SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
July 10, 2007
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on July 10, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Mr. Desrocher, Mr. Spang, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Harper and Mr. Hart and Ms. Guy.
North Street Reconstruction Extra Work Order Discussion
Ms. Guy stated that at the last meeting, the Commission requested some additional information before the Commission would comment on the interchange redesign. She noted that the Commission needs to provide comment tonight so that she can put it into written comments, so that she can provide a draft by next week’s meeting because written comments are due two weeks from today.
Jeff Shrimpton of MassHighway and Doug Kelleher of Epsilon Associates were present. Mr. Shrimpton provided an updated plan for the west ramp.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that they listened to the public input and have moved the location of the west ramp so that it will no longer impact the existing southern edge of the ramp. They are no longer taking out the six trees along the southern edge of the ramp and no longer widening the roadway into southern edge. All the widening will occur at the northern edge of the ramp and the circle area and noted that the widening will be minimal. The widening originally proposed was 287 s.f. into the southern edge and for the maximum width of payment the maximum widening would be 8.6’ plus a 5’ sidewalk. With the new proposal they would be widening 193 s.f. of pavement and the maximum widening of the new pavement will be 4.5’ into the green space. They are also adding 554 s.f. of new
landscaping, mostly at the corners at Federal Street and at the top of the ramp. They are also adding 12 trees, and installing ornamental lighting on North Street and the ramp to match the rest of North Street. There will be ornamental mast arm signal poles and various types of ornamental pavers, however they will not use brick due to non-compliance with ADA. There are many synthetic pavers such as tinted, textured concrete or granite cobles. It is under discussion on whether to put in a sidewalk at the center curve. The sidewalk along the ramp will be some type of textured material to look like brick. It will be much more durable than brick and will meet ADA requirements. There will also be synthetic brick-like material in the crosswalks.
Ms. Herbert questioned how they will stop pedestrians from crossing through cars and impacting the traffic. She stated it was a shame that there wasn’t some way for pedestrians to only cross one lane of traffic instead of 3 lanes.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that they are retaining the center path. He stated that if there is a sidewalk along the inner curve, it will serve as an accessible path. They do not feel they can make the center path accessible. The southern sidewalk will be reconstructed in a more appropriate material.
Ms. Herbert stated that, in any case, they are going to be crossing two lanes and then a third before they can get down to the train. She stated that she did not know how many people that involves and that the HSI letter talked about 40 individuals probably going pretty much at the same time. She did not know what MassHighway's figures showed in terms of that impact and stopping traffic by pedestrians and questioned if it was not that major.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that pedestrian access would be discussed in more detail at the July 11 public hearing, but they are trying to provide acceptable pedestrian access without having to go down that path. They have done timing studies and pedestrian counts.
Ms. Bellin asked if there was a way to have some walkway demarcation to have the cars stop before turning right or left or yield to pedestrians for at least the first two lanes.
Mr. Shrimpton stated the cars have to stop at the top of the lane and that there will be a mast arm signal there.
Ms. Bellin asked if there will be more demarcation that there is actually walkway.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that it is not supposed to be a walkway. They are trying to get people to use the crosswalks and there will be a path down by the courthouse. He indicated on the plan what lanes the mast arm signals would control.
Ms. Herbert asked if there will a ramp or stairway down to the train.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that there will be an accessible pedestrian ramp as part of DCAM’s project.
Mr. Hart asked how pedestrians who get down to that point will get across Bridge St.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that there will be a crosswalk.
Ms. Herbert asked if there will be a light at the bottom of the ramp across Bridge Street.
Mr. Kelleher stated that they are still considering it.
Mr. Shrimpton noted that the path has not been designed yet, but DCAM is committed to it.
Mr. Hart questioned what is meant by accessible ramp.
Mr. Kelleher stated that it would be ADA accessible.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that there will be bump outs at Federal Street. He stated that, presently, there is almost a dedicated lane from the ramp to Federal Street. The bump-out will go into that area and also there will be another bump out on Federal Street itself, that will make it very difficult for cars to make a continuous right turn. He noted that the city could extend the traffic island to prevent a left turn from North bound North Street onto Federal Street, but it would be up to them.
Mr. Kelleher noted that this was discussed at great length during design of the whole North Street project which is currently under construction. He added that most recently it was decided not to increase that island, but that can be extended.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that the city would have to decide whether or not to do that and that MassHighway could build it.
Mr. Spang asked if the City requested it, it would be part of this project.
Mr. Shrimpton replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Herbert asked if some of the proposed items by HSC, such as changes to the traffic direction on Lynde Street, would be up to the city.
