Loading...
Bridge Street Cemetery Master Plan Part 1 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan HISTORICAL CHRONOLOGY Beginnings - Before 1661 1653. Twenty-four men (23 from Connecticut, 1 from Dorchester) petitioned the General Court of Massachusetts for permission to “plant, possess, and inhabit the place being on the Connecticut River th above Springfield called Nonotuck as their own inheritance.” (300, 3) ca. 1654. Nonotuck was established by 20 families -- the second plantation established within the limits of Massachusetts on the Connecticut River. (DAR, 27) The first home lots were laid off King, Pleasant, Market and Hawley Streets. The people of Nonotuck established a burial place in accordance with the English tradition, in the churchyard, interring 10 individuals between 1654 and 1661. (DAR, 91) th 1655. The first death occurred, that of James Bridgman (June 14). (DAR, 91, Trumbull, I, 125). Five other deaths occurred between 1655 and 1658/59, and the whereabouts of their burial is unknown. (Trumbull, I, 125) 1656. The first meeting house, located on Meeting House Hill, was constructed -- the second to be constructed west of Lancaster -- the first being Springfield’s (1646). It was believed to have faced easterly from the brow of the hill (much more abrupt than it is today). 1659. In February, the town voted “that the burying place shalbee upon meeting howse hill.” Establishment - 1661 - 1832 1661. The town voted that no more burials should be made near the Meeting House. “Ten acres of land were set apart on the “Pine plain, sequestered for a perpetuall standing lot for the ministry and never to be Altered but to Contynew successively to that function for the encouragement of the ministry in the towne of Northampton.” Revenue from this grant was to be an addition to the minister’s salary. (DAR, 92) In the same year, the town voted to build a new meeting house, to accommodate a growing population. This time, it is believed the doors faced south. (DAR, 29) (Graves moved at this time?) A-1 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan 1662. A committee that had been chosen to select a new spot for a burying ground reported that they favored a location on Bridge Street, “at the furthest corner of the Sequestered Mynisters Lott wher Mrs. Jeanes was buried.” Mary Janes had died on April 4, 1662, and was interred in this location, probably in anticipation of the location being reserved as a burying ground (Trumbull, I, 125). This early burying ground was located at the northeast corner of the older section of the cemetery. 1663. A definitively bound burial place was selected. (DAR, 91) 1668. The town voted to fence in the cemetery. (DHG, 7/2/1934) 1713. On May 1, a committee was appointed to “find who it is that hath encroached upon the sequestered land on the pine plain and also to contrive about fencing the burial place with stone.” (DHG, 7/2/1934) 1714. On May 14, the town voted to fence with stone wall ten rods square (160 square feet). (DHG, 7/2/1934) 1735. The town voted to build a third place of worship and work on the structure began in 1736. It was located in the center of the highway. (DAR, 29) This structure was known as the “Jonathan Edwards Church,” as the preacher presided here at that time (1727-1750). 1747. The town voted to build a new fence and to fix the bounds (lines decided upon in 1748). (DHG, 7/2/1934) 1774. A new wall was constructed around the burying ground. (DHG, 7/2/1934) 1783. According to Trumbull, “it became necessary to define carefully the limits of this “sequestered lott,” because adjoining owners had taken liberties with it.” A committee was appointed to arrange for fencing the lot, which measured tenn rods square (0.625 acre). This was enclosed by a wall, probably composed of loose stones gathered upon the commons, and piled in the usual manner of an agricultural fence (stone wall).” (DAR, 91) 1788. The West Farms Cemetery was established on West Farms Road (Loneville). (Lambert, 143) 1802. The fence was enlarged. (DHG, 7/2/1934) 1811. The town voted to erect a fourth meeting house. Located at the corner of State and Main Streets, the structure was built by Isaac Damon. (DAR, 33) A-2 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan Enlargement and Embellishment - 1814 - 1899 ca 1814. A portion from the main avenue, westerly to Pine Street was added. (DAR, 91) 1815. The Seth Wright tomb was erected. (DAR, 96) 1818. The original stone fence (wall) was rebuilt in a more substantial fashion, with costs including stone, laying of stone, moving stone. (Trumbull, I, 546) Note: Sylvester Judd stated that the old burying yard was only 8 rods wide at the north or north-easterly end, and about 25 yards wide at the opposite side and not far from 40 rods on the north line. It likely contained 4.5 to 5 acres. (Trumbull, I, 546) 1825. The Park Street Cemetery was established in Florence. (Lambert, 143) 1833. Five acres were added stretching from Pine Street to the Tool House. (DAR, 91) (on the northwesterly side - Trumbull, I, 546). 1848. The Ansel Wright tomb was erected. (DAR, 96) 1849. The town receiving tomb was built (date on keystone). 1856. The TAR reported expenses made to repair the Town Tomb and to pay W. F. Pratt for a plan for the cemetery. (TAR, 18) 1857. The TAR reported expenses made to paint the fence and to have plans made “for same.” (TAR, 21) 1861. The TAR reported expenses for painting the fence and repairing the Town Tomb lock. (TAR, 21) 1863. The TAR reported expenses made to make repairs on the Town Tomb. (TAR, 19) 1864. John Clarke gave an old pasture, through which ran a brook (now covered) to add to the total acreage. (DAR, 91) 1865. The TAR reported, “[t]he platting of Mr. Clarke’s addition to the cemetery has been completed, and a plan drawn with the price of each plat affixed. In adopting a scale of prices, it was our aim to put the plats as low as possible and secure a sufficient amount to cover the expenses already incurred by the town, and for fencing and making such other improvements as may be necessary.” “The total amount which the town has expended upon the cemetery is $4,513.57, and the amount received from sale of plats $770.00.” A-3 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan “Mr. Clarke has during the past year, at an expense to himself of two hundred and fifty dollars, planted a large number of evergreen trees upon it.” “For the convenience of the public, we have left the plan with S. <. Smith & Co., where those desiring to secure plats, can select them and received their certificate of ownership.” (TAR, 9) 1866. The TAR reported expenses for repairs on the Town Tomb. (TAR, 17) 1867. A child of historian Sylvester Judd wrote about the “new part” of the cemetery in Judd’s last journal, volume eight. It included a description of the family’s decision to buy a series of lots in this section, and noted that the section has been laid out in a grid, regraded and leveled. It was, from the Judd family’s perspective, really ugly. The family ended up bringing 50 loads of earth to build up the land around their family plot to make it more attractive. 1869. The TAR reported: “An appropriation of five hundred dollars was made for the improvement to the cemetery. The iron fence which was built a few years since through the liberality of Mr. John Clarke; needed repairs, and the fence on the west side was most entirely gone.” “The iron fence has been thoroughly repaired and painted, and a new picket fence built on the west side; the whole expense somewhat exceeding the appropriation. It is well known that for many years that Mr. Clarke had felt a deep interest in the improvement of the cemetery, and had contributed largely for the object; but a few days before his death, he proposed to the selectmen to pay $100 towards the expense of building and fence on the west side, and they were negotiating for it when he died; by his last will he gives the town $2,000 to be applied for the adornment and improvement of the cemetery. In accepting this, with his other bequests to the town, we would recommend the appointment of a committee to have to special care of improving and adorning the cemetery. We have no good reason for believing there are others who would be glad to contribute to a fund for this purpose, some of whom, no longer residents of our town, take great satisfaction in visiting the last resting place of their friends.” (TAR, 5) 1870. The TAR listed expenses for “cement pipe for well.” (TAR, 23) 1871. The TAR listed expenses for “pump.” (TAR, 23) 1873. The “Florence Cemetery” is first mentioned in the TAR. (24) A-4 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan 1874. The TAR listed expenses for building and painting 57.25 rods of division fence. (TAR, 36) 1875. The TAR listed expenses for paying Smith & Stevens for a 712-ft. fence on Pine Street, and also for paying White & Little to create a survey and plan of “Clarke’s Addition.” (TAR, 25) The Isaac Chapman Bates chapel tomb was erected. (DAR, 96) Bates had died in 1873, but his widow, Frances Atwill Bates, oversaw the completion, expending $5,000 on construction. (DHG, 11.19.1987) On November 30, the Daily Hampshire Gazette reported on the funeral of Isaac C. Bates: “Last Wednesday, at 2 P. M., the body of Isaac C. Bates was taken from its temporary resting place in the town tomb, and conveyed to the new and beautiful family chapel-tomb, recently erected… “The tomb is in the form of a Greek cross, built of drab colored Nova Scotia stone. It is about 20 feet square and 35 feet high outside. There are receptacles for three bodies, made of Italian marble slabs, about two feet high and large enough to admit a casket, after which they are sealed up. The one on the left of the entrance contains the body of the father. Immediately over, and cut into the side of the tomb, is a marble tablet on which is the following inscription in gilded letters: “Here rests the body of Isaac Chapman Bates, born at Northampton, October 22, 1817, died at Saratoga, Sept. 24, 1875.” “Directly in front of the entrance is the body of the son, above which is a like tablet inscribed as follows: “Here rests the body of Arthur Edward Bates, the only and much loved child of Isaac Chapman, and Fanny Atwill Bates. He was born at Aix la Chapelle, Prussia, March 5, 1853, and died at Paris, France, April 28, 1873. Requiescat in pace.” On the right, and opposite the receptacle occupied by the body of Mr. Bates is an empty one finished like the others. Over each is a stained emblematico glass window, of beautiful design, the one over the son represents the Saviour. On the interior angles are carved broken palm branches. The floor is of tile laid in an elegant design, in the center of which is a ventilator by which fresh air is supplied to the building from an opening in each of the four corners. The dome is of stone and bronze, and also contains a ventilator, the whole is surmounted by a bronze cross. The doors are solid bronze and alone cost $2,700. Directly over the door, cut in the bronze casing, is: “Requiescat in pace.” Still higher up, in raised stone letters is the family name, “Bates,” over which is carved a raised stone wreath capped by a cross. In the four outside angles of the cross are carved wreaths of laurel.” “The tomb will not be entirely completed for about two weeks, after which it will be occasionally opened for public inspection.” A-5 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan “The contract for building this tomb was awarded to Messrs. Morgan & Anderson of Brooklyn, N. Y. The architect was R. N. Upjohn of New York. The total cost of building it has been $25,000. It is located near the south entrance, within plain sight of the road.” In 1987, an article in the Daily Hampshire Gazette claimed that the tomb was originally painted pink. (DHG, 11/19/1987) 1876. The Meeting House (church) burned. 1877. The TAR reported: “In 1971 the town appointed Silas M. Smith, M. M. French, and H. K Starkweather to a committee on the cemetery, with instructions to report their doings, to be printed with the annual report of the selectmen. (TAR, 38) 1878. The TAR reported: “The [cemetery] committee would like to express their thanks to the owners of plats who have co-operated so readily with them in all improvements.” The committee also acknowledged Charles Maynard, Esq., “for his liberality in presenting the town the beautiful fountain which now stands in the cemetery, as well as the other improvements which have been made by his liberality and taste.” (74) Expenses listed in the TAR include the cost of water pipe and laying pipe and repairs and painting the tomb and fence. The Gothic style brownstone church that stands today was completed. (DAR, 35) 1883. Northampton became a city and elected its first mayor. The city voted to buy lots from John Samuel Wright to enlarge the cemetery, and to prepare a plan of lots. (DHG, 7/2/1934) Spring Grove Cemetery was established on North Maple Street. (Lambert, 143) 1884. The City Annual Report (CAR) reported that cemetery committee had been expanded to include six members. (xi) An ordinance for the cemetery was established and was included in the City Report. (301) Also: “The committee in charge of the cemetery on Bridge Street have had the iron fence extended across the space left open by the tearing down of the two district school houses. Also, a new brick tool house has been built in place of the old wooden one burned down. (24) Northampton established a City Improvement Committee. A-6 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan 1888. The CAR listed six members of the Cemetery Committee. (CAR, 13) 1891. The Mayor’s address to the City in the CAR included a section on the cemeteries: “Before I ever dreamed that I should have any official connection with the cemeteries of the city, I often visited the Spring Grove at Florence and the Bridge Street, simply to take a look at the last resting place of many of those I knew and admired in life. That at Florence was neatly and appropriately kept. I am sorry that I cannot say as much for the Bridge Street Cemetery, though for the last few years there has been a marked improvement. Many of the plots were in a neglected condition, and suggested that the families were extinct, or that the survivors had moved from the Commonwealth. The income from the cemetery ought to be sufficient to keep it in a condition that would render the place neat, attractive, and inviting to those who fondly visit the long and silent home of their beloved dead.” (CAR, 33) 1892. The Mayor’s