SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 16, 2011
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, November 16, 2011 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Harper, Ms. McCrea and Mr. Hart.
17 Warren Street
Deborah Jackson submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to change the door color to black and to touch up some of the existing grey and white paint on the house.
Documents & Exhibits
Ms. Jackson stated that the door had been a dark color years ago and that they would like to change from red to black.
Ms. Herbert asked if it will be gloss paint.
Ms. Jackson replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission has no jurisdiction over the storm door, but noted that they prefer the storm color match the sash or trim color.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to change the door paint color to black and to give the applicant the option to repaint in the existing red, with the recommendation that the storm door color match the door. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
185/187 Federal Street
In continuation of a prior meeting, 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.
Documents & Exhibits
Mr. L’Italien stated that they had representatives from Newpro and Renewal by Anderson come in. After seeing their vinyl windows, they decided that they did not like them. He stated that Renewal by Anderson has a composite window that can be inserted into the existing openings.
Ms. Alvino stated that their side would need two double hung and a picture window and that the Spencers will replace what they have in kind. She stated that framing on both sides will remain.
Mr. Hart asked when the house was built.
Mr. L’Italien stated that it was built in 1954. He noted that it was a dentist office form 1985 to approximately 2005.
Mr. Hart stated that if it were an 1850s house, he would have problem, but that he had no problem with composite on an 1954 house.
There was no public comment.
VOTE: Ms. McCrea made a motion to replace all the windows on the house with Renewal by Anderson composite double glaze windows, keeping existing style and design configuration. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
68 Derby Street
66 Derby Street Trust, Jay and Neal Levy, submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for construction of a new building at 68 Derby Street.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Plans dated October 19, 2011, David F. Jaquith Architects & Planners
Jay Levy reviewed the plans with the Commission. He stated that they will have a chimney on the back to match the other house. There will be no skylights. The doors will be the same as the other house (6 panel solid wood). The front and back door will have 1 or 2 granite steps. The windows will be the same Jeldwin windows with the bronze spacer. There are a couple of wood casement windows on the back. The third floor for stairwell area is not visible from the street. The roof will be 3-tab in Moire Black. The gambrel will not have any venting, but will be framed conventionally with soffit and ridge vents. Vents and a/c equipment will be non-visible from the public way. Electric meters will be in the basement. They will try to put the gas meters in basement,
but if not, they will be screened. The house will have cedar clapboards, a watertable and cornerboards. They will come back with paint and fencing in the Spring. It will be all new construction, basically matching 66 Derby Street, except one is gambrel and one is gable.
Neal Levy stated that they found an original foundation for the house that was previously there. They also found approximately twenty granite stones that they hope to recycle as platforms for the front doors.
Jay Levy stated that it they cannot use them, they will swap them with the contractor for recycled granite for the walkways. He stated that they would like to get brick sidewalks in front and that they have contacted Jason Silva and their City Councillor in this regard..
There was no public comment.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the building plans as presented. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
1 Harrington Court
Donald Harlow Powell submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to reconstruct existing stairs and door structure with alterations. Representing the applicant was Daniel Beauvais.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Sketch by Daniel Beauvais, Beauvais Builders
Mr. Beauvais stated that initially he was going to just update the decking and handrails, but later found it was rotted. He rebuilt the foundation out of existing bricks found on the property. He will use square edge pine clapboards for the basement door entrance. The door will be shiplap or v-groove pine. He stated that the Commission approved a bluish grey paint, for which he selected Phillipsburg Blue. The Commission approved a burgundy-merlot color, which will be Classic Burgundy. It will have white railings and trim.
Ms. Herbert asked if the metal door was staying.
Mr. Beauvais replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Beauvais stated that as was previously approved, the rail will go into the siding. There will be lead flashing.
Ms. Herbert stated that the railings are to be as per already approved.
There was no public comment.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the reconstruction of the side stairs and lower door structure per sketch submitted, rebuilding the foundation from existing bricks on the property, railings as per previously approved, lower entrance to be clapboards, door to be shiplap or v-groove pine, painted to match colors already approved. 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 MassHousing’s determination has been received and a legal ad was in last Friday’s paper. She stated that HSI is still working on a number of unresolved issues. In the DHCD decision, she noticed that some details about the proposal that HSI presented were not contradicted, such as there being 70% more windows, when she believed HSI indicated only 10-15% more windows. She noted that the roof was not going to be raised as DHCD stated and that the excavation would be more minimal than stated. She stated that the DHCD submission was replete with a number of errors. She stated that she got a copy of an email today from Beverley McSwiggin, who was concerned that the public has not seen the details of the decision, nor the draft of the MOA and is only given until
the November 18th to respond. She stated that the public does not know what they are commenting on and that the deadline should obviously be extended. Ms. Herbert stated that the concurring parties have until November 29th to submit comments. She noted that the Commission does not meet again until December 7th.
