2003-09-22 SRA Special Meeting MinutesMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL BOARD MEETING
OF THE SALEM REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
HELD ON SEPTEMBER 22, 2003
A special meeting of the Salem Redevelopment Authority (SRA) Board was held in the third
floor conference room at the City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Stre et, on Monday,
September 22, 2003 at 6:00pm.
Chairman Robert Curran called the meeting to order and on roll call, the following members
were present: Michael Brennan, Michael Connelly, Robert Curran, and Russell Vickers. The
applicant, Attorney Bill Luster, Joseph Walsh, Executive Director of the SRA, Tania
Hartford, Economic Development Planner, and Valerie Gingrich, Clerk were also present.
Old Police Station—The meeting was called to discuss the Old Police Station.
Mr. Walsh stated that the applicant has requested to demolish the second wing of the Old
Police Station, which is along Charter Street. The first reason for this is this is that the LDA
is signed, so they are acting on behalf of the SRA. The first wing has been demolished, but
the second wing has not. Secondly, they were going to redevelop the second wing rather
than demolish it.
The applicant had submitted a letter to the SRA requesting to demolish the wing. Mr. Walsh
stated that another reason for demolishing the wing is the findings of the structural engineer.
Mr. Luster explained that they discovered contamination under the second wing. They were
hoping to remove the contamination without taking down the facade; however, they
discovered that the roof of the building is one piece, which is tied into the sidewalls;
therefore, they need to take the building down to remove the oil. Mr. Luster stated that they
have made a recommitment that if they are allowed to take the building down, they will
replace the facade, as it existed before. He further stated, they will come back to the DRB, if
they determine that they will not be able to replace what was there.
Mr. Luster clarified that the request is to demo the wing and put it back as it was. Mr. Luster
explained that the one piece that they do not have yet is a letter from their structural
engineer, John Watney, from Structures North. His analysis will explain that they will not be
able to get the contamination out without taking the building down.
Mr. Walsh reminded the board that the original RFP stated that both wings could be
demolished because they are of minimal historic value, and that the original plan for the
development of the hotel was approved with both wings being demolished. In the current
plans, the developer chose to redevelop the second wing and the Historical Commission’s
waiver of demolition delay was issued only for the first wing. When Mr. Walsh found out
about the request on Wednesday, he went to the Historical Commission to ask for a waiver
of demo delay for the second wing, and received it. Mr. Walsh stated that this was done in
case the board decides to allow the demolition, and it would save the developer from having
to wait six months.
Mr. Walsh explained that the applicant needs the approval of the board because of the
requirements of the LDA. Also, because the property has not yet been transferred, there
will be time between now and when they close on the property to come back to the DRB
and SRA to amend the plan. Mr. Luster stated that at a minimum, the facade will be put
back as it was, unless the plans are improved and amended in the meantime. The facade will
be replaced as it was no matter what.
Mr. Vickers inquired as to why the applicant wouldn’t operate under the approved set of
plans, if they are planning to replace the facade. Mr. Luster replied that the developer agreed
not to take the facade down, and that is why approval is sought from the SRA to demolish it.
Mr. Walsh stated that the developer is acting on behalf of the SRA and therefore must
receive approval. Also, the best way to rebuild the structure may not be building it as it was.
Advocates of historic preservation may not agree that it is best to rebuild the structure as it
was.
Mr. Curran commented that the developer has to get rid of the oil, or they can’t do anything
on the site. Mr. Walsh stated that it is not necessarily so that the facade must come down to
get rid of the oil on the site. He stated that they are waiting for the report from the
structural engineer to determine that; however, it may be prohibitively expensive to keep the
facade up. Mr. Walsh stated that there are two options other than demolishing the facade.
One would be the option to cap it and say that we cannot clean the site, which is not an
option anyone would like to see, and the other option is to say that keeping that facade is so
important to the SRA and they will ask the developer to find a way to clean the site without
taking it down.
Mr. Curran commented that the Historical Commission approved the demolition of the
wing and therefore must be okay with it. Mr. Walsh clarified that the Historical Commission
are actually neutral on the subject of whether or not to demolish the wing. Mr. Walsh
explained that he asked the Historical Commission if the SRA would have to wait six
months if they decided to knock the facade down, and they stated that they would not.
Mr. Brennan asked if the board voted to demolish the facade tonight, will the Historic
Commission review this and have a say in this matter. Mr. Walsh stated that he has asked
them to waive their right to review. The Historical Commission could have held up the
process, but they waived their right to review and left it up to the SRA to decide what will
happen. Mr. Brennan clarified that if the SRA decides to allow the demolition of the facade,
it can happen tomorrow. Mr. Walsh stated that that was the case.
