SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
August 19, 2009
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, August 19, 2009 at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Mr. Hart, Mr. Spang and Ms. Bellin. Ms. McCrea and Mr. Desrocher joined later in the meeting.
396 Essex Street
Ms. Guy noted that at the last meeting, the Commission continued this application to the meeting of September 2, 2009, that the application was placed on the August 19, 2009 in error and that the Commission does not need to take any action.
4 Federal Court
Michael Digris and Michele Washburn submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for roof vent installation that has already been completed.
Ms. Diozzi read a letter received from Jean Arlander, 93 Federal St., in favor of the application.
Mr. Digris stated that the vent was installed due to a misunderstanding with the HVAC contractor and that the Commission actually learned of it before he did. It is paintable plastic, which they painted to match the roof.
Ms. Herbert asked if the vent was attached to the HVAC or is needed just to vent the roof.
Mr. Digris stated that it part of the HVAC equipment.
Ms. Herbert asked if moving it to the other side of the chimney would mean ripping out the celing, etc.
Mr. Digris replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Herbert asked if the contractor got a permit from the Building Inspector.
Mr. Digris replied in the affirmative and noted that the Building Inspector has been on site because a permit was needed to dig a ditch for the compressor.
Ms. Herbert asked if the contractor indicated the cost to move it to a less visible place, i.e. behind the chimney or just on the other side of the ridge.
Mr. Digris replied in the negative.
Mr. Hart stated that he understands that the owner went to great lengths to disguise the compressor and pipes, but that it should also have been applied for.
Mr. Digris stated that he did not think he needed to apply for the compressor. He stated that it is not visible.
Ms. McCrea joined the meeting at this time.
Mr. Hart stated that it should still be applied for under Non-applicability.
Mr. Hart suggested that in the future Ms. Guy be contacted prior to undertaking work to determine what requires a Certificate.
Ms. Herbert stated that she felt what was done to conceal the compressor is perfectly fine. She stated that she would like the owner to get an estimate on the cost from the contractor to move the vent and continue to the next meeting. She stated that if it is an inordinate amount of money, it could be considered under hardship. She suggested it be on the other side of the ridge or just behind the chimney.
Mr. Digris stated that he felt it would be just as visible on the other side.
Mr. Spang asked how much of the attic is inhabited.
Mr. Digris replied that it is roughly half.
Mr. Hart stated that if it is connected to the a/c unit in the attic, the question is whether it can be moved.
Ms. Herbert stated that she would like the owner to at least go through the exercise of exploring the feasibility and cost.
Mr. Desrocher joined the meeting.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Spang suggested putting the cost onto the contractor.
Mr. Hart made a motion to continue the application. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
123 Federal Street
Sharon Maguire submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to move a fence section in order to accommodate an elderly driver. The work has already been completed. Representing the applicant was James Maguire.
Mr. Maguire stated that his 94 year old father-in-law kept hitting it, so he detached it and moved it over temporarily. He stated that it will be put back when his father-in-law stops driving.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-applicability for temporary relocation of the fence section for one year. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
95 Federal Street
Mr. Hart recused himself from this agenda item and sat in the audience, noting that he received an abutter notice.
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. Ed Burge of A& A Services was also present.
Mr. Burge stated that at Unit #2 there is an old wooden gutter is letting water cascade down the side of the house, hitting the masonry and washing out the walkway. He stated that the wood gutters are very shallow. They want to replace the gutter, put up new wood fascia and new seamless aluminum gutter, install new downspouts, all painted the trim color.
Mr. Desrocher asked if there were any other aluminum gutters on the house.
Mr. Burge did not know the answer, but noted that the condo association is on board with it. He noted that the fascia in the soffit area is deteriorated as well.
Ms. Herbert stated that there is a very defined peak in the front of the house hidden by the tree in the picture and that the gutter connects to the molding at that point. She stated that one half of the front of the house would have a different profile from the other. She noted that she renovated the house and lived there for 14 years and was mystified as to what is different and causing the problem. She stated that the gutter replacement from wood to aluminum and the profile is a major change to the house.
Ms. Bellin suggested suspending the discussion until the owner arrives.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to suspend the application to later in the meeting. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Hart rejoined the Commission.
47 Washington Square North
Barbara Swartz presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install two visible concentric exhausts on the peak of the roof. One for HVAC is shown on pictures now. The other is a future vent for tankless hot water heating with the vent being of the same size and relative location. Steve Swartz, general contractor and brother was also present.
Mr. Swartz stated that it was determined impossible to hide one exhaust vent behind dormer as previously approved under non-applicability. This side was chosen because it is least visible side. The vent is 4” in diameter and concentric. They are seeking approval of one that they installed and for one new one for a total of two vents. He noted that the higher the efficiency, the smaller the equipment can be. The second vent will need to be approximately 4 feet away from the existing. Both will be painted flat black.
