Loading...
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES S� le,w 11 C-a/ "T f 1 - . Salem Historical. Commission • Minutes. of Meeting January 4, 1984 L VS The Salem Historical Commission met for its regular meeting on January 4, 1984, 7:30 p.m. , One Salem Green. Members present were , f Mrs. Wheaton, Ms. Harris, Messrs. Lippman, Wolfson, Zaharis, Cook and Clarke.'; Also attending were Mrs, .Yates,' Pat Pezzulo. f Local District Operation 2-4 Gifford Court. Mrs. Yates returned' with her father, Pat Pezzulo to discuss their windows, At the Commission's last meeting the Yates were called before the board since they had not obtained a certificate for' the windows that they had installed. The windows in question are located. as follows: 2 windows on first floor - Carpenter Street and 1 window on es': Gifford Court. These windows are now 'l over 1 and were 2 over 2 •before. Discussion followed regarding the inappropriateness of the muntins, .size and material of the windows. The owners stated that they had put time and money into the window replacements and could not afford .to lose the money put into the windows and the windows .could not be returned, The Commission suggested that these windows could be used to replace windows on rear and. side of house,;:as 'these�.would not be visible from the street'. The owners submitted an application which 'read as .follows:`G Rep'lace. 3 windows-2°on first floor Carpenter Street. `and 1 on first floor . fford' Court -with same size as before, wooden 'do'ubled`pane 1 over 1 windows. 'Replace molding to • match existing, and replaceGifford. Court and Carpenter Street windows of. maim body of house asyabove `- ,2-4 .Gifford Court; A,motion'was made to approve application as submitted..` Ghairman �Wheaton'stated, that the, Comsiissior_ prefers 2 over .2 windows but due to hardship, are not holding the owners to this and will allow L. over 1'iwin'dows.g4Motion seconded and approved unan roust Work to be completed at owners leisure -' no 'time' limit to be set by Commission. Abutters to be notified, ,w 106 Federal Street. At the Commission's last meeting it was discovered . ` that a .greenhouse window was installed without a certificate at 106 Federal. t'• An application was subsequently submitted by owners attorney and this applicatio,6 was denied. The homeowners and attorney wish to come before the Commission's fl February meeting to discuss further. Commission to table further action until after February meeting: 148 Derby Street. At the Commission's last meeting the members noted p that a sign had been installed without a certificate at In A Pig's; Eye'. A y letter was written. to the owner requested that an .application be filed with . ' the Commission and subsequently the owner did so. A motion was made to approve the application. Seconded and approved unanimously. Abutters to T ' be notified, { 2 Blaney Street. A letter was sent by the Commission to the VFW -12/043- �! regarding their construction of a war memorial without obtaining a certificate tt i and requested that they file an application, To date no application has beef FL � R n Salem Historical.Commission %Page 2 January 4, ;19984. f ' ,. ' •:. i. � ~ Y ; 1. � ,� 9 submitted, A'motion wasmade to .send a copy ofahe letter with a,� ' n n rK E.-• ,, d Second Notice stamped o"n'it:} Fj ,tem to:_be put,:on February'smeetingF ' r agenda. Motion seconded`"and° approvediunanimously }. St 398 `Essex Street At letter had"been. wr2.tt'en ;to`.the owner,fDr: White, approving his -application for painting but denying the shutters. that had r been Ynstalle1 1,d on,Novemberyl,il983. ESinceano action had been ;,taken',-and . .. 4r " no word `received from Dr `i'White. a 'leittertwas written'.on' December .929, 1983, stating that °the shutters were to be removed .from the building withinla', reasonable period, after which' the matter. would,`be `ieferred to ';the'City Solicitor. Chairman'Whestn' asked if the Commission'would -like: to. take any ., action between now and'jebruary meeting. A`motion was.made` to table , any action%discussion•until•February meeting.. 'S60onded�'and approved unanimously. Organizational Policies ' a x ' Procedures., The `next item on the,agenda, `"Procedures" was discussed.•,. ° Mr. Carr, 'who was not, in attendance;shad° previously expre'ssed 'his. desire to head a sub�ommiittee ,for formulating rules and regulations for the C. ""as' 3: F ,The,.ommi'sslon tabledsfurther, discussion: until meeting when Mr. .Carr. is:"present. G Cable TV.. ' The issue for discussion waa'where, to attach the-wires to k ' a house in an historic district' for Cattle -T4. ' Mr. Wolfson wll''invite' a r: - Warner Amex' Cable. TV ,person to' meet .with the Commission at- its February meeting, to discuss these options. �. 'Local' District"Operation. USA'TODAY. 'It was noted. that a USA TODAY newspaper s�box ?,ish.still in �'_ E. front of the.Hawthorne Hotel. ' Chairman`Wheaton to contact Mary:Harrington for advice. ' �.♦ 1. , '. y`. :�. r.t. Organizational Policies- ,continued, a Yankee Internship:.., Chairman Wheaton informed the Commission that the intern, Ms. Debra Hilbert had agreed to work for SHC. She will start•on',.. January 31, ' 1984 and'Work .6. hours per da" .5.'days a. wee' k for,a 'total of � 12 - 14 weeks. " Historic' Salem,''Inc. 'has appointed 3 people to work on a "4 steering committee to oversee project: Staley'McDeimet, Peter Kronenberg `, 'and. Martha Hodgman. Salem Historical Commission to appoint 3 people besides. + Mrs Wheaton. They are as follows: Annie kla'rris,. David' Clarke. and Jacob Wolfson. Meetings to'be =scheduled,'for committee members' arid` intern. The Commission `discu"ssed'' the:,;po.ssibl,tty..of:'having intern write an :article for the Salem News regarding the,research project and.also the possibility t of Comm+scion Members`Clarke, Carr and Wheaton;,,and the-intern'meetang.with� i''; - 'Mayor rSaiyo . ,t6, discuss project. Salem Historical Commission Page 3 " eJanuary 4, 1984 ltr - Restoration/Preservation .Award.' :Discussion-followed,as to various a o,pticns for .the presentation of the award, summarized as follows:. ` '=s';+ Wheif: Historic Salem 'Inc:.^'s Annual%Meetigg May ' Type: ,Joint Award with HSI,or ,SHC ''individual,l.y-' (only projects,completed in historic district) W . Who: To Ibe itaken from�SH6�appl;ica`tions- 1, major 1 minor project "4 Where: 76'j;e (decided, K./;� }} % f "1 R alt;' SHd: to. pay for, aw�ard if presented by' Commission4individually. 'Mr. Cook offered to frame awardjand Ms.# Harrisrto_ do a:`sketch:- ,*Chairman Wheaton to discuss variouss „possibilitiea`withtHSI."-'`o 14 1 Budget. Chairman Wheaton•informed ,the Commission that ';a,new budget I for Fiscal k:85-was due' to be 'submitted and'asked' f,or recommendations. r The Commis ion voted -to submit' an increased administrative 'assistant's:;Sal'ary,. `from $2;000/year to $2;400/year and to submit $400 .for 'materials as before ' for, total budget' for, Fiscal' :85;of -$2,800:•+ �F 'Local District Operation e Zoning-Carriage'Houses. ' David Clarke reported .that an .amendment to the zoning ordinance toa"Pexmit. the 'occupancy of ,Carriage'Houses, for Single 'Family, Dwelling Units" is being proposed., This proposed amendment would mak -easier" to convert barn 'end'carrigage houses •built before<'' 1900 to living space, thereby helping to= preserve€_•these significant historic structures. .'U,nder ;the,upropo'sed amendment, 'a'homeowner would"obtain' a. special; permit ;b;ut would';stilly:Aneed"to, 'go,before. Board of. Appeals`r:' .,.,".. A motion was made to 'send'a, letter ,to the Committee on Ordinances and Legal t• Affairs endorsing the amendment to the'ordinance as :a. financially viable b - option. Motion seconded. Vo'tei : Mrs. Wheaton;-Ms: Harris; Messrs. Lippman, ' Wolfson, Zaharis, ,and Cook inifavor Mr. Clarke abstaining. 7 Organization Policies - continued I, • r! yy New Administration..{ The Commis'sion' discussed the,'possibility of , members 'scheduling .a meeting witbtthe new city`•solioitor 'to :discuss the r various legal ,'issues that :the Commission has pending: s c Fad r• " jhe'meeting:was' adjourned at-9:30-,'p.m.• j .r . ., • �- Respectfully submitted,,• f .. Nancy',G. Killam, Clerk of Commission , , X'- t Salem Historical Commission Minutes of Meeting February Y; 1984 The Salem)Historical Commission met for its regular meeting on February�l, 1984, 7:30 p.m. , One Salem Green. .Members present were Mrs. Wheaton, Ms. Harris, Messrs. Zaharis, Cook, Wolfson, Lippman, Carr, Clarke, .and Associate Member Slam. Alsq present were. Bill Burns, �r " Suzanne Freeman, Dick Minturn, Chris Cabot, Margo Mallar, Bruce Tracia, Greg Page and,Bob'Giodano, and Wayne Sousa a a' Other ,Business rWarner AmexsCableiTV'. + The .Covmtission had invited representatives , from the cable company'to, dis`cuss`'the installation of, cabw in historicIL e districts. Bruce Tracia„Greg Page and Bob Giodano ofsWarner',Amex were present. 'Chairman Wheaton stated that the H.istoiical,Commission' is responsible ltfor,overseeing and approving any exterior changes to homes in the 3.historic districts. Ideally, the Commission would like to see the minimum number of wires possible on the outside of a house and put all wires in i basement. Mr. Tracia stated that the company tries to follow • the phone and utility wires whenever possible. To put ,the wiring inside . . x .. _ a homeowner would have to'hire an electrician . Mr. Tracia also stated c that they have had problems with tenants of homes signing'a statement saying that they have the owners permission to install cable TV wires. _ • Mr. Carr reported that on his street (River Street) the cable wasput in so that some pable wires run perpendicular to the phone wires,. r:creating offensive "wire clutter!''. . The Commission discussed what options were available and .!:will formulate a set of'written guidelines for'cable install- �y ation at the March,meetinp,: At that time, 'Mr. Tracia will be notified and sent copy of the guidelines for distribution throughout,-Warne'r Amex installers. The Commission to give Warner Amex copies of each historic district map and copies of the Commission's brochure. Local District Operation x 41 Flint Street. Mr. Sousa was present to discuss his renovation plans for 41 Flint Street.' An application was submitted for "scraping exterior clapboard repairing and replacing as necessary, making board repairs to match existing. Hanging black shutters. Apply white prime coat; , Final coat to be applied by-.May, 1984." The Commission inquired if the-shutters were originally on the house,to which Mr. Sousalreplied yes. The Commission asked 'that 2 notations be added,,to the application: r 1. shutters to be same size as windows and 2. when, ,ahutters are hung, bottom end of louvers should point in. A motion was made to approve' application as submitted with 2 added notations. ,Motion seconded ,and • approved unanimously. .Abutters to be notified. .• Mr. Sousa asked for the 'Commissionx `advice on the design of,a secondary egress he is .planning on building to obtain a variance for condominiums. The Commission. advised Mr.. Sousa that .an open staircase from. the third " floor.would not be acceptable, possibly one from the second floor would •` • be more acceptable. A more appropriatewdesign.would be a covered stairway made to look as much as possible as an original pare of theshouse. Mr. Sousa to come to the March meeting for further input and advice if needed. - toe Salem Historical Commission Page 2 February 1, 1,984 106 F,ederal,.�Street," This item 'was originally placed 'on the agenda" at' the December meeting.` The'homeowners:; Dick ,Minturn' and- Suzanne Freeman, were notified and a ,letter was senf by their -attorney Chris Cabot in place. of'an' application. ' "A vote was taken' at•the meeting'an& the application"for-the installation xof 'a greenhouse window' (which had already been installed)`was denied'witli .several 'reisons ' being that the`window is incongruous to the historic-"aspects of ,the l building, and, districts;" is. not-4 storm'window ''since it projects of the facade of»the building and,4 is �Adrigned .totaccomodate, plants°'and^may be acceptableiri' other.,places,but.not;:principl"e: facade" of bluild ing' It Chairman Wheaton explained* ihat the Commission deemed it appropriate .to put the issue on, hold and°allow the homeowner to `come to the meeting and ;,explain;- The'orginal` vofe'of De ember holds.# Mr; .Minturn was ; present to. discuss '. 7 applications ,.an;,.application for a: cerYi'ficate •of £ " non-applicability. and an application for a certicate of appropriateness. Mr. Minturn apologized for not 'comingto the Commission before`he installed the greenhouse window.` , He'1 explained that since he- had',no't"nee'ded _..a,, - building',permit'he was not aware that hb?-.needed? the' Commission!s approval. Mr. Minturn first presented.his''application for a cer,tificate.of non- x' Y • applicability which read "installation of•a "gre'enhou s e!! type';torm window n at the existing "east,, second floor window"on,.the, south' elevation of the property, ' Please see .Exhibit'"CA" (photo graph) This window is above . the entry, facing Federal Street. The'`greenhouse" storm•window is 4?," k 28^ w x 50'.' h. x 10" d, - 'it has a`white aluminum frame'`matching the existing, storm windows on the building." Mr. Minturn} began his presentation by citing Salem Historical .Commission Ordinance Section b, paragraph (3); which states "The authority of the,Commissionis not extended�toitheIvreview of the following:. (3) iStorm'doors' and windo.as'; screens; winflowFair:' " conditioners, lighting fixtures,.antennae and similarappurtenances or . any one or more of them:!', tMr...Minturn,stated ,that he fee it reasonable to, considei-the" greenhousefwindow an' appurtenance"�as�;defined_iin` Ordinance: ' The definition of appurtenance withthe"criteria,being "a storm window was 'explained 'by Mr. Minturn asrfollows: Materials same,as storm' X " ; y.. , I same color, sameiglass;j;projects no more,ithan'an air conditioner, no more permanent than' a'storm window;_;its function '' weather'barrer and also holds plants and is pleasurable Mr. Minturn next'presented 3 Exhibit s,'marked A, B & C. Exhibit k showed photographs of various air -condition units in ;the neighborhood. His point. ` being that.-,his greenhouse windoio was"'far less .'offen'sive looking than most air condition units which are also up all year Exhibit B' showed « photographs of TV antennae, r _ bask'etball�ne`ts, land 'storm entrance vestibules, all beinga!fiistorically inappropriate ap ain his point being,,.thaf is � r" t ' greenhouse window less offensive- looking. Exhibit C, bowed photographs of j - � other greenhouse windows in historic districts. One'in partibular �eing next door to the Minturn's at 102 Federal Street but not on the priAciple facade of the building. it visible from the street, but not on the - principle facade of the building. Chris Cabot, attorney for the"Minturns asked the Commission to accept the application for a certificate of non- _ applicability based on Mr. -Minturn's presentation that his "greenhouse" type storm window, as defined in the statute, is an appurtenance and there- fore not subject for review by the Commission. x M� • Salem Historical Commission.. Page 3 p� ,�� - February 1, 1984 ; Questions and discussion followed Mr. Minturn! s presention by the r t Commission, jhe}Cotmnission�noted-that they.do�have• jurisdiction over antennae, light fixtureOand other appurtenances. `'- . % A motion was made to" deny the certificate of non-applicability for .the greenhouse window.,, Motion seconded.w Vote: + In'Favor i. Messrs. Carr, Zaharis, Cook;­Wheaton, 'Wolfson. iAbstain - Ms:' Hirris.l Opposed Mr. Lippman. Motion to deny application passed.nd... ' Mr. Minturn next presented his application for a certificate of appropriateness '. which read as, follows: "installation of a "greenhouse" type storm window - at the existing second floor window at.'-.the east end of the south elevation of the property. Please see exhibit "A" (photograph) . This window is above '" the entry, facing Federal Street. The "greenhouse" storm window is ' ± 28" x x 60" h x 10" d. It has a white aluminum frame;+ss:matching the. existing storm windows on the building." Mr. Minturn explained that some t changes to historic homes are appropriate. He'ySpresented Exhibit D which. shows some examples of changes made to homes in the 19th century.- ' 131 Federal Street, 18 Chestnut Street & 38-40 Chestnut Street and photograpbs • which set a precedent for change - 346 Essex Street, 102 Federal Street r si and 7 Botts Court. Next Mr. Minturn submitted a letter from Frederick Lyman of American Landmarks, Inc. . Mr. Lyman provides technical services/advice for histoiic • property owners. It is Mr. Lyman' s professional opinion that Mr. Minturn' s greenhouse window is not inconsistent with the date and style of his residence. . Furthermore, as Mr. Minturn pointed out, the Secretary of the Interior's standard #9 stipulates that "comtemporary design for,alterations and additions shall not be discouraged when they do not destroy significant historical, ` cultural or architectural material." Also, Standard #10 mandates ,'`.that changes should be reversible in nature," which Mr. Lyman states the Minturn's window is. Mr. Minturn next presented a statement signed by 3 abutters' giving their. support and" approval of the greenhouse window. - William Burns, abutter at 22 Beckford Street, was present and expressed his opinion that he found the window to be very attractive on that age home. Chairman Wheaton asked for any further questions. A motion to close any furth .. er discussion was c,passed ' . Attorney Cabot asked that the Commission ,f to consider the 'degree of scale of change when voting. A motion 7.to _ reconsider and nullify the vote taken at�the December meeting�,wasTpassed. b — - �— � 4 c-r a_TLii-,,m... _ dr.'. = so, :. , p•rs::d .� A motion was made to approve the application "for a certificate of appropriatenss for greenhouse window"since the window.could be considered an "oriel" window and the home is a colonial revival building which would make 'it an appropriate change. Motion seconded. Discussion followed. The Commission q was concernedabout setting a precedent in the neighborhood. The Commission also noted that some of the changes made to the homes in the • district, as pointed out by Mr. Minturn's ;ekhibits, were made prior to r the formation of the district. The Secretary of the Interiorls standards state to use the same material whenever possible in any changes3°to an historic home, which the greenhouse window is not. Al A motion was made to table the item until next meeting. The motion was defeated. t , a+. • . The motion to approve which was seconded was voted upon: In Favor: Mr. Carr; Mr. Lippman. Opposed: Messrs. Cook, Clarke; Wolfson. Abstain: Ms. Harris Mrs. Wheaton. Application for certification of appropriateness was denied. { • ( Commission expressed concern that the window is on the principle facade of `= the building. tr ,Salem Historical Commission Page 4 • February 1, 1984 . 398 Essex Street. Chairman Wheaton reported that the Commission had s received a letter from Dr. White stating that*heawill.'remove the.shutters when "circumstances permit". The Commission will send a fetter thanking ,' .;• Dr, White and :stating'uthat 6e' Commission assumes tha.t.the 'matter will be resolved in the spring, r • 2 Blaney Street. The,Commission reported that a second notice hadl , been sent to the VFW regarding their :war.memorial installed without' a certificate and that to date no communication had been received from the , �VffW, The Commission will,"send an6zher letterstatingthat no further -� .action is necessary but that any fupure exterior construction/alterations at the site must be reviewed:by the Commission. • x- .; Other" Business` Carriage Houses-. Proposed Zoning Change, '.At:the Commission' s last meeting it was votedp. to send a letter to, the Committee on Ordinances and •r Legal' A'ffairs endorsing the proposed. amendment.' Upon further review of rro the proposed amendment, Chairman Wheaton asked that'the Commission consider specifying that the amendment be contingent upon the Commission's review- ' even those which are outside the districts. A motion was made to-endorse • the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance, provided that included in the amendment is a required „design review by, the Salem Historical Commission. a M9tion sed'pnded. Voter 'In -Favor: Mrs. Wheaton, Ms. Harris; Messrs. Cook-; —_ Carr, Wolfson. , ; Abstaining: Mr, Clarke. Opposed: Mr.'«"Lippman. Motion approved - letter to be sent. Billboards. Chairman Wheaton reported that an aggeement is being made for,removal of billboards by Ackerly and.the City of Salem. Fifty- two ifty two out of 71 'Ackerly billboards were to have been removed, 19 left to be removed. Ackerly wants to negotiate an agreement to leave some of tf Salem's billboards .in .exchange for free promotion for theCity. Chairman V: Wheaton asked that the Commission think about this issue so that the ,- Commission could make some recommendations in the future regarding number - ---and location of billboards. } ,I BSA:-TODAY. Chairman Wheaton reported that one box is. still located in t front the Hawthorne Inn^! ..Mrs. Wheatonr;has contacted the new city solicitor Tho is pursuing the matter. • Organizational Policies Administrative Assistant.,, Chairman Wheaton reported that Nancy Killam will be leaving March l`for a 6 month maternity leave. The Commission to hire replacement. The' meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:30 p.m. Minutes approved Respectfully submitted as amended 3/7/84. - �P Na cy-G�Kill'am �:1erk-of' Comm�sion Salem Historical Commission Minutes of Meeting March 7, 1'984 l; i t The Salem Historical Commission met for its regular -meeting• on March 7, ' 1984, 7:30 p.m. , One'Salem Green. Members present were Mrs: Wheaton, Ms. Harris,' Messrs. Zaharis , Cook', Wolfson and'Associate 'Members Slam and Padjen. The Minutes of the February 1, 1984 meeting were read with the follow- ing changes noted: Page 2 second to the last sentence should.read "One;, in particular ' being next •door to the Mipturns at 102 Federal Street but not on the principle' facade of the building: It is visible from.the street, but not on the principle .facade of the building. Page 3 It should be'.noted it the bottom of the page where the actual Vote was taken that the Commission expressed concern that. the-window is " on the principle facade;of the building. w, t Page 3 ,7 Two-thirds-of the-way down the page the'line which begins "A motion to"reconsider"•should read as follows:, "A motion to reconsider and nullify the vote taken at the December meeting was passed.^ . Yt Page'4 - Under the paragraph headed "Billboards",tthe, second sentence should read !'Fifty-two out, of 71 Ackerly billboards were to have-been - • removed;,.19;left to be ,removed." A MOTION was made and seconded t,o approve 'the Minutes of :the Febru- ary 1, 1984. meeting as amended: The vote was-'unanimously- in favor. , (5=0) f , s Local District Operation 178 Federal Street. Mr. &'Mrs. Hemphill were-present-to discuss-their preliminary plans to convert thi's house into•'.a ,two-family. :A miinimum of; x structural work will be 'required; however., there' is 'a need for a secondary w egress from. the second, floor which they propose to' accomplish by putting a door in the far end wall �leading, out .onto a�flat roof and down stairs which are to be built. A platform or deck is to lie built onto the roof and they thought a picket fence matching the configuration of the"one;.at - the front of, the house,could be used for 'Safety. The stairs are to lie of. standard construction: They ,propose to continuethe siding material 'along the side- of the house 'for an unbroken Tine. ' Mr., PadjenIsuggested .setting ' } the staircase back several inches from the existing wall, ratherthan try' to line it up exactly. Roof section involved;,isr9'' by 9':. „The original' plan was to have a walkwayronly' '*' Ms. Harris ,suggestedtthat+thefrailing look like ,a porch railing rather. than. a,picket+fence,.-' squareforround> balusters every 511 set in rail above and below, 'which is set 'above+the• deck. That same type railing would be continued downµthe stairs. eTher _. owners are to return to the LCommissionIwhen they are r•�eady id-,commence . with scale drawings and 'detailydrawings' of rail and stairs for review by the. Commission. At that�.time they will,apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness..' 4 k,,.` .) , r a # ►, ; , Salem Historical Commission Page.2 March 7, 1984 . — e r c� 54 Derby St./96-98 Derby Street/33 Carleton Street . The owner, Mr. Robert Kobuszewski has applied for Certificate of Appropriateness for roof materi als, ,samples of which he submitted, for the properties listed. Color is ?, light brown. Ms. Harris made a MOTION to deny the application.as proposed } ' and recommend strongly that charcoal gray or black be used. If the sug- gested change is agreeable to the owner the application would be approved. f Mr. Wolfson seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. (5-0) t Basis for denial was that the color does not meet the*Commmission's standards. ;* If original:material cannot be duplicated the Commission recommends that black or charcoal gray be used so as not to draw attention to it. Abutters "+ will be notified. Other Business., Cable TV. At .the February meeting with Warner Amex, the Commission agreed to formulate a set of written-guidelines for cable installation. It was decided that Mr. Slam and Mr. Lippman will. prepare recommendations F`'L and present at the April meeting for review by the Commission. Presently a wires are strung along with telephone wires but then sent into the area of the house where the television is located causing them to be draped over the exterior of the house. Recommendations might include fishing the wire through the interior or fastening them by some method at regular intervals on the exterior to eliminate the draping effect. • Official Salem Historian Designation. A request for opinion was received from the Committee on Ordinances and- Legal Affairs •on the proposal to name Mi. Edward' Carberg the Official Salem Historian. , While the Com- mission endorses the interest of the citizens of Salem in the history of the city, it(feel`sg`at.tbis timelthat' it-is inappropriate+for the City to create an official position. Charter Street Gravestone Replacement. Mr. Wolfson reported that he had been madelaware of- a problem with the Judge,Hathorne gravestone by Mr. Carberg.' 'The"Judge Hathorne 'stone whicli was' intthe Charter Street ., Burial Ground and hard been reset was lost and turned-up in-,a Police locker. It was returned?to `:the Ceme_tary Commission. Charter'Street is a National Register Burial Ground and this stone is one of the oldest and most im- portant in the city and should be reset. The cost would ,b'egabout $200. The Cemetary Commission has no funds for this. Ms. Harris suggested that Historic Salem become involved in this project. Since they. are scheduled to meet next week, it was decided to seek their help in restoring it to a position of prominence, possibly through an appeallat their-annual meeting. a During the discussion of this topic, the restoration/renovation awards to be made in the spring were brought up. Mr. Padjen is to investigate sources for design of the awards. Ms. Harris suggested the .possibil'ity of using some type of artifact for the award. Also- considered' is -a- simple certificate done in calligraphy and matted and framed. 'Mrs. Wheaton will investigate`.this further. Recipients aretobe named at the April meeting. r . n Salem, HistoricalCommission t�, Page 3 '�.Marcb 7, 1984 DRBi Mrs. Wheaton<noted that a-,joint meeting forrtwo buildings in the National Register per agreenent,with the SRA is to be held,on-March 14 at. 9`a.m. =.Mr.^ Claike'was originally designated ;to :attend. but, will'.be * ' unable to do.. so. Mr. Padjen`.and Mr` Carr were .tentatiyely 'named -to`repre sent, the Commission. 'r t 4 Organizational-- Policies ' ,r .P , Appeal Options. Mrs. Wheaton noted for,the . , Commis sion's information that Chapter 40C. of ;the Genera] Laws provides for^ the"" ossibi ity. of an : appeal level, before•that' of ,the' Superior Court, designating Regional ' >Planning Agency 'to hear appeals before=something becomes-a court case She plans to speak with Ms, Pat' Weslowski-, Director of Massachusetts His- 'torical Commission to,find out :if' any.other commissions ,do. this; .The question arose as to.whether having an intermediary'levelyof;appe4 might "^ generate more appeals. The desirability of having some type.,of arbitra- tion was discussed, ^r Procedures Proiect; Mr. Padjen and Mr.^Carr were named :,to serve"on a sub-committee'with.Mrs. Wheaton,to work on thia,'project ; Copies+of the written meeting procedures previously adopted'should be„redistributed to members of the Commission: r 'a Certified Local 'Government: Mrs. Wheaton .informed the Commission that • " 'there"is a new-'regulation',out of Washington,which '.allows for Certified Local Government. . .Nationai' Register Review and Tax Act Certification would be brought:down,`to" the local level: ,'Salem.appears, to •be /qualified to:apply .to.be certified. An advantage would be,that 10% of preservation funds that :the` state gets goes ;to Certified,:Local:Governmeiits. Tt.,is • matching money. CD funds, can be matched,and:Mr. Moniz. of,SRA, thought there would be 'funds;.for it: This`could, also result`in the paid position q".:, of Executive'Director ,of the`Historical'Commission. '.M§..Harris made a MOTION••to endorse this 'action., : Mr 'Zaharisyseconded ;the MOTION The ` 4 vote was unanimously!in',favor ',(5 0) Historic Salem, Jnc`. Suns':-c .Mrs. Wheaton told the Commission that ` the Historic Salem '.'Salem Rediscovered, signs``are now in,the*process of being:installed in the jity. 41 e t� 4 ` r Thetmeeting was adjourned•at,9`30• p m d + Respectfully fitted, r ` r Joan F: Pizze116 v .I Clerk of Commission• { Minutes approved°a '"$. C6. .� ��' t '• Z fl .4f/iJ L • / + ` .;• f : 4l 4 84 't' JP..ay k a b 4 p ' • . . {4` a A•'+ y ty .+ .,,� .a4 .. .� ,6{�,ti'n `^� F a' y' �w� .. .}• t 6 5 -rf 3 Salem His torical'Commission Minutes of Meeting April 4, 1984 The Salem Historical Commission met for its regular meeting on April 4, 1984, 7:30 p.m., One Salem Green. Members present were Mrs. Wheaton, Ms, Harris, Messrs. Cook, Clarke„ Wolfson, Lippman, Zaharis and Associate Member Slam. .•, Minutes Mr. Cook made a MOTION to accept the Minutes of the March'7, 1984 f meeting. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. All were in- favor except Mr. Clarke who 'abstained since he was not present at that meeting. r Ms. Harris chaired the meeting unt�l•Mrs.' Wheaton; who,was delayed, 4• arrived. •, «. a +-' LI ` '.. 