Local Historic District Commission Aug 24, 2026

Nice. >> Uh, welcome to this hearing via Zoom of the Local Historic District Commission. The purpose of the LHDC is to aid property owners and the town in preserving and protecting the distinctive characteristics and architecture of buildings and places significant in the history of Ammerst. Members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via Zoom or by telephone. Uh, and we have a hyperlink to the hearing on the town's online calendar. We require one of three certificates to ensure that new construction and most alterations of exterior architectural features in the district meet requirements and we have um two that are coming before us today that we will hear um but we'll begin uh by calling to order and taking roll call vote. So Gita >> here, >> Ben >> here, >> Betty >> here. >> Uh Nicole >> here. >> Steve >> here. >> Uh and I'm here. Uh Bruce isn't here. Do we expect Bruce to come today? Okay. Um we can then move on to number two, which is the approval of minutes. And I did ask that Walker remove a paragraph that slipped in there by mistake somehow. I'm not sure how. Uh from another meeting apparently. Um but other than that, I approve it. Does anybody want to make a motion to approve those minutes? >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Thank you. Uh, and we'll take a roll. We'll just take a um All in favor approving the minutes. I >> I >> I. >> Anyone opposed? Okay, Walker, you've got your minutes. Um, with that, we're going to move to the public hearings and we have two that are coming before us. Uh, one for 290 Lincoln Avenue and one 321 Lincoln Avenue. Uh, and Miss Powell, would you like to begin by um introducing those to us? >> Yeah. Um these are both submitted by the same homeowner and applicant um on two different locations and they are very similar in design. They both propose essentially the same floor plan um and design for the ADUs. They've just changed some of the colors and materials to better match the primary building. Um and the location is different on the two lots. Um, so 321 Lincoln is going to be located behind the house in the place of the existing garage. Um, which and that one seemed to meet most of the standards of the ADU according to the Zion guidelines with the exception of it did appear that they were suggesting using synthetic sighting materials, which is not recommended. Um the one at 290 is located actually closer to the road than the house and um the scale compared to the main house might be a little bit off. It's it's definitely more noticeable. Um this is due to the shape of the lot. There isn't really an alternative, but there may be ways to discuss uh some alterations to design to make it more appropriate for the space. Um, I'm going to go ahead and let in the Rachel Stevens, the architect. If anyone else wants to be let into the meeting, raise your hand, please. I'm letting in Melissa Ferris as well. We have nine uh attendees, eight attendees who have so there are a number of people here who I think would like to speak. We may yeah we may end up with um we'll probably we'll have to do public comment but for the >> okay >> purpose of presenting the project Rachel >> I'm sorry I missed a few seconds as I was um let into the meeting um from participant to attendee am I able to share slides >> yes Um, all right. Does this show up for everyone? >> Yes, agreed. Um so uh Miss Pal did a great job of introducing the projects and um this is a site that for 290 Lincoln um we've been working on this site for a while now and we prep presented to um the commission before and there was some um comment from the neighbor on the south side that Um, the neighbor really didn't want construction happening close to their house. So, we went back to the drawing board and looked at putting the building instead of um in the rear of the lot because it's, as Miss Paul mentioned, a kind of funny shaped lot, we we moved it to where there's currently parking. Um, so uh let's see. You all know the neighborhood. Um there are quite a lot of Mansard roof um buildings in the neighborhood and that's something that the owner keyed onto and wanted to continue with the ADUs. Um so it's a fairly simple layout of threecar garage with an ADU above it. these are some of the elevations just trying to match similar colors to the existing building. Um some deep red trim and some um sighting that matches the existing stucco. Um so this is the site that that I was talking about. That's the um funny shape. In order to put the building behind the existing building, previously we had looked at Can you see my pointer in this view? >> Yes. >> Yeah. So, we had looked at at locating the building over here um to keep it back behind the existing building, but the neighbor on this side would prefer not to have construction adjacent to their house. So, we um looked at locating the building over here where there's currently parking. There's still um able to be saved trees on three sides here, here, and here. Um and it is slightly in front of the building, but that keeps the building um allowing to have two spaces of parking in front and behind um for all the students that are likely going to be living in these units. Um, so, uh, in theory, I suppose we could move the building back a little bit. Um, it would mean that we would lose one parking spot, but we can look at that and see if that still works with the, um, with the setbacks. So, um, this is the location of the lot, you know, Lincoln Avenue, I'm fearing. Um, these are some of the abutters. Um, and this is looking at the views. >> I'm sorry. Can I just interject for a second? Bruce called him just uh phoned me and he wants I just sent him my link. He for some reason he didn't get a link and he's trying to join. >> I just sent him a link, so he should >> Oh, okay. All right. >> I'm I'm here as Steve Bloom at the moment. >> Hey, you look a lot better than you look a lot better than me. >> Well, we'll call you Steve one and Steve two for this movie. >> Okay. Now, sorry. I uh Okay. So, I don't want to have to have them do it again. So, >> I've looked at this on, you know, from the uh from the website. >> Okay. >> Thank you for joining. >> Okay. Sorry. >> All right. So, this this slide is looking at the different views um that we're trying to be respectful of the neighbors in all directions. So um in this direction looking towards 130 fearing um we're maintaining a corridor of light and air that is lined up with the existing house so there's space between the existing um 290 Lincoln and the new ADU um so that the light and air to the windows of the existing home are maintained um in this direction towards 280 Lincoln. That's the the location that we're trying to stay as far away as possible. And as you can see, the construction would be blocked by the existing house. Um, and then in 295 Lincoln, um, you can see that it's very similar to the relationship of the buildings across the street. Um, so it's just small buildings, lots of residential in this neighborhood. And, um, we feel that it's trying to stay consistent with that language. Um, this is looking at building material information. Uh, some light fixtures that are fully shielded, of course. Um, some of the vents that'll be visible and, um, the very quiet condensers that are our lovely new mini split technology. Um and uh recovery ventilator vents can be under the eaves and these are some of the colors that we're using to match the existing construction. Um so uh Miss Pal, do you want me to go back to a particular slide or are we going to discuss one project at a time or should I present the other one as well? >> Um what would you rather do Nancy? I think we should do one one project at a time. Um, and we should start with this one and I think we can turn it over to the uh members of the commission at this point who will ask you questions and you may want to bring up different slides as they ask you questions. Um, >> thank you. >> I expect there to be a lot of questions about this. I'm not seeing any hands. I'd be happy to start off. I I have some serious problems with the design. Oh. Uh, Betty, please begin. >> Well, I I wanted to ask the question about if someone could review for me the size and scale of um ADUs. What I was concerned about was it looked like it was three stories tall and I thought they were to be one um one and a half at most. So, I was concerned about that. My question is about that. Walker. >> Um whether the size and scale only is is only in the purview of the local historic district as far as it meets the guidelines which um only specifies that the size and scale be smaller than the primary building. It doesn't specify how many stories an ADU should be. So that's something that can only be discussed in reference to the size of the primary building. >> Thank you, >> Steve. Well, I mean um Miss, is Mr. Shang on this call? Is he involved in this or I've never had a seen a