Mr. Hart stated that it was minimal impact.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve one installed and a second unit that will be approximately 4’ down the ridgeline and away from the street.
Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
95 Federal St (resumed discussion)
Mr. Hart recused himself.
Mr. Kendall and Mr. Aydelotte joined the meeting.
Ms. Herbert stated that she was concerned about having two different profiles on the front of the house – one gutter profile in aluminum and another profile in wood, facing each other.
Mr. Aydelotte stated that the only area of water problems is the left front corner, but did not think there was any way to do it without doing the rest of the gutter on that side. He stated that the gutter would be painted the same.
Mr. Burge stated that it would be larger than existing in interior depth and the exterior would be 4” high on the back and 5” wide from back to front lip. He stated that without yearly maintenance, wood gutters don’t work properly and that there are usually problems with the gooseneck downspout, where a few small leaves and needles can clog it. The new gooseneck will be 2-3 times the size of the existing. Total gutter replacement is about 73’.
Mr. Spang asked how many downspouts are to be replaced.
Mr. Burge stated that there are three.
Mr. Aydelott stated that there are heat wires in the gutter which solved major ice dam problems and they further restrict access into the downspout. The water is falling down the sidewalks and creating ice sheets where people walk, washing away the filler between the bricks, killing some of the plants and washing away soil in the front planting area.
John Carr, 7 River Street, stated that he served on the Commission when Ms. Herbert renovated the building in the 1980s and did an unbelievable job in bringing the building back to life. He stated that the balustrade was sort of demolished by neglect and there has been a chipping away of that work. He stated that one side in aluminum and one in wood on the principal façade does not make sense. He suggested that wood be used and wondered if there was something that could be done to the base, such as stone or internal irrigation.
Mr. Aydelott stated that the other gutters on the house are working alright, but that this left front corner has been a problem since he moved there. He stated that it is mainly a capacity issue and every year they try something to try to solve the problem.
Mr. Spang asked if the wood gutter on the bay window will be changed.
Mr. Burge replied in the negative, noting it is a smaller roof with less water.
Mr. Kendall stated that the porch over the steps has a wood gutter and is another problem.
Mr. Spang asked if Ms. Herbert would be more sympathetic if the other side were also replaced in aluminum.
Ms. Herbert stated that it would be interesting to find out the cost for a larger size wood gutter.
Mr. Burge stated that his company does not install wood, because they are inefficient and are not low maintenance product. He noted that the cost is probably comparable, but it is more maintenance because it has to be oiled every year and the seams need to be tarred, leaded and tacked. With a larger wooden gutter, he did not think they could find a large enough goose neck for what this house needs.
Ms. Herbert suggested fabricating 3 lead downspouts.
Mr. Burge stated that his firm could not be involved in the project if going with wood.
Mr. Aydelott stated that he has heard that most companies will not do wood and after many phones, they have had a major problem getting contractors to come.
Mr. Burge stated that the height of the building is also a concern, as well as the width of the soffit areas. There is a degree of difficulty because you are far away from the body of the home.
Ms. Herbert asked if there was more problems with water washing over the gutters after the wires were put in.
Mr. Kendall replied in the negative.
Ms. Herbert agreed there has always been an icing problem because the sun does not stay on that section of the house long enough, but noted there was never an overwash problem.
Mr. Desrocher asked how long the gutters have been on the building.
Ms. Herbert stated the gutters were put on in 1984 and that she got them from Canada. She did not think they were oiled after 1998 and until roughly 2003. She stated that she would like to see at least the wood gutter remain on the front to match the other side. She said the question is whether they can connect that and make it look decent with aluminum running down the side. She noted that the wood gutter as it meets the peak is cut to fit and is wood to wood. She wondered how it would look with both sides in aluminum, noting it will need end caps.
Mr. Burge stated that they would cut it at an angle and use coil stock and trace it to whatever degree of angle it is and it is all sealed. Then they take the lead that is original to the pediment and flap it inside and make sure it is flashed correctly, so it will lap over and actually will look really nice and look like crown molding. He noted that paint sticks to aluminum for 30 years. Maryellen Forster stated that she moved to the property in 2000 and that the wood gutters were replaced in 2002 or 2003 and that they have been meticulous in maintaining them. She stated that the problem has been the same as it was in 2000.
Ms. Herbert asked if they are cedar.
Ms. Forster stated that she believed so, but was not sure.
Ms. Herbert asked if the same size wood gutters were installed, noting that the gutters she installed were huge.
Mr. Burge stated that the gutters on there now are standard size.
Ms. Herbert stated that the same material should be on both sides.
Ms. Bellin agreed that both should be the same, whether both wood or both aluminum. She suggested wood be explored, both standard and a larger option.
Ms. Diozzi was in agreement.
Mr. Burge stated that a larger size wood gutter would be more expensive.
Mr. Kendall stated that he would want any wood gutter system to have the same water caring capacity as what is proposed in aluminum.
