##VIDEO ID:P_fke33Pn_0## e e e e e little bit hello Nate Nate yes hi um Madeline is in the other category she needs to be I'm here I'm here oh there you arek Pat hello Hedy what do you mean Nate are we being recorded now there was an announcement that we were we are yeah yeah we started the webinar just to make sure everyone could get in I think there was some trouble so you know essentially the we haven't called the hearing or meeting to order but we are being recorded I'm waiting for one other commission member let see hi hi Antonio hello hello hey man I have 701 maybe we'll just give it one more minute look like attendees are still arriving so I have I have chocolate and I have two different kinds of Selsa and water you're set for a long evening H I am Pat yeah I'm oh you forget your snacks right okay yeah I guess we just wait one more minute I just a few more have just joined yeah that's fine right I think at 704 we could start I have 7 three so let just do like a minute in the meantime if anyone's here for the library to make a presentation could you raise your hand we'll promote you to panelist um Jim I see your hand raised I was trying to all right M I think we're all set to okay um see so this is a continued hearing from um August 22nd um to consider um changes to the Jones Library going to read the Preamble um so pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 extended by chapter 2 of the acts of 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 Zoom or by telephone uh no in-person attendance and members of the public is permitted but every effort has been made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time a hyperlink to the hearing is posted on the town's online calendar in accordance with the provisions of article 3.6 of amoris General bylaws preservation of let's see historically significant buildings this public hearing has been advertised and notice thereof has been posted and mail it to parties of Interest so um I'm G to have a roll call um Pat present Eddy startup present Antonia present and I am present and that's all of us um so the sequence of today's hearing um is as follows we'll hear the applicant's presentation um and then we'll have questions from Commissioners and staff following that we'll have public comment and then discussion among Commissioners um so we'll get to the public comment after questions by staff and Commissioners um okay and yes so just let's get started thank you meline uh I want to thank the commission for the time that you put in uh on this already and thank you for the care and thank you for the time that you'll put in again tonight uh we understand the work you do is really quite important and never more so than with respect to The Treasure of the Jones library but I want to start by asking meline a question just for my clarification so as I understand it with respect to uh for example the Landscaping the purview of the historical commission is not primarily aesthetic it is to determine whether or not what is proposed uh damages in any way of the architectural historical or cultural significance of the Jones library and if that understanding is incorrect I I'd really be grateful if you would tell me that incorrect because what you're going to hear tonight uh the change that we're proposing in the Landscaping we don't believe obviously uh in any way diminishes the historic or architectural or cultural significance of the library indeed as I think we mentioned last time this Landscaping plan is closer to what it would have been at the time that the Jones library was built uh than the Landscaping plan that we had proposed before the value engineering so marn is it is is my understanding correct and the reason I ask you that is we've gone through U we went to the design uh Review Committee we went to the planning board uh where they made their own aesthetic judgments if you will about the various parts including the Landscaping plan uh I thought what the historical commission was was somewhat different than that and I just wanted to make sure that I've understood it correctly sure yeah so I I'll mention that the the preservation restriction guides Landscapes it's not trying to return it to a period of significance you know when the library was built and so the Restriction guidelines state that a major alteration of the landscape such as subdividing of property altering or removing significant landscape features such as Gardens Vistas walks plantings walls fences ground disturbance affecting archaeological resources are all under the purview of the commission uh and it says this you know this is not a comprehensive list and so um you know the planning board reviews it for a site plan review they're not necessarily looking at it you know is the removal of a tree altering necessarily some value of the property there you know they looked at it you know does the drainage work is this still a workable site plan uh and the commission has a little different perspective there and so you know if for instance the addition was happening and there was no changes to the back landscape right no trees were being cut down or anything then we wouldn't have a discussion about it but because there's alterations now removing mature trees uh you know everything's changing and then now there's no more changes with you know new proposed drainage or Gardens or Landscaping then that's part of the review of their restriction so again I that's very helpful but if you allow me to St not quite responsive to the question I asked so is it is it is that the contention of the commission that they can make any judgment they want they are not Guided by the need to look and see if what we are proposing diminishes detracts from the historical significance of the building it's a little both right so right now the landscape right supports the building right there's mature trees and so if you're saying you're cutting down five mature trees and the commission said I don't want you to take you can't cut down five trees because right now the way it supports the landscape not necessarily the building too but it's the landscape and the building as one site then that's what they say right so I think to me the the issue is that what was proposed that they looked at previously last year was you know a set of plantings and a garden that replaces a garden so it was a landscape feature for people that had different layers of plantings different spaces and areas is now being changed and so the commission can say okay you know how is that changing what is the difference between what was approved or reviewed last fall and what's happening now is it you know is it the level of plantings is it change in Topography is it so what what is really happening and so when I you know before this meeting I asked for you know a set of plans right the existing conditions what was proposed previously and what is proposed now with clear clearly marked you know changes whether it's the number of trees or what's happening so then we can kind of understand what are the changes that are happening and so that's kind of the purview tonight well I appreciate it I'm going to just say um I I do appreciate it the perview of the historical commission has to relate to the historic quality of the building in the land that's fine but it would seem to me that the commission would have to make a determination that what is proposed is deleterious to the historical character of the building or the land uh that's what I understand and that's what we're going to talk about tonight that's number one and again I appreciate your patience the second thing I want to say is this the commission made some very interesting comments about the windows and the roof and um we think it's important to clarify that uh removing the bid alternatives on the asol shingles um going out out with a a bid only for the Sy synthetic slate going out for a bid only for the new window sashes uh we we think that's that makes that makes a lot of sense the last thing I wanted to say was uh with with respect to all who are so committed to this project and and I mean that we we value we value it's amazing asset to amorist how committed people are to getting this right but some things were said that I think are not accurate and they went to the question of whether or not uh people in this town hid from the historical commission um documents uh that should have been provided it is very clear that that did not happen the historic commission knew of our submission to the mass historic in April and August of 2023 you all supported that submission it's very clear now that there were no letters to be shared with you in advance of uh no not determinations by mass historic that could have been shared with you in advance of of the last time that we went through this process so with that as as an introduction and again gratitude for the work that you'll do tonight I'm going to turn this over to uh I guess I'm going to turn it over to Ellen I'll take it yes thanks thanks Austin thanks um to the commission for meeting with us again on such short notice we really appreciate it so we were under the impression we were going to start with landscape because we went through the architecture at piece is that is that what folks agree okay so Rachel's going to kick it off um and we did add some slides Nate that you had asked for so hopefully it answers the questions Rachel you going to who's sharing you just I'm going yeah I'm going to share my screen if you could give me control or ability to do that name thank you uh please try now I think it should be outet yep can everyone see that yeah great I think Rachel you're going to Dive Right In so I guess let's H to it um we have this list at the beginning and at the end also um just to help us track what items we're discussing today um I think we left off with questions about the the Northland entry which is the also known as the back side of the library between the library and the CVS parking area next slide um also just wanted to um repeat a little bit of what Austin said about the process that we've gone through so far and where we are in the process and the context of this commissions review with the other boards and commissions in town um the project has been reviewed by Town Council and was approved for funding the planning board um has reviewed this project both the original bid and the ve changes and both were approved with conditions during that process we we reviewed the dimensions the massing lanscaping utilities storm water life safety and use and prior to that meeting we met with the ammer public shade tree committee to review the removal of trees as well as the proposed planting of trees the design review board we also review the character of the design the respect to downtown the materials used the m and the Landscaping both both the original bid design and the be design um received a letter for support with recommendations um we presented to you all the original bid design um for the Demolition and improvements to the landscape which you approved and we we covered last week the be changes with respect to the demolition um permit again and today we're talking about the approval um so you know reading we've read we've read the preservation restriction many times over um and there are a couple couple things that seem to focus on the exterior of the building and the landscape and also there's a phrase uh that that is on page 38 of that that talks about um changes must be reviewed by the grantee which is the amorist historical Commission and their impact to the historic Integrity of the property um and the intent of the preservation restriction is to enable the grantee that is the ammer historic commission to review proposed alterations and access their impact to the Integrity of the building not to um prevent future change so we're really excited to go over the be changes with you within that context and and talk about the next steps um we found from with the library is really helpful it's great having Library as a client because we have this famous asset of archives um so the library was able to provide us with some images of the north landscape the north facade um back shortly after its original construction and you can see that the landscape is very open lawn with um some shade trees around the periphery so the image on the left is the view of the back of the library prior to the 1990s Edition you can see some much smaller uh footprint and then um on the right you can see the view looking back towards the CVS parking lot area where it's more open um with trees along the border um it's worth noting that the grades in the 1990s Edition were significantly altered in this area um the grades were dropped at least 3 ft along that that facade of the building um and so the pathways today which I'll I'll talk you through in another slide um actually cuts into those grades and there changes to the building in the 1990s on the facade to adjust the windows and and other features to tie into that grade change next slide um these are some images from the site earlier in the year um the image at the on the top of the page is the view from the CVS parking lot looking towards that North facade um you can see and if you if you walk back there you can measure um that the grades are about three to three and a half feet below the adjacent grades at the property boundary so they they cut in a pathway into the land with access to the north we heard feedback as we were working through this process that the the back area does not feel safe that sight lines are really poor to the back entry and many residents use this property as a walk through to amid street from the CVS lot so anything that could be done to kind of open up sight lines and increase visibility would be helpful next slide um I should also mention if we go back um in 1999 uh the Kenzie Garden was designed and installed in that in that Garden so what you're seeing here are many of the plantings uh associated with the Kinsey Garden most of them were centered along that Island area um the area between the path and the Historical Society property to the right of the image and then foundation planting along um the back of that North facade during this process the cestro land trust has received they transplanted the keny garden um and to their South ammer next slide um this is an existing conditions enlargement of that area um you can see at the top of the page the where the pathway meets the CVS parking lot um and the island in between with the mature trees and then the pathway how it bends around the wall to get to that North entry so the image on the right is the same plan with a little bit more um diagram for helping understand what's going to happen on site um so the proposed addition we're actually going to you know extension the property a little bit more um and we're impacting one of the large shade trees in that island that we' need to remove we reviewed it with the tree Warden and with the public shade tree committee um and it's believed that that tree would not would be really expensive to try to save and would not would not survive um the construction of the addition that tree Al is growing into the sewer the clay tile sewer pipe um so that tree needs to go and we just annotate the dry with what's being removed sure than so anything with the orange circles are being removed and they also have the little X's so that would be the tree that I was just referring to is this tree um this tree here um will be removed to for the regrading for the storm water storage on site um as will this one this tree here will be removed um for its proximity to the wall and the regrading on the site um and this tree was removed at the request of the historical society as it is growing into the library currently um the contractor will be required to plant another Tree on the Historical Society property in replacement so we're able to retain these existing maple trees here um and this and this tree here um and we are protecting this large ash tree here and can you what are the kinds what uh species sorry we just go through that again the species of trees that are being removed um this is a this is a a River Birch this um this is I believe an oak um and I I I don't recall now if this is an o or Maple but these are those are the general they're large shade trees thanks the next slide um this is a sidebyside comparison um to help help compare what we had in our digal bid versus what we're proposing now um I should again emphasize that the there there is no change with