SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
February 6, 2008
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, February 6, 2008 at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi , Ms. Herbert, Mr. Harper, Ms. Bellin, Mr. Hart and Mr. Desrocher.
Courthouse – Discussion on Draft #5 Memorandum of Agreement
Ms. Guy stated that she had distributed two letters from Historic Salem, Inc. (1/4/08 & 1/14/08) by mail and a letter from Carol Meeker of DCAM to the Massachusetts Historical Commission dated 1/22/08 by email on 1/22/08, which were all before Draft #5.
Ms. Guy read into the record a memo from Lynn Duncan dated 2/6/08.
Ms. Diozzi asked if there were members of the public that would like to comment on the 5th draft of the MOA.
Mary Whitney, 356 Essex Street, stated that over one year of effort has passed since the first meeting on this project. She noted that at the Carlton School meeting, they showed a plan for traffic with lights and the force of a left hand turned on a very heavily traveled road. There was a lot of comment from the public, and the State has come back with essentially the same design with trees and pavers. She stated that she disagreed with the traffic studies that indicated there will be no increased traffic on Federal Street. The studies show that there will be traffic backups and once there are backups, drivers will look for alternate routes. She noted that the proposal is for a study to be done after the project is completed and that she felt this was a waste of taxpayer money. She stated
that after over one year looking at the same design, there has been no real effort to look at traffic alternatives. She thought it was great to have an independent traffic engineer as Ms. Duncan stated, but felt it must be done before construction starts. She questioned what the ramifications would be if the Commission refused to sign the MOA.
Ms. Guy stated that MHC informed her that they will not change the language and that if the Commission chooses not to sign the MOA, they could give up additional opportunities for comment provided to signatories, but not provided to interested parties.
Jane Arlander, 91-93 Federal Street, stated that there is no mention of any studies for vibration, nor of flooding issues at the new west ramp reconfiguration. She suggested there be specific language on signage. She questioned waiting until the project is done to discuss mitigation. She stated that she felt it should be discussed now and an appropriate amount set aside. She questioned who would complete the studies.
Mr. Hart stated that he was concerned of MHC’s response concerning the signing of the MOA.
Ms. Guy stated, for example, MHC could remove Stipulation #2, which is only for Salem Historical Commission and Historic Salem, Inc. and not for the interested parties.
Mr. Hart stated that he was speaking as a resident of Federal Street, as well as a member of the Commission. He stated that the first Whereas on the 2nd page states that the project could potentially cause effects to the Federal Street and McIntire Historic Districts through cumulative traffic impacts but such impacts as visual, audible or atmospheric effects cannot be measured until the project is completed and the courthouse is in use. He stated that the Commission has been asking for information on the potential for adverse effect and so has the public, who feel it will potentially adversely impact the district. He stated he would like to focus on that and that he did not want to rush ahead because they got the draft five days ago. He stated that the Commission has asked for
information related to potential impacts and felt the Commission should deal with that.
Ms. Diozzi asked how Mr. Hart suggests it be dealt with.
Mr. Hart suggested hiring an independent consultant.
Mr. Desrocher questioned if it isn’t really the city’s job to look at the traffic issues and make changes with street routing and limitations on access to certain streets.
Mr. Hart stated that Section 106 states that if there is a potential adverse effect, then the parties have to engage a study to determine those potential adverse effects and they have to present some alternatives to eliminate or mitigate those adverse effects. He stated he was confused why MHC is not recommending that some mitigative measures be explored beforehand.
Ms. Harper stated that the new stipulations propose having a baseline and that the traffic be studied after.
Ms. Guy suggested that comments be made regarding the wording of the language in the MOA and if the Commission has clarifying information in the wording that the Commission wants changed, those recommendations should be made. The Commission has asked MHC for alternatives before, and the current MOA is their response, so MHC is probably not going to do it, so the Commission does not want to lose its opportunity to comment on what is in the draft MOA.
