battle road structure survey phase ii br ss p… · battle road structure survey phase ii (phase i...
TRANSCRIPT
BATTLE ROAD STRUCTURE SURVEY PHASE II (Phase I included as Appendix) Minute Man National Historical Park Concord, Massachusetts
National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior
Historic Architecture Program Northeast Region
Historic Architecture Program Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation October 2005
i
Minute Man National Historical Park Battle Road Structure Survey
Table of Contents
Introduction…………………………………………………………………..…………...1 Use Types with Associated Uses for Historic Structures and Associated Landscapes…………………………………………………..………….4 Impact Assessment per Structure and Landscape……………………...…...………...6 Specific Sites:
John Nelson House, Barn and Landscape……………………………….……7 Farwell Jones House, James Carty Barn and Landscape…………………...17 McHugh Barn and Landscape…………………………………………………27 Major John Buttrick House and Landscape…………………………...…….32 Noah Brooks Tavern, Rogers Barn and Landscape……………...…………38 Stow- Hardy House, Hovagimian Garage and Landscape…………………46 Joshua Brooks Jr. House and Landscape……………………………………..50 George Hall House and Landscape…………………………………………...54 Gowing- Clarke House and Landscape………………………………………59 Samuel Brooks House and Landscape………………………………………..62
Appendix (Phase I Report)…………………..…………………………………………65 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………...92
Introduction Purpose of Project The Minute Man National Historical Park Battle Road Structure Survey project was completed in two phases. Phase I, completed in October 2004, determined an impact assessment for the 14 structures and 10 sites included in the project. The summary of the Impact Assessment of phase I is included on page 6 of this report. Phase II of this project utilized the findings from phase I as a guide in formulating new use alternatives for each structure and site. Minute Man National Historical Park has identified the 14 structures and 10 sites that are eligible for reuse in accordance with the statement outlined in NPS- 28: Cultural Resource Management Guideline, Chapter 3: Planning:
“The goal of cultural resource planning in the national park system is to identify and preserve park cultural resources and to provide for their appreciation by the public. It strives to integrate cultural resource concerns into broader NPS planning processes, to avoid or minimize harm to cultural resources, to identify the most appropriate uses for cultural resources…”1
Throughout this project’s planning process the park has understood the challenge of balancing the overall interpretation of the park with simultaneously finding new uses for these sites that are desirable to the surrounding community. As new uses alternatives were brainstormed, the mission of the park was clearly kept on the forefront. Minute Man National Historical Park’s mission as stated in the National Register Nomination for the park is as follows:
“The primary mission of the park has been to approximate the cultural environment that existed in 1775 and preserve and interpret individual resources that contribute to understanding the events of the Battle of Lexington and Concord. As part of that mission, the NPS has removed more than 200 nineteenth and twentieth century buildings and structures in an attempt to recreate the open, agricultural appearance that the area had at the time of the battle.”2
1 Department of Interior. National Park Service. Director’s Order 28: Cultural Resource Management Guideline, Chapter 3, p.1. 1998. 2 Mary Kate Harrington, Emily Paulus, Duncan Ritchie, Stephen Olausen, National Register Nomination, Minuteman National Historical Park, Section 7, p.1, November 2002.
1
Definition of Objectives The goal of phase II, as mentioned previously, was to use the findings from phase I and generate a list of alternative new uses for each site within the project scope. The objective during this process was to create this list of new uses in collaboration with the park as well as professionals from a variety of disciplines. Input from the park was invaluable to this process because of the intimate familiarity they possess not only of their cultural resources, but also the day- to-day activities that they experience within the park. A variety of different disciplines was also consulted during round table meetings with the park. This included a senior asset reviewer from CoBank located in Springfield, MA; members from Community Action Partners (CAP) organized by the Harvard Business School Association of Boston; and members from The Farm School located in Athol, MA. All landscape assessments for each site were completed by the Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation. Collaboration from the Olmsted Center was fundamental to the outcome of this project. Data Collection and Analysis Phase I of this project involved a methodology that evaluated both the structures and the landscapes that allowed for the greatest amount of information per site to be considered to inform the final impact assessment. Several documents were utilized in the determination of significance; the primary documents referenced were the park’s National Register Nomination and available historic structure reports. Once the determination of significance was established, architectural and historical integrity could be assessed. The primary guide utilized in the assessment of integrity was The National Register Bulletin 15: How to Evaluate the Integrity of a Property. A walk- through of each structure and landscape was preformed evaluating each of these seven aspects of integrity in situ. The final product resulted in a matrix that simultaneously outlined each structure’s and site’s significance and integrity, which when added together generated the impact assessment. Development and Evaluation of New Use Alternatives Phase II of this project began with a round table meeting with the park that resulted in a proposed list of new uses. After the meeting, the list of proposed new uses was organized in “use type” categories to suggest that if one use was proposed for a site, then perhaps another use within the same “use type” category should also be considered. The next step was to match the new uses generated from the first brainstorming meeting to specific properties. A matrix was prepared outlining the new use alternatives for each site. Pros and cons that each proposed new use would yield on the structures and landscapes were entered into the matrix. Among several issues taken in account, some specific matters
2
considered were if the new use would add to or detract from the mission of the park; how great an impact would the new use have on both the structure and landscape; how the new use would capture or impede pedestrian flow; if the new use would attract more visitors to the park; how extensive a configuration or rehabilitation of the structure would be required; if the new use would require additional septic utilities; and if the new use would require additional parking. A second meeting was held to receive feedback from the park. The purpose of this meeting was to present to the park the draft findings and to weed out those uses that were not favorable. What resulted from this meeting was a short list of proposed new uses for each structure and site as well as the formation of these proposed new uses into a hierarchy of: Preferred Uses, Less Preferred Uses, and Non- Preferred Uses. Issues Several issues were identified throughout the project that reoccurred amongst each site. Septic issues were at the top of the list and were identified as being outside the scope of this project. This issue will need to be explored further with greater expertise in the subject area. Several sites had several alternative uses in common, specifically in the area surrounding the Brooks’ properties as well as the Farwell Jones and Stow- Hardy site. An idea surfaced to treat these properties that have common proposed uses and that are close in proximity to one another as clustered or compounded properties. For example, if the Noah Brook Tavern site is used as a tavern on the first floor and an inn on the second floor, the Joshua Brooks Jr. site could also be used as an inn under the same commercial venture as the Noah Brooks Tavern site. Parking was also seen as a challenge. However, the Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation was very adept regarding this issue and compiled a parking feasibility study that has been included throughout this report. Several other issues were also confronted such as technology needs and building code upgrades; these issues were also believed to be outside the scope of this project and should be addressed in the later planning stages of each site. The report included herein includes the list of proposed new uses; the Impact Assessment from phase I; and the matrix that includes proposed uses for each structure and landscape and the respective pros and cons.
3
Use Types with Associated Uses for Historic Structures and Associated Landscapes:
Educational: National Academy of 18th C. Life Educational Center (School Groups) Kids Camp (Nature or Colonial) Environmental Educational Center (w/Partner like AMC) Farm School (Farm and Children Education Mission) Retail: General Store Gallery Agricultural Sale Outlet (Farm Stand) Recreational: Outdoor Sport Rental Facility (Bikes, Snowshoes, etc.) Recreational Center Horseback Riding/Recreational Horses Golf Course Agricultural: U- Pick Farm Grazing Sheep Shearing Community Farm (Plots for Rent) Cider Mill Grist Mill Forest- Related Venue (Follow Wood Production) Animals Artisan Cheeses/Cheese Making Cows/Dairy Gathering Space/Entertainment: Conference Center Functions Theatre Dances 18th C. House of Horrors Cooking Classes
4
Food Concession/Restaurants: Tavern Artisan Cheeses Restaurant – 18th C. Traditional Cooking Visitor Food Concessions (Theme Orientated)/ Dairy Concessions Tea Room Residential: Artist Residence Elder Hostel Youth Hostel Park Housing Bed and Breakfast/Inn Seasonal Housing Farmer Residence Artisan Crafts: Tinsmithing Glassblowing Candlestick Making Furniture Making Artisan Cheeses/Cheese Making Interpretive: 19th C. Tourism/Interpretive Interpretive Story Building as an Exhibit Annual Herding of Animals Living History/Working Farm Archeology – Public Access Exhibit Space Miscellaneous: Non- Profit Lease Residential Resource Partners Curatorial Storage Park Use Leased Office Space (profit/non- profit) Park Office Space
5
Impact Assessment
Mean Impact Rating per Structure High Impact Level 12 Joshua Brooks Jr. House 13 George Hall House 14 Gowing- Clarke House 15 16 17 18 Stow- Hardy Garage, Noah Brooks Tavern Medium Impact Level 19 John Nelson Barn, Stow- Hardy House, 20 Rogers Barn, McHugh Barn, James Carty Barn 21 22 23 Samuel Brooks House 24 25 26 27 Farwell Jones House, John Nelson House Low Impact Level 28 Major John Buttrick House
Mean Impact Rating per Landscape
High Impact Level 14 Stow- Hardy Site, Joshua Brooks Jr. Site 15 George Hall Site, Gowing- Clarke Site 16 John Nelson Site Medium Impact Level 17 18 Farwell Jones Site, Samuel Brooks Site,
Major John Buttrick Site 19 Noah Brooks Site 20 Low Impact Level 21 McHugh Site
6
John Nelson House, Barn, Landscape
Current Use
House: Residential (Hanscom Residential Lease). Barn: Vacant / NPS Light Storage.
Impact Structure: Low Impact Level (27 out of a possible 36 points). Barn: Medium Impact Level (19 out of a possible 36 points). Landscape: Medium to High Impact Level (16 out of a possible 24 points).
Issues Parking:
Existing: 2 spaces. Potential: 3 extra spaces against the barn and 2 spaces facing the main road 2A. Total: 7 spaces. Other: Not recommended for visitor parking due to limited space to maneuver a car. Driveway should remain unpaved. Minor improvement to driveway and entrance will be necessary in addition to construction of a new parking area. Several large trees (acer and quercus) should be protected. Parking at Visitor Center may be an option as well.
Septic: Existing: New septic installed in 2003 for residential use (5 bedrooms). Required: See attached septic information (will vary according to use).
Other • House constructed ca. 1808 – 1810, barn constructed ca. 1810 – 1824. • Possibility of some part of the house being a witness structure – to confirm
this, more architectural investigation and a full historic structure report would be required.
• Consider cluster arrangement with Whittemore Educational Center and Visitor Center located nearby. Location is close to trail.
7
Joh
n N
elso
n S
ite
Hou
se
(Low
Im
pac
t Lev
el)
Bar
n
(Med
ium
Im
pac
t Lev
el)
Lan
dsc
ape
(M
ediu
m I
mp
act L
evel
) P
refe
rred
Use
s
C
omb
ined
Use
P
ro
Con
P
ro
Con
P
ro
Con
H
ouse
: B
uild
ing
as a
n E
xhib
it
Bar
n:
See
Edu
cati
onal
-A
dditi
onal
A
ltern
ativ
e-
Bar
n:
See
Art
isan
Cra
fts
-Uni
que
inte
rpre
tive
ex
peri
ence
for
park
vi
sito
rs -
wou
ld b
e on
e of
a k
ind
disp
lay
in th
e pa
rk.
-Wou
ld c
aptu
re p
eopl
e fr
om th
e tr
ail a
nd fr
om
the
Vis
itor
Cen
ter
park
ing
lot.
-Wou
ld c
ontr
ibut
e to
th
e lo
cal s
igni
fica
nce
in
arch
itec
ture
. -C
ould
sup
plem
ent
exhi
bit w
ith
mus
eum
ob
ject
s re
latin
g to
the
fiel
d of
arc
hite
ctur
e.
-Wou
ld r
equi
re a
fu
ll H
isto
ric
Stru
ctur
e R
epor
t to
und
erst
and
stru
ctur
e be
fore
th
is c
ould
be
acco
mpl
ishe
d.
-Cou
ld p
oten
tial
ly
have
hig
h im
pact
on
str
uctu
re
thro
ugh
the
peel
ing
back
of
“lay
ers”
and
cr
eati
on o
f an
exhi
bit.
-Wou
ld n
ot
requ
ire
addi
tion
al
sept
ic.
-Clo
se in
pr
oxim
ity
to
Vis
itor
Cen
ter
park
ing
lot.
-Wou
ld h
ave
low
im
pact
on
land
scap
e.
-Vis
itor
Cen
ter
park
ing
lot m
ay
be to
o fa
r re
mov
ed (u
nles
s a
shor
ter
path
to
hous
e w
as
cons
truc
ted.
)
Hou
se: A
rtis
ts in
R
esid
ence
B
arn
: G
alle
ry
-Wou
ld b
e co
mpa
tibl
e us
e if
Bar
n is
use
d fo
r A
rtis
ans
Cra
fts
or
Gal
lery
. -U
se w
ould
be
cons
iste
nt w
ith
hist
oric
fu
ncti
on o
f the
st
ruct
ure
as a
res
iden
ce.
-Min
imal
to n
o
-May
not
hav
e ap
prop
riat
e sp
ace
for
a st
udio
. -W
ould
not
co
ntri
bute
to p
ark
mis
sion
. -W
ould
rem
ove
stru
ctur
e fr
om
publ
ic u
se a
nd
-Com
pati
ble
use
if
hous
e is
use
d fo
r an
ar
tist
’s r
esid
ence
. -E
xist
ing
floo
r pl
an
wou
ld n
ot h
ave
to
be g
reat
ly a
lter
ed -
w
ould
hav
e lo
w
impa
ct o
n st
ruct
ure.
-May
not
ge
nera
te
enou
gh in
tere
st.
-Wou
ld n
ot
requ
ire
addi
tion
al
sept
ic.
-Clo
se in
pr
oxim
ity
to
Vis
itor
Cen
ter
park
ing
lot.
-Vis
itor
Cen
ter
park
ing
lot m
ay
be to
o fa
r re
mov
ed (u
nles
s a
shor
ter
path
to
hous
e w
as
cons
truc
ted.
)
8
-A
dditi
onal
A
ltern
ativ
e -
Bar
n: S
ee
Agr
icul
ture
-A
dditi
onal
A
ltern
ativ
e-
Bar
n: S
ee A
rtis
an
Cra
fts
conv
ersi
on c
ost.
-Low
impa
ct o
n st
ruct
ure.
enjo
ymen
t.
Ed
ucat
ion
al
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
Bar
n:
Edu
cati
onal
C
ente
r (S
choo
l G
roup
s / N
atio
nal
Aca
dem
y fo
r 18
th
C. L
ife)
-Spa
ce is
larg
e en
ough
to b
e a
larg
e cl
assr
oom
/ au
dito
rium
to b
e us
ed fo
r le
ctur
es.
-Wou
ld c
ontr
ibut
e to
par
k’s
mis
sion
th
roug
h ed
ucat
ion
of c
hild
ren
and
publ
ic o
n 18
th C
. hi
stor
y, e
tc.
-Min
imal
co
nver
sion
cos
t –
low
impa
ct o
n st
ruct
ure.
-C
onsi
der
clus
ter
arra
ngem
ent w
ith
Whi
ttem
ore
Edu
cati
onal
Cen
ter
and
the
Vis
itor
Cen
ter.
-T
rans
port
atio
n co
uld
be p
rovi
ded
by b
uses
that
co
uld
park
at
Vis
itor
Cen
ter
park
ing
lot.
-Wou
ld r
equi
re
addi
tion
al s
epti
c.
-Wou
ld h
ave
med
ium
impa
ct
on la
ndsc
ape.
-V
isit
or C
ente
r pa
rkin
g lo
t may
be
too
far
rem
oved
(unl
ess
a sh
orte
r pa
th to
ho
use
was
co
nstr
ucte
d.)
9
Les
s P
refe
rred
U
ses
Com
bin
ed U
se
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
Hou
se a
nd
Bar
n:
You
th H
oste
l
-Flo
or p
lan
may
not
ne
ed to
be
grea
tly
alte
red.
-G
reat
alt
erna
tive
ho
stel
hou
sing
in th
e ci
ty o
f Bos
ton
– le
ss
expe
nsiv
e an
d m
ore
spac
e.
-May
intr
oduc
e ex
cess
ive
wea
r an
d te
ar o
n hi
stor
ic
stru
ctur
e du
e to
tr
ansi
ent n
atur
e –
coul
d ha
ve h
igh
impa
ct.
-Cou
ld r
equi
re
exte
nsiv
e bu
ildin
g co
de u
pgra
de
(AD
A, F
ire
Safe
ty).
-Hou
se m
ay b
e to
o sm
all f
or th
is
use.
-W
ould
not
co
ntri
bute
to p
ark
mis
sion
. -N
ot e
asily
ac
cess
ible
via
pu
blic
tr
ansp
orta
tion.
-Lar
ge a
mou
nt o
f sp
ace
coul
d ac
com
mod
ate
a la
rge
num
ber
of
room
s.
-Gre
at a
lter
nati
ve
host
el h
ousi
ng in
th
e ci
ty o
f Bos
ton
– le
ss e
xpen
sive
and
m
ore
spac
e.
-Cos
t of
conv
ersi
on
wou
ld b
e hi
gh.
-Wou
ld h
ave
high
impa
ct o
n st
ruct
ure.
-C
ould
req
uire
ex
tens
ive
build
ing
code
up
grad
e (A
DA
, F
ire
Safe
ty).
-Use
of V
isito
r C
ente
r pa
rkin
g lo
t m
ay b
e an
opt
ion
for
a yo
uth
host
el.
-May
req
uire
ad
diti
onal
sep
tic
depe
ndin
g on
nu
mbe
r of
oc
cupa
nts.
-V
isit
or C
ente
r pa
rkin
g lo
t may
be
too
far
rem
oved
(unl
ess
a sh
orte
r pa
th to
ho
use
was
co
nstr
ucte
d.)
Rec
reat
ion
al
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
Bar
n:
Out
door
Sp
ort R
enta
l F
acili
ty
-Wou
ld c
aptu
re
peop
le s
tayi
ng a
t th
e In
n.
-Wou
ld c
aptu
re
peop
le fr
om th
e tr
ail.
-Cou
ld b
e a
good
so
urce
of i
ncom
e.
-Exi
stin
g fl
oor
plan
-Wou
ld n
ot
cont
ribu
te to
th
e pa
rk
mis
sion
. -M
ay n
ot
gene
rate
en
ough
inte
rest
.-S
pace
may
be
too
larg
e fo
r
-Wou
ld
enco
urag
e ex
plor
atio
n of
su
rrou
ndin
g la
ndsc
ape
and
add
to th
e vi
sito
r ex
peri
ence
. -N
o ad
diti
onal
se
ptic
wou
ld b
e
-Add
ed
expl
orat
ion
of
surr
ound
ing
area
co
uld
caus
e a
high
impa
ct to
th
e la
ndsc
ape.
-V
isit
or C
ente
r pa
rkin
g lo
t may
be
too
far
10
wou
ld n
ot h
ave
to
be g
reat
ly a
lter
ed
and
the
impa
ct
wou
ld b
e lo
w.
this
use
. re
quir
ed.
-Clo
se in
pr
oxim
ity
to
Vis
itor
Cen
ter
park
ing
lot.
rem
oved
(unl
ess
a sh
orte
r pa
th to
ho
use
was
co
nstr
ucte
d.)
A
gric
ultu
ral
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
Bar
n:
Agr
icul
tura
l Sa
le O
utle
t
-W
ould
con
tinue
th
e ag
ricu
ltur
al
scen
e of
par
k.
-Min
imal
co
nver
sion
req
uire
d –
Low
impa
ct to
st
ruct
ure.
-Cou
ld
pote
ntia
lly b
e lim
ited
to
seas
onal
op
erat
ion.
-S
pace
may
be
too
larg
e fo
r th
is n
ew u
se.
-No
addi
tion
al
sept
ic w
ould
be
requ
ired
. -C
lose
in
prox
imit
y to
V
isit
or C
ente
r pa
rkin
g lo
t.
-Vis
itor
Cen
ter
park
ing
lot m
ay
be to
o fa
r re
mov
ed (u
nles
s a
shor
ter
path
to
hous
e w
as
cons
truc
ted.
) -M
ediu
m im
pact
to
sit
e.
Oth
er
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
Bar
n:
Art
isan
C
raft
s (G
lass
blow
ing,
T
insm
ithi
ng,
Fur
nitu
re M
akin
g,
Can
dles
tick
M
akin
g, C
hees
e m
akin
g)
-W
ould
capt
ure
peop
le fr
om th
e tr
ail a
nd p
erha
ps
from
the
Vis
itor
Cen
ter
park
ing
lot.
-Cou
ld h
ave
diff
icul
ty in
fi
ndin
g ar
tisa
n cr
afts
men
.
-Des
irab
le fo
r vi
sito
rs –
may
in
crea
se v
isit
atio
n to
par
k.
-May
be
econ
omic
ally
pr
ofit
able
–
adm
issi
on c
harg
e.
-Com
pati
ble
use
wit
h fl
oor
spac
e /
hist
oric
func
tion
of
stru
ctur
e –
wou
ld
have
low
impa
ct.
-Add
itio
nal
park
ing
may
not
be
req
uire
d du
e to
th
e pr
oxim
ity o
f th
e V
isit
or C
ente
r pa
rkin
g lo
t.
-May
req
uire
ad
diti
onal
sep
tic.
-V
isit
or C
ente
r pa
rkin
g lo
t may
be
too
far
rem
oved
(unl
ess
a sh
orte
r pa
th to
ho
use
was
co
nstr
ucte
d.)
-Wou
ld h
ave
med
ium
impa
ct
to la
ndsc
ape.
11
-Wou
ld c
ontr
ibut
e to
the
park
’s
mis
sion
thro
ugh
hist
oric
cra
ft
dem
onst
ratio
ns.
Non
-Pre
ferr
ed
Use
s
Com
bin
ed U
se
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
Hou
se: T
ea R
oom
B
arn
: See
R
ecre
atio
nal
-Add
ition
al
Alte
rnat
ive-
B
arn
: Se
e A
gric
ultu
re
-Add
ition
al
Alte
rnat
ive-
B
arn
: See
Art
isan
C
raft
s
-Wou
ld b
e on
ly fo
od
conc
essi
on b
etw
een
Rt.
128
and
dow
ntow
n C
onco
rd.
-Wou
ld c
aptu
re p
eopl
e fr
om th
e tr
ail.
-Wou
ld c
ontr
ibut
e to
th
e hi
stor
ic s
cene
of
park
.
-Wou
ld n
eed
to
expa
nd k
itch
en –
m
ay h
ave
high
im
pact
on
stru
ctur
e.
-Wou
ld n
ot b
e co
nsis
tent
wit
h hi
stor
ic fu
nctio
n of
str
uctu
re.
-Clo
se in
pr
oxim
ity
to
Vis
itor
Cen
ter
park
ing
lot.
-May
req
uire
ad
diti
onal
sep
tic
depe
ndin
g th
e um
ber
of s
eate
d oc
cupa
ncy.
-V
isit
or C
ente
r pa
rkin
g lo
t may
be
too
far
rem
oved
(unl
ess
a sh
orte
r pa
th to
ho
use
was
co
nstr
ucte
d.)
Hou
se:
Dir
ecto
r’s
Res
iden
ce
Bar
n:
-Use
wou
ld b
e co
nsis
tent
wit
h hi
stor
ic
func
tion
of t
he
stru
ctur
e as
a r
esid
ence
.
-Wou
ld n
ot
cont
ribu
te to
par
k m
issi
on.
-Wou
ld r
emov
e
-Cos
tof
conv
ersi
on
wou
ld b
e hi
gh -
hi
gh im
pact
to
-H
ouse
wou
ld n
ot
requ
ire
addi
tion
al
sept
ic.
-Clo
se in
-Bar
n w
ould
re
quir
e ad
diti
onal
sep
tic.
-V
isit
or C
ente
r
12
Con
fere
nce
Cen
ter
-Min
imal
to n
o co
nver
sion
cos
t. -L
ow im
pact
on
stru
ctur
e.
stru
ctur
e fr
om
publ
ic u
se a
nd
enjo
ymen
t.
stru
ctur
e.
prox
imit
yto
Vis
itor
Cen
ter
park
ing
lot.
park
ing
lot m
ay
be to
o fa
r re
mov
ed (u
nles
s a
shor
ter
path
to
hous
e w
as
cons
truc
ted.
