##VIDEO ID:6KWJJBUnG2c## do one thing [Music] oh you hear me okay yep hi meline hey welcome meline hi hi we have it's after 6:35 so I think all the attendees are here there's 40 right now and we have a quorum of a commission okay we start then with the Preble okay so um person to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 extended by chapter two of the acts 2023 this public hearing and meeting of the town's historical commission is being conducted via remote participation members of the public who wish to access the meeting May do so via Zoom or by telephone no one person attendance and members of the public will be permitted a hyperlink to the hearing has been posted on the town's calendar in accordance with the provisions of article 3.6 of Amber General bylaws uh preservation of historically significant buildings this public hearing has been duly advertised and notice thereof has been posted and mailed um to parties at interest um the ammer historical commission is holding this public hearing to provide an opportunity for interested citizens to be heard regarding um the demolition application request and um of the Jones Library okay so the public hearing is open we can do a roll call attendance mine and sometimes you're a little you you're a little staticky I don't know if it's I am okay I was wondering about that all right maybe I'll switch out my can you hear me now yeah that's good okay we lost my tried and true M uh headphones okay um so first we're going to hear um a presentation from the applicant we'll just start there um and um so we're but okay before that um so we're going to open both hearings at the same time tonight uh the demolition hearing and the preservation restriction hearing um we're not holding a hearing regarding uh section 106 review at this time um so the sequence of the hearing is as follows first we'll address the demolition hearing um for the demolition bylaw and then we'll move on to the preservation restriction um for each we'll hear the applicant's presentation um we'll have questions from Commissioners and staff followed by public comment and then um after that we'll be discussion so as a reminder we will get to public comment after questions by staff and Commissioners and in both hearings we consider the changes to the project that have occurred since the public hearings on September 14th and October 19th um 2023 at that time the amers historical commiss approved the project in those hearings um so we're considering changes to the project since then um today these are related to the value engineering components um to the building and Landscape so we'll have a um the demolition bylaw um hearing um demolition bylaw will we will address that first um we'll review the project under demolition bylaw because over 25 % of the facade um would be impacted so in this portion of the hearing we discuss um whether the demolition of the non-historic structure the 1990s Edition whether the demolition of that has an adverse impact on the existing 1928 Library um so first we're going to have the team um the applicant present um the changes to um that they that they've been making for uh the value engineering um okay so do we have the team available yeah if you raise your hand if you're part of the presentation team we'll we'll bring you in as analysts okay is this everybody I think so yeah okay um right so um you can present the changes to the to the project since that have occurred since since the last hearing oh thank you U for the opportunity to present tonight my name is Austin sarot I'm on the Jones Library Board of Trustees and chair the Jones Library building committee we were really grateful and appreciative of the thorough consideration of The Proposal uh the careful questions that the historic commission asked when we were before you before uh we took seriously what it was that you said about the proposal we're back tonight with a pretty narrower Focus the narrow Focus Fus as you said um meline is on the changes uh we're not here to discuss the 106 process we're not here to discuss historic tax credits what we're here to do is to talk about what has changed uh nothing that I think you are going to see tonight uh relates to parts of the project uh that you have previously approved in any significant way doesn't change them so what we've asked our colleagues from FAA and and um the landscape Architecture Firm to do is to talk about the changes and to focus on um on on those and we look forward to uh your questions and again appreciate your time so um Ellen are you going to sure I I um Josephine's going to do the Pres presentation but I just wanted to say hi to everybody I'm here in um principal at from fold Alexander Architects take it away Josephine everyone um I'm going to share my screen let me know when when it appears can everybody see that yeah yes thank you great so we'll jump right in um thank you Austin um for that um intro and as he mentioned we're going to jump right into um the changes that we've been looking at this summer sorry Jo you just can you um turn up the volume a little bit I I I find it a little hard to hear and I just want to make sure all the everyone else can hear yeah is that better yeah great so um this is the list of items that we're going to run through tonight um these are um the impacts to um the exterior of the building and the site um so um just to touch upon the architectural ve items um the first one on the list here is the alternate um that we are proposing um which is a change to the of the synthetic slate on the existing 1928 building to an asphalt jingle um only at the existing um building um the second one is an alternate as well and that is to omit the replacement of the sashes at the existing window Windows the 1928 building um the third one on the list here is the removal of the roof monitor um that's in the new addition and then the uh fourth one is the changes to the curtain wall Windows um to uh just a pre-glazed aluminum window um so I will pass the landscape portion here on to Rachel thanks Josephine yeah and outside the building in the site um we've tried to identify items that could be deferred for later as funds became available um as well as itemize find things that might have larger price tags uh to help with the be process so some of the items that um that are deferred until a later Point um include the Goan Stone benches at the front of the library and the back deferring The Children's Courtyard area um deferring the storm water garden planting we're going to use noo mix instead and we have some Imes to show you what that might look like um we reconfigured the grading and we were able to eliminate the rain garden bridge Crossings we have an image which shows you what that looks like um the fire department area where uh where existing utilities today um exit the library and connect to um North Pleasant Street uh we have been able to reduce that extend work um and still provide the utilities for the library um we've eliminated one of the front subsurface storm water systems and um have enlarged the system at the back to compensate and then we've um eliminated the granite cladding so that's just the front surface of the retaining wall at the Historical Society property um and we're replacing it with a color AD mix or possibly slating it for a future mural by by local artists so we'll jump right into the um renderings and we'll run through the architectural first and then um again pass it on to um Rachel um to talk about the landscape um so in this slide here um as you can see from this rendering um most of the changes are um on the the landscape front but we'll um just quickly talk about the architectural um so in this view here the changes would be to the um the alternates only and that would be to the roof so that would be a um an asphalt um shingle on this portion of the building and um and to these existing Windows which would um as an alternate be um retained um you cannot see the um the roof monitor from this view so that's all is that's all for the architectural changes in this perspective yeah and the front landscape as a whole looks really similar to what you saw before um we still are maintaining the historic character of the site um and the we still have the mangnolia trees out front that we were proposing and the sourwood tree they're all um well adapted for climate change and that will not overpower the front facade of the building the another change here is that we did swap out we had Ruby slippers hydrangea and we' soft it out with um a purple variety called color fantasy it also is purple so we're able to tighten up that color palette in the front to be purple white and and yellow um in the areas where the Goan Stone benches were we have filled in with more of the Cunningham white roded indrum so um that'll look like a continuous hedge in the front I think that's it for this this View and so this next view um at the opposite angle um again for architectural um in this view we are only looking at the existing roof and the existing Windows um to be potential changes and similarly um you can see from from this view that it's very similar to what you saw before from the site point of view um the the Goan Stone benches have been replaced with the continuous hedro in the front uh and the children's area is on the other side of that Pedro um but your view from the street and from the corner will be very similar even though the Children's Courtyard is no longer there in a paved form and this is one of our rare views and in this view you can see the removal of the roof monitor um and so um in this um proposed view here at the bottom corner you can see where it was and um that is now removed from this perspective um and then just one slight change to the the windows is that they are no longer curtain wall um these punched Windows would now be um just a traditional um aluminum window so there's no more projection and that's all for the architectural okay and from this view in the landscape um you can see or we have another view for you to look at but you can see the the large Goan Stone bench at the back of the plaza has been removed um and there's been a change in the planting down um in the garden this view does show this we this view is looking from within the Historical Society property looking out towards the library property um the fence that's in the foreground is a historical society fence and that will be uh temporarily uh removed during construction for the construction of the the wall um but it'll be replaced at a location determined by the Historical Society there will be some they've also asked us to transplant some hostas and um gently remove some of the oion stone papers and replace them at the end of the project so our our documents reflect that and the similar view just um slightly to the east um again you can see that the um there was a sliver here of roof monitor that you could see previously and um and now that is no longer in view this is probably the area we've where we've made the most changes within the landscape and a lot of them are below grade um we were able to reconfigure we had one large Basin before with two Bridges across um and instead we now have three three basins that have walkways in between um so that is the biggest change below grade then within the rain Garden itself we've deferred the rain Garden plantings so all the perennials and cars and other textures but we are going to use a Nomo seed mix which is a a mix of different types of f Fescue they grow to about 18 inches tall um and then they flop over and create like a wave waveforms in the landscape it's something that actually um will reduce maintenance cost um you only you it's recommended to mow once a year um if the library wanted to mow more frequently they could but it gets moaned to a higher height so it's better um it's better adapted for all sorts of different conditions and it kind of has that that softer Garden aesthetic it's also a material that um will stabilize the site and that we can intersperse planting with bulbs and other other perennials over time um so that's the biggest planting change and then a note here in the in the foreground you can see the the reddish tree that's a sassafras tree so we are we are keeping the trees that were originally proposed in the plan with sassa fras and the swamp white oak the big shade trees in the project are still in um at the back the Goan Stone bench which was at the edge of the patio um separating it from the rain Garden has been deferred till later and then you'll see the uh the r painting wall um between the circle Society property and the library used to have a granite veneer and that has been eliminated um but that the near is only facing the library itself that's it um this is a site plan summarizing those changes from from the from a big overall picture um so at the front of the library we've removed the subsurface system in the front we've deferred the children's patio and deferred the Goan Stone benches at the back of the library we've reconfigured the grading in storm water um to to reduce cost and then we've reduced um the square footage of our of our work within the fire fire station parking lot and then at the Historical Society property we um actually have included some scope at the request of the store Society U for that post construction finishing next and then the other piece is that with the elimination of the the Goan Stone seat walls um they were also providing some um some soft ambient lighting along the sidewalk and we are we needed to add some more lights to um address the loss in foot candles so this this diagram is shown the adjustments that we've made to the plan with the lighting fixture placement so we've added two ballards to the front landscape where those benches were and we've shifted some ballards to the to the outside of the front um also part of the value engineering exercise we reduced the number of catary Lights in the in the north patio area and we've added two um wall fixtures along the walkway these all um help provide uni formity and still meet the requirements for for lighting and hammers I think that closes out our slides okay is that the that's your final slide for this presentation it is okay great um okay so first to Commissioners we need to just ask questions and we'll open up discussion regarding this is just the demolition hearing portion demolition byw portion of the hearing so we can discuss and ask questions um regarding that and then later we're going to move on to discuss um the preservation restriction so right now um if we have any questions for the applicant um we can ask those regarding U the demolition bylaw so I have one um we are I am curious what's happening to the north and west walls that the new addition would butt up against will they be encased or will they be demolished so the north and west wall will be interior wall s and they're not going to be demolished they'll be visible from the interior of the building okay so that's still the case um are there any other questions regarding this portion I I do have a question um the change to Asphalt on the roof is concerning is maintaining the windows because they will eventually need to be replaced I'm just wondering if it's possible to go out with a bid asking for for both what one bid asking for the the artificial slate and new windows and another bid asking for the asphalt and retaining the windows that is Our intention to go out with the bid Alternatives thank you thank you Austin so Nate how do you suggest we move forward here because I feel like we all want to ask questions about the design which is really related to the preservation restriction um but I want to kind of maintain just to keep us in line with just addressing the demolition bylaw right now um so we just want to discuss or just ask question related to how the demolition of the if if there's any differences here in in how the demolition of the 1990s Edition affects the historic building yeah Hy has her hand raised I think yeah I mean so you know the Building Commissioner thought this needed to become come back to review U before the commission because you know the commission approv demolition based on a set of plans you know so many months ago and they've changed and it's it's not just the building it's the site as well and so you know is you know is the everything that was shown here you know does the commission feel that that is the same project and you know is it sufficient does it meet the standards in the bylaw or not in terms of demolition of the 1927-28 building um I know Josephine that there's a slide further in the presentation I think it'd be worth sharing showing what's happening with that north wall and just you know we can mark it up in Zoom to show what's Happening um and you know I could pull up an image but yeah I think that uh you know most of the 28 building is being retained and so some of the questions remain about you know where the new building will meet the existing building and then you know is you know as part of the the the Bop for the preservation of historically significant structures it's also what's happening with the ReUse of the building in proposed designs and so you know does the commission feel that these changes are still in keeping with you know the original structure and what was proposed you know when it reviewed it last fall and so um you know that's that's kind of the the discussion point tonight in terms of the preservation bylaw ready um Nate and meline um I I I guess I'm having a bit of a sense of deja vu from the first time we all got involved in this process with the demolition delay and the presentation of the project prior to Value engineering I know that's not our purview tonight but the two things are interrelated the demolition of the 1993 building and parts of the 1928 building um are still in play um the removal of the Memorial Garden in the back is still in play for what is in value engineering terms an extreme generic and poor product in my opinion um and so I'm finding it really difficult at this point that I don't have a way of saying that I don't think we should de demolish the 1993 building at this point I think the new information that we have that we've leared about since July is making me really hone to my job as a commissioner which is to observe the bylaw of the town and to take care of a historic structure that is absolutely critical to our historic our historic character as a place as a unique place in the valley um so I I won't say any more than that but I think it could even be possible at this point to vote to rescind earlier prior approvals because I think that's an option that we could take yeah I mean so I would like to see a slide showing the new addition in the library you know the current Library like we had before and just outline what's happening with that north wall and those other features am I allowed to say anything or is it too late no I think this is kind of the question and answer session uh you know part of the hearing with the commission and the and the presenters great Ellen go ahead yeah I just I just want to make the point we haven't changed anything all of this we and I'm I'm just trying to make it clear none of that that was approved was changed the only thing was changed which Josephine and Rachel outlined minor CH you know minor changes so that's what that's what we were hoping to keep our Focus to but again that it seems like we're opening the whole thing up again when we were only looking for a couple of um a c you know a couple of minor couple of changes I think it's really difficult to comment at this point because of of what I now know the head of the Massachusetts historical commission has written about this project as a an architectural historian as someone on the commission it is very difficult for me to look at those letters that evidence that support for what is being changed in this building and say wait a minute here we can't go forward at this point so may I just say may I say something Mar sure so again we're grateful for the work that everybody is doing and the efforts um as we understand it the historical commission does very valuable work but it has a limited purview here it's not the Massachusetts historic commission it's not charged to um examine interior changes to the building and uh people's feelings about the what is being done to the historic character of the building uh that's that's fine but we're here under a preservation restriction and for a demolition permit and the demolition permit was granted before nothing has changed well I think that there has been changes to the overall design right and so in terms of the value engineering and so you know