SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
September 6, 2006
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on September 6, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Harper, Messrs. Spang, Desrocher and Hart and Ms. Guy.
61 Summer St.
Natalie Dawes, Henry Leon and Donald Glover presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to paint colors at 61 Summer Street. Three schemes were provided. Option 1 is for Clapboards - Marlboro Blue, Rickrack Siding - Buckland Blue and trim - Marble White. Option 2 is for clapboards - Chestertown Buff, Rickrack Siding - Bryant Gold and Trim - Windham Cream. Option 3 is for Clapboards - Saybrook Sage, Rickrack Siding - Kennebunkport Green and trim - Bare.
Mr. Hart asked the date of the building. Mr. Leon stated that it was 1806.
Mr. Hart stated that the building has an interesting belt course. He asked how the windows and doors would be treated.
Mr. Leon stated that the windows and doors will stay the same deep burgundy.
Ms. Herbert asked if the fire escape is for second egress. Mr. Leon replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Dawes stated that they hope to remove it in the future.
Mr. Leon stated that they would install a deck in its place.
There was no public comment.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve all three paint color options with the doors and windows to remain the existing burgundy. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
28 Chestnut Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, 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. Ms. Harris was present.
Ms. Harris stated that she sought a price from the company suggested by Ms. Herbert and provided a written response that they were unable to bid at this time.
Ms. Herbert noted that the company does not do roofing, which is part of the project. She stated that they may just be busy now and that the work might be scheduled later.
Ms. Diozzi stated that they may not be able to fit it into this season.
Ms. Harris stated that it is difficult to get contractors to come to the property. She added that she did have one come by yesterday, who was recommended by Stanley Smith and that she is waiting on a quote for a couple of options. She stated that she would like an approval for repair or possibly to patch sections as needed.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-applicability to repair or patch existing gutters and downspouts as needed, to replicate existing and to give the option to salvage copper from non-visible areas to use in visible areas and to continue the Appropriateness application to the next meeting. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Hart noted that the copper pricing is changing daily and may be coming down.
2 Prospect Avenue
In continuation of a previous meeting, 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.
Ms. Diozzi noted that she, Ms. Bellin and Mr. Desrocher attended a site visit.
Ms. Diozzi asked if the project has gone before the ZBA.
Mr. Reither stated that it has not yet. He stated that an option would be to move the house to 14 Butler Street. He stated that he was willing to buy the lot at 14 Butler and move it there.
Ms. Diozzi noted that the Commission did not have survey information. She noted that the house has some nice features and is remarkably intact.
Mr. Desrocher stated that he was pleasantly surprised. He stated that it was sitting right at the soil line and that one corner may have termite damage. He added that the kitchen ell might have been done in the 1950s, but noted that the building is pretty square.
Mr. Spang questioned if moving was considered demolition.
Ms. Guy stated that the Building Inspector defines what is demolition.
Mr. Reither stated that he was looking for the Commission’s support for when he goes before the ZBA.
There was no public comment.
Ms. Diozzi stated that she would support moving the building to 14 Butler.
Mr. Hart noted that the intent of the Demolition Delay Ordinance is to allow the applicant to explore alternatives and added that he felt this applicant has certainly demonstrated that he has explored alternatives.
Mr. Hart made a motion to, in lieu of waiving the Demolition Delay Ordinance, support the preservation of 2 Prospect Avenue through its relocation to the lot at 14 Butler Street. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
377 Essex Street
Maureen McCarthy and Merlin Partners presented applications for Certificates of Appropriateness for paint colors, clapboard replacement and the rear and side, alteration of the rear porch and replacement of a French door with a 2 over 2 Brosco window to match the rest of the house. The body will be Whispering Willow, accent will be Codman Claret and trim will be Andover Cream. The porch alteration consists of an amendment to the certificate received in July to only demolish the second story porch and repair the first story.
Mr. Spang asked what the material of the porch roof will be now that it is visible.
Mr. Partners stated that the second story has already been demolished and that they prefer the current look, instead of constructing a new porch. He stated that the roof would be slate color, architectural asphalt shingles.
Mr. Hart asked the slope.
Mr. Partners stated that it is 14” over 10’.
Mr. Hart commented that it is a low slope.
Ms. Bellin noted that the photographs show the second story porch removed and that is remaining is how the porch will look.
Mr. Hart noted that the Commission’s guidelines advocate for 3-tab shingles.
Mr. Spang asked if they will install gutters.
Mr. Partners stated that they will apply for gutters in the future.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the porch amendment conditional that the roof be 3-tab, black or charcoal gray shingles. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. McCarthy stated that they want to change the colors proposed from Codman Claret to Plum Island.
Mr. Partners stated that the accents are the two side doors, window sash and some small details.
