2021-319MA Northampton VAMC-Apogee Elevator Improvements 10-3-2022 For noho.pdfRICHARD
GRUBB &
ASSOCIATES
PREPARED FOR:
Apogee Consulting Group1151 Kildaire Farm Road Cary, North Carolina 27511
September 2022
SECTION 106 REVIEW REPORT
MODERNIZE, REPLACE, AND
INSTALL ELEVATORS
VA Central Western Massachusetts Healthcare
System, Northampton, Massachusetts
Project No. LOU-631-21-011
MODERNIZE, REPLACE, AND INSTALL ELEVATORS
VA Central Western Massachusetts Healthcare System,
Northampton, Massachusetts
Project No. LOU-631-21-011
SECTION 106 REVIEW REPORT
Principal Investigator:
Michael Robb
Prepared by:
Richard Grubb & Associates, Inc.
259 Prospect Plains Road, Building D
Cranbury, New Jersey 08512
Prepared for:
Apogee Consulting Group
1151 Kildaire Farm Road
Cary, North Carolina 27511
Date:
October 3, 2022
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................3
List of Figures and Photo Plates ........................................................................................................4
1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................1-1
2.0 Project Description .....................................................................................................................2-1
3.0 Description and Evaluation of Historic Resources...............................................................3-1
4.0 Assessment of Effects ...............................................................................................................4-1
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................................5-1
6.0 References ....................................................................................................................................6-1
Appendices:
Appendix A: Qualifications of the Principal Investigator
Appendix B: Project Plans
Appendix C: Summary of National Register Criteria of Adverse Effects
4
LIST OF FIGURES AND PHOTO PLATES
FIGURES:
Figure 1.1: U.S.G.S. map showing the project location ..........................................................................1-2
Figure 2.1: Aerial map of the project location ........................................................................................2-2
Figure 2.2: Rendering of the proposed exterior elevator wing that will be built on the south
elevation of Eagle (Building 25) ............................................................................................2-3
Figure 3.1: Aerial map showing building locations within the APE ....................................................3-3
Figure 3.2: Aerial map showing the APE and photograph locations and directions ........................3-4
PHOTO PLATES:
Plate 3.1: View of the east (primary) elevation of Mountain (Building 11) .....................................3-5
Plate 3.2: View of the west (primary) elevation of Eagle (Building 25) ...........................................3-5
Plate 3.3: View of the north elevation of Eagle (Building 25) ...........................................................3-6
Plate 3.4: View of the east (rear) elevation of Eagle (Building 25) ...................................................3-6
Plate 3.5: Oblique view of the east (rear) and south elevations of Eagle (Building 25)
showing the location of the proposed exterior elevator wing ..........................................3-7
Plate 3.6: View of the location of the proposed exterior elevator wing to be built on the
south elevation of Eagle (Building 25) .................................................................................3-7
Plate 3.7: South elevation of Eagle (Building 25) showing the location of the proposed
exterior elevator wing ..............................................................................................................3-8
Plate 3.8: View of the addition on the south elevation of Eagle (Building 25) at the
proposed location of the exterior elevator wing .................................................................3-8
Plate 3.9: Oblique view of the west (front) and south elevations of Eagle (Building 25)
and the proposed location for the exterior elevator wing ..................................................3-9
Plate 3.10: Partial view of the south elevation of Liberty (Building 1), looking from Eagle
(Building 25) ..............................................................................................................................3-9
Plate 3.11: View towards the east (rear) elevation of Meadow (Building 2) from Eagle
(Building 25) ............................................................................................................................3-10
Plate 3.12: View of the alley and east (rear) elevation of Meadow (Building 2), proximate
to Eagle (Building 25) ............................................................................................................3-10
Plate 3.13: View of the west (primary) elevation of Meadow (Building 2). Eagle (Building
25) is to the rear of Meadow (Building 2) ..........................................................................3-11
Plate 3.14: General overview of Maple (Building 3) with the exterior connecting corridor
in the foreground, which are situated across the campus to the west and
southwest from Eagle (Building 25) ....................................................................................3-11
Plate 3.15: General view of Pine (Building 5) and the exterior connecting corridor, which
is sited across the campus to the southwest of Eagle (Building 25) ..............................3-12
1-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
SECTION 1.0This report presents the results of an Intensive-level historic architectural survey for the proposed elevator improvements for two buildings at the Veterans Affairs (VA) Central Western Massachusetts Healthcare System (VA CWMHS) in Northampton, Massachusetts (Figure 1.1).