that's why it's coming back to the commission for the demolition review so if for instance the commission allowed demolition last year because they thought what was being presented was you know a project that didn't impact the 28 structure but they think that some of the value engineering will then they could have a different opinion about how they reviewed the Demolition and so head to your point um you know some of the a local commission can have a different opinion than the Massachusetts historical commission and so you know the the the Massachusetts historical commission was writing in response to um an application for historic uh tax credits and not necessarily you know looking at it through our local demolition bylaw or the preservation restriction and so I think the discussion about the landscape and some other pieces uh can be um you know more about when we're looking at the preservation restriction in terms of the demolition bylaw you know if we look at it they're removing a 90s Edition and they're putting on a new addition does the removal of the 90s Edition and then this new addition impact the 28 structure to a point where you know there should be a delay or can it be authorized and moveed forward and so uh you know that's where I think to me I still like to know what's happening with that wall because we say it'll be visible but I just want to confirm that because you know things we hear and read claim otherwise and so it'd be important tonight for me to understand what is happening with that back wall uh and then um you know and if there's any then the commission could ask other questions but I I still think it would be nice to have you know I can pull up a screen and it' be nice to walk through it uh just to understand it so I can go ahead and share my screen Nate you had mentioned that it was part of this presentation but I think if you want to see that we would have to pull up the last presentation well the one that is online that we were we were emailed that's in the packet shows the the proposed floor plans and the existing floor plans and so so does that work the floor PL yeah I think if we looked at the proposed you know like ground level or first floor level floor plan then I think just by marking up in Zoom you know annotating in Zoom would just be would clarify it right let's first look at just how the new will will interact with with the existing building first can everybody see them yes okay can you show us just yes where the so the exterior walls sure will be um these go from existing to proposed views so we'll start at level one and and so at level one um I think we're referencing these walls here and so if we go to theost as you can see these gray walls are still in place as we're retaining them and now they'll be within the adult um fiction section and the adult new material section and near the stairs and what about the the next section the lower section right there of the north facing wall the I'm sorry I lost you the lower section well [Music] so you know what about this wall what's happening here oh that's all retained as well yeah so everything that you see in like gray hatch is an existing wall is it encased or is it visible from the interior it's visible Josephine one quick thing some of that wall in the children's area is is being removed a little portion here yes that's but a lot of that that was altered in the N some of it was altered in the 1990 Edition that's right and that was proposed to be removed previously when the commission reviewed it correct yes nothing has changed on nothing has changed in the plan okay does anyone else else have any questions from the Commissioners I I think there's Clarity in what the proposed value engineering changes are and um that is where we should be focusing right in my in my opinion and um I spoke into the fact of of asking for two bids to retain the F faux slate roof and um to replace the windows as opposed to the the other alternative which would be shingles and retaining the windows I'm satisfied with that I think the exterior um of of delaying some of the original proposal doesn't have to do with our preservation and and our in my opinion our our uh demolition bylaw related to the 1928 building well I think if there's no more questions from the commission we could open up to public comment mad what do you think let's do that and um let's see so uh please everyone who wants to speak please raise your hand um so there's many people in attendance today um so we're going to keep comments to two minutes each um and we we will talk about the preservation restriction later and um right now we're just discussing the demolition piece um what's happening to to the old building in um as it meets as it meets u in Rel only related to the demolition of the of the addition okay and we're also not discussing the interior today um so we'll open it up to to public comment looks like Carol you're the have your hand raised first you can unmute yourself thank you uh Carol gray a15 Southeast Street I would like to say to the Commissioners I thank you for your service your duty is to apply the law it is not to feel like you've made a decision in the past and you can't do anything about it even if you think it's legally wrong now uh I was very concerned that one of the Commissioners raised a concern that she would like to resend and the staff member Nate Malloy said let's talk about the law the Commissioners are the people who are empowered in this hearing not Town staff and Commissioners should only apply the law I'd also say at the outset that if there's anyone with a conflict of interests they should not take any part in this decision I have heard that one of the Commissioners is or was a student of Austin saratz at amers College if that is true that is a conflict of interest they should not have any legal role in the discussion or in the vote and they should be withdrawn from this hearing um even the appearance of a conflict of interest is a legal reason to to step out of the discussion and have no vote in terms of the legality of things you said that you made a decision previously and you can't go back on that however you made that decision without hearing any of the evidence about the adverse impacts that's like deciding that someone is is guilty without hearing the evidence first you now have a memo that has many different standards that are clearly being violated to me it's it's there's no question about this and by by adhering to a decision that is legally wrong you're setting up the town for a lawsuit that could cost tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars and it's just not your job legally so look at the standards standard two and again I'm referring to the the uh the standards that were set out by the head of the uh the executive director Bion Simone so standard two says the historical character of the pro property will be retained including spatial relationships how could anyone think that what's being proposed is in a spatial relationship with the historic character of The Jones Library I look at those designs and I was trying to figure out where is AMD Street I almost couldn't even recognize the historic library that we all know and love and that you have the legal duty to preserve the character of that is being violated standard five the distinctive features finishes will be preserved the Slate shingles replacing them with asphalt when they're right their front there and it says right in their materials that it's clear that the Slate uh is still available it's still being qued there's absolutely no reason you should allow asphalt shinkles it's a total violation of your duty standard six that the new feature will match the old in design color texture who are we kidding this is like comparing comparing the Earth to to Jupiter they don't match you you you these two things have nothing in common you're taking a building that you wish didn't have historic legalities around it but it does and you're trying to to push a push a Mac Truck through a keyhole they there's no way that the historic character is being matched standard nine again keep the 30 seconds keep the spatial relationships in character with the property there is nothing that's keep being kept in terms of the historic spatial relationships standard 10 new additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in a manner that if removed in the future the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment will be unimpaired are you kidding me you remove that huge addition and you have a fragment a shell of what we loved as our historic building none of those standards are being met it's clear you have a legal Duty The Head of the State historic commission is telling you they're not being met you should vote to resend immediately today you made a bad decision before with no evidence correct it today um also because there's public hearings I request the right to be heard in the secret public hearing as well thank you for your time please be courageous Town staff has a political agenda your job is not to be pressured by Town than to oppose the law thank you thank you for your comment uh so just to comment th all those comments are those standards are related to to the preservation bylaw and not the demolition bylaw and so that'll be the second part of the hearing tonight and so you know if you want to focus on you know how do the changes or what's happening to the 28 structure but the rehabilitation standards and the letters from Mass historic relate to the preservation bylaw and not as much as to the town's demolition bylaw Rob you're you can unmute yourself I just have um I'm reporting from the West Coast so I hope you can hear me from this far away uh again I just want to thank all of you even people with whom I probably have some disagreement over for at least putting the time and effort into uh trying to understand what's right for the community as well as what follows the law C can you hear me I'm getting a message that yes yeah okay um while I it may not be driving a Mac Truck through a keyhole I think there is a metaphor that's more apt here which is from I believe the Odyssey uh the metaphor of Sil cibus okay you're in between a rock in a hard place literally and figuratively figuratively you know you're dealing with a population which includes me that think you've gone a little bit too far literally you're creating a structure that even with these minor changes in the so-called value engineering you've tipped the balance I think in favor of at least requiring a demolition delay if not scrapping much of the proposed project um whether you agree with me or not I think the latest things including the asphalt roof some of the changes to the to the rear cosmetic as they may be it really tips the balance from something that was questionably reasonable to something that I find more and more detestable I'm afraid and I'm a I'm a longtime Library supporter by the way the thing I want to ask you guys is the following I don't know whether further demolition delay is something within the perview of this evening's this part of this evening's hearing if it is I urge you to take the additional six months that the bylaw may allow you to think this through carefully I I don't think you realize the extent to which the current project as well as the project up till the last decision has torn the community apart and I want you to consider one other thing when considering that demolition delay if the addition the expansion and the whatever demolition takes place were to happen and then the new building after 20 30 50 years perhaps needs to be demolished what will be left of the 1928 structure the 1993 structure what will be left to work from again and I think if you pause and think about that you may come to where I am which is that you should at least give this another six months or whatever the maximum amount of delay is possible I hope you'll respect this this view on things because I I don't think you're harming yourselves and I think you may be benefiting the community as a whole by doing that thank you thank you hi Jeff you can unmute yourself thanks it's Jeff Lee I live in South amers and two institutions though perhaps thinking they were doing a good turn for the town have been instrumental in promoting the excessively large and costly Jones Library building project to the detriment of the building's historic character ammer College's influence over the proposed plan is clear ammer College professor and trustee president Austin saret and former College fundraiser and capital campaign co-chair Kent Ferber were among the strategists forming the library feasibility committee who hatched the idea of seeking a state construction Grant to demolish a 30-year-old addition expand the already larger than average Library building and transform the Jones into a community Hub they may have been Guided by Amis College's pattern of tearing down still useful buildings in the name of progress and erecting modern Replacements at a cost of millions consider the demolition of Walker Hall once known as the college's Acropolis the mckin me and white Little Red Schoolhouse that the college shared with the town and the 58-year-old meil science center however this approach does not work for the town of AMR we don't have a three and a half billion dollar endowment and we are committed to Historic preservation as evidenced by our establishment of the ammer historical commission yet even before leaders proposed drastic value engineering cuts the mass historic commission noted at least seven adverse impacts from the project in violation of five Federal standards for historic Rehabilitation the second institution that has encouraged Amor to abandon preservation goals is the mass Board of Library Commissioners in 2011 an mblc representative dangled the prospect of a multi-million dollar Grant before new library director Sharon Sherry asking when are you going to do something about this Library unfortunately the MB l c imposes a cookie cutter approach to recipients of its Construction Grants they want to see expanded space for programming long sight lines and transformation from a temple of learning to a community Hub in Amor's case this was regardless of a survey that showed a large majority of patrons to be happy with the current library and only about half who reported attending library programs ammer mblc Grant was the largest of 33 Awards across the state it required the town to commit funding 25 5 million or more from tax revenues an enormous liability for a town the size of amor when cost Rose Project leaders were forced to make severe design changes such as replacing the slate roof with asphalt dropping historically compatible window replacement and relegating the Whipple window to a wall hanging please show your commitment to Historic preservation delay Demolition and require total compliance with the preservation restriction thank thanks for your comment hi Leticia you can unmute yourself hello can you hear me I'm Latisha La fallet um I live on Dana Street and I want to thank the historic commission and everyone who presented material today for their hard work um it's a little confusing to those of us who are in the public to know which part of the hearing to give our comments to um we've already heard several people who have commented on the second part of the hearing so I may be doing the same but my area of expertise is actually architectural history of the Ancient World um my expertise lies in the city of Rome itself and Roman architecture there and much of what I've learned I think can be applied to this project Rome is both a city of monuments but also a living Civic Center um so historic preservation efforts there have been careful to balance usage of buildings with their historic appearances it is clear that we cannot continue to have the Jones library look exactly the way it did in 1928 um so I think the idea of balance is critical to apply to this project the Jones library is not a museum it does so much more than loan books it functions as a community center with programs um from ESL to CH young children and their families teens new immigrants and giving them access to computers um so I would I won't give you the full laundry list because I know you're all well aware that the Jones really serves as an inclusive Center for ammer as a community this is why the renovation and expansion is so critical there is not enough space for everything that Jones does and even the space it has is falling apart um I urge you not to let abstract ideas of the perfect um be the enemy of the good for this project replacing the roof is required whether it's synthetic slate or asphalt it's going to have to be done it's not as if it's original slate right um so putting expensive requirements on the appearance of say the roof tiles May well jeopardize the project as would a six-month delay um it has nothing to do with the function of the building and I think you really do need to balance the two um um and let's not um neglect operating under a budget here um or weaponize climate change which has been done about this this project represents the first public building in town that will reflect ammer sustainability goals um please don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good and let this project go ahead thank you thank you you can unmute yourself who are you recognizing right now uh you Hilda oh can you hear me yes cuz I couldn't hear who you asked for I'm not going to repeat everything that I said in my letter already but looking at the plans for that building make me cry literally because the addition just does not work with the build the angles of that gamber roof make it look like a barn and it clashes with the with the gamble roof on the original building I think you guys picked the wrong architect but it's too late now to do anything about that and I only bring you to the fact that I'm I'm absolutely thrilled when I saw the first plans for the north thers library that that addition complements the original 1893 building and I'm not going into that because I already wrote it in the letter but what I do have three questions that I do want to bring up and the first one is um liab ility for the stron house stron house is Stone built on Stone I've never been in the cell but I'm assuming it's built like my own house which was sitting on stones and I'm worried about the hundreds of tons of debris and the vibrations from the wrecking wall what are they going to do to the stone foundation and a plaster in the stron house nowhere in any of the documents over 10 years have I seen anybody taking any responsibility for that whether it's a stron house has to absorb it or the contractor I don't know but I'm really worried about damage to that building and I I know from my friends who own houses on next to Kendrick Park just rebuilding that road the dishes in their cabinets are shaking and that's a much smaller project than the whole 1993 building being slept out of it so that that's my my big concern who's responsible for what happens to Str strong house and who's going to repair it it's not going to be cheap and then the other thing that has to do with demolition is the issue of the book return at the front door I don't think you need to make a hole through the stone to put the book Return there that means anybody coming by P by car or or his handicapped or whatever is going to want to be going to that front door getting out of the car to return books there are other places that can be put that that aren't visible from the street or at least not that visible from the street that the stones from pelum have to be removed to put it in um then and that that's part of the Demolition and I don't know whether it's part of when that got changed it was decided somewhere along the line since you made your decision that they would not have the automated books order so you don't need to have the the hall in the wall where everybody can see it at the front door if there isn't going to be a book sort R the other side of it and then my last issue was the question about the windows I I live in a 1737 house we found the original 8 over 12 windows in the barn and had them reproduced when we restored this house 50 years ago and they were covered with um triple track storm windows all these years which I hated because I couldn't open and close them etc etc so one of the first things that I did s years ago when I didn't have somebody in the house telling me no I can't spend that money I went and changed all my windows to to um using the all windows we can which we had made in 1974 used those windows and replaced the single panes with one large um insulated Double Glass 20 seconds put new