SHC W MASS HIGHWAY -� � ��
-_ . _ _ --
-- - - - -
J
I
I
, :
� JI
,♦ "�^.Y
��Yi
i n n { ♦.
�:
Z
� t \�
' I
Jane Guy
From: Lynn Duncan
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 9:06 AM
To: Jane Guy
Subject: FW: Salem Historical Commission
Attachments: Salem Historic Comm 25%.pdf
L=7
Salem Historic
-omm 25%.pdf(1...
fyi
Lynn
Lynn Goonin Duncan, AICP
Director
Department of Planning & Community Development City of Salem 120 Washington Street Salem,
MA 01970
T: 978-619-5685
F. 978-740-0404
-----Original Message-----
From: Ackley, Brian [mailto:brian.ackley@tetratech.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 7:55 AM
To: Lynn Duncan
Cc: David Knowlton; Shute, Matt
Subject: RE: Salem Historical Commission
Lynn
With the exception of the curb extensions, most of the comments were addressed to the
extent that is physically feasible within the street. The curb extensions were eliminated
from the project many years ago by Stan Bornstein, who was the public works director at
the time, due to snow plow and maintenance issues that he had with that design.
The lighting fixtures have been coordinated between our lighting subconsultant designer
and the wires department. I depend on the city to be sure all of your departments are on
the same page regarding the details of the light fixtures.
Parallel parking on the southerly side of the street is retained. City of Salem Parking
Ordinance establishes parking controls on Bridge Street. We are retaining the parking
control signs that are currently out there on the street. We are providing a painted line
to mark the edge of travel lane / parking lane.
Proposed painted medians have been replaced with brick-textured pavement based on a spec
Dave provided.
Street trees are provided to the extent feasible. There are many subsurface utility
conflicts. We put in as many trees as we could. They are not at regular intervals as
1
requested, however.
A designated bike lane must be at least 9 feet wide. With the narrowing of the street to
the requested 29 'h feet (9 meters) for the travel lanes and curb offset (shoulder) , there
is insufficient space for a bike lane.
Brian
Brian Ackley I Senior Project Manager
Direct: 508 . 903.2032 1 Main: 508. 903.2000 1 Fax: 508. 903.2001
brian.ackley@tetratech.com
Tetra Tech Rizzo I Engineering &Architecture Services I Framingham
1 Grant Street I Framingham, MA 01701 1 www.tetratechrizzo.com
PLEASE NOTE: This message, including any attachments, may include privileged,
confidential and/or inside information. Any distribution or use of this communication by
anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If
you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message
and then delete it from your system.
From: Lynn Duncan [mailto:LDuncan@Salem.com]
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 9 :21 PM
To: Ackley, Brian
Cc: David Knowlton
Subject: Salem Historical Commission
Brian,
Do you still have a copy of the letter from the Salem Historical Commission to Rizzo dated
February 7, 2007 regarding lA bridge Street 25% plans? Have we addressed all of their
concerns? Some of their concerns? Which ones? Thanks,
Lynn
Lynn Goonin Duncan, AICP
Director
Department of Planning & Community Development
City of Salem
120 Washington Street
2
E LIVE
SAI EtA
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts L/-",XRT"\G DEPT.
William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth
Massachusetts Historical Commission
March 28,2002
Gregory H. Prendergast
Deputy Chief Engineer
MassHighway
Ten Park Plaza
Boston,MA 02116-3973
Re: Salem—Beverly Transportation Improvement Project,Bridge Street By-Pass, Salem,MA,MHC#2818
Dear Mr.Prendergast:
i
Staff of the Massachusetts Historical Commission has reviewed the information you submitted,received March 6,2002,concerning
the proposed project referenced above.
In accordance with Stipulation I of the Memorandum of Agreement(MOA)for this project,MHC staff met with staff of
MassHighway,the Salem Planning Board and the Salem Historical Commission on March 27,2002 to review the project.