hearing when the appellet is the architect and not though Walker tells me that's not unusual, but I've never experienced it in the time. I you know, we've had contractors do the um do the presentations, but the owner has always been there. So, I'm just wondering if Mr. Shang is in attendance, number one. >> Hello. one person who is here by telephone, but I don't know who that telephone belongs to. >> Well, anyway, Miss Stevens, this may not be appropriate, but Mr. Chang has a very long and checkered past in our neighborhood. In fact, in some ways, he's one of the most important people um in town because in indirectly he's responsible for our um permitting, I mean uh rental permitting and also for our local historic district. But the main thing I have is that the disrepair of 290 Lincoln doesn't encourage, you know, I don't know if it's pertinent to this, but since you're since we have you, the the um the condition of 290 is deplorable. I mean, there's struts missing, there's paint peeling, um you know, and it would be I guess it would be okay if it was a hardship, but the idea that Mr. Shang can't maintain his building and yet he has the resources to want to construct um two threetory ADUs is a little um startling. Number one. Um number two, just based on the picture that even you've shown the ADU next to uh is absurdly next to the building is absurdly large. It's It almost looks to be the same size as the primary building, which is not what ADUs I know technically you've gotten the basement. Is that a B is that is a garage exempt or is that is it considered exempt because it's a basement? And then the third story I the elevation is very high because I'm thinking that you know Mr. Shang wants to cram some more students up there, but based on the ZBA's recent ruling, um, that cannot be habitable space. And I know that you know what will and I know that the building commissioner is maintaining that it's a case-byase study but I happen to know that the abuters will la if if this does get a building permit will launch an appeal with the ZBA and then the ZBA based on their own precedent will say that you know based on the the case in new court that it can't have habitable space in which case it would be great if you could lower the elevation on the third floor. Thanks, >> Greet. I just had a specific question about the sighting. It's l listed as lap sighting, but I wonder if that's wood or vinyl. >> Vinyl. We have not been allowing vinyl sighting. >> That's the color range for vinyl. >> Okay. Thank you. Sorry, Steve. I didn't want to change the topic. I think >> No, no. But that was just a specific question. >> Sure. >> Okay. Thank you. My concerns are related to uh some of what Steve has said. Uh for one thing, we have I think no examples in this historic district other than the one that this man himself built of having a garage in the front of the house and as the primary thing you see when you look at the house. And to me, that's not in keeping with a historic neighborhood at all. Um, and it is part of what makes this so out of scale. Uh, I I understand that he is trying to mimic some of the uh shapes of buildings, but it just looks like an ugly barn to me. And uh I I don't think I could find it within myself to accept this particular design. Uh I don't know if other people feel that way. Betty, you're muted, Betty. Sorry. I wanted to say something about the roof. Um, it is not a mans roof. I mean, you you've got an arts and crafts house there, and the um the gamrel roof that you're showing on that barn-like structure is just not in keeping. They're just not the same style. So, I mean, if it were had the same sort of shape as the uh and were lower um than the original house, that that would be much improvement, but as it is, I don't think it's it looks right. >> Uh this is Ben speaking. I have the I the same concerns I think that Nancy has which is the um the arrangement or the the largest problem I see is that by having a garage on the ground floor which I think is fairly inconsistent with the homes in the district it it had it compounds the problem by moving all the living space upstairs. it it just seems vastly out of scale to me for this for this particular line. Um th those are my my primary concerns. >> So I think we need to have a site visit for this particular uh ADU because we really need to see where it's going to be situated on this piece of property and especially in relation to the house. Uh so I I think I would be inclined to uh continue this conversation at another meeting when we giving us a chance to actually get out there with the architect and look at um the actual sighting of this building. Are there other comments from the commission members? >> I agree with you, Nancy, that is that a continuation would be appropriate to get out and actually see to stand stand on the lot and see how it's situated. >> Bruce, >> I agree with that, too. I didn't I noticed that a site visit wasn't proposed uh previously and so it was on us to go and look individually but um and and this is complicated a little because this is an ADU with a garage. Um I'm not sure how that works. Uh, I mean, I would imagine that an ADU as a protected use um is going to be allowed by the uh zoning bylaw or at least by the state law. Um, I don't know what happens when you combine a garage with an ADU. I don't know whether this because this is all quite new, you know, this is this is a protected use that's been established by the state um in regulatory initiatives that were legislative initiatives, I should say, that I I'm trying to think was this this uh this this m this February or the last. Anyway, it's quite recent and and and a lot of uh um deliberations and decisions by the state uh that create you know that have created precedences or begun to create precedents have followed from that. So this is still a a work in progress as far as the regulatory structure of the town and the state is concerned. This being the ADU issue. Um the the question as to the second story and so forth and whether that is an attic and whether it's uh it just it it might not be. Um I mean it's possible that that the 900 square ft or whatever is uh is is within the second and and third floor stories. But we don't know that because we don't have floor plans that say that. and and maybe we don't have them because it's not within our purview to to uh deliberate or to determine to sight on that. So I'm just saying that it's not there we and and we're not in a position to understand. would be nice even though it's not in our perview to understand because what we do see is something that's quite um quite large and I'm not sure that in principle from a from our point of view as historic uh um as commissioners deliberating on on the on the appropriateness of this building from a historic standpoint whether too big means it's inapprop appropriate or not, but I think that having a site visit would be very important to that. And that seems to be, as far as I can see, the the key point here. U I'm I didn't quite understand Nancy's that that the that the garage was facing the street cuz it seemed to me to be facing the other house. Um but uh I suppose it's it's depending on how you approach the house that you see it fairly more prominently I guess. So I'm I guess I mean I I would like I think it's appropriate to delay the determination to continue the hearing and to uh and to and for all of us to be um able to see how this fits scale-wise into the neighborhood. Thank you, Bruce. Walker. >> Um, just to clarify the zoning a little bit, this is an a building that's allowed by right, so it can't be denied by the commission, but the commission is allowed to set some standards on appearance um related to the design standards of the local historic district. Um, garages are not included in the area when you're calculating for an ADU. So, the garage is it's it's just doesn't include in this in the square footage of the building. I >> I didn't think garages were supposed to be part of an ADU. I mean, it is an accessory dwelling unit. It's not a dwelling unit for your car. >> It does not explicitly say that you can't put a garage on an ADU. You can build one over an existing garage and attach one to a garage. Um, there's nothing that says you can't add a new garage. I guess Nicole, um I I know it's a dilemma like needing to pass by a couple different departments and things. I guess with with the amount of deliberation, if there's any way we can make sure that the square footage that's being presented to us is I assume by the architect that is already within the realms of what will be acceptable. Like I just hate if if it's not passing the size requirements and we're here debating something that is larger than what will be permitted. I don't want to go down a very lengthy discussion in meetings and things like that if if it's not already within the realm of the size that's permitted by other >> building permit. >> I discussed