SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
JANUARY 2, 2013
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, January 2, 2013 at 7:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Jessica Herbert, Kathryn Harper, Laurie Bellin, David Hart, and Susan Keenan. Also present was Jane Guy from the Department of Planning and Community Development.
84 Derby Street
Jean-Louis Faber submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to apply lettering to the windows of the storefront for his business The Pasta Guy. Lettering will be placed on two windows. One window will say “Jean Louis Pasta Shop” and the other window will say “Pasta Fresh & Fancy.” Mr. Jean-Louis Faber was present.
Documents & Exhibits
Ms. Herbert asked if the letters would be in white and if so would they be visible enough.
Mr. Faber replied that the letters would be white. He has used white letters before and they were visible.
Ms. Bellin asked about the dimensions of the lettering.
Mr. Faber stated that the letters would be approximately 8” high
Ms. Guy suggested that the Certificate could include a not to exceed height for the lettering.
Ms. Herbert stated that it was a very nice design and elegant.
Ms. Herbert asked for public comment. There were no comments from the public.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the permit submitted with letters not to exceed 8” high. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor, and the motion so carried.
10 Beckford Street
Richard and Cynthia Griffin submitted an application for a Certification of Appropriateness to install a fence around their property. The fence will be 4’6” high and made of white cedar board to match the existing fence along side the lot line between #10 and #8 Beckford Street. Mr. Richard Griffin and Ms. Cynthia Griffin were present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Site plan
Mr. Griffin explained that there was once a house at #10 Beckford St. until 1960s when the building was torn down and the property was turned into a yard for #14 Beckford St. Mr. Griffin showed on the site plan an existing fence for the property at #8 Beckford Street. The fence is a 6’ high board fence with 1x2 cap molding. Mr. Griffin stated that they would like to continue the board fence along the #8 Beckford St property line but taper it down 4’ at the existing dowel fence. Mr. Griffin said that the fence would run primarily behind plantings. This would allow them to plant along the fence and they may eventually considering completely enclosing the yard with a fence for pets.
Larry Spang joined the meeting.
Ms. Herbert asked Mr Griffin to show where the existing dowel fence is located?
Mr. Griffin stated that the fence is located along Beckford Street.
Ms. Herbert asked if any of the fence they are replicating would be 6’ high.
Mr. Griffin said no, the new fence will slope from the existing 6’ down to 4’6” feet and will 4’ where the fence butts up against the existing dowel fence.
Ms. Harper asked for the height of the existing dowel fence.
Mr. Griffin stated that the existing dowel fence is about 4’ tall and approximately 4’6” at the posts.
Ms. Herbert asked if the wood will be left natural.
Mr. Griffin said yes, they will be staining the fence a grayish-brown to match the weathered existing fence.
Mr. Hart ask if there is an existing fence where the new fence will be installed.
Mr. Griffin replied that there is no fence in that location. You see the side of the neighbor’s house.
Ms. Harpers asked if the caps on the fence were flat or pyramidal?
Mr. Griffin stated that the caps are pyramidal.
Ms. Herbert asked for public comment.
David Williams, from 342 Essex Street, stated that he had no objection to the proposal.
The public comment period was closed.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor, and the motion so carried.
22 Beckford Street
Christopher Sallah and Jocelyn Levin submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace a third floor window with an egress door and an exterior spiral staircase. The exit and stairs are for the purpose of providing a second means of egress from an existing third floor apartment. Christopher Sallah, Jocelyn Levin, and Richard Griffin were present.
Mr. Hart stated that he is a direct abutter and would recuse himself. He left the table and joined the audience.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Drawings
Ms. Herbert clarified that the abutters notice did not state that the applications includes the installation of an exterior spiral staircase. Ms. Herbert noted to the owners that there are rules and regulations that the Historical Commission must follow for exterior egress. The Historical Commission, as of May 1997, does not accept exposed exterior staircases. They will review proposals for exterior egress on a case by case basis. The Commission encourages the owners to find a way to locate the stairs on the interior of the building and, if not possible, will work with the owners to approve an addition to the building to enclose the stairs.
