2012.11.05
Northampton Historical Commission
Meeting Notice
DATE: Monday, November 5, 2012 (Rescheduled from Oct 29)
TIME: 5:30 PM
PLACE: City Hall, 210 Main Street, Room 10
For questions contact:
Sarah LaValley, staff: slavalley@northamptonma.gov, or
David Drake, Chairman: davidd321@yahoo.com
Agenda
1.Public Comments
2.Approval of Minutes
a.August 27, 2012
3.Public Hearing: to determine whether 62-66 Green Street, map ID 31D-048, should be
determined "Preferably Preserved" pursuant to the Northampton Demolition
Ordinance, Chapter 161 of the General Code.
4.Section 106 Review - CT River Greenway, Damon Road
5.Recommendation and Action on Round Hill Historic Preservation Agreement
6.Determination of Significance Under Demolition Ordinance: 87 Bridge Street, map 32A-
185 (Shaw’s Motel)
7.Plans for Review of and Future for State Hospital Artifacts
8.Continue discussion of Addition of Partial Demolitions to Demolition Ordinance
9.Review of Mail
10.Other business not foreseen when agenda was prepared
Adjourn
11.
Northampton Historical Commission
Minutes
DATE: Monday, November 5, 2012
TIME: 5:30 PM
PLACE: City Hall, 210 Main Street, Room 10
Members Present: David Drake, Barbara Blumenthal, Bruce Kriviskey, Craig Della Penna
(5:40), Dylan Gaffney
Staff Present: Sarah LaValley
Chairman Drake called the meeting to Order at 5:30 PM.
Public Comments
None
Approval of Minutes
a.August 27, 2012.
Ms. Blumenthal moved to approve the minutes as presented. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Gaffney, and carried unanimously.
Public Hearing: to determine whether 62-66 Green Street, map ID 31D-048, should be
determined "Preferably Preserved" pursuant to the Northampton Demolition
Ordinance, Chapter 161 of the General Code.
Ms. Blumenthal recused herself from discussion, as an employee of the applicant.
Mr. Gaffney provided additional information about the building and people who lived in
it. Historic maps indicate the date of construction was somewhere between 1884 and
1895. An obituary also shows that Mary Hunt Warner, a descendant of Seth Warner,
lived in the house until her death.
Chairman Drake noted that the addition on the front appears to be a separate structure.
Mr. Kriviskey added that it is typical of that type of addition that a separate foundation
would be constructed, and pointed out that it is not as historically intact as some
surrounding Victorian homes.
The Commission reviewed the building with regard to the Preferably Preserved
considerations listed in the Ordinance. Mr. Kriviskey stated that the addition to the
façade has rendered it no longer ‘intact,’ and it is no longer a good representation of the
style or period, and does not contribute to the streetscape the way an unaltered
building would.
Mr. Della Penna stated that demolition in this instance seems difficult to justify given
the good condition of the building. Mr. Gaffney added that it has an increasingly
important role in the streetscape due to demolition of surrounding similar structures.
Chairman Drake stated that the gambrel, cupola, and general Victorian design should all
be considered exemplary construction elements.
Mr. Gaffney noted that while the building has a history, it does not yield any information
on its own merits, and was not designed by a noted architect.
Charlie Conant, Smith College, stated that the condition of the building is less than ideal
and has deteriorated over the past few years. The upper floors had been used as
apartments. Smith acquired the building with the intent to provide more greenspace.
The residential tenant was provided a new building in trade.
Chairman Drake asked why the building was acquired with the ultimate intent to
demolish. Mr. Conant replied that the College spends a great deal of resources on
historic preservation around campus, but this was never the intent for the Green Street
building.
Mr. Gaffney moved to find 62-66 Green Street ‘Preferably Preserved’ pursuant to the
Demolition Ordinance, especially given the structures role in the streetscape. Seconded
by Mr. Della Penna. The motion carried, 3-1.
Chairman Drake noted that the determination can include a delay of up to one year. Mr.
Kriviskey suggested six months, since the College has discussed its plans for demolition
for the past few years. Mr. Della Penna moved that the delay period be six months.
Seconded by Mr. Gaffney, the motion carried 4-0.
Determination of Significance Under Demolition Ordinance: 87 Bridge Street,
map 32A-185 (Shaw’s Motel)
Ms. LaValley stated that the significance determination could have been made by the
demolition review subcommittee, but was included on the agenda due to the timing of
the meeting.
