SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES 0
�1r�1 - �G�'�r�cc�/ �l�j �✓k
--- --
�,������9 S �
,� -
'�
,,
January 4, 1995, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
JANUARY 4, 1995
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, January 4, 1995 at 7:30
p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were Chairman Oedel, Ms. Sides, and Messrs. Carr,
Kelleher, Casey, Cook and Slam and Ms. Guy. Mr. Bailey entered later in the meeting.
Ms. Guy stated that there were no applications received for the January 18, 1995 meeting and that there
will be no meeting on that date unless the Commission continues any applications from tonight until that
time.
331 Essex Street
In continuation from a previous meeting, Richard and Diane Pabich presented an Application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of two compressors and two vent pipes on the roof of
331 Essex Street, which has already been installed. The applicants also are applying for the installation
of a railing at the front steps.
Mr. Casey felt that they should be painted the roof color as per the Commission's guidelines.
Mr. Carr felt that the application should not be for Hardship but should be changed to Non-Applicability.
• Mr. Carr stated that the equipment is remotely visible from Chestnut and Cambridge Streets. Mr. Carr
asked if there was any internal solution. Mr. Pabich replied in the negative.
Ms. Pabich stated that in the summer, it could not be seen.
Mr. Slam asked if there were any problem painting it the roof color. Mr. Pabich stated that it would not
be a problem.
Chairman Oedel felt it was very visible from Cambridge Street and felt that it could be mitigated.
John Donaghue, 6 Cambridge Street, asked how visible the equipment was. Ms. Sides replied that one
has to back up toward the corner of Cambridge and Chestnut.
Joan Bacall, 12 Chestnut Street, asked how long the equipment has been operating. Ms. Pabich stated
that it was installed in mid-September and was running at that time. Ms. Bacall stated that they are
abutters and were never aware of the equipment and were therefore in favor.
Thomas Kovac, residing on the second floor of 331 Essex Street, stated that he had no problem with the
equipment, that there was no noise and no inconvenience. Mr. Kovac noted that they share a common
wall.
Chairman Oedel closed the public hearing.
Chairman Oedel asked if there was any desire to require additional screening. Ms. Sides felt additional
screening would draw more attention to the equipment.
Mr. Carr made a motion to change the application from Hardship to Non-Applicability and to approve
r
January 4, 1995, Page 2
' it due to minimal impact, conditional that the equipment be painted to match the roof color by 6/30/95.
• Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Chairman Oedel asked the location of the railing. Ms. Pabich stated that it will be on the left hand side
as one goes up the steps. Mr. Pabich stated that it is required for insurance and will be installed on the
stairs themselves.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the railing as proposed, painted
black. Mr. Cook seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Pabich asked the Commission to release the money held in escrow for the violations which have
been addressed.
Mr.. Carr made a motion to find that all conditions secured by the escrow have been satisfied and to
return the money held in escrow forthwith. Mr. Cook seconded the motion, all were in favor and the
motion so carried.
Mr. Bailey joined the meeting at this time.
333 Essex St.
• 333 Essex Street Condo Assoc. presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace
a side yard fence with a fence of the same height, with a cap, 3 backing rails and posts between every
section. The lower front post is to be in line with the rest of the fence.
Chairman Oedel noted that the fence has been constructed and that the finish side of the fence now faces
in. Chairman Oedel stated that the fence cap has not been put on the new fence.
Mr. Cook asked if it is required to have the finish side facing out. Mr. Carr stated that he was not sure
if the guidelines stated so, but that it has been the Commission's practice to approve the finish side out.
Mr. Slam asked why the applicants did not come to the Commission prior to construction.
Thomas Kovac, of Unit 2, stated that they thought the fence was essentially the same. Mr. Kovac added
that, last year, their rear abutter replaced their fence with the finish side in. Mr. Kovac noted that his
condo association contributed to that fence.
Mr. Carr asked if the rear fence is visible from the street. Mr. Kovac replied in the affirmative. Mr.
Carr stated that the fence should also have been approved by the Commission prior to construction.
Chairman Oedel asked when the fence would be painted. Mr. Kovac stated that it would be painted as
soon as the cap is put on and the weather permits.
Robert Maier, 335 Essex Street, stated that he would like the fence to look as close as possible to what
was there, facing out from 333 Essex, with a cap and facia board.
Barbara Maier, 335 Essex Street, stated that she was pleased that the fence was being dealt with.
January 4, 1995, Page 3
Chairman Oedel asked what the cap will look like. Mr. Kovac stated that it can be whatever the
• Commission prefers. Chairman Oedel suggested that it replicate the previous existing cap. Mr. Kovac
was in agreement.
Mr. Kovac noted that he did not have any objection when the Maiers changed their house color, which
was a substantially larger project than the fence.
Mr. Casey stated that the Maiers came in and received approval prior to doing the work.
Mr. Carr stated that the Commission has to look at the proposal as though it has not been completed and
review on its merits.
Mr. Slam asked if it were possible to have two finished sides of the fence. Mr. Kovac stated it would
be cost prohibitive.
Mr. Kelleher asked if the applicant's were willing to turn the fence around. Mr. Kovac stated that he
preferred not to.
Nick Lang, of Unit 1F, stated that each condo owner has contributed to the fence and each has a
different window view. Mr. Lang stated that their neighbor put the finish side and so they did.
Richard Pabich, 331 Essex Street, stated that the fence as constructed was nice.
• Chairman Oedel asked for comments on the proposal.
Mr. Kelleher had no comment.
Mr. Casey stated that he was concerned about the view from Essex and did not like to see the supports
on the long side of the Maier's property which is in full view from Essex. Mr. Casey noted that the
fence is closer to 331's property line. Mr. Slam was in agreement.
Mr. Bailey asked if the posts were in cement, and if the Commission required that the fence be turned,
would they have to be taken out. Mr. Lang stated that they are not in cement but would have to be
moved.
Mr. Carr was in agreement with Mr. Casey and noted that the Commission's practice is to approve the
finish side out. Mr. Carr stated that the fence orientation is a change, side it one time faced out. Mr.
Carr stated that the side facing the Maier's is the most visible from the street. Mr. Carr felt the rest of
the design was fine, the height was fine and that he would want a fence cap as proposed.
Mr. Cook stated some consideration should be given to the persons who incur the cost. Mr. Cook felt
there was no law or precedent regarding the finish side. Mr. Slam stated that the Commission has never
approved the finish side in.
Ms. Sides felt the fence should be as previously existing, with the finish side out, with a cap and a
• watertable.
Chairman Oedel stated that the guidelines don't specify finish side direction. Chairman Oedel stated that
from an appropriateness standpoint, the finish side should face out. Chairman Oedel added that the
January 4, 1995, Page 4
contractor should do the change at no cost since he did not get the proper permits prior to construction.
• Mr. Carr made a motion to deny the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness and to approve a
Certificate of Non-Applicability for a fence which replicates that which was previously existing, with
same height, cap, etc. and finish side facing 335 Essex Street.
Mr. Maier stated that they intend to paint the fence their house trim color on their side. Mr. Carr stated
that the fence reads as belonging to 333 Essex and should be painted to match 333 Essex Street.
Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Bailey abstained from
voting.
1 Hamilton Street
Orille L'Heureux, representing Salem Ropes Trust, presented an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for the replacement of porch posts, rails and floor and the replacement of broken garage
doors, painted white. The application states that the porch work was completed in kind in 1985 and the
garage doors were replaced in 1993.
It was also noted that the trim around the garage door and the roof soffit were also replaced.
Mr. L'Heureux stated that the bar across the garage doors protects the doors from cars.
• Mr. Casey asked if Mr. L'Heureux lived at 1 Hamilton Street. Mr. L'Heureux replied in the negative.
Mr. Casey stated that he sits on the Mayor's Neighborhood Task Force and the three of Mr. L'Heureux's
properties have received neighborhood complaints.
Mr. L'Heureux stated that the porch was replaced ten years ago and that it was replaced in kind.
Mr. Carr asked what the doors on the garage were before replacement. Mr. L'Heureux stated that they
were wooden, double doors.
Mr. Casey stated that the Commission would never have allowed the porches to go unpainted.
Mr. Carr noted that the garage doors were probably original, closed matchboard between metal braces.
Mr. Carr did not recall the porches as being in kind. Mr. Carr asked how long Mr. L'Heureux owned
the property. Mr. L'Heureux replied 35 years.
Mr. Carr stated that in 35 years, Mr. L'Heureux would have gotten notices and newsletters from the
Commission, so that he would have to have been aware that the property was in an historic district. Mr.
Carr felt the work was inappropriate.
Mr. L'Heureux stated that the Building Department told him to change the doors. Mr. L'Heureux asked
if he would be allowed to have overhead doors.
• Mr. Cook stated that the garage design was not sophisticated and does not demand high style. Mr. Cook
was not opposed to changing.
Ms. Sides felt there should be more concentration on the porches than the garage.
January 4, 1995, Page 5
Mr. Carr asked if the window in the garage had been blocked up. Mr. L'Heureux replied in the
• affirmative.
Chairman Oedel stated that he would have a hard time concentrating on the porch since the change had
not been noticed by the Commission in ten years. Chairman Oedel stated that although the design was
horrible, an argument could be made that it is not that important if it hadn't been noticed in ten years.
Chairman Oedel suggested continuing the application until the February 1st meeting to allow the owner
to prepare a proposal. Mr. L'Heureux felt Chairman Oedel's suggestion was fair. Mr. Casey was also
in agreement.
Mr. Carr agreed that the garage was not important but felt that it is an out building that is close to
period, if not period.
Mr. Slam made a motion to continue the application until February 1 to allow the applicant to present
plans for the porch, garage, window on the garage and other general improvements. Mr. Carr seconded
the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Bailey abstained from voting.
Mr. Bailey offered his assistance to Mr. L'Heureux.
Mr. Slam suggested that the issues be prioritized at the next meeting.
50 Broad Street
• Spires and Patricia Flomp presented an application to construct a decorative arbor across the side of the
yard with fence and brick wall and to remove and replace the sun porch roof with 26 gauge light green
double lock standing seam roof. The arbor has already been constructed.
Mr. Flomp stated that he thought the arbor was considered landscaping.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Kelleher seconded the motion.
All were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Bailey abstained from voting.
393 Essex Street
Dr. James Jervinis, representing Tuition Realty Trust, submitted an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to install a railing on the front step. Photographs of the proposed railing were
submitted.
Dr. Jervinis stated that his patients have requested the railing, that it would be installed on the right hand
side, painted white and that he wants the style used at 385 Essex Street.
Chairman Oedel requested that the railing not be installed into the pilasters. Dr. Jervinis agreed that it
would not be installed into the reeding, but on the plain finish.
• Mr. Carr stated that the railing should be black. Dr. Jervinis stated that he wanted it to be less
noticeable. Chairman Oedel agreed that the railing should be black.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted conditional that the railing be painted
black. Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Bailey abstained
January 4, 1995, Page 6
from voting.
• Marvin Window Demonstration
Ray LeBay representing A.W. Hastings was present to demonstrate Marvin windows. Mr. LeBay stated
that they are available in clad exterior or wood, primed or factory finished paint, double glaze, insulated
glass.
Ms. Sides stated that her firm uses Marvin windows all the time and that the larger the window, the more
of a gap can be seen from the side. Mr. LeBay stated that the standard double hung has a 1/2" gap that
won't peer through.
Mr. LeBay stated that they also offer a single glaze with a storm. Their Historic Magnum has a
narrower muntin. One-half screens are available for historic applications. The windows tilt in but can
also be made with the top sash stationary.
Minutes
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the minutes of July 11, 1994. Mr. Bailey seconded the motion. All
were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Sides abstained from voting.
Other Business
Ms. Guy stated that she issued a Non-Applicability certificate for gutter replacement at 114 Federal St.
Ms. Guy requested a letter of support from the Commission for the application to the Massachusetts
Preservation Projects Fund for Old Town Hall. Mr. Carr made a motion to send a letter of support, Mr.
Casey seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Kelleher abstained from
voting.
Chairman Oedel stated that he has found a number of contractors that can install air conditioning units,
similar to the House of Seven Gables, that can be installed so as not to be visible from the public way.
Ms. Guy distributed copies of the Beacon Hill design guidelines that Mr. Kelleher obtained.
Ms. Guy will may the Commission members copies of Massachusetts Historical Commission's annual
report summary.
Guidelines
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the section relating to house numbers. Mr. Slam seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Bailey abstained from voting.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the section entitled How To Use This Guide as amended. Mr. Slam
• seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Bailey abstained from voting.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the section entitled Procedures For Filing Applications. Mr. Slam
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Bailey abstained from voting.
January 4, 1995, Page 7
Ms. Guy stated that she would like approval of the general format revision which includes the addition
of the section on violations and the removal of references to contractors and prices. Mr. Carr made a
motion to approve the format. Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so
carried. Mr. Bailey abstained from voting.
Violations
Mr. Carr made a motion to send a letter to the Building Inspector requesting that he order the owner of
25 Essex Street to secure the roof from the weather. Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all were in favor
and the motion so carried. Mr. Bailey abstained from voting.
Mr. Carr made a motion to send a letter to the County requesting that the from porch of the Jailor's
House be stabilized. Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr.
Bailey abstained from voting.
It was noted that work has been done at 28-28 1/2 Broad Street which is evident by some non-painted
wood. Ms. Guy will send a letter.
Ston & Shop
Ms. Joan Sweeney was present to provide additional research relating to the site proposed for Stop and
Shop. Ms. Sweeney provided a map showing the former location of Captain Trask's house and requested
the Commission send a letter to William Luster, City Planner.
Chairman Oedel will write a letter as outlined in the minutes of the October 5, 1994 meeting.
Mr. Slam motioned for the Commission to send a letter. Mr. Carr seconded the motion. Mr. Bailey
abstained from voting.
Mr. Kelleher suggested copies be sent to Trudy Cox.
There being no further business, Mr. Slam made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Carr seconded the motion,
all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Bailey abstained from voting.
Respectfully submitted,
J A. Guy
C rk of the Commission
February 1, 1995, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 1, 1995
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, February 1, 1995 at
7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were Chairman Oedel, Ms. Sides, Messrs. Casey,
Cook, Kelleher, and Carr, new member Lance Kasparian, and Ms. Guy. Mr. Slam entered later in the
meeting.
65 Derby Street
N. Malia Griffin was present representing New England Power Company (NEPCO) on an application
for a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish their building at 65 Derby Street. Ms. Griffin stated that
the building was purchased in October of 1994 and that NEPCO originally had intentions to renovate
it. Ms. Griffin stated that the building is too far gone and that the exterior is a palace compared to the
interior. They propose to have their arborist maintain the area as per the landscaping plan provided.
Mr. Casey stated that he has been by the property and walked around it. Mr. Casey stated that it has
asbestos siding and that he can't even date the building. Mr. Casey did not know if it had any historic
fiber left to it and did not believe it had any redeeming architectural features.
Mr. Carr asked the age of the building. Chairman Oedel stated that the Building Survey form states
c.1825.
• Mr. Kasparian stated that the molding suggests that it could be 18th century or early 19th century. Mr.
Kasparian stated that it has clearly been altered and felt that it may have been moved to this location.
Mr. Carr felt that the application should not be under Appropriateness. Mr. Carr felt the area was
already eroded when the John Derby House was torn down and added that he did not want another
missing tooth. Mr. Carr felt the building could be saved and was opposed to demolition.
Ms. Guy noted that, in this case, this building may be the only tooth left.
Mr. Kasparian stated that it may have some significance and that he may be able to vouch for its age,
but felt, without evidence, it would not be appropriate to demolish.
Ms. Sides had no comment on the application.
Mr. Casey asked the timeframe. Ms. Griffin stated that the building is a hazard and that they are afraid
kids might get into the building, which they are liable for.
Mr. Casey stated that he will try to get Historic Salem, Inc. to do house research for the building.
Mr. Kelleher stated that he would like to see the interior condition. Ms. Griffin stated that no one can
• go on the 2nd or 3rd floor.
Ms. Guy noted that there is no second February meeting unless any applications are continued to that
time.
February 1, 1995, Page 2
Mr. Cook asked who recommended that it not be renovated. Ms. Griffin replied that it was their own
• people.
Chairman Oedel stated that it was worthwhile to do a site visit. Chairman Oedel noted that it is the last
house in the district, and is a lone house with nothing around it for 4 to 5 house spaces. Chairman Oedel
stated that he did have concern on how it might read on the Crombie Street issue.
Ms. Guy suggested that the Commission determine if it is National Register eligible.
A site visit was scheduled for Saturday, February 4, 1995 at 9:45 a.m. Ms. Griffin gave Chairman Oedel
the keys to the building.
Ms. Guy noted that no abutters have shown up to speak on this issue.
Mr. Carr made a motion to continue the application until March 1, 1995. Mr. Cook seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Cook felt that the Commission was on solid ground with its philosophy on the Crombie Street issue
and should not allow that issue to be a threat to the Commission's other decisions since each situation
is different.
Mr. Slam entered the meeting at this time.
• 9 Chestnut Street
Mr. Carr and Mr. Casey abstained from this discussion and left the room for this application.
Historic Salem, Inc. presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to attach a sign to the
bottom of the Hamilton Hall sign at 9 Chestnut Street. A drawing was submitted. Colors and lettering
will match the existing sign.
Mr. Slam made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Kelleher seconded the motion,
all were in favor and the motion so carried. Messrs. Carr and Casey abstained from voting.
1 Hamilton Street
In continuation from a previous meeting, Salem Ropes Trust submitted an application for a Certificate
of Appropriateness for the replacement of porch posts, rails and floor and the replacement of broken
garage doors, painted white. The application states that the porch work was completed in kind in 1985
and the garage doors were replaced in 1993. The applicant was not present.
Chairman Oedel read a letter from Commission member James Bailey concerning his meeting with Orille
L'Heureux, the applicant. The letter outlined items that were discussed as possible work to be done to
the building.
• Chairman Oedel asked each member to outline three items that they feel would be priorities.
Mr. Kelleher felt the railings on the porch were most important, along with the front storm door and
fence which were key issues.
February 1, 1995, Page 3
Mr. Casey felt the posts, railings and balustrades on the back porch, the garage which is the largest mass
• item and the porch windows were priorities.
Mr. Carr preferred not to prioritize and felt that the garage door would be an embarrassment if the
Commission allowed it. Mr. Carr felt the posts should be fine tuned.
Ms. Guy noted that the only application before the Commission is for the porch and garage which was
brought before the Commission as a result of a violation notice. Ms. Guy stated that the Commission
cannot force the homeowner to do anything else on the list noted in Mr. Bailey's letter.
Mr. Kasparian asked if the Commission knew what doors were on the garage previously. Mr. Carr
replied in the affirmative and stated that they were swinging.
Mr. Kasparian stated that the replacement of 2/1 windows on the porch may be unwarranted due to the
date of the addition.
Mr. Cook felt the whole porch issue was a priority and asked the date of the garage. Mr. Carr guessed
that the garage was built after the house. Ms. Sides noted that it was too small for a carriage house.
Mr. Can suggested checking the permit records.
Mr. Cook asked if there was glass on top of the doors. Mr. Carr replied in the negative.
Mr. Cook stated that swinging doors won't make a silk purse out of a sows ear.
• Mr. Slam stated that the porch in total was a priority as well as the front door and garage door.
Ms. Sides stated that anything related to the porch was first priority, then the garage. Ms. Sides
suggested working with the trim on the house. Ms. Sides would like to see the garage door replaced but
did not have a set opinion on how to replace. Ms. Sides was sympathetic to having the doors be useable.
Chairman Oedel stated that he could not care less about the garage door and suggested that it be painted.
Chairman Oedel felt the ballasters and post on the lower porch and stairs were priority along with the
storm door and the trim on the house.
Mr. Casey questioned prioritizing.
Mr. Carr made a motion to deny the application as inappropriate and to require the applicant to reapply.
Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Kasparian abstained
from voting.
Mr. Carr made a motion to send a letter to the applicant stating that the Commission recognizes that the
situation is not resolved, that the Commission welcomes the points raised in Mr. Bailey's letter and that
the Commission would like detailed plans along with the application for the March 1, 1995 meeting.
Mr. Casey seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Kasparian abstained
from voting.
• Chairman Oedel suggested that the applicant bring photographs of his proposal.
February 1, 1995, Page 4
Other Business
Chairman Oedel welcomed Mr. Kasparian to the Commission. Mr. Kasparian stated that he lives on
Arbella Street and works in Lowell as an historic preservation architect.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the minutes of December 21, 1994. Mr. Casey seconded the motion,
all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Kasparian abstained from voting.
Ms. Guy presented copies of revised applications for Appropriateness, Non-Applicability, Hardship and
Waiver of Demolition Delay Ordinance.
Guidelines
Ms. Guy outlined some changes made to sections of the guidelines. Ms. Guy stated, at the request of
Mr. Carr, she is able to tighten up some of the timing on violations procedures.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the section on Addressing'Violations as amended. Mr. Slam
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Kasparian abstained from voting.
After making amendments to the section on Architectural Trim and Siding, Mr. Carr made a motion to
approve that section as amended. Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so
carried. Mr. Kasparian abstained from voting.
•
There being no further business, Mr. Slam made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Carr seconded the motion,
all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Kasparian abstained from voting.
Respectfully s b itted,
J A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission
March 1, 1995, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
• MINUTES
MARCH 1, 1995
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, March 1, 1995 at 7:30
p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Presented were Vice Chairman Carr, Messrs. Casey, Kelleher
and Slam and Ms. Guy. Mr. Kasparian joined later in the meeting.
It was noted that Edward Carberg wrote a letter providing his opinion of historical facts relating to both
public hearings on the agenda.
65 Derby Street
In continuation from a previous meeting, New England Power Company NEPCO submitted an
application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish 65 Derby Street. The applicant was not
present.
Mr. Carr stated that there was a site visit of the building and that Chairman Oedel had informed Ms.
Griffin of NEPCO that approval to demolish the building would be unlikely based on the condition of
the building. Mr. Carr stated that Ms. Griffin would not be present and that she has requested that the
application be acted on.
• Mr. Slam made a motion to approve the application as submitted in hopes that it will fail.
Mr. Casey submitted copies of Historic Salem's house report for the property.
Mr. Kelleher seconded the motion. There were no votes in favor, all were opposed and the application
was denied as inappropriate.
Mr. Carr suggested that a letter be sent to the Building Inspector which states that the application was
denied based on the site visit and the structural soundness of the building and to request that the building
be secured.
Mr. Kelleher made a motion to send a letter to the Building Inspector stated that the application was
denied and that at a site visit made on February 4, 1995, it was observed that the building appears to be
structurally sound an that the current status of being secured appears adequate. Mr. Slam seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Kasparian joined the meeting at this time.
I Hamilton Street
Salem Ropes Trust submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to redo the rails and
paint the porch and garage door at 1 Hamilton St. Mr. Carr read two letters from the applicant to the
• Commission as part of the application. The applicant, Orille L'Heureux, provided photographs of porch
work underway at 89 Congress Street that 1 Hamilton would resemble. The body of porch, skirt and
house trim is proposed to be white with the deck and stair treads and garage door to be Essex Green.
Mr. L'Heureux also proposed to repair the window frames, molding and house trim.
March 1, 1995, Page 2
Mr. Carr asked if the only difference in the before and after photographs for 89 Congress Street is the
• paint and the caps on the posts. Mr. L'Heureux replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Carr asked if the applicant was proposing to put the same posts caps and rail on 1 Hamilton as per
the photographs. Mr. L'Heureux replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Casey asked if the support columns would change. Mr. L'Heureux replied in the negative and stated
that he will change the rails and put in a new post on the first floor. Mr. L'Heureux stated that he wants
to keep the bar across the garage door for protection and preferred to leave under the porch as is.
Mr. Carr asked if the rail on the first floor will emulate 89 Congress Street. Mr. L'Heureux replied in
the affirmative and stated that he would leave the garage door and window and trim around the garage
white. Mr. L'Heureux would paint everything on the porch white including the second floor and would
paint the rest of the wood on the building as time and money permits.
Mr. Kasparian asked if the applicant was willing to consider changing the skirting around the bottom of
the porch. Mr. L'Heureux replied in the affirmative and stated that he was also willing to change the
colors.
Mr. Carr suggested closing the public hearing. Mr. Casey made a motion to close the public hearing.
Mr. Kelleher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
• Mr. Casey felt the garage doors were more suitable for a ranch house and felt the entire porch was in
violation of the guidelines. Mr. Casey stated that he could not vote for the support columns to remain
and would like more specificity on the porch and stair railings. Mr. Casey stated that he would like
more done on the porch skirt and that the garage window should be reopened.
Mr. Slam stated that he would rather see turned ballasters, that the skirt should be lattice, that the support
posts should be replaced and that the porch windows should be opened up. Mr. Slam stated that the
garage door was not appropriate but that he would hold off on his opinion for the moment.
Mr. Kelleher stated that the ballasters should be turned and that the skirting should be lattice which could
be made openable for storage. Mr. Kelleher stated that the support columns need to be addressed. Mr.
Kelleher stated that he could live with the garage door painted out but would want the horizontal
removed.
Mr. Slam stated that he would also like the horizontal removed.
Mr. Kelleher stated that he would prefer the window on the garage be opened up. Mr. L'Heureux stated
that it was not a problem.
Mr. Kasparian stated that he had no problem with square newel posts and added that it appears to be a
mid-20th century utilitarian addition. Mr. Kasparian stated that white paint was appropriate but that the
skirt board should be in lattice or vertical boards painted the door color and frame white. Mr. L'Heureux
• stated that he did not have a problem with Mr. Kasparian's suggestions.
Mr. Kasparian stated that the porch posts should be cased with 1 x's with recessed panel on bottom and
detail on top. Mr. L'Heureux stated that he could do that.
March 1, 1995, Page 3
Mr. Casey stated that he would want to see details.
• Mr. Kasparian stated that he had no problem with the horizontal bar on the garage but felt the garage
window should be reopened.
Mr. Carr stated that the Commission only has jurisdiction over unapproved changes and that the
Commission should review the changes as though they had not yet been done. Mr. Carr stated that he
does not like the door on the garage, that the Commission would not have approved the boarded up
window, that he agrees with vertical or lattice for the skirt and encasing of the columns, that he does not
care about whether there are square or turned ballasters, that the paint is okay and that he would need
detail on the posts.
Mr. Casey made a motion to deny the application as submitted. Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all were
in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Carr summarized the comments made:
All support casing the columns, detail needed.
Square or turned ballasters are okay, detail needed.
Skirt should be lattice or vertical, painted.
Newelled posts on bottom of stair, casing and capped.
Paint entire first and second floor of porch.
• Reopen garage window.
Mr. L'Heureux stated that he can take off the plywood over the window and just replace the panes.
Mr. Casey and Mr. Carr would not approve of the garage door.
Messrs. Kelleher, Slam and Kasparian would be willing to allow the garage door to stay.
Mr. Kasparian suggested using some discretion with the garage doors and to consider the parking. Mr.
Kasparian stated that he would prefer panels with vision lights but did not have a problem with an
overhead door in general.
Mr. Casey stated that there should be ballasters going down the railing.
Mr. Kasparian stated that the risers of the stairs should be painted white.
Other Business
Mr. Kelleher made a motion to approve the minutes of January 4 and February 1, 1995. Mr. Slam
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the-motion so carried.
Ms. Guy presented samples of the survey forms being completed by the City's consultant. Mr. Kelleher
suggested that the State listing status be placed under the bibliography.
• Ms. Guy provided drafts of new Certificates which include and expiration date of one year unless
otherwise noted.
Mr. Casey noted that This Old House is looking to do a property in Salem.
p
March 1, 1995, Page 4
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission received a letter from Massachusetts Historical Commission finding
tno effect for the installation of an ATM at 126 North Street.
Ms. Guy stated that she received an invitation for a grand opening for 331 Essex Street for March 9,
1995.
MS. Guy stated that Mr. Kelleher provided a listing of 158 Queen Anne buildings in Salem.
There being no further business, Mr. Slam made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Kelleher seconded the motion,
all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully ubmitted,
raneAuy
Clerk of the Commission
March 15, 1995, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
• MINUTES
MARCH 15, 1995
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, March 15, 1995 at 7:30
p.m. at One Salem Green. Present were Chairman Oedel, Ms. Sides, Messrs. Carr, Cook and Slam and
Ms. Guy.
Mr. Carr stated that 107 Federal Street is before the Board of Appeals this evening to allow Hy-da-way
Plant Branch to relocate there. Mr. Carr stated that he would like to support the application. Chairman
Oedel stated that it would be appropriate to send message that the Commission would be in approval as
long as the building continues to read as a storefront. There was no motion.
313 Essex Street
The 313 Essex Street Trust presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for exterior
painting. The body color will be Blue Slate and the trim will be white PO-10.
Chairman Oedel asked the door colors. Michael L'Heureux, trustee, stated that the front door will
remain natural wood and the side and rear will be repainted blue. Mr. L'Heureux stated that all the paint
colors are as existing.
Mr. Carr made a motion to change the application to Non-Applicability and to approve the application
•J as submitted with all colors replicating existing. Mr. Cook seconded the motion, all were in favor and
the motion so carried.
115 Federal Street
Darleen Melis and Irving Ingraham presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the
addition of a dormer on the back side of her home at 115 Federal Street. The dormer will copy the two
dormers on the front of the house with the new dormer to be centered above the bay window on the
second floor.
Ms. Melis stated that the third floor is not Federal like the rest of the house and that the bay is Victorian.
She intends to use the same proportions as the front dormers. Ms. Melis presented a sketch of the
proposed dormer and stated that since applying, she has decided that she would prefer an arched window.
Chairman Oedel asked if there was any public comment.
Richard Lindeman, 113 Federal Street, stated that he thought it was a great idea. Mr. Carr noted that
Mr. Lindeman is the direct abutter.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted. There was no second.
• Ms. Sides stated that she was concerned by the proportion to put that window under that pediment.
Mr. Carr made a motion to deny the application. There was no second.
Ms. Sides felt to put a curve under the entablature was odd.
March 15, 1995, Page 2
Mr. Kasparian felt the drawing was inadequate and noted that the casing is missing.
• Chairman Oedel stated that the window lites will be a different size from the other dormer lites.
Mr. Carr was concerned about locating an arch under the entablature. Mr. Carr felt that one or the other
could be done, but not to combine the two.
Ms. Melis suggested bring up the arch to the top of the pediment and requested that the Commission
continue discussion on the application until later in the meeting so that she could make a new sketch.