Ms. Guy stated that she put the draft MOA on the City website today under Studies and Reports. She stated that she thought that future renditions of the MOA would be reviewed by Ms. Herbert, Mr. Hart and/ or Ms. Bellin so that each iteration does not need to come back to the full board.
Ms. Herbert stated that if needed, the Commission could call a special meeting.
Mr. Hart stated that he would be in favor of calling a special meeting on the 28th of November. He anticipated that the Commission would not be able to finalize comments tonight.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to hold a special meeting on November 28th at 7:00 for the purpose of reviewing the Draft MOA. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Jim Treadwell stated that he has produced an email to both DHCD and MHC asking for an extension due to the public only getting four working days for review and the fact that the public never got a copy of the determination, but was able to ask HSI for a copy. He asked if having a special meeting precludes asking for an extension.
Ms. Herbert stated that the 18th is the public deadline and that the concurring party deadline is November 29th She stated that the Commission anticipates meeting the November 29th deadline.
Mr. Treadwell stated that he has spoken with Jaime Loichinger at the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). He stated that Mr. Silverstone has been taking advantage of the opportunity as instructed by the regulations to communicate with the ACHP. He stated that the MOA is now on the city website, but questioned how the public will know.
Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission will make notice of and take public comment on the 28th.
Meg Twohey suggested putting the website link for the MOA on the agenda.
Ms. Bellin suggested that DHCD’s determination also be placed on the website.
Mr. Treadwell noted that there is an exhibit list in determination and asked if all the exhibit copies were included with determination.
Ms. Herbert stated that no exhibits came with the determination.
Ms. Guy stated that some of the attachments included the Commission minutes. She stated that Mr. Treadwell was welcome to come in to compare the exhibit list with the document copies on file, which are in a binder at the front desk in the Planning Department.
Mr. Treadwell stated that there were no minutes of second concurring party meeting. He also noted that there is no written transcript of DHCD’s public meeting and that the Commission should have hard copy. Mr. Treadwell stated that John Carr’s son made a tape of the meeting.
Mr. Treadwell stated that the requirement is that the public be given an opportunity to express their interests – and they did. If they wanted to see whether or not their point was taken, so it could be considered, it would seem to him that it would be best to have it in hard form and felt that it was an oversight.
Ms. Bellin questioned if it is a requirement that there be transcript.
Mr. Treadwell stated that if there is a request by a consulting party for the ACHP to come on board, he would trust that they would be interested in what happened at that meeting.
Ruth Silman stated that the documentation standards in 36CFR part 800.11a state that the agency official shall ensure that a determination finding or agreement under the procedures of this subpart is supported by sufficient documentation to enable any reviewing parties to understand its basis. There is no requirement for a transcript. Her experience is a tape recording is sufficient.
Ms. Herbert stated that a copy of the public hearing tape was made and given to us at the first meeting.
Mr. Hart stated that it astounds him that they had a public hearing and there is no record of who was there and what was said.
Mr. Treadwell stated that he did not believe there was a sign-in sheet.
Emily Udy, representing Historic Salem, Inc., stated that she has notes that HSI will likely be submitting. She stated that HSI disagrees with DHCD’s determination and with the statement that both of their plans result in an adverse effect and are not financially viable. They are currently gathering information regarding the financial viability of the reuse plans and they will be submitting substantial comment when complete. She stated that their preliminary understanding is that despite what POUA has spent, the HSI plan would be financially beneficial to the proponent. In terms of design issues, one of the reasons sited in the memorandum is that potential reuse options and the changes to the interior and exterior changes would cause an adverse effect. She stated that there would be an
increase in the amount of windows by 1/3 and that would be on 2 sides - rear and either the north or south façade. Changes to the roof are an option, but are not required for physical reuse of the building. Some repair would be necessary. Many of things were pointed out by Structures North. She stated that their design professionals agree that these are standard issues that would arise in any rehabilitation and that some have increased due to lack of upkeep and maintenance on the building, which is listed as an adverse effect under 106. She noted that extensive grading is optional, and that only minimal grading is needed. She stated that the amount of time the public will have to respond is inadequate and that they will be asking for an additional week for the public to comment.
Review and comment on Draft stipulations for school, rectory, convent, statue and recordation of all features (prepared by Atty. Ruth Silman, 10/19/11, updated to Draft Memorandum of Agreement dated 11/15/11)
Mr. Hart stated that there is no date on the draft and requested that future drafts be dated.
