria should be on the screen share. Oh, sorry. Okay. So come back to me. Okay. I think we're, we decided we're talking about garage and house together, even though we'll make a determination. I mean, I guess that's the discussion for the commission. I mean, I do think the garage, although it looks somewhat contemporary to the house that is somewhat distinct in its style and it's set back from the road but it is attached. I guess that's, you know, if that's something the commission, I mean, the commission could discuss that before going through the criteria, is it really the house in the garage is one or can we separate out the garage. Well, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't determine for instance that the house as a unit is a significant structure and then make a decision that we allow, for instance, the garage to be demolished because it isn't contributing towards that. So it would be great to have on record if we think something significant that we voted that it is. Right. That's fine. Yeah, I mean, I, my thought is that there is attached and so it's really one structure. Yeah. Are there any, are there any drawings of the house that show the footprint that would include a garage? Does anybody know? I'm kind of very curious about the storybook Tudor Revival Houses in the town and I just wondered, Nate, if you knew how many there were of them. This whole issue seems to be that we're dealing with a house, a site that has been hugely important in the town and the house is significant architecturally and then we've got this garage which we don't even know was built when the house was built and doesn't really kind of, it doesn't really visually or design wise conform to the rest of the house. So I'm really lost as to how I'm supposed to evaluate the criteria here because if you ask me to evaluate the house and the garage together, it will, I will make certain determinations and if I'm just doing the garage then I can say something else but I think we're all, that's the track I was on and I had some of the same questions you have, Heddy, I think the house is significant but the garage doesn't seem like it's original to the design of the house to me. And so the question is, is it, was it, but it, the absence of it wouldn't detract from the importance of the house in my opinion. I don't, I just going in, I struggle with the idea of seeing an attached garage as separate from the overall structure and voting for something to be historic doesn't necessarily impose a delay those are two different things so I would argue for it being one structure because it's attached regardless of the fact that it was added on or it may have been added on. All right, so this is Jane I, I agree with that view that it's attached part of the structure unless we know that it has been built at a different time. And I don't think we know that for this particular garage. Would we view it as a, as a separate structure just because it was built at a different time. Does that mean any addition is considered a separate structure to structure. No, but it's not part of the dwelling, I guess is how I differentiated and, and the architecture just doesn't seem consistent with the house. Yeah, I mean that's not that that's not really the point I'm making I'm just seeing it as one, it's one unit. I mean, it's, it's more of a global question than a question about the specific house that would seem to suggest to me that any house that has an addition on it. The addition counts as a different structure which doesn't seem. It's just if it's part of the dwelling and the garage is not for dwelling the house is for dwelling and I'm, I'm maybe, you know, cutting splitting hairs here. I'm trying to make sense of it for myself. Yeah, yeah. Okay, I mean, I'm still going to hold to the view that it's all together. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter because it's not going to. We're just either going to designate the house is significant, or we're going to. We're not going to but we're still going to make a determination about the garage coming down separately. I agree. Yeah. Okay, so I think we've, this has been a good discussion and I think we're ready to decide whether we consider it as a unit, including house and garage, or separate them out. So, I think this is, I'm not sure that we need a formal vote for this but why don't we see if we have arrived at a consensus about it. So, I have a sense of what Bob in this, Robin's position. I mean, I would say one unit but I'll go other way for the sake of, I agree with one unit. I agree with it being one unit. And I would take the house is having importance and the garage is being incidental to the house. I think to Jan's point though is that the commission can go through the criteria, even if this is considered one structure and then, you know, even if it's considered significant determine that the demolition isn't detrimental. And so that it can be, it can proceed. So, you know, even if the house is even if this whole unit's found to be significant demolition can still be allowed. I think for me that would be a I would recommend that way just so that we're not, you know, it's clear, you know, because it is it is attached. I mean, if this garage or if they were set off from the house and it was clearly distinct. It's easier to make that, you know, have this discussion but because it is attached an attached garage that is at least, you know, it's in the 1956 aerial so it's at least, you know, it's, it's at least 70 pro years old. It's a, you know, it could be it could have been built at the time of the house and then modified it's really hard to say for sure but it is an older piece of piece of the house. Does anyone know if there's a door that goes from the garage into the back of the house. Is it possible to ask Martha Jameson that question. I really think we need to continue voting. I think we've had a chance to ask questions. So let's, let's go back. Let's consider it a single unit and continue with the criteria and Nate, I lost the screen share. Sorry, yeah, let me. Where am I not. Is it. Is that is it available now the criteria. I can see it. There's no reason they can't but I'll just pull up. I have a copy that I'll just pull up. So we were at the point I think that had loaded on separating out the garage maybe we just go through it again. And with historical importance. And I think that has character interest or value as part of the development heritage or cultural characteristics of the town of Amherst Commonwealth or the nation. We'll go back to you. And I'm in a loop here I believe the house I would say absolutely yes if we're considering it as a unit and I think the answer is yes. Robin. Yes. Yes, I think it shows the fact that it's been split the lot was split into pieces as part of the development of the town and the style I think shows some of the heritage and cultural development of the town architecture it'll come become more important later but I think yes. Dang. Yes, I would agree. Yes. And I to vote yes. Is the site of an historic event. We'll just keep going I we're not a mate we are not aware of that and it's nothing of nothing apparent. Then we'll just go through this one quickly. Um, no. Robin. No. Dan. No. Jane. No. Eddie. No. And no for me to is identified with a person or group of persons who had some influence on society. We'll mix this up a little. Start with you Robin. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No for me and Pat. No. Exemplifies a cultural, political, economic, social or historic heritage of the community. So this is the structure itself. We'll begin this time with Jan. I don't think so. I think 41 it expresses more. Then 41 of three. So I'd say no. Okay. Jane. I agree with Jan. Eddie. No. No for me. Pat. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. Okay. Architectural importance. The structure meets the criteria of architectural importance. If it portrays the environment of a group of people in an era of history characterized by a distinctive. Architectural style. Jane. I, I'm going to go with. Yes. Yes. Robin? Neng Nhoish. Dan? No, I don't think so. The architectural style doesn't have anything to do with any particular group of people. Yeah. Jan, do you mean just the garage or do you mean the house as well? The house. It doesn't, we don't tie it to any particular group of people. It's not like, you know, the workers' cottages portray the social, you know, conditions of the workers or some particular anti-bellum mansion looks like a style that those, that level of people lived in. This is just a custom designed home that doesn't fit any particular group of people. It doesn't seem to me. This is Jane. I would say that I would, based on what Jan is saying, I would change my vote to now. You know, and this is Pat. I'm rereading the criteria. And while it's a tutor style that we can identify, it's not characteristic of the history of Amherst. And so in rereading it, I change my vote also. No tutors lived there. Yeah. And so, you know, when you separate out its importance to our history in Amherst, it's a recognized architectural style, but it doesn't exemplify Amherst. So, yes, the answer I'm changing to no. Okay. All right. Lead everyone. Sorry. It's no also. Okay, here's the one that's always a tough one embodies those distinguishing characteristics of an architectural. Let's see, as I'm rotating through. Starting with Hedy. Hedy, it's your turn. I'm going to be, I'm going to say yes. I'm really interested in these storybook tutor revival houses in Amherst. Maybe someone will do their PhD on them. I think they're, I would bet, but I don't know, but I think they're, I think they're symbolic of college towns and this particular kind of aesthetic and a particular reach into the past for authenticity and all that stuff. I mean, I shouldn't say very much, but I think I have to say yes. Okay. I am going to say yes, because I think it's the, the, the characteristics, the architectural detailing of this house is, is very characteristic of a tutor style house. Pat? Yes. For those, those same reasons. Robin? Yes. Dan? I say yes. And one of the reasons is because that period, I think this was a romantic style that people were selecting. And I think honestly, because I grew up in Hollywood and there were a lot of them there, I think it came out of a Hollywood notion of a romantic, perfect domestic home. But I think yes. Okay. And Jane? Yes. Okay. So the next criterion about architectural importance is whether it is the work of an architect, master builder or craftsman whose individual work has influenced the development of the town. And this time, oh, I guess I start. No. And Pat? I would say no. Robin? No. Jane? No. Jane? No. No. And Hedy? No. Okay. Does it contain elements of architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship, which represents a significant innovation? And Pat? No. Robin? No. And? No. Jane? No. Hedy? No. And