7 Franklin Street
James Robichaud submitted an application to Waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance for demolition of
7 Franklin Street.
Mr. Carr stated that he visited the site and noted that the front is a long, one story building that he felt
was 18th century. Mr. Carr stated that a one-story cinder block building was added to it and then
another masonry building after that. Mr. Carr stated that another building on the site, to the side, appears
to be a motel. Mr. Carr stated that the front building was the Salem Laboratory according to the 1822
map and noted that the building is in derelict condition. Mr. Carr stated that he had no problem with
demolition of the rest of the buildings, but that due to the framing, he would like a site visit for the front
building. Mr. Carr stated that he has a telephone call into Dean Lahikainen.
• John Galvi, owner of the property, stated that he has received Board of Appeal approval to demolish the
building and that the original plan was to put in a machine shop or rental garages, but that it was still
up in the air.
Mr. Slam made a motion to have a site visit on Saturday, March 18, 1995 and to continue the application
until the next meeting. Mr. Carr seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
161 Swampscott Rd.
The Town of Marblehead submitted an application to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance for the
demolition of 161 Swampscott Road. Wilbur Bassett and Carl Siegel provided pictures of the interior
and exterior of the property.
Mr. Bassett stated that the building was acquired by the Marblehead Water Commission in the late
1920's. Mr. Bassett stated that through a contract with the MDC, they were to demolish the pumping
station and wells that were once there. Last January, the Town Counsel ruled that in order to have
someone live there, it must go out to bid. The home was vacated last November. Mr. Bassett stated that
when he saw the inside of the building, he was ashamed to say that Marblehead owned it.
Mr. Kasparian asked if there was a basement. Mr. Bassett replied in the negative and stated that there
is a crawl space on one side and that one-half the building has a dirt floor.
• Mr. Bassett stated that the Town will clean up the area so that people will be able to walk through.
Mr. Slam asked if they considered selling the building. Mr. Bassett stated that Water & Sewer are the
caretakers and to sell it would require putting on the warrant for Town Meeting to give it to the
March 15, 1995, Page 3
Selectmen.
• Mr. Carr stated that it is clear that the condition is bad.
Mr. Slam stated that he would like to see more thought put into the disposition and felt that the building
has some potential and someone may want it. Mr. Slam asked if it were a public hazard. Mr. Siegel
replied in the affirmative and stated that kids get into it.
Mr. Bassett stated that there is no fire hydrant near the property if it should catch fire. Mr. Bassett added
that the Town of Swampscott Fire Department wants to use it for training.
Mr. Carr felt he did not have enough information and wanted a site visit. Mr. Carr stated that since it
has been vacant since mid December, three weeks more time would not hurt.
Mr. Bassett stated that their contractor, Linskey, plans to demolish the building on Friday.
Mr. Carr made a motion to continue the application and have a site visit on Saturday, March 18, 1995
after the other site visit. Mr. Slam seconded the motion.
Chairman Oedel stated that he was not sure if it was worth a site visit, noting that it was a late period
building with marginal historic interest.
• Mr. Bassett stated that the ceilings and walls have been torn down since the pictures were taken.
Ms. Sides stated that she had mixed feelings and noted that the pictures show the way it is.
Mr. Cook asked if there was an engineering report on the building's condition. Mr. Bassett replied in
the negative.
Mr. Cook and Mr. Kasparian stated that they could go along with a site visit.
The motion was voted on. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
1 Chestnut Street
Dr. Constantine Mekelatos submitted an Application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability for the
replacement of wood siding on one side of his property at 1 Chestnut Street. The application, which was
filed by the owner's contractor, William Shea, states that there will be no change of color or structural
design. Neither the applicant nor his contractor were present and the work has already begun.
Mr. Cook made a motion to approve the application as submitted. There was no second.
Mr. Carr stated that the contractor is putting in 1/2 inch Fiberboard insulation that, he was told by Mr.
Cook, is supposed to compress when the siding is applied. Mr. Carr was concerned that the siding would
be pushed outward and that the pine siding being used would show knots.
• Ms. Guy stated that she has had a complaint from a neighbor that the joints appear different than the
existing siding.
March 15, 1995, Page 4
Ms. Sides stated that the shadow is not correct for flush board.
• Mr. Slam made a motion to have a site visit at 9:30 a.m. on Saturday, March 18, 1995. Mr. Carr
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Cook will talk to the homeowner.
115 Federal Street
Ms. Melis presented a second sketch and suggested collapsing the space on Sketch #1 in order to bring
up the window. Mr. Cook felt it was incongruous.
Mr. Carr stated that he did not mind the dog house dormer, nor a rounded roof, nor a combination dog-
house with an arched window but that he was troubled by the top of the arch falling below the
horizontal. Mr. Carr was also concerned by the relationship of wood to glass being out of balance and
the glass lites getting reduced in size.
Mr. Kasparian stated that he had no problem with the concept but felt there were not enough details
available. Mr. Kasparian felt paint appropriateness should be discussed.
Mr. Cook felt it was an attractive design but preferred to see the dog house style dormer.
• Mr. Slam stated that he had no problem with any of the designs.
Ms. Sides stated that she preferred the dormer replicate the existing dormers and if not, the new dormer
should relate more clearly to the proportion of the bay.
Chairman Oedel stated that the existing dormer design is best, but that he could accept an arch going into
the pediment.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve a dormer in the location proposed to match the existing dormers.
Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve Option #2 with the same outer proportions, slant of roof, molding
and details as the existing formers. Mr. Slam seconded the motion: Chairman Oedel, Ms. Sides, and
Messrs. Carr and Slam voted in favor. Mr. Cook voted in opposition. The motion so carried.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve Option #1, crimped, in hopes that it fails. Mr. Slam seconded the
motion.
Mr. Kasparian stated that the sash and profile around the pediment should match the existing. Ms. Melis
stated that it would be proportionate.
Mr. Slam and Mr. Kasparian voted in favor. Chairman Oedel, Ms. Sides, Mr. Carr and Mr. Cook voted
• in opposition. The motion did not carry.
Mr. Kasparian felt that the Commission should know the dimensions of the sash and glass.
Mr. Carr made a motion to amend approval of Option #2 to clarify the approval is in concept and that
March 15 1995 Pae 5
> g
the specific details are delegated to Mr. Kasparian for approval. Mr. Slam seconded the amendment.
• Chairman Oedel, Ms. Sides, and Messrs. Carr and Slam voted in favor. Mr. Cook voted in opposition.
The motion so carried.
Other Business
Ms. Guy stated that the aluminum guard rail on Fowler Street is being removed and will be replaced if
requested by the homeowner. Ms. Guy stated that Daniel Geary of the Mayor's Office has asked if the
Commission would be in support of a wooden guard rail per sketch provided. The consensus was that
granite bollards would be preferred.
Ms. Guy stated that only 7 responses from the paint poll were submitted, with only one in favor of the
Commission reviewing paint colors.
Mr. Carr stated that 336 Essex Street has had the rear portion of the building clad in plywood for over
five years. Mr. Carr motioned to send a letter to the homeowner concerning the status of the approved
project. Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Cook noted that This Old House is interested in doing a project at 124 Federal Street, which is for
sale.
Guidelines Review
• Ms. Guy stated that the Secretary of the Interior's guidelines were updated and that she has updated the
version in the Commission's guidelines. A copy was sent to the homeowners in the last newsletter.
Ms. Guy stated that she will add language to the guidelines and to the back of the Commission's
applications concerning the expiration of Certificates.
Mr. Carr left the meeting at this time.
The Commission reviewed and amended the section on Doors, Doorways and Porticos. Mr. Slam made
a motion to approve the guidelines pertaining to Doors, Doorways and Porticos as amended. Mr. Cook
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
There being no further business, Mr. Slam made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Cook seconded the motion,
all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
i�
• e A. Guy
Clerk of the Co ission
• T
April 5, 1995, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
APRIL 5, 1995
• A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, April 5, 1995 at 7:30
p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA 01970. Present were Chairman Oedel, Ms. Sides, Messrs. Carr,
Cook, and Kelleher. Mr. Kasparian and Mr. Slam entered later in the meeting.
7 Franklin Street
In continuation from a previous meeting, James Robichaud, submitted an application to waive the
Demolition Delay Ordinance to demolish the buildings at 7 Franklin Street.
Chairman Oedel read a letter from Bob Andrews of HMA Car Care Systems, in favor of the application.
Mr. Carr stated that he attended the site visit and that the building is in derelict condition. The front half
of the building is older than the second half
Mr. Cook stated that he visited the site on his own and felt the condition was obvious.
Mr. Carr stated that a map at the Essex Institute indicates that the front building was the Salem
Laboratory, an early chemical factory founded in 1819, that made preservatives for the tanning industry.
Mr. Carr asked if there were any plans for the site.
• John Galvi, an owner of the property, stated that they are considering a travel office and storage facility
but that have not finalized their plans.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Cook made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Sides seconded the motion, all
were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Slam joined the meeting at this time.
1 Chestnut Street
In continuation from a previous meeting, Dr. Constantine Mekelatos submitted an application for a
Certificate of Non-Applicability to replace wood siding on the Summer Street side of 1 Chestnut Street
with no change of color or structural design. Also submitted was an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to replace the wood siding on the Summer Street and Chestnut Street sides of the main
building. The work on the Summer Street side has already begun.
Ms. Sides stated that she was at the site visit and that the wrong boarding is going up. Ms. Sides stated
that the insulation is pushing the siding outward from the casing around the windows and is
compromising the head details. Ms. Sides stated that the corners won't meet like they used to.
• Mr. Carr stated that the wood quality was full of knots and that priming over was not a good long-term
solution. Mr. Carr stated that the original siding was supposed to simulate a flush wall like stone.
April 5, 1995, Page 2
Chairman Oedel stated that the insulation being installed will result in minimal insulation and that the
owner's would be better off with Tyvek. Chairman Oedel felt that the insulation being used is not likely
to last.
• Mr. Cook stated that the original builders used clear wood with no knots.
Chairman Oedel noted that each knot will suck up moisture and will result in paint bleeding problems.
William Shea, Shea Roofing, stated that each knot has been neutralized and that the end result will look
the same except for the bevel and a minute portion at the corner that comes out. Mr. Shea stated that
he had left samples on the job site for Commission members to look at.
Mr. Kasparian joined the meeting at this time.
Mr. Carr made a motion to find that the work as being undertaken constitutes an alteration and to deny
the application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability.
Ms. Guy stated that if the Commission requires removal of what has been done and replacement with
what was there, a non-applicability certificate will be needed.
Mr. Carr amended his motion to find that the work as commenced is a change and must be approved
by a Certificate of Appropriateness or removed.
Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Kasparian abstained
• from voting.
Mr. Shea stated that two members of the Commission approved the work on site.
Ms. Guy stated that she had told Mr. Shea when he applied for a Certificate of Non-Applicability not
to proceed until a Certificate was issued and that only a signed Certificate constitutes approval.
Chairman Oedel stated that no approval can be given on a job site.
Mr. Slam stated that as the work stands, it cannot be approved under non-applicability. Mr. Slam stated
that he could not approve appropriateness with the bevels. Mr. Slam stated that it is the cornerstone of
the district and the most visible property.
Mr. Kelleher stated that the work currently being done does not qualify for non-applicability and is not
appropriate in terms of wood, beveling, and result of insulation including the building out around the
window surrounds.
Mr. Kasparian stated that he agreed with the Commission comments thus far.
Mr. Carr was also in agreement and stated that they may appear to be subtle changes but they make a
major change.
• Mr. Cook and Ms. Sides were also in agreement with the other Commissioner comments.
Chairman Oedel stated that the materials are not appropriate and the added depth is unacceptable.
April 5, 1995, Page 3
Chairman Oedel stated that the water table needs to be discussed.
Mr. Carr stated that what is appropriate is what was removed.
• Mr. Shea suggested caulking the bevel. Mr. Carr stated that it won't last. Mr. Shea replied that caulking
will adhere to the new wood.
Ms. Sides stated that the bevel is not the only problem.
Mr. Shea stated that when the shutters are put back on, the work won't be noticed and will look the same
when completed. Mr. Shea stated that protective insulation is needed. Chairman Oedel stated that the
depth is not acceptable and suggested Tyvek or Typar rather than homosote.
Chairman Oedel stated that he would be willing to approve the option of straight tongue and groove with
a square face or shiplap flushboard.
Mr. Shea asked if the Commission is suggesting that he remove what has been replaced including the
insulation and not insulate. Ms. Sides stated that blown-in insulation can be used.
Ms. Carol Kotkowski, representing the applicant, stated that the building has had a water leak for a long
time and asked if removing the work will bring the problem back. Chairman Oedel stated that they will
not have a problem if repaired properly.
Mr. Carr stated that everything has been said that can be said and that the Commission needs to move
.• the meeting.
Mr. Carr made a motion to deny any Certificate of Appropriateness for the work as commenced as being
inappropriate. Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr.
Kasparian abstained from voting.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-Applicability to replicate exactly what was
original to the building with the option of either straight tongue and groove with a square face or shiplap
flushboard, with boards to be the same thickness and height and in the same relation to molding and
surrounds as original, with any insulation to be that which would not distort which would include Tyvek
and/or blown-in insulation.
Chairman Oedel felt that someone should be delegated to take existing measurements.
Mr. Shea stated that it was a mistake on his part to begin even driving a nail.
Mr. Carr stated that, whenever possible, original materials should be reused.
Mr. Shea did not feel blown-in would be better insulation than what he was installing. Mr. Shea stated
that blown-in insulation packs after a while.
Chairman Oedel reminded Mr. Shea that he did not have a building permit to commence the work he
• has done.
Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Kasparian abstained
April 5, 1995, Page 4
from voting.
Chairman Oedel volunteered to be delegated. Mr. Carr suggested that Chairman Oedel create a
photographic record.
Mr. Barromee Dube asked why homeowners have such a difficult time seeing violations getting resolved
corrected such as the fence at 10 Chestnut Street. Chairman Oedel stated that the Commission follows
its established procedures which include sending an initial letter and, if necessary, a follow-up letter, a
letter to the City Solicitor, a letter from the City Solicitor to the homeowner and then the procedures to
place a Certificate of Violation against the homeowner's title. Mr. Carr felt that the procedures take too
long to reach final resolution. Ms. Guy stated that it is not the procedures, but rather that the
Commission does not review and act on outstanding violations at every meeting.
161 Swampscott Rd.
In continuation from a previous meeting, the Town of Marblehead submitted an application to waive the
Demolition Delay Ordinance to demolish 161 Swampscott Rd.
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission received a letter from the Building Inspector that stated that the
building has been condemned.
361 Essex Street
Alice and Timothy Clark presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a copper
• roof on the summer house with 1' square diamond shape panels and a finial. Mr. Clarke provided
samples of the panels and stated that the summer house is not visible from Essex Street.
Ms. Guy stated that it is only minimally visible from Chestnut Street.
Mr. Clarke stated that historically, the building had tin panels.
Chairman Oedel asked what finial will be installed. Mr. Clarke stated that he was not sure but suggested
#4722 from a catalog he presented.
Ms. Sides stated that the scale of the finial was more important than the design and suggested a mock-up.
Ms. Sides stated that she would be happy to be delegated to approve the design and scale.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the details of the finial to be
delegated to Ms. Sides. Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Kelleher offered to join Ms. Sides.
37 Warren Street
Ms. Guy stated that the Don Rose and Nina Simonds had received approval for porch alteration in
February, 1994 and have submitted a letter indicating that they will commence the work in April and
•. complete it within 3 months. Ms. Guy stated that since receiving the status letter, Ms. Simonds
telephoned her and requested an amendment of their certificate according to the drawings to be presented
at this meeting. Ms. Guy noted that no public notice has been provided to abutters concerning the
April 5, 1995, Page 5
request for amendment.
Mr. Rose submitted new drawings and stated that the porch footprint will remain in tact. They propose
to replace the French doors and balcony with an enclosed box bay that continues the panels and includes
windows. Mr. Rose stated that portions of the porch are visible approximately 3 months of the year.
Mr. Rose added that a portion of the altered porch design will obscure a window.
Mr. Carr stated that he would like a site visit.
Mr. Kelleher did not feel the area to be altered from the original Certificate would be visible from the
public way.
Mr. Kelleher made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-Applicability due to minimal visibility. Ms.
Sides seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
104 Linden Street
Jeffrey Springer, Mark and Sandra Connelly submitted an application to waive the Demolition Delay
Ordinance to tear down a cement garage in back of their house at 104 Linden Street.
Mr. Carr stated that he would prefer a site visit.
Mr. Cook made a motion to approve the application as submitted pending approval of a site visit by Mr.
Carr. Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
• Other Business
Mr. Kelleher made a motion to approve the minutes of March 1, 1995. Mr. Kasparian seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission received a status letter from the owners of 357 Essex Street stating
that they have been completing repairs and painting according to their Certificate date 7/8/93 on one side
of the building each year and that the final side is being completed this year by the Fall.
Ms. Guy presented a draft letter to the Building Inspector concerning 65 Derby Street. There were no
objections to the letter.
Ms. Guy stated that Historic Salem's annual meeting is scheduled tentatively for May 16, 1995. Ms.
Guy provided a list of Certificates issued and of properties that had been mentioned for consideration
for Preservation Awards. Ms. Guy stated that nominations for awards must be submitted at the April
19, 1995 meeting and final voting on awards must be completed at the May 3, V995 meeting.
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission needs to spend the money that the City Council appropriated for
a new brochure by June 30, 1995. Ms. Guy proposes that the map and descriptive information on the
districts remain as is with the exception of the inclusion of the Lafayette district. Ms. Guy presented a
draft of a revised narrative relating to the Commission and its function, at homeowner responsibilities
• to replace the questions and answers on the current brochure.
Ms. Guy presented a final draft of the Certificates of Appropriateness, Non-Applicability, Hardship and
April 5, 1995, Page 6.
Waiver of Demolition Delay Ordinance. Ms. Guy stated that information relating to the expiration of
Certificateswas revised. Chairman Oedel suggested that the Certificates indicate that "This is not a
building permit."
Mr. Carr asked if Mr. L'Heureux has submitted a new application for 1 Hamilton Street garage and
porch. Ms. Guy replied in the negative.
The Commission reviewed and revised the Guidelines section on Fences. Mr. Slam made a motion to
approve the Fence section of the Guidelines as revised. Mr. Cook seconded the motion, all were in favor
and the motion so carried.
There being no further business, Mr. Slam made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Sides seconded the motion,
all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
elerkCommission
•
f �
April 19, 1995, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
APRIL 19 , 1995
• A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on
Wednesday, April 19, 1995 at 7 : 30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA.
Present were Chairman Oedel, Ms . Sides and Messrs . Carr, Casey, Slam,
Kasparian and Kelleher.
132-134 Derby Street
Kenneth Schleicher and Thea Peach submitted an application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors at 132-134 Derby Street.
The body will be Alexandria Beige, trim Montgomery White and doors Van
Buren Brown.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr.
Kelleher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so
carried.
4-6 Botts Court
Gary and Nancy Peterson presented an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to install a copper vent on the Botts Court side of the
roof at 4-6 Botts Court. The vent will be 3" in diameter by 2 ' high and
will be on the left side when looking at the roof .
Mr. Peterson stated that the vent will be 2 ' up from the lower edge of
the roof and 2 ' from the left edge of the roof .
• Mr. Slam stated that it did not look particularly offensive to him.
Mr. Carr made a motion to find that the vent is a utilitarian feature
that does not distract from the style of the house and has insubstantial
impact. There was no second.
Mr. Slam made a motion to change the application to Non-Applicability
and to approve the vent due to minimum visibility. Mr. Carr seconded
the motion.
Chairman Oedel asked if it were possible to move the vent to the other
slope of the roof. Mr. Peterson replied in the negative and stated that
the 1/2 bath is being installed on the Botts Court side. Mr. Kasparian
felt that the vent could run across the interior.
Ms . Sides asked if there was a ceiling or it is open. Mr. Peterson
stated that it is a cathedral ceiling.
The motion was voted upon, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
89 Federal Street
Dr. and Mrs . Kevin Dwyer presented an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to install a fence at 89 Federal Street. Ms . Dwyer
• presented photographs and a drawing and stated that the fence will be
the same as the fence in photograph #1 (taken of 144-146 Federal St. )
only without the jog. The fence will run from the corner of the house
to the garage, parallel to the street.
r
r.
April 19 , 1995, Page 2
Ms . Dwyer asked if she could remove the wrought iron fence. Mr. Carr
stated that she would have to submit an application.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr.
• Slam seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Chairman Oedel asked the height under the trellis . Ms . Dwyer did not
know. Chairman Oedel asked if there was any detail on the connection to
the trellis . Ms . Dwyer stated that it would be the same as 5 Monroe
Street pergola.
Mr. Carr estimated the bottom of the horizontal to be approximately
6 ' 6" .
Ms . Guy asked the paint color. Ms . Dwyer stated it would be painted the
trim color.
Other Business
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the minutes of March 15, 1995 . Mr.
Slam seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms . Guy read a letter from Edward Carberg concerning 7 Franklin Street.
Ms . Guy stated that the Commission received a request from Grace Church
to support their application for Massachusetts Preservation Projects
Fund funding. Mr. Carr made a motion to support the application
provided that the Church receive the appropriate Commission approvals
prior to undertaking any work. Mr. Casey seconded the motion, all were
• in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Kelleher abstained form voting.
Mr. Casey stated that the Historic Salem, Inc . Annual Meeting will be on
Monday, May 15th at the Visitor' s Center.
Mr. Slam asked if Arts Salem had applied for the carving of Samuel
McIntire on the Common. Chairman Oedel replied in the negative and
stated that he spoke with Paul Brotchie and that they plan to apply for
the May 17 , 1995 meeting.
Ms . Guy asked if there were any comments concerning the narrative for
the reprinting of the Commission brochure. There were no comments and
Ms . Guy will proceed with ordering new brochures .
Preservation Awards
Mr. Carr provided the following nominations for Preservation Awards :
INSIDE DISTRICTS
331 ESSEX - PABICH - REHABILITATION
389 ESSEX ST. - PAINT/RENOVATIONS
6 SOUTH PINE ST. - RENOVATIONS
BERTRAM HOME - AC UNIT STRUCTURE
82 DERBY ST. - LAUNDROMAT - WINDOW REPLACEMENT?
• 29-35 WARREN - SLATE ROOF
89 FEDERAL - PAINT/UPGRADE
HOUSE OF SEVEN GABLES - VISITOR' S CENTER
188 DERBY ST. - FENCE & PILLARS
r
April 19, 1995, Page 3
50 BROAD/2 DALTON PKWY. - Pergola - Spiros Flomp
14 BROAD ST. - STEVE THOMAS - FENCE
274 LAFAYETTE - RONAN - CARRIAGE HOUSE
2 BOTTS CT. - PAINT/UPGRADE
• OUTSIDE DISTRICTS
JOSHUA WARD HOUSE SIGN, HIGGINSON BOOKS
8-10 WINTER ST.
92 WASHINGTON SQUARE - PORCH, GARDEN
JUNIPER PT. #17
BENTLEY SCHOOL
OLDE SALEM BREWERY - DERBY ST.
ARMORY VISITOR CENTER
80 WASHINGTON SQUARE - O'DONNELL - PAINT COLORS
COLLINS MIDDLE SCHOOL - INTERIOR
Chairman Oedel, Mr. Kelleher and Ms . Sides felt that the paint colors at
2 Botts Court were not deserving of an award. Mr. Carr noted that the
carriage house at 274 Lafayette Street is incomplete.
Ms . Guy noted that some of the work completed at Collins Middle School
could be detrimental to its eligibility for the National Register.
Mr. Casey provided the following nominations for Preservation Awards :
38 Washington St. - Dressler
400 Essex St. - Sabbagh
30-32 Beckford St.
• Mr. Carr stated that 30-32 Beckford is incomplete.
Guidelines
The Commission reviewed and amended the section on Gutters and
Downspouts .
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the section on Gutters and Downspouts
as amended. Mr. Kelleher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the
motion so carried.
Violations/Work Status
Mr. Carr made a motion to file a Certificate of Violation at the
Registry of Deeds for 2 Flint Street. Mr. Casey seconded the motion,
all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Kasparian abstained
from voting.
Ms . Guy noted that she received calls from the owner of 398 Essex Street
who will be coming to the next meeting and 10 Hamilton Street who stated
that they have tried to get a hold of Mr. Casey several times . Mr.
Casey stated that he has not gotten any messages and has tried to
contact the homeowners several times .
Mr. Kelleher stated that there is new wood showing at 25 Washington
Square and that they may be undertaking work. Ms . Guy will check into
it.
Mr. Casey made a motion to take the following actions :
n
April 19, 1995, Page 4
1 . Remove 4 Andover, 135 Derby, Bertram Home, 333 Essex St. , 188 Derby
Street and N. Pine/Fowler guard rail from the list of outstanding
work and violations .
2 . For the Commission members to inspect 12 Carpenter Street fence and
10 Andover Street front wall .
3 . To send letters to the homeowners at 2 Gifford Court, 136 Federal
St . and 18 River Street concerning work that should have been
completed and providing a deadline completion date.
4 . To send letters to the City Solicitor concerning 7 S . Pine St. , 10
Hamilton St. , 310 Essex St. and 1-3 N. Pine Street.
5 . To send a third letter to 1 Cambridge St.
6 . For Mr. Casey to contact the owner of 2 Botts Court.
7 . To send second letters to 302 Lafayette St. , 35 Washington Sq. , 31
Washington Sq. , 313 Essex St. , 10 Chestnut St. , 134 Federal St. and
1 Hamilton Street.
8 . To send a letter to Rob Saarnio at the Peabody Museum concerning
unapproved signage.
9 . To send a letter to the owner of 92 Federal Street notifying him of
an upcoming meeting that the violation will be discussed and
providing an opportunity for comment.
10 . For Ms . Guy to speak to Mr. Cook concerning 10 Broad Street.
Mr. Carr seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so
carried. Mr. Kasparian abstained from voting.
There being no further business, Mr. Slam made a motion to adjourn. Mr.
Casey seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Sincerely,
J A. Guy
C erk of the C mmission
May 3 , 1995, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
• MINUTES
MAY 3, 1995
• A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, May 3, 1995 at 7:30 p.m.,One Salem Green,
Salem, MA. Present were Vice Chairman Carr,Ms. Sides,Messrs. Casey,Kelleher, Slam and Kasparian and Ms. Guy.
10 Monroe Street
Ron and Ziggy Hartfelder presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors at their home at 10
Monroe Street. The shutters and doors will remain soft gloss black,the clapboards will be a custom tan and the trim and fence
will be soft gloss white. Paint chips were provided.
Mr.Slam made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr.Kelleher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the
motion so carried.
Also submitted was an application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability for in kind fence replacement.
Ms. Sides made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Kelleher seconded the motion,all were in favor and the
motion so carried.
398 Essex Street
William White submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors and door replacement at 398 Essex
Street. The painting contractor,David Pierce, 11 Sutton Ave.,represented the applicant and presented paint chips. The body
will be Pittsburgh Blue HC-159,the trim Monterey White HC-27 and the foundation bricks as per paint chip.
• Mr. Pierce noted that the foundation bricks are being repainted.
Mr. Carr indicated that the trim should include windows,comerboards,watertable,door frames,door brackets and rake boards
• (including dormers). Mr.Pierce stated that they will not be repainting the window sash. Between the bays will be the body color,
along with the sides of the dormers.
Ms. Sides stated that the face of the dormers should be the trim color.
Ms. Sides felt the panels on the first floor bay should be trim color. Mr. Kelleher felt they should be the body color. Mr.
Kasparian felt the panels could be painted either color. Ms.Guy suggested the body color with the trim color around the trim
of the recess.
Mr.Carr felt the existing door was original and that it goes with the style of the house. Mr. Carr did not feel the proposed was
appropriate. Mr. Carr felt the building was c 1860.
Mr. Pierce did not think it would be problematic if the doors were not approved.
Mr. Slam questioned why Mr. Carr felt the proposed doors were inappropriate. Mr. Casey stated that the doors appear to be
original. Mr. Slam stated that the Commission did not know if they were. Mr.Carr stated that the existing doors are stylistically
original
Mr. Slam made a motion to approve the doors as submitted. There was no second.
Mr. Kasparian made a motion to deny the doors. Mr.Casey seconded the motion. Ms. Sides and Messrs. Carr, Kelleher,Casey
and Kasparian voted in favor. Mr. Slam voted in opposition. The motion so carried.
• Mr. Slam suggested leaving the option for paint color on the panels.
Mr. Carr suggested the door be painted the body color and to consider highlighting the door panels.
May 3 , 1995, Page 2
Mr. Kasparian volunteered to be delegated to determine the door color.
• Mr.Carr noted that the bay shingles will be body color,the panels body color with the trim of the panels in trim color.
Mr.Casey made a motion to approve the paint colors as submitted with Mr. Kasparian delegated to approve door color(s). Ms.
• Sides seconded the motion,all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr.Pierce stated that the back door will be painted the same as the front door.
Mr. Carr asked about the outstanding rear porch violation. Ms. Guy stated that the violation concerns only the posts and
suggested that it be delegated to Mr. Kasparian.
28 Carlton St.
Martine Tremblay presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of a garage door and for the
installation of a pellet stove vent at 28 Carlton Street. The application proposes an overhead door either wood panel or steel
raised panel with woodgrain texture. Pictures were provided and Ms.Tremblay stated that the door to be replaced is on the left
side, currently red.
Mr.Carr stated that the garage abutting Ms.Tremblay's reads like the same property with two 20th century cinder block garages
attached to a wood frame building. Mr. Carr suggested matching the door to the other garage door.
Mr. Kasparian stated that he had a problem with the white door and would like to see it match the trim color of the house.
Ms. Tremblay stated that the abutting garage door is metal and that if hers were metal, she would not paint it.
• Mr. Kasparian made a motion to approve a wood paneled door to match the door style of the abutting garage,with no vision
panels,painted grey to match the house trim. Ms. Sides seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms.Tremblay stated that the stove vent would be placed on the Carlton Street side and provided a copy of a specification page
• from the stove catalog.
Ms. Sides stated that the vent would have to extend high enough so as to be 10'away from where the top of the vent matches the
roof height.
Mr. Slam stated that he has no problem with the vent if it is 3'or under.
Mr.Kasparian stated that he did not feel there was enough information being provided.
Ms. Sides stated that she could approve the application.
Mr. Carr suggested a site visit.
Ms. Guy suggested continuing the application and having the contractor install a mock-up.
Mr. Slam made a motion to approve the vent as per specifications proposed providing that it not exceed 3' in height and 6"in
diameter. Mr. Carr asked the color. Mr. Slam added that the vent be painted to match the roof color. Ms. Sides seconded the
motion.
Mr.Carr stated that he was worried about approving such a vent in the event that all occupants in a multi-family property might
apply at some point. Mr.Carr was also concerned that there is not a particular location. Mr. Carr noted that the proposal is not
an emergency.
• Mr. Slam made a motion to move the question. There was no second.
