ROAD WIDENING t:
Jane Guy
From: Jane Guy
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 11:14 AM
To: Tom Daniel
Cc: Patricia Kelleher
Subject: FW: Beverly Salem Transportation Project-Bridge st agreement
Attachments: moa.pdf;wideningcorrespondence.pdf
Here is the latest information I have related to the road widening on Bridge Street, by the McIntire District.
From: Jane Guy
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2016 10:05 AM
To: Kim Driscoll
Cc: Lynn Duncan; David Knowlton
Subject: RE: Beverly Salem Transportation Project-Bridge st agreement
Kim,
�7
Dave and I went through the correspondence file this morning and pulled all the correspondence related to the road
widening (attached), beginning with a letter from John Carr in 1998 and including requests by the Salem Historical
Commission for the buffer and MHC's letter of 10/21/91 in which they state that MHC made the "conditional no adverse
effect finding to insure the opportunity to review the project plans that are developed further for this area."
Please note that the 3/19/92 letter from SHC to the Advisory Council includes comments on a draft MOA - specifically
#5 which discusses dimensions—however the final MOA(also attached) does not have a #5. 1 don't have a copy of the
draft they reviewed to know whether it had a #5 or that the SHC was asking for a#5.
Please also note that the MOA has already had one addendum, so it is possible to amend the MOA, if needed.
I will interoffice a set of hard copies to you.
-Jane
Jane A. Guy
Assistant Community Development Director
City of Salem
Department of Planning & Community Development
120 Washington St.', 3rd Floor
Salem, MA 01970
978-619-5685
(F) 978-740-0404
auy(o)salem.com
www,salem.com
From: Kim Driscoll
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2016 7:20 PM
To: Jane Guy
Patricia Kelleher
From: Jane Guy
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 8:15 AM
To: Patricia Kelleher
Cc: Lynn Duncan
Subject: FW: Salem Partnership Transportation Agenda
Categories: Bridge Street improvements
Hi Patti,
I am cc'ing you on this, as you will likely be involved.
-Jane
From: David Knowlton
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 6:25 AM
To: Lynn Duncan; Kim Driscoll; Elizabeth Debski l
Cc: Dominick Pangallo; Jason Silva; Jane Guy; Beth Rennard
Subject: RE: Salem Partnership Transportation Agenda
hi all, the first hurdle to get this section moving through the"tip" process again is the 30-foot buffer between the historic
district and the improved roadway, required between the historic districts (salem and Massachusetts) and federal
highway.
I've cc'd Jane guy on this and beth, we should meet to review the 1992 agreement and how we can best move forward.
thanks
david
From: Lynn Duncan
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 8:11 AM
To: Kim Driscoll; Elizabeth Debski
Cc: Dominick Pangallo; David Knowlton; Jason Silva
Subject: RE: Salem Partnership Transportation Agenda
The Bridge Street project has been on the back burner. We should contact David Mohler unless David K. has a
recent update.
I don't know that it is controversial but it is very expensive.
We could discuss this Wednesday at our meetings.
Lynn
Sent frorn.my Verizon wireless 4G LTE smartphone
------ Original message --------
From: Kim Driscoll <KDriscollna Salem.com>
Date: 04/03/2016 5:41 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: Elizabeth Debski <bdebskigsalempartnership.org>
i
Cc: Dominick Pangallo <dpangallo(a,Salem.com>, David Knowlton <DKnowlton(a,Salem.com>, Lynn Duncan
<LDuncangSalem.com>, Jason Silva <JSilvagSalem.com>
Subject: Salem Partnership Transportation Agenda
Hola,
I need to update you on the Webbs debacle(Heather supports surplus,but nothing else)and some potential next steps I've been
discussing with Webbs and Councillors involving a community stakeholder group.
Second, can we set up a meeting to discuss the last phase of the Salem-Beverly Transportation Project- improving the stretch of
roadway from Washington to Flint-and potentially adding that to the list of priorities for the city and the partnership. MassDot will be
finishing up the park at the end of the old bridge this Summer and we really need to get their attention focused on this last stretch,
especially given that the Federal Highway Bill was recently(finally)authorized by Congress. I need to at least understand what the
process and next steps are with MassDot and FHW to start this up.Hopefully,this is less controversial given that I think we all could
agree that this current stretch is an eyesore that needs attention. Thoughts?
Kim
Mayor Kimberley Driscoll
City of Salem
93 Washington St
Salem,MA 01970
978-616-5600
Please note the Massachusetts Secretary of State's office has determined that most entails to and from municipal officials are public
records. FM please refer to: http://www.see.state.ma.us/pre/preidx.htm.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
2
Advisory
Council On
Historic
preservation
The Old Post Office Building
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue,Nt TW #809
Washington,DC 20004
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
AMONG THE
FEDERAL HIGF-.qAY ADMINISTRATION,
THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER, AND
THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
REGARDING THE SALEM-BEVERLY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has
consulted with the Massachusetts State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
(Council) pursuant to the regulations (36 CFR Part 800)
implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act (16 U.S.C. 470f) , and it has been determined that the Salem-
Beverly Transportation Project will have an effect upon historic
properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places; and
WHEREAS, the Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD) , the
Beverly Historic District Commission, the Salem Historical
Commission, and the Salem Planning Department have participated
in the consultation and have been invited to concur in this
Memorandum of Agrement;
NOW, THEREFORE, FHWA, the Massachusetts SHPO, and the
Council agree that the undertaking shall be implemented in
accordance with the following stipulations in order to take into
account the effect of the undertaking on historic properties.
Stipulations
FHwA, in coordination with the MHD, will ensure that the
following measures are carried out.
I. DESIGN OF THE BRIDGE STREET RELOCATION, SALEM
A. In consultation with the Salem Historical Commission,
the Salem Planning Department, and the Massachusetts
SHPO, a project design plan will be developed to
ensure, within acceptable safety standards, that
improvements associLted with the Bridge Street
Relocation are compatible with neighboring historic
properties. Consul'_ation should include, but not be
2
limited to lighting, pedestrian walkways, curbcuts and
curbing, planting materials, waterfront design, traffic
signals, and other roadway design details, and should
be guided by the following considerations.
1• Lighting. Lighting, both for the roadway and
Pedestrian areas, should be compatible in style,
scale, and location with the adjacent historic
Properties.
2 . Curb cuts Curbinv and Barriers. Curb cuts
should be granite and of suitable dimensions and,
if possible, should not be planned in the median
strip. To the maximum extent possible, use of
jersey barriers should be limited.
3 •. Landscaping. To the extent possible, landscaping,
both associated with the roadway and the
waterfront park; should be employed to provide a.
year-round visual buffer between the project and
adjacent historic properties and provide a noise
barrier, as appropriate.
4 . Traffic Signals. Traffic signals and signing,
while complying with ASHTO standards and the
Manual of 'Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUATCD) , should exclude the use of mastarms if at
all possible.
B. Following completion the project design plan will be
reviewed by the Salem Historical Commission, the Salem
Planning Department, and :the Massachusetts SHPO.
Should any of these parties disagree on any provision
of the design plan, the objection will be settled in
accordance with Stipulation IV below, DISPUTE
RESOLUTION.
II. DESIGN OF THE BRIDGE AND BEVERLY APPROACH
A., In consultation with the Beverly Planning Department,
the Beverly Historic District Commission, and the
Massachusetts SHPO, a project treatment plan for the
bridge and Beverly approach portion of the project will
be developed to ensure, within acceptable safety
standards, that improvements associated with the bridge
approach to Beverly are compatitle to the neighboring
historic district. This project treatment plan should
include, but not be limited to, the following
considerations.
1• Traffic Controls . The use of signing,
signalization, and/or barriers, to be developed in
coordination with the appropriate City officials,
to ensure adequate traffic control to avoid an
increase of traffic through the Fish Flake
Historic District, to the extent possible and to
be compatible with the character of the historic
district.
2 . Lighting. The use of bridge lighting standards
and directional signing should help reduce the
perceived elevation of the bridge profile be
compatible with the surrounding area and
neighboring historic district to the extent
possible.
3 . Barriers. Reevaluation of the use, type, and
location of road barriers in the median strip and
at side edges, to determine whether they would be
desirable, safe, and effective, and, if so, what
design would be most compatible with the
neighboring historic district. The use of jersey
barriers should be limited or avoided if at all
possible.
4 . Pedestrian Access. Enhancement of pedestrian
access to the bridge and to the Ferry Way Landing
to afford a safe and invitingaccessto both.
5• _Landscaping. Development of a comprehensive
landscaping scheme that would use indigenous
species and decorative plantings, as well as
appropriate paving materials and hard design
elements, to mute the expanse of approach road
surface, wing walls, and abutments and enhance the
gateway character of the approach location.
6. Signing. MHD should consider placement of _.
interpretive signing, developed by the City, at
appropriate locations in the approach area,
consistent with the MUTCD guidelines. Traffic
signing, while complying with the MUTCD, should be
in scale with the adjacent historic district to
the extent possible.
B. The project treatment plan will be reviewed by the
Beverly Historic District Commission, the Beverly
Planning Department, and the Massachusetts SHPO.
Should any party disagree with any of the
aforementioned provis-on of the project treatment plan,
the objection will be settled in accordance with
Stipulation IV below, DISPUTE RESOLUTION.
4
III. MOVE OF THE SALEM SIGNAL TOWER
In consultation with the Massachusetts Bay Transportation
Authority (MBTA) , the Salem Signal Tower (Tower) will be
relocated within the confines of the present railroad
Station site. The relocation will be carried out in
accordance with a plan reviewed and approved by the Salem
Historical Commission and the Massachusetts SHPO, that
provides, at a minimum, for the following:
A. When the Tower is under the jurisdiction of the MHD,
the Department will ensure that the structure is
properly ventilated, secured, and protected against
vandalism and the elements.
B. The Salem Historical Commission and the Massachusetts
SHPO shall be afforded 30 days to review and comment on
the new site plan for the Tower.
C. Specifications for the move will be reviewed by the
Massachusetts SHPO and will be in accordance with the
approaches recommended in Moving Historic Buildings
(John Obed Curtis, 1979) .
IV. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Should the Massachusetts SHPO, the Salem Planning
Department, the Salem Historical Commission, the Beverly
Planning Department, or the Beverly Historic District
Commission object to plans submitted for review in
accordance with Stipulation I •or II, they shall notify the
MHD, with a copy to the Massachusetts SHPO with specific
recommendations for changes, within fifteen (15) days of
receipt of the plans. FHWA and the Massachusetts SHPO will
consult to resolve the disagreement. If FHWA determines
that the objection cannot be resolved, FHWA shall notify the
Council with a description of any alternatives or
enhancement measures that were considered but not chosen and
the reasons for their rejection. The Council will be
afforded thirty (30) days to respond. Any Council comment
Provided in response to such a request will be taken into
Account by MA in accordance with 36 CFR § 800.6 (c) (2) with
reference only to the subject of the dispute; FHWA's
responsibility to carry out all actions under this agreement
that are not the subjects of the dispute will remain
unchanged.
5
Execution of this Memorandum of Agreement and carrying out
its terms evidences that FHWA has afforded the Council an
opportunity to comment on the Beverly-Salem Transportation
Project and its effects on historic properties, and that FHWA has
taken into account the effects of the project on historic
properties.
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
By: i ' rtti l ! V Date: &/Z Z- 9Zr
(Name & Title)
MASSACHUSETTS STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
By: Date: I7 y Z
eithMcDonough —�
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
By: Date:
Robert D. Bush, Executive Director
Concur:
MASSACHUSETTS HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
By: Date: _C' LU SZ_
ame itle) CJ
SALEM PLANNING DEPARTMENT
By: f Date:
c�ameTitle)
u ry 1
6
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
By: 2a�, r 11 Date: (�x •� , 7 � 'f `1L
(Name & Title)
i
BEVERLY PLANNING EPARTMENT
By: �! Date:
BEVERLY HISTORIC DI CT COMMISSION -� �
By: �� _ GNP,f Al;A. Date: Jury vy
Na e .& Title)
FIRST AMENDMENT
TO THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
AMONG THE
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION,
THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER,AND
THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
REGARDING THE SALEM-BEVERLY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT
Concur:
MASSACHUSETTS HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
d3 Date:
John Blundo,Chief Engineer
SALEM PLANNING DEPARTMENT
�/ Date:
L n Duncan, City Planner
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
BY: � � /�� Date:
Lance KasparW, Chairman
2
FIRST AMENDMENT
TO THE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
AMONG THE
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION,
THE MASSACHUSETTS STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER,AND
THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
REGARDING THE SALEM-BEVERLY TRANSPORTATION PROJECT
WHEREAS,the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),the Massachusetts State Historic
Preservation Officer(SHPO)and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council)have
heretofore entered into a Memorandum of Agreement(the"MOA,"copy attached)effective July 14,
1992, regarding the Salem-Beverly Transportation Project; and
WHEREAS, FHWA has requested the SHPO and the Council to consent to amend the above-mentioned
MOA to delete in its entirety Stipulation III,as the Salem Signal Tower will no longer be affected by the
undertaking; and
WHEREAS,the parties to this First Amendment desire to do so.
NOW THEREFORE,FHWA,the SHPO, and the Council hereby agree that the MOA entered into by the
parties concerning the Salem-Beverly Transportation Project should be amended,and the same is hereby
amended by deleting in its entirety Stipulation numbered III of the MOA. The parties hereby
acknowledge and reaffirm their commitment to perform all duties previously set forth in the attached
MOA,and these duties are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
Execution of this First Amendment to the MOA evidences that FHWA has afforded the Council a
reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking and that FHWA has taken into account the effects
of that undertaking on historic properties.
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
By Date: Cti-- l L 2uO S
anley Gee, Division Administrator
S r
MASSACHUSETTS STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
B Id1 ✓r`x Sl � J7$ d Date:
Cara Metz, MA SHPO
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
By: Date:
John M. Fowler, Executive Director
1
MEMO
TO: CRAIG WHEELER
FROM: JOHN H. CARR, JR.
RE: BRIDGE STREET RELOCATION ROAD/RAIL CORRIDOR
DATE: MARCH 31, 1998
As a follow-up to our last conversation, the following are the spatial
requirements set forth in the 106 approved plans, and the available land south
of the 7 foot wide SESD pipe, measured at two locations, i.e. opposite the
northeast corner of Carpenter and Bridge Streets, and opposite the northeast
corner of Lynn and Bridge Streets. All measurements are measured from the
existing southerly curb of Bridge Street.
1. Opposite N.E. Corner Of Carpenter& Bridge Streets
i
Our field measurements show that the 106 approved plans can easily be
built here without encroaching on any part of the SESD easement. This is
based on the following:
Distance to centerpoint of pipe 142 feet
Distance to southerly edge of easement 129 1/2 feet
Requirements of project
buffer at Carpenter Street 35 feet
2 inbound lanes 24 feet
median strip 16 feet
2 outbound lanes 24 feet
Total 99 feet
Available land for rail corridor 30 1/2 feet
Land needed for rail corridor 10 1/2 feet - see below
Surplus land 19 112 feet
Incidentally, I believe your most recent plan called for one inbound lane
to be 26 feet wide, which is wrong. According to the 106 approved plans, each
of the 4 lanes is to be 12 feet wide, which obviously frees up an additional 2
feet, which may be useful elsewhere along the length between Flint Street and
the overpass - see below.
2. Opposite N.E. Corner of Lynn and Bridge Streets
At this point the distance between the existing southerly curb of Bridge
Street and the centerline of the SESD pipe is 122 1/2 feet.
The spatial requirements for the new roadway at this location are
961 feet, based on the following:
width of buffer 32 1/2 feet
width of 2 inbound lanes 24 feet
width of median strip 16 feet
width of 2 outbound lanes 24 feet
Total 96 1/2 feet
Thus the difference between the new northerly curb of Bridge Street and
the centerpoint of the existing SESD pipe is 26 feet. (122 112 - 96 1/2).
Since the SESD easement is 25 feet wide, and the pipe itself is 7 feet
wide, located in the center of the easement, one needs to subtract 3 1/2 feet
from the above 26 feet in order to determine the distance between the new
northerly curb and the southerly edge of the pipe, resulting in a figure of 22 1/2
feet. This represents the land north of the new northerly curb that is not sitting
directly atop the SESD pipe.
In terms of spatial requirement needed for the rail corridor, I spoke with
Roger Bergeron at Guilford Transportation on March 17, 1998 and he said the
following are the applicable measurements:
distance between rails 4 feet 8'1/2 inches
length of tie 8 feet 6 inches
ballast on either side of tie 8 to 14 inches
Thus, allowing (for purposes of discussion) 12 inches of ballast from the
ends of each tie results in a rail corridor 10 1/2 feet wide, which may even be
generous, since this allows for approximately 3 feet of open space on pjjhff
side of the 4 feet 8 1/2 inch wide rails.
Assuming then that 10 1/2 feet is a reasonable width for the rail corridor,
especially considering the. low frequency and speed of the trains traveling over
the single track, this means we have a need to locate a 10 1/2 foot rail corridor,
and a maximum space of 22 1/2 feet in which to do it opposite Lynn Street, i.e.
without locating the rail corridor above the pipe.
Although tight, it is even possible to locate such a 10 1/2 foot wide rail
corridor between the new northerly curb of Bridge Street and the southerly edge
of the SESD easement altogether, based on the following field measurements:
distance to.southerly edge of easement 110 feet
distance to new northerly curb 96 1/2 feet
land available for rail corridor 13 1/2 feet
width of rail corridor 10 1/2 feet
surplus land 31/2 feet
Thus, the foregoing would allow for a 3 1/2 buffer between the new
northerly curb and the 10 1/2 foot rail corridor without utilizing 1-inch of the 9
feet of the southerly half of the SESD easement that does not sit atop the pipe
(i.e. 12 1/2- 3 112 feet).
It does seem advisable, however;to locate the rail corridor at least partly
on the SESD easement to provide for the maximum possible buffer between it
and the new northerly curb.
Roger Bergeron also said he was waiting to hear back from the SESD
engineer to set up a "courtesy meeting" to broach the subject of locating part of
the new single-track rail corridor on the SESD easement. Anything you could
do to expedite this, and explain the situation to Salem's representative on the
SESD Board to pave the way, would be greatly appreciated.
Finally, the following points should also be made:
1. The 106 plans called for the relocation of the then 3 track rail corridor north
of the SESD easement.
2. Although the easement was not labeled on the plan as such, that is exactly
where the three rails are shown on the Mass Highways revised plans,
dated February 6, 1991, which were approved by the Historic Commission
as part of the federally-mandated 106 review process.
