SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
August 1, 2007
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, August 1, 2007 at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Mr. Hart, Mr. Spang and Ms. Diozzi.
6 Chestnut Street
James and Julianne McLean submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to substitute simulated divided light doors for the rear entrance recently approved.
Ms. Guy stated that the applicants have withdrawn the application.
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 letter from the applicant who requested a continuance and waiving the requirement that the Commission act within 60 days..
Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to the next meeting. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
167 Federal Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, Ana Gordon presented a Certificate of Appropriateness to add round soffit vents for future cathedral ceilings on the second floor using plastic or copper 4” vents.
Ms. Gordan provided catalog cuts and stated that she would like to go with a continuous strip soffit vent, no more than 2” wide, as well as a ridge vent.
Ms. Herbert stated that the strip vent is a better solution than the round vents.
Mr. Hart stated that the strip vent will be fairly unobtrusive.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the continuous soffit vent, not to exceed 2” wide in black polypropelene..
Mr. Hart asked the material of the vent.
Ms. Gordan stated that she preferred the black polypropelene over the white.
Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Gordan stated that the ridge vent will be only on the main part of the house.
Mr. Hart stated that ridge vents tend to be conspicuous and suggested putting in a vent at the gable.
Mr. Spang noted that the goal is to allow for a cathedral ceiling; therefor a gable vent will not work.
Mr. Spang made a motion to approve the ridge vent as proposed (Cor-A-Vent V-400E) for the main portion of the house. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
155 Washington Street
Matt Picarsic of RCG and Attorney Bill Quinn presented an application for Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance to demolish two of the four structures. They provided photographs and a site plan outlining the structures to be demolished or preserved. The intention is to remove and eliminate a potential fire hazard while providing the ability to address environmental remediation and site preparation for the rehabilitation of the remaining structures and the construction of a new building. The two structures to be demolished have been vacant for an extended period and homeless people have been repeatedly spotted in and at the site.
Mr. Picarsic stated that the application was initially filed by the prior owner, Van Ness Development, but that it is now owned by Washington at Derby LLC as of the last 48 hours. Washington at Derby LLC is being represented by RCG LLC who has been hired to manage. They filed a letter to amend the application.
Mr. Picarsic provided a site plan of the existing, as well as a rendering of the proposed, and outlined the timeline for the project. He stated that there are four interconnected buildings. The 2-story brick, which houses Edgewater Café, will be preserved. The 3-story wood framed building, which is the main building, will be preserved. The vacant wood framed building and the rear, old print building will be demolished. He noted that the Marketplace Redevelopment Committee only requested that the brick building be preserved and in addition they are proposing to preserve the oldest building of the four. Mr. Picarsic stated that the new building will be a 4-story structure which will create a strong corner at Washington and New Derby, incorporating high quality materials including
brick veneer, cast stone and wood clad windows.
Atty. Quinn stated that the new building appears to comply with all zoning and no variances will be required, but will need Planning Board and SRA/DRB approvals.
Mr. Picarsic stated the new building will be a mixture of 2, 3 and 4 stories, will add 8000 s.f. of new retail and will provide surface parking as well as a small garage. They started looking at this site four years ago. They recently submitted it to the SRA for demolition review and plan to go to the Planning Board in September and concurrently for schematic design approval with the SRA. He stated that the buildings are a fire hazard and that he has met with Fire Chief Cody, Lt. Griffin of Fire Prevention and Building Inspector Tom St. Pierre who have all shared the concerns that the buildings need to come down. Demolition is also needed so that they may begin environmental mediation, site prep for construction and to finalize financing. He extended an opportunity for a site visit to the
Commission. He noted that the site has become a homeless haven and is in a bad state of disrepair. Therefore, he did not recommend an interior site visit.
Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning & Community Development, stated that some of the boarding on the windows could be taken down so that members could take a look inside.
Ms. Herbert asked how far they will go with the restoration of the remaining buildings and if they will try to bring it back.