address referred to the cemetery: “Last year I called attention to the Bridge Street Cemetery. The beautiful and substantial iron fence, partly surrounding it, was donated and erected, many years ago, be the big hearted and public spirited John Clarke, deceased. This year a similar fence was continued on Pine Street at an expense to the city of about $1,900. Other needed improvements have been made, and the thanks of the people are due to the efficient cemetery committee for the neat and tidy appearance of the last resting place of the dead.” (CAR, 30) 1894. On May 11, the Daily Hampshire Gazette reported on cemetery expansion in an article entitled, “Opponent of Bridge Street Cemetery Enlargement Say Go Out Of Town For Burials.” “The cemetery committee reported in favor on enlarging the Bridge Street Cemetery, but several objected, and the matter was laid on the table till next meeting…H. G. Maynard of the cemetery committee appeared and reported in favor of buying the J. R. Clark and Joseph Graves land of 4.5 acres, bordering the north of the old Bridge Street Cemetery. Alderman Warner raised the question whether it would not be better to spend the money in buying and fitting up a new and larger cemetery, farther out of the city. Mr. Maynard thought this addition would last about 50 years. Ex-Mayor Cook spoke against the proposed addition, saying it was on low ground, and in an unfavorable location. He thought the cemetery ought not to be enlarged, but that the city should either use Spring Grove Cemetery or buy a new lot farther out, as other cities have done. Mail Carrier Toohey spoke against it, saying that Mr. Gaylord and Dr. Hoadley and others thought the cemetery should not be enlarged, as it was now too near the city, and had retarded the growth of the locality. Dr. Seymour thought it would be dangerous to the health of the neighborhood if it was enlarged. Mr. Maynard spoke again, saying that the A-7 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan sentiment of lot buyers was against going into the outskirts, adding that Bridge Street People had generally signed the petition for the enlargement. Mr. Toohey said Mr. Graves said e would try for damage if they didn’t buy his lot, and Marcus Norton said if the bought Graves’ lot he would have damage and he wouldn’t sell his lot for a cemetery anyway.” 1898. The Daily Hampshire Gazette reported again on the lack of burial space at the Bridge Street Cemetery (March 29): The cemetery committee of the city met at the office of Oliver Walker yesterday afternoon and reorganized with Charles A. Maynard chairman and Watson L. Smith secretary. Two questions of considerable importance received attention. One was in relation to the funds held in trust for the care of cemetery lots. Money is often left by will to be held by the city in trust for such purposes and these amounts have accumulated until it is now about $7,000. The money is in separate amounts and is invested in many different places. City Treasurer Clark recommended that the money be consolidated in one fund for convenience in caring for it. The matter was referred to him to devise a plan for this under the advice of the city solicitor. The city will soon face the problem of securing more land for cemetery purposes. It was reported to the committee that only about 20 lots remain unsold in the Bridge Street Cemetery…” Modernization - 1900 - 1954 1900. A strip of land adjoining Orchard Street was added. (DAR, 91) This action was confirmed in a Daily Hampshire Gazette article on June th 18: “The people who have recently bought building lots on the west side of Orchard Street are provoked by the city buying a strip of land adjoining for the enlargement of the Bridge Street Cemetery. The land bought is 40 wide and 800 feet long, and will bring the cemetery nearly in to the back dooryards of those who build homes on these lots. Several years ago when the city talked of buying land for the cemetery, the people living in that vicinity made such strong opposition that the project was abandoned, apparently for good. The cemetery committee, in its second move, was more discreet than it was when it first agitated the question of enlarging the cemetery. The sale was practically effected before the people knew anything about the transaction, too late for their “kicking” to avail anything. The land bought will be divided in to about 150 lots. As many of the old families in the city have lots within the limits of the present cemetery, the additional lots will be sufficient for the demand of burial lots for the present generation at least.” 1911. Additional land was purchased from H. L. Hinckley. (DAR, 91) This transaction was opposed Ward Three residents, as reported in the th October 6 edition of the Daily Hampshire Gazette: A-8 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan “A paper has been in circulation during the past few days in the form of a petition praying that the Hinckley lot, recently purchased by the cemetery committee, be not used for burial purposes. The paper has a number of signatures in ward three, it is understood and will be presented to the committee and possibly to the city government in case the former pass upon it adversely. Charles A. Maynard, chairman of the cemetery committee, has reviewed the case briefly for the Gazette, stating that the lot had been bought as an addition to the Bridge Street Cemetery and plans were formed immediately to beautify the grounds. Residents of North and Orchard Streets objected strenuously to allowing the use of the lot for burial purposed and offers were made for the lot. In justification for refusing to sell, however, Mr. Maynard points out that another lot as large and as conveniently situated for another cemetery would be difficult to find, and it would undoubtedly be necessary to go into the country and then again a complete new force of men would be necessary to care for it, while under present conditions the same caretakers will be employed at no additional expense to the city. The chairman of the cemetery committee says that the Hinckley lot will be used and that trees will be planted along North and Orchard Streets with shrubs along the sidewalk line and that the grounds will in fact, be fixed up in first class condition and that it will not depreciate the value of property nor make residence near it less desirable.” th A second article appeared on November 11: “Aldermen Godfrey, Collins and Parsons, members of the committee that was appointed by the board of aldermen at its last meeting, held a conference Saturday night for the purpose of considering the petition against the extension of the Bridge Street Cemetery toward North and orchard Streets. Among those who appeared and gave their reasons for opposing it were Geo. Norton, Harry Roberts, B. E. Cook, W. H. Richardson, Jeremiah Twohig, Napoleon Brais and A. Desmarias, all of whom own property in that locality. George Norton said the proximity of the cemetery would greatly reduce the value of property in that locality for it would make it a less desirable part of the city to live in. He said his place on the opposite corner cost him $6,000 and he felt that the nearness of the cemetery with gravestones almost under his bedroom windows would prevent him from selling his property for nowhere near what it cost him. He said he would buy the property the cemetery committee bought and pay the as much as they paid for it. Others who opposed the extension would unite with him. In case it was bought, it was suggested that each abutter sell a strip on Orchard Street and North for building lots and that the remainder of the land be used for cemetery purposes. The others who spoke based their objections to the extension of the cemetery on the same grounds Mr. Norton did and advocated that the cemetery committee purchase land outside the city and have a separate burying ground. No decision was reached by the committee. The committee will visit the locality before making a report to the city council.” 1922. The Cemetery Committee was chaired by Charles E. Childs, and reported the following: A-9 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan “At the Bridge Street Cemetery all the main drives having been resurfaced with gravel, are now in good condition. Trees have been trimmed and many old stumps removed. The iron fence, neglected for years, is in bad condition, but early in the spring of 1923 it will be thoroughly scraped and painted.” (CAR, 317) 1923. (Report of the Cemetery Committee) The Bridge Street Cemetery is in excellent condition. Many old and in some cases damaged trees have been taken out and those remaining have been carefully trimmed. It was the intention of your Committee to have the iron fence painted, but owing to the small sale of lots sufficient funds were not available. It is probable, however, that much needed work can be done in 1924. If the fence could be continued from the Bridge Street corner along the boundary line, which separates the Cemetery from the rear yards of the houses on Orchard Street, many lots, becoming more desirable, would be sold. Under existing conditions this is impossible. (CAR, 45) 1928. Expenses were listed for purchase of trees and shrubs. (CAR, 63) 1929. Expenses were listed for repairing fence. (CAR, 66) 1930. Expenses were listed for pruning trees. (CAR, 66) 1931. A committee on trust funds began reporting on status of cemetery funds. In 1931, Bridge Street funds included the John Clarke Cemetery Fund, Maria N. Dewey Cemetery Fund, Frances A. Clark Bridge Street Cemetery Fund, Bates Tomb and Lot Fund, and Luther A. Clark Bridge Street Cemetery Chapel Fund. (CAR, 83) 1934. The Luther Clarke Memorial Chapel was built at a cost of $23,612.00. A Daily Hampshire Gazette article from May described the structure: “The chapel building, with exterior of Georgia Marble, has a seating capacity of 96 in the stationary seats, while an additional 25 or more can be accommodated by placing chairs in front of the other seats. In addition, the family room to the front of the main room has a seating capacity of 15 to 18. The stationary seats, similar to pews, 16 in number, eight on each side, are of the old English type of seat, while the colored windows and woodwork are of the English Gothic type. The woodwork is of dark oak and floor is of quartered oak. The walls are of carpet finish plaster of cream color and there are attractive electrical fixtures. The chapel main room is at the Bridge Street end of the chapel, the seats facing toward Parsons street. The family room is at the front of the Parsons street end. At the Bridge street end of the interior is a Georgia marble marker inscribed: ” The basement vault has] room for 30 bodies. The vault is about 30 feet long, 22 feet wide and nine feet high. The walls are solid concrete and are about 14 inches thick. Adjoining the vault is the basement A-10 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan room which houses the heating equipment…There is a small space on the main floor of the chapel for officiating clergymen to hang hats and coats. The building also has washroom and lavatory on the main floor.” (DHG, 5/1934) A drainage system was laid in the Bridge Street Extension through an ERA project, including tiles, 8 catch basins and 6 manholes. “The committee recommend that the work of grading in the Bridge Street Cemetery Extension be continued through an ERA project and the lots put in condition for sale. The entire area should then be fenced in. (CAR, 140) 1935. Expenses were listed for cleaning, water proofing and painting the Bates tomb; repairing the bridge Street fence; new sidewalk at Luther Clarke Chapel; light, heat and elevator at Luther Clarke Chapel. The Committee also noted that $2,900 had been voted by the City for material for the Bridge Street Extension and most of this was spent on water pipe, sewer pipe, and grading (the section is now ready for sale of lots). Additionally, the Committee recommended that $1,300 be appropriated (by the City) for the erection of a fence around the new extension at the Bridge Street Cemetery. “This section of land is now graded and seeded and lots are marked out ready to be sold and it is very necessary that this fence be erected before any lots are sold.” (CAR, 312) 1936. The Cemetery Committee report noted that money was being earned through rent of the Luther Clarke Chapel. Recommendations for the coming year (1937) included fencing for the Extension, providing a service building and office, and a water system. “We suggest that the water system for Bridge Street Cemetery be considered under WPA project and the service building and office under a PWA project. (CAR, 223) 1937. “Your committee wishes again to bring to your attention our need of suitable quarters for an office, service building and a storage yard, and we suggest the purchase of the Richardson property at 129 North Street, which can be acquired at a very reasonable figure at the present time…Bridge Street Cemetery is badly in need of a water system and we suggest that it be considered under a WPA project. (CAR, 241) 1938. Expenses were listed for repairing the Bridge Street Cemetery fence. The Committee made the same plea to the City/Mayor for the erection of the office, service building and storage yard. (CAR, 263-4) 1939. Similar expenses and plea as listed in 1938. (276-77) 1943. Expenses were listed for painting the Bates Tomb. (CAR, 282) A-11 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan 1947. “We again recommend the erection of service building at the Bridge Street Cemetery. At present we have to rent the use of a building for storage of two trucks and the miscellaneous equipment used in the cemetery.” (CAR, 114) 1948. The same plea was made (see 1947). (CAR, 99) 1949. The same plea was made again. Also, “[t]he fence along Parsons Street and Bridge Street at the Bridge Street Cemetery should be replaced. The present fence has deteriorated to the point that it is a waste of money to repair it.” (118) 1950. p. 110. The same plea was made again. Also, “[t]he fence along Parsons Street and Bridge Street at the Bridge Street Cemetery should be replaced as it has deteriorated to the point that it is a waste of money to repair it. This fence is about seventy-five years old and was given to the cemetery by John Clarke, founder of the Clarke School.” 