The most critical aspect of the meeting revolved around the discussion of the proposed demolition of the 1990s addition to the library and the modifications to the historic 1928 building. Concerns were raised about how these changes would affect the preservation of the library’s historical features. The applicant team from the Jones Library Board of Trustees presented detailed alterations to the architectural and landscape plans, which included switching from synthetic slate roofing to asphalt shingles, removing a roof monitor from the new addition, and altering window designs from curtain wall windows to traditional aluminum windows. Landscape modifications included postponing certain elements like the Goan Stone benches and the Children’s Courtyard until further funding was secured.

The commission evaluated the potential impacts of these changes on the library’s historical significance. A critical point of contention was the replacement of the existing slate roof with asphalt shingles. A suggestion was made to obtain separate bids for artificial slate roofing and new windows versus asphalt shingles while retaining the current windows to ensure both options were considered. This proposal highlighted the need to balance cost-saving measures with historical preservation standards.

Public comments revealed deep divisions among residents regarding the project. Some speakers argued that replacing the historic slate roof with asphalt shingles would diminish the building’s historical value. One resident likened the change to “changing a top hat into a baseball cap,” emphasizing the visual and historical implications. Others expressed concerns about the influence of Amherst College on the project and the financial burden on the town due to the demands of the renovation.

The commission also deliberated on the implications of the demolition bylaw, particularly in relation to the 1990s addition to the library. Questions arose about whether the current plans aligned with the original approval and met the standards set forth in the demolition bylaw. One commission member recalled earlier deliberations about the demolition delay and the project’s presentation before value engineering adjustments were made, noting the growing difficulty in opposing the demolition of the 1993 building given the new information that had emerged since July.

Public input also highlighted concerns about the potential legal ramifications of the commission’s decisions. An individual stressed the commission’s legal responsibilities and the necessity of adhering to preservation laws, citing specific standards from the Massachusetts Historical Commission that they felt were violated by the proposed changes. They urged the commission to reconsider previous decisions and act in accordance with their legal obligations to preserve the library’s historic character.

The meeting also addressed the issue of window replacements versus repairs. The commission discussed the current plan to retain existing windows while making necessary repairs, with a cost analysis requested to compare the repair of existing windows versus replacement with historically appropriate windows. Concerns were raised about lead paint remediation and the potential visual differences between repaired and replaced windows. The commission acknowledged the need to maintain the library’s visual character while balancing cost efficiencies and preservation standards.

Landscape changes were another significant topic. The removal of mature trees and the replacement of the Memorial Garden with less comprehensive landscape features sparked debate among commission members and residents. The commission emphasized the importance of evaluating the current proposal rather than potential future plantings, with concerns about the loss of mature trees and the impact on the community’s relationship with the library.

The commission ultimately agreed to continue the hearing to allow for further deliberation and ensure that all members could participate in the decision-making process.