Mr. Picarsic stated that the will need to take care of the structural failures, noting that it will need a new roof and some windows. He stated that they have not done borings, so he did not know the condition of the wood.
Ms. Herbert asked if they are willing to replicate the exterior.
Mr. Picarsic stated that they did not have a definitive answer and will look toward the Design Review Board’s guidance.
Ms. Herbert stated that the 3-story building has more original material and that one trade off of losing one building would be the historic restoration of the remaining.
Ms. Bellin asked if the upper floors in the building to be preserved are being used at all.
Mr. Picarsic stated that they are completely empty.
Mr. Spang asked the plans for the upper floors.
Mr. Picarsic stated that it will likely be converted to residential, which is probably where they are leaning, but could be commercial office space. They will be separate from the new building. They will be able to start on the rehab of the existing building (Fall) sooner than the new construction (Winter/Spring). He stated that they do not know the extent of the environmental remediation until the buildings come down.
Mr. Hart asked if a 21E has been done.
Mr. Picarsic replied in the affirmative. He stated that they have 120 days from the date of purchase to file the DEP reports. He noted that there will likely be some soil that needs to be removed, but that they won’t know until the buildings are down. He stated if they were able to get all the approvals in place sooner, they would start the new construction this fall.
Ms. Herbert asked how much parking will be added.
Mr. Picarsic stated that he did not know what is currently there, but stated that there will be 31 spaces outside and 5 spaces inside.
Ms. Herbert asked the potential number of units proposed.
Mr. Picarsic stated that there will be approximately 24 units, 7 or 8 per floor in the new building and depending on whether the other is commercial or residential, they could have 5 or 7.
Mr. Spang asked if they will be condos or rentals.
Mr. Picarsic stated that it will depend on the market next Spring. He stated that they will build to a high standard.
Mr. Hart asked if the property is within a National Register district.
Mr. Picarsic stated that he believed it is.
Mr. Hart stated that the documentation states that it is Salem’s last commercial wood frame surviving building.
Mr. Picarsic stated that they would do their best to bring the older structure back to what it resembled in the 70’s.
Mr. Hart stated that he believed Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) would classify it as contributing to the National Register District.
Ms. Guy stated that she could look at the National Register nomination.
Mr. Hart asked if the design of the preserved buildings would go before the Historical Commission.
Ms. Guy replied in the negative.
Ms. Duncan stated that all changes will go before the SRA and DRB. She stated that schematic design review begins on August 8th.
Mr. Spang asked if the review was for just the new building.
Ms. Duncan stated that it will be for both buildings. She stated that RCG will be filing for demolition and will be submitting schematics for the new building for the meeting of August 8th. She encouraged RCG to submit schematics for the rehab of the old building for the same meeting.
Mr. Spang asked if either wood framed building has a basement.
Mr. Picarsic stated that there some here and there and some areas have crawl spaces.
Mr. Spang asked, assuming demolition is approved, what will happen to the site in the interim between demolition and until construction starts.
Mr. Picarsic stated that they will secure the site with a fence approved by the DRB, begin environmental and site preparation and could possibly provide temporary parking.
Mr. Spang asked how long there will be an empty lot sitting there at a prime site.
Mr. Picarsic stated that it costs money to have the site sit, so he was hopeful it would not be that long. He stated exited about having a strong retail corner and that they will press ahead for all permitting. He noted that they have only owned the site for two days and are already before the Historical Commission and are going before the SRA on August 8th and hope to submit to the Planning Board for the next meeting as well.
Mr. Spang asked about the financing strategy.
Mr. Picarsic stated that don’t have any debt on the property at this point. He stated they have good relationships with national and local banks who have expressed an interest in financing the development.
Ms. Bellin asked what will happen if the waiver is denied.
Mr. Picarsic stated that the largest concern is people infiltrating the building, which is a potential fire hazard. He stated that denial will have a ripple effect, He stated that it is easier to take care of rodents and monitor the site if the buildings are gone. He noted that they cannot begin environmental remediation until the buildings are gone. He stated that denial could add 8 to 12 months to the process, even though if it is only a 6 month delay. He noted that they have a whole team in place.
