SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 2, 2011
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, November 2, 2011 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Harper, Ms. McCrea, Ms. Keenan and Mr. Hart.
Ms. Herbert and Ms. Bellin entered later in the meeting.
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.
Ms. Guy stated that she received an e-mail withdrawing the application, noting that they will reapply in the spring.
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
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to deny the application without prejudice due to the Commission being required to act within 60 days of the date of the application. Mr. Hart
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
11R Winter Island Road
In continuation of a prior meeting, 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. Hart stated that he went to the site and took photos. He stated that his observation was that it is a raised split level and looks like it was built in the 1950s. The exterior does not have any distinguished architectural features. He stated that he did not think there were any original finishes on the interior. He stated that he did not think the interior or the exterior has any merit to hold demolition.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance with the proviso that the applicant provide exterior and interior color, digital photos and exterior taped dimensions around house and vertical to the eave. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
31 Flint Street
Russ and Suzanne Felt submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace clapboards on the house front with 6” cedar boards and to extend the trim below the third floor windows.
Ms. Guy stated that she received an e-mail from the owner withdrawing the application.
388-390 Essex Street
Ms. Bellin recused herself, left the table and joined the audience.
Ellen Golub and Steve Sass submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to reconstruct the side entry porch using Fiberon Veranda Grooved Composite decking and Veranda composite rails. The work has already been started.
Documents & Exhibits
Ms. Herbert noted that the Commission has previously approved synthetic decking, but not railings.
Ms. Harper stated that the synthetic decking previously approved was for stairs and porches that were for longer distances from the street or down driveways. She stated that the proposed is highly visible.
Mr. Hart stated that he has a problem with a plastic balustrade and stated that no matter what is done to it, it still looks like plastic.
Ms. Herbert stated that the plastic balustrade should be removed and the supporting pressure treated posts could be wrapped in pine.
Ms. Harper stated that she went to the site today and that there is no problem seeing exactly what the material is. She stated that it is not something she could approve. She stated that a beefier post would be more appropriate. She added that she has a problem with composite decking being that close to the street.
Mr. Sass stated that he would like to keep the decking, but is willing to take down plastic rails.
Laurie Bellin, 396 Essex Street, stated that there is no real front entrance, that it is a duplex, and is extremely close to the street. She suggested that the Commission also consider the material of the risers.
Ms. Harper asked the thickness of the riser material, noting that it appears thin.
Mr. Sass stated that he will take out the riser material and make it wood.
Ms. McCrea stated that she had no problem with the decking but had an issue with the balustrade.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to continue the application in order for Commission members to go by and take another look. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Hart stated that there are several satellite dishes on the house.
Ms. Herbert stated that they need to be moved so that they are not visible from the public way.
Ms. Bellin re-joined the Commission at the table.
185/187 Federal Street
Michelle Alvino, Peter L’Italien and Michael and Jennifer Spencer submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace windows with either Anderson or American Craftsman vinyl windows. Present were Ms. Alvino, Mr. L’Italien and Mr. Spencer.
Documents & Exhibits
Ms. Alvino stated that it is a ranch duplex.
Ms. Guy stated that the house was built in the 1950s-60s.
Ms. Keenan stated that the vinyl siding was probably added in the 70s, early 80s.
Mr. Spencer stated that his side is all awning and casement windows and that the other side is double hung.
Ms. Herbert asked if the new windows will be in same openings.
Ms. Alvino replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Spencer stated that some of the windows cannot be changed to double hung and that they may have to use sliding or keep them as casement.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Hart asked if the current windows are wood, single glaze.
Mr. Spencer stated that his side is double glaze, but the seals are broken.
Ms. Harper asked if they can get the same sizes in wood.
Mr. Spencer replied in the affirmative, but stated that the difference in price is huge.
Ms. Herbert stated that it looks like there had at one time been clips for exterior energy panels. She stated that she would like to continue and have them come in with catalog cuts to see what they are proposing.
Mr. Spencer stated that they would look the same as they look now.
Ms. McCrea stated that she did not see the need to hold a non-historic house to historic standards.
Mr. Hart stated that it currently has vinyl siding. He stated that he would like to continue and have the applicants bring in information on the specific model and style.