so I mean the all windows here could be fixed at a price that's a lot less expensive than buying new ones and I've I've heard that several times on This Old House people who restore all windows and I know there's a place in mon that specializes in institutional historical Windows um that that job can be done it doesn't have to be left by way side you can put insulated windows in for what I thought was a fairly reasonable price okay thank you for your comment uh Christopher you can speak hi I'm Christopher's wife actually my name is Mickey wrathman I'm using my husband's computer because it works better um I have lived in amist for 33 years um I have a bachelor's degree from the School of Architecture at the University of Virginia where I studied historic preservation I also have a law degree from the University of Virginia um just one point regarding the scope of this hearing um I read the minutes from the uh commission's September 14th 2023 hearing uh regarding the demolition permit and um Robin who I think at that time was chair uh she specifically stated in that hearing that any work approved by the historical commission that is later changed before construction is undertaken would require approval again before another meeting of the historic commission so the way I read that uh is that any work that's previous ly been approved by the historical commission if it's later changed that work would again require approval so I think that there's plenty of um room just reading that as um from a legal point of view that the scope of this hearing does not need to be nor should it be uh controlled limited to just the um recent value engineering changes um I'd also like to just uh say that as a trial lawyer in New York I wrote a lot of jury instructions and the instructions always boil down to a simple proposition jurors must apply the relevant law to the facts of the case and determine whether the law has been violated extraneous facts or personal opinions must be disregarded as members of the commission you have a similar role you must apply the town's historic preservation standards to the proposed Library expansion and demolition plan it is not your job to consider other aspects of the project such as cost or need or timelines the relevant standards that have been incorporated into the uh town uh historic preservation by laws are the secret secetary of the interior's standards for the rehabilitation of historic properties those are the standards that brona Simon the executive director of the Massachusetts historical commission applied when she twice rejected the town's application for historic tax credits like a responsible juror she made a thorough point-by-point analysis of the 10 standards as they related to the proposed plan and she concluded that the plan failed to meet five of the 10 standards unfortunately the library director failed to share with the commission uh Miss Simon's findings to the best of my knowledge these letters are being brought to your attention for the first time uh in preparation for this hearing I hope that you have taken the time to read them um clearly your deliberations henceforth must be guided by Simon's cons conclusions uh uh Austin seret said well those aren't our standards well I think they are um and if there aren't the standards then I think it's incumbent upon the U historic commission to tell us what the standards are um I know that that the count commission has been under a lot of pressure from the town from the library building committee and the trustees to approve the expansion and demolition plan without question but I urge you not to let any personal or professional connections you may have to distract you from your charge as members of the Amorous historic commission it is not your job to rubber stain Camp Clans that violate wellestablished standards for historic preservation thank you very much for your hard work and your service to the community thank you for your comment hi it's a a phone number 413549 810 you can um unmute Yourself by dialing star six um yes may I I have a few comments I'd like to reserve my right to make comments on the second portion of the proposal my name is Vincent oconor I live at75 Summer Street in emmer um the first comment I would like to make is that um that any member of the commission who has a um question connection to any of the proponents of the project this the the chair of the building committee the library director whoever um the architectural firm um and and public entities entity any entity that has made a significant financial contribution to the library um need should have filed a declaration and if they haven't I I would urge them not to participate um the second is second comment that I have is that in fact um the the amorist historical commission has a role that is more powerful than the than the state's um agency that uh declined to provide to approve historic tax credits the a that agency can simply not give you money which they decided to do to not give not give this project money the his the historical commission can delay this project and should um they have and and thereby they have more power the power not to contribute is is you know lots of people have decided not to contribute both agencies and individuals but only the historic commission has the power to delay this project until uh an appropriate um uh evaluation has taken place um finally um in contradiction to a previous comment this this library is not the first project because it is not going to be the first project the first project is going to be the uh the new elementary school at Fort River which is which will meet all the standards in in a way that this Library project um will continue to fail to do so those are my comments I do reserve my right to to comment on second section of of theing thank you for your comment Mora you can unmute yourself um most of what I was going to say it has already been said but I did have three specific questions about the demolition that I don't think have been answered the Whipple window which fits beautifully in the 1993 Edition um that was left hanging what would happen to to that and the previous hearing that you had last fall um like Hilda said there's really no need to cut through the stone for the in the front for the book drop and the third thing is came up at the planning board meeting last night actually that retaining wall go extends two feet underground closer to the stron house on the stron house um property which I guess the ammer History Society has um given permission to have but there's no written agreement that I that I am aware of there's also a large ash tree which is within 10 feet of the construction that is supposed to be protected by having a certified Arborist um review the care of it and a 50 ,000 shity Bond placed by the general contractor to protect that tree and the other two significant trees on the Historic Society property um that was not a condition that was put on on the project by the planning board last night uh Christine breast said that she thought there was a verbal agreement about the trees with the library between the library and the Historical Society so I hope that um agreement is more than a verbal agreement and that those trees will be protected through the construction okay thank you for your comment Alisa thank you need to unmute there you are thank you I was clumsy with my mouse here um I'm in favor of the renovation of the Jones library to make it work for the future I've lived in amers for 50 four years now almost I dimly remember the library before the addition of the 1990s I do not believe that addition works I don't think it ever worked it was cobbled together with a whole bunch of objectives to preserve at least the look of much of the old library but it's very difficult to find your way around so I don't understand people I don't understand historic concern about that part of the library it doesn't function as a library and I don't find it attractive I do think that the function of the library is as a previous speaker said not a museum it's a library and a community center and historic preservation is important but it's not the primary goal of the building or of work on the building I also would like to say that yes the town has been torn apart but not building this building or renovation will not heal the divisions in the town the divisions are there they are on both sides just like the elementary school we didn't build decade ago so it's not a solution to Ill feeling to deny this building or to hold it up so thank you that's my comment thanks for your comment Erica you can unmute yourself hi and thank you for hearing me tonight um I want to say that this building has been changing in big and small ways since its Inception um and today we're holding multiple priorities we have the opportunity now to make much needed updates to prepare this building for the next century and protect our history at the same time the building is old and beautiful and much of it the majority of it is being preserved and parts of it are even being made visible instead of being inaccessible to patrons we shouldn't let an uncompromising preservation of every historical detail prevent Equitable access to the building spaces for its staff and for its patrons we shouldn't make the history of the building a roadblock against progress that we need to make on behalf of the wonderful institution that it is and future Generations thank you thank you for your comment Arley you can unmute yourself um hi um uh first I guess partly in response to the last comment but also seconding other people you know again your job is pretty narrow it's to deal with the historic preservation of the Assets in the town and it's not to deal with whether the future or this or who's going to use it and how and what it means um so I would agree that as somebody else said you have the authority and the power in this situation as the historical commission you decide the historic character of this town and in this demolition I do find it confusing because I'm not good at looking at architectural plans I wasn't trained to do that I'm not an architectural history person I'm a resident of the Town following this um and all I have to go on are the mass historic commission letters you know those are the experts and that's what I am taking um they say there's problems with the Demolition aspect of this um project and the main one that immediately zoomed into me was the one about If This Were to be removed in the future what would the 1928 Building look like and from their point of view it wouldn't look very good um and that's what but tonight's conversation I think maybe I'm not understanding clearly how much of these exterior walls are being demolished in order to put the addition on I I guess I don't really understand that but from that letter it sounds like it's significant so that if you took it away you'd have sort of a shambles there so um you know as I've always said less demolition more historic preservation and I don't think pitting historic preservation against you know meeting the needs of the patrons of the library is a good idea plus that's not your job your job is is historic preservation that's why you exist so please exercise your Authority on that Dimension you're not about the programming the mblc talks all about programming they don't care about historic preservation they're not trying to you know protect the library in that sense so you don't have to be thinking about you know the future and what this is going to be used for as they say in a few decades this may be demolished just as we're demolishing the 93 Edition now so you know how the 28 structure is being impacted is the only thing that matters really I think in terms of how much of it is being demolished so that's my question because I'm not that clear about it thank you thank you for your comment Maria you can unmute yourself thank you Maria kapiki South am going to read from the website for the amist historic commission created in October 1972 by amist town meeting the amrest historical commission is charged under local and state law with quote the preservation protection and development of the historical and archaeological resources of the Town end quote the commission is responsible for implementing the amorist preservation plan for the entire Community the Massachusetts historical commission was very clear that the demolition that is intended for the 1928 large amounts of Demolition and impact on the 1928 building is unacceptable you know people are talking about a lot of things I think that at this point it should be pretty clear to people that this is the wrong project a project could have been undertaken that could have respected historic preservation that could have respected all of the needs but that's not what you have before you and you don't ha that you can't do anything about that you're stuck with this proposed project now back in the fall you were cautioned not to rule not to make your decision because the mass historic commission had not yet received or evaluated the plans so you met in September and October in November they wrote a letter which you didn't see that said this is a problem and then you got a letter well you didn't get the letter the library director got the letter I don't know who else got the letter but that letter said this is not acceptable this violates five standards you know it's kind of interesting I was like my goodness maybe these standards are really hard to understand really hard to find they are easily accessible and they are extraordinarily clear and I find it really troubling that I just don't know if you could possibly have read those standards you yourselves not the Massachusetts historical commission did the members of the amorist historical commission read those standards and see what was planned and said yeah I've got no problem with that I think it's clear now that the Massachusetts historical commission has done their job and told you this is a problem that you've got an ethical if not a legal obligation to resend your previous actions resend your previous decisions and apply those standards apply the restrictions apply the bylaws apply the state laws apply the federal laws you have to fix a mistake that's been made you made a mistake but you need to fix it and you need to do your job which is historical preservation and you've got a historic building that needs your Care thank you thank you thanks for that comment hi Liz you can unmute yourself good evening Liz Larson I reside on Summerfield Road here in ammer I am also the executive director of the amarist historical society and like a previous speaker I'm not quite sure where to make my comments so I'm going to be making them here in reference to some other previous comments on behalf of the trustees of the ammer Historical Society we would like to take this opportunity to publicly acknowledge and thank the town of ammer Jones Library trustees Jones Library building committee and especially and most especially Sharon Sherry for all of their work on the renovation and Expansion Project the amorist historical society is housed in a mid 18th century building immediately AB buding the library's property with a collection of over 7,000 objects pertaining to the history of our community one of the stars of our collection is the groom tree a 280 Yee Old Sycamore that Graces the front entrance of the stron housee house during the past 18 months representatives of the Board of Trustees have had many meetings with the library the designers and the town regarding the protection of the trees the house the gardens and the collection we have appreciated their willingness to listen to our concerns and to ensure that the needs of the grounds Gardens all the trees and the collection are part of the ongoing overall project conversation and ultimately the Construction contract as fellow keepers of the stories of amers we are so excited and pleased about the much needed improvements that the new facilities will provide for special collections as well as a new home for the Civil War tablets Additionally the improved public gathering spaces will create more opportunities to engage with one another and share our stories continuing to build on the missions of both our organizations well into the future we continue to appreciate the conversations that we have and regarding the various documents and agreements between the historical society and the trustees of the Jones Library which when they are finalized as part of the ultimate con uh Construction contract will I believe be made public but at this time they are not they are in negotiation in conversation thank you thank you thanks for that comment I believe this is our final comment is that right yeah there's still so um Ken you can unmute yourself and if you'd like to speak you can raise your hand um uh you know there's still time thank you I'm Ken Rosenthal I live on Sunset Avenue I want to uh remind the commission that you have before you the plans for the entire Demolition and renovation of the library that fold Alexander Architects have chosen to just make changes to a few areas does not mean that you do not have the entire project before you in fact you should know that when this goes to bid in September those few changes are not going to be the only thing on the table to be bid the entire project is going to be bid so that this is an integrated project that you have before you and and the town expects you to look at this as such that you have a right and you have an obligation to consider the historic standards that you should apply to the entire project when you decide tonight whether to permit these to go forward as they are I want you to also remember that it's not your responsibility to worry about what happens what might or might follow from your decision to reject the proposed plans because that's somebody else's responsibility that's the library's responsibility and the town's responsibility but I want to remind you that the Jones leadership has very practical alternatives for affordable renovation and repair they've had them for years the um members um know that they can repair and make the renovations that are necessary at a price that is Affordable for the town of amoris and it again it is not your responsibility to worry about that your responsibility is just to focus on what you know about this library from the entire set of plans that have come before you and the comments that you've heard thank you very much for the time thank you for that comment hi Lou you can unmute yourself hello uh my name is Lou Conover I live on pulpit Road and I just want to say that the law is very clear the uh Jones library is a federally and state protected building and that carries with it certain restrictions on what can be done the your job as the amorist historical commission is to pass judgment on whether the plans uh pass the the the requirements of the historic of the state historic and federal historic commissions it's clear that they don't and this the state historic commission has said that they don't your job is to uphold the law and advise the town on what is permitted and what is not permitted it should be very clear it is very clear thank you thank you thanks for that comment all right Rita and Sean you can unmute yourself hello hello can hear you okay um this is Rita my husband Sean and I are tag teaming between this and the convention um so it's my turn for this and um I'm sure you've read about or heard about our opinion about the project but that's not what you're supposedly here tonight to um here again I have a comment slash question I'm not sure which is more appropriate because it's the comment section but what I have to say is based on a question that I've had for several months now why were both letters from the mass historical commission not known about until recently especially given that one of them came in what 10 months ago and in either case may have impacted decisions that were made between then and when they were known about and I think it's important to have an answer which I've not heard asked yet because what happens for me based on my personality and training in a past life it makes me very suspect that there may be other things that whether it's the town citizens or members of various boards and committees should know about and don't so I think it's really time for the director to explain why those letters remained unknown perhaps even to other people in involved in the actual project not just the ones voting on it thank you thank you very much is that is that all there had been I know Sarah you had your hand rais at one point and some others maybe they're not raised