Historic Structures Report Benson’s Property Town of Hudson, New Hampshire May 22, 2003 – 100% Submittal

The Haselton Barn

Historic Structures Report Benson’s Property Town of Hudson, New Hampshire May 22, 2003 – 100% Submittal

The Haselton Barn 27 Bush Hill Road Hudson, New Hampshire

Principal Investigator Arron J. Sturgis Preservation Timber Framing Inc. PO Box 29 Eliot, Maine 03903

Architectural Investigator Linda Pate Preservation Timber Framing Inc.

Architectural Documentation and Photography John Butler PO Box 593 10 Monument Square Hollis, NH 03049

Historical Architect S. Elizabeth Sasser, AIA 106 Horace Greeley Road Amherst, NH 03031 Benson’s Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 – 100% Submittal

Table of Contents

List of Figures and Credits 4

Executive Summary 5 Purpose of the Report 5 Research Methodology 5 Significance 6 Integrity 6 Major Issues Identified in the Scope of Work 6 Interim Treatment Recommendations 6 Ultimate Treatment Recommendations 6 Recommendations for Additional Research 7 Acknowledgments 7 Introduction 8 What is a Historic Structure Report? 8 Preservation Standards and Guidelines 8 Part 1: Development and Use 10 Historical Background and Context 10 Historic Hudson: 1761-1910 10 Interstate Fruit Farm: 1910-1924 11 Benson’s Wild Animal Farm: 1924-1943 12 Lapham Era: 1944-1976 12 Provencher Period: 1979-1987 12 New Hampshire Department of Transportation: 1992-2002 13 Architectural Description 15 Part 2: Treatment and Use 20 Character-Defining Features and Recommendations 20 Introduction 20 Exterior Elements 21 Interior Elements 21 Recommendations 21 Interim Treatment and Use: Stabilization 22 Priority Stabilization Recommendations: Cost Summary 22 Alternatives for Ultimate Treatment and Use 24 Part 3: Technical Data 25 Appendix I: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation 25 Appendix II: Old Ways of Measuring 27

Page 2 Benson’s Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 – 100% Submittal

Introduction 27 Mathematical Patterning 28 Square Rule Layout 30 The Joiners’ Language 30 A Systematic Approach 31 Illustrations Credits 32 Bibliography 33 Benson’s and Hudson History 33 Barn History and Technology 33 Photographic Collections 33 General Preservation Sources 33

Construction Cost Summary Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Architectural Drawings

Sheet 1 Lower Level Floor Plan Sheet 2 Drive Bay Level Floor Plan Sheet 3 Bent 1 Elevation: Viewpoint form the East (layout/reference face) Sheet 4 Bents 2, 3, 4, & 5 (Typical) Elevation Sheet 5 Bent 6 Elevation: Viewpoint from the East (non-layout/reference face) Sheet 6 Bents 7 & 8 (Typical) Elevation: Viewpoint from the East (non-layout/reference face) Sheet 7 Bent 9 Elevation: Viewpoint from the East (non-layout/reference face) Sheet 8 North Eaves Wall Frame Elevation Sheet 9 South Eaves Wall Frame Elevation Sheet 10 North Eaves Wall Elevation Sheet 11 East Gable Wall Elevation Sheet 12 South Eaves Wall Elevation Sheet 13 West Gable Wall Elevation Sheet 14 Timber Frame Support Structure for the West Gable: Section and Axonometric Views Sheet 14-A West Gable Repair Detail Sheet 15 Cupola Support Base: Elevation, Plan, and Axonometric Sheet 16 Cupola Framing: Elevation, Plan, and Isometric Sheet 17 Typical 2nd Phase Barn Stop-splayed Scarf Joint: Section and Axonometric Views Sheet 18 Typical 1st Phase Barn Post Bottom Bladed Scarf Joint: Section and Axonometric Views

Page 3 Benson’s Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 – 100% Submittal

List of Figures and Credits

Figure Description Page

Barn Framing Isometric. Drawing by John Butler. (April, 2003). Cover

1 Late 19th century view of Hazelton Barn. Collection of Esther McGraw, Hudson, NH. 10

2 Photograph of Haselton Barn with farmhouse (later moved) in foreground. Late 11 nineteenth or early twentieth century, date unknown. Collection of the Hudson Historical Society. 3 Benson's Property Master Plan showing Historic Bensons Management Unit. (VHB, 14 2002). 4 East (front) elevation with granary ell in left foreground. Photograph by John Butler. 15 (May 15, 2003). 5 North elevation. Photograph by John Butler. (November 7, 2002) 16

6 South elevation with silo ell at right. Photograph by John Butler. (May 15, 2003) 17

7 West elevation, silo ell to the right. Photograph by John Butler. (May 15, 2003) 18

8 Drive bay looking west. Photograph by John Butler. (May 15, 2003) 19

9 Haselton Barn 3-Dimensional Timber Frame View. Drawing by John Butler Following page 19 10 Extensive deterioration of cupola. Photograph by John Butler. (May, 2003) 23

Page 4 Benson’s Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 – 100% Submittal

Executive Summary

Purpose of the Report

This Historic Structures Report (HSR) has been prepared under Contract for the Town of Hudson, New Hampshire, with assistance from the New Hampshire Land and Community Heritage Investment Program (LCHIP), grant ID: 2002-R3-06. The purpose of the report is to provide guidance for the interim stabilization/preservation and long term rehabilitation of historic structures in the former Benson’s Wild Animal Park, as an element of the implementation of the 2002 Benson’s Property Master Plan. Although specific functional programs have not been finalized for the remaining historic structures, the buildings individually possess substantial significance and integrity, and are structurally well suited to a broad range of compatible adaptive reuse.

This study of the Haselton Barn is undertaken to provide a comprehensive understanding of the structure through a careful investigation of its remaining physical fabric. With this information, coupled with a limited review of historical documents associated with the building, a clear understanding of existing conditions, and a chronology of historical significance can be attained. Upon assimilating this information, clear preservation goals for the use and maintenance of this important structure can be created and implemented.

Written historical data for barn structures is notoriously lacking. It is typical that they are mentioned only peripherally in our ancestors inventories and within recorded town documents. Photographs of these structures are also rare. It is therefore necessary to “read” the history of the barn from within. The farmers and their respective livestock over time leave clues as to how the building was designed to be used and how farming techniques required adaptations to the building. The joiner who constructed the building also leaves a legacy of craftsmanship that alludes to certain periods in history that we continue to strive to understand.

Research Methodology

The Historic Structures Report has been developed in the format established by the National Park Service in NPS-28: Cultural Resources Management Guideline (1993). Substantial documentary and archival research was completed in 1992 for the New Hampshire Division of Historical Resources Inventory. Archival research for this project was limited to a review of the holdings of the New Hampshire State Library, Hudson Town Library, Hudson Historical Society, and private collections as referenced. The principal focus of the investigation was on documentation of the individual structures, site assessment of existing conditions, and interpretation of evidence of physical evolution. Research goals were as follows:

• Existing conditions assessment

• Determination of structural condition

• Analysis of structural threats and causes of deterioration

• Identification of “character-defining features”

• Stabilization plan and cost estimate

• Development of rehabilitation guidelines and cost estimate

• ADA and code compliance assessment

• Projection of long-term maintenance needs and costs

Page 5 Benson’s Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 – 100% Submittal

Field research was conducted November 2002 – May 2003 to document the structure through measured drawings and photographs.

Significance

The Haselton Barn reveals a cornucopia of information about the ambitions and actions of the prominent Haselton family in Hudson, New Hampshire during the late 19th century. It also represents one of the few remaining structures utilized by Benson’s Wild Animal Farm during the first two thirds of the twentieth century. In the last two decades however, the barn has remained idle and abandoned. Significant deterioration of the building is a direct result of this neglect. Without immediate action and long term planning for the continued use of this important landmark, the risk for accelerated deterioration and eventual loss of the structure is imminent.

Integrity

The Haselton Barn has gone through numerous changes over time. However, these changes are part of a continuum of use and evolution that reflect the qualities that make the barn historically significant. The overall form design, materials, and craftsmanship present in the structure retain a high level of integrity, both from the period of its original construction, and during the historic period of John T. Benson’s ownership of the property.

Major Issues Identified in the Scope of Work

The most important immediate requirement to insure the preservation of the structure is stabilization. In particular, it was discovered that the cupola is in worse condition than anticipated. It is close to complete structural failure. Temporary removal of the cupola will allow repairs to be safely completed, so that it can be returned to the building in sound and maintainable condition.

Another important consideration in the long-term preservation of all the historic Benson’s structures is the need for regular maintenance after repairs are completed. Development of a maintenance plan and checklist, and annual or semi-annual maintenance inspections are recommended.

Interim Treatment Recommendations

A stabilization plan has been developed to slow the existing deterioration of the barn. By executing these recommendations, the barn can be made safer and less exposed to the elements. These recommendations are provided as a beginning point for the complete preservation of the building. The work is necessary to ensure the structural integrity of the building, and to provide opportunity for careful planning and fund- raising for the eventual restoration of the barn. The estimated cost of the stabilization work is $26,500. It should be noted that funds spent on stabilization in the short term will keep the costs or long term treatment from rapidly escalating due to the worsening structural condition of the building.

Ultimate Treatment Recommendations

The Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment completed for this report by Principal Investigator Arron J. Sturgis of Preservation Timber Framing, Inc. details a complete, prioritized list of stabilization, preservation, and rehabilitation work developed to return the structure to sound, maintainable, and functional condition. Following stabilization of the building, these actions can be undertaken sequentially to support the goals that have been identified for use of the structure.

Page 6 Benson’s Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 – 100% Submittal

Preservation treatments include repair of foundation walls and timber frame joinery to reverse structural problems that have occurred due to settlement and loading. Restoration treatments are focused on repairing and preserving those features of the barn that express the architectural character of the barn through the Benson’s Wild Animal Park Period. Rehabilitation work addresses issues of public accessibility and safety, and accommodations for public use.

Total treatment costs by treatment category:

Alternate A – Install Standing Seam Metal Roof on Barn and Silo 1. Stabilization and Preservation $103,470 2. Restoration $217,033 3. Rehabilitation $298,618 Total Cost $619,121.40 Alternate B – Install 50-Year Architectural Asphalt Shingles on Barn and Silo 1. Stabilization and Preservation $103,470 2. Restoration $217,033 3. Rehabilitation $283,618 Total Cost $604,121.40

Recommendations for Additional Research

It is possible that additional photographs and historic documentation exist for the Haselton Barn. Publicizing the preservation of the barn in Hudson and surrounding communities may provide an impetus for the location of other historic documentation.

Acknowledgments

Preparation of this report would not have been possible without the support and encouragement of all of the members of the Benson’s Committee, past and present, and Sean Sullivan, Director of Community Development for the Town of Hudson. Betsy Hahn of the Nashua Regional Planning Commission kept the project on track as Project Manager for the LCHIP grant, and anticipated every liaison and coordination need. Special thanks go to Esther McGraw and Laurie Jasper of the Benson’s Committee for generously sharing their prodigious knowledge and passion for Benson’s, and also to Esther for looking out for the project team on cold days in the field.

Page 7 Benson’s Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 – 100% Submittal

Introduction

What is a Historic Structure Report?

The purpose of a historic structure report (HSR) is to develop an understanding of a building’s physical history and condition, and provide specific, useable information for implementing a treatment plan. The New Hampshire Division of Historic Resources states that, “One of the first parts of a preservation project should be a historic structure report, which analyzes the physical evolution, condition, and potential of a historic building as documented by historical and architectural and technological evidence.”1 Buildings that are important in the history of a community have the potential to continue to serve that community in many ways after their original function is no longer viable. Like all cultural and natural resources, buildings have many levels of value – functional, economic, and other values that are intangible, but no less meaningful. A historic structure report is a tool for analyzing the multiple values that a building represents in a way that balances the relationship of meaning, use, and cost to realize maximum benefit to the community.

The decision to complete an HSR is part of a broader planning process, involving consultation from many sources and interest groups, leading to the conclusion that a historic resource should be preserved. The two major concepts that an HSR uses in assessing a building are significance and integrity. Significance considers the building’s place in history through its context and associations. Is there a documented connection with a famous person or event? Is it a rare surviving example of a particular historic building type? Is it part of a story that illustrates an important theme in the history of a place or community? Integrity is the degree to which the ideas and values that make a building significant can be recognized in, and identified with its existing physical form, construction, and materials.

Documentation of a historic structure includes identifying the visual aspects and physical features that contribute to its distinctive architectural character. These character-defining features (CDFs) include the overall shape of the building, its materials, craftsmanship, decorative details, and interior spaces and features, as well as site and landscape elements. Character-defining features are those aspects of a building that define its particular aesthetic quality, and without which its architectural or historical integrity would be diminished or lost.

Finally, an HSR assesses the condition of the building to determine the extent and causes of deterioration and structural problems, and develop recommendations and cost estimates for treatment and future reuse. Resources available for the preservation of historic structures are typically extremely limited. Preservation is focused on means of finding compatible uses in the long term, and minimizing the loss of historic character in the short term.

Preservation Standards and Guidelines

Federal and state agencies use the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties as the benchmark for reviewing proposed treatment of a historic structure (see Appendix I). The standards recognize four potential treatments for historic structures – preservation, restoration, rehabilitation, and reconstruction.

• Preservation focuses on the maintenance and repair of existing historic materials and retention of a property's form as it has evolved over time. (Protection and Stabilization have now been consolidated under this treatment.)

1“Alterations, Additions and Architects (Historic Resource Information)”. New Hampshire Land and Community Heritage Investment Program website. Accessed November 27, 2002.

Page 8 Benson’s Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 – 100% Submittal

• Rehabilitation acknowledges the need to alter or add to a historic property to meet continuing or changing uses while retaining the property's historic character.

• Restoration depicts a property at a particular period of time in its history, while removing evidence of other periods.

• Reconstruction re-creates vanished or non-surviving portions of a property for interpretive purposes.

Rehabilitation is by far the most common treatment for structures that will be used for contemporary purposes. It is defined as “the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values”.2

Although rehabilitation has been identified as the ultimate treatment for the Benson’s historic structures, interim measures may be required to maintain them without additional loss of historic integrity until long term uses have been identified, and funding is available for rehabilitation. Stabilization consists of measures to slow or stop the process of deterioration by reestablishing a weather resistant enclosure, and providing temporary, reversible means of structural shoring or support where necessary.

The deed conveying the Benson’s property to the Town of Hudson includes a preservation restriction on the historic property, which identifies the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitation of Historic Properties as the principal standard for review. The preservation restrictions applied to the buildings and their settings require that, where possible, repair, replacement, alterations and additions should be made “in-kind”, with forms, design, materials, and workmanship that match or complement and are compatible with the historic forms, design, and materials.

2 Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources Stewardship and Partnerships, Historic Preservation Services, 1995), p. 61.

Page 9 Benson’s Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 – 100% Submittal

Part 1: Development and Use

Historical Background and Context

Historic Hudson: 1761-1910

The area comprising the present 168-acre Benson’s Property lies to the southeast of Hudson Center, bounded by Route 111, Kimball Road, Bush Hill Road, and Falling Rock Road. Town records show that the Haselton family resided in Hudson (Nottingham West) during the 18th and 19th centuries. Previous documentation of the barn implies an early (c. 1761), date of construction for the Haselton Barn.3 While it is possible that there was an earlier structure on the site, physical evidence precludes such an early date for the existing structure.

An 1852 Chase Map shows a building near this location, possibly the original homestead owned by A. Haselton, later demolished. Census records indicate that the property was divided into several farms during the second half of the 19th century, producing corn, oats, peas, beans, potatoes, apples, butter, wood, and hay. The earliest sections of the existing gable-front bank barn were constructed in the period 1860-1880, based on analysis of square-rule frame typology, floor plan design, and mixed use of hewn and circular sawn material in the construction of the frame. A late 19th century photograph of the Haselton Barn shows an extensive lumber milling operation. Architectural evidence dates a number of additions to the barn to the period 1885-1910. During this period the ornate cupola was constructed and three bays were added to the rear of the barn. A silage storage ell was added at the east side of the barn as well as a shell ell on the west side (since demolished).

Figure 1. Late 19th century view of Hazelton Barn. Collection of Esther McGraw, Hudson, NH.

3 New Hampshire Division of Historical Resources – Area Form, A-28. Benson’s Wild Animal Farm, Hudson, NH. November, 1992.

Page 10 Benson’s Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 – 100% Submittal

Interstate Fruit Farm: 1910-1924

Between 1910 and 1911, these farms were consolidated through purchase by the Interstate Hotel Corporation of Lexington, Massachusetts, which operated the property as the Interstate Fruit Farm. One unsuccessful aspect of the Interstate Fruit Farm tenure was the operation of a “health farm” for retired circus performers and animal trainers. In 1915, John T. Benson, President of the Interstate Hotel Corporation was appointed Manager of the Interstate Fruit Farm.

Benson’s reputation as an animal trainer, adventurer, zoo curator, and entrepreneur was by this time firmly established. Born the son of a menagerie owner in Dewsbury, Yorkshire, England in 1871, Benson emigrated to the United States in the 1890s, where he quickly achieved recognition for importing wild animals from India, Africa, and Thailand for exhibit in zoos and circuses around the country. As a wild animal scout Benson is credited with capturing the first gorilla to be exhibited in captivity for the Ringling Brothers Circus. He participated in the development of a number of zoos including the Franklin Park Zoo in Boston where he served as curator. In 1914, Benson became the United States Manager for the world’s largest wild animal training organization, Hagenbeck of Germany, importing exotic animals to a shipping depot in Hoboken, New Jersey, for sale to zoos and circuses. It is not known whether the Interstate Fruit Farm initially served as a staging area for the Hagenbeck organization during Benson’s tenure as Manager, or whether this figured in the operation of the “health farm”.

Figure 2. Photograph of Haselton Barn with farmhouse (later moved) in foreground. Late nineteenth or early twentieth century, date unknown. Collection of the Hudson Historical Society.

Page 11 Benson’s Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 – 100% Submittal

Benson’s Wild Animal Farm: 1924-1943

In 1924, Benson purchased the Hudson property outright and renamed it Benson’s Wild Animal Farm, using it as a quarantine station, training venue, and shipping base for animals imported from Hagenbeck in Germany. By 1926, use of the Hoboken, New Jersey terminal was discontinued, and animals were transported by rail from the port of Boston to the Rochester Railroad Station in Hudson Center, a short distance from the Benson’s property.

Benson lived in the c.1880 farmhouse on the property (NHDHR Inventory #28.A). Two large existing barns, the “John T. Benson Barn” associated with the farmhouse (NHDHR Inventory #28.B) and the Haselton Barn (NHDHR Inventory #28.HH) were available to house animals to which those accommodations were suited. The Elephant House (NHDHR Inventory #28.D) was probably one of the earliest Benson’s era structures, necessitated by the particular requirements of its inhabitants. Other pens, runs, and enclosures were undoubtedly constructed as needed. Another early Benson’s structure was the rustic Office (NHDHR Inventory #28.C2). While Benson developed the infrastructure of the Wild Animal Park, he also assembled a cadre of animal trainers including: lion trainer, Joseph Arcaris; elephant trainer Carl Neuffer; horse trainer, Fred Pitkin; and chimpanzee trainer, George Marshall.

In 1927, Benson’s Wild Animal Farm opened to the public for a small admission fee. Until his death in 1943, John T. Benson developed the property into a renowned regional attraction celebrated as “the strangest farm on earth”. Adopting the model pioneered by his business associate Carl Hagenbeck with the creation of an “animal park” near Hamburg, Germany in 1907, Benson created a setting where exotic animals appeared in a naturalistic landscape. Financed largely by Benson’s success as an animal merchant, the facilities were constantly expanded during the 1930s. Attractions included: enclosures for the largest collection of monkeys ever exhibited at one time; bear and lion cages; gorilla house; pony and zebra houses; sea lion pool and shelter; snake and reptile exhibits; and caged enclosures for exotic birds. The grounds were extensively landscaped, and featured picturesque paths, water features, and rustic bridges. Regular performances displayed trained tigers, lions, ponies, dogs, seals, and elephants Rides on Betsey, the famous elephant were among the most popular of all the attractions at Benson’s. In between animal acts, visitors enjoyed miniature golf, horse-shoes, lawn bowling, shuffleboard, and children’s rides. Concession areas including a Bavarian style café and beer garden offered food and drink.

Lapham Era: 1944-1976

Following Benson’s death, the Wild Animal Farm was sold in 1944 to a Boston investment group headed by Raymond W. Lapham. The Farm was closed during World War II. When it reopened in 1945, Benson’s practice of selling animals to other zoos and circuses was discontinued. Under Lapham’s management the number of animal species increased, and the Farm began to operate more along the lines of a traditional zoo operation. Additional amusement rides were also added. During the 1950s, Benson’s was one of New Hampshire’s top attractions, second only to Rockingham Race Track, with approximately 500,000 visitors annually. Raymond Lapham died in 1976, and Benson’s was put up for sale again. During the Lapham period the cellar area of the barn was configured for equipment and auto maintenance. Overhead doors and contemporary windows were added, and additional lofts installed using dimension lumber and joist hangers.

