Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
M. Minutes - August 17, 2011, Approved
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
AUGUST 17, 2011
        
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, August 17, 2011 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA.  Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Ms. Diozzi and Mr. Hart.

Ms. Bellin, Ms. McCrea and Ms. Keenan arrived later in the meeting.

19 Warren Street

Karen Vitone presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors.  The body will be HC-146 Wedgewood Gray, Trim OC-17 White Dove and Windows/Doors to remain the same color – N096-80 Black.

Documents & Exhibits
  • Application
  • Photographs
  • Paint chips
Ms. Herbert stated that it was a beautiful color.  

Ms. Diozzi was in agreement.

Ms. Vitone stated they received approval for work last year and while most of the work has been completed, there is still some underway.  The house was built in 1839.

Ms. Keenan joined the meeting at this time.

There was no public comment.

Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the paint colors as presented.  Ms. Diozzi seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.

Ms. McCrea joined the meeting at this time.

315 & 317 Essex Street

315 Essex Street, LLC submitted an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for fence installation/alteration.  Morris Schopf represented the applicant.

Documents & Exhibits
  • Application
  • Photographs
  • Site plan tied to photographs
Mr. Schopf stated that they would like to install a fence between their parking lot and the adjacent parking lot.  He noted that in location D of the site plan, the picket fence is not theirs.  The chain link fence in front is proposed to be replaced.  The same situation is on E.  He stated that the new fence would be 6’ in height.

Mr. Hart asked which side would be the finished side.

Mr. Schopf stated that the finished side would face out with post and rails on the inside.  The posts will be approximately every 8’ and in the middle will be a rail.  He stated that the fence will have a cap rail.

An email from Jim Kearney was read into the record suggesting the fence also be added to the section between 1A Cambridge and 315 Essex (B on site plan).

Mr. Kearney stated he complimented the owners on the job they have done.  He stated that he would like protection from the inappropriate windows and the sea of cars.  He suggested trees be added or, if not, a fence.

Ms. Guy stated that the owner does not need approval for trees, but the Commission could give him the option for the fence, which he could install if he decided to do so.

Mr. Schopf stated that he would like approval for the fence option as suggested by Mr. Kearney’s email.  He stated that he was able to reduce the number of vents in the building to basically none.

Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the application as submitted and to include the option for the fence between 1A and 315 Essex.  Ms. Diozzi seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.

142 Derby Street

Jennifer Reardon submitted an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for sign installation.  The original sign was approved by the Commission in 1998. James Burns was present.

Documents & Exhibits
  • Application
  • Photographs
Ms. Herbert noted that the sign is already up.

There was no public comment.

Ms. Diozzi made a motion to approve the application as submitted.  Ms. McCrea
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.

31 Washington Square N. Unit 1

John Catterson and Frederick Hammond submitted an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for window replacement with Marvin double hung wood windows with 7/8” muntins with putty glazed detail, in primed pine interior and a full screen.  

Documents & Exhibits
  • Application
  • Photographs
  • Email from Marvin Window & Door Showcase
Ms. Guy stated that the applicants are unable to attend and requested a continuance to the next meeting.

Mr. Hart made a motion to continue the application to the September 7th meeting.
Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.

135 Lafayette Street (St. Joseph’s Redevelopment) – Review and comment on submission (Section 106 Review)

Present were:  Lisa Alberghini from POUA
                        Paul Silverstone from MassHousing
                        Molly Eckert from POUA
                        Ruth Silman from Nixon Peabody
                        Ed Bradford, Architect
                        
Ms. Alberghini stated the Planning Office for Urban Affairs (POUA) is the owner and the controlling entity of the developer.

Mr. Silverstone stated that he is from MassHousing and is doing the Section 106 Review for DHCD.  He stated that historical review under Section 106 is triggered by the federal funds.  DHCD is administering federal HOME funds for the project.  MassHousing is doing the review for DHCD.  He will gather and evaluate the information from any source that he can, including people at this meeting.