• Mr. Kasparian stated that it looks like there is a wide collar and a hood. Mr. Carr noted there are braces. Mr. Kasparian stated
that a photograph would be helpful.
e.
May 3 , 1995, Page 3
The motion was voted upon. Ms.Sides and Messrs. Kelleher,Casey and Slam voted in favor. Mr.Carr and Mr.Kasparian voted
in opposition. The motion so carried.
I 1 Eden Street
• Paul Savasta and Catherine St.Pierre submitted an application to Waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance to demolish a metal
garage at 11 Eden St.
Ms. Guy noted that the applicant stated that the garage is a Sears garage.
Mr. Slam made a motion to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance. Mr.Kelleher seconded the motion,all were in favor and
the motion so carried.
26 Chestnut Street
Dr. and Mrs.Arthur Kavanagh submitted an application for a Certificate of Non-applicability to remove two to three courses of
roof slate;resecure sheathing and coving;repaint wood roof surfaces;reset slate;install new copper gutters and conductors;point
chimneys;paint windows and rebuild front entrance as needed.
Mr. Slam made a motion to approve the application as submitted and to add approval for the repainting of all wood surfaces.
Ms. Sides seconded the motion.
Mr.Casey suggested an amendment to recommend that all wood surfaces be repainted. Mr. Slam so amended his motion. Ms.
Sides seconded the amendment.
The motion was voted upon,all were in favor and the motion so carried.
• Other Business
Ms. Sides made a motion to approve the minutes of April 5, 1995 and April 19, 1995. Mr.Kelleher seconded the motion,all were
• in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms.Guy stated that she has issued Certificates of Non-applicability for repainting at 361 Essex Street,repainting and repairs at
131 Federal Street,repainting and repairs at 6 Broad Street and garage door replacement at 19 Flint Street.
Ms.Guy stated that the City received a matching grant of$10,000 to undertake a programmatic study of Old Town Hall.
Ms. Guy stated that a letter from Massachusetts Historical Commission(MHC)to Rizzo Associates was received concerning
Rizzo's request for resource information regarding the proposed garage on Derby Street.
Ms. Guy stated that a letter from MHC to Mass. Highway was received finding no effect on historic resources for the
improvements at the intersection of Essex and North Streets.
Preservation Awards
The Commission reviewed photographs of the nominations for Preservation Awards that had been provided. The Commission
agreed to provide awards to the following properties:
INSIDE DISTRICTS -
38 WASH. SQUARE S-BRIAN WEHRUNG&LISA DRESSLER
331 ESSEX ST. -RICHARD&DIANE PABICH
. 389 ESSEX ST.- STEVEN SASS&ELLEN GOLUB
6 SOUTH PINE ST. -ALBERT& SHERRIE GOOD14UE
29 WASHINGTON SQUARE NORTH- BERTRAM HOME
• 29-35 WARREN ST. -TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATE OF STEPHEN PHILLIPS
400 ESSEX ST. -EDWARD SABBAGH&CLAIRE TWOMEY
May 3 , 1995 , Page 4
50 BROAD STREET-SPIROS& PATRICIA FLOMP
• 180 FEDERAL ST. -EDWARD CROWLEY
HONORABLE MENTIONS:
14 BROAD ST. - STEVEN THOMAS&EVELYN BLUM
188 DERBY ST.-HELEN, WANDA& IRVING M,YSLIWY
OUTSIDE DISTRICTS
150 WASHINGTON ST.-ROBERT A. MURPHY
92 WASHINGTON SQUARE E-BROMWELL REAL ESTATE TRUST
80 WASHINGTON SQUARE E-CASTINE REALTY TRUST
Guidelines Review
Ms.Guy asked Mr.Kelleher if any cities have guidelines on handicapped access. Mr. Kelleher replied in the negative and stated
that all Commissions review them on a case by case basis.
The Commission reviewed an amend the section of the Guidelines entitle House Numbers. Mr. Kelleher made a motion to
approve the House Numbers section as amended. Ms. Sides seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Violations/Work Status
Ms.Guy stated that 12 Carpenter Street needs to be inspected. Mr. Carr will inspect.
Ms. Casey stated that the signs at 313 Essex St.have been removed and the property can be removed from the violation list.
! Ms. Guy stated that she is awaiting the title information for 2 Flint Street.
Ms.Guy stated that she has not yet sent the letter to 302 Lafayette Street. Mr.Casey stated that two steel doors and a center rail
• have been installed.
Ms.Guy stated that she had not sent the letter to I Hamilton because Mr.L'Heureux had stopped by to see her,2 days after the
last meeting,and had an application for her to review. Ms.Guy stated that the application was missing some details and that Mr.
L'Heureux was going to provide the information when he formally submitted the application. Mr. L'Heureux had indicated that
Atty. Seraftni had been reviewing the draft application. Ms.Guy stated that Mr.L'Heureux has been very cooperative with her
but that she has not heard from him since that time. Ms.Guy will send Mr. L'Heureux a letter.
Mr. Casey will talk to Mary Usovicz to apply for the oval window at 2 Botts Court. Mr. Casey stated that the meters will be
moved into the basement when Mass.Electric puts in the underground utilities.
Ms. Guy will send second letters to 10 Andover Street and 336 Essex Street.
Ms. Guy stated that Mr.Cook removed the shutters from 10 Broad Street and that the violation can be removed from the list.
Mr. Carr stated that there a signage violations at 6 Federal Court and 3 Federal Court. Ms. Guy stated that letters were sent to
the property owners on April 27, 1995.
There being no further business, Mr.Slam made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Sides seconded the motion, all were in favor and the
motion so carried.
Respectfully sub ,
• J A. Gu
C k of the Comm sion
May 17, 1995, Page 1
• SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
MAY 17, 1995
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, May 17, 1995 at 7:30 P.M.
at One Salem Green, Salem,MA. Present were Chairman Oedel,Ms. Sides,Messrs Carr,Bailey,Casey and
Slam and Ms. Guy. Mr Cook entered later in the meeting.
16 Cambridge Street
Michael &Marianne Ferrucci presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors
at their home at 16 Cambridge Street. Paint chips were submitted indicating that the body will be
Mayflower Red, door green and trim beige.
Chairman Oedel asked if the pilasters will be the trim color. Mr. Ferrucci replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Sides seconded the motion.
There was no public comment.
The motion was voted on. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
• Mr. Cook joined the meeting at this time.
6 Webb St./4 Fort Ave.
Ruth Buchanan presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a five foot capped,
flatboard fence around a parcel of land that she has been give license to use by the City.
Mr. Casey asked the paint color. Ms. Buchanan stated that it will be natural and that the fence will be all
one height, unlike the original drawing submitted.
Chairman Oedel opened the public hearing.
Donna Naido, 7 Webb Street, stated that she does not mind the license,but was concerned that it take away
the walkway. Ms.Naido that the area to be licensed would not go beyond where Mrs. Buchanan parks her
car.
Ms. Guy indicated where the fence was going to be located and the content of the license. Ms. Guy noted
that the Commission cannot discuss the license content, only the fence design.
Ms. Naido stated that the fence design was fine.
• Shirley Beauvais, 10 Fort Ave, stated that the fence was fine but questioned the amount of land.
Eileen Hutchko, 12 Fort Ave., stated that she questioned the City giving the land.
Christopher Roman, 12 Fort Ave., stated that he was against the fence and preferred the open area.
May 17, 1995, Page 2
Chairman Oedel closed the public hearing.
• Mr. Carr stated that a fence defining the premises is appropriate. Mr. Carr was concerned of buckling if
shiplap was used. Mr. Carr preferred the fence be painted or stained.
Ms. Buchanan stated that she wanted the fence to age like the singles on the house.
Mr. Bailey stated that he would understand if the applicant did not want white, but suggested a stain to
preserve the fence and make it look better.
Mr. Carr stated that someone could be delegated to approve color.
Mr. Slam stated that the fence was appropriate and that he felt it should be stained. Mr. Slam agreed that
there should be a delegate to approve color. Mr. Cook, Mr. Casey and Ms. Sides were in agreement.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted with Mr. Slam delegated to approve color.
Chairman Oedel stated that the lumber should be regular finish not rough sawn.
Chairman Oedel asked if the motion included the required that the fence be painted or stained. Mr. Carr
replied in the affirmative.
• Mr. Slam seconded the motion.
The motion was voted on, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
135 & 137 Derby Street
Robert A. Dana submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors and to alter
first floor windows at 135 and 137 Derby Street. The applicant proposes to case out the middle window at
9137 and the two windows at#135 with 4 1/2" pine and provide band molding that matches the remaining
windows.
Mr. Can suggested matching the window size and style at the same time or at least at 137 Derby St. Mr.
Dana stated that he was financially unable, that the existing window is a good thermopane, that there is a
tenant there,that the floors were just refinished and that there is a two year old there of which he would have
a concern with stirring up lead dust.
Mr. Slam made a motion to approve the application as submitted. There was no second.
Mr. Casey asked if the rear porches would be painted. Mr. Dana stated that he preferred not to paint them.
Mr. Bailey stated that wood cracks if it is not painted.
• Mr. Dana stated that once it is painted, it always has to be repainted. Mr. Dana stated that he particularly
did not want to paint the floor boards since they would wear out in a year.
Mr. Slam and Ms. Sides were not concerned about painting the floor boards.
May 17, 1995, Page 3
• Mr. Casey stated that the porches have to be stained.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted and that the rear porches (excluding floor
boards) be painted the trim color.
Chairman Oedel asked what would be painted the accent color. Mr. Dana stated that it will include the doors
and that he may experiment accenting the band molding. Mr. Dana stated that the trim color will be where
the brown is now.
Mr. Carr amended his motion to delegate the accenting approval to Mr. Bailey.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Salem Common - Woodcarving
Paul Brotchie representing the ARTSalem, a peer action group of the Salem Community Alliance,presented
an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a woodcarving of Samuel McIntire rendered from an
existing tree stump to remain on the Salem Common.
Mr. Brotchie stated that the artist, Ken Dudley, specifically chose Samuel McIntire because McIntire was
• a woodcarver and would be appropriate to the Salem Common. Mr. Brotchie stated that comments he has
heard expressed enjoyment in the sculpture.
Mr. Casey asked why they did not apply prior to the sculpture being carved. Mr. Brotchie stated that he did
not know that the Commission would be involved.
Mr. Slam stated that there is a question of whether it is permanent or not and whether appropriate or not.
Chairman Oedel stated that if determined appropriate it will determine if it is permanent providing the City
Council accepts it for the City.
Mr. Slam asked if the City Council has accepted it. Chairman Oedel believed that the City Council referred
it to the Commission. Mr. Brotchie stated that the City Council approved its carving and that its being
allowed to remain on the Common was pending Commission approval.
Mr. Carr stated that the statute is clear that the City Council cannot supersede the Commission's approval.
Brian Wehrung, 38 Washington Square South, stated that the sculpture is an example of folk art which is
diametrically opposed to the predominant neo-classical art in the neighborhood. Mr. Wehrung stated that
it is not appropriate to find a chain-sawed, varnished statue.
• Wilma Ecker, Loring Avenue, stated that art if a matter of taste and preference and that it is sad when an
artist dedicates his time and then has to ask for his gift to be accepted.
Lisa Dressler, 38 Washington Square South, stated that it is not the point of acceptance by the City but that
it is not an appropriate piece of sculpture for the Salem Common. Ms. Dressler stated that it would be more
May 17, 1995, Page 4
appropriate to put on the Essex Street mall.
•
Joanne Libert, 11 Church Street, stated that she did not look at it in the context of it as part of the
surrounding architecture but that it was creating additional history. Ms. Libert felt that it was appropriate
and that she was in favor of it remaining.
Mark Steele, 214 Loring Ave. stated that he was the President of ARTSalem and that he did not know who
Samuel McIntire was. Mr. Steele noted that there are now only two likenesses available and that persons
walking the Common can be educated by the likeness. Mr. Steele stated that, unlike seeing a roman
sculpture, the woodcarving is more in tune with Salem in general, not just for those who live around the
Common, but all who visit.
Ted Richard, 35 Pleasant Street, stated that he has lived eleven years on the Common and that the Common
is not a monument to a certain type of architecture. Mr. Richard stated that the woodcarving is no more
appropriate than the slides, swings or basketball court. Mr. Richard stated that public opinion shows that
people love it and that it would do a disservice if the Commission were to exercise its authority to remove
it. Mr. Richard stated that it may not meet the strict parameters, but quoted that "Foolish consistency is a
hob goblin or small minds".
Laurie Este, Sable Road, stated that it is a very appropriate saw carving and every person walking by stopped
and enjoyed it while it was being carved.
• Kevin Harvey, 4 Winter Island Road, and Ward 2 representative was concerned where in the legislature is
shown how this would come under the Commission's approval. Mr. Carr stated that he will locate it and
forward it to Mr. Harvey.
Mr. Dudley stated while he was carving the sculpture, it was a tremendous hit. Mr. Dudley stated that some
people walking the Common encouraged a bus load of children to come over and that he provided them with
a history lesson on Samuel McIntire. Mr. Dudley stated that Samuel McIntire is part of Salem's history.
Mr. Harvey presented a copy of the vote of the City Council and read the roll call approving the event to
carve. Mr. Harvey stated that there was unanimous support for Ken to carve the sculpture and felt the City
at large is in favor of keeping it.
Ms. Dressler stated that those speaking in favor are missing the point. Ms. Dressler stated that it is not
whether the sculpture is education, but whether it is appropriate for chain saw art to be located on a formal
common
Mr. Brotchie stated that he finds it difficult to pigeon-hole the common into neo-classical. Mr. Brotchie
stated that the bandstand is 1925 and is modern and of concrete. Mr. Brotchie stated that there should not
be a bubble over the Common and noted that folk art is the art form of these days.
Richard Swiniuch, former Councillor at Large and Ward 2 Councillor, stated that he was once in charge of
• the Historic Commission study committee for the Common. Mr. Swiniuch questions what give the
Commission jurisdiction over the Common. Mr. Carr replied the Washington Square District Ordinance
and Chapter 40C.,
Mr. Slam noted that some things have been put on the Common without Commission approval.
May 17, 1995, Page 5
• Chairman Oedel noted that additional authority was given to the Commission when the City accepted grant
funding for the Common.
Mr. Swiniuch questioned if the Commission was concerning themselves with that which is not in their
oversight. Mr. Swiniuch felt the jurisdiction should be researched,that the statue is beautiful and that some
Commission members have pre-judged it. Mr. Carr stated that he will be providing the legislation to Mr.
Harvey.
Maryann McLean, 28B Federal Street, stated that she is a new resident and an historian and that she finds
the sculpture enchanting, appropriate and charming.
Mr. Harvey asked the Commission to define appropriateness.
Mr. Carr stated that he has some research and has spoken with representatives from the Fine Arts
Commission in Boston,the NY Cultural Arts Commission, and the Fine Arts Commission in Washington,
DC. Mr. Carr stated that he has spoken to Henry Lee, who was profiled in the Boston Globe two weeks ago
and who has been the President of the public garden for the last 25 years. Mr. Carr stated that nobody has
guidelines, including the Federal government who approve 175 permanent sculptures per year and 2000 plus
temporary sculptures every six months. Mr. Carr stated that the City of NY has guidelines for donating
public art which include quality of artwork, compatibility with a particular site, durability, appropriateness
to the community, maintenance requirements and appropriateness to the City as a whole. Mr. Carr stated
that he wants to exercise vigilance on what goes on the Common and that careful determination should be
• made due to limited space.
Chairman Oedel stated that materials, subject matter, quality and the appropriateness to the community and
immediate area should be considered.
Ms. Slam stated that the Commission often asks for examples where a particular treatment is used. Mr.
Slam asked if there were other examples of 19th century commons with sculptures of this sort.
Ms. McLean provided Lynch Park as an example. Mr. Slam stated that Lynch Park is not a 19th century
Common.
Councillor Harvey suggested that the application be continued so that he could locate examples. Councillor
Harvey stated that he has spoken to many neighbors who want the sculpture to remain.
Chairman Oedel stated that the event of carving is what the City Council approved unanimously. Chairman
Oedel stated that the carving was a great idea but the question is whether the sculpture is appropriate to
remain.
Mr. Brotchie stated that he felt the City Council vote was to allow the sculpture to remain on the Common.
Mr. Slam asked that a copy of the written Order be provided to the Commission.
• Councillor Harvey stated that the tree carving was referred to the Redevelopment Committee but that there
was no report and never came out of Committee. Councillor Harvey stated that he exercised it out of
Committee and put it on the City Council floor.
May 17, 1995, Page 6
Mr. Carr stated that the Commission takes the view that it has jurisdiction over any changes that occur. Mr.
• Carr stated that, in the past,the City of Salem has applied for a tot lot and a telephone installation. Mr. Carr
added that when the Common fence was restored, the Commission was given an easement.
Mr. Slam stated that he was on the Committee for the fence restoration and noted that the Department of
Environmental Quality and the Salem Historical Commission has approval of changes. Councillor Harvey
stated that the Department of Environmental Management does not have to approve the carving since it is
an existing tree stump.
Chairman Oedel stated that he would like to close the public hearing for the time being.
Mr. Bailey stated that he lives close to the Common and tourist go by his house in droves. Mr. Bailey stated
he viewed the sculpture and observed the tourists in order to get a personal feeling. Mr. Bailey stated that
the houses on the Common are formal, but that the Common was not always formal. Mr. Bailey indicated
that it was used,as playground which is not a formal use. Mr. Bailey stated that he the sculpture has gotten
a positive response from people. Mr. Bailey stated that he could not say the Common was the best place
for it and that there were other sites he preferred,but that it doesn't strike him as a bad location. Mr. Bailey
was concerned that this change will be duplicated each time someone has an idea. Mr. Bailey was also
concerned with durability and who will maintain it. Mr.Bailey stated that he has some reservations but feels
it is appropriate for people of our time. Mr. Bailey added that it may not be architecturally appropriate with
the surrounding houses but is okay for a Common.
• Mr. Slam stated that he is aware the sculpture is popular and feels it has charming aspects,but felt that these
observations refer to personal taste. Mr. Slam stated that the Commission has to have legal anchors for the
decisions it makes and that personal and popular taste is not one of them. Mr. Slam stated that, for example,
a religious object may be popular but would not be appropriate regardless of who supported it. Mr. Slam
stated that he did not recall ever seeing anything like the this on other commons. Mr. Slam felt it would be
hard to approve under appropriateness.
Mr. Cook stated that he has seen things stranger than this in popular places. Mr. Cook stated that he did not
know how appropriate the bronze ducks are for the public garden. Mr. Cook stated that the compatibility
has him confused but that he has no problem with the sculpture.
Ms. Sides stated that her basic problem is how this has taken place and why it is already there. Ms. Sides
stated that there is a danger of setting precedent and inviting others to do the same. Mr. Sides stated that
commons are for people and events - such as the "event" of the carving. Ms. Sides was worried about the
durability and maintenance and who decides when it should come down. Ms. Sides felt there should be a
consolidated agreement.
Mr. Casey stated that bronze or stone (marble or granite) are appropriate to a classical New England
common. Mr. Casey noted that Samuel McIntire is one of history's finest carvers and did not use a chain
saw. Mr. Casey felt that the subject of the sculpture should not have been Samuel McIntire. Mr. Casey felt
the sculpture was not appropriate.
• Mr. Carr stated that he has gone to the common to watch people's reaction and felt it was overwhelmingly
popular which he is trying to factor in in some way. Mr. Carr stated that he had a problem with durability
of material and a problem with folk art style, since other elements on'the common are highly finished. Mr.
Carr stated that the sculpture is a whimsical treatment and that, unless you are on top of it, it does not
May 17, 1995, Page 7
dominate the common. Mr. Carr stated that he will vote in favor of the application due to its overwhelming
• popularity and that it is not that obtrusive. Mr. Carr noted that this approval would be a stretch for him and
that he would not want to see any more such sculptures proposed for the common. Mr. Carr stated that, if
approved, there should be a condition on maintenance.
Mr. Dudley stated that he will maintain the sculpture and that it will be there long after we are gone.
Chairman Oedel wanted to clarify the procedure. Chairman Oedel stated that the carving was done in that
location for a particular event and that there was not enough time to get to the Commission prior to the
event. Chairman Oedel stated that, with regard to appropriateness and the nature of public art and gifts, it
is difficult for an elected body (eg. City Council) to turn down a gift. Chairman Oedel felt wood is an
appropriate material for the Common, noting that the McIntire arch is a 2/3 scale reproduction of a
previously existing wooden arch. Chairman Oedel felt the finish of the piece in relation of what is
commonly done in Salem is inappropriate, since the architecture and furniture was very high style.
Chairman Oedel stated that there is not a lot of folk are tradition in Salem and noted that people were
masters of their crafts in high style vocations. Chairman Oedel felt the appropriateness to the community
was quite high and that public sculpture and public commons are an important part of the nature of the
community. Chairman Oedel felt that maintenance was a long term aspect since it will always need
maintenance. Chairman Oedel stated that setting up a fund may be a way of guaranteeing maintenance.
Chairman Oedel felt that, in general, the sculpture was appropriate, even though some aspects are not
appropriate.
• Mr. Brotchie stated that Mr. Dudley is committed to take care of the sculpture and that ARTSalem will try
to work with the City to get and agreement if the City desires. Mr. Brotchie stated that he could put up a
vote to ARTSalem to take care of it.
Mr. Carr made a motion to ratify the carving as done with the proviso that it be properly maintained. Mr.
Cook seconded the motion.
Mr. Bailey suggested to put a time limit for review of maintenance, so that it is not forgotten.
Mr. Carr amended his motion that the Certificate be reviewable every three years.
A gentlemen who identified himself as the president of ARTSalem stated that they could do a fundraiser and
put the funds in a maintenance account that bears interest.
Mr. Bailey stated that the sculpture could get damaged at any time and that the Commission should have
a way to review the status quickly in order to act.
Mr. Carr amended his motion for it to be reviewable at least every three years and to note that if it
deteriorates, it violates the conditions of the Certificate. Mr. Carr noted that the Common already has a
basketball court and tot lot and that it is unobtrusive enough. Mr. Cook seconded the amendment.
• The motion was voted upon. Chairman Oedel, Ms. Sides, Messrs. Carr, Cook and Bailey voted in favor.
Messrs. Slam and Casey voted in opposition. The motion was so carried.
May 17, 1995, Page 8
359 Essex Street
• Jessie Errion submitted an application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability to repaint his house at 359
Essex Street.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Sides seconded the motion, all were
in favor and the motion so carried.
92 Federal Street
Ms. Guy stated that the homeowner of 92 Federal Street was sent notice that the Commission placed
discussion of the outstanding railing violation on this Agenda in order for the homeowner to comment on
the possibility that the Commission may vote to record a Clerk's Certificate as to Violation.
Mr. Casey made a motion to find that an egregious violation exists and to instruct the Clerk of the
Commission to file a Clerk's Certificate as to Violation at the Essex South District Registry of Deeds,
referencing the property title. Mr. Bailey seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
10 Hamilton Street
Barry Paul and Victoria Kelly submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the
black wrought iron fence and gate post in front of the front garden. The application states that this fencing
• was part of the original fence, of which the rest is still in place in front of the house. They will be using the
same pieces of the gate and post which belonged to the original fence with color to be identical. This fence
part was removed by the previous owner, evidently to make room for parking.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Casey seconded the motion, all were
in favor and the motion so carried.
Approval of Minutes
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the minutes of May 3, 1995. Ms. Sides seconded the motion, all were
in favor and the motion so carried.
Correspondence
Ms. Guy read a letter from Donald Koleman,regarding One Cambridge Street, stating that they believe the
fence now replicates what was previously existing. Mr. Bailey will inspect.
Ms. Guy read a letter from Albert Bleau, Executive Director of Greater Lynn Special Needs Housing
Corporation regarding 136 Federal Street,which stated that they have filed a complaint with the Department
of Housing and Urban Development and that they will be seeking treble damages. Ms. Guy stated that she
forwarded a copy to the City Solicitor and is awaiting his comment.
• Ms. Guy read a letter from Robert Saarnio of the Peabody Essex Museum, which stated that the existing
signage is temporary and would like to continue it until they meet with the Commission in the summer to
review expansion plans.
May 17, 1995, Page 9
302 Lafayette St. Violation
• Ms. Guy stated that she has not yet sent a letter to the owner of 302 Lafayette Street. Ms. Guy presented
copies of Commission minutes relating to 302 Lafayette Street which show that the Commission decided
to remove the item from the violation list in August, 1994. Ms. Guy provided a pictures dated 5/4/94 and
5/16/95 showing that no additional work has been completed.
Mr. Carr stated that the violation runs with the land and that the present owner has recourse to the previous
owner.
Chairman Oedel requested that there be a motion to re-visit the issue.
Mr. Carr made a motion to re-visit the issue. Mr. Casey seconded the motion.
Mr. Bailey felt it is legal to pursue the violation. Mr. Bailey felt the Commission should have also pursued
376 Essex Street.
Mr. Slam stated that the legality is extremely tenuated and the Commission should pass on it.
Mr. Cook felt the Commission should pursue only if on safe legal ground. Ms. Sides was in agreement.
Mr. Casey stated that the Commission knuckled under on 376 Essex Street.
• Chairman Oedel stated that it was of marginal value on a marginal house and was skipped by the
Commission for the previous owner. Chairman Oedel felt it was not worth doing anything with. Chairman
Oedel noted that the present owner has not taken out any building permits which helps to strengthen his
claim that the previous owner created the violation.
Mr. Cook stated that he has changed his position.
The motion was voted upon. Ms. Sides and Messrs. Carr and Casey voted in favor. Chairman Oedel and
Messrs. Cook, Slam, and Bailey voted in opposition. The motion was denied and the issue will remain off
the violation list.
Violations/Work Status
Ms. Guy stated that the magic store on Essex Street has put lettering down the entrance columns. Ms. Guy
will send a letter.
Mr. Carr stated that 12 Carpenter Street and 2 Gifford Court can be removed from the violation list.
Ms. Guy stated that the tenant at 134 Federal Street called her and said he would remove the lattice structure.
Mr. Casey will inspect.
• Mr. Casey will talk to Mary Usovicz about the oval window at 2 Botts Court.
Mr. Carr made a motion to send an enforcement request to 35 Washington Square and 31 Washington
Square. Mr. Casey seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
May 17, 1995, Page 10
• Chairman Oedel requested that Ms. Guy send the Ronan's a reminder notice concerning the cupola at 274
Lafayette Street.
Commission Elections
Chairman Oedel stated that when he was elected Chairman he stated he would serve for not more than two
years. Chairman Oedel stated that he truly believes that Officers and members should be rotated on a regular
basis and that he is resigning as Chairman effective the close of this meeting.
Chairman Oedel requested nominations for Chairman.
Mr. Slam felt the Commission should wait and discuss it further,that it is too important to do without notice.
Mr. Carr agreed it should be done at the next meeting.
Chairman Oedel stated that it was rare to have seven members present and preferred to do it now. Ms. Sides
and Messrs. Bailey, Cook, and Casey preferred to do it now.
Mr. Casey made a motion to elect Helen Sides as Chair. Mr. Carr seconded the motion. All were in favor
and the motion so carried. Ms. Sides abstained from voting.
Mr. Slam made a motion to nominate Mr. Carr as Vice Chair. Mr. Cook seconded the motion, all were in
favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Carr abstained from voting.
• There being no further business, Mr. Slam made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Cook seconded the motion, all
were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
JeA. Guy
of the C ission
•
r
i
June 7, 1995, Page 1
• SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
JUNE 7, 1995
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, June 7, 1995 at 7:30
p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were Chairman Sides, Messrs. Carr, Casey, Oedel, Cook
and Kelleher and Ms. Guy. Messrs. Slam and Kasparian arrived later in the meeting.
145 Federal St.
Rob Clark and Cathy LaBonte representing the 145 Federal Street Condominium Association presented
an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors at 145 Federal Street. The body will
be Nantucket Gray (HC-111) with window trim and sashes white, doors and front entry Sierra Night
(2218) and where the current gray trim color is will be replaced with Reed (1656).
Mr. Cook made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion, all
were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Carr asked if the metal exhausts were ever painted. Mr. Clark replied in the negative. Mr. Carr
suggested they be painted black. Mr. Clark was in agreement.
• 347 Essex Street
Felton Pervier and Alan Liska presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint
colors at 347 Essex Street. Samples provided indicated the body will be Briarwood (PE-48), trim PE-26
and trim detail around window sash to be Newburg Green (PH-158).
Chairman Sides asked the color of the front door. Mr. Pervier stated that it would be either natural or
Newburg Green.
Mr. Pervier stated that he would like to remove the shutters.
Mr. Slam and Mr. Kasparian joined the meeting at this time.
Mr. Pervier stated that there is a bay window on the front and that the shutters don't match the size of the
windows. Mr. Pervier stated that the shutters are hiding the detail.
Mr. Casey stated that he had no problem with the paint but would want a site visit for the shutters.
Messrs. Kelleher, Oedel and Cook were in agreement.
Mr. Kasparian stated that it appears from the photographs that the shutters look applied to the siding and
are not the correct size.
• Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the paint colors and to approve the shutter removal pending a site
visit.
Mr. Carr was concerned where the accent was going and felt it was not specific enough. Mr. Pervier
I I
June 7, 1995, Page 2
• stated that it will either be the sash, go around the sash or, probably, on the molding on the edge of the
casing. Mr. Pervier stated that there are no shutters on the back of the house.
There was no public comment.
Ms. Guy suggested delegating the accent detail.
Mr. Oedel did not feel the accent was a big deal.
Mr. Casey seconded Mr. Oedel's motion.
Mr. Carr stated that shutter removal was not on the application and should not be added to the existing
application since abutters were not notified of the proposal. Mr. Carr felt a separate application should
be submitted.
Mr. Carr asked to clarify that the motion is the option for the homeowner to paint or not paint the accent.
Mr. Oedel replied in the affirmative and stated that it is also to continue the shutters.
Mr. Carr stated that the Commission cannot continue what there is no application for. Mr. Slam was in
agreement.
Mr. Oedel amended his motion to be for the approval of paint colors only. Mr. Casey seconded the
• amendment.
Mr. Pervier requested approval to paint the shutters Newburg Green. Mr. Oedel so amended his motion.
Mr. Casey seconded the amendment.
The motion was voted upon, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Slam abstained from
voting.
10 Chestnut St.
Joseph Feroce, represented by Alan Howe, presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness
for trim work and urns completed to the Cambridge Street side fence at 10 Chestnut Street.
Mr. Howe stated that the urns were off of a fence inside the back yard.
Mr. Casey stated that the urns were out of scale to the posts.
Mr. Oedel stated that he had no problem with the urns.
Mr. Cook stated that they do look a little small.
