SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
June 6, 2007
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on June 6, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Mr. Desrocher and Mr. Hart and Ms. Guy. Mr. Spang arrived later in the meeting.
61 R. Summer St.
Susan Colford presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to repair and replace four exterior window sills on the southeast side of the house with period accurate sills to match the front of the house with flashing on top where needed and to repaint the house trim.
Ms. Colford stated that the front of the house has original sills and that the trim appears to be an antique yellow.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
24 Fort Avenue
Dominion Salem Harbor LLC submitted an application to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance to dismantle a 80’D x 40’H steel oil storage tank and its 115’D x 20’H steel fire wall. Ernest Greer represented the applicant.
Ms. Herbert noted that the company has taken down two of the three baby smoke stacks and asked when they will be taking down the third.
Mr. Greer stated that it will not be in 2007.
Ms. Herbert asked what the tank was used for.
Mr. Greer stated that it used to be for oil, but has not been used in a while.
M Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
38 Washington Square
Linda Price-Sneddon and Scott Sneddon presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace three, third floor 3 over 3 wood window sashes with the same window, but J B Sash double-pane with no energy coating, with 15/16” muntins. They also submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace all window sashes with the J B Sash window. The specification indicates the JB Wood Tilt Unit 2/2 TDL B305 frame 2 piece composite sill w/standard sill nosing.
Mr. Sneddon stated that the first application replaces the sash in just one room and the second replaces them in the whole house.
Mr. Desrocher asked the dimensions on the existing muntins.
Mr. Sneddon stated that he believed they were ¾”.
Ms. Herbert stated that the window is smaller, so proportionally the muntins may look a little larger.
Mr. Hart stated that he felt it was indicative of a Georgian.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the replacement of the 3 windows as submitted with paint to match existing. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Desrocher asked when they would replace the remaining sash on the house. He stated that he would prefer to act until after the Commission sees how the 3 windows look.
Ms. Guy asked if they would be willing to continue to the 7/20/07 meeting.
Mr. Sneddon stated waived the requirement that the Commission act within 60 days and requested a continuance to the first meeting in August.
Mr. Hart made a motion to continue the application until the first meeting in August. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Following a discussion later in the meeting for another application where sash were to be repaired in kind, Mr. Sneddon withdrew the application for sash replacement on the entire building.
140 Derby Street
Judith and Leo Murphy presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace two windows on the second floor front, to add a window on the first floor in the alley way (Pig’s Eye side) and for paint colors. The windows on the front will be 30” x 42” and the proposed new window will be 16’ in from the sidewalk. The body color of the property will be Hasbrouck Brown and the trim on windows and doors will be Windham Cream, latex paint.
Mr. Murphy stated that the building is partial shakes and partial clapboards and he is willing to clapboard the front instead of shingles. He stated he would also like to reconstruct the eaves. He added that he is also willing to change the window configuration from 2 over 2 to 6 over 6. They will repair broken glass on a lower window.
Ms. Guy noted that siding alteration was not advertised and would need to be applied for under a separate application.
Mr. Spang joined the meeting at this time.
Mr. Hart asked if the alley window will line up with the second floor.
Mr. Murphy stated that he did not believe it would.
Jennipher Reardon, owner of In A Pig’s Eye, stated that since the Murphy’s have owned the property in the last ten years, they have done nothing but improve the property. She stated that the windows will improve the property and that as an abutter, she has no problem with the application.
Ms. Herbert asked if the windows will be single glaze, true divided light.
Mr. Murphy stated that he will install whatever the Commission wants.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the replacement of the two windows on the second floor front with either a 6 over 6 conventional Brosco window, single glaze, true divided light or with a JB Sash, double glaze with B301 frame. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion. Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert and Mr. Hart voted in favor. Mr. Desrocher voted in opposition. Mr. Spang abstained from voting. The motion did not carry.
Mr. Desrocher stated that he did not think the JB Sash window would look authentic in that size.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve replacement of the two windows on the second floor, front façade with conventional Brosco, single glaze, true divided light wood window with clear glass, painted to match existing. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Spang abstained from voting.
Mr. Hart stated that he would like to know the size of the 2nd floor alley window and what is proposed for the first floor. He stated that he preferred they either line up or be very out of line.
