SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 15, 2012
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Harper, Ms. Keenan and Mr. Hart.
Ms. McCrea arrived later in the meeting.
388 Essex Street
Ms. Bellin abstained from the discussion and joined the audience.
Steven Sass and Ellen Golub submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to have the option to install an iron railings for the rebuilt rear porch.
Documents & Exhibits
Mr. Sass provided photographs of the existing porch with a relic of an iron railing. He stated that underneath the porch shows some brick as evidence of a granite wall. The house to the left of his property has an iron railing on the granite that will be similar to what he is proposing.
Ms. Herbert noted that the neighbor’s railings are mounted on granite curbing and that his application is for a wood porch to have an iron railing. She stated that the iron relic is inappropriate in itself.
Mr. Sass stated that they will be replacing the plastic as required with wood, but would like the option for an iron railing. He stated that it would be straight, not twisted.
Mr. Hart stated that there is not really a proposal other than to say it is iron. He stated it is hard to judge the appearance.
Mr. Sass stated that he could come back. He stated that he could go with wood, but would like the option.
Dorothy Hayes, 329 Essex Street, stated that she feels wood is more appropriate, given the architecture.
Paul Ellingwood, 389 Essex Street, stated that he does not have strong feeling either way.
Mr. Hart stated that he would entertain it, but there is no design before the board. He stated it is a little incongruous with a wood porch and a metal rail and that usually it is stone with iron, or wood with wood. He added that there are certainly examples of wood with iron.
Ms. Harper stated that she felt an iron railing should be on granite stairs, and stated that if the applicant wanted the option, she would entertain it. She stated that she has not seen a wood porch with an iron rail. She suggested photographing examples of any existing stairs in Salem that have iron railings.
Mr. Hart stated that he would want to see a drawing.
Ms. Herbert stated that the volume of the porch is such that you want to balance the railing in weight.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to continue the application. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin rejoined the Commission at the table.
18 Butler Street
George J. Sands submitted an application to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance to demolish the house at 18 Butler Street in order to construct a 2 family modular house. Ms. Guy stated that the applicant has requested a continuance.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to the meeting of March 7th. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Salem Common Fence Survey & Planning Grant Project – Presentation of Findings
Natalie Lovett, Staff Planner with the City of Salem Department of Planning & Community Development and representatives of CBI Consulting, Inc. were present to discuss the findings of the Existing Conditions Report for the Salem Common Fence, which is one of the tasks being undertaken as part of a study being undertaken with Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) Survey and Planning Grant matching funds. A copy of the report had previously been emailed to Commission members. Present from CBI was Michael Teller.
Ms. Guy stated that the purpose of this presentation is to answer any questions on the report and to get feedback on the three options for the first phase of restoration.
Mr. Hart stated that he is on the committee that selected the consultant.
Ms. Lovett stated that last year the Department of Planning & Community Development applied for a Survey and Planning Grant to study the conditions of the Common fence and to come up with a phased plan for restoration.
Michael Teller stated that pieces of the fence are missing and that others are damaged. He stated that plenty of neighbors came up to them during the process and noted that the fence is impacted by trucks, particularly snow plows. Mr. Teller stated that cast iron is a brittle material, like glass, and while it is good for compression, it does not handle lateral forces. He stated that there are 253 sections of fence. He provided a plan of the fence and noted that the yellow on the plan indicates sections that are completely missing. The orange indicates missing support posts, the green indicates triangles missing top rails and the blue/purple indicates different sections of vertical posts that are missing.
Ms. McCrea joined the meeting at this time.
Mr. Teller stated that they are interested in comments with regard to how to allocate restoration funds, whether to replace entire sections or concentrate on the worse looking sections. He noted that the estimates are between $12-14,000 for an entire section, and for pieces are as much as $180 for a spindle and over $1000 for a post. He stated that they could 1) fill in missing sections so the fence looks whole, 2) work on the most deteriorated parts of existing fence or 3) start at Section 1 and address as many section as possible. To restore, they would not do the work in the field, but would take the sections off site and bring them back to the shop for repair. Sections would be sandblasted, including lead paint, which is disposed of properly. The sections would be repaired, missing pieces
replaced and the section reassembled and then painted with a 3 coat high tech system. Mr. Teller stated that for the granite bases, some are severely damaged, for which he would recommend replacement and that those with minor damage he would recommended keeping as is. Concrete bases would be replaced with granite.