) H
ouse
: O
ffic
e (P
rofi
t / N
on-
prof
it)
Bar
n:
See
Rec
reat
iona
l
-A
dditi
onal
A
ltern
ativ
e-
Bar
n:
See
Edu
cati
onal
-Pot
enti
ally
goo
d,
relia
ble
econ
omic
in
com
e.
-Off
ice
spac
e re
quir
emen
ts s
uch
as IT
nee
ds a
nd
heav
y eq
uipm
ent
mig
ht c
ause
a h
igh
impa
ct o
n st
ruct
ure.
-W
ould
not
co
ntri
bute
to p
ark
mis
sion
. -W
ould
not
be
cons
iste
nt w
ith
hist
oric
func
tion
of s
truc
ture
. -W
ould
rem
ove
stru
ctur
e fr
om
publ
ic u
se a
nd
enjo
ymen
t.
-Dep
endi
ng o
f nu
mbe
r of
oc
cupa
nts,
may
ha
ve a
dequ
ate
park
ing
and
sept
ic.
-Wou
ld h
ave
low
im
pact
on
land
scap
e.
Hou
se a
nd
B
arn
: Bed
and
B
reak
fast
/Inn
-Des
irab
le lo
cati
on,
not m
any
lodg
ing
choi
ces
in a
rea.
-L
odgi
ng in
are
a w
ould
pr
omot
e vi
sita
tion
and
us
e of
the
park
.
-Str
uctu
re m
ay b
e to
o sm
all f
or th
is
use.
-M
ay in
trod
uce
exce
ssiv
e w
ear
and
tear
on
hist
oric
-Des
irab
le lo
cati
on,
not m
any
lodg
ing
choi
ces
in a
rea.
-G
ood
com
pati
ble
use
wit
h ho
use
as a
B
ed a
nd B
reak
fast
-Cos
t of
conv
ersi
on
wou
ld b
e hi
gh –
coul
d ha
ve h
igh
impa
ct o
n st
ruct
ure.
-Pot
enti
al p
arki
ng
of 7
spa
ces
may
be
suff
icie
nt.
-Clo
se in
pr
oxim
ity
to
Vis
itor
Cen
ter
-May
req
uire
ad
diti
onal
sep
tic
(add
ition
al
bath
room
s -
one
per
bedr
oom
).
-Wou
ld h
ave
13
-Add
ition
al
Alte
rnat
ive-
B
arn
: See
R
ecre
atio
nal
-Add
ition
al
Alte
rnat
ive-
B
arn
: See
A
gric
ultu
re
-Add
ition
al
Alte
rnat
ive-
B
arn
: See
Art
isan
C
raft
s
stru
ctur
e du
e to
tr
ansi
ent n
atur
e.
-Wou
ld n
ot
cont
ribu
te to
par
k m
issi
on.
-Add
itio
nal
bath
room
s (o
ne
per
bedr
oom
) w
ould
nee
d to
be
adde
d to
str
uctu
re
– co
uld
have
hig
h im
pact
on
stru
ctur
e.
-Cou
ld r
equi
re
exte
nsiv
e bu
ildin
g co
de u
pgra
de
(AD
A, F
ire
Safe
ty).
as w
ell.
-Wou
ld n
ot
cont
ribu
te to
pa
rk m
issi
on.
park
ing
lot.
med
ium
impa
ct
on la
ndsc
ape.
-V
isit
or C
ente
r pa
rkin
g lo
t may
be
too
far
rem
oved
(unl
ess
a sh
orte
r pa
th to
ho
use
was
co
nstr
ucte
d.)
Ed
ucat
ion
al
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
Hou
se a
nd
Bar
n:
Env
iron
men
tal
-Com
pati
ble
use
for
park
– c
ontr
ibut
es to
-W
ould
not
di
rect
ly c
ontr
ibut
e -E
xist
ing
floo
r pl
an
wou
ld b
e go
od fo
r
-Gre
at c
ompa
tibl
e us
e fo
r la
ndsc
ape
-Vis
itor
Cen
ter
park
ing
lot m
ay
14
Edu
cati
on C
ente
r–
Stag
ing
Are
a O
nly
m
anag
emen
t of n
atur
al
reso
urce
s.
-Gre
at s
etti
ng fo
r us
e –
clos
e to
trai
l. -E
xist
ing
floo
r sp
ace
wou
ld le
nd it
self
wel
l to
smal
l pr
esen
tati
on/e
xhib
it
spac
es.
-Tra
nspo
rtat
ion
coul
d be
pro
vide
d by
bus
es.
to p
ark’
s m
issi
on.
-Wou
ld n
ot b
e co
nsis
tent
wit
h hi
stor
ic fu
nctio
n of
str
uctu
re.
pres
enta
tion
s or
la
rge
clas
sroo
m
spac
e.
and
natu
ral
reso
urce
s –
impa
ct
wou
ld b
e lo
w.
-May
not
req
uire
ad
diti
onal
sep
tic.
-C
lose
in
prox
imit
y to
V
isit
or C
ente
r pa
rkin
g lo
t.
be to
o fa
r re
mov
ed (u
nles
s a
shor
ter
path
to
hous
e w
as
cons
truc
ted.
)
Agr
icul
tura
l P
ro
Con
P
ro
Con
P
ro
Con
B
arn
: A
nim
als
-Wou
ld b
e a
use
that
is c
onsi
sten
t w
ith
the
hist
oric
fu
ncti
on o
f the
st
ruct
ure.
-W
ould
not
req
uire
a
grea
t alt
erat
ion
in
floo
r pl
an o
f ex
isti
ng s
truc
ture
an
d th
eref
ore
wou
ld h
ave
a lo
w
impa
ct.
-Wou
ld r
equi
re
staf
fing
to te
nd
afte
r/ca
re fo
r an
imal
s.
-Not
hig
hly
prof
itab
le.
-Sit
e is
not
ne
cess
arily
a
“des
tina
tion
si
te”
and
anim
als
may
no
t be
high
ly
visi
ted/
seen
.
-Wou
ld b
e in
ke
epin
g w
ith
the
hist
oric
and
ag
ricu
ltur
al s
cene
. -N
o ad
diti
onal
pa
rkin
g w
ould
be
requ
ired
. -N
o ad
diti
onal
se
ptic
wou
ld b
e re
quir
ed.
-Low
impa
ct o
n la
ndsc
ape.
Bar
n:
Liv
ing
His
tory
/ W
orki
ng
Far
m
-Wou
ld c
ontr
ibut
e to
the
agri
cult
ural
si
gnif
ican
ce o
f par
k / a
grar
ian
trad
itio
n.
-Cou
ld b
e ec
onom
ical
ly
prof
itab
le
(adm
issi
on c
harg
e).
-Wou
ld r
equi
re
a la
rge
num
ber
of s
taff
. -D
iffi
cult
y in
fi
ndin
g th
is
“hig
hly
spec
ializ
ed”
staf
f. -W
ould
be
a se
ason
al
-Clo
se in
pr
oxim
ity
to
Vis
itor
Cen
ter
park
ing
lot.
-Lan
dsca
pe m
ay
not b
e la
rge
enou
gh fo
r th
is
sort
of o
pera
tion.
-Vis
itor
Cen
ter
park
ing
lot m
ay
be to
o fa
r re
mov
ed (u
nles
s a
shor
ter
path
to
hous
e w
as
15
oper
atio
n on
ly.
cons
truc
ted.
) -A
ddit
iona
l se
ptic
wou
ld b
e re
quir
ed.
-Wou
ld h
ave
high
impa
ct.
16
Farwell Jones House, James Carty Barn, and Landscape
Current Use House: Residential (Private lease). Barn: Vacant / NPS Light Storage.
Impact Structure: Low Impact Level (27 out of 36 possible points). Barn: Medium Impact Level (20 of 36 possible points). Landscape: Medium Impact Level (18 out of 24 possible points).
Issues: Parking:
Existing: 3 spaces available around the house and possibly 3 spaces next to the utility shed. Parking area is paved, but in poor condition. Potential: 5- 7 spaces could be made around the house and in front of the barn and silo. Additional 6- 12 spaces could be located behind the barn, next to the utility shed(s).
Total: 22 spaces. Other: This site needs particular attention due to the proximity if the Battle Road and views. One way to deal with such a challenge is to break up the parking into several “micro” lots.
Septic: Existing: House has septic for residential use; barn has septic. Required: See attached septic information (will vary according to use).
Other • Most intact agricultural site in project. • Witness structure - house constructed ca. 1700 – 1716, barn constructed
in 1903.
17
Far
wel
l Jon
es S
ite
Hou
se
(Low
Im
pac
t Lev
el)
Bar
n
(Med
ium
Im
pac
t Lev
el)
Lan
dsc
ape
(M
ediu
m I
mp
act L
evel
) P
refe
rred
Use
s
C
omb
ined
Use
P
ro
Con
P
ro
Con
P
ro
Con
H
ouse
: A
rtis
t R
esid
ence
(m
ulti
ple
Art
ists
or
Art
ist a
nd fa
mily
) B
arn
: Gal
lery
-A
dditi
onal
A
ltern
ativ
e-
Bar
n: A
rtis
an C
raft
s (G
lass
blow
ing,
T
insm
ithi
ng, F
urni
ture
M
akin
g, C
andl
esti
ck
Mak
ing,
Che
ese
mak
ing)
-Wou
ld b
e co
mpa
tibl
e us
e if
B
arn
is u
sed
for
Art
isan
Cra
fts
or
Gal
lery
. -M
inim
al
conv
ersi
on c
ost.
-Com
pati
ble
use
wit
h fl
oor
spac
e/hi
stor
ic
func
tion
of
stru
ctur
e.
-Low
impa
ct o
n st
ruct
ure.
-May
not
hav
e ap
prop
riat
e ro
om
for
stud
io s
pace
. -W
ould
rem
ove
stru
ctur
e fr
om
publ
ic u
se a
nd
enjo
ymen
t.
-Goo
d m
atch
for
arti
st r
esid
ence
. -C
ompa
tibl
e us
e w
ith
exis
ting
floo
r sp
ace
of s
truc
ture
an
d th
eref
ore
wou
ld h
ave
a lo
w
impa
ct.
-Des
irab
le fo
r vi
sito
rs, m
ay
incr
ease
vis
itat
ion
to P
ark.
-M
ay b
e ec
onom
ical
ly
prof
itab
le –
ad
mis
sion
cha
rge.
-C
ompa
tibl
e us
e w
ith
floo
r sp
ace/
hist
oric
fu
ncti
on o
f st
ruct
ure.
-W
ould
hav
e lo
w
-May
not
ge
nera
te e
noug
h in
tere
st.
-Wou
ld n
ot
cont
inue
agr
aria
n tr
adit
ion.
-C
ould
hav
e di
ffic
ulty
in
find
ing
arti
san
craf
tsm
en.
-Wou
ld n
ot
requ
ire
addi
tion
al
park
ing.
-W
ould
not
re
quir
e ad
diti
onal
sep
tic
need
s.
-Ver
y lo
w
impa
ct o
n la
ndsc
ape.
-L
and
coul
d be
fa
rmed
/use
d by
St
ow-H
ardy
re
side
nt.
-Wou
ld n
ot
requ
ire
addi
tion
al s
epti
c ne
eds.
-M
ay h
ave
adeq
uate
par
king
(p
oten
tial
). -W
ould
hav
e lo
w
impa
ct o
n la
ndsc
ape.
-Wou
ld n
ot
cont
inue
agr
aria
n tr
adit
ion.
-W
ould
not
co
ntin
ue a
grar
ian
trad
itio
n.
18
impa
ct o
n st
ruct
ure.
H
ouse
an
d B
arn
:
Bed
& B
reak
fast
/Inn
-Des
irab
le
loca
tion
, not
man
y lo
dgin
g ch
oice
s in
ar
ea.
-Com
pati
ble
wit
h B
arn
for
use
as a
B
ed &
B
reak
fast
/Inn
as
wel
l. -L
odgi
ng in
are
a w
ould
pro
mot
e th
e us
e of
the
Park
an
d in
crea
se
visi
tati
on.
-May
intr
oduc
e ex
cess
ive
wea
r an
d te
ar o
n hi
stor
ic
stru
ctur
e du
e to
tr
ansi
ent n
atur
e.
-Add
itio
nal
bath
room
s w
ould
ne
ed to
be
adde
d to
str
uctu
re (1
ba
thro
om p
er
bedr
oom
).
-Wou
ld h
ave
med
ium
impa
ct to
st
ruct
ure.
-Des
irab
le
loca
tion
, not
man
y lo
dgin
g ch
oice
s in
ar
ea.
-Gre
at c
ompa
tibl
e us
e w
ith
hous
e as
B
ed &
B
reak
fast
/Inn
as
wel
l. -L
odgi
ng in
are
a w
ould
pro
mot
e th
e us
e of
the
Park
and
in
crea
se v
isit
atio
n.
-Cos
t of
conv
ersi
on
wou
ld b
e hi
gh.
-May
hav
e ad
equa
te p
arki
ng
(pot
enti
al).
-Wou
ld n
ot
cont
inue
agr
aria
n tr
adit
ion.
-A
dequ
ate
sept
ic
wou
ld n
eed
to b
e in
stal
led.
-C
ould
hav
e m
ediu
m im
pact
on
land
scap
e.
Hou
se:
Dir
ecto
r’s
Res
iden
ce/O
ffic
e B
arn
: T
heat
re/D
ance
s
-Com
pati
ble
wit
h hi
stor
ic fu
nctio
n of
str
uctu
re a
s a
resi
denc
e.
-Min
imal
co
nver
sion
cos
t. -I
mpa
ct to
st
ruct
ure
wou
ld b
e lo
w.
-Gar
age
behi
nd
hous
e co
uld
be
used
for
tick
et
sale
s or
bat
hroo
m.
-Wou
ld n
ot
cont
inue
agr
aria
n tr
adit
ion
or
cont
ribu
te to
pa
rk’s
mis
sion
. -W
ould
rem
ove
stru
ctur
e fr
om
publ
ic u
se a
nd
enjo
ymen
t.
-Wou
ld r
equi
re
the
use
of o
nly
one
floo
r, a
llow
ing
the
othe
r fl
oors
to b
e m
ulti
use
- 1st
Flo
or:
Equ
ipm
ent
Stor
age,
2nd
Flo
or:
Dan
ce/T
heat
re, 3
rd
Flo
or: M
isc.
-C
ost o
f co
nver
sion
wou
ld
be m
inim
al.
-Im
pact
to
stru
ctur
e w
ould
be
low
.
-Wou
ld n
ot
cont
inue
agr
aria
n tr
adit
ion
or
cont
ribu
te to
pa
rk’s
mis
sion
.
-W
ould
not
co
ntin
ue a
grar
ian
trad
itio
n.
-May
not
hav
e ad
equa
te p
arki
ng
(pot
enti
al).
-A
dequ
ate
sept
ic
for
barn
wou
ld
need
to b
e in
stal
led.
-
May
hav
e hi
gh
impa
ct o
n la
ndsc
ape
(par
king
and
se
ptic
nee
ds).
Hou
se:
Dir
ecto
r’s
Res
iden
ce/O
ffic
e B
arn
: C
onfe
renc
e
-Com
pati
ble
wit
h hi
stor
ic fu
nctio
n of
str
uctu
re a
s a
-Wou
ld n
ot
cont
inue
agr
aria
n tr
adit
ion
or
-Wou
ld r
equi
re
the
use
of o
nly
one
floo
r, a
llow
ing
the
-Wou
ld n
ot
cont
inue
agr
aria
n tr
adit
ion
or
-W
ould
not
co
ntin
ue a
grar
ian
trad
itio
n.
19
Cen
ter
re
side
nce.
-Min
imal
co
nver
sion
cos
t. -I
mpa
ct to
st
ruct
ure
wou
ld b
e lo
w.
-Gar
age
behi
nd
hous
e co
uld
be
used
for
tick
et
sale
s or
bat
hroo
m.
cont
ribu
te to
pa
rk’s
mis
sion
. -W
ould
rem
ove
stru
ctur
e fr
om
publ
ic u
se a
nd
enjo
ymen
t.
othe
r fl
oors
to b
e m
ulti
use
- 1st
Flo
or:
Equ
ipm
ent s
tora
ge,
2nd F
loor
: C
onfe
renc
e Sp
ace,
3rd
Flo
or: M
isc.
cont
ribu
te to
pa
rk’s
mis
sion
. -C
ost o
f co
nver
sion
w
ould
be
high
an
d im
pact
leve
l w
ould
be
high
.
-May
not
hav
e ad
equa
te p
arki
ng
(pot
enti
al).
-A
dequ
ate
sept
ic
for
barn
wou
ld
need
to b
e in
stal
led.
-I
mpa
ct le
vel t
o la
ndsc
ape
wou
ld
be h
igh.
H
ouse
an
d B
arn
: O
ffic
e Sp
ace
(lea
se)
-Add
ition
al
Alte
rnat
ive-
B
arn
: Se
e A
gric
ultu
re
-Pot
enti
ally
goo
d,
relia
ble
econ
omic
in
com
e.
-Flo
or s
pace
w
ould
not
nee
d to
be
alt
ered
.
-Req
uire
men
ts fo
r of
fice
(IT
nee
ds
and
heav
y of
fice
eq
uipm
ent)
use
m
ay b
e in
trus
ive/
to
o gr
eat a
n im
pact
to
his
tori
c st
ruct
ure.
-W
ould
not
co
ntin
ue a
grar
ian
trad
itio
n or
co
ntri
bute
to
park
’s m
issi
on.
-Wou
ld r
emov
e st
ruct
ure
from
pu
blic
use
and
en
joym
ent.
-Wou
ld n
ot
cont
inue
agr
aria
n tr
adit
ion
or
cont
ribu
te to
pa
rk’s
mis
sion
. -C
ost o
f co
nver
sion
w
ould
be
high
. -I
mpa
ct le
vel t
o st
ruct
ure
wou
ld
be h
igh.
-Wou
ld h
ave
adeq
uate
par
king
(p
oten
tial
).
-Wou
ld n
ot
cont
inue
agr
aria
n tr
adit
ion
or
cont
ribu
te to
pa
rk’s
mis
sion
. -A
dequ
ate
sept
ic
for
barn
wou
ld
need
to b
e in
stal
led.
-C
ould
hav
e m
ediu
m im
pact
to
land
scap
e.
Hou
se :
Far
m S
choo
l B
arn
: See
Art
isan
C
raft
s
-Wou
ld c
ontin
ue
agra
rian
trad
itio
n an
d co
ntri
bute
to
park
’s m
issi
on.
-W
ould
cont
inue
agra
rian
trad
itio
n an
d co
ntri
bute
to
park
’s m
issi
on.
20
-Pot
enti
al to
tie
into
the
park
’s
inte
rpre
tive
pr
ogra
m.
-Cou
ld s
tore
farm
eq
uipm
ent i
n th
e H
ovag
imia
n G
arag
e.
-Wou
ld n
ot
requ
ire
addi
tion
al s
epti
c.
-May
hav
e ad
equa
te p
arki
ng
(pot
enti
al).
-Low
impa
ct o
n la
ndsc
ape.
H
ouse
an
d B
arn
: E
lder
/You
th H
oste
l
-A
dditi
onal
A
ltern
ativ
e-
Bar
n:
See
Agr
icul
ture
-Com
pati
ble
use
wit
h fl
oor
spac
e/hi
stor
ic
func
tion
of
stru
ctur
e.
-Flo
or p
lan
wou
ld
not n
eed
to b
e gr
eatl
y al
tere
d.
-Gre
at a
lter
nati
ve
host
el h
ousi
ng in
th
e ci
ty o
f Bos
ton
– le
ss e
xpen
sive
and
m
ore
spac
e.
-Cou
ld r
equi
re
exte
nsiv
e bu
ildin
g co
de u
pgra
de
(AD
A, F
ire
Safe
ty).
-H
ouse
may
be
too
smal
l for
this
us
e.
-Tra
nsie
nt n
atur
e of
use
may
hav
e hi
gh im
pact
on
stru
ctur
e.
-Wou
ld n
ot
cont
ribu
te to
par
k m
issi
on.
-Not
eas
ily
acce
ssib
le v
ia
publ
ic
tran
spor
tatio
n.
-Lar
ge s
quar
e fo
otag
e of
spa
ce
coul
d ac
com
mod
ate
a la
rge
num
ber
of
peop
le.
-Cou
ld r
equi
re
exte
nsiv
e bu
ildin
g co
de
upgr
ade
(AD
A,
Fir
e Sa
fety
) as
wel
l as
exte
nsiv
e al
tera
tion
of t
he
exis
ting
floo
r pl
an.
-Wou
ld n
ot
cont
inue
agr
aria
n tr
adit
ion
or
cont
ribu
te to
pa
rk m
issi
on.
-Tra
nsie
nt
natu
re o
f use
may
ha
ve h
igh
impa
ct
on s
truc
ture
.
-May
hav
e ad
equa
te p
arki
ng
(pot
enti
al).
-Wou
ld n
ot
cont
inue
agr
aria
n tr
adit
ion.
-
Ade
quat
e se
ptic
w
ould
nee
d to
be
inst
alle
d.
-Wou
ld h
ave
med
ium
impa
ct
on la
ndsc
ape.
Agr
icul
tura
l P
ro
Con
P
ro
Con
P
ro
Con
H
ouse
an
d B
arn
: L
ivin
g H
isto
ry /
Wor
king
Far
m
-Cou
ld c
ombi
ne
wit
h F
arm
Sch
ool?
-C
old
pote
ntia
lly
-Wou
ld r
equi
re a
la
rge
num
ber
of
staf
f.
-Wou
ld c
ontin
ue
agra
rian
trad
itio
n an
d co
ntri
bute
to
-Wou
ld r
equi
re a
la
rge
num
ber
of
staf
f.
-Wou
ld c
ontin
ue
agra
rian
trad
itio
n an
d co
ntri
bute
to
21
in
crea
se v
isit
atio
n to
par
k.
-Use
is c
onsi
sten
t w
ith
hist
oric
fu
ncti
on o
f st
ruct
ure.
-W
ould
con
tinue
ag
rari
an tr
adit
ion
and
cont
ribu
te to
pa
rk’s
mis
sion
. -W
ould
hav
e lo
w
impa
ct.
-Wou
ld b
e an
onl
y se
ason
al
oper
atio
n.
park
’s m
issi
on.
-Cou
ld p
oten
tial
ly
incr
ease
vis
itat
ion
to P
ark.
-U
se is
con
sist
ent
wit
h hi
stor
ic
func
tion
of
stru
ctur
e.
-Wou
ld h
ave
low
im
pact
.
-Dif
ficu
lty
in
find
ing
this
“h
ighl
y sp
ecia
lized
” st
aff.
-Wou
ld b
e a
seas
onal
op
erat
ion
only
.
park
’s m
issi
on.
-Wou
ld n
ot
requ
ire
addi
tion
al s
epti
c.
-Cou
ld
pote
ntia
lly
incr
ease
vi
sita
tion
to P
ark.
-Hig
hly
inta
ct
agri
cult
ural
sit
e w
ould
lend
itse
lf
wel
l to
this
use
. -P
arki
ng m
ay b
e ad
equa
te
(pot
enti
al).
-Wou
ld h
ave
low
im
pact
on
land
scap
e.
Bar
n:
U-P
ick,
She
ep
Shea
ring
, Cow
s:
-W
ould
cont
inue
agra
rian
trad
itio
n an
d co
ntri
bute
to
park
’s m
issi
on.
-C
ould
po
tent
ially
be
limit
ed to
se
ason
al
prof
itab
ility
(U-
Pic
k).
-Cou
ld p
oten
tial
ly
incr
ease
vis
itat
ion
to p
ark.
-V
ery
low
impa
ct
to s
truc
ture
.
-Wou
ld c
ontin
ue
agra
rian
trad
itio
n an
d co
ntri
bute
to
park
’s m
issi
on.
-U-P
ick
optio
n re
quir
es le
ss s
taff
to
farm
the
land
. -C
ould
po
tent
ially
in
crea
se
visi
tati
on to
the
Park
. -N
o ad
diti
onal
se
ptic
wou
ld b
e re
quir
ed.
-May
hav
e ad
equa
te p
arki
ng
-Cou
ld
pote
ntia
lly b
e lim
ited
to
seas
onal
pr
ofit
abili
ty.
-Soi
l may
not
be
suit
able
for
grow
ing
crop
s.
22
(pot
enti
al).
-Ver
y lo
w
impa
ct to
la
ndsc
ape.