Mr. Spang suggested checking the building code as it might apply to windows when there is a tight property line.
Mr. Hart stated that the paint samples appear semi-gloss.
Mr. Desrocher asked the color for the door.
Mr. Murphy stated that it is black and he believed it is a metal door.
Mr. Spang stated that he preferred selecting a color after the applicants decide whether they will change the siding from shingle to clapboard.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the paint colors as submitted. Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Mr. Hart and Mr. Desrocher voted in favor. Mr. Spang voted in opposition. The motion was carried.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-applicability to repair/replace rake returned to match existing. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Murphy withdrew the new side window and will reapply with the siding alteration.
254 Lafayette St.
Lewis Legon presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors, replace damaged clapboards and shingles, window restoration, install new 3rd floor deck in place of deck that was removed, and removal of visible deck and replacement with non-visible deck.
Mr. Legon stated that initially the paint colors were to be Toffee, Beauport Aubergine and Yarmouth Oyster. He would now like Garam Marsala for the body, Trench Coat for the trim and Wicked for the accent.
Mr. Spang made a motion to approve the paint colors as submitted. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Spang asked if the downspouts will be painted in the trim color.
Mr. Legon replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Hart clarified that they should be painted the same color as the surface they are in front of.
Mr. Legon stated that there are 77 windows.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-applicability for window repair. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Hart congratulated the applicant for repairing rather than replacing the windows.
Mr. Legon stated that he will replace the storm windows and provided color examples.
Mr. Spang made a motion to approve the storm window color of bronze. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Legon provided a sample of the proposed deck railing. He noted that it is a composite material that is stronger than wood and has the minimum building code specification built in.
Ms. Herbert asked the composition.
Mr. Legon stated that it is 38% poly, 50% wood fiber and 12% added material.
Mr. Hart noted that the existing corner posts shown in the picture were quite elaborate.
Mr. Spang asked if they were original to the house.
Mr. Legon stated that he did not know.
Mr. Hart asked if the railing company offers other posts.
Mr. Legon replied in the negative.
Mr. Spang stated that he could not recall every approving a composite material product for railings and noted that the threshold of approving synthetic material is touchy. He noted that although there are better synthetic materials offered now than in the past, they are still not solid wood. He stated that he would prefer to see a drawing of the proposed deck. He noted that it may not be just about the material, but also about design. He noted that the kit of parts may be smaller and that some choices may need to be made.
Mr. Legon stated that it is a Queen Anne Victorian building and that the sample is a Victorian model.
Mr. Spang stated that life safety can be reached in wood. He stated that he would advocate for a continuance in order for the applicant to provide a drawing elevation, including spacing and post size.
Ms. Herbert asked if the material can be painted.
Mr. Legon replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Hart asked if it can be ordered in Trench Coat.
Mr. Legon replied in the negative and stated that he would have to paint it.
Ms. Herbert stated that at 42” high, the balusters may look then on such a hefty building.
Mr. Desrocher asked if the manufacturer has a site where it has been installed that the applicant can take a picture.
Mr. Spang noted that when looking upward to the deck, the hollowness of the rail may be visible.
Mr. Legon noted that it is about 35’ up.
Mr. Spang made a motion to continue the application.
Ms. Herbert stated that the applicant could consider putting a mock up on the building and taking a picture.
Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Legon stated that there was a small piece of shed with a deck that he removed. He would like to construct 3 decks that will not be visible.
Ms. Herbert stated that she would like to see a photograph of what it looks like now with the shed and deck removed. She asked if there was a foundation.
Mr. Legon stated that he did not know if there was a foundation. He noted that the shed and deck were rotted, decayed, dangerous and served no purpose.
Mr. Spang made a motion to approve the shed and deck removal. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion. Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert and Mr. Spang voted in favor. Mr. Hart and Mr. Desrocher voted in opposition. The motion did not carry.
Mr. Spang made a motion to continue the rear shed and deck removal and installation of the decks. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert suggested that the members go by individually.
Mr. Hart stated that he would like to see an enlarged photograph.