Ms. Bellin joined the meeting at this time.
Ms. Alberghini gave a presentation which included a history on POUA’s work on this redevelopment project.  She stated that the property was purchased in 2005.  She reviewed the alternatives undertaken to avoid, minimize and mitigate the adverse impacts.  Before they purchased the property, in 2005, the city hired an independent third party group, Crosswhite Advisors, to undertake a study for economic analysis, market analysis, architectural and engineering inspections of the properties and an analysis of what they found, historical review and meetings with various stakeholders.  The study concluded that the former convent building is not historically significant, that there is no market-supported use or reuse for the former church, that for the physically possible market-supported uses the community preference was for housing and the community preference within that was for affordable housing.  They also recommended that there be a continuous street wall and retail wall  along Lafayette Street, which would required the demolition of the former church to accomplish that.  She stated that POUA is a non-profit 501c3 that is affiliated with the Archdiocese of Boston.  They have been in existence for 42 years and have developed approximately 2500 units affordable and mixed income housing.  The study suggested 167 units for the site by a private, for-profit developer, while POUA is proposing 76 for the site.  The study also stated that a 5 story building would not be out of context along this major arterial.  POUA plans to keep the rectory (1917)  and school (1920), the oldest structures on site, as part of their plan.  To try to look at whether demolition of the church could be avoided, they assessed the city’s study and they looked at other entities to reuse the structure.  She noted that they met with Historic Salem, Inc. early on and who identified five entities who might have interest in reusing the church.  POUA contacted them all and only one asked to tour the building, Boon Gallery, who concluded they were not able to reuse it.  They also worked with a real estate broker to see seek potential buyers.  There were no interested buyers after several months.  In 2006, they undertook a study to see if the church could be converted to housing.  Tremont Preservation Services were brought on and it was concluded that the addition of new windows needed would impair the integrity of the church both inside and out, would change the character and nature of the structure and it would not bear much of a relationship to its current form.  There was also cost prohibitive structural work, the floor plans of the units would be very inferior and other revisions to the exterior would be needed that would dramatically alter the character of the building.  

Mr. Bradford stated that the church is just not suited for housing.  It is too wide in the footprint and too narrow as it goes up.  It would require a self-supporting structure within a structure.

Ms. Alberghini stated that those efforts were to avoid adverse impact and it was determined that there was not an alternative to demolition.  The next thing was to find ways to mitigate the adverse impact.  In 2005-2006, they held meetings with the Pont Neighborhood Association, South Salem Neighborhood Association, Lafayette Place Neighborhood Association and Historic Salem, Inc.  The first plan was unveiled in February, 2006.  For 3 months, they worked with architects, engineers, the city and community representatives on the development plan.  Neighborhood meetings were held in June and July.  Applications were made to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) and Planning Board in August, 2006.  In 2006, the Commission applied to the Salem Historical Commission (SHC) for waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance.  In August 2006, they received the ZBA variances needed.  In September, 2006, following substantial plan changes, the Planning Board approved a Special PUD for a six story building with 97 housing units.  The ZBA approved a Comprehensive Permit in March, 2007.  The City Council extended the zoning business district in June, 2008.  The City became eligible for a PWED application in 2008 as a result of this development plan and received a $1million grant for signalization improvements and streetscape improvements.  In January, 2010, POUA met with the SHC to review the Project Notification Form.  POUA met again with the Point Neighborhood Association twice.  In July, 2010, they submitted application to the Planning Board for Mixed Use with Neighborhood Commercial which received approval September, 2010 for 4 stories, and reducing it from 75 to 51 units.  DHCD awarded funding subsidies for the first phase of the project in March, 2011.  The current plan is for 4 stories, 51 units affordable housing.  It eliminates the plan for a drive-thru in back and the large scale retail use.  It retains neighborhood retail use on the first floor.  They will reuse the church’s granite steps.  

Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission will ask questions first and then will get public comment.

Ms. Diozzi asked if it will be all rental housing.

Ms. Alberghini replied in the affirmative, noting that due to the market, they were no longer able to get funding for condos for homeownership as originally hoped.  

Ms. Diozzi asked if they have other rental units.

Ms. Alberghini stated that POUA will be the controlling entity of the LLC.  The housing will be affordable in perpetuity.  They have a professional property management company, which will be Peabody Properties.  They currently have a large rental portfolio.

Mr. Hart stated that he was part of the initial team at Crosswhite and was hired to do the graphics.  He did not act as the architect or have any part in determining what would be happening on the site.  He was not on the SHC at that time.

Ms. Harper asked about the units for the other buildings.

Ms. Alberghini stated that the redevelopment of the 2 buildings is not part of this phase.  She stated that there is a potential for senior housing in the school building.  There is a possibility of office or condos for the rectory.  They want to get the first phase done and then assess the options for the rest of the campus.

Mr. Bradford stated that both buildings are adaptable to housing and that the structures are suitable for housing.

Ms. Alberghini stated that the rectory could hold 8 units.  The school could hold a minimum of 20 units for seniors.  They are permitted for 25 between the two.

Ms. Herbert asked what happened to the mansard roof design.

Mr. Bradford stated that they received both positive and negative comments.  They looked North on Lafayette, which did not have roofs, but had strong cornice lines and is in keeping.

Ms. Herbert asked the number of storefronts.

Ms. Alberghini stated that it is 4400 s.f.  

Mr. Bradford stated they expect at least 2 tenants, but the storefronts could be adapted to more tenants.

Ms. Herbert suggested that there be regulations as to the appearance of the storefronts.  She asked why SROs were abandoned in the convent and if the convent is being taken down for parking.

Ms. Alberghini stated that the city felt strongly that additional SROs in that neighborhood were not needed.  Even still, they would be very small, cell block size units.  Parking was secondary.

Ms. Herbert asked about the plan for the statute purported to be in the parking lot.

Ms. Alberghini stated that, if it is there, it would have been buried according to church law for religious articles no longer to be used.  She stated that as part of the Planning Board approval, if they encounter it, they are to consult with the archdiocese about the proper way to handle it.  If they do not come across it in the course of construction, they will leave it.  There is a possibility of reburying it on site.

Ms. Herbert asked if there would be an onsite manager from Peabody Properties.

Ms. Alberghini replied in the affirmative, but did not know if it would be full time.  There would be maintenance staff devoted to the site.

Ms. Herbert asked if they are complete in terms of design or are receptive to comments from the SHC and Historic Salem, Inc.

Ms. Alberghini stated that it would be difficult, except for minor things.

Ms. Herbert asked about screening for parking and felt borderline screening would be important.

Ms. Alberghini stated that there will be additional screening near the three homes on Dow Street.  She noted that the landscape plan is to be approved by the Planning Board.

Ms. McCrea asked that there be consideration for a plaque talking about the significance of the parish.

Ms. Alberghini stated that it is a dynamic site that has changed over time and they plan to honor the legacy in some way.  There will be a 750 s.f. community space component available to residents of the building and to the community.  She stated that Salem Lafayette Development, LLC which is a subsidiary of POUA, which is a private, non-profit 501c3, which was created by the archdiocese many years ago and they are not legally or financially part of the Archdiocese.  They are affiliated because they were created in 1969 by Cardinal Cushing, who now serves on the Board as an individual.

Ms. Herbert stated that she would accept public comment.

Stanley Smith, 4 Pickering Street, stated that the presentation does not discuss whether government money should be used to subsidize the destruction of major historic landmarks.  He stated that POUA’s slide  presentation did not have a picture of what is to be demolished.  He stated that at Judge Sam Zoll’s funeral, speaker Bill Tinti had talked about how Judge Zoll turned around a redevelopment plan which in Bill Tinti’s words would have been civic murder.  He stated the church is a major landmark, which is very distinctive.