Ms. Herbert asked if the two front period windows were going to be replaced.
Mr. Griffin responded that the windows were not being changed. There is a casement door with two windows that will remain.
Ms. Herbert asked if Mr. Griffin was familiar with the exterior egress guidelines?
Mr. Griffin stated that he was not aware of the guidelines. He had previously come to the Commission for approval of an exterior spiral staircase on a house on Derby Street. The staircase was approved.
Ms. Herbert asked if the house has an existing second staircase?
Mr. Sallah responded that there is a staircase that comes into their kitchen.
Mr. Griffin added that it would require quite a bit of isolation to add an additional internal staircase.
Ms. Herbert stated that in order to review the application the Commission will need plans that show you can not add a staircase internally. She suggested that a bump out could be added off the second floor addition which would not be viewed from Federal Street and minimally viewed from Beckford Street. A three story addition at that location could straighten out the look of the lesser appropriate additions.
Mr. Griffin wondered if another addition would further diminish the integrity of the federalist building.
Ms. Herbert responded that she didn’t think so.
Ms. Keenan asked why the owners needed the additional staircase?
Mr. Griffin stated that there is a legal in-law apartment on the 3rd floor without a legal 2nd means of egress. The owners would like to have an income unit on the 3rd floor. The house is currently a legal two-family.
Ms. Herbert asked if the owners spoke with the building inspector.
Ms. Levin stated that they have.
Ms. Herbert asked if they would be giving up a parking space for the spiral staircase.
Mr. Griffin stated that they would not really be losing a space. There are currently trash cans there and there is not enough room for two cars to park there now
Ms. Herbert stated that the fence could be cut back to allow for two car parking.
Mr. Spang asked if they owners would be removing the second staircase
Mr. Griffin stated that the staircase would remain but it will be locked because the staircase passes through the 2nd floor bathroom into the kitchen. A 3rd floor apartment would have to pass through the owner apartment for egress.
Mr. Spang asked if that would the second form of egress for the in-law apartment?
Mr. Griffin stated yes.
Mr. Spang stated that plans of the building would help to further demonstrate why an internal staircase is not possible.
Mr. Griffin added that he had felt that an exterior spiral staircase is detachable from the building without damaging the historic fabric.
Ms. Bellin asked if the main staircase could be closed off for access to the 3rd floor.
Ms. Levin responded yes, but they will still require the second egress.
Mr. Griffin asked if the Commission would consider the spiral staircase at the back of the building where it is less visible from the street?
Ms. Herbert responded that the Commission we would really want to see a simple floor plan in order to better evaluate, but the option could be presented. If it was tucked back, it may not be visible from Federal Street and Beckford Street.
Ms. Bellin asked if the staircase was included in the application.
Ms. Herbert replied that yes, the staircase was included but it was not on the abutter notification letters.
Ms. Guy stated that the abutter notifications can be resent.
Ms. Herbert asked for public comment.
Susan Wells, 106 Federal Street, asked for clarification about grandfathering. When there is a 3rd floor apartment, is it grandfathered in as continuous use?
Mr. Spang responded that is a permit question that would need to be answered by the building inspector.
Ms. Wells added that her understanding is that the apartment is no longer grandfathered because it was not used by a non-family member. She has a similar situation for her house.
Ms. Herbert replied that the building inspector would need to be consulted.
Barbara Cleary, 104 Federal Street, encouraged the owners to seek a different solution. She is concerned with the precedent of a spiral staircase right along the street.
Jane Arlander, 93 Federal Street, also encourages the owners to seek an alternative solution. She finds that the staircases are quite loud, living next to one. The raccoons climb up the stairs, get stuck, and then cry all night.
Susan Hayward, 105 Federal Street, asked if they need 2 egresses. Can’t the second egress still be a second egress.
Ms. Herbert stated that the second egress needs to be seperate and not depend on access through another unit.