no for me. All right. Then moving on to geographic importance, it will meet this criteria if the site is part of or related to a square part or other distinctive area. And Robin? I would say no. No. Jane? Well, okay. So didn't we say that it's part of the historic district, though? That's the next one, I think. Okay. Because they're similar, and so I just want to make sure. If that would be considered part of the next part, then I would say no. Hedy? I think maybe is my answer. So, yes, I have to say one of the other things, yeah. Okay, on this, I'm reading this sort of in the context of square part or distinctive area that has some kind of visual or landscape integrity. And so for that reason, I'm going to say no. Pat? And for that reason, I'm also saying no. All right. And then finally, the structure as to its unique location or physical characteristics represents an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, village center or the community as a whole. And I've kind of lost my place. I think maybe, Jan, it's like, I think I start with you this one. Okay. Yes. I think this is where streetscape comes in and it is a familiar feature of the streetscape in that area. Okay. Jane? Yes. Hedy? Yes. Jane, the other Jane. Yes, Pat? Yes. And Robin? Yes. Okay. So the result is that we have found that the structure meets three criteria. The first is character interest, up in historical importance, character interest or value as part of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the town. We found it meets the criterion of architectural importance because it embodies the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type. And it meets the criterion of geographic importance because of its unique location, physical characteristics, familiar, established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, village center or community as a whole. So our finding is that the commission has found the house, including dwelling and garage to be a significant structure. Now, we move on to whether to allow a demolition permit to go forward or to ask for a demolition delay. And for that, I'll take a motion. I move that we allow the back garage to be polished based upon the fact that it doesn't contribute architecturally to the house at all. In fact, I think it would be an improvement and it is not visible from the streets. It would not affect the streetscape and the historic character of the house that we've discussed. Okay. Is there a second? Second. Okay. Thank you, Jan and Pat. And so any further discussion? And I think we're ready to vote. So Pat, we'll begin with you. And this is in the affirmative that the garage can be demolished. Okay. Yes. Okay. Robbins. There we go. Yes. Okay. Dan. Yes. Jane. Yes. Very petty. Yes. And I vote yes also. So thank you all. Thank, I want to particularly thank Martha for bringing the application forward and for talking with us about the house and the garage. And thank you for your patience as we work our way through the requirements of the bylaw. So we wish you the best with your plans. Thank you for both your time and attention and your verdict. Thank you very much. Nate, is there anything that you need to add at this point about, I don't know, details or next steps or? No, I think this will be transmitted to, you know, the building commissioner and staff and then it still has to go through local historic district review. So there's, you know, this decision will be conveyed and then it'll, you know, just wait with the other decision making. Okay. Great. Then so now we can open a public hearing for the application for a demolition permit for 300 North Pleasant Street. The request for the Moly show in 1880s post and beam building behind the main house on this on this lot. Right. Joel, you're being promoted to panelist so you'll be able to speak. How do I speak? Okay. Hi, everybody. Hi, Joel. So thanks for the information about, about this property. Is there anything you'd like to tell the commissioners? Yeah. Yeah, thank you very much. I'm Joel Greenbaum, 87, Lyndon Ridge Road, Amherst. The building in question has been the long time veterinary clinic of Fred Ruter and now is the veterinary clinic of Amherst, the Amherst veterinary clinic. John Rose Seal, who's going to be retiring next month. So in full transparency, full disclosure, they are trying to sell the practice. Which would be my preference. Okay, I'd like to see the veterinary business stay in the center of town. We've lost enough business already. As it is. So that's my, that's a possibility. Okay. I'm just trying to do my due diligence in case the business doesn't sell. So this building, I've been in it multiple times with my builder friend, Mike Danny, who, his, his whole life, he's restored old buildings. And this building is in just really, really poor shape. All the floors are sagging. A lot of the floors have six inches of comfort. They used to wash dogs inside the building. It's in poor, poor condition. Something that I wouldn't feel comfortable investing a lot of money into. So, you know, I'm not going to sit here and say that the building is going to be demolished. If they sell their business, I'm not going to sit here and say that the building is going to be demolished. If they sell their business, I'm hoping that they'll continue to use the space. But if they don't sell the business, I would like a permit to demolish it and I will apply to the ZBA to put something aesthetically very pleasing in its place. So as far as the building goes, I don't know what it was originally. My guess is that it was moved there. Or possibly maybe it was a barn at one point. I don't really know. It's old. It's post and beam. The rooms are really small. They're all at different levels. The second floor is basically unfinished. There's nothing architecturally important about it. So I guess that's really all I can tell you at this point. Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, do you have questions? Do we know anything about what's under the siding or when those windows are put in or anything? It doesn't look like. At all. Like a historic building at this point. Yeah. No, I don't know when that was. When that work was done. No, I'm sorry. And I don't know what's underneath. I didn't peel it away. Given, given your description of it, is it safe to be used by business? Yeah, it's safe to be used. Okay. My point was, you know, my preference when I look at it, old building like this is to try to salvage, you know, the structure, the, you know, the bones of the building, but they're so far gone. I mean, there's extra supports. The floors are sagging. There's no headroom on the second floor. It's the rubble fieldstone foundation. It's just throwing good money after bad. And that's why I'm here today. Thank you. In your application, you say plan is to demolish existing structure and replace with colonial reproduction. And then I can't tell what you're saying with L four bedroom house. What's that mean? Yes. My, my intent would be to have an L coming out, out the back. Of the curve, the front structure. No, an L coming out the back. Of the building that we're talking about. So it'd be shaped like a T. So, but that building wouldn't be there. You'd be building a new structure. Yeah. The building that I would propose. I mean, I would have to go to the ZBA for a special permit, but the building that I would propose would, would be the exact same footprint of what's there now. With a, with a, an L coming out the back. I see. Okay. This is probably more of a, some people, but not to me. So the two pictures marked East and North. Am I looking at proposed construction here? Or am I? That's the building as it stands right now. Okay. If you look at it on Google maps, you can see it really clearly. Yeah. I was just about to pull that up. Just so you want me to share my screen. I'll do that in a second. Yeah, I've, I've been in it. A few years ago, they, they, the needed a variance from the architectural asset access board because of the uneven floors and the steps inside. And so they're looking to get, you know, a waiver from requirements there. And it was, I mean, I don't know, it does feel like an older building, but it is not in good shape. I've been in there with my chickens. And I have to say it doesn't feel at all historical inside. It just feels old. Right. Right. It feels old. Right. So there's, here's the building now. If you can see the screen. It's set back behind. Here's the front. The front building on the law. And here's the. The building we're discussing. No. You're looking at the same thing. You haven't put up to Google. Oh. So yeah. So. Oh yeah. That's so funny. I was just in a meeting and someone forgot to do that. I laughed. There it is. No, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. That's. That's funny. Yeah. I do the same thing. It's so hard to do. Yeah. So here's the here's the building. Here's the front building in here's the building and question. But it. Great. Thank you. And so yet the, you know, this is the south side. Here's the East. Or. Yeah. East. Yeah. So the first two photos in the application, those are the main building. So the first two photos are. Sorry, this is. These two right here. No, that's the ends. That would be. I'm saying the North side. So if we. Yeah, I'd be, you know, this Gable and right here. Yeah. Thanks. All right. Are there any other questions? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Okay. So. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? And then we'll go into our deliberation. I so move. I second. Thank you. All right. So we're. We'll, we'll go through our criteria again. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Any abstentions? Okay. Thank you. We'll close the public hearing. And. Go to our. My career for. Sorry. I'm fiddling with my. I was trying to share the. I think we have. Right. Great. Sure. Great. Here again. Can everyone see that? There? Yeah. Okay. All right. So we'll just begin with. Is it listed on or is it within an area listed on the National Register of historic. Places. Is it the subject of the pending application? It is not. historical importance and by the end of this meeting I think we'll know all of these by heart, but as character interest or value as part of the development heritage of cultural characteristics of the town, Commonwealth, and the nation. And let's see, let's start with Pat. Oh, Pat may have, oh, Pat has gone. I'm going to get away. Sorry about that. That's okay. I'm going to, I'll come back to you in a moment. Pat, we're from the first criterion of character interest or value as far as the development heritage or cultural characteristics of the town. So Robin? No. Dan? No. Jane? No. Teddy? No. No for me and Pat? No. Is it the site, do we know if it's the site of an historic event? Pat? No. Robin? No. Dan? No. Jane? No. Teddy? No. And no for me. Is it identified with a person or group of persons who had some influence on society? Or, oh, that's all. I had it, excuse my window. I did this last time so I know how hard it is. All right, Jan? No. Jane? No. Teddy? No. No for me and Pat? No. And Robin? No. All right, exemplifies cultural, political, economic, social or historic heritage of the community. Jane? No. Teddy? No. No for me, Pat? No. Robin? No. Dan? No, it's current condition, no. All right, architectural importance. Does it portray the environment of a group of people in an era of history characterized by a distinctive architectural style? Teddy? No. No for me, Pat? No. Robin? No. Dan? Not anymore. Jane? No. Does it embody those distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style? And I'll start with no. And Pat? No. Robin? No. Jan? Not anymore. Teddy? No. Is it the work of an architect, master builder or craftsman whose individual work has influenced the development of the channel? And Pat? No. Robin? No. Dan? No. Jane? No. Again. Contains elements of architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship which represents a significant innovation. Pat? No. Robin? No. Dan? No. Teddy? No. No for me. And other, Jane also says no. Oh, I'm sorry, Jane. You keep picking either Jane or Teddy. So, Teddy didn't vote last time. Like I said, no. Okay. Okay. Well, you know, I'm looking at, I'm actually reading names so it should be very hard to miss someone. So, I'm sorry about that. All right. Moving on to geographic importance. Is, is the site part of or related to a square park or other distinctive area? And. You're at Robin. Oh, I would say yes. Dan? No. Jane? No. Teddy? Yes. No. No. No. No. No. Can I ask a question? Sure. Why is it's relationship to Kendrick Square Park? Not. I'm just curious why that's, is it because it's out of sight or I mean, that was my basis for answering. Yes. Yeah. It just says is related to, is part of or related to a distinctive area. I mean, I would agree it doesn't make it, but. I will, the reason I voted no on that Robin is because I think it's part of the historic, isn't also part of the historic district. Because that's what I was thinking is that it, it's part of that like historic district. Yeah. So that's why I said no to that one because I was going to say yes to the next one. I don't know if that makes any sense. Okay. Yeah. I mean, I think it's interesting. I, you know, that's a good question, Robin. I think the. It's my thought would be, for instance, you know, buildings on the, on a town common often face the common and are aligned in a way that it contributes to the space. And I think this building being set back from Kendrick Park, you know, Kendrick Park was. It's only a park now because we've taken all the houses off, but it wasn't as if this was a planned park and he's built, you know, this building in particular was the structure was made to reinforce that. The park. Right. Okay. I mean, I mean, I agree with all that I guess it's maybe the, maybe the definition needs needs work. Yeah. No, it's interesting. I mean, is it related to is just, you know, yeah. And it looks to me like what the owner said makes sense that it was moved there or it was a barn or something. It doesn't look like it was designed to be part of the streetscape. Yeah. Okay. So the final criterion is the structure as to its unique location or physical characteristics, does it represent an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood village center or community as a whole. And we'll start with Jan. I'd say no. Jane. I'm going to go with no. Now that I'm looking at it again. No. This chain says no. Pat. No. Robin. No. Okay. Um, All right. So we have found that. Not significant, right? Right. So, um, That means the demolition permit can go forward without further ado. Thank you. No vote on that because it's found not to be significant so demolition can proceed. Right. All right. Thank you for. Meeting with us. Thank you, Nate. I'll make you an attendee again if you want to sit through the rest of the meeting. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. It's my first zoom. One. How did that happen? Where you been? I've been working, believe it or not. I'm hiding. We've noticed that the last couple. Okay. It's one. It's because that my, What I'm sharing on the screen is more important than, You know, I'm not going to say that. I'm not going to say that. I'm told, I'm told it looks like I, I'm like, been on survivor. I haven't had a haircut in a few months and it's not looking. Yeah. Well, Let's have had your cuts in a few months. We all have to see each other. It's not fair. I want to see. I want to see your screen and I can see the little black box. I don't get to see you. So, I know. All right. We're open. So we come to the public hearing to open the public hearing for 117. I so move. That can. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Extension. Oh. Sorry. I'm asking this question after we've gone through two of these. What if the more useful just to take. I know. Well, during zoom, they, you know, I think one last time what we've done, I think we could do is for each, um, each of the three categories, have a vote, so maybe discuss the criteria, but then vote, for instance, on just architectural importance, and then vote on geographic or historical, as opposed to each, unless there's a certain criterion that really speaks to the structure, but I think maybe doing maybe three roll call votes for each of the criteria for each section. Okay. All right, let me, so what are, can you see the, Alon, you've been made a panelist, do you want me to, I can have you share your screen? Sure. That's interesting, why can't I have you share your screen? Can you see my screen? Yes. Yes. Okay. And then is there anyone else we want, you want me to promote to panelists for this project, or are you? I think Garrison might be on. Yes, yes, let me promote Garrison to the panelists. All right. I think the contractor is on Zinnia as well. Sure, yeah, they're promoted. All right. And I don't know if our clients, the owners are on Don Fisher and Susan Haas. I see a, you know, a six on seven number, but I'm not sure if it's them, but I think we're... If they raise their hand, maybe you can... Sure. Let them in. Okay, so thank you for having us. I'm Alon Tierney, I'm president of Keenreal Architects. I've been working with Don and Susan on their project. They have this sweet little house at 117 Amity Street and the existing garage, which we believe might have been in addition to the original house. Shortly that house was built sometime in the 1920s. Isn't quite big enough to fit their car in and the goal is to replace this garage with one that's very similar in terms of its historic character, but wide enough, three feet wider so they can get their car in there in the winter and have a garage door opener. And right now the floor level on the second floor is about nine inches lower than the second floor. And so raising that floor up would allow them to use that space above the garage and it would allow them to put a garage door opener in it. The upper, can you see my cursor when I'm circling around? Yes. Okay, so here's Amity Street and 117 Amity Street is tucked in behind the main houses on Amity Street. But when you're walking down, you can peek back and in particular, you see this front facade of the house. I think probably the easiest thing for me to do is to walk through the drawings to explain what we're proposing so I'll just quickly go through it. This is the site plan, the driveway from Amity Street comes here and this is the garage. It currently, the house as it exists is over the setback and so we're proposing to extend it three feet. That's what that little red box is. It'll continue that non-conformance. This is the existing garage right here. This is the three feet that we're proposing to add to it. This is the main entrance to the house and there is a connection from the garage onto the house or into the house. This is the second floor. This is currently the master bedroom. These two closets which are above the garage are at the same level. This unfinished storage space is the nine inches lower. They're using for storage right now. That's an attic space. These are some elevations of the existing garage. So the front elevation, we'd be taking away the entire garage. This is what it looks like on the side, the east elevation, the north elevation which faces, there's a large fence along this backside so nobody can actually see that rear elevation. This is just showing the current section through the garage. So this is the garage space. This is the attic space. You can see that there's a little transom window which is in the current attic space right now. And this is the site plan just showing the extension of the garage over here. This is showing the larger garage, still maintaining a connection to the house. We are proposing a pedestrian door on the side as well as a window here and a larger garage door. The second floor, as I said, we would raise this level so that this whole second floor is at the same level and we're calling this a bonus room. It's more like a very small study space potentially. And then these are the elevations of what that would look like. The front elevation currently, the porch has some trim that wraps around it so we would continue that trim around the garage. We'd be replacing or providing garage doors that are very similar to the garage doors that are currently there. It's half glazed with paneling below. We are adding or proposing to add dormers to the front and the back of the garage to allow for more headroom and usability of that space. And then the east elevation, as I said, there's a pedestrian door. We're adding in another window for light and another window up in the gable. Most of the windows on the house are casement windows. So we're replicating that on this addition. These dormers will have awning windows similar to the existing dormers. And then this is just a section showing how the height of the garage is increased which allows for the garage door opener and the new bonus space above the garage. This is a enlarged elevation of what the garage door will look like. These are some details on the windows. They currently have some Pella windows, historic windows that have been installed. And we'd be using the same windows that were actually put in last year. And this is a rendered view of what value garage would look like. And this is the proposed light fixture on either side of the garage doors. And just here's some additional photographs of the existing garage. Some photographs of the interior of the garage. In talking with the contractor about whether we could maintain the structure, it's not in great shape. And it's the framing is undersized and the doors are in very poor condition. And this is just what the space above the garage looks like, the storage area. So that is it. We did submit with our application our historic review. I don't know if you want me to go through that or if you feel familiar with all of that information. And just wanna ask questions. Yeah, we got the historic review just a little bit before the meeting. So commissioners, do you have a chance to look at it or do you wanna take a moment to look through it? I'd like to take a moment, thank you. Ilan, I just wanna be clear. You had demolished the entire garage and then rebuilt. Correct. So just go back up a few drawings here. Yeah, so if you're looking at the front, we would be taking down this whole garage piece on the side here, but the main body of the house would remain as is. And it would essentially the same form is just getting three feet wider and we are adding dormers to the upstairs just to provide a little bit more head height and usability trying to maintain the same dormer character that already exists. Ilan, so on that view we just had of the existing garage. These, those are the little transom windows above the main garage going. Yeah, let me zoom in a little bit. Oops, so this transom here which is currently the floor level is down here. So those windows are above the garage. They don't actually, you can't see them from the garage level. And there wasn't really a way to replicate that when we, once we raise the floor level, you can see this line right here represents where the second floor is. And so trying to maintain that horizontal element, we added the trim, the horizontal band trim to tie it together. You can see it here, in here. And the reason you have an off center dormer with only two windows is because of the way the space is being used for a closet. Correct, yep, there's a closet in this area right here which is existing. Well, actually it's existing and we're going to rebuild it. It is the closets for the master bedroom. Right. But the whole house has a lot of storage and the whole house has some asymmetry going on. And we felt that it still feels balanced when you look at the house as a whole. And you have two windows on a dormer on the far left as well, so. Correct. Okay, so did you all have an opportunity to look through the historic narrative of the property or do you need more, a few more minutes for that? Could we put that up just for a few minutes, please? The historic narrative? Yeah. Sure. Do you want me to briefly walk through it? No, for me, I can skim it. I'm good, thank you. Okay. Are there other questions for the applicant? Has this house been lived in by the same client as the current client? I believe that they've been there for decades. I'm not sure exactly how long, but I know that we talk about some of the work that has been done on the house. Yeah. And my firm, I did not personally work on the renovations to the bedroom and bathroom, which I think was done, where did we say that was done in the late 90s? Oh, no, bathroom and bedroom remodeling was done in 2013. So I'm not sure if they've been there since the 90s. It's a guess. Sorry, Don and Susan have lived there for about 30 years. Okay, thanks. Will the existing garage doors get salvaged in any way? They do not. They're in pretty bad shape. I have a close-up of it. I don't know how well this is going to... The existing garage doors are rotted pretty much completely. Then they're all warped and they're in very bad shape. And part of the issue is that they're currently swinging the true carriage doors that swing open, which in New England is difficult to work with in the winter. And they would really like to be able to have a door that opens and doesn't have to go against snow and ice. Oh, I'm sorry. I wasn't clear. I meant salvaged in terms of offered up for salvage. I mean, would they show up in a historic salvaged place from here, they look really interesting. And I was curious if they would have a second life somewhere else. I'd like Zinnia to talk about that if she thought somebody might be able to reuse them. I'm not sure. They're in pretty bad shape. Okay, the doors are in extremely bad condition. They won't close. They're not anywhere near even. And we might be able to salvage some of the glass if you're able to get it out. But there's no window, would it be something that might go into a architectural salvage place? What was the question? The transom window, the transom window. The transom window might be able to be saved, but the doors themselves are beyond. They're beyond. They're going to fall apart, taking them off the hinges. The rot, I don't know if you can see it. When we were there a couple of months ago, replacing a couple of windows, they asked us to just put a coat of green paint, any old green paint just to make them look prettier from the street. So you can't see the rot, but the rot goes up almost to the level of the glass. Okay, thank you. Okay, Nate, do you have anything to add? No, I think the inventory form was completed for the local historic district. So this is also going to local historic district for review and the house is late 20s and it's hard to say if the house was a barn that was renovated into a house or replaced a barn on the site, but it's been modified over the years to be this kind of bungalow style cottage. So I don't have anything to add. Just the garage pieces, maybe not original, but shortly after it was built, it was added. So it's been there awhile. Okay, and so could you further clarify the district status as part of a local historic district? And as part of the National Register District as well. Prospect Baylord. Yes. National Register District, okay, thank you. All right. I wanna see, are we, I'll say should I show the criteria again? Yeah, I think so, is there a motion to close the public hearing? Can I so move? Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Okay, so we'll return to our criteria. I think you should have to do it without any notes, Jane. Okay. Let's see about that. I get a pass on this one because the first one is whether it's part of a National Register District. So we're automatically at yes. So that, I mean, in a way that makes, it's automatically a significant structure because it meets that criterion. We don't need to do anything else. We don't need to. Does anybody want to discuss any of the other historical architectural geographic importance? I'll pass. Yeah, I pass as well. Okay. Yeah, it doesn't seem necessary. Would you like to hear me recite from memory? Okay. Let's study up and do it next meeting. All right. So is there, shall we have a motion for the disposition of the demolition application? And then that can be seconded and then we can discuss on the vote. Okay. I'll move that we allow demolition without delay on this structure and then we can discuss a second. Thank you. Any discussion? No. My feeling is that it's a sensitive reproduction of the same building, the same portion of the building, but made in a way that allows continued use of the structure. And I think that's an important thing for us to consider sometimes that if we're too narrow in what we allow buildings are no longer viable and therefore they won't be kept or they'll be allowed to deteriorate too far and then have to be demolished. So I see this as a kind of maintenance issue to keep it occupied and functioning within the town. So that's why I think it would be okay to allow it. I agree with Janet on that. Yeah. I agree with the reasoning. I think it would be okay to allow it. I agree with Janet on that. Yeah. I agree with the reasoning. I think that it's an improvement to preserving the original structure. I appreciate all of that. I think for the benefit of maybe attending this meeting remotely mentioned that in our determination of in this evolution relationship being posed or not we are not we do not take into consideration what will come in its place. That's not within our charge. So really based on our determination of significance on the structure itself and whether we think that the demolition or the alteration itself and we go forward. That's a letter of the law, but we never actually really stick to it because we do let the entire proposal get presented. I mean, if that were the case, then we wouldn't. And I think it does influence us, even if we want to say it doesn't. So I agree with you. It's not supposed to. It's not within our purview, but I just have to say in this case, it's influencing me. But the demolition in my opinion, the demolition of the garage wouldn't be deleterious to the main structure. Whether we know what they're going to do with it or not. It's a sensitive reconstruction for sure. But if you were to take a garage that's not useful and just remove it from the house and not destroy the architectural benefits in the history of the house itself. It is another way to look at it from perspective. Okay. So all in favor of the motion to allow. Can we have a roll call vote? No, Jane. Sorry about that. Oh, sure. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. In favor. Yes. Yes. Robin. In favor. Yes. Yes. Yes. In favor. Yes. And I vote in favor. All right. Well, thanks everyone for presenting the project. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. I think there's still some attendees here. And. Let me see if I can pull up the. The agenda so that. Sorry, there was a confusing posting error. Or mix up. So after the hearings are still there is, I know there's perhaps someone here to discuss the civil war tablets. I think I emailed you a letter from a Nica. Yes. And then there's, you know, one, three, two Northampton road. Laura Baker is attending in the discussion of. The civil war tablets. And I'm not sure if. We want to talk about the civil war tablets quickly. If there's anyone, isn't the audience, if you want to raise your hand. You can. If not, I can just speak to it quickly. I've, I've seen someone, but I don't see anyone raising hands now. Do you want to. Yeah, I think, you know, I, um, I, you know, I met with the Nica. I guess this week and we've been emailing a little bit and she, you know, in her letter, she indicated she has a team that she's working with. She has a different citizens and volunteers that are helping. And she, you know, she's trying to come up with a proposal to. Excuse me. Get to have an outdoor display. And, you know, and kind of, you know, identify certain places in town, for instance, like the North, you know, the town, common outside town hall, Kendrick Park, you know, or possibly West cemetery. One thing we're going to be doing in, um, I spoke with Dave Zomek, the assistant town manager in the next few weeks, we might try to have a site visit to Rockston to see the tablets. And before COVID hit, we had reached out to the city council. So, you know, I think she sees it as a collaborative effort. She went to the human rights, human resources commission. There'll probably be other boards and committees in town that'll be involved. And so, you know, I think some of it is just making, you know, just wanting to, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, I