The project is being federally sponsored by the VA CWMHS with licensing and/or funding provided by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, thus requiring compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. This document was designed to contain sufficient data to facilitate an independent evaluation of eligibility and effects assessment for architectural history by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC). No archaeological survey is required for the proposed undertaking.
Research was conducted to locate previously identified historic properties and to identify the potential for additional unsurveyed resources over 50 years of age to exist within the Area of Potential Effects (APE). Background research consisted of a review of pertinent primary and secondary sources, including previous cultural resource surveys, historic maps and atlases, periodicals, newspapers, and local and county histories. Due to COVID-19 protocols and restrictions at the time of survey, much of the background research was collected from online sources.
Michael Robb served as the Principal Investigator for historic architecture. Michael Robb meets the professional qualifications standards of 36 CFR 61 set forth by the National Park Service (Appendix A). David Strohmeier produced the report graphics. Allee Davis and Natalie Maher edited the report and Ms. Maher formatted the report. Copies of this report and all field notes, photographs, and project maps are on file at the Richard Grubb & Associates, Inc. (RGA) headquarters in Cranbury, New Jersey.
1-2
Figure 1.1: U.S.G.S. map showing the project location
(2021 U.S.G.S. 7.5’ Quadrangle: Easthampton, MA).
0
Feet
2000-
Project Location
RICHARD GRUBB & ASSOCIATES
2-1
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SECTION 2.0The proposed project will include adding a new three-stop elevator to the interior of Mountain (Building 11) and adding a new three-stop elevator that will be built onto the exterior of the south elevation of Eagle (Building 25) (Figure 2.1; Appendix B). The goals of the proposed undertaking are to support day-to-day operations and to ensure that there will be an adequate number of functioning elevators during the time of the renovation, and to minimize disruption at the facilities while the work is performed.
The proposed exterior elevator wing for Eagle (Building 25) will replace an existing, non-historic wing addition (Figure 2.2). Matching the height of the existing building, the new wing will be built with a brick exterior envelope and be capped by a low-profile, gabled roof. Metal spandrel walls will be incorporated on the wing’s front (west) and south elevations. As part of this work, the existing accessibility ramp will be replaced with a new accessibility ramp that will extend from the landing and be constructed of poured concrete and feature metal rails.
2-2
Figure 2.1: Aerial map of the project location
(ESRI World Imagery 2021).OUTERO
V
A
LFRONTHILLROADBACKHILLROAD
NORTHMAINSTREETVETERANSHOSPITALFARM R O A D
V
ET
ERANS HOSPI
T
AL
S
ERV
I
CE ROAD0
Feet
300-
Mountain (Building 11)Eagle (Building 25)
RICHARD GRUBB & ASSOCIATES
2-3
Figure 2.2: Rendering of the proposed exterior elevator wing that will be built on the south elevation of
Eagle (Building 25)
(Apogee Consulting Group 2022).
RICHARD GRUBB & ASSOCIATES
3-1
3.0 DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION OF HISTORIC RESOURCES
SECTION 3.0Area of Potential EffectsThe APE includes locations that may be impacted by construction or that may experience effects once construction is completed. The APE was defined in accordance with the purpose and intent of 36 CFR 800.16(d), which defines the APE as “the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. The area of potential effects is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking.” Due to the topography and setting of the area, the APE for the proposed undertaking was limited to the boundaries of the VA CWMHS (Figure 3.1).
