HISCOM 2010 MINUTES January 6, 2010, Page 1 of 9
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
January 6, 2010
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 120
Washington Street, Salem,MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Harper, Mr. Hart, Ms. McCrea
and Mr. Desrocher.
Ms. Herbert arrived later in the meeting.
Ms. Guy noted that there will be no meeting on January 20th, unless an application is continued.
20 Albion Street
In continuation of a previous meeting Joseph Salamone, 45 Beacon Street, Reading, submitted an
application for Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance for demolition of the house at 20
Albion Street.
Ms. Guy read a letter from Historic Salem, Inc. which did not support demolition, but provided
recommendations for the new design should demolition occur.
Mr. Salamone stated that he has done an analysis of the cost and stated that to rebuild and
expand the existing would be significantly more than building a new house. He stated that the
cost for new would be $200,000 to $250,000. The HSI proposal would be between $300,000 and
$330,000, because it is very labor intense and that, in the end, it would be something that would
not meet his needs. He stated that he would like a basement that is clean and dry, which can be
used for storage. He added that a secondary building is not in the budget. He stated that he will
be happy to incorporate design details into the new house, noting it is in his best interest to build
something that fits into the neighborhood. He added that he is asking the ZBA for relief from the
setback in order to keep it in line with the others on the street.
Ms. McCrea asked if he has checked if it is possible to excavate a basement.
Mr. Salamone stated that he is confident that he can excavate a basement, without exceeding a
height restriction. He stated that if he runs into an issue, he could go back to the ZBA, hammer
out the ledge or step around it.
Ms. Harper asked if he would consider using clapboards.
Mr. Salamone stated that it would depend on the cost. He is planning on using a high end vinyl
that has a wood look to it.
Morris Schopf stated that he looked at the house and the street and noted that the house is part of
a streetscape that is post civil-war and noted most of the buildings are in tact.
t
v
January 6, 2010, Page 2 of 9
Ms. Herbert joined the meeting at this time.
Mr. Schopf stated that the owner was nice enough to let him look at the house. He stated that the
house is part of a streetscape that is post civil war and that it is unusual that all the original
buildings along the street are intact. He noted that the houses are situated in such a way to get
natural light. He asked if the house was on the property line.
Mr. Salamone replied that the existing home is right on the property line.
Mr. Schopf stated that the houses on the street are along the property lines so that the yards are
on the south of the building, which he stated is a natural treatment all the way back to the first
period when houses were entered from the side. He stated that the raised basement is an
important part of the characteristic of the houses down the street. He stated he was speaking as
an advocate of the streetscape. He stated that the building is original. He stated that the owner's
proposal regarding scale and material treatment is good. He asked if it will be modular.
Mr. Salamone replied in the negative, that it would be a stick building.
Mr. Schopf noted that the houses are placed on the northerly side of the lot in order to maximize
exposure.
Mr. Salamone stated that the placement of the building on the property line is not desirable to
undertake maintenance, etc.
John Carr, 7 River Street, stated that this is an application to expedite demolition and that this is
what the Demolition Delay Ordinance is intended to prevent. He stated that what he is hearing is
that this house contributes to the ambiance. He stated that when you have a building of
significance, the process should be slowed down, noting that it is Winter and not a building
season anyway. He stated that HSI has made a convincing case. He stated that properties that
are period properties and make a contribution should not have expedited demolition.
Mary Whitney, 356 Essex Street, stated that she attended a site visit at the property. She
suggested requesting a catalog of materials. She urged the Commission not to issue the waiver
and the homeowner to proceed with his intention to fit within the existing streetscape. She did
not feel moving the house to the center of the lot would benefit the neighbor on the south side.
Ms. Herbert asked if he needed the basement for any use.
Mr. Salamone stated that he would like to use it for a workshop and for clean, dry storage space.
Ms. Herbert stated that she agreed with Mr. Schopf and Mr. Carr that it would be disruptive to
break the chain of structures. She would like to see the owner work with the existing building
and construct an addition.
Mr. Salamone stated that he believes the abutters feel this house is a disaster and are in favor of
the demolition. He stated that he would rebuild if it made economic sense.
January 6, 2010, Page 3 of 9
Ms. Herbert noted that this is why the house sold for so little.
Ms. Harper stated that she is hearing that it is not in the owner's budget to put an addition on the
house. She stated that she was at the site visit and that the house is in rough shape and is a gut
job inside and, even with that, by today's standards it would be difficult to live there with the
ceiling heights. She suggested stretching the budget to include wood clapboards and trim as well
as to maintain the look of the fagade of the building.
Mr. Salamone stated that he was amenable to that. He stated that he has no issue with reducing
the windows to single size and increasing the pitch of the roof. He noted that the reason for the
bump out is to make the floor plan work and to add more depth to the house.
Ms. Herbert asked if there would be cornerboards.
Mr. Salamone replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Herbert felt that the proposed was completely different in character from the existing
cottage.
Mr. Salamone stated that he could bring the house up in height. He noted that the width of the
new house is only 1 '/2 feet larger than the existing.
Mr. Hart stated that he visited the property twice and his concern is that this might set up a
domino effect of people coming into town and buying a property and tearing it down. He noted
that 62 Aborn and 69 Boston Street were saved from demolition and rehabilitated after Historic
Salem, Inc. met with the owners and showed them interesting factors about them, noting 69
Boston was in much worse condition that 20 Albion. He stated that as a registered architect with
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, who does a lot of historic restoration work, he was not
sure he would agree that 20 Albion was in that bad shape. He noted it has been occupied for 150
years. He added that with Historic Salem and the neighbors help, 13 River was rehabilitated. He
stated that it is a wonderful streetscape on Albion Street and he could not support waiving the
Demolition Delay Ordinance.
Ms. McCrea stated that she also has a concern if everyone were to come in to town to purchase
property and tear it down.
Mr. Desrocher stated that, if it were him, he would rather have a workshop on the main level. He
suggested putting a slab down in the back.
Mr. Salamone stated that he would loose living space and noted that he would still have setback
requirements, although he added that he hadn't considered that option and would have to look
into it.
Mr. Carr stated that at 13 Lynn Street, the owner originally proposed something that went against
several elements of zoning. The neighborhood opposed the zoning,to enable the homeowner to
January 6, 2010, Page 4 of 9
work with the neighborhood, for which the final design was supported by the neighborhood and
the Commission.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to deny the waiver without prejudice,to encourage the owner to
come back in as soon as he can with a proposal that will fit in better and to encourage the owner
to work with HSI to develop the design.
Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission is willing to support any application to the Zoning Board
of Appeal for changes that would defy the variance rules, so he can get something close to what
the Commission would like to see. Mr. Hart seconded the motion. Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Mr.
Hart, Mr. Desrocher and Ms. McCrea voted in favor. Ms. Harper voted in opposition. The
motion so carried.
42 Warren Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, Todd & Jennifer Weissman presented an application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of three double hung windows with Fibrex,
double glaze Renewal by Andersen windows with pine interior.
Mark Mordini with Renewal by Andersen was present and provided a sample of a window with
non-removable grids applied on the exterior. He noted that each window is custom made.
Ms. Weissman stated that 3 windows on the second floor had been previously replaced, which
had been permitted by the Building Department. She stated that they will add the grids to those
windows.
Ms. Herbert stated that the two abutting windows at the rear corner should be replaced at the
same time, so that it is harmonious. She felt that spot replacement will make it more noticeable.
Ms. Weissman stated that the rest of the house is primarily 2 over 1, with a few smaller windows
being 1 over 1. She stated that they will keep 2 over 1 throughout and switch the 3 windows
installed to 2 over 1.
Mr. Hart asked if there could be a bronze spacer.
Mr. Mordini replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Desrocher agreed that the windows should be 2 over 1.
Ms. Harper asked if the window was available in wood.
Mr. Mordini replied in the negative.
Ms. Herbert suggested rehabbing the windows.
Ms. Weissman stated that having working, energy efficient windows is the primary goal.
January 6, 2010, Page 5 of 9
Linda Locke, 1 Pickering Street asked the material.
Mr. Mordini stated it is 40%wood and 60%polimer and it is not clad and is always maintenance
free.
Mr. Desrocher stated that the guidelines specify wood.
Mr. Weissman stated that if they keep the existing windows, they will have to retain storms.
Ms. Herbert stated that she did not feel the proposed window looked like wood at all.
Mr. Desrocher stated that when he went by the property,the windows stood out because they
were one over one, not two over one. He stated that the proposed is a quality window, but felt it
would set a precedent to not follow the guidelines. He stated that materials should be kept
consistent.
Ms. Herbert noted that the window on the front is adjacent to the bay window.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve as submitted. Mr. Hart seconded the motion,there were
no votes in favor and the application was denied as not appropriate.
Mr. Carr stated that if something has been replaced without permit, it should be applied for and
noticed, so that there the public has an opportunity to comment.
Ms. Herbert stated that the owners need to apply for the windows already installed without
approval. She stated that a picture of the 4 front windows, of which the 3 were already replaced,
would be helpful.
127 Derby Street
Max and Shannon Engelhardt, Karen Yourell and Louise Spohr presented an application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness to replace an existing black 3-tab asphalt roof with black
architectural asphalt roof. Max Engelhart, Karen Yourell and Louise Spohr were present.
Mr. Engelhart stated that half the roof has been replaced with architectural. This occurred
because the contractor applied for a building permit and began the work before the Building
Department contacted him and told him that they would not issue a building permit until the
Historical Commission issued approval.
Ms. Herbert asked the installation cost.
Mr. Engelhart stated that it is $12-13,000, due to all of the plywood needing replacement.
Ms. Yourell stated that four other contractors said that black architectural was required in
historic districts.
January 6, 2010, Page 6 of 9
Mr. Hart stated that the shingles are not totally objectionable. He stated that he would like to go
by the site. He suggested issuing a certificate of non-applicability for the other side.
Mr. Carr stated that it should be a uniform roof and the contractor should be responsible for the
cost of whatever he put on without permit.
Ms. Harper noted that the updated roofing guidelines draft says that architectural shingles are not
recommended for gambrel roofs.
Ms. Herbert stated that the proposed appear to be straight shingles.
Ms. Harper stated that she felt the top of the roof was not visible and suggested approving
architectural for the two top halves and 3-tab for the bottom sections.
Mr. Hart stated that he would like to go by the site.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to continue the application. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were
in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
A. 129-151 Lafayette Street—Planning Office for Urban Affairs—Review and comment on
Project Notification Form. Present were David Armitage and Molly Eckert of the
Planning Office for Urban Affairs (POAH).
Ms. Guy stated that she distributed a copy of the Project Notification Form at the last
meeting.
Mr. Armitage stated that POAH has been around for about 40 years and that they have
developed over 2000 properties. As part of the project, they will also work on the park
across the street. The project will be affordable mixed income and elderly housing with
with retail on the first floor. Section 106 requires that they submit the PNF to
Massachusetts Historical Commission(MHC).
Ms. Herbert asked if the project has changed from the original.
Mr. Armitage replied in the negative, noting that the exception is that there will be retail
instead of the community life center. He stated that currently they are proposing 8 units
in the rectory building, but noted that it could be office space. He stated that the school is
what triggered the PNF. They will be using Section 202 funds for 20 elderly housing
units. There will be no addition to the building, but they will have elevator equipment on
the roof. The new building will be 73 units. It will be a four story building with housing
on the top 3 floors.
Ms. Diozzi asked if they pay taxes on the building.
January 6, 2010, Page 7 of 9
Mr. Armitage replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Ekhert stated that the condition assessment is from the 2005 reuse study.
Mr. Carr stated that what is before the Commission tonight is to evaluate the significance
of the buildings and the site. The 2005 study speaks to the significance and states that it
is eligible for listing on the state and National Registers. It states that the convent is not
architecturally significant. He provided a letter from Stanley Smith, past president of
SHA, HSI and Historic Boston. He stated that the Commission is being asked by MHC
to determine the significance of the existing buildings and report back from the local
level. He noted that to demolish one of the three significant buildings,the project would
not qualify for 20%tax credit. He added that the use of Federal funds are not to
undermine the National Register.
Jean Martin, 24 Leavitt St., stated that she is 7t' generation in the point neighborhood.
She stated that the church is an important representation of French culture and that, if
destroyed, it will destroy a major part of historic culture.
Mr. Schopf, 1 Cambridge St, stated that this is not a new discussion and that it illustrates
the importance of these structures collectively. He stated that National Register
eligibility is criteria for preservation and felt that inconvenience is not a criteria for
demolition of a historic building. He stated that he felt the structures could be
sympathetically reused for a viable purpose.
Emily Udy, HSI, stated that the church is landmark, but noted that two other buildings
also have historic fabric.
Anna Delamonica, 18 Prescott Street, stated that the first time she heard of St. Josephs
was as a teen taking art courses in Boston. She stated that the teacher spoke about the
cruciform building being constructed in Salem. She stated that she felt it belongs to the
French community morally. She added that it is rare architecture and a priceless
historical work of art.
Mr. Carr stated that POAH has initiated something that involves federal funding, so if
their choice is to use federal funds, it triggers a determination if the church building is
significant, individually and as part of the complex.
Ms. Guy read an FAQ section from MHC's website which detailed what happens once
the PNF is submitted to MHC.
Ms. Whitney stated that all you have to do is walk by the site and you would note the
complex is architecturally significant.
January 6, 2010, Page 8 of 9
Ms. Locke stated that she has a number of properties in the Point,provided a book of
pictures and noted that the upper windows of the church have the names of the saints and
the evangelists.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to close public comment.
Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Hart stated that he was not sure of the accuracy on whether the property has been
deemed eligible, noting that the opinion of the consultant is that it is eligible. He noted
that Page 3 of the PNF does not state if the complex eligible. He suggested sending a
letter to MHC suggesting that they take under consideration the whether church and
complex are eligible. He stated that the entire complex should be evaluated. He noted
that Section 106 asks the effect of a project on the historic fabric of the surrounding area
as well and stated that MHC should examine that as well.
Ms. Guy suggested that the Commission request to be an interested party.
Mr. Hart noted that on page 25-26 of the 2005 study is pertinent information relating to
site.
Ms. Herbert stated that, if deemed eligible and would have an adverse effect, the
applicant should look at alternatives.
Ms. McCrea wondered about the adverse effect of it sitting there and rotting.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to draft a letter to MHC with the Commission comments
relating to individual and complex eligibility, effect on the historic properties in the
neighborhood, alternatives and request to be an interested party. Ms. McCrea seconded
the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
B. Salem Common—City of Salem—Determination on whether new tot lot plan is
substantially equal to prior plan.
Ms. Guy provided copies of the initially approved plan by O'Brien& Sons and the plan
submitted by Little Tikes, who won the bid.
Mr. Desrocher stated that he felt it looks substantially similar.
Mr. Hart made a motion to find that the new plan is substantially similar to the prior plan
and to amend the Certificate of Appropriateness to include the new plan. Ms. McCrea
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
C. Approval of minutes— 12/2/09
January 6, 2010, Page 9 of 9
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the minutes of December 2, 2009. Ms. Harper
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
There being no further business, Ms. Harper made a motion to adjourn. Ms. McCrea seconded
the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respe lly s itted,
Jane A.
Clerk of e C ommission.
January 20, 2010, Page 1 of 2
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
January 20, 2010
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 at 120
Washington Street, Salem,MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Mr. Desrocher,Ms. Harper, Ms. Bellin,
Mr. Hart and Ms. McCrea.
Ms. Herbert arrived later in the meeting.
127 Derby Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, Max and Shannon Engelhardt, Karen Yourell and Louise
Spohr presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace an existing black 3-tab
asphalt roof with black architectural asphalt roof. Max Engelhardt and Karen Yourell were present.
Ms. Diozzi stated that the top of the roof is visible.
Mr. Hart stated that the architectural shingles installed are not very obtrusive.
Ms. Bellin stated that while it looks okay in the photograph, she would have liked to see a sample.
Mr. Engelhardt stated that they will provide the brand,name and color of the shingle to Ms. Guy.
Ms. Diozzi stated that it was a handsome roof.
Mr. Desrocher made a motion to approve the application conditional that the roofing information be
supplied within 24 hours.
Mr. Hart suggested a friendly amendment to find that inasmuch as they were installed prior to
approval,that the installation is not to be construed as precedent.
Mr. Desrocher so amended his motion.
Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. Ms. Diozzi,Mr. Desrocher, Ms. Harper,Mr. Hart and Ms.
McCrea voted in favor. Ms. Bellin voted in opposition. The motion so carried.
Ms.Herbert joined the meeting at this time
Other Business
A. Ms. Guy read a draft letter to Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC)to support the
City's application for a Survey and Planning Grant to undertake additional historic survey
work in the Bridge Street area. Ms Bellin made a motion to send the letter. Mr. Desrocher
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
B. March Meeting- Ms. Guy noted that there are five Wednesdays in March and that the
meetings in March currently fall on March 3`a and 17t''. She suggested that the meeting of the
January, 2010, Page 2 of 2
17th be changed to the 241h. Ms. Harper made a motion to move the 17"to the 241". Ms.
McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
C. Approval of minutes— 12/16/09
Ms. Harper made a motion to approve the minutes of December 16, 2009. Mr. Hart seconded
the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
D. Ms. Guy stated that she distributed the following letters by email:
■ Julie Rose, Historic Salem, Inc. to Massachusetts Historical Commission, dated
1/8/10 concerning St. Joseph's Church complex
■ Emily Udy, Historic Salem,Inc. to Massachusetts Historical Commission, dated
1/11/10 concerning St. Joseph's Church complex
■ Linda Locke to Massachusetts Historical Commission, dated 1/11/10 concerning St.
Joseph's Church complex
■ Massachusetts Historical Commission to the Planning Office for Urban Affairs, dated
1/12/10, concerning St. Joseph's Church complex.
Ms. Diozzi stated that she got a letter from Lynn Duncan to MHC requesting that the City
have interest party status for the St. Joseph's Church complex project.
E. Roofing Guidelines
Mr. Hart moved to accept the amended guidelines. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were
in favor and the motion so carried.
F. St. Mary's Church- Ms. Herbert stated that her architect,Morris Schopf, has completed a
proposal to the Salem Mission board and that they will be making a presentation in February.
She stated that the Mission does not have an award from DHCD and so everything is
currently on hold until they complete the Section 106 review. Her proposed plan includes up
to 28 units with a roof garden on the youth center. It keeps the thrift shop income stream in
the church and allows for other income opportunities.
G. Mr. Hart stated that the owner of 20 Albion has withdrawn his application from the Zoning
Board of Appeal and that he apparently needed a lot of different variances. It also turns out
he is the president of a corporation that tears down houses and replaces them with pre-
fabricated.
There being no further business,Mr. Desrocher made a motion to adjourn. Ms. McCrea seconded
the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectf i i itted,
Jane A. G
Clerk of th, mmission
February 3, 2010, Page 1 of 3
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 3, 2010
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 120
Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi,Mr. Desrocher, Ms. Harper, Ms. Bellin,
Ms. McCrea and Mr. Hart.
19 Warren Street
Karen Vitone and her husband Mike Reardon presented an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to 1)repair/rebuild existing back sunrooms on first and second floor,replacing
windows and door relocation and addition of 4 new windows; 2) change flat roof of addition to gable
roof, 3) remove rear chimney; and 4)remove all or part of vinyl siding.
Mr. Reardon stated that he is with Reardon Construction and that they will be doing the work. He
stated that they have experience working in Marblehead.
Ms. Vitone stated that the original house was built in 1839 with two additions that she believed were
put on or after the 1920s. She stated that all work will be within existing skin of house and that some
work is not visible from the public way. They will repair and rebuild the sunrooms, replace existing
aluminum sliding windows and existing deteriorating wood windows with 6 over 6 double hung
windows to match rest of house, add 5 new windows, remove Anderson casement window, relocate
back entrance doorway, remove non-functioning secondary chimney and change flat roof line over
sunrooms in back to match addition roof before it and to remove vinyl siding in the area that they
will be working in the back, repair clapboards underneath and paint to match rest of house. Sketches
and photos were provided and reviewed by the owners.
Mr. Reardon stated that the gable roof will continue on the same plane.
Ms. Vitone stated that there will be no changes to the deck on the right side. She noted that they are
having water issues with the sunporches. The height of the windows will remain the same and match
throughout the house. The proposed window is Brosco, 9"x 13"true divided light,wood, single
glaze window. For this phase,the vinyl siding will be removed on all but the main house. The trim
will be per photo provided. They will add an antique leaded beveled clear glass window in the rear
in the new gable. The new roof will be.3 tab asphalt,to match rest of house. Clapboards to be
painted white and trim to be black.
Ms. Diozzi read a letter from Nick and Kelly Lewis, 23 Warren Street who were in favor of the
application.
Deborah Jackson, 17 Warren Street, stated that she was in favor of the application.
Mr. Hart stated that when the gable is put on the roof, he was concerned there would be a bump or
wrinkle in the roofing if it doesn't match exactly.
Mr. Reardon stated that they will probably need to re-plywood and sheath and that it will be flush, so
there should not be any difference.
February 3, 2010, Page 2 of 3
Mr. Hart stated that he would hate to see the chimney go.
Mr. Reardon stated that it would disrupt the interior plans to keep it.
Mr. Hart suggested having a wood chimney with half brick for show.
Mr. Derocher made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the exception of the
chimney, and to give the option to remove vinyl siding on main house when financially feasible. Ms.
Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the chimney removal. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion.
Ms. Diozzi, Mr. Desrocher, Ms. Harper and Ms. Bellin voted in favor,Mr. Hart voted in opposition
and Ms. McCrea abstained from voting. The motion so carried.
183 Rear#2 Federal Street
John and Monica Zisa submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for window and
asphalt roof shingle replacement.
Mr. Zisa stated that the six windows on the second and third floors that are in violation will be
replaced with Brosco, authentic divided light, 6 over 6, wood, double hung, painted to match
existing. He stated that he spoke to Pane in the Glass,but the company was unable to get to the
project. The new windows will make all the windows on the house uniform. The roof will be
replaced with 3-tab, Star White from Certainteed Seal King,which is identical to what is there.
Ms. Bellin asked if they would consider a dark roof.
Mr. Zisa stated that white reflects heat better.
Mr. Hart stated that he did not have a problem with the white.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the option to replace the roof
with a Star White, charcoal grey or black. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion. All were in favor
and the motion so carried.
Other Business
A. Approval of minutes
Ms. Harper made a motion to approve the minutes of January 6, 2010. Mr. Desrocher
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of January 20, 2010. Ms. McCrea
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
B. Ms. Guy stated that she distributed the following letters by email:
■ John Wathne, Structures North to Morris Schopf, dated 1/25/10 concerning Salem
Mission
February 3, 2010, Page 3 of 3
■ John Wathne, Structures North to Jessica herbert, dated 1/25/10 concerning Salem
Mission
■ E-mail from Jessica Herbert to John Wathne dated 1/25/10 concerning Salem Mission
There being no further business,Ms. Belin made a motion to adjourn. Ms. McCrea seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully fsubmitteJane A. Guy
Clerk of the
February 17, 2010, Page I of 2
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 17, 2010
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 at 120
Washington Street, Salem,MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi,Mr.Desrocher, Ms.Harper, Ms. Bellin,
Ms. McCrea and Mr. Hart.
14 Broad Street
Ellen& Jeremy Schiller submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to repaint
shutters and door from existing green to black. Ms Guy stated that the applicants informed her that
they would not be present.
Mr. Hart recommended giving the option for Essex Green as well and for the paint to be gloss or
semi-gloss.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve Black or Essex Green for the shutters and door, in either gloss
or semi-gloss. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
88 1/2 Federal Street
Roy Gelin submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to add handrails to the front
entry and to add a wall cap to the side of the structure for bathroom ventilation. Dana Gelin was
present.
