SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
OCTOBER 19, 2011
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, October 19, 2011 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms . Bellin, Ms. McCrea, Ms. Keenan and Mr. Hart.
Ms. Harper entered later in the meeting.
15 ½ River Street
Peter and Jan Eschauzier submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install two in wall air conditioners. One will be on the East side, located on the third floor and not visible from the street. The other will be on the west side and is partially visible from River Street.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Plot plan
Ms. Herbert asked if he had a picture of what an in-wall unit would look like.
Mr. Eschauzier replied that he did not have one, but that they would look like a window unit, but would stick out less. He noted that they are researching different brands. He stated that there is another place there is a place they could put one where it would not be visible from River, but would be slightly visible from Andover Street. He stated that another possibility is to put it on front of the house, which is blocked by the house in front.
Ms. Herbert questioned if it could be installed under the window, so to be in line.
Mr. Eschauzier replied that he was not sure if there was enough space.
Ms. Harper joined the meeting at this time.
Ms. Herbert suggested having the HVAC person working with him, indicate where the best spot is to get the best cooling. She stated that she would want to see a catalog cut of the unit being proposed.
Mr. Eschauzier stated that they all look basically alike, but that wall units vent differently.
There was no public comment.
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission has never approved a wall unit, and suggested it be located so as not to be visible.
Mr. Hart suggested looking into Mitsubishi Mr. Slims.
Mr. Eschauzier stated that they have looked at it, but that it has pipes the are on the outside of the house.
Mr. Hart stated that the pipes could be placed on the interior.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve a Certificate or Non-Applicability for the installation of an in-wall air conditioner unit on the front façade of the house (behind 15 River Street in general location as noted on the map), conditional that it is not visible from any public way. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
11R Winter Island Road
William Wharff submitted an application to Waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance to demolish 11R Winter Island Road to build a new 2 ½ story home.
Documents & Exhibits
Mr. Wharf stated that Coastal Living Magazine put Salem on its radar and that Lynn Duncan suggested contacting him. They designed the new building and are waiting to see if he gets approval. He noted that the existing building has termites and mold. He stated that the people in the neighborhood are in favor.
Ms. McCrea asked the height.
Mr. Wharff stated that in January or February, the previous potential buyer went to the ZBA to add a story, which was approved, and that this design is approximately the same height as what was approved.
Ms. Herbert asked if Mr. Wharff is going to live there
Mr. Wharff replied in the affirmative. He stated that there are a lot of neighbors who have signed the petition in favor.
Mr. Hart asked if Winter Island is a protected area.
Ms. Guy stated that it is part of a National Register district, but noted that it would not be subject to review since it would not be using federal or state funds.
Mr. Wharff confirmed that it would not be using federal or state funds.
Mr. Hart stated that he felt uncomfortable voting without a site visit.
Ms. Herbert stated that she did an exterior site visit a few weeks ago.
Ms. McCrea asked when it was built.
Mr. Wharf stated that it was built in 1950.
There was no public comment.
Ms. Herbert asked if there would be any issue with waiting 2 weeks.
Mr. Wharff stated that he can wait.
VOTE: Ms. Harper made a motion to approve the Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper and Ms. McCrea voted in favor. Mr. Hart, Ms. Bellin and Ms. Keenan voted in opposition. The motion did not carry.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to continue the application so that he can meet with the applicant on site on Friday, October 21, 2011 at 9:00 am. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
12 Rawlins Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, Eric Couture submitted an Application for Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance for complete demolition of 12 Rawlins Street.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Email from Thomas St. Pierre, Building Inspector
- Drawing of new property
Mr. Hart stated that they had a site visit. He stated that he was not sure if it was always a house and felt it might have been a warehouse or workshed. He stated that the interior basement possibly has some early beams and floor joists, probably prior to 1840, which is the only place where he could see anything early. He stated that the first floor possibly has some federal trim on two doors. For the rest of the house, there is nothing attributable to any era. He suggested requiring the owner take photos of the exterior and interior and during demolition. He stated that he felt the house was of little historical value.
Ms. Bellin asked when it was built.
Mr. Hart stated that it was probably built in the 19th century, but noted it is so vanilla and undistinguished that it is very difficult to assign even a general date of construction.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
14-16 Hodges Court
In continuation of a previous meeting, Gary and Gillian Benton submitted an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove existing wooden entry stairs and wooden handrails and replace them with granite steps and wrought-iron handrails and to remove the fill pipe for an oil tank.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Photo-shopped simulation of proposed steps
- Owner’s drawing
The applicant was not present.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
365 Essex Street
Alan & Alison Barth submitted an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for fence construction to close off areas between properties. The applicant was not present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Fence sketches
The applicant was not present.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
VOTE: Ms. Guy stated that she received a request from Helen Sides and Paul Viccica to extend their Certificate of Appropriateness dated August 21, 2008 for a skylight for one year. Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the extension for one year. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms Guy stated that she received an email from Meg Twohey, 120 Federal Street, notifying the Commission that they will be temporarily removing a small section of their back fence in order to have a tree removed. It will be missing for at least 3 weeks.
Ms. Guy stated that the Building Department cited 388-390 Essex Street for a shed that was installed. Ms. Guy stated that she has spoken with the owner and that they will try to move it so that it is not visible from the public way so that they can obtain a Certificate of Non-applicability.