Project ApproachThe goals of the Intensive-level historic architectural survey were to identify all resources previously listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) inside the APE; to identify, survey, and evaluate the significance and integrity of previously unidentified and/or unevaluated resources more than 50 years of age according to NRHP Criteria; and to assess project effects on any listed or eligible historic properties according to the Criteria of Adverse Effect (36 CFR 800.9) (Appendix C). Fieldwork was conducted on March 8, 2022 (Figure 3.2; Plates 3.1-3.15. This work was performed in accordance with the MHC’s Historic Properties Survey Manual.
Description of Historic ResourcesThe project area falls within the NRHP-listed Northampton Veterans Administration Hospital Historic District (NRHP: 12/4/2012). The historic district encompasses approximately 105 acres, which contain 48 resources arranged in a campus-like setting with primary buildings situated atop a hill and support facilities at the bottom of the hill. Of the 48 resources, 27 contribute to the historic district. The historic district is listed under NRHP Criteria A and C and is significant in the areas of Politics and Government, Health and Medicine, and Architecture. The Northampton Veterans Administration Hospital Historic District was the first veterans hospital in the state and remains as an intact example of an early period neuropsychiatric Second-Generation Veterans Hospital. The first buildings erected on the campus were designed in stripped-down Colonial Revival and Dutch Colonial Revival styles and later buildings were predominantly modern and utilitarian in design. The period of significance for the district is 1922 to 1950.
Building 11 (Mountain) (Contributing) Building 11 is a two-story-tall, 11-bay-wide building with a brick exterior that was constructed in 1926 in the Classical Revival style (see Plate 3.11). Oriented to the northeast, the front elevation is composed of a large side-gabled central block flanked by front-gabled projections on either side. The central block has a large, open, recessed portico that is supported by four square posts with capitals and two side pilasters. The porch has a concrete deck with newer metal railings. The five bays within the portico each feature tall, multi-light, multi-part arched windows. The three central bays each contain single-leaf pedestrian entries set at the base of the windows. These pedestrian entries exhibit simple wood surrounds with pilasters and pediments. The entry on the southwest elevation is accessible via a connector from the 1980s exterior-connecting corridor. There are forward-facing projections at the ends of the front elevation that have vented lunettes with keystones, as well as cornice returns. The building rests on a raised, poured concrete foundation, and the roof is covered with slate shingles.
Building 25 (Eagle) (Contributing) Building 25 is a two-story-tall, nine-bay-wide, brick building, constructed in 1930 in the Classical Revival style (see Plates 3.2-3.39. This building features a hip-roofed, central block with two forward-facing, gable-roof sections at each end. The recessed central block has five arching bays stretching from the first to the second level. The first level features three-part
3-2
windows and the second level features three-part windows, which contain an arched, central window surrounded by narrow windows. A three-part, decorative spandrel is situated between the first- and second-level windows. The primary entry bay at the center of the front elevation has a replacement door with sidelights and a transom. The door surround is topped with a broken pediment and brackets. The integral porch shelters the central block and is supported by square columns and pilasters on each side. Poured concrete stairs and metal railings lead to the poured concrete deck. The south elevation has a 1.5-story, flat-roof addition and an enclosed staircase addition with brick exteriors, poured concrete foundations, and metal roofs and coping. The building has a shed-roof addition on the rear elevation with composite siding and a metal entry door near a small porch. The building retains a mix of windows, including double-hung, one-over-one replacement and original double-hung, six-over-six, frame windows.
3-3
Figure 3.1: Aerial map showing building locations within the APE
(ESRI World Imagery 2021).