Emily Udy, representing Historic Salem, Inc., stated that the Federal Street Neighborhood Association has questioned who would do the studies, when and how. She stated that they should be able to be addressed at the time the intersection is completed and not after the entire courthouse project is complete. HSI will also be requesting that the comment time periods be 30 days for #10 in the MOA.
Ms. Diozzi felt that 21 days was a reasonable compromise where 21 days is already provided in the MOA.
Ms. Whitney stated that at all of the public meetings, there was never talk about the traffic and the courthouse together and now the traffic project has been folded into the MOA. She noted that the delay has not been on the city side, but on the state side.
City Councillor Jean Pelletier stated that a year and a half ago the Mayor brought to the City Council a request to revamp the Parking Board to a Traffic Commission and stated shame on the City Council for leaving it in Committee.
Nick Nowak, 356 Essex Street, stated that he was concerned about building first and checking the traffic afterward as if it were impossible to check potential traffic impacts beforehand. He stated that he was not convinced by the reports that it will make traffic better and felt it would make it worse. He stated that the input files are probably sitting in some computer and could be made available to the city and the city could hire someone to do it independently or, if unable to do it, our group could fundraise to do it and look at it. If that person agrees with the findings, we will be happy. He stated that he would be surprised if a review would show that no mitigation is needed. He stated that it could be done in not too much time, so it wouldn’t necessarily hold up the whole show.
Ms. Diozzi stated that it seems that the purview of the Commission is the impact that the project will have on historic districts and historic properties. She stated that some issues such as traffic in other places (i.e. Bridge St.) and flooding, while of serious concern, may not be within the Commission’s purview. She stated that traffic going down Federal is pretty much all that is affected, which is huge, but could simply be mitigated by changing traffic flow. She did not feel the Commission should get into broader issues, such as traffic on Bridge Street.
Ms. Arlander stated that she felt that the Commission’s purview could also be how traffic affects the historic downtown and that people who come to the city need to be able to get into the city and enjoy it.
Ms. Whitney stated that if there is going to be a traffic study or analysis, it can’t just be to look at Federal Street. The city will need to do it right and hire an engineer. She stated that the State shouldn’t say that they will just build it and fix it later, which she felt was a waste of taxpayer money.
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission serves as the historic district commission and the historical commission and can comment on the project and its effect on any historic resource whether or not it is in the district, including the downtown. She stated that many of these comments have already been given to MHC and this draft is their determination. It states “we have read the comments…”. She stated that if the Commission sends another letter that says that it wants to look at alternatives, they are not going to change the MOA.
Ms. Whitney asked if the clauses MHC added could be added to and recommendations for changes to language be made.
Ms. Guy replied in the affirmative. She stated that the MOA provides for an existing baseline data study before and a future study after the project is completed to compare data and identify impacts. She reiterated Ms. Duncan memo that stated that the Mayor has appointed an ad hoc Courthouse Traffic Committee to look at traffic circulation and that the DPCD has drafted a scope of work for a traffic engineer (not Earthtech) to work with the committee and that this will be proceeding now and not after the project is complete. She did not think MHC would change their position, but might change some wording, such as clarification on some wording. She did not think they would stop the project, study alternatives and change the design.
Douglas Kelleher, Epsilon Associates, stated that MHC’s letter mentioned “unanticipated impacts” in response to the comments they received from people who think there are going to be adverse impacts. He stated that he did not feel that MHC is convinced that there are adverse effects, but they added stipulations as a result of MHC considering the public comments.
Ms. Herbert asked Mr. Nowak if he believed there were traffic patterns changes that could work, with the ramp removed.
Mr. Nowak stated that he did not know how easy it would be. He stated that he feels there will be traffic jams. He also felt it is an effect if too much traffic drives away people who would care about the neighborhood. He stated that the impacts are not being highlighted that are visible in the long queues.
Ms. Herbert stated that it is a given that the east ramp will be gone and that this is not going to change. Therefore, all that can be studied now is alternatives to what has been presented in terms of directing traffic, as Ms. Duncan states in her memo, which states that there will be a study done before construction begins.