Mr. Shrimpton replied in the affirmative. He noted that local roads are the city’s responsibility and that MHD could build the project whether Lynde Street is changed or not changed.
Ms. Herbert noted that those would be supplemental to what is happening here and that this is not the forum to discuss that.
Mr. Kelleher provided photographs of existing and proposed, noting that there 10 signal heads which includes 2 mast arms and 2 pole mounted signals.
Mr. Spang asked if there will be directional signage.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that there most likely signage hanging from the mast arm.
Mr. Kelleher stated that the proposed is consistent with all the signals and poles on the other end of North Street.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that they will be fluted and painted black.
Mr. Hart stated that MassHighway was asked to provide traffic impact potential for Federal Street.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that there have been no traffic studies on Federal Street and that he felt the changes would improve traffic on Federal, by persuading them not to turn onto Federal Street.
Mr. Kelleher stated that the bump out will narrow the opening to Federal Street to help reduce speed and reiterated the possibility to extend the island.
Mr. Hart stated that if the island is not extended, he was concerned that traffic heading north on North Street that are backed up at the light will turn left onto Federal.
Ms. Herbert stated that it is up to the city to decide whether or not to extend the island.
Mr. Hart stated that he would like a traffic analysis of the potential effect if the island is not extended.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that the engineers have stated that there will be improved traffic flow with the new signal.
Mr. Hart stated that he could not imagine how a stop light will improve traffic flow.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that the light will coordinate with the light at Essex Street, presumably will keep people from taking shortcuts.
Mr. Kelleher stated that it will also coordinate with Mason Street.
Ms. Herbert asked what will be covered at the public hearing on July 11 along with traffic.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that it will cover pedestrian access, lighting and landscaping. He noted that Nick Rubino, the traffic engineer, will be there for traffic questions.
Mr. Hart asked if there will be any discussion of alternative traffic patterns.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that he imagined the question would come up and that Mr. Rubino would be able to handle those questions.
Jane Arlander, 93 Federal Street, noted that they are adding 540’ of green space and asked how much will be taken away.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that the only green space being taken is at the triangle at the ramp. They are also considering putting in a sidewalk at the edge at the shoulder.
Ms. Arlander showed a map indicating the flood zone of Bridge Street. She stated they were basically putting the East ramp over on the west side into a flood zone. She stated that the flood zone is a real problem for Federal Streeters. She stated that a lot of the cars need to use the East ramps to be diverted away from the West ramps. She stated traffic before it gets to the flooded area on Bridge Street uses the side streets to reach Federal to get over to Essex or to move East or North. She stated that it was a pretty active flood zone and flooded twice in the month of June, once for a high tide and once for rain, during which there was a tremendous amount of traffic backed up on Federal Street.
Ms. Herbert stated that in her experience having lived on Federal Street, flooding only occurs four to six or seven times per year and did not feel it was something you would change everything to accommodate that one situation. She added that the flooding doesn’t take place where the ramps are, but usually further down Bridge Street, not near the west ramp.
Ms. Arlander stated that coming south on North, you can’t turn onto that ramp during flooding, because it is closed off with a horse, so they have to continue on North in a South direction and then go up Federal.
Mr. Kelleher noted that the Conservation Commission reviewed and approved the project.
Ms. Arlander stated that all that the Conservation Commission approved was a light.
Mr. Kelleher stated that presumably, they reviewed this work as well.
Ms. Arlander stated that how it was presented at the meeting was for a light.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that there will be pedestrian lights across the bottom of the ramp.
Mr. Spang asked if her concern was the ramp being closed due to flooding and it impacting the historic district.
Ms. Arlander replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that the original plan widened close to 300 s.f. with a maximum of 8 ½ feet plus the new sidewalk which adds another 5’. He stated that the new widening will be close to 200 s.f. with a maximum of 4 1/2 feet with the possibility of a sidewalk, so it is a very small sliver that will be widened. No trees will be removed at all.
David Pelletier, Crombie Street, asked if the direction of Federal Street on the courthouse side will be changed.
Mr. Shrimpton replied in the negative, and noted that it would be up to the city.
Mr. Pelletier suggested the direction of Federal Street be reversed because there are currently two one-way streets next to each other and there will be no way to get around the block if a driver passes his destination (i.e. Joe Correnti’s office) on Federal Street. He questioned how a car can go around the block without making an S turn or having to cut across North Street traffic. He stated that a lot of people will have trouble trying to get to the courthouse to some place they are supposed to be and where they have never been before.
Mr. Shrimpton they would have to cut across at the light. He stated that he agreed it was a good question and that he would take it back to the engineers, but noted that the city will have to be involved in changing local streets.