4 � Local District O'pe'ration a , 4 River Street. Mr. Paul Willis :submitted an application for Certi- fieate of Appropriateness. "He would like to construct-a fence between num- . bers 4 and 6 River'}Street. `Existing fence''.is in disrepair and he would,ll'ike I to replace it with a fence which would better reflect the area and the sense of both houses. The plan was shown to Mr. Bramble (who has renovated #6) and he approved it verbally.; He would like-approval from the,Commission so that he can go out to bid to determine cost. The style is a. composite of . , several different styles which he feels i's :appropriate." The length would • be 27 feet back from the sidewalk. : At ,that point it would cut .across to ` where it would join the back .of the house. The present picket fence was : built approximately in.1950. The-style he is proposing is a flat board type. The posts would have standard cap rail, and some type of shadow mold- ing would be used to add interest. The height would be 36" with posts and - , r caps at 42". ..The space between the boards would be •2". There is a similar type fence across the street from the Holyoke Insurance Building. On the other side of the,house he would like to usea post with similar detail.' f' He spoke briefly about the color of the house with which he is not happy because of a bonding problem. At some future point he would like to come f back to the Commission with another paint color; therefore, he has:not specified a color for the fence. It would be primed for. the .time being. , He thinks he will be going with a full-bodied stain, possibly an all-red house. Mr. Clarke made the three-part MOTION to waive public hearing, accept the standard definition of abutters, and approve the application as sub- mitted with the recommendation .of making boards 1 X 2 or 1 X 3,. preferably 1 X 2, and contingent an abutter notification. Mr. 'Lippman seconded the MOTION. • The vote was unanimously in favor. :Abutters will be notified. '. Other Local District 'Operation ,items were deferred until the chairman arrived. Other Business Museum Collaborative Trail. Ms.. Harris ,read a letter"',.from"Mr. Byron • Getchell of the Peabody Museum regarding the possibility of creating in Salem something similar to Boston's Freedom Trail. While the Commussion a At Salem' Historical Commission 4 Page 2 -April 4, 1984 k• i e r t essentially agreed with the, concept,`'the method'.of marking-such a trail ' requires further study, '`Something other than a,painted line might be•a more tasteful solution, possibly .something stencil-led,'at 'intervals. . Resi- dent-ial areas were excluded from the' or`iginal proposals .There was some interest on .thetpart.of' the Commission for incIuding' them. Ms. Harris r` made a MOTION to. send 'A letter eindorsing the concept.gand- suggesting,sfurther study of the'marking'method used '`Mr6 Clarke seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously' 'in.favor. �.j. :* 'Local District Operation continued 391-391k Essex Street; Mrs. Wheatonlinformed' the, Commission that Mr. Weston is seeking approval7for'a',sign to be placed on the facade of the building which houses, an antique';shop., The.,sign would be 16' by 9-9'k' , and would be black with goldleaf lettering. . Ms. Harris made the three'- _ part MOTION to approve the request contingent upon approval by.a'_committee consisting of Mr. Lippman' and Mr, Clarke. Mn. Wolfson seconded the MOTION. All were- in favor except-Mr. Zaharis who-vote&opposed�, because•Mr. Weston ' did not follow the proper,application.p{rocedurea'%`Abutters will be notified'. 41 Flint Street. The Commission next considered-the window. installa tion at this property., where an existing sash trim were removed, the F opening :clapboarded, and aixiarrow;"rectangular,,±vertic`'al window installed • "" without. Certificate., Mrs.. Wheaton informed.the board that she-had spoken with the owner, Wayne Sousa,<who agreed to :remove, the wrndow'in »question and replace it with the original window.! He said'thedecision^to'go with the long,'. narrow window was made without his .knowledge. The.roof on this house was discussed. The owner requests permission ' to use a .rolled. roof, on the very top where he feels it ,will not be visible. Ms. Harris made a MOTION to approve this type of roof only•if 'it s ,'used at the very top.. .If visible it must be-shingle (black or dark gray)., ,She ' - emphasized..this is only for-the upperportion. ' The rest 'of the roof; remains slate. Mr. Wolfson seconded the MOTION. ,The vote was unanimously in favor. For the information of the Commission,.Mrs Wheaton'noted tkat'41 Flint went',before the Board of .Appeals seeking permission to -go from two'units to three units:. .The; petition was denied; therefore, the exterior staircase is no longer an issue. r . 106 Federal Street. The owner has not complied with the vote taken at . a ;previous:.meeting. It was 'felt that, this should beheld-.over until the next meeting. Mr. .Cook felt not too much time should pass, before this is addressed.'.. The more time passes, the more indication there :is' that it',is .'of no 'concern. . Other Business. r. 9 Warren Street. A petition was put before the Board of Appeal-by the owner of this. property for permission to sub-divide the lot and construct another .building on it. The lot -is too smill ,by current zoning standards. Salem HistoricallCommission April 4, 1984 Mrs. Wheaton informed the members that she had written to the Board of A Appeal on behalf of the Commission.-with. the reminder that all parties in- volved should realize 'the design implications in any new construction. In any case, the petition was denied. ' y Electric Installations were not discussedsince Mr.' Carr was not: ' . .e� present. J Cable=TV'. Mr. Lippman and Mr. Slam submitted their recommendations on cable installation. The guidelines they'suggest are as follows: ✓ 1. Cable wires should be strung to the same juncture on a building as the electric, telephone or existing cable wire are strung to. +u 2. If it is not possible to juncture at the same spot as existing wires, don't bring wires to the main facade ,of the building. . The best alterna= ' tive location is a corner of the building. ' 3. If a wire.must be run to the back of a building run.the wires up along ` the corner-tboard, or• down it, and then along the eaves or the ' , ..+ foundation.. 4. It is always better to bring the wire into the house -and fish it, • rather than stringing it along the side. ! 5. Under no circumstances should cable wire come to two different locations on the same house from the pole. 3' Mr. Lippman suggested that these same guidelines :might be considered by the telephone company. Mr. Slam suggested that Warner Cable installers be asked to carry these guidelines in their trucks so that homeowners may be made aware of them. Mr. Clarke thought this informati'mn might be sent out f;Y with the proposed April mailing. It was also suggested that an additional comment be added that if the wire is ,not properly installed, the Historical Commission may ask that the job be done over. (This last comment should be on homeowner's information,-not cable installer's.) Mr. 'Zaharis made a MOTION to accept with grateful thanks the committee's guidelines with minor revisions, stressing.no, diagonal runs and the '.advis ability of entering the wire at a corner: Mr. Cdek seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. yy # - Gravestone Replacement.- Mr. Wolfson reported that Jack and ,Marcia Cini will pursue the gravestone replacement project with Historic. Salem and o he hoped to have further information before' theeend of the meeting. Organizational Policies April.Homeowner Notification. Mrs. Wheaton submitted for review a letter which is proposed to be sent to property owners in Salem's Historic Districts. Ms. ,Harris "suggested that the completion of the Guideline's Project be adver- tised in the papers in May or June. If the cable guidelines are included in t! I i . c z f.' .. •y Vit, 8. .. Salem Historical- Commission Page 4 April 4, 1984 » • the mailing, it was suggested thattheybe printed on paper of a different color. Ms. Harris made a MOTION,, to send the letter with minor revisions noted. Mr. Lippman seconded. the'.MOTION.- The vote was unanimously in favor. i Amendment. There was some discussion-concerning the,possibility of establishment of 'an intermediate appeal level. Mrs. Wheaton reported that Mass. Historical was`:.generally encouraging. Pros and cons were discussed briefly. Mr. 'Zaharis :made a MOTION not tokpursue further (Mre Clarke seconded-the MOTION. The 'vote was in favor of not pursuing. Renovation/Restoration Awards. Mrs. Wheaton •submitted several possible candidates for the awards for review•by the Commission. The number and'type . of awards to ,be,donsidered were discussed. Mr. Cook made a MOTION to make three awards, ; ,':one.to Mr.; Robert G. Bramble . (for several projects in the Derby" Street District) for his significant . contribution to the. community; one to Dr. Richard,Pohl :(18-182, Summer Street) for his large scale project; and,one .'to Lance--Colby Ailander, and Jean Colby '«.. Arlander (91-93 Federal Street), .for replacement of door'.and,windows, which would be the,award for a smaller scale project. .Mr. Zaharis seconded the ' MOTION.• The .vote two in favor (Messrs. Cook-and. Zaharis) °and the rest opposed. MOTION denied.. . , •. ���'„ . .. a `4a _ ., . � s It was decided to nominate each candidate separately. +t ' Mr. Cook made a MOTION to nominate Mr. Bramble for a .special award. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. All were in favor except Mr.#Lippman who was opposed to -awarding a prize to -a business, and Mr. Clarke who ,abstained, v Mr. Cook made a MOTION to nominate Dr. Richard Pohl for a major restoration/ r renovation award for the-work done on.his. property at 18-18'k Summer which had a significant impact on 'the�_aneighb.orhood. Mr.' Zaharis seconded the MOTION. ' The vote was unanimously in favor. Mr.' Cook made .a MOTION to nominate Lance Colby Arlander and Jean Colby Arlander to receive the award for a small scale project,(replacement of , a door and wind'ows)j,to;thedproperty at 91=93 Federal Street. Mr. Zaharis seconded thegMOTION:• The ,`votef;was unanimoualy-in ffavor-." .p _ ,t y There was some discussionconcerning the -form .thek,award should take. Mr. . .il Lippman .made ga.MOTION lhatjthe(award •"consist .ofja brass,hinge. Mr. Zaharis 1 seconded the MOTION., Allawere'in favor except Mr. Clarke who voted.,opposed. Proiect, w Copies oftpreliminary work done by'Ms.' Debra ' Guidelia�52 !Hilbert were .distributed.for review by ,the Commission. Mrs. Wheaton .sugges,ted that members meet for, working ,meetings to review each -segment. ` The dates set { were Monday',''Apri1 ,23, 'and,Tuesday, April 24, 'from 7 to 9:30 p.m. 'A reminder of the 'dates`and place will be sent the week before. Salem Historical Commission Page .S April 4, 1984 Gravestone Replacement. Mr, Wolfson ".reported that he had been in- formed by phone that the Peabody Museum has agreed to finance the gravestone replacement. s. The meeting adjourned at 10 00­P_.m. � { « i ell A,i, 14 .' Respectfully _'Submitted; �r Its 3 Joan':F Pi zzello ClerOof Commissionryv ' Minutes approved, ' 5/2/84 JP G k ` ♦q SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES Apri,1' 24, 1984 �t The Salem HistoricalCommission met -for. a, speci-al meeting on =T,uesday,AprII 24, 1984, .7:00 "p:m.• at One Salem- Green,, 1, Present were Messrs. Gl'a'rke, Cook, Carr., Zaharis,, Padjen and Slam, and Ms. Harris, Ms; Hilbert• and Mrs. Wheaton' g ' Local District Operation- 126 DerbyFStreet peration-126-"DerbyFStreet .The .Commission considered the applica,t.ion of Mr. Michael Zapa'nti's-for work on-his, property.,at :126 .Derby'Streea:4 ;Mr.., Zapantis is converting ;the, shop thereto an apartment. -His con tractor,_ Rol'and Rett2 described planstto add windowto''theBentley' Street side where there is= evidence o'f an,original window'l,ining up wit'h 'second anal tH'i'rd floor .w"indows. . The second and third floor Windows are double 'and-ahere. was" some ! discussion of." whether a 'doub.le window on ,the' first floor would be more appropriate 'and'0consis"tent with.kth6 architecture -of the building`. s The Commission was'• concerned about not,having had-'the opportun'.i,ty' for,a ' site ins ection but was a p g p pprec`iative of%the, owne'r''s' int' rest' i'n rovidin this t" egress 'window Ey. a May l rental date. The replacement of'an' "ex,ist,ing win- dow on the Hardy Street side, was determined to. be not'visible`,•from Derby` Street:" The application also ,called for a 'newz,front' door 8f,s�tee1, 1n_ r . sulated construction.. Concern was expressed==t' hat or"iginal materials are' i , . general"ly more appropriate,' particularly on a's.idewalk,locati.on ♦; � . A MOTION was made to approve two double-hung windows to-match'"existing, ; second land third floor•windowsland, to deny,� the steel door. Voting;+in i,a ss ', favor of approval -Wer' Zaharis , idolfsonkand Mrs. Wheaton. Opposed was. Mr.-Cook.+ 'Abutters" IIT'" be'not i f i'ed: „ �•, � �° -" �. Aof 8-10 River, Street 1Stephen Whittier wa%s present to discus.s plans :for new construction 'at -10' R'iver Street and to seek the Commissi'on's endorse- ment for variances from all sef-"ba'ck and dens.ity 'requirements: Members found the general lot" to',be' consistent with ihi , pattern of Salem' s 'historic neighborhoods', .with°buildings ,set -close to; the sidewalk and .1in t. close proximity, to neighboring "bw ld"ings.' ":T,fiey expressed"some concern . ' about `the particular design,of `.the.bui:lding,' but -endorsed'the concept,°in . general , 'deferring more .discuss ionuntI"1` the "regular 'meeting;whenMc." ?:, ' a blhittier wouVd 'return for the :Certi'f:icate'of A'ppropri,ateness . f Other .Business ' 2`' Chestnut Street V"Condomini"um Conversion -The Commission next con 4 sidered ,the petition .before, the' Board of Appeal of Mr, James Maguire for ,- condominium conversion at 2 ChestnuAt"Street. '.Mrs: Wheaton-explained that the Commission has made it 'a pol'icy to,'res pond.to con version. petitions in r h:istorie districts. `In."this case,, however,;the,proIperty is.. al'ready jo.intly owned as a. coope,ra"tive,' and after hearing thiSrinformation";`-the Commission _ y •voted to voice. no opinion .to the Board-,of .Appeal on'`'this 'matter. + w ' - s • SALEM HISTORICAL,"COMMIISS'ION' Page 2.� .'« ;` ',f f} April 24, 1984 Organizational Policy, , ( General discussion and sulggestions on the draft for. the Commission's guide- lines notebook introduction and windows. section followed..,; Ms : Hilbert, + Yankee Intern, .who-has',been worki,ng closely with aheCommission and the Steering Committee' for the Historic Salem Inc. Guidelines .and Options „tr" Project, read the proposed material . Suggested' changes were noted for redrafting. };x Respectfully submitted, s ? . Elizabeth B. Wheaton ` Chairman Minutes approved 5/2/84 Jp: • s TI i2 ' .SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION M6NUTES April 25;. 1984 The Salem Historical Commission met for a- specialmeeting on Wednesday, April 25, 1984, 7:00 p:,m. at One Salem °Green;. `Present were Messrs Carr, Wolfson, Zaharis, kPadjen and Slam and, Ms.. Harris-' ` Ms. .Hilbert and Mrs. -Wheaton. General discussion fol`lowed ontthe,guidel ,nesi"developed through the intern project, on;the followingtopics: �Y. ';'' a Siding and trim,'. doors,_doorways';,,porti<cos, E5,teps,,afences, i paint colors andrparkingtsoIutIons: a $:Jfi ' erL% k i". ,Ms. 'Hilbert will make revisions-a§ per changes suggested for latter, pre- sentation,at a regul.a'r, Commission meeting: Respectful I,y,s6bm.it.ted, Elizabeth B. Wheaton • Chairman Minutes approved 5/2/84 JP. .' .. w` t; v hh .may . k• 'i� - ' ° . Salem Historical Commission Minutes of Meeting '- + May 2, -1984 A regular meeting of the,,Salem His'torical`Commission°was held' on• Wed- nesday, May .2; 1-984 at 7:30''p.m. at One.Salem.Green .',,;Present were.Mrs.. Wheaton, Chaii;an, Ms Harris, Ms.`'Hilbert-'(Yankee Intern) and'Messrs. Cook, Lippman; Zahatis, Clarke" Carr, Wolfson and Slam`; Organizational Policies Guidelines' Project,- ,Roofing ` :.Ms. Hilbert read the section of her � . project regarding roofing She-wiII make revisions�as per 'changes suggested for later presentation a,t;.Ia regular Commission meeting.�,RRev pions were also -suggested for psectionslon`Siding`and Trim and,'changesiinVthe_ Paint Color 3: Section'were.reviewed, 4s,tw'el , "as' wording of,introductory portion of the Guidelines Notebook . M _ . ar. x, Local.District Oyeration,f } ;: . s R xT+.� x, ,a p ~", I 8-10 River Street,=(Mr.s&'i Mrs ^iStephen Whit tier-~were, present to discuss 4 further their plans?for=rieio�const`ruction at-:Ithis4address.' Set back and , density variances had '.been previously endorsed by the Commission, and the building°size has been° approved by the Board of Appeal.,,' ;Slight.additional footage -added, to `the- section where front door ed_ is locatwill result in better placeent'of door which was a 'problem initially.+ Porch,originally planned' in area of front door will be eliminated to,provide for parking reauirement.. Drawings will be reworked for .p esentation'to the Building • Inspector. It was suggested that amore symmetrical arrangement of. windows in front door area would be more typical' and 'should..be considered since the additional footage would allow' for• that. . The,ridgel'ine-of .the-roof where the two sections of house intersect,.was discussed a It;would be ^ . desirable'to give the impression of an ell,• as .it would be more typical' of historic .houses, where additions-were likely, rather''than,having it ' .line up exactly, and look more like recent construction. 'z Added pitch for one section of the roof was suggested,, with. the'.addition of- an.attic window.. Exposure-.of vents was discussed. '.Also suggested was,a•slight change-in sine of chimney. Mr'. ,Whittier will come back before the board '' again with more detailed, information`in June. z' 132/134 Derby Street716 Bentley Street Mr. Jon Hamilton was;present i `to discuss his plans,sfor. this area., Also:pr"esent was Mr._ David Jacquith, f the architect: Mr. Hamilton said-he has been to the Board o7V Appeal and'* was 'denied his first application on ,the grounds that. there were only four i parking spaces;. ' The structure has since been redesigned to''.ailow for nine ' parking spaces ' The two buildings involved,wilI -contain three condos each. y 'c The change in' structure' consisted of filling cellar beneath 132 Derby and putting five parking.. spaces on the ground,level".at rear. The:main `living area will 'be on the se'cond'floor. .Mr.' Hamilton`said' he does 'not have a I `. variance at this` point, " Duririgia. discussion' about the, roof, the suggestion to''consider a steeper pitch was offered. There was some concetn ,about the j. outside parking a rea., ';The'number of spaces reouired does not allow for any: �' `• fence screening^along Bentley Street.^ .Ms. Harris' made a MOTION to send a • letter to the•Board of .Appeal. endorsing this project and encouraging the ; y 4.1 .: t Salem Historical Commission P'age,.2 May 2, 1984 n • AuII Board to consider dropping the requirement for.parking spaces d9 and #4, a 5 thereby allowing for more. sensitive architecture'. ' Mr. Carr seconded the s. MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor, (7-0), Mrs. Wheaton said she would attend the Board of Appeal meeting (May 23) to present the letter personally, which will stress 'the importance of the _project for Derby ` Street. Mr. Hamilton will, come back befor.e `the`Commission.at-a_future meeting with his application for Certificate of-Appropriateness. Ms. Harris. made some additional suggestions regarding the' back porch section and pos- sible use of one.long gambrel roof, rather than'proposed design with one front gable section.. • 100 Federal Street Mr. Jacquith, architect for Mr. Robert Bramble, presented plans for changes to this building. The Victorian bracketed a. entry would be removed, It was his understanding that as Tong as there was evidence that the original doorway is intact under later alterations, there would be no problem with its removal for Tax Act Certification. ' He would also .like to add a skylight on the right side of the roof on the ° gambrel portion where it would not be visible from the street. This is a fi three-unit building. They -are considering adding a dormer on the back as ` well as a rail portion. Another change considered is removal of another ' small piece at the rear. -Color change is also a possibility. They would „ like to put a large fencek'across-; the back of the property to screen off the view of Universal Wrecking .. There was a question about the area with • two very close windows. Consensus was to recommend removal of one to '," �F restore symmetry. Shutters will be added to the front only and they will be wood. There wassome;.mention about requiring shutters for sides as well as front, but the consensus was riot to require this. Regarding the fence, standard flat board with cap was recommended, as well as the use of plantings to add extra height. Mr. Jacquith agreed to change the `- s '¢, deck size from 12' by 6' to 9' by 6' . This is on the rear .portion so that the rail will then not be visible from Federal Street, Paint chips will be submitted .the next time he comes before the Commission. Ms: Harris made a MOTION to- approve the plan with exceptions noted (change of deck size and requirement that shutters be of wood) . Mr. Clarke seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. (6-0) Mr. Cook had to leave early, so he did not vote on this item. , s 78 Derby.- Street Mr.. Douglas MacDonald was present to seek approval to erect a fence adjacent to his house at 78 Derby 'Street. The fence would , run 30 fent side of his house facing Derby Street and then 50 feet along Becket Avenue and 27 feet along the back. The plan 'calls for a flat board ' fence with cap, stained gray to match house trim. The boards would be butted and would be 5'8" in height.- At 'rear there would be a 20' gate (two 10' sections•with hardware on inside and painted black) . 'The,gate would have a scalloped top and would be 36" high at lowest •point. in the middle. Mr. MacDonald---did not have detail drawings of" fence, posts or gate which is arequirement..in most cases before approval, is .granted. Mr. Wolfson felt • ' that since the Commission had duled on this type of fence in the past, approval could be granted. by specifying without actual detail drawings. • Ms. Harris suggested use of corner posts to eliminate look of long expanse t ` ' e:49 ���:�`�:� r €{ 1 ,•,�.ys�r SCS? �i'. 1 � : , G ~.S ',, `.y"r_ • .t. k '"�,.a•T* 4 f } 9gd.�.'.+,q.v an ` ` - VV 3 ': a v' • '. i Y t t..�.+ S.A� ' r �' t,S ' 4,1' t ',. �i+,## > Salem Historical Commission Page'' 3 May 2, 1984. of fence, Though' the height is rather: high, Mrs. Wheaton noted that it is a side yard fence. Mr. Clarke suggested making the posts ;6" 'by .611, rather. than 5" by 5". Mr: Carr -made a MOTION to take the application under.advise- " ment. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. The vote,was 3 in -favor, 4 opposed. (3-4 Motion Denied) Mr. Clarke made- a MOTION to approve the fence, as pie- sented, specifying 14, by 5" smooth finish cedar, 5'8" high, .rails2" by 4" with five corner posts, one' at three corners and two at sides of gate. Posts would be 5" by 5" square'supports wrapped with pine•so finished di %4, - mension is 8" square; height of posts would be 6' to top of cap or.4" higher than main height of. fence'and capped by Brosco molding cap. Mr. Wolfson seconded,the.MOTION. Anendments to the MOTION included Mrs: } Wheaton's suggestion that,a detail "drawing, of,post and cap be submitted and a designee, (Mr. -Clarke) could review it to make sure -it corresponds q with suggestions approved; Ms. Harris 'suggested baseboard should be required on the Derby Street portion (size: 1." by 6") ; Derby Street portionshould . be located on the street, not set back;- additional posts, if desired by -, Mr. Ma6Donald,n.would be acceptable: The vote was unanimously,,in, favor. Abutters will be notified. Members expressed concern about the absence of .� scale drawings. Mrs. Wheaton.explained `'that.the homeowner had been informed that same were required, but$she, felt,"some flexibility by' the Commission in ' this case .was desirable. Some length of time had already transpired with original application for stockade denied, and" Mr. MacDonald had also had considerable difficulty with the locked One Salem Green entry at this , • meeting Mr. Wolfson's point about the flatboard fence was recalled. 7 River Street Mr. Carr submitted an, application for .permission to demolish an existing tin garage and eventually replace with landscaping, Ms. .Harris made a MOTION to approve the application. Mr.-Lippman `seconded - the MOTION.. The'vote was 5-,in favor (Mr., Zaharis opposed because'_the vote was taken after 10: 30 p.m: adjournmenttime) . ' (5-1) Prior to adjournment, the Minutes of the April 4, 24 and 25 Meetings wereaapproved. a Since, only, half of the,agenda was covered before time ran.out,' it was - decided `to meet' again on Wednesday, May 9, ' 1984 at 7: 30 p.m, This meeting adjourned at 10:40`p:m Res ectfully .submitted, _ Xan Fr, PizzeIlO k .of Commission Minutes approved 6/6/84 A . ' a. t4 e_ ' Salem Historical Commission Minutes of Meeting May 9, 1984 p The Salem Historical Commission'met for a? special,meeting-on,.Wednesday, ' May 9, 1984, 7:30 p.m. ' One Salem Green. ':Members present `were-Messrs: r Carr, Clarke, Cook,: Lippman, Wolfson,`Zahari+s snd,Mrs•• Wheaton and "r v ,.. Associate Members Padjen and -Slam..... ' °':; `_c * �• e >:n 'Local District Operationtr 91-93,iederal Street An application from Lance Colby Arlander and r• Jean Colby'Arlander'was�submitted for;fence,construction at 91-93 Federal yi Street.', 'Plans called for a-traditional ;edg'e'butt,'flatiboard fence '1" X 4" ♦.v'" finished side out with '5',' X 5" p , ' g g r ( ) post and ca s' 42 lon with 3 ate section to, be located at SWtpropertyl'corner. ,"Material is+cedar and finish will be dark gray stain ,to •match1.dwelling with lattice`°work accented ink white: ' The"total height of 6,-was confirmed- by-phone to the-owner. ' The three-part'motionrto ,approve�a ss: submitted:wasyapproved,unanimously, condi- tional on abutter notification: ThelCommission notedXthatIthe more informal. 5" X� 5"Junblocked'rcedarposts:;we eaccep'table": 'dueot`oithe location away from the sidewalk. i e# 'C'tialt.P ,� /tftiYR f m,,34 ,q �' yt ! FS #•y i'y' eft a .� ♦ , �f 396 Essex,Street �Dav�.d'C•larke next presented his,application for a rear deck•.at, 396 Essex -Street. 'He also explained that he-was- interested in receiving general commission approval,for*the, concept{offa-spiral staircase to;be;located at the".'rear`+of'the-#building•*`iIn .September,"1981 the°Commis sion had already approved an'application for`an exterior wooden staircase " at that location. The deck,plans..`called for agrailing•with 2" by 4,",i'fir top and .bottom rails,, and 5/16', .squa' e stock,ballusters., Removal of " existing stair hand rail and rep same fir stock top and bottom rail. Laitice.underdeck. ` ;;Members questioned the visibility' from Essex pry r '•and North.1'Pine, Streets, expressed concern::about ,the•,railings, needed on the roof,arid •at `the top of the spiral staircase,, evaluated the intrusive µrd - * " impact„of the spiral staircase versus the wooden. >.The Motion to approve the deck and railing and to 'approve 'the spiral'.staircase in' principle was - w approved'and„ seconded'with 'the.riote that the spiral<staircase iouldtb e— visibly less intrusive ,than the wooden'staircase,already approved. .The', ;` �• Motion was ipproved,,by a,vote of 4''to 1 with Messrs Cook, Lippman; - Wolfson;and Zahar,is in favor,tMrs.,Wheaton`opposed, Mr. Carr abstaining; and Mr., Clarke not voting. The approval was,contingent ,upon•abutter , notification. . r 41 ,F1intTStreet The>Commission-notedethat,the-,matter of'the.-second.., floor.bath`window installed at' 41 Flini. Street`widtiout Certificate was not yet,.res olved' and, 'further, that.two, additional'rwindows were .installed at the rear,,visible from•Federal Street, without Certificate,•w,The Commission directed be sent-to Mr. Wayne' Sousa„the[owner, `requesting his '; ' ,. _ attendance .at the June 6'°meeting to,present an'application'or .to ,explain . his' plaiis,to=correct these unapproved alterations, , The letter will convey i the Commission''s''expectation.of'Mr. Sousas': cooperation to•avoid legals: c' action`and'the advice that any,further interior work related,or dependent ' .`upon•these,windows should- be ceased or proceed 'at ,the owner's risk. Copies J to go,to Dick McIntosh, who will be 'requested .'to address the matter, . and William,F.inch, Tax,Act`Coordinator at Mass:''Historical Commission,,,- * � i -, -.; { gyp. `` �L a - �_`'s _• 41 )(' .er •+• y 0 , 4! • for .LS-".� far Cal Salem Historical Commis sion ! `Plage 2May 9;k•1984* Z 106 Federal -Streeti Mrs, Wheaton informed the Commission that Richard Minturn of 106 Federal Street -has filed a complaint;in'the Superior Court S ", of Essex Count ,.rela'Uve :to the Commission's denial f Y o his :applications for ,r ,Certificates of Non-Applicability and �Appropr ateness for greenhouse window installation: A letter was read from'City`Solicitor Michael O'Brien whin <.e;> expressed doubt as to the possibility of meritorious defense of the .actionr by the City. The consensus of the Commission was that there do not'exist, grounds''for a successful-appeal".and that Mr, ;Carr and -Mrs. Wheaton should meet with Mr, O'Brien and relay the Commission's interest 'in' having' the try 1� ' City'defend the case.. Mr. Lippman dissented"from thiseview.' Bowditch School, 35 Flint Street The Crowninshield.Corp6ration will present plans at the-next meeting.— The 'federal tax- act reviewers have `denied,the project .for -certification due%to. the-proposed demolition of the , gym, mandated by the City Council in Salem in 'allowing the sale of the school. The Commission will 'advertise.noticeof'this' application and send individual notices to the immediate neighborhood:' Flint Street, Federal to. , Essex; 144 Federal to 161 Federal; 'Fowler,'Street;#N. •Pine Street;'• 384 .Essex to 398 Essex, 4,.x 5 S. Pine Street Members were advised to inspect the property at 5 „South Pine Street for possible siding',application' :at-the''June meeting, • Other .Business ' 2 Winter Street Plans were presented for a new doorway to. accommodate dental offices at 2 Winter Street as well as replacement•of a door with, plate glass,'•.The matter' was referred to the 'Commission by Building'-In- spector, ' Dick McIntosh, who reviewed this ''as -well as a5previous plan for the'building and found` some .difficulties with the design, given the"archi tectural,quality of .this Italianate building. '.The-.Commission agreed that i the revised plans were .an "improvement over-the original, - but found these rto o be"problematic. :The Commission'was hopeful that :the owners might be willing to eliminate the�,exterior vestibule but,"`if not, 'that• its`design could be adapted so as to be more sympathetic to the- building's;architecture. Concern was expressed about the fixed glass,. recommending instead a window or bricking over. fTheiCommission '.directed that a letter be sent to-owners, Drs, Jan B. rRozen andfArnold I. Maloff applauding restoration efforts, but expressing concern for- the door and window and offering tormeet with-the Ir ` owners/architects" at their earliest convenience. Mrs, Wheaton,and Mr, Padjen were designated•,for such a meeting, . s '10-12 Lynda Street 'The Commission ,next considered plans for 10-12 Lynde Street referred by,Michael Moniz, Salem-Redevelopment Authority. The Commission found the',plans generally''appropriate to the building's style and period with ,the' following additional recommendations: � • 1. Windows: "Muntins should bee integraT',to the window construction, not of the "snap"in' variety; windows should not be vinyl;, i t y,. 1 gh tonfiguration 'should ,by 6 X 6, Y4P Salem Historical Commission Page 3 May 9, J984 t' 2. Color: Green tones with darker trim, appear appropriate. Commission has periodrpaiint, chart,with .recommendations, for. this, period '`Sug- '-•gest-before)final choices :are made that these be consulted. . (Perhaps introduction .ofra third color for sash) 3: Cedar sidiing•on_the front should duplicate the existing rusticated style. 