Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Neighborhood Preservation District Study
Final Report Neighborhood Preservation District Study Salem, Massachusetts Prepared for City of Salem,Department of Planning and Community Development Salem, Massachusetts Prepared by WM/Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. Watertown, Massachusetts Final Report Neighborhood Preservation District Study Salem, Massachusetts Prepared for City of Salem Department of Planning and Community Development 120 Washington Street, 3rd Floor Salem, MA01970 978-745-9595 Prepared by MB/Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. Transportation, Land Development,Environmental Services 101 Walnut Street P.O. Box 9151 Watertown, Massachusetts 02471-9151 617-924-1770 Staff: Rita Walsh, Christophe Gervais,Janet Thomas, Terri Courtemarche,Geoffrey Morrison-Logan September 2008 The Neighborhood Preservation District Study in Salem, Massachusetts Report has been financed in part with federal funds from the National Park Service,U.S.Department of the Interior,through the Massachusetts Historical Commission, Secretary of Commonwealth William Francis Galvin, Chairman.However,the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior,or the Massachusetts Historical Commission. This program receives Federal funds from the National Park Service.The U.S.Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race,color,national origin,age, gender,sexual orientation,familial status,religion or handicap in its federally assisted programs.If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program,activity,or facility as described above,or if you desire further information,please write to:Office for Equal Opportunity,U.S.Department of the Interior,1849 C Street,NW,Room 1324,Washington,DC 20240 VC misse 1lungen.Bxs91fn,1nc. Table of Contents EXECUTIVESUMMARY...............................................................................................................................1 SUMMARY OF PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES..............................................................................3 METHODOLOGY STATEMENT...................................................................................................................3 DESCRIPTION OF PRODUCTS...................................................................................................................3 PhaseI Products...........................................................................................................................4 Phase11 Products..........................................................................................................................4 PhaseIII Products.........................................................................................................................4 PhaseIV Products.........................................................................................................................4 ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE PROJECT..................................................................................................4 NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION DISTRICT DEFINITION....................................................................6 CRITERIA FOR NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION DISTRICT DESIGNATION...................................19 DISTRICT RATIONALE AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF BRIDGE STREET AND POINT NEIGHBORHOODS....................................................................................................................................26 Recommendations for NPD Approval Process............................................................................34 Recommendations on Priorities for Future NPD Designation......................................................35 BrooklineNCD Study................................................................................................................... 36 Links to Relevant Websites......................................................................................................... 36 SalemSources............................................................................................................................ 38 OtherSources.............................................................................................................................. 38 APPENDICES Appendix 1 —Products from Phase I-Phase III............................................................................................44 Appendix 2—Draft Final Neighborhood Preservation District Ordinance .................................................280 Appendix 3—Draft Administrative Policy..................................................................................................289 Appendix 4—Illustrated Sample Design Guidelines for Bridge Street and Point Neighborhoods ...........293 Yuncasse Hangen_BruWh%Inc Introduction Executive Summary The City of Salem(City)contracted Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. (VHB)to study the feasibility of creating Neighborhood Preservation Districts' as a component of the Salem Preservation Master Plan. This plan,which was completed in 1991,discussed the concept of Neighborhood Preservation Districts(referred to as Neighborhood Conservation Districts in the master plan),but no action has been taken to implement the recommendation.The major purpose of the current study was to research the concept of Neighborhood Preservation Districts(NPD) and ways that it might best fit Salem's situation,prepare a draft ordinance and draft design guidelines for two neighborhoods,and create educational materials for the public.The study and its final products and recommendations relied heavily on public input,gained through a series of neighborhood meetings,stakeholder interviews,dedicated page on the City's website,and other means.The study provides recommendations that will help the City of Salem and individual neighborhoods determine if a NPD program is right for the cty's neighborhoods and can function alongside the Local Historic District (LHD)program already in place. VHB was directly assisted in this study by the City's Department of Planning and Community Development(DPCD)Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) Planner,Kirsten Kinzer,who served as the Project Coordinator and a Working Group of Salem residents(Working Group),who were extremely diligent in their interest,time,and recommendations.These Working Group members were: > Jane A.Guy,DPCD Assistant Community Development Director > Barbara Cleary,Historic Salem,Inc.President > Emily Udy,Historic Salem,Inc.,Preservation Project Manager > David Hart,Salem Historical Commission Member ................................................................................................................... 1 The term,Neighborhood Preservation District,was chosen by the study's Working Group to ease confusion with conservation areas and the local Conservation Commission.The terms,Neighborhood Architectural Conservation District,Architectural Conservation District,or Neighborhood Conservation District,are more typically used,but are only used in this study report to reference specific studies or reports or the name used by communities referenced in the report.Otherwise,the term,Neighborhood Preservation District,is used to describe the generic concept in this study and report. IWawatr1evA0329.001reports\Phase RAPhase 1 IntroductionIV reportFinal.doc Yuncasse Hangen_BruWh%Inc > Jessica Herbert,Salem Historical Commission Member > Maggie Lemelin Towne,Alliance of Salem Neighborhood Associations President Christopher Skelly,director of Local Government Programs with the Massachusetts Historical Commission(MHC)provided oversight for the project and guidance on methodology and products. The final report describes the outcome of the multi-phase investigation of the NPD concept's feasibility for Salem.Phase I involved background research on other communities'neighborhood preservation districts,Salem s historic properties and associated documentation,and field reconnaissance of Salem neighborhoods that could be potential candidates for such designation.Phase II focused on a series of presentations to 7 neighborhoods which explained the NPD concept and solicited feedback on residents' and property owners'interest and concerns.Two neighborhoods-Bridge Street and the Point-were then selected for further study in Phase III,based on expressed interest,architectural character,and potential threats. The Phase III study included an analysis of physical character and proposed design guidelines for these two neighborhoods.Three meetings were held with both of the neighborhoods to gain input on design guidelines and levels of design review. Phase IV,the final phase,is the completion of the final report. The Phase III tasks specified: > Hold public meetings in the two neighborhoods selected for further study in Phase II utilizing PowerPoint presentation,NPD handout and design guidelines. Collect,review and summarize public comments received. > Hold meetings with appropriate agencies and commissions to discuss the draft ordinance and design guidelines. > Revise draft ordinance based on comments received from the public,agencies and commissions. > Prepare recommendations for the NPD administration based on comments received from the public,agencies,and commissions. > Prepare recommendations on priorities for future NPD designation,considering public interest expressed in Phase II and relative potential for inappropriate development. > Prepare the draft Neighborhood Preservation District Study report, incorporating comments received from the City and the public. > Provide 10 copies of the draft Neighborhood Preservation District Study report and one high resolution PDF. > Attend meeting with DPDC and MHC staff to review draft Neighborhood Preservation District Study 11Mawatr1ev110329.001reportslPhase Whase 2 Introduction report_Final.doc aYuncasse HanUn_BruWh%Inc Summary of Project Goals and Objectives Specific goals and objectives for the study included: > Create a definition of Neighborhood Preservation Districts(NPD)appropriate to Salem,including a rationale for NPDs in Salem and defining physical characteristics. > Create a map of potential NPD boundaries,taking into consideration architectural style and character,building massing and siting,and streetscape characteristics. > Provide recommendations for architecturally significant areas preferable as Local Historic Districts. > Provide opportunities for public comment through public meetings. > Develop a framework for NPD administration through the detailed analysis of two potential districts,including design guidelines and design review administrative procedures. > Develop a draft NPD ordinance creating two selected NPDs based on the MHC Sample Architectural Conservation District Bylaw. > Prepare sample design guidelines for two neighborhoods. > Prepare a study report for Neighborhood Preservation Districts. Methodology Statement The study's methodology focused on the multi-phased tasks specified in the Scope of Work,procedures and practices of previous studies and designations,and current input solicited from a wide circle of residents,property owners,City staff and other stakeholders in Salem through a series of public meetings. The process to determine which guidelines and procedures would work best in Salem was an iterative process,which involved many presentations featuring illustrated examples of possible appropriate and inappropriate scenarios for new construction,demolition,and alterations to existing buildings. Description of Products Each phase of the study resulted in several documents or products,including a report that detailed the outcomes of each phase.The products from each phase are noted below and were submitted with each individual Phase's report.These products are incorporated into this report to provide a single source compilation of IWawatr*110329.00hportsThase RAPhase 3 Introduction IV reportFiml.doc Yuncasse fanWn_Brust h%-hzc the study's outcomes.Appendix 1 contains copies of the products listed below by phase. Phase I Products > Handout explaining NPD concept > PowerPoint presentation for general distribution > Draft ordinance > Draft map showing neighborhoods proposed for LHD and/or NPD designation > Phase I report Phase II Products > Individual PowerPoint presentations for 7 neighborhoods (2 representative examples are included) > Phase II report which included detailed sets of minutes from each presentation Phase III Products > PowerPoint presentations to Bridge Street and Point neighborhoods(2 each) > Illustrated sample design guidelines for Bridge Street and Point neighborhoods > Proposed NPD boundaries for Bridge Street and Point neighborhoods > Finalized draft NPD ordinance > Phase III report Phase IV Products > Final report that incorporates all received comments Accomplishments of the Project The study accomplished several major goals: > Determined the level of interest Salem residents,property owners,and various neighborhoods have in the NPD concept and historic preservation reviews and regulations in general > Gained an understanding of how strict reviews should be > Further learned which issues are most important to neighborhood residents and property owners > Educated Salem residents and property owners about existing City programs that could be of help to them,as well as relevant publications,agencies,and websites IWawatr1ev110329.001report\Phase RAPhase 4 IntroductionIV reportFinal.doc Yuncasse Hangen_BruWh%Inc > Provided a forum to discuss Salem s residents and property owners concerns and goals for historic preservation in the city. Public Involvement Many Salem residents and property owners attended the public meetings scheduled in Phase II and Phase III.Some attended the meetings primarily to find out more about the concept,while it is clear that others came to voice their opposition to "another level of bureaucracy'.It is unclear if the opinions expressed in some meetings were representative of the majority of residents and property owners,but the dialogue that resulted from these meetings was invaluable in airing citizens' concerns about issues affecting their neighborhood and historic preservation practices in general. Definition of extent of NPD Design Review In general,people who attended the meetings were not open to the concept of reviews that covered the entirety of a building's exterior,such as those employed for local historic district review.The concerns expressed mainly had to do with delays associated with such reviews,arbitrariness of decision-making,and personality implications. Identification of Issues Important to Neighborhoods Besides preservation of historic neighborhood character,certain issues surfaced during some of the meetings that could be considered in the future.These issues included proper building and property maintenance,especially properties that were not maintained to the point of being nuisances.Demolition by neglect and affirmative maintenance ordinances were explained and discussed at these meetings, although it was acknowledged that such ordinances were outside of the scope of a NPD.Other issues important to attendees included simple maintenance and cleanliness of property;in some cases,newer,perhaps unsympathetic,buildings were preferred by individuals over older buildings that were not maintained. Education of Residents and Business Owners The series of meetings held for this study provided an important forum for discussion and explanation of a number of issues.We believe many residents were better educated on not only the NPD concept,but also about various City and State programs that could better enable them to take care of their properties,differences between National Register,local historic districts,and neighborhood preservation districts,and architectural character and significance of their neighborhoods. IWawatr*110329.001reportsThase RAPhase 5 Introduction IV reportFinal.doc aVanasse Hangen_Brusfb%- nc Neighborhood Preservation District Definition In this study,a Neighborhood Preservation District was initially defined as a predominantly residential area that displayed a physical character worthy of a flexible level of review over certain important physical changes determined by the neighborhood residents and property owners.Through comments made at neighborhood meetings,it became clear that residents and business owners are interested in the inclusion of both residential and commercial areas in individual NPDs.The PowerPoint presentations that introduced the NPD concept noted that NPDs (or neighborhood conservation or architectural conservation districts)could take many different forms,depending on the character of the area and the residents' and property owners' desires regarding which changes to elements would be subject to review and approval by a commission. IWawatr1ev110329.001report\Phase RAPhase 6 Introduction IV reportFinal.doc Yuncasse Hangen_Brust h%_hzc 2 Public Process The public process in this study spanned all four phases.During Phase I,VHB consultant Rita Walsh contacted individual stakeholders recommended by the DPCD and the Working Group for their opinions on the NPD concept.A general meeting with a city- wide neighborhood group,the Alliance of Salem Neighborhood Association,was also held during Phase 1.Seven neighborhood meetings were held during Phase 11 to introduce the NPD concept and gain feedback on its feasibility in individual neighborhoods.Based on the feedback received in these meetings,two neighborhoods, the Point and Bridge Street,were selected for further study in Phase III. The Phase III public process involved several meetings with residents and property owners in two selected neighborhoods which had expressed interest in a trial analysis of neighborhood character and formulation of sample design guidelines.The meetings included walking and driving tours to discuss particular issues that could be addressed by NPDs,followed by two public meetings to assess which elements should be subject to review and if advisory or binding review was acceptable. Phase IV includes a city-wide presentation to publicly present the study's outcome. Phase I Public Process A number of individuals,mainly those who owned large numbers of properties in candidate neighborhoods or those involved in Salem's preservation activities,were contacted during the first phase of this study.In general,the property owners contacted were not in favor of additional restrictions.A presentation to the Alliance of Salem Neighborhood Associations revealed some interest in the value of the NPD concept,although it was clear that clarification about the NPD concept as compared to local historic district and National Register designation was needed for upcoming meetings in Phase 11. Phase II Public Process DPCD staff Kirsten Kinzer and consultant Rita Walsh held seven(7) public meetings between March 18 and April 28,2008.The meetings geographically targeted the areas IWawatr1ev110329.001report Thase Whase PUb11C Process IV repoh_Final.doc 0 Vancasse Hangen_BruWh%Inc recommended for possible consideration as Neighborhood Preservation Districts in Phase I.The neighborhoods and dates of respective meetings were: > South Salem Neighborhood-March 18,2008 > Derby Street&Salem Common Neighborhoods-March 27,2008 > Salem Willows Neighborhood Meeting-April 8,2008 > North Salem Neighborhood Meeting-April 15,2008 > Gallows Hill Neighborhood Meeting-April 21,2008 > Bridge Street and Common Neighborhoods Meeting-April 22,2008 > Point Neighborhood Meeting-April 28,2008 Some of the meetings were held under the auspices of a neighborhood association or were targeted to distinct areas,such as the Willows neighborhood. Several of Salem's City Councillors arranged and advertised the meetings,which assisted in boosting interest and attendance.The number of attendees at the meetings ranged from 4 to over 40 people,who were a combination of residents and property owners. The format was similar in each meeting,consisting of a PowerPoint presentation that explained the Neighborhood Preservation District concept and how it could work in Salem.The presentation included a discussion of benefits of establishing such districts,how they differ from National Register and Local Historic districts,and a map showing areas that could be considered for such designation and previously established and recommended districts.Images of representative streetscapes at the end of the presentation usually helped spark comments on issues in the respective neighborhoods.Typically these meetings lasted 2 or more hours,with time generously devoted to discussion and questions after the formal presentation.The PowerPoint presentations for two of the neighborhoods-Bridge Street and the Point -are included in Appendix 1,Phase 2 of this report. .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Common Themes in Phase II Public Comment While attendees at each of the meetings had specific or unique concerns and questions,several common themes emerged at most of the meetings.These themes are loosely presented by topic,but are in no order of priority or ubiquity. By no means were people unanimous about these concerns: Administration > Desire little or no representation by Salem Historical Commission members on the NPD Commission > Concern about increased review time in order to obtain a building permit > More detail requested on member composition of NPD Commission > Need for additional city staff to administer and assist the NPD Commission could lead to increased taxes to pay for this service IWawatr1ev110329.001report\Phase RAPhase 8 Public PYOCeSS IV report_Fiml.doc 0 Vancasse Hangen_BruWh%Inc > Education is a very important task-we have to talk to more people about this concept-one meeting is not enough. > Concern about lawsuits or other civil action due to unpopular decisions by the NPD Commission > Liked the ability for a neighborhood to opt out of the district designation if it was not working > Each NPD should have its own neighborhood commission;concern expressed about non-neighborhood members reviewing proposed work. Design Review in General > Opposition to others telling them what to do with their own property > Fear that costs of improving property will increase due to higher standards > Paint color,application of substitute siding,and window sash replacement should not be reviewed > Concern that not enough people attended these meetings to realistically gauge interest in the concept > Questions about drawbacks of such designation,in response to a discussion of benefits of NPD designation > Most could not envision potential threats to their neighborhood;individuals who had experienced inappropriate new construction or an unwelcome demolition near their property more readily understood the NPD's purpose > In general,binding review over new construction and demolition was acceptable to the majority;more concern was expressed about review of alterations to existing buildings Relationship to Existing Review Processes ➢ Dislike of an additional layer of bureaucracy ➢ Belief that zoning adequately covers new construction(additions and new buildings)issues ➢ Question how and to which group (e.g.,Zoning Boards of Appeals)appeals would be handled .............................................................................................................................................................................................. Other Phase II Public Comments Other comments that were not as routinely expressed included questions about individual property owners' ability to opt out of the district,how much this study cost and where the funding came from,and concerns that the study was one more City-sponsored action that would not be completed and end up as a document on a IWawatr*110329.00hportsThase RAPhase V (�, Public PYOCeSS I report_Fiml.doc Yuncasse Hangen_BruWh%Inc shelf.Questions were also posed about review of proposed demolitions and related review criteria;possibility of grants/low-interest loans to assist owners to rehabilitate their property;and whether each neighborhood would have an individual set of design guidelines. Phase III Public Process Following the selection of Bridge Street and the Point for further study in Phase III, DPCD staff Kirsten Kinzer and consultant Rita Walsh held 6 public meetings in the Bridge Street and Point neighborhoods between May and July 2008. The meetings were held on the following dates: > Bridge Street walking tour- May 22,2008 > Point Neighborhood driving tour-May 29,2008 > Point Neighborhood presentation I-June 17,2008 > Bridge Street presentation I-June 19,2008 > Bridge Street presentation 11,-July 23,2008 > Point Neighborhood presentation II-July 28,2008 The meetings included an initial Bridge Street walking and Point driving tour with interested residents and property owners.Two presentations for each neighborhood followed these initial tours.The purpose of presentation I in both neighborhoods was to review the study's purpose and to ask interested residents for their opinions and comments on proposed design guidelines and the level of review.Presentation II focused on the final proposed guidelines and their level of review based on public comment.Examples of both presentations are included in Appendix 1,Phase III. In general,residents and property owners were eager for review over new construction and demolition,although how new construction design guidelines would be structured and which buildings should be subject to demolition review and approval varied.Most residents and property owners also expressed interest in advisory review of certain elements of existing buildings although the types of elements and what level of review would be acceptable varied at the meetings. Kirsten Kinzer of the City of Salem DPCD and Rita Walsh of VHB gave a final presentation on the study in order to inform the public about its findings and products. Working group meetings The study's Working Group met several times with City staff and the consultant throughout the study.These meetings involved an explanation of the NPD program and how it has worked in other communities;definitions of what this program is and can be,versus what it is not;and review and recommendation of areas to be considered for further study as NPDs.The Working Group,City staff and consultant IWawatr*110329.001reportsThase Whase 10 Public PYOCeSS IV report_Final.doc Yuncasse Hangen_BruWh%Inc also discussed content of the two-page handout,PowerPoint presentation for public meetings,draft ordinance,and the public meeting process.Subsequent telephone and group e-mail discussions helped finalize the content and layout of the draft ordinance,brochure,and PowerPoint presentations.The Working Group also provided suggestions on ways to make the concept more acceptable and attractive to the neighborhoods,including financial incentives and educational forums.The Working Group's contribution to the study was extremely beneficial,seen in their thoughtful input and vastly improved products. IWawatr1ev110329.001report Thase Whase 11 Public PYOCeSS IV report_Final.doc Yuncasse HanUn_BruWh%Inc 3 Salem Neighborhood Preservation District Ordinance The draft Neighborhood Preservation District ordinance,one of the required products of this study,resulted from adaptation of the MHC model Architectural Conservation District by-law,other MA communities' ordinances and bylaws,and consultation with City of Salem Planning staff and the Working Group.A copy of the draft ordinance is in Appendix 2. The draft ordinance was based on a number of similar documents,including the Massachusetts Historical Commissions sample bylaw and other Massachusetts communities'bylaws or ordinances,including Cambridge,Wellesley,Lincoln,and North Andover.The draft ordinance was also influenced by comments expressed at public meetings held during the study,especially concerning the required percentage of property owners needed for approval at the study and designation phases,levels of review for selected activities,and composition of the NPD commission. A Neighborhood Preservation District ordinance can help achieve the following objectives: Preserve Character of Salem's Neighborhood s A major concern expressed in neighborhood meetings was the level of inappropriate alterations in areas where there is minimal design control. The City's Zoning Ordinance dictates such standard items as setback and height,but variances and special permits on these items as well as use can be granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals,which have impacted some neighborhoods'character.Identification and subsequent review of changes to the most important features of a neighborhood's character was a stated intention of the program. II t_ 0eportPhase Mhase V reportFinal.doc 12 Salem Neighborhood Preservation District Ordinance Yuncasse Hangen_BruWh%Inc Provide More Oversight on Proposed Demolitions The City of Salem's demolition delay ordinance applies to buildings or structures listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places or which are fifty or more years old.Proposals for demolition of such buildings or structures are reviewed by the Salem Historical Commission.If the building or structure meets the criteria stated in the ordinance,then a period of 180 days (six months)is allowed for the Commission to work with the property owner and to conduct investigations in order to issue a written recommendation regarding the demolition. If no agreement to preserve the building is reached within the six-month demolition delay period,a demolition permit is issued by the Building Inspector. Within Salem s Local Historic Districts and the Urban Renewal Area,demolition permits can be denied by the Salem Historical Commission and the Salem Redevelopment Authority,respectively.Some resident voiced a desire for this level of control due to the loss of historic buildings in other Salem neighborhoods. Help Control Future Development Concerns Although Salem is currently experiencing a slight downturn in real estate values and development projects,it is believed that the near future will see a renewed and increased interest in redevelopment of areas adjacent to Salem's waterfront and unprotected areas near the downtown.The capability of a neighborhood preservation district ordinance to have additional input on both demolition reviews and new construction design was considered an essential component of the NPD program.The aim was to have some level of protection in place before the onset of possible negative impacts of future development. Specific aspects of the ordinance that were considered in discussions with the Working Group,the public,and MHC are: Inclusion of Advisory Review The ordinance originally only contained binding review by the NPD Commission on the elements that the neighborhood agreed should be regulated.The educational value and possible persuasive power of advisory review for minor elements are seen as positive reasons to include advisory of review in the ordinance but the Working Group was concerned that residents will not take advisory reviews to heart.In many of the meetings held in Phase II,residents repeatedly expressed opposition to binding review of architectural details such as siding and window replacement but agreed that alterations to these building elements can have a major impact on neighborhood character.Advisory review was added to the ordinance to create a method for providing education and design advice to residents on building elements II at_ 0eportPhase Mhase V repotFinal.doc 13 Salem Neighborhood Preservation District Ordinance Yuncasse Hangen_BruWh%Inc that impact neighborhood character to a lesser degree than demolition or new construction. Removal of Designation Process Details The ordinance originally detailed the study and designation process.This level of detail was removed,based on MHC comments that too high a level of detail within an ordinance can bind the City to an outdated process in the future.The administrative process will be governed by a Department of Planning policy,which can more easily be updated to incorporate changes in the administrative needs of the designated districts and the Commission.A draft policy is included in Appendix 3 and is based on the input from residents and the Working Group through the course of this study. Composition of Neighborhood Preservation District Commission A single NPD Commission responsible for all NPD project review in the city was initially envisioned in the ordinance.The conflict between neighborhood concern about non-neighborhood members'review of projects and the inability of DPCD to staff multiple commissions prompted the proposal of a commission with a"spokes of a wheel" structure.An attendee of two of the public meetings suggested the concept as a way to maintain one commission but ensure that the majority of the members reviewing a project in a given district are residents or business owners from that district. This structure is illustrated in Diagrams 1 through 3 on pages 16-18. The ordinance proposes a core group of three Core Members that review projects in all NPDs throughout the city.In each district,projects are also reviewed by two District Members who are either district resident or business owners.This structure allows a review by five members,the majority of whom are residents or business owners from the district that the project under review is located in.As districts are designated,the composition of the Commission changes to enable continued review by a majority of district residents and business owners. After the first district is designated,the core group would be composed of one member of the first NPD that is created and two general members who have experience with design review(architect,preservation specialist,contractor,real estate agent)and is a Salem resident.Two additional District Members,considered the spokes,would be added to result in a commission of five members.Two alternate members from this first district would also serve the initial commission,when needed due to members'absences or project review recusals.Diagram#1 graphically shows this concept. When a second NPD is created,the composition of the core members will change. The core will be composed of a Core Member from each district and a single design II t_ 0eportsPhase Mhase V reportFinal.doc 14 Salem Neighborhood Preservation District Ordinance 0 Vancasse Hangen_Brust h%-hzc professional.A second'spoke'will be formed,consisting of two District Members and two alternate District Members. Proposals in the first district designated will be reviewed by the Core Members and the District 1 Members and proposals in the second district will reviewed by the Core Members and the District 2 Members. Diagram#2 illustrates this second concept. When a third district is added,the core group of three members will change again to include a single member from each district. A third'spoke'will then be formed, consisting of two District Members and two alternate District Members Diagram#3 shows this expanded hub-and-spoke concept.No provision has been made at this time to accommodate a fourth NPD,or any additional NPDs.The ordinance would be changed at that time to consider how changes should be made to the composition of the core group. As noted above,the concepts as proposed allow for the creation of a single commission while ensuring that a majority of the members reviewing a project in a given district are district residents,property owners,and/or business owners.Each individual district will have separate design guidelines tailored to that neighborhood's character.The Mayor of Salem will appoint all members,followed by City Council approval-an approval process identical for all City commissions. II t_ 0eportlPhase VlPhase V repotFinal.doc 15 Salem Neighborhood Preservation District Ordinance Yuncasse Hangen_BruWin l'nc 1.Neighborhood Preservation District-Composition of Neighborhood Preservation District Commission •le Core Members ■ Commiuron AlternateS District 1 Member (Re siden t,P raperty Owner,Bu Si ness Own er) Design Professional (General Member) City of Salem Neighborhood Preservation District Study 1Wawa epotrteW l.doc 0treportslPhaseMPhase 16 Salem Neighborhood Preservation District Ordinance IV report_Final.doc Yuncasse Hangen_BruWin l'nc 2.Neighborhood Preservation Districts -Composition of Neighborhood Preservation District Commission e� o Reviews 6isrrirr2 Frofe[rs Af[emates Members i • Care Members ! Reviews C]rs[rr[[f PrajeC[S AlternatBS District 1 Resident District 2 Resident ❑eslgn Professional Ciry of 5alem Neighborhood Preservation District Study IV awarepotrt Fi al.doc00rreports\Phase IV,Phase 17 Salem Neighborhood Preservation District Ordinance IV report_Final.doc Yuncasse Hangen_BruWin l'nc 3.Neighborhoods Preservation❑istriUS- -Composition of Neighborhood Preservation❑istFict Commission Reviews rhsnrcr,2 Prq$fa +� Aternates 'Members 1 Core s � Alember5 �IY�S Reviews r]isrria t Propecrs Alternates Alternates District 1 Resident District 2Resident District 3 Resident City of Salem Neighborhood Preservation Mtrict Study V awaMaur Finalazs.00trepons\Fnase IV,Phase 18 Salem Neighborhood Preservation District Ordinance IV report_Final.doc aiVanasse HanRan_Brusdh%_[nc Criteria for Neighborhood Preservation District Designation The criteria for determining which areas are likely candidates for NPD designation centered on an area's physical cohesiveness and its display of relatively few significant alterations.The criteria as defined in the draft ordinance are relatively broad: > The area contains buildings and/or structures and/or settings that are significant to the architectural,aesthetic,cultural,political,economic or social history of Salem;or > The area has generally cohesive features,such as the scale,size,type of construction,materials,or style of the building and structures,and/or land use patterns and landscaping Certain aspects of designation criteria that were discussed during the study,but not definitely resolved were: District Size The appropriate minimum/maximum size and number of properties that could be included in an individual district was not determined.Discussions have considered a minimum of 75 properties,similar to the City of Cambridge's regulations.The understanding is that a district that contains fewer properties may be unable to sustain a steady supply of neighborhood Commission members. Conversely,a district that is too large may be unwieldy in terms of the number of applications that would come before the volunteer Commission. The possibility of designating several smaller districts(those with less than 75 properties) as a single non-contiguous district was fairly well received as a way to not only protect several small discrete areas,but also allow a single Neighborhood Preservation District commission to administer these areas.Involvement of existing or additional new DPCD staff in NPD administration and review was not extensively discussed.It was acknowledged during public presentations,however,that a city staff person must be involved in NPD administration in order to facilitate documentation and provide guidance on the design guidelines. Building Age Areas with a majority of buildings over 50 years old were deemed the likeliest candidates for NPD designation. II t_ 0eportlPhase VlPhase V repotFinal.doc 19 Salem Neighborhood Preservation District Ordinance Yuncasse Hangen_BruWh%Inc Building Condition The condition and physical integrity of buildings within a neighborhood are important factors.The areas that contained buildings that were well maintained and exhibited the least alteration were the most obvious candidates although residents also expressed interest in the use of an NPD to address issues of disinvestment in historic neighborhoods. Historic Significance An area's historic significance was considered important,but it is clear the physical qualities that characterize a neighborhood would receive more consideration in NPD designation criteria. II at_ 01eportPhase Mhase V repotFinal.doc 20 Salem Neighborhood Preservation District Ordinance iVanasse HanRan_Brusdh%_[nc 4 Areas Recommended for Neighborhood Preservation Districts Two neighborhoods-Bridge Street and the Point-were ultimately subject to further investigation in Phase III of this study.A generous list of areas was considered in Phase I and Phase II that could certainly be considered for NPD designation in the future.The figure on page 22 displays recommended areas for NPD consideration;a larger version of this figure is included in Appendix 1,Phase 1.The areas considered in Phase I-11 are briefly described below,but are not listed in order of preference or importance: > Bridge Street Neck-Recommended in the 2005 heritage landscape reconnaissance survey for neighborhood conservation district status,the Bridge Street Neck area was recently listed(2002)in the National Register of Historic Places.The streets north of March Street,however,were not included in this nomination.The area,one of the earliest to be settled in Salem,contains 19th and 20th century houses and commercial structures,and a small number of institutional structures.Bridge Street,the main corridor that bisects the districts, is largely commercial and has some fairly recent automobile-oriented commercial establishments which interrupt the series of early to late 191h century buildings here.The recommended boundaries for the NPD could roughly follow the National Register boundaries on the south and west,but could also include the streets to the north and the entirely of the eastern waterfront. > Salem Willows-The entire neighborhood,including Salem Willows Park,was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1994.The area was recommended for National Register listing and local historic district designation in the 1991 plan.The 2005 heritage landscape reconnaissance survey identified Salem Neck,of which it is a part,as a priority heritage landscape and recommended the Juniper Point area as a possible neighborhood conservation district.This almost exclusively residential area contains former summer cottages and more substantial houses from c.1870 to the present.The area recommended for NPD designation excludes the park and Restaurant Row at the north end of Fort Avenue,but otherwise encompasses the entire Salem Willows area. IV awarepott Finl.doc 01reportslPhase MPhase 21 Areas Recommended for Neighborhood Preservation Districts IV report_Final.doc Va n asse-ffangen_Brzrstl fA,1hc .1 XpM1hwM1ootl Prwrv�wn WY4{e 91uRJ YYA1 I'�wtlhY�M - i'l 4�M i�ownk �IIfaT11NyWY ILK Lwr� +off �..