The URL can be used to link to this page

MEETING AGENDA'S & NOTES cc qVIA,80, Notes for October 1, 2008 Salem Historic Commission Meeting City is interested in connecting the Peter Tracy Walkway to the new Bypass Roadway Bike Path via an abandoned railroad right-of-way(ROW), which the City owns. By connecting these two trails the City would be able to connect the the new bypass road bike path to the Salem Willows and Winter Island. This ROW is located within the Bridge Street Neck National Register District. When the ROW was abandoned by the former railroad company the underpass at Cross Street was filled. What remains today is a granite retaining wall leading to the filled underpass. The entire ROW from Cross Street is fenced off, overgrown, and inaccessible, and the steep slope has created ponding at the low point of the ROW which is a public health and safety issues which the City Health Department monitors for mosquito control. In order for the City to make the connection they would need to fill a significant portion of the ROW which would cover a great deal of the granite retaining wall in order to meet the grade of the new bypass bike path and make it ADA compliant to trail users. i As you can see from the photos, the granite retaining wall has already been altered and the filling of the underpass has also covered a portion of the granite retaining wall. The City has requested that the Mass Highway Department include this connection as part of the Route lA Bridge Street Reconstruction Project. i Would the Salem Historic Commission be supportive of the bike path connection and construction through this ROW with the potential of filling/covering much of the graiute retaining walls. This ultimately will need to go through the Section 106 and 4(f)process, and will be back before you for your review and consideration. III i ; s APProx a 37' va AV �J �; .n5if:: ' , B• .-Stree a�' ' �•� � . - �.yAk7.'), $°�, a.8 gy' _..�f r' t `-so-" i :. ,}� \ _" �� •" �, ., �.� �� fi.J' t�...r ��—" to 4 "� .. t ,� �� r,s 4�Y�, �� 1 � ♦ �s�� Y{ �� - IJ � .� yf�'N. .d �'� "'�� Y �'� "° w)' ..� U °s", ,� ^-F' 7 0 a' '.., a�s yr,'•• "�3:r it ; t :.' IK — zr,�.t 1M� �' < ♦lY „�a Y`.4 .. G' -. O Q 1 t '!1 a:-1 1 ��i p� C , .-w�? e _ ^ t t i y`.,� Ir•,,.,.. `�< v i,TY t + }^ rff f �€"4 vie` "j�?Sp� `��,fa"�� fib. •� : 0% , 1 a' Nkz ,• a aS ',M.T`y '. "r�'ShJai , .�..r' it�fis�i rni.>r`,'Y�- ' '�' k�.4 " isesav <"�w'' a9t' sara�` 5S• a`N` -�"t 'u� - 2 'M' r"' �t ? n .r N� �+ _ •., r r 'rix q i "S .5 a -may � >Z ��t' . �q"*fr +v�,'•a Q. w; '.'r . r { , + � - yr 4��'�r,�'A. � 5'�' , ♦K Ky. >� �.� S -.d s kl h �. •t �}mss�. �! 4,y �.�p-'� '�y >s e�.-'�.'� _. ' � -�vu Mimi ticN i n �.'� 4} rr,.. ��•A, fix,;r i�{', -.�, 1- \`+.{ °a+:_. [., 0 �'r ` ; "L`�";, ..*« �. s * ,w.-.4'M'�•6p r� � + i /} iv, ,`_1 a4,�.fjM+� 4syyVf z ". •Sl fr-r,`�j$' .. � � � y ! Vit a0 ryty. �1p�e �A�, 'y� + Y s��nu� 'j' °�\a;ir,��I�� wY� �/ 'i+ 4r'•�;��,. i;� r xnp AA ZAr r 1 �� x+ e dddlll iii .t 4 �, 't.. r� ✓ 4 w_ � ' . .moi' r 'a "*�.y/�7 r sw� �a' '*^M1 S � �{4{�, Y��.9 'P.e"3•i +>� '�S?