SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
July 18, 2007
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, July 18, 2007 at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Harper, Mr. Hart and Mr. Spang. Mr. Desrocher arrived later in the meeting.
Ms. Herbert called the meeting to order.
254 Lafayette Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, Lewis Legon presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for deck replacement at 254 Lafayette Street. Mr. Legon provided a new drawing and stated that he will be changing the first floor right, north elevation, railing to match the new third floor design. Also present was Eric Chase.
Mr. Spang stated that the new color of the house was handsome.
Ms. Herbert stated that the posts are almost integrated, don’t extend higher or have caps. She asked the material.
Mr. Chase stated that the material will be fir or cedar, not pressure treated.
Mr. Legon stated that the railings will be painted the trim color.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the replacement of the 3rd floor front railing and the first floor, right side (north) railing with a solid wood railing per drawing dated 7/17/07, to be painted the trim color. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
23 Winter Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, Harry and Francoise McCoy submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to relocate fencing and to add a fence/gate.
Ms. Guy stated that she received a telephone call from the applicant who requested a continuance.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to the next meeting. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
83-85 Derby Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, Richard Savickey presented 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.
Mr. Savickey stated that a portion of the building is an addition.
Mr. Hart asked if the floor levels line up inside.
Mr. Savickey replied in the negative. He noted that the soffit is really a fake façade.
Mr. Spang asked if the new windows will be all wood.
Mr. Savickey replied in the affirmative and stated that they will have a Cape Cod casing of 4 ½” and they will apply a molding around it.
Ms. Herbert asked how many units in the building.
Mr. Savickey stated that there are six, mostly studios. He stated that a car crashed into the side a year and a half ago. The 1850ish trim on the inside was removed at that time to do the repair and behind it was the original wainscot and the trim around the windows from 1790 with barnboard over it.
Mr. Spang made a motion to approve items #1, #2 and #3. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Spang asked if the applicant will clapboard over where the window is being removed.
Mr. Savickey replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Spang made a motion to approve item #4. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy noted that item 5 is not in the Commission’s jurisdiction.
Mr. Savickey stated that he is proposing that the new entrance match 20 Andrew Street, but will have an entablature height which will match 88 Federal Street, which is noted on the drawing as 15”, not the 12” of 20 Andrew Street. It will be approximately two clapboards higher than the existing door. He asked if the Commission allows steel or metal doors if they are painted.
Ms. Guy stated that there have been some metal doors approved, but not very often on the front door. Federal houses would typically have a wood door.
Mr. Hart stated that he encouraged wood and noted that a metal door is discernable over wood.
Ms. Herbert noted that metal does not hold paint as well as wood.
Mr. Savickey stated that he would stay with the wood.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve item #6 as submitted. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Savickey stated that he would like to change the paint color proposed in his application to Lancaster Whitewash for the trim, Garrison Red for the door and for the body a custom color to be close to Wilmington Tan, but slightly deeper.
Ms. Herbert asked if the downspouts which are now white will be painted to blend into the building.
Mr. Savickey stated that he was planning to keep them white, noting that the cornerboards are going to be off-white. He stated that he could paint the front one in the trim color.
Mr. Hart asked if he were keeping the existing downspouts.
Mr. Savickey stated that he might end up changing them to the same as what is there, or could take them down for painting and put them back up.
Ms. Herbert suggested making the cornerboards larger because they appear skimpy.
Mr. Hart was in agreement and felt they should be 8 or 9 inches. He added that a water table should be considered.
Ms. Herbert stated that the cornerboards should be hefty and the downspouts over them should be painted to match so that they will disappear.
Mr. Spang stated that he could see having a smaller cornerboard on the addition, and recommended a 1 x 8 on the house and a 1 x 6 on the addition.
Mr. Savickey stated that he didn’t mind blending in the downspouts.
Mr. Desrocher joined the meeting at this time.
Ms. Herbert asked if the boards the main house and addition meet would be body or trim color.
Mr. Spang suggested trim color.
Mr. Spang made a motion to approve the installation of 1 x 8 cornerboards on the outside corners of the main house and 1x 6 cornerboards on the outside corners of the additions and 2 x 2 on each façade where the main house and the additions meet. The motion is also to approve item #7 paint colors as amended. Mr. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Desrocher abstained from voting.
Mr. Savickey stated that he would like to drop down the window in the alley to line up with the height and sill of the window to its left and to make it 6 over 6.
Mr. Hart made a motion to replace the alley window to the right of the 20” x 21” window with a 6 over 6 wood, true divided light, single glaze, clear glass window to line up with the height of the window to the left of the 20” x 21” window. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Spang suggested the installation of a water table.
Mr. Hart stated that he was not sure, because normally the water table goes underneath the door, but in this case the door is at grade.
Mr. Savickey stated that he could put one in, but noted that there is a water problem in the corner and that it is not level at the bottom. He stated he would be willing to install one on the front and asked what size it should be.
Mr. Hart stated that a water table is typically hefty, i.e. 2 x 8 or 2 x 10.
Mr. Savickey stated that that he will loose approximately 3” of watertable in the corner.
Ms. Herbert stated that it would be fine if it tapers down on the bottom in the corner. She noted whether clapboard or watertable, there will still be the same water problem.