this with um Rachel and also Rob Moira the building commissioner. Um whether the square footage meets the requirements of zoning bylaw isn't actually in your purview. Your purview is >> That's not what I'm asking. I'm just we're >> invest a bunch of time on something that they are not going to I'm not asking for us to accept that or not. >> So my discussion with Rachel was that if it turns out that their square footage does not meet the requirements, her statement was that they did not plan to change the exterior. They would just change the floor plan. So, if you approve this exterior as shown or as you end up with a compromise, then they're not going to be coming back to you even if the floor plan changes was the discussion that we had. And she might be able to speak to that as well rather than having to wait to find out what the zoning bylaw is going to say moving forward because it could take some time for that to be resolved. Are there other comments from commission members before we turn to comments from the public? I see that there is someone from the public who has a comment. Steve. >> Um yeah, I just wanted to say that in section one criteria for determinations, the LHD does have jurisdiction over general design, proportions, detailing, mass, arrangement, texture, and and materials. So we do we do have a say in proportions and mass which seems to be um a problem here. >> Yeah, I think that's the main thing that we're having that all of us are having problems with that it's out of proportion to the size of the house itself >> and also the setbacks. I'm sure um uh I'm sure it's down to the inch in terms of what if it's legal, but it's not there's no other houses uh in the entire neighborhood that have, you know, that are that close to the street. >> I agree. >> And of course, need we bother to point out that it wouldn't need to be so close to the street if the owner hadn't already divided his property so that he could build a second house around the corner on fairing. So, he's brought this on himself. All right. Can we uh bring in some of the members from the public? I see Ken Rosenthal has his hand up and so does Hilda Greenbun. >> Thank you. Thank you. I'm Ken Rosenthal. I live on Sunset Avenue, which is itself in a historic district. Um, I just want to echo something that Steve Bloom just said. It this is too close to the street and it, as the architect said, it can be pushed back and it ought to be pushed back so that it is at least uh appearing uh comparable to where the other houses are on the street. This is just too intrusive. The other question I have is I haven't heard and I probably missed it, but I haven't heard a statement of what the square footage is on each floor. And I just want to make a comment about the garage, which is again to name a space a garage doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be used as a garage. And I'd like to know how it's going to be used. I fear that this is going to be another house for student occupancy. And we know in Ammerst, I'm sorry to say, that student occupancy means always excessive and over occupancy. Because what happens is uh landlords, especially absentee landlords like this one who has a bad reputation, wink wink at the number of students who live there because students bring in their friends to share the rent. So we have to look at each of these things very carefully. It may not be the total purview of the LHD to do this, but I think we might as well think about these things in advance because they're going to go to other boards. are going to be objections and I think the architect ought to know that these are the things that are going to be raised not just by the public but by the members of the various entities that have responsibility here. Uh so if you could just tell me about the square footage and thank you for listening to my question and comment. >> Thank you. Ken Rachel, do you have a square footage to tell us about? Yes, we are currently planning 900 square feet on the second floor and um we're previously planning to have 300 square ft on the on the attic level in order to get two more bedrooms into the unit um for more student occupancy. But if that is uh no longer allowed by the ZVA, we can uh do three bedrooms on the second level instead and and reconfigure the plan. Um, the first floor is a concrete floor and it's a a garage level with garage doors, so it's not sealed to the outside and can't be used for occupancy. Um, and someone asked earlier about the setback. Um, the front setback is a 15t minimum and this is at 21 ft. Nicole. >> So, I mean, is is it possible for the garage portion to be eliminated? And you were saying obviously you would lose some parking, but could you go over that part again? Like if we lowered it by a story by eliminating the garage? >> I don't know if the owner is willing to eliminate the garage. I was saying that we could potentially move the structure further to the west in order to bring it further from Lincoln A and um that would that would lose one parking I believe and I may be remembering the Northampton zoning but um there are only allowed to be two cars parked in front of the structure and so if we moved the structure back further away from Lincoln we would lose one parking spot which would mean there would more parking um pressure in other locations. We like to provide as much parking as possible for students because um unlike um families who often share cars, the students often have one car per person. And so it's nice to be able to provide parking on the lot itself to avoid putting pressure on other neighborhood locations. So your suggestion if it was to decrease in scale would be eliminating the attic and keeping the garage and keeping the one floor of three bedrooms total. Um, I think if it needs to decrease in scale entirely, I think we need to look at um a different uh design for the exterior because the um the way that the Gambrell roof works is it provides a lot of volume on the on the attic level. Um, so we could look at figuring out if something like um a dormer would work in order to create only two levels in this location, but that would be something that I would need to discuss with the owner because I'm not sure um what his preference would be there. I think in general um it and I don't know I'm just responding to my own experience as a student but it's always helpful to have um places like addicts for storage especially because often you are not allowed to be in certain places during summer turnovers and places like that. So um I think addict space is still valuable even if it's not allowed to be um finished space but that's my personal opinion. I I think I would encourage you to make this smaller scale in order to be in keeping with the other houses. Uh and I have a very strong preference for that. Uh can we bring Hilda Greenbomb in next? >> Hello Hilda Greenbound, 298 Montigue Road. And I would like to say that I agree with all of you that that garage barn, whatever you want to call it, is totally intrusive on a historic neighborhood. And I want to know particularly because it hasn't come up that this is a historic house. It may be the only bungalow on the street, perhaps the only bungalow in town. I'm not sure, but it did belong to the Brown family. And I remember going back to the 50s when I was an undergraduate and coming to Ammerst that Robert Frost and Lauren Brown were very good friends and they often frequented the barn that was on the corner of Frering Street which unfortunately this homeowner decided that he was going to tear down. If he had left the barn there he would have had a very nice place and a good excuse to put an ADU. But this one is just totally intrusive. It doesn't fit there. And uh I just hope you send it back for better design. Something at least looks a nuvo or arts and crafts, whichever one you want to call it. But it is not an arts and crafts garage. I don't know what it is, but it does not belong where it is. It should not show. And I don't think you should approve it. You can take all the site visits you want, but it's not going to change the design. And uh as I was when you get to the other house, I won't bother bothering you again, but I was involved one time even as chair of permits to change that from an owner occupied house to a non-owner occupied house. And one of the conditions was that the third unit on the third floor, which basically was not to be used as an apartment anymore if if the the uh special permit were were approved. And I understand from the GIS um property record card that there that is a three the 321 Lincoln Avenue is a threeunit house. And again maybe the building is in the backyard but it is not appropriate. looks a little bit better at 321 and but here I don't think you should have approved that design at all without major re re uh rethinking of the architecture and gets me pretty angry to see that a neighbor tears owner tears down a historic barn to put up something this ugly and I don't mind if you repeat that in public. Thank you, Walker. >> I just wanted to remind you all that I um need to leave in 5 minutes. So, if there's anything else you need from me, I'm going to go ahead and make you the coast, Nancy. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And let me know. >> Uh to to bring someone into the room, what do I have to do? >> You go to the attendees >> Yeah. >> um list and just select allow to talk. Okay. Uh, all right. Thank you. Then I think we're ready for Melissa Harris. And yeah. Hi, this is Melissa Ferris. I live at 285 across the street from 280 Lincoln. And um, just wanted to note that if this gets uh, you know, a pass, we will object to with the ZBA. um to the scale of the you know the attic floor being used for occupancy. Um I think this design is really terrible and does not fit with the rest of the neighborhood at all. Um no I'm sorry to the architect who I'm sure has worked very hard but also within certain restrictions. Um I don't want to look at this garage. I understand that you don't want to put this too close to the other neighbor but none of us want to look at this either. This is way too close to the street. It's way too large and the house, as someone else has said, is incredibly rundown. So, I shudder to think what it's going to look like in a couple years with absolutely no maintenance. Um, I I just I you know, we we object strenuously to the current design, to the scale, to the placement, to the number of beautiful old trees that are going to have to come down to put this thing up. And you know, again, we will be appealing the ZBA if it gets approved to go through with the attic floor. And my husband is here and he would also like to object. >> Um, hey, uh, this is Graham Caldwell. I also live at 285 Lincoln Avenue across the street. And, um, yeah, I think this is a really um, like a horrible prospect that'll change our lives for the worse. I think it's uh, something I don't want to have to look at. Um, and to me it sort of reads like the architectural equivalent of uh three like children in a trench coat who are trying to just smuggle extra square footage into like a stacked building to just like make as much money as possible and you know that's what it looks like aesthetically and I understand that's what it'll actually be like in reality. So you know yeah whatever we can do to make it smaller make it ideally not happen that would be the best case scenario >> but we understand that these things are maybe by right and so you know whatever can be done to shield this from view and make it more in scale with the other ADUs in the neighborhood because this again the way that this architecture firm has rendered it it is the same size as the house it is you know less of a setback than the house it it looks looks ridiculously out of scale for a second building on the lot. And just doing the math of what their own floor plan says, it, you know, the the floor plan would be like 966 square ft. If you do the math for the middle one, >> yeah, if you do the math, it's 35 ft by 27.6 feet. So that's, you know, at least that's that's what it looks like. I'm I'm, you know, I can't really see these things all that well, but it it seems like it's already breaking the 900 square foot rule and then adding the attic level to it breaks it even further. >> Okay. And just one last thing um just to set the table a little more table setting for what this this um the state of this property is. We're looking out our window right now and there's a leather couch um in the yard that just got rained on for two days and um >> and a lovely beer pond table. table. So, you know, that's what we're dealing with here. Thanks. >> We're done. Thank you, Melissa and Graham. Uh, Breida, >> I would add garbage cans left out all week right on the street. >> Yeah. So, uh, being an irresponsible landlord is not endearing him to our hearts. Uh, do we have a move to continue this uh hearing? >> Betty, >> I wonder why um with everybody opposed to it, why we need to continue the hearing? Um, why couldn't we just vote now? >> Ah, okay. Uh, >> what are we going to learn by being in front of it that we don't already know? I guess that's my question. >> Uh, Bruce, I think you had something you wanted to say. Well, we have to be careful here. If we we've very seldom exercised this uh action of of denying a certificate of appropriateness and so we have to um basically state, you know, our findings as to why. Um and uh and in the case well I remember at least when we the the last time I can remember that we denied a certificate of appropriateness that was kind of related to a whole building or proposal was with the Amis media project and that was a long time ago and we followed that by stating three things that the we advised the applicant to do that could uh allow them to come back uh with the prospect of receiving a more favorable decision from the commission. I mean, I'm not including uh the certificates of non-appropri nonappropriate inappropriateness that were issued related to applicants who wanted to put vinyl siding over wood and things like that where it was a pretty straightforward yes or no and why. This is more complicated. Um, we are the first cab off the rank, but we do have this uh um some people think draconian power to say yes or no to something. It's just not a conditional approval. Uh if we're saying but we have to be it has to be defensible, I think. And and I did arrive late and and I've been looking at the screen that we've had and it's very unhelpful. the all of the images are of existing buildings and we get a couple of snakes in the corner of what the actual building looks like. Uh that's a better one to have in front of us for discussion. Um uh uh I could look at the detail of this and and uh it's it's it's not thoroughly objectionable to my mind. >> Hold on, hold on, hold on. It's not thoroughly objectional to my mind, but it is it does appear to be too big. Thoroughly objectionable is is a pretty uh when I say it is is it's not too much that's thoroughly objectionable. Usually you've got some redeeming peaches. Um so we would have to describe what it is about this building that uh we find uh inappropriate. So if we think we can do that in the next 20 minutes then we should uh do so but if we want if we want to think about it we should uh continue the meeting that's all I'm uh so I'm not going to be much help in generating a a um a uh list or a statement as to how the applicant could um mitigate this um other than I'm really perplexed a little bit about the garage. I understand what Walker says that you could put an ADU on top of a garage. I know that because we've discussed this. So whether you can put it on top of a garage that doesn't exist and make it, I suppose logically that makes sense. But it it doesn't seem to me that that's part of what the um the by right intent was. It was to create housing, not to create garages. So maybe it's parking that's associated with the garage. I don't know. But I also think that it is a concern that the garage could be turned into something. Uh uh and it could be done in a clanderstein way. Um so the garage is a concern, the size is a concern and and the proximity to the street is a concern. Um but beyond that uh I don't know enough from what I'm looking at u about the detailing and so forth to uh make uh make suggestions. I think that the likelihood that that upper story will be approved is is uh is rather small. So maybe it would be a better idea to come back with a design that um shows how that would look because this I don't think that a decision that we make now is going to stand a changing of the roof structure or the roof massing would be considered a dimminimous change. So I would think that only a dimminimous change would require the applicant not to come back to this commission. So it's all rather hairy in my view. This is this is a this is this is not hanging together well. >> So I would suggest that we do consider an an a continuation uh and let some of this stuff get figured out. >> Okay. Uh Walker, did you want to say something before you >> Yeah, real quick. uh you legally you can't deny this ad. It is a protected use. It will get built. All you can do is offer suggestions and ask the applicant to come back with alternative designs for reasons uh specific reasons like Bruce said to do with the design, the scale, the massing, the setback. Um but in this case, you're not allowed to deny the application. I just want to make sure everybody's clear on that one. Um and then I have to go, but uh I will see you next meeting. Well, I mean, uh, Walker, before you go, we can't deny the building. Uh, but we can we can deny the design. Those are two different things, right? >> I Yeah, but I would be careful with voting to deny the application. >> Yeah. No, I'm not in favor of vote. I think there should be a continuation. >> Yes, you can discuss the