Loading...
HISCOM MINUTES 2012 January 4, 2012, Page 1 of 8 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2012 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, January 4, 2012 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Harper, Ms. Keenan, and Mr. Hart. Ms. McCrea arrived later in the meeting. 15 %River Street Peter and Jan Eschauzier submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct an addition to their upstairs bathroom, approximately 3 '/2 x 5 1/2 feet in dimension. The addition will balance the Easterly side of the roof line with the opposite side. Helen Sides, architect, was present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Sketch Ms. Sides stated that the addition will be visible from Andover Street. It will fill in the space over the one—story addition. Ms. McCrea joined the meeting at this time. Ms. Herbert asked if it will be visible through yards. Ms. Sides stated that it will be visible between one yard. They will be carrying out the same slope. She stated that it fills in what looks like is missing. They will be moving the existing 6 over 6 window. Ms. Eschauzier stated that they want to switch the position of the window, as the existing window looks into neighbor's window. Ms. Sides stated that it will allow for a second sink to be added Ms. Herbert asked if it will all match the existing, clapboards, windows, etc. Ms. Sides replied in the affirmative and stated that they will continue the cornerboard up. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the application as submitted, including the new addition and the relocation of window. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Other Business a. Correspondence January 4, 2012, Page 2 of 8 18 Felt Street Ms. Guy stated that she emailed Commission members copies of the ZBA Petition for Variance for 18 Felt Street, to be heard 1/18/11, which will include demolition of house and 2 accessory buildings. Ms. Herbert stated that the applicant will presenting at the ZBA, but that we don't know anything about the design. She stated that it would be interesting to hear from some of the audience members about how they would like to develop it differently. She noted that there could be two units in the house,the barn be a single unit and one new house be built. She stated that it is an important property and that she is planning to be at the ZBA meeting. She stated HSI representatives will also be there. Ms. Bellin asked if it will be coming before the Commission. Ms. Herbert stated that it will come before the Commission for a Waiver under the Demolition Delay Ordinance. She stated that at the ZBA, it could be approved, denied or continued if there is not enough information. Mr. Hart suggested that possibility of conveying to the applicant that they might want to strongly consider applying for the waiver first. Ms. Guy was in disagreement, noting that it would start the 180 day clock. Ms. Herbert stated that she would like to see more a fully developed plan before any demolition. She stated that it looks like builder's experience is more in industrial buildings. She stated that HSI will be working on ideas for development. Mr. Hart stated that the Demolition Delay Ordinance says that the Commission, if it denies waiver, has to engage with applicant. Ms. Herbert stated that the owner has no contingency in the purchase contract to get approvals and that he probably had no intention of preserving the buildings. She was concerned that they try to give the impression to the ZBA that this is a hardship. Ms. Guy stated that she advised neighbors to attend the ZBA meeting and comment on the proposal. Marie Meegan, 65 Dearborn Street, stated that she is an abutter and is concerned that while she saw a plan with the location of the houses, she had no idea what will be put there. She was told the houses will be in the quality of the neighborhood, but did not know what that means, noting they have a variety of houses in the neighborhood. She stated she could not put in trust without seeing specifics. She noted that the house is in horrible repair, but that she hated to see it go. She stated that she wanted to see project come out well. Ms. Herbert stated that the resident of the house moved out at the end of July and that it had been in one family since it was built in 1896. She stated that this is the first opportunity for it to be renovated. She stated that she called Attorney Scott Grover to set up a site visit and January 4, 2012, Page 3 of 8 hoped to do it Thursday or Friday. Atty. Grover will have their architect do an estimate for renovation. She would like to see three estimates. She stated that she understood some plumbing and heating work was done ten years ago. Andy Fett, 0 Felt St. Way, stated that he felt a tie to the Ropes' land because there's was an open parcel that was carved from it. He stated that he initially understood that effort to save house was going to be made but was then told it was too expensive. He stated that he felt the neighborhood could support some kind of uplift. He stated that he did not support saying it was economics as there are a lot of expensive properties in that area. He felt the owner did an 180 turn. He was concerned about what is going to be there. He was told the buyers would come with their own plans, so that it could end up with three totally different styles. He was concerned about his property value. He stated that it was not an area of Memansions. Dana Andrus, 166 Federal Street, asked if the city could purchase properties using federal funds. Ms. Herbert stated that the city has no funds and that federal funds are very limited. She stated that the owner could apply for tax credits. Ms. Anders asked about moving the building. Ms. Herbert stated that part of the importance is the way it sits. She stated that it is important that it stay in situ. Brian Dawson, 30 Dearborn Street, stated that he was at the meeting where the contractor went over the plans. It was eluded that he might sell the properties all separately and that they would be dealing with three different people. He stated that the owner's corporation is worth millions of dollars. Helen Sides, 35 Broad St. stated that the owner is not asking for a big variance. She felt that opponents cannot be on the attack. She stated that they need to go in with positive feelings and not alienate the owner. Jim Kearney, 1 Cambridge St., stated that the three houses that his abuts went through the same argument that the houses were falling apart and required major changes of use. He noted that all three are fixed up marvelously now. He noted that 18 Felt Street has a gorgeous beach tree. Ms. Sides stated that the house on Boston Street was proposed for demolition, but is now restored due to the way the owner was approached. Ms. Bellin stated that the owner has the right to build two houses without having to go through the ZBA. Therefore, a denial of the current application may not stop demolition. She stated that if they want to save the house, they need to think it through carefully. She noted it was possible to preserve house and build on back. Mr. Dawson stated that he owns 1874 Victorian. He asked if the Commission had names of people the neighbors could to in order to help flush out some of the ideas. January 4, 2012, Page 4 of 8 Ms. Herbert asked if representatives from HSI planned to meet with the neighbors and discuss ideas. Emily Udy, representing HSI, stated that she came to gather information. She noted that they have worked with developers in the past. She asked if, at the end of the neighborhood meeting, what feeling the neighbors got from the developer. She asked if he was still intending to go with the current plan or was he considering options. Mr. Dawson stated that he believed the intention is to tear down the house and build three homes. Ms. Udy stated that they intend to be involved and will talk to neighbors and the developer, and intend to be friendly about this process. She stated that it is a marketable house. She stated that they will work together and that they are grateful to find out the neighborhood is support of preservation. Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt Street, stated that the house foundation is not in good shape, therefore it might need to be moved to another part of that site in order for a new foundation to be built. He stated that his impression of the preference of the neighborhood is to retain the home and use it as a single family. He suggest putting forth a proposal of someone buying it as single family. He stated that the attitude of the developer is that people don't want old houses anymore. He noted that Tom Dalton of the Salem News is writing an article, so there will be some press. He stated that he felt there could be flexibility in the front. He would be willing to buy some of the land. He stated that the broker is saying whether it is 16,000 or 23,000 s.£, it would have no more value, but he disagreed. Mr. Kearney stated that people got involved in the storage facility on Bridge Street and got them to put the parking in the back to have a brick facade. Ms. Herbert stated that she felt the approach needs to be a positive one, with examples that could be done, and to let the ZBA know there is passion for this property and that it effects peoples property values. Mr. Hart stated that he is hearing that Plan A is to save the property and restore it and that Plan B is, if the lot is to be split, that they want to see good renderings. He stated that Plan A may be costly to renovate, but so what. He stated that it may be worthwhile to try to spin the developer on eligibility for the National Register. He stated that it is a fabulous house. Ms. Herbert stated that the setting is fabulous. Mr. Hart stated that positive thinking may turn the owner's viewpoint around. Ms. Eschauzier asked how this type of thing can be prevented. Ms. Udy stated that there was a city study done on neighborhood preservation districts, which are less restrictive, and suggest considering them. She noted that, at a minimum, it can prevent demolition. She stated that it would not be applicable to this property due to timing. January 4, 2012, Page 5 of 8 Mr. Treadwell stated that he met with developer at Tinti, Quinn& Grover's office and felt he is very interested in salvage, such as the slate roof and interior woodwork. He stated that there are a lot of features the owner intends to get payback from salvage. He stated that G V W are the contractors and ICECAT, LLC is the owner. Mike Munroe, 8 Beachmont Road, asked what happens if they get ZBA approval. Ms. Herbert replied that they will need to apply to the Commission for waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance, which is a 6 month delay. Vicky Siriani, representing HSI, asked when the neighborhood meeting was held. Mr. Treadwell stated that it was before the holidays. Ms. Siriani asked if there was any indication that they would be meeting again. Mr. Treadwell replied in the negative. Ms. Siriani stated that HSI will probably suggest that interested people meet next week. She stated that it was really the neighbors who have to fight the battle. She stated that HSI is more than willing to help. She stated that the group may want to meet with the owner before the ZBA meeting to craft the message that the neighbors want to bring. Ms. Herbert stated that a well defined plan needs to be presented. She stated that four or five people with different ideas shouting them out at a meeting is not what is needed. She stated that perhaps Ed Neillson could go with Peter Pittman to determined cost the to renovate. Dorothy Hayes, 329 Essex Street, stating that an increase in profit is not a hardship and that not maximizing profit is not grounds for hardship. She stated that positive alternatives will help to establish that there is no hardship because there are other avenues. Ms. Herbert stated that according to Atty. Grover, the neighbors don't want condos. She asked if the plan was for two in the house, one in carriage house and a new building where the barn is, would neighbors go for it. Jack Kinney, 36 Felt Street, stated that it was suggested at the meeting, but neighbors groaned. Ms. Bellin stated that the alternative is three new houses. She asked if that would be preferred over a minimum number of condos. She stated that they need to think what is the better alternative. Mr. Treadwell stated that it is a single family home neighborhood. They have had bad and good experiences with condos. He felt that he could go with three units. His preference is to save the house and have it be a single family. He stated that if it cannot be rehabbed at a feasible cost, then he could go with condos. January 4, 2012, Page 6 of 8 Ms. Bellin noted that just because it's a single family home, does not mean they will be a good neighbor. Mr. Treadwell stated that Peter Pittman, architect in the city, has been asked by the owner to go through the building one more time to see what needs to be done to be rehabbed. Ms. Eschauzier stated that the developer will be looking for a return on his investment. If all are converted to condos, he may be able to make more money and have condo agreements that are written to preserve it the buildings. Ms. Siriani stated that maybe the owner could be referred to 328 Essex Street, which was successful. Ms. Bellin stated that her property was also successful. Mr. Hart suggested developing a series of positive developments that have occurred in Salem, such as 40 Boston Street, to counter the assertion that it is not financially feasible. Ms. Siriani stated that she wanted to be clear about what HSI can and cannot do. She stated that they are more than willing to meet and help understand what the cost will be. She stated that they cannot say what the cost of a hundred different solutions are. She suggested neighbors go to the meeting with a very clear idea of options. She stated that they need to hone in what the first, second and third preferences are and what they will go to the ZBA to support. Mr. Treadwell stated that there will be support for demolition, as well. There are people of influence who are in favor of demolition. Ms. Sides stated that they should not give up on retaining some control on that either, noting that it is important to have three nice houses rather than three bad houses. She added that they should not give up on there being another way, as people can turn around once they understand something. Ms. Guy stated if he does a great job, he can use it as model. Ms. Harper was in agreement,noting that the developers of 13 River Street were from out of town. Ms. Herbert worked with them and it was very successful for them and the neighborhood. Ms. Keenan stated that the owner seems like an investor, not a rookie. Mr. Kearney stated that they have to get a variance. He stated that they should have thought of this before they purchased. 3 Harmony Grove Road Ms. Guy stated that today she emailed Commission members copies of three Planning Board applications for 3 Harmony Grove Road and 60-64 Grove Street, which will include January 4, 2012, Page 7 of 8 demolition of some buildings Ms. McCrea stated that she went to the presentation at the Moose Lodge. Mr. Hart stated that, at a minimum, the Commission should push for recordation. 60-62 Washington Street Ms. Guy read an email from Andrew Finestone,which stated that the rear chimney has been not been raised up, has been capped with copper and that the plumbing pipe extends through the cap. Ms. Guy stated that she responded she is working to get this resolved and is working with the City Solicitor's office. She contacted Mr. Legon and informed him that the City Solicitor has indicated that he will either need to correct the chimney to one of the two approved options, or he may apply for a new option via the process and that the Commission cannot make deliberate outside of a meeting. Ms. Herbert stated that he may be preparing to do what he said he was going to do - in matching the top chimneys - noting that the copper cap is done by a different person than the screen tops. He was not approved to do that. Ms. Guy stated that technically he has a year to complete but the timing is a gray area. For the original approval, the year has gone by. The second approval was this past December. She stated that the other issue is who now owns it if it is a violation. Ms. Herbert stated that the original rear chimney was thinner, taller and leaning. She thinks the new chimney may be larger. Ms. Harper stated that it is definitely shorter. Ms. Herbert was in agreement. She stated that for the upper chimneys, she though they would be similar to others around town, where the screen would be inside the chimney and not to the edge. She stated that she would never again recommend caps as was done on the main roof. Ms. Harper stated that he did the copper first and was going to leave it at that and then just built off it, when the Commission did not approve it with just the copper. Ms. Herbert stated that he has taken off the brick build-ups on the rear chimney and got rid of the blue stone which was too heavy, because the chimney was constructed with just plywood with thin veneer brick and was not sturdy enough to hold the blue stone and now it is even shorter. Ms. Harper suggested framing it with plates and going up. She stated that when he originally did the back chimney, the height of the chimney was questioned and Mr. Legon replied it was only partially built up. January 4, 2012, Page 8 of 8 Ms. Herbert felt the Commission should stick to what was approved and if he doesn't do it, he is in violation. She stated that it may mean he has to take the chimney down and rebuild it. She stated that she felt it was already in violation because he put the copper cap on it, which was not part of what the Commission approved. MOTION: Ms. Harper made a motion to send a letter to Mr. Legon and to copy the other property owners stating that he is in violation and requiring him to do one of the two options that was approved. Ms. McCrea stated that the letter should include that the pipe is sticking out. VOTE: Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Herbert questioned how long he has to correct the problem. Ms. Guy stated that the question is that because the Commission has two separate approvals, one he would be in violation for and then a second approval in December. She questioned if he is in violation because a year has gone by, or does he technically get a year to complete the new approval. Ms. Herbert stated that while he may have gotten an approval in December, he has violated it by putting the copper cap on. Ms. Guy stated that normally she would give 30 days to correct a violation. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Keenan and Ms. Harper agreed with 30 days. Ms. Guy stated that she would have the City Solicitor look at the letter before sending it out. Mr. Hart, Ms. Keenan and Ms. Bellin agreed that advice is needed from the City Solicitor. 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. RespecJGJ e Jane A.Clerk oission January 18, 2012, Page I of 3 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 18, 2012 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, January 18, 2012 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Harper, Ms. McCrea, Mr. Spang and Mr. Hart. Ms. Keenan arrived later in the meeting. 390 Essex Street Ms. Bellin abstained from the discussion and joined the audience. Steven Sass and Ellen Golub submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install two iron railings for the front entrance. The spindles will be straight, not twisted. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Ms. Herbert asked if the railing he purchased will fit. Mr. Sass replied in the affirmative. Ms. McCrea asked if there were railings there originally. Mr. Sass stated that he thought there was at one time, because there are holes in the granite. He stated that the Building Inspector has is requiring that he install railings. He stated that he would also like the option to put the same iron railing on the other set of stairs, instead of the approved wood railing. Ms. Herbert stated that he would have to apply for the other side. Mr. Spang asked if the purchased railings created any dimensional issues with Building Department. Mr. Sass stated that he will talk to the Building Inspector prior to installation. Mr. Hart stated that there may be a requirement that the rail extend beyond the first step. There was no public comment. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the application as submitted, conditional that the railing installation is per Building Inspector approval and should it require alteration, the owner will need to reapply. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. January 18, 2012, Page 2 of 3 Mr. Hart noted the hoods on both entries are exactly the same. Ms. Bellin rejoined the members at the table. Other Business a. FY2012 Survey&Planning Grant Ms. Guy stated that the City has been invited to submit a full application for a Massachusetts Historical Commission(MHC) Survey and Planning Grant to prepare an update of the interpretive history panels located in several of Salem's neighborhoods. The original signs are from the 1970s and are out of date and dilapidated. The city intends to update the historical text, design and layout for 4+panels. She provided a draft letter of support. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to send the letter of support. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. b. Correspondence Ms. Guy stated that she received a copy of a letter from MHC to KVA Associates, regarding rehabilitation of Collins Middle School & Saltonstall School, finding no adverse effect, for new windows and masonry repairs. c. Approval of Minutes VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of 11/16/12, 11/28/12, 12/7/12, and 12/21/12 as amended. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. d. Status Update on St. Joseph's Complex Redevelopment Under Section 106 Review Ms. Herbert stated that the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has weighed in and wants DHCD to take another look at their decision. She stated that today's meeting of the consulting parties has been postponed until a future date and that we are now in a holding pattern. e. Status Update on 18 Felt Street—ZBA Petition for Variance to be heard on 1/18/11, which will include demolition of house and 2 accessory buildings Ms. Herbert stated that the developer is now going to save the house. At the neighborhood meeting last night, neighbors were concerned over what will be built on the other two lots. She informed them that the Historic Commission has no jurisdiction over what is built. Ms. Herbert noted that she has gotten estimates for moving the carriage house to the same lot proposed for the house, which will be reduced to 16,000 s.f. feet. The house went on the market on Friday, with the option to move the carriage house. She is hopeful that there will be no application to the Commission for waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance. January 18, 2012, Page 3 of 3 Patty Kelleher, 53 Larchmont Road, asked if the developer is going forward with the original petition to the ZBA for frontage. Ms. Herbert replied in the affirmative, noting that it is the one piece they will need. She noted that the proposed configuration to be presented is now different, with the lot line now 10' to the left of the house. She stated that they still need 15' of frontage. Ms. Kelleher thanked Ms. Herbert for all her efforts. Mr. Hart stated that Ms. Herbert, as a private citizen, dealt with the developer, sought him out and somehow convinced him to preserve the house. He stated that Ms. Herbert is owed a debt of gratitude for turning the project around to where the developer has agreed to save the house for at least a period of time. Ms. Herbert stated that if the developer gets the variance,he now intends to preserve the house with no end date, which she felt was amazing. 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 s , Jane A. G Clerk of Commission February 15, 2012, Page 1 of 10 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 15, 2012 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Harper, Ms. Keenan and Mr. Hart. Ms. McCrea arrived later in the meeting. 388 Essex Street Ms. Bellin abstained from the discussion and joined the audience. Steven Sass and Ellen Golub submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to have the option to install an iron railings for the rebuilt rear porch. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Mr. Sass provided photographs of the existing porch with a relic of an iron railing. He stated that underneath the porch shows some brick.as evidence of a granite wall. The house to the left of his property has an iron railing on the granite that will be similar to what he is proposing. Ms. Herbert noted that the neighbor's railings are mounted on granite curbing and that his application is for a wood porch to have an iron railing. She stated that the iron relic is inappropriate in itself. Mr. Sass stated that they will be replacing the plastic as required with wood, but would like the option for an iron railing. He stated that it would be straight,not twisted. Mr. Hart stated that there is not really a proposal other than to say it is iron. He stated it is hard to judge the appearance. Mr. Sass stated that he could come back. He stated that he could go with wood, but would like the option. Dorothy Hayes, 329 Essex Street, stated that she feels wood is more appropriate, given the architecture. Paul Ellingwood, 389 Essex Street, stated that he does not have strong feeling either way. Mr. Hart stated that he would entertain it, but there is no design before the board. He stated it is a little incongruous with a wood porch and a metal rail and that usually it is stone with iron, or wood with wood. He added that there are certainly examples of wood with iron. Ms. Harper stated that she felt an iron railing should be on granite stairs, and stated that if the applicant wanted the option, she would entertain it. She stated that she has not seen a wood February 15, 2012, Page 2 of 10 porch with an iron rail. She suggested photographing examples of any existing stairs in Salem r that have iron railings. Mr. Hart stated that he would want to see a drawing. Ms. Herbert stated that the volume of the porch is such that you want to balance the railing in weight. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to continue the application. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Bellin rejoined the Commission at the table. 18 Butler Street George J. Sands submitted an application to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance to demolish the house at 18 Butler Street in order to construct a 2 family modular house. Ms. Guy stated that the applicant has requested a continuance. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to the meeting of March 7th. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Salem Common Fence Survey &Planning Grant Project—Presentation of Findings Natalie Lovett, Staff Planner with the City of Salem Department of Planning& Community Development and representatives of CBI Consulting, Inc. were present to discuss the findings of the Existing Conditions Report for the Salem Common Fence, which is one of the tasks being undertaken as part of a study being undertaken with Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) Survey and Planning Grant matching funds. A copy of the report had previously been emailed to Commission members. Present from CBI was Michael Teller. Ms. Guy stated that the purpose of this presentation is to answer any questions on the report and to get feedback on the three options for the first phase of restoration. Mr. Hart stated that he is on the committee that selected the consultant. Ms. Lovett stated that last year the Department of Planning& Community Development applied for a Survey and Planning Grant to study the conditions of the Common fence and to come up with a phased plan for restoration. Michael Teller stated that pieces of the fence are missing and that others are damaged. He stated that plenty of neighbors came up to them during the process and noted that the fence is impacted by trucks,particularly snow plows. Mr. Teller stated that cast iron is a brittle material, like glass, and while it is good for compression, it does not handle lateral forces. He stated that there are 253 sections of fence. He provided a plan of the fence and noted that the yellow on the plan indicates sections that are completely missing. The orange indicates missing support posts, the green indicates triangles missing top rails and the blue/purple indicates different sections of vertical posts that are missing. February 15, 2012, Page 3 of 10 Ms. McCrea joined the meeting at this time. Mr. Teller stated that they are interested in comments with regard to how to allocate restoration funds, whether to replace entire sections or concentrate on the worse looking sections. He noted that the estimates are between$12-14,000 for an entire section, and for pieces are as much as $180 for a spindle and over$1000 for a post. He stated that they could 1) fill in missing sections so the fence looks whole, 2) work on the most deteriorated parts of existing fence,or 3) start at Section 1 and address as many section as possible. To restore,they would not do the work in the field, but would take the sections off site and bring them back to the shop for repair. Sections would be sandblasted, including lead paint, which is disposed of properly. The sections would be repaired, missing pieces replaced and the section reassembled and then painted with a 3 coat high tech system. Mr. Teller stated that for the granite bases, some are severely damaged, for which he would recommend replacement and that those with minor damage he would recommended keeping as is. Concrete bases would be replaced with granite. Ms. Herbert stated that she noticed a lot of damage along Washington Square North and wondered if bollards could be put in places where snow plows seem to get in. She stated that just repairing may not be enough. Michael Coleman, Salem Common Neighborhood Association, stated that he believed there was a huge restoration in the mid-80s and another in 1996. Michael Redfern, 4 Andrew Street asked where are the missing fence pieces. Ms. Lovett stated that the DPW is storing any that they have been given in one of the city storage facilities. Mr. Coleman asked if they can be re-used Mr. Teller replied in the affirmative. Ms. Herbert suggested putting something in the newspaper asking residents to collect pieces that have broken off and turn them into the DPW and for an inventory to be kept. Mr. Redfern stated that he felt we should restore the pieces we have before replacing what is missing. Marianne Curtain, Forrester Street, stated that she is on the Board of the Salem Common Neighborhood Association and that she suspected that the Park and Recreation Department has some pieces stored at Mack Park. She stated that she has seen people put some in their back yards and gardens. She noted that there are some molds that the City paid for available somewhere. Ms. Lovett stated that she has been trying to track down the patterns. The pattern for the bottom rail was found at Mack Park, but the remainder are missing and the City may have to create new ones. February 15, 2012, Page 4 of 10 Teasie Goggin, 9 Wisteria Street, questioned that when the work is done, what assurance is there to keep it that way. Ms. Lovett stated that as part of CNI's contract, they will make recommendations for maintenance. Emily Udy, Historic Salem, Inc., asked if the replaced sections will be with cast iron. Mr. Teller replied in the affirmative, stated that they will be virtually the same in terms of carbon content and chemical composition. Ms. Udy asked if a either 100 year old piece or a one week old piece is more brittle. Mr. Teller stated that there is no difference. Ms. Udy asked the cost to repair and replace a section in fairly good condition. Mr. Teller stated that if the fence is restored piecemeal (i.e. 10 sections at a time), he estimated $2900 per section. Ms. Udy asked that for maintenance, such as yearly touch ups, if they could have a community painting day. Mr. Teller replied in the affirmative. He recommended repainting the top coat every ten years. Ms. Udy asked if there is something the city can do about privately contracted snow plowers. Ms. Guy stated that it can be discussed with the DPW Director. Ms. Udy stated that Historic Salem, Inc.,may be interested in funding a mailing. Ms. Hayes asked the current paint treatment. Mr. Teller stated that they have not done a paint analysis. He stated that it was lead paint, lead primer and a top coat of some sort of enamel. He noted that there are multiple coats now. He stated that retaining as much historical fabric as possible is his first choice. He noted that paint wears out and that at some point a uniform paint application, by removing all loose rust and scale, is a small price to pay for longevity of entire fence. Mr. Hart asked who would do the iron work. Mr. Teller stated that it would be publically bid and that bidders would need to be DCAM certified and have qualifications of similar type and scale. Mr. Redfern wonder if it could just be painted by hand for now would help salvage it for a while. Ms. Herbert stated that it is not painted without properly cleaning,the paint would peel. She stated that the key is preparation. February 15, 2012, Page 5 of 10 Mr. Teller stated that cast iron doesn't rust as quickly as regular steel, and therefore the danger of loss of historic elements is not from exposure to the elements. He stated that if funds are scarce he did not recommend a quick coat of paint first. Jeff Laaff, 24 Winter Street asked if it is the City's desire to do an expensive job. Ms. Lovett stated that as part of CBI's scope, they are to prepare bid documents for the first phase of work. She stated that there is some money allocated and that the City is applying to Massachusetts Historical Commission for a grant match. The hope is to have subsequent phases. The City has asked CBI to make recommendations on the phasing. Mr. Laaff suggest a reverse 911 announcement in order to collect parts of the fence that residents have collected. He stated that he would be willing to put flyers in the mailboxes of residents asking them to identify destructive snow plowers. He stated that he felt the money should start being spent at the entryways, as those are particularly evident. He stated that missing caps are important, but the entries are very important. He stated that he would like to see some progress. Ms. Curtain stated that she has seen City trucks knock down fence sections, as well as the Knights of Columbus' snow plowers. Mr. Coleman stated that he has a photo of a Knights of Columbus plow knocking a section of the fence to the ground. Ms. Lovett asked for comments on the priority of how the fence should be repaired. Ms. Curtain and Mr. Coleman agreed with Mr. Laaff s idea to do the entryways first. Ms. Curtain stated that she would particularly like to see it start with the main entrance. Ms. Guy stated that Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning and Community Development, would also prefer if be done in complete sections, so that we can illustrate the difference when looking for grants. Ms. Herbert suggest an adopt a fence section program. Ms. Curtain stated that it would be an immense cost. Ken Lacey,New Derby Street stated that there is quite a disparity in what we have and what it will cost. He asked if there was any consideration for taking good sections and rebuilding other sections of the fence, while opening up sections in the middle. He also suggest giving snow plowers a place to put snow. Mr. Teller asked if he was suggesting harvesting parts as replacement pieces to create several areas that are whole, while creating wide gaps elsewhere. Mr. Lacey replied in the affirmative. February 15, 2012, Page 6 of 10 Mr. Teller stated that it was feasible. Mr. Lacey stated that sponsoring may be expensive and suggested selling pavers to raise funds. Mr. Redfern stated that he was against creating additional gaps and making big open areas (i.e. 5 sections wide). He stated that right now it looks like there is a fence all the way around. He stated that if what is there cannot be maintained, money should be spent on new pieces. He stated that all pieces must be saved as they fall down. Ms. McCrea stated that the suggested there be a City Council resolution that snow plowers working for the city have insurance and are told where to put snow. Ms. Harper stated that the report mentions ways of connecting the fence pieces. She asked how much deterioration of the fence can be attributed to failed connections. Mr. Teller stated that it is not a major portion, but is mostly due to impact and vandalism for missing parts. He stated that welds need accommodation for expansion and contraction. He suggested using an expansion connection. Mr. Hart stated that he thought it worthwhile to get a copy of CBI's scope, to identify the submittals. He stated that understanding of the annual maintenance costs is needed. He stated he was concerned on getting ideas on damage control. He added that it is criminal for city trucks and private individuals to destroy fences. Ms. McCrea noted that the molds disappeared, and that there should be place for fence materials to be maintained. Ms. Keenan asked if there was surveillance around common. Ms. Curtain stated that there is a camera on the gazebo, but it does not show every area. She stated that it would require discussion with the Salem Police Department. Ms. Bellin stated that she would like to see the cost breakdown of what $50,000 gets. Mr. Teller stated that for brand new sections, it would get 3 for$50,000. He stated that the city would probably get more bang for its buck by addressing sections. He stated that he can look at each section and define the repairs and apply unit cost. 1 Brown Street The Peabody Essex Museum submitted an application for a Certificate of Non-applicability for the placement of one 20' long by 8' wide by 8' high storage box adjacent to the structure on the museum's parking lot. The storage box will be used to contain interior house components while interior structural work is performed. The storage box will be on side for six to eight months. Documents &Exhibits 0 Application February 15, 2012, Page 7 of 10 VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Other Business a. Approval of minutes VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of 1/4/12. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. b. Draft Letter: Bill S.2053 (An Act relative to certain projects referred to the MHC for consultation) Ms. Guy stated that Mr. Hart drafted a letter,to which she and Ms. Herbert had made some edits. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to finalize the letter and forward to the Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. c. Correspondence 1. Ms. Guy stated that she received a transmittal from the National Park Service for the Commission to review and comment on the National Register update documentation for the Salem Maritime National Historic Site. She asked if any Commission member(s) want copies of the document and if the Commission wants to comment. Mr. Hart volunteered to review the documents. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to delegate Mr. Hart to make any comments on behalf of the Commission. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 2. Ms. Guy stated that she received an email from the Essex National Heritage Commission requesting a letter of support for the nomination of Annie Harris for a 2012 MHC Preservation Award (Lifetime Achievement). A draft letter was included. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to submit a letter of support as requested. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. d. Status Update on St. Joseph's Complex Redevelopment Under Section 106 Review Ms. Herbert stated that she and Mr. Hart attended a meeting of the consulting parties in Boston yesterday. She stated that the Advisory Council has concurred with DHCD, that the Neillson proposal presents a sufficient number of changes which would be detrimental to the building being eligible for tax credits. She noted that POUA would still like to keep the "best efforts" language and not the Secretary of the Interiors Guidelines, and has proposed right of first refusal language for the city in order for POUA to pursue buyers for the property for February 15, 2012, Page 8 of 10 next three years. She noted that the consulting parties have had two 2 drafts of the MOA. rl She stated that Paul Silverstone has provided an email outlining the deadlines for comments and signatures. Ms. Guy stated that the Commission has already commented on the most recent MOA, but needs to comment on POUA's paragraph IIc. She noted that Ms. Herbert has already delegated to make comments on behalf of the Commission. Emily Udy, Historic Salem, Inc. stated that in pursuing alternative reuse strategies, she suggests asking to review and comment on the marketing materials and to suggest POUA to track the groups marketed to. Darrow Lebovici, 120 Federal Street, stated that HSI has not had a meeting to talk about yesterday's meeting yet. He stated that one of the issues is that POUA never made any serious attempts to market, and that one of the things in the materials should be a description of their marketing program. He stated that it should have national reach and maybe some accountability for failure to perform. He suggested that the period of retention be extended on some basis for non-performance. Ms. Herbert stated that one of the ways is to structure a commission and put a sliding scale on commission for a faster timeline. Mr. Lebovici stated that brokers and POUA should be incented to be accountable for it. He stated that if they don't make serious efforts to perform a serious program,they shouldn't be able to get out of it. Ms. Udy stated that it should state "selling for appropriate reuse". Ms. Herbert asked how could we could work on a marketing program idea in a short period of time to get it to where people are comfortable. Ruth Silman stated that on behalf of POUA she would take issue that it was not seriously marketed. She stated that perhaps there could be regular reports to the City or Commission about the content. She suggested possible minimal standards for what would be included in the marketing materials. She suggested not having penalties in this market. Ms. Herbert suggested a reward for moving it faster. Ms. Silman stated that there are plenty of active negotiations right now. She stated that there are discussions with a health center that the Mayor and Lynn Duncan have helped to facilitate, for which the result would be straight rehabilitation. She stated that she did not know if it would be sale or lease. She stated that the intent of first sentence is to maintain the historic fabric and that they could add some sort of language. Ms. Herbert asked if Ms. Udy had any idea for HSI's time frame. Ms. Udy replied that they will meet the deadline. February 15, 2012, Page 9 of 10 Jim Treadwell, Felt Street, asked if the statue obligation has been met and if there is any report. Ms. Silman stated that the MOA has a provision, which will be followed. Mr. Treadwell stated that the shareholders and French Canadian community should have an opportunity to comment on its disposition. He asked if the Section 106 has been satisfied. Ms. Herbert stated that the ACHP feels satisfied that it can move on to the MOA. Mr. Hart stated that he understood MHC said that it qualifies for the tax act, but it would have to go to the National Park Service for a final decision. He noted that it is only the opinion of MHC. He stated that the ACHP has determined all requirements have been met. Mr. Treadwell suggested asking the ACHP if Section 106, with regard to public comment, have been met. He stated that he has not seen any response to comments. Mr. Hart stated that he believed Paul Silverstone could be asked. Mr. Treadwell stated that he believed that the Planning Board approved that the school and rectory form the basis for mixed income housing. He wondered if the concept has been changed and would require the local boards to reconsider. Mr. Hart stated that someone should research the decision of the other boards and match it to this proposed further language. Ms. Herbert asked about the two crucifixes. Ms. Silman stated that they are church property, subject to cannon law. She believed the plan is for one to be relocated to another church. She noted other artifacts will also be removed and reused. Ms. Herbert stated that before any removal begins, photography of the site is required. Ms. Silman replied in the affirmative. She noted that pews will be taken out and reused and that they will salvage what they can. Ms. Herbert set a date for a special meeting on Tuesday, February 28, 2012 at 6:30pm for the Commission to vote on whether or not to sign the MOA. e. Status Update on 18 Felt Street—ZBA Petition for Variance to be heard on 1/18/11, which will include demolition of house and 2 accessory buildings Mr. Treadwell stated that ZBA continued the variance application . Ms. Herbert stated that tonight, after much discussion, it was continued for 30 days. She noted that there are offers on the table being negotiated, which would keep the house. She prepared a restoration outline. She noted that the developer has come from proposing February 15, 2012, Page 10 of 10 demolition to being willing to retain the house and use the Secretary of the Interiors Y Standards. She stated that even if they get a variance, the owner will consider an offer. She noted that one offer in the works is contingent on the person selling his own house. She stated that the 30 day continuance will give a chance for the deal to come together to save the house and the carriage house. She stated that, at the ZBA meeting, she recognized that the developer has come a long way. 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 sub i to , Jane A. Guy Clerk of the ommission February 28, 2012, Page 1 of 5 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 2012 A special meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, February 28, 2012 at 6:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Harper, Ms. Keenan, Ms. McCrea and Mr. Hart. The purpose of the meeting was to review the Final Memorandum of Agreement for the St. Joseph's Parish Complex Redevelopment under Section 106 Review and to vote on whether to authorize the Chair of the Commission to sign on behalf of the Commission. Ms. Herbert stated that POUA agreed to an increase from$3,000 to $5000 for a historic narrative for either the City of Salem, the Salem Historical Commission or even Historic Salem, Inc. (HSI) to develop. She stated that the Commission could be the lucky recipients of three stained glass windows and a church pew, if so desired. She noted that they did insert the marketing outline suggested by HSI. She stated that she went through the whole MOA and had the idea that in terms of dispute resolution that the Commission would be included and that gave her the feeling that maybe the Commission should sign the MOA. She stated that, however, after she read further that it is only the signatories, which are the principles, and the invited signatories. She stated that the Commission is only a concurring party, along with the City of Salem and HSI, and is not invited to be part of that, which is one thing that is a huge problem. She stated that the other is that there will be no preservation restrictions on either of the remaining buildings, which their preservation was the major mitigating factor which would make demolition of the church somewhat palatable. She stated that she sent the following email to Paul Silverstone: "I want to let you know that I go into the Special Meeting of the Salem Historical Commission that I have called tonight, in particular to accommodate the expedited schedule for the MOA, with many concerns and reservations. As you know, I have worked very hard over the past six months to participate in the development of a meaningful and appropriate MOA for the St. Joseph's Project that will allow the SHC to sign on as a "partner" to this project. However, with the "final" MOA that has just been delivered,we have received an apparent watered-down, ineffectual document that offers no true mitigation for the demolition of the Church and Convent buildings. In fact, this MOA defies the inherent purpose of the Section#106 Process, as it relies on the excuse that the commercial funding agency(Bank of America)has refused to allow Preservation Restrictions to be placed on the Rectory and School buildings as has been POUA's primary offer as a mitigating measure for the demolition of the historic Church and Convent. Specifically, the document allows the potential for demolition of the Rectory and School after 3 years if the City of Salem does not elect to purchase the two buildings. Secondly, the document does not include the SHC as a participatory member for the purpose of Dispute Resolution. And, finally,the document provides for the any member of the signatories (which do not include the Concurring Parties: SHC, HSI, Salem Planning Office)to dissolve the MOA at any point with only a 45-day period for resolution of disputed issues. February 28, 2012, Page 2 of 5 This document is not what we have put so much effort into in trying to reach a reasonable compromise in changing the face of the historical St. Joseph's Complex site. It grieves me to conclude that I cannot, in good conscience, personally sign onto this document. Tonight, we will see how the other members of the Commission feel." Ms. Herbert stated that the final MOA includes a new piece that arrived on 2/14/12 which is a Right of First Refusal for City of Salem to purchase the two buildings, if after 3 years a use other than reuse is contemplated. She stated that means demolition. Mr. Hart noted for the record that the final MOA under review is dated 2/27/12. Ms. Harper stated that they don't mention much on the possibility of developing the school and rectory themselves. It does say that it was in the original plan to develop x number of units. She asked for how long they will consider developing it them themselves. Ms. Herbert stated that it is the 3 years under the Right of First Refusal. Ms. Harper asked if they will have them on the market at the same time as they try to develop their own plans or will the try to develop their own plans and then the put buildings on the market for six months and if it doesn't sell,then it is within the three years. Ms. Herbert stated that is was not clear whether they will be putting out applications for funding, such as developing the school, which they mentioned possibly might be some sort of medical center, or whether of not at that same time they will be advertising for other people who might be interested in purchasing either of or both the buildings. Also, she stated, it is not clear when they are going to be applying to Massachusetts Historical Commission(MHC)to list the buildings on the National Register. She stated that she got the impression at 2/14/12 meeting that it would be imminent, but that she did not get that sense from reading this MOA. She stated that this MOA of 2/27/12 is being presented to us as a final document to sign or not sign, so any comments we have can be made for the record but, in terms of them being considered, she thought it would not be the case. Ms. Bellin asked why there are signatories and invited signatories, including POUA. Attorney Ruth Silman stated that it is a regulatory distinction for Section 106. The ACHP, the lead agency(DHCD) and the SHPO, and the THPO if it decides to participate, are automatically signatories. Then the lead agency has the discretion to invite signatories, and typically those who are invited are the proponent and the other sources of federal funds, in this case, the North Shore HOME Consortium. By regulation,those other funding sources for federal funds are not automatically signatories. Ms. McCrea asked if it was Ms. Herbert's understanding that the description of the project on page 2, in terms of what the development comprises which includes the renovated school and rectory, is null and void. Ms. Herbert replied in the negative and stated that it is a recitation of what has been approved by the Salem boards. She stated that is does not mean that is what they are going to do, because one of the options they are now exploring is a use for school as some sort of health center. February 28, 2012, Page 3 of 5 Atty. Silman was in agreement. Ms. Herbert asked the game plan in terms of advertising to attract other entities for potential purchase of the two buildings at the same time that POUA would explore their own funding sources to developing them. Atty. Silman stated that the goal is to do both simultaneously. She stated that DHCD money is very tight right now according to Kate Racer and that there are more applications than funds. She noted that POUA already submitted an application long ago for the school and rectory, but that it was deferred because there wasn't the capacity in market as far as DHCD saw it, so POUA would need to submit a new application to DHCD for funds to develop the school and rectory into housing. She stated that it is not to say that POUA won't try, but it is not as easy. She stated that they could also seek a private funder. She stated that POUA's goal is to market the properties to third parities for other uses and try to get financing either for what has been approved or something that fits into the community and try as much as possible to get those buildings filled. Ms. Herbert stated that, basically, as this process has gone on for about six months, the whole objective of the Commission was to see that the school and rectory were protected with preservation restrictions and that we were basically fiddling with the wording of"best efforts" versus following the secretary of the interior's guidelines. She stated that what is on the table is a different situation. Mr. Hart noted that on Page 5, eA state that the proponent will inform SHC bi-annually of its efforts in marketing the Rectory and School. He stated that every six months we will get an update. Ms. Bellin stated that she finds the Right of First Refusal paragraph somewhat confusing and troubling. She stated that the second sentence, which says "any time following that period but prior to the sale", she did not understand how that limitation fits it. She stated it almost suggests they will make efforts for three years, but any time after that, if there is a pending sale that would result in demolition, they will give the City the Right of First Refusal. She stated that it leaves an open door,that any time after 3 years if there is no pending sale, for them to go ahead and demolish. She stated that it seems there is a link to a pending sale that gives them the requirement to give the City the right of first refusal, which is a huge question for her. Ms. Herbert stated that there are a number of things in the MOA that are really not spelled out well enough for the Commission to buy into. Atty. Silman stated that her understanding is the intent is that POUA will try to market the buildings or develop themselves. She stated that the Right of First Refusal kicks in when there would be a sale of the properties for a use that isn't going reuse the buildings. She stated that the planning office contemplates a sale, because they don't contemplate taking them down themselves. She stated that she believed the city's view that any future scenario where those buildings could potential come down,the city wants to be able to jump in and have that Right of First Refusal. February 28, 2012, Page 4 of 5 Ms. Bellin stated that she did not see how the city would be notified if the POUA, the present owner wants to demolish if there is no pending sale. Atty. Silman stated that the school and rectory are subject to Demolition Delay. She felt the Right of First Refusal kicks in if either the school or rectory is going to come down, and noted that the city was involved in negotiating the provision. Ms. Bellin stated that that is what she would like it to mean, but that is not necessarily how it could be interpreted, knowing how contracts can later come back to bite you. She felt it is troubling, not clear and leaves a huge hole. Ms. Herbert stated that it was very troubling that it would ever be contemplated to take those buildings down, because that was the primarily mitigating eliminate for attempting to demolish the church and the convent. She stated it was a complete departure of what has been understood for six to seven years. She stated it was a last minute thing and it was presented at the 2/14/12 meeting in Boston and that the language was apparently worked on with the City and POUA outside of the rest of us. Ms. Bellin stated that the Right of First Refusal is very important and is a good thing, but the concern is how it is phrased—by linking the provision with a pending sale. She stated that, as written, there is a gap. Emily Udy stated that Historic Salem, Inc. is here to encourage the Commission not to sign as a concurring party. She stated that they have many of the same concerns. She stated that they disagree with the necessity to demolish the church in order for the project to be feasible. She stated that just in terms of the reason for the MOA, they disagree. She noted that, after years of promising and expressing the intent to maintain the rectory and school, using the phrase "best efforts" as legal phrase seems inadequate. She was also concerned with the contract coming back to bit. Ms. Guy stated that what the Commission will be giving up by not signing is in Stipulations XI, XII and XIII concerning the opportunity to comment on amendments to the MOA and to be notified of any course of action with regard to duration or termination. Ms. Herbert stated that her opinion is that, based on history,the Commission's comments are not valued, so she felt not having the opportunity to comment does not change a thing. Mr. Hart asked if we are a concurring party whether we sign or not. Ms. Bellin and Ms. Guy replied in the negative. Ms. Guy stated that in the places in the MOA, where is says Salem Historical Commission, the Commission would still have those provisions. Ms. Bellin agreed, but stated that if the Commission does not sign, it is no longer any party to it. Ms. Herbert stated that we can comment, but the important part is the dispute resolution, when there are issues, and we are not included in that. February 28, 2012, Page 5 of 5 Ms. Bellin stated that the language states that the Commission would be informed of proposed amendments. She stated that presumably by the time it is a proposed amendments, it has already been agreed to by everyone else. She stated that it brings back memories of the courthouse proj ect. Darrow Lebovici, Historic Salem, Inc., stated that with regard to the courthouse project, he believed the same motivations were expressed at the time why we should have signed, and we didn't, and that as far as he can tell there has been no change in the behavior of the parties. He did not think that by itself is definitively an indicator of future actions. Ms. Harper asking if by not signing, we are simply making a very loud statement that we do not approve of what is being said. Ms. Herbert stated that whether or not it will impact anything is unknown. She stated that the question is: does this document have elements that are consistent with what our job is, or does it have elements that are totally opposed to what our job is. Ms. Guy stated that signing or not signing doesn't change the project. She stated that the Commission needs to weigh"making a statement" versus being able to comment on amendments and receive duration and termination notifications. Ms. Herbert stated that we have already seen the value of our ability to comment. Ms. Bellin stated that it is unlikely that any amendments to it would be in the direction of the things we have already been asked before. She stated that any amendments that come up are probably going to be minor tinkering with the provisions that we already don't really like or care to endorse. Ms. Herbert stated that she is disappointed that after all this time and effort that we are ending up here, but stated it does feel like a preconceived ending in spite of everything. She stated she is glad to have put the effort in, in spite of this outcome. VOTE: Mr. Hart stated that it does not appear the Salem Historical Commission will have any substantive effect on the project and made a motion not to sign the MOA. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Harper, Ms. Keenan and Mr. Hart voted in favor. Ms. McCrea abstained from voting. 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 s tt Jane A. G Clerk of the Vommission March 7, 2012, Page 1 of 9 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 7, 2012 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, March 7, 2012 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Harper, Ms. Keenan, Ms. McCrea and Mr. Hart. 388 Essex Street Ms. Bellin abstained from the discussion and joined the audience. In continuation of a prior meeting Steven Sass and Ellen Golub submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to have the option to install an iron railings for the rebuilt rear porch. The applicant was not present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs It was noted that the owner has proceeded with the railing in wood. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to deny the application without prejudice. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Bellin rejoined the Commission at the table. 18 Butler Street George J. Sands submitted an application to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance to demolish the house at 18 Butler Street in order to construct a 2 family modular house. Ms. Guy stated that the applicant has requested a continuance to the first April meeting. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to the meeting of April 4, 2012. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 19 Fowler Street Charles Bean and Susan Linder Bean submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a photovoltaic system. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Photo-simulations ■ Plans completed by Sollular, LLC ■ LG Mononx Catalog pages ■ Empase.com pages March 7, 2012, Page 2 of 9 ■ Ironridge Installation Manual Kathleen Long, Chief Operating Officer of Sollular, LLC stated that it will be a 3.2kw photovoltaic system with 13 panels and one array. It will be located on one side of the roof only, in one neat array. Ms. Herbert asked the profile, how high they will sit. Ms. Long replied that they will sit 3" off the roof. She stated that it is a dark colored panel and that the idea is, being considerate of the historic preservation of the property, they did not standard traditional inverter technology, which typical sits on the side of the building. They will use micro-converters, which sit up inside the panel. She stated that the electricity flows to a revenue grade meter, a small box that sits up outside the array. There will also be a small box that is a utility disconnect. The units are approximately 4"x 6". A thin conduit will come down and run into the basement. The panels are installed 48" on center. Their company is professional licensed engineers,professional electricians and licensed general contractors. When they do a site assessment,they do an electrical assessment, as well as a structural assessment and go into the rafters. They did a full out engineering plan and the roof can support the load. She stated that nothing would be seen on the other side of the home and that there will be nothing visible from rear. She stated that they are very non-intrusive and the only thing you will see from the street when you look up is a 3" overhang on one side of the house. The system's energy will be used completely by the home, which is called behind the meter solar. This is renewable clean energy that is being used to offset the existing demand. Ms. Herbert asked if this will take care of all their energy needs or just supplement it. Ms. Long stated that it will supplement it,therefore reducing their electric bill. She stated that nothing will be put back on the grid. Ms. Linder-Bean stated that it is supposed to be 95%. Ms. Bellin asked where the meter and utility disconnect will be. She stated that it is run through the rafters on the inside and indicated on the plans where the meter and disconnect will be. Ms. Linder-Bean stated that the meter is currently inside. Ms. Long stated that, in that case,the meter will be on inside of house. The utility disconnect will be visible in the lower corner outside. Ms. Herbert asked how big the conduit down the side of the building will be. Ms. Long stated that it is about a half inch. Ms. McCrea asked if they have other installations in Salem. Ms. Long replied in the negative, but noted that they have worked all over the Boston area, including residential and commercial. They have 50 projects in the Boston Area. She stated that March 7, 2012, Page 3 of 9 they are one of Home Depot's largest installers. They have a master services agreement with TD Bank. They do utility grade solar as well. Ms. Herbert the length of time for payout on the system, the cost of installation versus the savings on the electric. Ms. Long stated that the owners are entering into a sun run program She stated that the system is paid for up front and there are two ways to recover the investment. One is the avoided cost, which is the energy that your system is generating during the day and you are no longer being billed for by the utility company. There is a secondary source of income called a Solar Renewal Energy Certificate (SREC). For every 1000 kw hour generated, they earn one certificate. Right now in Massachusetts certificates, which are a commodity,trade at over $500 a piece. The homeowner will earn 3 certificates per year, at the current rate this system will generate $1500 of income, in addition to the avoided cost. At the present moment, the payback runs between 36 and 48 months. She noted that for own home, her payback was 38 months. Ms. Bellin asked about a net meter. Ms. Long stated that it replaces the utility grade meter and looks almost identical, only it is digital. During the day,the meter is going backwards, as the system is producing electricity. At night it moves forward. If the energy is not being used, it is being placed back on the grid through the net meter. The utility company at the end of the month will reconcile your bill. She stated that the warrantee is 20+years. It is a LG 255 watt panel. She stated that the panels sit on a racking system, which distributes the weight of the panels, so that each panel is not screwed into the roof. She stated that the nice thing about solar panels is they keep a constant warm temperature and melt ice and snow. They encourage their customers to hose off the panels once per year, usually in Spring with pollen season. Ms. Bellin asked how close they will sit to the roof line. Ms. Long stated that they will be 6" back from the front. Ms. Bellin asked home much room is to the peak. Ms. Herbert asked if it could be moved back. Ms. Guy asked why they chose that side of the roof and not the other. Ms. Long stated that it is an orientation issue. They would not be able to capture enough sunlight to create enough energy for the warrantee for the production guarantee. Ms. Long stated that they could not move them back as they have maxed out the roof with the proper setbacks. Ms. Bellin stated that they are pretty much taking up the entire. Ms. Long replied in the affirmative. Mr. Hart stated that it will be visible from the public way, noting that the photo was taking 2 or 3 houses away. March 7, 2012, Page 4 of 9 Ms. Herbert asked about the air space with the racking that the panels sit on and whether one will see a black line or light going through. Ms. Long stated that it is a dark roof and the double row of panels that sit flush together and go to the peak, so it is unlikely that one will see light. Mr. Hart stated that he would like a site visit. He stated that it has the potential for precedent setting installation. He stated that he understands it is minimal, but that he was not comfortable voting until there is site visit to see the site distances. Ms. Herbert asked if it is possible to put a panel in place to see at the site visit. Ms. Long stated that she could ask an engineer to meet on site and go on the roof with a panel. Ms. Herbert stated that it could be some kind of a mockup. Ms. Harper suggested a section of panel or something the same size and same height off the roof. Ms. Herbert stated it could even be black Styrofoam fashioned to look like a panel so we can stand back and see. It would not need to be an actual panel, but would need to be the dimensions of the panel and the same black color. She stated that she could see that a lot of people might be interested. She noted with this particular roof design, it won't be seen as much, but stated that it would really be obvious if this house were an a-frame. She stated that this system would be a case by case basis depending on the construction of the building. Paul Marquis, City of Salem Energy Manager, stated that he and the Renewable Energy Task Force had a hand in advising on the Commission's guidelines. He stated that the Fire Chief has indicated concerns about the setbacks from the roof edges, particularly the front and rear edge of the roof. Fire Marshalls across the state have worked to develop some general guidelines. He advised that there be is due diligence in making sure that the setback guidelines are met. He stated that it may require the sacrifice of one of the modules to meet a safety set back. There is some strong sentiment with Salem's Fire Chief regarding setbacks. Ms. Long stated that they leave 6" around the entire array on every side. She noted that they are not covering both sides of the roof and that the utility disconnects at are ground level, so that the Fire Department is able to throw the switch. Mr. Marquis stated that he is not suggesting that 6" is not enough, but is suggesting that a consultation with the Fire Department is warranted,particularly when dealing with an historic district. Ms. Herbert stated that it sounds like the proposal probably needs to be run by the Fire Department to get their reading on it. She stated that this is a first in Salem and we need to get this right. Ms. McCrea asked if the State has developed regulations or are coming up with its own. March 7, 2012, Page 5 of 9 Mr. Marquis stated that he could not answer definitively, but noted that there is some consensus among fire safety officials. There is the code and what public safety officials would like to see. Ms. Guy asked what other permits are needed. She asked if a Fire Department permit was required. Mr. Marquis replied in the negative. He stated that it requires Building, Electrical and an interconnection agreement with the utility company. Ms. Bean stated that they have all three. Mr. Marquis stated that he is a strong proponent of renewable energy, but wants to get it right, since it is a test case for solar in a historic district. Ms. Herbert asked if there are any installations in Salem outside of historic districts. Mr. Marquis replied in the affirmative. He stated that he has a document from Chief Cody with preferred setbacks and UL disconnect requirements. He will email it to Ms. Guy to forward. Mr. Hart suggested a site visit. He stated that he would like to understand what the disconnect looks like and where it is going to be. He stated he thinks solar is great, but wants to be sure what is installed is appropriate for the historic district. Ms. Long encouraged the city to develop its own ordinance. Ms. Bellin stated that considering this is first one, it is an ideal model to be the first one because of the unobtrusive roof. She stated that she also wants to know the dimensions. Mr. Hart noted that you have to stand relatively far back to see it and it is not a heavily traveled public way. Ms. Herbert stated most drivers will take the right onto North Pine. She noted solar approvals will be on a case by case basis and in this case, it will be minimally visible from a well-traveled public way. Rick Bingham, Advanced Performance Solar, stated that he lives in salem. He stated that he can answer any questions. Ms. Herbert closed the public hearing. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to continue the application and to schedule a site visit on Saturday l 0th or 17th, and, if possible,the proponent provide a mock up of the array for the roof and the utility disconnect. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. March 7, 2012, Page 6 of 9 16 River Street Kevin& Melissa Hankens submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a 3' high picket fence along the top of the retaining wall at the porch end of the upper driveway. Pickets to be 2"in width and the fence will match the picket fence located by their front door. Paint Swiss Coffee to match proposed house trim. Also submitted was an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for removal of aluminum siding and shutters,to repair existing clapboards and trim and for paint colors. House to be Wainscot Green, Trim, windows and fence to be Swiss Coffee and Door and brick wall foundation at the rear of the house to be Brattle Spruce. ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Paint colors Ms. Hankens stated that she talked to the neighbors and held paint chips to the neighboring houses because she wanted something to compliment the neighborhood. VOTE: Ms. Harper made a motion to remove the siding and shutters, and to repair clapboards and trim. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. VOTE: Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve the paint colors as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Hankens stated that there was once a chain link fence, but that it disappeared when they moved in. There was no public comment. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the fence as submitted. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 37 Chestnut Street Daniel Randal and Phillip Gillespie submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a 3' x 12' bay on the West elevation of the existing wood frame extension at the rear of the house. It will have a brick foundation to match existing, wood windows, a copper roof and wood trim details painted white to match existing trim on house. The dentil detail shown on the bay will match the existing on the eave of the main house. The fagade is obscured from the public way. The application also includes the replacement of the existing wood frame mudroom/sunroom and covered porch with a wood frame mudroom/conservatory with wood windows, wood trim details painted white to match the existing, and a copper conservatory roof. They propose extending the rear fagade by 2.5 feet toward the south. They also propos to demolish the existing wood stair on the East side of the home, as well as,the wood deck at the rear (South) side of the house. An unused brick chimney on the South side of the clapboard structure will also be removed. 0 Application March 7, 2012, Page 7 of 9 ■ Photographs ■ Plans completed by Foley Fiore Architecture ■ Plot Plan prepared by Edward J. Farrell Mr. Gillespie stated that he moved up from Pennsylvania a few years ago. He stated that the purpose of the project is for their young daughters, and that they want to provide an informal living space for the children that has an eat-in family area and is close to the outside. David Foley, architect, stated that they are removing the existing wood frame structure and will construct a conservatory structure. They will add a small bay onto the family room. The house will extend rearward by 2.5 feet. The wooden deck will be removed. Mr. Foley stated that the bay on the side is not terribly visible from street. It is obscure from Warren Street, and is most visible from Chestnut street but from a distance. Mr. Gillespie stated that they tried to design the fagade similar to what is there. Mr. Foley stated that it looks like the structure has evolved over years. It does not have a foundation. Mr. Gillespie stated that it is hard to tell what was there originally. Mr. Foley showed a sample of standing seam copper roof. He stated it will be the same detail whether glass panels or copper. Ms. Herbert asked if the conservatory will be glass and wood. Mr. Foley replied in the affirmative and stated it is a wooden base, with glass and wood, and wooden pilasters. Ms. Herbert asked the material for the lower roof. Mr. Foley stated it will be standing seam copper and portions would be glass. Mr. Hart stated that he was not sure if the West elevation is visible from the public way. Mr. Gillespie stated that it is minimally visible from Warren Street and not visible from Chestnut Street. Ms. Herbert asked if they are removing the side deck. Mr. Foley replied in the affirmative. Ms. Herbert asked if they will add a new deck. Mr. Gillespie replied in the negative and added that they may have flush brick patio. Ms. Harper asked about the windows. March 7, 2012, Page 8 of 9 _ Mr. Foley stated that they will be Marvin double hung in the bay, and casement in the conservatory, with simulated divided lights. Mr. Gillespie stated that they will be all wood. Ms. Herbert asked the size on the mullions. Mr. Foley stated that they will match what is on the house. Mr. Hart stated that it is a very well done application package. He stated that it is a subsidiary portion of the building. He stated that it does not really emulate Federal architecture, but that it is interesting whimsy of design. He noted that it meets the National Park Service guidelines for an addition to be separate and distinct from the building and not pretending to be a Federal building. He noted that the visibility is rather minimal. Mr. Gillespie stated that he did not believe it will be visible at all in the summer, Ms. Harper asked if the chimney will be removed. Ms. Gillespie replied in the affirmative and stated that it was probably a chimney for a subsidiary cooking stove at one point. It is not being used. They will reuse its brick to do bay foundation. Ms. Keenan stated that she thought the proposal was great. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Other Business a. Letter of support Ms. Guy stated that she is looking for a vote to submit a letter of support for the city's application for MPPF funds for the Salem Common Fence Restoration. She provided a draft letter. VOTE: Ms. McCrea made a motion to submit the letter. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. McCrea stated that Bill Wooley went above and beyond for the Salem Common and wished to thank him for his efforts. b. Approval of minutes VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of 1/18/12. 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 2/15/12. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. March 7, 2012, Page 9 of 9 VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of 2/28/12. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Hart stated that the MACRIS link on Massachusetts Historical Commission's webpage has a large number of digitized Form B's. 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 subm'tte , Jane A. Gu Clerk of th, ommission March 21, 2012, Page 1 of 13 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 21, 2012 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, March 21, 2012 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Keenan, Ms. McCrea, Mr. Spang and Mr. Hart. Ms. Bellin arrived later in the meeting. Salem Common The City of Salem submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of new benches along the walkways in Salem Common. The Benches will be Model C-10, wood benches with wrought iron railings and legs. Currently there are Fourteen 6' and nine 8' benches and three old benches with new benches. Plaques to be applied to donated benches. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Victor Stanley catalog page copies Alice LaPointe of the City's Park Department stated that the bench program started in 2003, and that, so far, 150 donated benches are in parks around the city. The program is that the donator pays for the bench and the plaque and the city installs them. She stated that the bench that the Commission approved years ago is no longer available. They are proposing using the same bench that is now used in projects undertaking by the Department of Planning & Community Development. Mr. Hart asked what kind of wood is used. Ms. LaPointe stated that they can choose either mahogany or ipe wood. She stated that donators typically usually choose their bench location,but that they sometimes suggest locations where benches are missing. Ms. McCrea asked if there is a design plan that shows the maximum number of benches for the Common. Ms. LaPointe replied in the negative. Ms. Herbert asked how many benches are there now. Ms. LaPointe replied that there are 26. Ms. Guy asked if they are not asking for a specific number of benches, but rather a blanket approval for this specific bench to be installed along the Common walkways as they get donations. March 21, 2012, Page 2 of 13 Ms. LaPointe replied in the affirmative. Ms. McCrea stated that she felt there should be a plan, so that not too many are installed. Ms. Herbert suggested making a plan that maps bench locations. Ms. Guy stated that she could have an intern do this as a project. Ms. Bellin joined the meeting at this time. Ms. LaPointe stated that currently have two potential donations for the Common VOTE: Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 19 Fowler Street In continuation of a prior meeting, Charles Bean and Susan Linder Bean submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a photovoltaic system. Also present was Rick Bingham of Home Depot, Authorized Service Provider for Advanced Performance Solar New England, Inc. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Photo-simulations ■ Plans completed by Sollular, LLC ■ LG Mononx Catalog pages ■ Empase.com pages ■ Ironridge Installation Manual Ms. Herbert stated that there was a site visit last Saturday and that she has been doing some research, noting that the Commission is totally unfamiliar with solar. She noted that this installation would be the first in an historic district and only the second residential installation in salem. She stated that she reviewed the application against the Commission guidelines and noted that there is no secondary building and no room in the yard for an alternative installation. The applicants don't have a garage or other building big enough to mount the panels and they have a very small yard, which is mostly taken up with parking. The only feasible location is the roof. She stated that it is a gambrel roof and the installation will be on the upper portion only. She noted that the only example of a solar installation in Salem is at 30 Boardman Street, which uses panels that have a white grid marks on the panels. She noted that the panel the Commission viewed on site did not have white, but was just a shiny black surface. She stated that she wanted to make sure the panel design is very plain and wanted to know if there would be end caps, so that the joining legs will not be sticking out. Ms. Linder-Bean stated that end caps are included in the price. March 21, 2012, Page 3 of 13 Ms. Herbert stated that, at site visit, Mr. Bingham mentioned that what was shown was a large panel, but will be installed will be smaller panels. She wanted to know if the smaller panel is different visually. Mr. Bingham stated that the panels to be installed are LG-255 and do have a bit of lighter color material on the face of the panel, and that is the nature of the panel. He stated that part of the reason is that they buy the panels in quantity. He stated that the project was designed originally with smaller panels,therefore there would be more panels. As an accommodation of the historic nature of the property, it was redesigned so that there will only be panels on the upper roof. The panels will not be visible when close, and only visible if standing about 20' away or more, other than a 3"rack. Ms. Herbert stated that what she saw was a large panel that looked to be solid black. Mr. Bingham stated that he did not know what they had available to show. Ms. Herbert asked if the smaller panels will have a white grid. Mr. Bingham stated that panels will be slightly small than what was show. They will be 40" wide x 66"tall,parallel with the surface of the roof. He stated that it will have a light color grid. Ms. Herbert stated that she wants the least obtrusive model. Mr. Bingham stated that, in terms of the multiple factors that are involved in a solar system, they have done that. He stated that it has a light color grid through it. He noted that every solar panel has a grid. The proposed will probably be a greyer color than at 30 Boardman. He stated that they would have to look it up on line, as he cannot bring a panel to a meeting. He stated that all of this is related to the financial considerations for the owners. The entire project is based on the cost of system and what they pay for electricity. He stated that changing a factor significantly effects the owner's financial situation. Ms. Herbert asked, if the Commission wants panels that don't have a white grid, will cost more. Mr. Bingham stated that it may cost more. Ms. Herbert stated that this is a test case and if approved, people are going to use this as an example and say they want the same, because it has been approved. She stated that she wanted to see the actual sample, which is why the Commission asked for a site visit. She stated that what they brought doesn't help us. Ms. Guy stated that based on the visibility of Mr. Harts pictures, she wondered if the top of the panel would even be able to be seen. Ms. Herbert stated that she did not know. Ms. Guy stated that she was agreement with regard to the grid, but stated that because the nature of this one being on top of the gambrel, she doubted the color of the panel would be seen. March 21, 2012, Page 4 of 13 Ms. Herbert stated that she understands the panels were bought in bulk, so that they can offer them at a certain price. She asked if required to use a different panel, if it may cost more. Mr. Bingham stated that it may. He stated that in this particular situation, it was originally designed with more, smaller panels, on the upper and side roof. Before coming to the Commission, they redesigned the system to reduce the presence of the solar equipment on the roof of the house, so it would be above the site line. Ms. Herbert asked, if the Commission wants something that is not as heavily gridded, what the cost difference would be. Mr. Bingham replied that he cannot answer that. Ms. Herbert asked if he was assumed they are more expensive. Mr. Bingham replied in the affirmative. He stated that the plan is to offer this particular panel for at least a year and that they purchased enough or contracted for at least seven states. Therefore, it is a huge bulk quantity. 'He stated that all solar panels, with the exception of possibly some water heating type, will have a grid of some kind built into the panel, because the silicon wafers that collect the sunlight are not big and have to be put together in a grid or matrix. Ms. Herbert stated that this is developing technology and that it is not known what is in the pipeline and that these will be on the house for twenty years. She stated they would like to get the best model up there for historic houses. Ms. McCrea asked if there was any house in the Salem area that have the proposed panels. Mr. Bingham stated that he did not know and noted that they have used numerous in the last few years. He stated that two of their suppliers have at least twenty-five different panels on their choice list for the installers. They all vary based on the manufacturer, who is supplying the lease, what the installers are purchasing and what the integrater is paying for. Mr. Spang stated that a similar example is the Commission's review of windows. He stated that we look very specifically at windows even though there may be 100 different manufacturers and the quality and price ranges from inexpensive to expensive. Nevertheless, the Commission will look at the specificity of any proposed window and determine if that window is appropriate for the location. He stated what we are trying to do is something similar for solar panels by saying we understand what we are looking as is a thing that is now going to be sitting up on the roof, as opposed to saying we are going to give you approval for a solar panel and you might go out and say it will look like this or look like that. He stated that that is the specificity we are trying to get to. Mr. Bingham stated that the closest will can get to looking at the physical panel is to look it up on line. Ms. .Bellin asked if Mr. Bingham has installed any LG-255 panels. March 21, 2012, Page 5 of 13 Mr. Bingham replied that he has not,personally. He stated that the panels have been sold in other states, but just came on line with them two months ago. Ms. Bellin asked if the Commission could see photos. Mr. Bingham stated that one of the problems with visual aspects of a solar panel is that they are on a roof surface, they are reflective and is going to be reflective. He stated that in cloudy conditions they will look black and in bright sunlight at the right angel, there will be a reflection and they will look shiny. Ms. Bellin asked if it is possible to see photos of the LG-255 installed. Mr. Bingham stated that he will see what he can do. Ms. Linder-Bean stated that at the Commission's last meeting when it was asked if there was a solar panel available and the response was that they were not sure if the exact panel was available, someone on the board stated, "how about a piece of black Styrofoam painted black" and that it didn't really matter as long as the members could see how far from the roof and the edges, etc. She that that is how the bigger panel, which isn't the exact one going on their roof came, because they were told it would not matter. She stated that Mass CEC has approved exactly what her system has been designed as, right down to every nut and bolt. They are approved for the rebate and any changes will hold it up. Mr. Bean noted that the cost went up about$1000, when it was redesigned for the upper roof. Mr. Bingham noted that the rebates are time limited, based on the time the contract is signed and when it is installed. He stated that a change order would delay it again, because it would have to be resubmitted. He stated that it is not a simple thing. He noted that he had client in Lynn who put off meeting with the installer for a month, and the cost per kilowatt went up 4.4 cents per kilowatt hour to 7.7 because the Massachusetts state deadline was not met. Ms. Herbert stated that this is the Commission's first installation,therefore they do not have past experience. She stated that the review got more complicated than when first presented, when she saw the grid at 30 Boardman and the sample we saw at the site visit did not have grid marks. She stated that we need to decide if we feel that you are saying that the grid on this particular model is the light grey versus the white on 30 Boardman Street. She stated it would be a matter if we decide if we take Mr. Bingham's word for it or if want to get more information. Mr. Hart stated that the Commission is looking at the first installation in the historic district, so he wants to be sure that they do right by the historic district. He stated that he is personally unhappy when applicants come in and say they have to do it right now because they have a time limit. Ms. Linder-Bean stated that she did not think the lines could be seen at the angle of the roof. Mr. Spang asked if the lines were in the panel versus the frame. March 21, 2012, Page 6 of 13 Ms. Herbert replied in the affirmative and stated that the lines are really obvious on 30 Boardman Street, while the panel shown at this site visit was clear black. She stated that is when she learned there were different models. Ms. Linder-Bean stated that the Commission's on-line guidelines state that the panel should match the roof color, be non-reflective, flush with the roof—and that was "when possible". She noted it is not always possible. Ms. Herbert stated that that section of the guidelines were written in November, 2010 for the advent of solar panels. The Commission agreed it wanted to encourage the use of solar energy within the historic district, but wanted to investigate all of the alternatives for the installation, including alternative building, lower roofs and ground installations. She noted that 30 Boardman used big panels and that, with a little advice,they could have gotten a less visible installation on a lower, smaller roof in the back with the smaller panels. She agreed the angle was totally different from Fowler Street. Ms. Linder-Bean stated that the top of her roof is angled and is three stories up. Ms. Herbert stated that that may be why the Commission did not see lines on the sample. It may be the sample had lines, but we did not see it. Mr. Spang asked about the frame. Mr. Bingham stated that it is dark aluminum. He believed it was dark brown. Mr. Spang asked how it was anchored to the roof. Mr. Bingham stated bolts go through the roof into the rafter system below and it is fully flashed. It mount 3-6" off the roof service, not directly on the roof. It is not flush on the roof. Mr. Spang asked if it is possible to close in the gap underneath the panel. Mr. Bingham stated that they will be closed in, because there will be end caps. Ms. Linder-Bean stated that they will be on the sides to keep out snow and rain. Mr. Spang stated that, given the roof pitch, it seems like one would not see the grid. He stated that he felt he could approve their installation without setting a precedent for everybody else. Ms. Herbert stated that these will need to be approved on a case by case basis, because every house is different. She stated that luckily the applicants have a gambrel roof. She stated that it may not be able to be done on other roofs. Mr. Hart stated that you have to back down the street to see it. Mr. Spang stated that the real impact is the edge trim and he is hearing it will be a dark edge trim and not cantilevered off the roof. March 21, 2012, Page 7 of 13 Mr. Hart stated that there are a number of sources on line to see dos and don'ts. He stated that the National Park Service has a site and they show a horrible example of what not to do. He stated that he was concerned about setting a precedent. He noted that for this property,the visibility is rather limited. He stated that he did not want to open Pandora's box. Ms. Guy suggested making some findings and vote to find that there is no option to put on a secondary building and no ground option, and that it is on the top of a gambrel roof which a unique situation to this building. She suggested making specific findings to this approval. Mr. Hart stated that in a way,this is a kind of experiment. Ms. Bellin asked if this will be as reflective as the one they saw. She assumed it was not a flat matte finish. Mr. Bingham replied that it is not flat, matte. He stated that they are all covered with tempered glass. Ms. Bellin asked if he has seen the panel. Mr. Bingham replied in the affirmative. Ms. Bellin asked if it looks like a pane of glass, or does it look like the photo, which makes it look matte. Mr. Bingham stated that it is not matte, but it does have a black background. He stated that it is somewhat reflective and if the sun is on it, you are going to get a reflection. He stated that there is always a layer of glass on the outer surface because that is what protects the wafers below, which are made out of silicone. Ms. Bellin stated that it appeared reflective to her at the site visit and she wondered if the actual panel will look just about as reflective. Ms. Linder-Bean stated that Bakers Island has 64 cottages,that 60 have solar and that are all different. She stated that the proposed will not be matte, but will have irregular shaped shiny, oddly reflective prism crystals things in them. You would have a blue and then stuff in there that is flat that reflects the light in different ways - but it is not glass shiny. Mr. Bingham asked if reflectivity is something the Commission wants or doesn't want. Ms. Bellin stated that she would like to know what the Commission saw and is trying to get a sense. Mr. Hart stated that it would be nice to see a sample panel. He stated that he did not want to see a photograph,he wanted to see a panel. Mr. Bingham stated that they are stored in a warehouse and that if he could get one, he would try to do that. He stated that they are probably located in New Jersey. March 21, 2012, Page 8 of 13 Mr. Bean stated that at the angle of the roof, it will not be visible. Ms. Herbert asked Mr. Hart can live with going forward as an example. She asked if the applicants would share the economics of this so they can get a handle on how feasible this is for other people. Ms. Linder-Bean stated there's will be a very small system. She noted that they are very green, so there won't be as much usage as the average person. She stated that their electric bill is a maximum of$30 per month. She stated that it will now be $2 per month. Mr. Bingham stated that has volunteered to do a presentation to the board based on a specific or theoretical place to explain how the economics work, but cannot divulge a particular customer's financial information. Mr. Spang stated that, on one hand,we could approve it because it really can't be seen, which is a standard thing that we deal with all the time. On the other hand, he noted that getting into the specifics of a panel is what the Commission does for windows all the time. We say that one`is no good because it doesn't belong, and this one is okay because it does belong and we get grief from the homeowners because the window that they don't want to use is more expensive, for which we say sorry, but that is the decision. He stated that the interesting conundrum is that this system has other attributes to it, one of which is this grant, which as a timing issue. Ms. Linder-Bean added that it has built in converters that go with the panels, so we don't have a big box. Mr. Spang stated that we would like to see a panel, because that is what we look at—we look at windows, we look at doors, we look at gutters. He stated that, for this particular installation, he is hearing there really isn't a choice for a second panel. He stated that they have this panel, it is part of this deal and because of the timing of things, this whole deal could fall apart. He suggested not focusing on the panel itself, but focus if it can be seen or not, and approve it because we can't see it. Mr. Bellin asked the deadlines. Mr. Bingham stated that the deadlines have to do with how many other people in MA apply for the grant money and get their approval before the Beans. Mr. Spang asked if it is a finite pot of money. Mr. Bingham replied in the affirmative. Ms. Linder-Bean stated that they started the process in early November and just got the congratulations letter from Mass CEC last week. Mr. Bingham stated that nothing being done on the exterior of their home is non-reversible. It is designed to be taken off at the end of the lease and the roof restored as close to original condition. All that remains are the mounting holes, which can be sealed and filled. March 21, 2012, Page 9 of 13 Ms. Herbert asked, as technology goes forward and perhaps panels get smaller, if the customer is locked in for 20 years or if they can upgrade. Mr. Bingham stated that they are locked in to the agreement for 20 years. Ms. Herbert questioned, for future applications, if the Commission should wait until technology catches up. Mr. Bingham stated that the reality is that photovoltaic rely on the number of square feet of collector that you have to collect enough sunlight to manufacturer the electricity. So you may only have marginal differences. Ms. Guy suggested that the approval state that this installation is being considered a pilot, so the Commission can see an installation, particularly one that is minimally visible, in order to see the reflectivity and be guided for future applications. Mr. Spang asked where in region these panels are located. Mr. Bingham stated that he would have to look it up, but that they may not be that specific panel Mr. Spang stated that if the Commission sees a panel that it likes better, it could set the clock back. He stated that knowing what a panel looks like for this property is irrelevant. Mr. Hart asked if it is possible to flesh out a draft approval tonight and finalize it in two weeks because he wanted to make sure it was air tight. Ms. Herbert stated that, due to limited visibility and that all panels are probably not that much different, she is leaning toward going forward and approving this as a test case. She stated that down the road they could do research and have Mr. Bingham bring in a panel. In terms of this particular situation where it is a gambrel roof and so minorly visible and it is part of their package, she is leaning toward going forward. She asked what would happen with this situation if they had to come back in two weeks. Mr. Bingham stated that he could not guarantee the pricing wouldn't change. Mr. Hart asked who Mr. Bingham represents. Mr. Bingham stated that he works for Advanced Performance Solar New England, Inc, which is the sales arm for UR Solar, that buys the panels and has a contract with Home Depot as a service provider. We work inside Home Depot stores and we also work outside Home Depot stores. We are an integrator, which we bring a bunch of things together to accomplish the goal Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the application for the installation of photovoltaic system per Solular, LLC plan E-1 dated 12/21/11 and photo simulations. Panels to be LG Mono X LG255 S 1 C with end caps. Installation to be on the upper portion of the gambrel roof. Frame to be aluminum, mounted with Iron Ridge XRS Solar Rail System. Approval is based on the following findings: 1. This application is unique in that it is the first solar application being reviewed by the March 21, 2012, Page 10 of 13 Commission and that the Commission has limited experience with which to adequately judge the application. 2. With regard to this specific installation and house, it was determined that there is no subsidiary building for an alternative location,there is no adequate yard space for a ground installation and there are no architectural features for which the system can be completely hidden from the public way. It will be placed on the upper slope of a gambrel roof, which has been determined to be less visible from the public way and due to the minimal roof slope, it will only be visible at a significant distance from the house. Mr. Spang suggested specifying that it be dark framing. Mr. Hart accepted the amendment and added to the motion that the proponent shall provide a physical sample of the LG255 panel for the Commission to view within 60 days. Ms. Guy suggested adding that this installation is a pilot or test case. Mr. Hart accepted the amendment. Ms. Guy stated that once it is installed, the Commission can tweak its guidelines accordingly. VOTE: Ms. Keenan seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Keenan, Ms. McCrea, Mr. Spang and Mr. Hart voted in favor. Ms. Bellin abstained from voting. The motion so carried. Mr. Spang suggested that for future applications for solar, homeowners request a pre-approval, so they don't wind up in a bind. He suggested they get approval ahead of time and provide a sample panel. Cora Nucci, 78 Washington Sq. East suggest the Commission put on the website that homeowners should apply to get the hardware pre-approved. Mr. Spang stated that he discussed with Ms. Guy about state laws on solar access. He stated that it is interesting that it almost seems that it says that in Massachusetts, solar cannot be denied. He suggested talking to the City Solicitor to see if solar can be denied if there is no choice in installation location but the front of the building. 60-62 Washington Square Lewis Legon submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to alter the rear chimney with either 1) finish the rear chimney with a metal/mesh cap to match the 2 chimneys on the main house or 2) add 9" of brick corner supports to existing chimney and complete with light metal cap. Mr. Legon was not present. ■ Application ■ Photographs Ms. Guy provided photographs of the original chimney,the revised chimney with the bluestone cap and the current chimney. March 21, 2012, Page 11 of 13 Ms. Herbert stated that the last time this was reviewed, the applicant was approved to add another 1' of brick course and 1' of brick corners to support a metal cap,thinking it would reduce the load. Apparently, adding the extra foot of brick is going to create the same leaking problem that was there before. The options before the Commission now are to keep what is there and add a copper box to match the front chimneys or to add 6 or 9" of brick corners and a flat metal cap. Ms. Guy stated that in January he sent a drawing that said 3"brick corners and 3" cap with two different suggestions for edges. His application says 9"of brick corner supports and the light metal cap. Ms. Herbert asked if the Commission wants to try and replicate what he had there which is similar to what the original looked like, or match the two other chimneys with the copper cap and the mesh. Ms. Guy stated that she gave Mr. Spang all of the information and asked him to look at this with fresh eyes. She asked if it was possible to put a metal sleeve on the inside with bricks on it. Mr. Spang thought it was weird and curious to him that the claim is it leaks when it is taller. Mr. Spang stated that Ms. Guy has asked him if it is possible to raise the height of the chimney with 1' of brick course and 1' of brick corners. He stated that the answer is maybe. He noted that the roof framing has to hold the gravity load of the brick and that it may or may not be up to it. He stated that it doesn't sound like a lot to have that little amount of brick in terms of brick loading. He stated it was hard for him to imagine that it would tip over due to the roof framing. He stated that there is also the horizontal load from the wind or seismic events. He stated that, depending on how it is structured, it could start to tip if it were taller. He noted that he felt it was hard to imagine that an extra foot of brick would make that difference. He suggested getting a letter from a structural engineer saying absolutely you cannot do that. Ms. Herbert stated that a letter has been requested by Ms. Guy and is already in the works. Mr. Spang stated that if the structural engineer states that the existing chimney cannot handle the load,then they would have to reinforce the roof framing with additional framing from below, take apart the ceiling to support the additional gravity load and wind load. Ms. Guy stated that it would require going inside the unit and into the person's ceiling or wall. Ms. Herbert stated that the complication is that he doesn't have permission from that particular unit owner to tear their ceiling apart, for which he would have to get approval from the condo owner to allow it to happen. Ms. McCrea was her sense was he was trying to avoid that. Mr. Spang stated that it would be both for the cost, as well as the process. Ms. Guy read an email into the record from Andrew Finestone, 70 Essex Street, who stated that he does "not support any alteration or changes in the initial agreement that the rear chimney be in kind to what was agreed upon at the last meeting. (height, four sides on top with open middle)" March 21, 2012, Page 12 of 13 Ms. Herbert suggested that any change in approval be subject to receiving an engineering report which states that building it up with an additional foot of brick as previously approved is not possible structurally. Ms. Bellin asked how this would work, if the approved would not work. Ms. Guy stated that part of it may be that he has a plumbing pipe in the chimney, which does not have to be above the chimney, but can't be too far below. She stated that she believed he is willing to do the corners, because he will still get the air in. Ms. Herbert stated that the weight issue difference is that the prior had a giant piece of heavy bluestone. He can rebuild it with the corners and have a light metal cap, so it will be the same height, but the top weight won't be the same force pressing down. Mr. Spang stated that that is not nothing in terns of the weight of that brick and this will be a lighter scheme. Ms. Herbert stated that apparently it was the bluestone that created the leak problem, but she is not sure how. Mr. Spang stated that that seems weird to him. Ms. Bellin asked if the proposed will be shorter with a lighter cap. Ms. Herbert replied in the affirmative. Ms. Herbert stated that the original chimney was thinner and when they rebuilt it, they rebuilt it a little fatter. She noted that one of the mistakes that the Commission made was not getting the dimensions of the existing chimneys, so we could be sure what was rebuilt measures to that. Ms. Herbert she stated that, unfortunately, the Commission learned the hard way. She noted when we saw the metal caps originally, we were shown just the cap and not shown on the chimney. She thought it would go inside the brick like most, but this is mounted right on top of the chimney. She did not think they would necessarily approve those again, Mr. Hart made a motion that the developer shall submit a letter from a structural engineer which explains how the previous approval of adding 1' of brick along with 1' of brick corner supports to the existing reconstructed rear chimney is not structurally feasible and that following acceptance of the letter, the developer will alter the reconstructed rear chimney by adding 9" of brick corner supports and top with a lightweight metal flat cap in matte black color to match the cap color of front chimneys. Ms. Bellin stated he cannot build anything until there is an engineering report. Ms. Guy stated the concern is he doesn't care whether he builds it or not, so there needs to be some incentive that he will do it. She suggested an amendment to find the property in violation if the engineering report is not provided within 30 days, and to not allow the alteration to commence until the report is received and that failure will result in it being a violation. March 21, 2012, Page 13 of 13 Ms. Herbert asked if the report should be submitted by the next meeting. Ms. Guy suggested 14 days for the engineering report so she can come to the meeting and say she received it. She did not feel it would need to be reviewed at the meeting. Ms. Herbert suggested 30 days for chimney completion. Mr. Hart so amended his motion. VOTE: Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Other Business Ms. Guy stated that she received an e-mail from Steven Sass, owner of 388-390 Essex Street who stated that the satellite dish should already be removed from the front of the building and that the metal on the second story bay seems to be an overly large drip edge, which they will attend to in the next 45-60 days. Ms. Guy stated that she received a copy of a letter from Massachusetts Historical Commission finding that the masonry work proposed for the Collins Middle School at 29 Highland Avenue will have no adverse effect provided that the EIFS material be used only in the secondary locations described in the February 13, 2012 submission. 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. Respectfull ub ed, J Guy Cl k of the Commission t April 4, 2012, Page 1 of 8 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 4, 2012 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, April 4, 2012 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Keenan, Ms. McCrea, Ms. Harper, Mr. Spang and Mr. Hart. 18 Butler Street George J. Sands submitted an application to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance to demolish the house at 18 Butler Street in order to construct a 2 family modular house. Ms. Herbert stated that the applicant has withdrawn his application and that the house is under agreement. 66 & 68 Derby Street Jay and Neal Levy submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors and the installation of fencing for the front and side lines. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Paint samples ■ Site Plan ■ Catalog pages from Walpole Woodworker Jay Levy stated that the trim will be tan on both houses. The red will be the body color for 66 and the khaki color will be the body color of 68. The doors and fencing will be Verde Green on both. Neal Levy stated that they did not like the way the wall color was coming out. Jay Levy stated that it will now be somewhere between the proposed trim color and the body color of 69. Neal Levy stated that he did not want it too light because the joints will show through. He stated that the darker the color, the less will show. Jay Levy stated that a lot of the wall will be hidden from view by fencing. He stated that it can only be seen behind 68 when coming down Derby Street. Ms. Harper asked if the wall is stepped. Jay Levy replied in the affirmative. Neal Levy stated that it has a foundation, 4' down into ground of poured concrete. He stated that part is exposed and there is a block is on top. They will stucco the wall and any exposed part of the foundation. e Apri14, 2012, Page 2 of 8 Ms. Harper asked what kind of cap it will have. Neal Levy stated that they are just repairing the existing, standard 2"block. Mr. Hart asked if there is a name for the red color. Jay Levy stated that the colors are custom made. Ms. Herbert asked if the colors are on record with Waters and Brown. Jay Levy replied in the affirmative. He stated that he can get the numbers from the cans and supply them to Ms. Guy. Mr. Hart stated that he is leery about the effect of the red. He stated that when the sun hits, it may cast a glow. Ms. Herbert stated that she felt the color is pretty muted. There was no public comment. VOTE: Ms. Harper made a motion to approve the colors as submitted. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Jay Levy stated that they are proposing a picket fence for the front of the properties and in between 66 and the existing larger house to block the alleyway. It will be a solid run of fence to the edge of the driveway. There will be a section between the driveway and the walkway. It will pick up at the edge of 68's driveway. The fencing will be 42"high. The design is shown on Page 23 of the Walpole Woodworkers catalog and they will replicate what is in the photo. It will be capped as shown in the photo and have posts on each end. Jay Levy stated that the back fence will be a solid good neighbor fence, the same on both sides, with post and cap, which will start at the edge of the wall at 68 and go to corner of the house with a gate on the right side. The A/C units will be behind the fence, which is 6' high. The fence locations are noted on the site plan. They will also connect the space between two houses with that fence. The 66 side will have a gate adjoining the house to get to the back of the house. There will be a divider that goes from the fence to the back wall at 68. Both parcels to be exclusive and private. Mr. Hart asked what provisions will they make for sound attenuations for the a/c condensers. Ms. Herbert stated that they need to be installed by code, which she believed allows for 5 feet from the property line. Jay Levy stated that, if it becomes a nuisance,the Board of Health and the Building Inspector will come out and check the decibel rating and tell us whether we need to do something or not, such as a sound barrier fence. He stated that as long as it is within the set back area, he does not anticipate a problem. April 4, 2012, Page 3 of 8 There was no public comment. VOTE: Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve the fencing as proposed. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Herbert noted that the condensers will be hidden. 46 Broad Street Sharon and Erik Drown submitted an application for a Certificate of Non-applicability to replace windows on the back for the house, which are not visible from the public way. They will be Anderson 400 series double hung in wood. Also submitted was an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a 3"x 2"vent in the roof for the new bathroom and laundry, in PVC, which can be painted black. The application is also to add 5 Velux skylights and replace one. One will be 21 %"x 27 3/8",two will be 30 9/16"x 38 3/5" and three will be 23 1/4"x 46 1/4". The application is also to install two condensers for the new heating system in the side yard, dark grey. Documents & Exhibits ■ Applications ■ Photographs ■ Plan of 3rd floor completed by DesignCrossover 2/27/12 ■ Roof plan completed by DesignCrossover 3/27/12 ■ Velux USA Catalog pages VOTE: Mr. Spang made a motion to approve the window application as submitted under Non- Applicability. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Drown provided a revised roof plan. Mr. Hart asked if there was already a vent there. Mr. Drown replied in the affirmative. He stated that they will be installing one 3" vent and one 2"vent. The 2" vent will be essentially next to the existing vent. The 3" vent will be behind the dormer and not be visible. There was no public comment on the vents. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the vents as submitted. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Drown provide photos of similar skylights in the district. He stated that there is a building about 8-10 feet away next door and that when the tree blooms, there is limited visibility. They will install one skylight on either side of the current skylight. One will be installed at the back of roof and one in front. The skylight indicated as "E" on the plan will not be visible. He stated that they have a need for natural light. The skylights will be all fixed on the right side, not operable and will be clear glass. He stated that after speaking with Ms. Guy when he initially submitted the plan, he talked with his architect and scaled down the size of the skylights. April 4, 2012, Page 4 of 8 Mr. Hart noted that the visual aspects are much diminished from the original plan. Ms. McCrea asked if the clear glass will get hot. Mr. Drown stated that they will put in a sliding shade. He stated that, luckily, that side of the house does not get a lot of sun, with tree and house next door. There was no public comment. VOTE: Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve the skylights per the revised plan. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Down stated that the condensers will be on the driveway side of the house and will meet setbacks. They will be about 7 1/2 feet from the property line, located in the shaded area in back. He stated that one will be tucked behind the bay. The locations are noted as "X" on the plan. He stated that they are using condensers because they currently have oil and want gas. He stated that to switch to baseboard is too expensive, therefore the most logical switch to gas is by having central air. It will not be cooling the whole house,just cooling floors. VOTE: Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve the condensers as submitted. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 60 Derby Street Gina Atwood submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a railing on the front stairs. The railing will be wrought iron similar to the photograph supplied, but for the two steps and landing. It will be installed on the left side of the granite steps, drilled in to the granite and secured with a mortar product. ■ Application ■ Photographs Ms. Herbert asked if it will be railing only on one side. Ms. Atwood replied in the affirmative and noted that the VA requires the railing in order to fund the loan. Ms. Herbert asked if it has to have all balusters. She stated that the picture looks a little 1950s. Ms. Atwood stated that she did not know the answer, but stated that they tried to come up with a solution that looks historical. Ms. Herbert stated that Hamilton hall is a good example, and suggested they check with the Building Inspector. She stated that she feels less is more and it should be kept really simple. She suggested having a single square newel post on the first step with a continuous top rail which fashions to the house with a fleur de lis escutcheon. April 4, 2012, Page 5 of 8 Mr. Hart stated that depending on the height, the maximum is 4"between balusters. He stated that he felt it was worthwhile checking with the Building Inspector to see what they require. He noted that Julius Blum, Inc. has railing components. Ms. Herbert suggested approval a railing similar to 5 Chestnut Street, subject to Building Inspector approval if it needs any additional balusters. VOTE: Ms. McCrea made a motion to install a wrought iron railing on the left of the front stair to replicate the railing on 5 Chestnut Street, subject to the addition of balusters if required by the Building Inspector per Building Code for 2-step entry stairs. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 192 Federal Street Pamela Waldron submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a fence to close off a section of the rear yard. It will extend from the house to the existing rear lot line fence. The proposed fence style will be Colonial per photo submitted, composed of wood. ■ Application ■ Photographs Ms. Herbert asked if the fence will be a capped flatboard cedar fence. Ms. Waldron replied in the affirmative. Ms. Herbert asked if it will be painted. Ms. Waldron replied in the negative and stated that it will weather. Ms. Herbert asked if it will be 6' high. Ms. Waldron replied in the affirmative. Ms. Herbert stated that it should have a square cap. There was no public comment. VOTE: Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve a fence to enclose the yard in the back of the house, running from the rear, driveway side corner of the house straight back to the rear lot line fence. The fence design is to be colonial (per photo submitted), cedar, flatboard, capped, unpainted with square cap on posts. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 24 Warren Street Richard Jagolta submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to reroof using black architectural shingles. April 4, 2012, Page 6 of 8 ■ Application ■ Photographs The applicant provided a roof shingle sample. Ms. Herbert noted that it is curved, which is the kind the Commission does not like. Mr. Jagolta stated that he went on the GAF website and that the 3-tab they describe is considered basic protection. He stated that it is really thin and flimsy. He stated that the architectural shingle weighs twice as much and will hold up better. Ms. Herbert stated that while the Commission hasn't approved the slanted, the roof design might accommodate that shape. Mr. Hart stated that somehow the structure previously got roofed with architectural shingles. Mr. Jagolta stated that the roof was done when he bought the house in 1993. Mr. Hart noted that the architectural shingles did not even last 20 years. He noted that a 30 year 3 tab is available. Mr. Jagolta stated that he has photographs of other houses in the McIntire that have architectural shingles. He stated that, with the mansard, he feel it is appropriate. Ms. Herbert agreed that this particular roof may lend itself to that shape. Mr. Jagolta stated that a little bit of the roof was done a few weeks ago, which he thought was all set to go while he was away. Ms. Harper asked if there were architectural shingles on the roof before they started this project. Mr. Jagolta replied in the affirmative. Ms. Herbert noted that it will be a little different color and a little different shape than what is there now. The new shingle is GAF Timberline in black. Ms. Herbert stated that she liked it, and personally had no problem with it. Mr. Hart stated that he will abstain. Ms. Keenan and Ms. McCrea stated that they thought it was fine. Mr. Spang stated that he had no problem with the proposed. There was no public comment. April 4, 2012, Page 7 of 8 VOTE: Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve the application as submitted with GAF Timberline black architectural shingles. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Ms. Keenan, Ms. McCrea and Mr. Spang voted in favor. Mr. Hart abstained. The motion so carried. 8 Beckford Street Clair and John Cassella submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the right side gutter and metal belt with 16 oz copper gutter and new 16 oz copper belt course. They will remove and reset slate as needed. The gutter extends the entire side to the back of the house. It will be OG gutter, custom fabricated. The application is also to replace a bay window roof with a fully adhered rubber roof with copper edge and for four dormer valleys to be renewed with 16oz copper. ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ J. B. Kidney quotation Mr. Cassella stated that the existing gutter was improperly installed. They will replace the strip of metal there now with copper. Mr. Hart asked if it will be standing seam. Mr. Cassella stated that it will be flat. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the gutter replacement with copper and the belt course with locked seam copper. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Hart stated that the bay roof can barely be seen. Mr. Cassella stated that it is on the driveway side. Ms. Cassella stated that they are changing it from shingles due to water damage. Mr. Hart suggested giving the applicant the option of rubber or copper roof. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the bay window roof replacement with either rubber or copper with a copper edge. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Hart recommended they explore the possibility of 20 oz rather than 16 oz for the exposed valleys. He stated that they get a lot of wear and they will last longer. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the renewal of the four dormer valleys with either 16 or 20 oz copper. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. April 4, 2012, Page 8 of 8 Other Business VOTE: Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve the minutes of March 7, 2012. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Guy stated that she received a copy of a letter from Massachusetts Historical Commission to the MBTA concerning the Salem Commuter Rail Station Improvements Project, which requested that the Salem Historical Commission and Historic Salem, Inc. be provided with a copy of the PNF. It also requested additional information including design drawings and colored renderings, including vantage points from the Federal Street Historic District. City Councillor Josh Turiel stated that the turntable was found with sonar. He stated that the State wants to see what of significance they can salvage. Mr. Hart stated that Historic Salem, Inc. will likely write a letter asking them to reuse the signal tower in some fashion. Ms. Herbert stated that for HSI's preservation awards, Hannah Diozzi is going to nominate the First Baptist church. She noted that the downspouts have been painted white against brownstone. She stated that she felt it was a blemish on a great job. Mr. Hart agreed it is very prominent. Ms. Herbert noted that the beach tree was never planted, and that the tulip tree planted around the side was planted too deep and therefore it probably won't do well. Mr. Spang stated that the job is done and that the only way to require changes now is to have a commitment letter in hand of what they said they would do. VOTE: There being no further business, Ms. McCrea made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Respect£ s tted, Jane G y Clerk f the Commission May 2, 2012, Page 1 of 9 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 2, 2012 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, May 2, 2012 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Ms. McCrea, Ms. Bellin, Mr. Spang and Mr. Hart. Ms. Keenan arrived later in the meeting. 22 Chestnut Street In continuation of a prior meeting,Nina Cohen& Craig Barrows submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to reshingle the roof to match the existing color roof tile. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ CertainTeed XT30,XT25 catalog pages Ms. Guy stated that the Certainteed roof appears to be 3 tab, even if it does not say so on the catalog page. She stated that the applicant appeared to have selected a color that most closely matches what they had previously. She stated that she recommended approving it under a Certificate of Non-applicability. Mr. Hart was in agreement. VOTE: Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-applicability for roof replacement as has already been completed, 3 tab in same color as was existing. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 362 Essex Street Peter Atkinson and Jennifer Allen submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove the outdoor deck on the NE corner of the original 1754 home. The deck is not part of the original construction and is estimated to have been built in the middle of the 20th century. It is currently a safety hazard and its removal will return the house nearer to its original intent, highlighting the main entry portico and allowing more natural light into the main house, while improving the architectural symmetry of the facade. The application is also to replace the current door onto the deck with a window, similar to the original design. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Memo from Design Works Architecture dated 11/21/11 Ms. Keenan joined the meeting at this time. May 2, 2012,Page 2 of 9 Ms. Herbert asked if the new window will be similar to the adjacent window. Mr. Atkinson replied in the affirmative. He stated that they will replace it to match the rest in the room - 6 over 6,true divided light. They are planning to save the balustrades and urn and may try to fashion urns for the fence in the front. Mr. Hart asked if the windows will be single pane. Mr. Atkinson replied in the affirmative and stated that they may have storms. Ms. Allen stated that the house next door is really close and therefore the window across in the room is really useless. They are thinking of taking out that window and reusing it where the door is or else fabricate a new window. She stated that the window to be removed is not visible from the street and that the door being replaced is not visible. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove the deck and a Certificate of Non-applicability to replace the door with a window, with the option to remove a non visible window and re-use it in place of the door. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 67 and 69-71 Mason Street Riverview Place LLC submitted an application for Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance for complete demolition of both buildings, which are seriously dilapidated. The site is being redeveloped for use as a primarily residential apartment complex. Atty. Scott Grover was present representing the applicant. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Ms. Herbert read an e-mail from Emily Udy of Historic Salem, Inc. requesting denial in order to complete a survey for submission to Massachusetts Historical Commission(MHC). Ms. Herbert noted that HSI will undertake a survey for the Bonfanti Factory building only. She stated that she asked how long it would take and was told 4-8 weeks by Barbara Cleary. Atty. Grover stated that everything is down on the Salem Suede site. The 2 buildings remaining are the main Bonfanti site and a 3-family vacant house to the left. Mr. Hart stated for the record that Barbara Cleary is his wife and that he was not aware of the email. Atty. Grover stated that he understood the desire to conduct a survey of the property. He stated that he believes there is a little flexibility in his client's schedule. He noted that they have been in permitting for 5 years and that the driving need for demolition is for the environmental clean up of site. He stated that it is more efficient to clean up the whole site at once. He noted that May 2, 2012, Page 3 of 9 another reason is the disruption to neighborhood by having to come back and start another demolition project if they can't demolish now. Ms. Herbert suggested continuing to next meeting to allow HSI to get the survey underway. Atty. Grover asked Ms. Herbert if photographic documentation was being investigated. Ms. Herbert stated that she could get those questions answered for the next meeting. Atty. Grover stated that two or four weeks probably would not be a problem but that four to eight weeks would be a problem. A letter SP Engineering, Inc. was read into record. Ms. Herbert stated that two weeks would give Atty. Grover a chance to work with HSI to the get survey going. Mr. Hart stated that the Commission may want to write a letter to HSI. He stated that MHC's MACRIS database does not show it as having being surveyed. He stated that he would be looking for a history of the building in terms of construction date and uses, along with taped exterior footprint of building—horizontal and vertical. Photos of interior and exterior should be 3/4's of full on elevations to document existing conditions. Ms. Guy noted that the Commission reviewed the PNF in February, 2011. Mr. Spang suggested the photography and measurements take place, allow demolition, and then there is time for the history research. Mr. Hart stated that the history is important in case they find something unique. Atty. Grover stated that HSI has had the proposal for four months. He suggested that they act quickly to do this. Ms. Herbert suggested his client work with HSI to develop time frames between now and the next meeting. Atty. Grover reviewed the latest approved plans of project with the Commission. He stated that there will be 130 units in the project. Mike Shea, 5 Brentwood Avenue, stated that he has a property at 54 Mason Street that he goes by the Bonfanti building daily. He stated that he has concerns with homeless persons getting into the property if it stays vacant. Atty. Grover asked the Commission to also communicate with HSI. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to the next meeting. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. May 2, 2012,Page 4 of 9 18 Felt Street Ice Cat, LLC submitted an application to Waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance for the removal of the barn and garage. The barn is in disrepair. Removal is needed to allow subdivision of the property per variance granted 4/4/12 to add an additional lot to the property for a new house to be built. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Site Study dated 5/2/12 by Schopf Design Associates Ms. Herbert stated that the applicant has requested a continuance. She noted that Morris Schopf provided a plan on how it is possible to get a new house of same size as the mansion on the lot, while saving the garage, barn and trees. She read a letter from Morris Schopf, Schopf Design Associates received 5/2/12 (dated 4/2/12). Atty. Grover stated that Ms. Herbert has been involved with administrating the Board of Appeal conditions. He stated that the applicant is most interested in taking the garage down sooner rather than later. They are willing to wait on the barn. He stated that two weeks continuance for the garage is not a problem. He stated that the Schopf drawing really cramps the existing house, which is why they want to get the garage down. He did not believe the garage had any significance. Ms. Herbert stated that if they take down the garage, they could keep the slate for patching the house. She noted that they are also considering moving the garage to the other side. Mr. Hart asked if the age of the garage is known. Ms. Herbert stated that she believe it was from the 30s or 40s. Mr. Hart stated that he had no objection to garage coming down. Ms. Keenan,Ms. McCrea and Ms. Harper stated that they also had no objection. Mr. Hart stated that he would like dimensions and photographs of the exterior. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance for the garage subject to the Commission receiving photographs and dimensions. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Spang abstained from voting. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue barn portion of the application to the next meeting. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Spang abstained from voting. Mr. Hart stated that he could prepare a memo of what documentation is wanted and send it to Ms. Guy to forward. May 2, 2012, Page 5 of 9 31 Washin on S . North Rear Michael and Charlotte Shea submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a new water fountain, install a new section of fence and install a pergola. The pergola is 7' high and 5' wide. The fountain is approximately 7' tall and 4 %2' wide. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Sketch of yard Mr. Shea stated that the color of the fountain is to be natural white. He stated that the fence is white. The pergola will be 50' in from the fence. The fence is to be identical to the fence on Oliver Street and is to be located on the rear property line, of which a portion can be seen from the street. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 6 Monroe Street Browne Realty Trust, c/o Roger B. Tyler, submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of a telephone system at the front door for resident/visitor access control, which is a requirement of the Licensing Board. It will be 16 1/4"H x 6 3/8"W x 2 3/4"D stainless steel panel with trim ring, surface mounted. Also submitted was an application to replace deteriorated wood railings at a rear deck and replacement of a small side entrance landing, stairs and railings at the east die of the house. The proposed railings for both installations would be 36"in height measured from the stair tread or deck surface to the upper surface of the rail system. The railings will be constructed of 4"x 4" fir corner posts, 2"x 2" fir balusters and 2" x 4" fir top and bottom rails. There will be a 4"maximum space between the balusters. The hand rails will be beveled. The side entrance landing of three 1"x 4"fir risers and the kick boards will be pine painted white. The railing for the deck and stairs and the railing for the entrance landing will be coated with a clear waterproof sealer. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Mircom Slim Line Telephone Access System specification ■ Site plan Ms. Herbert asked if there was any way to do wood band molding around the system. Mr. Tyler stated that he didn't know why they couldn't. He stated that he might be able to recess it. Mr. Spang stated that the doorway looks pretty original, and that recessing may be more intrusive to the historic door. May 2, 2012,Page 6 of 9 Ms. Herbert added that wood molding might be more like gilding the lily. Ms. Guy stated that it may draw the eye to it. She stated that since the system is not appropriate, she suggested not trying to make it look appropriate. Ms. Harper asked if it could be put underneath the knock box. Mr. Hart stated that he felt it would be less obtrusive to put it on the right hand side. He stated that they could put up a piece of plywood and then mount it on the plywood. Ms. Harper stated that she wondered if putting it underneath the box would be better than intruding on the design of the paneling, which is a nice feature of the entryway. Mr. Spang stated that the specification shows a pedestal mount option. Mr. Tyler stated that he could go back and see if he can come back with a smaller design. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the access system to first meeting in June. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Tyler stated that a piece of deck is visible. Mr. Hart suggested double checking with the Building Inspector to be sure 36"high railings are okay. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the replacement of wood railings as proposed. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 66 &68 Derby Street Jay and Neal Levy submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of gutters,to be OG style, 5 inches, 032 heavy gauge aluminum,painted Wicker to match the trim. Jay Levy was present. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Mr. Levy stated that the gutters will go in standard locations. Ms. Herbert stated that Morris Schopf told her that this project was one of the nicest jobs he has seen. Mr. Levy stated that it is not more difficult or expensive to do it, if you plan for it. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the installation of gutters & downspouts. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. May 2, 2012, Page 7 of 9 Other Business a. Review of Draft CLG Opinion on Eligibility for the Point Neighborhood Ms Guy stated that the North Shore CDC hired Patty Kelleher to prepare a draft CLG Opinion of Eligibility for the Point Neighborhood, which was distributed to the Commission. She stated that in order to a National Register nomination,the Certified Local Government has to submit an opinion. This is in the first step in the nomination process. She noted that MHC called her today asking for the opinion because they have tax credit applications they are reviewing next week, including one for the North Shore CDC. She stated it is basically to say that the Point Neighborhood is eligible for listing. Ms. Bellin asked if this was creating a local historic district. Ms. Guy replied in the negative. It is just saying that the Historical Commission is saying this is eligible for listing, which opens the door for the nomination process.. Mr. Hart stated that he understood the CLG opinion is for the district nomination process and that if any individual property comes up for tax credits, then MHC will look at that individual property. Ms. Guy stated that once a property is listed on the National Register district or individually, a property is still considered listed. She stated that there can be contributing and non-contributing properties in the district. Mr. Spang asked if the City wants the Saltonstall School in the district. Ms. Guy stated that the City has not voiced its opinion as yet. This is just the CLG opinion, which is the Historical Commission. Ms. Keenan asked the benefit. Nina Cohen,North Shore CDC, stated that she understands that there is an application for state historic tax credits. The CLG opinion will establish their eligibility to apply for these tax credits in order to do some renovations to their properties. She stated it is the first step in the process for federal register application. She noted that the final district has not yet been delineated. She stated that the benefit would be for certain property owners in the Point to be able to apply for these state historic tax credits which is a substantial new source of funding for housing rehabilitation. She stated that the other benefit is recognition which can bring focus, attention and resources to individual properties. Mr. Hart stated that listing on the National Register it permits certain property owners to apply for state and national tax credits. It is a very beneficial designation. Ms. Herbert stated that listing on the National Register, and not the local historic district, does not save a building from inappropriate changes or demolition. May 2, 2012, Page 8 of 9 Mr. Hart stated that the Section 106 would kick in when using federal funds or permitting. Ms. Guy stated that the boundary is not set and that it is a long process. The map is a draft. She did not think she would submit a map with the CLG opinion and noted that the study of the Point for the Neighborhood Architectural Districts completed by VHB had a larger boundary recommendation. She stated she will tweaking the wording of the draft opinion. She stated that she would probably not submit a smaller boundary than what is eligible. She stated that she would probably go with the larger boundary, as it is easier to go smaller than to go larger. She stated that she is looking for a vote that says the Point in eligible and to send the CLG opinion to Massachusetts Historical Commission(MHC). Mr. Spang asked what limitations it would put on the city if they want to do work to the Saltonstall School. Ms. Guy stated that if it is included in a district, and state or federal funding is used, it would need to go through the federal Section 106 or the state Chapter 9 process. She stated that the school may not be part of the National Register district. This form is not the nomination. This is the only the opinion that this is eligible. Then a nomination is drafted,which is a whole other vetting process. She will include everything from the VHB report for the eligibility opinion. The process is that the consultant applied the National Register criteria and uses it, along with looking at the VHB and other reports,to draft the CLG opinion narrative. The Commission then sends in this one page form that says we agree that it is eligible for listing. It has nothing to do with finalizing boundaries; that is way in the future. She stated that, at some point, whoever wants to spend the money, will hire a consultant to draft the nomination. Then there is a series of steps and public hearings that are done which will start tweaking those boundaries. It may be during that process that the City may say it does not want the Saltonstall School in the district. Ms. Keenan asked if homeowners have to agree. Ms. Cohen stated that there is a lot of chance for public comment and that it is approximately a two year process. She stated that this is only the first step. VOTE: Ms. McCrea made a motion to submit a CLG opinion on the eligibility of the Point Neighborhood with Ms. Guy tweaking the draft for submission. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. b. Approval of Minutes VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of March 21, 2012. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. VOTE: Mr. Spang made a motion to approve the minutes of April 4, 2012. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. May 2, 2012, Page 9 of 9 C. Correspondence 1. Ms. Guy stated that she received a copy of a letter dated 4/17/12 from MHC to Historic New England, regarding 34 Chestnut Street, and finding that the proposed drainage project will have no adverse effect. 2. Ms. Guy stated that she received a copy of the Project Notification Form for the construction of a 715 parking space intermodal facility. The developer will be filing an Expanded Environmental Notification Form later this year. She stated that she will put the PNF on the next agenda in case anyone wants to comment. 3. Ms. Guy stated that she received a copy of a letter dated 4/12/12 from the Secretary of the Commonwealth awarding Annie Harris with a 2012 MHC Preservation Award. 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 subpoe Jane A. G Clerk of th Commission May 16, 2012, Page 1 of 10 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES MAY 16, 2012 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, May 16, 2012 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Keenan, Ms. Bellin, Mr. Spang and Mr. Hart. 8 Gifford Court Shirley A. Walker and Robin D. O'Neil submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace a fence that was damaged by a falling tree. The previous wooden fence was 6' high and 12' long on the Bridge Street side with a gate next to the garage. There was a 5' high 15' long unpainted, chain link fence on the side of the house with no gate or opening. The new fence if 6' high, 12' long on the Bridge Street side and is unpainted wood with a flat top and a gate next to the garage. It will be extended up the side of the house with no gate or opening. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Ms. Herbert asked if the fence is cedar. Ms. Walker stated that she thought so. Ms. Herbert asked if she will let the fence go natural. Ms. Walker replied in the affirmative. She stated that the fence is identical to the fence at the house next door. She stated that the only difference is the replacement of the chain link with wood. There was no public comment VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the fence as constructed. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 31 Chestnut Street William and Laura Wrightson submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace a fence with a capped picket fence, change the fence layout by adding a matching gate in the middle of the lot and to end the fence at the back of the lot against the carriage house, instead of running it to the street, replace demolished pergola with a new pergola, add a brick wall and caps to match the existing 2 walls/caps to fully enclose the patio with house. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographic presentation May 16, 2012, Page 2 of 10 Ms. Herbert read a letter from Morris Schopf, 1 Cambridge Street in favor of application. Mr. Wrightson reviewed his photographic presentation. He stated that essentially there are two fences. The front and back fence are similar construction with the back fence being slightly taller. He believes at one point the patio was enclosed and did not think the existing fence is something that would have been there originally. He noted it is a high Federal house that was built by a wealthy man. He stated that the proposed fence is 100% compliant with the Commission's guidelines. He stated it would look most appropriate if the cap of the fence matched the height of the finials on the iron fence. He stated that the capped picket fence will allow air circulation and let light in for plantings. He stated the first change is that they want to change the junction between their and their neighbor's fence. They also would like to put a jog in the fence to tie into the carriage house. Ms. Herbert asked if the top of his fence would be below the neighbor's fence. Mr. Wrightson replied in affirmative. He stated that the second change is to have an inner gate for the dog. He provided a couple of fence options. He believes the area is about 10' wide. He stated that he would use an exact piece of fence section from the regular fence. He asked if the gate was preferred with or without posts and thought that maybe the bottom option in the photograph makes more sense. Ms. Bellin stated that, if fence sections are 8 feet and the proposed inner fence is 10' feet, it may look cluttered. Mr. Hart stated that he preferred the posts as it defines where the gate is. Mr. Wrightson noted that the gate won't be centered, but will be where the walkway is Mr. Hart stated that there will be symmetry in terms of posts, but will have asymmetry where the gate is. Ms. Herbert stated that she was okay with a half post up against building. Mr. Wrightson submitted a list of signatures in favor of the proposal from some of the neighbors. Ms. Herbert asked how to tie the fence into the granite pillar. She stated that one idea was iron lags, so that the fence dies in without a wooden post. She stated that the other item to decide upon was whether or not to have the fence end at the beginning of carriage house. Mr. Spang asked if the fence will be painted white. Mr. Wrightson replied in the affirmative. Mr. Wrightson stated that the height to the top cap of the fence is 3'6". Ms. Herbert stated that she did not think she wanted to see a wooden post abutting the granite pillar. May 16, 2012, Page 3 of 10 Mr. Wrightson stated that he could have a notched 2x4, invisible from street. Ms. Bellin asked if the finished side is currently facing their yard. Mr. Wrightson replied in the affirmative Ms. Herbert asked if the new fence will also face in or be changed to facing out. Mr. Wrightson stated that typically the finish side faces the neighbor and that he was willing to do so. Mr. Spang suggested a 3x with a lag. Ms. Herbert asked if they will connect the end of the fence to the back side of carriage house. Ms. Bellin stated that if the fence is removed, they might want to delineate the property line somehow. Jon Reardon, 35 Chestnut Street asked if they would be working on his existing fence. Mr. Wrightson replied in the negative. Dr. Maura McGrane, 29 Chestnut Street, stated that she is the direct abutter and asked when looking straight at the fence,what the distance between planks will be. Mr. Wrightson replied it will be 1 7/8". Ms. McGrane stated that the code says to replace in kind. She stated that she has no objection if the fence is stained in a natural color and if the planks are closer together . She stated that it is changing privacy and that the width is her only objection. She stated that they will be able to see right into each other's yards. She stated that currently there is no spacing. Mr. Hart stated that a fence he has at his home is called a closed picket fence, which gives total privacy. Ms. McGrane stated that the height is an issue because the back area of the fence is significantly higher than the red fence on the back of her property. She felt that bringing it down to 3' is an excessive reduction and takes away most of the privacy. She stated that 5 %2' tall is plenty. Ms. Herbert asked why the applicant wants the proposed height. Mr. Wrightson stated that height is not the issue. He stated that in front is what needs to blend and that the back needs to tie into the pillar. Ms. Herbert asked what height it is. Mr. Wrightson stated that it is maybe 4'. 1 May 16, 2012, Page 4 of 10 Ms. Herbert stated that it looks like the old fence is a variety of heights. Mr. Riordan stated that he built that fence 30 years ago. He stated that from the granite post back to the brick patio wall was roughly 4' high or so, and then it jumped up to 6' high. Mr. Hart stated that he hated to delay the application, but felt there are questions about the heights. He wondered if the Commission could get some a height measurement of the adjacent neighbor's fence, noting that it doesn't look like it is 6' high. He stated that he heard an objection on spacing because there is no space between the pickets now and stated that the applicant may want to investigate closing up the gap. Ms. Herbert suggested nailing down the height of the red fence in back and determining how they want to terminate the fence into the granite pillar. She stated that Mr. Hart could get the information on the closed picket fence. Mr. Wrightson stated that they are not interested in applying for that fence. He read a portion of guidelines which state, "Other fence may be architecturally unimportant,the result of fence replacement in more recent years. In these cases, property owners would be encouraged to make the design more appropriate rather than duplicate the existing fence." Ms. Herbert stated that the existing flatboard fence is inappropriate and she would not want it to be duplicated. She stated that when last before the Commission, she believe the proposed color of fence was an issue and it had been suggested that the abutter resolve it with plantings. She stated that she can see that the applicant is trying to tie the fence in with his house. At this time Ms. Wrightson left the meeting to go get measurements and a photo of Mr. Hart's closed picket fence. Mr. Wrightson stated that the other proposed changes are the new pergola and a new brick wall to match what is there. He stated that they will probable need a six pillar pergola. It will be white. He proposed two design options and stated that they preferred the one on Page 29 with Doric columns. Ms. Herbert stated that she thought the square columns would be flimsy for this house. Mr. Spang asked if they will tie the pergola tie into the house. Mr. Wrightson stated that it will be attached to the house and that they will use federal design elements to make it look like it has been there a while. He stated that he thinks it should be closer to the house than as drawn. Mr. Hart asked the height of the new wall. Mr. Wrightson stated that it will match what is there and be 5' high. There was no public comment on the pergola or wall. May 16, 2012,Page 5 of 10 Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the pergola and wall as presented as depicted on Page 28 and 29, with rounded pillars for the pergola. Mr. Wrightson suggested it be two inches off of the wall of house. VOTE: Mr. Hart so amended his motion. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. The applicants requested that discussion on the fence be continued to later in the meeting in order to get the measurements requested. The application continues later in these minutes. 112-114 Federal Street Paul and Leslie Tuttle submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the addition of a window on the rear enclosed porch and an application to change the fencing configuration on Andover Street(fence remains same style), change the height and style of the interior fence at Federal Street and add a new fence to divide the yard for separate units. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Parcel maps Ms. Tuttle stated that there had been a window there at one time. They will match the existing window exactly. Mr. Spang asked if the window, frame and color will match. Ms. Tuttle replied in the affirmative. There was no public comment. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the window installation as submitted. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Tuttle stated that the 4' picket fence on Andover Street will remain the same style but it will reconfigured in order to make a parking space. There is currently an open 6' picket fence between their house and 116 Federal;therefore,the one parallel to it will be left to go natural. She stated that the other two will be painted to match the house. There was no public comment VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the fence alterations as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. May 16, 2012, Page 6 of 10 358 Essex Street Ellie Realty Trust, Andrew Greer, submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of a range hood vent which has already been completed. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Mr. Greer apologized for not having first come before the commission prior to installing the vent. He provided photos of other vents in area that had been approved. He stated that it has been painted to match the clapboards. Ms. Herbert stated that it is pretty well disguised. Mr. Greer stated that it is not very visible from the street. Mary Whitney, 356 Essex Street stated that this isn't the first time that the owner has not asked permission to do work on the house. She stated that he has done work the on interior without permits and the proper techniques for dust control. She stated that she moved to the historic district because she knew there would be protections. She noted that the applicant's house has stood since 1729 with only minor alterations. She provided four books with photos of the house at various times. She stated that it is essentially unchanged through the centuries and is a museum quality house. She stated that the owner knows it is a historic district. She noted that other changes done and not approved are the cellar windows. She stated that her understanding is that anything visible from street needs permission. Mr. Greer stated that his understanding is now completely different from before and realizes it now. Ms. Herbert asked why they need the vent. Mr. Greer stated that it is for a range hood. He stated that it wasn't a kitchen there before. Ms. Herbert asked if the kitchen was done with permits. Mr. Greer replied in the affirmative. Ms. Herbert asked if he lives in the house. Mr. Greer stated that it is a condominium and that he will be living at 358 %2. Ms. Herbert asked who lives in the unit with the new vent. Ms. Guy stated that the Commission needs to look at the application as though the vent had not already been installed. She stated that the Commission has approved similar vents. She noted that vents are not required to be non-visible, but that they should try to be kept minimally visible and unobtrusive. May 16, 2012, Page 7 of 10 Mr. Greer stated that the unit is and that it will be sold. He stated that it is a post and beam house and that it is difficult to put ducts up in the beams. Ms. Herbert stated that there may be other options for venting and suggested a continuance. John Carr, 7 River Street stated that he did not know the particulars, but agreed the inside and outside of the house is museum quality. He stated that he hoped it is given the highest degree of care in the resolution of the issues. Ms. Bellin questioned if there is a minimum height requirement for a vent. Mr. Spang asked if it is possible to get the vent to the back yard. Mr. Greer stated that it is not possible. He stated that it would be an extremely long run, filling with grease. Mr. Spang suggested running it along the ceiling to back. Mr. Greer stated that it is framed across and is about the height of his head. He stated that everything about the framing works completely against doing it. Ms. Bellin asked if he installed the vent himself. Mr. Greer replied in the affirmative. Mr. Hart stated that he was not sure if there is another alternative, but agreed it should be continued until the owner can explore alternatives. Ms. Whitney asked if it was up to Mr. Greer to come back with other solutions, or to bring in someone knowledgeable with experience. She stated that she was asking to have objective information. Mr. Hart stated that it is up to Mr. Greer to respond and the Commission to determine if it is an adequate response. Mr. Greer provided photos of houses he felt were significant with approved vents. Mr. Carr stated that it appears what is driving the vent is the interior. He stated that, traditionally, a room like a kitchen is not put at the front of the house. He stated that formal rooms are usually forward. He noted that maybe it is too late for that. Mr. Greer stated that the alterations to the room were basically putting cabinets on the wall. He stated that he did not feel comfortable selling a recirculating vent to someone. Ms. Herbert stated that she has had a recirculating range vent at her home for over fifteen years. She suggested the owner investigate recirculating vent, as well as a flatter vent and come back. May 16, 2012, Page 8 of 10 VOTE: Ms. Bellin 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. 67 and 69-71 Mason Street In continuation of a prior meeting, Riverview Place LLC submitted an application for Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance for complete demolition of both buildings, which are seriously dilapidated. The site is being redeveloped for use as a primarily residential apartment complex. Scott Grover was present representing the applicant. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Ms. Herbert stated that Historic Salem, Inc. was originally going to do a study of the building but determined that it would likely not be eligible for the National Register and therefore are not going to do the survey. She stated that as long as it is photographed and measured, they are okay with granting the waiver subject to the Commission receiving those items. Atty. Grover asked what is wanted for measurements and if it is just the exterior. Mr. Hart stated that it should be a taped perimeter measurement on a plot plan and the vertical heights. He volunteered to take interior and exterior photographs. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance, conditional that the Commission get photos and measurements before a demolition permit is issued. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 18 Felt Street In continuation of a prior meeting, Ice Cat, LLC submitted an application to Waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance for the removal of the barn. The barn is in disrepair. Removal is needed to allow subdivision of the property per variance granted 4/4/12 to add an additional lot to the property for a new house to be built. Ms. Herbert stated that she spoke with George Wattendorf and believes she convinced him to let the continuance continue. Atty. Grover stated that it was his intention to ask for a continuance. Ms. Herbert stated that, if demolished, at the very least she has people who would want to salvage pieces of the building. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the barn waiver request to the next meeting. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Spang abstain from voting. May 16, 2012, Page 9 of 10 Ms. Herbert stated that Mr. Wattendorf was not aware that three or four more windows needed to come out in order to accommodate closets and bathrooms in his design. She stated that she will be working with him on some redesign. A letter from Morris Schopf dated 4/16/12 was resubmitted. Mr. Hart noted that in a lot of buildings, when windows are removed,they leave the window frame to show where it was and to allow future reinstallation. Mr. Carr stated that if Mr. Treadwell purchases only a piece of the lot, there will be no need for the variance. If he buys the whole lot,the variance would stick. 31 Chestnut Street—continued from earlier in meetin Mr. Wrightson stated that on Page 19, the height of the red fence to the fence cap is 5'3". The green fence is roughly a foot taller. On Page 7,he noted that the property slopes. The height to the top of the green fence, where the cap should be, is 5'8". Ms. Wrightson stated that she looked at Mr. Hart's property. She stated that the front fence is more evenly spaced than the back fence. She stated that she doesn't feel a closely spaced fence will look right. She stated that his front fence has 3 %2"pickets with 2' spacing and the back fence has 3 1/z"pickets with 1" spacing. Mr. Wrightson stated that if he were standing in his kitchen on the first floor, he is 10-12' off the ground and therefore would need a 12' fence for privacy. He stated that he is willing to compromise and consider Mr. Hart's fence in back. He stated that he did not think it would look right in front. For the front they are proposing approximately 1 7/8"pickets with spacing roughly same. It would be 3 1/2"pickets with 1" spacing in back with the top of fence tying into the height of the pillar. He stated one could argue that it is okay to have a different fence in the back from the patio. Mr. Hart stated that he still feels the need to get a definitive set of dimensions. He stated that he hears what is being presented, but personally felt it is a lot of fence and that definitive answers are needed on picket width, space between the pickets and height of all the different fences. He stated that he thought a 5' fence is more of privacy issue for people in their yard sitting down. Ms. Herbert stated that once the Commission gets all the dimensions, it should be ready to go. She asked if anyone had a problem with the fence painted white. There were no comments from the commissioners. Ms. Herbert asked if Ms. McGrane had any problem with the side of the carriage house being exposed. Ms. McGrane stated that she wouldn't want a gap, but had no problem with the exposure. Ms. Herbert stated that the applicants should show how the fence will die into the granite pillar in the front and the granite pillar in the back. May 16, 2012, Page 10 of 10 Mr. Spang stated that he thought the fence in front has a nicer relationship of solid to void than the side fence. Mr. Hart suggest they provide a diagram of fence A, B and C with the heights proposed. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to continue the fence application to the next meeting. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Review of Project Notification Form for MBTA Salem Commuter Rail Station Improvements Ms. Guy stated that she announced at the last meeting that she received a copy of the Project Notification Form for the construction of a 715 parking space intermodal facility. The developer will be filing an Expanded Environmental Notification Form later this year. She asked if the Commission wants to comment. There were no comments from the Commissioners. Other Business Ms. Guy stated that she received an email request from Mike Shea, asking for an extension of his Certificate to install a deck at 31 Washington Sq. North for one year. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the extension request. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Hart stated the for the City Hall project,he did not know if an architect had been selected yet. He stated that he wants to be sure that when one is selected that the Commission monitor what the proposed preservation of building is and if there will be any changes made. Ms. Guy stated that she will get an update and to try to keep the Commission informed. VOTE: There being no further business, Ms. Bellin made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Keenan seconded the motipp, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Respec b d, Jane A.Ithe + Clerk ommis ion June 6, 2012, Page 1 of 7 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 6, 2012 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, June 6, 2012 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Ms. McCrea, Ms. Keenan, Ms. Bellin, Mr. Spang and Mr. Hart. 15 Warren Street Catherine Miller and Kirt Rieder submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to paint the garage to match the house color,which is Cottage Red. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Paint Chips Ms. Miller stated that she believes the garage is Navajo Red and they want to go to Cottage Red. It is a metal building. There was no public comment. VOTE: 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. 6 Monroe Street In continuation of a prior meeting, Browne Realty Trust, c/o Roger B. Tyler, submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of a telephone system at the front door for resident/visitor access control, which is a requirement of the Licensing Board. The initial proposals was for it to be 16 '/4"H x 6 3/8" W x 2 3/4"D stainless steel panel with trim ring, surface mounted. The alternative proposal is for a Trigon Mini Guard II which is 12"H x 4.2" W x 2.5"D at base and 3"D at top. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Mircom Slim Line Telephone Access System specification ■ Site plan Mr. Tyler stated that the new proposed unit is shorter in height, has less width and is about 1/4" more in depth. It can be either brush stainless or powder black finish. Ms. Harper asked if the key box is black. Mr. Tyler replied in the affirmative. He stated that the new system will have a weather proof cover. r June 6, 2012, Page 2 of 7 Mr. Hart stated that Morris Schofp's building has a similar device in stainless. He noted that it is obvious that it is not a Colonial device. He stated that he thought stainless is less obtrusive than black. There was no public comment. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the Trigone stainless steel phone access system, mounted on the south side of the entry. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 18 Felt Street In continuation of a prior meeting, Ice Cat, LLC submitted an application to Waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance for the removal of the barn. The barn is in disrepair. Removal is needed to allow subdivision of the property per variance granted 4/4/12 to add an additional lot to the property for a new house to be built. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Site Study dated 5/2/12 by Schopf Design Associates Ms. Guy read an email received from Attorney Scott Grover requesting a continuance. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to the meeting of June 20, 2012. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Spang and Ms. Herbert abstained from voting. Ms. Herbert stated that she abstained due to the possibility that she may be doing some work for the developer. She stated that another Commission member will need to take over her roll in overseeing the Commission's roll in the Board of Appeal decision. Ms. Harper suggested that Mr. Hart oversee the Commission's roll in the Board of Appeal decision. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a to delegate Mr. Hart to oversee the Commission's role in the Board of Appeal decision for 18 Felt Street. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Spang and Ms. Herbert abstained. 31 Chestnut Street William and Laura Wrightson submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace a fence with a capped picket fence, change the fence layout by adding a matching gate in the middle of the lot and to end the fence at the back of the lot against the carriage house, instead of running it to the street, replace demolished pergola with a new pergola, add a brick wall and caps to match the existing 2 walls/caps to fully enclose the patio with house. June 6, 2012, Page 3 of 7 Documents & Exhibits -. ■ Application ■ Photographic presentation ■ Sketch Mr. Wrightson provided a sketch showing dimensions, the height of fence and the method of attachment to the posts. They are proposing to paint the fencing white to match the trim on brick enclosure and on house. Mr. Hart asked Mr. Wrightson to give an overview of the fence location using the plan. Mr. Wrightson stated that across the front is a wrought iron fence and there is one section of wrought iron that goes toward back yard, new fencing 1/3 of the way, then brick patio with brick pillars and the brick wall that has been approved, and then fencing continuing toward the rear until it jogs into the carriage house. Rudolf Cleare stated that he is the brother of Dr. Maura McGrane and asked if they were replacing a six foot height section with a 4 '/2 foot section. Mr. Wrightson stated that he had not measured it, but believed the existing is taller than what he is proposing, and stated it was at least 5'. Ms. Herbert stated that she thought it graded up and that the post is higher, which is something odd about it.. Ms. Wrightson stated that it undulates because it is in such bad shape. Ms. Bellin asked if the front section will be roughly the same height as rear section. Mr. Wrightson replied in the affirmative. Ms. Herbert stated that she looked at the fencing in the neighborhood. She stated that she noticed that between 29 and 35 Chestnut,there are a lot of repeats. She noted that Dr. McGrane has brick wall after the granite post, as does 35 Chestnut. In the middle, after the granite post, one property has a wrought iron run and another has a natural wood run. She concluded that all houses are related and that there is quite a range of treatments. Mr. Wrightson stated that the Commission initially approved continuing the still of fence along the side. Ms. Herbert stated that way back they were considering wrought iron. Mr. Wrightson stated that the Commission approved it and then changed its mind. He stated that he spent $20,000 in materials, which he ate. Ms. Herbert stated that she did not remember that. June 6, 2012, Page 4 of 7 Mr. Wrightson stated that the side fence and front fence have very minor differences. On one the pickets terminate in the stone and the other it terminates on the iron bar. He stated that he came back to make sure he was putting the right one in and the Commission changed its mind after he bought the materials. Mr. Hart stated that the record needs to be researched. Ms. Herbert stated the Commission can't just change its mind and that she would like to see some documentation. Mr. Hart stated that he had an approved application. After that there may be another approved application which is different. Ms. Harper asked if the fence being reviewed tonight is where he was going to put the iron fence. Mr. Wrightson replied in the affirmative. Ms. Guy stated that if he received a Certificate, that Certificate is good. Unless the Commission voted for something else, which they would then have to issue a certificate that changes that. She stated that she would have to check the minutes. Ms. Herbert stated that if you were approved for a metal fence, then it is approved and that now you are applying for approval of a wood fence. She stated that the Commission can't retract it legally once the vote has been made. Mr. Hart stated that the finished side should face out. He asked the spacing of the posts. Mr. Wrightson stated that they will be 8' centers, with Federal caps and a post every 8'. Mr. Cleare stated that he did a walk of Chestnut Street and all the houses that front Chestnut Street. There are 32 separated property lots fronting on Chestnut Street. They virtually all have decorative open fencing of some sort, either along the street, or surrounding front lawns or gardens and in some cases,running part way between side yards along the main structure. He noted that with 2 exceptions, all have closed privacy fencing of some kind between them, extending from a point usually parallel to the rear of the main structure and continuing to the fence at the back of the property across the rear. He stated that the ordinary height of the back yard fences seem to be 5 to 6'. He stated that the stone wall that separates their property to 27 is 5 1/2' high, which connects to a 6' high privacy wooden fence along Warren Street. The two exceptions are 26 and 28 Chestnut Street. 26 Chestnut has a black picket fence, 4' tall, running the entire length of the street and down both side boundaries to the back fence. 28 Chestnut has an open wire fence that is 3' tall the entire length of both side boundaries and wrought iron picket across the front. In these 2 isolated cases, property owners have created privacy with plantings. His observation is the general character of the street is that front fencing is decorative and generally somewhat open and that majority of fencing in the rear is designed for some privacy of 5' or higher of closed fencing,not open picket. He stated that less than 10 % of back yard fencing in the street is non privacy in character, and it would seem odd to allow new construction that would deprive 29 Chestnut street of back yard privacy. He stated that, in this instance, by allowing replacement of a 6' tall fence, with open picket fencing of 4' height, it both June 6, 2012, Page 5 of 7 disturbs the overall aesthetic of the street and the integrity of the backyards. He note McGrane's red fence at the rear is a closed slat of 6' high and is met by the 6' reen f that Dr. stated that he finds the front section quite in keeping, but was concerned that agfence thate He replaces that rear section be a privacy fence as much as possible. Dr. McGrane noted that the previous lattice work above the patio had also provided privacy. Ms. Herbert stated that 33 Chestnut is the one that has a roughly 3' iron picket fence r what appears to be the whole length. unning Dr. McGrane stated that the backyard does not go ay to Warren Street and that middle of three properties. all the w at it is the Ms. Herbert asked if the applicant would consider replicating the fence that runs alo Street from the edge of the carriage house to the new brick wall. ng Warren Mr. Wrightson stated that it is not what they are applying for and preferred not to re fence. He noted that for most houses, back privacy fences aren't seen. Plicate that will be able to see through the pickets. She stated that they wa Ms. Wrightson stated that they have plenty of plantings and mature shrubs and did n ot nt spacing for the circulation. Ms. Herbert stated that there is a precedent of an iron fence running a good length of between two properties at#33. She stated that there is a precedent of a short o gen i the division that happens to be in wrought iron. P p cket fence, Ms. Guy stated it is clear that the two neighbors are in disagreement, and noted that t is if the proposed fence is historically appropriate. he question Mr. Hart stated apparently there is agreement on the front section. He would prefer t do the fence in two motions and stated that he would entertain a site visit for the back sectio n. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the front section of fence from the g rante previously approved brick wall as submitted in the sketch,painted white, finish facing o ost to the with posts at 8' sections. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Having missed one meeting on this application and not havingg utwew Ms. McCrea and Ms. Harper did not vote. an audio tape to review, Mr. Wrightson stated that the legal mandate for the Commission is to prevent inappropri applications. He stated that the proposed is an appropriate fence and, for the record the ate Commission is required to approve. Ms. Herbert asked the time frame for fence installation. Ms. Wrightson stated that they currently have chicken wire up for 2 sections of the fe nce. June 6, 2012, Page 6 of 7 Ms. Bellin stated that she is not objecting to a site visit, but was not sure what it would provide. She stated that what the neighbors want or what hedges are doing relevant. She questioned the value of a site visit. Mr. Hart stated that if the Commission approves the fence, Dr. McGrane could come in with an application to construct a privacy fence on her property. VOTE : Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the rear section of fence to match the front section of fence as approved. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Having missed one meeting on this application and not having an audio tape to review, Ms. McCrea and Ms. Harper did not vote. 358 Essex Street Ellie Realty Trust,Andrew Greer, submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of a range hood vent which has already been completed. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Ms. Guy stated that she received an e-mail from Mr. Greer withdrawing his application. 187 Federal Street Kristin Edwards submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the -picture window and casement windows with Andersen 400s Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ On-line specification of Andersen 400 Series Casement Windows Ms. Edwards stated that 185 Federal has Renewal by Anderson windows. For her side, she is asking for Anderson 400s in vinyl clad wood to match casement/picture window/casement design that is there now. She noted that 185 has white windows. Her contractor gave her the option for white or to go with a color to match the house exterior. Ms. Herbert noted that both sides have a white storm door. Ms. Bellin stated that she preferred the beige. Ms. Edwards was in agreement, and stated that she though white is abrupt. Ms. Herbert recommended changing the storm door. Mr. Hart stated that the door could be painted to match the house. June 6, 2012, Page 7 of 7 Ms. Guy stated that if the new window is beige,then it wouldn't stand out that the 2 picture windows are different materials. Mr. Hart stated that it would set up the situation that this is two houses. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the front window replacement with Anderson 400s in beige. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Viewing of sample solar panel being used for 19 Fowler Street Ms. Guy stated that as required by approval of solar for 19 Fowler Street, a sample panel is being presented. She noted that no vote is required. Rick Bingham presented the sample panel. He stated that they are commodity items, and a lot of orders are grouped into one. In this case, the company that supplied the system contracted with LG for the panels. Other companies have contracts with different manufacturers. Other Business VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of May 2, 2012. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of May 16, 2012. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Guy stated that Ms. Herbert received a letter from Annie Harris, thanking her for the letter of support for the Massachusetts Historical Commission's 2012 Nomination for Individual Lifetime Achievement. VOTE: Mr. Hart requested that Ms. Guy research the minutes with regard to Mr. Wrightson's claim that the Commission retracted its approval of an iron fence at 31 Chestnut Street. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. VOTE: There being no further business, Mr. Hart made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Bellin seconded the mo ' 1 were in favor and the motion so carried. Respectfull b d, Jane A. Guy Clerk of the C ssion June 20, 2012, Page 1 of 8 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 20, 2012 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, June 20, 2012 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. McCrea, Ms. Keenan, Ms. Bellin, and Mr. Hart. 297-305 Bridge Street The City of Salem submitted an application for Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance for the 297-305 owned by Bowley Street Trading Corp. (tax title foreclosure pending). The application states that the property is heavily contaminated as a result of past industrial use including, asbestos, lead and other hazardous materials. Due to the extent of contamination, the EPA's Removal Program, with additional support from the DEP and MassDevelopment, the City proposes to remediate the site. The property will be available as temporary parking for the upcoming parking garage construction during with the Salem Depot's parking spaces will be unavailable. Upon completion of the garage,the City plans to seek commercial redevelopment proposals for the property. Tom Devine from the Dept. of Planning & Community Development was present. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Mr. Devine stated the building has an estimated construction date of 1955. The property has been taken in tax title due to a default of approximately$250,000. He stated that any funds made on the sale would be taken back by the EPA, DEP and MassDevelopment. He stated that the gain is the clean up of the site, new commercial activity and job creation. Ms. Herbert asked if the City will be charging for parking. Mr. Devine replied that the details have not been worked out. He noted that it is 1.2 acres and there is 8000 s.f. of building . Ms. Keenan asked why city needs to take it. Mr. Devine stated that the City needs to be the owner in order to have access to MassDevelopment funding. Without that funding there would be no progress for clean up. All funding sources are needed for the clean up. There was no public comment. Mr. Hart stated that if there is a vote to approve the waiver,he would advocate that the building be documented with photographs and drawings prior to demolition, specifically wide angle digital 3/4 views of all facades, 5mg each minimum. He would also want the same for all surfaces of the interior. He stated that there should be taped measured sketches of all elevations— horizontal and vertical. June 20, 2012,Page 2 of 8 Mr. Devine stated that interior photos may be a challenge due to heavy contamination. Mr. Hart suggested that the interior photos be taken during demolition. Mr. Devine stated that he would be happy to have it arranged. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance and to require that the building be documented with photographs and taped measured sketches as M. Hart proposed, prior to the release of the demolition permit and that interior photographs be taken during demolition in unable to be done prior. Mr. Hart to seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 138 North Street Thomas J. Pelletier, Cynthia L. Pelletier and Kellie Overberg submitted an application to convert a carriage house to a single family dwelling which would include changing three doors to windows, installation of a new door, replacement of windows, and installation of a/c vents, pipes and condenser. The applicant would also like the option to add a dormer on the back to resemble the one in the front. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Site Plan ■ Plans dated 5/30/06 from Pelletier& Schaarr ■ Catalog pages from Walpole Woodworker Ms. Guy stated that she received an email from Thomas Pelletier withdrawing the application. 1 Harrington Court Donald Harlow Powell submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a 4' high flat board fence, to be located on the Bridge/Flint Street corner. The fence will be painted the house color. Present was contractor Daniel Beauvais. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Mr. Beauvais stated that when the fence application was submitted the owner wanted flatboard. He stated that since then the renter has changed their mind and has asked for a picket fence. He stated that he would like to model it after 66/68 Derby St. He noted that the posts may not be solid; there are existing steel rods in the concrete, so he may have to box around them, but the appearance will be the same. Ms. Herbert asked if they will be painting the fence grey. June 20, 2012, Page 3 of 8 Mr. Beauvais stated that he preferred natural, but if painted, he prefer white. He noted that the funding allotted for the foundation work was used to fix other areas. The owner now wants the fence,to finish windows and to fix foundation. Ms. Bellin asked what color is preferred. Mr. Beauvais stated that he would like the option for natural or white. 66/68 Derby Street is natural. Ms. Herbert stated that the balusters on the porch are natural, so it would make sense. Mr. Beauvais stated that he told the owner if the fence is painted, he would need to paint the balusters on the porch. Mr. Hart asked if there is a sketch of where the fence will go on the property. Mr. Beauvais stated that he will put a post next to the tree, a post in front on either side of the gate and a post on the end of the run. He stated that he could alternatively put a post at either end and make the gate look like fence. The fence will be supported with 1" iron rods. Ms. Herbert stated that he can put invisible posts in the back for support. There was no public comment. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the installation of a wood picket fence to replicate the style of fence at 66 and 68 Derby Street as per photos, with a maximum of 4 wood posts with caps, as per sketch, and the remainder of the fence to be supported by existing steel posts. The fence is to be finish side out, left natural or with white stain to match house trip. If painted white, the balusters on porch are to be painted white to match. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 95 Mason Street David Cutler submitted an application to Waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance to demolish 95 Mason Street,noting that all framing members are either totally rotten or failing. The property will be rebuilt. Also present was contractor Dan Davison. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Ms. Guy read a letter from Building Inspector Thomas St. Pierre explaining the chain of events that lead to the partial demolition. Ms. Herbert stated that the house has had significant changes over years. She wondered how much of the original fabric was left. June 20, 2012, Page 4 of 8 Mr. Hart stated that he searched MHC's MACRIS database and that 95 Mason Street is not listed. He noted that the surrounding houses were built 1840-50 ands stated that it is conceivable that it was built about the same period. Ms. Herbert stated that basically all that remains are the first floor walls. Emily Udy, Historic Salem, Inc. asked what the plan is for the lot. Mr. Cutler stated that they will build using the same footprint. It will be similar in height. Ms. Udy stated that the street is on HSI's Most Endangered List. She stated that the way that the houses descend in size is very appealing. She stated that she was concerned about the height. Mr. Davison stated that they have to build it to building code. Ne noted that there is no room on the lot to go any wider or longer. He stated that the sill is almost underground, so there will have to be somewhat of a build up first. He stated that the current ceiling heights were about 7' after being stripped. He noted that with flooring and ceiling, it did not meet building code. Morris Schopf, 1 Cambridge Street, asked if they will plan not to exceed the height limit for the zone. Mr. Davison replied in the affirmative. Ms. Schopf asked if Mr. Davison was not saying it will be exact. Mr. Davison replied in the affirmative,that he was not saying it would be exact. He apologized that work began,noting that when he spoke to Building Inspection, he was not informed of the waiver requirement. He noted that it is a danger now. He added that there is still a special permit required with full plans. He stated that they are just trying to finish the demolition in order to make it safe. Mr. Schopf stated that he was concerned about what goes back in its place, but noted that that is for another day and another venue i.e. special permit. Mr. Davison stated that there was an original plan to leave some of the building,but it is not happening now due to the sill issues. He noted that there will be some modifications of the original plan. He stated that the height will probably come up about 8' to 12' feet to get in footings and the proper ceiling height. Phil Verrette, 93 Mason Street stated that he was concerned if it goes above the original height that it will change the lighting that comes into his yard. Ms. Herbert suggested working on a plan that brings the proposed building closer to what was there. She stated that she understands it will need to be slightly higher, but felt it was important to have an historic look. She stated that she would like to see the plan before it goes to the ZBA. Mr. Davison stated that he would like to do that, so that everything can move smoothly. He stated that there is a safety issue at hand. June 20, 2012, Page 5 of 8 r Ms. Guy stated that the Commission does not have meeting before the ZBA meets and suggested delegating someone to work with the applicant. She stated that it would be more saleable. Ms. Herbert suggested that, through Historic Salem, Mr. Schopf take a look at the proposed plan. Mr. Schopf stated that the proposed roof pitch is wrong. He stated that they should look carefully at the building that they accidently got permission to tear down. He stated that there was clearly no reason not to complete the demolition, now that it has been started. He stated that they should use the building being demolished as a guide for the new building. The windows, roof pitches and the way the entrance is handled should be handled sensitively and that the people that come to the special permit hearing will be sensitive to those things. Ms. Herbert stated that there have been many changes made to this building and it would be desirable to rebuild it historically with the proper window placement and size, etc., not necessarily what it was changed to. She suggested Mr. Hart provide the owner with some advice. Mr. Hart stated that it is a really interesting grouping and wonderful streetscape. Ms. Bellin asked if they are building a 2 story, not 3 story building. Mr. Davison replied in the affirmative. Ms. Bellin stated that the house next door is a 3 story and it would be difficult to get close to that height. She stated that it would be nice to see a mock up on a photo. Ms. Keenan asked if they will be selling after. Mr. Cutler replied in the affirmative. Ms. Keenan noted that they need to be careful with their costs. Ms. Bellin asked if it will be a single family. Mr. Cutler replied in the affirmative. Mr. Hart stated that he is willing to take some interior shots before it comes down. Mr. Davison stated that it is not safe and there is not much left. Ms. Herbert asked when they will go back to finish the demolition. Mr. Davison stated that they hope to finish as soon as possible,noting that there is liability. Mr. Herbert asked if Mr. Hart could go over tomorrow. June 20, 2012, Page 6 of 8 Mr. Hart replied that he could go over in the afternoon. He suggested that the proponent give a taped exterior measurement. Mr. Davison stated that it is 16'8" by 39'11". Ms. Bellin made a motion to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance conditional that Mr. Hart be allowed access to photograph the interior and exterior of the property and that the owner provide a copy of the current plot plan which indicate the dimensions of the house. She asked that the Commission be provided with a copy of the plans being submitted to the ZBA. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. Mr. Hart asked that an amendment be considered to recognize that the Inspectional Services Department did not notify the proponents that they had to come before Historical Commission for the waiver. VOTE: Ms. Bellin so amended her motion . Ms. McCrea seconded the amendment. All were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Herbert suggested that the applicant work together with Mr. Hart on its plan that will be going before ZBA. She noted that it could save a lot of headaches. She added that HSI can also give guidance, so that they will be set for the ZBA. Ms. Guy noted that through city's capital budget, the city is proposing to invest in city-wide permitting software, which will have a pre-determined checklist that will include demolition delay. It is proposed for purchase in July and be fully operational by November. 135 Federal Street Brenton and Elizabeth Dickson submitted an application for a Certificate of Non-applicability to paint an existing fence, replace rotted wood as needed and replicate moldings, etc. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Other Business Correspondence Ms. Guy stated that she received a letter from Massachusetts Historical Commission to the Division of Conservation Services regarding the former Chadwick Lead Mills Acquisition Project that she emailed to the Commission members. Minutes VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of June 6, 2012. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. June 20, 2012, Page 7 of 8 31 Chestnut Street—Report on claim that the Commission withdrew approval of a fence Ms. Guy stated that at the last meeting it was requested that she research the minutes with regard to Mr. Wrightson's claim that the Commission retracted its approval of an iron fence at 31 Chestnut Street. With her report, Ms. Guy distributed excerpts of minutes related to the topic, along with Certificates issued and emailed correspondence. She stated that she found no evidence that the Commission withdrew its approval for a wrought iron fence and she determined Mr. Wrightson's claim was erroneous. 18 Felt Street Ms. Herbert stated that she would continue to abstain from voting due to the possibility that she may be doing some work for the developer. In continuation of a prior meeting, Ice Cat, LLC submitted an application to Waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance for the removal of the barn. The barn is in disrepair. Removal is needed to allow subdivision of the property per variance granted 4/4/12 to add an additional lot to the property for a new house to be built. The applicant was not present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Site Study dated 5/2/12 by Schopf Design Associates Morris Schopf stated that it is a rare surviving example of an agricultural domestic building and is in need of restoration and that the players are not sympathetic to its restorations. 