Ms. Herbert asked if the chain link fence will be removed.
Mr. Savickey replied in the affirmative. He stated that he will probably be removing the oil pipes on that side when he changes the heating system.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to install a 2 x 8 minimum water table and to remove the chain link fence. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
167 Federal Street
Ana Gordon presented a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace existing asphalt shingles with Cinnamon Frost asphalt shingles, to replace existing double casement kitchen window and a single casement bathroom window with either Pella Architectural Series or an Anderson windows and to add round soffit vents for future cathedral ceilings on the second floor using plastic or copper 4” vents.
Ms. Gordon provided roofing samples. She stated that the color proposed is grey with specs of red.
Mr. Spang stated that according to the sample, Cinnamon Frost is not the color the applicant is pointing to and asked which color she preferred.
Ms. Gordon selected Slate Gray.
Mr. Hart asked if the roof will be 3-tab.
Ms. Gordon replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Hart asked if she would be changing the house color.
Ms. Gordon replied in the negative.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the roof color of Slate Gray. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Gordan stated that the Window Woman is going to be repairing all of the 6 over 6 windows, but that Window Woman will not do the casement windows located in the rear. She stated that the main proposal is to replace them with the Pella Architect series.
Mr. Desrocher stated that he preferred double hung similar to the others on the property over casements, noting that the original house did not have casement.
Ms. Gordon stated that she was open to it.
Ms. Herbert stated that the applicant may want to go higher on the kitchen window.
Mr. Hart stated that he had no problem with casement versus double hung, but he would want a drawing if going with the double hung to see what it looks like. He stated that with such a small height, it may feel too thick. He noted that this was not a major façade.
Mr. Spang stated that not much is visible.
Mr. Hart made a motion to replace the kitchen and bath windows with Pella Architectural series casement windows as shown on the drawing. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Gordan stated that she did not know the calculations for the soffit vents yet and did not know how many would be needed.
Mr. Spang suggested looking into a strip of slot vent all around with an insect screen.
Mr. Hart noted that the Guinee’s house is a good example of the visibility of soffit vents.
Ms. Gordan asked which is more appropriate, strip or soffit.
Mr. Spang stated that strip would be less visible.
Ms. Gordan stated that when the roof is installed, they will cut a hole for a ridge vent, so that she can put in a ridge vent in the future.
Mr. Hart suggested doing more investigation. He felt that the strip vent would be less noticeable than the dots.
Ms. Gordon stated that they will not install the ridge vent now, but will cut the hole in the sheathing.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the venting to the next meeting. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
4 & 6 Andover Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, Joel Caron and Jeff Nicholas submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for fence replacement. The applicants were not present.
Mr. Desrocher question which type of picket and if it was just a stockade that is ornamented a little on the top. He stated that he was not sure what the stock is being proposed.
Ms. Herbert stated that she thinks more information is needed.
Mr. Hart stated that he would like a site plan and more details are needed for the proposed fence.
Mr. Desrocher suggested they provide addresses of other fences in the neighborhood that have this type of fence.
Mr. Spang questioned which photo was existing and which was proposed.
Ms. Bellin stated that better pictures are needed.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to the next meeting. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
North Street Reconstruction Extra Work Order Discussion
Ms. Guy noted that at the meeting of June 20th she read letters from Mayor Kimberley Driscoll dated June 18th and from Barbara Cleary of Historic Salem, Inc. dated June 10th and that she distributed a letter from Meg Twohey/Betsy Burns of the Federal Street Neighborhood Association. Ms. Guy stated that at the meeting of July 10th, she read letters from Patricia Zaido of the Salem Partnership, Joshua Basseches of the Peabody Essex Museum, Kimberly Alexander of Historic Salem, Inc. and State Representative John Keenan and that she distributed a letter from Meg Twohey/Betsy Burns of the Federal Street Neighborhood Association.
Ms. Guy read letters from:
o Betsy Burns, 22 Beckford Street
o Mary Whitney, 356 Essex St. #2
o Jane Curtis Arlander, 93 Federal St.
o Nicholas Nowak, 356 Essex St.
o Meg Twohey & Betsy Burns, Federal Street Neighborhood Association
o Ward 2 City Councillor, Mike Sosnowski
o Ward 7 City Councillor, Joseph O’Keefe Sr.
Jeff Bellin, 396 Essex Street stated that there are things that have not been addressed. He noted that the base of the west ramp often floods when it rains during high tide and that ordinarily traffic could be rerouted to the east ramp. He stated that he did not recall any consideration on how traffic would be rerouted when that area floods. He stated that adding sets of lights and eliminated the east ramp will create a multitude of stoppages of traffic flow, more than there is now. He stated that more stoppages equals more traffic backing up, particularly at rush hour. He stated that the report indicated that 9 of 21 intersections would have no worsening of traffic and that 12 would be better, but that no evidence was given. He noted that many previous traffic decisions made traffic
worse and turned out to be bad decisions. He questioned how adding all the traffic lights added could make it better. He stated that he was concerned of visual aspect of clusters of lights in all different directions in addition to pedestrian lights and questioned if another set of lights will need to be added at Federal and North or at Lynde. He stated that he felt the new configuration will make North Street look more like a highway and added, that if the courthouse looks modern, there will not be an historic look at the gateway.
