SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
OCTOBER 17, 2012
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Harper, Ms. Keenan, Mr. Hart and Ms. Bellin. Ms. Harper chaired the meeting.
Ms. McCrea arrived later in the meeting.
MBTA Intermodal Station – MGL c. 9, ss. 26-27C (950 CMR 71) Review
- MassDot 9/24/12 submittal with additional materials regarding Intensive (Locational) Archaeological Survey/Site Examination - Review/comment
- Recommendation of mitigation efforts and suggestions for the Draft MOA
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission received a copy of a submittal to Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC), which she mailed to each Commissioner, in response to their comment letter of July 18, 2012 regarding the Public Archaeology Laboratory (PAL) report. The Commission had sent a comment letter on August 2, 2012 regarding the PAL report. She stated that she needs to send any comments in a letter tomorrow. Ms. Guy stated that Mr. Spang emailed her and stated that he did not have any comments.
Ms. Harper stated that the issue of the lighting was brought up at the last meeting. She stated that she felt there should be more appropriate lighting, rather than contemporary lighting similar to the Revere garage.
Ms. Bellin stated that the Revere garage has a broad span of light. She stated that the comment letter should express general concern that the ultimate design be compatible with the nearby historic district.
Mr. Hart suggested adding that the south elevation might be addressed by breaking up the façade where there is now large expanses of brick. He stated that he felt the submission was pretty comprehensive and that he had no further comments.
Ms. Guy asked if Mr. Hart was satisfied that the mitigation efforts proposed will mitigate the adverse effects.
Mr. Hart replied in the affirmative.
Ms. McCrea joined the meeting at this time.
Mr. Hart suggested it be stated that the lights on the garage have the appropriate cutoffs so it prevents light spilling off to the adjacent properties.
Ms. Keenan was in agreement.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion that the comments stated be turned into a comment letter. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt Street stated that it is important to note that they are using the signal tower on the cover of their documents. He added that there is a MOA applicable to the signal tower from 1992. They are going from 4 to 5 floors with over 700 spaces, where there is 344 today. The increase is result of receiving more money, which also enabled the addition of the signal tower renovation. He stated that at the Chapter 91 meeting, it came up that they expect to have artifacts from the archaeological dig and may put some at the viewing area.
36 Felt Street
In continuation of a prior meeting, James R. Treadwell presented an application for Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance for the barn at 36 Felt Street (formerly at 18 Felt Street).
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Plan of Charles A. Ropes Estate, March, 1907
- Original plan of land, 18 Felt Street, by ICECAT, December 15, 2011
- Approved plan of land, 18 Felt Street, by ICECAT, June 18, 2012
- Memo from J.R. Treadwell summarizing inspection completed by Woodford Bros., Inc.
Ms. Harper stated that the application had been continued to allow for a site visit. She stated that the condition of the building was poor.
Mr. Treadwell stated that he was able to pass on an artifact to a friend at the Danvers Historical Society – a huge hay bale cutter from 1884 from a foundry in Easton. He noted that after the last meeting, subsequent to the newspaper article, he got only two phone calls. One person was interested in the weather vane, but it was no longer available. The other was asking if it was a barn that was moved from the overpass - which it was not. He stated that he has received no other contact from the public, nor from the people who showed up at the last meeting.
Ms. Bellin stated that she was not able to come to the site visit and asked the Commission’s observations.
Mr. Hart stated that he was not at that particular site visit.
Ms. Harper stated that the foundation was poor, the sills were poor and the building is racked. There was a dip in the floor structure. The building looked delicate. She noted that the inside doors were intact, but the outside doors were not. There is an opening in the roof, so is open to weather. It is open to weather in various spots along the foundation.
Ms. McCreas stated that the building looks tired. She stated that it is unfortunate that the prior owner allowed it to deteriorate. She stated that it is dilapidated.