Ms. Duncan stated that delays hurt the development at 289 Derby Street, which got their local permitting and then filed for a Chapter 91 license. During that time, the market softened and value engineering resulted in design changes. She stated they are hoping there will still be a project.
Mr. Picarsic stated that they have momentum on the leasing front and want to carry that. They already have interest in the site in terms of retail tenants and they need to show progress so they don’t loose that interest.
Ms. Bellin asked when the development will be completed.
Mr. Picarsic stated that construction timeline is approximately 15 months (finished in summer of 2009). He stated that within one year they intend to have the structure in place, with work remaining on the interior.
Ms. Diozzi asked what taxes are being realized on that property as it stands now.
Ms. Duncan stated that she did not know.
Mr. Picarsic estimated it was $20,000 annually right now and noted that the proposed is a $10 million project, so it will be a significant increase in tax revenues.
Mr. Hart asked if they will be using the Tax Act.
Mr. Picarsic stated that it is market driven due to the regulations. He stated that they would probably not, but would not rule it out.
Mr. Spang asked if there was a sense of how fast it will move through the SRA/DRB.
Ms. Duncan stated that the proposal clearly fits the peer review goals and objectives. She felt the SRA will send the project to the DRB and that she anticipated two to three meetings, depending on how responsive the architect is in understanding the DRB concerns. Once the DRB okays the project, the SRA will likely approve it. She stated that it will also depend on whether the DRB meets once or twice a month. She added that if the waiver is granted, there will be a push to have the DRB meet twice per month. She estimated that the total would be maybe four months including Planning Board review.
Mr. Spang asked how long it would be for construction to start following the reviews.
Mr. Picarsic stated that it would start immediately. He stated that they will work concurrently on the financing and will probably close loans within two weeks of the final permits. He started that they could now start interior work and fix the roof. He noted that they can better plan for the foundation system if the demolition is done now and avoid possible surprises later.
Ms. Herbert asked if there will be an anchor tenant and how they envisioned the streetscape.
Mr. Picarsic stated that tenants interested include second and third stores of specialty retail, similar to what has been done with Avaya, Gulu-Gulu, Uppercrust Pizza and Rouge Cosmetics. He stated that they could also continue a “restaurant row”. Demolition now will help us plan the specifics and show we are moving ahead.
Ms. Duncan stated that these are the types of tenants noted in the downtown market retail plan recently completed.
Mr. Picarsic stated that residents like retailers that they can count on. He added that their residents at Derby Lofts due frequent the businesses on the first floor.
Ms. Duncan distributed excerpts of the Salem Marketplace Design Peer Review and noted that they held two public meetings with over 100 people in attendance at each. She stated that RCG’s plan goes further than the consensus reached during the peer review, which had been to only preserve one of the four buildings. She noted that site has been more than fully vetted in terms of public input. She read an excerpt of the Peer Review which stated, “The wood buildings in the Salem News block, are identified as ‘the last wood-frame structure to survive in downtown Salem’. HSI characterizes the two story building closest to New Derby Street as ‘…in particularly poor condition.’ They do not know the condition of the middle section of these buildings, but have
asked to make a physical inspection, but concede that if these buildings cannot be saved, that the ‘…design of any replacement building be respectful of the scale of the other buildings on Washington Street.”
Ms. Guy stated that the SRA does not have to wait until the end of the process to approve demolition.
Ms. Guy read the following letters:
· Alex Steinbergh of Washington at Derby LLC requesting to amend the application to reflect the new owner of record.
· Barbara Cleary - In opposition
· Kathie Gauthier - Zazou’s A Touch of the Past - in support
· Annie Harris, Chair of Marketplace Development Committee - in support
· Andre Goldberg - in support
· Thomas St. Pierre, Building Commissioner - in support
· David Cody, Fire Chief - in support
Meg Twohey stated that she was speaking on behalf of Historic Salem, Inc. and that she did not think that anyone was not in favor of the project. She noted that a piece of the building is being saved that was not expected to be saved. She stated that HSI representatives would like to be present at the site visit.
