SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 28, 2011
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, November 28, 2011 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Ms. McCrea and Mr. Hart.
Mr. Spang arrived later in the meeting.
St. Joseph’s Complex Redevelopment Review Draft Memorandum of Agreement (from Paul Silverstone, MassHousing dated 11/15/11) and finalize initial submission of comments
Documents distributed to Commission members included:
- Letter from Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) to DHCD dated 11/23/11
- Letter from James Treadwell to MassHousing dated 11/17/11
- Draft MOA, updated with proposed changes (redline)
Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission has been instructed to comment on the MOA draft by November 29th. She stated that today she received a copy of the decision from MHC which concurs with DHCD’s findings. Ms. Herbert read the MHC letter into the record.
Mr. Hart stated that the letter states that it was dated 11/8/11 and received on 11/10/11.
Ms. Herbert stated that she has provided a copy of the MOA with her draft amendments in a redlined version. In it, Ms. Herbert suggested removing “in order for the Project to be financially feasible” on Page 2 and to add a whereas that “the owner has agreed to provide a contribution of $10,000 to the City of Salem for the maintenance and upkeep of Lafayette Park” instead of having it on Page 3.
Ms. McCrea asked if it was a one time payment.
Ms. Herbert replied in the affirmative and questioned whether to suggest either dividing it over a few years or asking for annual upkeep funding.
Ms. Herbert noted that Recordation requirements in a and b are to be replaced with MHC’s standard Photographic Documentation Technical Requirements. Paragraph I was changed to replace “work” with “any project-related activity (including building interiors), change “agrees to ensure that the” to “will document the interiors and exteriors of the”, and add “and a digital copy be provided to the Salem Historical Commission” at the end of the sentence. For Stipulation II, she added “owner” where missing after “proponent”, she removed “use best efforts to” and added “by employing security measures, including exterior motion detectors and interior alarms. She added that the Proponent will promptly repair any
damage caused by vandalism, fire, water penetration or damage caused by storms or other natural occurrences. The Proponent and/or Owner will provide sufficient operating funds for these security and maintenance costs. The Proponent and Owner, along with MHC, will enter into two separate Preservation Restrictions in perpetuity (one each for the rectory and school buildings) that runs with the properties.
Ms. Bellin suggested adding “SHC” in four places where missing.
Ms. Herbert stated that for Stipulation III, she rewrote the sentence and added two sentences. She stated that she would like to see the face of Lafayette Street be active, instead of seeing the rectory boarded up. She would like to see the first floor be in use and maintained.
Ms. McCrea suggested adding “at the time of the signing of the MOA” to the end of the paragraph.
Ms. Bellin suggested changing “housed” to “allowed”.
For Stipulation IV, Ms. Herbert stated that she removed the section beginning with “The Parties” through to “Lafayette Street” and added a new sentence at the end – “For any modifications proposed to be made to the existing exterior design, including landscaping plans, but excluding below grade infrastructure, which also require submission to any City boards or commissions, the Proponent and Owner agree to concurrently submit such modifications and plans to the Salem Historical Commission for review and comment.”
For Stipulation V, Ms. Herbert added “and any signage is subject to the requirements of the City of Salem Sign Ordinance.” For Stipulation VI, she added a section that the proponent agrees to develop a comprehensive anthropological report focusing on French-Canadian and Latin American immigrants and that the photographic exhibit include current and historical photographs.
Councillor Bob McCarthy suggested adding Gordon College to the list of possible entities to complete the report.
Ms. Herbert stated that the project is obliterating the third church that the French-Canadian community built and she saw it as a scholarly paper, which is a wonderful way to mitigate the loss.
For Stipulation VII, Ms. Herbert stated that she changed “add” to “develop” and add “in consultation with Historic Salem, Inc., to be” before “located”. She added “and include such photographs in the memorialization per Stipulation VI” to VII(B)(iii).
Ms. Bellin stated that at a previous discussion, the Commission said it wanted to add that the proponent would invite comments from former parishioners, neighborhood, archaeological or preservation groups, etc.
Ms. McCrea stated that someone told her there was a committee that has looked into the disposition on the statue before and that they decided it would be buried because it is church law.
Mr. Hart stated that an interesting discussion that might take place is who is the owner of the statue because if the MOA is signed, the archdiocese may not have purview over the new owner, who is not the church. He stated that cannon law might be a mute point.
Linda Locke stated that she was concerned that it be damaged when excavating for it.
Ms. Herbert stated that it may be in pieces now.
Ms. McCrea believed it was partially burned from the fire.
The sentence added will be, “The Proponent will outline all available options for treatment and/or disposal in accordance with church law and will invite comments from interested parties (including representatives of the Franco-American community, archaeological professionals and former parish members that include Point residents) prior to final determination on the statue disposition”
Ms. Bellin stated that if found, they should take steps so as to not to further damage the statue.