3. Any relocation of the new single-track rail corridor cannot come at the
expense of the essential elements of the 106 plan, which were intended to
ameliorate the adverse effects of the 4 lanes on the adjacent National
Register and McIntire historic districts.
4. In the event the new rail corridor cannot be made to work within the space
between the new northerly curb and the SESD pipe (as distinct from the
wider SESD easement), I think it reasonably likely that the Federal Street
Neighborhood Organization, and others, will ask the Federal Advisory
Council to strictly enforce the 106 Memorandum of Agreement, taking the
entire record into account, by relocating the rail corridor to the north of the
SESD pipe, as originally envisioned.
5. This would necessarily be at the expense of the park.
6. To say the least, this would be regrettable, all the more so because (as
shown above) it jame irely unnecessary.
cc: Mayor Stanley Usovicz
Councilor Regina Flynn
Roger Bergeron, Guilford Transportation
Paul Cincotta, Rizzo Associates
Meg Toohey, Federal Street Neighborhood Organization
Wayne Sousa, Federal Street Neighborhood Organization /
? cif
CCdit e. / a c2one
Salem Alstorical Clommcsion
ONE SALEM GREEN.SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01,970
(61 7)745-9595, EXT.011
July 17 , 1990
Frank A. Bracaglia, Deputy Chief Engineer
Massachusetts Department of Public Works
10 Park Plaza
Room 4261
Boston, MA 02116
RE: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Salem-Beverly Transportation Project
Dear Mr. Bracaglia:
The Salem Historical Commission has reviewed the Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EDEA No. 0756) which
was sent to us on June 22 , 1990. Members of the Commission also
attended the public hearing held on July 9, 1990. We have the
following comments to submit at this time:
The concept of this project is supported by the Commission
because this project has the potential of removing substantial
traffic from two very important historic areas (1)
Federal/Essex/Chestnut Streets and (2 ) Bridge Street/Salem Common
area. This reduction in the numbers of cars and their noise and
pollution is seen as a very positive benefit to Salem' s historic
resources.
However, there are several areas of the Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report which do not appear to address the
impact of the widening of Bridge Street in sufficient detail .
Our concerns are as follows:
1. District Boundaries - The boundaries of the McIntire
Local Historic District are incorrectly drawn on the
graphic materials (both the handout and the wall
mounted plans) supplied at the public hearing. The
local McIntire Historic District is not shown on any
of the plans included in the draft Environmental
Impact Report. The statement, "The rear yards of 4
of these (properties in the Chestnut Street/McIntire
districts ) back up to Bridge Street" (page 4-30 ) is
Page 2
incorrect. There are approximatley 16 properties in
the McIntire Local Historic District which directly
abut Bridge Street and the areas of proposed
reconstruction. There are 8 properties in the
Chestnut Street National Register District and 3
properties in the Federal Street National Register
District which abut Bridge Street .
2 . Bridge Street from Flint to North Streets - We are
not in disagreeement with the need to widen Bridge
Street, but the statement "Because the proposed
project does not encroach into the Historic
Districts, the proposed project will have no effect
on the Historic District. " is erroneous. This .area
of Bridge Street is an important northern boundary
to two National Register Districts, to one National
Landmark property and to the largest and most
important of Salem' s local historic districts .
There are over 400 structures in the McIntire Local
Historic District of which 5 are National Register
Properties and 2 are National Landmarks. Before the
North River was channelled, it was much wider in
this area and all of the properties along the north
side of Federal Street and the adjacent streets
abutted the river. In fact, 300 years ago the North
River in this area was known as the Blue Danube
because of its great beauty. The DPW' s removal of
the old factories and other buildings to clear for
the widening of Bridge Street does make this area
more open and, therefore, it begins to have some of
the visual characteristics of the 17901s. However,
a four lane, high speed road with break down lanes
and guard rails is not visually in character with
this small scale, residential neighborhood. The
edges of historic districts are very important, and
this north edge is particularly siginificant because
it is highly visible to almost all visitors to
Salem. Therefore, it is important that careful
consideration be given to landscaping and providing
a generous buffer/transition area between the new
modern road and this 18th century, residential
neighborhood. Section 4 . 18 states, "For the portion
of the project corridor between North Street and
Boston Street, the overwhelming visual image is of
the generally rundown and neglected appearance of
the railyard and the North River Canal. " is no
longer correct . Since the 1970 ' s, a number of
residential properties along the southern boundary
of Bridge Street have been extensively renovated.
This includes the Pierce Nichols House, a National
Landmark, which abuts Bridge Street. The entire
district has seen millions of dollars in private
investment during the past 15 years. There has been
a tremendous amount of perservati.on and restoration
Page 3
in this district. Therefore, the Commission feels
that sensitve expansion of Bridge Street is very
important. The Draft Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report does not adequately address the issues
of landscaping, traffic noise buffering or other
issues which would assist in making a four lane
highway compatible with the historic district. The
Commission requests a detailed plan of proposed
improvements to determine how the above concerns are
addressed.
3 . The canal - The removal of the canal seems
regretable. However; its historic significance has
been reviewed by a private consultant and concurred
with by Massachusetts Historical Commission. The
conclusion appears to be that it is not eligible for
the National Register and its local significance is
not great enough to warrant its preservation. Based
on the advise of the City ' s consultant, the
Commission concurs with the decision to move the
canal .
4 . Archaeological resources - Section 5. 19 states that
"after extensive field surveys . . . it was determined
that there are no significant resources in the
project corridor. " Since the Commission has not
been provided a final report(s ) which includes the
entire project area (Bridge, By-Pass Road & Bridge
Street reconstruction) , we cannot concur with the
finding that there are no archaeological resources .
5. Land taking - It has come. to the attention of the
Commission that the DPW is proposing to take a
portion of land at 1 Harrington Court (located in
the McIntire Historic District) for road widening.
We could not find any reference of such taking in
the report, yet the property owner has stated they
had been notified. The Commission requires the
opportunity to review this and any other proposed
land takings as any land takings in an historic
district appear to be inappropriate.
6. The Federal Street National Register District - We
understand that this section of the proposed. project
has not been designed yet, therefore, we cannot
comment at this time. However, landscaping and
buffering should be considered here as well .
7 . The Bridge - Although the Commission feels that a
lower bridge would be more in keeping with the scale
of the historic Beverly Harbor, we do not see that
the proposed bridge will have a negative impact on
Salem' s historic districts.
Page 4
Based on the above remarks , the Commission feels that the
Draft Supplementary Environmental Impact Report is incomplete and
that there are outstanding issues that require further
information for our review and comment. Again, these include a
detailed plan of landscaping, buffering and other improvements to
lessen the impact on the historic districts and properties, a
final archaeological report (s ) for the entire project area and a
plan of any proposed land takings in historic districts.
Thank you for your consideration of Salem' s historic and
archaeological resources.
Sincerely,
THE SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION '
Annie C. Harris
Chairman
cc : Secretary John DeVillars
Brona Simon, MHC
Ellen DiGeronimo, MDPW
Jane Garvey, MPDW
James Hoyte, EOEA
J3719
ft 1 1117
i`' \ i
Salem HISt®rical Commission
ONE SALEM GREEN,SALEM.MASSACHUSETTS 01970
,617) 745-9595.EXT.311
July 24, 1990
By Hand
Frank A. Bracaglia, Deputy Chief Engineer
Massachusetts Department of Public Works
10 Park Plaza
Room 4261
Boston, MA 02116
Re: Draft Supplemental Environment Impact Report
Salem-Beverly Transportation Project, Project No. 0756
Dear Mr. Bracaglia:
The Salem Historical Commission would like to correct an inadvertent
but potentially significant error contained within the July 17, 1990 letter of our
chairperson, Annie C. Harris, to you, giving the Commission's initial response to
the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report relative to the Salem-
Beverly Transportation Project. Given time constraints and summer vacation
schedules the Commission was not able to review the letter prior to its mailing.
The error in question occurs in the opening clause to the first sentence in
Section no. 2 of Ms. Harris' letter (i.e. found on page 2), wherein she writes:
"We are not in disagreement with the need to widen Bridge Street . . . "
The position we intended to convey is that while we support improving
traffic flow between Washington and Boston Streets, we nevertheless oppose
the widening of Bridge Street as a specific means of accomplishing that
objective.
The problem with widening Bridge Street from two to four lanes, as
recently proposed by the DPW, is that it maximizes the adverse consequences
that will be inflicted on the adjacent 18th and 19th century neighborhood, which
is both a local Historic District established pursuant to Chapter 40C of the
Massachusetts General Laws (known as the McIntire Historic District), and is on
the National Register of Historic Places. These adverse consequences include
Frank A. Bracaglia 2 July 24, 1990
but are not limited to increased traffic, noise, vibration, atmospheric pollution,.
visual polution (including through lighting and signage), and safety problems,
among others. 1
Also, by locating the new roadway at the very edge of the Historic District,
as opposed to further out in the North River basin on land that had been
previously taken and cleared by the DPW specifically for that purpose, there is
literally no room to effectuate any kind of meaningful measures that would
mitigate these adverse consequences. In this sense we feel the proposed
widening of Bridge Street represents the worst of both possible worlds in terms
of the maximum adverse consequences it causes the adjacent McIntire Historic
District, and the minimum opportunities it offers for mitigating those adverse
consequences.
Fortunately we feel there is a way of addressing the need for improved
traffic flow at that particular location, while minimizing any adverse impact to the
adjacent Historic District caused by said traffic improvements.
What we favor is retaining the existing Bridge Street as a local two lane
street, and building a new two lane by-pass road beginning at or west of Flint
Street and tieing back into Bridge Street more or less in the area of the present
Box Car Cafe. The by-pass road would be located sufficiently beyond the
present railroad tracks to create an adequate buffer zone between the by-pass
road and the McIntire Historic District, which would be thickly landscaped to
absorb the noise and pollution of the increased by-pass traffic and would
visually screen same. This should be possible without encroaching on the
proposed linear park at the edge of the present North River canal, and indeed,
should complement it.
Inasmuch as the DPW has completed the taking and demolition of all of
the properties formerly located in the North River basin, and that each of the
previous DPW plans (evolving over a period of years) called for locating the
roadway in this area, reasonably removed from the McIntire Historic District, we
feel this is a practical, workable, and immediate solution to the various
competing interests. We also feel that crossing the present little-used railroad
tracks should not constitute an insurmountable problem, particularly since
grade crossings of the same tracks were incorporated as part of the recent
substantial traffic improvements in Peabody Square.
Again, we want to dispel any possible inference, however inadvertent, in
Ms. Harris' July 17, 1990 letter that we favor the proposed widening of Bridge
Street, and want to go on record now, even before the 106 review, so that no
unnecessary time or money will be wasted pursuing a design that only raises
new and serious problems in different areas.
Frank A. Bracaglia 3 July 24, 1990
Unfortunately Ms. Harris, who is on vacation, is the only member of our
Commission who could not be located to join in this letter.
Salem Historical Commission
John H. Carr, Jr., Vice Chairman
Walter H. Cook
Roger Hedstrom
Richard Oedel
Daniel Pierce
Russell Slam
cc Secretary John DeVillars, Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Brona Simon, Massachusetts Historical Commission
Ellen DiGeronimo, Massachusetts DPW
Jane Garvey, Massachusetts DPW
Mayor Neil Harrington
Councillor Kevin Harvey
yF,T TS n
J
T
-7C ISSN
�
o isq -Yt '3 r ,
January 18, 1991 leo
Anthony
to
Anthony Fusco
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
55 Broadway, 10th floor
Cambridge, MA 02142
RE: Beverly-Salem Bridge and Bypass Project
Dear Mr. Fusco:
Thank you for submitting additional information on the Beverly-Salem Bridge
and Bypass project, which were received on January 8, 1991 . Staff of the MHC
have reviewed the materials you submitted and have the following comments.
As you are aware, the cities of Salem and Beverly, the Beverly Historic
District Commission, the Salem Historical Commission, and the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation, among others, have expressed an interest in
participating in the "Section 106" consultation for this project. The MHC
recommends that a copy of the documentation you submitted be sent to the
consulting and interested parties for review and comment.
In reviewing the information you submitted, the MHC is unable to concur with
the "no effect" finding you have made without the following additional
information:
1 ) The MHC is not able to evaluate the National Register eligibility of the
See-Side Eye Clinic in Beverly without information on the post-1890 changes to
the building and its usage. Despite having been moved historically, the
building may have significance in the 1890-1941 period. Were there other
buildings associated with it during this period that no longer stand? How was
the building modified during this period and what were its uses? The MHC
requests that a MHC Inventory Building Form be completed that addresses these
questions and that photograph(s )Jits main elevation(s) be included.
2) The description of effects to the Fish Flake Hill Historic District does
not clearly evaluate the effects of the proposed bridge to the enlarged
National Register district. The effects of the proposal on the enlarged
historic district should be more fully described, e.g. , the distance of the
proposed bridge approach to the district; how the bridge and its approach will
visually affect the character and setting of the district. While the
illustrations you submitted present an overview perpective, additional
Massachusetts Historical Commission,Judith B.McDonough,Executive Director, State Historic Preservation officer
80 Boylston Street,Boston,Massachusetts 02116 (617) 727-8470
Office of the Secretary of State, Michael j. Connolly,Secretary
photographs showing existing and proposed project conditions from key vantage
points within and adjacent to the Fish Flake Hill Historic District would be
very helpful .
3) The discussions of the potential of the Ferry Landing area in Beverly and
Blubber Hollow area in Salem to contain intact, significant archaeological
resources are generally lacking a description and assessment of the existing
subsurface conditions. Examination of any available soil boring logs or other
geotechnical data might be helpful in assessing subsurface integrity as well
as illustrations showing the locations of modern utilities and other
documented disturbances.
4) The modifications to the widening of Bridge Street in Salem indicate that
Bridge Street will be relocated at some distance to the north of the edge of
naturelofithis "buffer"wshouldibe more a fullyodescribed. thWhatstypes ofTlhe
and
use, landscaping or tree-plantings are contemDlated? -
5) The comments of the consulting and interested parties should be provided
to the MHC.
These comments are offered to assist in compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800).
Staff of the 14HC would be happy to meet with you and the interested parties in
reviewing the documentation you submitted. If you have any questions or
require further assistance, please feel free to contact Brona Simon, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer, at this office.
Sincerely,
6. �Z��
Jith B, McDonough
Executive Director
State Historic Preservation Officer
Massachusetts Historical Commission
xc: George Turner, MDPW
Ellen DiGeronimo, MDPW
Don Klima, ACHP
Beverly Historic District Commission
Salem Historical Commission
Salem Planning Dept.
P,
G / �
O.
7T Y
if RF.
�e"/TIIEE LW�F
Salem Historical Commission
ONE SALEM GREEN, SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
i
March 6, 1991
Mr. Anthony J. Fusco
Division Administrator
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration, Region One
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
Cambridge, MA 02142
Re: Section 106 Review
Salem Beverly Transportation Project
Mass Project BR-F-54(005)
Dear Mr. Fusco:
We appreciate the opportunity to review the latest plans for the Salem
Beverly Transportation project, as part of the continuing 106 Review Process.
As it has always been, our first and foremost concern is the extent to
which the proposed Bridge Street by-pass road will adversely effect the
adjacent eighteenth and nineteenth century residential neighborhood between
North and Flint Streets, which is both a federal and state historic district, and
includes several properties individually listed on the National Register.
Inasmuch as the proposed project represents increasing Bridge Street
from two to four lanes, and changing the character of the street to an intra-city
four lane by-pass road, the danger is that if it is not done right, the project will
significantly increase the existing levels of traffic, noise, air pollution, vibration,
and other intrusive elements, which are already at or above tolerable levels,
even for a two lane street.
You may recall that the plan that was first unveiled in the Summer of
1990 was (and is) totally unacceptable because it called for locating the new
four lane undivided road on the site of the existing Bridge Street, i.e. at the very
edge of the historic district, thereby maximizing the adverse effect of the
proposed new roadway, while at the same time, precluding any meaningful
measures to mitigate those adverse effects.
Since then the Salem Historic Commission ("SHC") has worked closely
with the Mass. Department of Public Works ("DPW'), the Mayor's office, the
Massachusetts Historic Commission ("MHC"), and various neighborhood
groups in an attempt to arrive at an acceptable design that would not only
address Salem's need for improved vehicular access, but as important, one
which would minimize the adverse consequences caused to the adjacent
historic district by the project.
We feel we have gone a long way toward meeting that goal. And while
we are confident that we will be able to resolve the remaining issues, it should
be stressed that unless those issues are satisfactorily resolved, we would not be
able to concur in the DPW's assessment that the project has "no effect' on the
adjacent historic district.
The major improvement in the present plan, over the previous two plans
since last summer, is the extent to which the enlarged roadway is being moved
away from the historic district. Basically the present plan calls for the new four
lane road to curve away from the neighborhood beginning at Flint Street
(heading east) and return to the present Bridge Street more or less where it
presently intersects with the overpass off-ramp. This effectively creates the
potential for a buffer zone varying in width between five and thirty feet.
Also, instead of an undivided roadway, the present plan now calls for a
fifteen foot median strip dividing the two twelve foot wide eastbound and
westbound traveling lanes.
The practical effect of all of this is that the existing two lanes which are
currently at the edge of the historic district are being moved out between five
and thirty feet, and the two new lanes are being located sixty-nine feet away
from the existing southerly curb of Bridge Street (i.e. thirty foot buffer, at its
widest point, plus two eastbound traveling lanes at twelve feet each plus fifteen
foot median strip). Further, the plan calls for the two new lanes to be screened
by plantings in the median strip.
Obviously our first preference is that the by-pass road be moved even
further to the north, to provide the widest possible distance between it and the
adjacent neighborhood, since that is the most effective way of minimizing the
adverse effects of the enlarged roadway. But we are told by the DPW that that
would involve realigning the railroad tracks even further to the north, which
would not be possible without building a new railroad bridge over the canal,
which the state cannot afford. Obviously we lack the means to judge the track
relocation issue for ourselves.
Nevertheless we are willing to accept the proposed roadway as it is
presently sited, provided that the remaining details are satisfactorily resolved.
Unfortunately the present plans are completely unfinished regarding those
remaining details which concern us the most, and about which the ultimate
success or failure of the project (in terms of how it will ultimately impact the
historic district) will depend.
As noted above, the median strip and buffer are absolutely key to the
mitigation of the project. If they are to work at all, they must be thickly planted
with mature trees and shrubs which can simultaneously serve as a year-round
visual screen, a noise barrier, and (in the case of the buffer) a transition
between the neighborhood and the roadway.
2
All of these goals would be defeated if the planting were sparce, or if
significant gaps were allowed in either the buffer or the median strip. In short, it
is imperative that the median strip and buffer constitute a consistent green
corridor, with as few breaks or gaps as possible, ideally none with respect to the
median strip and only those which are absolutely necessary with respect to the
buffer.