Mr. Burge noted that dead end wood gutter with a lead cap leaks like a sieve. He added that It would leak if spliced.
Ms. Herbert stated that she would like to see how the aluminum would meet the front peak and would like to see a picture of a similar installation.
Mr. Burge believed there is a similar situation with a pediment at 10 Pearl Street in Beverly. He stated that doesn’t have an open gutter.
Mr. Desrocher suggested a continuation and that the contractor provide photographs and/or diagram.
Mr. Spang made a motion to continue.
Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert suggested also looking into profiles available.
Mr. Desrocher stated that maybe installing a larger gutter in wood in that section only would be cheaper than the whole thing in aluminum.
Mr. Spang suggested adding more downspouts.
Mr. Hart rejoined the Commission.
17 Chestnut Street
Francis Gauvin presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to repair the roof on top of the front door. The roof is currently tin and will be either tin or copper.
Mr. Gauvin stated that there are actually two roofs.
Mr. Hart asked if it was low slope.
Mr. Gauvin replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Spang stated that it laps over the edge by a smidgen.
Mr. Gauvin stated that they would paint if tin, but not if copper.
Mr. Hart stated that terne metal will not last as long as copper.
Mr. Hart made a motion for a Certificate of Appropriateness for replacement of the roof in terne metal unpainted or unpainted copper. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
The owners also submitted was an application for a gazebo and retaining wall. The wall is going to be approximately 27’ long by 20” high, situated in the back with a very limited view from the street. Flat New England stone will be used. The gazebo will be 10’ x 12’ painted white with cedar roof or black asphalt, per picture submitted, except without Victorian style curvy wood around corners. A 24” high board with molding will be added at the bottom of each panel. The platform edge will be wrapped with Azek 1x6. Pictures, including door, door hardware and screen hardware, and a site sketch were provided.
Mr. Gauvin stated that the gazebo will not be completely visible.
Ms. Herbert asked when they will install.
Mr. Gauvin stated that it will be done immediately.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Gauvin stated that Azek will be along the side of the platform.
Mr. Spang asked if the gazebo will be custom made.
Mr. Gauvin replied in the affirmative. He stated that the wall will be 18-20” high and will be dry stone with no cement.
Ms. Herbert asked if there could be a picture of the wall for the next meeting to show what the finished product will look like.
Mr. Spang stated that he would also like to see a drawing of the gazebo. He noted that the rake of the roof looks more contemporary than a historic gazebo. He suggested delegating the approval of the stone to a commission member.
Mr. Gauvin stated that the wall will not have a cap on it. He stated that the wall will be approximately 100’ from the street. He stated that he would not hire an architect for the gazebo.
Mr. Hart stated that it would be helpful to see a few stones or a mark-up.
Mr. Desrocher offered to be delegated.
Mr. Spang made a motion to approve the application as submitted, conditional that Mr. Desrocher be delegated to review a picture of a similar installation and/or some stones prior.
Mr. Gauvin noted that they may include an S curve in the wall.
Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Desrocher stated that he will also look at the visibility of the gazebo.
Mr. Hart made motion continue gazebo to next meeting.
Ms. Herbert suggested a simple sketch with dimensions and materials.
Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
329 Essex Street
Dorothy and Eric Hayes presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors, rear entry stair railing alteration and snow guard installation. The paint color for the body and trim will be a custom match of Farrow & Ball’s London Stone in California Paint acrylic satin gloss. The owners wish to have the option to use plain round balusters instead of the previously approved square balusters on the stair railings. The snow guard will be a reproduction of the original snow guards in either cast iron or cast bronze instead of the approved bronze rail system as an option. William Finch was also present, representing the applicant.
John Carr, 7 River Street, disclosed that Ms. Hayes is a client of his, and stated that it looks terrific.
Mr. Spang made a motion to approve the paint color as submitted.
Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Finch stated that the owners would like the option for round balusters.
Ms. Herbert stated that she felt that round would actually be more appropriate.
Mr. Carr was in agreement.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve round in place of square balusters on the stair railings. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Carr stated that he was in favor of the proposed snow guard.
Mr. Finch stated that the snow guard will most likely be cast iron, painted black.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the snow guard as submitted. 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. The applicants were not present.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to the next meeting.
Ms. McCrea 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 disclosed that he has been approached by Salem Sounds to design an arts center. He noted that he has not been engaged by them, but is in negotiations. He recused himself from the discussion and sat in the audience.
Present were Mark Meche and Dana Weeder of Winter Street Architects and Andrew Oliver of the Salem Mission.
Ms. Guy stated that Winter Street Architects has, under the Section 106 review process, submitted a Project Notification Form and additional materials to Massachusetts Historical Commission for the proposed housing project at the former St. Mary’s Church, 56 Margin Street owned by the Salem Mission. She noted that the Commission has an opportunity to comment to Massachusetts Historical Commission on any proposed changes to the exterior of the building, but that the Commission has no authority to approve or deny. She noted that this is not a public hearing, but that the Vice Chair may choose to open it up to public comment.