�' .f - �vYs I t ,,r. �, '�t as, ,�+,•S 4 ,':4.. a `iry 'rF��, � � ',744 moi_ a�. S'F�•„ », f• � l 5 ' � r E i wl,^ �• ' Y Aff p .T"i a I F'p 4 21 .1-�4Y1� . IF Vii At jr 41 n� :I'S �ts ' 0 W, Ap i'4 9OF 74 ' 17 i'4 If )A z o 1� DE, .Re; �.'*.C,�=h-'^�, ai.�,J '�"'^"a*s^N`M'"..�rr•r,1�,�-�'"��6 9 �, r` ....+w" ` a.. q � fyy n �: • I • µ 111QW ��pose c��we-e �''� o--P 'Feteq Tvac� u4jr —wcy -�v 3y�°asS I jr 4 f i ♦ �1 f �' i )'�? �¢ �+" - t'" vj�'�r�' -. x,/61,"'.. ± ` �� i3" „"'.. •'t . }��"'�'a r _�(• 'r��yf� yyyy�yy. .r. '� A ��. J aX' ..:�FZI(;�i - f 1�..1�4 q P.•n�� 2e �'f9 T ip• 3a � 4 ut' 1 :k - '�. ♦ d hA �� y5' i �a. mak, 14 R y r .,�` g ' x vY?#Mw� �T+<:aa4 yrL r `i�w�� .��1.. <f4� �t� � � M6♦r l wry _� I ��. ��Tt 11'•w tW � ..� �:, �; go . . s��•* 1,9+bit ,`"% x�t. �./'.b�t,�� r� "�'�� `, 14 vv 611- •.��'. Y i ,v..,. N *.ZC i,e. 7F'.�'�d_ �h . r ..ss,I.� :�"' «.:+ir'k+ -u •. 'i n4 ,1;(.�✓ ,O�� (��1yp _r6�1?i8..r"'9—� S��s' •a:°�3^��w`'y�.c�'•r'f?^'�° '�,y�' r a�. . s M r, ♦ iry�+ 7k r 'nr } i�i y' .qq�� " i ��j�$ �` i �.�ytr° l � � .¢, ' � � _ -mo- �' "� ' ■ I �.�� "�'�,. �►?v: , ,'°� ��y �s a L. E`I ,e� ` m ] PF t7EN,547-.1 e , Ea—mlr, \3r ' i p _ �o \. ..✓Ts �n•rs .. \ ��" `+� �� 'L',�le` rc�� I°n'ie�3 � � t� `.`�'"5a�. ,� Y* - � < � ., �• `�� m' � /�.; � ' c s�� itt! I -East Rollins-sheet 4r ' p � � i`!7\� "•�. �`a//'x,7. a _ d Ls�."`'`�iT n�. p y�s,&'w �Zi� ��,""+r} y #' , v s^a �c4k�i,: - �( • + �� ,i* S �r,3 -.di �,^i r.�E#'a " �,�. v' v'"*�-re-u�� A�, � V11 fi3e 1T �� 11 1 A S S n s & i /w.�' np ,. ♦ F`��P rei "/ sT ; +'i 'i,r i' - '4t'� r .k: r- �+., •*"+sem 1 ,�. . �idf' - { _ r.a.cs3T , M. a '.,.e ✓. ' ,, .' s w 4 .�� . ..,+r''`"a4'�a, ;_ -., 4 Salem Beverly Bypass Project Correspondence/Timeline 1990's 6/90,7/90 Correspondence from both SHC and MHC to FHWA, Both request to review properties revisions to project as they relate to Historic Properties. • MHC re: taking of property by eminent domain for bypass. • SHC response to Draft Supplemental FIR(specifically sites 2 districts FED/Essex/Chestnut and Bridge St. Salem common. States the widening of Bridge St. "maximizes the adverse consequences"inflicted on adjacent to McIntire Dist.) 8/90 Mass-Public Works(MPW)Comments recd and they will incorporate into final EIR. 11/90 Ltr from ACHP to FHWA requesting status rept on project. 1/90 MPW to FHWA with there evaluation of the project. They see no effect on Historic elements. They req. FHWA to send all documentation and seek formal approval of project from MHC. 1/8/91 letter not included.Apparently just sends the docs and request for an evaluation from FHWA to MHC as requested above. 1/18/91 MHC comments to FHWA requesting additional documentation.They state they do not concur with MPW findings of"no effect"without additional documentation. 3/21/91 SHC req. archaeological survey performed by UMASS. 4/11/91 MHC confirms recpt of UMASS arch review. • Req intensive additional arch review of Beverly portion of bridge. • State they agree with evaluation of"Blubber Hollow". 