SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
JANUARY 19, 2011
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, January 19, 2011 at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Mr. Hart, Ms. Harper and Ms. Bellin.
Ms. McCrea and Ms. Keenan entered later in the meeting.
60-62 Washington Square
Hodges Court Real Estate, LLC (Lewis Legon) submitted an application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability to rebuild the porch on Washington Square East in kind, to replace the rear entry door and to replace rotted wood on the third floor dormers. Also submitted was an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to move two windows approximately 6”, remove one window on the first floor rear, add vents for gas fireplaces, alteration of porch windows and addition of a deck over the porch. Present was Lewis Legon and Building Inspector Thomas McGrath.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Pitman & Wardley Architects’ photo mock-ups of 3 window/deck options
Ms. Legon stated that there was some misunderstandings that he believed he was partially responsible for with regard to the recent demolition of the porch. He stated that when they started to work in that area, there were some unsafe circumstances with the porch. He stated that once they lifted the four layers of roof, there was a separation between the porch roof and the main building. It was so poorly constructed and there was a sense of urgency due to an unsafe condition.
Ms. Keenan joined the meeting at this time.
Mr. Legon acknowledged that he moved too quickly, but noted that his intention was always to replace the porch in kind. He stated that later in the day, he spoke with Mr. McGrath and sent an email to Ms. Guy who was on vacation. He stated that he has preserved all the windows. He noted that you don’t really know the condition of the inner structures and condition of the framing until you open it up. He stated that decisions are made as you go i.e. when you discover rot, etc.
Ms. Herbert stated that she went to the site and concurred that the windows were saved, although some of the moldings were rotted and could not be saved.
Mr. Legon stated that Ms. Flynn, the prior owner, stated that the windows were replaced in 2003.
Ms. Harper asked Mr. McGrath if he saw the porch before it was demolished.
Mr. McGrath stated that when he saw it, he noticed that the floor was wavy. He stated that it appears a porch was constructed and then more was later added to it, which is supported on cedar fence posts. He noted that it was very poorly constructed. He stated that he recommended that Mr. Legon talk to Ms. Guy. He stated that he had not seen the roof at that time, but understood the roof started separating once they started peeling it off. He stated that something needs to be resolved that will meet the energy code, be stable and meet the Historic Commission requirements. He noted that he is an architect by trade and has been with the city for 4 years.
Ms. McCrea joined the meeting at this time.
Mr. Hart stated that the Commission was taken back when it learned the porch was demolished. He stated that he is hearing there were certain extenuating circumstances.
Ms. Herbert stated that it would have probably had to be demolished anyway, but noted that the timing was unfortunate. She stated that now that it is down, there will be a formal foundation, which will give a better constructed building. Ms. Herbert noted that she had suggested that a balustrade might be considered for placement above the porch, which is part of the application. She stated that she had suggested it because the original application hsf requested two decks at the top level, which was determined unfeasible due to structural issues.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the Certificate of Non-applicability. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion.
Mr. Legon stated that all the dormers were repaired as part of the roof repair.
Blair Coldwell-Finestone, 70 Essex Street, stated that there are three dormers on the back, including one double dormer.
Ms. Herbert stated that it appears the door has arched tops and suggested it be refurbished.
Mr. Legon stated that the door is junk, it has extensive rot right through and is beyond repair.
Ms. Harper felt that the door would be hard to replace from a Brosco book.
Mr. Hart stated that if it can not be replaced in kind, the applicant will have to come back.
The motion was voted upon, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Legon stated that he is no longer going to relocate the two windows.
Ms. Herbert stated that the window proposed for removal may not be original.
Ms. Diozzi stated that the window proposed for removal is barely visible.
There was no public comment on the window removal
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the removal of the window on the first floor rear, as indicated on the plan. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Legon stated that each unit will have a gas insert fireplace, which require direct venting on the outside of the building. He proposed to paint the vents either the trim or body color. The material is metal. There will be four vents, two on Washington Sq. East first and second floor. The other two would be on the right, when standing in front with the Common behind, and would be tucked in and barely visible.
Ms. Coldwell-Finestone asked if the vents will blow down or up.
Mr. Legon stated that it vents outward, but noted that heat rises.