the tree plan between the original bid and the ve plan so um we still plan to plant um additional trees on site in the same locations so those would be um these these two swamp White Oaks here and a sassa fras here and then Fringe trees which is an understory flowering tree right at the border of CVS um we will be protecting we'll be protecting these existing trees with pretty extensive um tree protection fencing and air spading of roots okay um so then on the ground the with the pave surfaces um all the all the paved areas are similar um prior you know we have this direct pathway from the CVS lot to the north entry to help with that good visual sight line and safety um and then we have another diagonal walkway um going to the east side of the library for all those folks who are using the library as a pass through and one of the things that we're really excited about this project is that we were able to make the entire site entirely accessible so someone could um um and have a much easier time navigating from the CVS lot up the east side of the building where it's very steep now um before with the um with the areas too we have we had in the original bid some of the like Cafe tables um their movable chairs and tables we have pulled that out of the bid um but it's something that the library could bring back as funds allow and the same we've also removed the um Goan Stone bench that separates the patio area from the garden area and again that's something that could be built a later Point as funs allow um with the sight grading and storm water um before we had one one depression in the area in the back that was about 2 and a half to three feet down and I have some sections to talk you through that um but it's an area that gathers the water that's coming off the Historical Society property that's coming in the way um it's coming in this way and then underneath we we called it the storm water sandwich so underneath we have subsurface infiltration structures that are taking water from the roof and Paving surfaces um so with that then we had before actual little bridges that crossed that crossed the the rain Garden area um the bridges were very expensive and so um we were able to reconfigure the storm water design to be able to still receive the water coming off the Historical Society property still receive the water from the roof um and provide um three smaller um smaller depressions in the garden area to deal with the storm water um that saved money out front and that saved money in in this back area but we were still able to to retain the Goan Stone stepping paths that we are reusing Goan Stone from the site for um and we had gotten feedback early in the process that the Garden area needed to have areas to sit um rather than just be a pass through so we still have the boulder seating um and a couple Granite benches reclaim from the site okay let's go to the next slide [Music] so these are some these are cross-sections you know as if if you could think of the North Garden as a piece of cake and or a full cake and you want to slice through it and see what what how it's how it's put together um we these are cross-sections cutting through through to show the relationship of the path path to the depressions um so in the original bid we again had an elevated um crossing of the depression this this was one continuous depression area um and now in this process we have one two and not on this section but we've got um we have a second a second depression um okay next slide these are side by side views of what it might be like to be back there um this is the view from the CVS parking lot not looking towards that new North entry as you can see we have really good sight lines to that North entry um and on the left you can see the original uh rain Garden ridges and the Goan Stone bench um the sassa tree the ash tree um and the various textures of planting in the rain Garden along with the Stepping Stones the image on the right shows our ve option where we've deferred that oce Stone bench till later um the rain Garden bridges are now replaced with continuous sidewalks and then the stepping stone paths and seaing areas remain um but they are the the more robust planting areas are placed with a very soft um loose um Fescue called Nomo Fescue it grows to about 18 inch high and flops over and makes these little waves in the landscape kind of what you see in this image um it's something that's a really sustainable alternative toon and the fact that you can um mow it only once a year if you want if you want to take the little seed heads off of it um it's also it's also a Fescue that if you decided that you wanted to mow it you can mow it to like a 4 inch height um but our intent would be that the library would not mow it and it would um reduce the carbon footprint of the library for sure it's also something that over time you could plant minor bulbs like the image on the left into um um and it's also an area that over time the library could um could start to plant areas of the original design and and fill it with more planting but it does it does interestingly look more akin to the original um original landscape of the 1930s next slide another be item um originally we had the the retain wall at the boundary line between the Historical Society property and the library property um the top of the wall has a railing which is important to prevent falling um the the wall is the highest about 4 and a half fet at the corner um and down to about 6 inch at its base so anytime we're over 30 inches we really want to make sure we have a railing to keep people from falling um this railing is an ornamental rail um kind of fitting with the character of of the area um the bottom part of the wall and their original bed was had a veneer so the front surface of it was a granite veneer block um in our value engineered option we are going to go with a concrete base um with a color AD mix which is kind of like the image to the second from the right there um there are lots of options with Graves different tones of Grays um but with the thought that over time that if um if the was interested that we could um work with the local artist or local artist groups to have a mural um painted with the wall okay next slide um and that that's the summary of I think of the landscape changes okay thank you and thanks for attending tonight I know there you had a conflict Rachel um let's see Nate was that the only presentation we requested for this evening is that right yeah I think so I mean we can the one from last week is still available online or they may have it as well but for now it's just focusing on the landscape yeah okay um well thanks I think we can let's see do we have any while we have the the presentation up do we have any questions about um what we were just shown among the Commissioners now that's pretty clear um I have one question in the detention areas can you tell explain how deep they are and then if the Overflow grates are will be visible or what kind of structure is in the middle there if it's like an acrade if it's a sure Joseph you mind um going back to the side by side plan yeah they're um they're down so elevation around 3 34 it varies where you are in the Basin but the the lowest point is around 314 and the sidewalk is varies from 316 to 317 um so the it's it does doesn't exceed more than more than 30 in at any point um it's obviously deeper in the middle but then shallow sides on the sides um the three structures on the on the right um okay um currently they are proposed as yard drains um we typically would use an ornamental cover in this type of application um and they they are at grade with ground okay I think we don't have any questions so um thank you for this see um oh I was um is there a possibility to introduce so looking at this drawing actually the plantings on the left um is there a possibility to introduce those plantings at a later point or you're you say maybe just bulbs would be um a possibility to sort of add color to the to the detention basins yeah so the the the design of the planting is a is a pattern is a a shape form that's independent of the topography and we actually really really excited about how the different forms might interact with your experience on site um it is a pattern that could be applied to this this layout and this design easily um especially given that the um the Goan stone pathways are already there all that hard all that Hardscape which would be harder to um put in at a later date with a lot of you know a lot of work um it is quite possible to uh to take away the Nomo or interplant with the Nomo going forward okay even with those sort of detention Basin engineering underneath it okay yeah yeah so on the left on the original you know there's a few different colors for the ground is that just all a ground cover or is there anything else like a flowering shrubs or anything there is it all just more like a ground cover um we have quite a mix so we use the color to help keep us from going crazy um we have uh we had a mix of purples purples and whites that is this purple color so we had um um mixtures of of different different um plants in that area um we had a mix of acetum and mosses and some of the same Fescue that's in the snow Mobic we incorporated around the stuffing Stones paths um we had a mix of yellows we had a mix of Reds I think that we did have um some taller plants in this this Orange area here on the side again kind of having a little bit of a backdrop but we were trying to avoid um specifically shrubs because um we've heard we've heard the struggles that the library has had with um people using shrubbery for storage of personal Goods so Rachel the previous plan did not have shrubs in this area right right I I think I I like the the real intentionality to the original drawing that it just it does demonstrate to passers by that this is a cared for space um because there there it does tend to be those issues at the rear of the library of kind of people might mistake in an area that's a Nomo or a low maintenance sort of landscape as a A Place With No oversight or right but um I it sounds like you've already addressed these issues with the sight lines and the what is remaining are these um the Goan Pathways and um the sight lines are are really important too so shall we just um on to a I guess we can move on to public comment then if there's no more questions from the Commissioners regarding the presentation M okay mine yeah is it is it possible to say something related to what Austin Sarat began um the presentations with yes because I I was a little confused by his question to the commission we're we're not we're not looking to try and hold on to a particular time period where this building is more preserved or less preserved we're being asked to apply the standards and I just wanted to have that in for the record thank you yeah I think this concept of um are we that that we are evaluating the impacts to the Integrity of the building the Landscapes impact the Integrity of building is is interesting because that does include materials and changes of sight lines and things that might distract from from the historic Integrity of of the building it doesn't mean that we have to um replicate the original as closely as possible um in this in this context so mine may I just say I I must have introduced the confusion because what you've just said is my understanding that your review is to look at what we are doing in terms of the historical Integrity of the property that's all I was trying to say it's this is not the design Review Committee where we went through and they look and they make an aesthetic judgment so what you've said is what I was hoping would be said that what what you are doing what we're happy to have you do we're glad to have you do is to look at this and make a determination does this detract in any way from the historic Integrity of the buildings that's all I was trying to say my reference to the Past was simply to say if you look at the history of the landscape you see that what we're doing is more in common with what was there at the beginning but I appreciate your clarification thank you sure okay I think we should move on to public comment um because I think uh there's many people who want to make their comments heard so um we will ask then uh for members of the public who wish to to speak to raise their hand in advance now um just so that we have an understanding of how many how many people um we will be hearing from this evening and we are going to try and keep this hearing as close to 9:30 as POS possible um even though we all have snacks and water um okay all right and as uh last time we'll limit um comments to two minutes please okay here Cameron you can uh unmute yourself hello actually uh this is Carol Gray my my son changed the name when he was using my phone once so sorry it shows up his camera uh a15 Southeast Street um so thank you for your service um I would like to say several things one is I mentioned at the last public hearing that it was I had heard that one of the Commissioners is a former student or maybe current student of Austin saratz if that's the case that's a conflict that must be disclosed according to the law um so if that is a case that really needs to happen um at the start of the hearing really um and filed with the town clerk by law um I'd also raise a concern about um Nate malloy's uh interjections at the last meeting uh it seemed to me that he was playing a role as a commissioner he was often giving his personal opinion about how the commissioner should vote sometimes Commissioners were raising concerns and he was redirecting their concerns to instead talk about the wall or various other aspects of the project I think the town staff should be only giving uh their professional advice when Commissioners are asked for it and should not be as acting as a commissioner neither should the applicant be weighing in as a commissioner chirping in when it's not the time for the presentation um in terms of the standards I'd ask you all to have a lot of courage and I'm asking you this because you've all read by now the The two-page Memo from the Massachusetts historic commission saying that five of the standards that you must legally follow are being violated ated and the uh the preservation restriction agreement of ammer says in two different places that the standards to be applied and interpreting this town agreement are the standards that have were already seen as violated by the Massachusetts historic commission Nate Malloy said previously well you don't have to do what the mass historic commission did well that's true however you do have to follow the law and the mass historic commission was very clear laying out the five standards that are being violated here and you're not free to ignore the law if you decide that somehow you think they're completely wrong on their legal interpretation then you should issue a similar memo saying we think that all standards are being met and here's why and we think that the mass historic commission is wrong when they say that these five standards are being met but I think that deep in your gut probably you know that these standards are being violated and I'm asking you to have courage because if they're being violated if even one of them is being violated you have a legal duty to say that this project does not comply with a preservation restriction agreement for the town of amorist and you can't rewrite the project it's not up to you to say well the Project's good but switch to real shingle the real slate shingles instead of Asal you're not the construction people you're not the the project advisors your job is to take the project as it's presented to you today and save it violates the preservation restriction agreement and if you find that any one of those standards that the mass historic commission that's very experienced in applying these standards says are being violated you you really have no choice but to make a motion saying we find that this project violates one or more standards of the preservation restriction agreement I ask you to have courage thank you thank you for your comment hi Jeff you can unmute yourself thanks yeah this is Jeff Lee I live in South Amer and um regardless of the intention of whether to hide the uh letters from the mass historic commission or not the fact is that they just were not made public they not put in any meeting packets no historical commission packets no trust's packets no jlbc packets no Town Council packets until this hearing tonight or