COURTHOUSE PROJECT - HISTORY AND ADVOCACY EFFORTS
Salem was the birthplace of the American court system. The historic courthouses in the Federal Street National Historic District serve as important monuments to our nation’s judicial heritage.
The three Essex County Courthouse buildings form a visually exciting streets-cape. Individually, the Greek Revival County Commissioner’s building, the Richardson Romanesque-style Superior Court with its outstanding Law Library, and the Classical Revival Registry of Deeds are noteworthy examples of architectural styles commonly employed in the public building design from the mid-19th to the mid-20th century. As an assemblage they are extraordinary.
Since 2002 the top priority of Historic Salem has been addressing the impact of the construction of the J. Michael Ruane Judicial Center in the heart of this important historic district. Historic Salem has been supportive of retaining the courthouse functions in downtown Salem and has consistently advocated for the reuse of the historic courthouse buildings and that the design and scale of the new courthouse be compatible with the adjacent residential and commercial National Register Districts.
It should be noted that three historical residential buildings were demolished as part of the project. However, the 1805 Baptist Church has been retained and now will be part of the new courthouse project.
Much of Historic Salem’s efforts have been and continue to be participating in the regulatory process governing this project as a voice for historic preservation and sensitive urban design. Historic Salem was instrumental in negotiation of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Division of Capital Asset Management and the Massachusetts Historical Commission which regulates protections for historic resources affected by the project. Historic Salem provided substantial comment on the MOA, both written and through consultation meetings, over a period of a year and a half. Historic Salem was successful in some of its efforts to include appropriate protections in the MOA, and not in others. The Agreement will continue to guide the impact of the state’s use of the three historic courthouses, an ongoing priority of the organization, and will continue to be closely monitored by Historic Salem.
History of the Project
In 2002, the Division of Capital Asset Management (DCAM) commissioned a preliminary analysis of the potential for siting a new courthouse in Salem. The Salem Partnership, an advocate for the project, invited representatives from Historic Salem, Inc. and the Alliance for Salem Neighborhood Associations to provide input. The architectural firm of ICON prepared a conceptual plan in 2003 (link) which recommended the reuse of the historic courthouse buildings and a new building sited behind the three historic houses on the corner of Federal Street and the Baptist Church which would be moved forward on the site. The new building would be attached to the rehabilitated courthouse buildings. A slip ramp along the east edge of North Street to Bridge Street was called for to replace the east ramp of the cloverleaf which would be removed to provide additional land for the project. The Registry of Deeds adjacent to the new building was to be rehabilitated at a later date for use by Family and Probate Courts.
At that time Historic Salem was encouraged to see the retention of the historic courthouse buildings as part of the plan and the sensitive siting of the proposed new building relative to the historic urban context. A plan re-using the court buildings had two major benefits: maintaining lively court-related uses in all the buildings and reducing the size of the new building.
Historic Salem strongly supported this plan and spoke in favor of its funding when members of the legislature held hearings in Salem about a new courthouse in the early 2000s.
HSI provided written comment to DCAM as early as January 2003 expressing support for the efforts to retain the court systems in Salem, HSI’s strong desire to see the historic courthouses reused, and for design of the new courthouse sensitive to the significant National Register districts immediately impacted.
In 2005, DCAM hired the architectural firm of Goody Clancy to prepare the detailed design of the courthouse project. By the time new plans were provided in 2006/2007 the plans had changed considerably in ways that would have lasting adverse impact on the historic courthouses and surroundings. Due to this “Elements of the Courthouse District” were added to Historic Salem’s Most Endangered List in 2007. Specific concerns were:
Development and Authority of Memorandum of Agreement (early 2007-early 2008)
The initial regulatory review for the courthouse project was the filing of an Environmental Notification Form (ENF) for the project under Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). In the Fall of 2006 and Winter of 2007, there were several months of hearings and comment on MEPA review, during which Historic Salem provided substantial written and oral comment.
On February 22, 2007, the Secretary of Environmental Affairs issued an ENF Certificate for the project, indicating that no further MEPA review was required. On February 28, 2007, DCAM requested that Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) begin the historic consultation process. Because the courthouse project was developed using state funds, by a state agency, and would affect properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places, it was subject to review by the Massachusetts Historical Commission under Chapter 254 of the Massachusetts General Laws. As part of that review the MHC made a finding of adverse impact on historic properties. Chapter 254 requires that a project proponent must identify adverse impacts and provide mitigation of those adverse impacts on affected historic resources.
Chapter 254 provides for solicitation of input from Interested Parties under the regulations. By law this includes the local historical commission and any parties who ask to be included. Interested parties in this project included Historic Salem, the Salem Historical Commission, the Alliance of Salem Neighborhood Associations, the Salem Partnership, and the Essex National Heritage Commission.
Recognizing the complexity and technical nature of the ongoing discussion, Historic Salem invested in and benefited from third party legal and professional advice. This was supported in part by a grant from the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Historic Salem also benefited from technical assistance from the statewide preservation advocacy organization, Preservation MASS.
An initial consultation meeting with DCAM, MHC and the Interested Parties was held March 20th, and a subsequent meeting on April 10. At these meetings, MHC indicated that because of the multiple resources and time lines involved, that the project should be governed by a Memorandum of Agreement between DCAM and MHC (the “MOA”).
In preparation for the April meeting Historic Salem formally asked MHC that the MOA address the full range of historic resource issues impacted by the project, and provided a list of the resources and associated issues. The first draft of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), prepared and distributed by DCAM on May 11, 2007, incorporated the resources identified by HSI. This draft MOA was followed by a consultation meeting on May 16, 2007 at DCAM’s offices in Boston. All subsequent consultation meetings were also held at DCAM’s offices.
The discussion on May 16th focused on the sections of the MOA dealing with reuse of the historic courthouses and design review of the new courthouse. Historic Salem’s request of additional opportunities for comment and review on those aspects of the project were included.
Discussion about the proposed demolition of the residential buildings at 58, 60, and 62 (link) were contentious. Historic Salem asserted that retaining the buildings would serve to provide a transition between the courthouse and the residential McIntire district. The project architects acknowledged that the project could be built without demolishing the houses, but represented their demolition as a design decision.