B
arn
: A
gric
ultu
ral
Sale
Out
let
-W
ould
cont
inue
agra
rian
trad
itio
n an
d co
ntri
bute
to
park
’s m
issi
on.
-C
ould
po
tent
ially
be
limit
ed to
se
ason
al
prof
itab
ility
. -M
inim
al
conv
ersi
on w
ould
be
req
uire
d.
-Low
impa
ct to
st
ruct
ure.
-Wou
ld c
ontin
ue
agra
rian
trad
itio
n an
d co
ntri
bute
to
park
’s m
issi
on.
-No
addi
tion
al
sept
ic w
ould
be
requ
ired
. -M
ay h
ave
adeq
uate
par
king
(p
oten
tial
). -L
ow im
pact
.
Bar
n: C
omm
unit
y F
arm
-W
ould
cont
inue
agra
rian
trad
itio
n an
d co
ntri
bute
to
park
’s m
issi
on.
-U
se m
ay r
equi
re
som
e in
door
sp
ace
but t
his
spac
e w
ould
is
too
larg
e to
be
utili
zed
for
this
al
one.
-Lar
ge a
mou
nt o
f sp
ace
wou
ld a
llow
th
is u
se to
be
com
bine
d w
ith
anot
her
use.
-W
ould
hav
e a
low
im
pact
on
stru
ctur
e.
-Wou
ld c
ontin
ue
agra
rian
tr
adit
ion.
-L
and
is w
orke
d by
com
mun
ity,
nom
inal
labo
r co
sts.
-I
nvol
ves
loca
l co
mm
unit
y w
ith
Park
. -W
ould
req
uire
le
ss h
eavy
m
achi
nery
to
mai
ntai
n la
nd.
-No
addi
tion
al
sept
ic w
ould
be
requ
ired
. -M
ay h
ave
adeq
uate
pa
rkin
g.
-Wou
ld n
eed
a lo
t of
loca
l int
eres
t in
orde
r fo
r th
is u
se
to b
e su
cces
sful
. -S
oil m
ay n
ot b
e su
itab
le fo
r gr
owin
g cr
ops.
23
-Low
impa
ct o
n la
ndsc
ape.
B
arn
: Gra
zing
-W
ould
cont
inue
agra
rian
trad
itio
n an
d co
ntri
bute
to
park
’s m
issi
on.
-M
ay n
ot b
e ec
onom
ical
ly
prof
itab
le.
-Wou
ld b
e in
ke
epin
g w
ith
hist
oric
use
. -L
ittl
e co
nver
sion
of
spa
ce w
ould
be
requ
ired
. -
Low
impa
ct to
st
ruct
ure.
-Wou
ld c
ontin
ue
agra
rian
trad
itio
n an
d co
ntri
bute
to
park
’s m
issi
on.
-Wou
ld h
ave
hist
oric
aes
thet
ic
appe
al.
-Ver
y lo
w
impa
ct to
la
ndsc
ape.
-Sta
ff w
ould
be
requ
ired
to
mai
ntai
n an
imal
s.
Les
s P
refe
rred
Use
s
C
omb
ined
Use
P
ro
Con
P
ro
Con
P
ro
Con
H
ouse
: Pa
rk H
ousi
ng
Bar
n: S
ee A
gric
ultu
re
-Wou
ld b
e go
od
com
pati
bilit
y w
ith
the
Park
- te
nant
s w
ould
hav
e ve
sted
in
tere
st/s
ensi
tivi
ty
in m
aint
aini
ng
prop
erty
. -
Wou
ld r
equi
re
min
imal
co
nver
sion
cos
t. -Y
ear-
roun
d oc
cupa
tion
. -U
se w
ould
hav
e lo
w im
pact
. -U
se w
ould
be
cons
iste
nt w
ith
hist
oric
func
tion
of s
truc
ture
.
-Wou
ld n
ot
cont
inue
agr
aria
n tr
adit
ion
or
cont
ribu
te to
pa
rk’s
mis
sion
. -S
ite
is b
ette
r su
ited
for
publ
ic
use,
rat
her
than
in
-hou
se p
ark
use.
-M
ay n
ot b
e ec
onom
ical
ly
feas
ible
for
park
. -W
ould
rem
ove
stru
ctur
e fr
om
publ
ic u
se a
nd
enjo
ymen
t.
-No
addi
tion
al
sept
ic n
eeds
w
ould
be
requ
ired
. -N
o ad
diti
onal
pa
rkin
g w
ould
be
requ
ired
. -L
ow im
pact
on
land
scap
e.
24
Hou
se: S
easo
nal
Hou
sing
B
arn
: See
Agr
icul
ture
-Com
pati
ble
use
wit
h fl
oor
spac
e/hi
stor
ic
func
tion
of
stru
ctur
e.
-Goo
d co
mpa
tibi
lity
for
the
Park
. -A
dded
att
ract
ion
to in
crea
se
appl
ican
ts fo
r se
ason
al
empl
oym
ent.
-Min
imal
co
nver
sion
cos
t.
-Wou
ld n
ot
cont
inue
agr
aria
n tr
adit
ion
or
cont
ribu
te to
pa
rk’s
mis
sion
. -M
ay n
ot b
e ec
onom
ical
ly
feas
ible
for
the
park
. -M
ay in
trod
uce
extr
a w
ear
and
tear
as
a r
esul
t of
tran
sien
t hou
sing
. -T
rans
ient
nat
ure
may
cau
se m
ediu
m
impa
ct o
n st
ruct
ure.
-W
ould
rem
ove
stru
ctur
e fr
om
publ
ic u
se a
nd
enjo
ymen
t.
-No
addi
tion
al
sept
ic n
eeds
w
ould
be
requ
ired
. -N
o ad
diti
onal
pa
rkin
g w
ould
be
requ
ired
. -L
ow im
pact
on
land
scap
e.
Rec
reat
ion
al
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
Lan
dsc
ape:
Gol
f C
ours
e
-C
ould
use
the
Stow
-Har
dy
Hou
se a
s su
ppor
t st
ruct
ure
(Clu
b H
ouse
).
-Lar
ge a
mou
nt
of la
nd m
akes
th
is u
se fe
asib
le.
-Cou
ld h
ave
adeq
uate
po
tent
ial
park
ing.
-Wou
ld n
ot
cont
inue
agr
aria
n tr
adit
ion
or th
e pa
rk’s
mis
sion
(m
ost
agri
cult
ural
ly
inta
ct s
ite
in
proj
ect)
. -C
ould
be
disr
upti
ve to
res
t of
the
park
. -H
igh
impa
ct.
25
Non
-Pre
ferr
ed
Use
s
Agr
icul
tura
l P
ro
Con
P
ro
Con
P
ro
Con
B
arn
: C
ider
Mill
/Gri
st
Mill
-W
ould
cont
inue
agra
rian
trad
itio
n an
d co
ntri
bute
to
park
’s m
issi
on.
-G
rist
Mill
not
hi
stor
ical
ly
accu
rate
(h
isto
rica
lly n
o hy
drop
ower
on
site
?)
-Cou
ld in
volv
e re
tail
of p
rodu
ct.
-Cos
t of
conv
ersi
on
wou
ld b
e hi
gh
and
appr
opri
ate
equi
pmen
t wou
ld
be h
igh.
-H
igh
impa
ct to
st
ruct
ure.
-No
addi
tion
al
sept
ic w
ould
be
requ
ired
. -M
ay h
ave
adeq
uate
par
king
(p
oten
tial
). -L
ow im
pact
to
site
.
-For
cid
er m
ill,
wou
ld n
eed
to
grow
app
les
on
site
and
soi
l may
no
t be
suit
able
for
this
.
26
McHugh Barn and Landscape
Current Use: Vacant. Impact
Barn: Medium Impact Level (20 out of a possible 36 points). Landscape: Medium to Low Impact Level (21 out of a possible 24 points).
Issues Parking:
Existing: None. Potential: Adjacent lot east of Barn may be available for intermittent parking (perhaps after- park hours). Total: See other. Other: Nearest parking is approximately 700 ft. away in Visitor Center parking lot (35 spaces, 2 spaces for buses).
Septic: Existing: None. Required: See attached septic information (will vary according to use).
Other • Barn constructed in 1939. • Barn has two floors and each can be used for a separate use. First floor
appears to be more of a public- orientated space, while the Lower Level would be more suitable for animals or storage.
• NPS Comfort Station located 700 ft. from site. • New use should not interrupt Hartwell Tavern operation.
27
McH
ugh
Bar
n S
ite
Bar
n
(Med
ium
Im
pac
t Lev
el)
Lan
dsc
ape
(M
ediu
m to
Low
Im
pac
t Lev
el)
Pre
ferr
ed U
ses
Gat
her
ing
Spac
es /
E
nte
rtai
nm
ent
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
The
atre
/Dan
ces
-W
ould
not
req
uire
a g
reat
al
tera
tion
of t
he e
xist
ing
floo
r pl
an o
f str
uctu
re a
nd
ther
efor
e w
ould
hav
e a
low
im
pact
.
-Wou
ld n
ot c
onti
nue
agra
rian
trad
itio
n or
co
ntri
bute
to p
ark’
s m
issi
on.
-Par
king
ava
ilabl
e in
V
isit
or P
arki
ng lo
t. -C
ould
use
par
k’s
Com
fort
Sta
tion
loca
ted
appr
oxim
atel
y 70
0 ft
. fr
om th
e si
te.
-Wou
ld n
ot c
onti
nue
agra
rian
trad
itio
n or
co
ntri
bute
to p
ark’
s m
issi
on.
-Ade
quat
e se
ptic
for
barn
w
ould
nee
d to
be
inst
alle
d if
com
fort
sta
tion
is
cons
ider
ed to
o fa
r re
mov
ed.
-Med
ium
impa
ct o
n la
ndsc
ape
(if s
epti
c in
stal
led)
. In
terp
reti
ve
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
Exh
ibit
Spa
ce
(Upp
er L
evel
) -W
ould
con
trib
ute
to p
ark’
s m
issi
on.
-Wou
ld n
ot r
equi
re a
gre
at
alte
rati
on o
f the
exi
stin
g fl
oor
plan
of s
truc
ture
and
th
eref
ore
wou
ld h
ave
a lo
w
impa
ct.
-Cou
ld c
ombi
ne w
ith
anim
als
on lo
wer
leve
l.
-Wou
ld n
ot c
onti
nue
agra
rian
trad
itio
n or
be
cons
iste
nt w
ith
hist
oric
fu
ncti
on o
f the
str
uctu
re.
-Par
king
ava
ilabl
e in
V
isit
or P
arki
ng lo
t. -C
ould
use
par
k’s
Com
fort
Sta
tion
loca
ted
appr
oxim
atel
y 70
0 ft
. fr
om th
e si
te.
-Low
impa
ct to
la
ndsc
ape.
Agr
icul
tura
l P
ro
Con
P
ro
Con
A
nim
als:
Gra
zing
or
Shee
p Sh
eari
ng
-Wou
ld c
ontin
ue a
grar
ian
trad
itio
n an
d co
ntri
bute
to
park
’s m
issi
on.
-Wou
ld b
e a
use
that
is
cons
iste
nt w
ith
the
hist
oric
-Wou
ld r
equi
re a
ddit
iona
l st
affi
ng to
tend
aft
er/c
are
for
anim
als.
-N
ot e
cono
mic
ally
pr
ofit
able
.
-Wou
ld b
e in
kee
ping
w
ith
the
hist
oric
and
ag
ricu
ltur
al s
cene
. -N
o ad
diti
onal
par
king
w
ould
be
requ
ired
.
28
func
tion
of t
he s
truc
ture
. -W
ould
not
req
uire
a g
reat
al
tera
tion
in fl
oor
plan
of
exis
ting
str
uctu
re.
-Cou
ld o
ccup
y lo
wer
leve
l of
barn
onl
y al
low
ing
a se
para
te
use
for
uppe
r le
vel.
-Wou
ld h
ave
a lo
w im
pact
.
-No
addi
tion
al s
epti
c w
ould
be
requ
ired
. -L
ow im
pact
on
land
scap
e.
Art
isan
Cra
fts
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
Art
isan
Cra
fts
(Gla
ssbl
owin
g, T
insm
ithi
ng,
Fur
nitu
re M
akin
g,
Can
dles
tick
Mak
ing,
Che
ese
mak
ing)
-Wou
ld c
ontin
ue a
grar
ian
trad
itio
n an
d co
ntri
bute
to
park
’s m
issi
on.
-Des
irab
le fo
r vi
sito
rs, m
ay
incr
ease
vis
itat
ion
to p
ark.
-M
ay b
e ec
onom
ical
ly
prof
itab
le –
adm
issi
on c
harg
e.
-Wou
ld n
ot r
equi
re a
gre
at
alte
rati
on in
floo
r pl
an o
f ex
isti
ng s
truc
ture
. -W
ould
hav
e a
low
impa
ct.
-Cou
ld s
hare
this
spa
ce a
nd
have
ani
mal
s on
the
low
er
leve
l.
-W
ould
con
tinue
agr
aria
n tr
adit
ion
and
cont
ribu
te
to p
ark’
s m
issi
on.
-No
addi
tion
al p
arki
ng
wou
ld b
e re
quir
ed.
-No
addi
tion
al s
epti
c w
ould
be
requ
ired
(p
roxi
mit
y of
Com
fort
St
atio
n).
-Ver
y lo
w im
pact
on
land
scap
e.
Les
s P
refe
rred
Use
s
G
ath
erin
g Sp
aces
/
En
tert
ain
men
t P
ro
Con
P
ro
Con
Con
fere
nce
Cen
ter
-Cou
ld b
e us
ed a
ll ye
ar.
-Wou
ld n
ot c
onti
nue
agra
rian
trad
itio
n or
co
ntri
bute
to p
ark’
s m
issi
on.
-Cos
t of c
onve
rsio
n w
ould
he
hig
h an
d th
eref
ore
use
wou
ld h
ave
a hi
gh im
pact
on
str
uctu
re.
-Par
king
ava
ilabl
e in
V
isit
or P
arki
ng lo
t. -W
ould
not
con
tinu
e ag
rari
an tr
adit
ion
or
cont
ribu
te to
par
k’s
mis
sion
. -A
dequ
ate
sept
ic fo
r ba
rn
wou
ld n
eed
to b
e in
stal
led.
-M
ediu
m im
pact
on
29
-May
not
be
a co
mpa
tibl
e us
e w
ith
Har
twel
l Tav
ern
in c
lose
pro
xim
ity.
land
scap
e.
Ed
ucat
ion
al
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
Kid
s D
ay C
amp
(Nat
ure
or
Col
onia
l)
-Wou
ld c
ontin
ue a
grar
ian
trad
itio
n or
con
trib
ute
to
park
’s m
issi
on.
-Cos
t of c
onve
rsio
n w
ould
be
min
imal
. -W
ould
not
req
uire
a g
reat
al
tera
tion
in fl
oor
plan
of
exis
ting
str
uctu
re.
-Wou
ld lo
w im
pact
.
-Noi
se le
vel m
ight
be
high
ly in
terr
upti
ve to
H
artw
ell T
aver
n op
erat
ions
.
-No
addi
tion
al p
arki
ng
wou
ld b
e re
quir
ed (d
rop
off a
nd p
ick
up a
t Vis
itor
C
ente
r pa
rkin
g lo
t).
-No
addi
tion
al s
epti
c w
ould
be
requ
ired
(p
roxi
mit
y of
Com
fort
St
atio
n).
-Wou
ld h
ave
low
impa
ct
on la
ndsc
ape.
-S
ome
cam
p ac
tivi
ties
m
ay c
ontr
ibut
e po
siti
vely
to
the
land
scap
e.
-Cam
p ac
tivit
ies
may
pr
omot
e ex
cess
ive
wea
r an
d te
ar o
n la
ndsc
ape.
Foo
d C
once
ssio
n /
R
esta
uran
t P
ro
Con
P
ro
Con
Foo
d C
once
ssio
ns
-Wou
ld c
aptu
re p
eopl
e fr
om
Har
twel
l Tav
ern
and
the
Bat
tle
Roa
d T
rail.
-C
ould
hav
e “p
orta
ble
conc
essi
ons”
or
vend
ing
mac
hine
s.
-Cou
ld b
e a
seas
onal
op
erat
ion.
-Nat
ure
orie
ntat
ed s
etti
ng
not o
ptim
al fo
r re
tail.
-W
ould
not
con
tinu
e ag
rari
an tr
adit
ion
or b
e co
nsis
tent
wit
h hi
stor
ic
func
tion
of t
he s
truc
ture
. -C
ould
pot
enti
ally
req
uire
a
lot o
f alt
erat
ion
to
exis
ting
str
uctu
re a
nd
ther
efor
e a
high
impa
ct.
-Par
king
at t
he V
isit
or
Cen
ter
park
ing
lot w
ould
be
dif
ficu
lt fo
r ha
ndic
ap
acce
ssib
ility
to s
truc
ture
.
-No
addi
tion
al p
arki
ng
wou
ld b
e re
quir
ed.
-Foo
d co
nces
sion
may
pr
omot
e lin
geri
ng a
nd
ther
efor
e ex
cess
wea
r an
d te
ar o
n la
ndsc
ape.
-A
ddit
iona
l sep
tic
wou
ld
be r
equi
red.
-W
ould
incr
ease
the
amou
nt o
f lit
ter
on
land
scap
e (p
ark’
s ca
rry-
in/c
arry
-out
and
no
tras
h ca
n po
licy)
. -W
ould
hav
e hi
gh im
pact
on
land
scap
e.
30
Rec
reat
ion
al
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
Out
door
Spo
rt R
enta
l F
acili
ty
-Wou
ld c
ontin
ue a
grar
ian
trad
itio
n an
d co
ntri
bute
to
park
’s m
issi
on.
-Wou
ld c
aptu
re p
eopl
e fr
om
Har
twel
l Tav
ern
and
the
Bat
tle
Roa
d T
rail.
-W
ould
req
uire
litt
le
alte
rati
on to
exi
stin
g st
ruct
ure
and
ther
efor
e lit
tle
impa
ct.
-Nat
ure
of u
se m
ight
co
nges
t tra
il.
-Mig
ht b
e in
terr
upti
ve to
H
artw
ell T
aver
n op
erat
ion.
-No
addi
tion
al p
arki
ng
wou
ld b
e re
quir
ed.
-No
addi
tion
al s
epti
c w
ould
be
requ
ired
(p
roxi
mit
y of
Com
fort
St
atio
n).
-Wou
ld e
ncou
rage
ex
plor
atio
n of
su
rrou
ndin
g la
ndsc
ape
and
add
to th
e vi
sito
r ex
peri
ence
.
-Act
ivit
y co
uld
be
dest
ruct
ive
to
surr
ound
ing
area
and
ca
use
high
impa
ct o
n la
ndsc
ape.
Oth
er
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
Cur
ator
ial S
tora
ge
-Wou
ld c
ontr
ibut
e to
par
k’s
mis
sion
. -A
dequ
ate
amou
nt o
f spa
ce
avai
labl
e.
-No
alte
rati
on o
f flo
or p
lan.
-L
ow im
pact
on
stru
ctur
e.
-Wou
ld r
emov
e th
is
stru
ctur
e fr
om p
ublic
use
an
d en
joym
ent.
-Cos
ts o
f clim
ate
cont
rol
mec
hani
sm m
ay b
e ex
pens
ive.
-No
park
ing
wou
ld b
e re
quir
ed.
-No
sept
ic w
ould
be
requ
ired
. -L
ow im
pact
on
land
scap
e.
31
Major John Buttrick House and Landscape
Current Use: Residential and Occasional Park Meeting Space. Impact
House: Low Impact Level (28 out of a possible 36 points). Landscape: Medium Impact Level (18 out of a possible 24 points).
Issues Parking:
Existing: 3 spaces. Potential: Current driveway is not recommended for expansion. Total: 3 spaces on premises plus Visitor Center parking lot. Other: Visitor Center parking lot directly across the street.
Septic: Existing: Current septic installed adequate for residential use. Required: See attached septic information (will vary according to use).
Other • Witness structure - house constructed in 1715 (major alterations done in
1930s.) • Use for Park would be good considering the proximity to Park
Headquarters. • Consider multiuse.
32
Maj
or Jo
hn
But
tric
k H
ouse
H
ouse
( L
ow I
mp
act L
evel
) L
and
scap
e
(Med
ium
Im
pac
t Lev
el)
Pre
ferr
ed U
ses
Gat
her
ing
Spac
e /
En
tert
ain
men
t P
ro
Con
P
ro
Con
Con
fere
nce
Cen
ter
(nor
th
side
) -C
ould
sha
re th
is u
se
wit
h pa
rk s
o th
at p
ark
may
sti
ll us
e th
is s
pace
for
occa
sion
al m
eeti
ngs.
-I
f flo
or p
lan
of s
truc
ture
w
as n
ot a
lter
ed, i
mpa
ct
leve
l wou
ld b
e lo
w.
-Cur
rent
floo
r pl
an
conf
igur
atio
n (m
any
smal
l ro
oms)
wou
ld n
ot le
nd it
self
w
ell t
o be
use
d as
a
conf
eren
ce c
ente
r.
-Wou
ld r
equi
re s
ome
upgr
adin
g fo
r bo
th
tech
nolo
gy a
nd b
uild
ing
code
s.
-Wou
ld n
ot c
onti
nue
agra
rian
trad
itio
n or
co
ntri
bute
to p
ark’
s m
issi
on.
-No
addi
tion
al p
arki
ng
wou
ld b
e ne
eded
(Vis
itor
Cen
ter
park
ing
lot a
cros
s th
e st
reet
).
-Wou
ld h
ave
low
impa
ct
on la
ndsc
ape.
-Cou
ld r
equi
re s
epti
c up
grad
e.
Smal
l Fun
ctio
ns
-Int
erm
itte
nt u
se, c
ould
sh
are
wit
h pa
rk to
use
for
mee
ting
s w
hen
ther
e is
no
t a fu
ncti
on.
-Wou
ld b
ecom
e an
in
com
e pr
oduc
ing
prop
erty
. -G
ood
expo
sure
of p
ark
to p
ublic
.
-Cur
rent
floo
r pl
an
conf
igur
atio
n (m
any
smal
l ro
oms)
may
not
be
suit
able
fo
r sm
all f
unct
ions
. -W
ould
not
con
tinu
e ag
rari
an tr
adit
ion
or
cont
ribu
te to
par
k’s
mis
sion
. -C
ould
req
uire
bui
ldin
g co
de
upgr
ades
(fir
e sa
fety
and
A
DA
).
-May
hav
e hi
gh im
pact
on
stru
ctur
e.
-No
addi
tion
al p
arki
ng
wou
ld b
e ne
eded
(Vis
itor
Cen
ter
park
ing
lot a
cros
s th
e st
reet
).
-Wou
ld h
ave
low
impa
ct
on la
ndsc
ape.
-Cou
ld r
equi
re s
epti
c up
grad
e.
Res
iden
tial
P
ro
Con
P
ro
Con
A
rtis
t in
Res
iden
ce
(mul
tipl
e ar
tist o
r ar
tist
w
ith
fam
ily)
-Cou
ld u
se g
arag
e (n
ot in
st
udy)
for
stud
io s
pace
(w
ould
req
uire
litt
le
impa
ct to
gar
age-
easy
to
-Wou
ld n
ot c
ontr
ibut
e to
the
park
mis
sion
but
hou
se is
pr
eser
ved
for
hist
oric
sce
ne.
-Wou
ld n
ot r
equi
re
addi
tion
al p
arki
ng.
-Wou
ld n
ot r
equi
re
addi
tion
al s
epti
c.
33
conv
ert t
o op
en s
tudi
o sp
ace)
. -C
ompa
tibl
e w
ith
hist
oric
us
e of
hou
se a
s a
resi
denc
e –
wou
ld h
ave
low
impa
ct o
n st
ruct
ure.
-Wou
ld h
ave
low
impa
ct
on la
ndsc
ape.
Park
/Sea
sona
l Hou
sing
-C
ould
com
bine
this
use
w
ith
arti
san
craf
ts o
r ge
nera
l sto
re.
-Wou
ld b
e go
od
com
pati
bilit
y w
ith
the
park
- te
nant
s w
ould
hav
e ve
sted
inte
rest
in
mai
ntai
ning
pro
pert
y.
-Wou
ld r
equi
re m
inim
al
conv
ersi
on c
ost.
-Yea
r-ro
und
occu
pati
on.