As a result of the meeting with the parties listed above,the project design satisfies Stipulation 1 of the MOA with the following issues
to be resolved:
L Plans for the reconstruction and/or repointing of the Howard Street Cemetery wall should be revised by MassHighway in
consultation with the Salem Historical Commission and forwarded to the parties for review and comment.
2. Specifications for the types and styles of lighting fixtures,traffic signals,and traffic signal poles should be developed by
MassHighway and options should be forwarded to the parties for review and comment.
3. MassHighway shall research the possibility of the covering of the chain link fence on the MBTA track side of the By-
Pass with black vinyl.
4. Specifications for the design of the metal fence on the bike/pedestrian trail side of the By-Pass shall be forwarded to the
parties for review and comment.
These comments are provided to assist in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,as amended
(36 CFR 800)and M.G.L.,Chapter 9,Sec.26-27C,as amended by Chapter 254 of the Acts of 1988(950 CMR 71.00). Please feel
free to contact Taya Dixon if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Brona Simon
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Massachusetts Historical Commission
xc: John Rempelakis, MHD-CRS
Alex Almeida,FHWA
Lance Kasperian, Salem Historical Commission
Joseph Walsh,City of Salem,DPCD
220 Morrissey Boulevard, Boston, Massachusetts 02125
(617) 727-8470•Fax: (617) 727-5128
www.statc.ma.us/sec/mhc
C
Salem Historical Commission
120 WASHINGTON STREET,SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 -
1978)745-9595 EXT.311 FAX(978)740-0404
July 2,2009
Stephen J. Roper, Structural Historian
Environmental Services
Massachusetts Highway Department
Ten Park Plaza
Boston, MA 02116
RE: Salem-Beverly Transportation Improvement Project
Bridge Street Bypass(005402)
Section 106 Review—Notification of Project Change
Dear Mr. Roper:
The Salem Historical Commission is in receipt of your letter dated June 24,2009 regarding the
installation of hand railings or asphalt wheelchair ramps at four locations where the multi-use path intersects
with the ends of local streets.
By an unanimous vote,the Commission suggests,rather than painting the handrail posts black and the
railings green,that the posts and rails be consistent and both be painted a subtle green to blend in with the
landscape.
By a vote of four in favor and one opposed,the Commission suggests, instead of the installation of
railings,that MHD investigate if the straight paths at Saunders and Lemons Streets can be regraded to create
sloped sidewalks that are MAAB compliant. It is the opinion of some Commission members that meandering
paths that would keep the grade down would be more aesthetically pleasing.
Thank you for your consideration. -
Sincerely,
Hannah Diozzi,
Chair
Cc: Jeff Shrimpton,MHD(By fax)
Brona Simon, MHC
1
��crhl�ate'
Salem Historical Commission
ONE SALEM GREEN,SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 -
(978)745-9595 EXT.311 FAX(978)740-0404
° August 6, 1998
Gregory H. Prendergast
Deputy Chief Engineer
Environmental Division
Massachusetts Highway Department
10 Park Plaza
Boston, MA 02116
RE: Bridge Street By-Pass
Dear Mr. Prendergast:
At its regular meeting of August 5, 1998,the Salem Historical Commission reviewed conceptual
plans provided by the Salem Planning Department for an alternative alignment of the Bridge Street By-
Pass in order to determine its impact on nearby historic resources.
The Commission determined that while the roadway in front of the two nearby National Register
properties will be widened, thus potentially increasing the generation of noise, pollution and vibration and
decreasing access,the elimination of the previously proposed viaduct which would have larger visual
impact is an improvement for the community as a whole. In addition, the alternative alignment will
provide an opportunity for a coordinated development of the Parker Brothers site and proposed new
MBTA garage. This coordination of development in itself would have a mitigating effect for the historic
properties.