�. .,......a � A,, f Y` N ti > Areas between Derby Street and Salem Common-The 1991 preservation master plan recommended the inclusion of the many short streets between Essex and Derby Streets and the streets east of Salem Common in expanded Derby Street and/or Washington Square Local Historic Districts.The 1991 plan also recommended the expansion of the Derby Waterfront National Register Historic District to encompass the streets between Essex and Derby Streets.These streets contain some of Salem s oldest houses;despite alterations to individual buildings,the streets exhibit a very cohesive character,with narrow setbacks and lot sizes commonly seen.Some of the streets west of the Washington Square Local Historic District are within the Essex Institute and Salem Common National Register Historic District,although sections of Boardman and Forrester Street,which contain high style residences from the 19th century,are not within these boundaries A possible NPD could extend from the Washington Square Local Historic District east to Collins Cove(just east of Webb Street and also encompass the streets north of Washington Square bordered by Webb and North 1V awarepott Fin l.doc 01reportslPhase MPhase 22 Areas Recommended for Neighborhood Preservation Districts IV report_Final.doc Yunasse Hangen_BruWh%Inc Streets.Either a second,or combined,NPD is seen in the short cross streets between Derby and Essex Streets. > Point Neighborhood-Two small areas containing the most architecturally cohesive collections of buildings within this neighborhood just south of Salem's downtown were recommended for National Register listing in the 1991 preservation master plan.The 2005 heritage landscape reconnaissance survey noted the area as a priority landscape area and recognized its potential as a neighborhood conservation district.The 2006 survey and preservation plan which focused on this neighborhood recommended National Register eligibility for the entire neighborhood for its association with the systematic rebuilding effort here after a major fire in 1914 and architectural cohesiveness of the area, largely rebuilt over a three-year period.A small area west of Lafayette Street was included within the recommended National Register boundaries,due to their similarity in building types and style and shared age and history.The NPD boundaries follow those recommended for the National Register. > High/Endicott Streets Area-This triangular area is tucked between Margin and Jackson Streets and the southern boundaries of the McIntire Local Historic District and the Urban Renewal Areas.The northern half includes a small number of 18th century houses,including the Gedney House on High Street owned by Historic New England.The remaining areas were devastated in the 1914 fire which also destroyed the Point neighborhood.The area exhibits many multi-family buildings that are quite similar in age and style to those seen in the Point neighborhood.Although not prevalent,massive sycamore trees characterize some of the streets.The recommended NPD boundaries roughly follow Margin Street and Jackson Street,but it is unclear if the older buildings could be included in an expansion of the McIntire Local Historic District and/or if the remaining sections could be part of a non-contiguous Point Neighborhood designation. > North Salem-Salem's northeast quadrant,clearly demarcated by a former railroad line and the North River,contains a number of potential NPD areas. These areas could either be separate districts or combined to form a single large district bounded by School/Orne Street on the north;Felt Street and the North River on the east;Tremont/Phillips Street on the east;and the North River Canal area on the south.The most distinct areas are described below: ➢ Grove Street-The area of Grove Street west of Tremont Street contains a number of single and multi-family residences that date from the mid-to-late 19th century.The area's proximity to Harmony Grove Cemetery and Mack Park lend a gracious air to this grouping of workers'housing.Surrounding streets,including the major spine of Tremont Street,display houses from a similar period although the groupings are not quite as cohesive. Il report Final.29.001reportslPhaseMPhase 23 Areas Recommended for Neighborhood Preservation Districts IV reporl_Final.doc Yuncasse Hangen_BruWh%Inc ➢ Buffum Street-The 1991 preservation master plan recommended both National Register listing and local historic district designation for Buffum Street.The street displays many high style residences from the mid-to-late 19th century that are well-maintained.The street could stand alone as a local historic district,or could be united with surrounding streets for a larger NPD designation. ➢ Flint Street-This one-block residential area lies between Mason Street on the north and the MBTA tracks on the south.The street is adjacent to the North River Canal area,which is protected by a separate zoning ordinance. The street is lined with multi-family and single family residences that have very similar setbacks,most featuring a front gable roof and similar late 19th century styling.The area could be combined with the nearby streets of Friend and Oak,but the houses there are not as cohesively grouped and display more alterations. ➢ Dearborn Street-The 1991 preservation master plan also recommended both National Register and local historic district designation for portions of the street between Upham and Lee Streets.This street is lined with high style single family homes from the second half of the 19th century and early 20th century.The eastern end of the street faces the North River and Salem's central business district beyond.Surrounding streets are similar in age,but feature slightly smaller houses though of a similar stylistic quality.The entire area bounded by North Street,the North River shoreline,Felt Street,and Orne Street could be a single NPD area. ➢ Salem Rebuilding Area-A small triangular area bounded by Franklin, Foster/Walter,and Osborne Streets and bisected by Hayward Street,the Salem Rebuilding Area was built by the Salem Rebuilding Trust to demonstrate the possibilities for quality,affordable housing for factory workers.The 12 houses,featuring two modes of double residences,were designed by the Boston architectural firm of Kilham and Hopkins.This distinctive area could be designated separately or could be incorporated into a larger North Salem NPD. ➢ North Street-North Street is the major northwest transportation corridor and contains both residential and commercial uses,many of the latter within 19th century houses.Similar to Bridge Street,a number of automobile- oriented businesses disrupt the formerly residential character of this thoroughfare.The street could either be part of a larger North Salem NPD or part of either a west side of North Street or east side of North Street district. > South Salem-Sections of Ward 5 and Ward 7 in Salem's southeast quadrant were the subject of the reconnaissance survey. The area is south of the Point neighborhood,whose southern border is Chase Street.Lafayette Street forms the major spine in this area.Canal Street was the nominal west side of the surveyed IV awarepott Fin l.doc 01reportslPhase MPhase 24 Areas Recommended for Neighborhood Preservation Districts IV report_Final.doc Yuncasse Hangen_BruWh%Inc area;the waterfront formed the east side.The north end of the area surveyed was within the 250-acre swath of Salem destroyed in the fire of 1914.But areas to the south were either not affected or had not yet been developed.Like North Salem, several areas distinguished by either their history or architectural cohesiveness could either be separate smaller NPDs or joined to form a larger district.The most comprehensive potential district,bounded by the waterfront on the east, Saltonstall Parkway/Cypress Street on the north,Canal Street on the west,and Loring Avenue on the south,is depicted on the figure included with this report. ➢ Fairfield Street-As noted above,the single block of Fairfield Street between Cabot and Lafayette Street is recommended for either local historic district or NPD designation.The street contains large stately single family homes of brick and wood frame construction that date from the 1910s and 1920s.The surrounding area is predominantly multi-family housing from the same period,except for the area to the west,which features houses from the late 19th century. ➢ Pre-fire Area-The area bounded by Cabot Street on the east,Cypress Street on the north,Canal Street on the west,and Roslyn Street on the south is the only area north of Leach and Holly Streets that escaped the fire of 1914.As a result,the area is surrounded by construction that dates from the 1910s and later.The area's modest houses are mainly quite small and were built for Salem's workers between the Civil War and the end of the 19th century. ➢ Derby and Messervy Estates Area-Named for the early 19th century landowners in this area,the area is bounded by Leach Street on the north, Canal Street extension on the west,waterfront on the east,and Loring /Clifton Avenue on the south.The area includes the existing Lafayette Street Local Historic District,which is on both sides of Lafayette Street between Holly/Leach Streets on the north and Clifton Street on the south.The area was developed between the Civil War and the early 20th century.The area's architecture is representative of this long period of development,displaying high style examples of all of the popular styles,including Italianate,Queen Anne,Colonial Revival,Craftsman,and Tudor Revival. > Naples and Savoy Roads-This small,self-contained neighborhood south of Loring Avenue and just east of Salem State College's campus developed in the early 20th century.The neighborhood is unique in its possession of a small private beach.The streets are cohesively lined with single family houses in Colonial Revival,Craftsman,and Tudor Revival styles.The area was recommended eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and as a local historic district in the 1991 preservation master plan.A small number of houses on Lafayette Street were also included.Similar boundaries,but with the addition of Hemenway Road adjacent to the private beach and Fairview Road,which contains late 1940s-1950s single family houses,are recommended as a possible IV awarepott Finl.doc 01reportslPhase MPhase 25 Areas Recommended for Neighborhood Preservation Districts IV report_Final.doc Vuncasse Hangen_Brust h%_hzc NPD.Individual properties further south on Lafayette Street may also be considered in this district. > Gallows Hill and Boston Street Area-The Gallows Hill area and its major corridor of Boston Street were noted by the community as significant landscapes in the 2005 heritage landscape inventory.The neighborhood contains many older residential areas,especially on Boston Street and nearby streets. It is the most diverse neighborhood architecturally,with many newer residences intermingled throughout the area.The area has experienced more alterations than the other areas examined in the reconnaissance survey and has more open parcels.A possible NPD might be bounded by the MBTA tracks on the north;Highland Avenue on the east;the Salem/Peabody city boundaries on the west;and Maple/South/Procter Streets on the south. District Rationale and Physical Characteristics of Bridge Street and Point Neighborhoods The DPCD was ultimately responsible for selecting the two neighborhoods that were studied in Phase III. Neighborhoods in which residents and property owners expressed interest in being the subject of the Phase III study received sole consideration.The DPCD also gave consideration to the potential threats facing a particular neighborhood and their quality of resources. As a result of their expressed interest,the DPCD selected the Bridge Street and the Point neighborhoods for further study in Phase III.Residents and property owners in both of these neighborhoods evidenced interest in the NPD concept,mainly due to concerns about future developments in these neighborhoods.The Bridge Street neighborhood is facing an unknown future for its commercial spine of Bridge Street due to a new parallel bypass road that opened in late summer 2008.Business owners on the street want to encourage more neighborhood-supported businesses and pedestrian activity,but do not want new development discouraged by overly strict design regulations.Both the Point and Bridge Street Neighborhoods were concerned about absentee landlords and their lack of property maintenance responsibilities. Both neighborhoods also have significant numbers of vacant or underutilized parcels whose possible redevelopment and resulting appearance would be of interest to the communities. Bridge Street As noted above,the Bridge Street neighborhood was recently listed in the National Register of Historic Places.The historic district met both Criteria A and C for its association with the evolution of Salem's earliest settlement from a maritime-based area to one transformed in the late 19th and early 20th century by its proximity to major transportation corridors,as well as its collection of well-preserved vernacular architecture from the late 18th century to the early 20th century.Bridge Street,the IV awarepott Fin l.doc 0treportslPhase lVlPhase 26 Areas Recommended for Neighborhood Preservation Districts IV report_Final.doc Yuncasse Hangen_BruWh%Inc main corridor that bisects the districts,is largely commercial and has some fairly recent automobile-oriented commercial establishments which interrupt the series of early to late 19th century buildings here. Physical characteristics of the neighborhood noted in the nomination and by the study's consultant include: > Buildings are set close to the street and to one another-a historic pattern seen in many Salem neighborhoods.Most buildings do not have a front yard;the buildings are directly next to the sidewalk. > Variety of styles and building types reflect continual development from the 18th century to the present > In general,building shapes and size are compatible on many blocks,despite different construction periods > Building forms are simple without much ornamentation > Detail is concentrated on porches,doorways,and bays > Bridge Street's commercial buildings are a mix of converted residential structures and mid to late 20th century buildings on large parcels with surface parking lots. Most of the latter are one-story in height and are in the eastern section of the neighborhood. The recommended boundaries for the NPD roughly follow the National Register boundaries on the south and west,but are recommended to also include the streets to the north and the entirety of the eastern waterfront.A figure showing the proposed boundaries is on page 28. Interest/Potential Threats Residents and property owners expressed interest in NPDs,due to recent developments that were seen by some to detract from the architectural character of certain streets.Others at the meeting were concerned about an additional review layer and incrementally-growing control over alterations and development.Most felt that the mainly commercial Bridge Street should be included in any potential NPD in the neighborhood.Threats facing the Bridge Street Neighborhood were the number of poorly-maintained and vacant properties,an unknown future for Bridge Street as a result of the bypass road,and potential large residential developments that would disrupt the views and character of certain streets. IV awarepott Fin l.doc 01reportslPhase MPhase 27 Areas Recommended for Neighborhood Preservation Districts IV report_Final.doc Yuncasse Hi_BruWin l'na MawahleW 0329.001GI Slprolei:Mppendicesr 3 n dgeStreeLN eck.mxd P11-13 Tye y�eoiy s�F�T RC�AV" RF6T � w tia co �w RC STR� F�cRRrSsa N.ST�ET FT F PLANTERS STREpT os00 00 y- ��rSrRt:�. � $. m � coNgA,)- yu A BRIDGE STRE 1. ET}NECK National Register Historiict 4i � y y 2 h y ARg � 44 SrR�ET STR 10 y4 1 SALEM COMMON - � Na{ionahyRegi. ster �> HistorimDistnct t r� 0 250 500 Fee[ Source:Ci of Salem Legend MProposed NPD boundaries Proposed NPD boundaries for UNational Register district Bridge Street Neighborhood Salem,Massachusetts WawaIVrepott Final329.00treports\Phase�V,Phase 28 Areas Recommended for Neighborhood Preservation Districts IV report_Final.doc Yuncasse Hangen_BruWh%Inc Point Neighborhood The 2006 Point Neighborhood Historic Resources Survey and Preservation Plan which focused on this neighborhood recommended National Register eligibility for the entire neighborhood for its association with the systematic rebuilding effort here after a major fire in 1914 and architectural cohesiveness of the area,largely rebuilt over a three-year period. Physical characteristics of the neighborhood noted in the nomination and by the study's consultant include: > Buildings are set close to the street and occupy most of the lot footprint > Most of the Point's buildings were constructed within a 3-year period from 1914- 1917,using a model building code that stressed fireproof qualities > Residents chose designs from plans provided to them or were architect-designed, which has resulted in many similar building types and forms in the neighborhood > In general,building shapes and size are compatible on many blocks with a height restriction of 2-4 stories imposed by the model building code > Porches are one of the most characteristic elements: open porches across the front of buildings and multi-story porches on the rear and sides > Buildings are simple without much ornamentation,although classical elements dominate A small area west of Lafayette Street was included within the recommended National Register boundaries,due to their similarity in building types and styles and shared age and history.The NPD boundaries follow those recommended for the National Register.A figure showing the proposed boundaries is on page 31. Interest/Potential Threats Attendees at the Phase II and III meetings,which included property owners and residents,were generally in favor of the NPD concept but stressed that the majority of the rental property in the neighborhood is owned by individuals who did not attend the meetings.Individual concerns were expressed regarding the protection of open space in this extremely dense neighborhood and control over the size of new developments so that open space is retained as much as possible.One attendee noted that design guidelines should not discourage energy efficiency,such as installation of solar panels on roofs.Others expressed their favor of retention of older architecture, despite their existing or former unkempt conditions.Most recognized that front porches and multi-story rear and side porches were important character-defining elements and believed that removal or enclosure would have a negative impact. Others noted infill of original garage and storefront areas due to their conversion to residential uses and the practice's negative impact on the neighborhood's historic IWawa epotrt Final.29.001reportslPhaseMPhase 29 Areas Recommended for Neighborhood Preservation Districts IV reporl_Final.doc Yuncasse Hangen_BruWh%Inc appearance.The large percentage of absentee landlords who own buildings in the neighborhood is an important concern to many;some felt that these landlords would be opposed to the NPD concept and may not make any improvements as a result of their opposition. IV repatr1 Final.29.001reportslPhase MPhase 30 Areas Recommended for Neighborhood Preservation Districts IV report_Final.doc Yanassegen_BrzrstlL ,mac. umawame,A1 o32s oolGIS%prolectwppendlceslTnePointmxd r 5�� m RYON'SQNARE c1F 'P ET Z S FRONT'STREET �y 5 a k"ore m m a 77 NEW DERBY STREET C EET 2 T ET D 0006E STREET � Z PEAgOPY'S T'!(EE:�, N4 I'm m � WARD STREET �{ HAR00RSTRE ET owLYN CkI'STREET SS��O y 5 y OY� POW STREET � The Point 0 u y PORTER STRE ET Y z w Y � N O S PA,_MER STREET w n 7 y 7 m K O GEPAR STREET Z < < I.EpV1.�STREEt � � c U m T D D EA15iF1ELp STAFF � CRASE 57REE7 LYME STREET O w mGAR"ERSTREET-t 114 SAITONSTATI PARKWAY p10NEER }3PNCOCK STREET IAFAYETTEPLPCE 0 2�0 Feet Sowce:City of Salem Legend - Proposed NPD boundaries Proposed NPD boundaries for ® National Register district Point Neighborhood Salem,Massachusetts Wawa Vrepo Itrt_Final.doc r1ev110329.001reportslPhase lVlPhase 31 Areas Recommended for Neighborhood Preservation Districts IV repo Yuncasse Hangen_BruWh%Inc 5 Neighborhood Preservation District Design Guidelines for Bridge Street and Point Neighborhoods The Phase III study resulted in an individual set of sample illustrated guidelines for both the Bridge Street and Point neighborhoods.The sample guidelines are presented in three major categories:new construction,demolition,and alterations to existing buildings.Proposed new construction and demolition of buildings over 50 years old is subject to binding review,while alterations to certain elements of existing buildings will only receive an advisory review by the NPD commission. The illustrated publications for both neighborhoods are included in Appendix 4. The review categories of new construction,demolition and alteration to existing buildings cover the elements that Salem residents and property owners agreed required either binding or advisory review.New construction and demolition were chosen for binding review because of the greater impacts these actions would have on a block of existing buildings in both neighborhoods.The decision to have advisory review for alterations to certain elements of existing buildings resulted from the general concept of neighborhood preservation districts,which allows more flexible review over such changes.Additionally,most Salem residents and property owners opined for advisory review,rather than strict binding reviews for these changes.The elements of existing buildings stipulated for advisory review were those that primarily characterize a majority of buildings in the neighborhoods and were the elements about which Salem residents and property owners expressed most concern. The guidelines for the appearance and placement of new buildings focus on broader concepts of scale,form,and setback and do not intend to dictate exactly what the appearance of a new building should be. For new construction,buildings over 50 years old in the vicinity of the new building are the primary guide for appropriate size,form and materials.The City planning staff assigned to the NPD commission is expected to assist property developers with these concepts so that meetings with the Commission can be minimized. IV P.rt Fin0329.001repodslPhaseMPhase 32 Neighborhood Preservation District Design Guidelines for Bridge Street and IV report_Final.doc Point Neighborhoods Yuncasse Hangen_BruWh%Inc In addition to these sample design guidelines publications,the NPD Commission as well as project proponents are encouraged to use two excellent sources of guidance previously prepared for Salem's residential areas and commercial districts.The 1977 Salem Handbook,published by Historic Salem,Inc.and about to be re-published, focuses on residential buildings.The handbook offers information about historic architectural styles and their major characteristic features,exterior elements such as fences and walls that are appropriate,and guidance on siting new buildings on an existing block of houses.The recently published 2005 City of Salem Commercial Design Guidelines presents numerous examples of appropriate and inappropriate design for commercial buildings,including storefront system design,awnings,signage,and placement of new buildings.The latter publication is available on the City of Salem's website;hopefully the Salem Handbook can be as accessible as well in the future. The sample design guidelines booklets are illustrated for a very specific purpose. Narrative text stating what the guidelines are best understood if they are supported by visual examples of what would be acceptable and what would likely not be approved.All three of the publications,the specific design guidelines for the neighborhood,the Salem Handbook,and the commercial design guidelines,display both photographs of actual examples as well as line illustrations to depict appropriate and inappropriate design.If NPD districts are established,we recommend that simple line illustrations continue to be generated to demonstrate more clearly the appropriateness of various proposed projects that come up for review. IV P.rt Fin l.doc 01reportslPhaseMPhase 33 Neighborhood Preservation District Design Guidelines for Bridge Street and IV report_Final.doc Point Neighborhoods Yuncasse Hangen_BruWh%Inc 6 Recommendations for Further Study Further study is recommended on the following topics,some of which were discussed at the neighborhood meetings. > Feasibility of an affirmative maintenance ordinance > Feasibility of enforcement of commonly-accepted community standards that promote cleanliness,order,and other desirable characteristics > Definitive and/or updated study of possible funding/financing sources for property maintenance. > Feasibility of a demolition by neglect ordinance Recommendations for NPD Approval Process The NPD approval process should incorporate the following recommendations: > The study petition should be signed by at least 20% of the neighborhood's property owners. > Educational sessions are required to be held during the study process that focus on the implications of designation,proposed boundaries,and the choice of elements and their level of review. > City Councillor(s)for the neighborhood under study should attend educational sessions and public meetings or be briefed by City staff during the study period so that they are informed about the process and the neighborhood's opinions. > During the study period,a house-to-house survey to notify residents and property owners of the study and designation process should be conducted.This effort may also put more people in the information loop that will be crucial to the designations success. II t_ 01eportlPhase VlPhase V repotFinal.doc 34 Recommendations for Further Study aiVanasse HanRen_Brusdh%-[nc Recommendations on Priorities for Future NPD Designation At this point in time,the Bridge Street and Point neighborhoods merit the highest priority for future designation should interest and desire for the designation be sustained.Education,through additional meetings,workshops,and publications to neighborhood residents and property owners,City Council members,and members of commissions,such as the Zoning Board of Appeals,is recommended to help gain understanding and support for future designation. Some residents and property owners in other neighborhoods,notably South Salem, North Salem and Gallows Hill also expressed interest in the NPD concept;the City should continue communications with these individuals and with the neighborhood groups to gauge their future intent for NPD designation. II t_ 0eportlPhase VlPhase V repotFinal.doc 35 Recommendations for Further Study iVanasse HanRan_Brusdh%_[nc 7 Annotated Bibliography Brookline NCD Study The Neighborhood Conservation District Study for the Town of Brookline,prepared by Larson Fisher Associates in 2005,is a comprehensive source of neighborhood conservation district definitions,processes,and practices around the country.As of 2008,Brookline has not yet adopted a Neighborhood Conservation District bylaw. The appendices included with that study are enclosed here. Since the 2005 study,the communities of Lincoln,North Andover,Wellesley,and Lowell have instituted neighborhood preservation district legislation.Both Lowell and North Andover have one or more established neighborhood preservation districts,while Wellesley and Lincoln are in the study process for individual districts' designations.Links to these communities' studies and legislation,along with communities with older,well-established programs are noted below. Links to Relevant Websites Massachusetts Communities with Neighborhood Preservation District Legislation City of Amesbury http://www.ci.amesbuiy.ma.us/home.nfs?a=amesbury&s=special&document=6832 &group_id=76(Link to the Establishment of Neighborhood Conservation Districts under Section 40A,Section 5) City of Boston, Boston Landmarks Commission http://www.cityofboston.gov/environment/downloads.asp(Link to information about all of Boston s local historic and architectural conservation districts,including maps,reports,and guidelines.) II t_ 0329.00eportlPhase VlPhase V repotFinal.doc 36 Annotated Bibliography Vanasse Hangen_Brusfb%- nc CitV of Cambridge,Cambridge Historical Commission http://www.cambridgema.gov/Historic/districts.html(Link to information about all of Cambridge's local historic and neighborhood conservation districts,including review process,maps,reports,and guidelines.) Town of Lincoln Bylaw http://www.lincolntown.org/NCD`/`20bylaw`/`20030506.pdf Overview of the Neighborhood Conservation District Program http://www.lincolntown.org/NCD/`20Overview%20and%20Summaiy/`20030506.p df City of Lowell, Lowell Historic Board http://www.historiclowell.net/review-districts-permitting/downtown-historic- district/review-districts-permitting/review-districts-permitting(Link to information about all of Lowell's local historic and neighborhood districts,including maps, reports,and guidelines.) City of Northampton Ordinance,Chapter 156,Central Business District Architecture http://www.e- codes.generalcode.com/codebook frameset.asp?ep=fs&t=ws&cb=2226 A Downtown Northampton Central Business District,Design Guidelines Manual (1999) htig://www.e-codes.generalcode.com/codes/2226 A/2226- 156a%20Central%20Business%20Architecture%20Desio%20Guidelines.pdf#xml=htt 12://www.e codes.generalcode.com/searchresults.asp?cmd=pdfhits&Docld=28&Index=C%3a%5 cProgram%20Files%5cdtSearch%5cUserData%5c2226%5fA&HitCount=12&hits=6+7 +51+52+7c+7d+1141+1142+237e+237f+238b&hc=134&req=Central+Business Town of North Andover-Machine Shop Village ht!p://www.townofnorthandover.com/Pages/NAndoverMA CommDev/MSV/Ne ighborhoodConservationDist(Link to bylaw,study report,guidelines,and map of Machine Shop Village) Town of Wellesley Bylaw and explanatory pages http://www.ci.wellesley.ma.us/pages/wellesleyma HistComm/NCD2 II t_ 0329.00eportPhase Mhase V reportFinal.doc 37 Annotated Bibliography 0 Vuncasse Hangen_Brust h%-hzc Denton Road NCD Final Study Report http://www.ci.wellesley.ma.us/pages/wellesleyma HistComm/FinalReport Salem Sources Berg,Shary Page,Gretchen G.Schuler,and Virginia Adams Salem Reconnaissance Report:Essex County Landscape Inventory,Massachusetts Heritage Landscape Inventory Program,May 2005 Brengle,Kim Withers,Northfields Preservation Associates A Preservation Master Plan for the City of Salem,Massachusetts:Strategies for the Preservation of Salem's Historic and Archaeological Resources,August 1991 City of Salem,Department of Planning and Community Development(DPCD) The DPCD has copies of Massachusetts Historical Commission inventory forms(area,building,structure,etc.)and National Register nominations for all Salem properties. Historic Salem,Inc. The Salem Handbook,1977. Mountjoy,Alan,Chan Krieger&Associates and William Finch,Finch&Rose City of Salem Commercial Design Guidelines,2005 Municipal Code Corporation Zoning Ordinance, City of Salem,Massachusetts,1991,Reprinted 1999 Salem Historical Commission Salem Historical Commission Guidelines Notebook,1984,amended 2004 Salem Redevelopment Authority Urban Renewal Plan,Heritage Plaza East Urban Renewal Project, Salem, Essex County,Massachusetts VHB/Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. The Point Neighborhood Historic Resources Survey and Preservation Plan, September 2006 Other Sources Heuer,Tad "Living History:How Homeowners in a New Local Historic District Negotiate Their Legal Obligations",The Yale Law journal,116:768,2007 II t_ 0eportlPhase VlPhase V repotFinal.doc 38 Annotated Bibliography 0 Vancasse Hangen_BruWh%Inc Study of the newly-designated City Point Local Historic District in New Haven,CT,which analyzed the neighborhood's perceptions of the district's importance as well as the positive and negative features of district controls. The article made several recommendations for improving perception and administration. II t_ 0329.001eportlPhase VlPhase V repotFinal.doc 39 Annotated Bibliography Yuncasse HanUn_BmWin,lnc Appendix 1 ➢ Products from Phase 1,2 and 3 Phase I Report Neighborhood Preservation District Study Salem, Massachusetts Prepared for City of Salem,Department of Planning and Community Development Salem, Massachusetts Prepared by WM/Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. Watertown, Massachusetts Phase I Report Neighborhood Preservation District Study Salem, Massachusetts Prepared for City of Salem Department of Planning and Community Development 120 Washington Street, 3rd Floor Salem, MA01970 978-745-9595 Prepared by MB/Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. Transportation, Land Development,Environmental Services 101 Walnut Street P.O. Box 9151 Watertown, Massachusetts 02471-9151 617-924-1770 Staff: Rita Walsh, Christophe Gervais,Janet Thomas, Terri Courtemarche February 2008 The Neighborhood Preservation District Study in Salem, Massachusetts Phase I Report has been financed in part with federal funds from the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,through the Massachusetts Historical Commission,Secretary of Commonwealth William Francis Galvin, Chairman. However,the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior, or the Massachusetts Historical Commission. Vanasse Hannan Bru din,Inc Table of Contents INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................................1 REVIEW OF EXISTING DISTRICT STUDIES IN SALEM...........................................................................................3 1991 PRESERVATION MASTER PLAN...................................................................................................................................3 2005 SALEM RECONNAISSANCE REPORT:ESSEX COUNTY LANDSCAPE INVENTORY,MASSACHUSETTS HERITAGE LANDSCAPE INVENTORY PROGRAM....................................................................................................................................5 2006 POINT NEIGHBORHOOD HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY AND PRESERVATION PLAN...................................................6 NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATIONS AND INVENTORY FORMS............................................................................................6 OTHERSTUDIES...................................................................................................................................................................6 OBJECTIVES FOR NPD DESIGNATION........................................................................................................................6 CRITERIA FOR NPD DESIGNATION.............................................................................................................................7 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POTENTIAL LHDS AND NPDS....................................................................................9 LOCALHISTORIC DISTRICTS................................................................................................................................................9 NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION DISTRICTS........................................................................................................................9 PUBLICPROCESS TO DATE..........................................................................................................................................14 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS.............................................................................................................................................. 14 WORKINGGROUP MEETINGS.............................................................................................................................................. 