5/3/91 MPW to SHC • Rec'd continents of 1/91 from SHC • Attached response by MPW to SHC comments(not attached) 5/6/91 Final EIR submitted by MDPW • 6/5/91 MHC responds awaiting additional info from FHWA. 6/5/91 MHC states it reviewed final EIR but has requested addition documentation in letter attached.(ltr is not attached) 6/10/91 SHC states it cannot concur w/MPW determination of"no effect". They state that if the project is implemented according to latest modified designs with comments from March 6, 10991 letter to FHWA the "adverse effects caused by the project will be acceptably minimized. Still feel they need to work out other issues such as landscaping and illumination. 6/28/91 MPW responds to SHC comments. States that the no effect fording has been agreed by FHWA and sent to SHPO(MHC). 6/12/91 letter is attached discussing meeting of 5/17/91. states comments from all parties were considered in final determination. 6/28/91 MHC letter to FHWA.Disagrees with findings of FHWA. Bridge street widening-Salem: may isolate historic district,moving design 30 north will reduce effects on that district. Salem Tower: adverse effect. Pierce-Nichols House;no effect North Canal:not eligible for National Register. Lack of historic significance. 7/25/91 Correspondence from MPW to FHWA responding to MHC comments of June 28, 1991 (above). 9/10/91 MPW response to ACHP letter dated 8/5/91 to FHWA suggesting that there be a determination of eligibility for North River Canal. States that both SHC and their Consultant)and MHC have concurred it is not eligible. 10/21/91 MHC to FHWA McIntyre District Conditional"No adverse effect"determination. Pending final approval of plans. Federal street:unlikely to effect this area. 11/15/91 MPW to NPS Requesting determination for Salem Tower. 11/18/91 MPW to FHWA concurring with SHPO findings.However they disagree with Salem Tower issue.Feel it can be moved from its location. 12/5/91 MPW to SHC-outlines correspondence attached to them for their files. 1/29/92 invite to Sec. 106 review meeting. MPW to SHC. 4/27/92 MPW to MHC Final Arch study complete. 6/24/92 MHC to MASS HWY—recpt of MOA. 11/19/92 MHC to MASS HWY Follow up to Nov. 5, 1992 meeting. MHC still has issues with design. Mainly regarding Beverly Historic Commission. 6/8/98 MASS HWY to City Of Salem. Discusses Commissioner Sullivan's decision to change the bridge St.bypass alignment per City of Salem Request.Mass HWY has prepared a notice of change with MEPA. Discusses that two historic districts are located nearby. First Universalist Church and Bessie Monroe House. 8/6/98 SHC to MASS HWY. Review of realignment. Discusses the review of these revisions at SHC August 6, 1998 meeting.Widened roadway will increase noise,pollution and vibration and decrease access.Elimination of viaduct will have large visual impact.New alignment will help redevelop the Parker Bros. Site and new MBTA Garage, which is an improvement for the community as a whole. Such coordination in development will have mitigating effect for historic properties. Stone Wall @ 1801 Howard. States that the Stone Wall is already in disrepair and additional pollution and vibration could increase deterioration. Commission req stone wall be repaired or replaced as mitigation. 