actually last last weeks or the other night anyway U I've read closely those letters from brona Simon and I think there are nine changes that you ought to insist on to the design that will help uh rectify the design and um mitigate the adverse effects I'll read those off one you should eliminate the new addition that covers overwhelms and clashes with his historic building they mention that clearly two you should require the historic roof to be replaced with its original material Buckingham slate three you should prib prohibit the removal or moving of interior walls and mill work that was the essence of the original design by Alan Cox four you should keep original stairways intact as the MHC commented five you should require replacement of original windows with historically compatible double or triple pane sashes for sustainability six you should prohibit the unnecessary demolition of the 1993 Edition that will impact adjacent walls of the 1927 28 historic building the the mass historical commission mentioned that seven you should maintain the historic Whipple window as a functional exterior window eight you should preserve the original director's office and nine you should disallow cutting a hole in the stonework of the original buildings main facade for a bookd drop which appears to be no longer needed thank you very much thank you thanks for that comment Alisa you can talk I thank you very much I appreciate all the work everybody's doing on this it seems to me that when an historic building is no longer serving its purpose and needs to be modified that we want to make it possible for the building to better serve us now in the present and into the future this is a library I think many of the changes that are proposed are going to make it a significantly more functional library and make for genuine handicapped accessibility which we don't have now so I really hope that the project can move ahead thank you very much thank you Hilda you can unmute yourself green 298 mon Road in North ammer I want to ask a question about maintenance particularly about the new landscape plan one of the big problems with the way the Jones look now is the all of the Deferred maintenance both in cutting out the trees which have allowed window and other woodwork to deteriorate because the trees too close to the building and that happens to be one of the comments that Eric groya made in the structural report and then the other thing about all the changes in the landscape how much how much maintenance is that going to require in order not to look like a weed patch I'm just bringing that up because you got a much bigger building than you had before and you couldn't maintain what you had or there wasn't the will to maintain what you had and I don't know what kind of power you have in in deciding what the landscape should look like but it should look good whether it's going to be manicured every week or whether it goes a whole season with weeds filling up the purple and the pink flower gardens I just want to make that point that deferred maintenance has had taken its toll on the building and the grounds especially on the AMD Street side and when you make a decision keep that in mind that that's not been a strong point of the staff thank you thank you for making that comment hi Maria you can unmute yourself thank you Maria kapiki South amorist I think we've very well established that information was withheld from you that would have been very helpful for you to do your job um um in addition to not telling you the findings from the mass historic commission you were also not notified that the application was incomplete and if information was being received during these meetings the uh other thing I I hope you read the letter that that I sent you I also want to let you know one other thing which is um uh uh to review this that the the library director knew that the MHC review was in progress right and they didn't send it they didn't send that to you also what was in your packet for your September 14th meeting in 2023 included a document which just has some frankly untrue statements and it was put in there as information for you to digest it said that the new edition utilizes a compatible material pallet and does not exceed the height of the original building it said that there were minor removal and reconfiguration uh there was minor removal and reconfiguration planned for the interior um I mean you were you were suffering under lack of information and erroneous information back in the fall and you really need to make this right now you need to apply the standards the 10 standards you should go through those and you should do your job there I also just want to share with you just uh some things I've heard you know that this is being talked about in the community I spoke with a a younger woman and probably her young to me in her late 20s who was just horrified about what was being proposed to be done to the historic Jones she she couldn't believe it um she knew about it and she still couldn't believe it I also want to share with you the story of a an older woman who told me about her dad who had been involved in the building of the 1928 Jones and I spoke with her and I spoke with four generations of that family so when we're talking about historic preservation we're talking about the building we're also talking about the people in town okay so you guys have a duty to Historic preservation please meet that Duty thank you thank you for your comment hi Jenny you can unmute yourself hi this is Jenny Hamilton I live on Middle Street in South amorist and I I wear two hats in this process so disclosing that I am paid by the friends of the Jones library to manage the capital campaign um doing the fundraising for this project um so as in both roles I thank you for your time and your attention to this um I I look at what is being offered and and that's to everyone on the screen I look at the hard work that the Architects and Landscape crew have done um to keep the Integrity of our building keep the building the beauty of our building and its property um uh by offering an opportunity that will be hopefully um more affordable and able to move forward um in specific examples the removal of the roof monitor makes the addition less visitable visible from Amity Street which should be a boon from the historic preservation standpoint similarly having the alternate to retain the original Windows keeps more historic fabric um and if we hadn't seen the beautiful color planting plans that that Rachel and J designed you know seeing trees preserved that are healthy seeing additional trees saved seeing um historic Stone benches retained um those new designs are are beautiful as well um the scent the library is part of the central amorist historic district and for the purpose of that District making a fully accessible building creating safer sight lines and keeping our beautiful stone Library um healthy and and protected will benefit the downtown district and benefit our town as a whole um a last point I will make with my professional hat on as somebody who's been very actively involved for the past three years in raising these funds is that the tax credit review for tax credit funding is a very different process than the historic preservation review under the federal review or under what you all are doing at at the local devil it's got different standards yes that it's the same Federal listing but there's it's a whole it's a very different thing so comparing what you all are needing to do and what um Folks at Mass historic had to do for tax credits are are are quite different um and I will close by saying with all of these historic preservation efforts with all of the necessity for our federal and state funding um those of us involved in the library renovation and expansion are putting preservation at the the top of that list we worked incredibly hard to secure th those Federal funding grants and and other possibilities and we will not do anything to jeopardize them so we are working closely with all the officials involved to make sure that that what we're doing is um in accordance with with the laws and regulations so thank you all for your service and for being here yet again all of us wish we could already be doing the uh the construction at this point um but appreciate you coming back um and taking this time thank you for that comment Christopher you can un mute yourself oh hi it's Mickey wban um yes uh I would like to make a couple points um just first I've got to say this um several people have said that since the plants that were in the Kinsey uh Garden that Carol Pope uh planted in memory of her husband uh the fact that those plants have been moved with the help of the Garden Club and Etc the fact that those have been moved to the site of the new Kestrel headquarters that that's completely irrelevant I mean the fact is that the garden was removed from the Jones library site I mean I just have to say that um this sort of oh but the plants are fine they're now at Kestrel you know that's such a bogus argument and um it just it just annoys me um what Miss Hamilton just said about the fact that the uh Mass historic commission's considerations with respect to the historic C uh tax credits that they're using different standards from the standards that um the federal government would apply neh or or HUD that's just not true they're the same standards I don't know why uh she says that it just I feel like there's so much disinformation that is shoveled out um is distressing um I also have to say that the professional fundraiser Matt Blumenfeld has behaved deplorably and the the email letter that he sent to Sarah mcke was just beyond the pale I mean it was juvenile it was insulting I cannot believe that he is still on the payroll and and I just think that the fact that he hasn't been sarily fired is just speaks volumes about how this project is being uh push down the town's throat thank you thank you for your comment hi Arley you can unmute so hello Arley gold South ammer um I just want to say you are the historical commission and your job is to you know deal with the preservation restriction agreement so all these comments about the future and all of this is you know nice but that's not really what's going on here what's going on here is to decide whether or not this project is uh violating the preservation restriction agreement um and also to deal with the um historic preservation standards and in thinking about this I do find find it interesting that the preservation restriction agreement talks about the exterior of the building the Landscaping but not about the interior but the standards are for both the interior and the exterior so a little bit um you know to say there were no adverse effects in the fall well maybe on the interior that was with you know the preservation restriction agreement you don't have to talk about the Interiors but in terms of historic preservation there were adverse effects so this is a little confusing um and difference of opinion Mr Malloy said at the last meeting difference of opinion from the mass historic commission ammer historic commission said zero adverse effects ma commission said five you know if they said one and you said zero that maybe is a difference of opinion but five to zero you know there's something else going on there the last thing I'll say the reason to take these letters seriously they have so many more resources than this historical commission they have staffs with you know professionals this is a group with varying levels of expertise about historical uh preservation brona Simon apparently has been there for decades they see the whole state when they're working so this is like your older cousin who has a lot of experience and information for this reason you know looking at that two-page memo is something I think as a historical commission it would be interesting to you given that you didn't have this information as Mr Sarat said and for whatever reasons but you didn't have the information and now you do so you know it's up to you what you want to revisit and stuff but I would think that this would be interesting to you as a histor commission thank you very much thank you hi Ken you can unmute yourself thank you I'm Ken Rosenthal Sunset Avenue and I want to thank you for spending so much time on this matter I just want to make two points that I've sent to you in writing and that you may have found in your packet one is you have every right to consider or reconsider the entire project Sher Sarat agrees that you did not see letters from the state commission before your major decision last fall every judicial or or quaza judicial body which you are must react when new information not given to you earlier comes to your attention you can in fact you must recognize it that's true provided there has been no Reliance to the contrary and here there hasn't been because no contract has been approved no construction has been undertaken and two even if as in this case the Consultants have given you only a few items to consider you can consider other things I just want to cite as an example the now almost Infamous hole cut into the front wall near the front door for what is now a non-existent automated book sorter value engineering has not deleted it you can require that they do so and in fact in the future if there ever is an automated book sorter the hold can be put in then and the other fact is that an automated book sorter in the future may require a hole in a slightly different place so because they haven't suggested that it be taken out you can do that and you can look at other things too that they haven't brought to your attention thank you for listening to me and to the others who are speaking tonight thank you thank you for your comment hi Laticia you can unmute yourself thank you um I'd like to uh first say I admire your patience um all of you who are actually on the historic commission um as various lawyers try to twist the facts here um I just remind you that 65% of the voters in amorist supported this project um so it's not exactly being rammed down anybody's throat um and as for the false accusation um that um information was withheld from the commission um who shares information about an application that was unsuccessful um these are very the mass uh historical tax credits is a very highly competitive process there are many people competing for it and not all of the um applications go through so the criteria are very high that does not mean that this project is not a worthy project um I walk between the Jones and the CVS parking lot quite a bit um this was not a great area even when the private Kinsey Garden was there um and I really welcome the greater visibility that the new design brings um and as I said last week I really like the noo um aspect and the fact that there are no shrubs here which is for a very good reason as Rachel explained very nicely again today um finally I would urge um the commission to focus on to keep their focus on the specific issues they are asked to address tonight which are the ve aspects the things that are different from the original plan that they approved um the accessibility aspects that this new um uh grading allows the new um uh Landscaping allows I think is actually really really important and I hope people will not um forget about that thank you very much thank you for your comment are there any more hands raised see anybody else oh okay so we'll move on to um our discussion um part of the hearing um we're going to deliberate among Commissioners with um staff input so I ask applicants to refrain from making comments unless we have a question directed to you um but thank you for thanks for being here for that um right so how does anybody have any comments to start us off from the commissioners I think the changes to the Landscaping have been thoughtful I think they allow for future um enhancement but I think the visibility lines I think the lighting that we heard about in a previous meeting um are are um welcome but I can appreciate that if we're looking at preserving the building that this is an area that can be with with funding available um improved in more to bring it more to the original plan but the plan is presented tonight appears to me to be um thoughtful and acceptable yeah I would um concur with Pat I would say looking at what our duty is at looking at the Historical building and also the character of its location and context um especially looking at the improvements in relation to our previous um meeting um especially the