now I guess it's you'd have one more chance if you'd want to raise your hand all right Sarah you can unmute yourself thank you Nate I am Sarah mcke I was a 22-year reg resident of amorist I am a I'm actually Austin zat's pres predecessor as president of the Jones Library trustees I am also an attorney and i' just like to clarify that in interpreting and in in applying the preservation restriction which we will get to the emis historical commission applies the same Secretary of the Interior standards for the treatment of historic properties just as the Massachusetts historical commission applied those standards in writing the letters that they did so that those are the standards that you are by the agreement with the trustees are bound to apply second I just like to um correct something about the state law interestingly enough the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners regulations require any project receiving State any Library project receiving State funds that it comply with the state historic preservation law and though it's differently expressed from the Secretary of the Interior standards it boils down to about the same thing thank you okay thank you okay now at this point um I think there's one more hand um Okay sandy you can unmute yourself yes good evening thank you for turn off thank you for this opportunity to contribute um I don't know when to do it and I wasn't quite sure the second thing was coming up you've obviously heard quite a lot about the Massachusetts uh historical commissions opinion of this sort of thing with which I concur but that's not my point we earlier heard that these changes and only those changes which Mr satat urges us to consider are minor they're not to change an asphal roof from the set from the Slate is like changing a top hat into a baseball cap it makes the thing look ridiculous uh and I think by then placing it against the very large addition the foot the the change which we are not allowed to which was not considered that is the footprint you've got a building that is just not acceptable as uh a historically uh uh meeting the requirements of the historical Commission because uh historical commission you're really dealing with perception perception of those buildings and unfortunately perception goes a wee bit deeper than the superficialities of the actual surface and it does include the interior percept perceptions are gained as you go into it so you can't actually ignore the interior as well it's perception of the citizens of Amos that matter and how you preserve that exterior and the potential views including relationship to other um historical buildings such as the uh stron housee next door including the tree trees trees that I think you have got to realize that small changes are not going to do it and some of the ones that have been proposed are totally inadequate thanks thank you anybody else I see two hands they're from um possible um people have already spoken I don't know Rob uh mine if you want to limit them to a minute this time or okay yeah let's limit them to a minute rob you can unmute yourself yeah I I try to be fairly gentle in my early remarks I neglected to remind people that I live in Amor 49 band meter drive but I happen to be on the west coast I think we've heard it from a number of other people that there are some actual issues of legal Jeopardy among members of the historical commission tonight and I hope they actually have done what's required of them by law before they continue in this meeting I also think they're members of the library uh staff and and trustees that I I I believe are also in some Jeopardy I'm not saying this as a matter of uh threat but I'm saying it as a matter of just pause a minute and think about what you're doing and that's why again I say I think a six-month cooling off period might be a really good idea everybody including those of you who may be voting in favor of just going right ahead I I think you guys are skating really close to the edge of a very steep Cliff okay okay thank you hi Sandy again sorry there's a question of buttons on the screen uh I have nothing add to to add thank you okay thank you okay um at this point um we move on to just discussion amongst Commissioners correct yeah and I think at some point you know we could um entertain more public comment but I think this is you know the discussion uh time for the commission you know I think there were a lot of comments spoken and I I understand it is confusing you know what part is the appropriate time to make comments whether it's the demolition bylaw or the preservation restriction and the reason why the hearings were opened uh simultaneously is much of the information is redundant and then you know how is it then used and applied to each of those hearings either the bylaw or the restriction and so you know even if some of the comments um applied to the second part of the hearing that's fine you know I think for the commission right now in terms of the demolition review it's really you know what's happening with the 28 building if the 90s building is demolished and then you know does the addition uh you know impact the 28 building to you know in a way that there could be or should be a delay and so the '90s Edition is not considered historic and is not part of the discussion and so if the library were just coming forward without anything other than a request to demolish the 90s Edition the commission would undergo a similar process because you know it meets the definition of demolition more than 25% of a facade is being removed uh but then it would say okay well what what's happening with the 28 building and so you know to me right now that's kind of the the question uh you know everything else in terms of asphalt shingles and materials and Landscape that impacts it a little bit and that's also really relevant to the preservation restriction discussion uh but for now with in terms of the demolition of the 90s Edition the construction of the proposed Edition and how does that really impact in relate to the 28 building and so you know that's that's kind of the focus of the of the you know I'll call it the demolition bylaw just to make it simple because if we say its name it's the preservation for historically significant buildings it sounds like preservation restriction and so I'll just call it the demolition bylaw okay we have some hands so um Sharon Sherry would you like to speak yeah thank you so much uh I'm I just I needed to respond a little bit um because a lot is being said that just isn't true and and so I guess my comments are to the ammer historic commission um you know historic preservation has been a key part has played a key role in this project since the beginning 13 years um and in fact many of the design changes that have happened over the 13 years have happened because of public comment and um historic preservation it doesn't mean we can't change the building as many people said the library is not a museum it needs to function and the federal and state and local government they all understand we all want these beautiful historic buildings to last forever and the only way they're going to last forever is if they are able to function for the mission of the lot of the of of whatever organization and this case we're talking about a library the section 106 process C absolutely allows for these changes that we are proposing nothing that we are doing is illegal if it were I would have stopped it a long time ago because this is my this is my profession my livelihood um so uh again for the state to say hey there are these issues the next step in the process is for all of us to get together in the community and say hey how do we address those issues and that's what we are looking forward to doing in our next steps we haven't done anything wrong we're not going to do anything wrong um uh the programming needs and Ada accessibility is really important and so I just I needed to highlight those comments so we're not overshadowed by a lot of the misinformation that is out there thank you so much okay thank you um Antonia um would you like to speak yeah thank you I asked my question and my comment was related to going back to the preservation and protection of the 1928 structure and I know that we spoke and said that um the materials would be in the kind of second part of our conversation but I guess I was wondering in going into regard whether demolition includes the idea of like replacement of um the shingles I guess my question's more towards Nate no the the that material uh choice is um more related to the preservation restriction and so you know in our demolition bylaw you know changing of the roof alone does not trigger demolition review and so you know that's that that discussion is really in the second part of the hearing and um you know really right now it's the kind of the you know the focus is on the structure of the 28 bill building and and then also you know how does the addition impact it and so you know the value engineered changes and what's happening now to the building and the site is it enough of a change from what was previously reviewed that the commission thinks that there should be a delay or not and so you know that's that's the question u in terms I'm just going right I'm just going to review our in our determination in September of 2023 we we um allowed the demolition of the 1990s Edition um with three conditions that must be met to protect the historic building during demolition to safely remove and store the Whipple window for reinstallation later in the library and three uh The Selective Demolition and reuse of the palladian window as presented and so that's sort of what we what we decided um last fall and currently there there are no changes in regards to where the new addition meets the historic structure that has not changed the plan has not changed um now there is you know Nate you've also discussed how we could consider in this the replacement and you know how the 1928 building um aligns with the new addition in this demolition bylaw but I feel I'm that's part I feel like is a little bit confusing for everybody yeah I mean the bot does allow and it states you know what could be you know changed to the site I guess when it was reviewed last year the addition was already a part of it and so the question now is are there enough changes to the addition or The Proposal that now a demolition should be issued and so for instance if you reviewed this last fall and there was an addition proposed and now all of a sudden they're saying well yeah we're going to put this addition on that really changes it but the addition was already part of the review last year the changes now are you know right you know material of the roof of the 28 building or the windows the removal of the roof Monitor and other features that's all the right right so uh you know so to me that's kind of the the reason why the demolition review is happening again is because those changes the Building Commissioner didn't want to say administratively that those are insignificant enough changes that he would just say sure let's just keep the Demolition and authorization from last year he wants the commission to discuss it again and so that's why it's here um you know uh and so to me that's you know that's the demolition piece I think a lot of the discussion we've had and the comments we've had we've heard uh fall also fall under the preservation restriction and so you know I think last time the commission felt that the demolition proceedings um were more straightforward because a lot of the 20 building remains you know some of the walls will be visible some will be removed some might be encapsulated but the idea is that in the future they you know they're they're still there and so the actual you know the you know the 28 building will remain intact and so you know the difference being with the preservation restriction all of a sudden we're talking about the roof material and to me that's the discussion that's where we should have that discussion you know with the preservation restriction not now uh same with the windows you know the windows is under the preservation restriction not the demolition bylaw and my interpretation is in mhc's letter where they take issue with um the material is being removed um and not replaced which mentioned in the public discussion my interpretation of that was um the interior changes which we are not reviewing right now so that was that was in regards to the well we don't have to even get into it but as we detailed tonight the exterior walls will remain just as they did in the last Hearing in the last plan so um just to address that does is there Commissioners do you want does anybody have any comments questions I just Clarity for my own sake you you both have just helped with that this demolition hearing is very narrow it it really pertains only to the 1928 building no it's to the 1993 building isn't aren't we aren't we talking about the 1993 building being demolished yeah the demolition bylaw so this is the okay so so we're not discussing the 1928 building at all we're discussing the 1993 and and its effects on the 1928 building right we were discussing how the removal of the 90s edition how will that impact the 28 building and then what's happening with the 28 building with the new addition and so you know what we've been told and presented is that you know most of the exterior walls will remain you know the plaum will plaum window will be reused as an entry with this you know some of the Sid lights remaining um in some of those conditions that Robin had mentioned and so you know if for instance just the 90th Edition was torn down and they were able to maintain the exterior walls of the 28 Edition then what we have left is basically the 28 building right and so and but now there's this there's also a proposal that they're putting an addition on so how does that impact the 28 building so it's it's both the removal and then the addition Nate the the MHC has said that the demo of the addition will have a NE negative impact on the 1928 building they've said that in in those two letters have they explained why well it relates to the to the to the to the standards I understand that H and and sorry can I just finish saying something because it relates to how I voted last time around okay we had the demolition delay last time I abstained and I'm really glad I did now um because I really feel like we're not oper we're not making this decision to to to allow permit to demolish or not based on enough Clarity around the impact on the 1928 building and and that was my question the the mass commission did not explain how it would the removal of the 93 Edition would impact on the 1928 building and that's really what's up in the air here right now well it it's things important like the the idea to remove a section of the front wall of the building by the main entrance in order to put in a hole for the book sorter that now is has been removed through value engineering so that's one thing that Hilda greenbound mentioned um you know I'm I'm very I'm trying to kind of absorb all the comments that have been made which is practically impossible um but I'm reading back through my notes and I'm very conscious of what Ari Gold said where she said imagine going into the future and it's a little bit you know you could do this in ancient Rome as well go into the future and the P Pantheon is suddenly not there you know or whatever you know that there is a a a moment in time where we could say what if 30 years from now we've removed the 1993 Edition we've made various changes that were needed that we deemed needed to make this Library go forward um but then there were problems with the things that were chosen in terms of materials for that new addition and that had to be demolished and what would we be left with um at that point and it it's sort of like trying to take the Long View in all of this and I know it's I find it difficult and I'm a historian and I I object very strongly to someone saying that we're using history here as a road block that is absolutely not my role here and it's why I abstained last time because the 1993 Edition however compromised it was as a design for a 1928 colonial revival building it it it's it's lasted this long it's not a historic building it's not protected but it's it's created an a building that we could go back and look at and and see if there aren't other ways to to make this work um I'm really frustrated I'm listening to Romeo and Juliet two households both alike in dignity in fair Verona where we lay our scene from ancient Grudge break to new Mutiny I'm worried about Romeo and Juliet here you know the library is Romeo and Juliet is is the thing that we want to try and preserve I see two groups of people in two different places who both really love the Jones library trying to come together in the middle and I've tried as a commissioner when we've been through these plans and these proposals before value engineering was even a question to look at the very granular level at what we can do to make this building better what we can do to make the programming better I want all that I want the Civil War tablets there so to to bring history into it as if it's a roadblock is really really annoying um and maybe it wasn't intentional but I think that's why I had abstained about the original demolition delay that there isn't enough there isn't enough support for what is being proposed at this point not seeing it Hy I respect your position but it's not our role to evaluate support our role is to look at the structures and and I I think we need to to continue to try to have clarity about that as we make a decision based on the demolition bylaws and based on the preservation bylaws and it's you know we talk to people in the community and there is a divide but it's not our role to pay attention to that our role is to pay attention to the regulations and the bylaws that govern what we do but yeah I as you know everyone mentioned the mass historic letters so they mentioned that the you know certain facades will be demolished to make way for the addition and then the north vad will be covered by the new addition and so that's why you know previously I had asked for what's changing and you know had uh for the demolition review I think that's important and so um you know the book drop to me is the uh is the preservation restriction right um you know and I think we I think we should get into that uh that's a good piece to get into but you know if we stick just to the demolition piece you know um Mass historic said that a significant portion of the West facade North facade and East facade on the children's Wing West Wing parenthetically will be demolished to accommodate the new addition the north elevation of the 28 building will be covered with the proposed new addition and so you know my understanding is that's what was reviewed in what was discussed previously and what was discussed tonight uh and so I guess you know you know Pat saying she would like Clarity I mean what we've heard is that you know some of those exterior walls will be visible from the interior and there will be some demolition of those facades but it hasn't changed from what was reviewed previously um and I guess you know my question would be uh you know in Mass historics review they they you know they seem to indicate that much of a facade will be demolished and so you know i' I'd go back to the floor plans again I'd like to and just review those from ground level first floor second floor and go carefully through those uh you know so the commission can see that okay I agree can we pull those up can everyone see that could you zoom in oh yeah thank you this is the ground level did you want to start there yes so we are so MHC was concerned with the children's Wing the Northwest east facades of it um being removed de demolished and then the north elevation being completely covered so can you just show us where the children's Wing is in each of these Yep this is so this is level one and this Wing here is the children's Wing you can see my cursor yeah so this is the area that we had mentioned previously um where there is demolition happening so if we go back for a second to the existing plan um this is that wall that is being removed okay is that so that's the original building there with the 90s Edition to the north fit or yeah so the the 90s Edition is this piece here that goes right okay and so um the 1928 Wing is stops here um but then um there's a piece of it here what happened in the '90s Edition is that there was some demolition of the 1928 building for the nth Edition and so that's what you're not seeing here because it was already