Loading...
HISCOM 2013 MINUTES January 2, 2013, Page 1 of 14 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 2, 2013 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, January 2, 2013 at 7:0 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Jessica Herbert, Kathryn0 Bellin, David Hart, and Susan Keenan. Also present was Jane Guy from the Department of Laurie Planning and Community Development. 84 Derb Street Jean-Louis Faber submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to apply lettering to the windows of the storefront for his business The Pasta Guy. Lettering will be placed on two windows. One window will say"Jean Louis Pasta Shop"and the other window will say"Pasta Fresh &Fancy."Mr. Jean-Louis Faber was present. Documents &Exhibits • Application • Photographs Ms. Herbert asked if the letters would be in white and if so would they be visible enou h. g Mr. Faber replied that the letters would be white. He has used white letters before and the were visible. y e Ms. Bellin asked about the dimensions of the lettering. Mr. Faber stated that the letters would be approximately 8"high Ms. Guy suggested that the Certificate could include a not to exceed height for the lettering. g Ms. Herbert stated that it was a very nice design and elegant. Ms. Herbert asked for public comment. There were no comments from the public. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the permit submitted with letters not to exceed 8" high. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor, and the motion so carried. 10 Beckford Street Richard and Cynthia Griffin submitted an application for a Certification of Appropriateness to install a fence around their property. The fence will be 4'6"high and made of whi to match the existing fence along side the lot line te cedar board between#10 and#8 Beckford Street. Mr. Richard Griffin and Ms. Cynthia Griffin were present. Documents &Exhibits • Application ■ Photographs January 2, 2013, Page 2 of 14 Site plan Mr. Griffin explained that there was once a house at#10 Beckford St. until 1960s when the building was torn down and the property was turned into a yard for#14 Beckford St. Mr. Griffin showed on the site plan an existing fence for the property at#8 Beckford Street. The fence is a 6' high board fence with 1 x2 cap molding. Mr. Griffin stated that they would like to continue the board fence along the#8 Beckford St property line but taper it down 4' at the existing dowel fence. Mr. Griffin said that the fence would run primarily behind plantings. This would allow them to plant along the fence and they may eventually considering completely enclosing the yard with a fence for pets. Larry Spang joined the meeting. Ms. Herbert asked Mr Griffin to show where the existing dowel fence is located? Mr. Griffin stated that the fence is located along Beckford Street. Ms. Herbert asked if any of the fence they are replicating would be 6' high. Mr. Griffin said no, the new fence will slope from the existing 6' down to 4'6"feet and will 4' where the fence butts up against the existing dowel fence. Ms. Harper asked for the height of the existing dowel fence. Mr. Griffin stated that the existing dowel fence is about 4' tall and approximately 4'6" at the posts. Ms. Herbert asked if the wood will be left natural. Mr. Griffin said yes, they will be staining the fence a grayish-brown to match the weathered existing fence. Mr. Hart ask if there is an existing fence where the new fence will be installed. Mr. Griffin replied that there is no fence in that location. You see the side of the neighbor's house. Ms. Harpers asked if the caps on the fence were flat or pyramidal? Mr. Griffin stated that the caps are pyramidal. Ms. Herbert asked for public comment. David Williams, from 342 Essex Street,'stated that he had no objection to the proposal. The public comment period was closed. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor, and the motion so carried. January 2, 2013, Page 3 of 14 22 Beckford Street Christopher Sallah and Jocelyn Levin submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace a third floor window with an egress door and an exterior spiral staircase. The exit and stairs are for the purpose of providing a second means of egress from an existing third floor apartment. Christopher Sallah, Jocelyn Levin, and Richard Griffin were present. Mr. Hart stated that he is a direct abutter and would recuse himself. He left the table and joined the audience. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Drawings Ms. Herbert clarified that the abutters notice did not state that the applications includes the installation of an exterior spiral staircase. Ms. Herbert noted to the owners that there are rules and regulations that the Historical Commission must follow for exterior egress. The Historical Commission, as of May 1997, does not accept exposed exterior staircases. They will review proposals for exterior egress on a case by case basis. The Commission encourages the owners to find a way to locate the stairs on the interior of the building and, if not possible, will work with the owners to approve an addition to the building to enclose the stairs. Ms. Herbert asked if the two front period windows were going to be replaced. Mr. Griffin responded that the windows were not being changed. There is a casement door with two windows that will remain. Ms. Herbert asked if Mr. Griffin was familiar with the exterior egress guidelines? Mr. Griffin stated that he was not aware of the guidelines. He had previously come to the Commission for approval of an exterior spiral staircase on a house on Derby Street. The staircase was approved. Ms. Herbert asked if the house has an existing second staircase? Mr. Sallah responded that there is a staircase that comes into their kitchen. Mr. Griffin added that it would require quite a bit of isolation to add an additional internal staircase. Ms. Herbert stated that in order to review the application the Commission will need plans that show you can not add a staircase internally. She suggested that a bump out could be added off the second floor addition which would not be viewed from Federal Street and minimally viewed from Beckford Street. A three story addition at that location could straighten out the look of the lesser appropriate additions. January 2, 2013, Page 4 of 14 Mr. Griffin wondered if another addition would further diminish the integrity of the federalist building. Ms. Herbert responded that she didn't think so. Ms. Keenan asked why the owners needed the additional staircase? Mr. Griffin stated that there is a legal in-law apartment on the 3rd floor without a legal 2nd means of egress. The owners would like to have an income unit on the 3rd floor. The house is currently a legal two-family. Ms. Herbert asked if the owners spoke with the building inspector. Ms. Levin stated that they have. Ms. Herbert asked if they would be giving up a parking space for the spiral staircase. Mr. Griffin stated that they would not really be losing a space. There are currently trash cans there and there is not enough room for two cars to park there now Ms. Herbert stated that the fence could be cut back to allow for two car parking. Mr. Spang asked if they owners would be removing the second staircase Mr. Griffin stated that the staircase would remain but it will be locked because the staircase passes through the 2nd floor bathroom into the kitchen. A P floor apartment would have to pass through the owner apartment for egress. Mr. Spang asked if that would the second form of egress for the in-law apartment? Mr. Griffin stated yes. Mr. Spang stated that plans of the building would help to further demonstrate why an internal staircase is not possible. Mr. Griffin added that he had felt that an exterior spiral staircase is detachable from the building without damaging the historic fabric. Ms. Bellin asked if the main staircase could be closed off for access to the 3rd floor. Ms. Levin responded yes, but they will still require the second egress. Mr. Griffin asked if the Commission would consider the spiral staircase at the back of the building where it is less visible from the street? January 2, 2013,Page 5 of 14 Ms. Herbert responded that the Commission we would really want to see a simple floor plan in order to better evaluate, but the option could be presented. If it was tucked back, it may not be visible from Federal Street and Beckford Street. Ms. Bellin asked if the staircase was included in the application. Ms. Herbert replied that yes, the staircase was included but it was not on the abutter notification letters. Ms. Guy stated that the abutter notifications can be resent. Ms. Herbert asked for public comment. Susan Wells, 106 Federal Street, asked for clarification about grandfathering. When there is a 3rd floor apartment, is it grandfathered in as continuous use? Mr. Spang responded that is a permit question that would need to be answered by the building inspector. Ms. Wells added that her understanding is that the apartment is no longer grandfathered because it was not used by a non-family member. She has a similar situation for her house. Ms. Herbert replied that the building inspector would need to be consulted. Barbara Cleary, 104 Federal Street, encouraged the owners to seek a different solution. She is concerned with the precedent of a spiral staircase right along the street. Jane Arlander, 93 Federal Street, also encourages the owners to seek an alternative solution. She finds that the staircases are quite loud, living next to one. The raccoons climb up the stairs, get stuck, and then cry all night. Susan Hayward, 105 Federal Street, asked if they need 2 egresses. Can't the second egress still be a second egress. Ms. Herbert stated that the second egress needs to be seperate and not depend on access through another unit. Meg Twohey,102 Federal Street, reiterated that the spiral staircase sets a precedent. The residents work hard to make the street beautiful and they would like to preserve this. She also encouraged the neighbors to talk with the neighbors to see what will be acceptable to them. The public comment period was closed. Ms. Herbert noted that other boards sometimes have applicants go around to the neighbors with petitions. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue to the first meeting in February. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor, and the motion so carried. January 2, 2013, Page 6 of 14 103 Federal Street Mr. Hart stated that he is a direct abutter and would recuse himself. In continuance of a previous meeting,ProProcessIt, Inc. submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove a first floor awning window and to reduce the size of a second floor window (front most double hung) on the addition at the left side of the house by approximately three inches narrow and moving it forward. The application is also to add a three bath and one stove vent to the side. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs Ms. Lovett stated that she received an email on 12/27/2012 from Mr. McIver requesting that the application be continued until the next Historical Commission meeting on January 16ch VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the continuance. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor, and the motion so carried. Mr. Hart abstained. Mr. Hart rejoined the Commission at this time. Peabody Essex Museum Expansion-Project Notification Form On behalf of the Peabody Essex Museum, Roux Associates, Inc provided a copy of a Project Notification Form (PNF) to the Massachusetts Historical Commission associated with the expansion of the PEM. The PNF requests the opinion of MHC regarding the impact of proposed construction dewatering discharge's impacts on the Nationally Listed Historical Places. The discharge will travel from the PEM site through the City of Salem's storm water system, which passes by the Charter Street Historical District and Salem Laundry into the South River. Mr. Bob Monk, Mr. Glen Gordon, and Mr. Tim Shaw were present at the meeting. Documents &Exhibits ■ Project Notification Form ■ Drawings Mr. Gordon they will be pumping water into the storm drain and asked what the historical commission would like to know about the project. Ms. Guy asked what the impacts would be on historic resources. Mr. Gordon replied that they do not believe there are any impacts. They are required to notify the Historical Commission as part of a federal permit. They will be pumping approx 10-15 gallons/ hour, which is typical to the output of a garden hose. After a significant rain, the output may be 3-4 times that amount. The plan,pending approval from the Engineering Department,would be to pump the water into the City's storm drain. January 2, 2013, Page 7 of 14 Ms. Bellin asked if any temporary pipes will be laid. Mr. Gordon replied in the negative. Just hose above ground to the catch basin. Mr. Hart replied that as part of a Section 106 review, the Historical Commission is limited to commenting on whether or not any historic structures will be impacted by the work. He asked what other permits would be needed from the City. Ms. Shaw stated that they will need approval from the Department of Public Services to use the storm drain. Mr. Spang asked where the water is coming from and if and whether there will be any cut offs. Mr. Gordon responded that it will be ground water and any storm water that falls directly into the excavation. Mr. Shaw stated that there will be a combination of sheet piling and soil mix wall surrounding the excavation. Mr. Gordon added that the idea is to pump as little water as possible. Mr. Hart states that he looked at the application and cannot see what possible negative impacts there could be on historic structures. Mr. Gordon replied that they are required to notify the Historical Commission and Massachusetts Historical Commission because there will be water going through pipes under the historic district. Ms. Guy stated that the Historical Commission will need to submit comments to MHC. Mr. Spang asked if the sheeting will be driven in. Mr. Shaw responded that it will be excavated and then vibrated in, but the majority along the historic structures will be a soil mix wall. Mr. Spang asked if they would be installing vibration monitors and performing a pre-excavation survey of the surrounding structures. Mr. Shaw responded that PEM owns several of the buildings surrounding the site and so they have an interest in preserving buildings. Ms. Bellin asked if other aspects of the project would be before the Commission for Section 106. Ms. Guy stated that they will need to come before the commission for a Demolition Delay Waiver. Mr. Monk responded that he does not believe there are any other federal or state permits that will be need. They are currently working on permitting the "enabling phase" of the project. January 2, 2013, Page 8 of 14 Mr. Spang asked if they trigger MEPA. Mr. Monk replied in the negative. Ms. Herbert asked for public comment. Emily Udy, from Historic Salem, Inc., asked what will be before demo delay Mr. Monk responded that there will be 3 buildings. Meg Twohey asked which exact buildings will be demolished. Ms. Herbert stated that she could get a copy of the plans from the Historical Commission The public comment period was closed. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to comment to the Massachusetts Historical Commission that there is no apparent potential negative impact on nearby structures identified in the application. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor, and the motion so carried. Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove Redevelopment-Project Notification Form On behalf of MRM Project Management, Griffin Engineering Group provided a copy of a Project Notification Form to the Massachusetts Historical Commission associates with the proposed mixed-use development at 60 & 64 Grove Street and 1,3, & 5 Harmony Grove Road. The proposed project will redevelop the former Salem Oil & Grease Company property for residential and commercial uses. The project will include the rehabilitation of the Salem Oil & Grease office building located at 60 Grove Street. Mr. Joseph Correnti, Michael Hubbard, Bob Griffin were present at the meeting. Documents &Exhibits ■ Project Notification Form ■ Additional Information provided to MHC on 12/18/2012 ■ U.S.G.S Map of Project Area ■ Photographs ■ Drawings Mr. Correnti stated that the project has been before Salem Planning Board and undergone several changes and revisions. Recently, the project was unanimously approved by Planning Board. It is a dilapidated, contaminated, and abandoned site. They are fortunate to have found an owner willing to put the time and money into cleaning up the site. It is a planned unit development site. The oldest building on the site will be rehabilitated for office use. The storage and warehouse buildings will be proposed for demolition. There will be several state and federal permits necessary for this project, given that there is a canal and railway running through the site. Mr. Griffin shows an aerial view of the property. The project involves approximately 5.8 acres of land which extend down to the Peabody line. They are currently preparing to file an January 2, 2013, Page 9 of 14 Environmental Notification Form(ENF) with MEPA to remove all of the structures located at 64 Grove Street. The building at 60 Grove Street will be restored. The past uses of property include a tannery(after—1874) and gas storage for Salem Gas Co (prior to —1874 Salem Gas Co). There is a chimney on the site that appears to have been there since 1874. The bridge to the site from Harmony Grove was building around 1909. They believe the railway lines were built between 1870/80. The building located at 60 Grove Street, which will be restored, was built around1912. It is a two story building in the front and three story in the back. The building was most recently used as an office building for Salem Oil and Grease Co. There have been a number of industrial uses of the properties over the last 200 years. For the last 10 years the property has been vacant, one reason being the residual contamination. Mr. Griffin provided an overview of the buildings that are on the site with accompanying pictures. They will remove the bridges and build a bikeway/walkway along the canal which will be open to the public. A new bridge will be built at the location of the current bridge off of Harmony Grove. It will be necessary to remove the buildings and the paving in order to remediate the soil contamination. The project is being overseen by LSP. Mr. Griffin stated the proposed buildings will echo the industrial history of the site. There will be 4 story apartment buildings with parking underneath. There will be false parapets to enclose the mechanical equipment. Ms. Herbert asked if the parapet roofing has been planned to enclose all of the mechanicals. Mr. Griffin responded that they anticipate that the parapets will cover all of the equipment. Ms. Herbert asked if they will be coming back to the Commission for a demo delay waiver. Mr. Griffin responded in the affirmative. Ms. Herbert asked if the cleanup is underway. Mr. Griffin responded in the affirmative. There is a step by step process that their LSP will be going through. They have completed the phase 2 cleanup and are not working on phase 3. Ms. Herbert asked how many apartment units there will there be. Mr. Griffin responded that there will be 141 apartments Ms. Herbert asked where the parking will be located. Mr. Griffin replied that 30/40% of parking will be underground. The remaining parking will be underneath remainder will be outside. There will be a retaining wall running along the Beaver St side of the property which will range from 13-16'. The parking will not be very visible from Beaver Street and there will be extensive landscaping. Mr. Hart noted that Beaver Street is identified as potential historic resources on the Blubber Hollow Form A. January 2, 2013, Page 10 of 14 Ms. Herbert asked if the entrances to the property from Beaver Street will be used. Mt. Griffin responded in the negative. They have a water main in that area that will continue to be used. They are not currently proposing any alterations to the other pieces of property adjoin to Beaver Street. Ms. Harper asked for the height of building be renovated. Mr. Griffin responded that the building is approximately 25' in the front and 35' in the back. Ms. Harper asked what the height of the new buildings will be. Mr. Griffin responded that the new buildings will be 4 stories with a basement. They are restricted to 50' by zoning,but the current proposal is in the 45' range Ms. Bellin asked what the proposed schedule was for construction. Mr. Griffin stated that they hope to begin construction in the fall. They still have several state and federal permits to get. Mr. Spang asked what triggered the MEPA review. Mr. Griffin replied that the traffic volume triggered the MEPA review. Ms. Herbert asked for public comment. Jane Arlander, 93 Federal Street, asked for clarification of the height of buildings. She had the understanding that with the parapets the building height would be closer to 70' tall and this was an issue with the Beaver Street residents. Mr. Griffin responded that they worked with the building inspector and complied with the zoning requirements. Mr. Correnti added that there is a difference between building height and elevation. This site has dramatically different topography and looks different from different sides. Emily Udy, representing HSI, stated that HSI will be submitting a letter to MHC. She stated that HSI will be requesting that MHC request additional information. This includes: information on the 13 properties directly abutting site with inventory forms, dates on the buildings to be demolished, a date for the bridge, distance from the buildings, and elevations of the buildings. Having all of the information is important in order to evaluate the proposal. Additionally the date on the buildings and bridge need to be clarified. Ms. Herbert stated that there is some time to get additional information about the buildings. Ms. Guy stated that there is not time to submit comments to MHC in regards to the PNF, however there will be time to gather more information on the buildings when the proponent comes back to the Commission for the demolition delay waiver January 2, 2013, Page 11 of 14 Ms. Herbert asked if HSI had comments on potential mitigation. Ms. Udy replied that they do not have comments at this time. Jim Treadwell, 10 Felt Street, stated that he would like to relay information given to him by Joanne Sweeney. He stated that many buildings along the ridge could be eligible for the national register. He expressed concern that there was not proper notification of the meeting to the public, as part of the Section 106 process. The Historical Commission needs to make sure they have all the information necessary in order to make comment. He stated that there is a proposal to widening the canal or adding culverts. These options were not presented to the Historical Commission. There is a 1946 historic mill plan drawing submitted by Griffin Engineering to the Salem Conservation Commission which gives a summary of the history of the site. A thorough archaeological excavation is warranted given the history of the site. There is significant regrading of the site and believes the Historical Commission needs a copy of the grading plan in order to see the extent. Survey form SAL.376 covers two buildings. He noted that the building being rehabbed will only be to code instead of Secretary of the Interior Standards. The granite block retaining wall along the canal should be considered a historic resource and investigated. He added that he believes there is an adverse impact to the people along Beaver Street. There were a considerable number of comments from the residents along those streets given at the Planning Board public meetings. Ms. Herbert asked if the Commission needs to comment before their next meeting. Ms. Guy replied that she would recommend that the Commission not wait until the next meeting to submit comments. Ms. Herbert asked if there was any proposed work for along the canal. Mr. Treadwell replied that they will be adding outfalls and capping some existing outfalls. Ms. Herbert asked if there would be a restoration process as part of the site preparation and landscaping. Mr. Griffin stated that besides adding pipes for storm drainage and capping some existing pipes, they are not proposing any work on the canal. Ms. Guy stated that she believes the Canal was examined for National Register eligibility and was found to not be eligible. Ms. Herbert asked if the archaeological aspects of the project have been addressed. Mr. Griffin replied that they have not investigated the archaeological aspect of the project. Most of the site was filled in the 1800. January 2, 2013, Page 12 of 14 Mr. Correnti stated that they are cognizant of the potential archaeological resources Mr. Spang asked if they will be addressing all of MHC's comments in the ENF or they were planning to submit an EIR. Mr. Griffin responded that they are not planning to submit an EIR unless required by MEPA. Mr. Spang asked if they anticipate a more detailed historic resource report as part of the ENF process. impact to blubber hollow will be migitated with landsace Mr. Griffin replied that is what the ENF process is for, to flush out additional information regarding the site. Mr. Spang asked if they will be mitigating the impact to the Blubber Hollow neighborhood with landscaping. Mr. Griffin replied in the affirmative. Mr. Spang asked if there will be a fence at the top of the wall near the parking. Mr. Griffin replied that there will be vegetation and a swale along the fence to keep people from walking up there. Ms. Harper asked for the date on the building being rehabbed. Mr. Griffin responded that it is approximately 1912. Ms. Harper asked what the rehabilitation will entail. Mr. Griffin replied that it will involve a thorough rehabilitation. Building will need to be gutted. They do not have architectural plans at this time. Ms. Harper asked if they have historical photographs of the building and whether they will be researching the building. Mr. Griffin replied that they do not have photographs of the original building but they will do some research. Mr. Correnti added that they have photographs of the building from the 1960s. Mr. Spang asked if the canal walls are stable. Mr. Griffin responded that generally the wall is in good condition. Ms. Harper asked what commercial uses were being considered for the site. Mr. Correnti stated that they were not sure yet. It could possibly be offices for artists or architects or neighborhood retail. January 2, 2013, Page 13 of 14 Ms. Herbert stated that restoration of the exterior of the existing building will be important because it is a focal piece. Meg Twohey, 102 Federal Street, asked if the vegetation will fully screen Beaver Street. She also feels as though the Commission should see elevations from Beaver Street. Mr. Correnti responded that these questions have been reviewed by the Planning Board. He stated that while there is screening, it does not mean that the site will not be visible at all. The buildings being proposed will be higher than the existing buildings. The issues were addressed and they received a unanimous decision from the Planning Board. Mr. Treadwell summarized a letter from Joanne Sweeney which states there is a lot of historical information available on the neighborhood and that the proponent needs to make a good faith effort to identify all resources. The public comment period was closed. MOTION: Mr. Hart made a motion to ask that MHC make a determination, or ask the proponent to make a determination, as to the potential negative visual and other effects of the proposed buildings on the historic properties identified in the MHC MACRIS database (SAL A- Blubber Hollow and SAL 376 Salem Oil & Grease) and to have the parties consider any mitigating procedures that might eliminate or ameliorate such potential negative effects. And the visual graphics prepared as part of the Salem Planning Board public hearing should be submitted for reference. Ms. Herbert amended the motion to include "pedestrian views from Beaver Street." Mr. Spang asked if the Commission's primary concern is the visual effects on Beaver Street. Ms. Herbert responded that is part of it. Ms. Herbert amended the motion to include a request that MHC ask for further details on the rehabilitation of the building located at 60 Grove Street. Specifically, in regards to the level to which the historic fabric of the existing building will be preserved and restored. Mr. Spang amended the motion to include a request that MHC ask for a more thorough report on the potential historic resources beyond those identified in the PNF including the canal, canal walls, and cemetery and to report on those resources and potential mitigation measures in the ENF. Additionally, the Commission requests more information on the archaeological resources in order to determine whether there are any archaeological impacts as a result of the project. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor, and the motion so carried. VOTE: The motion was voted on. All were in favor, and the motion was carried Other Business January 2, 2013, Page 14 of 14 VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion on behalf of the Historical Commission to acknowledge and appreciate Jane Guy's 20+ years of service to the Historical Commission. Mr. Hart amended the motion to include that the Commission greatly appreciate the dedication and due diligence of her work over the past 20+ years. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve October 3. Ms. Keenan 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 motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Respectfully submitted, Natalie BL Lovett Community Development Planner January 16, 2013, Page 1 of 5 _ SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 16, 2013 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, January 16, 2013 at 7:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Kathryn Harper, Laurie Belling Susan Keenan, Joanne McCrea, and Laurence Spang. Ms. Harper suggested that the Commission begin the meeting with Other Business as the applicant had not yet arrived. Other Business VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of the December 191h meeting. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Lovett stated that the City of Salem is applying for an MHC Survey and Planning Grant to undertake a nomination of Greenlawn Cemetery to the National Register of Historic Places. Jane Guy, from the Department of Planning and Community Development, has drafted a letter of support for the City's application for funding. Ms. McCrea asked if any of the projects at the cemetery had been implemented under the Works Progress and Administration(WPA)? If so, they could be mentioned in the report. Ms. Lovett replied that she would speak with Ms. Guy and find out if that information was known. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the letter of support with a possible amendment to include information on the WPA. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor, and the motion so carried. The applicant for 101/103 Federal Street arrived. The discussion regarding Other Business was continued to the end of the meeting. 101/103 Federal Street In continuance of a previous meeting, ProProcessIt, Inc. submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove a first floor awning window and to reduce the size of a second floor window (front most double hung) on the addition at the left side of the house by approximately three inches narrow and moving it forward. The application is also to add a three bath and one stove vent to the side. ProProcessIt, Inc also submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a small fixed non-operable skylight above a 2nd floor bathroom and to change the building's paint color. John McIver was present at the meeting. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs January 16, 2013, Page 2 of 5 Mr. McIver stated that he is trying to work with the awning window in its current location. He would like to get permission from the Commission however, to cover the window with clapboards. Ms. Bellin clarified that Mr. McIver would like the option to remove the window on the first floor awning. Mr. McIver responded in the affirmative Ms. Bellin asked if the second floor window would remain. Mr. McIver responded in the affirmative. Ms. Harper asked if the option to cover the window would be in case the interior work did not allow for the window to remain. Mr. McIver responded in the affirmative. Ms. Harper asked for public comment. There was no Public comment. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the application to replace the window with clapboards. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor, and the motion so carried. Discussion then ensued regarding the proposed stove vent. Mr. McIver showed a sample of the stove vent he would like to install. The vent will be painted to match the house siding. The current vent needs to move because the stove will be move to between the two windows. Mr. Spang asked if the vent could be located between the two windows. Mr. McIver responded in the affirmative. The photoshop drawing presented to the Commission showed the incorrect location. Ms. Bellin asked what the Commission thought about the height of the stove vent. Mr. Spang asked if the stove vent high was limited due to the ceiling height. Mr.McIver responded in the affirmative. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the stove vent location, centered between the two windows. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor, and the motion so carried Discussion then ensued regarding the proposed skylight. Mr. McIver believes that most of the skylight will be hidden from street view by the flat roof near it. January 16, 2013,Page 3 of 5 Ms. Harper asked if Mr. McIver had a manufacturer for the window. Mr. McIver replied in the negative,but the window will be a Velux fixed skylight, about the same size of the recycling bin shown in the pictures. Mr. Spang said that typically the skylights are 9-12"high because the flashing comes up around the window. Mr. McIver responded that he was not aware of that. Mr. Spang asked what the flashing finish would be. Mr. McIver stated dark brown. He stated that he is open to other suggestions to get natural light into the bathroom if the Commission did not like the skylight idea. Ms. Harper asked for public comment. Constance Arlander, 91 Federal Street, stated she was under the impression that skylights had to be 6"off the roof. She recently had one replaced and was told that it needed to be installed higher than 3" off the roof like the older style of skylight. She asked if there was a window in the bathroom. Mr. McIver responded that there was no window in the bathroom. Ms. Arlander stated that the window will be visible at night when the bathroom light is on. Mr. McIver stated that he didn't believe so because the pitch is shallow and the bathroom will have down lighting. Ms. Bellin suggested that the Commission needs to see a catalog cut for the window. Ms. Harper agreed that the item should be continued until they are available to see a catalog cut and have more information about the height of the skylight. Mr. Spang agreed. Ms. Keenan also requested that information on the flashing color be submitted for that meeting. Discussion then ensued regarding paint colors for the house. Mr. McIver then passed around paint chips for the house paint colors. The house has already been painted, he was not aware that the Historical Commission reviewed paint colors. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the skylight to the February 6 meeting. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. January 16, 2013, Page 4 of 5 VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the paint colors as submitted. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Discussion then ensued regarding a Certificate of Non-Applicability filed for a balcony addition on the back of the house. Ms. Harper stated that she went by the house and could see from Beckford Street the back windows of the house that are part of the deck addition project as well as the I"floor porch. Mr. McIver responded that he cut the balcony back to 6' off the house so that it would not be visible from the street. Ms. Harper stated that from the fence in front of 22 Beckford Street she could be see several windows. Mr. McIver asked which windows she could see. Ms. Harper stated that she could not see the row of windows,but she could see the window on the end proposed to become a door. Ms. Lovett suggested that the applicant submit a Certificate of Appropriateness for the deck to be reviewed at the next meeting. Mr. McIver stated that he did not want to send away his work crew for the next 3 weeks. Ms. Harper asked if other commission members could go by and take a look at the house. Ms. Bellin stated that if the window is visible from the street then it would be impossible to design the balcony to not be visible. Mr. McIver showed pictures of where the balcony will be. Ms. Bellin stated that he is in the street taking the picture but what if you are along the fence. Mr. Spang suggested that Mr. McIver mock up a railing and take a picture from the street so that they can tell it is not visible. Ms. Harper stated that there is a week before public notice needs to go out for a Certificate of Appropriateness. If another Commission member goes by and sees the window from the street then there is still time to submit an application for the next meeting. Mr. Spang stated that assuming that everyone can see the window, Mr. McIver will need to bring plans and elevations of the balcony for the next meeting. Ms. Bellin added that details on railing will be needed. Ms. McCrea added that the color would need to be submitted. Y� January 16, 2013, Page 5 of 5 Mr. Spang asked that information on the window being changed also be submitted. Other Business Ms. Lovett stated that she received a copy of a letter from Massachusetts Historical Commission to the Army Corps of Engineers stating that they have reviewed the information submitted for the Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove development and have determined that the Salem Oil and Grease property(SAL.376) and the Blubber Hollow area(SAL.A)both meet the criteria of eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Ms. Lovett stated that she received a copy of a letter from Massachusetts Historical Commission to the National Register of Historic Places which states that the nomination of the North Street Fire Station, located at 142 North Street,was voted eligible by the State Review Board for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Ms. Lovett stated that she recently forwarded the Commission a copy of a Written Determination from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection(DEP) to the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority(MBTA) regarding the Salem Intermodal Station. DEP has approved the application, subject to conditions. Ms. Lovett stated that Chad Garner has been recommended to the City Council to be appointed to the Historical Commission. She expects that the Council will vote to approve his appointment at its January 24th meeting. 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 submitted, Natalie BL Lovett Community Development Planner February 6, 2013, Page 1 of 6 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES February 6, 2013 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, February 6, 2013 at 7:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Jessica Herbert, Kathryn Harper, Laurie Bellin, Chad Garner, David Hart, and Laurence Spang. 22 Beckford Street In continuance of a previous meeting, Christopher Sallah and Jocelyn Levin submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace a third floor window with an egress door and an exterior spiral staircase. The exit and stairs are for the purpose of providing a second means of egress from an existing third floor apartment. Mr. Hart stated that he is a direct abutter and would recuse himself. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Drawings Ms. Lovett stated that she receive an email from Ms. Levin on January 29th requesting that the application be continued to a future meeting. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to the March 6th meeting. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 101/103 Federal Street In continuance of a previous meeting, ProProcessIt, Inc. submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a small fixed non-operable skylight above a 2"d floor bathroom. Mr. Hart and Mr. Garner recused themselves. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Skylight cut-sheet ■ Installation Specifications ■ Building Plans Mr. Hart stated that he received a call from Mr. John McIver. He missed his flight and will not be able to attend the meeting. As a result, he would like the item continued. Ms. Herbert asked if there was public comment. February 6, 2013, Page 2 of 6 Jane Arlander, 93 Federal St, asked to discuss the Certificate of Non-Applicability recently issued for the back deck addition at 103 Federal Street. She stated that the back of the building is visible from the Federal Street Court and therefore felt the Certificate of Non-Applicability was wrongly issued by the Historical Commission. Photographs from the public way were presented to the Commission. John Carr, 7 River St, agreed that the Certificate of Non-Applicability was wrongly issued. Ms. Herbert questioned whether the Certificate of Non-applicability can be revoked. Ms. Bellin stated that it is a mistake of fact not a question of reconsidering the decision. She doesn't believe that it is an issue. Ms. Lovett said that the Certificate of Non-applicability stated the work would not be visible from a public way. Ms. Bellin asked if the work had commenced. Mr. Hart stated that the work was roughed out but had not begun. VOTE: Ms. Bellin revoke the previously issued Certificate of Non-Applicability due to a mistake of fact, the Commission now finds that it is visible from Federal Street Court. Mr. Spang seconded, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Conversation then ensued regarding the skylight proposal. Mr. Hart stated that Mr. McIver had asked if the item could continue with his absence. Ms. Herbert allowed conversation to continue in order to take public comment. Ms. Herbert asked if Mr. McIver had sent floor plans of the building. Ms. Lovett replied in the affirmative and presented the plans. Ms. Bellin stated that the skylight was for the back bathroom. Ms. Herbert wondered if there is an outside wall where a window could be placed rather than a skylight. A skylight will show light at night. John Carr, 7 River St, stated that the guidelines specify that the skylight should not be located on the principle slope. He would like the Commission to make a decision first and foremost on what is historically and architecturally appropriate and not be driven by what would generate a higher profit. He would prefer that the developer look for other options. He questioned if a skylight something that the building would have originally had? Ms. Herbert stated that portion of the building looks to be a Victorian addition,which sometimes had skylights. February 6, 2013, Page 3 of 6 Mr. Hart states that the building code states that a bathroom needs ventilation. As an abutter to the property, the visibility of the skylight is minimal. He questioned whether 95/97 Federal St received abutters notification? Ms. Harper looked at the catalog cut which said a minimum of 3 '/z inches of height above roof is required. Mr. Spang stated that a fan will still be necessary if the skylight is fixed. John Carr asked if abutters notices will be sent out for the back deck project. Ms. Lovett replied in the affirmative. Abutters notices will be sent for the back deck and will also include the window replacement on the first floor. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the item to the February 20 meeting. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor, and the motion so carried. Mr. Spang asked that Ms. Lovett request that Mr. McIver bring additional details on the skylight including how height above the roof the skylight would be. 1 Washington Square-Salem Common Fence The City of Salem submitted an application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability for restoration and reconstruction of 17 sections of the Salem Common Fence and installation of a temporary project sign. The project sign will be 4'x4'. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Plans Ms. Lovett stated that the Salem Common fence restoration project is moving forward. The project includes the restoration of 17 sections of fence and three bollard entrances and creating new patterns for the fence. The work is being funded in part by a Massachusetts Historical Commission MPPF grant. Ms Lovett stated that on January 31 the City received bids from contractors for the restoration. Three contractors submitted bids, the lowest bidder being DeAngelis Iron Works. The project architect, CBI Consulting Inc, is currently checking references for DeAngelis Brothers. Once the reference check is complete, MHC will need to approve the contractor selection. The restoration work is expected to begin by the beginning of March and will involve the removal of the fence sections to the contractor's workshop. Ms. Lovett stated that the application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability is for the actual restoration work as well as the installation of a temporary project sign, as required by the MHC grant. The fence will be repaired and repainted to match the existing. Missing fence pieces will be created using the new patterns. February 6, 2013, Page 4 of 6 Ms. Harper asked if the entire fence would be restored. Ms. Lovett responded in the negative. Only a few sections of the fence are being restore at this time. Ms. Harper asked what funds were being used for the restoration. Ms. Lovett responded that the project was being funded with CIP and Capital Outlay funds. Ms. Harper asked what the estimate cost of the work was. Ms. Lovett replied that this current project is approximately$150,000. Restoration of the entire fence is estimated at $1.1 million. Mr. Hart stated that he was on the Salem Common Fence plan committee. Bill Woolley, from the Parks and Recreation Department, has been intimately involved in the project. He continued to state that there is a long history of repairs to the fence by Cassidy Brothers and DeAngelis Iron Works. CBI Consulting completed the report and did a professional job. Ms. Lovett stated that CBI Consulting will be overseeing the restoration project. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the Certificate for Non-Applicability for the fence restoration. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. Conversation then ensued regarding the temporary project sign. Mr. Hart asked if the sign was the standard MPPF project sign. Ms. Lovett replied in the affirmative. The project sign will be: - 4'x4' - White letters on a red background - State the project name, City of Salem, project architect, and contractor Ms. Lovett asked if the Commission had a preference for the location. Mr. Hart stated that MHC prefers to have the sign in a prominent location. Ms. Herbert stated that the entrance across from the Roger Conant statue or Hawthorne Hotel entrance are possible locations. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the 4'x4' temporary project sign. Mr. Hart seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. Ms. Lovett noted that a Certificate of Appropriateness will be before the Historical Commission on February 20th for the replacement of pipe bollards with decorative bollards. Causeway Park Construction Project February 6, 2013, Page 5 of 6 Ms. Herbert stated that the reason the Historical Commission was named in the Memorandum of Agreement was because the McIntire Distric was affected by earlier completed Bridge Street work. The Causeway Park was not spelled out in the original MOA. Lynn Duncan, from the Department of Planning and Community Development, has looked at the plans. She requested, as part of an earlier iteration of the plans, that the lights and benches match the city standard and that additional plantings be added. MassDOT has made those changes. Ms. Herbert continued that the Historical Commission can decide whether it would still like to submit comments. Ms. Lovett stated that the Commission can chose to not comment or submit a letter stating that the Causeway Park wasn't under the initial MOA, and it doesn't affect any historic resources. Mr. Hart stated that he would accede to the Planning Department's changes and comments because the plans were difficult to read. Ms. Harper asked if the plans were final. Ms. Lovett responded that the plans referred to in the MOA were for the Lesley Retreat Park. Ms. Harper asked if these were final plans for the Causeway Park. Ms. Lovett responded that she did not know if these were draft or final plans. Mr. Hart asked who prepared the drawings. Mr. Spang responded that they were prepared by Jacobs Engineering. Ms. Herbert stated that Natalie and she would draft a letter stating that this piece was not part of the original MOA but that the Commission concurs with the Planning Department changes. Mr. Spang suggested that they include in the letter that it will be great to see the dilapidated area restored to a park. Mr. Garner asked when they wanted to remove the signal tower. Mr. Hart stated it was in 1992,but they will now be restoring it to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to submit comments to Mass DOT that Ms. Herbert and Ms. Lovett will draft on behalf of the Commission. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor, and the motion so carved. Other Business Ms. Lovett stated that the 2013 submittal and meeting schedule will be used as part of the new permitting system being put in place by the City. The only item of significance in the schedule is the absence of a July 3rd meeting. February 6, 2013, Page 6 of 6 VOTE: Mr. Spang made a motion to approve the 2013 submittal and meeting schedule. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the January 2 meeting minutes. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor, and the motion so carried. Ms. Herbert asked if Ms. Lovett would update the Historical Commission contact list with the new member information. Correspondence Ms. Lovett reported on several letters that the Historical Commission had received. The Commission received a copy of a letter from Betsey Friedburg at MHC to CogInc, who is working with the City to compile a National Register district nomination form for the Point Neighborhood. Ms. Friedburg had comments regarding the boundaries of the neighborhood. Specifically, she feels the National Grid substation, Shetland Park, Palmers Cove park, garage at 62 leavitt, and Saltonstall School should be included within the boundaries. The Commission received a copy of a letter from MHC to the EPA regarding the Peabody Essex Museum expansion project notification form for dewatering activities. MHC did not feel the drawings clearly indicated the boundaries of the area of potential effect and have requested additional information. The Commission received a copy of a letter from MHC to Army Corps of Engineers acknowledging the receipt of comments submitted by the Historical Commission, Historic Salem Inc, and James Treadwell regarding the Legacy Park redevelopment project. Ms. Harper asked if the Legacy Park project would be coming back to the Historical Commission for further review. Ms. Lovett replied it depends whether MHC find there to be an impact on historic resources. Ms. Harper expressed interest in commenting on the design of the buildings. Specifically, to raise the concern of stucco being used to echo the industrial feel, rather than utilizing brick. Mr. Hart suggested that the project may be going through the Design Review Board. Ms. Lovett stated that she did not believe the project was within the DRB boundaries but would verify and let the Commission know. VOTE: There being no further business, Ms. Bellin made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Respectfully submitted, INatalBL Lov Community Development Planner February 20, 2013, Page 1 of 4 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES February 20, 2013 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, Februar 20 20 7:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Jessica Herbert, gat 13 at Laurie Bellin, Chad Garner, David Hart, Susan Keenan, and Joanne McCrea. Harper, 101/103 Federal Street In continuance of a previous meeting, ProProcessIt, Inc. submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a small fixed non-operable skylight above a 2nd floor bathroom. Documents &Exhibits • Application • Photographs • Skylight cut-sheet • Installation Specifications • Building Plans Ms. Herbert stated that Mr. McIver has asked to continue the item until the next meeting. Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the item to the next meetin . Ms. g motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried. g Mccrea second the 1 Washington Square-Salem Common Fence The City of Salem submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace bollards with decorative style bollards at two entrances. New bollards will match the deco pipe bollards in other entrances and will be painted black to match the fence. Natalie Lovett ratite the project to the Historic Commission. presented Documents &Exhibits • Application • Photographs Mr. Hart asked Ms. Lovett to show the entrances that are included. Ms. Lovett stated that the entrances needing bollard replacement are along Washington Square South and Washington Square North. The pipe bollards will be replaced with decorative g "Salem"bollards to match the City standard. She stated that the pipe bollards were initialltyle installed as a quick, affordable fix to block the entrances. y Ms. Herbert asked if the collected pieces of the fence were being inventoried. Ms. Lovett responded in the negative. February 20, 2013, Page 2 of 4 Ms. McCrea stated that she spoke with Councillor Sosnowski recently regarding the fence. Part of the issue with the fence is that various metals were used in previous repairs that do not expand and contract the same. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to accept the proposal as submitted. Ms. Mccrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. 175 & 183 Lafayette Street A.L. Prime Energy Consultants, Inc submitted an application for Waiver of Demolition Delay for two buildings: a convenience store and a gas station/garage. The convenience store building was built in 1959 and the gas station was built in 1950. The buildings will be demolished in their entirety and a new gasoline station with convenience store will be built on the site. The project has already received decisions from the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board. The proponent plans to build a new gas station on the site. George Atkins was present. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Existing Conditions Plan ■ Site Improvement Plan ■ Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Decision ■ Salem Planning Board Decision Mr. Atkins provided a summary of the project and property. The property has been a problem in the past due to car and trucks causing traffic jams while waiting for gas and conflicting with vehicles trying to enter and exiting the convenience store parking lot. AL Energy Prime has decided to build a new gas station with convenience store. The project has already received approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning Board. Landscaping will be added along property edge to shield the neighbors' view of the property. Ms. Herbert asked if the entrance from Palmer Street would remain. Mr. Atkins stated that it will remain but it will be an exit only. Ms. Herbert asked if a traffic light was ever discussed for that location. Mr. Atkins stated that he did not remember a light ever being mentioned. There was conversation about making pedestrian improvements and the proponent has agreed to assist in making the street more passable for pedestrians. Ms. Herbert asked if there are elevations of the new building, so that the Commission could see how it would blend with neighboring buildings. Mr. Atkins did not have the elevations with him. He responded that there was extensive discussion with the neighbors regarding the building. There will be fence and landscaping trees in order to help alleviate the view to neighbors, however it is still a gas station. The general February 20, 2013,Page 3 of 4 consensus by the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals is that this is an improvement to the current situation. Mr. Hart requested that there be some documentation of the existing buildings before taken down. Specifically: - Photographic documentation: utilizing digital camera, Color, 5 meg per shot minimum. o Exterior: All facades, and 3/4 views of all visible corners. o Interior: Wide angle views of all interior spaces. - Measured drawings: digital drawings in original format and pdf format with scale. Taped exterior dimensions to nearest inch. Vertical dimensions of all elevations to nearest inch. Ms. Herbert responded that this was a standard request. Mr. Atkins asked about the procedure for submitting the documentation. Ms. Herbert stated that he can submit the documentation to Ms. Lovett and then the Waiver of Demolition Delay would be issued. There was no public comment. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to waive the demolition delay. Mr. Hart seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. Salem Public Library- Request for Letter of Su ort The Salem Public Library is submitting an application to the Massachusetts Historical Commission for a Massachusetts Preservation Projects Fund grant. The grant application includes the restoration of the library windows. Specifically, the work will entail removing and replacing the exterior sills and trim moldings as well as the frames of the windows with a rot resistant wood such as Spanish cedar or mahogany. John Goff and Nancy Tracey were present at the meeting. Mr. Goff provided a summary of the grant application work. He stated that the architect, Bob Farley, removed one of the windows to see the condition of the windows. They found a lot of rott about the windows. The windows were updated in 1989 with aluminum sashes. He is not sure whether the work had received an approval from the Historical Commission. The estimated grant budget for window restoration is $89,000. A letter of support from the Local Historic Commission is required by MHC as part of the grant application. Ms. Herbert stated that she would like to see the application. Mr. Goff responded that it is still being prepared. Ms. Herbert stated that she would like to see the 1989 Historical Commission application for the windows. The installation of the aluminum sashes should be addressed in the letter of support. Ms. Lovett left the room to locate the file. February 20, 2013, Page 4 of 4 Ms. Lovett returned and stated that she was unable to locate the sashes approval in the 1989 application. Mr. Hart agreed that the Historical Commission should see the grant application before drafting the letter of support. He stated that he took photographs of the window and it is hard to tell what the condition of the window is. Some may just need small repairs and he would hate to see the windows replaced unnecessarily. Ms. Harper asked is the molding is original and if it will be duplicated. Mr. Goff replied they are from 1850 or 1880. Yes, the contractor is proposing to duplicate the molding. There was no public comment. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to continue to the item to the March 6 meeting. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. Other Business VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the January 16 meeting minutes. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. Mr. Hart and Mr. Garner abstained. Ms. Lovett read an email from the City Council Committee on Community Development and Committee of the Whole requesting the Historic Commission attendance at a meeting regarding the restoration of the McIntire Arch at the Salem Common. Ms. Lovett stated that the purpose of the meeting is to bring together interested parties and determine the scope of the project. Ms. Herbert responded to the issue of expired terms for the Historical Commission members. Additionally, she stated that a housewright would be a good person to have on the Historic Commission. Ms. Bellin asked how to the Historical Commission members can get reappointed. Ms. Herbert responded that it is up to the administration and City Council. VOTE: There being no further business, Mr. Hart made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried. Respectfully submitted, Jah L Lovett Community Development Planner March 6, 2013,Page 1 of 6 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES March 6, 2013 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, March 6, 2013 at 7:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Jessica Herbert, Kathryn Harper, Laurie Bellin, Chad Garner, David Hart, and Joanne McCrea. 22 Beckford Street In continuance of a previous meeting, Christopher Sallah and Jocelyn Levin submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace a third floor window with an egress door and an exterior spiral staircase. The exit and stairs are for the purpose of providing a second means of egress from an existing third floor apartment. Ms. Herbert stated that the application had been withdrawn. 118 Derby Street Robert Burkinshaw submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a second floor addition to the rear of the property at 118 Derby Street. After the addition is completed the roof will be replaced with architectural shingles in the color slate grey. The windows will be repaired or replaced in kind as necessary. The building will also be repainted: - Body color: Benjamin Moore Weimeraner - Trim color: Benjamin Moore Mascarpone - Shutters: Benjamin Moore Black or Wenge - Doors: Benjamin Moore Dinner Party Paul Lessard, Chris Burkinshaw, and Bob Burkinshaw were present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Building Plans ■ Paint colors Mr. Lessard stated that the Burkinshaws recently came into ownership of the building, which is adjacent to their business. They would like to bring the building back to life. The 1st floor is currently used for storage for rolling carts, equipment, and devices for the candy factory. Upstairs is an apartment with 1 bedroom. By extending the top of the structure there would be a 2"d bedroom and an enclosed second means of egress. The rear addition roofline would be extended up to the height of the main roofline. Ms. Herbert asked if there is a missing window along the face of original building that will be replaced. Mr. Lessard responded that the window never existed, instead the 1st floor window had been added. March 6, 2013, Page 2 of 6 Ms. Herbert asked if there will be a lintel over new door Mr. Lessard stated that is an existing door and they are not inclined to dress it out with a lintel but rather leave it in its current condition. Mr. Hart asked if the rear addition is flush with the rest of the building. He stated that is preferable for additional to be set back as it defines the new from the old. Mr. Lessard responded that the addition it is set back. They are not changing the footprint of the building. Mr. Hart asked if they thought about raising the roof on the new addition. Mr. Lessard responded that he didn't think that would work and they can't lower the roof because of the location of the windows. Mr. Hard stated that demarcation of the addition will be on the fagade not on the roofline. Ms. Herbert stated that she wished the windows would be symmetrical. If a window is found behind the wall, then replacing the window could be an option. Ms. McCrea stated that there is a light in that location that should be removed. Mr. Hart asked that type of architectural shingles would be used. The Commission prefers 3-tab shingles to architectural as the don't detract from the building. Mr. Burkinshaw stated that they also brought a sample of a 3-tab shingle. Mr. Hart warning about power washing the clapboards as water may be introduced to the interior of the building. Hand scraping may be a better option. Ms. Bellin asked for clarified that the only setback was the thin piece on the right, and that they are moving the downspouts. Mr. Lessard responded that they are trying to keep everything where it was. One downspout is being moved. Ms. Herbert stated that the new gutters on the front and back of the building should be an OG profile. Ms. Lovett notified the applicant that they can apply for a Certificate of Non-Applicability for replacing the gutters. There was no public comment. March 6, 2013, Page 3 of 6 VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to accept the application as submitted with the changes of 3-tab charcoal black shingles, Brasco 6 over 6 manufacturer wooden single pane windows, and handscraping only for painting prep. Ms. Herbert added that a TSP treatment should be used where necessary. Mr. Hart stated that he just noticed there is not chimney on the drawing. Mr. Burkinshaw responded that the chimney will be remaining. Ms. Herbert notified Mr. Burkinshaw that the repointing should receive a Certificate of Non- Applicability. Mr. Hart stated that the chimney remaining should be included in the Certificate. Ms. Mcrea added that the light should be removed. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to accept the application with the above stated amendments. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. 101/103 Federal Street In continuance of a previous meeting, ProProcessIt, Inc. submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a small fixed non-operable skylight above a 2nd floor bathroom. John McIver was present. Mr. Hart stated that he would recuse himself as a direct abutter and moved to the audience. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Skylight cut-sheet ■ Installation Specifications ■ Building Plans Mr. McIver stated that they are proposing a slightly smaller skylight than previously included in the application. The new specification is a CO Velux skylight, which is 10" shorter than the previously proposed CO4 previously proposed. The pictures included in the application show a mock up of the skylight. The front edge of the mock skylight is flashed with dark brown. Ms. Herbert which end of the new skylight shorter. Mr. McIver responded the bottom edge. The window is now up higher to compensate for snow accumulation. The skylight is visible from the street but there should not be light shining through it at night as it is a second bathroom. Ms. Herbert asked if there was public comment. March 6, 2013,Page 4 of 6 Jane Arlander, 93 Federal Street, asked what the dimensions of the skylight are including the height of the roof. Ms. Herbert responded that the dimensions of the glass are 16"x 20-1/2". The outside frame is 27 3/8"x21-1/2". Mr. McIver added that the curb sits 3 %z inches off the roof. Ms. Arlander stated that she came to ensure that we aren't continuing to degrade the Federal Street and historic areas in Salem just by chipping away a little bit every time we renovate a home. It's great to have the building renovated,but she hates to see things done to it because what makes it so beautiful is its classic plainness. The developer has tried to minimize the intrusiveness of the skylight and she hopes that it won't show too much. We need to be fair and hold people to the same standards. Mr. Hart stated that the proposal is for a non-operable skylight on minor fagade. He lives directly across the street from the building and could only see the sample skylight from his 2nd floor window. He didn't notice the skylight from the street and is in favor of the application. The public comment period was closed. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve as submitted. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. Salem Public Library As a continuation of a previous meeting, the Salem Public Library is submitting an application to the Massachusetts Historical Commission for a Massachusetts Preservation Projects Fund grant. The grant application includes the restoration of the library windows. Specifically, the work will entail removing and replacing the exterior sills and trim moldings as well as the frames of the windows with a rot resistant wood such as Spanish cedar or mahogany. In order to submit the grant application, the project requires a letter of support from the Historical Commission. John Goff, Nancy Tracy and Bob Farley were present. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application Mr. Hart stated that he met with grant committee a few weeks ago. They discussed that there may be instances where the window trim needs to be repaired instead of whole replacement. Mr. Goff summarized the concerns that the Historical Commission had at the previous Historical Commission meeting. Namely, the date of the aluminum windows, trim being replaced rather than restored, and more information on grant application. He stated that Nancy Tracy found that the windows were from a 1985 restoration and were installed as a thermal energy efficient measure rather than adding storm windows. Further information is given in the Historical Commission minutes from the 1985 meeting. Mr. Goff also stated that as a result of their meeting with Mr. Hart they have decided to include a list of traditional window repairers in grant application along with elevations of the building for all 4 sides and 1985 drawings showing what March 6, 2013, Page 5 of 6 was complete in 1985. Additionally, the outline specifications now include language that the the window trim will be repaired where possible before considering replacement, however they will not know which pieces of will be repaired or replaced until the windows are actually removed. Mr. Hart added that each window will be treated separately and there will be a process for determining which will be repaired or replaced. There was no public comment Ms. Herbert read the draft letter into the record. Mr. Hart emphasized that the repair will include repair of the existing wood trim and replacement of the wood mahogany where appropriate. Ms. McCrea stated that the letter should mention that the library is the highest circulation of any system in the north of Boston Noble System. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to accept letter as noted. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. North Street Fire Station The City of Salem is submitting an application to the Massachusetts Historical Commission for a Massachusetts Preservation Projects Fund grant. The grant application includes repointing of the masonry, along with replacement of the windows, and restoration of the decorative fan window. In order to submit the grant application, the project requires a letter of support from the Historical Commission. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application Ms. Herbert read the draft letter into the record. Mr. Hart stated that he reviewed the specifications. Local preservation historian, Bill Finch, previously completed a preservation report of the building and the specifications reference Mr. Finch's restoration recommendations. Ms. Herbert stated that the letter should include a noted that the vinyl windows will be replaced with wood. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the draft letter as noted. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. Other Business Ms. Bellin and Mr. Hart stated that they attended a meeting regarding the preservation of the McIntire Arch located at the Salem Common. Councilor Sosnowski convened the meeting. The arch is a 2/3 replica of the original 1803 arch. There is interest from the community to restore or March 6, 2013, Page 6 of 6 replicate the arch. Councilor Sosnowski will be creating a subcommittee on which a member of the Historical Commission will have a seat. Ms. Herbert questioned if a plaque might be more appropriate than replicating the arch. The arch would need to be maintained. As a tourist, she would prefer to see a plaque that gives history on the arches, why they were erected, and where they were originally located. Ms. Bellin stated that the issue of maintenance was brought up by the Building Inspector. There need to be funds for maintenance, private funding is being considered. Conversation then ensued regarding the Historical Commission's appointee to the Community Preservation Act Committee. Ms. Bellin stated that they need to select a Historical Committee member to serve on both the Arch Committee and the CPA Committee. Ms. McCrea stated that the City Council mentioned in their meeting that all members of the CPA Committee need to be members in good standing and questioned whether their expired terms was an issue. Ms. Herbert told the Commission members that anyone interested in the CPA Committee can send her an email. Mr. Hart stated that if no one else was interested, he would attend the McIntire Arch Committee meetings. VOTE: There being no further business, Mr. Hart made a motion to adjourn. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried. Respectfully submitted, Natalie BL Lovett Community Development Planner March 27, 2013,Page 1 of 8 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES March 27, 2013 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 7:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Jessica Herbert, Kathryn Harper, Laurie Bellin, David Hart, Susan Keenan, Joanne McCrea, and Laurence Spang. 164 Federal Street 3arbara A. Cleary and David M. Hart submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install one 2 %"diameter x 8' high pipe on the west fagade of the kitchen ell. The pipe will be visible from Beckford Street. It will be painted to match the siding paint color. The pipe will service new mechanical equipment they would like to install. David Hart was present at the meeting. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs David Hart recused himself and moved to the audience. Mr. Hart stated that they were installing new mechanical equipment for an air conditioner. All of the equipment would be hidden from view except for the pipe included in the application for a + - Oficate of Appropriateness. The pipe will be visible from Beckford St. t (here was no public comment. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve as submitted. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. Mr. Hart returned to the table 149 Derby Street Lloyd Michaud submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install two widow's walks and a hatch on the roof. The platforms will be constructed for two units in the building. The platforms will be placed in the southern section of the roof, 3' from the perimeter of the roof. The railing height will be 42,"which is standard for widow's walks and roof decks. The platforms have been designed to minimize visibility from the street. Only the top few inches gluni ld be visible from any vantage points. The roof hatch will not be visible from the public kVI'4. Lloyd Michaud was present at the meeting. Documents &Exhibits Application ■ Photographs ■ Manufacturer specifications Mr. Michaud stated that roof access is granted exclusively for two condo units in the building. He then presented additional photographs of the building and details on the railing. Mr. Michaud March 27, 2013, Page 2 of 8 stated that the railing would be most visible from the parking lot, where approximately 1 %Z ft of railing would be seen. . Spang asked if there would be a deck put down over the roof? il. Michaud responded in the affirmative. The deck will be put down over tar roof and would be 6"over the roof at the highest point. Mr. Spang asked if the building inspector had approved a roof hatch for access to the roof. He stated that there may be an issue of the deck being considered an assembly use, for which the building inspector would require a head house. Mr. Michaud responded that he hadn't spoken with the building inspector yet, but wanted to avoid a held house because of the visual impact and cost. Mr. Hart suggested that an additional railing may be necessary for the entry area surrounding the hatch. Mr, Midjaud responded that if a railing is necessary, they would extend the proposed railing ; r; pLA stated that it is hard to understand what the potential visibility will be from the street withi*t a depiction of the deck. Ms'.Herbert added that the applicant can put a temporary structure on the roof that would be the appra7imat6 high of the railing and take a photograph. Mr„Spang stated that treating the railing more like a fence might be more appropriate, so that the railing would have an element of concealment to hide chairs and tables on the roof. He continued to;stated that a fence with slates would be ok. It would look like screening for mechanical ;Zquipment. F Ms. Bellin requested that a bird's eye view of the railing and roof layout be brought to the next meeting. T.Qre was no public comment. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue to the application to the April 17"'meeting for r j further information. Mr. Hart seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. 19 Orne Square Christine Thomson submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a new window on the first floor. The window will match the existing windows in all ways. Helen Sides was present at the meeting. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs . March 27, 2013, Page 3 of 8 1zi. Sides stated that the Ms. Thomson was not able to attend the meeting and she is presenting tiie application to the Commission as a friend. The house suffered damage during the winter as a ! result of a storm. As a result, the kitchen needed to be gutted. Ms. Thomson originally wanted to add a door-from the kitchen into the yard,but Ms. Sides recommended installing a window. The -window would be a Brosco 6/6. The location of the window close to the corner board gives r matter balance to the building. The window will also supply the house with better cross entilation. As. Herbert asked if there would then be two windows in the kitchen. Ms. Sides responded in the affirmative. The idea is to get more light into the room. Mr. Hart asked if the window would be wooden, single pane, true divided light with the same trim as the existing windows. Sides responded in the affirmative. T Here was no public comment. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to accept the application as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. 103 Federal Street ProProcess It, Inc submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to: 1. Install rear 2nd floor balcony- The balcony will be approximately 6' by 16' over the existing sunroom structure. The railing will be similar to the railing at 97 Federal Street. 2. Replace 2nd floor.window with egress door- The egress door will serve the new balcony. The door will be 36"x80" 15 lite door. 3. Replace rear windows and doors 4. Replace rear windows with bay window- The windows along the first floor back addition will be removed and replaced with a bay window or 3 - 6 over 6 double hung windows mounted side by side and centered on the wall. 5. Remove 1 rear window 6. Replace picture window John McIver and Michael Kehn were present at the meeting Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Building Plans Mr. Hart xecused himself as an abutter and moved to the audience. March 27, 2013,Page 4 of 8 Ms. Herbert asked if the reason for the changes to the sunroom windows are due to the sunroom being turned into. a kitchen and room is needed for cabinets. Mr. McIver responded in the affirmative, however they have tried to retain as many windows as possible. Ms. Herbert asked if the three double hung windows at back will be over the sink and if they will be shorter than the existing windows Mr. McIver responded in the affirmative. ; . Herbert asked for clarification on the door replacement: the existing 15 lite door is being d� 4ced, the window to the right of the door is being eliminated, and width of window to the left .s being reduced. The new window will be 4 over 4. Mr. McIver responded in the affirmative. Ms. Herbert asked if the window to the left of the other entry door would be reduced to 4 over 4. Mr. McIver responded in the affirmative. Ms. Herbert stat:,d that the picture window between the doors will be changed to 6 over 6. Ms. Harper asked if the date of the sunroom is known. Mr. Kehn responded that they do not have an exact date,but it was probably built less than 80 years ago. vie:Herbert asked if any windows on second floor will be changed. Mr. McIver responded negative. Ms. Herbert asked for public comment regarding the windows and doors. Jane Arlander, 93 Federal St, asked if there was going to be a bow window. Mr. McIver responded that the window was initially proposed as a bow window but they changed it to a double hung. Ms. Arlander stated that window changes looked ok. Ms. Arlander asked if there will be a second door between the backdoor and the unit. f" . A4cIver responded that the decision had not yet been made. There may be a second door and .hen that area would be a little mudroom. The public comment period was closed. March 27, 2013, Page 5 of 8 Ms. Herbert asked if the existing rear door on left will be changed to match the other door. Mr. McIver responded in the affirmative. Mr. McIver stated that they would like to put a double glazed window over the sink. The window they would prefer is Anderson 400 series with simulated divided light. Ms. Herbert responded that she felt the windows were far enough away from public way and the Iiw:orical Commission has approved simulated divided light window for similar circumstances die past. The Commission's bigger concern would be the muntin and a bronze metal around to glass. Ms. Herbert asked if the existing windows are all wood. Mr. McIver responded in the negative. The second floor windows are vinyl. Ms. Harper asked what is proposed for the first floor windows. Mr. Kehn responded wood simulated divided light window are possible. It seems as though Anderson vinyl clad windows would not be acceptable by the Commission. Mr. Spang stated that typically people bring in specifications for the specific windows they are proposing. However, in this case the windows are so far away from the public way real or aj,zlated may not matter. :skis. Bellin asked if the Commission could give an option as part of the decision. For example, the option of Brosco with storm or the Pella simulated divided light. The same thing could be done for the doors. Mr. Kehn responded that they would like to install Jeldwin doors. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the 1st floor window replacement for 8 windows, Brosco with storm windows or any one of the previously approved solid wood windows with double glaze. Tr;ere will be three 4/4 windows and five 6/6. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to replace existing doors to 15 light double glazed solid wood, in the color black. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. f�. versation then ensued regarding the proposed balcony. Mr. Kehn summarized that they reduced the depth of balcony is reduced to 6' to minimize its visibility from Beckford St. Ms. Herbert asked if the railing would have a square balustrade. Mr. Kehn responded in the affirmative. March 27, 2013,Page 6 of 8 Mr. Spang asked if the railing would be made out of wood. Mr. Kehn responded in the affirmative. It would be painted white. Tex; Spang asked how high the deck would be off the roof. Mr. Kehn responded that it would be 4 % inches. They will stand the 2x4 vertical rather than laying down. The balcony will only be accessed from the master bedroom. Ms. Herbert asked for public comment. Susan Hayward, 105 Federal St, feels as though the deck will infringe on their privacy. Jane Arlander, 93 Federal St, wants to reiterate Susan's comments. She empathizes with having a deck that close. She also states that 101/103 Federal St has a very large yard for Salem. She does not feel that a deck is necessary. Finally, she feels that the Federal Street neighborhood is becoming an endangered species and hates to see anything go too array of the historic guidelines and wants to maintain the beauty of the neighborhood. The Historical Commission has the power to make decisions about this thing needs to think about adding deck. She has asked the building inspector to look at the set back for the porch. Welden, 106 federal St, reiterates both of the previous comments. She feels the deck will lapact the ability of the Hayward's to sell their property. She feels the deck is not in keeping with the integrity of the neighborhood; everyone in the Federal St neighborhood would like to put up a second floor deck, but abiding by the historical district there are some things that they are not able to &.. She feels that approving the deck, even if barely visible, is setting a precedent. She is supportive of the other work being done on the house, but concerned about losing the little bit of how things s�iould be done. Many of the homes on the street are being turned into condos. Connie Arlander, 91 Federal St, applauds what developer is doing to make the building livable but feel as though the building was knowingly bought in a historical neighborhood and the buyer should know that they can't have all. She asks of there is a compromise for the buyers, especially given that other neighbors have much smaller parcels. Mr. McIver stated that there is evidence of balconies on homes in history. A balcony could be hi wically appropriate. _'Yls. Herbert asked if both units have use of the yard. There may be ways to make the yard private. This situation is unique because the house next door is tiny, and the balcony really does .seem to encroach on the neighbor's yard. In the past, when balconies have been approved they have not been that close to neighbors. Mr. Spang stated that he is uncomfortable with morphing the conversation to potential impact of use. That is an issue of zoning rather than does it look and feel appropriate to the style of the house. He appreciaWs comments from the public of closeness, but doesn't think there is much difference between looking out of a balcony vs. out of a window. He is uncomfortable saying the balcony is inappropriate just because the use. Maybe there are things that can be added to the balcony to make it;pore appropriate. Perhaps a screening on that side. March 27, 2013,Page 7 of 8 T J. Herbert states that she is questioning balcony only being 6' deep as inappropriate to the f #fling. Not that it is infringing on the neighbors. Ms. Bellin states that the balcony was moved in because it was originally visible from Beckford Street. She suggested that the balcony be moved over and switch the adjacent window to a door. She states that if the Historical Commission cannot reject the balcony, maybe there is a compromise that can be made with the neighbors. Mr. McIver states that if a door is approved for the roof, a short railing could be installed. This would enable access to the roof but it isn't necessarily a deck. Mr. Spang reiterated that saying the use isn't appropriate feels beyond the boundaries of the Historical Commission. That question should be addressed by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Ms. McCrea questioned whether the balcony is in line with the architecture of the house. ;aU.` Iarper didn't think it would be, however the sunroom was not original to the house either. uf'-hat context, it would be ok for a balcony there. She agreed with Mr. Spang that they can't (deny the balcony for use reasons. Mr. Spang stated that lattice screens are sometime put up at the end of balconies. The owners might consider that option. Ms. Bellin states that they have to judge how the project looks from the public way, but they are trying to accommodate the concerns of the neighbors. Ms. Arlander asked why the property was advertised as having a deck if it wasn't.approved. Mr. Kehn responded that they have a building permit to build the deck, but then they stopped work when Historical Commission notified them that the terms of the Certificate of Non- Applicability could not be met. McCrea asked if the buyers would be open to changing the size of the deck and addressing the privacy issue. Ms. Harper added that Botts Court has good examples of screening. Ms. Herbert reiterated Ms. Bellin's suggestion to switch the entry door to the other window and push back the balcony to limit visibility. Ms. McCrea responded that she was worried about the symmetry. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue to the discussion of the balcony and entry door to the April 3 meeting. Mr. Spang seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. Other Business - March 27, 2013, Page 8 of 8 Ms. Herbert stated that Mr. Hart will be the Historical Commission representative for meetings on the McIntire Arch and that Ms. McCrea will be the Historical Commission representative for the Community Preservation Act Committee meetings. A representative is also needed for Historic Salem Inc.'s preservation award committee Ms. Keenan offered to be the representative. Ms. Harper suggested that 31 Flint St be recommended for an award. th The Commission then discussed the draft minutes for February 6th and February 20 VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the February 6th,and February 20th meeting minutes with Ms. Herbert's corrections. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. OrE: There being no further business, Ms. Bellin made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried. Respectfully submitted, Natali BL Lovett Community Development Planner Apri13, 2013,Page 1 of 5 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES April 3, 2013 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, April 3, 2013 at 7:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Jessica Herbert, Kathryn Harper, Laurie Bellin, Chad Garner, Susan Keenan, Joanne McCrea, and Laurence Spang. 103 Federal Street As a continuation of the previous meeting, ProProcess It, Inc submitted an application for a C, ificate of Appropriateness to install a rear 2nd floor balcony and replace a 2"d floor window I- an egress door to the balcony. The door will be 36"x80" 15 lite door. The item was continued to allow the owner to re-design deck in a way that would be more acceptable to the neighbors and make the deck more private. John McIver and Michael Kehn were present at the meeting. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Building Plans ■ Drawings Mr. Kelm showed revised plans for the balcony. Revision included lattice screens along one side of the balcony. ..;McIver added that the screen could be brought down to the floor. There are a couple lattice ,_.,�t i:jns, square, diagonal. An evergreen will be planted on the ground(10-15ft tall)to fill in from e ground level. Potted arborvitae can also be added. The lattice in the drawings is 6'. 1 %4"x 1 %4"balusters turned diagonally. Ms. Herbert asked if the railing will be 1 %4 square cap on square post, small opening lattice, down to the floor screen posts capped, and painted green. Mr. McIver responded in the affirmative. Ms. Herbert asked the audience for public comment. Suzie Hayward, 105 Federal St, stated that details for the balcony must be architecturally appropriate. It feels like they are adding something that doesn't belong and increases visual clutter. t. dF , Arlander, 92 federal street, stated that the Commission needs to made an appeal-proof ii`ec;ision. The guidelines say that anything on the house needs to be contextual. The Historical ommission now leas a house that hasn't been ruined during the years before there was a historical commission,but adding a deck would begin to do so. Historically, people didn't have back decks, they had second homes. A balcony doesn't belong on this house and she feels the April 3, 2013,Page 2 of 5 guidelines support that. Other homes will smaller yards are able to get by. The visual clutter will bring your eye to the porch. The public comment period was closed. Ms. McCrea tends to agree with comments brought up about not keeping with the plainness of the house. kl; . Keenen reserves comment. Ms. Bellin states that in terms of contextual nature, there are already things added to that house that clearly are not original. In regards to the impact on the streetscape, it is fairly minimal. Mr. Spang states it is hard to see the porch from the public way and therefore minimizes the concern. If the deck was on the front or side of the house, there would be more concern. He adds that the screen on the deck adds to the clutter, but it was an attempt to minimize the privacy issue raised by the neighbor. The balance is difficult. If you bring the panel of lattice to the ground and plant vines it would feel more in keeping with the house. He suggested planting wisteria on the ground. Alternatively, they could use a board fence with small separation. He's not sure if the screening helps the situation. Ms. Harper agrees with Ms. Bellin that the addition on the back of the house was built later than original house. Also, the deck will be less visible from Federal Street Court when there is She is baffled why the developer didn't divide the yard between the two units rather than aczvertising the balcony. That way everyone would have privacy, including the other condo owner and neighbor. Mr. Garner reserves comment. Ms. Herbert comments that they were hoping the owners and neighbors would have come to an agreement for this meeting. She asked Ms. Hayward in the audience if the issue for her is more privacy or what is historically appropriate. Ms. Hayward responded that while privacy is an issue, she is also concerned with the visual clutter making the balcony out of place. She would rather see no balcony at all. Ms. Herbert asked Mr. McIver why they buyers of the unit thought they would have a balcony. ;^ McIver responded that the real estate agent included the balcony in the advertisement. iyls. Keenan stated that for resale value, a deeded portion of yard has better resale than the balcony. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the discussion to the May 15t meeting. Ms. Mccrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. 33 Carlton Street April 3, 2013,Page 3 of 5 Wendy Walsh, Trustee of the Townsend House Condominiums, submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a railing outside the front door at 33 Carlton Street. The design mimics that at the West India Goods Store, 164 Derby Street. The railing will address a 1pp,(,'-standing safety concern with the granite steps. The specifications for the railing are: 34"high and 60"long Solid steel. 1" cap rail and 7/8" square posts - Cap rail will have a scroll detail at each end - Black finish coat - Installed along left side of stairs - freestanding Wendy Walsh was present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Drawing ,.McCrea asked why the railing was proposed for the left side. Ms. Walsh responded that was the side the doorknob is on. Ms. Bellin asked if it required by building code that the railing extend past bottom step. This issue arose for a previously property. Ms. Herbert responded that typically this is required,but not in all cases. It is up to the Building Inspector to decide if the railing would become an obstruction. There was no public comment. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mccrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. 32 Lafayette Street Steve Anezis, Trustee of the 302 Lafayette Street Realty Trust, submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the roof with architectural shingles. Steve Anezis was present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs April 3, 2013,Page 4 of 5 MI,:Anezis stated that he would like to replace the roof with charcoal black architectural shingle. are a better material than the 3 tab shingles. He feels as though the siding is so garish that c ,architectural shingles wouldn't stand out. Ms. Harper asked if he looked at other manufacturers. Mr. Anezis responded that Ms. Lovett mentioned that there were some styles of architectural shingles that have been approved in the past. Ms. Harper stated that generally they prefer straight lines over tapered for architectural shingles. Mr. Spang asked if they liked the architectural shingles for the look or because they last longer. Mr. Anezis responded primarily because they last a lot longer. There is a 50 year guarantee versus 30 years for the 3 tab. Installers also like the architectural shingles better. Because the 3 tab shingles have an open tab they wear faster. Harper stated that Grand Slate also has an extended guarantee but it has a much different ,ook. Ms. Herbert stated they could approve the Grandslate or 3-tab. Ms. Harper recalls the Commission previously approving other architectural shingles that are straight. Mr. Spang stated that the house may have originally had a slate roof. Mr. Garner asked if warrantee is an issue or the price for using the slate style architectural shingle. Mr. Anezis responded that going from the proposed architectural to the slate style is a big di,fgrence. Architectural shingles vs 3-tab is about the same. S` 'v'or& Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve 3-tab black or charcoal grey and continue review of the architectural shingles to the next meeting. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. VOTE: Mr. Garner made a motion to approve Grand Slate architectural shingle in black or charcoal grey. Nls. Keenan seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Mr. Spang, and Ms. McCrea were in favor, and the motion so carried. Ms. Bellin abstained. Other Business Ms. Lovett read a copy of a letter received from the National Register Director, Betsy Friedberg, at the Massachusetts Historical Commission. The letter states that draft nomination for the Point Neighborhood Historic District was only partially addressed MHC's previous comments and recommendations. As a result, MHC will retain the nomination but will not substantially review it until the nomination has been revised to reflect all of the recommendations. t April 3, 2013, Page 5 of 5 VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the March 6th meeting minutes. Ms. Mccrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. Ms. Lovett read a letter from MassDOT regarding a Clearance Memorandum prepared by Public Archeological Laboratory(PAL) for the Archaeological Data Recovery Program on the Salem Intermodal Station property. As part of the Memorandum of Agreement, MassDOT is requesting comments regarding the Clearance Memorandum. Mr. Spang stated that the findings of the archaeological dig are in line with what they expected. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to submit letter of concurrence. Ms. McCrea seconded the pn. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. Conversation ensued regarding the need for buyers to know that their homes within a Historic District. Ms. Harper stated that when people buy in the historic district they need to also understand the historic guidelines. Ms. Bellin stated that it is not within the purview of the Historical Commission, but she was wondering what recourse a buyer would have by not being notified that all work needs to be approved by the Commission. She questioned whether real estate ads include that in the details of the home. Ms. Keenan stated that they should. The broker is responsible for notifying the buyer. 'WE: There being no further business, Mr. Spang made a motion to adjourn. Ms. McCrea 7ded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried. Respe tfully submitted, Natalie BL Lovett Community Development Planner May 1, 2013, Page 1 of 6 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES May 1, 2013 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, May 1, 2013 at 7:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Jessica Herbert, Kathryn Harper, Laurie Bellin, Chad Garner, David Hart, Susan Keenan, Joanne McCrea, and Laurence Spang. 302 Lafayette Street As a continuation of the previous meeting, Steve Anezis, Trustee of the 302 Lafayette Street Realty Trust, submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the roof with architectural shingles. The item was continued to allow the applicant to look for alternative options for architectural shingles. Steve Anezis was present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application: 3/15/13 ■ Photographs: 3/15/13 Mr. Anezis presented a sample of a Slateline architectural shingle which is a replacement for a Grandslate. He stated that Grandslate has been discontinued. The Slateline is designed to replicate slate. Color will be antique slate. Mr. Hart responded that GAF ELK Slateline has been approved by the Commission for previous houses. There was no public comment VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the GAF ELK Slateline shingles in the color antique slate. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. 103 Federal Street As a continuation of the previous meeting, ProProcess It, Inc submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a rear 2nd floor balcony and replace a 2nd floor window with an egress door to the balcony. The door will be 36"x80" 15 lite door. The item was continued to allow the owner to re-design deck in a way that would be more acceptable to the neighbors and make the deck more private. John McIver was present at the meeting. Mr. Hart recused himself as an abutter and moved to the audience. Ms. Herbert stated that at the advice of counsel she would recuse herself due to a potential financial conflict and moved to the audience. Documents &Exhibits May 1, 2013,Page 2 of 6 ■ Application: 3/6/13 ■ Photographs: 3/6/13 & 5/1/13 ■ Renderings: 3/6/13 & 511113 Mr. McIver presented a new option for the balcony design. They looked at options for include lattice to screen the deck to the neighbors. Ultimately, they decided on a railing system with square pickets. He also presented a photograph of the house from federal court in the spring. The balcony is barely visible from the public way. Ms. Harper read a quote from page 4 of the Historical Commission's guidelines that"The Commission makes a clear distinction between changes which would be appropriate for the principal elevations of a building and those acceptable at rear, private, "family living" sections. ... Since, historically, rear elevations were altered over time to meet changing family needs, modern date alterations— skylights, greenhouse windows, French doors, decks—should be restricted to the less important facades of the house." Ms. Bellin asked if the railings proposed will look like the Hayward's fence shown in the application. Mr. McIver stated that there will be a 1 %" space between the pickets. The railing will look like the fence but with a top railing. There will be two horizontal boards, one 6 inches off the top. The railing height can be between 36-48 inches tall. Mr. Spang asked if the railing would be painted white. Mr. McIver responded in the affirmative. Ms. Bellin asked if the Hayward's fence could be seen from the balcony. Otherwise, why match the two? Mr. McIver responded that the fence cannot be seen from the balcony. Ms. Harper asked for public comment Susan Hayward, 105 Federal Street, stated that she would prefer there not be a deck. The lattice along the side of the balcony looks out of place and does look historic. The deck was not original to the house, but if there is going to be a deck it needs to look historic. She stated that the Commission needs to approve a balcony that is keeping with the historic nature of the house. Ms. Harper read into the record a letter signed by 24 Federal Street residents requesting that the Salem Historical Commission deny the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. John Carr, 7 River St, stated that the Historical Commission guidelines state that the addition of porches and steps must be contextual. The lattice that the applicant has proposed has nothing to do with the architecture but with providing privacy,but the commission does not have jurisdiction over privacy. The balcony is not architecturally contextual. No other buildings from that period have rooftop decks. Decks get cluttered with chairs and grills, people are going to be May 1, 2013, Page 3 of 6 up there and that adds to the diminution of the historic character. He had proposed back deck years ago for his property and it was denied by the Commission. Susan Hayward states that she agrees with the letter even though she did not sign. Jennifer Lucht,buyer of 103 Federal Street, stated that her and Jim are excited to move into a historic area and would like to speak to the outdoor space. The suggestions that the yard can be divided would not be possible. Jane Arlander, 93 Federal Street, hopes the Historical Commission denies the application before the balcony is not contextual for house and could set a precedent. Sometimes the guidelines are deviated from when there is a hardship house. However, this house was bought for a decent price and she doesn't believe there is a hardship Connie Arlander, 91 Federal St, agrees with John and Jane. Approving this application would set a precedent. There are guidelines set for the historic districts and they need to be adhered to. While the current buyers have agreed to the privacy lattice, it may be removed by future owners. Maryanne Williamson, 92 Federal Street, states that the Historical Commission needs to consider the neighbors and their small yard. There needs to be consideration for everyone involved. The balcony wasn't there historically and shouldn't be approved. Jim Gwinn, buyer of 103 Federal Street, states that walking down Federal Court you can barely see the back of the house, in the spring you can't see anything from the public way. There are balconies on neighboring houses that are visible from the public way. Those balconies have been added within the last 20-30 years. He feels that the back addition looks out of place and adding the balcony would make it look more appropriate. He stated that they are not going to have a grill outside of their bedroom. The public comment period was closed. Mr. Spang stated that the prevue of the Historical Commission is not privacy, it is what is historically appropriate for the building. He stated that they application should be denied only if there is no way to add a deck on that would be appropriate. The idea of clutter on the balcony is a red herring. The Commission has no jurisdiction over what people do in their driveways or yards. He also stated that this application is not being considered under a hardship,purely appropriateness. Ms. McCrea stated that she has concerns about the contextual nature of the deck. The deck seems to draw attention to the added on sunroom. Ms. Bellin stated that the deck is visible from a public way, so is within jurisdiction. The public's references to the regulations are confusing porches and decks. A porch is different from a deck. The back of the house is not part of the streetscape, and only part of the deck is visible from the public way. Additionally, the deck is not a major feature or on the front of the house. She feels the rear of house has been already been aggravated by the sunroom addition. The deck doesn't seem terribly inappropriate, but she was hoping the owner and the neighbors would come to an May 1, 2013, Page 4 of 6 agreement. Her other thought was to move the deck away from that side of the house so there would be more privacy Mr. Garner states that he agrees with what Ms. Harper previously stated about the back of the house already being altered. He is not able to vote on the item because he missed the last meeting, but if he had he would have voted for the approval of the balcony. Ms. Harper stated that the privacy issue is not within the prevue. The Commission was hoping that everyone would come to agreement. The deck is proposed for the rear of the house and is not at all visible from federal street court in spring. Given that sunroom and shed seem to be contemporary additions, the railing would add to what is there rather than take away. She wouldn't want to see the fence replicated other than the style of the balusters and spacing. She would prefer to see a top railing. Mr. Spang and Ms. Bellin agree with Ms. Harper's comment on the railing. Ms. Harper added that 42" railing height would add more screening than 36". She would also prefer that the other window, further from the neighbor be made into the door VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the railing as indicated in the plans with 42"high, 1 %" square balusters with 1 %" spacing to match neighbors fence. The window further from the side of the house to be changed to a 15 light door, as submitted. The dimensions of the deck will be 6x15ft deck. There will be a top rail and the railing will be painted white to match the house trim. The railing will be made of solid cedar or solid mahogany Ipe. Mr. Spang seconded the motion. Mr. Spang, Ms. Bellin, and Ms. Harper were in favor,Ms. McCrea and Ms. Keenan were opposed and the motion failed. Mr. Hart and Ms. Herbert returned to the table. 6 Carpenter Street Michael Chefitz and Robyn Frost submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a porch off of their kitchen. The porch will be made of mahogany wood and will be 5feet off the ground. The balusters and handrails will be constructed out of 2x4 cedar. The bottom of the porch will be covered with lattice. Robyn Frost, Michael Chefitz, and Fred Farris were present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application: 3/25/13 ■ Photographs: 3/25/13 Ms. Frost stated that the porch is partially visible from the street. It leads off of the kitchen into their courtyard. Ms. Harper asked how far the porch would come off of the house. May 1, 2013, Page 5 of 6 Mr. Hart stated there is no plan or elevation of the deck so it is hard to know what is being proposed. He would prefer to see an elevation of the porch in order to get a sense of its position to the door. 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. 354 Essex Street Herbert and Leanne Schild submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to repair the front porch. The porch floor and stairs will be replaced with lx4 cambara mahogany and stained. They are proposing to use the same materials and stain as being used at 356 Essex Street, an attached neighbor, in order to ensure a consistent look for the building. Leanne Schild and Jeff Grinamil were present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application: 4/8/13 ■ Photographs:4/8/13 Ms. Schild stated that they are not making any changes to the design of the porch. They are changing the floor material so match the neighbors and repairing rotting boards. The stairs will also be repaired. The risers will be painted a cream color. Ms. Herbert stated that the biggest change is that the flooring will now be a natural color rather than painted. There was no public comment. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve as submitted. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. 13 Washington Square West The Peabody Essex Museum submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace a chain link fence gate with a cast iron gate, fabricated to match existing fence and gates. The gate is located adjacent to the Armory. Robert Monk was present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application: 4/10/13 ■ Photographs:4/10/13 Mr. Hart stated that he has a proposal to PEM to do some work for them. He does not believe that impacts this project, but wanted to disclose. May 1, 2013, Page 6 of 6 Mr. Monk stated that the PEM would like to use the gate for access behind the armory. They would like to replace the current chain link gate with an operable gate to match the existing cast iron fence. Ms. Herbert asked if there would be gates. Mr. Monk responded in the affirmative. Ms. Herbert asked for public comment. Willard and Priscilla St. Cyr, 8 Brown Street, stated that they were in favor of the proposal. The public comment period was closed. VOTE: Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. VOTE: There being no further business, Mr. Garner made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried. Respectfully submitted, Natalie BL Lovett Community Development Planner May 15, 2013, Page 1 of 6 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION r-- MINUTES May 15, 2013 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 at 7:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Jessica Herbert, Kathryn Harper, Laurie Bellin, Chad Garner, David Hart, Susan Keenan, Jane Turiel, and Laurence Spang. 6 Carpenter Street In continuation of a previous meeting, Michael Chefitz and Robyn Frost submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a porch off of their kitchen. The porch will be made of mahogany wood and will be 5feet off the ground. The balusters and handrails will be constructed out of 2x4 cedar. The bottom of the porch will be covered with lattice. Michael Chefitz was present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application: 3/25/13 ■ Photographs: 3/25/13 ■ Drawings: 3/25/13 & 5/9/13 Ms. Herbert stated that the new drawings submitted show that the deck will be I V off of the house and 10'6" across. Mr. Chefitz stated that the door will be centered on the deck. The door and windows are existing. Fred Farris, the project contractor, arrived. Mr. Farris stated that he brought a sample of the railing. The decking would be composite and the railing would be stained mahogany. Susan Keenan arrived at this time. Mr. Farris stated that the railing height would be 32-36"high. At the last meeting, the Commission said it would want cedar for the deck, but the pine would look the same. They would like to use Asak for the trim near the ground. The lattice would be cedar 3/4" square. Ms. Turiel thought that pine wood would be fine. There was no public comment. Mr. Farris stated that the posts would be mahogany with a cap. The size of the posts would be approximately 6" square, whatever fits the cap. Ms. Herbert asked if the deck would have a skirt board. Mr. Farris responded in the affirmative. He would like the skirt board to be Asak to prevent rotting. Mr. Spang asked if the stain will be a clear stain. May 15, 2013, Page 2 of 6 Mr. Farris responded that the deck would be a partly natural finish stain and partly white. Mr. Spang stated that the white paint would be more appropriate for the house, with a stained top rail. The lattice should be painted as well. Ms. Herbert stated that based on the age of the house, she would expect the decking to be painted. For the composite you can get it in a wood color. Ms. Bellin asked if the front door railing is white. Mr. Chefitz responded that it is a light blue. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the rail with the design as submitted in the application, trim within 6" of the ground to be Asak, and all other materials to be natural wood. The lattice will be cedar, the square posts 6"x6"with cap. The rails will be stained natural, the remainder of the deck balusters to be painted or stained white. The decking should replicate natural wood, regardless of material. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Ms. McCrea, Mr. Garner, and Mr. Spang were in favor, and the motion so carried. Ms. Keenan and Ms. Turiel did not vote. 100 Federal Street Marianne Chojnicki submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace three (3) double hung windows. The windows are located on the top right side &back of the home on the 3rd floor. Thee replacement windows are inserts with full screens. The windows will be 5 over 5, Fibrex material with internal grills, in the color white. Marianne Chojnicki was present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application: 4/22/13 ■ Photographs: 4/22/13 ■ Window specifications: 4/22/13 ■ Material sample: 4/22/13 Ms. Bellin asked if the all of the windows are visible from the street. Mr. Hart responded that the rear window and rear side window are not visible from the street. Ms. Harper asked what part of the window will be fibrex. Mr. Hart responded that the catalog cut seems to show that the entire window is fibrex. Ms. Chojnicki they are custom building the windows so that the architecture of the windows will not change. Ms. Herbert doesn't believe the Commission has approved an internal grill before. Are all the windows wood? May 15, 2013, Page 3 of 6 Ms. Chojnicki stated that the current windows are not operable, they are painted shut and there is no heat in the kitchen. The installer said they have used this window on other houses in the historic district, in the back of houses. Ms. Herbert stated that they would like to investigate these windows located in other houses. Mr. Spang stated that Anderson Renewal is a big company and the Historic Commission should be careful of setting a president that these windows are acceptable. He suggested that the Commission visit a house that has the windows installed or ask the manufacture to bring a sample of the window to the meeting. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the back windows as Certificate of Non- Applicability. Ms. Turiel seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Mr. Garner, Mr. Hart, Ms. Keenan, were in favor, and the motion so carried. Ms. McCrea and Mr. Spang did not vote. Mr. Hart suggested to Ms. Chojnicki that she speak with some local firms that restore windows. Current research shows that rehabilitated wooden window with storm gives same thermo characteristics as a double paned window. Ms. Chojnicki withdrew the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the side windows. 24 Fort Ave Footprint Power Salem Harbor Real Estate LP submitted an application for a Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance to demolish seven(7) steel tanks and one (1) 250' chimney, and all associated and accessory structures. The structures are part of the aging power plant that is being decommissioned so that a new, combined cycle gas fired electric generation facility can be constructed. Joseph Correnti, Lou Arak, and George Wilson were. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application ■ Photographs ■ Plans Ms. Herbert asked what method will be used to demolish the chimney. Mr. Arak responded that the chimney will be demolished brick by brick. They are looking to begin demolition of the chimney in August. Demolition of the tanks may begin in July. The tanks first will need to be abated. The two other chimneys will remain for the time being. Those chimneys are still in service. The smaller stack has already been decommissioned. Stacks 1 &2, as shown on the drawing, are twins of Stack 3 which was removed in the last 10 years. Mr. Wilson stated that they working through the FEWMEPA process, they have completed public hearings with the Energy Siting Board and are just beginning the local permitting process. Currently, the project in front of the Salem Planning Board. May 15, 2013, Page 4 of 6 Mr. Hart asked if all of the materials being demolished are being removed from the site. Mr. Arak responded that they will reuse what is possible for fill. The remainder of the materials will be removed. All of the tanks will be removed from the site. There will new tanks installed for the new facility. Mr. Spang asked if all of the containment walls of the tanks will be removed. Mr. Arak responded in the affirmative. Mr. Spang asked how the site surface will be treated after demolition and before construction begins. Mr. Wilson responded that they will level the ground and cover with gravel. The tank farm will be used for parking during construction. There was no public comment. Mr. Arak stated that Footprint will return to the Historical Commission for a Waiver of the Demolition Delay for the remaining structures on site. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the application for a Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance with the pro visa that in interim period after demolition prior to reconstruction the site will be leveled and appear to have no remnants of the prior structures. Mr. Correnti stated that the condition of the site and that the issue of all remnants being removed is an issue being discussed at the Planning Board meetings. This requirement is troublesome because the area will be used as a staging site. The new facilities will be a LEED platinum building, which partially involves reusing/recycling the materials from the old plant. Mr. Spang stated that a requirement to level the land after demolition ends and before construction begins shouldn't be a problem. Mr. Correnti responded that the construction schedule is not fully set to define when demo ends and construction begin and the language of"leveling" is too specific. Mr. Spang stated that the Commission's concern is how the site will look after demolition so that it is not an eye sore. Mr. Correnti responded that the neighborhoods, Planning Board, Health Board, Building Inspector, Conservation Commission, and Chapter 91 licensing processes will determine the site conditions. Perhaps there is less specific language that can be used. Ms. Herbert stated that the site can't just leave debri building up. It will be considered a hazard. She asked Tom St. Pierre, Salem Building Inspector, if this is correct. May 15, 2013, Page 5 of 6 Mr. St. Pierre stated that the project is complex especially given the reuse of the materials. The developer needs flexibility for how they move the site. If they have things in a manner that cause problems, it would be addressed. Mr. Correnti stated that requiring the site to be maintained in an orderly fashion would be OK. The Historic Commission needs to be careful about the conditions being set. Mr. St. Pierre stated that another constraint for the site is that demolition materials may need to be tested prior to being removed from the site. Ms. Herbert stated that she is not sure the condition of the site after demolition is within the prevue of the Historical Commission. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the application for a Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance with the pro visa that in the interim period after demolition and prior to reconstruction the site will be maintained in an orderly fashion. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Ms. Kerman, Mr. Garner, and Mr. Spang were in favor, and the motion so carried. Ms. Turiel did not vote. Other Business Ms. Lovett stated that a vote is required to appoint a member of the Historical Commission to the Community Preservation Committee. VOTE: Mr. Garner made a motion to appoint Ms. McCrea to the Community Preservation Committee. Mr. Hart seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Keenan, and Mr. Spang were in favor, and the motion so carried. Ms. Turiel did not vote. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of 3/27/13 with changes. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper,Mr. Hart, Ms. Keenan, and Mr. Spang were in favor, and the motion so carried. Ms. Turiel and Mr. Garner did not vote. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of 4/3/13. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Mr. Garner, and Mr. Spang were in favor, and the motion so carried. Ms. Turiel and Mr. Hart did not vote. VOTE: There being no further business, Ms. Bellin made a motion to adjourn. May 15, 2013,Page 6 of 6 Mr. Garner seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Mr. Hart, Ms. Keenan, and Ms. Turiel were in favor, and the motion so carried. Mr. Spang did not vote. Respectfully submitted, Natalie BL Lovett Community Development Planner June 5, 2013, Page 1 of 9 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION r` MINUTES June 5, 2013 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, June 5, 2013 at 7:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Jessica Herbert, Laurie Bellin, Chad Garner,David Hart, Joanne McCrea, Laurence Spang, and Jane Turiel. 173 Federal Street Gianna Della Monica submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a grapevine trellis. The trellis will be constructed out of unpainted pressure treated cedar wood. It will be 30ft in length and 6ft in height. The posts will be constructed out of 4x4s the rails 2x2s with a diamond pattern in the center constructed out of 2x2s. Gianna Della Monica and William Brooking were present. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application: 5/6/13 Mr. Brooking stated that the fence will follow the fence line from the existing fence further back. He had already installed the posts. They are currently a little higher than 6' but will be trimmed down. The fence will be in 8 foot sections that are 5 1/2 feet high. There will be a 2x4s along the top, connecting the posts. The fence will be approximately 50 ft long. There will be a net draped over the trellis to protect the grapes. They were planning to have a diamond design in between the posts, however they can just have wires if the Commission would prefer. Ms. Herbert asked if there will be caps on the post. Mr. Brooking responded in the negative. Mr. Spang asked if the wires would be 1 foot on center. Mr. Brooking responded that the wires will be10" apart with one vertical wire connecting them. Ms. Herbert asked if the applicants spoke with the neighbor about the trellis. Mr. Brooking responded in the affirmative. The next door neighbor is aware of the trellis. Mr. Spang asked if the wood would be left unpainted. Mr. Brooking responded in the affirmative Mr. Spang asked if the trellis will connect to the fence. Mr. Brooking responded that there will be a space between the existing fence and trellis. The trellis will not extend up to the street. There was no public comment June 5, 2013,Page 2 of 9 VOTE: Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve the application as presented with the pro visa that the fence will end 10' from the street. Mr. Garner seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. 106 Derby Street Tina Leyser Layne submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to: 1. On left side of house, remove awning window and install double casement window 2. On right side of house: a. Remove awning window closest to street and awning window beyond chimney, close openings with siding to match surrounding wall. b. Remove aluminum frame sliding glass doors and install pair of double hung sash windows. Close lower part of opening with siding to match surrounding wall c. Remove awning window farthest from street and install double-hung sash window Proposed windows will be Anderson 400 Series in the same style and color as windows approve and installed in 2008. Tina Leyser Layne was present. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application: 5/7/2013 ■ Photographs: 5/7/2013 ■ Window Specifications: 5/7/2013 Ms. Herbert stated that she reviewed the 2008 application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. It appears as though the approved windows have muntins that are permanently glued on the inside and outside of the window. Ms. Leyser Layne responded that is correct for the windows on the front and side. The windows on the right side behind the chimney and last window on the left only have pop out grills. Ms. Herbert asked if the proposed windows would have the permanent muntins. Ms. Leyser Layne responded that she would prefer the pop out. Ms. Herbert stated that the previous pop out grills were approved because they were minimally visible. Ms. Leyser Layne noted that the proposed windows are also minimally visible. Ms. Herbert passed around the minutes from the 2008 meeting to the Commission members. Mr. Spang asked if the windows will be painted to match the existing windows. Ms. Leyser Layne responded in the affirmative. June 5, 2013,Page 3 of 9 Ms. Herbert stated that in 2008 the commission approved the snap in muntins that can be barely seen. For the new windows commission could approve the similar thing but the highly visible windows may be fixed muntins. Ms. Leyser Layn stated that the awning window in the proposal is over a sink. She would like that to be a double casement to make it easier to open. There was no public comment. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the application as submitted due to the fact that the proposed windows are on a side elevation and barely visible from the street. Ms. Mccrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. 22 Chestnut Street Nina Cohen and Craig Barrows submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install new double bead half round 16oz copper gutters across half the front of the house with a downspout at the end of the gutter, across the half of the back main house to replace the current deteriorated downspout, and along the new additional parallel to Hamilton St to replace a missing gutter. Nina Cohen and Craig Barrows were present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application: 5/17/2013 ■ Photographs: 5/17/2013 Ms. Cohen stated that the house is being repainted and they are replacing the front fence for both 20 & 22 Chestnut Street. There hasn't been a gutter on the building in at least 28 years. Ms. Herbert asked if the gutters will be left natural. Ms. Cohen responded in the affirmative. Mr. Hart asked if the downspouts will be galvanized. Ms. Cohen responded that for the gutter that blew off of the two story addition, the downspout already exists. The other downspout is in rough shape and will be replaced with a galvanized downspout and painted Ms. Herbert asked if the existing downspout is the fluted. Ms. Cohen stated that she believes it is fluted. Mr. Hart stated that the downspouts appear to be fluted, in the picture. Ms. Turiel asked what color will the spouts be painted. June 5, 2013, Page 4 of 9 Ms. Cohen responded white. They would prefer if the spouts came down the edge rather than wrapping around the corner of the house in order to keep the water off the sidewalk. The public comment period was opened. Meg Toohey, 122 federal Street, supports the application. The public comment period was closed. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the application as submitted with pro visa that new downspout is galvanized metal to match the rest of the house and painted white. Mr. Gamer seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. 