design. >> Yeah. Um, can I have my hand raised? I mean, I I you know, there's so many things that are not appropriate. It doesn't match the primary U structure at all in terms of the mansered roof. The windows are really cheap. They don't the framing of the windows. I mean there's just no there's been except for I guess the color there's been no attempt to match the primary building. Um the other thing is what is the square footage of the primary building? because the 9 it's either like h 900 is the maximum but if it's it's like half of what the square footage is I there's some sort of formula and I'm not clear about that but anyway I agree totally agree with Bruce we can't deny it it's we'll be going beyond our purview but we can certainly um recommend a number of things in terms of the massing the design and the setback and the wind you know it's I'm shocked at how how there's been no cosmetic attempt to match the primary building. >> Thank you, Steve. Uh Nicole, >> I I think those I mean several elements that Steve said and then what Bruce was saying at the end is what we're asking. like I don't think we need to go visit the house right now until we have um a design that is kind of answering more of those elements that will be more acceptable. Um I I don't think we need to discuss it any further without I mean we've kind of all just be we have been repeating ourselves in request basically requesting a new design. I I don't want to do a house visit without a new design I guess is what I'm saying. >> Okay. Uh I'm going to allow Ken to come Rosenthal to come back in the room. >> Yeah. Thank you. Just a quick comment. You can deny it. You you can't deny what you can't you cannot fail to recognize the applicable law in this town. And the law says that unless the owner is going to be resident there, the ADU can be no longer than 900 square ft. And if Mr. Chang, we know Mr. Chang doesn't live here. We know he owns houses here that he doesn't live in and and never has and never will. And the architect needs to recognize that that's so. And the architect must take the existing laws into account when she does her design work. That's true for all architects. They can't pretend that laws don't exist. So in that case, I think that the uh LH that that this committee has the right to recognize what the laws are in this town and recognize that this is a a a design that uh exceeds the law is in violation of the law and cannot be built. and therefore you can turn it down then let them appeal if they want to. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh Jennifer Ta, I'm bringing you into the room. >> Hello. Can you hear me? Oh >> yes, >> you can hear me. Yes. >> Okay. I'm uh Jennifer Ta. I live at 259 Lincoln Avenue and I'm speaking as a resident but um and I guess I'm also speaking as a former chair of the local historic district commission and I served with Bruce and I just um when the uh one applicant came before several years ago the commission for a certificate of appropriateness uh we did feel that the design was so far off of what was appropriate. Now, I'm not saying that the commission has to do this now that we did deny the certificate and they came back with a very different design. So, where the local historic district commission can't deny, you know, um the plans, it's within your purview, what you're doing is issuing being asked to issue a certificate of appropriateness. And until it's appropriate, you don't issue the certificate as you know. and then the uh property owner can't proceed until they they have that certificate. Um, and the other thing, I'm not remembering the wording precisely, but in terms of parking, so it was interesting when um the applicant's representative mentioned you can't have more than two cars parked in front because the primary structure here usually has six cars. um because I walk by it, you know, several times a day, uh parked in the driveway. And with the state protected use ADU legislation, the town cannot require parking if the structure is within a certain number of miles of public transportation, which this is, and I'd have to go back and look at the bylaw, but the council actually put a maximum number of parking spaces allowed for protected use ADUs that are within a certain um radius of public transport. transportation precisely because they didn't want parking lots going up. So, if you have, you know, you could have eight or nine students living here and if only two cars are parked in the garage, that still leaves too many cars um parked in the driveway or wherever they're going to be parked around the structure. So, the uh commission may want to ask the planning department for uh to clarify that. So, okay, that's it. Thank you very much. Thank you, Jennifer. Uh Nicole and Steve, you both still have your hands up. Did you want to speak? >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> That's okay. Well, I think uh that our architect has heard a lot of comments from us and um there are a lot of things we would like, Rachel, including a a real redesign, a much smaller masked building, uh no garage on the bottom floor, no third floor. uh whether >> than that >> whether the commission feels a need to uh have a site visit before getting a new design or whether you want to just continue this to have more discussion about the design. Uh Gita, you have a comment. >> I just want also said push back from the road. >> And push back from the road. Thank you. Uh Bruce, >> uh I want to see if you can hear me. >> Yes, >> you can. >> Yes. >> Okay, good. cuz I suddenly got thrown out. I mean, I got and I'm not sure why. I don't think And I've got now I got a thing that says microphone and speaker is not working, but apparently that's not true. >> Yeah. >> Um, so I guess I've been working it. I think we should have a site visit because that will allow some discussion. um we'll probably have to be careful because we're not supposed to discuss things other than data collection and so forth, but um I think we need some deliberation on this and uh doing so at the site would probably be uh make it possible for us to um um be more useful to the applicant. >> Nicole, >> um that that's correct. There like at the site we can't discuss anything. We are only being presented with information. Um, so I I still think um obviously we'll need to have a site visit, but I think the placement of the site visit, the architect and the home owner can kind of be deciding how big the structure is and possible placements and then show all of that to us versus if we just go and see this one thing, I don't think it'll be as useful as if there are other placements and options that the seller has agreed to and that the architect knows will work um so that it can be like as fruitful as possible. I guess >> Steve. >> Yeah, I'm sorry. One last thing. When Miss Stevens does come back, it would be great if Mr. Shane could show up as well, uh so he could hear our concerns directly. Uh, I feel, you know, that using Miss Stevens as a shield is not appropriate in this case. Like I said, I've never been, you know, had one of these where the owner hasn't been present. >> Yeah, I can't think of any time either. Uh, Bruce, >> oh, it's entirely normal. Uh, and uh, I mean, I've been through various hearings. Barry Roberts, for example, said very little or nothing. I think um when we when he was here for the uh site uh sorry for the uh beering sunset corner, that was all John Salvin. And uh I think we may have asked Steve one question about whether he was going to move a house and he probably I think he answered yes. It was possibly reassuring to have uh Barry in the attendees, but uh but the this the functional spokesperson and all of the information was being contribute was being delivered by by the architect in that case as in this case and in many many other cases often it's someone like Tom Rei in fact as an attorney rather than a designer and uh So I'm not not sure Steve what good that having the owner serves the owner's got to the owner's hire >> it it um well a number of things first of all um even if the owners haven't talked in my recollection they've always been present um number one number two it's just more direct to have without this buffer for him to hear our concerns directly. Uh I mean just in terms of expedience, this is you know um you know he should hear it from us directly. I mean like we can't require it. I'm just recommending it for him to attend. >> He can he can listen to the recording of the meeting. He can get everything he needs from that. >> Well, I mean Bruce, I agree with you in terms of continuence, but this one I beg to disagree. I think he should show up. >> I don't object to him being here. I'm just I'm just commenting on our expectation and is it reasonable or not? It's certainly understandable. >> Yeah. >> Um >> I think it would help his case, let's put it this way, if he showed up. >> Um while I was um not here, uh did we decide to