Given that the roadway is intended to serve as a major gateway to
Salem's downtown this will also have the effect of balancing and integrating the
new four-lane roadway with the new'waterfront park to the north, and the buffer
to the south, thereby further "softening" the impact of the overall project. In
short, what looks best, actually works best.
In this regard, we want to emphasize that the most troubling aspect of the
new plans is the extent to which they are unfinished with respect to the areas in
front of the commercial establishments on the southerly side of Bridge Street,
i.e. Alpha Auto Sales, Magarian's Carpets, the Gulf Station and Universal
Trading. It is imperative that there be a green buffer in front of these
establishments, and that it tie in with the rest of the green corridor. (We feel this
can be accomplished without unduly limiting legitimate commercial visibility of
their businesses.) The one thing we do not want to see happen, however, is the
expansion of these businesses or their activities into the newly-created open
space in front, which would completely destroy the whole visual and functional
objectives of the buffer.
Similarly, before we can join in a "no effect" determination, we will need
to see similar details regarding the following points:
a. Lighting This must be of a style and scale compatible with the context
of the adjacent neighborhood. We would want to see proposed locations and
numbers of proposed lamps, their footcandle levels, and the extent to which any
pedestrian lighting is contemplated, and the specifics of same. Clearly we
would want the lighting to be directed toward the road and not "spill over" into
the adjacent neighborhood.
b. Pedestrian Walkways We would want to see the location, materials,
dimensions, and colors of any proposed walkways, including the specifics of
any amenities such as benches. Pedestrian walkways must not be at the
expense of the planting buffer, however.
c. Curbcuts and Curbing We would want to see specifics on these as
well, particularly (as noted above) with respect to the areas in front of Alpha
Auto Sales, the Gulf Station, Magarian's Carpets, and Universal Wrecking, and
the bottom of Lynn and Carpenter Streets. You may also want to consult with
the residents of Carpenter, Lynn, and River Streets to explore the feasibility and
appropriateness of closing off said streets, and in such event, how best to
integrate the resulting new space into the project. There should be no curb cuts
in the median strip, not only for safety reasons, but also because of the erosion .
3
that will cause to the function of the median strip as a noise and visual barrier.
Curbing should be granite, and should have the appropriate dimensions.
d. Planting Materials As noted above, the plantings should be
substantial and should be chosen to provide year-round noise and visual
screening. We will want to see specifics of plant types, size, and proposed
locations, and how they are intended to accomplish the foregoing goals.
e. Traffic Signals We want to see locations and style (i.e. no mastarms),
and information with respect to how they will control the speed and flow of
traffic, which will have a direct impact on the resulting noise levels caused to the
adjacent neighborhood.
f. Roadway Design The present plans omit any details with respect to
the number of lanes, their width etc. (We have obtained the information recited
above from previous meetings with DPW officials, but we are unable to confirm
their previous representations from the latest plans.) Obviously we would have
to have precise information on this as well.
g. We would also like to see similar specificity regarding the proposed
waterfront park, which we regard as an integral part of the project, inasmuch as
it will have the effect of further"softening" the project's overall impact . We have
been told that the Park will be basically bounded by the (reconfigured) canal to
the north, the overpass to the east, the new roadway and tracks to the south,
and Flint Street to the west, and that there will be no light or office industrial
park, which would otherwise undermine the mitigation goals that we are
attempting to accomplish. We are relying upon those representations.
h. We would also like additional specificity concerning the following
major traffic interchanges adjacent to the historic district and other nearby
historic properties, including the dimensions, set backs to historic buildings and
property lines, overall roadway widths, number of lanes, relative locations of
existing and proposed curb lines, and the height and details of construction for
the by-pass viaduct:
i. The Bridge Street/North Street interchange abutting the Pierce Nichols
House, the Federal Street National Register District, and the McIntire Historic
District
ii. The Bridge Street, Washington Street and by-pass road intersection
abutting the Federal Street National Register District, the Bessie Monroe House
and the First Universalist Church (both National Register Properties)
Finally, we concur with the MHC's findings in its January 18, 1991 letter
that it cannot agree with the DPW's"no effect" determination until it receives the
information requested in said letter.
Again, the necessity of the above-described information and
documentation should not obscure the fact that considerable progress has been
4
P
f
made to date, and that what remains to be done is relatively easy by
comparison. Considerable credit for this belongs to all of the parties
enumerated at the beginning of this letter, who have worked so hard for the last
nine months participating in the 106 Review process.
Still, because the ultimate success or failure of the plan depends on how
the remaining details are handled, we must warn that we would not be able to
"sign off" on the project until we are convinced that the foregoing questions are
satisfactorily answered. We have every confidence that that will be possible,
however.
Thank you again for your continuing consideration. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. We look forward to receiving
the above information as soon as possible, and we promise to expeditiously,
respond to same following our receipt.
Very truly yours,
Annie Clay Harris, Chairman
Enc.
cc Annie C. Harris, Chairman
John H. Carr, Jr., Vice Chairman
Walter H. Cook
Roger Hedstrom
Richard Odel
Daniel Hubbard Pierce
Russell Slam
Kevin Stanton
5
�c'OLy:FE lei.
Salem Historical Commission
ONE SALEM GREEN.SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
(6 17)7459595,EXT.311
March 7, 1991
I
Mr. Anthony J.Fusco
Division Administrator
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration, Region One
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
Cambridge, MA 02142
Project: Beverly-Salem Transportation Project
(Salem-Beverly Bridge, Bridge Street By-Pass, Bridge Street
Reconstruction)
Reference: Mass. Project BR-F-54 (005)
Beverly-Salem
HB-MA
Subject: Section 106 Documentation Review Comments pursuant to the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
Dear Mr. Fusco:
We appreciate the opportunity to review the latest plans for the Salem
Beverly Transportation project, as part of the continuing 106 Review Process.
As it has always been, our first and foremost concern is the extent to which
the proposed Bridge Street by-pass road will adversely effect the adjacent
eighteenth and nineteenth century residential neighborhood between North and
Flint Streets, which is both a federal and state historic district, and includes
several properties individually listed on the National Register.
Inasmuch as the proposed project represents increasing Bridge Street from
two to four lanes and changing the character of the street to an intracity four
lane by-pass road, the danger is that if it is not done right, the project will
significantly increase the existing levels of traffic, noise, air pollution, vibration,
and other intrusive elements, which are already at or above tolerable levels, even
for a two lane street.
You may recall that the plan that was first unveiled in the Summer of 1990
was (and is) totally unacceptable because it called for locating the new four lane
undivided road on the site of the existing Bridge Street, i.e. at the very edge of the
historic district, thereby maximizing the adverse effect of the proposed new
roadway, while at the same time, precluding any meaningful measures to mitigate
those adverse effects.
Since then, the Salem Historic Commission (SHS) has worked closely with the
Massachusetts Department of Public Works (MDPW), the Mayor's office, the
Massachusetts Historic Commission (MHC), and various neighborhood groups in an
attempt to arrive at an acceptable design that would not only address Salem's need
for improved vehicular access but, as important, one which would minimize the
adverse consequences caused to the adjacent historic district by the project.
We feel we have gone a long way toward meeting that goal. While we are
confident that we will be able to resolve the remaining issues, it should be stressed
that unless those issues are satisfactorily resolved, we would not be able to concur
with the MDPW's assessment that the project has "no effect" on the adjacent
historic district.
The major improvement in the present plan, over the previous two plans since
last summer, is the extent to which the enlarged roadway is being moved away
from the historic district. Basically, the present.plan calls for the-new four lane
road to curve away from the neighborhood beginning at Flint Street (heading east)
and return to the present Bridge Street more or less where it presently intersects
with the overpass off-ramp. This effectively creates the potential for a buffer
zone varying in width between five and thirty feet. Also, instead of an undivided
roadway, the present plan now calls for a fifteen foot median strip dividing the two
twelve foot wide eastbound and westbound traveling lanes.
The practical effect of all of this is that the existing two lanes which are
currently at the edge of the historic district are being moved out between five and
thirty feet, and the two new lanes are being located sixty-nine feet away from the
existing southerly curb of Bridge Street (i.e. thirty foot buffer, at its widest point,
plus two eastbound traveling lanes at twelve feet each plus fifteen foot median
strip). Further, the plan calls for the two new lanes to be screened by plantings in
the median strip.
Obviously, our first preference(is that the by-pass road be moved even
further to the north, in order to provide the widest possible distance between it an
the adjacent neighborhood, since that is the most effective way of minimizing the
adverse effects of the enlarged roadway. However, we are told by the MDPW that
that would involve realigning the railroad tracks even further to the north, which
would not be possible without building a new railroad bridge over the canal, which
the state cannot afford. Obviously, we lack the means to judge the track
relocation issue for ourselves.
Nevertheless, we are willing to accept the proposed roadway as it is presently
sitedrop vided that the remaining details are satisfactorily resolved.
Unfortunately, the present plans are completely unfinished regarding those
remaining details which concern us the most, and about which the ultimate success
or failure of the project (in terms of how it will ultimately impact the historic
district) will depend.
As noted above, the median strip and buffer are absolutely key to the
mitigation of the project. If they are to work at all, they must be thickly planted
with mature trees and shrubs which can simultaneously serve as a year-round visual
screen, a noise barrier, and (in the case of the buffer) a transition between the
neighborhood and the roadway.
All of these goals would be defeated if the planting were sparce, or if
significant gaps were allowed in either the buffer or the median strip. In short, it
is imperative that the median strip and buffer constitute a consistent green
corridor with as few breaks or gaps as possible, ideally none with respect to the
median strip and only those which are absolutely necessary with respect to the
buffer.
Given that the roadway is intended to serve as a major gateway to Salem's
downtown, this will also have the effect of balancing and integrating the new four-
lane roadway with the new waterfront park to the north, and the buffer to the
south, thereby further "softening" the impact of the overall project. In short, what
looks best, actually works best.
In this regard, we want to emphasize that the most troubling aspect of the
new plans is the extent to which they are unfinished with respect to the areas in
front of the commercial establishments on the southerly side of Bridge Street, i.e.
Alphas Auto Sales, Magarian's Carpets, the Gulf.Station and Universal Trading. It
is imperative that there be a green buffer in front of these establishments, and
that it tie in with the rest of the green corridor. (We feel this can be accomplished
without unduly limiting legitimate commercial visibility of their businesses.) The
one thing we do not want to see happen, however, is the expansion of these
businesses or their activities into the newly-created open space in front, which
would completely destroy the whole visual and functional objectives of the buffer.
Similarly, before we can join in a "no effect" determination, we will need to
see similar details regarding the following points:
A. Lighting - This must be of a style and scale compatible with the context
of the adjacent neighborhood. We would want to see proposed locations and
numbers of proposed lamps, their footcandle levels, the extent to which any
pedestrian lighting is contemplated, and the specifics of same. Clearly we would
want the lighting to be directed toward the road and not "spill over" into the
adjacent neighborhood.
B. Pedestrian Walkways - We would want to see the location, materials,
dimensions, and colors of any proposed walkways, including the specifics of any
amenities such as benches. Pedestrian walkways must not be at the expense of the
planting buffer, however.
C. Curbcuts and Curbin - We would want to see specifics on these as well,
particularly as noted above with respect to the areas in front of Alpha Auto Sales,
the Gulf Station, Magarian's Carpets, and Universal Wrecking, and the bottom of
Lynn and Carpenter Streets. You may also want to consult with the residents of
Carpenter, Lynn and River Streets to explore the feasibility and appropriateness of
closing off said streets and, in such event, how best to integrate the resulting new
space into the project. There should be no curb cuts in the median strip, not only
for safety reasons, but also because of the erosion that will cause to the function
of the median strip as a noise and visual barrier. Curbing should be granite, and
should have the appropriate dimensions.
D. Planting Materials - As noted above, thelantin s should be substantial
P g al
and should be chosen to provide year-round noise and visual screening. We will
want to see specifics of plant types, size and proposed locations, and how they are
intended to accomplish the foregoing goals.
E. Traffic Signals - We want to see locations and style (i.e. no mastarms),
and information with respect to how they will control the speed and flow of traffic,
which will have a direct impact on the resulting noise levels caused to the adjacent
neighborhood.
F. Roadway Design - The present plans omit any details with respect to the
number of Ur es, their width, etc. (We have obtained the information recited above
from previous meetings with MDPW officials, but we are unable to confirm their
previous representations from the latest plans.) Obviously, we would have to have
precise information on this as well.
G. We would also like to see similar specificity regarding the proposed
waterfront park, which we regard as an integral part of the projea6; inasmuch as it
will have the effect of further "softening" the project's overall impact. We have
been told that the park will be basically bounded by the (reconfigured) canal to the
north, the overpass to the east, the new roadway and tracks to the south, and Flint
Street to the west, and that there will be no light or office industrial park, which
would otherwise undermine the mitigation goals that we are attempting to
accomplish. We are relying upon those representations.
H. We would also like additional specificity concerning the following major
traffic interchanges adjacent to the historic district and other nearby historic
properties, including the dimensions, set backs to historic buildings and property
lines, overall roadway widths, number of lanes, relative locations of existing and
proposed curb lines, and the height and details of construction for the by-pass
viaduct;
1. The Bridge Street/North Street interchange abutting the Peirce
Nichols House, the Federal Street National Register District, and the
McIntire Historic District; and
2. The Bridge Street, Washington Street and by-pass road intersection
abutting the Federal Street National Register District, the Bessie Monroe
House and the First Universalist Church(both National Register Properties).
Finally, we concur with the MHC's findings in its January 18, 1991 letter that
it cannot agree with the MDPW's "no effect" determination until it receives the
information requested in said letter.
Again, the necessity of the above-described information and documentation
should not obscure the fact that considerable progress has been made to date, and
that what remains to be done is relatively easy by comparison. Considerable credit
for this belongs to all of the parties enumerated at the beginning of this letter, who
have worked so hard for the last nine months participating in the 106 Review
process.
Still, because the ultimate success or failure of the plan depends on how the
remaining details are handled, we must warn that we would not be able to "sign
off" on the project until we are convinced that the foregoing questions are
satisfactorily answered. We have every confidence that that will be possible,
however.
Thank You again for your continuing consideration. If you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to contact us. We look forward to receiving the above
information as soon as possible, and we promise to expeditiously respond to same
following its receipt.
ctfully,
THE SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Annie Clay Harris, Chairman
John H. Car, Jr., Vice Chairman
Walter H. Cook
Russell Slam
Richard Oedel
Daniel Hubbard Pierce
Roger Hedstrom
Kevin Stanton
cc: Mr. James Elliott, MDPW
Mr. George R. Turner, Jr., MDPW
Ms. Judith B. McDonough, MHC
Mr. Don L. Klima, ACHP
Beverly Historic District Commission
The Salem Planning Department
Mr. James R. Treadwell
MI5 WP
i3
s
0
Qnc,)nvt N��
Salem Historical c®rnrr►issa,
ONE SALEM GREEN. SALEM,MASSACHUSMS 01070
June f0, 1991
By FAX (617-973-8035)
Frank A. Bracaglia, Deputy Chief Engineer
Project Development
Massachusetts Department of Public Works
10 Park Plaza, Room 4261
Boston, MA 02116
0
Re: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Salem/Beverly Transportation Project
EOEA Number-0756
Dear Mr. Bracaglia:
ou
the
Commission has know,
o kedrelosely with the Department oelve months the flem Historical
Public Works, the
Mayor's Office of the City of Salem, the Massachusetts Historical Commission,
concerned neighbors, preservation groups, and other interested parties in an
effort to minimize the substantial adverse effects that Otherwise would have
been caused to the adjacent national and state historic districts(i.e. mainly
bordering the project between Flint and Washington Streets in Salem) by the
original project design.
Thanks to the cooperation of all concerned, we feel we have come a long
way toward accomplishing that objective.
However, notwithstanding the progress that has been made to date, we
feel we can not join in the "No Effect" determination by your Department in the
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, at least at this time.
Basically we feel that if the project is implemented faithfully according to
the latest modified designs, taking into account the comments we made in our
March 6, 1991 letter to Anthony J. Fusco, Division Administrator, U.S.
Department of Transportation, the adverse effects caused by the project will be
acceptably minimized. We are enclosing a copy of said letter, which is
incorporated herein by reference.
Jun '0 '91 l`:a.. CIT''
P.
Frank A. Bracagila 2 June 10, 1991
On the other hand, if the project is not strictly and faithfully implemented,
and we point out there are stili key details remaining to be worked out, primarily
landscaping and illumination, as more particularly set forth in the enclosed
letter, we feel the potential adverse effects caused by the project could be
severe.
In this sense, the question is not whether constructing a new four lane by
pass road so near to the adjacent historic districts will have an adverse effect on
the districts, such as through increased noise and air pollution, vibration,
illumination spill-over etc., but whether those adverse effects will be kept to an
acceptable minimum level. Again, because there are critical (albeit specific)
design details still to be worked out, upon which the success of the whole
Project depends (in terms of its impact on the adjacent historic district), we feel
we cannot join in your Department's "No effect" determination until those issues
are successfully resolved.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, based on our experience to date, we
have every confidence that those design details can and will be successfully
resolved, and in a timely manner, particularly since the comparatively much
tougher problem--i.e. arriving at an acceptable overall conceptual design--is
now behind us.
For our part we look forward to working with you as soon as possible so
that the specific remaining design issues (see enclosed letter) can be resolved
at the earliest opportunity.
Very truly yours,
SALEM HISTOFIICAL COMMISSION
B �V'
John H. arr, Jr., Vice hair an'
Enc.
cc Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Federal Advisory Council
Brona Simon, Massachusetts Historical Commission
*in the absence of the Chairman, who is on vacation
� J TS >f y
r.
� J
U19�91
G ° yMlssN° eC � � a
June 28, 1991 OnWeal.tit to
Anthony Fusco
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
55 Broadway, 10th floor __,
Cambridge, MA 02142
ATTN: Arthur Churchill
RE: Beverly-Salem Bridge and Bypass Project
Dear Mr. Fusco:
Thank you for submitting additional information on the Beverly-Salem Bridge
and Bypass project, which was received at this office on June 17, 1991 . Staff
of the MHC have reviewed the materials you submitted and have the following
comments.