15 PUBLICATIONS................................................................................................................................................................... 15 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY.....................................................................................................................................15 BROOKLINE NCD STUDY BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................................................................... 16 LINKSTO RELEVANT WEBSITES........................................................................................................................................16 SALEMSOURCES............................................................................................................................................................... 18 OTHERSOURCES ...............................................................................................................................................................18 APPENDICES ➢ Neighborhood Preservation District Study figure ➢ PowerPoint presentation-generic version for Public Meetings (hard copy) ➢ Brochure(hard copy) ➢ Draft Ordinance(hard copy) ➢ CD containing all of the Phase I products noted above,including the report and digital images ➢ List of attendees at January 25,2008 meeting of Alliance of Salem Neighborhood Associations ➢ Appendices from Neighborhood Conservation District Study for the Town of Brookline,2005 aiVunasse HaIAWn Brvs&M Inc ➢ Article prepared for Historic Salem,Inc.Winter 2008 newsletter iVanasse fanRan_Brusdh%-[nc Phase I Report Introduction The City of Salem(City)contracted Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. (VHB)to study the feasibility of creating Neighborhood Preservation Districts' as a component of the Salem Preservation Master Plan. This plan,which was completed in 1991,discussed the concept of Neighborhood Preservation Districts(referred to as Neighborhood Conservation Districts in the plan),but no action has been taken to implement the recommendation.The major purpose of the current study is to research the concept of Neighborhood Preservation Districts(NPD) and ways that it might best fit Salem s situation,prepare a draft ordinance,and create educational materials for the public. The study and its final products and recommendations will rely heavily on public input,gained through a series of neighborhood meetings,stakeholder interviews, and other means.The study is anticipated to provide recommendations that will help the City of Salem and individual neighborhoods determine if a NPD program is right for the city's neighborhoods and can function alongside the Local Historic District (LHD)program already in place. Specific goals for the study include: ➢ Create a definition of Neighborhood Preservation Districts(NPD) appropriate to Salem,including a rationale for NPDs in Salem and defining physical characteristics. ................................................................................................................ The term,Neighborhood Preservation District,was chosen by the study's Working Group to ease confusion with conservation areas and the local Conservation Commission.The terms,Neighborhood Architectural Conservation District,Architectural Conservation District,or Neighborhood Conservation District,are more typically used,but are only used in this study report to reference specific studies or reports or the name used by communities referenced in the report.Otherwise,the term,Neighborhood Preservation District,is used to describe the generic concept in this study and report. 1 Yunasse HanUn_B Wlin,Inc ➢ Create a map of potential NPD boundaries,taking into consideration architectural style and character,building massing and siting,and streetscape characteristics. ➢ Provide recommendations for architectural significant areas preferable as Local Historic Districts. ➢ Provide opportunities for public comment through public meetings. ➢ Develop a framework for NPD administration through the detailed analysis of two potential districts,including design guidelines and design review administrative procedures. ➢ Develop a draft NPD ordinance creating two selected NPDs based on the MHC Sample Architectural Conservation District Bylaw. ➢ Prepare a study report for Neighborhood Preservation Districts. VHB is directly assisted in this study by the City's Department of Planning and Community Development(DPCD) Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) Planner,Kirsten Kinzer,who serves as the Project Coordinator and a Working Group of Salem residents(Working Group),who are extremely diligent in their interest, time,and recommendations.These Working Group members are: ➢ Jane A.Guy,DPCD Assistant Community Development Director ➢ Barbara Cleary,Historic Salem,Inc.President ➢ Emily Udy,Historic Salem,Inc.,Preservation Project Manager ➢ David Hart,Salem Historical Commission Member ➢ Jessica Herbert,Salem Historical Commission Member ➢ Maggie Lemelin Towne,Alliance of Salem Neighborhood Associations President Christopher Skelly,director of Local Government Programs with the Massachusetts Historical Commission provides oversight for the project and guidance on methodology and products. The Phase I report describes the initial progress in the study and includes the products specified for this phase of work.The purpose of the Phase I report is to provide the City's DPCD)and the Massachusetts Historical Commission(MHC)with the results of tasks stipulated during this phase of work in preparation for survey, research,and planning tasks in the succeeding phases. The Phase I tasks specified: ➢ Meetings with the DPCD project coordinator,Kirsten Kinzer,and MHC staff to discuss the scope of the project and to assess the available documentary materials(maps,survey forms,studies,articles,etc.) ➢ Review existing studies delineating historic districts,including National Register Historic District nominations,Point Neighborhood Preservation Plan,Local Historic District study reports,Preservation Master Plan for the City of Salem. ➢ Review Brookline Neighborhood Conservation District Study and the MHC Sample Neighborhood Conservation District Bylaw. 2 Yuncasse fanWn_BruWh%Inc ➢ Hold informal meetings and/or telephone interviews with stakeholders to gather initial input on the creation of Neighborhood Preservation Districts in Salem. Collect,review,and summarize stakeholder comments. ➢ Summarize objectives for NPD designation in Salem and criteria for NPD designation.Provide criteria for differentiating areas preferable as Local Historic Districts from NPDs. ➢ Provide recommendations for the boundaries of potential NPDs and areas preferable as LHDs,utilizing existing studies and maps and a limited windshield survey,and,if required,limited review of survey forms on file with the Salem Historical Commission. ➢ Prepare definition of a NPD and a draft Salem NPD ordinance based on the MHC sample bylaw,which includes nomination,approval,and design review process. ➢ Prepare an annotated bibliography of material related to Neighborhood Conservation Districts utilizing local,state and national sources. ➢ Prepare a two-page handout explaining NPDs for distribution to Salem residents. ➢ Prepare a PowerPoint presentation for use at public meetings that explains the role of NPDs in protecting historic resources,the difference between NPDs and LHDs,the process of establishing NPDs,and recommendations for potential NPDs in Salem. ➢ Provide copies of draft products for review by DPCD and MHC. Study Area The area of study essentially began with the entire city,excluding the areas that are already protected in some manner from inappropriate exterior alteration and/or new construction and demolition.Areas of more directed focus are discussed in the section below regarding recommended areas for potential NPDs. Review of Existing District Studies in Salem One of the initial activities in this phase involved a review of previous Salem studies, reports,and plans in order to identify previously proposed areas or designation attempts. The major sources of information proved to be the 1991 Preservation Master Plan,2005 Salem Reconnaissance Report of the Essex County Landscape Inventory,and the 2006 Point Neighborhood Historic Resources Survey and Preservation Plan. 1991 Preservation Master Plan Salem's preservation master plan,prepared in 1991 by Northfields Preservation Associates of Salem,provided a comprehensive set of strategies and recommended actions for the City and its residents. The plan recommended either local historic 3 Vuncasse fanWn_B Wlin,1nc district or neighborhood conservation district designation for several areas in the city "where concentrations of buildings are significant,possess integrity,and would benefit from the protection afforded by designation"!The plan did not detail further how conservation districts would be defined,established or administered,except to note that the administrative needs would be similar to local historic districts.These areas were: ➢ Buffum Street between School and Mason Streets,with the possible inclusion of several buildings on School and Mason Streets ➢ Dearborn Street,between Upham and Lee Streets;Southwick Street and several houses on Walter Street to the north and south of Dearborn Street ➢ Fairfield Street,entirety of the street between Cabot and Lafayette Streets; part of Cedar Street ➢ Naples and Savoy Roads,entirety of these two streets east of Lafayette Street, and several houses on the east side of Lafayette Street ➢ Salem Willows,east of Fort Avenue and north of Columbus Square. The preservation plan recommended expansion of three existing local historic districts: ➢ Washington Square Local Historic District-inclusion of streets north toward Bridge Street and northeast toward Webb Street ➢ Derby Waterfront Historic District-inclusion of cross streets between Essex and Derby Street,bounded by Hawthorne Boulevard on the west and English Street on the east.Additional recommendation to merge Washington Square and Derby Waterfront districts into a single local historic district. ➢ McIntire Historic District-inclusion of 5-23 Summer Street properties. The preservation plan recommended expansion and establishment of several National Register districts: ➢ Derby Waterfront National Register Historic District-inclusion of cross streets between Essex and Derby Street,bounded by Hawthorne Boulevard on the west and English Street on the east ➢ Downtown Salem National Register Historic District-inclusion of north side of Essex Street extending to North Street. ➢ Salem Common National Register Historic District-inclusion of Boardman, section of Briggs Street,and limited number of properties on Forrester and Pleasant Streets. ➢ Chestnut Street National Register Historic District-expansion to include all properties in the much larger local historic district,as well as 5-23 Summer Street,Gedney Street,Broad Street and adjacent streets to the south,and west end of Warren Street. V ............................................................................................. Brengle,Kim Withers,Northfields Preservation Associates,A Preservation Master Plan for the City of Salem Massachusetts,August 1991,pp.30-31 4 0 Vuncasse Hangen_BruW ➢ Establishment of new National Register Historic Districts': ■ Salem Willows ■ Winter Island ■ Salem State College ■ Ward and Peabody Streets,Point Neighborhood ■ Loring Villa,Convent St.Chretienne ■ Buffum Street ■ Dearborn Street ■ Fairfield Street ■ Naples and Savoy Roads ■ Derby Estate Area ■ Prince Street Place,Point Neighborhood ■ Salem Rebuilding Trust Area 2005 Salem Reconnaissance Report: Essex County Landscape Inventory, Massachusetts Heritage Landscape Inventory Program Sponsored by the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation and the Essex National Heritage Commission,this reconnaissance report documenting significant landscapes was prepared by Shary Page Berg,Gretchen G.Schuler and Virginia Adams.Priority heritage landscapes,both natural and man-made,were identified as follows: ➢ Bridge Street Neck,Common and Derby Street ➢ Broad Street Cemetery,Charter Street Cemetery,and Howard Street Burying Ground ➢ Kernwood/Cabot Farm Area ➢ Pioneer Village ➢ Salem Neck ➢ Salem Woods (Great Pasture) ➢ Winter Island Additional priority landscapes noted in the report,although not specifically discussed,include the Point Neighborhood and Bridge Street Neck.Members of the community additionally identified Gallows Hill,North Salem,South Salem,and Boston Street as important areas. The consultants made specific recommendations regarding neighborhood conservation district designation for Bridge Street Neck, Juniper Point(Salem Willows),and the Point Neighborhood. V ..................................................................... Since the 1991 plan's completion,the Salem Willows/Winter Island areas and Bridge Street Neck have been listed in the National Register of Historic Places. 5 aiVanasse HanRan_Brusdh%_[nc 2006 Point Neighborhood Historic Resources Survey and Preservation Plan The Point Neighborhood Historic Resources Survey and Preservation Plan,completed by VHB in 2006,recommended the entire neighborhood and an area west of Lafayette Street eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Establishment of a neighborhood conservation district program was one of several recommendations in mentioned in the plan,although the recommendation focused on establishing the program in a city ordinance first,rather than specifically designating the Point Neighborhood. The plan noted that the neighborhood satisfied the criteria needed to be a NCD: presence of a cohesive area with common characteristics and of buildings which are significant to the architectural,cultural,and social history of the neighborhood. National Register Nominations and Inventory Forms Other sources of information reviewed included the National Register nomination forms for Salem's historic districts and individual and area forms for properties throughout the city. The City of Salem DPCD has a complete collection of these nominations and inventory forms.The most pertinent data retrieved from this material was district(or area,in the case of area inventory forms)boundaries and their justification,history,and integrity and condition descriptions. Other Studies Other studies examined were the North River Canal Neighborhood Mixed Use District Ordinance,prepared by Goody Clancy;the Salem Redevelopment Authority's Urban Renewal Area ordinances;the City's Zoning Ordinance;and Entrance Corridor Overlay Ordinance. Existing design guidelines in the city, embodied in the Salem Historical Commission Guidelines Notebook(1984,amended 2004)and Commercial Design Guidelines, (2005)prepared by Chan Krieger& Associates and Finch&Rose,provided insight into the current level of review and administration in the city. Objectives for NPD designation The primary objective in this study of a NPD program for Salem is to assess the feasibility of an additional tool to preserve Salem's architectural character.Other objectives include a city-wide discussion about the nature and character of the various neighborhoods in Salem;the level of interest and concern in establishing 6 Yuncasse fanWn_BruWh%Inc such a program,and identification of threats that may affect the historic physical character of Salem s neighborhoods. Preserving Neighborhood Character A major concern expressed is the level of inappropriate alterations in areas where there is minimal design control. The City's Zoning Ordinance dictates such standard items as setback and height,but variances and special permits on these items as well as use can be granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals,which have impacted some neighborhoods'character.Identification and subsequent review of changes to the most important features of a neighborhood's character is a stated intention of the program. Demolition The City of Salem's demolition delay ordinance applies to buildings or structures listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places or which are fifty or more years old.Proposals for demolition of such buildings or structures are reviewed by the Salem Historical Commission.If the building or structure meets the criteria stated in the ordinance,then a period of 180 days (six months)is allowed for the Commission to work with the property owner and to conduct investigations in order to issue a written recommendation regarding the demolition. If no agreement to preserve the building is reached within the six-month demolition delay period,a demolition permit is issued by the Building Inspector. Within Salem s local historic districts and the Urban Renewal Area,demolition permits can be denied by the Salem Historical Commission and the Salem Redevelopment Authority,respectively.Residents have voiced a desire for this level of control due to the loss of historic buildings in other Salem neighborhoods. Future Development Concerns Although Salem is currently experiencing a slight downturn in real estate values and development projects,it is believed that the near future will see a renewed and increased interest in redevelopment of areas adjacent to Salem s waterfront and unprotected areas near the downtown.The capability of a neighborhood preservation district ordinance to have additional input on both demolition reviews and new construction design is considered an essential component of the NPD program.The aim is have some level of protection in place before the onset of possible negative impacts of future development. Criteria for NPD Designation The criteria for determining which areas are likely candidates for NPD designation have centered to date on an area's physical cohesiveness and its display of relatively 7 Yuncasse HanUn_B Wlin,1nc few significant alterations.The criteria as currently defined in the draft ordinance are relatively broad: ➢ The area contains buildings and/or structures and/or settings that are significant to the architectural,aesthetic,cultural,political,economic or social history of Salem;or ➢ The area has generally cohesive features,such as the scale,size,type of construction,materials,or style of the building and structures,and/or land use patterns and landscaping The designation criteria will be subject to further discussion and definition throughout the study's second phase when the NPD concept is presented to the city's residents in a number of neighborhood meetings to be held in March and April. Certain aspects of designation criteria that have been discussed are: District Size The appropriate minimum/maximum size and number of properties that could be included in an individual district was not determined in this phase.Discussions have considered a minimum of 75 properties,similar to the City of Cambridge's regulations.The understanding is that a district that contains fewer properties may be unable to sustain a steady supply of neighborhood Commission members. Conversely,a district that is too large may be unwieldy in terms of the number of applications that would come before the volunteer Commission. The possibility of designating several smaller districts(those with less than 75 properties)as a single non-contiguous district was fairly well received as a way to not only protect several small discrete areas,but also allow a single Neighborhood Preservation District commission to administer these areas. Involvement of existing or additional new DPCD staff in NPD administration and review has not been extensively discussed. Building Age The current sense is that areas that are more than 50 years old are the likeliest candidates for NPD designation.This criterion will likely not change as a result of additional study or public meetings. Building Condition The condition and physical integrity of buildings within a neighborhood are important factors in preliminary recommendations for potential NPDs listed in the 8 Yuncasse Hangen_BruWh%Inc next section.The areas that contained buildings that were well maintained and exhibited the least alteration were the most obvious candidates.The public meetings and subsequent discussions with the study's Working Group and other stakeholders may help re-define this criterion's importance in designation criteria. Historic Significance An area's historical importance is considered important,but it is clear the physical qualities that characterize a neighborhood are more closely viewed in NPD designation criteria. Recommendations for Potential LHDs and NPDs VHB conducted a reconnaissance survey of Salem's neighborhoods that are not currently protected by some level of design review.These latter areas include the four local historic districts,Urban Renewal Areas,or the North River Canal area.The survey initially focused on previously recommended areas,although most of these areas were recommended for expansion.Three areas are preliminarily recommended for local historic district designation,although each of these areas,joined by certain surrounding streets,is also recommended for NPD designation. The recommendations are shown on the figure that accompanies this report.This figure shows areas currently protected in some manner,National Register districts, areas previously recommended as local historic districts or neighborhood conservation districts,and areas currently recommended. Local Historic Districts Three of the five areas recommended in the 1991 Preservation Master Plan as potential local historic districts are considered the likeliest LHD candidates.These areas are essentially as depicted in the 1991 plan: ➢ Fairfield Street between Lafayette and Cabot Streets ➢ Buffum Street between School and Mason Streets ➢ Dearborn Street between Upham and Lee Streets. Neighborhood Preservation Districts The early stage of the study and relatively broad designation criteria resulted in a generous list of areas that could certainly be considered for NPD designation at this time.It is a situation that may not markedly change during the study's course. 9 Yuncasse HanUn_B Wlin,1nc These areas are briefly described below,but are not listed in order of preference or importance: Bridge Street Neck-Recommended in the 2005 heritage landscape reconnaissance survey for neighborhood conservation district status,the Bridge Street Neck area was recently listed (2002)in the National Register of Historic Places.The streets north of March Street,however,were not included in this nomination.The area,one of the earliest to be settled in Salem,contains 191h and 20th century houses and commercial structures,and a small number of institutional structures.Bridge Street,the main corridor that bisects the districts,is largely commercial and has some fairly recent automobile-oriented commercial establishments which interrupt the series of early to late 19th century buildings here.The recommended boundaries for the NPD could roughly follow the National Register boundaries on the south and west,but could also include the streets to the north and the entirely of the eastern waterfront. Salem Willows-The entire neighborhood,including Salem Willows Park,was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1994.The area was recommended for National Register listing and local historic district designation in the 1991 plan.The 2005 heritage landscape reconnaissance survey identified Salem Neck,of which it is a part,as a priority heritage landscape and recommended the Juniper Point area as a possible neighborhood conservation district.This almost exclusively residential area contains former summer cottages and more substantial houses from c.1870 to the present.The area recommended for NPD designation excludes the park and Restaurant Row at the north end of Fort Avenue,but otherwise encompasses the entire Salem Willows area. Areas between Derby Street and Salem Common-The 1991 preservation master plan recommended the inclusion of the many short streets between Essex and Derby Streets and the streets east of Salem Common in expanded Derby Street and/or Washington Square Local Historic Districts.The 1991 plan also recommended the expansion of the Derby Waterfront National Register Historic District to encompass the streets between Essex and Derby Streets.These streets contain some of Salem s oldest houses;despite alterations to individual buildings,the streets exhibit a very cohesive character,with narrow setbacks and lot sizes commonly seen.Some of the streets west of the Washington Square Local Historic District are within the Essex Institute and Salem Common National Register Historic District,although sections of Boardman and Forrester Street,which contain high style residences from the 19th century,are not within these boundaries A possible NPD could extend from the Washington Square Local Historic District east to Collins Cove(just east of Webb Street and also encompass the streets north of Washington Square bordered by Webb and North Streets.Either a second,or combined,NPD is seen in the short cross streets between Derby and Essex Streets. Point Neighborhood-Two small areas containing the most architecturally cohesive collections of buildings within this neighborhood just south of Salem's downtown were recommended for National Register listing in the 1991 preservation master 10 Yuncasse fanWn_B Wlin,1nc plan.The 2005 heritage landscape reconnaissance survey noted the area as a priority landscape area and recognized its potential as a neighborhood conservation district. The 2006 survey and preservation plan which focused on this neighborhood recommended National Register eligibility for the entire neighborhood for its association with the systematic rebuilding effort here after a major fire in 1914 and architectural cohesiveness of the area,largely rebuilt over a three-year period.A small area west of Lafayette Street was included within the recommended National Register boundaries,due to their similarity in building types and style and shared age and history.The NPD boundaries follow those recommended for the National Register. High/Endicott Streets Area-This triangular area is tucked between Margin and Jackson Streets and the southern boundaries of the McIntire Local Historic District and the Urban Renewal Areas.The northern half includes a small number of 18f century houses,including the Gedney House on High Street owned by Historic New England.The remaining areas were devastated in the 1914 fire which also destroyed the Point neighborhood.The area exhibits many multi-family buildings that are quite similar in age and style to those seen in the Point neighborhood.Although not prevalent,massive sycamore trees characterize some of the streets.The recommended NPD boundaries roughly follow Margin Street and Jackson Street,but it is unclear if the older buildings could be included in an expansion of the McIntire Local Historic District and/or if the remaining sections could be part of a non- contiguous Point Neighborhood designation. North Salem-Salem s northeast quadrant,clearly demarcated by a former railroad line and the North River,contains a number of potential NPD areas.These areas could either be separate districts or combined to form a single large district bounded by School/Orne Street on the north;Felt Street and the North River on the east; Tremont/Phillips Street on the east;and the North River Canal area on the south. The most distinct areas are described below: Grove Street-The area of Grove Street west of Tremont Street contains a number of single and multi-family residences that date from the mid-to-late 19th century.The area's proximity to Harmony Grove Cemetery and Mack Park lend a gracious air to this grouping of workers'housing.Surrounding streets,including the major spine of Tremont Street,display houses from a similar period although the groupings are not quite as cohesive. Buffum Street-The 1991 preservation master plan recommended both National Register listing and local historic district designation for Buffum Street.The street displays many high style residences from the mid-to-late 19th century that are well-maintained.The street could stand alone as a local historic district,or could be united with surrounding streets for a larger NPD designation. 11 Vuncasse fanWn_B Wlin,1nc Flint Street-This one-block residential area lies between Mason Street on the north and the MBTA tracks on the south.The street is adjacent to the North River Canal area,which is protected by a separate zoning ordinance. The street is lined with multi-family and single family residences that have very similar setbacks,most featuring a front gable roof and similar late 19th century styling.The area could be combined with the nearby streets of Friend and Oak,but the houses there are not as cohesively grouped and display more alterations. Dearborn Street-The 1991 preservation master plan also recommended both National Register and local historic district designation for portions of the street between Upham and Lee Streets.This street is lined with high style single family homes from the second half of the 19th century and early 20th century.The eastern end of the street faces the North River and Salem's central business district beyond.Surrounding streets are similar in age,but feature slightly smaller houses though of a similar stylistic quality.The entire area bounded by North Street,the North River shoreline,Felt Street,and Orne Street could be a single NPD area. Salem Rebuilding Area-A small triangular area bounded by Franklin, Foster/Walter,and Osborne Streets and bisected by Hayward Street,the Salem Rebuilding Area was built by the Salem Rebuilding Trust to demonstrate the possibilities for quality,affordable housing for factory workers.The 12 houses,featuring two modes of double residences,were designed by the Boston architectural firm of Kilham and Hopkins.This distinctive area could be designated separately or could be incorporated into a larger North Salem NPD. North Street-North Street is the major northwest transportation corridor and contains both residential and commercial uses,many of the latter within 19f century houses.Similar to Bridge Street,a number of automobile- oriented businesses disrupt the formerly residential character of this thoroughfare.The street could either be part of a larger North Salem NPD or part of either a west side of North Street or east side of North Street district. South Salem-Sections of Ward 5 and Ward 7 in Salem s southeast quadrant were the subject of the reconnaissance survey. The area is south of the Point neighborhood,whose southern border is Chase Street.Lafayette Street forms the major spine in this area.Canal Street was the nominal west side of the surveyed area; the waterfront formed the east side.The north end of the area surveyed was within the 250-acre swath of Salem destroyed in the fire of 1914.But areas to the south were either not affected or had not yet been developed.Like North Salem,several areas distinguished by either their history or architectural cohesiveness could either be separate smaller NPDs or joined to form a larger district.The most comprehensive potential district,bounded by the waterfront on the east,Saltonstall 12 Vuncasse HanUn_B Wlin,1nc Parkway/Cypress Street on the north,Canal Street on the west,and Loring Avenue on the south,is depicted on the figure included with this report. Fairfield Street-As noted above,the single block of Fairfield Street between Cabot and Lafayette Street is recommended for either local historic district or NPD designation.The street contains large stately single family homes of brick and wood frame construction that date from the 1910s and 1920s.The surrounding area is predominantly multi-family housing from the same period,except for the area to the west,which features houses from the late 19th century. Pre-fire Area-The area bounded by Cabot Street on the east,Cypress Street on the north,Canal Street on the west,and Roslyn Street on the south is the only area north of Leach and Holly Streets that escaped the fire of 1914.As a result,the area is surrounded by construction that dates from the 1910s and later.The area's modest houses are mainly quite small and were built for Salem's workers between the Civil War and the end of the 19th century. Derby and MesseM Estates Area-Named for the early 19th century landowners in this area,the area is bounded by Leach Street on the north, Canal Street extension on the west,waterfront on the east,and Loring /Clifton Avenue on the south.The area includes the existing Lafayette Street Local Historic District,which is on both sides of Lafayette Street between Holly/Leach Streets on the north and Clifton Street on the south.The area was developed between the Civil War and the early 20th century.The area's architecture is representative of this long period of development,displaying high style examples of all of the popular styles,including Italianate,Queen Anne,Colonial Revival,Craftsman,and Tudor Revival. Naples and Savoy Roads-This small,self-contained neighborhood south of Loring Avenue and just east of Salem State College's campus developed in the early 20th century.The neighborhood is unique in its possession of a small private beach.The streets are cohesively lined with single family houses in Colonial Revival,Craftsman, and Tudor Revival styles.The area was recommended eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and as a local historic district in the 1991 preservation master plan.A small number of houses on Lafayette Street were also included. Similar boundaries,but with the addition of Hemenway Road adjacent to the private beach and Fairview Road,which contains late 1940s-1950s single family houses,are recommended as a possible NPD.Individual properties further south on Lafayette Street may also be considered in this district. Gallows Hill and Boston Street Area-The Gallows Hill area and its major corridor of Boston Street were noted by the community as significant landscapes in the 2005 heritage landscape inventory.The neighborhood contains many older residential areas,especially on Boston Street and nearby streets.It is the most diverse neighborhood architecturally,with many newer residences intermingled throughout 13 Yuncasse Hangen_BruWh%Inc the area.The area has experienced more alterations than the other areas examined in the reconnaissance survey and has more open parcels.A possible NPD might be bounded by the MBTA tracks on the north;Highland Avenue on the east;the Salem/Peabody city boundaries on the west;and Maple/South/Procter Streets on the south. Public Process to Date Stakeholder Interviews A number of individuals were contacted during the first phase of this study,but few have been interviewed at this point.A preliminary list of stakeholders includes Salem residents involved in earlier preservation and designation efforts in the city, major property owners,elected officials,and neighborhood organizations. Peter Copelas,Salem-Mr.Copelas owns properties in local historic districts and non- historic areas throughout Salem.After an explanation of the NPD program and how it can work,Mr. Copelas opined that current zoning and variance procedures are effective and further layers of review are not necessary.He also objects to further regulation of what he can do with his property. Stanley Smith,Salem-Mr.Smith expressed his belief that capacity building is needed in order to effectively administer this program. City staff assistance is essential in overseeing a NPD program,although neighborhood members of a NPD commission will also need to be trained in the proper administration of guidelines review and approval process. Elected Officials-Two current City Councillors and one former City Councillor have been informed of the study and NPD program.City Councillors Thomas Furey(at- large) and Robert McCarthy(Ward 1)were present at an Alliance of Salem Neighborhood Associations meeting in late January(see below)to learn about the study and ask questions.Former City Councillor Lucy Corchado(Ward 1)has been informed about the study and products through the working group's communications.The councillors were neutral about the program's feasibility; further discussions will be held with them and other City Councillors to determine their interest and support. Alliance of Salem Neighborhood Associations-VHB and city staff gave a presentation on January 25,2008 to the Alliance of Salem Neighborhood Associations,a consortium of the city's many neighborhood associations.Attendees at this meeting represented Derby Street,Bridge Street Neck,South Salem,Salem Common,Willows,Downtown and Federal Street neighborhoods.A list of attendees is included with this report. 