SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
DECEMBER 21, 2011
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, December 21, 2011 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Harper, Ms. McCrea, Ms. Keenan and Mr. Hart.
11 Cambridge Street
In continuation of a prior meeting, Steven & Julie Colby submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a shed dormer on the SW side to achieve greater headroom in the bathroom, for which all but the window(s) to be installed in the dormer have been approve. All exterior materials to match existing. New window will be the awning type.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Sketch – revised
- Jeldwyn catalog
The applicants provided work in progress photos of the dormer construction, a revised sketch from Helen Sides and a specification for the proposed window.
Ms. Colby stated that the decided to have one centered window.
Mr. Colby stated that they decided to reuse the skylight. He asked if it was an issue on whether to use an awning or casement window.
Mr. Hart noted that Ms. Sides drew the window as a 4 light, but that it states 6 light.
Ms. Colby stated that they are proposing 3 over 3.
Mr. Colby stated that they are leaning toward the awning version. It is a Jeldwyn brand, SDL. He noted that the specification indicates low-e.
Ms. Guy stated that it must be clear glass.
Mr. Hart asked the size of the muntins.
Mr. Colby stated that they will be 7/8” with a putty line and a bronze spacer.
Ms. Colby stated that the rough opening is 24 ¾” by 17 ¾ but may be a little smaller. It will be white to match trim.
Mr. Colby stated that it will be roughly a 16 x 12 window.
Ms. Guy stated that specification says low-E glass.
Mr. Hart stated that he was not sure that clear glass is the same as low-e.
Mr. Colby stated that they are willing to put in whatever hurdle they have to jump with the builders to have clear glass.
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission can approve something that would go against code and suggested specifying that it must meet energy efficiency required by code, but conditional it be clear glass.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the dormer window to be one Jeldwen center awning window, 3 over 3, simulated divided light, 7/8” muntins with putty line, bronze spacers, to fit in rough opening no larger than 24 ¾” x 17 ¾”, painted white to match trim. Must meet energy efficiency required by code, conditional that it is clear glass. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy stated that the previous owner had an outstanding violation for painting.
Mr. Colby stated that they would be happy to do the painting as required and requested they be given until Spring.
Ms. Colby noted that the screen is gone.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to give the owners until July 1, 2012 to complete the painting in violation. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
St. Joseph’s Complex Redevelopment – Status Update/MOA Discussion under Section 106 Review
Ms. Herbert reported that a meeting of the concurring parties was held in Boston on Monday, that it lasted about 2 hours and was attended by all interested parities, including herself and Mr. Hart, 3 representatives from Historic Salem, Inc. (HSI), and representatives from DHCD including Catherine Racer, the North Shore HOME Consortium, several attorneys and others. They held a telephone conference call with Jaime Loichinger from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). Ms. Loichinger stated that it will take a couple of weeks for her to review everything. Ms. Loichinger received approximately 300 pages from all sources. They expect to have a ruling or communication within 3 weeks. She was asked if she would consider a site visit, but she noted that the ACHP has no travel funds.
It was suggested that HSI and/or POUA fund her visit. The next meeting date for the group is January 18th.
Darrow Lebovici, representing HSI, asked if HSI should send a letter offering to provide matching funds for the ACHP visit and suggested that HSI send a letter formalizing its offer.
Ms. Herbert suggested that they make an offer to pay for the whole thing or share the cost with POUA.
Ms. Bellin asked if the ACHP’s role is to just make a recommendation.
Vicky Siriani, also representing HSI, replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Herbert stated that HUD makes the final decision.
Ms. Guy stated that through DHCD, HUD is the funding source. She stated that the Section 106 Review Process is part of the Environmental Review Process. HUD has to make sure the Environmental Review Process is completed before they release any funding. She noted that, ultimately, the project will proceed and that the ACHP cannot stop the project. The ACHP can only make sure that all the Section 106 steps have been followed, try to assist with mitigation and try to get everyone to agree on an MOA. Ultimately, if all parties are not in agreement on the MOA, the project will still go through. The ACHP cannot stop demolition.
Mr. Hart stated that his understanding is that Mr. Silverstone is still running the Section 106 process. He stated that MHC has a strong role and they could reverse their decision and say that alternatives have not been adequately examined. He stated that whether the church gets demolished or not, is another question. He stated that if Ms. Loichinger determined that alternatives have not been properly reviewed, she will convey that to Mr. Silverstone and MHC. He did not know how MHC would deal with that.