Mr. McGrath stated that the purpose is to vent the products of combustion so the house does not fill up. He stated that it would be similar to a dryer vent or gas stove, and would produce only a small amount of heat. They must be installed a minimum of 8’ high.
Mr. Hart stated that the building inspector is going to have to approve the vent installation.
A resident at 70 Essex Street, Unit 2, stated that he did not feel the vents were historically correct.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve installation of the vents per the locations indicated and painted to match the body color of the house. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion.
Mr. Hart asked for a modification that it be 4 vents as per locations indicated on floor plans with the vent size in accordance with photograph submitted.
Ms. Herbert so amended her motion. Ms. Bellin seconded the amendment, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Legon provided a copy of the first floor interior plan. He stated that one of the concerns as part of a development was not having the bedroom be a fishbowl. Proposal #1 is what was discussed at a prior meeting. Proposal #2 is the preferred, due to the symmetry, which he suggested the windows be 2 over 2.
Ms. Herbert stated that Proposal #2 looks like it was original to the house and some members may prefer to keep it looking like a porch.
Ms. Bellin asked the age of the porch.
Mr. Legon stated that the Flynn’s lived there 15-20 years and that there are four years of roofing, so it has probably been there a long time.
Sue Ann Connaughton, 72 Essex Street, stated that, aesthetically, the three windows look better than proposed in option #2. She felt the windows looked too small for the width. She felt #2 looked like the windows had been boarded up and looked too skimpy. She stated that the 3 windows look okay.
Ms. Coldwell-Finestone stated that she preferred the original.
A resident at 70 Essex Street, Unit 2, stated that the five windows should stay in tact. He stated that a recently removed tree on the property has made the entire porch more visible. He also noted that the tree on Washington Square is dead and is going to be removed, which will make the vents more visible.
Ms. Harper asked if the existing windows are the same as the rest of the house.
Mr. Legon replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Harper stated that she preferred to keep the 5 windows, as it shows the progression of the house and it is seen as an addition. She stated that she was willing to not keep the windows on the back of the house, but keep the windows on the side.
Mr. Legon stated that he would like to keep one window in the back.
Mr. Hart stated that he had questioned the removal of the two windows initially. He stated that now that they are looking at a reconstruction, he would prefer option #3. He felt that it would be reversible and he that he no objection to the balustrade. He stated that there is photographic evidence that the windows were there. He stated that it will still show it was a different era of construction. He stated that he did not feel comfortable with option #2. Mr. Hart asked if the one window in the rear would be centered, 6 over 6 to match the rest of the porch windows.
Mr. Legon replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve option #1, and replacement of the three windows in the rear with one centered window, with all windows to be those salvaged from the demolition of the porch. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion.
Ms. Harper stated that just because the porch was taken down is not a good reason to grant different windows. She stated that she felt changing the windows from 5 to 3 changed the look of the house.
Ms. Bellin stated that the demolition has no bearing on her vote.
The motion was voted upon. Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Mr. Hart, Ms. Bellin, Ms. McCrea and Ms. Keenan voted in favor. Mr. Harper voted in opposition. The motion so carried.
Mr. Legon stated that Ms. Herbert encouraged him to apply for a balustrade on the lower level in place of the balustrade proposed for the upper level.
Ms. Herbert stated that he had originally proposed placing it on the upper roof.
Mr. Legon stated that he took photographs of some balustrade systems in the neighborhood. He suggested 278 Lafayette Street or 18 Lafayette Place as an example.
Ms. Bellin asked what room it will come off.
Mr. Legon stated that it would be from the kitchen. The upper left window would need to be replaced with a door. He stated that he did not select a door, but would come back with a door option.
Morris Schopf, 1 Cambridge Street, stated that this board’s role is not to provide home runs. He did not feel that roof decks were allowed in districts.
A resident at 70 Essex Street, Unit 2, stated that it was against the Commission’s guidelines, that intrusive contemporary features should not be highly visible, but should be in the back where it is not as intrusive. He stated that he was vehemently opposed.
Ms. Coldwell-Finestone stated that she was also opposed.
Ms. Connaughton questioned having a deck over someone’s master bedroom.
Ms. Coldwell-Finestone stated that she watched the roof shingles on the porch being removed and did not see movement.
Ms. Bellin asked if there was a specific design for a balustrade.
