SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
February 7, 2007
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on February 7, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Harper, Mr. Desrocher and Mr. Hart and Ms. Guy. Mr. Spang arrived later in the meeting.
104 Federal Street
Mr. Hart excused himself as a Commission member in order to present his application.
David Hart and Barbara Cleary presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace an snowguard with a new steel snowguard, painted dark gray. Drawings and photos were provided.
Ms. Cleary stated that they may not proceed with the project, but would like approval in case.
Mr. Desrocher asked if the steel is flat bars.
Mr. Hart replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Diozzi asked if it was a slate roof.
Mr. Hart replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Desrocher made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
They also submitted an application to replace existing copper gutters and downspouts along with the installation of one new 3” diameter round copper downspout.
Ms. Cleary stated that the roofers have recommended a new copper downspout in the front where there currently is no downspout.
Mr. Desrocher asked if the downspouts will be corrugated. Mr. Hart replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Harper asked if they will be painted. Mr. Hart replied that they will be unpainted.
Mr. Desrocher made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Hart rejoined the Commission.
21 Winter Street
Sean Patrick Maher presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for:
1. Repair and repainting of wooden sash windows, to be undertaken by Window Woman
2. Relocation of gutters due to 2 downspouts blocking access to tenant’s door
3. Repair to fascia and soffits on rear eave
4. Venting of furnace and water heaters through vent in rear foundation wall into back yard
5. Removal of chain link and deteriorating wooden fences
6. New storm windows and storm door
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-applicability for window repair. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Maher provided a sketch showing the change proposed for the downspouts and stated that he proposes to have them connect at the kitchen ell and go back to the rear of the building. They will come down from the same place on the roof, down to the 2nd floor level and make a 90 degree turn.
Mr. Hart asked the material of the downspouts. Mr. Maher stated that they will be white aluminum as existing.
Harry McCoy, 23 Winter Street, stated that he did not think anyone would be able to see the gutter, except from his house. He stated that the proposal seemed fine.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to relocate two white aluminum downspouts on front of building, so that they make a 90 degree turn and run horizontally above the second floor windows, then run along the roof line of the kitchen addition and down the far corner of the addition as per sketch submitted. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-applicability for repairs to fascia and soffits. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-applicability for vent installation due to not being visible from the public way. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Maher stated that he may replace the fencing at a later time.
Mr. Hart asked what will become visible when the fencing is removed.
Mr. Maher stated that only the back yard will be visible.
Mr. McCoy stated that it will be hardly visible to anyone but two or three houses. He stated that he felt it would be fine.
Mr. Desrocher made a motion to approve removal of the fencing. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy stated that storm windows and storm doors are not in the Commission’s jurisdiction and do not require approval. She encouraged the applicant to use wood and cautioned him to paint the storms the same color as the surface they are on.
19 ½ Broad Street
David Leach and Laurie LaChapelle presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove the 2nd floor alcove window, leave the exterior frame and replace the window with either glass block or clapboard.
Ms. Diozzi asked why they want to remove the window.
Ms. LaChapelle stated that they want to create a closet on the interior.
Mr. Hart suggested blocking it from the inside and not changing the exterior.
Mr. Desrocher asked if the window would be on the back or side of the closet.
Ms. LaChapelle stated that it falls on the rear of the closet.
Ms. Diozzi stated that she felt it was far enough back that one would not be able to tell from the outside if it were blocked on the inside.
Mr. Hart stated that there are plenty of examples of frames with clapboards.
Ms. LaChapelle stated that, if removed, they could insulate the wall. She added that they prefer clapboard to glass block.
Mr. Hart suggested giving them the option to block from the inside or clapboard the outside, but that glass block would not be appropriate.
Mr. Desrocher stated that he preferred blocking from the inside, building an insulated wall in front, so that if a future owner wants to reopen, they can. He noted that it would be less expensive than removing the window.
Ms. LaChapelle noted that the window is not in the greatest shape.
Ms. Bellin stated that she felt the window removal will create an imbalance.
Ms. Diozzi stated that she preferred leaving the window and agreed it would be an imbalance to remove.
Mr. Leach stated that their proposal is similar to 34 Broad Street, but less visible.
Ms. Harper stated that given there are other examples of window removal with clapboards and that the space appears not to be usable otherwise, she is not opposed to the removal and replacement with clapboarding.
Mr. Hart stated that the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards state that changes should be reversible and noted that this change would be reversible.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve, for the 2nd floor alcove window, option for either of the following:
· Leave exterior of window as existing and block interior so that the window is no longer functional, but appears functional from the outside; or
· Remove window, retaining the exterior window frame. Fill in frame with clapboards to match existing, including paint. The request to fill in the frame with glass block is NOT approved.
Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion. Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Harper, Mr. Desrocher and Mr. Hart voted in favor. Ms. Bellin voted in opposition. The motion so carried.
Mr. Spang joined the meeting at this time.
Bridge Street Reconstruction – Review of 25% Design Plans - Continuation
Ms. Guy read a letter sent from Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) to MA Highway Department concerning the project. The letter summarized the historic resources within the project area. Ms. Guy also read an email from Commission member Jessica Herbert who was agreement with the draft letter prepared by Mr. Spang, which was distributed by email prior to the meeting.
Mr. Spang suggested adding a line to his letter, referencing the MHC letter.
Barbara Cleary, representing Historic Salem, Inc., stated that she thought Mr. Spang’s letter was terrific. She encouraged adding historic lighting like is being done on North Street in order to get all entrance corridors lighted in the same way. She asked when the comment period ends.
Ms. Guy stated that this is not an official comment period, but rather Rizzo Associates providing “early environmental coordination”. She noted that there will be additional opportunity to comment during the Section 106 Review.
Mr. Spang felt it would be fine to incorporate Ms. Cleary’s comments on lighting in the Commission’s letter.
Ms. Cleary stated that the North Street lights have more of an historic look than those proposed for Bridge Street.
Meg Twohey, 20-22 Federal Street, suggested that the Commission look at the report completed by Larissa Brown.
Mr. McCoy stated that Mr. Spang’s letter was great, particularly with regard to narrowing the traffic way, tree planting and continuity of the historic lighting. He suggested that the blue tinted lights as on the Salem Common not be used.
Mr. Hart stated that visual impact is important as evidenced by the streetscape inventory form referenced in MHC’s letter.
Ms. Diozzi asked if the blinking light at Winter and Bridge is remaining.
Mr. Spang stated that it and the island will be removed.
Mr. Hart suggested in place of the island, along with Mr. Spang’s suggestion for raised medians, to suggest rumble strips or textured concrete like newly constructed route 109 in Westwood, or the faux brick like the downtown Salem crosswalks in order to allow turning on and off Bridge Street from driveways. He agreed that painted medians are not advisable.
Ms. Bellin questioned if the light removal would affect safety.
Mr. Hart noted that with the By-Pass, traffic on Bridge Street will be greatly reduced.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve Mr. Spang’s letter with the addition of a reference to MHC’s letter, with a recommendation for the lighting to match the lighting approved for North Street and for the median to be either raised or textured. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
J Michael Ruane Judicial Center - Review of Environmental Notification Form – Continuation
Ms. Guy provided copies of the building survey forms for the properties on Federal Street, on the courthouse side.
Ms. Guy read a letter from MHC to DCAM dated 1/4/07, which included an enclosure of 2 letters from Historic Salem, Inc. and the Federal Street Neighborhood Association requesting to be interested parties. She also had a letter from HSI to MEPA of approximately 10 pages, with several attachments.
Patricia Zaido, representing the Salem Partnership, stated that they have also asked to be an interested party.
Ms. Guy read Ms. Diozzi’s letter sent to The Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, MEPA Unit, noting that it could not comment prior to the January 29th deadline and requesting to be an interested party. She also read a letter from Epsilon Associates, Inc. indicating that DCAM extended the comment period to 2/12/07.
Ms. Guy stated she also had a copy of a letter to MEPA from the Alliance of Salem Neighborhood Assocations dated 1/27/07.
Ms. Twohey provided a copy of a Federal Street Neighborhood Association packet to MEPA dated 1/29/07. She asked if the Commission had a copy of the letter from MHC to the MEPA Unit, dated 1/25/07. Ms. Diozzi read the MHC letter.
Mr. Hart suggested pulling out the National Register nomination for the courthouse. Ms. Guy noted that the files were in the archives and she would not be able to get them while the meeting was underway.
Mr. Spang asked if DCAM was anticipating completing an Environmental Impact Report.
Doug Kelleher of Epsilon Associates and a former Historical Commission member, replied in the negative, noting that there are no EIR threshold triggers by this project. He noted that the request to complete an EIR would have to come from MEPA>
Mr. Spang stated the he felt the Commission should concur with MHC, that MEPA should require DCAM to do an EIR.
Ms. Guy asked what conducting an EIR would do to the timing of the project.
Mr. Kelleher stated that it would likely push out the project another six months. He noted that DCAM is trying to begin the process and has requested meetings twice from MHC.