Mr. Weeder stated that the exterior work involves demolition of a later addition on the left side, addition of two windows and removal of stained glass windows.
Ms. Herbert read portion of a letter from Winter Street Architects to the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) dated 8/14/09 with regard to the stained glass windows:
“The stained glass windows and other religious items will not be destroyed to make way for the housing units. The Salem Mission is working with its Ward councilor and former parishioners to try to discover the families of the donors of the stained glass windows, wall murals and statuary, and has offered to return any of the items to the families or to donate them to churches of their choice. The Boston Archdiocese has also been contacted to help coordinate the redistribution of the salvaged religious items throughout the Commonwealth and the country. A conversation is also planned with the Peabody Essex Museum in Salem to see if ti would be interested in receiving any items that cannot be returned or donated as indicated above.”
Ms. Herbert stated that the windows are absolutely gorgeous.
Ms. McCrea questioned how can it can be tracked that the reuse of the windows is being carried out.
Ms. Herbert stated that a comment to MHC could be to request feedback on the process of the window reuse. She asked if this is the final use or if another use, such as artist space use is still on the table.
Mr. Oliver stated that the Salem Mission was approached by Joe Cultrera to use the church as a performing arts center. The Board met with arts group and the Baoprd decided not to hold up the housing project, but move forward while concurrently the arts group could look into financial feasibility of an arts center and to give the arts group an opportunity to make an offer. In May, Mr. Oliver wrote a letter outlining the terms and conditions under which they would consider an offer including financial, practical and legal issues. Their letter asked for a response within 30 days. Mr. Oliver stated that Mr. Cultrera responded with a letter, that they had a great deal of positive response, but there was no offer. The parties met again and the Mission extended the offer
until the date that a funding decision is received from the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD). He noted that the DHCD application was sent in June and that they expect a response sometime in fall. He stated that the Board is willing to give an offer serious consideration if it is received before the DHCD award and if it meets the terms and conditions of the May letter.
Ms. Herbert asked, if the arts group comes through with an offer, how will the Mission Board will balance that if they haven’t heard about the DHCD funding.
Mr. Oliver stated that they do not know how the Board will respond until there is a firm offer on the table. He noted that they have not set an asking price, because the building is not for sale. He stated that in the Mayor’s office, they went through with the four representatives from the arts group exactly what the value is for each of the three items so that they know the financially number. He noted that there is also the opportunity cost to the Mission, how important this project is to continue their work to end homelessness in Salem. He stated if they receive an offer that meets the terms, it will receive serious consideration.
Ms. Herbert asked, if an acceptable offer is received, will the Mission seek to create housing elsewhere in salem.
Mr. Oliver stated that the model that works for ending homelessness, is not just providing house, which is key, but is housing first with supportive services on site. This works for them with the existing 22 units that is on the campus and the services provided on site, such as meals, AA meetings, medical/nursing. The more nursing on staff, the less demand on emergency services and fewer calls to the police. He noted that it actually reduces the cost to the city. Supportive services are a key element to success and that once it becomes beyond the immediate neighborhood, people are less attached. He noted that the people in the units are no longer homeless and they pay rent for affordable housing. He stated that it helps people to become independent, to reduce the
homeless population, and, in doing so, to reduce number of beds in shelter and the number of homeless people on their campus.
Ms. Herbert stated that it sounds as though the Mission won’t really consider an offer unless it is outlandishly high until after they .hear about funding in fall.
Mr. Oliver responded that it is not a question of being outlandishly high. He stated that they are a registered charity and everything they do has to run the smell test of the Attorney General’s office. If they were to sell an asset that they could clearly use, for a purpose which we may all support personally, but which not related to our cause, then that could be challenged by the Attorney General and their federal status could be challenged. He stated that when they purchased the four buildings, they were each appraised separately. He noted that they have had a mortgage on the property for 5 years, as well as an investment of about $8000 in legal and architectural fees required just to submit funding submissions. He added that there is an enormous amount
of work that is done before you can start seriously raising money for a project for whatever use.
Ms. Herbert concluded that this piece is an integral part of what the Mission is doing. She stated that because this is their vision, if they were to accept the artist’s proposal, then perhaps they would consider moving the whole operation to, for example, St. Joseph’s campus or some other place. She added that it seems if they sold the church, they would not be able to complete their total vision.
Mr. Oliver noted that they have a volunteer board and that over the last five years, the budget of the mission has doubled. Following a loss of 19% state funding, they committed not to reduce their services to the City of Salem. He stated that they have worked to reduce dependence on public funding to from 70/30 to 50/50 and have tripled their private funding over the last 5 years. In the last year, they have 300 new individual donors, with largest percentage from Salem. The current leased housing on site are long-term loans with the State which are zero interest provided they are maintained as affordable units. If they were to sell those buildings, they would have to repay substantial mortgages.
