SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
February 20, 2008
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi , Ms. Herbert, Mr. Harper, Ms. Bellin, Mr. Hart and Mr. Desrocher.
143 Federal Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, 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 applicants were not present.
Ms. Guy read a request from the applicants to continue the application until the meeting of March 19, 2008.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to March 19, 2008. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
39-41 Washington Sq. North
Diana Gaston, Gordon Van Hueizen, Barbara Pervier, Robert & Sondra Newan, David Lomasney and Nikolaus Sucher submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for removal slate roof from lower rear inside part of extension roof, including re-lead chimney and side wall flashings, install new bathroom vent and vent pipe flanges and re-roof using slate blend matching asphalt shingles. A second application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was submitted to repoint over arch and along Winter Street side, repaint front door, replace downspouts and roof repair of back wing. A letter was read indicating that most of the work had been completed, with the exception of the downspouts. Present was contractor Michael Shea.
Ms. Herbert stated that the roof is slightly visible.
Mr. Desrocher stated that it is somewhat visible from Winter Street.
Ms. Herbert stated that she had understood that Mr. Lomasney was going to repair the slate.
Mr. Shea stated that the repairs did not work, the roof was rotted and that the slates were falling off. He stated that he had to take sections of the boarding out.
Ms. Herbert asked when the work was done.
Mr. Shea stated that it was done in January.
Mr. Hart stated that it would cost more to replace with slate.
Ms. Newan stated that it was an emergency situation.
Ms. Pervier stated that they have neighbors who have received approval from the Commission to replace slate with asphalt due to cost.
Mr. Desrocher asked if any slate was salvaged.
Mr. Shea stated that a few were salvaged for future repairs on the remainder of the house.
Ms. Herbert stated that all work requires approval from the Commission prior to being completed and that for emergency situations, a temporary stabilization should be done until a permanent fix is approved.
Mr. Shea stated that they would have had to put up a tarp.
Mr. Hart stated that there are ways to stabilize before undertaking replacement and that he was not happy that replacement occurred.
Ms. Herbert asked if the new asphalt is 3 tab.
Mr. Shea stated that it is architectural.
Ms. Diozzi preferred that it be approved under Non-applicability or be continued so that she can go by and see how visible it is.
Mr. Desrocher stated that he felt it is visible and therefore not subject to Non-applicability. He stated that he is not bothered by architectural shingles. He questioned the choice of color.
Mr. Shea stated that it was the closest he could find to the color of the slate.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve a Certificate of Hardship. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion. Ms. Diozzi , Ms. Herbert, Mr. Harper, Ms. Bellin, and Mr. Desrocher voted in favor. Mr. Hart voted present. The motion so carried.
Mr. Hart asked when the brick repointing was done.
Ms. Newan stated that it was done in summer and fall.
Ms. Herbert stated that the Winter Street side looks fine, but that the repointing doesn’t blend over the arch. She suggested racking and acid wash.
Ms. Pervier stated that the arch was beginning to bow and that, above it, the tub in the upstairs unit was settling.
Mr. Hart stated that the new mortar is flush with the brick and needs to be racked back.
Ms. Pervier stated that they intend to repoint the entire house as funds become available.
Mr. Hart suggested that in the future they use a soft mortar rather than a hard mortar which can fracture the surface of the brick.
Ms. Herbert stated that she preferred to continue the brick repointing until the contractor can come in with a proposal to fix the arch.
Ms. Guy suggested issuing a Certificate of Non-applicability for repointing to match existing and to find the arch in violation and give one year to fix.
Mr. Hart stated that he would like to see a proposal on how they will treat the arch to fix it.
Mr. Desrocher was in agreement.
Mr. Desrocher made a motion to continue the brick repointing and to request a proposal from their contractor to fix the mortar over the arch. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert noted that the flashing used on the roof is aluminum and should be copper in the future.
Ms. Pervier stated that the door painting was already approved for #41 and they painted #39 to match.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve door painting at #39 to match #41. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Van Huizen stated that the downspouts will be anodized aluminum to match 26 Winter.
Mr. Hart asked if they have a sample and questioned if 26 Winter was aluminum or copper.
Mr. Van Huizen stated that he could get a sample.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the downspouts. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
34 Chestnut St.
The Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities d/b/a Historic New England submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install snow catchers on the west slope of the carriage barn roof of the Phillips House. The application states that there will be no change to the slate on the roof and that they are proposing copper snow catchers to match the flashing, gutters and downspouts. Margherita Desy represented the applicant.