The MHC disagrees with a number of your findings concerning the effects of the
proposed Beverly-Salem transportation project will have on significant
historic resources. The MHC has reviewed the project information you
submitted, as well as observations made on site visits and the scaled model of
the proposed bridge over the Danvers River, and has concluded the following:
Bridge Street Widening, Salem
The proposed widening of Bridge Street is located adjacent to the McIntire/
Chestnut Street and Federal Street Historic Districts and the Peirce-Nichols
House, properties which are listed or eligible for listing in the National
Register (see enclosed Summary Sheet) . The proposed modification of the
project design to locate the widened Bridge Street 30 feet to the North of the
McIntire District has helped to reduce the visual effects that the new roadway
will have on the character and setting of this historic district. However,
the increase in width of Bridge Street from two lanes to four lanes, might
tend to islolate the historic district unless the "buffer area" proposed
between the roadway and the district is suitably landscaped. Thus, I have
determined that the proposed widening of Bridge Street will have "no adverse
effect" on the McIntire/Chestnut Street District provided that the following
condition is met: Landscape plans and proposed configurations of streetlights
and traffic signals are submitted to the MHC and the Salem Historical
Commission for review and approval , as they become more fully developed. The
MHC recommends that mature trees and other vegetation be planted which will
serve as "living" screen to visually obscure the views of the new roadway from
Massachusetts Historical Commission,Judith B.McDonough,Executive Director,State Historic Preservation OJf cer
80 Boylston Street,Boston, Massachusetts 02116 (617) 727.8470
Office of the Secretary of State, Michael j. Connolly,Secretary
the historic district and that streetlights and traffic signals are designed
to be compatible with the adjacent historic district.
The proposed roadwork along Bridge Street adjacent to the Federal Street
Historic District will have "no effect" on this National Register district.
The proposed roadwork along Bridge Street in the vicinity of Blubber Hollow is
unlikely to affect significant, intact archaeological deposits associated with
the "Blubber Hollow" area of Salem. Review of the project design plans
indicates that only a small area of ground will be impacted by roadwork and
that this impact area has been previously disturbed by prior roadwork and
buried utilities. Thus, the degree of subsurface disturbance and the highly
localized nature of the project impact area (the principal core of "Blubber
Hollow" is located at a considerable distance to the north of the project
area) precludes the likelihood that any signifcant, intact archaeological
deposits are present.
The MHC has determined that the Salem Signal Tower possesses sufficient
integrity of workmanship, materials, setting, and association to be eligible
for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under criteria A, C
and D at the local level of significance (see MHC's comments of May 30, 1991
and July 25, 1990) . Since you disagree with MHC's opinion on the applicable
criteria of significance of the Signal Tower, you should now seek a
determination of eligibility from the Keeper of the National Register at the
National Park Service in Washington, D.C. (36 CFR 800.4(c)(4)) . The MHC has
determined that the proposed moving of the Signal Tower would constitute an
"adverse effect" since the moving of the structure will result in damage and
alteration of the property and its setting (36 CFR 800.9(b)(1 ) & (3) ). I
agree that the proposed new location for the structure, alongside the railroad
tracks is appropriate to the historical significance and association of the
Tower, and, thus, the adverse effect is acceptable. The fact the the Tower
has already been moved in the past further strengthens this determination. A
Memorandum of Agreement should be drafted, which should include stipulations
which would mitigate the adverse effect of moving the structure. The
stipulations should include the following : that a detailed reuse plan be
developed for the structure which will insure its continued viability and
active use; that the moving be conducted by a team qualified to move historic
buildings; that the moving meet the Secretary of Interior's Guidelines for
moving historic buildings; that rehabilitation of the Tower for its reuse meet
the Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings.
I agree that the project will have no effect on the Peirce-Nichols House,
since there are no changes proposed in the project area which abuts this
National Historic landmark.
Finally, the MHC has determined that the North. Canal is not eligible for
listing in the National Register, due to its lack of historical significance
(see MHC's 5/30/91 comments) .
New Beverly-Salem Bridge
Review of the materials submitted to the MHC as well as observations made of
the project model and during site visits indicates that the proposed new
bridge and approach roadway on the Beverly side of the project will have an
adverse Effect on Fish Flake Hill Historic District by isolating the historic
r
district from its setting and by introducing visual elements which are out of
character with the district and its setting (36 CFR 800.9(b)(2 & 3).
Since the time the project EIS was filed, the boundaries of the Fish Flake tt
Hill Historic District have been enlarged. Currently, Fish Flake Hill t
Historic District, a property which is listed in the National Register of
Historic Places, directly abuts the project area at the location of the
approach roadway to the bridge. The proposed approach roadway configuration
where the bridge touches down in Beverly will result in a much larger increase
in the amount and elevation of actual roadways than existing conditions.
Thus, the approach will create a wide expanse of blacktop on the immediate
edge of the historic district as well as introducing an elevated roadway
leading up to the bridge, which will be very visible from the district
(especially along Cabot and Water Streets) and inconsistent with the scale and
configuration of the existing roadways and bridges adjacent to the district.
The proposed new bridge, 63 feet high and 90 feet wide, with several massive
concrete supports, will be very visible from major overlooks within the Fish
Flake Hill district as well from views outside the district, e.g. , from Salem,
the harbor and the Danvers River, looking towards the district. The large
size, scale and massing of the bridge will appear out of scale with the
historic characteristics of the setting of Fish Flake Hill which are
characterized by small , low-scale buildings, structures, roadways, and bridges.
The MHC requests that FHWA and MDPW explore prudent and feasible project
alternatives which would avoid, reduce, minimize or mitigate the adverse
visual effects of the size and scale of the bridge and the approach roadway on
the Fish Flake Hill Historic District. A number of alternatives were briefly
described in the project's Final Supplemental EIR. However, lacking in these
descriptions was an analysis of the feasibility of project alternatives.
Specifically, the feasibility of reconfiguring the approach roadway to reduce
the expanse of pavement to minimize or avoid its intrusion on the edge of Fish
Flake Hill Historic District should be carefully considered. In addition,
alternatives which would reduce the height of the new bridge but still service
both land and marine traffic should be evaluated for their feasibility. I
understand that the proposal for a fixed bridge span was selected in order to
allow both cars and boats to travel without stopping. The use of a moveable
bridge, which would not require such a high clearance above water, should be
more carefully studied. It may be prudent and feasible to design a
combination bridge which would be of sufficient clearance to allow the
majority of watercraft to pass under unheeded, but be low enough to not have
such an adverse visual effect on the Fish Flake Hill historic district. The
lower bridge could then include a moveable bridge which would service the
minority of sailboats with tall masts and thus have minimal effects on
automobile traffic. A lowered bridge elevation would also help alleviate the
adverse visual effect of the elevated portion of the approach roadway on Fish
Flake Hill .
Review of the project plans and model indicates that minor modifications to
the Cabot and Rantoul Street intersection are proposed. It appears that these
roadway changes and the new bridge will have no adverse effect on the
character and setting of the Rantoul Street district, a property which is
eligible for listing in the National Register.
I
The MHC is currently awaiting the results of the archaeological survey of the
approach roadway area in order to determine whether any significant
archaeological resources will be impacted by the project.
These comments are offered to assist in compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act. You should now seeek the comments of the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 1100 Pennsylvania Ave. , NW, #809,
Washington; D.C. 20004. A copy of these comments should accompany the
documaentation you submit to the Council .
If you have any questions concerning these comments, please feel free to
contact Brona Simon, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer.
Sincerely
/��' n'-r�r�, bs"t� o
7- Judith B. McDonough
State Historic Preservation Officer
Executive Director
Massachusetts Historical Commission
Enclosure
xc: Michael Swanson, MDPW
Don Klima, ACHP
Beverly Historic District Commission
Salem Historical Commission
Salem Planning Dept.
(�xecutcrne �J. . n anzZ ZJQlid�4ll�llL2
WILLIAM F.WELD �iht,�Vl , z
GOVERNOR OMFICEOF
7'4
ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI .
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
' DIVA^id
RICHARD L.TAYLOR �1�, Y{ I AS3?QPIiw�4;iJ _ -
. SECRETARY d
t tl
JAMES J.KERASIOTES
COMMISSiONER "
July 25, 1991
Mr. Anthony J. Fusco, ----
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
Cambridge, MA. 02142
ATTN: Arthur Churchill
RE: Salem/Beverly Transportation Project
Dear Mr. Fusco:
The Cultural Resources Unit of the Massachusetts Department of Public Works reviewed the
MHC comments of June 28, 1991 concerning the effects of the Salem/Beverly Transportation
Project on numerous National Register properties. We request that MHC clarify numerous
comments and provide background for several assertions. Our specific requests for
clarifications are as follows.
•Bridge Street Widening and the McIntire, Chestnut Street and Federal Street Historic
Districts.
The MHC comments assert that the widening and relocation of Bridge Street will "tend
to isolate the historic district..." From what, will the historic district be isolated? In
documentation submitted to MHC, we addressed the issue of the lack of integrity of the
setting of the district along Bridge Street. Is it their contention that the setting is intact?
Are they implying that the district will be isolated from the current condition of polluted
river channel, overgrown, weed choked railroad right-of-way, abandoned factory and
junk yards? Are they suggesting that these features add to the overall historic and
architectural significance of the District? Further, since the bulk of the proposed action
Anthony J. Fusco
Salem/Beverly Transportation Project
July 25, 1991
will occur at grade, MHC should identify what elements of the proposed project will
have an isolating effect. Does MHC contend that the effect will result from the
relocation of the roadway and railroad tracks away from the edge of the district, from
the associated landscaping or from the wetland restoration?
The issue of the integrity of the setting and the features of the project are critical; I refer
to 800.9(b)(3), on the Criteria of Adverse Effect which states:
Isolation of the property from or alteration of the character of the property's
setting when that character contributes to the property's qualification for the
National Register.
Looking at the Bridge Street edge of the District, and looking at its historical
development, we concluded that the setting is not intact in this area, and is not a
character defining feature. There is no opportunity for isolation without an intact setting,
thus no effect from the action.
We agree with the finding of "no effect" to the Federal Street Historic District because,
just as to the south at the McIntire/Chestnut District, the project borders the District but
the setting is not intact or character defining. We question how the interpretation of the
_7 Criteria by MHC can be so radically different for two adjoining historic districts which
border the same proposed action and share the identical altered, non-contributing setting.
The MHC should be requested to provide a detailed analysis of their application of the
Criteria for these two areas as well as an explanation of the different effect
determinations.
*Salem Signal Tower
The application of the Criteria of Effect to the proposed action on the Salem Signal
Tower fails to thoroughly account for the historic characteristics of the property.
To reiterate our position on its significance: The Salem Signal Tower is a moved
structure. The equipment associated with its major period of historical significance has
been removed. The conditions and character of its setting have been substantially
altered. The Criteria Considerations of the National Register Regulations are
unambiguous.
2
IYZ
Anthony J. Fusco
Salem/Beverly Transportation Project
July 25, 1991
Criteria Consideration B provides that a building or structure removed from its
original location is not eligible for the National Register unless it is significant
primarily for its architectural value or it is the surviving structure most "
importantly associated with a historic person or event. This consideration
recognizes that the original locations of most historic properties contribute to
their significance, so that their relocation may electively sever them from their
significant associations. A structure significant for its architecture without
reference to its surroundings may be eligible for the National Register even if it
has been moved, however, and if there is no other building to represent a
particular important event or person, a relocation building may be registered.
MHC has directed us to seek a Determination of Eligibility from the Keeper of the
Register because the application of National Register Criteria is in dispute. It is
premature of MHC to apply Criteria of Effect without the establishment of the Tower's
significance by the Keeper. If the Keeper finds the Tower eligible it must be despite its
alterations, lack of original location, alterations to setting, and lack of significance
defining equipment. Location can be a factor in the significance of the Salem Tower,
according to the Consideration above. A. move, with the appropriate safeguards, as
proposed, will have no effect on the characteristics of significance that qualify the Tower
for possible inclusion in the Register. We see agreement in principle with this position
as evidenced in the comments of the MHC: "...the adverse effect is acceptable. The
fact that the Tower has already been moved in the past further strengthens this
determination." Our disagreement lies in MHC's mis-application of the Criteria of Effect
and Adverse Effect; a finding of adverse effect is not substantiated by the Regulations,
significance of the property or the aspects of the project.
MHC has also requested "that a detailed reuse plan be developed for the structure which
will insure its continued viability and active use;" It is the operations of the MBTA and
not the proposed action under discussion, that result in the Tower being taken out of
"active use." Accordingly, insuring "viability and active use" of historic properties in
its ownership is the concern of the MBTA.
*New Beverly-Salem Bridge and the Fish Flake Hill Historic District and So-Called
"Rantoul Street Historic District."
The MHC asserts that the project will "have an adverse Effect on Fish Flake Hill
Historic District by isolating the historic district from its setting and by introducing
elements which are out of character with the district and its setting." But again they have
__ 3
Anthony J. Fusco
Salem/Beverly Transportation Project -
July 25, 1991
failed to identify the significant features or characteristics of the setting or to respond to
the changes and actual character of that setting.' Our documentation discusses historic
precedent for defining the setting of the present District as well as establishing the lack
of integrity of the modern setting. Their comments overlook that discussion. They also
state that the "bridge will be very visible from the district." and "...will be very visible
from major overlooks within the Fish Flake Hill district as well as from views outside
the district, e.g., from Salem, the harbor, and the Danvers River looking toward the
district."
These so-called 'overlooks" are not identified in any historical or National Register
documentation for the District. This is the fust time we have heard the use of this term.
Their significance to the District has not been established. Our historical research and
documentation has established that the primary orientation of the Historic District is
towards the working harbor which begins several hundred feet east of the bridge location.
Similarly, the significance of the view of the District from outside vantages has not been
defined nor have these viewing points been adequately identified, e.g. "from Salem, the
harbor, and the Danvers River..." Substantial photographic documentation which we
submitted demonstrates that the view towards the District from the Harbor is dominated
by the boatyards, McDonald's Restaurant and substantial modern condominiums. In
these photos only fragmented views of a few District buildings are visible and are lacking
in overall historic context or setting. Historical features must be established with
documentary evidence. The MHC should provide documentation and identify authorities
for these "overlooks" and "views from outside the district."
On the setting of the District, MHC contends that "the historic characteristics of the
setting of Fish Flake Hill which are characterized by small, low scale buildings,
structures, roadways and bridges." -In making this assessment the MHC has disregarded
other substantial elements such as the mid-rise condominium buildings, the Ventron
industrial facility, the power transmission lines, substantial marine related buildings, the
power plant and oil tanks. This area has always been a mixed use one, combining
residential and commercial with an industrial and transportation corridor. MHC must
incorporate a more thorough assessment of the character of the area in deliberations;
simply viewing a bridge from the District in the very mixed environment can not be
considered an adverse effect.
Similarly, their observations of aspects of the project are inconsistent: "The proposed
approach roadway configuration where the bridge touches down in Beverly will result in
a much larger increase in the amount and elevation of actual roadways than existing
4
Anthony J. Fusco
Salem/Beverly Transportation Project
July 25, 1991
conditions. Thus, the approach will create a wide expanse of blacktop on the immediate
edge of the historic district...", yet "Review of the project plans and model indicate that
minor modifications to the Cabot and Rantoul Street intersection are proposed." The
latter statement is a more accurate observation of the current condition which is
characterized by a wide expanse of undifferentiated pavement resulting from the
intersection of the current bridge and several roadways with a substantial number of
surface parking lots. The proposed action will have a beneficial effect on the current
condition through better organization, appearance and safety.
Most deficient in their assessment is a rationale for the changed finding of effect for this
project. The previous version of this bridge, eight feet lower and a travel lane narrower
warranted a finding of "no effect", yet this proposal results in an "adverse effect." We
do not understand this change in finding since both proposals share the same features
discussed in their comments such as concrete supports and approach roadways. The
MHC must be pressed to provide a specific detailing of the exact elements of change that
result in their redefinition of the finding of effect.
In summary, the MHC is not considering the significant and character defining features of the
— ' National Register Properties in their application of the Criteria. Instead they have taken the
position that any chan8e resulting from the project is an effect. Again we find this position is
not supported by the Advisory Council Regulations which we find to be explicit:
800.2(o) "Undertaking" means any project, activity, or program that can result L
changes in the character or use ofhistoric grqperties(emphasis ours), if any such historic
properties are located in their area of potential ei9`ects...
And,
- - — --800.9 Criteria of Effect and Adverse Effect .
(a) An undertaking has an effect on a historic property when the undertaking may alter
characteristics of the properry that may qua lt the Dropertvfor inclusion in the National
Register (emphasis ours). For the purpose of determining effect,alteration to features of
the property's location,setting, or use may be relevant depending upon a ,property's
significant characteristics (emphasis ours) and should be considered.
5
i
r
I
I
Anthony J. Fusco
Salem/Beverly Transportation Project
July 25, 1991
It remains the Department's opinion that no aspect of this project will effect any significant,
intact and character defining features of any of the National Register properties in the vicinity.
We continue to find that this project has "no effect."
Sincerely,
HAEL SWANSON, P.E.
C"CHIEF ENGINEER
JE/JRO/jo
6
F
f
`Sc tTTS *4
cnT _ O '
o _
October 21. 19M1
Mr; Donald E. Hemmer -r C., ' wsslo
Acting
Administrator �"' nWealthti°FnOWRYA �
55 Broadway, I tit Floor
Catnhddga MA 02142
lie 3elem/Bevrt3, 7reagPoastl0a PrQIact EOP 101
Atttu Arthur CharebA District 'weer
Dear Mr. Harnmer.
Thank you for Your letter requiting dzt.MrAdon about
the personally apologise for the delay in my response, but eaeured /Bevetly Bridge project from MHC i
tl1O pr�e� �cum"Wan, and the MDPW's you that I have looted carefully at MHC
forward with Criteria of Adverse Effect I bops that this ueidatag about
MHCs aPPur+ttion of the Advisory
the COtloa with the prq{eet. flodi»ge Bad that we can Bo
Selpm Iasuee; Bridge.8treet to Faders! SL
Ia summary. lop" concern 1� is the application of criteria and apparent iaaonutandes of
surrpounding to thenonorthh of dispia has agmea with
MDPW ann(Ndc that the enlarged settIng or
believe MHC& letter of June 28, 1991 ' chanBad and been compron�lged pyo time I
4) tch Includes
ag �g the cat the haracter tj
Would 'temddt hisolw tel the(Mdatire]�3statement #2
istotie district
( which to r z'as al SL m7denfoga
the properda' qualifying for the Nadonal Register. MHC uft when the character Contributes to
tl. MHCrtherly rao eadaria
rrght-of-w�y area derstandg
as But dlwlce& le the hathe U been PWSnoun ati°tt that
Improve the setts agree+ e�OCa� the roadway and related aedvides iyv�to poteover
ntial to
setting az the Mein a dist
resldentiai Yards with tvhlch eoneltts is etc
backs of urban honaelohe
tI Rede am Pante anti tYW�ai �e or out buildings�that� mds-ofter �
A(HC mads .50 chars 1dvcr-0 aftct
gmy W insure o Pmt of the district 'coadidonai ao adveno
pp�� [o review the proj� Pis that are developed further for this area•
MHCA fieding for the Federal Street District differed from
different ebaraeters. Instead of a k Meiatire District because of their
distritt is the mater city,
residential district, $ 4 lnithudonal/rosidantfal
t0rmal and spate lands=' with associated harder surfaces, few if UW out butldtsgs, and more
boundary. Tye proposed roadway way oRp ale"Unts to characterize its Betting especially along the northern
the new work will inti o�s� what can to narrower hers than at
include M
current eoadit! �'°mtr that arta subafandally effect the Peder and it � unlikely that
oat do now. This is the basis for our different 6odi street district more than
ngs of e>fecL
Matsachus ttaHistoricalCommission.left LkDmtott
80 Boylston Buser,Hato _-. gh�ltka02,1 , (617)727- f/4torlcpyam++nt�,t offer
-- 0.M+as+si+usetu 04118' (g17)7!7.8470
_ --_ _ - _.- Qfliee of the Secxtat ef8taog
Michaelj.ConnollF 9acTMtar7
r.