Ms. Herbert suggested that Mr. Pelletier outline what he said and provide it at the meeting tomorrow night.
Patricia Zaido of the Salem Partnership stated that Mr. Correnti is the Chairman of the Salem Partnership and he is 100 percent behind this proposal and he is not worried about that.
Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission has two weeks to respond on the Commission’s opinion, but felt tomorrow night’s meeting is important to discuss all the other issues in regards to pedestrians, traffic, landscaping, etc. She encouraged people to be at the meeting tomorrow night to raise those questions.
Darrow Lebovici, 120 Federal Street, stated that there are viewpoints that should be made about direct adverse impacts and potential adverse impacts of this particular design on historic districts, historic properties and landmark properties.
Ms. Guy noted that now is the time to provide such comment.
Ms. Herbert noted that the layout of this project, with the west ramps taking all of the traffic, has been designed because the courthouse structure can’t fit with the east ramps. She stated that this is the project and how we can make the ramp situation and traffic situation is really what we need to focus on and that would be addressed tomorrow night in terms of getting some answers. She stated that she felt the changes that have been made are quite good, but maybe they could go further.
Ms. Arlander stated that when jurors come to visit the courthouses, they see the sign for Federal Street at Murphy’s Funeral Home and immediately come down the residential street, thinking that that is where the courthouses are. She suggested signage directing traffic to the courthouse, which is pleasing to the historic district.
Ms. Guy stated that it was a great comment to suggest signage directing people to the courthouse so that don’t turn into the historic district.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that signage is good to suggest and that it should be directed to DCAM.
Mr. Kelleher stated that the signs should not be in the historic district, but on North Street so that they don’t end up in the historic district.
Nick Nowak, 356 Essex Street, asked how long the left turn lane is to go onto the west ramp.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that it will hold from 10 to 12 cars.
Mr. Kelleher stated that with the reconfigured ramp, the ramp sort of gets pushed further to the north.
Mr. Nowak stated that he measured from the north ramps to Lynde Street and it was about 210’. The Goody Clancy study shows a queue of 370’ long that will back up into one of the most important thru traffics, northbound on North Street getting out of town.
Mr. Kelleher stated that it will be two lanes and that there would be a dedicated turn lane and two will be continuing North.
Mr. Nowak asked how far back the left turn lane would go.
Mr. Kelleher stated that it will go beyond Lynde Street.
Mr. Nowak stated that if that traffic blocks North Street heading up, then that’s a big problem. He stated that traffic is described as getting better by describing the traffic on Bridge Street, but there is a couple things that look problematic including the queue that will back up traffic going north and the queue length for North Street going thru is 600’ which backs up beyond Essex Street, because there is on 580’ or so between the ramp and Essex St. He said it seems that flow will not actually be better, but will be worse.
Mr. Kelleher noted that Earthtech will be at the public meeting and that this would be an excellent point to raise tomorrow night.
Mr. Nowak stated that ramp is about 300’ to get from North as it comes down to get to Bridge Street. According to the report, the queue is 455’, so it will back up all the way onto North Street and will block the southbound traffic. It will be blocking another critical flow. He stated there are several examples of this.
Ms. Herbert asked if there were some way to submit some of these questions before tomorrow night’s meeting.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that the public can email questions to him ahead of time and provided his email address.
Mr. Lebovici stated that the attempt to move the ramp away from the district and Peirce-Nichols House is a good thing, but noted that it has an impact such as make the circle smaller and making queuing space short. He asked if the traffic studies have been redone to show the effect of that change. He questioned if the conclusions in the report are backed up by the data.
Mr. Kelleher stated that Nick Rubino can speak to that at the public meeting.
Mr. Lebovici stated that there are discrepancies between the report data and the conclusions. He believes there is evidence that it will make traffic worse. He stated that there will be more cars going by and sitting longer, and more vibration, noise and pollution in the districts. He asked the Commission to recognize and consider the possible problems that this is causing.
Walter Cook, 23 Summer Street, stated that he lives in the middle of grid lock. He stated that the traffic light on Essex going north and south doesn’t last long enough to accommodate the enormous flow of the traffic coming around the corner from the White Hen or Dunkin Donuts. He stated that it is constant gridlock morning and night and that the introduction of a new light within 100 yards will cause absolute bedlam. He stated that he is in favor of the project that will bring in new jobs and new revenue, but noted that the light should be located somewhere else.
Ms. Zaido stated that the aim of this project is not to solve all the traffic problems in Salem. We are going to have traffic in Salem and it will continue to increase. She stated that her biggest concern when looking at this was the Peirce Nichols House. She stated that she believed that the Peabody Essex Museum sent a letter to the Commission.