Ms. Desy provided two sample snow catchers – one in cast bronze and one in copper. She stated that they will be generally 12” apart in some sort of triangular pattern. The snow catchers are needed because they are getting huge sheets of snow coming down onto cars parked next to the building. The snow catchers could also be colored to match the slate. The roof is 24” wide by 17” high. There will be approximately 30 snow catchers.
Mr. Hart stated that he preferred the bronze.
Ms. Desy noted that the bronze was also cheaper.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the installation of approximately 30 cast bronze snow catchers. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
50 Derby Street
Vincent and Donna Corneau submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the wood trim around the windows for the entire house as has already been completed on the first floor front.
Ms. Herbert noted that she has been watching this project. The windows are 1 over 1 aluminum and are being replaced with vinyl with new wood trim. She stated she felt that the wood trim is a step toward looking better.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the wood trim. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
MPPF – Witch House
Ms. Guy provided a draft letter of support to be included in a application for Massachusetts Preservation Project Fund grant for the Witch House.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the letter of support. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Courthouse – Discussion on Draft #5 Memorandum of Agreement
The Commission reviewed the draft comment letter provided by Ms. Guy.
Mr. Hart stated that, via email, he had provided a suggested stipulation to be added to the MOA. He referenced a letter from Brona Simon to Carol Meeker dated January 30th and stated that he noted that the issue of determining the potential adverse effect to historic resources in the McIntyre Historic District does not seem to address vibration from increased traffic, nor the potential to decrease property values as a result of increased traffic, which has been stated by other parties. He stated that he is a resident of Federal Street and stated that he hoped he was acting as a member of the Salem Historical Commission and not be prejudiced by the fact that he is a resident of Federal Street. He believed that cumulative adverse effect could and should be measured before the roadway
changes. He stated that he felt vibration is on of the things that should be examined. He noted that numerous participants in the MOA process and interested parties have indicated that there may be an increase in traffic throughout the McIntire Historic District as a direct result of the reconfiguration of the interchange at North and Federal and that these potential adverse effect may include increase vibrations from increased traffic, increased noise level and increased air pollution, as well as decreased property values. He stated that he felt a traffic analysis should be undertaken and that the MOA be amended to include this language. Regarding the two Whereas statements in the draft letter, he stated he was not sure that the Commission could make the determination that public participation requirements under Chapter 254 have been met. He stated that there has been numerous public input that alternatives have not been seen.
Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning & Community Development, stated that she believed that the two Whereas statements were offered by Ms. Bellin so that Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) would have to commit in writing that they have done that which is in the statements, and that it was not as a suggestion as to the Commission findings. She noted that a letter from MHC has been received since the Commission’s last meeting.
Ms. Guy read the letter from Brona Simon dated 2/12/08 responding to several questions the Commission posed at its last meeting.
Ms. Duncan stated that Stipulation #8 indicates that there will be a baseline study which will include traffic counts, atmospheric level, audible effects level, etc. She stated that if there is increased traffic, and there is a correlation between increased traffic and vibration, that the baseline data would have the information the Commission is looking for. She stated that she was not sure if “decreased property values” is appropriate to the MOA.
Mr. Hart stated that he would like the study be undertaken beforehand to show the effect the project will have on traffic. He stated that he felt ahead of time was better than a baseline study followed by a study after the project is built. He indicated that Earthtech’s study stated there will be no increase in traffic, that a lot of groups challenge that assertion and that DCAM has elected not to do a secondary study or look at the information that was challenged.
Ms. Duncan stated that a traffic study was completed by a qualified engineering firm, that has been debated at the various public hearings, and that they are saying that there aren’t any anticipated negative or adverse impacts from traffic. She stated that by doing the baseline study, they are going a step further. She stated that the baseline study and future study will address unanticipated effects.
Mr. Hart stated that in his opinion it deserves additional study. He stated that they have had a lot of input that says there will be increased traffic and, if there is, there is going to be additional vibrations which are going to result in deleterious effects on standing historic properties.
Ms. Bellin stated that she felt the vibration issue was addressed in bullet #3 of the draft comment letter, by saying “or other”, if vibration isn’t captured by atmospheric or audible.
Mr. Hart stated that he felt the impacts should be studied ahead of time.
Douglass Kelleher, Epsilon Associates, stated that MHC is saying that there are no anticipated effects and that the baseline and future study will address unanticipated effects. He noted that Stipulation #8 is MHC’s way of responding to all the letters and comments and saying that contrary to what Earthtech has said, they feel there is adverse effects associated with it and that this is MHC’s way of building it into the MOA as a safety net.
Meg Twohey, Federal Street Neighborhood Association, stated that the stipulation proposes completing the future study after project completion, which is estimated at 4 years. She stated that the roadway changes will be completed within 6-9 months and that impact is what they are really talking about. She stated that she felt the future study and mitigation should be undertaken in a more timely fashion, rather than waiting 4 years.
Mr. Hart stated that, to his knowledge, we have still not seen any official alternatives explored, yet Brona Simon says she believes all prudent alternatives have been explored.
Ms. Twohey was in agreement and noted that consultation with regard to the roadway began with MOA draft #5. She stated that there has been no conversation about the road.
Ms. Hannah read a letter from DCAM to MHC dated February 14th.
Ms. Duncan stated that the Commission can continue to debate whether the Chapter 254 consultation process included the roadway or not, but the Commission asked that question and got a definitive answer from MHC that it does and all feasible and prudent alternatives have been looked at. She suggested that the Commission ask that the future study be done when the roadway work is completed, not at project completion. She stated that there is no reason that the future study could not be done once the roadway improvements are done and in full operation.
Mr. Hart stated that he challenges Brona Simon’s statement in the January 3rd letter that impacts cannot be measured until the project is completed. He would like to see vibration explored. He stated that there are statements that alternatives have been explored, but the public has never seen them and that he would like to see them.
Ms. Herbert stated that there are various timings including, the removal of the ramp, the moving of the houses, the moving of the church and the construction of the courthouse. She noted that at these varied times, there will be different traffic readings and questioned at what point does it make sense to do the future study. She stated that there are short term events that could skew the results.
Ms. Duncan was in agreement, stating that the project will keep moving along and there may not be an opportunity where the traffic levels out. She suggested that the two issues that the Commission identified – vibration and flooding – be included in the baseline and future study.
Mr. Hart questioned how a stoplight will improve free flowing traffic. He stated that various groups have asked for additional information for ten months.
Patricia Zaido of the Salem Partnership stated that there was a study done by professional engineers paid for by DCAM and there have been public meetings where the alternatives have been discussed. She noted that various groups say there will be adverse impact, while other groups agree with the study. She stated that DCAM and MHC have listened to both and the draft is the conclusion to which they came.
Mr. Kelleher stated that there were alternatives of the courthouse shown with and without the slip ramp.
Ms. Diozzi remembered being shown the concept where, if the east ramp was kept, the building was much bigger.
Ms. Duncan stated that the courthouse steering committee was shown those alternatives, there were many meetings talking about the 3 schemes and Joan Goody addressed it at one of the meetings at the Bentley School. She stated that Mayor formed the Courthouse Traffic Committee to see what the city can do to mitigate any potential increase in traffic in the McIntire District. She stated that the City is going to bring another traffic consultant on board, not Earthtech, and will start with the assumption that there could be increased traffic in the McIntire District. It will not be a peer review, but will they will work with the Committee to see what the city can do such as one-way streets, signage or traffic patterns.
Nick Nowak, 356 Essex Street, suggested that software input files be made available for any group that might choose to have them independently reviewed.
Ms. Duncan stated that she believed the City has put up on the city website the information has been previously been identified through the public hearings. She suggested that if there was additional specific information wanted, that he should let her know and she would pass it on to see if it is available.
Mr. Nowak stated that Chapter 254 states that MHC shall maintain a record including a record of sources of information consulted and all documents and alternatives considered during the consultation process.
Mr. Kelleher stated that Mr. Nowak could file a FOIA request with MHC.
Darrow Lebovici, 120 Federal Street, stated that the traffic study by Earthtech has been challenged and the challenge has never been responded to specifically with content, only with assertions, but no proof. He stated that Brona Simon’s letter acknowledged that there is a potential for adverse impact, which are grounds for demanding alternatives to eliminate, minimize or mitigate adverse impacts. He suggested that the city hire a traffic engineer or that the city or DCAM take the input from the study and hire another entity to run the results and, in essence, do a peer review which he thought could be done between $3000-$10,000, noting there is more than a hundred million dollars at stake in this program. He also suggested closing the ramp, doing a traffic study and see what happens, even if it is
done with electronics. He noted that the intent of the law is not to do the project and then wait to see if it will be really bad.