Ms. Spang stated that he felt the proposed work is quite sympathetic. He understands the main issue is the disposition of the stained glass windows. He stated that the proposed is not dissimilar to what we see all the times for renovation of an historic building. The few additions they have made are done in a way that we typically would say is sympathetic to the fabric of the building. He stated that the real issue it is bit of a conundrum, which is what do you do with the stained glass.
Mr. Oliver stated that when the Mission bought the buildings in 2004, the archdiocese stated that were taking out the stained glass windows. The Mission spent 5 months fighting for the windows and spent $30,000 beyond the original agreed purchase price in order to retain them. He stated that he loves the stained glass windows, but they are watching the building deteriorate because they do not have the funds to maintain.
Ms. Herbert stated that a comment to MHC could be a request to be kept informed about disposition of the stained glass windows and other artifacts.
Ms. Bellin suggested a comment on how the windows would be removed, and who is hired to do the work is experienced and they are properly removed.
Ms. Herbert assumed that the windows would have to be stored.
Mr. Oliver stated that they have a list of families who have names on the bottom of the glass and those who have made contact with the Mission concerning their disposition. He noted that they have top marketers, top contractors and George Atkins is their attorney.
Ms. Bellin suggested documenting the windows as they exist on the building through photos.
Mr. Spang stated that he understood the premise of not having a unit for someone to live in, where the only light is through stained glass. The conclusion is that they have to go away.
Mr. Weeder stated that DHCD will not fund projects with religious iconography.
Mr. Oliver stated that they went to DHCD and asked if the fresca in the alter could be retained and they accepted because it is public space, not living space and was historical in a common room. He stated that it was not in black and white, but they were told at the meeting that DHCD would not oppose it.
Mr. Weeder noted that it is only the second floor units that have stained glass windows.
Mr. Spang noted it is one window per unit.
Mr. Meche stated that they are taking the stained glass lites out and putting in clear lites in the same place. The articulation of the opening, fenestration and composition will stay the same.
Ms. Herbert stated that from the outside, clear glass might look better than frosted plexi-glass.
Ms. Herbert asked for public comment.
Anthony Salvo, 18 Sumner Road, stated that the Mission and Mr. Oliver has good intentions, but doesn’t realize that people don’t want this. He stated that the desire is to keep the church in tact, similar to the Baptist Church in the courthouse complex. He stated that it is not just parishioners or area neighbors, but the whole city that does not want the church destroyed. They do not want windows removed.
City Councillor Steven Pinto , 55 Columbus Avenue, stated that he understands that the Commission has no authority, but asked if the Commission will address the effect on what they are doing to the church.
Ms. Herbert stated that she would like to see building maintained as historically as possible and noted that the proposed does change building somewhat. She noted that First Baptist Church is being reused to a law library and that reusing the building in a different way is consistent. She noted that the Baptist Church did not have stained glass windows. She stated that this is an extremely beautiful church and it is a shame that the archdiocese sold it. She stated that now we have to deal with how it can best be reused. She stated that the Commission is happy that most of building will be preserved, but noted that the windows have to go by code in order to do the housing. She stated that the Commission can only comment on saving as much of the historic fiber as
possible.
Councillor Joan Lovely, 14 Story Street, stated that it seems from Mr. Oliver’s answers, that reuse from an arts center is not feasible. She read a portion of a letter from Linda Riley, former Executive Director of the Mission…..”During the past few months we have succeeded in our negotiations with the archdiocese to leave behind the stained glass windows at St. Mary’s. We have grown to love and respect the extraordinary beauty of the church, the artwork, the marble alter, as well as the windows. We will continue to do all we can to preserve this outstanding building.“ That is what the community is now asking – to please preserve the building. There were several public hearings in the Council Chamber, packed with people several years
ago when this letter was presented and the promise was made by the Mission that the building would not be used as housing. The letter says “This may bring comfort to some, but not to others, but our shelter and other programs will be housed in the youth center and there will not be people sleeping in the church”. She stated promises were made to the community and the City Council and that it would be a shame to allow the church to be dismantled. She stated that of course it will be reused, but noted that those promises should be honored. She asked if the commission has to go on record in support of taking out the stained glass windows or can they be made that the Commission does not support taking out the stained glass window and want the promises to be honored that were made to the community.
Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission could say that the preference is to keep the church totally in tact, and that a reuse that would allow the windows to remain would be an option we could support.
Ms. Bellin stated that the Commission’s role is somewhat limited. She stated that the Commission is asked to comment on proposal presently being brought to us. The Commission is not approving this project up or down. She is willing to say that her preference is to preserve the building with the windows in tact and honor its heritage. She noted that the comments the Commission has made are based on the project before us, and if the project goes forward and it requires the windows be removed, then the next best thing would be to document the windows and ensure that the windows are not harmed, such as finding an appropriate use for them or returning them to the families that donated them. She agreed that this may not be ideal, but noted she would prefer the church be
reused, rather than not be maintained and then threatened with demolition.
