SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
January 16, 2008
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, January 16, 2008 at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi , Ms. Herbert, Mr. Harper, Ms. Bellin, Mr. Hart and Mr. Desrocher.
6 Hamilton Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, Latta Realty Trust, Lynn L. Frothingham and Charles Newhall trustees, submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for fence replacement.
Mr. Newhall provided a picture of the proposed fence and a drawing of the proposed fence cap. The fence will be to the right of the building starting at the McIntire post at the street and heading back along the property line to the rear property line. It will not be attached to the McIntire post, nor attached to the rear fence.
Ms. Herbert stated that the railing cap should meet the posts so that the post cap is high enough to allow the railing cap to dovetail into the post.
Mr. Desrocher made a motion to approve the application as submitted.
Ms. Harper seconded the motion.
Mr. Hart suggested an amendment to the motion to state that there shall be a 2 ½” – 31/2” clearance from the top center of the rail cap to the bottom of the pyramid post cap.
Ms. Herbert suggested that it be 1”-2”.
Ms. Desrocher amended his motion to have a 1”-2” space from the top center of the rail cap to the bottom of the pyramid post cap. Ms. Harper seconded the amendment. The motion was voted upon, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
20 Hathorne St.
In continuation of a previous meeting, Linda Locke submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the existing front landing, steps and rails in wood.
Ms. Guy read a letter from the applicant withdrawing the application and stating that she will reapply within 90 days in order for architectural drawings to be prepared.
143 Federal St.
Stanley Szwartz and Jacqueline Washburn submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove 3 French door windows and replace them with custom triple hung windows. The mullions and glass panes will mimic the current façade.
Ms. Guy read an e-mail from the applicant waiving the requirement that the Commission act with 60 days and requesting a continuance to the meeting of February 20th.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to continue the application. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
86 Federal St.
Ms. Guy stated that she received a request from the owner of 86 Federal Street to remove the Clerk’s Certificate of Violation for the retaining wall. She provided photographs of the site, showing that the retaining wall has been removed.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to remove the Clerk’s Certificate as to Violation. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion. Ms. Diozzi , Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Mr. Hart and Mr. Desrocher voted in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Harper abstained from voting.
Other Business
Ms. Guy stated that she received a letter from Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) dated 1/7/08 acknowledging the project revision for the Salem Witch House at 310 Essex Street which includes the use of an internal mortar bonding for the fieldstone wall, instead of a dry-set wall and finding no adverse effect.
Courthouse Correspondence
Ms. Guy stated that she had distributed the Notice of Project Change at the 12/19/07 meeting and emailed Carol Meeker’s comments on the 4th Draft of the MOA dated 12/18/07 to commission members on 1/2/08. She also noted that she had distributed a letter from Epsilon to MHC dated 12/21/07 on 1/2/08 and had emailed a letter from Carol Meeker of DCAM to the Federal Street Neighborhood Association (FSNA) dated 1/3/08 on 1/4/08. Also emailed on 1/8/08 was a letter from the FSNA to MHC dated 1/7/08.
Ms. Guy read the following into the record:
· Two e-mails from Nick Nowak dated 1/15/08 with attached FSNA comment letters dated 1/11/08 to MHC and the MEPA office
· Letter from Patricia Zaido, Salem Partnership dated 1/11/08
· Letter from Mayor Kimberley Driscoll dated 1/11/08
· Letter from Carol Meeker, DCAM, dated 1/16/08
· Certificate of the Secretary of Environmental Affairs on the Notice of Project Change dated 1/16/08
Ms. Guy stated that Carol Meeker of DCAM and Doug Kelleher of Epsilon Associates were present to answer questions.