4. All existing architectural details: other than those spefi£ically { , mentioned should remain undisturbed. ;,` , 5. The crown molding.and 'gutters should ,be 'replaced;as`existing, 6. A facade easement should be conditional- on removal of the planter " with installation of appropriate fencing and restoration of. the facing on thesfoundation as necessary. A '° • 7. All- work should be closely supervised as it progresses. :4w Carriage, House: Ordinance`. Mrs. Wheaton-reported that an ordinance amend- ing the zoning ordinance to permit the-occupancy -of carriage houses for r single, family dwellings was approved. It included the requirementthatqs_ exterior changes be ,approved by the Commission, ,a requirementrecommended by the Commission. .., , ' F- • Organization -and Policy°`a h i r^`R el Mailing , Mrs. Wheaton related"that MrsPizzello-has prepared the home- owner letter and cable TV guidelines for mailing which should begin soon. e i Respectful:ly' submitted, . r ' . Elizabeth B. Wheaton Chairman` ' Minutes approved 6/6/84 i f • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting . June 6, 1984 A regular meeting of the Salem,Historical' Commission was held�on Wed-,- nesday, June. 6, 1984 at 7:30 p.m. at One Saleni Green. Present were Mrs. Wheaton, Chairman, :Ms: Harris and Messrs, Carr, Clarke, Lippman, Wolfson, Zaharis, Padjen and Slam. Also present were City Councillors'Grace and O'Leary. Local District Operations Bowditch School ` Pres.ent for the discussionfconcerning the.Bowditch * Fb School were representatives of the developer„ -Crooininshield.Corporat, s (Mrr. Philip Singleton, owner, Ms; Elaine Finbury, . attorney, and Mr. David t Jaquith; architect)' and several residents of the neighborhood who had been ” invited to discuss their concerns at this point. To open the discussion it „ was noted that developing the application for national tax credits resulted, in a review of the building and subsequent denial of-.permission to tear. a'. `.. down the gymnasium portion of the building, which Was' part of the original plan for development: The developer, who had at first,planned to use the k .,gym for units, agreed to the demolition because of parking considerations. However, when it was turned down.in Philadelphia, he decided to increase the number of units from 28 to- 34 by- utilizing the gym. He would also pro- `' t vide for additional parking spaces beneath the gym. The present plan calls a'; 'for 72 parking spaces. Parking on Fowler Street which is narrow is a con- " ' cern. Mr, Singleton said if the neighborhood consented to having access • through Fowler. Street into the development, he- was was willing to.make available additional parking spacespfor Fowler°Street residents',at a nominal fee ($1 per year) , ,.!ir`4,i .Y3:,. +` ,� +�* }' ';"- *-r:, ;R,. ed '� , ,� • � w r Mr. 'Jaquith discussed,how the.-gym would be dealer with .architecturally. Since it is two stories high 'thejplarisacall ,for seven- townhouse units. There will be no exte"riorlchanges+on the Flint Street side. The only change on the exterior of the Federal Street side is 'a minor revision of the stair- way. Parking spaces for 14 .cars will be incorporated beneath{,the gym by .a. lowering the floor slightly. Windows will stay the same in order to meet y historical requirements. Though, there will be no exterior changes, the structure will be compl e�lyare` ored. All changes approved- by Mass. 'Historical and.National' in Philadelphia. The main reason they felt the gym,had to stay is that both the rear wing. and the gym were built at the same time. If� there had been a difference in the dates, Philadelphia would have considered allowing demolition. Their feeling ..is that if part of a building is to'be restored they wouldwant all of it to be saved, Councillors Grace and O!Leary` stated that 'they were present to get the general feeling of the neighborhood to the development, .and at this point residents of the area were- invited to ask questions or express their opinions. .- Following are some of the concerns voiced. One area resident asked whether there would ,be separate entrances at the rear and was told -there are separate entrances for the gym units and one primary entrance that is the main entry located on Flint Street. There is an emergency entrance/ exit at the,.side. A Fowler Street resident expressed concern about the • cars presently parking on Fowler Street and how they would be accommodated Salem Historical Commission _ A Page 2 s ' , Tune 6, 1984 , 4 � ..since+thestreet is 14' wide. from curb to curb. Another neighbor added that " there are; presently 6 to-9 -cars using the courtyard parking space now. The 10-foot buffer zone and fence and whether there was anyoprovision 'for' in creased noise due to increased traffic was discussed. The developer'saId he would be glad to work with the neighborsregarding iahat happens along the- fence. A suggestion was•made to use evergreen shrubs in that area, Additionally, the,present fence will be, replaced' with something more resp dential: There was .a question about proposed lighting,, liut no plans have '42 been set for that at present. Concern was voiced about bright light re ' quired which would shine into neighbors', bedrooms; The developer said he would try. to ,keep it. as low as possible and still maintain safety. A Flint Street resident said she y was verconcerned about increased-traffic Ile ' and parking on Flint Street and the additional units will not help the situa8ion Mr., Singleton said- because of'the revised plan there would be ` m ' fewer cars than-originally planned entering and exiting on Flint Street. , Also under :the first plan there wouldhavebeen fewer parking spaces • �- i' available on the'Foo`rler ',Street end, 9 . rt; Councillor Grace asked if there was,any avenue of appeal'regarding the decision to demolish the'gym and whether there, was 'any possibility that the kit decision could be overruled. Ms. Finbury said.the decision could be appealed, but 'it' is the'opinion of the Park Service that the gym should +' r not come down. They feel the intended .use is`not,an appropriate preserva- • 'tion solution. They further feel that*by,removing that portion of the ' building .it would cause a blight on the visual integrity, of the whole. Her personal .assessment,was that it should be preserved. if at all'possible since thererare.many interior details worth saving in the gym. ' Council- lor Grace asked that the Commission take :into :account what the neighbor- hood people had. to say: i.Mr. Singleton said`as a concession he would offer 6-8 parking spaces to the Fowler Street,people. '-A Federal Street resident asked whether the"d6 would still consider developing if the neigh bors •pushed for stopping the federal tax credits: Mr:'`Singleton said it would depend on economic conditions at .the time.; Councillor O'Leary.ques- tioned the timing of -the,appeal. ,,.Ms. Finbury said -it was-not. a question of . timing, just one of preservation. The 'original intent was to 'preserve the gym. Plans were revised -after neighborhood meetings indicated a desire to demolish. After review the government agencies came back with denial of it the, request,'to demolish. Neighbors noted .that as it,stands now,,the building is a fire hazard and a target for'vandals, .• One -of the neighbors expressed concern that the.10-foot ,buffei .zone � which had been a condition of the sale-would be lost. He was told thht if it is lost the developer„would try to'makeJe up,with,higher and denser planting., Part,of the reason:for ,the buffer' zone was'�to'+pre'vent damage from•snow`removal!f Mrd'Singleton ,said lthesfence!,would,�preuent snow'removal.'. 'damage. ' The question of;building security was discussed. Mr, Singleton said 'they are. presently clearing out.everything flammable.;in order to reduce the fire, haza'rd,gadding' that"itfi's 'almos.t, iinossible to secure„ a vacant building.-' I Federal Street neighbor.aske'd `why the developer did not y• r consider going the appeal route, (regardingt�the ,gym) .-)Mr.�`S,ingleton replied ` that they were impressedhe with(ttreasoning from Philadelphia. He thought s , Salem Historical Commission Page 3" "' June 6, 1984 y 4 • , the present plan was abetter` one for the entire neighborhood,, He indicated „+ that they.-plan,to. go before' the local Appeals Board and, if that,fails, they-. i will .go�back to Washington. . At,'that-time they will decide what, the econo- dx nighmic' admosph'ere ior' s,..comented'that he was very r anxious to see. something done .with',the building becaus", whatever is done i will be an.im rovement The questions was asked whether an " 7 « p q any plans z for development_ were consideied 'at any '.time :for this building.' Councillor Gracesaid one, plan was;for low-income handicapped houaing Fr.�Lambert - of-St. James expressed his opinion .that,anyth'ing ,that is done will help ; f clean up; the'area y With 'people living in�the�buildingrit�is�unlikely that «- there-.would be groups hanging,around.�' H�e agreed that the 'Streets in.the F , ,area are narrow-and didn't,know what thesolution;to that problem would be: Councillor' 041,eary said. Fowler 'S"treet is the'problem:''. It is',a'one-way coming `in with+a 'narrow 'turn into North Pine 'Street. , The,,neighbors' are concerned about file exit.. • Councillor Grace "said,there`must'be 12clear - ante for fire apparatus.• t is`possible .there-would be no'—a king ,on " f� 'Fowler"`Street from the corner.:of ,North Pine to the'rear of they school'.. , Technically;`people'are'`parkiiig illegally there now: z - . . ` .. ...� .` That"'observation-closed the public discussion. At this point members ',: .I of the Commission were asked for their. comments' and questions. 'Mr. .Pad3en ^ i asked about theI.number�of units`in the,central. building• - There were" originally: 12.and 16. :He a'sked,whether half of; the gym'had been consider- ed 'foridemolition and_was 'told by Mr.. Jaquith`that`Mass Historical had • ; problems with that " ` He`asked wfiat•would prevent a .c" owner from s changing anythingtthat was preserved;.and'was.told 'there'was nothing tot, stop'that. Ms. Finbury, said they do Have. the right.'of'inspection, after a " property has been `ceYtified, jMr:,Padjen asked 'about:;the :possible removal of the,ceritral building,. Mr. Singleton said it was'not 'economically,feas- " ible and he .didn't think the Historical+people would,.go along with that,` ' . - . l -Mrs. Wheaton clarified_ the action which the Historical" Commission could take; ..`1) Since the developer must go back to 'the,Board of Appeal, the Commission'coulId or could itot'+endorse the :new;plan'and 2) if an appeal 'is 'serit to the Department.ofythe Inter'ior,.,'the`Commissiontcould or could not make a strong �statement.about the, validity,ofithe. appeal. Ms. „ Finbury said she t-hought the .Commission had. already done that with the, y neighborhood concern about'..parking;and density (demolition,of.;gym) . Mr. Siggleton .said•;he felt there was concern locally about getting something going because of the danger as it stands now. He'said he would,appreciate - .the support of the,ComnisLon before the Council and the 'Appeals Board. ' •,r' ' ' :',r �P v ,i ]q� ; t PZ 1•� �C"°.�i. 0 it .t„r3 ♦•ii s-Y �j � j Mr. Padjen,expressed�concernlabout, gue^st�par A g.Mr' Singleton`said a• .that i.s•a problem., the code calls for l,,spaces so�'they are alneady build--, ', ,',. - ing more 'than, required by code? Guests may; be ,parking on the;street., Mr, ' Padjen..asked about handicap access =Mr. Jaquith felt thatwould be waiveied, .-. , but they can provide handicap parking. -`Mr. Zaharis"asked.how interior detail s • would be preserved when apartments areyconstructed., ,Ms Finry said. there would be '& lot' of openlspace,tpaiticularly.,Anear large-windows., Mr. 'Zaharis -. asked about"the trim in;th_e^stage area of the gym Mr: Jaquith acknowledged .;that as a '-difficult There `is a certain amount of flexibility allowed. Salem Historical `Commission. ' # Page 4 '" June 6, 1984 S 4, . .Historic people are aware that units are. going in-there. AThe developer will do his best to save or adapt, Mr. Carr reviewed briefly the number of units and parking spaces and increases proposed, -He stated''that the*Commission is, on record as-approving demolition. The''Commission'is not holding' up ItSi work,.' Ms. Finbury said ., that there was a requirement-under the law that'Fedeial review bermandated' "since the building is in a :historic district. Mr: Carr asked when the work r." ` , •-� -was firstro osed. and was told+it was p p prior to 1981. Though that pre-' ` dates the establishment of the district, `there is•a Tax Act of 1976 which applies. Ms. Finbur said it was pp y originally the developer's intention to € ; certify for tax purposes. Mr. Carr .said in order to qualify there would have to be absentee owners. Mr, Singleton said .there,:would .be cross-renters.-'^ Mr, Carr observed that original'units will'not. :be..owner-occupied for five - years, Mr Singleton'said some will and some will not. , Mr. Carr asked if any tree removal was required. Mr. Singleton- said there was very little vegetation on the property, ;'Mr. Carr asked about show removal and-was told they would have;to truck"a°porfion .to-makelmany 'sense out,of-the plan. ` There xi was no objection 'to that andiit .would'be part of 'the agreement with the • owners association. - + `'�'•" _, Mr, Lippman askediabout°,ventilation in'tlie'underg`round parking area , Mr. Jaquith saidit•would be done mechanically. Mrt Lippman asked about *' ratio of parking to units (one and• two bedroom) and was told that though only l'k spaces were `r`equired .p`er 'unit,. they felt because ,parking was tight n in the.neighborhood t`he' extra"would not''be.detrimental. The ,six new units } are all two-bedroom, Ms. Harris.asked .if it was required to have that much parking and'was told that 'the only effectivejway to use the gym was to use part.of ii,for. parking. - Mr. Singleton thought it would be required'by the city and the neighborhood, Ms, 'Harris expressed her0concern about, the need _ {' for more landscaping and buffering. She' said she would much.preferbetter �,:= ,• landscaping to more parking spaces. Ms. Harris reminded the developer that- '°-it is not ,enough to go through state 'and° local historical' agencies; the Commission will need' to see the, plans of the building for approval of doors and windows, etc•.-- ' Mr. Singleton said,h_e was aware.of thasrequirement and . will be' submitting plans for approval. Mr,;Clarke was concerned about the narrow width 'of Fowlerv'Street. Mr. . -`Singleton said he felt they were making the Fowler Street.area better, Mt. , Clarke' asked why the number of units was not kept at 28. Mr. .Singleton replied that it was not economically feasible. Mr. .Clarke agreed with other Commission members 'that .more: landscaping would be preferable. Mr. Jaquith said they would try-for more depth of greenery. ' Mr. Singleton said that if the.His'torical Comm'is'sion,would' recommend deletion of a_few parking spaces 1 they would the glad .provide:inore` greenerg. to Ni. Siam asked whether'they 9 would consider-making the gym a health club. - Mr. Singleton said a 28-unit building would not support a gymnasium (heating, maintenance, etc.) . It ,s is just .not economically. feasible: Mr. Padjen thought it might also 'comt ' pound the'parking'problem. Mr, Slam spoke about the double row of parking. . which was originally to be sing le. + s Salem Historical Commission ,', p iPage 5 = s yt June 6 1984 '� k, t . f (r 4S.fi :x �A`? J£. 4st {r.,i.tf 4•.t}F V, Sj'i x {' xrj 's. „i Mr. Padjen made.suggestions about screening the dumpstei,area by set-, ting it in a*brick',enclogureywith'some'+landscapingkaround it." The developer .. c , . a �, . . saw no prob$ema-with that'.', Mr `Padjen Id public amenities 'i were •considered. Mr. Singleton' said he anticipaie's':noue' but'would be wil- ling to. hear 'the board,,s suggestions if any: 9Mr. Padjen askeo about,air-' lwd Conditioning. It is to.be'"ce'ntral',with*roof-.top ,ventilation9'lrno .exterior units showing. ' Mrs:"'Wheaton felt 'the'se 'details�could be-discussed later 1' when the,.application ,for, certificate of appropriateness is• submitted. Mrs. 't .M Wheaton read the short comments written by.;neighbors: Mr.^Pad gn;said he had' roblems with the harsh''look`o£`the � p, parking area. Mr. Carr said there^seemed to be a consensus 'about�the 'large'hot topped area, . - and lossiof some of the buffer zone. " Ms.'�H'arris felt that-the.-whol_eTarea would be more attractive with more landscaping; Mr. Carr spoke `of, the need'. to get ,going.wfrom the ,neighbors' viewpoint," addingxthat ,they`might'.opt for r ,z +sacrifice oflandscaping if the Board of Appeals requires-more,parking ,just so the project gets started. Mr. Singleton -said :he,would look at the eco- " . . nomical effect,of using something better than^hot-top, but 'he was .not ,likely to use brick as Mr.-'Padjen had suggested 45 Mr. Zaharis made ,a MOTION to take the subject under advisement: Mr. 1` • Carr seconded the .MOTIONs The .vote was`•in favor, Mr.' Singleton' agreed to submit a more, detailed plan 'on buffer and landscaping for review.,by4the ' Commission. He hoped for Commission comments befoie`he is scheduled "to go- a before the Board of Appeal 155 Derby Street Mr.- Staley McDermet, as architect, presented an, application on behalf- of'the' owner,4Mr;-:William Quinn, 'to paint' the ex: terior of the building at, 155 ;Derby :Street and .remove. a,ioof overhang at the. rear. 'He ;told the Commission that the business on the first floor, Anderson Vining, will remain. The apartment units?on'.the .second, third and fourth floors will be' restored.`. The ,small'roof, similar' to a carport,- " on the rear is, to be remoyed:. '.Mr. 'Zaharis made a MOTION.to.approve,.the r removal of the roof'overhang::at the rear of3.155 Derby'Street. Mr. Wolfson ' seconded"the°MOTION. The 'votewas unanimously' fn favor,• Mr. Carr made a MOTION to•approve either of. the color^combination"s submitted. " Mr:. Lip- pman seconded; tfie MOTION. "Mr. :Clarke. noted thaib he frames of- the windows r will also be painted: ' The MOT-ION was amended 'to .add that `the[:parapet should be continued'•around the roof-. :The ;vote:on the amended;MOTION was . mfr14 ' unanimously in favor. ,.` ;'.'+ "'•�•�a ° _ , 41 Flint Street,* Mr. Sousa'- !the owner„ and Mr. McKay,,.the.contractor on`the job,`were .present,to-discuss, the,'window"violation at'that address. .''', ' -. ,The window is -a 'bathroom window. Theo. owner'. says he has .no problem with making',it°righe., They, 'propose=to put°.,the original, size'window back put F > shutters on•all 'the front windows, -and close .the"shutters on the,bath' window permanently for ; -thought it-might' not,`even be neces- ' sary:to,; put, glass in,since the shutters would never be'opened. Some4` '_ members of the Commission had problems with'this ,solution since the • 'symmetry' of the-windows', would be affected. , Mr._.McKay said the'alternative 4. i � y w �•X „"`m i Salem Historical Commission - ' Page. 6 June 6, 1984 ., would be to remove,^)the shower, Ms. Harris suggested using tile instead of a molded unit. Mr. Carr made a MOTION that the application for permanently" closed shutters be..dexiied ,and instead require reintroduction of window with` �' clear glass and shutters to match other windows. . The property owner would determine what is behind the window. Mr. Clarke seconded the MOTION, The vote was unanimously in favor. The second topic concerning this property was, two windows on the Federal' Street side. Mr. Sousa said this proposal was tied in with egress which -Ts. "4r to be an exterior staircase .approximately 4 to' 6 feet wide. The staircase ', will cover one of the windows in question and helsaid he was willing to make ' the visible window stained glass if the Commission prefers. Mr. Carr noted ` that"_this house is presently a two-family unit, . and Mr. Sousa's application for a third unit was denied. The staircase plan shows that it commences at u the attic level. Mr. Sousa said 'there would be rooms on the third floor, ;�r. He said he would like to put a balcony or deck off bedrooms and hopes in the future to appeal the decision not to allow the third unit: Mr, McKay +' said the drawing is deceiving; actually the stairs will not. cover either ' of the windows. The Minutes, of the February l meeting were 're-read. This issue was. decided then. The Commission at that time suggested-a covered ( ;. stairway from the second floor of the house. Mr. McKay agreed that would be more feasible. Mr, Carr noted that the Commission has taken strong ; positions against stairways which are;visible from the street, and it t` r needed to be persuaded that there is no other way. to accomplish this with- out locating the stairs on the outside of the building. A'rail on the deck of second floor would probably, be acceptable and the stairs leading' i down would be enclosed. Adding an interior staircase would reduce the .4 space available on the first floor. The feeling of`some of the members was that the problem was self-created and Mr. Sousa is still hoping' for a third unit and is making plans accordingly. Members also expressed concern with the size of the extension required toaccommodatestairs inside; Mr. ; Lippman had no problem with exterior staircase if the deck,doesn't extend too far and if the windows are reinstalled on the second floor'. Mr. Clarke . ' suggested that the door be put in the. center on the second floor rear, Ms. , Harris told Mi. Sousa about the tax credit advantage which would be avail- ; able if the work is done correctly. Mr. Clarke felt they should come back with more detail since the staircase is incorrectly drawn, door placement is not shown, etc . , Detail :drawings,are,required, .The Commission would like ' " to see more deta l^`on+a`:Victorian'rail ng,isecond;flooi. windows (which were. - removed) replaced;'`detaii•of doorway, po`ssibility 'of' staircase being enclosed and egress commenced at second floor level, not third. Mrs. Wheaton is to P . advise Mr. Sousa`when .he shou'ld' be'back' Mr,- Sousa asked"" for'a letter from the Commission detailing areas iri hich he 'is allowed,to'proceed. He was told he could prime everything white and do the corrections on the bathroom window. No other changes will, be,�madeAtoy,the exterior. Work within these „ limits may proceed''on'ithe three Sides of the house with' nothing :done at the p rear until approval is -granted Mrs. Wheaton is to ask Mr. McIntosh to y remove the stop work order, 5 South Pine Street An application was submitted by the owners, • Josephine Rizzotti and Frances Rizzotti to install 7-7k" cedar shingles, , Ie • drK. .. J ' l,}Y..ash 1. �. i..� �'EX i > Y .'S^ � ,+! . .. Salem Historical Commission Page 7- z June,6;-1984 . i Trim is to 'be Colony Blue and 'shutters to be black or blue;,' Mr. Carr made +� a MOTION�t.6 approve the:. shingles, the color of the ',trim and to .suggest' staining the .sh les.Seashell n g (grayish) which is more appropriaG;e than � . the New Cedar ;color requested: ,.Shutters-,should be either'existirig or, if e ' new, wood (not vinyl) ," Mr,Zaharis se'conded.the MOTION. The vote was unanimously "in favor. Abutters will be notified, Prior to adjournment-,, Mr. Zaharis' made: A'MOTION toW."approve "the Minutes of the previous meetings. Mr. Carr seconded the MOTION:. The vote was unanimously',in favor,'�> Since there were several':agenda "items not coveredwhen time ran out, it was decided to .meet"again'on Monday, June 11, at 7:1.30.'p,m ; _ r This meeting adjourned at 1645 p.m w Respectfully submitted.. n p• �.n/tet%/ice/',,__ Jban F. Pizzello %,'/ J . Clerk of Commission ' ? Approved 7/11/84 4 W r ... �� �� ` r '�5..�.� s 1 E"F s �w`�+•,��1"4 e� 4 � 'rE''� �b.�y�,F ., A' • . .i n°�Y � e {{�� � � . iw rte. t LL-d•e . .} • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting June 11;;1984 A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Mon- '. `. day, .June 11, 1984 at 7:30 p.m. in the Building Inspector's office at One Salem Green. Present were Mrs. Wheaton, Chairman, Ms. Harris,and Messrs. #.`M Carr, Clarke, Lippman, Wolfson, Zaharis and Padjen, • y Local District Operation r 12-14 Summer Street' . Mrs, Wheaton read the application of the owner, y Fred D. Small, for vinyl 'siding -and clapboarding. The siding sample sub- mitted was white vinyl. The present material on the house is asbestos. ` Mr. Carnes, representing the owner, said they plan to insulate using blown- in.material, remove and properly dispose'of the asbestos siding, paint trim keeping it intact, repair facia and soffit, paint. soffits, doors, �etc:..and keep the water table the same. No details would be changed except for installation of. siding; all trim would be wood, Mr, Zaharis asked what was. beneath the asbestos and was told there were clapboards which are not in good shape. Mrs. Wheaton said original materials are encouraged and though siding is not totally ruled out, the Commission approaches applications for its use with. care, Mr. Carnes said clapboarding in'building that size . would be prohibitive. There is a building next to this which is sided, though Mrs. Wheaton pointed out that that change predated establishment of the district. Mr. Carr noted, that the graining on the sample submitted was distressing. Mr,- Carnes said there is a matte finish, available, add- ing that in his opinion the texture is not noticeable because of the colors. a<. He told the Commission that No. ;10 Summer: Street is' also, scheduled to be updated, Ms. Harris pointed out that the';guidehnes prohibit siding, both aluminum and vinyl andtithe•'entire Commission 1ad'agreed'that no siding % would be allowed. She said putting up siding would cause the wood behind it to rot. Mr.,,Carnes dis'agre'ed. It was his�,po'sition' that.;Vinyl siding , does allow air behind, 'though'the asbe'stos.,that is .there`�is airtight and has caused the clapboards beneath to be in poor condition. Existing clapboards are 4°,, Mri Carr made" a .MOTION to close,the ;hearing. Mr, + Zaharis seconded• he'MOTION; '•The vote was unanimous'l'y-in*favor: Mr. Carr agreed with Ms. Harris that Commission policy which was adopted some ago prohibited siding except in extreme cases. He feels it is an inapprop- riate napprop riate material and made a MOTION to deny the petition as submitted. Mr 4 Zaharis seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in, favor of denial , f Suggested alternatives were to either -repair existing asbestos or remove t it and repair clapboards. Mr. Carr. suggested investigating tax advantages if the owner decided to undertake any considerablework. Also-suggest ed was the possibility of doing the front portion and the sides and rear in j r the future, or doing front as suggested and repairing existing material on sides and rear, Bowditch School Mr, Jaquith was present to further discuss altera- tions to the parking area on this project. Mr,. Padjen made additional sug -- gestions for ground cover, cBreaking.up'the size=of the lot with a tree/ shrub break at the:midpoint was Manotfier_ suggestion. The number of required parking spaces was discussed. Mr. Padjen spoke about raising the trees and ground cover a few .feet for a-more interesting effect.. Ms. Harris .. ; ry, M1 a v •A .Salem-Historical Commission cPage. 2 June 11`; 1984 spoke :aboui -the,alteknative.6f:using'asphalt withg avel overlayment; how- t¢ ? * t every' the;problem of=marking spaces on that material would• havea'to'be addressed:>,*Landscaping `for the;rear"of the lot,` at the.Fowler Street end' r. + v ` was also di•dcussed. 'With the suggestions made, the number of°parking spaces was'reduced lto,..65 ' F'A change in the location�'of the dumpster from }' r the corner to the middle of the.,lot,would,be ,preferable It. could,.be fenced:iin-by,a brick wall: Mr.', Padjen suggested. using trellisixig^over the.. . topCto`liide it for the benefit of'the aliutters"near it. , 'Mr.-Carr .expressed s -rconceri for the trees to be planted when snow-is�plowed against them. %Mr,., a' r« , 2r-Tadfen suggestedsusing;slope-faced granite type bumpers. -' Tre s could 'then be.somewhat' protected:' 'fMs ,Harris said her'per sonaUiiecommendation to the ` 'Board -of Appeal would be. for°`a maximum of 65_ spat"eswith'encouragement• to ' _ r -approve even lower.. 'The consen"sus was ;to iecommendu,reducing',the number of spaces required to ';Ilow 'for landscaping,. and 'that.the length "requirement ,be reduced'in thenortheast, corner 'to.allow.for additional landscapingi"+' Ms,,Harris made a MOTION that"the Commission approve the, plan as .altered and l) ;reduce the -number,of spac'es'toca•maximum of .65'%2). reduce .length . of spaces along fence to allow; for,better 'landscaping; .and 3), state 'that..' the-Commission,is.happy with ;the de ,r veloper's decision*toetain,the' gym. ' r ' ;Mr; Carr'seconded the, MOTION.',The vote,was'' unanimously' in-favor. 8-10 River' Street ' ';Mr, ' Stephen',Whitt3'.er;':, the owner, presented his plans;forka one-family ,structure at.'this address,' which incorporated the changes suggested at. a,previous Commission:meeting....•The'bridge 'of the` • roof was changed to add an attic''window; chimney size was'changed; place-, ` " -' ment of,-,the front door.was adjusted; and `louvergand- Continuous midge vent ' , Were incorporated (which th6 ,a rchitect',.feelS.iSrieC05S8ry) , 7Mh. �CarT •" s, ` mentioned the squareness of ,the' second-floor windows because of. their' _ ; " placemen't; which unlike other houses on the 'street=•is-not •'directly under the roofline, A simpler entrance design ,w`as suggested,^ as ;opposed,to the stock entrance.drawn in the plans, as;it was 'felt that would' be more i' , - keeping'with-the simple design of .t. e house. .Size of. window,casing's was 'discussed1briefly. . Since ,soffit,vent was included; it•was. felt that ' 'additional venting at >roof'back:'and;ridge'`went'wouldrnot',be_ necessary. , ' It'was 'suggestedgthat the .vent over the%attic'window be 'removed and some: other.prov sion'forfventing be built.into, the window." It was further ' , suggested that the .ridge vent-'be removed entirely. -Ms. Harris said'another 'Z , option .could be that``^alroof• vent could be used on the 'rear if it *as felt to be,a requirement. ' of _band molding on` the windows,_and corner,"boards .�.,. • � . .,A was suggested (1"'by 5"). Bigger, window sills were a consideration also r. (lk" with 'ears) ' It..was furtherrrecommended';that,the second-floor windows tl -be extended up to just ,under.the,,.roof. .' Bana,molding should also go around the rear. door, '.A recommendation[was 'made-.to: use brick veneer,on the : ' visible portion of the,front•foundation,-'If concrete is 'exposed, it should` + be rubbed or stuccoed. -„I The 'front"step' should be granite. - Mr. Whittiery will-come back to:,the.Commission.,with+further,.refinemen,ts ,sug'jestedtan&.. A color,for approval, Mi:,Carr tmade a MOTION'.to f appr©ve the Aplans ,fo'r, 10° - River •Street• is submitted and revised •above ;-Mr: Clarke secoride'd `the +o CMOTION. , :The vote was 'unanimtously 'in }favor: .K{Abutteis to b'e not ified, • . 1 Pickering Street. ,Paint chipsiiwere submitted by the,owners•of`this , 4 y,,.: k �}' , cf'� � y • �+�l..