SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 16, 2011
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, February 16, 2011 at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Mr. Hart, Ms. Harper, and Ms. Bellin.
Ms. Keenan and Ms McCrea entered later in the meeting.
72 Flint Street – Project Notification Form Review
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission received a copy of a Project Notification Form (PNF) submitted to Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) from Susan St. Pierre Consulting Services dated January 6, 2011. Because the project requires a Chapter 91 license from the State, it triggered MGL Chapter 9, Section 26-27~ (the state's version of the~federal Section 106 Review), requiring the project proponent to submit the PNF to MHC.~ Ms. Guy noted that the Salem Historical Commission has no approval or denial authority over the project and can only comment to MHC regarding any impacts on historic resources. In turn, MHC cannot approve or deny the project, but can only recommend to the project proponent on ways to minimize adverse effects on historic resources. Ms. Guy stated that on January 27th,
she received documentation from MHC that they have already determined that the project is unlikely to affect significant historic or archaeological resources. Ms. Guy stated that she contacted MHC, who stated that the Salem Historical Commission can still send in comments and if there is new information presented or if they made an egregious error, they can try to address it.
Present was Susan St. Pierre from Susan St. Pierre Consulting Services and Attorney Scott Grover.
Letters/emails read into the record:
- Joan Sweeney, 22 Silver St.
- James Treadwell
- Emily Udy, Historic Salem, Inc.
Ms Keenan joined the meeting at this time.
- Betsy Burns, 2 Beckford St.
Ms. McCrea jointed the meeting at this time.
- Mack Park Neighborhood Association
- Meg Twohey, Federal Street Neighborhood Association
- Brenton and Elizabeth Dickson, 135 Federal St.
- Lynn Duncan, City of Salem DPCD
- Darrow Lebovici, 122 Federal Street
- Lorene Scanlon, 77 Mason Street, Unit 1
- Mary Whitney & Nick Nowak, 356 Essex Street, Unit 2
Mr. Hart stated that in his mind the main issue is the potential impacts on historic resources He stated that, with all due respect to Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC), they sent us a letter with a rubber stamp that there is no adverse effect on historic properties and he is unable to resolve in his mind how MHC could make that statement. He noted that demolition is a potential adverse effect and that there are 19th century residential properties on two sides of the site. He stated that there are survey forms available which have been submitted to MHC, so he cannot reconcile how they made that determination. He stated that in his mind the potential adverse effects include the demolition of the Bonfanti Factory building, the visual impact of the abutting and nearby
residential properties, potential noise and traffic adverse effects. He stated that he would want to see these included in a letter to MHC, and to request that they re-examine their position and ask the proponents to look at the effects on historic properties. He added that if there are federal funds or permits, it would kick off Section 106 review. He stated that MHC should be able to determine if the surveyed properties are eligible for the State or National Register.
Ms. Herbert questioned why this part of the permitting started so late. She asked if there will be a need for a Waiver of Demolition Delay Ordinance
Ms. Guy replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Herbert stated that what the Commission has to say to MHC may have little effect. Because of the timing, it may be a fête accomplis. She noted that the Demolition Delay Ordinance might delay the project for 6 months.
Mr. Hart stated that the Commission should ask MHC to reconsider its determination and to go back to the proponent to determine if there will be adverse effects and to look at alternatives that will avoid, minimize and/or mitigate the adverse effects.
Ms. Herbert stated that the project is currently proposed for rentals units and asked if there by eventually be condominiums.
Atty. Grover replied that there are no condominiums planned presently, but there is nothing in the design that would prevent conversion.
Ms. Herbert stated that management of the building is key, particularly if it is so contained, whether it is 130 or 65 units. She noted that JPI is well managed. Ms. Herbert asked why most of the commercial elements were eliminated.
Atty. Grover stated that it was the lack of demand for the space.
Ms. Bellin stated that the Commission should try to show MHC that there is either new information or an egregious error.
Ms. St. Pierre noted that the process is for MHC to make a determination within 30 days on whether the project is likely to effect historic properties. If they make a determination that there is an adverse impact, they start the consultation process and then request comments.
James Treadwell stated agreed that MHC has up to 30 days to make the determination and that they do not need to consult with the local commission until after effect is found. He stated that he feel the error is that they did not consider properties that are on the Register, and that these may have been overlooked. He stated that the Bonfanti structure was not described in the PNF, so they have no basis to determine if it is eligible for listing on the National Register.