A second Draft of the Memorandum of Agreement was circulated by MHC on May 31, 2007. Historic Salem provided written comment on this Draft on June 5, 2007, particularly focused on procedures for reuse of the historic courthouse buildings, including streamlined procedures for polling state agencies for their reuse. Historic Salem also continued to object to the demolition of the buildings at 58, 60, and 62 Federal Street, but requested that if MHC were to allow them to be removed, that there should be efforts made to relocate rather than demolish them, including incentives to third parties for their removal and preservation. The second draft of the MOA and the comments received on it were the subject of another consultation meeting on June 6, 2007.
A third Draft of the Memorandum dated June 27, 2007 was circulated on July 3, 2007. This draft incorporated most of the comments from the Historic Salem letter of June 5, 2007 and the subsequent consultation meeting. However, HSI remained troubled by the potential demolition of the Federal Street residential buildings as was indicated in our July 30, 2007 response letter.
A fourth draft of the MOA was circulated on September 25, 2007, which continued to be responsive to Historic Salem comments with certain consistent exceptions concerning comment times and treatment of the three historic houses which were noted in a letter on October 28, 2007. At that time, the City of Salem also made comments with respect to the reuse of the courthouse buildings, an interest that they had consistently expressed throughout the process.
Through the fall of 2007 and early winter of 2008, a decision was made to reconfigure the roadway intersection at Federal, North and Bridge Streets, and also to have the project be undertaken by DCAM as part of the courthouse project. Consequently, that work, which otherwise would have been subject to review under the Federal historic preservation law, Chapter 106, became part of the Massachusetts Chapter 254 review. Accordingly there was substantial correspondence between DCAM and MHC and interested parties with respect to including these changes into the MOA, particularly as to how the changes might affect the neighboring National Register McIntire District. Based upon that correspondence, a revised MOA was issued on January 30, 2008, which took into account this addition to the project.
A final Draft MOA was circulated on March 18, 2007 and execution copies followed soon thereafter.
Historic Salem and the Salem Historical Commission were both invited to sign the MOA as “In Concurrence” which meant a non- binding agreement with the document. While many parts of the MOA responded to comments from Historic Salem, Inc., a number of requested provisions were not included. Most troubling was the consent to demolish structurally sound historic buildings that stood in the path of the project. As a result the Historic Salem, Inc. voted not to sign the MOA and provided its reasons in written comment to MHC. For similar reasons, the Salem Historic Commission also voted not to sign “in concurrence.” This did not affect the legality of the MOA or the right and responsibility of any Interested Party to participate in the future review processes described in the MOA.
DCAM and MHC signed the Memorandum of Agreement in May of 2008.
The Memorandum of Agreement is the governing document for the protection of historic resources affected by the project and continues to be important as each element of the project moves forward.
Key Provisions of the Memorandum of Agreement
The Memorandum of Agreement codifies the Agreement between the Division of Capital Asset Management and the Massachusetts Historic Commission with respect to historic resources. Key provisions with respect to the resources identified are described here. The specific provisions of the MOA as it affects historic resources are described in the Most Endangered reports for each of the affected historic resources and in the Design Review of the New Courthouse.
Superior Court and the County Commissioner’s Building
The Agreement required DCAM to produce a Reuse and Redevelopment Feasibility Study and to undertake an informal polling process with state agencies. In the event of a transfer out of state ownership the MOA requires development of preservation restrictions to be developed in consultation with MHC and Interested Parties and describes an RFP process that “the Request for Proposals should incorporate requirements to preserve character-defining interior spaces, especially the Superior Court and the law library therein in accordance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties”. The MOA allows for specific review and comment periods for any RFP process.
Full text of the relevant sections (link)
Design Review of New Courthouse
The MOA provided MHC and interested parties a 14-day opportunity to review and comment on the design of the new courthouse at the 30%, 60% and 90% design stages. The MOA stated that “Special focus and consideration shall be given to the treatment of the relationship between the new court facility the relocated Baptist Church, and the streetscape of the Federal Street Historic District, McIntire Historic District, and Chestnut Street Historic District” and to the pedestrian scale of the Federal Street and McIntire Historic Districts. A description of the design reviews at each level of design is described in Courthouse Design Review (link).
Baptist Church
The MOA has two sections which relate to the Baptist Church. The first provides for requirements to be followed with respect to the moving of the church and for the opportunity for the Salem Historical Commission and Historic Salem to comment on the specifications for the moving. The second provided for the opportunity to review and comment by MHC and the Interested Parties on the renovation and rehabilitation of the Church at the 30%, 60% and 90% design stages and for early consultation on the proposed program. This review is further described in Baptist Church (link).
58, 60, and 62 Federal Street
In the MOA, MHC concluded (in the Whereas clauses) that “the successful completion of the courthouse complex to current programming, circulation, and security standards necessitates the relocation or removal of 58, 60, and 62 Federal Street”. As described above, Historic Salem did not agree with this finding. The MOA required DCAM to make the buildings available for relocation by issuing a Request for Responses, including a list of preferably preserved features prepared in cooperation with Historic Salem. DCAM was required to “explore the feasibility of abating certain hazard materials” but not required to take any measures to subsidize or offer financial incentives to prospective owners/movers. As described in 58, 60, and 62 Federal Street, no responses were received to the Request for Proposals and the houses were subsequently demolished.
Impact of Roadway Changes
The MOA required the collection of existing baseline traffic data and a similar study once the project is built and put into use. The study is to be compared to the baseline study in order to identify impacts the roadway changes may have on the McIntyre and Federal Street Historic Districts. If the study reveals “measurable adverse effects” then a mitigation program is to be developed.
Registry of Deeds Building
At the time of the MOA, it was anticipated that the Registry of Deeds would be a distinct project. If and when the Registry of Deeds is renovated, MHC and interested parties will have the opportunity to comment on the proposed plans at the 30%, 60% and 90% design stages and an opportunity for early consultation prior to the development of schematic designs. Specifically, this consultation is for the purpose of the Salem Historical Commission and Historic Salem Inc. to “provide specific technical advice related to historic preservation and physical treatment of the historic building to the extent feasible”.
Related topics – (linked)
Baptist Church, Historic Courthouses, 58, 60, and 62 Federal Street, Design Review of New Courthouse, Courthouse Roadway Changes
Ruane Courthouse Project
History of Project and Advocacy Efforts
Salem was the birthplace of the American court system. The historic courthouses in the Federal Street National Historic District serve as important monuments to our nation’s judicial heritage.