The one issue raised by the Commission was the concern for the stone wall of the 1801 Howard
Street Burial Ground. The stone wall is already in a state of deterioration and additional pollution and
vibration could increase the rate of deterioration. The Commission proposes that the repair and/or
replacement of the stone wall be made part of this project as mitigation effort to protect this historic
resource.
Thank you for your consideration.
f
Sincerely,
Helen Sides
Chair
Cc: Craig L. Wheeler
9
n c
'a
AfO/A(IYE�a
Salem Historical Commission
ONE SALEM GREEN, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
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
Re: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Salem/Beverly Transportation Project
EOEA Number 0756
Dear Mr. Bracaglia:
As you know, over the last twelve months the Salem Historical
Commission has worked closely with the Department of 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.
f
Frank A. Bracagfia 2 June 10, 1991
i;
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 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 HISTORICAL COMMISSION
B 9-
John H. farr, Jr., Vice 1hair 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
Salem Historical Commission
ONE SALEM GREEN,SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
(617)745-9595.EXT. 311
March 21, 1991
Anne Booth
Massachusetts Department of Public Works
10 Park Plaza
Boston, MA 02116
RE: Salem-Beverly Transportation Project
Mass. Project BR-F-54 (005)
Beverly-Salem
HB-MA
Dear Ms. Booth:
As an interested party participated in the Section 106 Review process, the
Salem Historical Commission respectfully requests a copy of the final Phase II
Archaeological Survey Report completed by the University of Massachusetts
Archaeological Services.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
erely,
Q o)
THE SALEM HISTORICAL
COMMISSION
Annie C. Harris
Chairman
M15WP
cc: Brona Simon
V4.COVOIT, ORS
�fOI�IIM1E 0.
Salem Historical Commission
ONE SALEM GREEN,SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970
(617)745.9595,EXT.311
June 8, 1989
Ms. Ellen DiGeronimo
Associate Commissioner
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
D.epartment of Public Works
10 Park Plaza, Room 4141
Boston, MA 02116
Dear Commissioner:
The Salem Historical Commission (SHS) invites you to attend an
meeting of the Commission at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, June 21 , 1989 prior
to its regular public meeting which will be postponed until 8:00 p.m.
The purpose of the meeting is to have an informal discussion of the
status of the by—pass road and connector bridge project.
Attached is a list of concerns that the Commission would like to
review.
Please contact Jane Guy at the Salem Planning Department (508
745-9595, ext. 311) to confirm your availability to attend.
Thank you in advance for your time to review the project with the
Commission. We look forward to meeting with you. -
Sinc ely
THE SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Annie C. Harris
Chairman
cc: Valerie A. Talmage, SHPO, MHC
Brona Simon, MHC
R156
ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
1 . The Skerry House:
— Review of what measures are being taken to preserve the
Skerry house at its current location or to relocate it;
2. The Planter's Settlement Site:
— Review of (and copies provided to SHC) literature search, and
status of archeological evacavation findings/report;
3. Adjacent Historic Properties and Districts
— Discussion on possible adverse impacts on existing historic
properties and districts located adjacent to the proposed
bypass;
4. Discussion of possible impacts on the North Street bridge
revolutionary war confrontation site and North River Canal site.
RI 5.6
e COND,171
c
u �T\
Y's
C
< T
n�14,11NE lwo
Salem Historical Commission
ONE SALEM GREEN, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970
March 16, 1989
Ms. Ellen DiGeronimo
Associate Commissioner
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Department of Public Works
10 Park Plaza, Room 4141
Boston, MA 02116
RE: 1. Route IA Bridge over Danvers River between Salem and Beverly
2. Viaduct over railroad tracks, North Street bridge and interchange
at Bridge Street, Bridge Street By-Pass to Bridge Street Connector
Viaduct
3. Bridge Street Bypass from North Street to Flint Street and
reconstruction of Bridge Street to Boston Street
Dear Commissioner:
On December 14, 1988, a meeting was held at the offices of the MDPW to
address the concerns of the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) , the
Beverly Historic Commission (BHC) , and the Salem Historical Commission
(SHC) , with respect to the impact of the proposd Route 1A Bridge and Salem
By-Pass Road. Attending the meeting were Brona Simon of the MHC, William
Finch of the BHC, representatives of the Olde Salem Village and the House
of Seven Gables, the Salem Planning Department and the MDPW, and myself
representing the SHC.
