SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 7, 2011
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, September 7, 2011 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Ms. McCrea, Ms. Keenan and Mr. Hart.
31 Washington Square N, Unit 1
Jana Catterson and Frederick Hammond presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace windows with Marvin double hung wood windows (wood exterior) with 7/8” muntins with putty glazed detail in primed pine interior and a full screen (continued from last meeting, but public hearing never opened).
Documents & Exhibits
Mr. Hammond stated that there are seventeen windows, and that it will cost approximately $15,000 for the new replacement windows.
Ms. Herbert asked if he had contacted Window Woman, Inc. or a similar firm that refurbishes windows.
Mr. Hammond stated that he made appointment with Window Women and she did not show. He stated that he also met with Old Town Repair, but that he could not recall the cost. He stated that he preferred to replace the windows.
Ms. Herbert stated that there are three tiers in this very important building. She stated that she spoke to the broker and was told that the owner, Mike Shea, was not in a position to replace the windows on the second and third floors at this time. She noted that it is a prominent and important building.
Ms. Bellin asked if all the windows on the first floor will be replaced.
Mr. Hammond replied in the affirmative. He stated that they will be same windows as those being used on the garage.
Mr. Hart noted that the existing windows may already be replacement windows. He stated that the earlier windows may have been 6 over 6. His stated that his concern is if a distinction can be seen between first floor and the second and third floors. He asked if the windows will be 2 over 2.
Mr. Hammond replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Herbert noted that the second and third floors have storm windows.
Mr. Hart asked if the first floor will have storms.
Ms. Catterson stated that they have the storms and could re-install them.
Ms. Bellin asked the status of third floor unit.
Ms. Catterson replied that it is a rental owned by Mike Shea.
Ms. Herbert stated that the second floor sale fell through and it is now going to be rental, so the windows will probably not be changing in the near future.
Mr. Hart stated that he was reluctant to go ahead based upon there being a visual difference between the units.
Ms. Herbert suggested a compromise to refurbish the 4 front windows and retain the storms and for the sides and back to be replacement windows.
Mr. Hart suggested that there somehow be a mock-up to see the effect.
Ms. Herbert stated that she has had refurbished windows and was amazed at how well they turned out.
Ms. Bellin asked the age of the current windows.
Mr. Hart stated that they are from the 1860’s or as late as 1910, and that stylistically he would think the last part of 19th century.
Ms. Herbert asked if it was possible to do a site visit with a sample of the new window.
Mr. Hart stated that that would be his preference.
Ms. Herbert stated that they could then see if there is any obvious difference.
Mr. Hammond stated that the four windows in the front are probably in the worst condition in the building.
Ms. Herbert asked if all the sashes are same size, and if some of the better sashes be switched to the front.
Mr. Hammond stated that he did not know.
There was no public comment.
Vote: Mr. Hart made a motion to see a mock up at the site before 9/14/11 and to continue the application to next meeting. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Hammond stated that he would contact Marvin Windows and let Ms. Guy know when the mock up will be available to see. Ms. Guy will then notify Ms. Herbert and Mr. Hart.
84-86 Derby Street
Ryan and Amber Macione submitted an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to reroof a brown 3-tab roof with Certainteed Hatteras shingles in either Outer Banks or Stormy Night colors.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Certainteed Hatteras website information
Mr. Macione stated that he went to get a sample yesterday and the salesperson pointed out another shingle – Certainteed Independence. It is the based on a 3-tab full sheet. He stated that because of the age of the roof, the post and beam structure, and that it does not have traditional sheathing to even out roof, there is unevenness in the roof. The standard 3 tab shingle will draw attention to the waviness more than other shingles. Independence is made to hide some of the unevenness. He noted that by adding the additional shingle on top of the 3-tab, it adds some contrast. He stated that he wanted to change from the existing orangey-brown to black or charcoal black. He noted that the size of the Hatteras shingle is much larger.
Mr. Hart stated that it is 8” to weather while standard is 4”.
Mr. Macione stated that Independence does not have the bell shape that the Commission discourages. They are square angle cuts.
Ms. McCrea asked if they would look more like handcut shingles.
Mr. Macione replied in affirmative.
Mr. Hart stated that Hatteras seems to be a 3-tab or equivalent, but is 8” exposure. He stated he did not think the Independence looks like a 3-tab.