Provencher Period: 1979-1987

Arthur P. Provencher, a Nashua businessman, purchased the property in 1979, and began the process of expanding the operation to include additional amusement rides, as well as a petting zoo, and changes in the animal habitat areas. In 1980, 125 different species were exhibited at Benson’s for a total of more than 400 animals. By 1982, the number of animals increased to nearly 800. Benson’s employed approximately 250 summer workers, many of them high school students from Hudson and surrounding towns. When Circus World, an expanded amusement ride area opened in 1982, up to 10,000 people visited the park daily. In 1983, Provencher acquired the Hudson Railroad Depot and moved it from its Greeley Street location in Hudson Center to the Park and remodeled it as a residence.

Page 12 Benson’s Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 – 100% Submittal

Despite its continuing popularity, Benson’s Wild Animal Park filed for reorganization under federal bankruptcy statutes in 1985. The Park operated on a scaled-down basis until 1987, when it closed to the public. The animals were sold to zoos and other federally sanctioned destinations. All of the amusement rides, fixtures, and memorabilia, along with many of the post-1950 landscape features were sold and removed.

New Hampshire Department of Transportation: 1992-2002

In 1992, the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT) acquired the Benson’s property for the purpose of creating a wetland mitigation site for wetland impacts caused by construction of the Nashua Circumferential Highway. The proposed mitigation activity consists of restoration and/or construction of up to 44-acres of wetlands on the Benson’s site. The Department of Transportation took steps to stabilize some of the historic structures, and provide security fencing. In November 1992, an intensive historic structures survey was completed for the New Hampshire Division of Historic Resources (NHDHR) by Lynne Emerson Monroe of the Preservation Company, Kensington, NH. All existing structures were field checked, documented and a NHDHR Inventory Form was completed. Based on this survey NHDHR determined the Benson’s property to be eligible as a district for the National Register of Historic Places with 25 contributing structures.

To be eligible for the National Register, structures or districts must be found to have significance under one or more of the following criteria.

A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or

B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or

C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or

D. That have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.4

The Benson’s property was determined eligible as a district under Criteria A, B, and C, “for the information it conveys about the growing importance and evolution of naturalistic animal facilities/zoos inn the early half of the 20th century, for its association with John T. Benson, an animal trainer and showman of national, if not world-wide significance, and as a rare surviving collection of structures typifying modest zoos in the first half of the 20th century.”5 The Division of Historic Resources identified the principal period of significance as 1924-1947, the date of John T. Benson’s ownership of the property. The Interstate Fruit Farm period, 1910-1924, was noted as a secondary period of significance.6

In 1997, the Benson’s site was reviewed again by NHDHR, and found to be no longer eligible as a district for the National Register due to loss of integrity through physical decay, vandalism, and evidence of post- 1947 alterations to contributing structures.7 Removal of 16 structures and several animal pens was approved by NHDHR, and completed by the Department of Transportation. Additional architectural documentation was completed on the remaining structures by the Cultural Resource Group of Louis Berger and Associates, Inc. in 1998. Photographs and site sketches were completed by Richard M. Casella, Senior Architectural Historian at LBA. In 1998, the John T. Benson Barn, (NHDHR Inventory #28.B) was

4 “How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation”. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Register website. Accessed January 20, 2003. < http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/nrb15_2.htm> 5 New Hampshire Division of Historical Resources – Area Form, A-28. Benson’s Wild Animal Farm, Hudson, NH. November, 1992. Sheet 13 of 77. 6 NHDHR Determination of Eligibility (DOE), with annotations. January 6, 1993. NHDHR files. 7 Nancy C. Muller, Director, NH State Historic Preservation Officer to William Hauser, Bureau of Environment, NH Department of Transportation. October 17, 1997. Correspondence, NHDHR files.

Page 13 Benson’s Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 – 100% Submittal

destroyed in an arson fire. Ironically, the barn was lost just as a structural assessment was being completed by Arron Sturgis of Preservation Timber Framing, Inc.

Use of the Benson’s property as a passive recreation area has been determined to be compatible with the wetland mitigation plan. Based on this finding, NHDOT negotiated the sale of the property to the Town of Hudson. The Town of Hudson, through the Board of Selectmen, appointed a citizen committee to study options for the use of the property. A Conceptual Master Plan for the development of the Benson’s Property was completed in March 2002, by Vanesse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. Sale of the property to the Town of Hudson, under conservation and preservation easements is pending.

The Benson’s Committee established by the Hudson Board of Selectmen on May 7, 2001 was charged with “the responsibility of recommending a site plan with proposed uses for the Benson’s property.” The Committee worked actively with consultant Vannasse Hangen Brustlin Inc. (VHB) during the development of the Benson’s Property Master Plan. The Committee also solicited public input during the planning process and met regularly with NHDOT, the Town Planner, and representatives of the Nashua Regional Planning Commission. The Committee received significant input on proposed alternatives from local citizens through public informational sessions and questionnaires.

Figure 3. Benson Park Master Plan. (VHB, 2002).

Page 14 Benson’s Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 – 100% Submittal

Figure 4. East (front) elevation with granary ell in left foreground. Photograph by John Butler. (May 15, 2003).

Architectural Description

The Haselton Barn is a three story barn set into a bank so that there are entrances at grade at each level of the structure. The barn is 36 feet wide and 96 feet long. The earliest original barn was 60 feet long. Three bays were later added at the rear of the barn to create its current foot print. At the South East corner of the barn an ell is attached. This structure is 14 feet wide and 39 feet long. It is completely sheathed on its interior and is believed to have been used for the storage of silage. Another shed ell once existed along the North eave wall. It measured 12 feet wide by 36 feet long. This ell has since been removed although the foundation remains. The front gable end of the barn faces Bush Hill road and the entry here allows direct access to the third floor center drive of the barn. Hay could be brought into the barn at this level and pitched to both the left and right sides of the center drive providing feed for animals at lower levels. Above the third floor center drive, is a final loft area that is designed for hay storage.

The Haselton barn was constructed in this manner to provide ample and accessible feed and shelter for both cows and horses. Hay from the third floor was dropped to hungry animals at the second floor. Stone ramps along the South eave wall allowed the cows to exit into the barn yard.

Page 15 Benson’s Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 – 100% Submittal

Figure 5. North elevation. Photograph by John Butler. (November 7, 2002)

At the first floor level manure was collected from the stanchion areas above along the South wall and exported to the fields. Stalls for horses would have traditionally been placed at the first and second floor levels as well. The North eave wall shed ell provided covered access to the barn cellar. The ell having been removed, left an opening along the North eave that has since been bricked in. The back gable end of the barn provides yet another first floor entrance at grade. This allowed for wagons to efficiently collect and carry animal waste from the barn.

The barn is constructed of native soft woods; primarily pine and hemlock. The original barn consists of six bents and five bays. Bents can be considered cross sections of the barn and the bays consist of structural elements that connect the bents. Attached drawings depict each bent and bay and provide an accurate representation of the timber frame.

When assessing and describing the frame components it is important to note the conversion method of the timbers and the joinery methods employed to lay out and join the timber. In this barn it is clear that the large elements within the original frame are all hand hewn. This means that they were made square from round logs with the use of a broad axe. Smaller framing members i.e. common rafters and angled braces are circular sawn. All of the exterior sheathing is also circular sawn. Timber frame components in the South East ell and in the three bays added to the rear of the building are also circular sawn.

The lay out system for the joinery in the original 36’ by 60’ barn is known as the square rule method of lay out. This is clearly represented at the wall girt/post connections where the post is reduced to 7-1/2 inches in width to accept the standardized length of the following wall girt. In this way a non-uniformly shaped beam, which is typical in hewn material, can be made uniform. By utilizing this method the joiner of the barn greatly enhanced the speed by which he could cut and install the framing elements with precise

Page 16 Benson’s Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 – 100% Submittal

accuracy. A full description of this lay out system is included in the appendix of this report.

The lay out system for the ells and the three added bays of the barn can be considered mill rule. This means that the joiner made the assumption that the timbers were uniform and therefore, did not reduce the elements to determined dimensions before joining the structural elements. Uniformity of timber is a direct result of improved sawing technology.

The bents within the original barn consist of two perimeter eave posts. A tie beam sits atop the perimeter post and engages each of two drive posts. Another tie beam set higher in the frame connects the two drive posts and provides support for the high drive loft joists. Angled braces support the lower tie beams. The lower two tie beams cross over the perimeter posts and provide support for the overhang. A large principle rafter is mortised and tenoned into the top of the tie beam at its end.

The roof system of the barn can be termed as a principle rafter, principle purlin, common rafter roof system. The principle rafter accepts a discontinuous large purlin which in turn supports the mid-span of the common rafters. This is a typical roof system for a barn of this size. The drive posts engage and support the principle rafters just above the rafter mid-span. At each joint in the frame a tenon is accepted by a mortise. The joint is pinned together with a one inch hardwood peg.

Of particular note in this frame is the addition of post extensions at every post in bents two through six. At each perimeter post in these bents the post has been lengthened by the installation of a post foot that is joined to the post using a traditional bladed scarf joint which is pinned together with four wooden pegs (see drawing sheet #18 of 18 for detail). At each drive post, an extension of the post has been added to the top of the post where it engages the principle rafter. Here, an extended mortise has been chopped into the top of the drive post and a short post top with corresponding extended tenon fits snugly therein. This addition is also pinned with wooden pegs. In bent six the left drive post accepts both a top and bottom fix to gain the joiners desired length.

Usually the addition of this type of joinery indicates that the barn had been damaged and repaired or that the frame had been significantly reworked at some time during its life. Upon careful scrutiny however, it is hypothesized that the additions to the posts in this frame were in fact original to its initial raising. This is

Figure 6. South elevation with silo ell at right. Photograph by John Butler. (May 15, 2003)

Page 17 Benson’s Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 – 100% Submittal

confirmed by closely studying the perimeter post feet additions.Evidence supporting this idea is best illustrated in the North perimeter post in bent six. Close examination of the bladed scarf joint reveals two girt mortises that are quite revealing. The mortise accepting the North eave wall girt has layout scribe lines that pass through the reference face of the original post and the scarfed post foot. This would indicate that the mortise was not chopped until the post and post foot addition were already joined. The mortise accepting the lower gable end girt reveals anther clue as to when the post feet additions were installed. In this mortise a peg that secures the bladed scarf joint is interrupting the mortise. It is clear to see that the joiner drilled and chopped out the mortise with the peg in place as one half of the peg is removed to allow for the walls of the mortise while the remaining half of the peg remains to the outside of the mortise. If the bladed scarf joint had been added at a later date the peg would not have been chopped longitudinally. Instead it would have been driven into the back of the mortise where it would have run afoul of the installed tenon.

It is left for conjecture as to why the frame required that the posts be extended. It is important to consider however, that the bank in which the barn is nestled required substantial preparation before the frame could be erected. Bent one which orients on Bush Hill road, has an eave height of 9 feet. Bents two through six have an eave height of 18 feet from sill to tie beam. This means that the entire first bay of the barn is on a completely different foundation height than the rest of the original barn. In fact the bank is so tall that a retaining wall exists at bent two to restrain the bank. The granite foundation is substantial around the entire barn, but it is bolstered by this retaining wall and the infill of stone rubble in front of it.

Figure 7. West elevation, silo ell to the right. Photograph by John Butler. (May 15, 2003)

Page 18 Benson’s Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 – 100% Submittal

It is entirely possible that the ramp and retaining wall and perhaps the entire foundation was created and ready for the frame while the frame was cut to accept a slightly different foundation configuration. Many timber frames were built off site at timber yards and transported to their respective sites. It may be then, that a miscommunication took place between framer and mason requiring the adaptation of the frame to meet the bank requirements. Regardless of the root cause of this adaptation, the post feet and post tops are well executed and the structural integrity of the frame is uncompromised.

A detailed analysis of the individual elements of the building, and their evolution, and existing condition is contained in the Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment appended to this report.

Figure 8. Drive bay looking west. Photograph by John Butler. (May 15, 2003)

Page 19 Benson’s Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 – 100% Submittal

Part 2: Treatment and Use

Character-Defining Features and Recommendations

Introduction

The proposed treatment for the Haselton Barn is rehabilitation. The Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties define rehabilitation as:

. . . the act of process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.8

The “portions or features” to be preserved are known as character-defining features (CDFs), elements of a building which responsible for the particular visual and aesthetic qualities that cause a structure to be valued as a historic resource. CDFs may by architectural features and details, materials, craftsmanship, surface finishes, interior spaces, or architectural context.

Many of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation specifically address the retention of character-defining features.9 These include the following:

1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.

2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.

4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.

5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved.

7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.

9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.

10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

A primary goal of an HSR is to define a buildings CDFs to insure that they are protected from alteration of demolition during the rehabilitation process. CDFs may also be missing or removed elements that were important to the historical character of a structure. The Secretary of Interior’s guidelines states that:

8 Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources Stewardship and Partnerships, Historic Preservation Services, 1995), p. 61. 9 Weeks and Grimmer, p. 62.

Page 20 Benson’s Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 – 100% Submittal

“. . . where an important architectural feature is missing, its replacement is always recommended . . . if adequate historical, pictorial, and physical documentation exists so that the feature may be accurately reproduced.10

Exterior Elements

• Overall form and massing of the barn.

• Evolutionary development of the 19th and 20th century portions of the structure including the cupola, silo, and added three bays.

• Pre-1950 windows and doors.

• Exterior siding and foundation materials.

• Architectural detail including the decorative shingling patterns on the cupola, eaves and cornices.

Interior Elements

• Layout, joinery, and conversion methods exhibited in the timber frame.

• Arrangement of the interior spaces in bays and floor levels

• Flooring and interior siding.

• Interior bare wood and whitewashed finishes.

Recommendations

Identification of these character-defining features establishes a benchmark for making decisions about specific rehabilitation treatments for the barn. For example, contemporary windows were added after Benson’s death in 1944, and other historic window openings were boarded over. Reproducing the historic windows in their original locations enhances the historic character of the building, reinforces the connection with its historic period of significance, and increases natural light to the interior for functional uses. Similarly, restoring the cow door on the south elevation of the lower floor level , both improves the accessibility of the structure, and enhances historic character. Viewed in this light, functional considerations and preservation values can complement each other.

The detailed treatment recommendations in the Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment section of this report are divided into stabilization, preservation, restoration, and rehabilitation treatments. Rehabilitation recommendations such as the creation of a finished space for year-round use in the cellar, and installation of an elevator for handicapped accessibility are designed to introduce new construction into those areas that are least intrusive to the historic construction and character of the building.

Some treatment decisions which might be desirable from a cultural resources point of view are less than optimal for reasons of initial cost and/or long-term maintenance. Although the building originally had a wood shingle roof, installation of a new wood shingle roof would be at least double the cost of a standing seam metal roof as detailed in the treatment recommendations. A wood roof would also have less than half the anticipated life span of a metal roof, and would require substantially more maintenance. Considered in the context of preserving the entire building with limited resources, the most focused effort should be on preserving existing historic materials and building fabric.

10 Weeks and Grimmer, p. 65.

Page 21 Benson’s Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 – 100% Submittal

Interim Treatment and Use: Stabilization

The Haselton Barn has been largely abandoned for over ten years. Although some stabilization work was done in the early 1990's, deterioration of the building continues and accelerates. The following is a prioritized list of recommended stabilization efforts designed to slow the existing deterioration of the barn. By executing these recommendations, the barn can be made safer and less exposed to the elements. These recommendations are provided as a beginning point for the complete restoration of the building. The work is necessary to ensure the structural integrity of the building, and to provide opportunity for careful planning and fund-raising for the eventual restoration of the barn.

1. Clean Up –The barn is in need of an extensive clean up effort to remove debris from every level of the structure. Existing paper products as well as tires, engine parts and other debris must be removed to reduce the present fire hazard facing the building. Estimated Cost: A minimum of two 30-yard dumpsters will be necessary for the clean up effort. Labor must be equipped with respirators and protective clothing.

2. Windows and Doors – The barn must be made secure by closing in all window and door openings. This should include the removal of windows and doors that have been extensively damaged by vandalism and the elements. Window openings should be temporarily covered by clear lexan or plexiglass panels set in wood frames to protect the security of the building while still allowing light into the structure for continued investigation and preservation. Hinged 3/4 inch thick plywood temporary doors with proper hasp and padlock security should secure door openings. Keys should be procured by Police and Fire departments via an on site locked box designed for said purpose. Additional keys should be obtainable through the town office and a log of their use established.

3. Stabilize Cupola – The cupola on top of the original barn is in significant structural failure. It should be stabilized and removed to the ground in order to reduce the risk of continued damage to its architectural and structural elements. The extent of damage here also poses a significant safety risk should strong wind and heavy snow aid in its imminent collapse. The cupola is the one element of the barn that is highly decorated. Upon placing the structure on the ground, it should be sheltered inside the cellar bay at the rear of the barn or covered by a temporary structure that will protect and secure it. The remaining roof opening atop the barn must be covered with a temporary roof designed to prevent continued water penetration into the structure. (The Benson’s Committee has suggested that the cupola be removed to the Hudson Highway Maintenance Facility pending restoration and re-erection).

4. Weatherization – Remaining areas around the perimeter of the barn where clapboards and or sheathing is missing, should be closed in. This can be done by installing 30 pound felt paper in such a way that water sheds onto the paper from above and sheds water out and away from the building. Wood shingles and strapping can be installed over the paper to secure it to the building.

5. Landscaping – Debris, shrubbery, trees, and other organic matter should be removed from the perimeter of the building up to a distance of about twenty feet. Surface grading where water passes directly to the building as a result of built up earth should be graded away from the structure. Large piles of branches etc., should be removed a safe distance from the building and burned or carted away.

Priority Stabilization Recommendations: Cost Summary

Structure clean-up (A minimum of two 30-yard dumpsters will be $8,000.00 required) Windows and doors $6,000.00 Cupola $6,000.00 Weatherization $1,500.00 Landscape grading $5,000.00

Page 22 Benson’s Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 – 100% Submittal

Total Stabilization Cost $26,500.00

NOTE: Much of the work described above can be accomplished by a well-organized volunteer effort. With proper direction, volunteers can accomplish a great deal. The opportunity to build community awareness and support for the project is enhanced. The cupola work however, should be done by professionals.

Figure 10. Extensive deterioration of cupola. Photograph by John Butler. (May, 2003)

Page 23 Benson’s Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 – 100% Submittal

Alternatives for Ultimate Treatment and Use

The 2002 Benson’s Property Master Plan by Vanesse Hangen Brustlin Inc. (VHB) covers the proposed development of the entire 168-acre Benson’s Property as a passive recreation area and local/regional park in a manner compatible with the NHDOT wetland mitigation plan. The Master Plan summarized the development program for the site as follows:

Proposed plan improvements are generally geared toward creating a pastoral park setting, with restoration of contributing historic structures, redevelopment of open field areas into multi-purpose play areas, building a system of trails that accommodates a variety of non-motorized activities, provision for vehicle access and parking for approximately 250 cars, development of new structures for picnicking, restrooms/concessions, an amphitheater with seating for approximately 500 people, and a warming house for winter ice skating and cross country skiing.11

The Master Plan emphasizes that identifying and implementing a successful reuse proposal for the remaining historic structures is “key to the long term success of the master plan”.12 The main limitation on reuse of the historic structures is a site-wide prohibition on commercial activity under the Memorandum of Agreement between NHDOT and the Town of Hudson. Another issue addressed by the VHB Report is need for the Town of Hudson to establish an adequately staffed and equipped Parks and Recreation Department to manage and maintain the Benson’s grounds and buildings.

Based on the Benson’s Property Master Plan completed by VHB in March 2002, the Benson’s Committee identified 16 Management Units and associated management categories for development of the site. The Haselton Barn falls within the 12-acre South Field Management Unit.

The Master Plan and the Benson Park Management Site Unit Descriptions have identified the following potential alternative uses for the Haselton Barn:

• Storage, display, and interpretation of large antique items such as farm and fire fighting equipment.

• Education about the history of agriculture and barn buildings in Hudson, and

• Natural resource education and access to the Benson Park trails.

All of these options are both functionally and structurally feasible, and in keeping with the historic character of the building. Each of these alternatives has been developed within the context of an ambitious long-range development program for the entire Management Unit and Benson Park. Unit and Park development needs fall into the following general categories:

• Public safety, and protection of the site and structures

• Conservation of natural and cultural resource values

• Visitor orientation and education

• Infrastructure development and maintenance

• Public services (restrooms, community meeting and event space, etc.)

By taking the initial steps to stabilize and preserve the Haselton Barn, rehabilitation work can continue in the context of development of the entire Benson Property.

11 Benson’s Property Master Plan. Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. Bedford, New Hampshire. March, 2002. p. 11. 12 Benson’s Property Master Plan. p. 13.