Emily Udy, representing Historic Salem, Inc., stated that the presentation indicates that the school and rectory are the older buildings on site.  She stated that the real issue is the International Style church.  There are very few examples of this style in Massachusetts or New England.  She stated that this is the real issue.

Morris Schopf, 1 Cambridge Street, stated that the purpose of the Section 106 process is to identify buildings for preservation and believed it has been so identified.  He stated that the proper mitigation of the adverse effect of the closing of a monumental building like this is its adaptive use.  He stated that he was fortunate to redevelop a church in Lewiston, ME as a public performance venue, because it is possible to secularize the space in a sensitive way.  He stated that he also butchered them up for housing, but stated that even butchered up, the physical massing and presence and landscape is not lost, not changed.  He stated that it is the responsibility of the owner to provide mitigation and the first best mitigation is adaptive reuse and the dead last mitigation is to put up relatively inexpensive housing project in the footprint or not of a building that is gone forever.

Anna Delamonica, Prescott Street, stated that she was not here to criticize the plan, except for the cruciform church.  It is one of three in the United States.  She stated that she was not against housing, but did not support the church being gone.  She read a letter that she had written to the Salem News.

Rinus Ooestock, Director of the Salem Chamber of Commerce, stated that he was speaking on behalf of his members and the people who have businesses north of this location.  He stated that they have been supportive of the developers throughout the phase when they first tried to restore the church and find uses including the senior center and they are still supportive of the organization and their current plans.  Chamber members have stated that we have been waiting long enough. They tried everything they could to preserve the church and did not find a way and we want to be supportive including the fact that they are planning to construct a building that is on the street with small retail.  We think the Point deserves an opportunity for revitalization with the retail and housing aspect.  We hope they will be able to move forward.

Lucy Corchado, Chase Street,  She stated that she is a former city councilor, is the president of Salem Point Neighborhood Association, is a former parishioner of St. Josephs and is a resident of the Point.  She stated that it has been a painful journey, but is very anxious to see something positive done in that area.  She stated that she did not see beauty in that church.  She stated that it is falling apart.  She stated that they are looking for that same energy when it was a school and church.  Those are the activities that can be achieved with this development.  Early on she was part of the discussions to try to save it.  There is no one who stepped up to the plate to try to preserve it.  Salem Harbor CDC went through and could not use it.  It is not cost effective.  There will be affordable housing, economic development and opportunities for community meetings.  Having homeless people sleeping on the steps of the church is not beauty.  They are hoping for a community center, but since it is not happening there, they are desperate to have some space in the Point in order to engage with residents locally.  She presented a 75 person petition in support of the development.

Vicky Siriani, 6 Botts Court, stated that, as people, we need to represent the best of our past and deal with pragmatic solutions and that our future is a representation of our pasts.  She felt this was one of the most unfortunate things happening in our city.  She stated that the church is a huge representation of our past.  She stated that we have failed as a people and a community by not understanding the significance of this building in this area and not doing a better job.

Mr. Hart stated that Brona Simon of MHC wrote to POUA on 1/12/09 and that the opinion was the demolition would have an adverse effect on this National Register eligible district.  He stated that they need to be sure that the law is followed with regard to the Section 106 review process.

Mr. Silverstone stated that he will provide a full set of documentation.

Mr. Hart noted that the site is eligible for listing on the National Register and would like to see the alternatives that would minimize or eliminate the adverse effect.  

Mr. Silverstone stated that a property considered eligible is considered eligible for the purpose of the Section 106 review.  MHC and the tribal offices get notification and then other parties entitled to be consulting received invitations, to which the SHC replied in the affirmative.  The ACHP has been notified that there is a determination of an adverse effect.  There is information gathering, including public comment.  When they have received sufficient comment at this round, they will come back with a proposed plan for mitigation, some of which was outlined in the Ms. Alberghini’s presentation.  In approximately 2 ½ weeks, they hope to give a review of the assessment.  