How are we dealing with the second applicant application? Second, uh >> not yet. >> We haven't got there. >> We're we're still on this house. >> Are we doing it today? Uh if there's time we will move to that one. >> Okay. Hi >> uh Hilda I believe you wanted to speak again. >> Yes. So this is another thing I want to say that the same property manager that is or has been property manager for Mr. Shang is the same one that is building the other ADUs that we find objectionable on other downtown streets. And maybe he needs to have an earful, too. That that um Yeah, I said what I said to to to uh agree with Steve, but I think you need to have the property manager there, too, and let him he understand that you're not happy with the way he's maintaining the building. And and I guess the reason he got that manager is because we complained about how he was maintaining 321 and other buildings that he owned when he came asking for more special permits. So thank you. >> Uh so are we ready to uh move on? Do we have a motion to continue this discussion to another meeting? I I move to continue this to have a continuation of this prop of consideration of this property. >> Uh and do I have a second? >> No, because we need to have a date certain, I think. Is that correct? >> I believe there's a limit to the number of days it can and I don't know that what that >> uh on the planning board, we've never had a con motion to continue without having the date and time of the meeting to which it's to be continued. H it's hard for us to do without Walker here. Um >> yes. Um >> well let's come up with our next meeting. Um and then move it to that. Is there a is there a deadline that we have to observe by >> um I yeah I don't know uh do >> I mean our meetings are every 30 days and >> I think we should >> 30 days >> to be safe I think we should do it in two weeks That's that's a lot to ask for a redesign and a movement and >> what makes us think they're going to do a redesign. We haven't given them anything much to redesign. >> We got push back I guess but uh >> no we said that we wanted the since I mean in terms of the attic we've found out even though it's not our thing in terms of its use he's planning it to be habitate to be inhabited that goes against the ZBA's ruling. We've been informed by the abutters that they intend to appeal it. They appeal it, it's going to go to the ZBA. The ZBA is going to, you know, uh, you know, observe their own precedent and say that's not if habitable space is not an attic. So, one thing they should do is to lower the elevation of the third floor. It shouldn't have a manered roof because the manered roof doesn't match the primary building. >> I'm sorry. Yeah, I look I and then uh we're we we we we're on the fence about this garage whether it's permitted or not. I personally don't now that I see the you know I'm not an architect like Bruce, but those look like really cheap windows that don't make any attempt to match the wood um you know uh siding of the window frames. you know, uh, so we have a number of things that we've recommended plus the setback. We want to see it, you know, how far they can set it back even if it means losing a um a parking space. So, I think that can be done in the next couple of weeks. I mean, the thing is if we don't do it by 30 days or something, they can get it by, you know, we we're basically because Walker's not here, we're fumbling in the dark here. So I think to be safe we should have another meeting in two if Bruce thinks we need if it's we need date certain then we should have another meeting in within two weeks. >> I I think that's the requirement of a continuation. That's why I'm concerned that we would be making a motion that was kind of >> baseless. But maybe we should just try a continuation until the next meeting. Uh, >> no. >> But but that just it just feels awkward to me. I I >> I would prefer to like I know there's a 30-day I mean I'm sure Miss Stevens is aware of what it is. >> Certain. >> I'm sorry, >> Jennifer. Have to do it to a date certain. >> Yeah. The question is how many days do we have for that? Let's do it for a date certain for two weeks and then if we find out that we have longer we can always inform everyone. How about that? >> Uh that's okay. I can't be here though on the 7th uh which is Labor Day. Probably many of you can't be here. Uh so we could do it till the 8th which is a Tuesday. >> Yes. If Steve, if you amend your motion to Tuesday at 3:10 or 3:05, then uh um >> Okay, I can do that on the Wednesday. I make a motion for this to be continued on a date certain date of Tuesday, September 8th at 3 p.m. >> Okay, thank you. Do I have a second? >> I'll second that. >> Thank you. Um, I might, if I may chime in here for just a second. Um, I know that Rachel wanted to had her hand up earlier and she's going to respond to something. Um, I think it would be nice to hear some feedback from Rachel about what we've been talking about. >> Uh, that sounds appropriate. Rachel, >> I just wanted to reassure people who were asking about the square footage that um this is indeed a 900 square foot um living area as per the rules and the way that it's measured in terms of the interior of the walls and um the stairs coming up from the garage are part of the garage, not part of the living area. So, um, so that's it would be 900 square f feet and, um, we understand the ZBA is changing the design and requirements of not allowing the attic usage and that's totally fine and and um, something that can work with this exterior design, but I also hear you loud and clear that you're looking for it to be a smaller massing and so I will work with the owner to put together some new images for the site visit. I think it's also important to consider um one of the reasons that I think it's great to a great idea to have a site visit is that there are um a number of different uh requests coming from different directions. So I would love to hear from the commission um which direction you think is the most appropriate and we've we've talked about other designs on the other side of the property that we can bring as well. Um the other question was about the square footage of the existing house and it's 2132 ft. Um so this is in compliance with that as well. >> Thank you >> Bruce. Did you have something to say? >> Uh yes I come to what Rachel says that that she's heard a lot but she doesn't know that it's the consensus of the the commission or not. she can probably get a pretty good idea. But um I would take issue with one thing that has been said um which is the the um the the extent to which this proposed ADU reflects the design style and uh and and so forth of the of the of the building to which it's supposedly accessory. Um uh it's clearly a indep it's clearly independent or it's large enough to be independent and and I I would be looking at this as how it fits into the street more than how does it relate to the building next door although that's not irrelevant but I think uh it's it should not be a a requirement of of the of of appropriateness that it is a an echo of the uh of of the adjacent building. I don't think that's a bad idea, but I don't think it I don't think success of a new presence on the street is inevitably requiring of that uh design echo. Steve, >> yes. I I mean, I understand what Bruce is saying, but in the two other ADUs that have been constructed, the one on Mlullen and the one uh literally across the street, the precedent in our neighborhood has been to match the primary structure. So, personally, I would recommend that that's what they do. >> Okay. Uh, can we move to I'm sorry, Hilda, did you >> Yes, I am looking at the property record card right now for 290 Lincoln Avenue and the square footage of that building. The first floor is 1172 and the upper story, small print here. I'm trying to read it on my phone. I think it says 960 and and uh I guess she she could call that 2132. I guess she could uh so I just was confirming that. At first I thought it was smaller than that, but I the 2132 is what is on the property record card, which is not the case for the one that's being appealed on uh New Avenue. Anyway, I'm sorry cuz I'm wrong. Thank you. >> Um, it's me again. I'm I'm so sorry to keep raising my hand. Well, since Miss Stevens recommends us to um to have a site visit, let's Can we substitute Can I substitute the motion to say we would like to have a site visit on Tuesday, September 8th at 3 p.m. instead? >> I think so. >> Well, no. >> No, we can't do that. Uh, no. Because we've we've declared that we're going to have a meeting to which this discussion will be continued. >> I don't think we can. >> Should we have a site visit before the meeting, Bruce? >> I think we I think we must. >> Don't change the meeting. >> Okay. Don't change the meeting. All right. We won't change the meeting. Okay. We Now we need to come up with a date for a site meeting, a site review. >> Okay. Uh, so, uh, is next Monday okay