�e v9Tw ,p,. �. Ii ,.q r r n.” �"'i'". _ , 6 ' lam* � <p•�n v S'' } .V�'! r •d Z l Salem Historical Commission Page 3June 11, 1984 p, g'" i. property, John and Linda Locke, who wish to paint the exterior. The'body is to be buff with columns white and shutters and doors black. Mr. Lippman made'a MOTION to approve as submitted, Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION, All'were in favor, except Mr. Carr who was opposed because of the prepon- derance of yellow houses in that area. - 20-22 Chestnut Street The owners of this property, James B., & Janice B. Schooley and John H. Neeley and Christine'B. Sullivan, submitted a paint chip in a shade of yellow for the exterior. Commission members had problems , -with the particular shade of yellow since they felt it was not compatible with other yellow tones on the street 'and:does not appear to be .historically accurate. Mr.'Carr made a MOTION thataa `delegation of the Commission meet with the owners at the site and that the delegation be'authorized to approve amore ,appropriate color for that building, Mr. Zaharis' seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. ;The delegation will consist -of Mrs, Wheaton, Mr. Carr and Mr. Clarke. 411-413 Essex Street . Mrs. Wheaton told the board'that she had been contacted, by Mr. McIntosh, the Building Inspector, regarding the need to secure this, site which holds ''a'partially,demolishedtfoundation, . Since he x was scheduled"Go"be in:court,.with-the owner the following day, he had re- quested that the Commission'"provide' a' letterstating that it agrees with the Building Inspector that the site must be secured and approving erection of a temporary-fence`, atxthe' site• Mrs. Wheaton read•the�letter which had • been prepared 'for'the Commis'sion's approvah," s Harris made a MOTION to approve the letter as�read. Mr,;Wolfson seconded the•MOTION. The vote was unanimouslyoin favor. ' l �' 3 � ��j, � j • ' j• Old Health Hospital Mrs.'.Wheaton reviewed the past history of this , building and proposal ,submitted by McNeil`Associates for developing the surrounding area.. She noted that in February,of 1982 the Commission's message was to not agree to any plan ,which includeddemolitionof the Old , Health Hospital`..' There is'currently a .plan for 36 townhouse units being submitted by McNeil Associates. Apparently-there is a question about whether they do or do not actually own the property. There are other developers interested in the site as well. Ms„ Harris made a MOTION to send a letter to the Board of Appeal -strongly opposing demolition of the Old Health Hospital because of 'its landmarkstatus and noting that it including it as part, of any development would be consistent with other development in the city where old and new structures are integrated, and further noting the,economic benefit because of the tax credits., Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor, 10b Federal Street Mrs. Wheaton reported on a meeting she and Mr. Carr had with the City Solicitor in order ,to discuss the case of the greenhouse window at. this address. She was'informed by the Mayor that after he had met with the owner and the City Solicitor it had been de- cided.to issue a judgement of agreement. Im essence, the appeal- was dismissed; There was concern about this process, since there was no : . representation present from the Commission. The whole question of the 4 ; r .] D. n Y ` ♦ • mal" • _ a Salem Historical. Commission Page 4 June 11, 1984! " ' ,5rry legality of the Commission's jurisdiction in this matter and the correct legal :process to, be'rfollowed was discussed• Chapti!';40C�s' aYt s,that, " ' appeal should be to Supeiior,Court ' arPossible'tfurther6'�actionaonjthis by the Commission was discusssed"and' it ,was- decided' to .put ,it on the agenda foi the July 11th meeting ` � r „ The-meeting was'4adjourned �af 10 45"pm; � s i { f>%`• 1 n 4r +vh+. a _w > ' w f .y r ^Y 9 g• ^' - il • }. ay ' f ' "> t�Respectfullysubmitted, , , Joan F. Pizzello, It r ` Clerk of Cominisaion ir.: r . Approved ,7/11/84 4 + v s •A r .1 n • 14 Pte..' .. W "h + s"" — • X .. • ,, w` k'. y � •'.i. At •r t 'fir• e{ . }, - .• =may. an 1. SALEM HISTORICAL`COMMISSIONt Minutes of.Meeting ! July.P11;'. 1984 { "A .regular meeting•'of •the .Salem Historical.. Commission was held on' Wed- nesday,� July 11,; 1984 at 7;30p.m. at One FaIem Green:•..$Present were Mr's. ,, Wfieaton,+ Chairman;.Ms.,,,Harris; and' Messrs. Cook',.,Wo fson,' Lipgman, Carr, Clarke, Padjen and Zah'aris. + 4 t ' X Local District°Operation .347•Es6ex-Street'-,.,Mr 1,& Mrs.' Richard Marcil .were+ present'to discuss z their_ plans 'to'.remove 'existing mud'room and stairs 'fron,thetiack of this building.} .They�plan`' to replace with-an .open. wooden porch; approximately 8 ' by, 10' , and'pew stairs and railing. The porch,will be -at the same level as' the house and though,it. is. not visible from Essex Street,' al,po'rtion of ''t it wili'be visible from Hamilton Street,; Ttiey did not have actual speci- 'fications for railing detail, but provided photographs of`similar,style. . ' 9s. Harris 'made•a MOTION to'approve demolition>of ,mud, room;and`stairs and ,proceed .with construction of deck. yApproval of railing to be considered at ` .August meeting. upon'receipt of 'detail drawings: Mr.' Zaharis-.seconded the • e MOTION:` The .MOTlON :was appYoved and abutters,'will be .notified.: Ms.' Harris , made I'a .MOTION. that only abutters on.either, sid,Ie and rear.must.be notified. '• .a j { Standard definition of. abiAters,to include 'those',across .the. street (Essex ' Street)` is'lwaived since the work is not visible-from that side. Mr. ' Zaharis `.seconded the. MOTION. The-MOTION .was approved, The,Marcils_ie ;quested that they be`sent waiver f11 1orms which they .will have signed by' . their,neighbors. t 3 A A.'7 1¢'•'d�''�d �ti},µwl+Q •� .. 172 'Federal'X�Streettk'Jhisiapplieatio n{is','for,�atroof}fan. to be installed per •drawing_submitted by the owner. the fan is required to keep moisture. ` out ",Of the roof�area. q The, owner.is 'currently 'insulating.* Mr. Carr made a, MOTION to approve the applicationtas"submitted.with ithe.condition,that, the fan be painted black`. to match 'the roof .and that it not extend more than 8"above the roof., It should be,located astnoted on,. the drawing submitted. Mr. Lippman seconded" the MOTION, yThe .rote wastunanLmouslyrinmfavor. ' Abutters will -be notified." " °• 107h Federal Street The owner of this 'property,' Mr. Paul Bonardi; plans t to -convert the, f.irst7floor from ,a store to two-.efficiency apartments. He ` presented drawing's showing a'change,of'windok: style ,from store front large panes to ,smaller style, - Front entrance was clapboarded over with two doors " to be installed in entrance. vestibule perpendicular to_the sidewalk. Re '{ storation-.was shown on'Beckford' Street side.. . Since':this building was origi- "nally 'intended to be a' 'stoie,, Commission members expre§sed ,concern with proposed change;to .a more residintial,facade. `. Ret`ention of .large windows a and o'riginal,door placementatthe-front were preferred Front doorawhich is now'aluminum. should be_replaced, 'iith.wooden .door similar to:- sty1 shown on the .Beckford:Street side drawing. Mr. Bonardi said, he had°'no prob.lem, . with',tetaining larger windows or'with door placeme,nt., ,He had'-submitted` ,: ' plans because he was under the-impression that a more residential look ; would be''preferred by the Commission. At this.,point he is -seeiing a letter, to .the'Board'of Appeals,in ;favor of his plans, He is to come :back to' the to for further discussion onsdetails after the. Board of Appeals • ` approval is 'granted. ` Mr. Lippman made` ' MOTION'ythat a'aetter be sent to the Board of Appeals stating that the Commission feels that ,the plans for !i •� xg � ...Lk XY e !! r1 ..yf e Salem Historical Commission %_ Page 2" July; 11, 1984 'thebuilding-at 107 Fede"ral Street are feasible without negative architect- ural impact. -Mr. Wolfson'seconded "the MOTION. ,The vote was in.favor.,favor: . r. 'Carr made a MOTION that steps be taken to remove the` telephoue booth+ located outside 'of the building- ;'Mr. Lippman. MOVED=to. ;table 'ihis• 3 em' for.�&' t=me R• being.,+Mr. Lippman noted'that window's as.shown do not 'match and stressed F"' I . that all windows7 (smaller ones on Beckford Street side,and upper floor of front) ,contain the same .numb'er+:of panes.p Mr,-Mr. he}would bring - •�=. his architect'to ttie August meetying when°he,comeW4foie the�'Commissionragain- m.°_• t !� "lj�'+.�' 'Lf'!✓"�Y ' 2 Chestnut street -'The`owners'of- this„condo apartment,, Mr. & Mrs. ; Steven-,Ryan;Fare selling it, (but';have*been- informed-`thatfthey cannoO dotlso ` " with`out providing means, of secondar`yje'g essYfor sefe y purposes.4They: pro- pose to. loeate ,a•wr'ought iron,.circular, firescape from,their thud story unit.'- At`a 'special`Commissiontmeeting.,;heldton?'June 25; 1984('this,si;tud--, ' •f y X 8 ' •� P,-�8 g - k.. tion ioas'discussed,with-no agreemeri0being reached. 'Ms'.. Harris reported` = briefly on the'meeting an`d- the options which were discussed'.' Most prefer- ' able solution was to,try to locate a '.staircase.%ixside�second was 'to:seek ` f aneaseme.nt from.theiir neighbor 'and'third was to`locate an'outside�stair case at .the rear of the building 'Mrsi;Wheaton lead the applicable excerpt ' from the Commiss on'.s 'guidelines, concerning exterior staircases.' _It reads ” as "follows "Doorways above ground floor.,level which, provide, secondary egress`must be individually evaluated: ;'In?general, approval will result' ,,only when visibility-from the.streetis minimal: = The.application of_ex * terior"staircases to buildings :is generally not":.acceptable " ',: Mr:''Jaquith'; the he, nd -ommission•that ' kin his opinion thereAs no way, do 'it ,fiam the interior without serious . F Vit ;_ architectural disruption. 'Consideration was given to',a"dropped fire.escape,j " "but problems with that solution make it unfeasibl'e. .The solution, of,using: . a wrought iron=sprral' staircase,with-landings'-every .l2' on the rear of the A building seemedto bei:the only.way.. to proceed.'' tRictiard.Pohl who As an ' P P ' abutter 'at: 18-18' Summer,,Street;. wastpresent and 'stated that he''is .not ` I opposed to this: He feels the` R ans are tr in to make the of are ret- PP. Y � y�. $ g t I�+ •, ' , table- situation." His `concerri isy.not faith its' use as an ,egress; but rather ' P that it could'become an access., -Ifithe^color-of the wrought•Jron is con w sistent with tht nsed :on other parts of the building` he ham�_ ss no_objection - �' } " ..<Mr Crandall;trustee; for-the'other'•abutter at 4 '�hastn-ut`Street, does not'� i object to this: soluti'on, but would not::cons�d'e,*any other solution on-his ' „ 3 ri,,p .� � .:a.. Atr this,poin , Mr. Carr.moved to^close-piiblic discussion. m + Mr.:Wolfson seconded 'the MOT10N ° All were"in favor: l. Discussion centered on`the' fact.that'the, absenceof secondary•'egress ti was a pre-existing condition; that'at the time'jof original purchase, the, "Ryans' were'unaware. of=this 'requirement, Ghat a serious financial hardship ' . . "'would esult "if the unit could`riat be sold^due to- lack of .secondary egress, and that interior solutions which were not,a'rchitecturally destructive and . c'ostlg :did♦not -alp,pear,possible. _ +� MOTION tdny'thAliMr `Carr,ma. eaMcation for .a Certificate of.. r• Appropriateness without.pmjudice on the basis that the staircase is`clearly r architecturally ingongruent with: the' design-;of- the building. .' Ms, ,Harris "* Salem'Historical Commission Page 3 . July 11' '1984 • :seconded the`MOTION.` r'The vote'was_5,,in favor and,2 oppose&' $" I The Ryans requested"that their. application,be considered,on the ,basis of hardship. Ms. Harris made .a'MOTION" to approve •the application for a x ".'Certificate oC; ardship for spiral staircase at the rear .of.2 Chestnut "•+;r' .Street as :per 'plans submitted. ' The wrought iron' is to-match that•used on ': other'sections'of the building'? Mr. Lippman' seconded the MOTION. : All' were An, favor'=except.Mr.,..Carr.who,voted opposed"since'h'e ,is not convinced f that an iriterior solution fs not possible. ,'In lieu of abutternotification, V K Dr: Pohl!s approval was accepted ,and the Ryans will, submit 'a letter from � .Mr. ' Crandall,,'the other abutter; stating tliat,,he does .not ,object. Y w-, . .` , yne Sousa, the •owner and Mr. Burns, th 41 FlintdStreet Mr. Wa e archi- I.,% tect,were-present to. discuss their' proposal •for' secondary'egress on the rears+ i wall of; this building.` They still maintain tthathere°is not•enough•room in � the building to locate„the stairs inside. The,space .availible is riot large enough to meet code-requirements -They. proposed, afire escape„ type egress; but said the,Building,lnspector :wouldonot�approve, it, Theii"nei't step was to go to ari.'exterior staircase. Mr. Carr reiterated his'feeling that the owner, had not convinced•'the Commissionthatiancinterior staircase is in- r deed impossible.~„The des`ign.'in. the drawings wastnotIgener`al3y viewed ' favorably the the Commission. The railing was,,a picket-fence type design: ^ 61 The;question of whether,an€open staircase would bef,in'-correct-scale for a building of this side.was mentioned. 1Thelgeneral feeling=-was that either • va different design for anropen staircase,or a. covered 'staircase were pre- _ , ferable. ` Other`options should be explored . ;.It was also noted that Mr. ' Sousa was aware of .the" need for secondary egres's ,as he'began work on the building, informed*-of the=Commission',s' serious"'reservations,` and-had 'in fact removed•existing' second�interior staircase•and proceeded `with .exten- sive -interior`alterations/renovations with out ,consideration.in mind. Ms.' .! § Harris 'felt.'it 'was `particularly important because it is hei 'feeling that- -in the future arequest..for,;third ',floor .unit ,may putthe Commission into .. r "the`,po;itibn of being.'pressured to approve-it on,a hardship basis. Ms. Harris me e'a MOTION to deny without-zprejudice the application for„exterior ' +staircase as 'submitted:. Mr: Carr seconded the MOTION,' The vote was unani mously 'in favor: of denial. Other options also discussed included�A-open r ,., deck on'the second,floor' with a,drop into' an`enclosed.'staircase to-street f ,level. . Mrs.�Wheaton js to:speakrwith_the Building Inspector .in an -effort , to come .up;with alternatives;' particularly the possibilit' oC an interior ; staircase which might- of necessity be narrower' than whai As usually ap- • 's proved., Mr. Padjen'was concerneV about set back requirements if-the5pos ”- g. + sibility.-of >locating'stairs -on''the -side'nearest the Bowditch School project, # ' ;+ is considered.. .Mrs—.Wheaton is to;be'in touch.with-Mr. Sousa afterl.she peaks with the Building, Inspector; ' 95-97'Federal Street Ms:, JessicaJHerbert,% owner, andwMr..David Jaquith, .architect,�wereIpresent,to discuss preliminary plans for this ,.. " _,.,building ,on Federal 'Street. It is presently a three=unit 'and will 'b e con s,derted toa foursunit.'.. 'Provisions, have been made for 10 parking spaces' a"s .per recommendation of .the Board'of. Appeal. .,the^6wner intends ,to.restore • the entire°building;" adding*a small porch on the side and a .deck on'.the . back. •A wtrellis-type 'fence 'will 1j.,,%creen-the .parking area•and- extensive"01 1' . - - s i Salem H st ric C i � ifn o al omm ss o Pa e 4 g July 11, 1984 landscaping work is also planned. The Commission was pleased with the plans presented and reminded the owner she'must come back'with "more details when she is at that stage. No action required at this point. This will be on the August agenda. 7 Botts Court- An application for exterior painting of the door and window trim (white). shutters (,black) and door (Morristown red) was;received < from the owners of, 7 Botts Court, Patricia',D. Kravtin and Jonathan S. Hor }- witz. Mr. Zaharis made a MOT,ION` to approve the application As submitted. " ' Mr. Clarke-seconded the MOTION', The vote was unanimously in favor. - Abut- ters will be notified, f, Bowditch School. - 'For information purposes the board was 'informed by Mr. Jaquith, who is also the architect on that project, that following another neighborhood meeting, Crowninshield, the 'developer, is again look- in g ook-ing into the possibility of taking down the gym. '' Their petition will probably_ be'withdrawn from its scheduled July 25th Board of Appeals hearing• date pending results of another appeal to Washington. - 12 South Pine Street - The application presented was for a tool shed $ ?x located at the rear of this property which .is the First Spiritualist Church. Mrs. Wheaton said she,had been contacted by neighbors when, it, first went up and she had called the Building Ixispector's .office. They 'put up a. "Stop ' •. Work" order. Members of the Commission were very- concerned with the ,very visible location of this tool shed which does not fit into its location very well architecturally. . Mr. Zaharis. made a MOTION to deny this. applica- f tion. Mr. Wolfson seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor ,,of denial. Mrs. Wheaton will. write to the applicants informing them of :,t F ' the deciaion;of 'the Commission-in thislmatter:� 398 Essex StreetThe 'shutters installed on this building were- to have. ' been removed and have not been to this point. -Ms. Harris made a MOTION to P .. send a letter to theiowner informingthim that'thershutters are to be re moved by August 1 '''Mr.`'''Clark0'seconded the MOTION', ` The voie4was unanimously, , in favor. i .. „ 126 Derby Street - At a previous meeting the Commission approved the installation of a pair of windows. on the first floor of this building (Bentley Street side) to match the windows on .the sacond, and third:`floors. The owner installed one window only: Ms.' Harris• made a MOTION to send a- i letter to the owner informing him of the violation and advising him to take corrective measures by the September meeting date. Mr. Lippman seconded ' - the,MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor, 13 Beckford Street - The house at this address was painted in'a different shade than that originally approved and without proper application for 'the new color. The :Commission. is not .in favor 6T the new color chosen. The owner is represented 'by Atty. Tinti'who is 'away at present. They are willing to,meet with the Commission to discuss this- and request that they be 'put>'on the August agenda 20-22' Chestnut Street - The 'painting application for this property was 14 Salem Historical. Commission Page 5, : July 1T, 1984 approved at the special,meeting' on Jurie. 25' 106 Federal Street -'Ther eis• a 'question as to whether .correct legal `. procedure was followed in this matter.. Mr. Carr was asked to study this. from a legal standpoint and report,his findings to the Commission; Mr. Lippman, dissenting 'from.the,fCommission,vote to -request-these services of Mr. 'Carr, A. special, meeting+,"to discuss, this,_was.set for fJuly/25, +1984+ ♦at +e� � f t.+ �• r �,�y,-.` :� civ.:.,. `i Minutes - .Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the Minutes of the July 6 and July 11 meetings! Ms Harris' seconded the'MOTION.* -The!vote. was �nanimously, in favor. . *', �: -AjA 4M1 + k Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION,to adjourn9the meeting. fMs•. Harris'-�seconded , the MOTION The meeting`adjourned at 10:45 p.rn:` ' ' « S Respectfully submitted,` r - ^ -;,' - Joan F. Pizzell Clerk . • Approved 'a`'s amended 8/1/84 + ,- < � ��yy�. } �+P`'F ppg,�� r#'e�{'�fp,,���f �l}"i•l ��,µ�� ��py��`^' t�� � � � �. 41 ' � ' ft} igtFr'"�.l tt« n 4W ' �13,T"li aR' [. „r!� iii '.e3^,�,p^ ♦ . SALEM HISTORICAL COM�MISSION ClMinutes inutes of.f.Meeting � Agu" t 1984 ' P .. A •tA ;r`e sular meetin •• d. held 3 g g 'of•the`�alLm eHistorical"Commission"was eldd on Wed- nesday, August ed-nesday, .August 1, 1984'. at 7:30 ,p.m. at.:One :Salem Green'.: Presentwere Mrs. Wheaton;;,Chairman, and Messrs: Carr-, Wolfson, Zaharis ,'and, Slam. x- Minutes..,= { A,chan e'was noted on , paragraph' three.: The sentence:•beginning:*% " g page, two "The'other abutter: ,;!! should,read 'as follows: ,y 'tm , Crandall; .trustee for ' the other abutter. at '4 Chestnut Street, does not ,object' to this solution; bu twoul'd�not%consider any other•solution ori,his property." Mr.' Zaharis 3 made• a,MOTION,to-approve-the Minutes of the July. 11;.' 1984 meeting as 'amended. '' Mr_;Car'r seconded 'the MOTION.. , All were..in 'favor , °. . ,� y ♦ E r .. ' Local�District Operation 2 F1int, Street - 4:Mr. Peter Hinchey; the owner of this 'p-roperty, was ti present ;,seeking' approval for .color 'choices:. ' He;intends. torstain the body' of the house either.Heritage Blue, Coast Guard.Gray (Okline)(or Georgian Gray (Cabot):. ' The ouoins and `trim will be' whte,and. he twill try staining x some •Oarts offahe`trim white;, Areas that are to be: painted white will be done with,a flat white"to match' the' flatness 'of the-stain. He would like to ins- ns tall•black.Sinyl shutters, .Paint versus >stain;on the trim was dis- cussed:, as well as, gloss versus flat•. Mrs.,Wheaton wasconcerned about p 'painting 'the entrance area with, .flat' stain and :whether'that would have the desired historical effect for .,this.,Colonial,Revi-;val house. Questions arose concerning wearability of stain lather thaii painted.'trim'and•whetherIit would look the same after a period of, time if: two different modes are used for white trim. i s Mr. C rr,made"a•MOTION 'that'approval be granted' for body color- as 'w submitted "(any;of the three colors submitted) and that-Mrs. Wheaton be appointed'to `investigatethe histor`icah auth'enticity"of whether< trimfwould have''been flat or, gloss,; and that she be delegated with the authority to decide-, 'but if 'hei. investigation reveals that a flat color:tis hiatoricalli rt appiopriate',that it;must, be uniformwhetherstafn or paint. If the ouesEion t is unansierable, Mr. -Hinchey,wiil be permitted ''to' go with°flat. Mr.,'Wolfson , '.seconded the MOTION., Ail were-in favor. . Abutters will, be'notified: . Regard- - 9• y ing�the shutters, M'r. Carr referred' to' the written 'guidelines`and noted'that ' vinyl shutters are not-appropriate 'addingtthat it wduld_be;preferable to have none at all rather. than vinyl. •,.Mr. ,Wolfson. suggested.'that the owner 1 'Y Aconsider'shutte,rin g only two sides, but Mr' Hinchey_ said'"even doing that ' the cost of wood• shutters would'be prohibitive. He decided-to withdraw his x• application for ,approval of vinyl shutters. - 'Regarding,the perch •(Broad . ? Street tside)•which„was,.,,part,of-':theroriginal house and+which he intends to replate„=he 'said he would be ,b'Ackrto the Commission when he•isIready to .nroceed: �He was advised .to come liack•..with' a good drawing..showing details ' and specifications with:mafefials listed r ` 95-97'Federal Street- Theowner of this property`„Ms.FJessica. Herbert- } Babyak.was'present with-an architect from the Jaquith frrm 'to discuss further , her plans`p to'.restore and renovate” this ,home ',They plan to :replacega` porch .�48 V Salem Historical Commission -Page 2 August 1, 1984 on one side of the house which had been removed to match ,the porch on the other side. She brought photographs of the oak Renaissance double doors: which she plans to .install at the front entrance. .She has also found an iron Corinthian type fence which she hopes •to use and said she• will bring Irl a portion of it,to show.the.,Commission. The spiral staircase at the.rear will not .be visble ,from the street; The 50's type windows will be replaced with period windows. Mr. 'Carr•requepted that detailing of the balustrade be submitted for review . Ms, Herbert-Babyak.indicated that it is her intention to replace•original. details which had been removed`- Vinyl downspouts will be removed; The paint is presently being stripped and wood is being re- stored. Transom over front door is to be replaced. The side doors 'afe" to. be restored and. transom"will be removed. `? Mr. 'Carr-made a MOTION to approve the plans as submitted subject.to'the' detailing in the following areas: 1) doorway and porch• (on side) ; 2) balus- trade; 3) wall where porch juts'out (window or ,not?) and, 4) details on brat- 1� kets of first floor windows and .shell detail on second floor windows. Exterior spiral stairs need not be' approved since they•are.not visible. Mr. Zahar s .seconded the MOTION All were in favor. Paint-samples will be ' submitted at:a •later. meeting. If the Commission meets fora special meeting before the September date,. window detailing'-may be .reviewed at •that time so .. that the work may proceed•wi.thout- causing the owner undue• delay. R 107 Federil' Street'„- Mr. Paul Bonardi; the 'owner-, �was not present to further discuss his.;plans for this building. Mrs.�Wheaton informed the '..Commission that the Board of Appeals had denied hispetitionfor a first, floor efficiency- apartment in place of.tfie store': , At this time the .Commission. considered the matter-of the public tele- -phone which is located near 107 Federal Street- Mrs. Wheaton read a letter submitted. by a neighbor, Mrs. Burns,; which stated.,that- this telephone is not ' appropriate to the historic character of the neighborhood and asking the Commission to take action to get it removed. Mr. Carr_made- a, MOTION that the Salem Historical Commission take whatever steps. are necessary to have the felephone. removed, Mr Wolfson seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. 347 Essex Street - Mr, & Mrs. Richard Marcil submitted detail drawings ` of the porch railing _whch had been requested„by the`'.Cotmnissiontat the•',July ` meeting. Mr.' Zahar}stmadetayMOTION' to approve the railia s�l pertdrawing'sub-, mitted. Mr' .Carr seconded the MOTION. Allgawere'in favor. 13 Beckford Street '- W, the owner's reouest, discussion n, this matter ^ ^ was deferred until the':September`.meeting. 41 Flint "Street .. Mr Wayne So sa; the owner,,� was not present to further discuss the rear staircase on,'this building . For'the information of the Commission, Mrs. Wheaton said that he has again applied to the Board of Appeals for permission. to convert to a 'three-unit. 132 Derby Street Owner not' present. No action taken. 96 Derby Street.'- The owner, Mr. Robert Kobuszewski, had requested that SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION, Page 3 August 1, 1984 he be putt on the agenda since her planned to present an application for a new entrance at that address'. He was not present; however„ so no. action was takenF ,Y z - 38 Summer Street lilThis house was 'paintedgwithoutlrapproval,. Mr. Carr , made a MOTION to 'approve'the;colorsN s+.ultimately°painted`and communicate to the owner that 'permission should be sought before work is,done in the future. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION,.'(EAl,V were Wfavor. Vi, . T J. L}: `,. 4, 16 `?iY ••fS ".. 10 Chestnut Street' - It was noted that the owner of this property has + ' beenhaving ,some"test sand blasts,'done.onjthe biick and was contacted and r^` ' alerted to ,the damaging effects of sandblasting brick{" A`Copies of the mater- ials from the guidelines project will be.provided and he'"will be in contact i with the Commission. s' Phillips�SchooT - Handicap Housing Project - 'The Commission was con- f cerned with several'areas of this construction which do not appear to 4, strictly conform to the plans which were approved by the ,Commission. , Mr. Carr noted loss of louvers which he felt the Commission had specified. He l e ` thought they were replaced by flat board. : Mrs. Wheaton is to check on this: Also noted by Mr. .Slam was. a 'difference in the entablature over 'the:ffront door. Drawings originally submitted showed entablature',with molding above *:builtrup ;; ,In reality it looks like clapboarding of different size. He s also noted a. little angle in the vestibule area. Concern was also expressed • about the window molding. Also, the ramp which., comes from the entry area goes directly over the'.area where the city sidewalkwillbe and the owners ' have- beeii told by the Building Inspector that they must remove it. . It appears as though an error was made in locatingthehouse too close to the street causing the ramp to be'placed^too far forward. A'neighbor who was present-at this meeting was asked for his comment's and' he said he felt that the whole building is ,too far forward. He also hada problem with the` front, entry. Mrs. Wheaton is to speak,with.Mz McIntosh about the ramping. Since the owners were not present, there were no paint chips to review. There- was some discussion concerning the color of proposed-awriings. Mrs. Wheaton is to communicate the concerns of the •Commission to the owners, Mr, '`• , -Slam is to-double-check on the scale of the actual building as opposed to r» ' V that represented on,the drawings. 4, It was decided to'set up a special meeting' to discuss the .106 Federal,w. Street problem. - Mr Carr, submitted legal findings so that members could review prior to the'special meeting. Copies will be sent to all members , who were not present at this meeting. A tentative date of,August 8 was set, but will be confirmed. Mr' Zaharis made-a MOTION to"adjourn the meeting. 'Mr. Wolfson seconded the+MOTION. . The meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m. , { Respectfully submitted,+ ' r " �z r✓ oan F, Pizzel , Clerk _ x Approved 9/5/84 " SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting September 5, 1984 s` A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, September 5, 1984 at 7:30 p.m. at•One Salem Green, Present were Mrs, Wheaton,, , Chairman, and Messrs: Carr, Clarke, Cook, Lippman, Wolfson, Zaharis?and Slam. ,j a Minutes Mr.• Zaharis made a MOTION to accept the Minutes of the August 1,, 1984 meeting.:, Mr. Wolfson seconded the MOTION. The vote was in favor, Local District Operation t 34 Warren Street - First 'Spiritualist Church - Representing ,the Church were Ms, Muriel Karolides, Assistant Pastor, and,Ms, Millen, Trustee of the Board, , They noted that they had nogproblem with the Commissi'on's denial of the wooden shed that has been partially erected on this property: -They said the contractor did not apply for the necessary permits, resulting in a Stop Work order. ,They: indicated that they wanted the storage facilities to be placed closer to the; building and were not happy with its present. location or construction, Mr Wolfson noted that whatever solution is considered it should,be as inconspicuous i as possible. There is a bulkhead attached to the 'building (approximately 8, years,, old) which was required to satisfy the code requirement for second exit from.the ti basement, Mrs. Wheaton said she was not sure that moving the present building to another location would solve the problem. One suggestion was to widen the F , present bulkhead, using one roof, and using the extra ,width for storage. In general the board seemed agreeable to an addition to the-bulkhead as a, possible acceptable solution. An addition should be clapboarded and have.one roof. Double doors, possibly painted white`to match clapboarding, would be required , to accommodate the snow blower. Mrs. Wheaton suggested that the Church submit f a scale. diawing (with as much-detail as possible) and comeback before the Com- mission before proceeding further: While discussing this building, Ms. Karolides mentioned that they are considering replacing the front door,. She was told the Church would havefto apply. for4approval4'for ythat/ also c k s s ai 182 Federalr'Streeti - Mr. Walter Dupuis; representing the owner, Mrs. Jose= phine Gibney, was present to seek approval for repointing the bricks on this building in the area''of"the lower fouridation. He was alsoseeking approval to `z ._ install the ,sign from Historic' Salem, Inc. He°was toldathat4approval for re- s * . pointing bricks was not necessary but, that he would be sent the section from the Guidelines book dealing in Masonry f r: his information.t�Mr. Lippman made a MOTION to approve the' installation of the Historic Salem, Inc.. sign on the front, of the house, .Mr. Clarke seconded the MOTION, The vote was-unanimously in favor. 