Amherst Historical Commission Concerned with Veracity of Section 106 Memorandum

AHC Unfairly Blamed for Irregularities in Library Project Review?
After a March 3 public hearing, Amherst Historical Commission (AHC) attendees raised the need to address a draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) describing how the Town of Amherst would resolve adverse impacts to the historic Jones Library imposed by the current renovation-expansion plan.  The revised MOA was sent to the Massachusetts Historical Commission and Section 106 consulting parties on February 24 by Amherst Special Capital Projects Coordinator Robert Peirent.

At issue is how the AHC was depicted as responsible for its controversial approval of the library project’s compliance with the Town-Jones Library Preservation Restriction Agreement (PRA) that has been in force since 2022.

Project watchers have pointed out that the PRA requires “replacement, rebuilding, repair and reconstruction of the building whenever necessary in accordance with The Secretary of Interior’s Standards for The Treatment of Historical Properties.”  Preservation advocates have accused town leaders of unfairly pressuring and manipulating the AHC into finding no violations of the Secretary’s Standards at their October 19, 2023 PRA review.

Had the town and AHC waited one more month, they would have had the benefit of the Massachusetts Historical Commission’s November 22, 2023 letter identifying adverse effects to the building such as demolition of significant portions of the original building, replacement of the slate roof with synthetic slate and floor plan modifications “causing the removal and loss of historic fabric.”  The letter from State Historic Preservation Officer Brona Simon was cc’d to the Amherst Historical Commission, but apparently was never forwarded by the town to the commissioners.

Five months later, on April 26, the MHC sent the town more specifics on adverse effects from the proposed design, highlighting five of the ten Secretary’s Standards that the project violated, both in the building’s interior and exterior.  This letter was revealed through a citizen Public Record Request and again was not provided to the AHC.

Then on August 28, after a round of value engineering design changes, a demolition permit and PRA compliance needed to be approved again.  Staff Liaison Nate Malloy directed the AHC not to consider the MHC findings, but to focus only on value engineering changes in evaluating PRA compliance.  Malloy explained, “to me, when Mass. Historic said that there’s a removal of a lot of façade, maybe they had trouble reading the plans.”  Once again the AHC found in favor of a demolition permit and PRA compliance.

See related: Library Project Gets by Historical Review with a Little Help from Its Friends

After hearing about the irregularities, the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation advised the town to add language to the Section 106 MOA indicating “how the town has met or intends to meet the terms of the PRA for this Section 106 review and undertaking.”

It is this language in the draft MOA that prompted AHC members to question the document’s veracity.

Artificial Deadline Prevents AHC Discussion in Public Meeting
After the March 3 hearing was adjourned, AHC members discussed when to hold their next meeting.

Town staff liaison Walker Powell commented, “the only thing of any urgency might be the discussion of the Memorandum of Agreement for the Jones library. … The Historical Commission is referenced pretty extensively throughout the document,”

She was referring to six “Whereas” clauses in the draft MOA that simply stated that the AHC approved the project at various public meetings, but gave no explanation of how violations of the Secretary’s Standards were missed.

Powell continued, “[Section 106 Coordinator] Bob Peirent said that they expect it to be finalized this week. We can’t really discuss that tonight because it’s not on the agenda.”  No explanation was given for why an AHC meeting to discuss the MOA had not been scheduled nor why Peirent felt he could rightfully call an end to the public Section 106 review despite no indication of agreement from the MHC and other consulting parties.

AHC member Hetty Startup responded that “there are things in [the MOA] that I’m really unhappy about,” and she asked if the group could meet to discuss it.

“They are hoping to get it signed by the 6^th,” said Powell, deferring to Peirent’s arbitrary deadline rather than considering the responsibility of the AHC to address statements made in the MOA.

AHC Vice-chair Madeleine Helmer remarked, “I just wanted to read through it and check the veracity of all the statements they include in there.” She added, “I just wanted to email them and [check] if there is anything that wasn’t reflected actually in the hearings, because we are referenced quite heavily in it.”

AHC Chair Robin Fordham suggested, “Hetty, Madeleine and Walker should take the discussion offline.”  Powell stated that communications about Helmer and Startup’s concerns should be sent directly to her, so that there would not be an Open Meeting violation.

It was decided that the next AHC meeting would be scheduled for April 7, and that an AHC response to the MOA would be handled outside of a public meeting. 

Unauthorized edicts from town leaders with a special interest in seeing the library project advance as quickly as possible (Peirent is the project OPM as well as the Section 106 Coordinator) can be difficult for a volunteer committee to stand up to. Why the AHC, as Amherst’s historic preservation steward and a key Section 106 consulting party, did not assert their right to play a stronger role in shaping the Section 106 MOA was not discussed.