Amherst Historic Commission Rejects State Guidance on Jones Expansion

Demolition Permit Granted. Hearing on Historic Preservation Restriction Continued Until August 28.

Report on Two Public Hearings of the Amherst Historical Commission, August 22, 2024

The meeting was held over Zoom and was recorded.

Present
Madeleine Helmer (Acting Chair), Pat Auth, Hetty Startup, Antonia Brillembourg. Absent: Mikayla Rasnick and Robin Fordham (Chair). Fordham recused herself from this meeting because she is employed by the Massachusetts Historical Commission.

Staff: Nate Malloy (liaison and Senior Planner)

Also: Ellen Anselone (principal at Finegold Alexander Architects/FAA, Rachel Loeffler (Berkshire Design), Josephine Penta (FAA), Austin Sarat (president, Jones Library Trustees), Sharon Sharry (director, Jones Library)

40 members of the public were present at the start of the meeting.

21 individuals offered public comment, with some speaking at both hearings.
40 individuals submitted written public comments. Those letters can be read here. (Click on Historical Commission Packets 2024 and then access the four folders below labeled Public Comment)

The Amherst Historical Commission (AHC) conducted two public hearings on August 22 on the Jones Library Demolition/Expansion Project to receive feedback on the proposed demolition of the 1993 addition to the Jones Library and on whether the design for the Jones expansion was in compliance with the town’s Historic Preservation Restriction Agreement (HPRA). The commission voted 3-1 (with two absent and one seat vacant) to affirm their vote of October 2023 and approve a demolition permit for the 1993 addition. They agreed to limit their discussion of the HPRA to whether specific, recently proposed value engineering changes were consistent with/allowed by the HPRA. The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 without a vote on any of the proposed design changes. Discussion will be continued on August 28 at 7:00 p.m.

The elephant in the room at the hearings was the three letters from the Massachusetts Historic Commission (MHC), outlining the project’s multiple violations of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Properties and listing seven adverse effects of the proposed design on the historic character of the property. The letters had been sent in November and December of 2023 and April of 2024 to Library Director Sharon Sharry. The November letter was also sent to the Amherst Historical Commission c/o Nate Malloy. We do not know when the Amherst commissioners first saw these documents but they were not released to the public (including the Jones trustees) until July 24, 2024, well after the AHC had greenlighted the Jones plans and determined that they did not violate the HPRA, which requires adherence to the Secretary of the Interior’s standards. They also determined that the proposed design had no adverse effects on the historic character of the building. They also determined that the demolition of the 1993 addition to the Jones was allowed under the town’s demolition bylaw.

The letters from the MHC reached the opposite conclusions.

Although the state determinations were received last November, December, and April, Amherst Historic Commission members apparently were not even aware of them until this week, when they were placed in the meeting packet for the hearings. At least one commissioner implied that they had not read them. The majority of those offering public comment wanted the content of the letters to be central to the discussion, while all members of the Commission except Hetty Startup, tried to keep the documents out of the discussion and downplayed their significance. 

Nonetheless, most of the proceedings centered around the content of these letters and whether the commission is required to revisit their vote from October 2023 in light of them. Most members of the public contested the original decisions of the Amherst commission, pointing out that the design was found to violate five of the Secretary of the Interior’s 10 Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Properties, that the project sponsors have yet to address these violations, and that the AHC had not considered them in their earlier deliberations. They said it is clear that the Jones design violates the HPRA as it relies on the Secretary of the Interior’s standards as the basis for evaluation. Several argued that the commission is bound by statute to address the state commission’s findings and send the design back to the project sponsors to bring it into compliance. And many argued that the commission’s decisions from October 2023 need to be revisited in light of the new information. Some also worried that, with an assessment from the state expected shortly,  the Amherst commission had intentionally rushed its deliberations to avoid having to consider the state’s assessment of the expansion project. Three public comments demanded an explantion for why the MHC letters had not been shared before July. No explanation was offered.

Jones Trustees President Austin Sarat and town liaison Nate Malloy contested those objections arguing that the determinations of the MHC have no bearing on the town’s decision-making, which is based solely on the  demolition bylaw and the HPRA. Startup said that in light of the new information, she wants to revisit the AHC’s original decisions, but Sarat said that the decision has been made and cannot be revisited. Startup found no support for her request from her fellow commissioners.

Historic Preservation Obligations
The town is obliged to protect the historic character of the 1928 building because it is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The town took on further preservation obligations when it signed the HPRA in 2022 in exchange for a $140,000 grant from the town to help repair the library’s slate roof. Among the provisions of the agreement are: prohibition on demolishing any part of the 1928 building (Section 2.2) and adoption of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Properties for reviewing any construction, alteration, repair, or maintenance (Section 4).