Salem Siynal Tower
In an earnest attempt to facilitate the project through the Section 106 process, MHC applied the
criteria of effect to this resource so the agencies would know its position on a possible move in
advance. There remains a disagreement about its eligibility. I understand that you will be seeking an
opinion of eligibility from the keeper of of the National Register.
New Bridge and Beverly Disxricrs
MHCs concluded that the proposed new bridge itself, in its latest revised version, constitutes an
adverse effect on the Fish Flake Hill National Register district. We agree that a bridge crossing has
long been a part of this setting. MHC often has found large scale new bridges to have adverse effects
on surrounding districts. We do find that the changes between the current proposal and the one
reviewed in 1981 are sufficient to warrent a new finding of effect; its size, scale and engineered
approaches diminish the overall integrity of Fish Flake Hill's location. design, setting, and
association and do introduce elements that are out of character with the district which is significant
for its contribution to Beverly's long maritime heritage.
In reviewing the NR nomination for the expanded district, I find that the Fish Flake Hill disstrices
maritime associations, are extensively discussed and are inextricably related to the waterfront.
Although the waterfront setting of the Fish Flake Hill district has undergone change over time, MHC
still finds that it contributes overall to the understanding of the district. The proposed bridge
expansion would be visible from numerous public ways within the Fish Flake Hill district and become,
visually, a dominant' out of scale external feature.
MHC considers that further discussion of alternatives would be relevant to our consultation, and we
would look to the agencies' lead about appropriate ones to re-examine. MHC understands that this
proposal resulted from examinadon of various alternatives and complex conditions. Further discussion
of this alternative would be most productive if it focused on mitigating the impact of this bridge
proposal especially at the Beverly approach, The touch down area is a gateway not only to the district
but also to Beverly and deserves the most advantagous planning and sensitive mitigation.
These comments are offered to assist in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (36CFR800). Please feel free to call me with any questions.
incerel ,
u 'th B. McDonough
State Historic Preservation Officer
Massachusetts Historical Commission
xa Michael Swanson, Massachusetts Department of Public Works
Don Klima, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
William Patch, Beverly Historic District Commission
Anne Harris, Salem Historical Commission
Jane Guy, Salem Planning Department
Secretary Susan Tierney, EOEA/MEPA Unit
)
Salem Historical Commission
ONE SALEM GREEN,SALEM.MASSACHUSETTS 01970
(508)7459595 EXT.311
March 19, 1992
Don L. Klima
Director, Eastern Office
of Project Review
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
The Old Post Office Building
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. #809
Washington, D.C. 20004
RE: Draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for Salem/Beverly
Transportation Project
Dear Mr. Klima:
The Salem Historical Commission has reviewed the Draft MOA and
respectfully requests the following amendments:
That Section I A & B be revised as follows:
A. In consultation with the Salem Historical
Commission, the Salem Planning Department, and the
Massachusetts SHPO, and subject to the approval of
the Salem Historical Commission, a design plan will
be developed to ensure that improvements associated
with the Bridge Street Bypass are compatible with
neighboring historic properties. The plan shall
include the following principles :
1. Lighting. Lighting, both for the roadway and
pedestrian areas, shall be of a style and
scale compatible with their respective
contexts, and the context of the adjacent
historic district, and shall not spill-over
into the adjacent neighborhoods . Proper
provision shall be made for pedestrian
lighting, where relevant.
2. Curb cuts, Curbing, and Barriers. Curb cuts
should be granite and of suitable dimensions .
There shall be no curb cuts or breaks in the
median strip, which shall be thickly planted
(see below) . Use of jersey barriers shall not
i
be permitted.
3 . Landscaping. Landscaping, both associated
with be roadway and the waterfront park, shall
be employed to provide a consistent year-round
visual barrier and buffer between the project
and adjacent historic neighborhood. This is
particularly critical at the southerly side of
the two in-bound lanes (ie. the new buffer
zone) and in the median strip. The southerly
landscaped buffer shall be consistent along .
the entire corridor from Flint to North Street
(approximately) ; in particular, commercial
establishments shall not be allowed to "spill
over" into the newly created spaces in front
of their establishments . Proper provision
shall be made for pedestrian walkways,
including materials thereof. The roadway and
buffer landscaping shall relate to that of the
waterfront park to create a consistent whole.
4 . Traffic signals. Traffic signals and signage
should be minimized. Mastarms shall not be
used. Speed shall be regulated to minimize
the noise and adverse safety impact on the
adjacent historic neighborhood.
5. Dimensions. The overall road layout to be as
previously represented and agreed upon, ie.
two new in-bound lanes of twelve feet each, a
fifteen foot median strip, and two out-bound
lanes of twelve feet each. The new road
system curves away from the neighborhood,
beginning at Flint Street and returning more
or less at the present overpass off-ramp,
thereby creating the new visual and sound
buffer at the southerly edge of the roadway
varying in width between five and thirty feet
at a minimum.
B. Following completion, the design plan will be
reviewed by the Salem Historical Commission, the
Salem Planning Department, and the Massachusetts
SHPO. Should any of these parties disagree on any
provision of the plan, resolution of said shall
first be attempted in accordance with Stipulation V
below, DISPUTE RESOLUTION. Final approval of the
foregoing issues, however, rests with the Salem
Historical Commission.
That Section III, first paragraph, and Section III B. be
amended to include the Salem Historical Commission.
- That Section V be amended to add the following as the
final line of the paragraph:
"Notwithstanding anything else herein to the contrary,
final approval of issues outlined in Section I hereof
rests with the Salem Historical Commission. "
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
THE SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Annie C. Harris
Chairman
BN\BN\mmitr
MEMO
TO: CRAIG WHEELER
FROM: JOHN H. CARR, JR.
RE: BRIDGE STREET RELOCATION ROAD/RAIL CORRIDOR
DATE: MARCH 31, 1998
As a follow-up to our last conversation, the following are the spatial
requirements set forth in the 106 approved plans, and the available land south
of the 7 foot wide SESD pipe, measured at two locations, i.e. opposite the
northeast corner of Carpenter and Bridge Streets, and opposite the northeast
corner of Lynn and Bridge Streets. All measurements are measured from the
existing southerly curb of Bridge Street.
1. Opposite N.E. Corner Of Carpenter & Bridge Streets
Our field measurements show that the 106 approved plans can easily be
built here without encroaching on any part of the SESD easement. This is
based on the following:
Distance to centerpoint of pipe 142 feet
Distance to southerly edge of easement 129 1/2 feet
Requirements of project
buffer at Carpenter Street 35 feet
2 inbound lanes 24 feet
;median strip 16 feet
2 outbound lanes 24 feet
Total 99 feet
Available land for rail corridor 301/2 feet
Land needed for rail corridor 10 1/2 feet - see below
Surplus land 191/2 feet
Incidentally, I believe your most recent plan called for one inbound lane
to be 26 feet wide, which is wrong. According to the 106 approved plans, each
of the 4 lanes is to be 12 feet wide, which obviously frees up an additional 2
feet, which may be useful elsewhere along the length between Flint Street and
the overpass - see below.
2. Opposite N.E. Corner of Lynn and Bridge Streets
At this point the distance between the existing southerly curb of Bridge
Street and the centerline of the SESD pipe is 122 1/2 feet.
The spatial requirements for the new roadway at this location are
961/2 feet, based on the following:
width of buffer 32 1/2 feet
width of 2 inbound lanes 24 feet
width of median strip 16 feet
width of 2 outbound lanes 24 feet
Total 96 1/2 feet
Thus the difference between the new northerly curb of Bridge Street and
the centerpoint of the existing SESD pipe is 26 feet. (122 1/2 - 96 1/2).
Since the SESD easement is 25 feet wide, and the pipe itself is 7 feet
wide, located in the center of the easement, one needs to subtract 3 1/2 feet
from the above 26 feet in order to determine the distance between the new
northerly curb and the southerly edge of the pipe, resulting in a figure of 22 1/2
feet. This represents the land north of the new northerly curb that is not sitting
directly atop the SESD pipe.
In terms of spatial requirement needed for the rail corridor, I spoke with
Roger Bergeron at Guilford Transportation on March 17, 1998 and he said the
following are the applicable measurements:
distance between rails 4 feet 8 1/2 inches
length of tie 8 feet 6 inches
ballast on either side of tie 8 to 14 inches
Thus, allowing (for purposes of discussion) 12 inches of ballast from the
ends of each tie results in a rail corridor 10 1/2 feet wide, which may even be
generous, since this allows for approximately 3 feet of open space onie they
side of the 4 feet 8 1/2 inch wide rails.
Assuming then that 10 1/2 feet is a reasonable width for the rail corridor,
especially considering the low frequency and speed of the trains traveling over
the single track, this means we have a need to locate a 10 1/2 foot rail corridor,
and a maximum space of 22 1/2 feet in which to do it opposite Lynn Street, i.e.
without locating the rail corridor above the pipe.
Although tight, it is even possible to locate such a 10 1/2 foot wide rail
corridor between the new northerly curb of Bridge Street and the southerly edge
of the SESD easement altogether, based on the following field measurements:
distance to southerly edge of easement 110 feet
distance to new northerly curb 96 1/2 feet
land available for rail corridor 13 1/2 feet
width of rail corridor 10 1/2 feet
surplus land 31/2 feet
Thus, the foregoing would allow for a 3 1/2 buffer between the new
northerly curb and the 10 1/2 foot rail corridor without utilizing 1 inch of the 9
feet of the southerly half of the SESD easement that does not sit atop the pipe
(i.e. 12 1/2 - 3 1/2 feet).
It does seem advisable, however, to locate the rail corridor at least partly
on the SESD easement to provide for the maximum possible buffer between it
and the new northerly curb.
Roger Bergeron also said he was waiting to hear back from the SESD
engineer to set up a "courtesy meeting" to broach the subject of locating part of
the new single-track rail corridor on the SESD easement. Anything you could
do to expedite this, and explain the situation to Salem's representative on the
SESD Board to pave the way, would be greatly appreciated.
Finally, the following points should also be made:
1. The 106 plans called for the relocation of the then 3 track rail corridor north
of the SESD easement.
2. Although the easement was not labeled on the plan as such, that is exactly
where the three rails are shown on the Mass Highways revised plans,
dated February 6, 1991, which were approved by the Historic Commission
as part of the federally-mandated 106 review process.
3. Any relocation of the new single-track rail corridor cannot come at the
expense of the essential elements of the 106 plan, which were intended to
ameliorate the adverse effects of the 4 lanes on the adjacent National
Register and McIntire historic districts.
4. In the event the new rail corridor cannot be made to work within the space
between the new northerly curb and the SESD pipe (as distinct from the
wider SESD easement), I think it reasonably likely that the Federal Street
Neighborhood Organization, and others, will ask the Federal Advisory
Council to strictly enforce the 106 Memorandum of Agreement, taking the
entire record into account, by relocating the rail corridor to the north of the
SESD pipe, as originally envisioned.
5. This would necessarily be at the expense of the park.
6. To say the least, this would be regrettable, all the more so because (as
shown above) Ajame irely unnecessary.
cc: Mayor Stanley Usovicz
Councilor Regina Flynn
Roger Bergeron, Guilford Transportation
Paul Cincotta, Rizzo Associates
Meg Toohey, Federal Street Neighborhood Organization
Wayne Sousa, Federal Street Neighborhood Organization
/ pp�tiec �vr � ou� a.� �aw(c ah .�
/as ``A7 Can4%nv;
cQene. a+� rQone ` ls`•t
Salem M, ist®ricai (mommission
ONE SALEM GREEN.SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970
(617)745-9595. EXT. 311
July 17 , 1990
Frank A. Bracaglia, Deputy Chief Engineer
Massachusetts Department of Public Works
10 Park Plaza
Room 4261
Boston, MA 02116
RE: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Salem-Beverly Transportation Project
Dear Mr. Bracaglia:
The Salem Historical Commission has reviewed the Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EDEA No. 0756 ) which
was sent to us on June 22 , 1990 . Members of the Commission also
attended the public hearing held on July 9 , 1990. We have the
following comments to submit at this time.
The concept of this project is supported by the Commission
because this project has the potential of removing substantial
traffic from two very important historic areas ( 1)
Federal/Essex/Chestnut Streets and ( 2 ) Bridge Street/Salem Common
area. This reduction in the numbers of cars and their noise and
pollution is seen as a very positive benefit to Salem' s historic
resources.
However, there are several areas of the Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report which do not appear to address the
impact of the widening of Bridge Street in sufficient detail.
Our concerns are as follows :
1. District Boundaries - The boundaries of the McIntire
Local Historic District are incorrectly drawn on the
graphic materials (both the handout and the wall
mounted plans ) supplied at the public hearing. The
local McIntire Historic District is not shown on any
of the plans included in the draft Environmental
Impact Report. The statement, "The rear yards of 4
of these (properties in the Chestnut Street/McIntire
districts ) back up to Bridge Street" (page 4-30 ) is
Page 2
incorrect. There are approximatley 16 properties in
the McIntire Local Historic District which directly
abut Bridge Street and the areas of proposed
reconstruction. There are 8 properties in the
Chestnut Street National Register District and 3
properties in the Federal Street National Register
District which abut Bridge Street.
2 . Bridge Street from Flint to North Streets - We are
not in disagreeement with the need to widen Bridge
Street, but the statement "Because the proposed
project does not encroach into the Historic
Districts, the proposed project will have no effect
on the Historic District. " is erroneous . This area
of Bridge Street is an important northern boundary
to two National Register Districts, to one National
Landmark property and to the largest and most
important of Salem' s local historic districts .
There are over 400 structures in the McIntire Local
Historic District of which 5 are National Register
Properties and 2 are National Landmarks . Before the
North River was channelled, it was much wider in
this area and all of the properties along the north
side of Federal Street and the adjacent streets
abutted the river. In fact, 300 years ago the North
River in this area was known as the Blue Danube
because of its great beauty. The DPW' s removal of
the old factories and other buildings to clear for
the widening of Bridge Street does make this area
more open and, therefore, it begins to have some of
the visual characteristics of the 17901s. However,
a four lane, high speed road with break down lanes
and guard rails is not visually in character with
this small scale, residential neighborhood. The
edges of historic districts are very important, and
this north edge is particularly siginificant because
it is highly visible to almost all visitors to
Salem. Therefore, it is important that careful
consideration be given to landscaping and providing
a generous buffer/transition area between the new
modern road and this 18th century, residential
neighborhood. Section 4 . 18 states, "For the portion
of the project corridor between North Street and
Boston Street, the overwhelming visual image is of
the generally rundown and neglected appearance of
the railyard and the North River Canal . " is no
longer correct. Since the 1970 ' s, a number of
residential properties along the southern boundary
of Bridge Street have been extensively renovated.
This includes the Pierce Nichols House, a National
Landmark, which abuts Bridge Street. The entire
district has seen millions of dollars in private
investment during the past 15 years . There has been
a tremendous amount of perservation and restoration
Page 3
in this district. Therefore, the Commission feels
that sensitve expansion of Bridge Street is very
important . The Draft Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report does not adequately address the issues
of landscaping, traffic noise buffering or other
issues which would assist in making a four lane
highway compatible with the historic district. The
Commission requests a detailed plan of proposed
improvements to determine how the above concerns are
addressed.
3 . The canal - The removal of the canal seems
regretable . However, its historic significance has
been reviewed by a private consultant and concurred
with by Massachusetts Historical Commission. The
conclusion appears to be that it is not eligible for
the National Register and its local significance is
not great enough to warrant its preservation. Based
on the advise of the City ' s consultant, the
Commission concurs with the decision to move the
canal .
4 . Archaeological resources - Section 5. 19 states that
"after extensive field surveys . . . it was determined
that there are no significant resources in the
project corridor. " Since the Commission has not
been provided a final report ( s ) which includes the
entire project area (Bridge, By-Pass Road & Bridge
Street reconstruction) , we cannot concur with the
finding that there are no archaeological resources .
5. Land taking - It has come to the attention of the
Commission that the DPW is proposing to take a
portion of land at 1 Harrington Court ( located in
the McIntire Historic District) for road widening.
We could not find any reference of such taking in
the report, yet the property owner has stated they
had been notified. The Commission requires the
opportunity to review this and any other proposed
land takings as any land takings in an historic
district appear to be inappropriate.
6 . The Federal Street National Register District - We
understand that this section of the proposed. project
has not been designed yet, therefore, we cannot
comment at this time. However, landscaping and
buffering should be considered here as well.
7 . The Bridge - Although the Commission feels that a
lower bridge would be more in keeping with the scale
of the historic Beverly Harbor, we do not see that
the proposed bridge will have a negative impact on
Salem' s historic districts .
Page 4
Based on the above remarks , the Commission feels that the
Draft Supplementary Environmental Impact Report is incomplete and
that there are outstanding issues that require further
information for our review and comment. Again, these include a
detailed plan of landscaping, buffering and other improvements to
lessen the impact on the historic districts and properties , a
final archaeological report ( s ) for the entire project area and a
plan of any proposed land takings in historic districts .
Thank you for your consideration of Salem' s historic and
archaeological resources .
Sincerely,
LGI1 ie c(
THE SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Annie C. Harris
Chairman
cc : Secretary John DeVillars
Brona Simon, MHC
Ellen DiGeronimo, MDPW
Jane Garvey, MPDW
James Hoyte, EOEA
J3719
r;
low
Salem dist®rice!� �ra�missi®n
ONE SALEM GREEN.SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970
(517) 745-9595. EXT. 311
July 24, 1990
By Hand
Frank A. Bracaglia, Deputy Chief Engineer
Massachusetts Department of Public Works
10 Park Plaza
Room 4261
Boston, MA 02116
Re: Draft Supplemental Environment Impact Report
Salem-Beverly Transportation Project, Project No. 0756
Dear Mr. Bracaglia:
The Salem Historical Commission would like to correct an inadvertent
but potentially significant error contained within the July 17, 1990 letter of our
chairperson, Annie C. Harris, to you, giving the Commission's initial response to
the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report relative to the Salem-
Beverly Transportation Project. Given time constraints and summer vacation
schedules the Commission was not able to review the letter prior to its mailing.