Mr. Hart suggested drafting a letter concurring with Brona Simon’s letter.  He stated that he would like to see alternatives explored to minimize or eliminate adverse effects.

Ms. Herbert asked when the Section 106 process began.  

Mr. Silverstone stated that the award of the HOME funds in March triggered the Section 106 review.

Ms. Silman stated that the initiation of the consultation process began in the beginning of August.  

Ms. Bellin made a motion to send a comment letter.  Ms. Diozzi seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.

Mr. Hart suggesting writing a letter saying that the SHC is in the process of drafting a letter and expect to vote on it at the September meeting.  

Ms. Bellin stated that the question is how important is it to get a letter to MHC before the 30 days elapses and MHC responds.  She stated that she felt we should get as much done tonight as possible.

Mr. Hart felt the letter should state:
  • Make sure the Section 106 process is followed
  • Understand that the property is eligible for National Register
  • Request the proponent explore alternatives
Ms. Herbert suggested it include that it is a historic building that is unique.

Mr. Hart suggested fleshing out the attributes of each building.  

Mr. Silverstone stated that MHC initial impression is that three of the buildings are National Register eligible, as well as the complex as a whole.  He stated that a letter can state that in the Commission’s opinion, what makes it eligible or not.  The site can be eligible independently from the buildings.  

Ms. Silman stated that an area eligible for listing does not mean each individual structure is automatically eligible.

Mr. Hart stated that there is a historic survey Form A for the site.

Ms. Herbert closed public comment.

Ms. Bellin made a motion for the following comments to be included in the letter:
  • That, at a vote taken 8/17/11, the Commission voted to concur with the MHC letter of January 12, 2010 (note typo on letter indicated 2009)
  • Concur with the Form A that the church is rare example of international style and the tower is a distinctive landmark.  The letter is to include brief information on the  rectory, school and convent from Form A.
Ms. Diozzi seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.

Ms. Bellin felt that the building should not look like every other new building in Salem and preferred the mansard roof.

Mr. Hart felt that the Commission should hold off on comments on the design to the September meeting.

Ms. McCrea stated that she was concerned about changing the design that has been approved by the ZBA and Planning Board.

Ms. Hart made a motion that the Commission does not support the demolition of any of the four buildings.  Ms. Diozzi seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.

Mr. Hart made a motion that if buildings are demolished they should first be recorded to Historic American Buildings Survey (HABs) standards.  Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.

Ms. Siriani stated that HSI will be drafting a letter and will state that religious activity has been on that site for 125 years.

Ms. Bellin made a motion to include in the letter that the site has had religious activity for more than 125 years, deriving a primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction, which is one of National Register criteria.  The Commission will follow up with comments on design in another letter.  Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.

Other Business

  • Ms. Guy read an email from Mary Whitney requesting an extension of their Certificate of Appropriateness dated August 30, 2010 for painting, bulkhead and storm windows.  Ms. Diozzi made a motion to extend the certificate for 6 months. Ms. Bellin  seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
  • Ms. Guy stated the Building Inspector has sited 6 Federal Court for code violations.
  • Approval of minutes
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of August 3, 2011.  Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.

D       Mr. Hart stated that he is the Commission’s representative on the Urban Renewal Plan Study Committee.  The Committee decided it will combine the areas into one and will extend the plan for 30 years.  It will add the post office and the Riley Plaza lot, as well as the lot next to Starbucks.  He stated that he would not be able to attend one of the upcoming meetings and needed a volunteer to go in his place.  Ms. McCrea volunteered to attend the meeting in his place.
There being no further business, Ms. Diozzi made a motion to adjourn.  Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.

Respectfully submitted,



Jane A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission