SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
April 2, 2008
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, April 2, 2008 at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Chairman Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Mr. Harper, Ms. Bellin, Mr. Hart and Mr. Desrocher.
1 Forrester Street
Doug and Carrie Cabot presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of two front steps made of two pieces of 7’ long, 7” rise Chelmsford granite, rock face. Pictures were provided of similar installations.
Mr. Hart asked if the granite will extend to the outer edge of the pilasters as in the picture.
Mr. Cabot replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Hart asked the tread depth.
Mr. Cabot stated that it will be to code.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
J. Michael Ruane Judicial Center – Memorandum of Agreement
Ms. Guy read a memo from Jerry Parisella, Assistant City Solicitor, in response to questions raised by the Commission concerning the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA).
Ms. Guy stated that she emailed a letter from Historic Salem, Inc. (HSI) to Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) dated 4/2/08 concerning the 30% plans.
Ms. Guy stated that she emailed the Commissioners with comments from William Wrightson regarding the design.
Mr. Hart asked if the Commission would remain an interested party if the Commission chooses not to sign the MOA.
Ms. Guy replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Guy stated that DCAM will be holding a meeting for the interested parties and the architect on April 29th at 10:00 am. regarding the 30% design plans.
Ms. Guy stated that DCAM has signed the document and that she has it available to sign, if the Commission chooses. She understands that Historic Salem, Inc. has decided not to sign. MHC signs at the end.
Mr. Hart asked how many signatures are on the MOA.
Ms. Guy stated that there are two to the agreement (DCAM and MHC) and two in concurrence (SHC and HSI).
Ms. Herbert asked if HSI would remain an interested party if they do not sign.
Ms. Guy replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Diozzi stated that HSI’s position is if they were allowed to change the MOA from “in concurrence” to “in acknowledgement”, she believed they would sign the MOA.
Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development, stated that she did not know what the new drawings will show, but was told that Joan Goody has seriously taken comments into consideration and is trying to work them into the design where feasible. Ms. Duncan stated that we won’t see a smaller building, that there won’t be a change in the footprint and that they need to get the same square footage, but that they are trying to respond to comments. She stated that MHC will be at the meeting because it is with the interested parties. She asked for the Commission to discuss at some point tonight who will be the representatives who will be able to attend the meeting.
Ms. Herbert stated that there have repeatedly been questions raised about the building size and how much space is needed on the interior. She stated that one question that keeps coming up is about the storage area, which she heard at one point from someone was only 1000 s.f. and she questioned if it were really a bigger space, since it needs sixteen wheelers to bring in office supplies that will accommodate all the courthouses in the county. She also stated that questions keep coming up about the slip ramp and pedestrian walkway to the train station. She stated that she understood that the interior is sensitive from a security standpoint, but suggested that an architect, such as Morris Schopf, sign a confidentiality agreement, look at the drawings and express to everyone concerned what can
and cannot be done with the building. She stated that no one knows what is on the inside that makes this building so big. She stated that these questions keep coming up and never seem to get answered to anyone’s satisfaction. She stated that she felt if DCAM had been more forthcoming earlier, the process would be a lot further along.
Ms. Duncan stated that she could ask DCAM about having an architect review the plans on behalf of the Commission.
Ms. Herbert asked if any of the functions be placed in one of the two buildings being mothballed. She stated that office supplies do not need that expensive real estate, under guard.
Ms. Duncan stated that she could certainly ask, but did not feel it was relevant to the MOA, although relevant to the ongoing consultation about the design. She stated that there is no doubt that if the Commission does not sign the MOA, that the Commission remains and interested party. However, being a signatory in concurrence, it gives the Commission more standing, although she did not know exactly what that means. She stated that if there are future discussions concerning the MOA, the Commission has legal standing. She stated that she did not feel that using Superior Court for storage is the highest and best use of that building. She stated that feasibility study leaves us to believe there is a much higher and better use for the building and the city.
Ms. Herbert agreed, but stated that the storage of office supplies are some place, whether in one or multiple places, and she has not heard a reason why they need to be moved into the new building and increase the size of the building.
