SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
February 19, 2014
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, February 19, 2014 at 7:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Jessica Herbert (Chair), Kathy Harper (Vice Chair), Laurie Bellin, Chad Garner, and David Hart. Joanne McCrea and Larry Spang arrived late.
6 Monroe Street
Roger Tyler submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a 10 foot long x 5 foot tall fence along the north side of the house. The fence will be composed of 1”x4” vertical cedar boards with 5”x5” cedar posts with pyramidal caps. The design includes a 32” opening with a short 20” section to the left of the opening. The fence will be stained white. The new fence will replace the existing 11’ long weave design fence, and will be set back approximately 14” from the existing.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 1/6/14
- Photographs: 1/16/14
- Site plan
Ms. Herbert stated that Mr. Tyler has requested that the application be continued to the next meeting.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to March 5, 2014. Mr. Garner seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
16 Summer Street
Richard Pabich submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for exterior paint colors. The proposed paint colors are:
Body color- Bleeker Beige (Benjamin Moore HC-80) flat finish
Trim color- White Dove (Benjamin Moore PM-19) satin finish
Window/doors- Black (Benjamin Moore PM-9) satin finish
Mr. Richard Pabich was present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 1/20/14
- Photographs: 1/20/14
- Paint chips
Mr. Pabich stated that the house is currently brown and white. They are looking for colors to make the house brighter.
There was no public comment.
VOTE: Mr. Garner made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
92 Derby Street
As a continuation of the meeting on January 15, 2014, David O’Sullivan submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a wrought iron gate in the alley separating 92 and 94 Derby Street. The gate will be 5 feet high on each end and rise to 6 feet in the middle of the gate. David O’Sullivan and Lisa Ainsworth were present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 12/12/13
- Photographs: 12/12/13
- Drawing: 2/19/14
- Picture of latch
Ms. Ainsworth submitted a revised drawing for their gate along with examples from neighbors’ gates and a picture of the proposed latch.
Ms. Herbert asked if they were still considering finials.
Ms. Ainsworth responded that they are going to install the gate without finials. Should they decide to have finials, they will reapply at a later time.
Ms. Bellin stated that the graduated bars should continue to the center, so that the middle bar is the highest.
Mr. Hart drew the change on the picture submitted by the applicant.
There was no public comment.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the application with the design change to the center picket. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
24 Fort Ave
As a continuation of the meeting on January 15, 2014, Footprint Power Salem Harbor Real Estate submitted an application for a Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance to demolish all remaining structures and equipment not previously permitted for demolition. The structures subject to demolition delay include the Unit 1, 2, & 3 Fan House, Boiler Building, Turbine Room and Screen House. The structures will be replaced with a new modern power facility. On January 15, 2014, the applicant received a vote in support of the demolition delay waiver for Unit 1, 2, & 3 Fan Houses, the Boiler Building, and Screen House. Discussion of demolition for the Turbine Room was continued to the next meeting in order to review additional information regarding the building. Scott Silverstein, Joseph Correnti, and Lou Erich were present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 12/16/13
- Photographs
- Site Plan
- Presentation: 2/19/14
Ms. McCrea and Mr. Spang arrived at this time.
Lou Arak gave a presentation to the Commission showing the turbine room, structural steel, and historical photographs of the site.
Ms. Bellin and Ms. Harper asked for clarification on what part of the building may remain if the turbine hall is reused and specifically which structures would be retained.
Mr. Silverstein responded that the entire exterior of the building would be demolished and they would construct a new shell to cover the structural steel.
Mr. Arak added that if the steel structure is retained, the floor, turbine deck and mezzanine level would also remain.
Mr. Hart suggested that the original architectural drawings could be submitted to the Historic American Engineering Record or the Historic American Buildings Survey.
Ms. Herbert asked for public comment.
Linda Haley, spoke in favor of retaining the building. She added that the steel structures and tile walls are beautiful. She asked if the walls, with the tiles, would be demolished.
Mr. Silverstein responded that the tile on the walls would be demolished, however the tile on the floor would likely remain.
Ms. Herbert asked about the details of the tiles.
Mr. Silverstein responded that the tiles are gray/cream subway-type tiles.
Tim Clark, Salem resident, spoke in favor of the building being reused. He suggested that the Commission tour the building.
Ms. Herbert asked Mr. Silverstein for clarification on why they would be removing the skin of the building.
Mr. Silverstein responded that they would remove the exterior for two reasons: to capitalize on the view of the harbor and because the exterior brick is planned to be used as fill on the site. There is quite a bit of architectural and historical value to the internal structure, if they are able to find the right tenant. He added that the Planning Board and Siting Board approvals include the demolition of any structures that will not be reused.
Emily Udy, Historic Salem Inc., spoke in favor of a community site visit. She added that it would be nice to retain the three vertical windows in the new structure and is pleased to hear that much of the masonry will be reused on the site as it will keep trucks from going in and out of the site and through the neighborhood.