1951. Same report at 1950, including, “[t]he cost of a galvanized wire fence to replace the present one has increased by $750.00 over a year ago.” (CAR, 110) 1952. “The wire fence along the 1900 Addition of the Bridge Street Cemetery was painted this year.” Also, the Committee was still recommending that a service building be constructed. (CAR, 290) 1953. “At the Bridge Street Cemetery one very large elm tree near the Bates Tomb was badly diseased and was taken down. Four hundred and seventy-five feet of chain link fence five feet high was erected along Parsons Street. It will take sixteen hundred and nineteen feet more and forty feet of gates to replace the rest of the old iron fence along Parsons and Bridge Streets. We hope to erect part of it in 1954.” Also, the Committee was still recommending that a service building be constructed. (CAR, 384) 1954. “At Bridge Street nine hundred forty-two feet of chain link fence five feet high was erected along Parsons Street to the main gates.” (CAR, 345) Decline - 1955 - 2006 1955. “On account of the increased cost of chain link fence, we were unable to erect the balance (698 feet) of the fence and the three gates at Bridge Street Cemetery. Two thousand dollars was appropriated for this project, and it has been carried over to 1956. We have asked for more funds in our 1956 budget to complete this project.” “Heavy rains and water flooding into the cemeteries from the streets damaged lots causing many settled graves.” A-12 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan “There was considerable vandalism at the Bridge Street Cemetery. Twelve pieces of glass were broken in the leaded glass windows of the Clark Memorial Chapel. Two large pieces of glass were broken in the roof of the Bates Tomb. This damage was done by children throwing stones and this was reported to the police station.” The Committee again made a plea for a service building. (CAR, 341) 1957. The Committee again made a plea for a service building. (CAR, 124) 1958. The Committee again made a plea for a service building. (CAR, 115) 1959. The Committee again made a plea for a service building. (CAR, 91) 1961. “A tool house and one-car garage is urgently needed in Bridge Street Cemetery. Facilities there are entirely inadequate.” (CAR, 74) Also in this year, a consolidated Board of Public Works was created and absorbed the work of the former Cemetery Committee. 1964. The Board of Public Works reported, “[a] new garage and utility building was constructed by city forces from the Equipment Maintenance Division at the Bridge Street Cemetery at a cost of under $5,000.” Also, “[t]he Bates Tomb was painted and new wiring and electrical service installed to the Clark Chapel. (CAR, 391) 1965. Widespread removal of elms took place in response to the Dutch Elm Disease. 1982. The DHG reported that the DPW was preparing to give the Bates Tomb a facelift, including cleaning the façade. (DHG, 11/3/1982) Restoration took place five years later (according to the DHG), with the exterior stone being preserved in its natural state with a special sealer. (DHG, 11/19/1987) 1987. In July, the DHG reported that the Board of Public Works had voted unanimously to demolish the Luther Clark Chapel. “Bricks are breaking and sliding down the roof of the building, and frost has pried loose the giant pink marble stones. The chapel’s roof is leaking and a back section has caved in. Inside, the oak veneer paneling and some plaster had fallen off the walls, and the pews were cracked. The floor had almost caved in and the organ was useless.” In August, the Springfield Union News reported that an effort was being made to save the chapel from demolition. (SUN, 8/10/1987) In September, the Historical Commission met to review proposals to replace the crumbling Luther A. Clark Memorial Chapel with a A-13 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan “usable monument.” The Daily Hampshire Gazette reported that, “[b]ricks are falling from the top of the chapel and a back section of the roof has caved in. Frost heaves have pried apart the giant marble stones, so that members of the Board of Public Works have voiced concern the building is fast becoming a safety hazard.” Restoration was priced at $200,000. The Historical Commission suggested that the monument be usable, with a podium or platform for speeches. (DHG, 8/10/1987) 1988. In June, the DHG reported that the chapel was being razed. “Inside the dark and somewhat eerie chapel, an organ had fallen through the floor into the cellar where there had been a vault for winter coffin storage. Paneling and plaster from the walls were loose, the hanging lamps rusted, the leaded glass windows broken, and the pews, removed now, cracked and worthless…All that will be taken to the city’s landfill.” The Georgian marble, used to build the façade, was reserved in part for construction of a memorial, and the remainder taken away by the contractor. (DHG, 6/2/1988) 1989. The “Clark Chapel Committee” announced a design contest for a memorial to be built on the site of the Luther Clark chapel, to be built of marble taken from the chapel when it was dismantled (1988). (DHG, 6/27/1989) In August of 1989, the DHG reported that a design, created by Richard Klein of the Berkshire Design Group, had been selected, including a landscaped plaza with two tiers of steps. (Other design proposals were submitted by Peter Frothingham and Alice Wingwall.) Budget constraints at the time prevented the design from being implemented. (DHG, 8/16/1989) Revitalization - 2007 - Present 2007. Northampton organized an effort to adopt the Community Preservation Act, which would secure funding, though a property tax surcharge, for historic preservation projects. A letter to the editor of the Daily Hampshire Gazette urged the city to consider an upgrade in the Bridge Street Cemetery fence as a use of these funds. 2014. A group of concerned citizens from Ward Three launched an effort to address the fence and damaged gravestones and monuments in the cemetery. The DPW submitted an application for a preservation master plan to the Community Preservation Committee and it was partially funded. 2015. Cemetery trust funds were accessed to match the CPC grant, and the preservation master planning process began. A-14 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan LAND ACQUISITION SEQUENCE 1661. 10 acres on the “pine plain” ca. 1814. A portion from the main avenue westerly to Pine Street (Parsons Street) 1833. 5 acres on the northwesterly side 1864. Old pasture donated by John Clarke (“Clarke’s Addition”) 1883. Samuel Wright’s lots 1900. Strip of land abutting Orchard Street (40’ wide by 800’ long) 1911. H. L. Hinckley land. Total Acreage in 2015: 19.05 (Assessor’s Map) A-15 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan HISTORICAL IMAGES 1860. H. F. Walling. 1873. F. W. Beers. A-16 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan 1875. Bird’s Eye, Gazette Printing. 1884. Walker. A-17 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan 1895. D. L. Miller. 1905. Price & Lee. A-18 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan 1885/1918. E. E. Davis, C. E. A-19 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan 1940. W. P. A. Veterans’ Graves Registration Project (Sheet 1 of 21). 1902-1903. Warner, Northampton of Today. A-20 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan 1915. MacCarthy, Courtesy of the Forbes Library Special Collections. ca. 1920. Courtesy of the Forbes Library Special Collections. A-21 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan ND. Part of the Old Burying Ground, Bridge Street Cemetery. Courtesy of the Forbes Library Special Collections. 1935. The Luther Clark Chapel at the time of completion. Daily Hampshire Gazette. A-22 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan 1953. Walter Corbin. Courtesy of the Forbes Library Special Collections. ca. 1950s. Walter Corbin. Courtesy of the Forbes Library Special Collections. A-23 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan (page intentionally blank) A-24 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan Engineering Assessment at The Bridge Street Cemetery Northampton, Massachusetts October, 2015 Draft Issued: October 16, 2015 Revision Date: Prepared for: Martha Lyon Landscape Architecture, LLC 313 Elm Street, Northampton, MA 01060 860.290.4100 www.cmeengineering.com 333 East River Drive, Suite 400, East Hartford, CT 06108 B-1 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Features Inventoried 1 Existing Conditions of Structures 2 Receiving Tomb 2 3 5 Bates Mausoleum 5 Causes of Problems with the Structures Investigated 11 Buried Tomb Facades: 11 Bates Mausoleum: 12 Areas for Restoration and Rehabilitation 13 Mound Tombs: 13 Bates Mausoleum: 14 Budget Level Cost Estimates: 15 Appendix A Inspection Findings and Recommendations 16 B-2 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT OF THE BRIDGE STREET CEMETERY NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS Features Inventoried The purpose of this report is to review the existing conditions of several significant structures within the Bridge Street Cemetery in the City of Northampton, Massachusetts. The following items were investigated in this study: Receiving Tomb Two (2) Mound Family Tombs (Ansel Wright Family and Seth Wright Family) One (1) Large Family Mausoleum (Bates) Notes: 1. The structural condition assessment did not include a structural analysis of elements. This approach is appropriate since the actual dimensions of all of the structural elements are not known (due to the buried nature of the structure). An assessment of the condition of the structure can accurately reveal the structural integrity. Structural faults can be inferred based on the performance of the structure over time. 2. The condition assessment of the structures was intended to document the existing conditions. Prior to development of any rehabilitation plans, more extensive documentation of all deficiencies would be required. 1 Commitment, Meaning, & Excellence.)Æ °¨¨ ∑• §Øỳ B-3 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan Existing Conditions of Structures Structure specific inspection findings were developed in tabular form and are included in the appendix of this report. Also included in each inspection report are recommendations for short term and long term rehabilitation for each structure. The following section includes detailed discussions for problems noted during the inspections, the causes of these problems, and recommended restoration/rehabilitation actions. Receiving Tomb The receiving tomb is dated 1849. Its design and detailing are somewhat unique when compared to tombs of this era. The majority of the stonework is brownstone, with the exception of the door lintel, which is granite. The use of brownstone and the decorative towers and the crenellated parapet are unusual for a receiving tomb. The tomb was opened for inspection. The interior of the tomb measures 12 wide (at the apex of the brick barrel arch roof). The tomb is fairly large for a receiving tomb of this era; however its size is commensurate with the overall size of the cemetery. The tomb has two short brick masonry wingwalls that may not be original to the tomb. They may have been added to help retain soil. The wingwalls are small earth retaining wall structures. The interior walls are constructed with mortared granite. The roof is a half-round barrel arch made with brick, which is in very good condition. The stonework has been repointed several times. The brick mortar appears to be mostly original. The floor of the tomb is approximately 2 feet below the entrance threshold and is constructed with brick pavers. It appears that the stonework and the brick may have been whitewashed at one time. There is minor efflorescence (white staining), which is a sign of water infiltration. The entry doors appear to be original. The raised panel style is consistent with receiving tombs of this era. Each side door was most likely a bi-fold door in the original construction. This was inferred following an inspection of the rear face of the doors. There is a well-defined joint between the sections of the doors. At some point, they were converted to single action doors. The adjacent doors were welded together and backing plates were added. A small steel plate appears to have been added at the base of the doors, probably due to a modification of the threshold at one time. The steel is in fair to good condition; however the paint system is currently failing. There are signs of a previous interior door which would have opened inward. There are hinge pins on the inside corners of the door jambs. 2 Commitment, Meaning, & Excellence.)Æ °¨¨ ∑• §Øỳ B-4 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan The most common problem with tombs of this age is the shifting of the front façade stones. It is common to see the front façade pushing outward, which leads to gaps in the joints where the façade meets the main roof structure, sinkholes in the soil above, and missing brick and mortar. This problem is present to a very minor degree in this tomb. There are minor cracks in the barrel arch brickwork in the front corners. The main front façade stones are almost perfectly plumb. The grout joints in the front façade appear to have been re-pointed at least one time. Many joints are missing mortar as well. We managed to inspect several open joints and found several different types of mortar. The deepest mortar appears to be a lime based mix, which is most likely the original mortar. This would have been typical of what would be used in the mid-18 pointing is a gray cement based mortar that is used throughout the structure. The missing mortar has not affected the structural integrity of the façade. There is staining and lichen on many parts of the stonework. Overall, the stonework is in very good condition. The brick wingwalls are showing signs of minor movement (tilting). The cause of this movement will be discussed in further detail in a subsequent section of this report. Several granite cap stones on the right wingwall are missing. Ans The Ansel Wright Family tomb is dated 1848. Its design and detailing are consistent with other tombs in Massachusetts of this era. The stonework is finely cut granite that is not mortared. The tomb was opened by the City to allow for inspection of the buried structure by removing the non-historic concrete block seal. The interior of the tomb measures 8 by 167 the brick barrel arch roof). The tomb is quite full of human remains (more than 10). None was disturbed during the inspection. The tomb has two short brick masonry wingwalls that may not be original to the tomb. They may have been added to help retain soil. The right wall has completely failed. The steel posts were added to help support the wall; however these are also failing. The interior walls and roof are constructed with mortared brick, which are in very good condition. The brick mortar appears to be mostly original. The floor of the tomb is approximately 2 feet below the entrance threshold. The amount of debris in the tomb made inspection of the floor impossible. The floor may be dirt or brick. There is efflorescence (white staining), which is a sign of minor water infiltration. 