Amherst Historical Commission Review of Jones Expansion Remains Contentious

Report on the Meeting of the Amherst Historical Commission, February 3, 2025

This meeting was held over Zoom and was recorded.

Present
Robin Fordham (Chair), Pat Auth, Hetty Startup, Madeleine Helmer, and Antonia Brillembourg

Staff: Walker Powell and Nate Malloy (Planners)

Amherst Historical Commission (AHC) member Pat Auth raised concerns about commission members going beyond issues agreed upon by the commission when representing the AHC. She specifically objected to the comments made by Madeleine Helmer and Hetty Startup at the Section 106 Review for the Jones Library project. Robin Fordham, who works for the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC), recused herself from the discussion.

The topic, which was not on the agenda despite Auth’s request prior to the meeting, was raised when, in public comment, one-half hour into the meeting, Elisa Campbell stated, “I was quite surprised, when I was attending the Section 106 meeting for the Jones Library, to hear two members of the commission speaking against proposed changes. The only decisions that you made were that you wanted real slate, not artificial slate on the roof and that you did not want the book drop. But members of this commission had many other concerns about the Jones proposal. I don’t understand how that’s possible.”

Auth agreed with Campbell. She framed the issue as a matter of training for commission members and stated, “I value the Amherst Historical Commission and its role in Amherst, but when consulting parties represent a commission or a board, their sole role is to represent the view and the votes of the commission. Should one of the consulting parties have a personal viewpoint, that must be presented during the public comment period and with the absolute clarity that it is done so as a private citizen, not as a consulting party. That should be part of the orientation for new historical commission members. You [Helmer] and Hetty [Startup] volunteered. I’m not sure we voted on you, but we accepted that you were going to do it, but I think there needs to be a clear understanding that whatever you say representing the AHC has to be the view of the commission.”

Helmer noted that she prefaced her remarks at the 106 hearing by saying that she had not been able to vote at the first AHC hearing on the Jones project because she was on maternity leave. She stated, “I was representing the commission’s values in terms of what our mission statement is towards preservation as I interpret it.”

When Auth again pushed back that she should not have voiced her concerns regarding the size and scale of the new addition, Helmer said that few dimensions were included in the plans at that hearing, but later, “seeing [the plans] with the new knowledge of the MHC’s letters and comments, I think it really became a significant issue that was not evaluated for some reason.”

Startup added, “I do think you’re right that training of commission members needs to take something like this on board. I’ve been involved with discussing the Jones Library for several years now. I’ve always had a problem with the scale of the building, and I’ve said so in AHC meetings.” Auth countered, “We did not discuss that [and] we approved the design twice,” To which Startup said that she had abstained during the first vote and voted no at the second. “We never got any of the information from the MHC about any of the adverse effects [before we voted]…I think if I had had that information, we would have been in a much better position to deliberate over some of the concerns.” 

Staff liaison Nate Malloy said that perhaps the representatives could have been given better guidance about their role in the 106 process, “[but] if there was a discussion about what else was talked about at the hearings, it is appropriate for a commission’s representatives to say there were concerns [even if the topics were not included in] the discrete set of votes.”

Auth said she made a written comment to the hearing as a “private citizen” and concluded,”It’s not to cast disparaging comments on you [Helmer] or Hetty. You did what you did. It’s just that there needs to be some guidance as to what you can speak to as a member of the commission and what you can speak to as a personal comment.”

Preservation Restriction for JCA Approved
Community Preservation Act funds approved in 2016 for the repair of the steeple on the Jewish Community of Amherst building have yet to be dispersed because there is no formal preservation restriction on the building, as required for the funds. Malloy said that the draft restriction has been discussed for several years and is now 95% complete, but the JCA does not want the newer addition to the building to be included in the document. With additional CPA funds recommended to repair the stained-glass windows in the sanctuary, Malloy felt it was important to approve the preservation restriction. The restriction on the entire building is required because CPA paid for the steeple renovation. The restriction covers any future changes to the entire property including the stained glass windows.

He said the South Church had the same issue with its steeple repair, and its fairly recent addition was included in the preservation description. Commission members noted that construction on or near the rear addition at the JCA could affect the view from the street of the old building, for example if a tall addition was built to the rear. The commission voted 4-0-1 to approve the restriction for the whole parcel, including the newer addition. 

Representatives from the JCA were not able to come to the meeting, but need to sign the agreement for it to go into effect. They will be invited to the next AHC meeting to discuss the agreement and to present a more detailed plan to restore and protect the stained glass windows. 

Future and Ongoing AHC Projects

1. Barn preservation project: Liaison Walker Powell said she would take pictures of barns around Amherst for the project’s future applications. Helmer will design a postcard to advertise the program.

2. The interpretive sign for the restored West Cemetery mural at the rear of One East Pleasant Street needs to be created. Malloy said that the town only has funds for the wayfinding signs to be placed at each entrance to the cemetery, but not for the interpretation of the mural. He thought that the developer might have a bond requiring the creation of the interpretive sign. The Business Improvement District (BID) does have a brochure identifying the figures portrayed on the mural. Startup said she would work on a design for the sign with town staff.

3. Helmer and Startup are working on a survey of modern architecture in town.

4. Robin Fordham said she is working on documenting buildings that have either been demolished or have been approved to be demolished. She is also developing guidelines to help applicants for CPA historic preservation funds and a “hot sheet” of resources for AHC members for additional training on historic preservation.