The purpose of this letter is to request a response to the concerns
discussed at the December meeting and during subsequent conversations with
myself and other members of the SHC, updating all attending parties as to
the status and progress of each of the following outstanding issues:
1 . The determination of applicability of the re-evaluation of the
Section 106 Review Process of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 (36CFR8OO) , and concerns with adverse
visual effects on the following existing historic and
archeological resources in Salem:
A. The Skerry House located at 22 Conant Street; a National
Register eligible first period house dating to c.1725;
B. The Planters archeological site located near the Danvers
River and North River; the site of the first colonization
settlement in the Massachusetts Bay Colony founded by Roger
Conant;
l
C. The Federal Street National Register Historic District
bounded by Bridge, North, Washington and Federal Streets;
D. The National Register properties and sites consisting of
the First Universalist Church at 211 Bridge Street and the
Bessie Monroe House at 7 Ash Street;
E. The Chestnut Street National Register Historic District
bounded by North, Bridge, Flint, Warren, Pickering,
Winthrop and Broad Streets;
F. The Peirce-Nichols House, a National Historic Landmark at
80 Federal Street;
G. The site of the first Revolutionary War confrontation
between Colonial forces and British troops at the North
River Bridge.
2. The provision of additional visual materials to be made
available by the MDPW, clearly showing the relationship of the
historic districts and properties to the proposed Bridge and
By-Pass roads. We requested additional material in the form of
aerial photographs and plans delineating the historic districts
and properties. It was also requested that the model should
also include the historic districts and properties.
The MHC indicated that it could not make any findings in this
matter until such additional material was provided to the MHC
by MDPW. The MDPW indicated that it intends to address the
concerns of noise and traffic impacts in detail in the
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, which will be
available for review in the Summer of 1989.
3. The determination of the feasibility of moving the Skerry House
and its additions to a suitable and acceptable site. Also
requested and agreed upon was the preparation of an in depth
historic structures report for the house and property,
providing an inventory of 'its historic fabric and details, and
forming the basis for the ultimate relocation and restoration
of the house.
4. The archeological excavation projects for the Planters Site; a
report on the proposals, technical reports and status of the
contracts and commencement with work on the project.
It has also come to the attention of the SHC that the model prepared by
the MDPW and presently on display at Beverly City Hall, does not represent
the entire scope of the project. As indicated in Item 2 above, it was
understood that the model, as well as all other visual materials made
available by the MDPW, would represent the entire Bridge and By-Pass Road
project. The' SHC requests therefore, that the MDPW proceed immediately
with the completion of the model segments which accurately represent the
additional scope of the project from the March Street Overpass to Boston
Street, including to proper scale and location, all adjacent historic
sites, properties and districts as enumerated above.
Thank you for giving this matter your immediate attention, and
providing a written response at your earliest convenience.
S ' erel
Annie C. Harris
Chairman
cc: Robert Johnson, MDPW
Frank Bracaglia, MDPW
Don Klima, ACHP
James A. Walsh, FHWA
Valerie A. Talmage, MHC
Robert G. Neiley, BHC
William Luster, Salem Planning Dept.
James S. Hoyte, EDEA
Robert T.' Tierney, EOTC
Commander (Obr) , First Coast Guard District
Brona Simon, MHC
Ann Booth, MHC
J2914
i
i
'r
_. yam•-/y - /zip?
aoly) .
t
s �wric�� dpC-/ �� S - f
E
Gv 5 d�C o2D00 .
i
F+
/fv 5-40 C),)-m/
elw
i
. 1
!
•Y
r
>.c)
6Gy/
& 9K ��