SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
September 8, 2009
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, September 8, 2009 at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Mr. Hart, Mr. Spang and Ms. Bellin.
Ms. McCrea and Ms. Harper joined later in the meeting.
396 Essex Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, Laurie Weisman Bellin and Jeff Bellin, Julie & Stuart Brown, Sue Benedict and Daniel Leavitt presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install roof vents.
Ms. Guy read an email from Sue Benedict requesting a continuance for one month.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to continue the application to the meeting of October 7, 2009. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Bellin abstained from voting.
95 Federal Street
Mr. Hart recused himself from this agenda item and sat in the audience, noting that he received an abutter notice.
In continuation of a prior meeting, Robert & Janet Kendall, William Aydelotte, Denae Comrie and Maryellen Forster presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace 73’ of existing wooden gutter with an open aluminum gutter system.
Ms. Guy read an email from Robert Kendall requesting the application be continued to the meeting of September 16, 2009.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to continue the application to the meeting of September 16, 2009. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Hart rejoined the Commission.
Ms. McCrea joined the meeting at this time.
159 Derby Street
Paul Nathan submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the side door wooden stairs with brick and iron handrails. Distressed bricks will be used to match existing bricks. The staircase is on Kosciusko Street in the new part of the building. The front and side facing the park will not be affected. Present was Leah Toppin, representing the applicant.
Ms. Toppin provided pictures showing the measurements of the current stairs and stated that the stairs won’t be larger than what is there.
Ms. Herbert asked if the property was a condominium or single family home.
Ms. Toppin stated that it is being used as an office. She stated that other set of stairs is also brick. She provided a photo examples of what is proposed, but noted that there will be no bluestone. It will have a simple wrought iron handrail per photos.
Ms. Herbert asked if the bricks will be installed flat or on end.
Ms. Toppin replied that they would be flat.
Mr. Hart asked what is meant by distress brick.
There was no public comment.
Ms. Toppin stated that brick will match foundation and parking area, so it does not look like brand new brick, but will blend in.
Mr. Hart stated that he had no objection to new brick.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve as submitted, with option to use either new brick or brick to match the existing sidewalk. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
17 Chestnut Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, Francis Gauvin presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a gazebo.
Ms. Herbert asked if the retaining wall is in.
Mr. Gauvin replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Gauvin presented new photos and specifications. The gazebo will be made of western cedar with black asphalt roof.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Spang asked if the ground was reasonably flat.
Mr. Gauvin replied in the affirmative now that they have installed the retaining wall.
Mr. Spang if the bottom of the skirtboard will be close to the ground.
Mr. Gauvin replied in the affirmative and stated that they will place stones around as well. There may also be plantings. He stated that it will be very hard to see from Chestnut during the summer and would be somewhat visible through the trees from Cambridge.
Mr. Spang stated that the screen is a kind of modern version and normally would see the wood framing expressed on the structure. He noted that the Commission does not have jurisdiction over screens on structures.
Mr. Gauvin stated that he was previously going with custom made, but will now be going with a kit, which will have the decoration on the top.
Mr. Hart suggested that they look into a screen kit that would be interior mounted.
Mr. Gauvin stated that he would then have to go custom.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the gazebo with suggestion to investigate possibility of interior screen system. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
182 Federal Street
Alexa Ogno and Peter Parnassa of the 182 Federal Street Condo Association presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove aluminum siding from the mansard and replace with Timberline architectural shingles in charcoal color.
Ms. Ogno stated that they are not 3-tab, but are architectural, and it would match those found at 166, 153, or 110 Federal Street. She did not have a sample.
Mr. Hart commended the applicant for the aluminum siding removal. He stated that he was adamant however that 3-tab shingle be used on the mansard, noting it is extremely visible.
Ms. Diozzi stated that she was not opposed to architectural in general, but felt that this style of house has a certain formality that architectural does not go with.