think some of it is just making, you know, just wanting to see how the commission views the project. And if, you know, it may be that this becomes a CPA, a product that requests CPA funds or other funding. So it was just, I think it was just, you know, to get a pulse on the commission and to let you know that, you know, she's continuing to move it forward. So I know she's, I think she's pretty dedicated to it. I think it's really intriguing. And I'd love to see them. Um, and what I've read so far, they sound to be very heavy and quite fragile. So that, that's really an intriguing mixture in terms of display and preservation. And I just, and also the whole history of her and this group and who's represented in the tablets themselves. I just think it's very, very interesting. We should, we should pursue it in whatever way is appropriate. Yeah. I mean, I think, you know, for the commission, I think as it moves forward, you know, we've been talking about an outdoor display. So you know, there's questions about how to safely do that and keep the tablets preserved. You know, at one point there was discussion about having them be preserved and the Jones library expansion. I'm not sure that's a possibility anymore, but I think, you know, the commission could also have ideas about where, where is an appropriate place, you know, is it, you know, does this, for instance, is this a part of a new war memorial in general for the town or is it, you know, a civil war tablet display? You know, how are they displayed in sequence or not? So, you know, my, my opinion is that they're meant to be seen together. At some point, some people have asked that they could be separated. And I think that, I think that would be difficult to then have different viewing areas for them. And I agree they are large, you know, they weigh a few hundred pounds each and the bigger ones are about five feet by six and a half feet. And they are, you know, if you carry them like a tabletop, they crack in half. So you'd have to support them some way. So yeah, some communities, I know West Springfield, you know, and a few others I've been into. You know, they have smaller tablets and they're still up in municipal buildings, but in Amherst we have six tablets or five tablets and one's a squirrel is smaller. So, but there's six in total and it's, they take up a lot of space and they're big. So it's not as simple a solution as to just putting them in, on a wall and town hall. They really do need almost own display area. Well, I just, I mean, it's also really interesting that with all of the kind of current and travesty about monuments and what, what is an appropriate monument to anybody or everyone? Or I just feel like how, how timely and culturally relevant it would be to, to find a solution that would be potentially unifying. I'm trying to cast my words very carefully here because of course it's a, it's a memorial to war, but it's also a memorial to the people who died. And it's also about Amherst. And I think that, you know, it's, it means that we should, I'd really like to see them. Nate, are all the names on them? Do you know are the, the people that Bob Bromer was working on in the cemetery, the black regiment, are they on there? They are. So the 54th is listed. And as well as, you know, it's any, any member, any resident who, who served. So yeah, it's quite a, quite a few names. I, I, it is interesting how do you, it's a great way to put it. I think it's, it's a war memorial, but I see it as a, you know, historical. Memorial for the town. And it's, it's almost like, you know, to me it's almost like the mural is in a way that if you read the names on the tablets, there's so many names that are part of the history of Amherst, not just, you know, that they were part of the war. It was just, you know, they're all the names that you, you'd see that are part of the history of the town. So it's a, it's a dual purpose here. And it's soldiers and sailors, isn't it? I seem to remember. Yeah, I think it's, yeah, I think it's every, everyone. So make, could you convey our support for the project and our, our thanks to the commission for keeping us informed and, and we're eager, we're eagerly looking forward to. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Great. No, and if we schedule a site visit, we can reach out to the commission. So if we want to have a time, we can do that. If people are comfortable, we can, you know, they're at Rockston and North Amherst. And if it, you know, someone can take pictures, but the idea would be, we can, you know, I'll reach out to you to define a time with Anika and she may have one or two other people who want to come and we can try to get people to see the tablets. Thank you, Nate. Thanks. That's fine. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Review and discussion of one 32. Comprehensive. I'm it. Laura bakers here. From Valley CDC. Or she's was attending. There. She still is. The Laura, raise your hand if you would like to speak, if not, I can. The, all right. The. You know, so Valley CDC owns one 32 North Hampton road. project and now it is a real project. So NALA CDC has submitted a comprehensive permit for this property to build 28 units of affordable housing. So, you know, studio apartments and their plan involves demolishing the existing building on the property and building a new building. And so as a comprehensive permit, all local permitting is funneled through the zoning board of appeals. So the historical commission wouldn't review this necessarily at a demolition hearing but would provide recommendations or an opinion to the zoning board on the demolition of the building. And so that's why it's on the agenda. So the commission can, you know, could discuss it today if you'd wanna discuss it at your future meeting, you could but that's the role of the ZBA with a comprehensive permit is to get all permitting. So it's looking at demolition permitting, it's looking at like utility permitting, land use and everything. So, you know, this won't come before the commission as a formal demolition hearing. Okay, that's the second red sign line. So like a date by which the historical solution input would be needed. The commission, the ZBA starts the hearing tomorrow night and it's continued until July. I imagine the hearings will continue through July and into August. So, you know, if we wanna have a future discussion at the July meeting, this could be a, you know, one of the first agenda topics to be discussed. I think that might be a good idea so we can kind of refresh ourselves on the site and maybe go back to, I seem to recall there was a presentation or information of the kind of information that we had in my meeting with Melinda. And we made a preliminary kind of support of the project but I remember, I'd have to see it again because I remember part of the house being kept and only portions of it demolished and rebuilt. So, well, I think we have to look back at that. Sure. And then, you know, we'll say they've submitted a product notification form. Alora's raised her hand, I'll promote her to panelists. Laura, you're being promoted to panelists. They valley submitted a product notification form to Mass Historic, or maybe the town did actually because it's getting block grant funding in. Mass Historic found that, you know, the demolition of the house would have no adverse impact on a significant structure. So they didn't find that the demolition of the house would be detrimental. So, hi, I did come before the board in an informal way. At that time, the path of permitting we thought would include a demolition delay process, but we were subsequently advised by the planning staff that we should just roll it all into the comprehensive permit application. When I met with you before the town had submitted requests for determination to Mass Historic and we were waiting on the response. And so, at that time, the commission said they were interested in seeing what Mass Historic had to say, it's not an individually significant structure, it's not in a district, and Mass Historic came back with that finding of no adverse impact. There was an earlier version of plans at this location that did include reusing the house and putting a large addition on it. But by the time I went to meet with you folks, we had decided it would be preferable from a programmatic standpoint and a site design standpoint to demolish the house and build a new structure. So that is the plan that's before the zoning board of appeals. And it's on the town's website as well, that set of plans. Thank you, Laura. Well, with the Mass Historic determination, would there be any reason for us to need to discuss this at a future meeting? Well, we're not being asked to determine whether or not we're permitting demolition. So it's really whether we still support the project like we did in November, right? Yeah, I think it's a little both. I think the ZVA may ask has what boards and committees at the town have reviewed this? So whether it's the Historical Commission or the Housing Trust or the Planning Board, and then they'll say what was the opinion of those boards? And so if the Historical Commission, they might look at it from both, does the Commission support the product in general, which means say affordable housing or does the Commission support the demolition of the house? And so I guess you can address both of those or something in general. But I think the ZVA would be looking for something from the commission, from the Historical Commission. There are neighbors who would say that this is a historically significant building. And so if the commission concurred with that, I think the ZVA would be interested in knowing that. If the commission did not concur with that, then I think they'd be interested in knowing that. There is a neighbor who reiterates that this is a historic district, for example, that this house is in a historic district. So some of it's just clarifying what is the nature of this property and its location from a historic perspective. That's very honest of you, Laura. You could just say, oh no, everybody agrees and have us go right along with it. That's very nice of you to be so open. It's better to address it in a definitive way. I hear what you're saying, Laura. And so I think the commission needs to decide what that means for us. Well, how about if we review the materials that are online and meet again in July to make a determination? I think that's the best thing to do and not try to do it tonight. Yeah, I agree with that. I think we need to give it more consideration. And I'm not sure whether it has to go through your typical protocol or if it's more of a kind of tone and sense of the commission about is this an important historic building or is it not an important historic building? I'll leave that to your best children. We have to go through the criteria because those are specific to a hearing for demolition, but we should