AMHERST — As long as two windows in the existing building are preserved and reused and the original 1928 building is protected from damage, the demolition of the 1990s addition to the Jones Library can proceed, based on a recent Amherst Historical Commission decision.

The commission voted 3-1 last Thursday, with one member absent and another not participating, to affirm its September vote to not impose a demolition delay, one the final steps in getting the $46.1 million expansion and renovation of the building back out to bid following various cost-saving measures by Finegold Alexander Architects and The Berkshire Design Group.

Madeleine Helmer, acting as chairwoman, was joined by Pat Auth and Antonia Brillembourg in allowing the project to move forward, while Hetty Startup voted against. Chairwoman Robin Fordham didn’t participate due to being employed by the Massachusetts Historical Commission, which is also reviewing the project, and member Mikayla Rasnic was absent.

Conditions set in September 2023 remain in effect to protect the historic building during demolition, including to safely remove, store and later reinstall the Belden-Whipple House window, a historic fanlight window located in Special Collections, and removal and reuse of the Palladian three-section window on the back side of the library facing the Kinsey Memorial Garden.

The commission’s action comes as many residents are writing letters and offering oral comments for and against the project, with critics citing the Massachusetts Historical Commission’s rejection of $2 million in historic tax credits as indicative that the project is troubling for the historic building.

But Library Director Sharon Sharry said protecting history has been at the forefront of decisions that have been made since embarking on the project in 2011, a year after she began her tenure.

“Historic preservation has played a key role in this project since the beginning, 13 years, and in fact many of the design changes that have happened over the 13 years have happened because of public comment,” Sharry said.

Sharry said federal, state and local government officials understand that beautiful historic buildings can only last forever if they continue to function well. “Historic preservation doesn’t mean we can’t change the building,” Sharry said.

The so-called Section 106 federal review process is needed because the project is receiving a Challenge Infrastructure and Capacity Building grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities, an Economic Development Initiative grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The review also covers a state hazardous waste removal permit from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.

There is nothing wrong with making changes to meet programming needs and the Americans with Disabilities Act, Sharry said.

Senior Planner Nate Malloy said the local commission can have a different opinion than the state commission, which rejected the application for historic tax credits. The state commission, he said, is not looking at the project through the lens of the demolition delay bylaw or a preservation restriction agreement.

“Does the removal of the 1990s addition and then this new addition impact the 1928 structure to a point where there should be a delay, or can it be authorized and move forward?” Malloy said.

Trustees President Austin Sarat said the local commission has only limited purview, and is not charged with examining interior changes to the building.

“People’s feelings about what is being done to the historic character of the building, that’s fine — we’re here under a preservation restriction for a demolition permit, and a demolition permit was granted before, and nothing has changed,” Sarat said.

Ellen Anselone, a principal at Finegold Alexander Architects, also said nothing previously approved has changed. “It seems like we’re opening the whole thing up again, when we’re only looking for a couple of changes,” Anselone said.

Startup said she would have rescinded the earlier OK for demolition due to the Massachusetts Historical Commission’s position.

“I think the new information that we have, that we’ve learned about since July, is making me really hone to my job as a commissioner, which is to observe the bylaw of the town, and to take care of a historic structure that is absolutely critical to our historic character as a unique place in the Valley,” Startup said.

Startup added there is a deep divide in the community over the project.

“It’s not our role to pay attention to that — our role is to pay attention to the regulations and bylaws that govern what we do,” Auth responded.