14 Yuncasse Hangen_BruW Most attendees were quite interested in the concept,although it was clear that not all are aware of the level of protection that is currently either provided,or not provided, in various neighborhoods.The PowerPoint presentation was refined as a result of this meeting to address the differences between the NPD and LHD programs and the National Register of Historic Places and to more explicitly state the benefits of the NPD program. Meetings are presently being scheduled with several neighborhood organizations in March,beginning with a March 18,2008 meeting in South Salem.These upcoming public meetings will be held with individual neighborhood organizations,as opposed to a city-wide or ward format. Working group meetings The study's Working Group has met several times with City staff and the consultant throughout this first phase.These meetings involved an explanation of the NPD program and how it has worked in other communities;definitions of what this program is and can be,versus what it is not;and review of areas to be considered for further study as NPDs.The Working Group,City staff and consultant also discussed content of the two-page handout,PowerPoint presentation for public meetings,draft ordinance,and the public meeting process.Subsequent telephone and group e-mail discussions helped finalize the content and layout of the draft ordinance,brochure, and PowerPoint.The Working Group's contribution to the study has been extremely beneficial,seen in their thoughtful input and vastly improved products. Publications Two products required in this phase are a two-page handout explaining the NPD concept and basic information about its administration and focus and a PowerPoint presentation that would be employed in public meetings in Phase II and that would be detailed enough to function as a stand-alone document.Both products will be uploaded to the City of Salem s website. VHB also prepared an article on the study and NPD program for Historic Salem, Inc.'s Winter 2008 newsletter.The article is included with this report and will be available on Historic Salem,Inc.'s website. Annotated Bibliography This bibliography is intended to document information sources that are either used as references in this study or serve to further explain the concept of Neighborhood Preservation Districts. 15 aVanasse Hangen_Brus Ih%_ nc Brookline NCD Study Bibliography The Neighborhood Conservation District Study for the Town of Brookline,prepared by Larson Fisher Associates in 2005,is a comprehensive source of neighborhood conservation district definitions,processes,and practices around the country.As of early 2008,Brookline has not yet adopted a Neighborhood Conservation District bylaw.The appendices included with that study are enclosed here. Since the 2005 study,the communities of Lincoln,North Andover,Wellesley,and Lowell have instituted neighborhood preservation district legislation.Both Lowell and North Andover have one or more established neighborhood preservation districts,while Wellesley and Lincoln are in the study process for individual districts' designations.Links to these communities' studies and legislation,along with communities with older,well-established programs are noted below. Links to Relevant Websites Massachusetts Communities with Neighborhood Preservation District Legislation City of Amesbury http://www.ci.amesbury.ma.us/home.nfs?a=amesbury&s=special&docume nt=6832&group_id=76(Link to the Establishment of Neighborhood Conservation Districts under Section 40A,Section 5) City of Boston, Boston Landmarks Commission htt2://www.cilyofboston.gov/environment/downloads.asp (Link to information about all of Boston s local historic and architectural conservation districts,including maps,reports,and guidelines.) City of Cambridge, Cambridge Historical Commission http://www.cambridgema.gov/Historic/districts.html(Link to information about all of Cambridge's local historic and neighborhood conservation districts,including review process,maps,reports,and guidelines.) Town of Lincoln Bylaw http://www.lincolntown.org/NCD`/`20bylaw`/`20030506.pdf Overview of the Neighborhood Conservation District Program 16 iVanasse HaURen_Br adh2,Inc http://www.lincolntown.org/NCD`/`200verview`/`20and`/`2OSummaiy`/`20 030506.pdf City of Lowell, Lowell Historic Board http://www.historiclowell.net/review-districts-permitting/downtown- historic-district/review-districts-permitting/review-districts-permitting (Link to information about all of Lowell's local historic and neighborhood districts,including maps,reports,and guidelines.) City of Northampton Ordinance,Chapter 156,Central Business District Architecture http://www.e- codes.generalcode.com/codebook frameset.as]2?el2=fs&t=ws&cb=2226 A Downtown Northampton Central Business District,Design Guidelines Manual(1999) http://www.e-codes.generalcode.com/codes/2226 A/2226- 156a%20Central%20Business%20Architecture%20Design%20Guidelines.pdf# xml=http://www.e- codes.generalcode.com/searchresults.asp?cmd=pdfhits&Docld=28&Index= C%3a%5cProgram%20Files%5cdtSearch%5cUserData%5c2226%5fA&HitCou nt=12&hits=6+7+51+52+7c+7d+1141+1142+237e+237f+238b&hc=134&req=C entral+Business Town of North Andover—Machine Shop Village http://www.townofnorthandover.com/Pages/NA,ndoverMA CommDev/ MSV/NeighborhoodConservationDist(Link to bylaw,study report, guidelines,and map of Machine Shop Village) Town of Wellesley Bylaw and explanatory pages http://www.ci.wellesley.ma.us/]2ages/welleslama HistComm/NCD2 Denton Road NCD Final Study Report http://www.ci.wellesley.ma.us/pages/wellesleyma_HistComm/FinalRepo A 17 Yuncasse Hangen_BruWh%Inc Salem Sources Berg,Shary Page,Gretchen G.Schuler,and Virginia Adams Salem Reconnaissance Report:Essex County Landscape Inventory,Massachusetts Heritage Landscape Inventory Program,May 2005 Brengle,Kim Withers,Northfields Preservation Associates A Preservation Master Plan for the City of Salem,Massachusetts:Strategies for the Preservation of Salem's Historic and Archaeological Resources,August 1991 City of Salem,Department of Planning and Community Development(DPCD) The DPCD has copies of Massachusetts Historical Commission inventory forms(area,building,structure,etc.)and National Register nominations for all Salem properties. Mountjoy,Alan,Chan Krieger&Associates and William Finch,Finch&Rose City of Salem Commercial Design Guidelines,2005 Municipal Code Corporation Zoning Ordinance, City of Salem,Massachusetts,1991,Reprinted 1999 Salem Historical Commission Salem Historical Commission Guidelines Notebook,1984,amended 2004 Salem Redevelopment Authority Urban Renewal Plan,Heritage Plaza East Urban Renewal Project, Salem, Essex County,Massachusetts VHB/Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. The Point Neighborhood Historic Resources Survey and Preservation Plan, September 2006 Other Sources Heuer,Tad "Living History:How Homeowners in a New Local Historic District Negotiate Their Legal Obligations",The Yale Law journal,116:768,2007 Study of the newly-designated City Point Local Historic District in New Haven,CT,which analyzed the neighborhood's perceptions of the district's importance as well as the positive and negative features of district controls. The article made several recommendations for improving perception and administration. 18 Yuncasse fanWn_B Wlin,1nc PHASE 1 Appendices ➢ Neighborhood Preservation District Study figure showing location of previously listed and protected areas and areas under consideration in the study ➢ PowerPoint presentation-generic version for Public Meetings (hard copy) ➢ Brochure(hard copy) ➢ Draft Ordinance(hard copy) ➢ CD containing all of the Phase I products noted above,including the report and digital images of representative neighborhoods(separately enclosed) ➢ List of attendees at January 25,2008 meeting of Alliance of Salem Neighborhood Associations ➢ Appendices from Neighborhood Conservation District Study for the Town of Brookline,2005 City of Salem Neighborhood Preservation District Study Legend L Ward Boundary r Local Historic Districts t2j, National Register Historic Districts Areas suggested in previous studies L as possible districts; subjects for this study Areas also examined in Neighborhood Preservation District Study Other Restricted Areas Data Sources: a. State Register of Historic Places Districts and Local Historic Districts from MassGIS b. 1991 Salem Preservation Plan c. 2005 Salem Reconnaissance Report/Essex County Landscape Inventory CITY OF SALEM � oNDIT,q�d a1 ?�. N,- b�A 00 V y N 0 J v w U) • w �q w � � o � � C-• U U cn cn ct �N U � •� a) 2 c� cn v bA Q p `d a� cd bA • .CIO �--� cnEn p - •� O lci a lci O c�3 , It O • 4z cr ■ QJ ' �7_1 _ vat-=� J--� � _ �it $'� �► aim�--� N % �+-. ct In r ■ U �vv c1 �N r� • O bA O ■ � U c1 �N O •~ 4-j v •� V1 cl� , l oc M v� ct ct l a� CA 03cd Q u ►-1 A4 N N may.• .N = � C i �� - O t� to Co • v � 0 L O N N O i v C 0 V N - L O •L C C m y O �_' N a� O •L L) cn • o o .7 " 1 •N V Q L O Ln V L O OJn QD 'L • , , >7 (n Q •O = to 0 •� Q - U- -a S m •1 � 7 Ct �--� ct ct �A ct ao cn U ct ct O � c) ct 4� 4-4 U ■ U H At � O - . 4_4 C� ct 0"Not • � o Q � � w � aA � O � UIt � rill 04 3 o - -I__ i �r 1 • *J1 ,d m fo i ro �--� 4O U . Ln v� 4� 00 Q) = ra CC f r.. +� O N = r N .ems 4-J oL ��• �,'• ' - door. /'� Cn V fa C C fo Z � .� •. Q L. u 0) t __ 0 ca v - I -- _ fo M fo 0. c rA' j 11 0 °� p U V1 � 03 Ct ct t' •�, ,� O r� 4-4 03 71 U c�3 c� ct o 0 � � u , ct c ■ U ti U '-' � 6 ct bA ct cn ►--+ O 03 T-.' C`• p �j ,� v� . � � N U ct u wct bACt ra ct O O O • � 4� to� O ct U ct CIO ct � U 0 ct O c ct ° O W U 03 m cn ct ct Ct � O ■ U �vv c1 �N v O v t�A N � O ct ct o � � L >� 2 ra ■ 0 i O � Q o 4� > c4 _ � U a a E {v±, o a� O .J U E a_ y f0 O 'i -a U) u a--+ ro O 41 iJ U a + O .� i O N Z J O Q Q Q w n • 0 0 • U �vv c1 �N v � O � O U ct � U O ct o � N � U � L >� 2 ■ i N O a Q O +' > C O 2 E ro- E Vp = O 'O -+6� "aCn 70 co pT � V N41 -O zN OQ a o • • 0 0 • U �vv c1 �N v ct � U O ct o � � L >� 2 v a; =3 -� ■ i N O a Q C 2 41 E {v±� p _J ULn (a N U 4- 4- N Cl) U a O .� i N Z D J O Q Q d, ca Q w n • 0 0 • U �vv c1 �N v � O O v . ct O 'z� � O � o � � L Mn 1 -0 0 (U aC to o o _ a Ln E cu u �_ cu o .D L (� Q � � Q 0 0Q u V) U �vv c1 �N v � O O v � U 41, w O Ct O � � >� 2 V) Mn T (1) ■ i O Q o +� > � o a� c p U U d Ln E "a fa N U a--+ O 41 .L i N ZD J � OQ Q Q o n • 0 0 0 U �vv c1 �N T�^ Q 4 O • '--� U ct U 03 ct 0 c O WD cn c� • N -4--4 �' C� J �V1 P—I ct ti •4 o c1t cn N p ct ,� cn ct �--� ct cld 4D Cam• p 7� .. c cn • � �,, cn cn 0ct u ct � O � ct o a� act � O v, l/1 w ai r. N bA O Y Z �' � ono •y°N LA v Na`�i U N w o cd A. _00 cd y A b LLJ Cd LLJ f L! z J N w CL .� Q N LTy 'O N ^� N .n. tl O w F 6 x H CZ Q H w FO." C N fit. N (`• c w ro a3 N O Oy d _LA '� �1 p s� ^ o46 ki ID +� W o = o y Q O — s v O Ga w o � Q .d b :: . U 061 O a y O a` a a E N r _ djo Q Q 4-1 L � N 0 � o o a y C z �. Q °j = U Q t N 3 iv—y+ U . 00� 00 d Y V E N o o .� d � o .� 0 3 s � � 3 3 � - � � 5 E5 0 Y E ° ° N � N N a.. � N o 0 d N cC caCIS y A O bA bA F V CO U bNA �a0i O 'L •� N N cd z30y � � � � o d o p an d o 3 y > in > o N a Q o o O '° y ° a-•+ U m N V N N N � _ E � N � y N � N � 'O +'" aN+ y cd �" O ° � o 14 act LL coo O OIn O 'A 4- O G p CU N 00 O ,� U UO cd r O it U cd O Q U 0 .N O Oo DC _ Q � "8 O w s. O rt m v 0 V Q O 7 i O N a�, N i y 0 'C ,� cn Q Cl w % Fv m in c v Q Z Z Y E O p O ;� a> 'C bQ p O z Q. chi — 7G F� lJ a p O O N N O Un LU y y CL IIII ��yr O (U U ° (� O O � 1 _ f� U U U CIS cAq3 cd y n Cd al 0 O "", J � � �••� � a�'i � � a�i �bA U � a U •� � •� '••I Y 0 046 c o o c t-0 of IJ LU cc wl m a�i y cu { N O o � o. u C � v 4- C" v w own • `� In w a C, _ O `_A y Q CD �n U a Cd a O a o > a� Neighborhood Preservation District Ordinance In the year two thousand and eight An Ordinance to Establish Neighborhood Preservation Districts Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Salem, as follows: Section 1 Purpose of Neighborhood Preservation District (s) This ordinance is enacted for the purpose of preserving and protecting groups of neighborhood buildings and their settings that are architecturally and historically distinctive which constitute or reflect distinguishing features of the architectural, cultural, economic, political or social history of the city of Salem and to limit the detrimental effect of alterations, additions, demolition, and new construction on the character of the neighborhood. Through this ordinance, alterations, additions, demolition, and new construction may be reviewed for compatibility with the existing buildings, setting and neighborhood character. This ordinance seeks to encourage the protection of the built environment through binding and regulatory review. This ordinance promotes the public welfare by making the city a more attractive and desirable place in which to live and work. Section 2 Definitions As used in this ordinance, the following terms shall have the following meaning: ADDITION A change to a building that includes additional stories, height or footprint area ALTERATION, TO ALTER A change to a building or part thereof such as removal, construction, reconstruction, restoration, replication, rehabilitation, demolition, and other similar activities. A change to a building that includes additions and other similar activities. A change to a site that includes constructing, placing, erecting, installing, enlarging, and moving a building or 1 other similar activities. A change in color, material, design, location or outward appearance, if applicable. APPLICATION The complete document (s) and supporting material(s) to be submitted by an applicant desiring to obtain a Certificate to Alter. A complete application shall include information reasonably deemed necessary by the commission to enable it to make a determination. BUILDING A combination of materials forming a shelter for persons, animals, or property, which is used for living, working or storage. CERTIFICATE TO ALTER A document granted by the Neighborhood Preservation District Commission after their ct in order to obtain a building (or demolition) permit. N-APPLICABILITY A document granted by the Neighborhood Preservation District Commission for work that is excluded from Commission review. COMMISSION (S) The Neighborhood Preservation District Commission or Commissions COMPATIBLE A project that meets the design guidelines of the architectural conservation district commission. DESIGN GUIDELINES The document used by the Neighborhood Preservation District Commission to determine whether a proposed project is compatible. The design guidelines are appended to the ordinance for each separate district. DISTRICT The Neighborhood Preservation District as established in this ordinance. EXTERIOR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES 2 Elements of a property that are attached to a building or structure and/or that help define their character. Examples include windows, paint colors, fences, doors, siding, roofing, masonry, gutters, downspouts, mechanical equipment, satellite dishes, and skylights. HISTORICAL COMMISSION Salem Historical Commission PERSON AGGRIEVED An applicant, an abutter or an owner of property within the district who believes they are suffering from an infringement or denial of legal rights STRUCTURE Anything constructed or erected, the use of which requires location on the ground or attachment to something having location on the ground. Examples include a utility box, lampposts, fences, and wind turbines SUBSTITUTE SIDING Exterior building cladding such as vinyl, aluminum or cement board TEMPORARY BUILDING A building, necessary for a special event, incident, or project, erected for a period of no more than [30-90 days?], unless otherwise agreed to by the commission. Section 3 Designation of neighborhood preservation districts To be considered for designation as a NPD, a neighborhood must satisfy the following criteria: 1. The area as a whole constitutes a recognizable neighborhood which has a distinctive character, and: a. The area contains buildings and/or structures and/or settings that are significant to the architectural, aesthetic, cultural, political, economic or social history of Salem; or b. The area has generally cohesive features, such as the scale, size, type of construction, materials, or style of the building and structures, and/or land use patterns and landscaping 3 2. The designation of a NPD may be initiated by neighborhood property owners, the Salem Historical Commission, the Planning Board or the City Council. A petition requesting designation as a NPD shall be submitted to the Department of Planning & Community Development (DPCD), containing signatures of at least 35% of the Property Owners opting to be included in the proposed NPD area, one signature per property, which petition shall also include a. A general statement of the historical, architectural, or other qualities of the area which make it appropriate for NPD designation b. A preliminary map of the area showing proposed boundaries c. A general outline of the scope of the guidelines and review authority that would be proposed for the NPD 3. Following receipt of a petition for NPD designation, the DPCD shall appoint a Study Committee to investigate and prepare a report on the appropriateness of such a designation for the Area. The Study Committee shall consist of five (5) members, of which one (1) shall be a designee of the Historical Commission, and three (3) shall be residents of the area proposed for NPD designation who will be appointed by the DPCD. When reasonably possible, the Study Committee should include an architect, landscape architect, or historic preservationist. Notice of a Study Committee's appointment shall be conveyed to all Property Owners in the Area and all property owners abutting with area within three hundred (300) feet, at the address for such owners as listed in the real estate tax list of the Assessors' office, and such information shall also be made available, to the extent reasonable, to prospective buyers through distribution to any realtor(s) that is known to have a current listing of a property within the proposed district. 4. The Study Committee, working with residents of the area, shall evaluate the appropriateness of an NPD designation for the area. If a NPD designation is not deemed appropriate, the Study Committee within one (1 ) year of its appointment shall prepare and file with the DPCD a written report explaining why it reached a negative conclusion. If the Study Committee determines that a NPD designation is appropriate, it shall within one (1) year of its appointment, prepare and file with the DPCD, a written report to include: a. An overview of the significant historical, architectural, or other relevant qualities of the area b. A map of the area showing geographic boundaries 4 c. Guidelines for the area, including design guidelines and a general statement describing the nature of the authority to be vested in the Area's NPD commission. d. An updated petition containing signatures of at least 51% of the property owners opting to be included in the proposed NPD area, one signature per property. The DPCD shall provide copies of the report to the Salem Historical Commission and the Salem Planning Board. 5. A public hearing shall be convened by the Planning Board and conducted jointly by the Historical Commission and the Planning Board to discuss the Study Committee's findings within 60 days after the filing of its completed report. Public notice shall be given by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City not less than fourteen (14) days before the day of the hearing; and by posting such notice in a conspicuous place in the City Hall for a period of not less than fourteen (14) days before the day of such hearing, and by conveying said notice, together with copies of the report, to all property owners in the area and by conveying said notice, with notification that the report is available in the Planning office, to property owners abutting the area within 300 feet, at the address for such owners as listed in the real estate tax list of the Assessor's office. 6. Following the close of the public hearing, the Historical Commission and the Planning Board may, by majority vote at a joint meeting, recommend the area for designation as a NPD. If the Historical Commission and Planning Board, acting jointly, do not vote to recommend the area for NPD designation, then the proposed designation shall be deemed rejected. If the NPD is favorably recommended by the Historical Commission and the Planning Board, acting jointly, the designation of the NPD shall be brought to City Council for approval by majority vote. 7. Each NPD, as adopted by City Council, shall be listed by its name hereunder, in the ordinance with its date of acceptance. Each NPD, as adopted by City Council, shall have its own guidelines, which are appropriate for the conservation of the particularly qualities of that NPD, and shall a. Be based , to the extent appropriate, on the guidelines proposed in the petition, and 5 b. Establish the nature and scope of review authority granted the corresponding NPD commission under this ordinance for activities within the NPD, including, but not limited to, selecting categories and types of changes exempt from and/or subject to review. 8. The establishment of a NPD shall not be construed to prevent the construction or alteration of a building or structure located in the NPD under a building permit, zoning permit, or other municipal approval duly issued prior to the date of that NPD's establishment by City Council. 9. Amendments to the geographic boundaries, including additions to or withdrawals from the NPD; changes in the guidelines, including governance and procedural changes; or dissolution of the NPD, may be proposed by petition of a minimum of 35% of the property owners in a NPD, a NPD commission, the Historical Commission, the Planning Board or the City Council. Proposals to amend or dissolve a NPD will follow the procedures described in Section 3.3-6 beginning with an appointment of study committee. A decision to accept or reject the proposed changes will be made jointly by the Historical Commission and Planning Board following a public hearing. Proposed NPD amendments, and/or a proposal for dissolution of a NPD must be brought before the City Council for approval by a majority vote (of each of these? One combined vote?). Section 4 District The Neighborhood Preservation District shall encompass the area shown on the map titled, xxxx, which is appended to this ordinance (if established as part of this ordinance). Section 5 Neighborhood Preservation District Commission The Neighborhood Preservation District shall be overseen by a Commission consisting of five members, to be appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council, two members initially to be appointed for one year, two for two years, and one for three years, and each successive appointment to be made for three years. Up to five alternate members may also be appointed to the Neighborhood Preservation District Commission. Said alternate members shall initially be appointed for terms of one, two and three years, and for three year terms thereafter. In the case of absence, inability to act, or recusal from action due to a conflict of interest, his or her 6 place shall be taken by an alternate member designated by the Chairperson, if available; otherwise by the Vice-Chairperson if available; otherwise by a majority vote of the members and alternate members of the Commission present. The Commission shall include, if possible • a member of the Salem Historical Commission; • a resident of the district; • a realtor; • an architect familiar with historic rehabilitation • and a building contractor familiar with historic rehabilitation Members and alternates of a neighborhood preservation district commission shall by reason of experience or education have demonstrable knowledge and concern for improvement, conservation, and enhancement of the district. Each member and alternate member shall continue to serve in office after the expiration date or his or her term until a successor is duly appointed. Meetings of the Commission shall be held at the call of the Chairperson, at the request of two members and in such other manner as the Commission shall determine in its Rules and Regulations. Three members of the Commission shall constitute a quorum. Section 6 Neighborhood Preservation District Commission Powers and Duties The Commission shall exercise its powers in administering and regulating the alteration of buildings within the architectural conservation district as set forth under the procedures and criteria established in this ordinance. The Commission, after a public hearing duly posted and advertised at least fourteen (14) days in advance in a conspicuous place in City Hall, may adopt and from time to time amend, reasonable Rules and Regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance or setting forth such forms and procedures as it deems desirable and necessary for the regulation of its affairs and the conduct of its business, including requirements for the contents and form of applications for certificates, hearing procedures and other matters. The Commission shall file a copy of any such Rules and Regulations with the office of the City Clerk. 7 The Commission, after a public hearing duly posted and advertised at least fourteen (14) days in advance in a conspicuous place in City Hall may from time to time amend the design guidelines which set forth the designs for certain alterations which are, in general, suitable for the issuance of a Certificate to Alter. No such design guidelines shall limit the right of an applicant for a Certificate to Alter to present other designs to the Commission for approval. The Commission shall at the beginning of each year hold an organizational meeting and elect a Chairperson, a Vice-Chairperson and Secretary, and file notice of such election with the office of the City Clerk. The Commission shall keep a permanent record of its regulations, transactions, decisions and determinations and of the vote of each member participating therein. The Commission shall undertake educational efforts to explain to the public and property owners the merits and functions of a neighborhood preservation district. Section 7 Alteration Prohibited Without a Certificate Except as this ordinance provides, no building or part thereof within a Neighborhood Preservation District shall be altered unless the commission shall first have issued a Certificate to Alter. Section 8 Alterations Excluded from Commission Review It shall be the responsibility of the Commission, or its delegate thereof, to determine whether an alteration is exempt from review. The Commission or its delegate thereof, shall have fourteen days to make this determination. The following projects are excluded from Commission review. • Interior alterations • Alterations not visible from a public way (owners must obtain a Certificate of Non-Applicability) • Ordinary maintenance and repair of architectural features that match the existing conditions including materials, design and dimensions (owners must obtain a Certificate of Non-Applicability) • Reconstruction, substantially similar in exterior design, of a building, damaged or destroyed by fire, storm or other disaster, provided such reconstruction is begun within one year thereafter and carried forward with due diligence. 8 Section 9 Procedures for the Review of Alterations The following alterations require the submittal of an application for a regulatory review by the Commission. The decision of the Commission shall be binding on the applicant. • Demolition of a building or part of a building • New construction including buildings and additions • Alterations (to be defined in individual neighborhood preservation district) Within sixty days of the submittal of an application for an alteration, the Commission shall hold a public hearing on the application. At least fourteen (14) days before said public hearing, public notice shall be given by posting in a conspicuous place in City Hall. Such notice shall identify the time, place and purpose of the public hearing. Concurrently, a copy of said public notice shall be mailed to the applicant, to the owners of all adjoining properties and their abutters, property owners across the street and their abutters, and of other properties deemed by the Commission to be materially affected thereby all as they appear on the most recent applicable tax list. Following the public hearing, the Commission shall determine whether the proposed alteration is compatible with the design guidelines and the purpose of this ordinance. If the Commission determines that the alteration is compatible, the Commission shall issue a Certificate to Alter. The concurring vote of a majority of the members shall be required to issue a Certificate to Alter. If the Commission cannot determine that the alteration is compatible, the Commission shall decline to issue the Certificate to Alter. The Commission shall provide the applicant with the reasoning for their disapproval including how the alteration does not meet the design guidelines or the purpose of this ordinance. Section 10 Procedures for Issuance and Filing of Certificates Each certificate issued by the Commission shall be dated and signed by its chairperson or such other person designed by the Commission to sign such Certificates on its behalf. The Commission shall send a copy of its Certificates and disapprovals to the applicant and shall file a copy of its Certificates and disapprovals with the office of the City Clerk and the Building Commissioner. If the Commission should fail to make a determination within sixty days (60) of the filing of an application for a Certificate, or within such further 9 time as the applicant may allow in writing, the Commission shall thereupon issue a Certificate to Alter due to failure to act. Section 11 Enforcement and Penalties The Neighborhood Preservation District is specifically authorized to institute any and all actions, proceedings in law and in equity, as they deem necessary and appropriate to obtain compliance with the requirements of this ordinance or to prevent a threatened violation thereof. The Commission may designate the Building Commissioner to act on its behalf and to enforce this ordinance under the direction of the Commission. Any owner of a building subject to this ordinance that altered a building without first obtaining a Certificate to Alter in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance shall be subject to a fine of not more than $500.00 (Five hundred dollars). Each day the violation exists shall constitute a separate offense until the alteration is corrected, the addition is removed or a faithful restoration of the demolished building is completed or unless otherwise agreed to by the Commission. If a violation of this ordinance remains outstanding, no building permit on the premises shall be issued until the violation is corrected or unless otherwise agreed to by the Commission. Section 12 Appeal Procedure Any applicant or person aggrieved by a determination of a Neighborhood Preservation District Commission may appeal as provided for in the Massachusetts General Laws. Section 13 Validity and Separability The provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed to be separable. If any of its provisions, sections, subsections, sentences, or clauses shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this ordinance shall continue to be in full force and effect. APPENDICES a. The location and boundaries of the xxxxxxx Neighborhood Preservation District are defined and shown on the XXXXXX Neighborhood Preservation District Map 10 of the City of Salem, Sheet x-xxx which is part of this ordinance (if it is being es a is a as par b. Design guidelines( if a nei reservation district is being established as part of this ordinance). 11 Alliance of Salem Neighborhoods NAME STREET ADDRESS PHONE EMAIL ADDRESS DAVID M. HART 104 FEDERAL STREET 978-744-8202 davidatsalem(okomcast.net MICHAEL P. COLEMAN 12 BROWN STREET 978-745-3086 michael.p.coleman(a)_comcast.net BARBARA CLEARY 104 FEDERAL STREET 978-744-8202 clearyadvisors(okomcast.net DOLORES JORDAN 97 DERBY STREET 978-744-0827 DTEFORDAN(o-)verizon.net SHIRLEY WALKER 51 LAFAYETTE ST.#507 978-745-2764 salemrealestateshirlevwalker@yahoo.com BOB MCCARTHY 153 BAYVIEW AVE. 978-744-1759 robertkmccarthv(a)verizon.net TOM FUREY 77 LINDEN ST. 978-744-5963 NONE JOANNE F. MCCREA 386 ESSEX ST. 978-745-8448 jfitzmccrea(a)yahoo.com POLLY WILBERT 7 CEDAR ST. 978-745-1017 pwilbert(a)mpmcapital.com DOUR SABIN 34 NORTHEY ST. 978-745-2508 DPSABIN(cDyahoo.com TONY SALVO 18 SUMNER RD. 978-744-5659 <victoranthony211(a)yahoo.com HANNAH DOIZZI 20 PLEASANT ST. 978-741-1154 hannandd(c-)msn.com MAGGIE TOWNE 19 RAYMOND AVE 617-851-4609 maggie.lemelin(a�gmail.com o�q�o U ib �1S lc 9 North Street tn P.O. Box 865 Salem,Mass. 01970 incorporated (978) 745-0799 www.historicsalem.org Winter II . McIntire Themed Christmas City of Salem Neighborhood in Salem Tour a Success Preservation District The 28th Annual Christmas in Salem The tour included two non-residential Study House Tour was a significant part examples of McIntire's work, Hamilton of the citywide, yearlong celebra- Hall on Chestnut Street, where the hat gives a neighborhood its particu- tion of the 250th Anniversary of Samuel Holiday Boutique was held, and the PEM Wlar character? Most often it is the McIntire's birth, and this year's tour Cotting-Smith Assembly House on houses' cohesive scale and form, repetition organizers met the challenge with gusto. Federal Street, where refreshments were of details, their spacing and arrangement, With a full ticket of 15 houses to visit, served and an informative and entertain- and mature landscaping that distinguish a tour goers were able to see many fantastic ing lecture, given by Jim McAllister, was specific neighborhood from others. These examples of McIntire's renowned wood- presented. physical characteristics are what people carving and Federal Period house designs. The success of this tour came about appreciate and value in a neighborhood. As usual, these, and the other beautiful through the ardent effort of many people. And, when the threat of an inappropriately homes on the tour,were wonderfully pre- The Christmas in Salem committee was scaled development or unanticipated demo- sented amidst the ornament of the season. chaired by Donna Lee Caramello, Robert lition looms, it is these characteristics that This year's tour, McIntire, Mansions and Kendall and Catherine Randall, who ded- residents cite as what they would like to pro- More,had a number of special features. One icated untold hours to this event. Their tect.The Salem Department of Planning and home was last open to the public 50 years ago, committee, which served with diligence, Community Development is exploring the on the 200th anniversary of McIntire's birth; included Bea derBedrosian, Debbie possibility of a Neighborhood Preservation there was also a special Friday night preview Chooldian, Christine Connolly, Hannah District ordinance to help residents protect of five houses,which proved to be very popu- Diozzi, Mary Margaret Fanning, Jessica the characteristics that make Salem's neigh- lar. Not surprisingly,many of the houses pre- Herbert, Shelby Hypes, Jan Kendall, hoods unique. Continued on page 4 sented in this anniversary year were located in Janice Kostopoulos, Janice Lebel, Julie the aptly named McIntire district,but the tour Rose, Mary Beth Sorgi, Barbara Taylor, also led to beautiful homes around Washington Richard Thompson and Shirley Walker. SAVE THESE Square and in the Salem Common neighbor- We deeply thank the committee for all DATES hood. their work. Continue on page 6 "Ask the Experts"Old House Clinic Understanding Your Historic Wood Framed House Saturday,March 1,2008, 8:30 am-12pm Presented jointly with Historic New England Jump into Spring Jazz Party at Finz Seafood 1 l Restaurant,Friday,March 14,2008 from 7-9pm Annual Meeting&Preservation Awards To be announced 29th Annual Christmas in Salem Holiday House Tour December 6th and 7th,2008 Pianist Sarah German entertains visitors at 29 Chestnut Street CONTRIBUTORSIN THIS ISSUE Christmas in Salem 1 Author Tad Baker speaks 3 Editor: Emily Udy Neighborhood Preservation Study 1 Jump into Spring Jazz Party 4 Publisher: Richard Scott President's Letter 2 House Plaques 7 Printer: Gangi Printing 2 Winter 2008 Historic Salem Incorporated PRESIDENT'S LETTER other buildings from the Federal "Ask the Experts" period inspired by his example. Old House Clinic: While we cherish such individ- Understanding Your ual treasures in our midst, there are other equally significant archi- tectural treasures in our many his- House toric neighborhoods, where the whole is more than the sum of its Saturday,March 1,2008,8:30 am-12 parts. We are indeed fortunate to pm live and work in many areas with St.Joseph's Hall,2nd floor distinctive character, created by 160 Derby Street the buildings themselves as well Salem,Massachusetts as the rhythm of the buildings on A seminar on maintenance and he many faces and purposes of the street, the fences, sidewalks, preservation issues related to wood preservation in Salem have and street furniture. In Salem frame houses, 1780-1860 with keynote been illustrated in the past year, such neighborhoods are not muse- speaker Dr.Kimberly Alexander, during the celebration of the 250th ums, such as Williamsburg, or curator at Strawbery Banke Museum anniversary of Salem McIntire's birth, even major tourist attractions. in Portsmouth,N.H.Learn how to and will be illustrated in the upcoming They are home to a wide diversity it and decipher historic features, year which will feature the initiation of people, earning their living, how to preserve and maintain distinc- oin to school, raisin their fam- tive character,and where to find good of the Neighborhood Preservation going g sources of information and advice. District study (see Article, page 1). ilies, or enjoying their retirement. The McIntire anniversary year activ- These neighborhoods nourish our $15 Historic Homeowner members, ities, spearheaded by the Peabody community but also, it is our com- $25 Historic New England members Essex Museum with their exhibition munity that takes cares of these and Historic Salem,Inc.,$45 non- Carving an American Style, were neighborhoods. It is why Historic members marked by lectures and symposiums Salem works with neighborhood and rounded out by the Historic associations and supports the Registration required,please call 781- Salem, Inc annual holiday house tour, Salem Education Fund, as we 891-4882,ext.226 for more informa- McIntire: Mansions and More, which believe that a healthy community tion or visit is good for historic reservation. www.HistoricNewEngland.org rightly devoted to McIntire the atten- g P tion he so richly deserved. Curator It is also for this reason that we This seminar is presented jointly by Dean Lahaikanen brought to the PEM hope that the Neighborhood Historic New England and Historic exhibition, and to the accompanying Preservation District study may Salem,Inc. book,the highest levels of scholarship help to maintain what we value and curatorship devoted to an individ- about our neighborhoods. ual whose artistry is of great signifi- All of this work is important, cance. Further, the restoration of the and we are grateful to the wide parlor of the Peirce-Nichols House variety of organizations, from the highlights one of the most spectacular business and civic organizations, Historic Salem intact interiors in the country, a true a the non-profit museums and cul- supports Salem gem of architecture and decorative tural institutions, neighborhood I'p arts. organizations, to supporters of Schools. It was many years ago (don't ask) Salem schools for making Salem a when I first saw this room on a trip better place to live work, and visit. Donate t0 the Salem with the Historic Deerfield guides and Education Fund online it is what initially endeared Salem to —Barbara Cleary at me. We are indeed fortunate to bene- fit on a daily basis from McIntire's WWW.SaIem.COm legacy in the form of his private and public buildings, as well as the many Historic Salem Incorporated Winter 2008 3 Local Professor Tad Baker Speaks at Athenaeum HSI would like to extend a Special Thank You On the evening of January 15th, 2008 these early settlements. During the to the members of Historic Salem and the Salem Athenaeum lecture he spoke of the many Athenaeum and their friends met to listen societal undertones including land dis- 2007 Annual Appeal to Salem State professor Emerson "Tad" putes,local politics,and religious persecu- Donors Baker speak about his new book The Devil tion that played into the events in Great of Great Island: Witchcraft & Conflict in Island,just as they did in subsequent witch Early New England. scares. An attendee commented on his Mr. & Mrs. David Atwood His book and lecture focus on a commu- presentation: "I remember being fascinat- Audette Family Living Trust nity in Southern New Hampshire caught ed by his account of a tavern being bom- Ms. Josephine Carothers up in witchcraft hysteria a decade before barded by stones with no apparent source Mr. David Coyle the well-known events occurred in Salem. or explanation. Professor Baker was intro- The book cover introduces the story by duced as a scholar who had thoroughly M r. Dennis Gray saying, "In 1682, ten years before the researched his topic, through numerous Mr. David Hart & Ms. Barbara Salem witch trials, the town of Great existing sources of information." A. Cleary Island, New Baker is Ms. Mary Hayes Hampshire, was a professor Ms. Anette Levitt plagued by mysteri- of History ous events: strange, at Salem Mr. & Mrs. Armand LeBlanc demonic noises; S t a t e Ms. Katharine Mack unexplainable move- Devi C o 11 e g e Ms. Grace Mattson ment of objects; and with a Mr. & Mrs. Robert Mitkin hundreds of stones focus on that rained upon a G r e a colonial Mr. John Neely local tavern and American Mr. & Mrs. Dana Nicgorski appeared at random i, d history; he Mr. & Mrs. Pierre Pelletier inside its walls.Town is also a Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Pyfrin residents blamed practicing Mr. & Mrs. John Randall what they called archeolo- "Lithobolia" or "the! gist. He is Mr. Douglas Sabin stone-throwing i.