Ms. Guy read a letter from Joshua Basseches, Deputy Director and COO, Peabody Essex Museum dated 6/25/07into the record.
Ms. Guy noted that she also had a 13 page letter from Meg Twohey and Betsy Burns, Co-Chairs of the Federal Street Neighborhood Association, which she had distributed to the Commission members by email earlier.
Mr. Nowak agreed that we are not here to solve the traffic problems, but noted that they are given a specific solution and there is a need to decide if there is no adverse impact. He agreed that there are alternatives that could probably mitigate the traffic, but did not believe that this was the one.
Ms. Herbert felt that the discourse tomorrow night needs to be heard with regard to questions the public has and the answers that will be provided so the Commission will have a better understanding of how the Commission feels about the situation. She noted that it is not the Commission’s job to solve these problems, only to look at what’s been presented and determine if there is an impact. She added that a number of principals, such as the Peabody Essex Museum and the Salem Partnership, don’t feel there is an impact. She stated that with regard to Federal Street, there are questions that need to be raised with the city such as redirecting traffic, disallowing turns, increasing the size of islands, etc.
Mr. Lebovici was in agreement that there is some traffic now, but added that the project should not make it worse. He stated that if there is potential adverse impact, then the rules say it is the obligation of the project advocates to look at and evaluate and present alternatives. He added that there have been no alternatives for the traffic design presented to the public.
Ms. Guy read a letter from Patricia Zaido, Executive Director, Salem Partnership dated 7/6/07 into the record.
Mr. Pelletier stated that people need to park when they go to the courthouse. He stated that the easiest way to get to parking is not to go from Federal to North to Bridge to Washington. He stated that it would be easier to go out Federal, hang a right and hang a left onto Church or go around to Lynde Street and park behind Red Lion Smoke Shop. He stated that there are a lot of pieces that haven’t quite been thought. He stated that nobody here is objecting to the courthouse project, but stated that there are a lot of answers that the designers can’t possibly know about how this works day in and day out and about driving habits. He stated that the easiest way to get to parking is not to doing loop-de-loops all over the place or to be crossing traffic all over the place, but
rather it needs be very simple and easy to do.
Ms. Herbert suggested putting those thoughts to email to Mr. Shrimpton.
Ms. Guy read a letter from Kimberley Alexander, Vice President, Historic Salem, Inc. dated 7/9/07, which had an enclosure of a June 10th letter that was distributed previously. She also read a letter from John Keenan, State Representative dated 6/19/07.
Ms. Guy suggested getting some immediate comments, such as the one regarding signage, on this design so that she can begin a draft comment letter and that the letter can be finalized on the meeting of the 18th.
Ms. Herbert stated that along with Ms. Arlander’s comment about signage, there was also a question about a pedestrian crosswalk at Bridge Street at the end of the ramp next to the courthouse.
Ms. Arlander asked the Commission to challenge the assertion that there are no potential adverse effects on the historic resources in order to force all of us to look at alternatives ways to accomplish the objective of the proposed project, which is basically to bring the east ramp traffic over to the west ramp and if there is an alternative that could prevent fewer potential adverse effects. The other reason for the challenge is to open the door for mitigation process once all the alternatives have been looked at. She summarized what she felt were the potential adverse effects: traffic pollution, reduced property values, traffic noise, vibration, congestion, economic impact, loss of historic atmosphere, parking problems, health concerns, loss of neighborhood feeling, adverse effect due to flood zone,
loss of continuity with downtown, reduced pedestrian access, accelerated deterioration of infrastructure and safety concerns.
William Wrightson, 131 Federal Street, stated that he does not feel that Federal Street is a safe place to raise kids due to cars speeding and that is why he is moving and felt that this was an effect.
Meg Twohey, 120 Federal Street, stated that the Federal Street Neighborhood Association supports the courthouse and has worked long and hard as an interested party, but has great concern and is looking for the Commission’s help. We are at the Section 106 and 4f review process, of which both appear to consider the potential impact of the road project on historic resources. She stated that Section 106 calls for consideration of alternatives as either as mitigation or elimination of potential adverse effects. She stated that the numbers that they were given lead them to believe that there will be increased traffic on Federal Street and across the McIntire Historic District. She noted that they have put together alternatives that they hope will work to avoid having to put in the traffic lights. She stated that if the east ramp goes, they have to accommodate 320 left turns at peak hour. The alternative they propose, includes changing Flint and allowing a left turn on Essex. They
are hoping that the alternatives will be considered together, including DCAM, MassHighway and the City’s pieces.