3 of 4 months of Demolition Delay for the previous owner are past. He encourage the Commission, when the new owner comes for relief from the Demolition Delay, that the clock be restarted and that the current application not be floated over from the old owner to the new owner. Ms. Guy stated that her understanding is that it goes with the owner, not with the land. Ms. Herbert stated that she believed they intend to let the six months run. Mr. Hart stated that if the Commission votes to continue, it still leaves it on the table to ask for alternatives. He preferred that it continue to be continued rather than denying the application. Ms. McCrea stated that she was concerned that they didn't ask for a continuance. Ms. Bellin stated that if placed on the agenda for the next meeting,they may be willing to talk to us. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to continue the application to the next meeting . Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Herbert abstained from voting. Other Business June 20, 2012, Page 8 of 8 Morris Schopf stated that he would like to speak to the board about sidewalks in historic districts. He stated that he discovered that policy is if the existing sidewalks are concrete, replacement sidewalks will be concrete, if you had asphalt, you will get asphalt. He stated that on Cambridge Street, there was a piece of badly damaged concrete sidewalk, which the DPW removed it and put back white concrete. He stated that he appreciated the Commission's assistance if it was something they could look into, if possible. Ms. Herbert suggested getting some research done and getting a handle on how it has functioned in the past. She stated that it sounds like a project that would be perfect for HSI, such as an intern. She suggested that maybe Ms. Bellin, who is on the HSI board, could help coordinate this initially. Mr. Hart suggested talking to Lynn Duncan, the City Planner. Ms. McCrea wondered if there is an issue with Americans with Disabilities in using brick, and that she has heard people complain about them. VOTE: There being no further business, Mr. Hart made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Respect i d, Jane y Clerk o the Commission July 18, 2012, Page 1 of 11 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 18, 2012 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, July 18, 2012 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. McCrea, Ms. Keenan, Ms. Bellin, Mr. Spang and Mr. Hart. Salem Intermodal Station—Review/comment on Expanded Environmental Notification Form Ms. Guy stated that a copy of the Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF) for the Salem Intermodal Station was submitted to the Executive Office of Energy and Environment (EEA). The MBTA is requesting a waiver from the requirement of an EIR. Present were Holly Palmgren of the MBTA and Maureen Cavanaugh of Epsilon Associates. Ms. Palmgren distributed copies of the handout from a recent scoping session. She stated that the MBTA has filed an expanded ENF and has asked for a waiver from an EIR. She noted that the trigger is the Chapter 91 permit. She stated that all information that would be in an EIR has been included in the expanded ENF. She stated that there have been numerous public meetings going over design issues and that there is another in September. She stated that comments on the waiver requests are due on July 20th. Ms. Palmgren stated that for the Salem Signal Tower, the project will include work to the exterior of building; however,the scope is not fully defined. She stated that ground penetrating radar showed possible remnants of turntable and roundhouse. They will be doing a full excavation. She noted that there is a separate parallel Massachusetts Historical Commission(MHC)process, which began when the Project Notification Form (PNF) was filed with MHC. They will continue to work with MHC and the Commission after this waiver process. The proposed is a five level garage and the exterior treatment design process is ongoing. 60%plans will be available September 24th. The finalized design will be completed in the winter. She expected that MHC will issue an Memorandum of Agreement(MOA) and the Commission will be a concurring party. Ms. Cavanaugh stated that the MOA draft will probably be in the Fall. Ms. Palmgren stated that it will be likely after the archaeology is done. Ms. Duncan asked when the Commission will have its first opportunity to be involved in the process. Ms. Palmgren replied that the first opportunity is now, as well as when the archaeological report is provided to MHC and the Commission. She stated that moving forward will be consultation meetings, defining the scope of the signal tower and the draft MOA. She added that the start of the consultation process began when the PNF was submitted. Ms. Herbert asked that Ms. Guy be kept informed to ensure the Commission has time to comment. Ms. Palmgren stated that she will come to any meetings in order to go over the details. She stated that MHC will comment on the expanded ENF and that the archaeological report will July 18, 2012,Page 2 of 11 likely recommend the roundhouse listing on the National Register. Once the archaeological report is reviewed, MHC will make an effect finding. She stated that they anticipate an adverse effect finding. The MBTA will propose mitigation in response to the finding, such as the renovation of the exterior of the Signal Tower and data recovery for archaeological site. Ms. Duncan thanked the MBTA representatives for attending the meeting. She stated that she hoped the Commission will vote to send a letter supporting the waiver request. She noted that the historic resources review and the consultation process continues on its own track and will offer the same opportunity to comment. She stated that she would like to see the process move forward as efficiently as possible and did not want to see a delay of 12-15 months if an EIR were required. She noted that it would likely would result in a construction cost increase. She stated that she did think the delay would serve any purpose. She added that the Conservation Commission voted to support waiver and that the project will still go through Chapter 91 and the local Conservation Commission process, as well. Ms. Palmgren stated that the Chapter 91 process also takes into consideration historic resource impacts and asks for public comment. She noted that the schedule hinges on the'%N Mr. Hart asked, if an EIR is required, what would be in the EIR that would go beyond what is in the ENF. Ms. Palmgren stated that she did not feel there would be anything. They feel that they put all info in the ENF that would be required in an EIR. She stated that a typical ENF is not this large. Mr. Hart stated that there is an apparent notification that the signal tower work will be done according to the Secretary of the Interiors Standards, which will be monitored by MHC with the Public Archaeology Laboratory(PAL) doing the work and Epsilon monitoring the process. Ms. Bellin asked if the information, that would have been in the EIR but is in the ENF, is subject to the same review process. Ms. Palmgren replied in the affirmation, but noted that it would not be as long a process with the waiver. She stated that once the waiver is granted,they can start the Chapter 91 filing and complete the MHC review. She stated that they can't apply for Chapter 91 until MEPA is finished. Ms. Cavanaugh stated that the ENF notifies the public and provides opportunity for agencies and the public to comment and comes up with a MEPA scope for the EIR. For this project, the impact is not that great so, in consultation with MEPA,they anticipated the areas they needed to focus on and MEPA concurred. She stated that they anticipated and addressed the areas. Ms. Bellin asked what is Chapter 91. Ms. Palmgren stated that it is for waterways. She stated that, if not for that, it would not have had a MEPA trigger. She noted that the entire site is paved now. They are not removing any green space, but are adding more public green space. July 18, 2012, Page 3 of 11 Ms. Duncan stated that the Commission does not have to say it support the waiver because it feels everything beyond historic resources has been met. She stated that the Commission can just say it looks forward to and is comfortable with further review and with working with MHC and the MBTA through the rest of the process. Mr. Spang asked, if waived, when do they anticipate finishing the review. Ms. Palmgren stated that she believed it will be in August. She stated that they will put out a draft decision first, at the end of July, which will allow for public comment. They will then issue a final certificate. If granted the waiver,they will make the finding that this information is enough and that no more MEPA review is required. She noted that it is not a permit,just that all impacts have been identified. She stated that they will know by the end of July, although they won't have final approval until August. Mr. Spang asked if MEPA concurs with the request for a waiver, are they concurring that they are comfortable with the mitigation determined in ENF. Ms. Palmgren replied in the negative. She stated that they would be concurring that impacts have been identified. It will still go through the MHC and Chapter 91 process. Ms. Duncan stated that the process relative to historic resources is the same whether or not the waiver is granted. She stated that it will likely be determined to have an adverse effect, have a consultation process and a MOA in MHC review process. She stated that the Commission can request to be interested party. She stated that there is nothing to be gained by requiring an EIR— and that only time and money will be lost. Mr. Hart asked how MHC gets involved in the process. Ms. Palmgren stated that it started with the submission of the PNF. Ms. Duncan noted that when the bypass road was reviewed, the Commission wanted renovation of the Signal Tower in that project. It was not included because it was planned for the MBTA garage project. She stated that she personally felt it was great that the Signal Tower has been added to the garage project now. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to support the waiver. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion all were in favor and the motion so carried. VOTE: Ms. McCrea made a motion to send a letter in support of the waiver to MEPA, copied to MHC, and asking to be part of all processes. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion all were in favor and the motion so carried. 248 Lafayette Street Witch City Holdings, LLC submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to paint the existing aluminum siding, trim and shutters. The original shutters will be retained and painted black. The trim will be Navajo White and the body color will be a grey/green as shown in the photo (rear of building in proposed color). Brad Allen was present. July 18, 2012, Page 4 of 11 Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Mr. Allen stated that it is an eleven unit apartment building. They will use Melville from California Paints for the body. He noted that they started painting the rear and realized it was a different district than the SRA. Shutters will be removed temporarily for painting. Ms. Herbert asked if the wooden balustrade is in decent condition. Mr. Allen stated that it will be repaired and repainted. Mr. Spang asked if the paint will stick to the aluminum siding. Mr. Allen replied in the affirmative. Ms. Herbert asked if the siding can be power washed and if they have any chipping. Mr. Allen stated that parts are chipping. He noted that even after power wash, it would not look like a newly painted house. Mr. Hart stated that it is normally a baked on finish for aluminum. Mr. Allen stated that he asked the painter and was told that he has painted aluminum in the past and was told that it should not peel or chip for a long time. Mr. Spang stated that he has never heard of trying to paint aluminum. He questioned if it will need painting in a year. He added that it may be an improvement of what is there today. Mr. Hart stated that metal is far different than wood in terms of painting. He noted that wood is effected by expansion, etc. He stated that he had no problem painting aluminum. Ms. Guy stated that aluminum siding is already not appropriate, so painting it is not going to make it more inappropriate. Ms. Herbert stated that she noticed there is some rot. Mr. Allen stated that they will make repairs. Ms. Herbert asked if they will paint out the mechanical things so that they disappear. Mr. Allen replied in the affirmative. VOTE: Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. July 18, 2012, Page 5 of 11 13 River Street Richard& Cynthia Johnson submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the open picket fence with a closed picket fence of the same height and material. The will replace with pressure treated wood. The existing fence has rot and missing pickets and they would like closed picket for their dog. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Ms. Herbert noted that they have back to back gardens with the neighbor and that a closed picket will eliminate air flow and some light exchange. She suggested a picket with small spacing, such as I"or 1 %z". Mr. Hart asked if there will be two horizontal stringers. Mr. Johnson replied in the affirmative. Mr. Spang asked the material of the fence. Mr. Johnson stated that it would be pressure treated wood. Mr. Hart suggested using cedar,noting it is easier to work with. Mr. Johnson stated that he is fine with that. Mr. Spang asked if the fence will be painted. Mr. Johnson stated that it will be painted to match the front fence, which is slightly off white. Ms. Bellin asked if the new fence will be the same fence but with closer spacing. Mr. Johnson replied in the affirmative. Mr. Hart suggested that the pickets be 3/4"— 1" apart. Ms. Bellin stated that the finish side should face out to the neighbors. Mr. Hart asked about the posts. Ms. Herbert stated that right now they have old chain link fence posts. Mr. Hart stated that if there will be posts,they will want to establish what the centers are and the cap. Ms. Herbert stated that the fence should be a couple inches off the ground to keep from rotting. July 18, 2012, Page 6 of 11 Carol Carr, 7 River Street, stated that the fence now is natural. She stated that painting a fence is a pain in the neck, as it always needs paint and will have two gardens against it. Ms. Herbert stated that side fences are more often unpainted, and that formal or front fences are painted. Mr. Hart suggested using stain, which tends not to peel. Ms. Guy stated that either natural or painted is appropriate; therefore the Commission could give the option. Mr. Hart suggested continuing the application to the next meeting so that the applicant can come back with a design that includes on center of dimensions of posts, the cap, height off ground, etc.. 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. 13 Beckford Street Michael and Karen Williamson submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a fireplace vent termination cap to accommodate a gas-fire fireplace in their livingroom. The cap will be a DirectVent Pro sconce termination cap, stock#46DVA-HSC. It will be located on the south facade (left side of house),between the first and second window, but higher in elevation to both. The termination will be approximately 13'6" from the front edge of the house, 12' above grade level, and 2' above the top of the first floor windows. Along that side of the house is an existing kitchen hood termination, an existing gas meter and two bathroom exhaust vent terminations (on the second floor). The neighbor's house also has their mechanical equipment/terminations in this same area. The fence and neighbors house are close to the side where the terminations will be located,preventing a view from the street. The fence is 4' from the house. The neighbor's house is 8' from their house. Their house sits approximately 12'6" from the street, while the neighbor's house abuts the sidewalk. The vent will be 26' from the sidewalk. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Sketch of lot and south elevation ■ Simpson Dura-Vent catalog cut Ms. Bellin asked if the new termination is the same size as the existing kitchen vent. Mr. Williamson stated that it is basically the same size. Mr. Hart stated that it will be somewhat visible in Winter. He stated that it is an old firehouse, which typically would have things coming off them. July 18, 2012, Page 7 of 11 VOTE: Mr. Spang made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 354-356 Essex Street Nick Nowak,Amy and Jeremy Jones and Herb and Leanne Schild submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a chimney cap on the main chimney, the same style as 348, 346, 343 and 328 Essex and 3 Beckford Streets. Jeremy Jones present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ A-Z Chimney Seeps &Repairs catalog cut Mr. Jones stated that they share a chimney with the neighbor, who had gotten approval for the masonry repair, but did not get the cap approval. It will be powder coated black. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 356 Essex Street Nick Nowak and Amy and Jeremy Jones submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to repair the front porch, replace porch floor and stairs with 1 x 4 cambara mahogany and stain,replace railing with round balusters to match existing on gate, replace newel post with on that has a cap and paint balusters,handrail, newel post and risers to match existing trim. Jeremy Jones and Steve Whittier were present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Mr. Whittier stated that the porch has original balusters which would need to be custom made to replicate. Ms. Herbert stated that round is a big departure from what is there. She wondered if there is a similar stock baluster that might be better. Mr. Whittier stated that the existing is 1 1/2 square and that what is at Home Depot is much thinner. Ms. Herbert asked if they should be mixed or have a more sculptured picket with a little less detail, but uniform. She stated that she did not want to see round right next to turned balusters. She asked if there could be new turned balusters, that are slightly smaller in scale, but would have same effect. She stated that another option is to get a price from John Jeffers for turned balusters. Mr. Whittier stated that the intent is to maintain the porch balusters which are original. July 18, 2012, Page 8 of 11 Ms. Herbert suggested bringing one baluster to Jeffers. Mr. Whittier stated that they don't all match. Ms. Herbert stated that she would want a newel post at the end. Mr. Whittier stated that there is existing wrought iron Mr. Jones stated that it circles around to the bushes, but doesn't go all the way up. Ms. Herbert stated that it is important to the house. Mr. Jones stated that they are working with a budget. Mr. Spang stated that he was not convinced that same rails would have to come down the steps. He stated that he wondered if someone else has one in tact. Ms. Herbert stated that maybe it could be a simple iron rail. Mr. Jones stated that he has an 82 year old mother that needs to get up and down steps using a railing. Mr. Whittier stated that he believe the adjoining unit has iron. Ms. Herbert suggested talking to other owner and coming back on August 1st Mr. Jones stated that Mary Whitney wants to add a newel post on the stair. Mr. Whittier suggested looking to see what balusters are there now and finding something close and also looking into custom made. Ms. Herbert stated that a third option might be metal railing. Mr. Jones asked if he can replace in kind. Ms. Guy questioned if it meets building code. Ms. Bellin suggested not having both sides match. Ms. Herbert asked if the deck is fir. Mr. Whittier stated that it is mahogany and that they will change the steps to 1 x 4's. Ms. Bellin asked if the stairs are now a single piece which will be replaced with multiple boards. Mr. Whittier replied in the affirmative. July 18, 2012, Page 9 of 11 Mr. Jones stated that it will help water to drain. Mr. Spang asked if they will be replacing the decking between now and August 1st, Mr. Whittier replied in the negative. He noted that Ms. Whitney is very involved. Mr. Jones stated that she is currently out of town. Mr. Whittier stated that in the interim,they can come up with the details. 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. 24 Winter Street Jeffrey and Ann Laaff submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a new custom wood overhead carriage house door painted to match existing trim color. The size is 10'6"x 7'0". It will have two new Colonial lanterns in dark finish,painted wood clapboard siding at exterior wall infill to match and 5/4 wood painted door casings to match. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Pierce Architects drawings ■ Hahn's Woodworking Company, Inc. specifications ■ Lamps Plus catalog cut Mr. Spang asked if they will paint to match existing. Mr. Laaff replied in the affirmative. Ms. Herbert noted that the Commission does not have jurisdiction over lanterns. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 18 Felt Street Ms. Herbert stated that she would continue to abstain from voting due to the possibility that she may be doing some work for the developer. In continuation of a prior meeting, Ice Cat, LLC submitted an application to Waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance for the removal of the barn. The barn is in disrepair. Removal is needed to allow subdivision of the property per variance granted 4/4/12 to add an additional lot to the property for a new house to be built. The applicant was not present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application July 18, 2012, Page 10 of 11 ■ Photographs ■ Site Study dated 5/2/12 by Schopf Design Associates Mr. Hart stated that he understood the property has been sold and that the waiver is immaterial. Ms. Bellin asked if it runs with land. Ms. Guy replied in the negative and stated that the new owner will need to submit a new application. She stated that she has not gotten a withdrawal as yet. 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. Ms. Herbert abstained from voting. Community Preservation Act—Discussion City Councillor Tom Furey has introduced an Order to get the Community Preservation Act on the ballot in the fall. There was a subcommittee meeting last week,which some Commission members attended and some links for information was forwarded to members via email. She asked if the Commission wants to vote to support getting the CPA on the ballot and to send a letter to the City Council. If so, she recommended that the Commission identify some historic preservation projects that could benefit from the CPA. Ms. Herbert stated that the CPA is a surcharge, roughly$30 a year on real estate tax bill. Elderly will be exempt. The first $100,000 of house value is exempt. Funds can be used for open space &recreation,housing and historic preservation. Mr. Hart stated that the state takes recording fees from registry transfers. This pot of money is used for towns who join the program. He stated that at least 10%must be spent in each of the 3 categories each year. Ms. McCrea stated that the reason it has came up again, is the state passed a law that allows cities to use other funds for the match, where they could not before. Mr. Hart stated that now the funds can be used for repairs of buildings, where they couldn't before. Ms. Herbert stated that the kinds of projects she would like to use CPA funds for would be renovations to City Hall, Salem Common fence, etc. Mr. Hart stated that he, Ms. Herbert and Ms. McCrea testified at the City Council; meeting. Ms. Herbert stated that in 2007, the CPA lost on the ballot by a few hundred votes. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to send a letter to the City Council supporting putting the CPA on the ballot. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. July 18, 2012, Page 11 of 11 Correspondence Ms. Guy stated that she received a request to extend the Certificate of Non-applicability dated 8/18/11 for 34 Chestnut Street until December 1, 2012 for the repair of fence posts. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the request as submitted. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Guy stated that the Commission received a copy of a letter from Massachusetts Historical Commission(MHC)to EMG, Inc. regarding 8-10 Chase Street's FDIC Insured Transaction and requesting more information Ms. Guy stated that the City received an award from MHC for$40,700 in MPPF funds for the Salem Common fence. Ms. Guy stated that the State Review Board will be reviewing the City's nomination of the North Street Fire House to the National Register on December 12, 2012. Other Business Ms. Guy stated that Commission members received a request from DCAM to review and comment on the proposed renovation and rehabilitation of the Registry of Deeds building in accordance with Stipulation#6 of the MOA of the courthouse. She suggested that someone be delegated to attend these meetings on behalf of the Commission. Ms. Guy stated that she attended a City One-Stop meeting and got an overview of the proposed PEM expansion. It will include demolition of several properties—scheduled for September, 2013. Ms. Guy stated that she spoke with Rick Rennard regarding sidewalks. She stated that he verified that the replace asphalt with asphalt and concrete with concrete. She stated that he said the city will allow brick, but will only take care of the preparation and will not pay for the brick or the brick installation. Mr. Hart stated that he felt the City Council should have a plan, so that the city is not patchwork. He felt there should be discussion with Lynn Duncan. Mr. Hart stated that he met with Rick Bonfanti and took interior and exterior photos. He has copies for HSI, Mr. Bonfanti and the Commission. 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 submitte Jane A. Guy Clerk of the Co"ssio August 1, 2012, Page 1 of 6 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1, 2012 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, August 1, 2012 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. McCrea, Ms. Bellin, and Mr. Hart. Ms. Keenan arrived later in the meeting. 13 River Street In continuation of a previous meeting, Richard& Cynthia Johnson submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the open picket fence with a closed picket fence of the same height and material. The will replace with pressure treated wood. The existing fence has rot and missing pickets and they would like closed picket for their dog. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Ms. Guy read a letter from the applicants withdrawing their application, noting that they will be repairing the existing fence. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to issue a Certificate of Non-applicability for the fence repair. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 315-317 Essex Street Kring Drindle, LLC, Betsy Merry, Manager, submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install aluminum gutters and downspouts, to match trim color. Style to be 6", K style with downspouts per photograph submitted. Dan Fox and Betsy Merry were present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Mr. Fox stated that the gutters will be installed across the front,the sides and in the back, all three levels. Ms. Herbert asked if the downspouts will run against the corner boards. Mr. Fox replied in the affirmative. Ms. Herbert stated that they should be painted the same color as whatever surface they run against. There was no public comment. August 1, 2012, Page 2 of 6 VOTE: Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Keenan joined the meeting at this time. 102 Federal Street As an abutter, Mr. Hart recused himself and sat in the audience. MaryAnne Williamson presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace an existing fanlight window with a 6 over 6 double hung window to match the other windows on the house. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Sketch Ms. Herbert asked if on the end of the house if there was one or two windows facing Federal Street. She wondered if one window was sufficient for that big side of the building. A review of the picture shows a pair of windows. Ms. Williamson stated that she pondered it, but stated that the reason for one is the inside space. She stated that there is a closet there. Ms. Bellin stated that half of fagade is kind of blocked anyway. Ms. Herbert asked about the window from off the ground. Ms. Williamson stated that it will be 2 '/2' off the ground. Ms. Herbert asked if it will be a true divided light window with a storm. Ms. Williamson replied in the affirmative and added that there are currently no windows in her unit that open up. This window will be operable. Mr. Hart stated that the applicant met with him a few weeks ago and he felt the window is suitable. He noted that it is an addition and that a fan light is an unusual feature on it. VOTE: 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. Mr. Hart rejoined the Commission. Salem Intermodal Station—MGL c.9, ss. 26-27C (950 CMR 71) Review 1. Intensive (Locational) Archaeological Survey/Site Examination - Review/comment 2. Project effect on historic resources—Recommendation on effect (i.e. no effect, no adverse August 1, 2012, Page 3 of 6 effect, adverse effect) 3. If adverse effect, recommendation of mitigation efforts and suggestions for the Draft MOA Present wale Holly Palmgren of the MBTA. Ms. Guy stated that the consultation process began with the submission of the Project Notification Form (PNF) to Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC), for which the Commission received a copy, but had not comments. She noted that the Commission received a copy of the Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF), for which the Commission provided a letter of support for the waiver of the EIR. We have now received the Intensive Archaeological Survey Report completed by the Public Archaeology Laboratory (PAL) for the Commission's review and comment(a digital copy was emailed to Commission members on July 30th). The Commission needs to make a recommendation on effect and, if adverse, an recommendation of mitigation efforts and suggestions for the Draft MOA. Ms. Guy stated that the PAL report recommends the North River Railroad Roundhouse archaeological site for listing on the National Register and that if it cannot be left in situ, that there be an archaeological data recovery program completed prior to construction. Ms. Guy read a letter from MHC to the MBTA dated 7/18/12 regarding the expanded ENF. Ms. Palmgren stated that the July 20th was the start of the 30 day review clock by MHC. She stated that they have been trying to reach out to MHC to set up meeting, which the Commission will be invited to. She stated that the archaeological report is just about the archaeological site, which has been recommended for National Register listing. The archaeological site is pretty well intact. PAL is proposing in the Fall to go out and do a full data recovery of the site, where they excavate the entire site. They are working on the alternatives analysis. It is not a big site, and is physically constrained by the railroad, the river and Bridge Street. It is already a developed are. If they are going to build garage, this is where it needs to be, which means the archaeological site would be destroyed or be under the garage. If impacts can't be avoided, the Memorandum of Agreement would document the mitigation measures. MHC will be looking for what kinds of things are possible for mitigation. She stated that, for the signal tower, they are going to rehab the outside. MHC has asked them to look at the interior, and that they are doing that evaluation. However, the tower has accessibility and site constraint issues and it would be difficult to make accessible in a meaningful way. Ms. Herbert stated that a new structure, connected to the signal tower, could make the tower accessible. She noted that there was once a building next to the tower(bike shop). Ms. Palmgren stated that PAL's other idea is to do some interpretive displays and use some piece of the roundhouse structure for the viewing park area, in some kind of interpretive explanation. She noted that the MOA could lay out the process for review of the interpretive ideas. Ms. Guy stated that Lynn Duncan asked her to say that the City would like to see interpretive panels inside the station's waiting area. Ms. McCrea suggested a working model display. Ms. Palmgren stated that the Commission would be a concurring party to the MOA. August 1, 2012, Page 4 of 6 Ms. Bellin asked if there was a way to avoid the archaeological site. Ms. Palmgren stated that some of foundations would interfere and that the parts that don't interfere would wind up getting buried under the garage and would therefore be no longer accessible to future use. PAL would dig up the site and document everything. They are looking to start digging November lst. The comment period on the archaeological report ends August 20th. PAL would develop a scope for data recovery. The next level of plans (60%) and elevations will be available at the September 24th public meeting. The scope of the signal tower work hasn't really been defined yet. All of these are documents that the Commission will get when they are submitted to MHC. She stated that the project team is looking at what would need to be done to make the interior workable and that the biggest obstacle is accessibility. Ms. Keenan asked the project cost. Ms. Herbert stated that it is $37 million. Mr. Hart stated that he did not read the entire report but that if the Commission is supposed to make a recommendation, then we have PAL's recommendation. He stated that it appears that the site qualifies for National Register listing, but he would want MHC's opinion. He stated that he was curious why the designer did not create an overlay showing what parts would be effected. Ms. Palmgren stated that the archaeological survey report is just to determine eligibility of the site. The next step is to take the design and look at the impacts. There will also be the data recovery plan and the construction management plan for the tower. Ms. Guy suggested supporting PAL's recommendations, making an effect finding, and supporting MHC's letter. Mr. Hart stated that the Commission can state that it concurs with the PAL report inasmuch as the project will have an adverse effect on historic resources and that we look forward to consultation with the appropriate parties and the development of the MOA, which will address the following mitigation of the adverse effect: recovery of the artifacts, data recovery and plan for interpretive reuse of recovered materials. Ms. Bellin suggested referencing MHC's recommendations for additional information, including that for the Salem Signal Tower interior. Mr. Hart added that we look forward to providing further comments as we digest the report and other documents to be received. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to send a comment letter with the comments stated herein. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Palmgren stated that she would be happy to come to future meetings if requested. August 1, 2012, Page 5 of 6 356 Essex Street In continuation of a previous meeting,Nick Nowak and Amy and Jeremy Jones submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to repair the front porch, replace porch floor and stairs with 1 x 4 cambara mahogany and stain, replace railing with round balusters to match existing on gate, replace newel post with on that has a cap and paint balusters, handrail, newel post and risers to match existing trim. The applicant was not present. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs 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. 18 Felt Street Ms. Herbert stated that she would continue to abstain from voting due to the possibility that she may be doing some work for the developer. In continuation of a prior meeting, Ice Cat, LLC submitted an application to Waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance for the removal of the barn. The barn is in disrepair. Removal is needed to allow subdivision of the property per variance granted 4/4/12 to add an additional lot to the property for a new house to be built. The applicant was not present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Site Study dated 5/2/12 by Schopf Design Associates Ms. Guy read an email from Atty. Scott Grover withdrawing the application. Other Business Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of June 20, 2012. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Guy stated that read a letter from BL Companies that is looking for comment on the installation of a wireless antenna system, which is proposed for the intersection of Derby and Lafayette Street. Ms. Guy noted that for any letter, she would like to include information that the proponents will need to go before the Planning Board and the Salem Redevelopment Authority. Ms. Bellin questioned the location of the other three poles, why they are not part of the Section process and why that location was selected. Mr. Hart stated the he felt it would set a bad precedent for tower location in an urban environment. August 1, 2012, Page 6 of 6 Ms. Guy suggested the proponent submit a conceptual drawing showing the views against the surrounding infrastructure. Ms. Herbert stated that she would want to see photographs showing a similar installation in other communities. Ms. Bellin questioned why it would not be located on an on existing pole. Ms. Keenan questioned the health and environmental impacts. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to send a letter with the comments and questions stated herein. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 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. Respec e Jane uy Cler Commissionf f August 15, 2012, Page I of 7 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 15, 2012 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, August 15, 2012 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. McCrea, Ms. Bellin, Mr. Spang and Mr. Hart. 356 Essex Street In continuation of a previous meeting,Nick Nowak and Amy and Jeremy Jones submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to repair the front porch, replace porch floor and stairs with 1 x 4 cambara mahogany and stain, replace railing with round balusters to match existing on gate, replace newel post with on that has a cap and paint balusters, handrail, newel post and risers to match existing trim. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Ms. Guy stated that she received an email requesting a continuance to the September 5t'meeting. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to September 5th. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 4 Hamilton Street Alexis and Greg Dwyer submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to move a ventilation pipe by four feet to accommodate a bathroom remodel. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Ms. Herbert asked if it will be a new,permanent position. Ms. Dwyer replied in the affirmative,but added that it will actually be moved 7' and will change from cast iron to PVC,painted black. Ms. Herbert stated that it should be matte black. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to move the ventilation pipe approximately 7' back toward the rear of the building and change the material from cast iron to PVC, painted matte black. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 27 Herbert Street Nancy Corral Trust submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the August 15, 2012, Page 2 of 7 fist and second floor windows with Hurd replacement units to match existing windows. The application is also to make the windows uniform in the number of lites. Preston Ward, contractor, was present. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Hurd Windows and Doors quote and catalog ■ Sample window(not kept) Mr. Ward stated that they are considering 6 over 6 instead. He believe historically they were 6 over 6. He noted that the third floor and rear wing are 6 over 6. He provided a Hurd window sample, but noted that the interior and exterior will be all wood. It comes pre-primed. This window has ability to tilt and the sash package fits in the existing window frame, so there is only the removal of the sash and the interiors. The bottom sash sits on original sill. The owner prefers the 5/8"mullion. Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission would like to see a bronze spacer. Mr. Spang asked if it is a painted finish. Mr. Ward replied in the affirmative. Mr. Hart stated that the house was built in 1735 and that it most likely would have had 6 over 6. He added that in 1735, it would have had a heftier mullion. Mr. Ward stated that even though the proposed is a little narrower, it is closer to the historic profile. Mr. Hart stated that he felt the proposed size would be unusual. Mr. Ward stated that he did not know when the windows were converted to 2 over 1. He stated that there is also a cost consideration. Mr. Hart stated that one will never see an older window with a profile that thin. Ms. Herbert suggest 7/8". Mr. Ward stated that it was acceptable. Ms. Bellin referred to the catalog and stated that it looks like 7/8" is only for the interior and that next size for the exterior is 1". Ms. Guy stated that the Commission typically approves 7/8" or 15/16". Ms. Bellin asked if all first and second floor windows are being changed. August 15, 2012, Page 3 of 7 Mr. Ward replied in the affirmative, noted that the mudroom is an exception as it is already 6 over 6. Ms. Bellin asked if the third floor will stay as is. Mr. Ward replied in the affirmative. He stated that a total of 28 windows are to be done in two phases. Ms. Bellin stated that it is hard to tell from sample window if it is appropriate, because the sample is clad and not wood. Mr. Hart stated that he is curious as to what dimension are for the mullions of the mudroom windows and if they are original. Mr. Ward stated that he can ask if the manufacturer offers 7/8" exterior mullions. Mr. Hart suggested giving the applicant the option. Ms. Bellin stated that she wondered if approved, if the Commission should limit approval to this situation, until we know more about the windows. Ms. Herbert asked the time frame on installation. Mr. Ward stated that he will order tomorrow and there is a four week turnaround. He stated that the owner wants the second floor done in September and the first floor done in spring. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to replace existing sash with Hurd, solid wood, simulated divided light, six over six windows on first and second floor. Exterior muntins to be either 1" or 7/8". Spacer between glass to be bronze. All to be painted to match existing. Installation to be done in two phases—second floor to be done in Fall, 2012. This installation is to be considered a pilot or test case. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Hart stated that he felt the front door is bazaar and suggested the owner consider removing the storm shed door. 44 Derby Street John and Bridget Crawford submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove asbestos siding and repair or replace the siding underneath. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Mr. Crawford stated that he has been told that there is cedar shingle underneath the asbestos, but that the condition is unknown. They would like to look into all acceptable options available if the shingles are in bad shape. August 15, 2012, Page 4 of 7 Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission reviewed a similar house on River Street for siding removal and underneath they found clapboards, cornerboards and skirtboards in good shape. Ms. Guy stated that generally, they can repair the shingle underneath or replace it with clapboards. If there are no comerboards and skirtboards,the commission can advise and approve what to install. Ms. Herbert asked if they will be changing any windows. Mr. Crawford stated that it is not a consideration at this time. He stated that they have other goals besides changing asbestos siding. He stated that they probably want to add third floor space in the future. Mr. Spang suggesting removing the asbestos, seeing what is there and coming back before the Commission. Mr. Hart was in agreement. He added that they could take off the siding on the front corner of house to see what is there. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve removal of the asbestos shingles and to continue the treatment underneath to September 191h meeting . Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Herbert asked about the wrought iron fence in front. Mr. Crawford stated that it is the push-in ground type to protect the garden. Ms. Herbert stated that there are a number of different ways to do a fence that are historically appropriate. Ms. Herbert stated that they should remove the aluminum awning over the door. She noted that gutters and downspouts should be same color as what they run along. VOTE: Mr. Hart motion to remove the metal awning and the metal fence. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Herbert stated that they could look into the use of an arbor for the garden. She stated that the Commission can provide ideas when the owners are ready. 6 CaMenter Street Michael Chefitz and Robyn Frost submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove a non-working chimney in the rear of the house. The applicants were not present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs August 15, 2012, Page 5 of 7 An unidentified neighbor stated that she that the application in the mail only stated that they were r` removing the chimney and nothing else. She stated that they first have to do something to the foundation because that part of the house is falling away. She stated that they have to secure the foundation and take down the chimney, assuming at the same time. She stated that the question is what are they planning to do with the space. Ms. Guy stated that the application indicates the chimney was disconnected 18 years ago. The neighbor asked what would go into the space and if it was going be turned into a roof. Ms. Guy stated that they would have to fix to roof to match what is there. The neighbor asked if they are going to build onto it. Ms. Guy stated that there is no application for that. She stated they would have to do a separate application for which the abutters would get another notice. Mr. Spang stated that it doesn't say they are going to match the roof. Ms. Guy stated that it could be a condition as part of the motion. The neighbor stated that patching the roof is a better idea than a skylight. Ms. Bellin suggested continuing. Mr. Hart was in agreement. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to the September 5th meeting. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 38 Flint Street Sheri Rosenzweig submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove exterior clapboard siding and replace with cedar shingles, changed body paint color and change from paint to stain, change trim over door facing street to match sides, add drip edge to bulkhead roof, install trim board between lower section and gable end and cut bulkhead door and seal bottom. The applicant is also requesting an extension on the Certificate of Appropriateness given 8/6/09 to change windows (kitchen). Daniel Beauvais of Beauvais Builders was also present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Paint sample ■ Beauvais Builders estimate Mr. Beauvais stated that they will remove all siding and replace it so they will have the same color on the top and bottom. The trim above the door is only about an inch and the sides are 2 August 15,2012, Page 6 of 7 1/2", so he wants to fix the trim so it is the same reveal all the way around. To break the gable off from the bottom section without changing the type of shingle,there are two ways to do it. He can do a shadow course, which is a double course leaving a %"hanging over which creates a shadow line. Or he will put in a piece of 1 x 5 or Ix 6. He noted that the house is kind of small and that he does not know if he wants to put in trim or a shadow line. He stated he wants to create a visual break similar in look to what is there but recreated with shingles. He noted that it is usually a frieze board across on an older home, but that this isn't particularly that old. Ms. Herbert stated that it looks like it needs something more deliberate than what is there. Mr. Beauvais stated that the gable is to big to put a design or dentil work in the gable. Ms. Herbert stated that the rakes are so thin and that they want what is put in to be similar to that. Mr. Beauvais was in agreement. He stated that the rakes original, so they want to keep them. He noted that the house is surrounded with trees, so it stays wet a lot. It has been stripped and painted over the years and the paint keeps coming off. The chimney was rebuilt at one point and all they did was make the chimney 4" smaller and fill the gap with trim. He will remove trim and shingle to it. The gable vent will stay in the same or be replaced in wood and painted white. The bulkhead is shingled, but it was not put on correctly and has no drip edge. There is a Pickwood pine door on the back, which is original but not visible. Mr. Spang asked if the walls insulated. Ms. Rosenzweig stated that she had some sprayed in a few years ago. Mr. Spang asked if they can put in thin layer of insulation during the siding replacement. Mr. Beauvais stated that he did not want to go push the shingles past the cornerboards. Ms. Rosenzweig stated that she wants Spruce Blue for body color. Ms. Herbert asked if the trim will remain the existing color. Ms. Rosenzweig relied in the affirmative. Mr. Beauvais stated that the downspouts will be painted the same color as the surface they are on. He stated that they would like to upgrade from square downspouts to round, rigid. Ms. Herbert stated that she did not think it mattered. Mr. Beauvais stated that they will replace the board at the bottom of the front in kind. They will change the door trim above the door to 1 x 5. Mr. Beauvais stated that he liked the idea of a shadow line for the break under the gable. Mr. Hart suggested creating a pediment. August 15, 2012, Page 7 of 7 Mr. Spang suggested a diagonal, diamond pattern of shingles for a couple rows. Mr. Beauvais stated that the shingles are pre-cut, already primed and coated. He suggested approval for the option of a shadow line and the option of a diagonal pattern for a single course. VOTE: Mr. Spang made a motion to replace all siding with Maibec white cedar super clear shingles stained Spruce Blue, to change the trim over the door to 1 x 5, to add a drip edge to the bulkhead roof,to install a double row of shingles across the bottom of the front gable to create a shadow line or to install one course of diamond pattern shingles,to cut down the bottom of the bulkhead door and seal the edge, to change downspouts from square to round fluted and to paint the trim Tudor Ice. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Other Business Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of July 18, 2012. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Guy stated that she forwarded a summary of the City Hall roof and chimney repair project and that the project is going before the Design Review Board on August 22 at 6:00pm. She suggested that, if the Commission wants to comment on the project, someone be delegated to attend the meeting. Mr. Hart stated that he will not be here. Ms. Herbert stated that she will go. Ms. Guy stated that the Commission was emailed notice of the MEPA Scoping Session for the Salem Harbor Station Redevelopment to be held on August 21 s`at 9:00am. A link to the first several pages of the ENF were included in the notice. Because it requires State or Federal funding, this project will be through usual the historic review. Because the site is near the Winter Island Historic and Archaeological District and the Salem Willows Historic District, she suggested that Commission members who are able attend. Ms. Guy stated that, for 67, 69-71 Mason Street, she received a letter from R. Rumpf Associates with details of building heights and footprints and an Existing Conditions Plan showing building footprints. VOTE: There being no further business, Ms. Bellin made a motion to adjourn. Ms. McCrea secondektheission n, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Respect ] led, Jane A. Clerk of September 5, 2012, Page 1 of 5 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 5, 2012 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, September 5, 2012 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Ms. Bellin, Mr. Spang and Mr. Hart. Ms. Keenan and Ms. McCrea arrived later in the meeting. 318 Essex Street The Peabody Essex Museum submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to change the portico roof from steel to copper. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Robert Monk apologized for not applying sooner. He stated that he did not realize it was visible from Federal Court and jumped the gun. He stated that they found remnants of copper underneath the galvanized steel. They will use sheet copper and it will be painted. Ms. Keenan joined the meeting at this time. Mr. Monk stated that they will also replace the copper flashing detail. Ms. Herbert asked if they will replace the missing balustrade at a later date. Mr. Monk stated that he would love to at some point. He noted that they are working on the interior and then in the long term plan they intend to replace the balustrade along with the laundry yard fence and the trellis. Ms. Bellin asked the color the copper will be painted. Mr. Monk stated that the trim on top of the bay window will be white to match what was existing. There was aluminized paint on the roof, so it will read white. The copper has already been installed on the roof. Ms. Bellin questioned the use of copper if it is going to be painted. Mr. Monk stated that the technique was done quite a bit historically. He noted that the original copper gutters on the Marine Hall were painted. He added that if it looks like aluminum,there might be less temptation to steel the copper. Mr. Hart stated that raw copper will oxidize to green and that many times it washes off and bleeds onto house, which may be why it was painted. September 5, 2012, Page 2 of 5 VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 356 Essex Street In continuation of a previous meeting,Nick Nowak and Amy and Jeremy Jones submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to repair the front porch, replace porch floor and stairs with 1 x 4 cambara mahogany and stain,replace railing with round balusters to match existing on gate, replace newel post with on that has a cap and paint balusters, handrail, newel post and risers to match existing trim. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Ms. Guy stated that she received an email requesting a continuance to the meeting of October 3rd. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to October 3rd. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 6 Carpenter Street Michael Chefitz and Robyn Frost submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove a non-working chimney in the rear of the house. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Ms. McCrea joined the meeting at this time. Mr. Chefitz stated that the chimney furthest back is the one proposed for removal. He stated that they are having some foundation work done in the back. The contractor will need to lift the house up and the contractor states that there is a chance that the chimney will fall down. They will not be putting anything back on the roof. Mr. Spang asked if they will patch the roof with matching shingles. Mr. Chefitz replied in the affirmative. Ms. Herbert stated that she thought it was an odd place to have a chimney. Mr. Hart stated that it is a gambrel house with additions. He noted that this is one of the additions and that the Secretary of the Interior Standards say that accretions added to house should be respected. He stated that he feels it is a minor architectural element and noted that they will still have the two main chimneys. September 5, 2012, Page 3 of 5 Ms. Herbert noted that it sits on the ledge and felt it is awkward. Mr. Hart stated that, in the best of worlds it would be nice to keep, but he has no burning desire to say it should be saved. He noted that it is not an original element to the main house. VOTE: 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. 14 Broad Street Ellen & Jeremy Schill submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to add a mudroom vestibule to replace the existing side entrance. Clapboards and trim will match existing structure. Rectangular window to be re-used from existing structure. Size of vestibule will be 5' x 10'. Examples of similar side entrances on Colonial homes are 8 Broad Street, 134 Carpenter Street, 78 Federal Street and the Peirce-Nichols House on Federal Street. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Sketches of existing and proposed Ms. Guy stated that she received an email requesting a continuance to the meeting of September 19th VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to the meeting of September 19tn Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Other Business Review/comment on submittal by BL Companies for proposed antenna collocation at the intersection of Derby and Lafayette Streets Ms. Guy stated that she emailed the additional information provided as a result of the letter the Commission issued on 8/2/12, which asked several questions. Ms. Harper stated that she feels the installation photos provided are different than what they are proposing. Mr. Hart agreed it is a different installation. Ms. Bellin stated that the collocation on Congress Street is on an existing pole and that the one on Lafayette Street looks like an existing pole. Mr. Hart stated that Ward Street looks like a new pole. Ms. Herbert stated that Derby Street is pretty clear of poles. Stating that this is needed because National Grid will no longer allow antenna attachments to these types of poles sets bad precedent. She stated that she felt they should put pressure on National Grid. September 5, 2012, Page 4 of 5 Ms. Keenan stated that the City is trying to get rid of poles. She stated that she is not accepting the reason of bad cell reception in that area. Mr. Hart stated that he felt it should be put on the Metcom building. Ms. Bellin asked if the nearby poles are owned by the City or National Grid. She stated that if they are owned by the city, it should be allowed on an existing pole. Mr. Hart felt the proposal would be setting bad precedent. Ms. Herbert noted that it is set in from the curb in an awkward spot. Ms. Bellin stated that it may cause handicapped accessibility issues. Mr. McCrea stated that the comment letter should cc the city council. Ms. Herbert questioned why the City Council is approving this type of thing. Comments: • Visually degrades historic and the architectural elements of the area • The City has been making an effort to reduce the number of poles, for visual reasons, access reasons, and aesthetic reasons. • It is strongly recommended that o the proponent investigate alternatives such as installation on the existing building (Metcom) or fire station. o Determine whether the existing lampposts are owned by the city or National Grid and pursue approval for installation on existing or alternative pole (if not lamppost) • Very concerned that it will sets precedent • Cc— City Council, Planning Board and Salem Redevelopment Authority VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to send comment letter with these points. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Correspondence Ms. Guy stated that she received a letter dated 8/20/12 from Massachusetts Historical Commission to the MBTA regarding the Salem Intermodal Station Project Intensive Archaeological Survey/Site Examination requesting additional information. Minutes Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of August 1, 2012. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Meeting time discussion September 5, 2012, Page 5 of 5 Ms. Guy proposed that the Commission change its regular meeting time from 7:30 to 7:00 beginning with the meeting of October 3, 2012. Mr. Hart made a motion to change the Commission's regular meeting time from 7:30 to 7:00 beginning with the meeting of October 3, 2012. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Keen and Mr. Hart voted in favor. Ms. McCrea and Mr. Spang abstained from voting. The motion so carried. Salem Harbor Station Ms. Guy stated that she went to the Footprint scooping session. The Environmental Notification Form (ENF) has been issued and there will be an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The plant is scheduled for shut down in May, 2014, which will be followed by demolition. After construction of the new plant, it will open up 40-42 acres for other redevelopment. Ms. Guy stated that there are four large projects in the planning stages that will be coming before the Commission for comments and/or demolition delay—Registry of Deeds Building, PEM expansion, power plant and MBTA garage. She noted that no Commission members attended the initial meeting for the Registry of Deeds where alternatives had been initially discussed. No one from the Commission attended the power plant scoping session . The Commission also had no design comments on the MBTA garage project which has had a few public meetings. She suggested that the Commission get up to date and involved in these projects early to determine if anyone has any historic-related issues so as to avoid an similar problems encountered with the St. Joseph's Church project. 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 . bin't d, Jane A. G Clerk of tAComission �y September 19, 2012, Page 1 of 10 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION r MINUTES SEPTEMBER 19, 2012 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, September 19, 2012 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Ms. Keenan, Ms. Bellin, Mr. Spang and Mr. Hart. Ms. McCrea arrived later in the meeting. 356 Essex Street In continuation of a previous meeting,Nick Nowak and Amy and Jeremy Jones submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to repair the front porch, replace porch floor and stairs with 1 x 4 cambara mahogany and stain, replace railing with round balusters to match existing on gate, replace newel post with on that has a cap and paint balusters, handrail, newel post and risers to match existing trim. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Ms. Guy stated that this application was continued to the meeting of October 3rd and was placed on this agenda in error. No action is required. 44 Derby Street In continuation of a prior meeting, John and Bridget Crawford submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove asbestos siding and repair or replace the siding underneath. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Ms. Herbert stated that she went by and took off a piece of siding. It is layer after layer. She noted that in some places it places it goes right down to base board. Mr. Spang was in agreement and did not think there was any clapboard. He stated that he thinks they should get rid of everything and start fresh at the sheathing. Ms. Herbert stated that she would want skirtboard and cornerboards. There was no public comment. Mr. Hart stated that the owner did submit photos and it looks like there are some remnants of clapboards on one corner. September 19, 2012, Page 2 of 10 Ms. Herbert stated that the trim around the windows looks like it might be vinyl. Mr. Hart stated that clapboards are more indicative of what this style would have been. John Carr, 7 River Street, stated that the old Bix Variety are remnants of a 181h century house and that it was a great solution to have restored the house and built a compatible new house. He stated that if the Commission is going to approve something,they should make it as compatible as possible. MOTION: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve siding to be wooden clapboards, 4"to weather, with 6" cornerboards and 2 x 8 water table. The applicant is to retain existing rakes and cornices. The motion is also to continue the application to next meeting in case the owner needs to work out details or submit another siding option. Ms. Harper stated that she can consult with the owner if he has any questions. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 14 Broad Street In continuation of a prior meeting, Ellen& Jeremy Schiller submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to add a mudroom vestibule to replace the existing side entrance. Clapboards and trim will match existing structure. Rectangular window to be re-used from existing structure. Size of vestibule will be 5' x 10'. Examples of similar side entrances on Colonial homes are 8 Broad Street, 134 Carpenter Street, 78 Federal Street and the Peirce- Nichols House on Federal Street. Present were Ms. Schiller and architect Helen Sides. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Sketches/drawings of existing and proposed Ms. Sides provided updated drawings. Ms. Sides stated that the fence will stay in its current location and that the vestibule will project 6' and connect to it. They will retain the double door opening in the fence for the car. Ms. Schiller stated that there is currently one small and one big door for the double doors. Ms. Sides stated that the vestibule will go back behind the fence 10'6". The door won't be seen from the street. She stated that, if the window is not salvageable, they will replace in kind. All materials will match existing, including clapboards, roofing, etc. She noted that the roof extends past the wall to cover the stairs and it will have a decorative bracket. Ms. Herbert suggested the roof pitch mimic the dormer on front. September 19, 2012, Page 3 of 10 Ms. Sides stated that the roof can't be that steep and it will probably be 4 1/2 - enough pitch for weather. It will come up closer to the sills above the existing. It is hipped in 3 directions, and you won't see much from the street. Ms. Bellin asked if they are proposing to start at the fence, remove the window to the right and retain the far right window. Ms. Sides replied in the affirmative. Mr. Hart stated that he was concerned about 5' x 10' size. Ms. Sides stated that it is 6' x 10'. Ms. Schiller stated that 8 Broad Street has a similar dimension, but is deeper back. Mr. Hart stated that the length concerns him and it seems to function as a mudroom. Ms. Schiller stated that that is the intent. Mr. Hart stated that the in the sketches the scale looks nice, but that he would prefer to see a scale rendering of what will look like. Michael Blier, 8 Broad Street stated that he felt it is a big improvement over what is there. Ms. Harper stated that the sample pictures are all slightly different and tailored to the needs of those houses. She stated that the proposed is a side entrance and that she felt it is okay. Morris Schopf, stated that 1 1/2 Cambridge Street tacked on very cleverly to the kitchen window. He stated that it is bigger than a little seasonal shed that were used to protect front doors. It is quite successful and is a comparable model. He noted that it depends on where on building it occurs. John Carr, 7 River Street, stated that he gathered the concern may be that the prototypes are not the same scale. He suggested that the thing to do is to make it more like a little room and bump it out instead of blowing up a vestibule beyond the typical scale. Ms. Herbert stated that there are two large planes, which she felt could handle a larger vestibule treatment. Ms. Sides stated that it is located where it needs to be in order to be functional. She stated that she could shorten it on the fence end, but it would probably look stranger to create a dead zone between the fence and building. Mr. Schopf stated that if it had been added long ago, it would probably have a gable end and alignment rather than a hip roof. He stated that it probably wants to make a bigger statement of itself, but have all the same details and same roof pitch. September 19, 2012, Page 4 of 10 Ms Sides stated that the hip roof helps to bring the height down visually. She stated that a different roof won't fit under windows. Mr. Hart stated that he would like to see an elevation that shows all the parts on that elevation. He stated that he did not have a good concept of what it looks like overall. He noted that we will be looking at this a long time and that he wants to make sure what is there is compatible, Mr. Spang stated that he felt it is an improvement over what is there and is generally sympathetic to the house. He stated that he is getting stuck on the roof. He stated that he finds the hip roof to be not quite the way the rest of the house works. He suggested that a shed, rather than a hip, might be better. Ms. Sides stated you would see the butt ends of gutters and that she felt a hip is more finished looking. Ms. Herbert suggested a gable with a flat roof. Ms. Sides stated that she felt it would draw more attention. Ms. Schiller stated that because there is a huge addition on the back of house, she felt it is not disproportionate to the depth of the house. She noted that hers goes so much further back than other houses. Mr. Hart stated that it is a fine house and that he could not visualize the whole picture. He noted that he will not be at the October 3`d meeting. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to the next meeting on October 3`d. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 1 Cambridge Street Sue Weaver Schopf submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the existing wooden gutters on the rear of the building with 6" K section aluminum gutters, white to match all trim. The same was approved for 315 Essex Street. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Morris Schopf stated that the gutters are only visible between the houses from Essex Street. The proposed gutters are almost the exact exterior profile as his existing wood gutter. He noted that the rear property line is at the foundation.. 130' of gutter will be permanent. They will be white. He stated that he will keep the wood return at the corner at the Essex Street end and that the end of the gutter at the corner of the gable will remain part of the trim. Mr. Hart asked about downspouts. September 19, 2012, Page 5 of 10 Mr. Schopf stated that they will keep the existing galvanized steel,painted. He noted that the wooden gutters up front have held up fine, but the long runs on the back puddle and have rotted. There was no public comment. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 36 Felt Street James R. Treadwell presented an application for Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance for the barn at 36 Felt Street (formerly at 18 Felt Street). Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Plan of Charles A. Ropes Estate, March, 1907 ■ Original plan of land, 18 Felt Street, by ICECAT, December 15, 2011 ■ Approved plan of land, 18 Felt Street, by ICECAT, June 18, 2012 ■ Memo from J.R. Treadwell summarizing inspection completed by Woodford Bros., Inc. Mr. Treadwell stated that he also provided some additional photos of the structure and setting, a drawing of the building and a summation of a visit made by Hugh Stone of Woodford Brothers Inc., specializing in structural renovations. Ms. McCrea joined the meeting at this time. Mr. Treadwell stated that he purchased the lot in June, which contains the barn, garage and the beach tree. He stated that the tree is diseased and he is working with Bartlett Tree Company to make it healthy again. The garage was approved for demolition, but there is hope that the new owner of 18 Felt Street will restore it. The barn has been long neglected. In 1989, Peg Ropes put in a cornerpost in an attempt to stabilize. He stated that the carriage room floor is covered with plywood, making the adjourning room inaccessible. He noted that, unfortunately, the barn was stuffed with old artifacts that went to dumpster by the developer. He stated that it was a herculean task accomplished by the neighbors,the Zoning Board of Appeal, Historic Salem, Inc. and the Salem Historical Commission to save the house. He added that the barn is available for tour, but that he would not go up to the second level as the stairs have rotted. The building survey form says that the house is a Queen Anne building eligible for National Register listing, but only mentions the barn in passing. He stated that, from the beginning,the garage and barn were shown by the developer to be removed. He stated that there will be salvage. He noted that there have been some attempts made to investigate moving barn next to the house. He stated that, if moved, it would change the setting of the house,which would be considered an adverse effect. Mr. Treadwell noted that he had worked for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and was responsible for historic reviews for the Philadelphia office. He stated that the barn is not feasible to rehabilitate. It would be $165,000 to stabilize (put in new foundation, new roof and rehabilitate structure). September 19, 2012, Page 6 of 10 Mr. Hart stated that we have a clock of October 1 Oth by which we need to provide a preliminary recommendation. Ms. Herbert stated that this is the second time around for a waiver request. The first was submitted in April by George Wattendorf and it would have ended October 17th. However, in the interim, Mr. Treadwell bought the land with carriage house and therefore he needed to reapply. She stated that she has been working on this property since last October to save the house and the other buildings. She stated that she felt she has left few stones unturned looking for ways to move or save the carriage house. She stated that it would be $60,000 for a new roof and new sills to stabilize. If it were to be renovated into a living space, it would run about $130,000. To move it to the location similar to where the garage is but pushed back would be $16,000 and the slab would be $4000. She stated that what is left to complete the house is the landscaping which will be a$30-40,000 investment and the new owner wants to also complete the historic deck as well as other things. She questioned, even if Mr. Wattendorf would consider allowing the money set aside to demolish the barn and garage and if she were to be able to find a donor or lender for the other$10,000 to be used for moving it to a slab, when would the new owner be able to invest the money to restore it and how long would it continue to deteriorate. She stated that she has gone to depths to try to save it. She stated that she felt it is important because it identifies what this property was, which is one of the two farms in Northfields. It has now been divided with two people with differing interests, with a large investment. She stated that it really has been investigated. John Carr, 7 River Street, stated that he grew up at 9 Roosevelt road,just one street over and that in the 1950s there was remnants architecturally of the farm. He stated that Mr. Ropes had an enormous vegetable garden and that the property was maintained beautifully. He noted that there were three farms - Cabot and 2 owned by the Ropes brothers. He stated that the Demolition Delay Ordinance is to hold out hope that something might happen within the six months, no matter how unrealistic at the moment. If the issue is one of safety, the building inspection exists and his decisions trump everything. It is the only remaining vestige of what defines that whole area. It has been a derelict for a long time and it is iconic. He stated that if the building is a danger,then let the building inspector make that determination. The purpose of the Demolition Delay Ordinance is to preserve, as long as possible,to see if something can be worked out. He noted that maybe nothing will happen, but the Commission should let the Demolition Delay Ordinance work. The Commission should not facilitate demolition of something very worthwhile. He stated that he was thrilled that Michael Blier is buying 18 Felt Street. He noted that the developer of the former Bix Variety originally wanted to tear it down. Once demolished it is gone forever. It should have 180 days, however unlikely. Mr. Treadwell stated that no one could have more pleasant memories with Ropes than he. He stated that it is a hardship for him as he would have to secure the barn at a considerable expense. There would be no access to demolish through 18 Felt Street if done later. If there is not enough data, the delay is meant to investigate further. The barn has been available for purchase. He stated that he did not wanted to diminish it, but noted that it is not significant, but is an ordinary barn. It could be replicated. He noted that the floors are deplorable from the livestock. He stated that, as far as the building inspector is concerned, he tries not to go beyond his trust. He added that there has been press and investigation. September 19, 2012, Page 7 of 10 Ms. Herbert stated that this is not in an historic district and, once the six months elapses, it can be �— torn down. She noted that five of the six months of the first application have passed. She stated that she has struggled with this and would love to save it, but noted that she really has tried everything. She stated that the only way it could be saved is to move it to Michael Blier's new property. She stated that no one is coming forward that would move it any place else. She added that Mr. Treadwell is willing to give away parts. Michael Blier, 8 Broad Street stated that he is in the process of purchasing 18 Felt Street. The lot purchased extends to the end of the driveway. The way in which this transaction was brokered has come about to accomplish saving the house. Behind all that was the thinking that we would purchase back half of that lot and we would unite the garage and beach tree with the house. That has not happened yet. In question is the barn, house, garage and site. Once the barn is picked up, it is eligible to be moved anywhere. He noted that to move it closer to main house might look odd as it is a tall structure. He stated that he felt it will be a lot more money than what has been estimated to move and rehab it. He added that in a perfect world, it would be reunited as is with the main house, but that it is a difficult thing. He noted that getting the house saved was the primary goal. Mr. Carr stated that he can think of three period barns in North Salem, one of which the lot was separated and the barn sold and rehabilitated with the house next to it. He noted that a hardship can't be self created and that Mr. Treadwell knew the issues when he purchased it. He noted that the barn at Cabot Farm is 18'h century. The Historical Commission stands for preservation. There is no immediate urgency: the barn is not going to fall down. He stated that he felt the barn is more important than the garage. He stated that the barn is an iconic, neighborhood symbol. The Demolition Delay Ordinance was chosen to have six months as a reasonable time to see what might happen. Andrew Carr, 7 River Street, stated that he is a professional painter and has a studio in the Bowditch House at 9 North Street. He is desperately looking for new space. His dream is to some day move into a carriage house in Salem, and the barn would be perfect for that. He stated that to see this go is unfortunate. He noted that Jackson Pollack had a barn in New York with a small stove for heat and that he doesn't need much to make the space work. Jack Kinee, 36 Felt Street stated that the house had been available for a year. He stated that if ICECAT had their way, we would not have a house and would have three monstrosities. He stated that all the sentimental value is in the past. He noted that the barn is not in good shape and is not workable. It is out of site, as far as money is concerned. Morris Schopf, 1 Cambridge Street, stated that he has been in the building and it is in very delicate condition, but