Ms. Bellin stated that the base may be 3-tab, but because of what has been put on top, it has no resemblance to a 3-tab. She stated that they prefer the traditional look of 3-tab or one that approaches a 3-tab.
Mr. Hart stated that he did not understand how a 3-tab roof will make it look more uneven than the other shingle.
Mr. Macione stated that 3-tab will draw more attention to the roof.
Mr. Hart noted that the existing roof is 3 tab.
Mr. Macione stated that the existing looks like an ocean of waves.
Mr. Hart asked if the applicant thought that the Independence shingle will disguise the waviness.
Mr. Macione replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Hart stated that with the 3 tab, the eye is drawn to the house, not the roof. He stated that with architectural shingles, the eye goes to the roof.
Mr. Macione stated that he is also proposing to change the color to help hide.
Mr. Hart stated that he has a problem with anything other than a 3-tab.
Mr. Macione stated that he looked at the Grand Slate and stated that it is cost prohibitive. It is 3 times the cost of 3-tab and 2 times the cost of architectural. He stated that 3-tab is $100, Independence is $125, and Grand Slate is $275 per square. He stated that he did not understand why the house is to look like it had a slate roof, when there is no evidence that the house ever had a slate roof.
Ms. Herbert stated that in the photograph the roof does not look that wavy to her,
Mr. Hart stated that he would be happy to go take a look.
Mr. Macione provided a sample of the Independence shingle.
Mr. Hart stated that he was not enthused.
Mr. Macione stated that it comes down to cost. He noted that the existing roof has numerous shingles missing and the roof is leaking.
David O’Sullivan, 92 Derby Street, stated that the roof is visibly wavy.
Mr. Macione stated that if he is forced to use 3-tab, he will have to re-sheath the entire roof to take the waviness out of it, which will drive up the cost.
Vote: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve Certainteed GAF XT30 or GAF XT25 in black, Moiré Black, Slate Gray or the existing color. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Vote: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
117/119 Federal Street
Fred Lipton and Stephen Duguay submitted an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace a 3-tab asphalt roof in kind and to replace the slate roof in back with the same asphalt roof (black or charcoal).
Documents & Exhibits
Mr. Lipton stated that currently the whole front is 3-tab and the whole back is slate. He stated that there is a small place on Essex Street where a small section of the slate roof can be seen. He is proposing 30 year Marathon 3 tab black for the entire roof.
Ms. Bellin noted that the front half is an in kind replacement.
Mr. Lipton stated that the slates are very thin and old. He stated that he had J. B. Kidney quote it and that it is $8800 just for repair. He stated that the roof is not leaking, but that he has been told it is past its life.
Mr. Hart stated that he hated to see a slate roof go.
Mr. Lipton stated that you would have to look through the branches of the tree in order to see a small part of roof.
Ms. Herbert asked if it is a condominium.
Mr. Lipton replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Herbert asked if any slate would be saved, and noted that J. B. Kidney may want to come and save it.
Mr. Lipton stated that he would love it if someone could recycle some of it.
Morris Schopf, 1 Cambridge Street, stated that it is always best to investigate repair of slate. He stated that contemporary roofing doesn’t keep the weather out. It has to be removed section by section and a membrane installed. The process is basically removal and replacement and when done you have a roof good for another 200-250 years.
Mr. Lipton stated that there has been no slate on the front for 25 to 30 years. He stated that the house is so tall, you don’t even notice the asphalt roof from Federal Street.
Vote: Ms. Bellin made a motion to replace the entire roof with 3-tab black asphalt. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Ms. McCrea and Ms. Keenan voted in favor. Mr. Hart abstained from voting. The motion so carried.
182 Federal Street
Alexa Ogna, Dan Fulton and Lisa Delissio submitted an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install chimney caps on two chimneys.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Catalog cut of HY-C Multi-Flue Caps
Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the color to be matt black. Ms. Bellin 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) - Continuation
Present were: Lisa Alberghini from POUA
Ruth Silman from Nixon Peabody
Ms. Herbert stated that the purpose of tonight’s meeting was to discuss mitigation. She stated that the Commission already sent its letter saying the Commission prefers to have development within the church and prefers to see the buildings preserved. She stated that she is looking for a mandate in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for the preservation of the rectory and school. She stated that POUA does not have any development plans per se for those two buildings, and knows that they have been approved for up to 25 units, but wants to make sure the exterior of those buildings remains unchanged and preserved. She added that the buildings and site needs security. She felt the most cost effective way would be electronically, that rings into police and fire stations to protect the property
now and during construction. She noted that the Commission does not have decision authority on design and can only make recommendations and comments. She added that there were four Commission members at the public meeting last night. She stated that the Commission already said it wants the four buildings preserved and now it needs to address the topic of mitigation.