Mr. Nowak stated that he believed that the process of the Section 106, which was terminated, was declaring that there is no adverse impact and it seems that by ruling out any options we are saying that if there is adverse impact, so be it, that’s the only option on the table – at least let’s not say there is no adverse impact – let’s say there is one, if there is one.
Ms. Herbert stated that the State has indicated that there is adverse impact. She suggested Mr. Nowak be on the Mayor’s traffic commission. She noted that she lived on Federal Street for 14 years and remembers Universal Steel stamping going on all day long. She felt that the traffic commission should be able to come up with a different pattern to prevent that much traffic going down there.
Mr. Desrocher stated that there can never be a solution to traffic on Federal because all major routes encircle Federal. He stated that the only question is how to lessen the impact.
Ms. Diozzi stated that she lives one street over from Winter Street, which is Route 1A. The street is beautiful and the houses command high prices. She stated that she did not feel lots of traffic is great, but felt that traffic does not necessarily bring down the value.
Ms. Herbert noted that she believed Federal Street precludes large trucks.
Mr. Hart questioned why MHC has not asked the proponents to explore alternatives under Chapter 254. He noted that the City is apparently going to explore alternatives.
Ms. Herbert stated that they will look at alternative traffic patterns but not changing the ramp situation design.
Mr. Hart stated that that is not sacred either. He stated that public input has put forth some proposals that eliminate the need for this intersection at the corner of Federal and North Street. He stated DCAM has looked at this for 9 months and avoided any exploration of any alternatives. He stated MHC is saying there is potential adverse effects and he is surprised they are not requiring DCAM to explore alternatives.
Ms. Guy stated that MHC’s letter indicates that they have read the public comment letters, where people have asked them to explore alternatives or review more documentation and that this is their decision letter.
Mr. Hart stated that he feels they are under obligation to do it. He stated that he would like to draft a response to this letter of January 30th.
Ms. Bellin stated that she believes the 3rd whereas on the second page addresses what Mr. Hart is looking for, where it states “MHC has determined that there are no prudent alternatives that would eliminate the adverse effect of the project”.
Ms. Herbert stated that it goes on to say that they accept the adverse of the project in consideration of the mitigation measures described in the MOA.
Mr. Hart stated that he disagrees. He stated that in advance of the project happening, he is looking to determine if there is potential adverse effect or not. He notes that the MOA states that it is stated on page two that there is potential to cause effects and that under Chapter 254 they are required to asked for alternatives.
Ms. Bellin stated that it raises the question whether the clause is limited to impact on the 3 buildings and the impact on the state register property. She believes it raises the question if they have done what Mr. Hart is asking.
Patricia Zaido of the Salem Partnership stated that she agreed with Ms. Whitney that the discussion has gone on a long time. She stated that numerous times DCAM has said that this will not improve the traffic problems that existing in Salem, but it will not make it worse. She added that MHC has looked at all the public comments, to which all letters addressed traffic. She stated that the questions that Mr. Hart is asking have already been asked. She stated MHC is requesting that the Commission agree to sign the MOA or agree not to sign it.
Mr. Nowak stated that he is not expecting the courthouse project to solve our traffic problems, but that all he is asking is that the project not make traffic worse. He feels like this will make it worse and it is not being addressed.
Ms. Whitney stated that it seems they are required by law to look at alternatives and that the public has not seen any. She noted that the public has offered many alternatives and questioned who is in charge of enforcement.
Mr. Hart questioned if a public hearing is required under Chapter 254.
Ms. Guy stated that there does not have to be separate public hearings and that there is a public participation process and they have listed all the public comments and meetings.
Mr. Hart stated that he would like to submit the Commission’s comments in two weeks.
Ms. Guy stated that she believed that MHC has given that answer. She encouraged the Commission to provide concrete comments on specific language in the MOA. She stated that if they wait to provide comments, they could finalize it without the Commission’s comments.
Mr. Hart stated that he felt Ms. Guy was speculating. He stated that he would like two weeks to make comments on the MOA.