Ms. McCrea was in agreement.
Ms. Herbert stated that it probably would have been fishtail slate and wondered if there could an interpretation in asphalt. She felt 3-tab would be inappropriate.
There was no public comment.
Ms. Herbert suggest continuing the application to see if a scalloped shingle is available.
Mr. Spang asked how the sides of the dormers will be treated.
Ms. Ogno stated that they will be shingled as well. She stated that it was about a 50/50 split in the neighborhood on sided or shingled dormer sides.
Mr. Spang stated that there is usually a line of flashing in the joint of the mansard and asked if she knew what would be there.
Ms. Ogno stated that she did not know.
Mr. Spang asked if there was a wood cornice.
Ms. Ogno stated that the roof line is wood and would not be touched.
Ms. Herbert stated that it may be better to do the dormer sides in wood clapboard.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue to September 16, 2009. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
24 Chestnut Street
Anthony and Stephanie Storella presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a masonry wall for landscaping purposes. The wall is free-standing blocks in granite color, 7” x 5”, 12” x 5” and 16” x 5”. All blocks are 9” deep with a 3” x 12” cap.
Ms. Herbert asked the height.
Mr. Storella stated it was about 5 blocks high.
Mr. Hart asked the material.
Mr. Storella stated that it is concrete block. He stated that they did some excavating and exposed some unfinished foundation which was pretty random. They started construction of the wall in front of it because he thought it was landscaping, but was stopped by the Building Inspector.
Mr. Hart asked when they exposed the foundation wall if it was flush with the granite.
Mr. Storella replied in the negative and stated that it was protruded stones, with some of them protruding 6-7”, which were installed at random.
Mr. Spang stated that it was under the granite foundation walls.
Mr. Storella replied in the affirmative, stating that originally the granite was from grade up to the sill, but when they dug down to level the patio, it exposed approximately 20” of random old stones. They cleaned it out and put the blocks in to make it more uniform.
Ms. Herbert asked if there will be hedging between the patio and street.
Mr. Storella replied in the affirmative and stated that 90% of the wall will not be seen. He noted that there will be a small portion visible from Hamilton Street.
Mary Murphy, 24 Chestnut Street, stated that she is the upstairs owner and has no problem with the application. She stated that it looks very nice.
Ward 3 Councillor Jean Pelletier stated that he thought it dresses up the property pretty nicely.
Ms. Bellin asked what was there before.
Mr. Storella stated that it was sloped dirt.
Mr. Spang stated that the dressed stone was exposed and the foundation stones were hidden, but when they lowered the dirt to make the patio, it exposed the old foundation stones.
Ms. Herbert stated that under the smooth granite was random rocks, which is kind of typical, unfortunately.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the wall as constructed, conditional that there be evergreen landscaping to screen the wall as much as possible (should plantings die they are to be replaced).
Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
88 Federal Street
Jackie Lander presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a black chimney cap and to repaint both front doors in the existing color. The application is also to repaint two front doors. John Lander represented the applicant. Also present was Andres Cruz, another owner in the building.
Mr. Lander stated that it will be a standard chimney cap, which will be custom made with a screen around it. The contractor’s estimate states that it is 51” x 40” x 10”. He stated that it is needed to prevent the ceiling from caving in, because water is coming through the chimney.
Mr. Hart stated that it will be a pretty substantial cap. He suggested a continuance to get a further description.
Mr. Spang suggested a photograph of another installation.
Ms. Herbert made motion to continue to September 16, 2009. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the door painting under a Certificate of Non-applicability.
Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Lander stated that they may want to replace one of the doors in kind.
Ms. Herbert made motion for the option for in kind replacement of the wooden door. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Spang stated that a typical 6 panel door from Home Depot is not going to match. He suggested being careful to get a door with equal substance.
3 Smith Street
Lorraine Cummings presented an application to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance to remove a shed attachment in the rear of 3 Smith Street.