95-97 Federal Street - Ms, Jessica Herbert-Babyak was present with a repre- sentative from the Jaquith architectiiral firm to- present detail information requested at the last meeting and to discuss progress on this project: They are trying to replicate crown molding which was originally present on the win- dows. They also reported a change ,as far as the parches;Ron either side of the house were concerned. In their original plans a deck was to go on the porch facing East. The beams beneath the roof on that side are gone so they have;_' • decided to locate the deck on the opposite side of the house facing the yard. The eastern porch will just be a period porch. Detail of the parapet rail was reviewed. Ms, Herbert-Babyak noted that when clapboarding on the front of the +, SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 2 September 5, 1984 t � house removed they found molding under each window and have decided to incorporate` that into the design. The widow's walk balustrade will be'similar to that in•'- the front entry area. Leaded crystal windows will be installed on the West wall. , Mr. 'Clarke noted that there are skylights. If these are not visible .from the street they are not within the Commission's jurisdiction. ' If it turns out, that ' they are visible there would be a need for approval with a separate application. t,41 ,' ` Mr. Lippman made a MOTION' to approve the plans as amended. Mr. Carr seconded the MOTION. . The vote' was unanimously in favor, ' 354-356 Essex Street - An application was received for exterior painting .from the owners of this double house, John C. & Nancy A. Shirley and Lana Lee Barrett. The paixit.chips submitted were a grayish green for the body, with white trim and black doors. One side of the house had been sided prior to the establishment of the district. That will be painted to•match the adjoining 4 4 side. Mr. Lippman made a MOTION to approve the color as submitted. Mr. Zatiaris, s `• seconded the MOTION. . The vote was unanimously in favor: Mr: Carr made a MOTION that the horizontal cornice and dentil work on the left half should be painted a '• , the trim color. Mr. Clarke seconded the MOTION. The vote was unaxiimously in "'* favor. w 33 Flint Street - Mr. 0&`Mrs, Sam Peper were present to request approval for an-outside staircase to provide second means of egress from the two rental units as required by the building code. This would be visible through-an alleyway on Essex Street. .Mr. Carr asked-arhether.a variance was required and was told that • mcaht"waive that requyrement if he deemed necessary. Mr. the Building Inspector. Cook made a MOTION to accept the application.as submitted, on 'the basis that visible encroachment is so minimal, Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. During discussion of the Motion, Mr. Clarke noted that .he had problems with the designs; He felt it was inappropriate for the building. Mr. Carr was opposed to -exterior stairs as a rule. He felt allowing this type of staircase, which he felt was an unsightly change, goes in the direction of the style of a tenement, as opposed to the .style of the otherrmansion-type grander buildings on the street. Mrs. ,. Wheaton questioned whether there might be other alternatives, perhaps something "• ' in the rear: However, Mr. Peper explained that the units are at the front and back of the building and placing the exit at the rear will not allow for. an egress for the front apartment. Mr. Clarke brought up the possibility of a spiral staircase which would be less, visible. However; there is a bulkhead at,," the bottom of the building in the location where the stairs would end. There* was some discussion regarding the possible relocation of the bulkhead; possibly"... ` using a spiral staircase with a landing at the top to move it further from the bulkhead might work. Painting it the body color of the house would help also. Mr, Cook made a MOTION� to Move the, question: ;Mr. Carr seconded the MOTION. All were opposed to the original MOTION except Mr. Cook. Further discussion ensued. Since the applicants had not considered the possibility of a .spiral staircase, Mrs. Wheaton suggested that the Commission meet in,a week; -giving them time to prepare a proposal',foi same., j*There'are financial constraints involved with the sale and time is`of ,the es'sencei;xThe week would give members,of the Commission an!opportunity to view the property carefully. Abutters notices would be sent ; and if approval is granted no time,would be lost. Mr. Lippman made a MOTION. to table this untiltnextjweek. . Mr' Clarke seconded ,tiie`MOTION.. gAll were in favor, •' except Mr' Cook and Mr. Zaharis. r e SALEM_HISTORICAL COMMISSION ;, Page.3 September 5, 1984 f 104 Federay1lt Street = 'Mr. David Hart, owner of the property, presented' an - application forIexterior;painting:' .Colors submitted'were` light.blue gray for the body,, white for the--trim'and.a deeper blue,for the door Mr., Lippman'made ` a MOTION to :appr,ove the colors as submitted: ^.Mr, Zaharis seconded the MOTION, •' • The vote was unanimously in favor. Abutters will:be notified.- ' w3 }'• .. y.- ,, Fp ,r^w �.',Z tf 1...��,. ¢+�'• s c, 102 Federal 'Street '- Appli ait onto paint-the.exterior was,discussed'.-T here was,,a ,question concerning a requirement forAaivariaricelto,con.�ert. thistbuilding ato a At ree-unit condominium: It wa's decided by the pet itioner;_ Mr., David•Jaquith, forfmr Robert Bramble, to :withdraw kthe,:application -for the^moment :until the variance issue is decided: ' s tf ' :,4.,. r]l4p *' '• r . ° .+ . ' T155-157-Federal Street tA ,letter4was treceivedoafrom the owner of this, Property, Ms. Shelby.Hypes forapproval,oniexterior.painting whichlisEnear l y completed., This is a half-house with the other side being owned by,Mr. ,Ray • Buso and`Ms. Martha Jarnis., "Body. color is gray with trim painted cream.- .The ' petitioner,' Ms 'Hypes,was .also see king'opermission ,.to'.paint the door .a lavender shade, Mr. Carr made a-MOTION- to•iatify the choice of'bcdy'color - ..,'gray, Mr. Lippman. seconded' the MOTION.` The vote was unanimously' in favor. Mr. Zaharis ` made a" MOTION`to approve the• trim,color- r cream- , Mr, cook 'seconded the MOTION. - `•Tkie vote was'in favor-.*. Mr. Carr made a.MOTION to. deny the color choice for the, 1 ' door because itis not historically appropriate.,,•IMrt Zaharis seconded the. MOTION. "All<-were in'favor' exce t Mr. Lippman who was o 'A ; , . ppma pposed, letter. will be,sent to Ms , Hypes informing her of the Commission's action. . There was also 'i a question concerning re-inatallation of blinds-shutters which will `be clarified, • {ir 132-134 Derby Street/16 Bentley` Street Mr,.' Jaquith explained that there k -; ,'was a question as. to whether to treat .this aspone building .or .as' two differeint types for. variety. • It was decided to treat it one and°'one single- + family (three. townhouses) .' :There is 'a firewall between the, two-family'and%the" x one-€amily' portions. The owners,'Derby -Bentley Realty•Trust, are looking for a. Certificateoof/,,Appropriateness for •the` total plan. ' Six over`.s ix windows will be' used; "'Entrance from sidewalk intfront was discussed, with Mr: Clarke suggest ing .one or two granite `steps'from.-sidewalk with difference made up, inside: Color. of roof was discussed, Mrs. Jaquith said he.was considering, shadow gray • and he will:•submit a sample for.`approval. The exterior. ,stairs :at the rear were ' r'dis'cussed,+- Since` these will be the primary stairs it was 'iioted that the Building,, Inspector would not approve a spiral staircase. '_ There was a questi6n:concerning.4'' the interior' ofthe .parking'bays' whicfi'will be;ivisible, " The possibility;of clap ,boarding thezinside was discussed:' Mr. Jaquith was `requested to submit detail , of stair and balustrade` as well as interior of parking bays- The `second house in+this project at 16 Bentley Street.;was discussed next. Regarding windows, r the single ones::.are to be two over twos and, the;double•windows are one over + ones*.,, With regard$to parking bays,. one possibility isr•clapboarding above, and below a plank which would be ,installed', at 'tire height. Commission questioned y ` •`feasibiliiy ;of,using doors':to 'cover,parking bays,;'but the.depth is not 'great'4 enough to allow for larger" cars, if°doors are•installed;` ,also would impede ' (mane ,uverability `of'cars :in:.this small area. The `locati'on•of the chimney on;�' the `16 Bentley:Street property is,.slightly' altered: Mr..,Carr made a MOTION, to ` „ approve the plan's as submitted with the'following .exceptionsi 1)' that the ' ! rk It , SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page' 4September 5, 198 `• front fi L steps be granite; 2) that front doors. be wood;, 3) await further detail on r interior treatment of parking bays and configuration of bay openings,; 4) detail' of railing on' exterior stairs and perimeter fencing;' S) bracket cantilevered support; 6) color of roof shingles; 7) color chips. to be submitted for body and trim; 8) cornerrboard and facia boards and window trim should be matched as closely as possible with existing and 9) rear entrance and railing on'Bentley Street be something, less modern. Mr. Lippman se onded• the MOTION.' -The vote was unanimously in favor. �. 41 Flint Street -. Sihce•Mr. Jaquith.has been asked by Mr. 'Sousa, the owner; to come up with a solution to .his second egress problem, Mr. Jaquith was brought upi..to date-on the problems involved. He said he wouldbe submitting a proposal at the next meeting. t " This meeting adjourned at_'10:30 p,m.' ' Respectfully submitted, ?_ Joan F. Pizzell k • Approved as amended c` • ( s y qy ♦ Y y ^ 4J "S i�p'"•{p3q ..4, � �� ♦ ° Ft4 yt "'•i taiP,_S . • yY�.. 1S•!tl _ _ r: 4 ep't. � 4' �i 1��l�r � ' t ,'yFs« <�V•f y s�`;(�y� '+1-•+`.' " }Y � • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Minutesiii'of Meeting September 12, 1984 A regular meeting of the Salem Historical' Commission• was held on Wednesday, September 12, 1984 at One Salem Green. Present were Mrs. Wheaton,' Chairman, Ms. Harris and Messrs. Carr, Clarke, Cook, Lippman, Wolfson and Zaharis. Local District Operation , P,d 33 Flint Street - The owners of this property, Mr. & Mrs. 'Sam Peper, were present to discuss'their requirement for outside staircase to comply with the building code. At the last meeting they presented plans for a wooden stair- case which would provide second'means of egress from two rental units on .the second floor of this building. At that time the Commission suggested ,that they investigate a spiral staircase as an 'alternative since it would be a more acceptable solution to the problem from the Commission's viewpoint. They re= ported that in order to,use a spiral staircase they would have to fill in the stairs of the existing bulkhead and relocate the bulkhead at some expense. 'The 'spiral staircase would cost between $900 and $1100 more than the originally planned wooden staircase. The total cost of the wooden staircase would be . $1;500; the spiral would cost between $2,400 and $2;600, (cost includes work re- quired on the bulkhead - actual cost of staircase itself is .$1,500 with the balance covering work required on, bulkhead) . Other alternatives were discussedc including one by Mr. Clarke to extend the wooden landing at second level and place the spiral staircase at a further point. to bypass the bulkhead. The • Pepers were hopeful that the Commission would recommend a way to make the wooden staircase acceptable because of cost factors. Mr. Cook, stressed the fact that a the stairs_ are only visible from a very narrow alley on Essex Street. It be- came apparent that the wooden solution was not acceptable to the majority. Mr. Cook made a MOTION to approve a spiral staircase placed immediately left of the last window and running .straight down. If interim landing is visible, further F' A.. approval would be required. The staircase is to be placed immediately left of the last. window on the'southwest corner of the house running straight down. It • f• .:: is to be painted to blend into the 'side of the house. - Ms. Harris seconded the = MOTION. The vote was five in favor, `two `(Mrs. Wheaton and Mr. Carr)' opposed. " The doorway was'discussed with the group agreeing'that the back or rear ?" doorway'in general should be.secondary in nature'and, not draw- attention to it- ,.. " =�.a self. Mr. Clarke made a MOTION that a six-panel door be used (Brosco #M100 or ' F66) and that the landing should have square stock balusters to match detail in X the photo .provided. Door casing,will duplicate existing window casing in trim,e'y and dimension. Mr, .Lippman seconded the MOTION. The •vote was. five in favor, two (Mrs.. Wheaton and Mr. Carr) opposed, } The question of color was discussed briefly. Mr. Lippman made a MOTION to' ' f allow "the staircase to be lefi unpainted until June 1, 1985.' After June 1, 19854, the staircase is' to be painted to match the body of the house. Ms. Harris a seconded the MOTION. The vote was five in favor, one )Mrs, Wheaton) opposed and one (Mr. Carr) abstention. 9 102 Federal Street - Mr, Bramble, the owner, and Mr. Jaquith, , the architect, presented plans for this property. Since Mr. Bramble also owns the property,at F. P • - I SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION' Page 2 September 12, 1984 100 Federal Street they noted that there will ,be no parking area between the two houses; that area will be replaced with lawn. Fencing between the*two houses will below decorative type, This will be a three-unit condo. The major _ addition is a shed dormer proposed at .roof.'level. Bracketed entry and side lights in doorway will 'stay as is. Window pattern 'stays as "i's: . Roof also remains the same. Second means of egress will be located behind front portion of the building 'on the exterior, but will not be visible, according to Mr, Jaquith. Mr. Carr asked whether an enclosed solution to the second egress problem was possible, . He was told that would have been the'preferred solution, but construction constraints prevented it. Since this is not visible from the , a street. the Commission has no jurisdiction. . vs, Mr. Jaquith•said one window which had been :a greenhouse-type has been R . removed from the rear. .The biggest 'change is the addition of a dormer.between .e the chimneys. A door which is existing will be replaced. Mr., Carr asked about. the use of third floor. Mr. Bramble -said it'had been used for bedrooms. He added that'he had been in touch with the Building Inspector who stated that this has been a three-family since 1955. There had been three separate families listed in the city directory,;„at that address. Also the Board of Assessors said S>” Jt. was assessed as a 'three,family. Mr: Carr as this was a grandfathered r situation. Ms. Harris requested that a wider,six over .six window replace the one shown `• as narrow single=paned window on the second floor. Mrs. Wheaton wanted to be • sure that 'the door 'at the point of second egress be a very' plain door. Mr, _- Bramble and Mr. Jaquith had no problem with either of these requests. It was " suggested that the front door design be changed from Victorian to something t . more Colonial in keeping with the rest of the house. That was agreed to, Mr. ' , Bramble said he hoped to restore the old wooden `shutters. Mrs. Wheaton wanted ` to know 'which house the' front fence would belong ,to. Mr. Jaquith said it was,, I, drawn to belong to 102. �.Mrs., Wheaton thought it should look as'though it defi- nitely belonged to one or the other as,. two separate houses, not a common fence x between two buildings 'of .an obvious group of condos. Colors for exterior painting.were`submitted. They are Benjamin Moore `Greenbriar Beige for the body; Benjamin Moore Dunmore Cream for the Trim; and Benjamin Moore Beechland Blue for Shutters and Doors. Mr. Carr had._a problem wi.th'the semi-circular window which he felt'is a,A,, poorly situated. As an existing element, strictly speaking,the Commission has ' no jurisdiction, . but Mr.. Jaquith -agreed 'to• come up with some ideas for this area. ' Mr. Carr favored something relatively plain and not square, and would ,. not rule out contemporary style as long?;as it is not square:. '-Mr. Jaquith agreed to: , think about the`large window; make sure exterior stairs are invi- sible; incorporate a more Colonial design door. Mr.' Bramblesaid the roof is ,.'slate and he would like to retain that.: Nothing.will be stripped from the roof. The fence was discussed briefly, : Four by four posts with molded balus- ters' will be used. Also, the flat board fence behind is at secondary level and would be six-feet higlii. The plain single-paned window will be replaced '-• with`,30" wide double hung six over six window. Door is to be six-panel Brosco M-100or 2132.,,,-, yy4 + �. . #�gy'tlf t 'tit/ . t -' ; 441 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION• Pager3 September.12,' 1984 # �` Mrs.-Wheaton researched the -guidelines 'book to, find, recommendations-for dormers but. noth_in g g g g was found ` IE wassa reed that this is a s nificant .chane x to the building. Mr.' Carr° felt the exterior ahould .not be' changed;to.accom- modate ceiling heighC on the' 'third, floor.' Mr.', Clarke said.his vote would de- pend on how visible it was�,from the street. Mr, *Wolfson,'agreed; adding that he did not feel it was a positive change-and he',could not vote in'favor at this point, Ms. Harris agreed that she'also'had s ,groblem with.it inxits.present, form. She might be :able'toYreach 'a compromise•`dependinggon placementand type Y` of windows, 'chimney acid+sizei1K'Mrig Lippman thoughE ;itwoul'd'have'to �sd .be.looked at. Mr. Cook thought,it could'be.blended in subtlely., but 'he would want to look at it again before�rcommeniing,.further. .Mr Clarke suggested,that t regular doghouse dormer be looked,Oat f ,Mr'.1,Jaquithi�agreed to look into"that + . F; possibility: , Mr. Carr made a MOTION' to a'oproveiqexterior -colors a's+submitted,for_body,;, .at. and trim (which would include,.corner �boards, and`window 'facia.board,, water tables, ti 4' sash, surround around front door.and fence).. lAlsoapproved is blue ,for' front .f door, but' the• owner.. wasfasked"to consider another, color, -On. page,two of 'the ? 1 plans approve•:removal of two windows on':southerly side of the ell; on.:'page 31 . _ replacement of fixed pane.window,' plus.removal'`of"small .awning.window and door replacement (similar to B`rosco F2132) ;' al•so ,fence, ,dooi. to be •located where , window is;in-aecond, egress area..`Mr: Clarke seconded the MOTION': ,All were in favor. No action wasItaken:on dormer 'plans„which:will be resubmitted after x Commission inspection and reworking' of•plans Another special.meeting wll •be . required on September 19 at which'tiine this will be reviewed Bowd+itch`School - Councillor'0'Leary stopped 'by•to inform'the Commission . that.the appeal by the developer for permission to,remove'the; gym vias won, and �+ it will be'razed'on Thursday, September 13'. A�'aecurity guard,will_ be -posted .j overnights ';The developer wants tb` close offithe'. alley .to Federal Street, but r the Council'•order states that it�.must stay- and the developer must-maintain it.' ' Work will-. begin on the;rest 'of "the project._on October l.' ,Thexdeveloper must f '` pay •the5,ci:ty' $158,000 on 'October l. before work begins. .Granite Construction will be doing most -of the, inside work: 'There<wll .be another neighborhood meeting -to review plans. .. The Buil'dingjInspectoraand the City Solicitor have " determined that plans do not require Board ,of Appeals approval.- -The' Board " q -will accept; -the previous ruling. ,�Councillor O'Leary asked to be informed when i the Historical Commission ',plans to`review:this project . ,," ttE - ie10 Andover Street Mrs.- Gale Couture was pr�esent ,.to' :request approval for ' replacement of some".windows. The windows.in question are rotted and she would a w like•to replace with eneigy'-'efficient windows.* ..She would'also��liketo� replace an.existing window 'on the' second, fl`oor„ with an'octagon window: ' Additionally, one: window;°was already removed and clapboarded%over, in the aiea of a "clo'set.:, The front'window'' 'she-wants;, to "replace are curreritly',two "over twos.', " She would • like to use'thermal 'pane. . Two over two«thermal ,p'anes would•be 'custom: The Commissionpwas not inclined to go with 'applied muntins.,­ Mrs.• Wheiton -explained that ':if Mrs•.,_Couture�decided' to replace storm windows she'.could ,go `with regular windows,. not energy -efficient ones:; it would ,be, less expensive to go.'bha't route..' The, replacementwindows would liave to be -woodK and,bectwo�over; two:. "If .' . she did ttat,,no ,application would befneeessary. x e • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 4 September 12, 1.984 ' The second item on this application concerned removal of a window. Mrs Couture ,said she wanted to build a closet on that wall. 'Mr. Carr was concerned ♦r, ;: about the loss of symmetry. Since this window is on the back side and not as visible as front facade., the Commission was generally inclined to not require its replacement. The octagon window, however, was deemedinappropriate except , for use in hallways for illumination. This application would see its use as replacing a regular window. The Commission favored restoragion of the original a > window in that area. + . Mr. Carr made a MOTION that the window, on the easterly side be restored to its original opening, two over two with original matching trim to match other 4 windows. Mr. Clarke seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. Mr. Clarke made a MOTION to ratify the change in the exterior appearance on the west facade (removal of window) . Ms. Harris seconded the MOTION. The vote was .l L r ` .six in favor' and one (Mr. Carr) opposed. For the. record, Mr. Carr stated that permission to change should have been sought before the work was done and wondered if it would have been voted for had that course been taken. Also, he : , questioned the advisability 'of permitting inappropriate. work to remain when done in violation of Commission procedures. 132/134 Derby Street -16 Bentley Street - The owners of this property, ' Derby Bentley Realty Trust, were present with.Mr. Jaquith to .review changes and submit details requested at a previous meeting. Mr. Jaquith submitted drawings. • of arched tops on parking bays; detail on fence and rail, board fence with good side facing neighbor (fence to be stained to match buildings) ; clapboard on •�; y; ;:_i.,. _ interior of parking bays and redrawing of stair rail post with two by two balusters. Mr. .Carr asked why the porch wasn't carried to the end of the build , ing and was told there was no reason to go'that far. Arched detail of bays met .. + the general consensus approval of the group. .A bumper board is to be placed inside the bays and stained to match the clapboards. There will be a six-panel -;steel door to the basement. Ms. Harris asked about the cantilevered support ^' for--the porch, but' was' told it was not possible. Mr. Jaquith said the only thing he could think of to,do was` to use metal rather than wood and,keep it as , thin-as possible. Mr. Clarke suggested adding to the cap on post- at the top of the rail on the porch and routing a bead around the top. Colors were dis- cussed briefly, but the owners will submit chips at the next meeting. Mr. Clarke made a MOTION to approve the changes as per plan ;to the balcony and balcony rail and stairs with modification to post caps as specified; the arch openings to the parking bays; fence detail; also interior clapboards in parking bays with wooden bumper to be the .same color as clapboards. Mr. Lip- pman-'seconded the MOTION, The vote was unanimously in favor. Mr. Clarke amended the MOTION by adding approval for Celetex• roof in charcoal black. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION• The vote on the amended MOTION was unani- mously in favor. Mr. Zaharis ,moved -to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Wolfson seconded the MOTION. Meeting adjourned' at�I0:35°p.m!xl" Respectfully submitted, j rf 'Joan F. Pizzello 1 Clerks F . Approved 8/8/85 * t° '` v {_• f - • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSIO;3id, ` r s`� -Minutesof f�e'etingrAy} September 26, 1984.' A regular meeting„of the.S,alem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, September 26, 1984 at 7`.30' p.m. ,!�One Salem Green.'J Present`"7ere�Mrs: Wheaton, Ms. Harris and Messrs. Carr, Clarke, Lippman, Slnm and Zaharis. Local .District Operatione,,4, y.• y., �d � ,. - .. � �" 106 Federal Street - Mrs . Wheaton reviewed the current status of the action regarding appeal of Commission decision by owners of 106 Federal. These -included brief listing of possible legal irregularies ,in the filing by the City Solicitor of• p an .Agreement for Judgement, assurances from Mayor Salvo that it is not his intention to interfere in any future board decisions, and an agreement by City Solicitor O'Brien and Christopher, Cabot,. lawyer for the applicants, that reference to a Certificate of Non-Applicability can be removed from the Agreement for Judgement.t. The latter would remove the possible legal implication in future cases that the r1 Commission does not have jurisdiction over greenhouse windows. Questions and discussion followed with a subsequent MOTION to take steps as necessary to set aside the Agreement for Judgement' in a way that does not attempt to blame or i embarrass they Mayor and make, it clear that .this action is taken only in the in- terests of legal enforcement of the Commnission's prior decision. The MOTION was defeated by a vote of 2 to 4 with Messrs. Carr and Clarke in favor and Messrs: Lippman, Zaharis, Ms. Harris and Mrs. Wheaton opposed. .A MOTION followed to authorize the Agreement for Judgement with deletion of the section referring to • the.Commission's action of the Certificate of Non-Applicability. The MOTION passed by unanimous vote. ° A MOTION for the Chairman to write to the Mayor corn- municating the Commission's decision passed unanimously. f 132-134 DerbyStree/16 Bentley Street - David Jaquith and the 'owners of 134 6erby/16 Bentley Streets were present to present their color choices for the % '. buildings. MOTIONS to approve 132'134 Derby: Body - solid Touraine stain, Dove =r Gray; all trim - lighter gray; and 16 Bentley: body - Sherwin Williams Renwick Beige 1194101; all trim - Renwick Rose Beige 1194168 passed unanimously. Doors are as yet undecided. 102 Federal Street - Mr. Jaquith, representing Robert Bramble discussed details regarding 102 Federal Street not specified at the Commission's last meeting. First, , . Commission members reported from inspection that the secondary egress was not, in fact, visible. Second, the Commission noted that 'the electric meters have been installed at a height which may render them visible above the ,fence, designed to w ' hide them. Mr. Jaquith will attempt to resolve this. Third, two alternative designs for the westerly dormer were presented: one involving one eyebrow dormer r with a shed dormer beyond; the other involving a mansard roof with eyebrow dormers and possible skylight.. On'this matter, a MOTION to deny ,these dormers in concept fr at that location was passed by unanimous vote. Four, with regard to possible change ,toI the half-round window in the building's rear addition and the Victorian entry,. Mr. Jaquith said that Mr. Bramble's position was that no changes would,be made to these features. 100 Federal. Street - Members noted fence constructed along easterly property • line was not constructed as, approved. It has been constructed as a capped stockade. Mr.' Jaquith will study this question and the issue of the possible removal of three lighted 'doorbells. f A . .� y t•F4. _ • 3. It ,,. a �. ' . " - � ..rn. ! K • et � ` r SALEM aHISTORICAL COMMISSION t •> Page 2 y September 126, 1984 41fFlint 'Street -' Mr Jaquith presented plans ,for a secondary, egress' in- volving a spiral staircase dropped`'from-the rear deck. ,The 'Commissionsuggested that the north.wall, opening be:enclosed•and'clapboarded with a do6f;sand that the deck railing be. extended to'the ,rearahouse walla The Commission, also,encouraged A% the use of Victorian-inspired balustrades. '•The'MOTION to-;approve in concept the creation of a secondary"egress as per general :ideas .presented fincluding= 'the door -" on the,=second -floor was approved'unanimously. More "details will`be presented at a•later, meeting., h t t, v� 13 Beckford Street -' It, was 'agreed-,by, unanimous vote toz approve the MOTION rw' y to place the issue,of.painting without'Certificate at`this address first on- the agenda for October43. . > ' ' 107 Federal Street Paint' colors.for this property (Silver' Maple for body and Rockwood Red for 'trim) were'proposed.by owrier 'Paul'.Bonardi:` .The,Commission's view, was; that'color `changes, and other aspects of the -app lication` .invo.lved. changes that were 'substantial enough, to 'require' , a public hearing to be scheduled at the earliest-poss`ible' date in.conformity'with,notice;requirements, abutters to in-' - clude.95`-97 -and'100'Fede'ral=,to ILynn Street;' as well as 2 Andover and' 26 Beckford: The MOTION to'.that effect,wras ,approvedsunanimously: , G •, r,a, y Phillips School ,- The Commission expressed concern regarding work proceeding t • at;the site"in variance to•what was ,approved and without approval. ' A MOTION passed unanimously to notify Handicapped Housing^Coordinator; Steve Spinetto, o:futh'eExecutive' Office of Communities' and Developmen.t, .and Salem'Housing`, ` Authority,Director, William-Farrell, that- .the Commission is aware Ghat work has :+ been' completed without necessary�approva1 and that bthe'r.,,work,has not yet been' -4 4 approved and that the,Commission's,intention is to vote an immediate Stop;'Work' ' Order be issued by' the -Building Inspector unless;,the applicant-,app,ear at tfie ' Commission meeting of<October,'3;withdetailed, plans' for correcting,prior non- approve d on-approved work,,particularly the•rporticos oii'.EssexSStreet; iind:':for future- work not yet approved; specifically the Phillips ;School`doorwayr. 48'6hestnue!Street SThe Commission voted unanimouslyT`in. favor of.'a-MOTION to approve the application for demolition of'a stockade fence at this address to be replaced by standard,flafboard fence with heavy^squared,capped posts: 7 Owners, of 'the:propertyYaie�Philip 'and Shirley,Burke. . R :, �. '12 .14' Sianmer Street An application for painting at thisvaddress, -property ` <r of,�Frederick and Kare' n,Small, was approved'by,,unanimous vote on"the°MOTION: - Colors Body:.Renwick Yellow, Rockwood Summer approded'were:` 12 'Summer' - Body: . 'Renwick'Rose Beige;,Trim: ,. Rockwoo.d Terra,.Cotta with the'-specification that trim `include =the frieze and fa cia$ aridtherrecommendation ,that .the co`humns on the porch 'as`not' original,Ibe either re oved,orjreplaced dr1 $3jj;! ' `�;2a>, gam;'t/ r .G^i t -�,' - de... 1•", +._ `e C - ' a., s � ' _155-Derby Street - Anr appq ication .wasipresenkted,for fencep'construction,�sash painting; and new door atrthis, address, property ,ofjP,artne'rs'`RealtyITrust. The application presented by.'David Clarke, contractor for`the joti, lacked necessary specification's and was continued to[[:th(e_'Octobi(er'.3'• meeting- a .K A� + #'$:... .• t' i ew S tx ` - t' r' f A f� + A' s SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 3 ' September 26, 1984 +, 183 Federal Street - The application to paint the .exterior 'of 'this property owned by Pester and Katherine Zagaeski/Stephen and Carol Gambino the following t - colors : Body:. ..Colony Red;'•Trim: ..^Sof t White; and Shutters: Black; was approved by a unanimpus ,vote on the MOTION. 