Ms. Harper asked if everything would be held up until the EIR is complete.
Mr. Kelleher replied that it was not necessarily so, but it was likely that MHC will hold off on anything else until the EIR is done.
Ms. Zaido asked the Commission not to concur with suggestions that would further delay the project. She stated that Salem Partnership members who are members of HSI believe that the cornerstone should be the 1805 church, not the 3 houses, and that the church should not be diminished. She stated that any delay might result in increased cost and/or reduced funding appropriated which would make the courthouse complex inadequate before it is built. She stated that further delay could jeopardize the project from being built at all.
Ms. Cleary stated that HSI’s position is not that the 3 houses should be the cornerstone. She noted that they have been working on this project for over 5 years and are very supportive. They were very successful in working with MHC to get the jail permitted and that it is a successful project with compromises. She stated that HSI members are not opponents to the courthouse and that their major comments are for DCAM to start planning now for the two buildings that will be vacated, so that there is no period when they are vacant. Ms. Cleary stated that the value of creating a larger site by moving the church and demolishing the additions is justified. She added that concept Option A and C are essentially the same court complex, but that C keeps the streetscape scale. She noted that
there will be a consultive process with MHC anyway, and she knows there will be trade-offs.
Ms. Twohey stated that Alliance’s only position is for the reuse of the two buildings. She stated that the Federal St. Neighborhood Association concurs with HSI, except they ask that DCAM consider using the two building for ancillary court functions. She stated that they prefer to see the continuity of the houses, since plans A and C are generally identical. She added that looking at reuse could lessen the scale of the new building. She noted that they completely support the project, which is critical to Salem’s economic well-being.
Mr. Kelleher stated that DCAM is interested in seeing the project move forward. He is concerned that there be any delays. He would like to see the MHC process begin as soon as possible, noting that MHC typically does not start until the EIR is done, so the process would drag on if being scoped for an EIR.
Ms. Guy read an email from Jessica Herbert.
Ms. Harper stated that she also preferred not to see any delays. She stated that if MHC could proceed in conjunction it would be better than stretching it out.
Mr. Kelleher stated that he anticipates that the two buildings not being used will be a hot topic and that reuse can be discussed during the MHC process.
Ms. Harper stated that if the process is dragged out, the State may have less and less money. She added that if it is dragged out, the project could loose funding or the city could lose out on the current courthouse.
Ms. Zaido stated that Commissioner Perini is committed to building, but it could be scaled back or just stay the way it is.
Ms. Harper stated that she did not see the houses as part of this project, but prefer them not be lost. She encouraged relocation.
Mr. Kelleher stated that DCAM is willing to try to identify new site for the houses and placing appropriate preservation restrictions as part of that sale.
Mr. Hart stated that he felt MHC’s letter hits all the pertinent points. He suggested sending a letter to MEPA supporting MHC’s letter. He stated that if an EIR is not required, he is concerned for the reuse of the 2 buildings to be vacated and the destruction of the 3 houses, as well as traffic study concerns, which will have an impact on the historic district, and may become the intersection from hell with 9 poles that will completely change the character of the area. Mr. Hart noted that plans A and C are the same, so it is possible for the houses to co-exist.
Ms. Harper asked if plan C is the same height.
Mr. Kelleher replied in the affirmative, but noted that the church is moved over further to North Street.
Ms. Bellin stated that she is torn between A and C. She stated that she is hesitant to see the homes removed, but noted that there is no guarantee that relocation will occur.
Mr. Kelleher stated that DCAM could make a requirement that provides penalties if they are not relocated.
Ms. Bellin stated that the homes tie in the residential nature of the opposite side and continue Federal Street, but as Ms. Herbert pointed out, without them would be a better and more green buffer. She stated that she supported more effort to reuse the 2 courthouse buildings to be vacated, so that they be functional.
Mr. Desrocher stated that he preferred plan A and is glad that the church will be incorporated. He stated that he is confident that something can be done with the 3 houses. He stated that he felt plan A will fit in nicer and be more pleasing for the block.
Ms. Diozzi stated that he chief overriding concern is that the ENF uses the word “mothballing”. She stated that on Day1, they should start identifying uses, preferably public. She suggested court related uses. She stated that she has taken countless trips past the 3 houses and tried to envision them restored, but did not see them fitting in. She felt it will be an aesthetically much better streetscape without them and that the it will be far better bookended and that there could be a nice façade with green space. She stated that she would like open space, not unusable open space behind the houses, so therefore, they should be relocated.