103 Federal Street John McIver submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a rear 2"a floor balcony. The balcony will be 6ft by 16ft built on top of an existing sunroom structure. The railing for the balcony will be 42"high, the design will mimic the fence at 97 Federal Street. The railing will be painted white. John McIver was present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application: 5/14/2013 ■ Photographic Depiction: 5/14/2013 Mr. Hart stated that he will be recusing himself as a direct abutter and moved to the audience. Ms. Herbert stated that, while she had recused herself before as having a potential financial conflict with this applicant, her potential financial conflict no longer exists. Mr. Spang asked what the rules were for an applicant reapplying to the Historical Commission after previously receiving a denial. Ms. Herbert responded that the Assistant City Solicitor, Robin Stein, send an email that she is not aware of a waiting period to reapply. Mr. McIver stated that in the current application they have moved the door to the deck towards the middle of the house. The flat roof for the sunroom was deformed from the weight of snow sitting on the roof. Access to the roof by way of a balcony would help to alleviate the snow removal issue. Ms. Herbert noted that the proposal does not include a trellis for screening from the neighbors. She mentioned that, as discussed at previous meeting, the Historical Commision has no jurisdiction over privacy or zoning issues. She also stated that the proposal is minimally visibility from Federal Court and is not visible from Beckford Street. She question whether the Commission should wait to vote on the application until they receive a final decision from the City Solicitor regarding the legality of reapplying. June 5, 2013, Page 5 of 9 John Carr, stated that Chapter 40A and the Rules of Order for the City do not allow for an applicant to reapply unless a motion to reconsider is made immediately after the denial. He question whether the 3/4 hip roof was a change. Procedurally, the Historical Commission would not want an applicant coming in every 2 weeks on an application because they are denied. Ms. Bellin noted that there is a difference between a prevailing vote and motion that failed. There was not a prevailing vote against the previous application. Mr. John. Carr responded that once an application lacks the vote for approval, it is over. He questioned the legality of Mr. Garner stating his approval of the previous application, despite the fact that he had missed meetings on the item. Mr. Garner responded that he had missed one out of several meetings on the application. He was at all prior meetings and was advised that he could make the statement. Mr. Spang would like the City Solicitor's guidance on the issue. Specifically, he would like an official decision on what the regulations are regarding reviewing an application that previously failed to be approved. Ms. McCrea stated that at the last meeting, she understood that there would be a closing on the real estate. She asked if there is now a new owner. Mr. McIver responded that he is moving the application forward for the buyers, they would continue. The public comment period was opened. Jennifer Luct, prospective buyer of 103 Federal Street, asked if as the new owners can could apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the balcony. Ms. Herbert responded that the Commission would get an answer on that. Jane Arlander, 93 Federal St, questioned when the roof was changed from a %hip roof to a flat roof. Looking at google maps, the roof was historically not a flat roof. Additionally, the large fascia was not previously there. Finally, there are pictures that show the balcony is visible from Beckford Street. Ms. Herbert responded that of Mr. McIver made any changes to fascia or pitch of the roof, hee should talk with Ms. Lovett about how to get approval for those changes. The public comment period was closed. VOTE: Mr. Spang made a motion to continue the application until the next meeting so that they may receive an official decision from the City Solicitor regarding whether an applicant reapply to the Historical Commission after a denial with an identical application and whether a change in ownership changes the reapplication procedure. June 5, 2013, Page 6 of 9 Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. McCrea, Ms. Turiel were in favor. And the motion so carried. Mr. Garner abstained from the vote. 41 Flint Street Wayne Sousa and Mary Simpson submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a new fence along their property line. The fence will be a 36"wood picket fence increasing to a 6' flat board fence. The pickets will be 2x2" square with 6x6"posts. The picket fence will be black to match the existing fence in front of the house. The board fence will be left natural to match the existing fencing surrounding the remainder of the house. Wayne Sousa and Mary Simpson were present. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application: 5/17/2013 ■ Photographs: 9/24/2012 &5/15/2013 ■ Plot Plan: 5/17/2013 Ms. Simpson stated that there will not be a fence where the shed is. Ms. Herbert clarified that instead of the pickets it will be the spindles. Mr. Sousa responded in the affirmative. The fence will gradually rise to 6'. Ms. Herbert asked if the wrought iron fence will remain. Ms. Simpson responded in the affirmative. The wrought iron fence has no end post, so the wooden fence will start with a post. Mr. Spang asked if the adjacent existing wooden picket fence will remain. Ms. Simpson responded in the affirmative. That is the neighbor's fence. There was no public comment. Mr. Spang wondered about the paint color. He suggested that the fence might be white. Ms. Herbert stated that there is a nice green black picket fence on Broad St. Ms. Simpson stated that the window sash is black, the house color is gray. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to accept the application as submitted with the pro visa that the fence can paint white or dark gray to match existing shutters. Ms. Turiel seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. 9 Chestnut Street/7 CambridQc Street June 5, 2013, Page 7 of 9 Adelaide Vander Salm, on behalf of Hamilton Hall, Inc. submitted an application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability to restore windows. The work will include removing the wndow sash,repair and restore wood, reglaze using original glass where possible. Do any necessary jamb repair,paint. All work will be in-kind. Two windows were already restored,prior to submitting the application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application: 5/16/2013 ■ Photographs: 5/16/2013 Ms. Lovett stated that this application is for a Certificate of Non-Applicability. She had inadvertently advertised it as a Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. Hart stated that he saw the windows and they look terrific. Hamilton Hall should be commended for their restoration work. The windows are original sashes, approximately 150 years old, and they will now last another 150 years. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the Certificate of Non-Applicability. Mr. Spang seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. 115 Federal Street Darleen Melis submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace wooden gutters on the kitchen and back ell with K-shaped 16oz red copper gutters. The downspout for the upper kitchen gutter will remain. The downspout for the back ell will be copper and follow the previous downspout route directly into the dry well. On the front of the house, the half-round copper gutters would be replaced with K shaped gutters. The reason for the change is to keep the rainwater off the siding and from falling on heads exiting from the kitchen. On the front door porch and back bay window, the applicant would like to add copper inserts to improve protection for the existing wooden moldings. There will be 1"of copper overhang that will be visible over the existing wooden gutters. Rolled black asphalt roofing for both small roofs will be replaced to match the existing roofing. construct a porch off of their kitchen. Darleen Melis was present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application: 5/16/2013 ■ Photographs: 5/16/2013 Ms. Melis stated that there was a 1" gap between the house and the gutter where water could get in. The modillion underneath the gutter is falling off and the gutter has failed even with maintenance. June 5, 2013,Page 8 of 9 Mr. Hart recommended that copper downspouts are bolted to the house with bolts and straps instead of a flimsy wire in order to prevent theft. Ms. Melis stated that they have never had a problem with theft, but would appreciate the option for galvanized downspouts in the Certificate. There was no public comment. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the application as submitted with an option for galvanized steel downspouts painted to match existing. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. 4 Hamilton Street Greg&Alexis Dwyer submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a new fence on the right side of their property. The fence will be 4-6ft tall flat board fence with a lattice top. The material will be wood. Post caps will be pyramid design. The color of the fence will be natural wood or to match the trim of the house. Lattice design will be as shown in the application. Greg Dwyer was present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application: ■ Photographs: ■ Drawings: Mr. Dwyer stated that he brought a revised design without a lattice top. The 6ft section will be a traditional flat board privacy fence. In the revised design it is marked in blue, around patio. 4ft picket fence would be along the back. Preference would be to leave color open ended but may paint white to match trim. Picket would mimic Hamilton st example in packet. No graduated between fences, even break. Mr. Hart asked what species of wood the fence would be. Mr. Dwyer responded that they hadn't decided. Mr. Hart stated that traditionally the wood would be a red or eastern white cedar. This is especially important if the fence is left natural. He would recommend that wood even if the fence is painted, though. There was no public comment. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the fence as submitted. The fence design will mimic that of the fence at 4 & 6 Hamilton Street. The applicant will use Eastern white or red cedar for the wood. The applicant has the option to paint or stain wood as detailed in the application or leave the fence natural. June 5, 2013,Page 9 of 9 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. Respectfully submitted, Natalie BL Lovett Community Development Planner June 26, 2013, Page 1 of 11 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES June 26, 2013 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, June 26, 2013 at 7:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Chairperson Jessica Herbert, Kathy Harper, Laurie Bellin, Chad Garner, Susan Keenan, and Joanne McCrea. Laurence Spang arrived late. 343 Essex Street Edward Bryce Morris submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for work previously completed. The work includes repairing and replacing rotten clapboards and painting the siding, trim, shutters, and windows. The paint colors are: Clapboard- Benjamin Moore Winter Gates Shutters, Door, Windows-Benjamin Moore Essex Green Trim- Benjamin Moore China White Edward and Caroline Bryce Morris were present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application: 6/3/2013 ■ Photographs: 6/3/13 ■ Paint colors: 6/3/13 Ms. Herbert read into the record a letter from abutter Marlene Juedes and William Goldbert, 8 Botts Court, supporting the approval of the application. Mr. Bryce Morris stated that the base color has remained very similar, however the trim and window colors have changed. He submitted a letter signed by four neighbors in support of the new paint colors. There was no public comment. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the paint colors as submitted. Mr. Garner seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried. 19 Broad Street Georgia Montouris submitted an application for aCertificate of Appropriateness to replace an existing wooden railing, on the side steps, with a wrought iron railing to match the existing railing on the front porch/steps. The wrought iron railing would be painted black. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application: 5/30/13 ■ Photographs: 5/30/2013 June 26, 2013, Page 2 of 11 Ms. Lovett stated that Ms. Montouris was unable to attend the rescheduled meeting and has requested that the application be continued to the next meeting. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to the July 17th meeting. Mr. Garner seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. 6 Hamilton Street Ben and Marjorie Wittner submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a shed in the back yard. The dimensions of the shed are: - 8' wide x 6' deep - 6' high to bottom of roof - 4"overhang The roof of the shed will have black shingles and be made of pine wood. It will be stained and trimmed in the same colors as the house. The shed will have two vents. The shed will be located in the back right quadrant of the yard, as shown in the plan submitted. Ben and Marjorie Wittner were present. Mr. Spang arrived at this time. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application: 5/30/2013 ■ Photographs: 5/30/2013 ■ Plan: 5/30/13 Ms. Herbert asked if the shed is prefabricated. Mr. Wittner responded in the affirmative. Ms. Herbert asked what the house colors are. Ms. Wittner replied that the house color is brown with a cream trim color. The shed will be the exact same colors. The paint colors are from Waters and Brown. Ms. McCrea asked if there has been any objection from the neighbors. Mr. Wittner responded that the neighbors are happy with the proposal. Mr. Garner asked if there is currently a shed. Ms. Wittner responded in the negative. There was no public comment. VOTE: Mr. Garner made a motion to approve the shed and paint colors as proposed. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. All were in favor. and the motion so carried. June 26, 2013, Page 3 of 11 104 Federal Street Barbara Cleary and David Hart submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to revise a previous Certificate related to a pipe necessary for an HVAC system. The previous approved pipe was to be a 2 %2" diameter, 8' high pipe on the west fagade of the kitchen ell. The revised proposal is for one 3 %2" diameter pipe running horizontally across the house. The pipe would be painted to match the siding. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application: 6/3/13 ■ Photograph: 6/3/13 Ms. Herbert stated that this application amends a Certificate previously approved for a HVAC pipe location. Once painted, the pipe should blend with the clapboards. It is not visible from Federal Street. Ms. Herbert asked for public comment. Jane Arlander, 93 Federal Street, asked if the pipe is for ventilation. Ms. Herbert responded that the pipe services the HVAC unit. The public comment period was closed. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to yRprove the application as submitted. Mr. Garner seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. 20 Chestnut Street Craig and Shawn Smith submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a single copper gutter and downspout across the front of the house roof line. In the back of the house, one copper gutter would be installed along the roofline of a single story section above the AC/heat pump units. The back gutter is only visible from Botts Court. The gutters will be identical to those approved for 22 Chestnut Street. Craig and Shawn Smith were present. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application: 6/3/13 ■ Photographs: 6/3/2413 Mr. Smith showed the Commission members a clearer photograph demonstrating the location along the rear addition. Ms. Herbert asked if the copper gutters will be left to age naturally. Ms. Smith responded that the front copper gutter will be left natural. They would like to have a painted galvanized downspout in the back. June 26, 2013, Page 4 of 11 Ms. Harper asked if the gutter in the rear will be galvanized or copper. Mr. Smith responded that they would like the whole rear gutter and downspout to be galvanized. Ms. Herbert asked if the galvanized downspout will hold paint the same as aluminum. Mr. Spang stated that it will hold paint, but not quite as well as aluminum would. Ms. Harper stated that aluminum could be an option in the back. Ms. Herbert asked if the gutter will be an ogee profile in the back. Mr. Smith responded in the affirmative. There was no public comment. Mr. Smith stated that they would like to have the front downspout run along the front of the house, in order to keep the water off their walkway. This would match the downspout location for 22 Chestnut. VOTE: Ms. McCrea made a motion to accept as submitted with an option for the back gutter and downspout to be either aluminum or galvanized and for the front downspout to run along the front of the house to match the downspout at 22 Chestnut Street. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. All were in favor. and the motion so carried. 22 Chestnut Street Nina Cohen submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a stainless steel chimney cap on top of the chimney. Additional work to repair and rebuilt the chimney was approved as part of a Certificate of Appropriateness. Craig Barrows was present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application: 6/4/2013 ■ Photograph: Ms. Herbert asked if there is currently a cap on the chimney. Mr. Barrows responded that there is no cap in the chimney currently, however there is a cap on the chimney at the back of the house. The proposed cap will match. Ms. Herbert asked if the existing cap is stainless steel. Mr. Barrows responded in the affirmative. There was no public comment. VOTE: Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. June 26, 2013, Page 5 of 11 118 Derby Street Architect Paul Lessard, on behalf of Robert Burkinshaw, submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to add a roof ridge vent or gable attic vent, add 1"wide continuous soffit vent, add one more window to a bedroom that is part of the previously approved addition. Paul Lessard was present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application: 6/11/13 ■ Photographs: 6/11/13 ■ Drawings: 6/11/13 Mr. Lessard stated that when he saw the previously approved plan he thought that just one window was minimal light for a bedroom. The architecture of the house lends itself to close together windows. For the venting there are two options: a ridge vent or a gable vent. Gable vent would be on the street side. Mr. Spang asked which window is being added. Mr. Lessard stated the the second window in from the back of the house. The previously approved window for the addition would be moved in. Ms. Herbert stated that the window is minimally visible. Mr. Lessard agreed that the window is minimally visible from Derby Street. Ms. Herbert asked if there will be shutters on the windows. Mr. Lessard responded in the negative. There are some existing windows with shutters and some windows that are closer together do not have shutters. Ms. Herbert asked if the shutters would remain on the front windows. Mr. Lessard responded that the existing windows will be remaining. There was no public comment. Ms. McCrea asked if the windows looked a little too close together. Ms. Herbert stated that the windows are not very visible from the street and the existing windows are already oddly placed. Ms. Bellin stated that she prefers the look of the ridge vent. It seems less obtrusive than creating a new shape on the building. June 26, 2013, Page 6 of 11 VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve ridge vent. Mr. Garner seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert Ms. Harper, Ms. Bellin Mr. Garner Ms. Keenan and Ms. McCrea were in favor. Mr. Span Spang abstained and the motion so carried. VOTE: Mr. Garner made a motion to al2prove the additional window, as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert Ms. Har ,er Ms. Bellin Mr. Garner Ms. Keenan and Ms. McCrea were in favor. Mr. Spang abstained and the motion so carried. Mr. Lessard clarified that there will be a little bit of a break between the ridge vent and the roof from the soffit. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the soffit under the ridge vent. Mr. Garner seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper. Ms. Bellin, Mr. Garner, Ms. Keenan; and Ms. McCrea were in favor. Mr. Spang abstained. and the motion so carried. 103 Federal Street As a continuation of a previous meeting, John McIver submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a rear 2nd floor balcony. The balcony will be 6ft by 16ft built on top of an existing sunroom structure. The railing for the balcony will be 42"high, the design will mimic the fence at 97 Federal Street. The railing will be painted white. John McIver was present. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application: 5/14/2013 ■ Photographic Depiction: 5/14/2013 ■ Sketch: 6/26/2013 Ms. Herbert stated that the Historical Commission received an email from Assistant City Solicitor Robin Stein regarding the legality of an applicant reapplying to the SHC. She found that there is no time restriction for reapplying in Mass. General Law 40C. In addition, Ms. Herbert stated that the SHC has approved balconies in the past when deemed appropriate. An example is 134 Federal Street, which is very visible from Federal Street. Ms. Bellin noted to Ms. Herbert that it appeared that a member of the audience was videotaping the public hearing. Ms. Herbert asked the audience member, Andrew Carr of 7 River Street, if he was using a video camera. He responded in the affirmative. Ms. Herbert stated that the guidelines allow the Historical Commission to review and approve historically appropriate additions to buildings. The subject of privacy has been brought up in previous meetings regarding this application; however privacy is an issue of zoning and not one for the Historical Commission to consider. The SHC should vote based on what is historically appropriate, noting that the balcony is minimally visible from the public way of Federal Court. Mr. McIver stated that the balcony is minimally visible from Federal Court, and is only visible from that street in the winter. The balcony is not visible at all in the summer. Additionally, there are other examples of balconies throughout the McIntire District. He stated that he has planted a June 26, 2013, Page 7 of 11 Rose of Sharon along the property line which helps to obstruct the view into the neighbor's yard. He is also planning to plant a full height arborvitae. He stated that he brought a new option for a railing shape that cuts the corners of the balcony. The corners would then allow room for planters. The shape may also be more historically appropriate. The baluster structure would be a straight square picket, similar to 134 Federal Street. They could have a full obstruction panel at the corners or sides. Mr. Garner stated that the landscaping additions are nice, but isn't within the purview of the Historical Commission. Mr. Spang asked if the change to the design is just the clipped corners. Mr. McIver clarified that the change is the clipped corners and the panels on the balustrade. Ms. Herbert asked the height of the panels. Mr. McIver responded the height would be the same as the railing. Ms. Bellin asked which of the options is the one being proposed. Jim Gwinn, buyer of 103 Federal Street, responded that they would prefer the full balcony with panels on the Hayward's side. Ms. Herbert wondered if it may be more appropriate to have the panels along both sides and wrapping around the corner. Ms. Bellin asked if the balcony is extended, if it would then be visible from Beckford Street. If so, the SHC would need to take that into consideration. Ms. Herbert stated that the 134 Federal Street balcony is set back approximately 2 feet along the front and approximately 1 foot around the sides. She stated that this might look a little awkward and that it may be better if the set back were even around the entire balcony. Ms. McCrea asked if clipping the corners deals with the privacy issue. Ms. Herbert stated that it would be mostly an aesthetical change. She noted that the sunporch addition is newer. Mr. McIver stated that snow removal has been an issue in the past. The roof structure is fairly flat. Mr. Garner asked if the panels make the balcony more or less visible. Ms. Herbert responded that it could make it more visible, but would add to the privacy for the neighbor. Ms. Harper asked if the proposed door is in a different location than the previous application. June 26, 2013, Page 8 of 11 _ Mr. McIver responded in the affirmative. The door will be located at the location of the inner window rather than on the end. Ms. Herbert stated that the door will be 15 lite door to match the doors previous approved for the 1"floor. Ms. Herbert opened the meeting to public comment. Jane Arlander, 93 Federal Street, asked if the SHC had received a written letter from the City Solicitor. Ms. Herbert responded that the Assistant City Solicitor responded in an email. Rob Hayward, 105 Federal St, asked what would prevent this instance of a reapplication from happening in the future. Ms. Herbert responded that there is nothing to preclude an applicant from reapplying. Mr. Garner asked if he could make a motion to close public comment, unless there are new comments to be made. Ms. Bellin stated that if there was public comment at the previous public meeting that was closed. Then the Commission could close the public commenting period now. Ms. Herbert stated that she would like to hear additional public comment if there is any new information. Susan Hayward, 105 Federal Street, showed the SHC a picture demonstrating that the roof line of the sunporch had been altered. It previously had a pitch and is now flat. Ms. Herbert stated that if the SHC approves the balcony then the issue of the roofline change would be moot, as the balcony proposal encompasses the roof changes Andrew Carr, 7 River St, asked if the SHC residents are allowed to change a roof line without previous approval from the SHC. When you submit an application, how specific does it have to be. Ms. Herbert responded that when the SHC votes on the item it will be very specific. The balcony has not been approved yet. The roofline cannot be changed without approval. If the work approved will obscure the roofline, then the change becomes moot because the roof will not be visible. Ms. Bellin asked if it is known when the roofline was changed. Jane Arlander, 93 Federal Street, stated that the roof was changed when the roof was redone this spring. It was always a hip roof in the past. Her concern is that the roof was changed before the developer received permission from the commission and they are now proposing a deck to make it more appropriate. This sets a horrible precedent. June 26, 2013, Page 9 of 11 Ms. Herbert responded that when structures are changed prior to work being approved and the Commission's made aware of the change, the SHC sends out a violation letter to have the owner apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness. The application currently before the Commission is whether or not the balcony is appropriate. Ms. Herbert read into the record a letter from Peter Eschauzier, 15 %2 River St, who is opposed to the approval of the deck application. Ms. Herbert stated that she had hoped that there would be a compromise between the parties. Ms. McCrea wishes that the house had not been advertised with a deck without prior approval from the SHC. Ms. Herbert stated that often times brokers list a property with certain amenities and they do not always check with the developer prior to advertising. The facts are the soon-to-be owners thought they were buying a unit with a deck. While there is also an element of the neighbor wanting to have privacy, the SHC needs to comply with its jurisdiction. Jeff Brant, 3 Lynn St, stated that roof decks don't go with federalist architecture. The balustrades on the roof do not fix this issue. This proposal is hurting the house and upsetting the neighbors. He urges the applicant to reconsider the balcony. Paige Provone, 9 Crombie St, asked if it is the duty of the SHC to look into violations and asked if there is a recourse for a violation. Ms. Herbert responded that the SHC looks into reported violations and issues violation letters. The SHC's recourse is to place a lien on the property for violations not resolved. Ms. Bellin stated that when the SHC receives applications for work previously completed, it reviews the application as if it hadn't been completed. She cited an example of 343 Essex Street which was the first item on tonight's agenda. She noted that in the 103 Federal application, the balcony approval would include changing the shape of the roof. Susan Hayward, 105 Federal St, reminded the SHC that 24 neighbors signed a letter in opposition to the balcony. This letter was submitted at a previous meeting. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to close the public commenting period. Mr. Garner seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert Ms. Har ,er Ms. Bellin Mr. Garner Ms. Keenan and Mr. S an were in favor, and the motion so carried. Ms. McCrea abstained-from the vote. Ms. Herbert stated that the SHC now needs to consider whether the hexagonal design is appropriate. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the hexa onal shape balcony design. Mr. Garner seconded the motion. All were opposed, and the motion failed. June 26, 2013, Page 10 of 11 Jane Arlander, 93 Federal Street, told the SHC that the balcony is also visible from Federal Street and showed a picture demonstrating this. Ms. Herbert stated that the picture appears not to have been taken from the street, but from the front garden in front of 95 Federal Street. Ms. Bellin stated that she is hesitant on the full deck. The shorter deck minimized the visibility from Beckford Street. Ms. Herbert stated that it was questioned in the previous meeting whether the full depth deck would be more aesthetically appropriate. Ms. Bellin commented that given the distance from the public way, it may not be necessary to have the balcony match the roofline. Ms. Herbert asked what the dimensions of the addition are. Mr. McIver responded that the addition is approximately IO'x16'. Ms. McCrea commented that the deck dimensions should be 14'x9' or 14'x6' to.add an edge of about a foot around the perimeter. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the 9 xl f ull depth deck with 2x2 square balusters. Mr. Garner seconded the motion. All were Qpposed and the motion failed. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the 6'xl4'deck with 2x2 square balusters as proposed. Mr. Garner seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Ms. Bellin, Mr. Garner, Ms. McCrea, and Mr. S Rang were in favor, and the motion so carried. Ms. Keenan abstained. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the option for the side panels to be closed panels with balusters alongthe front. Mr. Garner seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Har.er, Ms. Bellin Mr. Garner Ms. McCrea Ms. Keenan and Mr. Spang were in avor and the motion so carried. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the 15 lite door at the location of the inner window. Paint color to match the existing black trim as submitted. Mr. Garner seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert Ms. Har ,er Ms. Bellin Mr. Garner Ms. McCrea Ms. Keenan and Mr. Span were in favor, and the motion so carried. Other Business June 26, 2013,Page 11 of 11 Ms. McCrea gave an update on the Community Preservation Committee. The first CPA meeting was last night. The boards should begin to think about what projects they would like to see the CPA money used for. The regulations specify that a minimum 10% of the funds should be for historical preservation projects. On July 9th there will be a training session, open to the public, on the CPA. The training begins at 6pm. VOTE: There bein no further business Ms. McCrea made a motion to ad'ourn. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. Respectfully submitted, Natalie BL Lovett Community Development Planner July 17, 2013,Page 1 of 6 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES July 17, 2013 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, July 17, 2013 at 7:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Jessica Herbert (Chair), Laurie Bellin, Chad Garner, Susan Keenan, Joanne McCrea, and Jane Turiel. 2 River Street Richard Luecke and Perry McIntosh submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to paint the remainder of the house with previously approved colors. On August 17, 2006, received a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors: Body- Tortoise Trim & Window sash- Buffed Doors - Cypress The back and side of the house remain to be painted. Richard Luecke was present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application: 6/25/13 ■ Photographs: 6/25/13 There was no public comment. VOTE: Ms. Mccrea made a motion to accept the paint colors as submitted. Ms. Turiel_ seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. 19 Broad Street Georgia Montouris submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace a wooden railing on the side steps with a wrought iron railing to match the existing railings along the front porch and other side steps. The railing will be black. Georgia Montouris was present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application: 5/30/13 ■ Photographs: 5/30/13 Ms. Montouris stated that the front steps and walkway and steps are all brick. The railing area around this railing is currently cement but will be changed to brick. There was no public comment. VOTE: Ms. Mccrea made a motion to accept the railing as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. 