probably make a memo stating how we feel. Yeah, I think that would be really helpful. So it'll be on the agenda in July then for the commission. Yes, it'll be on the agenda for our next meeting. Sure, I can resend some information. So it was originally part of the neighboring property and then it was a barn that was then in maybe the late 1940s converted to a single family, to a residence and it's been used as one such and now it's a separate property. But I can send that out and I think most of that is online but I can make sure that you get it. Or just send us the links so we don't have to go looking for it. That would be nice. Right, right. It's kind of TMI online. So, and what may not be online are photos of the existing structure. So, you can share those maybe Nate with the commission or I could. Okay, thank you. Yeah, I may ask you if I don't have some good pictures. I think I do in a previous report. I'll have to just find one. Let me know what you need. Okay. All right, thank you, Laura. Thank you. Thanks, Laura. Okay, updating the demolition delay bylaw. Okay, so the first thing I want to speak to is I followed up with Chris Kelly at the Mass Historical Commission because we wanted to get a workshop, a demo delay workshop going to help guide our revision. And he is up for a remote workshop. Over the course of our conversation, we decided that since he hasn't yet done a remote workshop, he would just do it as a presentation to the Historical Commission and not invite other communities, so as to not confuse things too much. But because our demolition delay is under review, that means it has to be a public meeting. So just be a workshop, that's a public meeting, it's open to the public, but he won't be sending out invites to any other communities. It would just be for us. He said it's about a 90-minute presentation with the opportunity for us to ask questions as we go along, particular to our circumstances. And I told him I would get back to him because he doesn't have to do any invitations. Doesn't have to be a lot of lead time. Said I would get back to him with dates and times that we were available. So I don't know if I should maybe send out a doodle poll around that or if people have suggestions or how we want to manage. So, Robin, it's Jane. I wonder if it would be helpful. I think we can have a draft of our completed revisions out to people like within the next week or so. And I don't know if that would be helpful to have before we do his workshop or not. I think that's fine. Yeah, so I think also Rob Moore, the building commissioner, I think the other year working with staff developed another demolition delay by-law. So I think it was presented over a year ago but then it wasn't, you know, I don't think it would progress at all. I was gonna send Rob's version out to the commission as well just so you could see what he had done. And I think, yeah, so my thought would be with Chris Skelly that's interesting, Rob, when I saw your email, I was thinking that he would want me to manage the Zoom and that we could invite other communities if we wanted because it's a public meeting but Chris wouldn't be inviting them. But it sounds like it really is just Chris would be giving a 90 minute presentation on the demolition by-law. So, you know, my thought would be it doesn't have to supplant a normal meeting of the commission, it's a fairly long presentation and if there's questions, that's a two hour discussion on just the by-law. So if that's the commission, I think, you know, so maybe in July then we'd have a normal meeting and then also this meeting with Chris Skelly and we'd have to maybe it could be during the day or I don't know if Chris would be open to meeting meeting in the evening or not or- I think he's done both. Yeah, I think it should be in addition to a regular meeting. Robin, are you going to flesh out some dates with him? The children- I was going to bring dates to him. So the question, yeah. Okay. And I agree it shouldn't be our regular meeting because it's just too- Right. It should have its own focus. I guess I just want to say that Tuesdays are never a good day for me. Aside from that, you know, that they're all over the lot depending upon what group and part of this meeting. So. We just, Robin, maybe send out a doodle poll then. Do you think that would be the best three or four time slots just to see? Yeah, so within a couple of, I'm just thinking of my calendar here. I think if Thursdays have been good for us for meeting days, maybe we could look at Thursdays. How do people feel about the week, the week of the sixth is just a week and a half away and the week of the 13th? How soon do we need to meet on 132 Northampton Road in order to get in under their deadline? I think for the ZBA will meet, I think into August with this, with the project. So I mean, I'd like to have it by the end of July. So let's not have this seminar and our meeting in the same week is kind of where we're coming from here. So when is our next meeting then? We're kind of off schedule a little bit, I think. We are, so I guess that's, yeah, I mean, I guess that's when the commissioner would like to meet next. Yeah, I don't think we have one still. No. We do. So we've been meeting on Wednesdays and was it the third Wednesday? I can't remember anymore because it's, I think it is the third Wednesday or has been, which would be the last week. We had to adjust last month when we scheduled it. I forget what the problem was, but we could go back to the third Wednesday, but then let's have the seminar either the week before or the week after. Yeah. The third Wednesday would be July 15th, who do you want to meet then and then the following week or two would be a meeting with Chris Kelly. So the last two weeks in July. The week of the 22nd, I'm gone. And actually July 15th is already booked for me just because of all this out of sequence business. So would the 22nd be preferable for the meeting then? I think it would be. For our historical commission meeting, and we'll be doing it on Zoom. I may not be home, but I can join Zoom from anywhere so that works. Okay, on the 22nd. Right. That works for me too. And then I could do a doodle poll for the week of the 13th to kind of see. Or the six. Or the six, okay. And if you could include Thursdays as well as Wednesdays, I can't take too many Wednesdays out of my month. Okay, so, well, I'm sorry, Jane, what was that? If you wouldn't mind including Thursday in there to see if that's a possibility. Oh, I was going to do all the days. I just want to, yeah, see what, I'll do like one. Is there a general consensus around meeting? I mean, I was going to do an evening, like five. I can't make Thursday nights from. But I'm just thinking of in general, like a good time in the evening is five. Do people have a good time in the day? Or is that a struggle for anyone? Like with like a one o'clock. So I would do, you know, a Monday on one and a Monday at six for the doodle poll to kind of, or five to see if you have things to go. Yeah, I think the hand is okay. Yeah, I'm flexible, I just know ahead. Okay, so I'll send that out tonight. Thank you, Reverend. Sure. There is another little bit to talk about concerning demolition delay bylaw. And that is that one of our town counselors has concerns about the bylaw and how it is being applied by the Historical Commission. So Nate and I and Chris Brestrup who's sort of planning department and talked about this and we're planning a meeting with the town manager and the town counselor who has these concerns and. Which is it? Which counselor is it? Or is that? It's that, right? It's Mandy Gerald-Hannacky. Okay. And it's based upon all of our recent determinations or just the way that we discuss? It is apparently some general concern about. It's a little bit, I don't know. It's not necessarily terribly specific concern, but. It's partly has to do with how the bylaw is written and partly about how the bylaw is voting. And about what we're interested in. So you can look at the council meeting of June 15th to see those comments. But she knows we're revising, right? Because we have concerns too. Yeah, I think maybe you've had it. So I think, you know, if the June 15th council meeting, it's four and a half hours and it's that, you know, it's like at the four hour and 40 minute mark. So you don't have to sit through all four and a half hours preceding the discussion of, it's an appointment. So it's like the last 10 minutes. But, you know, I think Mandy Joe had, I think she attended the 205 South Buzzens Street discussion and she had read some previous minutes, I think for some of them and, you know, she's an attorney. I think she finds that the bylaw, some of the criteria, the criteria in general are somewhat vague and broad and that there's not a good administrative mechanism for what needs to be reviewed through a demolition hearing. So that, you know, there's not really a good, some good thresholds. And so, I mean, I think some of those concerns are one of the commission brings up. At the same time, I think, you know, Massachusetts, you know, the nature of legislation for the commission and the statutes are, you know, they're not narrow in their guidelines because it's so, you know, demolition is very hard to be so narrow and prescriptive. So, you know, I think when we have this workshop with Chris Skelly, Robin, I think it'd be great to ask him what he thinks is a good example or examples of current bylaws. So, you know, Amherst was written now, you know, almost 20 years ago and, you know, since then. Nick, do you have the, I just sent it to Jane and then I consented to you. There's a draft guide with a demolition delay template, a PDF that I think I got in paper form, I think when I was working with Ted and that was something that he mentioned on the phone. He encourages communities to work from the template. Okay. So, I'll forward that to you as well. Great. Yeah, I think, yeah, so I think, you know, the counselors, for instance, you know, the one of the criterion is, is it a common visual feature, right? And so, for instance, like at the discussions tonight, it's like, well, if it's been, you know, if any building is visible from the street, it's a common visual feature. And so, you know, for instance, my thought is could that, if something like that is important, you know, could the criterion actually say, like, you know, to its, you know, is it's visible location? Does it support or reinforce the historic context or surrounding? So you refine the criteria a little bit, not just is it a visual, common visual feature? So, you know, is there more to it than just, you know, something that could be applied to any building? So I don't, you know, I think, you know, taken out of context, I think some of the way the bylaws are written seems like it'd be hard to apply. I think in practice, the commission applies it pretty well. So I don't, I mean, I'm not... She saw the discussion