demolished but um but this is how it stands right now so an exterior wall on the north side of the children's Wing is not the kind of 1928 exterior well is no longer present anyways no due to the 19 no I think it's just interior walls that were demolished there was also a 60s Edition and it's tough to understand what was done when but this is original as far as we know and this piece is original as far as we know was that an exterior wall do you know that part this was not okay could I just say just to be clear about this the the 1990s Edition required taking out a piece of the back wall of the Jones Library we all know that because when we walk from the old building into the new building that's that that was all taken out that's number one number two what we are proposing does nothing like that number three as I understand it when you reviewed the proposal carefully in uh the past you were governed by the same standards that the Massachusetts historical commission is citing that means at the time that you made those determinations we relied on the fact that the commission had done its job which was to look at the 10 standards and you made a determination in light of those 10 standards okay to allow the demolition to proceed so uh I again I'm I'm very grateful for the care but I'm not clear what it is now that is the question we have said we've not changed anything in regard to to the demolition in these FLW plans so the 10 standards relate to the preservation restriction and you know I think that going over these doesn't hurt because it adds Clarity and so you know if if they haven't changed they haven't changed but I just think it's helpful to see that and so Nate I'm sorry it seems to me that we're trying to have it both ways so either the 10 standards are not applicable here or they are so the sorry sorry these are these are two hearings open concurrently one is for the demolition by law and one is for the preservation restriction the preservation restriction has the 10 standards of the Secretary of interior for the rehabilitation of historic structures that part of the hearing is happening after the demolition bylaw the demolition bylaw is our local bylaw right for anything 75 years or older if so much of a facade or so whatever right and so this meets the definition of a demolition and really the demolition bylaw is you know so this Library significant the commission allowed the demolition previously you know are the changes now enough that they could consider a delay up to a year or not and so but subsequently since that decision there's been a lot of information you know even the mass historic letter indicating that some of the walls are being demolished or something's happening and so what we're doing right now is just clarifying what is and isn't being removed from the 28 structure as part of the project uh and so to me that's just clarification and so it's to help with the Demolition review when we start talking about the preservation restriction right that's where we will start talking about to me it's the changes in the roof material the windows and everything else that was enumerated in the presentation and so for me right now this is just clarification and confirmation that what was reviewed previously is still the case now and so I'm not you know that's what it is for me is you know we're seeing what was you know reviewed last time in September October and just confirming it's what is being reviewed tonight mine I have a question so if we are thinking about the Demolition and if what Nate said is correct namely that the 10 standards do not apply to the demolition then why was there a reference just made in regard to the demolition to the mass historics reference to the 10 standards right because um the standards do consider reversibility of additions to historic buildings and that includes um the demolition of original material and to ensure that in the future those new additions could be removed and the building would still be retained um so that's a consideration in the Secretary of interior standards and that element about demolition is what's guiding this demolition bylaw portion of our hearing right now just to consider how the 1928 building is affected by the removal by the additions just um kind of as a shell and to right to ensure that um the structure would not be affected through this process so the mhc's sort of identification of that is is helpful for us because um just to make sure that we didn't miss anything before with that um but previously um we determined as I said um I mean we found that the demolition of the 9s Edition um would be allowed um with those three conditions um Commissioners would you like to make a comment about or discuss whether that still stands and if we can move forward with um just deliberating on that so I'm just looking to clarify because there was me mentioned from the mass historical commission about the north wall and now I'm understanding that that was removed when the 93 Edition was installed is is that a correct understanding the north wall of the library I mean of the 1928 um building and so I'm looking this is in Gray this is the original and this is the Edition um and so when there was mentioned by the mass historical commission about the north wall certain walls being removed do we have do we have a north wall if the addition is removed and an addition a new addition is put on I think the MHC letter said that the northwall would be encased so it exists does one of the applicants want to address this I mean I think if we went through this just the proposed floor plans for the first second floors it would yep someone highlighted in blue right here this is that north wall that's in case that we went over previously but I just I also want to add that that north wall was changed during the 90s Edition they changed the window elevations but now you you you will see that when you're on the inside of the the addition you're going to see that wall That's the proposed as you can see that wall is highlighted in blue still you'll be on that level and you'll be able to see that wall from inside of the building Josephine that's really helpful can you um scroll down just a little bit so we can see to the who did the mark thank you so much I did sorry that's no good thanks Rachel that's where the palladian window is is isn't it yes yes okay good I know where I am and if we go can we go to the second floor just look at the proposed um level two floor plan or yeah not sure if it's visible for everyone but there is a red dash line for the footprint of the existing that's the 1990s right existing yes so the existing north wall is how many stories tall I don't even know so at level one that's currently the second floor so it that's why it feels like you're a bit off on this plan um so if we go to um the floor plan the existing floor plan of level two um you can see here that so it's retained at all levels okay this yeah that's the wall there that um just highlighted so in the proposed this is where the addition the northernmost addition of the of the proposal is so it does get pushed back but at that level um wish we had a m SC open you can give just just at that point isn't it the roof it's yeah I mean it's tough to say exactly where the roof hits but yeah right it's it's not like a at a floor level it's a you know so a portion of the north wall will be removed uh but it's not at from a floor like a floor to floor level maybe we can point out what is being retained right so I'll try my best with the pen yeah so and what's yeah all right that's that good all of this all of all of this is being retained you're going to see the abdor you're going to see the roof all of this is being retained you're going to see it from the inside you're going to see the Dormers you're going to see the Slate okay Nate you think that addresses this yeah I mean I'm I you know from myself I understand what's happening you know I you know it's it's it's it's the Commissioners you know if you if you if you're comfortable with it and understand it you know I I understand what's happening now at the levels and you know it confirms that it's what was presented previously I just I wanted you know that clarification okay is that clear to everybody yes thank you for that um yes thank um now H do you have concerns that are keeping you from do you want to discuss this further no I think um I think I would really like to continue the hearing and discussion and move on to the preservation restriction it's uh almost 9:00 um one of our commission members isn't present I thought she would be joining us tonight um one of our commission members has to recre herself um I'm feeling we're little a little thin on the ground yeah um I think okay I think this this sorry this might be it that only four Commissioners will be attending these hearings so I don't I think you know the four that are here will just be the four reviewing this right okay well um now in the previous um Hearing in September we were concerned about the Whipple window being removed and stored and the padian window being um reused yeah I the commission you know could reaffirm what was done previously like I said or could issue you know issue a a delay of some time or issue a delay with other conditions and so you know if we're if we think we're comfortable with the Demolition piece we could have a motion and close this part of the hearing and continue with a preservation restriction piece or I'm not or Hy may have said could we just continue the hearing for both pieces uh last time we try to you know conclude one part of it and go to the next we could keep both open and then now focus on the preservation restriction so you know there's a few different ways how we could move forward I know that we talked about both of these windows and I know that we came up with solutions for both of these windows and I'm satisfied that we arrived at a compromise which is what I'm where I'm trying to be tonight um I'm a little concerned about the comment that the Whipple window is now sort of floating somewhere that's not my that's not how I remember it being addressed by FAA um but I also think that we could move on to the preservation restriction seeing as these hearings are opened simultaneously and uh and begin to look at some of the other aspects of the value engineering I don't think uh anything would be lost by doing that at this point yeah I think question yes do you are we is there a decision on that demolition delay shouldn't we have one I wanted that too because if there's a if there's if it's I don't I would assume you're going to vote on that so then we can move on to the next one and they're two different pieces right so that's what the commission did last time and what I was trying to say is they could follow a similar pattern and make a motion for the demolition piece now or they could just continue the hearing keep both open and make motions at the end for both uh you know you could do it sequentially you know as the way the kind of hearings are structured or you could wait and make motions at the end of everything but if we're you know if we understand the demolition piece I think it would be cleaner to vote on the demolition bylaw now and then move on to the preservation restriction unless there's still questions right you know if you know that was kind the first part of the hearing um can I make a motion um to allow the demolition of the 1990s Edition and keeping with the three conditions that were stipulated in the previous hearing of September 2023 I will second that I will third that would we have any more discussion before we vote we can discuss okay then um shall we have a vote Yes um Hy yes no I'm voting no oh sorry sorry I'll um okay Eddie no Pat yes Antonia yes and I um I say yes all right okay then um I think we should have a um we should aim to discuss the preservation restriction tonight until about we'll try and wrap things up at 9:30 and um decide on a if necessary a a future a future date to continue the hearing um so in this portion of the hearing we'll discuss how the project complies with the preservation restriction as detailed in the Jones Library preservation restriction issue in uh 2022 the Secretary of interior standards for the treatment of historical properties must be applied when reviewing any construction alteration repair or maintenance to the building a historic structures report for the library was also produced quite recently and IT issues more detailed recommendations for the treatment of the building um and we have these in our meeting packets as stated earlier um the HC has reviewed the project and the historical commission has reviewed the project and made a determination October 2023 today we um were going to consider aspects of the project that have changed since this determination um in regards to the value engineering and um also new information from U Massachusetts historical commission so we have already seen a presentation from the applicant um we'll open it up to questions from the Commissioners and then following that we will have additional uh public comment so um we can have I think it's we can have um questions s of let's bend them into the ve changes first um so to discuss maybe the the roofing of ashalt shingles initially and if we have any questions regarding that and then we'll hear um and then we can ask questions regarding the next point if that's possible is that does that work um so does the um I think does anybody have questions regarding uh the ashalt sing shingles um versus the and the synthetic slate shingles okay do we have questions related oh sorry yes I'm sorry I I was trying to unmute myself and get back problem I I've stated it publicly at the design review board and I again I had question this evening in the initial discussion um I think in the context of historical preservation that at the very least the um Fox asphalt Fox slate roof is more consistent with the look that the library should maintain yeah so you know in you know so with a preservation restriction the commission could find that the asphalt shingle are just not acceptable and it needs to be removed from any bid documents and if that's where you're going that's what I would say right and so the only solution or roofing material would be one or the other and so I wouldn't even leave it to like oh let it be an alternate if you feel strongly enough that asphalt shingles are not appropriate at all and don't meet the preservation restriction I would just say it and to me that's where we're going and so you know and and so that's the way I would word it and so um you know we've already said we like you know we would allow synthetic slate and during that discussion it was also said that all the flashing would be copper the most of the gutters would be retained and so I just would also want to ask that all those aspects that can be part of roofing right uh fascia and everything else are all what was presented before and um you know and so that's you know if we're sticking with Roofing that's how I would go about it and being really clear about what you would you know what language you would use in terms of the roofing material well is exactly what I was saying n but you said it more eloquently so I don't know whether that eventually needs to get into a a motion but um I I I feel strongly about that if if not repair of the actual slate that would be the only alternative from for my opinion yes e Echo in uh Pat's comments um I think that at this point the plans don't comply with preservation restrictions and standards and I'd like to see the real slate come back it's available Ellen do you have a question or comment I do um if anybody and I understand your opinion pet but if anybody would like to see what an asphalt shingle looks like we have an image if not that's fine to I just wanted to say um Nate that any new uh gutter sections or downspouts that need to re be replaced will be in Copper some of it's not in perfect shape so we'll have to replace it but it will look exactly like um what's there now it will just be new new copper Ellen thank you I I did see your photographs of the asphalt and my opinion is that need to use the synthetic slate if not the Slate okay thank you p and for we have mass historic has approved synthetic slate on a project we did in Salem Massachusetts so we would be in keeping with their approval yes with that yes that's correct P well only by association um I mean only by associ should rck no it's it's being approved more and more because it's a it's newer technology yeah I think in looking at what our review is to preserve and protect um the character of the building especially given the fact that the roof um it has such a slight high pitch um it is especially um facing AMD Street and would require um it's where the also Community would be engaging also most just visually with the 1928 structure um and so I agree with what has been said about if not repairing um the original slate um using synthetic it's true the the roof is very prominent um let's see we'll move on to the um the windows so the current value engineering includes retaining the windows um what sort of repairs would be made to the to the existing windows and will there be installation kind of added no J I'll take this feel free to chime in the existing windows will stay in place as will the storm existing storm windows they'll be repaired where they're rotted um in you know if they're if they're not working they'll be repaired but in general we we'll repair the items that need addressing and every all the exterior trim as you know is getting repainted anyway so it it's not um a large scope of work because we are only replacing the windows sash to be an insulated glass P I'm wondering if you've done a a cost analysis of what the repair would be versus replacement and whether you've done a lead paint analysis on the Windows there's lead paint pet all over I would expect that there is so so that to make any repair then you're bound to follow the regulations about and so I I I think there really should be a cost analysis of what it would cost to repair and lead paint remediation versus replacement of the windows with historically appropriate windows it's just to be clear it the window frame that's painted will remain in place will be scraped and painted according with the the laws dealing with lead paint um the sash itself we were originally going to replace that take the old one out put a new one in this proposal is to keep that existing one repair what needs to be repaired scrape it and paint like we are doing to the rest of the trim on the building AC in accordance with the required lead batement right but my qu my question is has there been a cost analysis be because I have dealt with this kind of thing in historic buildings and often times replacing the windows is the more cost effect follow all the regulations to REM remedy you know and still have windows that are not sound and tight right that's a that's a good point Pat uh we we H we have a rough estimate but it's not fully vetted is that something you can do well one of the one of the things that Pat we were suggesting uh to the that we to the group is that our the drawings as they stand today are uh new window sash we are suggesting that we look at an alternate of keeping the existing windows in repairing them as they need repairing so that's that's what we're asking the the this group to either say no or yes it's just another so then Pat we'll have a better sense of what the cost would be it wouldn't it be um fortuitous to have an idea of that now before we go out to bid well if it's an alternate it it it it's not we can we can do estimating you know over and over over again it's not a real price to we get a bid right I understand that but there is a market value to these things to both the remedial and to the replacement and so I'm you know when we're trying to do a value bid um I I I if if I were doing this I would have those figures so that I figure P it's around 100,000 between 7 $100,000 and I don't quote me on this because I don't have that data in front of me so it was enough of a value savings to put it on the value engineering list and what would the new windows cost I don't have that number off the top of my head but we it was a so it's a that that number to keep the existing Windows is a savings it may make us bump up the size of the mechanical um system a tiny bit to because of the air leakage we would get with those those existing ones and that's what I was saying it's not fully baked there's a lot of pieces to the pie but to to develop the pieces to the pie we're looking for direction from this group what if we can have it as an