Town Drafts Memo of Agreement for Resolving Harm to Jones Library’s Historic Character
Photo: https://www.joneslibrary.org/
Little Heed Paid to Public Objections at Second Consulting Party Meeting
The consulting parties to the public process known as a Section 106 Review met on January 27 to offer proposals for how to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to the Jones Library resulting from the proposed $46.1 million renovation-expansion project. The review is required because the Jones Library is listed on the State and National Registers of Historic Places, and the building project has been awarded state and federal grants totaling $18 million. The review is mandated by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 which requires federal agencies to assess the effects of their actions on historic buildings and consider public views before making final project decisions.
See related: Town Acknowledges Adverse Effects of Jones Expansion Project on Historic Character of the Building
Of the 15 groups that the Town invited to be consulting parties, four – the Massachusetts Historical Commission, the Amherst Historical Commission, the Local Historic District Commission, and the Amherst Historic Preservation Coalition — were focused on historic preservation concerns. The remaining eleven were proponents of the building project who proposed no suggestions for avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating adverse effects that the town had previously acknowledged. These included three groups associated with the library, three groups associated with Amherst College where Library Trustee President Austin Sarat and Capital Campaign Co-chair Kent Faerber are prominent members of the college community, and two private, non-profits who have been promised space in the renovated building.
See related: Consulting Parties Again Fail to Agree on How Much Historic Preservation is Needed for Jones Library Expansion
Elizabeth Sharpe of the Local Historic District Commission and former member of the Amherst Historical Commission criticized the size of the new addition as “overwhelming” the historic library and advised that the separation between the west ell and the original building be enhanced. She also suggested that the louvered shutters from the original library should be put back and that a partially removed ornamental pineapple on the original scroll pediment doorway be restored.
Hetty Startup, representing the Amherst Historical Commission, echoed Sharpe’s concerns with the size of the addition, and commented, “We’d like to scale back the addition so that it reads better as a secondary structure to the historic 1928 Jones Library building on Amity Street.”
The Amherst Historic Preservation Coalition vigorously protested the elimination of 20% of the Philippine mahogany millwork that had been a major expense in the construction of the original library. Maria Kopicki pointed out that the woodwork and the floorplan that it delineates are character-defining features of the historic library, and that for nearly a century prior trustees have caringly maintained the millwork in excellent condition.
Public comments submitted since August may be viewed on the Town’s Section 106 comment portal.
Town Releases Draft MOA
Section 106 review point person Bob Peirent explained that consulting parties could continue to submit comments through noon on January 30, after which a draft memorandum of agreement spelling out steps that the project team would be willing to take to resolve adverse effects would be released.
On January 30 Peirent sent consulting parties a draft MOA accompanied by a letter updating Massachusetts State Historic Preservation Officer Brona Simon and Section 106 supporting attachments.
The MOA addresses two of the eight adverse effects it described in an Alternatives Analysis Report issued on November 22. It offers to re-roof the library using natural slate and to eliminate a planned cut into the stone façade for a book drop. It also offers to restore the pineapple ornament at the main entrance pediment.
The letter to the MHC contends that “The adverse effects of the size, scale, and massing of the new addition that will replace the existing 1993 addition, and removal of 20 percent of the interior woodwork are changes that cannot be avoided to meet the purpose and goal of the Project.”
Mitigations proposed to address these significant alterations of the library’s historic character are taking photographs of features before they are demolished and working with “Amherst Historical Society and Museum and other community partners to develop a presentation (live, if conditions allow, broadcast, and recorded and made available online) on the history and architecture of the Jones Library.”
Comments on the draft Memorandum of Agreement be submitted through the Section 106 comment form until 5:00 pm on February 12, 2025.
The Town’s approach to the Section 106 process continues to be a farce and this latest step is blatantly contemptuous. Mere hours after the deadline for input into the MOA, the “responsible party” delivered a multi-document final report to do virtually nothing to address profound negative impacts on a protected building. Apparently, they are not even trying anymore to act like they either care or have any obligation to meet federal, state, and local obligations. Project proponents and the state agency that is enabling this mess even bluntly stated at the meeting this week that they have every intention to violate the meager stipulations in the agreement as soon as possible.