Mr. McGrath stated 36” will meet the code for one unit.
Ms. Bellin stated that she cannot make out the design in the photoshopped drawing. She stated that she felt it was premature to vote and that the Commission is usually provided with drawings.
Mr. Hart suggested a site visit.
Ms. Harper stated that the Commission would be looking at nothing right now.
Ms. Diozzi suggested voting on the concept.
Ms. Herbert stated that if a balustrade will be built, it will have a different porch roof, so it should probably be planned altogether.
Ms. Bellin stated that the Commission needs to be very thoughtful in coming to its decision.
Mr. Legon stated that he would like to get a feel from the Commission if they would consider the concept of a deck before he has an architect prepare drawings. He wanted to know if the Commission is open to the idea of the deck.
Ms. Bellin stated that she would consider one.
Mr. Hart stated that he felt a site visit was needed.
Ms. Diozzi, Ms. McCrea and Ms. Harper stated that they were not in favor of a deck.
Ms. Keenan asked how important it would be to have a deck.
Mr. Legon stated that it is highly desirable, but not the end of the world if not approved.
Mr. Legon stated that he would like to replicate the first floor deck on the right side on the second floor.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the balustrade and door portion of the application to the meeting of February 2nd. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
104 Federal Street
Mr. Hart changed position at the table from member to applicant.
David M. Hart and Barbara A. Cleary submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace a previously removed roof snow guard at their Federal Street façade (south and east elevations).
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Catalog cut of snow guard from slateroofwarehouse.com
Mr. Hart stated that he had previously gotten approval to remove the snow guard along Federal Street façade and along the eastern façade of the main roof. He is now proposing to install a conventional 3 pipe steel snow guard. He would also like to add 14’ of snow guard in the alleyway, which is not visible from the public way.
Ms. Bellin asked if the snow guard being installed is similar to the one removed.
Mr. Hart replied in the negative, stating that the prior was a flat piece of metal and the proposed is more conventional
Ms. Herbert asked if he will be using brackets.
Mr. Hart stated that Kevin Kidney will construct brackets out of metal. The entire will be painted black.
Meg Twohey, 122 Federal Street, stated that she was in support of the application.
Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Hart returned to his position of Commission member.
Other Business
- 72 Flint Street – Project Notification Form Review
Ms. Guy stated that she received a copy of a Project Notification Form (PNF) submitted to Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) from Susan St. Pierre Consulting Services dated January 6, 2011. Because the project requires a Chapter 91 license from the State, it triggered MGL Chapter 9, Section 26-27~ (the state's version of the~federal Section 106 Review), requiring the project proponent to submit the PNF to MHC.~ MHC has 30 days to comment on the PNF.~~The Commission has the opportunity to provide comment on the impact the project on any historic resources but does not have any approval authority.~
Present was Susan St. Pierre from Susan St. Pierre Consulting Services and Attorney Scott Grover.
Ms. St. Pierre stated that she was retained to secure the Chapter 91 license and take the project through the state MEPA process. Because the site is comprised of more than one acre of filled tide lands, it requires a Chapter 91 license. They are proposing to file an expanded Environmental Notification Form and will be requesting a waiver from filing an Environmental Impact Report. The PNF has been filed with MHC and a copy was sent to the Salem Historical Commission.
Atty. Grover stated that site is comprised of one former and one existing tannery sites. The main part was known as Salem Suede, a series of big white buildings demolished about a year ago following a fire. The other portion is the Bonfanti site on Mason Street. As part of the project, that building will be demolished. Three new buildings will be constructed. There will be 309 parking spaces on the site, a portion of which is in a garage that was added in during the permitting process. The property is located within the North River Canal Corridor (NRCC). The permitting process is very extensive for the NRCC. It requires Design Review Board approval, of which the public review process started in summer of 2007. The Board of Appeals and Planning Board
finished in 2010, resulting in 3 years of public process. One of the elements of compliance is creating public access to the North River. Atty. Grover reviewed the approved design concept drawings for the Commission.
Ms. Harper asked the height of the new building in comparison to the existing houses.
Ms. St. Pierre stated that all the buildings are 50’ or less.
Atty. Grover stated that there are different height limitations in the NRCC. The buildings are approximately 40’ and most of the houses are approximately 30’, but the difference is not as pronounced because the buildings sit down in a hollow.