3 Commitment, Meaning, & Excellence.)Æ °¨¨ ∑• §Øỳ B-5 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan Prior to the inspection, a review of the front façade indicated that there was most likely a past door denoted by a recessed door jamb, broken hinges, and a broken striker plate in the granite door jambs. Upon opening the tomb, a significant discovery was made. A steel door was found inside the tomb laying on top of some of the remains. It is a raised panel style door that is consistent with receiving tombs of this era. The door is in poor condition with severe corrosion and delamination (most likely beyond repair). The door was measured and documented. Based on the measurements of the door and the door jamb, it is apparent that the door is the original door to the tomb. The width of the door exactly matches the door jamb. The height of the door is slightly taller than the current opening, which indicates that the sill may have been raised at some time in the past. There are signs of a previous interior wood door which would have opened inward. There are hinges on both sides of the door opening and a small portion of one of the wood doors remains. The most common problem with tombs of this age is the shifting of the front façade stones. This phenomenon is not present at this tomb. The main front façade stones are almost perfectly plumb, and there is no significant cracking of the bricks on the interior. One stone on the top left portion of the façade has slightly shifted. A review of the façade stonework indicates that is was not constructed with mortar. This is common for finely cut granite tomb facades, where the stones are simply dry stacked or pinned together. There are few cracks in the brickwork on the interior door jambs. This may be due to minor moisture penetration combined with freezing. These cracks are not significant and do not indicate a structural problem. 4 Commitment, Meaning, & Excellence.)Æ °¨¨ ∑• §Øỳ B-6 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan The Seth Wright Family tomb is dated 1815, which is somewhat older than the other mound tombs. Its design and detailing are similar to tombs that we have investigated in other Massachusetts towns, where the entire tomb is buried and without doors. The tomb was not opened for inspection due to concerns about the structural integrity of the front façade. There is only a small portion of the structure that is visible; however it is possible to draw certain conclusions from the information gathered. The exposed portion of the front façade shows that the structure is most likely a mortared brick barrel arch, which is similar to the other tombs. This assumption is reinforced by the finding of a small exposed portion of the top rear of the tomb. There are several exposed bricks in the grass topping. These bricks are also in the form of a barrel arch. There is no separate front façade made of stones. In place of a facade, there is brick infill under the arch bricks. The entry is sealed with a stone slab that is mortared into the brick work. The front façade bricks are in fair to poor condition. Several bricks have fallen away and others are loose. There are no signs of sink holes or depressions in the soil top fill. Based on this and the condition of the other tombs, it can be surmised that this tomb structure is also in good condition. Bates Mausoleum The Bates Mausoleum is a fine example of a finely carved stone building. The research completed for this assessment suggested that the stone used in the building was Nova Scotia Sandstone. This appears to be accurate. Quarries still exist in Nova Scotia that produce sandstone, which is touted to be one of the most durable building materials that can be carved to a high degree. The quarries that produce this stone show photographs of stone that looks identical to the stone in the Bates Mausoleum, which further reinforces this theory. The main structure houses three sarcophagi or stone burial vaults. The structure is quite ornate and elaborate. The architectural design of the mausoleum can be attributed to the Greek revival style. It includes heavy gables, arches, and fluted column details in the Doric style. The exact make-up of the structure is not known since plans were not available. The basic structure has stone masonry walls supporting exterior and interior arches, which support a vaulted masonry roof. The roof appears to be made with mortared stone that is topped with stone tiles. This assumption was made by observing the interior portion of the roof, which is pargeted masonry. There are no signs of settlement or shifting of the structure, therefore it is appropriate to assume that the foundations are adequate. 5 Commitment, Meaning, & Excellence.)Æ °¨¨ ∑• §Øỳ B-7 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan The structure has a fairly sophisticated natural ventilation system. There are ventilation grates in the corners of the building near ground level. These vents appear to be connected to horizontal brick shafts that converge in the center floor of the structure. Another integral part of the ventilation system is the roof vents near the skylight, which permit air to pass through. The combination of the floor vents and roof vents allow interior hot air to rise and draw relatively cool air in from the base. The photos on the following page show the exterior vent and the floor vent. During the inspection, a steady flow of air was noted through the ventilation pit in the center of the floor. The grate on the ventilation pit is missing. It is assumed that this vent was most likely a bronze casting. 6 Commitment, Meaning, & Excellence.)Æ °¨¨ ∑• §Øỳ B-8 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan Ventilation features in the Mausoleum 7 Commitment, Meaning, & Excellence.)Æ °¨¨ ∑• §Øỳ B-9 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan There are signs of water infiltration in the structure. The ceiling and interior stones are stained and deteriorated. The deterioration is a combination of erosion, scaling and delaminations. This has led to a loss of portions of the original architectural detail, especially on the crown molding at the top of the walls. There are noticeable open joints in the roof tiles, which is a likely cause of the water penetration. The moisture penetrates the joints in the masonry leading to staining and delamination of the cement parging on the ceiling (see below). The condition of the interior stonework can be classified as fair to poor. Condition of Ceiling and Crown Molding Interior staining 8 Commitment, Meaning, & Excellence.)Æ °¨¨ ∑• §Øỳ B-10 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan The skylight appears to be comprised of a bronze frame with glass panels. Several of the glass panels are broken. This is also allowing rain to enter the structure. The other three facades of the structure have round openings located under the arches. These wall opening were covered by bronze frames with screening. The bronze frames have been removed and replaced with plywood (possibly due to damage from vandals). Fortunately, the original frames are stored inside the mausoleum. Each is damaged, but one is more heavily damaged. One could surmise that vandals broke into the tomb through one of the openings causing damage, and the remainder were removed to dissuade further vandalism. An inspection of the frames indicates that glasswork may not have been incorporated into these frames. The team research indicates that there were stained glass windows in these locations. It is possible that the window frames were separate features from the screen frames. The sarcophagi are made with carved white marble. The marble is inlaid with a soft sandstone or red marble. In general, the sarcophagi are in good condition. The inlay materials on one of the sarcophagi has fallen away. Panoramic Photo of Sarcophagi 9 Commitment, Meaning, & Excellence.)Æ °¨¨ ∑• §Øỳ B-11 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan The door to the mausoleum is a finely detailed double bronze door with an arched transom window. The windows over the doorway are broken have been removed and replaced with plywood. The door is a raised panel design with bronze knockers and ornate cutouts for light penetration. A fairly uniform patina has formed on the exterior of the door. The interior is more stained due to the water infiltration. The hinges are quite massive and are anchored into the stonework. The doors appear to be original to the tomb. The lockset and hinges are functional, however the door does catch on the floor when partially open. The condition of the door is very good. The floor of the mausoleum is a finely laid tile floor. There is substantial dirt and debris on the tile. Without significant cleaning, it is hard to tell the actual existing condition. What is apparent is that the majority of the detail of the floor is still present. Upon cleaning, it should be possible to repair and restore the floor to its original condition. 10 Commitment, Meaning, & Excellence.)Æ °¨¨ ∑• §Øỳ B-12 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan Causes of Problems with the Structures Investigated The following sections describe the general causes that are common to each type of structure investigated: Buried Tomb Facades: The discussion in this section pertains to the front façade and wingwalls of the tombs. The tomb facades, while often decorative, are also used to retain the soil above and around the tombs. The amount of soil is relatively small; however the same engineering principles apply. The most common causes of retaining wall failures are inadequate design, poor backfill soils, excessive ground water, and unstable foundations or slopes. The force from soil exerted on a retaining wall is similar to the force of water acting on a dam. The soil is pressing laterally against the back side of the wall. If the wall is not massive enough, the soil pressure will cause the wall to slide laterally, bulge, and overturn. Forces from frost and groundwater cause the similar lateral forces that can fail a wall. The failures and leaning of several of the walls in the Bridge Street Cemetery can be attributed to a combination of these causes. There is little or no control of surface and ground water around the tombs. There are no signs of wall drains (weepholes). Control of water is extremely important in order to provide a durable long lasting retaining wall. Water infiltration in the backfill soil of a wall can cause several problems: 1. The water will increase the unit weight of the soil, thereby increasing the pressures acting on the wall face. 2. If water is present in the backfill soil during freezing weather and if the backfill soil is not free draining, the soil will freeze and expand causing enormous pressures to build up. The movement of the tomb wingwall stones is caused by several factors: Infiltration of water behind the wall These wingwalls and curbs were not engineered and do not have enough mass. They were probably constructed by masons using a rule-of-thumb approach, which means that they may not have been adequate from the start. It is doubtful that these walls are set below the frost line. It should be noted that movement of a retaining wall constitutes a structural failure. Failures of walls take place over a long time and are progressive in nature. The long-term failure of a wall usually takes the following sequence: 1. Forces acting on the wall such as soil pressure, frost action, and ground water will cause the wall to move. 2. The movement of the wall then relieves the force acting on the wall. 3. Over time, the soil behind the wall will settle and re-compact. 4. The process will then repeat. Once a wall starts to move, it will continue to move until it collapses. This type of failure can take several years, but in most cases, it takes many years (20 to 40 years or more). The front tomb façade walls show little or no signs of movement. This is probably due to several factors. The walls solid foundation 11 Commitment, Meaning, & Excellence.)Æ °¨¨ ∑• §Øỳ B-13 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan on top of non-frost susceptible soil, and it has sufficient mass to resist the minor soil forces acting on it. Bates Mausoleum: The major issue with the Bates Mausoleum is infiltration of water into the structure. Masonry structures require a certain amount of regular maintenance in order to remain in good condition. It appears that the Bates Mausoleum has not been regularly maintained. The leakage of water into the structure is primarily from the roof. The roof appears to be a stone masonry vaulted roof with a sandstone roof stones on the exterior (similar to tiles). We were not able to access the roof area for a close-up inspection; however it appears that the joints between the roof stones are open in many areas and that a number of stones have shifted. These opening are allowing water to infiltrate the stonework and eventually leak into the mausoleum. The problem with seeping water is that it does not necessarily stop after a rain event. It is common for masonry structures to remain damp weeks after a rain storm. This leads to stonework that is constantly wet. Sandstone is a fairly porous stone that absorbs water to some degree. If sandstone is left in a damp condition and is then subjected to freezing and thawing, the stone can degrade over time (referred to as freeze-thaw action). The degradation normally consists of scaling and spalling. Scaling is when the surface of the stone erodes away. Spalling is when a layer of the stone splits away from the base stone in thin sheets. Both of these conditions exist in the Bates Mausoleum. 12 Commitment, Meaning, & Excellence.)