Ms. Alvino asked if they could have something to show contractors that the Commission will consider the windows, so that they can get contractors to even talk to them.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to send a letter saying that the Commission will consider approving vinyl windows for this house due to the age of the house. Approval will be conditional on the Commission reviewing actual specifications. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to continue the application to the next meeting. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
30 Broad Street
William M. Ross and Abigail B. Ross submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to:
- Repoint deteriorated chimney mortar joints to address moisture damage, install chimney cap painted power black.
- Install aluminum gutters on front and rear of house. Downspouts to be positioned in front of building corner boards. Gutters and downspouts to match building trim or body color.
- Remove storm windows and single glazed wood windows on front and side of house and replace with new double glazed wood windows in either:
- Pella Architect Series Wood Double Hung Window
- LePage SDL, wood exterior
- J. B. Sash Proper Bostonian (wood exterior)
- Marvin Ultimate Double Hung wood windows
- Jeldwen Premium Siteline EX windows in wood
- Install new ductless air conditioning system with exterior compressor mounted on the ground on each end of the building. Mechanical wiring/tubing runs from the compressor up each end of the building to be painted body color of the house. Relocation of side gate.
- Demolish and reconstruct existing third floor shed dormer and extend approximately 10 feet.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Pella window on line specification
- Marvin window on line specification
- Mitsubishi air conditioning unit on line specification
Mr. Ross stated that the chimney cap will be 47” x 52” x 10”. They will chip out loose mortar on the chimney and put back new mortar in between the bricks. Approximately 30% of the chimney will be repointed.
Mr. Hart asked how the mason will match the missing mortar.
Mr. Ross stated that he will mix it with charcoal powder to get the gray.
Mr. Hart recommended that the mason match the sand, which is the color you will see when it weathers.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to partial repointing of the chimney, with the proviso that the mason match the sand in the mortar mix to the existing sand and to approve the installation of a chimney cap per photograph submitted, 47” x 52” x 10”, painted powder black. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Ross stated that there are currently no gutters. He stated that there once were gutters, but now there are dry wells. He stated that water leaks off the roof and dumps onto fieldstone and is coming into the house. They will be standard ogee shaped gutters and will be white along the corner boards.
Ms. Harper stated that round downspouts are an older product and she felt it was more appropriate.
Mr. Ross asked if the Commission is willing to approve either round or rectangular downspouts.
Ms. Herbert asked if the downspouts are just for the front and back.
Mr. Ross replied in the affirmative.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve ogee aluminum gutters and fluted round downspouts. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
VOTE: Ms. Harper made a motion to give the applicant the option for rectangular downspouts. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Ms. McCrea, Ms. Bellin and Ms. Keenan voted in favor. Mr. Hart voted in opposition. The motion so carried.
Mr. Ross stated that they cannot afford to replace all the windows, so they are trying to strip and fix some of the windows that are in better condition, particularly on the first floor.
Ms. Herbert stated that it may look odd to have some windows single glaze with storms and some double glaze with no storm.
Mr. Ross stated that they will leave it so that storms are all on one side.
Ms. Herbert requested that the color of storms match sash. She suggested that the owners look into fixing the existing windows.
Mr. Hart stated that it is the same insulation value to rehab the existing and have a storm as it is for replacing it with a new window.
Mr. Ross stated that they are trying to salvage all that they can. He stated that in the proposed dormer addition they will put in new windows.
Ms. Harper suggested comparing the price between new windows and repairing windows. She stated that a professional will make the existing weathertight.
Mr. Ross stated that the previous owners installed a few new windows in the kitchen which are wood, single pane. He stated that they will restore the interior Indian shutters.
Ms. Herbert stated that she felt it would be a crime, historically speaking, to have insulated windows with Indian shutters. She suggested trying to keep the first floor all single glaze.
Mr. Ross stated that they are trying and would change the second and third floor windows and the dormer addition.
Ms. Herbert suggested continuing the windows and giving the applicant a chance to explore options.
Mr. Hart stated that it is an 1836 house and that the applicant is already going to rehab the first floor windows. He suggested also looking at rehabbing the second floor windows. He noted that The Window Woman has office in Peabody.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to move continue the windows to the next meeting. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Ross stated that there were five window air conditioners in the house which they removed. The proposed air conditioning system has an interior unit in each room and has two units on each side of the exterior or one large exterior unit on one side. The units are either 36” x 12” x 36” for two or 36” x 48” x 12” for one.