Mary Whitney, 356 Essex Street, stated that she is concerned about bleeding of traffic beyond Federal. She stated that with the increase in congestion there will be more noise, pollution and vibration and it will be difficult to get to Leslie’s Retreat Park. She felt it will have a negative effect for pedestrians. She added that she did not know how anyone could say there is no adverse effect.
Betsy Burns, 22 Beckford Street, stated that common sense says that two lights will be disastrous for city traffic and for the Federal Street Neighborhood and McIntire Historic District. She stated that Chestnut Street could be made a two-way, but has been protected and that Federal Street should be protected.
Ms. Herbert asked if Federal Street ever ran in the opposite direction from Boston to North.
Ms. Burns replied in the negative.
Ms. Herbert stated that she moved to Federal Street in 1984 and that with Universal Steel there used to be continuous clanging. She noted that they are gone and the noise has level improved. She stated that she was surprised that Dr. Gordon was not present to comment. She stated that she felt that MassHighway has done some good changes, including reducing the widening and keeping trees. She stated that the focus needs to be a way to make less traffic that needs to take the left down the ramp, such as the suggestions to the traffic directions on Lynde Street and/or Federal Street. She added that everything else is a given and noted that signage and landscaping can make it look good.
Ms. Zaido stated the every change has impact, such as when the City Council experimented with the making a portion of Flint Street one way, which impacted Oak Street. She noted that any change will impact someone.
Mr. Lebovici stated that he has asked since January for a presentation of any evidence that there were alternatives evaluated. He stated that he received nothing until the middle of June and that it included no evidence that alternatives were considered and evaluated. He added that the traffic study was solely to look at the feasibility of one particular approach. He noted that DCAM had indicated that the 2003 study is not relevant and that they changed conclusions. He stated that there is no basis for the assertion that traffic will be no worse and that there is no adverse effect.
Ms. Zaido stated that at the May 31 public meeting, Gail Rosenberg stated that DCAM built upon the 2003 study and came to new conclusions.
Mr. Kelleher stated that it is important to note that the courthouse project itself is dramatically different than what was proposed in 2003.
Mr. Lebovici stated that with the current design if alternatives to minimize the historic effect have been thought about, they have not been put in writing and submitted for public inspection.
Mr. Kelleher stated that the City’s Department of Planning & Community Development has copies all traffic studies completed.
Mr. Shrimpton provided traffic counts for cars turning onto Federal that he received from DCAM today. Existing counts during am peak one hour duration are 84 for cards turning right from North Street and 75 for cars turning left from North Street to Federal. Pm peak counts are 196 for cars turning right from North Street and 111 for cars turning left from North Street to Federal. He stated that the estimate he was given by DCAM is that the future counts will be 10% higher in am and pm, both right and left turns. He noted that the 11 cars turning left from North Street could be eliminated by extending the island.
Mr. Spang questioned why there is an expectation of more cars turning right from North Street due to this change.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that he suspected it was traffic growth.
Mr. Spang stated that he thought traffic growth had been estimated at 1% natural growth.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that he would check on the numbers, but these were what DCAM gave him today.
Ms. Herbert asked when the traffic numbers were done.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that he would ask about that as well.
Mr. Hart asked that the numbers be submitted to Ms. Guy by email, with the date of the data.
Mr. Spang stated that the question is whether 11 more cars in the course of an hour will create an adverse effect in pollution, vibration, noise, etc.
Ms. Herbert stated that the 10% assumes not extending the island.
Ms. Bellin stated that if 111 cars are blocked by extending the island, where will they go. She noted that the historic district is larger than just Federal Street and that if those cars are blocked, the impact will shift.
Mr. Spang stated that more cars could go down Essex Street and it would need to be decided if one is better of worse than the other.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that the island is being considered, but the city would have to request it. It would cut down quite a bit of traffic access onto Federal.
Ms. Whitney asked how she would be able to get home and how emergency vehicles would get down Federal if there is an island.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that emergency vehicles could be accommodated with a dip in the island.
Mr. Spang asked if it was up to the city to direct traffic during the flood.
Mr. Shrimpton stated that he believed so.
Sumner Jones stated that he has lived in Salem all his life and was speaking for the Salem Partnership. He stated that the Partnership does not want the courthouse to impact negatively and did not believe it does. He noted that it is desperately important to the city. He was convinced that property values on Federal Street will not go down. He noted that as time goes by, the chances of the courthouse being build diminish. He stated that the beautiful homes and beautiful neighbors originated where they did because of the economic vitality in this city. Historic preservation and property values and everything that has been talked about can only continue to exist as long as that vitality exists. There are plenty of examples where economic decay can destroy historic resources en
masse. Therefore we all have an interest in the continued economic health of the city. He stated that those who do this for a living should be listened to. He stated that they can be questioned and challenged, but that we must have faith in the people we employ to do this. He stated that this isn’t going to be perfect, but supporting the project means being willing to make some reasonable compromises to get it done. He stated that we don’t know what the impacts will be but, we have to have faith in ourselves that if they are so negative that they create all of the horror we’ve heard, that we can react to that and change it. We can change the direction of Federal Street, we can extend the island, we can react to things if they prove to be a problem. He plead for open-mindedness and compromise and the understanding how important this is to all of us.