Mr. Silverstein responded that they would be happy to conduct a site visit for the Commission and Historic Salem, Inc., however they would need to limited the group size.
Ms. Haley asked if this project needed to go through the Section 106 permitting review process.
Mr. Silverstein responded that there are no federal funds being used for this project. There was historical review during the MEPA review process.
Atty. Correnti added that there was a FAA permit required, however the project was found to not trigger Section 106 review.
Ms. Udy asked when they would know if the steel structure would be reused.
Mr. Silverstein responded that they would make the decision in the next 4 months.
Ms. McCrea asked how the steel structure would be affected once the buildings are taken down.
Mr. Arak responded that they are completing a study on that subject. It appears as though the steel structure will be able to stand on its own, although it may need some reinforcement
The Commission members discuss with the applicant their concern with what will replace the existing brick. Ms. Spang could not envision that the new siding would be brick or anything that looks more finished than corrugated metal, given the plausible uses for the building. Ms. Bellin stated that it would be useful to preserve the existing brick until a use for the structure has been determined and asked for clarification on why the walls cannot remain. Ms. Harper asked if the walls could remain if a prospective tenant desired to retain them.
Mr. Silverstein responded that he did not envision the building having metal walls, but is relying on his architect to make the decision. They are hopeful that they will not make the turbine building look worse than when they started. They are hoping to open up a big piece of the site to other uses and would like to see revitalization of the waterfront. An unattractive building would not serve their purpose. If they found a tenant that would like the walls, they would accommodate and support that.
Peter Furniss, clarified that once the boiler buildings are demolished, there would be no walls on the northern and western sides. The southern wall would remain intact. One quarter of the eastern wall would remain, however everything below the administrative building is cement block and was not designed to be seen. The walls would require significant structural improvements.
Ms. Herbert asked if there will be no demolition before this June, is issuing approval for the waiver moot, as the Demo Delay runs out on June 19, 2014.
Mr. Silverstein responded that a part of the finance package for a large infrastructure project includes having all of the permits final and in place. It is a matter of finality and having a complete package.
Mr. Garner stated that he is satisfied with what the applicant has provided to the Commission and spoke in favor of granting the waiver.
Mr. Hart stated that he would like documentation showing that the Section 106 Review was not required in the Commissions files. He feels the applicant is very generous in offering the scanned pictures and blueprints. Finally, he would request that the Commission be given the opportunity to take additional photographs at a site visit prior to demolition of the building.
Ms. Herbert stated that in the past when requests for WDDO have come before the Commission, and the Commission has made a decision to not grant the waiver, it has been a situation where they are hoping that the applicant will perform due diligence in finding a reuse. In this case, she feels as though the applicant is doing that and investigating the options.
Ms. Bellin added that this is the only time for the Commission to have a say in the project and is an opportunity for the Commission to convey what they would like to see so that the applicant can take that into account while considering the reuse of the property.
Mr. Silverstein responded that he appreciates that comment. They prefer to work through the project as a result of discussions rather than through orders. They will take the concerns of the Commission into consideration.
Councilor Legault spoke in support of the waiver. He sees no historic integrity in the building.
Ms. Herbert summarized the discussion for the Councilors that had recently arrived.
Councilor Turiel spoke in support of the waiver. He concurred with the comments of Councilor Legault.
Councilor Eppley spoke in support of the waiver.
Councilor Sargent spoke in support of the waiver. He disclosed that he is an employee of the existing plant. An argument could be made that by demolishing the building it would be restoring the historic views that once existed.
MOTION: Mr. Garner made a motion to approve the application for a waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance for the turbine hall structure. Mr. Spang seconded the motion.
Mr. Hart proposed an amendment to the motion, that the applicant furnace a list of documentation that is available. The requested information includes:
- List of construction drawings and documents that are available
- List of historical photographs that are available
- List of current photographs that would be available
- Documentation that the Section 106 process was followed.
- Further requests for a few photographs of contemporary conditions would be allowed as part of a future site visit
Ms. Herbert asked the Commission members if they felt as though a tour of the building should be included in the approval.
Mr. Garner responded that he did not feel the Commission should make the approval contingent on the tour.
Ms. Bellin stated that she would like the approval to include that the applicant provide an annotated version of the presentation.
VOTE: Mr. Garner made a motion to approve the application for a waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance with amendment of the information request listed by Mr. Hart. Mr. Spang seconded the motion. Five were in favor (Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Mr. Garner, Ms. McCrea, and Mr. Spang) and one was opposed (Ms. Harper), and the motion so carried.
94 Federal Street
Jamie Gaull submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to make several repairs and restorations to his property:
- Re-hang the black wooden shutters that previously hung on the front of the house and are now being stored in the basement. The Shutters will be repaired and repainted (black) according to their individual condition.