• Joan Bacall, 12 Chestnut Street, stated that the fence on Cambridge Street was irrelevant and that she
was concerned about the front fence. Ms. Guy stated that the Commission send the property owner a
letter on April 26, 1995 which gave the owner 60 days to replace the front fence.
Mr. Slam felt the urns were out of context and too small. Mr. Slam preferred no urns.
June 7, 1995, Page 3
• Mr. Kasparian was in agreement and stated that they are inappropriate on the back of the house. Mr.
Kasparian felt it was a more Federal detail while there was a Greek Revival portico.
Mr. Cook did not feel the urns were inappropriate, but felt they may be a little small.
Mr. Kelleher stated that he was not concerned if they should or should not be, but was concerned of the
size and what will finish off the other posts where plywood has been attached.
Mr. Casey felt the urns were not in proportion to the fence and preferred that all four posts have urns in
an appropriate size or that there be no urns at all.
Mr. Carr stated that he was not troubled by the location or size but felt only two urns were wrong and
should be four or none. Mr. Carr felt the urns were small but not too small. Mr. Carr stated that he
preferred the new molding to the molding originally approved.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the posts as built with the exception of the urns and the plywood.
Chairman Sides stated that she was in agreement with Mr. Carr.
Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Kasparian abstained
from voting.
• Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the installation of the proposed urns on each of the four posts. Mr.
Howe stated that he does not want four. Mr. Carr withdrew his motion.
Mr. Casey made a motion to require the removal of the two urns within 30 days. Mr. Oedel seconded
the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Howe stated that he could not complete the front fence by April 26th and felt that the Commission
did not have the authority to require a fence that was destroyed by vandalism to be replaced. Mr. Howe
stated that he didn't like the tone of the Commission's letter.
Mr. Carr asked what was a reasonable time that he could get the fence completed. Mr. Howe replied
three to four months. Mr. Howe stated that most of the top rails are usable but that none of the balusters
were salvageable.
Mr. Carr stated that he did not have a problem giving an extension, but did not want it to drag beyond.
Mr. Slam suggested August 31, 1995.
Mr. Howe stated that he did not feel he was bound by any date.
Mr. Carr asked if the fence was insured. Mr. Howe replied in the affirmative, but stated that the last
. time he made a claim, his policy got cancelled. Mr. Howe stated that money was not a problem.
Mr. Carr made a motion to establish a deadline for the front fence replacement to be by August 31, 1995.
Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Kasparian abstained
from voting.
June 7, 1995, Page 4
• 180 Derby Street
The Brookhouse Home for Aged Women, represented by Ralph Hobbs, presented an application for a
Certificate of Hardship for the retention of the vestibule as installed, all year.
Mr. Hobbs stated that the front entrance has a large door where the rain comes in and wets the carpet.
Mr. Hobbs stated that residents, who are up to 96 years old, can slip. Mr. Hobbs noted that
weatherstripping makes the door too hard to open.
Mr. Carr noted that the vestibule used to be taken down seasonally. Mr. Carr suggested a product be
applied to the bottom of the door that kicks up when opening. Mr. Hobbs stated that it is not just the
bottom, but also the sides. Mr. Carr also suggested an absorbent mat.
Mr. Oedel stated that it has been eight or nine years since the front doorway has been seen and noted that
it is one of the best doorways in Salem. Mr. Oedel stated that he could go along with another five year
certificate if it would come down for this summer.
Mr. Hobbs stated that he may have to dismantle it to take it down.
Mr. Cook was in agreement with Mr. Oedel.
Mr. Hobbs stated that water comes in during the summer as well as the winter.
• Mr. Kasparian asked if there were wood panels on the sidelights. Mr. Hobbs replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Kasparian stated that he could go along with the vestibule, but that it should be opened up for
interpretation at least once every ten years.
Mr. Slam stated that he would like to see it come down eventually and suggested that the Home be
advised to take it down after five years.
Chairman Sides suggested that they investigate new products that won't impede the door opening.
Mr. Hobbs stated that people waiting for the door to be answered are also affected.
Mr. Carr stated that if it is determined that there is a hardship, it should be a hardship until there are no
longer elderly residents.
Ms. Guy suggested that the Commission approve the Certificate for one year so that new products can be
investigated and advise the Home that the vestibule will have to be taken down next summer.
Mr. Slam suggested two years.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve a Certificate of Hardship to retain the vestibule for one year from
this date, where it shall then be removed until September 30, 1995 and each year between May 30th and
September 30th. The Certificate will be reviewable after five years. Mr. Carr seconded the motion, all
were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Kasparian abstained from voting.
June 7, 1995, Page 5
• One Hamilton Street
Orille L'Heureux, representing Salem Ropes Trust, presented an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for porch and garage alterations at One Hamilton Street. Drawings were presented.
Mr. Casey asked when the work can be done. Mr. L'Heureux stated that he will start after he finishes the
work at his Congress Street property and be finished by early fall, end of October.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the porch work as proposed to be completed by October 31, 1995.
Mr. Oedel seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve painting the garage door green, replacing the window, leaving the
trim white and removing the bar. Mr. Slam seconded the motion.
Mr L'Heureux asked if he can put lexan on the window. Mr. Oedel stated that lexan could be put on the
inside.
Mr. Carr stated that he did not see the historic significance of the door, but felt the rest of the motion was
fine.
Mr. Casey stated that he will hold onto his comments from the last meeting and felt the door was not
appropriate.
• Mr. Kelleher stated that at the last meeting the Commission addressed the garage in the larger context of
the entire property, and that he did not have a problem with the motion.
Mr. Oedel stated that the door is a relatively insignificant element and the proposal will make it even
less significant.
Mr. Cook was in agreement. Mr. Cook stated that given the age and design, he did not want to make a
silk purse out of a sows ear.
Mr. Kasparian stated that he could go along with the motion, although he was applying a lower standard.
Mr. Slam stated that it was utilitarian and insignificant.
Chairman Sides stated that she agreed with Mr. Kelleher and felt it was not that significant.
Mr. Kasparian stated that the location is less important and that the dark green color will approximate
the look of flat boards.
The motion was voted upon. Chairman Sides and Messrs. Slam, Kelleher, Cook and Oedel voted in
favor. Messrs. Carr and Casey voted in opposition. Mr. Kasparian abstained from voting. The motion
• was so carried.
310 Lafayette Street
Joel Green submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the alteration of front
June 7, 1995, Page 6
railings at 310 Lafayette Street. The applicant was not present.
• Mr. Oedel stated that the drawing appears to be for the same railing design that is currently in violation.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to deny the application due to the post and balusters appearing to be
inappropriate based on the information provided, the applicant not being present to provide additional
details (balusters, spacing, height, post detail, color, etc.) and the Commission not having sufficient
information to make a determination. The homeowner should submit a new application within 30 days.
Mr. Cook seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Kasparian abstained
from voting.
Chairman Sides was concerned when the front door was installed.
Mr. Oedel suggested that Ms. Guy forward sample drawings of approved railings.
7 River Street
John and Carol Carr submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the expansion of
the el at 7 River Street.
Mr. Carr requested that the Commission continue the application until June 21, 1995.
• Mr. Oedel made a motion to continue the application until June 21, 1995. Mr. Slam seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Carr abstained from voting.
10 Hamilton Street
Barry Paul and Ellen Alexander submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to alter the
fence between 10 Hamilton Street and 24 Chestnut Street. The fence is to be patterned after the fence at
3 Hamilton Street of which pictures were provided. The application states that this will involve
replacing pickets with those similar to the fence in the photographs, the bottom of the pickets will extend
to the ground, the bard to be placed over picket tops in a manner indicated by the photo and the mid and
end-posts to be cut to be level with the top bar and shaped at top in a manner identical with posts in the
photograph. The fence is to be painted white.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve a Certificate for the fence to replicate the photo of the fence at 3
Hamilton Street with bottom of pickets to extend to the ground, painted white. Mr. Cook seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Kasparian abstained from voting.
Correspondence Review
Ms. Guy read a letter received from the homeowner at 300 Lafayette Street requesting an extension of
his Certificate of Non-Applicability dated June 8, 1994. Mr. Oedel made a motion to extend the
• expiration until August 31, 1995. Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so
carried. Mr. Kasparian abstained from voting.
Ms. Guy read a letter received from the homeowners at 336 Essex Street concerning the incomplete
work status. They propose to commence in 1996 after finishing the interior work. Mr. Oedel made a
June 7, 1995, Page 7
motion to send a letter stating that the Commission requests that the homeowners complete the exterior
• work prior to the interior work and complete the exterior by October 31, 1995. If it will be a hardship,
the homeowner should call and schedule themselves on an upcoming agenda. Mr. Carr seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Kasparian abstained from voting. Mr. Carr
requested that a blind copy be sent to Matt Griffin.
Violations/Work Status
Mr. Casey stated that the lattice structure has been removed from 134 Federal Street but there is a
pressure treated back porch that now shows. Ms. Guy will check.
135-137 Derby Street is to be removed from the violation list.
Ms. Guy stated that she sent an application the homeowner on 5/10./95. Mr. Carr made a motion that
Ms. Guy send a letter to the owner of 10 Andover Street stating that if the Commission has not received
an application by June 30, 1995, we will have to proceed with enforcement. Mr. Oedel seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Kasparian abstained from voting.
Ms. Guy is to send a letter to the Peabody Essex Museum extending their temporary signs until they
submit plans on or before October 31, 1995. Ms. Sides stated that the Mayor would like copies of letters
that mention upcoming expansion plans.
• Mr. Slam will check if there is a violation at 25 Washington Square for gutters.
Ms. Guy stated that the Neighborhood Improvement Task Force has targeted three properties in the
historic district. The building inspector will be taking the fire chief through 10 Derby to see if it is a fire
hazard. The building inspector found that 58-60 Derby Street is not structurally unsafe. The building
inspector found that 63-65 Derby Street's chimneys are a hazard. Mr. Carr made a motion to send a
letter requesting that a Commission member be included in the review of these structures and that the
Commission disagrees with the findings concerning 65 Derby Street. The motion includes that the
Commission will provide a structural engineer through Historic Salem, Inc., and to request that no action
is taken until then. Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr.
Kasparian abstained from voting. Mr. Carr will draft the letter.
Other Business
Ms. Guy stated that she received a call from Mary Usovicz requesting authorization to move a trash
holder. Ms. Guy stated that she had no plans that showed a trash holder and told Ms. Usovicz to put her
request in writing. Ms. Guy stated that she inquired about the oval window, to which Ms. Usovicz
replied that it had been approved and that she had a plan showing it. Ms. Guy stated that replied that she
did not have such a plan in the file but would check the minutes. Ms. Usovicz later provided Ms. Guy
with copies of the two plans. Ms. Guy informed the Commission that the copy provided does not
illustrate that the oval window was taped onto the design. Ms. Guy also stated that the homeowners will
• be coming to the next meeting for a brick wall.
Ms. Guy suggested that there be only one July meeting and that it be held on July 12, 1995. The
members were in agreement.
June 7, 1995, Page 8
Ms. Guy stated that Certificates of Non-Applicability were issued to:
• 24 1/2 Winter St. -repaint garage doors
142 Federal St. - fence
21 Winter St. - roof
19 1/2 Broad St. - fence
140 Federal St. - front porch
6 & 8 Hamilton St. -repairs,paint
17 Cambridge St. - repaint
Ms. Guy stated that Chairman Sides met with the Mayor and that he had indicated that he would like the
Commission involved in the Master Plan and the By-pass Road projects. Ms. Guy stated that there is a
Master Plan recommendation's presentation at the Bentley School cafeteria on Tuesday, June 13, 1995
from 7:00-9:00 p.m. Ms. Guy will provide the members with copies of the text. Ms. Guy stated that the
design of the by-pass road project is still underway and that she will pass on information about any
meetings so that the Commission can be represented.
There being no further business, Mr. Slam made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Kelleher seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Kasparian abstained from voting.
Respectfully submitted,
Jan A. Guy
Clerk of the Co ission
June 21, 1995, Page 1
• SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
JUNE 21, 1995
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, June 21, 1995 at 7:30
p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were Chairman Sides, Messrs. Casey, Cook, Kasparian
and Carr and Ms. Guy.
7 River St.
In continuation of a previous meeting, John& Carol Carr submitted an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for el expansion at 7 River Street. Mr. Carr requested a continuation until the next
meeting.
Mr. Cook made a motion to continue the application. Mr. Casey seconded the motion, all were in favor
and the motion so carried. Mr. Carr abstained from voting.
6 Federal Ct.
Harlan and Joanna Peabody, represented by Attorney Deborah Mayfield of Shapiro, Israel & Weiner of
Boston, MA, presented applications for Certificate of Non-Applicability, Appropriateness and Hardship
for a "Private! Keep Out" and "No Trespassing" sign at 6 Federal Court.
• Atty. Mayfield asked, since the next applicant (3 Federal Court) was also for similar signage, that their
application be included in the discussion. Ms. Guy noted that the Commission could comment on both
but could only act on one application at a time.
Mr. Carr asked if the application was to ratify the signs already installed. Atty. Mayfield replied in the
affirmative.
Chairman Sides read the application for Non-Applicability.
Mr. Kasparian questioned, if the signs are to be considered temporary, when would they be taken down.
Atty. Mayfield stated that they are considered temporary because they are not permanently affixed and
they the applicants do not intend to take them down. Atty. Mayfield stated that the police suggested that
they be put up because the home was broken into four times in October.
Mr. Kasparian stated that the signs are meant to be permanently installed but the material is not a
permanent material resulting in the signs having to periodically be redone.
Atty. Mayfield stated that it was her understanding that Federal Court was not a public way.
Mr. Carr summarized that the applicants reasons in support of Non-Applicability were that Federal
• Court is not a public way,that the signs are not of permanent material and that there is no impact on the
site. Mr. Carr asked if there was a definition of a temporary sign in the sign ordinance. Atty. Mayfield
stated that she could not find one.
Mr. Carr stated that if one were to define temporary as a material condition, then one could define
r
June 21, 1995, Page 2
• buildings as temporary since they will eventually deteriorate in 100 years.
Arty. Mayfield stated that the signs had fallen down since October and that the police requested that they
be put back up.
Mr. Casey asked that under the Appropriateness application, would the applicant's be asserting that the
sign proposed is historically appropriate. Arty. Mayfield replied that they are not historic, but
appropriate to historic districts.
Chairman Sides asked if the signs have achieved something. Any. Mayfield stated that the police
believe they do and noted that the most egregious trespass was when the signs weren't up.
Ms. Guy questioned if the sign furthest within the property was visible. Mr. Carr felt it was.
Mr. Peabody stated that his deed goes to the center of the court and that it is not accepted by the City
even though the City does plow it.
Mr. Carr made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Kasparian seconded the motion, all were in
favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-Applicability in hopes that it fails. There was
no second.
• Mr. Carr made a motion to deny a Certificate of Non-Applicability. Mr. Casey seconded the motion, all
were in favor and the motion so carried.
Chairman Sides read the application for Hardship.
Atty. Mayfield stated that the applicants need to protect their property, discourage trespassers and show
that the property is private.
Mr. Kasparian stated he felt the need to ask questions about appropriateness first.
Mr. Carr summarized that the reason for hardship is that without the sign, people will trespass and the
building will be less safe. Mr. Carr stated that a robber won't be deterred by a sign and felt a fence
would prevent trespassing.
Atty. Mayfield stated that the police feel it is effective and that it was their first comment when the came
to investigate a break-in. Atty. Mayfield stated that the signs deter not just turn around traffic but also
people.
Mr. Carr did not feel there was much pedestrian traffic.
• Mr. Cook stated that he would like to see the homeowner accommodated.
Mr. Casey stated that the police must have suggested better lighting or motion detectors. Atty. Mayfield
stated that lights do not work in the daytime and that the signs are part of their efforts.
June 21, 1995, Page 3
Mr. Casey suggested a fence. Atty. Mayfield stated that trucks ran over the fence.
• Mr. Carr asked if the building is occupied. Atty. Mayfield replied that it will be.
Mr. Peabody stated, as an example of trespassing, Mr. Carr had been on the property with his wife and
children in order to event them to tea. Mr. Carr replied that no such thing occurred.
Ms. Peabody stated that she was informed by Mr. Griffin. Mr. Peabody added that Mr. Carr came on the
property with Jessica Herbert. Mr. Carr stated that he was on the property when there was an application
before the Commission for moving the carriage house. Ms. Peabody stated that the trespass was before
that time.
Mr. Carr made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Casey seconded the motion, all were in favor
and the motion so carried.
Mr. Kasparian stated that hardship should apply to the ability of the applicants to comply with
appropriateness.
Chairman Sides read the application for Appropriateness.
Mr. Kasparian felt the signs were highly visible and not unobtrusive.
• Mr. Casey felt the proposed signs did not fall within the guidelines for an historic district.
Atty. Mayfield asked what would be appropriate.
Mr. Casey stated that he does not recall ever reviewing signs for "Keep Out". Mr. Casey stated that they
would need to be of appropriate material and not affixed to a tree with duct tape.
Atty. Mayfield stated that the City's tree warden has stated that nails cannot be put in trees. Atty.
Mayfield stated that the signs are effective being orange on black.
Mr. Carr asked if the applicants could provide any example of such signage in any historic district. Atty.
Mayfield stated that she would have gotten pictures.
Atty. Mayfield stated that the signs have been up since 1978 and there have been no objections. Mr.
Casey stated that he did not recall the signs being there in 1991.
Mr. Kasparian asked if there will be a permanent need. Atty. Mayfield did not know and stated that it
would be contingent on whether the trespassing stops.
Mr. Peabody asked if there was any evidence that there were never any keep out signs on any property
from 1600-1900. Ms. Peabody asked about "Beware of Dog" signs.
• Mr. Carr made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Cook seconded the motion, all were in favor
and the motion so carried.
Mr. Cook made a motion approve the application for appropriateness as submitted. Mr. Carr seconded
June 21, 1995, Page 4
the motion.
• Mr. Kasparian stated that deterrent signs in themselves are not inappropriate but that the material of the
signs and the duct tape is not historically appropriate. Mr. Kasparian did not feel that black and orange
was sympathetic to the district. Mr. Kasparian stated that there may be an alternative deterrent that may
be appropriate. Mr. Kasparian stated that there is a permanent need and that a permanent installation
would be required - something that won't fall apart in the rain.
Mr. Casey stated that he might look favorably on a better design with more appropriate material. Mr.
Casey was concerned wit the precedent that could be established.
Mr. Cook amended his motion to approve the signs for 30 days. Mr. Carr declined to second the
amendment.
Mr. Carr stated that the signs are not appropriate and that they would set a precedent. Mr. Carr stated
that the proposed signs are a cheap and effortless attempt at a solution and suggested the building be
occupied, better secured and better lit.
Chairman Sides felt the issue was that the signs are junky and that a better design is needed. Chairman
Sides stated that the Commission could give the homeowners time to present a better design.
The motion was voted upon. Mr. Cook voted in favor. Chairman Sides and Messrs. Carr, Casey, and
• Kasparian voted in opposition. The application was denied as inappropriate.
Mr. Cook made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-Applicability for a temporary sign not to
exceed 30 days pending the submission of a new application. Mr. Casey seconded the motion, all were
in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Carr made a motion to deny the application for a Certificate of Hardship. Mr. Kasparian seconded
the motion.
Mr. Kasparian stated that the nature of hardship is related to the ability to comply with the standards.
Mr. Kasparian stated that the applicants have not demonstrated that they can't comply. Mr. Kasparian
stated that design issues to consider include material, color, location and how hung.
Arty. Mayfield stated that there is a conflict as to what is effective and what is appropriate. Mr. Carr
stated that the proposed signs are not the only signs within financial means to deter.
Mr. Casey stated that the building reads as abandoned.
Atty. Mayfield stated that there have been no break-ins since October and that an alarm system has been
installed.
• The motion was voted upon. Chairman Sides and Messrs. Carr, Casey and Kasparian voted in favor.
Mr. Cook voted in opposition. The motion so carried.
June 21, 1995, Page 5
3 Federal Court
• Louella Cummings,representing L.C. Trust, Dori Rifkin,trustee, presented an application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of two "Private Drive" sings on the driveway posts at 3
Federal Court. The application states that many cars back into her driveway between the narrow fence
posts in order to turn around on the dead end street. Ms. Cummings states that this has caused property
damage to the fence posts and surrounding area. The signs are already in place.
Mr. Harlan Peabody, 6 Federal Court, stated that much of the difficulties are caused by an employee of
the museum doing horticultural business.
Ms. Cummings felt that the signs are needed as a deterrent because people turn into the driveway instead
of backing out.
Mr. Carr made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Casey seconded the motion, all were in favor
and the motion so carried.
Mr. Cook made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-Applicability for a temporary sign not to
exceed 30 days pending the submission of a new application. Mr. Casey seconded the motion, all were
in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Kasparian suggested the use of a more traditional material, like wood, not mounted on the post.
• Ms. Cummings requested that a new application be mailed to her.
7 South Pine Street
Mr. Casey excused himself from discussion on this application and left the room.
Joseph Tarnowski submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of a
colonial screen fence with gothic cap, same as Murphy's Funeral Home with no gate and to remove a
portion of the chain link fence from the rear of the left side to the stockade fence. The new fence will be
left natural, as a first choice, or painted green, as a second choice and will be located across the rear
property line and extend up the side lot line to the stockade fence.
Bruce Goddard, 17 Flint Street, stated that he does not oppose the fence, but felt that three different
fences on one property would look odd. Mr. Goddard questioned the placement of the fence on the rear
lot line, noting that his rear fence is 11" from the lot line. Mr. Goddard's concern is that the proposed
fence will be too close to the lot line and won't be maintainable. Mr. Goddard suggested that the
proposed fence be 11-12" away from the property line. Mr. Goddard also questioned how the posts will
look from Flint Street.
Mr. Carr asked if one would be able to see both Mr. Goddard's fence and the Tarnowski fence from Flint
• or South Pine Street. Mr. Goddard replied in the negative.
Mr. Cook made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Carr seconded the motion, all were in favor
and the motion so carried.
June 21, 1995, Page 6
• Chairman Sides felt that more information was needed. Ms. Guy will take pictures of the Murphy
Funeral Home fence.
Mr. Cook made a motion to continue the application. Mr. Carr seconded the motion.
2 Botts Court
Mary and Stan Usovicz presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a brick
fence in front of the side yard at 2 Botts Court.
Ms. Usovicz stated that in excavating for utilities,they found a foundation for a brick wall. Ms. Usovicz
stated that a small fence would look ridiculous with such a tall house. Ms. Usovicz stated that the wall
will be 4 1/2' high with an ornamental top that will be added later on, after she concludes her search for
cast iron in salvage yards. They will also try to find a wrought iron gate. The wall will go from the
corner of the house to the driveway. The wall will wrap into the property at the corner of the house.
Mr. Kasparian stated that he could not visualize the location. Ms. Usovicz stated that if iron isn't
allowed, they would want a wood ornamental top.
Mr. Cook asked the width of the fence. Ms. Usovicz replied that it would be approximately 6" and
would be like the wall on Pickering/Warren Street.
• Jim Schooley, 20 Chestnut Street, stated that his property abuts 2 Botts Court and questioned if the
Commission had a precise understanding of the proposal. Mr. Kasparian stated that he did not. Mr.
Schooley stated that he had respect for Ms. Usovicz's taste and concerns and had no problem with the
proposal as long as it is in line with where the previous fence was.
Chairman Sides felt there was not enough information.
Ms. Usovicz stated that she needs to enclose the property for her child right away and that the
ornamental portion can be added later.
Mr. Cook was concerned with the color and thickness of the mortar. Ms. Usovicz stated that the mason
will match the mortar to whatever she specifies.
Mr. Carr felt a site visit was needed. Mr. Carr asked if Mr. Schooley was concerned that the wall might
be located on his property. Mr. Schooley replied in the negative.
Mr. Kasparian asked if there were any photographs of the old wall. Ms. Usovicz stated that she could
not find any.
Mr. Schooley questions what would be done with the common rear fence.
• Mr. Carr made a motion to continue the application until a site visit to be held on Tuesday, June 27,
1995. Mr. Cook seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
• June 21, 1995,Page 7
Trash receptacle:
• Ms. Guy stated that the applicants have also requested that the location of a proposed trash receptacle be
changed. Ms. Guy stated that she did not show the Commission had approved a trash receptacle,
although a drawing for the porch was in the file with an outline of a trash receptacle beside it. Mr. Carr
stated that the Commission could discuss it at the site visit.
Oval Window:
Ms. Guy stated that she could not find any mention of an oval window in the minutes and that there are
no approved drawings on file that show it.
Ms. Usovicz stated that she had brought in a drawing with an oval window when the Commission
discussed other window changes. Ms. Usovicz stated that she was told that since it was on the back of
the house, it was not significant. Ms. Usovicz stated that the window is not visible in certain seasons.
Chairman Sides stated that it was visible today. Ms. Usovicz stated that it cost $1000.00 to put in.
Mr. Casey stated that he did not find the window inappropriate.
Mr. Carr stated that two windows in a pediment is not appropriate. Mr. Carr stated that the window
needs to be applied for. Ms. Usovicz stated that she already applied for the window.
• Chairman Sides suggested that the window be applied for.
106 Derby Street
Laureen Morency submitted an application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability to reconstruct a
chimney in its original design, using used brick in original color with a 4' footing, whereas the chimney
presently has none.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted conditional that the footing be
underground. Mr. Casey seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
There being no further business, Mr. Carr made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Casey seconded the motion,
all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitte ,
iof
Guy the Commission
June 28, 1995, Page 1
• SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
JUNE 28, 1995
A special meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, June 28, 1995 at 6:00
p.m. at the site of 2 Botts Court. Present were Chairman Sides, Messrs. Casey, Kasparian and Kelleher
and Ms. Guy. Mr. Carr entered later in the meeting.
2 Botts Court
In continuation of a previous public hearing,the Salem Historical Commission conducted a site visit at
the home of Stan and Mary Usovicz at 2 Botts Court concerning the construction of a brick fence in
front of the side yard. Willy Latch, who has been contracted to build the wall, was present.
Ms. Usovicz stated that the wall will be 4 1/2' high and be in line with the Petersen's fence, beginning at
the driveway, in line with the tree, and extending to the sidewalk curb. The wall will then curve inward
where a gate will be placed at some future date. The gate will probably be wooden. The brick will
match the house foundation brick. Ms. Usovicz stated that they will come apply later for the gate and
for the ornamental iron or wood cap over the fence. If wood, it will be similar to the Pickering Street
wall.
Ms. Usovicz stated that the width will be 12-14".
• Chairman Sides asked the additional height if wood is to be added later. Ms. Usovicz stated that the
wood would go to the top of the post balls, so that it will hide the foundation.
Mr. Kelleher asked if Ms. Usovicz was proposing the lanterns in the drawing. Ms. Usovicz replied in
the negative.
Mr. Kasparian asked what will be on the other side of the wall facing the street. Ms. Usovicz replied
that the street is being repaved and will butt up to the wall.
Janice Schooley, 20 Chestnut Street, stated that a fence was removed from between the two properties
on the left side when facing 2 Botts Court on Botts Court. Ms. Schooley felt that there should be a fence
installed. Ms. Schooley stated that she could not care less about the wall. Ms. Schooley also noted that
the fence in back was taken down. Ms. Usovicz stated that the fence was falling down and that they are
planning on applying for both within six months.
Mr. Kasparian stated that the problem is there is not a lot of documentation of what the wall will look
like.
Jackie Fredericson, 18 Chestnut Street, stated that she loves the brick wall design.
• Mr. Latch stated that it will be approximately 3'10" to the top of the wall, 4 1/2" to the top of the wall
looking from the street side.
Ms. Ashley Stinson, 5 Botts Court, stated that she was all for the wall.
I
June 28, 1995, Page 2
Chairman Sides closed the public hearing.
• Mr. Casey stated that he saw evidence that there had been a wall at one time. Mr. Casey stated that he
liked the idea of the wall, particularly since it will match the color of the foundation brick.
Mr. Kelleher stated that he had no problem with the concept but would want to continue the application
for details of the bollards and wood. Mr. Kelleher stated that he was not concerned with the height.
Mr. Kasparian stated that he was unclear of the history of the applications with this property. Mr.
Kasparian felt a plot plan was needed and stated that he was not clear on the curve or gate. Mr.
Kasparian stated that conceptually, he had no problem, although for an italianate house, what might be
more appropriate is a hefty cap and not finials,more like the flat cap of the gate drawing.
Mr. Carr joined the meeting at this time.
Chairman Sides stated that the guidelines state that brick is not appropriate for fences. Mr. Carr stated
that he did not realize the guidelines stated so.
Mr. Casey stated that the Commission approved a wall on Pickering Street and gave the homeowners an
award.
Mr. Kasparian asked what the previous wall was. Ms. Usovicz stated that it was brick. Chairman Sides
• questioned if it was brick or something else. Ms. Usovicz stated that there was brick stuck to the
foundation.
Chairman Sides stated that she preferred a wooden fence and added that she does not know for sure what
was once there. Mr. Casey stated that he saw the evidence. Ms. Usovicz stated that there were huge
pieces of foundation, not wide enough to be a house.
Mr. Carr noted that there are brick walls on Pickering Street and Warren Street. Mr. Casey noted that
the Fifield's on Flint Street have a brick wall.
Mr. Casey made a motion to accept the proposal as submitted. There was no second.
Ms. Usovicz stated that there does not appear to be enough support at this time.
Chairman Sides stated that Mr. Carr could not vote since he just joined the meeting.
Mr. Kelleher stated that the owner has the option to continue the application so that more information
can be provided.
Chairman Sides asked if the members felt the wall was historically appropriate.
• Mr. Casey stated that he had no problem with the wall. Mr. Casey stated that the area is surrounded by
brick and felt the wall was appropriate.
Mr. Kasparian felt it was appropriate but had a problem with the details. Mr. Kasparian stated that he
had questions with what was happening at the corner.
June 28, 1995, Page 3
• Chairman Sides stated that a plot plan is needed which shows how the wall curves and where the gate is.
Chairman Sides stated that a better sketch is needed for the elevation and more information on the
height.
Mr. Carr stated that the information can be incorporated by referencing an existing fence (eg. color).
Mr. Casey made a motion to continue the application. Mr. Kasparian seconded the motion, all were in
favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Carr abstained from voting.
Ms. Usovicz provided a sketch of the trash enclosure.
Mr. Casey noted that the prototype is at Monroe and Federal Streets.
Ms. Usovicz indicated the dimensions by the stakes in the ground and metal post. Ms. Usovicz noted
that the doors will open toward the house.
Mr. Kelleher stated that the dimensions will be less than 8' if it will be built according to the
stakes/posts.
Ms. Usovicz stated that they will undertake repairs to the Petersen's fence.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the trash receptacle as submitted. Mr. Kelleher seconded the
• motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Usovicz stated that it will be painted to match
the Petersen's.