71 ' + 386 Essex Street- - David Clarkeypiesented an 'application for''painting at this; �` address in dark ,Victorian' tones ,of, Rockwood Red for,the'body and Rockwood Dark Green trim with shutters, doors and sash in black or Rockwood Green. Based on the feeling that these tones, while appropriate, were very strong and a departure from hf+' the Federal tones£that 'prredominatethe,McIntire District,;a1MOT�ION.was made`,to hold, a public hearing ori the. application.,^jTihe,MOTION passed by,,a'voteFof` three in favor, (Messrs. Carr and Zaharis and Mrs. Wheaton) with Ms..`Harris opposed and Mr. Clarke abstaining. The gutter installation was approved. 'LYa Organization and Policyt �t ` 1� t *=+ + s `,j 1 y , . Preservation Planner s •.Mrs. (Wheaton discussed briefly=the `status of the interviewing process for Hiring of'the Preservation Planner to work with the. Com- mission and the Planning Department. L . Members - The .Commission voted unanimously, to present the name of Mr. Russell Slam to the Mayor for appointment to the Salem Historical Commission.,. . ` The meeting adjourned- at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ; Elizabeth B. .Wheaton Chairman - c . Ne SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting, October 3, 1984 } A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was ,held on Wednesday, October 3, 1984 ,at 7:30 p.m:• at One Salem Green. Present were Mrs. .Wheaton, 'Chairman, Ms. Harris and 'Messrs. Carr, Clarke, Cook, Wolfson, Zaharis and Slam. f a Minutes A correction was noted to the Minutes of the September 5, 1984 meeting. On page 2, 'sentence three in the paragraph pertaining to 33 Flint Street should read: "Mr, .Carr.asked whether a side lot line variance was required and was , told that-the Building Inspector might possiblyjwaive the requirement if he deemed necessary." Mr, Clarke'made a MOTION to accept the Minutes as amended. t ' ^ Mr.. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. The vote was in favor. Local District Operation 34 Warren Street Ms.aKarolides ..and•Mrs: ,Millen,were,'present •to submit plans for proposed stoiage ,aiea atnthi's' property.,p This will be, by adding, to the existing bulkhead;iiea at3,theirear: of the.Church. 4The egress will be protected_ by a 5/8 plaster board for fire protection. :Exterior clapboarding will be continuous flusht,w th• exist ng%bulkhead_ and flush with the side wall of ! ' the building, squaring,the corner:= The door wftl :have .recessedihinges ;with pin p ,g and no visible' knob• Instead.they will use a deadbolt lock. Mr. Clarke sug- gested use of a six-panel door. The,door willkbe painted white .to match clap- , boarding. The existing door I cated•'up a small! flight of stairs is painted a"a green. Mr.,. Wolfson agreed with Mr. Clarke that a panel door might be more �r • attractive. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the application as submitted .with the exception that the side wall should be recessed approximately six y u - inches. Exterior siding should be clapboard; doors to be plain wood .and mold- '' `•' ing to, be substantially similar to what .is reflected on the plan. Mr'. Cook seconded the MOTION. All were in favor, except Ms. 'Harris who abstained since n ' she arrived after discussion. " Organization and Policies - -Prior to discussing other agenda items, election of Chairman and Vice- Chairman took placer Mr. Carr made,a MOTION to nominate Mrs. Wheaton as Chair- man and Ms. Harris as Vice-Chairman. Mr, Wolfson seconded the :nominatipkiss_ "� There were no, further nominations. The vote was unanimously, in favor. - ' Local ,District Operation cont.' 155 Derby Street - Mr. Clarke ascontractorfor this. job submitted the plans for fence detail, -four-panel door, and plot plan, as .requested. A 4' high fence will run,along the back property line. Trash enclosure extends out 5'8". Fence to be 1" by'8" spruce boards. Existing poles (from chain link fence) will be used to attach fence. Mr. -Carr 'made a MOTION to approve ,the plans-,as sub- mitted. Mr'. Zaharis seconded the MOTION• : During discussion, .Ms. Harris asked .why the fence isn't brought around to continue along the sidewalk (on Kosciusko Street) , Mr: Clarke said the owners, ,Partners Realty Trust; felt it was not • needed. Mr'. Carr moved to amend his MOTION by'approving the application sub- ject to the sidewalk side (Kosciusko Street) having the same fence with an ` i 1 41 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION re Page ff2 ' October 3, 1984 appropriate gate. Mr,- Zaharis seconded the amended MOTION, • All were' in favor, except Mr. ,Clarke who abstained, Bowditch School - Mrs. Wheaton noted that at this point in time the gym has been partially demolished. She related°briefly the historyof the tax act appeal- ,i process concerning-the gym. . Present representing Crowninshield', the developers, " were Mr, Kenneth Lindauer and Ms. Elaine'Finbury and Mr. Hogan of Jaquith .archi- F tects, Ms. Finbury relate& that she had presented-the 'case 'in.Philadelphia, stating that it was the desire of the neighborhood-to see'that it was`demolished to allow, for,a landscaping plan. . The ,points' noted in •the appeal were need for a buffer ione.'and screening'And the fact that the gym was not constructed as' . part of the original building and was of a-different architectural. style which was already represented in other buildings in the neighborhood. The federal authorities .administering the tax act decided to allow the demolition without jeopardizing the certification for tax credits, and the decision was primarily ' ' based on the.fact that the gym was not part of =the original building; Mr. Hogan presented the plans for general discussion. ' He said that Mass: - Historical requested that some things be left, such as the rear stairs, Ms Harris asked what the .paving material would be and,was told that :the parking area would be asphalt. ;Mr. Carr asked what the buffer 'zone'distance at the x ro =` - northerly,side lotline would be. ,,.Mr. Hogan said at the widest point it would be eight feet and narrowed to five feet. ' The fencing'miterial planned is rough`tsawn wood and is.to be 6' high and stained. Mr. Carr asked if planting material had been selected.yet and was told it lead not. Mr. Carr asked what. • • , the width.of the pavement was at the. entrance area and Mr. Hogan said 56' by code, allowing for parking. Ms..Harris spoke about access via Fowler Street and Mr. Hogan said the main accessswould be through- Flint Sereet; .Fowler,Street was for access by fire equipment: ' - • - P • + Mr, Carr spoke about the fact that the plans do-.not.show any break-in the long stretch through the parking lot from Flint Street 'through to Fowler Street: Members expressed disappointment that several 'suggestions made'at a previous meeting for making this area more attractive. seem not to,have• been+incorporated. Mr. Carr asked' about the dumpster. ,_It -is to be located, according to Mr, Hogan, at the far corner of .the lot and enclosed by the 'same material as the fence. M Re ardin 'the; tar berm-in front of the buildin ° g g g,.•Mr.Hogan said it-will be re- moved and' replaced with plantings.:: . Metal fencing •on the left side of the building will remain. Mr. Carr -asked how many parking spaces ,are included. For the 28 units planned, a minimum of 42 were required and they,are•providing 9 56. -. Mr„Cook spoke-about the 'possible trade=off of plantings so people will ; not be, parking on the street. Mr. Lindauer:interjected that it was, feltthat d.., ihe`neighborhood was interested •in•allowing`sufficient• parking even„at the - Aj expense"of some greenery, though he thought. there would be sufficient greenery, Mrs: Wheaton noted for those present that the Commission does"not typically have juri;diction over `landscaping, but in,the case of the Bowditch School project, the City Council had voted to. give,them' that,jurisdiction and that was why- it was being reviewed so carefully. However,, the'final .decisions on the , plantings have not as. yet been made by the architectural,firmt Mr. Clarke asked if any elevations were available-as yet on fences, but they are not. , , • r '. At this .point4, Mrs;" Wheaton asked. for comments from neighbors who had 4.`f' a . . l ' ! ' w 'n' r s ay t • ' r 1 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 3"r . x October 3; 1984 been invited to partiLpate'in the­'discus'sion. Mr. Stewart of 19'Fowler.Street was concerned'.about='the .fire exit;_on Fowler Street. Tti Council order had specified that .there was to:be no egress from Fowler Street except in:"emergency. q 'Previous discussion with Mr. Jaquith.had recommended'chained bollaids to prevent `; ' egress,, Iwith emergency;vehicles to. be 'equipped°with'necessary keys,. Mr.` Stewart•-. ' was concerned that the stame thing would''happen Ras had happened at Pope Street emergency exit,is.now.being used as'. main. entrance`.' ;Mr•:' Buso. of 155 Federal ;..;`- " " f Street was 'concerne&with the placement of ,the `dumpster; hesaid -the neighbors` were lead to.believe originally•that`,disposal was to be'inside 'or close .to, the ^ {building: .Mr`.' Hogan,said :that particular area,was chosen^for easy access by aw ' +the.,pickup truck. Also'the lower floors of the"building will'b,' utilizedsfor ' # storage and utilities.5 .They.felt _it"was better placed 'outsid6"f it`was•enclosed. .It'is also to be a closed,dumpstei Mr.;Yale of 153 Federal Street stated• that Crowninshield had,agreed=that trash' oiuld ,be stored inside and collected from a inside and he was, concerned"that�that,seems to have "changed r-,He;thought agree: * ` ments had been made'thie`e years ago on,this `He was,'ai's 01161 cerned about the a eight to five f'6ot bufferjzone ,which�wasroriginallykfsupposedrito,-beten feet, according,to Crowninshieid.,:- Mr'. 'Busoalwas concerned about the long stretch-of parking and thought more'tgreenery: wastneeded. 'Mr:rrCarr;.also was concerned.', 5' about:_the need <.for axwider buffer;and suggested thattheywholegthing` (parking ` ,, . area) be`moved over, closer to the building toallow for a Iider.`buffer. Mr. Stewart voiced his coneerntthat'if there wasn!,iienough parking space people .n would be parking =on..Fowlerfand North^Pine': Concerns°rare different depending ' }. on ,neighbors' location in the immediate area. y Commission membeis+were concerned'about snow removal and the effect that y would.,have onplanting's Also mentioned was frequency,of trash pick-up re-' quired• ,Mr., Lindauer,said°pick-ups:will be made:as often as required.' He $ also noted,that'each'unit will.have,.a' garbage disposal and'a trash masher t-° which should help to,keep volume down. :Mr:. 'Yaletof Federal',Street mentioned, , that there seemed.'to'be a :change' An' the plans as far as the,area adjacent' to t Fowler Street,was'conce'rned• That,had been a,parking area inian earlier pro- , - ' : posal and;,.now'it looks l-ike-a,green space for the^benefit of°�the condo' �Mr. r Hoganyexplained that*once ft became possible to'eliminate,,the gym, the` parking ilnecessary to locate_`intthe„area adjacent to Fowler Street wa7§-then moved to the gym<;area. Mrs.. Ross of;31 Flint`Street asked where the heating and air condi- tioning units are.to be, placed and was told _they`will all be•on the ,roof. Mr. Ross of the, same;addressasked what would.'be done,with the paving in thle area to;the left of the main,entrance and located between his home and the school. He was told the'_paving`k ll'be removed and replaced with plantings and"grass. When Mr. Hogan mentioned that fencing will, be 6' high rough sawn,,wood, Mr-5 Peyer of 33 F1int,Streei asked about the wrought _iron. fencing on that* lef,t R side of. the . ro erf and was told.that' will stay. `Mr. Carr.;brou ht u the t ,.y .. P P Y Y• ' g. . P p: drainage'problem`on'that side: ' Mr." Peper 'said there is only, 16".'betweeri'the property. line and the house•and right'now the area is'asphalu and drains'.off ' , underneath. Mr• Carr,,thought the 'plan,was to make';the,property, self-draining• Water Icoming* off the roof of the sthool>would have to go ,into a dry well.:: .Mrs. Wheaton said the Commission-will want to see how this problem wi11 'be, addressed R specifically• • y Elevation plans were;reviewed at this point. 'Windows. are �to beyreplaced. Basically, the building will look ,the same. Ingone area on.the left side" , at SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION f !A, ` Page'14 f- {`', « october-3' 1984 where a door was removed a window (six over six) to match existing wi111be in- stalled. ' Mr. Carr asked if the 'smokestack is an existing element was told it Mr. Lindauer noted that this plan was approved by Mass. Historical. in, connection with .the tax certification program.'. Windows are £o have wood sashes and wood muntin bars. They will.be single windows with extra storm windows .(aluminum)'::' ' Regarding trim color, Ms. Finbury said a determination will be made as'.to • exactly what color would be appropriate, adding that it would probably be something dark. Storms will .be painted the game color as trim. Mr. Carr asked about air-conditioning and whether it would`�be`located onithe flat roof (this , was not shown on the drawing)' Ms. Finbury said condensers which will be on the roof are very small.' They were originally going to be located around the x perimeter of the building at ground level ,arid shielded with greenery, Ms. Harris questioned the feasibility of -putting all condensers on the roof. Mr. Clarke emphasized that placement is important. He added his concern about the _ visibility of vellux skylights from certain areas. All new windows are to . match existing and all doors are to, be wood, 'Mr., Buso of,-Federal Street was concerned .about placement of-air conditioning because of the noise factor. He thought consideration of noise level should determine whether, they •were r ' placed on roof or at ground level around the perimeter.' He also added his concern about Lighting, Mr. Hogan said lighting will be aimed toward the school. ,Mr, Carr asked,about downspouts and gutters and`was told- they are just ,- ; g" replacing existing,drain leaders as shown. Mr. Yale asked if `the Commission ' had considered consulting with the landscapearchitect available=at the Plan- ning Department. Mrs. Wheaton said she would look into that, Mr, Buso .questioned ' • the need for a new variance because time has expired, -Concerns of Commission could become a condition of the -new variance. Mr. Lindauer said no date has been set as yet for thetBoard of Appeals hearing. He said the developer would:do .� whatever the community wants and would liketheHistorical Commission to give the developer a specific list'of things they wanted done so the process doesn't get drawn out. " Those 'concerns were noted as follows: : . Architect to supply list of,external'alterations; - .Skylights on Federal Street side, Flint Street and Essex Street and the extent to which they.are visible from the street; - Fence coming 'right up ,to opening of driveway; A - Location .of heating and�air-conditioning condensers; Specifications on windows and door drawings; " - Rough sawn wood fence; s - Color scheme;. - Gutters and'downspouts (replacing with like?) ; - Removal .of grill (replacing with like?),;.. Roof deck 4 -railing; a Diminished. buffer_zone; Problem with present configuration of parking area including-need.for break, question'ofkbrick wall at mid-point with plantings, low brick at entrance; , r - Access'to '.Fowler Street - emergency only; Specific planting materials; : " -. Continuing wroughn irori fence on Flint Street; View from,Flint,.Street,right through ,to Fowler and chain'"link -. substantial ., landscaping needed; . 1 v i. .+f i „. ,<33'� /w�• 4R 'til J k � r.F L �"' _ _ t���.:pw;� ��,s� tie•fir.. -"�'ii �"".^_,� '� ��.^ib t_ �� Fj?� � - � r` ... . v a: . 41 SALEM'HISTORICALjCOMMISSION'' �' Page 5 October 3;,1984 s' r �_. ter+ t .♦ r � � eZ 'n ;v 3j '. t. �. +� f ` Disappointed that suggestions'made ata previous meeting were,not incor porated, r .. t.. +" -''Essex Street side drainage problem and fence,'treatment along that side;; , f Material`of. driveway; r. -,Area in, rearton Fowler 'Stieet' side -,consider parking-the re, (When this T item'was•discussed;f+the Commission:was 'told` th'at Mass: -Historical wanted the stairs in�that area retained <thereb inhibitin Arkin , .. " y,., g� P g) • 47`Wheel !stops to{.protec't landscaping. Mr".Carr noted.,that this, as well as- other items suggested.,in-previous minutes`°shouldbe noted. , Also the size of'each parking space as specified inzoningyor'dinance :might be'reduced Z. `slightly. 3 N e The.�Commission will,notifyS„the Jaquith office when another` meeting is set,up for .� r . furthers_ iscussion on this;'project $Phill'ips School ,Mr. 'Sieve,Spinettojof the -Exec'utive Office-of Communities ' p`y and Development was-,present to ,dislcuss :the ,plang�i this project. Also"present r were Crepr, sentatives of SRA' and United Cerebral Palsy, namely, Ms., Aart, .Ms f Robbinsr':=!Baumgartner and Mr .Q uinn,ren'resentative of Salem ha,dic4pped',Zr s of ;M _ . err concern were.noted ,since this. project has been.c:T,R'ir♦ae..r iprogress. s-.yt•0 ��. .�.,qW,.S' a ... n progress. : There are,.items,' which were not approved .on .the specifications and other; items whichrdo+not cor- respond .with the- plaxi`which`was ,appr`oved, Of particular note:.were . 1)"Ess'ex , hSt'reet porticos; 2) awning,color 3).,Washington.yStreet main entrance'drawing; 4) foundation —' sidewalks/front entrances/side entrance remain above grade and .. need''ramping, 5) color of bmlding The .first item addressed was awning-colorA, , ^ °{ � Appl'icants..prefer royal”blue, mainly of maintenance,and; the' fact that r , it;won't show dirt. '• The awnings will b'e .placed over'all window s. on the southerly side.oi� the main building!and;over'the 'entryway.' xThe majority`of the^Commissio_n , ,r members``present were concerned with color. _,When .asked; Mr:' Spinettorsaid the 'awningsrare,being.;used �toIreducE ,;the cooling load „and are?considered a. functional ' element,., Ms. .Harris ;suggested-that. straight awnings as 'opposed to. curved would { � t . 'be:mor-e-victorian' in, flavor; but;,m. Spinetto'said'the fraises have already been ' fabricated., Stripes we re'considered, but since A the'awnings are curved;,�the effect,might, be circusy ,Mr. Carrj'inade'"alMOTION'to approve the'bricklshade in, s « a canvas-like. texture material which `shoul$.have 'a:.matt6ttfinish. Mr Zaharis' ; r seconded`. the MOTION, -Allftere in favor:cexcept=Ms. Harris who was opposed. Mr; Carr made a MOTION to redonsider„which was seconded by Mr. Zaharis The, vote r , in`favor of reconsideration.was unanunous; Mr,1Carr made"a MOTION 'to,yapprove k, . !a` teao- ♦ ^' forest?green color (�k89803) in'the canvas-like texture.forthe 'awnings at , the 'Phillips School'pro3ect. All were in ,favor 'e}xcept Mrs. Wheaton}ywho'.was # z opposed., ittl k , F: 'Lr`,The next item to be addressed was the, Essex Street' porticos. Mr: Slam noted that"according to the plans the columns are to be'8'7" In actuality aL - they are 17"V r 'They are supposed to be 34" in'ci'rcumfeience and-'are 'actually s 24.''jn circumference Also, in question'is ,the distance of the columns from the ' building. Commission was concerned about pediment>on,the;diawing .and: difference k 'from what actually<was built Ms, Harris said she thought there would be weather- `X ing problems` �,�Material looks like'.'clapboarding , ;'Mrs. Wheaton noted that the classic elements^ of-`a�pediment`,were_ miss ing Mr.. Sp"ine'tto agreed-that the whole entry se' ' a to have probiems -,He said he'was,.not.sure where*they are i;n 'pay- meet to ahe'architect and,'therefore, -he was not sure what could be donei; 'He SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION 'Page 6 October 3,• 1984 • -added that the elevations were not correct and that seems to have caused, the problems• He said there is a problem with the,transom that can't be fixed. He agreed to' bring the other points of concern to the attention of the archi- tect at a meeting scheduled for Thursday, October 4. Entablature and size of .columns are the major problems. Ms. Harris suggested .that if it can't be, a,, corrected; maybe a much simpler entablature and square posts would be the way „ to go. - Mr. Spinetto noted that therei'were no ,gutters. - Next to be addressed was the WashingtonStreet entrance. There is a r y dimensional problem': Ms. Harris asked if the stucco over the door could be replaced with glass; Mrs. Wheaton' pointed out that nothing was ever approved., ?` No drawings for this entrance were,ever submitted rfor;approval.. �iGlass in the doors is smoked. Mr JSpinetto said the doors ares- lowertbecausefsome stairs were removed for firejieasons ,`.'.Regarding}:Ms" Harris L.•suggestion'jfor glass in R" the stuccoed area, Mr. Spinetto said there' is nothing behind there but a solid wall so,glass is out. .-•Mr: tCarr,mentioned-•,the-'performance bond, Amr. Spinetto said••that the -problemyi-s, that lt �tenants'are wai^ting�.to.gety n:, owe H ' ittwas s 3 notedcthat� items posing problems are of the type that can be corrected without causing a delay in occupanc:y.s Ms: Harris •feLtcthe architect should be required J " to come up with a solution.-? It was 'suggestedytha solid`doors`intplace of the' " . = glass be considered. . Mr. Clarke suggested double.four-panel doors with mold- ing and molding in the stucco area.. Also stucco should be smoothed. , - Mr. Clarke made a MOTION to approve a pair of wooden four-panel recessed 1 doors with side panels to match sides of door panels and requiredthat the ; architect furnish a drawing before installation and'that the -existing stucco' be smoothed out. and wooden surround to pick up arch (minimum dimension of 3" E . f. X 4") with molding be added: i Mr. 'Cook seconded the MOTION, s During discussion of the MOTION the question of desirability of visibi- lity into the foyer for the benefit of the handicapped people inside in the ,case-of an emergency was considered. They cannot exit there because there is a step. _Members felt that would not be-a..;problem because .firemen would go'in there regardless of whether they could, actually see someone, in that area or not. Sidelights might eliminate the visibility problem:.' Sidelights 'might be used , with muntins added for consistency. Ms.. Harr is also suggested putting appiece of,molding across bottom of stucco portion of doorway. , On the MOTION all were in favor, except Mr. Zaharis who was opposed,. Ms. Harris felt a deadline should be set for the .architect to.;provide the necessary drawings. If that was not possible she thought the contractor could provide ' shop drawings. ,FThese drawings should be .submitted before the October 18 meeting. } The final items'discussed was ramping. Due to a survey error, westerly building on Essex .Street is above grade and, therefore, Mr. Spinetto explained . . that the side door`;will be ramped and the walkway will lead to the sidewalk. ` There will be a fence with rail inside in the,,area of the ramp. Further review of-.this project will' be scheduled for the October '18 meeting.p r Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION .to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Cook seconded the • -MOTION. The meeting 'adjourned at 10:45 p.m. t Respectfully submitted, ° 71 roan F. Pizze110o x Clerk ,. Approved as amended 11/7/84 r �gci�c2r 3Fs� c,.� _ _ __cpm . �—,�.dr.��• , _ _______ _ h r ,j sE � ... .. .. - } .-r, ._ — _. _ .V_ ..._. ._ 1. i� f .ter.�_ �_ _ _.�. .� }� Y _ . . ,_� �___. __ � _._. -�.._�. _ �._._ __. � ._..r__ x.}- .. ', tix j r.r- .._ __ _ _ ___. .. �._ �_. ___..._ a� �� k- <�j}��N - �.. r � .��. �� �..� � .�..4_ ten- _ _.�_rrt�+�'.� �. _ ..� � � � �..�.. 4. , y(; �. a t ��n�n�� .-�..�. �. ��� -....r..... .� r... �.�-. .� n rte+ �� . . . �.�- a �s. 1 _.J.v IT_ _. -_ '. _ _ _ .�C➢1�=1�___ °ter.-_._.. ^.... .` _ _ ,._____..., ._.__� ^ s�% \©o 0n,�.9, - - ;/a,- pcm -�o_ . loo 4 Alm 40- UkVIOC t, moi' (s f- .�o.�-, vlcd-c - ern _ _� --y +�R. `r ._ : � ;- $ �. �, �� �> `° :,;. F --- -; - -- - i 't _- � - _ � . j .A .. ��- .. _ ___ v .. A yy ..w�' Kai • n ^•�+��� Yom- .�—..-.— �i .��.. ... j ' _ ` � p �-' ---T^""- S �. - ` J l V Fly � ff°r- M .� i - -___ app-p ro�� -�r�ds�=-_ _ __✓ . - -- -- - -� '� 1 L .+' �., _ � .� �. -- -- ; ; .. �.� t �- . �_ _ __ � _ . ___ T .. ;;<:a ���. >�.. .. � ~s �J.IY ���.�...� r,_� .�. ..� _��ice_ .� ti ����. tis a .. r �.y � .ems.� ��.� �� ��..�� .F S. _ �r ��.inn _ .��� • �.�.�� _ ..���.. � �.���. � �.� �n�.�� s F S �.- r r._ +r. .rte. �.� � �.��.�.�. .�r �� +-� -.�—� . �. .•1c.�rrt.T-�T �� .rte. �� ��.� .���� e � � ���,�� .��. �. a�• �.-. -. -._-. .. - ._s _.. .•. .4'. �. _..:.:r.-- -�.-.— �__- _ .. .. _ .-' .rte, .r... __._ '• -• --`_ '_ Q-- '___ `_ _ _ ...�..—...... r III U h� 1 AP _ qp ooh-0N_ _ Q X�'OT y , r _ � ' �� ty 4 �- .. .�T r_ �.�T yf 'Rit. _�... _ � - a -`e'4 v�...� .�.___ _ ..__. .— _ _ _ _.r �_� _. _�..`� __ �" Y_ s .. _..__� � _ __.._ .r. ,_..�._.--- �.._.. _ _ _ _. _. � �. i Salem Historical Commission *4 M I N U T E S Date: 24 October, 1984 Present: A. Lippman ( acting chair) , Hank Cook, Jack Wolfson, Pete Zaharis , Russ Slam The agenda consisted of three items: ( 1 ) whether a swim- ming pool is within the jurisdiction of the commission; ( 2) Y* application for a certificate of non-applicability of a swimming pool at 14 Chestnut street; ( 3) application for a certificate of appropriateness for construction of a six foot fence at 14 Chestnut street. They were discussed in order 1 ,3,2 as per a suggestion by Slam. Zaharis moved that swimming pools are within the jurisdic- tion of the commission, the motion was seconded by Cook and unanimously approved. 2T The motion for non-applicability of the swimming pool rests 4W1 upon the construction of a six foot fence on the Botts Court , = r.. side of the property. If such a fence were there, then the members agreed that the pool would not be visible from the street. It was therefore suggested by Lippman that the • application for non-applicability include a contingency to build such a fence. This, in fact, was the reason why the application for the fence existed. Slam noted that the L: ' application for the fence contained no detailed drawing and -` • was therefore incomplete and should not be approved as it 's. stood. He also felt that the neighbors were being rail- r ; roaded into having a tall fence installed bordering their . property. The remaining members agreed with part of Slam' s ` point and disagreed with the rest. Zaharis moved that the ; application for the pool be approved with the contingency i that the owners make a complete application for a certifi- cate for the fence before April lst, 1985 , and if that 3 application is granted, the fence be constructed by May 1st 1985. This was seconded by Cook and unanimously approved. . It was felt that an application for a fence would later be approved although this one was technically incomplete , and therefore the certificate of non-applicability would be 'valid. _ Respectfully submitted, Andrew Lippman Acting Secretary --4. y SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting November 7, 1984',. ., "w A regular meeting of the Salem Historical.Comrnissionawas held on Wednesday,. November 7, 1984 at 7:30 p.m., at One Salem'Green. Present were Mrs. Wheaton, Chairman, Ms. Harris and Messrs. Carr, Wolfson, Zaharis; Slam and Padjen. Also r present was Ms: Deb,ratl' Hilbert, Preservation Planner, Though the .first item on the agenda was scheduled to be the Bowditch School, project, Mrs. Wheaton'said she had-been contacted by Mr. Singleton,-the developer, F who informed her that since Mr. Jaquith, the. architect, was detained 'on business Y in Maine,there would .be.no one present to discuss the project. A new date will' r, ,be set and notices will be sent., , Mrs, Wheaton explained Ms, .Hilbert's new position, Preservation Planner. She will be serving as consultant to the Commission and will be available to prospect- ive applicants for. Certificates of Appr'opr'iateness for advice and guidance. She = will also be reviewing and expanding property survey, proposing 33ational Register r nominations .and/or new districts as indicated and serving as liaison between the Commfiission and..the Planning,Department. Local District Operation fF ' 30 Broad 'Street —Mr. Roland' Baker, the owner of this,`property, was, present to discuss his application to replace asphalt- roof with sane black/gray color; 1 ' replace-or remove rotted, gutters and downspouts; .cover,rotted clapboards and sills with vinyl siding (color same as existing gray)xand'piint trim white as • at present. Mr.- Baker explained.tha't since'the clapboards are rotting in'some ` areas-,he feels his options would be to cover with vinyl siding, or with wood shingles. The clapboards are separating in places allowing 'water to get in, -The backiofuthe property.on which porch work was done. about 20. years ago is not., , bad, but the front and sides are in' need of work, Ms. Hilbert asked whether Mr, 'Tr Baker had obtained any estimates on reclapboarding as4�opposed to siding,. Mr. Baker said the first contractor he contacted .was not interested in „doing any y - work in a historical district. Presently, he=is dealing.with the contractor who will be doing the roof work. He said he was given_ a price-of_$10,000 for 3` + shingling from a contractor. Mr. Carr noted that the guidelines should be con=a; s , sidered since 'vinyl'siding is almost never allowed. It was suggested that Mr. Baker give some thought to reclapboarding where required and then staining' instead of painting. In reply. to Mr. Carr's question, 'Mr. Baker indicated that r: he had,not bbtained any figures on-alternative solutions.,-'Mrs. Wheatonsuggested"` that he do that.with• some help from Ms..Hilbert in seeking -names of contractors. ' who would be willing to do that type of work. Mr, 'Padjen noted that even if „ '_,•' ' ' siding were allowed, the corner boards would have to be painted and kept re- piinted.',.Ms. Harriscemphasized 'that if vinyl'were installed the 'old rotting clapboards 'would simply. be covered-and the problems would not be eliminated, '. Mr, Carr al'so. spoke about the possibility of doing the house a Hide at a time to keep, the cost budgeted out,overtia,periodyof, time,.,. Mr.iBaker thought wood , shingling might be aOgood'alternative;)but'was told that•ttiough that is appro , 0 priate,for. some houses of certaiin `periods an&architectural styles, it' .is not appropriate for his." -The general disc6ssion also'indicated that the Commission was not likely toyapprove+vinyl'!siding'for�this .house';either. . Mr. Baker, at that point, .said he•wasttlaen;incline3�to ,let itlgo,without+doing anything since' • he'.did' not feel-he could afford the clapboarding which the Commission would seem } 4 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 2 November 7, 1984 to. require. He did mention the possibility of putting clapboards on the front. a He seemed agreeable to. Mr.. Slam's suggestionthat he speak'with someone who'• ,. would give him an actual. estimate on clapboarding. 'Mr. Padjen suggested that several estimates be sought since'prices' will vary. It was agreed that.Ms, r Hilbert will work with Mr. Baker-on this application and come back to the Com-` mission ata later date. i .X. ., 35 Chestnut Street - An application was received from the owner of this ,pro- perty, Mr. Jonathan Almy.'Reardon, for installation of two solar collectors 'on e the roof which would be'.used to heat water. Ms. Hilbert said that in research- ing' this via the Old House Journal she found ,there are many other possibilities= for energy saving prior-to' the)use of ,sorar collectors: •`The'col'iectors would be very visible from`Warren S.treet.,;,The application, clearly'did-not'seem ap- , r , z propriate. It .would only`fall underJthe "Hardship" category and'�tlnat might not be the case in this instance. Mr. Zaharis madeaia MOTION to, deny the app1' " cation on the .grounds tfiat ,it' is "not'appropriate;.1 Mr. Carr seconded the MOTION': ; . The•vote to deny'was''unanimous. ' Mr. 