Mr. Hart stated the he has been on the property many times and has observed the exterior. He read Ordinance 2-1572 (a)(3)(ad) regarding criteria that commission shall consider and that 2-1572 (a)(3)(a) stated that the Commission shall consider if “the building or structure is of such interest or quality that it would reasonably meeting National, State or local criteria for designation as an historic or architectural landmark.”. He stated that , in his opinion, it is eligible for listing on the National Register with regard to integrity, and association with persons or events. He stated that someone would have to engage an architectural historian to do a Form B. He noted that it has the vestiges of a fine building that has been allowed to deteriorate for years. He suggested
exploring moving it away or moving it toward the new house that has been restored.
John Carr, 7 River Street. stated that he still believed the whole underpinning of this board is to allow for six months, however remote the chance may be that it may be saved. He stated that it allows a breathing period for those that qualify. He agree with Mr. Hart that it qualifies for the National Register. He stated that demolition is permanent. He added that, if six months expires and nothing happens, Mr. Treadwell can take it down, but at least the Historical Commission doesn’t go on record as expediting the process. He stated that the ordinance was set up to create this window of opportunity and there is no compelling reason to approve the waiver. He stated that carriage houses are important as evidenced by the carriage house ordinance he wrote many years ago.
He stated that the barn could certainly be restored. He added that it would be a terrible precident and terrible mistake. It is a unique piece of North Salem.
Marie Megan, 65 Dearborn Street, stated that she is an abutter. She stated that the neighbors as a whole think it should come down. She stated that it is an eyesore, is dangerous and is an attractive nuisance. She stated that it is not a carriage house, but a barn. She noted that the quality pieces are long gone, rotted or removed. She added that she was happy that the Historical Commission helped save house. She stated that John Keenan stated to her that anything that could be done to that barn would be cost prohibitive. She stated that she has put up a lot of patience watching the property go down and a lot of patience watching it be restored. She stated that nobody has complained about the restoration, but the consensus of persons she spoke to, even those who have been
there for generations, do not look at it as historic. She noted it is in disreputable condition. It will provide open space in the neighborhood. Right now it is an attractive nuisance for people to camp out in the winter. She stated that she has seen kids on the property during construction and felt it dangerous to leave it for six more months.
Jack Kinney, 36 Felt Street, stated that Georg Wattendorf filed for a waiver more than 6 months ago. It has been available to public for more than 6 months for anyone to take or buy. He stated that he did not feel another six months will do any good.
Mr. Treadwell stated that it has been 6 months tomorrow that the Commission has had this under consideration. He noted that the technicality was that the clock had to start again. He stated that he did not feel anyone can say that the Commission is shirking its duty. He stated that in five months, the barn will be in worse condition. He stated that, if allowed to be dismantled, the setting for the new house and garage will be improved. He noted that Mr. Blier will take possession of the garage, which is also an important element. He stated that he felt moving the barn would be an adverse effect. He stated that, historically, people kept their barn to the west of the house and at a good distance. He noted that because it is over 50 years, is why it is before the
commission. He noted that the key criteria for listing are significance and integrity. This was not associated with a significant person or movement. This is an ordinary barn. He stated that he hated to demean the structure or seem to demean the process, noting he is very involved in historic preservation process. He stated that it would be a very costly endeavor to repair or replicate and that because of the foundation being so far removed from structure, it will be almost impossible to secure vagrants, etc. from going down into foundation and up into house.
Vote: Ms. Bellin made a motion to close the public comment. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin stated that she tended to agree with Mr. Hart and Mr. Carr. She stated that she understood that the original six months is up, but did not feel that the Commission actually dealt with investigative portion of that initial application. She stated that she did not feel the Commission could say that they have done everything possible. She stated that no one knows what will happen in the next 5 months. She stated that she did not see the need to hasten. The Ordinance’s criteria to consider says it may consider if it will reasonably meet criteria for designation.
Ms. McCrea stated that it is a very difficult decision. She stated that while she thinks it meets the criteria to be placed on the National Register, she felt that Mr. Blier and Mr. Treadwell have tried to the best of their ability to have it be part of the house. She noted that the house was saved due to the efforts of Jessica Herbert. She thought that moving it closer to house would take away from it. She stated that it would take such expense to restore the barn. She noted considerable costs were incurred to restore the house and acquire the land. She stated that she would be okay with a waiver.