Mr. Connelly inquired as to whether there would be any safety issues if the facade were to be
propped up during the remediation. Mr. Luster replied that there would not be an issue of
safety, but it could be prohibitively expensive. Mr. Connelly asked if it would be
prohibitively expensive, would that effect the redevelopment of the site, such as the number
of units. Mr. Luster replied that it would not effect the redevelopment, but it would cost a
lot of money to preserve something that does not have a lot of historical value. Mr. Luster
stated that they have been told that demolishing the facade and replacing it would be
cheaper than working with the facade as it is. Mr. Luster stated that even though they are
willing to put the facade back in brick, they will probably come back with a wooden
structure for review, and if no one liked it they would put it back in brick. He further stated
that saving the facade would be very difficult and very expensive. Mr. Luster stated that he
never understood why Jack French thought that they should keep the facade, but it is
important to establish the streetscape with what people always thought was there.
Mr. Walsh stated that the streetscape is key and that the SRA must think ahead to how
important that streetscape will be, and one thing that that facade does is finish the
streetscape which most people will see. Secondly, it may not make sense when the facade is
demolished to put it back the way it was (half brick and half wood). Mr. Walsh stressed the
importance of the decision stating that the decision about keeping the facade is connected to
the streetscape. Mr. Walsh stated that the developer will probably bring back a proposal that
will probably not be brick on the first floor as it is now. Mr. Vickers interjected that the
SRA has full control over the review of any proposal, and Mr. Walsh affirmed.
Mr. Luster stated that they will go through the review process and if they get the sense that
the best answer is brick, they will do brick. Mr. Vickers commented that the discussion
regarding the streetscape was what drove the decision to have brick.
Mr. Connelly asked Mr. Luster as to what direction the oil came from and if it was from the
Peabody Essex Museum (PEM). Mr. Luster stated that the oil flowed from the location of
the PEM. Mr. Luster explained that in 1985 there was a Number Four oil spill that was
categorized as more than 10 gallons of oil but an amount unknown. Mr. Luster suggested
that they now know the amount of oil that was spilled. Mr. Luster explained that did
borings that showed that the oil spill can be traced upstream along the underground
waterflow direction, which flows from the direction of the PEM (the boiler room was
behind the East India Marine Hall). Mr. Luster stated that Number Four and Six oil were
used in the past to heat large buildings. The oil found on the Old Police Station site was not
used in the Old Police Station. Mr. Luster stated that the only thing from keeping them
from saying definitively that the oil came from the PEM is their attorneys who filed a report
stating that they discovered a Number Four and Six oil spill and to request DPS (Downgrade
Property Status) which holds them harmless. Mr. Luster explained that they will be cleaning
up the site even if they would be held harmless because they want a clean site. He stated
that this is the beginning of the process, and that they have a letter going to the abutters and
a letter going to the PEM stating that they would like to trade their science with them
because they think that the oil on a property that they control was spilled around 1985 or
some point of time. Mr. Luster stated that the old China Trade Wing was located directly
next to the Old Police Station, which goes a couple floors into the ground and was built in
1985.
Mr. Walsh inquired as to the timing of the process, and Mr. Luster stated that there is a 120
day period from when they discover oil in which they have to report the spill (which was
met). The letter to the PEM, which asks them to have a meeting and show them what they
found, will go out in the next week. A copy of the letter will be submitted to the SRA. Mr.
Luster stated that the recovery of the monies used to clean the site is very important to them
because they have to repay the funds.
Mr. Curran asked the board members if they had any other questions and if there was a
motion. Mr. Brennan motioned with the idea that they will get the facade back that they
authorize the developer to tear down the facade with the conditions stated in the September
18, 2003 letter. Mr. Curran stated that the developer would have to come back with a new
plan and if the SRA didn’t like the plan they would put the facade back as it was.
Mr. Luster stated that they could do it one of two ways. They could do it as was suggested
or they could suggest that they have to put it back as it is and then they would come back
and ask for an amendment to the plan if it was different. Mr. Vickers stated that they don’t
lose anything either way. Mr. Walsh affirmed and stated that the SRA could give the
developer some guidance. The SRA could say that they can’t take it down, or that they can
take it down and rebuild it the same way, or as suggested before (return and show a plan).
Mr. Luster stated that he likes the option of taking down the facade and being required to
rebuild the facade as it was, so there are no changes to the approved plans. If the developer
desires they can ask for an amendment to the plan.
Mr. Walsh clarified that the SRA probably wants to forget about the letter that was
submitted and approve the demolition with the condition that the facade will be restored as
it was to conform with the approved plans.
Mr. Brennan withdrew his motion. Mr. Vickers motioned to allow the designated
developers, Heritage Plaza Enterprises, LLC, to immediately demolish the additional wing
(former electrical building) along Charter Street with the condition that the facade will be
rebuilt as shown on the approved plan. Mr. Connelly seconded the motion. Motion passed
(4-0).
There being no further business, Mr. Brennan motioned to adjourn the meeting. Mr.
Connelly seconded the motion. Motion passed (4-0).
Meeting stands adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Valerie Gingrich
Clerk