The town’s demolition bylaw states that the town may not issue a demolition permit for a historically significant building without prior authorization from the Historical Commission.

A description of the violations can be found here and here.

Scope of Hearings Disputed
The scope of the hearings was disputed from the outset, with the majority of those giving testimony arguing that the earlier decisions of the commission have to be revisited in light of the MHC letters. However, the commissioners, with the exception of Startup, argued that the hearings should be limited to “value engineering” changes that had been added to the design since June of 2024.

Sarat objected to any consideration of the MHC’s evaluations. “Those aren’t our standards,” he insisted.

Malloy advised the group that they are not obligated to accept the state’s guidance. He said he had consulted with both the town building commissioner and the town attorney, both of whom felt  that rejecting the MHC guidance was “unlikely to be problematic.” 

Malloy added that the Amherst commission had fully considered the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards at the October meeting and felt that the Jones design was in compliance. But a review of the meeting’s minutes and video show no substantive discussion of the standards or efforts to apply them to the design. Even so, he said, “ We could reconsider if we believe that we did not do a thorough enough review, but if we are comfortable with our own assessment then we are not obliged to reconsider. It’s not a wrong decision, just different. Neither the building commissioner nor the town attorney believe that [reconsideration] is required for us to reopen the hearing.”

Meanwhile, because of the violations outlined in the MHC letters,  both of the town’s applications to the state for $2M in historic tax credits were denied in July and the same violations might disqualify the town for another $2M in federal grants. The town will be required to address them specifically in the upcoming Section 106 review process. 

Specific Value Engineering Changes Discussed
In spite of objections from Startup, the commissioners chose to discuss only the proposed value engineering changes (see table below) and whether each is allowed by the HPRA. The MHC has yet to be sent the required project notification form advising of the proposed changes and hence has not yet assessed them for compliance.

Among the changes that the Amherst commissioners found problematic are the substitution of asphalt shingles for slate roofing, the possibility of repairing rather than replacing the historic windows in the 1928 building (or only replacing those that cannot be repaired), and concerns about eliminating most of the plantings in the landscaping plan for now. The commissioners did not arrive at specific recommendations for any of these concerns and planned to continue the discussion when the hearing resumes.

As the hour grew late, the commissioners reported  that they were having trouble maintaining focus and suggested continuing the hearing at a later date. Both principal architect Ellen Anselone and Sarat objected, arguing that they need a determination from the commission to complete the drawings soon so that their call for new bids can go out early in September.

Startup objected to being pressured to vote, saying, “The scale is really concerning — the massing of the new addition in relationship to the Strong House and the historic building [one of the violations listed by the MHC was that the mass of the addition dwarfs the historic building and degrades its appearance from the main view on Amity Street]. I see the removal of the landscaping as a removal of considerable value. It has none of the charm of the original proposal — it is not a backyard where anyone would want to hang out. We are not in tune with the history and the vibe of this building. We need to have a deeper conversation with the past, and I am really distressed with where this is going. I feel like we are being pushed — rushed — and that’s not right. It shouldn’t be on us [the commissioners] to resolve any problems with planning and managing the project.“

Public Comment
In addition to the 40 letters received in advance of the meeting, 21 people offered public comments, with some speaking twice (once at each of the two public hearings). Four spoke against delaying the project to address historic preservation concerns. Seventeen spoke in support of protecting the historic character of the Jones with 10 referring specifically to the MHC letters and violations of the Secretary’s Standards. Several reminded the commissioners that their statutory mandate was to determine whether the design is compliant with the library’s own historic preservation restriction, which they asserted it clearly is not. They argued that the commission’s job is to make that finding and send the plans back to the sponsors and designers.

Giving comment in opposition to any delay in the project were Letitia LaFollette, Elissa Campbell, Ericka Zekos, and Liz Larson.

Giving comment in support of protecting the historic character of the building were Carol Gray, Hilda Greenbaum, Rob Kusner, Maria Kopicki, Arlie Gould, Sarah McKee, Jeff Lee, Elizabeth Sharpe, Vincent O’Connor, Maura Keene, Art Keene, Mickey Rathbun, Lou Conover, Rita Burke, Michael Greenebaum, Ken Rosenthal, Sandy Muspratt

Correction: the quote above, “We could reconsider if we believe that we did not do a thorough enough review, but if we are comfortable with our own assessment then we are not obliged to reconsider. It’s not a wrong decision, just different. Neither the building commissioner nor the town attorney believe that [reconsideration] is required for us to reopen the hearing,” originally attributed to Acting Chair Madeline Helmer, should have been attributed to Nate Malloy. We apologize for the error.