alternate because then it will be fully baked and we'll have a complete number we can't we we can't we can't so what so yeah Ellen I guess so right now the bid would be to repair existing no the base bid is new window sash just as we were doing previously so with a double double double glaze insulated glass yep but it would match the profile Grill profile and the you know the glazing size and everything is the same yes yes and if a question would be if you were repairing just the existing windows can every existing window be repaired or are some going to have some sashes going to have to be replaced so then you end up have a mixture of old and new there there's a couple that may need a little more um may need to be replace but you but you will not tell the difference between old and new I mean just so folks know this and we've said it before our firm has been around for almost 60 years we started the historic pres renovation preservation movement in Boston we this we're experts at this right we I'm my whole career I've been either replacing or restoring windows on all of our historic buildings and EV every every project is different but you the the quality of the new windows that will replace the existing you will not be able to tell the difference I think if it's a mix though I I think you will to be honest you won't you won't Nat the Nate the the profiles match exactly but it's the glare and the color of the glass of the glazing and so it won't have the bubbles in it no no I'm not saying it'll have bubbles but I think from and you know from a perspective you can see the difference between types of glass and if they're insulated glass or not and so if you have a replacement sash in a window next to a window that doesn't have one I think you'll actually be able to see the difference in the coloring of the glazing and so it's not going to read as all the same Windows throughout um throughout the facade well keep in mind that the existing Windows if they are kept the storm is on them so you're not going to be able to read the glass equally it's you know what I'm saying you're not we don't actually see now the original glass we're seeing the glass through the storm what about the sort of rates of deterioration with the different materials of the old and new they're both wood and they'll be painted I can't tell you the rates of deterioration so you the new sashes would be wood and painted it wouldn't be aluminum clad or anything no nope nope nope and that is allowed that does get approved these days but we're not going that route we're going with uh a a wood sash or res restoring refurbishing the existing it it just feels like you were kicking this problem down the road with the windows because windows have a have a finite Lifetime and and I I know we're trying to save money I know we're trying to to maintain value and most importantly to get this project approved and by the by for funding but I I think sometimes there's spending on something that is value added as opposed to Value um whatever the term is um is is it's worthwhile it's definitely worthwhile right no I understand your point of view thank you okay just to continue our questions and then I think we can discuss these points further later um but removal of the roof monitor are there any questions regarding this um change Rachel has her hand up oh yeah Rachel um I don't know if this is the right point in the discussion but it may be helpful um for the design team to explain what an alternate is and what a base bit is to the group um I don't know if that' be helpful uh because we're when we're talking about options there's a there's a priority in in the bidding yep I can explain that or Josephine you want to take that one we good tag team um and and so good point Rachel about the um the alternate on the order and so we go out with a Bas scope and that is what is you know that's the the main number that we're working with we go for alternates typically to um try and save costs or look at different costs of different elements on a project and so with public bid the order of the alternate that is placed is the one that we is the order we have to go with and so um depending on how many we are actually putting into the bid docks um that would be the if there was more than one that that would be the order that we would um be going in um yeah you wouldn't have you wouldn't if we had this as an alternate you wouldn't have to accept the alternate right we were doing that really as a cost you know just trying to confirm the cost with an actual bid but but to Pat's point you know uh Windows have a a lifespan so it it's that's very true so it's that's that's that's up to the commission if they want us to pursue the alternate or not I I personally would like you to pursue market pricing on new versus um repair because I think you're going to end up with a mix and to Nate's point I think there should be a consistent look um and and without knowing what the repair costs are and without knowing what the market value for new windows are we we really don't have an alternate here in my opinion I think you know for the preservation restriction it's the appearance of the building and so if the commission feels that new sashes throughout is what will make a consistent appearance and it's not differentiated between what's there now because there's storm windows and some screens and actually having a replacement sash with you know a an exact uh Grill profile and everything is actually more beneficial than again like the shingles I would say that's the only thing you want and there is no repair you would not allow repair of the existing Windows right so you'd want to say it in that in in that kind of language so that they there is no alternate anymore it is just that right and so but if you think you want the original windows then you would say it so I I I would want to make sure that as we're going through the preservation restriction review and then these changes you know the motion would be you know clear in terms of the windows is it yes to only the replacement or is it yes to maintaining existing and not either or unless you want it right but that that doesn't provide guidance either you know then they can do the alternate if you roof material again if it's only the one piece you just say it and you don't want asphalt shingles you know if it if we're moving on to the next piece just be really clear yes to the whatever we're talking about or no I I think it's I don't want to I I would you know unless we really think we don't really care about all these and it can happen and we let it happen and the bid go and all these changes are good but I'm I'm hearing that there's probably some opinions um on on these on on these elements that we could have a clear you know some a clear motion that incorporates them my opinion Nate is that unless we have a cost analysis of new versus repair there there can't be a um choice because it sounds like we're going to have a mix and I think well I would say then either it's all replacement sashes who cares about cost it's about the appearance and the look or it's all repair existing and there's no mix of old or new and to me that would be part of the motion it's all the same window it's either all replacement sashes and repaint the trim as Ellen said or it's all keep the original and no mix and that's that's how you're that's how how I would have my motion as the commission and not leave it up to who cares about the cost it's really about what do we think it's going to look like and the impact on the building and so if if the replacement sashes end up being more expensive but that's what you think is in keeping with the preservation restriction and it works then it works and so I wouldn't worry about doing a cost analysis of of it it's um right I well that's part of it Nate that that's why we have these alternates is it's part of the cost analysis and and we can't we we can't choose an alternate if we don't know the comparative costs this is just my my experience doing these kinds of things and in in order to have a cost um savings you need to have a cost analysis of comparative and so um I I'm just expressing my opinion on this can I Pat you're asking really good question so let me just give you a little background from where where we we got the number so we went back to our estimator and again I don't have the estimate in front of me and we went through it with him okay we're going to repair we're going to keep the existing Sash and the storms and we are going to re repair them as required what would be the savings of doing that and he came back to us and said this savings would be in a ballpark 70 to 100,000 or a little more than 100,000 that's the number that we have and that it's from the cost estimator so that's the savings he's projecting Pat in this current year correct well yes so that's what we I guess what we need to look at but um I just need to voice my opinion yeah I and I agree with you and I I think Nate's approach is a good one is it's either because it's either it's probably simpler than it's all new or keep or keep existing and I I would be good with that I just believe we're kicking the can down the road to expenses in the future but that's not our problem today no yeah Antonia you could just tell us you want a new sash Pat that's what we have in the drawings now well I'd like to hear from the other Commissioners Antonia would you like to yeah um sorry I went quickly to get water and I was I might have missed this if this was already shown but would it be possible or has it been done since maybe it it hasn't been proposed an alternate are there photos um of between the new sash and an old replacement or would that be possible we don't have Josephine I don't we'd have to dig something up we we've done this analysis but we probably did it a year ago um a question yeah because it's a detail that we actually have okay well I I mean I think that it's just sort of assessing what we're saying here it just seems like we're concerned about consistency and what Nate said that we just want all of the same window whether it's a replacement or or um or keeping the originals um I'm not sure if that does that capture what you believe Pat or you would like only Replacements um mine I'm I'm questioning the cost efficiency because that's the other side of this coin I think from the historical commissions with our purview we are concerned with right the that's not our that's not our our ballpark however it's a question that needs to be asked because we're asked to be to to um approve Al alternate choices and so I feel like there's some information missing about that but um I I think either all the same of pair of the existing will worry about down the road or replacement but there needs to be a better understanding of what the the costs are because that's why we're that's why we're talking about this py yes I'm I think from a sustainability point of view all new sash makes sense okay um and from a historic reservation point of view I think the two are connected I think of course practice these days is good sustainability practice that that being said I I think Nate's suggestion to getting us past this is that it all be repaired and the same or all be replacement but I think that the architectural firm needs to do a little more cost analysis to help us to know what the best um proposals should go in the bid okay okay um now at this point we're approaching 9:30 so we it's been 3 hours um I suggest that we find a date for a future um time to reconvene if that's if everyone agrees um how do we go about doing that Nate you know we need two days to post an agenda we need to continue it to a time and date certain I mean you know like you know do we do we can we do next week sometime I mean I would start there and then okay you know I mean Tuesday would be the earliest Tuesday evening we could post the agenda tomorrow and um and then there's Wednesday I mean that that's what I would say does Wednesday or Tuesday or Wednesday the 27th or 28th at you know 6:30 or 7 PM work and if it doesn't then we just go to the next week Tuesday and Wednesday work for me Wednesday works for me but not Tuesday both work I can do Wednesday and I I I would need to make it 7M for me to get there to be there so it would be the the 28th at 7M okay that that works for everybody Ellen yes does that that work for you and Josephine it's we were wrapping up our drawings next Friday but that'll have to be delayed because we need a vote on the landscape as well and and I I'm a Conservation Commission member in am and I have a meeting next Wednesday night we could take a five minute break and try to meet and discuss this for another half hour or not I mean I don't know how people are feeling it's it is you know it is 9:30 but we would love to do that n we're just this is very time time sensitive um getting the drawings out done and out forbid for a favorable uh time of year mid-september I'm willing to extend this evening I can do it okay could we would we need to um reach a motion on everything then in order for them to have information to for the drins I mean yeah I think we'd have you know there's a few more points from the value engineering if we had questions we still may want to take some public comment and then you know can we reach a point to make a motion and decision so you know I'm not sure if we can get there tonight but you know if we want to take a five minute recess come back at 9:35 and say we'll go you know to like 10:15 or whatever I'm you know I feel like once I start a meeting I'm not it's not like I'm gonna go do anything else tonight can't come can't come hold the lawn right now if everybody can if everybody can stay I think that's the best alternative isn't this also the case that the the people who are listening in who aren't commission members need to be able to comment on theing aspects of the preservation restriction value engineering information especially from Rachel for the landscape I mean I know things aren't going to be resolved tonight I I just have that feeling but I I would feel some closure especially for FAA and and burer design if they could complete their presentation to us tonight okay I think that um we can after a brief pause we could move on to the public comment and then um then have our discussion um so we'll start with public comment at 9:35 okay mine that's that's really great I do want to just reiterate if it is at all possible may not be it would really be great if the commission could make its decision tonight because otherwise if you can't you can't I understand that but the this is Ellen said time sensitive so if whatever you can do to try to reach a decision tonight on all of the aspects that would really be great if you can do it so many of the people making public comment were straddling the two both preservation and and U Demolition and so we want to make sure they know that we're continuing and if they continue with us wonderful okay so we'll reconvene at 9:35 okay everyone can take you know everyone can mute their themselves or turn their cameras off and we have a 4minute break e e e e e e e e e e e okay think we can open up to public comment I just want to make sure Pat is also here all right thank you Nate sure uh let's see are you ready meline yeah we'll we will limit um comments to two minutes again um okay yep all right Leticia you're allowed to talk thank you very much and I want to say first of all how much I appreciate your willingness to go late on this meeting and to try to finish it up tonight um uh I want to comment on and actually compliment uh the the design team on the Landscaping uh modifications I particularly love the no mo um grass in the back and the soft waves that's going to um create and also the greater sustainability of that solution so Kudos on that that's my only comment I will keep my comments very brief in the interest of moving along thank you thank you thanks hi Hilda you can unmute yourself I just will also be very brief when you talk about saving 78 to $100,000 by keeping the old falling apart Windows you're talking bubas in a $50 million budget I don't think it's even worth talking about it you should replace the windows provided they are historically appropriate windows that they match what's there and get rid of the ugly storm windows because I know you'll end up paying more for electricity and heating and cool if you don't replace them so it doesn't make sense to go and if anybody wants to come and look at my reproduction 1737 windows and see how they were done they're welcome to come see it because not only did they change the panes between the the mountains but they also insulated between the interior boards and exterior boards which make a huge difference and the windows fit tight now so to me it's an no-brainer go replace them it's not worth arguing over $100,000 which may not be true either in the end thank you Haro you can unmute yourself thank you uh Carol great 815 South Street ammer uh I would um give a little background for myself I am an attorney um sorry um I'm an attorney I uh also I have a JD I have a master's in law from Georgetown University Law Center I'm very concerned that both the town staff person and the president of the Jones Library trustees uh have implied that you can't revisit the initial decision of whether this project as a whole complies with the uh preservation restriction agreement they both the Jones library and presumably the had the Smoking Gun that any jury would need which is the letter from Bri brona Simon saying how the the the guidelines from the secretary interior standards are being violated you are not provided that that in my view is misconduct I think that you can't be a jury you can't be jurors and not be presented the most critical evidence of a case and then be told by the people that withheld it from you the staff of the Town presumably they have it the the president of Jones Library trustees they certainly had it because the letter was addressed to Sharon Sherry they failed to disclose that to you you are at an incredible disadvantage deciding a case without the most critical piece of evidence and what does that letter say the letter says specifically The Proposal violates standards 25 69 and 10 what does for example standard K say it says new additions and ajacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired clearly that is violated you could just on that violation alone say this project as a whole violates the preservation um agreement now you might say well how do we know well the preservation agreement if you read page three of the agreement it says in section 2.1 that uh that the uh there's an obligation to maintain uh require replacement rebuilding repair and reconstruction of the building whenever necessary in accordance with the secretary of interior standards for the treatment of historical properties the following page of the preservation agreement says in section four the standard of review grantee shall apply the secretary's standards so you have no choice but to apply that law you have a letter from the most authoritative person in the state saying that those guidelines are V violated in five different ways to just say that well let's not allow asphalt shingles well of of course you shouldn't allow asphalt shingles especially when that letter by the way says that uh that the Buckingham slate on the highly visible Gambrell roof is proposed to be replaced with synthetic slate even though the historic structures report states that Buckingham slate is still cored and available as a roofy material the removal of the historic slate roof which is highly visible and a character defining feature the building and replacement of synthetic slate does not meet the standards standards two and six the law is crystal clear and you're not applying it and no offense to people who are talking about cost but there's nothing in the legal standards that say that you should even look at Cost nothing you look only at whether the historical Integrity of the building is preserved and even talking about these details you're shuffling the the chairs on the ship of the Titanic like the project as a whole completely violates the standard and you have to apply the your your your point should be and you and you you're here to say whether this project complies with preservation agreement it's not go change this the sh the slate no you vote it up or you vote it down as it's presented to you today you know for a fact from the most authoritative Source it violates at least five standards your legal duty is to say no this is in violation of the preservation agreement I move to to state that this is is in violation and you you have