Ms. Herbert stated that she noticed a lot of damage along Washington Square North and wondered if bollards could be put in places where snow plows seem to get in. She stated that just repairing may not be enough.
Michael Coleman, Salem Common Neighborhood Association, stated that he believed there was a huge restoration in the mid-80s and another in 1996.
Michael Redfern, 4 Andrew Street asked where are the missing fence pieces.
Ms. Lovett stated that the DPW is storing any that they have been given in one of the city storage facilities.
Mr. Coleman asked if they can be re-used
Mr. Teller replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Herbert suggested putting something in the newspaper asking residents to collect pieces that have broken off and turn them into the DPW and for an inventory to be kept.
Mr. Redfern stated that he felt we should restore the pieces we have before replacing what is missing.
Marianne Curtain, Forrester Street, stated that she is on the Board of the Salem Common Neighborhood Association and that she suspected that the Park and Recreation Department has some pieces stored at Mack Park. She stated that she has seen people put some in their back yards and gardens. She noted that there are some molds that the City paid for available somewhere.
Ms. Lovett stated that she has been trying to track down the patterns. The pattern for the bottom rail was found at Mack Park, but the remainder are missing and the City may have to create new ones.
Teasie Goggin, 9 Wisteria Street, questioned that when the work is done, what assurance is there to keep it that way.
Ms. Lovett stated that as part of CNI’s contract, they will make recommendations for maintenance.
Emily Udy, Historic Salem, Inc., asked if the replaced sections will be with cast iron.
Mr. Teller replied in the affirmative, stated that they will be virtually the same in terms of carbon content and chemical composition.
Ms. Udy asked if a either 100 year old piece or a one week old piece is more brittle.
Mr. Teller stated that there is no difference.
Ms. Udy asked the cost to repair and replace a section in fairly good condition.
Mr. Teller stated that if the fence is restored piecemeal (i.e. 10 sections at a time), he estimated $2900 per section.
Ms. Udy asked that for maintenance, such as yearly touch ups, if they could have a community painting day.
Mr. Teller replied in the affirmative. He recommended repainting the top coat every ten years.
Ms. Udy asked if there is something the city can do about privately contracted snow plowers.
Ms. Guy stated that it can be discussed with the DPW Director.
Ms. Udy stated that Historic Salem, Inc., may be interested in funding a mailing.
Ms. Hayes asked the current paint treatment.
Mr. Teller stated that they have not done a paint analysis. He stated that it was lead paint, lead primer and a top coat of some sort of enamel. He noted that there are multiple coats now. He stated that retaining as much historical fabric as possible is his first choice. He noted that paint wears out and that at some point a uniform paint application, by removing all loose rust and scale, is a small price to pay for longevity of entire fence.
Mr. Hart asked who would do the iron work.
Mr. Teller stated that it would be publically bid and that bidders would need to be DCAM certified and have qualifications of similar type and scale.
Mr. Redfern wonder if it could just be painted by hand for now would help salvage it for a while.
Ms. Herbert stated that it is not painted without properly cleaning, the paint would peel. She stated that the key is preparation.
Mr. Teller stated that cast iron doesn’t rust as quickly as regular steel, and therefore the danger of loss of historic elements is not from exposure to the elements. He stated that if funds are scarce he did not recommend a quick coat of paint first.
Jeff Laaff, 24 Winter Street asked if it is the City’s desire to do an expensive job.
Ms. Lovett stated that as part of CBI’s scope, they are to prepare bid documents for the first phase of work. She stated that there is some money allocated and that the City is applying to Massachusetts Historical Commission for a grant match. The hope is to have subsequent phases. The City has asked CBI to make recommendations on the phasing.
Mr. Laaff suggest a reverse 911 announcement in order to collect parts of the fence that residents have collected. He stated that he would be willing to put flyers in the mailboxes of residents asking them to identify destructive snow plowers. He stated that he felt the money should start being spent at the entryways, as those are particularly evident. He stated that missing caps are important, but the entries are very important. He stated that he would like to see some progress.
Ms. Curtain stated that she has seen City trucks knock down fence sections, as well as the Knights of Columbus’ snow plowers.
Mr. Coleman stated that he has a photo of a Knights of Columbus plow knocking a section of the fence to the ground.