Page 24 Benson’s Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 – 100% Submittal

Part 3: Technical Data

Appendix I: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation

The Secretary of the Interior is responsible for establishing standards for all programs under Departmental authority and for advising Federal agencies on the preservation of historic properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

The Standards for Rehabilitation (codified in 36 CFR 67 for use in the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives program) address the most prevalent treatment. "Rehabilitation" is defined as "the process of returning a property to a state of utility, through repair or alteration, which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions and features of the property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values."

Initially developed by the Secretary of the Interior to determine the appropriateness of proposed project work on registered properties within the Historic Preservation Fund grant-in-aid program, the Standards for Rehabilitation have been widely used over the years--particularly to determine if a rehabilitation qualifies as a Certified Rehabilitation for Federal tax purposes. In addition, the Standards have guided Federal agencies in carrying out their historic preservation responsibilities for properties in Federal ownership or control; and State and local officials in reviewing both Federal and nonfederal rehabilitation proposals. They have also been adopted by historic district and planning commissions across the country.

The intent of the Standards is to assist the long-term preservation of a property's significance through the preservation of historic materials and features. The Standards pertain to historic buildings of all materials, construction types, sizes, and occupancy and encompass the exterior and interior of the buildings. They also encompass related landscape features and the building's site and environment, as well as attached, adjacent, or related new construction. To be certified for Federal tax purposes, a rehabilitation project must be determined by the Secretary to be consistent with the historic character of the structure(s), and where applicable, the district in which it is located.

As stated in the definition, the treatment "rehabilitation" assumes that at least some repair or alteration of the historic building will be needed in order to provide for an efficient contemporary use; however, these repairs and alterations must not damage or destroy materials, features or finishes that are important in defining the building's historic character. For example, certain treatments – if improperly applied – may cause or accelerate physical deterioration of the historic building. This can include using improper repointing or exterior masonry cleaning techniques, or introducing insulation that damages historic fabric. In almost all of these situations, use of these materials and treatments will result in a project that does not meet the Standards. Similarly, exterior additions that duplicate the form, material, and detailing of the structure to the extent that they compromise the historic character of the structure will fail to meet the Standards.

1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.

2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.

3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken.

4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.

5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that

Page 25 Benson’s Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 – 100% Submittal

characterize a property shall be preserved.

6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.

7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.

8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken.

9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.

10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

Page 26 Benson’s Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 – 100% Submittal

Appendix II: Old Ways of Measuring

(used with permission of the author) Rudy R. Christian President, Christian & Son Inc. President, Timber Framers Guild of North America Introduction

In recent years a great deal of work has gone into researching, documenting and exploring historic timber framed buildings. Much of this research has lead to articles and books on the subject. Some have focused on the ancient timber fame buildings in England, Europe and the far East. Many have studied the architectural types and peculiarities specific to the New England settlement areas, while others have traced the agricultural structures that allowed farming to flourish in both the old and new lands.

In general these books are about the people who built these monuments to structure, or about the buildings themselves. However, most often the work tends to study the cultural influences and architectural vernaculars rather than the methods by which these magnificent frames were created. It’s not difficult to find a chronological interpretation of the Dutch barn and it’s variations, or the transitional bent typologies of the German bank barn as it’s use in agriculture caused the form to rapidly move across the Midwest. The student of timber frame building architecture has a relatively accessible resource for this kind of information.

On the other hand, the architect, builder or historian who is asked to document a timber frame structure often realizes that the task of drawing the framework is quite complex, and the sources of information as to how to proceed are, for the most part, nonexistent. This problem is compounded by the many variations in frame typologies, timber sizes, conversion techniques and layout methods. To further complicate the issue, most timber frame buildings have been modified or repaired over their lifetime. All too often the solution to this documentation dilemma is to attempt to apply contemporary methods of measuring and drawing, or to “invent” a method in hopes of recording the important information hidden in the frame.

This text is intended to serve as an introduction to the measuring and layout techniques used by the master builders responsible for the great architectural heritage we find in the timber frame buildings and bridges that still stand as credit their abilities. It is not meant to serve as a textbook or study guide, but as a starting point from which an understanding of the underlying principles of accurate documentation may begin to develop.

Page 27 Benson’s Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 – 100% Submittal

Mathematical Patterning

A good first step in learning to survey timber structures is to attempt to decipher the mental or mathematical pattern the builder used as reference. S .E. Todd stated in his 1870 work entitled Todd’s Country Homes and How to Save Money “The builder, while laying out a frame, needs to set up a regular “air castle” before his imagination, so that he can perceive how every piece of timber, when he is laying it out, or framing it, will appear after the structure is raised and every part is in it’s proper place.”. This air castle can be easily interpreted as a structure made of playing cards. Each card within the structure can be thought of as a plane or two-dimensional surface. These surfaces represent the planes of reference used to locate all of the timbers in the frame. The intersections of these planes of reference form lines, each referred to as an “arris”, which establish a wire model of the structure itself.

By establishing the planes of reference, and the intersections of those planes, the critical or “layout” dimensions of a frame begin to become obvious. Part of this understanding comes from the practical knowledge of the way this layout work was done. In early timber framing, timbers were worked by a method of scribing each intersection or joint (see fig. 1) in a setting where large sections of the frame could be assembled and fitted up. The dimensions of the frame were established by taking accurate measurements and blocking up the timbers to represent a level plane (see fig. 2). Richard Harris refers to this plane as the “upper face” in his 1978 book entitled Discovering Timber-Framed Buildings, because it was the face of the frame or “bent” that was up during scribing. In the completed frame this face would actually be the side of the bent.

The timber conversion method used in early timber frames is known as hewing. This process was accomplished by use of a chalkline and ax to score or rough the log into a squared cant. Most often a broadax or hewing hatchet was used to finish or flatten the scored surface. Although this process could be done in a way that produced remarkably smooth timbers, in most cases the timbers were only hewn to a surface that was workable for the framer. The variation in size and shape was overcome in the scribing process. It therefore becomes the responsibility of the person surveying a frame to establish where the framer was taking measurements from or to. In the case of a bent (the main sections within a timber frame, see fig. 3) the width is measured from the outside of one exterior post to the outside of the opposite exterior post. Likewise the length of the frame can be established by measuring from the outside of one end bent corner post to the outside of the same post location in the bent on the opposite end. (See fig. 3).

Recording the correct locations for the interior bents or posts in a frame however requires understanding the concept and use of the upper or “layout” face. Since during the process of scribing the joinery the

Page 28 Benson’s Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 – 100% Submittal

framer blocked up his timbers to establish a flat and level plane, the layout face of a bent can be usually be found by determining which face of the bent the timbers are flush to. Braces are typically the easiest timbers to use in locating the layout face, since they are typically much smaller than the posts and connecting ties, so the offset is obvious. The side of the bent to which the timbers are flush then becomes the side to which field measurements are taken. Often “marriage marks” will indicate the upper face (see fig. 2). In many cases the orientation of these faces within a frame can be predicted. The English and German barn framers, for instance, almost always oriented the interior layout faces toward the threshing floor in the central “bay”. The Dutch however would be more likely to orient all but the last bent towards one end of the frame.

It is important to note that as simple as this concept is, the tendency to assume field measurements can be taken at convenient locations within the frame must be avoided. Typically a great deal of movement occurs during the life of a framed building. Since timber frames were constructed of green timber almost exclusively, the shrinkage, twisting and bowing that occurs during drying can cause significant deviation from the original layout. Since most early foundations tend to move over time, the locations of framing members may have also changed. These factors, combined with changes, repairs and additions, make it imperative for the surveyor to carefully investigate before taking measurements.

Often accurate measurements can be taken in areas of the frame least likely to have moved over time. Measuring a frame at or near floor level is the most likely to produce errors. The locations of bents can better be measured at the wall plates or roof purlins. Since the change in length of timber when it shrinks is minimal, the record taken at the plate can be very accurate. The width of the frame can be measured at the location of the principle tie beam in each bent. Care must be taken in this measurement since the failure at the joint of post and tie can be significant, and shrinkage in the cross section of the posts must be accounted for. The height of the frame, in most cases, is measured from the top of the sill plate to the top of the wall plate. One exception is when the posts rest directly on stone or masonry piers, which may have caused them to rot or “recede” from their original height.

Page 29 Benson’s Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 – 100% Submittal

Fig. 4 shows the use of the “two foot mark” in laying out a scribe fitted frame. This mark was used by incorporating a framing square with a 24” leg during layout. The mark was placed two feet from the intended location of the reference face of the adjoining timber. Since this mark is at a known location, the intended location of the wall plate or sill may be extrapolated.

Square Rule Layout

Although the “scribe rule” layout system used on timbers being prepared for joining has remained relatively the same for centuries in Europe, another system of layout developed in the new world. This system of “square rule” layout carried the concept of the “air castle” to a new level. By imagining a perfectly square timber within each actual timber used to frame up a building, it became possible to layout and cut an entire frame without having to work at full scale. Each timber could be worked individually, and none needed to be pre-fitted before the frame was raised. This was accomplished with the use of “gains” and “housings” (see fig. 5) which are a great aid in measuring and documenting frames. Since the intention of the joiner was to create perfect timber at each joint location, the wood removed leaves a very accurate record of the mathematical model the joiner had created. The alignment of joinery to a layout face is still common in this newer system.

In many frames the record of the layout still exists in chalk. The framer would determine the working dimension of the piece to be cut and a working line would be “snapped” along the timber to locate the base of the housings (fig. 7). This transposed line was often a specific whole or half inch under the “nominal” timber size, or in some cases the true size, if the hewing was all done oversized. By measuring the length of the tie beam in a bent, from shoulder to shoulder, and adding the working dimension of the post on each end, the layout dimension can be determined. The existence of housings, along the plate for instance, also greatly simplifies the task of measuring bent locations. Since the housings are less likely to have disappeared than the scribed marks on a frame, accurate measurements are more easily taken.

The reductions made to tenoned timbers are also an assistance in surveying and recording. In fig. 6 we see a reference to “adzing down” a timber to a specific size. This adzed reduction, sometimes known as a gain, is typically done on the side of the timber opposite from the reference face. This can provide valuable information, particularly in the case of interior posts. In some cases however a gain may exist on both sides of a tenon. Then it may become necessary to look for other clues. Braces entering a post on opposite sides can often provide the information needed. The brace which is cut into the layout face will normally be unhoused (see fig. 7).

The Joiners’ Language

A further understanding of how the framer saw the frame comes from learning the “language” the framer utilized in laying out the joinery. Many historians believe the framing square and mortice and tenon layout developed hand in hand. In most cases, the location and size of mortices and tenons are a direct reflection of the widths of the legs of the framing square i.e. 1 ½” and 2”. The most common language would appear to be 2” to 2”. This refers to offsetting a 2” wide mortice or tenon 2” from the layout face (see fig. 6). In some cases, particularly with smaller scantlings, a 1 ½” to 1 ½” layout may be used, and massive principle tie beams will often utilize a 2” to 3” layout.

Understanding this language provides another tool in documentation, since it serves to confirm which face of a

Page 30 Benson’s Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 – 100% Submittal

timber was used for reference. It also is an important aspect in developing working drawings for restoration and repair work. Particularly in the case of square ruled frames, the recording of the layout language assists in fabrication replacement timbers, which in many cases are interchangeable throughout the frame.

Another facet of the joiners standard language is found in the use of many standardized measurements. This may be in part due to the lack of good paper documentation. It’s unlikely most frame carpenters had a set of drawings to throw on their dashboard until well into the nineteenth or twentieth century. Instead certain dimensions were standard for working out a frame. Braces for instance seem to have become standard shortly after the introduction of the square rule layout system. In barns throughout the Midwest, braces are laid out at 36” nearly everywhere in the frame. In some cases they are pushed to 48”. This layout refers to the distance measured from the housing along the connecting tie or plate, or down the post, measured from the housing.

The size of timber used in framing is also usually standardized. In English and Germanic framing the use of even numbered square sections seems common, although far from absolute. In larger barns, 4”x4” scantlings are used for braces and siding girts, while scaffold ties, purlin posts, purlins and intermediate posts may be 8”x8” and principle tie beams and main bent posts are commonly 10” x 10” nominally. Dutch barns provide an exception to this rule and often use rectangular timber. Although this standardization is more frequent in post industrial and square rule framing, it can serve to help establish the logic of the frame itself.

The width of the hay mows and threshing floors seem to most often be measured out in even feet, rather than some feet and some inches. This would seem logical in that the process of remembering, rather than ciphering, would greatly aid in being able to cut a frame in an expedient and efficient manner. Even the distance from the sill plate to the top of the wall plate is most often in even feet. Of some interest is the fact that the dimension of 14’ seems to come up quite often. The reason for this is likely moot, but one of the author’s favorite stories has to do with the height a man trimming trees for wickets or waddle can reach with a single section of ladder carried into the wood. This might explain the availability of good logs about 14’ long. Then again, maybe not.

A Systematic Approach

1. In summation we can begin to establish a simple regimen for recording timber frame structures:

2. Determine the type of layout system used in framing up the building.

3. Determine the layout faces of the respective components.

4. Determine which parts of the frame have been added or modified.

5. Determine the working dimensions of the timbers.

6. Determine the language of the joinery.

7. Measure the frame where the information is intact.

8. Record the information as the framer would have done.

Page 31 Benson’s Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 – 100% Submittal

As was stated at the outset, this document is not intended to serve as a text or reference. It is strictly information based on the authors experience and research. The intention is to stimulate those who have chosen to study early carpentry methods to continue to strive toward better documentation and better understanding.

Illustrations Credits

The illustrations listed here are from previous publications. They are and will remain the property of the original owners. All other illustrations are by the author. Figure 1 Cecil A. Hewett English Historic Carpentry 1980 Figure 2 Richard Harris Discovering Timber-Framed Buildings 1986 Figure 4 & 5 Jack Sobon Traditional Timber Frame Layout Sytems 1987 Figure 6 Jack Sobon Timber Frame Construction 1984

Page 32 Benson’s Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 – 100% Submittal

Bibliography

Benson’s and Hudson History

“Benson Park Management Categories: (introductions to 16 management issues that relate to creating operating, and maintaining Benson Park”. Benson’s Committee, 2002. Manuscript supplied by Curt Laffin. “Benson Park Management Unit Site Descriptions: (Goals, anticipated actions, and descriptions for the 12 Benson Park Management Units)”. Benson’s Committee, 2002. Manuscript supplied by Curt Laffin. “Benson Park Phase One Actions”. Benson’s Committee, 2002. Manuscript supplied by Curt Laffin. Benson’s Property Master Plan. Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. Bedford, New Hampshire. March, 2002. Casella, Richard M. Historic Building Documentation: Benson’s Wild Animal Farm Complex, New Hampshire Division of Historical Resources Area A-28. Cultural Resource Group of Louis Berger & Associates. Needham, MA. February, 1998. Garvin, James L., et. al. Benson’s Historic District Video. (VHS videotape). New Hampshire Division of Historical Resources. 1997. Goldsack, Robert J. Remembering Benson’s Wild Animal Farm, Nashua, New Hampshire 1927-1987. Midway Museum Productions. Nashua, NH. 1988. Hudson History Committee. Town in Transition: Hudson, NH 1673/1977. Collection of the Hudson Town Library. 1977. Jasper, Laurie A. Images of America: Hudson, New Hampshire. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, SC. 2000. Monroe, Lynne Emerson. NHDHR Inventory – Area Form, A-28, Benson’s Wild Animal Farm, Hudson, New Hampshire. Preservation Company, Kensington, NH. November, 1992.

Barn History and Technology

Christian, Rudy R. Old Ways of Measuring. Timber Framers Guild of North America. Becket, Massachusetts. 1996. Johnson, Curtis B. and Visser, Thomas D. Taking Care of Your Old Barn: Ten Tips for Preserving and Reusing Vermont’s Historic Agricultural Buildings. Vermont Division for Historic Preservation and Vermont Housing and Conservation Board. Montpelier, VT. 1995. Sobon, Jack A. Historic American Timber Joinery: a Graphic Guide. Timber Framers Guild. Becket, Massachusetts. 2002. Visser, Thomas D. Field Guide to New England Barns and Farm Buildings. University Press of New England, Hanover, New Hampshire. 1997.

Photographic Collections

Collection of Esther McGraw, Hudson, NH. Collection of the Hudson Historical Society, Hudson, NH.

General Preservation Sources

Auer, Michael J. Preservation Brief 20 – The Preservation of Historic Barns. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Preservation Assistance Division. Washington, DC. 1989.

Page 33 Benson’s Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 – 100% Submittal

Jester, Thomas C., and Sharon C. Park. Preservation Brief 32 – Making Historic Properties Accessible. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Preservation Assistance Division. Washington, DC. 1993. McDonald, Travis C. Preservation Brief 35 – Understanding Old Buildings: The Process of Architectural Investigation. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Preservation Assistance Division. Washington, DC. 1994. Myers, John H. Preservation Brief 9 – Repair of Historic Wooden Windows. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Preservation Assistance Division. Washington, DC. 1981. Nelson, Lee H. Preservation Brief 17 – Architectural Character: Identifying the Visual Aspects of Buildings as an Aid to Preserving Their Character. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Preservation Assistance Division. Washington, DC. 1988. Park, Sharon C. Preservation Brief 19 – The Repair and Replacement of Historic Wooden Shingle Roofs. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Preservation Assistance Division. Washington, DC. 1989. Park, Sharon C. Preservation Brief 24 – Heating, Ventilating, and Cooling Historic Building: Problems and Recommended Approaches. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Preservation Assistance Division. Washington, DC. 1991. Park, Sharon C. Preservation Brief 31 – Mothballing Historic Buildings. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Preservation Assistance Division. Washington, DC. 1993. Sweetser, Sarah M. Preservation Brief 4 – Roofing for Historic Buildings. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Preservation Assistance Division. Washington, DC. 1978. Weeks, Kay D., and David W. Look. Preservation Brief 10 – Exterior Paint Problems on Historic Woodwork. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Preservation Assistance Division. Washington, DC. 1982. Weeks, Kay D., and Anne E. Grimmer, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources Stewardship and Partnerships, Historic Preservation Services. Washington, DC. 1995.

