Westport News

BRIEFING NOTE ON CLEARANCES FOR PROJECTS USING STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDS - JULY 5, 2011

A. How Citizens Union Bank Project came to WHC
B. Procedures for Project Review (prepared by Jane Loos after consulting Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) staff)
1. Federal
2. State
3. WHC
C. WHC Follow-up

A. HOW CITIZENS UNION BANK PROJECT CAME TO WHC

1. Citizens Union Bank received Westport Planning Board site plan approval for a full service branch of this bank, with parking for 30+ cars next to Main Road and drive-up windows at the rear of the site, on a property located across the street from Lees Market. Unlike every other building in Central Village (and for most of Westport too), the proposed bank branch would be built at an angle to Main Road. The site is currently vacant land, behind stone walls and adjacent on the north to a seniors housing development (town houses and apartments) which is set far back from Main Road by a long driveway and with open fields in front of it, and a small commercial complex on Main Road. To the south, the site is adjacent to a house on the Westport Historic Inventory. Central Village as an assemblage of buildings and locations is also listed on the Westport Historic Inventory (filed with Massachusetts Historical Commission in 1987).

2. Mr. Robert Shaker, contracting supervisor from Citizens Union Bank, requested to appear before WHC. During the meeting, which took place on June 13, 2011, he asked WHC to provide a letter affirming that no historical properties would be aversely affected by the project. He explained that this clearance was necessary for the FDIC to give its final go-ahead for the project to begin construction. He provided copies of two letters Citizens Union had received from other local Historical Commissions for other projects, as examples of what he wanted from WHC. A quick review of them at the meeting showed that the one from New Bedford agreed to a demolition of a property found to be "not preferably preserved," apparently under a New Bedford Demolition By-Law and the other from Connecticut (I think) was a statement that no historic properties would be adversely affected by the proposed project.

3. WHC informed him at the meeting that we were uncertain about who should be giving such a clearance, and that WHC would investigate how this should be done. WHC also advised him to go back to his principals and dig deeper into Section 106 to find the appropriate course of action to receive clearances.
4. At a WHC meeting about 18 months ago, WHC advised two current members and one past member of the Planning Board that the proposed site plan (in particular the angled location of the building and the parking all stacked up in front) is not suitable for Central Village (and in contradiction to the general principles agreed in the Westport Master Plan). WHC advised that the proposed building design is unsuitable as well, essentially a cape on steroids, but with all the proportions wrong-- e.g., house size windows installed about three feet down from the roof line because of the extra height of the building. This interchange occurred at a WHC meeting to which WHC invited members of the Planning Board to attend and inform us about their plans for Central Village, the town Master Plan, and several projects being proposed for Central Village (including the Citizens Union branch bank and the sidewalks project). This meeting drew a large audience from the general public, and included many people not normally following WHC business. The current Planning Board members mentioned the possibility of establishing an "Overlay District" for Central Village to guide future development with more authority than current Planning Board powers. WHC offered to work with them on guidelines for such a district.--- but the Planning Board has not yet started working on the "Overlay District" arrangements.
5. WHC informed Mr. Shaker that the views expressed at this meeting were drawn from WHC’s perspective of what is its best advice for maintaining the historic character of Central Village. WHC is not against establishing new businesses in Central Village, but supports using the concepts outlined in the Master Plan to guide this development.
B. PROCEDURES FOR PROJECT REVIEW

1. Federal Review
1.1. Any project that requires funding, licenses, or permits from federal agencies must be reviewed in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Section 106 requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their actions on historic properties. Federal Agencies are responsible for initiating Section 106 reviews, most of which take place between the agency and the state. In Massachusetts, the review is taken in consultation with the MHC. Other interested parties, such as local historical commissions, are also consulted.

1.2. Section 106 reviews follow a series of steps by which federal agencies identify and evaluate historic properties that may be affected by their undertakings, assess adverse effects to those properties, and take prudent and feasible measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate those effects. The final outcome of the reviews does not mandate the approval or denial of a project, just that the agency take issues of historic preservation into consideration when making their decisions.