City Councilor Jean Pelletier asked the historic value of this portion of the building.
Mr. Hart stated that the property is in a National Register District. He suggested that the historic value of the building will need to be determined and asked Ms. Guy to copy the National Register nomination for the Commission to review before the next meeting.
Councillor Pelletier stated that the site has been an eyesore for over a decade. He noted that in early May he received a call from the Lobster Shanty regarding transient homeless people who built a shanty town behind the building and were defecating outside. There has been clothing found inside the building and the previous owner refused to clean up the site. A firewatch was ordered and the City Council voted to take the former owner to court for reimbursement of costs to the city for the fire protection and cleaning. He noted that no developer can afford to rehabilitate the buildings proposed for demolition and that the prior RCG proposal was not liked. He stated that a six month delay would actually be longer than six months because no work can get done in Winter. He noted that there
are rat problems and added that the city needs the tax revenue and good development. He added that at the SRA and DRB will be reviewing the project and urged the Commission to approve the waiver.
Alex Schnipp from RCG provided a copy of a letter from Hugh Kerr, Passage to India, in support of the waiver.
Ms. Duncan stated that project is imminently doable and that no variances are needed from the Zoning Board of Appeals. She stated other than the SRA requirement, this project is really by right. She stated that the project is consistent with zoning, but may take a little time to hammer out the design details. She stated that she did not feel it is a question of whether it will move forward, but a question of timing. She stated that it is a doable project, which is a far cry from the original proposal for a much larger 10 year phased plan. She stated that it meets all parking and zoning and noted that it is less height than what is allowed and felt it was a good project.
Councillor Pelletier noted that Passage to India just got approval for outside seating from the SRA and Licensing Board.
Mr. Spang asked if there were any plans for the marketplace itself.
Ms. Duncan stated that the marketplace is tightly associated with Old Town Hall and that she is working with the City Council to put out an Request for Proposals for a management lease of Old Town Hall. The RFP scope is being reviewed by the SRA. They have done a structural report and conditions report for Old Town Hall. She noted that this has been the most successful year for the marketplace stalls with Salem State College down there in association with other arts groups, as well as several artisans.
Mr. Picarsic stated that the plan is compatible with the rest of the block per the Marketplace Redevelopment Committee report and the sketch that was produced. He noted that the current proposal does not close the door on the rest of the sketch.
Ms. Duncan stated that this project does not preclude additional phases, but could be seen as starting an incremental approach to a larger vision.
Atty. Quinn stated that he would like to schedule a site visit prior to the next meeting.
Ms. Diozzi stated that the Commission could vote on the waiver now or continue pending a site visit.
Atty. Quinn stated that they are not trying to force a vote prematurely and had no problem coming back in two weeks.
Mr. Hart stated that he felt the Commission should review the information on the historical status of the buildings and should take advantage of the site visit offer. He stated that he would like evidence that the building is in poor condition and suggested that a structural engineer look at the building and prove there is no feasible alternative for reuse that can be incorporated into the scheme.
Atty. Quinn stated he would get all the information they can and would have a site visit. He stated that they have expressed their concerns about an inordinate delay. He stated that the Commission will have to make a decision about what is best in the public interest.
Ms. Diozzi asked about the HSI quote in the Peer Review that the building is in particularly poor condition, on what basis the statement was made and if anyone conducted an inspection.
Ms. Twohey stated that she was not aware of an inspection having been conducted.
Ms. Guy stated that the Building Inspector has been in the building.
Mr. Spang stated that he wondered if the local merchants would actually find an empty lot preferable.
Ms. Duncan stated that she has spoken to the Pabich’s who definitely thought that an empty lot would definitely be preferable. She was not aware of any concerns from the owner of the Front Street Coffeehouse, who was on the committee. The only concerns expressed were that a management plan be in place during demolition, as well as construction, so there won’t be negative impact to the nearby merchants.
