SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
MARCH 19, 2008
NOTE: The original digital version of these minutes was lost on the city server. Items 1-3 have been recreated from the agendas or applications received and certificates issued. Item 4 was recreated from the meeting tape.
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, March 19, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Harper, Mr. Desrocher, Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, and Mr. Hart (as determined by a review of the tape of Item 4).
1. 143 Federal Street
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. Mullions and glass panes will mimic the current facade. The difference will be function.
In an email dated 2/8/08, the applicant revised their proposal to, instead of replacing the French doors, to build up the space and hang double hung windows instead, to make the front façade symmetrical. They would also replace old, rotted clapboards, sills, etc. The third French door which faces the backyard and cannot be seen from the street will be replaced with another French door which mimics the current setup.
Following discussion, a motion was made and seconded to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness to Replace two French door windows on front façade with two double hung, 6 over 6, true divided light, wood, single glaze windows to match the remaining windows on the house, including sill and head heights, profile and trim. Remaining area to be in-filled with clapboards to match existing. The motion so carried.
Following discussion, a motion was made and seconded to issue a Certificate of Non-applicability to replace French door on rear façade with triple hung window, conditional that the window is not visible from the public way. The motion so carried.
2. 143 Canal Street
Snakebite Realty LLC submitted an application for Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance to demolish the 22’ x 80’ extension on the front of the building, the loading docks and canopy on the right front side, the one story wood building on the left front side and the rail care/loading area on the rear of the building. Photographs and drawings were provided, including an existing conditions plan, demolition plan, proposed footprint and parking scheme and proposed floor plan.
An e-mail was read into the record from City Councillor Jean Pelletier concerning encroachment of the property on MBTA land and the city’s proposed bike path.
Following discussion, a motion was made and seconded to issue a Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance to demolish the 22’ x 80’ extension on the front of the building, the loading docks and canopy on the right front side, the one story wood building on the left front side and the rail car/loading area on the rear of the building. The motion so carried.
3. 60 Grove Street
MBM Project Management submitted an application for Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance for demolition of a single story building at the end of the 2-story warehouse.
Following discussion, a motion was made and seconded to issue a Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance to demolish the single story tank building at end of the 2 story warehouse. The motion so carried.
- J. Michael Ruane Judicial Center – Memorandum of Agreement
Ms. Guy stated that she received a copy of the final MOA. She stated that the Commission will need to vote on whether or not to sign it.
Mr. Hart stated that he read the letter from Brona Simon to Carol Meeker.
Ms. Guy stated that when DCAM gets the original from MHC, they will sign it and send it to the City and the City will arrange for the other signatories.
Mr. Hart stated that he was concerned that the Commission sent Ms. Simon a letter asking a bunch of questions and that her letter to Ms. Meeker states that MHC has taken into account written comments received in December, 2007 and January, 2008. He asked when the Commission sent the letter to MHC.
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission’s letter was sent on February 21, 2008.
Mr. Hart stated that he had a problem with that and noted that the letter states that MHC is not seeking additional comments on the MOA. He stated that it looks like Ms. Simon totally ignored what the Commission said.
Ms. Bellin stated that comparing it to the fifth draft, it appears that some additions and deletions in the fifth draft have not been carried over to this draft.
Ms. Guy noted that some of the paragraphs have been combined. Ms. Guy stated that the Commission does not have to vote tonight and can vote at the next meeting.
Mr. Hart stated that Ms. Simon never responded to the comments on potential adverse effect of traffic which everyone has been concerned about.
Ms. Guy noted that MHC did not even change the “should's to “shall's.
Ms. Bellin asked if the draft was coming from DCAM.
Ms. Guy replied in the negative and stated that MHC takes all the comments and then makes whatever changes they choose to make.
Mr. Hart stated that it is an MOA between DCAM and MHC.
Ms. Guy stated that Lynn talked to DCAM and they gave to April 3rd, in order for the Commission to hold its meeting on April 2nd. She believed the original with DCAM’s signature should arrive some time this week.
Mr. Hart made a motion to table discussion until the April 2nd meeting. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Darrow Lebovici, 120 Federal Street, stated that he was speaking on behalf of two interested parties, Historic Salem, Inc. and the Federal Street Neighborhood Association. He noted that the received the documents today and that their comments were based on a not an awful lot of time. He stated that it appears that the last whereas clause precludes the need for additional public meetings and suggested referring it to legal counsel. He added that the appropriate expression on the signatory page, would be “acknowledgement” rather than “concurrence” as it currently appears on the MOA.
Ms. Guy stated that MHC was asked about that early in the process, and we were told it is the way they have been doing it for years and years.