Mr. Casey requested that the deck at 20 Chestnut Street be added to the violations list.
It was requested that a fence next to 274 Lafayette Street be added to the violations list.
There being no further business, Mr. Kelleher made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Carr seconded the motion,
all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jierrk
. Guy
Cofthe Commission
July 12, 1995, Page 1
• SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
JULY 12, 1995
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, July 12, 1995 at 7:30
p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were Chairman Sides, Messrs. Oedel, Kelleher, Carr,
Slam, Casey and Cook and Ms. Guy. Mr. Kasparian entered later in the meeting.
24 Hathorne St.
Richard and Candace Lueeke presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to the body of
their home at 24 Hathorne Street in Rose Ash,the trim in grey/olive as per sample and the shutters and
doors in either Black or Baywatch Green.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Cook seconded the motion, all
were in favor and the motion so carried.
274 Lafayette Street
Ms. Guy stated that the homeowners at 274 Lafayette Street were sent a letter asking them to select one
of two meeting dates for continuation of the design of the cupola and after no response were scheduled
for the meeting of June 21, 1995. Ms. Guy stated that since the homeowners, did not attend that
• meeting, have not responded to the Commission's correspondence and have passed the deadline for
continuation of the issue,the carriage house is now in violation.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to begin enforcement. Mr. Carr seconded the motion, all were in favor and the
motion so carried.
7 River Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, John& Carol Carr submitted an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for el expansion at 7 River Street. Mr. Carr withdrew his application for a Certificate
of Appropriateness and so signed the application as being withdrawn.
Mr. Kasparian joined the meeting at this time.
2 Botts Court
In continuation of a previous public hearing, the Salem Historical Commission conducted a site visit at
the home of Stan and Mary Usovicz at 2 Botts Court concerning the construction of a brick fence in
front of the side yard.
Mr. Slam stated that he would abstain from voting since he was not present for the original application
. nor the site visit
Mr. Usovicz provided a new drawing of the wall.
Mr. Casey noted that the wall is in the same line as the Petersen's fence.
July 12, 1995, Page 2
Chairman sides stated that she spoke with the mason concerning the mortar at the site visit.
• Mr. Kasparian asked what the cap would be on the pilasters and wall. Mr. Usovicz stated that he did not
know and guessed that it might be concrete. Mr. Kelleher stated that there was talk of cast iron. Ms.
Guy noted that Ms. Usovicz had indicated that they would come back before the Commission when it
was decided and that the top can be added later.
Mr. Usovicz stated that the gate also be added later.
Mr. Kasparian stated that he did not think a brick top would be appropriate historically or functionally.
Gary Petersen, 6 Botts Court, provided a photo printed in 1925 showing a 8' high wall on Botts Court
and stated that the wall was probably there in 1890. Mr. Petersen stated that he was in favor of the wall.
There was no other public comment. Chairman Sides closed the public hearing.
Mr. Carr stated that he was apprehensive of bringing out to the street, but added that since this is where
the wall was once, his apprehension goes away. Mr. Carr stated that he does not feel it is inappropriate
but felt that brick is not the best material.
Mr. Casey stated that the Commission's guidelines say that brick is not appropriate for a wall, but noted
that his house is surrounded by brick and that he is not so bothered by it. Mr. Casey stated that the Botts
• Court neighborhood has much brick and felt the wall brings it together. Mr. Casey had concerns with
the cap.
Mr. Oedel asked the height. Mr. Usovicz stated that it will match the height of the foundation. Mr.
Usovicz stated that they also want a cap and stated that concrete would be acceptable.
Mr. Kasparian stated that it appears the precedent for brick is the walls that flank the Andrew Safford
House and on Cambridge Street. Mr. Kasparian questioned a radius at the pilasters and stated that he
was uncertain about that detail and the cap. Mr. Kasparian stated that the concept is approvable, but that
the details are not there for him to be comfortable.
Mr. Cook stated that his concern was the spacing and composition of the mortar.
Mr. Kelleher stated that he was concerned about a brick fence on a street with wooden fences and no
sidewalk between the street and the wall. Mr. Kelleher stated that since there was a brick wall
historically and that the house has a high foundation, he does not have that much of a problem with the
proposal, but preferred wood. Mr. Kelleher stated that he could not say it was inappropriate. Chairman
Sides agreed with Mr. Kelleher.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application. Mr. Casey seconded the motion.
• Mr. Oedel asked about the cap.
Mr. Carr amended his motion for the height of the main section not to exceed the height of the
foundation.
July 12, 1995, Page 3
Ms. Guy suggested delegating the details.
• Mr. Carr withdrew his motion.
Mr. Carr amended his motion for the height of the main section not to exceed the height of the
foundation and that the maximum height of the post be 6', that the brick be lengthwise, that the color and
spacing of the mortar and the brick color to match the foundation and that the cap and post details to be
delegated to Commissioners Carr and Kasparian. Mr. Oedel seconded the revised motion.
Mr. Kasparian clarified that delegation means whether or not a cap goes on and what the design is if one
does go on.
The motion was voted on. All were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Kasparian abstained from
voting.
10 Andover Street
Gale Couture presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the removal of a portion
of a sidewalk wall. The application states that the wall was removed as a result of a sewer break.
There was no public comment and Chairman Sides closed the public hearing.
• Mr. Carr stated that he was sympathetic with how the removal occurred and the financial constraints, but
felt that half a fence is worse than a whole fence. Mr. Carr stated that the guidelines call for a fence at
the sidewalk, but felt that no fence was better than what is now there. Mr. Carr stated that the area is
now being used as 1/2 of a driveway. Mr. Carr noted that this property received a City low-interest loan
and believed that a condition of the loan was the building to be kept in good repair. Mr. Carr felt it
should be either rebuilt or the rest be fully removed.
Mr. Casey stated that he could not imagine how a cinder block wall got installed and questioned if it pre-
dated the district. Mr. Casey stated that the Commission should allow the homeowner time to rebuild or
take down. Mr. Casey stated that he found the existing offensive.
Mr. Oedel stated that the cost to remove the remaining wall is basically nothing and felt it should come
time. Mr. Oedel stated that the Commission could give the homeowner some time.
Mr. Slam stated that he was willing to give the homeowner some time.
Mr. Kelleher asked if removal would be conditional that a new fence would be put in its place. Mr.
Oedel replied that he was not concerned about a replacement fence.
Mr. Kasparian felt the wall was inappropriate and is happy to see it go. Mr. Kasparian stated that he
would like to see an application for a new fence at the same time.
• Mr. Cook stated that he would like to see the wall go, as the homeowner is able to.
Mr. Kelleher stated that the wall is not appropriate and suggested giving until October, 1996 for its
removal.
July 12, 1995, Page 4
Ms. Guy stated that the homeowner can use shrubs and other landscaping to hide barrels, foundation,
• etc. Mr. Slam was in agreement.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the application conditional that the remaining portion of the wall
be demolished by October, 1996. Mr. Slam seconded the motion.
Mr. Carr stated that the application is for appropriateness and felt that the Commission should deny and
revisit. Mr. Carr noted that the guidelines call for a fence at the sidewalk. Mr. Oedel felt that it was not
universal throughout the town and noted that the motion is a modification to the application. Mr. Carr
felt there was a substantive change.
The motion was voted upon. Chairman Sides, Messrs. Slam, Casey, Oedel and Cook voted in favor.
Messrs. Carr and Kelleher voted in opposition. Mr. Kasparian abstained from voting. The motion so
carried.
51 Summer St./28 High St.
Walter Kallenback submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace existing
defective wooden roof gutters with Alcoa aluminum historic gutters and to repaint the house where
needed.
Mr. Lou Nardi, representing the owner, stated that the existing gutters were installed incorrectly five
• years ago including no flashing and not being deep enough, as well as problems with direction and pitch.
Mr. Nardi stated that water flowing from the gutters is washing away the soil under the brick patio in the
back.
Mr.Nardi presented a sample of the proposed gutter.
Chairman Sides as if the gutters will be continuous or have joints. Mr. Nardi stated that they will be
continuous along the house and mitered at the corner.
Mr. Slam asked what was on before the existing wood gutters. Mr.Nardi stated that he did not
remember. Mr. Nardi stated that the house had old shingles that were taken off and though there may
have been old wooden gutters.
Mr. Oedel asked the color of the proposed gutters. Mr. Nardi stated they would be the trim color.
Mr. Kelleher asked about downspout. Mr. Nardi stated that they will reuse the existing.
Ms. Guy noted that the Commission has approved aluminum before including the Santry's on Lafayette
Street and Deborah Heaton's.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the application as submitted noting that the gutters are on the third
• floor. Mr. Cook seconded the motion.
Mr. Slam felt the proposed were larger than standard wooden gutters.
Mr. Oedel felt the proposed was more appropriate than the small wooden gutter. Mr. Oedel stated that
July 12, 1995, Page 5
the existing looks like a standard commercial gutter.
• Chairman Sides stated that normally there is a transitional piece of molding and asked if it will be
restored. Mr. Nardi replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Carr asked if the crown molding would be removed. Mr. Nardi stated that he did not think there
was one underneath.
Mr. Oedel indicated on the picture where the crown molding and soffits were and where the gutter
would be installed.
Mr. Carr stated that he was concerned about the scale. Mr. Carr stated that he appreciated the problem
and knew that aluminum is durable but felt that any approval should be under hardship or non-
applicability. Mr. Carr stated that he did not know if a 6" deep gutter has precedent.
Mr. Oedel stated that he has them on his house. Mr. Oedel stated that he is reluctant to approve under
Non-applicability, since anyone could them come in with an aluminum gutter. Mr. Oedel noted that the
proposed is heavy gage, is high above the street level, does not read as aluminum and is painted the trim
color.
The motion was voted upon. Chairman Sides, and Messrs. Cook, Slam, Oedel, Casey and Kelleher
voted in favor. Mr. Carr voted in opposition. Mr. Kasparian abstained from voting. The motion so
• carried.
149 Federal Street
Francis Archambault presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of
a fence across the driveway as has already been completed.
Mr. Archambault stated that cars head down the street the wrong way from the Bowditch condominiums
and there have been a couple of head-on collisions. The fence is to protect the grandchildren.
Mr. Casey asked when the fence was installed. Mr. Archambault replied that it was installed about a
month ago.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Slam stated that it is an open picket and that he is not certain if he would be in favor of the design
but had no problem with the fence concept.
Mr. Carr stated that he had a problem with the spacing between the pickets. Mr. Archambault stated that
he could decrease the spacing easily. Chairman Sides stated that the spacing should equal the width of
the boards.
• Mr. Case stated that he had no problem with the fence but that the spacing should be closed u .
Casey r r t r
Mr. Oedel stated that the pickets and posts were inappropriate as they are sculpted on top. Mr.
Kasparian was in agreement.
July 12, 1995, Page 6
• Mr. Cook stated that he would like to see the spacing narrowed.
Mr. Kelleher asked if the fence on Federal Street belongs to the applicant. Mr. Archambault replied in
the affirmative. Mr. Kelleher asked if the flat board picket posts on the new fence were turned. Mr.
Archambault replied that they are square. Mr. Kelleher noted that they were square with turned tops.
Ms. Guy suggested that the cap on the new fence posts be cut off and the cap used for the Federal Street
fence be added to the new fence.
Mr. Kelleher stated that the new fence should match the Federal Street fence. Mr. Oedel stated that the
spacing is wide on the Federal Street fence.
Mr. Casey noted that there are three fences going on.
Mr. Carr made a motion to modify the application and approve fencing in the existing locations
conditional that the Flint Street side streetscape fencing post caps to be changed to match the Federal
Streetscape fencing post caps and that the spacing of all streetscape fencing not to exceed the width of
the pickets. All fencing to be the same fencing. Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all were in favor and
the motion so carried. Mr. Kasparian abstained from voting.
6 Federal Court
Harlan and Joanna Peabody submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a "Private!
Keep Out" sign and a "No Trespassing" sign on their property at 6 Federal Court. Debra Mayfield, Esq.
of Shapiro, Israel, & Weiner, P.C., representing the applicants presented five options for sign design.
Atty. Mayfield stated that the designs are on the back of the descriptive pages which indicate dimensions
and colors. Atty. Mayfield is requesting approval of each of the styles so that they can go to a sign
maker and determine which can be made most expeditiously. Atty. Mayfield stated that they are
requesting one set of locations for approval and will only select one style from the approved styles to be
used for all the signs.
Mr. Carr stated asked if the need for time to talk to the sign maker to select one is what is driving the
application. Mr. Carr stated that he preferred to allow the applicants 60 days so that they can narrow
down their designs.
Atty. Mayfield stated that the signs could be fastened on a tree, on the corner of the house or on a
galvanized pole.
Mary Peabody, 53 Charter Street, asked about the appropriateness of canvas signs and noted that the
Commission sited the Peabody Essex Museum properties as a place to see examples of approved signs.
Mr. Oedel replied that the Museum is currently on the violation list for the canvas signs and noted that
• the approved signs mentioned included, as an example, Sweet Scoops.
Mr. Carr stated that he is hearing that the proposal of several signs of varying designs are based on
looking at existing signs, but noted that some of the existing signs may have been grandfathered or are
under enforcement. Mr. Carr stated that he would like to give the applicants more time to select a final
July 12, 1995, Page 7
• color, size and location.
Mr. Slam stated that the problem is the institutional quality of the proposed signs. Mr. Slam asked if any
of the designs were from residential properties. Atty. Mayfield replied in the negative and stated that
they went through the district.
Mr. Slam stated that the Gardner Pingree is a house but is part of a public use. Mr. Slam stated that his
concern is the institutional design and felt that the signs should more like inn signs.
Mr. Casey stated that he did not feel the Commission would approve that which would read like a
highway sign. Mr. Casey stated that they should read more like a plaque. Mr. Casey felt the applicants
needed guidance.
Atty. Mayfield stated that the signs need to be deterrent and that a house plaque draws people to read
them.
Mr. Oedel stated that the lack of residential deterrent signs illustrates that it is not generally appropriate
to have deterrent signs on a residential property. Mr. Oedel stated that given the applicants' desire to
have them, he would like to try to accommodate the desire. Mr. Oedel suggested that a Commission
member be delegated, but that the Commission first set basic parameters, for example,to allow
installation on a post or not, the maximum size, the material and the number of signs. Mr. Oedel stated
that the signs should be wood, simple, either white on black, black on white or gold on black, not to
• exceed 12" by 18", have no more than two, and be attached to existing manmade structures (eg. house
fencing, not on a tree, not free standing pole).
Mr. Kasparian stated that he was sympathetic to the desire for deterrent signs and did not think they
were necessarily inappropriate. Mr. Kasparian agreed with Mr. Oedel that the signs may be
inappropriate on the house. Mr. Kasparian felt that location and size were the critical issues.
Mr. Cook was in agreement with Mr. Oedel.
Mr. Kelleher stated that he was in agreement with much of Mr. Oedel's comments and felt that the
Historic Salem, Inc. signs were a good model. Mr. Kelleher felt it was possible to have deterrent and
appropriate signs.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to allow the installation of not more than two deterrent signs, wood, black on
white or gold on black, not to exceed 12" by 18", location to be only on man-made existing objects, and
if affixed to house, not to exceed the size of house plaque signs. The motion is also to delegate the
design of the wording, typeface and positioning be delegated to Commissioner Oedel. Mr. Cook
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Kasparian abstained from voting.
Mr. Carr made a motion to deny the sign designs submitted due to the application lacking sufficient
information and, based on such information as was submitted, the proposed signage being inappropriate.
• Mr. Oedel seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Kasparian abstained
from voting.
July 12, 1995, Page 8
• 84 Federal St.
John and Mary Wathne submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the west
roof with dark gray asphalt shingles to match the east roof and to install ridge vent.
Mr. Wathne stated that he had carpenter ants and venting problems and that the roofer suggested roof
vents.
Chairman Sides asked if there were vents along the eaves. Mr. Wathne replied in the negative and stated
that they need to be added. Mr. Wathne stated that they will be painted to match the surface.
Mr. Carr stated that he knew the Commission had approved mushroom vents, noted that the westerly
side is virtually invisible and suggested mushroom vents be put there and soffit vents installed.
Mr. Wathne stated that mushroom vents are about 12" square raised. Mr. Casey stated that there would
be 2 to 3 vents. Mr. Kelleher stated that there could be four maximum. Mr. Wathne stated that he has
two pre-existing.
Chairman Sides stated that the ridge vent is most effective. Mr. Kasparian stated that the ridge vent is
probably least obtrusive.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve a ridge vent providing the cap is covered with asphalt to match
existing and the vent be spray painted black and not to exceed 2". Mr. Kelleher stated that the vent is
black.
Mr. Oedel added to the motion to allow soffit vents provided that they are painted the soffit color. Mr.
Carr seconded the motion.
Mr. Wathne stated that he would use small circular vents.
Mr. Cook felt that you would not see the soffits from the public way.
Mr. Oedel amended his motion to be conditional that the soffit vents do not exceed one every 16" and
not to exceed 2" in diameter.
Mr. Kelleher asked about an option for the mushroom vents. Mr. Wathne stated that he will remove the
existing mushroom vents if have the ridge vent.
Mr. Oedel amended his motion to allow the option to remove the mushroom vents. Mr. Carr seconded
the amendments, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Kasparian abstained from voting.
• 12 Kosciusko Street
Genevieve Rybicki submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove fourteen 2
over 2 wood window sash and replace with 6 over 6 single glaze, tru-divided lite, clear glass sash.
July 12, 1995, Page 9
• Mr. Slam made a motion to approve the application as submitted. There was no second.
Mr. Kelleher stated that 6 over 6 is not usually appropriate for this period house.
Mr. Casey stated that it was appropriate for the district.
Mr. Carr asked Mr. Kasparian the age of the house. Mr. Kasparian replied that the survey form states
that it is 1900, and that he has not reason to question the date. Mr. Kasparian stated that 2 over 2 is
probably original, is appropriate and should be retained. Mr. Carr was in agreement.
Mr. Slam stated that it may be turn of the century, but felt it was nicer to have 6 over 6.
Mr. Carr felt the Commission should stay with what is appropriate, 2 over 2, and that 6 over 6 is
gussying up to fit modem perceptions.
Chairman Sides asked why the applicant prefers 6 over 6. Ms. Rybicki stated for heating, maintenance
and personal preference.
The contractor for the project, Mike Dembowski, stated that the houses around this property are 6 over
6.
Mr. Casey stated that 2 over 2 is appropriate but that the property has had some embellishments to make
it look Colonial. Mr. Casey stated that the doorway in front makes him suspicious that the building may
have a long history. Mr. Casey stated that he did not feel 6 over 6 was inappropriate.
Mr. Cook stated that it was a flip of the coin and that he would want to see substantiation that 6 over 6 is
not appropriate. Mr. Cook stated that he felt 6 over 6 was much more attractive, that he would rather
break one little pane and that he would go along with unless someone can substantiate the necessity of 2
over 2.
Mr. Oedel stated that in the 1900's era, shortly after, it was fashionable to but in 6 over 6 and felt there
was historical justification, even if 1900.
Chairman Sides stated that the survey says "Colonial inspired".
Mr. Oedel stated that there is no real identification that it is original fabric, and felt, if it is, is not worth
saving.
Mr. Kasparian stated that the style should be respected, that the windows are original features of the
building and that the existing features should be replaced in kind.
Mr. Cook stated that a similar building,built at the same time could have been built with 6 over 6.
• Mr. Kelleher congratulated the applicant for staying with single glaze and stated that he felt 2 over 2 was
more appropriate than 6 over 6. Mr. Kelleher stated that there is no proof that the windows are not
original and noted that 2 over 2 is cheaper. Mr. Kelleher asked about the storms. Ms. Rybicki stated
that they will use the same storms.
July 12, 1995, Page 10
Mr. Slam made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Cook seconded the motion.
• Chairman Sides and Messrs. Cook, Oedel, Slam and Casey voted in favor. Messrs. Carr and Kelleher
voted in opposition. Mr. Kasparian abstained from voting.
107 Federal Street
Sun Cha Kim submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to relocate the flower shop
sign from Front Street to the Beckford Street corner of the 107 Federal Street, 11 to 12 feet from the
sidewalk, and to repaint the storefront (1st floor) in existing colors with the exception that the panels
below the shop windows to be changed from red to grey.
Mr. Ken Smith,the first floor tenant, stated that he is moving his flower shop from Front Street to
Federal Street.
Mr. Slam stated that he would need to see the sign, but had no problem with the concept.
Mr. Carr made a motion to continue the application.
Mr. Smith stated that the owner won't paint the entire building in the immediate future and that he wants
to paint the storefront. He intends to remove all the red, except for the doors and make what is now red,
grey. The white trim will be retained. The mullions of the windows will be grey.
• Mr. Oedel asked about the medallions. Mr. Smith suggested white, white sash and the panels below the
shop windows grey.
Mr. Oedel recommended the sash be red or black.
There was no public comment.
Councillor William Burns, 22 Beckford Street, stated that he was in favor of the application.
Ms. Guy stated that the owner contacted her and is requesting approval to remove the "Provisions" sign.
Mr. Smith stated that he does not really want it down.
Mr. Carr withdrew his motion.
Mr. Slam stated that he had no problem with the paint but would want to continue the signage.
Mr. Carr felt the provisions sign should be retained, and stated that he was supportive of the rest of the
application. Mr. Carr stated that he could support the temporary installation of the sign until 8/2/95.
Mr. Oedel stated that the "provisions" sign is not original to the building, that it is a 1983-84 sign.
• Councillor Burns stated that it is not an original sign and has been on for not more than 15 years.
Councillor Burns stated that it should be allowed to be removed and that the tenant can negotiate with
the owner.
July 12,.1995, Page 11
• Mr. Casey stated that he had no problem with the paint or the signs being taken.
Mr. Oedel suggested allowing the removal providing it stays on the property. Mr. Oedel suggested
allowing temporary signage and continuing the application until 8/2/95. Mr. Oedel had no problem with
the paint. Mr. Oedel stated that he would like the shutters reinstalled.
Mr. Kasparian stated that it is a substantially intact storefront and that the paint upgrade was a good idea.
Mr. Kasparian suggested the option of keeping or removing the existing sign.
Mr. Cook stated that he would like to see the sign remain and agreed with the other issues.
Mr. Kelleher stated that it was great to see a commercial use returning and that he had no problem with
the paint or the continuation.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve paint colors as follows: the panels below the windows to be
changed from red to grey (body color); the red trim around the windows to be changed to white; the
window sash to be black; and the medallions to be white. The motion is also to allow the installation of
the flower shop sign, temporarily, until the meeting of August 2, 1995 and to continue all signage issues
until then. Mr. Casey seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
104 Federal St.
• David Hart and Barbara Cleary presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for work to
be completed on roofing, gutters and downspouts at rear and a new skylight. Mr. Hart provided a roof
plan and a written description of the work.
Mr. Hart stated that he will be replacing roof surface #4, replacing slate on valley A and B, reflashing
chimney #3, replacing copper ridges, replacing gutters around roof area#4 with same profile gutters and
replacing skylight A with the same size velux. Mr. Hart stated that the gutters and skylight will be
visible.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the application as submitted.
Councillor Burns stated that he was in favor of the application.
Mr. Carr seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Kasparian abstained
from voting.
126 Derby Street
Michael Zapantis submitted an application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability to repaint the exterior
of 126 Derby Street in the same colors.
• Mr. Kelleher noted that the agenda indicates that the property is 126 Federal Street but that the
application and photographs are for 126 Derby Street.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all
were in favor and the motion so carried.
July 12, 1995, Page 12
• 20 Valley Street
John Karametsopoulos submitted an application to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance to demolish
20 Valley Street.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Kasparian seconded the motion,
all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Kelleher abstained from voting.
29 Washington Square
The John Bertram House, Inc. submitted an application for a Certificate of Non-applicability to go over
existing black roof shingles with one layer of black roof shingles as needed an to use an aluminum drip
edge.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-Applicability for black asphalt shingles
provided the color, design and drip edge match the existing. Mr. Cook seconded the motion, all were in
favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Kelleher noted that this property received an investment tax credit and that MHC needed to be
notified. Ms. Guy will inform the applicants.
299 Bridge Street
• Tewksbury Industries, Inc., submitted an application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability to install a
temporary fence which will effect 92, 94, 100 and 102 Federal Street. A description of the need, design,
and location of the fence were provided along with a site plan. The fence is required for a period not to
extend beyond August 1, 1996.
Prasanta Bhunia,representing Weston& Sampson Engineers, stated that chemicals were found in the
soil at 299 Bridge Street and the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) required soil samples
from the neighborhood properties. This data was submitted, additional soil testing is planned and DEP
would like a temporary fence. The fence will be 30' along the west side of 102 Federal St., 60' along the
west side of 92 Federal Street and 60' along the north side of 92 Federal Street. Mr. Bhunia stated that a
letter has been sent to the property owners and if the soil has chemicals, it will be taken away. Mr.
Bhunia stated that DEP wants a fence so that no one can go in and touch the soil.
Mr. Slam made a motion to approve the application as submitted.
Mr. Carr stated that the worse case scenario is that all the work will be completed within one year and
the fence will be removed in one year. Mr. Bhunia stated that they have no control over State agencies.
Catherine Lowry, representing Tewksbury Industries, Inc., stated that it is the company's intention, but it
depends on the access provided by the neighbors.
• Ms. Guy stated that she talked to a representative from DEP who stated that they hope to complete the
work within three months.
Mr. Carr seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Kasparian abstained
from voting.
July 12, 1995, Page 13
7 South Pine Street
• In continuation from a previous meeting, Joseph Tamowski submitted an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for fence replacement at 7 South Pine Street.
Ms. Guy provided a photograph of the Murphy's Funeral Home fence and photographs showing the view
from Flint Street and stated that the issues from last meeting were the cap and whether the fence should
be placed a distance inward from the rear property line.
Mr. Casey stated that, as an abutter, he does not like the post tops, but otherwise the fence is fine.
Mr. Kasparian stated that it would be more appropriate to lop off the tops of the posts.
Mr. Casey stated that the fence should not be back to back with his fence, noting that it was a
maintenance issue. Mr. Casey stated that the fence should be 12" from the rear lot line.
Mr. Oedel suggested that there be not rear fence and that the side fence be tied into the 17 Flint Street
fence. Mr. Casey was not in agreement.
Mr. Slam made a motion to approve the application as submitted conditional that the posts not have a
finial, but have a square cap like the capped posts at 149 Federal Street on the Federal Street side, and
that the fence be located a minimum of 12" from the rear lot line and that the fence be painted green to
• match the house color. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Messrs. Casey and Kelleher abstained from voting.
Approval of Minutes
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the minutes of May 17, 1995 and June 7, 1995. Mr. Cook
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Kasparian abstained from voting.
Other Business
Ms. Guy stated that she issued Certificates of Non-Applicability for:
113 Federal St. - fence
126 1/2 Federal St. -repaint
128-130 Federal St. - shutters and paint
171 Federal St. -paint
Correspondence Review
Ms. Guy stated that a letter from MHC to MEPA was received concerning the proposed Derby Street
parking garage. Mr. Kelleher stated that MHC finds" adverse effect providing plans are submitted to
• the Salem Historical Commission for review and approval. Ms. Guy stated that a Certificate was
received from the Department of Environmental Affairs indicating that the project does not require and
Environmental Impact Report.
Ms. Guy stated that the National Park Services sent a list of ideas to streamline the National Register
July 12, 1995, Page 14
process and stated that they would like comments by June 30, 1995.
• Mr. Carr presented.a letter he received from Edward Carberg questioning how 65 Derby Street was
demolished without Commission approval. Mr. Carr noted that Mr. Carberg should be informed of the
statute regarding the Building Inspector's authority to require demolition for public safety. Mr. Oedel
questioned if the Building Inspector condemn's a building, does the Commission have the authority to
require repair to make it uncondemnable. Mr. Carr stated that he would like to research the issue.
Ms. Guy stated that at Historic Salem Inc.'s wine tasting event in September, Secretary Galvin will be
presenting the Mayor with a check to undertake a feasibility study of Old Town Hall.
There being no further business, Mr. Oedel made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Slam seconded the motion,
all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully su4mitted,
Jrerkf A. Guy
othe Commission
•
August 2, 1995, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
• MINUTES
AUGUST 2, 1995
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, August 2, 1995 at 7:30
p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were Chairman Sides, Messrs. Bailey, Casey, Slam,
Cook, Kelleher and Kasparian and Ms. Guy. Mr. Oedel joined later in the meeting.
376 Essex Street
Linda Nichols, Trustee of Charter Trust, submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness
for paint colors at 376 Essex Street. The body is to be PH-24, trim PE-5 and shutters PH-113.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Casey asked if the carriage house would be painted in the same colors. Dr. Beverly Shafer,
representing the applicant, replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Casey stated that the balustrade on the roof and over the front entrance had been removed a few
owners ago, that it was his understanding that the pieces were stored in the carriage house and that he
would like its replacement considered.
• Dr. Shafer stated that the issue had never been raised with her before and that she had no problem
putting it up as long as the expense is not prohibitive.
Mr. Casey stated that he had no problem with the paint colors.
Dr. Shafer asked for a copy of the photograph in the book Architecture in Salem which shows the
balustrade.
Mr. Kelleher asked if the columns on the porch would be the trim color. Dr. Shafer replied in the
affirmative.
Messrs. Bailey, Kasparian and Cook stated that they had no problem with the application.
Mr. Slam made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Kelleher seconded the motion, all
were in favor and the motion so carried.
333 Essex Street
The 333 Essex Street Condo. Assoc. submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for
painting the fence between 333 and 335 Essex Street. The front post and top trim would be painted the
white trim of 333 Essex Street,the 333 Essex side of the fence would be painted or stained stone gray to
• match the stone gray foundation of 333 Essex Street and the 335 Essex side of the fence would be
painted to match the trim at 335 Essex Street.
Tom Kovac, representing the condominium association, stated that the original fence was the yellow of
333 Essex Street, which was prior to 335 Essex Street painting their house. Mr. Kovac stated that he
August 2, 1995, Page 2
• wanted the color of the fence to compliment both properties. Mr. Kovac felt that the grey was more
complimentary to 333 Essex Street. The post would be left as white, as it was when the fence was
yellow.
Ms. Guy stated that Barbara Maier, 335 Essex Street, had telephoned her to apologize that she could not
attend this meeting due to a family emergency and stated that she had no problem with the proposal.
Councillor William Burns, 22 Beckford Street, stated that he objected to the manner the meeting was
being conducted and that he cannot hear some of the discussion. Councillor Burns suggested that the
applicant address the Commission and the audience from the side of the table.
Mr. Casey stated that he preferred one color, white or cream.
Mr. Slam stated that he had a problem with a different color for the post than the body.
Mr. Casey stated he had no problem with the application.
Mr. Kovac stated that the old fence was yellow with white trim.
Mr. Kelleher stated that he had no problem with two colors, but did with three. Mr. Kelleher stated that
he could go along with all grey or all Navajo white.
• Mr. Kovac stated that he did not want to paint the fence to match 335 Essex Street.
Mr. Slam asked if the applicant objected to grey and white. Mr. Kovac replied in the negative, but
added that the neighbor might.
Mr. Kasparian stated that the fence should be painted to match the house is surrounds. Mr. Kasparian
suggested all white.
Mr. Bailey stated that it should be the body or trim color and stated that grey is neither. Mr. Bailey
stated that he did not want three colors and preferred white.
Mr. Cook preferred all one color.
Chairman Sides felt it should be all white.
Mr. Casey made a motion to approve the fence painting in white to match the trim of 333 Essex Street.
Mr. Kelleher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
107 Federal St.
In continuation of a previous meeting, Sun Cha Kim submitted an application for a Certificate of
• Appropriateness to relocate a flower shop sign from Front Street to 107 Federal Street and to remove the
"Provisions" sign from 107 Federal Street. Photographs were provided showing the new sign erected.
Ken Smith, the tenant, stated he would like to see the Provisions sign go. Mr. Smith stated that he took
a poll from customers and that most felt it was inappropriate and too visually close so that it fights with
August 2, 1995, Page 3
• the new sign.
Councillor Burns stated that for well over 100 years there has been a business at that location and that he
would like to do whatever is necessary to keep the flower shop there. Councillor Burns stated that
business could be lost with the provisions sign.
Pam Burns, 12 River Street, was in agreement that whatever is necessary to keep the flower shop there,
should be done.
Mr. Smith stated that it was not his sign and that the landlord wants it.
Ms. Guy felt the issue was not whether the provisions sign is appropriate to stay, but whether it was
appropriate for it not to be there.
Mr. Slam made a motion to approve the relocation of the flower shop sign and the removal of the
provisions sign. Mr. Kasparian seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
30-32 Beckford St.
30-32 Beckford Street Trust submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint
colors at 30-32 Beckford Street. The body color will be white or off white with dark green or black
shutters, black window sash and black or dark green doors.
• Rolf Franke-Offen, representing the Trust, stated that he has selected Benjamin Moore White 01 for the
body and prefers the shutters be Forest Green.
David Hart, 104 Federal Street, stated that two years ago,the property was derelict and that he
commends the owner for the miraculous transformation. Mr. Hart stated that he preferred a more cream
color but was in full support of any paint color.
Elizabeth Hunt, 2 River Street, stated that she was in favor of the application, that she felt the work was
commendable and that she was delighted to see improvement in the neighborhood.
Pam Burns, 12 River Street, stated that it was a fantastic job,that she loved the white and noted that it
was a dark corner and would be a good anchor.
Carol Carr, 7 River Street, agreed that it was a dark corner and stated that she was in favor of the
application.
Don Hunt, 2 River Street, stated that Mr. Franke-Offen has done a great deal of brick work for the City
on the public access.
Mr. Casey asked if the brick portion of the building will be the same color. Mr. Frank-Offen replied in
. the affirmative and stated that it will be an oil stain.
Mr. Casey asked if there were other buildings on the property. Mr. Franke-Offen replied that there were
none yet.
August 2, 1995, Page 4
• Mr. Slam stated that having the trim white seems stark.
Mr. Kelleher asked if the shutters were wood. Mr. Franke-Offen replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Kasparian had no comment.
Mr. Bailey stated that he was okay with the shutter color.
Mr. Kasparian made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Cook seconded the motion,
all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Franke-Offen presented a plan for the carriage house construction.
Mr. Cook asked if the door would be phony. Mr. Franke-Offen replied that the door would be real.
Ed Pliner, 12 River Street, stated that he did not feel the carriage house would be seen from the public
way from the district.
David Hart stated that, even if it can't be seen, it would be a vast improvement.
Mr. Franke-Offen stated that the wood for the building will be from an old barn, that it will be post and
beam constructing and that he has obtained old barn doors.
• Steve Whittier, 10 River Street, stated that, given Mr. Franke-Otten's work to date, this would be an
improvement.
Ann Knight, 11 River Street, felt that activity created in that are will make it safer.
Mary Lee Storrs, 26 Beckford Street, stated that the applicants have displayed the utmost in taste and
consideration and that Mr. Franke-Offen has done considerable research on his property.
Ann Whittier, 10 River Street, stated that the building might be seen from her property and that it will be
a great improvement.
Carol Carr, 7 River Street, agreed that it would be an improvement and would make the area safer.
Mr. Casey stated that he would like a site visit and noted that the Commission may not have jurisdiction.
Mr. Kasparian asked the material on the fence. Mr. Franke-Otten stated that he will be using pieces
from an old fence, iron with square pickets and granite stones.
Mr. Slam felt the carriage house may be non-applicable and felt a site visit was needed.
• Mr. Kasparian asked if it was accessed by a public way. Mr. Hunt replied that it was owned by the City.
Mr. Casey made a motion to continue the application at a site visit on Thursday, August 3, 1995 at 6:45
p.m. Mr. Kelleher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
August 2, 1995, Page 5
• 35 Washington Square
Judith Doering submitted an application for a Certificate of Hardship for the front facia which was
patched with a 2' x 8" to control a pigeon problem under the roof. The application states that the
homeowner will attempt to contract for restoration.
Ted Richard, representing the applicant, stated that the facia was altered in the winter of 1992 and that
the owners are willing to restore the facia to match the remaining.
Mr. Casey stated that all the facia needs to be painted to match.
Mr. Slam made a motion to amend the application and approve a Certificate of Non-applicability to
replace the facia in order to replicate the existing facia on the building and for the work to be completed
by November 1, 1995. Mr. Bailey seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Judith Doering submitted an application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability for chimney alteration to
which the application states that there was none.
Mr. Richards stated that there was no alterations made to the chimney.
There was no public comment.
• The Commission members were unable to recall the circumstances surrounding the violation for the
chimney.
Mr. Kelleher made a motion to remove the chimney from the violation list.
Mr. Kasparian felt that research should be done to see what the violation was.
Mr. Slam seconded the motion. Chairman Sides and Messrs. Bailey, Casey, Slam, Cook and Kelleher
voted in favor. Mr. Kasparian voted in opposition. The motion so carried.
Judith Doering submitted an application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability for the reconstruction of a
decorative trellis as has already been completed. The trellis is used to hide barrels from the public view
and the old trellis was storm damaged and rotten.
Mr. Richard stated that the current trellis replaced one that was green and added that the owners are
willing to paint the new trellis.
Mr. Casey stated that the application should be under Appropriateness.
Mr. Slam asked how closely the current trellis resembles the one it replaced. Mr. Richard stated that it is
nearly identical, that the spacing may be slightly changed and there is no top cap.
• Chairman Sides asked if it is the same height. Mr. Richard stated that he could shave it
Mr. Kasparian made a motion to deny the application for Non-Applicability and to instruct the
applicants to reapply within 30 days for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
August 2, 1995, Page 6
• Mr. Kelleher seconded the motion and added that he did not feel the current design would be approved.
Mr. Kelleher suggested that the owners apply with another design.
Mr. Richard asked if he could apply to have it removed. Ms. Guy replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Richard asked what design the Commission would want. Mr. Bailey stated that he would help Mr.
Richard with the application.
The motion was voted upon, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
31 Washington Square
The Washington Square North Trust submitted an application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability for
the replacement of columns and for an iron fence. The application states that the columns were fire
destroyed and that the fence was destroyed before the Commission was established. Where the columns
were is now replaced with boards.
Mr. Slam stated that he moved to the area in 1976 and the fence was still in place at that time.
Mr. Kelleher stated that he recalls the fence being there within the last four years.
Ted Richard, representing the applicant, stated that it has not been there since 1981 and asked when the
• district was formed. Ms. Guy replied that it was formed in 1977.
Mr. Richard asked how it can be verified that it was not there when the district was formed.
Mr. Casey stated that he remembers the fence being there in 1985.
Mr. Bailey stated that the properties are substantial and need work.
Ms. Sides suggested that the applicants submit an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Mr. Richard asked what material would be required for the columns. Mr. Casey replied that the columns
should be wood.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Kasparian made a motion to deny the application and request that the homeowners apply for
Appropriateness within 30 days. There was no second.
Mr. Richard felt it was not reasonable to require an application for the fence when the Commission did
not know when it was removed. Mr. Richard stated that the columns were replaced after the district was
formed.
• Mr. Cook suggested continuing the fence in order to research when it was removed.
Mr. Slam made a motion to continue the fence portion of the application. Mr. Cook seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
August 2, 1995, Page 7
• Mr. Slam made a motion to deny a Certificate of Non-Applicability for the columns and to require the
applicants to submit a column design and apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness within 30 days. Mr.
Cook seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Oedel joined the meeting at this time.
7 River Street
John and Carol Carr submitted an application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability and for a Certificate
of Appropriateness for rear el expansion at 7 River Street. Drawings were submitted. A letter from he
applicants dated August 1 1995, which was delivered to some of the abutters and most of the
Commission members approximately 1 %2" hours before this meeting was not read into the record.
Ms. Carr stated that they need to expand in order to accommodate a family of five. Ms. Carr stated the
architect is John Emerson.
Ms. Carr stated that the rear part of the addition is where the fence meets at the rear of the driveway and
that there is an obscured view between 2 and 4 Andover Street. Ms. Carr explained photographs
showing views from Andover, Beckford and River Streets. Ms. Carr described the work proposed and
the drawings submitted.
Ms. Carr felt the fence would hide most of the first floor off the rear addition. Ms. Carr stated that they
• are proposing French doors, not large panes as drawn. Ms. Carr added that she was not sure if the wall
facing 11 river Street at the rear would be brick or wood and is dependent on building and fire code. Ms.
Carr stated that a French door is proposed for the second floor but that it could be a window.
Mr. Slam asked if the applicants were asking for concept approval and would be coming back with more
details.
Ms. Carr stated that much of the details are not visible from the street.
Mr. Casey asked if it will be necessary to go before the Board of Appeals. Ms. Carr replied in the
affirmative.
Ms. Carr provided photographs of additions approved by the Commission.
Chairman Sides read a letter submitted by Joel Caron, 4 Andover Street, opposed to the application.
Mr. Don Hunt, 2 River Street, noted that Joel Caron's father fell and that he could not be present.
Mary Lee Storrs, 26 Beckford Street, felt the addition would be visible from yards and would impact the
neighborhood.
• Pam Burns, 12 River Street, stated that she was in support of the effort and noted that her neighborhood
has more strong personalities per square inch than any other neighborhood. Ms. Burns was hopeful that
the proposal can be resolved in a way that doesn't split people apart and that any issues can be resolved
without the application being turned down.
August 2, 1995, Page 8
• Mr. Hunt stated that he was confused why the applicant's applied for Non-applicability and stated that
he would like to clarify the dimensions.
Ms. Carr stated that they propose to add 250 sf. to the first floor.
Mr. Hunt asked if the roof level would be raised. Ms. Carr stated that they are not bound to raising the
roof level.
Ms. Carr stated that there is currently 126 sf on the second floor which will be increased to 291 sf, a
gain of 165 sf. Ms. Carr stated that there is 125 sf on the second floor and that there will be a gain of
250 sf. for a total gain of 400+ sf. for the project.
Chuck Von Bruns, 3 River Street, asked if there will be a deck over the first floor extension. Ms. Carr
stated that there doesn't have to be.
Mr. Von Bruns stated that he would be uncomfortable if the deck allowed people to be able to look into
his windows.
Mr. Von Bruns asked if having a fence makes the work okay. Ms. Carr stated that the Commission only
has jurisdiction on what is visible from the public way.
Mr. Von Bruns was concerned if the Caron's garage came down, that it would make the addition visible.
• Ms. Carr noted that the Caron's garage was just fixed up last year.
Mr. Oedel stated that the Commission's jurisdiction is for that which is visible from the public way and
that if any portion of a project is visible,the Commission has jurisdiction over it.
Katherine Randall, 28 Beckford Street, had questions concerning the fence and visibility.
David Hart, 104 Federal Street, asked if the Carr's had gone to the Board of Appeal yet. Ms. Carr
replied in the negative. Mr. Hart asked if Board of Appeal approval was required first. Mr. Oedel
replied in the negative and stated that they must get both approvals. Mr. Hart was concerned with
encroachment.
Ann Knight, 11 River Street, stated that her property is 18-24" away and that she came back from
vacation for this meeting. Ms. Knight stated that the addition can be seen from Andover Street. Ms.
Knight stated that she was gravely concerned about the construction and felt that some would have to be
done from her yard.
Kevin Cronin, 6 River Street, stated that he was in support of the application and felt it was in scale with
the structure and the neighborhood. Mr. Cronin felt the integrity of River Street will withstand the
construction.
• Pat Durkee, 2 Andover Street, stated that the addition is visible from Andover Street. Ms. Durkee was
concerned that it does not matter what is visible from her yard. Ms. Durkee stated that the issue is not
neighbor against neighbor nor against Mr. Carr.
Chairman Sides read a letter from Paul and Catherine Willis, 4 River Street, who were opposed to the
C
August 2, 1995, Page 9
• application.
Jerry Jennings, 18 River Street, stated that he was in favor of the application. Mr. Jennings stated that
the Carr's have taken a long time to think out their proposal and stated that they would not do anything
that was not fitting. Mr. Jennings stated that the ell being taken off is not original. Mr. Jennings stated
that the Caron's garage falling down is not a legitimate argument. Mr. Jennings felt the Commission
should not decide whether something is too close since their jurisdiction is not zoning. Mr. Jennings
noted that, he too, was on vacation.
Steve Whittier, 10 River Street stated that the existing addition coming out is not detrimental and that it
needs a facelift, so he supported the application. Mr. Whittier questioned if the breakfast room is
appropriate and felt that the Commission should look into its appropriateness and how it would effect
future applications. Mr. Whittier felt it may be precedent setting.
Mr. Hunt asked if there will be another change to address the Commission. Mr. Hunt stated that a lot of
the plan is variable,that he was originally prepared to register in opposition, but that he may change his
position if he saw a concrete proposal. Mr. Hunt stated that he did not like the deck and would want
more specific plans and details.
Mr. Slam stated that there would be more chance for comment.
Ann Knight felt the public was held hostage by three delays.
Ms. Guy stated that the public hearing can be continued until the site visit and at the site visit the public
hearing can be continued until the next meeting.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to continue the application to a site visit to be held August 3, 1995 at
approximately 7:00 following the 30-32 Beckford Street site visit. Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all
were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Kasparian abstained from voting.
Mr. Oedel made up a motion not to continue the application from the site visit to the August 16, 1995
meeting in deference to the public and to schedule the continuation of the public hearing until September
6, 1995. Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Kasparian
abstained from voting.
34 Warren Street
The First Spiritualist Church submitted an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the
following work at 34 Warren Street:
1. Remove worn sign on building, right side of front entrance, not originally part of the building
(see 1927 photo).
2. Exterior doors to be painted Hunter Green or Pine Green.
• 3. To replace plastic lettered menu insert of existing sign with wooden sign (white with black
lettering). See sign proof IE. United Sign Co.
4. Letter mail slot inside entrance door to be brass.
5. Repairs to side entrance walls and roof. Remove scalloped trim and replace with straight trim.
Entrance walls and trim to be painted taupe.
August 2, 1995, Page 10
• 6. Lattice work on either side of side entrance to support white climbing rose bushes. Lattice to be
straight or crisscrossed and painted white or natural to be determined.
Phyllis Brown, 81 Abbington Road, Danvers, MA, the co-chair of the Church's beautification committee
and Doug Johnson, the carpenter for the project, were present representing the church. Ms. Brown
stated that the sign to be removed is to the right of the front entrance.
Mr. Oedel asked if all three doors will be painted. Ms. Brown replied in the affirmative and stated that
she would prefer Lafayette Green. Ms. Brown proposes to have the side and rear entrances that are now
white painted Sandy Hook Gray and the front entrance to remain white.
Mr. Bailey left the meeting at this time.
Mr. Oedel asked if the sign would be the same size. Ms. Brown stated that only the sign inside the
marquis would be changed and that the shingles would stay. Ms. Brown stated that they would put trim
around it.
Mr. Kasparian asked if the shingles would be painted. Ms. Brown stated that they would be left natural.
Ms. Brown stated that the lattice would be straight since most houses in the area are straight. The walls
will remain solid with the lattice next to them.
• Chairman Sides asked why an enclosure is needed inside the lattice. Ms. Brown stated that it is enclosed
to the weather.
Mr. Kasparian suggested a free standing trellis in front that is secured so it doesn't topple over.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the doors being painted Lafayette Green. Mr. Kelleher seconded
the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Casey made a motion to remove the sign board. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion, all were in favor
and the motion so carried.
Mr. Casey made a motion to replace the plastic lettering menu on the free standing sign with a wooden
menu as proposed conditional that the shingles of the sign holder be painted solid body white stain to
match the trim of the front entrance. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion
so carried.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve a 16" maximum width mail slot in the side entrance. Mr. Slam
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
• Mr. Oedel made a motion to remove the scallop trim from the side entrance and replace with straight
trim and to approve repairs to walls and roof as necessary. Mr. Casey seconded the motion, all were in
favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Kelleher suggested that the side entrance be painted white. Chairman Sides was in agreement.
I
August 2, 1995, Page 11
• Ms. Brown asked if they could add sand to the paint to give it texture. Mr. Casey suggested that it be
left alone.
Priscilla Nelson asked if they could put on slate shingles instead of asbestos on the entrance roofs.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to allow the option to install slate roof to match the main roof or to install
black or slate gray asphalt. Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Slam made a motion to approve the trim on all entrance to be painted white to match the front
entrance. Mr. Casey seconded the motion. Chairman Sides, Messrs. Kasparian, Casey, Slam, Kelleher
and Cook voted in favor. Mr. Oedel voted in opposition. The motion so carried.
Ms. Brown stated that they propose to flip the walls around and put the lattice on the outside.
Mr. Kasparian did not think it would like right. Chairman Sides agreed that it would look strange.
Chairman Sides suggested leaving the flat board on the outside and putting the lattice 6" away.
Mr. Johnson stated that the overhang is 10 '/2".
Mr. Oedel made a motion to allow the removal of the plywood and to install clapboard to match the rear,
to install a lattice trellis under the overhanging,painted white with spacing no larger than 6" square. Mr.
Kelleher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Slam left the meeting at this time.
124 Federal Street
Kevin and Deborah Guinee submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint
colors, the rehanging of shutters, the installation of soffit and ridge venting and the replacement of zinc
and aluminum roof flashing with copper. The application states that original shutters were found in the
basement and that they will be repaired,painted and hung.
Present were Ms. Guinee and Bruce Irving, Producer of This Old House.
Ms. Guinee stated that the main body of the house is Federal period and will be painted#1635 and that
the body of the Victorian portion will be 41636. The same white trim color will be used on both. The
Federal side will have white window frames and sash and black shutters. The Victorian side will have
white window frames and black sash. All doors will be black. All windows on the Federal Street side
and Lynn Street side of the Federal portion will have shutters.
Mr. Irving stated that they would hang shutters on the rear ell of the Lynn Street side. Mr. Kelleher felt
that shutters were not needed on the rear ell. Mr. Oedel was in agreement. Mr. Irving asked if they
could be given the option. Mr. Oedel replied in the affirmative.
• Mr. Irving stated that there is a slate roof and that the building is timber frame with a large beam. Mr.
Irving stated that they may.need mushroom vents on the back of the house.
There was no public comment.
I�
August 2, 1995, Page 12
• Mr. Oedel stated that he would be will to approve if the vents can be placed where they are non-visible.
Chairman Sides stated that she would not want to rip up slate for the ridge vent.
Mr. Kasparian stated that he had no problem with the mushroom vents since the slope of the roof is so
shallow.
Mr. Irving stated that they will also install linear soffit venting. Mr. Oedel preferred holes. Mr. Kelleher
preferred holes or continuous.
Mr. Kasparian suggested that the Victorian bay have black sash. Messrs. Oedel, Casey and Kelleher
were in disagreement.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the paint colors as presented, to rehang shutters,to install two
mushroom vents on the non-street side of the single slope, to install copper flashing and to allow round
soffit vents, not to exceed 2" diameter, painted white. Mr. Kasparian seconded the motion, all were in
favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Irving stated that the slate on the rear hip is in terrible shape and that the contractor recommends it
be replaced with asphalt.
Mr. Oedel suggested Supraslate. Chairman Sides stated that it costs more than asphalt but less than
• slate.
Mr. Kelleher felt that they might as well use slate than use Supraslate.
Mr. Casey stated that it needs a separate application and that the applicants should do some homework
on it.
3 Federal Court
L. C. Trust submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install two wooden signs
attached to the driveway posts, the width to be the same as the posts or approximately 9 ''/I" and 8" long.
The lettering will be fluorescent orange paint on flat black paint with a white tape fluorescent border.
Ms. Guy stated that Luella Cummings informed her she would not be coming to the meeting and that
Ms. Guy had informed Ms. Cummings that she would likely be approved for the same sign parameters
as 6 Federal Court. Ms. Guy stated that Ms. Cummings was not opposed.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve sign parameters identical to 6 Federal Court. Mr. Kasparian
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
13 Washington Square West
• The Peabody Essex Museum submitted an application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability to paint the
east facade of the Andrew Safford House: portico and portico balustrade in colors to match existing
white.
August 2, 1995, Page 13
• Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Casey seconded the motion, all
were in favor and the motion so carried.
The Peabody Essex Museum submitted an application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability for the
reproduction of existing exterior shutters,to replace missing shutters, all facades. Color and hardware to
match existing.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Kelleher seconded the motion,
all were in favor and the motion so carried.
20 Chestnut Street
James and Janice Schooley submitted an application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability to repair a
damaged fence.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Kasparian seconded the motion,
all were in favor and the motion so carried.
8 Beckford Street
John and Claire Cassella submitted an application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability to remove a
broken gate at the end of the driveway and to construct the same gate new.
• Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Cook seconded the motion, all
were in favor and the motion so carried.
15 Beckford Street
Peter Copelas submitted a letter requested a deviation from his Certificate of Appropriateness to replace
the present 2 over 2 double-hung windows with all wood, 6 over 6, single glazed individual lites,
double-hung windows with integral mullions,to be stained white to match existing instead of the J. B.
Sash windows with external vinyl mullions as was approved.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to amend the Certificate as requested. Mr. Casey seconded the motion, all
were in favor and the motion so carried.
Correspondence
Ms. Guy stated that she received a letter from the National Park Service (NPS) to Massachusetts
Historical Commission(MHC)that indicates project documents for the sailing vessel "Friendship" are
being sent to MHC. Ms. Guy stated that she also received a letter from MHC to NPS stating that the
plans provided are consistent with the prior no adverse effect finding.
• Ms. Guy stated that she received a letter from MHC finding no effect on a project at 191-193 and 36-38
Boston Street.
August 2, 1995, Page 14
Minutes
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the minutes of June 21, 1995 and June 28, 1995. Mr. Cook
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
There being no further business, Mr. Oedel made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Cook seconded the motion,
all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submi ed,
J A. GulCoission
Clerk of the
•
•
August 3, 1995, Page 1
' SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
AUGUST 3, 1995
A special meeting (site visit) of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Thursday, August 3, 1995
at 6:45 p.m. beginning at 30-32 Beckford Street and ending at 7 River Street, Salem, MA. Present were
Chairman Sides, Messrs. Kelleher, Slam, Cook, Casey, Oedel and Kasparian.
30-32 Beckford Street
In continuation from a previous meeting, 30-32 Beckford Street Trust,presented an application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a wall-fence and carriage house at 30-32 Beckford Street.
Rolf Franke-Offen, representing the Trust, stated that he has researched the house and found that the
brick portion dates to 1802 as an old engine house. Mr. Franke-Offen indicated where the carriage house
would be placed in the rear of the property, accessed from Bridge Street.
Mr. Oedel asked the height of the carriage house. Mr. Franke-Otten replied that it would be 24' high.
Mr. Oedel asked about the stockade fence that is along the lot line of the property. Mr. Franke-Offen
stated that it would be removed and replaced with the wall-fence.
• Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the concept of the brick-wall and carriage house pending details on
moldings, etc. and to continue the application until the next meeting. Mr. Cook seconded the motion, all
were in favor and the motion so carried.
7 River Street
The Commission members proceeded to 7 River Street.
In continuation of a previous meeting, John and Carol Carr presented an application for a Certificate of
Non-Applicability and Appropriateness for rear ell expansion at 7 River Street.
Ms. Carr stated that chalk lines had been drawn along the side of the house and on the pavement in the
back yard to indicate the extend of the expansion. Ms. Carr stated that the fence will be moved so that it
begins at the corner of the main house. Ms. Carr stated that the height of the roof will be below the sill
of the attic window and the height of the ridge of the first floor roof will be 9' high or approximately 4
clapboards down from the second floor window of the rear ell. Ms. Carr stated that the first floor
addition will be at angles rather than right angles in order to soften the impact. Ms. Carr stated that they
will be putting in a foundation.
Mr. Casey asked if any of the construction will require use of the neighbor's property. Ms. Carr stated
that all vehicles will access from the driveway and that the only access required of the neighbor's
property would be if something falls onto it. Ms. Carr added that they would be insured and be willing
to fix anything that is damaged.
Mr. Kelleher made a motion to deny the Certificate of Nori-Applicability due to the{pr'oject being visible
from the public way. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
August 3, 1995, Page 2
Mr. Oedel stated that it was represented at the meeting that there was no original fabric.
Ms. Carr indicated where alterations had been completed in the 1960's.
Mr. Kelleher felt that the framing of the Beverly jog was quite old. Mr. Kasparian noted that there was a
Georgian window in the jog. Ms. Carr stated that they would reuse the window.
Ms. Carr stated that the main portion of the house was built in 1788 and that the kitchen addition was
completed in 1875. Mr. Kasparian felt that the jog was earlier and that it was not visible from River
Street. Mr. Kasparian noted that the jog is visible from Andover Street.
Joel Caron, 4 Andover Street, stated that the ridge line will be higher than existing. Chairman Sides
stated that the drawing shows it higher, but that Ms. Carr has indicated that it will be below the third
floor window.
Ms. Carr stated that the architect is trying to get the same roof pitch as the main house only lower.
Mr. Kasparian felt that the issues include the roof line,the relationship to the third story window and the
whether or not the center ell warrants special consideration.
Steve Whittier, 10 River Street, stated that the one can't see all of the third floor window and that there
would be no more intrusion if the roof were higher.
• Ann Whittier, 10 River Street, stated that the rear triangular windows were always jarring and that she
prefers that they are being lost.
Mr. Kasparian stated that there are too many unresolved issues and that the applicant's need to pull
together all the details as a package.
Ms. Carr stated that her land has 20% building, which is the lowest on the street.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to continue the application. Mr. Kelleher seconded the motion, all were in
favor and the motion so carried.
There being no further business, Mr. Oedel made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Kelleher seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
J e A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission
•
• August 15, 1995, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
AUGUST 15, 1995
A special meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Tuesday, August 15, 1995,
at 1:30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were Chairman Sides, Messrs. Cook,
Oedel and Casey and Ms. Guy. Mr. Carr entered later in the meeting. Also present were Atty.
Robert Ledoux, City Solicitor and Russ Archibald of the Dept. Of Housing and Urban
Development.
The purpose of meeting was to discuss a discrimination claim filed against the Commission by
Greater Lynn Mental Heath& Retardation Association, Inc. (GLMHRA)
Mr. Archibald explained the claim process and Federal regulations. Investigation takes 70-100
days and then a recommendation is made to Washington on whether there is cause or not. Prior
to the recommendation, an attempt is made at conciliation. If cause is found, it is reviewed in
Washington and a charge maybe issued. Fines for the first offense are $10,000, second offense,
$25,000 and third offense $50,000. Damages charged are similar to an accident or liability case
• and are set by a judge.
Mr. Archibald stated that legal interns took pictures and did interviews. Mr. Archibald stated
that he conducted interviews today.
Mr. Archibald stated that a group home must be treated the same as a traditional family and that
they have the right to reasonable accommodations. The Federal law statute states that no
restrictions can be placed against them and if something that would aid their ability to enjoy life
better, the town.must make reasonable accommodation.
Mr. Archibald stated that(GLMHRA) has claimed that they have requested reasonable
accommodations and have been required to make changes such as shorten a deck and that the
fence scallop is inappropriate. Mr. Archibald stated that his office has problems with statements
made by Commission members. Mr. Archibald stated that H.U.D.'s position is that shortening
the deck would create unsafe, hazardous conditions for the residents. Mr. Archibald stated that
minutes show discussion on the right to put in a ramp, which has the appearance that the
Commission feels it has the authority to say whether a ramp can or cannot be installed. Mr.
Archibald sited a letter dated April 26, 1995 from the Commission regarding a threat of legal
action.
Mr. Archibald requested copies of letters sent to other property owners under enforcement that
threaten legal enforcement.
• August 15, 1995, Page 2
Mr. Archibald noted the following properties that appear to have similar alterations:
350 Essex Street- 3rd floor deck visible from Essex Street
121 Federal St. - solarium
Mr. Cook stated that it was constructed prior to the district being formed. Mr. Archibald
asked if there was a building permit. Ms. Guy will locate it.
20 Beckford Street- gate has scallop
104 Federal St. - Reverse scallop
89 Federal St. - scallop
A property on Essex Street which can be viewed between 171 and 173 Federal Street with a
second floor deck with aluminum doors
2 Griffin Place - 2 aluminum doors
146-149 Federal Street- vinyl shutters
Mr. Carr joined the meeting at this time.
Mr. Oedel asked that if the Commission missed one violation, would it be considered disparate
treatment. Mr. Archibald stated that it could be and that they are looking for equal treatment.
• Mr. Carr asked if Mr. Archibald was aware of the number of times the Commission has turned
down decks on a consistent basis. Mr. Carr stated that the Commission never acted against the
Home based on the fact that the people within the Home are handicapped. Mr. Carr asked if Mr.
Archibald was aware of other buildings that the Commission has approved accommodations for
others. Mr. Carr stated that most action was taken due to work being done without benefit of one
of the Commission's three certificates.
Mr. Archibald stated that he was told that the trees were required as a request of the neighbors.
Mr. Oedel stated that the trees were requested by the GLMHRA.
Mr. Carr stated that the Home stated that they recognized the need to screen an element not
historically appropriate and offered to screen with trees.
Mr. Archibald stated that the GLMHRA claims they were told to put in the trees. Mr. Oedel
stated that they offered to relocate the trees.