Mr. Gelin stated that his dad broke his leg and that the physical therapist is recommending two
handrails. They will attach one rail to the existing handrail to bring it in closer. The second will be
attached to the house. It is being done by Cassidy Brothers Forge, Inc. They also need a vent
through the side of the building for the bathroom renovation. A vent cap sample was presented. It
will be located on the side of the house half way between the corner and the kitchen window.
Mr.Hart stated that the vent will be fairly inconspicuous.
Mr. Gelin stated that the new rail will come out about 6" from the existing rail. They will be
wrought iron.
John Lander, 88A Federal St., stated he was in favor of the proposal.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the railings as proposed. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all
were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms.McCrea made a motion to approve the vent. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and
the motion so carried.
Mr.Hart encouraged the owner to remove the vinyl siding in the future and repair the existing
original windows.
February 17, 2010, Page 2 of 2
Other Business
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of February 20, 2008. Ms. Harper seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of February 3, 2010. Mr. Desrocher seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
There being no further business, Ms. Bellin made a motion to adjourn. Ms. McCrea seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectf ly bmitted,
Jane A y
Clerk of t C mmission
March 3, 2010, Page 1 of 8
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
MARCH 3, 2010
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, March 3, 2010 at 120
Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Harper, Ms.Bellin and Ms. McCrea.
Ms. Diozzi announced that all four votes in favor will be required to pass any motion.
31 Washington S .N
Michael Shea (under agreement) submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to 1)
install new shutters on main house and carriage house, 2) install new windows and doors on carriage
house, 3)paint exterior trim white, 4) install door with 6 panel wood and two side lites and transom
on carriage house, 5)point brick and 6)replace missing section of antique rod iron fence in front of
main house (if section can be located). Attorney George Atkins and architect Richard Griffin
represented the applicant.
Attorney Atkins stated that Mr. Shea has a purchase and sale agreement. They are going before the
Zoning Board of Appeal (ZBA) for single family use of the carriage house. They proposed to
rehabilitate the carriage house.
Mr. Griffin provided drawings and stated that the carriage house has a partial concrete floor and that
they will be doing a gut rehab on the inside. The outside windows will be replaced with double
insulated Matthews Brothers wood windows with simulated divided lites -the same windows that
were used for the Bertram House next door. The existing barn door will be replaced with a front
entry with a six panel door and a side light surround. The two side doors will be replaced with a pair
of double hung windows with raised panels underneath. They prefer to use Azek instead of wood
for the panels for longevity. There will be two six panel doors, one in the back of the building and
one at the main entry in the front and the question is if a fiberglass,painted six panel door is
acceptable. The original shutters that are currently stored inside the carriage house will be restored
and rehung.
Ms. Bellin asked if any window sizes will change.
Mr. Griffin replied in the negative.
Mr. Shea stated that they want to put back the shutters on the main house, and would like the option
for the carriage house.
Ms. Guy noted that the property currently has a Clerk's Certificate of Vote for the shutters that were
removed from the main house in violation by the current owner. She noted that the applicant had
applied for shutters prior to learning of the outstanding violation.
Mr. Griffin stated that they will also replace the carriage house slate roof with black or charcoal grey
3-tab shingles.
Ms. Diozzi read a letter from Neil and Martha Chayet, 26 Winter Street.
Joe McCall, fence contractor, stated that there is approximately 50' of fence missing.
March 3, 2010, Page 2 of 8
Morris Schopf stated that he is aware of a section of fence in the back garden.
The proposed fence is King Architectural Metals 45-9701 spears with fleur-de-lis finials which
would be installed on the left side from left of entryway with approximately 50' of replacement
fencing to the lot line. They will repair the approximately 30' of fencing on the right side. The new
fence will not replicate the existing fence.
Ms. Harper asked if the block of granite that is worn away will be replaced.
Mr. Shea stated that they will turn it upside down.
Ms. Harper asked if they intend to go up the front stairs with new fence.
Mr. Shea replied in the negative.
Jeff Laaff, 24 Winter Street, stated that the shutters on the carriage house should be wood to match
the main house shutters in storage. He stated that the clock is invaluable and that he supports its
repair, or if financially non-feasible to be left in situ.
Ms. Shea stated that he will try to have the clock repaired.
Mr. Laaff asked about parking and how 6 spots will accommodate 4 units. He asked about any plans
for the adjacent open lot.
Mr. Shea stated that there are no plans for the open lot.
Mr. Laaff asked if use of the lot could be tied to the permitting.
Ms. Diozzi stated that the Historical Commission does not have jurisdiction over use.
Mr. Laaff asked about the column at the back porch that the previous owner had replaced with a 4 x
4.
Mr. Shea stated that it has been replaced.
Ms. Guy explained that going back as early as 1994,the columns and shutters were in violation with
the previous owner and the Commission had filed a Certificate of Vote violation at Registry of
Deeds. Since then it appears that the column has been corrected. The Certificate typically results in
a red flag with the title search,which could hold up the sale. In order to complete the sale,the
Commission would have to remove the Certificate. She stated that in this case,the prospective buyer
has applied for the shutter work,before learning that they were in violation. She recommend
allowing the Certificate to be removed. She asked the closing date.
Mr. Shea stated that the closing is approximately April 15th
Atty. Atkins stated that it is dependent on the outcome of the ZBA in two weeks.
Ms. Guy asked if the ZBA denied,would the sale still go through.
March 3, 2010, Page 3 of 8
Mr. Shea replied in the negative.
Ms. Guy recommended that the discharge be conditional on a positive outcome from the ZBA.
Ms. Diozzi stated that she would like to continue the fence.
Ms. Harper asked if the new windows will be wood.
Mr. Griffin replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Harper asked if the window can have a bronze spacer.
Mr. Griffin stated that he assumed that they could get it.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to reinstall existing shutters on the main house and option to craft new
matching shutters for the carriage house. Shutters to be black or Essex Green. Ms. McCrea
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Harper made a motion to approve the windows as submitted with bronze spacer. Ms. McCrea
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve the six panel doors as submitted in wood only,painted black
or Essex Green to match the shutters. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the
motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-applicability to repaint exterior trim on
both structures white. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin made a motion for removal of the barn door and replacement with new entry as per plans
dated 2/19/10. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-applicability to repair clock if feasible or
to leave it in place non-operational. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the
motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-applicability to repoint brick on both
buildings as needed with mortar to match in color,thickness and texture. Ms. McCrea seconded the
motion,all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to replace 2 doors with windows as per plans with wood raised panels and
with Azek for the narrow baseboard trim of the carriage house where the baseboard meets the stone,
painted white. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Shea stated that the slate roof of carriage house is leaking and that slate is missing everywhere.
He noted that he has been a roofing contractor for 7 years and that the slate is too far gone to be
repaired.
Ms. Bellin stated that she would like to continue the roof.
March 3, 2010, Page 4 of 8
Ms. Bellin made a motion to remove the Clerk's Certificate of Vote at the Registry of Deeds
regarding the shutters following a positive vote by the ZBA and to require the new owner to reinstall
the shutters within one year. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so
carried.
Mr. Shea stated that he could get a letter from a slate roofer.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the roof and fence to the March 24t"meeting. Ms. McCrea
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
315-317 Essex Street
Stephen Morris submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace and relocate
windows and doors, replace exterior clapboards and install raised dormers at the attic on the sides
and rear, along with new HVAC, electrical,plumbing, gas fitting and related systems to renovate an
existing rooming house into six 2-bedroom condominiums. Present were Attorney George Atkins
and design consultant Morris Schopf,who is also an abutter. Plans dated 2/10/10 were submitted.
Atty. Atkins stated that this property is also before the ZBA at their next meeting. A limited liability
company has been formed where Ray Young is the manager. The LLOC has entered into an
agreement with seller to buy the property. The ZBA proposal is to create 6 residential units,
eliminate 2 commercial units and eliminate the lodging house on the third floor. Also before the
ZBA is a technical dimensional requirement.
Mr. Schopf stated that he believed the stores were installed in the 1930s. He noted that the entire rear
yard is asphalt. It is a 14 unit SRO on the second and third floors. The proposal is for six 2-bedroom
condominiums with 10 parking spaces in the rear. The building box will be unchanged. They
proposed to modify the elevations so to be consistent with Federal details. The window openings on
second floor and attic on the front will stay in the same location. The new first floor windows will
line up with the second floor. The windows will have 6 over 6 sashes with proper trim. Shutters will
be installed only on the front facade. They will be adding additional windows on the sides and rear.
There are currently 2 parking spaces on the street in front of the property and they will eventually go
before the city council to get them from 15 minute spaces to regular street parking. He noted that the
single entrance at front has interior entrances to the right and left units and stairs going up to the
second floor and down to the basement. The unit in back has an entrance at the corner of the rear
where the single story in back pushes out. They proposed to move the rear stairway from outdoors to
just inside the building.
The are requesting to demolish the storefront, install 6 over 6 sashes throughout, add shutters on the
front, add decorative windows in foyer, install a proper federal entrance in front and a federal
entrance in the rear of the property for third floor. They will be keeping 8 existing dormers, with the
2 on front facade to be unaltered. For the left side elevation they propose adding 6 windows. They
propose adding shed dormers between the existing dormers on the sides with 2 new shed dormers per
side. They propose adding 6 windows and 2 doors to the one story addition in the back and 6
windows will be added to the second story of the main house in back. There will be windows in
each of the 4 new shed dormers. They will be adding 6 new windows to right side to match the left
side. The rear stairway of the one story addition will be enclosed and it will have a sloping roof.
There will be 6 gas fire places, but none will be vented on the front of the building. They are also
requesting removal of two chimneys that are essentially not visible from the public way. They will
reclapboard as needed. All new window trim will match existing window trim. Windows will be
March 3, 2010, Page 5 of 8
double glaze wood windows from Commission's approved list. They are willing to come back with
windows and paint.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to demolish the store front. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in
favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the configuration on pages 4, 5, 6 and 7 which are 6 over 6
wood windows with windows to be either the JB Sash, Lepage or Pella windows already approved.
Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve front door design including 2 decorative windows and side
door design as shown on sheet 4. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion
so carried.
Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve the addition of 4 shed dormers as drawn on pages 5, 6 an 7.
Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve enclosing the rear stairway as submitted on pages 6 and 7. Ms.
McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve 4 new door openings on the sides and back per pages 5, 6 and 7
with doors to be six panel wood with transom. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor
and the motion so carried.
Mr. Schopf stated that they will be coming back with chimneys, vents,paint color, fence for east
side, granite curb and an option for fiberglass doors.
Atty. Atkins requested that the certificate be issued in the name of Ray Young.
Other Business
A. Salem Jail Redevelopment Project
Councillor Sosnowski stated that on Tuesday there is a meeting at city hall to discuss parking in the
lot in front of the Salem Jail project. He stated that he is looking for all the help he can get to
preserve the historic site. He stated that he did not want to tell the Commission what to say, but that
he would appreciate if members could come and say something.
Ms. Guy stated that she just heard of the meeting this week and brought copies of the parking
proposal. She provided a plan of the lot before the roadway was installed and a copy of the Salem
Redevelopment Authority approved design for the roadway turnaround at the site. She stated that the
city is supporting the parking.
Councillor Sosnowski stated that there are 39 metered spaces proposed.
Ms. Guy stated that during the numerous public meetings held for the jail redevelopment,the public
wanted to have access into the historic building. She noted that there will be a jail exhibit which will
provide some public access and that a restaurant will provide additional public access into the interior
of this historic building. She stated they are keeping the walls and floors and opened up the ceiling.
She stated that the city would like support for the plan. Ms. Guy stated that she would like a vote to
March 3, 2010, Page 6 of 8
send a letter so that there is a uniform Commission decision and not each Commissioner giving their
own personal opinion, should any members decide to attend the meeting.
Councillor Sosnowski stated that the historic part is the granite wall the surrounds the entire
perimeter of the building.
Ms. Diozzi asked how the wall would be affected by the building.
Ms. Guy noted that the wall was repaired and stabilized as part of the by-pass project. She added that
there is more green space in front of one section of the wall. She suggested that the Commission
consider supporting the plan with the removal of the seven spaces next to the wall.
Councillor Sosnowski stated that the site in front of the wall is all brand new and is not historic. He
stated that he does not want any parking there at all, does not want to hide the beautiful wall and
wants the green space. He stated that he supports New Boston Ventures, but not the essentially
dedicated parking.
Ms. Guy stated that it wouldn't be dedicated parking.
Councillor Sosnowski agreed, noting that it is metered. He stated that no metered spot would be
guaranteed to be available for the residents.
Ms. Guy stated that it would be available to residents for snow emergencies.
Ms. McCrea noted that there is a parking lot and garage nearby.
Councillor Sosnowski stated that if it is so important for them to have dedicated parking, they may
want to have a private arrangement with the church for after 5:00pm. He stated that he talked to Dan
Riccarelli, who is a Salem resident and is the architect for the project and that he challenged the scale
of the drawing. He noted that everyone from the Bridge Street Neck Neighborhood Association is
gearing up for the meeting on Tuesday.
Ms.Diozzi stated that in January she could not find space to attend a concert at the Universalist
Church and felt that parking is desperately needed on Friday and Saturday nights in the winter and
that this is the time when these places need the business the most. She stated that there is green space
in front and that there is a plan for there to be a driveway anyway. There could be a row of trees or a
nice fence to shield the cars and create a buffer.
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission does not have jurisdiction over use per se and that the
preservation issue is that there is a historic building that is going through adaptive reuse that can be
open to the public. The parking gives the opportunity for people to come in and see the interior of
the building. She stated that the Commission can support the plan with conditions that preserve the
wall, such as not supporting the seven spaces adjacent to the wall and/or adding granite curbing.
Ms. Bellin stated that we are getting a huge parking garage just down the street.
Councillor Sosnowski stated that anecdotally speaking, there is no other restaurant in the city that has
dedicated parking.
Ms. Guy stated that it is not dedicated.
March 3, 2010, Page 7 of 8
Councillor Sosnowski stated that he understands that it is not dedicated, but noted that the rationale
behind asking for it is to satisfy the requirements of the restaurant, so in that sense it is dedicated. He
stated that the city just had a downtown parking study. He agreed parking is a problem in the city,
but professionals are saying just the opposite. He noted that they don't understand the city like we
do.
Ms. Guy noted that where there was roadway before is now green space, so there would still be a net
gain of green space with the parking spaces.
Ms. Bellin did not know if the drawing can be relied upon.
Ms. Guy stated that we do not know that the drawing is not to scale.
Ms. Bellin asked if the Planning Department supported the proposal.
Ms. Guy replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Diozzi stated that she supported the proposal.
Ms. Bellin stated it would be great to do a letter but felt there was no consensus among the
Commission members and noted that all four present would need to agree.
Ms. Guy stated that if anyone goes to the meeting, they can't speak for the Commission officially
because there is no consensus.
Ms. Bellin was concerned that they did not provide an appropriate drawing and she was concerned
about people parking up against the historic wall. She stated that she was not sure what she
supported, but did not support the spaces against the wall,particularly where it is not an appropriate
drawing.
Ms. Guy suggested a letter stating that the Commission cannot reach consensus, but that at this point,
the Commission does not support the seven spaces against the wall.
Ms. Bellin was in agreement and suggested emphasizing that it would be more appropriate if we had
a good drawing before us.
Ms. Harper added that she would like to know how much green space would be retained.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to find that there is no consensus on the parking plan proposed, that the
Commission does not support the 7 spaces adjacent to the historic cemetery wall and would prefer a
scaled construction drawing showing the layout of spaces and amount of green space that would be
retained. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
B. 38 Front Street— Review of CDBG funded commercial rehabilitation project
Ms. Guy stated that the project is to replace one storefront window with an entry to match an existing
entry with sidelights currently on that fagade.
There were no comments from the Commission.
March 3, 2010, Page 8 of 8
C. 221 Essex Street—Review of CDBG funded commercial rehabilitation project
Ms. Guy stated that the project is for storefront rehabilitation as per plans provided.
There were no comments from the Commission.
D. 23 Warren St.
Ms. Guy stated that she received a request to extend a Certificate of Non-applicability for roof and
gutter work until 4/1/10.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the extension request. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all
were in favor and the motion so carried.
E. 376 Essex Street
Ms. McCrea stated that the balustrade over the front entrance has been removed.
Ms. McCrea made a motion to send a violation letter to the new owners. Ms. Bellin seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
F. Minutes
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of February 17, 2010. Mr. McCrea seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
G. Story House
Ms. Guy read an e-mail from Neil and Martha Chayet concerning items for auction that were listed
on line erroneously claiming to be from the Storey House and noting that the auction house has
agreed to correct the misimpression. They also noted that a court appearance for copper downspouts
that were stolen from their property is scheduled for March 18th
There being no further business,Ms. Bellin made a motion to adjourn. Ms. McCrea seconded the
motion,all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfu tted,
Jane A. Guy
Clerk of the Cbmmission
March 24, 2010, Page 1 of 3
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
MARCH 24, 2010
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, March 24, 2010 at 120
Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Harper, Ms. Bellin and Mr. Hart.
Ms. Diozzi announced that all four votes in favor would be needed to approve any motion.
31 Washington S . N
In continuation of a prior meeting, Michael Shea(under agreement) submitted an application for
a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace missing section of antique rod iron fence in front of
main house (if section can be located) and for roof replacement on the carriage house. Also
present was Joe McCall.
Mr. Shea stated that the carriage house roof is poor and that there is interior damage from the
leakage. He provided photographs of the asphalt roofs in the immediate neighborhood including,
33 Washington Square, 29 Washington Square, 2 Oliver Street, 35 Washington square, 26
Winter Street and 31 Washington Square. He noted that all once had slate and were replaced
with 3-tab black or charcoal gray roofs. He stated that he would like to install the same roof on
the carriage house as the rest of the surrounding property and to match the main house on this
property. He noted that there were two types of slate used in the past—Maine and Pennsylvania.
The houses with Maine slate have lasted 100 years and will last another 100 years. The houses
with Pennsylvania slate, all those in this neighborhood, the roof life is up. Pennsylvania slate
flakes. He stated that he did not want to refurbish the carriage house and have roof leaks from
the slate roof. He noted that the roof has felt paper under the slate with does not meet today's
code. The flashing is also deteriorated. He stated that he would not be able to afford to replace
the roof with slate, which would be in the ballpark of$50,000. He also suggested an option to
install GAF Slateline. He added that a few years ago, the owner of a house on Hamilton Street
was unable to get approval from the Commission to replace the slate roof and since he has been
back three times to repair the slate.
Mr. Hart stated that the Commission has approved GAF Grand Slate, not the Slateline.
Ms. Diozzi stated that she liked the GAF Grand Slate, but also liked the consistency of the two
buildings having 3-tab.
Mr. Hart stated that he was okay with either Grand Slate or 3-tab.
Ms. Harper made a motion to approve a Certificate of Hardship for replacement of the carriage
house slate roof with either 3 tab asphalt in black or charcoal gray or with GAF/Elk Grand Slate
asphalt in Bristol Gray. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so
carried.
March 24, 2010, Page 2 of 3
Mr. McCall stated that the fence will be a 50' run on the left side with 1/4" square stock for
picketed to simulate the right side as best as possible.
Mr. Shea stated that they will repair the right side with salvaged pickets.
Ms. Harper stated that she was okay with the proposal and that she liked saving the original
fence.
Ms. Bellin suggested using finials that would match the Bertram House fence next door.
Mr. Hart stated that he did not think the difference in fences will be really noticeable from the
Bertram House to this house.
Mr. Hart asked if the left and right fence heights will match.
Mr. McCall stated that there will be a 3-4" differences with the pickets being the same height.
Ms. Bellin suggested matching the height to the Bertram House fence.
Mr. Hart preferred the height of the right and left fences match.
Mr. Shea stated that they will try to get permission to tie the fence to the Bertram House granite
post.
Mr. McCall stated that the pickets will not go into the granite, because the old pickets were
snapped. They will install a horizontal bar along the bottom to which the pickets will be fastened
and which will hide the holes in the granite.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to repair the existing iron fence on the front of the house, right side in
kind. Install new iron fence (approximately 50') on the front of the house, to the left side from
the bottom of the stairs, along the streetscape to the property line, connecting with the existing
granite post(if authorized by the Bertram Home). New fence to be 1/4" square pickets to simulate
the original fence as close as possible. Left side fence height to match right side fence height.
New fence to have 3 posts—one at left side of stairs, one aligning with house corner and one %2
way to granite post. Fence to have horizontal bar along bottom fastened to the pickets, which
will cover original fence holes. New fence posts to be King Architectural Metals Original
Brownstone and finials of all pickets to be Fleu-de-lis per catalog cuts submitted. Mr. Hart
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
24 1/2 Winter Street
Krishna Gaddipati and Sarah Wheeler-Gaddipati submitted an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to demolish a structurally unsafe garage. A copy of a structural report from
Structures North was provided.
Ms. Guy read a letter from Neil and Martha Chayet, 25 Winter Street, in favor of the application.
March 24, 2010, Page 3 of 3
Ms. Diozzi stated that the garage is not even in the style of the house.
Martha Chayet, 26 Winter Street, stated that she was in favor of the application and described the
water problems due to the proximity of the garage to their property.
Mr. Hart stated that the garage is of a period later than the existing house and those to the left
and right of it. He noted that there is no high degree of architectural significance.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve demolition of the garage, conditional that the owner
photograph all four sides and the interior of the structure and submit the photos to the
Department of Planning& Community Development for the Commissions' files. Ms. Bellin
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
A. 15 Warren Street—Request for extension
Ms. Guy stated that she received an e-mail request to extend a Certificate of Appropriateness for
15 Warren Street dated June 11, 2007.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to extend the certificate for one year. Mr. Hart seconded the motion,
all were in favor and the motion so carried.
B. CLG Opinion: Eligibility for National Register— 142 North Street
Ms. Guy provided a draft of a Certified Local Government Opinion of Eligibility for the National
Register for 142 North Street.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to submit the CLG opinion to Massachusetts Historical Commission.
Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
C. Minutes
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of March 19, 2008. Mr. Hart seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
There being no further business, Ms. Bellin made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Harper seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Res i /ion
Jane yClerk f the Commi
April 7, 2010, Page 1 of 7
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
APRIL 7, 2010
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, April 7, 2010 at 120
Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Harper, Ms. Bellin and Mr. Hart.
Ms. Diozzi announced that all four votes in favor would be needed to approve any motion.
42 Warren Street 41
Jennifer and Todd Weissman submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to
change the paint color from white body to gray body(Castle Kilkenny) with white trim (Affinity
Frostine AF-5) and black shutters (Kookaburra Licorice). Paint chips were provided.
Mr. Hart asked if it is all wood.
Ms. Weissman replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Harper seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
105 Derby Street
Patrick McCormack and Emily Swilling submitted an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to replace front fences. The fence at the end of the driveway will be Hamilton,
5'6"+/- high, left natural. The streetscape fence, which turns into the driveway, will be Essex 5'
+/- high, left natural. A catalog cut was provided.
Mr. McCormack stated that there will be two walkway gates in the Essex style fence.
Ms. Swilling stated that the Essex fence may be less than 5' high.
Mr. McCormack stated that they will use the same posts that are there now.
Mr. Hart asked the color.
Mr. McCormack stated it would be natural stain but did not know the color.
Ms. Swilling stated that they will be coming back for house colors in the near future.
Mr. Hart asked what kind of wood will be used for the fence.
Mr. McCormack stated that he was not sure if it would be pressure treated or cedar.
April 7, 2010, Page 2 of 7
Mr. Hart stated that it should not go too long unpainted or unstained. He suggested approving
the fence with the color of the house body or trim if they do not come back with a stain color.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the fence design as submitted conditional that the applicants
come back within 2 months with a stain color, or else paint the Essex style sections the body or
trim color of the house. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so
carried.
