SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
May 16, 2007
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on May 16, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper and Mr. Hart and Ms. Guy.
Bonneville Window Demonstration
Glenn Guyette of Bonneville Windows presented samples of their solid wood simulated divided light window with both white and bronze spacers. He stated that the window has a concealed jamb liner and 5/8” putty glaze, but they can also do 7/8”. It is available in any configuration needed with no casings, or casings up to 10 ½”. They can also do a true divided light, but with thicker mullions.
Ms. Herbert stated that she thinks it looks better than the J.B. Sash. She would like to see the two side by side.
Mr. Guyette stated that he will drop of a sample to Ms. Guy.
Ms. Guy will try to get a sample of the J.B. Sash window.
J. Michael Ruane Judicial Center - Discussion of 58, 60 & 62 Federal Street’s historic characteristics
HSI - historic characteristics letter
Present were Barbara Cleary, Vicky Siriani, and Morris Schopf.
Ms. Guy provided the Commission with copies of draft letter from Historic Salem, Inc. (HSI) to DCAM which includes information about each of the buildings’ architectural features that H S I would encourage successful bidders to preserve.
Ms. Cleary stated the information will be proposed to be part of the criteria for bids to move the houses. She noted that DCAM is going to issue an addendum to their Request for Proposals.
Mr. Hart provided some photos of the houses and noted that there will be another walk- through on May 21st at 1:15 pm.
Ms. Diozzi asked if there will be a preservation restrictuion.
Ms. Cleary stated currently no, but felt that there should be one as part of the agreement with DCAM.
Mr. Hart stated that he felt the features should be preserved whether or not the buildings stay on the site or are moved.
HSI - RFR comment letter
Ms. Guy provided the Commission with copies of a letter from HSI to Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) commenting on the Notice for Prospective Bidders and Request for Responses (RFR) and the Scope of Services Solicitation to Undertake Reuse and Redevelopment Feasibility Report for Salem Superior Courthouse and Former Essex County Commissioner’s Building.
MassHighway letter to MHC
Ms. Guy provided copies of a letter dated 4/27/07 regarding the North Street Construction Extra Work Order from Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD) to MHC. MHD has reviewed the work under Section 106 as an addendum to the original North Street reconstruction project and has determined that the extra work will have No Adverse Effect.
Mr. Hart stated that believed that ten signals would be added and that he felt the work is an adverse effect and suggested writing MHC to request a 106 Review. He noted that he would like to see renderings and was concerned that it will look like the Lynnway.
Ms. Guy suggested that the Commission ask for more time and more information to review and comment on the extra work.
Mr. Hart made a motion to send a letter to MHC to request more time and to see renderings. He suggested that they be provided at the May 31 design public hearing. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Draft Memorandum of Agreement
Ms. Cleary provided the Commission with copies of the Draft Memorandum of Agreement that was distributed by MHC at the consultation meeting held earlier this day. They next meeting is scheduled for June 6th.
Ms. Guy suggested that since the next consultation meeting will be prior to the next Commission meeting, that each Commission member review the MOA and send comments for Ms. Guy to summarize and have ready for the June 6th meeting.
Ms. Bellin stated that DCAM provided their comments at the consultation meeting which included:
· Stipulation #4 - change from 25%, 50% and 75% to 30%, 60% and 90%. They do no want to provide final design plans to the public due to security issues, but are willing to provide elevation drawings. The rest of the design would be available for review, but no copies to be distributed.
· Stipulation #6 - remove last line regarding filing a Project Notification Form
· Stipulation #7 - include some language regarding demolition should the relocation not come to fruition
Mr. Hart stated that with DCAM’s time concern to move the church, rather than the RFR requiring that all three houses be moved by September 16th, that they consider just moving the closest house to the church, in order to make room for the church relocation.
Ms. Guy noted that the time concern is not just for moving the church and that there is also a real concern about losing funding.
Ms. Cleary stated that she did not feel that DCAM has demonstrated a real reason that the houses need to be moved in September.
Ms. Herbert stated that she felt interest in the relocation and preservation of the houses will be from house developers. She suggested that HSI develop a simplified package to encourage potential developers.
Ms. Cleary stated that Lynn Duncan, the city’s Director of Planning and Community Development, has indicated the city’s willingness to help developers work through zoning, etc. She added that DCAM says it is willing to consider a bid that did not have a September closing/relocation. She noted that an addendum to the RFR is scheduled to be issued on Tuesday, May 22nd, but that the deadline for proposals will remain at July 15th.
Ms. Siriani stated that she was concerned that there is not a clearly written statement on why the houses have to go.
Ms. Bellin provided the remainder of her notes on DCAM’s comments on the MOA:
· Stipulation 3C - Include language about furniture disposition
· Stipulation 2 - Strike “approve” and change to “comment” with a 30 day comment period
· Stipulation 3B - If the buildings are disposed to another State agency, they would not put any restrictions or covenants
She also noted that there was some discussion on who were the signing parties and who were the interested parties.
Ms. Cleary stated that James Tannin of DCAM encouraged a public design meeting early in the process, so that people won’t be lying down in front of the bulldozers, so to speak.
Other Business
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of 5/2/07 as amended. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
There being no further business, Mr. Hart made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission
| 