8/14/98 MASS HWY to EOEA(MEPA) Explains new alignment of bypass project. States final report attached. 4/4/02 MAS HWY to SHC 75%design plans for Bypass. Set up meeting 3/27/02 to review. , _��_---- Sup cz p_` `saa— s a�ih n . aa� r..1.eJl..,p ' \ i r a,v �Y. r n s � w� -C ai. - I...L� ' _.-. 1 . � � f � � � � „ y �F � W� , 1t 9 r ' Y � ! ' �. _ __ _ fi � y � P y : ._ .�� ..ate � � ... - r. � � f......� - � ... -.�. .. .[. r.. - ",- �....` � _ �...we.w-. �. .� � _.v,�-Ni -nom r �- ...�, r • .� .. .. _ ._ � _ ,._-..� - _ a� N __. _ _ � r _- - - - � xF e ` .. , � ! -_«- - — -Gi. ...— .. _ � _ � _ _ d® ..�. __--r-- .n . Y _ccmrvxvr U-)l �v�ams _.. re.�� c� rept, Y _ . _ =.. r?5�,_.k-o MSG _�_..X15/�� +r • __ __ _ . - - --.- - . s �• 4. y 3 r .. ! .. F, � _ 'i . . - ' ,. � � x - '' �a t � _ 1 _ t�} �. ._ . _. _ �. .,....,.s _ ...» - e __ e-,..a_.� _ ' \; M1 _ : .i ^s �-. _ _ , t'.�w _ .. . ..., \ i". a, � � _ r — ` a 6LL .' 4 I � s r �� +a� --� � _ -_ .vas a�.. _ _m � - aa-a.-�als.a-..... a.w�gp w.>.. nn�_ -r- -.a. ._r _..e.w� -rw. �.m. }res-4_r ,se- fb me l;;v-1 Pal, azUl ,I� - --MAL kbCK �P—w� r.�n�� n�, _ V 1 _-- - -- _ L k --• re "open � _I b l� ..:� re�'�� _ �J_ _ _ . _ _ r iS O.�P PPS CJI Yi0 Q�1—F2,c�" - - �.�__. -I-, re��w _ -- 'i '� `.�. _. k` .. .. • i — —� ��.. G ' ,. ' � a r ' r .'V . _ � �i .f �r � �. -. _ � � � e ...�. ` 1 J. .. � i 4� �< } ' r n ..\�.. J f . ` ��V _' 1 � r._ s •1 � r w- www. .� v v - � �.:� .. r � e�y.' � ' .C. t � h 4 R� MA Ac- n f _ w .. - - - j .� :. d _ v _ _.. -..,- - - _ _,� .._. . .._ .� ", '_ u �' 1 ': .. Beverly-Salem Transportation Project Section 106 Consultation Meeting Feb 19, 1992 AGENDA 1. Introduction of Participants, please sign attendence sheet. 2 . Recap A.M. site review 3. Section 106 Status ' NR eligibility North River "Canal", Salem Salem Signal Tower Phase I/II Archaeology, Beverly No Effects FHWA/MDPW and SHPO are in agreement with the No Effect findings for the: Federal Street Historic District (NR) First Universalist Church (NR) Bessie Monroe House (NR) Pierce-Nichols House (NR) Revolutionary war Plaque Blubber Hollow These properties are either listed in the National Register or their potential for historic significance has been discussed. In accordance with 36 CFR Part 800. 5 (b) review and comment by Council is not necessary. See Council letter to FHWA dated Dec 26, 1991. No Adverse Effects FHWA/MDPW and SHPO agree and Council does not object to the finding of conditional No Adverse Effect for the McIntire Historic District and Chestnut Street Historic District and Addition. The condition is review by SHPO and Salem Historical Commission of landscaping, lighting and sign plans for relocated Bridge Street. The absence of a final design plan creates sufficient uncertainty to rule out the No Effect finding which would normally be appropriate for this action. Salem Tower FHWA/MDPW has no objection to