Ms. Lovett asked for comments on the priority of how the fence should be repaired.
Ms. Curtain and Mr. Coleman agreed with Mr. Laaff’s idea to do the entryways first.
Ms. Curtain stated that she would particularly like to see it start with the main entrance.
Ms. Guy stated that Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development, would also prefer if be done in complete sections, so that we can illustrate the difference when looking for grants.
Ms. Herbert suggest an adopt a fence section program.
Ms. Curtain stated that it would be an immense cost.
Ken Lacey, New Derby Street stated that there is quite a disparity in what we have and what it will cost. He asked if there was any consideration for taking good sections and rebuilding other sections of the fence, while opening up sections in the middle. He also suggest giving snow plowers a place to put snow.
Mr. Teller asked if he was suggesting harvesting parts as replacement pieces to create several areas that are whole, while creating wide gaps elsewhere.
Mr. Lacey replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Teller stated that it was feasible.
Mr. Lacey stated that sponsoring may be expensive and suggested selling pavers to raise funds.
Mr. Redfern stated that he was against creating additional gaps and making big open areas (i.e. 5 sections wide). He stated that right now it looks like there is a fence all the way around. He stated that if what is there cannot be maintained, money should be spent on new pieces. He stated that all pieces must be saved as they fall down.
Ms. McCrea stated that the suggested there be a City Council resolution that snow plowers working for the city have insurance and are told where to put snow.
Ms. Harper stated that the report mentions ways of connecting the fence pieces. She asked how much deterioration of the fence can be attributed to failed connections.
Mr. Teller stated that it is not a major portion, but is mostly due to impact and vandalism for missing parts. He stated that welds need accommodation for expansion and contraction. He suggested using an expansion connection.
Mr. Hart stated that he thought it worthwhile to get a copy of CBI’s scope, to identify the submittals. He stated that understanding of the annual maintenance costs is needed. He stated he was concerned on getting ideas on damage control. He added that it is criminal for city trucks and private individuals to destroy fences.
Ms. McCrea noted that the molds disappeared, and that there should be place for fence materials to be maintained.
Ms. Keenan asked if there was surveillance around common.
Ms. Curtain stated that there is a camera on the gazebo, but it does not show every area. She stated that it would require discussion with the Salem Police Department.
Ms. Bellin stated that she would like to see the cost breakdown of what $50,000 gets.
Mr. Teller stated that for brand new sections, it would get 3 for $50,000. He stated that the city would probably get more bang for its buck by addressing sections. He stated that he can look at each section and define the repairs and apply unit cost.
1 Brown Street
The Peabody Essex Museum submitted an application for a Certificate of Non-applicability for the placement of one 20’ long by 8’ wide by 8’ high storage box adjacent to the structure on the museum’s parking lot. The storage box will be used to contain interior house components while interior structural work is performed. The storage box will be on side for six to eight months.
Documents & Exhibits
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of 1/4/12. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
- Draft Letter: Bill S.2053 (An Act relative to certain projects referred to the MHC for consultation)
Ms. Guy stated that Mr. Hart drafted a letter, to which she and Ms. Herbert had made some edits.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to finalize the letter and forward to the Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
- Ms. Guy stated that she received a transmittal from the National Park Service for the Commission to review and comment on the National Register update documentation for the Salem Maritime National Historic Site. She asked if any Commission member(s) want copies of the document and if the Commission wants to comment.
Mr. Hart volunteered to review the documents.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to delegate Mr. Hart to make any comments on behalf of the Commission. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
- Ms. Guy stated that she received an email from the Essex National Heritage Commission requesting a letter of support for the nomination of Annie Harris for a 2012 MHC Preservation Award (Lifetime Achievement). A draft letter was included.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to submit a letter of support as requested. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
- Status Update on St. Joseph’s Complex Redevelopment Under Section 106 Review
Ms. Herbert stated that she and Mr. Hart attended a meeting of the consulting parties in Boston yesterday. She stated that the Advisory Council has concurred with DHCD, that the Neillson proposal presents a sufficient number of changes which would be detrimental to the building being eligible for tax credits. She noted that POUA would still like to keep the “best efforts” language and not the Secretary of the Interiors Guidelines, and has proposed right of first refusal language for the city in order for POUA to pursue buyers for the property for next three years. She noted that the consulting parties have had two 2 drafts of the MOA. She stated that Paul Silverstone has provided an email outlining the deadlines for comments and signatures.