Page 34 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Treatment Cost Summary: Haselton Barn

Treatment Type: Preservation Priority Feature Name Treatment Description Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost

High Main Barn First Floor Framing and Deck Fungus and pest control 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00

High Main Barn: Bent Three Bolstering the tension connections in bents 2 - 5. 8 Ea $300.00 $2,400.00

High Foundation: Main Barn Catalog, remove and rebuild with original stone. 900 SF $45.00 $40,500.00

High Main Barn: Added Bent Seven Realign bent seven. 1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00

High Main Barn: Bent Six Realign bent six 1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00

High Main Barn: Bent Five Realign and repair bent five 1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00

High Foundation of Attached Silo Ell Reconstruct stone foundation on new footing. 336 SF $45.00 $15,120.00

High Main Barn: Bent Four Post repair and realign bent 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00

High Main Barn: Bent Two Bent two: control for repairs 0 LS $0.00 $0.00

High South Eave Wall: Bays 1-8 At Second Floor L Repair flying purlin in bent one 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00

High Main Barn: Bent Three Realign and secure bent three. 1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00

Total High Priority Preservation Treatment Costs: $71,020.00

Medium Main Barn: Bent One - East Gable End Repair existing clapboard 1,000 LF $1.95 $1,950.00

Medium Main Barn: Bent One - East Gable End Pocket door: repair and make operational 1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00

Medium South Eave Wall: Bays 1-8 At Second Floor L Replace low drive girts 2 LS $1,000.00 $2,000.00

Total Medium Priority Preservation Treatment Costs: $5,950.00

Total Preservation Treatment Cost: $76,970.00

Friday, May 23, 2003 Treatment Cost Summary Page 1 of 7 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Treatment Cost Summary: Haselton Barn

Treatment Type: Rehabilitation Priority Feature Name Treatment Description Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost

High North Roof Remove old roof covering and install sheathing. 22 SQ $400.00 $8,800.00

High Main Barn: Added Bent Eight New supports for hip roof 1 $3,800.00 $3,800.00

High Main Barn: South Eave Wall Exterior Regrade and drain south eave wall 130 LF $25.00 $3,250.00

High South Roof Alt B: Standing seam roof alternative 22 SQ $400.00 $8,800.00

High North Roof Flashing the cupola 1 LS $700.00 $700.00

High North Roof Alt. B: Standing seam roof alternative 22 SQ $400.00 $8,800.00

High The Cupola New timber supports for cupola 1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00

High Silo Roof Alt B: Install standing seam roof 6 SQ $400.00 $2,400.00

High South Roof Flashing the silo and cupola 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00

High South Roof Alt A: New 50 year architectural asphalt shingles 22 SQ $100.00 $2,200.00

High South Roof Remove old roof covering and install sheathing 22 SQ $400.00 $8,800.00

High Silo Roof Alt A: Install 50 year architectural shingles. 6 SQ $100.00 $600.00

High North Roof Alt. A: New 50 year architectural asphalt shingles 22 SQ $100.00 $2,200.00

High Silo Roof Remove old roof covering and install sheathing. 6 SQ $400.00 $2,400.00

High Main Barn: Added Bent Nine Create new windows and install in gable end 6 Ea $800.00 $4,800.00

Total High Priority Rehabilitation Treatment Costs: $61,050.00

Low Main Barn Cellar Framing Create finished space in cellar 1,296 SF $100.00 $129,600.00

Friday, May 23, 2003 Treatment Cost Summary Page 2 of 7 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Treatment Cost Summary: Haselton Barn

Treatment Type: Rehabilitation Priority Feature Name Treatment Description Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost

Low Main Barn First Floor Framing and Deck Center drive deck removal and enhace framing. 1 LS $14,000.00 $14,000.00

Low Main Barn First Floor Framing and Deck North side bay deck removal and joist enhancement 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00

Low Main Barn First Floor Framing and Deck Add bolsters to joist system to reduce spans 1 LS $7,000.00 $7,000.00

Low Main Barn: Second floor framing and Deck Bolsters for north drive girts 8 LS $250.00 $2,000.00

Low Silo Interior Create usable floor in silo 784 SF $27.00 $21,168.00

Low Main Barn: Second floor framing and Deck Remove added partition barriers 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00

Total Low Priority Rehabilitation Treatment Costs: $185,268.00

Medium South Eave Wall: Bays 1-8 At Second Floor L Floor from bay one to silo 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00

Medium Main Barn: Added Bent Nine Staging for the back gable end 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000.00

Medium Main Barn: North Eave Wall Exterior North wall brick infill foundation 200 SF $45.00 $9,000.00

Medium Main Barn: Bent One - East Gable End Replacement of gable end window 1 LS $800.00 $800.00

Medium Main Barn: Second floor framing and Deck Add joists to bays six, seven and eight 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00

Medium Main Barn: Second floor framing and Deck New stairs in bay three 1 LS $3,500.00 $3,500.00

Medium Main Barn: Second floor framing and Deck Elevator 1 LS $30,000.00 $30,000.00

Medium Center Drive Upper Loft Build cat walk with rails to cupola 1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00

Medium South Eave Wall: Bays 1-8 At Second Floor L Reinforce stairway to loft in bay one. 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00

Medium Main Barn: Second floor framing and Deck Raise deck in south side bays 1 LS $5,500.00 $5,500.00

Friday, May 23, 2003 Treatment Cost Summary Page 3 of 7 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Treatment Cost Summary: Haselton Barn

Treatment Type: Rehabilitation Priority Feature Name Treatment Description Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost

Total Medium Priority Rehabilitation Treatment Costs: $57,300.00

Total Rehabilitation Treatment Cost: $303,618.00

Treatment Type: Restoration Priority Feature Name Treatment Description Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost

High Main Barn: Bent Three Free tenon repair to tie beams 2 LS $400.00 $800.00

High Main Barn: North Eave Wall Exterior Repair of window openings 10 Ea $800.00 $8,000.00

High Sills: Silo Ell In-kind replacement of sills, stud and post repair 84 LF $175.00 $14,700.00

High Main Barn: Added Bent Nine Realign bent nine 1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00

High Main Barn: Added Bent Nine Sheathing replacement (approximately 50%) 500 SF $2.00 $1,000.00

High Sills: Main Barn In-kind repair and/or of exisitng sills 162 LF $175.00 $28,350.00

High Main Barn: Added Bent Nine Install new replacement clapboard siding 3,744 LF $1.95 $7,300.80

High West Gable End Repair fan window frame and replace sash 1 Ea $1,500.00 $1,500.00

High Main Barn: Second floor framing and Deck Girt end repair in bay one 6 Ea $700.00 $4,200.00

High Main Barn: North Eave Wall Exterior Sheathing repair 1,600 SF $1.50 $2,400.00

High North Roof Principle purlin replacement; bay three north. 1 LS $2,000.00 $2,000.00

High North Roof Common rafter repair, bay three 5 Ea $250.00 $1,250.00

High Silo Exterior Sheathing repair and replacement 800 SF $1.50 $1,200.00

Friday, May 23, 2003 Treatment Cost Summary Page 4 of 7 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Treatment Cost Summary: Haselton Barn

Treatment Type: Restoration Priority Feature Name Treatment Description Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost

High The Cupola Remove cupola and repair/replace in-kind 1 LS $27,000.00 $27,000.00

High Main Barn: South Eave Wall Exterior Sheathing replacement and repair 576 SF $1.50 $864.00

High Main Barn: South Eave Wall Exterior New cow door and hardware 1 Ea $1,000.00 $1,000.00

High Main Barn: South Eave Wall Exterior Window repair and replacement 10 Ea $800.00 $8,000.00

Total High Priority Restoration Treatment Costs: $111,564.80

Low Main Barn: South Eave Wall Exterior Scraping and painting south eave wall 7,001 SF $1.22 $20,741.22

Low Main Barn: Bent One - East Gable End Exterior paint scraping and coating 1,644 SF $1.22 $2,005.68

Low Center Drive Upper Loft Remove plywood and bat guano 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00

Low Silo Exterior Scraping and painting exterior of silo 1,600 SF $1.22 $1,952.00

Low Main Barn: North Eave Wall Exterior Painting the north wall 8,000 SF $1.22 $9,760.00

Low North Eave Wall Bays 1-8 At Second Floor Le Remove added office space. 1 LS $700.00 $700.00

Low West Gable End Scraping and painting west gable end 1,008 SF $1.22 $1,229.76

Low Main Barn: Bent Six Install new girts and tie to original locations. 1 LS $6,000.00 $6,000.00

Total Low Priority Restoration Treatment Costs: $43,888.66

Medium Main Barn: Bent One - East Gable End Repair reproduce transom light over door 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00

Medium Main Barn: Second floor framing and Deck Rebuild stairs from second floor to first floor 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00

Medium Main Barn First Floor Framing and Deck Install new floor to match original; south wall. 1,200 SF $5.00 $6,000.00

Friday, May 23, 2003 Treatment Cost Summary Page 5 of 7 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Treatment Cost Summary: Haselton Barn

Treatment Type: Restoration Priority Feature Name Treatment Description Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost

Medium Main Barn First Floor Framing and Deck Remove deck boards to provide access to joists. 1 LS $6,000.00 $6,000.00

Medium Main Barn Cellar Framing Restore orginal vertical supports in later barn 1 LS $8,000.00 $8,000.00

Medium Silo Exterior Repair and reproduction of trim elements 120 LF $25.00 $3,000.00

Medium Silo Exterior Clapboard repair and replacement 3,200 LF $1.95 $6,240.00

Medium North Eave Wall Bays 1-8 At Second Floor Le Re-create and install low drive girts 5 Ea $500.00 $2,500.00

Medium Main Barn: South Eave Wall Exterior Repair of clapboards and trim 4,000 LF $1.95 $7,800.00

Medium Main Barn: North Eave Wall Exterior Clapboard and trim repair and replacement 7,200 LF $1.95 $14,040.00

Medium Main Barn First Floor Framing and Deck Re-create damaged joists, add new joists to code. 1 LS $6,000.00 $6,000.00

Total Medium Priority Restoration Treatment Costs: $61,580.00

Total Restoration Treatment Cost: $217,033.46

Treatment Type: Stabilization Priority Feature Name Treatment Description Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost

Critical Building Envelope Structure clean-up and debris removal 1 LS $8,000.00 $8,000.00

Critical Building Envelope Secure window and door openings 1 LS $6,000.00 $6,000.00

Critical Building Envelope Stabilize cupola 1 LS $6,000.00 $6,000.00

Critical Building Envelope Weatherization of structure 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00

Critical Building Envelope Site work and grading 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00

Friday, May 23, 2003 Treatment Cost Summary Page 6 of 7 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Treatment Cost Summary: Haselton Barn

Treatment Type: Stabilization Priority Feature Name Treatment Description Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost

Total Critical Priority Stabilization Treatment Costs: $26,500.00

Total Stabilization Treatment Cost: $26,500.00

Total Cost by Structure: $624,121.46

Friday, May 23, 2003 Treatment Cost Summary Page 7 of 7 Historic Structures Report Benson’s Property Town of Hudson, New Hampshire May 22, 2003 – 100% Submittal

Haselton Barn Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 1 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Building Envelope

Feature Description: Although rehabilitation has been identified as the ultimate treatment for the Haselton Barn, interim measures are required to maintain the building without additional loss of historic integrity until long term uses have been identified, and funding is available for rehabilitation. Stabilization consists of measures to slow or stop the process of deterioration by reestablishing a weather resistant enclosure, and providing temporary, reversible means of structural shoring or support where necessary. Quantity: Measurement unit: Condition Rating: 1 Ea Poor Feature Condition: The Haselton Barn has been largely abandoned for over ten years. Although some stabilization work was done in the early 1990's, deterioration of the building continues and accelerates. Immediate stabilization efforts are needed to slow the existing deterioration of the barn. By executing these recommendations, the barn can be made safer and less exposed to the elements. These recommendations are provided as a beginning point for the complete restoration of the building. The work is necessary to ensure the structural integrity of the building, and to provide opportunity for careful planning and fund-raising for the eventual restoration of the barn.

Treatment Type: Stabilization

Priority: Critical

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 2 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Building Envelope

Treatment Description: Site work and grading

Debris, shrubbery, trees, and other organic matter should be removed from the perimeter of the building up to a distance of about twenty feet. Surface grading where water passes directly to the building as a result of built up earth should be graded away from the structure. Large piles of branches etc., should be removed a safe distance from the building and burned or carted away.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1LS $5,000.00 LS $5,000.00 Treatment Reference:

Treatment Description: Weatherization of structure

Remaining areas around the perimeter of the barn where clapboards and or sheathing is missing, should be closed in. This can be done by installing 30 pound felt paper in such a way that water sheds onto the paper from above and sheds water out and away from the building. Wood shingles and strapping can be installed over the paper to secure it to the building.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1LS $1,500.00 LS $1,500.00 Treatment Reference:

Treatment Description: Stabilize cupola

The cupola on top of the original barn is in significant structural failure. It should be stabilized and removed to the ground in order to reduce the risk of continued damage to its architectural and structural elements. The extent of damage here also poses a significant safety risk should strong wind and heavy snow aid in its imminent collapse. The cupola is the one element of the barn that is highly decorated. Upon placing the structure on the ground, it should be sheltered inside the cellar bay at the rear of the barn or covered by a temporary structure that will protect and secure it. The remaining roof opening atop the barn must be covered with a temporary roof designed to prevent continued water penetration into the structure. (The Benson’s Committee has suggested that the cupola be removed to the Hudson Highway Maintenance Facility pending restoration and re-erection).

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1LS $6,000.00 LS $6,000.00 Treatment Reference:

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 3 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Building Envelope

Treatment Description: Secure window and door openings

The barn must be made secure by closing in all window and door openings. This should include the removal of windows and doors that have been extensively damaged by vandalism and the elements. Window openings should be temporarily covered by clear lexan or plexiglass panels set in wood frames to protect the security of the building while still allowing light into the structure for continued investigation and preservation. Hinged 3/4 inch thick plywood temporary doors with proper hasp and padlock security should secure door openings. Keys should be procured by Police and Fire departments via an on site locked box designed for said purpose. Additional keys should be obtainable through the town office and a log of their use established.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1LS $6,000.00 LS $6,000.00 Treatment Reference: Park, Sharon C. Preservation Brief 31 – Mothballing Historic Buildings. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Preservation Assistance Division. Washington, DC. 1993.

Treatment Description: Structure clean-up and debris removal

The barn is in need of an extensive clean up effort to remove debris from every level of the structure. Existing paper products as well as tires, engine parts and other debris must be removed to reduce the present fire hazard facing the building. A minimum of two 30 yard dumpsters will be necessary for the clean up effort. Labor must be equipped with respirators and protective clothing.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1LS $8,000.00 LS $8,000.00 Treatment Reference:

Stabilization Treatment Cost Total: $26,500.00

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 4 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Foundation: Main Barn

Feature Description: The foundation of the Haselton barn is made up of rubble stone and brick. Some areas of the stone have been parged with mortar but for the most part the stone is dry laid. The brick is largely utilized to fill in portions of the foundation that once were deliberate openings into the lower level of the barn. Brick walls are also found at the base of the drive posts in the lowest level of the barn. The brick here is also an added element to the original construction. Quantity: Measurement unit: Condition Rating: 440 LF Fair Feature Condition: The foundation needs considerable repair along the south eave perimeter wall. The retaining walls perpendicular to the foundation also need to be realigned. Drainage along the south eave of the building is poor, allowing water to enter the foundation and push it apart during the freeze/thaw cycle.

Treatment Type: Preservation

Priority: High

Treatment Description: Catalog, remove and rebuild with original stone.

The stone foundation along the south eave will need to be cataloged and dismantled down to where the foundation is solid. The estimate includes removal to a depth of six feet if necessary. The foundation should be dry laid and reset with the original stones to provide a solid foundation. The installation of proper drainage along this wall will ensure the longevity of the wall.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 900 SF $45.00 SF $40,500.00 Treatment Reference: Cost estimates are based on similar stone wall repair work performed by Early American Masonry, Rick Irons of Limerick, Maine. Actual costs may vary.

Preservation Treatment Cost Total: $40,500.00

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 5 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Foundation of Attached Silo Ell

Feature Description: The foundation of the attached silo ell is made up of small rubble stone and appears minimal at best. It is currently almost entirely covered by the existing grade surrounding the ell. It is made up of native stone and dry laid. Quantity: Measurement unit: Condition Rating: 56 LF Poor Feature Condition: The rubble stone foundation has failed along each wall of the ell. The grade around the ell has built up over the years directly exposing the foundation to the freeze and thaw of the soil. This has pushed the stone out of alignment and caused many to settle into the earth, leaving the building unsupported.

Treatment Type: Preservation

Priority: High

Treatment Description: Reconstruct stone foundation on new footing.

The silo ell foundation will need to be cataloged and carefully removed so that a proper footing can be placed below the frost line. This footing should be placed at least four feet below the finished grade around the structure. The footing can be of poured concrete or it can be constructed of packed earth and a foot of packed crushed stone. The original stones may not be sufficient for the new foundation depth. In this case similar stone should be acquired for the below grade work. This will allow the use of the original stone for above grade work.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 336 SF $45.00 SF $15,120.00 Treatment Reference: Cost estimates are based on similar stone wall repair work performed by Early American Masonry, Rick Irons of Limerick, Maine. Actual costs may vary.

Preservation Treatment Cost Total: $15,120.00

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 6 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Sills: Silo Ell

Feature Description: Perimeter sills of the silo ell are created from 8"x 8" softwood beams. The sills accept vertical studs and posts at four corners. They are half lapped at the corners and pegged with wooden pegs. The sills are continuous along the length of each ell wall, Quantity: Measurement unit: Condition Rating: 84 LF Poor Feature Condition: The perimeter sills on the ell are very deteriorated due to high grade and exposure to the elements. Much of the sill along the east wall is missing and unsalvageable. The rest of the perimeter while existing is very rotten and is not structurally sound.

Treatment Type: Restoration

Priority: High

Treatment Description: In-kind replacement of sills, stud and post repair

Perimeter sills of the ell will need to be replaced in kind using native hemlock beams. The ell will need to be supported on jacks and cribbing for this process and the building can be straightened at that time. The bottoms of the studs and posts will require repair. In the posts, a new foot will be spliced using new timber into the original fabric via the use of the scarf joint prevalent in the main building. The studs will be repaired by cutting away the rotten base and introducing a compression block to the sill and a tenoned sister stud about four feet long which engages a sill mortise and pegged into the original fabric of the stud with wooden pegs.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 84 LF $175.00 LF $14,700.00 Treatment Reference: This repair method is evident in the post extensions seen in the main barn. This repair method is seen in many properly repaired timber framed buildings across the Northeast.

RestorationTreatment Cost Total: $14,700.00

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 7 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Sills: Main Barn

Feature Description: The sills of the main barn are made up of 8"x 8" timbers of considerable length. The east gable end is one piece and the two eave walls are comprised of two sections of timber with a bladed scarf joint joining the two elements. They are native softwood and appear to be good quality pine. Sills are lapped at the corners of the building with both lap joints and scarf joints pinned with wooden pegs. Structural posts and studs engage the sills with a short tenon into a shallow mortise. Floor joists are pocketed into the sill. The sills are present around the entire perimeter of the main barn and along each side of the center drive. Quantity: Measurement unit: Condition Rating: 464 LF Good Feature Condition: Sills along the north eave wall of the barn appear in very good shape as they are well above grade. Sills along the West gable end also appear in good shape albeit they are part of the two added bays of the barn. They too are well above grade. Sills along the south eave wall have been damaged by water and will need repair. The sill along the east gable end is damaged due to high grade and water penetration. Temporary supports have been added to the drive sills and adjacent drive joists where the joinery has rotted as they engage the rotten gable end sill.

Treatment Type: Restoration

Priority: High

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 8 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Sills: Main Barn

Treatment Description: In-kind repair and/or of exisitng sills

As much of the original sills should be retained as is possible to assure the structural integrity of the frame. Where replacement is necessary, new hemlock beams of equal size and conversion method should be utilized. This means that if part of an original sill is rotted at one end, then the new wood used to repair the end should be of the same size and similar species. Although most of the sills appear to be pine, replacement wood should be native hemlock as it is more rot resistant. All new wood spliced to old should utilize the bladed scarf joint that appears throughout the building. Wooden pegs should be installed to secure any joinery. All joist pockets, post and stud mortises should be installed to match the layout of the original sills.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 162 LF $175.00 LF $28,350.00 Treatment Reference: Native hemlock and pine timbers can be sawn to exact dimension by almost any custom saw mill in the area. Cost Estimates are based on similar work completed by Preservation Timber Framing Inc., Eliot, Maine. Cost estimates are based on the support of the building on jacks and cribbing while sill replacement and repair is performed. It includes the repair of post feet and studs along the perimeter of repaired or replaced sill beams.

RestorationTreatment Cost Total: $28,350.00

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 9 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Main Barn: Bent One - East Gable End

Feature Description: The east gable end of the barn can be considered the front of the barn as viewed from the Bush Hill Road. It measures 36 feet in length and 9'- 1" to the eave line. The nine pitch roof creates a peak height of 24 feet. This bent sits at grade with an earthen ramp leading up to the center drive doors. Existing exterior doors are created from modern overhead garage doors on tracks. Plywood has been placed in the original door opening with a person door access to the right of the garage door. Evidence of a transom light over the original opening is clearly visible above the doors. The original pocket door and its hardware are still intact just behind the later added garage door. Window fenestration evidence clearly remains in this façade albeit the sash and portions of the frames are damaged or missing. Exterior trim elements appear original to the barn and remain intact. The exterior of the façade is clad with clapboards. Quantity: Measurement unit: Condition Rating: 1 LS Poor Feature Condition: The east gable end has experienced major alterations with the addition of the garage doors. Fortunately the original evidence of both window placement, transom light and the original pocket door remain.

Treatment Type: Preservation

Priority: Medium

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 10 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Main Barn: Bent One - East Gable End

Treatment Description: Repair existing clapboard

The existing pine clapboards are in pretty good shape but some repair and replacement is necessary. New clapboards should be radially sawn pine clapboards primed on all sides with a high quality oil base primer. 5d stainless steel ring shank nails shoud be used for fastening the clapboards.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1000 LF $1.95 LF $1,950.00 Treatment Reference: Pine clapboards can be obtained from the following sources: Stephen Jeffery, Barrington New Hampshire: 603- 664-9002. Granville Manufacturing. Granville Vermont. Additional clapboard mills are also available in Massachusetts and Maine.

Treatment Description: Pocket door: repair and make operational

The original pocket door and hardware remain intact behind the current modern doors and plywood. The modern materials should be removed and the pocket door repaired using in-kind materials and methods. The hardware can be refurbished to allow for ease of operation. Any missing hardware can be reproduced in kind.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1LS $2,000.00 LS $2,000.00 Treatment Reference:

Preservation Treatment Cost Total: $3,950.00

Treatment Type: Rehabilitation

Priority: Medium

Treatment Description: Replacement of gable end window

The original window opening in the peak of the gable end remains. A new sash could be acquired and the frame repaired or a new window unit could be installed. The window should match the evidence found in photographs and other physical evidence that provide the basis for its reproduction.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1LS $800.00 LS $800.00 Treatment Reference: Brosco Window Company makes historically sufficient replacement sash and window units. Units may cost near $300.00

RehabilitationTreatment Cost Total: $800.00

Treatment Type: Restoration

Priority: Low

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 11 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Main Barn: Bent One - East Gable End

Treatment Description: Exterior paint scraping and coating

The exterior of the front façade will eventually need to be scraped and painted. The old paint should be scraped with carbide bladed scrapers and then the wood should be washed and sanded lightly before applying two coats of oil base primer. California brand "trouble shooter" primer or equivalent is a good choice.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1644 SF $1.22 SF $2,005.68 Treatment Reference: California Brand paints have been used with great success on numerous museum properties owned by the Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities (S.P.N.E.A.), and by Preservation Timber Framing Inc. on a number of church steeple projects. It is readily available at various paint supply stores.

