SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
August 16, 2006
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on August 16, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Messrs. Spang, Desrocher and Hart and Ms. Guy. Ms. Diozzi welcomed new member David Hart.
58 Derby Street
Adam Loffredo presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors. The clapboards will be Burnished Pewter, trim will be Phelps Putty and window grates and doors will be Sayward Pine.
Ms. Diozzi and Ms. Herbert stated that the colors looked good.
Ms. Herbert asked if he had re-roofed the building.
Mr. Loffredo stated that it was re-roofed six or seven years ago, before he purchased the building.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Hart asked for clarification on the grates.
Ms. Herbert asked if he meant the entire sash. Mr. Loffredo replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Desrocher made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
2 River Street
Richard Luecke and Perry McIntosh submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors. The body will be Tortoise, the trim Buffed and the doors Cypress.
Ms. Herbert stated that the proposed colors are a minor departure from what is currently there.
Ms. Bellin stated that the colors are very nice.
Mr. Hart asked the color of the sash. Ms. McIntosh stated that they will be the trim color.
There was no public comment.
Ms. Herbert stated that the body color might clash with the house next door.
Ms. McIntosh stated that they may be painting soon anyway.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
7 Cambridge/9 Chestnut Street
Mr. Hart recused himself from this discussion.
Hamilton Hall, Inc. submitted two applications for Certificates of Hardship. One was to install a dry inspector’s test connection for the fire sprinkler system. The other is to change the approved Siamese connection to a Stroz connection which will have an aluminum body and cap with a brass plate (noted with asterisk on the photo). Michaeline LaRoche represented the applicant.
Ms. LaRoche stated that they are withdrawing the application for the test connection. She stated that the Stroz connection will be in the same location as the previously approved connection.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. LaRoche provided an application for a Certificate of Hardship to install a drain to empty the sprinkler system during testing. It will require a 2” diameter, 90 degree elbow and bezel on the south façade, east of the side exist door.
Ms. Guy noted that this application was not advertised, but suggested the Commission consider if it could be approved as Non-applicable.
Ms. Herbert questioned if it will be visible, due to being installed behind a gate.
Mr. Spang questioned how the ramp behind the gate was approved.
Ms. Guy stated that it was approved under Appropriateness as being “essentially non-visible”.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the drain under Non-Applicability. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
138 North/2 Dearborn St.
In continuation of a previous meeting, Thomas Pelletier, Cynthia Pelletier and Kellie Overberg submitted an application for exterior alterations to a carriage house including replacement of windows, changing 3 doors to windows, installation of new door and installation of a/c vents and pipes through the Carriage House Ordinance.
Mr. Pelletier provided updated drawings and noted that he was not crazy about the window on the first floor between the doors as is drawn. He noted that the east elevation windows will be 6 over 6 and not 8 over 8 as drawn.
Ms. Herbert stated that there could be either a wood panel or small side lights on the sides of the door. Mr. Hart agreed that it was appropriate either way.
Mr. Pelletier stated that he had the Window Woman at the site, but she cannot do enlarged windows needed to meet egress; therefore casement will be needed.
Ms. Guy suggested using a Dutch door. Mr. Pelletier stated that there would be issues with weather proofing and screens.
Ms. Herbert suggested talking to local lumber mills to see if they have any ideas.
Mr. Spang asked how visible the new foundation will be.
Mr. Pelletier stated that approximately 10” will be visible.
Mr. Spang stated that he thought the in-fill piece for the garage was unresolved. He added that he would want to see all the final design resolutions in a drawing.
Mr. Pelletier stated that he would like approval to remove the door on the south elevation and infill it with temporary bracing and to stabilize the roof to make it weathertight.
Mr. Spang made a motion to remove central door on south elevation and infill with temporary bracing, sheathing and other material necessary to stabilize structure and to undertake repairs to roof as necessary to stabilize structure. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Hart suggested having drawings of all existing and proposed elevations.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to continue the application to the meeting of October 4, 2006. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
28 Chestnut Street
Annie Harris and Andy Lippman submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace gutters with heavy duty 6” aluminum on four sides of the main house and downspouts with aluminum or painted galvanized with round profile. A gutter sample was provided.