Meg Twohey,102 Federal Street, reiterated that the spiral staircase sets a precedent. The residents work hard to make the street beautiful and they would like to preserve this. She also encouraged the neighbors to talk with the neighbors to see what will be acceptable to them.
The public comment period was closed.
Ms. Herbert noted that other boards sometimes have applicants go around to the neighbors with petitions.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue to the first meeting in February. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor, and the motion so carried.
103 Federal Street
Mr. Hart stated that he is a direct abutter and would recuse himself.
In continuance of a previous meeting, ProProcessIt, Inc. submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove a first floor awning window and to reduce the size of a second floor window (front most double hung) on the addition at the left side of the house by approximately three inches narrow and moving it forward. The application is also to add a three bath and one stove vent to the side.
Documents & Exhibits
Ms. Lovett stated that she received an email on 12/27/2012 from Mr. McIver requesting that the application be continued until the next Historical Commission meeting on January 16th.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the continuance. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor, and the motion so carried. Mr. Hart abstained.
Mr. Hart rejoined the Commission at this time.
Peabody Essex Museum Expansion- Project Notification Form
On behalf of the Peabody Essex Museum, Roux Associates, Inc provided a copy of a Project Notification Form (PNF) to the Massachusetts Historical Commission associated with the expansion of the PEM. The PNF requests the opinion of MHC regarding the impact of proposed construction dewatering discharge’s impacts on the Nationally Listed Historical Places. The discharge will travel from the PEM site through the City of Salem’s storm water system, which passes by the Charter Street Historical District and Salem Laundry into the South River. Mr. Bob Monk, Mr. Glen Gordon, and Mr. Tim Shaw were present at the meeting.
Documents & Exhibits
- Project Notification Form
- Drawings
Mr. Gordon they will be pumping water into the storm drain and asked what the historical commission would like to know about the project.
Ms. Guy asked what the impacts would be on historic resources.
Mr. Gordon replied that they do not believe there are any impacts. They are required to notify the Historical Commission as part of a federal permit. They will be pumping approx 10-15 gallons / hour, which is typical to the output of a garden hose. After a significant rain, the output may be 3-4 times that amount. The plan, pending approval from the Engineering Department, would be to pump the water into the City’s storm drain.
Ms. Bellin asked if any temporary pipes will be laid.
Mr. Gordon replied in the negative. Just hose above ground to the catch basin.
Mr. Hart replied that as part of a Section 106 review, the Historical Commission is limited to commenting on whether or not any historic structures will be impacted by the work. He asked what other permits would be needed from the City.
Ms. Shaw stated that they will need approval from the Department of Public Services to use the storm drain.
Mr. Spang asked where the water is coming from and if and whether there will be any cut offs.
Mr. Gordon responded that it will be ground water and any storm water that falls directly into the excavation.
Mr. Shaw stated that there will be a combination of sheet piling and soil mix wall surrounding the excavation.
Mr. Gordon added that the idea is to pump as little water as possible.
Mr. Hart states that he looked at the application and cannot see what possible negative impacts there could be on historic structures.
Mr. Gordon replied that they are required to notify the Historical Commission and Massachusetts Historical Commission because there will be water going through pipes under the historic district.
Ms. Guy stated that the Historical Commission will need to submit comments to MHC.
Mr. Spang asked if the sheeting will be driven in.
Mr. Shaw responded that it will be excavated and then vibrated in, but the majority along the historic structures will be a soil mix wall.
Mr. Spang asked if they would be installing vibration monitors and performing a pre-excavation survey of the surrounding structures.
Mr. Shaw responded that PEM owns several of the buildings surrounding the site and so they have an interest in preserving buildings.
Ms. Bellin asked if other aspects of the project would be before the Commission for Section 106.
Ms. Guy stated that they will need to come before the commission for a Demolition Delay Waiver.
Mr. Monk responded that he does not believe there are any other federal or state permits that will be need. They are currently working on permitting the “enabling phase” of the project.
Mr. Spang asked if they trigger MEPA.