when we were talking about, is that the house that was being, they were hoping to move that's being demolished for the Humanities Center for Amherst House? Yeah. Yeah, that was tough. But I actually thought that was a good discussion. I thought the commission for that, for instance, on that one on South Fuzzen discussed that it's not just the high-style architecture that's important. So even what would be a modest structure that represents a certain economic level or income level and then borrows from styles that, you know, that's that type of structure is still worth saving. So, you know, I think some people may think that a demolition bylaw is really meant to preserve just the, you know, the landmarks in a community. And, you know, and if you're too narrow in your definitions and your scope, then for instance, you might not be able to review partial demolitions or the removal of a fence or certain things. And so I think it's very difficult to write a bylaw that is so specific and so clear that, you know, you could just say it's really easy to apply. I think some of the criteria is always gonna be a little bit vague because it's hard to, you know, envision every possibility of application. So I don't, I mean, that's why I think having the meeting with Chris would be good. And then hopefully we can meet with the counselor and staff before that as well, just to understand more of the concerns. Yeah, I also was probably a, maybe not a complete understanding of how the commission evaluates using the general criteria, but then how we apply that with a sense of things that are not actually written in the bylaw. So for example, there's a concern that the bylaw, strictly speaking, doesn't indicate a threshold for the age of a structure being reviewed. So the counselor thought that, said she realized that any structure, no matter how old or young, for example, if there's a building that's just five years old, but it's a prominent feature sitting on a highway, you know, that that could be, you know, we could apply a demolition delay on that, even though in practice what happens is we get demolition permit applications from the building commissioner who sends us applications on structures that are more than 50 years old. So, you know, like the 50 year old trigger is not written into the bylaw, but that is the, that's a standard rule of thumb for these bylaws all across the state. And in practice, that's what we do. It's written in our bylaw, isn't it? Cause we even talked about changing it to 75. I don't think it is actually in the bylaw. It's, if it's not in the bylaw, then I think it's on the application for demolition, because I know it's written somewhere. It may be in our procedures, or it, We're trying to merge the procedures in the bylaw, weren't we? Yeah. Yeah, right. So the rules and regs were updated, but really it should be, you know, clear in the bylaw. I was trying to look, I don't think it was either. Okay. I'm mixing up rules and regs. And I would also say, you know, I think there's another concern about, concern about economic development and a sense that, you know, commissioners may be giving undue weight to what will come after the demolition of a structure. And that is, you know, that's not in the bylaw. I mean, that's not a criterion for us to make a judge, by which we make a judgment. Yeah. So just, Hilda has her hand raised, Jane. Okay. All right, allow her to speak. So Hilda, you can unmute yourself. And I was just gonna say what Jane just said, because I was very upset when I heard about that meeting, because there's a trend in this town that design review board and historical commission need to be eliminated because they impede economic development. And my whole feeling, and a lot of us who have been discussing it is that these two committees are the most important because they protect the town from the kind of development that we don't want. And so basically, somewhere in the bylaw, the number 1964 appears, and I think that it's with regard to the turning chicken coop, so garages into housing. I think that's where that number appears. The building, I don't think it's been really useful as it's meant to be, as we voted for it in town meeting, but I think in order to convert a garage to housing and house to have been built before 1964, that's where that 50 year may come in rather than with the demolition delay. But I didn't wanna say that you guys gotta keep your eyes open and I was glad to see that Hedy announced at the beginning of the meeting that she was reappointed because I think that's what the discussion was about from what I was told. I did not stay up for that meeting to hear it myself, but a lot of people are talking about it and we've gotta keep you guys because you're very necessary to maintain the unrest that I remember before we got ruined by the unrest savings bank. Anyway, that's what I wanted to say. And it is about the economic development. I don't think we're gonna get any economic development other than student housing downtown, but that's a different issue. So you heard me. Keep your eyes and he is open. Hey, thank you, Helden. Thank you so much. Oh, I was just pulled up the 50 years it is and it's in the building permit application review. So in the procedure for obtaining a demolition permit it says that the building permits structures over 50 years and age shall be reviewed by the building commissioner. So it's technically in the bylaws part of the process. It is, it's not very well written in the bylaw. So I think, you know, and there's some inconsistencies in the bylaw too, and it's referenced to 40A and then it lays out its own procedure. So I've always thought that with this bylaw there's an administrative front end that needs to be updated. So the purpose, the procedures, you know, the, how does an application get to the commission? Can staff have any administrative authority? And then there's the actual review criteria that could be refined. And so, you know, I know communities do it differently but I think I'll look for your email robbings. I do think that, you know, even if we took the bylaw as it is and tried updating it, there's a, so I mean, so I guess what I was gonna say is, I don't know if it's better just to start new because if you start trying to, you know, just change what we have, we're gonna get stuck with some of the same, same structure of the bylaw. And I'm not sure we necessarily need that. So if there's another template, my thought is, you know, an easy way to, if we wanted to amend this would be to strike out everything. So, you know, for instance, like the procedure at town, with town council would be to replace section 13 with this section 13 and not try to show what we crossed out and what we've eliminated in our track changes, but really just to present a whole new version of the bylaw to me would be cleaner and easier. Well, I think, I mean, I think a lot of these questions and keep putting the question of design review because I remember going over that in class, it'll be a really productive discussion with Chris. I think that's, you know, that will bring a lot of clarity. Yeah, and he really, he, when we were talking, he cautioned against the habit of towns copying from other towns that that's not a good way to go. And that's why that they have this guide, which isn't, you know, it's not an official publication. So it's not available on the site. So. Right, okay. I looked the other day and I didn't see anything. Yeah, I saw it. Right. I couldn't find it either. And I was like, where did I see that? And I found it in my papers and, Yeah. Yeah. Right. It's been in draft form since I think 2006. And then, I think that's a really good idea because we did try it the other way and we really got bogged down and we found we still had errors even when we kept checking and kept checking. So I think starting from scratch is smart. Yeah. Template, obviously. And Hedy, you have your hand raised. Do you want to speak or is it just? Yes. I just want to say that I need to leave the meeting and nice to be with you all and I'll see some of you soon. Okay. See you, Hedy. Yeah. Thank you, Hedy. Bye, Hedy. Thank you. Yeah, bye. Yeah, I only have a few more minutes too. Okay. So just before we leave, July 22nd is the next meeting. Robin, you'll sit around a doodle poll so we can have a workshop with Chris Skelly. And I will not be there. I will likely not be there for the July 22nd meeting. So we have all semestery signs and UMass campus fond or those items about which we need some action. No, I emailed Kyle from Archipelago and David Fichter and David said he doesn't have much of an update on that. So he said he'd like to just, I think I'll, you know, Ben, I was having Ben help out with that. So I think I can try to get Ben in touch with Kyle again, just to try to get Kyle back with the commission. I'm not, I don't think anyone, unless the commission, I think is putting, gonna put pressure on it or move it forward. I don't think it will move forward very fast. So no updates there. Okay. Yeah, I'm just waiting for a direction. Yeah, I was hoping Kyle would write back, but. Okay. And then the pond. You know, I haven't heard anything. I, you know, Hedy said in an email to me that she was interested in it. And she, you know, I think I shared some old photographs that were found online and I haven't heard anything. So, you know, Preserve You Mass had asked Mass Historic to do a kind of a thorough review of the information in the pond, but I haven't received any communication about that. Nate, actually, while I was digging through your office today on your chair, you had a package from SWCA and it said like something about the campus pond. I think it came in recently. So I didn't open it, but it looks like there's something, some sort of correspondence about that. Oh, feel free to open anything. Okay. You can probably just follow up on my office. That's interesting. Yeah, so there, you know, I know that they want to, I know, you know, you Mass would like to, I don't want to say dredge it, but then and then do some of the shoreline work. So I'm not sure what, you know, what that work involves, but. Well, maybe you can update us next meeting. Yeah. I don't know that SWCA has done that. All right. So have we done public comment, Jane, because? No, we haven't. Okay. Oh, are they, this would, this is the time for public comment. You have to do that. For public comment. For public comment. Just to sort of clear, the next meeting, do people, there's a commission like four or five, or what time do we like? I mean, it's been moving around. It's been six or seven. It's been earlier. Do we have a preferred time to meet on the 22nd? I would say late afternoon is, it makes sense if everybody's available then. I won't be there, but just in general, as we move into the rest of the year, I'm back at work. So five o'clock I can do, five o'clock I can do, but before that, I'm working. So