John Carr, 7 River Street, stated that the Commission’s review is part of a Section 106 Review. He stated that when federal money is being used in a way that may be deleterious to a building that is on or capable of being listed on the National Register of Historic Places, then the Commission is asked to comment on such considerations as how integral to the importance of that building as a building are those stained glass windows. He asked if it is putting the cart before the horse, noting there is a possibility that the project won’t get approved and questioned if approving the removal of the windows would expedite it. He questioned if some windows could be saved. He stated that MHC will want to know from the Commission as to the nature of the building and what
adverse effect this proposal will have. He noted that the Commission is being asked to comment on the architectural significance.
Anna Delamonica, 18 Prescott Street, stated that when the church was first acquired the neighbors were told many lies. He stated that the Commission is here to preserve art, and that those windows is art. She stated that the windows came from Italy and are very valuable, as well as being very valuable to us emotionally. She noted that the inside of the church has beautiful paintings by Professor Fransceski and that the housing proposal will destroy seven types of marble. She stated that they lost their church, and questioned if they must loose their art.
Doug Cabot, 1 Forrester Street, speaking as a board member of Historic Salem, Inc. stated that the building is on HSI’s most endangered list. He stated that he echoed the notion that they are not here to discuss the use, but are here to discuss the church itself and whether it is of architectural historic importance. He added that they are not here to judge one proposed use against another, even though they may be both valid in their own ways. He stated that their perspective is that this should be listed with the National Register and that it is the job of MHC to take very seriously what is being proposed as a potential loss of historic resources.
Jeffrey Morgan Cox, 58 Endicott Street, co-chair of the Greater Endicott Street Neighborhood Association stated that they are concerned about a landmark in the neighborhood being significantly changed. He believes there needs to be more discussion and dialog. He asked the Commission to apply the same detailed review to these windows as they did with the previous gutter applications earlier in the evening. He stated that he felt the significance needs to be historically researched. He noted that the neighborhood is not against the Mission and is committed to having housing. He suggested that the architects look at that property and find similar ability for housing. He stated that there are opportunities for a win-win – a win for the neighborhood would be keeping
the historical structure’s history and integrity. He asked the Commission to take due diligence to understand what will be lost. He questioned if there are other opportunities on the campus to meet the Mission’s mission without destroying the historical church art and structure. He stated that the neighborhood is not concerned about the growth of the mission.
Ms. Herbert asked how the neighborhood feels about the performing arts option.
Mr. Cox stated that the neighbors are in support because the historical structure of the building will be retained. He stated that he is not a member or connected with the Salem Arts Center, but sees that the Mission would be able to maintain its priority of housing and helping homelessness and other services, while retaining the historic structure. The Salem Center for Arts promises that the historical art would not be removed.
Ms. Herbert assumed that the arts center would be non-profit and not on the tax roles. She asked if the housing would be on the tax roles.
Mr. Oliver stated that the housing would be on tax role and that they pay taxes on their existing housing.
Ms. Herbert asked the square footage that would be netted out of the interior of the building the 20 studio units.
Mr. Weeder stated it is roughly 8500 and stated there is a ground floor, first floor and mezzanine level.
Ms. Herbert asked if there was another building on campus that would have that square footage available.
Mr. Oliver stated that the Mission center is 1 ½ stories and that it would be feasible to build another story, but would not provide the same area and they would still have the church that they cannot maintain.
Ms. Herbert noted that there is a proposal out there.
Mr. Oliver stated that it is a concept without any money.
Ms. Herbert asked how Mr. Oliver felt about the promises that the Mission made about keeping church in tact.
Mr. Oliver stated that the context at the time was that, at Crombie Street people were sleeping in the Crombie Street Church, which was above the Mission. He stated that the intention of Ms. Riley’s letter was to say that the Mission services, such as sleeping, would be in Mission center and that no services or sleeping would occur in the church. He noted that since then, the Minister resigned and there were no more church members, and UCC informed them that they were deemed no longer a church. He stated that the sentence before the one that Councillor Lovely wrote was “We understand that their may be apprehension and concern about the sale of the property to our church and the plan to move the Salem Mission to the youth community center.” He stated that
there have not been people sleeping in the church.
Ms. Herbert stated that the proposal is now different than what was outlined in that letter.
Mr. Oliver stated that at the time, they were operating a church in the building. Under the church by-laws, upon dissolution the assets (i.e. the church) pass to the Salem Mission.
Ms. Herbert noted that as a church, it was not paying taxes.