1.3. Historic properties are defined as either those that are on the National Register of Historic Places or those that would be eligible for listing. In Massachusetts, MHC determines which projects may be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places before the application can be sent on to the Department of Interior. Eligibility criteria are established by the Department of Interior and include:

(i) Age and Integrity. Is the property old enough to be considered historic (generally at least 50 years old) and does it still look much the way it did in the past?
(ii) Significance. Is the property associated with events, activities, or developments that were important in the past? With the lives of people who were important in the past? With significant architectural history, landscape history, or engineering achievements? Does it have the potential to yield information through archeological investigation about our past?

1.4. MHC officials explained that it is often the case that the project sponsor actually initiates the Section 106 review, by submitting a Project Notification Form to MHC. Then MHC follows the steps outlined below in Part B2.2 and consults with the federal agency over the course of the review and its consultations with the project sponsors.

2. Massachusetts State Review
2.1. Any new construction projects or renovations to existing buildings that require funding, licenses, or permits from any state or federal governmental agencies must be reviewed by MHC for impacts to historic and archaeological properties. It is the nature of the federal or state agency involvement that triggers MHC review, not listing in the National or State Registers of Historic Places. A listing in either register does not necessarily require review and likewise, lack of listing does not eliminate the need for review.

2.2. MHC regulations set up a review process that mirrors the federal Section 106 regulations: identification of historic properties; assessment of effect; and consultation among interested parties to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects. The project sponsor is responsible for preparing and submitted a Project Notification Form (PNF) to MHC. MHC recommends that this be done early in the planning process so that potential adverse impacts can be sorted out before too much time/money/effort has been spent on project design.

2.3. If, after review of the PNF submittal and MHC files, MHC determines that the project is unlikely to affect significant historic or archaeological resources, MHC review is complete. If the MHC does not respond within 30 days after the receipt of the PNF, the project may proceed as planned.

2.4. If a project is found to have an adverse effect to an historic property or archaeological site, MHC enters into consultation with the project sponsors and, as warranted, other government agencies and other interested parties. The goal of the consultation is to arrive at prudent and feasible measures that will avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effect. The sponsor may be asked to submit an analysis of alternatives in order to determine if there are feasible alternatives that will avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effect.
2.5. The end result of this consultation process is the developing and signing of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the sponsor, MHC, the state or federal agency that is the funding, permitting, or licensing agency, and other participating parties, as warranted. An MOA is a written agreement signed by the consulting parties. It stipulates the measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize and/or mitigate the adverse effects and states that the signatories agree to these measures. Once the stipulations of the MOA are fulfilled, MHC review is complete.

3. Westport Historical Commission Review
3.1. WHC has been involved in a number of reviews of projects applying for state or federal agency funding, but none to my knowledge involving the FDIC. The pattern of how WHC was involved is not always clear or consistent. Nor was there consistent involvement by MHC as made known to WHC.

3.2 In the past, some WHC reviews were made at the request of a State agency – e.g., Route Six road repaving at the request of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation. There was no indication of MHC’s involvement in that one.

3.3 In the case of the wind power projects at Sylvan’s nursery, WHC provided a letter to the owners outlining WHC’s conclusion that the proposed projects would not adversely affect historic properties. I believe the WHC letter was used in this case by the owner as part of his application for State Funds.

3.4 There are many more examples of WHC being copied on MHC letters to project sponsor or project funders/licensers, etc., when MHC has determined that the project is unlikely to affect historic resources (see para B 2.3 above).

C. WHC FOLLOWUP
1. Meet with Planning Board to inform them how this matter came to WHC and requirements under Section 106 of National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and Massachusetts Historical Commission regulations –
July 19, 7pm.

2. WHC formally advise Citizens Union that we have brought this issue to MHC attention and that Citizens Union should contact MHC directly to work out any actions that may be required for FDIC clearances – Wendy H. Goldberg letter sent.

3. MHC requested WHC to provide its comments on the site plan and the building design – JL to assemble draft with inputs from Jim Collins.

4. WHC to investigate with MHC the prospects for Central Village to meet the Section 106 eligibility criteria (see Section B1.3 above). – JL to consult MHC.