CPC Questions and HN responses 2 27 22.docx
/
February 27, 2022
Brian Adams, Chair and Members of the CPC
c/o Sarah LaValley, Office of Planning & Sustainability
City Hall
210 Main Street
Northampton, MA 01060
Dear Mr. Adams and Members of the CPC,
Thank you for reviewing our most recent application. Below are our responses to your questions.
We look forward to meeting with you next week and talking further about the Shepherd Barn Project.
Sincerely,
Laurie Sanders Elizabeth Sharpe
Co-director Co-director
CPC Question 1. How does reconstruction of the ell constitute historic preservation, when it is entirely new construction?
Sometimes historic preservation requires the reconstruction of a portion of a structure that no longer exists or that cannot be repaired. That is the case with the barn ell. In order
for the entire preservation project to succeed, the ell must be there because an ell has been attached to the Shepherd Barn since the mid-1800s. Unfortunately, the ell that is there
now is in very poor condition. The mid-19th century ell was replaced with the current structure in the late 19th or early 20th century. It was built inexpensively, and today its wood
sills and the ends of the original studs are almost entirely rotted away due to water damage. The result is that one wall is essentially floating, with structural support provided by
the rest of the building’s framing and the wall’s lowest clapboards. As timber framer Alicia Spence said, “the only reason the ell is still standing is out of habit.”
Given its poor condition, and because an ell is needed as an appendage to the historic barn to represent the barn as it was used, our team of technical experts advised us to remove the
existing structure and build a new structure on the same footprint and with the same dimensions. The one feature that is still intact and in good condition—a 19th century loft door--will
be saved and re-installed.
CPC Question 2. Does the application meet the 10 criteria listed in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation?
Standard 1: A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and
environment.
We are not changing the defining characteristics of the main barn. Doors, fenestration, siding, floorplan, and frame are all intact or will be repaired. As stated above, the ell will
be dimensionally identical and on the same footprint. The new shed-style addition that will be built on the rear of the building is consistent with 19th century barn vernacular.
Standard 2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property
shall be avoided.
We are not changing features. It will not be insulated so the character and beauty of the interior timber-frame construction will be retained. We are removing the interior horse stall
partitions. We will exhibit one portion with the horse stalls, with the rest preserved in storage.
Standard 3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural
features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken.
From the main barn, we have removed the modern (1999) bathroom. We have retained the joists of the lofts to indicate that they were there. Because of accessibility, no one can go up
to the lofts so it was best to remove the floorboards. We also removed the stairs to the loft; the stairs were added in the 1970s. The modern amenities will be in the ell (bathrooms,
kitchenette, circuit breaker box) and in the shed addition; both will be timber-framed.
Standard 4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.
The barn has changed over time. In the mid-19th century it was changed from a mercantile or storage structure into a barn and carriage house. As stated above, we are replacing the structure
of the carriage house (the ell) for historical consistency. Important interior elements have been documented. Those that have been removed are properly stored; several will be re-installed
as displays.
Standard 5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved.
Much of the barn’s timber framing is in good condition and repairs will be clearly marked as 2022. When the barn is open to the public, its construction and special features (e.g. dovecotes,
mortise-and-tenon joints) will be highlighted and described through interpretive signs and during in-person tours.
Standard 6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature
shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical,
or pictorial evidence.
We plan to have the main doors, windows, and slate roof repaired. We will replace the floor (it was not original) with a new wood plank floor of locally sourced hemlock. We will replace
the rotted timber sills and repair the rotted bases of the timber posts with white oak. We documented the barn before changes were made (drawings, horse stalls measurements and photos,
photos of joints). One section of horse stall will be reinstalled on the west wall; other portions are stored.
Standard 7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall
be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.
No chemical treatments will be used.
Standard 8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken.
Our consulting archaeologist has submitted an application for a field investigation permit to the MA Historical Commission. The archaeological investigation in and around the barn will
be completed before any site work for the new foundation or concrete flooring is conducted. If any archaeological resources are discovered, they will be addressed using with the highest
professional standards.
Standard 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated
from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
As stated previously, the new ell will be the same size, materials, and textures as the old one. The new shed-style addition is consistent with New England examples. Replacement timbers
in the main barn will be identified. We will document these changes for our records.
Standard 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic
property and its environment would be unimpaired.
Yes.
CPC Question 3: Is this the last request for support for the barn?
This is the final CPA request for the structural repair, renovation work, and artifact conservation and mounting. That being said, if the displayed artifacts require conservation treatment
for their preservation or other unforeseen preservation issues appear, we may submit a future application for additional funding.
CPC Question 4: The budget suggests that several grant requests are still pending approval.
(a) Is this still the case, and if so when are decisions expected?
We are currently waiting to hear about two pending applications, both of which focus on the new construction elements, i.e. the shed-style addition and the ell, as well as drainage improvements,
and the ADA patio.
Mass Cultural Council ($136,373 requested); decision in May.
Beveridge Foundation ($50,000 requested); a virtual site visit will take place on March 18, with a decision in May.
(b) If these requests are not funded, what will happen?
We do not want to delay the barn project any longer. The plans are 95% (or more) complete, we have solid estimates, our contractors are ready to go, and our neighbors and supporters
are very excited about the project. In fact, we already have a request from the Northampton Jazz Festival to book a date in October 2023.
We know that even if all the grants are fully funded, we still have to privately fundraise about $150,000 to meet our total project costs.
And, if all the grants are not fully funded, we will work hard to secure more private funding and if necessary, we will consider drawing from our organization’s reserve funds.
***