Joe Cultrera , 7 Prescott Street, stated that the value of the building is 1000 times more valuable to the people of the community; it is what is left of 100 years of Italian-American history in Salem and if they take the windows out, it is gone. He stated that the Commission has the power to say that the windows shouldn’t go and if the windows can’t go, they can’t do what they want to do in that building. He stated that he understands that there had once been a proposal to put in housing above the youth center, but the architects suggested creating the housing in the church. He stated that it was approximately the same amount of cost. The name of the arts center is Art with a Mission. He noted that people realize and accepted that the church will not be a
church anymore, but he hoped to continue to bring the community together. He stated that there are always artists who need places to perform, there is no arts center in Salem and that the Salem Theatre Company has no home. With an arts center, he proposes to work with Mission and to engage the people who use the mission, including art and job training and possibly future employment. He noted that they have started to raise funds and will continue to have fundraisers.
Marybeth Bainbridge, 7 Prescott Street, stated that the exterior of the church is based on a church in Italy and that the interior contains religious iconography. She stated that even though it is not church in the use, it is still a church in structure. She believed that MHC is asking the Commission to evaluate integrity and significance of this structure, which is a church, regardless of the activity that may happen underneath the roof. She stated that the proposed plan is to remove the very windows that distinguish it from any other building on this block and to remove them would remove the integrity of the exterior of this building. She stated that at the May 3, 2009 meeting, Winter Street Architects stated that the exterior of this structure would remain the same. She
believed that the windows are part of the exterior. She stated that the neighbors were promised repeatedly that the exterior would stay the same and questioned why 3 months later the story has changed so significantly. She added that for every dollar spent for a theatre ticket, four dollars are spent within 5 miles. She felt an arts center would bring a strong financial base to the downtown and surrounding North Shore.
Ms. Herbert stated that it seems there hasn’t been enough time for the arts center proposal to take shape of for funding to be put in place.
Linda Locke, 1 Pickering Street, and owner of property at 48 Endicott Street which is 2 blocks from the church, stated that if the windows, marble, artwork and murals are removed, it will essentially pillage the building and will leave a shell of bricks. She stated it is part of the heritage of the City of Salem and noted that once things are taken away, it is too late and years from now we won’t be able to revisit.. She stated that it would be a shame to destroy more of our history. She noted that windows are very costly to take out and questioned what a person who donated them 30 years ago could do with them now.
Ms. Bellin asked the deadline.
Ms. Guy stated that her understanding is that the clock starts when the Project Notification Form was sent to MHC and they have 30 days to respond. In this case, MHC responded that they needed more information. She asked if the information has been sent to MHC.
Mr. Weeder stated that it was sent on August 14, 2009.
Ms. Guy stated that if they received the information on August 15th, she believed the 30 day clock started again at that time.
Ms. Bainbridge provided two letters which Ms. Guy read into the record from Matthew Caruso, 4 Pershing Road and from Dean and Elizabeth Lahikainen of 26 Pickman Road.
Ms. Herbert asked what is the feeling of the City Council.
Councillor Lovely stated that she met with the neighborhood association as well as the arts association. She stated that the Council has not formerly met, but that she will be submitting a council order at the September 10, 2009 to send a letter to MHC and DHCD to let them know the community history from city council legislative side and the current status.
Ms. Herbert stated one of the things that slowed her down with getting on board with the windows is seeing them from the outside where they are covered with clouded plexi-glass. She stated that she can only imagine what the church would look like lit inside with the plexiglass removed. She felt that the item should be continue to the next meeting and in mean time, gather information to see if there are alternatives. She stated that the Mission essentially wants a box to put 20 boxes in it. She stated that they already have such a structure that they can add to. She asked the estimate for the housing proposal in the church.
Mr. Oliver stated that the estimate is $3.4 million
Ms. Herbert asked the cost to put it over youth center.
Mr. Oliver stated that they never obtained a cost estimate, because they did not vote to go ahead with it. They voted to go ahead with the current project on April 22nd and had a public meeting May 3rd.
Ms. Herbert stated that she felt it was extremely significant that the Mission proceeded on the premise of saying to the community that the church would be retained as a church with the windows in tact. She stated that her initial the position when she read over the documents, which just came to the Commission, that it was sort of a fait accomplish that this project was going to go forward. She felt the best they could do was save the building and reuse the windows. She noted that the position of Commission would always be to keep a historic building completely intact. She noted that the Commission does not have jurisdiction over the interior of the building, but the windows are part of the exterior. She stated that the Commission’s letter needs to have some strength
in terms of why we want to see something else done with the building. She stated that the church is not a box to put 20 boxes in and thought something else could be identified close enough to their mission to work.
Mr. Spang asked what happens if DHCD does not approve the funds.
Mr. Oliver stated that DHCD had a preliminary meeting to discuss if the project meets their criteria. He stated that the meeting was very positive and that they now work with a development consultant who has done housing projects. Awards depend on funding available and how many applications are received. He stated that the Mission may not be funded in this round, but would likely be funded by the next round, but his understanding is that it will be funded.
Mr. Spang asked if the project is critical to the success of the project and if the project would not go ahead if they do not get funding.