Mr. Hart stated that it should be carefully conserved and reburied.
Emily Udy asked if there are archaeological standards.
Mr. Hart stated that MHC has an archaeological component.
Ms. Herbert suggested taking out “if practical” from VIII(b)(i). She stated that there should be an assessment of the condition of the statue to determine which method is most appropriate.
Mr. Hart suggested adding language that if located, in consultation with appropriate archaeological entities, the proponent will develop a plan of action for conservation and disposition of the statue and to take out i and ii.
Ms. Herbert stated that if there is an objection to an amendment and the concurring parities are allowed to make comments about an objection, they should also be able to make an objection. Therefore, for Stipulation IX, “or concurring party” will be added in two locations in (a). For IX(a)(iii), add “or request an extension for response’ to the end of the first sentence. Ms. Herbert stated that she was concerned with Ciii, noting that if the ACHP slipped and missed the 21 days, it will assume concurrence, and suggested inserting “or request an extension for response” to the end of the first sentence. She suggested the XI be changed from five to two years. They could come back and ask to extend it.
Mr. Hart stated that the signatories are DHCD, SHPO, the HOME Consortium, Salem Lafayette Development, LLC, which is signed by the Planning Office for Urban Affairs, Inc., and Banc of America Community Development Corporation and noted it was the first time they have seen Banc of American CDC. He stated it might be worthwhile asking Mr. Silverstone.
Ms. Herbert stated that she thought it was a separate entity of Bank of America. She stated that she talked with Paul Silverstone and he said that tomorrow’s deadline is flexible. He would like the bulk of the comments tomorrow and then it would be a process where we go back and forth a couple times.
Ms. Bellin stated that she felt the comments could be wrapped up tonight.
Ms. Guy suggested that the back and forth part could delegating Ms. Herbert.
Ms. Herbert stated that she wanted to get the MOA document in shape, so that the Commission can agree to sign as a concurring party.
Shirley Walker questioned removing the section from Stipulation IV, stating that she felt there were a lot of factual pieces to the statement and that it was asking the parties to acknowledge that there are numerous benefits to the project. She questioned why not keeping it in the MOA.
Ms. Herbert stated that the MOA is to focus mitigation of adverse effects to historic properties.
Ms. Walker asked who included the benefits, noting that she felt there were some very positive things in there that are true, such as the park and the urban blight..
Ms. Herbert replied that DHCD drafted the document. She noted that they moved the park language to the Whereas section. She stated that as far as blight, she did not feel it needed to be addressed, because the only reason there is blight is because it has been neglected for six years.
Ms. Walker stated that taking out the whole point of the project is kind of a statement.
Ms. Herbert noted that these items are all covered in DHCD’s determination.
Jim Treadwell stated that he has had a lot of experience including three sessions taught by the Advisory Council and that felt this MOA is a travesty. He stated that there was never an alternative that was produced by POUA that retained the church. He stated that HSI has asked the ACHP to participate and we still don’t have that decision. He asked if the Commission will be concurring with the MOA.
Ms. Herbert stated that is the decision the Commission has to make, as does HSI. She wants the document to be kept to the facts and want to get everything in place in terms of preservation of the buildings. She stated that from what she has seen, there is an $8000 a year difference a year between their units rent-roll and DHCD’s, not $7 million.
Mr. Treadwell asked if the Commission will be responding to the decision.
Ms. Herbert replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Treadwell noted there is no mention of the tower.
Ms. Herbert stated that she knows they are not going to save it did not want to put in items that they do not feel will get included and wanted to focus their energy on things that we know are completely reasonable and will hopefully not be kicked out.
Mr. Treadwell stated that he felt it was unacceptable to destroy that landmark and feature. He stated that Structures North says it only needs scraping and painting and that POUA stating it is unsalvageable is ludicrous. The PUD is supposed to have a schedule for commencement and that he do not see it. He stated that they are excused from the Entrance Overlay District and did not know why it was in there.
Ms. Herbert suggested he put his thoughts in writing and getting it to the Advisory Council.
Mr. Treadwell suggested requesting measured drawings.
Teasie Riley Goggin stated that she agreed with 2 years in Stipulation XI. She stated that they are going from POUA to Lafayette LLC and asked if they can later change it to another LLC and would the MOA still be in effect.
Ms. Guy stated that it probably would require an MOA amendment.
Ms. Herbert stated that the lenders probably would not allow a change in ownership.
Ms. Bellin suggested adding language about owners or their assigns or successors.
Meg Twohey stated that it could be requested in the Commission’s cover letter.
