SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
January 17, 2007
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on January 7, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Harper and Mr. Hart. Mr. Spang joined later in the meeting. Also present was Lynn Duncan, Director, and Tania Hartford, Economic Development Director, from the City of Salem’s Department of Planning & Community Development.
Bridge Street Reconstruction - Review of 25% Design Plans
Ms. Diozzi read a letter received from Rizzo Associates requesting comment from the Commission to assist with early environmental coordination including roadway and sidewalk reconstruction, pedestrian and traffic safety, street lighting, parking, drainage and landscaping improvements. They requested comments be submitted within 45 days. The letter was received on December 21, 2006.
Ms. Duncan suggested verifying that there are only 45 days to comment.
Mr. Hart asked if the time period could be extended, as the 45 days will expire prior to the Commission’s next meeting.
Ms. Hartford stated that the Commission could choose to either 1) not comment, 2) delegate someone to review the plans and draft a comment letter to give to Jane who will distribute the letter for final approval at the next meeting or 3) or the Commission could review the plans at this meeting and develop its comments.
Ms. Duncan stated that she wanted to urge timeliness. The City has worked hard to get funding for the federal fiscal year 2008 for the 1A roadway improvement project, which has been perceived as mitigation to the Bridge St. neighborhood for the Bypass Project. We need to keep the project moving ahead to keep it in line for the 2008 funding and not loose our place. These are 25% plans, but a 25% public hearing has not yet been held. She stated that she could find out how this comment request plays into the 25% plans and whether this is part of the critical path and whether an extension could be granted given the timeframe.
Mr. Hart asked where the project begins and ends.
Ms. Diozzi stated that it starts at the southern end of the Beverly-Salem bridge.
Mr. Hart stated that that area is already under construction.
City Councillor Michael Sosnowski stated that it technically starts on Bridge Street where the current Beverly-Salem Bridge ends, noting that there will be a traffic light there. He stated that it will be redesigned. The project will start there, approximately at Bill and Bob’s, and continue down Bridge Street until it intersects back with the Bypass Road at JPI.
Ms. Diozzi stated that the letter states that it ends at Howard Street.
Darrow Lebovici, representing Historic Salem, Inc., (HSI) stated that he is not an expert on the Section 106 process, but believed that part of the process involves a schedule for publishing the design and meetings. He stated that because there would be some effect on the historic area that HSI would want the opportunity to comment under the Section 106 process. If it hasn’t been published and meetings haven’t been held, he did not know how a specific timeframe could be held to. He felt that HSI would want to submit comments to the Commission.
Ms. Diozzi questioned if comments would come to the Commission or elsewhere.
Ms. Duncan stated that she would try to find out more and see if the Section 106 process is triggered for this process and if so, both HSI and the Salem Historical Commission would normally comment to Massachusetts Historical Commission. She stated she would find out more about the overall historic review process for this project and how this plan and letter is relative to the timeline. It might still be helpful if a Commission member would be willing to take the plan for review to get a start on the review.
Mr. Hart asked if MassHighway was obligated to hold a 25% public hearing.
Ms. Duncan stated that they would be holding a 25% public hearing, but it has not been set up.
Mr. Hart stated that if they were looking for comments in 45 days, that does not give them much time to hold a public hearing.
Ms. Duncan stated that she did not believe that MassHighway is saying that their 25% public hearing needs to be held before the Commission submits comments. She stated that she needs to find out where the Commission’s review is relative to the overall project. She added that she understands that the Commission has not had the benefit of the 25% public hearing in order to get an overview of the project and then comment on the historic aspects.
Councillor Sosnowski asked how they can put a timeline on the Commission when they haven’t done their part in the process.
Mr. Hart stated that they do not want to get into a position where they miss the deadline on some technicality.
Ms. Bellin noted that Rizzo is asking for 45 days, but they are not citing any statute or regulation, so it may be they are asking this as a courtesy. She stated that she did not know that the Commission was actually bound by this 45 days. The process is ruled by whatever the statute and regulations call for. She stated that they may want 45 days, but if the Commission does not have to and it is not the way the process is supposed to go, the Commission shouldn’t rush it.
Councillor Sosnowski asked if within the borders of the project, the Commission is aware of what it wants to be historically concerned about. He asked if there is anything from the old bridge that is archaeologically or historically significant that we would like to see incorporated in the new park design.