NORTH
MAIN STREETRANGEROAD
OLDTROLLEYRO
A
D FRONTHILLROADHAYDENVILLE ROADOUTEROV
A
L
L O WER MEMORIAL PARKDRIVE BRIDGE ROAD
BACKHILLROAD
BOATROADVETERANSHOSPITA LFA R M R O AD
L
OWERPOOLROADU N D E RPASSROADFLORENCESTREET RANGEROAD0
Feet
500-
APE
RICHARD GRUBB & ASSOCIATES
3-4Figure 3.2: Aerial map showing the APE and photograph locations and directions (ESRI World Imagery 2021).OUTEROVALFRONTHILLROADBACKHILLROAD0FeetAPEXPhoto Location and Direction120-3.13.143.133.153.23.93.113.73.63.53.83.123.43.103.3RICHARD GRUBB & ASSOCIATES
3-5
Plate 3.1: View of the east
(primary) elevation of
Mountain (Building 11).
Photo view: Southwest
Photographer: Michael Robb
Date: March 8, 2022
Plate 3.2: View of the west
(primary) elevation of Eagle
(Building 25).
Photo view: Northeast
Photographer: Michael Robb
Date: March 8, 2022
RICHARD GRUBB & ASSOCIATES
3-6
Plate 3.3: View of the north
elevation of Eagle (Building
25).
Photo view: Southeast
Photographer: Michael Robb
Date: March 8, 2022
Plate 3.4: View of the east
(rear) elevation of Eagle
(Building 25).
Photo view: Northwest
Photographer: Michael Robb
Date: March 8, 2022
RICHARD GRUBB & ASSOCIATES
3-7
Plate 3.5: Oblique view of
the east (rear) and south
elevations of Eagle (Building
25) showing the location
of the proposed exterior
elevator wing.
Photo view: Northwest
Photographer: Michael Robb
Date: March 8, 2022
Plate 3.6: View of the
location of the proposed
exterior elevator wing to be
built on the south elevation
of Eagle (Building 25).
Photo view: Northwest
Photographer: Michael Robb
Date: March 8, 2022
RICHARD GRUBB & ASSOCIATES
3-8
Plate 3.7: South elevation of
Eagle (Building 25) showing
the location of the proposed
exterior elevator wing.
Photo view: Northeast
Photographer: Michael Robb
Date: March 8, 2022
Plate 3.8: View of the
addition on the south
elevation of Eagle (Building
25) at the proposed location
of the exterior elevator wing.
Photo view: Northeast
Photographer: Michael Robb
Date: March 8, 2022
RICHARD GRUBB & ASSOCIATES
3-9
Plate 3.9: Oblique view of
the west (front) and south
elevations of Eagle (Building
25) and the proposed
location for the exterior
elevator wing.
Photo view: Northeast
Photographer: Michael Robb
Date: March 8, 2022
Plate 3.10: Partial view of the
south elevation of Liberty
(Building 1), looking from
Eagle (Building 25).
Photo view: Northwest
Photographer: Michael Robb
Date: March 8, 2022
RICHARD GRUBB & ASSOCIATES
3-10
Plate 3.11: View towards
the east (rear) elevation of
Meadow (Building 2) from
Eagle (Building 25).
Photo view: Southeast
Photographer: Michael Robb
Date: March 8, 2022
Plate 3.12: View of the alley
and east (rear) elevation
of Meadow (Building 2),
proximate to Eagle (Building
25).
Photo view: Southeast
Photographer: Michael Robb
Date: March 8, 2022
RICHARD GRUBB & ASSOCIATES
3-11
Plate 3.13: View of the
west (primary) elevation of
Meadow (Building 2). Eagle
(Building 25) is to the rear of
Meadow (Building 2).
Photo view: Northeast
Photographer: Michael Robb
Date: March 8, 2022
Plate 3.14: General overview
of Maple (Building 3) with
the exterior connecting
corridor in the foreground,
which are situated across
the campus to the west
and southwest from Eagle
(Building 25).
Photo view: Northwest
Photographer: Michael Robb
Date: March 8, 2022
RICHARD GRUBB & ASSOCIATES
3-12
Plate 3.15: General view of
Pine (Building 5) and the
exterior connecting corridor,
which is sited across the
campus to the southwest of
Eagle (Building 25).
