SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
February 6, 2013
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, February 6, 2013 at 7:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Jessica Herbert, Kathryn Harper, Laurie Bellin, Chad Garner, David Hart, and Laurence Spang.
22 Beckford Street
In continuance of a previous meeting, 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.
Mr. Hart stated that he is a direct abutter and would recuse himself.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Drawings
Ms. Lovett stated that she receive an email from Ms. Levin on January 29th requesting that the application be continued to a future meeting.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to the March 6th meeting. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
101/103 Federal Street
In continuance of a previous meeting, ProProcessIt, Inc. submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a small fixed non-operable skylight above a 2nd floor bathroom.
Mr. Hart and Mr. Garner recused themselves.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Skylight cut-sheet
- Installation Specifications
- Building Plans
Mr. Hart stated that he received a call from Mr. John McIver. He missed his flight and will not be able to attend the meeting. As a result, he would like the item continued.
Ms. Herbert asked if there was public comment.
Jane Arlander, 93 Federal St, asked to discuss the Certificate of Non-Applicability recently issued for the back deck addition at 103 Federal Street. She stated that the back of the building is visible from the Federal Street Court and therefore felt the Certificate of Non-Applicability was wrongly issued by the Historical Commission. Photographs from the public way were presented to the Commission.
John Carr, 7 River St, agreed that the Certificate of Non-Applicability was wrongly issued.
Ms. Herbert questioned whether the Certificate of Non-applicability can be revoked.
Ms. Bellin stated that it is a mistake of fact not a question of reconsidering the decision. She doesn’t believe that it is an issue.
Ms. Lovett said that the Certificate of Non-applicability stated the work would not be visible from a public way.
Ms. Bellin asked if the work had commenced.
Mr. Hart stated that the work was roughed out but had not begun.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin revoke the previously issued Certificate of Non-Applicability due to a mistake of fact, the Commission now finds that it is visible from Federal Street Court. Mr. Spang seconded, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Conversation then ensued regarding the skylight proposal.
Mr. Hart stated that Mr. McIver had asked if the item could continue with his absence.
Ms. Herbert allowed conversation to continue in order to take public comment.
Ms. Herbert asked if Mr. McIver had sent floor plans of the building.
Ms. Lovett replied in the affirmative and presented the plans.
Ms. Bellin stated that the skylight was for the back bathroom.
Ms. Herbert wondered if there is an outside wall where a window could be placed rather than a skylight. A skylight will show light at night.
John Carr, 7 River St, stated that the guidelines specify that the skylight should not be located on the principle slope. He would like the Commission to make a decision first and foremost on what is historically and architecturally appropriate and not be driven by what would generate a higher profit. He would prefer that the developer look for other options. He questioned if a skylight something that the building would have originally had?
Ms. Herbert stated that portion of the building looks to be a Victorian addition, which sometimes had skylights.
Mr. Hart states that the building code states that a bathroom needs ventilation. As an abutter to the property, the visibility of the skylight is minimal. He questioned whether 95/97 Federal St received abutters notification?
Ms. Harper looked at the catalog cut which said a minimum of 3 ½ inches of height above roof is required.
Mr. Spang stated that a fan will still be necessary if the skylight is fixed.
John Carr asked if abutters notices will be sent out for the back deck project.
Ms. Lovett replied in the affirmative. Abutters notices will be sent for the back deck and will also include the window replacement on the first floor.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the item to the February 20 meeting. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Mr. Spang asked that Ms. Lovett request that Mr. McIver bring additional details on the skylight including how height above the roof the skylight would be.
1 Washington Square-Salem Common Fence
The City of Salem submitted an application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability for restoration and reconstruction of 17 sections of the Salem Common Fence and installation of a temporary project sign. The project sign will be 4’x4’.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Plans
Ms. Lovett stated that the Salem Common fence restoration project is moving forward. The project includes the restoration of 17 sections of fence and three bollard entrances and creating new patterns for the fence. The work is being funded in part by a Massachusetts Historical Commission MPPF grant.
Ms Lovett stated that on January 31 the City received bids from contractors for the restoration. Three contractors submitted bids, the lowest bidder being DeAngelis Iron Works. The project architect, CBI Consulting Inc, is currently checking references for DeAngelis Brothers. Once the reference check is complete, MHC will need to approve the contractor selection. The restoration work is expected to begin by the beginning of March and will involve the removal of the fence sections to the contractor’s workshop.
Ms. Lovett stated that the application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability is for the actual restoration work as well as the installation of a temporary project sign, as required by the MHC grant. The fence will be repaired and repainted to match the existing. Missing fence pieces will be created using the new patterns.
Ms. Harper asked if the entire fence would be restored.
Ms. Lovett responded in the negative. Only a few sections of the fence are being restore at this time.
Ms. Harper asked what funds were being used for the restoration.
Ms. Lovett responded that the project was being funded with CIP and Capital Outlay funds.