15 Warren St.
Catherine Miller and Kirt Rieder presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace non-original deteriorated clapboard siding with new pre-primed cedar clapboards. The application is also to use Hardi Plank on the west side between the houses where the distance ranges from 17” to 48”. They will also replace trim board on corners, skirtboard and windows, replace aluminum, wood and copper gutters with copper, replace aluminum downspouts with galvanized steel in a dark copper color, paint clapboards Cottage Red with white trim, replace the deteriorated concrete block site wall, cracking concrete site wall and brick front steps with granite site walls and granite steps and replace a wire fence with a wood picket fence and a flatboard fence, extending the picket gate across
the driveway.
Ms. Miller stated that the existing clapboards are circa 1950 and that the width dimensions vary. They propose 3 ¾” exposure, smooth cedar for everywhere but the space between the two houses.
Mr. Spang made a motion to replace clapboards with new cedar clapboards, 3 ¾” exposure, smooth side out on all sides. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Miller stated that they propose the Hardi Plank as a fire deterrent. She noted that the Hardi Plank does not taper the same as clapboard, but is a little shorter. They are willing to do only the rear addition on that side if the Commission does not want it in the front.
Ms. Guy suggested any approval be under Hardship.
Mr. Spang made a motion to approve a Certificate of Hardship for siding replacement on the rear addition facing 17 Warren Street with Hardi Plank (south piece of west wall) due to minimum visibility and for fire safety due to the distance of the two houses being between 17” and 48’. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-applicability for repair/replacement of trim board, skirtboard and windows to match existing. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert asked if the downspouts were round.
Ms. Miller replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Hart asked the gage.
Ms. Miller stated that she did not know.
Mr. Hart suggested 20 oz. He stated that he was concerned about galvanized steel downspouts.
Ms. Miller stated that she was concerned with copper being stolen.
Ms. Herbert wondered how they would be fastened.
Ms. Miller stated that they will solder brackets in. They want to paint them to match copper.
Mr. Spang made a motion to approve the replacement of existing gutters with copper gutters and the replacement of downspouts with galvanized steel downspouts in dark copper color. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Miller stated that they propose Cottage Red for the body, Brilliant White trim and downspouts to be English Brown.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the paint colors of Cottage Red for the body, Brilliant White trim and downspouts to be English Brown. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Miller stated that the granite will be in 4’ sections. It will be Woodbury Gray granite with cushioned edge.
Mr. Hart stated that they may need a railing.
Ms. Miller stated that they made need to come back, but would like to see what it looks like.
Ms. Herbert suggested that the site wall come up to the top step.
Mr. Rieder stated that they are trying to have a distinction between the existing granite that is part of the foundation.
Ms. Herbert stated that she felt it looked kind of odd.
Mr. Rieder stated that it will coincide with the face of the building. He noted that the existing granite is deeper, approximately 14”. He preferred not to have it go up.
Mr. Spang stated that he was okay with it as drawn.
Mr. Spang made a motion to approve replacement of concrete block site walls and brick front steps with granite site walls and granite steps as provided in composite images. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Miller stated that the fence pickets are 1 ½” by 1 ½” by 1 ½”.
Mr. Spang made a motion to replace wire fence with wood picket fence and wood flatboard fence, with picket gate across driveway as provided in composite images. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Pella Window Demonstration
Jason Machado was present from Pella Windows and Doors to present the Pella Architectural Series Window. He stated that Pella began in 1925 and that they sell, install and service through the life of the warrantee and beyond. The window provides energy efficiency including Low E on the inside which reduces interior fading on carpets and keeps heat in in winter and out in summer. Energy efficiency is also increased through the multi layers of glass panes, inert gas (argon) that fills the void and is sealed and proper installation. He noted that all windows are energy star certified.
Mr. Spang asked if all are covered with aluminum.
Mr. Machado replied in the negative. He presented that Architectural Series sample which is all solid wood and is more glass and less wood. He stated that they will prime and paint to the color wanted. The tilt is hidden. It is simulated divided light with permanently applied muntin bars or available with no grills or removable grills. It has an OG profile and foam spacer.
Ms. Herbert asked the color of the spacer, noting that aluminum is very visible.
Mr. Machado stated that they offer a light bronze spacer. The windows have 7/8” or 1 ¼” muntins and have been approved in several Boston historic districts.
Mr. Spang asked if they are approved on Nantucket.
Mr. Machado replied in the affirmative.