Ms. Herbert closed the public discussion.
Mr. Hart stated that he felt there is a potential adverse effect due to increased traffic in the McIntire District and asked that alternatives be submitted and explored.
Mr. Spang stated that the options include 1) we have found an adverse impact, 2) we have not found an adverse impact or 3) we need more information.
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission could ask for more information, but would ultimately need to either agree with no adverse effect, disagree or take no position and just provide comment on the design.
Mr. Spang stated that he would like to see what happens at the public hearing tomorrow where there will be more traffic discussion and that the Commission may or may not decide to reopen to public comment.
Mr. Desrocher was in agreement.
Ms. Harper stated that she would like to see what the city’s thoughts are on street changes, traffic flow, etc.
Ms. Guy stated that she also had a draft of the latest MOA.
20 Chestnut Street Discussion
James Schooley was present to discuss the fencing approved for his property, which he has already begun to construct.
Ms. Guy read an email from abutter Mary Usovicz at 2 Botts Court.
Ms. Herbert stated that it is not the Commission’s job to get involved in property disputes and that the Commission’s job is the approval of the product. She stated that the historic pictures show a flat board fence.
Mr. Schooley stated that the fence may overlay the walkway by a couple inches, but that when the walkway was built, it may have been built over the property line.
Ms. Herbert asked he was planning to put the house on the market.
Mr. Schooley stated that it would eventually be sold.
Ms. Herbert asked if he was planning to put flat boards onto the rails currently built and then paint.
Mr. Schooley replied in the affirmative. He stated that he had asserted that the walkway would not be disturbed, but admitted that he disturbed it plenty. He stated that he has since put back the soil and bricks as it was previously.
Ms. Herbert stated that she had assumed the good side would face outward.
Mr. Schooley stated that he is putting it up facing the same direction as the fence was prior to its removal
Louis Sirianni, 6 Botts Court, stated that he saw the excavations done by Mr. Schooley including the rusted remnants of the prior fence. He stated that Mr. Schooley is installing the new fence in the precise location of the prior fence. He stated that the new fence quality is very good. He stated that he believed, historically, the poorer side of a fence typically faces outward between properties and believed there was precedent.
Ms. Herbert noted that the gate that once hid the fence is no longer there, so now the fence is visible.
Ms. Schooley stated that the gate is not on his property, but is on the Usovicz property.
Ms. Herbert stated that the new post created does not match the existing post.
Ms. Schooley stated that since the photo was taken, he has since put on the molding.
Mr. Sirianni stated the Mr. Schooley will replicate the post.
Ms. Herbert stated that her concern was that the post match and that the fence be built as presented. She suggested the Mr. Schooley offer to rebuild the gate.
Mr. Schooley stated that he spent $1800 to restore the fences that were torn down by Ms. Usovicz. He noted that there is a tree growing up by the side of the garage which is in the path of the fence.
Ms. Guy stated that no structures, such as sheds or garages, can be altered in order to complete the fence, without prior approval from the Commission.
Ed Wilkins, 5 Botts Court, noted that the fence at Botts Court has 4 x 4 posts and that the fence on the Usovicz property line do not have the same posts.
Mr. Sirianni stated that, historically, the two fences were different and that Mr. Schooley will reconstruct them precisely as they were.
Mr. Wilkins stated that his fences all have the good side out to the neighbor.
Ms. Bellin stated that she did not feel what is being constructed is what was presented and that the photo differs. She stated that the missing gate is key, because without a gate, it is a different view of what the public is seeing.
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission cannot require the Usovicz’s to reconstruct the gate. The Commission must determine if the fence as approved in the Certificate differs from what is being built. She noted that if the visibility of the fence changed because there was no gate, the Commission could have discussed its appropriateness based on a difference in visibility from the historic photo. However, that the Certificate did not say which side the fence was to face and there was no discussion of this when the fence was approved and that if members assumed it faced outward, they did not voice it.
Ms. Bellin noted that the historic photo only showed the top of the fence between the properties.
Ms. Herbert asked if Mr. Schooley cut the granite.