Æ °¨¨ ∑• §Øỳ B-14 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan Areas for Restoration and Rehabilitation Mound Tombs: Masonry Restoration: The receiving tomb and the Ansel Wright tomb can be cleaned with masonry cleaners to restore the original appearance. The cleaning work should be in accordance with the US Department of the Interiors Preservation Brief for Assessing Cleaning and Water- Repellent Treatments for Historic Masonry Buildings. The granite stonework can be cleaned in a more aggressive fashion due to the durability of the stone. The brownstone façade will require a more gentle cleaning process with soft bristle brushes and mild cleaners. The receiving tomb is in need of re-pointing. The overall integrity of the front facade is good, however the mortar joints are in poor condition. This is not a structural problem, but it is an aesthetic one. The repointing process would not result in a significant change to the appearance of the facade. The joints could be cleaned and properly re-pointed with a quality mortar. It is important to not use cement based mortars, which are much stiffer than the older historic mortars. The use of cement based mortar can lead to cracking and spalling as the modern mortars will produce stress concentrations in the stones. The US Department of the Interiors Preservation Brief for Repointing Mortar Joints in Historic Masonry Buildings should be followed. This document generally recommends the use of a mortar that contains 1 part cement to 1 part lime combined with 5-6 parts sand. The color of the sand may be important if some of the older mortar it to remain. Sand color can affect the color of the final mortar. If all joints are to be repointed (which is most likely the case in the receiving tomb, the color may not be as critical. There are no significant repairs required for the Ansel Wright Tomb façade. The displaced stone on the top left corner can be easily reset. No repointing is necessary, since the original construction was not mortared. The repairs to the Seth Wright tomb are simple brick masonry repairs. As with the tomb façade, the type of mortar is very important. The US Department of the Interiors Preservation Brief for Repointing Mortar Joints in Historic Masonry Buildings should also be followed. The mortar should be a softer version of the mortar used for the stonework, which should contain 1 part cement to 2 parts lime combined with 7-9 parts sand. Since all joints will not need to be repointed, it is recommended that a color match process be undertaken as outlined in the Preservation Brief. The failed brick wingwall on the Ansel Wright tomb should be dis-assembled and re- constructed. Additional mass will be required in order to improve the structural integrity of the wall. This can be done with stone masonry behind the facing brick. The design of the new wall should be undertaken by a structural engineer. The addition of minor drainage behind the walls is recommended in order to relieve the water pressures that can build up. The use of free draining backfill materials is also recommended. The interior brickwork is in good condition and not visible to the public. Based on this, we do not recommend restoration of the bricks at this time. The minor cracks in the brickwork can be pointed with mortar. Door Restoration: The doors on the receiving tomb are most likely salvageable. They can be removed and brought to a steel restoration shop where the paint (likely lead based) can be removed. 13 Commitment, Meaning, & Excellence.)Æ °¨¨ ∑• §Øỳ B-15 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan The steel work can then be repaired and a quality modern paint system applied. The doors could then be re-set. The hinges may need to be repaired and re-installed. The door on the Ansel Wright Tomb can be replaced, using the original door that is in the tomb as a guide. The door would be similar to the doors on the receiving tomb. The repairs would include the construction of new hinges and a strike plate, as the originals are lost. Bates Mausoleum: The Bates Mausoleum is a significant structure that will require a more careful and thorough approach to restoration. A detailed study of the structure should be undertaken in order to determine the make-up of the structure and the waterproofing details at the roof. This may require removal of a portion of the stonework in order to determine the structure beneath the sandstone. There are two potential approaches for the restoration based on the assumptions regarding the structure make-up included in this report: 1. Preservation of existing conditions: This would be an effort to simply stop the current decay and preserve the structure as is. No significant replacement or repairs to the damaged stonework would be done. The sealing of the roof structure is paramount to any preservation project. It is likely that the roof stones would need to be removed, the underlying masonry repaired and sealed, and the roof stone reset properly with quality joints. Gentle cleaning of the stone would be recommended after the structure is made water tight. US Department of the Interior Preservation Brief for Assessing Cleaning and Water-Repellent Treatments for Historic Masonry Buildings should be followed. The windows can be replaced with historically accurate windows and the skylight can be repaired. The side vents/windows can also be restored. The missing grating in the center of the interior can be replaced with a new grate that is consistent with the detail in the remainder of the tomb. There is debate in the restoration industry over sealing of sandstone facades. A water- repellant coating may be in order, which is different than a water-proof coating. Water-repellent coatings are breathable. They keep liquid water from penetrating the stone, while allowing internal moisture to pass through the surface. Since most of the stonework is in good condition, the application of sealers may only be warranted on the most deteriorated stones as opposed to sealing the entire structure. It is important to test a discrete area as some sealers can dis- color the stone surface. The above recommendations are based on the preservation brief. An experienced stone conservator should be consulted for recommendations on the approach to sealing these specific stones. The doors can be cleaned or left as is. Cleaning will remove the patina on the surface of the bronze, which may not be desirable. If cleaned, the patina should re-form, however it may take several years. 2. Complete Restoration: This would involve the work described above combined with major repairs to damaged stones. Simple spalled areas can be patched with color-matching mortars. Some of the stonework will inevitably need to be replaced entirely. New carved stones can be made to match the original design and reset one at a time. Color matching of the stone as well as quality carving techniques are critical to the success of this process. This type of work is very expensive and probably not justified unless the mausoleum is to be used on a regular basis. 14 Commitment, Meaning, & Excellence.)Æ °¨¨ ∑• §Øỳ B-16 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan Budget Level Cost Estimates: The following table contains recommended restoration and rehabilitation work, the approximate recommended timeframe for the work and a budget estimate (using current prices) for the work: Recommended Restoration ItemRehabilitation Budget Estimate Timeframe Receiving Tomb Clean stone surfaces, re-point masonry, No specific timeframe $40,000 rehabilitate door, point cracked interior required brickwork, repair or reconstruct brick wingwalls Ansel Wright Tomb Clean stone surfaces, reset dislodged No specific timeframe $25,000 stone, construct new door, reconstruct brick required wingwall Seth Wright Tomb Repair brick façade, clean brick, reset No specific timeframe $5,000 stone door required Bates Mausoleum (Preservation) Clean stone surfaces, seal all or portions of 5 years $75,000 to $100,000 stone surfaces, repair leaking roof, repoint joints, repair windows and vents. Bates Mausoleum (Restoration) Above work combined with restoration or No specific timeframe $300,000 to $500,000 replacement of severely damaged stones. required Notes: 1. accurate estimate would require careful quantification of the actual work. 2. The estimate for the Bates Mausoleum is very general. The cost of obtaining matching stone and the level of detail of the replaced stones can vary greatly. A more accurate estimate can be established after the actual number of replacement stones is determined through a detailed stone assessment project. 3. Engineering and architectural costs not included. These costs will be approximately 20% of the construction costs. 15 Commitment, Meaning, & Excellence.)Æ °¨¨ ∑• §Øỳ B-17 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan Appendix A Inspection Findings and Recommendations 16 Commitment, Meaning, & Excellence.)Æ °¨¨ ∑• §Øỳ B-18 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan CME Associates, Inc.Cemetery Structures Inspection Report East Hartford, CT CemeteryBridge Street Cemetery, Northampton Inspection DateSeptember 1, 2015InspectorPete Culmo StructureReceiving Tomb (Built in 1849) Overall ConditionVery Good Inspection ItemsComments MovementNothing signifcant Minor cracking on interior brick indicating minor movment of front façade JointsMost joints are fair Some has been repointed before Some joints are open StainingConsiderable stains due to weathering Efflorescence on interior Plant GrowthHeavy lichen in areas Front Elevation DoorsPaint is failing, Hinges are fair condition, Original doors were bifold (welded together now). WingwallsRight wingwall is missing cap stones Minor shifting of both wingwalls Signs of previous interior wood doors (hinges) Notes 1. Brownstone facade with mortar 2. Granite lintel over door 3. Brick mortar arch roof (VG condition). 4. Stone masonry base walls (repointed and white washed). (VG condition) 5. Brick and stone interior steps (good condition). Side Elevation 6. Brick Floor (good condition) 7. No signs of significant movement. 6. Doors appear to be salvageable. Short Term RepairsNone Long Term RepairsClean and Repoint Exterior Stonework Rehabilitate doors Repair cracked interior bricks (mortar) Interior Conditions Steel DoorsTypical Exterior Stone ConditionsMinor Cracking near front façade B-19 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan CME Associates, Inc.Cemetery Structures Inspection Report East Hartford, CT CemeteryBridge Street Cemetery, Northampton Inspection DateSeptember 1, 2015InspectorPete Culmo StructureAnsel Wright's Family Tomb (Built in 1848) Overall ConditionVery Good Inspection ItemsComments MovementNo significant movement noted. Front façade has not moved. Top left stone has shifted slightly JointsFaçade joints are dry laid (unmortared) StainingModerate staining on exterior Efflorescence on interior Plant GrowthMinor plant growth in joints Front Elevation DoorOriginal steel door is in the tomb Signs of previous interior wood doors (hinges and remnants of the doors. WingwallsRight wingwall has failed Left wingwall is reported in other tomb report 1. Granite facade with dry joints Notes 2. No signs of significant movement 3. Brick mortar arch structure(VG condition). 4. Minor cracking of brick at door jambs. 5. Door was measured and will fit in the door opening. The doors, hinges and striker plate are damaged beyond repair. Side Elevation Short Term RepairsNone Long Term RepairsReset shifted stones Replace original door with new door (same) Repair cracked interior bricks (mortar) Clean exterior stone surfaces Interior Conditions Original Door In TombRemnants of Interior Wood DoorsMinor Cracking in door jamb B-20 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan CME Associates, Inc.Cemetery Structures Inspection Report East Hartford, CT CemeteryBridge Street Cemetery, Northampton Inspection DateSeptember 1, 2015InspectorPete Culmo StructureSeth Wright's Family Tomb (Built in 1815) Overall ConditionFair Inspection ItemsComments MovementFront façade is failing in a few areas. Several bricks have fallen away. JointsBrick façade with mortar joints (fair to poor condition StainingSignificant staining Plant GrowthLichen growth Front Elevation DoorNo door. Stone access door is in fair condition Notes1. This tomb was not opened for inspection. There signs that it is also a brick arch structure. There is no sign of settlement, therefore the structure is most likely intact. 2. Brick mortar arch structure. 3. Front facade is failing. Side Elevation Short Term RepairsNone Long Term RepairsRemove and reset façade brickwork and stone door. Interior Conditions Portion of brick arch exposed B-21 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan CME Associates, Inc.Cemetery Structures Inspection Report East Hartford, CT CemeteryBridge Street Cemetery, Northampton Inspection DateSeptember 1, 2015InspectorPete Culmo StructureBates Tomb (page 1 of 2) Overall ConditionFair Inspection ItemsComments MovementNo signs of movement. No cracks. JointsMany joints are open allowing water to infiltrate. StainingModerate staining Plant GrowthShrubs are growing into the stonework and partially blocking the ventilation grates DoorThe door is in very good condition. Elevations (3 shown, 4th similar) Windows4 Windows are missing Window over door is broken 3 side windows are missing, but the frames are in the tomb (one severely damaged) Skylight and Vent.Skylight is damaged (broken glass) Natural ventilation system (functional) 1. There is spalling and scaling of the lime- Notes stone facade and interior in many areas. 2. The doors are in very good condition. 3. The roof is leaking, causing damage to interior surfaces. 