Nomo allows for also flexibility um to and a buildoff point um that I think keeps in character so mine um I'd love to talk about accessibility because the number of people in public comment um have mentioned universal access accessibility which is a really important thing we should be thinking about in our town and in especially in our downtown um right now we have still on the drawings an opening on the right hand side of the front entrance for a bookd drop I'm very concerned about that I know it in part related to access issues universal access issues um I've been told that the book sorting machine is eliminated at this point from the budget it will not be part of the bidding process if that's the case then the interior Woodwork and wall removals that were being discussed a year ago should be moot at this point mut they should not be a part of any drawing that goes out to bid I'm very I want to be very very clear about that I I will chime in with Hy I know we're looking at Landscaping yeah and I'm not sure at what point in this meeting we should bring up other topics well accessibility Pat which is actually what presentation was about it it was in part but it was also with the book sorting it was in part a better more efficiency for the library staff however I agree with you the accessibility is the primary thing but I I think that um it I do need to weigh in because I had some points that I wanted to raise tonight and that was primary among them that I do not think that that should be um executed um and break into the wall of the front of the library when the book sorting machine is in the future and and maybe Loc an entirely different place you know there there is a book drop out outside of the sidewalk but there is a book drop up the the handicap walk to the kind of annex to the main part of the library and there is a a room be adjacent to that and behind that is very um has very little usage or or purpose and so I I I pondered since our last meeting things that I was concerned about bookd drop being executed if we're talking about value engineering that certainly should figure into not doing the book drop not at this time in place the other thing and this may not be the time and place but I pondered long and hard because I'm also on the design review board which together with the historical commission voted that the synthetic asphalt the synthetic slate was the only alternate choice for the building but I I have to tell you I went into town the other day after our meeting last week with binoculars and I studied the streetcape of the slate roof I'm not a roofing expert I've roofed a few homes in my time one of them was a slate roof in in the state of New York and that roof looked as though it were somewhat sound I don't know the history of its evaluation I don't know the history of leaks but with my binoculars I only saw one place where there was a breach in this slate near a dormer when looking at the building is to the left of the entrance and so I began to wonder whether it wasn't get we weren't given that choice but I began to wonder whether or not at least the streetcape could be maintained a slate it's a question I'm sharing my thoughts with you and I'm not sure this is the time to do it but I think that's fine it's now or never yeah so those those were two of the things that I felt very strongly about the third thing I feel strongly about because I have dealt with historic buildings in in Windows is I think that it will end up costing more to rehab a certain number of Windows existing Windows historic windows then it would be to replace all of the windows in the 1928 building with um uh historically reconstructed Windows it it um it's I I you know I hope that there would be or could be or has been uh cost analysis of that but those were the three things after our meeting last week that I pondered and I and I and I felt really strongly that I needed to bring up again because yeah um they're they're import they're important to our work on this commission well you know there's only four of us tonight and I think you can we can um I think we should all just discuss our thoughts really about you know what we're thinking after our discussion last week and I think just [Music] and following following the hearing last week and just how we want to pursue tonight um whether we want to go through each of these be standards I um and how much we want to discuss these MHC letters because um yeah I was not present in the fall meetings last year um I was on maternity leave so I find it just but I I'm aware of the discussions and I've watched the the hearings and um but I just find I do find it I I do take issue that the historical commission was not notified about MHC letters and this process that was underway um I was I chaired the discussion of the Interiors um for the Interiors in January and I did not know that a letter had been received that stated very clearly um the mhc's um you know their comments so and I I do find it I do take issue I that the designs have not been changed since then um that there hasn't been a an attempt to adapt or change the designs in response to mhc's determination um so if if we look at the MHC determinations and I and I I I um know that Nate has said that we are are bound by our demolition bylaws because that's and the preservation agreement with the library because that's really what's the background for our discussions but in looking at the MHC which we didn't know about until recently the three things that I'm mentioned the the fact that we weren't given an option to at least do a streetcape with slate I can and and and or an understanding of why they were going to replace the whole roof um the bookd drop is now um not necessary under the present plans and the windows I think are a cost value factor from my experience so I I'm I I I go on record is saying I think that emmer needs a Community Center Library this is not in any way to distract from that yeah but I also think that that as a member of this commission these are issues that um I gave thought to once we had the mass historical commission information in and um just our own purview of preserving uh the historic building without getting in the way of allowing it to have a purpose in the present in the future Pat thank you um I think you and I might differ about um slate roofs um I've had professional experience dealing with a Frank lyd Wright building that needed a new roof where there was a lot of pressure to put ashel shingle on a new roof I know we're a little bit beyond what Rachel came up with in her presentation I apologize Rachel for sounds like I've ignored your presentation I'm not but this is really important um I think we listen need to listen to Ellen and Salone has years of experience of dealing with what is actually going on out there in the field and technically with sustainability and with historic preservation and I think synthetic slate would actually be a pretty good compromise um in fact I would recommend that if we don't resend our vote from last year tonight which I think we might very possibly do in good conscience we should at very least um say what it is that we are kind of what our sort of bottom line is tonight as the commission and it may differ from one to the other of us all the more reason to resend the vote from last year to take a look at these standards again and to do what exists as a model in our demolition delay um bylaw which is to go through each thing one by one and we could do that with the preservation for the preservation restriction um agreement and we could do that with the standards um and find out where we end up um at the end of that process um you know I I did also go through and listen to those two recordings um from September and October um I think that represented for me a very important moment in the history of this project because it really showed me that everybody really cares about the Jones and really wants to get something to come to the surface which is going to to work for everybody um but now we're a little bit beyond that we're in this be realm um where you know value engineer you you think that value engineering didn't happen with the 1993 Edition you bet it did and you bet that FAA has been value engineering all along to try and make this project affordable that's their job as Architects so I think we would do ourselves and the town and the library and the community um a favor by getting back down into the weeds looking at the standards that we discussed but that we didn't very carefully go through in order just as we would a demolition bylaw review and see where we end up thank you peddy I'm I'm perfectly willing to listen to the arguments for the um synthetic slate and and and I voted for that in at this meeting in this commission and also the design review board I just realized that I didn't have the background review and and I also realized that much of what our concern is is is historic context and streetscape to maintain that um and so I rais this question not to stop the process I don't think we need to go back and do step by step I think there are just certain things like the book trap that's that's Superfluous right now and so if we're talking about value engineering that should that should count you know on on a reduce the cost side I think it's about $400,000 I don't mean to interrupt but I just that's the number I I don't know that number and so my thought was that we should have that included in the value engineering and I don't know that we need to go back to December just September or anywhere other than to speak our thoughts on either having a better understanding or or um you know you and I are both on board with the if we're doing Val value engineering let's get rid of the book Dr because it's Superfluous right now and so I I'm coming from a point of view of these are my thoughts and you and I agree on the book drop I don't know what the Architects will think about this but um I I don't want to stop the process I don't want us to go back to September because we've spent a lot of time in thought and I've been very careful with this I'm not really asking to stop the process I'm asking to apply the standards and I think there are certain standards that um are obvious to us um and so we're talking about those tonight and and I also you know would would like to see a cost analysis of new Windows versus um refurbishing the existing ones because as I said I think at the last meeting we're just kicking this problem down the road because because the windows only last for so long well I don't I don't think we well so I think um we probably shouldn't be considering the the costs as a decision-making factor for us but I I mean I think that was what was determined yeah man last week you're exactly right about that and I shouldn't have introduced that but if we're talking about value engineering cost I think did you part of that did you say that you didn't have a background when you say you don't you didn't have a background before does that mean was that related to our discussion of the MHC comments we didn't have that and we also didn't from The Architects have the reason why they proposed maintaining the windows and the reason why they proposed the synthetic slate and so I think if we're going to put things in a historical context that background could be useful Antonia yeah I guess in related to the comment about uh the roofing um and slate or um synthetic slate or um as originally talked about um asphalt um gu in response to one of what Pat said I remember the guess one of the reasons in for me that's critical um of understanding in like the material of the roof and also in a way the urgency of it is due to um I think what was explained to us before on the leakage um that was happening in the roof um I think it was in past September um and I mean I also could be corrected um uh or whether I um found that in my own um research in the library but due to that um the importance also when thinking of not only historic like the physical aspect of the building and also some people have been talking about the tears but the physical books and and also manuscripts and artifacts that are critical um of understanding historical importance and so I do think that the roof um and is also Paramount in trying to I me save and preserve this historic um space that I is both a community center but also is this space of physical um objects of importance to this town um and I guess going back to the materiality uh I would say that I think both in I was I was looking at comparisons between synthetic and original and I think it does a quite a good a great job um at replicating um what would be from the street um view but I also do understand completely um and respect um Pat's comment yeah and Antonio you know your comments are helpful because I I'm not sure that I heard that exactly about the leakage when we were considering the only two Alternatives and so thank you for that okay Nate did you have your hand raised a long time ago do you want to speak I was in a um recognize H because she had had her hand up and then I don't think she finished her her thought um this was a while ago all right and then I mean what I was going to say is that you know I spoke with the town attorney again um there had been some discussions about how obligated are we to follow what Mass historic had done and do we need to enumerate every standard in the preservation restriction as we review it and that's not necessarily the case right so sometimes even the planning board doesn't go through every specific part of their the zoning bylaw if they review something they might say you know it meets the standards and it it you know it it's appropriate for site plan review uh you know there was not a prescriptive outline in the preservation restriction that that's necessary and the Massachusetts historical commission you know really had three points that then violated five standards One Was the removal of the Slate shingles the removal and lack of visibility of the of the north walls and then there was some interior stuff and those three things added up to the five points and so there's overlapping applicability of those standards to those issues and when the commission reviewed this last fall it was a very thorough review we had asked the applicants to come back with massing models we asked about visibility from the street they discussed how you know different perspectives from it and it wasn't as if we ignored the standards it was had been in your P it had been in the pack and and been available for you know a long time leading up to the meeting and so we had preservation brief about how to apply additions to Old buildings and so whether or not we you know discussed them every time there was the part of the presentation it was part of what the applicants were stating right so we looked at the massing we if we're if we're actually saying that synthetic slate is appropriate now we're still inconsistent what what what Mass historic thought was a violation and so a local commission when using a preservation restriction to review a project it's typically the local review it's not Mass toric that will um you know enforce or you know use a local restriction it's it's on the historical commission and so from the town attorney's perspective without having done a deep dive you know they've seen videos they've seen this meeting summaries they've read documents the commission did a thorough job and so you know is the mass historics letters that came after the fact for a different program really enough to say that what the commission did last fall wasn't a thorough enough job that you have to revisit it and so you know we spent a number of hours talking about the height the massing the visibility the materials uh the windows and so and the commission came to a conclusion and I don't think that you know what Mass historic provided necessarily means we have to resend and go back to what the commission had done and so you know the commission had done its due diligence and so you know we asked about materials we asked about the lifespan of shingles we you know we we you know there was a pretty big discussion about that we talked about the windows we talked about materials of the addition in terms of you know is it is it different enough you know so is it Cloud board siding is it shiplap siding and so there's you know there's a lot of discussions about these aspects of the project that's inherent to what the standards you know how what are being asked of in the standards and