Ms. Harper asked if the compressor can be placed behind the bulk head on the left.
Mr. Ross replied that he believed it could and that he could also disguise it with shrubbery. He stated that for the right side, Ms. Guy had suggested moving up the gate to hide the unit behind.
William Peck, 27 Broad Street, stated that he hoped the units will be covered up so that he does not have to look at them when he walks by.
Mr. Hart suggested running the piping up near the cornerboard.
Mr. Ross stated that they could, but that it would then have to come across. He noted that on the right side, they would need to alter the gate slightly to fit it.
Ms. Herbert suggested either cutting the gate down from the bottom and moving it forward or just leaving the gate and building a new gate in front.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion for the existing gate on right side of house to be moved forward with option to either reduce it in height to match the lower height of the fence… or…to raise a section of the lower fence to meet the higher fence and moving the transition section. The motion is also to install a Mitsubishi air conditioning system with one compressor mounted on ground behind relocated gate and one mounted on the left side of house behind the existing bulkhead, concealed with evergreen or conifer shrubbery. The mechanical wiring/tubing that runs from the compressor up each end of the building to the rooms is to be painted the color of the surface they are on. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Hart asked if the dormer is visible from street.
Mr. Ross stated that it is obliquely visible from the street. It will be offset by a couple of feet on each side.
Ms. Herbert asked when they propose to start the work.
Mr. Ross stated that the dormer is most urgent item on the application. He provided a sketch over the existing photograph. He stated that only the sides will be visible.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve demolition and reconstruction of the existing dormer in the rear and to install a new shed dormer per photos provided with wood siding, clapboards, trim and paint to match the existing house. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
St. Joseph’s Complex Redevelopment
Status Update
Ms. Herbert stated that there have been no meetings of the consulting parties since October 17th and no communications from MassHousing, DHCD or MHC. She stated that she got a call from Tom Dalton from the Salem News this afternoon and that he told her that he spoke with MassHousing and was told there would be a decision forthcoming within a week. Ms. Herbert stated that she then called Paul Silverstone and that he said that Mr. Dalton has spoken with Tom Farmer and that Mr. Silverstone had given Mr. Farmer permission to say that a decision would be forthcoming within a week. The hold-up is waiting for DHCD to finalize their wording and send it to MassHousing. Once MassHousing formal declaration is delivered to MHC, MHC will chime in with their decision based on what they received from
MassHousing. Ms. Herbert stated that, as far as questions HSI raised regarding drawings, budget, etc. so that they can compare a project of 51 units with common space in the church and 51 units, common space and 4 commercial spots, Mr. Silverstone said that comparing the two was not relevant because the changes to the church would be so significant that the building would no longer render itself a good example of the International Style. She added that Mr. Silverstone mentioned that he has been in continuous consultation with the Advisory Council and that they seem to be in line with that opinion that changes to the church would be so significant, including adding roughly 50% more windows and changing the roof, that it becomes a new building essentially. Ms. Herbert stated that during the process, Mr. Silverstone has been in contact with MHC, as well as the ACHP.
Ms. Bellin stated that MHC does not have to accept the determination.
Ms. Herbert stated that once the opinion is rendered, the next step is for the interested parties to make a decision if they care to challenge that ruling. She stated that she was kind of surprised to get that news late this afternoon.
Mr. Hart stated that he believed that during the consultation process, there would be a MOA developed that related to the entire project, including the rectory and the school.
Ms. Herbert stated that the convent happens not to reach its 50th year until April, 2012, and that, in terms of demolition delay, the Commission does not have jurisdiction.
Mr. Hart stated that it is unless it is determined to be National Register eligible, despite the fact that it is less than 50 years old.
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission would not gain Demolition Delay authority if it is under 50 years old.
Mr. Hart agreed that it would not be applicable to the Demolition Delay Ordinance, but noted that the Section 106 process would apply to the convent if the convent were determined to be eligible for National Register listing and if federal funds are being used to demolish it. He stated that it is his understanding that an MOA will be developed for the entire site regardless of which way DHCD recommends.
Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission needs to think about mitigation.
Review and comment on Draft stipulations for school, rectory, convent, statue and recordation of all features (prepared by Atty. Ruth Silman, 10/19/11)
Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission needs to go over the stipulations that Ruth Silman has submitted and asked for public comment.