Mr. Picarsic stated that he believed there was also concern about duration of the prior larger project and preferred an incremental approach. He added that Mr. Kerr’s letter is on point. He is the closest business owner.
Mr. Spang stated that he was concerned about demolition occurring and the length of time until the new construction. He stated that he would like a commitment from RCG that if the rental market implodes they will make the lot flat with grass and a fence so that it is not an eyesore, not chain link. He noted that projects stall all the time.
Mr. Picarsic stated the physical suggestions that Mr. Spang has were good. He stated that they envision a marketing fence that is inviting, not chain link, but noted during demolition there would be a construction fence, but after they could commit to some kind of design acceptable to the DRB. He stated that they will be working with investor groups surrounding the site so there is added incentive.
Ms. Duncan stated that Mr. Spang’s suggestions were good and that some safeguards could be incorporated through the SRA decision.
Mr. Spang suggested that there might also be parking made available to benefit the merchants.
Mr. Picarsic stated that he did not know what the site conditions will be until they demolish the building, but felt they could come up with specifics for the SRA.
Ms. Guy reminded the Commission that the site visit is for information gathering only and that there can be no public comment or deliberation. She stated that the Commission can ask questions related to the site.
Mr. Picarsic did not feel comfortable having people in the building unless they had a waiver from the building inspector, but they could have a door open for people to peak in.
A site visit was scheduled for Saturday, August 4th at 9:00 am, meeting at the corner of Washington and New Derby.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to continue the application. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
387 Essex Street
Dr. Stephen Hayes presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the exterior center railing for the front steps as has already been completed. The previous rail was black wrought iron and the new rail is aluminum. It is 5’6” long, 32” high. The base supports are 4 ½” diameter with 4 bolts holding each one. The pipe is 1 ½” diameter along with fittings. The application states that the work was done as an emergency situation for safety concerns due to his being a handicapped individual and due to several of his clients being frail and requiring center rail assistance. The application states that he is willing to paint the new rail black.
Ms. Bellin abstained from the discussion.
Ms. Herbert asked if the building is for sale.
Dr. Hayes replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Herbert asked if it was under agreement.
Dr. Hayes replied in the negative.
Ms. Herbert asked when the rail was installed.
Dr. Hayes stated that it was installed in May.
Ms. Herbert asked if there was a wrought iron rail before.
Dr. Hayes replied in the affirmative. He stated that the prior rail was rotted and that he was unable to find a replacement wrought iron rail. He stated that the new piping matches the rail on the side and that he has seen a lot of black piping on Chestnut Street. He stated that it is aluminum color now and has not yet been painted. He apologized for replacing the rail, but noted that it was an emergency since he is handicapped and that many of his patients are frail.
Mr. Spang asked the location of the prior rail.
Dr. Hayes replied that it was in the same location.
Ms. Herbert asked if there is a photo of the old rail.
Dr. Hayes stated that he did not have one.
Mr. Spang asked if the rail is required by code.
Dr. Hayes stated that he did not know.
Ms. Guy believed insurance companies require it.
He stated that the reason he asked is that handicapped code requires a specific round diameter which allows people to grab it and that the old style rail that is more flat would not work for a rail intended to service accessibility requirements. He noted that stairs are not an accessible route, per se.
Ms. Herbert suggested that since the building is for sale, that the railing be taken away upon sale and that the new owners could come in for something appropriate. She suggested requiring that the rail be removed upon transfer of ownership.
Ms. Guy summarized that Ms. Herbert is proposing denying the application and allow the rail to stay until the house changes ownership.
Ms. Herbert replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Hart stated that the rail would be removed upon transfer of ownership.
Mr. Spang stated that it could be removed or replaced with one that his more historically appropriate.
Ms. Herbert stated that we are probably talking less than six months.