David Pesuit suggested that there is an older structure within the newer motel, based
on the locations of chimneys and siting near other historic buildings.
Mr. Drake read the criteria for a determination of ‘significance.’
Mr. Kriviskey noted that a site visit would be helpful to better understand condition and
architecture, as not much is known about the building.
2
Mr. Gaffney stated that the building has been in poor condition for several years, but
that it has played an important role in Northampton’s recent history.
Ms. Blumenthal moved that due to the evidence of age, and use for so many years as
Shaw’s make it a ‘significant.’ structure pursuant to the Ordinance. Seconded by Mr.
Kriviskey, the motion carried unanimously. The Commission will research more in
advance of the public hearing, and Ms. LaValley will look into whether a site visit is
possible. The hearing will be held November 26.
Recommendation and Action on Round Hill Historic Preservation Agreement
Wayne Feiden, Director of Planning and Development, provided a background on the
agreement, which is a requirement of the Ordinance dealing with re-use of religious and
institutional buildings. The Ordinance allows additional uses beyond that permitted in
underlying zones if a preservation restriction is in place. It was also a requirement of
the Planning Board’s site plan approval for the project. Mr. Feiden asked the
Commission to provide input on the restriction itself, and then consider holding the
restriction.
Mr. Della Penna asked if the restriction dicatates use. Mr. Feiden replied that it
addresses only exterior alterations to National Park Service Standards, and the
developer is unlikely to agree to anything more expansive.
Mr. Kriviskey asked about the outcome of discussions to expand the Elm Street Historic
District to Round Hill. Mr. Feiden replied that the Local Historic District Commission
agreed not to vote on the district until January, and the developer also agreed not to
conduct any work until then.
Richard Greene, Round Hill Road, expressed concern that preservation of greenspace is
not addressed in the restriction, and also that this agreement would not be a good
substitute for a historic district.
Mr. Feiden replied that the terms of the agreement were defined by the site plan
approval, and the Planning Board is not able to request conditions that are not provided
for in the zoning. The preliminary study report provided for two ways to preserve the
campus, either a preservation restriction or an historic district.
Chairman Drake noted that the zoning allowing for expanded reuse in institutional
buildings is a progressive way to promote preservation, and also suggested that the
historic district could also include some of the surrounding homes.
Mr. Della Penna asked about the capacity of the Historical Commission to hold the
restriction. Mr. Feiden replied that it would be the City acting through its Historical
Commission, so it would not place additional burdens on the Commission.
Mr. Kriviskey moved that the Historical Commission hold the preservation agreement,
and recommend its approval to the City Council. Seconded by Mr. Gaffney, the motion
carried unanimously.
3
Ms. Blumenthal suggested that the Commission recommend to the Planning Board that
historic landscapes be considered in future site plan reviews.
Section 106 Review - CT River Greenway, Damon Road
Mr. Feiden provided an overview of the project, stating that the City is working with
Lane Construction to develop river access and a greenway park. The project will also
allow for interpretation of the historic canal site. MassHistoric was concerned
primarily with a potential bridge over the canal planned for a future phase. Any Native
American artifacts were already destroyed when the canal was constructed.
Ms. Blumenthal moved that the Commission provide a response letter indicating that
the project will not have negative impacts to historic resources. Seconded by Mr.
Kriviskey, the motion carried unanimously.
Plans for Review of and Future for State Hospital Artifacts
Ms. LaValley stated that the Historical Commission is in possession of many artifacts
salvaged from the State Hospital prior to its demolition. They are currently in several
different storage locations, all of which were intended to be temporary.
The Commission discussed the items, and agreed that they should be reviewed to see if
they should be kept, sold, or disposed of.
Ms. Blumenthal volunteered to look at the items being stored in City Hall, and will try to
set up visits to see the larger items being stored elsewhere. The Commission will
continue discussion at the next meeting.
Continued discussion of Addition of Partial Demolitions to Demolition Ordinance
No discussion.
Review of Mail
None
Other business not foreseen when agenda was prepared
Mr. Feiden asked the Commission if they have any interest in pursuing restoration to
the Seth Thomas clock that was formerly located on Main Street. The Commission
agreed this would be a good project.
Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 7:45.
4