Ms. Cummings stated that it is causing damage to the house.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the waiver. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
4 Federal Court
In continuation of a prior meeting, Michael Digris and Michele Washburn submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for roof vent installation that has already been completed. The applicant was not present.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application until the meeting of September 16, 2009. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
- Salem Mission Seeds of Hope
Ms. Diozzi recused herself from the discussion, noting that she is on the board of the Salem Theatre Company, and sat in the audience. Vice Chairman Herbert chaired this agenda item.
Mr. Hart also recused himself from the discussion and sat in the audience.
Ms. Herbert read three letters into the record:
- Salem Mission letter to the Salem Historical Commission;
- Rosalie N. Young letter to the Salem Historical Commission; and
- Historic Salem, Inc. (HSI) letter to Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC).
Ms. Herbert read the Commission’s draft letter to MHC.
Councillor Pelletier stated there is a unique opportunity to save this building. He stated that it was a historic and beautiful building built by Italian immigrants and that they put their heart and soul into building the church. He stated that he felt to ruin it would be devastating. He did not support the construction of the twenty units and felt the affordable housing could be put elsewhere in the city. He stated that the neighbors do not want a big campus. He stated that he supported the arts center use. He was in support of the Commission’s letter to MHC. Councillor Pelletier stated that at a recent Endicott Street Neighborhood Association meeting, most people were not interested receiving the windows, because they felt the windows should stay in place
and would not know what to do with them.
John Carr, 7 River Street, stated that he supported the Commission’s letter. He stated that the “may” be eligible for the National Register should be changed to “definitely is” eligible. He stated that it is an inescapable conclusion that removal of the windows will have an adverse effect on the historical integrity of the church. The windows are important in situ, not in a museum archives. He noted that the Commission has heard from Historic Salem, Inc. and from Dean and Betsy Lahikainen through letters. He stated that while Dean Lahikainen did not write in his official capacity as the Peter and Carolyn Lynch Curator of American Decorative Art at the Peabody Essex Museum, he certainly, when at arriving at his characterization of the importance
of the building, did not leave his expertise at the door when signing his name. He noted that the building has its greatest appeal as a community resource and felt that what was so invasive for the church is to try to shoehorn in 20 units into a building that was never designed for 20 apartments. He stated no one is opposed to the Mission and that there is an opportunity for a win-win - to remove the eyesore that is the 50’s building, still accomplish their programmatic needs and still have community space. He stated that this is an opportunity for everyone to come together. It is an important building and removal of the windows would be a substantial adverse effect and it need not come to this and could remain as a glorious public space. He noted that at St. Patrick’s church in Cambridge, where most of the stained glass windows have been removed, it feels like they tore the soul of the building out. He stated that
only the original rose window above the front door remains, along with a 2 small rectangular windows. He felt that until all possible alternatives have been genuinely explored, it should be opposed.
Mr. Oliver stated that there was no plan for building above the youth center that was adopted by the Board. He noted that they did look at preliminary sketches from Winter Street Architects, but the only plan adopted by the board has been for within the church.
Councillor Joan Lovely stated that she went to the City Clerk’s office to research past meetings. There was one in 2003 and one in 2004, attended by about 100 neighbors per meeting, around the time the Mission was thinking of moving their operation from Crombie Street. She stated that she listened to the meetings today and stated that the 2003 meeting was about the move itself and in 2004 repeated that meeting and people wanted to know what would happen as a result of the move. She submitted a letter to the Commission and paraphrased some of what was in this letter. She stated that she had a letter from Linda Riley, then Executive Director, which she said the church would not be touched and that it would remain a church with church services and could also be used for
community uses, concerts, community space and community events and that the Mission would encourage that type of use. In 2005, a Task Force on Homelessness was starting to be formed, and the meeting minutes showed that the Mission stated that there would be no changes to the church building and the edifices. She stated that she will be sponsoring a resolution to the City Council. She stated that promises have been made by the Mission that the church would not become housing, but would be remain open to the public as some type of community space.