Ms. Guy stated that she discovered that one of Ms. Bellin’s comments that was approved to go into the letter was not included. She will include it in the second letter.
Ms. Herbert read the Commission’s letter issued following the August 17th Salem Historical Commission meeting.
Mr. Hart stated that Section 106 requires the proponent to explore alternatives to adverse effects and that demolition of the church is an adverse effect. He stated that he wanted to be sure a legitimate attempt was made by the proponent that alternatives were explored. He noted that there was testimony at the public hearing last night stating that the church could be recycled and noted that two to three architects said it could be done. He stated that he insists that alternatives be explored.
Ms. Herbert stated that she did not feel that she got a definitive answer from Paul Silverstone on how the 106 process will go forward. She stated that from her take, the decision seems next to made. She questioned how it is proposed to get an alternative to demolition of the church on the table within a week.
Mr. Hart stated that Bill Barlow, recently retired from National Park Service, stated that an MOA will be prepared. He stated that he thought it could be embodied in the MOA.
Ms. Herbert stated that she suspected that the view will be that all alternatives have been explored. She stated that the Commission can and should address this in its comments, but she questioned what effect it will have. She stated, from what she heard at the 9/6/11 public hearing, that it sounds like the window of opportunity is just about closed.
Mr. Hart stated that Massachusetts Historical Commission theoretically is going to weigh in on this, and, if necessary, the Advisory Council in Washington, DC. He stated that he did not feel that soliciting up to five firms is exploring alternatives to reusing church and it did not meet the intent of Section 106. He noted that there are three architects who say it can be done. He proposed that the Commission insist that the proponent explore alternatives to demolition of church.
Ms. McCrea asked how practical it is.
Ms. Herbert stated that the point is how can we make that happen; can we make that happen.
Mr. Hart stated that it is not up to the Commission to do it, but is up to the proponent to explore alternatives.
Ms. Herbert stated that two years ago, when St. Mary’s was on the table, it looked like there would be housing units in the church. An effort was made behind the scenes to come up with another plan, which happened and there won’t be any units in that church now. She noted that it took over year and a half for that proposal to be even presented to the Board. She stated that she knows a request to explore alternatives will be put in the letter, but asked if there was any way to put any additional teeth in it to make it happen, short of creating a plan within the next week.
Mr. Hart stated that it was up to the proponent and not up to the Commission to design.
Ms. Herbert stated that it was up to the proponent with St. Mary’s, too, but it didn’t happen.
Mr. Hart stated that it is up to the proponent and up to Massachusetts Historical Commission to enforce it.
Ms. McCrea asked if Mr. Hart did not feel enough due diligence was done for appropriate reuse of church.
Mr. Hart stated that he recommends the Commission state that the letter of law of Section 106 be followed and that the proponent prepare alternatives to demolition of church.
Ms. Herbert stated that she felt the need to start out by saying that the Commission is fully behind development at that site, with the caveat that they would like to see it within the church building for the mass of the units.
Mr. Hart stated that there could also be an addition to the church or that a separate building be constructed. He noted that in the 2005 study report, there were three different scenarios, including reuse of the church and a new building on the southwest corner.
Vote: Mr. Hart made a motion to include the comment that the Commission is fully in support of development at the site with the caveat that the Section 106 be fully explored with respect to preservation of the church and that alternative designs be explored that would preserve the church exterior. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Vote: Mr. Hart made a motion to request that the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) include preservation of the exterior of the rectory and school which are really not mentioned in the plan as proposed. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Motion: Mr. Hart made a motion that alternative designs be explored that would preserve the integrity of the convent.
Ms. McCrea stated that her understanding was that it does not meet the criteria that makes it historical.
Mr. Hart stated that it was debatable.
Ms. McCrea stated that she felt it was so poorly constructed compared to the rectory and felt it should be demolished.
Vote: Ms. Bellin seconded Mr. Hart’s motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Keenan and Mr. Hart voted in favor. Ms. McCrea voted in opposition. The motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert questioned whether the Commission should request that the MOA state that the rectory and school cannot be sold off as separate entities and that the campus should remain as a whole.