Photo view: Southwest
Photographer: Michael Robb
Date: March 8, 2022
RICHARD GRUBB & ASSOCIATES
4-1
4.0 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
SECTION 4.0The Northampton Veterans Administration Hospital Historic District is listed in the NR under Criterion A in the areas of Politics and Government as “the first veterans hospital in the state of Massachusetts constructed for the Veterans Bureau and for the intense campaign effort on the part of local and state organizations to acquire the veterans hospital for Northampton” (Spurlock et al 2012). The historic district is also listed under Criterion A in the areas of Health and Medicine “because of the physical evidence the hospital provides concerning health care offered to veterans of the state, primarily veterans of World War I and World War II” (Spurlock et al 2012).
In addition to Criterion A, the Northampton Veterans Administration Hospital Historic District is listed under Criterion C in the area of Architecture as a good example of a Period I neuropsychiatric Second Generation Veterans Hospital (Spurlock et al 2012). The character-defining features of this type of hospital include “a large campus size, usually situated in a rural area; groupings of buildings by function into three loosely formed clusters; patient ward buildings grouped around a courtyard or in a linear fashion; the main building serving as the focal point on the campus; and patient ward/treatment buildings that are smaller in massing and scale than the main building” (Spurlock et al 2012).
Despite alterations made to the campus over the years, such as a reduction in overall acreage, the demolition of original buildings, and the construction of modern infill, the historic district still retains historic integrity and reflects its significance under NR Criteria A and C. Many of the larger, more architecturally significant buildings that constitute the core of the hospital campus at the top of the hill remain and continue to serve as the visual focal point of the historic district. The proposed project will include adding a new three-stop elevator to the interior of Mountain (Building 11) and adding a new three-stop elevator to the exterior of Eagle (Building 25).
The proposed work at Mountain (Building 11) will be contained to the interior. No exterior work is included as part of the proposed upgrades to this building. Because the interiors of the contributing buildings are described as being altered in the NRHP Nomination Form for the Northampton Veterans Administration Hospital Historic District, the proposed interior work at Mountain (Building 11) is not anticipated to constitute an adverse effect to the NRHP-listed historic district (see Appendix A).
The proposed exterior work at Eagle (Building 25) is not expected to constitute an adverse effect to the Northampton Veterans Administration Hospital Historic District. As currently designed, the project includes a brick, three-floor elevator wing addition to be located on the south elevation, replacing the existing, non-historic wing addition. The proposed addition will extend the height of Eagle (Building 25); however, by placing the addition on a secondary (south) elevation, away from the front (west) elevation, and capping the addition with a low-profile, gabled roof, it will be deferential to the historic building in massing and scale and will not obscure or interrupt the historic roofline.
The proposed addition to Eagle (Building 25) will be built of brick on cast stone with a metal spandrel on the front (west) and south elevations. The brick and cast stone are meant to visually reference the historic materials of the building, while the metal spandrels will provide the needed differentiation to ensure the new work is discernable as a non-historic addition. The use of brick, cast stone, and metal are materials that are compatible with Eagle (Building 25) in style, durability, and quality. The new addition will also include a new accessibility ramp that will extend westward from a concrete landing and entry door on the front (west) elevation. The ramp will extend straight from the landing and will be constructed of poured concrete and include metal rails. The ramp will not obscure any historic features of the building. Although the ramp will be visible from Eagle (Building 25) and discreet sections of Liberty (Building 1) and Meadow (Building 2), its location on the south elevation, and behind the exterior-connecting corridor, will minimize its visual impact to the larger historic district.
4-2
Further lessening the potential for an adverse effect is Eagle’s (Building 25) location in a remote section of the VA CWMHS campus, near a wooded area with no pedestrian or vehicular access to the rear of the building, where the work is proposed. As such, its location does not afford the contributing building neither character-defining nor prominent viewsheds within the historic district, thereby diminishing the potential for adverse indirect visual impacts.