Ms. Harper stated that she was concerned that part of the site is within the 100 year floodplain. She stated that given the crazy weather and how sections of Bridge Street are often under water, she wonders the impact. She stated that she would like MHC to give a great deal of weight to the Mack Park Neighborhood Association letter, as well as the other letters. She stated that the development going into the buffer zone area and the potential water service interruptions is alarming, and felt that it would have an impact on historic houses. She stated that given fact that the developer has been able to make changes so far, she would like them to consider scaling back the development.
Ms. Diozzi stated that she was troubled by the lighted parking garage.
Atty. Grover stated that the lighting consultant was brought in during the Planning Board consulting process. The garage was added in order to eliminate surface parking and to have more open green space. He noted that the developer would rather not have the garage, due to cost, but it is required by Planning Board process.
Ms. McCrea stated that she was appalled that the state would issue a finding without first asking the Commission for comment.
Mr. Hart stated that the Commission’s letter could include all letters we have received. He stated that he can’t understand how MHC, if they looked at their own list, could make a determination that there are no resources there. He stated that he felt it important to ask MHC to ask the proponent if there are any federal funds or permits involved.
Atty. Grover stated that, as far as he knew, there are no federal permits required. State permits include Chapter 91 and the MEPA process that goes with Chapter 91.
Mr. Treadwell stated that if MHC finds there are historic resources, then consultation process will begin. He stated that if he was in MHC’s shoes, he would give credence to what the Salem Historical Commission and Historic Salem, Inc. say. He provided a list of “musings”.
Mr. Hart stated that the Commission could ask to be party to the consultation process.
Darrow Lebovici stated that 30 to 40 citizens over 3 years, with professional help from Goody Clancy and Earthtech, undertook a major effort for the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood (NRCC) Master Plan and then incorporated it within the zoning ordinance. He sated that within 2 years, the Zoning Board ignored every piece of it. He asked if there are any remedies for misrepresenting information on an application to MHC.
Ms. Bellin stated that if there are remedies, they are likely found under the general laws.
Ms. Herbert asked if the developers ever considered incorporating the Bonfanti building into the design.
Atty. Grover replied in the negative.
Ms. Herbert noted that the project was designed so eventually Commercial Street could be connected to Mason Street. She asked if they ever considered incorporating it as part of the project in order to get traffic moving in other directions.
Atty. Grover stated that it was considered, but would require acquiring other private properties.
Mr. Treadwell stated that Commercial Street has a cul-de-sac at its western terminus and that there is one property between the proponents parcel and the cul-de-sac. Therefore, only one property would need to be reckoned with. He noted that if the City decides to make the connection, much of open space will be lost because the easement is placed in the wrong location. He stated that he felt it should be up into the project more.
Atty. Grover stated that the location is how the Planning Board asked to locate the easement.
Meg Twohey stated that because 72 Flint Street was the only address on the PNF and the Bonfanti building addresses were not included, the state may have had no reason to look at those addresses.
Ms. Bellin agreed it should be brought to MHC’s attention.
Ms. Herbert stated that she felt a lot of those really adorable buildings have been bastardized over the years. She stated that if the project is successful, it may encourage owners to improve their buildings. She stated that there is a desperate need for redevelopment down there. She stated that it would be great if the design could be massaged a bit more to be more reasonable. She noted that it could be a win-win. She noted that there are various obstacles, such as the Commercial Street connection and the easement.
Atty. Grover stated that the developer has spent 3 years massaging it.
Lorene Scanlon stated that she has been involved in whole process for last 3 ½ years. She stated that she disagreed with Ms. Herbert’s comment. She stated that she felt home ownership encourages people to improve, not transient apartments. She stated that this is a situation where people are saying to just build it and fix it later.
Ms. Herbert asked if the neighborhood feels the Bonfanti building is an important structure.
Ms. Scanlon stated that there have been no discussions. She noted that most new owners were enticed by the vision in the NRCC which called for condominiums and they all expected a much different development.
Teasie Riley Goggin questioned if there is a determination that the Bonfanti building is historic and should be saved, who will take care of it.
Mr. Treadwell stated that minimizing adverse effect is more than just saving it. The options could be recordation or salvage.
Ms. Harper felt the buffer zone was an issue.
Atty. Grover stated that the NRCC zoning has a buffer zone between the development and the residentially used properties. The approved permit gives a variance from the buffer zone requirements. It is not illegal; a variance was granted.
Ms. Herbert asked if it is one building with 5 stories.
Atty. Grover replied that, technically, according to the Building Inspector, it is 4 stories, but is 5 when you look at it.
Ms. Herbert asked if the new building is the same height as the old building, so that the final height is the same.
Atty. Grover replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Treadwell stated that the mass is greater.
McCrea asked about the floodplain issue.