is completely original except for the plywood. He stated that he was disappointed that a building of that age and delicacy does not have an advocate. The Demolition Delay Ordinance is a relief of the bylaw that gives everyone a six month delay to demolish. He stated that with the purchase of a buildable lot goes responsibility. He stated that he understands that responsibility for the beach tree and the barn is part of the acquisition of this piece of property and along with that goes stewardship. Ms. Herbert stated that she has been working to save the entire campus for almost a year. She noted that almost twice the delay period has elapsed. She stated that a delay of weeks, while Mr. September 19, 2012,Page 8 of 10 Treadwell finds people to take parts, might be appropriate. She stated that she has looked into all kinds of schemes and has personally done for the Commission the mission as to what could be done. Andrew Carr stated that the last chance is a kick starter to get money from the internet- a few months of fundraising. Mr. Treadwell stated this is 12500 s.f. lot and is not buildable. He stated that he has been very active in preservation issues, including St. Joseph's complex and the MBTA Signal Tower. He stated that the barn would stay if it were feasible. He noted that a house could have been built on this lot before he purchased it and that this has been precluded. He stated that the garage has a slate roof and matches the house and makes the main house more attractive. He stated that he has been responsible, noting that the idea to save garage was his and he is working with the new owner to save the tree. John Carr stated that all of the preservation conditions that were built into the zoning variance came to naught, because Mr. Treadwell the purchased lot. Ms. Keenan asked if the barn has structural damage. Ms. Herbert stated that the foundation has settled and the building is racked. She stated that she did not think the building inspector will feel it should be condemned. Ms. Bellin stated that, looking at the regulations, she can't say this doesn't qualify for demolition, but noted that she did not see any urgency for a waiver. She stated that there may be a new opportunity and that you never know what is going to happen, as unlikely as it may be. She stated that she has heard nothing that says this needs to be rushed. She stated that it is of some historic value. She stated that she felt the delay should let run its course. Ms. Herbert stated that it doesn't have to be the full six months; it can be weeks or months. Ms. Bellin stated that she was not convinced of the urgency and that she was not comfortable hastening demolition. Ms. McCrea stated that she was in agreement with Ms. Bellin. She stated that she felt it is a historic structure and is thought of as an iconic building. She did not think the Commission should rush. Mr. Hart stated that he has heard of the efforts that Ms. Herbert has personally has made, and they are appreciated. He stated that this is a project with many moving parts, which have been moving around for months. There is a new owner, it's a new ballgame and the parts are still moving around. He stated that maybe the barn was not there in 1907, but it was there before 1962. Mr. Treadwell stated it was built in 1912. Mr. Hart stated that it if it were replicated, it is not going to be the same thing. He stated that maybe Mr. Treadwell will have a change of heart or someone who wants to buy it will be found. September 19, 2012, Page 9 of 10 He stated that he did not want to be in the position to allow old buildings to be knocked down because the owner says it is not significant or that it will cost too much money. He stated that he felt the Commission should enter into some consultation with Mr. Treadwell to see if there is some way to save the building. Mr. Spang asked how long the building has been deteriorating Mr. Treadwell stated that in 1989, a comerpost was put in to try to stabilize it. Mr. Ropes died in the 70s. It was last used as a barn in 1930. Mr. Spang stated that it is at least 30 years into benign neglect. He stated that he is considering the precedent on what the Commission has done for waiver requests. He stated that he appreciates Mr. Treadwell is usually on the preservation side. He noted that the Commission frequently asks proponents to come back with more justification, such as to say what it would take to restore the house or other options. He stated that that he did not feel it has ever been taken at face value that it is too expensive. He stated that he is not saying it is not expensive, but that in normal due diligence, the Commission has asked for some substantial information. He wondered the long term gain. He questioned if there is a situation to stabilize it for another 10 or 15 years and see what happens. He suggested cables and bracing on the inside, boarding it up and leaving it. He stated that he did not think that tonight he could vote for a waiver. He stated that there are pieces he would like to investigate further. He stated that he might be able to in four to six weeks. Ms. Herbert stated that the only reason that she would vote for this, is that she has been so intimately involved and knows what has been attempted. She stated that in a few weeks it will be a year. She felt it very unlikely that anything can be done. Mr. Treadwell stated that he takes offense that he takes this lightly. He noted that Hugh Stone from Woodford Brothers provided an estimation. He stated that if it is not done within the next few weeks, the driveway that provides access to the house will be paved, so heavy equipment would not be able to access the barn. The house to rear will be landscaped, so it won't be able to provide access. The beach tree in the front is under so much stress, so he can't gain access that way. He stated that they could come across his back yard and take down his fence, but that it is a hardship. He stated that he has spent $175,000. He wants the buffer to go from 13 to 75 feet and will sell 25 back to the new owner. The urgency is also salvage, noting that people won't wait around forever to take the best parts. He stated that it is a financial hardship to stabilize. He stated that maybe it is not in deplorable condition, but that already kids have been in there. He stated that it has been secured, but that it is almost impossible unless the windows are boarded up with plywood. He stated that he thinks we are wishing that the ordinance says more than it does. He stated that further investigation is up to the commission, not the property owner, according to the law. He pleaded that the Commission make a decision sooner rather than later. He noted that the house has been saved. Ms. Herbert suggested continuing to 10/3/12 and added that she would like to have site visit. She noted that the owner will be able to demolish within 6 months no matter what. Mr. Treadwell stated that it George Wattendorf can't get into the site to demolish it, his recourse will be not to pay. September 19, 2012, Page 10 of 10 Mr. Carr stated that a difficult decision doesn't get any easier by putting it off. He stated that he agreed the barn is in terrible condition but added that 95 Federal Street was also. Mr. Treadwell stated that he challenged that it is eligible for the National Register. Mr. Spang suggested a site visit. Mr. Treadwell stated that anyone can call and come over. MOTION: Ms. Bellin made a motion to make a preliminary recommendation to the Building Inspector against issuing the demolition permit, with an eye toward continuing the discussion over the next 180 days. Mr. Hart seconded the motion. Mr. Spang suggested an amendment to also continue the application to the meeting of 10/17/12. Ms. Bellin accepted the amendment. Mr. Hart seconded the amendment. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Keenan, Ms. Bellin, Mr. Spang and Mr. Hart voted in favor. Ms. Harper voted in opposition. The motion so carried. A site visit was scheduled for Sunday, September 23rd at 2:00pm. Other Business Correspondence Ms. Guy stated that she received a letter dated 9/10/12 from E. Avila Patterson suggesting a Christian service for all the victims of the witch hysteria. Minutes VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of August 15, 2012. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 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. Respectfull i , Jane A. Gu Clerk of the C ission October 17, 2012, Page 1 of 8 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 2012 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Harper, Ms. Keenan, Mr. Hart and Ms. Bellin. Ms. Harper chaired the meeting. Ms. McCrea arrived later in the meeting. MBTA Intermodal Station—MGL c. 9 ss. 26-27C 950 CMR 71 Review A. MassDot 9/24/12 submittal with additional materials regarding Intensive (Locational) Archaeological Survey/Site Examination - Review/comment B. Recommendation of mitigation efforts and suggestions for the Draft MOA Ms. Guy stated that the Commission received a copy of a submittal to Massachusetts Historical Commission(MHC), which she mailed to each Commissioner, in response to their comment letter of July 18, 2012 regarding the Public Archaeology Laboratory(PAL) report. The Commission had sent a comment letter on August 2, 2012 regarding the PAL report. She stated that she needs to send any comments in a letter tomorrow. Ms. Guy stated that Mr. Spang emailed her and stated that he did not have any comments. Ms. Harper stated that the issue of the lighting was brought up at the last meeting. She stated that she felt there should be more appropriate lighting, rather than contemporary lighting similar to the Revere garage. Ms. Bellin stated that the Revere garage has a broad span of light. She stated that the comment letter should express general concern that the ultimate design be compatible with the nearby historic district. Mr. Hart suggested adding that the south elevation might be addressed by breaking up the fagade where there is now large expanses of brick. He stated that he felt the submission was pretty comprehensive and that he had no further comments. Ms. Guy asked if Mr. Hart was satisfied that the mitigation efforts proposed will mitigate the adverse effects. Mr. Hart replied in the affirmative. Ms. McCrea joined the meeting at this time. Mr. Hart suggested it be stated that the lights on the garage have the appropriate cutoffs so it prevents light spilling off to the adjacent properties. Ms. Keenan was in agreement. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion that the comments stated be turned into a comment letter. October 17, 2012, Page 2 of 8 Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt Street stated that it is important to note that they are using the signal tower on the cover of their documents. He added that there is a MOA applicable to the signal tower from 1992. They are going from 4 to 5 floors with over 700 spaces, where there is 344 today. The increase is result of receiving more money, which also enabled the addition of the signal tower renovation. He stated that at the Chapter 91 meeting, it came up that they expect to have artifacts from the archaeological dig and may put some at the viewing area. 36 Felt Street In continuation of a prior meeting, James R. Treadwell presented an application for Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance for the barn at 36 Felt Street (formerly at 18 Felt Street). Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Plan of Charles A. Ropes Estate, March, 1907 ■ Original plan of land, 18 Felt Street, by ICECAT, December 15, 2011 ■ Approved plan of land, 18 Felt Street, by ICECAT, June 18, 2012 ■ Memo from J.R. Treadwell summarizing inspection completed by Woodford Bros., Inc. Ms. Harper stated that the application had been continued to allow for a site visit. She stated that the condition of the building was poor. Mr. Treadwell stated that he was able to pass on an artifact to a friend at the Danvers Historical Society—a huge hay bale cutter from 1884 from a foundry in Easton. He noted that after the last meeting, subsequent to the newspaper article, he got only two phone calls. One person was interested in the weather vane, but it was no longer available. The other was asking if it was a barn that was moved from the overpass -which it was not. He stated that he has received no other contact from the public, nor from the people who showed up at the last meeting. Ms. Bellin stated that she was not able to come to the site visit and asked the Commission's observations. Mr. Hart stated that he was not at that particular site visit. Ms. Harper stated that the foundation was poor, the sills were poor and the building is racked. There was a dip in the floor structure. The building looked delicate. She noted that the inside doors were intact, but the outside doors were not. There is an opening in the roof, so is open to weather. It is open to weather in various spots along the foundation. Ms. McCreas stated that the building looks tired. She stated that it is unfortunate that the prior owner allowed it to deteriorate. She stated that it is dilapidated. Mr. Hart stated the he has been on the property many times and has observed the exterior. He read Ordinance 2-1572 (a)(3)(ad) regarding criteria that commission shall consider and that 2- 1572 (a)(3)(a) stated that the Commission shall consider if"the building or structure is of such October 17, 2012, Page 3 of 8 interest or quality that it would reasonably meeting National, State or local criteria for designation as an historic or architectural landmark.". He stated that , in his opinion, it is eligible for listing on the National Register with regard to integrity, and association with persons or events. He stated that someone would have to engage an architectural historian to do a Form B. He noted that it has the vestiges of a fine building that has been allowed to deteriorate for years. He suggested exploring moving it away or moving it toward the new house that has been restored. John Carr, 7 River Street. stated that he still believed the whole underpinning of this board is to allow for six months, however remote the chance may be that it may be saved. He stated that it allows a breathing period for those that qualify. He agree with Mr. Hart that it qualifies for the National Register. He stated that demolition is permanent. He added that, if six months expires and nothing happens, Mr. Treadwell can take it down, but at least the Historical Commission doesn't go on record as expediting the process. He stated that the ordinance was set up to create this window of opportunity and there is no compelling reason to approve the waiver. He stated that carriage houses are important as evidenced by the carriage house ordinance he wrote many years ago. He stated that the barn could certainly be restored. He added that it would be a terrible precident and terrible mistake. It is a unique piece of North Salem. Marie Megan, 65 Dearborn Street, stated that she is an abutter. She stated that the neighbors as a whole think it should come down. She stated that it is an eyesore, is dangerous and is an attractive nuisance. She stated that it is not a carriage house, but a barn. She noted that the quality pieces are long gone, rotted or removed. She added that she was happy that the Historical Commission helped save house. She stated that John Keenan stated to her that anything that could be done to that barn would be cost prohibitive. She stated that she has put up a lot of patience watching the property go down and a lot of patience watching it be restored. She stated that nobody has complained about the restoration, but the consensus of persons she spoke to, even those who have been there for generations, do not look at it as historic. She noted it is in disreputable condition. It will provide open space in the neighborhood. Right now it is an attractive nuisance for people to camp out in the winter. She stated that she has seen kids on the property during construction and felt it dangerous to leave it for six more months. Jack Kinney, 36 Felt Street, stated that Georg Wattendorf filed for a waiver more than 6 months ago. It has been available to public for more than 6 months for anyone to take or buy. He stated that he did not feel another six months will do any good. Mr. Treadwell stated that it has been 6 months tomorrow that the Commission has had this under consideration. He noted that the technicality was that the clock had to start again. He stated that he did not feel anyone can say that the Commission is shirking its duty. He stated that in five months, the barn will be in worse condition. He stated that, if allowed to be dismantled, the setting for the new house and garage will be improved. He noted that Mr. Blier will take possession of the garage, which is also an important element. He stated that he felt moving the barn would be an adverse effect. He stated that, historically,people kept their barn to the west of the house and at a good distance. He noted that because it is over 50 years, is why it is before the commission. He noted that the key criteria for listing are significance and integrity. This was not associated with a significant person or movement. This is an ordinary barn. He stated that he hated to demean the structure or seem to demean the process, noting he is very involved in historic preservation process. He stated that it would be a very costly endeavor to repair or October 17, 2012, Page 4 of 8 replicate and that because of the foundation being so far removed from structure, it will be almost impossible to secure vagrants, etc. from going down into foundation and up into house. Vote: Ms. Bellin made a motion to close the public comment. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Bellin stated that she tended to agree with Mr. Hart and Mr. Carr. She stated that she understood that the original six months is up, but did not feel that the Commission actually dealt with investigative portion of that initial application. She stated that she did not feel the Commission could say that they have done everything possible. She stated that no one knows what will happen in the next 5 months. She stated that she did not see the need to hasten. The Ordinance's criteria to consider says it may consider if it will reasonably meet criteria for designation. Ms. McCrea stated that it is a very difficult decision. She stated that while she thinks it meets the criteria to be placed on the National Register, she felt that Mr. Blier and Mr. Treadwell have tried to the best of their ability to have it be part of the house. She noted that the house was saved due to the efforts of Jessica Herbert. She thought that moving it closer to house would take away from it. She stated that it would take such expense to restore the barn. She noted considerable costs were incurred to restore the house and acquire the land. She stated that she would be okay with a waiver. Mr. Hart stated that he is of the opinion that it would be eligible for the National Register. He stated that for the first application there were a bunch of moving parts, so the Commission never really focused on the application for the waiver in the first place, because it seemed to be a moot point. He stated that he respects what Mr. Treadwell and the audience has said, both pros and cons. He stated that he would want to see some documentation that would address the visual aspects of the property and the condition of the property. He stated that he has heard verbal testimony that it would cost"x"number of dollars and testimony that it would visually detract from the Victorian house that was restored. He stated that he was not sure how all the land ended up divided in ownership. He would want to see the Commission engage with Mr. Treadwell to explore if it could be moved toward house, maybe taking the garage down. He stated that alternatives to demolition should be explored and noted that there have been structures in far worse shape that have been restored. Ms. Keenan stated that she agreed with Mr. Carr and Mr. Hart,but noted that her concern is for the winter time and children playing in the building. She was concerned about kids playing in the building and the roof collapsing and did not want that blood on her hands, nor the Historical Commission. She stated that she would vote to take it down. Ms. Bellin stated that this raises a point about condemnation. She stated that the Commission is looking just from a historical perspective. Ms. Keenan stated that from a historical perspective, she would keep it, but that if weighing the two, she would go with safety. Ms. Guy stated that no matter the Commission's decision,the Building Inspector can still inspect it and issue a demolition order. October 17, 2012, Page 5 of 8 Mr. Treadwell stated that the Building Inspector is familiar with the building. He stated that Office Larrabee of Fire Prevention would like it down. Ms. Harper stated that she felt the Commission should take into serious consideration that for an entire year Ms. Herbert and others worked to try to get interest in the building. She noted that Mr. Blier was here at the last meeting and stated that he did not have the interest nor the funds to move the barn closer to his house. He had noted his intent was to save the garage which is in better condition. She stated that she felt nothing has come about in whole year with the Historic Commission trying to make it happen. She stated that she felt it is a safety issue and that children could get in. Ms. Bellin stated that she felt the Building Inspector needs to be followed up with. She stated that she is not comfortable making that decision. She stated that the Commission has to vote on the historic nature of the property. She state that if it is a serious safety concern, the property owner should resolve it with Building and Fire. She urge Mr. Treadwell to follow up with them. Mr. Hart stated that he believed that an attractive nuisance, if allow to become or continue to be a hazardous condition, the owner is liable. He stated that if there are open areas, it is incumbent upon the property owner to fence it off. Ms. Bellin stated that in the time it takes to decide, anything could happen, so Mr. Treadwell should do something for his own protection. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to close discussion. Mr. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. MOTION: Mr. Hart made a motion to comply with section 2.1572 review process for granting demolition permits for historic buildings or structures and to meet with the property owner and conduct such hearings or investigations as it may be necessary to determine a written recommendations regarding the grant of a waiver of demolition delay. Ms. Bellin stated that it is actually granting of the permit to demolish. Mr. Hart accepted the correction. Ms. Guy asked if he is keeping the application open. Mr. Hart replied in the affirmative. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. She stated that Mr. Hart is recommending we do not issue a final recommendation to allow demolition at this time and we would like to take advantage of the 180 days authorized to continue to investigate. Ms. Harper asked if he making a motion to deny the waiver. Mr. Hart replied in the negative. October 17, 2012, Page 6 of 8 Ms. McCrea questioned that Ms. Herbert already has done that, met with the property owners. Ms. Harper replied in the affirmative. Ms. Bellin stated that Ms. Herbert did not do that as a member of the Historical Commission, nor pursuant to this permit. Ms. Bellin stated that she has questions about what the ordinance says versus what our practice has been. Ms. Guy asked if this is being continued to another date and who is doing what. Mr. Hart stated the ordinance says that during the 180 day period, the Commission shall meet to conduct such hearings and then the Commission will make a recommendation. Ms. Guy stated that if the Commission as a body, with a quorum, is meeting with the homeowner, then the application needs to be continued to a meeting in order to have public notice. Mr. Hart stated that he is only following the ordinance. Ms. Guy stated that she is trying to be practical about what the steps are going to be. Ms. McCrea stated that it has to be continued in order to fulfill it. Mr. Hart agreed. Ms. Bellin stated she believes Mr. Hart is asking is not to make a decision now, but to take advantage of the maximum 180 day period to do whatever we deem necessary in further consideration before we provide our written recommendation to the Building Inspector. Ms. Harper questioned if the entire period is 180 days, waiting the entire 180 days amounts to denying the waiver. Ms. McCrea stated that that would be her understanding. Mr. Hart stated that it is not necessarily. Ms. Guy asked if they are planning on coming back a month from now. Ms. Harper asked Mr. Hart to clarify the vote. Mr. Hart stated that it is the intent is to hold some discussions with Mr. Treadwell and have him document the various ideas he has explored and to document the fact that it is not possible to save the building or rehabilitate it. He stated that it does not mean we have to wait six months. If Mr. Treadwell can convince the Commission he is not able to save the building in a reasonable fashion,then we can make a recommendation to the Building Inspector to waive the 180 day period. October 17, 2012, Page 7 of 8 r— Ms. Guy stated that the Commission would be asking Mr. Treadwell to provide the Commission with this information, and then the Commission would reschedule the discussion at an upcoming agenda. If he chooses not to provide the documentation, he can let the time run out. Mr. Hart replied in the affirmative. He stated that his point is that he wants documentation and the Commission owes it to Mr. Treadwell to give him a list of what documentation the Commission would expect to see. He stated that he is willing to develop it, but would like to reflect on what those items are in collaboration with the Commission. Ms. Bellin stated that the Commission could continue the application to a specific date before the 180 days is up. Ms. McCrea stated that she felt in terms of point of order, she did not see how the Commission can do it without making a determination on accepting or denying the waiver, which would give the time to have these discussions. She said it seems out of order. Ms. Bellin asked what happens if at the end of the 180 days and the Commission issues a recommendation not in favor of granting the permit. She stated she would like to ask the City Solicitor with that specific question—if it is just a recommendation and the building inspector can issue what it likes. Mr. Hart is suggesting that we are not ready to make a final recommendation. AMENDMENT: Mr. Hart amended his motion to continue the application to the next meeting to confer with the applicant to suggest the documentation to support his position. Ms. Guy noted that there are no applications for the next meeting. Ms. Bellin questioned if Mr. Treadwell would need to be present. Mr. Treadwell stated that he did not think so. Ms. Harper stated that he wants a continuation for the next scheduled meeting to discuss with Mr. Treadwell what documentation is needed. Mr. Hart stated that it would be for the Commission to discuss at the next scheduled meeting, not necessarily with Mr. Treadwell, to transmit to Mr. Treadwell a list of items that the Commission would like addressed in writing. Ms. Bellin seconded the amendment. VOTE: Mr. Hart and Ms. Bellin voted in favor. Ms. Keenan, Ms. McCrea and Ms. Harper voted in opposition. The motion did not carry. MOTION: Ms. Keenan made a motion to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance and make a recommendation to the Building Inspection to grant the demolition permit. . Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. Ms. Keenan, Ms. McCrea and Ms. Harper voted in favor. Mr. Hart and Ms. Bellin voted in opposition. The motion did not carry. October 17, 2012, Page 8 of 8 Ms. Guy stated that the vote resulted in a denial of the waiver. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to reconsider the vote that resulted in the denial of the waiver. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to the next scheduled meeting. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Other Business Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of September 19, 2012. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Guy stated that she received a copy of a letter from Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) to NortheastArc, finding that the project at 28 Linden Street is unlikely to affect significant historic or archaeological resources and that the project at 184 Lafayette Street may meet the criteria for eligibility for listing on the National Register and requesting product specification son the proposed windows and photographs. Ms. Guy stated that she received a copy of a letter from MHC to BL Companies encouraging them to explore the alternatives proposed by the Salem Historical Commission. Ms. Guy stated that she received a copy of a letter from MHC to the City of Salem, stating that the fire station at 142 North Street will be considered for listing on the National Register at the MHC meeting of December 12, 2012. VOTE: There being no further business,Ms. McCrea made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Respectfully s tt , Jane A. Clerk o e Commission A November 7, 2012, Page 1 of 6 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 7, 2012 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday,November 7, 2012 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Mr. Spang, and Mr. Hart. Ms. McCrea and Ms. Keenan arrived later in the meeting. Ms. Guy stated that there will be no second meeting in November, as there are no applications and that it falls on the night before Thanksgiving. 15 Chestnut Street Peter Gordon and Karen Hayes presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to repair the rear house gutter and install a white aluminum downspout. The current copper gutter is damaged, with a low spot draining water down the side of the house. The temporary repair is to create a drain outlet in the low spot with the downspout. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Mr. Gordon provided a picture showing the damage. He indicated that the proposal if for a temporary repair. In order to repair the entire copper gutter, they will need to rip up roof, so they won't do the permanent repair until they are ready to replace the roof. He provided a picture with a mock up of the downspout. Ms. McCrea joined the meeting at this time. Mr. Gordon stated that they already have white downspouts at the corners of the house. Ms. Herbert suggested painting the downspout to match the clapboard. Mr. Gordon stated that he would be willing. Mr. Hart asked if there was any way to jack the gutter up. Mr. Gordon stated that some brackets are broken. Mr. Spang suggested running the gutter to the left near the lower roof. Mr. Hart asked which roofer he is using. Mt. Gordon stated that they are using American steeple. Mr. Hart stated that it will be minimally visible from street. November 7, 2012, Page 2 of 6 . Ms. Guy suggested tucking it as close to the side and bottom of the window as possible and then running over to the corner of the ell. Ms. Herbert stated that if they have a professional job, curving it around may look reasonable. There was no public comment. Ms. Harper stated that she liked the idea of running it over to the corner. Mr. Hart stated that if they paint it out, it will be minimally obtrusive. He suggested allowing the temporary solution for 3 years . VOTE: Mr. Spang made a motion to approve temporary repair(not to exceed 3 years) of rear house gutter by installing aluminum downspout at the low point of the gutter straight down along side the left side third floor window and then running across left under the window to the corner of the house and straight down. Downspout to be painted to match the body color of the house. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Keenan joined the meeting at this time. 46 Chestnut Street Randall Realty Trust submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness move an existing fence post 3 %2"to the right and move the entry gate further back on the property. This will allow for the addition of a parking space while preserving the iron fence. John and Catherine Randall and James Emmanuel were present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ James K. Emmanuel Associates Landscape Architects drawings A letter from Rick Jagolta, 41 Chestnut Street, in support of the application, was read. Mr. Emmanuel stated that they are proposing to move a fence post to be parallel to the line of the house and to move a fence post and gate further back. They will add one piece of granite to allow the gate to latch to it. They will pave the area in brick. The fence section in front will be cut to attach the relocated post. Mr. Hart asked the distance from the corner of the house to the gate. Mr. Emmanuel stated that it is about 26'. He stated that from the corner of the house to the fence post is 6 1/2 ft. Ms. Randall noted that they only have one car. Mr. Hart asked the width. November 7, 2012, Page 3 of 6 Mr. Emmanuel stated that it is just under 9' wide at the fence post. Mr. Hart asked who owns fence. Mr. Randall stated that they and their neighbor jointly own the white fence. Mr. Hart asked if there are any changes proposed for the white fence. Mr. Randall replied in the negative. Mr. Spang asked if they will need a curb cut. Mr. Emmanuel stated that they will have to cut a piece. They will extend the granite cobbles. Mr. Hart suggested checking with the building inspector to see if they need a permit for the curb cut. Ms. Guy also suggested the city engineer. There was no public comment. Mr. Spang stated that he was not crazy about doing it, but noted that it makes sense in the modern world. He stated that for the gate in back, it would make sense to have the fence continue to the other fence. Mr. Emmanuel stated that they are proposing a boxwood hedge. Ms. Randall stated that she was willing to extend the fence all the way across. Ms. Herbert stated that they may have some leftover fence from the front. Mr. Spang stated that if it fits, it would be great, but if not it could be fabricated. Ms. Randall stated that nothing will be thrown out. It will be kept and reused if possible. Mr. Spang stated that they could the shift gate over and put the newer fence part toward the house, so as not to put the re-creation next to the original. Ms. Herbert stated that it looks pretty simple to fabricate. Ms. Guy noted that it is pretty far back as well. MOTION: Ms. Harper made a motion,per drawings submitted, to remove a portion of fence and move the right front fence post over by 3 %2' (to align with corner of house) to create approximate 9'opening. Move second fence post, gate and removed section of fence from the front fence back into yard to run from the corner of the bay window across to the white wooden November 7, 2012, Page 4 of 6 fence. Fabricate additional balusters as need to match. Attach to foundation or option to add granite post. Mr. Hart suggested an amendment that all metal work be black to match existing. Ms. Harper so amended her motion. VOTE: Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 20 Chestnut Street Shawn and Craig Smith presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace and install a high efficiency heating and air conditioning system for the house, which will require 2 condenser units to be placed on the exterior of the property and a gas line run to the attic on the exterior side of the house. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Catalog page of Infinity System Condenser ■ Site plan Ms. Smith stated that the gas line will now be run on the inside. She provided a site plan showing the location of the condensers. There will be a small PVC pipe coming out of the rear roof of the house. The condenser units are about the same height as the fence. The top might be seen from Botts Court. It will be obscured with shrubbery. The units proposed have the highest rating, and are the quietest units. She noted that heating is uneven in the house. Mr. Hart asked if there was visibility from Hamilton. Mr. Smith stated that there was none. Mr. Hart stated that the only visibility is Botts Court down the little alley way. Ms. Smith stated that it is pretty much behind the fence. Mr. Hart asked if the unit will serve the whole house. Ms. Smith replied in the affirmative. Mr. Hart stated that Mitsubishi systems are extremely quiet. Ms. Smith stated that they have to use companies that work with Mass Saves, and that it should be comparable. Mr. Smith stated that they were told the proposed is quieter than a window unit. November 7, 2012, Page 5 of 6 Lou Siriani, 6 Botts Court stated that his property abuts in the back. He stated that the neighbors are delighted with work the applicants have done since purchasing the property. He added that they notice the effort put into the landscape, which has a positive impact on the neighborhood. He stated that he was in favor of the proposal. VOTE: Mr. Spang made a motion to approve the installation of two condenser units as noted in drawings submitted to be essentially concealed by fence and shrubbery. Install PVC pipe (black) on rear roof of house. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. MBTA Intermodal Station Pr ject—Review/comment on submittals received including: a. MBTA letter dated 10/23/12 to Massachusetts Historical Commission, including Draft Memorandum of Agreement b. Public Archaeology Laboratory's Technical Proposal for Archaeological Date Recovery Program for the railroad roundhouse Ms. Guy stated that the Commission was emailed copies of the submittals on October 24t". Mr. Hart stated that the MOA is certainly comprehensive and professionally prepared. He stated that he had no comments. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to send a letter that the MOA is comprehensive and professionally prepared and that the Commission has no comments. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 36 Felt Street In continuation of a prior meeting, James R. Treadwell presented an application for Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance for the barn at 36 Felt Street(formerly at 18 Felt Street). Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Plan of Charles A. Ropes Estate, March, 1907 ■ Original plan of land, 18 Felt Street, by ICECAT, December 15, 2011 ■ Approved plan of land, 18 Felt Street, by ICECAT, June 18, 2012 ■ Memo from J.R. Treadwell summarizing inspection completed by Woodford Bros., Inc. Ms. Guy stated that the Building Inspector has declared the barn an unsafe structure on November 61" and directed that within 24 hours the owner begin to secure, repair or remove the structure. She stated that Mr. Treadwell had submitted some drawings and photographs to the Building Department, which have been given to her. She added that Mr. Treadwell is willing to take additional digital photographs. No further action is required on this application. Mr. Hart suggested working out with the Building Inspector, before he issues the demolition order,that he request photo documentation and measurements. November 7, 2012, Page 6 of 6 Other Business Ms. Guy stated that she drafted a letter of support for the City's FYI Survey and Planning Grant application for the Dickson Memorial Chapel in Greenlawn Cemetery. VOTE: Ms. McCrea made a motion to submit the letter of support. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Guy reminded the Commission that Roll Barressi &Associates will be getting neighborhood input at the NIAC Committee meeting on Wednesday,November 14, 2012 regarding neighborhood history sign development. She encouraged Commission members to attend. VOTE: There being no further business, Mr. Hart made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Respectfully submitted, Jane A. Guy Clerk of the Commission