330 Essex Street
Ben Larrabee and Melanie Griffin submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness
to immediately replace three rotted and leaking 6 over 6 windows in the first floor kitchen,
including jambs, interior/exterior casings and sash) and subsequently replace all 29 windows.
Windows to be Marvin Ultimate double-hung, same as 17 North Street. Fletcher Hall,
contractor, was present. A window sample was provided.
Ms. Bellin asked if the Commission approved this window in the past.
Ms. Guy stated that she would have to check the file for 17 North Street.
Mr. Larrabee stated that for the 3 windows on the first floor, they would like to replace
immediately because they are leaking and then follow with the remaining windows on the house
dependent upon contractor availability.
Ms. Bellin asked if they will all be 6 over 6.
Mr. Larrabee stated that there a few smaller windows that aren't.
Mr. Hall stated that they may be 3 over 3, but Marvin will duplicate whatever is there as far as
configuration.
Mr. Hart asked if the application is to replace the entire window,jambs, casing inside and out as
well as sash.
Mr. Larrabee replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Hart asked why are they leaking.
Mr. Griffin believed it was from neglect over time, but noted that they just moved in a year ago.
They are leaking from the inside in the kitchen.
Mr. Hall stated that it is probably due to window flashing.
Mr. Hart questioned why they don't just replace the flashing.
April 7, 2010, Page 3 of 7
Mr. Hall stated that air is leaky throughout the house and with energy consciousness, they would
like to replace them to save heating costs.
Mr. Hart strongly suggested repairing the remaining windows. He felt the 3 were a special case,
but the remaining 26 should be repaired and tightened up.
Mr. Larrabee stated that they have looked into the options, and that this is the way they want to
go—replacing all the windows.
Mr. Hart stated if you repair them and add an interior or exterior storm to an existing wood
window, it will get the same thermal characteristics as any brand new window, assume the new
window is installed properly.
Mr. Larrabee stated that they will also be replacing all the storms.
Mr. Hart stated that they will essentially be triple glaze with the new windows.
Mr. Hall stated that they will put a permiter band molding around the windows to match what is
there now, so essentially they should not look any different.
Mr. Hart looked at the sample and stated that there is an interior molding on the exterior. He
noted that it did not look like a putty line.
Mr. Hall stated that Marvin can provide a beveled edge and the windows will all be painted.
Ms. Guy pulled the file for 17 North Street and stated that what was approved was a Marvin
Ultimate Double Hung, 7/8"muntins with bronze spacers.
Ms. Harper stated that there are actually two different profiles in the window. She suggested
Marvin make straight angle to look like a putty line.
Mr. Larrabee stated that everyone window will be custom made and we told them we want the
windows to match exactly what is there.
Ms. Bellin asked if Mr. Hart was thinking that the storms would not be needed.
Mr. Hart stated that the more layers of glaze the better thermally.
Mr. Larrabee stated he thought storms were required because that is what is in place now.
Ms. Diozzi stated that the Commission does not have jurisdiction over storms.
Ms. Bellin stated that most houses would look better without them.
Mr. Larrabee stated that it is also a protection issue.
A pri17, 2010, Page 4 of 7
.-� Mr. Hall stated that he believed Marvin could provide a beveled edge.
Mr. Hart stated that the 3 windows were probably a later addition and would be in favor of
approving replacement of those 3 windows with a profile on the exterior muntin that matches a
putty line.
Mr. Hall believed they were 1950s Brosco sash in the kitchen, but the rest of the house are
original window.
Dorothy Hayes, 329 Essex Street stated that her concern is that the building is sort of two
different buildings together, with the applicants in the rear, and that there will wind up being two
different sets of windows on the front and back. She stated that she would want the profile to
match the profile on the front so there is not two different sets of windows.
Mr. Hart stated that he would like to see the 3 windows installed first and then having the owners
come back for approval of the remaining windows on the house. He also encouraged the owners
consider repairing the existing windows and felt the owners would probably save money.
Ms. Hayes stated that she saw a Window Woman sign on the front unit of the applicant's
building.
Ms. Guy also suggested looking the return on the windows in energy savings over the years,
versus the cost of the windows to see what is most cost effective.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the replacement of three 6 over 6 wood windows in first
floor kitchen with Marvin Ultimate Double Hung wood windows with 7/8"muntins and bronze
spacers. Exterior muntins to have custom profile to replicate the putty line on the windows of the
main house. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
17 Orne Square
Anne Busteed submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace 40' of
backyard fence in same height 5'6". The new fence will be Northeastern Colonial Privacy Cedar
Panels fencing.
Ms. Busteed stated that existing lilts backwards. She noted that not all of the fence is visible.
She will be splitting the cost of the fence with the neighbor on Endicott Street, which is not in the
district.
Mr. Hart suggested that the post cap have a little more relief(either have a taller post or drop the
fence body).
Ms. Busteed stated that the same builder put in a fence next door and that her current fence is the
same height. The posts of the new fence will match those next door.
Ms. Bellin noted that the posts next door are a couple inches above. She asked the color.
April 7, 2010, Page 5 of 7
Ms. Busteed stated that it will be weatherized as is current and which fits in with Ome Square.
Mr. Hart if there was any objection to dropping the fence or raising the posts.
Ms. Busteed stated that she had no objection.
Ms. Guy suggested matching the post and fence height of the neighbor fence, but in the different
style.
Mr. Hart suggested a differential of between 4 and 6"between the top of the cap an the top of the
fence rail.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve 40' of backyard fence replaced with Northeastern Cedar
Privacy Panels Colonial style (as shown in brochure). Top of the fence post to be 4-6"higher
than the rail of the main body of the fence. Top of rail to be 5 %2' above grade. Color to be left
natural. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
316 Essex Street
First Church of Salem submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint
colors of wood window sash, trim and entry doors of the Church and Parish House addition.
Colors were chosen based on paint analysis performed by Finch&Rose. The analysis could not
determine the original color of the church entry doors (main and 2 side doors), so the selection
was based on historic precedent and harmonization with the paint scheme. Church sash and trim
to be California Paints Mansard Stone #8635D, Parish House sash and trim to be California
Paints Moose Point#8715D, church entry doors to be C2 Paint Spanish Tile C2-1336A and
Parish House stucco to be C2 Paint Shitake C2-7146P. Report and color scans were provided.
Lynne Spencer(Menders, Torrey& Spencer, Inc.) and Lynn Taggert were present(First
Church).
Ms. Spencer stated that the Church has received an MPPF grant. The paint colors selected would
also be used in future treatments. She stated that the original church has a sanded paint for a
least two layers before using regular paint. Sanded paint was used to make wood look stone-like.
They have determined the original color of the Parish House. The have been unable to find the
original color for the church doors, so they have proposed an appropriate store color. They will
repair the stucco, but due to budget, will not do much more to the stucco. It is quite dirty and
discolored. In the future when they do the addition, the Church has been advised to think about
applying a protective coating for both the original structure and the addition to unify them using
a paint coating of Keim Soldalit system to match the two. She withdrew the Shitake.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the application for painting as submitted, with stucco to be
Keim color in the future (not Shitake). Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the
motion so carried.
April 7, 2010, Page 6 of 7
Also submitted was an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to expand the 1927 Parish
House block with a 24' x 24' addition to create universal access and egress. The addition
includes a new entrance and elevator bay at the south elevation and an egress door at the north
elevation. Original entry and lancet window at the south elevation and two small windows at the
east elevation to be removed. Large arched staircase window at the east elevation to be reused in
the staircase of the addition. 1987 stained glass window over door to be relocated within the
addition. Fire escapes to be removed from the north elevation and second floor exterior doors to
be replaced with windows to match existing windows. New window trim will match existing
parish House trim. New sash will be custom-made SDL, wood windows with muntins matching
width of existing muntins at Parish House. New entry doors will be painted wood with glazing.
Drawings were provided.
Ms. Spencer stated that the church was built in 1836 as a meeting house. In 1927 an addition
was built as well as an expansion below the sanctuary to create Willson Hall. The addition
included classroom and offices. Willson Hall has had problems with flooding issues. The
church has wrestled with accessibility, egress and energy sustainability. Her firm has
recommended an addition to the 1927 building which would include an elevator and new
staircase. It would reference some of the features of the existing. They will recycle some
existing windows into the new addition. The addition would go into the existing garden space.
There would be two at-grade entrances as well as an elevator with 4 stops. The 1927 staircase
would be removed, floored over and become an office and a new staircase added in a different
location. The new addition will have the main entrance which is meant to draw you to it.
Rondell windows will stay in place. There is no change to the windows on existing 1927 rear
elevation. Presently staircases and fire escapes exist for classrooms. The fire escapes will be
removed, and an interior staircase added for second egress. Material for the new addition will be
true stucco, covered with Keim to unify it with the existing. The base of the building is to have
granite veneer on portions of the original building and new addition. They have not selected the
type of windows yet. Some windows on back are clad with metal, but they are not talking of
changing them at this point. The garden would become accessible via a graded walkway. They
would like the approval certificate issued for 2, rather than 1 year.
Mr. Hart stated that he was reluctant to approve the application without seeing elevation
drawings.
Ms. Hayes suggested some type of window or something to the right of new main entry of the
addition.
Mr. Hart suggested considering having an imbalanced arrangement on the addition, similar to
one of the facades of the existing. He also suggested adding something more above the new
entrance at the roof. He stated that conceptually the design works, but could benefit from a little
playfulness to give homage to some of the earlier architecture. He noted that it is a fairly
substantial addition to a fairly substantial building. He stated that he was not sure about bringing
the granite around to the new addition.
Ms. Harper stated that she thought that extending the granite works really well.
April 7, 2010, Page 7 of 7
Ms. Spencer stated that they will need an architectural access board variance for the front
entrance, balcony and pulpit.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to the May 5ch meeting. Ms. Harper
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
A. 30 Warren Street—Request for Extension
Ms. Guy stated that the Conservatory Condominium submitted an email request to extend
their Certificate of Appropriateness dated April 16, 2009 for clapboard
repair/replacement and painting.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to extend to the certificate until October 30, 2010. Mr. Hart
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
B. Minutes
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of March 24, 2010. Ms. Harper
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
C. Solar Panels
Ms. Guy distributed various information on solar panels and suggested that Commission
members review the information in order to eventually add a section to the Commission
guidelines regarding minimum standards. She suggested that members highlight things
that they would like to see in the guidelines.
There being no further business, Ms. Bellin made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Harper seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
RespecIthemmission--
itted,
Jane A.
Clerk o
April 21, 2010, Page 1 of 3
` SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
APRIL 21, 2010
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, April 7, 2010 at 120
Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Herbert and Ms.
MsCrea.
78 Washington S uare
Amanda Flood and Michael Kochansky submitted an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to install 1"PVC piping on the left side freeze board, attached flush to the
house along the side downspout, extending vertically to the second floor left side elevation and
entering unit at kitchen. The purpose is to accommodate needed power from the basement
circuit breaker to the kitchen to install a 30"dishwasher.
Mr. Kochansky stated that there is a central vacuum exhaust at the corner below the hedge that
cannot be seen. The new pipe will come out on the corner and run horizontally to the downspout
and vertically along downspout up to the kitchen. The way basement is designed (where the
circuit breakers are located) and where kitchen is set, which are on either end of the building,
there is no way to snake it internally.
Madeline Saunders, 54 Essex Street stated that they have had water problems in basement and
came to find out if the homeowner's problem was related to water.
Ms. Herbert stated that the pipe is for electrical, not water.
Ms. Flood stated it could be 1"PVC or could be steel.
Ms. Diozzi stated that it would need to be painted what it runs over.
Ms. Herbert stated that it would be the house color.
Ms. Diozzi asked if the condo association on board.
Mr. Kochansky replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Herbert noted that it would be invisible behind hedges till it rises up the side of the house.
Ms. Herbert made a move to approve the application as submitted in PVC or metal,painted to
match house and secured to the building to make it as minimally noticeable as possible and
penetrating the surface at the second floor so there is no need to go horizontally, if possible. Ms.
Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
April 21, 2010, Page 2 of 3
Other Business
A. 320 Lafayette Street—Comment on telecommunications installation
Ms. Guy stated that EBI Consultants submitted a request for comments under Section
106. She stated that the Commission has reviewed a telecommunications installation at
this site in the past. This time it is Clearwire. Last time it was MetroPCS.
Ms. Herbert questioned if the work previously done was completed as they showed us.
She stated it is not finished nicely. She stated that it is horrendous already and looks just
awful. She felt the Commission should review the previous work the Commission
approved.
Ms. Guy noted that the Commission cannot approve, only comment and send those
comments to Massachusetts Historical Commission.
Ms. Herbert stated that the huge things on the ends of the buildings were supposed to be
all finished flush and disappear. She stated that it looks like they are not finished.
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission's comment letter stated painted, but there is no
mention about being flush.
Ms. Herbert stated that what is up there now is detrimental to the look of the building and
appears to be not what they had proposed. They are painted, but are much more
obtrusive than we were lead to believe. She stated that she would like to take photo.
Ms. Guy suggested that the Commission delegate Ms. Herbert, who can take a photo and
stop by the Department of Planning & Community Development to look at the prior plan.
She noted that it is a different company submitting, so we cannot change what the prior
company did. She stated that even if the Commission finds that it was not done as
proposed, the comment can be to MHC that it was not done as proposed and then provide
separate comments for this proposed installation.
Ms. Herbert stated that it looks very unprofessional.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to delegate review and comment to Ms. Herbert. Ms. McCrea
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
B. Correspondence
a. Ms. Guy stated that the Building Department issued a Stop Work Order for S Botts
Court. She noted that the owner's brother came in to get an application for a
Certificate of Non-Applicability, but has not returned it as yet.
b. Ms. Guy stated that she issued another letter of support for the Salem Jail Complex
Massachusetts Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit Application
April 21, 2010, Page 3 of 3
c. Ms. Guy stated that she e-mailed a project description for the Essex Heritage Scenic
Byway and asked if Commission members had any comments. Ms. Bellin stated that
she read the information but did not have any comments. Ms. Guy stated that she felt
there was really nothing to comment on until a draft plan is prepared or a signage
proposal is submitted.
There being no further business, Ms. Bellin made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Ms. McCrea
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
RespectJGu
i ed,
Jane A.Clerk ofmission
May 5, 2010, Page 1 of 6
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
MAY 5, 2010
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, May 5, 2010 at 120
Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper and Ms.
Bellin. Ms. McCrea arrived later in the meeting.
330 Essex Street
Kent Glenzer and Catherine Toth submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to
replace existing house numbers with new metal house numbers, which are slightly larger and
more visible than the current, to be located either in the existing location or from top to bottom
below the door knocker.
Ms. Herbert asked if the door knocker is brass.
Ms. Toth replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Bellin stated that as a design issue, she felt things are harder to read in the vertical.
Ms. Toth stated that the new numbers' height is V higher than the prior numbers.
Ms. Herbert asked if there was any reason why they don't like the old numbers.
Ms. Toth replied that she felt they were 1960s numbers and nothing special.
Ms. Herbert stated that she felt they had the look of old English scroll. She stated that the house
has a nice antique brass knocker and the brass numbers and she questioned why they want to go
to commercial numbers.
Ms. McCrea joined the meeting at this time
Ms. Diozzi stated that she had no problem with the larger size of the numbers.
Ms. Herbert stated that she would vote against, only because she felt the existing could be shined
up and would look outstanding. She stated that if the owners wanted the numbers more
pronounced, they could set them on a little block.
Ms. Bellin stated that she felt it was kind of an aesthetic thing.
Ms. Herbert stated that existing numbers are not longer available and that one would have to go
to Restoration Hardware.
Ms. Bellin asked how strong the owners felt about the new numbers.
May 5, 2010, Page 2 of 6
-_ Ms. Toth replied that they did not feel that strong at all, that she bought them before they realized
they were in an historic district and that she thought they were 1960s numbers, but is delighted to
learn that that is not the truth.
Ms. Herbert stated that the numbers also go well with the leaded glass windows.
Ms. Toth withdrew the application.
31 Chestnut Street
William and Laura Wrightson submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to
permanently remove a small fence section along the back of the property.
Ms. Diozzi read a letter from Carl &Alice Wathne in support of the application.
John Reardon, 35 Chestnut Street stated that one can see a lot of the existing fences around
Salem and that a wood fence with extended pickets above is common.
Ms. Bellin asked if they were planning to replace the fence.
Mr. Wrightson replied that they might be back with something.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
396 Essex Street
Ms. Bellin stated that she is a resident of the property, abstained from voting and sat in the
audience.
Garrey House Condo submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the
roof using architectural shingles, install roof vents, and repair or replace gutters. Sue Benedict
was present representing the condo. Robert Laughlin, Laughlin Homes, Inc. was also present.
Ms. Benedict stated that they won't be doing architectural shingle.
Mr. Laughlin stated that they will be using a standard 3-tab, 25 year shingle. He noted that a
ridge vent cannot be used because it is hip roof. They are proposing one louver on the back of
the hip roof and one each on the back of the left and right side dormers, so that they will not be
visible from the street.
Ms. Herbert stated that she did not believe they will be visible.
Mr. Laughlin stated that the vents will be low profile, 1' x 1' square, PVC vinyl, which come in
black, and probably projects off the roof 3 %2 to 4". He noted that the gutters are in really good
May 5, 2010, Page 3 of 6
shape and do not need to be replaced. They will clean, linseed oil and do a little flashing. If they
have to replace anything, it would be small section spliced in.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-applicability the replacement of a S-
tab, black asphalt roof in kind and to undertake repair and maintenance to wood gutters in kind..
The motion is also to install 3 low profile, 1'xl' black PVC roof vents in locations as noted in
drawing, conditional that they are non-visible from the public way. Ms. McCrea seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin rejoined the board.
61 R Summer Street
Susan Colford submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors, to
repair/replace all cracked and rotted window trim, fascia, corner boards and rake boards. Repairs
include: replace 6 window frame trim sections, replace 50' of pine corner trim, replace 6' wood
gutter and related trim, replace 2 rotted windows sills on awning windows and replace 3 sections
of brick molding on window trim on awning windows and replace left hand side of rear door
frame molding. Body color will be Rocky Hill, and trim will be Asian Jute.
Ms. Colford stated that she wanted to change the trim color to Jewett White. The front door will
be left natural. She stated that she would like to make side door disappear by painting it the
house color, including the door trim.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve Rocky Hill for the body and Jewett White for the trim with
the side door and doorframe to be Rocky Hill. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in
favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-applicability for all the repairs. Ms.
Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
119 Federal St.
Fred and Linda Lipton submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install 6'
high maximum wood fence to be located form the rear of the house to the rear of the property as
noted on the plot plan provided. Fence to be painted gray to match existing fence. The
application is also to add a 4' x 8' panel at the end of the driveway to match the existing fence
and separate the patio from the driveway.
Mr. Lipton stated that last year the Commission approved a fence.
Ms. Lipton stated that she loved the fence originally approved by the Commission, however,
when they asked Helen Sides to look at it, Ms. Sides suggested something with more light
between the two yards to maximize light and air. She also suggested two arbors so it will appear
to be one property separated into little gardens.
May 5, 2010, Page 4 of 6
—. Mr. Lipton stated that it will still be a balustrade fence of the same height but it will have the top
be 18" instead of 12"on the top.
Ms. Lipton stated that it was suggested to reduced the size of the posts.
Mr. Lipton stated that the fence across (B)would turn into diagonal oversized lattice.
Ms. Herbert asked if it will be flatboard below.
Mr. Lipton replied in the affirmative and stated that it will be 4' of flatboard and 2' of lattice.
The lattice will be cedar and the other boards are to be pressure treated.
Ms. Lipton stated that the original decision was to paint both fences the same grey of the current
fence, but noted that they may want to paint Fence B a more garden green color such as Van
Courtland Blue. They would like the option for fence B.
Ms. Diozzi read a letter from Mary Whitney and Nick Nowak encouraging fencing that will not
alter the micro-climate by blocking air and light flow.
Ms. Herbert asked if they preferred a blue gray versus a green gray. She suggested giving some
greener options as well.
Ms. Lipton suggested Woodlawn Juniper, Caf6 Blue, Jekyll Sans Soucie Green and/or La Fonda
Villa Fountain.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the installation of Fence A(as noted on plan) as
previously approved but making the balustrade top 18" instead of 12". Posts to be approximately
5" instead of 8" with corners and ends to be 6" square, with one arbor centered between
location of Fence B and rear lot line. Fence to be painted same gray as existing fencing. The
motion is also for the installation of Fence B (as noted on plan) to be 6' tall (4' wide lattice of 4"
diamonds on top and 2' of flatboard siding underneath) with arbor as shown in drawing and
located as per plan, or centered in the length of fence. Fence to be painted either Van Courtland
Blue, Woodlawn Juniper, Cafe Blue, Jekyll Sans Soucie Green or La Fonda Villa Fountain.
Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Lipton stated that, for privacy,they would like to add a temporary panel during the summer
by adding two holes in the ground to create a patio. It would be located to hide the bench at rear
of the driveway and be the same height or slightly shorter than the side fence. It will be flat
board, capped, with the same grey with white trim.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve a temporary, removable 8' wide fencing panel to match
side panel along driveway,to be same height or a few inches shorter and in same colors to be
located at end of driveway in front of bench to create patio space. Ms. McCrea seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
May 5, 2010, Page 5 of 6
Ms. Herbert suggested they consider having the panel sit on wheels with non-visible arms to
keep it from going backwards and forwards. She suggested that they also have two separate
panels with wing bolts.
Ms. Bellin amended her motion to include the option for two 4' panels connected with wingbolts
and to have wheels. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so
carried.
386 Essex Street
386 Essex Street Realty Trust submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to
remove 80' of existing steel/iron fence and replace with 6' high flatboard 1 x 6 cedar fence with
Brosco fence cap#8276 and to repair iron fence to tie into the new fence on the west side of the
property. David Clarke represented the applicant.
Ms. Bellin stated that she received an abutter notice and would need to abstain from voting.
Ms. McCrea stated that she is a tenant and would need to abstain from voting.
Without a quorum the application will be placed on the next agenda.
316 Essex Street
In continuation of a prior meeting, First Church of Salem submitted an application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness to expand the 1927 Parish House block with a 24' x 24' addition
to create universal access and egress. The addition includes a new entrance and elevator bay at
the south elevation and an egress door at the north elevation. Original entry and lancet window
at the south elevation and two small windows at the east elevation to be removed. Large arched
staircase window at the east elevation to be reused in the staircase of the addition. 1987 stained
glass window over door to be relocated within the addition. Fire escapes to be removed from the
north elevation and second floor exterior doors to be replaced with windows to match existing
windows. New window trim will match existing parish House trim. New sash will be custom-
made SDL, wood windows with muntins matching width of existing muntins at Parish House.
New entry doors will be painted wood with glazing. Stucco cladding for the existing Parish
House and addition will be cleaned and coated to match C2 Paint"Shitake"#C2-7146P.
Drawings were provided.
Ms. Guy stated that she received an e-mail requesting a continuance to the meeting of May 19th
Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to the May 19th meeting. Ms. Harper
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
A. Telecommunications at 320 Lafayette street.
May 5, 2010, Page 6 of 6
Ms. Herbert stated that without a simulation photo it is difficult to comment. She stated
that the prior installation by MetroPCS was not installed as per the photo simulation
submitted—it is not flush, it is raised and there are visible brackets. She stated that she is
concerned about additional clutter on this one particular building. Ms. Guy will draft a
letter to send to EBI Consulting with these comments.
B. Minutes
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of March 3, 2010. Ms. Herbert
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of April 21, 2010. Ms. Herbert
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
C. 35 Washington Square
Ms. Guy stated that she received an anonymous complaint regarding brickwork done,
with mortar too thick. She noted that the Commission did not have a Certificate on file
and that she asked the Building Inspector to go by, who stated that the painters were
prepping wood for new paint and that he would have the painters have the building owner
contact me. She suggested that the Commission members go by the property.