Eric Rumpf, Rumpf & Associates, stated that his experience is that converting an assembly purpose building into residential building has by definition some added difficulties in making that building adapted externally and still comply with historic requirements. He stated that the fenestration would have to change even beyond the stained glass windows, but noted when you work with that type of project, the conformance with historic regulations through technical preservation services, they throw things out immediately as soon as you start to depart from the original fenestration, which is a consideration from a construction standpoint. He stated that the conversion of the other building into housing seems a no brainer with a broad brush quick look. He noted that certainly some
structural reinforcement would be required, but it would be an easier conversion and an added benefit of appearance. He added that the whole area was decimated by forms of urban renewal and that the effects of not having historic considerations is how we ended up with Riley Plaza, which looks like a bomb went off. He stated that it would be a real mistake to loose the character that came from 1920s. He offered to look at drawings.
Anna Delamonica stated that she went to a meeting in 2008 at the Salem Police Station and at that time Father Delaney was there. She stated that nobody ever talked about the church and so she asked about if they were planning to do anything to the church. She stated that nobody answered her. She stated that one year later, they have another meeting and show blueprints of what they were going to do to the church. She stated that the church is a beautiful place of art. She questioned what would happen to all the hand painted art work and the Italian marble. She stated that it is not just the windows and felt it was not just a church, but an arts center. She questioned taking $3 million of tax payers money to destroy art.
Marybeth Bainbridge, 7 Prescott Street, submitted a copy of a letter being sent to MHC with 39 signatories expressing concern over the Mission’s proposal for the church.
Jeff Cox, 58 Endicott Street, co-chair of the greater Endicott Street Neighborhood Association, stated that they are not against the building of additional supportive housing. He stated that he believed the youth center building can be a better environmental building to build on, will not effect historic conditions, and might be cheaper for the Mission. He noted that people in the neighborhood are concerned that the church is the start of the expansion and then in a couple years from now it will be more built on the youth center and then a few years later will be to build out the grotto. He asked for the Mission’s strategic plan for the maximum amount of supportive housing units that they want to build long term.
Andrew Oliver of the Salem Mission stated that he would be happy to have that private conversation in a more appropriate forum.
Mr. Cox stated he would be happy to have that private conversation, but is asking for a short answer in this public forum, because people in the neighborhood believe it will effect the historical nature of the building
Mr. Oliver stated that there has been no discussion of a long term plan for expansion.
Ms. Herbert stated that at the last meeting Mr. Oliver explained that it was very important to have this component of permanent housing on campus so that all the activities are in one place and asked if they would be satisfied with 20 permanent units when there are 200 odd homeless.
Mark Cote, Executive Director, stated there was no plan for the church when he got there in 2006 and that it was some time in 2008, the plans were discussed and developed for the church. There is no plan currently past the 20 units in the church. He stated that the national model for addressing homelessness requires on-site supportive services with the housing, so that people who become dependent do not cycle back to homelessness. There is countless years of experience knowing that when you house people en mass without supportive services, they become ghettos, neighborhoods fall apart and people cycle through alcoholism, addiction, mental health issues, etc.. He noted that this model with supportive services on site is incredible successful and that in the last year his team, who
are professional clinicians, psychiatrists and nurses, have moved over 70 people from shelter into permanent housing, which is a remarkable number. He stated that it is impossible to close the Mission center while construction is underway because of the 8-9000 meals per month that they serve. He stated that putting services in church during youth center construction is not realistic. They have 20 staff, two nurses, a psychiatrist, case manager and all kinds of supportive services offered in the mission building and with the thrift store in the basement of the church, there is no room to do any of that.
Ms. Herbert asked the approximate annual income of the thrift shop.
Mr. Cote stated that it varies, but is approximately $130,000.
Ms. Herbert asked if it was an important income stream.