RestorationTreatment Cost Total: $2,005.68

Priority: Medium

Treatment Description: Repair reproduce transom light over door

The original transom light opening over the original door opening is partially intact. Carefull investigation of the opening can determine the size and construction of the original transom light and frame for its repair and reproduction.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1LS $1,000.00 LS $1,000.00 Treatment Reference: It may be possible to have the transom sash made by a window manufacturer such as Brosco. If not, the entire unit can be custom made. This estimate is based on the utilization of a manufactured sash in a custom rebuilt frame.

RestorationTreatment Cost Total: $1,000.00

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 12 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Main Barn: Bent Two

Feature Description: Bent two is located one bay west of bent one at the east gable end of the barn. It is comprised of two perimeter posts, and two drive posts. Discontinuous tie beams connect the interior drive posts with the exterior posts. The drive posts extend from the sill level through two floors and end where they join into the principle rafter pair near mid-span. The horizontal girts accept the various floor levels along the right, left and center drive bays. The timber components are all mortise and tenon and joined using the square rule method of layout. Exterior posts have post extensions added to their base via a bladed scarf joint pegged with wooden pegs. The center drive posts have post top extensions utilizing a centered mortise and tenon connection. Both of these extensions appear to be original elements in the frame as evidenced by the additional joinery layout present for what appear to be original girt locations. Quantity: Measurement unit: Condition Rating: 1 LS Good Feature Condition: Bent two is in good shape overall. Joinery systems are intact at all critical locations. Bent two is well supported by the building's rubble stone foundation on the north Wall. The south wall is also supported by the foundation with some damage but it is bolstered by the added silo ell.

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 13 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Main Barn: Bent Two

Treatment Type: Preservation

Priority: High

Treatment Description: Bent two: control for repairs

Bent two is perhaps the most intact of all the major barn bents. It does not reveal any failure in tension nor does it sag across its length. Treatment here should be kept to a minimum and focus on this bent as a control for height and width of remaining bents is appropriate.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 0LS $0.00 LS $0.00 Treatment Reference: See drawing sheet #4 of 18; Bents 2, 3, 4,& 5 (Typical) Elevation.

Preservation Treatment Cost Total: $0.00

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 14 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Main Barn: Bent Three

Feature Description: Bent Three is two bays west of the east gable end or front of the barn. It is designed and matches bents two, four and five. It is comprised of softwood beam elements with the posts, girts and rafters all hand hewn with a broad axe. Circular sawn elements are found in the braces and adjacent common rafters. Most of the frame elements are pine with some spruce and hemlock mixed in. Like bents two through five, it too has perimeter post foot extension and drive post top extensions. Quantity: Measurement unit: Condition Rating: 1 LS Fair Feature Condition: Bent three shows signs of tension failure across its tie beam/post connections. Some work has been done to minimize the spreading of the joinery in the form of a steel cable that is through bolted through the perimeter posts. The cable is placed just below the discontinuous tie beams in the loft level of the frame. The through bolts are close to the discontinuous plate mortises thus reducing the strength of the tops of the perimeter posts.

Treatment Type: Preservation

Priority: High

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 15 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Main Barn: Bent Three

Treatment Description: Bolstering the tension connections in bents 2 - 5.

The design of the barn with the discontinuous tie beams connecting the perimeter walls with the drive posts leaves a minor structural challenge. When the building settled this joinery connection was placed under considerable stress. It is here that the frame design is at its weakest. The tenon on the end of the tie beam is not strong enough to withstand the roof load outward thrust following foundation settlement and or failure. This pulls the joinery apart and reduces the strength of the frame. One method of correcting this is to add a wrought iron strap no more than two to three inches wide around the post and the tie beam connection and fasten the U-shaped strap to the tie beam with through bolts. The strap should extend into the field of the tie about two feet to allow for three bolt connections. The use of such straps is common in larger buildings and many barns of similar age. The through bolts would have square heads and nuts to match the period of construction.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 8Ea $300.00 Ea $2,400.00 Treatment Reference: Many buildings of this size and period have steel in critical tension connections. A local welder experienced in wrought iron can easily custom make the necessary hardware as described above. Cost approximately $100.00 per hardware unit.

Treatment Description: Realign and secure bent three.

The repair of bent three must be done in conjunction with the sill repairs and the alignment of the barn in general along its length. As the barn is supported on cribbing and jacks for the sill repair, the bent framing can be bound with straps and come-a-longs and slowly and carefully brought to its original configuration with the joinery retightened and the shoulders of the discontinuous ties and posts tight once again. It may also be necessary to support the roof system during this portion of the work. This would be done by posting up to the roof system from the cellar level and lifting the roof with the aid of twenty ton screw jacks which allow the movement to be controlled and peaceful. Upon realigning the building, the joinery can be re-pegged and secured.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1LS $2,000.00 LS $2,000.00 Treatment Reference: Rigging companies and preservation professionals including structural engineers and timber framers may have alternate methods for supporting this building. The methods described herein are those used by Preservation Timber Framing Inc. of Eliot, Maine and are expressed here as guidelines for the preservation of the barn.

Preservation Treatment Cost Total: $4,400.00

Treatment Type: Restoration

Priority: High

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 16 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Main Barn: Bent Three

Treatment Description: Free tenon repair to tie beams

Tie beam connections lost in bent three can be recreated if necessary by adding a free tenon at the tie/post connection. To implement this fix, the post mortise would need to be opened up above the tie beam to accept the free tenon being installed into the tie beam. The tie beam would be laid out along the original tie beam tenon location and cut back about 18 inches and to the width of the original tenon. The mortise in the tie beam would stop two inches from the bottom face of the tie so that the repair would not be visible from below save the wooden pegs that would be driven to hold the fix in place. Once the mortises are created a new softwood free tenon of pine or oak would be fashioned to fit snugly into the tie beam mortise and be slid in from above via the post mortise extension. The free tenon is then pegged both to the tie beam and post. While this treatment is the most traditional in nature, it does interrupt both tie and post and it is not as strong in tension as the wrought iron strap described above.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 2LS $400.00 LS $800.00 Treatment Reference: Free tenon work is seen in both traditional historic work and in modern timber framing. It is an excellent means by which to join two timber elements but it does have its challenges when the joinery is in tension. Refer to: the Timber Frame Joinery and Design Workbook, A Publication of The Timber Framers Guild of North America, 1997

RestorationTreatment Cost Total: $800.00

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 17 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Main Barn: Bent Four

Feature Description: Bent four is located three bays west of the east gable end of the barn. Like bents two, three and five, it contains the same structural elements. It possesses the post feet extensions in the perimeter posts and it also has the post top extensions in the drive posts supporting the principle rafters. It is made up of softwood elements both hewn and sawn. Like bent three, it shows signs of spreading and it is temporarily being held in tension across the discontinuous ties by a steel cable and turn buckles placed 14 inches below the top shoulder of the perimeter posts. Quantity: Measurement unit: Condition Rating: 1 LS Fair Feature Condition: Both tie beams have pulled out and away from their corresponding drive posts. The ties also appear to be out of level with movement evident in the drive posts. The North drive post has torn away at the tie beam joint leaving the tenon and peg intact. This joint has opened up about two inches. The South drive post is intact leaving the relish of the tenon in the tie beam broken.

Treatment Type: Preservation

Priority: High

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 18 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Main Barn: Bent Four

Treatment Description: Post repair and realign bent

Bent four will need to be straightened and realigned to bring the tie beam/post joinery back together. The North drive post will also need a "Dutchman" repair at the tie beam location to correct for the tear-out of the post. To effect this repair it will be necessary to splice a new piece into the post. The repair piece should be of like material and match the coversion method of the post, which is hand hewn. The Dutchman repair should extend 18 inches above and below the post mortise. It should be cut with two undersquints at each end to allow for the tension applied by the tie beam tenon. The new Dutchman repair is then pegged into the original post. Glue is not necessary or effective in this location. The wrought iron strap described in the treatment of bent three is appropriate here as well.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1LS $3,000.00 LS $3,000.00 Treatment Reference: See treatments for bent three and drawing sheet #4 of 18; Bents 2, 3, 4,& 5 (Typical) Elevation.

Preservation Treatment Cost Total: $3,000.00

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 19 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Main Barn: Bent Five

Feature Description: Bent five is located four bays west of the east gable end of the barn. This bent has the same framing elements as bents 2, 3, & 4. It is softwood with both sawn and hand hewn elements. Perimeter posts possess post feet extensions and drive posts have post top extensions supporting the principle rafters. Quantity: Measurement unit: Condition Rating: 1 LS Fair Feature Condition: Bent five suffers from the same outward thrust seen in bent three and four. The North side discontinuous tie beam has separated from the drive post about two inches. The South drive post and tie beam connection is intact.

Treatment Type: Preservation

Priority: High

Treatment Description: Realign and repair bent five

Repair methods for bent five are identical to that of bent three. The tie beam connections must be brought back together when the building is straightened and aligned and the sills are repaired. The post/tie connection can be dealt with via a free tenon, wrought iron strap or both.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1LS $2,000.00 LS $2,000.00 Treatment Reference: See treatments for bent three and drawing sheet #4 of 18; Bents 2, 3, 4,& 5 (Typical) Elevation.

Preservation Treatment Cost Total: $2,000.00

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 20 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Main Barn: Bent Six

Feature Description: Bent six is the original west gable end of the original barn. Mortise and tenon joinery at the girt levels above the adjacent floor levels are empty. The post feet are extended in both perimeter posts and in the south drive post. Braces in this bent are a mixture of soft and hard woods. It is the only bent with hardwood braces throughout the barn. Drive posts extend to what appears to have once been a continuous tie beam at the eave line of the barn. Atop the severed tie beam directly above the drive posts are two recycled vertical posts that engage a second discontinuous tie beam that is connected to two vertical posts that support the principle rafters. A mortise in the North principle rafter that was once filled with what perhaps was a collar tie when this end of the barn was exposed to the weather. The South principle rafter shows no mortise but does show a shadow of a collar tie with cut nails indicating its original position. The two vertical posts supporting the rafters also accept the tenons of principle purlins that extend into the three bents added later to the end of the original barn. The perimeter posts have also been altered to accept additional discontinuous plates extending into the three added bents. Quantity: Measurement unit: Condition Rating: 1 LS Good Feature Condition: Bent six while significantly altered to accept the three added bents at the rear of the main barn seems in good condition structurally. Five horizontal girts are missing from the original bent configuration: Two from the north side, two from the zouth side and one from the center drive as well. The removal of these girts was apparently to provide better access to the later added portion of the building. The girts were removed peacefully without damaging the adjacent posts.

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 21 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Main Barn: Bent Six

Treatment Type: Preservation

Priority: High

Treatment Description: Realign bent six

Like Bents 3, 4, & 5, this bent also has settled and is slightly misalinged. When repairs are being made to the previous bents, and the building is supported on cribbing and jacks, it will be important to ensure that all joinery remains intact in this original back gable end.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1LS $2,000.00 LS $2,000.00 Treatment Reference: See drawing sheet #5 of 18; Bent 6 Elevation.

Preservation Treatment Cost Total: $2,000.00

Treatment Type: Restoration

Priority: Low

Treatment Description: Install new girts and tie to original locations.

Bent six having been altered when later bents 7, 8 and 9 were added, could be put back to its original configuration. The missing girts could be reproduced and installed in their original locations with the use of free tenons. The center portion of the original continuous tie beam could be reintroduce into the original fabric by cutting bladed scarf joints over the tops of the drive posts and inserting a new element to gain the tension across the bent. While the girts add little to the structural integrity of the frame, the tie beam repair does indeed provide a tension connection for the barn. The tie beam connection is then of higher priority for implementation than that of the girts. It also still provides ample access to the back later bents. The cost of replacing the tie beam alone is approximately $2000.00

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1LS $6,000.00 LS $6,000.00 Treatment Reference:

RestorationTreatment Cost Total: $6,000.00

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 22 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Main Barn: Added Bent Seven

Feature Description: Bent seven is clearly a later added portion of the barn. It is made up of circular sawn timber posts, namely pine, and the layout method for joinery is the mill rule where there are no housed joints accommodating the irregular surface of the hand hewn elements seen in the original barn. The discontinuous tie beam sits atop the perimeter post and engages the drive posts. The drive posts continue to a higher tie beam that crosses over the top of the two posts and extends beyond the drive posts. The extended ends of this tie are supported by a diagonal brace back to the post. Sitting on top of the tie beam extension is a very short post that supports a lateral principle purlin that is employed in supporting the common roof rafters. The roof rafters are full length and meet each other at the peak with no ridge board. At their heels that sit upon a discontinuous plate that engages the sides of the corresponding short tie beams. Quantity: Measurement unit: Condition Rating: 1 LS Fair Feature Condition: While the elements of bent seven are much more dimensional, the joinery is not as well executed as in the original frame. This is not to say that the structure is not sound, only that the craftsmanship is of a lesser quality. The wood used is also much more uniform and of poorer quality than that found in the original barn.

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 23 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Main Barn: Added Bent Seven

Treatment Type: Preservation

Priority: High

Treatment Description: Realign bent seven.

Bent seven will need to be realigned during the straightening of the previous bents in the original barn. Sills on the North side have rotted and the bent has settled.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1LS $2,000.00 LS $2,000.00 Treatment Reference: See treatments for bents two, three, and four, and drawing sheet #6 of 18; Bents 7 & 8 (Typical) Elevation.

Preservation Treatment Cost Total: $2,000.00

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 24 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Main Barn: Added Bent Eight

Feature Description: Bent eight is built very similar to bent seven with mill rule layout and dimensional timbers. Every element is circular sawn from softwood species. A significant distinguishing feature of this bent is seen at the roof level. The 6"x 6" principle purlins that cross the short posts in both bents seven and eight extend beyond the plane of bent eight and diagonal braces help support the ends of these extensions. At the very end of the plate is a tie beam upon which the hip rafters, which make up the rear portion of the roof, sit. The two principle purlins are scarfed over the tops of the short posts in bent eight. These scarf joints are heavily loaded by the roof weight associated with the hip roof. Quantity: Measurement unit: Condition Rating: 1 LS Poor Feature Condition: Bent eight is in good shape until it becomes part of the cantilevered roof support system for the hip roof. Here the scarf joints that allow extensions on the end of the principle purlin are severely damaged due to the roof load from the hip rafters. The short tie beam that connects the north and south principle purlins is also overloaded by the roof system and bends considerably downward along its length.

Treatment Type: Rehabilitation

Priority: High

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 25 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Main Barn: Added Bent Eight

Treatment Description: New supports for hip roof

The exisiting hip roof structure that connects from bent nine to the cantilievered principle purlins in bent eight is structurally overloaded and poorly designed. The crux of the problem is that the purlin extensions are scarfed onto the ends of the principle purlin directly over the short support posts where they hinge and come apart. The short tie crossing the drive is undersized as well and must be supported. The best way to support this area without changing the design of the roof or removing historic fabric is to do the following: First it will be necessary to add a sleeper beam of 8"x 8" dimesion from the discontinuous tie beams in bent 8 to the newer back gable end in bent nine. These sleepers will land just above the diagonal brace supporting the short tie/drive post connection. Once in place, the sleeper beam can support a vertical post that is mortise and tenoned into the sleeper and joins the cantilevered principle purlin at its top. Two diagonal braces, one from each post, will help to support the short tie beam across the drive. The existing roof system should also be lifted and straightened during this process with temporary posts and screw jacks from below.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1 $3,800.00 $3,800.00 Treatment Reference: See drawing sheet #14 of 18; Timber Frame Support for the West Gable - Section and Axonometric Views.

RehabilitationTreatment Cost Total: $3,800.00

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 26 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Main Barn: Added Bent Nine

Feature Description: Bent nine is the current west gable end of the barn. It is created like bents seven and eight from softwood beams all circular sawn and laid out in the mill rule tradition. Instead of tall drive posts and short tie beams however, bent nine is studded between horizontal girts and a top plate that runs the entire length of the bent. Common rafters between the hip rafters extend from the top plate to the support beam cantilevered off bent eight. A small added dimensional heel plate sits atop the wall plate to allow for the common rafters to sit at the same height as the larger principle and common rafters of the original barn. It is sheathed with horizontal rough board sheathing and is clad on the exterior in clapboard. Five windows are placed in this bent. Below the sill level at the base of the posts is another framing system that supports this tall wall and allows direct access to the cellar level at grade. A window opening exists on the north side of this lower framing and a large sliding wooden door which slides toward the south wall is present. Behind the sliding door is a modern overhead garage door. Quantity: Measurement unit: Condition Rating: 1 LS Poor Feature Condition: Although the framing elements of bent nine seem in good order, the exterior clapboards and sheathing are very deteriorated. All of the window openings are smashed and in considerable disrepair. The sliding door and its hardware will need to be repaired and the garage door behind is also damaged. The north side of the bent within the lower framing elements has been sheathed with sheetrock to the interior to provide a small office. The condition of this sheetrock is very poor.

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 27 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Main Barn: Added Bent Nine

Treatment Type: Rehabilitation

Priority: High

Treatment Description: Create new windows and install in gable end

Existing windows in bent nine are beyond repair as they have been vandalized on numerous occasions. They will need to be re-created. The best way to re-create the windows is to acquire sash from a window manufacturer that fits the original opening. New Frames can be custom built to match the original openings. Framing around the the windows must also be made secure.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 6Ea $800.00 Ea $4,800.00 Treatment Reference: The Brosco Window Company, can produce single pane sash for these openings. See drawing sheet #13 of 18; West Gable Wall Elevation, for window layout.

RehabilitationTreatment Cost Total: $4,800.00

Priority: Medium

Treatment Description: Staging for the back gable end

To effect repairs in the previous treatments in this section it will be necessary to stage the entire back gable end wall throughout the repair processes.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1LS $3,000.00 LS $3,000.00 Treatment Reference: Staging can be rented from a number of outfits including Seacoast Scaffolding of Concord, New Hampshire

RehabilitationTreatment Cost Total: $3,000.00

Treatment Type: Restoration

Priority: High

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 28 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Main Barn: Added Bent Nine

Treatment Description: Install new replacement clapboard siding

The existing pine clapboards are in pretty good shape but some repair and replacement is necessary. New clapboards should be radially sawn pine clapboards primed on all sides with a high quality oil base primer. A 5d stainless steel ring shank nail shoud be used for fastening the clapboards.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 3744 LF $1.95 LF $7,300.80 Treatment Reference: Pine clapboards can be obtained from the following sources: Stephen Jeffery, Barrington New Hampshire: 603- 664-9002. Granville Manufacturing: Granville Vermont. Additional clapboard mills are also available in Massachusetts and Maine.

Treatment Description: Sheathing replacement (approximately 50%)

The exterior rough board sheathing on the back gable end is deteriorated significantly and some will need to be replaced in-kind. Rotten sheathing should be removed only where necessary and nailed with 10d galvanized common nails.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 500 SF $2.00 SF $1,000.00 Treatment Reference:

Treatment Description: Realign bent nine

While the entire building is being realigned and straightened the back gable end will also need to be done as well. This involves the use of cribbing and jacks applied to the point loads of the structure. The ledger beams used to pick up the length of the building should extend beyond bent nine so that jacks can be placed outboard of the barn for ease of lifting.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1LS $2,000.00 LS $2,000.00 Treatment Reference: See drawing sheet #7 of 18; Bent 9 Elevation.

RestorationTreatment Cost Total: $10,300.80

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 29 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

West Gable End

Feature Description: The west gable end of the barn begins at grade at the back of the barn. It shows the cellar level, first and second floor levels and then a hip roof is visible back two thirds of the way into bay eight where the gable peak becomes visible with an arched transom light in the peak of the barn. There are two windows at the second floor, four windows at the first floor level and one window and a large sliding door at the cellar level. The sliding door slides towards the south eave wall when opened and behind it is an overhead garage door allowing access to the cellar. The sliding door and hardware appear to be original to the added bays of the barn. All other window openings have smashed window sash and damaged frames. The arched window in the west roof peak is missing as well. Only the frame of this window remains. Siding is clapboard like the other three sides, with many clapboards missing and horizontal sheathing deteriorated. The foundation stones come well above grade to protect the sills of the wall. Quantity: Measurement unit: Condition Rating: 1,008 SF Fair Feature Condition: The back west gable end of the barn shows considerable damage due to neglect and time. The foundation is in good shape save some realignment to the south of the sliding door. The sheathing has been exposed to the weather and this has heavily damaged the exposed areas. The sliding door works only part way with the hardware also being exposed to the elements. The overhead garage door behind is operable. All window sash are missing or completely smashed. Remaining paint is minimal as most of the exterior coating has weathered away.