Ms. St. Pierre stated that it has to go before the Conservation Commission, who has jurisdiction, including floodplain.
Mr. Treadwell stated that the Conservation Commission approved the demolition of Salem Suede and that they will also look at stormwater management.
City Councillor Paul Prevey asked what the Commission expects to happen now and if they will have another meeting.
Ms. Guy replied that it depends on whether MHC changes its determination and begins a consultation process.
Councillor Prevey stated that it is an illogical statement that there are no historic resources.
Ms. St. Pierre noted that MHC determined that there is no adverse effect, and did not stated that there were no historic resources.
Mr. Lebovici noted that there are other buildings listed in the state’s MACRIS database. He noted that all but 5 are 19th century structures. He questioned whether any of those would be eligible for National Register listing and, if so, would MHC look at the effect
Ms. Herbert questioned whether MHC would consider them not as important if they are altered, such as with vinyl siding. She stated that the Commission can propose that it is still an intact neighborhood.
Emily Udy stated that the Neighborhood Preservation District Study found the neighborhood would be eligible for an NPD district. She noted that the study was done in consultation with MHC.
Ms. Bellin stated that MHC is required to specify the reasons for whatever finding they make and that the Commission should site regulation 950 CMR 71.07 2b. She noted the language states that the determinations are no effect, no adverse or adverse effect. She stated that she felt there was an egregious error in procedure.
Ms. McCrea suggested the a copy of the Commission’s letter be sent to Senator Berry and Representative Keenan.
Mr. Treadwell stated that the Design Review Board has nothing to do with historical regulations, such as Section 106 or 950 CMR. He stated that the DRB did great things, but had nothing to do with historic resources, because it was not their responsibility.
Mr. Hart suggested that MHC ask the proponent if federal funds or permits are included.
Ms. Herbert stated that she was concerned with pile driving during construction.
Mr. Hart stated that pile driving during construction should be added to the letter as a potential adverse effect.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to send a letter to MHC with points noted:
- MHC may have overlooked historic resources and/or made an egregious error in its determination
- There is an issue with the addresses of the properties involved. MHC may not have been aware of the Bonfanti building’s age and condition, which is proposed for demolition. The building has not been surveyed but is industrial building more than 50 years old and should be determined if National Register eligible. In addition, historic properties abut the site, as will as abutters to abutters and a little more distant historic resources, as indicated by survey forms on file at MHC.
- Request MHC reconsider their position, have the project proponent provide MHC with documentation needed to make a determination and for MHC to make their determination in writing per 950 CMR.
- There may be adverse effects (visual, increased traffic resulting in noise and vibration) on standing historic resources, as well as pile driving during construction.
- Request MHC ask the project proponent if any federal funds or permits are required.
Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
- Letter of Support – 2011 Massachusetts Historical Commission Preservation Awards – 50 Saint Peter Street
Ms. Guy stated that Finegold Alexander and Associates, Inc. is submitting a nomination for the jail redevelopment and is requesting a letter of support, which was distributed by email earlier today.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to send the letter of support. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy read an email received by Mary Whitney, 356 Essex Street.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the minutes of January 19, 2011, as amended. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy stated that she received a letter from MHC to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding the South River Public Landing Navigation Project, as part of the Section 106 Review process. MHC is requesting a marine archaeological reconnaissance survey be undertaken.
Ms. Guy stated that she received a copy of a letter from the Public Archaeology Laboratory (PAL) to WilmerHale and from WilmerHale to the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs regarding PAL’s cultural resource assessment of the proposed Lowe’s site. The letters noted that MHC had previously determined that there are neither recorded historic or archaeological sites, nor properties listed in the State Register of Historic Places within the project site.
Mr. Treadwell stated that 2 years ago MHC issued a letter siting an adverse effect for the St. Joseph’s redevelopment. He stated that the Section 106 process has still not commenced and the Salem Historical Commission still has not been consulted. He noted that the project is at the Planning Board tomorrow night.
Mr. Hart stated that he was bothered by MHC not asking the local commission for input on the Riverview Place project. He stated the he felt the Commission should talk to Representative John Keenan.
Ms. Bellin and Ms. McCrea were in agreement.
Ms. Bellin stated that she also felt the law needs changing.
Mr. Hart was in agreement.
Mr. Hart stated that an appeal can be sent to the Advisory Council in Washington, D.C., if the Commission feels wronged.
Ms. Bellin suggested inviting Representative Keenan to a meeting.
Ms. McCrea stated that Councillor Prevey should be cc’d the Commission’s letter.
Ms. Harper added that all at Councilors At Large should be copied.
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
| 