Mr. Hart asked the material of the existing gutters. Mr. Lippman replied that they are copper.
Ms. Herbert stated that 75% are of the houses on Chestnut Street have copper, but the rest are wood or no gutters. She noted that the only building on Chestnut Street that has aluminum gutters is 13 Chestnut and that there is nothing in the Historic Commission’s files that show that they were approved. She asked if they got any quotes for copper replacement.
Mr. Lippman stated that a quote from Kidney came in at $22,000 and provided a copy of the quote.
Ms. Herbert stated that she installed a gutter and downspout at 97 Essex Street for $1,100 in November, 2004 and that it was approximately the same length as the front of 28 Chestnut.
Mr. Spang stated that copper and doubled and tripled in price in the last six months.
Mr. Hart agreed, but stated that the Commission should still entertain the idea.
Ms. Herbert asked if there were galvanized downspouts now.
Mr. Lippman stated that they are mostly and are fluted on the front.
Mr. Spang asked if all the gutters are in equally bad shape around the building.
Mr. Lippman stated that they are too old and thin to be patched anymore.
Ms. Herbert noted that the gutter on the front looks to be in terrible condition.
Mr. Hart stated that he thought the Kidney quote was high and suggested getting other quotes.
Ms. Bellin noted that the Kidney quote included copper downspouts and, if removed, the cost would be lower.
Ms. Herbert asked the aluminum estimate.
Mr. Lippman stated that it was approximately $6,000.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-applicability to replace gutters and downspouts in kind. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Spang stated that the Commission is grappling with the copper price which seems high, but noted that there may be difficulty in getting additional pricing by the next meeting.
Mr. Lippman stated that they need to get a roof and not miss this season.
Ms. Herbert stated that she could provide the name of a contractor. She added that this is an important house on an important street.
Mr. Lippman stated that even with a better quote, they still need to do the roof and that it may not be affordable.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Hart seconded the motion. There were no votes in favor. All votes were in opposition and the motion did not carry.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to continue the application. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
2 Prospect Avenue
Joseph Reither submitted an application for a Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance to demolish 2 Prospect Avenue, owned by the Estate of Gerald L’Heureux.
Mr. Reither stated that he could move the building on the site, facing Butler Street, if the Comission felt it was historic.
Mr. Spang asked if it would give the applicant more units to sell. Mr. Reither stated that he was not sure.
Ms. Herbert noted that the house sits on a granite foundation. She stated that she would like a site visit.
Mr. Herbert made a motion to continue the application to the next meeting and to have a site visit on Saturday, August19th at 7:00 a.m. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
135 Lafayette Street
Salem Lafayette Development, LLC submitted an application for a Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance to demolish St. Joseph’s Church at 135 Lafayette Street. Present were David Armitage from the Planning Office for Urban Affairs (POUA) and Attorney Joseph Correnti..
Atty. Correnti stated that the project has been in development for the past 15 months. Two properties are proposed to be demolished, with the Church being over 50 years. The two oldest buildings on site will be preserved and rehabbed. The project is currently going through the Board of Appeal and Planning Board.
Mr. Armitage stated that non-profit POUA has been in existence for over 35 years and has produced over 2500 units of housing. They provide mixed income, affordable and special needs housing by working with the community. They recently received a preservation award in Boston for the Best New Building. He stated that they don’t come to a community with a pre-conceived notice, but rather get the public’s input from the start.
Atty. Correnti stated that they have had meetings over the last year with the Ward Councillor, Salem Harbor CDC, the neighborhood association and Historic Salem, Inc. He noted that each may have a different opinion on the significance of the church.
Mr. Armitage stated that the City commissioned a reuse study and found there was a lack of market interest in the building. There are some structural issues, particularly with the steel infrastructure pushing out and starting to crack the walls. They looked at the potential for converting the building to housing, but found that the most efficient use would be long narrow units that would necessitate windows which would compromise the essence of the building. Reuse would also require structural changes to hold up the new floors and other extensive changes to meet seismic and other building requirements. Consequently, the unit cost would exceed the market value. The proposal for the site is 14 units in the school, 8 in the rectory and 75 units in a new 6-story building with a community life
center on the first floor.