agreeing to a conditional No Adverse Effect with the condition of developing a tower relocation plan to be reviewed and approved by the SHPD. The absence of final design plans for the Bridge Street Connector and an approved tower relocation plan create sufficient uncertainty to eliminate a "no effect" findings which we believe would be appropriate for this action. Fish Flake Hill Historic District and the Rantoul Street houses FHWA/MDPW continue to find that the changes to the proposed bridge will have "no effect" on these properties. See FHWA letter dated Nov 19, 1991. Discussion Effect to Salem Tower 36 CFR Part 800.9 (a) Effects to Fish Flake Hill Historic District Effects to the Rantoul Street houses % SALEM-BEVERLY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT SECTION 106 CONSULTATION MEETING February 19, 1992 Held at Mass. Highway Department 10 Park Plaza, Boston, MA Name Agency Telephone &9 —7-71'.a ft A/D/�w' 7 3--7-1f Z 14AUA9 kV gtiusay 473 - 74�4L- 113- ?q53 :nAeje Zl a t1H7 4 9 `1 I SNC P A�0.h Sylleh�ca �Qeverly �'iS�Cti l�isF�;cE CGKW* »ay-, 427-4oW (�;Cl �;✓rt{ NeV //Frtt�r �k>*accDis—Rici ni,sr.,. tf�1.4-*100 Advisorcl C Ou �G, I mh J 2Oa -786 -D5"os- �35�or i L �rC'SP�YArio✓1 993' SZq, SECTION 106 CONSULTATION MEETING BEVERLY-SALEM TRANSPORTATION PROJECT May 17 , 1991 1. PARTICIPANTS: FHWA,MDPW,MHC,Advisory Council, SHC,BHDC 2 . Discuss FHWA/MDPW Response to Comments Received on the Section 106 DOCUMENTATION circulated to the Consulting Parties and interested parties, January 1991. SALEM BRIDGE ST. (BOSTON TO FLINT ST. BLUBBER HOLLOW) BRIDGE ST. (FLINT ST. TO NORTH ST. . . ADJACENT TO MCINTIRE L.H.D. / CHESTNUT ST. N.R.D. & PEIRCE-NICHOLS NHL) BRIDGE ST. (NORTH ST. TO WASHINGTON ST. . . ADJACENT TO FEDERAL ST. N.R.D. ) BRIDGE ST.BYPASS (SALEM SIGNAL TOWER, SKERRY HOUSE, OLD PLANTERS SITE) BEVERLY SALEM-BEVERLY BRIDGE (FERRY WAY, SEE SIDE EYE CLINIC, FISH FLAKE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT) _ox) _ -V-N- �ool s,7e I 1 i f { { �. I i i { t l I { �. 6 / 4 s ryF%?IIVE��w` Seim Histence Commission ONE SALEM GREEN. SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 AGENDA WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1991 7 : 30 p .m. ONE SALEM GREEN II� _ Agenda 14 Chestnut St . - Thomas & Katherine Murray - Roofing material - Certificate of Appropriateness - Continuation ✓`10 Broad St . - Ann Neubert - Reroofing - Certificate of Appropriateness - Waived e, Hathorne St . - G. Wayne & R. Elaine Belleau - Removal of fence, construction of stairs - Certificate of Appropriateness — 6, 7, 11 Orne Sq. - A. Putnam trs . - Window replacement - Certificate of Hardship - Waived Chestnut St . - Hamilton Hall, Inc . - Temporary stairs - Certificate N. of Non-applicability �78 Lafayette St . - Marie Plamondon Repair of front porch - Certificate of Non-applicability Chestnut St. - Phyllis Jacqueline Fredericksen - Porch roof replacement, repainting - Certificate of Non-applicability Salem-Beverly Bridge & Bypass Project - Review of Section 106 Review documentation News Vending Machines