Ms. McCarthy stated that they may want to keep the front door natural.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve paint colors of Body - Whispering Willow, Trim - Andover Cream and doors & sash - Plum Island with an option for front door to be natural. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Partners stated that the new clapboards will be smooth side to weather and that the French door being replaced with a window is not visible from the public way.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-applicability for clapboard replacement and replacement of a French door with a window as proposed. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Hart cautioned using blown in insulation, noting that it might result in condensation between the walls if there is no vapor barrier inside.
266 Lafayette Street
Dean McClearn presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of French doors at the rear of 266 Lafayette Street. The application states that the doors cannot be seen from Lafayette, only Laurel Street, and from a distance of more than 75’. The doors will be painted to match the trim.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Hart asked what was there before.
Mr. McClearn stated that it was an oversized window. Two sets of French doors were installed.
Ms. Herbert noted that there are three sets.
Mr. McClearn stated that the third set is not his unit and was there before.
Ms. Herbert stated that since the first set was already there, the two new sets pull it together.
Mr. Hart stated that they are on a minor façade.
Ms. Herbert stated that she thought it was interesting that neither property’s French doors have been painted, when the house trim has been painted.
Mr. Spang made a motion to approve the installation of French doors as has been already completed, conditional that they be painted the cream trim color to match the house. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
105 Leach Street
Michael A. Cook presented an application for a waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance to demolish a garage. The date of the construction of the garage is unknown. The house was built in 1915. The proposed use is a larger garage/boathouse.
City Councillor Matt Veno asked if the garage was the subject of a recent Zoning Board of Appeal (ZBA) application for a new structure.
Mr. Cook replied in the affirmative and stated that he made changes to the height and roof line and has since gotten ZBA approval. He stated that the structure is 70’ back from the street. He added that it has a slate roof and that he will salvage the slate to use on the visible surfaces of the new garage.
Mr. Hart stated that he would like to see the garage photographed and the size documented through drawings of existing conditions.
Mr. Hart made a motion to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance for demolition of garage, conditional that the owner submit elevation drawings detailing all four sides, along with photograph documentation of all four sides of building and close-up detail of masonry block before demolition permit is approved. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
60 Jefferson Avenue
RTD Nominee Realty Trust submitted an application for waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance to demolish 60 Jefferson Avenue, for the construction of an artist studio. Robert Dunham represented the Trust.
Ms. Diozzi asked the age of the building.
Mr. Dunham replied that he did not know, noting that it was once a used car dealership.
Mr. Desrocher made a motion to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion.
Mr. Hart stated that he would like an amendment which would provide that the applicant submit elevation drawings and photographs of all four sides.
Mr. Desrocher stated that he felt elevation drawings would be excessive for this property and did not wish to amend his motion.
The motion was voted upon, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
135 Lafayette Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, 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 was Attorney Joseph Correnti.
Ms. Diozzi read a letter from Attorney Correnti requesting a continuance for 90 days until the meeting of December 6, 2006, to allow the applicant to undertake a photographic and documentary history. During this time, the applicant will proceed with the Section 106 review process of which the Commission can participate in.
Mr. Spang stated that at the last meeting, the Planning Office was going to share studies that show how it was determined that the church reuse is not feasible and asked if the documentation would be submitted in 90 days.
Atty. Correnti stated that the feasibility determination could be discussed during the 90 days. He stated that the purpose of the request is to allow discussion to continue. He noted that not having the waiver approved tonight would not adversely effect the request for State funding being submitted on September 8th. He stated that rather than force a decision, they would request the matter be continued. He stated that the Section 106 process will begin and the Commission will receive copies of the submittals. The Commission will be able to indicate to Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) that the application is still before them. He added that the developer plans to fully document the church with plans, drawings & narration and that 90 days is a good point to check
in.
Ms. Bellin asked the status of the ZBA and Planning Board.
Atty. Correnti stated that the ZBA has approved the variances and that the Planning Board meets on September 7th.
James Treadwell of North Salem stated that the Demolition Delay Ordinance is an important historic preservation tool and that a six month delay is no unreasonable. He stated that six months provides time to thoroughly investigate and consider alternatives. He added that he looks forward to the Section 106 Review process, which will give the opportunity to look into salvaging the building. He noted that, should the project proceed, 5 Broad Street will become surplus.
Jean Martin stated that she represents the planning board action group. She noted that the current church was built on the original, former church foundation, suggesting that that should be considered its actual age. She stated that the church is a monument, that many of its members are veterans and that it has a great sense of history.
John Carr, 7 River Street, stated that he co-authored the Demolition Delay Ordinance in 1986. He noted that the clock will still be ticking during the 90 days and questioned how a continuance would be interpreted during the 106 Review Process in terms of support. He stated that he felt the waiver should be denied if it could be interpreted that no action on the waiver meant support for demolition.