Salem Common Neighborhood Association Tot Lot Subcommittee Discussion
Scott Sneddon, Linda Price-Sneddon and Michael Coleman were present representing a subcommittee of the Salem Common Neighborhood Association.
Mr. Sneddon stated that the current tot lot on the common consists of swings a broken slide and an old, broken tire swing.
Mr. Coleman stated that the equipment’s life span is over.
Mr. Sneddon stated that they essentially want to replace them. They have met with the Mayor and the Park Department, who committed to help with the removal of what is there and the installation of new equipment. They do not yet have a design, but would like to discuss materials and colors. He stated that they prefer wood which is safe non-toxic, pressure treated with a 25 year life span, with some plastic components. They have discounted using primarily plastic molded materials. Another choice is for painted metal which may have more durability. There is also a composite material.
Mr. Hart suggested a consistency among the materials.
Mr. Sneddon stated that they will have one manufacturer and will use the same color scheme for both the younger and older children’s components. He added that they have looked at the equipment on the Esplanade which is brown painted metal with composite walking material.
Mr. Hart stated that he had no objection to metal because it can be smaller and less prominent. He stated that a mix of metal and wood could be relatively attractive.
Ms. Diozzi stated that the colors should be quiet colors.
Ms. Price-Sneddon stated they are also considering a lattice rope climbing structure.
North Street Reconstruction Extra Work Order Discussion
Present were Jeffrey Shrimpton from Massachusetts Highway Dept. (MHD) and Douglas Kelleher from Epsilon Associates.
Ms. Guy stated that at the last meeting was read into the record a letter from Steve Roper of MHD dated 4/17/07. As a result the Commission, in its letter dated 5/17/07 requested additional information on the project and requested that the information be provided at the 5/31/07 public hearing. She noted that she has mailed Commission members the additional information MHD distributed at the 5/31/07 public hearing. She stated that she and David Hart, Pat Zaido, Meg Twohey, Barbara Cleary and others were at the consultation meeting early this day at DCAM with Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) where additional materials were passed and that she has provided copies to the Commission. Ms. Guy stated that this meeting is to make sure that the Commission has an understanding of the Extra Work
Order for the North Street Construction Project and that Jeff Shrimpton from Massachusetts Highway Department, along with Doug Kelleher are present to answer any questions. She stated that the Commission needs to respond to the Roper letter by Monday, June 11th, which it could be a response saying thank you for the information, requesting more information or indicating we are going to provide further comments for the June 30th deadline for the Section 106 process.
Ms. Herbert stated that the plans indicate that approximately 15 trees will be removed in the northern half of the project and not new trees will be planted and that she is concerned the area will be stripped bare and would be ten new traffic lights and be unpleasant looking.
Ms. Guy stated that at the meeting held at DCAM today, she was told there was a 2 to 1 tree replacement.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that he believed the trees being removed are only very small, dead trees or unhealthy and that they did not meet the MEPA threshold for tree removal.
Mr. Kelleher stated that there are only 6 trees being removed as part of the extra work order.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that 15 are being removed as part of the entire North Street project. He noted that MHD has changed its determination from No Effect to No Adverse Effect.
Ms. Herbert asked if there is an interim design showing where the new traffic lights will be and how the ramp looks.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that it is with the April 27th letter and that the black arrows lettered A through J are the traffic signals and that there is another signal at the bottom of the ramp.
Ms. Herbert noted that traffic will be going both directions down the ramp.
Ms. Herbert asked how much land is being taken that is close to the houses.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that the south side will be about a 5’ widening within the existing right of way and that the north side is minor as well. They will replace trees 2 to 1 at that location. The current plan shows 6 trees and the new plan will show 12 trees.
Ms. Herbert noted that there is a carved out footpath that pedestrians use to walk to the train and asked if there will be anything more formal. She noted that people will now have to cross traffic going in both directions, to go down that hill.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that the intent is to improve pedestrian flow by creating crosswalks and pedestrian lights, and DCAM has committed to building an accessible pedestrian walkway next to the courthouse. The asphalt walkway across the circular area will not go away, but we hope people will become accustomed to using the lights and the crosswalks and the new accessible ramp. These will be geared toward pedestrians. There will be not be a barrier placed at the island at the ramp. We don’t want people to climb anything.