The three Essex County Courthouse buildings form a visually exciting streets-cape. Individually, the Greek Revival County Commissioner’s building, the Richardson Romanesque-style Superior Court with its outstanding Law Library, and the Classical Revival Registry of Deeds are noteworthy examples of architectural styles commonly employed in the public building design from the mid-19th to the mid-20th century. As an assemblage they are extraordinary.
Since 2002 the top priority of Historic Salem has been addressing the impact of the construction of the J. Michael Ruane Judicial Center in the heart of this important historic district. Historic Salem has been supportive of retaining the courthouse functions in downtown Salem and has consistently advocated for the reuse of the historic courthouse buildings and that the design and scale of the new courthouse be compatible with the adjacent residential and commercial National Register Districts.
It should be noted that three historical residential buildings were demolished as part of the project. However, the 1805 Baptist Church has been retained and now will be part of the new courthouse project.
Much of Historic Salem’s efforts have been and continue to be participating in the regulatory process governing this project as a voice for historic preservation and sensitive urban design. Historic Salem was instrumental in negotiation of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Division of Capital Asset Management and the Massachusetts Historical Commission which regulates protections for historic resources affected by the project. Historic Salem provided substantial comment on the MOA, both written and through consultation meetings, over a period of a year and a half. Historic Salem was successful in some of its efforts to include appropriate protections in the MOA, and not in others. The Agreement will continue to guide the impact of the state’s use of the three historic courthouses, an ongoing priority of the organization, and will continue to be closely monitored by Historic Salem.
History of the Project
In 2002, the Division of Capital Asset Management (DCAM) commissioned a preliminary analysis of the potential for siting a new courthouse in Salem. The Salem Partnership, an advocate for the project, invited representatives from Historic Salem, Inc. and the Alliance for Salem Neighborhood Associations to provide input. The architectural firm of ICON prepared a conceptual plan in 2003 (link) which recommended the reuse of the historic courthouse buildings and a new building sited behind the three historic houses on the corner of Federal Street and the Baptist Church which would be moved forward on the site. The new building would be attached to the rehabilitated courthouse buildings. A slip ramp along the east edge of North Street to Bridge Street was called for to replace the east ramp of the cloverleaf which would be removed to provide additional land for the project. The Registry of Deeds adjacent to the new building was to be rehabilitated at a later date for use by Family and Probate Courts.
At that time Historic Salem was encouraged to see the retention of the historic courthouse buildings as part of the plan and the sensitive siting of the proposed new building relative to the historic urban context. A plan re-using the court buildings had two major benefits: maintaining lively court-related uses in all the buildings and reducing the size of the new building.
Historic Salem strongly supported this plan and spoke in favor of its funding when members of the legislature held hearings in Salem about a new courthouse in the early 2000s.
HSI provided written comment to DCAM as early as January 2003 expressing support for the efforts to retain the court systems in Salem, HSI’s strong desire to see the historic courthouses reused, and for design of the new courthouse sensitive to the significant National Register districts immediately impacted.
In 2005, DCAM hired the architectural firm of Goody Clancy to prepare the detailed design of the courthouse project. By the time new plans were provided in 2006/2007 the plans had changed considerably in ways that would have lasting adverse impact on the historic courthouses and surroundings. Due to this “Elements of the Courthouse District” were added to Historic Salem’s Most Endangered List in 2007. Specific concerns were:
Development and Authority of Memorandum of Agreement (early 2007-early 2008)
The initial regulatory review for the courthouse project was the filing of an Environmental Notification Form (ENF) for the project under Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). In the Fall of 2006 and Winter of 2007, there were several months of hearings and comment on MEPA review, during which Historic Salem provided substantial written and oral comment.
On February 22, 2007, the Secretary of Environmental Affairs issued an ENF Certificate for the project, indicating that no further MEPA review was required. On February 28, 2007, DCAM requested that Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) begin the historic consultation process. Because the courthouse project was developed using state funds, by a state agency, and would affect properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places, it was subject to review by the Massachusetts Historical Commission under Chapter 254 of the Massachusetts General Laws. As part of that review the MHC made a finding of adverse impact on historic properties. Chapter 254 requires that a project proponent must identify adverse impacts and provide mitigation of those adverse impacts on affected historic resources.
Chapter 254 provides for solicitation of input from Interested Parties under the regulations. By law this includes the local historical commission and any parties who ask to be included. Interested parties in this project included Historic Salem, the Salem Historical Commission, the Alliance of Salem Neighborhood Associations, the Salem Partnership, and the Essex National Heritage Commission.
Recognizing the complexity and technical nature of the ongoing discussion, Historic Salem invested in and benefited from third party legal and professional advice. This was supported in part by a grant from the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Historic Salem also benefited from technical assistance from the statewide preservation advocacy organization, Preservation MASS.
An initial consultation meeting with DCAM, MHC and the Interested Parties was held March 20th, and a subsequent meeting on April 10. At these meetings, MHC indicated that because of the multiple resources and time lines involved, that the project should be governed by a Memorandum of Agreement between DCAM and MHC (the “MOA”).
In preparation for the April meeting Historic Salem formally asked MHC that the MOA address the full range of historic resource issues impacted by the project, and provided a list of the resources and associated issues. The first draft of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), prepared and distributed by DCAM on May 11, 2007, incorporated the resources identified by HSI. This draft MOA was followed by a consultation meeting on May 16, 2007 at DCAM’s offices in Boston. All subsequent consultation meetings were also held at DCAM’s offices.
The discussion on May 16th focused on the sections of the MOA dealing with reuse of the historic courthouses and design review of the new courthouse. Historic Salem’s request of additional opportunities for comment and review on those aspects of the project were included.
Discussion about the proposed demolition of the residential buildings at 58, 60, and 62 (link) were contentious. Historic Salem asserted that retaining the buildings would serve to provide a transition between the courthouse and the residential McIntire district. The project architects acknowledged that the project could be built without demolishing the houses, but represented their demolition as a design decision.
A second Draft of the Memorandum of Agreement was circulated by MHC on May 31, 2007. Historic Salem provided written comment on this Draft on June 5, 2007, particularly focused on procedures for reuse of the historic courthouse buildings, including streamlined procedures for polling state agencies for their reuse. Historic Salem also continued to object to the demolition of the buildings at 58, 60, and 62 Federal Street, but requested that if MHC were to allow them to be removed, that there should be efforts made to relocate rather than demolish them, including incentives to third parties for their removal and preservation. The second draft of the MOA and the comments received on it were the subject of another consultation meeting on June 6, 2007.