Martin Imm, 174A Federal Street, stated that traffic coming up North Street wanting to get onto Bridge to head toward Boston Street currently use the east ramp, but under the new plan will have to wait at a traffic light at the top of the west ramp. He stated that it won’t take long for drivers to realize that they can save several minutes by going down Federal Street. He felt this aspect of the plan has an adverse effect on Federal Street due to creating more cars on Federal Street. He stated that if alternatives were studied, they weren’t described to us. He added that the data he received had flaws, such as a 300’ queue, but with only 200’ of space. He stated that he did not feel they examined alternatives in a way he believed they were obligated to and felt the
Commission should find there is potential adverse impact.
Darrow Lebovici, 122 Federal Street, that in the Goody/Clancy Report, Volume 4, Appendix 3, Section 4 is a traffic capacity analysis. Tables 4, 5 and 6 have existing conditions, the no build conditions and the build conditions. He stated that Nick Nowak demonstrated in his letter that the data that backs this up shows that it makes traffic worse. He stated that Earthtech admitted that the data analysis work doesn’t work in these circumstances and believed the phrase was “blows up exponentially in urban environments”. He that this led Earthtech to do the simulation analysis to correct that. He noted that the total set of data on paper presented to the public from the simulation analysis. He stated that the only date on paper subject to public inspection and analysis is
2 sentences and 2 ½ paragraphs. He stated that he felt DCAM, MassHighway and Earthtech have not demonstrated that there will be “no adverse effect” and that by their own data shows there would be.
Polly Wilbert, 7 Cedar Street, stated that generally decisions that the Salem Historical Commission make involve much less complex projects. She noted that this project is more complicated and that tens and tens of people have spent hours and hours to go through the data and that it does not add up. She stated that the Commission’s task is to evaluate the effect on historic resources. She stated that Salem has very tight neighborhoods that will be tremendously impacted by this design and felt it will threaten and imperil historic residential, business and cultural places – those that make Salem special. She asked that the Commission believe that the best is not being done for Salem and its historic character in this project. She stated that drivers will wait hours coming in and
out of the city. The traffic numbers for this project have been grossly underestimated. She added that the Commission needs to make a decision that this is not in the best interest of the historic character of Salem.
City Councillor Arthur Sargent stated that current North and Franklin Streets traffic backs up from Jerry’s. He stated that Salem is lucky to have no railroad crossings, although this was done at the expense of what today would be historic buildings. He stated that the crossing patterns by definition are adverse because you are not moving forward . He noted that the first plan called for eliminating the up ramp but leaving the down ramp on the east side. He felt there should be a slip ramp there or there should be 15-20’ of land that a slip ramp could be put in after the courthouse construction, if needed. He suggested closing the east ramp temporarily to see the effect.
Teasie Riley Goggin, Lafayette Street, stated that wonderful, intelligent people have spoken from their hearts, but no one is listening to what is being said. She said they have promised that a pool of money would be provided to fix traffic. She asked why they would leave funds, if they are so sure there would be no problems. She stated that she is not saying there should be no court project, but that we should know what we are getting into before it is completed.
Nick Nowack, 356 Essex Street, stated that statistics can say anything someone wants them to say. He noted that the traffic engineers used averages and that some numbers and calibrations are clearly off. He stated that to turn right off Federal to North Street is not currently an 11 minute delay as stated. They have averaged an 11 minute wait with no wait, so it appears in the data that the intersection is better.
Patricia Zaido of the Salem Partnership stated that she understands the Commission’s role is to make comments on adverse effect on historic properties and resources. She stated that there is no doubt that Salem already has traffic problems, including noise, vibration and pollution from existing traffic and that it is going to increase. She stated that rerouting traffic from the east to west ramp will not increase any of these or cause physical destruction of historic properties or change any qualifying characters for inclusion to the National Register. She stated that there are no adverse effects now or as the project moves forward.
Ms. Herbert closed the public hearing.
Mr. Hart stated that he would like to reiterate what the process is.
Ms. Guy stated that she talked to MHC today to confirm. She stated that the Commission can either agree with MassHighway that there is no adverse effect, disagree with MHD’s finding of no adverse effect or take no position and just offer comments on the design. She added that there is no determination called “potential adverse effect”.
Mr. Hart asked the timing.
Ms. Guy stated that Tuesday, July 24th is the deadline for comment.
Ms. Guy read a draft letter for the Commission’s consideration.
Mr. Hart stated that the draft avoids judgment on adverse effect.
Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission has been figures by the State that says there is no adverse effect and has been as of today received opposition in terms of reevaluating those numbers. She stated that the Commission members are not engineers or traffic experts. She stated that the Commission can’t say potential adverse effect.
Mr. Hart asked who says that potential adverse effect is not an option.
Ms. Guy stated that there is no term in Section 106 of Potential Adverse Effect.
Mr. Hart stated that the Commission could state that there is an adverse effect.
Ms. Guy stated that you can vote to state that there is an adverse effect. She stated that MHC is suggesting that you be specific about what the adverse effect, but can disagree with MHD’s finding of adverse effect. She stated that this board cannot make a finding of effect, but you can say you concur or disagree with MHD’s finding.