five o'clock. But for the 22nd, you don't need to back to me. Well, I'm working. So five o'clock suits me pretty well. Okay, so it'll be five PM then. And remember to change it on the agenda. That was just a holdover from the previous agenda. I know. No, I know, I know, I'm sorry about that. Oh, I did announce that this was a period for public comment. So if there are, if there is any member of the public, I see some, is it in your hand? Is it Dr. Shabazz? You're allowed to speak. You may have to unmute yourself. I did, can you hear me? Ah, yes. Yes. Okay, so I was asked to speak regarding the communication we mailed about the Civil War tablets and our interest in trying to get those displayed and the sense of our letter is that we thought it necessary to let folks in the town know and let the historical commission particularly know that what we're planning to do so that if others who might have, might approach you all with ideas or questions that you might put us in touch so that we're all working together and not at cross purposes. Absolutely. Are you able to receive the letter? Yes, we did. Yes. Very good. And look at earlier in the meeting and just want you to know that the historical commission is very supportive of the project and admires what you're doing to find a home for the Civil War tablets. And we'd be delighted to work with you in any way we can. Thank you very much. My phone, I was in the meeting from the top but my phone had battery had died and by the time I was able to get back on this device which required me to update Zoom and everything else. I think you all had moved down your general updates but at any rate, I think that's basically the sense of it that a committee of us are trying to move on finding a way to display these. And if others are interested and they come to the historical commission please feel free to share our email or ask them to liaise with us because we are more working more hands working together the quicker it'll get done, I think. Great. I also mentioned that Anika and I spoke with the assistant town manager and we're trying to get a site visit to see the tablet. So next few weeks, so that'll be, try to be coordinated and your group is, you're all welcome to attend. I think some of it is just to see the current condition of the tablets and then just to determine, I think once you see them too can help maybe with ideas for how they can be displayed. Sounds good. Yeah. Very good. Thank you. I'll call and I'll let you all close out your meeting. Thanks. Thank you. Bye-bye. Thank you. Okay. Are there any more public comments? So with no hands raised, we'll just close that part of the agenda. I don't know of any unanticipated items. Yeah. Well, I want an update on the writer's walk signs. I think the meeting's over, Jan. No, it's not, Nick, we haven't, I'm usually the one who moves to adjourn and I have not done that. I'm pretty sure. Well, I'll write to Anthony. Maybe you could write to Anthony too. There's a lot of projects that I need to update it on. So my understanding is that this, we should have someone under contract, but I'm not sure we do. Because it was approved and he was going to issue the contract and he just hasn't. Is that where we were waiting? Yeah, I think you said that there was a mistake in the procurement, so he needed to re-procure, to redo the request for quotes, but that's the documents are already, so it's just a matter of doing, just re-soliciting the documents again. What's his last name? Delaney, V-E-L-A-N-E-Y. Yeah, I mean, I've emailed, I've discussed this with him, he knows it's something that needs to happen. So I was under the impression that last week or a week and a half ago, he was going to send those out again, but I'm not sure that they have been. So can I call him or is he not working in Mctown Hall right now? He is, he's working. Okay, so I call the general planning department number or what number? No, he's in the accounting department. Accounting, okay. I'll just call him directly, it's better than email, he can't ignore me even. Don't warn him ahead. I won't, no, I won't. You can, you can, you know. It's okay if I say I represent the Historical Commission, Jane, is that all right? Yeah. Yeah, no, I think, yeah, I would like, that's, yeah, I mean, he knows I've, like I said, I have like half a dozen projects with him that need to move forward. So it would be great to have someone else. You know, I might email it. Yeah, well, let me just tell him, this is my third term starting and we still haven't gotten these bloody things up and it can't be that hard to send out a couple of contracts. I mean, I'll say it nicely, kind of. All right. I mean, this is ridiculous at this point, right? It is. Okay. And because it's all, you know, it's essentially done. I mean, we've, you know, we worked on the design, the locations, it's really just a matter of getting someone to make them and. We have the website address. Have you given it to the graphic designer to change on the mock-up? I'd have to look. There's been some emails back and forth. I'm not sure it's ever been finalized. Okay, should I call him too? No, we have a meeting with Seth to discuss a few projects, I forget when, but so I can move them in. Okay, make a note, mate. I'm writing it right now. I just, as you said that. In a red pen? Highlighter? Okay. It's got yellow paper. It's. Okay. I'll follow up with you. All right. Yeah, so I think after that, I mean, some of it is at least for the bids or the bid documents are all set. It's just when we go to fabricate, we want to make sure everything is finalized. Right. Okay, thank you. You all got an email from Ben this morning about a site visit to the country. Yeah, I can't do it. Yeah, it's going to mention that. So interesting they're pieces of the fence still on the site. Yeah, they're in storage. I received a picture of them and they agreed to allow us to do a site visit just to see the fence pieces that are remaining. And then while I was on the phone with him, he mentioned the house itself needs some work as well. And he wouldn't appreciate it if we could just like, show some of the deteriorating conditions of the house. Well, that's asking for demolition. It doesn't apply to us. They came to the Historical Commission sometime within the last three to five years for their concerns about the condition of the house that we might be considered to be maintenance issues. I mean, they were looking for CPAC fence. That's what they came for. Okay. Well, I think it's been... Do you think any of the fence is left? Approximately? It looked like a few of the big hosts were remaining and then some of the panels, like... Not very much. Not very much. It almost looked like they disassembled it. So it doesn't look like they took it apart in panels or in sections. It almost looks like they mechanically or they maybe cut it out and then kept pieces. Jane, I was gonna laugh because I spoke with them years ago to someone from the condo association and they wanted to fix the roof a little bit and it didn't quite qualify for CPA but at the time the fence had been hit by a car and I said, well, you could fix the fence. And the condominium association was somewhat interested until there was a mention of a preservation restriction on the property. So, you know, my thought is the house has probably not been maintained. The mansard roof, I know they'd had trouble with and they wanted to remove the roof material and do something different. And, you know, so I'm not, you know, you know, there's probably a number of issues with the property, but I think the fence, hopefully if they were amenable, it'd be great. You know, this could be a CPA project to restore it or replicate it. I'm not sure what to do with the house but at least we have a site visit and we can see what's left with the fence. I had a house once in Illinois in the 80s that had a very, very similar fence. It was an antique one that had been purchased and put there. And it had been set up with brick spacers between like brick piers that had been built in order to hold the pieces. But whatever, we had some sections that were in, they had rusted all the way through. And so we actually had it reconstructed the sections by just taking these pieces and having a mold made. And then they pour, they literally poured them. So I think it wouldn't be that hard to have it reconstructed, rebuilt. I agree. And I think if, you know, some of it is too, depending on if we had a good picture of the pieces, there are a few foundries that when smaller foundries closed, you know, there's a few down south that took a lot of the templates and a lot of the old catalogs. And so, you know, when we did the Dickinson family fence in the West Cemetery, I was able to find some information that it, you know, I think it came out of Pittsfield. There was a fabricator out of Pittsfield. And so the catalog was actually a catalog, it was ordered out of catalog back then. And it's such a nice fence. But back then it was from, you know, there's a foundry that did that. And so with it, Mark Conkey house, I don't know if we could, if we had enough information, it's like, if we did some digging or had a few conservators look at it, if they would be able to identify where they think we could, if there's a mold even existing with it. But I agree, it looks like there's enough material at least to get some of it molded. It looks like there's a railing, a post and like a baluster. So you could almost take it from there. Great, almost like it paved it on purpose for that. Right. Are we, so is the exploration to consider a project for CPA funds? I mean, if you found a fabricator, would that be the direction? I'm just asking because that wouldn't qualify if you're recreating it, you can't. Well, we'd have to get an opinion from town council on that and see. That's a town attorney. Yeah, correct. I think that actually does squarely fall under create. That really would be the perfect example of. Or is it present? If it had some pieces, it would be create. Or is it rehabilitation? Yeah, it's not rehabilitation if you're creating something new, but we can have that discussion another time. I do. Out of a mold of the existing fence, I think there's examples of that being done. Especially if you use those pieces in it and attach them to the new, right? You're just restoring. Well, like I said, we can have a discussion another day. Anyway, I mean, I'm not sure if the owners would be willing for whatever reason. Ben's been speaking with the property manager, but the owners have not been in communication. So I don't know if they're reluctant or they're just not, you know, have been moved in, but. Okay, I moved to adjourn the meeting. I second. I'll leave my favor. Hi. Hi. Hi. Lovely seeing you all. Nice to see you. Hey, well. Nate, question before you go. 9.15 on Friday is the site visit. Is anybody going? I can't go. I communicated to that to Ben just yesterday.