Mr. Oliver replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Herbert stated that it doesn’t go ahead in the church, but it doesn’t mean it couldn’t go ahead in another building.
Mr. Oliver stated that they would have to start again.
Mr. Spang stated that the linchpin is the grant funding and presumably the funding is susceptible to whatever the public feels is important since it is public money. He wondered if DHCD says they are not going to support doing this project to this particular building because there is so much the groundswell against it, it could put the project at risk.
Mr. Oliver stated that he understands that what they are proposing is very much in line with what the governor, legislators and DHCD wants and he was told by their consultant has never worked with a project that does not have some opposition and that they expect some.
Mr. Spang asked if there was any way to build housing within the church and maintain the windows.
Mr. Meche stated they have looked and can’t find anything. They have adapted other churches and stated that if you look back across the history of preservation and the doctrines put forth by the National Park Services, that adaptive reuse is clearly the engine for saving buildings. He stated that there are churches getting knocked down every day. He stated that it is a race to save the building and that if they could save the stained glass and achieve the goals, they would be happy to do so from a design point of view.
Mr. Spang asked if they could pursue a building code variance which would allow them to accept a different way of looking at the glass.
Mr. Meche that the shore answer is yes..
Mr. Spang stated that he wondered if stained glass windows would contribute or detract for people who would live there. He asked if forced air ventilation could be used instead of operable window ventilation. He questioned if there is a way to have the windows and housing, too. He stated that there may be ways to explore, although they may end up at a dead end.
Mr. Oliver stated that one hurdle is the architectural and building code, but that the other issue is State funding requirements.
Mr. Spang suggested asking the state a direct question for dispensation to retain the religious iconography, specifically maintaining the windows already there, noting it is retention of a historic artifact, not the production of a religious statement.
Ms. Guy stated that MHC may ask the same question.
Mr. Oliver stated that he could ask Emily Rothchild and noted that the State has permitted retention of the Fresco because it is in a common area. He noted that it is also less dramatically religious than some of the stained glass windows. The units are 3-400 s.f. and the windows are 8-9’ tall, noting that nobody denies that they are spectacular, which is why they fought for them.
Ms. Herbert stated that if clear glass goes in, there will be all different curtains, plants, etc. going on in each of those windows, which will change the whole look of the church, which may be another reason that the stained glass should remain even if it is housing.
Mr. Weeder stated that many residential projects dictate what the fenestration and curtains can look like and that those can be put in place.
Mr. Oliver stated that they would have the right as the landlord to make stipulations and everyone signs a lease. He stated that we all have the same ideal in mind, but the issue is that the Mission owns the building and has a use for it, and that other people would like to own it, but have not demonstrated any ability to buy it.
Ms. McCrea stated that culprit is the Catholic Church, who should never have put us in this position. She stated that we are now stuck because we have wonderful historic church that needs to be financially viable to keep it a historic church.
Mr. Oliver stated that he will provide a copy of the letter with the terms and conditions outlined for the arts center group.
Ms. Bellin asked that if the Mission gets the funding and the project moves forward, would one of first things to happen be the removal of the windows. She stated her concern is that she would hate to see the project move forward enough where windows are removed and then the housing project falls through.
Mr. Oliver stated that they will do nothing until they get word of the funding. He stated that the first step is DHCD sends an award letter and then construction documents are prepared and put out to bid. If they hear from DHCD by the end of the year, it is approximately 3 months for construction documents, then there is bidding and contract execution, the closing for funds, followed by construction maybe late next summer.
Ms. Herbert stated that the Mission is fortunate to have a community that embraces the Mission and is interested in helping it be there and be successful. She suggested, given passion that exists, that they imagine the animosity that would be created if the project moves forward as proposed. She suggested looking to see if there are some options and to work with Councillor Lovely. She stated that the Mission is going to want to fundraise and will want to receive community support and have the neighbors continue to embrace the Mission. She suggested that the Mission really get creative.
Councillor Lovely noted that the Mayo’s office has been involved, as well as Representative Keenan and Senator Berry offices.
Ms. Guy suggested that Ms. Herbert prepare a draft letter to MHC for next meeting.
Ms. Bellin agreed and stated that the Commission understands the parameters and has a sense of the issues it needs to address.
Ms. Herbert stated that it may need to be preliminary letter to MHC. She suggested that the arts group focus on funding and the Mission focus on alternatives for the housing.
Ms. Diozzi and Mr. Hart rejoined the meeting.
- 75% Bridge Street Reconstruction Plans
Ms. Guy stated that she forwarded a draft of Mr. Spang's comment letter with recommendations on the 75% submission. The Commission reviewed the letter, made edits and instructed Ms. Guy to forward the letter to Tetra Tech Rizzo.
Ms. Guy stated that New Boston Ventures is once again seeking a letter of support for their tax credit application. Ms. Guy provided the previous letter with the date changed. Ms. McCrea made a motion to send the letter of support. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
There being no further business, Mr. Hart 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
| 