Ms. Guy stated that the alteration to the deck was never applied for. Mr. Archibald stated that
GLMHRA states that they applied for it and it was approved. Mr. Archibald stated that he goes
by the information they provide and that the Commission can refute it. Mr. Archibald stated that
it is up to GLMHRA to provide documentation. Mr. Archibald stated that the Commission
• wants the deck shortened.
Mr. Casey stated that if it were shortened, it would make the deck non-visible and then would not
be in the Commission's jurisdiction. Mr. Archibald stated that if it were shortened, it would be a
• August 15, 1995, Page 3
problem for the residents of the Home. H.U.D. requires reasonable accommodation.
Mr. Carr stated that it would be illegal to judge an application that has not been received.
Mr. Archibald stated that GLMHRA must go through the process like anyone else.
Mr. Carr asked if Mr. Archibald was an advocate or a fact finder and stated that he asks only that
he not come here pre judged. Mr. Carr stated that if Mr. Archibald is investigating, not as an
advocate, the Commission contends that the facts will show that some of the information
provided by GLMHRA is not factual.
Mr. Carr asked if the Commission finds that it has acted fairly and non-discriminatory and Mr.
Archibald's finding is opposite, where does the Commission go. Mr. Archibald replied Federal
District Court.
Mr. Carr asked if there were any facts that the second floor deck was approved. Mr. Archibald
stated that the GLMHRA only verbally stated that they applied.
• Mr. Carr stated that they built the deck unlike it previously existed and since the new deck is
visible, it needs a Certificate - and to this day they have not applied.
Mr. Archibald stated that the option is to go to Federal Court and that the City can loose a lot of
money on the basis of principle.
Ms. Guy stated that the only reason the Commission requested that the deck be cut back is so it
would not be visible and therefore no design review would be required. If it is not cut back and
is visible, the deck needs design approval.
Mr. Archibald stated that the relief that GLMHRA wants includes:
1. That the second floor deck be allowed and a railing be constructed;
2. That all city officials to undergo four hours of sensitivity training;
3. That they receive compensation for the architects for the fence;
4. That they receive compensation for the trees; and
5. That they can keep the jog in the fence.
Mr. Archibald stated that GLMHRA feels the jog is a minor change,that is important for the ease
of the residents and that the fence company suggested it.
. Mr. Archibald stated that he did not have a problem with the Commission's request to remove
the scallop.
Mr. Archibald suggested an agreement where the GLMHRA can provide a donation in lieu of
• August 15, 1995, Page 4
taxes. Atty. Ledoux stated that it would not be satisfactory to the Mayor or City Council.
Mr. Archibald did not feel that the GLMHRA was hung up on the money.
Mr. Oedel stated that his personal comments are he has no problem with a railing or the request
for training. Mr. Oedel stated that he would not agree to any compensation. Mr. Oedel stated
that he did not like the jog,that they should not have let the fence contractor do it and that they
could have the fence contractor fix it at his expense since he should be aware that he must have
an approved Certificate to proceed.
Mr. Archibald stated that H.U.D.'s position is if the jog assists handicapped people, the
Commission should accommodate.
Chairman Sides asked if a temporary rail could be installed while the GLMHRA went through
the application process.
Mr. Oedel stated that he wants Mr. Bleau to come to the Commission before it gets to this point.
Mr. Oedel stated that GLMHRA needs to apply and noted that they never applied for the shed.
• Mr. Oedel suggested that he be delegated to go to the site with Mr. Archibald.
Mr. Cook left the meeting at this time.
Ms. Guy stated that she could ask the Personnel Manager to look into offering a sensitivity
course. Mr. Archibald stated that H.U.D. would offer it.
Mr. Carr stated that he would welcome a seminar and that he may elect to go, but that he does
not want to be told to go.
Ms. Guy stated that she would like to entertain a motion to offer the following conciliation
agreement:
1. That the Commission delegate Mr. Oedel to negotiate the deck, rail and trees;
2. That Ms. Guy request that the Personnel Department look into offering a H.U.D.
sensitivity training;
3. That there be no compensation;
4. That the jog be allowed to stay; and
5. That GLMHRA fix the scallop.
• Mr. Carr so moved. Mr. Casey seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so
carried.
Mr. Carr motion that the vote is conditional that all items be accepted as a package. Mr. Casey
August 15, 1995, Page 5
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
There being no further business, Mr. Oedel made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Casey seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. y
Clerk o e Commis ion
r
August 16, 1995, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
• MINUTES
AUGUST 16, 1995
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, August 16, 1995 at
7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were Chairman Sides, Messrs. Carr, Kelleher,
Casey, Kasparian, Slam and Oedel and Ms. Guy. Mr. Cook entered later in the meeting.
124 Federal Street
Kevin and Deborah Guinee submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to convert a
room on the first floor to a portico and to change the rear hip of the main building roof from slate to
asphalt.
Ms. Guinee stated that a small portion of the roof is visible from the street and that the majority is only
visible from the back yard. Ms. Guinee stated that there are quite a few leaks in that area, particularly
where it meets the Victorian addition. There has been a lot of patching done. Ms. Guinee stated that it
is too far gone and not repairable. Ms. Guinee provided estimates for slate, artificial slate and asphalt
and stated that they cannot afford the slate. Ms. Guinee stated that the roofer would not recommend
man-made slate and that it is the same price as real slate.
Mr. Cook entered the meeting at this time.
• Mr. Carr stated that the point of visibility is further down Lynn Street looking back.
Mr. Carr asked if two slopes can be seen together. Ms. Guinee stated that they probably cannot be seen
together.
Chairman Sides stated that the ridge where the two slopes meet may be visible. Mr. Carr felt that it is
usually covered with some kind of metal. Mr. Kasparian asked if the applicant knew what would be
done. Ms. Guinee did not know but noted that they are replacing copper flashing along the roof.
Mr. Carr asked the cost comparison. Ms. Guinee stated that slate is $7500 and asphalt is $1500.
Chairman Sides asked if they planned to reroof the remaining slopes in asphalt in the future. Ms. Guinee
stated that the rest is in good condition.
Mr. Slam felt it was a situation of minimal visibility. Mr. Oedel and Mr. Kasparian were in agreement.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the application as submitted conditional that the asphalt be black or
slate grey and to find that there is minimum visibility to the rear slope of the hip and that slate is
excessive in cost. Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr.
• Kasparian abstained from voting.
Pamela Hawkes of Anne Beha Assoc. presented drawings of the portico project. Ms. Hawkes stated that
it will pass through into the back, through the rear wing. Ms. Hawkes noted that the house abuts the
August 16, 1995, Page 2
adjacent property and there is no parking or access to the back yard. Ms. Hawkes stated that she looked
• at other Federal buildings in adjacent areas with elliptical archways. They will continue the existing
materials, use the same trim and have simple pilasters. A conventional garage door will be used that will
look like it would open out, but will be a single panel that rises up. The ellipse is the opening in the wall
and the door sits behind it.
Mr. Oedel stated that there will have to be horizontal breaks in order to open in. Ms. Hawkes stated that
the door still needs to be worked out.
Ms. Hawkes stated that the door opening is 9' and that there is approximately 5' to the end of the wall.
Ms. Hawkes stated that they tried to keep the width as small as possible.
Meg Twohey, 122 Federal Street, stated that she resides on the corner that faces this wall. Ms. Twohey
asked if the doors no longer opened out as the plan indicates. Ms. Twohey was concerned that the door
would be left open all the time and that she would be looking into the garage.
Arlene O'Shea, 1 Lynn Street, stated that she lives adjacent to the applicant and is concerned of the
proximity to her bay window which is her living room. Mrs. O'Shea was concerned about driving in the
ice and snow. Mrs. O'Shea was also concerned of gas fumes and stated that her husband is not well and
has lung problems.
Councillor Bill Burns asked if the construction is closer to the O'Shea's. Ms. Hawkes stated that there is
• no new construction and that the buildings currently butt up together. Mr. Burns asked to what the
garage door will lead. Ms. Hawkes replied that it will lead to the back yard. Mr. Burns asked if it would
be for parking. Ms. Hawkes replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Twohey asked how close the door is to the bay window as opposed to the wall of the O'Shea's. Ms.
Hawkes replied that it is the same distance since it is not on the same plane. Ms. Twohey stated that a
car can come within 1-2 feet. Ms. Hawkes replied in the affirmative and stated that they will put in
bollards. Ms. Hawkes also noted that it is a one way street and that the cars would swing outward.
Mr. Carr asked the width of a car. Ms. Hawkes replied 7-8 feet. Mr. Carr asked the length of the inside
edge from the curb to the doors. Ms. Hawkes replied that it is approximately 16' which is not quite big
enough for the Guinee's van, so that the van cannot be left sitting there.
Ms. Hawkes stated that the back area will be paved to allow the children to ride their bikes safely off the
street.
Mr. Carr asked the age of the addition. Ms. Hawkes stated that it is unknown, but her understanding is
that the roof framing is 20th century.
Mr. Carr stated that his understanding is that the O'Shea's building was built as a warehouse for a
merchant who owned the Guinee's house. Mrs. O'Shea thought it went back to the late 1700's.
• Fran Atchason, 7 Lynn Street, stated that she liked the design and that the car can't be seen but was
concerned of noxious fumes in the courtyard. Ms. Hawkes stated that she did not know how there would
be more fumes than driving up and unloading groceries. Ms. Atchason noted that it is an enclosed area.
Chairman Sides stated that it was not unlike pulling into a garage attached to a house. Mr. Kelleher felt
August 16, 1995, Page 3
it was no different than parking in front of the house than in back.
• Mr. Slam asked if they need Board of Appeal approval. Ms. Guinee stated that the City Solicitor says it
is not required.
Mr. Oedel asked the paving material. Ms. Guinee replied it would be brick or gravel.
Darryl Lebovici, 122 Federal Street, stated that in the direction of travel on Lynn Street, with parking on
the left, it could prevent swinging in. Mr. Lebovici asked if there had been any investigation as to the
turning radius. Ms. Hawkes felt there was enough room to turn in.
Mr. Kelleher asked if the window being removed will be re-used. Ms. Hawkes replied in the affirmative
and stated that it will be used in the location of the door.
Councillor Bums asked how many autos are involved. Ms. Hawkes stated that the Guinee's owned two,
that both Mr. and Mrs. Guinee work and are out in the a.m. and back in the p.m.
Mr. Burns stated that street directions can be changed at any time and asked if the direction were
changed, would they still be able to make the turn. Ms. Hawkes stated that it would actually be easier if
the direction were changed.
Mr. Burns stated that gravel is noisy.
• There was no other public comment. Chairman Sides closed the public hearing.
Mr. Carr stated that he has a problem with the elevation and that everything looks neat if the doors are
shut. Mr. Carr stated that the view that would be created has to be considered. Mr. Carr was concerned
with tampering with what seems to be original 18th century building fabric. Mr. Carr was concerned
that the driveway in front of the garage will become a parking space. Mr. Carr stated that every attempt
at making a garage out of a building has been less than successful and that he has looked at the Beacon
Hill and Boston Landmarks Commissions' guidelines that say no new openings shall be allowed. Mr.
Carr had concerns with relocating granite bollards from the original fence line and stated that he did not
see a compelling need to accommodate the auto. Mr. Carr stated that he could not imagine that either
side of the building won't be nicked.
Mr. Slam agreed with Mr. Carr. Mr. Slam stated that he had a lot of problems with the proposal and did
not know of any 18th century house that would have this. Mr. Slam did not feel it was appropriate.
Mr. Casey stated that he had no problem accommodating buildings to current usage and would need
details on the folding of the doors and the molding. Mr. Casey was concerned about the location of
bollards and the walkway. Mr. Casey stated that the walkways are brick and that he would prefer the
driveway be brick. Mr. Casey stated that the bollards appear par of, if not original to, the modifications
of the Victorian area.
• Mr. Oedel was concerned about the visual aspect of having a car parked in front of the bay window in
front of the neighbor but added that the homeowner's could now pave the area and park anyway. Mr.
Oedel noted that there is significant precedent in Portsmouth. Mr. Oedel felt the design was reasonable
but the final door situation would need to be determined. Mr. Oedel would like to arrange it so there is
August 16, 1995, Page 4
no parking in front of it.
• Mr. Kelleher stated that he was sympathetic to the need for off-street parking and felt it was a creative
solution. Mr. Kelleher felt it was not inappropriate to the design and period but would want more door
details.
Mr. Cook felt that the design was the best finesse that we could get and that it was not unattractive. Mr.
Cook was afraid of the unattractive appearance of a vehicle parking in front of the door.
Mr. Kasparian stated that there was significant precedent for latitude in a rear utilitarian addition. Mr.
Kasparian stated that if more details were submitted, it might satisfy him of the scale. Mr. Kasparian
concurred with Mr. Oedel regarding the problem with a car in front of the door, but noted that the
Commission does not have jurisdiction over fumes and pavement.
Chairman Sides stated that, if a car were left there, the residents would have to go around front to get in.
Chairman Sides stated that she wants to accommodate the homeowner and that houses need to be carried
into the future. Chairman Sides agreed with Mr. Oedel that more detail on the door is needed, but felt
the concept was fine.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to eliminate the door of the rear ell,to relocate the window, and to install a
garage door pending approval of door details. Mr. Oedel was concerned that the horizontal breaks read
as a garage door.) The motion also includes that the original bollards be relocated according to the plan
• and the paving material up to the door be brick.
Mr. Carr was concerned that bollards are taken from a higher priority location.
Mr. Casey suggested amending the motion to require that the present number of bollards remain.
Mr. Carr suggested approving the details on the bollards later.
Mr. Oedel so amended his motion per Mr. Casey and Mr. Carr's suggestions and to continue the
application until the next meeting. Mr. Kelleher seconded the motion. Chairman Sides and Messrs.
Oedel, Cook, Casey and Kelleher voted in favor. Mr. Slam and Mr. Carr voted in opposition. Mr.
Kasparian abstained from voting. The motion so carried.
30-32 Beckford Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, 30-32 Beckford Street Trust submitted an application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness for the construction of a fence and carriage house.
Rolf Franke-Offen, representing the Trust, stated that the plan presented also include the installation of a
light post. Mr. Franke-Otten stated that he had pieces of a gas light to restore like those on Beacon Hill.
New drawings were presented for the fence details. Mr. Franke-Offen stated that the balusters will be
• drilled into the granite and that the supports are on the inside.
There was no public comment.
August 16, 1995, Page 5
Mr. Carr stated that he would abstain since he was not at the site visit but added that, as a neighbor, he
• was in favor.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the fence details. Mr. Kelleher seconded the motion, all were in
favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Carr abstained from voting.
Mr. Franke-Offen stated that the light will be electric, not gas.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the light post and to delegate Chairman Sides to approve the
lumina. Mr. Kelleher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Carr
abstained from voting.
Mr. Franke-Offen stated that he will try to use old materials (e.g. post& beams) for the carriage house.
Mr. Oedel stated that he would not approve of the stair if it were visible, but did not feel it would be
visible.
Mr. Slam felt it was visible from the public way in name only.
Mr. Oedel stated that the doors will be a bear in the winter time.
Mr. Casey asked the intent for the upper level. Mr. Franke-Offen stated that it will be used for storage.
• Mr. Casey asked if there were intentions of making it an apartment and if there was a need for egress.
Mr. Franke-Offen replied in the negative.
Mr. Kelleher asked if the stairs could go on the inside. Mr. Franke-Offen replied that they would loose a
parking space. Mr. Kelleher asked if there was enough dept to go along the interior wall. Mr. Franke-
Otten replied in the negative.
Mr. Casey asked which elevation the stairs are on. Mr. Franke-Offen replied that they face the house.
Mr. Oedel asked if the windows will be 6 over 6. Mr. Franke-Otten replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Casey asked what kind of roof Mr. Franke-Otten stated that he has not decided the height and that
he would it has high as possible in order to cover the tin building.
Mr. Casey asked if the carriage house will be clapboard. Mr. Franke-Offen replied in the affirmative and
stated that he may do wood shingles on the roof.
Mr. Cook stated that the view is most obscure in reference to the view from the public way.
Mr. Kasparian asked if the roof shingles would be asphalt. Mr. Franke-Otten replied that they would be
wood or asphalt.
• Mr. Kasparian suggested a pull down stair to access the storage.
Mr. Carr asked if an exterior stair could be put on the northerly wall in order to reduce its visibility.
August 16, 1995, Page 6
Mr. Oedel stated that it is a possibility that Universal Steel may not be there, since some of the structures
• may not be there legally and that, at some time, the carriage house may be more visible. Mr. Oedel
preferred to see the barn expanded four feet or to have a pull down staircase.
Mr. Franke-Offen stated that if he buys the land, he can make the carriage house larger.
Chairman Sides stated that if a dormer were put on the back, a stair could be put in back. Mr. Franke-
Otten stated that he had no problem putting it in back as long as there was no problem with zoning.
Mr. Casey asked the time frame. Mr. Franke-Offen replied that he will start next year.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to modify the staircase by moving it to the east side and to add a matching
dormer to the back in order to accommodate an entrance to the second floor. Mr. Cook seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Carr abstained from voting.
10 Flint Street
Ten Flint Street Trust submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a fence with
no gate along the front of the property and railings up the front exterior stairway. All to be painted
white.
Mr. James M. Legnard, attorney for James D. Legnard trustee and Jerry Riordan, beneficiary of the trust,
• stated that the application is an attempt to resolve a dispute that has been ongoing for three years. There
is a pending lawsuit in Superior Court. Attorney Legnard read Chapter 40C Sections 7 and 9.
Mr.Carr asked if Arty. Legnard was aware of the concept of abandonment. Atty. Legnard stated that it
was in disrepair and removed and that they have attempted to replace it for three years.
Atty. Legnard read the portion of the Salem Historic Commission Ordinance that pertains to what does
not fall under the jurisdiction of the Commission. Atty. Legnard stated that the fence was removed by
Mr. Riordan due to gross disrepair due to vandalism. Arty. Legnard felt the fence was technically a
hazard and that the Commission had no authority in the statute to demand replication. Atty. Legnard
stated that the building survey picture is not a depiction of the fence as it existed when it was removed.
Atty. Legnard stated that the situation was exacerbated when they had a potential buyer for the property
two years ago. The Clerk's Certificate filed constituted an encumbrance on the property. Atty. Legnard
stated that the drawing provided by a Commission member resulted in needing $6000 for a fence and, as
a result, the sale collapsed. Atty. Legnard felt approximately $3000 was lost as a result. Atty. Legnard
stated that a suit was filed to get the encumbrance removed and to request $250,000 in damages.
Mr. Carr noted that there had been an escrow agreement prepared in order to remove the Clerk's
Certificate. Mr. Carr did not feel the sale collapsed due to the Clerk's Certificate.
Bill O'Neil, 19 Warren Street, stated that he agreed with Mr. Legnard that the property has fallen into
• some disrepair and stated that a fence would be an improvement to the neighborhood.
Debbie Jackson, 17 Warren Street, stated that the stairs and rails need paint. Ms. Jackson stated that
paying $6500 to build what was there is not necessary when the Commission could approve a fence like
August 16, 1995, Page 7
14 Broad Street.
• Councillor Burns agreed with Mr. O'Neil and Ms. Jackson and stated that the issue should be resolved in
favor of Mr. Riordan's proposal. Councillor Burns suggested working with the designs submitted and
have a less expensive fence.
Mr. Slam asked why Mr. Riordan didn't come to the Commission in the beginning. Mr. Riordan stated
that he applied for Hardship initially after the work was done. Mr. Riordan apologized for his actions at
that time and stated he could not replicate the fence at that time.
Atty. Legnard stated that they are not committing to anything else but the fence and that the proposed is
not identical to what was there.
Mr. Riordan presented two proposals. Mr. Riordan stated that the fence will go across the front but not
across the driveway.
Chairman Sides asked if Mr. Riordan had a preference between proposals. Mr. Riordan replied in the
negative.
Chairman Sides asked if it would be painted the trim color. Mr. Riordan replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Carr asked if the height is 4 '/i. Mr. Riordan stated that the post is not quite 4' and that it is 4 '/� to
• the top of the pickets.
Mr. Carr asked if the fence is approved, would the lawsuit be dropped. Atty. Legnard replied in the
affirmative. Mr. Carr stated that he would not want to vote on a design and have a lessor design used
against the Commission.
Ms. Guy asked when the fence would be built. Mr. Riordan stated that it would be the end of September
of the beginning of October.
Mr. Oedel stated that when the fence is built,the encumbrance comes off.
Mr. Casey suggested not using pressure treated wood, in which they would have to wait six months to
paint.
Mr. Riordan stated that the 5 x 5 post is C high and 2 V2-3' in ground.
Mr. Carr asked if the boxed post is a substantial increase in cost. Atty. Legnard stated that they want to
keep the fence between $1200 and $1500.
Mr. Casey asked how many posts from the property line to the driveway. Mr. Riordan provided a layout
drawing.
• Mr. Oedel asked the post size. Mr. Riordan replied 5 x 5. Mr. Oedel asked the heigh from the ground to
the top of the post. Mr. Riordan replied just under 4'. Mr. Oedel stated that it is 3'6" from the ground to
the top of the pickets.
August 16, 1995, Page 8
Mr. Kasparian stated that there is an existing fence post and that they should consider the relationship to
• it.
Mr. Oedel stated that the post height is 3'10"-4'. Mr. Oedel asked the spacing between the pickets. Mr.
Riordan stated that there is 1 ''/z" space and the pickets are 1 '/2" square.
Mr. Oedel noted there is a 5 %z" water table.
Mr. Riordan provided two post cap samples. Mr. Oedel felt either were appropriate.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve Proposal A as modified 8/16/95, provided it is painted white and
the spacing as per plan submitted. Mr. Slam seconded the motion.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to close the discussion. Mr. Slam seconded the motion. Chairman Sides and
Messrs. Kelleher, Cook, Slam, Oedel and Kasparian voted in favor. Mr. Carr voted in opposition. Mr.
Casey abstained from voting. The motion so carried.
Mr. Slam made a motion to move the questions. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion, all were in favor and
the motion so carried. Mr. Kasparian abstained from voting.
The motion to approve Proposal A as modified 8/16/95, provided it is painted white and the spacing as
per plan submitted was voted upon, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Kasparian abstained
• from voting.
Mr. Casey stated that the spacing of the railing balusters should match the fence. Mr. Carr stated that it
should read as a continuation of the fence or of the porch rail. Chairman Sides stated that it is going to
be about the same.
Mr. Oedel stated that is should be specified as the same balusters as on the fence with the same spacing
as the porch.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the rails as submitted. Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all were in
favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Kasparian abstained from voting.
Mr. Carr suggested removing the Clerk's Certificate of Vote in light of tonight's action.
Mr. Carr made a motion to amend the railing and fence approvals to be conditional that all work,
including painting, be completed entirely by October 31, 1995. Mr. Casey seconded the motion, all
were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Kasparian abstained from voting.
Mr. Oedel stated that he felt uncomfortable vacating the Clerk's Certificate when the violation still
exists. Mr. Oedel stated that until an approved fence is built,the violation still exists.
Mr. Carr stated that the previous action was due to there not being an approved design and that if the
• deadline is not met, and the Commission does not extend the deadline, the commission can go back to
enforcement.
Mr. Carr made a motion to cause the existing Clerk's Certificate to be vacated. Mr. Oedel seconded the
August 16, 1995, Page 9
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Kasparian abstained from voting.
• Ms. Guy will inform the City Solicitor that the issue has been settled.
Mr. Oedel stated that if the fence is not built, it will take six months to go through the enforcement
process.
Mr. Carr made a motion to amend his motion to indicate that if the owner does not meet the deadline,
and the deadline is not extended, that the Commission immediately file a Clerk's Certificate. Mr. Oedel
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Kasparian abstained from voting.
120 Essex Street
Any. John Serafini, Sr. introduced Robert Saarnio to the Commission and stated that Mr. Saarnio is the
new curator of the Peabody Essex Museum. Mr. Saarnio has a Masters Degree in cultural preservation
and, prior to accepting the position, conducted research on Salem with some assistance by Ms. Guy.
The Peabody Essex Museum submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the
permanent retention, in situ, of existing planter boxes at southeast corner of 126 Essex Street, facing
Essex Street and Hawthorne Boulevard. Materials are ochre/yellow and white to match the facade
colors of the Crowninshield-Bentley House. The planter boxes will hold soil with seasonal plantings
and will serve as anchor points for black metal posts to which temporary banners will be attached.
• Mr. Saarnio stated that he did not design the boxes, but rather inherited them and that the Museum's
desire is to have boxes and signage.
Mr. Oedel stated that the representation by the Museum had been that the boxes would be temporary for
a special event. Mr. Oedel preferred to get rid of the planters and to approve stanchions. Mr. Oedel
stated that the box is not an appropriate structure and that he preferred a sign be designed.
Mr. Kelleher asked if there were still some banners being stored at the Brown Street parking lot. Mr.
Saarnio replied in the affirmative and stated that there are no plans to put them back in the public view.
Mr. Cook and Mr. Kasparian agreed with Mr. Oedel. Mr. Kasparian stated that the box is inappropriate
and should be removed.
Mr. Carr stated that he had no problem with the concept of signage and did not mind planters in the
summer if they read as temporary, but would not want to see something permanent there.
Chairman Sides stated that, in terms of longevity and maintenance,they are a lot better without the
boxes. Chairman Sides felt that it was an excellent marker for where the Museum is located, but not
necessary.
Mr. Saarnio stated that the prior concern of the Museum visitors is where are the Museum boundaries.
• The Museum wanted to clarify for the visitor,the extent and the boundaries of the property. Mr. Saarnio
stated that, since then, the house signs have come down and they are working on preparing identifying
signage.
August 16, 1995, Page 10
Mr. Carr stated that it will be the second application within the past several years for house signs. Mr.
• Carr stated that the original signs were very high style and felt the Museum took a giant step back with
the signs that were more recently approved.
Mr. Slam left the meeting at this time.
Mr. Saarnio stated that he would like to retain the banners and would like to get guidance on the
stanchions.
Chairman Sides suggested a two sided sign with diagonal bracing.
Mr. Carr made a motion to deny the application. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion, all were in favor and
the motion so carried.
Mr. Carr stated that the signs should read as temporary. Mr. Carr stated that the anchoring should be as
invisible as possible and be removable when the signs are down.
The Peabody Essex Museum submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the
existing chain link fence with a wooden picket-type fence and appropriate plantings. The fence height
will be 4'1", matched board vertical members, width 3 3/8", to match the existing fence on the east side
of the Museum entry drive on Brown Street.
. Mr. Kelleher asked about the white picket fence that was installed. Mr. Saarnio stated that he
understands the procedures and will apply for the fence.
Mr. Carr asked if the fence could be 6' high. Mr. Kelleher felt it would look like a wall of fencing.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Carr seconded the motion. All
were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Oedel asked the color of the fence. Mr. Saamio replied that it would be white.
Mr. Carr made a motion for the fence to be painted white. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion, all were in
favor and the motion so carried.
11 Warren Street
Fred Chapman presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to strip and reroof the main
structure with dark grey asphalt shingles to match the existing roof, to rebuild both chimneys, to replace
the existing facia boards in kind and to replace the mixed wood/metal gutters with new heavy aluminum
to match the look of the existing wood. Downspouts to be replaced to match existing. The rear chimney
will be replaced as is. The front chimney is currently a single flu and would be replaced with a two flu
style.
• Mr. Chapman stated that the second floor section of gutters is already aluminum on the horizontal
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Casey seconded the motion.
August 16, 1995, Page 11
Mr. Oedel asked how heavy is heavy aluminum.
• Mr. Carr amended his motion to delegate Mr. Casey to approve the gutter material. Mr. Oedel seconded
the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
41 Chestnut Street
Richard Jagolta and Kersten Lanes submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to
change the front door from green to black.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Kasparian seconded the motion,
all were in favor and the motion so carried.
24 Chestnut Street
Richard Jagolta and Kersten Lanes submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for
paint colors at 24 Chestnut Street. The body will change from green to Montgomery white with Powell
Buff trim and Hale Navy shutters.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the application as submitted with determination of what constitutes
trim to Mr. Casey. Mr. Cook seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
• 31 Washington Square North
In continuation of a previous meeting, the Washington Square North Trust submitted an application for a
Certificate of Non-Applicability for the replacement of an iron fence. Neither the applicant nor his
representative was present.
Ms. Guy stated that she sent an intern to the Peabody Essex Museum library who could not locate any
pictures after the formation of the district, which showed the fence still there.
Mr. Carr stated that it was not incumbent on the Commission to prove it was down prior to the district
formation.
Mr. Carr made a motion to deny the application without prejudice due to insufficient information and
due to the Commission's requirement to act within 60 days of receiving the application. Mr. Oedel
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Minutes
Mr. Casey asked that"Ms. Casey"be changed to "Ms. Carr" on page one of the August 3, 1995 minutes,
ninth paragraph, second line from the end.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the minutes of July 12, 1995 and August 3, 1995 as amended. Mr.
• Casey seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
August 16, 1995, Page 12
Ms. Gu asked if there were an amendments for the draft newsletter. Mr. Kelleher suggested that th
Y Y gg e
• paint poll results be removed.
Ms. Guy passed out a draft letter to Russ Archibald of the Department of Fair Housing and Equal
Opportunity and requested that any comments be telephoned to her in the morning.
There being no further business, Mr. Cook made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Kasparian seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
J e A. Guy
erk of the Commission
•
SEPTEMBER 6, 1995, PAGE 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
• MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 6, 1995
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, September 6, 1995 at
7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were Chairman Sides and Messrs. Casey, Oedel,
Kelleher, Kasparian, Slam and Cook and Ms. Guy. Mr. Carr joined later in the meeting.
26 Chestnut Street
Dr. and Mrs. Arthur Kavanagh submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint
colors for their home at 26 Chestnut Street. The trim will be white and the shutters and doors will be
Lafayette Green.
Dr. Kavanagh stated that the proposed colors are those that were originally on the house when they bought
it in 1964 and that they want to return to these colors.
Mr. Casey asked if the colors will be used on the garage. Dr. Kavanagh replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Sides stated that the front columns have been cut. Dr. Kavanagh stated that there was rot within and
that their carpenter is milling new columns. Dr. Kavanagh stated that the ornamental part is solid, not
rotted and that the columns will be replaced exactly as is.
• There was no public comment.
Mr. Slam made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion, all
were in favor and the motion so carried.
7 River Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, John and Carol Carr presented an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for rear ell expansion at 7 River Street.
Chairman Sides, Ms. Guy and Mr. Oedel read letters into the record from John and Carol Carr, Kenneth
and Gail Thornton 15 River St., Joel Caron 4 Andover St., Agnes Harney 6 Andover St., Daniel Foley 114
Federal Street and Alice McLaughlin 16 River Street.
Ms. Carr provided updated plans and stated that many previous plans had been discarded. Ms. Carr stated
that the proposed was the best plan to meet their needs and that the current kitchen cannot fit five people.