Ms. Duncan questioned if, in fact, that is the reason for the size.
Ms. Herbert stated that while she felt it was important to sign the MOA, but she also felt it should not be signed prematurely and that she was not ready to sign it and felt there is a need to send a message.
Ms. Duncan stated that the MHC has set the deadline for tomorrow, but noted that review of the design will continue to be ongoing.
Ms. Guy stated that normally the MOA would be in place before there were any design discussions.
Ms. Duncan stated that the purpose of the MOA is to memorialize the discussions that have taken place over the last year during the review of the five drafts.
Ms. Herbert stated that she did not want to send a message that the Commission is in agreement with everything so far and fine with everything. She stated that the Commission has asked many questions over the last year and a half and have gotten very few answers. She felt if the Commission signed, the Commission would get even less information.
Ms. Duncan stated that she understands that the Commission is not 100% satisfied with either the design nor with the conditions of the MOA and suggested that, if the Commission decides to execute it, the concerns be made part of the motion to sign the MOA so that they are on record. She stated that the vote could be sent in with the MOA. Ms. Duncan questioned how the design concerns tie in with the MOA execution.
Ms. Herbert stated that signing the MOA sends a message to the general public that the Commission is in agreement. She felt that there were things that need to be clarified before giving that perception that the Commission is in agreement.
Mr. Hart stated that he supported Ms. Herbert’s request to have an independent architect review the interior space plans. He stated that he would want to know the program that drives the interior design specifications, such as the number of courtrooms and amount of space devoted to storage. Mr. Hart stated that on February 21, 2008, the Commission sent two letters to MHC. He added that on March 18, 2008, Brona Simon sent the final draft of the proposed MOA to DCAM without ever responding to the two Commission letters. He stated that this sends a message that the Commission has been ignored. He stated that he was not comfortable signing the MOA. He stated if the Commission signs, it will send a message and hopefully we can work out some accommodation with MHC and DCAM regarding the
inclusion of some of these serious concerns regarding traffic, alternative traffic, traffic patterns and the design itself in terms of massing, scale and programming.
Ms. Duncan stated that it is clear that MHC declined to incorporate some of the recommendations made by the Commission regarding the MOA.
Mr. Hart stated that the Commission has not been given the courtesy of a response.
Ms. Duncan stated that the City has sent in comments, too, and does not get a response back saying “we have received your comments”, but that if the Commission asked for copies of alternatives, there should have been a response.
Ms. Bellin stated that changing the “shoulds” to “shalls” in the MOA would clearly have been in line with the rest of the language in the document and that she feels the Commission has been ignored. She stated that the requested change was so reasonable and she found it dismaying. She stated that if the Commission does not sign, it is still an interested party. She noted that there are only 2 places in the MOA that the Commission is named specifically and felt that if those two items are all that the Commission could be giving up (designing of the Registry of Deeds building and the moving of the church), and the Commission can trust the MHC to stand-in in those two places, then she has great difficulty signing in concurrence.
Ms. Guy stated that it could also be possible that if there is a MOA amendment in the future, the Commission would not be a party to the review of the amendment.
Ms. Bellin stated that if they do not care what the Commission thinks on this MOA, she did not feel they would care about an amendment.
Ms. Harper stated that she felt the Commission in signing it, the Commission is just stating that they are agreeing with the stipulations that are put in place to guide the process. She stated that she wanted the Commission to be a party to the fullest extent it can be and felt the Commission should sign the MOA.
John Carr, 7 River Street, stated that he previously served on the Salem Historical Commission and that he is a lawyer who uses the courthouse facilities. He stated that he was in favor of keeping the county courthouse in Salem and for providing state of the art facilities for that complex. He stated that the Commission should not sign the MOA until and unless all the Commission’s questions have been satisfactorily answered and the Commission is comfortable with how the project as built will relate to the adjacent historic neighborhoods and the scale of the downtown. He felt the fundamental questions were not micro concerns or questions of detail, but are more macro questions, specifically relating around the scale and mass of the structure. He stated that he felt that not signing sends a
message to MHC that the local Commission, the group that is more invested, more aware and has more of a stake in this project than anybody sitting at a desk in Boston, has serious concerns. He felt by refusing to sign is a meaningful way to get changes that the Commission really wants for a better project. He felt that otherwise, the Commission will be relegated to ineffectual details. He stated that even fundamental questions have not been satisfactorily answered and recommended that the Commission refuse to concur.