Mr. Hart stated that he would like to see Brona Simon take another look at her January 30th letter. He stated that the proponent should be required to submit any proposed alternatives, noting that he has never seen alternatives in a formal basis, whether or not they were discussed at a public hearing. He stated that there is information that says there might be potential adverse effect and that it should be dealt with now. He added that people use all the side-streets as shortcuts and groups are worried that it will be even worse.
Patricia Zaido stated that during the community steering committee meetings, at the public hearings and at the numerous meetings as DCAM and MHC, it was stated that the slip ramp must go in order to build the courthouse. She stated that Ann Lattinville also stated it.
Mr. Lebovici stated that Ms. Zaido says over and over again that in this meeting and in that meeting there has been this statement and that statement, which has nothing to do with the case that 254 and related regulations designed to protect historic resources require a structured engineering process in which information is presented in a writing, in a formal way, so that there is a record. He stated that discussions in meetings do not do the same thing and it is the equivalent of hearsay. He stated that the whole process was, in fact, up until DCAM assumed construction responsibility from MassHighway, a formal review process going on under 106 and there was supposed to be a report on that issue. He stated that the lateral arabesque, which moved that construction responsibility to DCAM stopped that
process. He stated that there has been no process yet under Chapter 254, with results that are documented, subject to challenge and responded to. He added that if DCAM doesn’t do it, then the Salem Historical Commission owes it to the community to require it.
Ms. Bellin stated that she looked at the statutes and regulations and that based on her reading them and the MOA, it appears DCAM has followed the Chapter 254 process. She stated that the statute requires it to be done very early in the game, within 30 days of the notice, and that MHC had to make a determination. She believed that the determination they made was that there was an adverse effect – if not, there wouldn’t be an MOA. She stated the adverse effect is the courthouse project as a whole. She stated that the problem is the dissatisfaction with the adverse effect specific to the roadway part of the project, particularly when the roadway part became DCAM’s responsibility. She noted that the statute doesn’t require MHC to conduct another review, unless they
determine that the change to the project is a substantial project change and she believed there was a finding that it was not a substantial project change. She stated that they may not have provided all of the documentation and reports. She stated that the Commission agreed with Ms. Duncan that the Commission needs to work with what is in front of us and that it would not be very effective to stray too far. She stated that also agreed with Ms. Twohey to move up the future study or having more than one or have supplemental studies every six months or so, although she was not sure how to implement it or work out the details. She added there are a few other language changes to be talked about, but did not feel there are grounds to request to reopen.
Mr. Lebovici suggested that the Commission ask MHC or DCAM to simply provide the documents that demonstrate what they assert and based upon those, make the decision on whether they have done the job or not.
Ms. Bellin stated that it is perfectly acceptable to request the information, but felt it is not the Commission’s decision to determine if 254 was satisfied or not. She stated that if people are concerned that it hasn’t, then their response is to file a lawsuit. She added that the Commission does not have jurisdiction over 254, unless the Commission concludes that they haven’t and wants to file a lawsuit, but noted that this was not was not in front of the Commission. She stated that all the Commission can do is tweak it until the issues are addressed.
Mr. Lebovici questioned if it is in fact the Commission’s job to determine whether there is a threat to historic resources within their purview.
Ms. Bellin replied in the affirmative, but noted that the Commission does not have jurisdiction over Chapter 254. She stated that the MOA is the result of the 254 process, which is what the statute calls for. She stated that the Commission has been presented with an MOA and the Commission has a chance to weigh in on it.
Ms. Twohey stated that the roadway project was explicitly excluded from the 254 and MOA process until January 15th when MEPA rendered its decision that they did not have to go into another review. She stated that we are all being asked to do is to deal with a set of issues in a timeframe that is very short. She added that they were not permitted to discuss the road in any consultation meeting that they had with MHC. She stated that it is the first time it was coming before the Commission in the MOA.
Ms. Bellin agreed that it was a shell game, but the statute allows them to make the determination that the change from MHD to DCAM is not a substantial project change.
Ms. Duncan stated that, while not part of the consultation process per se, the implications of the roadway changes were discussed at many meetings and so it is not as if it came out of nowhere. She noted that while going through an environmental review process, it had a different number than 254, and it was still review locally and alternatives were looked at and there was a determination that it was not a significant change. She agreed that this is not what is on the table before the Commission tonight and noted the opportunity to comment on the MOA is this week.
Mr. Hart stated that in the 2/12/08 letter from Brona Simon to Lynn Duncan, paragraph #2, he would like Brona to reconsider that statement, because no one has seen alternatives.
Ms. Duncan stated that the Commission needs to decide which road the Commission wants to go down and take that road to completion. One road is to for the Commission to say you want Ms. Simon to reconsider, that you don’t believe that Chapter 254 has been followed and that not all prudent and feasible alternatives have not been met. The other road is to accept Ms. Simon’s determination, even though you may not be 100% comfortable with it, and acknowledge that if it were the Commission’s decision it may be different, but recognizing it is not yours, and decide to comment on the MOA and determine what those comments will be.
Ms. Harper made a motion to comment on the draft MOA. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
The Commission reviewed the draft provided by Ms. Guy.
Mr. Hart stated that he did not feel the first two bullets in the draft letter should be included.
Ms. Bellin stated that she wants to keep them because Ms. Simon’s letter of 2/12/08 says words to the effect of the two bullets and it puts our concerns in the MOA and if they sign off on it, then they can’t wiggle out of it later. She stated that if MHC has done it, then they sign off and agreed that they have done it. If later there is concern or if they are unsure if the process was done properly, they will be very uncomfortable about putting that language in.
Mr. Hart stated that he could see where Ms. Bellin was coming from and was okay with the two bullets, but noted it doesn’t address his concerns about whether all prudent and feasible alternatives as been explored, including the roadway work, but noted in puts them in position of stating that they have explored all prudent and feasible alternatives.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to accept bullets #1 and #2. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Diozzi asked when the similar studies should be conducted.
Ms. Herbert suggested it say when the roadway changes have been completed.
Ms. Bellin noted that the Commission is suggesting one baseline and two subsequent studies.
Ms. Bellin suggested adding “or other” after “visual, audible and atmospheric” throughout the MOA so that is consistent. She suggested that the sentence be reworked to say, “Each study shall include traffic counts, atmospheric levels, audible effects and effects of vibration.”
Mr. Hart stated that he would like to request another bullet that says “the proponent shall furnish to the Salem Historical Commission the following information prior to construction - alternatives explored by the proponent with regard to the potential of adverse effects from traffic on the McIntire District”. He stated that he would further like to address Ms. Simon’s letter, although not in the MOA.
Mr. Hart stated he would like to go back to the January 30, 2008 to Carol Meeker and the letter of February 12th to Lynn Duncan, asking her to respectfully reconsider that there are specifically potential effects of construction as a result of increased traffic in the McIntire district and request that the alternatives that were explored by the proponent for traffic mitigation be submitted to the Commission. He stated that he was willing to put this into a separate letter.
Ms. Duncan stated that where there was talk about doing an additional study after the roadway changes, and suggested that the Commission may want to include something that it would be impracticable or informative because the courthouse will be under construction and the counts would be skewed. She stated that a study could be done if there is a window between the roadway changes are complete with normal traffic patterns go on, but not during the time when construction is underway and houses and the church being moved.
Ms. Bellin stated that this is where it is tricky, because it is never perfect until the project is over. She was not sure if it should wait and stated that maybe an interim study is better than nothing.
Mr. Lebovici stated that one alternative proposed was making changes to the west ramp, not putting the lights in. closing the east ramp and then doing the study. He stated that if it showed that there was adverse impact, the least disruptive and least expensive solution would be not to install the lights.
Ms. Herbert stated that she did not feel it would work with the traffic normally going down the east ramp crossing over to the West ramp and having no light to cross over oncoming traffic.
Ms. Duncan stated that she did not know if the sequence of improvements will occur where the east ramp is closed without the mitigation in place. She stated that the traffic engineers stated that it would be irresponsible to close the east ramp without any mitigation. She stated that they are not going to close the east ramps without the west ramp in place, so that opportunity does not exist. She suggested putting in that there be a study at an interim point and they will have to figure out when the best interim point is.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve bullet #3 as amended by Ms. Bellin. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve bullet #4 for “should” to be replaced with “shall” throughout the whole stipulation. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Hart made a motion to add a bullet which states “The proponent shall provide to the Salem Historical Commission the following information prior to construction: Alternatives explored by the proponent with regard to the potential of adverse effects from traffic on the McIntire Historic District.”
Ms. Herbert seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Mr. Hart and Mr. Desrocher voted in favor. Ms. Diozzi and Ms. Harper voted in opposition. The motion so carried.