Atty. Correnti stated that there has to be a critical mass of units in order to offer the affordable component. There will be low, moderate and market rate housing, including ownership and rental units. He stated that they are currently in permitting, which they are hoping to finish in September. They hope to file with the state for housing funding during the fall funding round, which requires that the project be permitted.
Ms. Herbert asked if there is a design for the new building.
Mr. Armitage stated that they had a plan, but it is currently being reworked based on comments by the Planning Board.
Ms. Herbert asked if the cruciform statue in the park across the street will stay. Mr. Armitage replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Herbert suggested looking into incorporating the art deco component somewhere in the design.
Ms. Herbert asked if the parking lot will remain.
Atty. Correnti stated that there will be 145 on site spaces with 110 on the surface and 35 under the building.
Mr. Armitage stated that they are planning to recess the front of the building to acknowledge the feel of the existing building.
Ms. Bellin asked where they are in the permitting process.
Atty. Correnti stated that the Planning Board has had two meetings, has scheduled a site walk and will meet again in September. The ZBA meets on 8/23 for the variance from height.
Ms. Bellin asked if they expect Planning Board and ZBA approval before the end of September. Atty. Correnti replied in the affirmative, noting that the state application is due on September 8th.
Mr. Armitage stated that if they miss the September round, the next funding round is not until February.
Atty. Correnti stated that they have to demonstrate in the application that they have a permitted project.
Ms. Diozzi asked if they need to go through Massachusetts Historical Commission.
Mr. Armitage replied in the affirmative, noting that there will be a Section 106 Review process.
Mr. Spang asked when construction will commence.
Mr. Armitage stated that they would like to begin in January.
Mr. Spang asked what will happen to the crucifix on the front.
Mr. Armitag stated that they have an organization that identifies churches being built, so that artifacts can be reused somewhere else. They have already prices the cost to put the crucifix in pieces for removal.
Ms. Diozzi stated that the Commission has the ability to delay demolition for 6 months from August 8, 2006 or it can waive the Ordinance and allow demolition to occur prior to six months.
Stanley Smith, 4 Pickering Street, provided comments from Historic Salem, Inc., noting that Donna Vinson had to leave. He stated that HSI is opposed to the waiver because the building is qualified as eligible for inclusion to and contributing to a National Register district, is unique in architectural style and is one of the few secular large interior spaces.
Mr. Spang stated that the delay would run out in February and asked what HSI hopes will happen during that time.
Mr. Smith replied that he was not in a position to answer, but noted that a delay opens the door to more discussion.
Mr. Spang asked if HSI is looking to save the building.
Mr. Smith stated that he did not know, but noted that there are concerns of the scale of the new development.
Atty. Correnti stated that HSI submitted a letter to the Planning Board and that it has been their position for over a year to save the building.
Mr. Smith stated, as former Executive Director of Historic Boston, Inc., that the structural problems may be real, but there is a need to find out what alternatives are available to preserve the building. He added that he felt the City’s mission was not to study how to preserve the building and that he did not feel all avenues to preserve the building have been studied.
Ms. Herbert stated that the church closed in August, 2004 and questioned when HSI got involved in trying to save the church.
Mr. Smith stated that they have had a series of meetings, but have not had a concerted campaign to pull people in.
Ms. Herbert wondered if HSI should have been heard from sooner in the process.
Mr. Smith stated that he had previously asked the City to undertake a Certified Local Government opinion.
City Councillor Lucy Corchado stated that she was speaking as a resident of the Point, as an alumni of St. Joseph’s School and as a parishioner of the church. She stated that she has met with the owners during the man committee meetings that were held monthly. The meetings were publicized in the newspaper. She stated that she also met with Barbara Cleary of HSI. She noted that there was never a strong push to save the church structure. She noted that she has been involved since day one and only now is there a push to save the church. She noted that the result of meeting discussions was that the rectory and school would be reused. She added that Salem Harbor CDC also came to the same conclusions that the church would be very difficult to reuse. She stated that people
are ready to see the site developed and that the proposed will serve the purpose that the church served – as a central location for people to meet. She stated that she lobbied for affordable housing and that the benefits outway the cons. She stated that the neighborhood concensus is of the people who are directly impacted by this non-profit development. She requested that the waiver be approved.