Ms. Bellin stated that we may not be able to use the word ‘potential’, but the fact is we are all talking potential. When MHD gave its opinion, there are no guarantees and it is just their expectation that there will be no adverse effect based on their studies. The Commission does not have to say there will be adverse effect but can disagree with their finding that there won’t be one. She stated that it comes down to speculation, but felt based on common sense, even in light of all the studies that have been done, it would be disingenuous not to address it.
Mr. Spang asked what the next step is with MHC.
Ms. Guy stated she believed that they would receive all the comments and then respond back to MHD.
Mr. Spang asked if MHC could request additional information from MHD.
Ms. Guy replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Spang suggested asking MHC to ask MassHighway for more information that we feel now may be not be leading us to a decision that is in the interest of the historic properties. He stated there seems to be a fair amount of confusion about the amount of traffic that this intersection change will push into the historic neighborhood. He stated that there seems to be indication that the traffic engineers were not necessarily clear on their ability to analyze that impact. He suggested that the Commission ask MHC to ask MHD to further study the impact of the intersection changes on the side streets of the neighborhood to determine if there is indeed an adverse effect.
Ms. Guy stated the Commission could submit a request to MHC. The result could be that MHC will ask for more information or that MHC does not ask for more information. She suggested that in order to be heard, the Commission at a minimum provide any recommendations on the design that members already have in mind.
Mr. Hart stated that the Steve Roper letter dated 4/27 to Brona Simon at MHC states that MassHighway has determined the ramp alterations proposed under the Extra Work Order will have no adverse effect on properties that are listed on the National Register, including the Peirce Nichols House. Ms. Simon wrote back on 5/31 and stated that MHC understands that once MHD has taken into account public comment on the effects of the proposed additional work order on historic properties, MHD will resubmit an effect determination to MHC for comment. He stated that we are asked to comment on this issue. He stated that a couple of meetings ago we looked at a narrow scope and that we should look at whether we agree that there is no adverse effect to properties that are listed on the National Register, which includes
the McIntire District. He stated that we have a lot of testimony that we have free flowing traffic and that putting in a traffic light will make it better. He stated that it is a strain to a person’s credulity on how they could put in a traffic light into free flow and that it would make it better. He is stated that he was less concerned about the traffic making a left turn down the west ramp, but rather the effect of the whole system on the McIntire District. He stated that as soon as people stop they will look for a way out and the only way out is a left on Federal Street. His concern is flooding the district with cars and the resulting noise, pollution, vibration and visual impact. He felt that was enough to say we are of the opinion that there will be an adverse effect and would like to see some alternatives explored. He stated supposedly there has been a lot of alternatives explored, but that the public has never seen
alternatives and that this is required under Section 106 and 4F. He added the public has come up with different schemes that involve different rerouting and signage. He stated that we have time, because this is not going to get built for 3 years. He suggested temporary closures to try out some different schemes.
Ms. Bellin asked what the ramifications are if the Commission disagrees with the finding of No Adverse Effect.
Ms. Guy stated that MHC takes all the comments into consideration when they make their finding of whether they concur or disagree with MHD’s finding. No matter what the Commission votes on, MHC will consider it and may or may not agree with it and they send this to MHD who may also agree or disagree.
Ms. Bellin asked if we would be calling a halt to the entire thing.
Ms. Guy stated that it would not call a halt to the process.
Ms. Bellin asked if it would call a halt to the project.
Ms. Guy stated that if the result is that MHC agrees that they should look at alternatives, it does delay the process.
Ms. Bellin asked if it would delay it, but not end it.
Ms. Guy stated that she did not know who it could effect the federal funding.
Mr. Hart stated that he was not sure it would delay the project, noting that they have 3 years for the project and that 6 months would not delay the project.
Ms. Herbert stated that it begs the question on why the 3 houses need to go by September.
Douglas Kelleher, Epsilon Associates, stated that the three houses need to move in the fall for the ramp work to be done in November so the church can be moved.
Ms. Herbert stated that the only other alternative to not removing the east ramp is for the courthouse to be taller.
Mr. Hart stated not necessarily, and suggested looking at different schemes, such as reversing Federal Street in front of the courts. He stated that they should take a serious effort to study it. He added that one house could be moved over in order to provide space to build the foundation for the church, which would not be heavy lifting. He stated that there are ways to orchestrate that. He added that there are two bids for the three houses. He stated that he did not see the necessity to rush without a fair evaluation of the alternatives. He stated that he did not want the McIntire District flooded with extra cars due to the stop light. He stated that the City Council voted to study alternative traffic patterns.
Mr. Desrocher stated that he did not think any of us think this project is the fix to existing traffic problems and that they will continue to get worse. He stated that for the past 100 years traffic has been invading neighborhoods and historic areas and it will continue. He noted that taking away the east ramp will effect him as he drives to the Collins Middle School once a day and it will effect his route home down Essex Street. He stated that while traffic may effect the historic district, he felt rerouting traffic was move of a city issue and the city could do more to try to steer traffic away. He stated that pedestrian-wise, the project is much better and safer, particularly from those walking from the courthouse side to the McIntire District. He noted traffic will always be there
and always be increasing. He questioned if the light will make it better and was hopeful it would be the same and not worsen. He stated that he did not see much of an adverse effect on the district and believed it was up to the city to implement things that will hopefully alleviate traffic.