Ms. Herbert stated that she reviewed the Commission’s 9/15/11 letter and compared it to the MOA draft. For page 4, under number II, she would like to pick up D from the Commission’s letter regarding security, that the entire campus be protected by security measures. She stated that a preservation restriction for the school and rectory tied to land should be added. Under IV, F should be added from the Commission’s letter regarding any modifications made would come before the Commission for review. There is a need to have language on best efforts to preserve the school and rectory to strengthen it, i.e. elaborate on line 2 of II.
Mr. Hart stated that there were observations made at the last meeting that a construction office could trash some finishes. He stated that they may want to place some limits on it.
Ms. Bellin questioned how construction workers can be prevented from coming in.
Ms. Herbert and Ms. Harper noted that they have seen this done successfully as an office, but not for trades people.
Ms. Harper stated that she feels it was okay to have someone in the building in order to have security.
Ms. Herbert was in agreement.
Ms. Udy stated that HSI disagrees with the 5th whereas clause on page 2.
Mr. Hart stated that he understood that there was a request for a copy of the one-stop application.
Ms. Udy stated that they requested a copy several times during the consultation process when meeting in Boston and then made a request under the FOIA. They have received the sources and uses portion. DHCD’s legal department states that they never received the request and it is now expected that a copy of the full application is to be sent Monday.
Ms. Silman stated that there have been many discussions about the One-stop and the request for the One-stop. She stated that it was talked about at the consulting parties meeting and a Commission meeting, as well as at the public hearing, She wanted to reiterate that the One-stop is very specific to this project and, in the developers view, it is not possible to take dollars that are reflected in that One-stop and try to transfer them for use in another project. The developer does not want people to think it wasn’t forthcoming with information that could be relevant. HSI has the ability to request whatever information it wants and HSI can do what it wants with the information, but in their view it is not a situation where you are comparing apples to apples and therefore not a productive
use of the information. She noted that there is nothing in it that is proprietary. She stated that it is not going to be fruitful for trying to figure out if the reuse of the church is financially feasible. She stated that POUA was not withholding information.
Ms. Herbert stated that HSI’s request was directed to DHCD.
Ms. Silman stated that, to be objective and based on the discussion, the obvious question is why didn’t POUA just send a copy of the One-stop to HSI and the answer is we don’t think there is anything in there that is relevant for the discussion or the determination and we have had this discussion numerous times.
Ms. Herbert stated that this is a public process and that transparency is key. She stated that on 10/4 the One-stop was requested and again on 10/17 and it should have been acted on by Mr. Silverstone. She stated that she asked Ms. Alberghini for a copy and was told that she did not feel it was pertinent. Ms Herbert stated that it is pertinent, and that it is important to know how much is laid out for construction of the 51 units. She stated that the amount in the sources and use section is shown as $10.2 million. It is also pertinent to know what the revenue streams are expected for the 51 units. She stated that those revenue streams would be the same whether it is 51 units in a new shell or an old shell.
Ms. Bellin stated that she agreed with Ms. Herbert. She stated that she was dismayed that, in the context of 106 process, where we are supposed to be provided with documents that may be relevant, HSI had to go to trouble of a FOIA request and that the FOIA request then gets lost. She added that even if they think we may not understand them or be using them for the right thing, she did not see how the One-stop could not be relevant, since it lays out all of the information regarding the project that we are reviewing. She stated that either Mr. Silverstone or POUA should have provided the information.
Ms. Herbert stated that the analysis that Ms. Alberghini presented at the 10/17 meeting contained figures purported to relate to the cost of building in the church – although it used 44 units, instead of 51 and discussed that building the units in the church would result in a $7 million shortfall. She stated that one of problems that is counter-productive is to have those numbers created by the construction company that is going to be doing the job and they are going to be developing a pro-forma budget for a competing project. She felt it was a little difficult to swallow some of those numbers and could see why HSI would want more information so they could do their own analysis.
Ms. Udy stated that we now know that the demolition costs were not included in cost per square foot. She stated that she felt that for Stipulation Ib, 10-12 exterior views is inadequate. She stated that 10-12 exterior contextual views, in addition to individual views of each elevation of each building. She would be inclined to default to taking additional archival quality photos of interior of the church. She stated that for Stipulation II, they agree with the Commission that there should be preservation restriction and it should be tied to the property whether sold or leased. She added that the language should be that MHC will provide design review on the proposed redevelopment and that the basis will, not may, be standards derived from the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.