Barbara Cleary of Historic Salem, Inc. (HSI) stated that HSI expressed their opposition to a waiver at the last meeting because HSI feels the Section 106 Review process should go forward. She asked what process or discussion will take place up to December 6th.
Atty. Correnti stated that by December 6th, the Section 106 Review process will have started and there will be submissions and discussions. He noted that December 6th is just a point in time selected to check in and not necessarily a date requested for a vote.
Ms. Cleary asked if copies of the submissions will be provided to the Historical Commission. Atty. Correnti replied in the affirmative.
Philip Celeste, 10 Flint Street, Danvers, stated that he represents St. Joseph’s sister Parish, St. Alphonsos. He noted that the Planning Office had put in a bid on their church in Beverly in order to construct housing. The Church of the Nazarene won the bid, bought and preserved the building. He also stated that the statue of St. Joseph is buried in the parking lot and that he has asked the Planning Board to investigate this prior to construction. He added that he is now learning that there will be an underground garage. He also added that no one has addressed the crucifix on the front of the church. He suggested that the waiver be denied and added that he felt the project is what will define the future of Salem.
Doug Sabin, 34 Northey Street, stated that this is an opportunity to send a message that the Commission respects historic structures. He encouraged denial.
Anna Delamonica, 18 Prescott Street, provided 1944 and 1949 newspaper clippings which state that it is a “noted Salem landmark” and “one of the most beautiful and largest edifices in the area”.
Linda Locke, 1 Pickering Street, stated that she is the chairperson of the reuse committee and has a 27 page petition. She noted that the church is architecturally significant in the International style. She stated that the city looked into the highest and best financial use and noted that an option was suggested to demolish the ancillary buildings and keep the church. She noted that the Metropolitan Area Planning Council suggests that for church reuse to look out for the best solution and not to act hastily. She added that Lisa Alberghini spoke of St. Aiden’s church, which is becoming 14 condominiums, was saved in part due to its National Register listing and that Ms. Alberghini noted that St. Joseph’s Church is not on the National Register. Ms. Locke stated that there is a
process underway to create a Point National Register district and that St. Joseph’s Church could be developed similar to St. Aiden's.
City Councillor Joan Lovely stated that she has a petition signed by 300 seniors that use the senior center, of which 30 are not from Salem, who do not want the senior center to move to the Point, noting that if the move did not occur, it could help preserve the church.
Ms. Diozzi closed the public comment.
Ms. Herbert stated that at the last meeting the application was continued to give HSI a chance to gather more information. She stated that some good points were made tonight and that the Commission’s duty is to preserve buildings.
Atty. Correnti stated that they are not asking for a waiver tonight and that a continuance will send the message to the Planning Office that the Commission wants talks to continue. He stated that he did not want a negative message to go back resulting in the delay period being waited out.
Mr. Hart stated that it is encouraging that the applicant is committed to enter into the Section 106 Review process and to include the Historical Commission. He noted that the Section 106 Review process will also include archaeological resources, which will also address the statue in the parking lot.
Ms. Guy noted that since the site has been determined eligible for listing on the National Register, MHC will look at it as though it is already listed.
Ms. Diozzi stated that if the Commission continues the application, there is a guaranteed date for more discussion and noted that otherwise the applicant could choose to wait out the clock.
Ms. Bellin asked the ramification if the application were denied.
Atty. Correnti stated that the applicant could wait out the six months and offer little cooperation.
Ms. Bellin asked if the Commission should be sending a message.
Ms. Guy noted that during the Section 106 Review process, MHC will ask for comments and the Commission can send any message it chooses at that time.
Mr. Spang stated that he would still like to see the studies and a thorough investigation that the church can’t be incorporated.
Atty. Correnti stated that they could provide this information in a more formal presentation.
David Hart made a motion to continue the application to December 6, 1006 meeting with the understanding that other defined interest parties will be involved with the Section 106 Review process as inferenced in the September 6th letter and that alternative uses that will preserve the building will be looked into. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
32-36 Federal Street
Present to provide information on the new courthouse project were Gail Rosenberg and Carol Meeker of the MA Division of Capital Asset Management (DCAM), Douglas Kelleher of Epsilon Associates and Jean Carroon and Paul Dudek of the architectural firm of Goody Clancy.
Mr. Kelleher stated that Epsilon is the historic preservation and environmental consultants for DCAM. He presented a model of the current site and noted that the current court complex is listed twice on the National Register. He stated that the project is currently in the conceptual design phase, that funding was received last year and that Goody Clancy was then hired. He noted that there is a steering committee with representatives of Historic Salem, Inc., the Federal Street Neighborhood Association and the Neighborhood Alliance. He added that the State is mandated to consolidate court facilities. Mr. Kelleher stated that there is still an unresolved issue with the Baptist Church and that they are looking at a couple of options.