Ms. Harper agreed with Mr. Desrocher that Salem has traffic and will continue to have traffic and that it effects the entire city. She stated that the she’s the courthouse’s as being an addition to the city and sets an example of new architecture. Salem has always introduced new architecture. She stated that the light and effort to visually knit together the neighborhood is better than what is there. She stated that the east ramp are not visually pleasing. She agreed that there was no impact to the district any more than it already does. She felt studying traffic patterns is an ongoing process. She stated that she felt new signage would help a lot. She agreed with the finding of no adverse effect.
Ms. Herbert stated that one of the things that concerns her is that DCAM has set aside some funding to ameliorate any resulting traffic problems. She stated that she would like to see that in a formal agreement with an amount of money identified, as well as a timetable for the work to be accomplished regarding exploring alternatives. She noted that MassHighway has responded to a lot of the public comments and that the design is much improved. She felt the funds need to be substantial enough to make some changes.
Mr. Hart stated that the Salem Historical Commission is charged with protecting historic resources in the city of Salem. He stated that he felt there should be some language in the letter that states that the Commission is of the opinion that there will be an adverse effect on the McIntire District and requests that alternatives be explored to mitigate or eliminate those adverse effect. He stated that he felt it was weak to say that we should set aside funds to fix traffic problems later. He felt it would never happen, that it would be built and then we would be stuck with whatever we get. He stated that he did not believe what he was proposing is something that would stop or slow down the project. He felt that right now is the time to get it right, rather than try to correct it later.
Mr. Spang stated that the Commission is being asked to comment and that he is hearing from the public that they are concerned about traffic, but noted that he has not heard any other concerns, such as the design. He stated that he felt the traffic information was presented poorly and that there has not been a good job done of analyzing the traffic or a good job of presenting the traffic analysis. He stated that they have not presented to the public alternates that would suggest how they intend to keep traffic from impacting the neighborhood. He added that they have not given any consideration on the flood conditions that the west ramp is subject to. He stated that he could not, at this time, agree with MassHighway’s statement that there is no adverse effect and therefore would have to
disagree. He would like to ask MHC to request further information and further development presentation of this information. He stated that he was okay with Mr. Hart’s insertion language. He stated that MHC does not know this intersection and do not know the neighborhood, so we, as local representatives have to give them some guidelines as to what we think and then they can form their own conclusion. They may through it all out the door and say to MassHighway to keep going.
Ms. Herbert agreed that MHC may or may not listen to what we have to say, but that they are the final word.
Ms. Guy asked if there were other design that the Commission wants explored that she has not included in the letter or if the rest of the letter is okay as is.
Mr. Spang suggested referencing in the letter that the project borders on two historic districts, the Peirce-Nichols House and other landmark buildings, etc.
Ms. Guy stated that she could insert a paragraph on that.
Mr. Hart stated that the other concern is how pedestrians will get across to the West ramp to get to the pathway. He also questioned the pedestrian way down to Bridge Street, as there is not a way to get across Bridge Street without a pedestrian light.
Ms. Bellin stated that there should be some guaranteed pedestrian walkway on the courthouse side down to Bridge Street.
Ms. Guy added that to the bullet.
Mr. Spang preferred to say that the Commission disagrees with MassHighway's finding of no adverse effect and we urge MHC to request additional information from MassHighway. He would like to point out that the traffic information and data is poorly presented and needs to presented in a coherent fashion, to request alternates to what has been presented and to give us an understanding of what will happen when there is flooding. He stated that MassHighway has not given information on the expected traffic increase, and if there is an the impact of that additional traffic flow. Some people may say yes, if they live on the street and others may say no, because it is an extra 2 cars an hour. I don’t know enough to know it. They need to give us a good understanding of what traffic they
expect and then, based on that expectation, what impact does that additional traffic have.
Ms. Guy stated that the first step is to vote to agree or disagree with MassHighway's finding of no adverse effect.
Ms. Bellin agreed and made a motion to disagree with MassHighway’s finding of No Adverse Effect. Mr. Spang seconded the motion. Ms. Bellin, Mr. Spang and Mr. Hart voted in favor. Ms. Harper, Mr. Desrocher and Ms. Herbert voted in opposition. The motion did not carry.
Ms. Bellin agreed that we can’t solve all the traffic problems in Salem, but noted that the Commission is the guardian of historic districts. She stated that the project directly borders two districts and impacts them to some degree. She felt that any change has to affect the neighboring area. Common sense says a traffic light will stop free flow and there will be back up and that cars idling, more pollution, more emissions, more noise. She noted that people seeking to avoid backups will seek the obvious alternate route through the McIntire Historic District and that any increase would be adverse, because there will be more traffic than before. She stated that an increase in traffic in the neighborhoods has to be adverse. She stated that it was incumbent upon the
Commission to take a public position. She added that MassHighway has had months to answer questions on traffic and they haven’t. She stated that it may not be an incredible detriment that would destroy Salem, but that it cannot be neutral and certainly cannot be positive. The only thing left is it has to be adverse.