-Com
pati
ble
use
wit
h fl
oor
spac
e/hi
stor
ic
func
tion
of s
truc
ture
. -A
dded
att
ract
ion
to
incr
ease
app
lican
ts fo
r se
ason
al e
mpl
oym
ent.
-Use
wou
ld h
ave
low
im
pact
on
stru
ctur
e.
-May
not
be
econ
omic
ally
fe
asib
le fo
r pa
rk.
-Wou
ld r
emov
e th
is
stru
ctur
e fr
om p
ublic
use
and
en
joym
ent.
-May
intr
oduc
e ex
tra
wea
r an
d te
ar a
s a
resu
lt o
f tr
ansi
ent h
ousi
ng.
-Wou
ld n
ot c
onti
nue
agra
rian
trad
itio
n or
co
ntri
bute
to p
ark’
s m
issi
on.
-Tra
nsie
nt n
atur
e m
ay c
ause
m
ediu
m im
pact
on
stru
ctur
e.
-No
addi
tion
al s
epti
c ne
eds
wou
ld b
e re
quir
ed.
-Wou
ld n
ot r
equi
re
addi
tion
al p
arki
ng.
-Low
impa
ct o
n la
ndsc
ape.
Mis
cell
aneo
us
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
Park
Off
ices
-U
se is
com
pati
ble
wit
h pa
rk.
-Cou
ld p
rovi
de g
ood
mee
ting
spa
ces
for
the
park
. -C
lose
to p
ark
head
quar
ters
. -W
ould
con
trib
ute
to
-Off
ice
need
s su
ch a
s IT
and
he
avy
equi
pmen
t may
hav
e hi
gh im
pact
on
stru
ctur
e.
-Use
wou
ld n
ot b
e co
nsis
tent
w
ith
hist
oric
func
tion
of
stru
ctur
e.
-Not
an
inco
me
prod
ucin
g pr
oper
ty.
-Min
imal
par
king
wou
ld
be r
equi
red
-par
king
av
aila
ble
acro
ss th
e st
reet
. -W
ould
not
req
uire
ad
diti
onal
sep
tic.
-W
ould
hav
e lo
w im
pact
on
land
scap
e.
34
park
’s m
issi
on.
-Cou
ld a
ccom
mod
ate
addi
tion
al o
ffic
es th
at
othe
rwis
e w
ould
be
loca
ted
in th
e V
isit
or
Cen
ter.
-Wou
ld r
emov
e st
ruct
ure
from
pub
lic u
se a
nd
enjo
ymen
t. -C
ould
hav
e hi
gh im
pact
on
stru
ctur
e.
O
ffic
e Sp
ace
for
Non
-pr
ofit
(wir
eles
s in
tern
et)
-Pot
enti
ally
goo
d,
relia
ble,
and
per
man
ent
inco
me.
-Req
uire
men
ts fo
r of
fice
use
co
uld
be to
o in
trus
ive
or m
ay
have
ext
ensi
ve fl
oor
load
ing
issu
es.
-IT
req
uire
men
ts c
ould
be
too
intr
usiv
e (w
irel
ess
inte
rnet
is n
ot r
elia
ble
and
not e
ntir
ely
secu
re.)
-May
hav
e hi
gh im
pact
on
stru
ctur
e.
-Wou
ld n
ot c
ontr
ibut
e to
pa
rk’s
mis
sion
. -W
ould
rem
ove
stru
ctur
e fr
om p
ublic
use
and
en
joym
ent.
-Min
imal
par
king
wou
ld
be r
equi
red
-par
king
av
aila
ble
acro
ss th
e st
reet
. -M
ay n
ot r
equi
re s
eptic
up
grad
e.
-Wou
ld h
ave
low
impa
ct
on la
ndsc
ape.
Les
s P
refe
rred
Use
s
R
etai
l P
ro
Con
P
ro
Con
G
ener
al S
tore
-M
inim
al c
onve
rsio
n ne
eded
for
this
use
. -W
ould
con
tinue
ag
rari
an tr
adit
ion
and
cont
ribu
te to
par
k’s
mis
sion
. -W
ould
be
an in
com
e pr
oduc
ing
prop
erty
. -C
ould
com
bine
use
wit
h ar
tisa
n’s
craf
ts o
r pa
rk/s
easo
nal h
ousi
ng.
-If u
se o
ccup
ied
the
seco
nd
floo
r, s
truc
ture
wou
ld n
eed
to m
eet A
DA
req
uire
men
ts.
-May
cau
se tr
affi
c an
d co
nges
tion
alon
g ro
ad a
nd
disr
upt h
isto
ric
scen
e.
-Par
king
acr
oss
the
stre
et
may
be
suff
icie
nt.
-Wou
ld n
ot r
equi
re
addi
tion
al s
epti
c.
-Wou
ld h
ave
low
impa
ct
on la
ndsc
ape.
35
-Cou
ld c
ombi
ne th
is u
se
wit
h a
Tea
Hou
se o
r T
aver
n.
-If f
loor
pla
n w
as n
ot
alte
red,
cou
ld h
ave
low
im
pact
on
stru
ctur
e.
Foo
d C
once
ssio
n /
R
esta
uran
t P
ro
Con
P
ro
Con
Res
taur
ant/
Tea
Hou
se v
s.
Tav
ern
-Wou
ld b
e on
ly fo
od
conc
essi
on b
etw
een
Rte
. 12
8 an
d do
wnt
own
Con
cord
. -C
ould
com
bine
this
use
w
ith
a G
ener
al S
tore
. -I
f flo
or p
lan
was
not
al
tere
d, c
ould
hav
e lo
w
impa
ct o
n st
ruct
ure.
-C
ould
aid
the
park
in
beco
min
g m
ore
of a
“d
esti
nati
on p
ark”
if s
o de
sire
d.
-Maj
or u
pgra
ding
of k
itch
en
wou
ld b
e re
quir
ed e
ven
if it
w
as c
ater
ed/b
roug
ht in
. -M
ay c
ause
traf
fic
and
cong
estio
n al
ong
road
and
di
srup
t his
tori
c sc
ene.
-W
ould
not
con
tinu
e ag
rari
an tr
adit
ion
or
cont
ribu
te to
par
k’s
mis
sion
. -M
ay n
ot b
e an
app
ropr
iate
us
e in
the
“nei
ghbo
rhoo
d”
envi
ronm
ent/
cont
ext.
-Par
king
acr
oss
the
stre
et
may
be
suff
icie
nt.
-Par
king
may
not
be
suff
icie
nt, a
ddit
iona
l par
king
m
ay b
e re
quir
ed.
-Wou
ld r
equi
re s
eptic
up
grad
e (r
esid
enti
al to
co
mm
erci
al/r
esta
uran
t).
-Cou
ld h
ave
high
impa
ct o
n la
ndsc
ape.
Art
isan
Cra
fts
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
Art
isan
Cra
fts
(Gla
ssbl
owin
g,
Tin
smit
hing
, Fur
nitu
re
Mak
ing,
Can
dles
tick
M
akin
g, C
hees
e m
akin
g)
-Div
isio
n of
roo
ms
coul
d al
low
for
mor
e th
an o
ne
type
of c
raft
. -C
ould
be
an in
com
e pr
oduc
ing
prop
erty
–
adm
issi
on c
harg
e.
-Cou
ld c
ombi
ne u
se w
ith
gene
ral s
tore
or
arti
sts’
re
side
nce.
-W
ould
hav
e lo
w im
pact
. -G
arag
e (n
ot in
clud
ed in
st
udy)
cou
ld b
e us
ed a
s
-W
ould
not
req
uire
ad
diti
onal
par
king
. -W
ould
not
req
uire
ad
diti
onal
sep
tic.
-L
ow im
pact
on
land
scap
e.
36
wel
l. -W
ould
con
tinue
ag
rari
an tr
adit
ion
and
cont
ribu
te to
par
k’s
mis
sion
. N
on-P
refe
rred
Use
s
In
terp
reti
ve
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
Inte
rpre
tive
-Wou
ld c
ontr
ibut
e to
park
’s m
issi
on (n
ot to
17
75 p
ark
mis
sion
). -I
mpa
ct le
vel w
ould
be
low
. -C
ould
com
bine
wit
h pa
rk m
eeti
ng s
pace
and
se
ason
al h
ousi
ng (c
urre
nt
uses
).
-Wou
ld r
equi
re a
full
His
tori
c St
ruct
ure
Rep
ort t
o un
ders
tand
how
str
uctu
re
appe
ared
in 1
775.
-W
ould
not
be
an in
com
e pr
oduc
ing
prop
erty
. -W
ould
be
a co
mm
on u
se o
f hi
stor
ic p
rope
rty
for
the
park
. -W
ould
req
uire
add
itio
nal
inte
rpre
tive
sta
ff.
-Wou
ld n
ot r
equi
re
addi
tion
al p
arki
ng.
-Wou
ld n
ot r
equi
re
addi
tion
al s
epti
c.
-Wou
ld p
rovi
de a
n op
port
unit
y fo
r an
in
terp
reta
tion
of t
he
land
scap
e ve
rses
just
be
ing
the
“set
ting
.”
-Rec
ent N
orth
Bri
dge
Cul
tura
l Lan
dsca
pe
Rep
ort c
ould
pro
vide
in
terp
reti
ve in
form
atio
n fo
r th
e la
ndsc
ape.
-L
ow im
pact
on
land
scap
e.
37
Noah Brooks Tavern, Rogers Barn, and Landscape
Current Use House: Vacant. Barn: NPS Maintenance Shop / Light Storage. Impact
Structure: Medium Impact Level (18 out of a possible 36 points). Barn: Medium Impact Level (20 out of a possible 36 points). Landscape: Medium to Low Impact Level (19 out of a possible 24 points).
Issues Parking:
Existing: 3 spaces available east of the main house. Potential: Possibly 3 more spaces at end of driveway. Total: 6 spaces. Other: Extensive and unmarked gravel parking area behind the barn can accommodate between 20 and 40 cars. The access drive needs improvement and clear demarcation. Minor improvement such as minor grading, clearing of stone wall, and importing of gravel would be sufficient. Topography contributes favorably to a bigger lot as parking would be partially hidden behind a berm and the higher elevated road. A beautiful existing stone wall could be used as the eastern boundary of the parking lot, while the soon- to-be- built cattle fence could serve as the western boundary.
Septic: Existing: Adequate septic exists for residential use.
Required: See attached septic information (will vary according to use).
Other • House constructed in 1798, barn constructed in 1938. • Most parking available on premises than any other site. • Potentially combine new use with new use for Joshua Brooks Jr. House.
38
Noa
h B
rook
s T
aver
n
Hou
se
(Med
ium
Im
pac
t Lev
el)
Rog
ers
Bar
n
(Med
ium
Im
pac
t Lev
el)
Lan
dsc
ape
(M
ediu
m to
Low
Im
pac
t Lev
el)
Pre
ferr
ed U
ses
Com
bin
ed U
se
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
Hou
se a
nd
Bar
n:
Bed
and
B
reak
fast
/Inn
-A
dditi
onal
A
ltern
ativ
e-
Bar
n:
Fun
ctio
ns
-Des
irab
le lo
cati
on,
not m
any
lodg
ing
choi
ces
in a
rea.
-C
ompa
tibl
e w
ith
Rog
ers
Bar
n fo
r us
e as
a B
ed &
B
reak
fast
/Inn
or
used
for
func
tion
s.
-Cou
ld c
ombi
ne th
is
use
wit
h Jo
shua
B
rook
s Jr
. hou
se a
s B
ed &
Bre
akfa
st /
Inn.
-C
onsi
sten
t use
wit
h hi
stor
ic fu
nctio
n of
st
ruct
ure
(2nd
floo
r lo
dgin
g).
-May
intr
oduc
e ex
cess
ive
wea
r an
d te
ar o
n hi
stor
ic
stru
ctur
e du
e to
tr
ansi
ent n
atur
e.
-May
req
uire
ad
diti
onal
ba
thro
oms
to b
e ad
ded
to s
truc
ture
(o
ne b
athr
oom
per
be
droo
m).
-W
ould
not
co
ntin
ue a
grar
ian
trad
itio
n or
co
ntri
bute
to
park
’s m
issi
on.
-Wou
ld h
ave
med
ium
impa
ct to
st
ruct
ure.
-Com
pati
ble
use
wit
h N
oah
Bro
oks
Tav
ern
as a
Bed
&
Bre
akfa
st a
s w
ell.
-Gre
at
com
patib
ility
if
Noa
h B
rook
s T
aver
n is
use
d as
a
Bed
& B
reak
fast
/ In
n.
-Con
vers
ion
requ
irem
ents
w
ould
be
min
imal
. –
Impa
ct o
n
-Cos
t of
conv
ersi
on fo
r an
In
n in
Rog
ers
Bar
n w
ould
be
high
. -W
ould
not
co
ntin
ue a
grar
ian
trad
itio
n or
co
ntri
bute
to
park
’s m
issi
on.
-Wou
ld h
ave
high
im
pact
on
stru
ctur
e.
-Use
wou
ld n
ot
be c
onsi
sten
t wit
h hi
stor
ic fu
nctio
n of
str
uctu
re.
-Wou
ld n
ot
cont
inue
agr
aria
n tr
adit
ion
or
cont
ribu
te to
pa
rk’s
mis
sion
.
-Par
king
po
tent
ially
av
aila
ble
behi
nd
Rog
ers
Bar
n.
-Lan
dsca
pe
sett
ing
wou
ld b
e id
eal b
ackd
rop
for
this
use
. -P
arki
ng
pote
ntia
lly
avai
labl
e be
hind
R
oger
s B
arn.
-Wou
ld r
equi
re
addi
tion
al s
epti
c.-W
ould
hav
e m
ediu
m im
pact
on
land
scap
e.
-Wou
ld r
equi
re
addi
tion
al s
epti
c.-W
ould
hav
e m
ediu
m im
pact
on
land
scap
e.
39
-Add
ition
al
Alte
rnat
ive-
B
arn
: A
rtis
an C
raft
s
stru
ctur
e w
ould
be
low
.
-Wou
ld c
aptu
re
peop
le s
tayi
ng a
t th
e In
n.
-Wou
ld c
aptu
re
peop
le fr
om th
e tr
ail.
-Des
irab
le fo
r vi
sito
rs –
may
in
crea
se v
isit
atio
n to
par
k.
-May
be
econ
omic
ally
pr
ofit
able
–
adm
issi
on c
harg
e.
-Com
pati
ble
use
wit
h fl
oor
spac
e /
hist
oric
func
tion
of s
truc
ture
. -W
ould
co
ntri
bute
to
park
’s m
issi
on.
-Wou
ld h
ave
low
im
pact
.
-Wou
ld n
ot
requ
ire
addi
tion
al s
epti
c.
-Par
king
po
tent
ially
av
aila
ble
behi
nd
Rog
ers
Bar
n.
-Low
impa
ct o
n la
ndsc
ape.
Hou
se: A
rtis
an in
R
esid
ence
B
arn
: Gal
lery
-Wou
ld b
e co
mpa
tibl
e us
e if
B
arn
is u
sed
for
Art
isan
Cra
fts
or
Gal
lery
. -M
inim
al
conv
ersi
on c
ost.
-Com
pati
ble
use
wit
h fl
oor
-Str
uctu
re is
larg
e fo
r on
e fa
mily
–
may
be
best
sui
ted
to h
ouse
mor
e th
an
one
arti
st.
-Goo
d m
atch
for
arti
st r
esid
ence
. -M
ay n
ot
gene
rate
eno
ugh
inte
rest
.
-Pot
enti
al
park
ing
avai
labl
e be
hind
the
barn
.
-C
ompa
tibl
e us
e w
ith
exis
ting
floo
r sp
ace
of s
truc
ture
.
-Wou
ld n
ot
requ
ire
addi
tion
al s
epti
c ne
eds.
-S
truc
ture
may
not
ha
ve s
uita
ble
stud
io s
pace
.
-Wou
ld h
ave
a lo
w im
pact
.
-V
ery
low
im
pact
on
-M
ay r
equi
re
40
-Add
ition
al
Alte
rnat
ive-
B
arn
: Stu
dio
Spac
e
-A
dditi
onal
A
ltern
ativ
e-
Bar
n: S
ee A
gric
ultu
re
spac
e/hi
stor
ic
func
tion
of
stru
ctur
e.
-Wou
ld h
ave
a lo
w
impa
ct.
build
ing
code
up
grad
ing
(AD
A,
fire
saf
ety,
etc
.)
-Wou
ld n
ot
cont
ribu
te to
pa
rk’s
mis
sion
. -W
ould
rem
ove
stru
ctur
e fr
om
publ
ic u
se a
nd
enjo
ymen
t.
-Exi
stin
g fl
oor
plan
wou
ld n
ot
need
to b
e al
tere
d.
-Wou
ld h
ave
low
im
pact
.
-Spa
ce m
ay b
e to
o la
rge
for
use.
-U
se w
ould
not
be
con
sist
ent w
ith
hist
oric
func
tion
of s
truc
ture
. -W
ould
not
co
ntri
bute
to
park
’s m
issi
on.
land
scap
e.
-Wou
ld n
ot
requ
ire
addi
tion
al s
epti
c.
-Wou
ld n
ot
requ
ire
addi
tion
al
park
ing.
-L
ow im
pact
on
land
scap
e.
Hou
se:
1st F
loor
: Tav
ern
/Res
taur
ant,
2nd F
loor
: In
n B
arn
: Sm
all
Fun
ctio
ns
-Wou
ld b
e on
ly
food
con
cess
ion
betw
een
Rte
. 128
an
d do
wnt
own
Con
cord
. -E
xist
ing
larg
e-si
zed
kitc
hen
may
no
t nee
d m
ajor
up
grad
ing.
-E
xist
ing
floo
r pl
an
wou
ld n
ot n
eed
to b
e
-Str
uctu
re m
ay
requ
ire
exte
nsiv
e bu
ildin
g co
de
upgr
ade
(AD
A,
Fir
e Sa
fety
).
-Tra
nsie
nt n
atur
e of
use
may
cau
se
exce
ss w
ear
and
tear
on
stru
ctur
e.
-Wou
ld n
ot
cont
ribu
te to
-Con
vers
ion
requ
irem
ents
w
ould
be
min
imal
.-W
ould
hav
e lo
w
impa
ct o
n st
ruct
ure.
-Use
wou
ld n
ot
be c
onsi
sten
t wit
h hi
stor
ic fu
nctio
n of
str
uctu
re.
-Wou
ld n
ot
cont
ribu
te to
pa
rk’s
mis
sion
.
-Lan
dsca
pe
sett
ing
wou
ld b
e id
eal b
ackd
rop
for
this
use
. -P
arki
ng
pote
ntia
lly
avai
labl
e be
hind
R
oger
s B
arn.
-Wou
ld r
equi
re
addi
tion
al s
epti
c.-W
ould
hav
e m
ediu
m im
pact
on
land
scap
e.
41
-A
dditi
onal
A
ltern
ativ
e-
Bar
n:
See
Agr
icul
ture
grea
tly
alte
red.
-C
ould
res
tore
2nd
fl
oor
to o
pen
floo
r pl
an a
s it
was
hi
stor
ical
ly.
-Wou
ld b
e co
nsis
tent
wit
h hi
stor
ic fu
nctio
n of
st
ruct
ure.
-C
ould
be
econ
omic
ally
pr
ofit
able
. -W
ould
hav
e m
ediu
m to
low
im
pact
on
stru
ctur
e.
park
’s m
issi
on.
Hou
se:
Soci
al
Dir
ecto
r’s
Res
iden
ce
Bar
n:
The
atre
/Dan
ces
-Min
imal
co
nver
sion
cos
t. -I
mpa
ct to
str
uctu
re
wou
ld b
e lo
w.
-Wou
ld n
ot
cont
ribu
te to
pa
rk’s
mis
sion
. -W
ould
rem
ove
stru
ctur
e fr
om
publ
ic u
se a
nd
enjo
ymen
t.
- C
ost o
f co
nver
sion
wou
ld
be m
inim
al-
exis
ting
floo
r pl
an
wou
ld n
ot n
eed
to
be a
lter
ed.
-Im
pact
to
stru
ctur
e w
ould
be
low
.
-Wou
ld n
ot b
e co
nsis
tent
wit
h hi
stor
ic fu
nctio
n of
str
uctu
re.
-Wou
ld n
ot
cont
ribu
te to
pa
rk’s
mis
sion
.
-Par
king
po
tent
ially
av
aila
ble
behi
nd
Rog
ers
Bar
n.
-Ade
quat
e se
ptic
fo
r ba
rn w
ould
ne
ed to
be
inst
alle
d.
-Wou
ld h
ave
med
ium
impa
ct
on la
ndsc
ape.
42
Hou
se:
Dir
ecto
r of
C
onfe
renc
e C
ente
r B
arn
: C
onfe
renc
e C
ente
r
-Min
imal
co
nver
sion
cos
t. -I
mpa
ct to
str
uctu
re
wou
ld b
e lo
w.
-Wou
ld n
ot
cont
ribu
te to
pa
rk’s
mis
sion
. -W
ould
rem
ove
stru
ctur
e fr
om
publ
ic u
se a
nd
enjo
ymen
t.
-Wou
ldno
tco
ntri
bute
to
park
’s m
issi
on.
-P
arki
ng
pote
ntia
lly
avai
labl
e be
hind
R
oger
s B
arn.
-C
ost o
f co
nver
sion
wou
ld
be h
igh
and
ther
efor
e ha
ve a
hi
gh im
pact
to
stru
ctur
e.
-Ade
quat
e se
ptic
fo
r ba
rn w
ould
ne
ed to
be
inst
alle
d.
-Wou
ld h
ave
med
ium
impa
ct
to s
truc
ture
.
Hou
se a
nd
Bar
n:
Nat
iona
l Aca
dem
y of
18
th C
. Lif
e
-Par
k co
uld
bene
fit
grea
tly
– us
e co
uld
prov
ide
trai
ning
for
inte
rpre
tive
em
ploy
ees
wit
hin
park
. -C
ould
be
econ
omic
ally
pr
ofit
able
– tu
itio
n ch
arge
. -E
xist
ing
floo
r pl
an
wou
ld n
ot n
eed
to b
e al
tere
d.
-Wou
ld c
ontr
ibut
e to
par
k’s
mis
sion
. -W
ould
hav
e lo
w
impa
ct to
str
uctu
re.
-Dif
ficu
lty
in
find
ing
inst
ruct
ors
/ tra
iner
s in
sub
ject
ar
ea.
-Cou
ld b
e us
ed
for
pres
enta
tion
an
d cl
assr
oom
sp
ace.
-W
ould
co
ntri
bute
to
park
’s m
issi
on.
-Cos
t of
conv
ersi
on c
ould
be
hig
h.
-Wou
ld h
ave
high
im
pact
on
stru
ctur
e.
-Par
king
po
tent
ially
av
aila
ble
behi
nd
Rog
ers
Bar
n.
-Add
itio
nal
sept
ic m
ay n
ot b
e re
quir
ed.
-Wou
ld h
ave
low
im
pact
to
land
scap
e.
Hou
se: O
ffic
e Sp
ace
Bar
n:
See
Agr
icul
ture
-P
oten
tial
ly g
ood,
re
liabl
e ec
onom
ic
inco
me.
-F
loor
spa
ce w
ould
no
t nee
d to
be
alte
red.
-Req
uire
men
ts fo
r of
fice
(IT
nee
ds
and
heav
y of
fice
eq
uipm
ent)
use
m
ay b
e to
o in
trus
ive.
-W
ould
not
co
ntri
bute
to
park
’s m
issi
on.
-Wou
ld
cont
ribu
te t
o pa
rk’s
agr
aria
n tr
adit
ion
and
mis
sion
.
-W
ould
not
requ
ire
addi
tion
al
park
ing.
-W
ould
not
re
quir
e ad
diti
onal
sep
tic.
-L
ow im
pact
on
land
scap
e.
43
-Wou
ld r
emov
e st
ruct
ure
from
pu
blic
use
and
en
joym
ent.
-Wou
ld h
ave
high
im
pact
on
stru
ctur
e.
Agr
icul
tura
l P
ro
Con
P
ro
Con
P
ro
Con
B
arn
: A
nim
als
/ G
razi
ng
-Wou
ld c
ontin
ue
agra
rian
trad
itio
n.
-Wou
ld b
e in
ke
epin
g w
ith
hist
oric
use
. -L
ittl
e co
nver
sion
of
spa
ce w
ould
be
requ
ired
. -W
ould
hav
e lo
w
impa
ct to
st
ruct
ure.