This is disturbing. Sorry that I wasted my time writing a comment on Friday — doubtlessly not read nor considered before the MOA was drafted and sent out. Depressing.
This MOA takes the same lordly attitude toward the applicable historic preservation law that the Town Manager and Jones Library Trustees have taken since at least 2016. Amherst deserves better.
Re “The letter to the MHC contends that “The adverse effects of the size, scale, and massing of the new addition that will replace the existing 1993 addition, and removal of 20 percent of the interior woodwork are changes that cannot be avoided to meet the purpose and goal of the Project.””
I think the Town has demonstrated this point that you quote from the letter to MHC. The Section 106 process is designed to weigh historic preservation against other program needs. After many years, lots of changes, and multiple votes, this is the project that’s funded. It’s time to move ahead.
I found the Town’s Historic Resources Assessment and Alternatives Analysis informative, showing how much work has been done over the years to protect the historic building.
Historic Resources Assessment:
https://www.amherstma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/74773/Jones-Library-Historic-Resources-Assessment-October?bidId=
Alternatives Analysis
https://www.amherstma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/75639/Jones-Library-Alternatives-Analysis-Report-and-Appendices-11-21-24
It’s hard to believe that there literally is no other way to avoid “[t}he adverse effects of the size, scale, and massing of the new addition… and removal of 20 percent of the interior woodwork” and still meet the Jones project’s goals. So there no possible changes so the addition so it doesn’t dwarf the original building or ways to keep and/or repurpose the cozy interior rooms with the woodwork? None? I think good alternatives have been suggested by others since this project started. If the Jones Trustees and Jones building committee have taken a hard, detailed look at alternatives, please direct me to the meeting minutes where these 2 issues were discussed.
Thanks for your comment, Laetitia. I respectfully ask, who are the Jones Library Capital Campaign, of which you and your husband, Councilor George Ryan are members, to declare by fiat that building project parameters are set in stone and therefore federal, state and local taxpayers must accept adverse effects and fund almost the entire $55 million price tag for the project once interest is considered. To date the Capital Campaign has disbursed only $1.65 million in private donations to the Town.
The MHC found the town’s alternatives analysis wanting and effectively rejected it, as they did the town’s four applications for historic tax credits. A constant feature of this project has been the rejection of guidance from the MHC and other historic preservation entities. The requirements for the treatment of properties listed on the State and Federal Registers of Historic Places are set in law and regulation and it is not the town’s prerogative to assert that it has done enough.
https://www.amherstindy.org/2024/12/27/mass-historic-commission-rejects-towns-analysis-for-minimizing-adverse-effects-of-jones-library-expansion-project/
https://www.amherstindy.org/2024/11/08/jones-librarys-section-106-review-hits-a-speed-bump/
https://www.amherstindy.org/2024/09/20/repeated-rejections-of-library-funding-from-state-historic-commission-were-hidden-from-town-council-and-the-public/
https://www.amherstindy.org/2024/08/30/whats-law-got-to-do-with-it-how-amhersts-disregard-of-historic-preservation-law-has-already-forfeited-1800000-and-jeopardizes-millions-more-federal-grants/
https://www.amherstindy.org/2024/08/23/amherst-historic-commission-rejects-state-guidance-on-jones-expansion/
Responding to Ms. LA Follette’s comment that “this is the project that is funded”, the Town’s vote on the borrowing authorization was based on the Library contributing $15,00000. The Town is not obligated to sign a construction contract that will hobble our capital projects that are far more important than a huge expansion to a library that loses more visitors every year.
I note that a generation ago when the Town reconfigured and restored our Town Hall to adapt its floor plan for more effective daily use, the National Standards were enforced rigorously. We need to thank Vince O’Connor for his efforts in “saving” this historic building. As I remember, this was also a controversial project. But, in the end, not only was the ethos of the building preserved, but the design of police station down the street mimics its form!