The error in question occurs in the opening clause to the first sentence in
Section no. 2 of Ms. Harris' letter (i.e. found on page 2), wherein she writes:
"We are not in disagreement with the need to widen Bridge Street . . . "
The position we intended to convey is that while we support improving
traffic flow between Washington and Boston Streets, we nevertheless oppose
the widening of Bridge Street as a specific means of accomplishing that
objective.
The problem with widening Bridge Street from two to four lanes, as
recently proposed by the DPW, is that it maximizes the adverse consequences
that will be inflicted on the adjacent 18th and 19th century neighborhood, which
is both a local Historic District established pursuant to Chapter 40C of the
Massachusetts General Laws (known as the McIntire Historic District), and is on
the National Register of Historic Places. These adverse consequences include
Frank A. Bracaglia 2 July 24, 1990
but are not limited to increased traffic, noise, vibration, atmospheric pollution,
visual polution (including through lighting and signage), and safety problems,
among others.
Also, by locating the new roadway at the very edge of the Historic District,
as opposed to further out in the North River basin on land that had been
previously taken and cleared by the DPW specifically for that purpose, there is
literally no room to effectuate any kind of meaningful measures that would
mitigate these adverse consequences. In this sense we feel the proposed
widening of Bridge Street represents the worst of both possible worlds in terms
of the maximum adverse consequences it causes the adjacent McIntire Historic
District, and the minimum opportunities it offers for mitigating those adverse
consequences.
Fortunately we feel there is a way of addressing the need for improved
traffic flow at that particular location, while minimizing any adverse impact to the
adjacent Historic District caused by said traffic improvements.
What we favor is retaining the existing Bridge Street as a local two lane
street, and building a new two lane by-pass road beginning at or west of Flint
Street and tieing back into Bridge Street more or less in the area of the present
Box Car Cafe. The by-pass road would be located sufficiently beyond the
present railroad tracks to create an adequate buffer zone between the by-pass
road and the McIntire Historic District, which would be thickly landscaped to
absorb the noise and pollution of the increased by-pass traffic and would
visually screen same. This should be possible without encroaching on the
proposed linear park at the edge of the present North River canal, and indeed,
should complement it.
Inasmuch as the DPW has completed the taking and demolition of all of
the properties formerly located in the North River basin, and that each of the
previous DPW plans (evolving over a period of years) called for locating the
roadway in this area, reasonably removed from the McIntire Historic District, we
feel this is a practical, workable, and immediate solution to the various
competing interests. We also feel that crossing the present little-used railroad
tracks should not constitute an insurmountable problem, particularly since
grade crossings of the same tracks were incorporated as part of the recent
substantial traffic improvements in Peabody Square.
Again, we want to dispel any possible inference, however inadvertent, in
Ms. Harris'July 17, 1990 letter that we favor the proposed widening of Bridge
Street, and want to go on record now, even before the 106 review, so that no
unnecessary time or money will be wasted pursuing a design that only raises
new and serious problems in different areas.
Frank A. Bracaglia 3 July 24, 1990
Unfortunately Ms. Harris, who is on vacation, is the only member of our
Commission who could not be located to join in this letter.
Salem Historical Commission
John H. Carr, Jr., Vice Chairman
Walter H. Cook
Roger Hedstrom
Richard Oedel
Daniel Pierce
Russell Slam
cc Secretary John DeVillars, Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Brona Simon, Massachusetts Historical Commission
Ellen DiGeronimo, Massachusetts DPW
Jane Garvey, Massachusetts DPW
Mayor Neil Harrington
Councillor Kevin Harvey
�JTS
t117,
-7 -0 Af All S SNO
nPt
0
07ZWealth
January 18, 1991
Anthony Fusco
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
55 Broadway, 10th floor
Cambridge, MA 02142
RE: Beverly-Salem Bridge and Bypass Project
Dear Mr. Fusco:
Thank you for submitting additional information on the Beverly-Salem Bridge
and Bypass project, which were received on January 8, 1991 . Staff of the MHC
have reviewed the materials you submitted and have the following comments.
As you are aware, the cities of Salem and Beverly, the Beverly Historic
District Commission, the Salem Historical Commission, and the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation, among others, have expressed an interest in
participating in the "Section 106" consultation for this project. The MHC
recommends that a copy of the documentation you submitted be sent to the
consulting and interested parties for review and comment.
In reviewing the information you submitted, the MHC is unable to concur with
the "no effect" finding you have made without the following additional
information:
1 ) The MHC is not able to evaluate the National Register eligibility of the
Register eligibility i L
See-Side Eye Clinic in Beverly without information on the post-1890 changes to
the building and its usage. Despite having been moved historically, the
building may have significance in the 1890-1941 period. Were there other
buildings associated with it during this period that no longer stand? How was
the building modified during this period and what were its uses? The MHC
requests that a MHC Inventory Building Form be completed that addresses these
questions and that photograph(s)iits main elevation(s). be included.
2) The description of effects to the Fish Flake Hill Historic District does
not clearly evaluate the effects of the proposed bridge to the enlarged
National Register district. The effects of the proposal on the enlarged
historic district should be more fully described, e.g. , the distance of the
proposed bridge approach to the district; how the bridge and its approach will
visually affect the character and setting of the district. While the
illustrations you submitted present an overview perpective, additional
Massachusetts Historical Commission,Judith B.McDonough,Executive Director, State Historic Preservation Officer
80 Boylston Street,Boston, Massachusetts 02116 (617) 7278470
Office of the Secretary of State, Michael J. Connolly,Secretary
Photographs showing existing and proposed project conditions from key vantage
points within and adjacent to the Fish Flake Hill Historic District would be
very helpful .
3) The discussions of the potential of the Ferry Landing area in Beverly and
Blubber Hollow area in Salem to contain intact, significant archaeological
resources are generally lacking a description and assessment of the existing
subsurface conditions. Examination of any available soil boring logs or other
geotechnical data might be helpful in assessing subsurface integrity as well
as illustrations showing the locations of modern utilities and other
documented disturbances.
4) The modifications to the widening of Bridge Street in Salem indicate that
Bridge Street will be relocated at some distance to the north of the edge of
the McIntire District, which will act as a "buffer" to the district. The
nature of this "buffer" should be more fully described. What types of land
use, landscaping or tree-plantings are contemplated?
5) The comments of the consulting and interested parties should be provided
to the MHC.
These comments are offered to assist in compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800).
Staff of the 14HC would be happy to meet with you and the interested parties in
reviewing the documentation you submitted. If you have any questions or
require further assistance, please feel free to contact Brona Simon, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer, at this office.
Sincerely,
J ith B. McDonough
Executive Director
State Historic Preservation Officer
Massachusetts Historical Commission
xc: George Turner, MDPW
Ellen DiGeronimo, MDPW
Don Klima, ACHP
Beverly Historic District Commission
Salem Historical Commission
Salem Planning Dept. '
I
�M,60NUlT,��G
y i
p>CY Bpc
Salem Historical Commission
ONE SALEM GREEN. SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
March 6, 1991
Mr. Anthony J. Fusco
Division Administrator
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration, Region One
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
Cambridge, MA 02142
Re: Section 106 Review
Salem Beverly Transportation Project
Mass Project BR-F-54(005)
Dear Mr. Fusco:
We appreciate the opportunity to review the latest plans for the Salem
Beverly Transportation project, as part of the continuing 106 Review Process.
As it has always been, our first and foremost concern is the extent to
which the proposed Bridge Street by-pass road will adversely effect the
adjacent eighteenth and nineteenth century residential neighborhood between
North and Flint Streets, which is both a federal and state historic district, and
includes several properties individually listed on the National Register.
Inasmuch as the proposed project represents increasing Bridge Street
from two to four lanes, and changing the character of the street to an intra-city
four lane by-pass road, the danger is that if it is not done right, the project will
significantly increase the existing levels of traffic, noise, air pollution, vibration,
and other intrusive elements, which are already at or above tolerable levels,
even for a two lane street.
You may recall that the plan that was first unveiled in the Summer of
1990 was (and is) totally unacceptable because it called for locating the new
four lane undivided road on the site of the existing Bridge Street, i.e. at the very
edge of the historic district, thereby maximizing the adverse effect of the
proposed new roadway, while at the same time, precluding any meaningful
measures to mitigate those adverse effects.
Since then the Salem Historic Commission ("SHC") has worked closely
with the Mass. Department of Public Works ("DPW"), the Mayor's office, the
Massachusetts Historic Commission ("MHC"), and various neighborhood
groups in an attempt to arrive at an acceptable design that would not only
address Salem's need for improved vehicular access, but as important, one
which would minimize the adverse consequences caused to the adjacent
historic district by the project.
We feel we have gone a long way toward meeting that goal. And while
we are confident that we will be able to resolve the remaining issues, it should
be stressed that unless those issues are satisfactorily resolved, we would not be
able to concur in the DPWs assessment that the project has "no effect' on the
adjacent historic district.
The major improvement in the present plan, over the previous two plans
since last summer, is the extent to which the enlarged roadway is being moved
away from the historic district. Basically the present plan calls for the new four
lane road to curve away from the neighborhood beginning at Flint Street
(heading east) and return to the present Bridge Street more or less where it
presently intersects with the overpass off-ramp. This effectively creates the
potential for a buffer zone varying in width between five and thirty feet.
Also, instead of an undivided roadway, the present plan now calls for a
fifteen foot median strip dividing the two twelve foot wide eastbound and
westbound traveling lanes.
The practical effect of all of this is that the existing two lanes which are
currently at the edge of the historic district are being moved out between five
and thirty feet, and the two new lanes are being located sixty-nine feet away
from the existing southerly curb of Bridge Street (i.e. thirty foot buffer, at its
widest point, plus two eastbound traveling lanes at twelve feet each plus fifteen
foot median strip). Further, the plan calls for the two new lanes to be screened
by plantings in the median strip.
Obviously our first preference is that the by-pass road be moved even
further to the north, to provide the widest possible distance between it and the
adjacent neighborhood, since that is the most effective way of minimizing the
adverse effects of the enlarged roadway. But we are told by the DPW that that
would involve realigning the railroad tracks even further to the north, which
would not be possible without building a new railroad bridge over the canal,
which the state cannot afford. Obviously we lack the means to judge the track
relocation issue for ourselves.
Nevertheless we are willing to accept the proposed roadway as it is
presently sited, provided that the remaining details are satisfactorily resolved.
Unfortunately the present plans are completely unfinished regarding those
remaining details which concern us the most, and about which the ultimate
success or failure of the project (in terms of how it will ultimately impact the
historic district) will depend.
As noted above, the median strip and buffer are absolutely key to the
mitigation of the project. If they are to work at all, they must be thickly planted
with mature trees and shrubs which can simultaneously serve as a year-round
visual screen, a noise barrier, and (in the case of the buffer) a transition
between the neighborhood and the roadway.
2
J
All of these goals would be defeated if the planting were sparce, or if
significant gaps were allowed in either the buffer or the median strip. In short, it
is imperative that the median strip and buffer constitute a consistent green
corridor, with as few breaks or gaps as possible, ideally none with respect to the
median strip and only those which are absolutely necessary with respect to the
buffer.
Given that the roadway is intended to serve as a major gateway to
Salem's downtown this will also have the effect of balancing and integrating the
new four-lane roadway with the new'waterfront park to the north, and the buffer
to the south, thereby further "softening" the impact of the overall project. In
short, what looks best, actually works best.
In this regard, we want to emphasize that the most troubling aspect of the
new plans is the extent to which they are unfinished with respect to the areas in
front of the commercial establishments on the southerly side of Bridge Street,
i.e. Alpha Auto Sales, Magarian's Carpets, the Gulf Station and Universal
Trading. It is imperative that there be a green buffer in front of these
establishments, and that it tie in with the rest of the green corridor. (We feel this
can be accomplished without unduly limiting legitimate commercial visibility of
their businesses.) The one thing we do not want to see happen, however, is the
expansion of these businesses or their activities into the newly-created open
space in front, which would completely destroy the whole visual and functional
objectives of the buffer.
Similarly, before we can join in a "no effect" determination, we will need
to see similar details regarding the following points:
a. Lighting This must be of a style and scale compatible with the context
of the adjacent neighborhood. We would want to see proposed locations and
numbers of proposed lamps, their footcandle levels, and the extent to which any
pedestrian lighting is contemplated, and the specifics of same. Clearly we
would want the lighting to be directed toward the road and not "spill over" into
the adjacent neighborhood.
b. Pedestrian Walkways We would want to see the location, materials,
dimensions, and colors of any proposed walkways, including the specifics of
any amenities such as benches. Pedestrian walkways must not be at the
expense of the planting buffer, however.
c. Curbcuts and Curbing We would want to see specifics on these as
well, particularly (as noted above) with respect to the areas in front of Alpha
Auto Sales, the Gulf Station, Magarian's Carpets, and Universal Wrecking, and
the bottom of Lynn and Carpenter Streets. You may also want to consult with
the residents of Carpenter, Lynn, and River Streets to explore the feasibility and
appropriateness of closing off said streets, and in such event, how best to
integrate the resulting new space into the project. There should be no curb cuts
in the median strip, not only for safety reasons, but also because of the erosion
3
J
that will cause to the function of the median strip as a noise and visual barrier.
Curbing should be granite, and should have the appropriate dimensions.
d. Planting Materials As noted above, the plantings should be
substantial and should be chosen to provide year-round noise and visual
screening. We will want to see specifics of plant types, size, and proposed
locations, and how they are intended to accomplish the foregoing goals.
e. Traffic Signals We want to see locations and style (i.e. no mastarms),
and information with respect to how they will control the speed and flow of
traffic, which will have a direct impact on the resulting noise levels caused to the
adjacent neighborhood.
f. Roadway Design The present plans omit any details with respect to
the number of lanes, their width etc. (We have obtained the information recited
above from previous meetings with DPW officials, but we are unable to confirm
their previous representations from the latest plans.) Obviously we would have
to have precise information on this as well.
g. We would also like to see similar specificity regarding the proposed
waterfront park, which we regard as an integral part of the project, inasmuch as
it will have the effect of further "softening" the project's overall impact . We have
been told that the Park will be basically bounded by the (reconfigured) canal to
the north, the overpass to the east, the new roadway and tracks to the south,
and Flint Street to the west, and that there will be no light or office industrial
park, which would otherwise undermine the mitigation goals that we are
attempting to accomplish. We are relying upon those representations.
h. We would also like additional specificity concerning the following
major traffic interchanges adjacent to the historic district and other nearby
historic properties, including the dimensions, set backs to historic buildings and
property lines, overall roadway widths, number of lanes, relative locations of
existing and proposed curb lines, and the height and details of construction for
the by-pass viaduct:
i. The Bridge Street/North Street interchange abutting the Pierce Nichols
House, the Federal Street National Register District, and the McIntire Historic
District
ii. The Bridge Street, Washington Street and by-pass road intersection
abutting the Federal Street National Register District, the Bessie Monroe House
and the First Universalist Church (both National Register Properties)
Finally, we concur with the MHC's findings in its January 18, 1991 letter
that it cannot agree with the DPW's "no effect" determination until it receives the
information requested in said letter.
Again, the necessity of the above-described information and
documentation should not obscure the fact that considerable progress has been
4
J
made to date, and that what remains to be done is relatively easy by
comparison. Considerable credit for this belongs to all of the parties
enumerated at the beginning of this letter, who have worked so hard for the last
nine months participating in the 106 Review process.
Still, because the ultimate success or failure of the plan depends on how
the remaining details are handled, we must warn that we would not be able to
"sign off" on the project until we are convinced that the foregoing questions are
satisfactorily answered. We have every confidence that that will be possible,
however.
Thank you again for your continuing consideration. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. We look forward to receiving
the above information as soon as possible, and we promise to expeditiously
respond to same following our receipt.
Very truly yours,
Annie Clay Harris, Chairman
Enc.
cc Annie C. Harris, Chairman
John H. Carr, Jr., Vice Chairman
Walter H. Cook
Roger Hedstrom
Richard Odel
Daniel Hubbard Pierce
Russell Slam
Kevin Stanton
5
a
17
Salem Historical Commission
ONE SALEM GREEN,SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970
(617) 745-9595. EXT. 311
March 7, 1991
Mr. Anthony J. Fusco
Division Administrator
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration, Region One
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
Cambridge, MA 02142
Project: Beverly-Salem Transportation Project
(Salem-Beverly Bridge, Bridge Street By-Pass, Bridge Street
Reconstruction)
Reference: Mass. Project BR-F-54 (005)
Beverly-Salem
HB-MA
Subject: Section 106 Documentation Review Comments pursuant to the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
Dear Mr. Fusco:
We appreciate the opportunity io review the latest plans for the Salem
Beverly Transportation project, as part of the continuing 106 Review Process.
As it has always been, our first and foremost concern is the extent to which
the proposed Bridge Street by-pass road will adversely effect the adjacent
eighteenth and nineteenth century residential neighborhood between North and
Flint Streets, which is both a federal and state historic district, and includes
several properties individually listed on the National Register.
Inasmuch as the proposed project represents increasing Bridge Street from
two to four lanes and changing the character of the street to an intra-city four
lane by-pass road, the danger is that if it is not done right, the project will .
significantly increase the existing levels of traffic, noise, air pollution, vibration,
and other intrusive elements, which are already at or above tolerable levels, even
for a two lane street.
You may recall that the plan that was first unveiled in the Summer of 1990
was (and is) totally unacceptable because it called for locating the new four lane
undivided road on the site of the existing Bridge Street, i.e. at the very edge of the
historic district, thereby maximizing the adverse effect of the proposed new
r
r
roadway, while at the same time, precluding any meaningful measures to mitigate
those adverse effects.
Since then, the Salem Historic Commission (SHS) has worked closely with the
Massachusetts Department of Public Works (MDPW), the Mayor's office, the
Massachusetts Historic Commission (MHC), and various neighborhood groups in an
attempt to arrive at an acceptable design that would not only address Salem's need
for improved vehicular access but, as important, one which would minimize the
adverse consequences caused to the adjacent historic district by the project.
We feel we have gone a long way toward meeting that goal. While we are
confident that we will be able to resolve the remaining issues, it should be stressed
that unless those issues are satisfactorily resolved, we would not be able to concur
with the MDPW's assessment that the project has "no effect" on the adjacent
historic district.