Mr. Lebovici stated that a letter from the ACHP went to the cabinet secretary of HUD, and that it was Mr. Lebovici’s suspicion that in the end HUD gets to tell Mr. Silverstone how he ought to perform his job. He stated that he believed there is a role for HUD and HUD management, as well as for DHCD and MassHousing.
Ms. Herbert stated that Ms. Loichinger is very open to discussing things and can be contacted.
Mr. Hart stated that if HSI does host Ms. Loichinger at a site visit, there will be an obligation to invite all parties to it.
Ms. Herbert stated that she reviewed the Commission’s comments from the first draft and compared them to the second draft. She stated that she wants to strike the portion of the sentence in the whereas section “in order for the project to be financially feasible”.
Ms. Bellin stated that by the time it is ready to be signed, it may be mute.
Ms. Herbert stated that in Stipulation II, they kept “use best efforts to” and she will try again to have it replaced with “will”. She stated that they struck a couple places where she had proposed they would work together with the Commission on the two buildings and that she will try to put it back in. She stated that, for storefront treatment, they changed the reference from the Entrance Corridor Overlay District, to the PUD.
Ms. Guy stated that Lynn may have had them change it.
Ms. Herbert stated that they removed the Commission’s reference to the Salem Sign Ordinance.
Ms. Guy stated that she did not know if the PUD approval includes signage and will check it.
Ms. Herbert stated that with regard to the plaque, they took out “in consultation with Historic Salem, Inc.”
Ms. Guy suggested that them might be willing to consult with the city.
Ms. Herbert stated that the city could then assign it.
Ms. Guy stated that it could say the “city or its designee”.
Ms. Harper noted that HSI did a tour for which a lot of research was done on that community.
Mr. Hart suggested asking for an increase from $3000 to $5000 for POUA’s contribution to the report on the history of St. Joseph’s.
Ms. Herbert stated that for dispute resolution, the Commission had added “or Concurring Party”, but they struck it. In Stipulation XI, she had changed it from 5 to 2 years, but they kept it at 5. She stated that they took out the Stipulation XII, that the Commission added about Ownership.
Ms. Bellin stated that inclusion would be helpful, but may not be necessary, as it may be covered in any sales or transfer agreements.
Ms. Siriani asked if the Commission has voted on whether or not it will sign the MOA that says that the church is going to be destroyed.
Ms. Herbert stated that they have not yet voted and that she would want to see the final document.
Ms. Siriani asked if the Commission, as a city agency, had any angst or concern that the affordable housing units will be set up in perpetuity.
Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission’s role is not to get involved at that level.
Mr. Lebovici stated that, in general, it has been HSI’s policy not to get involved in use discussions, since they are about preserving structures. He stated that it is conceivable that there may be some hypothetical circumstance in which that would not be the case.
Ms. Guy stated that it is a funding requirement.
Ms. Siriani stated that she understood there was a choice of 20, 30, 50 years or perpetuity.
Ms. Guy that it is possible that there may be a choice from HUD, but that there may not be a choice based on DHCD policy for a specific amount of funding.
Ms. Siriani stated that she did not feel it was HSI’s responsibility, but felt it was a huge planning issue that she hopes the city is aware of it.
Ms. Guy responded that the city is definitely aware and that the project went through the ZBA and Planning Board and had those discussions.
Mr. Hart stated that it was his understanding that it was not a requirement, but that the One-Stop application gets more points it if is in perpetuity.
Ms. Herbert noted that the preservation restriction language was removed from the Draft MOA.
Mr. Lebovici stated that he understands that they claim preservation of the two oldest buildings is mitigation, and felt that best efforts is kind of a little pathetic. He felt that a minimum they would do something that would guarantee it, otherwise there is no mitigation.
Ms. Guy suggested requesting a preservation restriction for the exterior and best efforts for the interior.
Ms. Bellin thought that it was a good solution.
Ms. Harper asked who oversees the preservation restriction.
Ms. Herbert replied that it is Massachusetts Historical Commission.