so uh you know so what Mass historic did is they said it did violate five standards like I said it was really based on three pieces and so from last week it was our understanding that most of the facad although maybe not visible uh in the way they are now or what they were originally a lot of them will be preserved or they'll be visible with inside the building inside the Edition and some will be altered some will be removed but some was removed from the 90s Edition and so you know I I feel like the commission understood that in the fall I feel like we had a really good explanation last week and so to me you know not sure that there's what Mass historic said that there's a removal of a lot of facade maybe maybe they had trouble reading the plans I mean so to me I feel like we understand what parts of the 28 structure are being changed or altered and so if the commission thinks well being being visible from the interior now as part of you know along the stairwell or part of um a gallery space or a large space if that's you know that the wall is still intact if if that's appropriate then you know that's what we discussed last time last fall and what we discussed last week and what was um clarified and so I don't necess nearly you know I don't think that we have to then resend everything and start all over again because the commission spent time doing it and you know I don't think the commission acted arbitrarily and capricious right that's kind of the standard of law I think the commission went through everything and reviewed the massing the scale the materials right yeah yeah I think that as the right we kind of understood that this project would be reviewed by MHC and that there would be a respect for mhc's kind of um response and their recommendations but the design never was changed after that really and it's so I I feel like yeah a little disappointed there I don't think I do think that it was a that we did perform a thorough um deliberation in the fall and I wasn't there I wasn't part of it I I couldn't have been but that doesn't mean it it wasn't valid it it happened um and we will yeah so mine and and Nate and everybody um I don't my comments do not intend to hearken us back to begin again my comments are apples and oranges more that that we're talking about value engineering and so Hy and I agree the book drop should go if we're talking about value engineering that should free up funds to do other important things relative to the design um I accept if that's the case the architect's decision that the roof is beyond reclaiming but we were very clear that the only alternative would be asphalt shingles not asphalt um um synthetic slate I just questioned whether or not the Slate could be preserved at the streetscape um and aside from that I I feel as though we have due done due diligence um within our purview and so um I think we should move forward but I just felt this evening I needed to make these comments right and pedy um H you know the people who are in my mind right now are all the women who were around at the turn of the century or even before defending and preserving historic buildings in America founding Rhode Islands historic preservation commission antoanet Downing taking care of Benefit Street near RDI where I used to teach um I I want to do what they would have done I want to take care of this building and it seems to me the tools and the instrument to take care of this building in the best possible way and quite a lot of money is actually dependent on the the sort of infastructure around our partnership with the MHC is to is to work with them you know yeah just like the library trustees are working with the what's it called the Massachusetts building Library building Commissioners who are caring for the Commonwealth and telling us that the Jones library has got to be changed because it will be a buil a library for the Commonwealth well my partners in this as a historical as a historical commission member are with the MHC with the secretary of interior standards 106 and that's my background that's why when I did a Frank lyd White House roof we didn't put an ashalt shingle roof back on it the zimmermans had put it on themselves because they couldn't afford to put a tile roof back on but we did it the museum invested in that and you know I I just I I need to feel like I'm Guided by my elders and betters that's what I that's what I that's what I wrote to you about Nate you know and and to Paul as well those are the people that I'm working with as well as all of you you know and there have been moments in this project where um especially around accessibility the front door when Marty Smith you know helped us figure out what was going to be needed to be done to raise the the um pilaster on one side you know that that all that all made really good sense to me to have those kinds of conversations we can have those in the context of the of the standards thank you yeah so I mean we wrote letters for the MHC um in support of their tax credit or sorry we wrote letters to the MHC in support of the tax credit application and we we were told by the library that MHC had not really found any issues at that point um so we wrote a letter in support of the exterior changes and then one in support of the Interior changes um and the MHC is our state like body that and we respect their opinions highly I would not want it to be perceived that we were disregarding their comments um but I think we weren't allow we weren't um granted that opportunity to incorporate those comments into our findings earlier even though we we did have a thorough hearing amongst ourselves and we are a commission of volunteer members um so the comments and and deliberation from MHC would have been you know really valuable for us um and I I think we're all in support of an accessible thriving updated library and it doesn't have to be in um it doesn't mean we can't respect the building's historic Fabric and celebrate um its part and our of our history and um its function as a public good um so yeah but I think yeah I mean as Pat said I think we can just continue to discuss the what what is on hand today um which with these value engineering changes so I mean I think that we are in agreement with this thetic slate unless had he or I think Antonio made a good point that there was a um an issue with the actual like Integrity the physical Integrity of the the roof that it has to be repaired I mean Ellen is that are you raising your hand to address something oh you're muted mine I don't want to speak out of turn so I just was asking permission do we will we get a chance to say anything or not I I don't want to you know get anybody uh in trouble or anything but we we do have a couple of comments we'd like to share but if it can't be shared we understand sure we can yes you're able yeah you can share your comments okay so one thing um I just because Sharon's here she's on a well deserved vacation the the the bookd drop in the front of the building it's it's won't be that expensive it'll it's a few thousand doll uh the reason that it's there is because it's at the front entry of the building and it's ex easier for somebody who needs to it it the bookd drop should be by the front of the building so when you're going in you drop the book or it's off hours you can drop the book uh um that's why it's located there in the future the idea is they will have money for a books to order so we'll be set up for that um so I just wanted to say say that and the other thing about the north the north facade and we we have a couple of slides if anybody um is interested in the 1990s it was significantly changed significantly is is um Rachel made a point of saying that the grade was dropped 3et all of the window were dropped and it and they took all the white paint off so this building at one point was all white right so in the 9s they took the white paint off the the North and the West right so it's significant changes that were done then so the the north facade we see today isn't original it was modified and those are the those are the points I wanted to make and if anybody wants to see that a slide of that we we do we do have it thank you and meline I I said something at the beginning of the meeting that I'm sorry I didn't emphasize enough we are prepared to do what Pat and as recommended about the windows so replace the windows new sashes historically appropriate we are prepared to remove the asphalt shingle as um as a bid alternative so in terms of the windows and the synthet synthetic slate we're all we're all good to go with that thank you Austin thank you um I would like to just consider um the mature trees that will be removed um I think the Landscaping I think we're we're pretty much in agreement that the Landscaping um we don't find issue with with the Landscaping changes aside from maybe I um I think there's justification for mature trees being removed um but can we just go just seems like I'm a little bit unsure about what what those trees look like now like how big they are and how much it's it's really going to change at the in the rear is there a photo of kind of what those trees look like like how big they are how tall they are Yeah in our the presentation we had tonight there's a A View from CVS that that might help illustrate that point you going to bring that up Josephine yes just give me one second that yeah um so there are there are two large shade trees in this view that we can they're very tall um best view Rachel right yeah the view thank you um this is this is so this is a view as if you were standing here at the CVS lot looking this way um so the first tree and view is is is this tree here um and the second tree here is this tree tree here um I believe this tree is this tree here okay and those are also visible from AMD the rear um let's see I don't not at least not at least from this view this tree here is on the side um I mean that second photo Oh you mean over here right okay jump quickly are the two trees in the island being removed so the two right in the yes yes this one and this one and that's due to the grading um and the accessible pathway so we we have a new pathway this way we have new pathway that way um and also is related to the grading for the storm water but those are not the those are not the trees that you described as sort of um threatening the this sort of what some sort of walls are right yeah the the addition approximately out to here um and there's sewer pipe that goes out through the fire department Alleyway I mean like climb alleway parking lot um that has roots grown into it so this tree is not possible to save um okay this tree is up high so it's three feet higher than the existing sidewalk level and we're going to be dropping the grades down for that shallow Basin area so we're going to be um significantly changing the grades in this area so we're not able to save that tree we are planting shade trees that have been reviewed by the public shade tree committee and that are adapted to climate change so we're looking at looking at the future also and um choosing plants that can handle the increased heat the increased drought um Andre conditions right and do you have an image sorry Rachel of the tree in the northwest corner so the one close to the the other shade tree in the corner so it's like you it's off to the right on the top image um I don't I don't believe in this presentation no um I did go out and look at it after our last meeting um it does have a good canopy it has a lot of it has several Widow makers those are like large limbs um that look appear to be dead um and the truck several feet up from the ground had significant scarring um something that an arborist would would we we definitely would want to look at if that were if that were to stay on site um it it may be it may be a hazard um regardless of what happens with the project but the trees that you will be planting are intended to be shade trees and to sort of eventually create that sort of similar structure yeah okay um does anyone else have any questions about this no no no thank you for the clarification okay okay you could close it thanks well my interpretation is that those trees really can't support the the land Landscaping plan at all because um one of them is 3 ft higher and then one of them is um growing into a sewer pipe and then that Northwest one was there reasoning for removing that one was it just in the detention Basin yeah it looked like um there would be some grading with and it's the route you know the drip line um and a significant portion of the canopies in the drip line so it's one of those that um you know when we walk the site with Alan snow he said it would be questionable whether or not um it would remain okay okay thank you thanks Rachel um so let's just stick with Landscaping right now um as we sort of assemble are decision making here um are there any among the Commissioners is there any discussion further discussion about Landscaping I feel like it's been well explained and and um meets with the intent of of creating um and adding new shade trees but also allowing for the um water um drainage and other things um and it's it still maintains a garden atmosphere um and so I I would support it the plan okay yeah I mean I think that it is yeah those sort of details will be missed with the Goan Stone Goan bench um and the veneer and you know hopefully they will be included in future Investments and I guess there was also a question about maintenance um would you did you want to address that sure yeah um in our in our current design um the back area with the Nomo is is much easier to maintain um long term uh near term it does take sometimes up to three seasons to fully grow in when you first we've we've used it on several projects um it looks a little bit like a Chia pit when it first goes in so some of that energy that's used for mowing um benefits the project for doing some early uh weed removal um but once it grows in is really thick and it's kind of hard for the weeds to establish um so long term it's you know less less Mowing and then also um less less weeding um with our so I think in terms of that question of the Nomo versus the others um that is that is in mind is the and the overall landscape is there any maintenance sort of any comments you want to make about the maintenance for that yeah we were um we were really careful to select varieties so many species have different you know it's a whole beautiful world it gets me so excited um every every species of like hydranges you know there's so many hydranges um but we were really careful to find ones that they're they sort of maxed out like the little guys um that have maxed about three or four feet anything over that we would you know someone would probably want to be trimming for visibility sight line so the Cunningham white Roto dendrum in the front um max is around three or four feet um the the the purple hydrangea um it's royal royal star is also a 3 to four feet so anything that's in the shrub category in the front we were sure to make sure that it wouldn't require trimming or pruning um and uh we are proposing a lopy mix with bulbs and the ground cover underneath so again reducing the need for mulching once that gets really thick and established you do not have to bring in mulch which I understand the library has to spend a couple thousand dollars a year um bringing in mulch to maintain beds and it's less weeding too so anything that we can cover the ground with planting um can help help with that weed competition there may be some weeding in the future um but our hope is that this plan minimizes that impact okay thank you yeah I just want to ask sorry just to jump in um last you said there would be more sight lighting maybe baller Lighting in the front and in the back and I just wasn't sure um if you could describe that a little bit more like if there's actually going to be more sound like maybe along their walkway in the front or or exactly what's happening with the lighting um there's a plan shown but I just I you know think about it tonight there's I feel like there's some questions about that sure so one of one of our goals is sort of to minimize barriers and that's that's physical and then that's visual um so for the lighting it can be challenging to kind of balance out the foot candles and then not have a lot of vertical obstructions um so in the front then the original design where we had the Goan benches on either side of the front entry um we were integrating LED lighting underneath that like a scrim wall and that