'Carr noted that a paragraph on solar col- lectors' should be added to the guidelines. Also guidelines should be formu- lated to cover dormers `Ms.;.Hilbert will address that suggestion. " .76 Federal Street - Dr. Gordon, the owner of this property, has installed a satellite dish on the roof of the house which stands on the•corner'of Federal'.. s and North,Streets. Mr. Cook noticed this ,being' installed and spoke with the'.: • doctor's wife who had contacted the City Solicitor about it. City Solicitor O'Brien did not interpret whether it was or was not an antenna (according to Chapter 40C, .the. Commission does not have jurisdiction over "antennae and SI milar appurtenances") , The Gordons'made the determination. Ms. Hilbert' , . said she had spoken with Mass. Historical. about this andwas told they con- sidered it to be a "similar appurtenance" as an antenna. 'She did say that a" . f state license might be required on the basis that it is a state district. Mr: . Carr thought there might be a difference between functional concept and appear- - ante concept, Mrs. Wheaton said she had spoken with the City Solicitor who - confirmed that he did .not give an opinion. He said he would like to see if there was any precedent. Mr. Carr said that in his opinion it is an intrusive element ,and it is seen against the Pierce-Nichols House as one enters .Salem from North Street. Ms. Hilbert questioned whether' the jurisdiction of the Com- mission extends over something seen from outside of the district. Mr. Wolfson ; said it does not state whether" it is from a district or not; just from, a public ;, way.. Ms. Harris thought it might havie to be let go because it is not presently covered, but she would like.to see the..City Council put it within the juris- diction of the Commission. 'Mrs. Wheaton thought that possibly the whole line ' excepting items of this nature might have to be.removed, ' She further stated that when similar appurtenances to antennae were noted a satellite dish was not envisioned, Mr. Carr said'that since the ,Commission had in the past assumed, 'jurisdiction over things. like electrical wires, etc, he felt it was ambiguous enough to proceed and assume jurisdiction, and also work through `the City Council_ `to clarify this. Mr. Padjen questioned whether it .could also be in possible violation of the building code. Ms.-Harris thought the building codes'might have - to, be updated to include this type of fixture in any •case. Mr. Padjen .thought a • building permit. shoul3 :i,vc, L n yu redf •haowner had gone for a 1building permitit would then have-had to come before the-Historical Commission. ' . Y SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION V Page 3 November 7, 1984 j .. S. J, ' 1 .y ' .T .e' .♦ - t' ' a t ' � , S ... Mr, Carr-made ,a MOTION to assume'as. a Commiissioh jurisdiction over satellite ' _. antennae. . Mr. Zaharis seconded the'MOTION. The,vote was unanimously,�in favor: , " Mr, Carr 'made„a MOTION that the .Commission inform the City Solicitor^of" this unanimous vote_ and' request,a meeting,•with him''to discuss his interpretation 'of;- ; t:' what solutions may exist• to remedy the probl'em. , Mr.. Zaharis•seconded the 'MOTSON:^ " ' The vote was unanimously in favor” ;Mr., Padjeri`suggested, that the, Building Inspector be 'involved. rn this matter. . At;a further'point in. 'the meeting Mr. Carr made a'MOTION., that the Commission ' assume'jurisd3. on over,solar collector panels:, ,Mr. Zaharis 'seconded the . MOTION., The vote was ,unariimously,..'in`favor. st ;• 102 Federal Street -: The skylights which Mr, gramble, the owner, Wishes to s install. on the back ,slope;of the roof are visible, according• to Ms:�Hi'lbert, t - .- from one- point on FederalStreet: `' The degree of.visibility'should`be :con- sidered because according to Ms, "Hilbert they are not.going to be that visible' -k• _! a^ Mr. Carr's.r, inion was that�'at;besV a sin le sk li ht�would, be p , g. y g permissible, but. a'.row of them would be very�visible'at night.. ;He noted"that Mr. Bramble had • originally'.requested permission for.a'shed dormer in that location. Mr. Carr feels that this house l6oks like a single family dwelling and exterior changes „••, would indicate that it is ,a: multi-family dwelling'. He further. feels that it 'is significant when a: single-looking'house has several mailboxes, lit doorbells, etc: ' Mr. S•lam'`did not ;agree 'that,the- dkylights would indicate a multiple dwell-+ ' .•; ing and was not sure that was olio€ the considerations of the Commission. Mrs, Wheaton'thought it was very intrusive. .Mr. Pad'jen felt'one;was not unreasonable, sY - but several''would be •,, „ Mr.'Carr made a MOTION that the Commission deny the two new skylights, but allow the.applicant to restore the original.,skylight.in the center of'the build-• ' ing which is currently framed (same size) and-that.this. be the 'only,' skylight located. on either roof of. that building.'. Mr. Wolfson seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. Y 100 Federal Street - Ms Har"xisno`ted that affence erected -at does- not correspond to the' fence`approved?forthe"RsYte,ii The -`style�r'srounded logs. Mr. Carr made a MOTIONythat the owner, Mr, Bramble, or his representative;' (Mr. Jaquith) be asked to attend the�next�meeting-:to consult<withtthe,Commission on what ,the Commtssion considers unacceptable chaiiges,- :such_gas,doorbells` 'fences, a electric meter boxes, etc,` " Ms.' Harrisiseconded the MOTION., The vote was unani= , w ° mous ly in favor., ' Mrs '„Wheaton discussed the possibility of'setting'up'a system whereby for each project ingwhich ahe .Commssion 'is' involved a.different'.member be asked to serve as follow .r -up on:action' equired or 'taken,' It was decided that 100-102 .'Federal Street•would b.e'the first-to. have<a de.signated 'folloia-up Mr. Wolfson .1 - ,was named to 'serve in :that _capacity. "The charx'will determne: follow=up,for ►^ each-p,roje'ct and 'the assignments will be given out at the next meeting. ' „ 335' Essex Street'- Heid over until the next meeting with pre-meeting r' •'. inspection'required y - - 3. n • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 4 November 7, 1984 h*. 4' �r 398 Essex Street —Held over until- next meeting. For discussion would be*-Z-0 whether or not to take further action regarding shutters which have not yet been removed from this property, 31 Flint Street —Also held over until the next meeting. Salem Common Grant Projects , Mrs..,Wheaton noted that the city is pursuing . a grant program through the Planning Department,and `will,�betworking with the . Historical,Commission as,they prioritize 'the items t,r hen'_the,Application stage is reached they will be in touch with the Commission. Salem Public `Library r Ms., Hilbertfinformed; the.Gommi"ssion that .she had . submitted a .preliminary proposal'for a grant to rehab the main branch of the Salem Public Library at .372 Essex-Street. Work could not be accomplished within s� this year's grant cycle,"therefore; thefpreliminary proposal simply indicates the city's intention to make a full application at the next opportunity. Storm windows are required for .this winter and she has been asked to make a recommend- ationa Mr. Slam suggested interior storms. Ms. Hilbert said .there is no venti- ,, a lation in the building.and the windows must be opened briefly'every morning and even though that is done there is still a problem with rotting., ,Work on the brownstone must be done, but if money is received for that and nothing is done to the windows the money will be wasted. Storm windows would have to be "J' slightly recessed since the windows are recessed. Ms. Hilbert was considering ' - • some type of exterior storm windows painted to match the trim. Mr. Padjen s suggested that if she could find someone to do it, standard windows could be modified using baked enamel finish on aff the surrounding material and done the same way as existing. As sources'he suggested North Shore Glass or Ipswich Glass. Real glass should be used as opposed to plexiglass which is `prohibi tively expensive as well as distorting: The storms should be the same color as the .sash, Ms. Hilbert said she would have a problem with the budget, Other projects might be part of the package. Ms. Harris emphasized that good priming .job would insure a good paint job whatever is used, To facilitate svV opening from .the inside since the glass will make the storm's very heavy, Mr. ". $' Padjen suggested the installation of small- handles. Ms. Hilbert will keep the . :Commission informed'on this project, 115 Federal Street - Mrs, Wheaton noted for the information of the Commis- sion that the roof vents approved for this.property were mistakenly installed. -on the front,of the house instead of the location approved,. However, a new roof is planned for spring and when it is installed the vents will be..put in Y„ the back where they were supposed to-go. 'Mrs. Wheaton will be in,touch with the owners, Dr. & Mrs, Ingraham, ° Members' -: 4 A discussion concerning possible new •associate members was held. The part which,associates and alternates play during actual business discussions was touched upon. Voting members.number seven and adding too many more might make e. ., the discussions unwieldy, . It was generally felt that there might be some way to a11ow some participation in discussion in general. Mrs. Wheaton felt that f al when discussion concerns an item on which a vote is imminent only those members r - fiCf~ '�1�..J• 4 ' y%:i fi�'g i 9 �'.•t,Ez`. ..[ .. , .. v"A # '"•y � �wj; >yci, �:>, .{'- i n _ 4F �1 , • �[.: Y�r}�( ��a�i � ��'S,. '.. I'•��� {i��4�R�,{{,� + 1 ��# Xy�. {i � �` .i 1 1 .y •.!r'i m i' •. +,`*t*�G' a- � yt a�`" Vit : lip, � is lt . , m 4 i1 �: a[ „ . • .. 1'V a .. R .. �- ' ..♦ti': •• '11.1 � .. . r , y _• . G #t" x - •t�� �° T.n e s rr 4,x s 1 _ r r f• - f e 4 arr! • y •. • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 5 November 7, 1984 .. voting should .participate in that`discussion. r•Also to be considered, according P to Mrs. Wheaton, is the fact that since associate members are not named by the Mayor and City Council, the question of-how much input they should have should,; be resolved. Two prospective associate's being considered are Mr, Dick and Ms. Jane Stirgwolt. Mrs. Wheaton is to communicate with Ms. Stiigwolt nd != suggest very generally that 'if she is interested she would be welcome to come w and observe. ,It was' felt 'that further discussion on this was warranted at another meeting. 'Ms. Harris madea MOTION to defer any formal decision at this r ' time and .take' the matter under advisement. Mr. 'Wolfson seconded,the MOTION. 4, v The vote was unanimously in favor. Prior to adjournment, Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the Minutes of the October 3, 1984 meeting'with the- following minor change.,, On page 5 in the a first paragraph-on the Phillips School, Mr. Quinn was mistakenly referred to as a prospective resident of the project. He was at the meeting representing Salem handicapped. Mr, Carr seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in '•'~ favor. The same MOTION to,-approve covered the Minutes of October 24; 1984 when Mr. Lippman served as Acting Secretary. This meeting adjourned at'10:00''p.m; Respectfully submitted, �. _ t -Joan F. Pizzel o Clerk Approved 12/5/84 f h SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION =` . '" Minutes yof Meeting4 :j` If4November 14, 1984'. a 46' .. . A special meeting of the' Salem Historical Commissi n,was held on Wednesday, ` *' November 14, 1984 art"7:30`p`.m.' at One"Salem Green.° Present were Mrs: Wheaton, Chairman, Ms. Harris, Messrs.(Carr, ,Lippman,, Wolfson and ,Zaharis„ and Ms. Hilbert, _ Preservation Planner ', Also present ,were Councillor O'Leary and Ms. Andrea Fish of the Salem Planning Department. Local District Operation Bowditch School - Representing Crowninshield Corporation were Mr. Singleton, the developer, Mr. Jaquith, the architect, and Mr. Frederick Lyman, Historic . . h Consultant. The list of problem4areas compiled at the last Commission meeting was read by the clerk., ' Mr. Jaquith presented the landscaping plan first.. He , told the Commission that clean up in the area of the demolished<lgyn was being completed and new gravel for that area brought in. He said that the perimeter would be 10 feet plus along the Federal' Street side with six-foot rough sawn Y stained board fence on that side, . The dumpster has been placed at the'rear in this revised plan. He pointed ,out the two fingers of green and entrance-walk- way at mid-point with two larger trees planted in that area. Plants along the fence will include forsythia, cotoneaster and viburnum. Two bollards with chain will be installed and the area toward Essex Street. will be sodded grass. The area at the back near Fowler Street will be landscaped and another shade` , tree will be placed there. They plan to leave the existing chain link fence at the rear. At the front is a low iron fence which will,be extended .with stone t • bollard to driveway entry and base with stone bollard -and fence at'right hand side of driveway entry with five to eight 'feet of landscaping behind the fence" before parking commences. All asphalt and concrete on left side of building $ .. . will be removed and landscaped and he feels that will solve the drainage prob -. _ lem. Should there continue to be a.problem they would do whatever is-necessary " ,moi_ (dry wells, etc.) to solve it. The present granite curb along.the school will be used and there will be an asphalt burb on the other side. They have allowed one space per condo owner and the other 50%+ will be for guests. He feels that fl two spaces are required for each unit though the,Board of Appeals only requires z Councillor O'Leary asked about the walkway from Fowler to Federal Street and whether the fence .is on the inside of the walkway. Mr. JaquithrepliedF t that, the fence is approximately where the brick wall for ..back of gym was so it �S� r'$• does not interfere with passageway. He added that they hoped to discourage transient walkers from using the lot as a pass-through to Flint Street. Council- , for O'Leary expressed his hope that the walkeway would be maintained by the . developer since many residents have used it as' a cut-through for years. ' Mr. y , sip gleton said they would like to discourage people from walking through back- '. yards, etc. to get through there. Mr. Jaquith said they thought the fence would be needed for some control and they would have to give. some thought to that area. Councillor O'Leary asked about the streetlight in that area and was told that it was to be kept in place for security.reasoins. Councillor O'Leary was concerned about keeping the area free of debris and maintaining it. Mr. Singleton said he would.address that and agreed to clean it up and maintain Ft}_ Mr. Buso of 155 Federal Street noted as a• general comment that he is much 1 . Salem Historical Commission Page '2 .November 14, 1984 r '. happier with the new plan and was'glad to see that the developer had followed up on the suggestions .made," ' Ms. Fish of the Planning Department whose specialty is - w- landscaping asked about the spacing of the shrubs which appear. to be set 'about 20 feet,Capart. Mr. out said they are spaced 15 feet, Ms. Fish said the rarrangement:noted will never appear as amass against" the fence, if that was the intention of the architect,, because the spread is too wide;E She suggested that " ,the shrubs be arranged'anfgr'oups`rather `than':lined up.in a xbZ) Mr:-Jaquith • said he would be willing to work with+her)to come ' with amore pleasing arrangement. .The fence is doing the primary screening. Councillor O'Leary asked about the exit#at" the FowlertStreet end ,,*and was told that area-wil1 be providing,an accesssfor tfi'�Fire,Department'and *it isitojbe�grassed, Mr. Buso asked about the actual `plan°for the fence. Mr. Jaquith described .it as a six- c foot fence based on Walpole Wood workers�fencelthat• is rough-sawn with 1 .by 6 horizbintals,on the�side•facing Crowninshield prop`"erty. % The :good side will be facing the Federal Street rear yard-abutters., ,Wood cap, l ,by '4 skirt , 'board on the other, sid.e: Theyjcould keep it natural, but at present are think- ing hink ing about staining. , At that point Mr. 'Jagtiith introduced Mr. Fred Lyman, • , Historic Consultant; who will be working with the firm.- He then described changes to the, exterior','of, the building. New wooden replacement windows will be 'installed: with aluminum. 'storm/screens over"them Two new Victorian doors with 12-light -sidelights" and new eight-light transom will be installed at the front of the building.. (Flint Street) replacing'the aluminum.school doors presently -in place. All, masonry will be,repointed if , necessary. .Slate roof is to remain with skylights„ Atrthe' rear of the.build- ing the changes include new rear doors at the'location of, the present' 6tairwa`y; A series of windows has been placed in the old stair base to allow light-in " one of the units and they will be replacing'all' exterior windows and .repoint ing. On the Essex Street side the 'changes, include replacement of existing win- F' dows, removal of stair that leads to a: doorway:; that doorway will be changed, A window is being bricked in and the doorway .will be bricked in, but the reveal kept. There,is also a possible addition of one window. ''hey will"be replacing drain leaders with copper. Heating to be placed,ori;rear'roof which has" a para- .- pet. The units will not`be visible"'from any,adjacent property or'public `way. a "There will be a'verY Plain rail on the parapet.': They are basically bringing ' ' .the building' back .to what it was in:1916' (back portion) and. to 1870-1888 on . front .portion On parking lot elevation facing Federal .Street side,'windows will be re- placed with wood"withaluminum at New belt course where gym was peeled away to make it appear as' end of, 1916""portion of building. . . '^ All of these changes.were submitted to Mass. Historical and `to the De-, , partment of the Interior and all,have been approved to date. The only.,,thing not approved is `skylights and possibly a few window changes which are in- Ya1 i complete as yet, Mr. Jaquith said the developer is open to suggestions as }' far as trim color is concerned, ' He added that they may be planning a few • windows in the rear gable which will show-on the rear elevation, but would be difficult to- see from a public way in• any-case. $ _th �jj �e✓t'^*'�} yit. t� � 3A2p�('.�kFil - ;`'^•,, .. r ���"S i.+� ik,{�.+' tp•F �A,i- �„�t`,i� Tye w:; �i.,.*+e+ 44 �(a✓iy t`p{ Q•" Salem Historical Commission Page, 3, ' November 14,1984 Vl toR#t„i .k' �' rrJA � i •'t'F �f '.. .. ` Councillor o;Leary asked if ,any thought had been given to`a name for,rthe , ,pro.ject3".,Mr. Singleton said'theyfthought, theyj'wo ld hke',tovuse the'tBowditch ' ^ t namesbut'hadn't come,up with' the actual name yet:':: The Council orderdated Decem6er. 201 :1982 states that"the, Bowditch name shall be included in"any e .development:", (Section.A;' No: 3) ^- When Councillor O'Leary`asked where the sign- , age:would be locatedliewas told that the have to'come `back with'^that at a' later meeting.,' Mr. Buso asked-aboutthe-,roof decks-on; the flat portion. Mr, µ, "..Jaquith said. th'ey are back,in away from the chimney ard,away from the parapet. He�added that the 36" rail%around 'the ,parapet- is .to`begiepaired.f Councillor 1 ' •t ^r O'Leary asked°about the size' and� loc'ation•of,;the 'heat pumps on-the' roof. 'Mr. F Jdquith; said there are•28' of them'and' and, they are,set in clusters of three and '6ur,,toge'ther.. There are roof' ventilators Ehere;now'an&they,.plan.to use - 'ex isting;group Ing wherever possible. Ms. Harris asked if; they will all ,be• Lo- ,h cated on the'back section and Mr. Jaquith 'said that none„would'be, on •the upper x r '*roof They,will' all be.'on the back-and'they 'extend 20” high .The parapet is Fc 24": ^ Mr. Lippman asked',if, the, parapet"' is solid; it is?- ,He asked if wood mune_ tins would .be used 'they will. Mr. Carr asked if'the .he£'t°pumps;.would be visi= ble from the corner.,of Flint and Federal. ` Mr. Jaquith ,said they would be invi- Bible even from there.. Ms. Harris' asked if any heat pumps'were planned for the ground., Mr. Jaquith said not ab present; but -ff that ,changes she would come back to',the Commission. Members expressed concern"with Pthat'possibility because - ' of resultin noise and effect on landsca in � etc. There" aver g p' g, very ,good chance that any 'ground.units would be denied., The flagpole was*'mentioned and it was noted that they rare undecided whether or not to,retain ,<x ..1r F .. ' ° '. ; , p. .r ! a ice/- I'A" NV i I } � '�' • 4i tF The -doorNat. the rear :(Fowler°Street) was discussed.i 'It is nsulated add? (hasfixed glass trarisom,iri an effort to=.let light into a%hallway in that area., , The 'stairs, in �that area were retained, per Mass,; Historical`, but'they 'are -not to:be utilized. , Mrs. -Wheaton was- concerned about a 'door aCA lower level. Ms. ' " °•' Harris felt"muntins -should'.be added to be consistent, and' Mr. Singleton was agreeable.to that suggestdon. ,Mr. .Jaquith said 'the whole,area'is still being. ., ' worked on., It 'WI ll then have toback t'o_ �Mass': Historical.,1 Ms: Harris asked about the feasibility a.door with glassrupper half and wooden bottom. Mr. Jaquith mid the window is needed,,to get 'light into two kitchens and he will work ,on-,that. "There Was some discussion>concerning new additions to'old ;* areas, Mr. Jaquith expressing ,the view of the`Investment 4Tax 'Credit reviewers ' that additions,: 'alterationS made in the 1980's,should, reflect the 'architectural . trends of this;era;-. the Cominission, questioning'this view in cases where" small changes (a window; door) might 'serve thio dominant'architeetural ,theme' better vby blending with the existing. Ms: Harris- commen'ted 'on^ desirab lity 'of.having ' ' all windows'match •rather ihan- a newer style Mr. Jaquith said he' will try to design what they feel is. appropriat'e'and ;try to,get concurrence,from•Ma'ss. • Historical: r. The 'next,issue-to be.discussed was the skylights of which there are eight, sized 4'5",by 4'3",; and.a' slightly smaller one', all.,of,which are 'to'be absolutely flat with no •raised�bubble.. •,The, skylights, are ,in the townhouse units,. ,yMr }. Jaquith explained,that there was 'a need'''forabedroom areas to have light and air and .fire egress. The townhouses 'will bemuch more spacious unitsand will * • ` the,higheatrpriced. Mr, Carr asked if that`upper. level• space had. ever been , - � * - considered ,for'the mechanicals. Mr. Jaquith said,that had never'.been consi- } Salem Historical Commission Page 4 "November 14, 1984 dered; the area up there is much too valuable to use for that, Mrs. Wheaton asked' what the fire egress requirement was. Mr. .Jaquith said 32" wide minimum and a , 32" high. Regarding the skylights, Mr. Jaquith added that using gray glass would' +' soften the effect. , There are some small existing holes in various areas on the,, ` building and these will be filled in with-brick. The existing spotlight on the building will be removed: Detail of window being placed where door was removed 1, wasur-eviewed, as well as small window being slightly changed to match others in I'that area. On the Essex Street side where ,an existing door will be' removed and closed in with brick, 'a''suggestion was made to change that to a solid wood door, that would not open. 'Also:' in that area two narrow first floor windows will be ;replaced with new large 6/6 double hung windows. Grills beneath first and second floor windows will be removed, as well as grill over basement window. These will be filled in with brick to match.wall. New brick lintel and brick , wainscotting will be installed to match existing. Ms. Harris noted that third r floor windows in front have rounded heads and are being. replaced with straight . heads. Mr:' Jaquith said they would make them rounded if they are already round- ed. Ms. Harris was .also concerned that divisions on storm windows should }' correspond with division on regular windows. Mr. •Jaquith said they are trying . to make them operable so they 'would probably have to be custom-made. Some may ;. have to be fixed. Mr. Lyman said that Mass. Historical would be watching that closely. If it is not done correctly, they would require them to be redone. The choice of shrubs. for the landscaping at the front of the building was • discussed. Varieties chosen tentatively are low creeping juniper and mission' + arborvitae. The width of the driveway is 20 feet. The question of where the. - six-foot height of the fence on the 41 Flint Street abutting line should com- mence was discussed. . It was suggested that it should begin at the end, of the main block of the house. Members also expressed,concern about the use of rough-sawn-wood for the fence. Ms: Harris also suggested use of a 'k/trim piece at the bottom of the fence. She additionally suggested capping the posts on the fence. Mr. Jaquith agreed to submit detail drawings as requested. Mr. Carr wondered whether the abutting neighbors might actually prefer to have the "good" side of the fence showing because of the visibility. Mr. Singleton said he would try to determine how the neighbors felt about that possibility. Mr. Carr was concerned-about more ofra green,backdrop;:at ,the Fowler' Street end. _ Mr. Singleton said,.consideration•must, bee given td.allow,ing;enough space for parking so added#depth'in'-that area is;not;feasible. 'Mr' Carr also expressed . t�;:ro , concern that substantial sized plants be used throughout; Ms. Fish suggested ` beginning •the parking lot1'at`the°point wlere the building begins. That would provide a deeper green area at the front of the building. She also suggested that some of the spaces be shrunk in width to allow for more 'plant- ing. The 42 required spaces could be 9 feet' 'and '.the' e'xcessa's'paces might be ,I'F narrower .(8, feet) . Mr. Carr''asked whether Ms. Fish thought increasing depth of buffer on Federal Street side and making that nearer the building narrower would help. She felt the space gained would be minimal Ms. Fish suggested z that the species of tree to be located at middle point of the lot be changed ' from honey locust to-something like sugar maple or oak. The honey locust is not as suitable as a specimen. Ms. Harris mentioned little leaf linden as - another possibility. Ms. Harris further suggested that at least one or two " • # shrubs .located at the front of the building be vertical so everything: isn't flat and spreading.. The verticalplants would add to the formal look of the Y - - , kV 4 le Salem'HistoricLI'6mmissiona Page 5 November 14,1984 'f 4 P'Y •I t '. S entry. Actual specimens- she suggested for this ,`purpose,,wer`e yew or possibly gypress,rnot boxwood whichFis very slow -growing."',Regarding' the'curbing, she sug , estedluse of concrete instead of` as halt.: It would- look;much better even if t it 'doesn`,t match`.the granite�nl&ich is being kept., ;,The coating of the lot was • discussed'. Mr. Jaquith said they"`had. discuss ed alternative materials, 'but were " having problems with how to achieve' striping,; ,Regarding the curbing, Ms. Harris suggested'thaelthe materials,used'be'•evenly-divided if, possible'. Wheel stops " will,not be required. `' '+ - i` Lighting was. not noted on.the plans.', Two,`posts would be directed back toward, the building: (They;'are320 ,foot poles using sodium vapor lamps'')- Ms. '.r Harris suggested'that low=level lighting would -be more'attractive and,provide beiter„lighting..- ' Mr. Jaquith'.agr`eed to study that possibility, Mr.'Zaharis asked if' there would be any lights on the -building and:was told there would not. Councillor- O'Leary,.:asked 'about ,lighting.at the 'rear.'.ofrthe building. . Mr. Jaquith said the'exijsftting"po-111Ltlpen(lig104'thftingtwouldfb`e' staying ,.K Mr., S'ia_gletori agreed. s.,k,.} • �� " The next 'itemtto be touched upon,was color. . Mrs. Wheatoxi 'suggested` that Ms. ,Hilbert be involved .in making that choice. 'Mr tJaquith said they were tentatively, thinking?o1,Kf'a1shade' ofcieaz .-.i .,sa nwp' . tl t ,+�'+t �c •i }n4+r 1ys n{ qS a. The ,skylights were discussed�againtat,this, point. , There, was a suggestion about removing -the skyligtitg�from;,the Federal?St eet, side and,replacing, them • ''^with flat existing ones ' However, �both Ms. Hilbert and Mr Jaquith felt it would not; look as good as carrying them 'all-out the,same 'way.,. Ms Harris Kaskeer 'side. could"be used instead of, two,. ut Mr. Jaquith said d whether only p he, could not do, tfiatibecause there°are�two separate units involved.. Ms.iHar- } kis^suggested that the' skyl'ights.;linegupiover'the existing'.windows; the draw- ing shows one lining up and one "not. Mr.,.Jagiiith said there was no problem with doing that:- Mr: Carr made a MOTION to approve the plans.withrthe following exceptions: further'`clarification on rear. entrance; -windows,,,berieath'irearss entrance; _ -door " which is to have side lights, on both sides; -bricked in•door,.(possible replace >" ment with 'fixedywood,door) ; , skylights to be..tinted round, arched windows on third 'f windows to match: ?Mr. Lippman seconded•the`MOTION. The , . a ' ';vote was unanimously, n favor. 95-97 Federal Street, -, Ms. 'Jessica Herbert-Babyak, the "owner of this ' hf building, ,was present to,apply. for,a "Certificate of Appropriateness for her - paint;choices; The custom-.blended colorsshe.has;.chosen are.a'medium'beige . 3 for the^body with„a light :beige,forkthe`trim. Ms. Hilbert suggestedrthat.,she considera'third color for brackets and panels:-. Mr' qu .4Jaith suggested 'a �- + `, .maroon-brown shade' as the thirdcolor' Ms. Herbert-also wanted.approvalAfor K the.. installation 'of a Victorian stained-glass Window, (three=panels) ;on the, s ' r < .. ° { second`floor east facade, ,Ms. Hilbert noted that'from,the. exterior they°are ; very'dark -,,so all the detail couldn't be read from the outside. '' She ,was a " bit. concerned about changing .the balance by adding a horizontal window at _ _ that .location and::{suggested-.that;,consideration-be given- t6 adding decorative • molding as a means of'bll3ancing the bottom. T.• , 4 • � � �-I �/ ! f '��S th�i � 2�+ '�e J F.♦� � �'. , Y ..I. ,� a t '' ' ) �Page,6 4 # ' November 14 1984 " Salem Historical' Commission .. ' `a,_'r,r/ ♦ �' ¢f ya. yf G �� A � . Mr,' Zaharis made4a MOTION. to allowAinstallation ofithe;stained glass window as requested, ' Ms, Herb°ert is to submit drawing of molding. , Mr. Wolfson se- ` conded the MOTION, The vote was, three, in favor (Mrs. Wheaton,.Mr, Zaharis and Mr. Wolfson) one opposed (Mr. Carr) and one abstention (Ms, Harris) . Mr, Lip- pman left prior to this rote being taken. > . Mr, Carr.made a MOTION to approve the'colors as submitted and strongly `recommended that a third-color be added -to highlight brackets and cornice. Approval of the third color will be delegated to Ms. Hilbert, Ms. Harris se- conded the MOTION;- The vote was, unanimously .in favor, , Abutter notices will be sent.` Al The granite foundation will be cleaned with restoration cleaner (mild -solution .of acid/water non-abrasive to stone) . 314 Essex Street - The new owners of 'the former Red.'Cross building were - represented by Mr, Walter Costello, His law firm, Costello, .Frattaroli and Barrett purchased the building p g •in August and they intend to�move their offices there. They have applied to the Board of Appeal's for permission- to renovate; the building and they are scheduled for a November 28,x1984 hearing.