Discussion Approval of minutes ( 8/15, 9/19, 10/3 , 10/17 , 11/28, 12/12 ) Violations/Work Status Preservation Month _ J13i.sC.om�-0.20 r -------------- Cv^ O eCo u �ov-eoQA, elm WI `0i _ Sd �. i SECTION 106 CONSULTATION MEETING BEVERLY-SALEM TRANSPORTATION PROJECT January 31, 1991 1. INTRODUCE PARTICIPANTS 2 . SUMMARIZE PROJECT CHANGES ADDRESSED IN SECTION 106 DOCUMENTATION SALEM ` �I BRIDGE ST. (BOSTON TO FLINT ST. BLUBBER HOLLOW) BRIDGE ST. (FLINT ST. TO WASHINGTON ST. MCINTIRE L.H.D. FEDERAL ST. N.R.D. , CHESTNUT ST. N.R.D. ) BRIDGE ST.BYPASS (SALEM SIGNAL TOWER, SKERRY HOUSE, OLD PLANTERS SITE) SALEM-BEVERLY BRIDGE (CHANGE IN HEIGHT FROM 40 FT. TO 48.7 FT. CLEARANCE AND CHANGE IN WIDTH 82 FT 6" TO 90 FT 411) a BEVERLY SALEM-BEVERLY BRIDGE (FERRY WAY, SEE SIDE EYE CLINIC, FISH FLAKE HILL HISTORIC DISTRICT) 3 .DISCUSSION ON DOCUMENTATION A. FISH FLAKE HILL B. MCINTIRE, CHESTNUT ST. AND FEDERAL ST. HISTORIC DISTRICTS C. FERRY WAY, SEE SIDE EYE CLINIC f : D. BLUBBER HOLLOW E. REVOLUTIONARY WAR PLAQUE 4. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS ON 106 DOCUMENTATION €> ` °i EP�'�ifxy-3d��h+' r' �.,-FisrfF t"LrSi-)tkst r7 �') �4' W�sfy,.At.'k�l r ��e�'�';F>f P%. :." yY,' kt #ls�tr ft( •rq��f`^i MEETING REPORT `rta sa , etts ij , .r .s ¢ toffdU Canmissi. . Commmity _ F'Pro7ec ix FY -x Ftmdi d E°t� 6Cw, Location of Meeting. Staff Member - :::_ a fi=t. .f T"'w • ,� r ++i. Att �yt;.., } (37 v£+tt i. Participants: Name Organization i Y Phone 3 {r )_ ygs y ate." A�yf2'{ € ✓,y rx�.�ua�6 i -a<y �Qprna/w� I�l�/ 'k` tae" i i, t ri+r .�,.,C"`/"� ,r'F ,F �s<4$� `Iav c Aloe Syraec - R „6evirl` ' ;x �: v9oi �� t Cance„sHor► _ =rt, d ys v {'Aft G °�.:'�T � �� der w i�g',,€•'}hf a>.-y{`�.Y x-f a} i£ G3 °F',.F=�r3.+ � °P4,a.�r�,Ya R*' a`� VP<<v ,�" T° �: .t ..+G ♦ -kms-tr � ry ,t�,,�,,� C.n< +,./ ++VSs Y � ka _j"/�`nR' r. 4N` a* ��+r'�'t t '+•'its@@CC .f ly 1. 1 Y f ri`a sY t a #h, XF, d k` YI'M pY� `(yl, 14�n�� ' ea S+a.S,./° .+"w"fata. `�j' ie� i.Kt: '4'" -. *a.4 ."✓`*wa fy It :atA:Ct✓� r+, "w CF-•': 4.3„ .1'c4` 9 A a r x Y W..'€, ,o s€ mat 4X rc*• _'iii. y2k`. P vry H L�.. `+ .,b'yis e ♦ ,%.yr Xtl3v»�?t" tIj 'x 4'.. C'4'#by f}^ s ^, -A S ♦1 aFy7 .�?1r A h r a 'Rn+✓k tt"� F +.`tFd < 'C'.�.,{„ a 'f} � , a d6"rY y7h.s Ar.n" ? V y'4#.� z" > t OW > r"I ''yw� d�.0iK t eert��e t. '�11. F"sY'.! l; 93a`-F_A. s4• t t T 'f3T.3( til{ Ei2 ,� .tt YF:{SY Y .k y' { ^pary5 � � C - rq5 r ♦ ks t t x2 s aS�-�e�fi�`�'1� 'bhs.r'F+3,rtnkr Y+4�{ f�,d�'9' '"' 1,4y�s� �a''�,s� �:'k�s +e�s� �`„��` - +e4i - A St 5 d < f £i<:+•gJ' tm- i ,..{`"F 4;k, -.� t *,5'€ ✓? `4t r. -Ys v r «t � .�+S+ x '� f� n 'Y'�xs d, to ., +#.♦s. dF "74T �9i�i`��1t�� ✓cf= J �f_"..��k,t�Yky'�,� =Y ;",4d'�.Z�� + ,S�'i4 i� t . t� .a,£`"{� ,i; Y t 3T -A 'yt F -.�,:h�. � v „d�'7 t•y.3: F ,,. " 'r i h$� �'F ` 3..E+�.' i` +�` r P3 x ; _'--(-�U- '_ /-i./IGL ///<1�2�:+_G��-_", '��/_��tir�S- 1��"-/—/_.n L�i /_ir-S- C1�d cU//l.!yl-�/Gr�_-._l✓'lor� _ -.- ----- - _ -/'_.�lf.Lfe __ /� N2�___..(�r_:v�P_ ._.<Y__� / /-Y_7c-�.. r✓n 1A >r _ ��_l�✓.�- - -115 Pq _ 4 - � � � ' .. 1� � U ... � _ a w Y - n �� '.