Ms. Carroon stated that each side of the has its own character. The biggest massing is to be on the Bridge Street side in order to respect the opposite residential Federal Street side. The original proposal was for the church to be incorporated into the design. She provided two conceptual schemes - on that relocates the church and one that keeps the church in place.
Mr. Kelleher stated that they are beginning permitting and have started discussions with MHC. They anticipate filing with MEPA in the next month or so. He stated that there was a meeting with HSI, the Federal Street Neighborhood Association and the Neighborhood Alliance last night and they anticipate meeting again in early October. He stated that they will be before the Historical Commission many times over the course of the project.
Ms. Rosenberg stated that they will work with the city to work toward redeveloping the old courthouse buildings.
Mr. Kelleher stated that an independent heating system will be developed before the buildings are vacated and that there will be a mothballing plan.
Ms. Diozzi asked if they have looked into keeping the buildings in the system.
Ms. Rosenberg stated that the buildings do not meet current standards for trial courts and there is no way of adapting them to meet the standards. There is no way to accommodate the required three levels of circulation.
Mr. Kelleher noted that they will have to prepare an analysis for MHC.
Mr. Hart stated that the model does not show the three residential buildings, which he added are part of the historic district and show that there is residential character at the end of the street.
Mr. Spang stated that by stating that the model shows existing conditions is misleading. He stated that they could have put in the houses and made them removable.
Ms. Carroon stated that if there is a desire to retain the residential character of the street, the result will be a large institutional building behind the three houses, which she noted was facadism. She stated that it is not a forgone conclusion that the buildings will be removed.
Mr. Spang asked what would be the treatment of the North Street streetscape.
Ms. Caroon stated that Federal, Bridge and North will all have different faces. It will be a big building, but it has not yet been designed.
Mr. Dudek stated that they are aware that it will be visible coming down North Street.
Mr. Kelleher stated that both alternatives involve eliminating the ramps and will address traffic calming, working to address traffic impact and improve pedestrian crossings.
Ms. Carroon stated that putting an historic building there will soften, as well as bring in more light and make more pedestrian friendly.
Ms. Harper asked what the church would be used for.
Ms. Rosenberg replied that it would be the law library.
Mr. Spang asked the schedule of the project.
Ms. Rosenberg stated that they would like to start site preparation in the summer of 2007 and complete the project by 2010.
Mr. Spang asked about permitting.
Mr. Kelleher stated that as the design moves forward, there will be ongoing review. They hope to be done with MEPA and MHC by the first of the year. He noted that it does not meet Environment Impact Report thresholds.
Barbara Cleary of Historic Salem, Inc. provided copies of various letters which she stated memorializes any concerns raised to date. She stated that the project works better if the church is included. She added that the institutional versus residential scale is the crux of what people are talking about. She is concerned about reconnecting and not walling off.
John Carr, 7 River Street, stated that he applauds keeping the courthouse in Salem. He stated that the new Dedham court works cheek by jowl with the residential and works well. He noted that the Ronan Law Library is a magnificent space and suggested taking another look at reusing the existing library, expanding it and consolidating it with other related uses that do not need the higher level of security.
Ms. Rosenberg stated that they will put together an analysis as part of the submission, but noted that there are limited funds for the project and that every day of delay translates to less money. She stated that she was not sure if reusing the library space is a viable alternative.
Mr. Carr noted that there is precedent throughout the Commonwealth.
Jim Treadwell suggested that the church be reused as a church, even if it is relocated.
Mr. Hart stated that he was recently in Charleston, SC and that in 2002 they built a judicial center and integrated court with residential scale, concluding that it can be done.
135 Derby Street
Robert Dana submitted an application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability to replace an existing storm door that enters into a vestibule with a 9 lite, raised panel wood door in the existing frame.
Mr. Spang made a motion to deny the application on the basis that a raised panel wood door is not a storm door and that it would set precedent for other properties to claim metal or wood doors are storm doors. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Harper, Messrs. Spang, Desrocher and Hart voted in favor. Ms. Diozzi voted in opposition and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Councillor Joseph O’Keefe questioned the Commission’s process for amending motions. Ms. Guy stated that the Commission has always permitted the person making the original motion to accept or reject amendments, but that she will look into it further.
Ms. Guy read a letter from MHC to the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs concerning the proposed subdivision at Osborne Hills which notes that there are two recorded ancient Native American archaeological sites within the project area and requesting an intensive archaeological survey.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the minutes of June 10, 2006. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Spang made a motion to approve the minutes of July 22, 2006. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of August 2, 2006. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy stated that via email she had provided members with an updated draft of Mr. Spang’s letter to MHC concerning the Salem Jail plans. Mr. Spang stated that, broadly put, the developer has done a great job. He noted that MHC holds a façade easement. Ms. Herbert asked for a couple days to read the draft and if she has no changes, she had no objection to sending the letter. The remaining members had no amendments are were agreeable to issuing the comment letter to MHC.
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
| 