-chsra *ov 7 Ce _ the author Ms. Christina Smith devil." of numer- Ms. Jacqueline Washburn & Baker's account of Earl' NeW K01 la�vd ous books Mr. Stanley Szwartz this story highlights and articles Ms. Margaret Twohey & the strong cultural on the his- belief,and fear,of the tory and Mr. Darrow Lebovici supernatural world archaeolo- Ms. Michele Washburn that was part of daily gy of early Mr. & Mrs. Carl Wathne life in New England N e w Mrs. Sylvia Ywuc at the time; and England. Dr. & Mrs. Tomislav ZargaJ emphasizes that the occurrence of witch He was a consultant and on-camera expert scares were not infrequent during the set- for the Emmy nominated PBS-TV series tlement of the region. Donna Vinson Colonial House. Baker has also discussed Thank you to these Seger, a colleague of Baker's at Salem his research on witchcraft on such televi- renewing businesses: State College says, "Since both of us have sion shows as Chronicle and This Week in been at Salem State we have been trying, History. from our various perspectives, to put the Soucy Insurance Agency, Inc. Salem Witch Trials in a greater historical Historic Salem would like to thank Beverly Cooperative Bank and geographical perspective, and The Professor Baker for presenting this lecture Wire 4 Hire Devil of Great Island does that." and would also like to thank the Critics have commended Baker's thor- Athenaeum for co-sponsoring this event. ough research and grasp of the culture of 4 Winter 2008 Historic Salem Incorporated Jump into Spring Jazz Party Neighborhood Preservation At Finz Restaurant - March 14, 2008 Study cont'd from page 1 Neighborhood Preservation Districts On protect an area's character with fewer Friday, March 14, 2008 Historic House historian Robert Booth is are increasingly preferred as a way to Salem, Inc. will host the Jump into generously donating one detailed restrictions than a traditional Local Spring Jazz Party, at Finz Restaurant on house history and an accompanying Historic District. Neighborhood Pickering Wharf. This event will herald house plaque to be raffled off. In Preservation Districts seek and incorpo- the coming of spring with cocktails and addition, valuable tickets to the rate residents'and property owners'par- jazz. It will offer new friends a chance Boston Lyric Opera are up for grabs, ticipation on how to identify and protect to get acquainted and old friends a as are gift baskets bursting with lux- the most significant characteristic ele- chance to bid farewell to winter togeth- urious goodies from local Salem ments of an area. Neighborhood er. The evening begins at 7:00 pm and merchants. Preservation Districts are also known as ends at 9:00 pm. Advance tickets are Historic Salem, Inc. would like to ask neighborhood conservation or architec- $20 for HSI its members to tural conservation districts. members and take advantage The City of Salem's Department of $23 for non-HSI of the spring- Planning and Community Development, and its consultant, Rita members,or tick- time energy and Walsh of Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. ets are available invite your (VHB)have begun a study on the feasi- at the door for neighbors from bility of a Neighborhood Preservation $25. Purchase across the city District program in Salem. This study advance tickets particularly began late last year and is expected to by calling (978) those consider- be complete by the summer of 2008. 745-0799. With your ticket you are enti- ing membership, to join them at Finz to The project components include the tled to one complimentary cocktail or two usher in the new season. This event will creation of a proposed ordinance that soft drinks, hors d'oeuvres and an be a wonderful opportunity to introduce would create the program,public meet- ings to explain the concept and obtain evening of jazz provided by Bob friends to Historic Salem and to help us feedback, and focused study of two Kendall,Jim Moroney and Jim Dillon of promote our mission of ensuring that the neighborhoods to develop sample The Jazz Trio. Proceeds benefit Historic historic resources of Salem, which are design guidelines. Salem's preservation and advocacy mis- the key to its identity, its quality of life, What is a Neighborhood sion. and its economic vitality, are preserved Preservation District (NPD)? Throughout the evening raffle tickets for future generations and that new A Neighborhood Preservation District will be available for three dollars a development complements the historic is an area in which protection of neigh- piece,offering you a chance to win some character of the city. borhood character is desired.In general, amazing prizes. the protections in this type of district are less stringent than a traditiona Local Summary of Event Information: Historic District, of which Salem cur- Location: Finz Seafood Restaurant - 76 Wharf Street, Salem, MA rently has four.In a NPD,residents and Dates and Times: Friday, March 14, 2008 7 p.m.-9 p.m. property owners are involved in the Ticket Information: $25.00 at the door. Advance tickets are $20.00 for decision about which elements that define the neighborhood's character are HSI members and $23.00 for non-HSI members. to be protected. New construction and Call 978-745-0799 to purchase in advance, or for more info. demolition are typically reviewed in Parking: Parking for Finz is available at the South Harbor Garage such districts; review of certain alter- (corner of Derby & Congress Streets). Continued on page 5 Special Thanks to Historic Salem's Annual Saiem 7 Corporate k�l�r� CCaEastem Bank Sponsors Salem Five Bank Eastern Bank Gold Corporate Sponsor Silver Corporate Sponsor Historic Salem Incorporated Winter 2008 5 Neighborhood Preservation Study cont'd from page 4 ations to existing buildings is also usually included. Most How are districts established? NPDs have design-based guidelines that address the appear- There is no single prescribed process to establish ance of buildings, as opposed to zoning-based guidelines Neighborhood Preservation Districts; each community that may regulate uses. However, unlike a Local Historic determines these steps based on what they judge works best District, the entire exterior of a building is not generally and on their government structure. The recommended reviewed. Only the elements that the neighborhood choos- approach for Salem has not yet been decided and it will be es to protect are reviewed. a topic for discussion at the public meetings. One possible What does the NPD Study include? approach, which is fairly common, starts with a petition by The study's purpose is to find out if a Neighborhood residents and property owners, Historical Commission, Preservation District program is right for Salem. The study Planning Board, or the City Council. Typically, the petition will produce a draft ordinance as well as draft design guide- is accompanied by a map showing proposed boundaries, a lines and review process for two neighborhoods. No actual description of why an area meets the NPD district criteria, ordinance or districts will be created as a result of this study, and an idea of what the petitioners want protected. This but the feasibility and proposed details of both neighbor- petition is presented to the designated city body (generally hoods will be considered. The study also includes analysis the Historical Commission or Planning Department) and if of recommended areas within the city where such districts approved a study is prepared. The study, conducted by an are appropriate, resulting in a list and map of candidate appointed committee, will delineate boundaries, define ele- neighborhoods that could be considered for either Local ments proposed for protection, and prepare design guide- Historic District or Neighborhood Preservation District des- lines. Following the completion of the study, a public hear- ignation. ing would be held. The Historical Commission and A series of public meetings will be held in late winter and Planning Board would jointly vote after the hearing and early spring to discuss how the Neighborhood Preservation submit a recommendation to City Council.A majority vote District concept could work in Salem. Two neighborhoods of City Council is the final step in the district's approval. that express strong interest for further study will also be host Are these districts already established in other areas? to another set of public meetings as draft design guidelines Various forms of Neighborhood Preservation Districts are developed. This work, done in conjunction with neigh- exist in scores of communities across the country, a good borhood representatives, will result in the final products of number of them now over 10-15 years old. Cambridge, the study - a draft ordinance, and draft guidelines that will which started their program in 1983, has four conserva- identify important characteristics of the neighborhoods, tion districts in addition to their Local Historic Districts. delineate draft boundaries and design guidelines and estab- Boston has four architectural conservation districts, lish a review process for the two selected neighborhoods. while North Andover has one that was established in Where could NPDs be established in Salem? 2007. Amesbury's program (2002) is zoning based to Generally neighborhoods that exhibit a cohesive architec- encourage neighborhood-specific planning rather than tural character are the best candidates for a Neighborhood just design review. Lowell established 8 districts in 2005 Preservation District. NPDs typically include houses that in which the Lowell Historic Board oversees only new have already experienced some level of alteration,including construction and demolition. Wellesley and Lincoln both newer siding,window and door changes,and porch removal have recently approved by-laws and are currently study- or replacement.Neighborhoods that are already listed in the ing specific districts. Brookline studied the concept in National Register of Historic Places,but which are not pro- 2005 and has a draft by-law and draft design guidelines tected by any type of review, would definitely be a priority. for two neighborhoods. The scope of Salem's study is These neighborhoods include Bridge Street Neck, Salem similar to Brookline's project. Websites and additional Common, Salem Willows and the Derby Street neighbor- information on some of these programs and studies can hoods. Of course, Salem includes a number of other dis- be found at the end of this article. tinctive areas that have not been listed on the National How do I find out more? Register that could also be considered. These neighbor- We hope you will attend one of the public meetings to be sched- hoods include the Point Neighborhood, Buffum Street and uled in late winter and early spring 2008. The meeting schedule Dearborn Street and surrounding streets, and areas in North will be posted on the Department of Planning website: and South Salem. http://www.salem.com/Pages/SalemMA_DPCD/index. As noted above, two neighborhoods will be studied in a You can also call or e-mail Kirsten Kinzer of the City of Salem's later phase of this study. At this point in the study, their Planning and Community Development department- (978) 619- identity is unknown - one of the outcomes of the public 5685 or kkinzer@salem.com meetings is to choose these neighborhoods. Ultimately, once an ordinance is approved, any neighborhood that sub- Continued on page 6 mits an approved petition(see below)can be considered for actual study. 6 Winter 2008 Historic Salem Incorporated Neighborhood Preservation Study cont'd from page 5 Christmas in Salem cont'd -------------- from page 1 Links to websites for additional information on Neighborhood Preservation Districts Christmas in Salem would obviously not in Massachusetts and elsewhere: sucoeei without the generosity and patience Boston Landmarks Commission,Boston,MA http://www.cityofboston.gov/environmenUhistoric.asp of the homeowners. Much thanks goes to the Bertram Home, Roberta & Howard Brookline Historical Commission,Brookline,MA Cantor, Fran Clifford, Hamilton Hall, http://www.townofbrooklinemass.com/planning/PDFs/NCDStudy.pdf Jennifer & David Jones, Tim Kendall & Christine Thompson, Maura McGrane, Cambridge Historical Commission, Cambridge,MA Glen Polito&James Moran,the Peabody http://www.cambridgema.gov/Historic/districts.html Essex Museum,Marshall Strauss&Elaine Gerdine,the Womeri s Friend Society,Rick Wellesley Historical Commission,Wellesley,MA Wyke, and Mary 7appas. Thank you for http://www.ci.wellesley.ma.us/pages/wellesteyma_HistComm/NCD2 inviting more than as. friends and http://www.ci.wellesley.ma.us/Pages/WellesleyMA_Clerk/townbylaws/index strangers into your lovely homes during the Other Information: busy holiday season! National Alliance of Preservation Commissions Each home was paired with a decorator http://www.uga.edu/sed/pso/programs/napc/guidelines.htm(links to guidelines for commu- who worked with the homeowners to help nities throughout the country) create the magical tour experience.The dec- Rita Walsh, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. orators for this year's tour were ATouch of the Past, Dave Eng, Debra Clarke, Evans Flowers, Fiddlehead, Flowers by Darlene, Kim D'Orazio, Lynda Hannon, Peter D. Barter Flowers & Gifts, Stephanie's Houses on the Stitchery, The English Garden, Verve Design and Ward's Florist&Greenhouse. Christmas in Salem Tour Thank you for your beautiful work Special thanks goes to the Historic Salem and Christmas in Salem sponsors,and to the ' advertisers that can be found in the tour guidebook. We encourage you to patronize these local establishments fiequently and tharik them for their support And,of course,there were the hundreds of volunteers who gathered on the days of the tour. Guides welcomed visitors and shared historical information about the houses. II All nlitli �. ': Musicians volunteered their tune and talents 135 Federal Street -` A Ui }=" to make all of our homes truly"sing"with holiday spirit The Salem High School Chamber Choir provided carolers on Friday evening,while Boy Scouts from Troop 24 r'41 and members of the Salem High School Sri -- - Honor Society braved the cold to serve as 12 Chestnut Street street guides for our visitors. Thank you to all for your time and enthusiasm! Each year the tour has its own unique qual- ities,and this McIntire-themed tour certainly More photos on page 7 provided a memorable experience. Please join us again-or for the first time-for the 33 Washington Square North 29th Annual Christmas in Salem Home Tour on December 6 and 7,2008. —Emily Udy Historic Salem Incorporated Winter 2008 7 Christmas in Salem Photos Continued Historic House .� Histories and House Plaques Excerpted from an article by Ruth Wall Originally printed in the WInter 2007 ~ , _ ;b4 Newsletter verybody's house has a story,whether it as built in 1909,like the one built for "Louis Collier,Junk Dealer", or in 1688 by "William Murray, Cooper." We wondered about all the people who had lived in our house before us.I went myself to the Registry Bertram House of Deeds and traced back through each sale of the building until I reached Benjamin Crombie,who built and then sold our house in 1810 to a Boston merchant. Recently,we decided to go ahead and pur- chase an Historic Salem House Plaque, and , i +r we were delighted to find it included a gener- al history of Salem that placed our house in the context of the history of Salem.Reading E . our house history made us feel linked to the many people who lived here before us and who made Salem the place it is today. It took a few months to have our history iff Iff done, and once we read it, we understood 19 why.It was certainly worth the wait!Historic *1 Salem is also able to renew worn plaques and reprint histories for houses that have been ' = researched in the past.There is little question, Hamilton Hall even in this market, that having the plaque displayed on the street would increase prop-erty value at the time of sale. . - We love having the names of people who lived here as tenants, and these pieces of _ - information about former occupants help explain certain things we found while work Fixmg on our house. Who lived in your house?The story is wait- ~ -- ing to be told! ■ To order a house history and plaque,you ® - just call the office of Historic Salem (978) _ 745-0799. For Historic Salem members the cost of a history and new plaque is$350.00 ($400.00 for non-Historic Salem members), and a renewal is$100.00. r - Attend the Jump into Spring Jazz Party, March 14th,for a chance to win a free House Cotting-Smith Assembly House History and Plaque and to learn more infor- mation about the program from house histo- rian Robert Booth. 8 Winter 2008 Historic Salem Incorporated HSI BOARD ' Call for Nominations President Barbara A. Cleary Most Endangered Preservation Award Vice Presidents Historic Resources Program 2008: Kimberly Alexander Program 2008: Julie Rose Submissions due 4/15/2008 Treasurer Submissions due 3/15/2008 Historic Salem,Inc.is invites you to look Darrow Lebovici Historic Salem, Inc. is requesting around your neighborhood and our city Secretary members' help in identifying his- for projects which have furthered the Donna Seger toric public,non-profit, or commer- preservation effort in Salem;and to nom cial properties throughout the City inate them to receive a Preservation Colleen Bruce of Salem that may be facing threat Award. Awards will be presented at Douglas Cabot from neglect or from development Historic Salem's Annual Meeting. Donald Friary Richard Friary agol a pressure. Properties throughout the city,not just Robert Kendall By placing a property on the List in the historic districts, are eligible for Pam McKee Historic Salem's goal is to highlight nomination.The categories for nomina- Karen Pelletier areas of need and focus resources tion are: private residences,commercial Catherine Randall where they can do the most good. properties, publicly-owned properties Daniel Ricciarelli Anthony Sasso Since its establishment in 2000, 20 (including those owned by the city,state, Morris Schopf Endangered properties have been and federal governments), properties Victoria Sirianni added to the List and six have since owned by non-profit institutions, and Margaret Twohey been updated to Saved or landscape projects. In addition,nomina- Shirley Walker Recovering. Many other properties tions for individuals,companies or insti- Ruth Wall Michele Washburn on the List now show distinctive tutions that have made significant contri- Kristen Weiss Signs of Improvement. For a com- butions to historic preservation in Salem Mary Whitney plete list of properties currently on will also be considered. Nomination Will Wrightson the Most Endangered List visit forms for both programs are available www.historicsalem.org/endan- online at www.historicsalem.org or can Executive Administrator ered/index.html. be obtained b calling Richard Thompson g Y g(978)745-0799. Non-Profit Organization ii*OD U.S. Postage Mem PAID iOorpomted Salem, MA Permit No. 9 POST OFFICE BOX 865 SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 Y�ss��ng�nn.Bx�s#11r�,ln� Products from Phase II Phase II Report Neighborhood Preservation District Study Salem, Massachusetts Prepared for City of Salem,Department of Planning and Community Development Salem, Massachusetts Prepared by WM/Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. Watertown, Massachusetts Phase II Report Neighborhood Preservation District Study Salem, Massachusetts Prepared for City of Salem Department of Planning and Community Development 120 Washington Street,3rd Floor Salem, MA01970 978-745-9595 Prepared by MB/Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. Transportation, Land Development,Environmental Services 101 Walnut Street P.O. Box 9151 Watertown, Massachusetts 02471-9151 617-924-1770 Staff: Rita Walsh, Christophe Gervais,Janet Thomas, Terri Courtemarche June 2008 The Neighborhood Preservation District Study in Salem, Massachusetts Phase II Report has been financed in part with federal funds from the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,through the Massachusetts Historical Commission,Secretary of Commonwealth William Francis Galvin, Chairman. However,the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior, or the Massachusetts Historical Commission. iVanasse HanRen_Bru&UM Inc Table of Contents INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................................I PUBLICMEETINGS............................................................................................................................................................3 COMMONTHEMES...............................................................................................................................................................4 OTHERCOMMENTS..............................................................................................................................................................5 DRAFT NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION DISTRICT ORDINANCE..................................................................5 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE NPD DESIGNATION.....................................................................................7 TWO NEIGHBORHOODS SELECTED FOR PHASE III STUDY..............................................................................I I WORKING GROUP MEETINGS IN PHASE II.............................................................................................................12 APPENDICES ➢ Diagrams showing proposed NPD composition ➢ PowerPoint presentation for Bridge Street and Point Neighborhood Phase II meetings ➢ Minutes of public meetings ➢ Newspaper articles (Salem News,March 19,2008 and Salem Gazette,April 3,2008) ➢ Draft Ordinance(hard copy) ➢ Draft Phase III Work Plan ➢ Draft Phase III PowerPoint ➢ CD containing all of the Phase II products noted above,including the report itself Yuncasse HanUn_BruWh%Inc Phase II Report Introduction The City of Salem(City)contracted Vanasse Hangen Brustlin,Inc. (VHB)to study the feasibility of creating Neighborhood Preservation Districts' as a component of the Salem Preservation Master Plan. This plan,which was completed in 1991,discussed the concept of Neighborhood Preservation Districts(referred to as Neighborhood Conservation Districts in the master plan),but no action has been taken to implement the recommendation.The major purpose of the current study is to research the concept of Neighborhood Preservation Districts(NPD) and ways that it might best fit Salem's situation,prepare a draft ordinance and draft design guidelines for two neighborhoods,and create educational materials for the public.The study and its final products and recommendations will rely heavily on public input,gained through a series of neighborhood meetings,stakeholder interviews,and other means. The study is anticipated to provide recommendations that will help the City of Salem and individual neighborhoods determine if a NPD program is right for the city's neighborhoods and can function alongside the Local Historic District(LHD)program already in place. Specific goals for the study include: ➢ Create a definition of Neighborhood Preservation Districts(NPD) appropriate to Salem,including a rationale for NPDs in Salem and defining physical characteristics. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 'The term,Neighborhood Preservation District,was chosen by the study's Working Group to ease confusion with conservation areas and the local Conservation Commission.The terms,Neighborhood Architectural Conservation District,Architectural Conservation District,or Neighborhood Conservation District,are more typically used,but are only used in this study report to reference specific studies or reports or the name used by communities referenced in the report.Otherwise,the term,Neighborhood Preservation District,is used to describe the generic concept in this study and report. 1 Yuncasse HanUn_B Wlin,1nc ➢ Create a map of potential NPD boundaries,taking into consideration architectural style and character,building massing and siting,and streetscape characteristics. ➢ Provide recommendations for architecturally significant areas preferable as Local Historic Districts. ➢ Provide opportunities for public comment through public meetings. ➢ Develop a framework for NPD administration through the detailed analysis of two potential districts,including design guidelines and design review administrative procedures. ➢ Develop a draft NPD ordinance creating two selected NPDs based on the MHC Sample Architectural Conservation District Bylaw. ➢ Prepare draft design guidelines for two neighborhoods ➢ Prepare a study report for Neighborhood Preservation Districts. VHB is directly assisted in this study by the City's Department of Planning and Community Development(DPCD) Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) Planner,Kirsten Kinzer,who serves as the Project Coordinator and a Working Group of Salem residents(Working Group),who are extremely diligent in their interest, time,and recommendations.These Working Group members are: ➢ Jane A.Guy,DPCD Assistant Community Development Director ➢ Barbara Cleary,Historic Salem,Inc.President ➢ Emily Udy,Historic Salem,Inc.,Preservation Project Manager ➢ David Hart,Salem Historical Commission Member ➢ Jessica Herbert,Salem Historical Commission Member ➢ Maggie Lemelin Towne,Alliance of Salem Neighborhood Associations President Christopher Skelly,director of Local Government Programs with the Massachusetts Historical Commission(MHC)provides oversight for the project and guidance on methodology and products. The Phase II report describes the outcome and overarching themes that came out of the series of public meetings that were the focus of this second phase of the study. Phase I involved background research on other communities'neighborhood preservation districts,Salem s historic properties and associated documentation,and field reconnaissance of Salem neighborhoods that could be potential candidates for such designation.The purpose of the Phase II report is to provide the City's DPCD and the MHC with the results of tasks stipulated during this phase of work in preparation for the final two phases of the study,which involve working with two neighborhoods to study the feasibility of the NPD concept(Phase III)and final report preparation(Phase IV). The Phase II tasks specified: ➢ Hold public meetings to assess the level of interest in Neighborhood Preservation Districts from residents and property owners. Collect,review 2 Vuncasse HanUn_Brust h%-hzc and summarize public comments on the designation process and draft ordinance. ➢ Prepare recommendations for NPD administration based on comments received from residents and property owners during Phase II meetings. ➢ Prepare recommendations on priorities for future NPD designation, considering public interest expressed in Phase II and relative potential for inappropriate development. ➢ Facilitate selection by DPCD of two districts for further study(the subject of Phase III). ➢ Provide copies of draft products for review by DPCD and MHC. Public Meetings DPCD staff Kirsten Kinzer and consultant Rita Walsh held seven public meetings between March 18 and April 28.The meetings geographically targeted the areas recommended for possible consideration as Neighborhood Preservation Districts in Phase I.The neighborhoods and dates and locations of respective meetings were: ➢ South Salem Neighborhood-March 18,2008,South Salem Neighborhood Association Meeting,Enterprise Center at Salem State College,121 Loring Avenue ➢ Derby Street&Salem Common Neighborhoods-March 27,2008,National Park Service St.Joseph Hall,160 Derby Street,2nd Floor ➢ Salem Willows Neighborhood Meeting-April 8,2008,Winter Island Function Hall,Winter Island Park,50 Winter Island Road ➢ North Salem Neighborhood Meeting-April 15,2008,Bates School cafeteria, 53 Liberty Hill Avenue ➢ Gallows Hill Neighborhood Meeting-April 21,2008,Children's Friend and Family Services Society,110 Boston Street ➢ Bridge Street and Common Neighborhoods Meeting-April 22,Carlton School,10 Skerry Street ➢ Point Neighborhood Meeting-April 28,Immaculate Conception Church Parish Life Center,15 Hawthorne Boulevard Some of the meetings were held under the auspices of a neighborhood association or were targeted to distinct areas,such as the Willows neighborhood. Several of Salem s City Councillors arranged and advertised the meetings,which assisted in boosting interest and attendance.The number of attendees at the meetings ranged from 4 to over 40 people,who were a combination of residents and property owners. The format was similar in each meeting,consisting of a PowerPoint presentation that explained the Neighborhood Preservation District concept and how it could work in Salem.The presentation included a discussion of benefits of establishing such districts,how they differ from National Register and Local Historic districts,and a map showing areas that could be considered for such designation and previously 3 Yuncasse Hangen_BruWh%Inc established and recommended districts.Images of representative streetscapes at the end of the presentation usually helped spark comments on issues in the respective neighborhoods.Typically these meetings lasted 2 or more hours,with time generously devoted to discussion and questions after the formal presentation.The PowerPoint presentations for two of the neighborhoods-Bridge Street and the Point -are included as appendices to this Phase II report. Common Themes While attendees at each of the meetings had specific or unique concerns and questions,several common themes emerged at most of the meetings.These themes are loosely presented by topic,but are in no order of priority or ubiquity.By no means were people unanimous about these concerns: Administration ➢ Desire little or no representation by Salem Historical Commission members on the NPD Commission ➢ Concern about increased review time in order to obtain a building permit ➢ More detail requested on member composition of NPD Commission ➢ Need for additional city staff to administer and assist the NPD Commission could lead to increased taxes to pay for this service ➢ Education is a very important task-we have to talk to more people about this concept-one meeting is not enough. ➢ Concern about lawsuits or other civil action due to unpopular decisions by the NPD Commission ➢ Liked the ability for a neighborhood to opt out of the district designation if it was not working ➢ Each NPD should have its own neighborhood commission;concern expressed about non-neighborhood members reviewing proposed work. Design Review in General ➢ Opposition to others telling them what to do with their own property ➢ Fear that costs of improving property will increase due to higher standards ➢ Paint color,application of substitute siding,and window sash replacement should not be reviewed ➢ Concern that not enough people attended these meetings to realistically gauge interest in the concept ➢ Questions about drawbacks of such designation,in response to a discussion of benefits of NPD designation ➢ Most could not envision potential threats to their neighborhood;individuals who had experienced inappropriate new construction or an unwelcome demolition near their property more readily understood the NPD's purpose ➢ In general,binding review over new construction and demolition was acceptable to the majority;more concern was expressed about review of alterations to existing buildings 4 Yuncasse HanUn_BruWh%Inc Relationship to Existing Review Processes ➢ Dislike of an additional layer of bureaucracy ➢ Belief that zoning adequately covers new construction(additions and new buildings)issues ➢ Question how and to which group (e.g.,Zoning Boards of Appeals)appeals would be handled Other Comments Other comments that were not as routinely expressed included questions about individual property owners' ability to opt out of the district,how much this study cost and where the funding came from,and concerns that the study was one more City-sponsored action that would not be completed and end up as a document on a shelf.Questions were also posed about review of proposed demolitions and related review criteria;possibility of grants/low-interest loans to assist owners to rehabilitate their property;and whether each neighborhood would have an individual set of design guidelines. Draft Neighborhood Preservation District Ordinance The draft ordinance is based on a number of similar documents,including the Massachusetts Historical Commissions sample bylaw and other Massachusetts communities'bylaws or ordinances,including Cambridge,Wellesley,Lincoln,and North Andover.The draft ordinance as it currently reads was also influenced by comments expressed at the recent public meetings.A copy of the draft ordinance is included in the Appendix.Major changes in the ordinance since the submission of the Phase I report include: Inclusion of Advisory Review The ordinance previously only contained binding review by the NPD Commission on the elements that the neighborhood agreed should be regulated.The educational value and possible persuasive power of advisory review for minor elements are seen as positive reasons to include this type of review in the ordinance but the Working Group is concerned that residents will not take advisory reviews to heart.In many of the meetings held in Phase II,residents repeatedly expressed opposition to binding review of architectural details such as siding and window replacement.Advisory review was added to the ordinance to create a method for providing education and design advice to residents on building elements that impact neighborhood character to a lesser degree than demolition or new construction. 