Mr. Hart stated that he is of the opinion that it would be eligible for the National Register. He stated that for the first application there were a bunch of moving parts, so the Commission never really focused on the application for the waiver in the first place, because it seemed to be a moot point. He stated that he respects what Mr. Treadwell and the audience has said, both pros and cons. He stated that he would want to see some documentation that would address the visual aspects of the property and the condition of the property. He stated that he has heard verbal testimony that it would cost “x” number of dollars and testimony that it would visually detract from the Victorian house that was restored. He stated that he was not sure how all the land ended up divided in
ownership. He would want to see the Commission engage with Mr. Treadwell to explore if it could be moved toward house, maybe taking the garage down. He stated that alternatives to demolition should be explored and noted that there have been structures in far worse shape that have been restored.
Ms. Keenan stated that she agreed with Mr. Carr and Mr. Hart, but noted that her concern is for the winter time and children playing in the building. She was concerned about kids playing in the building and the roof collapsing and did not want that blood on her hands, nor the Historical Commission. She stated that she would vote to take it down.
Ms. Bellin stated that this raises a point about condemnation. She stated that the Commission is looking just from a historical perspective.
Ms. Keenan stated that from a historical perspective, she would keep it, but that if weighing the two, she would go with safety.
Ms. Guy stated that no matter the Commission’s decision, the Building Inspector can still inspect it and issue a demolition order.
Mr. Treadwell stated that the Building Inspector is familiar with the building. He stated that Office Larrabee of Fire Prevention would like it down.
Ms. Harper stated that she felt the Commission should take into serious consideration that for an entire year Ms. Herbert and others worked to try to get interest in the building. She noted that Mr. Blier was here at the last meeting and stated that he did not have the interest nor the funds to move the barn closer to his house. He had noted his intent was to save the garage which is in better condition. She stated that she felt nothing has come about in whole year with the Historic Commission trying to make it happen. She stated that she felt it is a safety issue and that children could get in.
Ms. Bellin stated that she felt the Building Inspector needs to be followed up with. She stated that she is not comfortable making that decision. She stated that the Commission has to vote on the historic nature of the property. She state that if it is a serious safety concern, the property owner should resolve it with Building and Fire. She urge Mr. Treadwell to follow up with them.
Mr. Hart stated that he believed that an attractive nuisance, if allow to become or continue to be a hazardous condition, the owner is liable. He stated that if there are open areas, it is incumbent upon the property owner to fence it off.
Ms. Bellin stated that in the time it takes to decide, anything could happen, so Mr. Treadwell should do something for his own protection.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to close discussion. Mr. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
MOTION: Mr. Hart made a motion to comply with section 2.1572 review process for granting demolition permits for historic buildings or structures and to meet with the property owner and conduct such hearings or investigations as it may be necessary to determine a written recommendations regarding the grant of a waiver of demolition delay.
Ms. Bellin stated that it is actually granting of the permit to demolish.
Mr. Hart accepted the correction.
Ms. Guy asked if he is keeping the application open.
Mr. Hart replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. She stated that Mr. Hart is recommending we do not issue a final recommendation to allow demolition at this time and we would like to take advantage of the 180 days authorized to continue to investigate.
Ms. Harper asked if he making a motion to deny the waiver.
Mr. Hart replied in the negative.
Ms. McCrea questioned that Ms. Herbert already has done that, met with the property owners.
Ms. Harper replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Bellin stated that Ms. Herbert did not do that as a member of the Historical Commission, nor pursuant to this permit.
Ms. Bellin stated that she has questions about what the ordinance says versus what our practice has been.
Ms. Guy asked if this is being continued to another date and who is doing what.
Mr. Hart stated the ordinance says that during the 180 day period, the Commission shall meet to conduct such hearings and then the Commission will make a recommendation.
Ms. Guy stated that if the Commission as a body, with a quorum, is meeting with the homeowner, then the application needs to be continued to a meeting in order to have public notice.
Mr. Hart stated that he is only following the ordinance.
Ms. Guy stated that she is trying to be practical about what the steps are going to be.
