SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
January 2, 2008
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, January 2, 2008 at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi , Ms. Herbert, Mr. Harper, Ms. Bellin, Mr. Hart and Mr. Desrocher.
61 Ward Street
The City of Salem submitted an application for Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance for the demolition of 61 Ward Street. The building is a vacant 400s.f. one story brick/stucco building which was a former gas station. It has been abandoned and unused for decades and is situated in the center of a problematic roadway intersection at Congress, Peabody and Ward Streets. The City intends to incorporate the site into a redesign of the intersection. Frank Taormina of the Department of Planning & Community Development was present.
Mr. Taormina stated that the lot is 965 s.f. and that in 1990, the city took the property through tax foreclosure. The site had above and below ground contamination, including asbestos, lead paint, mercury and petroleum, as well as metals in the soil and ground water. The City applied for grants to redevelop the site. Mr. Taormina stated that the intersection is hazardous due to the criss-crossing of the one-way streets. The City hired a consultant to review five traffic alternatives, which were then reviewed by the Police, City Engineer and Planning Departments. Mr. Taormina presented a copy of the design that the City has selected and stated that the entire building would require demolition and the contaminants remediated. He stated that this is an opportunity to get rid of a blighted
contaminated site and add some green space, while improving the intersection that is a large sea of asphalt. He added that there was been a public meeting with the Point Neighborhood Association five months ago and that all funding is in place.
Mr. Hart stated that the property is listed as being built in 1920. It is a non-descript cube in a residential area, with very little context. He stated that he had no objection to the waiver, but recommended a quick measure of the building for the record.
Ms. Herbert stated that this is a very dangerous intersection and noted that it will be nice to have more green.
Mr. Desrocher made a motion to approve the waiver. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
26 Winter Street
Neil and Martha Chayet presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for alteration of the front portico in order to accommodate the previously approved window shutters, other previously approved portico-related components and the structural integrity of the portico; also, the design of pillars, pilasters and gutters. Drawings were provided.
Mr. Chayet stated that they found a lot of rot in the structure. White initially they had applied to build as is, the architect feels that it is an opportunity to make some changes. He noted that the inner pilasters don’t support anything.
Mr. Hart asked when the portico was erected.
Ms. Chayet stated that she believed it was during the 1901 renovation.
Mr. Chayet stated that the current design prevents having a full set of shutters on the window next to the portico and that they would pull it in a few inches to make room for full shutters. The current railing is plumber pipe. The architect has suggested two instead of four columns, with flat, fluted pilasters. The drain will be able to go through the pilaster so as not to be visible. There will be simple Roman scroll caps. There will be single posts on the top balustrade instead of the current double.
Mr. Hart asked the new railing material.
Mr. Chayet stated that it will be wrought iron.
Mr. Hart stated that the portico will look handsome, particularly with the arched window above.
Mr. Desrocher made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Ms. Guy read the following letters into the record:
· 12/18/07 letter from FSNA to DCAM & MHD - received 1/2/08
· 12/24/07 letter from FSNA to MHC - received 1/2/08
Ms. Guy distributed a copy of a letter dated 12/21/07 from Epsilon letter to Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) which was received on 12/24/07.
Ms. Guy reminded the Commission that on the 12/19/07 meeting, they were given the 12/17/07 Epsilon Notice of Project Change which was received 12/19/07.
Ms. Guy noted that today she emailed a letter dated 2/18/07 from Carol Meeker letter to MHC which was received 12/20/07. Ms. Guy stated that this letter indicates that no comments were received from the Commission for the 4th draft of the MOA and, to address this, she suggested that the Commission a brief written comment indicating that the Commission concurs with the comments of Lynn Duncan (letter dated 10/25/08) and Historic Salem, Inc. (letter dated 10/28/07).
Mr. Hart stated that the Meeker letter asks for sign-off without Chapter 254. He suggested not commenting further until everyone has a chance to read the documents distributed.
Ms. Guy agreed and suggested also waiting for the MHC response on the Chapter 254 issue.
Jane Arlander, 91 Federal St., suggested that the historic lighting continue from North Street to Summer Street.
Morris Schopf, 1 Cambridge St., stated that he believed that the law is clear that Chapter 254 is applicable. He stated that DCAM does not have a good record with complying unless pressed. He stated that DCAM will either review the project in the public forum or in the judiciary forum.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to send a letter stating that the Commission reviewed the draft at the time it was received, concurs with the comments of Lynn Duncan (letter dated 10/25/08) and Historic Salem, Inc. (letter dated 10/28/07). The letter is also to state that the Commission reserves the right to comment on the above listed letters which were recently received and that they await MHC's determination on the applicability of Chapter 254.~ Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Hart suggested that a draft be circulated before it is sent.~
Darrow Lebovici, 122 Federal St., speculated that the~reason the project was withdrawn from MHD was to escape 106 Review and noted that Federal laws are in place regarding partitioning projects or discontinuing projects for the purpose of avoiding reviews, noting that these are actionable.
~
David Hart stated that the easiest thing for DCAM is to reuse Superior Court and reduce the size of the new building so that there can be a slip ramp. He explained that he toured the Newburyport Courthouse as part of the Trails & Sails program and that the judge expounded that they had convinced DCAM to reuse and remodel their courthouse in 2004.~ Mr. Hart said he found out the architect for the project and called them.~ The architect told him that DCAM had initially wanted to put in a big addition on the back.~ Mr. Hart stated that he may write a letter on this issue as a resident, not as a Commission member.
Mr. Lebovici questioned why DCAM hasn’t shown a feasibility study showing why the Icon study can’t be done. He stated that there have been assertions made by Joan Goody and others that it can’t be done. He added that he was informed that part of the building will be used to warehouse supplies. He questioned what justification there is to go from the supported design to the current plan.
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
| 