Ms. Duncan stated that she is waiting to hear back from MassHighway. She stated that they want to move the park for the Bridge Street abutment, noting that it is a requirement of the Bypass Road mitigation. That will move forward separately. Her recommendation to them was to hold an informal meeting with the Ward Councillor, some of the businesses and residents from the immediate neighborhood. To move forward, they would have to hold a 25% public hearing for the design of the park.
Councillor Sosnowski stated that another concern along the path intended to be reconstructed is the 48 Bridge Street house, which has been withdrawn without prejudice from the ZBA.
Ms. Diozzi stated that this is the first time this project has been before the Commission and that the Commission has some studying to do.
Ms. Duncan stated that Rizzo may be trying to give the Commission an opportunity to provide informal comment earlier before they hold the 25% public hearing.
Mr. Hart suggested that Ms. Duncan also ask how they anticipate interfacing this with the Section 106 Review Process and Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC). He felt that Salem Historical Commission (SHC) would want to review this in concert with MHC, rather than the SHC doing it first, then MHC. He believed that when MassHighway goes through the consultative process with MHC, that there will be a lot of properties that they will have to consider. He noted that most of Bridge Street is eligible for listing on the National Register.
Ms. Duncan stated that the SHCs comment at this time could be that you are reserving your comments for the Section 106 process so that you can review the project in concert with MHC.
J Michael Ruane Judicial Center - Review of Environmental Notification Form
Ms. Diozzi asked Ms. Duncan to introduce the project discussion.
Ms. Duncan stated that the Commission has been given copies of the Environmental Notification for the Environmental Review that is underway for the Courthouse Complex. MEPA will be holding their scoping session on this Environmental Review on January 29th at 6:30 pm at the Carlton School. She stated that this is not a Section 106 Review, but noted that there is an historic review and consultation process with MHC which may run concurrently with this Environmental Review. She encouraged members to attend, noting that there will be discussion about the historic preservation issues. She also encouraged the Commission to be an interested party on this project as part of the historic review and consultation process with MHC. She stated that she did not know if the Commission would
automatically be involved, or if the Commission needed to send in a letter to indicate its interest.
Mr. Hart stated that he understood that there was also a walkthrough at 4:00 pm.
Ms. Duncan stated that there is a walkthrough scheduled.
Mr. Hart stated that he thought the Commission had already sent a letter to MHC asking to be interested party.
Ms. Diozzi stated that she also thought it had been requested.
Mr. Hart stated that the ENF shows 3 schemes and that his personal concern is that three houses are planned to be eliminated under 2 of the schemes. In the 3rd scheme, the houses remain, but there is verbiage in the ENF that the State does not want the houses, because they would block the view of the new courthouse. They are also worried about the security aspects. Mr. Hart stated that he felt that the planners did a good job of designing the site so that the court fits in, but perhaps they could move it a tad, and not have it 6 feet away from the existing building. They anticipate disposing of the buildings. He noted that there would then be a security risk, because they would go to other hands. He added that at the public hearing, it was indicated that
they have enough money to build a new courthouse, but did not seem to have enough money yet to rehab probate and may have to mothball the building.
Ms. Duncan stated that what was said was that DCAM was going for a separate appropriation for that building, but did not talk about mothballing the building.
Mr. Hart disagreed and stated that the word mothballing was used.
Ms. Duncan stated that the building that they talked about mothballing and keeping the heat on was Superior Court and the County Commissioners building. She stated that they are not mothballing the probate building. She also stated that they need the building as part of the project and that Commissioner Perrini talked specifically about going for the $40 million appropriation for it.
Ms. Diozzi stated that even if they don’t get the appropriation, that they will continue to use the current probate building.
Mr. Hart stated that he felt it was something that the Commission should look into, because he heard something different.
Ms. Duncan stated that they could get a clarification.
Mr. Hart stated that those were his concerns from an historical prospective and that he felt Goody Clancy was a very good architect. He noted that the scheme which keeps the 3 houses is not their preferred alternative.
Ms. Bellin asked if Mr. Hart could elaborate on the security issued he mentioned.
Mr. Hart replied that he did not know more than what was in the text.
Ms. Bellin stated that she understood that there was not an option that saved all 3 houses and the church.