Ms. Harper asked the exterior cladding material of the buildings.
Atty. Grover stated that building #1is corbelled brick cornice, brick veneer, stucco panels and aluminum clad double hung windows. He stated that the Board of Appeal required 13 spaces for the Flint Street residences and the city will be granted an easement across the front of the site in case there is an opportunity to connect Flint Street with Commercial Street. He felt is was a good example on how the process can work. The Design Review Board unanimously approved the design.
Ms. Harper asked if the units will be rental or condominium.
Atty. Grover replied that they will be rental and a condition was placed that 10% be affordable units for 99 years. There is a total of 55 one bedroom units and 75 two bedroom units. Another requirement of NRCC is for buildings on entrance corridors to have a retail component. There will be 5000 s.f. of commercial space. NRCC requires 2 spaces of parking per unit, so there is 309 parking spaces, including what required for units, commercial and 13 spaces for Flint Street residents.
Mr. Hart stated that he felt the adjacent abutting property owners should be notified.
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission has never notified abutters for any project for PNF review. She noted that the agenda was on the meeting calendar and distributed electronically to those who subscribe.
Ms. Harper asked the material of the synthetic balustrade and stated that she was hoping is was not PVC.
Atty. Grover stated that he did not know the material.
Ms. Guy read a Memorandum from the City of Salem’s Design Review Board dated March 5, 2009, which summarizes the project. She also provided copies of the initial Riverview Place development concepts completed by H. H. Morant & Co., Inc. dated 4/1/08, the final concepts dated 8/12/08, the Planning Board Site Plan Review decision dated 4/17/09 and the Planning Board approved site plan by Eastern Land Survey Assoc., Inc. dated 1/24/08.
Ms. Guy read into the record an email from City Councillor Paul Prevey.
Ms. Guy read into the record an email from Will Wrightson.
Auturo Dalmau, 35 Flint Street, stated that he subscribed to the spirit of the two letters. He stated that the morning and afternoon flow of traffic will be very large, which will impact Flint Street, which will add a whole lot of burden and effect the quality of life. It will also put a whole lot of pressure on Bridge Street along with the construction of the parking garage at the train station. He would like to have Flint Street go in the opposite direction. He stated that traffic will make it impossible to get home.
Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt Street, stated that he was on the working group that developed the NRCC plan. He stated that he felt the zoning requirements developed from the NRCC plan deserves applauding because it requires design review. He stated that the DRB was handed a sow’s ear, for which they tried to make a silk purse. The NRCC says they want to create appropriate development, while preserving neighborhood character. Neighborhood commercial use is required by its zoning. He stated that for the JPI apartments, the parking ratio is 2 to 1. The MBTA lot has 340 spaces. He noted that if we extend Commercial Street to Flint Street, the new park will be gone, but this would not be the case if the proposed new building is moved over. He stated that the
building is 5 stories high, not 3 stories. Building #1 is longer in length than the factory that was previously there. The Master plan calls for Flint Street to be one way. The Master plan says to stay away from stucco and aluminum. The PNF does not say anything about the flood plain, which is another issue that will need to be addressed during the MEPA process. He added that he would like to know the basis that there are no archaeological resources on the site. He felt that an archaeological investigation might be appropriate. He stated that the residential area is typically worker housing. He stated that he felt the project is not in the character of the historic neighborhood. He stated that renters don’t get as involved in community affairs.
Emily Udy, representing Historic Salem, Inc., stated that the Flint and Mason Street neighborhood is on HSI’s most endangered list as part of the industrial buildings on the North River, due to inappropriately scaled developed not keeping with intent of the NRCC plan. The PNF states there are no historic properties in proximity, which she believes is false and which they will be pointing out to MHC.
Jane Arlander, 93 Federal Street, stated that she found a Citizens Guide to Section 106 review, which describes when a project is considered to be an adverse effect. She stated that this project has an adverse effect. She stated that it is near Leslie’s Retreat, Harmony Grove and the McIntire District. She stated that it will effect the culture of the area.
Darrow Lebovici, 122 Federal Street, stated that it will have an adverse impact of scale, mass and comparative density of adjacent neighborhoods. It will be 1 ½ times the density of JPI. He stated that one of the variances they got is to invade the abutting property for parking.