Mr. Spang stated that MHC’s 3 issues are protection of the homes, protection of the church and protection for the 2 buildings to be vacated. He stated his highest concern was having a courthouse. He stated that he did not feel DCAM has provided enough than what is shown on the 3 plans (i.e. size, scale and how front on North Street.) He would like to reiterate MHC’s desire for an EIR or allow the MHC consultation process to proceed.
Ms. Guy asked what the EIR will do that the consultation process will not.
Mr. Kelleher stated that the EIR probably won’t accomplish anything more than the consultation process will. He stated that Interested Parties are assured participation in the consult process. He stated that at the end of the consult process, an Memorandum of Agreement would address mitigation efforts and could require that the 3 houses be relocated as well as the reuse issues for the 2 buildings.
Mr. Hart stated that MHC see more projects than the Salem Historical Commission does . He stated that he supported the MHC letter as is and does not want to weaken it.
Ms. Guy questioned supporting MHC’s position for an EIR if the EIR won’t provide more historic preservation than the consult process, but will push out the project by six months and potentially lose dollars.
Mr. Hart noted that the consult process won’t address traffic.
Mr. Kelleher stated that this project didn’t trigger an ENF, never mind an EIR, so an EIR may not include traffic.
Mr. Hart stated that, hopefully, they will address parking issues.
Mr. Kelleher noted that the project will result in slightly more parking.
Ms. Zaido stated that the woman from MEPA who spoke at the public meeting stated that traffic is not within their purview, but that MA Highway would have a public meeting.
Ms. Twohey stated that at the MEPA meeting, a lot of concern raised were about traffic. She noted that there are going to be 10 traffic signals on North Street, so substantive issues will come through this process.
Mr. Hart suggested sending a letter to MEPA stating that the Commission has received the MHC letter and that they have framed all the issues that we hope will be addressed in the consultative process and we look forward to participating.
Ms. Guy suggested adding that the Commission takes no position on the EIR.
Ms. Bellin was in agreement.
Mr. Spang suggested adding that as part of mitigation, the Commission supports prompt preservation and a viable reuse for the two court buildings not being reused and the 3 houses and supports incorporation of the church into the project.
Mr. Spang noted that the State’s track record or re-using its buildings is pretty poor, citing the jail as an example.
Ms. Twohey stated that the letter should be emailed to Deirdre Buckley by 2/12/07.
Ms. Guy will draft the letter and email it to the Commission members who can email back comments to her and Ms. Diozzi, who can finalize the letter.
Other Business
Ms. Guy stated that the Casiglia’s are requesting an extension on their painting certificate of 5/3/06 for one year. Mr. Spang made a motion to approve the extension request. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy stated that the Salem Public Library is requesting an extension for their application approved 7/28/04 for two years for roof and balustrades. Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the extension request. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy stated that the Salem Public Library is requesting a letter of support for their MPPF grant application for the roof and balustrade work. A draft letter was provided. Ms. Bellin made a motion to send the letter of support. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy stated that she received a copy of a Project Notification Form sent to MHC from the Northeast Animal Shelter for interior work at 347 Highland Avenue. MHC found the project unlikely to affect significant resources.
Ms. Guy stated that she received a copy of letter from MHC to Salem Harbor CDC finding
no adverse effect” for the demolition and construction at 40 Palmer Street.
Ms. Guy stated that she received a copy of a letter from MHC to the MEPA Unit regarding the EIR for Osborne Hills and determining that since no significant cultural resources were identified, no further MHC review is required.
Ms Guy stated that she has gotten an inquiry regarding the use of rain barrels, which will be free-standing and not attached to any structures. She felt that since they could not be considered a structure, but rather similar to potted plants or lawn furniture, that they would not come under the Commission’s jurisdiction. The Commission agreed that rain barrels would not fall under the Commission’s jurisdiction, provided that they are not attached to a building or structure and not secured to the ground.
Ms. Guy stated that at the last meeting to which she was not present, the notes she was provided with noted that Commission had indicated that they wanted to send a letter to MHC requesting to be an interested party in the St. Joseph’s Church project and to inquire if a PNF had been submitted to MHC. Ms. Guy stated that she and Ms. Diozzi had already sent this letter out in December.
Ms. Guy stated that because there is no active programmatic agreement between the City and MHC for CDBG projects, she will periodically be bringing housing rehabilitation projects that are in or near National Register Districts or eligible for National Register listing to the Commission for comment. She provided information on 35 Park Street and 6 March Street Court. Commission members commented that for 35 Park Street, they recommended maintaining the existing bracketing on the porch and that no tacked-on exterior balusters be used.
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
| 