Mr. Spang stated that he could not say it would be an adverse effect or not, because he does not have the data, the information or the expertise. He felt that MassHighway is incumbent to provide more information to determine the extent to which traffic will increase and the extent it will have an impact. He stated that he was not ready to say adverse effect, but cannot with agree with no adverse effect. He said he did not know what 10% meant. He also questioned if there are alternatives that could get 10% down to 2%. He did not want to jump to the conclusion that there was adverse effect. He would rather ask for more information and keep the dialogue going.
Ms. Bellin agreed that there was no information to support a conclusion that there is no adverse effect.
Ms. Herbert agreed there was no enough information to agree with no adverse effect. Her concern was that who would determine whether or not there is an adverse effect and if MassHighway would redo their figures.
Mr. Spang stated that Mass Highway could provide a better analysis of the number of cars in am and pm peak time.
Ms. Herbert stated that they have claimed they have already done this, and questioned how we would get them to do better.
Ms. Guy stated suggested urging MHC to request additional information without saying the Commission taking a position, since the Commission does not have the vote to agree or disagree. She stated that she does not know if MHC will request it, or if MassHighway will provide it.
Ms. Herbert asked if MHC is more apt to request it if the Commission disagrees with MassHighway or if we take no position.
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission just voted down to disagree with the finding of No Adverse Effect.
Ms. Herbert stated that it could come up again.
Ms. Guy stated that it the Commission disagrees with the finding of no adverse effect, MHC could agree with you and send that to MassHighway and MassHighway could say okay we agree and we will do X, Y and Z or MassHighway could say, when they come back with their final determination, they could still say we still find no adverse effect. Or MHC could disagree with us and the same results. MassHighway still gets all the public comment letters on both positions. They still could make a determination either way.
Ms. Bellin stated that if the Salem Historical Commission agrees with MassHighway, then MHC is less likely to not concur on their own. They are going to look to us and say we are okay with concurring. She stated if the Commission wants to encourage MHC to scrutinize this more carefully, we should take the opposite position, where we do have strong feelings that way. She felt if we don’t say anything, it is almost like agreeing with the finding.
Ms. Guy stated she called MHC today to ask if there was something called “potential adverse effect” and was told the Commission can only agree, disagree or not make a comment, which MHC felt was more appropriate as a consulting party.
Ms. Herbert stated that we could take no position, but we could make recommendations.
Mr. Spang stated that the letter could state that the Commission takes no position, but is requested the additional information, studies, alternates, etc. and we can ask for a whole laundry list.
Mr. Hart stated that is what he is going towards if everyone feels comfortable. Effectively what we are doing is asking for additional information, including alternatives, traffic counts, etc. so we can more fully understand.
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission can ask for more information and it is up to them if they follow up on it.
Ms. Herbert was concerned that a vote disagreeing with the finding of no adverse effect might have the potential of delaying the project. She stated that no matter what we say, MHC is going to do what they want and that probably no matter what we say, MassHighway will do what they want.
Mr. Spang stated that the mayor and City Council has passed a resolution and that MHC is likely to listen. He stated that when a local city council passes a resolution and the Mayor sends a strong letter with it, they will listen to that. He added that if local historic commission says they disagree with MassHighway, MHC will start to pay attention. He stated that we have learned from the constituency of the neighborhood and that says they are very concerned and they haven’t been given enough information to agree with MassHighway. The City Council is in that position, too, and would like to see alternates. He felt that we as a Commission should listen to that, as well. He stated that he is not saying MassHighway is right or wrong. I’m simply saying that I
disagree with their position that they found no adverse impact and we need some additional information. He felt that it was a stronger statement than taking no position but we’d like more information.
Ms. Bellin stated that if the City Council is urging us to do something, we need to take that very seriously. We may not need to go that far and say it is adverse, but we could say we don’t agree that there is no adverse impact.
Ms. Herbert stated that if the Commission asked for more information for before the 24th, could we get an idea if they would bother to take any of our recommendations.
Ms. Guy stated that she believed if MHC chooses to ask MassHighway for more information, I think it stops the clock.
Mr. Hart stated we also have to look at the fact that we have an MOA that is not settled either.
Mr. Spang stated that MHC asking for additional alternate studies is a common part of the process..
Mr. Desrocher agreed that the Commission could use more information, and stated that he found it hard to agree with the finding, but could not outright disagree with the no adverse effect finding.
Ms. Herbert stated that she was concerned about the traffic issues, but was also concerned about hurting, rather than helping the process.
Mr. Desrocher stated that it is up to the City and those that design the traffic flow. They may need to look at more than just 4 city blocks.
Mr. Spang stated that maybe MassHighway needs to get together with the City and figure out a broader look. He stated that if there is discussion on one-way streets, it may be helpful to know if those are going to help or hurt traffic before the improvements are undertaken.
Ms. Bellin stated that the fact that there is discussion on these issues indicates that there are concerns that there is more than “no impact”.
Mr. Desrocher agreed with Mr. Spang that more information is needed.