Meg Twohey, 122 Federal & Chair of the Federal Street Neighborhood Association stated that there is a claim that there is no impact. She stated that Bonfanti Leather is the last remaining industrial building in the NRCC it is going to be demolished. She stated that the houses along Flint and Mason have back yards that will face this development. She stated that there will be shadows, diminished view and that people will be able to look down into their properties.
Morris Schopf, 1 Cambridge St., stated that he would like to address the context of North River. Before there were tanneries, they built ships and houses were on both sides of the river. The canal is gone in part because the railroad filled in part of it. It has not evolved in a very positive way and this project is a coffin nail. It is too big and involves too many automobiles. When add to the MBTA proposed parking garage, 3 more traffic lights and JPI, he stated that he did not understand how Mass Highway will ever deal with that piece of road. He felt a strong statement from the Salem Historical Commission would help the State understand that no adverse effect is not correct.
Ms. Herbert stated that she would be interested in hearing from any residents on the section of Flint between Mason and Bridge.
Mr. Treadwell noted that one of the law suit complainants lives on the corner of Mason and Flint.
Mr. Lebovici stated that 3 residents of Oak, Mason and Flint were involved in the law suit.
Atty. Grover stated that according to opinion of land court judge, the complainants did not have standing to challenge the ZBA’s grant of the variances because they failed to show it will cause a material increase in traffic. This was following testimony from 2 different traffic engineers with different points of view.
Ms. Herbert suggested comments be sent ahead of the February 2nd meeting so that members can digest them first.
Mr. Lebovici stated that, with regard to the litigation, the court never ruled whether this was a legal development or not, it was purely a matter of standing. The only issue that was reviewed was traffic. He stated that the court refused to consider whether vehicular activity within the parking lot that invaded the adjacent property was traffic or not.
Mr. Treadwell stated that he is a member of the Northfields Neighborhood Association and knew there were members present from the Mack Park Association.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to continue discussion to the meeting of February 2, 2011. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert stated that she would like to see a picture of the Bonfanti building.
Mr. Hart stated that he was bothered that there is no notification process to adjacent residents.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of December 15, 2010, as amended. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy stated that she would like to change the March meetings from the 2nd and the 16th to the 9th and the 23rd. Mr. Hart made a motion to change the meeting dates as requested. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
- Ms. Guy stated that the City has been invited to submit a full application for a MHC Survey and Planning Grant for a Salem Common Fence Study and Restoration Plan. She stated that she has drafted a letter of support for the Commission to submit. Ms. McCrea made a motion to submit the letter of support. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
- Mr. Treadwell stated that the MBTA parking garage “Final Scope Report” dated 10/20/10 is on line. He stated that the plan says that there is no action to be taken on the Signal Tower, which has been determined to be eligible for National Register. He suggested the Commission comment on the plan noting that by neglecting it, it may cause an adverse effect on the Signal Tower.
Mr. Treadwell stated that for the Boston Bridge Street LLC project, which will include a Senior Center at Boston and Bridge Street, the Section 106 review may come before the Commission due to the potential Chapter 91 license requirement.
Mr. Treadwell stated that the St. Josephs complex plan was found to have adverse effect according to MHC.
Ms. Bellin stated that she anticipates that the garage will go through MHC’s Section 106 Review process and stated that she would like the Commission to get notified early in the process. She suggest a letter be sent for this project and for the senior center project. Ms. Bellin made a motion to send a letter to the project manager for the MBTA garage project and to the developer of the senior center building project requesting that when any PNF materials are forwarded to MHC, they are also submitted concurrently to the Salem Historical Commission. The letters are to be CC’d to MHC. Mr. Hart seconded the motion and suggested the letter reiterate that the MBTA signal tower is on the National Register and the concern on the impact on this and other nearby historic resources.
- Spring Pond /Lowes Project - Ms. Guy stated that she reviewed the City’s 1988 Archaeological Plan and maps and noted that the two known pre-historic sites are at Strongwater Brook, which is considered a preservation priority area. According to the map, Strongwater Brook is even further away from the project site than Spring Pond and that there is development between the archaeological sites and the Lowes project site. According to Mrs. Guy, the 1988 report and maps did not identify any archaeological sites in the Lowes project area vicinity.
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
| 