St. Joseph’s Complex status
Ms. Herbert stated that the second meeting of the consulting parties was held on October 17th in Boston and that some of things that were covered included mitigation. Preservation restrictions were discussed. They discussed what would happen with regard to tax credits if any of the buildings were removed, in that they would no longer be eligible to be listed as a historic district. If the interior of any of the buildings were changed, that building individually most likely would not be eligible for tax credits. She stated that they talked about starting to put together mitigation language for a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). Atty. Ruth Silman emailed a draft of the language this afternoon. Ms. Herbert stated that since the Commission only meets twice per month, we don’t want to hold off reviewing things that come in, so she, Laurie and David will work on the drafts as they come in. When there is a bigger package, it can be sent to and brought before the full Commission. She
stated that that there is no sense trying to do each piece at Commission meetings.
Ms. Guy stated that the whole Commission provided comments on what they would like to see put in the MOA at its September 7th meeting. She stated that there would need to have a draft be on the Commission’s agenda at some point so that the public can comment. She suggested either the November 2nd or 16th meeting.
Ms. Herbert stated that HSI via Ed Nilsson came up with a plan for 51 units in church for roughly $160 s.f. compared to roughly $130 s.f. for a new building. We do not know if the $130 includes demolition of the church, reconstruction of the parking lot, etc. and therefore more definitive information was requested. POUA distributed a pro forma looking at the 44 units if they go in the church and the total development costs would be roughly $13 million and that the total rent roll would be roughly $6 million and that they were saying putting the 51 units in the church would result in a $7 million loss. The question was asked to compare apples and apples – look at exactly what it would cost to build the units in the new building. She questioned how the rent roll for the same 51 units in an old
shell versus a new shell produces a $7m shortfall. She stated that Massachusetts Historical Commission will have to look at whether HSI’s plan is feasible and whether or not an historic building should be demolished and lost forever. The other part is can you afford to save it. It was left that POUA is getting info to HSI in terms of budget. HSI is trying to get someone to help with the numbers to sort it out. She stated that it is the key thing to get resolved.
Mr. Hart stated that the DHCD representative indicated that the one-stop application is public information, which can be accessed by making a request. He stated that apparently HSI will be making the request.
Ms. Herbert stated that it is all part of due diligence. She questioned how it can be stated that the church can come down until the numbers are explored. She noted that HSI sent out a memo the night before the consulting party meeting, stating that they have explored financials to that point and basically felt it was economically, physically and marketably feasible. She stated that Ms. Alberghini responded with a very large e-mail saying it was not feasible. It was left that POUA would get information to HSI in terms of budget and DHCD would make available the one-stop and a couple other documents and HSI would be working on the numbers. The pro forma that POUA presented is analyzing HSI’s 44 units in the church, because when POUA originally thought of using the church, they were
saying only 44 units could be fit in the church. So the pro form does not really compare Nilsson’s plan, and therefore we are not in the same place in comparing the new project versus renovation. She stated that one issue is the federal funding awarded in March and Ms. Alberghini stated that DHCD spent 6 months deciding whether they could handle the Section 106 Review before passing it off to MassHousing. She stated that none of this came to us until August 17th. She stated that if DHCD is responsible for 6 months being lost, she felt they should extend the funding deadline.
Ms. Bellin stated that she would like to know if the Commission can go into executive session to talk strategy.
Ms. Guy stated that it would need to be put on an agenda. She stated that tonight was only for Ms. Herbert to give an update on what happened at Monday’s meeting. She stated that she would have to check with the City Solicitor to see if this is a topic that can be discussed through executive session.
Ms. Herbert asked Ms. Guy to check with the City Solicitor.
Ms. Guy stated that she did not think this was a topic that could be discussed in executive session.
Ms. Bellin stated that she was not so sure. She stated that it is not exactly litigation, but it is a legal process and they have a right to talk strategy.
Mr. Hart stated that he believed there are certain topics that can be discussed in executive session and suggested that be explored. He stated that you can’t just go into executive session.
Ms. Bellin stated that she was thinking that this may be one of them.
Ms. Herbert stated that there is no next consulting party meeting planned. In the interim, POUA and HSI are to be working together to sort out this whole financial question of which way the project can go – in the church or not.
Mr. Hart stated that he felt there is a disparity in the basic numbers between POUA and HSI, which is where we got to a stone wall and agreed to disagree and go back and sort through the figures.
Ms. Herbert stated that there is another developer who has come forward who may be interested in purchasing the rectory, and possibly the school.
Mr. Hart stated that we should only talk about what was discussed at Monday’s meeting.
Ms. Herbert stated that as of Monday, there was one developer that was interested and that she asked Lisa Alberghini if there was a number for which they would sell the building, but that she did not provide an answer. Mr. Herbert stated that she had stated that she feels it is important for the project that the face of the project on Lafayette Street looks complete, meaning that something needs to happen to the rectory so that it does not have plywood on the windows for three or four years with weeds growing up around it.
Ms. Bellin asked that if POUA and HSI are working together, will they be providing their information back to Brandee Loughlin at MHC.
Ms. Herbert replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Bellin asked if anyone will be assisting Brandee.
Mr. Hart stated Paul Silverstone is conducting the Section 106 review and that DHCD and POUA give input. He believes Mr. Silverstone makes the recommendation and that will be reviewed by Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC).
Ms. Herbert stated that Mr. Silverstone’s recommendation will be after he gets word from MHC.
Mr. Hart stated that it is a collaborative process and a consultative process amongst all the parties.
Minutes
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of September 7, 2011 as amended. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of September 21, 2011 as amend. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
VOTE: There being no further business, Ms. McCrea 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
| 