�...moo+. —�--rt -.�.��r__�.a.�_. ,. =-r.�__�+. <¢ `i- .._ � ,,.. �. r . . .. � .. —.,__-_..>- •- --"--tee.-.. .._ .�-.�_r �.. —y..+_....._-. _ _ _.....-. L._.__ .. . -..�-- �.. __ _._.__�. -� _. 4 .. ��-..--•_-.__._.�_-� _ ._-,._ _1�_�{lam — _ _.-_. +. � .. i n ..r _�Lam.. �. ..__..�.- 2'` - ' i� �^ �. < _'^Te._.��—r-�..�-+.ter--..�. .��-r-.�- -�.w� ....��.�r'�_v�� .. _...; . . ° r ._ „. �, ,� 4 ' .. � � _ . _ s � .. ., ,- .. � of � r - � ,.. . , s _ e '• _ .. � .. a. - - - ' ° . . - - �• -. q .� t r r._ _ - � - �� --+.el.a-.�- —��.��..�--�...,.-.mom-��..a� h - d a ��ul.� y� r- .�..�- .�.e�.��.�y'��.��_�+�r-.rte �.�« a r- . a �. t , "� ' -. ..< __ _ .... ... .�._. _ . ._r-.r.__+___�....�.___-y..`-....._-..ter-.r-.+�.�r._:._.+a-- .�. ..- -. .�..._ __...__�_.-..�.-. ._.r T.�_._ ��_ .__ .-___ _ �. .. curnm2�`fs . _.._. _ _ -.— _ _-___�`-i`=�c�r��__._._C%12�P I__—�F��f�`E-Eta�S,._,""`—`—"E-�--- � U✓1� --_ MA — -- � = ----- —�— `K'�= l�s%�=1-Y�✓��, _i=1 D�-S_�E�J�r cod%�� --•-- - c-ALL-Ff - - - - — - - ---_-� �v 1 off(—C�G��--r_d��✓-�_,_ _-h_ �1 u_� -G- - _ _ _ afty --- ------ _ ��'-��-%� �10 s�y/� �_��Df-t'`��1-✓nom> -- . — — ' - _ _ -- --- -�- - • , - < �. _ _ �.-_ _.__�.—.---�'--"-..ter —�---�-- ^. _,_-.T.- t '-rte- _� � ___,.__. r 1 � • e . , i � r t J . . . _. .. -___ � _._ A 1 ' ... _� _.�v ��. -�—��.—tom —+.,.�--_rs_-,�.��—+++- —ef�r�_ —1-�� ' �...9 ' i. � ` � • • ��' to _ i - � .. .. .�. ___�.._�-�-�._..f�_-...+._ .v��ra�� tri- �. '. ♦ � i i. .. _ _ ♦ � � . _ _ _ __�..-.� �-r— r. ____�—. __ ., t sr .. ... t .. .. _ . � .. 't �s. _ ,. .. .. .. r � . .,_. ..�.- —� �.�n _�( ,. �� ♦ k _. ._ _ , s . . f - _---_____��— rr—_ ___.. . � .« x: :, .. +[ .... .a r r r .. r ; .. x: .. ' .. ' � t • - q � j... - ' y .. � < 4`r � .. � s' _. E a - --- - - � . _- _..4.__ ��_ _------ - f _ __. _..._.-. __ __ _..__ . v.._ _. _ _. __ _ � __. i w �,! i r � F. '*r 2 j .. - � f Mf". —�� i....�.�.--•--"--.—�—_�-r.� .ems ++-n+ .. -T.r .�� ..� s+, �.. - +�' ti V r e x s .. . ., .� y '§d.. � _ ..,. e. ra .�_ _ _�......_�_..rnrs-.J._.5.-� .-_.�_. ._sem. . .. • ai �� .. Y _ t w _ t. � .; .._ •a � - _ - .. .1 _ t . 4 r ... r ,,+. .+�_.... ---...- __r.+y..r._�_.�. _� _� -•r—e_--._ _��,-+�- _._� :.. rte_. . �. � �T--.r_�..��. �-�.�.��-�—s-..rte ..—�.�...�--.r+�... r��.�ti..... �. F � a� �. —�sr ._ .. ' �✓ A M Y.. —��+ r� _ � x f� ' i ,RIDGE STREET BYPASS/BRIDGE PROJECT WALKTHROUGH THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 20 , 1990 SUMMARY The following are some notes taken by Jane Guy from the Salem Planning Department during a project walk-through arranged by the Mass . Dept . of Public Works for the benefit of the Massachusetts Historical Commission : 1 . In attendance were Jim Elliot, MDPW; John Rempalakis, MDPW; Brona Simon, MHC ; George ?, BHC ; Arthur Churchill , FHWA; Louise Piwanski , MDPW; Dave MacDonald, Salem Planning Dept . ; Bill Finch, BHC; Peggy Albe, BHC ; Anne Booth, MDPW; Annie Harris, SHC; John Carr, SHC; Jane Guy, Salem Planning Dept . ; and Bob Joseph, Edwards & Kelsey. (This list will be amended upon receipt of a copy of the sign-up sheet from MHC . ) 2 . From 9 : 30 a.m. until approximately 2 : 15 p .m. , the project was reviewed while walking the area from the MBTA train station to Boston Street, visiting the March Street Court area and existing Beverly-Salem Bridge and walking the Fish Flake Hill district . 