A third Draft of the Memorandum dated June 27, 2007 was circulated on July 3, 2007. This draft incorporated most of the comments from the Historic Salem letter of June 5, 2007 and the subsequent consultation meeting. However, HSI remained troubled by the potential demolition of the Federal Street residential buildings as was indicated in our July 30, 2007 response letter.
A fourth draft of the MOA was circulated on September 25, 2007, which continued to be responsive to Historic Salem comments with certain consistent exceptions concerning comment times and treatment of the three historic houses which were noted in a letter on October 28, 2007. At that time, the City of Salem also made comments with respect to the reuse of the courthouse buildings, an interest that they had consistently expressed throughout the process.
Through the fall of 2007 and early winter of 2008, a decision was made to reconfigure the roadway intersection at Federal, North and Bridge Streets, and also to have the project be undertaken by DCAM as part of the courthouse project. Consequently, that work, which otherwise would have been subject to review under the Federal historic preservation law, Chapter 106, became part of the Massachusetts Chapter 254 review. Accordingly there was substantial correspondence between DCAM and MHC and interested parties with respect to including these changes into the MOA, particularly as to how the changes might affect the neighboring National Register McIntire District. Based upon that correspondence, a revised MOA was issued on January 30, 2008, which took into account this addition to the project.
A final Draft MOA was circulated on March 18, 2007 and execution copies followed soon thereafter.
Historic Salem and the Salem Historical Commission were both invited to sign the MOA as “In Concurrence” which meant a non- binding agreement with the document. While many parts of the MOA responded to comments from Historic Salem, Inc., a number of requested provisions were not included. Most troubling was the consent to demolish structurally sound historic buildings that stood in the path of the project. As a result the Historic Salem, Inc. voted not to sign the MOA and provided its reasons in written comment to MHC. For similar reasons, the Salem Historic Commission also voted not to sign “in concurrence.” This did not affect the legality of the MOA or the right and responsibility of any Interested Party to participate in the future review processes described in the MOA.
DCAM and MHC signed the Memorandum of Agreement in May of 2008.
The Memorandum of Agreement is the governing document for the protection of historic resources affected by the project and continues to be important as each element of the project moves forward.
Key Provisions of the Memorandum of Agreement
The Memorandum of Agreement codifies the Agreement between the Division of Capital Asset Management and the Massachusetts Historic Commission with respect to historic resources. Key provisions with respect to the resources identified are described here. The specific provisions of the MOA as it affects historic resources are described in the Most Endangered reports for each of the affected historic resources and in the Design Review of the New Courthouse.
Superior Court and the County Commissioner’s Building
The Agreement required DCAM to produce a Reuse and Redevelopment Feasibility Study and to undertake an informal polling process with state agencies. In the event of a transfer out of state ownership the MOA requires development of preservation restrictions to be developed in consultation with MHC and Interested Parties and describes an RFP process that “the Request for Proposals should incorporate requirements to preserve character-defining interior spaces, especially the Superior Court and the law library therein in accordance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties”. The MOA allows for specific review and comment periods for any RFP process.
Full text of the relevant sections (link)
Design Review of New Courthouse
The MOA provided MHC and interested parties a 14-day opportunity to review and comment on the design of the new courthouse at the 30%, 60% and 90% design stages. The MOA stated that “Special focus and consideration shall be given to the treatment of the relationship between the new court facility the relocated Baptist Church, and the streetscape of the Federal Street Historic District, McIntire Historic District, and Chestnut Street Historic District” and to the pedestrian scale of the Federal Street and McIntire Historic Districts. A description of the design reviews at each level of design is described in Courthouse Design Review (link).
Baptist Church
The MOA has two sections which relate to the Baptist Church. The first provides for requirements to be followed with respect to the moving of the church and for the opportunity for the Salem Historical Commission and Historic Salem to comment on the specifications for the moving. The second provided for the opportunity to review and comment by MHC and the Interested Parties on the renovation and rehabilitation of the Church at the 30%, 60% and 90% design stages and for early consultation on the proposed program. This review is further described in Baptist Church (link).
58, 60, and 62 Federal Street
In the MOA, MHC concluded (in the Whereas clauses) that “the successful completion of the courthouse complex to current programming, circulation, and security standards necessitates the relocation or removal of 58, 60, and 62 Federal Street”. As described above, Historic Salem did not agree with this finding. The MOA required DCAM to make the buildings available for relocation by issuing a Request for Responses, including a list of preferably preserved features prepared in cooperation with Historic Salem. DCAM was required to “explore the feasibility of abating certain hazard materials” but not required to take any measures to subsidize or offer financial incentives to prospective owners/movers. As described in 58, 60, and 62 Federal Street, no responses were received to the Request for Proposals and the houses were subsequently demolished.
Impact of Roadway Changes
The MOA required the collection of existing baseline traffic data and a similar study once the project is built and put into use. The study is to be compared to the baseline study in order to identify impacts the roadway changes may have on the McIntyre and Federal Street Historic Districts. If the study reveals “measurable adverse effects” then a mitigation program is to be developed.
Registry of Deeds Building
At the time of the MOA, it was anticipated that the Registry of Deeds would be a distinct project. If and when the Registry of Deeds is renovated, MHC and interested parties will have the opportunity to comment on the proposed plans at the 30%, 60% and 90% design stages and an opportunity for early consultation prior to the development of schematic designs. Specifically, this consultation is for the purpose of the Salem Historical Commission and Historic Salem Inc. to “provide specific technical advice related to historic preservation and physical treatment of the historic building to the extent feasible”.
Related topics –
Baptist Church, Historic Courthouses, 58, 60, and 62 Federal Street, Design Review of New Courthouse, Courthouse Roadway Changes
The three Essex County Courthouse buildings form a visually exciting streets-cape. Individually, the Greek Revival County Commissioner’s building, the Richardson Romanesque-style Superior Court with its outstanding Law Library, and the Classical Revival Registry of Deeds are noteworthy examples of architectural styles commonly employed in the public building design from the mid-19th to the mid-20th century. As an assemblage they are extraordinary.