for anyone? For everyone? >> I can't do next Monday. >> How about next Tuesday the 1st? Whoops. Yeah, Tuesday the 1st. >> I'm going to be in New York at the US Open. >> Oh, what fun. Okay, >> I'm not giving that up for that. Yeah. No, >> as well. You shouldn't. Uh, >> I could do Wednesday the 9th. No, I >> That's after our meeting though. >> Oh, no. I mean Wednesday the 3. >> The second. >> Second. >> The second. Or I could do Thursday the 3. >> I can't do any of those days. >> Okay. >> Thursday the third would work for me. Uh, what about Friday? Is Friday good for everybody? >> Friday the 4th. >> Yeah. >> Works for me. >> But I I I hate to harp on this, but I >> I want more information or something. Like I feel like if we just go and look exactly where this is with this design, we've discussed this at Nauseium. Like if we're doing a site visit with no new information, I don't >> and we can't I just want to make sure the architect understands. We can't discuss. We can't give opinions. Like she's presenting us with information. We're not able to discuss anything because it's not recorded. >> Is there any reason why we can't continue this more than once? >> Can Can we continue it after the next meeting so that we can have a site visit after the next meeting? >> Exactly. like if if in good >> idea >> September 8th, okay, architect presents us with new designs. So, we get an idea of a smaller scale matching some of the architecture and everything else. And then we go see those newer designs. I would feel like we're looking at something that we're more apt to being agreeing with. Right. Right. Right now, we're looking at something we don't agree with. >> Yeah. ask Miss Stevens what would be most useful to her. >> So, Miss Stevens, how do you feel about that? >> Um, the reason that I think it would be useful to have a site visit before the discussion again is that it might help inform the discussion in terms of the location and the options that have been presented already. So, I think there are already um drawings in your files of of one of the options that was presented on the southwest side of the site. Um and it sounds like I can present other images while we're at the site and that's something that I can show updated drawings um even if we can't discuss it then. But I think it would be useful to have the context of the site information before we have another discussion on the project. All right, let let's try to set up a site visit on that Friday. Um, and uh do you want to do it in the morning or the afternoon? >> I think I'd need to do it after lunch. >> After lunch? How about one o'clock? Does that work for people? >> For me? >> Okay. >> Well, I um I'll be at work, so at the end of the day is better. Uh, what time is good for you, Betty? >> I could do 3:30 or 4. >> Okay. 3:30 good for people. >> Yes. >> Is Is four better for you, Betty? Do you want to make it four? >> It would be better if it's if everyone else can still do that. >> Let's make Let's make it four. >> Okay. Um All right. So, we're scheduling a site visit for September 4th at 4 p.m. And then that will be followed by a continuation of this meeting the following week on um September 8th, which is a Tuesday, at 3 p.m. >> Good. >> Everybody agreed? Anyone? >> Yeah, I'm not going to be able to get there until maybe 3:15 or something, but >> Okay. Uh, are there any objections to those dates? Good. Okay. Would you like to move on to the next house or would you like to uh go to public comment staff report topics not anticipated at this point? >> Do we need to vote on that motion? >> The motion to continue. I think we should vote on it. Uh, yeah. I was going to just do a no objections, but let's let's actually have a uh a named vote. So, Steve, >> yes. >> Uh Betty, >> yes. >> Nicole, >> yes. >> Gita, >> yes. >> Bruce, >> uh and Ben, >> yes. >> And I say yes also. All right. So, uh we have agreed to continue this motion. Um uh what's the feeling of the committee? Do you want to start talking about the second property? The property >> I think we have to. I think we I mean I think we have to. >> Okay. This is 321 Lincoln Avenue. Uh Rachel, do you want to talk to us about this property? >> All right. So, here's 321 Lincoln. Um similar neighborhood structure and photos. Um, we're looking at a, as um, Miss Paula mentioned, um, extremely similar design, just rotated and, um, flipped for the site access. Um, this is how the garage would be set up on the main li main floor. Um, and it's tucked behind the existing house. Um, so that in order to see it, you kind of have to come up onto the driveway a little bit. Um the existing garage um as you can see in this dashed line here is actually aligned with the driveway. Um so this also tucks the garage behind the house as well so that you don't see the garage as much from the road. Um as well as the ADU. Um this is the location. Um just a few houses down Lincoln. Um these are some of the abutters and um here's some images of the existing garage that's getting removed and the new structure going behind it. Um so the this is looking at the impact on the abuters. So, um, in terms of the Abu directly south, um, rather than having their garage right next to their backyard, um, the new building will be moved further away from their backyard. And um for the neighbor directly to the north um the new building is still maintained um further back away from the neighbor's house and also further south of the neighbor's house. So it's trying to respect the privacy and space of the neighbors as well. Um this is looking at um the demolition of the existing garage. Um, this is the view from the street and then moving into the driveway a little bit more to see it more clearly and the view from the backyard. Um, and um, this is a screen porch on the back of the structure that would also be removed to um, maintain a good separation between the existing house and the new ADU. Um, so the um these are the same building materials that would be used for this house but with different colors to match the new paint job on the um 321 Lincoln. And um let's see. I'm not sure which would be the most useful image to leave up. Maybe this one. >> Yeah, that one. Steve, >> was it me again? I'm I'm sorry. What What can you Can you Is there a view of this on fairing? What would we be able to This is less problematic than the other one, but I'm just curious what what you can see from Fairing Street, if you can actually see this ADU, how much of it you can see. >> There's there's some trees here along the driveway, so you really can't see behind the house at all unless you're actually aligned with the driveway. And now that you know that the ZBA is, you know, ruled and like I said, you can go, you know, I know the building commissioner is saying it's a case-bycase basis, but we operate on a system of precedent. So if the butter appeals, it will go to ZBA and ZBA will rule will rule again what they how they define it. So, is any way that you could reduce the um the third floor clearance and pitch? >> I would have to speak with the owner about that, but I I believe that he's um happy to build it with this um exterior and only have 900 ft on the second floor. >> But you all but you mentioned before that your initial plans were the third floor, you were going to put 300 square ft of living space with two bedrooms and a bathroom. Now that you know that that is not going to be allowed, could you adjust the design of the third floor? >> Absolutely. Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. Great. >> If it's not allowed, it's it's totally doable to not have the 300 ft on the on the >> Okay, great. Thank you. This one's less problematic for me, obviously. >> Yeah, I agree. It's It's far less problematic because you it's not hitting you right on the street the way the other one did. Um, but I agree also that um scaling it down since you're not going to be permitted to have that third floor makes sense so that it just doesn't look quite as um massive behind the house. Other comments? >> I move that we have a continuation for this property as well and we have a site visit as well for this. >> Uh Chris, >> I was going to make a similar suggestion. I was going to suggest that we wrap these two together because although we could um uh conditionally approve the uh um an appropriate appropriateness here, probably by saying that the attic uh space uh the the habitable attic space be eliminated or some phrase like that. Uh, I think it's a significant enough change that would be nice to see what that looks like and then to be uh um to to have our our ducks in a row and so forth making a decision about something we know what we're talking about. So I would uh second that motion that I think Steve did and I guess that motion Steve has got the uh to um September 8th at this will be 3:05 because you can't adjourn you can't continue the this to the same exact time. >> Okay. So you just put put it a little put a little