was helping with our foot candles when we when we be eat out the benches we needed to accommodate for that change in lighting um so we've added an one one additional Ballard on on each bed left and right of the front entry um that that Ballard is in a planting area so it's integrated with the landscape um and and won't be like a big pole p in the site um additionally we we had Ballers inside a walkway that we moved to the outside of the walkway at the front so again trying to reposition the lighting there um in the in the back um there was an area in the corner Bo so we did um we did change the the lighting configuration of the catenary lighting at that at that point where the wall is really close to the new addition um and so we've added a a wall mounted down light in that area just to even out the foot candles on the site so these are very small subtle tweaks to kind of balance out the light in those areas in the sorry in the Ballard lighting how tall is are those ballards trying to 32 or 36 36 36 thanks Jess okay um I think we're ready to move on to the the next sort of ve change right um roof uh we've been discussing synthetic slate versus slate um in our previous hearing last fall we arrived on synthetic slate and there was a pretty thorough discussion um there's really nothing new that we've been presented with today considering synthetic slate as you know I think it's it's the same discussion so um yeah how do you feel Pat and he about that I know you were discussing these issues earlier in this meeting I think Antonia because she refreshed my memory about the fact that the roof is having leaking problems I I'm assuming that if it if it were possible to Remedy by repairing the Slate that would be among our choices I don't know whether that's a correct assumption or not um I started out by saying that that I thought at least the streetcape should be slate however I I can accept in the interest of having a sound building that changing the roof to synthetic slate would be preferable Eddy do you have anything you want to say I mean I think the historic roof on the 1928 building is at the end of its life I remember Ellen talking about that a year ago um yes I mean yeah I I think that the um the synthetic slate the replacement of the windows with new um are are sort of non-negotiables um in the back of my creepy little mind is this idea that aren't these things possible with the plan B that the library trustees are also considering um yeah head I agree with you I I I accept the synthetic slate for the soundness of the building and and it will have a Contex context that that maintains the image of of history and Austin said that they will consider new windows and I I think those are the two things in the Integrity of maintaining the 1928 building that are are important that are on the table right now anyway and and there need to be no alternate alternates because right if I was a contractor I would be it would be very easy to look at what the options were and to bid lower to be I I think these are the only in my opinion these are the only options I would recommend that the synthetic slate and the new windows are the only options will you agree thank you Austin okay um and the book slot [Music] um Ellen just shared with us the reasoning for its its positioning where it is um and we did uh discuss it last year we we discussed it in view of there being an automatic sorder and that was the only place that was practical for it to be I I'm not going to hold out about this I think it it Mars the historical facad of the library however um if if if it relates to handicap accessible returning of books Etc and we also discussed that the color of the um door whatever whatever we want to call it the um should be consistent with the plaque that's on the other side of the door and so if if it's if if the bottom line is to make it more handicap accessible I am in favor of handicap accessibility and I wouldn't stand in the way of it being there it just isn't doesn't have the same function that was originally proposed I think my will yeah I think my concern about drop um is that a lot of conversations happened deliberations happened related to the interior rearrangement of some interior walls that connected the 1928 to the 1993 building and I would like an assurance that those walls are not removed simply because down the road the library would like to buy an automatic book sorter at present I'm not sure the library has the funds to to do this project um ve or nove so you know it it just seems like we're we're we're holding a candle for something that um is is uh not a not not a priority especially in relation to Value engineering and I I don't want there to be any Mis understanding about decisions design decisions that that are that are are being driven by the provision down the road of a book sorter a mechanical book sorter right I don't know how difficult it is to just install that um opening when the book's sort of materializes um right as opposed to keeping the current bookdrop under the covered roof on the East entrance right that related to the fact that everybody needs to be able to use the same bookdrop but it's a it's a universal design issue and be a separate book drop for people just because it's easier to access if you use a wheelchair or if you're blind or whatever issue there is to right you should be able to go in the front door exactly I'm wholeheartedly behind all of those goals for the project but it won't be a book slot book drop in in the beginning right it will it's one of mechanical oh okay thank you and so the book trap that exists up the walkway to the side Annex will be dispensed with correct because that that's a staff that'll be a staff entrance Pat so if someone is needing to drop off a book if they have to if they're in a wheelchair or in CR crutches or what some whatever they have to go use that come back around and then go into the front entrance that that's that's the problem and the typically at a library you have a bookdrop in the building somewhere so someone can do it off hours use the bookdrop right and and I'm familiar with the one in the annex and I'm also familiar with the the mailbox looking bookd drop that's that's at the sidewalk and those have served me well so I I just wonder um about about you know changing the face of the the facade of the building on Amity Street to add that and and does does that add a convenience to the staff does it make because what's there right now is very accessible it's it's a convenience to those who to the patrons of the library the one out front it overflows on a long weekend when the library is not open it overflows and then you get books sitting on the ground so and so because people don't always want to get out of their car and go into the drop it off at the book slot in the building so the idea of the one at the front of the building because we did study this and we analyzed it is that it it's it's it would be a lot of walking for someone who had trouble walking to use that side bookdrop then come around and go in the front entry that and that's that's part of the reasoning some people just don't don't go in the building they just drop their book off so they have to further um and so so the reason is that that entrance to the library is going to be closed correct okay is a standalone bookd drop gonna be removed then I don't think so but that's a Sharon question sorry I I think we could bigger bookd drop I mean clearly this is a very good example where universal access isn't just an accommodation to people who have historically through ADA requirements asked for it this is a win-win where everybody benefits everybody gets to do what's right more and just make a bigger bookd drop I don't and I I don't Hy I don't want to challenge you I've never done or been in a library that didn't have an internal book trop just because of and I'm sure mblc would have a say in that but I I don't want to go down that road I mean Sharon's not here to speak to a bigger bookdrop or if they're going to still have the bookd drop I don't know well well the issue is that that we all use the book trop at the sidewalk or go into the Library through the handicap accessible door in the annex and so the real issue is that the design change is that is no longer going to be access to the library and so that gives us this dilemma of whether we change the facade to have a book drop there or we do two boxes at the sidewalk I can't answer that question Antonia want to speak sure um I would say that in both our um conversations last September which I think took a lot like a lot of our deliberations were actually over this um drop and I think we I think to maintain um what Pat was saying about keeping materials um of this bookdrop in use with um the current like s pallet of the front entrance I think would be Paramount to me although I do I think if there are other Solutions in this bid that could be explored I'm for that I would say I wouldn't vote specifically not to have this book drop on theologist given the importance I think of ADA and the fact that there will not be this other entrance um that we are used to and I think that when thinking about historical preservation I also think mostly about like the patrons that are using this and maximizing that and accessibility to people who also so historically have not been also I guess knowledge and um accessibility to um public spaces so I think I would say that when thinking of historical importance um which I think is what what we're here to do I think we've looked at that I guess in other ways in other specificities and although I would hope that this could be maybe explored um in another bid I wouldn't vote um to Bor uh that option well I think Ada trumps is the trump card here Antonio you're right and so if if it can be made as unobtrusive as possible and and be ad A Accessible I think that that's the trump card okay Eddie well I'm for Universal Design and for accessibility um and for a more efficient Library um but I I don't think that means that we need to put the hole in the wall right now but I think the hole in the wall would serve a purpose initially even though there wouldn't be a book Mach a sorder behind it right it still be a book drop yeah we're going to use the old director's office as the place where books get dumped um I know that is something that the MHC has directly deliberated on and told us that you know that's that's a major change to a historic use of the building okay um so those are really the major ve items from today um the roof the Sash and um the book slot a and the landscape and the landscape but I feel as though the Landscaping we don't have any proposals for changes to that and the roof monitor we considered last week and determined that it didn't have an effect on the historic building to remove it and mine was that window discussion is as well last week yes from curtain wall to regular aluminum windows oh yes that sort of bump out just that that was just at the rear of the building and um correct that's my understanding those bump outs I didn't want to I to forget about that though thank you yes so meline those items we voted in favor of last week you just reiterated the ones that we really need to renew a vote for um so it's right so my I'll just summarize what we've determined what we've discussed not what we've actually voted on so we [Music] um ver ruane uh we've been discussing synthetic slate shingles um so we discussed the windows we discuss the roof monitor the curtain wall and then the landscape V ve items were to defer Goan Stone benches defer The Children's Courtyard defer storm water garden plantings reconfigure the rain garden bridge Crossings produce Paving in areas um and eliminate a storm water system and eliminate the granite cladding at the retaining wall in the rear those are the ve items to be that are part of our hearing today um So based on our discussion I would say I would make a motion to find that the the commission finds that the value engineering changes are appropriate with the following conditions um concerning the roof uh we recommend synthetic slate as determined in the previous hearing and no asphalt Jingles regarding the sash we would require replacements for all window openings and no alternates and um and regarding the the book slot it can remain as is in keeping with the previous hearing and um I would also just state that our findings in the previous hearing still stand and our recommendations there so I would second that motion just a point of order I are we can we not still say that we're observing the standards we can we can keep discussing if you want in relation to the be um changes so would you want you there could be an amendment to the motion to say that the changes were reviewed are consistent with the preservation restriction and meet the Secretary of interior standards for rehabilitation with the following conditions and it would reiterate then what meline had read okay let me read it again yes um the commission finds that the value engineering changes are appropriate and meet the preservation restriction standards and comply with the Secretary of the Interior standards with the following conditions that uh the roof be synthetic slate as determined our previous hearing and no asphalt Jingles um that for the windows um there would be replacements for all with no alternates and that the um book slot can remain as is and that the um findings of our previous hearings shall shall remain mateline do we want to add the the landscape design to that list I don't think we found any recommendations to change the okay we just do we need to approve it I I I would say Pat if um if you seconded if you agree to that those amendments you could agree to the second again and then there'd be another discussion about it okay so I'll second what meline said and then amend it to include the design change be changes I think the motion has said that and so I since it was amended we just kind of the same people who made it and then seconded it would have to do that again otherwise we'd have to craft another motion again okay so mine just made it again and then I should second it again okay could I not necessarily that we would agree with this but I guess since we were having this discussion at the bookd drop would we want to say that we may I guess for the purpose of um a uh accessibility um like compliance we would support that but would recommend um another bit like another bid um exploring other um options or I mean I was just a question given there was a lot of contention about that I would say yes um other options for not including a a hole in the wall or yeah we wouldn't bar it but that it be explored don't we have to be clear what we're asking in the bid from our potential contractors you know the want where are are we saying on the one hand we want you to make provision for pushing a hole into the historic director's office Library director's office but we also want you to come up with Alternatives that seems um I feel like that's an archex review yeah wait we just an idea oh yeah no no it's fine yeah thank you I like I like lots of choices Antonia and that's been the problem all along with this thing you know we've always not been able to address the real context for all the choices that we're making and that's just something that I have to learn from thank you meline and and Pat for um getting us to this point and well it's thank you to everybody um I think we have a motion in a second Does it include the the book drop meline yes so the so I I'll read it again the commission finds the commission finds that the value engineering changes presented are appropriate and meet the preservation standard preservation restriction standards and comply with the Secretary of the Interior standards with the following conditions um that the synthetic that the roof be synthetic slate and not as no asal's shingle uh that the windows uh are completely replaced with no alternates and that the book slot can remain as is and keeping with the previous hearing okay Antonio are you good with that yeah yeah yeah yes okay so now should we have a vote or do we go around I think if there's no more discussion we'd call the vote is there any more discussion okay um an Antonia hi Pat hi hedie no okay and I say yes all right and then we could have a motion to close the hearing this was also a posted public meeting and so um unless there's any other comments it's from the library and the presenters I think we've concluded the hearings so I just want to