-May
not
be
econ
omic
ally
pr
ofit
able
.
-Wou
ld b
e in
ke
epin
g w
ith
the
hist
oric
and
ag
ricu
ltur
al
scen
e.
-No
addi
tion
al
park
ing
wou
ld b
e re
quir
ed.
-No
addi
tion
al
sept
ic w
ould
be
requ
ired
. -L
ow im
pact
on
land
scap
e.
Bar
n:
Agr
icul
tura
l Sa
le O
utle
t
-W
ould
con
tinue
ag
rari
an tr
adit
ion
of s
truc
ture
. -M
inim
al
conv
ersi
on w
ould
be
req
uire
d.
-Wou
ld c
ontin
ue
agra
rian
trad
itio
n of
par
k.
-Wou
ld h
ave
low
im
pact
to
stru
ctur
e.
-Cou
ld
pote
ntia
lly b
e lim
ited
to s
easo
nal
prof
itab
ility
.
-No
addi
tion
al
sept
ic w
ould
be
requ
ired
. -P
arki
ng
pote
ntia
lly
avai
labl
e be
hind
R
oger
s B
arn.
-L
ow im
pact
on
land
scap
e.
44
Bar
n:
Liv
ing
His
tory
(w
/ox
team
)
-W
ould
con
tinue
th
e a
grar
ian
trad
itio
n of
the
park
. -C
ould
be
econ
omic
ally
pr
ofit
able
(a
dmis
sion
ch
arge
).
-Wou
ld r
equi
re a
la
rge
num
ber
of
staf
f. -W
ould
be
a se
ason
al
oper
atio
n on
ly.
-Wou
ld h
ave
adeq
uate
po
tent
ial p
arki
ng.
-Lan
dsca
pe m
ay
not b
e la
rge
enou
gh fo
r th
is
sort
of
oper
atio
n.
-Add
itio
nal
sept
ic w
ould
be
requ
ired
. -W
ould
hav
e hi
gh im
pact
on
land
scap
e.
45
Stow- Hardy House, Hovagimian Garage, and Landscape
Current Use House: Vacant. Barn: Vacant / NPS Light Storage. Impact
Structure: Medium Impact Level (19 out of 36 possible points). Garage: Medium Impact Level (18 out of 36 possible points). Landscape: High Impact Level (14 out of 24 possible points).
Issues Parking:
Existing: 2- 3 spaces. Potential: None. Other: The existing lot is small and difficult to navigate. There is little room to turn around, making the site complicated for visitor parking where people would be arriving and leaving with high frequency. With significant landscape alteration there may be more parking potential. Ideally, the appropriate design would have the Farwell Jones Site provide parking for this site.
Septic: Existing: Adequate septic exists for residential use.
Required: See attached septic information (will vary according to use).
Other • This structure is just post 1775 battle, constructed in 1786; garage
constructed 1945. • This property’s use would be ideal to combine with Farwell Jones
operation because of its close but somewhat removed location (could act as a support structure, i.e. residence to Farwell Jones operation.)
• Beware of impact to trail that abuts parcel on the northeast corner of parcel.
46
Stow
-Har
dy
Site
H
ouse
(M
ediu
m I
mp
act L
evel
) G
arag
e
(Med
ium
Im
pac
t Lev
el)
Lan
dsc
ape
(H
igh
Im
pac
t Lev
el)
Pre
ferr
ed U
ses
Com
bin
ed U
se
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
Hou
se:
Res
iden
ce
(Sup
port
re
side
nce
for
Far
wel
l Jon
es
oper
atio
ns, i
.e.
Far
mer
’s o
r D
irec
tor’
s re
side
nce)
G
arag
e: S
tora
ge
(Far
m E
quip
men
t)
-Wou
ld b
e id
eal t
o be
us
ed a
s a
resi
dent
ial
supp
ort s
truc
ture
for
Far
wel
l Jon
es
oper
atio
ns b
ecau
se o
f it
s pr
oxim
ity
to th
e F
arw
ell J
ones
sit
e, b
ut
slig
ht r
emov
al a
s w
ell.
-Wou
ld b
e co
nsis
tent
w
ith
hist
oric
func
tion
of
str
uctu
re.
-Min
imal
con
vers
ion
cost
. -L
ow im
pact
on
stru
ctur
e.
-Wou
ld n
ot
dire
ctly
con
trib
ute
to p
ark’
s m
issi
on.
-Wou
ld r
emov
e st
ruct
ure
from
pu
blic
use
and
en
joym
ent.
-No
conv
ersi
on
cost
. -U
se w
ould
be
cons
iste
nt w
ith
hist
oric
func
tion
of s
truc
ture
. -I
mpa
ct w
ould
be
low
.
-Sm
all s
pace
may
lim
it th
e am
ount
of
item
s to
be
stor
ed.
-Wou
ld n
ot
dire
ctly
co
ntri
bute
to
park
’s m
issi
on.
-No
addi
tion
al
sept
ic w
ould
be
requ
ired
. -N
o ad
diti
onal
pa
rkin
g w
ould
be
requ
ired
. -L
ow im
pact
on
land
scap
e.
Hou
se: A
rtis
t R
esid
ence
G
arag
e: S
tudi
o
-Wou
ld b
e co
nsis
tent
w
ith
hist
oric
func
tion
of
str
uctu
re.
-Min
imal
con
vers
ion
cost
. -N
o al
tera
tion
of
floo
r pl
an w
ould
be
requ
ired
. -G
reat
com
pati
bilit
y if
ga
rage
is u
sed
as a
st
udio
or
galle
ry.
-Wou
ld h
ave
low
im
pact
on
stru
ctur
e.
-If g
arag
e is
not
us
ed a
s a
stud
io,
ther
e m
ight
not
be
a go
od s
tudi
o sp
ace
wit
hin
the
hous
e.
-Spa
ce m
ay b
e to
o la
rge
for
one
arti
st
– pe
rhap
s be
tter
su
ited
for
mul
tipl
e ar
tist
s or
art
ist a
nd
fam
ily.
-Wou
ld n
ot
dire
ctly
con
trib
ute
to p
ark’
s m
issi
on.
-Wou
ld r
emov
e
-No
conv
ersi
on
cost
. -I
mpa
ct w
ould
be
low
.
-Spa
ce m
ay b
e to
o sm
all f
or u
se
as a
gal
lery
. -I
f use
d as
a
galle
ry, i
t may
no
t be
visi
ble
enou
gh fr
om
road
to a
ttra
ct
visi
tors
. -W
ould
not
di
rect
ly
cont
ribu
te to
pa
rk’s
mis
sion
. -W
ould
not
be
cons
iste
nt w
ith
-No
addi
tion
al
sept
ic w
ould
be
requ
ired
.
-If g
arag
e is
use
d as
a g
alle
ry,
addi
tion
al p
arki
ng
wou
ld b
e re
quir
ed.
-Wou
ld h
ave
med
ium
impa
ct
on la
ndsc
ape.
47
stru
ctur
e fr
om
publ
ic u
se a
nd
enjo
ymen
t.
hist
oric
func
tion
of s
truc
ture
.
Les
s P
refe
rred
U
ses
Com
bin
ed U
se
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
Hou
se: I
nter
pret
ive
Gar
age:
Sto
rage
(C
urat
oria
l Sto
rage
fo
r pa
rk)
-Ext
erio
r of
str
uctu
re
in p
roce
ss o
f bei
ng
rest
ored
for
inte
rpre
tive
pur
pose
s.
-Wou
ld c
ontr
ibut
e to
pa
rk’s
mis
sion
. -I
mpa
ct o
n st
ruct
ure
wou
ld b
e lo
w.
-May
not
be
econ
omic
ally
fe
asib
le -
very
ex
pens
ive
to
rest
ore
inte
rior
. -S
truc
ture
bui
lt 1
1 ye
ars
post
177
5 B
attl
e.
-Sit
e m
ay b
e to
o sm
all t
o at
trac
t vi
sito
rs.
-Wou
ld r
equi
re
addi
tion
al
inte
rpre
tive
sta
ff.
-Wou
ld p
rovi
de
need
ed s
tora
ge
spac
e fo
r th
e pa
rk
on s
ite.
-W
ould
co
ntri
bute
to
park
’s m
issi
on.
-Im
pact
wou
ld b
e lo
w.
-Sm
all s
pace
may
lim
it th
e am
ount
of
item
s to
be
stor
ed.
-Use
wou
ld n
ot
be c
onsi
sten
t w
ith
hist
oric
fu
ncti
on o
f st
ruct
ure.
-No
addi
tion
al
sept
ic w
ould
be
requ
ired
.
-Wou
ld r
equi
re
addi
tion
al
park
ing.
-L
ands
cape
has
lo
w in
terp
reti
ve
valu
e; v
iew
she
ds
are
grea
tly
diff
eren
t tha
n 18
th
C.
-Wou
ld h
ave
med
ium
impa
ct
on la
ndsc
ape.
Hou
se: 1
st F
loor
: G
alle
ry, 2
nd F
loor
: R
esid
ence
G
arag
e:
Stor
age
(Cur
ator
ial
Stor
age
for
park
)
-2nd
floo
r us
e as
a
resi
denc
e w
ould
be
cons
iste
nt w
ith
hist
oric
func
tion
of
stru
ctur
e.
-Wou
ld a
llow
for
sing
le a
rtis
t oc
cupa
ncy.
-M
inim
al c
onve
rsio
n co
st.
-Wou
ld h
ave
low
im
pact
on
stru
ctur
e.
-Gal
lery
may
not
ge
nera
te e
noug
h in
tere
st.
-Wou
ld n
ot
dire
ctly
con
trib
ute
to p
ark’
s m
issi
on.
-Wou
ld p
rovi
de
need
ed s
tora
ge
spac
e fo
r th
e pa
rk
on s
ite.
-W
ould
co
ntri
bute
to
park
’s m
issi
on.
-Wou
ld h
ave
low
im
pact
on
stru
ctur
e.
-Sm
all s
pace
may
lim
it th
e am
ount
of
item
s to
be
stor
ed.
-Use
wou
ld n
ot
be c
onsi
sten
t w
ith
hist
oric
fu
ncti
on o
f st
ruct
ure.
-No
addi
tion
al
sept
ic w
ould
be
requ
ired
.
-Wou
ld r
equi
re
addi
tion
al
park
ing.
-W
ould
hav
e m
ediu
m im
pact
on
land
scap
e.
48
Hou
se: S
mal
l R
esta
uran
t / F
ood
Con
cess
ion
Gar
age:
Gal
lery
-Wou
ld c
aptu
re
peop
le fr
om th
e tr
ail.
-Cur
rent
ly n
o fo
od
conc
essi
on b
etw
een
Rte
. 128
and
do
wnt
own
Con
cord
. -M
ay a
ttra
ct v
isit
ors
to p
ark
(com
bine
d us
e of
food
con
cess
ion
and
galle
ry m
ay a
ttra
ct
mor
e vi
sito
rs th
an
each
use
on
its o
wn.
)
-Con
vers
ion
cost
m
ay b
e hi
gh.
-Wou
ld n
ot
dire
ctly
con
trib
ute
to p
ark’
s m
issi
on.
-Cou
ld h
ave
high
im
pact
on
stru
ctur
e.
-No
conv
ersi
on
cost
. -I
mpa
ct w
ould
be
low
.
-Spa
ce m
ay b
e to
o sm
all f
or u
se
as a
gal
lery
. -W
ould
not
di
rect
ly
cont
ribu
te to
pa
rk’s
mis
sion
.
-Add
itio
nal
park
ing
wou
ld b
e re
quir
ed.
-Add
itio
nal s
epti
c m
ay b
e re
quir
ed.
-Wou
ld h
ave
high
im
pact
on
land
scap
e.
Hou
se:
Off
ice
(Non
prof
it le
ase)
G
arag
e: S
tora
ge
(Far
m E
quip
men
t)
-Cou
ld b
e us
ed a
s th
e of
fice
s th
at s
uppo
rt
the
oper
atio
ns a
t the
F
arw
ell J
ones
sit
e.
-Alt
erat
ion
of e
xist
ing
floo
r pl
an w
ould
be
min
imal
.
-Off
ice
need
s su
ch
as IT
and
hea
vy
equi
pmen
t may
ha
ve h
igh
impa
ct
on s
truc
ture
. -U
se w
ould
not
be
cons
iste
nt w
ith
hist
oric
func
tion
of
stru
ctur
e.
-Wou
ld r
emov
e st
ruct
ure
from
pu
blic
use
and
en
joym
ent.
-No
conv
ersi
on
cost
. -W
ould
co
ntri
bute
to th
e pa
rk’s
mis
sion
. -W
ould
hav
e lo
w
impa
ct o
n st
ruct
ure.
-Sm
all s
pace
may
lim
it th
e am
ount
of
item
s to
be
stor
ed.
-Use
wou
ld n
ot
be c
onsi
sten
t w
ith
hist
oric
fu
ncti
on o
f st
ruct
ure.
-W
ould
rem
ove
stru
ctur
e fr
om
publ
ic u
se a
nd
enjo
ymen
t.
-Add
itio
nal
park
ing
wou
ld b
e re
quir
ed.
-Add
itio
nal s
epti
c m
ay b
e re
quir
ed.
-Wou
ld h
ave
high
im
pact
on
land
scap
e.
49
Joshua Brooks Jr. House and Landscape
Current Use: Vacant. Impact
Structure: High Impact Level (12 out of 36 possible points). Landscape: High Impact Level (14 out of 24 possible points).
Issues Parking:
Existing: No official parking. Paved driveway (fair condition) can provide limited parking. One space available in front of garage. Potential: 3 spaces possible in front of and next to garage. 2- 3 extra spaces possible in the driveway but clearly visible from the road and would have limiting circulation. Total: 6 spaces. Other: Short walk to Noah Brooks Tavern and its parking lot.
Septic: Existing: Adequate septic (3 bathrooms) for residential use but in poor condition. Required: See attached septic information (will vary according to use).
Other • House constructed ca. 1779 - 1781, just post 1775 Battle. • Tie new use w/Noah Brooks Tavern – could be more economically
feasible/profitable (short walk between two properties but slightly dangerous).
50
Josh
ua B
rook
s Jr
. Sit
e H
ouse
(H
igh
Im
pac
t Lev
el)
Lan
dsc
ape
(Hig
h I
mp
act L
evel
) P
refe
rred
Use
s
R
esid
enti
al
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
Park
Hou
sing
-W
ould
be
good
co
mpa
tibi
lity
wit
h th
e pa
rk-
tena
nts
wou
ld h
ave
vest
ed
inte
rest
in m
aint
aini
ng
prop
erty
. -
Wou
ld r
equi
re m
inim
al
conv
ersi
on c
ost.
-Yea
r-ro
und
occu
pati
on.
-Use
wou
ld b
e co
nsis
tent
w
ith
hist
oric
func
tion
on
stru
ctur
e.
-Wou
ld h
ave
low
impa
ct o
n st
ruct
ure.
-Use
wou
ld n
ot a
ttra
ct
visi
tors
to th
e pa
rk.
-Wou
ld n
ot c
ontr
ibut
e to
the
park
’s m
issi
on.
-No
addi
tion
al s
epti
c ne
eds
wou
ld b
e re
quir
ed.
-No
addi
tion
al p
arki
ng
wou
ld b
e re
quir
ed.
-Wou
ld h
ave
low
impa
ct
on la
ndsc
ape.
Art
ist R
esid
ence
-S
etti
ng s
omew
hat
rem
oved
from
par
k, s
ite
is
very
res
iden
tial
. -R
esid
enti
al u
se w
ould
be
cons
iste
nt w
ith
hist
oric
fu
ncti
on o
f str
uctu
re.
-Rea
r el
l / m
oder
n ga
rage
co
uld
be a
goo
d st
udio
sp
ace.
-W
ould
hav
e lo
w im
pact
on
stru
ctur
e.
-Wou
ld n
ot c
ontr
ibut
e to
par
k’s
mis
sion
. -W
ould
rem
ove
stru
ctur
e fr
om p
ublic
use
an
d en
joym
ent.
-Wou
ld n
ot r
equi
re
addi
tion
al p
arki
ng.
-Wou
ld n
ot r
equi
re
addi
tion
al s
epti
c.
-Wou
ld h
ave
low
impa
ct
on la
ndsc
ape.
Gat
her
ing
Spac
e /
En
tert
ain
men
t P
ro
Con
P
ro
Con
Smal
l Fun
ctio
ns
-Int
erm
itte
nt u
se, c
ould
sh
are
wit
h pa
rk to
use
for
mee
ting
s w
hen
ther
e is
not
a
-Cur
rent
floo
r pl
an
conf
igur
atio
n (m
any
smal
l roo
ms)
may
not
be
-Gro
unds
and
land
scap
e pr
ovid
e a
beau
tifu
l se
ttin
g fo
r th
is u
se.
-Add
itio
nal s
epti
c w
ould
be
req
uire
d.
-Add
itio
nal p
arki
ng
51
func
tion
. -W
ould
bec
ome
an in
com
e pr
oduc
ing
prop
erty
. -G
ood
expo
sure
of p
ark
to
publ
ic.
suit
able
for
smal
l fu
ncti
ons.
-W
ould
not
con
trib
ute
to p
ark’
s m
issi
on.
-Cou
ld r
equi
re b
uild
ing
code
upg
rade
s (f
ire
safe
ty a
nd A
DA
).
-May
hav
e hi
gh im
pact
on
str
uctu
re.
wou
ldbe
requ
ired
(per
haps
at N
oah
Bro
oks
Tav
ern
Site
.) -
Wou
ld h
ave
high
im
pact
on
land
scap
e.
Mis
cell
aneo
us
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
Off
ice
Spac
e (P
rofi
t / N
on
prof
it le
ase)
-C
ould
be
used
as
the
offi
ces
that
sup
port
the
oper
atio
ns a
t the
Noa
h B
rook
s si
te.
-Alt
erat
ion
of e
xist
ing
floo
r pl
an w
ould
be
min
imal
.
-Wou
ld n
ot c
ontr
ibut
e to
par
k’s
mis
sion
. -O
ffic
e ne
eds
such
as
IT
and
heav
y eq
uipm
ent
may
hav
e hi
gh im
pact
on
stru
ctur
e.
-Use
wou
ld n
ot b
e co
nsis
tent
wit
h hi
stor
ic
func
tion
of s
truc
ture
.
-A
ddit
iona
lpar
king
wou
ld b
e re
quir
ed.
-Add
itio
nal s
epti
c m
ay
be r
equi
red.
-W
ould
hav
e m
ediu
m
impa
ct o
n la
ndsc
ape.
Les
s P
refe
rred
Use
s
R
esid
enti
al
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
Bed
& B
reak
fast
/ In
n -C
ould
be
an e
xten
sion
of
the
Noa
h B
rook
s T
aver
n if
N
oah
Bro
oks
hous
e is
use
d as
a T
aver
n on
1st fl
oor
and
Bed
& B
reak
fast
/ In
n on
the
2nd fl
oor.
-M
ay p
rom
ote
visi
tati
on to
pa
rk.
-Add
itio
nal b
athr
oom
s m
ay n
eed
to b
e ad
ded
to
stru
ctur
e (o
ne b
athr
oom
pe
r be
droo
m).
-M
ay in
trod
uce
exce
ssiv
e w
ear
and
tear
on
his
tori
c st
ruct
ure
due
to tr
ansi
ent n
atur
e.
-Wou
ld n
ot c
ontr
ibut
e to
par
k’s
mis
sion
. -W
ould
hav
e m
ediu
m
impa
ct o
n st
ruct
ure.
-Par
king
cou
ld b
e pr
ovid
ed b
y N
oah
Bro
oks
Tav
ern
site
.
-Add
itio
nal s
epti
c w
ould
be
req
uire
d.
-Add
itio
nal p
arki
ng m
ay
be r
equi
red.
-W
ould
hav
e hi
gh
impa
ct o
n la
ndsc
ape.
52
Priv
ate
Hou
sing
-R
esid
enti
al u
se w
ould
be
cons
iste
nt w
ith
hist
oric
fu
ncti
on o
f str
uctu
re.
-No
chan
ge in
floo
r pl
an
wou
ld b
e re
quir
ed (n
o co
nver
sion
cos
t).
-Wou
ld h
ave
low
impa
ct.
-Wou
ld n
ot c
ontr
ibut
e to
par
k’s
mis
sion
. -W
ould
rem
ove
stru
ctur
e fr
om p
ublic
use
an
d en
joym
ent.
-Wou
ld n
ot r
equi
re
addi
tion
al p
arki
ng.
-Wou
ld n
ot r
equi
re
addi
tion
al s
epti
c.
-Wou
ld h
ave
low
impa
ct
on la
ndsc
ape.
Foo
d C
once
ssio
n /
R
esta
uran
t P
ro
Con
P
ro
Con
Tav
ern
/ Tea
Hou
se
-Cou
ld b
e th
e T
ea H
ouse
/ T
aver
n ex
tens
ion
if th
e en
tire
Noa
h B
rook
s ho
use
is
used
a B
ed &
Bre
akfa
st /
Inn.
-W
ould
incr
ease
like
lihoo
d of
ste
ady
clie
ntel
e fr
om B
ed
& B
reak
fast
/ In
n op
erat
ion.
-W
ould
con
trib
ute
to
hist
oric
sce
ne o
f par
k.
-Cur
rent
ly th
ere
is n
o fo
od
conc
essi
on /
rest
aura
nt
betw
een
Rte
. 128
and
do
wnt
own
Con
cord
.
-Poo
r vi
sibi
lity
from
ro
ad.
-May
nee
d ex
tens
ive
kitc
hen
upgr
adin
g.
-May
req
uire
ext
ensi
ve
build
ing
code
upg
radi
ng
(AD
A, F
ire
Safe
ty).
-C
ould
hav
e hi
gh im
pact
on
str
uctu
re.
-Par
king
cou
ld b
e pr
ovid
ed b
y N
oah
Bro
oks
Tav
ern
site
.
-Add
itio
nal p
arki
ng m
ay
be r
equi
red.
-S
eptic
cap
acit
y is
lim
ited
- a
ddit
iona
l se
ptic
wou
ld b
e re
quir
ed.
-Wou
ld h
ave
high
im
pact
on
land
scap
e.
53
George Hall House and Landscape
Current Use: Vacant. Impact
Structure: High Impact Level (13 out of 36 possible points). Landscape: High Impact Level (15 out of 24 possible points).
Issues Parking:
Existing: No existing parking. Potential: The site can accommodate a significant number of cars (15- 20). Total: 15- 20 spaces. Other: The parking would have to be located behind the structure and/or across the side road on existing meadow. Due to existing vegetation and location of structure, most cars would not be seen from the main road in this location.
Septic: Existing: No existing septic. Septic needs could potentially be met with the use of composting system. Required: See attached septic information (will vary according to use).
Other • House constructed 1865. • New use should be concentrated on non residential/full- time housing
because of the non- extant septic system and great parking potential. • Landscape is rocky and archaeologically sensitive.
54
Geo
rge
Hal
l Hou
se
Hou
se
(Hig
h I
mp
act L
evel
) L
and
scap
e
(Hig
h I
mp
act L
evel
) P
refe
rred
Use
s
F
ood
Con
cess
ion
/
Res
taur
ant
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
Foo
d C
once
ssio
n -C
urre
ntly
ther
e is
no
food
co
nces
sion
bet
wee
n R
te. 1
28
and
dow
ntow
n C
onco
rd.
-His
tori
cally
, foo
d co
nces
sion
s ha
ve b
een
in/a
roun
d th
is lo
cati
on.
-Wou
ld h
ave
low
impa
ct o
n st
ruct
ure.
-May
not
hav
e ap
prop
riat
e sp
ace
/ roo
m
for
food
pre
para
tion
. -W
ould
not
con
trib
ute
to
park
’s m
issi
on.
-Not
con
sist
ent w
ith
hist
oric
func
tion
of
stru
ctur
e.
-Exc
elle
nt p
arki
ng
pote
ntia
l. -L
ow im
pact
on
land
scap
e.
-No
sept
ic in
stal
led
(wou
ld n
eed
to u
se
com
post
ing
syst
em.)
Ret
ail
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
Gal
lery
(1stfl
oor:
gal
lery
, 2nd
fl
oor:
res
iden
ce)
-2nd
floo
r us
e as
a r
esid
ence
w
ould
be
cons
iste
nt w
ith
hist
oric
func
tion
of s
truc
ture
. -W
ould
allo
w fo
r si
ngle
art
ist
occu
panc
y.