one duty to preserve the historic integrity and I don't you are experts to say that that and some of you seem to have not read the letter you're saying what does the letter say I think you should have a break and everyone go to read the two-page letter because it and and also the secretary's standards if you weren't provided those by Town staff how could you ever know how to make a legal ruling if you weren't provided the law you haven't read the legal standards you can't be a juror making evidence in a legal way you're just going to set the town up thank you thank you for your comment hi Maria you can unmute yourself thank you Maria kapiki South Amer when the amst historic commission last discussed and voted on this issue in September and October of 23 it did so without the knowledge of the findings of the Massachusetts historic commission we've established that and those that commission said that these this project would violate five of 10 of the Secretary of interior standards for rehabilitation of historic properties you know this is this is not that complicated I your your chair tonight has said that you need to consider the new information so consider it please while the amist historic commission is not responsible for the information that should have been shared with you it does bear responsibility for knowing what those standards are and applying them to all projects that come before it the demolition of large parts of the 1928 building the removal of the Buckingham slate roof the massing of the new addition relative to histor to the his building were all known last fall and are incontrovertibly forbidden the ahc has no B had no basis last fall to find that the plan complied with these standards and it has no basis now to find that when to find that when even more violations are proposed like asphalt s shingles were it not for the single bid coming in $7 million over budget that error that was made would have gone uncorrected the proposed plan known to violate the standards for years should never have gotten as far it as it has but that's not your problem to solve you have a second chance tonight to do your duty which is historic preservation you need to find that this plan does not meet the required standards of Rehabilitation because it doesn't you just have to find what has been demonstrated to you that's it please do your job here we are relying on you thank you thank you hi Sarah you can unmute yourself thank you Nate um Sarah mck former Library trustee president I would just like to correct a statement that was made about the Project's compliance with the Massachusetts historic preservation law this project the mass historic commission sorry historic H commission informed the town manager and the Library director in December of 2016 that the information that the library had provided to the mass historical Commission in connection with its a application for State Grant was insufficient and the letter told them what they had to supply they did not supply it in 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 21 or 22 in 2023 when the federal grants came through all of a sudden because the federal grants likewise required information about the project they provided the the information which resulted in these letters from the mass historical commission that that the project had the deficiencies outlined so I would like to make it clear that yes there was a deficiency on the part of the town to provide and trustees to provide the necessary information and I imagine that contractors associated with the project were well aware of this effect thank you thank you thanks for that comment hi Jeff you can unmute yourself thanks I'm just wondering by what legal basis you could say that this hearing is only narrowly focused on the value engineering changes I mean you have new information now from the mass historic commission that found seven adverse effects and VI VI ation of five of the Secretary of interior standards for historic rehabil Rehabilitation um that tells me that you clearly got it wrong the last time in last October and you should be correcting that decision uh I just point out also that in the preservation restriction agreement there's a covenant to M maintain the library is supposed to be maintaining the building in good repair and I don't see that happening thank you thank you hi Arley you can unmute yourself um hi again arle ghoul South ammer um just a couple things um first you know I I saw in the proponent letters and I just heard tonight from the people presenting speed we need speed and it just reminds me of a saying your lack of planning is not my emergency you know the they got themselves into this pickle and that's not the ammer historical commission's problem that's one thing the other thing I keep hearing is the Jones is Not a museum yes we know it's not a museum and none of the historical buildings that the historical commission uh protects our museums but I would also say that if it's not a museum then why do we need all this space to display these Civil War tablets that sounds very Museum like um you know people have suggested maybe space could be found in the library if were housed in a different location possibly the new Wildwood Empty Space special collections could be argued there another Museum like uh activity going on in the library so to keep saying this isn't a museum I think U isn't quite accurate and one last thing sustainability can be achieved with a repair uh option uh and the greenest building is the one that's already been built says Carla lante head of the architect Association for many years so you know whe when we do um if we don't do this project there will still be a lot of sustainability that can happen all the historic preservation will be okay and like that so thank you very much thank you you thanks Arthur you can unmute yourself hi art Kean Dennis drian amorist I'm a Meritus professor of anthropology at UMass early in my career I was director of the UMass archaeological field school for about a dozen years and I worked in historic preservation across West West Mass and in collaboration with the Massachusetts historic commission throughout the 80s and the 90s I'm also a member of the amorist historical preservation Coalition I sent a detailed written comment to the commission and I hope that you'll consider the details therein but here's the gist as currently proposed this project does not meet the standards to preserve and protect the historical resource that is the 1928 Jones Library building in my professional judgment the plans degrade the building's historic character dramatically alter its appearance from the primary street view on Amity stand in violation of the library's own historic preservation restriction agreement and violate state and federal historic preservation standards the plan's indifference to Historic preservations stands in glaring contrast with the architectural inte architectural integration and compatibility of the addition to the north ammer Library you Commissioners have a statutory obligation to protect and conserve the historic character of the 1928 building and to enforce the preservation restriction that the library signed with the town in 2022 and to do this excuse me sorry and to do this solely in terms of the impacts of proposed alterations to the historic character of the building arguments that have been offered concerning cost pressing debt lines Community needs have no place in your deliberations while you determined in October of 23 that the original design did not violate the libraries historic preservation restriction and had no averse effects on the historic structure the MHC found otherwise stating unequivocally in letters that the proposed design violated five of 10 of the secretary of the Interiors standards for rehabilitation of historic properties you may not been have been aware those findings at the time since the library director withheld them from the public until July 9th of 2024 but you were aware of them now and you may not ignore them the project sponsors are obliged to answer what they intend to do to address each of these identified violations as well as violations of its own preservation restriction which prohibits modifications to the exterior of the building to date they have not done so you as our local guardian of his historic resources have an obligation to enforce these regulations as well you should return the proposal to the sponsors and ask them to return it to you only when they have seriously addressed the violations of regulations and standards and as required provide proper proposals to mitigate the adverse effects that have been identified thank you thank you thanks for that comment hi Elizabeth you can unmute yourself hello um I'm Elizabeth sharp I live on Summerfield Road and in my work life I'm co-executive director of historic Northampton where we have three historic houses and a historic Barn all on um the national and and state registers we we are subject to the same local state and federal restrictions that the library project is um I urge you to determine that the project designed does not comply with the Amis preservation restriction the mass historical commission's review States clearly that the library design does not meet the Secretary of interior standards for the rehabilitation of of historic properties it violates five of 10 of the of the standards that's fully half of them I mean to me that's shocking and I can't believe the project has gotten this far with 50% of the standards not being met somebody hasn't been doing their due diligence um in the specific case of value engineering um for the specific CPA compliance the roof covering the idea of the asphalt shingles is is just not workable um the original is slate it has a completely different look it ages differently it has a different texture it'll look different over time it doesn't look the same as the SL as the um asphalt or the imitation slate alternative it just doesn't and to put anything else on the roof would just be wrong and I think you know that um and addition Additionally the um the um in the comments from the mass historical commission was about the massing of the building and the size of it sort of looming over and dwarfing the 1928 structure so that needs to be addressed as well I believe that creating a modern useful facility like a like a library doesn't mean sacrificing historical Integrity or the distinctive architectural features you can do modern and you and you can do historical you can do both and make them work and the the historical features are the strength of the project and you should use them and you should protect them thank you thank you thanks for that comment hi Christopher you can unmute yourself sorry Hi um it's Mickey rathen not Christopher um but I'm using his computer i' just like to start by saying I think it's inappropriate and unfair to pressure the commission with time constraints and say we've got to wrap this project up tonight I mean time constraints are not a concern of the Amorous historic commission they should be concerned with applying the relevant standards um this meeting public hearing could have been held 3 weeks ago on August 1st if the town had complied with the 14-day public notice requirement they didn't so now we're having this meeting on August 22nd um that's not the Amis historic commission's fault uh this hearing process has been complicated considerably by the fact that the library director withheld important information regarding the Mass historic commission's findings regarding violations of those uh standards five of the 10 standards of the Interior Department um if the ammer historic commission had received this information when it was received by the library director back in March and again in April um excuse me I think it was December at any rate if you had received this information in timely fashion as you should have received it um we still haven't heard Sharon Cherry's explanation for why she never put that material out to people but you would have had time you would have had several months to consider what was said in those letters from Bron assignment about the violations of the standards and you would have had a lot more time to think about how to go forward but as far as I know these letters perhaps even haven't been read yet by all the members of the commission I they were just provided very recently in your packet in preparation for this hearing so for the library expansion proponents to say tonight at 10 o'cl we've got to push this across the Finish Line tonight and get the votes is really inappropriate and it's and it's just giving short shrift to the town regulations and the historic uh commission um I think that you should bring this hearing to a halt tonight and continue it later thanks thank you believe that was the final comment is that right yeah I don't see any their hands raised nobody else okay there had been one and it disappeared I don't know oh Michael Green bomb perhaps I don't know what keeps happening Michael you can unmute yourself you can you hear me now yes oh good I'm sorry this has been a confusing screen for me I'm Michael greenal and uh I want to briefly say I understand why your focus is on structure the structure of the buildings but I would hope that the commission would take a more expansive view of its charge I mean the term landscape is in your charge and it's not quite the same thing as Landscaping which is a part of the landscape but landscape is a much broader uh idea and I think that the Massachusetts historical commission had that in mind when it talked about the impact of size and spacing on lots and that sort of thing as a concern of the historical commission I think in am particularly on AMD Street it should be a concern of the historical Commission because of that wonderful block between the common and uh Prospect Street has all sorts of beautiful buildings that represent different historic eras in our Town's history and I've been here long enough to remember what the southeast corner of AMD Street was like before the building that is now the Bank of America replaced really sweet Bank the ammer Savings Bank where I got my first mortgage uh which complemented all of AMD street so beautifully and so I wonder whose responsibility it is I don't know who in town would have a broader view of the role of landscape of streetscape of Skyscape and I think in terms of AMD Street in particular the incursion of a very large building and it's really only the size of the building that I'm concerned about is a matter of historic preservation and its impact on the streetscape and the Skyscape and the landscape of this beautiful stretch in the middle of downtown I think should be a matter of your concern thank you thank you I see Ken Rosenthal as well hey Canen you can unmute yourself thank you again I don't want to take a lot of time but I just want to add something because in a perverse way it's it's it's fortunate that the notion of value engineering has brought the commission together again tonight because you were not fully informed when you made your last decision last fall without having this meeting tonight you had every right to reopen that decision once you received that information from the state that have been withheld from you you didn't do that you probably didn't see it it's in your packet I'm not sure you've read it but I just want to add my comment to the those of others that that that was compelling information that you should have had now that you have it you need to attend to it and you have you should not worry that you're limited only to considering something called value engineering tonight the entire project is on your table and you have a right to consider it thank you for hearing me again thank you thanks okay I think that's all the public discussion um yes I mean to address the three letters that were received from MHC we they're in the packet um they're dated November 2023 December mcber 2023 and April 2024 um they were reviewing the MHC for these letters was reviewing the tax credit application which is includes uh exterior and interior changes and they apply the Secretary of interior standards to review that um those alterations um and today we're reviewing based on the preservation restriction which is exterior changes so some of the um standards at MHC states are in violation may not apply to our deliberation today um but some noteworthy statements that I found are that the new so um in the letters they State the new addition will be visible from the south the front uh the South the front elevation um The Proposal entails um well that we already determin that demolition um and they quote the historic structures report that the L running off the east Wing is a secondary facade and evocative of the rambling L's found on early dwelling houses of the area and that would be um impacted and that the proposed project violates standards 25 69 and 10 of the Secretary of interior standards for rehabilitation of historic properties um so which includes um the historic number two is the historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved the removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided um standard number five is distinctive features finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved and they find number six um is in violation which is deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced and number nine new additions um or related new construction shall not destroy the historic materials that characterize the property um and number 10 uh new additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future uh the essential form and integrity of the property would be unimpaired um now back to number nine they say the new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with a massing size scale and Architectural features to protect the historic Integrity of the property and its environment um we did not have this information last fall although the commission did determine that the um project does meet the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation um so I find it difficult to kind of understand whether we are we can consider these letters or not um in our in our deliberation as new information or if we only should be considering the value engineering changes I mean yeah I mean I'll I'll you know I'll chime in and say that the historical commission can have a different opinion than the Massachusetts historical commission and so if the commission reviewed it and found that the massing was appropriate and then the massachus historical commission said it wasn't it doesn't mean that the historical commission local commission was wrong it's it's just a different opinion and so uh you know if this information is enough to open the hearing again then the commission can discuss it but this information was provided after the commission had already made their decision uh whether or not it was provided in a timely manner that's doesn't matter it was done after the commission had already uh reviewed the project and so you know the commission did go through the standards it's in the online packet from 20 20 23 you know the question now is did the commission have a different opinion than Mass historic and you know is that enough reason to open the hearing you know if if for instance If This Were if this wasn't value engineered and there was no changes made and we receive those comments from Mass historic related to the tax credit program and not the preservation restriction would the would the commission reopen the hearing because of this letter from Mass historic and I'm not sure it would right um the commission had made its decision in review and so you know if we feel strongly enough that that's for some reason we didn't have a thorough enough review then we could do it but you know often times there can be information provided after a fact and you know it's not illegal that the local commission has a different opinion than the Massachusetts historical commission right we in fall 23 we had the Architects provide computer renderings from all different angles we looked at the massing the height the view from Amity Street and if the commission thought that the view from Amity Street yeah the new addition is visible but it set back a distance it's not overwhelming The View if we if we felt that way if the commission felt that okay it's visible but it's not impactful enough to have a an impact an adverse impact and you made that decision then you made that decision I don't to me it's not wrong you know Mass historic is saying well their view is it's different right they have a different opinion and so I'm I'm I don't think the