Teasie Riley Goggin, 9 Wisteria Street, stated that as a homeowner, if she hired an architect and paid them a fee to build a house and she wanted to make changes to the plan, the architect should make the changes requested, because he is working for me. She stated that she felt that Goody Clancy is saying, “Aren’t you lucky you have us?” and that it is not DCAM in charge, but rather Goody Clancy in charge.
Jim Rose, 25 Linden Street, stated that on the Salem Citizens website, he noticed that the postings indicate that the Southwest façade seems to be out of character with the historic nature of Federal Street and that this raises a red flag with him. He is curious how long a process it would be for this to be addressed and felt it would not be a deal breaker.
Darrow Lebovici, 122 Federal Street, stated that since he has become involved, he did not believe there has been a single change requested by the community or the interested parities for their convenience. He stated that he knows of one change to the roadway, which was the moving of the west ramp a little bit. He stated that for the fundamental constraints of the courthouse that have driven the size, the mass, the footprint, the treatment, the use of space on the size, there has not been a single change. He stated that they may have held public meetings and received input, but have done nothing with it. He stated that it is a mystery to him why we think things would get better in the future once we have signed the MOA. He urged the Commission not to sign until answers requested are
provided.
Emily Udy, representing Historic Salem, Inc., stated that HSI is choosing not to sign in concurrence and feel it will not effect their standing as an interested party.
Meg Twohey, 22 Federal St., stated that she supported Mr. Carr’s statement and urged the Commission not to sign. She stated that the Federal Street Neighborhood Association met with the Mayor and Representative Keenan and a representative from Senator Berry’s Office and has asked for a working meeting with architects from HSI and the SRA/DRB to discuss with Good Clancy the programmatic contents of the building and the design in order to discuss the design before April 29th.
Ms. Duncan stated that although there are items missing in the MOA, there are places where the stipulations do further the protection of historic resources. She stated that state has worked hard on the potential relocation of the 58, 60 & 62 Federal Street, putting out an RFR on several occasions and they have done full documentation. They are protecting the Baptist Church and reusing it as part of the Court, by relocating it. With the Superior Court and County Commissioners building, DCAM has taken an early and proactive role, by completing the draft of the feasibility much earlier than they would do in other circumstances. She stated that a significant change made to the MOA was that the interested parties would have the opportunity to review proposals submitted outside of the governmental
system, in response to comments from the interested parties. They have talked about placing preservation restrictions on the building and they have coordinated the design review of the new construction with the interested parties and are willing to do additional meetings that have been requested. They have included a study of cumulative traffic impact and have committed to traffic mitigation funds. She wanted the Commission not to loose site that there are significant stipulations to preserve historic resources, but people differ on whether it goes far enough. She stated that if the Commission chooses not to sign tonight, the MOA will not come back later.
Mr. Desrocher made a motion to sign the MOA. Ms. Harper seconded the motion.
Ms. Herbert stated that a good friend reminded her that Salem is the seat of the judicial system of the United States and after the Witch Trials, this is where our system began. She stated that we should have the very finest courthouse system. She noted that there has been a lot of input that could have been included in the MOA, but has not been, and that she is willing to be available to discuss and resolve this. She stated that she did not buy that there is a deadline to sign.
Ms. Harper stated that she felt the Commission should sign, noting that there are stipulations that MHC has worked out to protect historic resources. She agreed to having any kinds of meetings needed to bring the design along. She stated that she did not see how refusing to sign gets us anywhere.
Ms. Herbert stated that she felt HSI and the Historical Commission refusing to sign sends a huge political message.