Mr. Hart recommended writing a letter to Brona Simon.
Ms. Diozzi stated that that is outside the MOA.
Ms. Twohey stated that she has a letter for the Commission from Barbara Cleary of Historic Salem, Inc. which asked that language be added to Stipulation #7 which requests that DCAM not reject viable bids on the houses that require additional time for moving. Ms. Twohey also requested that the Commission consider requested a construction management plan before the start of each construction phase, which would include containment airborne particulants and dust, vehicle routing and parking and traffic management to minimize adverse effects on construction. She also requested that all the trees not be removed on the overpass and questioned what happens to those things that were part of the North Street extension that were paid for by state funds, such as historic lighting that was to be extended to Essex Street
from the bride. She requested a meeting of the interested parties to review the plans.
Ms. Duncan stated DCAM states that once they took over the North Street extra work, they now own all the other improvements that were previously agreed to be done and will be responsible for those within the limit of work.
Ms. Twohey stated that they will be requesting that it be an independent party completing the baseline and future studies, who was not involved in prior studies.
Mr. Kelleher stated that since the work is slated to start March 15th, it is unlikely they will procure a new traffic engineer since Earthtech is under contract.
Ms. Duncan stated that an independent party could be requested for the interim and future studies.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to add to letter a request that DCAM select a separate firm to conduct the interim and final impact studies. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert asked if the comments regarding the trees, etc. could be made with the 30% plans.
Ms. Duncan stated that the 30% plans are more for the building. She stated that the sooner the comments are sent in, the better, because the roadway is moving forward on a separate track.
Ms. Herbert asked when the comments on the 30% plans are due.
Ms. Duncan stated that she did not have a start clock, but has asked for something in writing and is pushing for more time, at least for this first review.
Mr. Kelleher stated that the MOA says 14 days, but noted that the MOA is no executed yet.
Ms. Duncan suggested that the Commission put together a committee to review plans prior to the next Commission meeting.
Ms. Herbert recommended that Mr. Hart and Mr. Spang be included.
Ms. Guy noted that Mr. Spang may not be able to be at the next meeting.
Ms. Zaido stated that there is a public meeting on March 10th and thought the purpose was to discuss the 30%.
Ms. Duncan stated that Joan Goody has stated that the plans are going to continue to evolve. She noted that the March 10th meeting would fall after the 14 days. She agreed it has been very unclear.
Ms. Twohey suggested DCAM provide the road documents as part of the 30% review.
Ms. Duncan stated that she believed the building and traffic improvements are being done at a different pace because it is two different firms.
Mr. Kelleher stated that the roadway plans are essentially at 100% because construction is slated to start on March 15th.
Ms. Twohey stated that on the plans she saw showed the trees that were planted on the bridge by the City are shown as being obliterated and replaced with false brick.
Mr. Kelleher stated that it was still part of MHD’s North Street project, not part of the DCAM project. The DCAM portion starts at the southern abutment of the overpass and all those trees are coming up the overpass, so it is MHD part of the project.
Ms. Twohey requested that the Commission request a construction management plan by phases, since there is no city oversight of the project, for traffic vibration, dust, etc. She stated that it has a direct impact on the McIntire Historic District and the Federal Street Historic District.
Ms. Duncan stated that she did not see the request as problematic, as the city would probably get one anyway, noting that they have a construction management firm. She noted that the city has already been thinking about issues such as parking during construction. Ms. Duncan stated that she will try to find out why the trees are not part of the North Street project.
Mr. Hart made a motion to add a bullet to the draft letter requesting a copy of the construction management phasing plan. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Hart made a motion to send a separate letter to Brona Simon requesting that “The proponent furnish to the Salem Historical Commission all alternatives that were explored during the roadway design process” and that “MHC consider potential adverse effects of increased traffic on the McIntire Historic District that would include vibration and decreased property values.” Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Mr. Hart and Mr. Desrocher voted in favor. Ms. Diozzi and Ms. Harper voted in opposition. The motion so carried.
Ms. Duncan stated that she felt DCAM will have to take comments for a few days after the public meeting on March 10th.
Courthouse – 30% Plans
Ms. Guy stated that each member was provided a copy of the 30% plans. Rather than having a subcommittee, each Commission member will provide their comments to Ms. Guy who will summarize them for the next meeting. Ms. Diozzi will drop off a copy of the plans to Mr. Spang.
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
| 