Mr. Hart wondered if that could impede the developer and stated that he did not want to tie their hands too tightly. He suggested binding the sale.
Ms. Herbert suggested a preservation restriction.
Vote: Mr. Hart made a motion to request that the MOA include a requirement that a preservation restriction be placed on the rectory and school. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert stated that she would like to see a motion to request the campus and all four buildings be protected by security measures, most probably electronically tied into police and fire.
Vote: Ms. Bellin made a motion to request the campus and all four buildings be protected by security measures, most probably electronically tied into police and fire. Mr. Hart seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Keenan and Mr. Hart voted in favor. Ms. McCrea abstained. The motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin asked about current maintenance. She stated that it is not clear that the buildings are being properly maintained while vacant. She stated there is leaking and noted that it is an abandoned property and appears to be treated as such. She stated that if we really want to preserve the church, that is not helping retain the status quo.
Ms. Herbert suggested that an assessment of all four buildings be done.
Vote: Ms. Bellin made a motion that all four buildings be assessed and that they are maintained to preserve the status quo. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Keenan and Mr. Hart voted in favor. Ms. McCrea abstained. The motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin stated that she thought the Commission should talk about proposed design.
Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission can, but was not sure if would have any influence.
Ms. Herbert stated that she made a comment at the public meeting last night that the commission saw the plans for 51 units for the first time at its 8/17 meeting. She stated that the first time the Commission saw any plans was in January 2010, but it was for 73 units and therefore, in fact, two weeks ago was first time the Commission saw the new plan with the mansard roof and 51 units. She stated that she talked to someone at HSI and learned that half of the board liked the mansard roof design and half liked current vanilla design, therefore there was no consensus at HSI. She stated that the more perimeter landscaping the better.
Vote: Ms. Bellin made a motion to request that any modifications to the design and any landscaping plan submitted to other boards should also come to the Commission for comment. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Keenan and Mr. Hart voted in favor. Ms. McCrea voted in opposition. The motion so carried.
Ms. McCrea stated that she did not feel it was part of the Commission’s purview.
Ms. Bellin requested that the steeple be reused in the design
Ms. Herbert asked if there was any possibility that the steeple could somehow be incorporated.
Ms. Alberghini stated that they looked at it extensively and that it is not practical due to its physical condition and due to the design of building. She noted that the design has been approved by the Planning Board through PUD process.
Ms. Herbert stated that the plan did not have to go before the Design Review Board (DRB). She suggested to Lynn Duncan that going forward a couple members of the DRB and the Historical Commission be able to comment on some of these designs.
Ms. Alberghini stated that the DRB was not part of process but that a couple of members were asked to comment and plans were changed based on their comments.
Mr. Hart suggested taking from Jim Treadwell’s letter where it says “mitigation/minimization of adverse effect should include salvage of the 5-tier tower and the crucifix on the front façade of the church and other significant artifacts…”.
Ms. McCrea asked if the statue is found, can it be used.
Ms. Alberghini stated that church canon law requires any sacred articles be burned, buried or destroyed according to religious law. She stated that the statue was buried for a reason and should remain buried. She noted that if they come across it during construction, they will either rebury it on site or dispose of it by consulting with the archdiocese. She stated that it is viewed in the same way as any religious article or artifact from other faith religions or other tribes and should be treated with the same respect and dealt with according to the laws of that culture or faith. She added that she did not feel that it will be found in any kind of reuse condition.
Ms. Herbert stated that she had closed public comment at last meeting, but will allow limited comment.