5 Yuncasse HanUn_B Wlin,1nc Removal of Designation Process Details The ordinance previously detailed the study and designation process.This level of detail was removed,based on MHC comments that too high a level of detail within an ordinance can bind the City to an outdated process in the future.The administrative process will be governed by a Department of Planning policy,which can more easily be updated to incorporate changes in the administrative needs of the designated districts and the Commission.DPCD will craft the draft final study and designation processes,but will not include them in the ordinance.The City will make information on these proposed processes available to the public through their inclusion as an appendix in the Phase IV report for this study. Composition of Neighborhood Preservation District Commission A single NPD Commission responsible for all NPDs project review in the city was initially envisioned in the ordinance.Neighborhood concern about non- neighborhood members'review prompted the currently proposed ordinance to create a commission with a"spokes of a wheel" arrangement.An attendee present at two of the public meetings suggested the concept as a way to create a single commission for each district.Each district would have a commission that includes a majority of the members reviewing a project to be residents,business,or property owners from the district in which the project is located.The concept is explained below. The ordinance now proposes a core,or hub,group initially composed of three members.This core group would be composed of two members of the first NPD that is created and one general member who has experience with design review (architect,preservation specialist,contractor,real estate agent)who is not necessarily from that neighborhood but who is a Salem resident.Two additional commission members,considered the spokes,would be added to result in a commission of five members.Two alternate members from this first district would also serve the initial commission,when needed due to members' absences or project review recusals. Diagram#1 graphically shows this concept. When a second NPD is created,the composition of the core members would change for both the first district and this newly-established district.The three core members would then be composed of a single member from both districts and a single general member.Two members representing the second district would then be added to this new core to form a second spoke of the wheel.This group,and two additional alternate members,would review projects within the second district only.Diagram #2 illustrates this second concept. Should a third district be added,the core group of three members would change again to include a single member from the third district;the general member would no longer be a component of the core group.The core group would then be 6 Vuncasse fanWn_BruWh%Inc composed of a single member of each of the three NPDs.The third district,like the first two established districts,would have two additional members for that district's project review,which would form the third spoke of the wheel.Two alternate members from the third district would also be added.Diagram#3 shows this expanded hub-and-spoke concept.No provision has been made at this time to accommodate a fourth NPD,or any additional NPDs.The ordinance would be changed at that time to consider how changes should be made to the composition of the core group. As noted above,the concepts as proposed allow each district to have a commission composed mainly of district residents,property owners,and/or business owners responsible for review of that district's projects.Each individual district would have separate design guidelines tailored to that neighborhood's character.The Mayor of Salem would appoint all members,followed by City Council approval-an approval process identical for all City commissions. Recommendations for Future NPD designation Phase II tasks also focused on priorities for future NPD designation,should the concept be deemed acceptable.The early stage of the study and relatively broad designation criteria resulted in a generous list of areas identified in Phase I that could certainly be considered for NPD designation.This section summarizes the level of interest expressed in each of the areas and the potential threats,such as tear-downs or inappropriate development,these areas may be facing in the future. Bridge Street Neck Recommended in the 2005 heritage landscape reconnaissance survey for neighborhood conservation district status,the Bridge Street Neck area was recently listed(2002)in the National Register of Historic Places.The streets north of March Street,however,were not included in this nomination.The area,one of the earliest to be settled in Salem,contains 19th and 20th century houses and commercial structures, and a small number of institutional structures.Bridge Street,the main corridor that bisects the districts,is largely commercial and has some fairly recent automobile- oriented commercial establishments which interrupt the series of early to late 19th century buildings here.The recommended boundaries for the NPD could roughly follow the National Register boundaries on the south and west,but could also include the streets to the north and the entirely of the eastern waterfront. Interest/Potential Threats Attendees expressed interest in NPDs,due to recent developments that were seen by some to detract from the architectural character of certain streets.Others at the meeting were concerned about an additional review layer and incrementally- growing control over alterations and development.Most felt that the mainly 7 Yuncasse HanUn_B Wlin,1nc commercial Bridge Street should be included in any potential NPD in the neighborhood.Threats facing the Bridge Street Neighborhood were the number of poorly-maintained and vacant properties,an unknown future for Bridge Street as a result of a soon-to-open bypass,and large residential developments that would disrupt the views and character of certain streets. Areas between Derby Street and Salem Common The 1991 preservation master plan recommended the inclusion of the many short streets between Essex and Derby Streets and the streets east of Salem Common in expanded Derby Street and/or Washington Square Local Historic Districts.The 1991 plan also recommended the expansion of the Derby Waterfront National Register Historic District to encompass the streets between Essex and Derby Streets.These streets contain some of Salem's oldest houses;despite alterations to individual buildings,the streets exhibit a very cohesive character,with narrow setbacks and lot sizes commonly seen.Some of the streets west of the Washington Square Local Historic District are within the Essex Institute and Salem Common National Register Historic District,although sections of Boardman and Forrester Street,which contain high style residences from the 19th century,are not within these boundaries A possible NPD could extend from the Washington Square Local Historic District east to Collins Cove(just east of Webb Street and also encompass the streets north of Washington Square bordered by Webb and North Streets.Either a second,or combined,NPD is seen in the short cross streets between Derby and Essex Streets. Interest/Potential Threats Two Phase II meetings-the Derby Street/Common and the Bridge Street/Common meetings-included attendees from the Salem Common/Washington Square area. The Derby Street/Common meeting attracted a small number of property owners, who expressed opposite opinions on benefits of the NPD concept.In the end, attendees felt that not enough people attended the meeting to gain a good sense of interest.Attendees were concerned about the lack of parking in the area,but also expressed frustration with previous demolitions and removal of gardens to accommodate parking needs.Few thought that replacement of siding and window sash was a serious concern,due to the neighborhood's proximity to salt water and its deleterious effects on wood materials and the simplicity of the architecture. Point Neighborhood Two small areas containing the most architecturally cohesive collections of buildings within this neighborhood just south of Salem's downtown were recommended for National Register listing in the 1991 preservation master plan.The 2005 heritage landscape reconnaissance survey noted the area as a priority landscape area and recognized its potential as a neighborhood conservation district.The 2006 survey and preservation plan which focused on this neighborhood recommended National Register eligibility for the entire neighborhood for its association with the systematic 8 Yunasse HanUn_B Wli rebuilding effort here after a major fire in 1914 and architectural cohesiveness of the area,largely rebuilt over a three-year period.A small area west of Lafayette Street was included within the recommended National Register boundaries,due to their similarity in building types and styles and shared age and history.The NPD boundaries follow those recommended for the National Register. Interest/Potential Threats Attendees at the Phase II meeting,which included property owners and residents, were generally in favor of the NPD concept.Individual concerns were expressed regarding the protection of open space in this extremely dense neighborhood and control over the size of new developments so that open space is retained as much as possible.One attendee noted that design guidelines should not discourage energy efficiency,such as installation of solar panels on roofs.Others expressed their favor of retention of older architecture,despite their existing or former unkempt conditions.The large percentage of absentee landlords who own buildings in the neighborhood is an important concern to many;some felt that these landlords would be opposed to the NPD concept and may not make any improvements as a result of their opposition. South Salem Sections of Ward 5 and Ward 7 in Salem's southeast quadrant were the subject of the reconnaissance survey in Phase 1. The area is south of the Point neighborhood, whose southern border is Chase Street.Lafayette Street forms the major spine in this area. Canal Street was the nominal west side of the surveyed area;the waterfront formed the east side.The north end of the area surveyed was within the 250-acre swath of Salem destroyed in the fire of 1914.But earlier areas to the south were either not affected by the fire or had not yet been developed.Like North Salem,several areas distinguished by either their history or architectural cohesiveness could either be separate smaller NPDs or joined to form a larger district.The most comprehensive potential district,bounded by the waterfront on the east,Saltonstall Parkway/Cypress Street on the north,Canal Street on the west,and Loring Avenue on the south. Fairfield Street-As noted above,the single block of Fairfield Street between Cabot and Lafayette Street is recommended for either local historic district or NPD designation.The street contains large stately single family homes of brick and wood frame construction that date from the 1910s and 1920s.The surrounding area is predominantly multi-family housing from the same period,except for the area to the west,which features houses from the late 19th century. Pre-fire Area-The area bounded by Cabot Street on the east,Cypress Street on the north,Canal Street on the west,and Roslyn Street on the south is the only area north of Leach and Holly Streets that escaped the fire of 1914.As a 9 Yuncasse HanUn_B Wlin,1nc result,the area is surrounded by construction that dates from the 1910s and later.The area's modest houses are mainly quite small and were built for Salem's workers between the Civil War and the end of the 19th century. Derby and Messes Estates Area-Named for the early 19th century landowners in this area,the area is bounded by Leach Street on the north, Canal Street extension on the west,waterfront on the east,and Loring /Clifton Avenue on the south.The area includes the existing Lafayette Street Local Historic District,which is on both sides of Lafayette Street between Holly/Leach Streets on the north and Clifton Street on the south.The area was developed between the Civil War and the early 20th century.The area's architecture is representative of this long period of development,displaying high style examples of all of the popular styles,including Italianate,Queen Anne,Colonial Revival,Craftsman,and Tudor Revival. Naples and Savoy Roads-This small,self-contained neighborhood south of Loring Avenue and just east of Salem State College's campus developed in the early 20th century.The neighborhood is unique in its possession of a small private beach.The streets are cohesively lined with single family houses in Colonial Revival,Craftsman,and Tudor Revival styles.The area was recommended eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and as a local historic district in the 1991 preservation master plan.A small number of houses on Lafayette Street were also included.Similar boundaries,but with the addition of Hemenway Road adjacent to the private beach and Fairview Road,which contains late 1940s-1950s single family houses,are recommended as a possible NPD.Individual properties further south on Lafayette Street may also be considered in this district. Interest/Potential Threats A small number of attendees expressed some interest in the NPD concept,especially if such a designation could control Salem State College's future development in the neighborhood.Salem State College,however,is not subject to local ordinances and regulations.Neighborhood concerns also include possible control over the appearance of condominium development in former single-family houses and protecting and adding green spaces and landscaping.In general,the attendees felt that only smaller sub-areas of this large neighborhood would make feasible NPDs (although they could not identify them at this time) due to the varied architectural character and concerns of each of these sub-areas. Gallows Hill and Boston Street Area The Gallows Hill area and its major corridor of Boston Street were noted by the community as significant landscapes in the 2005 heritage landscape inventory.The neighborhood contains many older residential areas,especially on Boston Street and nearby streets.It is the most diverse neighborhood architecturally,with many newer 10 Yuncasse Hangen_BruWh%Inc residences intermingled throughout the area.The area has experienced more alterations than the other areas examined in the reconnaissance survey and has more open parcels.A possible NPD might be bounded by the MBTA tracks on the north; Highland Avenue on the east;the Salem/Peabody city boundaries on the west;and Maple/South/Procter Streets on the south. Interest/Potential Threats Only a small group of residents/property owners attended this meeting,which made it difficult to gauge overall interest in the NPD concept.Individual attendees believed that NPDs could help control unsympathetic development,but were concerned about the costs of an added layer of review and design expectations that would be hard for the mainly working-class homeowners to afford. Salem Willows The entire neighborhood,including Salem Willows Park,was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1994.The area was recommended for National Register listing and local historic district designation in the 1991 plan.The 2005 heritage landscape reconnaissance survey identified Salem Neck,of which it is a part,as a priority heritage landscape and recommended the Juniper Point area as a possible neighborhood conservation district.This almost exclusively residential area contains former summer cottages and more substantial houses from c.1870 to the present.The area recommended for NPD designation excludes the park and Restaurant Row at the north end of Fort Avenue,but otherwise encompasses the entire Salem Willows area. Interest/Potential Threats Attendees at the Salem Willows NPD meeting in Phase II expressed no interest in the NPD concept and did not want to be considered for the Phase III study.Most expressed the opinion that the neighborhood's appearance is quirky and largely derives its physical character from the individual tastes and choices made by its residents and property owners.To regulate what could be added or changed could result in a more uniform character that is not desirable.Few threats to the neighborhood's existing character could be envisioned,except for concerns about new construction that may be too tall or too wide,which may obstruct water views for neighboring properties.Most people believed that current residents and property owners are considerate of this concern and would not build structures that would obstruct their neighbors'views. Two Neighborhoods Selected for Phase III Study The DPCD was ultimately responsible for selecting the two neighborhoods that will be studied in Phase IIl. Neighborhoods in which residents and property owners 11 Vuncasse HanUn_BruWh%Inc expressed interest in being the subject of the Phase III study received sole consideration.The DPCD also gave consideration to the potential threats facing a particular neighborhood and their quality of resources. As a result of their expressed interest,the DPCD selected the Bridge Street and the Point neighborhoods for further study in Phase III.Residents and property owners in both of these neighborhoods evidenced interest in the NPD concept,mainly due to concerns about future developments in these neighborhoods.The Bridge Street neighborhood is facing an unknown future for its commercial spine of Bridge Street due to a new parallel bypass that will open this summer.Business owners on the street want to encourage more neighborhood-supported businesses and pedestrian activity,but do not want new development discouraged by overly strict design regulations.Both the Point and Bridge Street Neighborhoods were concerned about absentee landlords and their lack of property maintenance responsibilities.Both neighborhoods also have significant numbers of vacant or underutilized parcels whose possible redevelopment and resulting appearance would be of interest to the communities. Next Steps for Phase III The consultant prepared a draft Work Plan,which is included in the appendix,for the tasks that need to be accomplished in Phase III.This next phase is anticipated to span a two-month time period from mid-May to late July. Working Group Meetings in Phase II The study's Working Group met twice with City staff and the consultant in the second phase.These meetings involved a presentation and discussion of public meeting comments and exploration of additional proposed changes to the ordinance. The Working Group members discussed various ways to encourage participation in these districts,including financial incentives,free design advice,and guidance on where to find appropriate materials for rehabilitation projects. 12 Yuncasse HanUn_B Wlin,1nc Appendices ➢ Diagrams showing proposed NPD composition ➢ PowerPoint presentation for Bridge Street and Point Neighborhood Phase II meetings ➢ Minutes of public meetings ➢ Newspaper articles(Salem News,March 19,2008 and Salem Gazette,April 3, 2008) ➢ Draft Ordinance ➢ Draft Phase III Work Plan ➢ Draft Phase III PowerPoint(example) ➢ CD containing all of the Phase II products noted above,including the report itself 1. Neighborhood Preservation District-Composition of Neighborhood Preservation District Commission • • O Core O O YUU V Members O O Commission V Y Alternates 0 District 1 Member (Resident,Property Owner,Business Owner) • Design Professional (General Member) City of Salem Neighborhood Preservation District Study 2. Neighborhood Preservation Districts -Composition of Neighborhood Preservation District Commission O O Reviews District 2 Projects Y J O O Alternates J O Members • O Core O O Y V Members O O Reviews District 1 Projects Alternates • District 1 Resident 0 District 2 Resident • Design Professional City of Salem Neighborhood Preservation District Study 3. Neighborhoods Preservation Districts- -Composition of Neighborhood Preservation District Commission O O Reviews District Projects VY O O Alternates O Members O Core O O Y Y Members Members O O Reviews District Projects Reviews District 1 Projects Alternates Alternates 0 District 1 Resident District 2 Resident District 3 Resident City of Salem Neighborhood Preservation District Study ¢ U � 0 0 LLI N U) ti LLI W � W � � O � � H � U C-• U U �N U • � 8 F—I 4-' ,--� ,-1cn Ct O p"I •O •� � O .� � � O � � 0 ILI ED cn O �-, cd bA QJ U •� ct • rl � p '� b�A • Fitz .� wo O 4� CJcd .._- •rl .'►.p • 4z cr O c C,3 QJ ' �7_1 _ vat-=� J--� � _ �it $'� �► aim�--� N % �+-. ct cn r ■ U �vv c1 �N 5 NN }ice v Si O VI .�• a3 C•N ct 4-4 cn bA O ,� •� � W � W � o � � ■ � U c1 �N O •~ 4-j v •� V1 cl� , l oc M v� ct ct l a� CA 03cd Q u ►-1 A4 i gyp+ p y p + y Q d) c = CL 3 N N p y p _ L p O y O •y i O i i �0.. c N U to cn m U .� • v 4) N CD iL-+ —C L O � y t O i Q d +�+ Q V C cc 0 N gyp,, � t� �••� L O s •L C J O E +� v >+ > O •L O �, Im O y •y L• L •L cn Q •> v m N U v L O • •O t�0 � O O O •� cc E � � �• as � p y v� • = O t!� N E O o Q CD Q o L • Cc pCc y = L • ? j ._ C 0 .p •1 • U �N �-+ •rm4 . r..� • p �A oo '� 'c ° . ' . r--�ct cn O o � U ct ct CA bb ■ U H At � O - . 4_4 C� ct 0"Not • � o Q � � w � aA � O � UIt � rill 04 3 o - -I__ i �r 1 • *J1 ,d m fo i ro �--� 4O U . Ln vs 4� 00 Q) = ra CC f r.. +� O N = r N .ems 4-J oL ��• �,'• ' - door. /'� Cn V fa C C fo Z can N C Q L. u 0) t __ 0 ca v - I -- _ fo M fo 0. c rA' j 11 0 °� p U V1 � 03 Ct ct t' .� � 0O c�3 � 4-4 A 03 71 U c�3 ct 4-4 0 � � u , ct c ■ U ti U '-' � 6 ct bA ct cn ►--+ O 03 T-.' C`• p �j ,� v� . � � N U ct u wct bACt ra ct O O O • � 4� N 4-4 7 ��-' •� , U � .. LZ ci ct cn4-4 ct O a� O O _ w O ♦, ct w p Cd c > Q O � ct � O ■ U �vv c1 �N v O v t�A N � O ct ct o � � L >� 2 ra ■ 0 i O � Q o 4� > c4 _ � U a a E {v±, o a� O .J U E a_ y f0 O 'i -a U) u a--+ ro O 41 iJ U a + O .� i O N Z J O Q Q Q w n • 0 0 • U �vv c1 �N v � 0 � O U ct cn � U cn O ct o � N � U � L >� 2 ■ i N O a Q O +' > C O 2 E ro- E Vp = O 'O -+6� "aCn 70 co pT � V N41 -O zN OQ a o • • 0 0 • U �vv c1 �N v ct � U O ct o � � L >� 2 v a; =3 -� ■ i N O a Q C 2 E {v±� (a N U 4- 4- N Cl) U a O .� i N Z D J O Q Q d, ca Q w n • 0 0 • U �vv c1 �N v � O O v . ct O 'z� � O � o � � L Mn 1 -0 0 (U aC to o o _ a Ln E cu u �_ cu o .D L (� Q � � Q 0 0Q u V) U �vv c1 �N v � O O v � U 41, w O Ct O � � >� 2 V) Mn T (1) ■ i O Q o +� > � o a� c p U U d Ln E "a fa N U a--+ O 41 .L i N ZD J � OQ Q Q o n • 0 0 0 c ti. 1 -- f1it�4 len 1 �1 I +ram p._ .M I = ' -... 7177 Li .z I -- 4> • .Y it - ti I 4 14 02 ct 1 -. _ J Awl QJ ,I �� . _ Alt t i � •`t F, U '- /�1� � .. i 1 ■ PI V1 t , R• J # 7 3 '�� • r i � ,fir C� •y_ ••rr cL r it U � .'• wor# V` O ' OWL `. d--� - - s• i it ---- � „� -. r !p" C� J �V1 P-I Ct ti 0 N ct ct ct Cld 4D Cam• p 7� . � -c c cn ct 44 O v, to� r"r J i I O lk O 00 O > N w N U L u •^" w �4 W � � O � � U Cam• U U j •N C/� •Iv U � O r• U � 4-4 ct ct Q 4--j 4-4 tiD 4-4 . 0 � � c� r• �' by a� Z CA . 4 bA _ _ v ;.o O O PEA - •PO a' O cd V - . Q •a10 .bi) �--' O .� bb tb Ct W O tb ct r-4 C4 bA cn P= 7 U ■ N — IkKati MEM. 03 a� ct o cq U ti i P it • O tb vV V1 ^• ��W1I a� O Q ti) c�3 [� � •�I � N N N � N ,�' •� � W � W � o � z3° y c0 "" ,t 1 co� ORO 4-4 CA O oc M v� cn 03 Z � 4 i �0.. a' N O C O O r '3 p - i p O • N >1 f+ Eo �_ o N • E Q M Q m p C d V V U i p t C '0 J O E A-A v >+ > O x O sue.. i O CO co c> -- o E 4' >' c �., CD E O U) '3 > Q L p V a CL Q UO'' • U ti �N VJ ct o oo p � �., • are 4� '4-4ct N •4-j O 4-4 4 ! � e f - I � 4-j (73 CAct 4-4 ct 0 w p o c� � •,� � o o M cd �1y� •l. Vjbfi U ti O � U � +� Q �% .' U ci JIM ct ct ct O E O cn W O - AN U i 4-J ` r � o +-� a-J r Piz Q � o CD vs •I� o w p ` ll L kO f • ,� •POO - < ..Y. • t- o N � � V (. L lrt 4w O i � j c� ru N- o> �--� o -0 CD 0 -0 L ti V � '• O 00 tO ro O o N 2 .PEA ram.: un cu 4-0 U) 1 . �/ � •+ iF��ti�J4 r O • O O ti N co� i cMEN �.� i r 9A g}' L u o ��•i I �veyp.. \�4-r-fs' ^.`1:ft?tth::.,� � y �' (� O �'r ' av*••• O O 0 0 �.f 4W f0 o 1 Z 4-1 0) C U � N O 0 Q z NOr ME i a� lw M 0 "► m � C. .� - p � a E u cn a) _o O O • •� l O ■ 3yJ r, Ail V}Ldi U ti Cld Ct ct co� • � p ct A ct .. ~ c'd 4-j ct ct 4-j ' 4•" � O ct ct ct Cld ctct .� , !::� cn ct O O ct U O Z ■ 4 U ti ti 7� U ct +- U � cn ct CA O .POO O O r-4 O O • � a� a� Z 4 ct Q ti ^ � Q rA �+ ct a '� ' O O cd ct ct w sal � . 0 � U ..� o r4 • cz u u � a� u � o v U ti �N V L �• 4—j 'III V1 O O U , c3 w O • � � U w � ct O � � � N � Z � � ; _ � � o ° 'S -0 Q o a) CE O a),,v4j, ,1•�'4,Y O V L (� C V 'ZI _0 O tp p .� T fi fp cn p Ln 41 N i� U -O p 7 el s z 0 0 Q QCY 'p Q 0 U ti �N 4 v Fri � vs - a� � w � ct O � � Z IU >� 20 v) .D) " -0 o � _0 a M o � �, io E to o a)y4 �o L v L �n E U +� a a 0 Q Q � '� Q 0U N U ti �N 4 v Fri � • r4 P-� • r w O • � w � ct O � � 41 Z L ■ 0 (1) O � Q OL ( N N C L fi @ V p � Ov p C 7 z J 0 Q Q '� Q 0U U ti �N c�c V 1 �• 4 +-j e� ct 0 N rA w O . rA O ct Mn L IU � a.., • lu (}�! _� (}�! � Q) v4Pu �P4 O V V E U fu sl zo � 0 OQ Q Q o V) • 0 0 0 0 U ti �N c�c V 1 �• 4 +-j e� V1 p3 • r4 ' r--4 w O • � w � ct O � � Z ND f ■ LAa o � Q o c fo }V} z }V} a a o a) O V Q }J (A fu zo � o oa a � a a 0 U `R i:i�, IL T f _ o r ci � t a U ti i 4-j 03 y I ' ° I o Ici r U tiv }}Wii v �T r - a _ 47 M l �I U ti AL 4YI ` �. �•wws +�s�'`S E q F � i or 1 I i Y• f_ I r1J ' 4 i ,I r. V}Ldi - ' y STO r \ 1 yY®fir R'l IN }' ti _ V goo I, 1 j r" 1 is �' 'IiIII� ii_.i w - �l � 4 to 'Moor � r ' l ti f' r � C` U ct ti a� •j o Cld o ct CA ct +-j ct Q O o ,C'n U ^, N N GA cl ct 4-4 c M OQ 4� Z PTO ■ G � .2 co� � � � 2 � 4 � Q q � � � /\ & Neighborhood Preservation District Study Neighborhood Meeting Gallows Hill Neighborhood Meeting 4/21/08 Attendance: 4 residents Note: this meeting was on Patriots Day,the date selected by the Gallows Hill/Ward 4 Neighborhood Group Meeting length: 1 hour Questions and comments following the presentation (summarized,not directly quoted) Is there an economic demographic that these districts are generally located in?Where are the districts in Boston? Why is the Gallows Hill boundary so large?The most historically significant areas are Boston Street and the intersecting streets. When Peter Copelas built an 8 unit building he demolished 5 houses. I would like to see this kind of thing prevented on Boston Street and the side streets. I do have a concern for gentrification of the neighborhood but my main concern has been to save Boston Street. Boston Street was originally part of South Danvers until 1855 and much of its history is not well known. We need to get more people involved in this study. We didn't realize it would be this good! This will be an uphill battle—many people don't want to be told what materials to use. Will there be any financial incentives because this will add some costs to getting a building permit. When we discussed this meeting at the Ward 4/Gallows Hill Neighborhood Group meeting last week, I got a lot of feedback saying that I don't want someone telling me what to do with my property. People will also be concerned about siding material,restrictions on square footage and windows. It depends on the siding itself. Some vinyl siding is used in historic districts. I have clapboards under my vinyl. There is a $10,000 difference in cost plus no maintenance. I was painting every single year and shingles go and need to be replaced. I want to keep the integrity of the size of homes in the neighborhood to keep the character of this area. 1 We do have problem houses in this area due to lack of upkeep. I'd like a way to get these houses back in line. We do have a high percentage of absentee landlords here who won't be in support of this concept. I see this as a working class neighborhood similar to neighborhoods in South Boston where developers are tearing down buildings and using any building they can get their hands for housing. I don't want this to happen here. My main concern is larger developments. When we redeveloped the Pope House,we heard from the neighbors that they didn't want us to do anything too nice because they don't want their property taxes to go up. In a working class neighborhood with lots of character, things can go up or down. If things go up,people can't afford to live here any more. Boston Street takes in several wards running from Butler Street toward the Essex/Peabody line to the North River. Why target new construction?There will be mixed feelings about this, some for and some against depending on who presents and how it is presented. There is a definite fear factor in being told what to do. Peter Copelas originally wanted 12 units with stores on the first floor. People didn't attend the meetings and now complain about what he built. This will be a hard sell in this area and we will need to get the word out. We need to figure out how to deal with the perception of what it will be like because no one wants to be like Federal Street. The pie in the sky interpretation is that this actually already exists with zoning and the ZBA, but this system is not working. 2 Neighborhood Preservation District Study Neighborhood Meeting South Salem Neighborhood Association Meeting 3/18/08 Attendance: approximately 25 residents Councillor Veno and Councillor O'Keefe (both arrived at the presentation conclusion) Meeting length: 1 hour (of a longer meeting) Questions and comments following the presentation (summarized,not directly quoted) I am concerned about what happens when large older homes are turned into condos like the house on Lafayette Street between Holly and Laurel.They did a nice job but dividing a house into condos can really hurt the architecture. I am concerned about the scale of new houses. I am interested in landscaping and more green in South Salem. I strongly support anything that can be put in place to help protect street trees and get more trees in South Salem. In a building owned by multiple condo owners,how would the vote take place? How many owners would need to be in support for one property to be considered in favor? (Councillor Veno) I have a major concern with the possibility that only 51% of property owners would need to support an NPD for it to go into effect. This addresses property rights and therefore a large percentage of the property owners should be in favor for a district to be put into place. (Councillor O'Keefe) How a decision would be appealed?What happens if the Building Inspector disagrees with the Commission?What would prevent him from issuing a building permit anyway? I am concerned that Salem's history as a costal community be preserved. Why aren't the islands included on the map? The audience discussed the new condo development in the Point (Palmer Cove) at Palmer and Lafayette Street. The audience generally disliked the design and felt that some sort of guidelines would have helped improve it. In the Point Neighborhood, the CDC is the major property owner. They will need to support this for it to work in the Point. I am concerned about taking authority away from the Planning Board. Can an NPD help us in any way to guide the development of the College? Can an NPD help us to control the commercial development at the edges of the College? 1 South Salem is too large and too varied to be just one district but there are smaller areas that might make a lot of sense. I live on Summit Ave. and would be interested in being part of an NPD with some other nearby blocks 2 Neighborhood Preservation District Study Neighborhood Meeting Bridge Street and Salem Common Neighborhoods Meeting 4/22/08 Attendance: 35+ residents Councillor Sosnowski Meeting length: 2 hours Questions and comments following the presentation (summarized,not directly quoted) Does this have the same legal precedence as condo covenants?Will ten of your neighbors be able to say you can't paint your house blue?I'm concerned that neighbors will be able to just make arbitrary decisions. What impact will this have on improvements planned for Bridge Street? Who solicited this study?What criteria will you use to determine what neighborhoods will be studied? The Common Local Historic District is only 3 sides of the common and none of the streets leading up to it are included except Winter Street. Basically,very little of the Common is protected. I live on Northey Street,near the end of Bridge Street.When JPI was redeveloped [now Jefferson Station] they tried to cut down many trees adjoining their property and we had to fight to save them. The old bridge should be on the map as well. This was suppose to become a fishing dock, but nothing is happening there. Bridge Street should be included in the district [rather than just residential side streets] some businesses fit, others don't.You can't separate out Bridge Street because there is some residential property on Bridge and some buildings that have retained all of their period details, although others have not. The district must go past where the new courthouse will be,it should go almost to the North River. Is it possible for the grant to cover an inventory of the buildings in the district to form a base line for what we are trying to protect? I enjoy looking at good architecture but realize that someone with a rotting porch may not be able to afford repairs.As a small business owner, I am concerned about adding costs to running my business. This concept simply adds more bureaucracy to existing bureaucracy. 1 There is a very good reason to do this but why have another level of bureaucracy?Why not just go to the Planning Board rather than create a new commission? Why does the Mayor appoint commission members? The politics need to be taken out of the commission. Members should be voted in by neighborhood residents. The commission members need to be people who understand architecture through their job or training,not just be friends with the Mayor. How big is the commission? Multiple members of the audience commented on their concern that there is only one commission for the whole city. Many people stated that one commission per neighborhood would be preferable. Why does the commission need to be supported by City staff. If it was just run by residents, the cost to tax payers would be less and we could have one commission per neighborhood. Can you separate as of right development from non-as of right development? If the must go to the ZBA, the review by the ZBA follows the design guidelines. Bridge Street went through this with JPI. We went to the ZBA hearings and battled and battled just to get the town houses as a buffer. The area at the top of Bridge Street should be added in,where 99 Restaurant and Stromberg's are located. I think that this is about planting the seed of an idea moving forward. If we had this two or three years ago it could have controlled the developer who built two houses across the street from my house,next to the bypass road. He built two pre-fab houses shipped in from Maine and was able to build two by connecting them with a deck. The lot is zoned for one two unit house and the ZBA did not listen to the neighbors concerns. We ended up with two houses that do not fit the neighborhood and a precedent for houses joined with a deck.We met many times as a neighborhood to try to prevent this. It could happen to you! An NPD with loose guidelines could prevent another block of giant yellow buildings. (the audience clapped) I recently bought a building on Bridge Street that was originally residential. People have told me that I'm very brave to return it to residential. 1 am very much in support of a Neighborhood Preservation District. My property is zoned residential but for 55 years no one has considered that you might want to walk down Bridge Street. A key to these meetings is communication. The City should use the phone system that alerts us to weather emergencies and traffic problems to tell us about meetings. 2 How will you determine what neighborhoods are selected for Phase 3? To avoid creating a separate commission,you could pull three neighborhood residents into the Planning Board for projects within a NPD. 3 Neighborhood Preservation District Study Neighborhood Meeting North Salem Neighborhood Meeting 4/15/08 Attendance: approximately 13 residents Councillor Prevey Meeting length: 2 hours Questions and comments following the presentation (summarized,not directly quoted) What is design based review versus zoning based review? Is this similar to the NRCC in terms of design review? I am concerned about the NPD establishment/designation process and making sure that residents and property owners are aware of what's going on throughout the process. North Salem is very diverse with different needs in different areas. North Salem is too large to be all one district. In reaction to a photo of Dearborn Street included in the PowerPoint: the three properties shown in the photo have no infill but up and down the street the properties do have infill development without any architectural cohesion. In terms of preservation of character we may have already missed the boat on this street. Are there any financial incentives for residents with this type of district? Doesn't zoning cover these issues already? I don't feel the need to tell my neighbors what color to paint their houses. There is a house near mine that has been neglected for years due to lack of money to keep the house up. Would an NPD be able to address this type of problem? How are the boundaries of a `neighborhood' established?Who gets to decide who the neighborhood is? Is there an optimum size for a district in Salem? I am concerned about the idea of serving on a commission as a layperson and being taken to court by my neighbors as an individual. I don't have any education in design and don't have the money to defend myself in court. Has there been any follow up to the 2006 study completed by VHB in the Point? 