Jim Treadwell stated that, with regard to the convent, he believed the SHPO found it is a contributing building to the district and that the Commission felt it would be an adverse effect if demolished. Therefore, he felt it was still at square one in terms of an MOA. He stated that he would assume that some outreach for alternate reuse has been performed. If not, he did not know how a conclusion can be made that it must be demolished, particularly in view of what has happened at St. Mary’s, there may be a need for housing for indigent people. He stated that the involvement of the ACHP concerns him, because the last he heard was that they decided not to participant in the Section 106 process, based on the information they received from POUA. He questioned if they are a participant
or not, noting that there are different rules under Section 106 if they participate. He stated that if they participate, they are supposed to participate with everybody, so that everybody knows what their position is. Mr. Treadwell stated that if maintenance and security as requested is not done, it is an adverse effect due to neglect. He questioned if modifying is considered an adverse effect, which is worse – modifying or demolition. He stated that he hoped for some progress on salvage of the tower if it is to be modified, and if not to be modified, maybe the tower can be retained. He stated that demolition of the whole complex removes that and that modification and adaptive reuse will retain that as a symbol of our city. He stated that he thought that the Commission should take a position on whether or not modification or complete demolition is more acceptable.
Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission already has.
Emily Udy asked, if there is a finding issued before the next meeting, will the Commission respond and what would the next step be.
Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission would respond.
Mr. Hart stated that the project is still in the consultative process and that there is still a MOA to be developed. He stated we are in the consultative process and we are a party to that process.
Ms. Udy stated that she felt the draft stipulations were very preliminary and need to be strengthened in regards to the conversations at the Consulting Parties’ meeting. She noted that HSI has not yet prepared a response to Ms. Silman’s draft stipulations.
Ruth Silman stated that when the parties met, one of the things talked about was with respect to recordation. She noted that MHC has some standard language for which she has submitted a request. She noted that, in her draft, the language is a placeholder, which will be updated when she gets the language from MHC.
Ms. Guy read two e-mails from Salem Historical Commission member Larry Spang. They stated: “I’m on the sidelines, but you might want to request high resolution digital files of the photographs in addition to the traditional negatives and prints. Most photographers these days shoot in digital format so shouldn’t be a difficult thing to accomplish. (You might also want to suggest photos done by a professional photographer)” and “If you’re hoping to protect the first floor of the Rectory, I would not allow them to use it for construction office. I’m doing a project in Lynn which is reusing a house for construction office and they’ve trashed the insides just by their coming and going with tool belts, etc. If you don’t care about the interiors, then feel free to let
them use it.”
Mr. Hart stated that he felt the draft has been portrayed as a start. He stated that he is waiting to see how the bigger question was resolved before getting into it, which, he said, may really drive us in terms of how we attack the MOA.
Ms. Herbert stated that maybe we should just wait.
Ms. Silman stated that maybe she misheard, but believed she heard that regardless of what happens to the church and convent, stipulations are required with regard to the rectory and school. She stated that she would like feedback.
Ms. Alberghini stated that at the last meeting, everyone agreed that stipulations would be required whether the church is renovated or taken down, due to it being an adverse effect in either case. Therefore, it was determined that there is no reason not to be talking about stipulations now and we were asked to draft and circulate it.
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission had discussed that Ms. Herbert would deal with the different renditions, so that each sentence change would not have to come back before the Commission and that tonight would be the forum for the public to comment on the draft stipulations with regard to school, rectory, convent, statue and recordation of all features.
Mr. Hart stated that he really wanted to see which way the church is going to go before fine tuning.
Ms. Udy agreed that regardless of what happens, the rectory and school will need to be addressed, which raises an important point that the site itself needs a further developed site plan. She stated that there has been a lot of attention focused on the church. She stated that the site plan needs to be developed for all the buildings. She stated that with regard to the stipulations for the rectory and school, some of the strengthening that needs to be done includes that there would be a required design review by MHC. It would follow the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation, which takes into account the planned reuse for the buildings, so that the disclaimer about best efforts is not necessary. She stated that there should be some design review for the rectory if a temporary
construction office is there. She also stated that Ms. Loughlin is looking into how to make sure that these mitigation standards are transferred if the development responsibility is transferred.