4. The natural ventilation system is Typical Interior conditions functional. Short Term RepairsRepair leaking roof to stabilize interior. Replace the broken and damaged windows and skylight. Long Term RepairsRehabilitate all stonework inside and outside. Clean stone surfaces. Interior Conditions Ventilation pit (grate missing)Exterior Ventilation Grate B-22 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan CME Associates, Inc.Cemetery Structures Inspection Report East Hartford, CT CemeteryBridge Street Cemetery, Northampton Inspection DateSeptember 1, 2015InspectorPete Culmo StructureBates Tomb (page 2 of 2) Overall ConditionFair Interior Elevations (panoramic photo) Interior Elevations (panoramic photo) Interior Ceiling and Skylight Doors (exterior)Doors (interior) B-23 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan www.cmeengineering.com Original Copy Record CME Project No. 2015072 Commitment, Meaning & Excellence.In All We Do. B-24 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan Preserving the substance and significance of gravestones IRVING SLAVID Conservator MARTIN JOHNSON Conservator PROF. NORMAN R. WEISS Consultant Martha H. Lyon, ASLA, CLARB Martha Lyon Landscape Architecture, LLC 313 Elm Street Northampton, MA 01060 November 19, 2015 Re: Old Burying Ground, Northampton MA Please find enclosed out condition assessment for the Old Section of the Burying Ground and a summary of conditions found in the Newer Section. Old Section On October 23, 2015 Martin Johnson and Irving Slavid inspected the condition of all the markers in the Old Burying Ground. We concentrated on hazardous, unstable, fallen and fractured markers. Markers which were slightly tilted, less than 15 degrees, were not included. We found a total of 78 markers requiring stabilization, restoration and/or conservation in the Old Section. These markers are identified by the cross reference of their map grid numbers, and have individual treatment recommendation included in our report. We classified the markers into three restoration priorities. Priority 1 Hazardous– 22 markers require immediate action. These are makers that are a danger to themselves, to adjacent markers and to passersby. The stabilization of these makers should be included in the first phase of restoration. A realistic estimate for stabilization by a conservator is $9,900- 12,500. Priority 2 Unstable–36 markers require treatments asap. These markers are unstable, either on their bases, have failing or failed repairs or extremely tilted. Some of these markers are also fractured. A realistic estimate for treatments by a conservator is $19,800 to 22,600 Priority 3 Ongoing deterioration– 20 markers should be evaluated and treated within 3– 5 years A realistic estimate for treatments by a conservator $9,800 to 13,000 P.O. BOX 541, NORFOLK, CT 06058 860 307 6695 413 248 5077 MCCLLC@gmail.com C-1 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan Page 2 MONUMENT CONSERVATION COLLABORATIVE LLC The stabilization of these makers should be included in the first phase of restoration along with the priority 1 of the old Section. An estimate for stabilizing these 63 markers- $31,850 to $34,780. Estimate for restoration of 48 fractured markers- $27,800 to $29,600 Estimate for resetting 31 markers require resetting- $16,500 to $18,000 (The feasibility of a successful restoration to the remaining markers should be evaluated in the field) MCC suggests a restoration plan in 3 phases over 3 years. Phase I: Stabilization for all hazardous markers (total 85 markers) $41,750- $47,280 Phase II: Priority 2 of old section plus 48 markers in newer section $47,600– $52,200 Phase III: Priority 3 of old section plus 31 markers and evaluation of additional markers in newer section $28,300- $33,000 Respectfully Irving Slavid, President Monument Conservation Collaborative C-2 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan Page 3 MONUMENT CONSERVATION COLLABORATIVE LLC Old section list- Priority 1 Grid Priority First Last Treatment 1.F.1 1 Susan French Reset onto base 2.G.1 1 Solomon Stoddard Old repair failed 3.G.2 1 John Gleason Old repair failed 4.B.3 1 John Prince Old repair failed 4.D.4 1 n.a. Obelisk Unstable- tilted 4.D.6 1 n.a. Reset onto base 4.D.7 1 n.a. Reset onto base 4.G.2 1 Warren Sauter Reset onto base 4.H.2 1 John Hunt Table Tomb 4.I.2 1 Little Jennie Reset onto base 4.J.3 1 Maria Butler Reset onto base 5.G.1 1 Dolly Edwards Reset onto base 5.G.2 1 Elizabeth Edwards Old repair failed 5.J.4 1 n.a. Reset onto base 6.B.1 1 n.a. Graves Reset onto base 6.B.2 1 n.a. Graves Reset onto base 6.B.3 1 n.a. Graves Reset onto base 6.H.5 1 n.a. Lyman Unstable urn 6.H.6 1 n.a. Phipps Unstable cross 6.H.7 1 Eleanor Old repair failed 6.H.8 1 George Phipps Reset onto base 8.E 1 Mosley MonumentCross attach 22 C-3 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan Page 4 MONUMENT CONSERVATION COLLABORATIVE LLC Old Section List Priority 2 Grid Priority First Last Treatment 1.F.4 2 Lydia Edwards Reset onto base 1.G.1 2 n.a. Kingsley Fractured- poss new base ? 2.E.1 2 n.a. Fractured 2.F.1 2 David Stoddard Old repair failed- restorable? 2.H.2 2 Elizabeth Bartlett Reset onto base 3.E.1 2 Edwin? Fractured- poss new base ? 3.E.2 2 Henry? New Base 3.G.1 2 Abigail Lyman Tilted obelsik 3.H.2 2 David Clark Poss new base ? 4.B.1 2 Anna DennistonOld repair failed 4.B.2 2 Katherine Prince Reset onto base 4.C.1 2 Stephen Stone New Base 4.D.1 2 n.a. Tanner New Base 4.D.2 2 Varnum Tanner New Base 4.D.3 2 n.a. Tanner New Base 4.E.2 2 Jeduthan Burleigh New Base 4.G.1 2 Mary New Base 4.G.3 2 Agnes BernhardtOld repair failed 4.J.1 2 Cordella Strong New Base 4.J.4 2 n.a. New Base 5.D.1 2 Mary Tucker Reset 5.E.1 2 Pamela Phelps New Base 5.H.1 2 Nancy Edward New Base 5.J.2 2 n.a. New Base 5.J.3 2 n.a. New Base 5.K.1 2 n.a. Tilted 6.H.2 2 John Clapp New Base 6.H.3 2 Mary Fractured- poss new base ? 6.H.4 2 n.a. New Base 6.H.9 2 Lucy Day New Base 6.J.1 2 n.a. New Base 7.D.1 2 n.a. Pringely Obelisk reset 7.E.1 2 Annie New Base 7.E.2 2 Lydia Judd New Base 7.F 2 Rachel Strong New Base 7.G.2 2 H. Elizabeth Howe Poss new base ? 36 C-4 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan Page 5 MONUMENT CONSERVATION COLLABORATIVE LLC Old Section Priority 3 Grid Priority First Last Treatment 1.F.2 3 (2 markers) n.a. Poss new base ? 1.F.3 3 Rhoda Morgan Old repair failed 1.G.2 3 Jerusha Edwards Reset slab 2.H.1 3 n.a. Strong Poss new base ? 3.F.1 3 (wife of) Wright Fragmented- Restorable? 4.D.5 3 n.a. Smith? Fract.- reset into exist base 4.E.1 3 Martha Liman New Base 4.F.1 3 n.a. Old repair failed- restorable? 4.H.1 3 Jane Welsh Old repair failed 4.I.1 3 n.a. Old repair failed 4.J.2 3 Betty Butler Tilted reset 5.A.1 3 (Fragments) Restorable? 5.C.1 3 Alphes Lyman Old repair failed 5.J.1 3 Clarissa Fractured 5.J.5 3 n.a. Hooker? Reset Urn 6.B.4 3 John Clapp Fractured 6.B.5 3 Elizabeth Tower? Old repair failed 6.H.1 3 Ann Clark Reset 7.G.1 3 n.a. Mann? Old repair failed- restorable? 7.H 3 n.a. Clark? Fragmented- Restorable? 20 C-5 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan Page 6 MONUMENT CONSERVATION COLLABORATIVE LLC Newer Section Priority 1 C-6 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan Page 7 MONUMENT CONSERVATION COLLABORATIVE LLC Newer Section Fractured Markers C-7 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan Page 8 MONUMENT CONSERVATION COLLABORATIVE LLC Newer Section- Out of ground, Fallen and Evaluation C-8 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-9 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-10 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-11 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-12 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-13 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-14 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-15 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-16 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-17 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-18 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-19 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-20 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-21 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-22 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-23 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-24 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-25 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-26 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-27 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-28 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-29 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-30 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-31 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-32 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-33 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-34 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-35 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-36 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-37 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-38 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-39 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-40 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-41 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-42 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-43 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-44 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-45 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-46 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-47 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-48 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-49 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-50 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-51 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-52 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-53 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-54 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-55 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-56 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-57 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-58 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-59 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-60 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-61 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-62 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-63 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-64 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-65 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-66 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-67 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-68 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-69 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-70 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-71 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-72 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-73 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-74 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-75 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-76 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-77 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-78 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-79 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-80 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-81 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-82 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-83 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-84 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-85 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-86 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-87 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-88 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-89 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-90 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-91 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-92 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-93 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-94 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-95 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-96 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-97 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-98 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-99 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-100 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-101 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-102 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-103 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-104 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-105 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-106 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-107 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-108 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-109 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-110 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-111 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-112 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan C-113 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan (page intentionally blank) Page C-114 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan CSJEHF!TUSFFU!DFNFUFSZ!QSFTFSWBUJPO!NBTUFS!QMBO! ! XIBU;!!! APublicForum Έ(%,0PLANPRESERVATIONANDENHANCEMENTEFFORTS FORTHEBRIDGESTREET#%-%4%29Ή ! QVSQPTF;!!! TheCityofNorthamptonDepartmentofPublicWorkshasbeguntheprocessof preparingalongtermmasterplanforpreservingandenhancingtheBridgeStreet Cemetery.Aspartoftheprocess,thecitywouldliketohearyourthoughts,ideas andpreferences. NorthamptonSeniorCenter XIFSF; Wednesday,October28,2015 XIFO; 7:008:30p.m. BHFOEB;! 