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 30 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

West Gable End

Treatment Type: Restoration

Priority: High

Treatment Description: Repair fan window frame and replace sash

The original window opening in the peak of the gable end remains. A new sash could be acquired and the frame repaired or a new window unit could be installed. The window should match the evidence found in photographs and other physical evidence that provide the basis for its reproduction.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1Ea $1,500.00 Ea $1,500.00 Treatment Reference: A custom window manufacturer can reproduce the fan window to original specification. See drawing sheet #13 of 18; West Gable Wall Elevation.

RestorationTreatment Cost Total: $1,500.00

Priority: Low

Treatment Description: Scraping and painting west gable end

The exterior of the back west façade will eventually need to be scraped and painted. The old paint should be scraped with carbide bladed scrapers and then the wood should be washed and sanded lightly before applying two coats of oil base primer. California brand "trouble shooter" primer or equivalent is a good choice.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1008 SF $1.22 SF $1,229.76 Treatment Reference: California Brand paints have been used with great success on numerous museum properties owned by the Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities (S.P.N.E.A.), and by Preservation Timber Framing Inc. on a number of church steeple projects. It is readily available at various paint supply stores.

RestorationTreatment Cost Total: $1,229.76

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 31 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Silo Exterior

Feature Description: The silo has three sides exposed to the exterior and the north gable wall is integrated into the south eave wall of the main barn. Originally the silo was clapboarded on its exposed three sides and it shared a closed access shed from the east gable end wall to its east eave wall. The roof is currently in asphalt shingles. The framing on the north gable end of the silo is exposed to the interior of the main barn and here one sees that the frame is bolted together at its corners to bolster the joinery, as it held considerable materials within it that would exert outward force on the silo walls. Where exterior siding and sheathing is missing, one can see that the walls are studded and posted in the corners. The building can be considered a modified balloon frame in design with the inclusion of heavy sills, plate and corner posts. Exterior trim includes rake boards, corner boards and delicate returns at the eaves. While vernacular in style, it fits with the trim elements seen in the main barn. Quantity: Measurement unit: Condition Rating: 1,568 SF Poor Feature Condition: All three sides of the exterior of the silo are in considerable disrepair. Damaged sills have led to damaged wall planes which has resulted in the loss of exterior sheathing, clapboards and trim elements. Enough of the exterior remains however, to determine the reproduction of the three facades.

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 32 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Silo Exterior

Treatment Type: Restoration

Priority: High

Treatment Description: Sheathing repair and replacement

Existing sheathing is deteriorated especially down low along the sill level of the building and over the entire east eave wall façade. New sheathing should be rough pine boards to match the original in size and species. The existing and new horizontal sheathing should be nailed with 10d galvanized common nails. All original board to be re-nailed where exposed to the elements.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 800 SF $1.50 SF $1,200.00 Treatment Reference: Any local custom saw mill can provide rough sawn boards to match the thickness of the original. Air drying the boards for at least one month is recommended before installation.

RestorationTreatment Cost Total: $1,200.00

Priority: Low

Treatment Description: Scraping and painting exterior of silo

The exterior of the back west façade needs to be scraped and painted. The old paint should be scraped with carbide bladed scrapers and then the wood should be washed and sanded lightly before applying two coats of oil base primer. California brand "trouble shooter" primer or equivalent is a good choice.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1600 SF $1.22 SF $1,952.00 Treatment Reference: California Brand paints have been used with great success on numerous museum properties owned by the Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities (S.P.N.E.A.), and by Preservation Timber Framing Inc. on a number of church steeple projects. It is readily available at various paint supply stores.

RestorationTreatment Cost Total: $1,952.00

Priority: Medium

Treatment Description: Repair and reproduction of trim elements

Silo trim elements are very damaged and many need to be rebuilt and replaced. Enough evidence remains pertaining to their original configuration and new work must pattern the existing elements. High quality pine to match original trim should be free of sapwood and black knots.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 120 LF $25.00 LF $3,000.00 Treatment Reference:

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 33 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Silo Exterior

Treatment Description: Clapboard repair and replacement

The existing pine clapboards are in pretty good shape but some repair and replacement is necessary. New clapboards should be radially sawn pine clapboards primed on all sides with a high quality oil base primer. A 5d stainless steel ring shank nail shoud be used for fastening the clapboards.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 3200 LF $1.95 LF $6,240.00 Treatment Reference: Pine clapboards can be obtained from the following sources: Stephen Jeffery, Barrington New Hampshire: 603- 664-9002. Granville Manufacturing, Granville Vermont. Additional clapboard mills are also available in Massachusetts and Maine.

RestorationTreatment Cost Total: $9,240.00

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 34 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Main Barn: South Eave Wall Exterior

Feature Description: The south eave wall shows at the grade entrance into the first floor of the barn. Openings denote the exit and entrance of dairy cows along this side of the building. Four window openings are clearly visible in the original barn wall but little sash remains. A cow door opening in bay three is visible but the door is gone and the opening is closed from the inside. There is evidence of a wood ramp at this door location. It is extremely deteriorated and almost entirely gone. The added three bays of the barn have three window openings at the first floor and three window openings at the cellar level. The barn follows the grade and drops down as the land slopes away towards the southwest. Clapboards exist all along the south eave wall and follow onto the connected silo ell which intersects the main barn at bay one. The granite stone foundation is visible along the entire length of the south eave and retaining walls extend perpendicular to the foundation. The grade is high and there is a clear drip line swale along the length of the wall due to roof water run off. Quantity: Measurement unit: Condition Rating: 1,700 SF Poor Feature Condition: All door and window openings are in very poor condition with trim and sash missing in most cases. The entire south wall is clapboarded but many are missing near the base of the wall where water splashing up on the wall from the very high grade has deteriorated the sills, sheathing and clapboards. Retaining walls and the main foundation need to be rebuilt along this wall. The silo ell is in very poor condition as well, largely due to water penetration and splash back.

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 35 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Main Barn: South Eave Wall Exterior

Treatment Type: Rehabilitation

Priority: High

Treatment Description: Regrade and drain south eave wall

The grade along the south eave wall needs to be taken down and sloped away from the main barn and the silo ell. Drainage design should include the use of schedule 40 perforated drainage pipe on a gravel base. The gravel base is comprised of 1.5 inch stone, six inches below and six inches above the pipe. Gravel and pipe should be wrapped in a filter fabric sock. Sheet drain products will be considered as well. All drainage should include the proper surface grading around the building to ensure water flows away from the building. Drainage designs should accommodate the option for the installation of gutters. Drainage system exits should include a daylight exit if appropriate or dry well placed strategically on the property.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 130 LF $25.00 LF $3,250.00 Treatment Reference: Drainage recommendations are taken from similar drainage specifications for museum properties such as The Moffatt-Ladd Museum in Portsmouth and The Clark House Museum in Wolfeboro, New Hampshire.

RehabilitationTreatment Cost Total: $3,250.00

Treatment Type: Restoration

Priority: High

Treatment Description: Sheathing replacement and repair

The bottom six feet or so of the sheathing along the length of the south eave wall may require replacement as the water from the roof has splashed back off from the high grade and rotted the sheathing. New sheathing should be acquired to match the original in size and species.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 576 SF $1.50 SF $864.00 Treatment Reference: Any local custom saw mill can provide rough sawn boards to match the thickness of the original. Air drying the boards for at least one month is recommended before installation.

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 36 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Main Barn: South Eave Wall Exterior

Treatment Description: New cow door and hardware

The existing opening for cow access to the first floor of the barn should be recreated. Careful scrutiny of the opening will determine door size and hardware for ease of use. The door should be recreated with materials matching those of remaining exterior original doors existing in the barn such as the east gable end pocket door.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1Ea $1,000.00 Ea $1,000.00 Treatment Reference: See drawing sheet #12 of 18; South Eaves Wall Elevation, for cow door location.

Treatment Description: Window repair and replacement

All ten of the south wall exterior windows should be re-instated with new replacement sash and reproduction frames to match the original openings in scope and scale. Window jamb materials should be carefully selected to avoid sapwood in their manufacture. Careful measuring of the openings will ensure that the proper window is installed.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 10 Ea $800.00 Ea $8,000.00 Treatment Reference: The Brosco Window Company, makes historically sufficient replacement sash and window units. Units may cost near $300.00. See drawing sheet #12 of 18; South Eaves Wall Elevation, for window layout.

RestorationTreatment Cost Total: $9,864.00

Priority: Low

Treatment Description: Scraping and painting south eave wall

The exterior of the south façade needs to be scraped and painted. The old paint should be scraped with carbide bladed scrapers and then the wood should be washed and sanded lightly before applying two coats of oil base primer. California brand "trouble shooter" primer or equivalent is a good choice.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 17001 SF $1.22 SF $20,741.22 Treatment Reference: California Brand paints have been used with great success on numerous museum properties owned by the Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities (S.P.N.E.A.), and by Preservation Timber Framing Inc. on a number of church steeple projects. It is readily available at various paint supply stores.

RestorationTreatment Cost Total: $20,741.22

Priority: Medium

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 37 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Main Barn: South Eave Wall Exterior

Treatment Description: Repair of clapboards and trim

About 50 % of clapboards along this eave wall will need to be replaced. The existing pine clapboards are in pretty good shape but some repair and replacement is necessary. New clapboards should be radially sawn pine clapboards primed on all sides with a high quality oil base primer. A 5d stainless steel ring shank nail shoud be used for fastening the clapboards.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 4000 LF $1.95 LF $7,800.00 Treatment Reference: Pine clapboards can be obtained from the following sources: Stephen Jeffery, Barrington New Hampshire: 603- 664-9002. Granville Manufacturing, Granville Vermont. Additional clapboard mills are also available in Massachusetts and Maine.

RestorationTreatment Cost Total: $7,800.00

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 38 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Main Barn: North Eave Wall Exterior

Feature Description: The north wall of the barn has seen a number of changes over its lifetime and illustrates very well the evolution of the barn. It is clear to see from the exterior that the original barn extends 60 feet in six bents. Vertical sheathing is attached to horizontal girts at each floor level and near midspan of each floor. Clapboards were installed over the vertical sheathing but many are now missing. Shadows where an original ell came perpendicular to the north eave wall is still evident in the clapboard line. This shadow corresponds to the stone foundation for the ell and the ell is present in early photographs of the barn. As the north wall progresses from east to west it gains height as the grade slopes downward. Below bents three four and five there exists a brick wall foundation. This brick wall is an apparent infill of open bays leading directly to the cellar level of the barn. To the west of the brick wall are two bays of sliding doors that provided access to the cellar level of the barn at the added bays between bents six and seven. Finally a solid wall is present in the most westward bay of the north wall. The granite foundation travels the entire length of the both the original barn and the added two bays. A dividing line in the foundation is present at the junction of original and later barn sections. Nine windows are present along the north eave wall. None appear to be original to the building. An overhead garage door exists in the north wall in bay one which allows access to the first floor of the barn. This opening is present in early photographs of the structure. Quantity: Measurement unit: Condition Rating: 1 LS Fair Feature Condition: Overall the north wall is in good shape. Structurally it is sound albeit some settling of the posts. Exterior façade elements such as the clapboards, windows and doors need considerable repair. Sliding doors below the added barn bays are made of plywood and are very deteriorated.

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 39 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Main Barn: North Eave Wall Exterior

Treatment Type: Rehabilitation

Priority: Medium

Treatment Description: North wall brick infill foundation

Bricks have been used to close the original opening into the cellar from beneath the original ell. This same technique can be used to close in the two openings in bay six and bay seven in the added bays of the barn. The existing plywood doors would be removed and their associated hardware as well. New bricks on the existing stone foundation would be installed to match the bond of the existing infill in bays five and six. This ensures greater structural stability for the added bays of the barn.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 200 SF $45.00 SF $9,000.00 Treatment Reference: New bricks should be of similar quality and size to existing. Mortar will need to be matched as well.

RehabilitationTreatment Cost Total: $9,000.00

Treatment Type: Restoration

Priority: High

Treatment Description: Sheathing repair

Sheathing along the north wall is in need of repair. Rough board sheathing to match the original boards should be placed only where necessary to provide a solid base for trim, windows and clapboards. Areas along the north wall where there is evidence of the removed ell, namely the vertical slots seen in the sheathing where the ell rafters engaged the barn, should be left as is to record the history of the ell. About 20% of this wall needs repair

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1600 SF $1.50 SF $2,400.00 Treatment Reference: Any local custom saw mill can provide rough sawn boards to match the thickness of the original. Air drying the boards for at least one month is recommended before installation.

Treatment Description: Repair of window openings

Existing window openings along the north wall may not be original to the building, but they have been in place for some time. The exsiting windows are all damaged beyond repair and must be replaced. New sash can be acquired to fit the existing openings and new frames can be created to match the original trim and jamb.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 10 Ea $800.00 Ea $8,000.00 Treatment Reference: The BROSCO Window Company can provide a good quality divided light window sash to match the original fabric. See drawing sheet #10 of 18; North Eaves Wall Elevation, for window layout.

RestorationTreatment Cost Total: $10,400.00

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 40 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Main Barn: North Eave Wall Exterior

Priority: Low

Treatment Description: Painting the north wall

The exterior of the front façade will eventually need to be scraped and painted. The old paint should be scraped with carbide bladed scrapers and then the wood should be washed and sanded lightly before applying two coats of oil base primer. California brand "trouble shooter" primer or equivalent is a good choice.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 8000 SF $1.22 SF $9,760.00 Treatment Reference: California Brand paints have been used with great success on numerous museum properties owned by the Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities (S.P.N.E.A.), and by Preservation Timber Framing Inc. on a number of church steeple projects. It is readily available at various paint supply stores.

RestorationTreatment Cost Total: $9,760.00

Priority: Medium

Treatment Description: Clapboard and trim repair and replacement

Clapboards remain on the north wall, but they are in considerable disrepair. New pine vertically sawn clapboards primed with oil base primer on all sides should be used for repairs and replacement. Nails should be 5d stainless ring shank and the entire field of clapboards should be re-nailed. There are clear delineations of clapboard lines that illustrate the existence of an ell extending from the north wall and there is a clear vertical line separating the original barn from the added three bays. It is possible to retain these lines to show the evolution of the barn.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 7200 LF $1.95 LF $14,040.00 Treatment Reference: Pine clapboards can be obtained from the following sources: Stephen Jeffery, Barrington New Hampshire: 603- 664-9002. Granville Manufacturing, Granville Vermont: Additional clapboard mills are also available in Massachusetts and Maine.

RestorationTreatment Cost Total: $14,040.00

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 41 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Main Barn Cellar Framing

Feature Description: The timber framed elements of the cellar level of the main barn are of two periods each corresponding to the earlier and later bents seen above them. In the original 60 feet of the main barn the first floor framing is held up by vertical timber columns that flare to accept the drive girts and summer beams across the drive and north and south side bays. These flared timbers are all hand hewn and engage a timber sill that is elevated on a brick foundation running down both side of the center drive. It appears that perhaps these vertical structural posts may have been recycled from an earlier frame, but this cannot be known for certain. The timber sills are later additions to the original cellar framing and correspond to the brick work seen as infill for the ell entry openings on the north wall. It is clearly visible in the original foundation of the center drive supports that the flared timber posts at one time, came down directly onto stone piers. These piers remain intact and are integrated into the brick drive walls. In the 36 feet of the cellar below the added three bays the support system is comprised of granite piers. The granite piers are integrated into stone foundations along the south center drive line but they are no longer visible on the North side of the drive. Here, the piers have been removed and a myriad of steel columns and horizontal floor supports have been poorly introduced in an attempt to make a larger post-free work bay in the cellar. This cellar framing appears to be twentieth century. Insulation in the cellar ceiling, and an office fully sheet rocked in the ,northwest corner, obscures some of the structural elements at this level. Quantity: Measurement unit: Condition Rating: 0 LS Fair Feature Condition: Despite significant changes to the original cellar framing the vertical supports still perform very well. The framing supporting bays seven and eight should be restored to their original configuration with granite piers on rubble stone as the existing steel work does not perform well as the vertical supports are not directly below their corresponding point loads in the first floor framing.

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 42 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Main Barn Cellar Framing

Treatment Type: Rehabilitation

Priority: Low

Treatment Description: Create finished space in cellar

The cellar level of the original barn could be modified to accept all of the services required for the year round use of the building. All heating units, air conditioning, plumbing and electrical supply lines and control units should be placed within bays two through six. Direct access to service area could be placed in the brick infill area of the north wall and access would be available from the west gable end as well. Finish space in the cellar could be created in bays seven and eight in the later added barn to provide for a range of year-round uses. This workspace would be ideal for a shop facility for preservation maintenance staff for the building and grounds. The west elevation provides at grade access and allows for windows on three sides of the space for comfortable working conditions.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1296 SF $100.00 SF $129,600.00 Treatment Reference:

RehabilitationTreatment Cost Total: $129,600.00

Treatment Type: Restoration

Priority: Medium

Treatment Description: Restore orginal vertical supports in later barn

It will be necessary to temporarily support the existing first floor framing in the three added bays of the barn near their point loads along the drive. Once in place the steel supports added in the twentieth century can be removed. The concrete floor can then be excavated to reveal the original granite pier locations and granite piers can be re- placed thereon. All insulation, wiring and the office space will need to be removed to complete the work.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1LS $8,000.00 LS $8,000.00 Treatment Reference:

RestorationTreatment Cost Total: $8,000.00

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 43 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Main Barn First Floor Framing and Deck

Feature Description: The first floor framing elements of both the original barn and the added three bays are clearly visible from the cellar. The perimeter sills accept half round log joists along the north and south bays and in the center drive the log joists run between summer beams at each bent location parallel to the main drive girts. Most of these elements are hand hewn and the joists are pocketed directly into drive girts, summer beams and perimeter sills. The first floor deck along the north side of the barn is in fair condition. The center drive deck boards are laid in on the diagonal over a layer of underlayment. The south side decking is a conglomeration of layer of decking, each added after the previous layer became structurally unsafe for the dairy herd it supported. Joist spacing varies in each bay oftentimes exceeding 24-inches on center. Summer beams in the original barn possess open mortises which may indicate that the beams were in part, recycled from earlier frames. Quantity: Measurement unit: Condition Rating: 3,456 SF Fair Feature Condition: Center drive girts, summer beams and joists appear in good shape. north bay joists also appear to be structurally sound. The south bay joists however, especially in bays five and four, have suffered from exposure to urine, manure and water. Fungus is apparent on a number of joists and deterioration continues as a result. The deck boards above these areas in bays five, six, seven and eight are very uneven due to the continued overlay of various levels of decking designed to postpone the comprehensive repair of the floor boards.

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 44 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Main Barn First Floor Framing and Deck

Treatment Type: Preservation

Priority: High

Treatment Description: Fungus and pest control

An antifungal preservative can be applied to the undercarriage to rid the original floor system of any fungal growth remaining after repairs. Bora-Care is a product that is water soluable, non-toxic, and safe to spray on the existing beams.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1LS $1,000.00 LS $1,000.00 Treatment Reference: Bora-Care products are available through the Preservation Resource Group Inc., Rockville, Maryland. 301-309- 2222.

Preservation Treatment Cost Total: $1,000.00

Treatment Type: Rehabilitation

Priority: Low

Treatment Description: Add bolsters to joist system to reduce spans

The first floor joist system could be bolstered with added posts and headers to reduce the span of the log joists in an effort to reduce the load requirements for the floor system. This could be done with timber material and timber joinery matching the existing structure and placed on granite pier foundations.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1LS $7,000.00 LS $7,000.00 Treatment Reference: This treatment may be able to replace treatments four and five.

Treatment Description: North side bay deck removal and joist enhancement.

Remove existing north side bay decking and expose joist pockets. Install new joist pockets and half round joists between exisiting joists to meet modern loading requirements.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1LS $10,000.00 LS $10,000.00 Treatment Reference: Existing joist system may not meet BOCA code requirements for public spaces.

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 45 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Main Barn First Floor Framing and Deck

Treatment Description: Center drive deck removal and enhace framing.

The center drive boards could be removed to to allow for the installation of new joists between existing log joists to ensure modern floor load requirements are met. New log joists to match the original could be pocketed into the exisiting framing to bolster the floor system. Center drive joist ends in bay two also need repair where they engage into the summer beam below bent two. There is a full foundation below bent two as it acts to form a large retaining wall for the front of the barn where the at grade entry is at the second floor level. The stone work matches the perimeter foundation and there is rubble and dirt filling the void between bent one and two. This proximity to earth and moisture has caused the summer beam to deteriorate as well as the log joists. A bladed scarf joint can be utilized here to repair both the damaged portions of the summer beam and the joist ends.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1LS $14,000.00 LS $14,000.00 Treatment Reference: Existing joist system may not meet BOCA code requirements for public spaces.

RehabilitationTreatment Cost Total: $31,000.00

Treatment Type: Restoration

Priority: Medium

Treatment Description: Install new floor to match original; south wall. the original floor system of barns of this period, usually were comprised of a one inch layer of underlayment followed by a layer two inches thick. The south eave bays will need similar treatment. Like the center drive bays, the second layer could be laid diagonally to match.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1200 SF $5.00 SF $6,000.00 Treatment Reference: High quality tongue and groove flooring in both one and two inch thickness can be obtained throuh Fahey Finish Lumber, Brentwood, New Hampshire.