Ms. Lebovici suggested that the question be asked to legal counsel rather than MHC.
Emily Udy, Historic Salem, Inc., stated that the concern is that the interested parties are being counted as the public and that they would not have an open public meeting. She preferred the wording be clear that the public is included.
Mr. Lebovici stated that there is a stipulation being made that all of the appropriate consultation as required by law has been done and the claim is maybe it hasn’t.
Ms. Herbert stated that the MOA states that DCAM shall “solicit comments at the 30, 60 and 90 percent design stages or their equivalent”. She stated that it could be interpreted as public meetings, but may need to be clarified.
Mr. Lebovici stated that they cannot ask the interested parties to stand in place of public.
Ms. Guy questioned if they are required to do a public meeting at 60% and 90%, noting that they had a public meeting at 30% last week.
Mr. Lebovici questioned if they ever designated it by appropriate transmittal as a 30% design review.
Ms. Bellin did not feel the public was being excluded in the whereas clause and did not feel it was saying anything other than what the regulations allow. She felt it was clear they have held all the meetings they are going to have pursuant to the regulations.
Ms. Udy asked if the average person could submit a comment to DCAM on the design.
Ms. Guy replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Udy asked if the 60% would be provided to the public to comment on.
Ms. Guy stated that if the City got a copy, it would be made available.
Ms. Harper stated that the Historical Commission also discusses the design at its public meetings and that is another venue for the public to comment.
Ms. Bellin did not know if the statute requires public comment at 60% and 90%. She stated that public hearing was all about the adverse effect which then lead to the MOA. She stated that now that the MOA is being finalized it is all done. She was not sure if the statute requires additional public participation during the actual project stage.
Mr. Hart suggested asking the City Solicitor to research that.
Mr. Lebovici felt the nature of their concern is 1) on a $106 million dollar project that at a minimum will effect 6 historic properties and a national register district, that all appropriate public input should be taken and we ask that this question be viewed by someone competent to do so and 2) the manner in which the Commission expresses its reaction to the document.
Mr. Bellin questioned if we could change the signature to “acknowledged”, other than sending a message that we don’t really concur, does it really make that much of a difference.
Mr. Lebovici stated that there has been a degree of consequential response that DCAM and their affiliates have made for over a year to requests for information and that their answers have either been nothing, silence, content free assertions with no demonstration, where he knows there have been made very specific references and concerns to things that have been contradictions and mistakes for which we have asked for explanations. He stated I assert does not mean I approve. He stated that the Commission might wish to acknowledge that it has received it, but might wish to express that you don’t necessarily agree with all of it. He stated that this is his layman’s interpretation of why there might be a significant difference there.
Ms. Herbert stated that what she finds most troubling is that there is this huge, ugly monolith and questioned what can be done.
Mr. Lebovici stated that they were told in a meeting in the Mayor’s office is that the reason that there could be no slip ramp is because the height of the building (which was at that point 80’ on the Bridge Street side and approximately 56’ Federal Street) was big enough and if they were unable to take the area occupied by the ramp, then the footprint of the building would be constrained, so the building would have to be over 90’. He noted that they took the ramp and it is now 107’ on Bridge Street and approximately 93’ on Federal Street. He stated that they showed us alternatives A, B and C and picked one of them for reasons that they never made clear any factual basis for and then the next time around we got alternative D without any orderly change process that required
them to justify the change from A, B or C to D and now all of a sudden it goes form 80’ to 107’.
Ms. Herbert asked if it would be possible to have a meeting with Joan Goody to discuss the concerns about the building.
Mr. Hart agreed and suggested it also include Richard L’Heureux and Gail Rosenberg. He suggested having a special meeting.
Ms. Bellin asked what we would accomplish, after having been to many meetings including last Monday.
Ms. Herbert stated that in a big group like with the public, it is easy for them to fend off.
Ms. Guy stated that this would have to be a public meeting, too.
Ms. Diozzi noted that comment came in after Monday’s meeting and we don’t know how that has been received. She noted the Mayor does not love the building and noted that she received a copy of the Mayor’s comment letter by mail.
Ms. Bellin stated that the Mayor’s letter was pretty strong, that she knows the Mayor is very much in favor of the project, but that a lot of what she stated in her letter is what we are saying.
Ms. Guy noted that Federal Street Neighborhood Association and Historic Salem, Inc. have also sent comment letters.
Ms. Diozzi stated that these letters have all been very good, thoughtful letters, not knee-jerk reaction.
Ms. Harper stated that there were a number of people who spoke at the meeting that had good comments.
Ms. Herbert stated that it needs to be redesigned now and questioned what muscle we have.