Ms. Bellin suggested adding a Stipulation XII regarding successors. She stated that it could apply to other parties, such as if HSI incorporated as a different entity, we would not want them to loose their rights either. She will draft the language.
Ms. Udy stated that she appreciated a lot of the Commission suggestions and agreed it was important to retain the preservation restriction on the rectory and school. She suggested adding an amount for funding for Stipulation VI rather than saying an appropriate amount of funds, which is very subjective.
Ms. Guy stated that appropriate is based on the amount of work and unless the scope of work is drafted, she did not feel a number could be provided.
Ms. McCrea was in agreement.
Ms. Guy stated that it might be possible to get Salem State University to take on the project and it may not cost anything.
Ms. Udy was concerned that it was too vague.
Mr. Hart stated essentially it will have to be negotiated between Salem State and POUA.
Ms. Udy suggested asking for a negotiation, so there is a number assigned as some point.
Ms. Bellin stated that they agree to provide funds and then add a sentence that the amount of funds to be determined in negotiation between.
Ms. Udy suggested adding “and fund” after “develop” in Stipulation VII.
Ms. Herbert stated that for Stipulation VI, to add “agrees to negotiation an appropriate funding level …”
Ms. Udy stated that she felt the study, the plaque and the retention of the rectory and school provide community value as mitigation.
Councillor Joan Lovely asked to clarify that the 51 units in the church are affordable and the other 25 are market rate.
Ms. Herbert stated that the one stop application states there will be eight Section 8 units out of the 51. It reiterates that they have been approved by the ZBA for 17 units in the school and 8 in the rectory for a total of 25 and it says market rate for those. If they apply for senior funding or some other funding source, that could change. There is no anchor tenant, and she noticed they are showing $40,000 income for the commercial units with 50% vacancy rate for 21 years. She stated that to build those units they are spending 1.3 million dollars of the project budget and are going to get a $20,000 rent-role which is a 1 ½ percent return.
Mr. Hart stated that, as far as he understands, this project is for 51 units and there is no obligation to develop the school or rectory under this application..
Ms. Bellin questioned the wording on Page 2, the 3rd Whereas clause, which says the development would include 51 in the new building, 17 in the renovated school and 8. If we are saying that is what has been approved, it should be worded that way.
Ms. Guy suggested to insert “approvals provide for a” before “mixed” and to remove “would” after development.
Councillor McCarthy stated that the way that it has always been presented is that if they wanted to make the rectory into office condos, for instance, they could – but if they want to put in housing, they have approval up to a certain amount of units in that building.
Ms. Herbert questioned if POUA decides to sell, would they have to go back to ZBA.
Mr. McCarthy stated that it is an interesting question, but felt it would effect their parking scheme, which is integrated around the whole site. He added that the design with the anchor tenant was not an appealing design.
Ms. Guy stated that she assumed if a proposed non-housing use meets current zoning, they would not have to go back to ZBA.
Mr. Treadwell asked if there is any knowledge regarding the completion of an environmental assessment as per the 4th Whereas. He stated that he has not seen any legal notice requesting release of funds.
Ms. Herbert stated that until the MOA is signed, they cannot request a release of funds.
Ms. Twohey stated that the Commission has done a thoughtful job. For Stipulation II, she suggested separating it into 2 paragraphs. She suggested that the preservation restriction be referenced as hereto attached to the MOA. For Stipulation III, she thought the Commission wanted to make clear that it does not want a construction office in the rectory.
Ms. Herbert stated that it is to their benefit to protect the building, especially if they are going to sell, because the purchaser might be able to get tax credits. She stated that she was looking for activity so that the building is maintained and the face of Lafayette Street is a completed look.
Ms. Twohey suggested that building interiors also be documented. She stated that she liked Ms. Herbert’s idea that all recordation take place within 30 days within execution.
Ms. Bellin stated that she agreed.
Ms. Twohey suggested that the hiring of a 3-party contractor include “in consultation with MHC” in the statue section. She was concerned that it appears the Commission concurs that there are no alternatives to tearing down the church and asked if the Commission will be stating an objection to tearing down the church in its cover letter.
Ms. Herbert stated that she would like to get HSI’s report and would like to refer to that.
Ms. Twohey suggest the Commission consider adding an annotation comment in the last Whereas on Page 2, saying to please see comments in the cover letter.
Ms. Guy stated that until a cover letter is drafted, it is unknown what is being referenced.
Ms. Bellin stated that in Stipulation I, “agrees to ensure that” should be replaced with “will document” and that “are documented” be removed.
Ms. Walker asked if there is a standard Preservation Restriction.
Ms. Herbert replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Hart asked when the Commission will talk about sending MHC a letter in response to their concurrence of DHCD’s determination.
Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission’s next meeting is 12/7/11.