Ms. Bellin stated that even if members need two more weeks to comment, the Commission should still discuss any concerns and reach some agreement tonight or have something to think about. She noted that this is draft 5 and questioned if the other parties are ready to sign.
Ms. Guy stated that DCAM and HSI need to provide their comments to MHC, just as we do. We all got the letter at the same time.
Ms. Bellin stated that in Stipulation #8, she did not understand the definition of “unanticipated” and felt clarification is needed. She stated that she was troubled by the word and was concerned they were creating a loophole, which may be unintentional, but could use it as a way of saying certain effects were not unanticipated and therefore are not part of this.
Ms. Bellin suggested that we ask that the word be stricken which will force them to come back and explain why it is there. She also questioned if “atmospheric” covered vibration and flooding.
Ms. Diozzi suggested it be changed to “environmental”.
Ms. Bellin stated that wherever it says “should” should be changed to “shall” or “will”.
Ms. Guy suggested that they ask if the interested parties be able to review and comment on the scope of the study, so we are not trying to put a scope on the MOA of what the study contains.
Ms. Bellin suggested that it say…” visual, atmospheric, audible or other” so there is a more global etcetera clause so that flooding and vibration should not be excluded.
Ms. Bellin noted that if the Commission does not concur and MHC struck us, there are a few places where the Commission is distinguished for participation, and stated that if the Commission can feel comfortable and concur, that is our goal.
Mr. Hart asked when the Commission will see DCAM’s comments.
Ms. Guy stated that we will see the result in either MOA draft 6 or the final MOA. She noted that DCAM does not write their comments after seeing ours and we don’t write ours after seeing theirs.
Ms. Guy stated that if you are going to go beyond just language changes, and ask for alternatives, she suggested a vote as such.
Ms. Harper stated that the baseline study makes sense and changing all the “should”s to “will”.
Ms. Bellin stated that she was curious if they are required to do something in advance. She noted in the other whereas’s they are saying they have examined alternatives, and there are no prudent alternatives, but they are not saying it regarding the traffic. She stated that either they are omitting it and we should ask them to state it, or they failed to actually make that finding and that may be a violation of the statute. She stated that, at the very least, in the new whereas clause should add the language that there are no prudent alternatives.
Councillor Pelletier questioned if MHC would make a mistake of that magnitude.
Ms. Guy stated that the last paragraph of the letter states that they look forward to finalizing the MOA under MGL Chapter 9, Section 26-27C as amended by Chapter 254 of the Acts of 1988. She stated that therefore the letter and the MOA were prepared under that.
Ms. Bellin stated that the letter is not a legal document and that everything has to be encapsulated in the MOA.
Ms. Guy stated that Chapter 254 is referenced in the MOA as well.
Ms. Bellin stated that the question is if they actually did what Chapter 254 requires or if the wording was left out. She stated that if they have done it, they should say it.
Ms. Zaido questioned if saying that there are no prudent alternatives now would leave no options after the courthouse is built.
Ms. Bellin suggested saying that there are no prudent alternatives at this time. She stated by adding the language, it answers our questions.
Ms. Guy stated that she will try drafting a comment letter that includes that clause.
Mr. Hart stated that there is no mention in the MOA that the proponent has been required to look at alternatives.
Councillor Pelletier asked if MHC is asking the Commission to accept the MOA.
Mr. Hart replied “eventually”.
Councillor Pelletier asked if there is a time limit that MHC provided.
Ms. Guy stated that they did not give a formal date. She added that they got the draft out in time purposely for this meeting, so it wouldn’t wait until the next meeting. She stated that she will prepare a draft.
Mr. Hart stated that he would also like to take the opportunity to address some specifics of the MOA himself as well.
1 Hamilton Street
Ms. Guy stated that she received a request from Michael Shea, who is in the process of purchasing 1 Hamilton Street, to extend four Certificates of Appropriateness dated 1/7/05 (2) and 12/16/04 (2) for a period of one year.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the request. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
There being no further business, Ms. Bellin made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission
| 