The last part of the sentence should be struck regarding that the proponents shall make best efforts. They might suggest that the Commission and the Planning Board have the ability to review those plans. She suggested striking III entirely, as she felt the benefits are already listed. She did not understand how Stipulation IV relates to historic preservation. There are several things included which they do not feel are appropriate mitigation. For example, creation of 100 new construction jobs seems irrelevant to historic preservation. Specifically, “removal of urban blight” is a slap in the face to have that in this MOA, because it involves demolition of historic buildings. For V, they recommend DRB review the storefronts for the new building . For VI and VII, they suggest the proponent contribute to Salem State University for neighborhood research. For VIIIB, they suggest there be a consultation between the
archdiocese, neighborhood representation and historic and archaeological communities on how best to treat the statue.
Mr. Hart asked when HSI anticipates having comments available.
Ms. Udy stated that they can have them before the 11/28 meeting.
Mr. Hart stated that the sooner the Commission gets written comments, the better, even if in draft form.
Ms. McCrea asked if she understood that HSI objected to the use of “removal of urban blight”.
Ms. Udy stated that it is in incredible poor taste to include it in the MOA.
Ms. McCrea stated that it is an unused bunch of buildings.
Ms. Udy stated that, whether or not that is true, this is about demolishing an historic church.
Ms. Herbert stated this whole paragraph needs some work.
Ms. Guy stated that is actually in the wrong place and, if anything, it should be a Whereas.
Jeff Bellin stated that it is a historically and aesthetically important building and that just because it is unused does not make it urban blight. He stated that he felt what is proposed to be in its place will look more like a strip mall and questioned which one is the blight. He stated that making an historically important building useful is a better way to go than tearing it down and cheaply spending money to create what looks like a strip mall in a major corridor in the city.
Mr. Treadwell stated that he feels that the photographic imaging should be dependant on the standards that MHC uses. There should be measured drawings. He stated that Structures North, in its 2005 letter, indicates that they have a full set of drawings of the church and convent, so POUA could add to them, which is an important in terms of mitigation. There should be a requirement for an extensive history of the community, the French-Canadian heritage and of the property, as well as some individuals important to the community and parish. He stated that the City Planner, in her letter to Mr. Silverstone, almost demands that the two buildings not be demolished and that there should be a provision. He stated that a special dispensation from the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards is
ludicrous because it causes adverse effect. He stated that it would be okay for engineers, etc. to use the rectory, but not construction personnel. He stated that for IV, listing 9 economic benefits and 5 design benefits has nothing to do with mitigation. He stated that the storefronts of the building has no teeth and that it needs teeth if you want design standards. He agreed there should be oversight concerning the statue and added that while respecting the laws of the Roman Catholic Church, they ultimate disposition should also be cognizant of the attitude the former parishioners, the Franco-American community and the city of Salem.
Mr. Hart suggested that the Commission consider contacting Ms. Loichinger directly, since it is apparent that DHCD or Mr. Silverstone already has. He suggested doing so in order to determine what our options are regarding the conflicting information as well as the concerns about the demolition of buildings eligible for listing on the National Register. He stated that he understands there is no appeal process under Section 106. He stated that behooves the Commission to get involved now with the ACHP instead of waiting until the final decision is made.
Ms. Herbert stated that she would make the call.
Ms. Bellin asked, even though there is no appeal process, if there is an option to seek reconsideration or to provide additional evidence.
Mr. Hart stated that it might be worthwhile, as a courtesy, to advise MHC that the Commission is going to be contacting the ACHP.
Ms. Herbert stated that she will call Ms. Laughlin.
Ms. Silman stated that, if Ms. Herbert is able to reach Ms. Laughlin, to mention that they have asked several times for their recordation standards. She noted that Stipulation I is placeholder until the current standards are received.
Ms. Bellin asked, now that Mr. Silverstone’s determination is issued, what is the next step. She asked when the determination becomes final.
Mr. Treadwell stated that he believed MHC and DHCD is in the position to do it at any time. He stated that if a consulting party asks ACHP to join, then there would need to be an opportunity for them to get up to speed and participate in the decision with those parties.
Ms. Herbert stated that she would get clarification.
Mr. Hart stated that the Commission has consistently asked for a process from Mr. Silverstone, but never got a clear answer.
Ms. Guy stated that if MHC reads this decision and takes any exceptions to it, then they will go back to DHCD with a letter and say we want you to provide specific information or do X, Y or Z. If does not take any issue, it will likely go right into MOA process which we have already started.