Douglas Kelleher of Epsilon Associates provided an update on where things stand in order to put the correspondents and documents into context. He stated that the original plan was for ramp work that is needed to be done to facilitate the construction of the courthouse was going to be done by MassHighway as part of the ongoing North Street project. The funds for the modifications were to be paid by DCAM it was thought at the time for coordination purposes it would be easier if MassHighway undertook the work. He noted that in June, he and Jeff Shrimpton came before the Commission to show some of the conceptual plans and came back in July to show how a large portion of the public comments received in June were incorporated, including ornamental lighting, pavements, and modifications of the ramp to the
North, which prevented the need to take the 6 trees on the south part of the ramp, and other aspects of the project. In the Fall, they continued the MHC consultation process with the steering committee and other interested parties and at the same time and working with MassHighway and advancing the MHC of the additional work on the existing North Street project. In speaking with MassHighway, Federal Highway and DCAM, they came to the mutual conclusion that it would be best if DCAM oversaw that work instead of MassHighway, largely because of scheduling and anticipated review required. At that time it was determined that it would be best for DCAM to take over the North/Bridge intersection alterations. This decision was made mutually by DCAM, MHD and Federal Highway. At the same time it was agreed that MassHighway’s North Street project, which was originally to run from the Peabody/Salem line to the intersection of Essex Street,
would actually terminate at the overpass bridge and that DCAM would, not only make the modifications to the ramps, but also pick up the remainder of MassHighway’s project down to the intersection of Essex Street. MHC was notified in November of the change by MassHighway and that was followed up with a Notice of Project Change filed December 17th with the MEPA office notifying them of the change of oversight of the project and which outlined some of the changes which occurred to the design. He stated MHC was also notified of the design changes. He stated that DCAM did not request that MHC find a No Adverse Effect finding for the ramp work. He stated that with DCAM taking over the oversight, it is wrapped into the Courthouse project and that DCAM has conceded that the overall courthouse project will have an adverse effect on historic resources. He stated that no where in the December 21st letter was MHC asked to concur
with a No Adverse Effect finding, because it is going to be rolled in as part of the larger courthouse project, which is an adverse effect and has an MOA being drafted. They have suggested specific language to the MOA that addresses the addition of the ramp work and offers mitigation to be added to the MOA. He stated that today, the Secretary of Executive Office Environmental of Affairs has issued a Certificate that determined that the changes outlined and Notice of Project change are insignificant and do not require any additional MEPA review. DCAM has submitted comments to MHC on the fourth draft of the MOA.
Ms. Herbert asked, for the portion of the work being taken over from MassHighway, if the budget will be moved to DCAM.
Mr. Kelleher stated that DCAM was always paying for it.
Carol Meeker of DCAM stated that DCAM will actually be paying more, because they will be taking over an additional part of the North Street project. Otherwise, they would have done the North Street project and we would have had to rip up what they had just done.
Ms. Herbert asked how the $10,000 set aside for traffic-related improvements was determined and questioned if this was enough.
Mr. Kelleher stated that he did not know what the modifications would be at this point, but speculated it would be part of the MOA, which is yet to be finalized, and hopefully the fee would be finalized at some point. The intent is for DCAM to work with MassHighway as well as the City’s newly formed courthouse traffic committee.
Ms. Herbert asked if there was any provision to obtained additional funds.
Ms. Meeker stated that this was the most they could squeeze now, but that they may identify another source in the future.
Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning & Community Development, stated that some improvements like one way streets or circulation patterns may not have a real cost, other than some signage and striping.
Ms. Diozzi asked if the extra North Street work that MassHighway was going to be doing will now come out of the courthouse budget.
Ms. Meeker replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Hart stated that he assumed that the Commission will hear from MHC whether the project has potentially adverse effects on historic properties under Chapter 254. He stated that letters written by concerned groups and citizens have written to MHC asking for a determination if the project has any potential adverse effect on historic properties under Chapter 254, which he understood is going forward on the road. He stated that to his knowledge there was never any answer. He stated that he was a little confused about the relationship with Section 106 and Chapter 254 and questioned how the Section 106 review was terminated.
Mr. Kelleher stated that MHC would need to make an effect finding under Chapter 254, but because the ramp work will not be separated from the courthouse project, they will look at the project in its entirety and it will be reviewed as one project. It has already been determined that the whole project has adverse effect. That is why there is MOA, which can simply be modified to include the ramps and appropriate mitigation.
Mr. Hart stated that the Commission’s July 24th letter requested alternatives and MHC has not responded. He stated that to his knowledge, we have not seen any alternatives. He stated he did not see how DCAM could build a road, asking if MassHighway is charged with building roads.
Mr. Kelleher stated MassHighway had written to MHC in April, notifying them of the change to the North Street project. It was then subject to Section 106 Review, because MassHighway’s North Street project had federal involvement. DCAM was always going to pay for the work associated with the ramps. There was really no federal involvement associated with the ramps directly. It was only subject to the 106 review because it had been added to a project subject to 106 review. MHC wrote back and requested MassHighway share copies of the project plans with Salem Historical Commission, Federal Street Neighborhood Association and Historic Salem, Inc. Those plans were provided back in June. He stated that that MHC never responded, because MassHighway didn’t close the
loop on their review until their November letter, which they wrote to MHC saying MassHighway is no longer involved with the ramp work and that the North Street project is essentially the same, but is terminated at the overpass.