Ms. McCrea stated that it has to be continued in order to fulfill it.
Mr. Hart agreed.
Ms. Bellin stated she believes Mr. Hart is asking is not to make a decision now, but to take advantage of the maximum 180 day period to do whatever we deem necessary in further consideration before we provide our written recommendation to the Building Inspector.
Ms. Harper questioned if the entire period is 180 days, waiting the entire 180 days amounts to denying the waiver.
Ms. McCrea stated that that would be her understanding.
Mr. Hart stated that it is not necessarily.
Ms. Guy asked if they are planning on coming back a month from now.
Ms. Harper asked Mr. Hart to clarify the vote.
Mr. Hart stated that it is the intent is to hold some discussions with Mr. Treadwell and have him document the various ideas he has explored and to document the fact that it is not possible to save the building or rehabilitate it. He stated that it does not mean we have to wait six months. If Mr. Treadwell can convince the Commission he is not able to save the building in a reasonable fashion, then we can make a recommendation to the Building Inspector to waive the 180 day period.
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission would be asking Mr. Treadwell to provide the Commission with this information, and then the Commission would reschedule the discussion at an upcoming agenda. If he chooses not to provide the documentation, he can let the time run out.
Mr. Hart replied in the affirmative. He stated that his point is that he wants documentation and the Commission owes it to Mr. Treadwell to give him a list of what documentation the Commission would expect to see. He stated that he is willing to develop it, but would like to reflect on what those items are in collaboration with the Commission.
Ms. Bellin stated that the Commission could continue the application to a specific date before the 180 days is up.
Ms. McCrea stated that she felt in terms of point of order, she did not see how the Commission can do it without making a determination on accepting or denying the waiver, which would give the time to have these discussions. She said it seems out of order.
Ms. Bellin asked what happens if at the end of the 180 days and the Commission issues a recommendation not in favor of granting the permit. She stated she would like to ask the City Solicitor with that specific question – if it is just a recommendation and the building inspector can issue what it likes. Mr. Hart is suggesting that we are not ready to make a final recommendation.
AMENDMENT: Mr. Hart amended his motion to continue the application to the next meeting to confer with the applicant to suggest the documentation to support his position.
Ms. Guy noted that there are no applications for the next meeting.
Ms. Bellin questioned if Mr. Treadwell would need to be present.
Mr. Treadwell stated that he did not think so.
Ms. Harper stated that he wants a continuation for the next scheduled meeting to discuss with Mr. Treadwell what documentation is needed.
Mr. Hart stated that it would be for the Commission to discuss at the next scheduled meeting, not necessarily with Mr. Treadwell, to transmit to Mr. Treadwell a list of items that the Commission would like addressed in writing.
Ms. Bellin seconded the amendment.
VOTE: Mr. Hart and Ms. Bellin voted in favor. Ms. Keenan, Ms. McCrea and Ms. Harper voted in opposition. The motion did not carry.
MOTION: Ms. Keenan made a motion to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance and make a recommendation to the Building Inspection to grant the demolition permit. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. Ms. Keenan, Ms. McCrea and Ms. Harper voted in favor. Mr. Hart and Ms. Bellin voted in opposition. The motion did not carry.
Ms. Guy stated that the vote resulted in a denial of the waiver.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to reconsider the vote that resulted in the denial of the waiver. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to the next scheduled meeting. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of September 19, 2012. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy stated that she received a copy of a letter from Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) to NortheastArc, finding that the project at 28 Linden Street is unlikely to affect significant historic or archaeological resources and that the project at 184 Lafayette Street may meet the criteria for eligibility for listing on the National Register and requesting product specification son the proposed windows and photographs.
Ms. Guy stated that she received a copy of a letter from MHC to BL Companies encouraging them to explore the alternatives proposed by the Salem Historical Commission.
Ms. Guy stated that she received a copy of a letter from MHC to the City of Salem, stating that the fire station at 142 North Street will be considered for listing on the National Register at the MHC meeting of December 12, 2012.
VOTE: There being no further business, Ms. McCrea made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission
| 