1 Please put the final NPD Study on the City's website. Is there any proof than a NPD results in an increase in property value?Neighborhoods turn as new people move in and improve the houses.Will creating an NPD prevent this process from happening? Personally,I didn't buy a house in a historic house because I don't want to be told what to do. What would the cost to tax payers be if an NPD is created? What kind of follow up studies have been completed on NPD's that have been around for a while?What problems have come up? What are some of the drawbacks of this type of district? Can there be an opt-out clause that allows a district to dissolve if people agree that its not working? I am worried about amount of money needed to fix up older buildings to preservation standards and that it could affect the supply of affordable housing in the city. I would like use to be considered to protect affordable housing, so that someone is not required to remove lead paint rather cover it with vinyl siding. Why not just establish design review throughout the city? Or just use the Design Review Board to review throughout the city?Why go through all of this for just select areas? We already have Site Plan Review by the Planning Board requiring the Board to consider architectural character for projects at 10,000 sq.feet and over. Can't the Site Plan Review threshold be lowered to a square footage threshold that would cover individual houses? To support this concept,I would need the following issues to be addressed: • The ordinance must have an opt-out clause. • The planner who supports the Commission must have a design background. • Design guidelines can't be frivolous. • Membership of the commission must include neighborhood residents • The process must support zoning rather than creating a basis to circumvent zoning. Salem is subject to the "travesty of variances" I support the NPD concept in principal and I think the area where I live would qualify (Southwick) but historically,we have had a lot of trouble getting people in North Salem to be involved.With a general history of lack of involvement,I am concerned that we won't be able to make the commission work or pass a district due to lack of engagement. 2 (Councilor Prevey) Ward 6 has few issues that bring the neighborhood out, unlike other neighborhoods in the city. The neighborhood association is loosely structured and that more work could be done on strengthening the group. North Salem has a problem with demographics. We have many homeowners who are have young children and therefore have very little time to be involved in a commission or creating design guidelines. I am interested in Rita's comments that people often create NPD's in response to a threat to the neighborhood. I would like to know, for example,if we surveyed the residents of Dearborn Street,what they would say they feel the threats are. If there are no threats to address, an NPD might just hamper doing what we have always done. I came to this meeting optimistic about this concept but am now pessimistic about the reaction of Salem residents for the following reasons: • This is an additional level of bureaucracy overseeing people's lives and time to get a building permit. • No members of the Historical Commission should be on the Neighborhood Preservation District Commission. It's not a good idea to include any members as they would push their mentality down to this level of review. • To gain people's support you are going to need to provide a great deal of education, communication and will need to keep pummeling people with this idea. • People in North Salem are not well off and it's all people can do to keep their properties in decent condition. People are going to react to this with dollar signs in their eyes. • Above all, the NPD concept has got to be realistic and take all of the issues (funds, how and what reviewed) into account. 3 Neighborhood Preservation District Study Neighborhood Meeting Willows Neighborhood Meeting 4/8/08 Attendance: approximately 40 residents Councillor McCarthy, Councillor Pinto Meeting length: 1.5 hours Questions and comments following the presentation (summarized,not directly quoted) Your presentation emphasizes the positives of NPD's.What are the drawbacks? How contentious can disagreements between neighbors get in this type of district? I am afraid that there may be a minority who is very opposed to this idea. If the majority of residents support creating the district and it is created, this minority may then cause a great deal of disagreement when projects are reviewed. I am not personally opposed to the NPD concept but am concerned about creating contention among neighbors. Where is the funding coming from for this project? Is taxpayer money involved? Why do we need another level of bureaucracy when we already have a zoning code, Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals? How does the NPD review timeline fit in with the timeline for other approvals required to get a building permit?What approval would you need to get first? I don't want this timeline to get any longer. Houses in the Willows are already completely non-conforming with the Zoning Code and are all different form one another. Would creating an NPD in the Willows give us any more control over what happens on public land? The charm of the Willows is the eclectic nature of the architecture. Design guidelines will make the neighborhood more uniform and actually hurt the character of the neighborhood rather than protect it. I am very concerned that people who don't live in the neighborhood will be on the NPD Commission. Why are there members of the Salem Historical Commission on this commission?At most,there should be only one Historical Commission member so the views of residents outweigh the Historical Commission views. 1 strongly support controlling new construction. Several new,very tall houses have been built recently which are changing the skyline of our neighborhood. 1 Anger was voiced from several audience members regarding Historic Salem Inc.'s involvement in attempting to block the improvement of a cottage that was an eyesore. This slowed down the work and cost the owner money. The house looks great now. If someone does not receive an approval from the NPD Commission but they build anyway how will enforcement work? I am concerned that this process will increase the timeline for getting a building permit. The process already takes a long time if you need to go to the Planning Board or ZBA and this will make it take longer. Can properties opt out of the NPD?What about properties in the center of the district,not at the edges? What is special about the Willows is that it is very eclectic. Therefore, this is not a good model for this particular neighborhood. It would make sense only for new development and the main problem here is height,which can be addressed through zoning. I have a general concern about setting up projects which are then not followed through on. [long discussion of the incomplete improvements to the Salem Willows park] Will this be another project where we just spend money and then stop before the project is complete? We have no vehicle for getting something done in this neighborhood and I think forming a neighborhood association,like other neighborhoods have,would be a way to make our voice heard. The tendency is for buildings to go up,but the footprint law keeps them from going out (wider). Would it be possible to address this problem through zoning? Have you taken a vote on this idea in other neighborhoods? In response to this question, a show of hands was requested in support of the Willows being the focus of Phase Three (including further analysis of the neighborhood, draft design guidelines and one or more community meetings). No audience members raised their hands. A show of hands was requested not in support of the Willows being the focus of Phase Three.Approximately 2/3 of the audience raised their hands. 2 Neighborhood Preservation District Study Neighborhood Meeting Derby Street Neighborhood Meeting 3/27/08 Attendance: approximately 10 residents Meeting length: 1 hour Questions and comments following the presentation (summarized,not directly quoted) 98% of the property owners aren't here. This is partially because people believe that their houses are already protected from alteration. I am very concerned about this idea because of the cost to homeowners. I live in a home with vinyl siding and very old and inefficient windows. I plan to replace these windows with modern vinyl windows this year. I am a new homeowner and I can't afford to replace them with wood windows. I spoke with a few of my neighbors regarding this meeting and, although they are not here, they are also very concerned about the fact that an NPD will increase the cost of maintaining their home. I am concerned about legislating taste. Paint colors should not be up for review. On the other hand,if you own a pre-Civil War house it is your responsibility to preserve this house. This is something you take on when you buy a house of this age. I live in a house with no historic value—a triple-decker built around 1900. One attendee noted her previous experiences in educating and soliciting support for the Derby Street Local Historic District. She explained that the process involved many hours and hard work going door-to-door and lots of meetings to convince and educate people about the benefits of such designation. There are some areas that are appropriate as and NPD, such as Forrester Street, and other areas that do not have enough historic architecture to be included, such as Beckett Street. I am concerned about the make-up of the NPD Commission. With members from the Historical Commission on the NPD Commission, I am worried that this is an attempt by the Historical Commission to take over the whole city. How would this equal control by neighborhood residents? Very old buildings should not be demolished. One of the things I like about this neighborhood is these older buildings,but the main reason I purchased my condo because it was the only thing I could afford with 2 deeded parking spaces off of the street. There are entire houses where there is nothing worth preserving—don't paint a broad brush over the whole neighborhood. Can some streets be excluded? I strongly support historic preservation but don't have a problem with houses remaining as they are now. If there is vinyl siding, so be it. I don't want to increase the cost of 1 maintenance for homeowners so if they don't really change the outside, I am not concerned. Also, exchanging one element of the building for something modern and higher quality is ok, such as putting in vinyl windows. Parking is a major issue in this neighborhood and buildings have been demolished to create parking. If an NPD is going to work,it can't limit parking any more than it is already limited. The houses here have their own sense of style,which in many cases is very simple. I would like this simplicity to remain. Vinyl siding is less of a problem than poor maintenance. There are a few houses in a very bad state of repair that would be greatly improved by vinyl siding. When posed with the question of whether new construction rather than renovation should be reviewed, the audience unanimously agreed that new construction is a"fantastic" thing to review. One audience member stated that although review of new construction would be good, there are not very many places for new construction to happen. Homeowners are more important than a few people who are interested in this idea. English Street is a good example of a street that's on its way back up. One house recently took the vinyl off and put the clapboards back up. The homeowner here commented on the energy of people involved in rehabbing buildings and the care they are taking in this area. One of the things that is unique about this neighborhood is the gardens between the houses. It is very unfortunate when people convert gardens to parking. 2 Neighborhood Preservation District Study Neighborhood Meeting Point Neighborhood Meeting 4/28/08 Attendance: approximately 15 residents Councillor McCarthy Meeting length: 1 hour Questions and comments following the presentation (summarized,not directly quoted) For this to work, there needs to be outreach to property owners. Most don't come to Neighborhood Association meetings. You could try meeting with the Landlord Association. Sometimes landlords aren't interested in this kind of thing.You could go to their meeting a present the idea. There are a number of property owners in the Point that own multiple properties,like the Salem Harbor CDC. Would every neighborhood have different design guidelines? Have you found that its usually the front of the house that creates its character? Enclosing back porches is very different from enclosing front porches. Salem has committed to being a green city and updating your home is part of this process. Please don't put guidelines in place that would prevent people from making improvements such as solar panels on the roof or installing energy efficient windows. If ten years down the road the neighborhood decides this was a bad idea, can it be revoked? You mentioned that one of the benefits is control over demolition. Could you elaborate? In the Willows there was a Victorian cottage that got taken down.Would an NPD have prevented it from coming down? I live on Harbor Street and 4 years ago the family that had lived next door for years sold their property to a Watertown developer. His idea was to turn it into residential units. Seven years earlier, a second house on the property had burned down and his plan was to build another building where this house had been. A large apartment building could have been put there and the neighbors all protested.Thank god he decided not to build this building but it could happen still. We would lose a valued open space on our street. Getting the word out about this idea is very important. Five major Point landlords were in favor of the National Register District and they would probably come over to this as well. 1 Many landlords in the Point are absentee and are more interested in preserving their bank accounts than preserving the neighborhood. Audience members discussed a row of stucco houses at Prince and Dow that were in very poor repair due to neglect and fire. Demolition was proposed but the neighborhood didn't want to lose them. The houses were rehabbed and sold to homeowners in 1993. I bought one of these houses after it was rehabbed. I am in support of the Neighborhood Preservation District concept but I don't want to be on anybody's committee (an audience member then explained that she is a member of the committee searching for a site for the senior center). 2 pub:\\rnnnrn•nnrcKsg1ocsl•cou.\z9JsUj\gl.cpiAc\x12Q12AI608 2\6\3008 Lsdnrl.sq to bnl clJg2s g cutulu tXbs of nAlugo mR- JJon2s2• Bscsnzs Ot jFj2' Fs 2uTq' JJs,2 CoucsLusq Fs,ll ps Fs1q to RmgsJlus2 RsgLsq tonAglq fFG UJUIOufX' 111Cs ps1uR y4llluL bolufsq one tFut Fl2 FoUJs 12 ous OL fFs OuJA ftASUf1s fJJ-csufnLA fL1bls-gscKsLz oU g 2 fl.ss f Jlusq tAl fp JJ12 fouc blotscta• pus OL fFs fplU'a2 J JrKs ULs 2OUJs Ot fFG FOn2s2 ULs 2lgstA9a2' 2OUJs WAUX tLolu f]Js 2fLssf ...,, Forl2s2 ou JJ12 2fLssf• j pgfs uslPFpoLFoog2 fpgf 9111001C fFG aglus'„ JJs 2u1q• ,IIJGX Lsulluq uJs Ot fsuslu r.sUf2 o CIGOLLY1111u1.' u LTL2f-fllus JJolusotAUSL 2n lu fFG DsLpa 2 fLssf ULsg' lq JJs suiOAR QJs OtIpsgf COJOLa Ot 2OUJs Ot fFG ps bofsUflgJJa CO2flX tor. UGM FOUJsonAUsl.2 lu toqua,a 2gffRRJluF scouou x- coucsLu2 luclfigsq fjJs JJO JlORsulslUR OtUGTRppoLpog2' uuq MIct 8nlgsllus2 gponf 1JOn2luR LsuongflOU2 f1Jgf conJq litTIM LOn?,Fll 12 Ls2lgsut2 bisZsuf' OUJa jlJLss 2bol(s brrpllclX uLtu mutcpu'R g 211gs21iom bLG2sufgf1OU• YJglU boLclJs2' algluR uuq LOOL goLwGi.2- buLticnJgL uslpFpoLFooq MX CF002s to bLofscf conlq ps lionalula uggjqou2' Juugacubiu?, uuq ru9101. glfGLUfloua to JLMO ULG92 flJsa MOLK ps2 f 1u' 2Fs auiq' ul.s bLo fsc flU? uu uLsg aftiml gsluollpou oL cou2tmcpou• O fFsL sJslusuf2 g URUTU2 f Us99 flns CFUUEs- BLn2fl1U' RUAs fps bLs2sUfgf!OU' suJb1Jg2muR fjJs bo2lflns sttscf2 OtZbD2' MIJICJJ 21Js cgJJsq ,IU2HLgUCG bollcrsa„ gporlf fFG psusLlf2 OtZbD2• KITU tAUFF' g asuloL bLs2sLAgflou blguusL tLOUJ fFG rn9fGLfOtAU LILLIJ AUU922s HguRsu ,Vpont 12 bsobls pOUJ flJs H12TOLIC DsLpA 2fLssf ZelRFpOLFOoq V22ociugou 192f rnssK gf fsugsq u lJlssfluR to JsgLU usirppoLpooq LGU(;Voua OLJsguz' FT Ju W92z9cJJrr2s f2' fFGX ULs tonuq lu FOMG11' B02TOU uuq CuujpLlggs- Zsl�JJpoLFooq bLszsLng�lou D1a�Lrc�z gLs �onuq fFLOfTRFOfrf fFG n-2- lu blucs2 luclrrglUR D91192' , GX92 uuq 14Gm OLOus OL flJs2s JJon2s2' oL blsnsUf fjJs cou2Tmcgou ofu uJogsLu JJon2s flJgf UJIPJJf Uof :lf 1Uf0 fJJs Us1RJJpoLFooq- JJ12toucgl glatLlct' p not bLotscfsq• CLsgfluP gu L1bD to bLotscj tlip uLsu corllq bOfsuquJJa bLsnsUf fFG gsluolltlou JIKs bOlufsq «RIURsLprsgg„ LOOLtob2 guq 2becron2 tLout bOLCFs2• LOu.s2fsL 2fLssf' pscgn2s It gos2u,f tUll ttAlfF1U g pus sxulubJs 12 b Ou.s2 fsl. 2 fLss f' IAFICJJ F92 LWAR OL psgnflLnl &IC fOLTUU FOrl2s2 IATTF 2MUTIUL ULCFl fsc fnLUI ts9frrl.s2 cougncquR qJs zurgX- to ps bu4 ofu Fl2toucul qla i.Ict pscgn2s tpGX gouj MgUf fFgf Jsnsl OLCOUTLOJ'„ 29iq KTL2fsU KlussL' g cltX blauusL «••• jFGLs ULs g JULIRs UnlupsL of bsobJs lu 291slu MIJO MgUf to bLs2sLAs fFG F12 fOLlcgj ULCIJl�sc fnLs pnt qou,� nngut zs f of Rmgsllus2- fls lf2 2fLssf2 fORGfFGi.• It monJq ps OASL2ssU guq Ls?nlutsq pa u RLOnb OL fFG bsobls MIJO Jlns lu 1t' rrugsL ip otAu bLs2sLA9f1Ou Dl2fuCf' lu coutiu2t' gosa UOI JJgns to ps JJl2fOLlCUl' prrt tAonlq JJgns COUJUJOU ULCJF1fsCfnLgj fLglf2 f1Jgf u 2 fl4C f 2s f of JsRul Rn1gsJlUs2 CLsgfsq guq ugUJrul2 fsLsq pA tpG 2gJslu 1-112fOLIC91 COUJlul221Ou• V AGTFFpoLFooq 291GUJ ull.sgq?, put tons. liptoucal gi2TLlcf2' gLsga fFUT ULs JJl2fOLlc9JJA nuldns 2ncF 92 fFG WCIUTILs D12TUCT" JJsJq to ROUs goOL to goOL bu22lu?L ont 2tnga pLOCIJnLs2• (2ss g 112t otnbcouJluR lJlssf1UR2 lu fjJs UfIUCFsq 2toix-) ISM' 2O LUL JJJsa JJgns ugAGIfl2sq qFs 2fngA fFLonRJJ usl?FpoLFooq PLonb JsggsL2 uuq 2olus clfa conuclloL2 Funs oblulou2 OU flJs 2npIscf' JJ02fjUR g 2sLls2 OLUJssTlUR2 ullusq at sgncufluR fps bnpllc gporlf fjJs luusL MOLKIUR2 Ot JLFG c1fX,2 bluuuluR guq CounJmulTX DsnslobUJsuf DsbgLPUGUf 12 cougrrctlug u atnga To Pgn?s LG2rgsuf2, fFLOn?F fFG CLsgfroU OLasJJ-ROAGLUTUR 14s1?FpoLFooq bLG2sLAUTIOU Dl2Tllcf2 (ZbDa)• V UGM cgXtAlgs lulTluflAs ullua to bLofscf fFG CJJULgcfsL of 291slu 2fLssf2 pa R1A1u8 UJOLs COUTLOJ TO Lsalgsufa RULURG cou2gngGgIntl 1UCFs2 tLolu XOnl. tLoul boxjj� ( 0 AOfs lu g boll ou tF12 2rrpjscf' 2ss TIN suq OL fFG ULflcjs•) gsclgs2 to bnf AIUXI alglu'a ou lira psunqtnl U1ustssuTF-csuTnLA FOUJG� OL tAIJGU WULA MgUfa to JJUAs g UJU22TAG u9vFEW - IL suCF 291slu UGT?,FpoLFooq JJu2 ip omu bsl.2ouu1ijX' mliat JJgbbsua LAJJsu Jos tLoUJ gotAU fFG afLssf ,LFn VbL 03' 3008' 08:32 bW EDJ L KG2lgsut2 uuq ot.Llclu12 Cou2lgSL CLsupuR bLS2sLAuflou gjatLjg2 - 2ujsUJ' SIFT - 2g1sUJ BUNG... buRG 3 of 2 lrllb:\\rnrntA•nnrcKsglocal-CO u\z9jsu. \ULC IAG\xJ2Q,12A,1608 2\6\5008 It,a not jor. t1JsuJ'„ agrq DoJor.sa 1or.quu• ,Ijjgt gtgtngs Itga to ps c1JguRGq•„ ,,Itbsobls flJILTr fIJra ra u 1Jr2touc gl?tLlCf' f]Jsa ass g csr.furu tXbs ofbsr.zou psiuR rufsr.saIsq ru t1Jut uuq urrRIJt tpuy 'VuofIJsr.boiufsq orrf f1Jgf 2ouJs bcobIG raga gffgc1J g 2flRWu 10 fpG rgsu oLIIATUR ru g abscrglrssq gratrct- gffsuquucc' ous usrPIJpor. drrsagousq tt pGtpG . fpG c1tX mn tt orlclu? lJurq suon?lJ ut abr.sugruF, fjJs tAorq- 'Vf fjJs rscsuf usrRlJpor.Jrooq urssfru?' I.sgcfrorJa to flJs rgsu nur.rsq• Grnsu f1Js zruuJJ urnupsr. otr.sargsuTa ru bsfrfrou Rosa To ClfX CorJucrJ Lor. IluuJ ubbronuJ- graj.rct,a ponuggr.rsa uuq nnr.rffsu RnrgsJrusa' uuq t1Jsu bronrgs fFGUJ to f1Js usiPlJporlJooq Lor. r.snrstA' y ar'ausq ous gLsu apotA rufsrsaf' fjJs blguulu? uuq CouJUJJIUItX DsnslobursuT DsbgrfuJsuf M111 tAor.Jc to gGfGLWrus fpG usr?Jrpor.JJooq,a r sargsuta — f1Js sxuct bsr csufgIRs IJ92 As f to ps qs fsI UJrusq• IL u arRurl~rcuut guronut oL bsobls ru Iu OLgGL Lor. u giagrq to ps ugobfsq' g bsfrfJou ussga to ps arRusq pa UUXMIJsr.s :LLour 32-80 bsresuf of fjJG mitt qJs graprcta' tA1Jrc1J mill ubbronsq ou g cgas-pA-cuss puara- cuu gsfsruJrus• ,I,JJs citX 1Jobs2 to JJuns Rgf1Jsrsq suo.nRIJ brrplrc rubnj pA yrr?rra1 to gsfsruJius tAIJsf1Jsr. to Ro ulJsuq "GfIJsr. or. uof ;4sr?IJpor.Irooq brsasrngfrou Drafrrcfa gr.s LrPpf tor. 2gJsuJ is aorusfIJru'R OUIX fFG citX,a r.sargsufa bLszsLAIHFk fps bwf-1 bLo fscyur fps trr fnLs snsu it qpsA lJgqu,I pssu atobbsq pA qjG usrRppoLlJooq pour.q- CouJUJraarou,a sxscntrns grrscfor.' uggru?x fpgf fpG conbls tAonlq zfrll Buns pssu r.sdrrrr.sq to gbbla tt,rfIJ fjJs clfx ,,IIJs crjX,a onsrull bopcA ra to Kssb burlcru?, ofTf oL Crow XuLga •••„ aurq CIJgr.lsa 2rrl1rngu' Cgurpr.rgPs J-Jrafor.rcgl TpG aigstAglK- psruR gsursq: V corrbIG pgcK ru Iaat tln1Jo BAgutsq to couafLncf g RuLURG ru u So-Loot ursu flJgf sxfsugsq gotAu to Ju fjJs gscugsa aiucs fps giaqrcta psPgu' f1JsLs Jrua pssu ous Cora f cgas rsarJJfjUR LLouJ g r.sargsuf,a ubblIcupou MlfF f]Js Locm ou gsuJOIIIIOu guq couatrnctlou- usr'RlJpor.JJooq Lsargsufa uuq ous JlraforrcuJ COWWT22rou uJsuJpsr.• ZJJs Rnrgsliusa LUURG LLouJ gl2gIct to gragjct' CurupLigEs lin arx glaglm fpUf Jruns pssu ULonuq arucs t1Js J a80a uuq gr.s Fonsr.IJsq pa pourga urugs fib of tonr. JIJCs uufnr.gl tAooq- uJsuua courbrouJraruR MITT IJorusot'nusrz' lsffiu'a flJsuJ CIJOoas aaufIJsfrc argrul Lor. fFGlr. lJorus t1Jut ra uJggs to loot' br.ofscfru?x f1Js usrRlJpor.lJooq cpgr.ucfsr.pa uaanr.IUR flJgf usM JJoJr2s2 pJsuq iu' 2fonnslJ 2sa2• Ju 2ours cu2G2 f1Jr2 V11 WIT TMO oL fps giaqrcp, RnrgsJlusa Locnz ouIX ou gsruolltlou uuq couatnctrou• �LFGJL prPPsaf coucsru 12 br.sasrngfrou D12fr.rc1' pof1J ur.s Ronsuusq p?, rnlsa asf pA TlJs Jllafor.rcgJ CouJIJJTaarou' uof usr'Rpporpooq r.s2rgsuf2- Ju rotnslJ' rruJrKs ru 291suJ' fpGLG rz uo r.sgJ grLtsrsucs psftAssu u 1Jr2forrcgl grafr.rcf guq g 14srPIJporlJooq uroaf Turborfuuf to flJsuJ ... LIJsa JCMA bolrtrculla qJTa tAonlq zsJl•„ {Iururu9os2' nnrugotna or.burin• IFGX grquj fa 10 coufroJ sxrafruF prrrlglu'R2• LIJGX Locnasq ou fps qJiuRa t1Juf tAGLG ,,bsobls tInsr.s au cl,, aurq 2Isbpsu 2fotnsjJ' rotAGII Hrafor.rc gour.q uquriuiafrufor.• e,,LIJGX grquj Locm ou bru-r couzTrsrctrou uuq gsruolltlou ua t1Jsrr. oula ono PnTgsllusz• gsurolrfiou• 14srRIJpor.2 gbbr.ogclJsq fJJsrL crfX corJucrl to Rsf f1Jsrr. usiRIJpor.Jrooga r.sco?urssq ua ZbDa' J1afirJ'R rsaf abr.uuR nb ru 3002' abgLJrsq pA ustin loobJJolsa ru fliG crfX,a souiuR cogs qJuf uJor.s Lr.ssJX ullotAsq JJonarug ZIJs crfX oLrotAsll IJga ulus Zs1ElJporlJooq bLsasrngfrou Drafr.rcf2' f1Js Jrr.aT oftAlJlcp nnu2 gszr�uu�sq ru Jaag" ZJJs ]LLOM rotesjj fo C3uJpLigts' tLUCYlur usitppoLpooq cpuutsz Ironasa ru 291GUJ cgu ps u co2gX uuq 102TUR pgff1s URuru21 f1Js aulfX ocsgu gir.• YJIJJUL clnsaqousq tn1Jgt tAorrlq br.snsuf gu 14bD LrouJ KffjUR g «uo nruxi 2TgruR„ Rnrgsjrus' uoquR tliat bgrutluR ,,"UT !LTFG tAiugotAa gouj loot' �Dsrpa 2fr.ssf, suonRIJ�„ lJs gaKsq- KG2igsuJa uuq otbrclula coualgsr. cLsupijR br.szsLnufrou giaJJ.rcp - 291sru' YqV - 2916LTJ e9XG... bg?s 3 0t 2 p4b:\\rnvntA•micKcgJocal•core\zsjcru\aLcpinc\x12Q,12,�,1008 2\0\5008 cJJUURG luug2cubruR'or. rugaps snsu to bmut ouc,2 omu JJon2s gu „ubbronsq„ color.• I cgu 9120 nr2rrujlse qjG qua JJorJrsomuGL 1Ar11 JJgne to Ro „JJut ru 1Jguq„ pstore g coruuJrfce; to u21c bGLWI221ou to pmJq au uggrtlou' uqq to or. DI2Tr.rCT2„ mr11 onsr.2ss f1Js „bsuX„ gstsrl2 otmJJgt bcobIG 211onlq to qo MlflJ fFGTL Uobuf?A-I tor.s2ss qJs qua rnJJcu u ulr.suga 1Jg2 u lot ofcouIroJ m1Jcu If couJe2 to IJJs2s r22rrc2•Iu uJa obiurou fjJG „ZSIRljporljooq brc2GLAuIrou omu' ILaon 29X If tg2f ' coufroIJIUR gcuJolltrou uuq \or. cou2t mctrou broIscf2 uJIR]Jf 2ssur JrKc u Rooq Igsu•,I,ps crTX rufsrtsrruP (glrscfJX or. IuglLGCfJA) Iu fjJG gscl21ou2 fpgf mS IurP1Jf uJuICS mrfJJ LGRur.q to brrnufs bLobGLfX mFIcF mS HUAGU J fjJG crfrseu2 of 291GUJ 1Jgq cuon?lJ o{ fjJG „psusnolsucs„ ofRoneLuIusuf to „IujbLOAG,, one. llns2 pA Kc orb Vpn2c 1 ruouflJ uRo K' 2coTT I-Irlfnusu 0" BI12I14E22 V14D LIT' Y4I14D YS,k O"* L,OK US1& HOUSE ,LHE VYSEKICVLI MVk' IHEKE I2 EZOn H OOAEKUSELLL IL12VI'EYS' YSILID A011K DOWL, ZEFF WE VZD YSA ZEIeHBOKR IAHVL 10 DO IAIZH OfIK bKObEKL1U I BOneH.L V14D bVA Kc orb Vpn2c 1 uJOUTIJ URO AVFEKIE HIFJLfI lE14 obrurou2 guq coruuJsuf2 of uJa usrRJJpoL2 at QJc 2clJcgnlsq uJ6GfIUPX• TJJc c02f ps to fFG fuxbUXGL2� Mpgf OfFG . tss2 0L tlugucs2 qo me ucsq to cou2rqur If m1111 ps Iufsr.e2fIu'ato Jrcur. fFG to ruom mJJo rulfrgfsq fjJG AHD brobo2ul' m1Jo m111 qo fpG 2fngrs2 ussgsq tor. f]JG gr2fr.rcf2 to ps 2sf nb• "at mill srflJsr. 21ge ofurs uuq fFGX prrrlf psgnfrtn11JouJs2 fFgf WUX uof JJUAG pubbeusq mrt1J gu 14HD Iu blgcs• I,rJJ Iufr.s2teq MITFORT 14HD- Ifj2 scJccfIc uuq mougGLLUI guq cneiAoue 102f Jons2 JrnruR JJsrc• Iu tgcf' I,nc Rot Rr.suf usl'appor.2 ou omu Jrorus2• I,ne Jlncq Iu fP12 uer?lJporlJooq tor. ,18 XGUL2' guq I IIJIUIC ms,nc gous lrr2 f trus ru OHL usr?,JJporlJooq J,Fcrs 12 suorr'aJJ Ponsr.uuJeuf couf.oJ Iu om. 11ns2 mrflJonf 1JgnluR om. usr'RJJpor.2 fGJJ n2 m1J9f ms cgu qo mrt1J om. Ks oolf Vpn2s 1 uJouf1J ago DOUR C• 2msupscJ( CouruJGUT2 (S) n cou JIUR MUGLAupou gf2gjcf uJssfru 2 K61ufcq 2for.rs2 bollDgggA•cow > AIGM KG2njf2 OfPGSL,; efU?MGL 2 VU2MGL j nuq€sCtgGq IU 9 UGlappoLpooq Po pnllt' LC'uoh9�Gq oL Cf.pGLMl2S CpgUaGq WO' 291GW eponlgu,f. IIwIf, mpsf. c9u bL,o;.'ocf.Gq 92 p!af.ogcsl gl2f.LlCf2 UGia Jpm.poog2 r.psf 9LGu,f slL.Gsq,\ qy AG:2A 14.2 g aooq obf.lou to L, ®oa6 P 291G lS MG,aPPOLpooq bLc2GLAg !Ou D!L>fLicf2 DO Non 2nbbo4 f.PG CLcgflou ct 2rrubIG", ICI mgul to Kscb firs 1Jorr2s2 f1Js mua flJGX look loquX'„ 2grq 1or.quu' ofJJGL DSrpA 2fr.ssf UGiRpporpooq- ,AGLX m1JIcF conlq grur.nbt f1Js br.s2euf foul• usrPJJporlJoog2 f1Js trssgoui to uJulcs cJJuuPs2 to sxr2fTUR Jrorus2' pnf brofscfruR fpGUJ tr.oru Mfff c cou2fLncfrou ZFc couJruou pouq qJuf gLGm bsobjG fOEG:1JGL at fpG urGGfIuP 192f msclC mug f1Js coucsbt ofullomruR Ks2rgcul2 uuq ottrcrgl2 cou2rgcr. cLcgliu? brs2cLngliou gi2lr.rcl2 - 2glsuJ' YSV - 291Gru Buss••• bURG t ot2 JJ4b:\\AVAIA•nn1CKGglocul-coTu\2uJGuj\uLcplAG\x J 2 Q,12,�,ta08 2\6\5008 dq pp eo LlooLiva LLou B9-J 4 J eGf lutoi M ......... BJ ow -------- ..- .. ___.. . _... ... -_.._.. ... .. ....... .. L ® 0L2 - E92P!ou nugGL Eoof- Exotic HgLgmooq 0 �q uas�J� fGuu2' b9LQcibuflou 1u OuJ1uG g12cn221ou 12 2nplccf TO OHL JGLUJ2 Otn2G' Ba couJUJGufluR' aon URLGG to PG ponuq pa tFc2G g12gRLCG•) Q' n2c fJJG ,KGbOLj 'Vpn2G, pnffOU tAFGu AOr12bot u MIG AlojuflOu• {DOu,f LGbo4 COIJJLusuT2In2f pecun2c aon 2' Doug 29a gUXfjJj JR FGLG aon monjquj 29X 1u tLOuf OtXOfTL uJOfjJGL of fFG g1uuGL fgpJG' q' 14o bcL20uuJ 949cK2• Doug p92F uuAOUG p92Gq Ou fFGIL LUCG' CLGGq' JJGLITURG' OL OLiGUTUTIOu' 3' Bc JJOus2f guq gccnLgfG- S• 2fua ou Tob1c- J' KGGb if cJsuu• bOOJ gnJG2 79 BGboLG g1AluF 1u to bozo g CO JluJGuf' pG 2nLG to LGuq uuq t0110 n fFG bool LnJG2' r'GUAG u COuIUJGuf: Ju X04F 291GUJ gu 14bD 1f UJ1RFf PG FGlbtnJ.... 2OLlJG JJon2G2 JoOK J1Kc LnLgJ VLKuu292 (llAjfFOflf fFG fLu1JcL2) KGboLt `dpn2G 3 tAGGK2 URO 1 OLfF2TgG gbbLOAGq uGM 2tuuquLg2- bLobo2gJ 12 JFG Lonuq LrJc„ pnf :rL2f uJuKG 2nLc 2ulq coutumu 12 fFG L1RFf 21sG'2F9bG uuq COJOL to uJGg2fILG rrb to fFG IAUG11 g tGG OL „dux„m111 PG LGdniLGgIn2l to ubbsgL pGtOLG Mq „couJUJ1fGG,,• JFG ouJA bJgCG to boulAulq gjj2 uGM KG2TgGuf2 uug Ot:LjCTuJ2 COu2TgGL CLGapuR b1.G2GIA9f!ou gj2tLTq2 - 291GUJ' Yqv - 2uJGW GULAG... buRG 2 Ot2 drub:\\rntAtA•2sJcruuGtA2•cou \bnuGtA2\local 2joL?�7OAa0AIA32'utuj1\Lc2onLcc2—bLIuT2foLX e\3\5008 bo221pJG bLG2GLAupou g12gjcT2• If mill pG uouAluglula' pnf uT M111 RTAG TFG C1Tx qjG obboLmuitx TO RO fFLofIR.F TFG OIbTc1uJ2 FobG fFgT' mpw tpG bnpJuc uJG IUR2 ULG OAGL' tmo uGiRppoLFoog2 mill AOJfIUjGGL TO PG 2urq!Gq u2 YICIUTILG DT2fL1Cf — pGCgn2G fFGA UILGugX FgAG LGRHIUIIOu2 guq u CouJ1JJ1221OU to GULOLCG fpGuJ• C1fA,2 tom JJ12TOL1c gl2g1cp — 2Gctuou2 OLr9t9XG4G 2TLGGT' DGLpa 2fLGGT' guq 2UIGui CouJUJou guq fpG g12TL1CT2• ATLfngJJA IFG mIjoJG cjtX 12 nugGL cou2uquatjou• ,LPG OUJA ULG92 TJJUT JJJAG pGGU GJ1UJ1uuTGg ULG TFG ZFG bluuUIUR DGb9LfUJGUT 12 1001C1u'a at ULG92 OtTFG c1x tFgt uJ1Rpf uJglcG 'Rooq UG1RFpOLFOoq bLG2GLAuTTOU „ZF12 T2 bnLGIA gG21RU LGATGM'„ K1uSGL 291q• LG21gGut2' fFgt ubbLOAG gG1uoJTTTOU2' UGM cou2twcgou guq O jJGL MOLJC f1JUT fJJG U61RFpoLFooq gGGUJ2 1uJbOLfgUf• Iu RGUGL91' 2pG 2uiq TFG 1 bD2 G2Tup112F Rf lgG11UG2 guq 2% nb coluuJJu22nou2' mpncF 1ucJngG uG1RFpoLFooq imuK gLG unuboLtuur,, „EJGUJGUT2 fjJ9T ULG 2flp7GCf to LGAIGM ULG JFG UGIappoLFooq,2 cponcG• °•• If cuu bLOfGCT TJJG GJGUJGUT2 TFUT AOn „It,2 nb to Aon'„ 2gnq ][ptu Mal2F' g 2Guiu bLG2GIAujjou bJgUUGL tLOuu rngIGLCOIAU IAIJO 12 MOLKIUR m1TF TFG C1fx- Lollom gTLtuGut LnJG2' u couniltaut 2u1q• JLFGLG ULG AbD2 Tu Cg1upLlgRG' J OtAGJJ' B02TOU guq GAGU D91192' guq fpGA all 2Gf gTLIGLGUf lanngGpUG2 guq 2ontF aulwj j4GjRppoLFooq y22ocnuTuou- TFG1L usTRFpoLFooq'„ KnL2fGu K1USGL Ot fIJG 2gJGUJ bjguunu' DGbgLtuJGUt lung Jg2t UTRli at g 1JTGGT1ug OI,TJJG „OUG TFTUa IAG,LG LG2bougluR to 12 fpG gG21LG IIAG,AG JJGgLq tLOUJ LG2TgG1u2 tOL AJOLG COUfLOJ OAGL MFUT FubbGU2 lu flJGA FgAG UOM- F12fOLTCgJ counUT22TOU2 UJUICG 2flLG 2TL1Ct RnigGJ1UG2 ULG LOJJOMGq' TFG 14bD2 Cuu RUnAG UGTRJJpoL2 UJOLG 29X fFUU CgJJGq „uGTRFpoLpooq bLG2GLAUTIou g12q1cT2•„ JAPIJG UOf 92 LG2TLTCfIAG 92 local F12fOL1c g12fL1cf2' MPGLG ru2f u1RFT TJJG C!TX FGJq qjG LTL2f OI 2GAGLUI UGTRFpOLFOoq UJGGT1UR2 To GxbloLG u bo221pJG gu2mu— 2ou1Gtp!uR ucdnnLG fFG bLobGLfX guq Iruq g gGAGJobGL- Ou B02TOU 2flGGT M92 219TGq To PG LusGq' H?fOLTC 291GLU JUC•' g local bLG2GLAgfTOU RLonb' tAGuf 20 I,uL g2 to FOUJG OU CLOUJpTG 2fLGGf• COUCGLUGq UG1RJJpOL2 FnURU puUUGL2 oIbLOTG2T L1.OUJ Miugorn2• rnJJGu g IA,10 Fon2G 2TuJTJgL dm2gou2 CUUJG nb Tu 2alGTJT tApGu bluu2 MGM uUUOnucGq u LUA AGUL2 URo To julm gorAu u JJ12jouc Iu olgGL COU UJnuTTTG2' TFG dnG2trou 12 OUGU uporrf gGuuojTTTOU: 2Fonlq TFgT olq Fon2G PG 2UAGq� gOIAU TFG 2TLGGT PG UllOtAGq 1I1t 12 Ro1uR to CFguPG fpG CJJULgCfGL Ot fpG UGuRJJpOLJJ00% 2VI,EYA — LFG dnG2fuoU JJ92 CLo22Gq TJJG uJTuq OLUJLU02T GAGLA FOUJGOtAUGL: 2Fofilq tpG comtuicflou bLOIGCT V1 4�,.w\ k�\ MI ' nu 03 5008 2TULt IALTTGL Ba ,Lour Dulfou RUIsuu mqtp RG f flut nb UG#'iPP0Lpooq bLG2G A3fj0u qj2 fLIcfa WING 291GUJ tAGTRJJ2 2GJJTuR fib UGTRJJpoLpooq kGnu of 1ou gj2TLTct2 bg?'G J of 3 p4b:\\Av�nm•RaIGuiucrnz•coru\bnuGtA2\Jocgl 2 foLX-0,�a0,�1,�32•FpTJ1\Lc2oflT cG2—bLiuTztoLx Q\3\5008 68 BUX AIGIA VAG• 2tuLLblJoto 2gJGUJ )ArJJOnn2 12 OUG OL 2GAGLUI UGJR1JpoLPOog2 t1Jut conJq pGcouJG u bMRGLAutlou g12tL1cf• ypoAG 12 g JJOUJG at g 4 ,11JI2 JJorr2G at 5A VLpG11g 2t• cOUTLJpfIfG2 TO TIJs c1JgLucfGL Ot fp!2 oJq 2uJGUJ uGj'RppoLpooq• 2tuLLbpoto 9 �i ti bJJOTO2 CObALJP1Jt © I666-50o8 cup' iuc• L bLOlGCT2 GXfGLJOL GIGUJGuf2 OL1Jorr2G L LlGxJA1G uponT GJGUJAuT2 bLOfGctGq L 2tguquLq gc2iRu RnJgs1JUG2 L enigGJJUG2 2% pA uGilappoLpooq L yquuur2tGLGq pA H12fOLrc91 COUJUJI22TOU L COUJUJ122TOU MITT USJR1JpOL1JOoq LG2JgGuf2 L LOUR ou iuglAlgrrgl pmlgjUR L bocn2 ou UGJRJJpoLJJooq c1JULuc fGL rocZIl P!R JO is q!?fLIG f VGrtppoLpooq bLUGLAUIlou q!z fLlq HJ2toLJc gJ2fLJcf A2• bLG2GLt ujjou g12TLJct Z1JnL2ggA' y4uLcp 5,�' at Q:30 b•UJ• 1u 2t• lo2sbp Hull' IQO DGLPX 2T• .LI G 291GW COUJUJOU guq DGLpA 2tm% uGjRppoLlJooq RLOnb2 mill FO1q aIoiUT UJGG UR OU T1JG AbD 2fngA ou mlappoyooq AOfG2' ubbLOA912 pA fpG C1fX COnucil guq otpGL pong2' guq g pours-Lff1G bGtjgou to qjG 2tutG- EMp1121i1ula u bLG2GLAupou g12gjct monlq pG u loula guq cowblGx bLocG22' oLLicJu12 niq' LGdrr1LJUR otAu— tput,2 not g 2wall tFluR to qO•„ COnucJJOL Y194 AGUO 2grq• „••• E22GUTIullX' AOn,LG blucluR 11UJJt2 ou lAlJut bGobJG cgu qo miflr tpG bLobG4A TJJGA 112OUJGJJOrn' If 2GGUJ2 to UJG fpgf UJOLG fp9IJ u 2JUJb1G UJUIOLITX nAorrlq pG uGGgGq LOL 2OUJGTIJAJR 111CG TpI24 1, JAULq 2 UGIRFPOL2 1JUAG TO pG 1u LunOL LOL g ZbD to pG G2pA1r21rGq- rnonJq tupu bOtAGL urngA LLOW TpG bluUUTUR DGbuLfwGuf uuq BouLq oL Vbbsul• 2owGouG G12G 92Ksq polA UJguA 2GAGLUI coucGLU2 IAGLG L912Gq lu2t urla1Jt• pus bGL20U lAougGLGq JLTITG2G JugGbsugsut UGJRFpoLpooq pouLg2 bLOCG22 oL 2GIquR 2uwbJG Rnrgslruc2- 2ulGui tAGJR1J2 n JuR nb UCTR PoL1JOoq bLG2GLAupou gj2TLJct2 buRG 3 OL 3 IJ4b:\\nnrhtn•2ulGwuGtA2•cow\bnusnn2\Iocal 2foLX-0�a0,�1�32'FfWI\L6zonLCcz—bLlufzfoLX e\3\5008 ou riugsu 2TLGGT• 2tatLblioto 20nfp 291GW IJ92 2GAGLUl usrRppoLjjoog2 tpgf conlq ps cou2igC;LGq Loy.bLG?c; Aujjou gr2gucp- ypon6 12 9 pon2s k Q ab � y F 2ulGw nncr?p2 ntpuR rib UCTRPpoLlJooq bLG2c;LAuTrou gr2TLjct2 bgac 3 Ot 3 Y�ss��ng�nn.Bx�s#11r�,ln� Products from Phase III ¢ U o 4. O 00 W W o� �--� w Q w �q o � � U '--� to� Z ct ct cn ct O o ct Q G�1 4� o c CA a� '+ n � � � w a o 0 0 oct � cn cn U �vv c1 N 212 06 O •b1J �.., p • � �O v� • rA • � O Qcn037� U O l� _N � � U •O N 4-� cn r-j ct p N p O U N O m 4� p U cn U N 14 O U U •,� W c) ct � �+ 4� N a' cH � O �•N v� � O � cn ■ ,-O c J N N � � O to� •t cn cn cn a� ct a Q v o •j o � .� O M-� �° ocn o � U � '� M~ t2 >, o ti N V N Us �7-1 aA wn 0 a U ti ,,�►IIIIII�IIII' (AN w •rl o 4 o ct cn cn �--i 4 O v o M �, � y \ �N .a ,l 01 0 o o U � O .� � O 03 ; C -C� P.� - W.J � v� q POO A• ••h S •'� •},F 1� r � v os �h^ O ' a O y Q .rA I 1 v a of y I r 1 1 w I ff f w O �' 4� CACA O o PO •p* o k � .-� r -T, � ; '�'� � ��►�►►I►���I Ali l� t_`'� l t c1 1 I , UP lk 1 IL .•P} R 0 Oo +' Ct . 4° - ! U ri + UfO�if+ice fii♦� � �f+ . + `}�U� � t � ?a♦. ♦�f fll�ii ff f FFF��� O ^V,I III ON cd CIO o � 4� 0 wn O O U ■ U �vv c1 �N C} to� C f' 61 o U � • ^, ca a-d ry � y C 4—dct O WD N 4� 4fu 4 vs 4., U ru V) _ 0) S C o ro L 0- 0 ro a) _0 _0 co U ro 3 ateJ 05— _ . U �vv c1 eWe � I•�1 0 .P ♦0 4-0 rA FOOM 4-0 •n� O �' ct 4-0 �I O WOO COO � o ago N O ROOM 3' wo •° �• ,F-o O O O '� M •,� O WOO ■ -= L Q U f6 �. L ct U i L O V1 4-0 � � � �: -4-0 f Ln O ct Ak w o C 03 �vv tMM t J Li 11 fo Ln W � ^ O w '~F-A p �--� ct 0 POO 4--� 4� O Ct =l Z l) t ' A f U +-' 9 lam•03 4--� tb 03 w o •0 ro 03 ct y O ct o ct v o o M wo ct ,11 °� MY rl r V U Q V . O V c 44 ilk ,fir U N -0 i C: fo c c E O •c cn cn Q O �` •� Ln z O 0 O E — V O N ca cn O 4—+ O •P* O . . . , :: a� OVL O � - N � r � U O •— O N O +� V m x ru ro Zi 0 N V — �0 N N p ' V� ct w O � 4 cn L O L N O 4 V) N 0 -6 E N � o cv O 4-+ -0 Z.) 'x w -W o O �> — •r, 'V N O � O -O c E •P O E N m p O c 0 � -� �--� _ . � _O C)) O O > V1 0 -0 O W N aO-+ C4-J Q C1t o 'i ,fir E � a� p V � V i (O -a to {� V J N ca +J � Ue w - U 207 C 4-J O 4O 4 > �N E � p N cnfu O i O 77 - — w � U c1' O � L •L � fo � O_ -C— X 41 � O O c -r- •� ® �2 E •� . � � � � E >O O L O_ +-+ N 0) O DC cn .� ct 4� A - w O O � � O . o � • � .AI11,�IIII h � F ��• II 1 1 All- '`� illiitl U �vv c1 �N ee • • Z � A � COO 424 4-0 4-4' u •� o v� cn � a ., o ° c a� ct a� G� Z C4 ° 4-0 �. w Q A� o � � °' � � •� a� ■ U) Cn � . ¢ U_ 'gin _ _ p cn W W Z W Q N ti W � O � � H � U U �vv c1 �N r� r1 T�^ O Q� CA �ct w 03 bA U •,--� O Ct �(� •� rA � U �vv c1 N 212 06 O •b1J �.., p • � �O v� • rA • � O Qcn037� U O l� _N � � U •O �. U ct p N p O U N O N Nctcn 4� p U cn U N 14 O U U •,� W c) � �+ 4� N a' cH � O �•N v� � O � In ■ ,-C� c J N N � N � -� ct En • n ct ,4-j O cn . O � U ct H 4-4 t2 N 4-O N N a U i •����• to� 0 vs - Q ► F� •� Ct N ti •N W V • Q � c • W . � 'd ti •N LLI r r r LLI co cl CM }� OE E LLI V V L I ■ (mil • t��, �� • • ■ • Cl) LD • r� a ry t� 40 dw dp �^"l1 � N �wJ •� � "U'' � N � 4--i OU ON � N � � O LLI 0 F- 0- OPM z CD SLIM ct) LLI U) T > Off LU CL CN v r) n U) • 12 U) .2 > U) U) U) CY) Cl 0 U) C) CD • • dw r QJ U � ct 404 to ■ ; cn • CA •� � 'r' �N W _ h i _ W u�A 1 5 1 r V� �- �� /�✓ war ' O O ct r O� .� 00 •a) .blJ cn cn O � ■ P ti a T yk�p D by r :��, � �. .�� . -- +�, � �v � �'g �' ., - y � �:� ,�� s —� � - � � � � �� � �� 3 �--, �� -- ����� � �' � _ �. lit- ' ,�. � U W O O � a� � � � � - O 1' � ,..� 1 � O — a� � w � rr�w •,� O c� r v1 4 f O �j � � � � .. .,..i � �° ■ ,;, 1 II III;II��Ii;II,�III III II,III,III,I,I pm _. IIIII,111 1 - I�II,I�I 1 III. I I _ lillllllll 1 _ �� IIII1111 111 I 11111111�' . . t AaS r 7P7', r-(=l o ,' ► E ,111 l l l Ill 11 � A �I r its • ' II HIP I I •1 MAL AlL • - , • k � 5 iti � iL and 1 � I� C vI QJ a 0 was � � O N � � O 4� O ct •� • ��-, Q u N sue, �I � h U �vv c1 �N ct O •� 0 cn •cn �i Ct 0 U O ct a� 'Zj p �' •� 44 �C cn 0 U �vv c1 N CA U c� 71 71 4I., ct 71 O 4 U ct C�/� 1 p �O N .bA •� bj) U U 7j O •ct cn cn cn O u U a a U •N C� P F cq 4-0 a� s v' O V O ° � � •� d. � rv_ N ct •�, .� ° ILI- ct Q� • -4 W N O O '~ WJ ;� T 41 �.�� I � •_y Ti 1 � ��� 1� U H424 a �. MW .� W V J •� mmi au bA U H4241 V� -4-� uL T—i Oi ! ii ii DO 1w No on r---I F•�-1 F-1 ••--, w ct ct T 1 � .�:�.�7irr'k::f�6 �' r ?••�i `./ II�� Y•ter r;�y '-1 SaJ.• :���,. �Q h.' r • '- r JL�1 ,fir 1 ti �N � O � Ct r `41 � o I p F-+ ct Q v 1ct - h 1^1� 4 N ct •�, .� ° � �` ���►„�«�1tti1111�y ` ct ME,. O V1 A. ereIr , a5 � I U c� ct ct � O 1 w O � � ■ Ld I r i 0 a� .,� Mom ct ak CZ Ct � � 4� � O N � •v N p0 .O � � cd U �vv c1 � ct N lc� �;A p O 10 It 4-4 ct O � _ • � O w � _ • • � r_ ct U II 4� lot a.) N V Ar Vl • r� i JO t G w � •� O 1 U N O 16 P—, ct Ct •¢' � � ct w p o � � •� rs., p O •� a, � ,� iiii �N v� V '� •� •� a 4ma •� u uu� 3 c� .,.