The URL can be used to link to this page

HISCOM 2011 MINUTES January 19, 2011, Page 1 of 11 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 19, 2011 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, January 19, 2011 at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Mr. Hart, Ms. Harper and Ms. Bellin. Ms. McCrea and ills. Keenan entered later in the meeting. 60-62 Washington Square Hodges Court Real Estate, LLC (Lewis Legon) submitted an application for a Certificate of Non- Applicability to rebuild the porch on Washington Square East in kind, to replace the rear entry door and to replace rotted wood on the third floor dormers. Also submitted was an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to move two windows approximately 6", remove one window on the first floor rear, add vents for gas fireplaces, alteration of porch windows and addition of a deck over the porch. Present was Lewis Legon and Building Inspector Thomas McGrath. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Pitman &- Wardley Architects' photo mock-ups of 3 window/deck options Ms. Legon stated that there was some misunderstandings that he believed he was partially responsibie for with regard to the recent demolition of the porch. He stated that when they started to woof: in that area, there were some unsafe circumstances with the porch. He stated that once they li 1 ted the four layers of roof,there was a separation between the porch roof and the main building. It was so poorly constructed and there was a sense of urgency due to an unsafe condition. Ms. Keeimn joint d the meeting at this time. Mr. Legon aeknowIedged that he moved too quickly, but noted that his intention was always to replace tl.e porch iii kind. He stated that later in the day,he spoke with Mr. McGrath and sent an email to 11 S. G uy who was on vacation. He stated that he has preserved all the windows. He noted that you uon't really know the condition of the inner structures and condition of the framing unti l votI open it up. He stated that decisions are made as you go i.e. when you discover rot, etc. Ms. Herbert stated that she went to the site and concurred that the windows were saved, although some of the moldings were rotted and could not be saved. Mr. Lego;i stated that Ms. Flynn, the prior owner, stated that the windows were replaced in 2003. Ms. Harper asked Nor. McGrath if he saw the porch before it was demolished. January 19, 2011, Page 2 of 11 Mr. MCGratll stared that when he saw it, he noticed that the floor was wavy. He stated that it appears a porch was constructed and then more was later added to it, which is supported on cedar fence posts. 1-le noted that it was very poorly constructed. He stated that he recommended that Mr. Legon tall:to tuts. Guy. He stated that he had not seen the roof at that time, but understood the roof started separating once they started peeling it off. He stated that something needs to be resolved that will meet the energy code, be stable and meet the Historic Commission requirements. He noted that he is an architect by trade and has been with the city for 4 years. Ms. McCrea.joinc d 1he meeting at this time. Mr. Hart stated that the Commission was taken back when it learned the porch was demolished. He stated that he is hearing there were certain extenuating circumstances. Ms. Herbert state, that it would have probably had to be demolished anyway, but noted that the timing wt,.ts ur1 tortttnate. She stated that now that it is down, there will be a formal foundation, which will give a better constructed building. Ms. Herbert noted that she had suggested that a balustrade might 1-,e considered for placement above the porch, which is part of the application. She stated that she had suggested it because the original application hsf requested two decks at the top level, which was determined unfeasible due to structural issues. Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the Certificate of Non-applicability. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion. Mr. Legon stated that all the dormers were repaired as part of the roof repair. Blair Coidw!1-4—Inestone, 70 Essex Street, stated that there are three dormers on the back, includinL� on_• dour,le dormer. Ms. Herbert stated that it apl-)ears the door has arched tops and suggested it be refurbished. Mr. Legon stated that the door is junk, it has extensive rot right through and is beyond repair. Ms. Harper !',It t!tat the door would be hard to replace from a Brosco book. Mr. Hart stat,_,d dint if it can not be replaced in kind, the applicant will have to come back. The motion was voted upon. all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Legon stated that he is no longer going to relocate the two windows. Ms. Herbert stated that the window proposed for removal may not be original. Ms. Diozzi stated that the window proposed for removal is barely visible. Therewasi. Dublic comment on the window removal January 19, 2011, Page 3 of 11 Ms. Herbert ;uadc a motion to approve the removal of the window on the first floor rear, as indicated on the hian. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Legon stated that each unit will have a gas insert fireplace, which require direct venting on the outside or the building. lIe proposed to paint the vents either the trim or body color. The material is metal. There will be four vents, two on Washington Sq. East first and second floor. The other LvVo would be on the right, when standing in front with the Common behind, and would be tuci-:ed iu and barely visible. Ms. Cold we:I-Fitiestone asked if the vents will blow down or up. Mr. Legon stated that it vents outward, but noted that heat rises. Mr. McGrat'z stated that the purpose is to vent the products of combustion so the house does not fill up. 1 is st:aed ghat it would be similar to a dryer vent or gas stove, and would produce only a small an;ou,;t of heat. Thev must be installed a minimum of 8' high. Mr. Hart tl.at the building inspector is going to have to approve the vent installation. Andrew 1;inestone, 70 Essex Street, stated that he did not feel the vents were historically correct. Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve installation of the vents per the locations indicated and painted to in :;ch tiic body color of the house. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. Mr. Hart 60r a modification that it be 4 vents as per locations indicated on floor plans with the vent :.ire accordance -,vitli photograph submitted. Ms. Hel-bci't :;o amended her motion. Ms. Bellin seconded the amendment, all were in favor and the motion carried. Mr. Legon rvidcd a cope of the first floor interior plan. Ile stated that one of the concerns as part of a devciopn.ent was not having the bedroom be a fishbowl. Proposal#1 is what was discussed .,. [,rior meeting. Proposal#2 is the preferred, due to the symmetry, which he suggested t!; winctows be 2 over 2. Ms. Hcr "cr; .;tatcd that Proposal #2 looks like it was original to the house and some members may pretcr t., i<ccn it looking like a porch. Ms. Bell :ed the age of the porch. Mr. Legon stetted that the Flynn's lived there 15-20 years and that there are four years of roofing, so it has-,,r(�; •iuly been there a long time. Sue niuz = '� ;uut��itron, 72 Essex Street, stated that, aesthetically, the three windows look better than propose.i in option#2. She IeIt the windows looked too small for the width. She felt#2 lool<ed li i;c ;: e N�,,ndows had.been boarded up and looked too skimpy. She stated that the 3 window:; ,,, January 19, 2011, Page 4 of 11 Ms. Colcixc! Finestone stated that she preferred the original. Mr. Fine stogy;: stated that the five windows should stay in tact. He stated that a recently removed tree on tlic pr<)perw has made the entire porch more visible. He also noted that the tree on Wasliingto;i .square is dead said is going to be removed, which will make the vents more visible. Ms. Harper if the existing windows are the same as the rest of the house. Mr. Legon r-idled in the affirmative. Ms. Harper ,'tatcd that she preferred to keep the 5 windows, as it shows the progression of the house ana I,- seen as an addition. She stated that she was willing to not keep the windows on the back of„1e house, but]seep the windows on the side. Mr. Leg_,,n that he Nvould like to keep one window in the back. Mr. Hart st.i�A l th,,tt lie had questioned the removal of the two windows initially. He stated that now that to_ are looking at a reconstruction, he would prefer option#3. He felt that it would be reversible a:tci lie that lie no objection to the balustrade. He stated that there is photographic evidence t , . the %virtdows were there. He stated that it will still show it was a different era of construction. He stated that lie did not feel comfortable with option 92. Mr. Hart asked if the one wineo— rear lvould be centered, 6 over 6 to match the rest of the porch windows. Mr. Legon : in the af;irinative. Mr. Hart T�- ct .-;lotion to approve option#1, and replacement of the three windows in the rear with one ee:,.::, .! window, with all windows to be those salvaged from the demolition of the porch. N!,. -a seconded the motion. Ms. Har .er that just because the porch was taken down is not a good reason to grant different v,v. She stated that she felt changing the windows from 5 to 3 changed the look of the ho Ms. Bell in sr ; that the demolition has no bearing on her vote. The motion ,.is voted upon. Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Mr. Hart, Ms. Bellin, Ms. McCrea and Ms. Keena,_ ;,utcci in favor. Mr. Harper voted in opposition. The motion so carried. Mr. Leg_,;: tcc! that M 1-1erbert encouraged him to apply for a balustrade on the lower level in place of the :aiusrracle proposed for the upper level. Ms. Heril'i, stated that he had originally proposed placing it on the upper roof. Mr. Legon -tted that he tools photographs of some balustrade systems in the neighborhood. He suggeste_I _--, f—afayette Strect or 18 Lafayette Place as an example. Ms. Bell;.i c, _..l what room it will come off. January 19, 2011, Page 5 of 11 Mr. Legori si—ited that it would be from the kitchen. The upper left window would need to be replaced a door. He stated that he did not select a door, but would come back with a door option. Morris So if)!)r, 1 Cambridge Sheet, stated that this board's role is not to provide home runs. He did not t_,el ::.at roof decks were allowed in districts. Mr. Finestoi;c stated that it was against the Commission's guidelines, that intrusive contempor,iry features should not be highly visible, but should be in the back where it is not as intrusive. h : stated that he was vehemently opposed. Ms. Col 1wsiorte stated that she was also opposed. Ms. Con,lai:_liton questioned having a deck over someone's master bedroom. Ms. Col(..v -t inestone stated that she watched the roof shingles on the porch being removed and did njt . :c :novemeut. Ms. BelF .• 1 1!'there was a specific design for a balustrade. Mr. McG stated 36" will meet the code for one unit. Ms. Bel l i u •. Led 1 hat she c:::uiot make out the design in the photoshopped drawing. She stated that she :el, i •,vas premature to vote and that the Commission is usually provided with drawings. Mr. Hart rested a site visit. Ms. Harper .iced that the Commission would be looking at nothing right now. Ms. Dioz--i i voting, on the concept. Ms. Herhe r uaed that if a balustrade will be built, it will have a different porch roof, so it should pruz� �iy l�e planned altogether. Ms. Bell :i i that the G)inmission needs to be very thoughtful in coming to its decision. Mr. Leg •,i .:cd that he Mould like to get a feel from the Commission if they would consider the concept err. cck before he has an architect prepare drawings. He wanted to know if the Commis_,!(). Is open to the idea of the deck. Ms. Bell.:. _1 that she would consider one. Mr. Hart . tl;at he felt ,; site visit was needed. Ms. Di07.Zi =. McCrea and Ms. Harper stated that they were not in favor of a deck. Ms.Kee: •,sled how irriportarnt it would be to-have a deck. January 19, 2011, Page 6 of I 1 Mr. Legon Zted that it is Ii i ghly desirable, but not the end of the world if not approved. Mr. Legoti . atcd that he would like to replicate the first floor deck on the right side on the second tloo,. Ms. Belliii :.,ade a motion to continue the balustrade and door portion ofthe application to the meeting of;'chruary 2nd. Ids. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 104 Federal ,street Mr. Hart ell iLed position the table from member to applicant. David I Parbar;; A. Cleary submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropri�tt,._ess to replace previously removed roof snow guard at their Federal Street facade (south and C St elevations). Documents '-- Exhibits ■ Apl cation ■ Phl o! �'raphs ■ 1 t ;g ct!t of snow guard from slateroofwarehouse.com Mr. Harr st. ; that lie had ireviously gotten approval to remove the snow guard along Federal Street !!id along the eastern facade of the main roof. He is now proposing to install a conventi(iti• )iiie steel snow guard. He would also like to add 14' of snow guard in the alleywa v. v n i s not v i s il h I e from the public way. Ms. Be!!in .t.,•d i f the snov, guard being installed is similar to the one removed. Mr. Hart . 'Wd i►i the negative, stating that the prior was a flat,piece of metal and the proposed is more co; ,uonat Ms. Herber, L•:i iflie will he using brackets. Mr. Hart st: that Nevi E idney will construct brackets out of metal. The entire will be painteo i,mi Meg Tw«h� 22 Federal Street, stated that she was in support of the application. Ms. McCre '-'1"'de a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, i_!! 1 favor ancr the motion so carried. Mr. Hai, : reed to his position of Commission member. Other ! A. it Street—Project Notification Form Review January 19, 2011, Page 7 of 11 h-.s. uv stated that she received a copy of a Project Notification Form(PNF) submitted to INV ssachusetts 1 listorical Commission(MHC) from Susan St. Pierre Consulting Scn es dated Janua;-y 6, 2011. Because the project requires a Chapter 91 license from ti,e ale, it triggerect tV4GL Chapter 9, Section 26-27 (the state's version of the federal S 106 Review),requiring the project proponent to submit the PNF to MHC. MHC Itas _ drys to comment onthe PNF. The Commission has the opportunity to provide c lu et:t on the inilxlct the project on any historic resources but does not have any al pr authority. Pees ;t was Susan St. Pierre from Susan St. Pierre Consulting Services and Attorney S-0: rover. 1y,s. Pierre stated :hat she was retained to secure the Chapter 91 license and take the the st-te MEPA process. Because the site is comprised of more than one a�re lleLl tide lands, it requires a Chapter 91 license. They are proposing to file an C.:cY -A Environmental Notification For in and will be requesting a waiver from filing an E iv !,mcntat Impact Report. The PNF has been ailed with MHC and a copy was sent to I' • . I,i i-listorical Font mission. ivtty. .ironer stated that site is comprised of one former and one existing tannery sites. 'i'',c ;,t mart was known as Salem Suede, a series of big white buildings demolished �: .oI . ear ago following afire. The other portion is the Bonfanti site on Mason Street. I of the project, that building will be demolished. Three new buildings will be c .:1: cc!. There ��-i 11.be 309 parking spaces on the site, a portion of which is in a :ti a.�da.t in during the permitting process. The property is located within t, t Can,.) Corridor (NRCC). The permitting process is very extensive for the i it rccluires besign Review Board approval, of which the public review process s .r: i l summer or 2007. The Board of Appeals and Planning Board finished in 2010, r t _in 3 years of public process. One of the elements of compliance is creating p.lo; access to the North River. Atty. Grover reviewed the approved design concept ct.a iLs i«r the Coentnission. asked th height of the new building in comparison to the existing houses. i� .s. stated .fiat all the buildings are 50' or less. wvr stated t..at there are different height limitations in the NRCC. The buildings m.,tely 4� ' and most of the houses are approximately 30', but the difference is P I!'-0!10!l!'.Ce!l b,�CaUSC the buildings sit down In a hollow. r, asked the exterior cladding material of the buildings. 1" _',mver stated that building#lis corbelled brick cornice, brick veneer, stucco panels clad d:)uble hung windows. He stated that the Board of Appeal required i tar the Flint Street residences and the city wilt be granted an easement across t� sipe M case there is an opportunity to connect Flint Street with January 19, 2011, Page 8 of 11 C >n ncrcial Street. I le felt is was a good example on how the process can work. The 1 i laevicw Board unanimously approved the design. 1\.s. arner asked if the units will be rental or condominium. i -over replied that they will be rental and a condition was placed that 10%be a 'tof ,W le units for 99 years. There is a total of 55 one bedroom units and 75 two b,-dr ..)in units. Another requirement of NRCC is for buildings on entrance corridors to Irivc , retail component. There will be 5000 s.f. of commercial space. NRCC requires 2 s;:,ic of parking per unit, so there is 309 parking spaces,including what required for ii;kit. c:-immercial and 13 spaces for Flint Street residents. 1\,r. stated that he felt the adjacent abutting property owners should be notified. 11.:.. t stated that the Commission has never notified abutters for any project for PNF She noted that the agenda was on the meeting calendar and distributed C. c ;cc,lly to most Nvho subscribe. N :ner asked the material of the synthetic balustrade and stated that she was hoping 1: t t'VC. Y\tt\ i-wer stated that lie did not know the material. 1` 3. read a Memorandum from the City of Salem's Design Review Board dated Nt,,ir 2009, which summarizes the project. She also provided copies of the initial i .v Place c!evelopment concepts completed by 11. H. Morant& Co., Inc. dated ie I iri it concepts dated 8/12/08,the Planning-, Board Site Plan Review decision 7/09 an(, :. Planning Board approved site plan by Eastern Land Survey Assoc., I. id 1/24/08. 1 r;. read into the record an email from City Councillor Paul Prevey. T .s. read into the record an email from Will Wrightson. Oal mau, ?5 Flint Street, stated that he subscribed to the spirit of the two letters. I { that the morning and afternoon flow of trail"ic will be very large, which will i 'lint Strcc.. which will add a whole lot of burden and effect the quality of life. It p,.i a wl� lie lot of pressure on Bridge Street along with the construction of the 1: garage at tnc train station. He would like to have Flint Street go in the opposite c. Fle stated ,hat traffic will make it impossible to get home. I �dwcll, 36 belt Street, stated that he was on the working group that developed the i iian. He stated that he felt the zoning requirements developed from the NRCC 1 ..erves a.pplaLiding because it requires design review. He stated that the DRB was l;anc a sow's err, for which they tried to make a silk purse. The NRCC says they want t; allpropr;:iic cievelopment, while preserving neighborhood character. -hood co-linercial use is required by its zoning. He stated that for the JPI r its, the rl iiw ratio is 2 to 1. The MBTA lot has 340 spaces. He noted that if January 19, 2011, Page 9 of 11 r. tul Comm -rrcil Street to Flint Street,the new park will be gone, but this would le case if ne -)roposed new building is moved over. Ile stated that the building is ytc s high,not 3 stories. Building#I is longer in length than the factory that was 1. .4,V sly there. "Elie Nlaster plan calls for Flint Street to be one way. The Master plan s:.N•s i s(a), away from stucco and aluminum. The PNF does not say anything about the 1' o €ain, whic!t is another issue that will need to be addressed during the MEPA p.oc He adder! that he would like to know the basis that there are no archaeological re-:>o -es on the site. He felt that an archaeological investigation might be appropriate. 1 -d that the residential area is typically worker housing. He stated that he felt the p.aj t is not in the character of the historic neighborhood. I-Ie stated that renters don't t evolved in Community affairs. !cly, repro::crating Historic Salmi, Inc., stated that the Flint and Mason Street t. .;L, -1100d is ( .i L SI's most endangered list as part of the industrial buildings on the or., fi ver, dtie ,;) i;,appropriately scaled developed not keeping with intent of the s. tF ii. The 1'N F states there are no historic properties i n proximity, which she 1 !is is false ..ad ,vliieh they will be pointing out to MHC. .I ,:C under, 93 Federal Street, stated that she found a Citizens Guide to Section 106 r. ,i which de ,cdr)es when a project is considered to be an adverse effect. She stated tt.ttt °s project h;-s an adverse effect. She stated that it is near Leslie's Retreat, Harmony id the vl.•.rat;re District. She stated that it will effect the culture of the area. Hr I-choviei. 1722 Federal Street, stated that it will have an adverse impact of scale, t ,s cotniiar tiv_, density of adjacent neighborhoods. It will be 1 %2 times the density J. e stated iat one of the variances they got is to invade the abutting property for k T c(, --ohey, 12-- Federal & Chair of the Federal Street Neighborhood Association stated t t -c is a clai.0 t,utt there is no impact. She stated that Bonfanti Leather is the last r ,n• induct.:ttl nuilding in the NRCC it is going to he c!emolished. She stated that I along iittt and Mason have back yards that will flee this development. She ILL t thereIl ��c shadows, diminished view and that people will be able to look �o their i—vopertics. +a .'c hopf, 1 'a►,abridge St., stated that he would like to address the context of North yr e�Ore thr•;e v,vre tamleries, they built ships and houses were on both sides of the -c, he canal is gene in part because the railroad tilled in part of it. It has not evolved i; a V positive wav and this project is a coffin nail. It is too big and involves too many ., tc .iI s. WI ,:i t�dcl to the MBTA proposed parking garage, 3 more traffic lights and i, ;fated that ae _tia not understand how Mass highway will ever deal with that piece rt He ielt r- i i., statement from the Salem Historical Commission would help the t :t:i i.a at i adverse effect is not correct. r S. Ocrt state,t that she would be interested in hearing from any residents on the Ct. «f Flint b-iw( Mason and Bridge. January 19, 2011, Page 10 of 11 1 r. ';Idwell noted that one of the law suit complainants lives on the corner of Mason P ;r. hovici stated that 3 residents of Oak, Mason and Flint were involved in the law snit. tty 'rover stated tl gat according to opinion of land court judge, the complainants dial )t l -v standing to challenge the ZBA's grant of the variances because they failed to s. 0A I wi I cause a tuaterial increase in traffic. This was following testimony from 2 traffic engi;ieers with different points of view. 1- S. •roert suggest:d comments be sent ahead of the February 2A meeting so that t en ;s can digest them first. ]N;�r. .--ovici star-d that, with regard to the litigation, the court never.ruled whether this N ,Is _gal development or not, it was purely a matter of standing. The only issue that Aewcd was i i He stated that the court refused to consider whether vehicular I. wi thin i 1, lot that invaded the adjacent property was traffic or not. l` :tdwel l stated that he is a member of the Northfields Neighborhood Association %v there were 111cmbers present from the Mack Park Association. I)ert niad-� a motion to continue discussion to the meeting of February 2, 2011. S. in seconded ,iiu motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. !iert state.) that she would like to see a picture of the Bonfanti building. I' .i stated that he -,vas bothered that there is no notification process to adjacent B. s. !liii made a motion to approve the minutes of December 15, 2010, as amended. 'rea sccoi she motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. C. neetinas stated tl ,!t she would like to change the March meetings from the 2°el and the 9"' an< ,hu '3"� Mr. Hart made a motion to change the meeting dates as d. Ms. F elfin .iccuuded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. D. ,lsiness uy stated : !at the City has been invited to submit a full application for a MHC 0V anti 1',ai,.,1: grant for a Salem Common hence Study and Restoration Plan. na stated th!t she s drafted a letter of support for the Commission to submit. Ms. area mad: a iziotion to submit the letter of support. Ms. Bellin seconded the on, all were in tlivor and the motion so carried. January 19, 2011, Page 11 of 11 Treadwell stated that the MBTA parking garage "Final Scope Report" dated -0/10 is on line. Ile stated that the plan says that there is no action to betaken on .signal Tower, which has been determined to be eligible for National Register. He ,«ested the Commission comment on the plan noting that by neglecting it, it may ..,e an adverse effect on the Signal Tower. Treadwell stated that for the Boston Bridge Street LLC project, which will it.Ide a Senior Center at Boston and Bridge Street, the Section 106 review may Ile before the Commission due to the potential Chapter 91 license requirement. Tread we!i stated that the St. Josephs complex plan was found to have adverse �t according to 1v11-[C. telliji stated that she anticipates that the garage will go through MHC's Section roc:s;s and stated that she would like the Commission to get notified in the process. She suggest a letter be sent for this project and for the senior �r pro1cc,. l\is. BclI'll made a motion to send a letter to the project manager for t13TA tarag_ project and to the developer of the senior center building project ._sting til:,t"Alen tiny PNF materials are forwarded to MHC, they are also �Iitted collcurrcnt(y to the Salem Historical Commission. The letters are to be 1 to MHC. MI-. Hart seconded the motion and suggested the letter,reiterate that 1=4BTA sl!-mal tow�:r is on the National Register and the concern on the impact on Ind othe:- neari)v historic resources. 3 iL,Pond /Lowes Project- Ms. Guy stated that she reviewed the City's 1988 ;Icoio�21c:I1 Plan and maps and noted that the two known pre-historic sites are at W:t ,t rook. which is considered a preservation priority area. According to yap 'n-c 1gnv..I1er i3rook is even further away ii-onl the project site than Spring I and tha_ tliere is development between the archaeological sites and the Lowes •et site. ;�cc:,rding to Mrs. Guy, the 1988 report and maps did not identify any Ieolo��ie. : sites it the Lowes project area vicinity. There be:n.: iurther b�tsiness, As. Bellin made a motion to adjourn. Ms. McCrea seconded the mot iot;. were in ft;vor and the motion so carried. Respectf6i Jane Clerl, f emission February 16, 2011, Page 1 of 8 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 16, 2011 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, February 16, 2011 at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Mr. Hart, Ms. Harper, and Ms. Bellin. Ms. Keenan and Ms McCrea entered later in the meeting. 72 Flint Street—Project Notification Form Review Ms. Guy stated that the Commission received a copy of a Project Notification Form (PNF) submitted to Massachusetts Historical Commission(MHC) from Susan St. Pierre Consulting Services dated January 6, 2011.Because the project requires a Chapter 91 license from the State, it triggered MGL Chapter 9, Section 26-27 (the state's version of the federal Section 106 Review), requiring the project proponent to submit the PNF to MHC. Ms. Guy noted that the Salem Historical Commission has no approval or denial authority over the project and can only comment to MHC regarding any impacts on historic resources. In turn, MHC cannot approve or deny the project, but can only recommend to the project proponent on ways to minimize adverse effects on historic resources. Ms. Guy stated that on January 27t", she received documentation from MHC that they have already determined that the project is unlikely to affect significant historic or archaeological resources. Ms. Guy stated that she contacted MHC, who stated that the Salem Historical Commission can still send in comments and if there is new information presented or if they made an egregious error,they can try to address it. Present was Susan St. Pierre from Susan St. Pierre Consulting Services and Attorney Scott Grover. Letters/emails read into the record: ➢ Joan Sweeney, 22 Silver St. ➢ James Treadwell ➢ Emily Udy, Historic Salem, Inc. Ms Keenan joined the meeting at this time. ➢ Betsy Burns, 2 Beckford St. Ms. McCrea jointed the meeting at this time. ➢ Mack Park Neighborhood Association ➢ Meg Twohey, Federal Street Neighborhood Association ➢ Brenton and Elizabeth Dickson, 135 Federal St. ➢ Lynn Duncan, City of Salem DPCD ➢ Darrow Lebovici, 122 Federal Street ➢ Lorene Scanlon, 77 Mason Street, Unit 1 ➢ Mary Whitney&Nick Nowak, 356 Essex Street, Unit 2 February 16, 2011, Page 2 of 8 Mr. Hart stated that in his mind the main issue is the potential impacts on historic resources He stated that, with all due respect to Massachusetts Historical Commission(MHC), they sent us a letter with a rubber stamp that there is no adverse effect on historic properties and he is unable to resolve in his mind how MHC could make that statement. He noted that demolition is a potential adverse effect and that there are 19th century residential properties on two sides of the site. He stated that there are survey forms available which have been submitted to MHC, so he cannot reconcile how they made that determination. He stated that in his mind the potential adverse effects include the demolition of the Bonfanti Factory building, the visual impact of the abutting and nearby residential properties, potential noise and traffic adverse effects. He stated that he would want to see these included in a letter to MHC, and to request that they re-examine their position and ask the proponents to look at the effects on historic properties. He added that if there are federal funds or permits, it would kick off Section 106 review. He stated that MHC should be able to determine if the surveyed properties are eligible for the State or National Register. Ms. Herbert questioned why this part of the permitting started so late. She asked if there will be a need for a Waiver of Demolition Delay Ordinance Ms. Guy replied in the affirmative. Ms. Herbert stated that what the Commission has to say to MHC may have little effect. Because of the timing, it may be a f6te accomplis. She noted that the Demolition Delay Ordinance might delay the project for 6 months. Mr. Hart stated that the Commission should ask MHC to reconsider its determination and to go back to the proponent to determine if there will be adverse effects and to look at alternatives that will avoid, minimize and/or mitigate the adverse effects. Ms. Herbert stated that the project is currently proposed for rentals units and asked if there by eventually be condominiums. Atty. Grover replied that there are no condominiums planned presently, but there is nothing in the design that would prevent conversion. Ms. Herbert stated that management of the building is key, particularly if it is so contained, whether it is 130 or 65 units. She noted that JPI is well managed. Ms. Herbert asked why most of the commercial elements were eliminated. Atty. Grover stated that it was the lack of demand for the space. Ms. Bellin stated that the Commission should try to show MHC that there is either new information or an egregious error. Ms. St. Pierre noted that the process is for MHC to make a determination within 30 days on whether the project is likely to effect historic properties. If they make a determination that there is an adverse impact,they start the consultation process and then request comments. February 16, 2011, Page 3 of 8 James Treadwell stated agreed that MHC has up to 30 days to make the determination and that they do not need to consult with the local commission until after effect is found. He stated that he feel the error is that they did not consider properties that are on the Register, and that these may have been overlooked. He stated that the Bonfanti structure was not described in the PNF, so they have no basis to determine if it is eligible for listing on the National Register. Ms. Harper stated that she was concerned that part of the site is within the 100 year floodplain. She stated that given the crazy weather and how sections of Bridge Street are often under water, she wonders the impact. She stated that she would like MHC to give a great deal of weight to the Mack Park Neighborhood Association letter, as well as the other letters. She stated that the development going into the buffer zone area and the potential water service interruptions is alarming, and felt that it would have an impact on historic houses. She stated that given fact that the developer has been able to make changes so far, she would like them to consider scaling back the development. Ms. Diozzi stated that she was troubled by the lighted parking garage. Atty. Grover stated that the lighting consultant was brought in during the Planning Board consulting process. The garage was added in order to eliminate surface parking and to have more open green space. He noted that the developer would rather not have the garage, due to cost, but it is required by Planning Board process. Ms. McCrea stated that she was appalled that the state would issue a finding without first asking the Commission for comment. Mr. Hart stated that the Commission's letter could include all letters we have received. He stated that he can't understand how MHC, if they looked at their own list, could make a determination that there are no resources there. He stated that he felt it important to ask MHC to ask the proponent if there are any federal funds or permits involved. Atty. Grover stated that, as far as he knew, there are no federal permits required. State permits include Chapter 91 and the MEPA process that goes with Chapter 91. Mr. Treadwell stated that if MHC finds there are historic resources, then consultation process will begin. He stated that if he was in MHC's shoes,he would give credence to what the Salem Historical Commission and Historic Salem, Inc. say. He provided a list of"musings". Mr. Hart stated that the Commission could ask to be party to the consultation process. Darrow Lebovici stated that 30 to 40 citizens over 3 years, with professional help from Goody Clancy and Earthtech, undertook a major effort for the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood (NRCC) Master Plan and then incorporated it within the zoning ordinance. He sated that within 2 years, the Zoning Board ignored every piece of it. He asked if there are any remedies for misrepresenting information on an application to MHC. Ms. Bellin stated that if there are remedies, they are likely found under the general laws. February 16, 2011, Page 4 of 8 Ms. Herbert asked if the developers ever considered incorporating the Bonfanti building into the design. Atty. Grover replied in the negative. Ms. Herbert noted that the project was designed so eventually Commercial Street could be connected to Mason Street. She asked if they ever considered incorporating it as part of the project in order to get traffic moving in other directions. Atty. Grover stated that it was considered, but would require acquiring other private properties. Mr. Treadwell stated that Commercial Street has a cul-de-sac at its western terminus and that there is one property between the proponents parcel and the cul-de-sac. Therefore, only one property would need to be reckoned with. He noted that if the City decides to make the connection, much of open space will be lost because the easement is placed in the wrong location. He stated that he felt it should be up into the project more. Atty. Grover stated that the location is how the Planning Board asked to locate the easement. Meg Twohey stated that because 72 Flint Street was the only address on the PNF and the Bonfanti building addresses were not included,the state may have had no reason to look at those addresses. Ms. Bellin agreed it should be brought to MHC's attention. Ms. Herbert stated that she felt a lot of those really adorable buildings have been bastardized over the years. She stated that if the project is successful, it may encourage owners to improve their buildings. She stated that there is a desperate need for redevelopment down there. She stated that it would be great if the design could be massaged a bit more to be more reasonable. She noted that it could be a win-win. She noted that there are various obstacles, such as the Commercial Street connection and the easement. Atty. Grover stated that the developer has spent 3 years massaging it. Lorene Scanlon stated that she has been involved in whole process for last 3 %2 years. She stated that she disagreed with Ms. Herbert's comment. She stated that she felt home ownership encourages people to improve, not transient apartments. She stated that this is a situation where people are saying to just build it and fix it later. Ms. Herbert asked if the neighborhood feels the Bonfanti building is an important structure. Ms. Scanlon stated that there have been no discussions. She noted that most new owners were enticed by the vision in the NRCC which called for condominiums and they all expected a much different development. Teasie Riley Goggin questioned if there is a determination that the Bonfanti building is historic and should be saved, who will take care of it. February 16, 2011, Page 5 of 8 Mr. Treadwell stated that minimizing adverse effect is more than just saving it. The options could be recordation or salvage. Ms. Harper felt the buffer zone was an issue. Atty. Grover stated that the NRCC zoning has a buffer zone between the development and the residentially used properties. The approved permit gives a variance from the buffer zone requirements. It is not illegal; a variance was granted. Ms. Herbert asked if it is one building with 5 stories. Atty. Grover replied that, technically, according to the Building Inspector, it is 4 stories, but is 5 when you look at it. Ms. Herbert asked if the new building is the same height as the old building, so that the final. height is the same. Atty. Grover replied in the affirmative. Mr. Treadwell stated that the mass is greater. McCrea asked about the floodplain issue. Ms. St. Pierre stated that it has to go before the Conservation Commission, who has jurisdiction, including floodplain. Mr. Treadwell stated that the Conservation Commission approved the demolition of Salem Suede and that they will also look at stormwater management. City Councillor Paul Prevey asked what the Commission expects to happen now and if they will have another meeting. Ms. Guy replied that it depends on whether MHC changes its determination and begins a consultation process. Councillor Prevey stated that it is an illogical statement that there are no historic resources. Ms. St. Pierre noted that MHC determined that there is no adverse effect, and did not stated that there were no historic resources. Mr. Lebovici noted that there are other buildings listed in the state's MACRIS database. He noted that all but 5 are 19th century structures. He questioned whether any of those would be eligible for National Register listing and, if so, would MHC look at the effect Ms. Herbert questioned whether MHC would consider them not as important if they are altered, such as with vinyl siding. She stated that the Commission can propose that it is still an intact neighborhood. February 16, 2011, Page 6 of 8 Emily Udy stated that the Neighborhood Preservation District Study found the neighborhood would be eligible for an NPD district. She noted that the study was done in consultation with MHC. Ms. Bellin stated that MHC is required to specify the reasons for whatever finding they make and that the Commission should site regulation 950 CMR 71.07 2b. She noted the language states that the determinations are no effect, no adverse or adverse effect. She stated that she felt there was an egregious error in procedure. Ms. McCrea suggested the a copy of the Commission's letter be sent to Senator Berry and Representative Keenan. Mr. Treadwell stated that the Design Review Board has nothing to do with historical regulations, such as Section 106 or 950 CMR. He stated that the DRB did great things, but had nothing to do with historic resources,because it was not their responsibility. Mr. Hart suggested that MHC ask the proponent if federal funds or permits are included. Ms. Herbert stated that she was concerned with pile driving during construction. Mr. Hart stated that pile driving during construction should be added to the letter as a potential adverse effect. Ms. Herbert made a motion to send a letter to MHC with points noted: • MHC may have overlooked historic resources and/or made an egregious error in its determination • There is an issue with the addresses of the properties involved. MHC may not have been aware of the Bonfanti building's age and condition, which is proposed for demolition. The building has not been surveyed but is industrial building more than 50 years old and should be determined if National Register eligible. In addition, historic properties abut the site, as will as abutters to abutters and a little more distant historic resources, as indicated by survey forms on file at MHC. • Request MHC reconsider their position,have the project proponent provide MHC with documentation needed to make a determination and for MHC to make their determination in writing per 950 CMR. • There may be adverse effects (visual, increased traffic resulting in noise and vibration) on standing historic resources, as well as pile driving during construction. • Request MHC ask the project proponent if any federal funds or permits are required. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Other Business A. Letter of Support—2011 Massachusetts Historical Commission Preservation Awards—50 Saint Peter Street February 16, 2011, Page 7 of 8 Ms. Guy stated that Finegold Alexander and Associates, Inc. is submitting a nomination for the jail redevelopment and is requesting a letter of support, which was distributed by email earlier today. Ms. Bellin made a motion to send the letter of support. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. B. Minutes Ms. Guy read an email received by Mary Whitney, 356 Essex Street. Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the minutes of January 19, 2011, as amended. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. C. Correspondence Ms. Guy stated that she received a letter from MHC to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding the South River Public Landing Navigation Project, as part of the Section 106 Review process. MHC is requesting a marine archaeological reconnaissance survey be undertaken. Ms. Guy stated that she received a copy of a letter from the Public Archaeology Laboratory(PAL)to WilmerHale and from WilmerHale to the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs regarding PAL's cultural resource assessment of the proposed Lowe's site. The letters noted that MHC had previously determined that there are neither recorded historic or archaeological sites,nor properties listed in the State Register of Historic Places within the project site. Mr. Treadwell stated that 2 years ago MHC issued a letter siting an adverse effect for the St. Joseph's redevelopment. He stated that the Section 106 process has still not commenced and the Salem Historical Commission still has not been consulted. He noted that the project is at the Planning Board tomorrow night. Mr. Hart stated that he was bothered by MHC not asking the local commission for input on the Riverview Place project. He stated the he felt the Commission should talk to Representative John Keenan. Ms. Bellin and Ms. McCrea were in agreement. Ms. Bellin stated that she also felt the law needs changing. Mr. Hart was in agreement. Mr. Hart stated that an appeal can be sent to the Advisory Council in Washington, D.C., if the Commission feels wronged. Ms. Bellin suggested inviting Representative Keenan to a meeting. February 16, 2011, Page 8 of 8 Ms. McCrea stated that Councillor Prevey should be cc'd the Commission's letter. Ms. Harper added that all at Councilors At Large should be copied. 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. Respe7'theCommission Jane Clerk March 23, 2011, Page 1 of 12 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 23, 2011 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Mr. Hart, Ms. Harper and Ms. Bellin. 31 Washington Square North Ms. Herbert made a disclosure that she had previously put an offer on the building, but no longer has an financial interest as the building has been sold. Michael and Charlotte Shea submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a new fence, install a new door in the rear of the carriage house and install a new garage at 31 Washington Square North. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Plot Plan of Land from North Shore Survey Corp. revised to show garage and fence dated 3/7/11 ■ Plot Plan of Land from North Shore Survey Corp. revised to show garage and fence dated 3/23/11 ■ Elevation Plans of renovations dated 3/15/10 (Al, A2, EXl &EX2) & 2/17/11 (A3)— Richard Griffin, registered architect ■ Elevation plans of renovations (A-1 only) dated 3/23/10—Richard Griffin, registered architect Mr. Griffin stated that the fence will go along Oliver, going from the back of the building to the entryway of the parking area to number 31 and pick up again and go to the end of the property. They are proposing to do a similar fence to the Jones' fence across the street, but pared down. It is similar to what is there now, but with a little more detail. It will have a base water course. Ms. Herbert asked if the posts will be hidden. Mr. Griffin replied in the affirmative. Martha Chayet, Winter Street, asked if there will be 5 breaks and what will be the pillar support. Mr. Griffin stated that they will put a piece of trim, rather than pillars. Ms. Chayet stated that the Jones' fence has posts as breaks. Mr. Shea stated that he was willing to put posts at the breaks. Mr. Hart stated that it is a 5' high fence and questioned how it would be constructed out of plywood. March 23, 2011, Page 2 of 12 Mr. Shea stated that they would be full 5 x 10 sheets turned upside down to get 5'. Ms. Herbert asked about the lamination properties of plywood. Mr. Griffin stated that they will use an MDO plywood. The other option would be Azek. He noted that the fence across the street is plywood. Mr. Hart stated it would have exterior glue. Ms. Herbert asked the life expectancy. Mr. Shea stated that it is the same material as highway signs. Mr. Griffin stated that the posts would be capped. He stated that the posts across the street are 12 x 12, and suggested these be 8 x 8. Mr. Hart stated that he would like to see an amended sketch. Ms. Bellin asked if there would be a post at each building or just at the breaks. Ms. Herbert made a motion to continue the fence. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Griffin stated that they are proposing is to add a second door next to the window where the smokestack is, as per the drawing. Ms. Herbert asked what the doors lead to. Mr. Griffin stated a bedroom and a multi-purpose room. The living room and kitchen are upstairs. They are adding it to provide access to the garage they want to build. It is also a more public space in the house, while the other door is going out of a bedroom. There was no public comment on the door. Ms. Bellin questioned if they want the two doors to match. Mr. Griffin stated that they want the arch because of the difference in brick work. Ms. Harper asked if there will be any projection. Mr. Griffin stated that it will be flat. Ms. Herbert suggested having the bricks run vertically. Mr. Shea stated that it sort of matches the entrance to the carriage house. March 23, 2011, Page 3 of 12 Ms. Herbert asked if that facade should be more harmonious, since this a utilitarian side of the building. She stated that the rest of the windows and doors are sort of plain. Ms. Bellin agreed it doesn't match and felt it was kind of busy on that side. Ms. Harper stated that there are a lot of openings and it seems to fit. Mr. Shea stated that he preferred the arch. Mr. Hart stated that he did not have a problem with it. Ms. Herbert stated that she could go either way. Ms. Diozzi stated she did not see a problem because the facade is not symmetrical. Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the additional door and the brick work as proposed and the arched form. The door is to be the same design and materials as the existing door on the facade. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Griffin stated that the proposal is to install a 2 car garage 24' x 24', based on what zoning allows for height and setback. They would like it to look like a child of the carriage house, with windows on all sides. It will be 18' high. There will be a loft floor. Neil Chayet, 26 Winter Street, stated that they think the garage is a great addition for the property. He stated that the concern is the proportion, which seems to be in order. He added that the other question was the nearness to the other building and whether it would be improved if it were a little further away. He noted that they met with Mr. Shea and there is a possibility of some adjustment to the curbcuts and stated that curbcuts are important and some adjustment would be beneficial to everyone. He stated that Mr. Shea stated that there will be no additional dwelling units. He stated that Mr. Shea assured him that the remainder of the lot will be green space. He added that some concerns about the project would be alleviated if it goes before the ZBA. Mr. Griffin stated that they added 5' of separation from 10' to 15' per the revised drawings. Ms. Herbert asked if they considered doing the garage on the other side of the carriage house so they don't loose the view of the garden. Mr. Griffin stated that they tried it but to get to it would loose some parking spaces. They would also not get the 5' of setback and distance from the building. Mr. Hart stated that he had no problem with elevation, separation or massing and that it seems to be appropriate. Ms. Herbert asked if the brick work will be similar to the house and carriage house. Mr. Shea stated that it will be as close as possible. March 23, 2011, Page 4 of 12 Mr. Griffin stated that it will be a water struck brick. The wood windows will match the carriage house, which were Matthews windows approved by the Commission. Window sills will be brick. There is a little bit of white woodwork and he believed they can get a crown molding under the cave. The roof will be black, 3 tab asphalt. The door will match the wood door of the carriage house. The garage doors will be wood with optional glazed panels. Mr. Shea suggested black for the door color. Ms. Herbert asked if there will be a need for vents for heating. Mr. Shea stated that they could put vents in the rear so as not to be seen from the street. Mr. Griffin stated that there will be spray foam insulation so there is no need for an cave vent. Mr. Hart asked if they will replicate the brick dentil. Mr. Griffin replied in the affirmative. He stated that above the dentil, he would probably want a gutter. Mr. Shea stated that the carriage house has a wood gutter and that they probably would use 4" round galvanized corrugated downspouts painted white. Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the garage as submitted as drawn with wood gutters and galvanized fluted 4" downspouts, heating vents on the west facade, wood windows and doors to match carriage house, roof shingles 3 tab black, brick work to match the carriage house in terms of width of joints, character of brick and color, black doors, garage doors with 5 lite paneled wood with option of a glazed panel, option to paint the new brick dentils in white. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 60-62 Washington Square South Lewis Legon, Hodges Court Real Estate, LLC, submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the following: • Eliminate 1 small window in rear—2nd floor • Install 2 vents in chimneys • Replace rear door, first floor • Install HVAC vents on left and right side • Paint trim on exterior,paint front doors—Paint colors are Suntan for body, Navajo White for trim and either Black Forest or Essex Green for doors • Storm windows • Install gas meters on left or rear side of building • Replace 2, third floor windows with double hunger Anderson 200s (already completed) Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs March 23, 2011, Page 5 of 12 ■ Paint chips Ms. Diozzi read an email sent between Ms. Herbert and Mr. Legon for which Ms. Herbert asked five questions and Mr. Legon provided following answer: Question 1) On the "chimney vents": Do they come in, or can they be painted in a flat off-black color? Answer: CAN BE PAINTED. DO NOT COME IN. Question 2) Do you plan to repair and paint the 'fish-scale wood shingles' above the front portico and on the side of the house at the bay windows? Are you planning to paint them in the white trim color, or in a gray slate color to define them as roofing and not trim? Answer: LIKE YOUR IDEA OF PAINTING THEM THE GRAY SLATE COLOR Question 3) Where do you plan to locate the A/C compressors vs. the A/C vents? Answer: RIGHT REAR SECTION OF BUILDING, ALMOST HIDDEN IF NOT TOTALLY Question4) Is the new rear faux chimney the same height as the original? Answer: MAYBE 1 FT SHORTER AS IT WAS UNNECESSARILY TALL. Questions 5) Do you have a landscape plan to share? That would be helpful for the neighbors to see, although it is not part of our official review unless it pertains to screening of the A/C compressor units. Answer: I HAVEN'T DEVELOPED ONE YET, TOO MANY OTHER ISSUES RIGHT NOW Mr. Legon stated that his structural person, regarding the height of the rear chimney with consideration to the wind load, advised him to reduce the height of the rear chimney. He stated that it is exact to what is there but lower. He stated that there is a kitchen area for one unit and they were permitted to eliminate a window below and he would also like to eliminate the 2nd floor window. Andrew Finestone, 70 Essex Street, stated that he preferred no revisions be made that are visible from Washington Square East. Ms. Herbert stated that the rear window does not look original. Mr. Hart stated that he had no problem with it. Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve removal of the rear, second floor window. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Legon stated that the vents in the chimneys are actually air exchange vents to feed the HVAC system as an option to venting through the slate roof. He provided pictures of several buildings at that corner with similar vent structures and stated that they are very common. He stated that he is willing to paint them. Ms. Harper asked why it was not brought up when he got permission to do the faux chimneys. March 23, 2011, Page 6 of 12 Mr. Legon stated that he initially thought they would vent through the building, but they decided to take advantage of it during the construction of the faux chimneys. Ms. Bellin asked how much is sticking out. Mr. Legon stated that he believed it was approximately 3/4 of a foot. Ms. Herbert asked if the a/c vents could be lowered. Mr. Legon stated that there has to be clearance above the chimney. Ms. Harper stated that the other option would be to vent them through the roof. Mr. Legon replied in the affirmative. Ms. Harper stated that it is difficult to see what is happening in the chimneys in the surrounding properties through the pictures. Ms. Diozzi stated that they are very visible on this house. Ms. Herbert stated that there is precedence for it, but did not know if there was historic precedence. Ms. Herbert suggested clay pyramids that go on top. She stated that any time we can get rid of vents is preferred. She stated that what was installed is very modern looking. She suggested they be painted and the item be continued to see how it looks and to also look into the clay caps. Mr. Finestone stated that the neighbors chimneys are working chimneys. He stated that this is a faux chimney that was approved to look exactly like it did before and preserve the skyscape. He stated that we are not here to accommodate Mr. Legon's bells and whistles and there has been continuous bait and switch. Ms. Harper stated that she would like a continuation so she can look at the surrounding buildings and for Mr. Legon to look into the caps. Ms. Bellin stated she is troubled by the way this has unfolded and that now we are proposing putting something extra on the chimney. She asked if this were to be presented prior, where the Commission would want to put the vents. She stated that we should look at it as if it were not done and how we would approve it. Ms. Harper was in agreement. Ms. Guy suggested that they look into alternate locations for the vent. Mr. Hart stated that the Commission has often approved chimney caps. Ms. Guy stated that the Commission should look at a chimney cap at this location as they would for any homeowner coming in for a chimney cap. March 23, 2011, Page 7 of 12 Ms. Herbert made a motion to continue the chimney vents. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Legon stated that he proposes to match the front 6 panel door on the rear. Mr. Finestone stated that it should look as it did with no change in size or design. Mr. Hart stated that a 4 panel is more indicative to what should be there. Ms. Herbert agreed it should be a 4 panel. Mr. Hart suggested going to the Brosco catalog and selecting a 4 panel, noting he did not care if there was glass. Ms. Herbert suggested restoring the existing. Ms. Herbert made a motion to repair or replace the 1 sc floor rear wood door in kind, with upper 2 panels to be either solid or glass. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Legon stated that the HVAC vents are a building code issue. He provided a photo of the proposed vent and stated that it will go on each side. It is required to be 8' off ground. Ms. Herbert stated that it is ugly on the Washington Square side and preferred it be in the rear. Mr. Legon stated that it is a code issue, and that he could paint it the body color of the house. Mr. Hart stated that high efficiency furnaces are becoming more prevalent and this is how you vent them. Mr. Finestone asked if these are the vents that are already there. He preferred that they not be on Washington Square East. Mr. Legon stated that even if installed in the back, it would be just as visible from Washington Square East. Ms. Herbert asked if it could be on the fascia. She stated that anything added to the exterior must first be approved by the Commission, stating that it is infuriating to be approving items that are already installed. Mr. Legon noted that he also has to deal with building code and fire safety. Ms. Herbert stated that the architect should key into these things earlier. Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the vent as presented, approximately 4"x 8", painted the body color in locations proposed. She noted that there is a latex bonding primer for PVC. March 23, 2011, Page 8 of 12 Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Herbert asked if the fireplace vents could be painted. Mr. Legon stated that they will be painted the body color. There was no public comment on the paint color. Ms. Herbert asked if the fish scale wood shingles could be painted a color to blend with the slate roof. Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the colors as submitted with the option for the doors to be either Essex Green or Black Forest Green and to paint the fish scale shingles to blend with the slate (with the color choice to be approved by Ms. Herbert). Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Guy stated that the Commission does not have jurisdiction over storms. Ms. Herbert stated that they should be the same color as the surface they are on. Mr. Legon stated that when he bought the building there were meters going into the basement and by creating living space they needed to be relocated. He has been wrestling with National Grid who does not like to put meters in the basement. When National Grid came by for consultation,they recommended hanging them on Washington Square East. He noted that Ms. Guy suggested saying to National Grid that they are not allowed, which he did. He stated that National Grid has since agreed to put them in the basement and withdrawn the gas meter portion of the application. Mr. Legon stated that the windows replaced can barely be seen from Washington Square East. They are more visible when you go further back to Essex Street. They were double hung and were replaced in the same opening. Ms. Herbert noted that they are one over ones and the other dormers are two over twos, but in a different size. She noted it was minimally visible, but would have preferred two over twos. Mr. Finestone stated that this is the same pattern of doing before applying. Mr. Hart asked if they are single or insulated. Mr. Legon stated that he believed they are insulated. Ms. Bellin preferred to continue to look at the specifications and get dimensional information. Mr. Hart and Ms. Harper noted that there is one window installed that is an applied interior grill, not true divided light. March 23, 2011, Page 9 of 12 Ms. Bellin moved to continue the window replacement. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Herbert made a motion to give the option for alternative body and trim colors to match 225 Cabot Street in Beverly. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Guy stated that she got a phone call regarding work being done to a basement door. Mr. Legon stated that he is repairing the foundation and that they are digging down to the bottom of the foundation on two sides of the house. The hole into the foundation will be filled back in. Ms. Harper asked if the bead board on the new porch was there prior. Mr. Legon replied in the affirmative. 66-68 Derby Street Ms. Diozzi recused herself and left the table. 66 Derby Realty Trust, Jay and Neal Levy Trustees, submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for partial demolition and renovation and restoration of existing structure and to erect a second building on the remaining portion of the site. Present were Jay and Neal Levy, architect David Jaquith and realtor Betsy Merry. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Drawings completed by David F. Jaquith Architects dated 3/7/11 Mr. Jaquith stated that they initially wanted to demolish the building and install two units in the center of the lot. At one time it had been a tavern, as well as more than one store with a housing unit above. It is currently not able to be occupied. They know the front part is the original building and believe the original doorway was on the side of the house. After discussions with Ms. Guy and Ms. Herbert and looking at Sanborn maps, he stated that they are proposing to save the 18 x 30 piece, put back a fireplace, make some window alterations. remove the rear addition and put on a new rear addition. They would construct a new house on the other side of the lot, and all of the units would be condominiums. They are looking to get support to go to the Board of Appeals. The proposal is similar to the density in the neighborhood. It is proposed to be a simple colonial. They need the two extra units to justify the work to be done. There was once a building on the lot in the 1950s. The details have not been worked out, but it will have classic entries,primarily double hung windows and chimneys 4' above the ridge. Ms. Herbert asked the value of the condos. Mr. Levy stated that they are thinking about 1400 square feet per unit. March 23, 2011, Page 10 of 12 Betsy Merry stated that they would be approximately$324-329,000. Mr. Jaquith stated that the lot is currently a missing tooth. They need 3 units to make the project work. There will be a total of 6 parking spaces. Mr. Levy stated that they need the Commission's support to tear off the back section, rebuild the front and construct a total of 3 units. Glenn Morrison, 3 %2 Becket Avenue, stated that he is in the condo in the building behind the property. He.stated that it looks like there will be green space. Mr. Jaquith stated that they will need to take down the tree. Noreen Casey, 72 Derby Street, asked how far the building will be from the wall. Mr. Jaquith stated that they will leave and repair the wall and it will probably be about 5 feet from the wall. The wall is a couple feet over their property line and 72 Derby is probably 1 1/2 feet from the property line. Mr. Levy stated that they will need variances. The existing house does not meet zoning, but it is grandfathered as a two family. Mr. Jaquith stated that the goal is to keep the houses in scale with the surrounding neighborhood. Charles Hildebrand, 46 English Street, asked if the concrete wall belongs to the lot or to the neighbor. Mr. Jaquith stated that it could be either. Mr. Hildebrand asked if it will remain,preferring it not remain. Mr. Levy stated that if it is determined to be part of the lot, they may remove it,but in any case would certainly improve it. Mr. Hildebrand stated that the design appears to be massive and have a lot of parking lot. Mr. Levy stated that it will likely be brick pavers and will not be black asphalt. It will resemble a courtyard. Mr. Hildebrand asked about having a 3`d unit in an R2 zone. Ms. Herbert stated that it would be taken up at ZBA. Mr. Hart stated that he was a little concerned about the parking and understood the situation, but felt it would need extra attention. He asked the age of the front portion. Mr. Jaquith stated that it was 18d'century, but did not know the date of the addition. He stated he will fully document it before demolition, with photographs. March 23, 2011, Page 11 of 12 Mr. Hart stated that he would want elemental documentation and photographs if it were approved for demolition. He stated that he liked the way the streetscape works because the new is differentiated from the old, and by not making an attempt to replicate gambrel houses. Ms. Herbert suggested that the block wall be replaced with a fence. She stated that she liked the idea of the enclave and it was a refreshing change. It is a departure of what is happening on the street and will add visual interest. She stated that she felt the big hurdle with ZBA will be the parking. Ms. Harper asked the height of the existing building. Mr. Jaquith stated that it was approximately 26-27' and the other buildings will be+/- 1', but will not be exactly the same. Neal Levy stated that they will be substantially shorter than the buildings on either side. Ms. Harper liked the idea of restoring the existing building and the idea of adding a missing building on the street, but was concerned that it is not considered a buildable lot. Mr. Jaquith stated that there will be a lot of little issues to be addressed at the ZBA. Ms. Harper stated that she was concerned with precedent. Mr. Levy stated that precedent is exactly why there is a zoning board. He stated that the ZBA evaluates on a case by case basis because every situation is a little bit different. He stated that you would be hard pressed to find a building in the neighborhood that meets the current zoning. Mr. Jaquith stated that the financial investment will have a positive impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Hart stated that Salem is an urban environment and this responds to the urban environment. He stated that he liked how the concept is developing. Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the concept of demolition of the rear addition, renovation of the main front section, construction of one additional building with 2 units and addition to original structure as proposed in the concept drawings submitted. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Diozzi rejoined the meeting at this time. Other Business A. Minutes Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of February 16, 2011. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. March 23, 2011, Page 12 of 12 B. Correspondence a. Ms. Guy stated that via email to the Commission members she recently forwarded copies of letters pertaining to the South River navigational Dredging Project from: i. Massachusetts Historical Commission to US Army Corps of Engineers— 2/11/11 ii. Apex Companies, LLC to Massachusetts Historical Commission—2/16/11 iii. James Treadwell to Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs— 3/10/11 iv. Apex Companies, LLC to the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs—3/11/11 Ms. Guy stated that her understanding is that the initial comment period is over, but that there will be additional opportunities to comment as part of the remaining permitting. She asked Commission members to review the materials and let her know if they want to take any action or add it to the next meeting agenda. She stated that she believed that an ENF was available and that she would obtain a copy if any Commission member requests one. Ms. Bellin felt most of the work will be off shore and would not have an impact. Mr. Hart stated that we should wait until we see an EIR. Ms. Diozzi suggested we hold off on adding this to an agenda at this time. b. Ms. Guy stated that Ms. Diozzi submitted a letter of support for the nomination of Annie C. Harris and Thomas M. Leonard for the 2011 MHC Preservation Awards: Individual Lifetime Achievement Category. c. Ms. Guy stated that she received a letter from MHC dated March 4, 2011 regarding Riverview Place at 72 Flint Street, in response to the Commission's letter. 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. Respect ly ub ted, Jane A' Clerk the Commission April 6, 2011,Page 1 of 5 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL'6, 2011 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, April 6, 2011 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Mr. Hart, Ms. Harper, Ms. Bellin, Ms. McCrea and Ms. Keenan. 31 Washington Square North In continuation of a previous meeting, Michael and Charlotte Shea submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a new fence. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Plot Plan of Land from North Shore Survey Corp., revised to show fence dated 4/5/11 ■ Elevation Plans of renovations dated 4/5/11 (A1 & A4)—Richard Griffin, registered architect ■ Sketch of 15 lite door, drawn on 4/6/11, Richard Griffin Mr. Griffin stated that they are adding fence posts to mimic those across the street. They will put termination posts at the driveways and at the end of the lot. They will put a heavier piece of trim at the buildings. There was no public comment. Mr. Griffin stated that they would like to change one of the approved doors to a 15 lite door. Mr. Shea stated that it would be similar to the Bertram House. Mr. Griffin stated that it will match the one on the addition built last year. It is a fir door and has simulated lites. Mr. Shea stated that they are going to match the soldier course of brick over the doors, rather than have the arch. Mr. Hart stated that he would like a sketch of what the door will look like. Mr. Griffin created a sketch of the proposed door. Mr. Shea stated that they were able to restore the clock. Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the fence as drawn and the 15 lite door at the rear of the carriage house facing the garage. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Apri16, 2011, Page 2 of 5 60-62 Washington Square South In continuation of a previous meeting Lewis Legon, Hodges Court Real Estate, LLC, submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the following: • Install 2 vents in chimneys as installed • Replace 2, third floor windows with double hunger Anderson 200s as installed The agenda also included discussion on the windows installed with applied grids and the height of new faux chimney in rear. Ms. Guy stated that she received a request to continue the application to the meeting of April 20t". Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 1 Harrington Court Donald Harrlow Powell submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for: ■ Change out 2nd floor windows on Flint Street side above bay and on Bridge Street side to match size of 2nd floor window on Harrington Ct. side ■ Remove block chimney on outside of house ■ Patch in existing siding with same cedar shingles or replace all with cedar shingles on three sides ■ Option to remove shingles and repair or replace clapboards underneath, painted gray with white trim to match original color ■ Install white aluminum gutters with downspouts to match final wall color or to run along white trim if clapboard is used ■ Install boiler vent on alley side behind fence, 3' above grade and 15' from corner on Harrington Court side ■ Build new front deck ■ Install new railings on back steps to bring up to code. Daniel Beauvais of Beauvais Builders and Mr. Powell were present. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Sketch of proposed deck completed by Beauvais Builders & a revised sketch Mr. Beauvais mentioned a few examples of historic preservation projects that he has completed in the past. He stated that the front window and the Bridge Street side windows are smaller than the window on the other side, so they would like to change them too match the larger window. The windows will be all wood Brosco windows to match. He stated that the sills on some windows are rotted and there is 908 casing on them. He added that, after tearing off some of the siding,they found 50-60 percent of it is salvageable, but that it is peppered with nails. He stated April 6, 2011, Page 3 of 5 that one option is to pull the nails, fill the holes and save the siding, but it would be a daunting task. Any existing pine clapboards that are not salvageable would be replaced with pine. He noted that cedar clapboards do not come in square edge and that it would not be economical to make new cedar clapboards to match the existing pine clapboards. He stated that another option is to replace all the cedar shingles and leave the 908. He stated that there is also the option to remove the 908 and fill in between the windows and the space left from the old size windows with in 1 x 3 stock, cut off the existing press board sills and replace with cedar or fir sills. He stated that the existing shingles are too dry rotted and that today he found interesting original shingling at the gable end, which they would like to restore. They can also replace a gable rack freeze board across which is currently missing. He also found a triangle shape which appears to have once been a sign for the 1897 owner's business and there is evidence that there was some kind of flatboard piece with molding that went around it. He stated that he would like the option to replace all the existing shingles with new cedar shingles and save the pattern at the gable. Mr. Hart stated that it would interesting to see if the same pattern is on the west gable. He stated that it is a nice craftsman style house that has been abused. He stated that it could be a fabulous house. Mr. Beauvais stated that if he repaired the clapboard siding, he would repair as much as possible and replace those to be replaced with pine to match. He would fill in the space between the siding and the window with 1 x 3 stock. For the 2 windows, he would reframe the opening and put in the larger windows to match the existing larger window in the side. Where clapboards are missing,he will blend in new clapboards. Ms. Bellin made a motion to replace two 2nd floor windows (one on Flint and one on Bridge Street)to match the taller window on Harrington Court. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Hart abstained from voting. Mr. Beauvais stated that they will clapboard over where the block chimney is being removed. Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the removal of the block chimney on the side of the house and clapboard over. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Harper stated that she would prefer keeping the pine clapboards. Ms. Bellin stated that she would be willing to allow either pine or cedar clapboards. Mr. Beauvais stated that they would be willing to try to fix the pine, but would like the option for cedar in case the pine proves too difficult. Ms. Harper felt the clapboards are worth doing and will make the building stand out a lot more. Mr. Hart stated that clapboards also go with the period. Mr. Beauvais stated that it will be painted to match existing color bluish gray with white trim and white door. April 6, 2011, Page 4 of 5 Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve removal of the shingled siding, repair the pine clapboards where possible and replace with new clear pine clapboards as needed, with the option to remove the pine clapboards and replace with clear cedar clapboards. Clapboards to be painted to match the existing bluish-grey and with white trim. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried Mr. Beauvais stated that they will be placing gutters that are missing, to match the remaining. Ms. Harper made a motion to give the option to fill in the triangle space with either MDO plywood or clapboards and add molding around it to maintain the original shape of the sign, or to not retain the triangle and to cover it over with clapboards. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Bellin and Ms. Herbert abstained from voting. Ms. Bellin made a motion to preserve the shingle details on the two gable ends and restore the horizontal frieze board under the shingles. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the installation of white aluminum gutters and downspouts where missing,to match existing gutters, with color to match the surface they run along. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Beauvais stated that the vent will be approximately 2 11/2" diameter and will protrude 4" from the house and be painted to match house. Ms. Diozzi stated that the paint will not hold due to the heat and felt it was not worth painting. Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the installation of a boiler vent on the alley side of the house, behind the fence, 3' above grade and 15' from the Harrington Court corner of the house, to be 2 '/2" in diameter, protruding 4" from the house. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Beauvais stated that the front porch will have 4 x 4 posts wrapped with 1 x 5 pine and will be capped with caps. Ms. Herbert stated that she did not feel there would be a post in the center of the railing for this style house, but felt that there would be a foot support. She said it was a pretty simple house, which should have square lattice on the sides and be open under the steps. There should be a post on the bottom step. Ms. Harper made a motion to approve replacement of the front porch as drawn with an all wood front porch, except to remove the post against house, remove the center post and add block underneath rail for support. It is to be a baluster and rail system with post that supports overhang. Between support post and house,there will be two sections of balusters terminating in posts at the top of the stairs. Stairs to have handrail and balusters with posts at bottom of stairs per revised drawing. There will be a standard Brosco fluted rail and pyramid caps on 4 x4 posts wrapped in 1 x 5 pine. All to be painted the trim color with deck grey decking and stair treads. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. April 6, 2011, Page 5 of 5 Mr. Beauvais stated that he would match the rear stair railing to the front. Ms. Herbert made a motion to install new all wood railings on the rear stairs to match the front porch, including two posts on the landing with a piece of balustrade to the house, with no post at the house. The single handrail will terminate with a post. It will have pyramid caps on 4 x 4 posts wrapped in 1 x 5 pine. All painted trim color with deck grey decking and stair treads. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Harper suggested painting both doors black. Ms. Herbert suggested an option for a deep wine red color. Ms. Harper made a motion to paint both doors either Essex Green, Black or a burgundy red with the approval of the burgundy red color delegated to Commissioner McCrea. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve removal of the 908 casing from the windows and replace with 1 x 4 trim, keeping the original width of the windows. Ms. Bellin 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 March 23, 2011. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. B. Ms. Guy stated that she issued a subordination for the Commission's Clerk's Certificate as to Violation for 14 Cambridge Street in order for the homeowners to refinance. There being no further business, Ms. Herbert made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Respectfully b d, Jane A. try Clerk of the Commission April 20, 2011, Page 1 of 3 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 20, 2011 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday,April 20, 2011 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Mr. Hart, Ms. Harper and Ms. Bellin. Ms. Keenan and Ms. McCrea arrived later in the meeting. 60-62 Washington Square South In continuation of a previous meeting Lewis Legon, Hodges Court Real Estate, LLC, submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the following: • Install 2 vents in chimneys as installed • Replace 2,third floor windows with double hunger Anderson 200s as installed The agenda also included discussion on the windows installed with applied grids and the height of new faux chimney in rear. Ms. Guy stated that she received a request to continue the application to the meeting of May 4tn Mr. Hart made a motion to continue the application. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 401 Bride Street High Rock Bridge Street LLC submitted an application for Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance to completely remove the building, noting that the roof has partially collapsed and is unsafe. The building is being removed for a new 137,000 s.f. commercial building. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Demolition& Erosion Control Plan ■ Gateway Center elevations Ms. Guy stated that she received a request to continue the application to the meeting of May 4cn Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 86 Essex Street The Salem Housing Authority submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install an air cooled condensing unit required for the air conditioning system for the elevator room. It is proposed for the rear of the building, adjacent to the rear door and just inside a job iin April 20, 2011, Page 2 of 3 the brick wall. The rear of the building is mostly blocked by the two-story townhouse units at 84 and 88 Essex Street, but the unit will be visible from the public way from a few angles. They are unable to mount the unit lower due to the location of gas meters and piping. The size of the unit is 23 5/8"x 31 1/2"x 1 13/16" and the factory finish is beige. Present were Debra Tucker of the Salem Housing Authority and Janet Moore of Syska Hennessy. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Syska Hennessy drawings V-1, SK-2 ■ Mitsubishi Electric catalog cut of PUY-Al2NHA Ms. Harper stated that she felt it was pretty visible and asked if it needed to be right next to the door. She asked if it could be behind the rhododendron bushes or painted. Ms. Tucker stated that there is either no room or there are drainage issues. They are willing to paint it. Ms. Moore stated that there may be a brick colored cover available and she is looking into it. Ms. Tucker stated that they may be able to match it better with paint. Ms. Herbert suggested putting a tall arborvitae on each side in front of the wall to camouflage the equipment. Mr. Hart stated that in Savannah, GA he saw a gas meter painted to simulate brick. He stated that it would be a nice idea to minimize the obtrusiveness as much as possible. Ms. Keenan joined the meeting. Ms. Moore stated that it is required by elevator code. It will not be flush mounted, but will be bolted to a stand and will be approximately 4-6" from the back of the unit to the L-shaped bracket. She added that they looked into mounting it on the ground and placing it between residents' windows. Mr. Hart asked if it could be mounted on the inside of the half wall. Ms. Moore stated that she could look into it, but was not sure if it would be problematic for meter reader clearance due to code. She was concerned about the space constraints. She did not think it was an option, but could explore it. Mr. Hart preferred that they check and come back. Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-applicability to install the unit on the inside of the half wall so as to be non-visible and to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the unit as submitted, conditional that it either be painted or covered in a color to match the brick, if the Certificate of Non-applicability is not feasible. April 20, 2011, Page 3 of 3 Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Hart and Ms. Herbert abstained from voting Ms. McCrea joined the meeting. Other Business A. Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the minutes of April 6, 2011. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. B. Ms. Guy stated that she sent a letter to the Board of Appeal, regarding 15 High Street proposed demolition, which is on their agenda. Ms. Guy informed the board that it is subject to the Demolition Delay Ordinance. C. Ms. Guy stated that she forwarded an email to Commission members from Lloyd Michaud regarding the National Grid's proposed cable replacement project. D. Ms. Diozzi stated that she gave the Mayor a letter of resignation effective September 1"and stated that she would also be stepping down as chair. Ms. Guy will put election of officers on the May 18t'meeting agenda. E. Ms. Guy provided photos submitted by Kate Murray of 1 Harrington Court, when here family owned it. Ms. Herbert stated that she toured the building and that the rooms are really tiny. She did a cost analysis but did not see how new windows would get a higher sales price. 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 spb i ed, Jane A. Clerk of th Commission May 4, 2011, Page 1 of 7 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 4, 2011 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, May 4, 2011 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Ms. McCrea, Ms. Keenan and Ms. Bellin. 35 Broad Street Paul Viccica and Helen Sides submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors. The body will be Benjamin Moore Mannequin Cream, the trim will be Mayonnaise and the shutters will be Sorcerer. The will also make repairs to rakes, soffits and flat roofs. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Paint chips Ms. Sides stated that the trim is lighter and the body color darker. There was no public comment. 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. Ms. Sides stated that with Sean Clarke from Waters and Brown, she presented to the Board of Health a proposal to change the paint preparation guidelines. She stated that the Board of Health is going to be adopting the EPA guidelines with power sanding allowed with HEPA vacuum and it will be more stricter requirements for permitting, applications and fines, so that we can do the right thing with these buildings,prepare them well and also suck up all the lead paint, rather than it scattering all over the city. 60-62 Washin Iton Square South In continuation of a previous meeting Lewis Legon, Hodges Court Real Estate, LLC, submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the following: • Install 2 vents in chimneys as installed • Replace 2, third floor windows with double hunger Anderson 200s as installed The agenda also included discussion on the windows installed with applied grids and the height of new faux chimney in rear. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs May 4, 2011, Page 2 of 7 Ms. Guy stated that she received a request to continue the application to the meeting of May 18th and that the request also included a waiver of the requirement that the Commission act on the application within 60 days. Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 2 Oliver Streeet/33 Washin tg on Square David C. Jones presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a pergola on an existing deck in the rear yard. It will have three 8'x8"x8"posts with caps, similar to the existing fence. The beams will be 2"x6"pressure treated. All will be painted white to match existing. Documents&Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Sketches Ms. Harper asked if everything will be pressure treated. Mr. Jones stated that he may use some cedar. There was no public comment. 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. 401 Bridge Street High Rock Bridge Street LLC submitted an application for Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance to completely remove the building, noting that the roof has partially collapsed and is unsafe. The building is being removed for a new 137,000 s.f. commercial building. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Demolition& Erosion Control Plan ■ Gateway Center elevations Ms. Guy stated that the application has withdrawn the application. This is due to the building department having condemned the building, based on recommendations from the City Engineer and Fire Chief. 40 Derby Street Ms. Harper recused herself from discussion on the application and sat in the audience. May 4, 2011, Page 3 of 7 Tina and Richard Jodrie submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace existing 3-tab shingles with Landmark Woodscape Colonial Slate architectural shingles. Tammy and Steven LaMonde, contractors, were present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Ms. Lamonde stated that the owners are not present due to a death in the family. She stated that the homeowner requested architectural because they believe 70% of Derby Street is already architectural shingles. She provided photographs of some of these properties. Mr. Lamonde stated that the house itself is not historical, but rather is just located in the district. Mr. Lamonde stated that the owner has chosen Colonial Slate,the color selection due to being across from the power plant which stains his roof. Ms. Lamonde noted that one of the House of Seven Gables properties has architectural shingles. Mr. Lamonde stated that the proposed is a better quality than Iko. He stated that the proposed will give more of a wood or cedar shake look. Ms. Herbert asked if they are doing other work on the house. Mr. Lamonde replied in the negative and stated that part of the roof is leaking. Ms. Herbert stated that the house is historic, but has been altered. She stated that there are violations on the property, noting that there are satellite dishes visible on the roof and that they would need to be moved so they are not visible from the public way. Mr. Lamonde stated that one will be taken off and the other will be moved to the back where it can't be seen. Ms. Herbert asked when the flue was put in the chimney. Mr. Lamonde stated that he did not know, but believed it had been there a while. Ms. Herbert asked if it were the type of venting that could be enclosed. Mr. Lamonde stated that by code, it needs to extend 9 to 10 inches above the cap and that if you put anything around it, it would not be able to breath. Mr. Herbert stated that a possible solution is a chimney cap with mesh around it. She stated that as part of the roof project any vent pipes should be painted out to blend into the roof. Ms. Herbert wondered if the Commission needed to investigate more about the architectural roofs on Derby Street. May 4, 2011, Page 4 of 7 Ms. Guy noted that the Commission has not always been concerned about architectural roofs versus 3-tab roofs and that in years past Certificates only specified asphalt and a color. She added that some of the roofs may also have been replaced prior to the formation of the district. She stated that some of the prior reviews of architectural roofs were based on the size and massing of the roof and were not completely denying architectural roofing altogether. Ms. Herbert noted that there are a few architectural roofs that the Commission has recently approved, as long as they don't create too much of variance in light so that they don't look like a checkerboard. The Commission has also specified shape. Ms. Guy stated that she supplied the applicants with the information on those that had been approved. Ms. Herbert stated that she did not feel the proposed is a type that has been recently approved. Ms. Lamonde stated that the owner is willing to go with the Iko, because he prefers an architectural and felt that he is entitled because of the other properties on Derby Street with architectural roofs. Ms. Bellin stated that we have to focus on what is in front of us, and that we really don't know the history of the others, so it is not a question of he gets to have it because somebody else has it. She stated that she feels the color is a little light. She stated that she is somewhat hesitant on architectural because it draws attention to the roof. Mr. Lamonde stated that since Elk bought out Landmark and GAF,there is rarely one solid color available. Ms. Bellin stated that she is not asking for a solid color, but rather a charcoal grey or black. Mr. Lamonde stated that people tend to go with light shades in order to prevent rot, because a darker shingle absorbs the heat. He stated that the owner is picking the color due to being across from the power plant and when the color starts to change from staining, the stain will blend better in with the proposed shingle color. Ms. Lamonde noted that the owner will accept any color in either type of architectural shingle. Ms. Harper, representing herself as an abutter, stated that she has 3-tab shingles on her house. She asked what color comes from the power plant. Mr. Lamonde stated that it is light to dark brown. Ms. Lamonde stated that one side of the house has green shingles and the other side is white. Ms. Harper stated that the straight edge shingles leap out less. She wondered if a dark color would absorb the power plant debris better. Ms. Bellin stated that she felt a dark shingle will hide a lot of the differences in the architectural. She noted that the Commission has not been approving angled shingles. May 4, 2011, Page 5 of 7 Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the IKO Cambridge 30 AR asphalt shingles in Dual Black or in Harvard Slate since the commission has previously approved this shingle in both colors. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Herbert reminded the petitioners to relocate the satellite dishes to be non-visible. Ms. Harper rejoined the meeting. 42 Warren Street Todd and Jennifer Weissman submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of an existing garage/shed and replacement with a new cedar shed to be painted the same color as the house. The application is also to construct a brick wall to extend from the back edge of the house to the end of the property. The shed will be 8' x 12'. The wall will be approximately 30' in length, 42" in height,with 2 pillars to flank a pedestrian gate. It will be capped with 14"wide granite. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Catalog cut of proposed shed ■ Sketch of wall Ms. Bellin asked the size of the current shed. Mr. Weissman stated that the new one is smaller. Ms. Weissman stated that the current shed is metal. She stated that the wall would start at the edge of the house and go to the end of the property. There will no longer be a garage. Ms. Herbert asked if the fence around the rest of the property is wood. Ms. Weissman replied in the affirmative. They will reuse some brick from the driveway for the wall and will match any new bricks to those. Ms. Herbert asked if they have a gate design. Ms. Weissman stated that it will be iron,but that they did not have a design. The wall cap will be granite rather than bluestone. The shed will go in the same location. The gate opening can go in anywhere and does not have to be centered. Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission will need to see the gate design. Mr. Weissman stated that the shed will be centered on the driveway and would prefer the gate also be centered. Ms. Weissman stated that it is a Reeds Ferry shed from New Hampshire. May 4, 2011, Page 6 of 7 Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve a brick wall as proposed, reusing some existing brick from driveway and with new brick to match driveway brick in the same pattern as the driveway, capped with granite per drawing, with the gate opening to line up with the center of driveway. The motion is also to approve demolition of the existing garage/shed and replacement with a new Reeds Ferry 8' x 12' shed per photograph and description submitted, in the same location centered on driveway. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. The applicants will need to apply for the gate. 15 High Street Ms. Harper made a disclosure that she had been renting space in this building and that since the building has been sold, she no longer has a financial interest. Paula Pearce submitted an application to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance for complete demolition of 15 High Street due to it being in disrepair and having structural problems. She intends to build a single condo with 3-car parking. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Land survey completed by Edwin T. Brudzynski ■ Drawings of proposed new residence completed by HND Architects Ms. Pearce stated that there will be 2 condos at 17 High Street and one at 15 High Street and the garages will provide parking for all 3 units. She stated that there will be no vinyl and that the Zoning Board of Appeal has already approved the project. Ms. Herbert questioned if the lone condo owners at 15 High Street will have an issue with the other 2 garage doors opening at 2 in the morning. Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance for the demolition of 15 High Street. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Other Business A. Ms. Guy stated that the First Church in Salem has requested an extension of their 5/24/10 Certificate of Appropriateness for the addition for one year. Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the extension. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. B. Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of April 20, 2011. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. May 4, 2011, Page 7 of 7 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 subm' d, Jane A Clerk gtheC ssion Mayl8, 2011, Page 1 of 9 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 18, 2011 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, May 18, 2011 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Ms. Keenan, Mr. Hart and Ms. Bellin. Ms. McCrea arrived later in the meeting. 1 Brown Street The Peabody Essex Museum submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for removal of siding, gutters and portions or roof shingles to determine condition and temporarily seal and stabilize. Ms. Guy stated that the applicants have withdrawn the application. 105R Derby Street Patrick McCormack presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of wood window boxes. They will be 8"x 2' 4"x 8" high, black or existing trim color. They will be hung with brackets attached to the undersill. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Mr. Hart asked if the fagade with the boxes if facing the street. Mr. McCormack stated that the front of the house is to the side, not facing the street. Ms. Herbert stated that the boxes are similar to the boxes on the yellow house nearby. Mr. McCormack stated that his are less elaborate and the brackets will be hidden behind the boxes. He stated that he has not decided which brackets he is using. Ms. Herbert suggested heavy duty L brackets. She noted that rain will make the boxes heavy. There was no public comment. Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 10 Lynn Street Joseph and Jean Galvin presented applications for Certificates of Appropriateness and a Non- applicability to change two gutters on the left side of the house from wood to aluminum. May18, 2011, Page 2 of 9 Documents&Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Jim Dalton, 10 Lynn Street, was representing the applicant. He stated that the gutters are going on the left side of the house when looking at it from the street, which is the rear of the house. He stated that most of the house is already aluminum gutters. Ms. Herbert asked if there was a sample of the proposed gutter. Mr. Dalton replied in the negative. Ms. Bellin was concerned that the Commission did not know what is on there now, nor what is proposed. Ms. Herbert stated that the owner should get a sample from the contractor for the next meeting. Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue. Ms: Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. The applicant will need to come with photos of both sides of the building and a sample of the proposed gutter. 60-62 Washington Square South In continuation of a previous meeting Lewis Legon, Hodges Court Real Estate, LLC, submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the following: • Install 2 vents in chimneys as installed • Replace 2,third floor windows with double hunger Anderson 200s as installed Also presented was an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace wood handrails with wrought iron and to install a 6' wood fence in the rear of the property, which would be placed in front of the neighbors chain link fence. The agenda also included discussion on the windows installed with applied grids and the height of new faux chimney in rear. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Fence catalog cut from Northeastern Fence & Supply Corporation ■ Photograph of proposed wood rail ■ Plan of Land—North Shore Survey Corporation Mr. Legon provided a sample of the proposed railing and stated that he was considering using a wrought iron handrail, but was surprised at the cost, so he is proposing a wood railing to replace Mayl8, 2011, Page 3 of 9 the existing plain, round wooden railing. It will be in the same location and will have a lower and upper return. He stated that it will be stained, but he was not sure of the stain color. Ms. Herbert asked the color of the front doors. Mr. Legon stated that they will be dark green. Ms. Herbert stated that the railing could be the same as the door color, either stain or paint. Nancy Tenbroeck, 74 Washington Square East, stated that she was in support of the railing. Mr. Hart took a photograph of the proposed railing sample for the file. Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the replacement of the railing with a hardwood handrail per photograph of the sample provided,to have returns into the building both top and bottom of railing,painted Essex Green to match front doors and supported with brass bracketry. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Legon provided a copy of a survey. He stated that the fence would be along the red line drawn on the survey. He stated that the rear of the property has a chain link fence. They are working with the neighbors to determine the status of the chain link, but if it remains, he will put the new fence in front of the chain link. There is a broken picket fence as it begins to jog and he has spoken to the neighbor and offered to replace the picket fence in kind or with the new 6' fence. He stated he has not heard back and if he does not, he will install the 6' fence in front of their picket fence. Mr. Hart stated that 6' is kind of high. Mr. Legon stated that it is standard. Mr. Hart asked if there is automobile parking there. Mr. Legon replied in the affirmative and stated that it starts along the fence. Mr. Hart stated that his concern was people trying to get out onto the street with a 6' high fence. Mr. Legon stated that he is considering angling the last section by the sidewalk. Mr. Hart noted that it would create the same problem for the neighbor trying to get out from their driveway. Ms. Herbert questioned how a cut down would look. Mr. Hart suggested dropping down the last section,not having an angle. He added that there could even be two steps. Ms. McCrea joined the meeting. May18, 2011, Page 4 of 9 Ms. Herbert stated that there are a lot of variables with drop-downs and the possibility of a r section of picket for the neighbor. She felt the Commission needed to be specific on how exactly it is going to look. Ms. Herbert noted that the nice ornamental tree was removed, against her recommendation. Tom St. Pierre, Building Inspector, was asked if a six foot fence is permissible going to the sidewalk. Mr. St. Pierre stated that there is no requirement to taper it down, although common sense would suggest it. Mr. Hart stated that he would like to know what will exactly go there, whether all solid, or combination of solid or picket. Mr. Legon stated that it will definitely be solid and he is waiting for his neighbor to respond if they want the picket. If he does not hear from them, he will install all solid. Ms. Herbert asked if it was determined if the chain link is on the property line. Mr. Legon stated that the surveyor stated that the fence is essentially the property line. Andrew Finestone, 70 Essex Street, stated that the chain link fence belongs to him. He felt that pulling out of the driveway is a safety issue and is their major concern. He felt a solid 6' fence is not appropriate. He stated that it will block views of the Common. He stated that he would be in favor of a picket fence. He noted that, at this point,the chain link fence is not going to be removed. He noted that a parking lot is going there and that according to the Commission's guidelines, fences are discouraged to accommodate off street parking. He stated that he is not in favor of a 6' solid fence particularly for the safety issues. Blair Caldwell, 70 Essex Street, stated that the corner has been a safety issue and it is an extremely tight corner, particularly in Winter. Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission approved a fence for the house across the street, which divides the two parking areas. She agreed about the safety issues. Mr. Legon stated that he was willing to slant down the last section or drop it to 4'. Ms. Bellin stated that she felt 4' was still high for a person sitting in a car and suggested 3'. Ms. Guy suggested that the last 8' section have 2 drops or 1 drop with one half without lattice. Ms. Diozzi asked why he did not want an open fence. Mr. Legon stated that it is for privacy and so as not to see the unsightly chain link fence behind it. Ms. Guy asked how much of the proposed 6' fence is lattice. Mayl8, 2011, Page 5 of 9 Mr. Legon stated that he thought it was 15 or 16 inches. Ms. Herbert asked if the step downs would have the lattice. Mr. Hart stated that the lattice should be on the dropped sections as well. He stated that he would like a scaled drawing. Mr. Legon noted that a car is not going right from the property to the street but will go across a sidewalk of 4 or 5 feet. Mr. Hart and Ms. Keenan volunteered to be delegated. Ms. Tenbroeck noted that there are pedestrians to consider. Ms. Caldwell stated that there are children on sidewalks, which should be considered. Mr. Finestone stated that he may remove the chain link fence, but not until this new fence goes UP. Ms. Harper stated that the step downs will look better than a solid wall of fence. She stated that visually, she felt a large solid fence is not appropriate and two step downs would make it a littler lighter and decorative, while still providing privacy. Ms. Guy summarized that Mr. Legon would prepare scaled drawings for a fence with two step downs at the street for Mr. Hart and Ms. Keenan to review. Mr. Hart stated that we would to be sure that a person sitting in a car would be able to see over the last section. Ms. Herbert added that the step downs would also have lattice. Mr. Hart made a motion to approve a 6' solid cedar Northeastern Fence & Supply Corporation's Melrose fence (height including the lattice) along the rear property line, with two step downs at Washington Sq. East, conditional that a scaled drawing be provided to delegated Commissioners Hart and Keenan for approval of details of the termination at street, including height and length of step downs, as well as proportion of lattice to fence for the entire fence. The finished side of the fence is to face to the neighbors. Fence to be unpainted. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all' were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. McCrea abstained from voting. Ms. Harper stated that the two 3rd floor windows on either side are true divided light and they have an energy panel. Mr. Legon stated that it is a Brosco true divided light. He stated that the two double windows in the center were double hung vinyl and were replaced with Anderson 200s one over one. The Anderson 200 is a wood window that is vinyl clad. May18, 2011, Page 6 of 9 Ms. Herbert noted that all the other dormers on the third floor have true divided wood, two over 'l two's. The only windows that are different are those in the rear. She noted that it is minor visibility. Ms. Diozzi stated that it is close to an in kind replacement. Ms. Herbert agreed it was nearly in kind. She noted that the windows are slightly shorter than the other dormer windows. She wondered, if the Commission had reviewed them prior to installation, if we would have considered wood two over two's, which would have smaller panes, and questioned if smaller panes would look strange and stuck out more. Ms. Diozzi stated if the applicant came in with an application for a Certificate of Non- applicability for vinyl clad one over one to replace vinyl one over one, she would have felt it was okay. Ms. Bellin questioned if vinyl clad would be considered an in kind replacement. Ms. Guy stated that the exterior remains vinyl. Ms. Herbert stated that a wood core instead of a vinyl core is not something we are going to see. She felt because it is the core and doesn't have applied muntins, it could be called in kind. Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the two center 3rd floor windows as installed under Non- applicability as replacement in kind. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Legon stated that the height of the new faux chimney in the rear is essentially the same height as what was there. He stated that his engineer had concern about the structural integrity and felt it should not be built as high. The height may be off by inches but is essentially the same height. Ms. Harper asked if it is tied into the framing. Mr. Legon replied in the affirmative. It was concluded that the chimney in rear was completed in kind. Mr. Legon stated that he painted the vents coming out of the chimney in black. He stated that he looked into installing a chimney cap, which was about$800 each, and felt it would be ugly and noted he has copper chimney caps up there. He stated that the alternative would be to redirect the venting which would be an enormous amount of work and expense. He stated that it is approximately 45' up in the air. He stated he thought the painted vents has made it become a non-issue. The vents serves as an air exchange for the gas conversion and it needs to be at that height so no exhaust can be drawn back in. Ms. Herbert stated that chimney caps in general are something the commission needs to address in the districts. May18, 2011, Page 7 of 9 Ms. Harper stated that she has done a lot of research and was advised that the manufacturer's - instructions should be followed. In order to put something around the chimney, it would need to be determined if it is allowed by the manufacturer. If allowed, something like a chimney pot or shroud or something with mesh on the side could allow the air exchange, due to being open on the top. She felt that, even though they are black, which is better than white, two pieces sticking out on one side of the chimney was not appropriate. Mr. Legon stated that he is at the end of the project and has spent a lot of money on the project. He stated that around the Common the majority of the houses in 2011 are venting through chimneys. He stated that he felt he was being singled out since he is surrounded by other properties in the immediate area that are using galvanized metal through the chimneys. He asked the Commission to start its diligent approach around this issue going forward, after his project. He stated that he has talked to some of the neighbors and that he has not had an objection. He stated that he is ready to put the units on the market on June I" Ms. Harper stated that it did not have to be this way, if he had applied before installing the vents. Mr. Legon replied that it is correct,but that he and Essex County Craftsman saw what was around the Common and it was an innocent mistake. Ms. Harper stated Mr. Legon knows that everything done to the exterior requires approval and that this is the third project he has worked on an historic district. Ms. Bellin stated that she agreed with Ms. Harper and stated that the Commission did not approve the location of the vents. She stated that there is no evidence that the Commission approved any vents he is seeing in the neighborhood. She stated that the Commission has to look at this as though it had come before the Commission prior. She stated that if he were proposing it now, for her personally she would want the vents to be disguised. Mr. Legon asked if Ms. Bellin liked the current installation painted black. Ms. Bellin replied in the negative. She stated that if he were proposing it, she would have the same problem and that it needs to be disguised. Mr. Legon stated that he erroneously went forward based on the neighbors having similar vents. He stated that due to the height he did not think it looks that bad. Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission allowed him to remove 3 chimneys and replace them with faux chimneys and the Commission assumed they would be handsome chimneys that would add to the building. She stated that they did not assume that things would be popping out of them. She noted that Historic Salem, Inc.'s building on 9 North Street has two faux chimneys, of which Mr. Hart brought up at the meeting when the chimney replacement was approved. She noted that one of them has a small circular vent which is almost invisible, so it can be done. Mr. Legon stated that he did not want the faux chimneys, but accommodated the Commission. Ms. Herbert noted that there are also five new vents on the building, 3 on the side and 2 on the front which have been installed without approval. May18, 2011, Page 8 of 9 Mr. Legon stated that there will be landscaping. Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission is not asking to reroute the system, but is asking the chimney vents to be disguised or changed. Mr. Legon stated that there is a disagreement between him and the Commission. He stated that he did not want to be contentious, but felt he and the Commission are on a different page. He added that he did not know the dispute resolution process. Ms. Guy stated that it is through Superior Court. Mr. Legon stated that it is unfortunate that this building is being singled out. Ms. Herbert stated that it is not being singled out. She stated that almost all the various changes have been done without approval and that afterward he has come in to ask forgiveness. She stated that this is not the way the Commission conducts business. She noted that based on prior approvals, he knew that anything new protruding from the building would have to be reviewed. She asked why there are now five new vents installed without having been approved. Mr. Legon stated that they are for 5 new on demand water heaters that have to be vented and that landscaping will conceal them. Ms. Herbert stated that Mr. Legon does not understand that he is supposed to come here and give the Commission the plans and that the Commission may have better ideas on how to do it better and cheaper. Mr. Legon stated that there is also a water hook-up. Ms. Herbert stated that it is a continuous bait and switch. Mr. Legon claims it is a misunderstanding and that she feels it is willful misunderstanding. She stated that it needs to be resolved and that it will not hold him up from marketing. She suggested that Mr. Legon check with his plumber and find out what can be done in terms of covering the vents. She stated that a brick build-up is not that expensive. Ms. Harper stated that she did not believe any vents are on the Common that look just like these and believed every time someone does come in to tell us they are going to vent something,they bring in the actual vent cover and bring in a description and we either approve or don't approve. She stated that it is not just what is coming out of the chimneys, but it is what is not coming out of the chimneys. Ms. Bellin stated that it was a mistake to make an assumption that the vents in the chimneys were acceptable. Mr. Legon stated that it is 2011 and this is how current heating systems are vented. Ms. Bellin stated that he had an avenue of appeal if he wished to take it. Mayl8, 2011, Page 9 of 9 Mr. Legon stated that this is not like he is the first person to put a vent in coming out of a chimney. He stated that there are four houses with them across the street. He asked if this was a retribution for not coming before the Commission. Ms. Bellin stated that she would not have voted in favor of the installation if he had applied before the fact. Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the PVC venting out of the two main chimneys as installed without covering. Mr. Hart seconded the motion. There were no votes in favor, all were opposed and the motion did not carry. Ms. Harper stated that she believed the Commission needs the manufacturer's determination. Mr. Hart asked if it was a solid copper-cap. Mr. Legon replied in the affirmative. Mr. Hart stated that it might be possible to fabricate something and solder it to the existing copper. Ms. Herbert stated that there are also clay pots or building up the brick(four corners with bluestone) as options. Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the vent application to allow Mr. Legon to look into some type of chimney cap. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Tenbroeck stated that she looks out the window at this building and has no objections. Election of Officers Ms. Bellin nominated Ms. Herbert as Chair. Ms. Herbert accepted the nomination. Ms. Bellin made a motion to elect Ms. Herbert as Chair. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Herbert assumed the role as Chair of the Commission. Ms. Herbert asked for nominations for Vice Chair. Ms. Diozzi nominated Ms. Harper for Vice Chair. Ms. Harper accepted the nomination. Ms. Diozzi made a motion to elect Ms. Harper as Vice Chair. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. There being no further business, Ms. Diozzi made a motion to adjourn. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Respectfull tted, Jane Clerk of G mm ssion June 1, 2011, Page 1 of 9 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 1, 2011 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, June 1, 2011 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Mr. Hart and Ms. Bellin. Ms. McCrea and Ms. Keenan arrived later in the meeting. 19 1/2 - 21 1/2 Broad Street Laurie LaChapelle, David Leach, James Zissulis, Sarah Weigel and Mike Lefebvre submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors at 19 1/2 - 21 1/2 Broad Street. The body would be Portage, the trim would be Linger,the doors would be Wicked and the shutters would be Zorro. David Leach was present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Paint chips Ms. Herbert asked if the storm doors would be painted the same as the door color. Mr. Leach stated that they hadn't considered it. Ms. Herbert stated that there is a bonding agent that will allow the paint to adhere. Mr. Hart agreed it would look nice if the storm door was painted the door color. Ms. Diozzi was in agreement. There was no public comment. Ms. Herbert stated that it is a nice, sophisticated combination. Ms. Diozzi stated that she liked all four color choices. Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the recommendation that the storm doors be painted the same color as the doors. Ms. Diozzi seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. McCrea and Ms. Keenan joined the meeting at this time. June 1, 2011, Page 2 of 9 13 River Street Richard and Cynthia Johnson submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors at 13 River Street. The body would be Portsmouth Spice,the trim would be Halo and both doors would be Bold Bolection. Ms. Johnson was present. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Paint chips Carol Carr, 7 River Street stated that it is brave color. Ann McKnight, 11 River Street, stated that she liked the color. She stated she was not crazy about the blue door, but noted that it was a personal taste. Ms. Herbert asked if the doors would be flat or semi-gloss. Ms. Johnson stated that they would be semi-gloss. She stated that she consulted with an architect who helped her choose the colors. Mr. Hart suggested painting a large patch of the body color to see how it will come out in case it is brighter than they think. Ms. Diozzi made a motion to close the public hearing. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 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 In continuation of a previous meeting Lewis Legon, Hodges Court Real Estate, LLC, submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of 2 vents in chimneys. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Vent sample - Broan NuTone wall ducting kit WVK2A (photo taken) Ms. Herbert stated that normally for vents at the ground level of up to four feet, the Commission will suggest screening such as lattice or landscaping. She noted that the applicant has used landscaping to mask what it there. Mr. Legon provided photographs of the landscaping being used to conceal the devices on the back and side of the house including a brass water hookup for fire safety equipment to feed the sprinkler system and a fire horn, also for fire safety,two on-demand hot water heater vents and 5 June 1, 2011, Page 3 of 9 bathroom vents. He stated that the bathroom vents (Broan NuTone wall ducting kit WVK2A) sit flat and will be painted the body color. Ms. Herbert noted that on the upper left of the addition,there appears to be a light fixture. Mr. Legon replied in the affirmative. Ms. Herbert asked if the meter housing and piping will be painted the body color. Mr. Legon replied in the affirmative. He stated that they were existing. Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the 9 devices(water hook-up, fire horn,two hot water heater vents and 5 bathroom vents) as installed with the bathroom vents covers (Broan NuTone wall ducting kit WVK2A)to be painted the body color. Ms. Diozzi seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Harper stated that the vents for the gas fireplace on the right side of the building were supposed to be tucked in and be barely visible. She noted that the one closest to the corner of the building is highly visible. Mr. Legon stated that he thought he and the Commission were on the same page as to where they were going to be. They did not want to put it on the front of the building. He stated that there are two on the right side and two on the left. Mr. Herbert stated that those on the left are kind of in the middle of the building. She stated that once they get painted,they shouldn't be very obvious. The one on the right side, second floor, is identical to the one on the left side of the building. However, the first floor vent is pushed way out, is hugging the comer board and is very noticeable. Mr. Legon stated that it was likely due to accommodating LVLs and framing. Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission could not approve it where it is. She asked that Mr. Legon get the manufacturers specifications in writing to rationalize the location. She wanted to know why it couldn't have gone higher and been next to the upper one. Mr. Legon will obtain them and provide them to Ms. Guy. Ms. Herbert asked if Mr. Legon brought manufacturer's specifications for the vents in the chimney. Mr. Legon stated that he checked with Essex County Craftsman who stated that the vents in the chimneys do have to be the current height because they serve as intake and outtake. Ms. Herbert asked that Mr. Legon get manufacturer's specification for the vents to determine if they can be enclosed in any fashion and what the clearances need to be. Mr. Legon stated that he checked and found you can put something around it, but you cannot contain it. He stated that there are three approaches. One is to leave as is, painted. The other is June 1, 2011, Page 4 of 9 to build up the chimney height. The last is to install a shroud, for which he provided a photograph. They are approximately$1000 and are painted, galvanized steel, called Kinar. He noted that he has a copper chimney cap. Ms. Herbert asked if the vents would be contained within the shroud. Mr. Legon replied in the affirmative and noted that the top is open, but the two vents would be essentially hidden. There was no public comment. Ms. Diozzi stated that she did not have a problem with the shroud. Mr. Hart stated that he was under the impression that the applicant would look into some kind of a clay or metal chimney pot or round vertical pipe, which may be a simpler solution. Ms. Herbert stated that the vents are off center and it may draw more attention being off-center in the chimney. Ms. Bellin thought it was going to be two separate pots or pipes, even if one is fake, to make it symmetrical. Mr. Hart suggested just a simple cylinder to accommodate the intake and exhaust, one in each chimney. Mr. Legon stated that a cylinder may be doable. Ms. Harper stated that she was thinking two in each chimney. Ms. Herbert stated that there may be a logistical problem to get two in each due to where they are located. Mr. Hart stated that it could just be a piece of vertical copper cylinder to cover the vent. Mr. Hart stated that he felt the proposed shroud was bulky. Ms. Herbert noted that they would be off-center. Mr. Hart stated that chimney pots are seen off-center when there are a number of flues. Ms. Harper stated that it was her understanding that you need to find out from the manufacturer for each systems whether it is safe to put any kind of covering around these exhausts. She stated that she would want Mr. Legon to do that. Ms. Bellin asked if raising the brick above the vent is feasible. Mr. Legon stated that he would have to check to be sure it would be safe. Mr. Legon stated that with a shroud, the copper cap would stay. June 1, 2011, Page 5 of 9 Ms. Bellin felt that more information was needed. She stated that she would probably be okay with the shroud, but would like to see if Mr. Hart's proposal is feasible and what it would look like. Ms. Diozzi and Ms. McCrea stated that they would be okay with the shroud. Ms. Harper stated that she would like to see Mr. Hart's option for the cylinder, which she felt would fit the house better. She also wondered about building up the chimney as was done in the rear of the house, open vented, with a cap on it. Ms. Herbert stated that the center of the bluestone cap could be cut out, so that visually it looks like it is capped. Mr. Legon stated that he would need a crane to get the bluestone cap on there. Mr. Hart stated that www.chimneysupply.com has sample cylinders. Ms. Keenan stated that she preferred the cylinder or building up the brick rather than the shroud. Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Herbert suggested forwarding any information gathered to Mr. Hart and Ms. Bellin. Mr. Legon asked if this will slow down inspections. Ms. Herbert replied in the negative. She stated that the fence has been approved and looks good and she did not think there were any other issues. 10 Lynn Street In continuation of a previous meeting, Joseph and Jean Galvin presented applications for Certificates of Appropriateness and a Non-applicability to change two gutters on the left side of the house from wood to aluminum. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs The applicants were not present. Ms. Harper made a motion to approve 2 wood gutters on the left side of house with aluminum gutters with an OG profile, in color to match trim, gauge to match existing aluminum gutters on rest of the house. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. June 1, 2011, Page 6 of 9 361 Essex Street Alice and Timothy Clarke submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for fence replacement on the right side of the house, a portion of which is visible from the public way. It will be a flatboard fence with the top changed to a cap (2 x 2 cedar). Post and frame to be pressure treated and face boards are white cedar 1 x 6. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Paint chip Mr. Clarke stated that it is between his house and 365 Essex Street. There are currently 2 different heights. The closest to the street is 58 1/z"high and then further back it goes to 69 1/z"high. They will take all the boards off and replace the posts and framing as necessary using pressure treated, which will be stained in 6 months. The boards will be stained before they go up. He stated that they want to change the top cap to a 2 x 2 square cap. There was no public comment. Ms. Bellin made a motion to close public comment. Ms. Diozzi seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Clarke stated that the color will match what is there. Mr. Hart stated asked if the finished side currently faces the applicant. Mr. Clarke replied in the affirmative. Ms. Bellin asked if they are keeping the changes in height. Mr. Clarke replied in the affirmative. Ms. Diozzi made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 8 1/2 Chestnut Street Chestnut Street Associates submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the fence along the rear of the property, currently two different styles,with a new fence of one style. The new fence is to be cedar board, 4' high. Representing the applicant was Richard Jagolta. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs June 1, 2011, Page 7 of 9 Mr. Jagolta stated that this property is the park on Chestnut Street. There are 9 sections on the rear of the park and 3 sections on the side. It will be cedar plank with pressure treated posts,not scalloped as in the picture, but straight. It is similar to one of the existing fence portions. Ms. Harper asked if it will be painted. Mr. Jagolta stated that the preference is for it to weather gray. Mr. Hart stated that the finish side should face the neighbors. Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve the application as submitted, and for the fence to remain natural with finish side facing neighbors. Ms. Diozzi seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 14 Beckford Street Richard and Cynthia Griffin submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for an extension and winterization of a rear screen porch. Work will include insulation and extension of the existing floor and replacement of the screen area with full height doors and windows. Color and detailing shall remain as is and duplicate existing. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Drawings Al, A2 and A4 dated 515111 and drawing A3 dated 2/24/11 by Richard Griffin, Architect Mr. Griffin stated that it is a sideways facing, saltbox house. A 2-story porch was added to the back of the house around 1900. The porch is only 7 '/2 feet deep and they would like to Winterize it, as well as provide more security. They would like to maintain the openness to a 11' x 16' room. They would like to have as few mullions as possible. The visible portion will be obscured by the trellis and the tree. Mr. Griffin stated that the lattice will be on the same plane and the windows will be behind the trellis about 4". There will be a standing seem hipped copper roof or a zinc roof. A glimpse of the roof may be seen on a Winter's day. The upper part of the porch will remain as is. Ms. Diozzi asked the year of the house. Mr. Griffin stated that it was started some time around 1700. Mr. Hart stated that the steps are probably not going to be visible. He stated that he felt either copper or zinc roof is appropriate. Ms. Diozzi made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the option of either copper or zinc roof. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. June 1, 2011, Page 8 of 9 31 Washington Sq.North Michael Shea submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a roof deck with railings, approximately 15' x 15' on the rear first floor roof. Ted Richard was present representing the applicant. The potential buyers, Elisabeth LeBrun and Jim Harrison were also present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Parcel map Mr. Richard stated that the site line from Washington square and Oliver is not visible. The only spot visible is from the corner of the Bertram Home property on Mall Street, which is about 100 yards away. Mr. Richard stated that Mike Shea's unit is about 40' away in the carriage house. He stated that due to the trees, six months out of the year the deck will be invisible. One of the windows will be changed to a door (as noted on drawing). The door will closely resemble the window, such as a French glass door. Ms. Herbert suggested a fir, 15 lite door. Mr. Richard stated that they propose to use the same balustrade as existing on the first floor. Ms. Herbert asked if there will be sleepers on the roof to support the flooring. Mr. Richard replied in the affirmative. Ms. Herbert asked if the base at the floor of the deck will be a skirtboard. Mr. Richard stated that it will be simple,painted white. Ms. Herbert asked what the room below will be. Mr. Richard stated that it goes over a hallway. Ms. Bellin stated that it will be fairly non-visible with the balustrade. Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the application as submitted with wood balustrade matching the first floor, with railing height to code, corner to be square 4 x 4 pressure treated wrapped in 1 x 6 pine and capped in pyramid wood cap, door to be 15 lite true divided wood door, and with a minimum amount of skirtboard. Baluster rail and door to be painted trim color. Ms. Diozzi seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 48 Chestnut Street June 1, 2011, Page 9 of 9 John Connelly and Denice Brait submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for fence installation to conceal gas furnace pipes. Ms. Guy stated that the applicants have withdrawn due to finding a solution that is non-visible from the public way. Other Business A. Approval of minutes—5/4/11 Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of May 4, 2011. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. B. Ms. Harper stated that she got a call from Bertram Home and took a look at the fence. Portions of the fence have been repaired. They will be coming in for some addition work. There being no further business, Ms. Harper made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Respectful?, mitpteJane A. Clerk of tM Commission June 15, 2011, Page 1 of 7 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 15, 2011 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, June 15, 2011 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Diozzi, Ms. McCrea and Ms. Bellin. 60-62 Washington Square South In continuation of a previous meeting Lewis Legon, Hodges Court Real Estate, LLC, submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of 2 vents in chimneys. Also present was James Maloney of Associated Contracting Services. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Installation instructions for high efficiency condensing gas furnaces ■ Regency P42 Gas Fireplace Owners &Installation Manual Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission members did not get the specifications until today and some members may not have had a chance to review it. Mr. Legon stated that Mr. Maloney is a certified Regency fireplace installer and has been doing this type of work for 15 years. Ms. Herbert stated that she felt the Commission could not cover the fireplace tonight because neither of the board's architects were present and the members did not have a chance to digest the information that was emailed. Ms. Herbert stated that the vent for the second floor fireplace is fine where it is. She stated that the first floor fireplace on the right hand side is not vented opposite from the first floor on the other side is likely due to the screen porch roof. She asked if they could have raised the vent up directly under the second floor or if there is a reason that they need to be separated. Mr. Maloney replied in the negative and stated that it is a fresh air mechanical air intake and needs a minimum of 6' between the two vents. Ms. Herbert stated that it looks like a giant silver pimple on the face of the building and asked if there was something else that could be more flush. Mr. Maloney stated that it is a patented termination cap from Regency that goes with the unit and is the smallest profile that goes with the unit. He stated that the clearance for that cap is a minimum of 6" from an outside corner or an inside corner. Ms. Herbert stated that she would like for the two architects to review this and be in touch with Mr. Maloney to discuss it. June 15, 2011,Page 2 of 7 Mr. Legon asked if Ms. Herbert was suggesting that Mr. Maloney have an email conversation with Mr. Hart and Mr. Spang. Ms. Herbert replied in the affirmative. Ms. Guy stated that this has not been determined to be a violation, so if they are satisfied, there is no reason to put it on the next agenda. Ms. Herbert stated that she would like to resolve it so it does not become a precident. She noted that if determined acceptable, it would be only for this building. If they are okay with it, then it won't be a violation and it won't need to be discussed at the next meeting. She suggested painting it as soon as possible. Mr. Maloney stated they also had to deal with the lintels over the windows. Mr. Legon stated that for the chimney caps, he had a specification from the website that Mr. Hart referred to at the last meeting for various custom top-mount caps. He stated that Brad from Essex County Craftsman states that any kind of contained shroud will not work, whether clay or steel, and that it has to be mesh. Snow could accumulate there and there is a risk of carbon monoxide going back into the building. Brad is suggesting building a mesh unit with a 3-5" cap on it, so it looks like a full chimney cap from the street. He would also put mesh on top of it. Ms. Herbert noted it would be mesh with a collar and asked if it would be steel or copper. Mr. Legon stated that if it is to be painted,they should just use galvanized sheet metal, rather than waste money on stainless steel. He stated that a round chimney cap could also be done, but felt a rectangular cap would sit nicely. He noted that the bigger vent is about 18"high above the chimney. He stated that if they put a solid chimney cap above it,they would have to go another 12" above. If it is not solid, it would go approximately 3-4 more inches above. Brad suggested that a 4-5" collar would give the full appearance of a regular cap. Mr. Legon suggested painting it dark grey. Ms. Diozzi suggested matching the roof color. Ms. Herbert stated that Essex County Craftsman has not done this type of container before. Mr. Legon replied in the affirmative. Ms. Bellin asked the mesh dimensions. Mr. Legon stated that Brad recommends 5/8". There was no public comment. Ms. Bellin stated that she would like to see what it would look like on top of a chimney. Ms. Bellin asked if 21"was typical. June 15, 2011, Page 3 of 7 Mr. Maloney replied in the affirmative, noting it would be in the typical range of 18-22". He stated that it doesn't look that height from the ground. Ms. Bellin stated that she wished more members were present. Ms. Herbert suggested continuing to the next meeting so that Mr. Hart and Mr. Spang could look at it. She stated that she felt that this is probably the best solution since there are two different size vents coming out of the chimney and they are not centered. Ms. Diozzi agreed that it was a good disguise. Ms. McCrea was in agreement. Ms. Diozzi made a motion to approve a galvanized mesh cap with collar approximately 21" off the top of the chimney, collar to be 4-5"in depth with approximately 45 degree angle,painted to blend with roof color, subject to field approval by Ms. Bellin and Mr. Hart. Ms. Bellin stated that she would like Mr. Hart to review it. She questioned what she and Mr. Hart would do as delegates. She stated that she was reluctant since this is now the only option and Mr. Hart has not had input on this. Ms. Herbert suggested continuing. Ms. Bellin was in agreement. She noted it was a bare quorum and a very touchy subject. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Diozzi and Ms. McCrea voted in favor. Ms. Bellin voted in opposition. The motion did not carry. Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue. Ms. Diozzi seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Bellin stated that having something to show the Commission will facilitate what the Commission does at the next meeting. Mr. Legon stated that he will get a rendering from Brad. Ms. Guy suggested forwarding it before the next meeting. Ms. Guy read an email from Andrew Finestone regarding his concern that the 4' fence section on Washington Square East is too tall for persons backing out and a suggestion that it be adjusted (i.e. extend the swoop further down the driveway and have it end lower than 4'). Ms. Diozzi stated that most houses in Salem are on the sidewalk, with an entire house blocking the view. No further action was taken. June 15, 2011,Page 4 of 7 31 Washin ton Square South Jana Catterson and Fred Hammond presented an application for Certificate of Appropriateness to replace 15 large and 2 small windows with Mathew Brothers windows that were used for the restoration of the carriage house, except in 2 over 2 as they are currently. Also present was Richard Griffin, architect. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Pages from Mathews Brothers website Ms. Herbert stated she was going to refer to the approval for the Bertram House from which the 31 Washington Square carriage house windows were subsequently approved. She read from the Certificate for the Bertram House for replacement of the third floor sash only with Trimline Heritage Ultrafit Simulated Divided Light all wood windows. Ms. Herbert noted that the carriage house windows were approved on a night when bare quorum was present and that those present were not familiar with the windows approved for the Bertram Home. She noted that the windows on the third floor would approved very reluctantly and only because they were on the third floor and very difficult to see. Ms. Guy read the minutes for the approval of the carriage house windows which stated that Mr. Griffin stated that the windows proposed were the ones approved for the Bertram House. Mr. Giffin stated that Trimline was installed on the third floor. Ms. Herbert stated that Trimline windows went into the Bertram House,not Matthews. Mr. Griffin stated that Matthews windows went on the elevator shaft. Ms. Guy read the Certificate for the elevator shaft, which stated that the windows were to be wood, 6 over 6,true divided lights. She noted that she did not have any approvals in the Bertram House file for Matthews Brothers windows. Ms. Herbert stated that the windows approved for the carriage house were approved erroneiously and noted that the Matthew Brothers windows have plastic mullions. She stated that if the Commission made a mistake,they are not going to make another. She noted that existing windows that are refurbished and have storms are every bit as energy efficient as insulated glass windows. She stated that there are firms that will refurbish the existing windows and that the owners could still have storms. She stated that the applicants are one unit in the building and there cannot be layers of different windows in different units particularly on such an important and prominent building. She also suggested that the Commission talk with Mr. Shea about replacing the two street side windows. Ms. Diozzi stated that it demeans an otherwise wonderful project. June 15, 2011, Page 5 of 7 Ms. Herbert stated that it was a trail of mistakes that made the carriage house windows happen. - She suggested the applicant refurbish the existing windows. She noted that a good example is the Brookhouse Home. Ms. Diozzi stated that they also don't want a cheap looking window. Ms. Herbert stated that the problem with making these beautiful buildings into condominiums is that different unit owners want to do different things. Ms. Guy stated that they have the right to repair or replace in kind. She stated if they change color, material or design, the Commission has to approve it and there is a problem with a fagade having different windows on it. Ms. Hammond stated that they would like the windows to look the same as well. Mr. Hammond noted that there are three different kinds of windows on the Bertram House so there is no uniformity. Ms. Guy noted that it has now been determined that those windows installed are now in violation. It will be up to the board to decide if they want to pursue enforcement. Mr. Hammond stated that all his neighbors love the carriage house. Ms. Guy stated that she has actually gotten a verbal complaint about the windows from one of the neighbors. Mr. Hammond provided a list of eight people who provided signatures in support of the Matthew Brothers windows. Ms. Herbert stated that Mr. Hart provided an email stating that the carriage house window applied mullions were installed inside out. Ms. Guy stated the Commission would still have to look at whether a mix of double glaze and single glaze on one fagade would be acceptable. Martha Chayet, 26 Winter Street, stated that she is happy to see work going on next door, that she likes the neighbors and she is supportive of work happening. She stated that her thoughts echo with what Commission stated. She would prefer to see windows in entire building match. She noted that it was built as single family,therefore, it should be look like a single family. She suggested that condo associations apply rather than single owners and that windows should be considered common areas and paid for out of special assessment. Ms. Bellin noted that a condo association approving one unit is setting a precedent for all the owners in the development. Ms. Guy suggested noting in the guidelines that condo associations should approve window changes for entire building. June 15, 2011, Page 6 of 7 Ms. Chayet stated that there is now a website www.jbhistoricwindows.com. Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-applicability to repair or replace the existing windows in kind. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Guy stated that they could also do an interior energy panel. Ms. Diozzi made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. There were no votes in favor. All were opposed and the motion did not carry. Mr. Griffin asked if the condo association found a double glaze window, would the Commission consider it. Ms. Herbert replied in the affirmative. Other Business A. 72 Loring Avenue—Telecommunications Installation Ms. Guy read a letter from EBI Consulting regarding a proposed telecommunications installation at 72 Loring Avenue (Eastern Bank). They are proposing a false chimney extension in fiberglass on top of the existing chimney to conceal the 9 antennas and a S ``/2' x I I" equipment room on the ground level. Ms. Bellin made a motion to state that the Commission finds that the building has no historic significance and therefore has no comment. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. B. Working Group to Update Urban Renewal Plans Ms. Guy read a letter for Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning& Community Development, inviting a member of the Commission to serve on a working group for the purpose of updating the Urban Renewal Plans. Ms. Herbert stated that she sent Mr. Hart an email to see if he is interested, as he is an architect and has been in Salem for many years. She stated that if he doesn't want to,the Commission will have to figure out something else. She noted that it is approximately one meeting per month through December. C. 31 Washington Sq./Bertram Home Ms. Bellin stated that the Commission should pursue the violation for the carriage house due to the mullions being backwards. She added that Mr. Griffin mis-represented that the windows approved for the Bertram house were Mathews and they were not. Ms. Herbert stated that a violation letter should be sent. June 15, 2011, Page 7 of 7 Ms. Guy stated that the letter could state that they are all in violation, but to offer a compromise such as switching the mullions so they are not backwards and/or switching out the four street side windows to be true divided light. Ms. Bellin stated that the Bertram Home should also be found in violation for installing Mathews Brothers windows when wood was approved. Ms. Guy suggested that the commission members go by and see if the windows are visible. Ms. Guy suggested that the letter to Mr. Shea indicate that since he applied for and received approval in good faith that the Commission wants to be reasonable. Ms. Bellin made a motion to send a letter to Mr. Shea. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Bellin stated that she will look into updating the guidelines for windows, regarding condo associations and uniformity. There being no further business, Ms. McCrea made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Diozzi seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Respectfully submitted, Jan uy C1 of the Co ission July 6, 2011, Page 1 of 6 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 6, 2011 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, July 6, 2011 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Diozzi, Mr. Hart, Ms. Harper, Ms. Keenan, Ms. McCrea and Ms. Bellin. 51 Summer Street/28 High Street Wayne and Nadine Hanscom submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors. The first choice is for the body to be Chelsea Gray with trim and fence in White Dove and black doors. The second choice is for the body to be Chelsea Gray with trim and fence to be Monterey White and Newburyport Blue doors. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Paint chips There was no public comment. Ms. Diozzi made motion to approve the application as submitted with the option of either combination or colors. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 60-62 Washington Square South In continuation of a previous meeting Lewis Legon, Hodges Court Real Estate, LLC, submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of 2 vents in chimneys. Ms. Guy noted that Ms. Keenan cannot vote on the chimney cap item due to having missed two meetings where this was discussed. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Installation Instructions for high efficiency condensing gas furnaces ■ Regency P42 Gas Fireplace Owners &Installation Manual ■ Letter from Mr. Legon with specifications for a metal chimney cap ■ McNichols Expanded Metal catalog cut Mr. Legon's letter stated that the proposed chimney cap sides and top will be mesh, which will appear darker and more solid from the street. The dimensions of the cap are 34"x 28"x 16"H. The lip will be 3"wide around the perimeter of the cap. It will be steel,painted either deep gray or brick red. July 6, 2011, Page 2 of 6 Mr. Legon stated that a couple weeks ago he provided some additional information. He stated that there were a few questions that came back to him through Ms. Guy from Ms. Harper and he answered those. Mr. Hart stated that he felt it should be stainless steel. Mr. Legon stated that since it is going to be painted a dark color, they could save money by just going with steel, rather than stainless steel. Mr. Hart stated that it won't hold up as well. Mr. Legon stated that Essex County Craftsman states that since it is painted, it will hold up just as long. He agreed if it were not being painted, stainless would be the choice. Mr. Hart stated that stainless steel will be easier maintenance-wise since going forward for the condo association. Ms. Herbert asked if they could get it in galvanized. Mr. Legon replied in the affirmative. Mr. Hart stated that galvanized is better than plain steel. Mr. Legon stated that he was willing to do that. Ms. Bellin stated that it will fall to someone else to maintain and the Commission wants to encourage that it be manufactured now in a relatively long lasting material. Mr. Legon stated that according to the McNichols catalog cut, the proposal is for 16 gauge, 1/4" mesh for sides, and 3/4"mesh for the top. He suggested it be grey to match the side roofs. Ms. Herbert stated that it should be a litter deeper grey, with a matt finish. There was no public comment. Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve the proposal for the two chimney caps in galvanized metal, charcoal grey, matt finish, 16 gauge, 1/4"mesh sides, 3/4"mesh top. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Keenan abstained from voting. Ms. Guy stated that she received an email request from Andrew Finestone, 70 Essex Street, to reconsider his objections to the present state of the fence and to have the fence end at least one foot from the sidewalk/end of the driveway. Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission had approved Mr. Hart and Ms. Keenan as delegates to do a review of the fence. She stated that Mr. Hart did a lot of research on the step down sections with lattice, for which he sent us an email with some examples. They sent a photo of what they approved based on the authorization they were given to make field adjustments. She suggested the Commission formalize it in a motion to approve what is existing. Y July 6, 2011, Page 3 of 6 Ms. Diozzi made a motion to ratify the approval of the fence as it does exist now. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. McCrea abstained from voting. Ms. Diozzi made a motion to reconsider, as requested by Mr. Finestone, in hopes it does not prevail. Ms. Harper seconded the motion. Ms. McCrea and Ms. Harper voted in favor. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Diozzi, Mr. Hart, Ms. Keenan and Ms. Bellin voted in opposition. The motion did not carry. All properties in historic districts The City of Salem submitted an application for a Certificate of Hardship for the installation of water meter interface units (MIU's)—4.4 by 6.2 by 2.2 inches. The units need to be placed on the exterior of the property due to accuracy of signal strength, typically in the same location of the existing touch pad. Present was City Engineer David Knowlton. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photograph of 358 Essex Street ■ Catalog cut of R450 Meter Interface Unit Ms. Guy noted that this came to the Commission's attention following a complaint by the owner of 358 Essex Street that the units were installed on the front of his property. She suggested that the Commission develop parameters for general installation(location, height, color, etc.) and alternatives if those parameters cannot be met. Mr. Knowlton stated that they are typically installed in the same location as where the existing touch pad is located. Ms. Bellin asked if they have to be placed on the front of the house, if the touch pad is there. Mr. Knowlton stated that that is the preference, but they can be put in other locations. Ms. Bellin asked if they can be put on the inside. Mr. Knowlton replied of the affirmative, stated that they can as long as the signal strength is okay. He stated that they have been placing as many as they can on the interior in the historic districts since they got the complaint. Ms. Herbert asked if they will be reinstalling those at 358 Essex inside. Mr. Knowlton stated that they could. Mr. Knowlton noted that maintenance on the inside is more problematic. Ms. Guy asked, for the rare instances where it cannot go on the inside, if it can be placed somewhere other than the front of the house. July 6, 2011, Page 4 of 6 Mr. Knowlton replied in the affirmative. There was no public comment. Ms. Bellin made a motion that when the MIU units cannot be installed inside, that they are installed on side as far from the public way and visibility as possible, or on rear, and as low as possible and that the 358 Essex units be relocated inside or to a less visible place. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 310 Lafayette Street Dr. Joel Green presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace a wood gutter with aluminum to match the existing gutters. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Sample OG gutter (photo taken) Ms. Herbert asked if they will be repairing the soffit as well. Dr. Green replied in the affirmative. Ms. Harper asked if they already have some aluminum gutters on the building. Dr. Green stated that the front and side have wood and he believed the other two sides were aluminum. There was no public comment. Ms. Bellin made motion to replace the existing wood gutters with OG profile seamless aluminum white gutters to replicate the gutters existing on the house and for in kind repair of soffits as needed. Ms. Diozzi seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 14 Chestnut Street Tom and Kate Murray submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to build a screened gazebo on the rear right corner of the lot, at least 5' from the property line. The gazebo will be 10' octagonal, with 2 x 6 roof rafters with 1 x 6 tongue and groove ceiling. The first style choice is Pagoda and the second is Majestic. The first choice for architectural shingles is Rustic Cedar and the second is Weathered Wood. The finish will be white to match the house trim. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Plot of land ■ Catalog excerpts from Amish Country Gazebos July 6, 2011, Page 5 of 6 Ms. Harper asked if it will be visible from the street. Ms. Murray stated that there may be a glimpse in the winter. She stated that they will not have a weathervane. There was no public comment. Ms. Harper made a motion the installation of a gazebo in either Pagoda or Majestic style and with shingles to be either Rustic Cedar or Weathered Wood. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 1 Brown Street The Peabody Essex Museum submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove mineral board siding, aluminum gutters and storm windows and other trim details for the purpose of exposing underlying historic fabric. The work will be done under the direction of Finch & Rose and after surveying the historic fabric, a stabilization plan will be developed in advance of strategic planning for the restoration/preservation of the structure. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Ms. Guy stated that she received an email request asking for a continuation to the next meeting. Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 4 Andover Street Joel F. and Judy H. Caron submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace an existing picket fence with a Molly Prichard Picket Fence. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Proposal from J. C. Fence Co. Ms. Diozzi stated that the application does not show the spacing on the slats. Mr. Hart made a motion to continue and to ask the applicant to attend the next meeting. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 84-86 Derby Street Ryan and Amber Macione submitted an application for a Certificate of Non-applicability to install an air cooled condensing unit for the A.C. system to be installed in the rear of the property and non-visible from the public way. The application is also to replace 10 wooden windows July 6, 2011, Page 6 of 6 with 8 new wooden windows, on the back side and the side facing 92 Derby Street, not visible from Derby or Becket Street and to install 10 brown storm windows to match existing storm windows on the front of the house, on the back side and the side facing 92 Derby Street, not visible from Derby or Becket Street. Ms. Herbert stated that they need to submit a plot plan. No action was taken. Other Business A. 86 Essex Street—Ms. Guy read a letter from the Salem Housing Authority stating that they found an alternative solution for the elevator condensing unit and will not be mounting the equipment on the exterior of the building. B. Approval of minutes a. Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of May 18, 2011. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. b. Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of June 1, 2011. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. C. Ms. Guy read a letter from AB Carnes Roofing concerning an architectural roof the was installed at the front of 4 Andover Street by Aspen Roofing without having obtained permits. She noted that this came about due to a recent Certificate of Non-applicability that was issued for the rear of the property, which specified 3-tab. AB Carnes is suggesting that Aspen Roofing reimburse the owner to have the architectural shingles replaced. Ms. Guy noted that the house has not been sited as a violation. She stated that it would be up to the homeowner to pursue Aspen, not the Commission, but that the Commission could assist the owner in his pursuit by formally requiring the removal in writing. Ms. Bellin made a motion to send a letter to Mr. Caron responding to the letter and enclosing a formal violation notice for the roof that Mr. Caron can use to compel Aspen. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 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. Respectfull s itted, Jane A. G Clerk of the�Commission July 20, 2011, Page 1 of 5 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 20, 2011 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, July 20, 2011 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Keenan, Ms. McCrea and Ms. Bellin. 1 Brown Street In continuation of a previous meeting, the Peabody Essex Museum submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove mineral board siding, aluminum gutters and storm windows and other trim details for the purpose of exposing underlying historic fabric. The work will be done under the direction of Finch& Rose and after surveying the historic fabric, a stabilization plan will be developed in advance of strategic planning for the restoration/preservation of the structure. Robert Monk, Director of Facilities and Security, was present. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Mr. Monk stated that this is the second phase and that the interior was the first phase. He stated that there is a substantial amount of fabric from the 1806 restoration. There is very little from the 1760 period when the house was constructed. He noted that they have learned a lot from the interior and will now survey the outside. He stated that they will develop a plan to stabilize the structure. They hope to find it sufficient to support a new roof. If not, they will need to do temporary repairs to stabilize the structure. He noted that at one time the building was a grocery store with the front being solid plate glass. He added that the mullions appear to have been added in the 1950s. It is still up in the air what the use will be, but he is fairly certain it will be a museum-related use, such as office space. He stated that he was also fairly certain that it won't go back to a residential use. He stated that he hopes to be back before the Commission in October or November with a plan. He stated that the goal is to have the building look like a cared for, lived in house. They will need to upgrade the stairwell and install fire safety. There was no public comment. Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the application as submitted, conditional that the owner present the stabilization and strategic plans at the Commission's first meeting in November. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 362 Essex Street Peter Atkinson and Jennifer Allen presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the removal of wood shingles on the East hip of the carriage house (not original) and replace with black asphalt consistent with the rest of the house and for paint colors. Body to be Affinity AF-60 and trim to be Alabaster with doors and shutters to remain black. July 20, 2011, Page 2 of 5 Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Paint chips Mr. Atkinson stated that his neighbor states that the wood shingles are not original. The East hip is the only place they are on the carriage house and they were installed by the previous owner as part of the garden. Ms. Bellin asked if the rest of the house is 3-tab black asphalt. Mr. Atkinson replied in the affirmative. Ms. Allen stated that they will also need to make repairs to wood elements prior to painting. There was no public comment. Ms. Diozzi made a motion to approve the application as submitted for roof replacement and paint colors and to approve repairs to rotten wood. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 15 %2 River Street Peter and Jan Eschauzier presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove and replace the existing fence and gate. The new fence to be lattice/trellis with an arbor gate. The new fence to be placed 4' towards the house. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Sketches/landscape design There was no public comment. 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. 40 Chestnut Street Jeffrey P. Beale presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove old fencing and replace with similar cedar fencing from Walpole Woodworks, finish facing the street to be white and facing the neighbors to be dark green. The application states that all abutting neighbors have agreed and all cost are to be born by the owner of 40 Chestnut St. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Walpole Woodworkers drawing of gate July 20, 2011, Page 3 of 5 ■ Walpole Woodworkers sales agreement and change order ■ Sherman Williams Stain catalog cut Mr. Beale stated that the stain color will be Extra White. He noted that the existing fence abuts four of his neighbors and that they have all seen it and agreed to it. The gate is custom designed to reflect the Palladian window on the house. There is also a custom designed transition piece abutting the neighbor's deck. There was no public comment. Ms. Diozzi made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 5 Beckford Street Robert Allen and Robert Soucy presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace an existing second floor deck currently 6'2"x 8' with a larger deck of 7'10" x 16', to be pressure treated wood with either mahogany or pressure treated decking. The handrail is to be 5 posts with 4' spacing, 2 x 4 upper and lower railing, 1 1/4 balusters with 3 1/2" spacing. There will be two 4"x 6"pressure treated posts for support to the ground. Mr. Allen was present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Mr. Allen stated that he will probably use fir rather than pressure treated wood. Ms. Herbert asked if they will have the criss-cross that is there now. Mr. Allen replied in the negative. He stated that it is minimally visible from Beckford Street. It will be painted to match the house. There was no public comment. Ms. Herbert stated that the balusters should not be applied to the outside of the bottom rail, but rather the balusters should rest on it and the bottom rail should be thicker. Ms. Guy suggested using the porch design in the guidelines as a guide for the balusters, without the thicker posts. Ms. Herbert suggested looking at the Brosco catalog. She asked if the posts to the ground will be visible. Mr. Allen stated that the corner post may be visible. Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the expanded deck, with balustrade railing design and construction to comply with the Commission's guidelines. Ms. Diozzi seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. July 20, 2011, Page 4 of 5 31 Flint Street Suzanne and Jonathan Felt presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove sideward painted cedar shingles and restore original clapboards on entire house. House to be grey with white trim. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Paint chips Ms. Felt stated that Colonial Remodeling removed a piece to see what was underneath. She stated that they will need a new skirtboard and will restore anything else that is removed or destroyed. The shutters and door will remain black. The body color will be Fieldstone and the trim will be Sensible White. Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the application as submitted and to include the replacement of clapboards, watertable and trim as needed. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 4 Andover Street In continuation of a previous meeting, Joel F. and Judy H. Caron submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace an existing picket fence with a Molly Prichard Picket Fence. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Proposal from J. C. Fence Co. Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the fence replacement with picket spacing to be 2", painted brown to match house. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 31 Washington Square—Discussion on window installation Ms. Guy stated that Mike Shea contacted her and is having back pain issues and has asked to be placed on the August 3rd agenda. Other Business A. Approval of minutes a. Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of June 15, 2011. Ms. Diozzi seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. July 20, 2011, Page 5 of 5 There being no further business, Ms. McCrea made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Diozzi seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Respectfully sub i Jane A. G Clerk of the )mmission August 3, 2011, Page 1 of 4 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 3, 2011 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday,August 3, 2011 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Diozzi, Ms. McCrea, Mr. Hart and Ms. Bellin. Ms. Keenan arrived later in the meeting. 84-86 Derby Street Ryan and Amber Macione presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness paint colors and to reshingle a 3-tab brown asphalt roof. The proposed paint colors are Colonial Sandstone for the body (existing color which is not changing), C2 Halo for the trim, C2 Major Tom for the door and C2 Fossil for the accent panel. The roof is proposed to be IKO Cambridge 30 AR Asphalt in dual Black or Harvard Slate or GAF/ELK Grandslate in Bristol Grey. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Paint chips Mr. Hart stated that it was his mistake in approving that IKO and felt it did not approximate 3-tab. Mr. Macione stated that they are willing to go with the Grandslate. Ms. Diozzi made a motion to approve the paint colors as submitted. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve only the GAF/ELK Grandslate in Bristol Grey. Ms. Diozzi seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Keenan joined the meeting at this time. 31 Washington Square—Discussion on carriage house window installation Michael Shea was present at the request of the Commission to discuss windows that were installed on the carriage house at 31 Washington Square. Ms. Guy provided a summary of the events that lead to this discussion: Bertram Home—29 Washington Sn. 7/24/89—Certificate issued for sunroom, etal referencing Staley McDermet plans (plans and minutes now archived in basement and not available to easily check) ... certificate says "wood windows" 9/6/07—Certificate issued for replacement of Mall Street bay windows with LePage 7/8"wood Simulated Divided Light windows August 3, 2011, Page 2 of 4 10/4/07—Certificate issued for replacement of 3`d floor sash only with Trimline Heritage Ultrafit Simulated Divided Light all wood windows with finding that 3`d floor windows are minimally visible from the street and that the muntin size is compatible with the unusually large size of the windows 8/21/08 —Certificate issued for reconstruction of masonry elevator shaft with 2 new wood, 6 over 6 true divided light windows. Drawings by Pitman& Wardley Architects. Application signed by Richard Griffin. 31 Washingtonquare North 3/4/10—Certificate issued to replace carriage house windows with Matthews Brothers wood windows with simulated divided lights. Minutes state: 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. 3/25/11 — Certificate issued for garage construction with wood windows to match carriage house 6/17/11 —Denial of application of Catterson/Hammond for Mathew Brothers simulated divided light windows due to non-wood mullions and would be inconsistent with remaining windows on house. Mr. Griffin stated that the old sunroom windows were replaced with Matthews Brothers windows in 2008, apparently with no certificate. Ms. Herbert stated that two of the neighbors that have gone through the expense of the true divided light windows have complained. She noted that the most visible are the windows right on Oliver Street. Mr. Griffin stated that the windows on Oliver Street did not have screens, but the screens have now been installed and they hide the plastic. The interior of the windows are wood. Ms. Herbert noted that the mullions look skimpy and are very low in profile. Mr. Hart stated that the exterior profile is a traditional interior profile. Ms. Herbert asked if the interior mullions can be placed on the outside in place of the plastic. Mr. Griffin stated that he believed it was hermetically sealed and is all one piece with the window. He noted that it was a Brosco provided product. Ms. Bellin asked how many windows in the carriage house. Mr. Shea stated that there are approximately 16 windows in the carriage house. There will be ten windows in the garage. August 3, 2011, Page 3 of 4 Ms. Herbert noted that the garage has not been constructed. She suggested that it be explored if the muntins can be changed. Ms. Bellin asked how many windows are visible on the carriage house. Mr. Shea stated that there are probably 4 on each side. They are encased in masonry. Ms. Herbert stated that maybe the Commission would consider only dealing with the window sash on Oliver Street. Mr. Hart stated that he would like to take another look at the carriage house. Ms. Diozzi wondered if some of the carriage house sash could be interchanged into the garage. Mr. Shea stated that the windows on the garage are smaller. Ms. Bellin made a motion to rescind its approval dated 3/25/11 for"wood windows to match carriage house" for the new garage construction due to the carriage house windows currently being Matthews Brother windows with plastic muntins rather than wood muntins. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve that the visible windows of the garage be installed - with either single glazed,true divided light, clear glass, all wood windows or with one of the four windows the Commission regularly approves: • Pella Architect Series Wood Double Hung Window with ILT's, 7/8" muntin, wood exterior • LePage 7/8" SDL, wood exterior • J. B. Sash Proper Bostonian(wood exterior) • Marvin Ultimate Double Hung wood windows (wood exterior)with 7/8"muntins. Exterior muntins to have custom profile to replicate a putty line. Where there is a wood choice, it should be cedar. When available,the spacers between the glass should be bronze. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Diozzi stated that she would go by tomorrow to determine what windows are visible and non-visible on the garage. Mr. Hart and Ms. Bellin will go by the carriage house and make a recommendation to the Commission regarding the currently installed windows. Other Business A. Ms. Guy read an email from Karen Vitone and Mike Riordan requesting an extension of their Certificate of Appropriateness dated February 4, 2010. Ms. Bellin made a motion to extend the certificate for 6 months. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. August 3, 2011, Page 4 of 4 B. Ms. Guy stated that she received a copy of a letter from Massachusetts Historical Commission to Susan St. Pierre consulting services regarding the demolition of the boiler building and construction of a new facility at Salem Hospital, 81 Highland Avenue. MHC found that the building is not on MHC's inventory of assets and is not listed on the State Register. C. Approval of minutes a. Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of July 6, 2011. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. b. Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of July 20, 2011. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. D. Ms. Guy stated that she had forward a link to Commission members for the plans for the proposed St. Josephs redevelopment project at 135 Lafayette Street. As part of the Section 106 Review process, she is placing the review and comment on the plans on the August 17th agenda. There being no further business, Ms. Diozzi made a motion to adjourn. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Respectfully b d, Jane A. Clerk o hie August 17, 2011, Page 1 of 10 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2011 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, August 17, 2011 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Ms. Diozzi and Mr. Hart. Ms. Bellin, Ms. McCrea and Ms. Keenan arrived later in the meeting. 19 Warren Street Karen Vitone presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors. The body will be HC-146 Wedgewood Gray, Trim OC-17 White Dove and Windows/Doors to remain the same color—N096-80 Black. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Paint chips Ms. Herbert stated that it was a beautiful color. Ms. Diozzi was in agreement. Ms. Vitone stated they received approval for work last year and while most of the work has been completed, there is still some underway. The house was built in 1839. Ms. Keenan joined the meeting at this time. There was no public comment. Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the paint colors as presented. Ms. Diozzi seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. McCrea joined the meeting at this time. 315 & 317 Essex Street 315 Essex Street, LLC submitted an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for fence installation/alteration. Morris Schopf represented the applicant. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Site plan tied to photographs August 17, 2011, Page 2 of 10 Mr. Schopf stated that they would like to install a fence between their parking lot and the adjacent parking lot. He noted that in location D of the site plan,the picket fence is not theirs. The chain link fence in front is proposed to be replaced. The same situation is on E. He stated that the new fence would be 6' in height. Mr. Hart asked which side would be the finished side. Mr. Schopf stated that the finished side would face out with post and rails on the inside. The posts will be approximately every 8' and in the middle will be a rail. He stated that the fence will have a cap rail. An email from Jim Kearney was read into the record suggesting the fence also be added to the section between lA Cambridge and 315 Essex (B on site plan). Mr. Kearney stated he complimented the owners on the job they have done. He stated that he would like protection from the inappropriate windows and the sea of cars. He suggested trees be added or, if not, a fence. Ms. Guy stated that the owner does not need approval for trees, but the Commission could give him the option for the fence, which he could install if he decided to do so. Mr. Schopf stated that he would like approval for the fence option as suggested by Mr. Kearney's email. He stated that he was able to reduce the number of vents in the building to basically none. Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the application as submitted and to include the option for the fence between lA and 315 Essex. Ms. Diozzi seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 142 Derby Street Jennifer Reardon submitted an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for sign installation. The original sign was approved by the Commission in 1998. James Burns was present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Ms. Herbert noted that the sign is already up. There was no public comment. Ms. Diozzi made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. August 17, 2011, Page 3 of 10 31 Washington Square N. Unit 1 John Catterson and Frederick Hammond submitted an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for window replacement with Marvin double hung wood windows with 7/8"muntins with putty glazed detail, in primed pine interior and a full screen. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Email from Marvin Window&Door Showcase Ms. Guy stated that the applicants are unable to attend and requested a continuance to the next meeting. Mr. Hart made a motion to continue the application to the September 7th meeting. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 135 Lafayette Street(St. Joseph's Redevelopment)—Review and comment on submission(Section 106 Review) Present were: Lisa Alberghini from POUA Paul Silverstone from MassHousing Molly Eckert from POUA Ruth Silman from Nixon Peabody Ed Bradford, Architect Ms. Alberghini stated the Planning Office for Urban Affairs (POUA) is the owner and the controlling entity of the developer. Mr. Silverstone stated that he is from MassHousing and is doing the Section 106 Review for DHCD. He stated that historical review under Section 106 is triggered by the federal funds. DHCD is administering federal HOME funds for the project. MassHousing is doing the review for DHCD. He will gather and evaluate the information from any source that he can, including people at this meeting. Ms. Bellin joined the meeting at this time. Ms. Alberghini gave a presentation which included a history on POUA's work on this redevelopment project. She stated that the property was purchased in 2005. She reviewed the alternatives undertaken to avoid, minimize and mitigate the adverse impacts. Before they purchased the property, in 2005,the city hired an independent third party group, Crosswhite Advisors, to undertake a study for economic analysis, market analysis, architectural and engineering inspections of the properties and an analysis of what they found, historical review and meetings with various stakeholders. The study concluded that the former convent building is not historically significant,that there is no market-supported use or reuse for the former church,that for the physically possible market-supported uses the community preference was for housing and the community preference within that was for affordable housing. They also recommended that there be a continuous street wall and retail wall along Lafayette Street, which would required the August 17, 2011, Page 4 of 10 demolition of the former church to accomplish that. She stated that POUA is a non-profit 501c3 that is affiliated with the Archdiocese of Boston. They have been in existence for 42 years and have developed approximately 2500 units affordable and mixed income housing. The study suggested 167 units for the site by a private, for-profit developer, while POUA is proposing 76 for the site. The study also stated that a 5 story building would not be out of context along this major arterial. POUA plans to keep the rectory (1917) and school (1920),the oldest structures on site, as part of their plan. To try to look at whether demolition of the church could be avoided, they assessed the city's study and they looked at other entities to reuse the structure. She noted that they met with Historic Salem, Inc. early on and who identified five entities who might have interest in reusing the church. POUA contacted them all and only one asked to tour the building, Boon Gallery, who concluded they were not able to reuse it. They also worked with a real estate broker to see seek potential buyers. There were no interested buyers after several months. In 2006, they undertook a study to see if the church could be converted to housing. Tremont Preservation Services were brought on and it was concluded that the addition of new windows needed would impair the integrity of the church both inside and out, would change the character and nature of the structure and it would not bear much of a relationship to its current form. There was also cost prohibitive structural work,the floor plans of the units would be very inferior and other revisions to the exterior would be needed that would dramatically alter the character of the building. Mr. Bradford stated that the church is just not suited for housing. It is too wide in the footprint and too narrow as it goes up. It would require a self-supporting structure within a structure. Ms. Alberghini stated that those efforts were to avoid adverse impact and it was determined that there was not an alternative to demolition. The next thing was to find ways to mitigate the adverse impact. In 2005-2006, they held meetings with the Pont Neighborhood Association, South Salem Neighborhood Association, Lafayette Place Neighborhood Association and Historic Salem, Inc. The first plan was unveiled in February, 2006. For 3 months,they worked with architects, engineers, the city and community representatives on the development plan. Neighborhood meetings were held in June and July. Applications were made to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) and Planning Board in August, 2006. In 2006,the Commission applied to the Salem Historical Commission(SHC) for waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance. In August 2006,they received the ZBA variances needed. In September, 2006, following substantial plan changes, the Planning Board approved a Special PUD for a six story building with 97 housing units. The ZBA approved a Comprehensive Permit in March, 2007. The City Council extended the zoning business district in June, 2008. The City became eligible for a PWED application in 2008 as a result of this development plan and received a$1million grant for signalization improvements and streetscape improvements. In January, 2010, POUA met with the SHC to review the Project Notification Form. POUA met again with the Point Neighborhood Association twice. In July, 2010, they submitted application to the Planning Board for Mixed Use with Neighborhood Commercial which received approval September, 2010 for 4 stories, and reducing it from 75 to 51 units. DHCD awarded funding subsidies for the first phase of the project in March, 2011. The current plan is for 4 stories, 51 units affordable housing. It eliminates August 17, 2011, Page 5 of 10 the plan for a drive-thru in back and the large scale retail use. It retains neighborhood retail use on the first floor. They will reuse the church's granite steps. Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission will ask questions first and then will get public comment. Ms. Diozzi asked if it will be all rental housing. Ms. Alberghini replied in the affirmative, noting that due to the market,they were no longer able to get funding for condos for homeownership as originally hoped. Ms. Diozzi asked if they have other rental units. Ms. Alberghini stated that POUA will be the controlling entity of the LLC. The housing will be affordable in perpetuity. They have a professional property management company, which will be Peabody Properties. They currently have a large rental portfolio. Mr. Hart stated that he was part of the initial team at Crosswhite and was hired to do the graphics. He did not act as the architect or have any part in determining what would be happening on the site. He was not on the SHC at that time. Ms. Harper asked about the units for the other buildings. Ms. Alberghini stated that the redevelopment of the 2 buildings is not part of this phase. She stated that there is a potential for senior housing in the school building. There is a possibility of office or condos for the rectory. They want to get the first phase done and then assess the options for the rest of the campus. Mr. Bradford stated that both buildings are adaptable to housing and that the structures are suitable for housing. Ms. Alberghini stated that the rectory could hold 8 units. The school could hold a minimum of 20 units for seniors. They are permitted for 25 between the two. Ms. Herbert asked what happened to the mansard roof design. Mr. Bradford stated that they received both positive and negative comments. They looked North on Lafayette, which did not have roofs, but had strong cornice lines and is in keeping. Ms. Herbert asked the number of storefronts. Ms. Alberghini stated that it is 4400 s.f. Mr. Bradford stated they expect at least 2 tenants, but the storefronts could be adapted to more tenants. August 17, 2011, Page 6 of 10 Ms. Herbert suggested that there be regulations as to the appearance of the storefronts. She asked why SROs were abandoned in the convent and if the convent is being taken down for parking. Ms. Alberghini stated that the city felt strongly that additional SROs in that neighborhood were not needed. Even still,they would be very small, cell block size units. Parking was secondary. Ms. Herbert asked about the plan for the statute purported to be in the parking lot. Ms. Alberghini stated that, if it is there, it would have been buried according to church law for religious articles no longer to be used. She stated that as part of the Planning Board approval, if they encounter it, they are to consult with the archdiocese about the proper way to handle it. If they do not come across it in the course of construction,they will leave it. There is a possibility of reburying it on site. Ms. Herbert asked if there would be an onsite manager from Peabody Properties. Ms. Alberghini replied in the affirmative, but did not know if it would be full time. There would be maintenance staff devoted to the site. Ms. Herbert asked if they are complete in terms of design or are receptive to comments from the SHC and Historic Salem, Inc. Ms. Alberghini stated that it would be difficult, except for minor things. Ms. Herbert asked about screening for parking and felt borderline screening would be important. Ms. Alberghini stated that there will be additional screening near the three homes on Dow Street. She noted that the landscape plan is to be approved by the Planning Board. Ms. McCrea asked that there be consideration for a plaque talking about the significance of the parish. Ms. Alberghini stated that it is a dynamic site that has changed over time and they plan to honor the legacy in some way. There will be a 750 s.f. community space component available to residents of the building and to the community. She stated that Salem Lafayette Development, LLC which is a subsidiary of POUA, which is a private, non- profit 501c3, which was created by the archdiocese many years ago and they are not legally or financially part of the Archdiocese. They are affiliated because they were created in 1969 by Cardinal Cushing,who now serves on the Board as an individual. Ms. Herbert stated that she would accept public comment. Stanley Smith, 4 Pickering Street, stated that the presentation does not discuss whether government money should be used to subsidize the destruction of major historic landmarks. He stated that POUA's slide presentation did not have a picture of what is to August 17, 2011, Page 7 of 10 be demolished. He stated that at Judge Sam Zoll's funeral, speaker Bill Tinti had talked about how Judge Zoll turned around a redevelopment plan which in Bill Tinti's words would have been civic murder. He stated the church is a major landmark, which is very distinctive. Emily Udy, representing Historic Salem, Inc., stated that the presentation indicates that the school and rectory are the older buildings on site. She stated that the real issue is the International Style church. There are very few examples of this style in Massachusetts or New England. She stated that this is the real issue. Morris Schopf, 1 Cambridge Street, stated that the purpose of the Section 106 process is to identify buildings for preservation and believed it has been so identified. He stated that the proper mitigation of the adverse effect of the closing of a monumental building like this is its adaptive use. He stated that he was fortunate to redevelop a church in Lewiston, ME as a public performance venue, because it is possible to secularize the space in a sensitive way. He stated that he also butchered them up for housing, but stated that even butchered up,the physical massing and presence and landscape is not lost, not changed. He stated that it is the responsibility of the owner to provide mitigation and the first best mitigation is adaptive reuse and the dead last mitigation is to put up relatively inexpensive housing project in the footprint or not of a building that is gone forever. Anna Delamonica, Prescott Street, stated that she was not here to criticize the plan, except for the cruciform church. It is one of three in the United States. She stated that she was not against housing, but did not support the church being gone. She read a letter that she had written to the Salem News. Rinus Ooestock, Director of the Salem Chamber of Commerce, stated that he was speaking on behalf of his members and the people who have businesses north of this location. He stated that they have been supportive of the developers throughout the phase when they first tried to restore the church and find uses including the senior center and they are still supportive of the organization and their current plans. Chamber members have stated that we have been waiting long enough. They tried everything they could to preserve the church and did not find a way and we want to be supportive including the fact that they are planning to construct a building that is on the street with small retail. We think the Point deserves an opportunity for revitalization with the retail and housing aspect. We hope they will be able to move forward. Lucy Corchado, Chase Street, She stated that she is a former city councilor, is the president of Salem Point Neighborhood Association, is a former parishioner of St. Josephs and is a resident of the Point. She stated that it has been a painful journey, but is very anxious to see something positive done in that area. She stated that she did not see beauty in that church. She stated that it is falling apart. She stated that they are looking for that same energy when it was a school and church. Those are the activities that can be achieved with this development. Early on she was part of the discussions to try to save it. There is no one who stepped up to the plate to try to preserve it. Salem Harbor CDC went through and could not use it. It is not cost effective. There will be affordable housing, economic development and opportunities for community meetings. Having homeless people sleeping on the steps of the church is not beauty. They are hoping for a August 17, 2011, Page 8 of 10 community center, but since it is not happening there,they are desperate to have some space in the Point in order to engage with residents locally. She presented a 75 person petition in support of the development. Vicky Siriani, 6 Botts Court, stated that, as people, we need to represent the best of our past and deal with pragmatic solutions and that our future is a representation of our pasts. She felt this was one of the most unfortunate things happening in our city. She stated that the church is a huge representation of our past. She stated that we have failed as a people and a community by not understanding the significance of this building in this area and not doing a better job. Mr. Hart stated that Brona Simon of MHC wrote to POUA on 1/12/09 and that the opinion was the demolition would have an adverse effect on this National Register eligible district. He stated that they need to be sure that the law is followed with regard to the Section 106 review process. Mr. Silverstone stated that he will provide a full set of documentation. Mr. Hart noted that the site is eligible for listing on the National Register and would like to see the alternatives that would minimize or eliminate the adverse effect. Mr. Silverstone stated that a property considered eligible is considered eligible for the purpose of the Section 106 review. MHC and the tribal offices get notification and then other parties entitled to be consulting received invitations,to which the SHC replied in the affirmative. The ACHP has been notified that there is a determination of an adverse effect. There is information gathering, including public comment. When they have received sufficient comment at this round,they will come back with a proposed plan for mitigation, some of which was outlined in the Ms. Alberghini's presentation. In approximately 2 1/2 weeks, they hope to give a review of the assessment. Mr. Hart suggested drafting a letter concurring with Brona Simon's letter. He stated that he would like to see alternatives explored to minimize or eliminate adverse effects. Ms. Herbert asked when the Section 106 process began. Mr. Silverstone stated that the award of the HOME funds in March triggered the Section 106 review. Ms. Silman stated that the initiation of the consultation process began in the beginning of August. Ms. Bellin made a motion to send a comment letter. Ms. Diozzi seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Hart suggesting writing a letter saying that the SHC is in the process of drafting a letter and expect to vote on it at the September meeting. August 17, 2011, Page 9 of 10 Ms. Bellin stated that the question is how important is it to get a letter to MHC before the 30 days elapses and MHC responds. She stated that she felt we should get as much done tonight as possible. Mr. Hart felt the letter should state: • Make sure the Section 106 process is followed • Understand that the property is eligible for National Register • Request the proponent explore alternatives Ms. Herbert suggested it include that it is a historic building that is unique. Mr. Hart suggested fleshing out the attributes of each building. Mr. Silverstone stated that MHC initial impression is that three of the buildings are National Register eligible, as well as the complex as a whole. He stated that a letter can state that in the Commission's opinion, what makes it eligible or not. The site can be eligible independently from the buildings. Ms. Silman stated that an area eligible for listing does not mean each individual structure is automatically eligible. Mr. Hart stated that there is a historic survey Form A for the site. Ms. Herbert closed public comment. Ms. Bellin made a motion for the following comments to be included in the letter: • That, at a vote taken 8/17/11,the Commission voted to concur with the MHC letter of January 12, 2010 (note typo on letter indicated 2009) • Concur with the Form A that the church is rare example of international style and the tower is a distinctive landmark. The letter is to include brief information on the rectory, school and convent from Form A. Ms. Diozzi seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Bellin felt that the building should not look like every other new building in Salem and preferred the mansard roof. Mr. Hart felt that the Commission should hold off on comments on the design to the September meeting. Ms. McCrea stated that she was concerned about changing the design that has been approved by the ZBA and Planning Board. Ms. Hart made a motion that the Commission does not support the demolition of any of the four buildings. Ms. Diozzi seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. August 17, 2011, Page 10 of 10 Mr. Hart made a motion that if buildings are demolished they should first be recorded to Historic American Buildings Survey (HABs) standards. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Siriani stated that HSI will be drafting a letter and will state that religious activity has been on that site for 125 years. Ms. Bellin made a motion to include in the letter that the site has had religious activity for more than 125 years, deriving a primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction, which is one of National Register criteria. The Commission will follow up with comments on design in another letter. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Other Business A. Ms. Guy read an email from Mary Whitney requesting an extension of their Certificate of Appropriateness dated August 30, 2010 for painting, bulkhead and storm windows. Ms. Diozzi made a motion to extend the certificate for 6 months. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. B. Ms. Guy stated the Building Inspector has sited 6 Federal Court for code violations. C. Approval of minutes Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of August 3, 2011. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. D. Mr. Hart stated that he is the Commission's representative on the Urban Renewal Plan Study Committee. The Committee decided it will combine the areas into one and will extend the plan for 30 years. It will add the post office and the Riley Plaza lot, as well as the lot next to Starbucks. He stated that he would not be able to attend one of the upcoming meetings and needed a volunteer to go in his place. Ms. McCrea volunteered to attend the meeting in his place. There being no further business, Ms. Diozzi made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Respectfully su t Jane A. G Clerk of th Commission September 7, 2011, Page 1 of 14 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 7, 2011 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, September 7, 2011 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Ms. McCrea, Ms. Keenan and Mr. Hart. 31 Washington Square N Unit 1 Jana Catterson and Frederick Hammond presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace windows with Marvin double hung wood windows (wood exterior) with 7/8"muntins with putty glazed detail in primed pine interior and a full screen (continued from last meeting, but public hearing never opened). Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Mr. Hammond stated that there are seventeen windows, and that it will cost approximately$15,000 for the new replacement windows. Ms. Herbert asked if he had contacted Window Woman, Inc. or a similar firm that refurbishes windows. Mr. Hammond stated that he made appointment with Window Women and she did not show. He stated that he also met with Old Town Repair, but that he could not recall the cost. He stated that he preferred to replace the windows. Ms. Herbert stated that there are three tiers in this very important building. She stated that she spoke to the broker and was told that the owner, Mike Shea, was not in a position to replace the windows on the second and third floors at this time. She noted that it is a prominent and important building. Ms. Bellin asked if all the windows on the first floor will be replaced. Mr. Hammond replied in the affirmative. He stated that they will be same windows as those being used on the garage. Mr. Hart noted that the existing windows may already be replacement windows. He stated that the earlier windows may have been 6 over 6. His stated that his concern is if a distinction can be seen between first floor and the second and third floors. He asked if the windows will be 2 over 2. Mr. Hammond replied in the affirmative. Ms. Herbert noted that the second and third floors have storm windows. September 7, 2011, Page 2 of 14 Mr. Hart asked if the first floor will have storms. Ms. Catterson stated that they have the storms and could re-install them. Ms. Bellin asked the status of third floor unit. Ms. Catterson replied that it is a rental owned by Mike Shea. Ms. Herbert stated that the second floor sale fell through and it is now going to be rental, so the windows will probably not be changing in the near future. Mr. Hart stated that he was reluctant to go ahead based upon there being a visual difference between the units. Ms. Herbert suggested a compromise to refurbish the 4 front windows and retain the storms and for the sides and back to be replacement windows. Mr. Hart suggested that there somehow be a mock-up to see the effect. Ms. Herbert stated that she has had refurbished windows and was amazed at how well they turned out. Ms. Bellin asked the age of the current windows. Mr. Hart stated that they are from the 1860's or as late as 1910, and that stylistically he would think the last part of 19th century. Ms. Herbert asked if it was possible to do a site visit with a sample of the new window. Mr. Hart stated that that would be his preference. Ms. Herbert stated that they could then see if there is any obvious difference. Mr. Hammond stated that the four windows in the front are probably in the worst condition in the building. Ms. Herbert asked if all the sashes are same size, and if some of the better sashes be switched to the front. Mr. Hammond stated that he did not know. There was no public comment. Vote: Mr. Hart made a motion to see a mock up at the site before 9/14/11 and to continue the application to next meeting. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. September 7, 2011, Page 3 of 14 Mr. Hammond stated that he would contact Marvin Windows and let Ms. Guy know when the mock up will be available to see. Ms. Guy will then notify Ms. Herbert and Mr. Hart. 84-86 Derby Street Ryan and Amber Macione submitted an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to reroof a brown 3-tab roof with Certainteed Hatteras shingles in either Outer Banks or Stormy Night colors. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Certainteed Hatteras website information Mr. Macione stated that he went to get a sample yesterday and the salesperson pointed out another shingle—Certainteed Independence. It is the based on a 3-tab full sheet. He stated that because of the age of the roof, the post and beam structure, and that it does not have traditional sheathing to even out roof,there is unevenness in the roof. The standard 3 tab shingle will draw attention to the waviness more than other shingles. Independence is made to hide some of the unevenness. He noted that by adding the additional shingle on top of the 3-tab, it adds some contrast. He stated that he wanted to change from the existing orangey-brown to black or charcoal black. He noted that the size of the Hatteras shingle is much larger. Mr. Hart stated that it is 8"to weather while standard is 4". Mr. Macione stated that Independence does not have the bell shape that the Commission discourages. They are square angle cuts. Ms. McCrea asked if they would look more like handcut shingles. Mr. Macione replied in affirmative. Mr. Hart stated that Hatteras seems to be a 3-tab or equivalent, but is 8" exposure. He stated he did not think the Independence looks like a 3-tab. Ms. Bellin stated that the base may be 3-tab, but because of what has been put on top, it has no resemblance to a 3-tab. She stated that they prefer the traditional look of 3-tab or one that approaches a 3-tab. Mr. Hart stated that he did not understand how a 3-tab roof will make it look more uneven than the other shingle. Mr. Macione stated that 3-tab will draw more attention to the roof. Mr. Hart noted that the existing roof is 3 tab. September 7, 2011, Page 4 of 14 Mr. Macione stated that the existing looks like an ocean of waves. Mr. Hart asked if the applicant thought that the Independence shingle will disguise the waviness. Mr. Macione replied in the affirmative. Mr. Hart stated that with the 3 tab,the eye is drawn to the house,not the roof. He stated that with architectural shingles,the eye goes to the roof. Mr. Macione stated that he is also proposing to change the color to help hide. Mr. Hart stated that he has a problem with anything other than a 3-tab. Mr. Macione stated that he looked at the Grand Slate and stated that it is cost prohibitive. It is 3 times the cost of 3-tab and 2 times the cost of architectural. He stated that 3-tab is $100, Independence is $125, and Grand Slate is $275 per square. He stated that he did not understand why the house is to look like it had a slate roof, when there is no evidence that the house ever had a slate roof. Ms. Herbert stated that in the photograph the roof does not look that wavy to her, Mr. Hart stated that he would be happy to go take a look. Mr. Macione provided a sample of the Independence shingle. Mr. Hart stated that he was not enthused. Mr. Macione stated that it comes down to cost. He noted that the existing roof has numerous shingles missing and the roof is leaking. David O'Sullivan, 92 Derby Street, stated that the roof is visibly wavy. Mr. Macione stated that if he is forced to use 3-tab, he will have to re-sheath the entire roof to take the waviness out of it, which will drive up the cost. Vote: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve Certainteed GAF XT30 or GAF XT25 in black, Moire Black, Slate Gray or the existing color. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Vote: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 117/119 Federal Street Fred Lipton and Stephen Duguay submitted an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace a 3-tab asphalt roof in kind and to replace the slate roof in back with the same asphalt roof(black or charcoal). September 7, 2011, Page 5 of 14 Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Mr. Lipton stated that currently the whole front is 3-tab and the whole back is slate. He stated that there is a small place on Essex Street where a small section of the slate roof can be seen. He is proposing 30 year Marathon 3 tab black for the entire roof. Ms. Bellin noted that the front half is an in kind replacement. Mr. Lipton stated that the slates are very thin and old. He stated that he had J. B. Kidney quote it and that it is $8800 just for repair. He stated that the roof is not leaking, but that he has been told it is past its life. Mr. Hart stated that he hated to see a slate roof go. Mr. Lipton stated that you would have to look through the branches of the tree in order to see a small part of roof. Ms. Herbert asked if it is a condominium. Mr. Lipton replied in the affirmative. Ms. Herbert asked if any slate would be saved, and noted that J. B. Kidney may want to come and save it. Mr. Lipton stated that he would love it if someone could recycle some of it. Morris Schopf, 1 Cambridge Street, stated that it is always best to investigate repair of slate. He stated that contemporary roofing doesn't keep the weather out. It has to be removed section by section and a membrane installed. The process is basically removal and replacement and when done you have a roof good for another 200-250 years. Mr. Lipton stated that there has been no slate on the front for 25 to 30 years. He stated that the house is so tall, you don't even notice the asphalt roof from Federal Street. Vote: Ms. Bellin made a motion to replace the entire roof with 3-tab black asphalt. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Ms. McCrea and Ms. Keenan voted in favor. Mr. Hart abstained from voting. The motion so carried. 182 Federal Street Alexa Ogna, Dan Fulton and Lisa Delissio submitted an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install chimney caps on two chimneys. Documents &Exhibits 0 Application September 7, 2011, Page 6 of 14 ■ Photographs ■ Catalog cut of HY-C Multi-Flue Caps Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the color to be matt black. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 135 Lafayette Street St. Jose h's Redevelopment) —Review and comment on submission(Section 106 Review) - Continuation Present were: Lisa Alberghini from POUA Ruth Silman from Nixon Peabody Ms. Herbert stated that the purpose of tonight's meeting was to discuss mitigation. She stated that the Commission already sent its letter saying the Commission prefers to have development within the church and prefers to see the buildings preserved. She stated that she is looking for a mandate in the Memorandum of Agreement(MOA) for the preservation of the rectory and school. She stated that POUA does not have any development plans per se for those two buildings, and knows that they have been approved for up to 25 units, but wants to make sure the exterior of those buildings remains unchanged and preserved. She added that the buildings and site needs security. She felt the most cost effective way would be electronically,that rings into police and fire stations to protect the property now and during construction. She noted that the Commission does not have decision authority on design and can only make recommendations and comments. She added that there were four Commission members at the public meeting last night. She stated that the Commission already said it wants the four buildings preserved and now it needs to address the topic of mitigation. Ms. Guy stated that she discovered that one of Ms. Bellin's comments that was approved to go into the letter was not included. She will include it in the second letter. Ms. Herbert read the Commission's letter issued following the August 17th Salem Historical Commission meeting. Mr. Hart stated that Section 106 requires the proponent to explore alternatives to adverse effects and that demolition of the church is an adverse effect. He stated that he wanted to be sure a legitimate attempt was made by the proponent that alternatives were explored. He noted that there was testimony at the public hearing last night stating that the church could be recycled and noted that two to three architects said it could be done. He stated that he insists that alternatives be explored. Ms. Herbert stated that she did not feel that she got a definitive answer from Paul Silverstone on how the 106 process will go forward. She stated that from her take, the decision seems next to made. She questioned how it is proposed to get an alternative to demolition of the church on the table within a week. Mr. Hart stated that Bill Barlow, recently retired from National Park Service, stated that an MOA will be prepared. He stated that he thought it could be embodied in the MOA. September 7, 2011, Page 7 of 14 Ms. Herbert stated that she suspected that the view will be that all alternatives have been explored. She stated that the Commission can and should address this in its comments, but she questioned what effect it will have. She stated, from what she heard at the 9/6/11 public hearing, that it sounds like the window of opportunity is just about closed. Mr. Hart stated that Massachusetts Historical Commission theoretically is going to weigh in on this, and, if necessary, the Advisory Council in Washington, DC. He stated that he did not feel that soliciting up to five firms is exploring alternatives to reusing church and it did not meet the intent of Section 106. He noted that there are three architects who say it can be done. He proposed that the Commission insist that the proponent explore alternatives to demolition of church. Ms. McCrea asked how practical it is. Ms. Herbert stated that the point is how can we make that happen; can we make that happen. Mr. Hart stated that it is not up to the Commission to do it, but is up to the proponent to explore alternatives. Ms. Herbert stated that two years ago, when St. Mary's was on the table, it looked like there would be housing units in the church. An effort was made behind the scenes to come up with another plan, which happened and there won't be any units in that church now. She noted that it took over year and a half for that proposal to be even presented to the Board. She stated that she knows a request to explore alternatives will be put in the letter, but asked if there was any way to put any additional teeth in it to make it happen, short of creating a plan within the next week. Mr. Hart stated that it was up to the proponent and not up to the Commission to design. Ms. Herbert stated that it was up to the proponent with St. Mary's,too, but it didn't happen. Mr. Hart stated that it is up to the proponent and up to Massachusetts Historical Commission to enforce it. Ms. McCrea asked if Mr. Hart did not feel enough due diligence was done for appropriate reuse of church. Mr. Hart stated that he recommends the Commission state that the letter of law of Section 106 be followed and that the proponent prepare alternatives to demolition of church. Ms. Herbert stated that she felt the need to start out by saying that the Commission is fully behind development at that site,with the caveat that they would like to see it within the church building for the mass of the units. September 7, 2011, Page 8 of 14 Mr. Hart stated that there could also be an addition to the church or that a separate building be constructed. He noted that in the 2005 study report,there were three different scenarios, including reuse of the church and a new building on the southwest corner. Vote: Mr. Hart made a motion to include the comment that the Commission is fully in support of development at the site with the caveat that the Section 106 be fully explored with respect to preservation of the church and that alternative designs be explored that would preserve the church exterior. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Vote: Mr. Hart made a motion to request that the Memorandum of Agreement(MOA) include preservation of the exterior of the rectory and school which are really not mentioned in the plan as proposed. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Motion: Mr. Hart made a motion that alternative designs be explored that would preserve the integrity of the convent. Ms. McCrea stated that her understanding was that it does not meet the criteria that makes it historical. Mr. Hart stated that it was debatable. Ms. McCrea stated that she felt it was so poorly constructed compared to the rectory and felt it should be demolished. Vote: Ms. Bellin seconded Mr. Hart's motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Keenan and Mr. Hart voted in favor. Ms. McCrea voted in opposition. The motion so carried. Ms. Herbert questioned whether the Commission should request that the MOA state that the rectory and school cannot be sold off as separate entities and that the campus should remain as a whole. Mr. Hart wondered if that could impede the developer and stated that he did not want to tie their hands too tightly. He suggested binding the sale. Ms. Herbert suggested a preservation restriction. Vote: Mr. Hart made a motion to request that the MOA include a requirement that a preservation restriction be placed on the rectory and school. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Herbert stated that she would like to see a motion to request the campus and all four buildings be protected by security measures, most probably electronically tied into police and fire. Vote: Ms. Bellin made a motion to request the campus and all four buildings be protected by security measures, most probably electronically tied into police and fire. Mr. Hart September 7, 2011, Page 9 of 14 seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Keenan and Mr. Hart voted in favor. Ms. McCrea abstained. The motion so carried. Ms. Bellin asked about current maintenance. She stated that it is not clear that the buildings are being properly maintained while vacant. She stated there is leaking and noted that it is an abandoned property and appears to be treated as such. She stated that if we really want to preserve the church,that is not helping retain the status quo. Ms. Herbert suggested that an assessment of all four buildings be done. Vote: Ms. Bellin made a motion that all four buildings be assessed and that they are maintained to preserve the status quo. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Keenan and Mr. Hart voted in favor. Ms. McCrea abstained. The motion so carried. Ms. Bellin stated that she thought the Commission should talk about proposed design. Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission can, but was not sure if would have any influence. Ms. Herbert stated that she made a comment at the public meeting last night that the commission saw the plans for 51 units for the first time at its 8/17 meeting. She stated that the first time the Commission saw any plans was in January 2010, but it was for 73 units and therefore, in fact,two weeks ago was first time the Commission saw the new plan with the mansard roof and 51 units. She stated that she talked to someone at HSI and learned that half of the board liked the mansard roof design and half liked current vanilla design,therefore there was no consensus at HSI. She stated that the more perimeter landscaping the better. Vote: Ms. Bellin made a motion to request that any modifications to the design and any landscaping plan submitted to other boards should also come to the Commission for comment. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Keenan and Mr. Hart voted in favor. Ms. McCrea voted in opposition. The motion so carried. Ms. McCrea stated that she did not feel it was part of the Commission's purview. Ms. Bellin requested that the steeple be reused in the design Ms. Herbert asked if there was any possibility that the steeple could somehow be incorporated. Ms. Alberghini stated that they looked at it extensively and that it is not practical due to its physical condition and due to the design of building. She noted that the design has been approved by the Planning Board through PUD process. Ms. Herbert stated that the plan did not have to go before the Design Review Board (DRB). She suggested to Lynn Duncan that going forward a couple members of the DRB and the Historical Commission be able to comment on some of these designs. September 7, 2011, Page 10 of 14 Ms. Alberghini stated that the DRB was not part of process but that a couple of members were asked to comment and plans were changed based on their comments. Mr. Hart suggested taking from Jim Treadwell's letter where it says "mitigation/minimization of adverse effect should include salvage of the 5-tier tower and the crucifix on the front fagade of the church and other significant artifacts...". Ms. McCrea asked if the statue is found, can it be used. Ms. Alberghini stated that church canon law requires any sacred articles be burned, buried or destroyed according to religious law. She stated that the statue was buried for a reason and should remain buried. She noted that if they come across it during construction,they will either rebury it on site or dispose of it by consulting with the archdiocese. She stated that it is viewed in the same way as any religious article or artifact from other faith religions or other tribes and should be treated with the same respect and dealt with according to the laws of that culture or faith. She added that she did not feel that it will be found in any kind of reuse condition. Ms. Herbert stated that she had closed public comment at last meeting, but will allow limited comment. James Treadwell, 36 Felt Street, stated that he attended a memorial on August 17th, so he could not attend the last meeting. He stated that the most important document is SHPO's letter of January 12, 2010. He stated that it was great that someone was brought in by POUA with expertise to do the Section 106 Review. He noted that in the SHPO's letter, POUA was told to go forward with consultation. He stated that the historical community should not be penalized for making any comment or be made to feel that we are causing more delay or that the delay is with us. He stated that with regard to statue, MHC recommends archaeological reconnaissance and if were paying attention'to letter should be well along on archaeological reconnaissance. He noted that in Philadelphia, the Ben Franklin Home unearthed the cellar and put Plexiglas on top to preserve it. He stated that they are supposed to develop and evaluate with the consulting parties the alternatives in 800.6 of the regulations. In 811 e, there are list of many things the Commission and the public were supposed to have before consultation and we don't have it. He stated that design is part of consultation, and the Commission is not cut out of design review in the regulations. He stated that if the Commission has comments about structure, it is free to do that under Section 106. He added that neglect of a property which causes deterioration is an adverse effect and that alteration of a property that is not consistent with the Secretary's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties is an adverse effect. He suggested convening a meeting of the SHPO, the Commission, the developer, HSI, and the public interested parties. He stated that they have the obligation to let you consult. They have to develop a plan and you have the opportunity to review and evaluate it together. He noted that SHCDC had an alternative plan that retained the church,which was rejected by the archdiocese and that it should be on the table to be judged. He stated that he found the slideshow presentation from last meeting to be completely unacceptable. He noted that it is normally mandated that they cast a wider net and do more outreach to try to preserve an historic building, again in consultation. September 7, 2011, Page 11 of 14 Ms. Herbert asked if convening the interested parties is something the Commission wants to add to the letter. Vote: Mr. Hart made a motion to include a request to convene a meeting of the interested parties be added to the comment letter. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Anna Delamonica submitted the following copies: • Salem News article of December 11, 1944—Remove Six-Ton Statue Safely From St. Joseph's • Draft by John Goff of October 5, 20-06—Archaeology Month and Archaeological Discoveries in Salem • Salem News photo reprinted from 1940s of St. Joseph statue • Salem News article of May 16, 1949—St. Joseph's Church Cornerstone Blessed by Bishop Wright • Postcards of Boston&Maine Railroad Station and St. Joseph's Church and Parish House • Aerial View of Saint Joseph Parish by Emile Devoe with insert by J. Leo's Photo Lab Morris Schopf, 1 Cambridge Street, stated that he would like to address the MOA and the exhibits which turn on the study that the City did. He stated that although the financial data may be out of date, they basically got it right. He stated that there are only two logical adaptive uses for this historic building. One is to retain its volume and interior treatments in some secular way, such as a performance venue. POUA and the consultants are correct that it is real long shot. He stated that a little performance space in conjunction with other uses seems to be logical. He stated that the City's study recommended housing which is logical. He stated that it is 44' wide and 44' high, and it is possible to erect a steel structure within the load bearing building and do the seismic things they need to do by essentially destroying the interior volume in exchange for creating 24 to 30 dwelling units as opposed to the dinky little units they are proposing. He stated that it is possible to do without altering any principal facades. He stated that the second exhibit is a letter by Structures North who examined the building. In that letter, there is no mention of the irretrievable condition of the building whatsoever. He stated that in John Wathne's report, the only thing he recommends demolishing is chimney. Mr. Schopf stated that his view is that the logical mitigation is adaptive use. He stated that it is not as good as preservation, but it sure beats the alternative. He stated that he was mystified that no serious attempt has been made to illustrate that there are no adaptive uses. He stated that there must be a compelling reason for demolition of the church other than its adaptive use is not economically viable. He stated that he would like to know if that is true and if canon law plays a role. Ms. Alberghini stated that canon law has nothing to do with demolition of church. Ruth Silman of Nixon Peabody stated that there was a bit of a misunderstanding of whether there would be public comment tonight. She stated that the Section 106 presentation last night and at the last meeting before Commission were pieces of the September 7, 2011, Page 12 of 14 Section 106 process. The repository of everything is MassHousing as the designee of DHCD. If the Commission believes that there is a piece missing or that certain due diligence hasn't been done or hasn't been presented, she suggested calling Paul Silverstone to review the entire record. She stated that POUA is not relying solely on a couple of slides or what an architect said for a couple of minutes. Ms. Alberghini stated that there is a whole pile of information that creates the record which includes everything that has gone on for last 6 years. She stated that last night's meeting is not all there is. Ms. Herbert stated that at the January 6, 2010 meeting, the Commission requested to be an interested party. She stated that one of the things that hasn't happened is that various changes be shared with interested parties. There was no dialog and no meetings. When the Commission reviewed the courthouse, all interested parties representatives met in Boston and discussed the plans. Ms. Alberghini stated that they have proceeded with the 106 review completely in accordance with the requirements. She noted that after the January, 2010 meeting, it was in litigation, that there were four lawsuits and it was not known if it would proceed. It was not until it was funded this past spring that there was of any definition of what plan would be with any certainty. She stated that it was at that point when the Review started to gear up. Ms. Herbert stated that she got the impression last night that Paul Silverstone would touch base with his boss and that this is it. She stated that she really suggests meeting at least twice with the interested parties and that it would be an important step to move forward. She stated that it is hard to get behind a project that is not fully fleshed out. She noted that there is no anchor tenant for the commercial space, and it is undecided if there will be two or four commercial spaces. She stated that she thought it would get greater support for moving forward if the details were fleshed out more with the interested parties, concerning design and modification elements over a 60-90 day window, so that people can get behind it. She stated that it is tainted by lawsuits. She would like to see it go forward in the very best way it can be done and that a lot of smart people that may be able to give some finishing touches and move it forward in a better way. Ms. Bellin asked if Paul Silverstone has a report on the alternatives that were explored. Mr. Hart suggested that Paul Silverstone send an inventory of what he has so we can compare it with ours. Ms. Herbert asked if Ms. Alberghini thought getting the interested parties together was something they would consider doing as part of the Section 106. Ms. Alberghini stated that she did not think they have 60-90 days, as they are in a position to close on financing or loose it. She noted that it was supposed to close on September 1st and that they are trying to get an extension for a short while. They have lost funding twice due to lawsuits. They have devoted a lot of attention again last September with design review and PUD review, of which many town boards participated. September 7, 2011, Page 13 of 14 If they don't or can't close, they will lose financing again and then they would not be able to continue with the effort after that. They have incurred about$4.7 million and would not be in position to undertake it. They are choosing to use federal funds, but a for-profit private developer may not use federal funds, so there would be no Section 106 Review. Ms. Silman sated that there will be further discussion during the development of the MOA. Ms. Herbert stated that at August 17t' Salem Historical Commission meeting, she asked the next step in the 106 process and felt that Mr. Silverstone was very vague in response. She stated that the next day they got a notice that there was to be a public meeting. She questioned why he did not tell the Commission the night before at the Commission's meeting. She stated that you can see that the process is terribly flawed and its very difficult to buy into it. Ms. Bellin stated that at the January, 2010 meeting the Commission asked to be interested party. She stated that this was resurrected last Spring. Ms. Silman stated that POUA spent months trying to get DHCD to begin the 106 process. It took months for them to say they did not have the expertise and asked MassHousing to do it. She stated that POUA has been asking to start the process for a long time. Mr. Hart stated that Mr. Silverstone had sent the public meeting notice that afternoon and at the meeting that night did not bring it up. Ms. Bellin stated that at the public meeting last night,people asked what is next and he was still very vague. Ms. Silman stated that she will pass along the requests and comments. Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission will be talking to his boss about all of this, if that is what they have to do to extend the 106. She stated that they did not want to them loose their funding, because they want the project, but want to see it to be quality. Ms. Alberghini stated that she has held off on saying it, but the reality is it will be sold. Ms. Herbert stated that she did not feel there should be a truncated 106 process because of lawsuits, funding, etc. She stated that the 106 process for the Courthouse was close to a year. Ms. Alberghini asked how long the courthouse effort went on before the 106 process. Mr. Schopf stated that it was eight years. Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission needs to do its due diligence. She stated that regardless of our independent views of whether we like international style or not, as body we have promised to preserve historic buildings in Salem and that has to be our focus and September 7, 2011, Page 14 of 14 mitigation is very important. She stated that she felt the interested parties have to have at least one meeting. Other Business Ms. Herbert stated that conflicting schedules have caused members to be late for our 7:30 start time on occasion. However, she requested that Commission members strive to be on time going forward. She stated that we have had situations where we haven't had a quorum and suggested that members try to shoot for 7:15pm arrival when possible. Ms. Herbert asked that all comments be made through the chair and that members not speak out of turn, so that we can be as efficient as possible. Ms. Herbert stated that there are two vacancies on the board. She asked that a high level contractor be considered for one spot. She stated that she has thought about what expertise areas we are missing and what we are trying to shoot for. She noted that it is still the Mayor's decision. Mr. Hart stated that he tried to solicit Kim Brengle, but she was not able to do it. He agreed that a contractor would be good and also suggested an architectural historian. Ms. Herbert asked if is 7:30 is too late to have regular meetings and suggested going to 6:30 or 7:00. Ms. Guy will check with City Solicitor to see if there are any issues to be aware of. Ms. McCrea made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Respectfully submitted Jane A. G Clerk of Commission September 21, 2011, Page 1 of 5 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, September 21, 2011 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin,Ms. McCrea, Ms. Keenan and Ms. Harper. 31 Washington S uare N Unit 1 In continuation of a previous meeting, Jana Catterson and Frederick Hammond presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace windows with Marvin double hung wood windows (wood exterior)with 7/8" muntins with putty glazed detail in primed pine interior and a full screen(continued from last meeting, but public hearing never opened). Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs The applicants brought in a manufacturers sample of the window for view. Mr. Hammond stated that it is 7/8"with putty glazed look. The bronze spacer is available. Ms. Guy read an email from David Hart dated September 13, 2011 which stated, "In reviewing a few photos of the Bertram House (adjacent to 31), I noticed that the first floor windows were 6/6 with exterior storms. The upper two floors are 6/6 with no exterior storms. I was struck by the fact that.I had never noticed the difference in appearance. Therefore, I am softening my opinion that all the windows have to be exactly alike. Maybe if all the first floor windows at 31 are 2/2 with no exterior storms, and the upper floors are 2/2 with storms,the subtle difference may not be noticed by the casual observer. I still think it would be a good idea to see a mock up. ..." Ms. Herbert stated that she went out to the site. She stated that the sample is the same as the awning windows in the garage. VOTE: Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve the replacement of 17 windows on the first floor(Unit 1) with two over two Marvin Ultimate Double Hung wood windows (wood exterior)with 7/8"muntins and bronze spacer. Exterior muntins to have custom profile to replicate the putty line. Painted to match existing. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 84-86 Derby Street In continuation of a previous meeting, Ryan and Amber Macione submitted an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to reroof a brown 3-tab roof with Certainteed Hatteras shingles in either Outer Banks or Stormy Night. September 21, 2011, Page 2 of 5 Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Certainteed Hatteras website information ■ Certainteed brochure with Independence and Hatteras Mr. Macione stated that Hatteras has more of a reveal. Ms. Keenan asked if the first floor was a business space. Mr. Macione replied in the affirmative and stated that it is for lease. He stated that he is proposing charcoal black for the roof. He stated that the major drive is that the roof is wavy and that the main reason for choosing the non traditional 3-tab is to hide the waviness. Ms. Harper stated that the Independence is not cut on an angle, which is good. Ms. Herbert stated that she did not realize that Hatteras was 8" exposure. Therefore, it would make an even larger difference. Ms. Harper stated that she believed Grandslate is also larger than 4". It is also 8" exposure per the brochure. She noted that Federal Court,which was approved for Grandslate, was a lot taller and lot more of the roof was visible than this building. Ms. Herbert stated that Grandslate is very close to Hatteras. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to find that this is an unusual situation in this being a commercial building with a wavy roof. There is a need to be careful when selecting a shingle and this does not set a precedent for other roofs. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Bellin stated that she did not have a problem with Hatteras, but did have a problem with Independence. Ms. Harper stated that Independence has a 5" exposure. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve Hatteras in either Outer Banks or Stormy Night. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. VOTE: Ms. Harper made a motion to approve Independence in Charcoal Black. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion. Ms. Harper and Ms. Keenan voted in favor. Ms. Bellin, Ms. Herbert and Ms. McCrea voted in opposition. The motion did not carry. 14-16 Hodges Court September 21, 2011, Page 3 of 5 Gary and Gillian Benton submitted an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove existing wooden entry stairs and wooden handrails and replace them with granite steps and wrought-iron handrails and to remove the fill pipe for an oil tank. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Photoshopped simulation of proposed steps ■ Owner's drawing Ms. Guy stated that Mr. Hart emailed her and stated that he thought the handrails would need balusters to meet code. Ms. Guy stated that she checked with the Building Inspector and was told that balusters are needed if it is over 30"high and it appears this is over 30" high. Mr. Benton provided an updated drawing and stated that he went out and photographed some examples of handrails in the district. Ms. Herbert asked if this is a two-family. Mr. Benton stated that he believed it was built as two-family, but is now a legal four- family Ms. Bellin asked if there is a requirement to have the rail extend down to the sidewalk. Ms. Herbert stated that she understands that since there are so many existing examples that do not extend beyond the step,that the Building Inspector does not enforce it. She stated that she would want the handrail to be metal of a heavy enough gage so as not to be flimsy. She suggested Ray Lawton Welding in Topsfield.,noting that he will make a drawing. She suggested continuing the application. She suggested stopping the rail at the top of the stairs and not going to the house. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to the next meeting. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 149 Derby Street Lloyd Michaud, Jim Sullivan and Sarah Deitrich submitted an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a 14"x 14" x 24"roof vent at the center low spot of the flat top roof. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Catalog cut of turbine ventilator Ms. Guy stated that a Certificate of Non-applicability was issued, conditional that the vent not be visible from the public way. No further action is required September 21, 2011, Page 4 of 5 Other Business 15 Y2 River St. —request for extension Ms. Guy stated that she received a request to extend the Certificate of Appropriateness dated December 16, 2010 for one year. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to grant an extension through December, 2012. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Approval of minutes VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of August 17, 2011. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Discussion on changing regular starting time of Commission meetings Ms. Guy suggested that if the start time is to change, it not be until the November 2, 2011 meeting so as not to disrupt applications already received for the October 5th meeting and to give her time to change the website and related documents. Ms. McCrea stated that she would not be able to arrive earlier than 7:30 on second Wednesday each month due to another commitment that same night. Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission could also consider moving to Tuesday or to second and fourth Wednesday c�c Ms. Guy recommended that the changes not be made or the current membership, as the board make up could change in future. She noted that moving the time earlier than 7:30 is consistent with other boards. Ms. Guy will check what needs to be done to institute a change in the meeting date and/or time. Other Ms. McCrea stated that she went to Mr. Hart's Urban Renewal Plan working group meeting. She stated that they are not looking for board comments, but people can comment individually for the urban renewal plan update. She stated that if interested, she will email information. Ms. Herbert stated that she felt changes proposed to be made to Salem's older buildings need better scrutiny. She stated that excellence in materials and design is needed, and that elements such as utilities need to be disguised. VOTE: 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. September 21, 2011, Page 5 of 5 Respectfully submitted, Jane A. Guy Clerk of the mmission October 5, 2011, Page 1 of 10 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 5, 2011 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, October 5, 2011 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms _ Bellin, Ms. McCrea, Ms. Keenan and Mr. Hart. McIntire Historic District{in front of 3 70-3 72 Essex Street and 310 Essex/9 North Street} The City of Salem submitted an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install two Plymouth Style vintage bike racks on the sidewalk front the Salem Public Library and one on the sidewalk fronting the rear entrance to the Witch House. Frank Taormina of the City of Salem Department of Planning & Community Development was present. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Cycle-Safe Plymouth U rack- CAD detail Mr. Taormina provided an updated photo showing only one bike rack in front of the library. He stated that the Director of the Library asked to go from two to one due to the proximity to the handicapped parking space. Mr. Taormina explained that the City is receiving the bike racks as a Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) grant and just has to pay for shipping and installation. He noted that several have already been installed in the downtown, many of which were the sleeve type that is placed over existing parking meters. He stated that they also have an historic style rack, which are located near Old Town Hall, the Visitors Center and Lappin Park, etc. He stated that the MAPC program is available one last time to municipalities. For this round, the City and the Bike Path committee went for city-wide locations, such as parks and beaches, in addition to a few missed civil buildings from the prior round, such as the post office, City Hall and the Library. The racks will be 2' set back from curb edge and will accommodate one bike on each side. Ms. Herbert asked if there are additional bike racks available that could be placed on the library property. Mr. Taormina stated that the Library has their own bike racks on the property now, but that they are usable only when the gates are open. He stated that the program is designed to create consistency and rider expectancy. They will auger a hole in city sidewalk. Dorothy Hayes, 329 Essex Street, stated that there is a certain symmetry with two racks. She suggested that if there is only going to be one, that it be moved to the side line of the building. Mr. Taormina stated that it can be set further away, but that he would not want it too far away from the entrance. October 5, 2011, Page 2 of 9 Mr. Hart suggested having one on each corner of the building. Mr. Taormina stated that a new location was found for the extra rack. Ms. McCrea asked about the problem about locating it near the handicapped parking. Mr. Taormina stated that the Director of the Library felt there were too many structures in the vicinity, including a sign and newspaper box, which could make exiting a vehicle difficult for handicapped patrons. The City agreed not to put one on that side of the crosswalk. Mr. Hart suggested lining it up with the corner of the building. Ms. Bellin suggested providing a location window. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the location of one bike rack each at the Library and at the Witch House as submitted with the Library location to be moved to line up with the front, left corner of the Library. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Taormina noted that there will be a small decal on the rack. 91-93 Federal Street Jean Colby Arlander Realty Trust submitted an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove black 3-tab roof shingles and rubber roof and replace with dark gray slate-line shingles and new generation black rubber roof. The rubber roof covers the ell addition on the house. The work will also include the replacement of copper gutters on the back(south elevation) with new copper gutters. Jane Arlander was present. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Ms. Arlander stated that the roof is only visible from North Street. She stated that she decided to go with GAF/ELK Slateline Lifetime Designer Shingles in English Gray Slate. She noted that the ell is on right side of house by the driveway. The gutter will be replaced in kind and the snow guards will be replaced. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the application as submitted and to include replacement of the snow guard. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 365 Essex Street Alan &Alison Barth submitted an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for fence construction to close off areas between properties. The applicant was not present. October 5, 2011, Page 3 of 9 Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Fence sketches VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to the next meeting. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 92 Derby Street Benjamin Merrithew, James Griffith and David O'Sullivan submitted an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install white aluminum gutters and downspouts. Dimensions are 4" x 5" and .032 gauge. Lisa Ainsworth and David O'Sullivan were present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Estimate from Reynolds Seamless Gutter, Inc. Mr. O'Sullivan stated that there are currently no gutters. Ms. Bellin asked if they are proposing to install them all around the house. Mr. O'Sullivan replied in the affirmative. Ms. Herbert asked if they will have an ogee profile. Mr. O'Sullivan replied in the affirmative, noting that they will be heavy gauge. Ms. Herbert asked if the downspouts will be fluted or square. Mr. O'Sullivan stated that he did not know. Ms. Herbert stated that rectangular is a little less ornate. Mr. O'Sullivan stated that they would like to keep it simple so that they are essentially invisible. Ms. Herbert asked if they will be white. Mr. O'Sullivan replied in the affirmative. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the application as submitted for white OG profile aluminum gutters and white rectangular downspouts. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. October 5, 2011, Page 4 of 9 95 Federal Street Robert& Janet Kendall, Wm. Aydelotte, Denae Comrie and Jo Fladger submitted an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install 20 lineal feet of snow guard over the left upper level roof and to replace approximately 12 missing, cracked or loose slate on the left upper level roof. Bob, Denai and Jo present. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Estimate from United Roofing Contractors Ms. Herbert asked how the heater on the downspout was working. Mr. Kendal stated that it seems to be working. He stated that both the collection box with the larger downspout and the heated downspout worked last year, but noted that the snow was so great, they determined they need a snow guard. He stated that it will go over the flat roof of the top roof. Mr. Hart asked the finish on the snow guard. Mr. Kendall stated that it will be stainless steel painted black. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the application as submitted for a snow guard over the left upper level roof, stainless steel painted black. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 12 Rawlins Street Eric Couture submitted an Application for Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance for complete demolition of 12 Rawlins Street. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Email from Thomas St. Pierre, Building Inspector ■ Drawing of new property Mr. Couture stated that he is going to the Zoning Board of Appeal to change it to a two- family. He noted that it doesn't meet set-backs. He will use the same house design that that was built at 43 School Street. Ms. Bellin asked when they will start building. Mr. Couture stated that they want to do the demolition and put in the foundation before November 15`h, in order to get water and sewer. October 5, 2011, Page 5 of 9 Mr. Hart stated that it is inconceivable that the house would have been built with an average of 6'3"high ceilings. He stated that he would like a site visit. There was no public comment. Ms. McCrea asked if the neighbors are in favor. Mr. Couture replied in the affirmative. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to continue the application to the next meeting,pending a site visit on 11:00 on Saturday, October 8. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 14-16 Hodges Court In continuation of a previous meeting, Gary and Gillian Benton submitted an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove existing wooden entry stairs and wooden handrails and replace them with granite steps and wrought-iron handrails and to remove the fill pipe for an oil tank. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Photo-shopped simulation of proposed steps ■ Owner's drawing The applicant was not present. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to the next meeting. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 66 & 68 Derby Street 66 Derby Realty Trust submitted an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the rear portion, renovate and add to 66 Derby Street and to construct a new residence at 68 Derby Street. David Jaquith,Neal and Jay Levy. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Drawings prepared by David F. Jaquith Architects &Planners Jay Levy stated that the plan was initially for three units, but that the Building Inspector did not believe that the ZBA could grant a variance because of the change in use. They decided to go back and revise the plan, which is now to subdivide the parcel, construct a new single family on one side and renovate the existing structure on the other. He stated that the Building Inspector felt that this was something he could get behind. They had to go before the ZBA for a number of dimensional variances. They met with the Derby Street Neighborhood Association and with the neighbors. The new plan is October 5, 2011, Page 6 of 9 overwhelmingly supported and it has been approved by the ZBA and Planning Board. He stated that they plan to set the foundation for#68 now, and not construct until Spring. He stated that they would like to spend more time on the#66 plan so that they can get renovation underway. Mr. Jaquith reviewed the drawings with the Commission. Jay Levy noted that they have already gutted the interior so that they could evaluate. Neal Levy stated that the floor systems in the entire building were so bad, they were not salvageable. They will need new floor joists from one end to the other. Mr. Jaquith stated that the rear portion has no merit and is probably mid-1800s, maybe 1840s. They will bring back a center entrance with simple Colonial door. The ell sticks out and is a gambrel and has a back door. There will be cedar clapboards, 4"to weather. They do not know the paint color yet. He stated that they are proposing an aluminum clad Jeldwen window, same as the Elks. Ms. Guy pulled the Elks file and stated that the windows approved were Marvin Ultimate Double Hung. The certificate did not specify wood or aluminum, but she stated that she is certain that the intent would have been for an all wood window. She noted that she now specifies in the Certificates that windows must be wood exterior, as there appears to be instances where developers/owners/contractors are installing wood interior with exterior clad with aluminum,which was never the intent. Jay Levy stated that they are willing to go with wood. He stated that the Jeldwen window is available in wood. Mr. Hart stated that the muntin profile appears to be close to a traditional profile. Mr. Jaquith stated that this period house would have a thinner profile. Mr. Hart stated that he wanted to make sure the exterior muntin has a putty line. Neal Levy stated that it has the historic sill on the bottom. Ms. Herbert stated that if there is a choice of metal casing on the panes,the Commission prefers bronze. Mr. Jaquith stated that the chimney will be taken up higher to meet the code for the fireplace. Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission will want to know the color of the brick. Mr. Hart suggested a conventional water struck brick. Ms. Herbert stated that the mortar should have an antique look. October 5, 2011, Page 7 of 9 Mr. Hart suggested a harder, weathering mortar composition for the chimney. Jay Levy stated that he preferred an architectural roof shingle. Mr. Hart stated that he preferred 3-tab. Ms. Keenan asked how many square feet the building will be. Neal Levy stated that it will be around 1800 s.f. on three floors. Mr. Jaquith stated that the heating will be back in the jog . He stated that if they go with foam, no ridge vent is needed. VOTE: Mr. Bellin made a motion to approve the demolition of rear addition. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve Plan#1 and Plan#2 for dated 9/19/11 for 66 Derby Street with the following specifics: • Replace existing skylight with Velux skylight of same size and location • Doors to be 6 panel, solid wood with solid wood surrounds • Front and back door to have 1 or 2 granite platform steps • Gambrel trim at transition between lower& upper roof to be painted Azek, between 6-8" for length of roof • Windows to be Jeldwen Premium Siteline EX with wood exterior, 5/8"profile, with bronze metal casing on panes if available. To be 6 over 6 sash per Plan 1 and 2 with the exception of 4 over 4 where noted on Plan 41. Window casings to have lentils. • Roof to be 3-tab black or charcoal grey. No ridge vent. • Chimney to have natural water or sand struck brick, with light grey or white cement in mortar mix. Terra cotta flue. Lead flashing. Owner to provide sample of brick for approval before construction. • Vents, gas meters & air conditioning equipment to be non-visible from the public way. Water/electric meters to be interior installed. Plumbing vents through roof be located toward house rear, PVC, black • Lot line wall to be retained and repaired using stone-washed color stucco and cement cap • Cedar clapboards, 4"to weather; Install conventional wood water table and cornerboards • Owner to apply for paint colors and fence at later date. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Jay Levy stated that for 68 Derby Street,they are looking for approval of shape and foundation. Mr. Jaquith reviewed the 68 Derby Street Plan#1, #2 & 93 dated 9/19/11 and Plan C site plan dated 10/5/11. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve construction of a foundation at 68 Derby Street as shown in Plan C dated October 5, 2011. Owner to apply for remainder of house October 5, 2011, Page 8 of 9 details at later date. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried Other Business ViolationslComplaints Ms. Guy stated that the Building Inspector cited 388 Essex Street for porch work. The owner has called he and will be applying. Ms. Guy stated that she received an e-mail from Andrew Finestone, 70 Essex Street, regarding 60-62 Washington Square. The issues raised were duct tape wrapped faux chimney in the rear and brown storm windows. Ms. Herbert stated that she contacted Mr. Legon, who stated that he will have the chimney completed within a week. She noted that the Commission does not have jurisdiction over storms. She noted that, if asked, owners will be advised that the Commission recommends that paint color of sash and storms be the same color. Ms. Guy noted that tt she recalled from years ago, at the Commission's request, adding into the guidelines that the Commission has jurisdiction over storm color, but stated that it is not specified in the ordinance and has never been challenged in court. She did not know if the Commission could actually assert jurisdiction. Ms. Herbert noted that, for this property,three condos have been sold, so they are no longer under the same ownership. She guessed that Mr. Legon painted the storms in an attempt to match the church in Beverly for which the Commission approved the paint scheme for this address. Ms. Guy noted that past practice has been not to saddle a new owner with a violation that was not of their making and questioned if the Commission actually could consider this a violation. She noted that there was another recent paint job on another property, where the storms were painted a different color and the Commission did not take any action. Mr. Hart stated that the Commission does not have jurisdiction over storms, but does have jurisdiction over paint. He stated that for future applications, the Commission needs to ask. He suggested that when the owners of this address repaint in a few years, they should be asked to paint the sash and storms in the same color and that a note be placed in the file in this regard. Ms. Guy stated that Ms. Herbert has suggested putting together a checklist of items to review for these larger renovations. Other Ms. Herbert stated that she and Ms. Bellin attended the meeting of the consulting parties at DHCD in Boston for the St. Joseph's redevelopment project. She noted that she previously told HSI that the only way there might be consideration for saving the church would be if a plan that saved church was developed. She stated that Ed Nilsson, October 5, 2011, Page 9 of 9 architect, came up with a plan to put in 51 units and have 1750 s.f. of community space into the church. It keeps the center of the church open in order to have atrium go all the way up. His plan adds a third strip of windows to the side, so there is minimal change. The tower would stay. The crucifix would come off the front. There was a second plan done by Morris Schopf with 32 untis,which also provided community and performance/gallery space. At the consulting parties' meeting, Brandee Laughlin from MHC was quite interested in the Nilsson scheme and saw the merit of investigating it. POUA needs to review the plan and come back within a few days. She noted that POUA has funds for a new building. She stated that if the Nilsson plan is feasible, there is still the question if they can take the current funding and apply it to the redevelopment of the church. The consulting party next meeting is October 17th in Boston. Mr. Hart stated that the Section 106 process specifies that if a building is threatened when using state or federal funds or permitting, the proponent is obligated to investigate alternatives to avoid or mitigate adverse effects. He stated that POUA was responsible for investigating. Ms. Herbert stated that they did discuss other mitigating factors. She stated that because the church is so large, it limits who could use it, such as performance space, noting that there are other performance spaces available, including Old Town Hall, Salem State, etc. and that anyone who could use the church space probably would not have the funds to purchase it. She noted that she was told that if all 4 buildings are kept,they would be eligible for tax credits; but, once the interior of the church is changed, the tax credits go away for the church. Mr. Hart stated that it would be advantageous to hire someone who does tax credit work for a living to investigate. Ms. Udy asked if there are any ideas on what the convent could be used for. Mr. Hart stated that it could be SRO, but did not think the neighbors would want that. Ms. Herbert stated that Lifebridge does not have the funds to build over the bingo hall yet, so they may be looking for space. She stated that one of problems is that currently federal funds are only available for affordable rental housing in perpetuity, so there are no market rate units. She stated that the idea now is to try to expedite this and see if a new plan can be done and what we can do to make it happen really quick. Mr. Hart stated that he is very encouraged that MHC is having the proponent pursue alternatives. VOTE: There being no further business, Ms. Bellin made a motion to adjourn. Ms. McCrea seconded the otion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Respectfu i , Jane A. Guy Clerk of th ommission October 19, 2011, Page 1 of 7 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 19, 2011 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission 2011 at 7:30 pin at 120 Washington Street,t, Salem as held on Wednesda Bellin, Ms. McCrea, Ms. Keenan and Mr. Hart. Present were Ms October 19, Herbert, Ms . Ms- Harper entered later in the meeting. 15 %River Street Peter and Jan Eschauzier submitted an application for a Certific install two in wall air conditioners. One will be on the East side floor and not visible from the street. The other will ate of Appropriateness to visible from River Street. be on the west side and iated on s third partially Documents &Exhibits • Application • Photographs • Plot plan Ms. Herbert asked if he had a picture of what an in-wall unit would Mr. Eschauzier replied that he did not have one look like. unit, but would stick out less. He noted that they are researchingd but that they would look like a window stated that there is another place there is a place they could put oneHe visible from River, but would be slightly visible from afferent brands. of another possibility is to put it on front of the house �,�, 'here it would not be m Andover Street. He stated that front. which is blocked by the house in Ms. Herbert questioned if it could be installed under the window, Mr. Eschauzier replied that he was not sure if there was enough so to be in line. gh space. Ms. Harper joined the meeting at this time. Ms. Herbert suggested having the HVAC person working with best spot is to get the best cooling. She stated that she would w g him, indicate where the the unit being proposed. ant to see a catalog cut of Mr. Eschauzier stated that they all look basically alike, but that wall units vent differently. There was no public comment. Ms. Guy stated that the Commission has never approved a wall located so as not to be visible. unit, and suggested it be October 19, 2011, Page 2 of 7 r-. Mr. Hart suggested looking into Mitsubishi Mr. Slims. Mr. Eschauzier stated that they have looked at it, but that it has pipes the are on the outside of the house. Mr. Hart stated that the pipes could be placed on the interior. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve a Certificate or Non-Applicability for the installation of an in-wall air conditioner unit on the front fagade of the house (behind 15 River Street in general location as noted on the map), conditional that it is not visible from any public way. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 11 R Winter Island Road William Wharff submitted an application to Waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance to demolish I I Winter Island Road to build a new 2 %2 story home. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Mr. Wharf stated that Coastal Living Magazine put Salem on its radar and that Lynn Duncan suggested contacting him. They designed the new building and are waiting to see if he gets approval. He noted that the existing building has termites and mold. He stated that the people in the neighborhood are in favor. Ms. McCrea asked the height. Mr. Wharff stated that in January or February, the previous potential buyer went to the ZBA to add a story,which was approved, and that this design is approximately the same height as what was approved. Ms. Herbert asked if Mr. Wharff is going to live there Mr. Wharff replied in the affirmative. He stated that there are a lot of neighbors who have signed the petition in favor. Mr. Hart asked if Winter Island is a protected area. Ms. Guy stated that it is part of a National Register district, but noted that it would not be subject to review since it would not be using federal or state funds. Mr. Wharff confirmed that it would not be using federal or state funds. Mr. Hart stated that he felt uncomfortable voting without a site visit. October 19, 2011, Page 3 of 7 Ms. Herbert stated that she did an exterior site visit a few weeks ago. Ms. McCrea asked when it was built. Mr. Wharf stated that it was built in 1950. There was no public comment. Ms. Herbert asked if there would be any issue with waiting 2 weeks. Mr. Wharff stated that he can wait. VOTE: Ms. Harper made a motion to approve the Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper and Ms. McCrea voted in favor. Mr. Hart, Ms. Bellin and Ms. Keenan voted in opposition. The motion did not carry. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to continue the application so that he can meet with the applicant on site on Friday, October 21, 2011 at 9:00 am. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 12 Rawlins Street In continuation of a previous meeting, Eric Couture submitted an Application for Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance for complete demolition of 12 Rawlins Street. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Email from Thomas St. Pierre, Building Inspector ■ Drawing of new property Mr. Hart stated that they had a site visit. He stated that he was not sure if it was always a house and felt it might have been a warehouse or workshed. He stated that the interior basement possibly has some early beams and floor joists, probably prior to 1840, which is the only place where he could see anything early. He stated that the first floor possibly has some federal trim on two doors. For the rest of the house,there is nothing attributable to any era. He suggested requiring the owner take photos of the exterior and interior and during demolition. He stated that he felt the house was of little historical value. Ms. Bellin asked when it was built. Mr. Hart stated that it was probably built in the 19t' century, but noted it is so vanilla and undistinguished that it is very difficult to assign even a general date of construction. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. October 19, 2011, Page 4 of 7 14-16 Hodges Court In continuation of a previous meeting, Gary and Gillian Benton submitted an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove existing wooden entry stairs and wooden handrails and replace them with granite steps and wrought-iron handrails and to remove the fill pipe for an oil tank. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Photo-shopped simulation of proposed steps ■ Owner's drawing The applicant was not present. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 365 Essex Street Alan& Alison Barth submitted an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for fence construction to close off areas between properties. The applicant was not present. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Fence sketches The applicant was not present. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Other Business VOTE: Ms. Guy stated that she received a request from Helen Sides and Paul Viccica to extend their Certificate of Appropriateness dated August 21, 2008 for a skylight for one year. Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the extension for one year. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms Guy stated that she received an email from Meg Twohey, 120 Federal Street, notifying the Commission that they will be temporarily removing a small section of their back fence in order to have a tree removed. It will be missing for at least 3 weeks. Ms. Guy stated that the Building Department cited 388-390 Essex Street for a shed that was installed. Ms. Guy stated that she has spoken with the owner and that they will try to move it so that it is not visible from the public way so that they can obtain a Certificate of Non-applicability. October 19, 2011, Page 5 of 7 r St. Joseph's Complex status Ms. Herbert stated that the second meeting of the consulting parties was held on October 17th in Boston and that some of things that were covered included mitigation. Preservation restrictions were discussed. They discussed what would happen with regard to tax credits if any of the buildings were removed, in that they would no longer be eligible to be listed as a historic district. If the interior of any of the buildings were changed,that building individually most likely would not be eligible for tax credits. She stated that they talked about starting to put together mitigation language for a Memorandum of Agreement(MOA). Atty. Ruth Silman emailed a draft of the language this afternoon. Ms. Herbert stated that since the Commission only meets twice per month, we don't want to hold off reviewing things that come in, so she, Laurie and David will work on the drafts as they come in. When there is a bigger package, it can be sent to and brought before the full Commission. She stated that that there is no sense trying to do each piece at Commission meetings. Ms. Guy stated that the whole Commission provided comments on what they would like to see put in the MOA at its September 7th meeting. She stated that there would need to have a draft be on the Commission's agenda at some point so that the public can comment. She suggested either the November 2nd or 16th meeting. Ms. Herbert stated that HSI via Ed Nilsson came up with a plan for 51 units in church for roughly $160 s.f. compared to roughly$130 s.f. for a new building. We do not know if the $130 includes demolition of the church, reconstruction of the parking lot, etc. and therefore more definitive information was requested. POUA distributed a pro forma looking at the 44 units if they go in the church and the total development costs would be roughly$13 million and that the total rent roll would be roughly$6 million and that they were saying putting the 51 units in the church would result in a$7 million loss. The question was asked to compare apples and apples—look at exactly what it would cost to build the units in the new building. She questioned how the rent roll for the same 51 units in an old shell versus a new shell produces a$7m shortfall. She stated that Massachusetts Historical Commission will have to look at whether HSI's plan is feasible and whether or not an historic building should be demolished and lost forever. The other part is can you afford to save it. It was left that POUA is getting info to HSI in terms of budget. HSI is trying to get someone to help with the numbers to sort it out. She stated that it is the key thing to get resolved. Mr. Hart stated that the DHCD representative indicated that the one-stop application is public information, which can be accessed by making a request. He stated that apparently HSI will be making the request. Ms. Herbert stated that it is all part of due diligence. She questioned how it can be stated that the church can come down until the numbers are explored. She noted that HSI sent out a memo the night before the consulting party meeting, stating that they have explored financials to that point and basically felt it was economically, physically and marketably feasible. She stated that Ms. Alberghini responded with a very large e-mail saying it was not feasible. It was left that POUA would get information to HSI in terms of budget and October 19, 2011, Page 6 of 7 DHCD would make available the one-stop and a couple other documents and HSI would be working on the numbers. The pro forma that POUA presented is analyzing HSI's 44 units in the church, because when POUA originally thought of using the church, they were saying only 44 units could be fit in the church. So the pro form does not really compare Nilsson's plan, and therefore we are not in the same place in comparing the new project versus renovation. She stated that one issue is the federal funding awarded in March and Ms. Alberghini stated that DHCD spent 6 months deciding whether they could handle the Section 106 Review before passing it off to MassHousing. She stated that none of this came to us until August 17ffi. She stated that if DHCD is responsible for 6 months being lost, she felt they should extend the funding deadline. Ms. Bellin stated that she would like to know if the Commission can go into executive session to talk strategy. Ms. Guy stated that it would need to be put on an agenda. She stated that tonight was only for Ms. Herbert to give an update on what happened at Monday's meeting. She stated that she would have to check with the City Solicitor to see if this is a topic that can be discussed through executive session. Ms. Herbert asked Ms. Guy to check with the City Solicitor. Ms. Guy stated that she did not think this was a topic that could be discussed in executive session. Ms. Bellin stated that she was not so sure. She stated that it is not exactly litigation, but it is a legal process and they have a right to talk strategy. Mr. Hart stated that he believed there are certain topics that can be discussed in executive session and suggested that be explored. He stated that you can't just go into executive session. Ms. Bellin stated that she was thinking that this may be one of them. Ms. Herbert stated that there is no next consulting party meeting planned. In the interim, POUA and HSI are to be working together to sort out this whole financial question of which way the project can go—in the church or not. Mr. Hart stated that he felt there is a disparity in the basic numbers between POUA and HSI, which is where we got to a stone wall and agreed to disagree and go back and sort through the figures. Ms. Herbert stated that there is another developer who has come forward who may be interested in purchasing the rectory, and possibly the school. Mr. Hart stated that we should only talk about what was discussed at Monday's meeting. Ms. Herbert stated that as of Monday,there was one developer that was interested and that she asked Lisa Alberghini if there was a number for which they would sell the October 19, 2011, Page 7 of 7 building, but that she did not provide an answer. Mr. Herbert stated that she had stated that she feels it is important for the project that the face of the project on Lafayette Street looks complete, meaning that something needs to happen to the rectory so that it does not have plywood on the windows for three or four years with weeds growing up around it. Ms. Bellin asked that if POUA and HSI are working together, will they be providing their information back to Brandee Loughlin at MHC. Ms. Herbert replied in the affirmative. Ms. Bellin asked if anyone will be assisting Brandee. Mr. Hart stated Paul Silverstone is conducting the Section 106 review and that DHCD and POUA give input. He believes Mr. Silverstone makes the recommendation and that will be reviewed by Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC). Ms. Herbert stated that Mr. Silverstone's recommendation will be after he gets word from MHC. Mr. Hart stated that it is a collaborative process and a consultative process amongst all the parties. Minutes VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of September 7, 2011 as amended. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of September 21, 2011 as amend. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. VOTE: 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. Respectfully it d, Jane A. y Clerk o he Commission November 2, 2011, Page 1 of 17 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 2, 2011 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday,November 2, 2011 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Harper, Ms. McCrea, Ms. Keenan and Mr. Hart. Ms. Herbert and Ms. Bellin entered later in the meeting. 14-16 Hodges In continuation of a previous meeting, Gary and Gillian Benton submitted an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove existing wooden entry stairs and wooden handrails and replace them with granite steps and wrought-iron handrails and to remove the fill pipe for an oil tank. Ms. Guy stated that she received an e-mail withdrawing the application,noting that they will reapply in the spring. 365 Essex Street Alan& Alison Barth submitted an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for fence construction to close off areas between properties. The applicant was not present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Fence sketches VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to deny the application without prejudice due to the Commission being required to act within 60 days of the date of the application. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 11R Winter Island Road In continuation of a prior meeting, William Wharff submitted an application to Waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance to demolish I I Winter Island Road to build a new 2 1/2 story home. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Mr. Hart stated that he went to the site and took photos. He stated that his observation was that it is a raised split level and looks like it was built in the 1950s. The exterior does not have any distinguished architectural features. He stated that he did not think there November 2, 2011, Page 2 of 17 were any original finishes on the interior. He stated that he did not think the interior or the exterior has any merit to hold demolition. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance with the proviso that the applicant provide exterior and interior color, digital photos and exterior taped dimensions around house and vertical to the eave. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 31 Flint Street Russ and Suzanne Felt submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace clapboards on the house front with 6" cedar boards and to extend the trim below the third floor windows. Ms. Guy stated that she received an e-mail from the owner withdrawing the application. 388-390 Essex Street Ms. Bellin recused herself, left the table and joined the audience. Ellen Golub and Steve Sass submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to reconstruct the side entry porch using Fiberon Veranda Grooved Composite decking and Veranda composite rails. The work has already been started. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Ms. Herbert noted that the Commission has previously approved synthetic decking, but not railings. Ms. Harper stated that the synthetic decking previously approved was for stairs and porches that were for longer distances from the street or down driveways. She stated that the proposed is highly visible. Mr. Hart stated that he has a problem with a plastic balustrade and stated that no matter what is done to it, it still looks like plastic. Ms. Herbert stated that the plastic balustrade should be removed and the supporting pressure treated posts could be wrapped in pine. Ms. Harper stated that she went to the site today and that there is no problem seeing exactly what the material is. She stated that it is not something she could approve. She stated that a beefier post would be more appropriate. She added that she has a problem with composite decking being that close to the street. Mr. Sass stated that he would like to keep the decking, but is willing to take down plastic rails. November 2, 2011, Page 3 of 17 Laurie Bellin, 396 Essex Street, stated that there is no real front entrance,that it is a duplex, and is extremely close to the street. She suggested that the Commission also consider the material of the risers. Ms. Harper asked the thickness of the riser material, noting that it appears thin. Mr. Sass stated that he will take out the riser material and make it wood. Ms. McCrea stated that she had no problem with the decking but had an issue with the balustrade. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to continue the application in order for Commission members to go by and take another look. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Hart stated that there are several satellite dishes on the house. Ms. Herbert stated that they need to be moved so that they are not visible from the public way. Ms. Bellin re joined the Commission at the table. 185/187 Federal Street Michelle Alvino, Peter L'Italien and Michael and Jennifer Spencer submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace windows with either Anderson or American Craftsman vinyl windows. Present were Ms. Alvino, Mr. L'Italien and Mr. Spencer. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Ms. Alvino stated that it is a ranch duplex. Ms. Guy stated that the house was built in the 1950s-60s. Ms. Keenan stated that the vinyl siding was probably added in the 70s, early 80s. Mr. Spencer stated that his side is all awning and casement windows and that the other side is double hung. Ms. Herbert asked if the new windows will be in same openings. Ms. Alvino replied in the affirmative. November 2, 2011, Page 4 of 17 _ Mr. Spencer stated that some of the windows cannot be changed to double hung and that r ' they may have to use sliding or keep them as casement. There was no public comment. Mr. Hart asked if the current windows are wood, single glaze. Mr. Spencer stated that his side is double glaze, but the seals are broken. Ms. Harper asked if they can get the same sizes in wood. Mr. Spencer replied in the affirmative, but stated that the difference in price is huge. Ms. Herbert stated that it looks like there had at one time been clips for exterior energy panels. She stated that she would like to continue and have them come in with catalog cuts to see what they are proposing. Mr. Spencer stated that they would look the same as they look now. Ms. McCrea stated that she did not see the need to hold a non-historic house to historic standards. Mr. Hart stated that it currently has vinyl siding. He stated that he would like to continue and have the applicants bring in information on the specific model and style. Ms. Alvino asked if they could have something to show contractors that the Commission will consider the windows, so that they can get contractors to even talk to them. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to send a letter saying that the Commission will consider approving vinyl windows for this house due to the age of the house. Approval will be conditional on the Commission reviewing actual specifications. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to continue the application to the next meeting. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 30 Broad Street William M. Ross and Abigail B. Ross submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to: 1. Repoint deteriorated chimney mortar joints to address moisture damage, install chimney cap painted power black. 2. Install aluminum gutters on front and rear of house. Downspouts to be positioned in front of building corner boards. Gutters and downspouts to match building trim or body color. 3. Remove storm windows and single glazed wood windows on front and side of house and replace with new double glazed wood windows in either: a. Pella Architect Series Wood Double Hung Window November 2, 2011, Page 5 of 17 b. LePage SDL, wood exterior c. J. B. Sash Proper Bostonian(wood exterior) d. Marvin Ultimate Double Hung wood windows e. Jeldwen Premium Siteline EX windows in wood 4. Install new ductless air conditioning system with exterior compressor mounted on the ground on each end of the building. Mechanical wiring/tubing runs from the compressor up each end of the building to be painted body color of the house. Relocation of side gate. 5. Demolish and reconstruct existing third floor shed dormer and extend approximately 10 feet. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Pella window on line specification ■ Marvin window on line specification ■ Mitsubishi air conditioning unit on line specification Mr. Ross stated that the chimney cap will be 47"x 52"x 10". They will chip out loose mortar on the chimney and put back new mortar in between the bricks. Approximately 30% of the chimney will be repointed. Mr. Hart asked how the mason will match the missing mortar. Mr. Ross stated that he will mix it with charcoal powder to get the gray. Mr. Hart recommended that the mason match the sand, which is the color you will see when it weathers. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to partial repointing of the chimney, with the proviso that the mason match the sand in the mortar mix to the existing sand and to approve the installation of a chimney cap per photograph submitted, 47"x 52"x 10",painted powder black. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Ross stated that there are currently no gutters. He stated that there once were gutters, but now there are dry wells. He stated that water leaks off the roof and dumps onto fieldstone and is coming into the house. They will be standard ogee shaped gutters and will be white along the corner boards. Ms. Harper stated that round downspouts are an older product and she felt it was more appropriate. Mr. Ross asked if the Commission is willing to approve either round or rectangular downspouts. Ms. Herbert asked if the downspouts are just for the front and back. Mr. Ross replied in the affirmative. November 2, 2011, Page 6 of 17 VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve ogee aluminum gutters and fluted round downspouts. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. VOTE: Ms. Harper made a motion to give the applicant the option for rectangular downspouts. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Ms. McCrea, Ms. Bellin and Ms. Keenan voted in favor. Mr. Hart voted in opposition. The motion so carried. Mr. Ross stated that they cannot afford to replace all the windows, so they are trying to strip and fix some of the windows that are in better condition, particularly on the first floor. Ms. Herbert stated that it may look odd to have some windows single glaze with storms and some double glaze with no storm. Mr. Ross stated that they will leave it so that storms are all on one side. Ms. Herbert requested that the color of storms match sash. She suggested that the owners look into fixing the existing windows. Mr. Hart stated that it is the same insulation value to rehab the existing and have a storm as it is for replacing it with a new window. Mr. Ross stated that they are trying to salvage all that they can. He stated that in the proposed dormer addition they will put in new windows. Ms. Harper suggested comparing the price between new windows and repairing windows. She stated that a professional will make the existing weathertight. Mr. Ross stated that the previous owners installed a few new windows in the kitchen which are wood, single pane. He stated that they will restore the interior Indian shutters. Ms. Herbert stated that she felt it would be a crime, historically speaking,to have insulated windows with Indian shutters. She suggested trying to keep the first floor all single glaze. Mr. Ross stated that they are trying and would change the second and third floor windows and the dormer addition. Ms. Herbert suggested continuing the windows and giving the applicant a chance to explore options. Mr. Hart stated that it is an 1836 house and that the applicant is already going to rehab the first floor windows. He suggested also looking at rehabbing the second floor windows. He noted that The Window Woman has office in Peabody. November 2, 2011, Page 7 of 17 VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to move continue the windows to the next meeting. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Ross stated that there were five window air conditioners in the house which they removed. The proposed air conditioning system has an interior unit in each room and has two units on each side of the exterior or one large exterior unit on one side. The units are either 36"x 12"x 36" for two or 36" x 48"x 12"for one. Ms. Harper asked if the compressor can be placed behind the bulk head on the left. Mr. Ross replied that he believed it could and that he could also disguise it with shrubbery. He stated that for the right side, Ms. Guy had suggested moving up the gate to hide the unit behind. William Peck, 27 Broad Street, stated that he hoped the units will be covered up so that he does not have to look at them when he walks by. Mr. Hart suggested running the piping up near the cornerboard. Mr. Ross stated that they could,but that it would then have to come across. He noted that on the right side,they would need to alter the gate slightly to fit it. Ms. Herbert suggested either cutting the gate down from the bottom and moving it forward or just leaving the gate and building a new gate in front. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion for the existing gate on right side of house to be moved forward with option to either reduce it in height to match the lower height of the fence... or...to raise a section of the lower fence to meet the higher fence and moving the transition section. The motion is also to install a Mitsubishi air conditioning system with one compressor mounted on ground behind relocated gate and one mounted on the left side of house behind the existing bulkhead, concealed with evergreen or conifer shrubbery. The mechanical wiring/tubing that runs from the compressor up each end of the building to the rooms is to be painted the color of the surface they are on. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Hart asked if the dormer is visible from street. Mr. Ross stated that it is obliquely visible from the street. It will be offset by a couple of feet on each side. Ms. Herbert asked when they propose to start the work. Mr. Ross stated that the dormer is most urgent item on the application. He provided a sketch over the existing photograph. He stated that only the sides will be visible. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve demolition and reconstruction of the existing dormer in the rear and to install a new shed dormer per photos provided with November 2, 2011, Page 8 of 17 wood siding, clapboards, trim and paint to match the existing house. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. St. Joseph's Complex Redevelopment Status Update Ms. Herbert stated that there have been no meetings of the consulting parties since October 17th and no communications from MassHousing, DHCD or MHC. She stated that she got a call from Tom Dalton from the Salem News this afternoon and that he told her that he spoke with MassHousing and was told there would be a decision forthcoming within a week. Ms. Herbert stated that she then called Paul Silverstone and that he said that Mr. Dalton has spoken with Tom Farmer and that Mr. Silverstone had given Mr. Farmer permission to say that a decision would be forthcoming within a week. The hold- up is waiting for DHCD to finalize their wording and send it to MassHousing. Once MassHousing formal declaration is delivered to MHC, MHC will chime in with their decision based on what they received from MassHousing. Ms. Herbert stated that, as far as questions HSI raised regarding drawings, budget, etc. so that they can compare a project of 51 units with common space in the church and 51 units, common space and 4 commercial spots, Mr. Silverstone said that comparing the two was not relevant because the changes to the church would be so significant that the building would no longer render itself a good example of the International Style. She added that Mr. Silverstone mentioned that he has been in continuous consultation with the Advisory Council and that they seem to be in line with that opinion that changes to the church would be so significant, including adding roughly 50% more windows and changing the roof, that it becomes a new building essentially. Ms. Herbert stated that during the process, Mr. Silverstone has been in contact with MHC, as well as the ACHP. Ms. Bellin stated that MHC does not have to accept the determination. Ms. Herbert stated that once the opinion is rendered, the next step is for the interested parties to make a decision if they care to challenge that ruling. She stated that she was kind of surprised to get that news late this afternoon. Mr. Hart stated that he believed that during the consultation process, there would be a MOA developed that related to the entire project, including the rectory and the school. Ms. Herbert stated that the convent happens not to reach its 50th year until April, 2012, and that, in terms of demolition delay, the Commission does not have jurisdiction. Mr. Hart stated that it is unless it is determined to be National Register eligible, despite the fact that it is less than 50 years old. Ms. Guy stated that the Commission would not gain Demolition Delay authority if it is under 50 years old. Mr. Hart agreed that it would not be applicable to the Demolition Delay Ordinance, but noted that the Section 106 process would apply to the convent if the convent were November 2, 2011, Page 9 of 17 determined to be eligible for National Register listing and if federal funds are being used ` to demolish it. He stated that it is his understanding that an MOA will be developed for the entire site regardless of which way DHCD recommends. Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission needs to think about mitigation. Review and comment on Draft stipulations for school, rectory, convent, statue and recordation of all features (prepared by Atty. Ruth Silman, 10119111) Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission needs to go over the stipulations that Ruth Silman has submitted and asked for public comment. Jim Treadwell stated that, with regard to the convent, he believed the SHPO found it is a contributing building to the district and that the Commission felt it would be an adverse effect if demolished. Therefore, he felt it was still at square one in terms of an MOA. He stated that he would assume that some outreach for alternate reuse has been performed. If not, he did not know how a conclusion can be made that it must be demolished, particularly in view of what has happened at St. Mary's, there may be a need for housing for indigent people. He stated that the involvement of the ACHP concerns him, because the last he heard was that they decided not to participant in the Section 106 process, based on the information they received from POUA. He questioned if they are a participant or not, noting that there are different rules under Section 106 if they participate. He stated that if they participate, they are supposed to participate with everybody, so that everybody knows what their position is. Mr. Treadwell stated that if maintenance and security as requested is not done, it is an adverse effect due to neglect. He questioned if modifying is considered an adverse effect, which is worse—modifying or demolition. He stated that he hoped for some progress on salvage of the tower if it is to be modified, and if not to be modified, maybe the tower can be retained. He stated that demolition of the whole complex removes that and that modification and adaptive reuse will retain that as a symbol of our city. He stated that he thought that the Commission should take a position on whether or not modification or complete demolition is more acceptable. Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission already has. Emily Udy asked, if there is a finding issued before the next meeting, will the Commission respond and what would the next step be. Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission would respond. Mr. Hart stated that the project is still in the consultative process and that there is still a MOA to be developed. He stated we are in the consultative process and we are a party to that process. Ms. Udy stated that she felt the draft stipulations were very preliminary and need to be strengthened in regards to the conversations at the Consulting Parties' meeting. She noted that HSI has not yet prepared a response to Ms. Silman's draft stipulations. November 2, 2011, Page 10 of 17 Ruth Silman stated that when the parties met, one of the things talked about was with respect to recordation. She noted that MHC has some standard language for which she has submitted a request. She noted that, in her draft, the language is a placeholder, which will be updated when she gets the language from MHC. Ms. Guy read two e-mails from Salem Historical Commission member Larry Spang. They stated: "I'm on the sidelines, but you might want to request high resolution digital files of the photographs in addition to the traditional negatives and prints. Most photographers these days shoot in digital format so shouldn't be a difficult thing to accomplish. (You might also want to suggest photos done by a professional photographer)" and "If you're hoping to protect the first floor of the Rectory, I would not allow them to use it for construction office. I'm doing a project in Lynn which is reusing a house for construction office and they've trashed the insides just by their coming and going with tool belts, etc. If you don't care about the interiors,then feel free to let them use it." Mr. Hart stated that he felt the draft has been portrayed as a start. He stated that he is waiting to see how the bigger question was resolved before getting into it, which, he said, may really drive us in terms of how we attack the MOA. Ms. Herbert stated that maybe we should just wait. Ms. Silman stated that maybe she misheard, but believed she heard that regardless of what happens to the church and convent, stipulations are required with regard to the rectory and school. She stated that she would like feedback. Ms. Alberghini stated that at the last meeting, everyone agreed that stipulations would be required whether the church is renovated or taken down, due to it being an adverse effect in either case. Therefore, it was determined that there is no reason not to be talking about stipulations now and we were asked to draft and circulate it. Ms. Guy stated that the Commission had discussed that Ms. Herbert would deal with the different renditions, so that each sentence change would not have to come back before the Commission and that tonight would be the forum for the public to comment on the draft stipulations with regard to school, rectory, convent, statue and recordation of all features. Mr. Hart stated that he really wanted to see which way the church is going to go before fine tuning. Ms. Udy agreed that regardless of what happens,the rectory and school will need to be addressed, which raises an important point that the site itself needs a further developed site plan. She stated that there has been a lot of attention focused on the church. She stated that the site plan needs to be developed for all the buildings. She stated that with regard to the stipulations for the rectory and school, some of the strengthening that needs to be done includes that there would be a required design review by MHC. It would follow the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation, which takes into account the planned reuse for the buildings, so that the disclaimer about best efforts is not necessary. She stated that there should be some design review for the rectory if a November 2, 2011, Page 11 of 17 temporary construction office is there. She also stated that Ms. Loughlin is looking into how to make sure that these mitigation standards are transferred if the development responsibility is transferred. Ms. Herbert stated that the Preservation Restriction will travel with the property, not the owner. She stated that for Stipulation#2, for example, she is thinking something more on the lines that the proponent will advise both MHC and the Salem Historical Commission if any issues that might negatively effect their ability to maintain the historic fabric of both the interior and exterior of those two buildings and they would immediately notify. She stated that it should say more than just"use best efforts", they would actually notify if issues arise,before things get out of hand, along the lines of items such as security. She asked Ms. Alberghini if they are looking into security, including during construction when valuable materials are stored there. Ms. Alberghini stated that, during construction, security will be the responsibility of the contractor for both the site and the materials. She stated that she has been looking at general security of the site and has been in touch with the Salem Police Department. They have posted more signs. They have not engaged any electronic surveillance kind of contract or work but have been trying to talk to the police about what would be effective. Ms. Herbert suggested motion sensitive lighting as a start. Ms. Herbert stated that they need to address how the rectory and school will be mothballed to prevent vandalism and homeless persons or vandals from entering. Ms. Bellin stated that the Commission's last letter talked about a preservation restriction, but noted that there is nothing to that effect in the stipulations. She stated that it is important that it gets carried over to the stipulations. Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission talked about not tying the hands of the proponent if the buildings were sold, but making sure that there was a preservation restriction that would at least keep the buildings safe from exterior change. Ms. Udy stated that there is strong precedent in Salem for buildings of this style, size and age of the rectory and school being reused very successfully for a variety of uses. She did not think by asking that the buildings are preserved is tying their hands from being marketable in Salem. Ms. Herbert stated that preserving the interior and exterior preserves the ability of the next owner to go for tax credits. Ms. Bellin stated that it sounds like we don't want the first floor of the rectory as their office. Ms. Herbert stated that Mr. Alberghini suggested it based on discussions that we would try to have the face on Lafayette street have a completed feel, rather than having the rectory mothballed with plywood on the windows. She stated that there could be other alternatives. November 2, 2011, Page 12 of 17 Ms. Bellin stated that in light of Mr. Spang's email, it is not a good option. Ms. Alberghini stated that it is worth exploring more, and that she understands there may be some concerns, but it does not mean it can't be done in an appropriate way. She stated that it is possible it can be done in ways that would address the concerns about the effect on the interior. She suggested not eliminating it as an option. She stated that it is worth having a conversation and that it may be the most immediate way to have there be some presence in that building. She stated it will not be a quick path to find someone else to occupy that space. Ms. Bellin asked if it is that important that the building be used as a construction office. Ms. Alberghini replied in the negative and stated that the contractor may prefer to use a trailer. She stated that she understood the concerns which can be addressed, but it is a way to keep presence in the building, which she understands is an overriding concern people have. It is the quickest way to see some use while other options are explored. Ms. Herbert asked the condition of at least the first floor. Mr. Hart stated that it was in pretty reasonable condition five years ago. Ms. Silman stated that the wood trim is still in excellent condition, that there is a musty smell and the carpets need to be replaced. She stated that all the drywall is intact. Ms. Herbert asked if POUA would reach out to local brokers to find a possible tenant. Ms. Alberghini replied that they could, but noted that it is not in a move-in condition. She stated that they were approached by the Charter School, but the cost to renovate for their use exceeded their available budget and that the time line could not be met. She stated that they can reach out to brokers to lease, buy, develop, etc., but did not know how quickly that could put bodies in the building. She stated that the construction office option could happen right away with stipulations. She stated that MHC has said that if there was an office during construction, they would want to see a plan approved by MHC to address concerns such as those in Mr. Spang's email. She stated that they would be happy to get a broker to also try and lease it. Vicki Siriani stated that, as a professional, the last thing she would want to see done is using the rectory for contractors. Ms. Alberghini stated that would be fine,that she would rather not, but thought it was a good thing. Ms. Bellin stated that they could use it for limited office space for some posters of what is coming, but did not see the point of why it has to be used as an office for the whole project. She stated that it seems too dangerous. November 2, 2011, Page 13 of 17 Ms. Alberghini stated that it does not have to be used as an office and that they were responding to a suggestion that was made. Mr. Treadwell stated that he was not pleased with the progress and the lack of security. He asked if the leaky roof on the church has been fixed. He stated it was neglect and adverse effects were occurring. He stated that he felt it should be a full court press of making sure that those are taken care of. He stated that the Planning Board has made it a condition regarding the statue. He stated that while respecting the church's doctrines,he thought there are some historic preservation doctrines related to that statue and community interest. He stated that it seems like mandates of MHC of 2010 are being ignored. Ms. Herbert stated that the question may be whether the statue will be encountered during construction. Mr. Treadwell reiterated that MHC made comments with regard to an archaeological investigation and that nothing has happened to solve that problem. He stated that if the statue is found, it may not be respected as a community resource and the tower, etc. He stated that the lack attention to maintenance and security is appalling. Ms. Silman stated that the stipulation in the draft MOA is in line with the Planning Board decision. She added that she volunteered to draft stipulations, but that it is typically a process where the stipulations are developed by the consulting parties and that anyone is welcome to provide input. She stated that she is happy to be the word processor. Ms. Alberghini stated that the consensus at the concurring party meeting was that the MOA should get underway, but it is not a document that we own. Ms. Guy suggested referring to the Commission's September letter. Ms. Alberghini stated that all the input is taken by the lead agency, including this draft and comments. They will include what is appropriate. She stated that comments should be sent to the lead agency. Ms. Herbert stated that she and Mr. Hart and Ms. Bellin will work on getting some wording put together. Other Business Ms. Guy stated that she received a copy of a letter from Massachusetts Historical Commission to KVA Associates concerning the rehabilitation of Collins Middle School and Saltonstall School, finding no adverse effect, but noting that vinyl windows do not adhere to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and recommending repair. If repair is not feasible proponents should explore replacement windows and doors that most exactly replicate the historic ones. They are requesting that product information be submitted to their office for review. November 2, 2011, Page 14 of 17 VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the minutes of October 5, 2011. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Hart stated that he was delegated to attend the urban renewal plan update meeting and provided a quick update. They want to combine the two urban renewal areas together and there are a few additional areas, including near post office and the triangle of land that is outside the jail. Ms. Herbert asked if it included Lifebridge. Mr. Hart replied in the negative. He stated that he read the design standards and was concerned that there is no way for the Historical Commission to be involved in anything that happens in the urban renewal area, which consists of many pieces of property, including National Register districts. There is not way for the Commission to be involved in the decision making process. Ms. Herbert noted that projects to go through the Design Review Board. Mr. Hart replied in the affirmative, but it has been modified so that the design guidelines apply to important historic buildings and not to the lesser important historic buildings. He did not know how they will make the distinction. He stated that the buildings on the National Register would be subject to design guidelines, but that the rest of the buildings are kind of like open season. He stated that he will be expressing his concerns on the language to Ms. Duncan. He suggested that the Commission have a seat on the Design Review Board. Ms. Herbert stated that she proposed that to Ms. Duncan a few weeks ago when it came up that St. Joseph's did not have to go through the DRB. She stated that the DRB has a whole different view of things than the Commission and she felt it was important that the Commission be represented. Mr. Hart stated that the plan update will go to the City Council on November 17tt' Ms. Herbert felt there should be a vote on our desire to have a member of the Historical Commission on the Design Review Board for the SRA. Ms. Guy asked if this is a floating person or a specific person. She asked what happens if the Commission member is not reappointed and they are the DRB appointee. Ms. Herbert stated that maybe it would have to be the Chair or the Vice-Chair. Ms. Bellin stated that it could be a person and if they leave the Historical Commission, they are replaced with a new designee. Ms. Guy asked if it would be a specific person, not just anybody that could go on that particular night of the meeting, so that person would be serving on two boards. November 2, 2011, Page 15 of 17 Mr. Hart stated that he did not know how the mechanism would work, but that right now the Historical Commission has no say. Ms. Herbert stated that a perfect example is when we were invited to a site visit at the Salem News building project and made recommendations and that they did not implement any of them because we had not standing. Ms. Bellin suggest that if the Commission can't have a member on the DRB, that they have a consulting role where, for example, if they have to make a determination as to what is important historically and what isn't important historically, we have input into that. She stated that of all the entities in the city, we should be the ones with some input into what is and isn't historically important. She stated that maybe it needs to be a member of the board or just some consulting role. Ms. Herbert asked who decides what is less historically significant buildings. Ms. Guy stated that it would be according to the Building Survey forms, if it meets criteria for the National Register. Mr. Hart stated that the draft plan does not say that. Ms. Guy stated that maybe it should be edited to say it must meet the criteria for National Register listing as per the Building Survey forms. Ms. Bellin felt the Commission should have a role, and maybe that is where our role is, perhaps using the Building Survey forms. Mr. Hart stated that the Commission really has to get involved in the SRA. He stated that he would like to work with Lynn Duncan to see if he can get some kind of compromise. Mr. Hart stated that there is a deadline to submit the plan. Ms. Guy stated that Ms. Duncan knows the mechanics and suggested Mr. Hart and Ms. Herbert have a conference call with her. Ms. Udy suggested that if they can't appoint a Commission member to the DRB,that the Commission suggested appointees for the DRB. She stated that HSI has some issues with some wording that she is hopeful they will be able to work out, because it is worded to exclude a lot of buildings. She asked if there is a building survey form, would it give it standing. Ms. Guy replied in the negative. She stated the Building Survey Form would say that they have applied the criteria and it meets the criteria for listing. However, she noted that this language about survey forms is not specified in the plan update. Ms. Udy asked if it would add buildings to the stronger standard. Ms. Guy stated that she believed the intent was for the stronger standard is to look at the survey forms, but it just doesn't say that. November 2, 2011, Page 16 of 17 Ms. Udy stated that the restoration paragraph is good, because it has a standard. Ms. Twohey stated that it should stay that all historic structures should be subject to the Salem Historical Commission guidelines. Ms. Guy noted that the SRA has its own design guidelines paid for by the city, which are particularly for commercial properties, while the Commission's guidelines are geared toward mostly residential. Ms. Udy stated that the bigger concern was for a lot of buildings that are not deemed eligible, but still have historic details, and that they won't be subject to guidelines the way this is written. She stated that the rehabilitation paragraphs needs to be strengthened. She added that a DRB member who has a historic background would be asking for that. She stated that in addition to the wording being strengthened, there needs to be someone with a historic design sensibility. Ms. Herbert noted that the current DRB includes Helen Sides who is a former Commission member. Ms. Udy stated that new construction is very well covered in this document, but there are very few parcels within the SRA where new construction is going to take place. The vast majority of review that happens is going to be on historic buildings, so historic review needs to be strengthened and the reviewers need to be strengthened in terms of historic background. Mr. Treadwell stated that the DRB's review is different from historic preservation. He stated that the planner stated St. Joseph's had the comments of two members of the DRB as an important historical preservation matter, which he felt was not true. He stated that he could not believe that HUD does not have regulations or guidelines relative to historic preservation within urban renewal plans. He stated that HUD has the responsibility to comply with the historic preservation act and would assume the person responsible for modeling urban renewal plans does take that into consideration. He stated that the Commercial Design Guidelines has a lot of consideration to detail with the commercial area, which was done by Finch& Rose, so it seems to be sensitive to historic preservation in the downtown and should be incorporated by reference. Mr. Treadwell felt the Commission should be able to put in any provision it wants in the urban renewal plan. Ms. McCrea stated that she felt for strengthening it, there should be a requirement that someone from the Commission be on the DRB. Ms. Udy stated that HSI suggested that all buildings be considered historic and that exceptions be listed. Mr. Treadwell questioned what ones don't contribute. Ms. Udy has the capability of providing a strong historic tool, because they can deny demolition, rather than a six month delay. 1 November 2, 2011,Page 17 of 17 Mr. Treadwell stated that the commercial guidelines does superimpose on the urban renewal all local, state and federal districts. Ms. Udy stated that it is referenced throughout the draft urban renewal plan. Meg Twohey stated that, on page 3.5, the discussion on compliance alternatives does not exclude historic buildings and that it should. Mr. Treadwell stated that the property next to me at 18 felt, a c1896 Victorian house is up for sale, being sold by Betsey merry. He stated that the house is structurally sound. Ms. Herbert stated that she felt window restoration people should be put on the website. Ms. Bellin stated that this has come before the Ethics Commission because it looks like a public board is endorsing a company. She felt it was allowed if several are listed. Mr. Hart stated there is also the New England Restoration Alliance (NERA) which is www.windowrestorationne.or which has several companies provided. Ms. Guy stated that she would be comfortable with that. VOTE: 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. Respectfully , Jane tly Clerk of the Commission November 16, 2011, Page 1 of 13 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2011 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday,November 16, 2011 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Harper, Ms. McCrea and Mr. Hart. 17 Warren Street Deborah Jackson submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to change the door color to black and to touch up some of the existing grey and white paint on the house. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Ms. Jackson stated that the door had been a dark color years ago and that they would like to change from red to black. Ms. Herbert asked if it will be gloss paint. Ms. Jackson replied in the affirmative. Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission has no jurisdiction over the storm door, but noted that they prefer the storm color match the sash or trim color. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to change the door paint color to black and to give the applicant the option to repaint in the existing red,with the recommendation that the storm door color match the door. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 185/187 Federal Street In continuation of a prior meeting, Michelle Alvino, Peter L'Italien and Michael and Jennifer Spencer submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace windows with either Anderson or American Craftsman vinyl windows. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Mr. L'Italien stated that they had representatives from Newpro and Renewal by Anderson come in. After seeing their vinyl windows, they decided that they did not like them. He stated that Renewal by Anderson has a composite window that can be inserted into the existing openings. November 16, 2011, Page 2 of 13 Ms. Alvino stated that their side would need two double hung and a picture window and that the Spencers will replace what they have in kind. She stated that framing on both sides will remain. Mr. Hart asked when the house was built. Mr. L'Italien stated that it was built in 1954. He noted that it was a dentist office form 1985 to approximately 2005. Mr. Hart stated that if it were an 1850s house, he would have problem, but that he had no problem with composite on an 1954 house. There was no public comment. VOTE: Ms. McCrea made a motion to replace all the windows on the house with Renewal by Anderson composite double glaze windows, keeping existing style and design configuration. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 68 Derby Street 66 Derby Street Trust, Jay and Neal Levy, submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for construction of a new building at 68 Derby Street. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Plans dated October 19, 2011, David F. Jaquith Architects &Planners Jay Levy reviewed the plans with the Commission. He stated that they will have a chimney on the back to match the other house. There will be no skylights. The doors will be the same as the other house (6 panel solid wood). The front and back door will have 1 or 2 granite steps. The windows will be the same Jeldwin windows with the bronze spacer. There are a couple of wood casement windows on the back. The third floor for stairwell area is not visible from the street. The roof will be 3-tab in Moire Black. The gambrel will not have any venting, but will be framed conventionally with soffit and ridge vents. Vents and a/c equipment will be non-visible from the public way. Electric meters will be in the basement. They will try to put the gas meters in basement, but if not,they will be screened. The house will have cedar clapboards, a watertable and cornerboards. They will come back with paint and fencing in the Spring. It will be all new construction, basically matching 66 Derby Street, except one is gambrel and one is gable. Neal Levy stated that they found an original foundation for the house that was previously there. They also found approximately twenty granite stones that they hope to recycle as platforms for the front doors. November 16, 2011, Page 3 of 13 Jay Levy stated that it they cannot use them, they will swap them with the contractor for recycled granite for the walkways. He stated that they would like to get brick sidewalks in front and that they have contacted Jason Silva and their City Councillor in this regard.. There was no public comment. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the building plans as presented. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 1 Harrington Court Donald Harlow Powell submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to reconstruct existing stairs and door structure with alterations. Representing the applicant was Daniel Beauvais. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Sketch by Daniel Beauvais, Beauvais Builders Mr. Beauvais stated that initially he was going to just update the decking and handrails, but later found it was rotted. He rebuilt the foundation out of existing bricks found on the property. He will use square edge pine clapboards for the basement door entrance. The door will be shiplap or v-groove pine. He stated that the Commission approved a bluish grey paint, for which he selected Phillipsburg Blue. The Commission approved a burgundy-merlot color, which will be Classic Burgundy. It will have white railings and trim. Ms. Herbert asked if the metal door was staying. Mr. Beauvais replied in the affirmative. Mr. Beauvais stated that as was previously approved,the rail will go into the siding. There will be lead flashing. Ms. Herbert stated that the railings are to be as per already approved. There was no public comment. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the reconstruction of the side stairs and lower door structure per sketch submitted,rebuilding the foundation from existing bricks on the property, railings as per previously approved, lower entrance to be clapboards, door to be shiplap or v-groove pine, painted to match colors already approved. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. November 16, 2011, Page 4 of 13 St. Jose h's Complex Redevelopment Status Update Ms. Herbert stated that MassHousing's determination has been received and a legal ad was in last Friday's paper. She stated that HSI is still working on a number of unresolved issues. In the DHCD decision, she noticed that some details about the proposal that HSI presented were not contradicted, such as there being 70%more windows, when she believed HSI indicated only 10-15%more windows. She noted that the roof was not going to be raised as DHCD stated and that the excavation would be more minimal than stated. She stated that the DHCD submission was replete with a number of errors. She stated that she got a copy of an email today from Beverley McSwiggin, who was concerned that the public has not seen the details of the decision, nor the draft of the MOA and is only given until the November 18th to respond. She stated that the public does not know what they are commenting on and that the deadline should obviously be extended. Ms. Herbert stated that the concurring parties have until November 29th to submit comments. She noted that the Commission does not meet again until December 7th. Ms. Guy stated that she put the draft MOA on the City website today under Studies and Reports. She stated that she thought that future renditions of the MOA would be reviewed by Ms. Herbert, Mr. Hart and/or Ms. Bellin so that each iteration does not need to come back to the full board. Ms. Herbert stated that if needed, the Commission could call a special meeting. Mr. Hart stated that he would be in favor of calling a special meeting on the 28th of November. He anticipated that the Commission would not be able to finalize comments tonight. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to hold a special meeting on November 28th at 7:00 for the purpose of reviewing the Draft MOA. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Jim Treadwell stated that he has produced an email to both DHCD and MHC asking for an extension due to the public only getting four working days for review and the fact that the public never got a copy of the determination, but was able to ask HSI for a copy. He asked if having a special meeting precludes asking for an extension. Ms. Herbert stated that the 18th is the public deadline and that the concurring party deadline is November 29th She stated that the Commission anticipates meeting the November 29th deadline. Mr. Treadwell stated that he has spoken with Jaime Loichinger at the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation(ACHP). He stated that Mr. Silverstone has been taking advantage of the opportunity as instructed by the regulations to communicate with the ACHP. He stated that the MOA is now on the city website, but questioned how the public will know. November 16, 2011, Page 5 of 13 Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission will make notice of and take public comment on the 28t'. Meg Twohey suggested putting the website link for the MOA on the agenda. Ms. Bellin suggested that DHCD's determination also be placed on the website. Mr. Treadwell noted that there is an exhibit list in determination and asked if all the exhibit copies were included with determination. Ms. Herbert stated that no exhibits came with the determination. Ms. Guy stated that some of the attachments included the Commission minutes. She stated that Mr. Treadwell was welcome to come in to compare the exhibit list with the document copies on file, which are in a binder at the front desk in the Planning Department. Mr. Treadwell stated that there were no minutes of second concurring party meeting. He also noted that there is no written transcript of DHCD's public meeting and that the Commission should have hard copy. Mr. Treadwell stated that John Carr's son made a tape of the meeting. Mr. Treadwell stated that the requirement is that the public be given an opportunity to express their interests—and they did. If they wanted to see whether or not their point was taken, so it could be considered, it would seem to him that it would be best to have it in hard form and felt that it was an oversight. Ms. Bellin questioned if it is a requirement that there be transcript. Mr. Treadwell stated that if there is a request by a consulting party for the ACHP to come on board, he would trust that they would be interested in what happened at that meeting. Ruth Silman stated that the documentation standards in 36CFR part 800.11 a state that the agency official shall ensure that a determination finding or agreement under the procedures of this subpart is supported by sufficient documentation to enable any reviewing parties to understand its basis. There is no requirement for a transcript. Her experience is a tape recording is sufficient. Ms. Herbert stated that a copy of the public hearing tape was made and given to us at the first meeting. Mr. Hart stated that it astounds him that they had a public hearing and there is no record of who was there and what was said. Mr. Treadwell stated that he did not believe there was a sign-in sheet. November 16, 2011, Page 6 of 13 Emily Udy, representing Historic Salem, Inc., stated that she has notes that HSI will likely be submitting. She stated that HSI disagrees with DHCD's determination and with the statement that both of their plans result in an adverse effect and are not financially viable. They are currently gathering information regarding the financial viability of the reuse plans and they will be submitting substantial comment when complete. She stated that their preliminary understanding is that despite what POUA has spent, the HSI plan would be financially beneficial to the proponent. In terms of design issues, one of the reasons sited in the memorandum is that potential reuse options and the changes to the interior and exterior changes would cause an adverse effect. She stated that there would be an increase in the amount of windows by 1/3 and that would be on 2 sides - rear and either the north or south fagade. Changes to the roof are an option, but are not required for physical reuse of the building. Some repair would be necessary. Many of things were pointed out by Structures North. She stated that their design professionals agree that these are standard issues that would arise in any rehabilitation and that some have increased due to lack of upkeep and maintenance on the building, which is listed as an adverse effect under 106. She noted that extensive grading is optional, and that only minimal grading is needed. She stated that the amount of time the public will have to respond is inadequate and that they will be asking for an additional week for the public to comment. Review and comment on Draft stipulations for school, rectory, convent, statue and recordation of all features (prepared by Atty. Ruth Silman, 10/19111, updated to Draft Memorandum of Agreement dated 11115111) Mr. Hart stated that there is no date on the draft and requested that future drafts be dated. Ms. Herbert stated that she reviewed the Commission's 9/15/11 letter and compared it to the MOA draft. For page 4, under number II, she would like to pick up D from the Commission's letter regarding security, that the entire campus be protected by security measures. She stated that a preservation restriction for the school and rectory tied to land should be added. Under IV, F should be added from the Commission's letter regarding any modifications made would come before the Commission for review. There is a need to have language on best efforts to preserve the school and rectory to strengthen it, i.e. elaborate on line 2 of II. Mr. Hart stated that there were observations made at the last meeting that a construction office could trash some finishes. He stated that they may want to place some limits on it. Ms. Bellin questioned how construction workers can be prevented from coming in. Ms. Herbert and Ms. Harper noted that they have seen this done successfully as an office, but not for trades people. Ms. Harper stated that she feels it was okay to have someone in the building in order to have security. Ms. Herbert was in agreement. November 16, 2011, Page 7 of 13 Ms. Udy stated that HSI disagrees with the 5t'whereas clause on page 2. Mr. Hart stated that he understood that there was a request for a copy of the one-stop application. Ms. Udy stated that they requested a copy several times during the consultation process when meeting in Boston and then made a request under the FOIA. They have received the sources and uses portion. DHCD's legal department states that they never received the request and it is now expected that a copy of the full application is to be sent Monday. Ms. Silman stated that there have been many discussions about the One-stop and the request for the One-stop. She stated that it was talked about at the consulting parties meeting and a Commission meeting, as well as at the public hearing, She wanted to reiterate that the One-stop is very specific to this project and, in the developers view, it is not possible to take dollars that are reflected in that One-stop and try to transfer them for use in another project. The developer does not want people to think it wasn't forthcoming with information that could be relevant. HSI has the ability to request whatever information it wants and HSI can do what it wants with the information, but in their view it is not a situation where you are comparing apples to apples and therefore not a productive use of the information. She noted that there is nothing in it that is proprietary. She stated that it is not going to be fruitful for trying to figure out if the reuse of the church is financially feasible. She stated that POUA was not withholding information. Ms. Herbert stated that HSI's request was directed to DHCD. Ms. Silman stated that, to be objective and based on the discussion,the obvious question is why didn't POUA just send a copy of the One-stop to HSI and the answer is we don't think there is anything in there that is relevant for the discussion or the determination and we have had this discussion numerous times. Ms. Herbert stated that this is a public process and that transparency is key. She stated that on 10/4 the One-stop was requested and again on 10/17 and it should have been acted on by Mr. Silverstone. She stated that she asked Ms. Alberghini for a copy and was told that she did not feel it was pertinent. Ms Herbert stated that it is pertinent, and that it is important to know how much is laid out for construction of the 51 units. She stated that the amount in the sources and use section is shown as $10.2 million. It is also pertinent to know what the revenue streams are expected for the 51 units. She stated that those revenue streams would be the same whether it is 51 units in a new shell or an old shell. Ms. Bellin stated that she agreed with Ms. Herbert. She stated that she was dismayed that, in the context of 106 process, where we are supposed to be provided with documents that may be relevant, HSI had to go to trouble of a FOIA request and that the FOIA request then gets lost. She added that even if they think we may not understand them or be using them for the right thing, she did not see how the One-stop could not be relevant, since it lays out all of the information regarding the project that we are reviewing. She stated that either Mr. Silverstone or POUA should have provided the information. November 16, 2011, Page 8 of 13 Ms. Herbert stated that the analysis that Ms. Alberghini presented at the 10/17 meeting contained figures purported to relate to the cost of building in the church—although it used 44 units, instead of 51 and discussed that building the units in the church would result in a$7 million shortfall. She stated that one of problems that is counter-productive is to have those numbers created by the construction company that is going to be doing the job and they are going to be developing a pro-forma budget for a competing project. She felt it was a little difficult to swallow some of those numbers and could see why HSI would want more information so they could do their own analysis. Ms. Udy stated that we now know that the demolition costs were not included in cost per square foot. She stated that she felt that for Stipulation Ib, 10-12 exterior views is inadequate. She stated that 10-12 exterior contextual views, in addition to individual views of each elevation of each building. She would be inclined to default to taking additional archival quality photos of interior of the church. She stated that for Stipulation II, they agree with the Commission that there should be preservation restriction and it should be tied to the property whether sold or leased. She added that the language should be that MHC will provide design review on the proposed redevelopment and that the basis will, not may, be standards derived from the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. The last part of the sentence should be struck regarding that the proponents shall make best efforts. They might suggest that the Commission and the Planning Board have the ability to review those plans. She suggested striking III entirely, as she felt the benefits are already listed. She did not understand how.Stipulation IV relates to historic preservation. There are several things included which they do not feel are appropriate mitigation. For example, creation of 100 new construction jobs seems irrelevant to historic preservation. Specifically, "removal of urban blight" is a slap in the face to have that in this MOA, because it involves demolition of historic buildings. For V, they recommend DRB review the storefronts for the new building . For VI and VII, they suggest the proponent contribute to Salem State University for neighborhood research. For VIIIB,they suggest there be a consultation between the archdiocese, neighborhood representation and historic and archaeological communities on how best to treat the statue. Mr. Hart asked when HSI anticipates having comments available. Ms. Udy stated that they can have them before the 11/28 meeting. Mr. Hart stated that the sooner the Commission gets written comments, the better, even if in draft form. Ms. McCrea asked if she understood that HSI objected to the use of "removal of urban blight". Ms. Udy stated that it is in incredible poor taste to include it in the MOA. Ms. McCrea stated that it is an unused bunch of buildings. Ms. Udy stated that, whether or not that is true, this is about demolishing an historic church. November 16, 2011, Page 9 of 13 Ms. Herbert stated this whole paragraph needs some work. Ms. Guy stated that is actually in the wrong place and, if anything, it should be a Whereas. Jeff Bellin stated that it is a historically and aesthetically important building and that just because it is unused does not make it urban blight. He stated that he felt what is proposed to be in its place will look more like a strip mall and questioned which one is the blight. He stated that making an historically important building useful is a better way to go than tearing it down and cheaply spending money to create what looks like a strip mall in a major corridor in the city. Mr. Treadwell stated that he feels that the photographic imaging should be dependant on the standards that MHC uses. There should be measured drawings. He stated that Structures North, in its 2005 letter, indicates that they have a full set of drawings of the church and convent, so POUA could add to them, which is an important in terms of mitigation. There should be a requirement for an extensive history of the community, the French-Canadian heritage and of the property, as well as some individuals important to the community and parish. He stated that the City Planner, in her letter to Mr. Silverstone, almost demands that the two buildings not be demolished and that there should be a provision. He stated that a special dispensation from the Secretary of the Interior's Standards is ludicrous because it causes adverse effect. He stated that it would be okay for engineers, etc. to use the rectory, but not construction personnel. He stated that for IV, listing 9 economic benefits and 5 design benefits has nothing to do with mitigation. He stated that the storefronts of the building has no teeth and that it needs teeth if you want design standards. He agreed there should be oversight concerning the statue and added that while respecting the laws of the Roman Catholic Church, they ultimate disposition should also be cognizant of the attitude the former parishioners, the Franco-American community and the city of Salem. Mr. Hart suggested that the Commission consider contacting Ms. Loichinger directly, since it is apparent that DHCD or Mr. Silverstone already has. He suggested doing so in order to determine what our options are regarding the conflicting information as well as the concerns about the demolition of buildings eligible for listing on the National Register. He stated that he understands there is no appeal process under Section 106. He stated that behooves the Commission to get involved now with the ACHP instead of waiting until the final decision is made. Ms. Herbert stated that she would make the call. Ms. Bellin asked, even though there is no appeal process, if there is an option to seek reconsideration or to provide additional evidence. Mr. Hart stated that it might be worthwhile, as a courtesy, to advise MHC that the Commission is going to be contacting the ACHP. Ms. Herbert stated that she will call Ms. Laughlin. November 16, 2011, Page 10 of 13 Ms. Silman stated that, if Ms. Herbert is able to reach Ms. Laughlin,to mention that they have asked several times for their recordation standards. She noted that Stipulation I is placeholder until the current standards are received. Ms. Bellin asked, now that Mr. Silverstone's determination is issued, what is the next step. She asked when the determination becomes final. Mr. Treadwell stated that he believed MHC and DHCD is in the position to do it at any time. He stated that if a consulting party asks ACHP to join,then there would need to be an opportunity for them to get up to speed and participate in the decision with those parties. Ms. Herbert stated that she would get clarification. Mr. Hart stated that the Commission has consistently asked for a process from Mr. Silverstone, but never got a clear answer. Ms. Guy stated that if MHC reads this decision and takes any exceptions to it, then they will go back to DHCD with a letter and say we want you to provide specific information or do X, Y or Z. If does not take any issue, it will likely go right into MOA process which we have already started. Ms. Silman agreed that if MHC were take issue with it, they would inform DHCD that they disagree with something in it or that they require more information. Once the MOA is signed by the concurring parties who are required to sign it, then DHCD's decision goes to HUD. In terms of when it goes to ACHP, it depends on whether they are a party or not. As a practical matter, nothing can happen at the site until POUA gets the financing and the financing can't happen until HUD issues its final sign-off. She stated that there is still the rest of the NEPA process, for which the MOA is required in order HUD to say there is no environmental effect. Mr. Treadwell stated that historic preservation review and environmental assessment can go on simultaneously. When concluded, DHCD would publish a notice that it intends to request a release of funds. Ms. Silman stated that the request for release of funds cannot go to HUD until the MOA is signed. Ms. Udy stated suggested distinguishing between signatories and concurring parties, specifically regarding future amendments to the MOA. She asked if Stipulation X included all. Ms. Silman stated that in her experience, amendments are the same as the consulting parties' process, when an amendments are proposed it goes to everybody and sometimes certain concurring parties option not to sign on. Concurring parties are never required to be a signatory under the regulations. November 16, 2011, Page 11 of 13 Ms. Twohey stated that it is ironic that tomorrow the city is supporting renewal of its urban renewal plan update, which was funded by HUD to preserve our historic properties downtown. 31 Flint Street Ms. Guy stated that because Ms. Bellin and Ms. Harper have to recused themselves and Ms. Keenan has an emergency at home, she contacted the Felts and told them not to come to tonight's meeting. The application will be placed on the 11/28/11 agenda. 22 Chestnut Street Nina Cohen and Craig Barrows submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a Brosco window on the second floor west wall of the rear ell to match the existing double-hung style and size and to replace the existing third floor window on the west wall of the main building to match the existing double-hung single pane with identical shutters. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Ms. Cohen stated that she learned that the third floor window is a non-standard size, so they will repair rather than replace it and will install a storm. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to add a new window on second west wall of rear ell to match and line up with adjacent windows and to repair the third floor window on the west wall in kind. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 388-390 Essex Street Ms. Bellin recused herself, left the table and joined the audience. In continuation of a prior meeting, Ellen Golub and Steve Sass submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to reconstruct the side entry porch using Fiberon Veranda Grooved Composite decking and Veranda composite rails. The applicant was not present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Ms. Herbert stated that she went by and that the railings are very obviously plastic. Ms. Harper stated that she preferred it have wrapped posts. November 16, 2011, Page 12 of 13 VOTE: Ms. McCrea made a motion to continue the application to the next meeting. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Bellin re joined the Commission at the table. 30 Broad Street In continuation of a prior meeting, William M. Ross and Abigail B. Ross submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove storm windows and single glazed wood windows on front and side of house and replace with new double glazed wood windows in either: 1. Pella Architect Series Wood Double Hung Window 2. LePage SDL, wood exterior 3. J. B. Sash Proper Bostonian (wood exterior) 4. Marvin Ultimate Double Hung wood windows 5. Jeldwen Premium Siteline EX windows in wood Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Pella window on line specification ■ Marvin window on line specification The applicants were not present. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to the next meeting. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Other Business Minutes VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of October 19, 2011. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 142 North Street—Nomination to the National Register Ms. Guy stated that the City hired a consultant to prepare a National Register nomination for the North Street Fire Station. She has received the draft nomination and survey form and asked if the Commission had any comments. She stated that Massachusetts Historical Commission has the draft and may make some suggested amendments. Once finalized it will go before the State Board and then to Washington. She will provide copies to the members for review at the next meeting. Bill S.2053 Ms. Guy stated that the Commission members were forwarded an email regarding S.2053 —a bill to regarding projects referred to MHC for consultation and an email in opposition November 16, 2011, Page 13 of 13 sent by Darrow Lebovici to Chairs and Vice Chairs of the Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight. According to the website there is no meeting scheduled of that body. Ms. Herbert stated that Mr. Lebovici heard from Representative Keenan's office that it won't be happening until February. Ms. Bellin asked if we will be sending a letter when it is time. Ms. Guy stated that she did necessarily think it should wait until it is time, but it gives you time to prepare something. Mr. Hart stated that he attended a historic resources committee of the Boston Society of Architects and it was focused on heavily. Ms. Herbert stated that 44 Derby Street put up a new fence this summer without approval and they have also started to parge the foundation '/2 white and '/2 gray. She stated that studs are going up in front of the house. She asked Commission members to go by the property. Ms. Bellin stated that in light of certain recusals,the Commission needs to get more members. Ms. McCreas stated that she talked to a priest about the rules of the Catholic Church regarding the statue. He told her it was true that the only way to de-sacrimentize a statue is to bury it. He stated that it was possible sometimes to do something else, but that it is a big deal. Mr. Hart stated that he is the designee to the urban renewal plan update committee. The Salem Redevelopment Authority is meeting tomorrow night and then going to the City Council. He stated that the document as massaged by everyone, including HSI, is a gigantic turnaround and very positive. He suggested that the chair of the Commission or designee go to DRB meetings in future when possible. VOTE: 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. RespecfeCommission d Jane A Clerk o November 28, 2011, Page 1 of 10 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 28, 2011 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday,November 28, 2011 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Ms. McCrea and Mr. Hart. Mr. Spang arrived later in the meeting. St. Joseph's Complex Redevelopment Review Draft Memorandum of A greement.(from Paul Silverstone, MassHousin dated 11/15111) and finalize initial submission of comments Documents distributed to Commission members included: • Letter from Massachusetts Historical Commission(MHC)to DHCD dated 11/23/11 • Letter from James Treadwell to MassHousing dated 11/17/11 • Draft MOA, updated with proposed changes (redline) Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission has been instructed to comment on the MOA draft by November 29th. She stated that today she received a copy of the decision from MHC which concurs with DHCD's findings. Ms. Herbert read the MHC letter into the record. Mr. Hart stated that the letter states that it was dated 11/8/11 and received on I I/10/11. Ms. Herbert stated that she has provided a copy of the MOA with her draft amendments in a redlined version. In it, Ms. Herbert suggested removing "in order for the Project to be financially feasible" on Page 2 and to add a whereas that"the owner has agreed to provide a contribution of$10,000 to the City of Salem for the maintenance and upkeep of Lafayette Park" instead of having it on Page 3. Ms. McCrea asked if it was a one time payment. Ms. Herbert replied in the affirmative and questioned whether to suggest either dividing it over a few years or asking for annual upkeep funding. Ms. Herbert noted that Recordation requirements in a and b are to be replaced with MHC's standard Photographic Documentation Technical Requirements. Paragraph I was changed to replace "work"with"any project-related activity(including building interiors), change "agrees to ensure that the"to "will document the interiors and exteriors of the", and add"and a digital copy be provided to the Salem Historical Commission" at the end of the sentence. For Stipulation II, she added"owner"where missing after "proponent", she removed"use best efforts to"and added"by employing security measures, including exterior motion detectors and interior alarms. She added that the Proponent will promptly repair any damage caused by vandalism, fire, water penetration or damage caused by storms or other natural occurrences. The Proponent and/or Owner November 28, 2011, Page 2 of 10 will provide sufficient operating funds for these security and maintenance costs. The Proponent and Owner, along with MHC, will enter into two separate Preservation Restrictions in perpetuity(one each for the rectory and school buildings) that runs with the properties. Ms. Bellin suggested adding "SHC"in four places where missing. Ms. Herbert stated that for Stipulation III, she rewrote the sentence and added two sentences. She stated that she would like to see the face of Lafayette Street be active, instead of seeing the rectory boarded up. She would like to see the first floor be in use and maintained. Ms. McCrea suggested adding"at the time of the signing of the MOA"to the end of the paragraph. Ms. Bellin suggested changing"housed"to "allowed". For Stipulation IV, Ms. Herbert stated that she removed the section beginning with"The Parties"through to "Lafayette Street"and added a new sentence at the end—"For any modifications proposed to be made to the existing exterior design, including landscaping plans, but excluding below grade infrastructure, which also require submission to any City boards or commissions, the Proponent and Owner agree to concurrently submit such modifications and plans to the Salem Historical Commission for review and comment." For Stipulation V, Ms. Herbert added"and any signage is subject to the requirements of the City of Salem Sign Ordinance." For Stipulation VI, she added a section that the proponent agrees to develop a comprehensive anthropological report focusing on French- Canadian and Latin American immigrants and that the photographic exhibit include current and historical photographs. Councillor Bob McCarthy suggested adding Gordon College to the list of possible entities to complete the report. Ms. Herbert stated that the project is obliterating the third church that the French- Canadian community built and she saw it as a scholarly paper, which is a wonderful way to mitigate the loss. For Stipulation VII, Ms. Herbert stated that she changed"add"to "develop" and add "in consultation with Historic Salem, Inc., to be"before "located". She added "and include such photographs in the memorialization per Stipulation VP'to VII(B)(iii). Ms. Bellin stated that at a previous discussion, the Commission said it wanted to add that the proponent would invite comments from former parishioners, neighborhood, archaeological or preservation groups, etc. Ms. McCrea stated that someone told her there was a committee that has looked into the disposition on the statue before and that they decided it would be buried because it is church law. November 28, 2011, Page 3 of 10 Mr. Hart stated that an interesting discussion that might take place is who is the owner of ~` the statue because if the MOA is signed, the archdiocese may not have purview over the new owner, who is not the church. He stated that cannon law might be a mute point. Linda Locke stated that she was concerned that it be damaged when excavating for it. Ms. Herbert stated that it may be in pieces now. Ms. McCrea believed it was partially burned from the fire. The sentence added will be, "The Proponent will outline all available options for treatment and/or disposal in accordance with church law and will invite comments from interested parties (including representatives of the Franco-American community, archaeological professionals and former parish members that include Point residents) prior to final determination on the statue disposition" Ms. Bellin stated that if found, they should take steps so as to not to further damage the statue. Mr. Hart stated that it should be carefully conserved and reburied. Emily Udy asked if there are archaeological standards. Mr. Hart stated that MHC has an archaeological component. Ms. Herbert suggested taking out"if practical" from VIII(b)(i). She stated that there should be an assessment of the condition of the statue to determine which method is most appropriate. Mr. Hart suggested adding language that if located, in consultation with appropriate archaeological entities, the proponent will develop a plan of action for conservation and disposition of the statue and to take out i and ii. Ms. Herbert stated that if there is an objection to an amendment and the concurring parities are allowed to make comments about an objection,they should also be able to make an objection. Therefore, for Stipulation IX, "or concurring party" will be added in two locations in(a). For IX(a)(iii), add"or request an extension for response' to the end of the first sentence. Ms. Herbert stated that she was concerned with Ciii, noting that if the ACHP slipped and missed the 21 days, it will assume concurrence, and suggested inserting "or request an extension for response"to the end of the first sentence. She suggested the XI be changed from five to two years. They could come back and ask to extend it. Mr. Hart stated that the signatories are DHCD, SHPO, the HOME Consortium, Salem Lafayette Development, LLC, which is signed by the Planning Office for Urban Affairs, Inc., and Banc of America Community Development Corporation and noted it was the first time they have seen Banc of American CDC. He stated it might be worthwhile asking Mr. Silverstone. November 28, 2011, Page 4 of 10 Ms. Herbert stated that she thought it was a separate entity of Bank of America. She stated that she talked with Paul Silverstone and he said that tomorrow's deadline is flexible. He would like the bulk of the comments tomorrow and then it would be a process where we go back and forth a couple times. Ms. Bellin stated that she felt the comments could be wrapped up tonight. Ms. Guy suggested that the back and forth part could delegating Ms. Herbert. Ms. Herbert stated that she wanted to get the MOA document in shape, so that the Commission can agree to sign as a concurring party. Shirley Walker questioned removing the section from Stipulation IV, stating that she felt there were a lot of factual pieces to the statement and that it was asking the parties to acknowledge that there are numerous benefits to the project. She questioned why not keeping it in the MOA. Ms. Herbert stated that the MOA is to focus mitigation of adverse effects to historic properties. Ms. Walker asked who included the benefits, noting that she felt there were some very positive things in there that are true, such as the park and the urban blight.. Ms. Herbert replied that DHCD drafted the document. She noted that they moved the park language to the Whereas section. She stated that as far as blight, she did not feel it needed to be addressed, because the only reason there is blight is because it has been neglected for six years. Ms. Walker stated that taking out the whole point of the project is kind of a statement. Ms. Herbert noted that these items are all covered in DHCD's determination. Jim Treadwell stated that he has had a lot of experience including three sessions taught by the Advisory Council and that felt this MOA is a travesty. He stated that there was never an alternative that was produced by POUA that retained the church. He stated that HSI has asked the ACHP to participate and we still don't have that decision. He asked if the Commission will be concurring with the MOA. Ms. Herbert stated that is the decision the Commission has to make, as does HSI. She wants the document to be kept to the facts and want to get everything in place in terms of preservation of the buildings. She stated that from what she has seen,there is an $8000 a year difference a year between their units rent-roll and DHCD's, not$7 million. Mr. Treadwell asked if the Commission will be responding to the decision. Ms. Herbert replied in the affirmative. Mr. Treadwell noted there is no mention of the tower. November 28, 2011, Page 5 of 10 Ms. Herbert stated that she knows they are not going to save it did not want to put in items that they do not feel will get included and wanted to focus their energy on things that we know are completely reasonable and will hopefully not be kicked out. Mr. Treadwell stated that he felt it was unacceptable to destroy that landmark and feature. He stated that Structures North says it only needs scraping and painting and that POUA stating it is unsalvageable is ludicrous. The PUD is supposed to have a schedule for commencement and that he do not see it. He stated that they are excused from the Entrance Overlay District and did not know why it was in there. Ms. Herbert suggested he put his thoughts in writing and getting it to the Advisory Council. Mr. Treadwell suggested requesting measured drawings. Teasie Riley Goggin stated that she agreed with 2 years in Stipulation XI. She stated that they are going from POUA to Lafayette LLC and asked if they can later change it to another LLC and would the MOA still be in effect. Ms. Guy stated that it probably would require an MOA amendment. Ms. Herbert stated that the lenders probably would not allow a change in ownership. Ms. Bellin suggested adding language about owners or their assigns or successors. Meg Twohey stated that it could be requested in the Commission's cover letter. Ms. Bellin suggested adding a Stipulation XII regarding successors. She stated that it could apply to other parties, such as if HSI incorporated as a different entity, we would not want them to loose their rights either. She will draft the language. Ms. Udy stated that she appreciated a lot of the Commission suggestions and agreed it was important to retain the preservation restriction on the rectory and school. She suggested adding an amount for funding for Stipulation VI rather than saying an appropriate amount of funds, which is very subjective. Ms. Guy stated that appropriate is based on the amount of work and unless the scope of work is drafted, she did not feel a number could be provided. Ms. McCrea was in agreement. Ms. Guy stated that it might be possible to get Salem State University to take on the project and it may not cost anything. Ms. Udy was concerned that it was too vague. Mr. Hart stated essentially it will have to be negotiated between Salem State and POUA. November 28, 2011, Page 6 of 10 Ms. Udy suggested asking for a negotiation, so there is a number assigned as some point. Ms. Bellin stated that they agree to provide funds and then add a sentence that the amount of funds to be determined in negotiation between. Ms. Udy suggested adding "and fund" after"develop" in Stipulation VII. Ms. Herbert stated that for Stipulation VI, to add "agrees to negotiation an appropriate funding level ..." Ms. Udy stated that she felt the study, the plaque and the retention of the rectory and school provide community value as mitigation. Councillor Joan Lovely asked to clarify that the 51 units in the church are affordable and the other 25 are market rate. Ms. Herbert stated that the one stop application states there will be eight Section 8 units out of the 51. It reiterates that they have been approved by the ZBA for 17 units in the school and 8 in the rectory for a total of 25 and it says market rate for those. If they apply for senior funding or some other funding source,that could change. There is no anchor tenant, and she noticed they are showing$40,000 income for the commercial units with 50%vacancy rate for 21 years. She stated that to build those units they are spending 1.3 million dollars of the project budget and are going to get a$20,000 rent-role which is a 1 1/2 percent return. Mr. Hart stated that, as far as he understands,this project is for 51 units and there is no obligation to develop the school or rectory under this application.. Ms. Bellin questioned the wording on Page 2,the 3rd Whereas clause, which says the development would include 51 in the new building, 17 in the renovated school and 8. If we are saying that is what has been approved, it should be worded that way. Ms. Guy suggested to insert"approvals provide for a"before "mixed" and to remove "would" after development. Councillor McCarthy stated that the way that it has always been presented is that if they wanted to make the rectory into office condos, for instance, they could—but if they want to put in housing, they have approval up to a certain amount of units in that building. Ms. Herbert questioned if POUA decides to sell, would they have to go back to ZBA. Mr. McCarthy stated that it is an interesting question, but felt it would effect their parking scheme, which is integrated around the whole site. He added that the design with the anchor tenant was not an appealing design. Ms. Guy stated that she assumed if a proposed non-housing use meets current zoning, they would not have to go back to ZBA. November 28, 2011, Page 7 of 10 Mr. Treadwell asked if there is any knowledge regarding the completion of an environmental assessment as per the 4th Whereas. He stated that he has not seen any legal notice requesting release of funds. Ms. Herbert stated that until the MOA is signed, they cannot request a release of funds. Ms. Twohey stated that the Commission has done a thoughtful job. For Stipulation II, she suggested separating it into 2 paragraphs. She suggested that the preservation restriction be referenced as hereto attached to the MOA. For Stipulation III, she thought the Commission wanted to make clear that it does not want a construction office in the rectory. Ms. Herbert stated that it is to their benefit to protect the building, especially if they are going to sell, because the purchaser might be able to get tax credits. She stated that she was looking for activity so that the building is maintained and the face of Lafayette Street is a completed look. Ms. Twohey suggested that building interiors also be documented. She stated that she liked Ms. Herbert's idea that all recordation take place within 30 days within execution. Ms. Bellin stated that she agreed. Ms. Twohey suggested that the hiring of a 3-party contractor include "in consultation with MHC" in the statue section. She was concerned that it appears the Commission concurs that there are no alternatives to tearing down the church and asked if the Commission will be stating an objection to tearing down the church in its cover letter. Ms. Herbert stated that she would like to get HSI's report and would like to refer to that. Ms. Twohey suggest the Commission consider adding an annotation comment in the last Whereas on Page 2, saying to please see comments in the cover letter. Ms. Guy stated that until a cover letter is drafted, it is unknown what is being referenced. Ms. Bellin stated that in Stipulation I, "agrees to ensure that" should be replaced with "will document" and that"are documented"be removed. Ms. Walker asked if there is a standard Preservation Restriction. Ms. Herbert replied in the affirmative. Mr. Hart asked when the Commission will talk about sending MHC a letter in response to their concurrence of DHCD's determination. Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission's next meeting is 12/7/11. November 28, 2011, Page 8 of 10 Mr. Hart stated that he felt MHC's response letter avoided the question of whether they concur that the church and school can be demolished. Ms. Herbert stated it is implicit. Mr. Hart stated that he felt the Commission should send a letter objecting to the apparent concurrence to demolish the church and convent. He added that they did not wait to hear from the consulting parities. He also felt language should be added that the proponent did not make a good faith effort to explore alternatives to demolition. He noted that they incorrectly indicated that the evaluation of HSI's plan and their plan showed a$7 million dollar gap. Ms. Herbert stated that they showed a$7 million operating deficit and that it has been since learned it is a$8000 deficit. Mr. Hart stated that POUA's July 22, 2011 Draft Supplemental Case Report stated that there were 51 units of new construction along with 25 units in the school and rectory. He questioned what happened to the 25 unit plan. Ms. Bellin stated that that is the plan they have approval for. Mr. Hart stated that they could renovate the school and rectory and partially renovate the church to get the unit count of 51, which would allow a less intensive renovation of the church. He felt it would have a better social benefit of spreading the occupants around the site and not concentrating them in one building, whereby they might be able to revitalize the neighborhood faster. Ms. Herbert stated that MHC has made its decision. She suggested that if Mr. Hart wants to draft something for next meeting,the Commission can vote on it. She preferred to keep the comments on MHC's response letter separate from the comments on the MOA. Mr. Hart suggested noting in the MOA cover letter that the Commission will be sending a letter commenting on the MHC response letter. Councillor Lovely asked where the $130 per s.f. comes up. She stated that she was horrified with that number. Ms. Herbert stated that she was glad that Councillor Lovely asked the question and wanted Councillor McCarthy to hear it. She stated that in the One-stop application of September, 2010, it was proposed that the unit cost is $1.55 sf. She stated that it was never$1.30. She added that HSI's cost is $1.60 s£, but the proponent was calling it $2.10-$2.20. She questioned if the alternative had been explored and felt it absolutely had not. Ms. Herbert stated that she felt the Section 106 should have started in March, 2011. She did not feel the details of the alternative plan have not really been gone through. She stated that she felt HSI has done an unbelievable catch-up job. Mr. Hart stated that MassHousing's letter of November 8, 2011 says alternatives were explored, but there was no detail about what those alternatives were. November 28, 2011, Page 9 of 10 Ed Neilson stated that HSI's was $1.55, the same dollar amount. He stated that at the public hearing, it was portrayed that rehab was $2.20 and new as $1.30. Ms. Herbert agreed they were both complete fabrications and it was very disturbing. She stated it has been a learning experience. Mr. Treadwell stated that there is a meeting on Wednesday regarding Salem Oil & Grease. Mr. Spang joined the meeting. 31 Flint Street Ms. Bellin recused herself, left the table and joined the audience. Jonathan and Suzanne Felt submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the front entry entablature and to add a frieze on the front to match the sides. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Ms. Herbert asked how long they have owned the property. Mr. Felt replied that it has been twelve years. Ms. Felt stated that they propose to extend the frieze from around sides across the front. The front entry lintel is to match the design of 123 Federal Street. They will reconstruct the original side columns. Mr. Hart asked if there was any evidence that there was a frieze. Mr. Felt replied in the negative, but noted that there is evidence of friezes in similar homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Hart stated that there is precedent in terms of design with home designs by the same architect. The Secretary of the Interiors Standards say it is okay if reversible. Mr. Spang stated that if it were him,he wouldn't do it, as it creates a Greek Revival pediment, which is a pretty decorative space. He stated it would normally be a single window or decorative element. He stated that two utilitarian windows above don't look like they belong with a frieze. He noted that it is reversible and that there is plenty of precedent. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to alter the front entry lintel to closely replicate the lintel design of 123 Federal Street and to reconstruct the original side columns. Mc. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. November 28, 2011, Page 10 of 10 VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to give the option to install a frieze across the front to complete the pediment, with profile to match the sides. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Spang suggested painting approximately five clapboards across the front to see if they like the look. Ms. Bellin re joined the Commission at the table. Other Business Ms. Guy stated that she emailed Commission members a copy of the Draft survey form and Draft National Register nomination for the North Street Fire Station. She asked if the Commission had any comments. She asked for a vote to submit the nomination once it is finalized. Ms. Bellin made a motion to submit the nomination once finalized. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Guy stated that she received letters from The Ottery Group as invitation to participate as a consulting party to the Section 106 review for proposed modifications to the existing AT&T telecommunications facilities at 320 Lafayette Street and at 39 Norman Street. She stated that she has emailed them requesting specifications, drawings and photographs illustrating what the proposed installations will look like. VOTE: 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 itt , Jane A. Guy Clerk of the ommission December 7, 2011, Page 1 of 17 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2011 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, December 7, 2011 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Harper, Ms. McCrea, Ms. Keenan and Mr. Hart. Ms. Guy stated that there will be no second meeting in December, unless the Commission continues any items. 388-390 Essex Street Ms. Bellin recused herself, left the table and joined the audience. In continuation of a prior meeting, Ellen Golub and Steve Sass submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to reconstruct the side entry porch using Fiberon Veranda Grooved Composite decking and Veranda composite rails. Most of the work has been completed. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Mr. Sass stated that he found balusters on Craigslist and wanted to see if they would be acceptable. He stated that they may be only 30"high and that he would need to check if meets code. He questioned, if they are not high enough, whether he could add something to it. Ms. Herbert stated that it would require approval for a design change. She suggested making sure that what he buys is high enough. Ms. McCreas asked if they are wood. Mr. Sass replied in the affirmative. Ms. Herbert stated that she would want a simple finish, with no extra pieces malting it higher. She believed that the top rail, bottom rail, balusters and space underneath needs to add up to 36". Mr. Sass asked if he could replace the balusters with longer balusters. Ms. Herbert stated that she would prefer a turned baluster or a simple 2 x 2 baluster. Mr. Hart stated that there cannot be any opening more than 4". r December 7, 2011, Page 2 of 17 Mr. Hart made a motion to approve rebuilding of the side porch with wooden risers, wooden railing balustrade assembly, with option of Victorian turned baluster or 2 x 2 baluster and composite decking. Ms. Herbert asked about the posts. Mr. Sass stated that he wanted to use the posts from the assembly on Craigslist and possibly keep the long post to connect to the roof. Mr. Hart withdrew his motion, stating that he would want a drawing. Ms. Herbert stated that she felt the Commission could approve what is there but in the same design in wood, strip the PVC and wrap the posts in pine, with wood risers. She stated the only question is the synthetic decking board. Dorothy Hayes, 329 Essex Street, stated that she objected to composite. She stated that, according to the guidelines it is supposed to approximate what was there and noted that it is visible from the street. Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission has approved synthetic decking when in the back or further from the street. She suggested an approval to replicate what was there in all wood. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to replace the side entry porch in kind, in all wood. Ms. Keenans seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve an option for composite decking. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion. Mr. Hart and Ms. Keenan voted in favor. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Harper and Ms. McCrea voted in opposition. The motion did not carry. Mr. Hart stated that he felt there were too many variables to consider turned balusters. He stated that if the applicant prefers them, they should apply and submit a drawing. Mr. Sass asked, if he did not bringing the post to the roof overhang, could he use the assembly from Craigslist. Ms. McCrea and Ms. Harper agreed it would be okay if they were the appropriate height. Ms. Harper noted that the posts would need to be cut down and capped. Ms. Herbert stated that she was not sure if the proposed is tall enough and could be used. Mr. Sass stated that he needs to put in iron railings on the other side and also found one on Craigslist. Ms. Guy stated that he would need to apply so that the public is notified, but that the Commission could indicate now if they would even consider the Craigslist railing. December 7, 2011, Page 3 of 17 Ms. Herbert asked if it has been measured to see if will fit. Mr. Sass stated that he has an iron worker that says he will make it fit. Ms. Harper stated that it is difficult to tell from photo what it looks like and if it is or isn't contemporary. Ms. Herbert asked if it will have twisted or straight balusters. Mr. Sass stated that he did not know. Ms. Herbert stated that, if Mr. Sass buys the railing,he might have to do so much refabrication that it may not be worth it. She stated that if the pitch and everything works, it would be great a solution. She suggested he get the dimensions and have his guy see if it will work. Ms. Guy suggested getting a better photo. Ms. Herbert suggested asking the Building Inspector if all those balusters are needed. Mr. Hart stated that the building code says 4"maximum of any opening. Ms. Bellin re joined the Commission at the table. 30 Broad Street In continuation of a prior meeting, William M. Ross and Abigail B. Ross submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove storm windows and single glazed wood windows on front and side of house and replace with new double glazed wood windows in either: 1. Pella Architect Series Wood Double Hung Window 2. LePage SDL, wood exterior 3. J. B. Sash Proper Bostonian(wood exterior) 4. Marvin Ultimate Double Hung wood windows 5. Jeldwen Premium Siteline EX windows in wood Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Pella window on line specification ■ Marvin window on line specification The applicants were not present and Ms. Guy noted that the Commission cannot continue without a waiver of the 60 day requirement. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to deny the window replacement without prejudice. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. December 7, 2011, Page 4 of 17 1 Brown Street The Peabody Essex Museum submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to carry out work to stabilize the property, including completed work and planned near term work to be undertaken over the coming winter and next construction season. Following completion, a curatorial study will be undertaken which will result in a plan for full restoration of the building. Concurrent with the study will be identified long term work to be completed over the next 18-24 months, including new roof, restoration and reinstallation of original window sash, doors, frames and other exterior features. Present was Robert Monk. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Stabilization Report dated 11/2/11 with completed work, future near term work and future long term work FRONT FACADE STABILIZATION Completed Work- Remove asbestos siding at second floor, exposing original c. 1806 clapboards in sound condition. - Remove rotted gutter &modern fascia, exposing c. 1806 facia board in poor condition; remove deteriorated c. 1806 fascia board& store; install new replacement to provide tight closure under roof. - Remove 1806 sash for conservation& install temporary Brosco replacements at windows #10, 11, & 12. - Retain original c. 1806 clapboards and window frames in place at second floor and paint . Future Near Term Work- Retain and paint c.1900/1960 storefront as is with replacement of missing boards at lower left panel. - Retain current front roof shingles as is (there are no leaks at the front pitch). Future long Term Work- Conserve original 2nd floor sash and install in existing frames to replace Brosco sash. - Remove concrete foundation cap below storefront and install new wood sill once decision is made on treatment of storefront section. WEST FACADE STABILIZATION Completed Work- Remove asbestos siding, exposing original c. 1806 clapboards. - Record construction details of window frames to facilitate making reproduction frames where needed. - Remove 1806 sash for conservation&install temporary Brosco replacements at all windows. - At rear corner of ell, replace 4' of rotted sill and loose brick masonry with new oak sill on new cast concrete base faced with brick. - Paint clapboards &trim at main block. Future Near Term Work- Remove 4 rotted original window frames at ell facade (#s 6, 7, 15, 16), install plywood as temporary closure, and fabricate & install new reproduction plank frames,reusing any sound components of the existing frames. - Intstall new clapboards matching c. 1806 clapboards at rear ell where existing are missing or damaged. - Paint clapboards &trim at rear ell west facade following repairs. - Continue replacement of sill and loose masonry at west ell facade, and possibly main block depending on further investigation of its condition. Future Long Term Work- Conserve original sash, fabricate reproduction sash where originals are missing, and install to replace Brosco sash. December 7,2011, Page 5 of 17 REAR FACADE STABILIZATION Completed Work• Remove asbestos siding and c. 1900 clapboards & shingles under asbestos. • Record evidence of original clapboards and window&rear addition that replaced the clapboards. • Repair rotted section of first floor girt at base of 2nd floor door. • Replace rotted sill and loose brick masonry with new oak sill on new cast concrete base faced with brick. • Sheath in base of 2nd floor door in preparation for restoration of original window in the opening, and install temporary closure to window opening • Sheath in modern 1 st floor door opening at left side &restore corner brace. • Replace areas of rotted sheathing and studs @ first floor& straighten bulge @ center of wall. • Install temporary secure door in original center door opening. Remove & store trim from original door. • Install tyvek over the entire ell rear facade as short term protection. • At rear of main block, remove & store sash for conservation and install temporary Brosco sash. Future Near Term Work• Fabricate & install reproduction plank frame to restore 2nd floor window opening. • Intstall new clapboards matching the c. 1806 lapped and skived clapboards on the west side facade, & paint. • At rear of main block paint clapboards and trim. Future Long Term Work Fabricate and install reproduction sash in 2nd floor window. EAST FACADE STABILIZATION Completed Work• Remove asbestos siding and c. 1900 clapboards & shingles under asbestos. • Leave original sound c. 1806 clapboards in place at upper rear corner. • Repair rotted section of end girt above window#9. - Windows • Remove severely rotted frames @ windows #8, 9, 17, &20 and install temporary plywood closure. • At#1 install temporary plywood closure; leave original sliding shutter in place. • Remove#18 entirely(c. 1950 addition); frame & install permanent sheath over opening. • Remove sash at# 8, 9, & 17 and store for conservation treatment(sash missing @ #1 &20). • Remove 20th century sheathing at lower portion of first floor to expose concrete sill and framing. • Dig out concrete & fill between house and the Safford carriage house to facilitate drainage. • Install temporary protection over entire facade except area of 1806 clapboards; tarp on lower section set up to be lifted to carry out sill replacement, and tyvek on upper sections. Future Near Term Work- Remove concrete `sill' down to sound foundation masonry; install cast concrete base for new wood sill over remaining foundation masonry; install new wood sill and repair framing to sit securely on new sill -work to extend up to front corner. • Fabricate & install reproduction plank frames for windows #1, 8, 9, 17, & 20. • Install and paint modern red cedar clapboards. INTERIOR STABILIZATION Completed Work • Install temporary egress stair within original stair opening in front room to enable removal of red"Y' from the building. • Remove modern stud framing and matched boarding at ceiling in 1 st floor of ell. Future Near Term Work• Install framing below 1 st floor ceiling to support 2nd floor wall between original stair hall and chamber. ROOF STABILIZATION Completed Work• Short term repairs at rear pitch to stop leaks at roof penetra-tions (skylight vent pipes). Future Near Term Work• Retain current front roof shingles and rear roll roofing as is (they are currently tight despite worn condition); monitor for any new leaks and repair as needed. Future long Term Work• Repair roof framing with replacement of unsound rafters,purlins and sheathing; install new roofing. December 7, 2011, Page 6 of 17 Mr. Monk stated that the goal is to immediately stabilize the building. The sill on all four sides was completely deteriorated. They jacked up the house and repaired the masonry foundation, poured a concrete cap and replaced the sill on the south side and repaired the foundation on east side. They have categorized two stages of work that they would like to proceed with and will apply for some long term work once they have finalized the long term plan. The intent is to use the building in some manner. He stated that from now through summer, they want to continue the sill work,then proceed with the rest of the work. They are replacing the plank framed windows, so they will have plywood in the windows temporarily. They removed most of the sashes and replaced them temporarily with Brosco inserts. They believe they have enough information to do a circa 1806 restoration. They are asking for approval of the sill work done and for the future near term work. For the interim they will retain what is there and repaint. In the future, they will likely come back for the c1806 restoration. Emily Udy, representing Historic Salem, Inc., asked the time frame. Ms. Herbert stated that the short term work will be done from now through next summer. Mr. Monk stated that the long term would be some time after that. He stated that there is evidence that there was a standing seem metal roof in the 1900s, but they will probably have a cedar roof. They are not ready to do that roof now. Ms. Udy stated that she thanked the museum for undertaking this project and honoring this important building on their campus with the attention it deserves. Mr. Monk stated that the museum raised the funds to do the study of the Essex block, which will be undertaken over the next 18 months. He stated that it was hard to say what will come from that. Ms. Herbert asked if the building was moved there. Mr. Monk replied in the negative, stated that it was definitely there. Mr. Hart asked what treatment of storefront sections means. Mr. Monk stated that that it will remain as is, or they will return it to an earlier storefront or return it to when there was no storefront. Ms. Herbert asked if the foundation is fieldstone. Mr. Monk stated that it is brick. Ms. Herbert asked if the chimney will be replicated as it was. Mr. Monk stated that it was a much later addition and the installation of that chimney resulted in most of the structural problems that house has. He stated that it will have a chimney. He stated that the original base and arch is in place. December 7, 2011, Page 7 of 17 Mr. Hart stated that he assumed they will do research to determine if the shutters were there. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the work completed and the near term work. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 11 Cambridge Street Steven& Julie Colby submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a shed dormer on the SW side to achieve greater headroom in the bathroom. All exterior materials to match existing. New window will be the awning type. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Sketch Ms. Herbert read a letter from Helen F. Sides, Architect. Ms. Colby stated that she was not sure if they will have windows the entire length or just one in the center. She stated that she preferred a center window. They will move an interior wall to gain 8" of space. She stated that until it is opened up, they don't know how much window can fit within the height. Ms. Bellin asked if the slope of the dormer roof will change. Ms. Colby replied in the negative, stating that it will be just the window. Ms. Bellin stated that she was concerned that the sketch is an indication of what it might look like, but not necessarily what it will look like. She stated that she was not sure if the pitch will be different from what was drawn. Ms. Colby stated that Ms. Sides has stated that, in order to achieve interior, that is the pitch as drawn. They are not sure exactly what height window will fit in the resultant space. Ms. Herbert asked if Ms. Colby has any of the dimensions. Ms. Colby replied in the negative. Ms. Harper asked if one or both skylights go away. Ms. Colby stated that the one in the bathroom will go, but the other will remain. Ms. Bellin stated that the question is if it will be a single centered window or long window. December 7, 2011, Page 8 of 17 Ms. Colby replied that she and her husband are discussing. She stated that she personally wants the single centered window. Ms. Herbert stated that she assumed the dormer will feed into the ridge of the roof and that it will not be raised above ridge line. She stated that she is assuming Ms. Sides is having them intersect. Ms. Colby stated that it will not be higher. Michael Blier, 8 Broad Street, asked if it is two dormers or just one. Ms. Colby replied it is just one. Mr. Blier stated that it is good that Helen Sides is involved in the project. He asked if the outstanding violation will be resolved. Ms. Colby stated that the painting of the deck is outstanding and they are willing to do it. Mr. Hart stated that he did not feel the rendering matched the section. Ms. Colby stated that it will be an 8' ceiling. MOTION: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the width to be 8'0" from the eave and the height of dormer to be 3'0" from roof to the top of the eave as depicted on SK2. The ridge of new dormer is to coincide with the ridge of the existing. Ms. Colby stated that they cannot live in the house while the work is being done, that they are paying for a rental and are concerned about the timing on the window determination. Ms. Herbert stated that it makes sense to have one centered window. She questioned why they might want more. Ms. Colby stated that it would be for additional natural light. Ms. Herbert stated that they could consider a skylight. She asked if the new window(s) will be one over one, or a single pane. Ms. Colby stated that they will be the awning type, but that they can't make the final determination until they frame the dormer. Ms. Herbert asked if they could reuse the skylight there. Ms. Colby stated that it is in great condition. VOTE: Mr. Hart amended his motion to reuse the existing skylight on roof. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. December 7, 2011, Page 9 of 17 Ms. Bellin asked if they should delegate the window issue or continue. Ms. Colby stated that they are starting construction this week. Mr. Hart stated that he preferred not to delegate, because he has no idea what it will look like. Ms. Harper made a motion to delegate the window decision. There was no second. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the window portion of the dormer to the meeting of December 21, 2011. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 60-62 Washington Sq., South Lewis Legon, Hodges Court Real Estate, submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to change the rear chimney by removing the bluestone cap with brick support and replacing it with a chimney cap that will look like the two chimney caps on the upper roof. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Ms. Herbert asked if it will have a copper surround. Mr. Legon replied in the affirmative, but noted that the top of the cap will be solid because the chimney will not be venting gas. He stated that he ran into issues with some leaking and couldn't figure out what was going on since the roof and faux chimney was new. He had a structural engineer come in, who said that the weight of the blue stone top -with the configuration with a faux chimney versus a regular chimney-had signs of slight cracking. The engineer felt it could be dangerous with certain wind conditions and suggested mimicking what is on the upper roof because the cap would be lighter, which would keep the structure of the faux chimney in tact. He stated that it was also recommended to have a masonry application around the brick to create a water seal that is not visible, which he has done. An email from Andrew Finestone was read. Ms. Herbert asked if there are vents pipes in the chimney. Mr. Legon stated that there is one plumbing pipe, not a furnace pipe, which is below the chimney top. December 7, 2011, Page 10 of 17 Ms. Herbert stated that what was constructed had brick extensions and a bluestone cap, of which the extensions have now been taken down. She asked if he will build it back up. Mr. Legon stated that he is proposing to match the chimneys on the main roof, so that all three are identical. Ms. Herbert stated that the supports for the bluestone cap added approximately 1' to the height. She asked if he is proposing to cap it at the current height and not increase the height back up. Mr. Legon replied in the affirmative and stated that the copper cap will sit on top of it. He noted that the cap on the main roof is 16"tall. He noted that the rear chimney is a smaller chimney in diameter, so the cap can be left at 16" or dropped down to 14". Ms. Herbert stated that even at the level of the reconstructed chimney with the bluestone, she felt the chimney was shorter than the original. She stated that the rear chimney was overly tall compared to the other chimneys on the house and when it was reconstructed, it was reconstructed shorter. Mr. Legon stated that it wasn't by much. Ms. Herbert stated that the extensions were added and the bluestone cap. She stated that now the top and extensions are gone, so it is even shorter. Ms. Harper asked if the engineer suggested rebuilding the chimney to be able to support the bluestone cap. Mr. Legon replied in the negative. Ms. Bellin suggest that the Commission specify that we want the chimney built up to a specific height. Ms. Herbert stated that we don't know the height of the original chimney. She stated that the rear chimney was a tall, skinny chimney. Ms. Harper asked how it was framed. Mr. Legon stated that it is framed with plywood. Ms. Harper asked what is holding the plywood. Mr. Legon stated that it is wrapped with ice and water shield. Ms. Harper asked what is inside the plywood, if it is just a plywood box. Mr. Legon replied in the affirmative, stating it is braced to LVL's underneath with %2 brick. December 7, 2011, Page 11 of 17 Ms. Harper wondered if it were taken down and reframed with 2x's, if it would carry the weight of the cap. Ms. Herbert felt it must be framed and asked what the plywood is nailed to and if it is studded out. Mr. Legon stated that it is studded out. Ms. Herbert stated that a faux chimney doesn't really need chimney cap. She stated that she was thinking that the height of chimney should be raised as it was, with no cap, so as to replicate what was there. Mr. Legon stated that he believed what was originally there was a bluestone cap. He stated that he preferred a cap for water protection and to mimic the other two chimneys, so that they look uniform and symmetrical. Ms. Herbert asked how big was the Bluestone cap. Mr. Legon stated that it was a couple hundred pounds, and maybe 28 x 24 thereabout. Ms. Herbert asked, because it is only one veneer of brick over plywood, what the engineer is saying. Mr. Legon stated that with the weight of the stone, he was worried about cracking and that he was also concerned with hurricane force winds. Ms. Herbert stated that it is basically studs wrapped with plywood sheathing and then thin brick veneer. She stated that there really isn't a lot of weight there. She stated that what could have been done to stabilize it would have been metal bracing inside. Ms. Harper stated that she would like to hear from the engineer to see how it could be made to carry the weight of the cap. She asked if the engineer was only concerned about wind for that chimney but not the other two. Mr. Legon replied in the affirmative, noting that the other two do not have bluestone caps. Ms. Herbert noted that they are wider, as well. Ms. Bellin stated that it seems like the issue is how high the chimney should be. She suggested trying to extrapolate from the photographs. Ms. Herbert stated that the cap does not have to be bluestone. She stated that the chimney could be rebuilt like it was with the extensions, but could have a light metal cap, rather than a mesh or bluestone cap. She suggested building the brick back up and adding a light metal top. Mr. Legon stated that he could do that. December 7, 2011, Page 12 of 17 ram. Ms. Herbert stated that the question left is height. She stated that it turned out to be maybe a foot shorter. Mr. Legon stated that he did not think it was that much shorter, but did not remember. He stated that it was very large and very tall and unnecessary. He stated that everyone questioned why it was so tall. Ms. Herbert stated that we are dealing with historic features, so the question of why is irrelevant. Mr. Legon stated it was not an original chimney, but was an add-on. Andrew Finestone, 70 Essex Street, stated that he attached some photos to the email he sent. Ms. McCrea asked when the photo was taken. Mr. Finestone stated that it was taken in 1913. The rear chimney is on the lower roof. He stated that he felt the reason why the chimney was oversize, was because it had to clear the upper roof. He stated that the idea was to replicate what was there. He stated that the existing does not look like a working chimney because it does not clear the upper roof. There was no wind load issue before, because it was a working chimney. He stated that he agreed that the chimney needs to be braced and done properly. He stated that he felt if there is a wind load issue, it is a result of going the cheap way. He stated that there are not enough chimneys left in the area. Mr. Hart asked if it was correct that the Commission approved a specific chimney for that location. Ms. Herbert replied in the affirmative. It was specified to be the same design and height as the original with brick extensions and blue stone cap as was there. Ms. Harper stated that she thinks it was built at least a foot shorter. Mr. Legon stated that he had those discussions with the Commission in the past and he weren't sure how much off it was, but he did not think it was a foot difference. Ms. Herbert stated that from the photographs, the rebuilt chimney did not clear the 3rd floor. It is shorter. She did not think a height was specified, only that it be rebuilt to the height of the original. Ms. Guy read the Certificate issued. Ms. Harper asked if the chimneys were documented with photographs. December 7, 2011, Page 13 of 17 Mr. Legon stated that he thought they were. He stated that it has been a while and he did not know what happened. He stated that the chimney was approved with the blucstone cap and it does not work. Ms. Bellin stated that before the work was done, Mr. Legon was supposed to have submitted photographic documentation of the original chimney. Mr. Hart stated that he might have some photos. Ms. Herbert stated that we may have some photos, but with the angles, we may have to extrapolate. Mr. Hart questioned if it was up to the Commission's to extrapolate and suggested the proponent extrapolate. Ms. Bellin stated that she would like the proponent to go back and see if the evidence exists. Mr. Legon stated that he remembered that the mason taking pictures with his cell phone and he remembered that the cell phone got destroyed by his dog. He was not sure if those pictures were on the cell phone, but he could check. Mr. Finestone stated that it was a tall oversized chimney. He stated that he looked at the chimney for 25 years and it did clear the roof. He stated it was a working chimney at one time and that he thought it was going to be replicated. Mr. Legon suggested that he build it up a foot, if the Commission wants. He also asked about Ms. Herbert's idea of building up the four corners. Ms. Keenan thought that was the easiest way. Ms. Herbert stated that, in order to get the height that it was, she feels there is a need to build up the chimney another foot,then do the extensions topped with a light weight metal cap. Mr. Legon suggested rebuilding the cap with copper to be in sync with the upper chimneys. MOTION: Ms. Harper made a motion to add on to height of chimney by 1 foot and build up the brick corner extensions. Mr. Hart stated that he was getting increasing frustrated that the Commission is designing people's projects. He stated that he felt the proponent should bring in a design and we should approve it or not. He stated that he did not think it was the Commission's roll to design other people's property. He stated that he understands there is an approval to rebuild a specific chimney and that the owner can go back and see if he did take photographs of the existing. Based on that he can also bring forward a different design that he would like to build that will meet our approval. December 7, 2011, Page 14 of 17 Ms. Herbert stated that he asking for a different design now. Mr. Hart stated that he does not see it and there is a question of the height. Mr. Legon stated that the only issue is height and the design is the same as the upper two chimneys. Ms. Herbert stated that the owner is asking to take off the extensions and blue stone and cap it at that point with a copper cap to match the front chimneys. Ms. Guy stated that what Ms. Herbert and Ms. Harper are proposing is to build up the existing chimney by a foot, add the corner extensions (height still to be determined) and put on a metal cap. Ms. Harper stated that the Commission does not seem to have dimensions, but it would get it closer to what the original chimney was. Ms. Bellin stated this would not be redesigning, but would be clarifying what the original approval was but with one alteration of using a light metal piece instead of natural bluestone. She stated that we want the original design to be implemented, but are clarifying that we think what was attempted was a foot too short and we are also trying to facilitate replacing the actual bluestone with a piece of metal. Mr. Legon replied that this is correct. He suggested that the extensions be two courses of brick. Ms. Harper suggested 1' of extensions. Mr. Legon stated that it would be taller then. Ms. Herbert stated that it would end up being the height it is now with 2' of height, including an extra foot of brick chimney and an extra foot of the extensions and that would match what was there before. Instead of a blue stone cap, because it is a faux chimney, a light weight metal cap. Mr. Legon felt that by building it up the 2', it will be beyond what was there originally. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin and Ms. Harper were not in agreement. Ms. Herbert stated that the photographs on file show that the original extensions were higher than what was built. Mr. Legon stated that they looked the same to him. Ms. Bellin stated that the alternative is to find the photos and show us what we are trying to extrapolate. December 7, 2011, Page 15 of 17 VOTE: Ms. Harper amended her motion that there be 1' of brick extensions, with lightweight metal, flat cap. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Legon stated that he would try to dig up photos. Ms. Guy asked Mr. Hart to take a photograph tomorrow of the chimney as it is currently. 122 Federal Street Margaret Twohey and Darrow Lebovici submitted an application for a Certificate of Non-applicability to alter the fence at the rear of the property on Lynn Street, annually, to allow for temporary removal of a section of fence during the Winter months (November 15 to March 30)to permit access to a new one car driveway. Fence section to be altered is 14-16 feet. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Ms. Twohey stated that last winter,they were snowblowing from the street onto the property and are now loosing trees. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve temporary removal of 14-16' fence section on Lynn Street side annually from no earlier than November 15th to no later than March 30'h to accommodate Winter parking. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Other Business Minutes VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of November 2, 2011. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Correspondence Ms. Guy stated that she received a copy of a Project Notification Form for Collins Cove Beach Debris Removal, to which Massachusetts Historical Commission has determined will unlikely affect significant historic or archaeological resources. St. Josephs Complex Redevelopment Ms. Guy stated that she emailed a copy of correspondence from Ruth Silman of Nixon Peabody Attorneys at Law to Paul Silverstone. December 7, 2011, Page 16 of 17 A letter from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to Secretary Shaun Donovan of HUD dated 12/7/11 was read into the record indicating that the ACHP has decided to enter the consultation process. Ms. Harper asked, regarding a Preservation Restriction, who it is given by. Ms. Guy stated that it is typically between MHC and the owner and that it typically runs with the land and could be for 5 years, 10 years or in perpetuity, etc. She stated that she did not know if there was a way of entering into one that could be rescinded if all parties agree. Ms. Harper stated that Hamilton Hall's Preservation Restriction provides for an opportunity to consult with MHC for changes. She did not think having one is as dire as it has been made out to be -that they will never be able to sell the building.. Ms. Guy stated that City Hall has one in perpetuity and we notify MHC when we are going to do something that is not ordinary maintenance. Ms. Bellin stated that if it is an agreement that is subject to amendment, then all the parties are notified and agree to a certain change. Ms. Guy stated that it doesn't have to be the template Preservation Agreement, but something that they could be willing to enter into. Ms. Herbert stated that without a Preservation Restriction, they could demolish both buildings and all we have is a six month delay. Ms. Harper agreed that a Preservation Agreement is needed. Ms. Herbert stated that she thought they may go along with one that is not as restrictive as the standard. She stated that the value is in building not land, so it is to their advantage to retain these historic buildings. Mr. Hart stated that the Preservation Restriction is administered by the SHPO and you have to alert them to contemplated changes. Ms. Bellin stated that the Commission should write a letter to the SCHP that we want to be a part of what happens next and we want to be an active part of consulting process, because we did not get this letter directly. VOTE: There being no further business, Ms. Bellin made a motion to adjourn. Ms. McCrea seconded the n otion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Respectfully m' , Jane A. Gu Clerk of th ommission w December 7, 2011, Page 17 of 17 December 21, 2011, Page 1 of 8 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES DECEMBER 21, 2011 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, December 21, 2011 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Harper, Ms. McCrea, Ms. Keenan and Mr. Hart. 11 Cambridge Street In continuation of a prior meeting, Steven &Julie Colby submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a shed dormer on the SW side to achieve greater headroom in the bathroom, for which all but the window(s) to be installed in the dormer have been approve. All exterior materials to match existing. New window will be the awning type. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Sketch—revised ■ Jeldwyn catalog The applicants provided work in progress photos of the dormer construction, a revised sketch from Helen Sides and a specification for the proposed window. Ms. Colby stated that the decided to have one centered window. Mr. Colby stated that they decided to reuse the skylight. He asked if it was an issue on whether to use an awning or casement window. Mr. Hart noted that Ms. Sides drew the window as a 4 light, but that it states 6 light. Ms. Colby stated that they are proposing 3 over 3. Mr. Colby stated that they are leaning toward the awning version. It is a Jeldwyn brand, SDL. He noted that the specification indicates low-e. Ms. Guy stated that it must be clear glass. Mr. Hart asked the size of the muntins. Mr. Colby stated that they will be 7/8" with a putty line and a bronze spacer. Ms. Colby stated that the rough opening is 24 3/4"by 17 3/4 but may be a little smaller. It will be white to match trim. Mr. Colby stated that it will be roughly a 16 x 12 window. December 21, 2011, Page 2 of 8 Ms. Guy stated that specification says low-E glass. Mr. Hart stated that he was not sure that clear glass is the same as low-e. Mr. Colby stated that they are willing to put in whatever hurdle they have to jump with the builders to have clear glass. Ms. Guy stated that the Commission can approve something that would go against code and suggested specifying that it must meet energy efficiency required by code, but conditional it be clear glass. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the dormer window to be one Jeldwen center awning window, 3 over 3, simulated divided light, 7/8"muntins with putty line, bronze spacers, to fit in rough opening no larger than 24 3/4"x 17 %",painted white to match trim. Must meet energy efficiency required by code, conditional that it is clear glass. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Guy stated that the previous owner had an outstanding violation for painting. Mr. Colby stated that they would be happy to do the painting as required and requested they be given until Spring. Ms. Colby noted that the screen is gone. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to give the owners until July 1, 2012 to complete the painting in violation. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. St. Joseph's Complex Redevelopment—Status Update/MOA Discussion under Section 106 Review Ms. Herbert reported that a meeting of the concurring parties was held in Boston on Monday,that it lasted about 2 hours and was attended by all interested parities, including herself and Mr. Hart, 3 representatives from Historic Salem, Inc. (HSI), and representatives from DHCD including Catherine Racer, the North Shore HOME Consortium, several attorneys and others. They held a telephone conference call with Jaime Loichinger from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). Ms. Loichinger stated that it will take a couple of weeks for her to review everything. Ms. Loichinger received approximately 300 pages from all sources. They expect to have a ruling or communication within 3 weeks. She was asked if she would consider a site visit, but she noted that the ACHP has no travel funds. It was suggested that HSI and/or POUA fund her visit. The next meeting date for the group is January 181n Darrow Lebovici, representing HSI, asked if HSI should send a letter offering to provide matching funds for the ACHP visit and suggested that HSI send a letter formalizing its offer. December 21, 2011, Page 3 of 8 Ms. Herbert suggested that they make an offer to pay for the whole thing or share the cost with POUA. Ms. Bellin asked if the ACHP's role is to just make a recommendation. Vicky Siriani, also representing HSI, replied in the affirmative. Ms. Herbert stated that HUD makes the final decision. Ms. Guy stated that through DHCD, HUD is the funding source. She stated that the Section 106 Review Process is part of the Environmental Review Process. HUD has to make sure the Environmental Review Process is completed before they release any funding. She noted that, ultimately, the project will proceed and that the ACHP cannot stop the project. The ACHP can only make sure that all the Section 106 steps have been followed, try to assist with mitigation and try to get everyone to agree on an MOA. Ultimately, if all parties are not in agreement on the MOA, the project will still go through. The ACHP cannot stop demolition. Mr. Hart stated that his understanding is that Mr. Silverstone is still running the Section 106 process. He stated that MHC has a strong role and they could reverse their decision and say that alternatives have not been adequately examined. He stated that whether the church gets demolished or not, is another question. He stated that if Ms. Loichinger determined that alternatives have not been properly reviewed, she will convey that to Mr. Silverstone and MHC. He did not know how MHC would deal with that. Mr. Lebovici stated that a letter from the ACHP went to the cabinet secretary of HUD, and that it was Mr. Lebovici's suspicion that in the end HUD gets to tell Mr. Silverstone how he ought to perform his job. He stated that he believed there is a role for HUD and HUD management, as well as for DHCD and MassHousing. Ms. Herbert stated that Ms. Loichinger is very open to discussing things and can be contacted. Mr. Hart stated that if HSI does host Ms. Loichinger at a site visit, there will be an obligation to invite all parties to it. Ms. Herbert stated that she reviewed the Commission's comments from the first draft and compared them to the second draft. She stated that she wants to strike the portion of the sentence in the whereas section"in order for the project to be financially feasible". Ms. Bellin stated that by the time it is ready to be signed, it may be mute. Ms. Herbert stated that in Stipulation Il,they kept"use best efforts to" and she will try again to have it replaced with"will". She stated that they struck a couple places where she had proposed they would work together with the Commission on the two buildings and that she will try to put it back in. She stated that, for storefront treatment, they changed the reference from the Entrance Corridor Overlay District, to.the PUD. December 21, 2011, Page 4 of 8 Ms. Guy stated that Lynn may have had them change it. Ms. Herbert stated that they removed the Commission's reference to the Salem Sign Ordinance. Ms. Guy stated that she did not know if the PUD approval includes signage and will check it. Ms. Herbert stated that with regard to the plaque, they took out"in consultation with Historic Salem, Inc." Ms. Guy suggested that them might be willing to consult with the city. Ms. Herbert stated that the city could then assign it. Ms. Guy stated that it could say the "city or its designee". Ms. Harper noted that HSI did a tour for which a lot of research was done on that community. Mr. Hart suggested asking for an increase from$3000 to $5000 for POUA's contribution to the report on the history of St. Joseph's. Ms. Herbert stated that for dispute resolution,the Commission had added"or Concurring Party", but they struck it. In Stipulation XI, she had changed it from 5 to 2 years, but they kept it at 5. She stated that they took out the Stipulation XII, that the Commission added about Ownership. Ms. Bellin stated that inclusion would be helpful, but may not be necessary, as it may be covered in any sales or transfer agreements. Ms. Siriani asked if the Commission has voted on whether or not it will sign the MOA that says that the church is going to be destroyed. Ms. Herbert stated that they have not yet voted and that she would want to see the final document. Ms. Siriani asked if the Commission, as a city agency, had any angst or concern that the affordable housing units will be set up in perpetuity. Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission's role is not to get involved at that level. Mr. Lebovici stated that, in general, it has been HSI's policy not to get involved in use discussions, since they are about preserving structures. He stated that it is conceivable that there may be some hypothetical circumstance in which,that would not be the case. Ms. Guy stated that it is a funding requirement. December 21, 2011, Page 5 of 8 Ms. Siriani stated that she understood there was a choice of 20, 30, 50 years or perpetuity. Ms. Guy that it is possible that there may be a choice from HUD, but that there may not be a choice based on DHCD policy for a specific amount of funding. Ms. Siriani stated that she did not feel it was HSI's responsibility, but felt it was a huge planning issue that she hopes the city is aware of it. Ms. Guy responded that the city is definitely aware and that the project went through the ZBA and Planning Board and had those discussions. Mr. Hart stated that it was his understanding that it was not a requirement, but that the One-Stop application gets more points it if is in perpetuity. Ms. Herbert noted that the preservation restriction language was removed from the Draft MOA. Mr. Lebovici stated that he understands that they claim preservation of the two oldest buildings is mitigation, and felt that best efforts is kind of a little pathetic. He felt that a minimum they would do something that would guarantee it, otherwise there is no mitigation. Ms. Guy suggested requesting a preservation restriction for the exterior and best efforts for the interior. Ms. Bellin thought that it was a good solution. Ms. Harper asked who oversees the preservation restriction. Ms. Herbert replied that it is Massachusetts Historical Commission. Ms. Herbert stated that she would like approval to make and submit the recommended changes discussed and to be delegated to tweak any future drafts. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve submission of the recommended changes discussed and to delegate Chairman Herbert to review and submit comments on any future MOA drafts. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Hart stated that he would like to bring up the fact that he was highly annoyed because POUA in their letter claimed that the Commission had approved the demolition, which he felt was because of an obscure provision in Section 2, 1572 in the Code of Ordinances of the City of Salem which is under the purview of the Director of Public Property. He stated that it was claimed by POUA that the Commission did not submit a written recommendation within the 180 day period and was therefore deemed to have recommended the granting of the demolition permit. He stated that he objected to this claim at the meeting and stated that the Commission had voted to deny the Waiver. December 21, 2011, Page 6 of 8 Ms. Guy stated that the location of the Section is just where the regulation sits in ordinance book and that the section is the Demolition Delay Ordinance. She stated that the Waiver application was received in August, 2006 and there were a few meeting continuations, so the Commission did not issue a 30 day preliminary finding, but it did issue a denial within 180 days. The Commission did, in fact, issue a recommendation and that the recommendation is the denial. Mr. Hart was conveyed by POUA that the Commission approved the demolition. He stated that he will draft a letter for next meeting. Ms. Herbert stated that POUA noted that the Commission could have held public hearings, etc during 180 day period. Ms. Guy stated that the Commission did have public hearings as it was discussed at three meetings. Ms. Herbert stated that the implication was we should have been more active. She stated that since the Commission has no budget, how could the Commission afford to bring in someone. Ms. Guy stated that it would be the same as what was done recently, only it should have been done earlier. It was known it was going through the Planning Board and the ZBA and it was known the building was proposed for demolition. She stated that she felt that while going through permitting is the time to come up with alternatives, rather than waiting till it gets to the Commission under the Section 106 Review. Ms. Herbert stated that it means the Commission would have to depend on HSI as an independent body with a very small budget and a lot of volunteers to do that work. Ms. Guy agreed that it would be depending on them for alternative drawings, but stated that during the permitting meetings is when to voice opinions. She noted that 18 Felt Street is coming up, while they have not formally filed,they will be proposing demolition. She stated that it will go to ZBA in January and that that is the time to get involved, not wait until after they have already gotten ZBA approval and then come to the Commission for a Waiver of Demolition Delay. She stated that anyone can subscribe to other board's agendas. If something is important to you,that is the way to find out. Mr. Hart stated that he did not believe it the Commission's responsibility to scour all the boards in the city to sniff out who is going to demolish something. He stated that when it came to the Commission in 2006, it was in the middle of a law suit that dragged on and on. He stated that he was really annoyed that it was portrayed to the ACHP that the Commission had approved the demolition because of a supposed technicality, when in fact it was voted to deny. He would like to set the record straight. Mr. Hart noted that the August 16, 2006 minutes say that during discussion on the Waiver application, Mr. Spang asked to see the reports and the investigation undertaken with regard to rehabbing the church for housing. December 21, 2011, Page 7 of 8 Review/Common on proposed AT&T Mobility telecommunications installations at 320 Lafayette Street and 39 Norman Street under Section 106 Review Ms. Guy read a letter from Massachusetts Historical Commission and stated that she received further submittals from the Ottery Group, for which she had forwarded to the Commission. She also received an email from them stating that for 39 Norman, the proposed modification will be shielded behind an existing fiberglass screen wall, so there will be no changes to the exterior of the building. They are contacting AT & T for photo simulations for 320 Lafayette. Mr. Hart stated that he felt there was limited visibility in both cases and that he had no objections on either. Ms. Bellin stated that she did not want to vote on 320 Lafayette yet. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to respond that the Commission has no comment on the 39 Norman modification. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Other Business Correspondence Ms. Guy stated that Lewis Legon is asking that the Commission allow him to build up the corners by 9" (instead of having 1' of brick and 1' of corners) for the chimney at 60-62 Washington Square. Ms. Guy stated that she spoke with the Assistant City Solicitor, who reviewed the file and who states that there are two approvals on file that Mr. Legon can choose to go with, but that he would have to go through the regular procedures to get an amendment and that the Commission cannot agree to a change without first receiving an application which is reviewed at a duly noticed public meeting. Ms. Guy will prepare a response and run it by the City Solicitor's Office before sending. Ms. Herbert stated that she contacted Mr. Legon earlier and stated that if he do not need to do anything structurally, he can put on temporary cover until after the first of the year. She will try to work with him to convince him to do what was approved. Ms. Harper asked the Mr. Legon's legal obligation to the Commission and the new condo owners. Ms. Guy stated that the Assistant City Solicitor does not have their condo documents and would first want to thoroughly research it, if it can't get worked out. VOTE: 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. December 21, 2011, Page 8 of 8 Respectfully submit , Jane A. Guy Clerk of the mmission