again say to all of you um thank you you've put in hours and hours and hours and I really appreciate all of that I want to say yet again how grateful I am for the commitment of people across the town even though we may not agree on the substance the town is better for their participation and lastly I hope everybody has great confidence in the work that FAA and Rachel and her group have done they've shown us I think in the whole town that they are responsive that they are committed and that they are patient with the process that has allowed everybody in town to have their say so I'm really grateful to them thank you thanks yeah so um M i' like a motion to close the hearing and then we could move on to the public meeting piece and it can be quick so I make a motion that we close the public hearing a second okay do we go around again sorry I'm not okay Antonia oh close it sorry yes Pat I Eddie hi and yes for me all right thanks everyone thank you thanks for everything thanks for your good night thank you all very much so the meeting there's still a public meeting of the commission um you know the agenda had announcements and a few things I don't have many um one of the topics was you know we have a letter asking about 106 review and participation and so you know the whole commission could attend we it' have to be a posted public meeting um you know talking with Bob parin from the town the idea would be to you know to vote to have a representative or two from the commission attend the 106 review um I'm I'm not sure how involved it'll be how many meetings um and if anyone wants to volunteer from the commission but to me you know that was the one piece on the agenda to discuss I think there's 30 days to respond and so I just want to make sure the commission you know has a chance and then set a next meeting date and so I think those are the two pieces i' I'd want to discuss today and if we don't come to decision about 106 as long as we have a meeting in September you know it will probably be within the 30 days I just it's something that you know the commission should you know discuss is there date set for for the meeting the the 106 hearing or Preparation or whatever it's called I don't I don't know if there was actually a um I don't think so yeah I I I don't think I saw anything about a date there's a followup our meeting in September our regular AMS historical commission meeting in September and then there's the 106 review meeting or meeting but I when is the what would be the scheduled commission meeting in September I have the 9th on my calendar a mon Monday the 9th yeah Monday the 9th yep yeah wait can we do I I I can only do 7 PM now just um instead of 6:30 that's that's better that works better for me too all right yeah that's fine so it's the 9th at 7 and do we do we want to just put off the review of the or discussion of the 106 um or would you want to just you know if anyone's interested I'm interested and yeah we should I think we should um come up at least with a tentative date so that it so that it's kind of moving along with everything else as part of the process yeah you know we could vote to have so you know I think what I'd want is the commission to vote to have Representatives be part of the 106 review so if it were peddy and meline there'd be a vote of the commission saying that you can represent the commission as the 106 review Consulting party okay I don't I nominate um is that how it works sure yeah I don't know um uh nominate to be representative hudie and meline um on behalf of our commission I second so small [Laughter] commission is is there a reason that um Michaela is not able to be present I I mean yeah I I think Michaela has um essentially resigned uh her her you know she was reappointed at the end of June and originally she said she was stay on um to hear the Jones case and a little bit but uh after the even before the first hearing last week she said she's just been really busy and she had wanted to resign and I asked her if she could stay on in case we needed a quorum and so um you know she had she actually I think wanted to resign um you know July in July but I had asked her just to stay on so yeah we have vacancies now now well I appreciate the time and effort she put into survey yeah please thank her for us yeah and I there had been some volunteer form submitted month months ago now I you know I think we hopefully that we can Robin had emailed the town manager's office a bit ago and just said you know could we revisit that and see if there's any anyone who's still interested in available I I know what that process is because it' be nice to have you know soorry I guess we have we we didn't vote on the nomination but so this would be the only four that could vote anyways because Robin has to recuse herself so there's not you know if we wait till the ninth there maybe that's why we asked there's no other members that would be you know part of this discussion so it it it would be two of us then that's fine yeah it's um yeah okay that sounds fine are we still taking public comments at this point or um as part of the public meeting or are we all done we could we just haven't had a vote on that motion did we did we vote on that the 106 review oh we had we had two votes but then Hy and I didn't want to vote for ourselves so I guess I vote Yes well yes I vote for myself gosh unanimous was a problem be careful what you wish for isn't that one of those things that you might say yeah I would appreciate also like understanding how to inform the other commission members about process and what comments we would are putting forth yeah I think you know it become a a standing item on the agendas and so it could be you know report back on the 106 review you know I'm not sure either you know it'll be a facilitator to review um you'll probably be given you know packets of information there'll be a meeting or meetings to review the project and you know I don't I mean sometimes a 106 review can take months you know sometimes it can be short sometimes it can be very lengthy and so you know there's a number of Consulting parties or potential Consulting parties that were um asked to join the 106 review and you know there's 30 days to respond or acknow I think back respond within 30 I think it's more than just acknowledge I think they have to respond uh within 30 days that they're interested and have a representative or someone who will attend and so the 106 review group could be really big I mean it could be um um I mean you know knowing seeing the the letter I mean it could be like 20 30 people if Consulting parties have two people each I don't you know I don't you know I'm just yeah yeah so yeah I mean I think the commit you can report back to the commission um you know I think you've seen the project and you've you know you've been on the review of the library so I think you understand some of the position I think there'll be you know there could be other questions asked right I mean you might be applying you know the standards again you'll have other information to review so and it you know it'll involve the interior I think it's you know really a a pretty thorough look at the project so okay I see a hand raise in the public can we sure Maria you can unmute yourself thank you Maria kapiki South ammer this was thoroughly disappointing you guys had a chance to fix your mistake and you didn't take it you did not apply the standards I suggest that all of you go back rewatch all of the meetings as I have a number of times read the transcripts look at what was in the packets you did not perform your duties you did not go through the standards last time and you sure as heck didn't do it this time and you voted to say that these plans meet the standards you also allowed yourselves to be pushed towards something you were you were given bad instructions you were told that you didn't have it isn't necessary that you go and do your job you were not told that you can't do your job this is it's extremely disappointing you know some of us have been trying to get on to committees for a very long time some of us been trying to get on this committee for a very long time and it's really disappointing when people who have done their homework and understand what's going on and want to serve have to sit here and watch you get bullied into a position and why we should be being grateful and thankful to designers who are making thousands of dollars every time they show up for these meetings is beyond me so no this was not th this this was just not in any way meeting your duties and I hope that you fix this somehow you have a 106 review coming up you know when I talked about the family whose father built this building they were crushed they are absolutely beside themselves four generations of amorist residents are crushed because of what is planned for this building there's no reason for this this plan to be in such violation and that's not your problem that they handed this to you and then said hurry up approve it please go back read the standards read what you said read what was done read what was in the packet I hope this doesn't happen for any other historic structure in this town thank you there's a few more hands M if you want to recognize them okay yes um Arley you're allow to speak um Hello thank you just on the 106 um Mr Malloy said it might be short it might be long uh I don't know if you're aware you know the timeline of this whole rebidding and uh process is is quite Speedy they want to get their bids out you know midt uh or some you know so that essentially is about two and a half weeks so um this is a kind of a it's going to be a speedy process whatever it is because I don't think they're going to want to stretch this out because they need to get their documents in order to send out forbidding um anyway I just get ready for a speak thing be aware this is going to probably be kind of quick thank you in my estimation thank you thanks for that comment okay um Christopher beny yes um I feel that the town's approach to the historic preservation considerations regarding the Jones Library pro project have just been derel from the very beginning um the section 106 review process should have been started at the beginning of this whole planning process I mean the regulations the guidelines make that perfectly clear now we are at the 11th Hour the process Haven hasn't even begun um the town sent out this project for bids last spring hadn't done the uh Nea review hadn't done a section 106 review if there had been a successful bid those uh reviews never would have happened and the town would have lost the funding from uh the federal sources um and I just want to say that the town's der elction of Duty is going to become very front and center in the section 106 process because those federal agencies are going to be looking very carefully at how badly the town has managed this from the very beginning and um you know you're going to have to live with that uh and and I think it's really a shame um you know I'm new to ammer politics and I have to say it's just appalling so um you know I I hope that you will do a decent job with the section 106 Pro process um you're obligated to uh I think a lot of people are watching and expecting you to do a good thorough careful job and I just pray that you do it thank you thank you for your comment see sorry um Cameron or I think that's uh yes you can speak thank you uh actually Carol gray um and sorry that I don't know how to change the name on my phone but anyway um yeah I I I'm not gonna reiterate what the other speakers have said Maria copii and others but I totally concur that um you you had a legal duty to follow the standards and I think if you are going to to flatly reject what the mass Massachusetts historical commission has said in terms of there being five standards being violated you have a legal duty to say why you think they're wrong why exactly are those five legal standards which they who have more expertise than all of us in the room have said are violated are not being violated in your view I think just pretending that you can just all say you know or not all but that those of you who vote in favor just do it because it's your personal opinion that you want to do it is not good enough you actually have to say how you're complying with the law why aren't those standards why are those standards being met when this other body that has expertise says that five out of 10 are not being met I don't think you're meeting your burden of of of executing your legal Duty and that's very concerning to me um and for the 106 review again that is a chance to make it right and I really hope that you'll take it and I hope that you'll see yourselves not as just is this a good project that you want to vote for that's that's not the question at all you have to impose the legal standards and and if you were faced with no report from some other entity that said standards were being violated then maybe you know just having a thumbs up vote and and not giving the legal reasoning might be justifiable but considering that you were presented with a memo with the most authoritative body in the state saying half the legal standards are being violated for you not to say anything about the law and just give it a thumbs up is um is not uh in keeping with what your legal duty is I think it's it's um violating your legal Duty um I also wanted to say um I Heard Nate Malloy say that there are um perhaps dozens or at least many Consulting parties um if there's a document that says who the other parties are that are seeking to be Consulting parties I it would be helpful if that could be in your packets or in a way that the public could access that or perhaps uh Mr Maloy could actually tell us who are these other parties uh that are wanting to be Consulting parties and uh what does a Consulting party have to do other than say yes please provide us with all documentation being provided to the commission and please provide us of all meeting times what what does a Consulting party have to do to make sure they're fully informed both in writing and of meetings thank you um Carol I would reach out to Bob parent um in the town so I I'm not I only know this because I work with the historical commission but he was the one helping um with the you know the 106 review so I I don't I could find the letter but uh I think you know I think the 106 review allows for many people to be considered Consulting party so if um he's the project Capital manager he works on the second floor in town hall if you reach out to again Bob parent he would be able to help you might maybe I also see it it's on the Jones Library website too Jones library.org building project has a list of the Consulting parties oh good thank you sure okay um Rita Burke yes um I just have two things I want to um ask about I guess um tonight Mr Sarah contradicted or he began um by stating something that was contradictory to even what several of you stated after that um with regards to receipt of the letters the infamous letters and um the information contained in them last fall that confuses me you've got somebody actually willing to come on a public call and say all these people for example me R Burke are saying that the the information letters the existence of them were kept from the public and from a lot of people like yourselves involved in all of this and the decision making regarding it and yet several of you and I appreciate it I applaud you had the courage to say basically no Austin that's not how it went down why isn't anybody questioning this kind of contradiction we're supposed to be able to have faith in the people who are appointed or elected how can we do that why don't we make have all these questions why would would we have all these questions why wouldn't we be up in arms if you will because this is not an isolated situation with this project or with others that people like me who have been here for 50 years have experienced now it's not just on a a tape it's not just lordy I hope they have tapes it's live in front of us this is this is a real important aspect of all of this and feed directly into why this particular project has divided this town so dramatically all anybody I assume wants is the truth and when you've got appointed or elected leaders blatantly not telling it even when the people they're working with like members of your committee are saying basically no the people questioning this are are are accurate we didn't get information from these letters we didn't even know they were there so I'm going to stop