D. Spring Pond
Ms. Guy stated that she has received 66 emails (4 from Salem, 1 from Peabody, 1 from
Marblehead, 8 from Lynn and 53 from out of state) regarding the Walmart/Lowes project
near Spring Pond. All but 2 of the letters read the same and she read one into the record..
She noted that the Commission does not have jurisdiction for this project.
There being no further business, Ms.Bellin made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Herbert seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfull i ed,
Jane A. GlCission
Clerk of t
May 19, 2010, Page 1 of 9
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
MAY 19, 2010
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 at 120
Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Mr. Hart, Ms. McCrea,
Mr. Desrocher and Ms. Bellin.
Ms. Herbert chaired the meeting.
386 Essex Street
386 Essex Street Realty Trust submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to
remove 80' of existing steel/iron fence and replace with 6' high flatboard 1 x 6 cedar fence with
Brosco fence cap #8276 and to repair iron fence to tie into the new fence on the west side of the
property. David Clarke represented the applicant.
Ms. Bellin stated that she received an abutter notice and would need to abstain from voting.
Ms. McCrea stated that she is a tenant and would need to abstain from voting.
Mr. Clarke stated that he will extend the fence to the rear of the porch as shown on the plot plan,
noting that there is a patio that he would like the tenants to be able to use without having to look
at the neighbor's trash. He stated that he is willing to go with a 5' high fence, instead of 6', in
order to tie it into the same height of the existing fence.
Mr. Hart stated that he preferred 5'. He asked if the existing fence will be repaired.
Mr. Clarke stated that he will savage pieces from the existing rear fence to repair the front fence.
Mr. Desrocher made a motion to approve removing 80' of existing steel/iron fence and replacing
with 5' high flatboard 1 x 6 cedar fence with Brosco fence cap#8276 &pressure treated posts,
extending fence to rear of porch as shown on plot plan. Fence to be left natural in color. The
motion is also to repair the front iron fence to tie into the new fence on the west side of the
property, salvaging pieces of the rear fence to repair front fence.. Ms. Harper seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin& Ms. McCrea rejoined the meeting.
105 & 105F Derby Street
Emily Swilling presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors and
to replace missing shutters and those in poor condition in kind. The body will be C2-416
Lumen, the trim will be Windham Cream,the shutters will be Stuart Gold and the door will be
C2-245 Newport. Also submitted was an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to stain
the fence in brown, such as Sandalwood, Rich Maple, Hazelnut or Pacific Dogwood.
May 19, 2010, Page 2 of 9
Ms. Harper made a motion to approve the application as submitted, with the option for any of the
four stain colors for the fence. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the
motion so carried.
91-93 Federal Street
Ms. Guy stated that the address was noticed erroneously and that the application was for Non-
applicability for in kind repainting, which has been issued. No action is required.
10 Andover Street
Eric Couture presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a new
stockade fence to the back left of the lot, replacing an existing green picket side lot line fence.
Ms. Bellin asked the height of the new fence.
Mr. Couture stated that it will be 6' high, but that the land rolls down so it will appear 4 %2 to 5'
high at eye level. He stated that the are just replacing the green fence, approximately 35'. The
fence will be left natural cedar or spruce stockade. He stated that he was willing to paint it.
Ms. Bellin asked what is the rest of the fencing around the property.
Mr. Couture replied that it is the same idea, that there is three different styles across the back
belonging to neighbors, one is a flatboard and one is picket- all are left natural.
Mr. Desrocher asked what type of fence comes after it.
Mr. Couture stated that it is flatboard, but only 3' high. He stated that from the corner of the
deck to the corner of the house, there is already a stockade, so it will be a continuation of the
stockade. He stated that there is very little visibility from the street and is only visible from the
Lynn Street driveway of the neighbor's house, about a driveway width of 6-8'. He stated that
there is stockade around their yard that goes halfway up the house from the deck to the curb,
because their driveway abuts his house. There is no fencing down the side of the house.
Mr. Desrocher asked the condition of the existing stockade.
Mr. Couture stated that it is in good shape.
Ms. Herbert asked how long is has been there.
Mr. Couture replied that it was put in by the prior owners, approximately 12-15 years ago.
Mr. Desrocher stated that he was wondering Mr. Couture's thought on a flatboard fence, which is
a nicer fence aesthetically.
May 19, 2010, Page 3 of 9
Mr. Couture stated that he will be continuing the existing stockade of the neighbor from the
neighbor's corner to the back of his lot.
Ms. Herbert stated that the neighbor's stockade appears to be hidden by both of the houses.
Ms. Guy asked if the proposed stockade was the same as the neighbor's.
Mr. Couture replied in the affirmative. He stated that the most that will be seen is 6-10',
depending on the angle.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
316 Essex Street
In continuation of a prior meeting, First Church of Salem submitted an application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness to expand the 1927 Parish House block with a 24' x 24' addition
to create universal access and egress. The addition includes a new entrance and elevator bay at
the south elevation and an egress door at the north elevation. Original entry and lancet window
at the south elevation and two small windows at the east elevation to be removed. Large arched
staircase window at the east elevation to be reused in the staircase of the addition. 1987 stained
glass window over door to be relocated within the addition. Fire escapes to be removed from the
north elevation and second floor exterior doors to be replaced with windows to match existing
windows. New window trim will match existing parish House trim. New sash will be custom-
made SDL, wood windows with muntins matching width of existing muntins at Parish House.
New entry doors will be painted wood with glazing. Stucco cladding for the existing Parish
House and addition will be cleaned and coated to match C2 Paint"Shitake"#C2-7146P.
Drawings were provided. Present was Patrick Guthrie, architect with Menders, Torrey &
Spencer, Inc, as well as Helen Sides.
Mr. Guthrie stated that based on discussion from last meeting, there were three substantial
comments. As a result, he looked at the roof form over the projecting bay which is going to
house the minister's office and also indicate the public entrance to the building. The previously
presented hipped slate roof was tucked low to give more prominence to the vertical forms on
either side. The Commission's suggestion was to rise up that piece to be its own geometric form,
so now they have brought that up to bring it into alignment with the other rooftop feature, which
is the elevator penthouse. The other minor change is bringing in the horizontal line across for
continuity. He noted that the addition is well recessed and is visually somewhat screened,
particularly in summer, and will not compete with the adjacent historic houses. He stated that
there had been a question of fenestration at the stairway and they looked at balance of massing,
and felt if they start penetrating addition side, it will be a little busy and will compete with
entryway, so they have kept it as proposed. He stated that, in addition, the new additional steps
into the historic garden, so that the fagade will be a canvas for living objects that will populate
the garden. For the garden elevation,he stated that there is no precedent on the building to
punctuate it more. It will provide a backdrop for the garden and will also be a canvas for the
garden.
May 19, 2010, Page 4 of 9
Mr. Hart stated that for the south facing fagade, he felt the entry was emphasized better and liked
it. He stated that he was still a little bothered by the east fagade,noting that it is just kind of
sitting there, while the existing fagade has a certain amount of playfulness that does not carry
through to the new fagade.
Ms. Bellin the garden view of all facades, with all the windows in row, shows an interesting
progression of classic peaked windows.
Ms. Sides stated that they went through a lot of discussions on windows. She noted that
whichever way they tried to place windows on the addition, it turned the round windows into a
joke. She stated that the proposed gives them respect and keeps it as minimal, in terms of
addition, as possible.
Ms. Herbert stated that, if kept plain, they could do some trellising or plant an upright, such as
blue atlas cedar. She stated that the proposed leaves that ability to create an entrance into the
garden area.
Mr. Hart asked if they considered making the window larger on the east elevation.
Mr. Guthrie stated that they went through a couple of scenarios.
Mr. Hart stated that they might want to consider making the two windows the same width and
bring them either closer or farther away.
Ms. Sides suggested a narrow panel between the two.
Mr. Guthrie stated that maybe they could use the stucco to describe it, so it reads as a unit,
without actually having to alter the old window.
Ms. Herbert asked if the width of the window over entrance doors is the same as doors.
Mr. Guthrie replied that the window is a little wider. He noted it is office space and they want it
as open as possible and welcoming.
Ms. Herbert stated that she felt the front relates very well to east side.
Dorothy Hayes, 329 Essex Street, stated that the east elevation to the right of the entrance looks
unfinished from the front. She stated that, whether symmetrical or asymmetrical placement, it
would be nice to have a window to provide additional light to the staircase.
Ms. Herbert noted that the building is actually curved into the garden area, so it cannot really be
balanced on a flat plane.
Ms. Sides stated that putting something there belittles the quatrefoils and that they also don't
want to add too much gothic.
May 19, 2010, Page 5 of 9
Mr. Hart stated that he would like to continue studying the two windows on the garden elevation.
Ms. Herbert asked if they were willing to have the windows be the same width.
Ms. Sides replied that they would absolutely.
Mr. Guthrie suggested a stucco effect with recess in between.
Mr. Hart suggested considering increasing the height of lower window as well.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve as submitted with exception that the east elevation windows
and stucco treatment shall be subject to further discussion with the applicant and approval is
delegated to Commissioner Hart. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the
motion so carried.
Derby Street Historic District-National Grid Cable Replacement Project Presentation
Representatives from National Grid were present to provide preliminary information on the
proposed cable replacement project which will, at a minimum, include the Derby Street Historic
District. Present were John Roughan, National Grid Project Manager; Marc Bergeron, Project
Manager for environmental permitting with Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. (VHB); Rita Walsh,
Senior Preservation Planner with VHB and Joseph Kerry,National Grid's expert in underground
cable.
Ms. Bellin stated that she works for the Department of Public Utilities and abstained from the
discussion.
Mr. Roughan stated that Nation Grid will be removing and replacing electric transmission
underground cables beneath select streets in Salem. They are in a very preliminary stage of the
project. They have met with the Mayor, City Council, City Engineer, Chamber of Commerce
and a few neighborhood associations. On 5/20/10 at the Salem Waterfront Hotel at Pickering
Wharf,they will have their first open house from 6-8pm.
Ms. Herbert asked the timeframe for the project.
Mr. Roughan stated that it depends on permitting, and could be a 2 year process.
Ms. Herbert confirmed that they are replacing existing only and that whatever is above ground
will be staying above ground.
Mr. Roughan replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Kerry stated that they have two underground transmission cables from Salem Harbor coming
down Derby Street. One goes up Lafayette and one goes up to Canal Street. Both terminate at
the Canal Street terminal. One was installed in 1951 and other in 1972. He provided a sample of
May 19, 2010, Page 6 of 9
the S-145 cable (similar to 1951 cable) which uses dielectric fluid similar to mineral oil, as well
as a sample of a more modern cable that does not use fluid. He noted that both cables in Salem
are aging and that their life is typically 40 years. He added that the cables are also approaching
maximum electrical capacity and that there is a potential that the cable can become overloaded.
The cables are being replaced for capacity requirements and for age. He stated that these circuits
are critical to the supply of the City of Salem as well as to the North Shore. They will have to
build a new circuit and tie it in before disconnect the existing. They do not want to abandon the
fluid filled cable in the ground. As part of the process, the first question is where does the first
cable go. He stated that they are required by statute to look at all possible solutions and noted
that they are not going to put live overhead down Derby Street. They will install twice as many
cables—currently 3 cables, increasing to 6 cables. A map was provided showing the existing
routes of the two cables as a red line and yellow line.
Ms. Herbert asked if the 1951 & 1972 cables are in different locations.
Mr. Kerry stated that they are located one on each side of Derby Street.
Ms. Herbert asked if they will have to dig up both sides Derby Street.
Mr. Kerry stated that they will have to dig up the 1972 cable. He noted that for the 1951 cables
which are through conduit,they can go into manholes, cut them and pull them out.
Ms. Herbert stated that they will dig up the side of the street with the 1972 cables.
Mr. Kerry replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Hart stated that it does not appear that the Salem Harbor generating station will go away any
time soon.
Mr. Kerry stated that it is irrelevant whether the power plant is there or not, noting that these
cables are more critical to Salem if the power plant is not there.
Mr. Hart asked how the project will potentially effect historic properties.
Mr. Kerry stated that the route has not yet been determined. They will have to install the first
cable before they can remove existing cable. They need to determine if there is physical room in
the city streets for installation.
Mr. Bergeron stated that the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities permit requires at least
two potential routes. He noted that the route shown by the red line must be done. He stated that
the City of Salem Department of Public Works does not want installation on Bridge Street. He
added that they are collecting information on businesses and historic attractions to take into
consideration and are ranking and scoring as well as working with engineering and
environmental factors to select a route that works best for all factors. He stated that they are
looking to get feedback.
May 19, 2010, Page 7 of 9
Ms. Harper asked if all the work runs under city streets.
Mr. Bergeron stated that the whole project will be within the street right of way. He noted that
the major impacts will be during construction.
Ms. Herbert stated that if the new cable is run through a conduit, sections can be replaced in the
future without having to dig up street again.
Mr. Kerry replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Harper asked the size of the conduit.
Mr. Kerry stated that there are a couple different designs. With one type, they would put in six
6" conduits and a couple smaller conduits for fiber optic cable, along with bonding wire. With
the other type, which is high pressure gas filled cable, it uses a 8" steel conduit with nitrogen as
part of the insulating system. The benefit of high pressure gas is that it takes up less space in the
street, has a smaller envelope, but is a little more expensive. He stated that they will need to
weigh construction benefits versus cost benefits.
Mr. Bergeron stated that the rate payers ultimately end up paying for the project, so it needs to be
designed with the most efficient cost, most reliable system and least environmental impact, with
all factors being balanced. They expect to file an environmental notification with MEPA and
also a Project Notification Form(PNF) with MHC. They will file with the Conservation
Commission and possibly a Chapter 91 modification and/or Section 10 application with Army
Corps. They are on target to file in September and it usually takes 18 months to get through
process. They are looking at potential overhead routes (which is a longer way around, yet easiest
circuit to create, but with more impact to environment) and the structures would be quite large
and they would have to obtain new rights. They have looked into submarine cable in the harbor
but feedback from the Harbormaster indicates that it could cut the marina in half, take out a
bunch of moorings and effect eel grass beds and federal,navigation channels. The feedback from
the city is they would rather us not be there.
Mr. Kerry stated that even if it was a preferred option, it as permitting challenges, including a
Chapter 91 license which requires that there be no other alternative.
Mr. Roughan stated that the submarine route would still be very disruptive on the roadways.
Mr. Bergeron stated that there would still be a 1 1/2 mile of street construction. They are working
to characterize the historic resources and archeological resources on all the different options.
They want to get an understanding of what is out there and the other issues they might want to
consider. He stated that they want to work with the Commission to get its input. They are
hoping to get the shortest route without making lots of turns.
Mr. Roughan stated that once they start narrowing down the preferred and alternative routes they
are considering, they can send the Commission the graphics that show those routes.
May 19, 2010, Page S of 9
Mr. Hart asked if the PNF submission would identify potential adverse effects to historic
properties.
Mr. Bergeron replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Hart asked if it would suggest what do to mitigate any adverse effects.
Mr. Bergeron replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Hart stated that it should look at activities during construction that might impact historic
structures, such as vibration and excavation induced movement.
Ms. Herbert stated she felt the vibration would be minimal because this is an area that has been
dug up again and again. She stated that homeowners will be concerned with rodent activity as a
result of the streets being dug up, especially being so near water.
Mr. Hart asked if construction would create any problem with the water table.
Mr. Kerry stated that they have not seen it in the past.
Ms. Herbert stated that they also need to take into consideration the peak tourist time in October.
Other Business
A. Minutes
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of May 5, 2010. Ms. McCrea seconded
the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
B. Correspondence
Ms. Guy stated that she received a letter from Brona Simon of Massachusetts Historical
Commission to the City of Peabody for the Peabody Square Flood Mitigation Area
Project regarding the Notice of Project Change.
C. 35 Washington Square
Ms. Guy stated that she reported at the last meeting that she received an anonymous
complaint regarding brickwork done, with mortar too thick. She noted that the
Commission did not have a Certificate on file and that she asked the Building Inspector
to go by, who stated that the painters were prepping wood for new paint and that he
would have the painters have the building owner contact me. She stated that she has not
received contact and at the last meeting had suggested that the Commission members go
by the property. She asked if anyone had an opportunity to go by the site. Mr. Hart
stated he will go by.
May 19, 2010, Page 9 of 9
D. Spring Pond
Ms. Guy stated that she has received an additional 12 emails (1 from Salem, 2 from
Peabody, 2 from Lynn and 7 from out of state)regarding the Walmart/Lowes project near
Spring Pond.
There being no further business, Ms. McCrea made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Bellin seconded
the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respec4theommission
e ,
Jane A.
Clerk o
June 2, 2010, Page 1 of 6
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
JUNE 2, 2010
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, June 2, 2010 at 120
Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Mr. Hart,
Ms. McCrea and Ms. Bellin.
31 Warren Street
Matthew Murphy and Sarah Morrill submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness
to construct a one-story, wood, glass enclosed, 4 season porch addition of the rear of the house
with all materials,profiles, details to match existing porticos. Materials include columns,
entablature, frieze and paneling below windows. Winds and doors to be wood, true divided
lights (JB Sash, Simpson door). Cooper roof with low slope, white aluminum gutter and wood
beadboard ceiling at entry with fir decking. All parts to be painted white. Hardware to match
existing. New copper snow fence at existing edge line. Present was Dan Ricciarelli, designer.
Drawings and photographs were provided.
Mr. Murphy stated they moved to Salem in 1999 and purchased the house from the Stephen
Phillips Trust. The house was designed by Wayne Rantoul, which are 3 semi-detached English
style row houses. The unit had a deck on the back when they purchased it, but it was already in
decay from the day they bought it. They have tried to keep it up, but it is almost unusable now.
He stated that the house is townhouse, so there is not as much utility on the first floor as they
would like and that a mud room would take some stuff out of the kitchen. He stated that the
proposed design would complement the existing structure and is in keeping with surrounding
structures with similar additions. They tried to be similar to the Smith's on Pickering Street. He
noted that they don't want it too big, which would encroach on their neighbors and plan to stay
pretty much within the existing footprint of the existing deck, although they will be using some
of the existing walkway for the new stairs.
Mr. Ricciarelli stated that they had survey done and that the surveyor gave them an envelope to
build within. They looked at the existing porticos which are very important features of the
house. The new design will incorporate entablature, frieze and Tuscan columns within the new
structure. They will remove the new canopy. They will wrap the column and cornice around.
The columns will be brought down to the ground and there will be false panels that lift up for
storage. They will use Brosco true divided light windows. The columns will be cut into almost
semicircles. The nice brick belt coursing will help tie everything together. They will also add a
copper, 3 rail snow fence. They will be using white aluminum gutter on the new porch. He
noted that they could use copper, but it would not be same color.
Mr. Hart asked if there will be a hand railing
Mr. Ricciarelli replied that there is a handrail on one side and the other side they will wrap the
stairs around and avoid a rail so there are risers in two directions and so they can walk off onto
Flint Street.
June 2, 2010, Page 2 of 6
Ms. Herbert asked if the porch will be heated.
Mr. Ricciarelli replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Murphy stated that the neighbors were supportive of the application.
Mr. Hart noted that they are using single glaze glass and asked if they will be using storms.
Mr. Ricciarelli stated that they would have to come back if they decide to go with double glaze
windows.
Mr. Murphy stated that, financially, they will stick with what is proposed and check with the
builder for the overall cost, before applying for double glaze.
Ms. Herbert asked the proposed construction start.
Mr. Murphy stated that they will start as soon as possible.
Ms. Bellin asked if the snow guard is only on his side of the condo.
Mr. Murphy replied in the affirmative and stated that he has told the other owners that it is not
that expensive and he suggests they also install one.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the application as submitted.
Ms. Herbert asked the detail on the handrail.
Mr. Ricciarelli stated that it will match the existing handrail.
Mr. Hart amended his motion to include that the handrail match the handrail on the east
elevation. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
91 & 93 Federal Street
Arlander Realty Trust, Jean Colby Arlander, Trustee, submitted an application for a Certificate
of Appropriateness to replace the second floor window over the front side-entrance door with a
double hung 12 over 12 window(the existing is 2 over 2, 34"w by 60" long), replace the front
3rd floor ell window with a 6 over 6 window (existing is 2 over 2, 3 1"w x 5 3" long, double
hung), replace the 3rd floor aluminum storm windows on the front of the house with new white
coated aluminum storm windows and replace the top two wooden panels of the front door with
antique glass to allow for natural light into the McIntire front hall. The existing door was made
around 1980, replacing a door with two glass panels. Jane Arlander represented the applicant.
Ms. Arlander stated that the house was built in 1768 and that around 1980 they had all front
windows on the main structure of the house redone with 12 over 12 handmade windows, with
June 2, 2010, Page 3 of 6
iimensions taken from the Elias Hasket Derby house. She stated that the house has an ell and a
ittle entryway into the ell. There is a Victorian period window that has some rot for which they
vant to replace with a 12 over 12 to match the rest of the windows, and they are hoping not to
seed to replace the frame. The window will be handmade single glaze with a storm. She stated
hat she is the 8th generation to live there and each generation has done something to bring it up
o the current times. The third floor window on the front of house is to be 6 over 6 to match the
first floor, so that all of ell is 6 over 6. They want to replace two wood panels of the front door
vith antique glass. The door was hand made, but unfortunately blocks all light in. She noted
hat the hallway was built by Joseph McIntire, who was Samuel McIntire's father. Her mother
vas always disappointed that there is no natural light, which was lost when additions to the
)uilding stopped light from coming in through the arched window originally to the garden. The
ranels are the top two and they are hoping to have Alpine Woodworking remove the molding
find put in the glass and put the molding back. They will save the wooden panels in case they do
rot like the glass. Restoration Glass has full restoration glass and a light restoration glass. They
tre proposing full restoration, which is mouth blown. She noted that they are the company that
nakes glass for the White House. They will get laminated glass, which is safety glass, 5/16"
hickness. She stated that she is aware the door is a great door for a real purest. She noted that
icross street is a 1770 house which has 2 panels, as is 100 Federal and a house on River Street.
'5he noted that they have no transom or sidelites. The Forrester House on Derby Street has 2
;lass panels, as does the Narbonne House.
As. Herbert stated that she was glad that they are proposing just replacing the two small panels
rn the top with windows.
As. Arlander stated that they will reuse the door panel moldings for the glass.
As. Harper stated that for the windows on the front, it appears the owner is replacing the
vindows on an as needed basis, because they still will have some 2 over 2s remaining.
As. Arlander stated that there are no other 2 over 2s on house except for the one ell. There is 2
rver 2 in bathroom which is not old and she is not sure why the configuration was not changed at
he time the window was replaced.
As. Herbert made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the
notion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
15/30/40 Colonial road
Jnivar, USA submitted an application to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance to demolish
3uilding E, estimated to be 70 years old. Jack Wattu represented the applicant.
Ar. Wattu stated that the building hasn't been used in the last 10 years for anything but storage.
t is in poor condition and has no architectural features.
As. Diozzi asked what does Univar do.
June 2, 2010, Page 4 of 6
Mr. Wattu stated that Univar is a chemical distribution company. He drew on the site plan the
building that would be removed.
Mr. Hart asked if any buildings will be remaining.
Mr. Wattu stated that several on site will remain, including an office building and warehouse.
He noted that none of the buildings can be seen from Jefferson Avenue.
Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
104 Federal Street
Mr. Hart recused himself in his role as a Commission member and presented this application.
David Hart and Barbara Cleary submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to
remove the existing snow guard at the Federal Street fagade (south and east elevations) and to
patch the mounting holes with slate to match existing.
Mr. Hart stated that it is an iron 3 rail fence that is attached with fake slates screwed into the roof
boards and that it has been there over 26 years. He stated that they are getting leaks and that
Kevin Kidney has stated that it cannot be repaired. He noted it is a fairly low sloped roof. He
stated that if they have some snow sliding off, they will have to come back to install a new one.
Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
A. 320 Lafayette Street—Telecommunications Installation
Ms. Guy stated that EBI Consulting responded to the Commission's request for a photo
simulation for the Clearwire Corporation installation.
Ms. Guy stated that MetroPCS contacted her and requested a letter from the Commission
expressing its concerns over their installation. Ms. Guy stated that she sent the letter on
May 25, 2010.
Ms. Guy will issue a letter using the same comments that were in the MetroPCS letter
dated 5/22/08.
B. Minutes
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of April 7, 2010. Ms. Herbert
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
June 2, 2010, Page 5 of 5
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of May 19, 2010. Ms. Herbert
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
C. Spring Pond
Ms. Guy stated that she has received an additional 3 emails (all from out of state)
regarding the Walmart/Lowes project near Spring Pond.
D. 31 Chestnut Street
Mr. Hart stated that a neighbor complained about the repointing being done and that he
had a site visit with the owner and the mason sent an email with mix he is using. Mr.
Hart noted that the mix was surprisingly good. He stated that the mortar will all be
uniform on the side with the peak and that the up close joints are done properly. He
asked the owner how the mortar will be cleaned when all done and the owner will ask the
mason. Mr. Hart will suggest the chemicals to use. He stated that as far as he could see,
it is very good job.
E. 177 Federal Street
Ms. Guy stated that the owner came in to inform her that his contractor installed an
architectural roof instead of a 3-tab roof. She stated that she asked Mr. Hart to take a
look at the roof.
Mr. Hart stated that the roof does not appear to jump out at you from the street.
Ms. Guy stated that while she is not opposed to architectural roofs, she is concerned that
homeowners will install them with the opinion that it is easier to ask for forgiveness than
ask for permission.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to find the roof in violation and to request that the owner
replace it within 30 days or have them come in with application. Mr. Hart seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
There being no further business, Ms. McCrea made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Hart seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfull i d,
Jane A. Gu
Clerk of the ommission
June 16, 2010, Page 1 of 3
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
JUNE 16, 2010
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, June 16, 2010 at 120
Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Mr. Hart, Ms. McCrea,
and Ms. Bellin.
270 Lafayette Street
Erin Higgins and Joseph Hannon, Lauren Purtell, Tansu DeMirbilek and Kristina Hedin
submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors at 270 Lafayette
Street. Paint chips were provided. Erin Higgins & Joseph Hannon were present.
The decorative molding (scroll molding at peak, dentil moldings) will be Cabernet 2116-30, trim,
gutters, porch columns and side door will be Hazy Lilac 2116-40, wood and scalloped shingles,
rakes, and tracery moldings and recessed panels on bay window will be African Violet 2116-50
and siding will remain white/grey. Front door remains natural.
Ms. Bellin suggested instead of using Cabernet, using something a little bolder, such as Vintage
Wine.
Ms. Higgins stated that they also need to make various repairs including the stained glass
window and the decorative scroll work in the peak.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the application for paint colors as submitted and to give
option for Vintage Wine or Cabernet or to mix the two. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all
were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to issue a Certificate of Non-applicability to repair decorative scroll
work in peak and the stained glass window to replicate existing. Ms. Herbert seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
389 Essex Street
Ms. Bellin abstained from this discussion of this application.
Paul Ellingwood, Christine Reilly and Scott and Emilia Mountain submitted an application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors at 389 Essex Street. The body will be Pittsfield
Bluff HC-24 and the trim and door will be Lafayette Green HC-135, as recommended by John
Goff, Historic Preservation&Design, in 1993 as close to original colors. Present were Christine
Reilly and Paul Ellingwood.
Mr. Hart suggested keeping the red accent door.
June 16, 2010, Page 2 of 3
Ms. Herbert stated that she thought the doors may be walnut and suggested they be stripped and
left natural. She did not recommend that they be green.
Mr. Hart stated that the applicants could get a painter to grain the door.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the application as submitted for body in Pittsfield Bluff,
Trim in Lafayette Green and the option to either paint the door the existing red,to strip the door
and leave natural, to strip the door and have it grained to replicate walnut or to select and
alternative red for the door(with approval delegated to Commissioner Herbert). Ms. McCrea
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
330 Essex Street
Ms. Guy stated that the application for this address was noticed erroneously and that the
application was for Non-applicability for in kind fence replacement, which has been issued. No
action is required.
8 Franklin Street (storage building)
Fortunate Son Realty Inc. submitted an application to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance to
demolish a wooden storage building. Photographs were provided.
Mr. Hart recommended that all four sides be photographed in color in 3/4 view prior to
demolition.
Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve the application as submitted conditional that all four
sides are photographed in color in 3/4 view prior. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in
favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
A. Minutes
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of June 2, 2010. Ms. McCrea seconded
the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
B. Spring Pond
Ms. Guy stated that she forwarded an email from Aikaterini Panagiotakis on June 1 lth
regarding Spring Pond to the Commission members.
Mr. Hart suggested advising the writer to contact Brona Simon at the Massachusetts
Historical Commission.
C. 35 Washington Square
June 16, 2010, Page 3 of 3
Ms. Herbert stated that she went by and felt that the difference visually is the repointed
area and the areas missing mortar, but noted that she felt there is one section that does not
match. She suggested Mr. Hart go by.
D. Solar Panels
Ms. Bellin offered to prepare a draft guideline.
There being no further business, Mr. Hart made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Bellin seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully, i e ,
Jane A. uy
Clerk o the Commission
July 7, 2010, Page 1 of 5
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 7, 2010
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, July 7, 2010 at 120
Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Ms. McCrea
and Mr. Spang.
27 Herbert Street
Ms. Diozzi noted that a unanimous vote would be needed with only 4 members present.
Nancy A. Corral Realty Trust submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to
replace 3 deteriorated concrete caps with bluestone. Existing brick piers to be reused.
Documents & Exhibits
■ Application
■ Photographs
John Walsh, 52 Orchard Street, contractor, stated that the bluestone will have an 1 %" overhang
all around. They will be approximately the same thickness as the existing caps.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Harper seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
9 North Street
Historic Salem, Inc. submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove
three oil vent and fill pipes on the north side of the building and to add a gas service pipe in the
are of the existing oil pipes. All three existing holes will be plugged. The application is also to
install an exhaust vent on the back(west) side of the building about 18"to the left of the window
and about four feet above grade level as required by code. Two design options are 1) a single 6"
vent with a circular cap (preferred, but may not longer be available) or 2)two separate pipes,
respectively 4" and 3" separated by a distance of 12", covered by a single rectangular cap. The
exhaust vent is minimally visible from Eaton Place. The changes are need to replace an oil
boiler with anew gas boiler. The meter will be installed in the basement. Darrow Lebovici
represented the applicant.
Documents &Exhibits
■ Application
■ Photographs
Mr. Lebovici stated that the 6" single concentric vent does not meet code, and that the plumber
has indicated that a second one is needed. He stated that he was not sure if it will be a 4" and 3"
or a 4" and 4". He did not think there would be caps. The pipes would stick out about 4-6'.
July 7, 2010, Page 2 of 5
They are some kind of plastic, possibly PVC. He did not know if there would be an external
plate and if so, if it would also be plastic.
Ms. Diozzi stated that she has not seen PVC pipes with a plate.
Mr. Spang asked if they needed to be so close to the window and believed they needed to be 10'
away from an operable window.
Mr. Lebovici stated that the idea is to run the pipe through the basement and then through the
closet. He stated that the plumber spec'd it out, but noted that it is conceivable that it would
have to be moved over.
Ms. Herbert stated that, if moved, it could be hidden with shrubbery.
Mr. Lebovici stated that the only public way it is visible from is Eaton Place. He stated that at
the time of the application, they had not chosen a contractor. They now have a contractor.
Mr. Spang did not see the need for a covered cap over the two pipes.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the application for two pipes on West side to code as far
away from window and as low as possible.
Mr. Lebovici stated that he would like it 3-4' above grade so it is not hit by snow plows.
Ms. Herbert added to the motion to remove the 3 oil and vent pipes on the north side. Ms.
McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
35 Flint Street
Bowditch Place Condominium Trust submitted an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to remove the existing slate roof shingles on the west side of the hipped roof on
the 3 story portion of the building and replace with Certainteed Centennial Slate asphalt shingles
—color Smokey Quartz—and install new copper valleys at the dormer. Remove and replace
snow guards.
Documents & Exhibits
■ Application
■ Photographs
■ New shingle sample
■ Old shingle sample
Harry Gundersen, architect, stated that the rear section of the roof is in poor condition and is
leaking. They will remove the slate and use the slates to repair the other 3 sides. The removed
section will be replaced with asphalt shingles. It is possible in Winter to see a piece of the roof
from Federal Street. Other than that it can only be seen from Kelleher Way. The proposed is
similar in color to the existing slate.
July 7, 2010, Page 3 of 5
Mr. Spang stated that the dormer is not original to the old school.
Ms. Herbert asked if it will have color variation as shown in the flyer.
Mr. Gundersen stated that he has a large sample piece and it does not appear as varied as the
flyer.
Ms. Diozzi asked if it came without the beveled edge.
Mr. Gundersen replied in the negative for this style.
Ms. Herbert questioned if it should be considered non-applicable due to being minimally visible.
Mr. Gundersen stated that the purpose is to be able to retain slate on the other 3 sides as long as
possible by using the slate on this side for repairs.
Ms. Harper asked if they have looked at other types.
Mr. Gundersen stated that they have looked at the Grand Slate, but prefer the Certainteed. In
Grand Slate,they would prefer Essex Green or Bristol Grey.
Ms. Diozzi liked the compatibility of the Essex Green to the slate in color. She stated that she
was troubled by the Certainteed's shape. She was concerned that in the future the condominium
would apply to replace additional sides of the roof.
Mr. Gundersen stated that they condominium purchased the shingles already and have engaged
the contractor.
Ms. Harper stated that they know better, and are aware they are in a district.
Ms. Herbert stated that the owners should be able to return the purchased shingles.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the Grand Slate in Essex Green. Ms. McCrea seconded
the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
10 Monroe Street
Mary and Ron Hartfelder submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for
replacement of the fence encompassing the entire property, with the exception of the six foot
barrier between# 6 and#10 Monroe. Will paint in existing fence color, but will change the
design of the pickets and post cap size. The existing 4' solid fence to be raised to 6' on the
Monroe Street side. Proposed color is Mayonnaise. The applicants were not present.
Mr. Orille L'Heureux, 6 Monroe Street, stated that he had no objection.
July 7, 2010, Page 4 of 5
Documents &Exhibits
■ Application
■ Photographs
■ Paint chip—Benjamin Moore Mayonnaise OC-85
■ Boston Fence Company proposal
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the application as submitted with pyramid caps. New
fence replacement to be painted mayonnaise as per proposal. Mr. Spang seconded the motion,
all were in favor and the motion so carried.
24 English Street
Chalifour Limited Family Partnership submitted an application to waive the Demolition Delay
Ordinance to demolish 24 English Street in its entirety. Original construction date is
approximately 1850. Building size is 19' x 28', is deteriorated and under-built for current mass
state building code renovation requirements. Existing shallow foundation is not suitable for re-
use or renovation. The proposal is to construct a new 24' x 28' two storey single family
dwelling with architectural features suiting the current neighborhood. Mary Woodcock and Alan
Dennis represented the applicant.
Documents & Exhibits
■ Application& cover letter
■ Photographs
■ Structural Report completed by Allan W. Dennis P.E., dated 5/27/10
■ Architectural drawings of proposed new dwelling completed by HND Architects, dated
6/24/10.
Ms. Harper asked the building code renovation requirement.
Mr. Dennis stated that the new MA building code states that if spending 30%+ of fair market
value of the building, the entire structure must be brought up to code.
Ms. Woodcock stated that she owned the abutting house at 922. The front house is a 2-family
and the back house is a 1 family and we treat it as a 3 family. We have owned it since 1972.
They go before the ZBA on July 21". It will go from 19 x 28 to 24 x 28.
Ms. Diozzi asked the proposed siding material.
Ms. Herbert stated that the plans show vinyl siding.
Ms. Woodcock stated that the existing is asbestos and vinyl siding.
Ms. Diozzi asked if the front building was vinyl.
Ms. Woodcock replied that it is wood.
July 7, 2010, Page 5 of 5
Ms. Diozzi asked if they would consider wood for the new house.
Ms. Woodcock stated that they could consider it. She stated that they also own and manage 42
rental units throughout Salem including 22, 24 and 42 English Street, as well as 4 and 13 Allen
Street, that they have owned since the 1970's. They are asking for the space to be larger so that
they can keep a 3 bedroom unit.
Ms. Herbert asked if they could consider locating the new building behind the other to improve
the parking situation.
Ms. Woodcock stated that they can fit 4 cars and 6 in snow emergencies. When they look for
candidates to rent,they do not look for 3 roommates with 3 vehicles. They take the number of
cars into consideration when renting.
Mr. Spang noted that it would cross the parcel line between 22 and 24.
Ms. Herbert noted that they could change the shape of the building to make it fit.
Ms. Woodcock stated that they are applying for special permit, not variances.
Mr. Spang made a motion to approve the application. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were
in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Harper abstained from voting.
Other Business
A. Spring Pond
Ms. Guy stated that she received an additional 7 emails (3 from out of state, one from
Topsfield and 3 from Lynn)regarding the Walmart/Lowes project near Spring Pond.
There being no further business, Mr. Spang made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Harper seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully b i ,
Jan . Guy
Cle of the Commission
July 21, 2010, Page 1 of 5
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 21, 2010
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 120
Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Ms.
McCrea, Ms. Bellin and Mr. Spang.
118 Derby Street
Robert W. Burkinshaw submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to
powerwash and scrape paint from the body and trim of the house, repair and restore trim, prime
with oil base primer and paint with two coats of acrylic latex paint. Body to be changed from
grey to Minuteman Blue. Trim and shutters to remain the same as existing. Doors will also be
painted.
Documents & Exhibits
■ Application
■ Photographs
■ Paint chips
Ms. Burkinshaw stated that the trim is white and the shutters are black. The doors to be
minuteman blue.
Ms. Herbert asked if the shutters were vinyl.
Mr. Burkinshaw replied in the affirmative.
Ms. McCrea asked if they will replace missing shutters.
Mr. Burkinshaw replied in the negative.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. McCrea seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
135 Federal Street
Brenton and Besty Dickson submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to
enclose the existing screen porch, keeping existing dimensions of screen porch and existing
exterior trim and columns. The will remove the existing screen infill and handrail/guardrail.
They will provide new Pella Architect Series windows and will trim to infill between existing
columns per included drawings. There will be two copper skylights set back from view. The
application is also to provide a new cover at the existing side entry, extending the existing trim
details to create a covering per drawings. They will provide a new column to match the existing
at the screen porch and a new railing per drawings. Tobin Shulman, architect, was also present.
July 21, 2010, Page 2 of 5
Documents & Exhibits
■ Application
■ Photographs
■ Drawings of proposed work
Ms. Dickson stated that the purpose is to have a conservatory for her collection of camellias.
She stated that she believed only the side would be visible.
Mr. Shulman stated that column, beams and trim will stay, but that all infill comes out. He stated
that the detail on lower half gets imitated and that all wood will be painted white.
Mr. Spang noted that the glass in the upper panes is out further than the glass in the lower
section.
Mr. Shulman stated that they are not in the same plane and that the thinking is the outer plane of
the wood will all coincide. He noted that the lower is not the fundamental element and that it
will appear as a balustrade with glass behind it, so that the historic detail is on the outside and the
weatherproofing is on the inside.
Mr. Spang stated that his first thought was that it was solid panel on the bottom. He wondered if
the top section of glass should be set in so that the glass lines up.
Ms. Dickson stated that, as currently designed, the interior wood rail can be used as a shelf.
Mr. Spang stated that they could still extend it on the interior if the planes were the same on the
exterior.
Mr. Shulman stated that he was not 100% sure if the skylights will be visible and noted that the
top might be visible. He noted that they are set 4 '/2 feet a back on the roof and will be 8-10
inches above the roof. He stated that one may be visible.
Ms. Harper stated that she went by and was not sure if they would be visible at all.
Ms. Herbert stated that the skylights did not bother her because they fit the use and are a
Victorian element and are minimally visible.
Mr. Spang noted that a copper skylight will eventually blend in. He asked if the rail is original to
the rest of the porch,
Mr. Shulman stated that it was hard to say, but noted that it could be. He stated that the
patterning does not remind him of anything else from the period. He stated that if he had to
guess, he would say that it is original. He noted that the proposed is inspired by the existing rail,
but is not a match.
Mr. Spang stated that it looks like the Bowditch House rail. He asked if the height is coming
down.
July 21, 2010, Page 3 of 5
Mr. Shulman stated that the new rail will be 6" lower to get more light in. He stated that,
whatever the solution, it will have to be new construction, because the existing cannot support
the weight of the new windows, noting that the fret work cannot take the load.
Ms. Dickson wondered if they should take the existing rail off and put it at the end of the deck.
Mr. Shulman stated that, if so, he would not want to have the rail detail on both.
Mr. Spang stated that porches typically have solid panels below. He agreed if the rail is moved
to the end of the deck that the enclosure bottom should become solid. He added that if they don't
want to move it, he would advocate changing the design of the proposed bottom rail to match the
existing and changing the window design to 2 or 4 panels, so that the windows follow the rail
lead, rather than the rail following the window lead.
Mr. Shulman stated that he may have to thicken the rail somewhat to hide a piece of steel to
carry the weight of the windows.
Ms. Harper wondered if it was possible to make the proposed rail the same design as the
existing, even though it is going to be smaller.
Mr. Spang stated that they may need to add a transom line.
Mr. Shulman stated that side entry is only visible from Monroe Street.
Mr. Spang stated that the side entry proposal feels nice.
Mr. Spang made a motion to approve the side entry alterations as submitted.
Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to continue the porch alteration portion of the application to the next
meeting. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
30 Columbus Avenue
Robert and Anthie Jackson submitted an application to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance to
demolish 30 Columbus Avenue in its entirety. Original construction date is approximately 1900.
The application states that the cellar framing is not up to code and that the foundation is not in
good shape. They plan to construct a new house. Present was Taylor Moynihan, architect.
Documents & Exhibits
■ Application
■ Photographs
■ Report on existing conditions by J. Taylor Moynihan dated July 21, 2010.
■ Preliminary drawing of proposed new house
July 21, 2010, Page 4 of 5
Mr. Moynihan stated that the sanitary waste pipe is imbedded in the foundation. His report
concluded that it would not be "economically feasible,practical or desirable to attempt to repair
and alter the existing building to comply with current codes and to achieve reasonably
comfortable residential living conditions".
Mr. Jackson stated that he has a Purchase and Sale Agreement on the property.
Mr. Moynihan stated that the new house is in the preliminary stages, but are looking at a 1 1/2
story concept and probably 2400 sf of living area and another 5-600 sf of a two stall garage.
Ms. Diozzi asked if they will need to go to Zoning Board of Appeal.
Mr. Moynihan stated that they will be applying for the August meeting for frontage and setbacks.
Ms. Herbert asked if the applicants plan to reside there.
Mr. Moynihan replied in the affirmative. He noted that the house will be wood framing and
cedar shingles.
Jane Dionne , 26 Columbus Avenue, stated that she had no objection as long as they maintain the
same footprint toward water side. She stated that if it is moved toward water, it will block her
view. She stated that she believed the house was moved there in 1900 from Winter Island. She
noted that the tree in back of house next to the seawall is the last juniper tree on Juniper Cove.
She asked if they will be keeping the pool.
Mr. Jackson replied that he did not believe so.
Mr. Spang stated that the report sounds like every house down the Willows, including his. He
noted that the Willows is made up of mostly summer cottages that had been winterized. He
stated that it is an interesting question for him—how to maintain the integrity of a wonderful
neighborhood, yet deal with houses that are on the margin, and buyers who want to build the
house of their dreams on their property. He stated that he did not feel this house has the historic
originality of a recently demolished house in the neighborhood. He stated that the front gable
facing the street is really strong and that there are a series of them up and down the street that
create a really nice streetscape. He added that front porches are a wonderful aspect of
neighborhood and that this will be lost by having a 2 car garage facing the street. He suggested
continuing the application in order to get more information on proposed house design. He also
suggested that the proposed more closely reflect those that are typical in the neighborhood and
turning the garage so that it doesn't face the street.
Mr. Moynihan stated that in order to avoid getting a variance, they were respecting the front set
back requirement.
Mr. Spang recommended going for the variance.
July 21, 2010, Page 5 of 5
Claudia Hennessey, 21 Columbus Avenue stated that it they build behind and above the existing
garage, she will lose whatever view she has.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue to the next meeting. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all
were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
A. Minutes
a. Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve the minutes of June 16, 2010. Ms. Bellin
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
b. Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the minutes of July 7, 2010. Mr. Spang
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
B. Correspondence
a. Ms. Guy stated that she received an e-mail from Kelly Lewis of 23 Warren Street
requesting an extension of their Certificate of non-applicability dated 6/2/09 to repair
the front porch by July 31". Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the request. Ms.
Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
b. Ms. Guy stated that she received a letter requesting comment from AECOM
regarding the rehabilitation of 1.3 miles of Canal Street from Loring Avenue to Mill
Street, which will include reconstruction of roadway pavement, curbing, sidewalks
and wheelchair ramps. Minor drainage improvements will be made. It also includes
additional street trees, ornamental pedestrian lighting, stamped colored concrete
sidewalk bump outs and stamped colored asphalt crosswalks at selected intersections,
along with more clearly defined driveway and parking access to area businesses.
Ms. Herbert asked Ms. Guy to find out if the work will correct the ridge in the road.
Ms. McCrea asked what work will be done to fix the drainage.
c. Ms. Guy read a copy of a letter from Massachusetts Historical Commission to DCAM
dated 7/9/10 regarding the J. Michael Ruane Judicial Center about a letter received
from Historic Salem, Inc. regarding limestone panels. Ms. Guy stated that she did not
get a copy of HSI's letter.
d. Spring Pond -Ms. Guy stated that she received an additional 3 emails (all from out of
state) regarding the Walmart/Lowes project near Spring Pond, as well as an e-mail
regarding a plot plan for the Fay Estate.
There being no further business, Mr. Spang made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Harper seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Resplothe
u ,
Jane
Clerk Commission
f
August 4, 2010, Page 1 of 4
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
AUGUST 4, 2010
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, August 4, 2010 at 120
Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Mr. Hart, Ms. McCrea, Ms. Bellin
and Mr. Spang.
23 Warren Street
Nick and Kelly Lewis submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint
colors. The trim will be Navajo White and shutters will be Essex Green. The body will eith
Yellow. er be
California Paints Georgian Yellow or a custom shade to match 5 Monroe Street, called Hawkes
Documents &Exhibits
■ Application
■ Photographs
■ Paint chips
Ms. Diozzi read an email from Karen Vitone, 19 Warren Street, in favor of the application.
Mr. Lewis stated that are not sure if the custom color is accurate and was concerned over a larger
area, there might be an acidic hew to it. He feels the Georgian Yellow will be more pleasant and
they prefer it.
Ms. Diozzi agreed it was a warmer color.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the application as submitted with Georgian Yellow for the
body. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
30 Columbus Avenue
In continuation of a prior meeting, Robert and Anthie Jackson submitted an application to waive
the Demolition Delay Ordinance to demolish 30 Columbus Avenue in its entirety.
Ms. Guy read an email from the applicant requesting a continuance to the September 1, 2010
meeting.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue to the application to the September 1, 2010 meeting. Ms.
McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
135 Federal Street
In continuation of a prior meeting, Brenton and Betsy Dickson submitted an application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness to enclose the existing screen porch. Brian Stein, architect, was
also present.