Ms. Herbert stated that she would like approval to make and submit the recommended changes discussed and to be delegated to tweak any future drafts.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve submission of the recommended changes discussed and to delegate Chairman Herbert to review and submit comments on any future MOA drafts. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Hart stated that he would like to bring up the fact that he was highly annoyed because POUA in their letter claimed that the Commission had approved the demolition, which he felt was because of an obscure provision in Section 2, 1572 in the Code of Ordinances of the City of Salem which is under the purview of the Director of Public Property. He stated that it was claimed by POUA that the Commission did not submit a written recommendation within the 180 day period and was therefore deemed to have recommended the granting of the demolition permit. He stated that he objected to this claim at the meeting and stated that the Commission had voted to deny the Waiver.
Ms. Guy stated that the location of the Section is just where the regulation sits in ordinance book and that the section is the Demolition Delay Ordinance. She stated that the Waiver application was received in August, 2006 and there were a few meeting continuations, so the Commission did not issue a 30 day preliminary finding, but it did issue a denial within 180 days. The Commission did, in fact, issue a recommendation and that the recommendation is the denial.
Mr. Hart was conveyed by POUA that the Commission approved the demolition. He stated that he will draft a letter for next meeting.
Ms. Herbert stated that POUA noted that the Commission could have held public hearings, etc during 180 day period.
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission did have public hearings as it was discussed at three meetings.
Ms. Herbert stated that the implication was we should have been more active. She stated that since the Commission has no budget, how could the Commission afford to bring in someone.
Ms. Guy stated that it would be the same as what was done recently, only it should have been done earlier. It was known it was going through the Planning Board and the ZBA and it was known the building was proposed for demolition. She stated that she felt that while going through permitting is the time to come up with alternatives, rather than waiting till it gets to the Commission under the Section 106 Review.
Ms. Herbert stated that it means the Commission would have to depend on HSI as an independent body with a very small budget and a lot of volunteers to do that work.
Ms. Guy agreed that it would be depending on them for alternative drawings, but stated that during the permitting meetings is when to voice opinions. She noted that 18 Felt Street is coming up, while they have not formally filed, they will be proposing demolition. She stated that it will go to ZBA in January and that that is the time to get involved, not wait until after they have already gotten ZBA approval and then come to the Commission for a Waiver of Demolition Delay. She stated that anyone can subscribe to other board’s agendas. If something is important to you, that is the way to find out.
Mr. Hart stated that he did not believe it the Commission’s responsibility to scour all the boards in the city to sniff out who is going to demolish something. He stated that when it came to the Commission in 2006, it was in the middle of a law suit that dragged on and on. He stated that he was really annoyed that it was portrayed to the ACHP that the Commission had approved the demolition because of a supposed technicality, when in fact it was voted to deny. He would like to set the record straight. Mr. Hart noted that the August 16, 2006 minutes say that during discussion on the Waiver application, Mr. Spang asked to see the reports and the investigation undertaken with regard to rehabbing the church for housing.
Review/Common on proposed AT&T Mobility telecommunications installations at 320 Lafayette Street and 39 Norman Street under Section 106 Review
Ms. Guy read a letter from Massachusetts Historical Commission and stated that she received further submittals from the Ottery Group, for which she had forwarded to the Commission. She also received an email from them stating that for 39 Norman, the proposed modification will be shielded behind an existing fiberglass screen wall, so there will be no changes to the exterior of the building. They are contacting AT & T for photo simulations for 320 Lafayette.
Mr. Hart stated that he felt there was limited visibility in both cases and that he had no objections on either.
Ms. Bellin stated that she did not want to vote on 320 Lafayette yet.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to respond that the Commission has no comment on the 39 Norman modification. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Correspondence
Ms. Guy stated that Lewis Legon is asking that the Commission allow him to build up the corners by 9” (instead of having 1’ of brick and 1’ of corners) for the chimney at 60-62 Washington Square. Ms. Guy stated that she spoke with the Assistant City Solicitor, who reviewed the file and who states that there are two approvals on file that Mr. Legon can choose to go with, but that he would have to go through the regular procedures to get an amendment and that the Commission cannot agree to a change without first receiving an application which is reviewed at a duly noticed public meeting.
Ms. Guy will prepare a response and run it by the City Solicitor’s Office before sending.
Ms. Herbert stated that she contacted Mr. Legon earlier and stated that if he do not need to do anything structurally, he can put on temporary cover until after the first of the year. She will try to work with him to convince him to do what was approved.
Ms. Harper asked the Mr. Legon’s legal obligation to the Commission and the new condo owners.
Ms. Guy stated that the Assistant City Solicitor does not have their condo documents and would first want to thoroughly research it, if it can’t get worked out.
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
| 