Mr. Hart stated that the four buildings are saved under Scheme C, which proposes to move the church and convert it into a new law library.
Ms. Bellin stated that under B, there is no law library and that under A and C, the law library is the old church.
Mr. Hart stated that as he understands it, “B” presumes that they are not able to buy the church and that they will have to build quite a tall structure.
Ms. Duncan stated that these are the types of questions that will be addressed at the scoping session. Plan A incorporates the Church. The church is moved and their proposal is to use it as the law library, taking off the back addition. Plan B was done in case the State was not able to acquire the church, so they needed to have a plan that they could move forward with if the church would not come to the table. We understand that they have been able to negotiate with the church and that the church will be able to be part of the project. She stated that there are different ways of looking at the historic preservation issues related to the 3 buildings and noted that she was not a historic preservationist, but indicated that Joan Goody is. She added that there are times when historic
preservationists disagree on what’s the best approach relative to historic preservation. Ms. Duncan stated that Ms. Goody makes a good case about from an historic preservation perspective on why Plan A, which takes down the 3 houses or moves them, is better. I don’t know if we can get a transcript from the MEPA meeting, but she talked about it in terms of the institutional character of the street and how it is no longer a residential street, especially on that side. Ms. Goody talked about bringing the church forward and making it the transitional piece and how important it is to have the church on the corner.
Ms. Diozzi stated that she would need to hear what Ms. Goody has to say with regard to taking the 3 houses being better for historic preservation, because they would be taking the 3 houses and potentially mothballing the two 19th century buildings.
Ms. Duncan added that the superior court and county commissioners buildings are beautiful buildings which contribute to the historic character of the street. She encouraged at a minimum keeping them heated as they agreed to do, as well as deed restrictions or preservation restrictions, along with a commitment to move forward with appropriate disposition of those buildings.
Mr. Lebovici stated both Historic Salem and the Federal Street Neighborhood Association have requested to be interested parties in this matter. HSI has expressed preference for Alternative C, which saves the houses. He believed HSI has also asked the State to reconsider opportunities to reuse the two court buildings as part of the court complex as opposed to selling them off for other purposes.
Councillor Sosnowski asked that when they refer to removing the houses, do they mean demolish or transplanting them.
Ms. Duncan replied, according to Gail Rosenberg, the project manager from the Division of Capital Asset Management (DCAM), that they always thought that one possibility might be to relocate the buildings. She stated that if the preservation community wanted to support relocation over demolition, that it might be middle ground.
Councillor Sosnowski stated that if we have to resolve that we are going to move the buildings, the Universal Steel site next to the FW Webb building could be considered.
Ms. Diozzi stated that she believed that H S I’s main concern is preserving the streetscape by retaining the three houses on the site. Mr. Lebovici concurred.
Ms. Duncan stated that the ENF talks about either/or demolition or relocation.
Mr. Hart stated that he intends to attend the meeting, but will represent himself as an individual and not a member of the Commission, since the Commission has not made a decision one way or the other.
Councillor Sosnowski asked if anyone has toured the inside of the buildings in question, to see if they still have any historic features intact.
Mr. Hart asked if there were any survey forms for the buildings. He stated that there is a National Register District and that he was not sure if they were in a local historic district and suggested Jane Guy research the whole street for what is included.
Ms. Duncan stated that she understood they were contributing properties to the National Register district and is not a local historic district.
Mr. Hart also suggested that the commission request that Ms. Guy pull the survey forms for all buildings on that side of the street, which are potentially the buildings that are going to be effected. He stated that the ENF makes reference that it was a civic row, when in fact it has residential buildings in it now.
50 St. Peter Street
The New Boston Ventures submitted an application for waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance on behalf of the Salem Redevelopment Authority, property owner, to demolish the barn located in the Salem Jail complex. It has been damaged by fire in two separate incidents since 1979 and is in a deteriorated and structurally unsafe condition, which cannot be restored. The proposal is to replicate the structure on the site as part of the complex redevelopment.
Mr. Hart recused himself from the discussion.
Present was Penn Lindsay, Salem Jail Ventures and Dan Ricciarelli of Finegold Alexander.