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission has already commented on the most recent MOA, but needs to comment on POUA’s paragraph IIc. She noted that Ms. Herbert has already delegated to make comments on behalf of the Commission.
Emily Udy, Historic Salem, Inc. stated that in pursuing alternative reuse strategies, she suggests asking to review and comment on the marketing materials and to suggest POUA to track the groups marketed to.
Darrow Lebovici, 120 Federal Street, stated that HSI has not had a meeting to talk about yesterday’s meeting yet. He stated that one of the issues is that POUA never made any serious attempts to market, and that one of the things in the materials should be a description of their marketing program. He stated that it should have national reach and maybe some accountability for failure to perform. He suggested that the period of retention be extended on some basis for non-performance.
Ms. Herbert stated that one of the ways is to structure a commission and put a sliding scale on commission for a faster timeline.
Mr. Lebovici stated that brokers and POUA should be incented to be accountable for it. He stated that if they don’t make serious efforts to perform a serious program, they shouldn’t be able to get out of it.
Ms. Udy stated that it should state “selling for appropriate reuse”.
Ms. Herbert asked how could we could work on a marketing program idea in a short period of time to get it to where people are comfortable.
Ruth Silman stated that on behalf of POUA she would take issue that it was not seriously marketed. She stated that perhaps there could be regular reports to the City or Commission about the content. She suggested possible minimal standards for what would be included in the marketing materials. She suggested not having penalties in this market.
Ms. Herbert suggested a reward for moving it faster.
Ms. Silman stated that there are plenty of active negotiations right now. She stated that there are discussions with a health center that the Mayor and Lynn Duncan have helped to facilitate, for which the result would be straight rehabilitation. She stated that she did not know if it would be sale or lease. She stated that the intent of first sentence is to maintain the historic fabric and that they could add some sort of language.
Ms. Herbert asked if Ms. Udy had any idea for HSI’s time frame.
Ms. Udy replied that they will meet the deadline.
Jim Treadwell, Felt Street, asked if the statue obligation has been met and if there is any report.
Ms. Silman stated that the MOA has a provision, which will be followed.
Mr. Treadwell stated that the shareholders and French Canadian community should have an opportunity to comment on its disposition. He asked if the Section 106 has been satisfied.
Ms. Herbert stated that the ACHP feels satisfied that it can move on to the MOA.
Mr. Hart stated that he understood MHC said that it qualifies for the tax act, but it would have to go to the National Park Service for a final decision. He noted that it is only the opinion of MHC. He stated that the ACHP has determined all requirements have been met.
Mr. Treadwell suggested asking the ACHP if Section 106, with regard to public comment, have been met. He stated that he has not seen any response to comments.
Mr. Hart stated that he believed Paul Silverstone could be asked.
Mr. Treadwell stated that he believed that the Planning Board approved that the school and rectory form the basis for mixed income housing. He wondered if the concept has been changed and would require the local boards to reconsider.
Mr. Hart stated that someone should research the decision of the other boards and match it to this proposed further language.
Ms. Herbert asked about the two crucifixes.
Ms. Silman stated that they are church property, subject to cannon law. She believed the plan is for one to be relocated to another church. She noted other artifacts will also be removed and reused.
Ms. Herbert stated that before any removal begins, photography of the site is required.
Ms. Silman replied in the affirmative. She noted that pews will be taken out and reused and that they will salvage what they can.
Ms. Herbert set a date for a special meeting on Tuesday, February 28, 2012 at 6:30pm for the Commission to vote on whether or not to sign the MOA.
- Status Update on 18 Felt Street – ZBA Petition for Variance to be heard on 1/18/11, which will include demolition of house and 2 accessory buildings
Mr. Treadwell stated that ZBA continued the variance application .
Ms. Herbert stated that tonight, after much discussion, it was continued for 30 days. She noted that there are offers on the table being negotiated, which would keep the house. She prepared a restoration outline. She noted that the developer has come from proposing demolition to being willing to retain the house and use the Secretary of the Interiors Standards. She stated that even if they get a variance, the owner will consider an offer. She noted that one offer in the works is contingent on the person selling his own house. She stated that the 30 day continuance will give a chance for the deal to come together to save the house and the carriage house. She stated that, at the ZBA meeting, she recognized that the developer has come a long way.
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
| 