August 4, 2010, Page 2 of 4
- Additional Documents &Exhibits Provided:
■ Revised drawings of proposed work—Option 1, 2A and 2B
Mr. Stein stated that the new proposal is for solid panels on the lower section and to reuse the old
railing on the deck. They would like approval on Option 1.
Mr. Spang made a motion to approve Option 1 including relocation of the railing to the edge of
the deck with all to be painted white. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and
the motion so carried.
328 Essex Street
Gavenda, Hess, Cantor, Cormier and Mangifesti submitted an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for to install five stainless steel chimney caps, painted flat black. Louis
Mangifesti and Karen Hess were present.
Documents & Exhibits
■ Application
■ Photographs
■ Catalog cut of proposed caps from Copperfield Pro
Mr. Mangifesti stated that he is not a lover of caps, but stated that they are getting water damage
and a specialist has recommended caps. He stated that they tried to get a cap the least
conspicuous as possible.
Mr. Hart asked which chimneys are active.
Mr. Mangifesti stated that all 5 are active. He noted that the are for fireplaces and that the
furnaces are not connected to the chimneys.
Ms. Diozzi stated that she did not think they were obtrusive.
Mr. Mangifesti agreed, stating that they are not noticeable unless you are looking for them.
Mr. Hart stated that he felt it would be a visual effect, that they would be 10"high.
Mr. Mangifesti stated that glossy black would reflect light, so he felt flat black would be better.
Mr. Hart asked if they can get a factory finish.
Mr. Spang is for brick and slate, or chimney pots. He did not feel chimney pots would be
appropriate for that house.
Mr. Mangifesti stated the driving rain is the problem.
Mr. Hart stated he was not sure if the brick and bluestone would fit with this design. He noted
that the proposed is reversible.
August 4, 2010, Page 3 of 4
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the installation of 10"high, stainless steel chimney caps
with flat black painted or factory applied finish (Gelco Chimney Protector or Chim Cap Stainless
Knock-Down Multi-Flue Forever Cap) on five chimneys. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all
were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
A. Correspondence
a. Ms. Guy stated that at the last meeting she reported that she received a letter
requesting comment from AECOM regarding the rehabilitation of 1.3 miles of Canal
Street, for which the Commission members requested additional information. David
Knowlton, City Engineer provided an email response which had been forwarded to
the Commission member on July 29, 2010.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to respond that the Commission has no comments on the
project. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
b. Ms. Guy stated that she received a request to comment on a telecommunications
installation for 52 Dow Street for Clearwire Technologies, as well as a letter from
Massachusetts Historical Commission to Aerial Spectrum, Inc.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to comment that they should keep the antenna as flush as
possible and to paint them to match the surface they are on. Ms. McCrea seconded
the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
c. Spring Pond - Ms. Guy stated that she received one additional email (from out of
state) as well as an emailed press release regarding the Walmart/Lowes project near
Spring Pond.
d. Ms. Guy stated that she received a copy of a letter from Historic Salem, Inc. to
Massachusetts Historical Commission regarding the limestone panels at the Ruane
Judicial Center.
B. Minutes
a. Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of July 21, 2010. Mr. Spang
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Hart abstained
from voting.
C. 386 Essex Street
Ms. Guy stated that Ms. Bellin provided photos showing that the good side of the new
fence is facing in toward the property. Ms. Guy noted that the fence direction was not
specified in the certificate. She stated that a front fence would need to be finish side out,
but that a side lot line fence would be on a case by case basis.
Ms. Bellin stated that the default should be the finish side facing.
August 4, 2010, Page 4 of 4
Ms. Guy suggested a motion to amend the guidelines to state that typically fences face
finish side out, and the application should reflect the direction that the fence will face.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to add to the guidelines for fencing that, typically fences face
finish side out, and the application should reflect the direction that the fence will face.
Mr. Spang seconded the motion. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and
the motion so carried.
D. Satellite Dishes and Solar Energy Systems
Dorothy Hayes, 329 Essex Street, provided comments on the draft guidelines.
Commission members made changes to the draft. Ms. Guy will update the draft and send
a revised version via email.
There being no further business, Mr. Spang made a motion to adjourn. Ms. McCrea seconded
the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submit
Jane A uy
Clerk the Commission
August 18, 2010, Page 1 of 8
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
AUGUST 18, 2010
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, August 18, 2010 at 120
Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Mr. Hart, Ms. McCrea, Ms. Bellin
and Mr. Spang.
181 Federal Street
Jefferey and Martha Delaney submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for
paint colors. The body will be Benjamin Moore Hamilton Blue. The trim will be Bone White,
the shutters will be black and front door will be Classic Burgundy.
Documents & Exhibits
■ Application
■ Photographs
■ Paint chips
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Delaney stated that they want to paint two sides this year and the remainder next year.
Mr. Hart made a motion to extend the approval from one year to two years. Ms. Bellin seconded
the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
15 1/2 River Street
Peter G. and Jan N. Eschauzier submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for
paint colors and fence replacement. The body of the house will be C2 Tusk. The trim will be
C2 Sheer and the front door will be Black Forest Green. The existing fence on the right of the
house will be replaced with posts changed to match those on the front fence, with the fence
painted either the trim or house color.
Documents &Exhibits
■ Application
■ Photographs
■ Paint chips
■ Boston Fence Company proposal
Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve the paint colors as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Eschauzier stated that the only change to the fence are the posts, which will have flat caps to
match the front fence. They will also flip the fence, so that the finished side is facing outward.
August 18, 2010, Page 2 of 8
Mr. Hart asked the finish proposed for the fencing.
Mr. Eschauzier stated that for the front fence,they would like the option to paint it the body or
trim color. The new fence will be left to weather.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve replacement of the fence on the right side of house to
replicate existing, with exceptions that 1) fence to be turned around so finish side is facing out
and 2)post caps to match post caps of front fence. Side fence to be unpainted (to weather). The
front fence is to be painted either Tusk or Sheer. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in
favor and the motion so carried.
315-317 Essex Street
315 Essex St. LLC, Steve Morris trustee, submitted an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to revise previously approved side and rear elevations, including the removal of
doors and relocation of windows. Morris Schopf represented the applicant.
Documents & Exhibits
■ Application
■ Photographs
■ Schopf Design Associates drawings dated 7/14/10
■ Schopf Design Associates drawings dated 8/16/10
Mr. Schopf stated that it took about 10 weeks to empty out the tenants from the rooming house.
He stated that the Building Inspector issued a permit to undertake some preliminary demolition
so that they could do a structural review of the existing building under Chapter 54. The actual
building permit application was filed on July 22, 2010. He stated that the Building Inspector
concluded that the rear elevation design had changed from what was approved by the
Commission. He stated that there are, in fact, subtle differences in the locations of windows and
other things. He stated that on page 301 of the 8/16/10 plans, the front elevation is unchanged
and the profiles of the dormers have been corrected and the vertical scaling of the building has
been corrected. He stated that there is a knee wall in the attic where the floor of the attic is
actually below the soffit and fascia line, which he had not noticed till they tore the building apart.
He stated that for the right side elevation, there was some doors into the first floor units which
were not required for egress and messed up the interior plan, which has now been removed.
There are somewhat fewer windows in order to keep the window pattern that already existing in
the building, rather than to alter extensively. The exception is a window on the first floor at the
corner, which is in the reconstructed part of the facade where it wraps around the corner of the
building. He stated that the windows on the second floor are not at 8', but are around 7'. The
window heads on the second floor are all at 8' all around the building. Because of the difference
in the vertical scaling, the actual distance between the roof of the one story piece that is being
remodeled in the back and the existing soffit and fascia of the building is 11', which is now
shown correctly, as is the low-pitched roof that wraps around it on three sides. There is a subtle
change of the spacing of the windows on the third floor dormer, which has to do with how the
inside space is going to be used, and there is now no intention of demolishing the chimneys.
August 18, 2010,Page 3 of 8
Mr. Hart stated that the lower windows don't line up vertically.
Mr. Schopf stated that the window rough openings already exist and will be left as they are. The
one new window will be lined up with the window below. They are reducing the height of one
window opening to accommodate a kitchen sink. He stated that for the second drawing on the
second page, they will be patching in two existing window openings and adding two windows to
accommodate the kitchens on the second floor.
Ms. Bellin asked the number of units.
Mr. Schopf stated that there will be six, two on the first floor front, one in the 1 story addition in
the back, one across the front on the second floor and two in the back that are duplexed into the
attic. He stated that windows W 15, WI 4 and WI 3 windows are all new. WI 4 is intended to
align with the existing window above. W113 will line up with W226 existing above. There are 2
blanked off ones, one new one, then 2 existing which more or less line up with one another, then
the three windows where the building turns at a slight angle are all existing and the three
windows in the new dormer at floor two in the rear are new windows and the window in the
stairway is a new window. W110 is existing. For the rear elevation, we had shown dormers on
the back, but there were never really any dormers to go on the back, because there is nothing to
frame to. He stated that he continued the dormer at the rear of the building from the dormer on
the side all the way around three sides to the dormer on the other side. The dormer on the third
floor is straight across and is set back a foot from the existing dormers to create a reveal behind
the existing dormer.
Mr. Spang stated that it is trying to look like the right side elevation.
Mr. Schopf replied in the affirmative. The front elevation is an existing dormer. He stated that
originally he showed a raised dormer between the existing dormers on the side and they are no
longer going to do that. They are going to leave the side elevation from the two dormers all the
way around to the two dormers on the other side elevation exactly as it is now. Before they got
permission to raise the roof between the two dormers on the side and are now asking not to have
to do that. He stated that he is looking to get the new elevations blessed. There will be one door
on the back and two on the side that are now gone. He stated that the units have fire ratings even
though they are not required.
Dorothy Hayes, 329 Essex Street, stated that the plans that she looked at as part of the
application are not what is being discussed. She stated that the windows on the rear side appear
to be different.
Mr. Schopf agreed they were different and stated that the existing transom windows, that were
installed during the partial renovation of the first floor, are to be reused for the sun porches on
the second floor, because they have transoms.
Ms. Hayes stated that those are not consistent with what was seen earlier and not really in
character with the building.
August 18, 2010, Page 4 of 8
Mr. Schopf stated that they are already a part of the building.
Ms. Hayes noted that they are moving them around.
Mr. Schopf confirmed that they are moving them around.
Ms. Hayes stated"well, that's a little different. I think what was originally the plan we talked
about were these windows, so that is a change then."
Mr. Schopf replied that it is a change and stated that those are Pella Architectural windows that
were approved for the renovation of the first floor, which he thought could be reused on the two
porches and around the back and around the other side.
Ms. Hayes stated that she did not feel it was part of the application that these windows would be
swapped out and stated she had a problem with that. She asked if the shutters will be full sized.
Mr. Schopf replied in the affirmative, noting that they will be wood.
Ms. Hayes stated that other than the windows being swapped out, she did not have a problem,
but did not feel the transom windows were appropriate, in terms of style and felt it was not the
proper treatment given what they are trying to achieve on the rest of the house.
Mr. Schopf stated that the Commission does not have to let him use the transom windows.
Ms. Guy stated that the transom windows were originally approved the by the Commission, but
recalled that after installation some Commission members expressed an issue with the windows
because they were shortened and did not match the upper windows. She stated that they were
approved, but feel some members were disappointed with them.
Ms. Diozzi questioned the degree of visibility.
Ms. Guy asked what kind of windows will be in the third floor dormers.
Mr. Schopf stated that they will be 6 over 6.
Ms. Guy stated that sometimes third floors have smaller windows anyway and maybe reusing
them in the third floor may be more appropriate.
Ms. Bellin noted that the dormers are more forward, so they might be more visible.
Mr. Schopf stated that the windows in the front dormer are staying the same size, which is 6 over
6. The windows on the dormer in the back are shorter. He stated that the heads all line up and
are about 3' off of the floor.
August 18, 2010, Page 5 of 8
Mr. Spang stated that the transom windows proposed for the rear, if visible, the right side
elevation might be seen from across from one of the other streets through the properties.
Ms. Diozzi stated that possibly Cambridge Street.
Mr. Schopf stated that the transom and the double hung window height together are the height of
the window openings in the building.
Jim Kearney, 11/z Cambridge Street, asked the width of the shutters on the front of the house and
if they will meet when closed.
Mr. Schopf replied in the affirmative and stated that the will be half the width of the window,
noting that the they are wider than they look on the drawing because, when hung, they overlap
the frame of the window because they are hung tight to the window sashes. They will be
correctly proportioned to the windows and will be hung on hardware.
Ms. Guy noted that when closed they should shed water away from the building.
Mr. Kearney stated that he was not in favor of the windows with the transom and felt that they
will be visible from North/Summer Street and between the park and the houses.
Mr. Schopf agreed that the windows will be visible from the public way from the driveways on
North and Summer Streets and possibly from Cambridge Street.
Mr. Hart suggested that the applicant look into changing the transomed windows to 6 over 6.
Mr. Schopf agreed that the alternative for the Commission is to approve ten new windows to
match the rest of the house. He stated that he could move the 10 transom windows off the site.
Mr. Spang stated that for the front elevation, he was concerned with the distance between the sill
of the lower window and the water table, noting that it feels low, compared to the distance
between the second floor sill and the first floor head. He stated that the windows appear tight to
the ground and asked if they could be nudged up a bit.
Mr. Hart stated that windows are typically 2'6"above the finished floor.
Mr. Schopf stated that the plans may not be drawn exactly to scale.
Ms. Spang stated that he felt the front elevation was key. He stated that he was okay with
reusing the existing openings. He stated that he did not have a strong opinion on reusing the
transom windows on the back, but felt the front elevation needs a little massaging to get the
proportions correct.
Mr. Hart and Mr. Spang stated that it did not appear to be drawn correctly.
August 18, 2010, Page 6 of 8
Mr. Schopf stated that he will come back to the Commission with the correctly drawn front
elevation.
Ms. Bellin agreed that the windows looked a little low.
Mr. Hart stated that he was in favor of the applicant investigating swapping out the transom
windows with 6 over 6 windows.
Ms. Bellin was in agreement.
Mr. Schopf asked for approval of the third floor and the second floor dormers as drawn.
Mr. Hart made a motion to revise the Certificate of Appropriateness dated 3/4/10 for door and
window alterations, and for detail corrections as per plans dated 8/16/10 with the following two
exceptions:
Exception#1: that the 10 transom windows as drawn, be changed to 6 over 6 to match the new
wood windows shown to be installed elsewhere on the house. Option for the following (all wood
exterior):
• Pella Architect Series Wood Double Hung Window with ILT's
• LePage 7/8" SDL
• J. B. Sash Proper Bostonian
Where there is a wood choice, it should be cedar. When available, the spacers between the glass
should be bronze.
Exception#2: that the front elevation be redrawn to depict the actual conditions and the actual
proposed location of first floor windows, with this elevation to be continued to the meeting of
September 1, 2010.
Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
9 North Street
Historic Salem, Inc. submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to revise the
approved fence vent installation. The new proposal is to install the vent pipes at least 7' above
grade in the south (right) corner of the west wall. The two vent pipes will be 4" and 3"in
diameter and will be painted grey to match the body color of the house. The preference is to
install the vent pipes so that the tops are at 8'6"above grade,parallel to the top of the window.
The reasons for the change are:
■ high efficiency boilers vented 7' above grade to not require carbon monoxide detectors
be installed throughout the building. The revised proposal minimizes CO risk and
eliminates costs of CO detectors
■ The vent pipes will be located farther from the window per the previous approval
■ The vent pipes run will be shorter so venting issues will be less likely
■ The vent will be farther from Eaton Place and the parking lot and less visible
August 18, 2010, Page 7 of 8
■ The pipe (particularly the air intake) will be well above the snow line and well away from
the area where it can be damaged or blocked by snow from plows clearing the parking lot.
Documents &Exhibits
■ Application
■ Photographs illustrating proposed alteration
Mr. Hart stated that he provided unpaid advice to the applicant regarding the application.
Ms. McCrea stated that she liked the vents lining up with the window head.
Mr. Spang made a motion to approve the proposed revision. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all
were in favor and the motion so carried.
171 Federal Street
Jeremy and Amber Oberc submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint
colors. The body will be California Paints Emma. The trim will be Pure White and shutters and
front door will be Winter Balsam.
Documents &Exhibits
■ Application
■ Photographs
■ Paint chips
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. McCrea seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
A. Correspondence
a. Ms. Guy stated that she received a letter from Massachusetts Historical Commission
(MHC)to Gordon College finding no adverse effect for the proposed heating-system
upgrade at Old Town Hall.
b. Spring Pond - Ms. Guy stated that she received an email from Aikaterini Panagiotakis
regarding potential Native American graves at Spring Pond, which she forwarded to
Commission members.
Mr. Spang noted that the project will likely go through the MEPA process.
Mr. Hart stated that he will suggest that she contact Ed Bell at MHC.
August 18, 2010, Page 8 of 8
B. Minutes
a. Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of August 4, 2010. Mr. Spang
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
There being no further business, made a motion to adjourn. a seconded the motion, all were in
favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully itt ,
Jane A. y
Clerk oft ommissi
September 1, 2010, Page 1 of 4
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 1, 2010
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, September 1, 2010 at
120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Harper, Ms. Herbert, Ms.
McCrea and Ms. Bellin.
30 Columbus Avenue
In continuation of a previous meeting, Robert and Anthie Jackson submitted an application to
waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance to demolish 30 Columbus Avenue in its entirety. Also
present was Wayne Hunt, architect.
Documents & Exhibits
■ Application
■ Photographs
■ Report on existing conditions by J. Taylor Moynihan dated July 21, 2010.
■ Hunt Design Group drawing of proposed new house dated August 24, 2010
Mr. Hunt provided a site plan with a new layout and elevations of the proposed house. He stated
that they are trying to keep the general aesthetics and appearance of a beachfront cottage. The
new structure will be within required set backs. They are going to ZBA for a waiver from
frontage. The basic schematic design is the same. The materials have not been finalized, but he
believes it will be a shingle style. He noted that they played around with the windows, which
will be double hung. There will be an eyebrow dormer and balustrade above the garage. They
are going to do a covered area with columns at the entryway.
Mr. Jackson stated it will be weathered.
Jane Dionne, 26 Columbus Ave, stated that her family has lived there for over-62 years. The
view that they have always had has been through glass walls, looking toward#30 has been of
neighbors' yards, two beaches and the huge trees through the Bay View Avenue intersection and
up Columbus Avenue. She stated that if the plans go as presented, their view will be of just 30
Columbus. She added that they have no problem if the house were built on the current footprint.
She asked that no vote be taken until after the ZBA meeting of 9/15/10.
Alex Pzenny, 27 Columbus Ave, stated that he felt it would severely compromise his view of the
ocean.
Mr. Hunt stated that from the end of the existing stairs to the sidewalk is 5'.
Ms. Herbert questioned if the new wall is in further from the existing porch. She stated that the
existing porch looks to be about 10' out from the existing house and that the new wall will
actually be in 4' inward. She noted that the porch is one story. She stated that Mr. Pzenny's
view may actually be improved.
September 1, 2010, Page 2 of 4
Claudia Hennessey, 21 Columbus Avenue, stated that she is impacted by the part of the house
close to 26 Columbus Avenue. She asked if it will be changed.
Ms. Dionne stated that each house was originally built on two tent lots which is why the
numbering is crazy.
Ms. Diozzi asked when construction will start.
Mr. Jackson stated that it will begin when all proper permits are obtained.
Ms. Herbert noted that the house across the street has two garages right on the sidewalk.
Ms. Dionne stated that the rear of the house will be going 7-8' back and will be going higher,
which is what will effect her view. She will loose the view of 2 beaches and some trees.
Ms. Herbert stated that she liked the design and liked what they have done.
Mr. Hunt stated that there are transoms over the doors. He stated that they kept the roof line
down and added dormers to keep the scale down. It will be 27' to the ridge. The house will be
approximately 10'6" off the right side property line.
Ms. Hennessey stated that she will loose some view.
Ms. McCrea noted that there are two sheds there which likely block the view of the water
anyway.
Ms. Herbert agreed and stated that her view would have to be from the second floor.
Ms. Herbert stated that the 30 Columbus Avenue house is not a pristine structure and has been
bastardized.
Ms. Harper stated that the new house has a character that reflects the Willows. The repetition of
the gables is a change of the streetscape.
Ms. Herbert stated that she did not feel the existing house added to the historic character of the
neighborhood.
Ms. Bellin agreed, but was inclined not to waive it and preferred to let it expire in January. She
did not feel there was any need to speed things up.
Ms. McCrea stated that she did not see what is gained by denying the waiver.
Mr. Hunt stated that they are bringing the house within all the setbacks. He stated that they will
continue to work with the neighbors to try to best locate the house within the setbacks.
September 1, 2010,Page 3 of 4
Ms. Herbert made a motion to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance. Ms. McCrea seconded
the motion. Ms. Diozzi,Ms. Harper, Ms. Herbert and Ms. McCrea voted in favor. Ms. Bellin
voted in opposition. The motion so carried.
315-317 Essex Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, 315 Essex St. LLC, Steve Morris trustee, submitted an
application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to revise previously approved elevations,
including the relocation of windows.
Ms. Guy stated that she received an e-mail from Morris Schopf of Schopf Design Associates,
requesting a continuance to the meeting of September 15, 2010.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to the meeting of September 15, 2010. Ms.
Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin recused herself from the next application and sat in the audience.
20 Fowler Street
Avalito &Franziska Garcia submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to
replace an existing deteriorated, leaking skylight with a new skylight in Velux or similar.
Documents & Exhibits
■ Application
■ Photographs
■ Specifications on Velux manual venting deck mounted skylight
■ Specifications on Velux Model VS and VSE No Leak ventilating skylight
Ms. Garcia stated that the size would be an approximate match to the existing skylight. She
stated that the inside dimensions are roughly 21"x 32" and that they will be going to a 21"x 27"
casement window in bronze color.
Ms. Harper stated that the roof is very steep and she did not feel the Velux was radically
different.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the replacement of an existing skylight(approximately
21"x 32") with new Velux manual venting deck mounted (VS) skylight (21"x 27") in bronze
color. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin rejoined the Commission.
Other Business
A. Correspondence
September 1, 2010, Page 4 of 4
a. Ms. Guy stated that she received a letter from Massachusetts Historical Commission
(MHC)to Aerial Spectrum, Inc. finding no adverse effect for a proposed
telecommunications installation at 52-60 Dow Street.
b. Ms. Guy stated that she received a letter from Massachusetts Historical Commission
(MHC)to Nexamp finding no adverse effect for a proposed geothermal heat pump
underneath the existing Hawthorne Hotel parking lot.
There being no further business, Ms. Bellin made a motion to adjourn. Ms. McCrea seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respect lly itted,
Jane A.
Clerk of ommiss on
September 15, 2010, Page 1 of 3
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 15, 2010
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, September 15, 2010 at
120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Harper, Ms. McCrea and Mr.
Hart.
Ms. Bellin arrived later in the meeting.
315-317 Essex Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, 315 Essex St. LLC, Steve Morris trustee, submitted an
application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to revise previously approved elevations,
including the relocation of windows. Also submitted was an Application for Certificate of
Appropriateness to:
1. Wood doors (no fiberglass doors)—Brosco page B 137—Lemieux mahogany doors,
sidelight and transoms to the extent shown on drawing A510 dated 8/28/10
2. Wood blinds (front elevation only)—Brosco page B338 Port-O-Lite wood blinds Boston
Layout
3. Chimney Removal—n/a—chimneys will be retained and be used for venting HVAC and
water heating equipment
4. Vent installation—No vents on front of building. Kitchen and bathroom exhaust
locations as shown on the attached elevation drawings A301 and A302 dated 8/28/10
5. Roofing material—
a. Architectural shingles—Centennial Slate by CertainTeed—Black Granite
b. Architectural shingles—30AR by IKO—Harvard Slate
6. Paint colors—Benjamin Moore Historic Color Collection
a. Body—
i. Georgian Green HC 115
ii. Sherwood Green HC-118 alternate
b. Trim and windows
i. Dunmore Cream HC29
ii. Monterey White HC27 alternate
c. Doors
i. Dark Mahogany Stain on mahogany doors
ii. Black to match blinds alternate
7. Decorate fence at east property line and hardscape brick and granite—will return for
approval along with other landscape items including brick and granite curbs.