Treatment Description: Re-create damaged joists, add new joists to code.

Joists damaged by animal husbandry will be replaced in kind with new round log joists to match the removed feature. As a large portion of the south eave sill will also need replacement, the new sill will accommodate in the same locations, the joist pockets for the new joists. While the deck is up, new joists can be added to reduce the span between the original floor joists to improve load bearing capacity thus meeting modern code requirements. Joists to be added between existing joist bays throughout south side of barn.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1LS $6,000.00 LS $6,000.00 Treatment Reference: Cost estiamates based on similar undercarriage work performed by Preservation Timber Framing Inc.

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 46 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Main Barn First Floor Framing and Deck

Treatment Description: Remove deck boards to provide access to joists.

Deck boards along the southern side of the barn will need to be removed to allow access to damaged joists. The decking will be saved and replaced upon completion of the joist repairs except where damaged by urine and manure. Here, in kind replacement of the the original configuration of the deck is appropriate.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1LS $6,000.00 LS $6,000.00 Treatment Reference:

RestorationTreatment Cost Total: $18,000.00

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 47 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Main Barn: Second floor framing and Deck

Feature Description: The entire first floor of the barn is whitewashed. All of the second floor framing is whitewashed as well. This was apparently the main floor for the dairy herd. Entrance to this floor is at grade along the south eave wall. Most openings along the south wall have been boarded over. Along the north side bays, the floor framing is dimensional 2"x 8" joists set near 16-inches on center. They travel from the north wall girt level to the drive bay girts which have been added and raised up from their original location to match the perimeter girt level and drive deck. Girts and joists along the south wall have not been raised and the result is about a 16-inch difference between ceiling heights in the center drive and south eave bays. Bay one has access at grade along the north wall via a garage door opening. Bay one also gains access to the lowest level of the silo on the south eave wall. The floor of bay one is concrete. The remaining bays are wood decks over the first floor framing. Bay one joists in the center drive are bolstered near their junction with the east gable end sill as the sill has rotted away. The joist end are rotten as well. The main barn perimeter posts all have their post extensions via the bladed scarf joint. (See drawing sheet #18 of 18; Typical 1st Phase Barn Post Bottom Bladed Scarf Joint.) Evidence that this is an original feature of the barn is most clearly evident in the north west corner of the original barn where the original girt mortises for the original gable end are laid out across both the upper portion of the post and through the post modification as well. Girts along the north drive do not appear original as they are mortised and tenoned at one end and brought into their corresponding post with an angled let in. This let in was placed at the level of the floor girts along the south eave wall and then raised to be level with the drive deck. The apparent absence of these girts and the inclusion of the dimensional joists in bays three through five indicate that the second floor in this area was not part of the original floor plan. It appears that originally it was intended to be part of an open hay mow that allowed loose hay to be dropped from the second floor and upper loft levels down to the first floor for ease of feeding the animals. Low girts on the drive bay floor also corroborate this hypothesis. Partition walls have been added to divide many of the bays along the first floor level. These appear to have been added in the twentieth century and do not serve any structural purpose. Quantity: Measurement unit: Condition Rating: 1 LS Good Feature Condition: Conditions found within the second floor framing are generally good overall with few alterations, save the added joists in bays three four and five. The added partition walls are largely vandalized and poorly built.

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 48 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Main Barn: Second floor framing and Deck

Treatment Type: Rehabilitation

Priority: Low

Treatment Description: Remove added partition barriers

Existing partition barriers on the first floor are non bearing and poorly built. Their removal will allow a better use of space on this floor and restore the original floor plan.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1LS $1,500.00 LS $1,500.00 Treatment Reference:

Treatment Description: Bolsters for north drive girts

The added and raised girts along the north drive in bays two through five will need bolsters beneath them to meet modern floor load requirements. Bolsters are simply pieces of white oak let into the post directly beneath each girt to pick up the shear load transferred from the floor. The let in should not exceed one inch into the side of the post and can be done at an angle as the added girts have been done. The bolster is then pegged to the post with wooded pegs that pass through both bolsters in bents three, four and five and through each individual bolster in bents two and six. The bolsters can be white washed to match the original features on this floor.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 8LS $250.00 LS $2,000.00 Treatment Reference: Adding bolsters to girts and or post tops is a typical way to spread load paths out and pick up compression strength in vertical elements.

RehabilitationTreatment Cost Total: $3,500.00

Priority: Medium

Treatment Description: Elevator

An elevator is important to provide ADA accessibility to all levels of the barn except the upper loft. The elevator is most easily installed in bay two along the North wall. It should pass from the cellar through the first floor and stop at the second floor. Access at grade already exists at each floor level from the exterior, and the elevator will meet all ADA requirements.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1LS $30,000.00 LS $30,000.00 Treatment Reference: Refer to the American Disabilty Act Accessiblity Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities for size and scope of elevator.

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 49 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Main Barn: Second floor framing and Deck

Treatment Description: New stairs in bay three

A new set of stairs can be built easily into bent three that will allow access from the second floor to the first floor and on down to the cellar level. These stairs should be confined to bay three along the North wall. This will require that they turn at landings as they descend. Rise and run must meet modern egress requirements. Stairs should be made of wood with three stringers and risers and treads of native hardwood.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1LS $3,500.00 LS $3,500.00 Treatment Reference: Refer to BOCA code requirements for proper egress requirements.

Treatment Description: Add joists to bays six, seven and eight

To meet modern floor load requirements it will be necessary to add joists between existing 3"x 8" joists in the added newer bays of the barn. To do this it is necessary to add joist pockets deep enough to allow the new joist to slide into the summer beams that correspond to each bent in this area. An alternate to adding mortises, is to add a ribbon to the joist system that is bolted to the summer beam.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1LS $1,500.00 LS $1,500.00 Treatment Reference:

Treatment Description: Raise deck in south side bays

The ceiling height along the south bays does not meet modern building codes. The step down that currently exists on the second floor drive down to the south side bays is also difficult to design into a current use for the building. To raise the deck requires the removal of fasteners along the drive and perimeter girts along the south side. The deck and corresponding girts can be lifted as a unit with jacks and cribbing to the second floor drive level making the second floor one plane. New girts can be inserted on top of the existing girts to gain the desired floor height.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1LS $5,500.00 LS $5,500.00 Treatment Reference:

RehabilitationTreatment Cost Total: $40,500.00

Treatment Type: Restoration

Priority: High

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 50 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Main Barn: Second floor framing and Deck

Treatment Description: Girt end repair in bay one

The drive girt ends in bay one have rotted where they engage the east gable end sill . The large drive joists of half round logs have also deteriorated. The support system that holds the girts and joists needs to be removed to allow for use of space. A bladed scarf joint like those seen throughout the perimeter posts can be used to repair the ends of the girts and joists. As the sill work in the gable end of building is also getting repaired, these joist and girt ends can engage pockets in the new sill.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 6Ea $700.00 Ea $4,200.00 Treatment Reference:

RestorationTreatment Cost Total: $4,200.00

Priority: Medium

Treatment Description: Rebuild stairs from second floor to first floor

An opening exists in bay one for a descending stair from the second floor to the first. This is the most likely location for a stairway in the original floor plan of the building. Stairs should be made of wood and fit the opening in both run and rise. This stair opening will not allow for stairs meeting modern code requirements for egress.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1LS $1,000.00 LS $1,000.00 Treatment Reference:

RestorationTreatment Cost Total: $1,000.00

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 51 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Center Drive Upper Loft

Feature Description: The upper loft of the center drive consists of sapling joists pocketed into the high tie beams that cross from drive post to drive post in each bent. A set of stairs ascends to the loft from the south side of bay one. Currently the loft is sheathed in sheets of plywood, Areas of the loft are open to the center drive below and there is no railing. The center drive loft in bay three supports the cupola and there is an added support system of short beams placed on the loft deck to help support the heavily damaged cupola. Along the north side of Bay Seven in the upper loft sits a short king rod truss that passes from the tie beam in bent seven to the tie beam in bent eight. A ventilator shaft also rises to the upper loft in bay six just prior to the truss as it passes up to the roof. There does not appear to be any opening in the roof for the ventilator shaft. A great deal of bat guano exists at this level on the plywood decking. Quantity: Measurement unit: Condition Rating: 1 LS Fair Feature Condition: The upper loft level was probably used for loose hay storage in the original configuration of the barn. It may have never had anything but a small cat walk to the cupola as loose hay could be stored directly on the sapling joists. The upper loft is not designed to carry the weight of the cupola. At present however, it is loaded to some degree by the temporary supports added in the last few decades to the frame.

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 52 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Center Drive Upper Loft

Treatment Type: Rehabilitation

Priority: Medium

Treatment Description: Build cat walk with rails to cupola

The cupola access is from the upper drive loft and the loft is accessed via the stair way in bay one north. A cat walk with hand rails should be installed from bay one to bay three along the upper loft to allow access for maintenance and inpsection of the cupola. Remaining portions of the loft should remain open for viewing.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1LS $2,000.00 LS $2,000.00 Treatment Reference:

RehabilitationTreatment Cost Total: $2,000.00

Treatment Type: Restoration

Priority: Low

Treatment Description: Remove plywood and bat guano

The plywood on the upper loft framing is not original and should be removed. This will also provide opportunity to clean up the bat guano collecting from the open cupola.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1LS $1,500.00 LS $1,500.00 Treatment Reference:

RestorationTreatment Cost Total: $1,500.00

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 53 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

South Eave Wall: Bays 1-8 At Second Floor Level

Feature Description: The south eave wall bays of the main barn and added bays are in excellent shape and retain almost all of their original features. Horizontal girts connect bent to bent as do the discontinuous plates. Flying purlins are also discontinuous and engage the ends of the tie beams which extend beyond the wall plane to create the overhand. Vertical sheathing with a reverse vertical batten covering the vertical seams of the rough boards is visible in all five bays of the original barn. Horizontal sheathing is present in the added three bays 6, 7, & 8. Sheathing is nailed at each horizontal girt level. Angled braces complete the bays, each engaging the post and plate along the length of the building. Girts are hand hewn and braces are circular sawn. Rough board sheathing is also circular sawn. Quantity: Measurement unit: Condition Rating: 1 LS Good Feature Condition: Elements of the south bays are in good shape overall. Some repair is necessary in bent one where the upper bay elements have suffered damage at the flashing points of the silo ell. There are missing low drive girts in bay one, and three. These girts originally were intended to restrain loose hay stored to each side of the drive bay of the barn. Their mortises and the remnants of the tenons for the girts are clearly visible in the corresponding drive posts.

Treatment Type: Preservation

Priority: High

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 54 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

South Eave Wall: Bays 1-8 At Second Floor Level

Treatment Description: Repair flying purlin in bent one

The flying purlin in bent one has suffered water damage at the flashing point of the silo ell. While replacement may be necessary, it is possible that enough of the original fabric can be retained with the aid of a Dutchman repair and epoxy.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1LS $1,000.00 LS $1,000.00 Treatment Reference: An epoxy consolidant such as Abatron products can be employed here. Abatron is a trade name for a number of epoxy and filler products available directly from the manufacturer.

Preservation Treatment Cost Total: $1,000.00

Priority: Medium

Treatment Description: Replace low drive girts

The low drive girts in bents one and three have been cut away, but the evidence exists for their re-creation. Low drive girts still exist in bays two three and four and the missing girts can be made in kind to match the existing. Free tenons can be used to ease installation of the girts into their existing mortises as the girts are not structural and bear no load.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 2LS $1,000.00 LS $2,000.00 Treatment Reference:

Preservation Treatment Cost Total: $2,000.00

Treatment Type: Rehabilitation

Priority: Medium

Treatment Description: Floor from bay one to silo

The floor between the silo and bay one is very deteriorated. When the east gable end sills are repaired and the silo sill are repaired then the floor joists can be reconfigured and a new wood floor deck installed to ease access to and from each building.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1LS $1,000.00 LS $1,000.00 Treatment Reference:

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 55 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

South Eave Wall: Bays 1-8 At Second Floor Level

Treatment Description: Reinforce stairway to loft in bay one.

The existing stairway leading from the second floor to the upper drive loft is minimally built and will need to be reinforced with stringer supports. Existing treads also need to be refastened using 10d galvanized box nails. A gate made from similar material may also be needed at its base as the upper floor loft will not be accessible to the general public.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1LS $1,000.00 LS $1,000.00 Treatment Reference: BOCA Code requirements will not allow the upper drive loft to be open to public use.

RehabilitationTreatment Cost Total: $2,000.00

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 56 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

North Eave Wall Bays 1-8 At Second Floor Level

Feature Description: Bays along the north wall are in good shape overall, and retain almost all of their original features. Horizontal girts connect bent to bent as do the discontinuous plates. Flying purlins are also discontinuous and engage the ends of the tie beams which extend beyond the wall plane to create the overhand. Vertical sheathing with a reverse vertical batten covering the vertical seams of the rough boards is visible in all five bays of the original barn. Horizontal sheathing is present in the added three bays; six, seven and eight. Sheathing is nailed at each horizontal girt level. Angled braces complete the bays, each engaging the post and plate along the length of the building. Girts are hand hewn and braces are circular sawn. Rough board sheathing is also circular sawn. Bay one has a much later added office with sheetrock and vernacular trim. Bay three currently has a temporary timber support system that passes from the first floor through the second floor and ends supporting the principle purlin in the roof system below the cupola. Bay five posses a ventilator shaft that also rises to the roof level. Windows are scattered among the eight bays along the north wall. Quantity: Measurement unit: Condition Rating: 1 LS Good Feature Condition: Almost all of the elements in the north bays are intact. Low drive girts in bays one, three, four and five are missing although their mortises are clearly visible. The girt in bay two is present but has been raised up and away from its original location. Windows are largely smashed away and very deteriorated.

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 57 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

North Eave Wall Bays 1-8 At Second Floor Level

Treatment Type: Restoration

Priority: Low

Treatment Description: Remove added office space.

The office space in bay one on the north eave wall can be easily removed and discarded to provide access to the pocket door in the east gable and to reveal the framing in bay one.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1LS $700.00 LS $700.00 Treatment Reference:

RestorationTreatment Cost Total: $700.00

Priority: Medium

Treatment Description: Re-create and install low drive girts

The existing low drive girt in bay two can serve as the pattern by which the remaining missing girts can be recreated. These girts can utilize free tenons for their insertion into the existing posts as they are non load bearing. The girts originally acted as a railing for the open hay mow down to the first floor below. These girts may have been removed when the modern floor deck was added.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 5Ea $500.00 Ea $2,500.00 Treatment Reference: Refer to the north wall exterior for window and sheathing repairs.

RestorationTreatment Cost Total: $2,500.00

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 58 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

South Roof

Feature Description: The roof system in the original five bays of the barn is made up of principle rafters at each bent which meet at the peak with a simple plumb cut that is pegged together with a one inch trunnel. Common rafters between each principle rafters also meet with a simple plumb cut at their peaks. They are place about 24 inches on center within each bay. The common rafters are supported at midspan by a principle purlin that is mortise and tenoned into each principle rafter. The common rafters travel to the flying purlin and end with a level seat cut on the flying purlin. The common rafters are nailed with cut nails at these three connection points. Eave trim is directly attached to the flying purlin which is mortise and tenoned into each of the short tie beams in each bent that extend beyond the wall plane to allow for a proper overhang. The lower portion of the roof system in bay one also integrates with the silo roof system which runs perpendicular to it. The cupola sits in bay three spanning and interrupting the ridge line at this location. The roof framing is covered with one inch rough board skip sheathing designed for a wood shingle covering. Wood shingles can still be seen in the original frame. Asphalt shingles cover the wood shingles. Quantity: Measurement unit: Condition Rating: 2,208 SF Good Feature Condition: The asphalt roof covering is nearing its life span. Leaking is evident at the flashing points where the silo meets the south roof slope. The cupola lets in great amounts of water due to its deteriorated condition.

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 59 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

South Roof

Treatment Type: Rehabilitation

Priority: High

Treatment Description: Flashing the silo and cupola

Lead flashing should be utilized to ensure a water tight flashing at the junction of the roof and cupola. Copper valley flashing and lead should be used to flash the silo roof junction. A rubberized ice and water shield should be installed six feet up the roof plane along the entire roof of both barn and silo.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1LS $1,500.00 LS $1,500.00 Treatment Reference: Copper flashing should be custom made to fit the roof planes. Rolled lead and ice and water shield are available at most reputable construction supply stores.

Treatment Description: Alt A: New 50 year architectural asphalt shingles

The prepared roof substrate can accept new architectural asphalt roof shingles. The shingles should be installed following the hurricane standards outlined in the manufacturers specifications. Nails must penetrate at least one half inch through the new layer of one inch roof sheathing.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 22 SQ $100.00 SQ $2,200.00 Treatment Reference: Most reputable asphalt roof shingle manufaturers will stipulate high wind area application processes.

Treatment Description: Remove old roof covering and install sheathing

The asphalt roof covering must be removed. The old wood shingles must be removed as well. The original skip sheathing can be retained but shuould be renailed with 10D galvanized common nails. Another layer of ship lapped rough sheathing boards can then be placed over the skip sheathing to create a substantial base for the new roof covering. New roof sheathing is to be nailed to the common and principle rafters using a 16D galvanized common nail.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 22 SQ $400.00 SQ $8,800.00 Treatment Reference: The existing roof design is ill prepared for the dead load of two or three layers of asphalt over wood shingles.

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 60 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

South Roof

Treatment Description: Alt B: Standing seam roof alternative

A standing seam metal roof is an excellent choice for a building of this size and age. The advantage of standing seam is two fold. First, it will outlast any ashphalt roof by at least twenty five years. Second, it provides very little dead load and disallows any significant live load from snow on the exisiting roof structure. Where the roof structure is repaired this is a very real advantage.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 22 SQ $400.00 SQ $8,800.00 Treatment Reference: Standing seam roof suppliers can be found throughout New Hampshire.

RehabilitationTreatment Cost Total: $21,300.00

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 61 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

North Roof

Feature Description: The roof system in the original five bays of the barn is made up of principle rafters at each bent which meet at the peak with a simple plumb cut that is pegged together with a one inch trunnel. Common rafters between each principle rafters also meet with a simple plumb cut at their peaks. They are place about 24-inches on center within each bay. The common rafters are supported at midspan by a principle purlin that is mortise and tenoned into each principle rafter. The common rafters travel to the flying purlin and end with a level seat cut on the flying purlin. The common rafters are nailed with cut nails at these three connection points. Eave trim is directly attached to the flying purlin which is mortise and tenoned into each of the short tie beams in each bent that extend beyond the wall plane to allow for a proper overhang. The lower portion of the roof system in bay one also integrates with the silo roof system which runs perpendicular to it. The cupola sits in bay three spanning and interrupting the ridge line at this location. The roof framing is covered with one inch rough board skip sheathing designed for a wood shingle covering. Wood shingles can still be seen in the original frame. Asphalt shingles cover the wood shingles. Quantity: Measurement unit: Condition Rating: 22 SQ Good Feature Condition: The north roof is in relatively good condition save elements in bay three. Here the principle purlin has been damaged by water penetrating the cupola and the purlin may need to be replaced. A temporary beam support system currently holds this purlin in place.

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 62 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

North Roof

Treatment Type: Rehabilitation

Priority: High

Treatment Description: Alt. B: Standing seam roof alternative

A standing seam metal roof is an excellent choice for a building of this size and age. The advantage of standing seam is two fold. First, it will outlast any ashphalt roof by at least twenty five years. Second, it provides very little dead load and disallows any significant live load from snow on the exisiting roof structure. Where the roof structure is repaired this is a very real advantage.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 22 SQ $400.00 SQ $8,800.00 Treatment Reference: Standing seam roof suppliers can be found throughout New Hampshire.

Treatment Description: Flashing the cupola

Lead flashing should be utilized to ensure a water tight flashing at the junction of the roof and cupola. A rubberized ice and water shield should be installed six feet up the roof plane along the entire roof of both barn and silo.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1LS $700.00 LS $700.00 Treatment Reference: Rolled lead and ice and water shield are available at most reputable construction supply stores.

Treatment Description: Alt. A: New 50 year architectural asphalt shingles

The prepared roof substrate can accept new architectural asphalt roof shingles. The shingles should be installed following the hurricane standards outlined in the manufacturers specifications. Nails must penetrate at least one half inch through the new layer of one inch roof sheathing.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 22 SQ $100.00 SQ $2,200.00 Treatment Reference: Most reputable asphalt roof shingle manufaturers will stipulate high wind area application processes.

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 63 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

North Roof

Treatment Description: Remove old roof covering and install sheathing.