135 Federal Street July 17, 2013,Page 2 of 6 Barton and Elisabeth Dickson submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace two (2) existing 2'x4' skylights with two (2) 4'x4' skylights. The curbing of the skylights will be bronze colored aluminum. The purpose of the larger skylights is to gain more direct sunlight in order to propagate camellias in the winter. Barton and Elisabeth Dickson and Helen Sides were present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application: 6/20/13 ■ Photographs: 6/20/13 ■ Drawings: 6/20/13 Ms. Bellin disclosed to the public that she currently serves on a board with Mr. Dickson. Ms. Sides stated that when the Dickson's moved into the house they made some changes. One such modification included adding skylights. They have found however, that the skylights are inadequate to propagate plants. The existing skylights are copper boxes sit off the roof by 16" and are not centered over the space. The proposed skylights double the size of the existing and angle them as they should be. The skylights will be splayed. The skylights are visible when walking down Federal Street. She does not believe that this proposal will make the skylights any more visible because the street end of the new skylight will look very similar. Ms. Herbert asked if the date of the addition is known. Ms. Dickson responded that the addition was building around 1910 and was originally a screened in porch. Ms. Herbert asked for clarification that the 2x4 skylights will be replaced with 4x4 skylights. Ms. Sides responded in the affirmative. They will be expanding the skylights in between the existing. Ms. Bellin asked what will the profile will be of the new skylight. Ms. Sides responded that the new skylights will be slightly taller but dark bronze matte finish rather than the copper. Ms. Bellin suggested that the skylights could be white to match the siding. Ms. Sides thought that the white would be more visible. The dark bronze disappears better. There was no public comment. VOTE: Ms. Turiel made a motion to approve increased size of the existing s light as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. 114 Derby Street July 17, 2013,Page 3 of 6 House of Seven Gables Settlement Association submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish an existing deteriorated porch and construct a new porch in kind, without a fire escape. In addition, the gate entry will be relocated and a new entry path will be created. Dan Riccarelli, Kevin White, John Seger were present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application: 6/1/13 ■ Photographs: 6/1/13 ■ Drawings: 6/1/13 Mr. Seger stated that the porch includes a second story deck that has been deemed unsafe. The Building Inspector has determined that the porch is not necessary as a 2nd means of egress, however they would like to the option to rebuild the deck if money allows. The porch is a side entrance to the building, used primarily to access the outdoor space. They are also looking to make improvements to the wrought iron fence. Building inspector signed off for 2nd egress so the fire escape is no longer used. Lastly, they would like to discuss replacement of the existing casement windows on the 1970s addition. Ms. Herbert stated that the window replacement wasn't included in the original application so it will need to be officially submitted and discussed at a future meeting. Mr. Seger continued that the project plan is to improve the side yard. Turner St is the primary entrance to the building. The porch is used as a side entrance. Historic pictures show that the house used to have a two story porch,but the windows have been changed because the 2nd floor is now a gymnasium. They are not able to reconstruct the window layout, however they would like to make the architecture of the porch more appropriate to the building. Mr. Riccarelli stated that once the fire escapes are removed they would like to move the gate down and add a brick path and landscaping. The porch posts will be a circular tuscan style mimicking the front portico. They are also reducing the size of the porch to accommodate head room going into the basement. In keeping with the federal style, the balusters will be lxl square. The decking will be composite. Ms. Herbert stated that they like the risers on the stairs to be wood. Mr. Riccarelli stated that all of the profiles for the roofline is the same. The only change is the posts. Mr. Seger stated that they would prefer to use painted Asek or composite wood for the freeze columns. For maintenance, costs, and paint sheen. They would prefer composite for the columns because it keeps the paint better. Mr. Riccarelli stated that a mahogany clear stain would be used on the baluster caps. Mr. Seger added that there is a second floor alternate for a second floor balcony. The materials would match the first floor. July 17, 2013, Page 4 of 6 Mr. Riccarelli stated that they would also like the option to build a wooden privacy fence in front of the airwell or a fence to match the perimeter fence. Mr. Seger stated that there are several options for the roof. a membrane roof or a Duradek rolled decking. Ms. Herbert stated the decking material may depend whether there is a 2nd floor balustrade. A deck on top of a deck would raise the balustrade. Mr. Seger state that the Duradek rolled decking is preferable so that the roof could serve as decking if the 2nd story balustrade is added in the future. The 1st floor porch will have a headboard ceiling. Ms. Herbert asked what the posts will be on the deck. Mr. Riccarelli responded wrapped 6x6 with pyramidal caps. Ms. Herbert asked if there will be lattice underneath the porch. Mr. Riccarelli responded in the affirmative. Square lattice is preferred. Is will not be plastic lattice. Maybe a composite, if it can be found, otherwise wood. Mr. Seger stated that they would like some direction from the SHC on colors. The front portico is painted a buff color. They were thinking of matching this color. They were unsure whether the railing should also be painted or stained a mahogany color. Ms. Herbert stated that there is precedent for a mahogany railing. So that could be an option. There was no public comment. Ms. Herbert summarized that the porch will be rebuilt, design as submitted. The columns will be round Tuscan columns. The balusters square 2x2 with pyramidal caps on the top balustrade. The decking will be a composite in a mahogany color. The lattice will be 2" square. All new wood will be painted buff to match the front portico. The gate will be moved, as submitted, utilizing the existing materials. There is an option for railing in front of basement stairs to be either wood to match balustrade or to replicate the iron fence. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the project as summarized by Ms. Herbert. Mr. Garner seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. 103 Federal Street ProProcesslt, Inc submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to reduce the size of a rear balcony. The balcony was approved at the SHC meeting held on June 26, 2013. The reduced balcony size will be 6 feet off of the existing second floor wall and will run to a point 4- 8 feet from the westerly edge depending on structural support availability. The purpose of the reduced size is to ensure compliance with local zoning requirements. The balusters will be as shown in depiction photo at 42"high. July 17, 2013, Page 5 of 6 John McIver was present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application: 7/2/13 Mr. McIver stated that he is asking for a 6x 14 maximum and ability to reduce the size of the deck. The exact size will depend on the structure supports, however the deck will fall betweent eh two windows, as shown. The deck will be moved 4' away from the property line, however that change will not be visible from Federal Court because it is blocked by the side balustrade. Public comment. Helen Sides asked if this change is visible from the public way Ms. Herbert responded that the revision doesn't change the visibility from federal court. The deck itself is visible from Federal Court. Ms. Sides stated that she though the deck looked strange to not being extended the full length of the roof. Ms. Bellin responded that extending the deck would make it visible from Beckford Street. Ms. Sides questioned whether the body color paint would make the railing disappear more. White makes it stand out. Ms. Herbert agreed. The body color paint might have been better. She stated that the decking should not be composite,painted pine would be acceptable. Ms. Bellin asked if the revision was to meet a zoning setback. Mr. McIver responded in the affirmative. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to reduce the approved balcony so that it be ins to the right of the first window and ends to the left of the 3rd window, depending on where the support structure needs to be placed. Ms. Turiel seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. 27 Charter Street Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, EBI Consulting, Inc. on behalf of AT&T Mobility provided the SHC with a notice of a proposed telecommunications facility installation and an invitation to comment on the project's potential effect to historic properties. Documents &Exhibits ■ Cover letter: 7/3/13 ■ Maps: 7/3/13 July 17, 2013, Page 6 of 6 r-- ■ Plans: 7/3/13 The Commission members stated that they required additional information in order to review the project. The additional information requested was: - Colors for the conduits on the building, - Renderings of the visibility from all public ways, specifically from the Charter Street - Elevations for the housing as well as the color of the materials against the skyline. Other Business Approval of Minutes VOTE:Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the 5/1113 minutes. Mr. Garner seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the 5115113 minutes. Ms. Turiel seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. VOTE:Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the 615113 minutes. 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. Respectfully submitted, Natalie BL Lovett Community Development Planner August 7, 2013,Page 1 of 6 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES August 7, 2013 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, August 7, 2013 at 7:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Kathy Harper(Vice Chair), Laurie Bellin, Chad Garner, David Hart, and Jane Turiel. Jessica Herbert (Chair) and Susan Keenan arrived late. 356 Essex Street Nick Nowak and Amy& Jeremy Jones submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to repaint their house. The body and trim of the house will remain the existing color. The porch balusters and newel post will be painted to match the existing trim. The handrail and doors will be painted Benjamin Moore Black. Mary Whitney was present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application: 7/6/13 ■ Photographs: 7/6/13 Ms. Whitney stated that there is a Greek Revival home in Cambridge that they are modeling the colors after. Mr. Hart asked if the siding is being replaced. Ms. Whitney responded in the negative. The neighbor is replacing their siding. Ms. Bellin asked for clarification that the handrail and bottom rail would be painted black. Ms. Whitney responded in the affirmative. There was no public comment. VOTE: Mr. Garner made a motion to aanrove the application as presented. Mr. Hart seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. 259 Lafayette Street Elysia Cappellucci &Michael Whalen submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install two (2) exterior exhaust vents for 4"ventilation ducts. One duct will be to ventilate the cooking range hood exhaust from the kitchen. The other duct will be to ventilate moisture from the bathroom. The proposed vent is approximately 7x7.875"louver style and will be painted to match the exterior of the house. Michael Whalen was present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application: 7/5/13 ■ Photographs: 7/5/13 August 7, 2013, Page 2 of 6 Ms. Bellin asked if the picture shows the vents to scale. Mr. Whalen responded that the picture is not quite to scale. Ms. Bellin asked for the size of the shingles. Mr. Whalen responded that they are approximately 11" exposed. Mr. Hart stated that the vents will not be located on the major fagade. There was no public comment. 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. 357 Essex Street Christina Bash, Robert Bash&Doris Szybiak submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace an existing 50 foot fence and gate with a flat board fence. The existing fence is a stockade style fence. The proposed fence will match the neighbor's fence along Hamilton Street. Teegan von Burn and Robert Bash and Christina Bash were present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application: 7/22/13 ■ Photographs: 7/22/13 ■ Drawing: 7/22/13 Ms. Herbert and Ms. Keenan arrived at this time. Ms. Von Burn stated that they are planning to use the same fence company and fence style as their neighbors. Ms. Harper asked for the finish of the fence. Ms. Von Burn responded that the fence would be unfinished cedar. Ms. Harper asked for the height of the fence. Ms. Von Burn responded that the fence will be 6 feet high. The neighbors fence is also 6 feet. Mr. Hart asked for clarification on the finish: clear finish or weathered. Mr. Bash responded that it would be weathered. Mr. Hart asked if red or white cedar would be used. August 7, 2013, Page 3 of 6 Mr. Bash responded that they would be using white cedar. Mr. Hart stated that typically a fence is installed with the good side to neighbor. Ms. Von Burn responded that was there plan. There was no public comment. VOTE: Ms. Turiel made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Hart seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. 114 Derby Street The House of Seven Gables Settlement Association submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the existing deteriorated casement windows on the 1970s addition with new simulated divided lite, dual glazed door windows with an aluminum clad exterior. The trim and casings will match the existing. The flat trim/cornice board will carry the line of the original building's cornice line. John Seger and Kevin White were present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application: 7/22/13 ■ Photographs: 7/22/13 Mr. Seger stated that the proposal is for replacement awning window on the top and for the casement windows to be replaced with double hung 6/6. This section of the building is probably a 1970's addition. The proposed windows are vinyl clad with wood interior. There will be a sill at the bottom of the window. They would like to paint the wood sill a buff color to match the trim around the porch and front portico. The type of window is a Pella 450 series. Mr. White stated that the existing sills are finger jointed. Ms. Harper asked if the replacement windows will have a removable or fixed grill. Mr. Seger responded that he believes the grill is affixed in the factory, but can be removed. Ms. Herbert stated that the worry is if one window's grill falls off, it won't be replaced. She wondered if the grill could be permanently affixed. Mr. Seger responded that he believes they are pretty well affixed. Ms. Herbert asked for clarification on whether work on the trim board, along the top of the building, will be part of this project. Mr. Seger responded that they do not believe they will be completing that work at this time. Ms. Herbert clarified that they will just be seeking approve for the windows at this time. . August 7, 2013, Page 4 of 6 Mr. Seger responded in the affirmative. Given the project's budget, it is unlikely they will be able to update the siding. Ms. Herbert stated that vinyl clad windows are not typically approved in the historical districts. Given the setback of the building,perhaps it could be OK in this situation. Ms. Harper stated that she feels the building is fairly close to the street. Ms. Bellin asked if aluminum clad windows are available. Mr. Seger responded in the affirmative, but he is not sure that the material change will make a difference with how it appears from the street. Ms. Herbert stated that vinyl does not hold paint as well as wood does, and it is typically a lesser quality than a wood window. She asked what type of window is there currently. Mr. White responded that they currently have wood windows. Ms. Bellin asked if the Historical Commission has allowed aluminum clad windows in some cases, but not vinyl. Ms. Herbert responded in the affirmative. Mr. Hart stated that he looks at the proposal from a position of it being a 1970's addition with single pane casement windows. He doesn't believe the Historical Commission should hold the building to the same standards as earlier architecture. He doesn't have any major objections to the proposal but it is a 1970s addition. He does feel as though approval of a vinyl or aluminum clad window would be limited to these specific circumstances. Mr. White stated that maintenance is a major concern. The building is currently utilized as a school building. He has no objection to wood windows per se but would like the Commission to consider that the structure is a 1970s building in need of updating. Ms. Harper stated that she would prefer to see aluminum over vinyl. Ideally, she would like to see what's there replaced in-kind. If the replacement is going to be a simulated divided light window, then she would prefer the aluminum. Ms. Bellin stated that she would be OK with either material, given that the fagade is removed from the street. The new windows will look much better and it is a 1970s addition. She would feel comfortable giving them an option. Mr. Seger stated that they would like the muntins to be 9/16". Marvin makes the 9/16"muntin, Pella doesn't appear to. Ms. Bellin asked if the windows will be white Mr. Seger responded in the affirmative and the trim will be buff. August 7, 2013,Page 5 of 6 Mr. Hart stated that Marvin and Pella both have an aluminum clad windows. Ms. Harper stated that given the style of the addition, she feels that maybe single lite double glaze windows would be more appropriate. Mr. Seger stated that there is not much to the building. Adding the grills gives it more of a cozy feel that relates to the attached building. Mr. Hart respectfully disagrees with Ms. Harper. He has no objection to the 6/6. It seems to fit better with the overall fagade. Ms. Herbert states that without the muntins, the building appears cheapened. If the fagade was being updated and it was going look more modern then the 1/1 would fit. MOTION: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve Marvin windows with 9116"muntins. 616 double hung window. and 6- lite for the awning windows with the option of vinyl or aluminum exterior clad. Ms. Turiel seconded the motion. Mr. Hart stated that the Commission should include language in the motion that this is a special case of a 1970's clapboard building facing the street but removed from the street. VOTE:Ms. Bellin amended her previous motion to include Mr. Hart's comment. Ms. Turiel seconded the motion. Six member were in favor(Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Mr. Hart, Ms. Keenan, Mr. Garner, and Ms. Turiel), one Ms. Harper) was opposed. The motion so carried with a 6-1 vote in favor. Other Business Salem Intermodal Station In accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), dated 11/28/12, executed between the MBTA and the MHC with the City of Salem and Historic Salem Inc. as Concurring parties, the MBTA submitted to the Historical Commission 90% design plans for the Salem Intermodal Station Project. The package also included a Construction Management Plan(CMP), compiled by Consigh, for the Salem Railroad Signal Tower. The Commission was asked to submit any comments on the plans and CMP to the MBTA. Documents &Exhibits ■ Cover letter: 7/24/13 ■ Plans: 7/16/13 ■ Historic Construction Management Plan: 7/17/13 Ms. Lovett stated that she requested further information on the masonry specifications, but has not yet received them. As a result, the commission continued the discussion to the following meeting. August 7, 2013, Page 6 of 6 Letter of Support for the North Shore CDC's MA Historic Preservation Tax Credit Application Ms. Lovett stated that the North Shore Community Development Corporation has requested a letter of support from the Historical Commission in support of their application to the Massachusetts Historical Commission for Massachusetts Historic Preservation Tax Credits. This letter of support is identical to one previously approved by the Commission several months ago. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the letter of support. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of June 26. 2013. Mr. Garner seconded the motion. Five members were in favor(Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Keenan, Mr. Garner, and Ms. Harper), two members (Mr. Hart and Ms. Turiel) abstained from the vote. The motion so carried with a 5-0 vote in, avor. VOTE: There being no further business, Ms. Bellin made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Harper seconded the motion. All were in Favor, and the motion so carried. Respectfully submitted, Natalie BL Lovett Community Development Planner August 21, 2013, Page 1 of S SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES August 21, 2013 A ineeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, August 21, 2013 at 7:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Jessica Herbert (Chair), Laurie Bellin, Joanne McCrea, Larry Spang, and Jane Turiel. Susan Keenan arrived late. 396 Essex Street Jeff Bellin submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to paint the front entrance porch and threshold. They also proposed to paint the steps and entrance porch to unit #2, on the front left of the house. The paint color would be SC-122 Behr Premium Deckover. Jeff Bellin was present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application: ■ Photographs: ■ Paint chip: Ms. Bellin stated that as an owner of the property she would recuse herself and moved to the audience. Mr. Bellin stated that their first reaction for the decking was to go with a light color, but they have since decided that adding another color to the house may not be ideal. They would like to propose a color that closely matches the brick colored trim(SC-106). The paint that they chose is a reparative paint made specifically for decks. Ms. Herbert asked for clarified that the paint color would be only for the decking. Mr. Bellin responded in the affirmative. They will be painting the decking and the threshold for the front entrance and left side entrance for unit#2. Mr. Spang suggest that they speak with the paint maker and see if they can color match the paint to the trim color. Ms. Bellin asked if they could have the option for either the SC-106 or color match, in case Home Depot is not able to match the color exactly. Mr. Bcllin stated that the risers will remain the current green color. There was no public comment. VOTE: Ms. Turiel made a motion to a rove the i2aint color of Behr Premium Deckover SC- 106 or tinted to match the trim color. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in avor, and the motion so carried. Ms. Bellin returned to the table and joined the Commission. August 21, 2013, Page 2 of 8 354 Essex Street Herbert and Leanne Schild submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors. The body, trim and columns of the house would remain the existing color. The door will be painted Benjamin Moore Black. Herbert and Leanne Schild were present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application: ■ Photographs: Ms. Schild stated that last week Mary Whitney presented the same paint scheme for the other side of their house. They like the color choice and painting their door would make the house look more united. Ms. Herbert asked if the sidelights would also be painted. Mr. Schild responded in the affirmative. They would like to paint the transom and sidelights. There was no public comment. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the paint color Benjamin Moore Black for the door, transom, and sidelights. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. 55 Warren Street Richard Jones and Naomi Cottrell submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness remove the existing white aluminum siding and expose the original 8" exposure wood clapboard. Removal of the siding would be to both facilitate energy efficiency improvements as well as to restore the house to its original finish material. Pending budgetary constraints they would paint the house in the fall or next summer. Once the condition and character of the existing wood clapboard is seen, they plan to study historic paint color options and return to the SHC for a Certificate of Appropriateness to paint the house in a particular palette, consistent with the time period of the original house. Richard Jones was present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application: 8/6/2013 ■ Site Plan: 8/5/2013 ■ Photographs: 8/5/2013 Mr. Spang asked if they pulled off any of the aluminum in order to see the wood siding. Mr. Jones responded in the affirmative. There is a picture included in the application that shows the 8" exposure wood clapboard. Mr. Spang stated that if they pull off all of the wood siding in order to blow in insulation, they may have trouble getting it back on. August 21, 2013, Page 3 of 8 Mr. Jones responded that they will only be removing one line of wood. They will blow in the insulation through that one area. Mr. Spang stated that the Commission may be able to add to the approval the ability to repair the wood clapboard in-kind in case an issue is encountered during the insulating process. He asked what kind of insulation would be used. Mr. Jones responded that they would be using open cell insulation, not high density. There was no public comment. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to a rove the removal of the aluminum siding as well as anv in-kind re air work to clapboards. Ms. Turiel seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. 217-219 Washington Street/231-251 Washing ton Street/ 7 Dodge Street Dodge Area, LLC submitted an application for Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance to demolish structures on three (3)properties. The demolition is in anticipation of constructing a new mixed-use multi-story building at the site. The plans for the new developments are currently in the conceptual stage. 217-219 Washington Street: This building was originally constructed around 1940 and is currently used as commercial space. 231-251 Washington Street: This building was originally construction around 1950 and is currently used as commercial space. 7 Dodge Street: This building was originally constructed around 1920 with additions being built at a later date. The building is in disrepair and is not designed to accommodate the demands of a restaurant, as it was once used. The site is expected to be used as temporary parking and staging for the adjacent construction. Matthew Picarsic and Seth Zeren were present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application: 8/2/2013 ■ Photographs: 8/2/2013 Mr. Picarsic stated that they are requesting waiver of the demolition ordinance for buildings at three adjacent sites. Each of the buildings are one-story. The plans are to build a new mixed use structure specifically at the 217-219 Washington Street Structure. They have presented the demolition to the SRA, and expect to be at the DRB and Planning Board in the coming months. They may begin selective demolition before the construction of the new buildings if they are granted the waiver. City Council recently voted to allow disposition of the adjacent parking lot owned by the City. The new construction will include a hotel with apartments as well as retail space. The grade changes substantially from Dodge to Washington Street. As a result, there will be three entrances to the site, from three different elevations. August 21, 2013, Page 4 of 8 Ms. Bellin asked for the anticipated use of 7 Dodge Street. Mr. Picarsic stated that they plan to build a new building in the future. For the immediate future the site will be used for construction parking and staging. They initially investigated renovating the building, but it would cost more than$600,000 in order to make the building occupiable as a restaurant. They will submit a plan of a design for the site to the SRA prior to building. Mr. Picarsic added that the footprint of the building at 217-251 Washington Street is shown on the plan. There are several entrances to the site, at different levels. Two will be underneath the structure and one will be to an open area. While the entrances are at different levels, they are all are at grade. Mr. Spang asked if the parking will be private. Mr. Picarsic stated that as part of the disposition agreement with the City for the parking lot, they are required to relocate the parking facility. They are required to maintain 38 publicly available parking spaces, though it may be a pay parking at the hotel. The parking lot will contain different tiers of parking. Ms. Herber asked if there will be signage for the public parking. Mr. Picarsic responded that the Planning Board will have the most input on the parking signage. There will be some spaces along the south side of the building that are visible from the street. There will likely be a blue parking signs. The parking off of Dodge Street Court will likely be the dedicate parking spaces for the apartment/condo complex. Mr. Spang asked if all of the buildings are being built at the same time. Mr. Picarsic responded that it what is anticipated. There may be some slight phasing but each of the buildings are interconnected. Mr. Spang asked if it is possible for construction to begin on one building and then the second building not completed. Mr. Picarsic responded that they have a vested interest in completing the project because they own a large number of properties in the area. They fully plan to complete the entire project. Mr. Spang asked if a Phase 1 Environmental Review was complete on the site. Mr. Picarsic responded that they have completed both Phase 1 and Phase 2. Mr. Spang asked if once the building at 7 Dodge Street is demolished, will there be an environmental clean-up. Mr. Picarsic responded that they could leave the site as it, but they may remove some contaminates. August 21, 2013, Page 5 of 8 Mr. Spang asked how they would deal with the basements after demolition. Mr. Picarsic responded that they will be leveling the site to the Dodge Street elevation. Demolition will be part of the excavation of the site. The basements will be coming out. The basement grade will be close to their finish grade. Mr. Spang asked for the schedule for demolition. Mr. Picarsic responded that they are not planning to demolish the Washington Street properties until they are ready to move ahead with construction. They have existing tenants in the Washington Street buildings. The construction project is anticipated to begin in Spring 2014. Mr. Spang asked if they are anticipating a 1 1/2 - 2 years of construction. Mr. Picarsic replied that the estimate of 2 years would be conservative. The Washington Street structure may be completed in 201X. They do not anticipate starting construction on the Dodge Street property until 2016. As they stated earlier, the Dodge Street property will be demolished early though for parking and staging. Mr. Spang asked if Dodge Street Court will remain open during construction. Mr. Picarsic responded in the affirmative. Mr. Spang asked if there is a risk with the buildings being demolished and the sites being left vacant. Mr. Picarsic reinforced that his company has a vested interested in redeveloping the sites. Ms. Herbert stated that as part of the Waiver for a Demolition Delay, the Commission requires that the owner document the exterior and interior of the building utilizing photographs and measured drawings. She states that Ms. Lovett can forward the exact requirements. The public commenting period is opened. Mr. Bellin, Essex Street, asked if the piano place on Dodge Street Court will have access along that road during construction. Mr. Picarsic stated that they expect Dodge Street Court to remain open for all of the businesses that use that street. The public commenting period was closed. VOTE: Ms. Turiel made a motion to approve the Waiver ofDemolition Delay or 7 Dodge Street. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. VOTE: Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve the Waiver of Demolition Delay for 217-219 Washington Street and 231-251 Washington Street. Ms_. Turiel seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. August 21, 2013, Page 6 of 8 Other Business Review and Comment on 90%Design Plans for the Salem Intermodal Station In accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), dated 11/28/12, executed between the MBTA and the MHC with the City of Salem and Historic Salem Inc as Concurring parties, the MBTA submitted to the Historical Commission 90% design plans for the Salem Intermodal Station Project. The package also included a Historic Construction Management Plan(CMP), compiled by Consigli, for the Salem Railroad Signal Tower. The Commission was asked to submit any comments on the Plans and CMP to the MBTA. Documents &Exhibits ■ Cover letter: 7/24/13 ■ Plans: 7/16/13 ■ Historic Construction Management Plan: 7/17/13 Ms. Lovett stated that she emailed the Commission members the masonry specifications that had been request. Mr. Hart, who was unable to attend tonight's meeting, submitted the following comments by email: - The specifier may want to consider working from the bottom to the top, to prevent possible streaking that might result from working from the top to the bottom of each scaffold width in section 3.6 Cleaning Masonry, General, A. This is specified in Section 361. - 3.10 Final Cleaning. The specifier may want to consider cleaning with ProSoCo's SureKlean 600 to expose the aggregate of the repointed areas. Ms. Lovett stated that the Commission also received a copy of the comments from Brona Simon, Massachusetts Historical Commission. MHC had no comments on the 90% design or the CMP. MHC wrote that they look forward to receipt of additional mitigation measures, including the Request for Proposal for the reuse of the Signal Tower, among others. Ms. Herbert stated that Mr. Harts comments on the masonry specifications are valid. The Commission should include those comments in the letter to the MBTA. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to submit a letter to the MBTA incorvorating7 the comments raised bi-,Mr. Hart. Ms. Turiel seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. Letter of support for Strega Realty Trust to apply for MA Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credits Ms. Lovett stated that the Commission received a request for a letter of support for Strega Realty Trust's for an application for MA Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credits. The tax credits are being sought for work that was completed on 92-96 Lafayette Street, currently the location of the Red Lulu Restaurant. The building, previously the Boston Beauty Supply warehouse, was converted into a new, upscale restaurant and lounge with upgrades to the entire building to State and local fire codes. The structure of the lower fagade was removed and set back nine feet from the front fagade to accommodate handicap access to the new elevator entrance, which services all floors of August 21, 2013, Page 7 of 8 the building. A small exterior patio was added street-side. A new storefront fagade for the street level was designed giving careful consideration to the original fayade and to the Neo Classical style of the building. The existing main cornice banding was repaired and black wrought iron fence and gates were added. Additional work was completed in 2003 and 2006 to remove the dropped ceilings, restore the horse hair plaster, install an HVAC system, renovate the restrooms, and install an elevator and handicap access. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to au)rove the letter of suMort. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. Correspondence Ms. Lovett stated that the Historical Commission received a copy of the Initial Petition of Footprint Salem Harbor Development LP for a Certificate of Environmental Impact and Public Interest from the Energy Facilities Siting Board. The certificate would enable Footprint to continue with the development of the Salem Power Plant site despite an appeal of the Zoning Board Decision from July 11, 2013. The appeal would delay construction of the new plant and impede their ability to be operational in time to meet the demonstrated need for capacity in the NEMA/Boston load zoning in June 2016. Ms. Herbert asked Ms. Lovett to brief the Commission on the Juvenile and Probate Court Reuse Meeting held on August 20t1' Ms. Lovett stated that DCAM presented their 30% Schematic Design for reusing the Junenile and Probate Court. The design includes extension restoration of the interior spaces as well as demolition and reconstruction of the rear addition along Bridge Street. Design options for the new rear addition are currently being considered. The timeline for the project is to release the construction bid in May 2014 with construction beginning in the Fall 2014. They expect a 30 month construction and a move in date in 2017. Ms. McCrea added that the heating of the buildings is a key issue. Currently, the Probate Court's heating system is linked with the Superior Court. This connection will be severed before this winter. A new heating system will be installed in the Superior Court. Senator Lovely and Representative Keenan are moving legislation forward that will turn the Superior Court over to the Salem Redevelopment Authority eliminating the need for a new heating system for that building. Ms. McCrea stated that DCAM didn't discuss restoration of the lamps on the front of the building. She wonders if they have plans for preserving them. VOTE: There beinz no,further business Ms. B_ ellin made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Mccrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. Respectfully submitted, August 21, 2013, Page 8 of 8 710"*Lk�— Natalie BL Lovett Community Development Planner September 18, 2013, Page 1 of 5 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES September 18, 2013 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, September 18, 2013 at 7:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Jessica Herbert (Chair), Kathy Harper (Vice Chair), Susan Keenan, and Larry Spang. 33 Carlton Street Wendy Walsh submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove and reconstruct the wooden door surround. The existing wooden surround has begun to fall down and a section of it was removed for safety reasons. The existing surround does not comply with the Certificate of Appropriateness that was issued according to the violation letter from 1987. The applicants would like to the proposed surround to be more historically appropriate. Wendy Walsh was present. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application: 8/8/13 ■ Photographs: 8/8/13 Ms. Walsh stated that they are unsure whether the drawings included in the Commission file were part of the violation letter or from the subsequent meeting on the door surround. Priscilla, who had been part of the 1987 application process, is still living in the building. Ms. Harper stated that there was a photograph of another building in the Commission files that shows a historical picture of the 33 Carlton Street building. Ms. Walsh stated that Priscilla said that a property on Flint Street was used as a comparison property when installing the pediment. They walked down Flint Street however, and could not find a door surround that was comparable. She brought to the meeting pictures of doorways at Washington Square North and March Street (which were also noted in the drawings from the file). According to Priscilla, there wasn't a door surround present in 1987,but there is evidence of a door surround being there in decades before. Ms. Herbert asked if the applicant would be open to rounded columns. Ms. Walsh responded that they would be open to that, but she is not sure what was originally intended. She is wondering what the Commission would want to see with regards to a new door surround design. Ms. Herbert stated that the wood covering over the brick would have to be incorporated into the design of the building. Mr. Spang asked if there were historic pictures of the building. Ms. Walsh stated that she is not aware of any. September 18, 2013, Page 2 of S Ms. Lovett left the room to pull the file inventory form for 33 Carlton Street. When she returned she stated that she was unable to find the inventory form in the file. Ms. Walsh wondered if there may be any structural items behind the surround Mr. Spang responded that there are probably not. Ms. Harper stated that if the door surround is rebuild, the visible pieces need to be wood. Wood hidden behind/underneath could be pressure treated wood. The door surround that was there is very skimpy, it doesn't have the depth and substance that it should. Ms. Herbert stated that the point of the pediment is too low and takes away from the curvature of the window. Mr. Spang added that they might check the Essex Library to see if there are any historic pictures of the building. He wonders if there was ever a pediment to begin with. The location of the brownstone belt course would be cut off by a pediment. It may have just been a masonry opening with finished brick underneath. Ms. Herbert asked if the brick underneath looks the same. Ms. Walsh responded that she it appears to be the same. There are a few things sticking out that were supporting the surround. Ms. Keenan agrees that the door surround may not have been there originally. Ms. Harper asked if the original use of the building is known. Ms. Walsh responded that the historic placard states that the building was built for Moses Townsend. She does not believe that it was built originally for a factory but it appears to have become a factory soon after being constructed. Mr. Spang stated that the surrounding structures have simple, utilitarian architecture. That area wasn't built in the high style that is seen in the McIntire District. Ms. Herbert agrees. She believes that the brownstone with the curved window would have been the decorative feature. There is also another brownstone belt course on the second story. Ms. Keenan stated that a new doorknob would be nice. Ms. Walsh stated that she will take both options back to the owners: to replace the door surround or leave it as is. They may prefer to rebuild the door surround for shelter from weather. Ms. Herbert stated that consideration should be given to where the pediment would cross the brick course. There was no public comment. September 18, 2013, Page 3 of 5 Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission should decide whether there should be nothing around the door and then if Ms. Walsh finds an sample that shows how a new door surround would look she would bring that back in for review. The commission could approve the surround removal for now. Mr. Spang suggested that the applicant look for similar buildings in Marblehead. Ms. Herbert added that they should get an address of any properties brought in as an example. She suggested that Ms. Walsh also look at homes on Chestnut Street. The Commission will consider a new door surround as a separate, new application. VOTE: Ms. Harper made a motion to approve the permanent removal of the wood framin-Z around the door. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. Ms. Herbert stated that a flat roof over the door way coming down, held up with a few brackets, might be a possibility. She has seen those on some historic factory buildings. She asked if there is paint on the brick that will need to be cleaned. Ms. Walsh responded that she is unsure. She didn't take a close look at brick because they assumed that they would be installing a new door surround. Ms. Herbert stated that before any cleaning of the brick begins, the applicant should contact Ms. Lovett for information on brick cleaning solutions. Ms. Walsh responded that she doesn't recall there being a lot of paint, but she noticed things sticking out from the brick that had been supporting the door surround. Ms. Herbert added that if there are any nails that need to be taken out, that Ms. Lovett can send the recipe for the mortar mix so that the mortar matches. 95 Federal Street William Aydelott submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove the picket fence bordering the property at 103 Federal Street. The previous fence fell apart and was replaced in 2009. The fence continues to sustain regular damage from snow accumulation in the winter and has recently been damaged by construction vehicles at 103 Federal Street. The contractor has proposed repairing or removing the fence. While outside of the jurisdiction of the SHC, there are a number of attractive mature plantings along the border that provide ample "separation" from the neighboring property. William Aydelott, Janet &Robert Kendall, and Tenai Conine were present. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application: 8/12/13 ■ Photographs: 8/12/13 Ms. Herbert asked if the contractor for 103 Federal Street has agreed to remove the fence. September 18, 2013, Page 4 of 5 Mr. Aydelott responded in the affirmative. Originally, the contractor was going to fix the fence. However, there have been ongoing problems with the fence even since the previous owner, Jennifer Pickman, lived there. They have been investing in their landscaping and no longer feel as though the fence is necessary. Ms. Herbert stated that when she lived in that house, she also had problems with maintaining the fence. She suggested that cobblestone along the property line could be considered as an option in the future. Mr. Aydelott responded that they are thinking of installing additional flowering bushes. There was no public comment. VOTE: Mr. Span made a motion to approve the ap plication, as submitted. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. Section 106 Review—27 Charter Street—Proposed telecommunications facility installation Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, EBI Consulting submitted project plans for a proposed telecommunications facility installation at 27 Charter Street. In a letter dated July 3, 2013, the SHC requested additional information on the project, specifically renderings of the visual effect of the proposed antenna installation from various public ways. EDI Consulting submitted the requested information to SHC on August 22, 2013 and has requested any additional comments. Documents &Exhibits ■ Letter: 8/22/13 ■ Renderings: 8/10/13 Ms. Herbert questioned whether the vertical antennae off of the roof could be limited. Ms. Harper agreed that the antennae along the building are preferable. Mr. Spang asked what the role of the Commission is in this review. Ms. Lovett stated that the Commission is reviewing this application as part of a Section 106 review. The Commission should be commenting on the impact of the project on the historical resources in the area. Mr. Spang stated that it looks as though they misread the previous letter from the Commission. They thought the Commission was requesting renderings of the antennae against the skyline. Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission should write a response letter that clarifies the previous letter and states that the proposed conditions photo location 91 is the preferred with the antennae against the building. VOTE: Ms. Harper made a motion to submit a letter of clarification. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion. All were in favor. and the motion so carried. September 18, 2013, Page 5 of 5 Other Business Correspondence Ms. Lovett stated that she received a letter confirming the reappointment of Ms. Keenan as a member of the Historical Commission. Her 3-year term will expire on 3/1/2016. VOTE: There being no further business, Ms. Harper made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. Respectfully submitted, Natalie BL Lovett Community Development Planner October 2, 2013, Page 1 of 4 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES October 2, 2013 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, October 2, 2013 at 7:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Jessica Herbert (Chair), Kathy Harper (Vice Chair), Laurie Bellin, David Hart, Joanne McCrea, and Jane Turiel. 55 Warren Street Richard Jones and Naomi Cottrell submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for exterior paint colors. A Certificate of Appropriateness was recently granted to remove the existing aluminum siding from the house. The application before the Commission now is to repaint the existing wood siding. The proposed colors are: Body: California Paint Organic White A-13 Trim: California Paint Sugar Sugar DEW380 Naomi Cottrell was present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application: 9/16/13 ■ Photographs: 9/16/13 ■ Paint chips Ms. Cottrell stated that when they tools the aluminum siding off they could see that the house was originally white. She stated that they researched other houses of the same style and they are usually white on white. They wanted enough difference between the body and trim to make the trim pop. That is why the body color is a little darker. There was no public comment. VOTE: Ms Bellin made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Turiel seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. Salem Probate and Family Court Renovation/Addition- 30% Design Review As an interested party listed in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between DCAM and MHC, the Salem Historical Commission has the opportunity to comment on the 30% design plan for the Salem Probate and Family Court renovation/addition project. Documents &Exhibits ■ Site plans:8/30/13 ■ Exterior Elevations:8/3 0/13 ■ Restoration elevations:8/30/13 ■ Elevation explorations for the new rear addition:8/20/13 October 2, 2013, Page 2 of 4 Ms. Bellin stated that at the last HSI preservation meeting they discussed the 30%plans. There are five variations of the new rear addition. The elevations show different window configurations. Next to the existing rear of the courthouse, some of the options may be too busy. Ms. Herbert asked if there was any information in the plans that show how far the addition will proj ect. Ms. McCrea asked if Emily Udy discussed preservation of the front lamp posts at the HSI meeting. After the previous DCAM meeting, she noticed that DOER hadn't discussed restoration of the lamps along Federal Street. Mr. Hart stated he previously completed did a 3 dimensional graphic of the Courthouse complex. He would be happy to give the SketchUp file to DOER's architect if they found it useful. The elevations don't give the complete picture as to what the additional will look like from different spots. He will send the file to Ms. Lovett. Ms. Bellin stated that she was confused by what DMAC has provided. The drawings of the front of the building don't show much or any change. Ms. McCrea stated that they don't show the ramp refiguration in the plans. Ms. Herbert asked if there is a reason the rear addition is being rebuilt. Ms. Lovett responded that at the meeting DCAM, they stated that rehabilitation of the addition was cost prohibitive as compared to building a new addition. Ms. Herbert stated that there should be a drawing showing the existing addition with an overlay of the new addition. In addition, she would like to know what purpose the bump out will have. It doesn't relate well to the original building. Mr. Hart added that future submission of the elevations should include a date. Ms. Bellin stated that she preferred the rear addition option where the two garage doors are not located underneath the bumpout. Mr. Hart stated that there is no identification of the mechanical systems. They should be shown as they will be with exact sizes, and include generators, venting, and any projections off the building. Ms. Bellin stated that any other changes to the original building, besides the addition and the ramps, should be identified. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve submittal ova comment letter to DOER with the details as numerated and to be reviewed by Ms. Herbert. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. Other Business October 2, 2013, Page 3 of 4 Approval of Minutes VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approval the minutes from 7117113. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert Ms. Bellin Ms. McCrea and Ms. Turiel were in lavor. Ms. Haw er and Mr. Hart abstained and the motion so carried. VOTE: Ms. Turiel made a motion to approval the minutes rom 817113. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert Ms. Hamer, Ms. Bellin Mr. Hart, and Ms. Turiel were in avor. Ms. McCrea abstained, and the motion so carried. VOTE: Ms. Turiel made a motion to a roval the minutes from 8121113. Ms. Mccrea seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert. Ms. Bellin Ms. McCrea, and Ms. Turiel were in favow. Ms. Har er and Mr. Hart abstained and the motion so carried. Correspondence Mr. Hart stated that he would like to discuss the Common Arch. There was a group formed that would like to restore the Common Arch. In March, he presented a history of the Common to the Salem Common Neighborhood Association. Samuel McIntire had designed 2 or 4 of the original arches in 1805. The arches eventually deteriorated and were torn down. Pieces of the arches are held by the Peabody Essex Museum. In 1976, a Salem resident built a replica of the arch. It now sits at the north side of the Common but was originally located near the Hawthorne Hotel. Marc Meche, from Winter Street Architects,has been volunteering his time to work with the Salem Common Neighborhood Association and complete a study of the Arch, including preservation recommendations. Mr. Hart suggested that the SCNA come to a future Commission meeting to discuss preservation of the arch even though in-kind repair or replacement of the arch would be through a Certificate of Non-Applicability. Ms. Bellin asked if a new full scale arch would be feasible. Mr. Hart stated that a full scale replica would be in the six figures. Ms. Herbert suggested that the Commission also invite other interested parties to the meeting, including Councillor Sosnowski. Ms. Bellin added that HSI should be included on the invitation. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion for the Commission to draft a letter inviting the Salem Common Nei hborhood Association and all interested artier to a future Commission meetin . Ms. Turiel seconded the motion All were in favor, and the motion so carried. Ms. Herbert discussed the $5,000 research set-aside included in the Memorandum of Agreement for the St. Joseph's redevelopment project. She stated that now that the Arch Dieses is filling the apartments, she wants to make sure that they have not forgotten about the research stipulation. October 2, 2013, Page 4 of 4 Mr. Hart stated that Leslie Donovan has completed a history of the St. Joseph's site. The $5000 ` could help to round out that research. Ms. Herbert stated that in the MOA it was specified that SHC and HSI would select a historian to complete the history. Ms. Bellin added that if the history has been completed already, perhaps they could use the money to create a plaque. Ms. Herbert agreed adding that there could also be pictures made to display in the community room. Ms. Bellin added that there could also be something more visible on the outside of the building. Ms. Herbert stated that they key issue is that they need to nail down is who will be the decision maker and who will decide what the plaque would look like. Ms. Bellin stated that there is also a relationship with the town in Canada where a lot of the immigrants came from. That could be included in the history. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion for the SHC to draft a letter to the POUA requesting information on the status of the $5.000 St. Joseph's research stipulation. Ms. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. Ms. McCrea stated that she recently noticed a boarded up crescent window at the Old Town Hall. She was told that Gordon College had hoped to repair the window using grant funds,but he grant was not received. Ms. Lovett stated that she would get an update on the windows and why they were boarded. 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 submitted, ljcut����ti�b Natalie BL Lovett Community Development Planner r October 16, 2013, Page 1 of 6 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES October 16, 2013 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, October 16, 2013 at 7:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Jessica Herbert (Chair),Kathy Harper (Vice Chair), Laurie Bellin, Chad Garner, David Hart, and Susan Keenan. Joanne McCrea arrived late. 13 Beckford Street Michael and Karen Williamson submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for approval of exterior paint colors. The proposed colors are: Body- BM Woodstock Tan (HC-20) Trim- BM Crownsville Gray(HC-106) Accent- BM Hadley Red (HC- 65) Michael and Karen Williamson were present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application: 9/23/13 ■ Photographs ■ Paint chips ■ Rendering Ms. Herbert stated that she liked the color scheme but had a suggestion for the accent color use. The surround above the outer 2nd floor windows shouldn't be painted with the accent color unless that color is also picked up in the pediments below on the first floor. It would be typical to choose just one architectural detail to paint with the accent color. For example, the storm windows may have the accent color. Mr. Williamson clarified that it would be appropriate to paint the top curved area with the trim color. Ms. Herbert responded in the affirmative. She continued that you if you only painted the area below the pediments, the house would have a polkadot look. New England painted ladies were historically more toned down than the San Francisco painted ladies. You want to highlight like areas. Mr. Hart agreed with Ms. Herbert's comments. One option would be to paint the hoods in the same colors. Ms. Herbert asked if they planned to paint the fence the trim color. Mr. Williamson responded in the affirmative. There was no public comment. October 16, 2013, Page 2 of 6 MOTION: Ms. Bellin made a motion to accept colors as submitted. Mr. Hart seconded the motion. Mr. Hart stated that he would amend the motion to state that the Owner will treat the window hoods in the same fashion. Ms. Herbert stated that they could paint the shadow area around the hoods, but no the trim around the windows or the rosettes. Alternatively, the accent color could be used on all of the architectural details: pediments, trim around the windows and rosettes. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to a accept the amendment. Mr. Hart seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. 372 Essex Street Nancy Tracy, on behalf of the Trustees of the Salem Public Library, submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to paint the recently replaced wooden perimeter fence. The proposed color for the fence is Martha Stewart Living Avocado Peel (MSL 140). Nancy Tracy was present. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application: 9/26/13 ■ Photographs ■ Paint chip Ms. Herbert stated that she likes the color selection. Mr. Hart asked if the iron fence is painted black. Ms. Tracy responded in the affirmative There was no public comment. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to accept the application as presented. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. 33 Carlton Street Wendy Walsh submitted an application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability to repair the brick around the doorway. The brick was recently revealed after removing the wooden door surround. The repair work will entail repointing,brick replacement, and brick cleaning. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application: ■ Photographs: Ms. Herbert stated that the applicant was unable to attend the meeting and requested a continuance. October 16, 2013,Page 3 of 6 VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to the next meeting. Ms. Kennan seconded the motion. All were in,favor, and the motion so carried. 173 Federal Street Gianna Della Monica submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to add four (4) peaked cap pediments above the 1"floor windows. The size of the pediments is 67 %"W x 72" OW x 24 %"H x 3 1/8"P. The pitch is 6/12. The pediments will be made out of pine and would be painted to match the existing trim color. Gianna Della Monica was present. William Brooking. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application: 9/25/13 ■ Photographs ■ Pediment Specification Ms. Herbert asked what year the house was built. Ms. Della Monica responded that she believes the house was built in 1850. Ms. Herbert asked when the entryway was added. Ms. Della Monica responded that she was unsure of the date for the entryway. It was built before they bought the house. Mr. Brooking added that there is plaster on the inside on the entryway indicating that it has been there for many years. Mr. Hart stated that the application shows 67"wide pediment. Ms. Della Monica responded that the dimensions of the pediment are not correct, but the shape and pitch will be the same. Ms. Mccrea arrived at this time. Ms. Herbert stated that it is difficult to tell if the vestibule was added to the house or is original. One of the problems with recreating the historic feel of a house is you almost need to take the house down to the bones to see what was original. When so many changes have been made it is difficult to know what is appropriate. Ms. Della Monica stated that other houses on the street have the pediments and they look nice. Ms. Herbert responded that the pediments are nice, but there are also different kinds of pediments. Some are part of the molding, while some project forward. One thing about this house is that the architecture is plainer. It doesn't currently have corner boards or water tables, which some of the other houses have. October 16, 2013, Page 4 of 6 Mr. Brooking stated that there are corner boards underneath the siding. He noticed them when they were insulating the house. Ms. Herbert stated that it would be ideal to restore the house to its original historic look by removing the shingles and restoring the corner boards and water table if there was one. Then they could investigate adding additional details to the house. Mr. Hart stated that on the survey form the house is dated as 1803. He believes that the house would have had corner boards and a water table. Also, the relationship of the window head to the eve is close. He feels the addition of pediments deserves a little more study to see what is stylistically appropriate, though. Ms. Herbert adds that the pediments are more typical of Greek Revivial (1850). If the house was built in 1800, it likely would not have had the pediments and may not have had the portico. It would have been a very plain building. The public commenting period was opened. Ken Wallis, 172 Federal Street, asked how they would water proof the house if they added the pediments. If the flashing is not done correctly, water may infiltrate and the paint could start peeling. He doesn't want to see the house deteriorate. Dan Beauvais stated that on 1800s homes that he has worked on, he has not typically seen pediments over the windows. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to continue the application in order to allow time for the applicant to prepare an architectural drawing to scale showing-the existin jQ elevation an elevation with the pediments added, and to address the concern raised b •the public for ashing- over the window. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor. and the motion so carried. 38 Flint Street Sheri Rosenzweig submitted two applications for Certificates of Appropriateness to replace basement windows and rebuilt two entryway steps and landings. Basement window replacement Five (5)basement windows will be replaced. The proposed window is a Harvey vinyl hopper window. The window is 16.5"x 29.25" and will be white. New brick entryways The existing steps and landings will be demolished. The new steps will be constructed out of brick and the landing and treads will be granite. The existing railings will be reused, if possible. The brick type will be "Glen Gary." Sheri Rosenzweig and Dan Beauvais, of Beauvais Builders, were present. Documents &Exhibits 0 Application: October 16, 2013, Page 5 of 6 ■ Photographs: Mr. Beauvais stated that they considered repairing the existing brick but that type of brick is no longer available. Ms. Herbert stated that the railings appear salvageable. Mr. Beauvais responded that they plan to reuse the railings. He showed the Commission a picture of what the bricks will look like. The flaming of the bricks create a scallop look along the front. Mr. Hart asked if the risers will be brick. Mr. Beauvais responded in the affirmative. He added that the steps will be freestanding from the house. Mr. Beauvais stated that the basement windows are not visible from the street. They are currently hidden by a bush. The appearance will be nearly identical. The current windows are inoperable. They are proposing vinyl windows because the windows are set in concrete. The only other option would be pressure treated wood. There was no public comment. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to accept the application as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. Community Preservation Committee Guidelines The Community Preservation Committee (CPC) is requesting input from various City boards and commissions regarding the development of a CPA Plan. It is requested that the Commission develop a consensus on a list of survey questions and submit its comments to Jane Guy, in the Department of Planning and Community Development,by noon on Friday, November 22"d. Documents & Exhibits ■ Overview and Implementation Guide • CPA sample success stories across Massachusetts, • Examples of evaluation criteria from other communities ■ Survey questions • Taxpayer Information Guide. Ms. Herbert suggested that the Commission members review the information included in the packet and come to the next meeting with their thoughts and suggestions. VOTE: Mr. Garner made a motion to continue the discussion to the next meetin . Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. Other Business October 16, 2013, Page 6 of 6 Approval of Minutes VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes rom 6126113. Ms. Mccrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. Mr. Hart abstained from the vote. Correspondence Ms. Lovett stated that the SHC was included on a mailing of the Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development LP's Application for a Certificate of Environmental Impact and Public Interest. The application is being filed by Footprint with the Energy Facilities Siting Board on October 11, 2013. No action is required by the SHC regarding the application unless the SHC wishes to intervene in the Siting Board proceeding. Ms. Lovett stated that she asked Andrew Shapiro, the City's Economic Development Planner, about the boarded up palladium window at Old Town Hall. Mr. Shapiro was recently hired, but looked into the Old Town Hall files. Gordon College had recently applied for a Cultural Facilities grant,but did not receive the grant because it was found to not be a qualified applicant. Thomas Daniel, the previous Economic Development Manager, had left a note stating that the window should be included in the FYI Capital Improvement Project budget, however that did not happen. VOTE: There being no further business, Ms. Bellin made a motion to adiourn. Ms. Mccrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. Respectfully submitted, Natalie BL Lovett Community Development Planner November 6, 2013, Page 1 of 7 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES November 6, 2013 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday November 6, 2013 at 7:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Jessica Herbert (Chair), Kathy Harper(Vice Chair), Laurie Bellin, Chad Garner, David Hart, Susan Keenan, Joanne McCrea and Natalie Lovett. 33 Carlton Street Wendy Walsh submitted an application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability to repair the brick around the doorway. The brick was recently revealed after removing the wooden door surround. The repair work will entail repointing, brick replacement, and brick cleaning. Wendy Walsh was present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application: ■ Photographs: Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission requested that the applicant come to a meeting for the Certificate of Non-Applicability because the removal of the door surround had been approved as a Certificate of Appropriateness and the Commission was not aware of how much damage was underneath the surround. Ms. Walsh responded that the Condo Association was happy to have input from the Commission regarding how the brick should be repaired. Ms. Herbert stated that it appeared that someone had done additional work to the brick after the surround was removed but before a Certificate of Non-Applicability was issued. Ms. Walsh responded that she is not aware anyone working on the brick. If there was any incorrectly done, she would like to know so that it can be corrected and she can notify the Association of the importance of getting Commission approval before completing any work on the exterior of the building. She asked what repairs they would be required to implement immediately. She stated that they need to prioritize the work because there is also a portion of the roof that needs to be replaced. Ms. Herbert stated that they are only required to repair the area around where the surround was removed but in the future should get an estimate of repairing the whole face of the building. The main concern is not just aesthetics but also the preservation of the building. If any water gets in there in the winter and freezes if will cause more damage. She recommended that the applicant get an estimate for repointing the entire front of the building and consider that work for the near future. Mr. Hart stated that the building was probably originally pointed with a white mortar, but now there are a variety of different mortars. It would be costly to repoint the entire building. The original mortar is soft and was probably made out of just lime and sand. Today,there is some November 6, 2013, Page 2 of 7 cement mixed into mortar. A soft mortar mix should be used (3-1-1). They will need to cut it a little with gray cement. Otherwise, there will be a stark difference between the mortar colors. Ms. Herbert wondered if a full cleaning of the fagade would reduce the color difference between the different mortars. Mr. Hart responded that a full cleaning would be expensive. Ms. Herbert asked whether the graying of the brick above the doorway may be from soot. Mr. Hart responded that a chemical cleaner could be used around the doorway, if necessary. Ms. Walsh stated that she is concerned the doorway may never be completed restored to its original condition. She asked if there were any additional documents or information she should submit to the Commission before commencing the work. Mr. Hart responded that the repair will not look perfect. He suggested that the mason create a plan for the work. This plan could be sent to the Commission and review by the Chair. He stated that he did not think the.work could be completed before the winter and suggested that the applicant wait until the Spring. They should speak with a mason to see if he/she has any recommendation for how to protect the doorway during the winter. Perhaps a cloth or tarp could be draped over the doorway. Ms. Herbert added that the mason should do a test area before moving forward with a full repair. Additionally, if the mason recommends temporary filling of any of the larger holes for the winter, that would be acceptable. VOTE: Ms. McCrea made a motion to approval of the application. Mr. Garner seconded the motion. All were in favor,and the motion so carried. 173 Federal Street Gianna Della Monica submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to add four (4) peaked cap pediments above the lst floor windows. The size of the pediments is 671/z" W x 72" OW x 241/z" H x 3 1/8" P. The pitch is 6/12. The pediments will be made out of pine and would be painted to match the existing trim color. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application: 9/25/13 ■ Photographs ■ Pediment Specification Ms. Lovett stated that Ms. Della Monica has requested by email that the application be continued. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to continue the application to next meeting, Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. November 6, 2013,Page 3 of 7 7 Hamilton Street Sean O'Neil submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the short gutter over the front entrance with a standard white gutter the full width of the house. There would also be downspouts on each end of the house. Sean O'Neil was present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application: 10/15/13 ■ Photographs Ms. Herbert asked if the downspouts would be located along the extreme corners. Ms. O'Neil responded in the affirmative. The gutters will follow along the white molding on the side of the house. Ms. Herbert asked if there are downspouts located on the house now. Ms. O'Neil responded in the affirmative. However, the downspouts are currently located in the middle of the house. The new gutter will pitch the water towards the sides of the house. Ms. Herbert asked if the profile of the gutters will be be Ogee style with fluted rectangle downspouts. Ms. O'Neil responded in the affirmative. Mr. Hart stated that he would like to know the size of the gutter. He is concerned that the new gutter could obscure the decorative dentil detail along the roof line. The existing gutter allows the detail to show. He recommended that the new gutter be the same size as the existing gutter. Ms. O'Neil responded that she is unsure of the exact size of the gutter, but it is the standard gutter used for residential buildings. Her understanding is that the gutter will run right underneath the lip and will not obscure the building's detail. Ms. Bellin asked for clarification on whether the downspouts will be located along the front corners or the sides. Ms. O'Neil responded that they are planned for the front, but they could be on the sides if that is preferable. Ms. Herbert stated that she does not think that having the gutter make the turn and the downspouts come down the sides is feasible. Mr. Hart agreed that is it more feasible for the downspouts to run down the front corners. There was no public comment. November 6, 2013, Page 4 of 7 VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to qRprove the standard residential size Rutter, with the proviso that the new gutter is the same size and profile as the existing.-gutter and the downspouts will be on the fiont face of the cornerboards. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. All were in avor, and the motion so carried. 141 Boston Street Peter Copelas submitted an application for a Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance to demolish the structure and reuse the property for parking. Peter Copelas was present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application: ■ Photographs: Mr. Copelas stated that there is nothing left in the house and it has been empty for years. The heating system was removed and the pipes are now frozen. A few years ago he purchased the house. He would like to demolish the house in order to increase parking for the adjacent commercial space, which he owns. Mr. Hart showed a picture of the house from 11 years ago. The house looks the same. From an urban planning standpoint he is hesitant to approve the removal of a house for parking directly along the roadway. Ms. Herbert stated that it is a shame there isn't more land associated with the house. Ms. Keenan asked if Mr. Copelas has considered restoring the house. Mr. Copelas stated that he does not believe that restoration is economical. That the house would have to be gutted plus there is no associated parking for the house. Ms. Herbert asked for public comments. Bill Legault, City Councilor, stated that he greatly appreciates what the Commission does, and the advice that they give applicants. He is familiar with the building, it was a very nice house at one time, but he supports the demolition. Given the parking issues in Salem the additional parking would be helpful. Emily Udy, from Historic Salem Inc., stated that HSI recently participated in a study of Boston St corridor. This section of Boston Street was identified as one of the last areas along Boston Street that has retained its residential feel. The house is on the corner and brings the streetscape towards Boston Street. Demolition would drastically change the streetscape. She asked if the applicant could speak more about how much parking would be created and address the need for that parking. Ms. Copelas responded that he does not need the parking but it would be helpful. It would also be helpful for the condos behind the house. r November 6, 2013, Page 5 of 7 Ms. Udy stated that perhaps there is a commercial option for the building. It is important to consider how the demolition is going to affect the residential feel of the neighborhood. Ms. Bellin asked how many parking spaces are currently on the site. Mr. Copelas responded that there are 4-5 parking spaces allocated for the commercial building. Ms. Herbert asked if Mr. Copelas has been working with a broker to help him lease the adjacent commercial space. Mr. Copelas responded that he has a contract with the Drumlin Company, but the building has still been empty for 3-4 years. Ms. Herbert suggest that he should hire a broker to investigate the highest and best use for the house and Peter's Laundry space. If commercial use isn't the highest and best use for the property,the parking may not be necessary. Mr. Hart stated that he is concerned that demolishing the mid- 19'h century residential building, sitting directly along the street,will create a gap along the streetscape. He referred to another Boston Street house recently being preserved. Ms. Herbert responded that typically restorations of houses like this can be costly for the restorer. Mr. Garner added that he lives in the house Mr. Hart is referring to (Pope House). It was a very complicated process to restore the house. In addition, the house is 100 years older than the one they are currently discussing. He continued that as a resident of the area, he has noticed that there have been houses converted to commercial space but without the foot traffic the businesses have struggled. Mr. Hart asked if there are any guidelines in the Demolition Delay Ordinance that discusses how the Commission should address financial concerns. Ms. Herbert responded that there is nothing in the Demolition Delay Ordinance that says the Commission should take into account financial concerns. Ms. McCrea stated that she is concerned with issuing this waiver without knowing what is going to happen to the commercial space. Ms. Bellin and Ms. Herbert agree. Ms. Herbert continues that if the commercial space were to become a residential this building, restoration of this house would be a nice plus for the project. She would like the Commission to work together with the applicant to see if there is a different use for the house. The just need the right plan to ensure tha thte expense of restoring the house is reasonable. She stated that she would like to work with Mr. Copelas to find a broker that will help work out a design plan and find architects to restore the building. There is quite a market for rentals right now. November 6, 2013,Page 6 of 7 VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to deny the waiver of the demolition delay ordinance. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in Lavor, and the motion so carried. Washington Square- McIntire Arch Preservation In response to a request from the Historical Commission, the Salem Common Neighborhood Association was in attendance to discuss the proposed preservation of the McIntire Arch located at Salem Common. Mark Meche, from Winter Street Architects, and Peter LaChappelle, from the Salem Common Neighborhood Association, were present. Mr. LaChappelle stated that there were originally 4 arches that were erected until approximately 1850. The existing arch is a replica created in the 1970s. The SCNA is working with Mark Meche and the Boy Scout Troop 24 to move this project forward. Mr. Meche gave a presentation to the Commission on the restoration project. He stated that this is a small project focused on repairing and replacing in-kind and stabilizing the arch. There are grander ideas for the arch, but right now they are limiting the scope of the work. The City Council has already endorsed this work, however they asked that they apply for a building permit, even though it is not necessary. There is also a preservation restriction on the arch. He added that the original location of the arch was across from Brown Street. The replica was originally located near the Hawthorne Hotel. Mr. Meche continued that the immediate concern is to remove the McIntire carvings. They will be seeking a Certificate of Non-Applicability for temporary removal and eventually restoration of the carvings. They will be looking to hire a historic carpenter for the project. Because there is a preservation restriction on the Common and all of its structures,they need someone who will treat the arch as if it falls under the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Mr. Meche stated that they will be using Spanish cedar, which is also the existing material, to restore the arch. There is a steel frame secured into concrete bases. Above the capital molding the wood looks good besides the paint peeling. When you look at the columns there was some MDO plywood added when the arch was moved. The plywood was all that they could afford at the time. Some of the joints are opening and the trim is falling off. They would like to use stainless steel screws to replace the existing nails. The wood would be coated on all 4 sides. The carvings are delaminating and failing in spots. They plan to trace the carvings onto the arch when they remove them and put up a sign that stated the carvings have been temporarily removed for repair. Ms. Herbert asked if they had giving any consideration to adding something under the arch to cover the ground, like dedication bricks. Mr. Meche thought that was a good suggestion and could possibly help with drainage. Mr. Hart stated that storyboards discussing the history of the arch would be helpful. VOTE: Ms. McCrea made a motion to support the initial in-kind work for beginning the restoration o_, the arch. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried. November 6, 2013, Page 7 of 7 Community Preservation Committee Guidelines The Community Preservation Committee (CPC) is requesting input from various City boards and commissions regarding the development of a CPA Plan. It is requested that the Commission develop a consensus on a list of survey questions and submit its comments to Jane Guy, in the Department of Planning and Community Development, by noon on Friday,November 22na Documents &Exhibits • Overview and Implementation Guide • CPA sample success stories across Massachusetts, • Examples of evaluation criteria from other communities • Survey questions • Taxpayer Information Guide. Ms. Lovett requested that the Commission members send her their comments prior to the next Commission meeting. She will compile the comments into a letter to review and approve at the next meeting. Ms. McCrea recommended that the Commission members attend the public hearing being held next week in order to hear what the public comments are for the Guidelines. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the discussion to the next meeting. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. VOTE: There bein no Mrther business Ms. Bellin made a motion to ad'ourn. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. Respectfully submitted, Natalie BL Lovett Community Development Planner November 20, 2013, Page 1 of 4 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES November 20, 2013 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday November206, 2013 at 7:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Jessica Herbert (Chair), Laurie Bellin, David Hart, Susan Keenan, Larry Spang, and Natalie Lovett. 173 Federal Street Gianna Della Monica submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to add four (4)peaked cap pediments above the 15t floor windows. The size of the pediments is 671/2" W x 72" OW x 241/2"H x 3 1/8"P. The pitch is 6/12. The pediments will be made out of pine and would be painted to match the existing trim color. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application: 9/25/13 ■ Photographs ■ Pediment Specification Ms. Lovett stated that Ms. Della Monica has requested, by email,to withdraw the application at this time. 13 Washington Square West/132 Essex Street Robert Monk, representing the Peabody Essex Museum, submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the existing asphalt roll and shingle roofs with new slate and flat seamed soldered copper on the historic John Daland Tucker House and Plummer Hall buildings of the Phillips Library. Work also includes the in-kind restoration and painting of existing wood and metal cornices and repair and/or replacement of copper gutters and downspouts. Robert Monk was present. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application: 10/23/13 ■ Plans: 3/25/13 ■ Photographs Mr. Monk summarized the project. The roofs on the buildings are currently asphalt shingles, probably installed in the 1960s. The upper flatter portions of the roofs originally had either copper or metal roofs, which are now covered by a rolled roof material. The PEM is proposing changing the roofing material to a North Country non-fading black slate. The same slate is currently used on the roofs of the Garner Pingree House, East India Marine Hall, and the Ropes Mansion. For the top portion of the roofs,they are proposing a flat seamed soldered 20oz copper roof. The project will also include restoring the cornices and soffits. This is the lst phase of a multi- phase restoration for the buildings. They hope to begin this work by next month and complete the project by the spring. November 20, 2013, Page 2 of 4 Mr. Hart disclosed, for the record,that he has a consulting contract with the PEM but on this project he has no financial interest. There was no public comment. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to accept the prQposal as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. All were in avor, and the motion so carried. 180 Derby Street Kevin Daley, President of the Board of Government of the Brookhouse Home for Aged Women, submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a stainless steel or copper crown to the chimney. The purpose of the crown is to prevent further damage and water infiltration. Kevin Daley was present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application: 10/31/13 ■ Photographs Mr. Daley stated that their chimney needs to be repaired. They have already received a Certificate of Non-Applicability for the repair. For this application,they are requesting adding a chimney cap. It will be very similar to that on the chimneys at the Custom House. The chimney is no longer operational: The mason originally suggested a granite top, but the cost was prohibitive. Ms. Hart asked if the chimney cap will corbel out like the custom house chimney cap. Mr. Daley responded that he believe the chimney design will not change. Mr. Spang added that the application is just for the cap. There will probably be a lip for the cap but no additional brickwork. Ms. Herbert asked which color the Custom House chimney cap is. Mr. Daley responded that he is not sure, but he was told by the mason that they would look the same. Ms. Bellin asked if,because the color of the Custom House cap is unknown,the Commission could approve just the copper cap now, and continue the metal cap discussion. Ms. Herbert agreed that she would be OK with approving the copper cap. She worries about how the stainless steel cap would look. The metal itself could be colored and the owner would have to worry about repainting it. There was no public comment. Mr. Daley stated that he would prefer the Commission allow copper or dark colored metal. November 20, 2013,Page 3 of 4 VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to accept the application with the pro viso that the metal chimney cap be limited to copper. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue review o the stainless steel chimneV cap option to the December 4rh meetin . Mr. Hart seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. Community Preservation Committee Guidelines The Community Preservation Committee (CPC) is requesting input from various City boards and commissions regarding the development of a CPA Plan. It is requested that the Commission develop a consensus on a list of survey questions and submit its comments to Jane Guy, in the Department of Planning and Community Development, by noon on Friday,November 22na Documents & Exhibits • Overview and Implementation Guide • CPA sample success stories across Massachusetts, • Examples of evaluation criteria from other communities • Survey questions • Taxpayer Information Guide Ms. Lovett handed to the Commission members a draft recommendation letter to the Community Preservation Committee. The letter incorporates their individual comments submitted by email. She added Ms. McCrea also send a last minute comment that is not yet incorporated into the draft letter. Ms. McCrea's comment was that one guideline for CPC projects should be that priority should be given to projects that will benefit the greatest number of people. Ms. Herbert asked who would be drafting the applications for projects. Ms. Bellin responded that it would be whoever is applying for funds. Applicants can be the City, non-profit groups, private group, etc. Ms. Herbert questioned whether the applications will go through a refining process before they are voted on. She feels the applications should be review in order to make sure the applications are as complete as possible. The City, or CPC staff, could work with applicants to develop their application, at least in the beginning years. Mr. Hart questioned whether projects should be limited to National Register properties. He suggested that the projects should also include structures listed on the MA State Register. He feels this letter should resist supporting specific projects,but would like to keep in it funding an update to the Preservation Master Plan. Ms. Bellin added that the letter should include a comment that priority be given to projects that take note of what have been recommended in city plans. The public commenting period was opened. November 20, 2013, Page 4 of 4 A member of the public asked if individuals were also eligible to apply for funds. Ms. Herbert responded that there seems to be few restrictions for who the applicant is, but the project needs to meet a public benefit requirement. VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to submit the Community Preservation Guidelines letter with the discussed edits. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried. Other Business Approval of minutes VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve an extension for the Certificate off on licabili issued to 23 Warren Street to make in-kind repairs to the side porch. The extension period will be or 6 months. Mr. SpaL7g seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. VOTE: Mr. Spang made a motion to aR rove an extension for the Certificate of Appropriateness issued to 31 Chestnut Street to construct a fence. The extension will be for a period of 6 months for completion. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. VOTE: There being no further business, Ms. Bellin made a motion to adiourn. Mr. Spang seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. Respectfully submitted, Natalie BL Lovett 1 Community Development Planner December 4, 2013, Page 1 of 3 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES December 4, 2013 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, December 4, 2013 at 7:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Jessica Herbert (Chair), Kathy Harper(Vice Chair), Chad Garner, David Hart, Susan Keenan, Joanne McCrea, Jane Turiel, and Natalie Lovett. 135 Federal Street Brenton Dickson submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a new second floor window along the street facing fagade of the house. The window will match the existing windows in style and dimension. The new window will also have shutters to match the existing windows. Helen Sides, Betsie and Sandy Dickson were present. Documents &Exhibits ■ Application: ll/6/13 ■ Photographs: ll/6/13 Ms. Sides stated that they will be using a Boston Sash single pane, double hung window, with a 5/8"mullion. The new window will match the existing windows. The new window will add symmetry to the house in addition to brightening the bedroom. Mr. Hart asked for clarification that the window will be wood. Ms. Dickson responded in the affirmative. There was no public comment. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to accept the proposal as submitted. Ms. Turiel seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. 5 Monroe Street John Hermanski & Barbara Taylor submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install venting and a condenser unit for an updated energy efficient air conditioning system. The condenser will be located along the side of the house, visible from Monroe Street. John Hermanski and Barbara Taylor were present. Documents & Exhibits ■ Application: 11/18/13 ■ Photographs: 11/18/13 ■ Specifications for the condenser unit Mr. Hermanski submitted to the Commission an additional picture showing the suggested locations for the AC unit and venting. Ms. Herbert asked if the house currently has air conditioning. December 4, 2013,Page 2 of 3 Mr. Hermanski responded in the negative. This project is a complete revamp of the HVAC for the entire house. There are currently two furnaces for the house. One furnace will need to be replaced, thus the venting. The incremental cost to install air conditioning, when you are already replacing the furnace, is reasonable. Because of how the house is situated on the property,there are limited places to put the condenser. The other wing of the house will be cooled with mini split units. This side of the house will require a condenser, and the proposed location is along the Monroe Street side of the house. The condenser will be mostly hidden from Essex Street. They are willing to consider a few options for concealing the condenser: planting evergreens around the unit, or hiding it with fencing. The venting pipes could also be concealed with the fencing. Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission could approve the condenser with shrubbery concealing it and then if that doesn't to the trick, the applicants could come back with the fence design. She suggested that the applicants consider holly ink berry bushes. She also stated that whatever shrubbery is utilized should be at least the height of the condenser. Mr. Hart stated that this project affects a minor fagade of the house and with shrubbery he feels it should be acceptable. He adds that the venting pipes should be painted to match the house. The public commenting period was opened. Betsie Dickson, 135 Federal Street, asked about the location of the mini split unit near her property. Mr. Hermanski clarified that the mini split was applied for under a Certificate of Non- applicability. It will be located along the brick walkway between the house and the Dickson's garage. The public commenting period was closed. VOTE: Ms. Turiel made a motion to gp prove the application as submitted. Ms. Mccrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. Other Business Ms. Herbert spoke with the Commission about an email sent by Ms. Harper earlier in the week. There is a house along the Derby Street, part of the Pickering Wharf Complex, that has been retrofitted with vinyl windows and it appears as though they may be doing additional work. Ms. Lovett stated that she looked at the local historic district map and this property is not located within the historic district. Mr. Hart and Ms. McCrea suggested that the Commission send a recommendation letter to the owners suggesting that they use wood clapboards and renovate the property according to historic district guidelines. Ms. Herbert stated that she would work with Ms. Lovett to compile the letter. December 4, 2013, Page 3 of 3 Approval of Minutes VOTE: Ms. Mccrea made a motion to approve the minutes om October 2 2013. Mr. Garner seconded the motion. All were in Aavor, and the motion so carried. VOTE: Ms. Mccrea made a motion to a rove the minutes rom October 16 2013. Ms. Turiel seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. Correspondence Ms. Lovett stated that she received an email from Wendy Walsh, 33 Carlton Street. Ms. Walsh was asking for clarification on what specific information the Commission would like to see from their mason. Mr. Hart responded that they would like to know the composition of the mix mortar, the appearance and color of the sand and the cleaning materials of the brick after repointing is completed. For the sand, they would not want to see powder sand used. Ms. Lovett stated that she would convey that information to Ms. Walsh. Mr. Hart stated that he has heard the MBTA will be installing very strong lighting at the temporary lot on Bridge Street. He asked if that work is within the historic district. Ms. Herbert responded that the parking lot is not within the historic district. Mr. Garner stated that he feels the light will be very helpful. It is very dark in that area of Bridge Street and dangerous for pedestrians. VOTE: There being no Lurther business Ms. McCrea made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Turiel seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. Respectfully submitted, Natalie BL Lovett Community Development Planner