Since 2002 the top priority of Historic Salem has been addressing the impact of the construction of the J. Michael Ruane Judicial Center in the heart of this important historic district. Historic Salem has been supportive of retaining the courthouse functions in downtown Salem and has consistently advocated for the reuse of the historic courthouse buildings and that the design and scale of the new courthouse be compatible with the adjacent residential and commercial National Register Districts.
It should be noted that three historical residential buildings were demolished as part of the project. However, the 1805 Baptist Church has been retained and now will be part of the new courthouse project.
Much of Historic Salem’s efforts have been and continue to be participating in the regulatory process governing this project as a voice for historic preservation and sensitive urban design. Historic Salem was instrumental in negotiation of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Division of Capital Asset Management and the Massachusetts Historical Commission which regulates protections for historic resources affected by the project. Historic Salem provided substantial comment on the MOA, both written and through consultation meetings, over a period of a year and a half. Historic Salem was successful in some of its efforts to include appropriate protections in the MOA, and not in others. The Agreement will continue to guide the impact of the state’s use of the three historic courthouses, an ongoing priority of the organization, and will continue to be closely monitored by Historic Salem.
History of the Project
In 2002, the Division of Capital Asset Management (DCAM) commissioned a preliminary analysis of the potential for siting a new courthouse in Salem. The Salem Partnership, an advocate for the project, invited representatives from Historic Salem, Inc. and the Alliance for Salem Neighborhood Associations to provide input. The architectural firm of ICON prepared a conceptual plan in 2003 (link) which recommended the reuse of the historic courthouse buildings and a new building sited behind the three historic houses on the corner of Federal Street and the Baptist Church which would be moved forward on the site. The new building would be attached to the rehabilitated courthouse buildings. A slip ramp along the east edge of North Street to Bridge Street was called for to replace the east ramp of the cloverleaf which would be removed to provide additional land for the project. The Registry of Deeds adjacent to the new building was to be rehabilitated at a later date for use by Family and Probate Courts.
At that time Historic Salem was encouraged to see the retention of the historic courthouse buildings as part of the plan and the sensitive siting of the proposed new building relative to the historic urban context. A plan re-using the court buildings had two major benefits: maintaining lively court-related uses in all the buildings and reducing the size of the new building.
Historic Salem strongly supported this plan and spoke in favor of its funding when members of the legislature held hearings in Salem about a new courthouse in the early 2000s.
HSI provided written comment to DCAM as early as January 2003 expressing support for the efforts to retain the court systems in Salem, HSI’s strong desire to see the historic courthouses reused, and for design of the new courthouse sensitive to the significant National Register districts immediately impacted.
In 2005, DCAM hired the architectural firm of Goody Clancy to prepare the detailed design of the courthouse project. By the time new plans were provided in 2006/2007 the plans had changed considerably in ways that would have lasting adverse impact on the historic courthouses and surroundings. Due to this “Elements of the Courthouse District” were added to Historic Salem’s Most Endangered List in 2007. Specific concerns were:
- The visual impact and scale of the proposed, much larger 190,000 square foot courthouse (link to write up)
- The fate of the three historic court buildings (link to write up) that were no longer being reused as part of the project
- The moving of the Baptist Church to be used as the Law Library (link to write up)
- The revised roadway changes on North Street including the elimination of the west ramp to Bridge Street and their potential impact on the McIntire District (link)
- The potential demolition of the three historic residential buildings at 58, 60, and 62 Federal Street (link to write up)
Development and Authority of Memorandum of Agreement (early 2007-early 2008)
The initial regulatory review for the courthouse project was the filing of an Environmental Notification Form (ENF) for the project under Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). In the Fall of 2006 and Winter of 2007, there were several months of hearings and comment on MEPA review, during which Historic Salem provided substantial written and oral comment.
On February 22, 2007, the Secretary of Environmental Affairs issued an ENF Certificate for the project, indicating that no further MEPA review was required. On February 28, 2007, DCAM requested that Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) begin the historic consultation process. Because the courthouse project was developed using state funds, by a state agency, and would affect properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places, it was subject to review by the Massachusetts Historical Commission under Chapter 254 of the Massachusetts General Laws. As part of that review the MHC made a finding of adverse impact on historic properties. Chapter 254 requires that a project proponent must identify adverse impacts and provide mitigation of those adverse impacts on affected historic resources.
Chapter 254 provides for solicitation of input from Interested Parties under the regulations. By law this includes the local historical commission and any parties who ask to be included. Interested parties in this project included Historic Salem, the Salem Historical Commission, the Alliance of Salem Neighborhood Associations, the Salem Partnership, and the Essex National Heritage Commission.
Recognizing the complexity and technical nature of the ongoing discussion, Historic Salem invested in and benefited from third party legal and professional advice. This was supported in part by a grant from the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Historic Salem also benefited from technical assistance from the statewide preservation advocacy organization, Preservation MASS.
An initial consultation meeting with DCAM, MHC and the Interested Parties was held March 20th, and a subsequent meeting on April 10. At these meetings, MHC indicated that because of the multiple resources and time lines involved, that the project should be governed by a Memorandum of Agreement between DCAM and MHC (the “MOA”).
In preparation for the April meeting Historic Salem formally asked MHC that the MOA address the full range of historic resource issues impacted by the project, and provided a list of the resources and associated issues. The first draft of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), prepared and distributed by DCAM on May 11, 2007, incorporated the resources identified by HSI. This draft MOA was followed by a consultation meeting on May 16, 2007 at DCAM’s offices in Boston. All subsequent consultation meetings were also held at DCAM’s offices.
The discussion on May 16th focused on the sections of the MOA dealing with reuse of the historic courthouses and design review of the new courthouse. Historic Salem’s request of additional opportunities for comment and review on those aspects of the project were included.
Discussion about the proposed demolition of the residential buildings at 58, 60, and 62 (link) were contentious. Historic Salem asserted that retaining the buildings would serve to provide a transition between the courthouse and the residential McIntire district. The project architects acknowledged that the project could be built without demolishing the houses, but represented their demolition as a design decision.
A second Draft of the Memorandum of Agreement was circulated by MHC on May 31, 2007. Historic Salem provided written comment on this Draft on June 5, 2007, particularly focused on procedures for reuse of the historic courthouse buildings, including streamlined procedures for polling state agencies for their reuse. Historic Salem also continued to object to the demolition of the buildings at 58, 60, and 62 Federal Street, but requested that if MHC were to allow them to be removed, that there should be efforts made to relocate rather than demolish them, including incentives to third parties for their removal and preservation. The second draft of the MOA and the comments received on it were the subject of another consultation meeting on June 6, 2007.
A third Draft of the Memorandum dated June 27, 2007 was circulated on July 3, 2007. This draft incorporated most of the comments from the Historic Salem letter of June 5, 2007 and the subsequent consultation meeting. However, HSI remained troubled by the potential demolition of the Federal Street residential buildings as was indicated in our July 30, 2007 response letter.
A fourth draft of the MOA was circulated on September 25, 2007, which continued to be responsive to Historic Salem comments with certain consistent exceptions concerning comment times and treatment of the three historic houses which were noted in a letter on October 28, 2007. At that time, the City of Salem also made comments with respect to the reuse of the courthouse buildings, an interest that they had consistently expressed throughout the process.
Through the fall of 2007 and early winter of 2008, a decision was made to reconfigure the roadway intersection at Federal, North and Bridge Streets, and also to have the project be undertaken by DCAM as part of the courthouse project. Consequently, that work, which otherwise would have been subject to review under the Federal historic preservation law, Chapter 106, became part of the Massachusetts Chapter 254 review. Accordingly there was substantial correspondence between DCAM and MHC and interested parties with respect to including these changes into the MOA, particularly as to how the changes might affect the neighboring National Register McIntire District. Based upon that correspondence, a revised MOA was issued on January 30, 2008, which took into account this addition to the project.
A final Draft MOA was circulated on March 18, 2007 and execution copies followed soon thereafter.
Historic Salem and the Salem Historical Commission were both invited to sign the MOA as “In Concurrence” which meant a non- binding agreement with the document. While many parts of the MOA responded to comments from Historic Salem, Inc., a number of requested provisions were not included. Most troubling was the consent to demolish structurally sound historic buildings that stood in the path of the project. As a result the Historic Salem, Inc. voted not to sign the MOA and provided its reasons in written comment to MHC. For similar reasons, the Salem Historic Commission also voted not to sign “in concurrence.” This did not affect the legality of the MOA or the right and responsibility of any Interested Party to participate in the future review processes described in the MOA.
DCAM and MHC signed the Memorandum of Agreement in May of 2008.
The Memorandum of Agreement is the governing document for the protection of historic resources affected by the project and continues to be important as each element of the project moves forward.
Key Provisions of the Memorandum of Agreement
The Memorandum of Agreement codifies the Agreement between the Division of Capital Asset Management and the Massachusetts Historic Commission with respect to historic resources. Key provisions with respect to the resources identified are described here. The specific provisions of the MOA as it affects historic resources are described in the Most Endangered reports for each of the affected historic resources and in the Design Review of the New Courthouse.
Superior Court and the County Commissioner’s Building
The Agreement required DCAM to produce a Reuse and Redevelopment Feasibility Study and to undertake an informal polling process with state agencies. In the event of a transfer out of state ownership the MOA requires development of preservation restrictions to be developed in consultation with MHC and Interested Parties and describes an RFP process that “the Request for Proposals should incorporate requirements to preserve character-defining interior spaces, especially the Superior Court and the law library therein in accordance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties”. The MOA allows for specific review and comment periods for any RFP process.
Full text of the relevant sections (link)
Design Review of New Courthouse
The MOA provided MHC and interested parties a 14-day opportunity to review and comment on the design of the new courthouse at the 30%, 60% and 90% design stages. The MOA stated that “Special focus and consideration shall be given to the treatment of the relationship between the new court facility the relocated Baptist Church, and the streetscape of the Federal Street Historic District, McIntire Historic District, and Chestnut Street Historic District” and to the pedestrian scale of the Federal Street and McIntire Historic Districts. A description of the design reviews at each level of design is described in Courthouse Design Review (link).
Baptist Church
The MOA has two sections which relate to the Baptist Church. The first provides for requirements to be followed with respect to the moving of the church and for the opportunity for the Salem Historical Commission and Historic Salem to comment on the specifications for the moving. The second provided for the opportunity to review and comment by MHC and the Interested Parties on the renovation and rehabilitation of the Church at the 30%, 60% and 90% design stages and for early consultation on the proposed program. This review is further described in Baptist Church (link).
58, 60, and 62 Federal Street
In the MOA, MHC concluded (in the Whereas clauses) that “the successful completion of the courthouse complex to current programming, circulation, and security standards necessitates the relocation or removal of 58, 60, and 62 Federal Street”. As described above, Historic Salem did not agree with this finding. The MOA required DCAM to make the buildings available for relocation by issuing a Request for Responses, including a list of preferably preserved features prepared in cooperation with Historic Salem. DCAM was required to “explore the feasibility of abating certain hazard materials” but not required to take any measures to subsidize or offer financial incentives to prospective owners/movers. As described in 58, 60, and 62 Federal Street, no responses were received to the Request for Proposals and the houses were subsequently demolished.
Impact of Roadway Changes
The MOA required the collection of existing baseline traffic data and a similar study once the project is built and put into use. The study is to be compared to the baseline study in order to identify impacts the roadway changes may have on the McIntyre and Federal Street Historic Districts. If the study reveals “measurable adverse effects” then a mitigation program is to be developed.
Registry of Deeds Building
At the time of the MOA, it was anticipated that the Registry of Deeds would be a distinct project. If and when the Registry of Deeds is renovated, MHC and interested parties will have the opportunity to comment on the proposed plans at the 30%, 60% and 90% design stages and an opportunity for early consultation prior to the development of schematic designs. Specifically, this consultation is for the purpose of the Salem Historical Commission and Historic Salem Inc. to “provide specific technical advice related to historic preservation and physical treatment of the historic building to the extent feasible”.
Related topics – (linked)
Baptist Church, Historic Courthouses, 58, 60, and 62 Federal Street, Design Review of New Courthouse, Courthouse Roadway Changes
Ruane Courthouse Project
History of Project and Advocacy Efforts
Salem was the birthplace of the American court system. The historic courthouses in the Federal Street National Historic District serve as important monuments to our nation’s judicial heritage.