� ct '� ,O 1,► •� ct �cn - O cn - QJ ct �C U N U cn c W � o •o 41 w o � w C,� ctp1 •� ct O IT ct W N 4-0 ,fir U Ct cn CIO ci 0 t4-4O t'' 'i � o O o � o � O � N � O p � O •� pit � � � ifllllll III Illifl l `e VJ H Ni gaL u U �vv c1 �N U U � ct ct U N � �i ct cn c cnQ., 1=4 OU vn cn cn ' W •� ct a � Q U U ■ Yuncasse HanUn_Brustl k the Appendix 2 ➢ Draft Final Neighborhood Preservation District Ordinance Neighborhood Preservation District Ordinance DRAFT In the year two thousand and eight An Ordinance to Establish Neighborhood Preservation Districts Be it ordained by the City Council of the City of Salem, as follows: Section 1 Purpose of Neighborhood Preservation District(s) This ordinance is enacted for the purpose of preserving and protecting groups of neighborhood buildings and their settings that are architecturally and historically distinctive which constitute or reflect distinguishing features of the architectural, cultural, economic, political or social history of the city of Salem and to limit the detrimental effect of alterations, additions, demolition, and new construction on the character of the neighborhood.Through this ordinance, alterations, additions, demolition, and new construction may be reviewed for compatibility with the existing buildings, setting and neighborhood character.This ordinance seeks to encourage the protection of the built environment through advisory and binding review.This ordinance promotes the public welfare by making the city a more attractive and desirable place in which to live and work. Section 2 Definitions As used in this ordinance,the following terms shall have the following meaning: ADDITION A change to a building that includes additional stories, height or footprint area ALTERATION,TO ALTER A change to a building or part thereof such as removal, construction, reconstruction, restoration, replication, rehabilitation, demolition, and other similar activities.A change to a building that includes additions and other similar activities.A change to a site that includes constructing, placing, erecting, installing, enlarging, and moving a building or other similar activities. A change in material, design, location or outward appearance, if applicable. APPLICATION 1 The complete document (s) and supporting material(s)to be submitted by an applicant desiring to obtain a Certificate to Alter.A complete application shall include information reasonably deemed necessary by the commission to enable it to make a determination. BUILDING A combination of materials forming a shelter for persons, animals, or property, which is used for living, working or storage. CERTIFICATE TO ALTER A document granted by the Neighborhood Preservation District Commission after their review of a project in order to obtain a building or demolition permit. COMMISSION The Neighborhood Preservation District Commission COMPATIBLE A project that meets the design guidelines of the Neighborhood Preservation District Commission. DESIGN GUIDELINES The document used by the Neighborhood Preservation District Commission to determine whether a proposed project is compatible.The design guidelines are appended to the ordinance for each separate district. DISTRICT The Neighborhood Preservation District as established in this ordinance. EXTERIOR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES Elements of a property that are attached to a building or structure and/or that help define their character. Examples include windows, doors, siding, roofing, masonry,gutters, downspouts, mechanical equipment, satellite dishes, and skylights. PERSON AGGRIEVED An applicant, an abutter or an owner of property within the district who believes they are suffering from an infringement or denial of legal rights STRUCTURE 2 Anything constructed or erected,the use of which requires location on the ground or attachment to something having location on the ground. Examples include a utility box, lampposts,fences, and wind turbines SUBSTITUTE SIDING Exterior building cladding such as vinyl, aluminum or cement board. TEMPORARY BUILDING A building, necessary for a special event, incident, or project, erected for a period of no more than 30 days unless otherwise agreed to by the Commission. Section 3 Neighborhood Preservation District(NPD) Designation To be considered for designation as a NPD, a neighborhood must satisfy the following criteria: 1. The area as a whole constitutes a recognizable neighborhood which has a distinctive character, and: a. The area contains buildings and/or structures and/or settings that are significant to the architectural, aesthetic, cultural, political, economic or social history of Salem; or b. The area has generally cohesive features, such as the scale, size,type of construction, materials, or style of the building and structures, and/or land use patterns and landscaping c. The area contains a minimum of 40 properties The designation process shall be administered by the Department of Planning and shall include the following steps: 1. Circulation of a Neighborhood Preservation District Study Petition to property owners within a proposed district by a district resident or property owner, City Councillor or the Department of Planning and Community Development 2. A Neighborhood Preservation District Study Petition signed by 25%of property owners shall begin a study period in which district boundaries and design guidelines are established through public meetings and a final written study of the proposed district is completed. 3. Circulation of a Neighborhood Preservation District Establishment Petition to property owners within the proposed district with the district study attached. 3 4. A Neighborhood Preservation District Establishment Petition signed by 66%of property owners and approval by City Council will establish a Neighborhood Preservation District. Establishment of a Neighborhood Preservation District by City Council will amend Section 14, Preservation District Map and Section 15, Design Guidelines. The Dissolution of a Neighborhood Preservation District will follow the same procedures outlined by above for the designation of a district. Section 4 Neighborhood Preservation District Commission Each district will have a separate NPD commission, although each will retain a core group of 3 members whose affiliation will change as NPDs are established in the future.The Mayor of Salem will appoint all members,followed by City Council approval. With the establishment of the first district, a core group will be appointed that is composed of three members.This core group would be composed of two members of the first district and one general member who have experience with design review(architect, preservation specialist, contractor, real estate agent) who is not necessarily from that neighborhood but who is a Salem resident.Two additional commission members would be added to result in a commission of five members.Two alternate members from the first district would also serve on this commission. When a second NPD is created,the composition of the core members would change for both the first district and this newly-established district. The three core members would then be composed of a single member from both districts and a single general member.Two members representing the second district would then be added to this new core.This group, and two additional alternate members, would review projects within the second district only. Should a third district be added, the core group of three members would change again to include a single member from the third district;the general member would no longer be a component of the core group.The core group would then be composed of a single member of each of the three NPDs.The third district, like the first two established districts, would have four additional members (two regular and two alternates)for that district's project review. The term of all members and alternate members shall be one year and each successive appointment to be made for three years. Each member and alternate member shall continue to serve in office after the expiration date or his or her term until a successor is duly appointed. Meetings of the Commission shall be held at the call of the Chairperson, at the request of two members and in such other manner as the Commission shall determine in its Rules and Regulations. 4 Section 5 Neighborhood Preservation District Commission Powers and Duties The Commission shall exercise its powers in administering and regulating the alteration of buildings within the Neighborhood Preservation District as set forth under the procedures and criteria established in this ordinance. The Commission, after a public hearing duly posted and advertised at least fourteen (14) days in advance in a conspicuous place in City Hall, may adopt and from time to time amend, reasonable Rules and Regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance or setting forth such forms and procedures as it deems desirable and necessary for the regulation of its affairs and the conduct of its business, including requirements for the contents and form of applications for certificates, hearing procedures and other matters.The Commission shall file a copy of any such Rules and Regulations with the office of the City Clerk. The Commission, after a public hearing duly posted and advertised at least fourteen (14) days in advance in a conspicuous place in City Hall and approval by City Council may from time to time amend the design guidelines which set forth the designs for certain alterations which are, in general, suitable for the issuance of a Certificate to Alter. No such design guidelines shall limit the right of an applicant for a Certificate to Alter to present other designs to the Commission for approval. The Commission shall at the beginning of each year hold an organizational meeting and elect a Chairperson, a Vice-Chairperson and Secretary, and file notice of such election with the office of the City Clerk.The Commission shall keep a permanent record of its regulations, transactions, decisions and determinations and of the vote of each member participating therein. Section 7 Alteration Prohibited Without a Certificate Except as this ordinance provides, no building or part thereof within a Neighborhood Preservation District shall be altered unless the Commission shall first have issued a Certificate to Alter. Section 8 Alterations Excluded from Commission Review It shall be the responsibility of the Commission, or its delegate thereof,to determine whether an alteration is exempt from review.The Commission or its delegate thereof, shall have fourteen days to make this determination. The following projects are excluded from Commission review. 5 • Projects not requiring a building or a demolition permit • Structures when not defined as buildings or parts of buildings • Temporary buildings subject to time limits and size limits by the Neighborhood Preservation District Commission • Paint colors • Interior alterations • Storm windows and doors, screen windows and doors • Removal, replacement or installation of gutters and downspouts • Removal, replacement or installation of window and door shutters • Removal of substitute siding • Alterations not visible from a public way • Ordinary maintenance and repair of architectural features that match the existing conditions including materials, design and dimensions • Reconstruction, substantially similar in exterior design, of a building, damaged or destroyed by fire, storm or other disaster, provided such reconstruction is begun within one year thereafter and carried forward with due diligence. Section 9 Procedures for the Review of Minor Alterations The following minor alterations require the submittal of an application for an advisory review by the Commission or its delegate thereof. • Substitute siding • Removal of architectural trim • Replacement of original windows • Additions/removals of bays and porches • Roofline alterations 6 In reviewing the application for a minor alteration,the Commission or its delegate thereof may determine that the alteration is compatible with the design guidelines. If so,the Commission or its delegate thereof may issue a Certificate to Alter. Section 9 Review of Major Alterations The following alterations require the submittal of an application for a regulatory review by the Commission.The decision of the Commission shall be binding on the applicant. • Demolition of a building or part of a building • New construction including buildings and additions If the Commission cannot determine that the alteration is compatible, the Commission shall decline to issue the Certificate to Alter.The Commission shall provide the applicant with the reasoning for their disapproval including how the alteration does not meet the design guidelines and/or the purpose of this ordinance. Section 10 Procedures for Issuance and Filing of Certificates Each certificate issued by the Commission shall be dated and signed by its chairperson or such other person designed by the Commission to sign such Certificates on its behalf.The Commission shall send a copy of its Certificates and disapprovals to the applicant and shall file a copy of its Certificates and disapprovals with the office of the City Clerk and the Building Commissioner. If the Commission should fail to make a determination within sixty days (60) of the filing of a complete application to the Department of Planning and Community Development for a Certificate, or within such further time as the applicant may allow in writing, the Commission shall thereupon issue a Certificate to Alter due to failure to act. Section 11 Enforcement and Penalties The Neighborhood Preservation District is specifically authorized to institute any and all actions, proceedings in law and in equity, as they deem necessary and appropriate to obtain compliance with the requirements of this ordinance or to prevent a threatened violation thereof. The Commission may designate the Building Commissioner to act on its behalf and to enforce this ordinance under the direction of the Commission. 7 Any owner of a building subject to this ordinance that alters a building without first obtaining a Certificate to Alter in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance shall be subject to a fine of not more than $50.00 (Fifty dollars). Each day the violation exists shall constitute a separate offense until the alteration is corrected,the addition is removed or a faithful restoration of the demolished building is completed or unless otherwise agreed to by the Commission. If a violation of this ordinance remains outstanding, no building permit on the premises shall be issued until the violation is corrected or unless otherwise agreed to by the Commission. Section 12 Appeal Procedure Any applicant or person aggrieved by a determination of a Neighborhood Preservation District Commission may appeal as provided for in the Massachusetts General Laws. Section 13 Validity and Separability The provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed to be separable. If any of its provisions, sections, subsections, sentences, or clauses shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction,the remainder of this ordinance shall continue to be in full force and effect. Section 14 Neighborhood Preservation District Map Section 15 Design Guidelines 8 Yuncasse HanUn_Brustl k the Appendix 3 ➢ Draft Administrative Policy Appendix 3 - Draft Neighborhood Preservation District Administrative Policy The Department of Planning and Community Development will administer the NPD Ordinance and it is the recommendation of this study that DPCD follow an administrative processes laid out in a published departmental policy. While the Neighborhood Preservation District Ordinance can only be changed by a vote of City Council, the administrative policy implementing the ordinance is intended to be more flexible. Changes to this policy will be made by the Department of Planning in response to unforeseen issues created by the policy or impediments to the NPD designation and administration identified after the policy is completed. For example, the Ordinance states that a study period is required for NPD designation and the Policy outlines what will take place during this study period. If an element of this policy is found to substantially slow the designation process, the policy will be changed by DPCD to facilitate an efficient designation. The draft administrative policy below is based on input from the Working Group, comments from MHC staff, and administrative process utilized by other Salem boards and commissions and Neighborhood Preservation Districts in other locations. Draft Neighborhood Preservation District Administrative Policy Designation of neighborhood preservation districts The designation process shall follow the four steps outlined in the Neighborhood Preservation District Ordinance. The process for completing these steps is as follows: 1. The initial petition requesting designation as a NPD shall be submitted to the Department of Planning & Community Development (DPCD), containing signatures of at least 25% of the Property Owners opting to be included in the proposed NPD area, one signature per property. The petition shall also include: a. A general statement of the historical, architectural, or other qualities of the area which make it appropriate for NPD designation b. A preliminary map of the area showing proposed boundaries c. A general outline of the scope of the guidelines proposed for the NPD 2. Following receipt of a petition for NPD designation by DPCD, the Mayor shall appoint a Study Committee to investigate and prepare a report on the appropriateness of such a designation for the Area. The Study Committee shall consist of at least five (5) members, of which one (1) shall be a member of the Salem Historical Commission, and three (3) shall be residents of the area proposed for NPD designation. Where appropriate, DPCD will contract with a consultant to complete the study with the participation of the Study Committee 3. The Study Committee, working with residents of the area, shall evaluate the appropriateness of an NPD designation for the area and hold public hearings to develop the design guidelines and district boundary map. If a NPD designation is not deemed appropriate, the Study Committee shall prepare and file with the DPCD a written report explaining why it reached a negative conclusion. If the Study Committee determines that a NPD designation is appropriate, it shall prepare and file with the DPCD, a written report to include: a. An overview of the significant historical, architectural, or other relevant qualities of the area b. A map of the area showing geographic boundaries c. Illustrated design guidelines for the proposed Neighborhood Preservation District 4. At the completion of this study, an updated petition shall be circulated by the Study Committee with the study, map and design guidelines attached. At least one public hearing shall be held by DPCD while the petition circulates to property owners. 5. After DPCD receives a petition signed by 66% of the property owners within the boundary defined by the study, DPCD will forward the study and petition to City Council for a vote on approval of the district and design guidelines. Procedures for the Review of Alterations All alterations to buildings within a designated Neighborhood Preservation District require a Certificate of Non-Applicability or a Certificate to Alter. Property owners must apply for a Certificate with the Department of Planning and Community Development prior to beginning construction. DPCD staff will issue a Certificate of Non-Applicability where appropriate or will schedule a meeting of the Commission to hear an application for a Certificate to Alter. Within sixty days of the submittal of an application for an alteration, the Commission shall hold a public hearing on the application. At least ten (10) days before said public hearing, public notice shall be given by posting in a conspicuous place in City Hall. Concurrently, a copy of said public notice shall be mailed to the applicant, to the owners of all properties within 200 feet of the applicant's property, and of other properties deemed by the Commission to be materially affected thereby all as they appear on the most recent applicable tax list. Following the public hearing, the Commission shall determine whether the proposed alteration is compatible with the design guidelines and the purpose of this ordinance. If the Commission determines that the alteration is compatible,the Commission shall issue a Certificate to Alter. The concurring vote of a majority of the members shall be required to issue a Certificate to Alter. If the Commission does not determine that the alteration is compatible, the Commission shall decline to issue the Certificate to Alter. The Commission shall provide the applicant with the reasoning for their disapproval, including how the alteration does not meet the design guidelines or the purpose of this ordinance. Procedures for Issuance and Filing of Certificates Each certificate issued by the Commission shall be dated and signed by its chairperson or such other person designed by the Commission to sign such Certificates on its behalf. The Commission shall send a copy of its Certificates and disapprovals to the applicant and shall file a copy of its Certificates and disapprovals with the office of the City Clerk and the Building Commissioner. If the Commission should fail to make a determination within sixty days (60) of the filing of a complete application for a Certificate, or within such further time as the applicant may allow in writing, the Commission shall thereupon issue a Certificate to Alter due to failure to act. Yuncasse HanUn_Brus Vk,lnc Appendix 4 ➢ Illustrated Design Guidelines for Bridge Street and Point Neighborhoods a) n }' �4 QI Ln 0 0 a, ruLn rr ru L I 0 ° v cis o C o U O � � Q cls o � o o '� o It S o o w v o .s: cd = YO 4. � � C cC � C .� •� �cie Q bA lu •� Q cl •� cd a� 'd �' Q" O O i' Qc4 N O � ti O cl O o p" :3 w ai o C cn rbp 0 ¢ ° p bo W ° • o p C V ra C + co O O v uN C a7 N t N °_ z + O Q 7 C C u E � N Q 0 E N o •Q EO a) vi N V a) > +' d C z U 01,01 C 3 ° N O a p � rn C E I `0. .2 o f -c c °Z E uL ° r v E o 00 L m m z m > m ° � E c E a, d ° ° vc ns c 0 '0 t 0 o v E U rts E c v z v 4 0 0 v H o 0 t d o ~ co a a C C C V 0 = 0 v w O_ s m O V `^ i x � Q m aci W O 0 °c c v ; Y c Q.`N' v v 0 = ai v fl- ao '� ai v-^ — o a > a E p O G E E c w u cn c l7 E O Q o A = a, 3 v O o c c 3 a s LA w O o u � o c QY 3aQ � m0 ° �_ o � ufi m ° m c z o u °c ° v w 'o v t V a a o V Q uV x E v, _ l7 * c ° ° c V v -I- a) +� a O�a o v a+ c � v m c cu m i N N N w — UV > ++ a7 4- C i N fa L ._ N Y V a1 �J a7 E i w = E o v E c J E a; ° ° o c v ai '� > a°i `n a N `� c - a, v O cc O E n .E = a, E 0 E `o 0 0 0 `o o E o Y 2 c ° u T a, .o ' o v rn = o o v c ' c � o O Y - _ _ _ — _ O c m ' x = v m w o o c 'a N `° u ocu N O c6 } ,� O a) Y O O C C .0 C C •C N CL C +O+ C J y N >_`"O v m u vn%ft v�i v +' m c0 O L r� v N ,+_�+ d U m r o o o o o o N >, ` cu = m E m m O t ` C -c ,+�_•' t N w H u 0 0 V D Q 2 u V V u u V V � Y Y H a i m w 0 _ 2 Q 2 U o Q , 9 oc F u l7 V .4-j -� bio -J o V ° o b 4-1 obio •Q.) C 4.1 cd cCd O y N ° 0 3 o w U Q) ° N O N CIS Q bA p y� cd O bi 0 by O � W4t 'd ho }j �' k111�111p11 W ° �' U ho 7U ° ;s L � r. O 0 U + cn b 'is V .. bA CISU ° }' 7 U bA CIS 4� ti V) a) '� .. 41 � cd a> V I ��' -a i�.'I-k��� i# y .''• I it L �F~"I�V � �• CL Aw_ r i n J i S + -r 1 `i +N • li � i � F 14 M p d c�C 0 V o > ° N - u u �' .. o 4 a o � cota -� 0 o o ° a, o a apq Ur -�u °o~cd a� -d a 1 CIS O d 4� O sV. TS a r- O O "u .. s� y v Im, cn ai t cn cad O O U 710 0 o GL4 p u 45 V 6y U) bA .� a> a� cn .. a Cd � CSo ^� U p +� N � a a j O 1 cad bIJ by Cl) > � X 4 M O '" 4• v ai � �' o bibA O NO � O Cn +- Q bA +s+ p a� tj "O y J U : u bA - t O Q p � p 1 +' •bA �" cd O Z .V 4, C1l 4-1 o V o m b U d � bA �+ 'm a�i O °� u 3 -° ° w 4. u 7C N .' CIS s"' •m to .cd 73 �"' ,�.' �.• cu CIS *' O Q v bp u O O R •-' � O sn bbn Z E }a> bA -� y sue. t�l. ai bA �, O v Q O O .., �+ 1 lul CCU- C "d y� F G U y CIS •� of ut O GJ U 0 +-' U U U � O F- a� 4a s - H co • • • • ++ Vf '4 4-' cad O O C', O 0 4, � o pa° a, ra O ° o by (6 O y •^r. y cQ � -O r6 i ^CS U L" � �' `� uJ •U �y �" c�i� O r�6 � � � a�i vUi ;� � 'O kA oLn o o o �O+ o y �o u u O O .— u to t, y O a� bA y E " by W E +� U � O U O U 4-1N ^ O y a� c� b O ° U '� O O rn s 00 tn. cn Ln 4�n 0 U Vi U bOA �.r N a �.. N C U y U U U Ln uv � ° �i N 40. U 40. r5 2 3 v ° s s L v y (0 N m 2 L 3 m c a s +� m o s 0 s o N t o +, .+ 0 0 a o s a m a, m s a m � •ca ,F _ E o H o +� •� Q O N 3 0 m a t `° �- Q o m O �} t o 0 o �i Atli Z F 0 m .E �. i Li •'" C T I ^ V / N 0 � m c � s s c E o 0 a, - o aai O o � a L I O N 3 0 W - O s O _ V oc v s O a a� O o .C,LW c 9L a o m o d v a 4b F Q H m aci .c . "•su % 1 o \ \ \ / - b \ / k$ ( e ƒ \ \ 7 \ \ ) j = 0 = 2 LU ) \ J f | � o c 3 'E\ 5 � -- � O V ƒ E 0) 4-j V) ± � # ? / � 0 ) s i = m § \ ' k N \ LU % E \ \ \ ) \ . . / ` a : = 7 } E \ » t E 05 } « f e m -Rol � | | \ E { ƒ / � 2 / / e } 8 } r, a a � N O C 4� a r E V m 0 ++ O V V > 0 E o0 r o � o V m OL •U CL C v IUJC N Q o `° °o r OC a oOC o o N O �6 •o o, Q � � - c ~O °' d o Ln N N J C •� + Ln + r o a o f � ° c p o 4-1 N u o c D a c v i � C .� t O O C C N N o a co d � v �n v 1 N0 � o o 0 o0 a O Q - LLI goy � z:i a - _ C X O a -0 ° Q a c 0 c co •o p v v m Z l/1 i 1Lir.1 v V1 O 0 N • O V V N N N W 61 � N � 6 •� a E E c c o a d 5 41 v c •, � o a w r O 'o o r a a) a ° s Qj 1'� o r a v l T T ff1 O d 1 O InnA11 t Y �6 W V N 4 V t t 3 L v E jLUE p Q E g 2 s _ V oc o a a > J v OCL N rn c � � y QF-- �o2 � ` I � � �� _ � 2 ■_no OEM t ._jp� - � %- . . ' \ ` \r - '�2 r ® ( . - _ - - - . . t, . , I-V14 7 - _ aj N v ,V L: 0 4� c i ce,' co Cd cn a lbbjO a c� a a4 a y; •° ° � � aw° o -� o o ' ° p w 7d � a a p a� v o " o o 1-21 biD a �. � a, -d ° u " ~ `� can �+ O N p O x N p y �. n .+ O Cl C/) O o � bA r- '" XbO "u m o O ho 0- � � ° v 'd O — d - > cis y M p O O O c� 4- O r. r x ^� O p o a� y 4- � n O u x O r. 0 cd a� r. O u O �� a0i a� bio cu u bn bn o 41 Q a� u In �. 'd � �+ [� � j, c's ' U �, +' y t q cd 'cd a� -0Q j c+ 0 �. s 0 a IOU O � v�i Q F a O t; O 41 u C E cn O u .0 .a v , �' to �+ o CO Cd C O U r4-+ O p O 4 p O y d +-1 m 4� u d ca t v H y U O d to 0O+ O Ln bA O O �A -d 4-1 In 4-1 m a� 'U y o bOA N U 61 u > N C O ••�-' cn N 4V O O - 0 O E rn c O O 0 O s. �✓ E 7 F� 'c C o .tA • N •� �" V "' V� � V vi 70 -M 'd ' m o � b -�, - -0 0 O sU. a� aUi W Pq c� t 3 L p 41 to v a� ^C U 4 y a ice-+ 2 E ;z O U 0 u Q cd x ~�+ 1 > C p UJ "C cC V bb L Q N U Cl t+' y O bA c� aUi v L (0 N O L." C." - +0 y u � � •� p U Lam. W y +J [p V y V 6� O 4� "C: vV 4-1 L U FQ O 4� cn p aU. . O H U E w p y U M cpj W cd Q v Q "�C O N c� p cn p � n N 6J y O O a u °o CIS a va .� a s o I~ w a L ~ {n O o F• a V f o o E v o v O c d — s _ O 4O d rn c `O LU oC •� *' a a i > a o VV7 t Q IN. Ln C O h'}-- vv O_ d rn .4--J V, c - p � � /1 ci c) O Q \^/ > $ Q Y N s s c E i c v j 0 v � v . i O � s !F � I fp O NJ � O Q Ln a a a I L. i t L-L-ij 1 f r t#1F r 5 +r+ '4 . r f � r7l ' i�- ' �� V 1 o o ° bz o bo o o °4-1 o t o U O bA bOA 'b U Q, � O a� � o � '� +' o -d y CISO 0" 'Via. C� ¢ vU a 41 p O O 3U O O O N O ten-. U •v O U U O U O u bA 2 a� b 0 bj o Z o .� O �J G, ycl c�i O ^ a� 0 [ ^ E b- W N O a� OU O y 7d r. U N 4-1 'd cd � bUA .� rA C cad O4-1 N -� bio bUA OU O sU. O v .C.! .C�C 141 O J� � N ^C O 41 a� v a u O U bUA O y a O v w bA y bio u y -O 2 a� cis bjO IjO u U � +' O .� d a M V �- 't"j F� �1 cd m J O 0 0 14 _a -; OU U • • c's cb lul u N C's U O U O 4. ct O p. O n O r. 4 'd r c� O o .R �z u mt4l NO v 4� ° O O o o w „ p -o NO � b L N OU O O N L x „ > 3 w � d -a ^—o 'd y �, u O s~ p I4 U >. U p L bA .�. O v y '� 0 sue. u 3 � O cs O ^ , s� W bio .r v N u U u __ •L IA ..••ibjo ... " •'" , 71 cn o rd o 3 > o o �° b bio O bio by bA a� '� �' O cd �, cd O v V U4-1 a� o� Mo s i0 . o0 QQ Qv N }+ Q 4 C Q F� a Q i 1 f t t+ N 1i I � li�aia�a E .� O J la�i�ak ++ #YY4i�� : H O .Q R�#•11� Q. C_ M ++ iia��■ N C RaR��■ O C N ■�Rs■ OC � asa■ d v 3 Q l/1 `O 0 v o a, o W c E s � v � •— }+ 0, aD c v +� l/1 4 4 Z s X -ac O +�o �. v QJ > o a, v o Q E w N � LU C Q CL •> + �. O rn +a Es ^ ` CC 7 O O r W +� a o s -8 �e v v m 3 0 v t _ 2 c } ƒ \ { / § / lip3 a \ \ \ 0 2 / ` m ƒ @/c =y LU ƒ 7 /41 § kLM 2 S \ / ® k \ � \ \ � _ % a 2 f o \ ( $ L <.6-.j 2 J & E Ul) - � � a \ 0 5 E _ � � \ c (UCL ` � � \ / f LU % = e CL § Q f { 0 \.� - CL & 0 2E { k �$ 2 / / / \ N C � O > t O N d O p v+ p N -a p c Ul �+ O "a O fo L p O cc i *' O -, ' o .0 O c ono -O O c •c •d 3 `° v c3 oo E•a, Eo o o m c kD $ +c'0. t n r. 3 O ° a) 00 C o In Ell C's "O M ¢ Q 9 > Q N b�A "d ... 'blO a� COC -C y O O �6 ^ , cd CL cn u w o- loci a a� o o o .� ro Z o — o '� i o m 'U s, W, a48i O �' O 7d v 1 N Q O • • • 77311 d 47� . .burr 0 a c c N rn W� -- Fl w i O Q O. N . C � N a rn p a ; 0) w Q o o Q+-+ O N is n, N O p = a° ico Ln i ry • C i0 i 00 O MI on s > v c o ° o s ~ o c o � � c c c > w d io o � � s ro- 0- CL '+ E ,u m > 0- _ a N d N N M N �1 d 7 O L N t N t 0 Q Q LU c Q N Z F �1/ a � m c m ^, l/1 ui _ L N O .x . � i a o O v o c6 a s A 0 7:� vi A O w cc t N vi O � N O O O V N _ C ° a, ° ° a O � 0 C V O V1 t O d N 0 C O i O 0 t M N N N 7 Ot W N a) 0) .� N~ U >1 O d ~ .� y +t+ - � U) a� -O 4� O a 4' y ° '4� o -cd o o a o > a " ° U Cd ro • • O p n aUi cd -O by r�+- ` p 7p n u .�. ul .+� ' ems. U f. Q+ t�s N N p }+ -sec� o i >, ° ° 7o 0 o b V1 c N .., -d a? -d p -rs yG 4 Z _ �. cd a� O •— C O > t � o oo u cd '� p u bio y cd N U O pl Vf p bA cd O N �" 4-1 O ..N. M cs M sb CA �6 Q � • • • v N N F- > v v s r 3 0 3 0 O L O V j C 7 w 0 N N . c V co v N t � c � +� O 0) ca O Ol w + +' O 000 2 + — �%I i 1, "Fig r� 4-1 �" 1G f . F 1 f �s r � � 1 r rr r f 1 rI r Gl 1 Jar t6 LU V h d f�Jf/j t �fr N N Q O Q Q v N N U. O O V 1 Ln X � N O N Q O M �� J ^ L O V / E 41 3 E O y a O i N 41 > LU O O O p E o LL W O N N N iil}-�_Wl 1 i � d } 0 ° O s I s c N rFr 3 o ! ar v 0 o o +, N Q � o a) s � N N T W N ai - v N N � M a � aj � _ r o rr / o rr o i X v O Q o E 0 v� a, 3 `o 0 0 c `v 76 E N v O 1 � v � N Q O C N � it O J H ho > C) O bbA O O cd 4� hp C 140. -0 CIS p , a� bio J i �'" co U ml -a ct a) V 1 2 a� NO s+.. a' }' N N 4' t4-4 a.+ X LO .y -d bA a) U) v + C U CH.P� O p �. u4-1 a�i O c O >~ O� u ';� Pl + V cn as a--j +� -c O O cd O cd 4� N X bA p cd In O O .� ; 4aaa O n p N a.+ c O `n 7d 7d n ) L 5 j N % ( -a / l.rFT _ 2 }CL j 0 \ \ C: / \ ef � � £ E $ / 2 % / 7 f 2 { \ y k \ a E k � / / 0 d e @ � k / } \ \ § � . . . � o 0 \ } ' ■� : j - _ ° & \. § _ -_ 2 \ un - - \ w ui \ \ ( 0 , 2 m / ƒ \ l x `6 IL J LA a a � N c .F v � � V N c � � O v — � O � � N W N U. Q OE H m f is Ln ... i 2- E i',. .. i� - v O ,4 v M l/1 _ o � 2 _ • W a 'C _m �F I r OC - o a MI' o i LLLLI c Am CD M M 5 m +' Y 'a � cp C c � p � } N V o � 3 � CC o c LU� rn E 3 m v v , ` v � C - C � C N tC 0 4-1 v }' C l/1 � � o c E .� x m v ^ W n C W +�+ N U. co m Q E co } � » \ � 2 \ 0 2 �■ ( § E G — k . & § & 5 f / % 21 E \ ) ] % 2 § \ f % ƒ 7 \ { § .+ ® e w / / CL ® § ( 2 § $ y ./ � , § E ) ( ƒ % } �. § j GJ c / � \ § \ j 4.1 { f § m a 2 \ § o ] \ $ R ' e! ' j \ $ § / \ U = bp = m 2 ? ° ) y / k \ \ / �� /o 9 - .� \ / / � \ Qj \ > \ o a ■ o E e § \ ± D q d �� ® / 2 m f C I 141 I 5155yGiiS � + 0 ° v cis o C o U p Q o o Q � cls o It S o o w v o .s: cd = YO 4. C cC bA lu •� Q cl •� cd ar p CC,3U ..' 'ra.i of -j p, O 1� •C d .41 O � ti O C4 Q o p" ::s w ai o bp C cn .0 cdocd o Z -d F� • o Q a cu c +'' c O c V ra c + co O O v uN c (D N -C 'N O_ Z + O Q 7 E C u � N Q 0 O E N O o- 0) EO c vi N V w > +' d N c z U 75 p1,01 4- aJ I� -6 W N c0 .0 �ar w Q_ ° v c so a` E I0. ` .2 E -c s E a Z c °r a m a E o O6 LA 4 2 °Z v ° w > O o o mmc aev, v ar vi �e s v � 0 o v E ciU E vz v 4p � v H o s a ° H c a c v C p O s ar O +• C a V Q �_ @ c E c Z — yr p 0 U o Tar ns u c c ;c N `— t^ Q u N E O .c c ui O 0 N c " c > Y c Q ro N '- Q.N `—' ° ar r °' a S J '� 01 — O a O •E .E 7 m E c f6 -a ,n ai v p .�nO G w Ij � Q E OQ LA a cv co ° U E u Zs Ln c w U * O ~ ° m a °'W = E movE J E ai n -',uE s = NO° OCc E Fw E =C _C _C _C _C c +y•+ _ o_ V vo ra o C Cw O = ° O .2 0 V sO v m p m > a � O +N O 0 0 c J u V vaj CN O L :t Qr }' ar V t O O O O O O a) j, i N — •i N E v O `0 s c L t=0 ,+�_+ ar t v H V o 0 V M Q 2 u u V u u V V in se se H a m w D Q U Q + > oc H u l7 o LA Cl) o V o 1 x 4� 4-14-1 .� o Q) U 142 o o CIS °o '� a) o U o C's L o ` ° bio V � C u a� O V O 4� u U U bA CO j N U OC �° lu U O OU °U � � O O - CIS CIS bA •� v Cd 1 bJO O � r, N bA ) m n vim-+ bio Cl. ,� -d y .0 ram'- L." " O r -- E2,11 y 'T ow 4:4 ,•I l' f AMP s i n .040 i S + _r 1 `i +N M bA 7� U bA U V U "; O CID � O S1. 71 O U O a� 0 4ti cncu 'd � U ' U p •� p O U bA U S1 V .. a> J O . 1 � . rnN N C cFs � v U cd O O0 bQ ' b o p � -0 4-1 u 4 V o o Cd cd W � N O - O O y 0 �La .m Qr.) Z -d 3 Cd U c¢ ate- cn w a� p y ^�C a0i C a.) '^ o U u aI.,bp as o a, -� as c -0 CISv 3 O tn bA -O Cd o O O �� O '� .., 1 "O 4� bA 9 �j �• " cd 'S 4-' cn "d O .� -biD O b0 in r '� � bOA a O cd i E bA s by bA "d 4-1v '' cn O `^ '^ ti }' o +' O O O 6) O '" C A cd O O � O 'b t � � tA cd I-- "d O O C', O Ln 4-1 in ti E >, Ocn n_ v+ O O O O m "d cd y, cd E _bA O `n y � bA L" �+-� + c N E O 'b 3 In O a� u L, O O . +'cn 4— O cd 41 o o .� p a) a� rn S.— N � i+ O O .,r. O 7 i bA � v ' 4—j O O O 4� L o- O LA O O cd U O O Oco O V bA cd Q� ° v� N �° � �° a, O ° H vim, • • H 4� • • v E ® ° $ 5 § § k e ƒ 7 § { 0 \ \ \ \ \ / ) & ° u e u 2 2 $ 0 _ § -2 & k / § ' ® : t - t . 0 / I5 \ \ - \ 2 E § ) / o ' > = = w a 2 \ § 2 I G G S a \ \ _•��\ \ . $ � � \ 2 ) o E & 2 ; £ 7 k \ -r % Z u E 2 o s = 9 § / . LU g a \ ° % � 5 k { % $ 2 \ f § / \ i % E � � ° % / } r � � \ -C � 7 � � } k 5 t 2 - a § _ / 2 2 ] / 2 { G \ $ 7 2 / ƒ \ \ \ \ ( % ƒ ƒ k \ ƒ -0 k / / \ M r s # p e w a � $ 1@ § , g ° iL \ [ $ } § \ § f § / ƒ / } \ ) > -0 / { j Ln . lip V IVYi � . . 4-j V) . . < w . Ln � f op Q N L c + p o s r s o O O s C vO } O N R O N N QW � '� OO t R d v o m v� 0 v a ~ N Q O 3 O -0 O_ t s O E r Z s � M . W }JLi t Li Q - o O O m �Ln a� o � a c s m g a N ._ N i-'ice 'I 0 N O a O O LU L N 0 +/ O Q V C o t a v C 0. +� / � w /\ \ use \ / / k 0 0 / 0 \ \ E \ t \ k = o = 2 LU \ § � 0 ) 2 J ( \± ± � � ) m / \ � / O30 § ƒ � \ { { ® u Lu k 6 ! . � \ \ \ 0 ) ) \ � \ � / k 1 e ± \ j / \ e o / / d � v N V +' fp I N 0 o 0 o0 a O a a N +� aLLI 0 °o � z:i a - _ C X O a ° Q a c c co ,o O v v m Z l/1 i 1Lir.1 v V1 02 X O 0 N O N � TM mn, � N V V N N N W 61 C] = O N a O 3: N Y � N 1 °• 3 Q 0 6 •� a E E c c o a d 5 41 v c •, � o a c o m r CL c caj � ! o w r O 'o p o r a a ° s Qj r 1'� o v l ff1 O d 1 O InnA,, t Y �6 W V t t 3 L v E Q E 2 i s _ V � O N a CL Q ` I � � �� - � 2 ■-Ono OEM t - � %- . . `�\ r ® ( . - _ 4t . \ , - - - . . , Iva 7 - _ bA N � U O o "p p Cd p s. 4-1 co 'd w M s N cad °' a lb a bjO a Y u a. a y; Cd aw° o -� o o ' ° p -� a a _ .° o o `� � ao4-1 i a a� CL4 -0 -d °o r. m o b V � o ° c" � p 0 -d .bA U Q M Ln a o 0 b C. a� u o o v °' v u aU 'M o ^� 'd U s1. � 0 U � rd N o o ai ai :� a� 'd �, ... cd -p a� yp cd �c -0 u Z s0 0cl yjr-L, $--, c 'V c� ° (gyp -0 O u 14. 4� a� y 4- —0n O u _C44 N j O u y o bio (3) 4� o O o O s U (0 � U �' cd U •� � � � +J U � > y. P. �y CC O o d41 N OO 4+ O E O bA 0OC O cd o +`n +'� U .�. cad (� a) tp Z "O O U .0 cd 'b — O a+ �. � y 4 1 cd O O t N V v. � OU � O 0 00 O 00 w O v a 'd O x �' r O O X U u -0 -= u bA N ^C a. �. Q _O O O O U .�= v � ti O 0 O �c O U k O Q v O �" O p u u O 41 +J C V, V-'•. a� cd � � '. O u C ... t v cd 4�vi O 4� u 0 "d tJJ O U cd � a. O a$4i (6 � u O O 0 .4 U O cd 4-1 I 4X 4O m o ^ , U v -d u bOA ... W U 1O r. U U .� u O 61 N C O y U +u+ O o X 0 .� O O O s. O •� N U �"., b .. ... U O s0+ O E N C � ND cd 0 70 - b ru. ° o b � 00 .g V y cd �+ `n V u 4 O 3 N In4-1 In a> O v a> > O 'O O 4� > c a `o a ° > a aj v a o ° o O .. Cd u u cd p v .tl U O >' O y }' y O v o O � O U O u_ a� w o o r. � M W O Q C c 'd O / Q +.' m > c O N u a O n ram w 4-1 4-1 0 V 'Q �' H z U ti O .� Q V 4N CL N to � O cd O 0 N v L O i N (n 71 6� w O O O w Q U] N O O _0O Li O u r C�' �+ cd cd r r A of c m Q i c � c a o 0 0 cj LU ' Q N CQC Q Q C � t c '3 - c o c c v a�i H > Y Q d Q � ^ o - a O c m f' a v '> 1 CL v N 1 i f a o � Qj o E V 0 0 v r 0 o O � N �S I• }�J p r o LU Ln W c s t a o y Q Nn L Q V rl j 0 v � v . i O � s !F � I (o O NJ � O Q a 4-+ O o .�O a a J i ' c : L 5 � x } 5 1 k 'ro '4�i V 1 U 00 0' O O chio r a, � .� 'C bhp 4 O 0 4-1 bjD i o Via. a 0 y .4 v bq U rj" O ¢,41 . p `a U b bOtC. O O O bA C 41 u y y O F� Ste, w !Z, �, •v �" O � u bA p N bA bo „ °� v U � US ti, y � '�+ � U O N �O ya O n - O c v u u bA N O bjO a O y U N "d u �. s. .., 41 O w U u U k cad y0 cd O O 4J n •� a 0 j su. u OU O � O ai ^C O y v vIQ:� u O v u 3 O y w O y a O v On, bA Is vho O u .� 4-1 _ cl F i 41 4y � � C. a � U .- r. M 3 U �. ^bq a by " o o 4 Nbb bb3 4. by o 0bio o vl 4.1 bA a y r. n 4-1 cdr. tap b x ^pbp p N 4-1 bA ° u Q' OCD y N_ o °o a by ° -� -d ° v •.. 3 " .0 � v � a •o '� a � ,� 4-1 •o a� x bA -d by ° ° cd -0 •4' -� ° �_ L u O O O O '� x by ° CIS O p -O 0 41 o E II N � V L {J//ff � � •N � in p O o c v i1111l1I,� + ;�� 1�f�� i+IJil�i E P f f I CL a f E .E o > O C O C N N � c c s _ N o *' 0 N s s V C N Y C Q m Q- ` V W H W �--+ a � -oac v •> 2 CQC .O C t Y O N 0 N N / � C fff O II LV O N _a F- H � Q X ° o E N a v a+ J OC t o o 47 i X t t _ T 'C w L � v t O i Q O O Q ma a ir CL d CL i ++ J� Z H s C Ov 0 N CL _ 0k / \ � ° § Q ® k \ 2 E / § & CL c 2 - o ® = 2 • C, \ 9 7a & \ \� a j MI \ � . �f— � ƒ 0 / % ho 0 ± 0 3 u . § 0 & t t 7 ) � `\ § [ ° ] § u y a ._ '§ w / _ � / _0 v \ � � a4 § o 4-1 ? El - / x t } q � 4-1 2 / z 4-1 ƒ q \ k ƒ CL § ƒ ? ƒ / . t X � ° G k 7 a / / / ( 7 .8 § ƒ - Ln k . / 2 � m 9 L 2 ° Ln / / \ o ° ± % � \ ? ^ 5 @ ) / ° q ° ( ƒ 0 k 6 / 7 2 % \ j ƒ 6 L 0 a 0 oQ O 5 Q m C N O flr =� W O p � N L O � C O � � N 7 O � s r � N s s O +, Wo o a l/1 WIF cr o N p 0 o N -0 cu X p N N Q. I Z F s m a--j _-IMW mw p � AM� ! W �--� - -- Q c`o s O m �r a O a _ s � v w c s a O 0 N N M N C 47 L 3 v t o c a a o `Q a, r � N Z r L � � o Q }, MY;z , X 1� O O Ln cc • � a o L O (1) " CU a C Ol c N p0 O +• F c O O O � V O O 0 .- L 1 0 Q) O 03 T -C rn a cu C 0 D ++ m � O E E c +0 c_ _N c c O 0 t cd v O 4� a) rn >, 2 $ •E O E p c a� a� c o o a) E o E o E t ° fo � o -cl �+" Q O ` O +1+ 0 Oi O ns cd y cu O v 4 O O T ;n r- E .a U cu U 7U•i 4) cn 4-1p O w y ° 14-4 o a� 0 0 o o o a 4-1 > o a� U • 4— v i O w O 'b m 4-1SC U O by vi O ." ru +J >, .s' LibO cd O a) bb N O LA i a) � "� X. 0 p bA Q 00 O O > ay 0 O bA �" bA .Oi vU O +� _4] O L V p 'd O bA '�� �j +� v rCIS am, v N N o ; o30: 0 3 m N O v L N p L C. 0 @ , O N O io -",0, � p O L0 �� m *' -0R L al p L o >, Cc,- L- 2 `° 0 'o 0 > i L iri O 'n O a) v v m � o O 0- O -C L Q N F N C i v Q O 'i c6 L ++ I "_.r•.,�+-yam _ — � . I - , AIR 1.' 3 , i - .... ..".. . I, Ln r rr r t I iI r Gl 1 Jar t6 V N d f�Jf/j t �fr N N Q O Q Q v i0 N E LN N N U. N Q H ^ ` on 11�� .� ) Ln � N O N CL O M �� J r^ L O V / E .10 41 3 E -0- O y c�0 O i N 41 > LU O O p E o LL W O N N N { {>> 4 1 p s I s c N ! ar � p o v o +, N Q � p a) s N N N T W v L~L , Q a _ r � � o fr / o Ln .X v o Q � L � o 0 � _� LU � _ \ [ [ ) k 7 }— [ ƒ § a { / 0 2 § { � CL 0 \ ƒ }e . e } a 2 3 = } ( > 2 « / \ � ƒ _ � - 0 - 2 / w a ) ° w 2 § $ 3 & ) 2 \ } \ { / { ƒ 0) k } \ } % { / 2 / / \ ] k \ m } { 0) \ ± � o % ./ � o 0 t � ± 0) oƒ 2 m \ w « « ƒ i w ) \ q \ § \ y 7 m / -1:� \ § \ bio N / § o / / \ NO § ƒ § x co '( � ƒ En2 \ § 4-j $ ' 2 1 u 2 / § / q 71 © ƒ ƒ f « 0 ƒ 7 { ) ` u % / $ •\ / 'y ƒ § / ƒ ƒ �4 cl % cq ( -a / / _ 2 } j 0 \ \ 7 f 2 } \ y k \ a E k LLItv e F � k o t: � . . . � o 0 — � \ } � � ■� � � E § 0 -_ 2 \ u - \ w 3 2 / \ / f 2 r- .� \ AE � m e = , l x a k N � ' V N _ f c .F � V � }: _ 0 4 o c Ea v 0 °' 1 N N }+ _ _ O � � t v 0 rn W = O = N I I Q H m NAt ... i 2- E i',. .. i� - v O ,4 v l/1 _ 0 � 2 _ aj i W 'rn F ti CC =LU 0 0 LL N CD M M LE_1 I ILI d > J � a f N (3) I O � o Samc t .3 � c c V 3 o W N � a J � � c Q >c o . N f6 � N N S v o Ln la.r o C— Q dCL rl E ^ L W � n c V 1 ^, ,.ram . � d �0 Q) l'�--L O Q N r6 m a` Em \ -CC, s \ � \ m [ 7 e o 0 _ § E ƒ a © _ � 0 3 •_ \ � � 0 C / 2° E — § ./ @ \ Ln -0 kCL on ° & m § = m § § 5 -r = q \ - § u 4 qj ° Cl) ] B G •x 2 § ( ./ Q \ $ } f ) / \L q \ § § ° j � 2 0 § Cl) q / y § 'U') \ \ `§ t « o a) ± ^ ^ / $