Ms. Bellin was in agreement with Ms. Harper that there are very important protections in the MOA, but noted that the Commission not signing does not take them away. The Commission will still be an interested party. She stated that the Commission has been ignored at every step or have had our suggestions thrown out.
The motion was voted on. Ms. Diozzi, Mr. Desrocher and Ms. Harper voted in favor. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin and Mr. Hart voted in opposition. The motion did not carry.
Ms. Duncan stated that the Commission should let Ms. Guy know who will represent them at the 4/29/08 meeting for the interested parties, noting that there cannot be a quorum of members.
Tracey Lawrence, 12 Crombie Street, asked if the 4/29/08 was a public meeting and believed that DCAM had said it would be.
Ms. Duncan replied in the negative, but stated that she would get further clarification from MHC.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to communicate to Joan Goody through DCAM that the Commission would like to have an architect sit with her to discuss the program and floor plan to more fully understand the need for the size of the building.
Ms. Twohey stated that it was not clear to her whether the programmatic contents of the building are classified and that her motion presumes that. She suggested asking if we can be informed.
Ms. Herbert withdrew her motion.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to request details on the interior of the building and the program to be reviewed at a meeting held within 7 days which would include Joan Goody, Richard L’Heureux or other representative of DCAM’s choice, the Salem Historical Commission Chair or her designee and to invite the city planter and an independent architect of the Commission’s choosing. The purpose will be to clarify questions in preparation of the 4/29/08 meeting.
Ms. Duncan asked if this pre-meeting was in addition to the meeting the FSNA requested meeting.
Ms. Herbert replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Duncan summarized that at the last Commission meeting, the Commission requested a meeting of the interested parties with MHC and the architect, which has been set up for 4/29. In the interim, the FSNA requested through the Mayor and Representative Keenan that a meeting be set up with representatives. She stated that the Commission is now requesting another meeting in addition.
Ms. Duncan suggested that the Commission support the FSNA letter.
Ms. Herbert was okay with it, but stated that it needs to happen within 7 days.
Mr. Carr suggested that rather than requesting a meeting in seven days, that it be reasonably in advance of the 4/29/08 meeting.
Ms. Lawrence stated that the Mayor seemed open to a working group facilitated by an independent party and the point of it would be to come to consensus on the design elements.
Ms. Herbert stated that the nuts and bolts questions need to be answered.
Mr. Hart seconded the motion.
Ms. Herbert amended her motion to change from requesting the meeting to be held within 7 days to be held no later than 7 days prior to the 4/29/08 meeting and to invite representatives from FSNA and HSI.
Mr. Hart seconded amendment.
Mr. Hart stated that he felt the Commission’s meeting and the FSNA meeting would be 2 different meetings and that the Commission’s is more on programmatic and resulting design, while FSNA’s is more on the design itself and felt both should be requested.
Ms. Twohey agreed that the FSNA meeting is to focus on design.
Ms. Duncan stated that the 4/29 meeting needs to be structured to be a productive, “roll up your sleeves” working meeting on very specific design issues.
Ms. Herbert stated that she did not want to slow down the process and wished we were much further ahead, but felt it was imperative that the project be good. She stated that she started to loose faith when DCAM absorbed the roadwork without knowing how it would effect the courthouse project budget. She stated that she felt oversight is needed. She is hoping the meetings will be effective so that everyone can be on board on 4/29/09.
The motion was voted upon. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
18 Broad Street
The Pickering Foundation submitted an application for a Certificate of Non-applicability to install an exterior vent for the new power vented furnace. Photographs were provided. The vent is to be located at the westerly end of the rear façade at a former basement window. It will consist of two 4” diameter stainless steel pips about 12” apart. The pipes will come through the former window about 12” above grade and rise to a height of about 30” above the grade of the existing rear patio. The top of the pipes will align with the top of the third clapboard above the water table., which is about 8” below the bottom of the first floor window sills. They will not be visible from Broad Street. The rear façade is marginally visible from portions of
Pickering Street, but the existing 6’ high fence obscures the lower part of the building.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Harper 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. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission
| 