Mr. Hart stated that he felt MHC’s response letter avoided the question of whether they concur that the church and school can be demolished.
Ms. Herbert stated it is implicit.
Mr. Hart stated that he felt the Commission should send a letter objecting to the apparent concurrence to demolish the church and convent. He added that they did not wait to hear from the consulting parities. He also felt language should be added that the proponent did not make a good faith effort to explore alternatives to demolition. He noted that they incorrectly indicated that the evaluation of HSI’s plan and their plan showed a $7 million dollar gap.
Ms. Herbert stated that they showed a $7 million operating deficit and that it has been since learned it is a $8000 deficit.
Mr. Hart stated that POUA’s July 22, 2011 Draft Supplemental Case Report stated that there were 51 units of new construction along with 25 units in the school and rectory. He questioned what happened to the 25 unit plan.
Ms. Bellin stated that that is the plan they have approval for.
Mr. Hart stated that they could renovate the school and rectory and partially renovate the church to get the unit count of 51, which would allow a less intensive renovation of the church. He felt it would have a better social benefit of spreading the occupants around the site and not concentrating them in one building, whereby they might be able to revitalize the neighborhood faster.
Ms. Herbert stated that MHC has made its decision. She suggested that if Mr. Hart wants to draft something for next meeting, the Commission can vote on it. She preferred to keep the comments on MHC’s response letter separate from the comments on the MOA.
Mr. Hart suggested noting in the MOA cover letter that the Commission will be sending a letter commenting on the MHC response letter.
Councillor Lovely asked where the $130 per s.f. comes up. She stated that she was horrified with that number.
Ms. Herbert stated that she was glad that Councillor Lovely asked the question and wanted Councillor McCarthy to hear it. She stated that in the One-stop application of September, 2010, it was proposed that the unit cost is $1.55 sf. She stated that it was never $1.30. She added that HSI’s cost is $1.60 sf., but the proponent was calling it $2.10-$2.20. She questioned if the alternative had been explored and felt it absolutely had not. Ms. Herbert stated that she felt the Section 106 should have started in March, 2011. She did not feel the details of the alternative plan have not really been gone through. She stated that she felt HSI has done an unbelievable catch-up job.
Mr. Hart stated that MassHousing’s letter of November 8, 2011 says alternatives were explored, but there was no detail about what those alternatives were.
Ed Neilson stated that HSI’s was $1.55, the same dollar amount. He stated that at the public hearing, it was portrayed that rehab was $2.20 and new as $1.30.
Ms. Herbert agreed they were both complete fabrications and it was very disturbing. She stated it has been a learning experience.
Mr. Treadwell stated that there is a meeting on Wednesday regarding Salem Oil & Grease.
Mr. Spang joined the meeting.
31 Flint Street
Ms. Bellin recused herself, left the table and joined the audience.
Jonathan and Suzanne Felt submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the front entry entablature and to add a frieze on the front to match the sides.
Documents & Exhibits
Ms. Herbert asked how long they have owned the property.
Mr. Felt replied that it has been twelve years.
Ms. Felt stated that they propose to extend the frieze from around sides across the front. The front entry lintel is to match the design of 123 Federal Street. They will reconstruct the original side columns.
Mr. Hart asked if there was any evidence that there was a frieze.
Mr. Felt replied in the negative, but noted that there is evidence of friezes in similar homes in the neighborhood.
Mr. Hart stated that there is precedent in terms of design with home designs by the same architect. The Secretary of the Interiors Standards say it is okay if reversible.
Mr. Spang stated that if it were him, he wouldn’t do it, as it creates a Greek Revival pediment, which is a pretty decorative space. He stated it would normally be a single window or decorative element. He stated that two utilitarian windows above don’t look like they belong with a frieze. He noted that it is reversible and that there is plenty of precedent.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to alter the front entry lintel to closely replicate the lintel design of 123 Federal Street and to reconstruct the original side columns. Mc. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to give the option to install a frieze across the front to complete the pediment, with profile to match the sides. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Spang suggested painting approximately five clapboards across the front to see if they like the look.
Ms. Bellin re-joined the Commission at the table.
Other Business
Ms. Guy stated that she emailed Commission members a copy of the Draft survey form and Draft National Register nomination for the North Street Fire Station. She asked if the Commission had any comments. She asked for a vote to submit the nomination once it is finalized.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to submit the nomination once finalized. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy stated that she received letters from The Ottery Group as invitation to participate as a consulting party to the Section 106 review for proposed modifications to the existing AT&T telecommunications facilities at 320 Lafayette Street and at 39 Norman Street. She stated that she has emailed them requesting specifications, drawings and photographs illustrating what the proposed installations will look like.
VOTE: There being no further business, Ms. Bellin made a motion to adjourn. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission
| 