right now with that because clearly it's really pissing me off and none of you are going to be able to stand up to him them or do anything about it so that's sad for all of us okay um the other thing is I've been very active as a 50-year resident of ammer but I'm new I'm I'm late to this dance with regards to participating in um AC um meetings and I and and it I'm being perfectly like calm and legitimately curious I don't understand with all due respect Mr mooy what your what Your Role is here I I don't think you're a member of the ace ahc and yet as somebody new to watching these meetings and listening and trying to absorb things and get my head around it you sure sound like you are um you've given as much participation as the members who are and way more Direction so if you could just clarify for me I know you hold a very high position in town I know nothing about your department but I just so that I know the players because I don't have a roster in front of me and what I have seen doesn't compute with with what I what's happening C could I please ask somebody to Define what your role is in all why are you Consulting with the town's attorney and not members of the committee whose meeting this is who should know this information for firsthand Are you a liaz on is this your role to participate as a quasi member of this body I I really honestly don't know so I'm just asking for clarification thank you sure yeah I'm a planner with the town and I'm staff liaison to the commission and so you know if there are questions in terms of legality of things we don't ask that the commission contact the staff the town attorney I do that as staff and so okay you know so I I you know communicate with applicants to projects whether it's for demolition review or for preservation restriction so you know I manage you know all of that intake and then facilitate and process it to the commission and with the commission and so you know in a community that may not have staff maybe the chair of the commission is doing more of that maybe they're doing application reviews they're contacting attorneys they're you know doing all these other things but because we have staff that's what I do okay so it so in that in that role it's appropriate for you to be telling them to move on or that they don't have to regard certain um rules I mean you you really have been directing them and and you have to you certainly I mean yeah so I so I'm framing the conversation so that's an interesting way of of that's an interesting way of describing it go ahead yeah I want to make sure the commission is acting you know with due diligence and not being arbitrary and capricious so if for instance the commission is like you know what there's there's a lot of public comment now we're just going to resend what we did last year and just hear it all over again there has to be a really solid reason to do that and so in speaking with the town attorney they said that well the commission did hear the project you know we spent you know few evenings doing that we had presentations we had meeting materials and so you know that's my role is to say that that you have to be cautious if you're going to do that or here's how the standards can be applied to this project and so you know if they're talking about the window and the commission was having questions about the windows last week I said well what I'm hearing is keep all the existing or all new but let's not have a mix and let how the commission make a decision on what that could be okay so you you are directing the the conversation or the meeting in a sense because you know that I would think that what you just used as an example would be for them to decide not for you to tell them that's what they should decide I'm not making a decision for them I'm saying I'm summarizing their conversation and what they were talking about was you know what do we do with the windows and there's discussions of let's have them be all new let's repair all the existing but we want them to be all the same and so I summarized that and said if that's how how you're doing it then your motion should have some of that language in there I'm not say that all sound one way or the other that all sounded perfectly fine but you know 30 seconds ago you were never mind um this isn't the place for you and I to have this ation I really didn't understand what your role was supposed to be and I was very confused by what I was saying seeing your role was actually being but thank you I appreciate some explanation for it and now I'm the wiser I appreciate it thank you thanks for your comment see uh Lee Edwards you you are allowed to speak as to unmute okay if you could unmute yourself Lee okay okay maybe they're not there anymore oh maybe okay let's try somebody else and then come back to Lee Jeff Lee hi this is Jeff Lee just want to correct a couple things and point out a way that this process might have been improved um it's been said that there are different standards for uh judging historic tax credits well the first letter that identified adverse effects from the mass historic commission was not about historic tax credits it was in response to the project notification form which was submitted last October and that's required because the project is receiving state and federal grant money so that should be made clear secondly I don't understand why you met last October to uh to evaluate compliance with the preservation restriction agreement when all you had to do is wait a few more weeks and you would have had the response from the mass historic commission which would have informed you that all these secretary standards were violated that's the way it should have been done and I'm really disappointed that it wasn't thank you thank you I think we were required um is that true Nate yeah we didn't you know we it was the request of the applicant you know so we you know at the same time they're going through other permitting and so it wasn't the commission you know if the library had said to have hold held the hearing earlier or later submitted information that's what the commission would respond to so it wasn't necessarily the commission's decision to have a hearing then is that we were given you know according to the Restriction a letter with those changes and we have so many days to respond to that and so it was you know following that process it wasn't yeah I mean I I you know whether or not the sequence of events could have unfolded differently that's how the commission responded and so I yeah I don't just think it would have been a much more informed process if you had received the input from the mass historic commission for assessing the P but we did have the PNF um we did know about mhc's response to the PNF and we did address that in our meeting I think that happened after your October meeting it's my understanding we addressed it at the Interiors meeting okay well regardless um it seems that a lot of violated standards were not considered last last year okay thank you for your comment welcome um see Ken Rosenthal thank you very much Ken Rosenthal on Sunset Avenue I'm sorry to prolong this but I just want to try to make the point Nate that you've heard from three of us who happen to be lawyers tonight who are trying to explain that when a commission like this which is a quide Judicial body reaches a decision as you did last fall and then you have additional information you have an obligation a right but also an obligation if the information is going to perhaps affect your decision to open it up again and reconsider it I I I hate to bring an example that is not yours but look at what happened with the Central Park 5 in New York who were wrongly convicted and when then when information came out about who the proper culprit was they were retried and and and and released now you're not a criminal court and you're not a formal court but you're a quazi Judicial body and you have to deal with the information you have and only the information you have and when an additional information comes that might affect your decision like those letters after your decision earlier in the fall you have an obligation to consider from the beginning so it is not sufficient for you to say well we decided it already in September you did but you decided it without complete information you may reach the same decision again that's very likely very possible and here you did with a couple of exceptions but you do have to reconsider it if you get such information and um Nate check with your lawyers I think they'll tell you that uh so I'm sorry to bother you with it but I think that's what the at least three of us who are lawyers tonight were trying to tell you thank you again for spending so much time on this this is important to so many of us those as Austin Sarah said those who disagree with him as well as those who agree with him those who disagree with you as well as those who agree with you thank you very much for considering all the things you have we really we we do appreciate it and good evening thank you for your comment um Lee Edwards and I'll ask you to speak once more if you can unmute yourself okay I think they might just not be there and I see Maria hi thank you again yeah Mar Vicky South ammer just to be clear on timeline here the only reason that you were asked to weigh in when you did was because they wanted to get this out to they want and not sorry not even out to bid they wanted to bring this before Town Council to ask for another $10 million on top of the 30X million doll in borrowing and they wanted to do that as soon as they could but here's the thing you knew well you should have known you should have been informed by people in the library project most specifically by the director that the MHC application was in process they had requested additional information they supplied that additional information be between your two hearings between September and October and there the vote was taken at Town Council in December by the end of December you had the letter that definitively said you're not getting these tax credits and you have violated all these standards they didn't put this out to bid until January had any of that information that they had they were worried about it MHC in November they said they weren't going to do it in you're not getting it in December it violated these standards there were letters that said that you should have initiated a section 106 process all of this happened before the Town Council took its vote all of this happened before this went out to bid and all of that information was suppressed the T did not have the information it was entitled to before it made these decisions you did not have the information you were given erroneous information in your packets look you when mistakes are you you are not responsible for people not giving you the information but once you have learned this you have to go back and deal with it a lot of things have happened because of this suppression of information votes were taken money was authorized based on faulty and withheld information this is serious business now you've got a section 106 process which has not been conducted properly so far it's not been conducted at all and it remains to be seen if it will be conducted properly some of you are going to be sitting on that you have again an obligation not to push through a project just because some people want you to push it through not to comply with the building committee or the designer's urgency to fix a bunch of stuff that they got wrong you have an obligation to apply the law please do it thanks thank you for comment I did and see the that the um the in May the that Epsilon submitted the application MHC text credits and then August they received a letter that it was incomplete that letter is regarding um whether the project is income producing if whether the library is income producing or not and that's not that doesn't have much um of an impact upon our decision that wouldn't have really impacted our decision I don't believe having known whether we had known that or not obviously um but just keeping to that and then in August 30th I see MHC received additional material from Epsilon that was also just required regarding the income producing component because a tax tax credits are only available federal tax credits are only available to income producing historic properties so you have to prove that you have an income so it can't be a home for example um so that was the and in my understanding that was the correspondent that was going back and forth before our Hearing in September here I'll I'll put you back on if you want to speak yeah no thank you I know that is yes but the point is until they had a complete application they could not make their ruling they could not certif they could not offer the second certification they could not give you a definitive answer on this these are our findings yes it was be it was incomplete because they didn't have other stuff but that wasn't the problem and that wasn't why rejected it that wasn't why they rejected standards they simply could not give you their findings until they had a complete application so yes that was the reasons but the point is they were in receipt MHC was in receipt of things by fully by October 12th and if you knew that if you knew the MHC is working on it but they couldn't give us an answer yet because they didn't send in a complete application why don't we wait to see what they say that would have made sense and then you would have just simply said hey hang on the MHC who has a lot more knowledge about all of this is working on this they're going to give us an answer there was nothing immediately pending in October there was no urgency for you to make that ruling in October knowing full well that you were going to have additional critical information look I'm not I'm not upset with you guys for all the all the shenanigans that went on in the fall right that wasn't your fault but you know but there are consequences to what happened there and now that you know all this that's what you have to act on thanks right thank you I think that's everybody let's see I don't see any more hands raised yeah I mean I don't there wasn't really anything else on the agenda so you know we can you know just move to a journ and uh meet again on the nine unless there's anything else someone wants to you know really talk about I don't have any anything else I am a little concerned that we now have two vacancies on the commission um and in relation to this project fearless leader has to recuse herself um so I think that has an impact um on how well we can do our work how how much information expertise we can bring to the table um I I know of people who've applied to to be on the commission who are extremely well qualified and have been rejected um OS is full of very well informed people um so I I would just um encourage anyone who's interested um who cares about um the historic quality and identity of us to step up to the plate and I can I vote to adjourn oh Antonio so sorry no no you're good um also I guess for all the Commissioners I didn't think it was necessary to say um and respond to every public comment but I I've never taken a course with Sarah um even though I go to ammer college and I'm not enrolled but I just wanted you guys to know that um and yeah yeah I I talked with my supervisors and they don't see that as an apparent conflict or any Financial conflict there but yeah I I'll I'll email Robin I mean and the town manager's office tomorrow about the vacancies because yeah I mean I you know I know someone applied Robin had actually asked someone uh who seemed really qualified I think it was gosh I I don't want to say it's a year ago but it was a long time ago and I'm not sure what happened but um you know we had a vacancy at the time and so I don't I don't if they're still willing and they had submitted um you know form so it'd be nice because right now right now if one of you is absent or something we just have four members and you know something else happens we can't have a hearing or a meeting and so it it's nice to have you know at least six you know be nice to have seven but at least six members just so there's a little bit of a cushion to having a minimum for a quorum yeah well maybe following the last few weeks they'll be interest in applying thank you I'm voting that we adjourn I mean iour I second that bye we'll vote with our everybody thanks everyone I'm leaving little this little door here in the corner that's me going right through that door bye