Ms. Herbert sated that stumbling block is whether the Commission should take no position and ask for more information or take a position and ask for more information as well.
Mr. Spang made a motion to take no position on MHD’s No Adverse Effect finding and to request three items 1) that the traffic analysis be presented in a clearer fashion on how much impact the intersection changes will have on side streets, 2) as a result of this request, they should study alternates to the current scheme to reduce impacts to the neighborhood and work with the city traffic planners to address the impacts and 3) there should be consideration of what happens to the west ramp when it is closed for flooding.
Ms. Herbert asked for the motion to be amended to request that there be a formal agreement from DCAM on the funds to be set aside for amelioration of any adverse traffic effects, including how much and when available.
Mr. Spang so amended his motion.
Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Review of Draft Memorandum of Agreement for J. Michael Ruane Judicial Center
Ms. Guy asked if Commission members had any comments on the current draft.
Mr. Hart asked the process and time schedule.
Ms. Guy stated that she hadn’t been given a date, but was told by MHC today that they needed it rather quickly. They are looking for comments as soon as possible in light of the project schedule. It didn’t sound like they could wait for the Commission’s next meeting.
Mr. Hart asked about the signatories and the words “in concurrence”.
Ms. Guy stated that the signatories and wording are typical and the same as was done for the Bypass project.
Mr. Hart stated that when the MOA was finalized, the Commission would be signing in concurrence and wondered what it implied. Mr. Hart noted that the disposition of the 3 houses is still up in the air. He stated that he personally could not concur with the MOA with the demolition language.
Ms. Bellin questioned if the Commission wants to be a signatory.
Mr. Hart asked if the word “concurrence” could be changed to “acknowledge”.
Ms. Guy stated that she would ask MHC.
Douglas Kelleher stated that he did not think that MHC would change the standard language. He noted that not signing lessons the opportunity to have a seat at the table.
Ms. Bellin stated that she felt that if the MOA authorizes the Commission to have a seat at the table through its stipulations, it should not matter if the Commission signs in concurrence, noting there are parts in it that the Commission does not agree with. She stated that if DCAM and MHC have agreed to give us a seat at the table, then we have a seat at the table
Ms. Guy questioned if the Commission sent a letter saying they do not want to sign it, whether they would take out the language that gives the Commission a seat at the table.
Mr. Kelleher stated that it might appear that the Commission does not have an interest in the project.
Mr. Hart stated that the part in the agreement that says its okay to demolish those houses is most troubling.
Mr. Spang stated that the Commission has not taken a vote on its position relative to the possible demolition of the 3 houses. He stated that either the Commission is not a signatory in concurrence if the law says it has to be stated that way, or they have to remove the piece about demolition or someone has to come in and convince us why they should demolish it and we vote to do that.
Ms. Guy believed the MOA would go through with or without the Commission.
Ms. Bellin stated that that she did not feel the MOA should go through as written. She was fine signing in acknowledgement, but stated that if the only option is to sign in concurrence that the Commission not be a signatory. She stated that she did not think the Commission would be loosing anything if it removed itself as a signatory.
Ms. Bellin asked if the demolition would require a waiver from the Demolition Delay Ordinance.
Mr. Kelleher stated that if demolition is the end result, it would be a State action and would not require a waiver of the local ordinance.
Ms. Bellin stated that that was all the more reason not to concur.
Ms. Guy stated that one issue is the wording on it and the other is the Board taking a position on, if there are no other reasonable alternatives, whether they want or not want demolition to occur. She noted that the Commission is talking about the signing of the document, but the Commission hasn’t taken a position on what the wording of that is. She stated that before the Commission can say they do or do not want to sign in concurrence, they need to first agree to this version of the document or that particular paragraph.
Ms. Bellin stated that she did not think there was anything the Commission could do to stop that particular paragraph and felt that the Commission does not need to take a position regarding demolition, because it has not been presented to us and it would become irrelevant because the State has the authority to demolish.
Ms. Guy stated that it is not required to come before the Commission because it does not go through Section 106. She noted that this is the Commission ability to have things come before them.
Ms. Bellin felt it really doesn’t matter what the Commission says regarding that language regarding demolition.
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission is an interested party in the MOA, so that is what this draft is for, so they can comment on the language in here. She stated she did not know if there are other issues the Commission wants to comment on, but if that is the big one, they may want to decide what the position is as a board as a whole.
Ms. Bellin stated that we should say that we don’t want demolition.
Ms. Harper stated that she did not want to see the houses demolished, but accepted that they would be demolished if no one is interested in taking them. She noted that houses to the side had been demolished. She stated that she wanted to see the project move forward and was okay with the MOA language.
Mr. Hart stated that those houses were demolished before the 1966 preservation act and was one of the reasons that act came into being – the mass destruction of historic properties. He asked the timetable on the disposition of the houses.
Mr. Kelleher stated that September 16th is the timetable to move the houses, but noted that the houses cannot be moved until the MOA is signed.
Ms. Bellin questioned if demolition language had to be included in the MOA at all.
Mr. Kelleher stated that DCAM won’t sign it without it.
Ms. Zaido concurred that MHC said the demolition language has to be in there, although everyone hopes the houses will be moved.