James Treadwell, 36 Felt Street, stated that he attended a memorial on August 17th, so he could not attend the last meeting. He stated that the most important document is SHPO’s letter of January 12, 2010. He stated that it was great that someone was brought in by POUA with expertise to do the Section 106 Review. He noted that in the SHPO’s letter, POUA was told to go forward with consultation. He stated that the historical community should not be penalized for making any comment or be made to feel that we are causing more delay or that the delay is with us. He stated that with regard to statue, MHC recommends archaeological reconnaissance and if were paying attention to letter should be well along on archaeological reconnaissance. He noted that in Philadelphia,
the Ben Franklin Home unearthed the cellar and put Plexiglas on top to preserve it. He stated that they are supposed to develop and evaluate with the consulting parties the alternatives in 800.6 of the regulations. In 811e, there are list of many things the Commission and the public were supposed to have before consultation and we don’t have it. He stated that design is part of consultation, and the Commission is not cut out of design review in the regulations. He stated that if the Commission has comments about structure, it is free to do that under Section 106. He added that neglect of a property which causes deterioration is an adverse effect and that alteration of a property that is not consistent with the Secretary’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties is an adverse effect. He suggested convening a meeting of the SHPO, the Commission, the developer, HSI, and the public interested parties. He stated that they have
the obligation to let you consult. They have to develop a plan and you have the opportunity to review and evaluate it together. He noted that SHCDC had an alternative plan that retained the church, which was rejected by the archdiocese and that it should be on the table to be judged. He stated that he found the slideshow presentation from last meeting to be completely unacceptable. He noted that it is normally mandated that they cast a wider net and do more outreach to try to preserve an historic building, again in consultation.
Ms. Herbert asked if convening the interested parties is something the Commission wants to add to the letter.
Vote: Mr. Hart made a motion to include a request to convene a meeting of the interested parties be added to the comment letter. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Anna Delamonica submitted the following copies:
- Salem News article of December 11, 1944 – Remove Six-Ton Statue Safely From St. Joseph’s
- Draft by John Goff of October 5, 20-06 – Archaeology Month and Archaeological Discoveries in Salem
Salem News photo reprinted from 1940s of St. Joseph statue
- Salem News article of May 16, 1949 – St. Joseph’s Church Cornerstone Blessed by Bishop Wright
- Postcards of Boston & Maine Railroad Station and St. Joseph’s Church and Parish House
- Aerial View of Saint Joseph Parish by Emile Devoe with insert by J. Leo’s Photo Lab
Morris Schopf, 1 Cambridge Street, stated that he would like to address the MOA and the exhibits which turn on the study that the City did. He stated that although the financial data may be out of date, they basically got it right. He stated that there are only two logical adaptive uses for this historic building. One is to retain its volume and interior treatments in some secular way, such as a performance venue. POUA and the consultants are correct that it is real long shot. He stated that a little performance space in conjunction with other uses seems to be logical. He stated that the City’s study recommended housing which is logical. He stated that it is 44’ wide and 44’ high, and it is possible to erect a steel structure within the load bearing
building and do the seismic things they need to do by essentially destroying the interior volume in exchange for creating 24 to 30 dwelling units as opposed to the dinky little units they are proposing. He stated that it is possible to do without altering any principal facades. He stated that the second exhibit is a letter by Structures North who examined the building. In that letter, there is no mention of the irretrievable condition of the building whatsoever. He stated that in John Wathne’s report, the only thing he recommends demolishing is chimney. Mr. Schopf stated that his view is that the logical mitigation is adaptive use. He stated that it is not as good as preservation, but it sure beats the alternative. He stated that he was mystified that no serious attempt has been made to illustrate that there are no adaptive uses. He stated that there must be a compelling reason for demolition of the church other than its
adaptive use is not economically viable. He stated that he would like to know if that is true and if canon law plays a role.
Ms. Alberghini stated that canon law has nothing to do with demolition of church.
Ruth Silman of Nixon Peabody stated that there was a bit of a misunderstanding of whether there would be public comment tonight. She stated that the Section 106 presentation last night and at the last meeting before Commission were pieces of the Section 106 process. The repository of everything is MassHousing as the designee of DHCD. If the Commission believes that there is a piece missing or that certain due diligence hasn’t been done or hasn’t been presented, she suggested calling Paul Silverstone to review the entire record. She stated that POUA is not relying solely on a couple of slides or what an architect said for a couple of minutes.
Ms. Alberghini stated that there is a whole pile of information that creates the record which includes everything that has gone on for last 6 years. She stated that last night’s meeting is not all there is.
Ms. Herbert stated that at the January 6, 2010 meeting, the Commission requested to be an interested party. She stated that one of the things that hasn’t happened is that various changes be shared with interested parties. There was no dialog and no meetings. When the Commission reviewed the courthouse, all interested parties representatives met in Boston and discussed the plans.
Ms. Alberghini stated that they have proceeded with the 106 review completely in accordance with the requirements. She noted that after the January, 2010 meeting, it was in litigation, that there were four lawsuits and it was not known if it would proceed. It was not until it was funded this past spring that there was of any definition of what plan would be with any certainty. She stated that it was at that point when the Review started to gear up.