Ms. Herbert stated that the Preservation Restriction will travel with the property, not the owner. She stated that for Stipulation #2, for example, she is thinking something more on the lines that the proponent will advise both MHC and the Salem Historical Commission if any issues that might negatively effect their ability to maintain the historic fabric of both the interior and exterior of those two buildings and they would immediately notify. She stated that it should say more than just “use best efforts”, they would actually notify if issues arise, before things get out of hand, along the lines of items such as security. She asked Ms. Alberghini if they are looking into security, including during construction when valuable materials are stored there.
Ms. Alberghini stated that, during construction, security will be the responsibility of the contractor for both the site and the materials. She stated that she has been looking at general security of the site and has been in touch with the Salem Police Department. They have posted more signs. They have not engaged any electronic surveillance kind of contract or work but have been trying to talk to the police about what would be effective.
Ms. Herbert suggested motion sensitive lighting as a start.
Ms. Herbert stated that they need to address how the rectory and school will be mothballed to prevent vandalism and homeless persons or vandals from entering.
Ms. Bellin stated that the Commission’s last letter talked about a preservation restriction, but noted that there is nothing to that effect in the stipulations. She stated that it is important that it gets carried over to the stipulations.
Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission talked about not tying the hands of the proponent if the buildings were sold, but making sure that there was a preservation restriction that would at least keep the buildings safe from exterior change.
Ms. Udy stated that there is strong precedent in Salem for buildings of this style, size and age of the rectory and school being reused very successfully for a variety of uses. She did not think by asking that the buildings are preserved is tying their hands from being marketable in Salem.
Ms. Herbert stated that preserving the interior and exterior preserves the ability of the next owner to go for tax credits.
Ms. Bellin stated that it sounds like we don’t want the first floor of the rectory as their office.
Ms. Herbert stated that Mr. Alberghini suggested it based on discussions that we would try to have the face on Lafayette street have a completed feel, rather than having the rectory mothballed with plywood on the windows. She stated that there could be other alternatives.
Ms. Bellin stated that in light of Mr. Spang’s email, it is not a good option.
Ms. Alberghini stated that it is worth exploring more, and that she understands there may be some concerns, but it does not mean it can’t be done in an appropriate way. She stated that it is possible it can be done in ways that would address the concerns about the effect on the interior. She suggested not eliminating it as an option. She stated that it is worth having a conversation and that it may be the most immediate way to have there be some presence in that building. She stated it will not be a quick path to find someone else to occupy that space.
Ms. Bellin asked if it is that important that the building be used as a construction office.
Ms. Alberghini replied in the negative and stated that the contractor may prefer to use a trailer. She stated that she understood the concerns which can be addressed, but it is a way to keep presence in the building, which she understands is an overriding concern people have. It is the quickest way to see some use while other options are explored.
Ms. Herbert asked the condition of at least the first floor.
Mr. Hart stated that it was in pretty reasonable condition five years ago.
Ms. Silman stated that the wood trim is still in excellent condition, that there is a musty smell and the carpets need to be replaced. She stated that all the drywall is intact.
Ms. Herbert asked if POUA would reach out to local brokers to find a possible tenant.
Ms. Alberghini replied that they could, but noted that it is not in a move-in condition. She stated that they were approached by the Charter School, but the cost to renovate for their use exceeded their available budget and that the time line could not be met. She stated that they can reach out to brokers to lease, buy, develop, etc., but did not know how quickly that could put bodies in the building. She stated that the construction office option could happen right away with stipulations. She stated that MHC has said that if there was an office during construction, they would want to see a plan approved by MHC to address concerns such as those in Mr. Spang’s email. She stated that they would be happy to get a broker to also try and lease it.
Vicki Siriani stated that, as a professional, the last thing she would want to see done is using the rectory for contractors.
Ms. Alberghini stated that would be fine, that she would rather not, but thought it was a good thing.
Ms. Bellin stated that they could use it for limited office space for some posters of what is coming, but did not see the point of why it has to be used as an office for the whole project. She stated that it seems too dangerous.
Ms. Alberghini stated that it does not have to be used as an office and that they were responding to a suggestion that was made.