Mr. Sirianni replied in the negative. He stated that the back property line fence is built historically accurate.
Ms. Herbert stated that Mr. Schooley needed to fix the post so that it matches the existing post.
Win Wilkins, 5 Botts Court, stated that the Usovicz’s daughter has a garden where the gate once stood and that they will not want to reinstall the gate.
Ms. Guy asked the Commission if the fence was currently in violation based on the approved Certificate.
Ms. Herbert asked if Mr. Schooley would be painting the metal poles.
Mr. Schooley replied in the affirmative. He noted that the bead on the post indicates where the property line is.
Mr. Hart noted that if the vertical boards were installed on the other side of the horizontal’s, so that it was good side facing out, the verticals would be installed on the Usovicz property.
No further action was taken.
254 Lafayette St.
In continuation of a prior meeting, Lewis Legon presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for deck replacement, siding replacement and removal of rear shed. Also present was Eric Chase, carpenter/builder.
Mr. Legon stated that he reviewed the Commission’s wall recommendation for the 3rd floor and it was determined that there would be some difficulties. There would be drainage issues for snow and the wall would take away from the turret. He suggested duplicating the first floor system for the third floor deck, noting that it would have to be 42” high.
Mr. Spang stated that there is no precedent for a roof deck like the first floor on a third floor. He stated that he felt it would need to be quite decorative, as was previously there, or something like a Chinese Chippendale.
Ms. Herbert stated that the posts could be turned so as to be diagonal. She suggested that the condominium documents stated that there are no grills allowed on the decks for insurance purposes.
Mr. Spang stated that he was still concerned how the structural support for the deck will look.
Mr. Chase stated that he will trim it out with pine and put in a decorative molding.
Mr. Hart stated that Brattleworks Manufacturers has a lot of decorative fences and suggested that they check the website.
Mr. Spang stated that he still cannot picture how they will treat the side of the deck and what will be seen on top of the cornice.
Mr. Chase stated that it will be a 2 x 8 wrapped in pine.
Mr. Spang stated that he would like a drawing with the wrapping and trim detail and the relation to the turret.
Ms. Spang made a motion to continue the deck. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Legon stated that he wants to change the colors that were approved. He would prefer the body to be Carolina Gull, the trim to be Carrington Beige and the accent to be Texas Leather.
Mr. Hart stated that he did not felt the new colors said Victorian.
Ms. Herbert stated that she thought the new colors were very institutional.
Ms. Bellin suggested using the new body and trim but keeping Wicked as the accent. She stated that she actually preferred the old trim color as well.
Ms. Harper asked where the accent will be.
Mr. Legon stated that it will be for the doors and dentil molding.
Ms. Harper asked what will be painted in the trim color.
Mr. Legon stated that whatever is currently red will be the new trim color.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the newly proposed colors. Mr. Spang seconded the motion. Mr. Spang voted in favor. Mr. Hart, Ms. Harper, Mr. Desrocher, Ms. Herbert and Ms. Bellin voted in opposition. The motion did not carry.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the new body color of Carolina Gull only. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
23 Winter Street
Harry and Francoise McCoy presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to move a section of iron fence in front of the house to the side of the house, on the property line, extend it and to add a wooden gate.
Ms. McCoy stated that they will put the fence on matching granite.
Mr. Spang asked if the intention is to pick up the fence along the walkway and move it to the side and extend it to the end of the house and to add a gate at the walkway.
Ms. McCoy replied in the affirmative. She noted that the wooden gate will have square posts.
Mr. Hart asked why they do not want an iron gate.
Ms. McCoy stated that the wooden gate would save money and would match the deck.
Mr. McCoy stated that he has seen historic precedent.
Mr. Desrocher stated that he was concerned with the distance of the fence from the house in the rear corner where it ends in a triangle.
Ms. Harper suggested taking a section of fence and making a gate and not extending the fence to the corner.
Ms. McCoy stated that they need the fence to extend to the end to prevent graffiti on the house.
Mr. McCoy stated that there will be an iron post at the end and that they will tape the granite into the foundation.
Mr. Spang suggested stopping the fence at some point and making a right angle into the house.
Mr. Desrocher stated that if it is tight to the house, it will pick up debris.
Mr. Spang stated that he could not recall seeing an iron fence with a wood gate.
Ms. Herbert stated that it is hard to imagine and felt she would like to see it.
Mr. Spang stated that if they don’t extend the fence, they will not have to deal with an acute angle and the cost could be put into an iron gate.
Mr. Desrocher stated that they would also save on granite and won’t have to rip up as much brick.
Mr. Hart suggested talking to the fence fabricator to see if it can even be done.
Ms. Herbert suggested contacting a contractor.