Mr. Monk replied in the negative.
Ms. Herbert asked for public comment.
Emily Udy, from Historic Salem, Inc., asked what will be before demo delay
Mr. Monk responded that there will be 3 buildings.
Meg Twohey asked which exact buildings will be demolished.
Ms. Herbert stated that she could get a copy of the plans from the Historical Commission
The public comment period was closed.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to comment to the Massachusetts Historical Commission that there is no apparent potential negative impact on nearby structures identified in the application. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove Redevelopment- Project Notification Form
On behalf of MRM Project Management, Griffin Engineering Group provided a copy of a Project Notification Form to the Massachusetts Historical Commission associates with the proposed mixed-use development at 60 & 64 Grove Street and 1,3, & 5 Harmony Grove Road. The proposed project will redevelop the former Salem Oil & Grease Company property for residential and commercial uses. The project will include the rehabilitation of the Salem Oil & Grease office building located at 60 Grove Street. Mr. Joseph Correnti, Michael Hubbard, Bob Griffin were present at the meeting.
Documents & Exhibits
- Project Notification Form
- Additional Information provided to MHC on 12/18/2012
- U.S.G.S Map of Project Area
- Photographs
- Drawings
Mr. Correnti stated that the project has been before Salem Planning Board and undergone several changes and revisions. Recently, the project was unanimously approved by Planning Board. It is a dilapidated, contaminated, and abandoned site. They are fortunate to have found an owner willing to put the time and money into cleaning up the site. It is a planned unit development site. The oldest building on the site will be rehabilitated for office use. The storage and warehouse buildings will be proposed for demolition. There will be several state and federal permits necessary for this project, given that there is a canal and railway running through the site.
Mr. Griffin shows an aerial view of the property. The project involves approximately 5.8 acres of land which extend down to the Peabody line. They are currently preparing to file an Environmental Notification Form (ENF) with MEPA to remove all of the structures located at 64 Grove Street. The building at 60 Grove Street will be restored. The past uses of property include a tannery (after ~1874) and gas storage for Salem Gas Co (prior to ~1874 Salem Gas Co). There is a chimney on the site that appears to have been there since 1874. The bridge to the site from Harmony Grove was building around 1909. They believe the railway lines were built between 1870/80. The building located at 60 Grove Street, which will be restored, was built around1912. It is a two story building in the front and three story in the back. The
building was most recently used as an office building for Salem Oil and Grease Co. There have been a number of industrial uses of the properties over the last 200 years. For the last 10 years the property has been vacant, one reason being the residual contamination.
Mr. Griffin provided an overview of the buildings that are on the site with accompanying pictures. They will remove the bridges and build a bikeway/walkway along the canal which will be open to the public. A new bridge will be built at the location of the current bridge off of Harmony Grove. It will be necessary to remove the buildings and the paving in order to remediate the soil contamination. The project is being overseen by LSP.
Mr. Griffin stated the proposed buildings will echo the industrial history of the site. There will be 4 story apartment buildings with parking underneath. There will be false parapets to enclose the mechanical equipment.
Ms. Herbert asked if the parapet roofing has been planned to enclose all of the mechanicals.
Mr. Griffin responded that they anticipate that the parapets will cover all of the equipment.
Ms. Herbert asked if they will be coming back to the Commission for a demo delay waiver.
Mr. Griffin responded in the affirmative.
Ms. Herbert asked if the cleanup is underway.
Mr. Griffin responded in the affirmative. There is a step by step process that their LSP will be going through. They have completed the phase 2 cleanup and are not working on phase 3.
Ms. Herbert asked how many apartment units there will there be.
Mr. Griffin responded that there will be 141 apartments
Ms. Herbert asked where the parking will be located.
Mr. Griffin replied that 30/40% of parking will be underground. The remaining parking will be underneath remainder will be outside. There will be a retaining wall running along the Beaver St side of the property which will range from 13-16’. The parking will not be very visible from Beaver Street and there will be extensive landscaping.