Mr. Treadwell stated that he was not pleased with the progress and the lack of security. He asked if the leaky roof on the church has been fixed. He stated it was neglect and adverse effects were occurring. He stated that he felt it should be a full court press of making sure that those are taken care of. He stated that the Planning Board has made it a condition regarding the statue. He stated that while respecting the church’s doctrines, he thought there are some historic preservation doctrines related to that statue and community interest. He stated that it seems like mandates of MHC of 2010 are being ignored.
Ms. Herbert stated that the question may be whether the statue will be encountered during construction.
Mr. Treadwell reiterated that MHC made comments with regard to an archaeological investigation and that nothing has happened to solve that problem. He stated that if the statue is found, it may not be respected as a community resource and the tower, etc. He stated that the lack attention to maintenance and security is appalling.
Ms. Silman stated that the stipulation in the draft MOA is in line with the Planning Board decision. She added that she volunteered to draft stipulations, but that it is typically a process where the stipulations are developed by the consulting parties and that anyone is welcome to provide input. She stated that she is happy to be the word processor.
Ms. Alberghini stated that the consensus at the concurring party meeting was that the MOA should get underway, but it is not a document that we own.
Ms. Guy suggested referring to the Commission’s September letter.
Ms. Alberghini stated that all the input is taken by the lead agency, including this draft and comments. They will include what is appropriate. She stated that comments should be sent to the lead agency.
Ms. Herbert stated that she and Mr. Hart and Ms. Bellin will work on getting some wording put together.
Other Business
Ms. Guy stated that she received a copy of a letter from Massachusetts Historical Commission to KVA Associates concerning the rehabilitation of Collins Middle School and Saltonstall School, finding no adverse effect, but noting that vinyl windows do not adhere to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and recommending repair. If repair is not feasible proponents should explore replacement windows and doors that most exactly replicate the historic ones. They are requesting that product information be submitted to their office for review.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the minutes of October 5, 2011. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Hart stated that he was delegated to attend the urban renewal plan update meeting and provided a quick update. They want to combine the two urban renewal areas together and there are a few additional areas, including near post office and the triangle of land that is outside the jail.
Ms. Herbert asked if it included Lifebridge.
Mr. Hart replied in the negative. He stated that he read the design standards and was concerned that there is no way for the Historical Commission to be involved in anything that happens in the urban renewal area, which consists of many pieces of property, including National Register districts. There is not way for the Commission to be involved in the decision making process.
Ms. Herbert noted that projects to go through the Design Review Board.
Mr. Hart replied in the affirmative, but it has been modified so that the design guidelines apply to important historic buildings and not to the lesser important historic buildings. He did not know how they will make the distinction. He stated that the buildings on the National Register would be subject to design guidelines, but that the rest of the buildings are kind of like open season. He stated that he will be expressing his concerns on the language to Ms. Duncan. He suggested that the Commission have a seat on the Design Review Board.
Ms. Herbert stated that she proposed that to Ms. Duncan a few weeks ago when it came up that St. Joseph’s did not have to go through the DRB. She stated that the DRB has a whole different view of things than the Commission and she felt it was important that the Commission be represented.
Mr. Hart stated that the plan update will go to the City Council on November 17th.
Ms. Herbert felt there should be a vote on our desire to have a member of the Historical Commission on the Design Review Board for the SRA.
Ms. Guy asked if this is a floating person or a specific person. She asked what happens if the Commission member is not reappointed and they are the DRB appointee.
Ms. Herbert stated that maybe it would have to be the Chair or the Vice-Chair.
Ms. Bellin stated that it could be a person and if they leave the Historical Commission, they are replaced with a new designee.
Ms. Guy asked if it would be a specific person, not just anybody that could go on that particular night of the meeting, so that person would be serving on two boards.
Mr. Hart stated that he did not know how the mechanism would work, but that right now the Historical Commission has no say.
Ms. Herbert stated that a perfect example is when we were invited to a site visit at the Salem News building project and made recommendations and that they did not implement any of them because we had not standing.
Ms. Bellin suggest that if the Commission can’t have a member on the DRB, that they have a consulting role where, for example, if they have to make a determination as to what is important historically and what isn’t important historically, we have input into that. She stated that of all the entities in the city, we should be the ones with some input into what is and isn’t historically important. She stated that maybe it needs to be a member of the board or just some consulting role.
Ms. Herbert asked who decides what is less historically significant buildings.
Ms. Guy stated that it would be according to the Building Survey forms, if it meets criteria for the National Register.