Ms. Herbert asked if the circular area will be dressed up a bit.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that it has quite a few healthy trees already and looks very nice. He stated that he believed that it will just be restored where they do grading.
Mr. Spang asked if there were drawings of the vertical elements (i.e. poles).
Mr. Shrimpton stated that there is an example of the poles and traffic signal in the packet and that they will use the Salem standard ornamental light and mastarm traffic signal.
Mr. Hart stated that at the design public hearing was held on May 31st which was advertised for the changes to North Street and Bridge Street and that there was a presentation by MHD and a lot of discussion of traffic implications at this intersection. What’s occurring here is that the east ramps will be gone and the idea is to divert the traffic that used to go down there to the west ramp by a left turn. There will no longer be any way to go North bound on Rt. 114 from Bridge Street to the east ramp, so that is what the Commission needs to comment on by June 11th, postmarked. He stated that there was really no discussion on the second Section 106 piece per the April 27th letter. He believed that the package received May 31st, that there is a 30 day
clock for comments from May 31st. He noted that the package really addresses other issues besides traffic, such as the 106 Review process.
Ms. Diozzi stated that the106 Review is really the Commission’s purview.
Mr. Shrimpton stated there are very few issues that are not Section 106, that it is a very small project area and is adjacent to two historic districts.
Mr. Hart stated that one of the issues in Steve Roper’s letter is that MHD did an internal review and consider that there are no potential adverse effects on any historic properties. MHC wrote back and said they needed more information before they could concur.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) wrote back and asked for public comment before they could concur.
Mr. Hart stated that the Commission is part of that process.
Mr. Hart stated that his personal view is that there are two different potential adverse effects that he would like to explore. He stated that there are two historic districts and two national historic landmarks (Peirce-Nichols and the Bowditch House) and that his concern is on what it will look like and will it have an adverse effect visually on those properties. The other potential adverse effect is that he is not sure how all this traffic will work and its effect on Federal Street and if there will be an increase in traffic down Federal Street.
Ms. Herbert asked if there have been traffic studies.
Mr. Shrimpton replied in the affirmative, stating that they were done by DCAM’s consulting engineers. He believed studies showed:
1. Coordinated lights will improve traffic flow on North Street
2. The reconfigured entrance to west Federal Street will make it more difficult to turn right, especially at a high speed. It may not stop people from turning right, but they will have to slow down.
3. Coordinated lights will hopefully ease congestion at Essex Street, hopefully making it less desirable for people to cut through Federal Street.
He noted that 21 intersections were studied and that 9 will definitely be improved and the rest will have no decrease. North St. at Essex is supposed to be a 4 second improvement and Federal turning onto North will see a 22 second improvement. The greatest improvements will be on Washington Street, about 30-40 seconds at some of the intersections. So the experts are saying that it will be improved.
Mr. Hart stated that there was a lot of public comment at the meeting to the contrary and public skepticism.
Ms. Diozzi asked the color of the traffic light poles.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that the ones installed on North Street are black and that the city has a standard which is a black pole which is fluted with a wide base. He believed that they match the lampposts.
Mr. Hart stated that he felt the Commission’s role tonight was to address two issues. One is a response to the 5/31 meeting which frankly dealt mostly with traffic by Monday and to respond to the other by June 30th . Following up on his concern on the two issues, the visual effect and the potential increased traffic, he stated that would be inclined to state that for the Section 106, there is a potential adverse effect and that he would like to see alternatives explored which would mitigate or eliminate those potential adverse effects. He stated that if alternatives have already been explored, he would like to see the alternatives explored as alternatives to the elimination of the east ramp.
Mr. Shrimpton asked Mr. Hart if he was saying that the traffic itself was an adverse effect.
Mr. Hart asked if they would see an increase in traffic which potentially impact historic structures and what is the build out going to look like and is that going to have any adverse effect on the historic buildings and noted that the Commission’s purview is limited to that. He stated that there is a lot of concern on whether this one traffic light is going to stall the entire City of Salem and there is concern on how you can put a traffic light intersection in the middle of a free flowing street and how it will improve the traffic, so there is some skepticism in that regard.
Patricia Zaido, representing the Salem Partnership, stated that at the January meeting, DCAM had a simulation of the traffic light coordination, which showed a much better flow of traffic. She stated that the coordinated lights may be hard for people to understand, but it showed that this would improve traffic.