- Mr. Costello said 'the only change on the-front facade will be to change the color ; r' from the present red to the original "gray. . They•would also like to replace the existing single pane windows with double paned; -There isan-addition •' to the back of the building at the 'sec_ond story level (approximately 1930) f + The second floor ceiling in that area is only six feet high. • They would like: to add height and that'would change the roof line. At third floor level ' they propose a cut-in deck on the back 'of the building. There are skylights on. the rear roof. Mr, Costello said that though it will lie used,as an office, w same as the previous owner, the Building Inspector hasMrequired that they go , before the Board'of Appeal because`of the structural changes; Regarding the . windows,•Ms;'Hilbert noted. that,any new windows should be wood frame windows r, with built-in muntins. Mr. Costello'thought therelw,ould'.be.no problem with that requirement. Mr. Car 'was concerned about ',tlie extent to which the en- " I larging of the ell would be visible from'Essex Street: Mrs. ,Wheaton,expressed concern abouttheskylights and the deck. Ms. Harris spoke about the 'possi ` bility 'of the owners applying for tax credits, and noted that interior changes ' would be monitored should they decide to take that route.• She also felt the deck would probably not be approved in .that case. It was agreed byfall pre- a sent that viewing the site would be'desirable,and Mr. Costello. agreed to ` 'pt `- meet with any members who wish to see the building on Saturday, December'l, :�. . at 9 a.m. No application was presented at this time. This was just .a pre- liminary•discussion to,get the feeling of the Commission about'what the owners, CF_& B Realty Trust, >propose to do. " 100-102 Federal Street -;Mr.,Jaquith represented the owner,'Mr, Bramble', - in a discussion concerning ;the _fenc& which has been erected and which has . rounded stockade-type._pickets which were not approved, 'Ms, Harris made a" 1 MOTION that the first, four�sections 'of' the fence be replaced with flat board • • fence with cap; that the posts be squared. off ..(boxed in) ; that'a drawiing be submitted. for the cap ori topsof posts; and replace back piece offence 'with Salem Historical Commission Page 7 November 14, 1984 d Sc straight piece of wood rather than rounded, "Good"side to be facing' as it is t = presently. Mr. Wolfson seconded the MOTION. ' The vote was unanimously in favor: 1 It was suggested that something be done about-changi:ig the doorbells and`, Mr. Jaquith said he saw no problem with that. Regarding the meter boxes, Ms. Harris suggested plantings-sto conceal them. Mr.', Jaquith. agreed to look into that possibility.. Regarding the skylights reque'sted,' Mr. Jaquith said he feels 4 ,,they cannot be seen from the street.' . There was some disagreement over this point with Mr. Carr insisting that they are visible. . Mr. Jaquith was told that ' if-his client puts them in and they are not visible, the Commission would have E° no jurisdiction.. However; if he puts them in and they do turn out to be vi- sible, Mr. Carr for one said he would vote for removal. 76-70 FederalStreet -. Regarding the satellite dish installed onthe roof of the house, Mrs- Wheaton informed the Commission that the City Solicitor is preparing an opinion on this. Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Carr seconded the MOTION. The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m, r � Respectfully, submitted,, ?JoansF. Pizzeerommission, Approved 1/17/85 %10 - VI SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Minutes of Maeting, m December 5 1984 .,, .J' w A regular meeting of the Salem Historical, Commissiori was 'held on Wednes- i .z r day, December. 5, 1984 at,.7:30• p'.m: at One .Salein Green. : ` Present were Mrs. ' .. 'Wheaton,, Chairtnan, Ms: Harris,,Ms Hilbert;' and ,Messrs ,Cook, Lippman, ) Zaharis, Padjen and Slam. i ' Mr.' Zaharis made'.a MOTION' to approve:. the Minutes of the`November''7, 1984 "meeting. Ms. Harris` seconded the,MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor: = . Local District Operation 314'E'ssex Street - `Preliminary discussion centered around the inspection �. of the property' bysome ,members. of, the Commission':on Saturday,, December 1. Mr. "Walter• Costello; one of the owners: and`.tlie.-architect, Mr. Gary Canner, were also present that inspection. Mr. Padjen`.provded a.brief description , of the building which' is to be 'restored, keeping as much of,the traditional detail as"possible on the interior. He described the entry.as a"typical center• -entrance 'with`center. staircase. The owners are,, proposipg to; move. the wills- in allsin thatentrance hall two feet out ,for''a. larger ''area to accommodate "a waiting, '. room and receptionist. ' He also stated that the owners wish,.to'. put in several', ' +' • I skylights, .throe .in.. ront, one on'the side and 'two at _the rear. They would cN = also like to. raise the 'rear ell addition to three- full stories:: It is-now -. two stdries high. .Parking willbeof the rear.''and they; wilT have a;gravel ` `driveway ,and landscaping',in that area. It was determined ;thaf the skylights proposed for the front 'wll be ,very'visible... It was also agreed that this is a particularly critical, building when entering the city-from North Street. ' iF Mr. Padjen ,described the cut=out section of the roof plannedto accommodate , condensers. Additional .,condensers to".be located at ground level at rear of :. building where,"theyrwill' not be-visible;, aHe 'said 'there is a potential drain- age problem with those on'the roof. Mrs. "ton spoke:about the second story roof line with' -toAhe addition+planned., .New ceiling height',is planned for the second story as. well :as adding the third, story over.that. .. She felt' it would' affect,,the gambreh.silhouette•visible from Essex Street. The possibility of extending the rearsectionhorizontally.to.afford addition- " « - al needed space rather than.'allowing upward,expansion was considered and will be,presented; to the owners .as ari alternative. r • c ,.• - Though the Commission has nojurisdiction over the' interior,, it was the ''.general feeling of' some of the'•members that', they,'wanted, to .encourage the owners to�keep the interior stairway area as cl"ose to original as •possible.,. , Ms. Harris expressed he'r feeling ethat the Commission in its- capacity. aa n w aIdvisor, .to- the city ori.historical .structures•should ektend ,its input on` setters such as ,these which do not' fall strictly under the Commission's r jurisdiction. 'There ,was',a.brief,'discussion .as to whether...or not the "Commis- sion, should °involve itself with ,interior 'changes even though in some cases, such as' one, the need ,to accommodate tfie;owners' requirements .inside ' will affect the outside. . 1.Ms. HaIrris' felt that,;it was important enough that y " possibly some compromise could be reached'ton outside proposals•,,if the,owners agree to,rethink;`the changes planned for ine ide.dyMr� Cook statedlsthat,,the� r Commission has no authority oUer. the, inside., Tfie"visibility of,the ell,was' a touched•' on briefly ,Mr.. Cook''reiterated that even if, the Commission finds:+-- the into change s `objectionablesthey,,are notireal„ly under-thetCommission's 1 4 a .• jurisdiction. Z � •' .♦# Y ; .,: «'' w44 .f H r3rt'+ Vk ,a 4 AM J- SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 2 , December 5, 1984 At this point Mr. Costello and Mr. Canner arrived and.Mr. Costello re- viewed the situation to date. They have appeared before the Board of Appeals and. have received permission to not only occupy the building, but to do the renovations pursuant'to the plans to be filed with the Historical' Commission. * ): Mr, Canner then reviewed the plans. Theeareas of particular note included the '• - ' addition of skylights, addition- to the rear ell, and paint color. As far as the paint color is concerned, they would like to paint it gray, but had no color chip available as yet. The rear ell is,two-storied and was built,,- in the 1940's. It,has a gabled roof and windows of varying sizes. They would like to relocate one door. They•further 'propose to•add,another floor to the second story and add a gable. Changes on the rear elevation were addition „ of windows to match the rest of the design, as well as addition of two sky- lights to light the offices located in that area. On'� the front they would like to add three skylights on the flattest portion of the roof and in line with each of the three -existing dormers. At the 'rear, .the one story addition dates back to the turn of the century and the two story addition was attached ' ,during the the 1940's. Ms.. Harris asked 'whether,;they plan to go ,for investment tax credits. Mr. Canner said they did and during preliminary discussions with Mass. Histo-'.- rical he was given the impression that. there would be no objection to the skylights, but the addition of a third f1bor onto the rear ell was-a possible consideration. ;Mrs.',Wheaton`eipressed"he'concern of 'the+Commission with • interior changes planed"even• thoughtthattis not the Commission's area. . Mr. Canner said that the structural condition of the house was such that new joists will be required. They propose to move,walls in, entry, hall two feet `o I out in both directions to^accommodate a waiting area. They are replacing,an existing window--rith a door (dr'ivew' ay side near First Church) . That will j be the emergency exit,which,is,required, +They will,be t insulating exterior walls and that might mean removing wainscotting' which will `be replaced after insulation is in. Ceiling-molding and cornices are to be replaced if they have been removed. Mr. Cook wondered why they were not blowing the insula- tion in. Mr. Canner said they are using batting and having to make holes for electrical connections and then replacing those. things which were' re- moved as best they can. Ms. Harris was concerned about the placement of .the stairs which will be blocking part of a window. They were planning to block out the window from inside, but Mr. Padjen suggested they just let'the - stairs go by the window. Removal of fireplaces was also a concern. . - The skylights were noted, ,four-new ones and one which is existing and is to be refurbished. Mr.- Canner said they planned to 'cut into the 'roof line to get at condensers. There was concern about the condensers protruding from .the •roofline. There was a question concerning the drainage from that area that is cut in.' Mr. Canner said they are to drain through a line in the roof and then down into gutters. Ms. Harris brought up the possibility of freezing. _ Mr. Padjen suggested the possibility of a scupper a foot wide as a safety measure. Mr. Canner said that was considered but it was felt that'it would be aesthetically unacceptable so he avoided it. The skylights they are re- questing are flat operating type and the size mentioned was 2W' X-4' . To provide a fire egress they are replacing an existing window with's door. • The existing cellar door will be ,restored and they are adding a wood platform _ ti j1: 41 t � , ,r a . ,,, :• i . �, J SALEM'HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 3 'December 5, 1984 } t. .. tea., ., r} • .1M1 with square balusters and latticework. Windows are Pella -wood. --.They plan to ,. use "interior°storms and are removing exterior storms.' Windows, are to"have full muntins• There is to be a new,louver,for,mechanical� ystemliand the cellar windows are to'ibe!-replaced with"same''type as° existing.'Tfiere will be` • " a wrought iron rail,,eThe aluminum storm_ door .willtbe,r`emoved and replaced with a new cross°and bible style 'door. The signage has riot been finalized t as yet. There is a�possib,ilitytof;using..,wall•sconces �to Aight Vhe front - 1i outside door, which is 'to .be 'replaced j1Gutters�are "to be replaced .as' neces- t, 1 .� � ' x sary'. Dormers, are to remain the same: Chimneys will be repaired as``necessary. Foundation.to,be the same,. Mr. Padjen,questioned' the attic vents. He wanted to be sure_ an,appropriately)proportioned'opening is used ,8-1gr Canner: said. the vents are'not for ventilation, ,but for mechanical intake. ,Mr. Slam asked. what.kind.,of•time frame they envisioned. Mr'. Canner said th_ey,hope to start • construction•in.the,next;few weeks, Ms. Hilbert rioted that there are time ' frame requirements for tax `credits "Mr. Cannerasaid'45 days`for state and ; 45 days for national'. *> Ms. Kim Bringle,of Historic Salem's Preservation-Issues Committee, was present to express Historic' Salem's interest in both the exterior and the rt ,interior. , .The ,interior is very: outstanding •and'has been• so little altered.. . - Their hope is that as liptle as 'possible•will be disturbed., If the,owners { plan to go.for, tax credits she asked that they, pay'specfal attention to. the i interior. If changes,are,necessary she hopedtheywould,be`reversible', ,She ,,also hoped that photos, as,well 'as.measured drawings, would*be made and:,, deposited-at the "Essex Institute. `Mri 'Canner explained•that; they hope to preserve where possible but•may .have to-make some'changes,to'`accommodate the new use of the-building. -Ms, Bringle said Historic'Salem As`concerned about +� -rhe "enlargement of the entry hall since it seriously alters the -intent%:of: the 'space: 'The,clerk read a'.leiter'from"Dean-Lahikaine'n;. Ciitiator of, the Essex 'Institute; "expressing the hope-that the -architectural integrity.of .the r building will{be maintained , ;, ; :. -• Mr. Slam noted the position of; the skylights in-the front and stated s that he feel&' ery strongly that even though they are behind6dormers"they would seriously affect"the roof line°and:be visible from Ms. „ Hilbert 'read from the •Guide' lines as,follows: "Size, '.location and material are important determinants for' the acceptability of skylights-, .' .,No bubble t •: skylights',are permitted. Skylights( should be :placed �on'roof surfaces ''with " the least visibility toffhe:Istreet." `Smaller skylights• are preferable'to larger ones." ; Mr. Lippman'also noted his predisposition against skylights. r t . This is a wide •street'°and-the' roof is not very high,up. ' He was also fear- „ 'ful' of undermining future' decisions on.skylights.because of the�Position Fof this particular house. Mrs. Wheaton noted that they,would' be very .visible • ;' from;the Salem Inn. Mr ',Cook agreed.with Mrs. Wheaton'a statement that because of the prominence of this house they would .be extremely visible. He I + ,'added; however, £that he'would consider the possibilityrof accepting'*the`sky- w t lights conditionally, possibly as a trade-off. " Mr. Zatiaris agreed`with Mr. Lippman that`they 'would be detrimental'to, the. building.- Mr. "Zaharis,'was not w as`:concerned with the:interior,since,most'' visitors;to ,the`city, would'.,not be • seeing those -cfianges, `he%.was most concerned with what could be seen xfrom ,the outside. '±He)added that''if pictures, are taken .of the interior, before' changes' e 4 ♦ Y ,.i c e a " R • ,SALEM-HISTORICAL COMMISSION ' Page 4 December 5, 1984 'are made it could be restored at some point in the future Ms. Harris also s expressed heraconcern about-the visibility of the skyl-fights ,p'Mr. 'Cook noted that though the interior is notwithin the`Commission's authority, he would' "} like to know if there were any conditions under •which` the�owners might-agree.. i < , not to move hallway walls. Mr.-Costello said they are very cognizant of the• prominence of that building. They are willing to hear suggestions but he T doesn't know how they could comply with a 'request to leave the walls as they , are: Mr. Padjen saw the problem with trying to fit the number of offices required into the space available. If one of the side,rooms were used for awaiting room, obviously one of the offices would be lost. He asked about locating''an additional 'office in the basement area in lieu of planned health facilities.- Mr. Costello said that -the health facilities are very important to them. They all run and require the shower facilities.'* He added that they do have one office in the basement in their present Llocation,• but it .has a 'very claustrophobic effect. He felt it would be detrimental 'to .the image of ti his firm to see people in the basement. •,Mr. Padje-n suggested that by glass- } ing in the back porch area they could add a lighter area in the basement. Ms'. Harris spoke about the desirability of keeping the original 'staircase which would then eliminate the need for an .additional staircase. This would also add space. She was-also very concerned about the plan to iemove .panel- ling to install insulation. Mr. Canner said they might be able to accomplish .their aims without;removing ,all of the panelling. It was suggested that they consider'blowing insulation in from outside: Regarding` the staircase, Mr. • Canner said that is to meet requirements for, egress' imposed by the Building 'w Inspector. Ms. Harris asked about the possibility of placing the seiirs,at the rear. Mr. Canner said they 'were placed where they were because that is the kitchen area. Ms. Harris said she would be inclined to place something modern at the rear and preserve the interior. `Mr.',Costello said he was under the impression that the Witch House and the Church;as abutters would object ; to that. ,Ms. Harris said: it•,would not necessarily have to be contemporary. X4 Mr. Lippman. reiterated that tlie•entry hall walls seem to be, of special con- n ' cern to' the'Commissiothough' that is not within its jurisdiction. 'He asked about moving the library to the ,basement, but was. told:it is full because of the health facilities. That''area also functions as a second conference room. t { He also' spoke about°the possibility ,of exterior stairs in order to eliminate t extra interior stairs.r Mr. Cook noted that this 'seems to be a unique situa- tion and hoped that some compromise could'be reached. Mrs. Whei-ton expressed concern .about, the ell with two additional offices to be ,gained. She felt it would have a detrimental effect on the line of the gambrel roof and had prob- f lems with the 'height of that third "story. owners were asked' to consider ,, expanding _in,another way. ', Ms.-Harris suggested the possibility of-putting a. gambrel.roof on and shingling that area to'.match the roof line. Mr. Canner c, y ' felt that clapboards going into roof lines aie .used all the time in.dormers. y- ' He 'felt the addition ,was too narrow to ,go with that kind-.of roof line. Con- , cern about losinguare .foota a was secondar , Ms. Harris also suggested s q g y.`,, keeping the •ceiling height_lowersin order;to keep. the,whole'ahing lower. Mr. Canner agreedPito` look'Rinto'that 'area".` pPresentlyifthe'height'bf that . ceiling is 519" and they�proposeraising`• t to 9''.,PIt,would',be possible to do what is proposed and then have steps' going down. Mrs. Wheaton brought •. up another suggestion,for,redu/cingthe,impact1wofithecell.byrradding horizontally a ' i • r '`_ � � .. r • .'' +.4 . rte .( — • i� 'iJ'..ea'+'yi,�,"`a J'!! 7r'4 y.f � �.f,a., ' ,: S t �I"1� liptyi �diP.� '313 ' � jjEgg♦�j+rn i� ♦ii l ��# .��. �, i � y r }p 9�'w .r.'+ !•,«Me'ase .{ R ¢' y, :� wwaSfi` + ; * - 'n !+ ' .� - •4. � L. ��7 of �.•� � .. {,,ia� FSALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION' w ' `t Y^ a � * December-5, 1984 ^ ,a on•the back instead of two story height. Mr. Cannerxquestioned `whether that would,{be a problem with •the tax•credits: Ms. Hilbert said there ,is_moie:con- cern with interior changes as far-as= tax credit eligibility goes. Mr. Padjen %also' asked about keeping ell as is "and adding'horizointally ..• Mr`. Costello 'said thaf•might require a variance because the 'footprint, would be changed. #, Mr: Padjen acknowledged that itmight not be an, easy thing to accomplish t`• because of parking restrictionsand grade level, .etc; Mr. Canner said he would „ be willing tc try different things <in order to" akeKthe plan work. He offered . to 'research the' amount ofpanelling that would actually 'be 'removed and replaced. 71 Mrs. 'Wheaton,suggested tfiat, Mr. Co9tello_and Mr. Canner reconsider their plans, .taking :into account the'serious concerns of''.the Commission. This would ' be'.to' heir benefit because'of their intention*to seek tax credits. Particular :•:. . concern,was'expiessed over-the skylights:"Tinting would help, but ,it would be ` better if they were located in the rear. Mr. Costello,and'Mr.-,Canner'were under the 'impressionrthat the 207 .investment,tax credit is "available'as'an t, r ,alternative to the 25%;preservation investment tax"credit:-' ;Ms: Harris explained that whein,a.building is located within ?a*National 'Register district this makes r ,it •eligible only' for the .25%.,credit for historic rehabilitation, Ad,not•for the �. '2G 'or 15% tax',credits for .rehabilitation`^of'older commercial',a' industrial buildings.. Mr..; Costello was concerned about the time element:, Regarding the „ ,suggestionfor-extension at lower level .rear, he 'was concerned about ,parking A because-the,Board of Appeals usually seems to be,concerned+about it., :The t" • architect would have to research this. It was tentatively',planned to' meet again on the 12th, to discuss this further with th" hope'that,Mr:''Canner will come up with alternative;suggestions-'for areas of:. concern , 'Mr:' Costello is' - to- confirmwhether the 12th is acceptable to them: 94-96-98 Derby Street/33 Carlton Street 'The<owner {of this property; +• < *, _z' ". Mr.,,Robert Kobuszewski, presented his application'forsdemolition ;of'ovens lo- t , e cat ed.•ip the he rear. Tarea is. 35 feet back from-:the street, There is a`, • ' „ seven-foot wide alley:on ,Carlton Street side. , The oven-is `app roximately 25'! wide-and, 16', deep. ' `All other4wall's':will' stay as.,,i's. The areaaof the oven' ,p is caying- in and,decaying. �, When_ it- is. removed ,the brick wall will be visible, 'The` Building •Inspector viewed the property today. M.r. Kobus zewski's future plan-i's just to'sq ware off the building and add livable space to' the three floors.„ He will comeback to•theCommssion with drawings for' new construe- tion. Ms. Hilbert'was •instructed'to'research ,Aether- the alley_ingquesiion is 'a public way, a Ms. Harris made a MOTION to 'approve"demolition of'the ovens. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. ' -The voteLwas unanimousl in. favor "Abutters-will -b6 notified. . y ` .. :. "l ., -M � � , ' •.th 35`�Chestnut Street -' rs Wheaton explainedat' Mrs Reardon, wife of the owner of this property had requested an opportunity .to discuss their peti- "5 + r, tion 'for approval.,"of solar'collectors-which the Commission denied at the Novem + b'er 7•meeting. Mr.' Lippman made,,a MOTION to reopen..Ithis matter,for•discussion, t ¢ Ms`F Harris seconded the' MOTION., All were in favor except Mr,-,Zaharis who N p• ,b abstained. ' Mrs: +Reardon.began by stating:that the other possibilities for «i :.y' ..f j 1 u'LY 9w .•.i t ♦ W `�w 'r J; ik .a °' •t • I.Y"g rt� eS #f $' jyt n SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 6 December 5, 1984A ' energy saving werefound to bedinsulating 'the attic�and., installing storm win- dows on the fourth floor and both have been done. . She felt visibility was minimal since trees obstruct.the view, exceptjfrom one spot.:�iShe did not think attention was drawnitojthat 'spotrYf-rom`Warren:Stieett ,Even``withi leaves off tbe•trees the view is obscured some. Mr. Slam thought the roof was very visi- ble. isi ble. Mrs. Reardon said,installation .would be near ,the.chimney„.and would'be ,difficult to see. MrsWheatonaskedyif an energy audit:ha'd been done. Mrs.,,. Reardon said Mass. Save did come in and they recommended solar collectors highly. They have two heating systems in the house now. The collectors would ,be used to heat hot water only. Ms. Harris asked if there would be a tank on .,the fourth floor. Mrs. Reardon said there would be piping 'behind vines and '. water would come up from the basement. . They have wrapped the pipes with insu- lation. Mrs.. Reardon said that according .to Reynolds Aluminum and Mass. Save the collectors would save substantial money.'. It would take six to ten years for payback of insulation cost. This application was denied on November 7. Mrs. Wheaton said she felt there would be a real problem with setting a precedent if this was allowed. This house might not, be,a serious problem, but 'with the next one it may be and a -precedent' for'approving 'would be set. There .was no feeling amongst the members present for reconsideration on-the grounds stated. The Commission felt this application wasclearly not appropriate. } The original denial remains in effect:. - • Health Hospital - .Ms. Hilbert reported on the. current status. ' The Mayor and Mr. Kavanaugh met with McNeil and a sale price .of $625,000,has been agreed upon pending• further investigation. If the developer will keep the ,building up the price might go down. If itis 'not going to be kept up, there is: a question as to who will be responsible for cost of demolition. Mr". Kavanaugh T., -would like to 'keep the building up but needs the support of the Commission. a• -T–! ' This item will be coming up at a City Council meeting on December 17, and { :,there will be a•public hearing in January. Ms. Hilbert, prepared a memo for Mr. Kavanaugh and supplied him with a_copy of the letter from Mass.. Historie- al3'identifying the building as National Register eligible, as well as they -letter from the Commission to the Board of Appeal urging retention of the . building. Mr. Zaharis stated for.the record that he is now in favor of ` retaining the building though he was opposed when the matter first came before the Commission. Ms. Hilbert and Mrs. Wheaton are to keep the .Comnission in- formed on the status of this project. , , # 335 Essex Street- Mrs. Wheaton ,briefly reviewed the history of this pro- ject. Thefence wasoriginally approved as submitted by Dr. Richard Pohl. The new 'owner then said he ;intended';to .build according.to those plans; but did 4 not. The fence changes at the juncture where it joins the stairs: Ms. Hilbert' y ;4 _e- opinion was thatit iii' very far back,. from the street. and. it is 'a-sensitive treatment of. the fence. '"Ms. Harris made a MOTION that the Commission•recommiend to the owner extending the fence to the building. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously. in favor. • Mr• 'Lippman made a MOTIONtoadjourn the meeting• which was seconded by Anai. .: Mr.. Zaharis. The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. espectfully submitted, ' F. P i U /1//�I a . J an F. Przzello { t' Jerk Approved ,l-/2/85 5` S SALEM HISTORICAL'COMMISSION ' Minutes of Meeting y' December 12,, 1984 f4. �- a-:' :• ., ,.'o: R. .b l i � '. -. 4 11" The Salem Historical,'Commission met,, for an:emergency meeting on Wednesday, ' .� December_ 12, 1984 at .7:30 `p.m: at' One Salem Green. —Present—were Messrs. Clarke, ' r ' Padjen, Wolfson and Zaharis and Mrs. Wheatontand Ms. Hilbert:- A MOTION to declare,.an emergency, malting under Mass. General Laws, Cfiapter ,39, ',Section 23A 'because of the needtfor� immediate action on'314 Essex Street' due 'to construction deadlines was. approved unanimously. u , Local District Operation- 1.3.14ss Essex Street Mr. Walter Costello architect,,.Mr: Gary Canner," '' were .present- to discuss plans for. the building at 314. Essex Street reviewed atZl the'ineeting.'of December '7:. In consideration of"the' Commiss on's suggestions "' i at that time 'and after further consultation with the'Mass, Historical Cor6ission i ; regarding tax act certification, Mr..`Canner'presentedxa modified plan.` In the new,plan the entry hall would not,be widened to allow for„receptionist/waiting . tY— area, the rear wall of paneling in ^the front hall will remainiin place, and secondary fire 'egress'will be provided by theIexisting'secoind @taircase: from' ” the'second to. the-.'first, floor, with a new staircase constructed only from, the r,4 third to the second_''floor: The latter arrangements were.negotiated with a ".Building Inspector Richard.McIntosh Mr;- Canner explained that .reduction,of , , ,,ceiling heights to.allow,for a� shortened profile of the ell addition did'not S a prove' feasible: 'due"to the shallow height at. the ,entry'to` the ell,..it en- tailed n tailed lowering the floor level of the access room;gn' the second floor of v 'the main part of' the ,building; a clearly undesirable option in.terms of `over- all building preservation, `The''current .proposal, therefore„called f6'r a L� full three-story 'addition' to the ell with gabled -roof intersecting•the,first G , ,• ridge of the gambrel. . The option-also called for three skylights" on 'the :front:rolof." After .discussion'of specific change's and expression of concern _ about the:impact, of skyl'ights+ on' ihe integrity of, this important and+highly visible facade; the Corrmission listed and,approved'unanimously ,the' following: changes as -per plans: WestElevation 1_ ,' ,Raise -ro6f elevation,'rear ell,., to firsttridge of existing gambrel Clapboarding exposure .to weather-as existing Belt, courses 2. , Two 'new 6 X,'.6 windows { 3.`• Velux ## ,roof: *4. Removal of second level _2' X 2' window 4• a North Elevation '• i n !: .try. i-.r ' �.,d... 1. New curved-top sash window,Jtfiirdtilevel• ; ' a q �'W i , r 1- s , . t wy t I r C� i. 1�• Velux`�kl �iit'r,4;4 j,silt"t1 t +' v` „3.v 'First level 9'.X'9 to match 'existing;,,9 X, 9 on.second level r 4 -Rear deck'2Stock fir top and bottom rail :S Square baluster"stat,5'�y enters y" E 5: New rear steps to,,match 'deck, railing ' �'' a �. �' - " , s 6; 'Replace existing skylight with'velux of same'size a '- 7: Condenser 'containers:kc , 8. :Remove',air'.conditLoner, 'reclapboard as existing. e' y 'SALEM HISTORICAL.COMMISS,IONPage 2 '' December 12, 1984 . ` East Elevation ' I f,4 1: New-window, third floor ell cente'red'overr6 X..6 existing secondalev 'l Y2. Replace basement-windows to .match existing s' 3. New wood gutter if necessary. I , South Elevation 1 yRemove;storm:door i' X, ' 2. .Two new:-lantern -lights. ` r 3: ,.. "Red-.Cross" .over door will. read "314 Essex StreetC'' 4,+4. Brass-or 'bronze plate afixed to clapboard not to exceed 2''X 2' with ' firm name ' 5. . Door 'brass; thumb, door'knocker, nose'connection t Roof Shingles - Bird Windseal 80 moiee.:black asphalt shingles .^ t Removal' ,of;storm windows,,,..downspouts and, gutters to match. Jr •e Paint r. ""''� 0, 't• .�. ,. i"' - ,.Body Clapboarding - Benjamin. Moore Moonstone, $` '';Trirrcolorll ,- White '-'Window casings and sash,`,door trim, chimnieys,'dormers, '',� �'' deck railing, cornice (trim details currently white) Trim color #2 - Benjamin Moore Country Slate Cornerboaiaal,belt courses *' (Frim details ;not, currently whif`e) Door. -Black•or:'stained dark mahogany Decking: -,Gray decking' stain a'' .Y I Abutters wi11' be notified and members not able. to,,attend �will .be able to review a plans during the;abutter;,review'period. Mr: Zaharis made 'a MOTION to approve ' which' was`�voted in' favor .unanimously'. ' It wasrnoted that `the front skylights were specifically exesipt6d from the MOTION to'approve. The^Commission also ,.agreed to communicate Ito.,Mass. ',Historic,Tax?Act-;reviewersatheir view tl at- to ?•, 3k t- r„.. , y • maintain the'symmetry typical of.�the.,bulding, a,first%f-loorFrearlelljexisting 3 small 9;:pane' window', should lie "replaced*w th,one sized as-the o'therk9 X, 9 on t' Y that wall..•_ `— .. ' ;z c • Mrs: Wheaton`thanked Mr.' Costello �beh�lf;$ofthe' Commission*forrhis r ' zr ry cooperation and expressed- enthusiasm for the plan^as approved; ' P J1 �q5 « �: x. ' �^ Respectfully submitted, , ' Elizabeth B Wt(eaton a Chairman 4 ,