Mr. Hart noted that Beaver Street is identified as potential historic resources on the Blubber Hollow Form A.
Ms. Herbert asked if the entrances to the property from Beaver Street will be used.
Mr. Griffin responded in the negative. They have a water main in that area that will continue to be used. They are not currently proposing any alterations to the other pieces of property adjoin to Beaver Street.
Ms. Harper asked for the height of building be renovated.
Mr. Griffin responded that the building is approximately 25’ in the front and 35’ in the back.
Ms. Harper asked what the height of the new buildings will be.
Mr. Griffin responded that the new buildings will be 4 stories with a basement. They are restricted to 50’ by zoning, but the current proposal is in the 45’ range
Ms. Bellin asked what the proposed schedule was for construction.
Mr. Griffin stated that they hope to begin construction in the fall. They still have several state and federal permits to get.
Mr. Spang asked what triggered the MEPA review.
Mr. Griffin replied that the traffic volume triggered the MEPA review.
Ms. Herbert asked for public comment.
Jane Arlander, 93 Federal Street, asked for clarification of the height of buildings. She had the understanding that with the parapets the building height would be closer to 70’ tall and this was an issue with the Beaver Street residents.
Mr. Griffin responded that they worked with the building inspector and complied with the zoning requirements.
Mr. Correnti added that there is a difference between building height and elevation. This site has dramatically different topography and looks different from different sides.
Emily Udy, representing HSI, stated that HSI will be submitting a letter to MHC. She stated that HSI will be requesting that MHC request additional information. This includes: information on the 13 properties directly abutting site with inventory forms, dates on the buildings to be demolished, a date for the bridge, distance from the buildings, and elevations of the buildings. Having all of the information is important in order to evaluate the proposal. Additionally the date on the buildings and bridge need to be clarified.
Ms. Herbert stated that there is some time to get additional information about the buildings.
Ms. Guy stated that there is not time to submit comments to MHC in regards to the PNF, however there will be time to gather more information on the buildings when the proponent comes back to the Commission for the demolition delay waiver
Ms. Herbert asked if HSI had comments on potential mitigation.
Ms. Udy replied that they do not have comments at this time.
Jim Treadwell, 10 Felt Street, stated that he would like to relay information given to him by Joanne Sweeney. He stated that many buildings along the ridge could be eligible for the national register. He expressed concern that there was not proper notification of the meeting to the public, as part of the Section 106 process. The Historical Commission needs to make sure they have all the information necessary in order to make comment. He stated that there is a proposal to widening the canal or adding culverts. These options were not presented to the Historical Commission. There is a 1946 historic mill plan drawing submitted by Griffin Engineering to the Salem Conservation Commission which gives a summary of the history of the site. A thorough archaeological excavation is warranted given the history of the site. There is
significant regrading of the site and believes the Historical Commission needs a copy of the grading plan in order to see the extent. Survey form SAL.376 covers two buildings. He noted that the building being rehabbed will only be to code instead of Secretary of the Interior Standards. The granite block retaining wall along the canal should be considered a historic resource and investigated. He added that he believes there is an adverse impact to the people along Beaver Street. There were a considerable number of comments from the residents along those streets given at the Planning Board public meetings.
Ms. Herbert asked if the Commission needs to comment before their next meeting.
Ms. Guy replied that she would recommend that the Commission not wait until the next meeting to submit comments.
Ms. Herbert asked if there was any proposed work for along the canal.
Mr. Treadwell replied that they will be adding outfalls and capping some existing outfalls.
Ms. Herbert asked if there would be a restoration process as part of the site preparation and landscaping.
Mr. Griffin stated that besides adding pipes for storm drainage and capping some existing pipes, they are not proposing any work on the canal.
Ms. Guy stated that she believes the Canal was examined for National Register eligibility and was found to not be eligible.
Ms. Herbert asked if the archaeological aspects of the project have been addressed.
Mr. Griffin replied that they have not investigated the archaeological aspect of the project. Most of the site was filled in the 1800.