Ms. Bellin liked the idea of having a meeting of them to really ask them to explain. She stated that we have conveyed whatever we can. She suggested inviting the Mayor to the meeting.
Mr. Lebovici stated that this project has been going on for a long time, and if you go back there was a 190,000 square foot program with a slip ramp, and choices of whether the houses were there or not, and reuse of buildings. This was a set of plans (after 9/11/01), where you might prefer one or the other, that he believed most of the interested parties, including HSI and Federal Street, were pretty enthusiastically engaged and supported. He stated that if you look at it over time, what you see is a degradation of design and materials and every impact that we as a community care about, whether it is traffic, impact on historic resources, etc. and there is no justification along the way why this is happening. He stated that at the public meeting on March 10th, someone specifically asked why
the building got higher and Joan Goody stated it had not. He stated that it is not true and questioned on what basis they made it.
Mr. Hart stated that the vehicle we may want to pursue is the City Planner to request a meeting through DCAM with the interested parties, the architect and maybe Massachusetts Historical Commission.
Ms. Guy stated that if there were a meeting at DCAM with representatives of the interested parties, it would not have to be a public meeting.
Ms. Herbert questioned if there was a huge storage element in the building and stated that we need to know that to determine if the building has to be that big and that shape.
Mr. Lebovici stated that starting in January of 2007 which was the public meeting that took place in the course of the MEPA process, a number of people asked what is the program and what is the plan that maps that set of requirements in the program to the specific elements in the building, so that one can inspect that and see if there are ancillary functions that could be put other locations such as the County Commissioner’s building or a cheap building on Route 128. He stated that we have never gotten that.
Ms. Herbert stated that we are loosing the slip ramp and have a terrible pedestrian walkway to the train. She stated that if we have to live with those things, at least we could get a good looking building. We are getting a really terrible looking building to boot. She asked if the architect could be changed at this point.
Ms. Guy noted that they are under contract.
Mr. Hart stated that it happened in Newburyport.
Ms. Herbert stated that Joan Goody obviously doesn’t get it. They are imposing on a very small spot, in a very historic area, next to very historic buildings, this huge monolith that’s supposed to serve all kinds of purposes, but it is way too big and way too inappropriate for where they want to put it. She stated that it has kind of evolved and that a year ago we did not know it was going to be like this. She noted that now that we see how horrific this is, something has got to be done.
Mr. Lebovici stated that it is also getting worse. He stated that the early entrance pavilion was smaller.
Ms. Bellin stated that the admitted that the columns were reduced for cost.
Mr. Lebovici stated that the building also keeps getting bigger and questioned why.
Ms. Diozzi stated that in the early design, the building was nicely broken up and looked like two buildings with nice rooflines.
Ms. Herbert stated that the mechanicals on the top were kind of square off before.
Ms. Bellin asked if the buildings could be shifted over.
Mr. Lebovici stated that we don’t know because we haven’t seen the program that says what’s in there and the plan that says where it is going. He stated that there is foul up and there is conspiracy, so take your choice, but the fact is that at a previous public meeting someone raised the questioned why the two parts of the building have to be so far apart and were told they have to get a 40’ trailer in and it has to be able to turn around. He stated that one of the people there asked why 40’ trailers were needed and the answer was we have a maintenance facility and a storage facility because we are storing supplies for distribution to all the courthouses in the area. It has recently been brought up again, where they say it is now really very small and insignificant.
He stated that it turns out that the sally port has been moved around, so now you need bigger trucks. He stated that it is possible that that is a legitimate response to a design problem that they discovered en route, or it is possible that it is the way they want it and they are going to keep on finding new reasons to make it that way. He stated that until we can establish a base line that says here is the program and here is the plan that is subject to transparent inspection, we don’t know those answers.
Mr. Hart suggested moving through the channels with the City Planner and Mayor by asking Ms. Guy to ask the City Planner to express the discontent with the design to the Mayor and to indicate we would like a meeting asap.
Ms. Harper stated it would be interested to know what exactly the Mayor is planning as a follow-up to her letter and how fast.
Ms. Diozzi stated that she is a tenacious sort.
Ms. Bellin stated that she’s not going to be pleased if she sent this letter and they are just like, “yeah, okay”.
Mr. Hart stated that the Planner talks to the Mayor and the Mayor talks to John Keenan and that he felt that we want to go up to the top level and get some reaction. He stated that we should try to get a meeting real quick.
Ms. Bellin also would like the City Solicitor to answer the questions, particularly about the signing of the MOA.
Mr. Lebovici stated that the a quote from Polly Wilbert at the public meeting was that “the building looks like the box the church came in.”
There being no further business, Ms. Bellin 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
| 