7:30Μ7:45Welcome,Introductions PowerPointPresentation 7:45Μ8:45PublicInterestExercise(BreakOutSessions) 8:45Μ9:00ReportBack NextSteps D-1 MarthaLyonLandscapeArchitecture,LLC Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan CSJEHF!TUSFFU!DFNFUFSZ!QSFTFSWBUJPO!NBTUFS!QMBO! Pleaseusethissideoftheagendatowritedownanyadditionalthoughtsaboutthe BridgeStreetCemetery.AfterthePublicInterestExercise,wouldyoupleasegivethis toamemberoftheCommittee. BEEJUJPOBM!DPNNFOUT!BCPVU!UIF!CSJEHF!TUSFFU!DFNFUFSZ! UIBOL!ZPV"! D-2 MarthaLyonLandscapeArchitecture,LLC Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan D-3 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan D-4 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan D-5 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan D-6 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan D-7 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan D-8 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan D-9 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan D-10 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan D-11 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan D-12 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan D-13 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan D-14 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan D-15 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan BridgeStreetCemeteryPreservationMasterPlan PublicForumΜOctober28 FORUMSUMMARY OntheeveningofOctober28,approximately30citizensattendedapublicforumtodiscussthe 1 futureoftheBridgeStreetCemeterylandscape.Whilemanyattendeesresidednearornexttothe cemetery,otherswerehistoryenthusiasts,wantingtolearnmoreaboutthe£©¥planstopreserve theproperty. TheeventbeganwithanintroductionbyNorthamptonDepartmentofPublicWorksDirectorNed Huntleywhoprovidedbackgroundontheprojectandsettheoverallstagefortheforum.Martha LyonthengaveashortPowerPointpresentationthatexplainedthe∞≤Ø™•£¥΄≥purposeandthe processforcompletingtheplan;reviewedthe£•≠•¥•≤history;andprovidedanoverviewofthe Æ©ß®¥΄≥agenda.TheparticipantswerethenaskedtodividethemselvesequallyamongthreeΈ¢≤•°´ ص¥Ήgroups,witheachgroupgatheringaroundoneofthreetables. Facilitators(twopertable)posedthreequestionstotheparticipants: WhatdoyoulikemostabouttheBridgeStreetCemetery? WhatdoyoulikeleastabouttheBridgeStreetCemetery? Ifyoucoulddoonethingtochangethecemetery,whatwoulditbe? Thefacilitatorsrecordedtheparticipan¥≥΄ answersonlargepadsofpaper.Each participantwasthengivenfiveΈ§Ø¥≥Ή perquestionandaskedtoplacethedots ontheanswerstheymostpreferred.No oneanswercouldreceivemorethan threedotsperparticipant.Oncethe groupshadcompletedtheexercise,all participantswereaskedtoreconveneas reachgroup one,andaspokespersonfo presentedasummaryofwhatwas discussedinher/hergroup. WHATISMOSTLIKEDABOUTTHE BRIDGESTREETCEMETERY Responsestothisquestionrangedfrom Attendeesparticipatedindiscussionsinresponseto¶°£©¨©¥°¥Ø≤≥΄ participantsvaluingthe£•≠•¥•≤ questions. historyandthestoriesbehindthose interredwithin,totreasuringthe¨°Æ§≥£°∞•΄≥comfortingquality.Themostfavoredresponses(ones receivingthegreatestnumbersofdots)included: Historicalaspectsofthestones Historyofthepeopleinterredwithin HistoricalsignificancewithintheCityofNorthampton Itsspirituallycomfortingquality,andthegroundedwayitmakesvisitorsfeel Itsoveralltremendousbeauty 1 Thisnumberisbasedonaroughheadcounttakenduringtheforum. D-16 MarthaLyonLandscapeArchitecture,LLC Page1 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan BridgeStreetCemeteryPreservationMasterPlan PublicForumΜOctober28 FORUMSUMMARY WHATISLEASTLIKEDABOUTTHEBRIDGESTREETCEMETERY Leastlikedcemeteryfeaturesfocusedontheconditionofthestonestheunattractiveentranceand theagingfence.Themostfavoredresponsesincluded: Theconditionofthegravestones,includingmildew Theunattractiveentrance Inappropriatefencing Afencedperimeter Pooraccess(onlyone,hardtofindentrance) Overalluninvitingquality WHATIS MOSTIMPORTANTTOCHANGE ABOUTTHEBRIDGESTREETCEMETERY Proposalsfromparticipantstochangethe cemeterylandscaperangedfrom replacingthefencetomakingthe landscapemoreparklike.Themost favoredresponsesincluded: Preservingthestones,including artworkandcarving Developingadigitalinventoryof gravesthatincludesphotographs ofstones Replacingthefence Makingthelandscapemorepark FacilitatorsPaulineFogeltheRoSchmidtsummarizedtheß≤ص∞΄≥ like,includingplacementof preferencesforimprovementsinandchangestothecemetery benches landscape. Restoringandpreserving gravestones SUMMARYRECOMMENDATIONSFORTHEBRIDGESTREETCEMETERYPRESERVATIONMASTER PLAN Whileparticipantsinthisforumraisedmanyimportantconcernsaboutthecemeterylandscape,they stressedfiveprincipalneeds: 1.Toenhancetheimageofthecemeteryfromtheoutside,lookingin,byupgradingthe existingenclosure(fenceorothermeans)andlandscaping; 2.Toupgradetheexistingentrancesothatitiseasiertofindandwelcomesvisitorsintothe cemetery; 3.Toenhancetheoverallcirculationnetworkbyimprovingexistingroadwaysandprovidinga clearrouteforvehiclestofollow; D-17 MarthaLyonLandscapeArchitecture,LLC Page2 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan BridgeStreetCemeteryPreservationMasterPlan PublicForumΜOctober28 FORUMSUMMARY 4.Toupgradethelandscapetomakeitmoreparklikethroughtheadditionofnewtreesand othersiteamenities,suchasbenches;and 5.Toattendtothegravestonesandmonumentsbytreatingthoseinneedofconservation, developingacompleteinventoryofgravesandgravestones,andprovidinganeasymeans forvisitorstofindgraves. D-18 MarthaLyonLandscapeArchitecture,LLC Page3 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan BridgeStreetCemeteryPreservationMasterPlan PublicForumΜOctober28 FORUMSUMMARY Group#1:RoandPauline WHATDOYOULIKEMOSTABOUTTHEBRIDGESTREETCEMETERY?#OFDOTS Historicalaspectsofthestones9 Thehistoryofthecityandreflectionofthe£ØµÆ¥≤history4 th Stonesdatingtothe17century3 Historyofthepeopleinterredwithin6 Havingpavedroads0 WHATDOYOULIKELEASTABOUTTHEBRIDGESTREETCEMETERY?#OFDOTS Conditionofthegravestones,includingmildew10 Unattractiveentrance7 Lackoflandscaping3 Difficultyofaccess0 Inappropriatefencing10 Conditionofthetrees4 IFYOUCOULDDOONETHINGTOCHANGETHECEMETERY,WHATWOULDITBE?#OFDOTS Upgradethelandscape,includingtreesandroads5 Preservethestonesincludingartworkandcarving7 Developadigitalinventoryofgravesthatincludesphotographsofstones8 EnforcetheΈÆØdogs°¨¨Ø∑•§Ήpolicy5 Maketheentrance(s)attractive/accessible2 Makethefenceattractive4 Enhancethehistoricalaspects3 ADDITIONALCOMMENTS: D-19 MarthaLyonLandscapeArchitecture,LLC Page4 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan BridgeStreetCemeteryPreservationMasterPlan PublicForumΜOctober28 FORUMSUMMARY Group#2:JenniferandPreston WHATDOYOULIKEMOSTABOUTTHEBRIDGESTREETCEMETERY?#OFDOTS Historicalvalue(whoweare;sourceofcommunitypride;historicalrelevanceto2 Stateandnation;multigenerational) Themeticulouscareofthegrounds Beautifullandscape,andespeciallytrees2 Spirituallycomfortingqualitygroundingquality3 Peacefulquality2 Religiousandhistoricaldestinationwithaninternationalconnection Artistryofgravestones1 Inscriptionsandversesthattellstoriesofhardshipandwhatlifewaslike2 Functionalityoffence:protectsstonesonParsonsandOrchardStreets;allowsfor2 closureatdusk;providesaboundarythatservestocreateacolumnreverential atmosphere WHATDOYOULIKELEASTABOUTTHEBRIDGESTREETCEMETERY?#OFDOTS Thefenceandthefactthatthereisone8 Onlyoneentry0 Gravestonesindisrepair0 Appearance/conditionofthefence0 Dogwaste1 Access,includingamountwintersnowremovalfromroadsandtheconditionof1 roads(somearenotdrivable) Notenoughtrees0 Nobenchesinside0 Waterfeaturesinoperable0 Noonsiteinformationaboutthecemeteryandgraves0 Nocentralrepositoryofinformationaboutthecemetery0 IFYOUCOULDDOONETHINGTOCHANGETHECEMETERY,WHATWOULDITBE?#OFDOTS Fixthestones5 Replacethefence9 Addeducationalfeatures2 Makethelandscapemoreparklike(andaddbenches)6 Changeinfrastructure,includingrestorationofpathwaysandparking,andlessening3 drivingthroughorinthecemetery Createanenvironmentthatfostersrespectofthearea(awellmaintained,beautiful5 D-20 MarthaLyonLandscapeArchitecture,LLC Page5 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan BridgeStreetCemeteryPreservationMasterPlan PublicForumΜOctober28 FORUMSUMMARY Place) Developagoodhistoricinventoryofburials,andthepeopleinterred(andwhatwe4 knowaboutthem ADDITIONALCOMMENTS: D-21 MarthaLyonLandscapeArchitecture,LLC Page6 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan BridgeStreetCemeteryPreservationMasterPlan PublicForumΜOctober28 FORUMSUMMARY Group#3:BobandAustin WHATDOYOULIKEMOSTABOUTTHEBRIDGESTREETCEMETERY?#OFDOTS BeautifulREALLYbeautiful6 Itshistory10 Interestingpeople,includingtheForbes,BatesandGrahamfamilies,interredwithin3 Opennessandtranquility2 Greatforphotographs1 Veryclosetothecenteroftown3 WHATDOYOULIKELEASTABOUTTHEBRIDGESTREETCEMETERY?#OFDOTS Thefence8 Pooraccess6 Uninviting9 Itisoverlooked,consideringitisintheoldestpartofthecity2 IFYOUCOULDDOONETHINGTOCHANGETHECEMETERY,WHATWOULDITBE?#OFDOTS MakethecemeterymoreΈ∞°≤´¨©´•Ή3 Placehistoricalmarkersorplaquesandpostwithhistoricalinformation3 Makethecemeterymoremuseumlike0 Placeinfographsattheentrances1 Createawebsitewithinformation/mobileapplications/selfguidedtours2 Identifythedifferentsectionsaccordingtohistoriccemeterystyle0 Placeart,boardswithhistoricphotographs,and/orstatueswithageappropriate2 clothing(perioddress?) HonorNativeAmericansthroughplaques,memorialsandotherinformation3 CollaboratewithHistoricNorthamptontocreateadirectoryforgravesites2 EstablishpathsfromBridgeStreettoNorthandParsonsStreets4 Restore/preservegravestones5 ADDITIONALCOMMENTS: D-22 MarthaLyonLandscapeArchitecture,LLC Page7 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan BridgeStreetCemeteryPreservationMasterPlan PublicForumΜOctober28 FORUMSUMMARY COMMENTSFROMTHEBACKOFTHEAGENDA ThefollowingcommentsweremadebyparticipantsinwritingonthebacksideoftheForumagenda: COMMENTSFROMEMAIL Thefollowingcommentswerereceivedviaemailfrompeoplewhowerenotabletoattendthe forum,butwantedtheirvoicesheard: D-23 MarthaLyonLandscapeArchitecture,LLC Page8 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan CSJEHF!TUSFFU!DFNFUFSZ!QSFTFSWBUJPO!NBTUFS!QMBO! ! XIBU;!!! APublicForum Έ(%,0PLANPRESERVATIONANDENHANCEMENTEFFORTS FORTHEBRIDGESTREET#%-%4%29Ή ! QVSQPTF;!!! TheCityofNorthamptonDepartmentofPublicWorkshasbeguntheprocessof preparingalongtermmasterplanforpreservingandenhancingtheBridgeStreet Cemetery.Aspartoftheprocess,thecitywouldliketohearyourthoughts,ideas andpreferences. NorthamptonSeniorCenter XIFSF; Thursday,February11,2016 XIFO; 7:008:30p.m. BHFOEB;! 7:30Μ7:45Welcome,Introductions PowerPointPresentation 7:45Μ8:45PublicPreferenceExercise 8:45Μ9:00ReportBack NextSteps D-24 MarthaLyonLandscapeArchitecture,LLC Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan CSJEHF!TUSFFU!DFNFUFSZ!QSFTFSWBUJPO!NBTUFS!QMBO! Pleaseusethissideoftheagendatowritedownanyadditionalthoughtsaboutthe BridgeStreetCemetery.AfterthePublicPreferenceExercise,wouldyoupleasegive thistoamemberoftheCommittee. BEEJUJPOBM!DPNNFOUT!BCPVU!UIF!CSJEHF!TUSFFU!DFNFUFSZ! UIBOL!ZPV"! D-25 MarthaLyonLandscapeArchitecture,LLC Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan BRIDGE STREET CEMETERY PRESERVATION MASTER PLAN SUMMARY The Bridge Street Cemetery, established in ca. 1661, is the oldest known extant place of interment in Northampton, attracting visitors from around the country who stop to admire its centuries-old, artfully carved gravestones. Located along the north side of Bridge Street at the eastern edge of the city, it began on a small portion of a ten-acre parcel and served as the only burial ground until the late 1700s. Several thth additions of land in the 19 and early 20 centuries brought the cemetery’s total acreage to 19.05, and it remains this size today. It contains the gravesites of many prominent citizens, including Northampton’s early settlers, as well as individuals and families influential in the development of the city, and its landscape reflects Colonial, Victorian and Modern styles of cemetery design. Its age notwithstanding, the Bridge The Bridge Street Cemetery, established ca. 1661, is the oldest Street Cemetery remains an active burial place to this day. known extant place of interment in Northampton, containing graves of early settlers, as well as families who built the Despite ongoing efforts of city crews to maintain the community. cemetery’s landscape, many features show signs of wear. In the early 2000s, residents of the surrounding Ward 3 neighborhood took notice of many damaged gravestones and a deteriorating perimeter fence, and in 2014, convinced the Department of Public Works to apply for Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds to complete a long-range plan for the cemetery, one that would study the existing condition and identify improvements to be made. The CPA grant, together with a Cemetery Trust Fund match, allowed the city to hire a professional consulting team to compile the Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan. Northampton-based Martha Lyon Landscape Architecture, LLC led the team, with Monument Conservation Collaborative, LLC evaluating the gravestones, and CME Associates, Inc., consulting engineers, assessing the historic structures. A citizen-based advisory committee regularly met with the consulting team throughout the planning process, insuring proper representation of the city’s interests. The team also conducted two public forums during the process, allowing the general public to express concerns and help set priorities for making improvements. PROCESS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The planning process spanned approximately six months. The consulting team mapped the cemetery, and researched and documented its physical development from the time of its establishment to the present. The team also assessed all of the landscape features, including the setting, edges, entrances and circulation routes, trees, gravestones and monuments and historic structures. From the assessment, the team was able to develop a series of recommendations, or “preservation projects,” for upgrading the landscape, to be implemented incrementally over time, as follows: Project #1: replacing the cemetery fences and gates using a combination of ornamental iron (tubular steel), vinyl-coated chain link, and possibly cast iron The Isaac Bates chapel tomb, designed by architect Richard (to be accomplished in a single phase or up to five Upjohn and constructed in 1875, is one the cemetery’s most phases) prominent historic features. Project #2: conserving 85 priority #1 gravestones (in D-26 Martha Lyon Landscape Architecture, LLC Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan BRIDGE STREET CEMETERY PRESERVATION MASTER PLAN SUMMARY hazardous condition) throughout the cemetery Project #3: upgrading the roadways and paths, including establishment of a main vehicular “loop” road Project #4: developing a sign and interpretive program, including welcome sign(s), directional signs (roadways) and interpretive signs, as well as an Internet-based application allowing visitors to access historical information via mobile devices Project #5: conserving 84 priority #2 gravestones (in unstable condition) throughout the cemetery Project #6: developing a tree re-planting plan, introducing young trees to replace aging ones, and diversifying the mix of trees species Project #7: stabilizing the Ansel Wright tomb, Seth Wright tomb, town receiving tomb, and Bates chapel tomb (mausoleum) Project #8: conserving 51 priority #3 gravestones (suffering from ongoing deterioration) throughout the cemetery Project #9: developing a plan for upgrading the cemetery’s water system and making extensions, as required Project #10: upgrading and/or relocating the cemetery maintenance shed Project #11: completely restoring the Bates chapel tomb Project #12: upgrading Parsons Street and the entrance the Bridge Street School, including narrowing Parsons Street and creating a one-way route, allowing for a more generous cemetery edge MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES The team prepared planning-level budget projections for each of the projects to assist the city with fundraising efforts. The least expensive projects included plans for tree re-planting and water line upgrades ($5,000 - $7,500), and the most expensive addressing