The three Essex County Courthouse buildings form a visually exciting streets-cape. Individually, the Greek Revival County Commissioner’s building, the Richardson Romanesque-style Superior Court with its outstanding Law Library, and the Classical Revival Registry of Deeds are noteworthy examples of architectural styles commonly employed in the public building design from the mid-19th to the mid-20th century. As an assemblage they are extraordinary.
Since 2002 the top priority of Historic Salem has been addressing the impact of the construction of the J. Michael Ruane Judicial Center in the heart of this important historic district. Historic Salem has been supportive of retaining the courthouse functions in downtown Salem and has consistently advocated for the reuse of the historic courthouse buildings and that the design and scale of the new courthouse be compatible with the adjacent residential and commercial National Register Districts.
It should be noted that three historical residential buildings were demolished as part of the project. However, the 1805 Baptist Church has been retained and now will be part of the new courthouse project.
Much of Historic Salem’s efforts have been and continue to be participating in the regulatory process governing this project as a voice for historic preservation and sensitive urban design. Historic Salem was instrumental in negotiation of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Division of Capital Asset Management and the Massachusetts Historical Commission which regulates protections for historic resources affected by the project. Historic Salem provided substantial comment on the MOA, both written and through consultation meetings, over a period of a year and a half. Historic Salem was successful in some of its efforts to include appropriate protections in the MOA, and not in others. The Agreement will continue to guide the impact of the state’s use of the three historic courthouses, an ongoing priority of the organization, and will continue to be closely monitored by Historic Salem.
History of the Project
In 2002, the Division of Capital Asset Management (DCAM) commissioned a preliminary analysis of the potential for siting a new courthouse in Salem. The Salem Partnership, an advocate for the project, invited representatives from Historic Salem, Inc. and the Alliance for Salem Neighborhood Associations to provide input. The architectural firm of ICON prepared a conceptual plan in 2003 (link) which recommended the reuse of the historic courthouse buildings and a new building sited behind the three historic houses on the corner of Federal Street and the Baptist Church which would be moved forward on the site. The new building would be attached to the rehabilitated courthouse buildings. A slip ramp along the east edge of North Street to Bridge Street was called for to replace the east ramp of the cloverleaf which would be removed to provide additional land for the project. The Registry of Deeds adjacent to the new building was to be rehabilitated at a later date for use by Family and Probate Courts.
At that time Historic Salem was encouraged to see the retention of the historic courthouse buildings as part of the plan and the sensitive siting of the proposed new building relative to the historic urban context. A plan re-using the court buildings had two major benefits: maintaining lively court-related uses in all the buildings and reducing the size of the new building.
Historic Salem strongly supported this plan and spoke in favor of its funding when members of the legislature held hearings in Salem about a new courthouse in the early 2000s.
HSI provided written comment to DCAM as early as January 2003 expressing support for the efforts to retain the court systems in Salem, HSI’s strong desire to see the historic courthouses reused, and for design of the new courthouse sensitive to the significant National Register districts immediately impacted.
In 2005, DCAM hired the architectural firm of Goody Clancy to prepare the detailed design of the courthouse project. By the time new plans were provided in 2006/2007 the plans had changed considerably in ways that would have lasting adverse impact on the historic courthouses and surroundings. Due to this “Elements of the Courthouse District” were added to Historic Salem’s Most Endangered List in 2007. Specific concerns were:
- The visual impact and scale of the proposed, much larger 190,000 square foot courthouse (link to write up)
- The fate of the three historic court buildings (link to write up) that were no longer being reused as part of the project
- The moving of the Baptist Church to be used as the Law Library (link to write up)
- The revised roadway changes on North Street including the elimination of the west ramp to Bridge Street and their potential impact on the McIntire District (link)
- The potential demolition of the three historic residential buildings at 58, 60, and 62 Federal Street (link to write up)
Development and Authority of Memorandum of Agreement (early 2007-early 2008)
The initial regulatory review for the courthouse project was the filing of an Environmental Notification Form (ENF) for the project under Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). In the Fall of 2006 and Winter of 2007, there were several months of hearings and comment on MEPA review, during which Historic Salem provided substantial written and oral comment.
On February 22, 2007, the Secretary of Environmental Affairs issued an ENF Certificate for the project, indicating that no further MEPA review was required. On February 28, 2007, DCAM requested that Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) begin the historic consultation process. Because the courthouse project was developed using state funds, by a state agency, and would affect properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places, it was subject to review by the Massachusetts Historical Commission under Chapter 254 of the Massachusetts General Laws. As part of that review the MHC made a finding of adverse impact on historic properties. Chapter 254 requires that a project proponent must identify adverse impacts and provide mitigation of those adverse impacts on affected historic resources.
Chapter 254 provides for solicitation of input from Interested Parties under the regulations. By law this includes the local historical commission and any parties who ask to be included. Interested parties in this project included Historic Salem, the Salem Historical Commission, the Alliance of Salem Neighborhood Associations, the Salem Partnership, and the Essex National Heritage Commission.
Recognizing the complexity and technical nature of the ongoing discussion, Historic Salem invested in and benefited from third party legal and professional advice. This was supported in part by a grant from the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Historic Salem also benefited from technical assistance from the statewide preservation advocacy organization, Preservation MASS.
An initial consultation meeting with DCAM, MHC and the Interested Parties was held March 20th, and a subsequent meeting on April 10. At these meetings, MHC indicated that because of the multiple resources and time lines involved, that the project should be governed by a Memorandum of Agreement between DCAM and MHC (the “MOA”).
In preparation for the April meeting Historic Salem formally asked MHC that the MOA address the full range of historic resource issues impacted by the project, and provided a list of the resources and associated issues. The first draft of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), prepared and distributed by DCAM on May 11, 2007, incorporated the resources identified by HSI. This draft MOA was followed by a consultation meeting on May 16, 2007 at DCAM’s offices in Boston. All subsequent consultation meetings were also held at DCAM’s offices.
The discussion on May 16th focused on the sections of the MOA dealing with reuse of the historic courthouses and design review of the new courthouse. Historic Salem’s request of additional opportunities for comment and review on those aspects of the project were included.
Discussion about the proposed demolition of the residential buildings at 58, 60, and 62 (link) were contentious. Historic Salem asserted that retaining the buildings would serve to provide a transition between the courthouse and the residential McIntire district. The project architects acknowledged that the project could be built without demolishing the houses, but represented their demolition as a design decision.