Mr. Desrocher suggested providing any precedent photos of an iron fence with a wooden gate .
Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
31 Chestnut Street
William and Laura Wrightson submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to modify an approval received for the side fence. The new proposal is to leave the existing granite posts, granite base and metal fence section, remove the entire wood fence to its terminus at the former pergola, install a continuous wrought iron look fence (of steel) that sits on a wrought iron rail just above the granite base. There will be no granite posts interspersed and the pickets, with the exception of 2 per section, will not be drilled into the granite base.
Mr. Wrightson noted that the existing side iron fence and front iron fence are actually two different fences. They are proposing to use the front fence as a pattern for the new side fence. It will be a straight run of fence with no stone posts.
Ms. Herbert stated that between property lines it is usually more service fencing than decorative and that wood would be more historic.
Mr. Wrightson stated that they are putting a wood fence in the back. They would also like to get sun into the yard.
Mr. Hart noted that iron requires less maintenance.
Mr. Spang made a motion to replace wooden fence on Pickering Street side of house with wrought fence to match existing front iron fence, but with no granite base. Fence to have intermittent iron posts 1 ½” to 3” round spaced evenly, with matching lemon top. Overall fence height to match existing section of iron fence on same side, with both granite posts to remain. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
4 & 6 Andover Street
Jeff Nicholas and Joel Caron submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the fence between their two properties with a 3’ Molly Pritchard flat board picket fence, with square posts without caps. It will be painted the same brown as 4 Andover Street.
Ms. Guy stated that she spoke to the applicants to indicate that the meeting would be long and they opted to request a continuance.
Mr. Hart made a motion to continue the application. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
83-85 Derby Street
Richard Savickey submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to 1) replace a six over six existing window unit. It is located on the second floor on the front of the building. It is the third window from the left. It will be replaced with a similar six over six window. The existing window unit is 37 1/2" wide overall and 51 3/4" in height overall. It will be replaced with a window unit that is 38 12" wide overall and 60 1/8" in height overall. The casing is 4 1/2" and there will be a 1 3/4" window molding applied. The glass size is 9x12. The existing two window units to the left have an overall width of 38 1/2" and an overall height of 59 1/2". This replacement window unit will be higher than the one being removed to match the height of the two existing windows to
its left, as shown in the photo. 2) to replace an existing window unit on the first floor. This existing window is a vertical two over two and will be replaced with a six over six wood window. The existing window unit is 42 3/4" wide overall and is 67 7/8" in height overall. It will be replaced with a window unit that is 38 1/2" wide overall (to match the width of the unit above it that is being replaced) and 68 1/8" in height overall. Glass size is 9x 14. It is located on the first floor and is the third window from the left on the front of the building. 3) To remove the two first floor far left front window's and replace them with two similar six over six window units that once installed will align with the two existing window units above them on the second floor. The two replaced window units have a 9x 14 glass size. The sizes of these two window units will be 38 1/2" on the width overall (to match the width of the units above
them) and 68 1/8" in height overall (to match the window that is being replaced to the right of these two window units). This will create better balance on the front of this building. 4) To remove one 20" by 21" small window on the left side of the first floor of this building. 5) To remove a storm window that is located on the third floor rear of the building. This storm window unit can be seen in the photo provided to the far right of this third floor. 6) To replace an existing front entrance and door with a new front entrance and door. The door will remain the same. It will be 36 inches wide and 80 inches in height, and will have four raised panels as well as two small glass inserts on the top of the door as shown in the photo provided. The entrance will be more appropriate for the building. It will not have side lights and it will be very similar to the doorway photo provided. A detailed drawing was provided. 7) To paint the exterior trim
of the building white. To paint the exterior body of the building a medium gray. This is the same color that was used of the Phillips House Museum located at 34 Chestnut Street. Instead of paint they plan to use a heavy body stain that will be the same color to match the paint formula of the Phillips House.
Ms. Guy stated that she spoke to the applicant to inform him that the meeting would be long and he opted to request a continuance.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Ms. Guy distributed copies of the updated Memorandum of Agreement draft from Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) for the Courthouse project. She stated that discussion will be on the next meeting agenda.
Ms. Guy stated MHC sent a letter to the Mayor awarding $52,000 from the Preservation Projects Fund for the Salem Public Library.
Ms. Guy read a letter from MHC to Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. concerning their Project Notification Form for Peabody Square Flood Mitigation which will include widening a portion of the North River in Salem. MHC is unable to determine the area of potential effect and is requesting additional information.
Ms. Guy stated that the Building Inspector issued a violation notice for 387 Essex Street for the installation of a railing without permits.
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
| 