commission you know was illegal in making that decision it was your review and your you know that's what was made at the time and so you know if if there's another preservation restriction on a building and you know there's an addition happening you know if we want to you know um you know if we get an opinion months after the fact would we reopen a hearing because you know there's a different opinion now I'm not sure you know we would if the commission really went through the standards and made that you know made their their findings and then that's what it is I you know I've spoken with the Building Commissioner about it and and you know and a town attorney and they're not convinced that it's necessarily needed to reopen the hearing just because of that you know new information right and the MH letters were received after our determinations right um I think that we should just go through these uh ve changes and determines sort of our our findings for each um so next would be the the removal of the roof monitor I I don't think that's um an impact to the historic character of the 1928 building um raise your hand if you Pat what do you think I I think it's not an impact and I was presentent at the design review board and it was explained to me and was to offer more light to the room below but that room has a bank of windows so it does not seem like an impact right it would be make the roof possibly even less visible from the street which is favorable yes so it's favorable um the changing the Cur wall Windows to pre-glazed aluminum windows um Josephine or um Ellen what which what is that what does that change Josephine I'll CH I'll go and you chime in so it just it changes the um depth of the window system essentially um okay and you won't be able to tell the difference and actually it's a it's a more energy efficient window so it's a it's it's to us it's a it's a it's a win-win because it's going to help us with our Energy savings okay is that at the ex the the rear yes it's at the addition only okay and it's at the punched Windows of the Edition okay is there a any comment from the Commissioners regarding that change not for me yeah I was gonna just sorry I was muted I was going to share my screen so the curtain windows in the original it's going to get pixelated um they they're punched out essentially right so you can see there's a depth on the exterior and so that's only on this this area the rest of the windows weren't um and so with the change you know it it's you know they're essentially flush with the the exterior cladding like it was you know and it has been on the on the other sides of the library the the Edition so you know if you can see if you can see that yeah they're flat yeah right okay well that's not really I don't think that's a concern either anyone else has a different opinion um so let's move on to the landscape items because I think that there are some things to talk about here um so the um in our previous hearing we determined that the removal of the Memorial Garden was justified because of the the the garden that would replace it and the Landscaping that would take its place and now that's been altered to this sort of these basins um which I'm I would say is not quite an appropriate um substitution for for the loss of the Memorial Garden but what do the Commissioners what doesn't everyone else say yeah H you're muted yeah I'm sorry I think all along as long as I've been on the commission and as long as I've been deliberating about the Jones Library um Demolition and Edition new edition it's the uh North the South wait let me get my orientation right part of the library that has concerned me the most the bumped out nature of the new edition um while trying to Echo a sort of barrel Vault or gambell roof Vis A the strong Museum um just feel out of scale um I thought Berkshire designs landscape features in the original proposals before value engineering were charming and uh had a lot to recommend them and I see all of that value gone I don't see any value Engineering in other words I see a lot of removal of value especially for our community especially for our young people I don't feel like that backyard is a place I would want to hang out at all with especially with young kids you know I just think it's it has none of the charm of of the proposed um landscape features of the original proposal and I know that landscape details are often vulnerable when considerations like this happen of budgets and financials and um I really feel for um for them in relation to this project because they B so much that was of value um especially to the exterior of the of the Jones and its relationship to the community and Amity Street um so I have a lot of concerns here that we're not we're not we're not we're not in tune with the history and the vibe of this building it it talked to us in 1928 and in 19 1993 there was an attempt and I agree with some of what um the lady from the public comment said about it it's awkward it creates problems for wayfinding I know that's true in that Library um but it's what we ended up with in 1993 and now we need kind of hold on to that that conversation that we're having with the past um in order to go on into the future um and I think I'll just leave it at that I'm I'm really I'm really distressed at at where this is going um I need more time um I feel like we're being pushed to make decisions because of things that weren't deliberated carefully enough earlier on in the project um whether of a fiduciary or a um legal or a financial considerations or to do with the the bidding process I just think it's ended in our laps and I'm a little bit angry that this has happened because it shouldn't be on us that we're having to deliberate with all of this kind of malstrom of public comment from all quarters happening around us we should be able to just do our jobs and it's actually really difficult thank you yes Pat I comment on the the landscape um there was a garden that was emotionally established and revered and respected however the C trust has transferred the most prized plants from that to their property in South amorist and so I I believe that that is not a consideration as we discuss this tonight what is of consideration is the value um changes to the plan and I think that the well while the the gardens that were first proposed were Charming I think that the grasses that are now proposed as a cost-saving element and I know I'm not supposed to talk about that but it's green and it and it is green and that is what is important about the the B back ground of the of the addition and and that can that the plantings proposed can be delay and and and in the future and and that's been established that the mowing grasses annual mowing grasses are green and the plantings that were originally proposed can be can be added in the future when funds are available I think that for this to um be a focus of our deliberation um in terms of preservation is um distracting us yeah um I know it's replaceable and right that something can be added further down the line for when when we talk about landscape um yeah Nate yeah I mean I Echo what Hy said I think that you know the preservation restriction is also guiding you know what happens to the landscape and so to me right now the removal of mature trees and you know replacement with three detention areas and not Gardens or any Landscaping is not really appropriate right and so if you know so so part of the the know when the commission reviewed it before it was in in totality the landscape was really complete and to me that justified removal of mature trees and alterations of the landscape on the site and so what's happening now in the back of the property is not only a reduction in the landscape it's also you know removal of the Goan bench and some other things I think the cumulative effect is something that Hy really um you know noted really well and so to me it's not you know it can be replaced I think the preservation restriction is you know to me is does the removal of those trees is it is the what's replacing it you know sufficient enough and you know I'm not sure it is and so that's where I'm going it's not whether or not it can be replaced in the future it's what you're being presented with now and so what was presented before was a really you know comprehensive uh landscape plan and that's been changed significantly in my opinion right the drainage infrastructure rure say out front being removed and piped is not was never visible and not visible and that that has that you know to me that's that's of no consequence but the way it's changed the landscape in the rear is to me is really significant uh and so I think that's something the commission should discuss not you know it could be done in the future I think we should discuss you know how it is impacted yeah also say I also say it's 10:30 and it's getting late and I you know we've lost number of attendees and I don't know if it's worth trying to rush this and so I'm comfortable continuing it to 7 o'clock on the 28th right I I I I actually don't think it's I think that's best I I just need to say Nate that the Architects and the and Landscape AR said that the trees that were originally planned remain we're talking about the gardens and they can be um deferred so so in my opinion right now that some of the mature trees along the boundary with the historical society that are going to be removed were removed because they were actually having some nice plantings and Gardens in in in place of them right now I would actually say that the removal of those trees is not appropriate because what's being what it's being replaced by isn't a garden in landcaping that matches what's there or what is appropriate and so I that's how I would read it I wouldn't say oh it could a tree could be planted I'm saying what what's being removed now and what is shown to be replaced with is I need more information about what's not being forwarded because in our presentation tonight we we discussed that there would be an ancientry preserved on the historical society and that trees as originally land are planted behind the library Edition and so I this is not to argue the point it's just it there needs to be more clarification mateline before Rachel uh answers that question I would like to clarify a couple of things so I want to I have to agree with Pat that the Kinsey Garden has moved uh to to South ammer so that is no longer a consideration the the landscaping and the the the back of the library needs to be done over again and back in 1928 when the building was originally built there was no Landscaping anywhere front back or sides it was all grass and so now these plans that we are presenting are actually more closely related to what it looked like back in 1928 the fact of the matter is is we can't afford those previous uh plantings we just can't um and same thing goes if you know if this whole project dies tonight um or next Tuesday at 7 pm uh the backyard it has been gutted and it needs to be redone and it will be grass because that's all we can afford the other thing that I wanted to say was the trees are going because of the building the uh uh the extension uh one of the trees is going because it's it's growing into the sewer line um so I just Rachel take it away those are my thoughts Sharon also um I I will say that the the Garden area does retain um we're reusing the Goan stones from the site and creating the windy paths through the Garden area um we do have uh Boulders for seating along the way um so there is there are still some of the functional um elements there is still the working seating area in the back and these again really good bones that can be added to over time um as as funds funds Avail um and I think also an important notice is that the the area behind the library does receive storm water from the Historical Society property and we're reducing the amount of storm water leaving the property with this work which is important for sustainability okay I am um I think we should adjourn until hold on I just want to share my screen for just a quick second so this is the point I'm making when we reviewed the plans last time this mature tree right here is would be removed right and it would be replaced with a swamp white oak but there was also other Gardens and plantings happening here but what what is what it's being replaced by now is is just a detention area and so in my view the removal of that tree and replaced with a detention area isn't necessarily appropriate with the Restriction sorry it takes too long to load and so if I were from from the from the preservation restriction standpoint whether or not the true is there in 28 it's actually a significant landscape feature now and is what it's being replaced by you know appropriate and so I would I would say that the removal of that mature tree you know before was was appropriate because of what was proposed and it to go in its place but now to me I would question whether or not removal of that tree is appropriate and so that's what the Restriction does right if there's significant landscape features like you know ledge and rock and that's being removed and it was replaced with something but now it's not that's what the Restriction can you can look at it's and so I wouldn't say oh in the future it could be replanted that's not the proposal in front of you it's what is it you know what's happening to it now and so I get it that a few other mature trees will be removed because it's for the um new building and that's you know that to me that's not changing what's changing now is you know there's three detention areas and the two paths and so I would argue if you want to keep the detention areas and not do the plantings eliminate one of those walkways keep that mature tree and do something and so be right because that's what the Restriction can have the commission do I I really think that the loss of the landscape in the back is a also a really significant piece and Nate I'd like like to add to your comments that we are it's we're not just doing a basin we do have mature shade trees in the plan in the proposed planting plans those have not changed from the from the proposed original proposal so we have Rachel people just I know everybody wants to get off but just so it's people can understand that the visual and the planting um and can everyone see this um so this is the proposed planting plan in the back Sho come um we're protecting this existing tree um we have a we're proposing a large swamp white oak here and swamp wide up here um we have the sassafras tree here that we're planting this is the ash tree that we're protecting and then we have some Fringe trees and then we're protecting these existing trees over here the maples um this is the one of the basins this is the second largest Basin and this is the smaller Basin um all of these are needed to balance the storm water for the project then the areas in between the paths are planted with with the Nomo mix and then we do have the stepping stone U walkways that Wind Through The Garden area and connect to the historical society and that's a demonstration of the Nomo mix proposing okay so if we continue it I would I would actually recommend maybe having a side by side of what was shown back in September and October including the grading and what is shown now in the land in any ustra of landscape plans um and what what mature trees are being [Music] removed Rachel what day are you available next week I'm available Tuesday um next Wednesday I I I'm on the commission I can attend can we meet Tuesday yeah I can't I can't be that Tuesday but maybe I can't either so is Thursday a possibility I won't be there who said that Nate I'm I'm I'm at the zba meeting okay I mean we could meet during the day I mean it doesn't have to be in the evening well I could meet during the day on a little unusual but midday most any day next week me too we can be make ourselves available easier day so mateline what works for you um I'm just with my kids all day um next week so um I think an evening evening's better I can't do the middle of the day could we do it earlier in the evening so what does Monday look like we don't have time to post it okay so Nate help us know when the earliest we can meet it was Tuesday Tuesday is the ear and Hy and I can't do Tuesday right and so who could do Wednesday or Thursday how about Wednesday earlier Rachel are you yeah what time's your other meeting 11 o'clock so five I can't meet Wednesday until seven I'm I'm tied up until 7 I can't meet in the evening what about Thursday no can't do Thursday um how about the following week how about in the morning the 2nd of September that's a holiday oh sorry yes of course it is um can we do morning next week I could do morning next week but meline that's probably difficult I can't do that I'm oh there's no school in session um well Tuesday the thir works for me I can do after S I can do Tuesday the 3 at any time shall we say that 7 p.m. on the 3 Eddie can you um I have a stand thing every Tuesday night and um but I'm feeling you know pressure um to try and step up for this very important work that we're doing um so I will try and get out of my my chorus well we choose another night that week what about Wednesday do Wednesday I could do that yeah I have planning board Wednesday evening okay um so I just want to reiterate again I'm sorry to intervene we really appreciate this this hearing was originally you know we were hoping to do this in the 1 of August we're hoping to get the designs done and go out to bid in September uh we have invested a tremendous amount of time and a tremendous amount of money so that we could do the value Engineering Process get through the approval processes in town and go out to bid in September so it whatever you all can do to complete the process that you need to complete before September would be really helpful to us would we do I I mean I could maybe do next Tuesday I just I don't know how how long I can be away in the middle of the day for like an hour um the 27th of August Miss Ty we have to post it tomorrow you know I wouldn't say it couldn't be any sooner than noon is it is it 48 Hours Nate it is 48 okay what you're saying at the same time I mean I don't these are volunteer commission members and we were you know pretty rushed to try to get the hearing scheduled and so typically when a board continues the hearing it's just to their next scheduled meeting which is often two to three weeks away and so you know we're really trying Toom at this but if it needs to be a week out it needs to be a week out I you know I'm not g to ask meline to rearrange her schedule and he to miss something and I'm not you know I can't skip a zba meeting uh and we need all four members of the commission that are here tonight to be at the next hearing so Nate is the 27th after after afternoon time I can't really do that that's just not no Okay so meline tell us when you can well I can do the next week I can do the 20 well I can do the 28th at 7 and I can do the third and the fourth those evenings I I you know Rachel we may have to do it without you but that wouldn't be good I mean we talk about the Landscaping next right I know I Nate like what can we and we can't start early because Nate you you can't get there before yeah I mean I'm I'm tied up like basically every night of the week and so to put an extra meeting in is but you're free on the 28th I could skip my mission meeting but oh Nate I thought you were free on the 28th you're not is that what you're saying I am I am after seven okay so Hy can you be available on the 28th yes she said she was available on Wednesday the 28th so does that does that work for everybody it works for me we'll make it work for us okay Nate you're gonna have to apologize to Aaron for me yeah I mean you could Conservation Commission has full agendas every every time now goodness um if we were going to continue it to that time we just need a motion and a vote to continue it to the 20 Wednesday the 28th at 7M okay I motion to extend the hearing to August 28th at 7 pm seconded all right right Madam there's a second can we do a roll call vote and then we okay Pat yes yes Antonia Eddie yes and I am a yes all right all right we see you yeah it'll be a new Zoom link for everyone still on it'll be posted on the calendar um yeah and then it'll be 7 o'clock on this 28th on behalf of all of us from the library we want to thank you we also want to say how grateful we are for the commitment of everyone in amers what whatever their view is we're grateful they've invested a lot of time so we look forward to seeing you again soon thanks so much all right till the 28th thanks everyone thank you everybody thank you