The major improvement in the present plan, over the previous two plans since
last summer, is the extent to which the enlarged roadway is being moved away
from the historic district. Basically, the present plan calls for the-new four lane
road to curve away from the neighborhood beginning at Flint Street (heading east)
and return to the present Bridge Street more or less where it presently intersects
with the overpass off-ramp. This effectively creates the potential for a buffer
zone varying in width between five and thirty feet. Also, instead of an undivided
roadway, the present plan now calls for a fifteen foot median strip dividing the two
twelve foot wide eastbound and westbound traveling lanes.
The practical effect of all of this is that the existing two lanes which are
currently at the edge of the historic district are being moved out between five and
thirty feet, and the two new lanes are being located sixty-nine feet away from the
existing southerly curb of Bridge Street (i.e. thirty foot buffer, at its widest point,
plus two eastbound traveling lanes at twelve feet each plus fifteen foot median
strip). Further, the plan calls for the two new lanes to be screened by plantings in
the median strip.
Obviously, our first preferencelis that the by-pass road be moved even
further to the north, in order to provide the widest possible distance between it an
the adjacent neighborhood, since that is the most effective way of minimizing the
adverse effects of the enlarged roadway. However, we are told by the MDPW that
that would involve realigning the railroad tracks even further to the north, which
would not be possible without building a new railroad bridge over the canal, which
the state cannot afford. Obviously, we lack the means to judge the track
relocation issue for ourselves.
Nevertheless, we are willing to accept the proposed roadway as it is presently
sited provided that the remaining details are satisfactorily resolved.
Unfortunately, the present plans are completely unfinished regarding those
remaining details which concern us the most, and about which the ultimate success
or failure of the project (in terms of how it will ultimately impact the historic
district) will depend.
As noted above, the median strip and buffer are absolutely key to the
mitigation of the project. If they are to work at all, they must be thickly planted
i
1
with mature trees and shrubs which can simultaneously serve as a year-round visual
screen, a noise barrier, and (in the case of the buffer) a transition between the
neighborhood and the roadway.
All of these goals would be defeated if the planting were sparce, or if
significant gaps were allowed in either the buffer or the median strip. In short, it
is imperative that the median strip and buffer constitute a consistent green
corridor with as few breaks or gaps as possible, ideally none with respect to the
median strip and only those which are absolutely necessary with respect to the
buffer.
Given that the roadway is intended to serve as a major gateway to Salem's
downtown, this will also have the effect of balancing and integrating the new four-
lane roadway with the new waterfront park to the north, and the buffer to the
south, thereby further "softening" the impact of the overall project. In short, what
looks best, actually works best.
In this regard, we want to emphasize that the most troubling aspect of the
new plans is the extent to which they are unfinished with respect-to the areas in
front of the commercial establishments on the southerly side of Bridge Street, i.e.
Alphas Auto Sales, Magarian's Carpets, the Gulf Station and Universal Trading. It
is imperative that there be a green buffer in front of these establishments, and
that it tie in with the rest of the green corridor. (We feel this can be accomplished
without unduly limiting legitimate commercial visibility of their businesses.) The
one thing we do not want to see happen, however, is the expansion of these
businesses or their activities into the newly-created open space in front, which
would completely destroy the whole visual and functional objectives of the buffer.
Similarly, before we can join in a "no effect" determination, we will need to
see similar details regarding the following points:
A. Lighting - This must be of a style and scale compatible with the context
of the adjacent neighborhood. We would want to see proposed locations and
numbers of proposed lamps, their footcandle levels, the extent to which any
pedestrian lighting is contemplated, and the specifics of same. Clearly we would
want the lighting to be directed toward the road and not "spill over" into the
adjacent neighborhood.
B. Pedestrian Walkways - We would want to see the location, materials,
dimensions, and colors of any proposed walkways, including the specifics of any
amenities such as benches. Pedestrian walkways must not be at the expense of the
planting buffer, however.
C. Curbcuts and Curbin - We would want to see specifics on these as well,
particularly as noted above with respect to the areas in front of Alpha Auto Sales,
the Gulf Station, Magarian's Carpets, and Universal Wrecking, and the bottom of
Lynn and Carpenter Streets. You may also want to consult with the residents of
Carpenter, Lynn and River Streets to explore the feasibility and appropriateness of
closing off said streets and, in such event, how best to integrate the resulting new
space into the project. There should be no curb cuts in the median strip, not only
for safety reasons, but also because of the erosion that will cause to the function
of the median strip as a noise and visual barrier. Curbing should be granite, and
should have the appropriate dimensions.
D. Planting Materials - As noted above, the plantings should be substantial
and should be chosen to provide year-round noise and visual screening. We will
want to see specifics of plant types, size and proposed locations, and how they are
intended to accomplish the foregoing goals.
E. Traffic Signals - We want to see locations and style (i.e. no mastarms),
and information with respect to how they will control the speed and flow of traffic,
which will have a direct impact on the resulting noise levels caused to the adjacent
neighborhood.
F. Roadway Design - The present plans omit any details with respect to the
number of lanes, their width, etc. (We have obtained the information recited above
from previous meetings with MDPW officials, but we are unable to confirm their
previous representations from the latest plans.) Obviously, we would have to have
precise information on this as well.
G. We would also like to see similar specificity regarding the proposed
waterfront park, which we regard as an integral part of the proje®E; inasmuch as it
will have the effect of further "softening" the project's overall impact. We have
been told that the park will be basically bounded by the (reconfigured) canal to the
north, the overpass to the east, the new roadway and tracks to the south, and Flint
Street to the west, and that there will be no light or office industrial park, which
would otherwise undermine the mitigation goals that we are attempting to
accomplish. We are relying upon those representations.
H. We would also like additional specificity concerning the following major
traffic interchanges adjacent to the historic district and other nearby historic
properties, including the dimensions, set backs to historic buildings and property
lines, overall roadway widths, number of lanes, relative locations of existing and
proposed curb lines, and the height and details of construction for the by-pass
viaduct;
1. The Bridge Street/North Street interchange abutting the Peirce
Nichols House, the Federal Str4et National Register District, and the
McIntire Historic District; and
2. The Bridge Street, Washington Street and by-pass road intersection
abutting the Federal Street National Register District, the Bessie Monroe
House and the First Universalist Church (both National Register Properties).
Finally, we concur with the MHC's findings in its January 18, 1991 letter that
it cannot agree with the MDPW's "no effect" determination until it receives the
information requested in said letter.
Again, the necessity of the above-described information and documentation
should not obscure the fact that considerable progress has been made to date, and
that what remains to be done is relatively easy by comparison. Considerable credit
for this belongs to all of the parties enumerated at the beginning of this letter, who
have worked so hard for the last nine months participating in the 106 Review
process.
Still, because the ultimate success or failure of the plan depends on how the
remaining details are handled, we must warn that we would not be able to "sign
off" on the project until we are convinced that the foregoing questions are
r
w
satisfactorily answered. We have every confidence that that will be possible,
however.
Thank you again for your continuing consideration. If you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to contact us. We look forward to receiving the above
information as soon as possible, and we promise to expeditiously respond to same
following its receipt.
Ctfully,
THE SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Annie Clay Harris, Chairman.
John H. Car, Jr., Vice Chairman
Walter H. Cook
Russell Slam
Richard Oedel
Daniel Hubbard Pierce
Roger Hedstrom
Kevin Stanton
cc: Mr. James Elliott, MDPW
Mr. George R. Turner, Jr., MDPW
Ms. Judith B. McDonough, MHC
Mr. Don L. Klima, ACHP
Beverly Historic District Commission
The Salem Planning Department
Mr. James R. Treadwell
M15WP
SYYaONW7, _
N .4�
Salem Historical Commission .
ONE SALEM GREEN. SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS01970
June 10, 1991
By FAX (617-973-8035)
Frank A. Bracaglia, Deputy Chief Engineer
Project Development
Massachusetts Department of Public Works
10 Park Plaza, Room 4261
Boston, MA 02116
0
Re: f=inal Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Salem/Beverly Transportation Project
EOEA Numbe(0756
Dear Mr. Bracaglia:
ou
the last twelve months the
Commission has worked rClosely with the Departmentf Salem Historical
the
Mayor's Office of the City of Salem, the Massachusetts Historical Commission,
concerned neighbors, preservation groups, and other interested parties in an
effort to minimize the substantial adverse effects that otherwise would have
been caused to the adjacent national and state historic districts (i.e. mainly
bordering the project between Flint and Washington Streets in Salem) by the
original project design.
Thanks to the cooperation of all concerned, we feel we have come a long
way toward accomplishing that objective.
However, notwithstanding the progress that has been made to date, we
feel we can not join in the "No Effect" determination by your Department in the
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, at least at this time.
Basically we feel that if the project is implemented faithfully according to
the latest modified designs, taking into account the comments we made in our
March 6, 1991 letter to Anthony J. Fusco, Division Administrator, U.S.
Department of Transportation, the adverse effects caused by the project will be
acceptably minimized. We are enclosing a copy of said letter, which is
incorporated herein by reference.
JUtt lU '91 IT:4e CITE j{- SCCEl9. hl
P.3
Frank A. Bracaglia 2 June 10, 1991
On the other hand, if the project is not strictly and faithfully implemented,
and we point out there are still key details remaining to be worked out, primarily
landscaping and illumination, as more particularly set forth in the enclosed
letter, we feet the potential adverse effects caused by the project could be
severe.
In this sense, the question is not whether constructing a new four lane by-
pass road so near to the adjacent historic districts will have an adverse effect on
the districts, such as through increased noise and air pollution, vibration,
illumination spill-over etc., but whether those adverse effects will be kept to an
acceptable minimum level. Again, because there are critical (albeit specific)
design details still to be worked out, upon which the success of the whole
project depends (in terms of its impact on the adjacent historic district), we feel
we cannot join in your Department's "No effect' determination until those issues
are Successfully resolved.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, based on our experience to date, we
have every confidence that those design details can and will be successfully
resolved, and in a timely manner, particularly since the comparatively much
tougher problem--i.e. arriving at an acceptable overall conceptual design--is
now behind us.
For our part we look forward to working with you as soon as possible so
that the specific remaining design issues (see enclosed letter) can be resolved
at the earliest opportunity.
Very truly yours,
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
John H. arr, Jr., Vice hair an'
Enc.
cc Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Federal Advisory Council
Brona Simon, Massachusetts Historical Commission
'in the absence of the Chairman, who is on vacation
1991
4MiSSN
June 28, 1991 '�"onWeal.ttt to
Anthony Fusco
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
55 Broadway, 10th floor
Cambridge, MA 02142
ATTN: Arthur Churchill
RE: Beverly-Salem Bridge and Bypass Project
Dear Mr. Fusco:
Thank you for submitting additional information on the Beverly-Salem Bridge
and Bypass project, which was received at this office on June 17, 1991 . Staff
of the MHC have reviewed the materials you submitted and have the following
comments.
The MHC disagrees with a number of your findings concerning the effects of the
proposed Beverly-Salem transportation project will have on significant
historic resources. The MHC has reviewed the project information you
submitted, as well as observations made on site visits and the scaled model of
the proposed bridge over the Danvers River, and has concluded the following:
Bridge Street Widening, Salem
The proposed widening of Bridge Street is located adjacent to the McIntire/
Chestnut Street and Federal Street Historic Districts and the Peirce-Nichols
House, properties which are listed or eligible for listing in the National
Register (see enclosed Summary Sheet) . The proposed modification of the
project design to locate the widened Bridge Street 30 feet to the North of the
McIntire District has helped to reduce the visual effects that the new roadway
will have on the character and setting of this historic district. However,
the increase in width of Bridge Street from two lanes to four lanes, might
tend to islolate the historic district unless the "buffer area" proposed
between the roadway and the district is suitably landscaped. Thus, I have
determined that the proposed widening of Bridge Street will have "no adverse
effect" on the McIntire/Chestnut Street District provided that the following
condition is met: Landscape plans and proposed configurations of streetlights
and traffic signals are submitted to the MHC and the Salem Historical
Commission for review and approval , as they become more fully developed. The
MHC recommends that mature trees and other vegetation be planted which will
serve as "living" screen to visually obscure the views of the new roadway from
Massachusetts Historical Commission,Judith B.McDonough,Executive Director,State Historic Preservation Officer
80 Boylston Street,Boston, Massachusetts 02116 (617) 727-8470
Office of the Secretary of State, Michael J. Connolly,Secretary
the historic district and that streetlights and traffic signals are designed
to be compatible with the adjacent historic district.
The proposed roadwork along Bridge Street adjacent to the Federal Street
Historic District will have "no effect" on this National Register district.
The proposed roadwork along Bridge Street in the vicinity of Blubber Hollow is
unlikely to affect significant, intact archaeological deposits associated with
the "Blubber Hollow" area of Salem. Review of the project design plans
indicates that only a small area of ground will be impacted by roadwork and
that this impact area has been previously disturbed by prior roadwork and
buried utilities. Thus, the degree of subsurface disturbance and the highly
localized nature of the project impact area (the principal core of "Blubber
Hollow" is located at a considerable distance to the north of the project
area) precludes the likelihood that any signifcant, intact archaeological
deposits are present.
The MHC has determined that the Salem Signal Tower possesses sufficient
integrity of workmanship, materials, setting, and association to be eligible
for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under criteria A, C
and D at the local level of significance (see MHC 's comments of May 30, 1991
and July 25, 1990) . Since you disagree with MHC 's opinion on the applicable
criteria of significance of the Signal Tower, you should now seek a
determination of eligibility from the Keeper of the National Register at the
National Park Service in Washington, D.C. (36 CFR 800.4(c)(4)) . The MHC has
determined that the proposed moving of the Signal Tower would constitute an
"adverse effect" since the moving of the structure will result in damage and
alteration of the property and its setting (36 CFR 800.9(b)(1 ) & (3) ). I
agree that the proposed new location for the structure, alongside the railroad
tracks is appropriate to the historical significance and association of the
Tower, and, thus, the adverse effect is acceptable. The fact the the Tower
has already been moved in the past further strengthens this determination. A
Memorandum of Agreement should be drafted, which should include stipulations
which would mitigate the adverse effect of moving the structure. The
stipulations should include the following : that a detailed reuse plan be
developed for the structure which will insure its continued viability and
active use; that the moving be conducted by a team qualified to move historic
buildings; that the moving meet the Secretary of Interior's Guidelines for
moving historic buildings; that rehabilitation of the Tower for its reuse meet
the Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings.
I agree that the project will have no effect on the Peirce-Nichols House,
since there are no changes proposed in the project area which abuts this
National Historic Landmark.
Finally, the MHC has determined that the North Canal is not eligible for
listing in the National Register, due to its lack of historical significance
(see MHC's 5/30/91 comments) .
New Beverly-Salem Bridge
Review of the materials submitted to the MHC as well as observations made of
the project model and during site visits indicates that the proposed new
bridge and approach roadway on the Beverly side of the project will have an
adverse Effect on Fish Flake Hill Historic District by isolating the historic
district from its setting and by introducing visual elements which are out of
character with the district and its setting (36 CFR 800.9(b)(2 & 3).
Since the time the project EIS was filed, the boundaries of the Fish Flake
Hill Historic District have been enlarged. Currently, Fish Flake Hill
Historic District, a property which is listed in the National Register of
Historic Places, directly abuts the project area at the location of the
approach roadway to the bridge. The proposed approach roadway configuration
where the bridge touches down in Beverly will result in a much larger increase
in the amount and elevation of actual roadways than existing conditions.
Thus, the approach will create a wide expanse of blacktop on the immediate
edge of the historic district as well as introducing an elevated roadway
leading up to the bridge, which will be very visible from the district
(especially along Cabot and Water Streets) and inconsistent with the scale and
configuration of the existing roadways and bridges adjacent to the district.
The proposed new bridge, 63 feet high and 90 feet wide, with several massive
concrete supports, will be very visible from major overlooks within the Fish
Flake Hill district as well from views outside the district, e.g. , from Salem,
the harbor and the Danvers River, looking towards the district. The large
size, scale and massing of the bridge will appear out of scale with the
historic characteristics of the setting of Fish Flake Hill which are
characterized by small , low-scale buildings, structures, roadways, and bridges.
The MHC requests that FHWA and MDPW explore prudent and feasible project
alternatives which would avoid, reduce, minimize or mitigate the adverse
visual effects of the size and scale of the bridge and the approach roadway on
the Fish Flake Hill Historic District. A number of alternatives were briefly
described in the project's Final Supplemental EIR. However, lacking in these
descriptions was an analysis of the feasibility of project alternatives.
Specifically, the feasibility of reconfiguring the approach roadway to reduce
the expanse of pavement to minimize or avoid its intrusion on the edge of Fish
Flake Hill Historic District should be carefully considered. In addition,
alternatives which would reduce the height of the new bridge but still service
both land and marine traffic should be evaluated for their feasibility. I
understand that the proposal for a fixed bridge span was selected in order to
allow both cars and boats to travel without stopping. The use of a moveable
bridge, which would not require such a high clearance above water, should be
more carefully studied. It may be prudent and feasible to design a
combination bridge which would be of sufficient clearance to allow the
majority of watercraft to pass under unheeded, but be low enough to not have
such an adverse visual effect on the Fish Flake Hill historic district. The
lower bridge could then include a moveable bridge which would service the
minority of sailboats with tall masts and thus have minimal effects on
automobile traffic. A lowered bridge elevation would also help alleviate the
adverse visual effect of the elevated portion of the approach roadway on Fish
Flake Hill.
Review of the project plans and model indicates that minor modifications to
the Cabot and Rantoul Street intersection are proposed. It appears that these
roadway changes and the new bridge will have no adverse effect on the
character and setting of the Rantoul Street district, a property which is
eligible for listing in the National Register.
The MHC is currently awaiting the results of the archaeological survey of the
approach roadway area in order to determine whether any significant
archaeological resources will be impacted by the project.
These comments are offered to assist in compliance with Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act. You should now seeek the comments of the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 1100 Pennsylvania Ave. , NW, #809,
Washington, D.C. 20004. A copy of these comments should accompany the
documaentation you submit to the Council .
If you have any questions concerning these comments, please feel free to
contact Brona Simon, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer.
Sincerely
����J( Zotiw �i�r rn -bstt�
Judith B. McDonough
State Historic Preservation Officer
Executive Director
Massachusetts Historical Commission
Enclosure
xc: Michael Swanson, MDPW
Don Klima, ACHP
Beverly Historic District Commission
Salem Historical Commission
Salem Planning Dept.
