The committee’s primary focus was on the plans for a gazebo, intended to shield the nearly 200-year-old guideboard. The historical guideboard has undergone multiple restorations due to deterioration, each repair leading to a loss of original material. To preserve the guideboard’s integrity, the historical commission proposed constructing a gazebo, with an estimated material cost of around $5,000. The committee plans to apply for Community Preservation Act funds to finance this initiative, which also includes a $20,000 renovation by the Williamstown Art Conservation Center.

Design considerations were at the forefront of the discussion, with the committee reviewing plans that featured 6×6 Douglas fir posts, asphalt shingles for the hip roof, and a concrete base. Members debated the height of the gazebo, with concerns that the proposed six-foot structure might obstruct the view of the seven-foot guideboard. One member suggested raising the gazebo by a foot to improve visibility, while another expressed that the design seemed to “crush” the guideboard, questioning its low elevation.

The committee also addressed the structural integrity of the gazebo, particularly in relation to Shutesbury’s propensity for high winds. The design included knee brackets to enhance stability, but concerns about the structure’s ability to withstand severe weather were raised. Some members emphasized the importance of ensuring the gazebo could resist wind and snow, given the local climate.

Material choices for the roof were another point of contention. One member favored asphalt shingles over wood shingles, citing lower maintenance requirements. This member stated, “the wood shingles can last longer but you have to maintain them…the asphalt you nail it down, that’s it.” The committee also considered historical roofing materials like cedar shakes, balancing durability with historical aesthetics.

During the meeting, members discussed the possibility of using materials other than glass for the protective structure. One participant mentioned, “I just threw glass out… I’m not saying glass,” indicating a need to explore other viable options. The committee recognized the urgency of applying for community preservation funding, with the current cycle’s deadline approaching. Missing this cycle could delay the project until 2025 or 2026.

The relationship between the guideboard and nearby memorials was another significant topic. One member pointed out, “It doesn’t look well… the signboard was obviously there first,” suggesting that relocating the memorials could create a more cohesive layout. The committee acknowledged the challenges of moving the memorials due to their concrete foundations and discussed the need to engage with other committees to explore repositioning options.

Technical aspects like the guideboard’s placement for visibility from two different roads were also considered. The committee debated whether the guideboard should be moved closer to the corner to enhance visibility, with one member likening the effort to “moving a swing set” because of the foundations involved.

Transitioning from the guideboard discussion, the committee addressed the dam keeper’s shed roof repair. Members noted the need to collaborate on developing a materials list and mentioned a slate roofer’s visit to the library, who assessed a leak and recommended sealing the chimney and re-evaluating the ridge. The slate roof’s condition was described as generally good, with only minor repairs needed.

The meeting also included appreciation for the highway department’s work at the elementary school, which was noted as looking good. The topic of keying standards for town buildings was raised, revealing that buildings operate independently with no uniform keying structure. Some members highlighted the potential benefits of a master key system for security and ease of access, especially in emergencies, while others expressed concerns about its feasibility.

Additionally, the committee discussed the school project’s documentation needs, specifically for the painting project. They highlighted the requirement for final schedules and a bill from the contractor, along with prevailing wage reports. A plan to release payment upon receipt of necessary documentation was agreed upon, with discussions on handling retainage.