Ms. Herbert stated that she got the impression last night that Paul Silverstone would touch base with his boss and that this is it. She stated that she really suggests meeting at least twice with the interested parties and that it would be an important step to move forward. She stated that it is hard to get behind a project that is not fully fleshed out. She noted that there is no anchor tenant for the commercial space, and it is undecided if there will be two or four commercial spaces. She stated that she thought it would get greater support for moving forward if the details were fleshed out more with the interested parties, concerning design and modification elements over a 60-90 day window, so that people can get behind it. She stated that it is tainted by lawsuits. She would like to
see it go forward in the very best way it can be done and that a lot of smart people that may be able to give some finishing touches and move it forward in a better way.
Ms. Bellin asked if Paul Silverstone has a report on the alternatives that were explored.
Mr. Hart suggested that Paul Silverstone send an inventory of what he has so we can compare it with ours.
Ms. Herbert asked if Ms. Alberghini thought getting the interested parties together was something they would consider doing as part of the Section 106.
Ms. Alberghini stated that she did not think they have 60-90 days, as they are in a position to close on financing or loose it. She noted that it was supposed to close on September 1st and that they are trying to get an extension for a short while. They have lost funding twice due to lawsuits. They have devoted a lot of attention again last September with design review and PUD review, of which many town boards participated. If they don’t or can’t close, they will lose financing again and then they would not be able to continue with the effort after that. They have incurred about $4.7 million and would not be in position to undertake it. They are choosing to use federal funds, but a for-profit private developer may not use federal funds, so there would be no
Section 106 Review.
Ms. Silman sated that there will be further discussion during the development of the MOA.
Ms. Herbert stated that at August 17th Salem Historical Commission meeting, she asked the next step in the 106 process and felt that Mr. Silverstone was very vague in response. She stated that the next day they got a notice that there was to be a public meeting. She questioned why he did not tell the Commission the night before at the Commission’s meeting. She stated that you can see that the process is terribly flawed and its very difficult to buy into it.
Ms. Bellin stated that at the January, 2010 meeting the Commission asked to be interested party. She stated that this was resurrected last Spring.
Ms. Silman stated that POUA spent months trying to get DHCD to begin the 106 process. It took months for them to say they did not have the expertise and asked MassHousing to do it. She stated that POUA has been asking to start the process for a long time.
Mr. Hart stated that Mr. Silverstone had sent the public meeting notice that afternoon and at the meeting that night did not bring it up.
Ms. Bellin stated that at the public meeting last night, people asked what is next and he was still very vague.
Ms. Silman stated that she will pass along the requests and comments.
Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission will be talking to his boss about all of this, if that is what they have to do to extend the 106. She stated that they did not want to them loose their funding, because they want the project, but want to see it to be quality.
Ms. Alberghini stated that she has held off on saying it, but the reality is it will be sold.
Ms. Herbert stated that she did not feel there should be a truncated 106 process because of lawsuits, funding, etc. She stated that the 106 process for the Courthouse was close to a year.
Ms. Alberghini asked how long the courthouse effort went on before the 106 process.
Mr. Schopf stated that it was eight years.
Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission needs to do its due diligence. She stated that regardless of our independent views of whether we like international style or not, as body we have promised to preserve historic buildings in Salem and that has to be our focus and mitigation is very important. She stated that she felt the interested parties have to have at least one meeting.
Other Business
Ms. Herbert stated that conflicting schedules have caused members to be late for our 7:30 start time on occasion. However, she requested that Commission members strive to be on time going forward. She stated that we have had situations where we haven’t had a quorum and suggested that members try to shoot for 7:15pm arrival when possible.
Ms. Herbert asked that all comments be made through the chair and that members not speak out of turn, so that we can be as efficient as possible.
Ms. Herbert stated that there are two vacancies on the board. She asked that a high level contractor be considered for one spot. She stated that she has thought about what expertise areas we are missing and what we are trying to shoot for. She noted that it is still the Mayor’s decision.
Mr. Hart stated that he tried to solicit Kim Brengle, but she was not able to do it. He agreed that a contractor would be good and also suggested an architectural historian.
Ms. Herbert asked if is 7:30 is too late to have regular meetings and suggested going to 6:30 or 7:00. Ms. Guy will check with City Solicitor to see if there are any issues to be aware of.
Ms. McCrea made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission
| 