full restoration of the Bates Tomb ($500,000). The total for all preservation work was estimated to be from $1.0 to $2.0 million. The plan concludes with a set of guidelines for managing the cemetery landscape on an on-going basis. It recommends that the city proceed as follows: Minimize the use of turf and with it, the need for mowing; The brownstone façade-d town receiving tomb and adjacent Ansel Gradually remove existing shrubs and prohibit the Wright tomb, both constructed in the 1840s, are both in good planting of new shrubs; condition with some repairs needed to their wing walls. The steel Introduce new tree species appropriate to the doors on the town tomb appear to be original. historic styles of cemetery design; Replace turf with perennial ground cover plantings; Regularly inspect gravestones for signs of deterioration and/or vandalism and hire a professional conservator to treat the stones; and Regularly inspect fences and repair damage as required. The Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan will serve as a guide for future restoration and management efforts and as a resource for securing financial support. More importantly, the plan will help raise public awareness about the significance of this centuries-old historic resource, its value to the City of Northampton, and the need to insure its long-term protection. D-27 Martha Lyon Landscape Architecture, LLC Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan D-28 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan D-29 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan D-30 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan D-31 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan D-32 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan D-33 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan D-34 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan D-35 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan D-36 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan D-37 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan D-38 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan D-39 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan D-40 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan D-41 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan D-42 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan D-43 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan D-44 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan D-45 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan D-46 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan D-47 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan D-48 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan D-49 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan D-50 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan D-51 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan BridgeStreetCemeteryPreservationMasterPlan PublicForum#2ΜFebruary11,2016 FORUMSUMMARY OntheeveningofFebruary11th,approximately34citizensgatheredattheNorthamptonSenior CentertoheartheresultsoftheBridgeStreetCemeteryPreservationMasterPlanproject,andhelp 1 setprioritiesforimplementingtheproposedrecommendations.Theeventbeganwithan introductionbyNorthamptonDepartmentofPublicWorksActingDirectorJimLaurilawhoprovided anupdateontheprojectandsettheoverallstagefortheforum.MarthaLyonthengaveashort PowerPointpresentationthatoutlinedthe∞¨°Æ΄≥recommendationsasaseriesof12preservation Έ∞≤Ø™•£¥≥ỳΉTheparticipantswerethenaskedtodividethemselvesequallyamongtwoΈ¢≤•°´Øµ¥Ή groups,witheachgroupgatheringaroundoneoftwotables. Facilitators(twopertable)gave participantsthreeΈ§Ø¥≥Ήandasked eachpersontoplacethedotsonthe recommendationstheybelievedto bethehighestpriority.Noone recommendationcouldreceivemore thantwodotsperparticipant.Once thegroupshadcompletedthe exercise,allparticipantswereasked toreconveneasone,anda spokespersonforeachgroup summarizedthepriorities. Projectsreceivingthegreatest numberofdotswere: Prioritiesfortherecommendationsweredeterminedbyparticipants placinguptotwoΈ§Ø¥≥Ήoneachproject. Project#1:replacingthecemetery fencesandgatesusingacombinationofornamentaliron(tubularsteel),vinylcoatedchainlink,and possiblycastiron(tobeaccomplishedinasinglephaseoruptofivephases)(totalof20dots) Project#2:conserving85priority#1gravestones(inhazardouscondition)throughoutthecemetery (totalof19dots) Project#4:developingasignandinterpretiveprogram,includingwelcomesign(s),directionalsigns (roadways)andinterpretivesigns,aswellasanInternetbasedapplicationallowingvisitorstoaccess historicalinformationviamobiledevices(totalof18dots) Project#6:developingatreereplantingplan,introducingyoungtreestoreplaceagingones,and diversifyingthemixoftreespecies(totalof14dots) Thepriorities,asdefinedbytheparticipants,willbefoldedintothefinalrecommendationsofthe PreservationMasterPlan. 1 Thisnumberisbasedonaroughheadcounttakenduringtheforumandthetotalnumberofdotsentered ontotherecommendationssheets. D-52 MarthaLyonLandscapeArchitecture,LLC Page1 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan BridgeStreetCemeteryPreservationMasterPlan PublicForum#2ΜFebruary11,2016 FORUMSUMMARY GROUP#1 RECOMMENDATION#OFDOTS Project#1:replacingthecemeteryfencesandgatesusingacombinationof6 ornamentaliron(tubularsteel),vinylcoatedchainlink,andpossiblycastiron(tobe accomplishedinasinglephaseoruptofivephases) Project#2:conserving85priority#1gravestones(inhazardouscondition)8 throughoutthecemetery Project#3:upgradingtheroadwaysandpaths,includingestablishmentofamain4 vehicularΈ¨ØØ∞Ήroad Project#4:developingasignandinterpretiveprogram,includingwelcomesign(s),8 directionalsigns(roadways)andinterpretivesigns,aswellasanInternetbased applicationallowingvisitorstoaccesshistoricalinformationviamobiledevices Project#5:conserving84priority#2gravestones(inunstablecondition)throughout5 thecemetery Project#6:developingatreereplantingplan,introducingyoungtreestoreplace5 agingones,anddiversifyingthemxoftreespecies Project#7:stabilizingtheAnselWrighttomb,SethWrighttomb,townreceiving1 tomb,andBateschapeltomb(mausoleum) Project#8:conserving51priority#3gravestones(sufferingfromongoing1 deterioration)throughoutthecemetery Project#9:developingaplanforupgradingthe£•≠•¥•≤watersystemand3 makingextensions,asrequired Project#10:upgradingand/orrelocatingthecemeterymaintenanceshed0 Project#11:completelyrestoringtheBateschapeltomb2 Project#12:upgradingParsonsStreetandtheentrancetotheBridgeStreetSchool,1 includingnarrowingParsonsStreetandcreatingaonewayroute,allowingfora moregenerouscemeteryedge D-53 MarthaLyonLandscapeArchitecture,LLC Page2 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan BridgeStreetCemeteryPreservationMasterPlan PublicForum#2ΜFebruary11,2016 FORUMSUMMARY GROUP#2 RECOMMENDATION#OFDOTS Project#1:replacingthecemeteryfencesandgatesusingacombinationof14 ornamentaliron(tubularsteel),vinylcoatedchainlink,andpossiblycastiron(tobe accomplishedinasinglephaseoruptofivephases) Project#2:conserving85priority#1gravestones(inhazardouscondition)11 throughoutthecemetery Project#3:upgradingtheroadwaysandpaths,includingestablishmentofamain3 vehicularΈ¨ØØ∞Ήroad Project#4:developingasignandinterpretiveprogram,includingwelcomesign(s),10 directionalsigns(roadways)andinterpretivesigns,aswellasanInternetbased applicationallowingvisitorstoaccesshistoricalinformationviamobiledevices Project#5:conserving84priority#2gravestones(inunstablecondition)throughout4 thecemetery Project#6:developingatreereplantingplan,introducingyoungtreestoreplace9 agingones,anddiversifyingthemixoftreespecies Project#7:stabilizingtheAnselWrighttomb,SethWrighttomb,townreceiving6 tomb,andBateschapeltomb(mausoleum) Project#8:conserving51priority#3gravestones(sufferingfromongoing1 deterioration)throughoutthecemetery Project#9:developingaplanforupgradingthe£•≠•¥•≤watersystemand0 makingextensions,asrequired Project#10:upgradingand/orrelocatingthecemeterymaintenanceshed2 Project#11:completelyrestoringtheBateschapeltomb4 Project#12:upgradingParsonsStreetandtheentrancetotheBridgeStreetSchool,1 includingnarrowingParsonsStreetandcreatingaonewayroute,allowingfora moregenerouscemeteryedge D-54 MarthaLyonLandscapeArchitecture,LLC Page3 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan BridgeStreetCemeteryPreservationMasterPlan PublicForum#2ΜFebruary11,2016 FORUMSUMMARY ADDITIONALCOMMENTS (addedtolargesheetsandbackofagenda) Intermsofprioritiesandsequence,itwouldseemsprudenttolearnthewhereaboutsofthe waterinfrastructure,plansfortrees/landscapingbeforeconstructingroadsandinstallingfences. Restoringheadstonesandcreatinganinterpretiveprogramseemmorecalculatedtomakingthe cemeterybothwelcomingandfunctional,thanexteriorfencing,whichcurrentlyisservingits purpose. [Add]benchesandgroundcoveringtomakeitmoreparklike. [NarrowingParsonsStreetis]agoodideabutprobablydifficulttoimplementwhatabout snowplowingafterthechange[?] Onthefenceissue:hastherebeenanyconsiderationof: 1.vinecoveringsasatemporaryorquickfixtoimprovetheaestheticsofthecurrentfence, suchasEnglishivyorchocolatevine? 2.Aretherealternativestotheproposedironfencingthatmightopenupthecemeterymore especiallyalongBridgetStreetwhichalreadyhasanicelargesidewalk,e.g.asteelorstone postandchainfence? 3.Canwehaveflowerbeds? D-55 MarthaLyonLandscapeArchitecture,LLC Page4 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan D-56 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan BIBLIOGRAPHY Books, Manuscripts, Journals Bridgman, Thomas, Inscriptions on the grave stones in the grave yards of Northampton, and other towns in the valley of the Connecticut, as Springfield, Amherst, Hadley, Hatfield, Deerfield, etc., with brief annals of Northampton. Northampton: Hopkins, Bridgman & Co., 1850. Crobin, Walter E., Corbin Manuscript Collection, microfilm reels 12 and 13. Boston: New England Historic Genealogical Society, 1982. Daughters of the American Revolution, Betty Allen Chapter, Early Northampton. Springfield: The F. A. Bassette Company, 1914. (DAR) Hampshire County Journal, quarter centennial edition, October 1887. Judd, Sylvester, Jr. Notebooks (1833-1860). Unpublished manuscript diaries in seven volumes. Kneeland, F. N., and L. P. Bryant, Northampton the Meadow City: Over Two Hundred and Fifty Illustrations. Northampton: F. N. Kneeland and L. P. Bryant, publishers, 1894. Lambert, David Allen, A Guide To Massachusetts Cemeteries. Boston: New England Historic Genealogical Society, 2002. The Tercentenary History Committee, The Northampton Book, Chapters from 300 Years of Life of a New England Town, 1654-1954. Northampton, MA: City of Northampton, 1954. Trumbull, James Russell, History of Northampton, Massachusetts from its Settlement in 1654. Northampton, MA: Gazette Printing, 1898 - 1902 (2 Vols.). Warner, Charles F., Northampton of Today. Northampton: Picturesque Publishing Company, 1902- 1903. Maps (in chronological order) 1794. “Map of the Town of Northampton.” 1831. “Plan of Northampton,” 1831. 1844. “Town of Northampton,” Topographical Map of Massachusetts, Simeon Borden, 1844. 1856. “Northampton Center,” Map of Hampshire County, Massachusetts, H. F. Walling, 1856. 1860. “Downtown Northampton,” Map of Hampshire County, Massachusetts, H. F. Walling, 1860. E-1 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan 1873. “Northampton - North,” Atlas of Hampshire County, Massachusetts, F. W. Beers, 1873. 1875. Bird’s Eye Lithograph of Northampton, Gazette Printing, 1875. 1885. “Plan of a Part of the Bridge Street Cemetery,” Northampton, Mass., E. C. Davis, 1885. (Original map traced with additions, February 1918 by E. E. Davis) 1895. “Northampton,” D. L. Miller, 1895. 1907. “Northampton,” Price & Lee, 1907. 1911. “Part of Bridge Street Cemetery,” Northampton, Mass., March 1911 1940. “Bridge Street Cemetery, Northampton, Mass.,” Veterans Graves Registration, W. P. A. Project No. 20530, 1940. 1963. “Bridge Street Cemetery,” April 1863 (redrawn from old plans). Photographs Forbes Library Special Collections: Corbin Collection - 11-19-53 (2 images); Cemetery Vandalism No. 5.5B764.1 - Forbes Monument No. 5.5 Bridge Street Cemetery - 1915 - MacCarthy No. 5.5B764 - Cemetery Landscape No. 5.5B764 - In the Cemetery No. 5.5B764 - Old Burying Ground Bridge Street Cemetery Fence (2 images) Historic Northampton Collection: ND - Family plots with central stele monuments (2 images) ND - Jerusha Edwards and Memorial to Jonathan Edwards ND - Jared Clark Plot with old Bridge Street School in background Public Documents Town of Northampton Annual Reports, 1857 - 1883. (TAR) City of Northampton Annual Reports, 1884 - 1987. (CAR) Newspaper Articles (in chronological order) Daily Hampshire Gazette, 1875 - Present: “Bates Tomb,” November 30, 1875. “Soldiers’ Monument to be Erected,” August 15, 1892. “Enlargement Proposed,” May 11, 1894. “More Land Needed,” March 29, 1898. “Purchased on Orchard Street Side,” June 18, 1900. “Land on North and Orchard Streets Purchased,” January 23, 1911. E-2 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan “Petition Against Extending to North Street,” October 6, 1911. “Abutters Object to Cemetery Extension,” November 13, 1911. “Extension Restrained,” May 28, 1928. “City Appropriation for Extension,” May 31, 1928. “Hearing on Extension Postponed,” June 2, 1928. “Restraining Order Continued,” June 9, 1928. “Extension Deferred,” March 1, 1929. “City receives Funds From L. A. Clark Estate for Erection of Chapel,” December 16, 1930. “Cemetery Committee Petitions for Use of Land at North and Orchard Streets,” April 6, 1934. “Extension Plan “Killed” Then Put Over for Reconsideration,” May 18, 1934. “Hearing July 25 on Land for New Chapel,” July 2, 1934. “Work to Begin on Extension,” October 23, 1934. “Mrs. George A. Norton Regrets Decision to Extend,” October 27, 1934. “Chapel Nearly Completed,” November 30, 1934. “Hampshire Facts,” Alice Manning, May 10, 1979. “Tomb Gets a Face-Lift,” Keith Stone, November 3, 1982. “Bridge Street Cemetery Chapel to be Torn Down,” Lynne Bertrand, July 14, 1987. “Monument Urged to Replace Chapel,” Lynn Bertrand, August 10, 1987. “Bates Tomb Rich in Classicism,” Martha de B. Beaver, November 19, 1987. “Future Cloudy for Clark Chapel, Victim of Neglect,” Martha de B. Beaver, December 3, 1987. “Chapel Being Razed -- Carefully,” Lynne Bertrand, June 2, 1988. “Panel Opens Contest for Memorial Design,” Jennifer Craig, June 27, 1989. “Memorial Construction in Doubt,” Jennifer Craig, August 16, 1989. Springfield Union News “Effort to Save Chapel Mounted,” Normand Henchey, August 10, 1987. E-3 Bridge Street Cemetery Preservation Master Plan (page intentionally blank) E-4