Mr. Ricciarelli stated that when the project started, it was intended to preserve all structures on site. As they have moved along with the project, they have brought in structural engineers and have been in contact with MHC throughout the whole process, as well as the Salem Redevelopment Authority and Planning Board who have walked the site. One of the concerns they have had is the condition of the existing barn. They went in with an open mind to see what could be salvaged and utilized for the jail redevelopment project. They had the barn as part of the design and would like to keep the barn as part of the design. The structural engineers first looked at the internal structure as far as reuse. They reported that the structure was not suitable for reuse and should be dismantled,
reviewed and surveyed for any pieces that may be possibly reused in a new structure. MHC was asked to look at the structure. The second floor is now on the first floor and there are a lot of holes and breaches in the roof which have been there since 1979. They discovered that some of the roof trusses and details are possibly salvageable. They are asking for a waiver to dismantle the barn, survey it and reuse it on site or have somebody else reuse it if they can’t find a suitable use in this project.
Ms. Diozzi asked to see a reconstruction plan.
Ms. Hartford stated that she is representing the Salem Redevelopment Authority which currently owns the property. The SRA supports the application. She noted that the developer has been very diligent about working with the historic community and making sure that if they could not save the building, that they would try to reuse whatever possible in the new building and replicate as much as possible.
Mr. Ricciarelli stated that their intention all along has been to re-clad the building with similar materials and try to replicate the double hung windows. It will be a single unit for a contemporary use, living space on the top floor, bedroom space on the bottom floor. The roof will be asphalt shingles. They will try to replicate all molding, cornice and cornerboards.
Ms. Bellin asked, if nothing is done, is it going to collapse under its own weight.
Mr. Ricciarelli replied that it possible could. He noted that they are trying to be as historically sensitive as possible and that MHC supports the plan being presented tonight.
Ms. Bellin asked if the building will be demolished in its entirety at one time or will be dismantled gently.
Mr. Ricciarelli stated that it will be dismantled gently and that they will invite everyone back to look after the barn is demolished.
Mr. Lebovici stated that he understood that the deterioration of the building and the plan to survey and record and salvage what can be salvaged. He suggested permitting demolition only after the property is transferred, because only then would it be subject to restrictions.
Mr. Lindsay stated that they planned to begin dismantling the Barn within the next month, which is before the scheduled transfer of the property.
Discussion continued on whether the waiver should be permitted before or after the property was transferred.
Ms. Harper made a motion to approve the waiver with the condition that the SRA’s designated developer has agreed to dismantle and store the pieces at the jail site until determination is made on whether pieces can be reused on this or another Salem site. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Ms. Diozzi stated that Jane Guy’s father passed away last night.
St. Joseph’s Church Redevelopment
John Carr, 7 River Street, asked to speak about the St. Joseph’s Church Reuse Project. He stated that federal dollars cannot be used for demolition of a building that is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. He suggested that the Commission contact MHC to determine if an error has been made in the process and to cc: Federal Home Loan Bank.
Mr. Hart stated that he believe the Commission already wrote to MHC asking to be an interested party and to see if the 106 Review process started.
Mr. Carr suggested sending another letter indicating that the Commission has received no response, asking the status of the project and informing them that FHLB funding is proposed to be used.
Mr. Hart agreed with Mr. Carr’ suggestion and added that they could also ask if FHLB dollars kicks in the Section 106 Review Process if a project is eligible for the National Register. Mr. Hart stated that he has it on good faith that if they are having subsidies and that there will be federal dollars.
Ms. Diozzi asked if Mr. Hart had a source.
Mr. Hart stated that he had it on good authority and felt it was imperative that they get an answer from MHC soon.
Ms. Diozzi asked who she should call and say that a letter is on the way.
Mr. Hart believed it would be Brona Simon, the new Director.
Ms. Harper asked if the process has been started to get the property on the National Register.
Mr. Hart stated that it doesn’t matter if the property is actually listed. As long as MHC deems the property eligible for listing it will go through that process.
Mr. Spang made a motion to draft a letter and send it off as soon as feasible. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Hart asked what was going on with 42 Derby St. Ms. Harper stated that Amelia Bik resides there. Mr. Spang stated he was surprised it hasn’t been condemned. Ms. Diozzi has heard that someone from the Board of Health and/or Building Department checks in on Ms. Bik from time to time.
There being no further business, Ms. Harper 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
| 