The asphalt roof covering must be removed. The old wood shingles must be removed as well. The original skip sheathing can be retained but should be renailed with 10d galvanized common nails. Another layer of ship lapped rough sheathing boards can then be placed over the skip sheathing to create a substantial base for the new roof covering. New roof sheathing is to be nailed to the common and principle rafters using a 16d galvanized common nail.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 22 SQ $400.00 SQ $8,800.00 Treatment Reference: The existing roof design is ill prepared for the dead load of two or three layers of asphalt over wood shingles.

RehabilitationTreatment Cost Total: $20,500.00

Treatment Type: Restoration

Priority: High

Treatment Description: Common rafter repair, bay three

Common rafters in bay three may also need repair. To do this the skip sheathing and the cupola must be removed from the building. New common rafters can be created and placed in their original locations to ensure the structural integrity of the roof system.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 5Ea $250.00 Ea $1,250.00 Treatment Reference: Refer to repairs for the cupola for details for removing the cupola.

Treatment Description: Principle purlin replacement; bay three north.

The principle purlin in bay three will need replacement. To do this the roof must be stripped and the skip sheathing removed to expose the purlin. A new purlin created to match the original can then be created. To install the the new purlin it will be necessary to cut away a portion of the principle rafter in bent four to expose the purlin mortise. The new purlin will then engage the exisitng mortise in bent three and fill the void created in bent four with a half lapped dove tailed joint. This lapped joint can be short to interfere minimally with the structural integrity of the principle rafter.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1LS $2,000.00 LS $2,000.00 Treatment Reference:

RestorationTreatment Cost Total: $3,250.00

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 64 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

The Cupola

Feature Description: The cupola is by far the most ornate element on the barn. It is built in the shingle style with artfully sculpted wood shingle siding and decorative roof framing and trim elements. It is multi-colored to stand out as a prominent feature and it has two rectangular windows in each side and an arched center window in each side as well. The arched windows have wood panels placed within them and the side sash possess some remaining glass. The cupola is placed at the center of bay three and therefore, was at the original barn's center when first built. The interior of the cupola is framed with dimensional 2"x 4" stud walls and light cross members. The roof framing is also very light. The hip roof with peaked gables is covered with asphalt shingles with lead flashing over the hip rafters. The base of the cupola steps out to form a box that sits directly onto the roof system. Common rafters in bay three have been cut back to accept the cupola framing and they have become part of its structure. Quantity: Measurement unit: Condition Rating: 1 LS Poor Feature Condition: The cupola is in great jeopardy. It is almost in complete structural failure and currently leaks at every corner. A considerable number of lower structural elements have rotted away leaving the lower sheathing hanging from poor fasteners.

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 65 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

The Cupola

Treatment Type: Rehabilitation

Priority: High

Treatment Description: New timber supports for cupola

The original structural support for the cupola is inadequate and must be revised. To accomplish this two sleeper beams will be placed across the high tie beams in bents three and four parallel to the drive. These sleepers will measure 8"x 8" square and cog over the tie beam. The sleeper beams run parallel with the center drive directly below the cupola framing. Once in place, a short post at each corner will be placed and a top plate will be installed to make a box frame on top of the posts. The posts should be braced with mortise and tenoned angle braces both ascending to the plate level and decending to the sleeper beams. Posts will be mortised and tenoned into the sleeper beams and posts. Once in place the cupola can be flown into position and the new cupola framing will be mortise and tenoned into the plate and the exterior sheathing fastened into the plate as well. This provides ample support for the weight of the cupola while providing a sufficient base to which proper flashing can be applied. The cupola stairs and platforms can then be reinstalled to allow access to the cupola for maintenance.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1LS $2,000.00 LS $2,000.00 Treatment Reference: The weight of the cupola is not significant with regard to the joinery at the high tie beam level. It can easily take the load. See drawing sheet #15 of 18; Cupola Support Base.

RehabilitationTreatment Cost Total: $2,000.00

Treatment Type: Restoration

Priority: High

Treatment Description: Remove cupola and repair/replace in-kind

In order to save the cupola and repair the existing roof framing the cupola must be removed to the ground. Once down it can be carefully cataloged and dismantled with the intention of re-using as many architectural details as possible to recreate it. Sash will need to be reproduced in-kjnd. The structural components will need to be reproduced entirely and strengthened. New wood shingles will need to be installed and a new paint job to match the original will be applied. Once complete, the cupola can be reinstalled as the central feature of the barn.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 1LS $27,000.00 LS $27,000.00 Treatment Reference: See drawing sheet #16 of 18; Cupola Framing.

RestorationTreatment Cost Total: $27,000.00

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 66 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Silo Roof

Feature Description: The silo roof is created from common rafters nailed to a timber top plate. The roof sheathing is rough pine boards set relatively close together. The roof covering is asphalt shingles. Quantity: Measurement unit: Condition Rating: 1 LS Poor Feature Condition: The silo roof shingles are very damaged and water penetrates to the interior.

Treatment Type: Rehabilitation

Priority: High

Treatment Description: Alt B: Install standing seam roof

A standing seam roof has advantage over the asphalt shingle roof on two fronts. First it is much lighter, and second, it does not hold snow therefore, reducing the overall live loads placed on the roof.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 6SQ $400.00 SQ $2,400.00 Treatment Reference:

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 67 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Silo Roof

Treatment Description: Alt A: Install 50 year architectural shingles.

The prepared roof substrate can accept new architectural asphalt roof shingles. The shingles should be installed following the hurricane standards outlined in the manufacturers specifications. Nails must penetrate at least one half inch through the new layer of one inch roof sheathing.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 6SQ $100.00 SQ $600.00 Treatment Reference: Most reputable asphalt roof shingle manufaturers will stipulate high wind area application processes.

Treatment Description: Remove old roof covering and install sheathing.

The asphalt roof covering must be removed. The old wood shingles must be removed as well. The original skip sheathing can be retained but shuould be renailed with 10d galvanized common nails. Another layer of ship lapped rough sheathing boards can then be placed over the skip sheathing to create a substantial base for the new roof covering. New roof sheathing is to be nailed to the common and principle rafters using a 16d galvanized common nail.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 6SQ $400.00 SQ $2,400.00 Treatment Reference: The existing roof design is ill prepared for the dead load of two or three layers of asphalt over wood shingles.

RehabilitationTreatment Cost Total: $5,400.00

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 68 of 69 Benson's Property Historic Structures Report Town of Hudson, New Hampshire Haselton Barn May 22, 2003 - 100% Submittal

Silo Interior

Feature Description: The silo interior is made up of horizontal sheathing nailed directly to the studs creating a two story open shaft for silage. Quantity: Measurement unit: Condition Rating: 1 LS Fair Feature Condition: The interior sheathing is in good order save a few pieces down low near the rotten sills

Treatment Type: Rehabilitation

Priority: Low

Treatment Description: Create usable floor in silo

The silo can become a viable part of the barn comples with the addition of two floors. The base level floor will be created from modern kiln dried joists placed 16 inches on center attached to a ribbon joist lag bolted through the exisitng sheathing and into the stud wall framing. A deck to match the level of the first floor and in kind with the deck boards should be installed. A second deck level can be created at the plane of the second floor of the main barn to allow access here as well.

Repair/Replacement Amount: Unit Cost: Repair/Replacement Cost: 784 SF $27.00 SF $21,168.00 Treatment Reference: New elements added to the silo should be clearly delineated from the original fabric.

RehabilitationTreatment Cost Total: $21,168.00

Feature Inventory and Condition Assessment Page 69 of 69 Common Rafter 3" x 5"

Principle Rafter 6 1/2" x 6 1/2"

Common Rafter 2" x 7" or 2" x 6" Braces 3" x 4" or 3" x 5" Tie Beams 6 1/2" x 6 1/2"

Hip Rafter 3" x 8" Timber framed support structure for the West gable; see sheet 14. Timber framed support structure for the cupola; see sheets 15 & 16.

Purlin 6" x 6" Wall Plates 6" x 6" or 8" x 8" Purlin 6 1/2" x 6 1/2" Posts 7 1/2" x 7 1/2" Wall Plates 6" x 6" LOFT FLOOR LEVEL

Tie Beams 8" x 8"

Post 8" x 8"

Girts 8" x 8" or 8" x 10"

DRIVE BAY FLOOR LEVEL

Studs 2" x 4" LOWER FLOOR LEVEL Wall Girts 3" x 5" Floor Joists 2" x 8" or 3" x 8" Girts Supporting Floors 7" to 7 1/2" x 6" to 7 1/2" NOTES Floor joists 4" x 5" or 4" x 6" 1. The graphic shows only construction original to what are believed to be the 1st and 2nd building phases. The 1st building phase barn appears in dark brown the 2nd phase barn is light brown. 2.The frame of the 1st building phase barn was constructed using the "Square Rule " timber framing layout method. Dimensions of typical frame members were taken at the Square Rule reductions. The principle frame members in the 1st phase barn are hewn; the secondary frame members as well as sheathing, flooring etc. are circular sawn. HASELTON BARN 3. The frame of the 2nd phase barn was constructed using the "Mill Rule" timber framing layout 3-DIMENSIONAL TIMBER FRAME SECTION VIEW method. The principle and secondary frame members are circular sawn.

2

95'—81 4" N

1

36'—5"

87'—93 4"

3

Drawing Object

1st Building Phase NOTES

2nd Building Phase 26'—95 8" 1. Floor joists not accessible for measurement. SILO 2. Walled area in the Northwest corner of the lower level may date to the second building phase. 30'—101 4" 3. Drawing shows original floor joist configuration, most of the original joists in the blue hatched area have been replaced and re-configured. DATE 5/18/03 SHEET # 1 of 18 207 361-2091

1 0 5 10 15 20 13'—111 2"

SCALE OF FEET P0st Office Box 29, Eliot, Maine 03903 Preservation Timber Framing inc.

DRAWN BY: J. Butler

HUDSON, NH HASELTON BARN

SCALE: 1/8" = 1' Lower Floor Level Plan 1

LOFT FLOOR LEVEL

24'—5" 57'—411 16"

7'—101 2"

DRIVE BAY FLOOR LEVEL

18'—0"

27'—0"

LOWER FLOOR LEVEL

2

60'—6" 36'—1 4"

96'—61 4"

3 HASELTON BARN HUDSON, NH NOTES 1.Cupola exterior inaccessible for detailed measurement. North Eaves Wall Elevation 2. Exposed brick foundation under Phase 1 Barn. 1 0 5 10 15 20 3. Plywood infill. SCALE: 1/8" = 1' SHEET # 10 of 18 SCALE OF FEET DRAWN BY: J. Butler DATE 5/18/03 Preservation Timber Framing inc. P0st Office Box 29, Eliot, Maine 03903 207 361-2091 1

38'—11"

LOFT FLOOR LEVEL

24'—61 2"

14'—10"

12'—1 4"

DRIVE BAY FLOOR LEVEL

7'—41 4" 11'—71 2" 2

32'—11"

26'—83 4"

67'—0"

NOTES HASELTON BARN HUDSON, NH 1. Cupola exterior inaccessible for detailed measurement. 2. Exposed framing and interior sheathing of the attached silo, parts of which are no longer extant. East Gable Wall Elevation

1 0 5 10 15 20 SCALE: 1/8" = 1' SHEET # 11 of 18 DRAWN BY: J. Butler DATE: 5/18/03 SCALE OF FEET Preservation Timber Framing inc. P0st Office Box 29, Eliot, Maine 03903 207 361-2091 1 14'—115 8"

LOFT FLOOR LEVEL

DRIVE BAY FLOOR LEVEL

LOWER FLOOR LEVEL

13'—111 2"

3 2

36'—1 4"

104'—43 4"

NOTES HASELTON BARN HUDSON, NH 1. Cupola exterior inaccessible for detailed measurement. South Eaves Wall Elevation 2.The drive bay floor on the South side of the barn is approximately 22" lower than the center drive bay's floor.

3. Cellar area below Lower Level framed floor, approximately 10' ceiling height, 1 0 5 1015 20 SCALE: 1/8" =1' SHEET # 12 of 18 foundation material brick/stone. SCALE OF FEET DRAWN BY: J. Butler DATE 5/18/03 Preservation Timber Framing inc. P0st Office Box 29, Eliot, Maine 03903 207 361-2091 1

LOFT FLOOR LEVEL

59'—1 8"

2

23'—41 8"

2 DRIVE BAY FLOOR LEVEL 16'—71 4"

29'—21 2" LOWER FLOOR LEVEL

30'—71 4"

10'—101 4"

11'—81 2"

36'—31 2"

NOTES HASELTON BARN 1. Cupola exterior inaccessible for detailed measurement. HUDSON, NH 2. Contemporary windows a over-layed on the locations of earlier windows possibly dating to the second building phase. West Gable Wall Elevation

1 0 5 10 15 20 SCALE: 1/8" = 1' SHEET # 13 of 18 SCALE OF FEET DRAWN BY: J. Butler DATE 5/18/03 Preservation Timber Framing inc. P0st Office Box 29, Eliot, Maine 03903 207 361-2091 Side

Axonometric

HASELTON BARN Hudson, New Hampshire

Timber Frame Support Structure for the West Gable Section and Axonometric Views

SCALE: No Scale SHEET # 14 of 18 DRAWN BY: J. Butler DATE: 5/15/03 Preservation Timber Framing inc. P0st Office Box 29, Eliot, Maine 03903 207 361-2091 6' 8 8'

Top

Axonometric

1 3' 11' 4 2

3' 5 5 6' 1 8 8 2 1 8 8 7 7 4' 8 2 4' 2 8 4' 2 8

HASELTON BARN 12' 6 Hudson, New Hampshire 8 8 Front Cupola Support Base Side Elevation, Plan and Axonometric

SCALE: No Scale SHEET # 15 of 18 DRAWN BY: J. Butler DATE: 5/15/03 Preservation Timber Framing inc. P0st Office Box 29, Eliot, Maine 03903 207 361-2091 10'

6' 6 5 8 10'

52°

18' 5 1 8 8' 10 2' 4 10' 5' 4

7' 11

1 2' 8 11' 4 2

4' 2'

1 5' 4 3' 5 2 Top

1 11' 5 4 HASELTON BARN 8' Hudson, New Hampshire

North/South Sides East/West Sides Cupola Framing Elevation, Plan and Isometric

SCALE: No Scale SHEET # 16 of 18 DRAWN BY: J. Butler DATE: 5/15/03 Preservation Timber Framing inc. P0st Office Box 29, Eliot, Maine 03903 207 361-2091 Side Axonometric

HASELTON BARN Hudson, New Hampshire

Typical 2nd Phase Barn Stop-splayed Scarf Joint Section and Axonometric Views

SCALE: No Scale SHEET # 17 of 18 DRAWN BY: J. Butler DATE: 5/15/03 Preservation Timber Framing inc. P0st Office Box 29, Eliot, Maine 03903 207 361-2091 Side Axonometric

HASELTON BARN Hudson, New Hampshire

Typical 1st Phase Barn Post Bottom Bladed Scarf Joint Section and Axonometric Views

SCALE: No Scale SHEET # 18 of 18 DRAWN BY: J. Butler DATE: 5/15/03 Preservation Timber Framing inc. P0st Office Box 29, Eliot, Maine 03903 207 361-2091 96'—6"

N 1

36'—31 2"

36'—5"

7'—10"

87'—8" 11'—91 2"

NOTES

Drawing Object 1.There is no evidence of early floor framing in this section of the North drive bay. It was likely open to the lower level for 1st Building Phase hay storage. It is presently floored over at the level of the center drive bay. 2nd Building Phase 2. The drive bay level floor within the blue hatched area is dropped approximately 22" below the center drive bay floor. SILO DATE 5/18/03 SHEET # 2 of 18 207 361-2091

1 0 52010 15

SCALE OF FEET P0st Office Box 29, Eliot, Maine 03903 Preservation Timber Framing inc.

DRAWN BY: J. Butler

HUDSON, NH HASELTON BARN

SCALE: 1/8" = 1' Drive Bay Level Floor Plan Drawing Object

1st Building Phase

2nd Building Phase

8'—5"

3'—10"

24'—13 4"

37° 22' 50"

11'—61 2" 8'—51 2" 9'—1"

12'—0"

36'—0"

HASELTON BARN HUDSON, NH

Bent 1 Elevation Viewpoint from the East (layout/reference face)

1 0 52010 15 SCALE: 1/8" = 1' SHEET # 3 of 18 SCALE OF FEET DRAWN BY: J. Butler DATE 5/18/03 Preservation Timber Framing inc. P0st Office Box 29, Eliot, Maine 03903 207 361-2091 Drawing Object

1st Building Phase

2nd Building Phase

8'—5"

37° 22' 50" 13'—10" 33'—13 4"

8'—51 2" 10'—41 4"

1

8'—41 2" 6'—61 4"

36'—0"

NOTES

1. Dotted lines denote present drive bay floor level on the North side of the barn. Originally this area was open to the lower level floor.

HASELTON BARN HUDSON, NH

Bents 2, 3, 4 & 5 (Typical) Elevation Viewpoint from the East (layout/reference face)

1 0 52010 15 SCALE: 1/8" = 1' SHEET # 4 of 18 SCALE OF FEET DRAWN BY: J. Butler DATE 2/4/03 Preservation Timber Framing inc. P0st Office Box 29, Eliot, Maine 03903 207 361-2091 Drawing Object

1st Building Phase

2nd Building Phase

Bent 6 Original Configuration 1 Bent 6 Extant

37° 22' 50" 13'—8" 33'—13 4"

10'—41 4" 10'—41 4" 2

18'—1"

8'—41 2" 6'—53 4"

12'—0" 12'—0" 12'—0"

NOTES

1. Bent 6 underwent significant modification when the phase 2 barn was added to the phase 1 barn. The original HASELTON BARN configuration of bent 6 appears on the left. Original gable framing is not entirely understood. HUDSON, NH 2. Present Drive Bay floor level on the North side of the barn. Bent 6 Elevation Viewpoint from the East (non-layout/reference face)

1 0510 15 20 SCALE: 1/8" = 1' SHEET # 5 of 18 SCALE OF FEET DRAWN BY: J. Butler DATE 5/18/03 Preservation Timber Framing inc. P0st Office Box 29, Eliot, Maine 03903 207 361-2091 Drawing Object

1st Building Phase

2nd Building Phase

1

37° 22' 50" 13'—8"

8'—4" 9'—101 2"

18'—8"

22'—91 2"

8'—4" 8'—4" 6'—111 2"

12'—0"

36'—0"

HASELTON BARN HUDSON, NH NOTES 1. Phase 2 Barn roof consists entirely of common rafters. The rafters are not joined to the bents. Bents 7& 8 (Typical) Elevation Viewpoint from the East (non-layout/reference face)

1 0 52010 15 SCALE: 1/8" = 1' SHEET # 6 of 18 SCALE OF FEET DRAWN BY: J. Butler DATE 5/18/03 Preservation Timber Framing inc. P0st Office Box 29, Eliot, Maine 03903 207 361-2091 Drawing Object

1st Building Phase

2nd Building Phase

18'—8"

23'—1 2"

12'—0"

36'—0"

HASELTON BARN HUDSON, NH

Bent 9 Elevation Viewpoint from the East (non-layouo/reference face)

1 0 5101520 SCALE: 1/8" = 1' SHEET # 7 of 18 SCALE OF FEET DRAWN BY: J. Butler DATE 5/18/03 Preservation Timber Framing inc. P0st Office Box 29, Eliot, Maine 03903 207 361-2091 Drawing Object

1st Building Phase

2nd Building Phase

24'—15 8"

33'—21 8"

1st Building Phase Barn 2nd Building Phase Barn 96'—2"

HASELTON BARN HUDSON, NH

North Eaves Wall Frame Elevation

1 0510 15 20 SCALE 1/8" = 1': SHEET # 8 of 18 SCALE OF FEET DRAWN BY: J. Butler DATE 5/18/03 Preservation Timber Framing inc. P0st Office Box 29, Eliot, Maine 03903 207 361-2091 Drawing Object

1st Building Phase

2nd Building Phase

LOFT FLOOR LEVEL

DRIVE BAY FLOOR LEVEL

LOWER FLOOR LEVEL

10'—0"

HASELTON BARN HUDSON, NH

South Eaves Wall Frame Elevation NOTES 1 1 0510 15 20 1.There is a cellar below the lower level framed floor that extends from bay 2 to SCALE: 1/8" = 1' SHEET # 9 of 18 bay 8. The ceiling height is approximately 10'. The foundation material consists of SCALE OF FEET DRAWN BY: J. Butler DATE 5/18/03 brick &stone. Preservation Timber Framing inc. P0st Office Box 29, Eliot, Maine 03903 207 361-2091 Existing beam at the base of the West gable Purlin supporting common rafters Bent 8 interior post

Existing cantilevered support structure for the West Gable

Bent 9 rafter plate Common rafters

Hip rafter & supporting jack rafters

Bent 8 tie beam Post & brace of new support structure will join to existing beam under the West gable & reinforce the existing cantilevered support structure

Beam of new support structure will span across Bent 8 tie beam & Bent 9 rafter plate

WEST GABLE REPAIR DETAIL Refer to Sheet 14