Mr. Spang asked if Councillor Corchado believed that there was sufficient due diligence. Councillor Corchado replied in the affirmative, noting that due diligence was undertaken by both bidders.
Ms. Herbert asked if the community is interested in the new building having some flavor of the church.
Councillor Corchado stated that she has not heard it and that the focus has been on the need for affordable housing.
Anna DellaMonica stated that she is the former organist for St. Joseph’s Church. She stated that she was in favor of affordable housing, but felt it should not be done at the sacrifice of demolishing the church. She stated that it is a fine example of modern architecture.
Jeff Bellin, 396 Essex Street, stated he felt there is very little modern architecture in Salem that is worth preserving. He stated that he understood that people have an emotional or spiritual attachment. He questioned the cost to preserve the building if it were placed on the National Register. He asked if the feel of the church could be incorporate.
Doug Sabin, 34 Northey Street, stated that he supported the delay and added that once it is gone, it is gone forever. He stated that in six months, they may come up with an adaptive alternative.
Mr. Hart stated that the building is eligible for listing and HSI’s letter states that their position is that the waiver should not be issued based on HSI’s assertion that four to six months are needed for the owner to obtain funding.
Atty. Correnti stated that they are going to the Board of Appeal for a variance. The application deadline is 9/8/06 and it may take four to six months approval of the funding. He noted that the development has been studied for a year, that a lot of thought has gone into it and that they continue to work to shape the project.
Ms. Herbert suggested continuing to the next meeting.
Mr. Spang suggested that the funding application indicate that a demolition will be in hand on February 8, 2007, since they won’t have a building permit in time for September 8th. Mr. Spang suggested that the funding may be contingent up MHC’s 106 Review.
Atty. Correnti stated that they won’t demolish the building without MHC’s review and noted that it is a risk that the State may say to apply in the Spring.
Mr. Spang noted that site prep and the demolition of the convent could begin.
Atty. Correnti stated that that was hypothetically correct, but noted that Phase 1 of the project is demolition and that it is virtually impossible to work around this massing.
Mr. Spang stated that it is typical for the Commission to ask for structural information and to have a site visit. He stated that he would like that information shared with the Commission. He added that he felt that both the applicant and HSI were coming in at the last minute.
Atty. Correnti stated that they were willing to continue to September 6th.
Mr. Spang stated that he would also like to see the reports on the investigation undertaken with regard to rehabbing the church for housing.
Mr. Hart stated that he felt the 106 Review process needs to be undertaken before a waiver is issued and that that process will not happen before September 6th.,
Ms. Herbert made a motion to continue the application to September 6th. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Ms. Guy stated that she received a request from Paul Fitzpatrick to extend the certificates for the rear brick building datd 2/18/05. Mr. Spangr made a motion to approve the request for a one year extension. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy stated that she received a project notification from MHC for the YMCA of the North Shore’s proposal to building at 30 Leggs Hill Road, which was stamped as being unlikely to affect significant resources.
Ms. Guy read a letter from Bob Belcher of Ipswich concerning 7 Sutton Avenue.
Salem Jail – Mr. Hart recused himself from this discussion. Ms. Guy stated that Mr. Spang received a call from Paul Holtz at MHC, asking for comments on the proposed jail redevelopment plans. She noted that Larry and Hannah had been delegated as Commission representatives to attend the review team and asked if the members would like them to draft comment. Ms. Bellin stated that she would not mind seeing the plans. Mr. Spang stated he would prepare a draft letter for the next meeting. He noted that he felt the developer was doing a good jog on trying to preserve as much of the jail as possible and to preserve/restore the jail keeper’s house. He added that he felt the carriage house was a little funky, but the new building was good design. He stated the Mr.
Holtz was concerned about the height of one chimney and a couple other items. Ms. Herbert stated that she would like the developer to make a presentation. Ms. Guy stated that she would look into the possibility of a presentation.
There being no further business, Ms. Bellin made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission
| 