Ms. Silman agreed that if MHC were take issue with it, they would inform DHCD that they disagree with something in it or that they require more information. Once the MOA is signed by the concurring parties who are required to sign it, then DHCD’s decision goes to HUD. In terms of when it goes to ACHP, it depends on whether they are a party or not. As a practical matter, nothing can happen at the site until POUA gets the financing and the financing can’t happen until HUD issues its final sign-off. She stated that there is still the rest of the NEPA process, for which the MOA is required in order HUD to say there is no environmental effect.
Mr. Treadwell stated that historic preservation review and environmental assessment can go on simultaneously. When concluded, DHCD would publish a notice that it intends to request a release of funds.
Ms. Silman stated that the request for release of funds cannot go to HUD until the MOA is signed.
Ms. Udy stated suggested distinguishing between signatories and concurring parties, specifically regarding future amendments to the MOA. She asked if Stipulation X included all.
Ms. Silman stated that in her experience, amendments are the same as the consulting parties’ process, when an amendments are proposed it goes to everybody and sometimes certain concurring parties option not to sign on. Concurring parties are never required to be a signatory under the regulations.
Ms. Twohey stated that it is ironic that tomorrow the city is supporting renewal of its urban renewal plan update, which was funded by HUD to preserve our historic properties downtown.
31 Flint Street
Ms. Guy stated that because Ms. Bellin and Ms. Harper have to recused themselves and Ms. Keenan has an emergency at home, she contacted the Felts and told them not to come to tonight’s meeting. The application will be placed on the 11/28/11 agenda.
22 Chestnut Street
Nina Cohen and Craig Barrows submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a Brosco window on the second floor west wall of the rear ell to match the existing double-hung style and size and to replace the existing third floor window on the west wall of the main building to match the existing double-hung single pane with identical shutters.
Documents & Exhibits
Ms. Cohen stated that she learned that the third floor window is a non-standard size, so they will repair rather than replace it and will install a storm.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to add a new window on second west wall of rear ell to match and line up with adjacent windows and to repair the third floor window on the west wall in kind. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
388-390 Essex Street
Ms. Bellin recused herself, left the table and joined the audience.
In continuation of a prior meeting, 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 applicant was not present.
Documents & Exhibits
Ms. Herbert stated that she went by and that the railings are very obviously plastic.
Ms. Harper stated that she preferred it have wrapped posts.
VOTE: Ms. McCrea made a motion to continue the application to the next meeting. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin re-joined the Commission at the table.
30 Broad Street
In continuation of a prior meeting, William M. Ross and Abigail B. Ross submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to 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
2 LePage SDL, wood exterior
- J. B. Sash Proper Bostonian (wood exterior)
- Marvin Ultimate Double Hung wood windows
- Jeldwen Premium Siteline EX windows in wood
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Pella window on line specification
- Marvin window on line specification
The applicants were not present.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to the next meeting. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Minutes
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of October 19, 2011. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
142 North Street – Nomination to the National Register
Ms. Guy stated that the City hired a consultant to prepare a National Register nomination for the North Street Fire Station. She has received the draft nomination and survey form and asked if the Commission had any comments. She stated that Massachusetts Historical Commission has the draft and may make some suggested amendments. Once finalized it will go before the State Board and then to Washington. She will provide copies to the members for review at the next meeting.
Bill S.2053
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission members were forwarded an email regarding S.2053 – a bill to regarding projects referred to MHC for consultation and an email in opposition sent by Darrow Lebovici to Chairs and Vice Chairs of the Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight. According to the website there is no meeting scheduled of that body.
Ms. Herbert stated that Mr. Lebovici heard from Representative Keenan’s office that it won’t be happening until February.
Ms. Bellin asked if we will be sending a letter when it is time.
Ms. Guy stated that she did necessarily think it should wait until it is time, but it gives you time to prepare something.
Mr. Hart stated that he attended a historic resources committee of the Boston Society of Architects and it was focused on heavily.
Ms. Herbert stated that 44 Derby Street put up a new fence this summer without approval and they have also started to parge the foundation ½ white and ½ gray. She stated that studs are going up in front of the house. She asked Commission members to go by the property.
Ms. Bellin stated that in light of certain recusals, the Commission needs to get more members.
Ms. McCreas stated that she talked to a priest about the rules of the Catholic Church regarding the statue. He told her it was true that the only way to de-sacrimentize a statue is to bury it. He stated that it was possible sometimes to do something else, but that it is a big deal.
Mr. Hart stated that he is the designee to the urban renewal plan update committee. The Salem Redevelopment Authority is meeting tomorrow night and then going to the City Council. He stated that the document as massaged by everyone, including HSI, is a gigantic turnaround and very positive. He suggested that the chair of the Commission or designee go to DRB meetings in future when possible.
VOTE: There being no further business, Ms. Bellin made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission
| 