Ms. Herbert stated it is hard to visualize. She noted that every afternoon beginning 3:00ish, there is a stopped line of traffic and noted how adding a light to that could improve traffic is hard to understand.
Polly Wilbert stated that after the Vinnin Square lights were installed, the traffic coordination did not work, especially during rush hour. She noted that traffic is constantly backed up and that it was a recent project.
Ms. Herbert stated that she saw the biggest stumbling block being the traffic having to cross over to come down the ramp.
Mr. Hart stated that there was a lot of comment about that at the 5/31 meeting, about putting a set of traffic lights in a free flowing situation and people had a hard time understanding how that would improve traffic.
Mr. Spang asked if Mr. Hart was suggesting that a particular concern would be the impact on historic resources by the increase of traffic down Federal Street.
Mr. Hart replied in the affirmative, noting that it was his opinion that this is a potential adverse affect.
Mr. Spang stated that the other thing to pay attention to is the overall look of all the signals. He asked if it was unrealistic to suggest an image showing the impact of what the intersection will look like, showing what it looks like today and what it is proposed to look like.
Ms. Diozzi and Ms. Herbert agreed that they would also like to see an image.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that he could certainly suggest it. He noted that this is obviously a highly altered area. He stated that it has no historic value other than as a buffer. The trees are seen as buffer and they are being replaced. He stated that the ramp will not change drastically in the look and that widening will be minor.
Mr. Hart stated he was more concerned about the build out of the structures, such as poles and traffic lights and suspension wires.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that there will be no suspension wires.
Mr. Spang stated that one way of looking at it is that the work done in the 50’s was unsympathetic and this is an opportunity to be sympathetic. He asked how can we knit the two sides of the historic street together.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that it is not one historic district, but clearly two historic districts. He stated that the work area is adjacent, but not within the historic area. It is bordered by vacant lots and a massive highway interchange.
Mr. Hart stated that his concern was what the visual impact would be. He stated that the Commission needs to respond to the May 31st meeting by Monday, June 11th and suggested that the Commission state it sees potential adverse effects to the historic districts and that the Commission will respond during the 106 Review Process clock.
Mr. Shrimpton asked if they would want an image from the district or from the street toward the district.
Mr. Spang replied that he would like both.
Mr. Hart stated that he would like a study for the potential traffic effect on Federal Street, noting maybe its less, but maybe its more and that if it is more, it is a potential adverse effect.
Mr. Spang stated that he would like to visualize the work proposed on a 3 dimensional intersection.
Mr. Hart stated that he would like existing and proposed views.
Mr. Kelleher asked if they want 4 views, one from each direction.
Ms. Herbert replied in the affirmative and asked how many mastarms will be installed.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that there will be two with multiple heads and indicated the locations and number of heads on the drawings.
Mr. Spang asked if the median islands will be landscaped or concrete.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that he would check and that it may be stone pavers, such as granite cobblestones, but he was not sure. He stated that they are raised islands.
Ms. Herbert commented that only two mastarms were better than the 10 mastarms the Commission thought were being installed.
Ms. Guy summarized that the request for more information includes images, study findings of the potential impact on Federal Street traffic and the material of the islands.
Meg Twohey, representing the Federal Street Neighborhood Association and the Salem Alliance, stated that she was concerned that there was no notice that the 5/31 meeting was a Section 106 meeting and that there was no discussion on the impact on historic resources. She said they appreciated that Mr. Shrimpton came to the meeting and handed out materials. She requested the Commission support their request for a Section 106 public hearing. She also requested that the Commission support Mr. Hart’s request to look at alternatives. She stated that she felt traffic will back up adjacent to the historic district and noted that there is pedestrian crossing that will interrupt continuity. She felt that the alternative is a slip ramp that would allow access on the east side only down to
Bridge Street, but noted that DCAM is reluctant. She stated that she has been told that DCAM presented it, but stated that she did not remember it.
Ms. Zaido stated that she remembers it, noting that in the Fall of 2005, they created a community group, which they have never done in any other city, so that the community would have input from the beginning. Numerous of these community group meetings were held where a lot of alternatives were presented. The three alternatives were the only possible and Option A was the one that they wanted at the time. It was determined that the only way they can build the courthouse is to take the ramp and this has been said consistently for two years, and as recently as this morning.