-Min
imal
con
vers
ion
cost
. -W
ould
hav
e lo
w im
pact
on
stru
ctur
e.
-Gal
lery
may
not
gen
erat
e en
ough
inte
rest
. -W
ould
not
dir
ectl
y co
ntri
bute
to p
ark’
s m
issi
on.
-Exc
elle
nt p
arki
ng
pote
ntia
l. -L
ow im
pact
on
land
scap
e.
-No
sept
ic in
stal
led
(wou
ld n
eed
to u
se
com
post
ing
syst
em.)
Gen
eral
Sto
re
-Min
imal
con
vers
ion
need
ed
to s
pace
for
this
use
. -C
ould
com
bine
this
use
wit
h sm
all f
ood
conc
essi
ons.
-W
ould
con
trib
ute
to h
isto
ric
scen
e.
-Wou
ld b
e an
inco
me
prod
ucin
g pr
oper
ty.
-If f
loor
pla
n w
as n
ot a
lter
ed,
coul
d ha
ve lo
w im
pact
on
stru
ctur
e.
-Con
sist
ent “
com
ing
and
goin
g” m
ay c
ause
traf
fic
and
cong
esti
on a
long
roa
d an
d di
srup
t his
tori
c sc
ene.
-W
ould
not
dir
ectl
y co
ntri
bute
to p
ark’
s m
issi
on.
-Exc
elle
nt p
arki
ng
pote
ntia
l. -L
ow im
pact
on
land
scap
e.
-No
sept
ic in
stal
led
(wou
ld n
eed
to u
se
com
post
ing
syst
em.)
55
Mis
cell
aneo
us
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
Off
ices
-A
lter
atio
n of
exi
stin
g fl
oor
plan
wou
ld b
e m
inim
al.
-Wou
ld n
ot c
ontr
ibut
e to
pa
rk’s
mis
sion
. -U
se w
ould
not
be
cons
iste
nt w
ith
hist
oric
fu
ncti
on o
f str
uctu
re.
-Wou
ld r
emov
e st
ruct
ure
from
pub
lic e
njoy
men
t an
d us
e.
-Off
ice
need
s su
ch a
s IT
an
d he
avy
equi
pmen
t may
ha
ve h
igh
impa
ct o
n st
ruct
ure.
-Wou
ld n
ot r
equi
re
addi
tion
al p
arki
ng.
-Im
pact
to la
ndsc
ape
wou
ld b
e lo
w.
-No
sept
ic in
stal
led
(wou
ld n
eed
to u
se
com
post
ing
syst
em.)
Oth
er
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
Cur
ator
ial S
tora
ge
-Wou
ld c
ontr
ibut
e to
par
k’s
mis
sion
. -E
xist
ing
floo
r pl
an w
ould
no
t nee
d to
be
grea
tly
alte
red.
-M
inim
al c
onve
rsio
n co
st.
-Wou
ld h
ave
low
impa
ct to
st
ruct
ure.
-Wou
ld n
ot b
e co
nsis
tent
w
ith
hist
oric
func
tion
of
stru
ctur
e.
-Thi
s ne
w u
se w
ould
re
mov
e th
e st
ruct
ure
from
pu
blic
use
and
enj
oym
ent.
-No
sept
ic r
equi
red.
-N
o pa
rkin
g re
quir
ed.
-Wou
ld h
ave
low
impa
ct
to la
ndsc
ape.
Ed
ucat
ion
al
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
Far
m S
choo
l Hou
sing
Pa
rtne
r -U
se w
ould
be
com
pati
ble
if
a F
arm
Sch
ool w
as lo
cate
d w
ithi
n th
e pa
rk.
-Use
wou
ld b
e co
nsis
tent
w
ith
hist
oric
func
tion
of
stru
ctur
e.
-Min
imal
con
vers
ion
cost
. -F
loor
pla
n w
ould
not
nee
d to
be
alte
red.
-W
ould
con
tinue
agr
aria
n tr
adit
ion
of p
ark.
-W
ould
hav
e lo
w im
pact
.
-Wou
ld n
ot c
ontr
ibut
e to
pa
rk’s
pri
mar
y m
issi
on
(177
5).
-Use
wou
ld r
emov
e th
e st
ruct
ure
from
pub
lic u
se
and
enjo
ymen
t.
-Ade
quat
e pa
rkin
g po
tent
ial.
-Wou
ld r
equi
re s
eptic
(c
ompo
stin
g sy
stem
may
no
t be
suff
icie
nt a
s w
ell)
. -I
f sep
tic in
stal
led,
impa
ct
to la
ndsc
ape
wou
ld b
e hi
gh.
56
Les
s P
refe
rred
Use
s
R
esid
enti
al
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
You
th H
oste
l -C
ompa
tibl
e us
e w
ith
floo
r sp
ace/
hist
oric
func
tion
of
stru
ctur
e.
-Cou
ld b
e ec
onom
ical
ly
feas
ible
– fl
oor
plan
wou
ld
not n
eed
to b
e gr
eatl
y al
tere
d.
-Cou
ld r
equi
re e
xten
sive
bu
ildin
g co
de u
pgra
de
(AD
A, F
ire
Safe
ty).
-H
ouse
may
be
too
smal
l. -W
ould
not
con
trib
ute
to
park
’ mis
sion
. -L
ocat
ion
is n
ot e
asily
ac
cess
ible
by
publ
ic
tran
spor
tatio
n.
-Tra
nsie
nt n
atur
e of
use
m
ay h
ave
high
impa
ct o
n st
ruct
ure.
-Exc
elle
nt p
arki
ng
pote
ntia
l. -L
ow im
pact
on
land
scap
e.
-No
sept
ic in
stal
led
(wou
ld n
eed
to u
se
com
post
ing
syst
em.)
Non
-Pre
ferr
ed U
ses
Res
iden
tial
P
ro
Con
P
ro
Con
Pa
rk H
ousi
ng
-Wou
ld b
e go
od
com
pati
bilit
y w
ith
the
Park
- te
nant
s w
ould
hav
e ve
sted
in
tere
st in
mai
ntai
ning
pr
oper
ty.
- W
ould
req
uire
min
imal
co
nver
sion
cos
t. -Y
ear-
roun
d oc
cupa
tion
. -U
se w
ould
be
cons
iste
nt
wit
h hi
stor
ic fu
ncti
on o
f st
ruct
ure.
-W
ould
hav
e lo
w im
pact
on
stru
ctur
e.
-May
not
be
econ
omic
ally
fe
asib
le fo
r pa
rk.
-Wou
ld r
emov
e st
ruct
ure
from
pub
lic e
njoy
men
t an
d us
e.
-Wou
ld n
ot c
ontr
ibut
e to
pa
rk’s
mis
sion
.
-May
not
req
uire
ad
diti
onal
par
king
. -I
mpa
ct o
n la
ndsc
ape
wou
ld b
e lo
w.
-No
sept
ic in
stal
led
(wou
ld n
eed
to u
se
com
post
ing
syst
em.)
Seas
onal
Hou
sing
-C
ompa
tibl
e us
e w
ith
floo
r sp
ace/
hist
oric
func
tion
of
stru
ctur
e.
-Goo
d co
mpa
tibi
lity
for
the
Park
.
-May
intr
oduc
e ex
tra
wea
r an
d te
ar a
s a
resu
lt o
f tr
ansi
ent h
ousi
ng.
-Tra
nsie
nt n
atur
e m
ay
caus
e m
ediu
m im
pact
on
-May
not
req
uire
ad
diti
onal
par
king
. -I
mpa
ct o
n la
ndsc
ape
wou
ld b
e lo
w.
-No
sept
ic in
stal
led
(wou
ld n
eed
to u
se
com
post
ing
syst
em.)
57
-Add
ed a
ttra
ctio
n to
incr
ease
ap
plic
ants
for
seas
onal
em
ploy
men
t. -M
inim
al c
onve
rsio
n co
st.
-Wou
ld h
ave
low
impa
ct o
n st
ruct
ure.
stru
ctur
e.
58
Gowing- Clarke House and Landscape
Current Use: NPS Residence. Impact
Structure: High Impact Level (14 out of 36 possible points). Landscape: High Impact Level (15 out of 24 possible points).
Issues Parking:
Existing: 3 undesignated spaced on eastern side of the house (on gravel). Potential: Space can accommodate approximately 6 spaces if correctly designed without disturbing the barn foundations. Total: 6 spaces. Other: This is a dangerous intersection therefore parking would not be recommended for visitors; rather it would be safer for park personnel familiar with traffic patterns.
Septic: Existing: Adequate residential septic exists for 4 bedrooms. Required: See attached septic information (will vary according to use).
Other • House constructed 1836.
59
Gow
ing-
Cla
rke
Hou
se
Hou
se
(Hig
h I
mp
act L
evel
) L
and
scap
e
(Hig
h I
mp
act L
evel
) P
refe
rred
Use
s
R
esid
enti
al
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
Park
Hou
sing
-W
ould
be
good
co
mpa
tibi
lity
wit
h th
e pa
rk-
tena
nts
wou
ld h
ave
vest
ed
inte
rest
in m
aint
aini
ng
prop
erty
. -
Wou
ld r
equi
re m
inim
al
conv
ersi
on c
ost.
-Use
wou
ld b
e co
nsis
tent
w
ith
hist
oric
func
tion
of
stru
ctur
e.
-Wou
ld h
ave
low
impa
ct o
n st
ruct
ure.
-May
not
be
econ
omic
ally
fe
asib
le fo
r pa
rk.
-Wou
ld r
emov
e th
e st
ruct
ure
from
pub
lic u
se
and
enjo
ymen
t.
-May
not
req
uire
ad
diti
onal
par
king
. -M
ay n
ot r
equi
re
addi
tion
al s
epti
c.
-Wou
ld h
ave
low
impa
ct
on la
ndsc
ape.
Seas
onal
Hou
sing
-C
ompa
tibl
e us
e w
ith
floo
r sp
ace/
hist
oric
func
tion
of
stru
ctur
e.
-Goo
d co
mpa
tibi
lity
for
the
Park
. -A
dded
att
ract
ion
to in
crea
se
appl
ican
ts fo
r se
ason
al
empl
oym
ent.
-Min
imal
con
vers
ion
cost
. -W
ould
hav
e lo
w im
pact
on
stru
ctur
e.
-May
intr
oduc
e ex
tra
wea
r an
d te
ar a
s a
resu
lt o
f tr
ansi
ent h
ousi
ng.
-Wou
ld r
emov
e th
e st
ruct
ure
from
pub
lic u
se
and
enjo
ymen
t. -T
rans
ient
nat
ure
may
ca
use
med
ium
impa
ct o
n st
ruct
ure.
-May
not
req
uire
ad
diti
onal
par
king
. -M
ay n
ot r
equi
re
addi
tion
al s
epti
c.
-Wou
ld h
ave
low
impa
ct
on la
ndsc
ape.
60
You
th H
oste
l -C
ompa
tibl
e us
e w
ith
floo
r sp
ace/
hist
oric
func
tion
of
stru
ctur
e.
-Flo
or p
lan
wou
ld n
ot n
eed
to b
e gr
eatl
y al
tere
d.
-Loc
atio
n is
not
eas
ily
acce
ssib
le b
y pu
blic
tr
ansp
orta
tion.
-May
not
be
econ
omic
ally
fe
asib
le –
cou
ld r
equi
re
exte
nsiv
e bu
ildin
g co
de
upgr
ade
(AD
A, F
ire
Safe
ty).
-H
ouse
may
be
too
smal
l. -T
rans
ient
nat
ure
of u
se
may
hav
e hi
gh im
pact
on
stru
ctur
e.
-May
not
req
uire
ad
diti
onal
par
king
.
-May
req
uire
add
itio
nal
sept
ic.
-If a
ddit
iona
l sep
tic
wou
ld
be r
equi
red,
impa
ct o
n la
ndsc
ape
wou
ld b
e hi
gh.
Art
ist i
n R
esid
ence
-U
se w
ould
be
cons
iste
nt
wit
h hi
stor
ic fu
ncti
on o
f st
ruct
ure.
-F
loor
pla
n w
ould
not
nee
d to
be
alte
red.
-W
ould
hav
e lo
w im
pact
on
stru
ctur
e.
-Wou
ld r
emov
e th
e st
ruct
ure
from
pub
lic u
se
and
enjo
ymen
t. -W
ould
not
con
trib
ute
to
park
’s m
issi
on.
-May
not
req
uire
ad
diti
onal
par
king
. -M
ay n
ot r
equi
re
addi
tion
al s
epti
c.
-Wou
ld h
ave
low
impa
ct
on la
ndsc
ape.
Mis
cell
aneo
us
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
Park
Off
ices
-U
se is
com
pati
ble
wit
h pa
rk.
-Cou
ld p
rovi
de g
ood
mee
ting
sp
aces
for
the
park
.
-May
be
too
far
rem
oved
fr
om p
ark
head
quar
ters
. -U
se w
ould
not
be
cons
iste
nt w
ith
hist
oric
fu
ncti
on o
f str
uctu
re.
-Wou
ld r
emov
e th
e st
ruct
ure
from
pub
lic u
se
and
enjo
ymen
t. -O
ffic
e ne
eds
such
as
IT
and
heav
y eq
uipm
ent m
ay
have
hig
h im
pact
on
stru
ctur
e.
-May
not
req
uire
ad
diti
onal
par
king
.
-May
req
uire
add
itio
nal
sept
ic.
-If a
ddit
iona
l sep
tic
wou
ld
be r
equi
red,
impa
ct o
n la
ndsc
ape
wou
ld b
e hi
gh.
61
Samuel Brooks House and Landscape
Current Use: Vacant and Occasional Small Functions. Impact
Structure: Medium to Low Impact Level (23 out of 36 possible points). Landscape: Medium Impact Level (18 out of 24 possible points).
Issues Parking:
Existing: 8- 12 spaces available east of the site in a designated parking area. Potential: Possible expansion of lot obtaining an additional 12 spaces. Total: 24 spaces. Other: The existing parking lot is correctly sized and not exceedingly imposing on the landscape. Because there are no significant shade trees, and the site is surrounded by farm land, enlarging the existing parking lot may create an overwhelming mass of cars not appropriate for the area.
Septic: Existing: Adequate septic installed for residential use. Required: See attached septic information (will vary according to use).
Other • Witness structure, constructed 1728.
62
Sam
uel B
rook
s Si
te
Hou
se
(Med
ium
to L
ow I
mp
act)
L
and
scap
e (M
ediu
m I
mp
act L
evel
) P
refe
rred
Use
s
G
ath
erin
g Sp
ace
/ E
nte
rtai
nm
ent
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
Smal
l Fun
ctio
ns
(Sea
ting
Cap
acit
y is
50)
-I
nter
mit
tent
use
, cou
ld s
hare
w
ith
park
to u
se fo
r m
eeti
ngs
whe
n th
ere
is n
ot a
func
tion
. -W
ould
bec
ome
an in
com
e pr
oduc
ing
prop
erty
. -G
ood
expo
sure
of p
ark
to
publ
ic.
-Flo
or p
lan
wou
ld n
ot n
eed
to b
e al
tere
d.
-Wou
ld h
ave
low
impa
ct o
n st
ruct
ure.
-Kit
chen
may
nee
d to
be
upgr
aded
and
exp
ande
d fo
r fo
od p
repa
rati
on a
nd
serv
ice.
-Idy
llic
sett
ing
for
this
use
.-M
ay n
ot r
equi
re
addi
tion
al s
epti
c.
-Wou
ld r
equi
re a
ddit
iona
l pa
rkin
g.
-Wou
ld h
ave
med
ium
im
pact
on
land
scap
e.
Foo
d C
once
ssio
n /
R
esta
uran
t P
ro
Con
P
ro
Con
Tea
Hou
se /
Tav
ern
-Cur
rent
ly n
o fo
od
conc
essi
ons
betw
een
Rte
. 128
an
d do
wnt
own
Con
cord
. -C
lose
pro
xim
ity
to tr
ail.
-Wou
ld c
ontr
ibut
e to
his
tori
c sc
ene.
-F
loor
pla
n w
ould
not
nee
d to
be
alte
red.
-W
ould
hav
e lo
w im
pact
on
stru
ctur
e.
-Kit
chen
may
nee
d to
be
upgr
aded
and
exp
ande
d fo
r fo
od p
repa
rati
on a
nd
serv
ice.
-Idy
llic
sett
ing
for
this
use
.-M
ay h
ave
adeq
uate
pa
rkin
g po
tent
ial.
-Wou
ld h
ave
low
impa
ct
on la
ndsc
ape.
-May
req
uire
add
itio
nal
sept
ic.
18th
Cen
tury
Coo
king
Cla
sses
-W
ould
not
req
uire
an
alte
rati
on in
floo
r pl
an.
-Far
ms
from
oth
er p
rope
rtie
s in
the
park
cou
ld s
uppl
y pr
oduc
e.
-Wou
ld c
ontr
ibut
e to
par
k’s
-Kit
chen
may
nee
d to
be
upgr
aded
and
exp
ande
d fo
r fo
od p
repa
rati
on a
nd
serv
ice.
-C
ould
pot
enti
ally
be
a da
nger
ous
use
(fir
e).
-May
hav
e ad
equa
te
park
ing
pote
ntia
l. -M
ay h
ave
adeq
uate
pa
rkin
g po
tent
ial.
-Wou
ld h
ave
low
impa
ct
on la
ndsc
ape.
-May
req
uire
add
itio
nal
sept
ic.
63
mis
sion
. -W
ould
hav
e hi
gh
inte
rpre
tive
val
ue.
-Cou
ld c
ombi
ne th
is u
se w
ith
inte
rpre
tati
on a
nd/o
r liv
ing
hist
ory
use.
-W
ould
hav
e lo
w im
pact
on
stru
ctur
e.
Inte
rpre
tive
P
ro
Con
P
ro
Con
In
terp
reti
ve
-Wou
ld c
ontr
ibut
e to
par
k’s
mis
sion
. -G
reat
pro
xim
ity
to tr
ail a
nd
wou
ld e
asily
att
ract
vis
itor
s.
-Has
alr
eady
bee
n re
stor
ed.
-Cou
ld p
oten
tial
ly b
e co
mbi
ned
with
oth
er u
ses.
-W
ould
add
to th
e vi
sito
r’s
expe
rien
ce a
nd
unde
rsta
ndin
g of
par
k m
issi
on.
-Wou
ld h
ave
low
impa
ct o
n st
ruct
ure.
-Wou
ld r
equi
re a
ddit
iona
l in
terp
reti
ve s
taff
. -O
ppor
tuni
ty fo
r th
e la
ndsc
ape
to b
e in
terp
rete
d an
d no
t to
serv
e as
just
a “
sett
ing”
. -M
ay h
ave
adeq
uate
se
ptic
. -M
ay h
ave
adeq
uate
pa
rkin
g po
tent
ial.
-Wou
ld h
ave
low
impa
ct
on la
ndsc
ape.
Les
s P
refe
rred
Use
s
R
esid
enti
al
Pro
C
on
Pro
C
on
Bed
& B
reak
fast
/ In
n
-Cou
ld s
hare
this
use
wit
h N
oah
Bro
oks
Tav
ern
site
/ Jo
shua
Bro
oks
Jr. s
ite.
-M
ay p
rom
ote
visi
tati
on to
pa
rk.
-Clo
se p
roxi
mit
y to
trai
l w
ould
be
a pl
us fo
r lo
dger
s.
-Add
itio
nal b
athr
oom
s m
ay n
eed
to b
e ad
ded
to
stru
ctur
e (o
ne b
athr
oom
pe
r be
droo
m).
-M
ay in
trod
uce
exce
ssiv
e w
ear
and
tear
on
hist
oric
st
ruct
ure
due
to tr
ansi
ent
natu
re.
-Wou
ld h
ave
med
ium
im
pact
on
stru
ctur
e.
-May
hav
e ad
equa
te
park
ing
pote
ntia
l. -M
ay n
ot r
equi
re
addi
tion
al s
epti
c.
-Wou
ld h
ave
low
impa
ct
on la
ndsc
ape.
64
APPENDIX
Minute Man National Historical Park
Battle Road Structure Survey Phase I
DRAFT October 2004
REVISED June 2005
National Park Service Historic Architecture Program
Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation
Minute Man National Historical Park Battle Road Structure Survey Phase I Table of Contents Introduction ……………………………………………………………………...………..1 Impact Assessment per Structure……………...…………………………………………..2 Impact Assessment per Landscape………………………………………………………..3 Methodology for Significance, Integrity, and Allowable Impact Assessment…....………4 Summary of Methodology for Significance Assessment …………………………………7 Integrity Assessment Worksheets …………………………………………………….…..8 Significance and Integrity Matrix ……………………………………………………….11
67
Introduction The goal of this project is to determine acceptable impact levels using a systematic methodology to determine potential reuses for fourteen structures and their ten respective sites in Minute Man National Historical Park. A fifteenth structure (Farwell Jones Produce Stand) was eliminated from the study due to new information that documented its date of construction as 1960. Of the forty nine structures that the park has entered into the List of Classified Structures (LCS), fourteen structures and ten sites were identified by the park staff as potential reusable resources. Phase I of this project will determine an allowable impact assessment per structure and site; Phase II of this project will use the findings from Phase I to provide the park with the information that will outline these sites’ reuse and ultimate treatment to be included in the General Management Plan. For Phase I, a methodology was created that evaluated both the structures and the landscapes that allowed for the greatest amount of information per site to be considered to inform the final impact assessment. Several documents were utilized in the determination of significance; the primary document referenced was the park’s National Register Nomination along with the consultation of available historic structure reports. Once the determination of significance was established, architectural and historical integrity could be assessed. The primary guide utilized in the assessment of integrity was The National Register Bulletin 15: How to Evaluate the Integrity of a Property. A walk-through of each structure and landscape was preformed evaluating each of these seven aspects of integrity in situ. The final product resulted in a matrix that simultaneously outlined each structure’s and site’s significance and integrity, which when added together generated the impact assessment.
68
MIMA Battle Road Structure Survey
Impact Assessment
Impact Rating per Structure
Structure Out of 36
possible points Joshua Brooks Jr. House 12 (GAI)*George Minot / Hall House 13 Gowing-Clarke House 14 Olive Stow Garage 18 Noah Brooks Tavern 18 John Nelson Barn 19 Olive Stow House 19 Rogers Barn 20 McHugh Barn 20 James Carty (Farwell Jones) Barn 20 Samuel Brooks House 23 Farwell Jones House** 27 John Nelson House** 27 Major John Buttrick House 28 (LAI)*
* Greatest Acceptable Impact (GAI) to Least Acceptable Impact (LAI) **It is thought that some portion of the structure may be a witness structure; more research and physical evidence is needed to be certain.
69
MIMA Battle Road Structure Survey
Impact Assessment
Impact Rating per Landscape
Landscape Out of 24
possible points Olive Stow Site (House and Garage) 14 (GAI)*Joshua Brooks Jr. Site 14 George Minot / Hall House Site 15 Gowing-Clarke House Site 15 John Nelson Site (House and Barn) 16 Farwell Jones Site (House and James Carty Barn) 18 Samuel Brooks House Site 18 Major John Buttrick House Site 18 Noah Brooks Tavern Site (House and Rogers Barn) 19 McHugh Barn Site 21 (LAI)** Greatest Acceptable Impact (GAI) to Least Acceptable Impact (LAI)
70
Methodology for Significance, Integrity, and Impact Assessment Methodology for Rating Significance: The National Register Nomination for Minute Man National Historical Park identifies six areas of significance: military, commemoration, architecture, literature, agriculture, and archaeology. Upon reviewing the nomination, it was determined that the fourteen sites involved in this project contain significance in three areas, on both the national and local levels. On the national level, some sites contain significance in the area of military; on the local level, sites contain significance in the area of architecture and agriculture. We have assigned a rating in each area of significance for both the structure and the landscape on a scale of zero to five. A rating of one indicates the lowest possible significance a structure or landscape embodies in the particular area of significance and a rating of five indicates the highest significance a structure or landscape embodies in the particular area of significance. It was also determined that all sites with in the Minute Man National Historical Park are archaeologically significant and archaeological investigation must take place before any ground disturbance. Listed below are the areas of significance for the fourteen and 10 landscapes that are the focus of this study and the methodology that was utilized to assign a rating in each area of significance. National Significance: Military (c. 1775): Structure Significance: Any structure that was witness to the Battle of
Lexington and Concord is considered to reflect national significance in the military category and is given the highest possible rating of a five. All other non-witness structures are given a zero for military significance.