Mr. Hart stated that the draft plan does not say that.
Ms. Guy stated that maybe it should be edited to say it must meet the criteria for National Register listing as per the Building Survey forms.
Ms. Bellin felt the Commission should have a role, and maybe that is where our role is, perhaps using the Building Survey forms.
Mr. Hart stated that the Commission really has to get involved in the SRA. He stated that he would like to work with Lynn Duncan to see if he can get some kind of compromise. Mr. Hart stated that there is a deadline to submit the plan.
Ms. Guy stated that Ms. Duncan knows the mechanics and suggested Mr. Hart and Ms. Herbert have a conference call with her.
Ms. Udy suggested that if they can’t appoint a Commission member to the DRB, that the Commission suggested appointees for the DRB. She stated that HSI has some issues with some wording that she is hopeful they will be able to work out, because it is worded to exclude a lot of buildings. She asked if there is a building survey form, would it give it standing.
Ms. Guy replied in the negative. She stated the Building Survey Form would say that they have applied the criteria and it meets the criteria for listing. However, she noted that this language about survey forms is not specified in the plan update.
Ms. Udy asked if it would add buildings to the stronger standard.
Ms. Guy stated that she believed the intent was for the stronger standard is to look at the survey forms, but it just doesn’t say that.
Ms. Udy stated that the restoration paragraph is good, because it has a standard.
Ms. Twohey stated that it should stay that all historic structures should be subject to the Salem Historical Commission guidelines.
Ms. Guy noted that the SRA has its own design guidelines paid for by the city, which are particularly for commercial properties, while the Commission’s guidelines are geared toward mostly residential.
Ms. Udy stated that the bigger concern was for a lot of buildings that are not deemed eligible, but still have historic details, and that they won’t be subject to guidelines the way this is written. She stated that the rehabilitation paragraphs needs to be strengthened. She added that a DRB member who has a historic background would be asking for that. She stated that in addition to the wording being strengthened, there needs to be someone with a historic design sensibility.
Ms. Herbert noted that the current DRB includes Helen Sides who is a former Commission member.
Ms. Udy stated that new construction is very well covered in this document, but there are very few parcels within the SRA where new construction is going to take place. The vast majority of review that happens is going to be on historic buildings, so historic review needs to be strengthened and the reviewers need to be strengthened in terms of historic background.
Mr. Treadwell stated that the DRB’s review is different from historic preservation. He stated that the planner stated St. Joseph’s had the comments of two members of the DRB as an important historical preservation matter, which he felt was not true. He stated that he could not believe that HUD does not have regulations or guidelines relative to historic preservation within urban renewal plans. He stated that HUD has the responsibility to comply with the historic preservation act and would assume the person responsible for modeling urban renewal plans does take that into consideration. He stated that the Commercial Design Guidelines has a lot of consideration to detail with the commercial area, which was done by Finch & Rose, so it seems to be sensitive to historic preservation in
the downtown and should be incorporated by reference. Mr. Treadwell felt the Commission should be able to put in any provision it wants in the urban renewal plan.
Ms. McCrea stated that she felt for strengthening it, there should be a requirement that someone from the Commission be on the DRB.
Ms. Udy stated that HSI suggested that all buildings be considered historic and that exceptions be listed.
Mr. Treadwell questioned what ones don’t contribute.
Ms. Udy has the capability of providing a strong historic tool, because they can deny demolition, rather than a six month delay.
Mr. Treadwell stated that the commercial guidelines does superimpose on the urban renewal all local, state and federal districts.
Ms. Udy stated that it is referenced throughout the draft urban renewal plan.
Meg Twohey stated that, on page 3.5, the discussion on compliance alternatives does not exclude historic buildings and that it should.
Mr. Treadwell stated that the property next to me at 18 felt, a c1896 Victorian house is up for sale, being sold by Betsey merry. He stated that the house is structurally sound.
Ms. Herbert stated that she felt window restoration people should be put on the website.
Ms. Bellin stated that this has come before the Ethics Commission because it looks like a public board is endorsing a company. She felt it was allowed if several are listed.
Mr. Hart stated there is also the New England Restoration Alliance (NERA) which is www.windowrestorationne.org which has several companies provided.
Ms. Guy stated that she would be comfortable with that.
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
| 