Ms. Twohey stated that this has not been presented to the public in the way they can understand. She stated that they are also reviewing the memorandum of agreement and are preparing a response.
Mr. Spang stated that he felt a slip ramp would actually make it worse for pedestrians on that side of the bridge and felt it would be less pedestrian friendly than a courthouse with a sidewalk. It is currently a poor way that pedestrians have to get to the train and he would like to see pedestrian access to the train improved. He questioned if we really want a slip ramp from a pedestrian standpoint. He would also like to see an improved view from the rear of the courthouse facing Bridge, where there is currently a collection of dumpsters and other chaos.
Mr. Kelleher stated that a slip ramp will also have a direct impact on the size of the courthouse - reducing the footprint and raising the height of the building.
Ms. Wilbert asked the queuing capacity for cars traveling northbound on North Street and turning left onto the west ramp. She asked how many cars can stack at that light, which will likely line up with the lane of cars driving southbound and turning left on Essex.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that he could find out.
Mr. Hart offered to draft a letter from the Commission outlining the Section 106 points of discussion and to send it to Ms. Guy for circulation. He stated that at the 5/31 meeting, they did not really touch on any of the potential adverse effects on historic buildings.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that there was an opportunity to touch on that but instead participants in the audience chose to argue about the process.
Mr. Hart stated he did not hear anyone at the meeting who sat at the table state that they now wanted to hear about the effects on historic buildings.
Ms. Zaido stated that it was discussed very briefly, but not one else carried it on. She stated that the Peirce-Nichols House was brought up.
Mr. Hart stated that he had brought up the house, but that nobody asked for any comments.
Ms. Zaido stated that Mr. Hart gave comment but nobody else in the audience followed up on it.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that they identified that the project was in the historic area and set out the ramifications of the projects and there were no comments other than from one person who only wanted to talk about the process. He stated that to say that they are not following the public participation component of Section 106 is incorrect. Mr. Shrimpton stated that there is no requirement for a specific public hearing for Section 106, only a requirement for public participation. He stated that they have met the requirement and MHC will agree. He stated that it was met by notifying the Salem Historical Commission and the Salem Planning office, identifying interested parties and giving those parties information, and holding a public hearing at which they identified historic properties and laid
out the ramifications of the project. He stated that they do not feel there is an adverse effect. He stated that if other people had questions or comments about adverse effect, they did not come out. He stated that all the audience talked about was process from one person, who was incorrect. He stated that they have met the public participation requirements and that he believes MHC will agree with that. He stated that we need to talk about the project and that he was here to talk about the project. He stated if anyone disagrees with the effect finding, that is fine, but they have met the requirements.
Mr. Hart stated that he agreed to disagree.
Ms. Wilbert stated that MHD never notified the Peabody Essex Museum that owns the Peirce-Nichols House.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that there was a public notice.
Ms. Wilbert stated that the notice did not say anything about historic properties or resources and questioned how anyone would know they could comment on historic resources.
Mr. Kelleher stated that if there is a public hearing on a project that you are concerned about historic resources or process etc., it is your opportunity to comment.
Ms. Diozzi stated that while she did not attend the 5/31 meeting, she assumes that if she had gone there to speak on something historic, she would be heard. She feels that anyone can speak on any aspect of the project.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that they are open to comments. They want this to be a good project and do not want an adverse effect.
Mr. Hart stated that essentially the 106 Process is sitting at the Salem Historical Commission and we have to June 30th to respond.
Barbara Cleary stated that Historic Salem, Inc.’s courthouse committee has not yet really looked at the plans. They have been focusing on the Memorandum of Agreement, but will be looking at the intersection plans and making comments.
Ms. Guy suggested that the Commission send a very simple letter for the 6/11 deadline stating that in order to make a determination or comments that we would like the following information, if available:
· 4 each of 3-dimensional views of the intersection, both existing and with the new mast arm traffic signals in place, in order to visualize the work proposed;
· Excerpts of any traffic study analysis illustrating the potential traffic impact on Federal Street;
· Identification of the materials that will be used in the raised median island(s), such as landscaping, concrete, or pavers, etc.) and
that the Commission will reserve their comments on the project for their next meeting scheduled for June 20th.