Landscape Significance: The primary mission of the park, as stated in the National Register Nomination of Historic Places, has been to “approximate the cultural environment that existed in 1775 and preserve and interpret individual resources that contribute to understanding the events of the Battle of Lexington and Concord,” which were the events that commenced the American Revolutionary War. For this reason, the entire park’s landscape is considered to be nationally significant in the category of military; therefore, all landscapes are given the highest significance rating of a five.
Local Significance: Architecture: Structure Significance: In the National Register Nomination for Minute Man
National Historical Park the significance criterion of architecture is considered to be locally significant. Therefore, we assigned four points as the highest rating that a structure could receive for the significance criterion of architecture. All structures have a minimum rating of three in this category due to the statement in
71
the National Register Nomination: “Architecturally, the district embodies a collection of dwellings that are representative of local building trends from the early eighteenth century through the mid-twentieth century.” However, if a particular structure is specifically mentioned in the National Register Nomination as being architecturally significant, the structure was given a higher rating of four.
Landscape Significance: All sites are given a zero for landscape significance in the area of architecture, as it is not applicable.
Agriculture (up to c. 1951):
Structure Significance: For each structure that is specifically mentioned in the National Register Nomination for agricultural significance, a significance rating of a four was given. The same rating was also given to a structure if it is a farmhouse associated with a landscape that the National Register Nomination recognizes as agriculturally significant, even if this farmhouse is not specifically mentioned. A significance rating of a three was given to structures that are typically associated with agriculture, such as a barn, even if neither the structure nor the landscape is specifically mentioned in the National Register Nomination. All other structures not specifically mentioned as being significant in the area of agriculture, not associated with a landscape that was specifically mentioned in the National Register Nomination, or that are not typically associated with agriculture, were given a significance rating of a zero.
Landscape Significance: All landscapes are considered locally significant in the
area of agriculture and were given a minimum rating of three due to the statement in the National Register Nomination, “The history of the district is inextricably ties to agriculture, which was the primary economic activity carried on there throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.” If a particular landscape is mentioned in the National Register Nomination as containing agricultural significance, a higher rating of four was given.
Methodology for Integrity Assessment:
The National Register Bulletin 15: How to Evaluate the Integrity of a Property was referenced to in order to evaluate the integrity of each structure and landscape listed within the project. As stated in the National Register Bulletin 15, integrity is the ability of structure or landscape to convey its significance and whether or not the property retains the identity for which it is significant. Within the National Register Bulletin 15, seven aspects of integrity are sited that help to define the integrity of a cultural site. Listed below are these seven aspects of integrity and their definitions:
72
73
Seven Aspects of Integrity: 1. Location: Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. 2. Design: Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. 3. Setting: Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. 4. Materials: Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. 5. Workmanship: Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. 6. Feeling: Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. 7. Association: Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.
The integrity of the structures and the landscapes were evaluated independently, as each has different elements that help to define its integrity. For each area of significance a spreadsheet was created that listed each site, including both the structure and the landscape. One point was given to each aspect of integrity for each structure and landscape if it was determined that the structure or landscape still retained this aspects of integrity for which it is considered significant. Alternatively, a zero was given in each aspect of integrity for both the structure and landscape if it was determined that structure or landscape no longer retained that aspect of integrity. Because a building’s integrity is evaluated largely in part on the structural components that comprise its whole, an aid for evaluating each aspect of integrity for the structures was needed. A spreadsheet was created for each structure that listed individual structural elements and the various known alterations that occurred to each element over time. These spreadsheets were a tool for internal use that summarized the alterations of a structure and gave a quick insight to help evaluate integrity of each building.
Methodology for Impact Assessment: The impact assessment per site is presented as a whole number and was
determined by an integrated look at each site’s significance and integrity. The ratings for a structure’s significance and integrity were entered into a matrix and were added together for a maximum number of 36 points. The higher the number, the less acceptable impact per structure, and vice versa. A parallel methodology was used to determine the acceptable impact per landscape. The ratings for each landscape’s significance and integrity were added together for a maximum of 24 points. Similarly to the acceptable impact for each structure, the higher the result, the less acceptable impact per landscape.
MIMA Battle Road Structure Survey Summary of Methodology for Significance Assessment
National Significance: Military Structure Significance Landscape Significance
• Non-witness structures = 0 • Witness structures = 5
• All witness = 5
Local Significance: Architecture Structure Significance Landscape Significance
• All locally significant = 3 • Specifically mentioned in the National
Register Nomination = 4
• Not applicable = 0
Local Significance: Agriculture Structure Significance Landscape Significance
• Not specifically mentioned in the National Register Nomination, not associated with a landscape specifically mentioned in the National Register Nomination, not a barn or a farmstead = 0
• Not specifically mentioned in the National Register Nomination, not associated with a landscape specifically mentioned in the National Register Nomination, but is agriculturally related = 3
• Not specifically mentioned in the National Register Nomination but is a farmstead associated with a landscape that is specifically mentioned in the National Register Nomination = 4
• Specifically mentioned in the National Register Nomination = 4
• All locally significant = 3 • Specifically mentioned in the
National Register Nomination = 4
74
MIMA Battle Road Structure SurveyIntegrity Assessment Worksheets
Location Design Setting Materials Workmanship Feeling Association TotalJoshua Brooks Jr. Site:Structure Integrity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Landscape Integrity 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 3Noah Brooks Site:Structure Integrity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Landscape Integrity 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 3Samuel Brooks Site:Structure Integrity 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 5Landscape Integrity 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 3Major John Buttrick Site:Structure Integrity 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 3Landscape Integrity 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 3Gowing-Clarke Site:Structure Integrity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Landscape Integrity 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2Farwell Jones Site:Structure Integrity 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2Landscape Integrity 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2Farwell Jones Barn Site:Structure Integrity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Landscape Integrity 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2McHugh Barn Site:Structure Integrity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Landscape Integrity 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 5John Nelson Site:Structure Integrity 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2Landscape Integrity 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2John Nelson Barn Site:Structure Integrity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Landscape Integrity 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2Rogers Barn Site:Structure Integrity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Landscape Integrity 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 3Olive Stow Site:Structure Integrity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Landscape Integrity 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2Olive Stow Garage Site:Structure Integrity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Landscape Integrity 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2George Minot/Hall Site:Structure Integrity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Landscape Integrity 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
Integrity Assessment for the Area of National Significance of Military, 1775Seven Aspects of Integrity:
75
MIMA Battle Road Structure SurveyIntegrity Assessment Worksheets
Location Design Setting Materials Workmanship Feeling Association TotalJoshua Brooks House (ca.1780)Structure Integrity 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 4Noah Brooks Tavern (1798)Structure Integrity 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 6Samuel Brooks House (1758)Structure Integrity 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 4Major John Buttrick House (1715/1937)Structure Integrity 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 6Gowing-Clarke House (1836)Structure Integrity 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 6Farwell Jones House (1700/ca.1850s)Structure Integrity 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 6Farwell Jones Barn (1903)Structure Integrity 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 6McHugh Barn (1939)Structure Integrity 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 6John Nelson House (ca.1810)Structure Integrity 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 6John Nelson Barn (ca.1810, 1900)Structure Integrity 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 6Rogers Barn (1800/1938)Structure Integrity 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 6Olive Stow House (1786)Structure Integrity 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 6Olive Stow Garage (1945)Structure Integrity 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 6Minot/Hall House (1865)Structure Integrity 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 6
Integrity Assessment for the Area of Local Significance of ArchitectureSeven Aspects of Integrity:
76
MIMA Battle Road Structure SurveyIntegrity Assessment Worksheets
Location Design Setting Materials Workmanship Feeling Association TotalJoshua Brooks Jr. Site:Structure Integrity 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 4Landscape Integrity 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 3Noah Brooks Site:Structure Integrity 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 5Landscape Integrity 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7Samuel Brooks Site:Structure Integrity 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 5Landscape Integrity 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7Major John Buttrick Site:Structure Integrity 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7Landscape Integrity 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 6Gowing-Clarke Site:Structure Integrity 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 8Landscape Integrity 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 5Farwell Jones Site:Structure Integrity 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7Landscape Integrity 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7Farwell Jones Barn Site:Structure Integrity 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7Landscape Integrity 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7McHugh Barn Site:Structure Integrity 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7Landscape Integrity 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7John Nelson Site:Structure Integrity 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7Landscape Integrity 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 6John Nelson Barn Site:Structure Integrity 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7Landscape Integrity 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 6Rogers Barn Site:Structure Integrity 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7Landscape Integrity 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7Olive Stow Site:Structure Integrity 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6Landscape Integrity 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 4Olive Stow Garage Site:Structure Integrity 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 6Landscape Integrity 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 4George Minot/Hall Site:Structure Integrity 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 4Landscape Integrity 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 5
Integrity Assessment for the Area of Local Significance of Agriculture, up to 1951Seven Aspects of Integrity:
77
MIM
A B
attle
Roa
d St
ruct
ure
Surv
eySi
gnifi
canc
e an
d In
tegr
ity M
atri
x
Site
Dat
e of
Ex
tant
St
ruct
ure
Sign
ifica
nce
Cat
egor
ySi
te S
igni
fican
ceSt
ruct
ure
Sign
ifica
nce
Rat
ing
(0
- 5,
Low
est t
o H
ighe
st)
Stru
ctur
e In
tegr
ity
Rat
ing
(0
- 7,
Low
est t
o H
ighe
st)
Land
scap
e Si
gnifi
canc
e R
atin
g
(0 -
5, L
owes
t to
Hig
hest
)
Land
scap
e In
tegr
ity
Rat
ing
(0
- 7,
Low
est t
o H
ighe
st)
Josh
ua B
rook
s Jr
. Hou
seca
. 178
1M
ilita
ry
17
75N
R:
Min
ute
Man
Nat
iona
l His
toric
al P
ark
deriv
es it
s pr
imar
y si
gnifi
canc
e as
the
site
of
the
Bat
tle o
f Lex
ingt
on a
nd C
onco
rd th
at
mar
ked
the
begi
nnin
g of
the
Am
eric
an
Rev
olut
iona
ry W
ar.
00
53
Arc
hite
ctur
al
N
R:
Arc
hite
ctur
ally
, the
dis
trict
em
bodi
es a
co
llect
ion
of d
wel
lings
that
are
re
pres
enta
tive
of lo
cal b
uild
ing
trend
s fro
m
the
early
eig
htee
nth
cent
ury
thro
ugh
the
mid
-tw
entie
th c
entu
ry.
The
Josh
ua B
rook
s ho
use
was
the
first
of t
he p
ost-C
olon
ial
perio
d bu
ildin
gs c
onst
ruct
ed in
the
dist
rict.
It
is a
n ex
celle
nt e
xam
ple
of th
e tra
nsiti
on
from
the
Geo
rgia
n st
yle
of th
e C
olon
ial
perio
d to
the
Fede
ral s
tyle
that
occ
urre
d af
ter t
he R
evol
utio
nary
War
. Th
e bu
ildin
g re
tain
s th
e sy
mm
etric
al fi
ve-b
ay fa
çade
that
w
as c
omm
on in
the
Geo
rgia
n pe
riod.
Its
cl
assi
cal e
ntra
nce
surr
ound
, how
ever
, is
mor
e fin
ely
craf
ted
than
thos
e of
the
Col
onia
l per
iod
hous
es in
the
dist
rict.
The
su
rrou
nd fe
atur
es a
gab
le p
edim
ent o
n a
mol
ded
enta
blat
ure
and
flute
d D
oric
pi
last
ers.
44
00
Agr
icul
tura
l
to 1
951
NR
: Th
e hi
stor
y of
the
dist
rict i
s in
extri
cabl
y tie
d to
agr
icul
ture
, whi
ch w
as th
e pr
imar
y ec
onom
ic a
ctiv
ity c
arrie
d on
ther
e th
roug
hout
the
eigh
teen
th a
nd n
inet
eent
h ce
ntur
ies.
P
. Wei
nbau
m C
omm
ents
: A
gric
ultu
rally
si
gnifi
cant
due
to it
s as
soci
atio
n w
ith th
e B
rook
s Ta
nner
y w
hich
was
ow
ned
and
oper
ated
acr
oss
the
road
from
the
Josh
ua
Bro
oks
hous
e un
til th
e 18
20s.
04
33
Tota
l4
88
6
Allo
wed
Impa
ct: S
ubto
tal o
ut o
f 36
and
24
poss
ible
poi
nts
resp
ectiv
ely
1214
78
MIM
A B
attle
Roa
d St
ruct
ure
Surv
eySi
gnifi
canc
e an
d In
tegr
ity M
atri
x
Site
Dat
e of
Ex
tant
St
ruct
ure
Sign
ifica
nce
Cat
egor
ySi
te S
igni
fican
ceSt
ruct
ure
Sign
ifica
nce
Rat
ing
(0
- 5,
Low
est t
o H
ighe
st)
Stru
ctur
e In
tegr
ity
Rat
ing
(0
- 7,
Low
est t
o H
ighe
st)
Land
scap
e Si
gnifi
canc
e R
atin
g
(0 -
5, L
owes
t to
Hig
hest
)
Land
scap
e In
tegr
ity
Rat
ing
(0
- 7,
Low
est t
o H
ighe
st)
Noa
h B
rook
s Ta
vern
ca. 1
798
Mili
tary
1775
NR
: M
inut
e M
an N
atio
nal H
isto
rical
Par
k de
rives
its
prim
ary
sign
ifica
nce
as th
e si
te
of th
e B
attle
of L
exin
gton
and
Con
cord
that
m
arke
d th
e be
ginn
ing
of th
e A
mer
ican
R
evol
utio
nary
War
. A
ski
rmis
h oc
curr
ed a
t B
rook
s H
ill a
nd th
e fig
htin
g w
as in
tens
e,
espe
cial
ly in
the
imm
edia
te v
icin
ity o
f B
rook
s Ta
vern
.
00
53
Arc
hite
ctur
al
N
R:
Arc
hite
ctur
ally
, the
dis
trict
em
bodi
es a
co
llect
ion
of d
wel
lings
that
are
re
pres
enta
tive
of lo
cal b
uild
ing
trend
s fro
m
the
early
eig
htee
nth
cent
ury
thro
ugh
the
mid
-tw
entie
th c
entu
ry.
The
Noa
h B
rook
s Ta
vern
is
a g
reat
exa
mpl
e of
Fed
ral p
erio
d ar
chite
ctur
e in
the
dist
rict.
The
stru
ctur
e is
a
rare
exa
mpl
e of
a b
uild
ing
that
feat
ures
a
woo
d sh
eath
ed fa
çade
and
bric
k si
de w
alls
. P
. Wei
nbau
m C
omm
ents
: Th
e N
oah
Bro
oks
Tave
rn is
one
of o
nly
two
build
ings
in
the
park
that
evi
denc
e Fe
dera
l per
iod
styl
e.
LC
S:
The
Noa
h B
rook
s Ta
vern
is a
goo
d ex
ampl
e of
a
Fede
ral s
tyle
hou
se u
sed
as a
tave
rn fo
r ab
out 3
0 ye
ars;
the
stru
ctur
e po
sses
ses
grea
t arc
hite
ctur
al in
tegr
ity.
46
00
Agr
icul
tura
l
to 1
951
NR
: Th
e hi
stor
y of
the
dist
rict i
s in
extri
cabl
y tie
d to
agr
icul
ture
, whi
ch w
as th
e pr
imar
y ec
onom
ic a
ctiv
ity c
arrie
d on
ther
e th
roug
hout
the
eigh
teen
th a
nd n
inet
eent
h ce
ntur
ies.
H
SR
: S
igni
fican
ce li
es in
its
oper
atio
n as
a
appl
e an
d da
iry fa
rm fr
om th
e 18
50s
thro
ugh
the
1930
s.
35
47
Tota
l7
119
10
Allo
wed
Impa
ct: S
ubto
tal o
ut o
f 36
and
24
poss
ible
poi
nts
resp
ectiv
ely
1819
79
MIM
A B
attle
Roa
d St
ruct
ure
Surv
eySi
gnifi
canc
e an
d In
tegr
ity M
atri
x
Site
Dat
e of
Ex
tant
St
ruct
ure
Sign
ifica
nce
Cat
egor
ySi
te S
igni
fican
ceSt
ruct
ure
Sign
ifica
nce
Rat
ing
(0
- 5,
Low
est t
o H
ighe
st)
Stru
ctur
e In
tegr
ity
Rat
ing
(0
- 7,
Low
est t
o H
ighe
st)
Land
scap
e Si
gnifi
canc
e R
atin
g
(0 -
5, L
owes
t to
Hig
hest
)
Land
scap
e In
tegr
ity
Rat
ing
(0
- 7,
Low
est t
o H
ighe
st)
Sam
uel B
rook
s H
ouse
ca. 1
728
Mili
tary
1775
NR
: M
inut
e M
an N
atio
nal H
isto
rical
Par
k de
rives
its
prim
ary
sign
ifica
nce
as th
e si
te
of th
e B
attle
of L
exin
gton
and
Con
cord
that
m
arke
d th
e be
ginn
ing
of th
e A
mer
ican
R
evol
utio
nary
War
. The
hou
se w
as e
xtan
t A
pril
19, 1
775
as a
witn
ess
stru
ctur
e to
the
battl
e.
55
53
Arc
hite
ctur
al
N
R:
Arc
hite
ctur
ally
, the
dis
trict
em
bodi
es a
co
llect
ion
of d
wel
lings
that
are
re
pres
enta
tive
of lo
cal b
uild
ing
trend
s fro
m
the
early
eig
htee
nth
cent
ury
to th
e m
id-
twen
tieth
cen
tury
. Th
e S
amue
l Bro
oks
hous
e re
tain
s a
rela
tivel
y hi
gh d
egre
e of
its
Col
onia
l per
iod
inte
grity
.
LCS
: Th
e S
amue
l Bro
oks
hous
e is
si
gnifi
cant
for i
ts a
rchi
tect
ure,
as
an
exam
ple
of G
eorg
ian
styl
e.
44
00
Agr
icul
tura
l
to 1
951
NR
: Th
e hi
stor
y of
the
dist
rict i
s in
extri
cabl
y tie
d to
agr
icul
ture
, whi
ch w
as th
e pr
imar
y ec
onom
ic a
ctiv
ity c
arrie
d on
ther
e th
roug
hout
the
eigh
teen
th a
nd n
inet
eent
h ce
ntur
ies.
H
SR
: Th
e S
amue
l Bro
oks
Hou
se w
as a
ho
mes
tead
for a
n op
erat
ing
farm
thro
ugho
ut
the
nine
teen
th c
entu
ry.
P
. Wei
nbau
m C
omm
ents
: W
hile
the
build
ing
is n
ot s
peci
fical
ly re
fere
nced
in th
e di
scus
sion
of a
gric
ultu
ral s
igni
fican
ce, t
he
gran
ting
of la
nd in
the
17th
cen
tury
to
Josh
ua B
rook
s is
dis
cuss
ed a
nd s
houl
d be
co
nsid
ered
with
this
bui
ldin
g, s
ituat
ed o
n la
nd g
rant
ed to
Jos
hua
as s
igni
fican
t in
the
area
of a
gric
ultu
re.
05
37
Tota
l9
148
10
Allo
wed
Impa
ct: S
ubto
tal o
ut o
f 36
and
24
poss
ible
poi
nts
resp
ectiv
ely
2318
80
MIM
A B
attle
Roa
d St
ruct
ure
Surv
eySi
gnifi
canc
e an
d In
tegr
ity M
atri
x
Site
Dat
e of
Ex
tant
St
ruct
ure
Sign
ifica
nce
Cat
egor
ySi
te S
igni
fican
ceSt
ruct
ure
Sign
ifica
nce
Rat
ing
(0
- 5,
Low
est t
o H
ighe
st)
Stru
ctur
e In
tegr
ity
Rat
ing
(0
- 7,
Low
est t
o H
ighe
st)
Land
scap
e Si
gnifi
canc
e R
atin
g
(0 -
5, L
owes
t to
Hig
hest
)
Land
scap
e In
tegr
ity
Rat
ing
(0
- 7,
Low
est t
o H
ighe
st)
Maj
or J
ohn
But
tric
k H
ouse
ca. 1
715
Mili
tary
1775
NR
: M
inut
e M
an N
atio
nal H
isto
rical
Par
k de
rives
its
prim
ary
sign
ifica
nce
as th
e si
te
of th
e B
attle
of L
exin
gton
and
Con
cord
that
m
arke
d th
e be
ginn
ing
of th
e A
mer
ican
R
evol
utio
nary
War
. M
ajor
Joh
n B
uttri
ck, a
m
ilitia
lead
er, l
ed th
e fir
st A
mer
ican
troo
ps
into
the
battl
e an
d al
so o
rder
ed th
e fir
st fi
re
agai
nst t
he B
ritis
h. I
t was
this
com
man
d th
at s
tarte
d th
e A
mer
ican
Rev
olut
iona
ry
War
. Th
e ho
use
was
ext
ant A
pril
19, 1
775
as a
witn
ess
stru
ctur
e to
the
battl
e.
53
53
Arc
hite
ctur
al
193
7 (?
)N
R:
Arc
hite
ctur
ally
, the
dis
trict
em
bodi
es a
co
llect
ion
of d
wel
lings
that
are
re
pres
enta
tive
of lo
cal b
uild
ing
trend
s fro
m
the
early
eig
htee
nth
cent
ury
thro
ugh
the
mid
-tw
entie
th c
entu
ry.
The
Maj
or J
ohn
But
trick
ho
use
was
rem
odel
ed s
ever
al ti
mes
dur
ing
the
nine
teen
th a
nd tw
entie
th c
entu
ries,
but
re
tain
s th
e ge
nera
l mas
sing
and
ext
erio
r el
emen
ts th
at c
lass
ify it
as
a C
olon
ial p
erio
d dw
ellin
g.
The
stru
ctur
e re
tain
s hi
gh d
egre
e of
Col
onia
l per
iod
inte
grity
.
46
00
Agr
icul
tura
l
to 1
951
NR
: Th
e hi
stor
y of
the
dist
rict i
s in
extri
cabl
y tie
d to
agr
icul
ture
, whi
ch w
as th
e pr
imar
y ec
onom
ic a
ctiv
ity c
arrie
d on
ther
e th
roug
hout
the
eigh
teen
th a
nd n
inet
eent
h ce
ntur
ies.
As
in m
any
othe
r tow
ns in
M
iddl
esex
Cou
nty,
inte
nsiv
e ve
geta
ble
gard
enin
g fo
r Bos
ton
and
over
seas
mar
kets
ch
ange
d th
e na
ture
of f
arm
ing
in C
onco
rd,
Linc
oln,
and
Lex
ingt
on.
Com
mer
cial
pr
oduc
tion
of fr
uit,
vege
tabl
es, a
nd d
airy
pr
oduc
ts s
oon
beca
me
a m
ains
tay
of th
e to
wn’
s ec
onom
y at
farm
s su
ch a
s th
e M
ajor
Jo
hn B
uttri
ck H
ouse
.
37
46
Tota
l12
169
9
Allo
wed
Impa
ct: S
ubto
tal o
ut o
f 36
and
24
poss
ible
poi
nts
resp
ectiv
ely
2818
81
MIM
A B
attle
Roa
d St
ruct
ure
Surv
eySi
gnifi
canc
e an
d In
tegr
ity M
atri
x
Site
Dat
e of
Ex
tant
St
ruct
ure
Sign
ifica
nce
Cat
egor
ySi
te S
igni
fican
ceSt
ruct
ure
Sign
ifica
nce
Rat
ing
(0
- 5,
Low
est t
o H
ighe
st)
Stru
ctur
e In
tegr
ity
Rat
ing
(0
- 7,
Low
est t
o H
ighe
st)
Land
scap
e Si
gnifi
canc
e R
atin
g
(0 -
5, L
owes
t to
Hig
hest
)
Land
scap
e In
tegr
ity
Rat
ing
(0
- 7,
Low
est t
o H
ighe
st)
Gow
ing-
Cla
rke
Hou
seca
. 183
6M
ilita
ry
17
75N
R:
Min
ute
Man
Nat
iona
l His
toric
al P
ark
deriv
es it
s pr
imar
y si
gnifi
canc
e as
the
site
of
the
Bat
tle o
f Lex
ingt
on a
nd C
onco
rd th
at
mar
ked
the
begi
nnin
g of
the
Am
eric
an
Rev
olut
iona
ry W
ar.