3 . Plans recently provided by the MDPW still incorrectly show the boundaries of Salem' s historic districts . Ms . Guy provided Anne Booth, Brona Simon, John Carr and Annie Harris with copies of portions of the plans marked up with the correct boundaries . 4 . Mr . Elliot stated that the plans provided are to be reviewed as drafts since they are still in conceptual stages . However, the Boston to Flint portions are considered 100% complete . 5 . Ms . Simon stated that the Salem signal tower has been determined by MHC to be eligible for the National Register and for this project they will treat it as though it is listed. 6 . Mr . Carr provided Ms . Simon with a description of concerns relative to the impact on Salem' s historic districts and properties : that the portion of Bridge Street. from Washington to Boston should be scaled down from four lanes to two lanes . that a significant buffer should be left between the McIntire district and Bridge Street in order to reduce noise, pollution, reverberation and visual impacts . that 4 lanes would increase the noise decibel limit over the maximum allowed. that there is some discrepancy on whether Bridge Street will be considered a highway or a local road. Mr . Carr indicated that he had been told that Bridge Street would not be a highway and that therefore there would be no highway noise . He had also been told that Bridge Street would not be a local road and that railroad crossings could not cross a highway, or, at the least, it would be problematic for such grade crossings with this project . Mr . Carr noted the 3 grade crossings at the recent Peabody Square improvements . Mr. Churchill stated that it was possible to have grade crossings in urban arterial . 7 . Ms . Booth stated that a portion of land at 1 Harrington Court had already been taken by the State on behalf of the City but that it will not be used. She stated that a letter is being sent to the City suggesting that the City return the land to the homeowner and that the state may forgo the money paid. 8 . Ms . Simon stated that the MDPW is preparing a draft document which addresses and responds to concerns raised during the 106 review process . The document will be sent to FHWA and then distributed. 9 . It was noted that the MDPW or MHC has seen a footprint of the proposed MBTA garage . In a recent telephone conversation with Ms . Simon, I was told that the MDPW cannot get Federal permits (Coast Guard, Army Corp . of Engineers , etc . ) until the 106 review is complete . They cannot get any State permits until 60 days after the final MEPA is accepted. If during their review, MHC finds adverse effect, a public hearing could be held. Otherwise, it is up to the SHC if they feel the need to schedule one . J3821