As a result, the proposed new work at Eagle (Building 25) is considered compatible in location, orientation, massing, scale, and materials with the Northampton Veterans Administration Hospital Historic District and consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI’s) Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards). The project is not expected to diminish the integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association that qualify the historic district for inclusion in the NRHP. As such, because the proposed new work at Mountain (Building 11) will be contained to the non-historic interior, and the new exterior work at Eagle (Building 25) appears to be consistent with the SOI’s Standards, it is recommended that the proposed project will not constitute an adverse effect to the Northampton Veterans Administration Hospital Historic District.
5-1
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SECTION 5.0An Intensive-level historic architectural survey was completed for the proposed elevator improvements for two buildings at the Veterans Affairs (VA) Central Western Massachusetts Healthcare System (VA CWMHS) in Northampton, Massachusetts.
The Intensive-level historic architectural survey consisted of background research and field reconnaissance to identify historic architectural resources within the Area of Potential Effects (APE). The project area falls within the National Register of Historic Places-listed Northampton Veterans Administration Hospital Historic District (NR: 12/4/2012). Interior work to complete elevator improvements is proposed for Mountain (Building 11). The interior of this building lacks historic integrity. The proposed work on the exterior at Eagle (Building 25) is considered compatible in location, orientation, massing, scale, and materials with the Northampton Veterans Administration Hospital Historic District and consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Because of this, the proposed project should not constitute an adverse effect to the Northampton Veterans Administration Hospital Historic District. No further cultural resources survey is recommended.
6-1
6.0 REFERENCES
SECTION 6.0Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI)2021 World Street Map, Geographic Information System data. http://server.arcgisonline.com/ArcGIS/rest/services/World_Street_Map/MapServer, Accessed February 15, 2018.
Nationwide Environmental Title Research (NETR)2010 Aerial photograph, Northampton Veterans Affairs Medical Center vicinity. Electronic document, www.historicaerials.com. Accessed, May, 2022.2012 Aerial photograph, Northampton Veterans Affairs Medical Center vicinity. Electronic document, www.historicaerials.com. Accessed, May, 2022.
Spurlock, Trent, Matthew D. McMahan, Rachel Bankowitz, Ann Marie P. Doyon, and Holly Higgins2012 Northampton Veterans Administration Hospital Historic District. National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination Form. Cultural Resource Analysis, Inc., Lexington, Kentucky.
United States Geological Survey (U.S.G.S.)2021 7.5’ Quadrangle: Easthampton, MA.
APPENDIX A: QUALIFICATIONS OF THE PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Professional Experience Summary:
Michael Robb’s experience includes historical research and writing, architectural surveys and analysis, and Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS)/Historic American Engineering
Record (HAER) documentation, materials conservation, preparation of Historic Tax Credit
Applications, and preservation planning. Mr. Robb has prepared and directed cultural resources surveys in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as
amended, NEPA, and other municipal and state cultural resource regulations. Mr. Robb’s educational and professional experience exceed the qualifications set forth in the Secretary of
Interior’s Standards for an Architectural Historian [36 CFR 61].
Representative Project Experience:
NJ Route 23 Bridge HAER Recordation, Borough of Kinnelon, Morris County, New Jersey (Sponsor: NJDOT) Architectural Historian for the historic architectural
documentation of the NJ Route 23 Bridge over Pequannock River prior to its proposed demolition of the National Register-eligible historic resource. The work was completed as part
of cultural resources mitigation of the bridge that spans the New York Susquehanna and
Western Railroad Historic District.
US Route 22, NJ Route 82, and Garden State Parkway Interchange HAER
Recordation, Union Township, Union County, New Jersey (Sponsor: NJDOT) Architectural Historian for the historic architectural documentation of the US Route 22, NJ
Route 82, and Garden State Parkway Interchange prior to the proposed demolition of the
bridges within the National Register-eligible historic resource. The work was completed as part of cultural resources mitigation of the interchange that contains US Route 22, NJ Route
82 and the Garden Sate Parkway.