Mr. Correnti stated that they are cognizant of the potential archaeological resources
Mr. Spang asked if they will be addressing all of MHC’s comments in the ENF or they were planning to submit an EIR.
Mr. Griffin responded that they are not planning to submit an EIR unless required by MEPA.
Mr. Spang asked if they anticipate a more detailed historic resource report as part of the ENF process. impact to blubber hollow will be migitated with landsace
Mr. Griffin replied that is what the ENF process is for, to flush out additional information regarding the site.
Mr. Spang asked if they will be mitigating the impact to the Blubber Hollow neighborhood with landscaping.
Mr. Griffin replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Spang asked if there will be a fence at the top of the wall near the parking.
Mr. Griffin replied that there will be vegetation and a swale along the fence to keep people from walking up there.
Ms. Harper asked for the date on the building being rehabbed.
Mr. Griffin responded that it is approximately 1912.
Ms. Harper asked what the rehabilitation will entail.
Mr. Griffin replied that it will involve a thorough rehabilitation. Building will need to be gutted. They do not have architectural plans at this time.
Ms. Harper asked if they have historical photographs of the building and whether they will be researching the building.
Mr. Griffin replied that they do not have photographs of the original building but they will do some research.
Mr. Correnti added that they have photographs of the building from the 1960s.
Mr. Spang asked if the canal walls are stable.
Mr. Griffin responded that generally the wall is in good condition.
Ms. Harper asked what commercial uses were being considered for the site.
Mr. Correnti stated that they were not sure yet. It could possibly be offices for artists or architects or neighborhood retail.
Ms. Herbert stated that restoration of the exterior of the existing building will be important because it is a focal piece.
Meg Twohey, 102 Federal Street, asked if the vegetation will fully screen Beaver Street. She also feels as though the Commission should see elevations from Beaver Street.
Mr. Correnti responded that these questions have been reviewed by the Planning Board. He stated that while there is screening, it does not mean that the site will not be visible at all. The buildings being proposed will be higher than the existing buildings. The issues were addressed and they received a unanimous decision from the Planning Board.
Mr. Treadwell summarized a letter from Joanne Sweeney which states there is a lot of historical information available on the neighborhood and that the proponent needs to make a good faith effort to identify all resources.
The public comment period was closed.
MOTION: Mr. Hart made a motion to ask that MHC make a determination, or ask the proponent to make a determination, as to the potential negative visual and other effects of the proposed buildings on the historic properties identified in the MHC MACRIS database (SAL A- Blubber Hollow and SAL 376 Salem Oil & Grease) and to have the parties consider any mitigating procedures that might eliminate or ameliorate such potential negative effects. And the visual graphics prepared as part of the Salem Planning Board public hearing should be submitted for reference.
Ms. Herbert amended the motion to include “pedestrian views from Beaver Street.”
Mr. Spang asked if the Commission’s primary concern is the visual effects on Beaver Street.
Ms. Herbert responded that is part of it.
Ms. Herbert amended the motion to include a request that MHC ask for further details on the rehabilitation of the building located at 60 Grove Street. Specifically, in regards to the level to which the historic fabric of the existing building will be preserved and restored.
Mr. Spang amended the motion to include a request that MHC ask for a more thorough report on the potential historic resources beyond those identified in the PNF including the canal, canal walls, and cemetery and to report on those resources and potential mitigation measures in the ENF. Additionally, the Commission requests more information on the archaeological resources in order to determine whether there are any archaeological impacts as a result of the project.
Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor, and the motion so carried.
VOTE: The motion was voted on. All were in favor, and the motion was carried
Other Business
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion on behalf of the Historical Commission to acknowledge and appreciate Jane Guy’s 20+ years of service to the Historical Commission.
Mr. Hart amended the motion to include that the Commission greatly appreciate the dedication and due diligence of her work over the past 20+ years.
Ms. Keenan seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve October 3. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor, and the motion so carried.
VOTE: There being no further business, Mr. Hart made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Natalie BL Lovett
Community Development Planner
| 