- Install white aluminum downspout elbows to the bottom of each of the two front downspouts, to redirect rain water away from the foundation of the hosue. The elbows will be made of aluminum (matching the downspouts) and will be 11.5” long.
- Replace the rotted front threshold and window sill with the same material (wood), same dimensions, and painted the same colors as existing (black threshold and white window sill)
Mr. Gaull was present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 1/30/14
- Photographs: February 2014
Mr. Gaull stated that he recently moved into this house. The house has been neglected and needs a lot of work. This is the first phase of repair and restoration work.
Ms. Herbert stated that she applauds the restoration of the shutters and is happy to see them reinstalled.
Mr. Hart asked what date of the picture included in the application, which shows the house with shutters, is from.
Mr. Gaull responded that he is unsure of the date of the picture.
Mr. Hart showed the applicant a picture of the property taken 10 years prior. The picture shows the house without shutters and with a greenish paint color.
There was no public comment.
VOTE: Mr. Garner made a motion to approve the shutter reinstallation and installation of downspouts. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the Certificate of Non-Applicability for in-kind repairs included in the application. Mr. Garner seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
303 Lafayette Street
Boston Solar submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a 17.82 (66 panel) rooftop solar array on a flat roof.
Mr. Justin Hubbard was present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 1/30/14
- Photographs: 1/30/14
- Specifications: 1/21/14
Ms. Herbert stated that the only other solar array that has come before the Commission was a house on Fowler Street. That application included a site visit. The Salem Historical Commission Guidelines state that solar panel installations can not be prevented, however the Commission can give input into the placement and aesthetics of the panels.
Mr. Spang asked if the panels are going to be on the flat roof would this application be approved through a Certificate of Non-Applicability.
Mr. Hart stated that he had the same question. What portion of the solar panel installation will be visible from the public way.
Mr. Hubbard stated that the parapet is taller than the solar panels. There will be a pipe coming down the back of the building and a utility cut off along the side of the building for 18x10” for fire electricity shut off.
There was no public comment.
VOTE: Mr. Garner made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
320 Lafayette Street – Section 106 Review
Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, EBI Consulting, Inc, provided the Commission with a notice of a proposed telecommunications facility installation. Verizon Wireless is proposing to locate antennas behind screen walls at 53 feet and 60.1 feet on a 75 foot building. EBI Consulting is seeking comments related to the proposed project’s potential effect to historic properties.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application:
- Photographs:
Ms. Herbert stated that the question with the telecommunications applications is always where the wires and equipment will be located. This property already has a lot of telecommunications facilities on it.
Ms. Harper stated that she would like to see a simulated photograph as they have submitted before.
Ms. Bellin stated that she would also like to know where the new facilities will be installed in comparison to the existing.
Mr. Hart stated that he would suggest that the Commission comment to the Massachusetts Historical Commission that the documentation submitted is not sufficient to comment whether or not this application would impact historic structures.
Ms. Herbert felt that the Commission should additionally comment on the proliferation of facilities on this building.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to submit a letter with the discussed comments. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion.
Ms. Herbert clarified that they should also ask for photographs of the current installation and how the new would be incorporated.
All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Salem Lateral Project
Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and as part of the National Environmental Protection Act Environmental Assessment process, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) provided the Commission with a Notice of Public Scoping Meeting for the Salem Lateral Project involving the construction and operation of facilities by Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC. FERC is looking to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. This input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA.
In addition, the notice is being used to solicit opinions on the project’s potential effects on historic properties. The EA will document FERCs findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of consultations under section 106.
The project involves the construction and operation of 1.2 miles of new 16inch diameter lateral pipeline and a new metering and regulation station in Salem, MA in order to supply 115, 000 dekatherms per day of natural gas to the Salem Harbor Station facility for power generation.
Ms. Lovett stated that the Commission was CC’d on the letter from MHC to FERC. In that letter, MHC requested additional project information including scaled existing and proposed conditions plans and the proposed research design and methodology for the archaeological reconnaissance survey.
Ms. Lovett stated that there is a significant maritime area located along the shore of the power plant property, however it is unclear whether or not the proposed pipeline will run into that area.
Mr. Hart stated that on page 4 they discuss consultation with MHC and other governmental agencies as part of the Section 106.
Ms. Herbert stated that there could be up to 2 acres of land involved in construction for staging, etc.
Emily Udy asked if the SHC will still be able to comment after the March 6th meeting.
Ms. Herbert responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Spang stated that Route A seems to only impact few historic structures. Route B may impact more. They should get information on how the construction will impact any of the foundations of the historic homes.
Mr. Hart stated that they should advise the MHC that the Commission would like additional information on the project as it moves forward.
VOTE: Mr. Garner made a motion to submit letter requesting additional information on the project. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Ms. McCrea gave the Commission a summary of the last Community Preservation Committee and the preliminary applications for funding. She stated that the Commission members should give some thought to how they would prioritize the projects.
VOTE: There being no further business, Mr. Garner 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
| 