Documents &Exhibits
■ Application
■ Photographs
■ Drawings dated 8/28/10, 9/10/10
■ CertainTeed and IKO catalog cuts
September 15, 2010, Page 2 of 3
■ Benjamin Moore paint chart
Present representing the applicant was Morris Schopf. Also present was Raymond Young, who
has purchased the building.
Mr. Schopf stated that he provided elevations that are now elevationally correct. He indicated
that the plans show all the possible places where there could be a vent. They will use low-profile
vents. All the vents on the second floor may be behind the roof balustrade rather than as
indicated on plan, if possible. They are proposing mahogany doors as shown on A510 9/10/10 as
well as the transom, sidelights and wood blinds. They will not be removing the chimneys. They
prefer to use the Centennial Slate by CertainTeed. They will be going with the Pella all wood
Architectural Series windows previously approved.
Mr. Young stated that he would prefer the IKO Harvard Slate, Cambridge Light 30AR.
For the entrance to unit 3 on right side rear, detail treatment, Mr. Hart suggesting running the
ridge of the pediment into the ridge of the adjacent roof.
Ms. Bellin joined the meeting at this time.
Mr. Hart asked what the vents will look like.
Mr. Schopf stated that they will be aluminum assembly painted to match the surface. They will
try to consolidate wherever possible and they will use same cover for all vents. He stated that he
is confident that the bathroom vents will go through the roof. There will be 12 vents minimum.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the renovation of the property as per Schopf Design
Associates drawings dated 9/10/10, which revises Certificates dated 3/4/10 and 8/25/10 and
replaces prior plans submitted. Roofing shingles to be IKO Harvard Slate, Cambridge Light
30AR. Doors to be Brosco Lemieux Mahogany doors with sidelights and transoms per drawing
A510. Shutters to be Brosco Pon-O-Lite wood blinds Boston Layout. Vents to be hidden behind
balustrade where possible, when visible to be flat as possible and painted the color of the surface
they are on. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Young stated that for paint colors, he preferred Georgian Green for body, Monterey White
for trim, doors to be stained mahogany and shutters to be a dark green, such as Essex Green.
Ms. McCrea made a motion for Georgian Green for body, Monterey White for trim, doors to be
stained dark mahogany and shutters to be Essex Green. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all
were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
A. Minutes
September 15, 2010, Page 3 of 3
a. Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of August 18, 2010. Mr. Hart
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
b. Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of September 1, 2010. Mr. Hart
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
B. Satellite Dishes and Solar Energy Systems
Ms. Guy stated that she provided a copy of the draft guidelines to the City's Sustainable
Energy Manager, who stated that he thought the guidelines look fair and reasonable, and
will protect historic structures without being too prohibitive, with the possible exception
of one provision. He stated that requiring panel color that matches shingles and non-
reflective panels may effectively prohibit all but a miniscule number of installations and
that it is his understanding that the color options are limited by the material and
manufacturing process. He stated that unless research has identified some newer options
with respect to color and reflectivity,that perhaps this provision should be limited to
installations proposed for the primary elevation. He also noted that the Renewable
Energy Task Force meets on September 16th and offered to have them review the
guidelines. Ms. Guy will add"whenever possible"to the two lines of that bullet and
forward the guidelines to the RETF for comment.
C. Spring Pond
Ms. Guy stated that Preservation Mass did not place Spring Pond(Fay/Crowninshield
Estate) on their list of Most Endangered Properties.
There being no further business, Ms. Bellin made a motion to adjourn. Ms. McCrea seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully sub ,
Jane A. Guy
Clerk of th C is
October 6, 2010, Page 1 of 7
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
OCTOBER 6, 2010
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, October 6, 2010 at 120
Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, and Ms. Bellin. Also
present was new Commissioner Susan Keenan.
Ms. Diozzi stated that there is a bare quorum and that all four votes would be needed to pass any
application.
Ms. McCrea arrived later in the meeting.
31 Chestnut Street
Laura and William Wrightson submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to
replace rotted side fence with different style, including capped picket and capped posts. The
terminus location will be changed.
Documents &Exhibits
■ Application
■ Photographs
■ 39 page presentation
Mr. Wrightson stated that there are two fences they want to replace - a side fence and a fence in
the back which was already approved for removal. The front has a wrought iron fence which
includes one section that returns down the side lot line and then transitions to the green wooden
fence.
Ms. McCrea joined the meeting at this time.
Mr. Wrightson stated that the top of fence will match the top of the wrought iron pickets and the
top of the post would match the top of granite posts. They want to add a gate in the location
indicated by the red circle on page 6, along green line. Page 7 shows a dotted line, terminating at
orange circle, where the existing fence would be removed. The dotted red line is the fence
already approved for removal and the solid red is where new fence would be. Page 11 is the
proposal for side lot line fence, a capped traditional picket of white cedar which replaces the
green fence. Fence details on page 17 include 5'x5"posts, 1"x3.5"pickets with 2 1/8"gap, 8'
sections with fence cap height to match the existing wrought iron picket tops in front section as
per photo on page 4. The post cap height is to match the top of the granite posts on Chestnut
Street end. The proposed rear fence style is on page 14, a Modified Stockade in white cedar,
gated with 5"x 5"posts, I"x 2"boards, 6' tall, 8' sections with an open upper section area:
open to solid stockade area ration: roughly 1:2-2:5 as per included photo from the manufacturer,
can be customized per SHC recommendations/preferences.
Ms. Herbert asked, when they start fence at the second granite post from Chestnut Street, if it
will begin with a newel post.
October 6, 2010, Page 2 of 7
Mr. Wrightson believed he would put a post next to the granite post.
Ms. Herbert suggested not having a post and run the fence right into the granite post and connect
it somehow.
Ms. Bellin asked if the fence will be left to weather.
Mr. Wrightson replied in the negative, stating that it will be painted white. He stated that they
would like two options 1) center gate or 2)right hand side gate.
Ms. Herbert noted that a typical car width is 9', so they may want to have smaller gate with two
9' sections.
Ms. Herbert asked if he had a preference between the Nantucket example and the Salem
example.
Mr. Wrightson replied in the negative and stated that they were used to illustrate what has been
approved in historic districts.
Ms. Herbert stated that they are actually quite different—the Nantucket one is to the ground and
is a cleaner design. The Salem one is off the ground and is kind of busy.
Mr. Wrightson stated that he is proposing the picture from the supplier. He stated that he is
flexible with the height.
Maura McGrane, 29 Chestnut Street, stated that the fence divides her yard from 31 Chestnut.
She preferred that the fence be replaced in kind. She stated that the fence in the beginning by
Chestnut Street is shorter than the section toward the back and the missing section was taken
down when he started doing work on the house. It was a large trellis type area that had replaced
an existing fence. She stated that she had no objection to the fence on Warren Street. She
objects to having the side lot line fence changed.
Mr. Wrightson stated that the proposal he got from Ms. McGrane via email was for a 6' tall
privacy fence. He stated that he sent her a copy of the presentation. He stated that he had no
interest in keeping the fence.
A copy of the email between Mr. Wrightson and Ms. McGrane was provided.
Ms. Herbert asked the fence height.
Mr. Wrightson stated that he will match height of iron pickets, which he believed is 42 or 44".
Ms. McGrane asked if line had been surveyed because she did not know whose fence the current
one is.
October 6, 2010, Page 3 of 7
- Mr. Wrightson stated that it has been surveyed. He noted that the fence removal in the rear is
logical because it is too narrow to be mowed and all his services, such as electrical, are there.
Ms. McGrane stated that she object to the fence removal. She stated that she wants the fence to
stay where it is and to go all the way back to the Warren Street line.
Ms. Diozzi read letters into the record from:
■ Thomas J. Vander Salm, 33 Chestnut Street, in favor of the application
■ Carl N. Wathne, 9 Warren Street, in support with the caveat that they refurbish their
garage, remove the stack of logs and maintain the lawn and shrubs bordering Warren Street.
Ms. McGrane stated that she objected to an open picket, white, fence. She stated that the
existing is a privacy fence and she noted that she has four children. She stated that she would be
effected by the fence.
Louis Mangifesti, 324 Essex Street, stated the he believed that Ms. McGrane was questioning the
picket fence look and that she preferred a solid fence. He stated that he was not sure if picket
was appropriate for dividing between properties and believed most fences are solid white capped
board.
Mr. Wrightson stated that both his house and Ms. McGrane's house are 4' off the ground.
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission has approved pickets in the past. The questions is what is
the spacing that could be a compromise. She noted that even if the Commission approves the
removal of the small section of fence, there is nothing that stops Ms. McGrane from applying to
add a fence section where it is being removed. She noted that the Commission has approved
fences that are solid in the rear and transition to an open fence in toward the street. She added
that shrubs can be planted on either side for additional privacy.
Ms. Bellin suggested that the front be picket and that the rear section be the Modified Stockade
to match the proposed new fence in the rear.
Mr. Wrightson stated that he was willing to do so. He stated that they will be putting a pergola
back in. They may be putting in a brick wall in the center. He stated that the back yard and side
yard are very distinct and separate.
Ms. McGrane stated that they are not separate from her yard,noting it is one long stretch.
Ms. Herbert asked the time frame for adding fence/pergola to the center section.
Mr. Wrightson stated that they want to add it as soon as possible,noting that they have chicken
wire currently there for the dogs.
Ms. Bellin stated that the problem is that the proposal is coming in to us in piecemeal. She stated
that she felt it would be better to have a complete design, including all the front and rear lot line
sections and what is proposed for middle.
October 6, 2010, Page 4 of 7
Mr. Wrightson stated that the proposal provided was for one fence design and that the
Commission is suggesting two different fences on the side. He stated that he is willing to work
with the Commission.
Ms. Bellin preferred to look at it as a unified piece.
Ms. Herbert stated that she felt Ms. McGrane has a reasonable concern of having this look nice,
and suggested the middle section be brought before the Commission for approval and the work
be completed by Spring.
Ms. Diozzi stated that she did not like two different fences.
Ms. Herbert stated that the spacing of the picket fence on page 15 is wide and felt closer would
be more appropriate.
Mr. Wrightson stated that Page 17 shows the manufacturer specifications.
Ms. Herbert asked Ms. McGrane if color is part of her concerns.
Ms. McGrane stated that the existing color recedes into the background and is subtle.
Ms. Herbert asked if Mr. Wrightson would you be amenable to a green.
Mr. Wrightson stated that he did not want green in the front portion. He stated he was willing to
go with leaving it natural in back, but wanted white in front.
Ms. Herbert asked Ms. McGrane if the fence was approved in white, whether she would be
amenable to doing some planting to camouflage it.
Ms. McGrane stated that she felt it was a lot to ask.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to continue the side fence to the next meeting, in hopes of having a
rough draft of a pergola, and to give Commission members a chance to go to the site and get a
better feel in order to consider spacing and color. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in
favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission would not be able to approve the pergola at the next
meeting, since it had not been noticed.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve installation of a fence in the location as noted on Page 7,
9 and 10 of presentation. Design to be per style indicated on Page 14, fence details on page 17
and with gate location options on page 18 and 19 . Color continued to meeting of October 20tn
Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
October 6, 2010, Page 5 of 7
Mr. Wrightson stated that the deck sits in the ell. The deck is falling apart and appears to be a
Home Depot special. The proposed changes are on page 24, with lattice as proposed on page 31.
He noted the drawing is based on his best guess of building code and that the Building Inspector
may have some changes. He stated that he is seeking approval for lattice,beadboard or solid
panel options. He noted that he prefers the lower panels as drawn on page 25, but if not
practicable, the beadboard option on page 32. Deck details are on page 39. The deck will be
painted white, with decking coming in mahogany color, which may be oiled.
Ms. Herbert stated that she felt the proposed lattice is particularly beautiful
Ms. McGrane stated that the proposed deck is visible to her and felt it was lovely and she
supported it.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve replacement of the existing rear deck with new deck per
pages 24 through 39 of presentation, including options for lattice, bead board or solid panels
below. All to be painted white, with decking to be Tropical Hardwood, in a mahogany color.
Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
82 Federal Street
Christopher Luneau and Linda Luneau submitted an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to remove an existing porch and balcony knee wall railing and replace with
wood columns, balusters and railings. The application is also to replace balcony decking,
remove vinyl siding at first floor front elevation, restore and paint existing wood cedar shakes
and window trim, and remove existing brick stair and metal railings at porch and replace with
wood stair and balusters. John Seger, architect.
Documents &Exhibits
■ Application
■ Photographs
■ Seger Architects drawings dated 9/20/10
Mr. Seger stated that they will remove the vinyl on the front including the metal panning around
the windows and will restore trim. The vinyl will be replaced with clapboards. They will
removed the shingle balcony wall and the two knee walls for the porch. They will recondition all
existing wood trim and paint all cedar shakes. They are proposing a hex shingle for the third
floor section below the gable peak. The new porch is to have 2 x 2 balusters, with posts a little
larger than 4 x 4. The decided to change from the proposed mahogany top rail to white. Another
change from the initial proposal is to add recessed panels on the base of the column. Cedar
shakes are no longer proposed for the first floor, as they will be clapboards. The lattice under the
porch will be square, painted black to match door.
Mr. Luneau stated that the storm windows will be black. They will be replacing the storm door.
The main door behind it will stay.
October 6, 2010, Page 6 of 7
Mr. Seger stated that they will replace the treads with composite. They are also proposing
Hardiplank for clapboards.
Ms. Diozzi stated that the Commission has never approved anything but wood for clapboards.
Ms. Herbert asked the material for the gable vent.
Mr. Luneau stated that it is PVC and that he is open to replacing it.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to amend application to include the front vent. Ms. Herbert seconded
the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Luneau stated that they are proposing Sherman William Naval or Rookwood Green for the
body color with white trim and black accent. The door will be remaining black. The storm door
and windows are to be black. They would like the option to do the window sash in black.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to remove existing porch&balcony knee wall railing and replace with
wood columns, balusters and railings as proposed in drawings dated 9/20/10. Balusters to be 2 x
2. Columns to have recessed panels on base. Lattice under porch to be square. Replace balcony
decking. Remove vinyl siding at first floor elevation and install wood clapboards. Restore and
paint existing wood cedar shakes and wood trim. Remove existing brick stair and metal railings
at porch and replace with wood stair and balusters. Stair treads to be made of composite. Install
hex shingle for third floor section under gable peak. Paint colors: Sherman Williams Naval or
Rookwood Green for body, trim to be white, door, storm door and storm windows to be black.
Option for window sash to be white or black. Lattice under porch to be black. Gable vent and
bracket under third floor soffit continued to the meeting of October 20th. Ms. Herbert seconded
the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
4 Pickering Street
Stanley and Jody Smith submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to add
chimney caps to prevent water leaks and reduce carbon monoxide and rust build up from small
boiler that heats the sunporch.
Documents &Exhibits
■ Application
■ Photographs
■ Photo of possible caps
Mr. Smith stated that the first question is whether to go with hip/ridge or flat. He stated that flat
less visible but hip would be better for snow to come off. The material options are stainless
steel, copper or stainless steel with powder coating. He stated that it could be either top mount
or side mount, but that he was confident he did not want side mount. He stated that he selected a
size that leaves enough room for two flues and leaves about 3' all around the top of the chimney.
October 6, 2010, Page 7 of 7
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the application installation of chimney cap(s)to be top
mounted,black powder coat or copper material, hip-and-ridge design, with lowest height
possible. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
A. Correspondence
Ms. Guy stated that she received a copy of a letter from Massachusetts Historical
Commission to Historic New England, regarding the drainage repair project proposed for
the Phillips House at 34 Chestnut Street, finding they are unable to determine the area of
potential impact and requesting additional information.
There being no further business, Ms. Bellin made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Herbert seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respe WG
Xtte
Jane AClerk ission
October 20, 2010, Page 1 of 9
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
OCTOBER 20, 2010
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, October 20, 2010 at
120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Mr. Hart, Ms.
Harper, Ms. McCrea and Ms. Keenan.
Ms. Guy noted that unless the Commission continues any applications today to November 3rd,
there will be no November 3rd meeting due to having received no applications.
31 Chestnut Street
In continuation of a prior meeting, Laura and William Wrightson submitted an application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness to replace rotted side fence with different style and to change the
terminus location.
Ms. Guy stated that she received a request to continue the application to the meeting of
November 17, 2010.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to continue the application to the meeting of November 17, 2010.
Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
82 Federal Street
In continuation of a prior meeting, Christopher Luneau and Linda Luneau submitted an
application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for alteration of a gable vent and brackets under
the soffit.
Documents & Exhibits
■ Application
■ Photographs
■ Seger Architects drawings dated 9/20/10
■ Louver specifications
Mr. Luneau stated that there were shingles under the bracket when he took off the siding, located
on the right side of the house. They will just leave it shingled and paint it the body color.
Ms. Harper asked if the house was shingled originally and noted that it fits in with the shingles.
Mr. Luneau believed it had been shingled.
Mr. Luneau showed a picture of the PVC gable vent currently there. He stated that he could
replace it with a wooden,paintable version of the same. He stated that it is not really visible
from the street because it is so high and there is a tree there. He stated that he also wanted
circular rather than hex shingles on the third floor section.
October 20, 2010, Page 2 of 9
Mr. Hart asked if it will be circular on the entire gable.
Mr. Luneau stated he would like to do clustered courses of 5, 2, 3 and 2. He stated that he would
like option to keep the top rail of porch railing in mahogany, unpainted.
Mr. Hart suggested looking at Brosco for the vent.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to retain the bracket feature below the third floor soffit (to remain
shingled and painted body color) and replace existing PVC gable vent with wood in either oval
(max. 20"x 24"), circular(max 24") or octagonal (max 24"x 24"). The motion is also, in
addition to the approvals on Certificate of Appropriateness dated 10/7/10, for an option for 3rd
floor shingles in gable to be circular in clustered courses of 5, 2, 3 and 2 and an option for
mahogany top rail on porch railing. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the
motion so carried.
88 1/2 90 Federal Street
Roy Gelin submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to add stainless steel
chimney caps to the two visible chimneys. The caps will have a wire animal guard and will be
painted black.
Documents &Exhibits
■ Application
■ Photographs
Mr. Gelin stated that the rear reconstruction is chimney is complete and they are working on the
other.
Mr. Hart noted that 88 '/2 is to the east and 90 is to the west.
Ms. Harper made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. McCrea seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
60-62 Washington Square South
Hodges Court Real Estate, LLC submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for
the removal of three chimneys,the addition of two decks in the rear of the building on the second
floor and the alteration of the window configuration in the first floor sunroom. Present was
Lewis Legon. Also present was Peter Pitman, architect and Atty. Scott Grover.
Documents &Exhibits
■ Application
■ Photographs
■ Pitman& Wardley drawings of existing and proposed
October 20, 2010, Page 3 of 9
Mr. Legon stated that he will be converting the building to four condominiums. They will
refurbish the windows in kind. He stated that one of first things they want to do is chimney
removal. He stated that the chimneys are decayed and not in good condition. He noted that all
existing wires and pipes will be torn out, along with the chimneys. There will be a new HVAC
system.
Ms. Herbert asked the age of the building.
Mr. Legon stated that it was 1890.
Ms. Herbert asked if they are original chimneys.
Mr. Hart stated that they could be and asked the number of chimneys.
Mr. Legon stated that there are three chimneys.
Mr. Hart stated that he felt the chimneys were character defining and that he would be reluctant
to see them removed. He suggested talking about a faux chimney.
Andrew Finestone, 70 Essex St., stated that all three chimneys are visible and that the middle
chimney is quite visible from the rear of the house. He stated that he felt that all 3 chimneys
should remain as they are. He stated that he has a copy of a 1771 deed which references the
middle chimney of the house as being a dividing line of the two families that lived there.
Ms. Herbert stated that it was probably a different house if the deed is 1771.
Mr. Finestone stated that it may be different house now, but the chimney could have been there
in 1771.
Ms. Diozzi stated that she found chimneys to be part of the scape of the Common. She noted
that these are a little more obscure due to the tree, but she did not want to start a precedent of
taking chimneys off houses. She stated that she felt they are significant to the skyscape.
Ms. McCrea was in agreement.
Mr. Legon stated that they considered that the Commission might go in that direction and asked
if they were open to a faux chimney.
Mr. Hart stated that the existing are diminutive. He stated that they may want to rebuild from
roofline up.
Ms. Guy stated that if the chimney were being rebuilt, it would be a non-applicability situation, if
there would be no change in outward appearance.
Ms. Harper stated that she felt the size of the chimneys from the front look small for the house.
She noted that the chimneys were there to vent wood stoves and she felt they go with the
e
October 20, 2010, Page 4 of 9
building. She stated that it is one thing to take down one falling down chimney and another to
take down three chimneys that are not falling down and that are character defining.
Ms. Herbert asked how to support a real chimney from the roof line up.
Ms. Hart stated it is easiest is to build on top of an interior chimney.
Mr. Legon stated that they are taking out the chimney from the roofline down.
Mr. Hart stated that it will require some steel support.
Ms. Herbert asked if there was a bluestone cap on top.
Mr. Pitman stated that it is charred and sooted, so it is hard to tell.
Ms. Herbert stated that they would also need to replicate the blue stone cap.
Mr. Hart stated that, stylistically, it appears the addition may have been built at the same time as
the house.
Ms. Herbert asked the condition of brick, if they are in decent condition.
Mr. Legon replied in the negative and stated that he felt they are dangerous.
Ms. Herbert stated that she was wondering if there was a way to reuse the brick in a patio or
walkway.
Mr. Hart stated that he would like photographic documentation of the chimneys.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-applicability to repair or replace
chimneys in kind with the proviso that the exterior experience match the existing and be
documented photographically from 3 different perspectives.
Ms. Herbert seconded the motion. Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Mr. Hart, Ms. McCrea and Ms.
Keenan voted in favor. Ms. Harper voted in opposition. The motion so carried.
Mr. Pitman stated that they are proposing to change the window configuration for the back
porch. He agreed that the addition was probably built near the period of the home, but felt that
the porch was added probably in the 19-teens. He stated that they are looking to limit the
amount of glazing to provide some wall area. He stated that he felt the proposed will be similar
in the amount of glazing versus shingling on the rest of the home. He stated that they will reuse
3 of the 5 windows.
There was no public comment.
October 20, 2010, Page 5 of 9
Ms. Herbert agreed that it was probably a later addition, noting that the windows are 6 over 6
instead of 2 over 2 like the rest of the house. She stated that it was probably an open porch
which was then walled in. She wondered if the windows should be 2 over 2 instead of 6 over 6.
Mr. Hart stated he felt 6 over 6 is later and that he had no problem with the configuration as it
demonstrates the growth of the house.
Ms. McCrea stated that she felt in taking 2 windows out, it no longer looks like a porch.
Ms. Harper stated that since the rear and side windows can all be seen at once,they should not be
two different configurations.
Mr. Hart stated that the option to removing the windows is to wall the windows from inside.
Mr. Pitman stated that they could black the glass prior to walling on the inside, as was done at
Bertram House.
Mr. Hart stated that he preferred to see the windows walled.
Mr. Pitman stated that his concern is that when walling is done, it is usually up high and far
away. He noted that these windows are very close to grade and may not be hid that well. He
stated that he did not want to cross from faux into fake.
Ms. Harper suggested keeping the frames and installing clapboard on inside of the windows.