Columbia VA section 106 Coordination, Columbia, Richland County, SC (Sponsor: VA) Architectural Historian for the Section 106 survey, documentation, and effects
assessments new HVAC system at Dorn VA. Conducted field survey and worked with designers with the goal of meeting the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the HVAC
rehabilitation at the historic campus.
Northampton Leeds VA, Northampton, Hampshire County, MA (Sponsor: VA)
Architectural Historian for the Section 106 survey, documentation, and effects assessments
new elevator and IT systems at Leeds VA. Conducted field survey and worked with designers
with the goal of meeting the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the new elevators, new data
center and IT rehabilitation at the historic campus.
VAMC Manchester HABS Recordation, Manchester, Hillsborough County, NH
(Sponsor: VA) Architectural Historian for the historic architectural documentation of the
Manchester VA buildings 3,5, and 6 prior to the demolition of the National Register-eligible
historic resource. The work will coincide with additional mitigation including planning
documents, and interpretive signage.
MMIICCHHAAEELL RROOBBBB
SSEENNIIOORR AARRCCHHIITTEECCTTUURRAALL HHIISSTTOORRIIAANN ((3366 CCFFRR 6611))
YEARS OF EXPERIENCE:
With this firm:
2021-Present
With other firms: 8
EDUCATION:
BA 2011
University of North
Carolina- Chapel Hill
Peace, War, and Defense
BA 2011
University of North
Carolina- Chapel Hill
History
PROFESSIONAL
TRAINING:
ACHP Section 106
Essentials
PROFESSIONAL
ORGANIZATIONS:
Society for Military
History
Vernacular Architecture
Forum
American Alliance of
Museums
Mid-Atlantic Association
of Museums
APPENDIX B: PROJECT PLANS
APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA OF
ADVERSE EFFECTS
1. Criteria of Adverse Effects
Whenever a historic property may be affected by a proposed undertaking, Federal agency officials must assess whether the project constitutes an adverse effect on the historic property by applying the criteria of adverse effect. According to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the criteria of adverse effect (36 CFR 800.5), is as follows:
1) An adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that would qualify it for inclusion in the National Register, in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Consideration shall be given to all qualifying characteristics of a historic property, including those that may have been identified subsequent to the original evaluation for the property’s eligibility for the National Register. Adverse effects may include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time, be farther removed in distance or cumulative.
2) Adverse effects on historic properties include, but are not limited to (36 CFR 800.5(a)(2)):
• Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property;
• Alteration of a property, including restoration, rehabilitation, repair, maintenance, stabilization, hazardous material remediation and provision of handicapped access, that is not consistent with the Secretary’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (36 CFR part 68) and applicable guidelines;
• Removal of the property from its historic location;
• Change of the character of the property’s use or of physical features within the property’s setting that contribute to its historic significance;
• Introduction of visual, atmospheric or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property’s significant historic features;
• Neglect of a property which causes its deterioration, except where such neglect and deterioration are recognized qualities of a property of religious and cultural significance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization; and
• Transfer, lease, or sale of property out of Federal ownership or control without adequate and legally enforceable restrictions or conditions to ensure long-term preservation of the property’s historic significance.
A finding of adverse effect or no adverse effect could occur based on the extent of alteration to a historic property, and the proposed treatment measures to mitigate the effects of a proposed undertaking. According to 36 CFR 800.5(3)(b):
The agency official, in consultation with the SHPO/THPO, may propose a finding of no adverse effect when the undertaking’s effects do not meet the criteria of § 800.5(a)(1) or the undertaking is modified or conditions are imposed, such as the subsequent review of plans for rehabilitation by the SHPO/THPO to ensure consistency with the Secretary’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (36 CFR part 68) and applicable guidelines, to avoid adverse effects.