Mr. Cote replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Herbert asked what would happen to the thrift store and its income stream during construction.
Mr. Cote stated that they would relocate it prior and are currently looking at locations.
Ms. Herbert stated that MHC cannot torpedo a project if they don’t like it. She stated that they will listen to comments they have received and if they determine that there are alternative ways to achieve the goal without destroying a historic building, they are going to request that you investigate that and satisfy them that you have thoroughly investigated it, which may mean budgets and engineering reports that prove that these other alternatives are not feasible. She stated on August 20h, Mr. Oliver was very kind to spend 3 hours with her and gave her a tour of the Mission campus and she was very impressed with the operation. She stated that in the church renovation a certain number of units would be on the ground level and the rest would be on the actual church
floor with lofted bedrooms. She stated that she felt as learned from the telephone building, that lofted bedroom spaces are ineffective and unsalable and made her question if this is the best plan. She stated that she felt there needs to be a lot more done in terms of investigating other alternatives. She stated it seems that this has been very quickly shoe-horned.
Joe Cultrera , 7 Prescott Street, thanked the Commission for the letter they have drafted.
Mark Meche, Winter Street Architects, stated that the Commission’s letter seems to equate the cost of the two sites. He noted that dollars per unit will be 2-3 times as expensive in the youth center due to the number of units that can be built over the youth center.
Ms. Herbert stated that 8-10 units could be put on one floor in the youth center, versus 20 in the church, and stated that maybe there needs to be 2 floors added onto the youth center, which can be handled through variances.
Matt Caruso, who is also involved in the idea of the arts center asked if the frescos and art work is of concern of the Commission and noted it was not mentioned in the Commission’s letter.
Mr. Herbert stated that the mandate of the Commission is for the exterior of buildings only.
Mr. Cultrera stated that the items outlined in Mr. Oliver’s letter as objections to building over the youth center would also to apply to the church.
Ms. Herbert agreed that the whole list of things would have to be done to either building and that is why more definitive research needs to be done.
Councillor Pelletier asked if MHC has the ability for the interior.
Emily Udy, Historic Salem, Inc., stated that she believed that MHC can only put a preservation restriction on the interior if the property is moving from state to private ownership, but they cannot place an easement for private remaining private.
Councilor Steven Pinto thanked the Commission for their time and effort.
Mr. Spang provided two edits – adding the word “substantial” before “adverse impact” on the first page and changing wording on the second page to say that the “Mission initially considered construction of an additional floor”.
Ms. Bellin suggested changing “may” be eligible to “likely” be eligible.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to send letter as amended. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Diozzi and Mr. Hart rejoined the meeting.
Ms. Harper joined the meeting.
Ms. Guy stated that she received an invitation to comment on the wireless facility proposed for 217-219 Essex Street from Environmental Resources Management.
Ms. Herbert stated that the owners of these properties are getting revenue for these facilities on these buildings and wondered if the City gets any part of it and felt the city should.
Ms. McCrea suggested a processing fee.
Ms. Bellin would like photographs and elevations from the street level.
Mr. Hart stated that he would like a roof plan and wide angle photograph of the building.
Ms. Bellin motion to send a response letter requesting street elevations, a roof plan, and a wide angle photograph of the building. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy read a letter dated 8/27/09 from MHC to Camp Dresser & McKee regarding Furlong Park improvements finding the project is unlikely to affect significant historic or archaeological resources.
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission got a response letter dated 8/31/09 from MassHighway concerning the bike path which she emailed to the Commission.
Ms. Guy stated that when the Commission prepared comment for Bridge Street project 75% phase, the Commission had not yet received a formal letter requesting comment. She provided a copy of MassHighway’s letter dated 8/18/09 to MHC. Ms. Guy stated that if the Commission has additional comments, they could be forwarded.
There being no further business, Ms. Bellin made a motion to adjourn. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission
| 