Mr. Pitman stated that even if the windows are removed as proposed, they could be restored by a
future homeowner if they choose. He stated that the removal will balance out clapboards to
glass. He noted that it will still leave a lot of glass in the room.
Ms. Herbert asked if they will still have leader board under windows all the way across
Mr. Pitman replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Hart stated that he preferred that the applicant rethink alternatives to block up the windows
with clapboards.
Ms. Herbert suggested installing closed shutters and then they could do anything they want
behind.
Mr. Pitman noted that there are no shutters on the rest of the home, so he did not want to
introduce a new element.
Ms. McCrea asked if the 6 over 6 windows are the same size as the 2 over 2 windows.
Mr. Pitman stated that the 6 over 6 are a little longer and narrower.
October 20, 2010, Page 6 of 9
Ms. Diozzi stated that she had no problem with the proposal.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the application as submitted for the window alterations.
Ms. Keenan seconded the motion. Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Keenan and Ms. McCrea voted in favor. Ms.
Harper, Mr. Hart and Ms. Herbert voted in opposition. The motion did not carry.
Mr. Hart made a motion to continue the window portion of the application to the meeting of
11/17 in order for the applicant to explore more options. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion. Ms.
Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Mr. Hart, Ms. Harper and Ms. Keenan voted in favor. Ms. McCrea voted in
opposition. The motion so carried.
Mr. Legon stated that they are not prepared to submit a design for the decks and requested a
continuance if the Commission was willing to consider the concept of adding a deck.
Ms. McCrea made a motion to continue the decks to the meeting of 11/17/10. Ms. Herbert
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Pitman stated that the challenge is structural, and they did not know yet if decks are practical
from a structural point. If structurally possible, they want to consider adding them, but if the
Commission is not receptive, they do not want to study it further.
Mr. Legon stated that they are truing to model the railing as per widows walks found around the
historic districts.
Ms. Herbert stated that if it were a widows walk, it would be on top of the house. She stated that
she personally liked the idea of adding a deck over the second story_
Mr. Hart stated that he had no problem with the concept.
Mr. Legon stated that buyers like outside space.
Ms. Keenan asked if the area would be common or dedicated.
Mr. Legon stated that it would be private.
Ms. Keenan stated that she liked the idea a lot and felt it was too bad that the chimney is there.
Mr. Legon stated that he could understand keeping the front chimneys, but felt that the rear
chimney is not appealing. He suggested that the Commission reconsider chimney removal after
looking around the city.
Mr. Hart stated that he preferred to keep all three chimneys.
Ms. Herbert stated that the front of the house is balanced architecturally. She stated that in back
it is completely utilitarian.
October 20, 2010,Page 7 of 9
Ms. Harper stated that she agreed with Mr. Hart.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to continue the application for the rear chimney. Ms. McCrea
seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. McCrea and Ms. Keenan voted in favor. Ms. Diozzi,
Mr. Hart and Ms. Harper voted in opposition. The motion did not carry.
12 Orne Square
Laura Luckey submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the top
two panels of the side door with glass in order to admit more light. The panels are 7 %2 x 15".
The application states that they are unlikely to be notices from the street, especially in Winter
when storm doors are reflective.
Documents & Exhibits
■ Application
■ Photographs
Ms. Guy read an email from the applicant,withdrawing the application.
29 Washington Square
Ms. Herbert recused herself from discussion on this application, due to her mother being a
resident of the Bertram Home, and left the room.
The John Bertram Trust submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to change
the design of the fence with the addition of a fence cap.
Documents & Exhibits
■ Application
■ Photographs
Jennifer Santo, 25 Washington Sq.N, stated that she was opposed to the new fence.
Ms. Harper stated that the posts are higher and are now visible. She noted that the caps are
screwed in with galvanized screws and it looks pretty bad. She added that the gate is crooked
causing the gate and fence heights to be different and that one post is twisted.
Ms. Santo asked who built the fence.
Ms. Harper stated that the sign says Reliable Fence.
Ms. Santo stated'that it is awful looking and does not fit in with the beautiful building that
Bertram House is. She stated that it is not a historic looking fence and does not belong with the
Bertram House.
October 20, 2010, Page 8 of 9
Peter Pitman stated that he was just recently voted in as a Board of Directors member for the
Bertram Home. He did not know about this application being heard tonight. He stated that he
has heard some negative comments about the quality of the craftsmanship of the fence. He
stated that the John Bertram Trust should have come before Commission for the changes, such as
the posts, cap and hardware prior to fence replacement. He stated that it would be a shame to rip
out the entire fence and stated that he would like the opportunity to try to rectify it. He stated
that he was not in a position to present anything tonight.
Ms. Harper asked if this should have gone before Bertram House Board of Directors before it
came here.
Mr. Pitman stated that he is new to this, but felt it would likely go before the Grounds Committee
Board first. He noted that for the last 6 months there has been a gap where there was no
professional on the board.
Mr. Hart made a motion to continue the application to the meeting of 11/17/10 in order for the
applicant to reevaluate the fence design, noting it is not same as existing and for the Commission
to send a letter to the applicant. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the
motion so carried.
25 Chestnut Street
Crespo, LLC submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the relocation of
the fence on Pickering Street. Jeannette Crespo and Raphael Crespo
Documents &Exhibits
■ Application
■ Photographs
■ Bird's eye view sketch of property
■ Copy of portion of 1874 atlas
Mr. Crespo stated that the existing is not an original fence. He stated that he has already gotten a
curb cut permit. He stated that there is a tree in front of the existing driveway on Chestnut
Street. They will brick the new driveway and have plantings.
Ms. Crespo noted that a tree will hang over the new fence.
Ms. Diozzi stated that she did not feel the fence on Pickering Street adds anything.
Ms. Harper made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Hart seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Ms. Herbert rejoined the meeting.
October 20, 2010, Page 9 of 9
A. Minutes
a. Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the minutes of September 15, 2010. Ms. Harper
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
b. Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the minutes of October 6, 2010. Ms. McCrea
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert stated that her neighbor wanted to purchase bench on common, and when they
talked to Parks and Recreation,they were told that they were not doing any more benches
because the vendor approved by Commission is not available anymore. Ms. Herbert noted that
the Commission does not approve vendors, only the bench design and location. She stated that
she will call Parks &Recreation and if not successful, will have Ms. Guy contact them.
Mr. Hart stated that he received a complaint about a hitching post being removed at 329 Essex
Street. Ms. Guy is checking into it.
Ms. McCrea asked if property owners can install shed,noting that there is a new one at 388
Essex Street. Ms. Guy stated that a shed is a structure and requires approval by the Commission.
There being no further business, Ms. Herbert made a motion to adjourn. Ms. McCrea seconded
the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfu b d,
Jane y
Cler f the Co ssion
November 17, 2010, Page 1 of 6
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 17, 2010
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, November 17, 2010 at
120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Mr. Hart, Ms. Harper, Ms. Bellin,
Ms. McCrea and Ms. Keenan.
31 Chestnut Street
In continuation of a prior meeting, Laura and William Wrightson submitted an application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness to replace rotted side fence with different style and to change the
terminus location.
Ms. Guy stated that she received an email withdrawing the fence portion of the application.
60-62 Washington Square South
In continuation of a prior meeting, Hodges Court Real Estate, LLC submitted an application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness for the addition of two decks in the rear of the building on the
second floor and the alteration of the window configuration in the first floor sunroom. Present
was Lewis Legon. Also present was Peter Pitman, architect.
Documents &Exhibits
■ Application
■ Photographs
■ Pitman& Wardley drawings of existing and proposed
Mr. Legon stated that they have spoken to prospective brokers, clients and design people. As a
result, they still propose to eliminate two windows. The current 5 windows have a negative
impact on the inside. He stated that he was open to 2 over 2 or 6 over 6.
Ms. Harper suggested built-ins under the windows.
Mr. Pittman stated that there is approximately 18" under the windows. They need the wall space
to accommodate furniture. He stated that they looked at blanking the windows or putting in
shutters. He stated after vetting it, they came back full circle to window removal.
Mr. Legon stated that they are withdrawing the deck portion of the application. They will be
replacing the chimneys with faux chimneys of which the outward appearance will be in kind.
Mr. Hart stated that the original window configuration reads as a porch and the proposed does
not. He noted that the Bowditch house has faux chimneys.
Mr. Legon stated that the foundation appears to be original and that it was likely once an open
porch.
November 17, 2010, Page 2 of 6
Mr. Hart suggested having a framed blank window.
Mr. Pittman stated that there is one across the street with clapboards filling in the window. He
stated that it was clearly done to keep the symmetry. He noted that for this property there is no
need to balance the other side of the house.
Mr. Hart stated that it is common in Salem to have windows blocked with clapboards inside of it.
Ms. Diozzi stated that she has no problem with having the three windows, but stated she would
like to see some defining element.
Mr. Hart suggested keeping the existing frames on the exterior and installing clapboards inside.
Ms. Bellin stated she would like to see a mock up.
Ms. Harper did not feel what is being proposed is subtle.
Mr. Hart stated that it was quite appropriate to keep the 6 over 6. Ms. Diozzi and Ms. Harper
were in agreement.
Mr. Pittman was concerned that the filled in window might read as a mistake. He stated that just
because it has been historically done, does not mean it fits all situations.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and
the motion so carried.
29 Washington Square
In continuation of a prior meeting, The John Bertram Trust submitted an application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness to change the design of the fence with the addition of a fence cap.
Work has already been undertaken. Paula Lancisi, Director and Peter Pittman were present.
Documents &Exhibits
■ Application
■ Photographs
Mr. Pittman stated that the prior fence had blind posts. The new fence has visible posts. There
were complaints that the new fence was poorly crafted, that there were installer advertisements
on the fence and that the gate hardware was inappropriate. Advertising signs have since been
removed and the posts and railings have been straightened. The fence has not been painted yet
and they are proposing to paint the existing creme color on the Bertram House. He stated that
the neighborhood is consistent in the use of post and rail systems in one form or another. The
gate hardware was installed for extra strength, but they can change them if the Commission
requires.
November 17, 2010, Page 3 of 6
Ms. Harper stated that the left hand post of the gate is higher than the right hand post.
Mr. Pittman stated that the post will need to be cut so they will align.
Ms. Bellin stated that the color will help. She suggested that the hardware also be painted.
Mr. Hart stated that the hardware bothers him and felt it was too rustic. Ms. McCrea was in
agreement.
Mr. Hart suggested an ordinary strapped hinge with possible a pintle.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the fence as constructed with the gate hardware to be
strapped hinge (to be delegated to Ms. Harper), with fence to painted the trim color of the house,
with hardware not to be painted,posts to be of even height. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion,
all were in favor and the motion so carried.
188 Derby Street
James and Claire Bailey submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the
installation of two stainless steel chimney caps in black. They would like to use the same unit
that was approved for 328 Essex Street.
Documents & Exhibits
■ Application
■ Photographs
■ Catalog cut of chimney cap approved for 328 Essex Street
Ms. Guy stated that read the Certificate of Appropriateness for 328 Essex Street and provided a
copy of the catalog cut submitted with that application.
Mr. Bailey stated that the house faces the wharf and the wind comes in really strong which has
caused problems with the chimneys. They are having problems with water coming through the
third floor ceilings. He stated that he had the flashings checked. He noted that the more water,
the more problems with deterioration of the walls.
Ms. Bellin asked if it was just the two chimneys towards the front.
Mr. Bailey replied in the affirmative
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. McCrea seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
36 Summer Street.
Bonnie and David Henry submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for
replacement of door trim and portico in a style keeping with the period of the house and the
November 17, 2010, Page 4 of 6
entrance on the other side of the house and preserves the concept of a portico. The application
states that the design incorporates the "rules of order" for Doric/Roman proportions to insure the
proper dimensions from the width of the frame and plinths to the height and projection of the
portico. The door trim is 7"and the height steps up in 7' increments. The portico will project
out 21", while the current projects 24". It will be 21"high from the top of the door. The roof
will be copper. The door trim has raised trim with 3/8"beading around the inside. The corbels
and the underside of the portico extension are trimmed with 1 %"band moulding. The upper
roof line is framed with crown and scotia moulding projecting 3 5/8". The plinths project '/4"
from the door trim. The trim and portico will be painted the current trim color of the house. The
corbels will be Acanthus Leaf ARC-CB-3-CHE in cherry. The door trim and portico will be
Spanish Cedar. The trim moulding will be primed pine or Spanish Cedar. The beading inside
the door trim will be Brosco #8570, the band moulding around corbels and underside of portico
extensions will be Brosco #8453 and the crown and scotia moulding will be Brosco #8027
Documents &Exhibits
■ Application
■ Photographs
■ Wilson Kelsey Design, Inc. drawings
■ Catalog cut from www.outwaterhardware.com
Ms. Henry stated that the house is a duplex and that they own the whole house. They are not
looking to replicate the main door, but want it to be somewhat different. This door enters right
into a dining room, so they want to maintain a portico/overhang. She provided photographs of
various porticos in the district and around town. They tried to get salvaged corbels, but could not
find any of good quality.
Mr. Hart noted that the corbel is proposed to be positioned horizontally according to the drawing.
Ms. Harper stated that it is unusual.
Mr. Hart stated that he was disturbed about mounting a classical device horizontally that is
supposed to be vertical.
Mr. Henry stated that it is more decorative than supportive.
Ms. Henry stated that she thought it was in keeping with the classical design.
Mr. Hart disagreed. He stated that he felt it was a classical detail that will read as a mistake.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the condition that the
corbel is rotated 90 degrees so it is vertical. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor
and the motion so carried.
November 17, 2010, Page 5 of 6
15 Chestnut Street
Peter Gordon and Karen Hayes submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to
replace the chimney cap with a new chimney cap of a different design. The cap will be The
Chimney Top available in stainless steel and copper.
Documents &Exhibits
■ Application
■ Photographs
■ The Chimney Top flyer
Mr. Gordon stated that there are four chimneys and the one in question is on the addition portion
of the house. They are having a lot of water problems in the fireplace of the top floor, which has
caused a lot of damage. The house inspection shows that the chimney also appears to be
moving. The proposed cap is a multi-flue cap that will cover all the flues.
Ms. Harper made a motion to approve the application as submitted for a stainless steel cap. Ms.
McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
126 1/2 Federal Street
Mr. Hart left the meeting at this time.
Federal Street Real Estate LLC submitted an application for a Certificate of Non-applicability to
reconstruct the front chimney in kind.
Documents & Exhibits
■ Application
■ Photographs
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. McCrea seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Mr. Hart rejoined the meeting.
A. 316 Essex Street—Letter of Support
Ms. Guy stated that the First Church is looking for a letter of support for their application
to the MA Architectural Access Board for a series of variances. Ms. Guy provided a
draft letter prepared by Menders, Torrey & Spencer, Inc.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to send the letter of support. Ms. McCrea seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
November 17, 2010, Page 6 of 6
B. 31 Washington Square— Shutters
Ms. Guy stated that the owner of 31 Washington Square has requested removal of the
Clerk's Certificate of Vote on the violation for the removal of shutters, which have now
been reinstalled. Ms. Diozzi confirmed via email that the shutters are reinstalled.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to remove the violation. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all
were in favor and the motion so carried.
C. Minutes
Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve the minutes of October 20, 2010. Mr. Hart
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
D. Guidelines—Satellite Dishes and Solar Energy Systems.
The Commission reviewed comments provided by the Renewal Energy Task Force and
Ms. Guy's resulting amendments to the draft. Following additional amendments, Ms.
McCrea made a motion to approve the new guidelines. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all
were in favor and the motion so carried.
There being no further business, Ms. Bellin made a motion to adjourn. Ms. McCrea seconded
the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully s � �ed,
Jane A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission
December 1, 2010, Page 1 of 2
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
DECEMBER 1, 2010
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, December 1, 2010 at
120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Mr. Hart, Ms. Harper, Ms. Bellin.
Ms. McCrea and Ms. Keenan entered later in the meeting.
15 Cambridge Street
Deborah and Kevin Guinee submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for
paint colors. Proposed body color options are SW7668 Zircon, SW7657 Tinsmith, SW7658
Gray Clouds and SW7663 Monorail Silver. The trim will be basic white, the shutters black and
the door black. Patrick Reddy was present.
Documents &Exhibits
■ Application
■ Photographs
■ Paint chips
Mr. Reddy stated that he is currently under agreement to purchase the property.
Ms. Harper asked what the color would be for the foundation.
Mr. Reddy stated that they will take off the purple and leave the exposed brick.
Mr. Hart stated that it should be stripped chemically, noting that it will ruin the brick if it is
sanded.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the application as submitted, including removal of the paint
from the brick with a chemical as approved by the Health Department. Ms. Bellin seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. McCrea joined the meeting at this time.
Other Business
A. Minutes
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of November 17, 2010. Ms. McCrea
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Keenan joined the meeting at this time.
B. Guidelines—Windows
December 1, 2010, Page 2 of 2
Ms. Guy stated that she would like the Commission to review the Windows section of the
guidelines, specifically#6 and#7 concerning Low E/reflective glass and double-
glazed/simulated divided light windows.
Ms. Guy suggested that#6  be replaced as follows:
46 Low E or reflective glass is not appropriate in historic districts.
47 Double-glazed or simulated divided light windows must be reviewed on a
case by case basis and the Commission must examine a real size sash
sample of any double glazed window proposed. Vinyl or aluminum clad
window exteriors are not appropriate and will not be approved. Windows
that will be considered must have 7/8" muntins and wood exterior(where
there is a wood choice, it should be cedar-pine is not a good choice for
coastal communities). When available,the spacers between the glass
should be bronze. The profile of exterior muntins must replicate the Pu
line on traditional single-glazed windows or the existing windows of the
house custom profile may be re uired . The double-glazed wood
windows that the Commission has approved to date are:
• Pella Architect Series (Wood Exterior) Double Hung Window with
ILT's, 7/8" muntin
• LePage 7/8" SDL (Wood Exterior)
• J. B. Sash Proper Bostonian(Wood Exterior)
• Marvin Ultimate Double Hung (Wood Exterior) windows with 7/8"
muntins and bronze spacers.
Ms. Harper made a motion to approve the replacement of#6 and#7 as recommended.
Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
60-62 Washin ton S uare South
In continuation of a prior meeting, Hodges Court Real Estate, LLC submitted an application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness for the alteration of the window configuration in the first floor
sunroom. The applicant was not present. The Commission is required by statute to act on any
application within 60 days therefore must act on the application.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to deny the application without prejudice. Ms. McCrea seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
There being no further business, Ms. Bellin made a motion to adjourn. Ms. McCrea seconded
the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully
Jane A. Gu
Clerk of the 'ssion
December 15, 2010, Page 1 of 4
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
DECEMBER 15, 2010
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, December 15, 2010 at
120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Mr. Hart, Ms. Harper, Ms. Bellin
and Ms. Keenan.
Ms. Herbert entered later in the meeting.
135 Federal Street
Brenton Dickson submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the
replacement of three garage doors and the installation of a fence. Ms. Dickson and Helen Sides
were also present.
Documents &Exhibits
■ Application
■ Photographs
■ Fax of Proposal by Door Services, Inc.
■ Sawmill Creek fax of proposed door Silver Series arched transom lite units per proposal
4SC-SDOX011291
■ Siemasko & Verbridge Site Plan Drawing
■ Gemstone Aluminum fencing catalog page copy
Ms. Sides stated that they are proposing to replace all 3 garage doors with standing rolling doors
with beadboard diagonally applied. The door itself will be rectangular with an arched top. The
brick will conceal the top of the door so it will appear to be arched. There are similar doors on
Warren Street.
Ms. Herbert joined the meeting at this time.
Mr. Hart asked if it will be solid wood.
Ms. Sides replied in the affirmative, stating that it will be cedar. They will be painted black.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Herbert seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Sides stated that they are proposing to use the same fencing on the property beginning from
the rear property line along the southern lot line approximately half way along the lot line and
returning into the house at the porch corner. The fence will be Gemstone Opal Aluminum which
will appear-to disappear behind the shrubbery.
Ms. Herbert asked the spacing.
Ms. Dickson stated that the spacing will be the same as existing, but the spindles will be thinner
than existing.
December 15, 2010, Page 2 of 4
Mr. Hart stated that the existing fence is not visible due to the existing shrubs.
Ms. Harper made a motion to approve the fence as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion,
all were in favor and the motion so carried.
15 1/2 River Street
Peter G. Eschauzier submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the
construction of a one-story addition of a bathroom to the rear of the house. All materials and
colors to match existing and new fence to match existing. Ms. Eschauzier and Helen Sides were
also present.
Documents &Exhibits
■ Application
■ Photographs
■ Helen F. Sides, Archititect LLC drawings
■ Bay State Surveying Associates, Inc. mortgage inspection drawing
■ Catalog page copies of Velux skylight
Ms. Sides stated that the addition will be visible from Andover Street. It will be going before the
Zoning Board. It will be a one-story shed addition. The neighbor has kindly said he will let
them use access through his yard to build, but his one request is to restore the fence in the same
location. The building inspector has indicated that windows cannot be on an elevation with a
zero lot line, so they are proposing skylights. They are proposing two of the smallest Velux
skylights that are made. They will replant the existing trees or replace them, to make it dense
again.
Mr. Hart asked the separation between the house and fence.
Ms. Sides stated that it will be really tight.
Mr. Eschauzier stated that the fence may be screwed to the addition and then be removable for
maintenance between.
Mr. Hart stated that flashing should be considered.
Fred Biebesheimer, 17 1/2 River Street, stated that the owners have been doing a terrific job
renovating. He was in support of the application.
Mr. Hart stated that the roof should be 3-tab.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the application as submitted, with a 3-tab roof to match
the existing roof. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
A. Minutes
December 15, 2010, Page 3 of 4
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of December 1, 2010. Ms. Keenan
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
B. Bridge Street Neck Neighborhood Historic Properties Survey—Update Discussion
Ms. Guy stated that the City has hired Lisa Mausolf to undertake a historic properties
survey in the Bridge Street neighborhood, which was proposed to survey 125 of the
oldest un-surveyed properties in the Bridge Street Neck. Of the 125 that met this criteria,
there are approximately 25 homes that are extensively altered and have seriously
compromised integrity and Ms. Mausolf has suggested that she survey 25 newer homes
that have more historic significance. The additional proposed criteria is:
■ Any property pre-1850 (as suggested by MHC);
■ Properties located in the existing National Register district ; and
■ Properties closest to the Common end of the district,where.there is some possible
neighborhood interest to create or expand the local historic district(Northey St. area and
the area between Bridge Street, Winter, Pleasant and the Common).
There are 143 properties that meet this criteria. Ms. Guy asked if the Commission had
any comment on the proposed properties for survey and any recommendations on the
whether the final 125 should be selected by location, by integrity or by age, or be left up
to the consultant to decide based on all three.
Ms. Harper felt that the properties for potential historic district should be included.
Ms. Bellin agreed that the pre-1850 and the area were there is a potential for historic
districts be surveyed and that the rest to be survey be at the consultant's discretion.
Ms. Keenan was in agreement.
C. Ms. Guy stated that to date there are no applications for the January 5th meeting, but that
the deadline is December 20th. She noted that she will be on vacation from December
17th to December 27th and suggested that the Commission cancel the January 5th meeting.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to cancel the January 5th meeting. Ms. Herbert seconded the
motion, all were in favor and-the motion so carried.
D. Mr. Hart stated that he met with some people from Lynn who are concerned that there are
Native American resources at the site of the proposed Walmart/Lowes project. He
suggested that they hire a professional archaeologist. He asked if the city has any survey
work there.
Ms. Guy stated she could check the archaeological report, but noted that the maps were
not public documents. Mr. Hart asked for a report on the findings at the next meeting.
There being no further business, Ms. Bellin made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Herbert seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
December 15, 2010, Page 4 of 4
Respectfully s i
Jane
Cle of the Commission