Ms. Herbert asked if any funds are going from MHD to DCAM now that MHD is doing less on North Street.
Ms. Meeker replied in the negative.
Ms. Duncan stated that MHD projects are defined by geographic area and are bid as such. They would not transfer funds.
Mr. Kelleher stated that DCAM has agreed to pay for the extra work because a fair amount of the work is associated with the ramps.
Mr. Hart asked how the work would be orchestrated technically, asking if DCAM has ever built roads in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Ms. Meeker stated that DCAM has huge campuses that have entire roadway systems in them. She noted they would have preferred to have left it with MHD if they could have done it expeditiously.
Mr. Hart asked if it was a state route.
Mr. Kelleher stated that it was a state numbered route within local jurisdiction. He stated that ideally, DCAM’s general contractor for the courthouse will hire as a sub, MassHighway’s contractor for the North Street project to continue the work down.
Ms. Bellin stated that she was concerned about possible flooding and the issue being kicked back to the city. She asked if there would be any coordination.
Ms. Duncan stated that DCAM is committed to working with the city on fine tuning changes and that traffic patterns should there be flooding is a piece of that.
Ms. Bellin stated she was troubled that $10,000 is not a lot of money and signage could eat up all of that. She noted that, while it may not be a current problem, the design is removing the only solution to a flood situation, which is to use the remaining ramp. She asked once they are removed, what is the possible solution. She was concerned that it was not being though through at this stage and saying it is a local issue that will have to be dealt with later with the $10,000.
Ms. Duncan stated that we are trying to look at all these issues now and that the courthouse traffic committee has met once and will be meeting again.
Ms. Bellin stated that she felt the City should reconsider the $10,000 and should think through for what the money is really needed.
Ms. Duncan stated that she would have a discussion with the City Engineer with regard to the flooding solution and with regard to the previous question regarding changes to directional patterns, signage and other improvements that may be warranted and how far that $10,000 could go.
Ms. Bellin questioned if the funds will also be used for signage to direct people to the courthouse and parking garage.
Ms. Meeker stated that Goody Clancy has certain geographic limits, so if there are signs that are a distance away, it would be additional.
Ms. Herbert stated that she has been living in Salem for 24 years and there has always been a flooding issue. She asked if there has ever been a study along that whole strip.
Ms. Duncan stated that that section of Bridge Street is the focus of the next phase of the Bridge Street project. She stated it begs the question if flooding is addressed there and eliminated during construction of that roadway.
Dick Pabich, 25 Winter Island Road, owner of Salem Inn, Curwin House on Essex Street and Peabody House on Summer Street asked the purpose of tonight’s discussion.
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission received several letters, but that there is no specific action that needs to be taken.
Ms. Duncan stated that the Commission is an interested party and that this is informational to which DCAM offered to come in to be helpful.
Barbara Cleary, President of Historic Salem, Inc., stated that the comments from June and July under Section 106 will be taken in under Chapter 254. She stated that she felt incorporating the intersection changes within the MOA is very promising. She asked if MHC will be coming out with a 5th draft.
Mr. Kelleher stated that they could either issue a 5th draft or a final MOA.
Ms. Cleary stated that with regard to the MOA, she has one remaining comment – that the review period should be 30 days. This is needed due to mailing and Commission meeting dates.
Mr. Hart noted that Rita Walsh, the City’s consultant for the Neighborhood Preservation Districts study provided a book Get Your House Right, which is fabulous. He stated that he would donate a copy to the Commission’s files.
Ms. Bellin stated that she is concerned about letter MHC know of the Commission comments, including the $10,000 and the flooding issue.
Ms. Duncan asked if any more than a 5th draft is expected.
Mr. Kelleher stated that DCAM can amend the MOA and that MHC can accept it or not. He stated that whether MHC asked for alternatives is yet to be seen. They could find no adverse effect, adverse effect or adverse effect and choose to accept the adverse effect if they determine no prudent alternatives exist.
Ms. Bellin asked if the Commission should send a letter.
Mr. Hart stated that he preferred to wait for MHC to react.
Ms. Diozzi suggested sending a letter stating that this is an important project and let’s get it moving.
There being no further business, Mr. Hart made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission
| 