Ms. Bellin stated that if we assume it has to be in there she questioned the point of commenting on it. She stated that if it has to be there, then we have to deal around this which if that means we have to sign in a different capacity, then that is what we have to address.
Mr. Spang stated that if what he is hearing is that the Commission has no say in the demolition of those properties, he did not know what there is to gain by not concurring because of the demolition of the properties. He stated that the Commission could take a formal stand because they are going to be demolished, but the fact is we have no jurisdiction over it.
Mr. Hart asked if the Commission could get an opinion from the City Solicitor to see if the MOA can be “acknowledged” and then they could keep the language as it is. He stated that they are not going to move the house unless the MOA is signed.
Ms. Guy stated that Ann Lattinville has stated that MHC cannot stop demolition.
Barbara Cleary stated that Historic Salem’s board has had a similar discussion on this issue. She stated that they are pretty happy with most of the language and have worked a long time on its development. She stated that proposals for the houses have now been received by DCAM and recommended DCAM work out a deal to achieve any conditions that were included with the proposals.
Ms. Zaido stated that DCAM cannot give funding to private developers.
Ms. Cleary stated that they could, for example, stabilize the building before the move.
Mr. Spang stated that by the time the MOA is signed, the buildings could already have been moved. He noted that for some information in the proposals, DCAM may not be able to share with the public.
Ms. Cleary stated that HSI has invested a lot of time into the MOA including that of preservation consultants and attorneys. She felt that by and large it was a really good, useful working document. She stated that her only comment is that HSI will be asking for polling of state agencies for the reuse of the two buildings and to put it into the MOA.
Meg Twohey stated that city will also be weighing in more on the two buildings.
Ms. Bellin asked if the City Solicitor has seen the draft.
Ms. Guy stated that she was given a prior version and she was fine with the form.
Ms. Bellin suggested calling it to the City Solicitor’s attention regarding the issue of what capacity the Commission could sign.
Mr. Hart asked if we hold off for another 2 weeks.
Ms. Guy stated that she did not know if comment can wait 2 weeks.
Mr. Hart stated that if the house situation moves forward in a positive fashion, it becomes a moot point.
Mr. Spang asked if he wanted language that says the Historic Commission does not concur with demolition.
Ms. Guy stated that they will not put that in.
Mr. Kelleher stated that even if they select someone, they don’t want to have a document that prevents demolition, in case a month later the developer walks. They want that option.
Ms. Herbert stated that there seems to be a need to know when the proposals will be reviewed, along with the selection process.
Mr. Kelleher stated that it is not a matter of cost, it will be a matter of the most viable plan. He added that HSI and Chairman Diozzi had examined the character defining features and a that a proposal will be ranked higher if those features are to be preserved.
Ms. Guy questioned if there were any ramifications if the Commission did not come up with comments until after the August 1st meeting.
Mr. Kelleher stated that the Commission could ask if they could submit comments after the August 1 meeting. That is not to say they could decide to still move forward.
Ms. Bellin stated that she was not getting the sense that the Commission has any major concerns with the document. She stated that it would be easier to take a position, if the review process for the proposals was done. She noted that there is no guarantee that the proposal chosen will actually be the one that goes through and saves the buildings, but it would give us some sense that it is in the works. She felt the first thing that should happen is the selection of the proposal and then the MOA be signed based on a viable proposal.
Ms. Guy stated that they will still want the language in the MOA even if they select a proposal.
Ms. Bellin stated that she would still like to see what could be done about the in concurrence language, but felt if there was a viable proposal, it would not be a big deal.
Patricia Zaido stated that DCAM is unlikely to react to proposals or make them public until they have a signed MOA.
Ms. Guy asked if the “in concurrence” can be changed, is the Commission fine with the language.
Ms. Bellin stated that she did not have concerns.
Ms. Cleary stated that she believed that DCAM could not enter into a binding agreement with a purchaser until the MOA is signed, but believed that they could make the information on the proposals available to interested parties, so that they could weigh in on the “but for” clauses in any of the proposals.
Ms. Bellin stated that if they are willing to change the word “concurrence” to “acknowledge” or “witness”, she would be okay with it.
Ms. Herbert was in agreement.
Mr. Hart stated that he doubted that the demolition language would be removed or changed.
Mr. Spang asked why the Commission is then not concurring.
Mr. Hart stated that then the Commission is implicitly stating that the historic buildings can be demolished.
Ms. Harper asked if not signing will take us out of the loop. She stated that we would not be a party to the agreement.
Ms. Guy stated that signing definitely keeps us in the loop.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to accept the MOA as written provided that the word “concurrence” to “acknowledge” or “witness” or other similar word. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Spang made a motion, that if MHC is unable to change the word “concurrence”, to sign the MOA as written with no further comments. Ms. Harper seconded the motion. Mr. Spang, Ms. Herbert and Ms. Harper voted in favor. Mr. Desrocher, Mr. Hart and Ms. Bellin voted in opposition. The motion did not carry.
Ms. Bellin stated that someone needs to answer the question if we are taken out of the loop by not signing.
Mr. Kelleher noted that on another project where a Commission refused to sign, MHC took the Commission off the MOA as a concurring party.
There being no further business, Ms. Bellin made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission
| 