Dr. Hayes stated that he had no problem with a denial with the requirement that whoever buys the property removes or replaces the rail with something historically appropriate.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Hart made a motion to deny the application as submitted, due to the rail installed not being appropriate and to require that the railing be removed within 9 months or at transfer of ownership, whichever is sooner. Ms. Herbert 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.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to continue. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Draft Memorandum of Agreement for J. Michael Ruane Judicial Center Discussion
Ms. Guy provided members with HSI’s comment letter to MHC dated 7/30/07.
Ms. Guy stated that she spoke to MHC regarding replacing “concurrance” with “acknowledge” or “witness”. She was told that “concurrence” is MHC’s standard language used for drafting MOA’s for years and years. She was told that the Commission would be concurring that the process has occurred and that the Commission has been consulted pursuant to the terms of MHC regulations. The Commission would not necessarily be concurring that they like the project, but rather concurring that a process has occurred, that MHC has determined that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives, and that there are mitigation measures. She was told that if the Commission does not concur with the MOA, they will not have a seat at the table in the mitigation
reviews. Ms. Guy noted that Doug Kelleher also added that if the Commission is a signatory, they can challenge if DCAM doesn’t live up to the MOA, which give more leaverage.
She stated that she has not received an updated draft and that MHC is holding off revising the MOA, until they received comments from DCAM and also until they have more information on moving of the houses and whether or not there are any viable proposals out there.
Ms. Guy stated that DCAM has accepted the proposal for 60 Federal Street and that they are re-issuing an RFP for the other two.
Ms. Twohey stated that the deadline for the new proposal is September 16, 2007.
131 Derby Street
Ms. Guy stated that she received an application from Charlotte Fitzpatrick of Renaissance Condo Trust for a~ Certificate of Non-applicability to stucco the northeast and southeast sides of the rear building and that the applicant says they are not visible from Derby .~ Ms. Guy stated that this is clearly true for the southeast (rear) side of the building and that she had emailed member to verify that the~ northeast side (facing Turner St.) is not visible from Derby before she issued the certificate.~
Mr. Spang had replied via email that he was wondering how they planned to handle the corner at the visible street - for example, would there need to be a piece of trim board to cover the stucco at the corner.
Ms. Guy stated that she spoke to the owner and that they are planning to use a piece of trim board, but that it will not be visible.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Window Discussion
Ms. Guy provided samples of four window manufacturer’s - Pella, J. B. Sash, Bonneville and LePage.
Mr. Hart stated that he liked the wood Lepage on the inside, but would want a muntin bar on the exterior that replicated a putty line. He stated that the Bonneville needs a putty line.
Ms. Herbert stated that the muntins appear too thin on the Bonneville.
Mr. Hart measured the Bonneville and stated that they are 5/8”, while the brochure states simulated divided light is 7/8”. Ms. Guy concluded that they sent the wrong sample.
The Commission concluded that the Pella and J. B. Sash were okay, LePage needs a putty line and the Bonneville muntin bars are too thin and needs a putty line.
31 Chestnut Street
Ms. Guy asked if the members had thought about the 7/30/07 email from William Wrightson concerning the fence at 31 Chestnut Street.
Ms. Herbert stated that the most appropriate is a flat board wood fence.
Mr. Spang noted that he has already started the work.
Ms. Bellin stated that the granite will get the fence the right height.
Mr. Hart volunteered to contact the homeowner.
Ms. Guy stated that it is kind of backwards, in that you usually would not have a higher fence in the front than on the sides.
Mr. Hart suggested the owner provide a site plan and elevation for the whole fence.
Ms. Herbert noted he could be stuck with all the balasters they have already created.
Ms. Guy noted she would have to put it on the September application.
Ms. Guy stated that the owner could offer a couple of options for the Commission to review.
Mr. Hart will contact Mr. Wrightson and Ms. Guy will email him.
Other Business
Ms. Guy stated that she emailed Commission members a copy of the comment letter from Kim Alexander dated 7/23/07 to MHC concerning the North Street Extra Work Order, as well as mailed copies of the Federal St. Neighborhood Associations comment letter dated 7/24/07.
There being no further business, Ms. Bellin made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted
Jane A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission
| 