Ms. Harper asked what the estimate cost of the work was.
Ms. Lovett replied that this current project is approximately $150,000. Restoration of the entire fence is estimated at $1.1 million.
Mr. Hart stated that he was on the Salem Common Fence plan committee. Bill Woolley, from the Parks and Recreation Department, has been intimately involved in the project. He continued to state that there is a long history of repairs to the fence by Cassidy Brothers and DeAngelis Iron Works. CBI Consulting completed the report and did a professional job.
Ms. Lovett stated that CBI Consulting will be overseeing the restoration project.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the Certificate for Non-Applicability for the fence restoration. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Conversation then ensued regarding the temporary project sign.
Mr. Hart asked if the sign was the standard MPPF project sign.
Ms. Lovett replied in the affirmative. The project sign will be:
- 4’x4’
- White letters on a red background
- State the project name, City of Salem, project architect, and contractor
Ms. Lovett asked if the Commission had a preference for the location.
Mr. Hart stated that MHC prefers to have the sign in a prominent location.
Ms. Herbert stated that the entrance across from the Roger Conant statue or Hawthorne Hotel entrance are possible locations.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the 4’x4’ temporary project sign. Mr. Hart seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Ms. Lovett noted that a Certificate of Appropriateness will be before the Historical Commission on February 20th for the replacement of pipe bollards with decorative bollards.
Causeway Park Construction Project
Ms. Herbert stated that the reason the Historical Commission was named in the Memorandum of Agreement was because the Mcintire Distric was affected by earlier completed Bridge Street work. The Causeway Park was not spelled out in the original MOA. Lynn Duncan, from the Department of Planning and Community Development, has looked at the plans. She requested, as part of an earlier iteration of the plans, that the lights and benches match the city standard and that additional plantings be added. MassDOT has made those changes.
Ms. Herbert continued that the Historical Commission can decide whether it would still like to submit comments.
Ms. Lovett stated that the Commission can chose to not comment or submit a letter stating that the Causeway Park wasn’t under the initial MOA, and it doesn’t affect any historic resources.
Mr. Hart stated that he would accede to the Planning Department’s changes and comments because the plans were difficult to read.
Ms. Harper asked if the plans were final.
Ms. Lovett responded that the plans referred to in the MOA were for the Lesley Retreat Park.
Ms. Harper asked if these were final plans for the Causeway Park.
Ms. Lovett responded that she did not know if these were draft or final plans.
Mr. Hart asked who prepared the drawings.
Mr. Spang responded that they were prepared by Jacobs Engineering.
Ms. Herbert stated that Natalie and she would draft a letter stating that this piece was not part of the original MOA but that the Commission concurs with the Planning Department changes.
Mr. Spang suggested that they include in the letter that it will be great to see the dilapidated area restored to a park.
Mr. Garner asked when they wanted to remove the signal tower.
Mr. Hart stated it was in 1992, but they will now be restoring it to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to submit comments to Mass DOT that Ms. Herbert and Ms. Lovett will draft on behalf of the Commission. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Ms. Lovett stated that the 2013 submittal and meeting schedule will be used as part of the new permitting system being put in place by the City. The only item of significance in the schedule is the absence of a July 3rd meeting.
VOTE: Mr. Spang made a motion to approve the 2013 submittal and meeting schedule. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the January 2 meeting minutes. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert asked if Ms. Lovett would update the Historical Commission contact list with the new member information.
Correspondence
Ms. Lovett reported on several letters that the Historical Commission had received.
The Commission received a copy of a letter from Betsey Friedburg at MHC to CogInc, who is working with the City to compile a National Register district nomination form for the Point Neighborhood. Ms. Friedburg had comments regarding the boundaries of the neighborhood. Specifically, she feels the National Grid substation, Shetland Park, Palmers Cove park, garage at 62 leavitt, and Saltonstall School should be included within the boundaries.
The Commission received a copy of a letter from MHC to the EPA regarding the Peabody Essex Museum expansion project notification form for dewatering activities. MHC did not feel the drawings clearly indicated the boundaries of the area of potential effect and have requested additional information.
The Commission received a copy of a letter from MHC to Army Corps of Engineers acknowledging the receipt of comments submitted by the Historical Commission, Historic Salem Inc, and James Treadwell regarding the Legacy Park redevelopment project.
Ms. Harper asked if the Legacy Park project would be coming back to the Historical Commission for further review.
Ms. Lovett replied it depends whether MHC find there to be an impact on historic resources.
Ms. Harper expressed interest in commenting on the design of the buildings. Specifically, to raise the concern of stucco being used to echo the industrial feel, rather than utilizing brick.
Mr. Hart suggested that the project may be going through the Design Review Board.
Ms. Lovett stated that she did not believe the project was within the DRB boundaries but would verify and let the Commission know.
VOTE: There being no further business, Ms. Bellin made a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Natalie BL Lovett
Community Development Planner
| 