The Commission members were agreeable. Ms. Guy will prepare the draft.
Mr. Shrimpton asked Ms. Guy to email the information request as soon as possible.
Ms. Cleary stated that HSI is also concerned with the visual effect, materials and quality. She agreed that there are two districts, but would like to see them visually knitted together, as they are currently disconnected by the road. Concern of further separating visually by the road. She would like to encourage people to walk back and forth. She added that the courthouse committee meetings held were for representatives of community groups but were not open to the public.
Mr. Shrimpton asked what design input they could provide that would help knit the two districts together.
Ms. Zaido questioned that this positive thing that was done two years ago for the first time by having community members meet is not being turned into a negative. The whole idea was that Historic Salem and the Salem Partnership would be represented. DCAM explained that they wanted to have a small working group that could accomplish things. They did not have to have any public or community meetings.
Mr. Kelleher was that each representative would fill in their membership.
Ms. Cleary stated that it is very difficult to have one person represent every neighborhood association in Salem.
Ms. Twohey asked for information on the sidewalk and crosswalk materials to be provided. She stated that this is a very packed area and site and suggested that Commission members do a site visit and bring along copies of the plans.
Ms. Guy thanked those in attendance for coming.
Ms. Guy read into the record or noted that she has forwarded any letters she received digitally to the Commission members or distributed hard copies including:
· Email from Polly Wilbert to MHC regarding Alliance of Salem Neighborhood Association (ASNA) letter of 2/9/07.
· Federal Street Neighborhood Association and ASNA’s letter of 6/5/07 to MHC.
· MHC’s letter to Steve Roper dated 5/31/07
· HSI letter to MHC dated 6/5/07
· MHC letter to HSI dated 5/24/07
· MHC letter to DCAM dated 5/31/07
· HSI letter to DCAM dated 5/21/07
Ms. Guy stated that there was a meeting this morning concerning the MOA, where the group went through each of the comments provided in HSI’s letter. Some things were accepted, some things were not accepted, some things were compromised and some things are still on the table. In about a week MHC intends to produce another draft. She stated that the only comment received from members prior to this morning’s meeting were from Ms. Bellin who asked if the City Solicitor should review and sign the MOA as to form. Ms. Guy stated that she has never seen a local city solicitor’s signature on an MOA and that MHC’s legal counsel would likely review it, but that she did forward a copy to Salem’s City Solicitor who responded that she was okay with the form. Mr. Spang’s
comment was that “overall seems like a confirmation of previous discussions without much real meat in it. For example, the reuse commitments are pretty light.” Kathy’s email was not received prior to the meeting. Her comment was, “I do feel that the row of courthouses and non residential buildings on that side of Federal Street should be completed and that the remaining houses should go as they did in 1909. The three houses, following a longstanding Salem practice, should be moved and every effort, shore of delaying the construction of the courthouse project, should be made to do so. I agree with the recommendations of Historic Salem that were in the addendum to the Request for Responses concerning the effort, time frame and sensitivity to preserving the character of the structures. I do hope the state will do everything they can to save these houses and to stabilize and prepare to convert to reuse the 1841 county
commissioners building and the 1862/1889 superior courthouse, ‘consistent with the desire to preserve the historical integrity of the buildings.’”
10 Summer Street
Hilary Realty Trust submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors at 10 Summer Street. The body will be Wildwood and the trim will be Wood Ash.
Ms. Guy stated that the applicant was not able to be here, but informed her that the colors were selected by Sean Clarke with SPNEA colors.
Mr. Hart stated that he felt there needed to be more contrast between the colors.
Ms. Herbert thought the colors were very dull.
Mr. Spang made a motion to continue the application. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Ms. Guy stated that she has a Certificate of Non-applicability for the LaBonte’s at 242 Lafayette Street and that they would like to renew it as well as to add reroofing the rear shop roof in kind. Mr. Hart made a motion to extend the certificate for one year and to issue a certificate of non-applicability for the rear shop roof to match exiting. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Spang made a motion to approve the minutes of April 4, 2007. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission has not done anything on the violation list in 3 years. Ms. Guy suggested reviewing it after the summer application rush.
There being no further business, made a motion to adjourn. seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission
| 