00
52
Arc
hite
ctur
al
N
R:
Arc
hite
ctur
ally
, the
dis
trict
em
bodi
es a
co
llect
ion
of d
wel
lings
that
are
re
pres
enta
tive
of lo
cal b
uild
ing
trend
s fro
m
the
early
eig
htee
nth
cent
ury
thro
ugh
the
mid
-tw
entie
th c
entu
ry.
The
Gow
ing-
Cla
rke
hous
e is
fine
exa
mpl
e of
a F
eder
al s
tyle
ho
use.
H
SR
: Th
e G
owin
g-C
lark
e ho
use
is
sign
ifica
nt to
MIM
A N
HP
as
an e
xam
ple
of
nine
teen
th c
entu
ry fa
rmho
use
alon
g B
attle
R
oad.
46
00
Agr
icul
tura
l
to 1
951
NR
: Th
e hi
stor
y of
the
dist
rict i
s in
extri
cabl
y tie
d to
agr
icul
ture
, whi
ch w
as th
e pr
imar
y ec
onom
ic a
ctiv
ity c
arrie
d on
ther
e th
roug
hout
the
eigh
teen
th a
nd n
inet
eent
h ce
ntur
ies.
LC
S:
Rep
rese
nts
a co
ntin
uatio
n of
ei
ghte
enth
cen
tury
agr
aria
n tra
ditio
n.
04
35
Tota
l4
108
7
Allo
wed
Impa
ct: S
ubto
tal o
ut o
f 36
and
24
poss
ible
poi
nts
resp
ectiv
ely
1415
82
MIM
A B
attle
Roa
d St
ruct
ure
Surv
eySi
gnifi
canc
e an
d In
tegr
ity M
atri
x
Site
Dat
e of
Ex
tant
St
ruct
ure
Sign
ifica
nce
Cat
egor
ySi
te S
igni
fican
ceSt
ruct
ure
Sign
ifica
nce
Rat
ing
(0
- 5,
Low
est t
o H
ighe
st)
Stru
ctur
e In
tegr
ity
Rat
ing
(0
- 7,
Low
est t
o H
ighe
st)
Land
scap
e Si
gnifi
canc
e R
atin
g
(0 -
5, L
owes
t to
Hig
hest
)
Land
scap
e In
tegr
ity
Rat
ing
(0
- 7,
Low
est t
o H
ighe
st)
Farw
ell J
ones
Hou
seca
. 171
6M
ilita
ry
17
75N
R:
Min
ute
Man
Nat
iona
l His
toric
al P
ark
deriv
es it
s pr
imar
y si
gnifi
canc
e as
the
site
of
the
Bat
tle o
f Lex
ingt
on a
nd C
onco
rd th
at
mar
ked
the
begi
nnin
g of
the
Am
eric
an
Rev
olut
iona
ry W
ar. T
he h
ouse
was
ext
ant
Apr
il 19
, 177
5 as
a w
itnes
s st
ruct
ure
to th
e ba
ttle.
52
52
Arc
hite
ctur
al
N
R:
Arc
hite
ctur
ally
, the
dis
trict
em
bodi
es a
co
llect
ion
of d
wel
lings
that
are
re
pres
enta
tive
of lo
cal b
uild
ing
trend
s fro
m
the
early
eig
htee
nth
cent
ury
thro
ugh
the
mid
-tw
entie
th c
entu
ry.
Alth
ough
rem
odel
ed
exte
nsiv
ely
in th
e ni
nete
enth
and
twen
tieth
ce
ntur
ies,
the
stru
ctur
e re
tain
s th
e ge
nera
l m
assi
ng a
nd e
xter
ior e
lem
ents
that
iden
tify
it as
a C
olon
ial p
erio
d dw
ellin
g.
46
00
Agr
icul
tura
l
to 1
951
NR
: Th
e hi
stor
y of
the
site
is in
extri
cabl
y tie
d to
agr
icul
ture
, whi
ch w
as th
e pr
imar
y ec
onom
ic a
ctiv
ity c
arrie
d on
ther
e th
roug
hout
the
eigh
teen
th a
nd n
inet
eent
h ce
ntur
ies.
37
47
Tota
l12
159
9
Allo
wed
Impa
ct: S
ubto
tal o
ut o
f 36
and
24
poss
ible
poi
nts
resp
ectiv
ely
2718
83
MIM
A B
attle
Roa
d St
ruct
ure
Surv
eySi
gnifi
canc
e an
d In
tegr
ity M
atri
x
Site
Dat
e of
Ex
tant
St
ruct
ure
Sign
ifica
nce
Cat
egor
ySi
te S
igni
fican
ceSt
ruct
ure
Sign
ifica
nce
Rat
ing
(0
- 5,
Low
est t
o H
ighe
st)
Stru
ctur
e In
tegr
ity
Rat
ing
(0
- 7,
Low
est t
o H
ighe
st)
Land
scap
e Si
gnifi
canc
e R
atin
g
(0 -
5, L
owes
t to
Hig
hest
)
Land
scap
e In
tegr
ity
Rat
ing
(0
- 7,
Low
est t
o H
ighe
st)
The
Bar
n at
the
Farw
ell J
ones
Hou
seca
. 190
3M
ilita
ry
17
75N
R:
Min
ute
Man
Nat
iona
l His
toric
al P
ark
deriv
es it
s pr
imar
y si
gnifi
canc
e as
the
site
of
the
Bat
tle o
f Lex
ingt
on a
nd C
onco
rd th
at
mar
ked
the
begi
nnin
g of
the
Am
eric
an
Rev
olut
iona
ry W
ar.
00
52
Arc
hite
ctur
al
N
R:
Arc
hite
ctur
ally
, the
dis
trict
em
bodi
es a
co
llect
ion
of d
wel
lings
that
are
re
pres
enta
tive
of lo
cal b
uild
ing
trend
s fro
m
the
early
eig
htee
nth
cent
ury
thro
ugh
the
mid
-tw
entie
th c
entu
ry.
36
00
Agr
icul
tura
l
to 1
951
NR
: Th
e hi
stor
y of
the
dist
rict i
s in
extri
cabl
y tie
d to
agr
icul
ture
, whi
ch w
as th
e pr
imar
y ec
onom
ic a
ctiv
ity c
arrie
d on
ther
e th
roug
hout
the
eigh
teen
th a
n ni
nete
enth
ce
ntur
ies.
The
Far
wel
l Jon
es D
airy
Bar
n is
an
exa
mpl
e of
farm
pro
perti
es in
Con
cord
th
at w
ere
invo
lved
in m
arke
t gar
deni
ng a
nd
dairy
ing
durin
g th
e m
oder
n pe
riod.
LCS
: Th
e ba
rn a
t the
Far
wel
l Jon
es h
ouse
w
as p
art o
f agr
aria
n tra
ditio
n of
the
area
, co
ntin
uing
into
the
20th
cen
tury
. Th
e ba
rn is
asso
ciat
ed w
ith h
isto
ric u
se o
f Far
wel
l Jo
nes
prop
erty
and
a c
ompo
nent
of t
he fa
rm
land
scap
e.
47
47
Tota
l7
139
9
Allo
wed
Impa
ct: S
ubto
tal o
ut o
f 36
and
24
poss
ible
poi
nts
resp
ectiv
ely
2018
84
MIM
A B
attle
Roa
d St
ruct
ure
Surv
eySi
gnifi
canc
e an
d In
tegr
ity M
atri
x
Site
Dat
e of
Ex
tant
St
ruct
ure
Sign
ifica
nce
Cat
egor
ySi
te S
igni
fican
ceSt
ruct
ure
Sign
ifica
nce
Rat
ing
(0
- 5,
Low
est t
o H
ighe
st)
Stru
ctur
e In
tegr
ity
Rat
ing
(0
- 7,
Low
est t
o H
ighe
st)
Land
scap
e Si
gnifi
canc
e R
atin
g
(0 -
5, L
owes
t to
Hig
hest
)
Land
scap
e In
tegr
ity
Rat
ing
(0
- 7,
Low
est t
o H
ighe
st)
McH
ugh
Bar
nca
. 193
9M
ilita
ry
17
75N
R:
Min
ute
Man
Nat
iona
l His
toric
al P
ark
deriv
es it
s pr
imar
y si
gnifi
canc
e as
the
site
of
the
Bat
tle o
f Lex
ingt
on a
nd C
onco
rd th
at
mar
ked
the
begi
nnin
g of
the
Am
eric
an
Rev
olut
iona
ry W
ar.
00
55
Arc
hite
ctur
al
N
R:
Arc
hite
ctur
ally
, the
dis
trict
em
bodi
es a
co
llect
ion
of d
wel
lings
that
are
re
pres
enta
tive
of lo
cal b
uild
ing
trend
s fro
m
the
early
eig
htee
nth
cent
ury
thro
ugh
the
mid
-tw
entie
th c
entu
ry.
36
00
Agr
icul
tura
l
to 1
951
NR
: Th
e hi
stor
y of
the
dist
rict i
s in
extri
cabl
y tie
d to
agr
icul
ture
, whi
ch w
as th
e pr
imar
y ec
onom
ic a
ctiv
ity c
arrie
d on
ther
e th
roug
hout
the
eigh
teen
th a
nd n
inet
eent
h ce
ntur
ies.
The
McH
ugh
barn
is lo
cate
d on
e of
the
farm
s th
at c
ontin
ued
thro
ugh
the
mod
ern
perio
d. T
he fa
rm c
onta
ined
pig
gery
an
d pr
oduc
ed p
oultr
y, v
eget
able
s, a
nd fr
uit.
LC
S:
A g
ood
exam
ple
of a
grar
ian
tradi
tion.
47
47
Tota
l7
139
12
Allo
wed
Impa
ct: S
ubto
tal o
ut o
f 36
and
24
poss
ible
poi
nts
resp
ectiv
ely
2021
85
MIM
A B
attle
Roa
d St
ruct
ure
Surv
eySi
gnifi
canc
e an
d In
tegr
ity M
atri
x
Site
Dat
e of
Ex
tant
St
ruct
ure
Sign
ifica
nce
Cat
egor
ySi
te S
igni
fican
ceSt
ruct
ure
Sign
ifica
nce
Rat
ing
(0
- 5,
Low
est t
o H
ighe
st)
Stru
ctur
e In
tegr
ity
Rat
ing
(0
- 7,
Low
est t
o H
ighe
st)
Land
scap
e Si
gnifi
canc
e R
atin
g
(0 -
5, L
owes
t to
Hig
hest
)
Land
scap
e In
tegr
ity
Rat
ing
(0
- 7,
Low
est t
o H
ighe
st)
John
Nel
son
Hou
seca
. 181
0M
ilita
ry
17
75N
R:
Min
ute
Man
Nat
iona
l His
toric
al P
ark
deriv
es it
s pr
imar
y si
gnifi
canc
e as
the
site
of
the
Bat
tle o
f Lex
ingt
on a
nd C
onco
rd th
at
mar
ked
the
begi
nnin
g of
the
Am
eric
an
Rev
olut
iona
ry W
ar.
52
52
Arc
hite
ctur
al
N
R:
Arc
hite
ctur
ally
, the
dis
trict
em
bodi
es a
co
llect
ion
of d
wel
lings
that
are
re
pres
enta
tive
of lo
cal b
uild
ing
trend
s fro
m
the
early
eig
htee
nth
cent
ury
thro
ugh
the
mid
-tw
entie
th c
entu
ry.
The
John
Nel
son
hous
e is
a fi
ne e
xam
ple
of a
Fed
eral
sty
le h
ouse
.
LCS
: Th
e Jo
hn N
elso
n ho
use
has
man
y de
tails
at t
he c
orni
ce a
nd d
oorw
ay th
at a
re
iden
tical
to th
e A
sher
Ben
jam
in p
atte
rn
book
.
46
00
Agr
icul
tura
l
to 1
951
NR
: Th
e hi
stor
y of
the
dist
rict i
s in
extri
cabl
y tie
d to
agr
icul
ture
, whi
ch w
as th
e pr
imar
y ac
tivity
car
ried
on th
ere
thro
ugho
ut th
e ei
ghte
enth
and
nin
etee
nth
cent
urie
s.
37
36
Tota
l12
158
8
Allo
wed
Impa
ct: S
ubto
tal o
ut o
f 36
and
24
poss
ible
poi
nts
resp
ectiv
ely
2716
86
MIM
A B
attle
Roa
d St
ruct
ure
Surv
eySi
gnifi
canc
e an
d In
tegr
ity M
atri
x
Site
Dat
e of
Ex
tant
St
ruct
ure
Sign
ifica
nce
Cat
egor
ySi
te S
igni
fican
ceSt
ruct
ure
Sign
ifica
nce
Rat
ing
(0
- 5,
Low
est t
o H
ighe
st)
Stru
ctur
e In
tegr
ity
Rat
ing
(0
- 7,
Low
est t
o H
ighe
st)
Land
scap
e Si
gnifi
canc
e R
atin
g
(0 -
5, L
owes
t to
Hig
hest
)
Land
scap
e In
tegr
ity
Rat
ing
(0
- 7,
Low
est t
o H
ighe
st)
John
Nel
son
Bar
nca
. 181
0M
ilita
ry
17
75N
R:
Min
ute
Man
Nat
iona
l His
toric
al P
ark
deriv
es it
s pr
imar
y si
gnifi
canc
e as
the
site
of
the
Bat
tle o
f Lex
ingt
on a
nd C
onco
rd th
at
mar
ked
the
begi
nnin
g of
the
Am
eric
an
Rev
olut
iona
ry W
ar.
LC
S:
Loca
lly s
igni
fican
t as
part
of N
elso
n fa
mily
ties
to th
e ar
ea.
00
52
Arc
hite
ctur
al
N
R:
Arc
hite
ctur
ally
, the
dis
trict
em
bodi
es a
co
llect
ion
of d
wel
lings
that
are
re
pres
enta
tive
of lo
cal b
uild
ing
trend
s fro
m
the
early
eig
htee
nth
cent
ury
thro
ugh
the
mid
-tw
entie
th c
entu
ry.
LCS
: Th
e Jo
hn N
elso
n ba
rn re
tain
s hi
gh
arch
itect
ural
inte
grity
.
36
00
Agr
icul
tura
l
to 1
951
NR
: Th
e hi
stor
y of
the
dist
rict i
s in
extri
cabl
y tie
d to
agr
icul
ture
, whi
ch w
as th
e pr
imar
y ec
onom
ic a
ctiv
ity th
ere
thro
ugho
ut th
e ei
ghte
enth
and
nin
etee
nth
cent
urie
s.
LCS
: Th
e Jo
hn N
elso
n ba
rn e
xem
plifi
es
agra
rian
tradi
tion
of th
e ar
ea.
37
36
Tota
l6
138
8
Allo
wed
Impa
ct: S
ubto
tal o
ut o
f 36
and
24
poss
ible
poi
nts
resp
ectiv
ely
1916
87
MIM
A B
attle
Roa
d St
ruct
ure
Surv
eySi
gnifi
canc
e an
d In
tegr
ity M
atri
x
Site
Dat
e of
Ex
tant
St
ruct
ure
Sign
ifica
nce
Cat
egor
ySi
te S
igni
fican
ceSt
ruct
ure
Sign
ifica
nce
Rat
ing
(0
- 5,
Low
est t
o H
ighe
st)
Stru
ctur
e In
tegr
ity
Rat
ing
(0
- 7,
Low
est t
o H
ighe
st)
Land
scap
e Si
gnifi
canc
e R
atin
g
(0 -
5, L
owes
t to
Hig
hest
)
Land
scap
e In
tegr
ity
Rat
ing
(0
- 7,
Low
est t
o H
ighe
st)
Rog
ers
Bar
nca
. 188
0 / 1
938
Mili
tary
1775
NR
: M
inut
e M
an N
atio
nal H
isto
rical
Par
k de
rives
its
prim
ary
sign
ifica
nce
as th
e si
te
of th
e B
attle
of L
exin
gton
and
Con
cord
that
m
arke
d th
e be
ginn
ing
of th
e A
mer
ican
R
evol
utio
nary
War
.
00
53
Arc
hite
ctur
al
N
R:
Arc
hite
ctur
ally
, the
dis
trict
em
bodi
es a
co
llect
ion
of d
wel
lings
that
are
re
pres
enta
tive
of lo
cal b
uild
ing
trend
s fro
m
the
early
eig
htee
nth
cent
ury
thro
ugh
the
mid
-tw
entie
th c
entu
ry.
36
00
Agr
icul
tura
l
to 1
951
NR
: Th
e hi
stor
y of
the
dist
rict i
s in
extri
cabl
y tie
d to
agr
icul
ture
, whi
ch w
as th
e pr
imar
y ec
onom
ic a
ctiv
ity c
arrie
d on
ther
e th
roug
hout
the
eigh
teen
th a
nd n
inet
eent
h ce
ntur
ies.
The
Rog
ers
barn
is lo
cate
d on
th
e N
orth
Gre
at R
oad
in a
n ar
ea th
at
rem
aine
d in
agr
icul
tura
l lan
d us
e th
ough
the
nine
teen
th c
entu
ry.
47
47
Tota
l7
139
10
Allo
wed
Impa
ct: S
ubto
tal o
ut o
f 36
and
24
poss
ible
poi
nts
resp
ectiv
ely
2019
88
MIM
A B
attle
Roa
d St
ruct
ure
Surv
eySi
gnifi
canc
e an
d In
tegr
ity M
atri
x
Site
Dat
e of
Ex
tant
St
ruct
ure
Sign
ifica
nce
Cat
egor
ySi
te S
igni
fican
ceSt
ruct
ure
Sign
ifica
nce
Rat
ing
(0
- 5,
Low
est t
o H
ighe
st)
Stru
ctur
e In
tegr
ity
Rat
ing
(0
- 7,
Low
est t
o H
ighe
st)
Land
scap
e Si
gnifi
canc
e R
atin
g
(0 -
5, L
owes
t to
Hig
hest
)
Land
scap
e In
tegr
ity
Rat
ing
(0
- 7,
Low
est t
o H
ighe
st)
Oliv
e St
ow H
ouse
ca. 1
786
Mili
tary
1775
NR
: M
inut
e M
an N
atio
nal H
isto
rical
Par
k de
rives
its
prim
ary
sign
ifica
nce
as th
e si
te
of th
e B
attle
of L
exin
gton
and
Con
cord
that
m
arke
d th
e be
ginn
ing
of th
e A
mer
ican
R
evol
utio
nary
War
.
00
52
Arc
hite
ctur
al
N
R:
Arc
hite
ctur
ally
, the
dis
trict
em
bodi
es a
co
llect
ion
of d
wel
lings
that
are
re
pres
enta
tive
of lo
cal b
uild
ing
trend
s fo
rm
the
early
eig
htee
nth
cent
ury
thro
ugh
the
mid
-tw
entie
th c
entu
ry.
The
Oliv
e S
tow
hou
se
reta
ins
a hi
gh d
egre
e of
its
post
-Col
onia
l pe
riod
inte
grity
. (N
R h
as w
rong
con
stru
ctio
n da
te o
f ca.
176
0 an
d m
entio
ns th
e ho
use
as
"Col
onia
l-per
iod.
")
46
00
Agr
icul
tura
l
to 1
951
NR
: Th
e hi
stor
y of
the
dist
rict i
s in
extri
cabl
y tie
d to
agr
icul
ture
, whi
ch w
as th
e pr
imar
y ec
onom
ic a
ctiv
ity c
arrie
d on
ther
e th
roug
hout
the
eigh
teen
th a
nd n
inet
eent
h ce
ntur
ies.
LC
S:
The
Sto
w fa
rm w
as p
art o
f the
ag
ricul
tura
l sce
ne in
177
5.
36
34
Tota
l7
128
6
Allo
wed
Impa
ct: S
ubto
tal o
ut o
f 36
and
24
poss
ible
poi
nts
resp
ectiv
ely
1914
89
MIM
A B
attle
Roa
d St
ruct
ure
Surv
eySi
gnifi
canc
e an
d In
tegr
ity M
atri
x
Site
Dat
e of
Ex
tant
St
ruct
ure
Sign
ifica
nce
Cat
egor
ySi
te S
igni
fican
ceSt
ruct
ure
Sign
ifica
nce
Rat
ing
(0
- 5,
Low
est t
o H
ighe
st)
Stru
ctur
e In
tegr
ity
Rat
ing
(0
- 7,
Low
est t
o H
ighe
st)
Land
scap
e Si
gnifi
canc
e R
atin
g
(0 -
5, L
owes
t to
Hig
hest
)
Land
scap
e In
tegr
ity
Rat
ing
(0
- 7,
Low
est t
o H
ighe
st)
Oliv
e St
ow G
arag
e / H
ovag
imia
n B
arn
ca. 1
945
Mili
tary
1775
NR
: M
inut
e M
an N
atio
nal H
isto
rical
Par
k de
rives
its
prim
ary
sign
ifica
nce
as th
e si
te
of th
e B
attle
of L
exin
gton
and
Con
cord
that
m
arke
d th
e be
ginn
ing
of th
e A
mer
ican
R
evol
utio
nary
War
.
00
52
Arc
hite
ctur
al
N
R:
Arc
hite
ctur
ally
, the
dis
trict
em
bodi
es a
co
llect
ion
of d
wel
lings
that
are
re
pres
enta
tive
of lo
cal b
uild
ing
trend
s fro
m
the
early
eig
htee
nth
cent
ury
thro
ugh
the
mid
-tw
entie
th c
entu
ry.
36
00
Agr
icul
tura
l
to 1
951
NR
: Th
e hi
stor
y of
the
dist
rict i
s in
extri
cabl
y tie
d to
agr
icul
ture
, whi
ch w
as th
e pr
imar
y ec
onom
ic a
ctiv
ity c
arrie
d on
ther
e th
roug
hout
the
eigh
teen
th a
nd n
inet
eent
h ce
ntur
ies.
36
34
Tota
l6
128
6
Allo
wed
Impa
ct: S
ubto
tal o
ut o
f 36
and
24
poss
ible
poi
nts
resp
ectiv
ely
1814
90
MIM
A B
attle
Roa
d St
ruct
ure
Surv
eySi
gnifi
canc
e an
d In
tegr
ity M
atri
x
Site
Dat
e of
Ex
tant
St
ruct
ure
Sign
ifica
nce
Cat
egor
ySi
te S
igni
fican
ceSt
ruct
ure
Sign
ifica
nce
Rat
ing
(0
- 5,
Low
est t
o H
ighe
st)
Stru
ctur
e In
tegr
ity
Rat
ing
(0
- 7,
Low
est t
o H
ighe
st)
Land
scap
e Si
gnifi
canc
e R
atin
g
(0 -
5, L
owes
t to
Hig
hest
)
Land
scap
e In
tegr
ity
Rat
ing
(0
- 7,
Low
est t
o H
ighe
st)
Geo
rge
Min
ot H
ouse
/Per
ry H
ouse
ca. 1
865
Mili
tary
1775
NR
: M
inut
e M
an N
atio
nal H
isto
rical
Par
k de
rives
its
prim
ary
sign
ifica
nce
as th
e si
te
of th
e B
attle
of L
exin
gton
and
Con
cord
that
m
arke
d th
e be
ginn
ing
of th
e A
mer
ican
R
evol
utio
nary
War
.
00
52
Arc
hite
ctur
al
N
R:
Arc
hite
ctur
ally
, the
dis
trict
em
bodi
es a
co
llect
ion
of d
wel
lings
that
are
re
pres
enta
tive
of lo
cal b
uild
ing
trend
s fro
m
the
early
eig
htee
nth
cent
ury
thro
ugh
the
mid
-tw
entie
th c
entu
ry.
36
00
Agr
icul
tura
l
to 1
951
NR
: Th
e hi
stor
y of
the
dist
rict i
s in
extri
cabl
y tie
d to
agr
icul
ture
, whi
ch w
as th
e pr
imar
y ec
onom
ic a
ctiv
ity c
arrie
d on
ther
e th
roug
hout
the
eigh
teen
th a
nd n
inet
eent
h ce
ntur
ies.
04
35
Tota
l3
108
7
Allo
wed
Impa
ct: S
ubto
tal o
ut o
f 36
and
24
poss
ible
poi
nts
resp
ectiv
ely
1315
91
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bibliography Department of Interior. National Park Service. Director’s Order 28: Cultural Resource Management Guideline. 1998. Harrington, Mary Kate, Emily Paulus, Duncan Ritchie, Stephen Olausen. National Register Nomination, Minuteman National Historical Park. November 2002.
93