later >> and uh and do so because I think that you know this is all part of the same kind of a package. So I think we shouldn't we we should since we've since we've created the pathway for the first one I think we should have this one take the same pathway and that gives Rachel a chance to do the same adjustments and so forth that we >> Rachel has her hand up. Yeah, I think I think appropriate. I mean, I do I I I think that >> I think that if the ZBA, as we pretty much know they will, will not allow uh a second story. And I guess this all depends on whether the ZBA's decision and Sent takes it to land court and whether there's a whole whether he succeeds or fails uh and whether we change the bylaw in the interim or not is all rather dramatic. It would be much nicer if we just hope that the applicant would accept the what I think will be the inevitable fate here, which is that uh these uh uh ads will be uh constructed as was the intent because one of the things that we read in the uh in the uh in the in the judgment or the decision or the deliberations of the zoning board was one of the zoning board members had spoken to the state agency that was promulgating the laws. And although that woman, that person said they weren't a lawyer and they weren't prepared to speak about what the legal precedent should be or how it should be interpreted, she did speak to what I thought was the all important thing which was the intention of the regulatory uh the legis the draft legislation and the intent was that attic spaces were not to be considered habitable spaces. in addition to what was already established as 900 ft. So, we know that the state law didn't intend that this attic space uh conundrum that we've has has has erupted in our town. We know that that wasn't an intention of the state legislative process. And it seems that the ZBA have also found a legitimate legal argument as to why it the the building and uh commissioner's decision was unfounded. So I think we can see the road that this is going that that attic habitable attic spaces in addition to the 900 square f feet will uh will will die a natural death. And so if Rachel's prepared to accept that and and her her client is prepared to accept that then I would like to see the uh product of that redesign uh at the continued hearing. Rachel, I think you wanted to say something. >> This exterior design can meet that requirement. So, it just means that all the habitable space happens on the second floor and the the attic is just not habitable. So, I don't think I my understanding is the owner does not want to change the exterior design if possible on this structure. And I think it is um I hear you that at the other location with the garage underneath um the ADU. It it does approach the height of the existing building even though we set it down the hill. Um but here it's definitely behind the existing building and smaller than the existing building. And I think um he would appreciate leaving the exterior as designed if that's able to be approved by the commission. >> Well, you know, this is the problem with not having him here. Um that's exactly what I'm saying. I would ask you, you're in a tight spot. It's not really fair to you to speak for him when he's not here. I would ask him if he would be, you know, be more open-minded about that. And the other thing, Miss Stevens, if you want tell Mr. Shang if he wants to help his case, I mean, we we're this will get approved in some way uh because it's by right by ADU, but tell him to maintain his buildings. I mean, it's really disgraceful um that we have no protection and then that he can come back here and be protected by the law, but we have no no recourse that he literally won't maintain his buildings even though he doesn't have the even though he clearly has the resources to do it. >> Uh Nicole, >> um Rachel, could you please go back to the demolition of the garage uh slide? This is actually I I I have a problem way before Um, we we've denied other places from demolishing a garage and we asked them to um make the current garage into an ADU which that architect and maybe it was their contractor said would be so expensive it we're not able to entertain that. So I I want us to be consistent with um applications that come forward. Um so what so I present it to the rest of the committee as to why we're allowing this to be demol um demolished when most others we haven't. I don't know if we have for any. >> So Nicole, I think you're referring to the one that was on Fairing Street, but that was an historical garage. >> Yeah. I just want it fell into a different category really >> why we're allowing this one to be demolished versus not other ones. >> For me, it would have to do with the historical nature of that garage. Gita, you've had your hand up for a while. >> Um, well, I just had a couple of questions for Rachel is just I wonder when you do the um new uh drawings for us if you could um the sighting um in our historical district. We like it not to be vinyl and the windows more fitting with the rest of the house. And I can't see the details in this. So, I don't really know, but those are two things just to keep in mind or I would like you to. >> Yes, those are two things we will we will be asking you about for both of the houses when you return. Um, so it's important for you to do that. I think it's also important for you to uh discuss with the owner uh reducing the mass of this house as well. Uh not so much because of the way it overwhelms the other house but because we don't we have learned not to trust this man and if he has the extra space he's going to use it and we don't want him to. So, uh, if you were to come back with a plan that didn't make that so clearly possible, uh, then I think we would be more likely to support whatever you bring to us. Uh, Ken Rosenthal, >> um, I don't know whether you can hear me. If you can still. >> Yes. I I was going to say, M. Ratner, I was going to say exactly what you just said, so I don't want to repeat myself, but I think the I want to just make sure the architect understands that she's dealing with a client whose reputation makes us very skeptical of of plans that seem that they can be exploited in some way, and these are certainly those plans, and that's why we're concerned. Thank you. Uh, can we move to a vote on continuing this motion to the meeting on September 8th? Um, >> also to have a site visit. It's a double motion, I think. >> And and also to have a site visit on uh the week before that on September 4th >> at four o'clock. Yeah. >> Okay. Uh, easy walk between the sites. Yeah. Uh, Ben, >> I Yes. >> Freda, >> yes. >> Steve, >> yes. >> Uh, Nicole, >> yes. >> Betty, >> yes. >> Uh, Bruce, >> yes. >> And I agree also. Okay. So, we are continuing this motion. Thank you, Rachel, for your patience with us. Um, and we look forward to seeing you twice in the coming two weeks uh at the site visit. >> Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. >> Is there additional public comment that we need to take? I don't think there should be. The next thing I would like to move to um is a vote on the final version of our proposal for the local historic district in East Ammerst. uh that's going to go to the town council and Walker has mentioned that we should take a formal vote on that proposal before it goes there. So, do I have a motion to vote on that? >> I move that I move that we accept the final report of that. Have people seen it? >> I don't think I saw a report. I saw a list. >> It's just like a two-page letter. Did you see the letter that you wrote? >> I don't remember seeing the letter. >> I think it was in the planning board uh package >> or the the our package, but um if you want to wait until the next meeting to approve it. >> Yeah, let's wait until everyone's seen it. >> Okay. Um >> but uh you guys, we did it. I mean, it was it was >> Congratulations. Sorry, buddy. >> It was not easy. I got to tell you guys, you thought I was like the boy who cried wolf, but they were against it. >> Uh there was a staff report that she's got on the agenda. Is that the report for the East Ammerst? >> I believe so. I bet. I bet. >> I think without Walker here, we really don't can't discuss that staff report. Um topics not anticipated by the chair 48 hours in advance. I don't know of any topics. Does anybody else? Um, do I have a motion to adjurnn? >> I so move. >> Thank you. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Second. Yep. >> All in favor of adjournment say I. >> I. >> Anyone opposed? All right. Thank you everybody for your patience through this conversation, especially for you, Rachel. Um, appreciate it. >> And Rachel, I looked back at some of the houses you've done in Northampton and they're very nice. So use that same skill to redo this one too. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Ken. Thank you for your input, too. Okay, meeting. >> Thank you all for letting me >> meeting is officially adjourned. X.