Amherst Historical Commission Postpones Vote on Jones Library MOA Approval

Report on the Meeting of the Amherst Historical Commission, April 7, 2024

The meeting was held over Zoom and was recorded.

Present
Robin Fordham (Chair), Madeleine Helmer, Pat Auth, Hetty Startup. Absent: Antonia Brillembourg. Two seats on the commission unfilled. Staff: Walker Powell

Section 106 Memorandum of Agreement
On the AHC agenda was a discussion of the Memorandum of Agreement for the town’s Section 106 Review (see also here) of adverse effects of the proposed Jones Library expansion to the historic character of the 1928 library and the historic district within which it resides. The memorandum has been signed by Paul Bockelman, representing the town and Brona Simon, the State Historic Preservation Officer, representing the Massachusetts Historic Commission. Thirteen of 15 consulting parties to the process have co-signed the memorandum which identifies the actions that the town has agreed to take to avoid, minimize, or mitigate many of the previously identified adverse effects of the project. 

The Section 106 review is required in order to obtain the release of provisionally awarded grants from the National Endowment for Humanities (NEH) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) totaling $2.1 million. National media have reported that all NEH grants, both active and pending, have been cancelled and that President Trump plans to shut down the agency. In order to be eligible for the HUD funds, the town must complete an environmental review of the project. That review is in the middle of its 45 day public comment and review period and won’t be complete before May 14. 

The Amherst Historical Commission’s discussion of the MOA had been scheduled for their March meeting but the commission did not meet in March, and was limited at this meeting due to lack of a quorum. Chair Robin Fordham recused from the discussion and with Antonia Brillenbourg absent and with two empty seats on the commission, only three commissioners (one short of a quorum) were left to undertake the discussion. Commission Vice Chair Madeleine Helmer chaired the discussion noting that while the commission could not take any votes, they could still discuss the issue raised by the MOA.

Helmer noted, as she had offered at the February commission meeting, that she wanted to make sure that how the AHC was represented in the MOA was accurate. 

Pat Auth objected to having the discussion at all and asserted that the MOA was based on the recordings of previous meetings of the AHC and that there is nothing new that the AHC can add now. She said that the MOA represents previous votes of the AHC and that the commission was obligated to sign the MOA and to fail to do so would be a dereliction of their duties as commissioners. She concluded that she believed that the AHC no longer has any opportunity to comment on the MOA as a body. 

Hetty Startup countered, “That’s not how I feel about the MOA at all. As someone who participated in the 106 review as a consulting party, I feel like there are preservation issues that have been elided. I think that some of the things in the MOA are contrary to the 106 process and contrary to historic preservation requirements. I think that there are lots of pitfalls with this process at this point. I am part of an historical commission and I uphold my responsibilities to the town’s historic properties. I think that’s all I need to say now as we’re not going to take a vote tonight.”

Auth objected to the prospect of taking a vote saying, “There is nothing more to say since we have already voted. You were outvoted when we took a vote. “

Startup responded, “ And I might be outvoted again, but what concerns me is that the MOA is already signed– it’s a done deal. I’m not trying to rewrite anything, I’m just trying to find my way forward with integrity,”

Helmer said, “Several of the Mass Historical Commission’s findings were omitted from this statement (the MOA) and that’s difficult to reconcile.”

Startup added, “What concerns me is how many references there are to the AHC in the MOA as if we have a big role to play (in what comes next) but what that role is is not at all clear. There are a lot of loose ends, for example the scale and massing issue is left hanging. But there’s no point in saying any more since we’re not going to vote tonight.”

Auth said, The only issue before us is to accept the MOA. The other consulting parties have signed off. The issues that concern you, Hetty, never came to a vote.”

Helmer said, “I haven’t thought this through fully, but I would feel a little odd signing it when I was not part of the vote that approved it. (Editor’s note: Helmer was absent for the meeting where the commission approved what were then believed to be the final plans for the project. But the commission never previously discussed or voted on the final draft of the MOA, which was only finalized on February 24, 2025.)

Auth responded, “You voted in support of the value engineering. You approved the final plan and that’s what is represented in the MOA so you have an obligation to sign the MOA. Since we approved the value engineering, we have approved the final project as represented in the MOA. To not sign the MOA would be remiss. The commission never voted on any of the concerns that Hetty has raised.”

Helmer responded that the commissioners would talk about this further at the commission’s May meeting.

Public Comment
Maria Kopicki said she “agreed with Helmer that the AHC has been non-informed and mis-informed throughout the Section 106 process. They were told that they can’t talk about things – they were denied significant information – these are sins of omission that influenced the decision of the AHC. The question is, does the MOA provide protection to our historic building? And it doesn’t. So the decision to sign the MOA is not about minutes – it’s about what does it protect – and it DOES NOT protect this historic building.  This is about the integrity of this commission. I hope you don’t sign – but it doesn’t much matter – there is literally no effect, other than to make a symbolic statement. If you can’t say “I think that historic preservation is well-served by this memo”, then you should not sign.

Other Commission Business
The web page for the historic barn preservation program is now active.

Fordham asked Powell about the the status of the commission’s membership. Brillembourg will be leaving in May (but may be present for the Section 106 MOA discussion) and the terms of Auth, Fordham and Helmer are up in June. Powell said that all three are eligible for reappointment and that they should consider reapplying. Fordham also wanted to know why it takes so long after people interview for the Town Manager to reach a decision about appointment. She referred to one candidate who had lost interest after a long interval of not receiving any decision about their application.

Fordham raised a concern about the removal of a porch on a house in the vicinity of Triangle and Mattoon Streets without any consideration for historic preservation. She wondered whether this should have been subject to a demolition delay. Other commissioners said this destruction of an historic porch raises questions about the erasure of historic character in town. Fordham noted that there is CPA money available to support preservation work in situations like this and asked if there is more that the commission can do to let owners of historic buildings know that the commission is here to help. She suggested that perhaps the commission could share information about preservation opportunities when owners apply for permits.

Powell reminded the commissioners that there’s not much the commission can do for something like this if it is outside of an historic district.

Fordham asked for a status report on all outstanding CPA awards.

The next meeting of the AHC will be on May 5 at 7:00 p.m.