'I
F7
o � xl . �
j� 0/gu&W, O&O.V4
WILLIAM F.WELD �V )
GOVERNOR (9w. 4 ^•
GFMCEOF:r- 1+NA _
ARGEO PAUL CELLUCCI � �� I� •I,���
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
DIVA^i:1 __
RICHARD L TAYLOR SALE. :J _
SECRETARY LLHa Q .. •.-_ I h ' .-
,t
JAMES J.KERASIOTES Q�A
COMMISSIONER
�~ _
July 25, 1991
Mr. Anthony J. Fusco, ---
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
55 Broadway, 10th Floor
Cambridge,MA. 02142
ATTN: Arthur Churchill
RE: Salem/Beverly Transportation Project
Dear Mr. Fusco:
The Cultural Resources Unit of the Massachusetts Department of Public Works reviewed the
MHC comments of June 28, 1991 concerning the effects of the Salem/Beverly Transportation
Project on numerous National Register properties. We request that MHC clarify numerous
comments and provide background for several assertions. Our specific requests for
clarifications are as follows.
*Bridge Street Widening and the McIntire, Chestnut Street and Federal Street Historic
Districts.
The MHC comments assert that the widening and relocation of Bridge Street will "tend
to isolate the historic district..." From what, will the historic district be isolated? In
° documentation submitted to MHC, we addressed the issue of the lack of integrity of the
setting of the district along Bridge Street. Is it their contention that the setting is intact?
Are they implying that the district will be isolated from the current condition of polluted
river channel, overgrown, weed choked railroad right-of-way, abandoned factory and
junk yards? Are they suggesting that these features add to the overall historic and
architectural significance of the District? Further, since the bulk of the proposed action
Anthony J. Fusco
Salem/Beverly Transportation Project
July 25, 1991
will occur at grade, MHC should identify what elements of the proposed project will
have an isolating effect. Does MHC contend. that the effect will result from the
relocation of the roadway and railroad tracks away from the edge of the district, from
the associated landscaping or from the wetland restoration?
The issue of the integrity of the setting and the features of the project are critical; I refer
to 800.9(b)(3), on the Criteria of Adverse Effect which states:
o
Isolation of the property from or alterationof the character of the property's
setting when that character contributes to the property's qualification for the
National Register.
Looking at the Bridge Street edge of the District, and looking at its historical
development, we concluded that the setting is not intact in this area, and is not a
character defining feature. There is no opportunity for isolation without an intact setting,
thus no effect from the action.
We agree with the finding of "no effect" to the Federal Street Historic District because,
just as to the south at the McIntire/Chestnut District, the project borders the District but
the setting is not intact or character defining. We question how the interpretation of the
Criteria by MHC can be so radically different for two adjoining historic districts which
border the same proposed action and share the identical altered, non-contributing setting.
The MHC should be requested to provide a detailed analysis of their application of the
Criteria for these two areas as well as an explanation of the different effect
determinations.
*Salem Signal Tower
The application of the Criteria of Effect to the proposed action on the Salem Signal
Tower fails to thoroughly account for the historic characteristics of the property.
To reiterate our position on its significance: The Salem Signal Tower is a moved
structure. The equipment associated with its major period of historical significance has
been removed. The conditions and character of its setting have been substantially
altered. The. Criteria Considerations of the National Register Regulations are
unambiguous.
Anthony J: Fusco
Salem/Beverly Transportation Project
July 25,.1991 —= _
Criteria Consideration B provides that a building or structure removed from its
original location is not eligible for the National Register unless it is significant
primarily for its architectural value or it is the surviving structure most
importantly associated with a historic person or event. This consideration
recognizes that the original locations of most historic properties contribute to
their significance, so that their relocation may effectively sever them from their
significant associations. A structure significant for its architecture without
reference to its surroundings may be eligible for the National Register even if it
has been moved, however, and if there is no other building to represent a
particular important event or person, a relocation building may be registered.
MHC has directed us to seek a Determination of Eligibility from the Keeper of the
Register because the application of National Register Criteria is in dispute. It is
premature of MHC to apply Criteria of Effect without the establishment of the Tower's
significance by the Keeper. If the Keeper finds the Tower eligible it must be despite its "
alterations, lack of original location, alterations to setting; and lack of significance
defining equipment. Location can not be a factor in the significance of the Salem Tower,
according to the Consideration above. A move, with the appropriate safeguards, as
proposed, will have no effect on the characteristics of significance that qualify the Tower
for possible inclusion in the Register. We see agreement in principle with this position
as evidenced in the comments of the MHC: "...the adverse effect is acceptable. The
fact that the Tower has already been moved in the past further strengthens this
determination." Our disagreement lies in MHC's mis-application of the Criteria of Effect
and Adverse Effect; a finding of adverse effect is not substantiated by the Regulations,
significance of the property or the aspects of the project.
MHC has also requested "that a detailed reuse plan be developed for the structure which
will insure its continued viability and active use;" It is the operations of the MBTA and
not the proposed action under discussion, that result in the Tower being taken out of
"active use." Accordingly, insuring "viability and active use" of historic properties in
its ownership is the concern of the MBTA.
*New Beverly-Salem Bridge and the Fish Flake HUI Historic District and So-Called
"Rantoul Street Historic District."
The MHC asserts that the project will "have an adverse Effect on Fish Flake Hill
Historic District by isolating the historic district from its setting and by introducing
elements which are out of character with the district and its setting," But again they have
3
f
Anthony L Fusco
Salem/Beverly Transportation Project
July 25, 1991
failed to identify the significant features or characteristics of the setting or to respond to
the changes and actual character of that setting. Our documentation discusses historic
precedent for defining the setting of the present District as well as establishing the lack "
of integrity of the modem setting. Their comments overlook that discussion. They also
state that the "bridge will be very visible from the district." and "...will be very visible
from major overlooks within the Fish Flake Hill district as well as from views outside.
the district, e.g., from Salem, the harbor, and the Danvers River looking toward the
district."
These so-called "overlooks" are not identified in any historical or National Register
documentation for the District. This is the first time we have heard the use of this term.
Their significance to the District has not been established. Our historical research and
documentation has established that the primary orientation of the Historic District is
towards the working harbor which begins several hundred feet east of the bridge location.
Similarly, the significance g of the view of the District from outside vantages has not been
defined fi ed nor have these viewing Points been adequately identified, e.g. from Salem, the
harbor, and the Danvers River..." Substantialhoto ra hic documentation
P g P
which we
submitted demonstrates that the view towards the District from the Harbor is dominated
by the boatyards,'McDonald's Restaurant and substantial modem condominiums. In
these photos only fragmented views of a few District buildings are visible and are lacking
in overall historic context or setting. Historical features must be established with
documentary evidence. The MHC should provide documentation and identify authorities
for these "overlooks" and "views from outside the district."
On the setting of the District, MHC contends that "the historic characteristics of the
setting of Fish Flake Hill which are characterized by small, low scale buildings,
structures, roadways and bridges." -In making this assessment the MHC has disregarded
other substantial elements such as the mid-rise condominium buildings, the Vent_ron
industrial facility, the power transmission lines, substantial marine related buildings, the
power plant and oil tanks. This area has always been a mixed use one, combining
residential and commercial with an industrial and transportation corridor. MHC must
incorporate a more thorough assessment of the character of the area in deliberations;
simply viewing a bridge from the District in the very mixed environment can not be
considered an adverse effect.
Similarly, their observations of aspects of the project are inconsistent: "The proposed
approach roadway configuration where the bridge touches down in Beverly will result in
a much larger increase in the amount and elevation of actual roadways than existing
4
r Anthony J. Fusco - -
_ Salem/Beverly Transportation Project
July 25, 1991
conditions. Thus, the approach will create a wide expanse of blacktop on the immediate
edge of the historic district...", yet "Review of the project plans and model indicate that
minor modifications to the Cabot and Rantoul Street intersection are proposed." The -
latter statement is a more accurate observation of the current condition which is
characterized by a wide expanse of undifferentiated pavement resulting from the
intersection of the current bridge and several roadways with a substantial number of
surface parking lots. The proposed action will have a beneficial effect on the current
condition through better organization, appearance and safety.
Most deficient in their assessment is a rationale for the changed finding of effect for this
project. The previous version of this bridge, eight feet lower and a travel lane narrower'
warranted a finding of "no effect", yet this proposal results in an "adverse effect. We
do not understand this change in finding since both proposals share the same features
discussed in their comments such as concrete supports and approach roadways. The
MHC must be pressed to provide a specific detailing of the exact elements of change that
result in their redefinition of the finding of effect.
_ In summary, the MHC is not considering the significant and character defining features of the
National Register Properties in their application of the Criteria. Instead they have taken the
position that any change resulting from the project is an effect. Again we find this position is
not supported by the Advisory Council Regulations which we find to be explicit:
800.2(o) "Undertaking" means any project, activity, or program that can result in
changes in the character or use of historic properties(emphasis ours), if any such historic
properties are located in their area of potential effects...
And,
- — - --- 800.9 CriteriaofEffect and Adverse Effect -
(a) An undertaking has an effect on a historic property when the undertaking may alter
characteristics of thei2roperty that may aualiA the property for inclusion in the National
Register (emphasis ours). For the purpose of determining effect,alteration to features of
the property's location,setting, or use may be relevant depending upon a property's
significant characteristics (emphasis ours) and should be considered.
4
5
- Anthony J. Fusco
Salem/Beverly Transportation Project
July 25, 1991
It remains the Department's opinion that no aspect of this project will effect any significant,
intact and character defining features of any of the National Register properties in the vicinity.
We continue to find that this project has "no effect. _
Sincerely, -
�CHAEL SWANSON, P.E.
CHIEF ENGINEER
JE/JRO/jo
- 6
�""rSYIlouuo�7tmi�lilt'avg8le7t+gwa8>gi�ogypp ==
"1O"9ar"a+rld ►alffSOLfi LiG U6I9) !)I IEO,liafng7leR�'uo�roH SeayB ao,►lAog pH
M
�°O�DQdJT'i YNIPo!'no4n�wwo�I��ya!H riissngaensy�
7aopo 3o as
vagi atom F►IIiIlP mms Impa iaa;p mo ml q aep >< nqy m+ou op =007om momma
d197I!ian aJ 7! Pae ro'�7oAi ie ua47 eioq t " *1""r � 410A A= aqi
omm o Auefallm VP SWM oaR,na haaelm,wPMuega of roao Hu!dft ; tavM onds poo id *ILL pmjo
lepaaPPaJ/!euopnn'M fl n '"MIIP P.UUIPPu AI293 a4I q" 'Ana "law oqi u! pine6P
+lags ;o oSaeaaq plJinQ o��I mo'J "JaMP �IlQ po."S TMpgA, arp Jv; Hu p In illp
eaJe !� Jol JaWMI Pod0la►op an IV o] At!oni+oddo FIY�I
is al
agi�°tt�aiawsga aa4igaTM q mo.W � op pvjft pm Ind oas poe ,pop oq u qm Peg
aqi ;o-*Pao aqi ;o ued Ur rm"m ga,gb ,In p osqd�J,y� amXM IPVA N� �artaap!aal
JUG 02 pa o,lmoJdamoJwAf�Aat Paivm Put AeropeoJ oqi 3o miprJolu eq Jj n luma, ogi veorduq
"0 uopaxuaiaax',p o4mi uaq �! Hapiar r i :)H oqi ;o Ind n tan tam. � Ovj OHNI romp
QP1T aqi aPu+►auvpun �Hp4i Jo-i , paolllt� AlJagimu aqi
ulCl q-=Co MMY I*BAV aqi oagM HopM ,,pM ,p ;o Jaiaaxiega agJ�j SalATnb eapndold otp
L# iocumms t!toiin aqi ;o l talo s of Pov7. Plum SalaaPM 7S dpua v )m 8 zuewuw V-1
oqb i
o Hul eio P unaq Pua pv8oa4a Iaq oqa a a tga roi IJHK aeop
`S'�a°e AsdQP1 aq7 giln► eaol8e aqi of 8'gpmWxMS
;o eapueieltaoau! ivasedde pat sFsoi!» ;o I�optopdde ogi n aJaq 2u=;J!p Fq uQuil ddt
JY1dQNI �aiumn,.aI
75 1eAPaH of iaogS o8PFfH :,ansel saolsS
09 aea aro mp.pue Anpug S,OHy� q � od°sd aqi gi!m uoa 1pm vp q" pnmm;
!'oI[^PY aqi Io wpaagddv Mp inogs W.UMb S&dan alp I ia0 a,tanpV �o tpa ,,ll of
Dom! iE sippm Pa�tool aneq I iegi naA am,n n 'a,uodSu Ame 'atopemoam,oP Jwjb.'d aqi ',Hurp0g
I 'JHHN MOV iae" a8ppg ttraeog/maIIS aqi inoga uo, sa n! glop"aqi M W;2QJoda Aptaoa,od
q Sl�ela 8m7tanbal inial m0A.Jo; GOA �Inq&
ttamweH..JFq Z"Q
Jaa�a3�I!Q �,� mquV ;07iv
9WOVaOR palbid °opnmdtmjl '42"si /wa!aS ag
aoold RVI 'A 4mi SJ-
pa ngmPV Aft t pso 65.--
gHht ieiapad
01 rrc� awtgllalmPY uOrewQ Salpv
d�t7 q,'j��m yld 1,31bS 19�p�SSIIyh,OJJ 'aCoQ 'JI�i
1661 C., n i�. , Imo.` JOgOjao
l `
u
Salem'Simal Tower
In an earnest attempt to facilitate the project through the Section 106 process, MHC applied the
criteria of effect to this resource so the agencies would know its position on a possible move in
advance. There remains a.disagreement.about its eligibility. I understand that you will be seeking an
opinion:of eligibility from the keeper of of the National Register.
New Bride and Beverly Diard
MHC& concluded that the proposed new bridge itself, in its latest revised version, constitutes an
adverse effect on the Fish Flake Hill National Register district. We agree that a bridge crossing has
long been a part of this setting. MHC often has found large scale new bridges to have adverse effects
on surrounding districts. We do find that the changes between the current proposal and the one
reviewed in 1981 are sufficient to warrent a new finding of effect its size, scale and engineered
approaches diminish the overall integrity of Fish Flake Hill's locadon,'design, setting, and
association and do introduce elements that are out of character with the district which is significant
for its contribution to Beverly s long maritime heritage.
In reviewing the NR nomination for the expanded disrriet, I fund that the Fish Flake HID district's
maritime associations are extensively discussed and are inextricably related to the waterfront
Although the waterfront setting of the Fish Flake Hill district has undergone change over time, MHC
still finds that it contributes overall to the understanding of the distdcL The proposed bridge
expansion would be visible from numerous public ways within the Fish Flake Hill district and become,
visually, a dominant, out of scale external feature.
MHC considers that further discussion of alternatives would be relevant to our consultation, and we
would look to the agencies' lead about appropriate ones to re-examine. MHC understands that this
proposal resulted from examination of various alternatives and complex conditions. Further discussion
of this alternative would be most productive if it focused on mitigating the impact of this bridge
proposal especially at the Beverly approach. The touch down area is a gateway not only to the district
but also to Beverly and deserves the most advantagous planning and sensitive mitigation.
These comments are offered to assist in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (36CFRSW). Please feel free to call me with any questions.
incerel ,
g. �b dL
u 'th B. McDonough
State Historic Preservation Offitzr
Massachusetts Historical Commission
xa Michael Swenson, Massachusetts Department of Public Works
Don Klima, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
William Fmch, Beverly Historic District Commission
Anne Harris, Salem Historical Commission
Jane Guy, Salem Planning Department
Secretary Susan Tierney, EOEA/MEPA Unit
Salem Historical Commission
ONE SALEM GREEN.SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
(508)745-9595 EXT.311
March 19 , 1992
Don L. Klima
Director, Eastern Office
of Project Review
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
The Old Post Office Building
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. #809
Washington, D.C. 20004
RE : Draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for Salem/Beverly
Transportation Project
Dear Mr. Klima:
The Salem Historical Commission has reviewed the Draft MOA and
respectfully requests the following amendments :
- That Section I A & B be revised as follows :
A. In consultation with the Salem Historical
Commission, the Salem Planning Department, and the
Massachusetts SHPO, and subject to the approval of
the Salem Historical Commission, a design plan will
be developed to ensure that improvements associated
with the Bridge Street Bypass are compatible with
neighboring historic properties . The plan shall
include the following principles :
1 . Lighting. Lighting, both for the roadway and
pedestrian areas, shall be of a style and
scale compatible with their respective
contexts, and the context of the adjacent
historic district, and shall not spill-over
into the adjacent neighborhoods . Proper
provision shall be made for pedestrian
lighting, where relevant.
2 . Curb cuts, Curbing, and Barriers . Curb cuts
should be granite and of suitable dimensions .
There shall be no curb cuts or breaks in the
median strip, which shall be thickly planted
(see below) . Use of jersey barriers shall not
L
r
be permitted.
3 . Landscaping. Landscaping, both associated
with be roadway and the waterfront park, shall
be employed to provide a consistent year-round
visual barrier and buffer between the project
and adjacent historic neighborhood. This is
particularly critical at the southerly side of
the two in-bound lanes ( ie. the new buffer
zone) and in the median strip. The southerly
landscaped buffer shall be consistent along
the entire corridor from Flint to North Street
(approximately) ; in particular, commercial
establishments shall not be allowed to "spill
over" into the newly created spaces in front
of their establishments . Proper provision
shall be made for pedestrian walkways,
including materials thereof. The roadway and
buffer landscaping shall relate to that of the
waterfront park to create a consistent whole.
4 . Traffic signals . Traffic signals and signage
should be minimized. Mastarms shall not be
used. Speed shall be regulated to minimize
the noise and adverse safety impact on the
adjacent historic neighborhood.
5 . Dimensions . The overall road layout to be as
previously represented and agreed upon, ie.
two new in-bound lanes of twelve feet each, a
fifteen foot median strip, and two out-bound
lanes of twelve feet each. The new road
system curves away from the neighborhood,
beginning at Flint Street and returning more
or less at the present overpass off-ramp,
thereby creating the new visual and sound
buffer at the southerly edge of the roadway
varying in width between five and thirty feet
at a minimum.
B. Following completion, the design plan will be
reviewed by the Salem Historical Commission, the
Salem Planning Department, and the Massachusetts
SHPO. Should any of these parties disagree on any
provision of the plan, resolution of said shall
first be attempted in accordance with Stipulation V
below, DISPUTE RESOLUTION. Final approval of the
foregoing issues, however, rests with the Salem
Historical Commission.
- That Section III, first paragraph, and Section III B. be
amended to include the Salem Historical Commission.
That Section V be amended to add the following as the
final line of the paragraph:
"Notwithstanding anything else herein to the contrary,
final approval of issues outlined in Section I hereof
rests with the Salem Historical Commission. "
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
THE SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Annie C. Harris
Chairman
BN\BN\MOA1tr