A second Draft of the Memorandum of Agreement was circulated by MHC on May 31, 2007. Historic Salem provided written comment on this Draft on June 5, 2007, particularly focused on procedures for reuse of the historic courthouse buildings, including streamlined procedures for polling state agencies for their reuse. Historic Salem also continued to object to the demolition of the buildings at 58, 60, and 62 Federal Street, but requested that if MHC were to allow them to be removed, that there should be efforts made to relocate rather than demolish them, including incentives to third parties for their removal and preservation. The second draft of the MOA and the comments received on it were the subject of another consultation meeting on June 6, 2007.
A third Draft of the Memorandum dated June 27, 2007 was circulated on July 3, 2007. This draft incorporated most of the comments from the Historic Salem letter of June 5, 2007 and the subsequent consultation meeting. However, HSI remained troubled by the potential demolition of the Federal Street residential buildings as was indicated in our July 30, 2007 response letter.
A fourth draft of the MOA was circulated on September 25, 2007, which continued to be responsive to Historic Salem comments with certain consistent exceptions concerning comment times and treatment of the three historic houses which were noted in a letter on October 28, 2007. At that time, the City of Salem also made comments with respect to the reuse of the courthouse buildings, an interest that they had consistently expressed throughout the process.
Through the fall of 2007 and early winter of 2008, a decision was made to reconfigure the roadway intersection at Federal, North and Bridge Streets, and also to have the project be undertaken by DCAM as part of the courthouse project. Consequently, that work, which otherwise would have been subject to review under the Federal historic preservation law, Chapter 106, became part of the Massachusetts Chapter 254 review. Accordingly there was substantial correspondence between DCAM and MHC and interested parties with respect to including these changes into the MOA, particularly as to how the changes might affect the neighboring National Register McIntire District. Based upon that correspondence, a revised MOA was issued on January 30, 2008, which took into account this addition to the project.
A final Draft MOA was circulated on March 18, 2007 and execution copies followed soon thereafter.
Historic Salem and the Salem Historical Commission were both invited to sign the MOA as “In Concurrence” which meant a non- binding agreement with the document. While many parts of the MOA responded to comments from Historic Salem, Inc., a number of requested provisions were not included. Most troubling was the consent to demolish structurally sound historic buildings that stood in the path of the project. As a result the Historic Salem, Inc. voted not to sign the MOA and provided its reasons in written comment to MHC. For similar reasons, the Salem Historic Commission also voted not to sign “in concurrence.” This did not affect the legality of the MOA or the right and responsibility of any Interested Party to participate in the future review processes described in the MOA.
DCAM and MHC signed the Memorandum of Agreement in May of 2008.
The Memorandum of Agreement is the governing document for the protection of historic resources affected by the project and continues to be important as each element of the project moves forward.
Key Provisions of the Memorandum of Agreement
The Memorandum of Agreement codifies the Agreement between the Division of Capital Asset Management and the Massachusetts Historic Commission with respect to historic resources. Key provisions with respect to the resources identified are described here. The specific provisions of the MOA as it affects historic resources are described in the Most Endangered reports for each of the affected historic resources and in the Design Review of the New Courthouse.
Superior Court and the County Commissioner’s Building
The Agreement required DCAM to produce a Reuse and Redevelopment Feasibility Study and to undertake an informal polling process with state agencies. In the event of a transfer out of state ownership the MOA requires development of preservation restrictions to be developed in consultation with MHC and Interested Parties and describes an RFP process that “the Request for Proposals should incorporate requirements to preserve character-defining interior spaces, especially the Superior Court and the law library therein in accordance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties”. The MOA allows for specific review and comment periods for any RFP process.
Full text of the relevant sections (link)
Design Review of New Courthouse
The MOA provided MHC and interested parties a 14-day opportunity to review and comment on the design of the new courthouse at the 30%, 60% and 90% design stages. The MOA stated that “Special focus and consideration shall be given to the treatment of the relationship between the new court facility the relocated Baptist Church, and the streetscape of the Federal Street Historic District, McIntire Historic District, and Chestnut Street Historic District” and to the pedestrian scale of the Federal Street and McIntire Historic Districts. A description of the design reviews at each level of design is described in Courthouse Design Review (link).
Baptist Church
The MOA has two sections which relate to the Baptist Church. The first provides for requirements to be followed with respect to the moving of the church and for the opportunity for the Salem Historical Commission and Historic Salem to comment on the specifications for the moving. The second provided for the opportunity to review and comment by MHC and the Interested Parties on the renovation and rehabilitation of the Church at the 30%, 60% and 90% design stages and for early consultation on the proposed program. This review is further described in Baptist Church (link).
58, 60, and 62 Federal Street
In the MOA, MHC concluded (in the Whereas clauses) that “the successful completion of the courthouse complex to current programming, circulation, and security standards necessitates the relocation or removal of 58, 60, and 62 Federal Street”. As described above, Historic Salem did not agree with this finding. The MOA required DCAM to make the buildings available for relocation by issuing a Request for Responses, including a list of preferably preserved features prepared in cooperation with Historic Salem. DCAM was required to “explore the feasibility of abating certain hazard materials” but not required to take any measures to subsidize or offer financial incentives to prospective owners/movers. As described in 58, 60, and 62 Federal Street, no responses were received to the Request for Proposals and the houses were subsequently demolished.
Impact of Roadway Changes
The MOA required the collection of existing baseline traffic data and a similar study once the project is built and put into use. The study is to be compared to the baseline study in order to identify impacts the roadway changes may have on the McIntyre and Federal Street Historic Districts. If the study reveals “measurable adverse effects” then a mitigation program is to be developed.
Registry of Deeds Building
At the time of the MOA, it was anticipated that the Registry of Deeds would be a distinct project. If and when the Registry of Deeds is renovated, MHC and interested parties will have the opportunity to comment on the proposed plans at the 30%, 60% and 90% design stages and an opportunity for early consultation prior to the development of schematic designs. Specifically, this consultation is for the purpose of the Salem Historical Commission and Historic Salem Inc. to “provide specific technical advice related to historic preservation and physical treatment of the historic building to the extent feasible”.
Related topics –
Baptist Church, Historic Courthouses, 58, 60, and 62 Federal Street, Design Review of New Courthouse, Courthouse Roadway Changes