Ms. Carr stated that the focal point of the house is the main block and that ell behind the fence is not the
focal point where there is existing Anderson windows. Ms. Carr noted that her photographs are from the
sidewalk and not with a zoom lens. Ms. Carr stated that there is no question that the ell is visible from the
street.
• Ms. Carr stated that they want to keep the connector between the main block and rear ell and that they will
be bringing out the flat roof under the second floor window. The rear ell wall will be coming out 3 '/z feet
(approximately flush with the main block). Ms. Carr stated that the blank wall on the rear ell will have
windows added as desired by their neighbor Ann Knight.
SEPTEMBER 6, 1995, PAGE 2
Ms. Carr stated that the first floor addition extends approximately 11' out and that the 6' fence will block
• out much it, although Ms. Carr added that it is not necessary to block out the first floor since it is a good
design.
Mr. Oedel asked the height to the peak over the Palladian window.
John Emerson, the architect for the project, stated the present roof is not symmetrical.
Mr. Oedel asked if the peak is in the same place with only the angles changing. Mr. Emerson replied in
the affirmative.
Mr. Kasparian asked the height of the rail on the top of the first floor addition and if it will be used as a
roof or a deck. Ms. Carr stated that it will not be used as a deck. Mr. Emerson stated that the rail height is
3' and the roof will be rubber membrane. Ms. Carr stated that she will not climb out the window to use
the roof.
Mr. Casey stated that he had previously been concerned about the loss of the jog and asked if it will be
kept. Ms. Carr stated that it will be kept on the second floor but that the first floor will be brought out will
a little flat roof,but still recessed from the main part of the house by one foot. Ms. Carr stated that they
will reuse the window and whatever else is not rotted.
Mr. Cook asked the width across the first floor addition. Ms. Sides replied 14 feet.
• Mr. Cook asked the height from the ground to the roof of the first floor addition. Ms. Carr replied it is 10
to 11 feet.
Mr. Emerson stated that the French doors are 68". Mr. Kelleher asked if that was the height to the top of
the elliptical. Mr. Emerson replied in the negative and stated that it was only the height of the doors.
Mr. Kelleher asked what was door and what was window. Ms. Carr explained that there are four doors
and three windows proposed.
Joel Caron, 4 Andover Street, congratulated Ms. Carr on a fine presentation and provided an enlarged
photograph indicating a view from Andover Street. Mr. Caron noted that the photo was not taken with a
telephoto lens. Mr. Caron overlayed a rendition of the proposed addition and stated that he did not feel it
was appropriate for the neighborhood.
Ed Pliner, 12 River Street, stated that it was unfair for Mr. Caron to state in his letter that virtually
everyone is against the Carr's proposal. Mr. Pliner felt it gave a false impression and that more are in
support than opposed. Mr. Pliner stated that he supported the application.
Ann Knight asked if there was a plan that showed how far the addition extended into the yard. Ms. Carr
stated that the addition will only cover the brick portion of the back yard which is less than '/2 of the yard.
• Ms. Knight asked what would prevent a future owner from using the roof as a deck. Ms. Carr stated that
if they change the roof line, it will block out windows.
Don Hunt, 2 River Street felt the French doors were inappropriate. Mr. Hunt noted that the proposed
SEPTEMBER 6, 1995, PAGE 3
windows were eight pane and the proposed doors were twelve pane. Mr. Hunt felt that 5-6' of the first
• floor addition will show above the fence. Mr. Hunt stated that the dimensions bothered him. Mr. Hunt
stated that he didn't see a footprint that showed the relation of the ell to the land and questioned how close
the expansion would be to the Caron's fence.
Ms. Carr stated that it would be 5' from the fence.
Mr. Hunt asked if there was a guarantee that a deck would not be made. Ms. Carr stated that they would
not use it as a deck. Mr. Hunt stated that he wanted a written guarantee. Ms. Carr stated that she would
agree to a written guarantee.
Mr. Emerson asked if privacy was a purview of the Commission. Chairman Sides replied in the negative.
Pat Durkee, 2 Andover Street stated that she could not think of any house in the neighborhood that had
arches and all of that glass. Ms. Durkee felt it was too high style for the house and that the rear wall was
extending back considerably.
Ms. Carr stated that the rear wall was extending back four feet toward the fence.
Ms. Durkee stated that it looms up and is inappropriate to the house and neighborhood.
Joan Griffin, 105 Federal Street, stated that she would not have spoken but noted that her house was sited
• twice in the Carr's letter. Ms. Griffin stated that her house is not similar in size or design and that it is not
along the scale of what is being proposed. Ms. Griffin stated that, when you look at her house, you see 6
over 6 windows and that she was told at the time of her application that French doors would be rejected.
J. P. Lenney, 121 Federal Street, stated that his home was also sited in the Carr's letter and noted that his
addition is a 6' by 10' atrium that he does not feel is visible from any street. Mr. Lenney stated that he
would not characterize his addition as precedent.
Ms. Sides closed the public hearing.
Mr. Oedel felt the rear facade blank wall to 11 River was reasonably appropriate. Mr. Oedel stated that
the south elevation, Palladian windows were somewhat anomalous, that the symmetry was reasonable and
that it was fine except for the Palladian windows. Mr. Oedel felt the front east elevation in fill section was
a reasonable accretion and that there would be no loss of original building fabric. Mr. Oedel stated he had
no real objection to the front wall expanding 3' out. Mr. Oedel felt the first floor addition was not
appropriate and not a reasonable design element.
Mr. Kasparian asked if Mr. Oedel felt it was inappropriate due to treatment or mass. Mr. Oedel replied
that it was not appropriate due to both treatment and mass.
Ms. Carr stated that most of it is not visible. Mr. Oedel stated that a lot is visible and it is not appropriate.
• Mr. Oedel stated that he had no problem with the 3' expansion.
Mr. Slam stated that he agreed with Mr. Oedel except that he felt the first floor addition was minimally
visible and that what is visible is acceptable.
r
SEPTEMBER 6, 1995, PAGE 4
Mr. Kasparian stated that he had no problem with any of the proposal except the first floor addition. Mr.
• Kasparian stated that the roof scape is his focus. Mr. Kasparian stated that the baustrade is a high style
feature which is a little out of character on this vernacular Georgian house and side street. Mr. Kasparian
stated that the relationship to the top of the fence,the in view from Andover, could be lowered. Mr.
Kasparian stated that the top of the roof is too close to the second floor windowsills and the relationship to
the fence seems very high. Mr. Kasparian stated that the addition should have a pitched roof or flat roof
with cornice and the balustrade could be a simple parapet. Mr. Kasparian suggested making the design
simpler and more utilitarian in character.
Mr. Oedel felt that Mr. Caron's rendition is out of scale.
Mr. Casey stated that he realized the applicant's need space and also agreed with the constituents. Mr.
Casey stated that considering the age of the house, the octagonal accretion is not appropriate to an early
structure. Mr. Casey stated that he agreed with Mr. Kasparian on the balustrade and had trouble with the
French doors and the number of them. Mr. Casey stated that if they could be windows, it would be less
visible.
Mr. Cook agreed that the mass was incongruous and added that even if the French doors and windows
could not be seen, he was opposed to the balustrade.
Mr. Kelleher stated that the design is too high style with the rest of the house and was in agreement with
the comments of the other Commission members. Mr. Kelleher stated that the elliptical window and
• footprint were inappropriate.
Chairman Sides stated that the height of the first floor addition is a concern, that she had no problem with
the rest of the proposal and that she agreed with Mr. Kasparian's comments.
Mr. Oedel stated that density on a lot and within a neighborhood is not something the Commission deals
with often, since historically the area was denser. Mr. Oedel stated that, in fact, it is appropriate to have
more ground coverage in the form of barns.
Mr. Kasparian stated that the zoning issue is beyond the Commission's authority.
Mr. Kasparian stated that the density can be judged as utilitarian.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to deny the application without prejudice. Mr. Cook seconded the motion.
Chairman Sides and Messrs. Casey, Cook, Kelleher and Kasparian voted in favor. Mr. Slam voted in
opposition. The motion so carried.
Mr. Carr joined the meeting at this time.
124 Federal St.
In continuation of a previous meeting, Kevin and Deborah Guinee submitted an application for a
• Certificate of Appropriateness to convert a room on the first floor to a portico and to change the rear hip
of the main building roof from slate to asphalt.
Ms. Guinee stated that her contractor ran into a problem with the soffit venting, and stated that
SEPTEMBER 6, 1995, PAGE 5
approximately 6000 holes would be needed. Ms. Guinee stated that the contractor would like to invert
• continuous venting and paint it the color of the house. Ms. Guinee added that they cannot due a vapor
barrier since there is no insulation. Ms. Guinee stated that 1200 soffit holes would be needed for the
Victorian wing and that the figure was extrapolated for the Federal portion.
Mr. Casey asked the consequences, if the venting is not done. Ms. Guinee stated that it would effect heat
and venting.
Mr. Slam asked if there were any other alternatives.
Mr. Kasparian noted that the house has been there for 200 years without soffit vents. Chairman Sides
noted that they are putting insulation in the attic.
Mr. Kasparian stated that the attic is still unheated and stated that one midget louver per joyced slot or
rafter would be better. Chairman Sides stated that it would also be less labor.
Mr. Oedel stated that he was confident in the contractor's motivation and felt that anything is better than
the existing.
Mr. Carr questioned if the Commission was essentially in a position of not knowing and stated that the
Commission ought to learn now in order to make an informed decision. Mr. Carr stated that there must be
literature that speaks on this issue. Mr. Carr suggested a continuance.
• There was no public comment.
Mr. Carr made a motion to continue the vent issue until the meeting of September 20, 1995.
Mr. Casey asked if the two week delay was within the time frame needed. Ms. Guinee stated that two
weeks would be okay.
Mr. Casey seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Kasparian abstained
from voting.
Mr. Cook asked if the homeowner had come before the Commission for front door and window
replacement. Ms. Guinee replied in the negative. Mr. Cook asked if there was a new front door. Ms.
Guinee replied in the negative and stated that it had been painted. Mr. Cook asked if the door was metal.
Ms. Guinee replied that it was wood. Ms. Guinee added that they stripped all the window casings and
fixed the wood.
Mr. Kelleher stated that it would be helpful if the contractor could attend the next meting to explain the
reasoning behind the needed 6000 vent holes.
Ms. Guy read letters into the record from:
• T. McLean Griffin, 14 Beckford St.
Timothy Doggett, 9 Lynn Street
James & Arlene O'Shea, 1 Lynn Street/Darrow Lebovici & Margaret Twohey, 122 Federal Street
Councillor at Large William Burns, 22 Beckford Street
SEPTEMBER 6, 1995, PAGE 6
Jeff Brandt& Patti Roka, 3 Lynn Street
• Richard Lindeman, 113 Federal Street
Fetherston and Leslie Tuttle, 111 Federal Street
Frances Atchison& Elliott Milford, 7 Lynn Street
Mary Pax Lenney, 121 Federal Street
Joanne Conrad, 118 Federal Street
David Fix, 7 Monroe Street
Mr. Slam stated that he agreed with the tone of the letters and that he would like to see the issue reopened.
Mr. Slam stated that it was a lapse on the Commission's part not to have a site visit. Mr. Slam felt the
abutters did not get a clear notification of the latitude of the project.
Councillor at Large William Burns, 22 Beckford Street stated that he has talked to the City Solicitor and
was informed that it is perfectly legal for Boards and Commissions to reopen.
Attorney Jon Skerry, representing James and Arlene O'Shea, stated that the purpose of the statute behind
notices is to inform abutters and that the notice sent made no mention of a garage. Atty. Skerry stated that
significant structural changes are proposed and that he is requesting reconsideration.
Attorney David McBride, representing Deborah and Kevin Guinee, stated that he was aware that the
Commission had the legal authority to reconsider but felt it was unjust to the Guinee's. Atty. McBride
stated that Massachusetts regulations state that new evidence should be presented in order to reconsider.
• Atty. McBride stated that all issues raised by the letters were aired at the last meeting and that the notices
sent are consistent with notices usually sent by the Commission. Atty. McBride stated that the last
meeting was properly notices and was attended by persons in opposition. Atty. McBride stated that in
fairness and due process to the Guinee's, the conceptual approval should not be reconsidered. Atty.
McBride added that the project is on a tight time schedule due to financial support from This Old House.
Atty. McBride stated that the board should stick to the decision and move on to the door design.
John Morris, 105 Federal Street, felt the notice was not sufficient.
Betsy Burns, 22 Beckford Street, was in agreement with Mr. Monis.
Elliott Milford, 7 Lynn Street, stated that the project could continue without the garage.
Tim Doggett, 9 Lynn Street, stated that he didn't get the first notice.
Mr. Oedel stated that notices are sent to the abutters and to the abutters of abutters.
Ms. Guy stated that notices are sent based on the Certified Abutters List received from the Assessor's
Office. Ms. Guy noted that the notice of the September 6, 1995 meeting was not required but was sent as
a courtesy.
• Elizabeth Hunt, 2 River Street, stated that she supported reconsideration.
Joseph Denico, 126 Federal Street, stated that he supported the project and felt that the proper steps and
procedures were followed.
I
SEPTEMBER 6, 1995, PAGE 7
Joan Griffin, 105 Federal Street, stated that it should be reopened and felt that the many letters constituted
• new evidence. Ms. Griffin felt that reopening would not be admitting that the notices were defective and
would not be setting a precedent.
Mr. Carr made a motion to close the public hearing on reopening. Mr. Kasparian seconded the motion, all
were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Oedel stated that the Commission is not at liberty to reopen because it is asked and that it can only be
done if there is new evidence. Mr. Oedel stated that there has been no ramp or structural ground
information presented.
Ms. Guinee stated that there will be no ramp.
Mr. Oedel stated that filming cannot be forbidden because of the Open Meeting Law. Mr. Oedel stated
that it is not in our purview and must be allowed.
Mr. Slam stated that the issue of a site visit has come out and that it is unusual for substantial changes not
to have a site visit. Mr. Slam felt there were grounds to open.
Mr. Kasparian stated that his comments on the application were conceptual and that his vote of approval
covered the concept of a covered utilitarian opening on a rear element which he felt is appropriate. Mr.
Kasparian felt a site visit will help bring out the dimensions, scale, etcetera and that it should be reopened.
• Mr. Carr stated that if the notice was adequate and the application approved conceptually, the
Commission should not issue a Certificate until the application runs its course. Mr. Carr stated that no
building permit should be issued and work should not be started. Mr. Carr stated that the Commission
should revoke the certificate and exercise its option to reopen. Mr. Carr felt the notice lacked specificity
and stated that the Commission is not on Channel 2's filming schedule. Mr. Carr stated that, on his
eighteen years on the Commission, he could not recall anything of this scale with no site visit.
Mr. Casey was disturbed by issuing a Certificate to transgress someone elses property. Atty. McBride
stated that it was not true.
Mr. Casey stated that the Commission also operates blind until they get to the meeting, in that they get a
similar notice. Mr. Casey stated that he saw the site after the conceptual approval and felt that it was over
scale. Mr. Casey requested that it be re-visited and to have a site visit.
Mr. Cook stated that he also rethought the issue and felt it should be revisited.
Mr. Kelleher stated that he saw no reason to reopen and that there was no new information. Mr. Kelleher
stated that, at the last meeting,the Commission did not think it was necessary for a site visit based on the
thoroughness of the application. Mr. Kelleher stated that the wording on the notice is the same that was
on his own notice and that if he needs more information, he contacts Ms. Guy. Mr. Kelleher stated that
• the neighbors should call Ms. Guy if they desire more information. Mr. Kelleher felt there was no reason
to reopen.
Chairman Sides agreed with Messrs. Kelleher and Oedel that there was no new information. Chairman
Sides felt there was plenty of information describing the project at the last meeting. Chairman Sides felt it
SEPTEMBER 6, 1995, PAGE 8
was clear that the Commission did not need a site visit since it never came up.
• Mr. Carr made a motion to reconsider conceptual approval and to reopen and readvertise the public
hearing. Mr. Slam seconded the motion.
Mr. Kasparian asked if conceptual was final approval. Chairman Sides replied in the negative.
Mr. Kasparian stated that he was not comfortable with the details but conceptual approval gave the
owners the direction they could pursue.
Mr. Can stated that the Commission can still vote in favor of the application.
Ms. Guy stated that she had spoken to the City Solicitor who indicated that the Commission can
reconsider its approval if there is new evidence brought to the table that they did not consider when they
first voted. Ms. Guy stated that the City Solicitor stated that the public hearing would have to be
advertised with abutters notices. Ms. Guy stated that the next meeting over fourteen days away is the
meeting of October 4, 1995.
Mr. Carr stated that the Commission could have a special meeting before October 4, 1995 but still within
the notice period.
Mr. Oedel stated that reopening does not mean that the Commission feels the project is inappropriate. Mr.
• Oedel stated that if it is not reopened, the Commission can still go over design details, including scale.
Mr. Oedel stated that the Commission can still get public comment on design details whether or not the
conceptual approval is reopened. Mr. Oedel stated that new information is needed to reopen is the
directive obtained by the City attorney. Mr. Oedel did not feel there was anything fundamentally
different. Mr. Oedel stated that the Commission already dealt with whether the driveway was too close to
the window.
Mr. Slam felt the Commission could not deal with the issue knowledgeably without a site visit.
Mr. Carr stated that many neighbors have stated that they would have come to the August 16, 1995
meeting and that they wanted to be heard. Mr. Carr stated that design detail does not address the macro
issue. Mr. Carr asked what was so wrong with giving people here the right to be heard. Mr. Carr stated
that they have right to adequate notice.
Mr. Casey stated that the Commission has the legalness to open.
Mr. Carr stated that there is a major issue with the adequateness of the notice.
Mr. Cook stated that it is incumbent on the applicant to provide data. Chairman Sides stated that the
information is available to the public. Mr. Cook asked if the information on the details had been
provided? Ms. Guy noted that the design details were continued from the last meeting.
• Mr. Kelleher felt there was no reason to reopen since there was no new information.
Mr. Carr amended his motion to include that the Commission have its meeting as soon as possible within
the requisite requirements. Mr. Slam seconded the motion.
SEPTEMBER 6, 1995, PAGE 9
The motion was voted upon. Messrs. Carr, Cook, Casey and Slam voted in favor. Chairman Sides and
• Messrs. Oedel and Kelleher voted in opposition. Mr. Kasparian abstained from voting. The motion so
carried.
Mr. Casey excused himself from the meeting at this time.
7 Lynn Street
Elliott Milford and Frances Atchison submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to
reconstruct the steps to the side entrance and replace the brick with granite. The bottom step will be 20" x
8 Y2" x 50" and the top step will be 10" x 8 %i' x 50".
The owners also submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to return the house to
original clapboards (wood) and replace windows or damages to structure where necessary. Aluminum
siding will be removed. The applicants have not decided on paint color.
Mr. Milford noted that the Notice of Hearing stated that it was replacement of the front steps, but is
actually replacement of the side steps.
Tim Doggett, 9 Lynn Street, stated that he was in support of the application.
Mr. Slam made a motion to approve siding replacement conditional that the clapboards are finish side out,
• 3 %2 - 4" exposure, cedar with details on corner boards to be delegated to Mr. Carr and to repair or restore
windows as necessary.
Chairman Sides asked the roof edge treatment.
Mr. Milford stated that the soffit, eaves, etcetera may have to be replaced.
Mr. Slam amended his motion so that if it is not to be replaced in kind, such details should be added to the
delegation. Mr. Oedel seconded the amendment. The motion was voted on, all were in favor and the
motion so carried.
Chairman Sides noted that the brick steps will be replaced with granite.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the reconstruction of the side steps. Mr. Slam seconded the motion,
all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Milford requested a copy of the meeting minutes when available.
155 Derby Street
Peter Sholds submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of a sign to
• be installed at 155 Derby Street. The sign will be 4' wide, 5' high, '/2" thick, double face and will utilize
the existing bracket for hanging. A drawing was submitted showing that the background will be black
smaltz with gold lettering.
Mr. Kasparian stated that the logo and typeface may get lost in the schmaltz.
SEPTEMBER 6, 1995, PAGE 10
Ms. Guy stated that the sign maker has indicated that the sign will not hang below the storefront cornice
• line.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the application as submitted conditional that the sign meets the
requirements of the Salem Sign Ordinance. Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all were in favor and the
motion so carried.
Chairman Sides turned the Chair over to Mr. Carr and excused herself from the meeting.
35 Broad Street
Paul Viccica and Helen Sides submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish
the existing flat roofed vestibule and to build a new mud room entrance and kitchen extension. The mud
room will be visible from Broad Street but the kitchen extension is not visible from any public way. The
new construction will be painted to match the rest of the home.
Mr. Viccica stated that structural integrity is a problem and that he did not feel the vestibule was original
to the building. They will replace a brick stair with a wood stair. The existing porch jalousy windows
will be replaced with screened porches.
• Mr. Kasparian suggested using a Greek Revival four panel door instead of a six panel door. Mr. Viccica
stated that it would be okay. Mr. Can suggested two long and two short panels. Mr. Kasparian stated that
the long should be on the top and the short on the bottom.
Mr. Viccica stated that the block will not be seen through the lattice,that there would be a 7/8 x 7/8 picket
rail, that they will salvage the old railing, that the newel post will be 4 x 4 and that there will be a newel
cap, not a finial on the post.
Veronica Morgan, 28 'h Broad Street, stated that it looks like a wonderful proposal.
Mr. Slam made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the amendment that the six panel
door be a four panel door with two long panels on top and two short panels on the bottom. Mr. Cook
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Slam excused himself from the meeting at this time. Chairman Sides rejoined the meeting and
resumed as Chair.
3 Harrington Court
Patricia Scialdone and David Gannon presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to
paint their home at 3 Harrington Court and to attach wood shutters. Clapboards and cedar shingles will be
• slate grey, all trim white and shutters to be black or dark green. Also submitted was a application for a
Certificate of Non-Applicability to replace existing gutters and downspouts in kind and repair trim and
facia board.
Mr. Gannon stated that the body color will be Harwich Grey and trim Puritan White. He will use paint
�4
SEPTEMBER 6, 1995, PAGE 11
and not stain.
Mr. Carr asked if it will be solid body stain. Mr. Gannon replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Kasparian asked if the shutters would be mounted. Mr. Gannon stated that they would be functional.
Mr. Kasparian asked if they would have pintel hinges and S brackets. Mr. Gannon replied in the
affirmative.
Mr. Kasparian felt that shutters should not be on the bay. Mr. Gannon stated that that would be okay.
Mr. Kasparian asked the size of the windows. Mr. Gannon stated that the second floor windows are 60"
long and that the shutters would cover the window when closed.
Mr. Gannon stated that the gutters will be wood and the downspouts will be metal as existing.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the solid body paint colors and for shutters to be installed so as to be
functional and the slats to be hung, so when closed, would shed water. Shutters to be of sufficient size
when closed to cover the windows with shutters only on the rectangular windows and not on the bay
window.
• Mr. Gannon stated that the hallway window is smaller.
Mr. Carr amended his motion so that there are no shutters on the small windows nor on the triple wide
kitchen window. The motion is also to repaint the garage and repair the garage shutters. Mr. Kasparian
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
28-28 '/2 Broad Street
Veronica Morgan presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for repairs to the rear
porch, installation of a third floor window, repairs to soffits and the addition of a skylight at 28-28
Broad Street.
Ms. Morgan stated that she thought soffit vents are needed.
Mr. Kasparian made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-Applicability for porch and soffit repairs.
Mr. Carr seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the installation of soffit vents that are not to exceed one 2" diameter
hole in each rafter bay. Mr. Carr seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Morgan stated that she intends to install a sliding Marvin window.
• Mr. Kasparian made a motion to deny the installation of the window under a Certificate of Non-
Applicability due to it being visible from the public way. Mr. Carr seconded the motion, all were in favor
and the motion so carried.
SEPTEMBER 6, 1995, PAGE 12
Mr. Oedel made a motion to deny the installation of a skylight under a Certificate of Non-Applicability de
to it being visible from the public way. Mr. Carr seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so
carried.
Ms. Morgan presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a sliding 30" x 30" or
36" x 36" window with white trim as existing and to install a skylight at the ridge to be aligned with the
one in the rear of the house, on the 28 '/� side of the house.
Ms. Morgan noted that there was once another skylight at one time and it is now stored in the basement.
Mr. Carr noted that the guidelines call for no more than one skylight per roof slope.
Mr. Kasparian stated that he has been in the house and noted that the skylights light the stairwells.
Mr. Carr suggested a site visit.
Mr. Carr made a motion to continue the application until the next meeting and to schedule a site visit on
Tuesday, September 12, 1995 at 6:30 p.m. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion, all were in favor and the
motion so carried.
393 Essex Street
• Tuition Realty Trust submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the repainting of
trim at 393 Essex Street.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Carr seconded the motion, all
were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Ms. Guy stated that she issued Certificates of Non-Applicability to 26 Chestnut Street for miscellaneous
repairs, including the side entry and to 167 Federal Street to repaint the trim.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the minutes of August 2, 1995 with the following amendment:
That "Pliner"be removed from "Pam Burns Pliner" on Page 3.
Mr. Kelleher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Carr abstained from
voting.
There being no further business, Mr. Oedel made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Carr seconded the motion, all
were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectf ill submitted,
Jane Guy
Cler of the Commission
i
September 13, 1995,Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
• MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 13,1995
A special meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, September 13, 1995 at
7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were Chairman Sides, Messrs. Carr, Oedel, Casey,
Kasparian, Slam and Kelleher and Ms. Guy.
124 Federal Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, Kevin and Deborah Guinee submitted an application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness for the conversion of the first floor that abuts property on Lynn Street to a
portico.
Chairman Sides stated that she would like to keep the comments relative to design issues and noted that
the applicants can opt to waive the requirement that the Commission act within 60 days. Atty. David
McBride, representing the Guinee's, stated that they decline to waive the 60 day requirement.
Mr. Oedel suggested that the 60 day requirement be explained to the audience.
Mr. Carr stated that the Commission's enabling legislation, M.G.L. Chapter 40 C, requires that the
Commission act within 60 days from the date of the application or else approval is automatically granted
• under Hardship. Mr. Carr noted that the 60 days will be up on September 14 or 15, 1995, therefore the
Commission has to act on the application at this meeting unless the applicant waives the requirement in
writing.
Atty. McBride stated that the Guinee's object to this meeting being held on the basis that they object to
the notice and feel it violates the statute. Atty. McBride stated that the Guinee's reserve their right to
protest the manner but will proceed.
Ms. Guinee stated that the reason for the project is to alleviate parking congestion on the street. Ms.
Guinee noted that the house has been empty a while, so there have been no cars associated with the
house at all. Ms. Guinee stated that the property has potential for her two cars plus four more cars due to
the four bedroom apartment in the building. Ms. Guinee felt the project was a tasteful idea.
Ms. Guinee stated that the Lynn Street view currently has a doorway which will be replaced with a
window, utilizing the window that will be removed to accommodate the garage door. The garage door
will appear to be a double carriage style door that opens out but in reality will rise up and operate like a
regular overhead door. There will be three breaks in the door which will be visible when one is up close.
Ms. Guinee stated that further away, visibility of the breaks will be diminished. The door will be 9' wide
and 7' high with exterior hardware. Ms. Guinee stated that from the door to the O'Shea's bay window is
approximately 1 '/2.
• Mr. Oedel asked if the door goes to grade level. Ms. Guinee replied in the affirmative and stated it will
be brick to the sidewalk.
Mr. Oedel asked if there is currently a parking spot in front. Ms. Guinee replied in the negative and
stated that there is a bulkhead and hedges.
September 13, 1995, Page 2
Mr. Carr asked if the door will be at grade level. Ms. Guinee replied in the affirmative.
• Mr. Slam stated that he did not feel the architect's drawing was to scale since the ridge does not line up
as in the picture. Mr. Oedel noted that the head of the left hand window should like up with the window
over the bay.
Any. McBride stated that the areas being talked about are not being altered. Mr. Carr replied that the
elevation does not reflect what the building will look like after the work is done.
Mr. Oedel stated that design details can matter a lot on the relationship of the building features.
Atty. Jon Skerry,representing James and Arlene O'Shea and Darrow Lebovici and Maragaret Twohey
stated that at the last meeting, everyone was told that the next meeting would be in three weeks and then
everyone got a 4-5 day notice. Atty. Skerry stated that the O'Shea's have obtained a consultant and
were preparing for the meeting and had letters. Atty. Skerry stated that even the Guinee's have
complained about the lack of notice. Atty. Skerry stated that the City Solicitor attempted conciliation by
offering them the opportunity to waive the 60 day requirement. Arty. Skerry states that there are now
two lawsuits that both allege notice problems. Atty. Skerry felt the Commission has the opportunity to
gut the issues by denying the application without prejudice which will avert the notice problems and
only result in a 3-4 week delay. Arty. Skerry stated that this would give enough time for everyone to
prepare. Mr. Skerry stated that he understood that the 60 day rule is the reason to rush to judgement.
• Regarding the merits of the application, Atty. Skerry stated that it is the first time seeing the design and
that it was never seen before. Atty. Skerry noted that it has now been brought up that the diagram is out
of scale. Atty. Skerry noted that due to the 60 day requirement,the Commission has not had time for a
site visit. Arty. Skerry stated that there isn't an elevation of what the driveway would look like.
Atty. Skerry stated that he would rather resolve the issues before the Commission and not in Superior
Court. Arty. Skerry stated that the Commission represents the City and that no judge on the Superior
Court is from Salem. Atty. Skerry stated that a lawsuit would take 18-20 months. Arty. Skerry felt there
was not enough detail at this meeting.
Atty. Skerry noted that the driveway is one foot from the O'Shea's property line. Atty. Skerry
questioned where water will runoff and if it will destroy the limestone foundation. Atty. Skerry had
concerns over the bay window. Atty. Skerry requested that the Commission not rush to judgement but
deny the application without prejudice.
Mr. Oedel stated that, irrespective of what is going on in the courts, the issue is historical
appropriateness. Mr. Oedel stated that, yes, the Commission must vote up or down at this meeting.
Atty. Skerry stated that they were asking for time to respond.
Mr. Carr agreed that the focus should be on design and that it is up to others to determine if the
• Commission has erred.
Letters from Daniel Foley, 114 Federal Street and Peter Bryson, Code Consultant, Topsfreld, MA were
read into the record.
September 13, 1995, Page 3
Arty. McBride stated that he agreed with Messrs. Oedel and Carr but felt compelled to respond. Atty.
• McBride stated that the Guinee's should not be penalized or ridiculed by requiring that the Commission
follow the rules. Atty. McBride felt the letter from Mr. Bryson supported the project.
Mr. McBride stated that the Guinee's have hired a structural engineer and have specifications on shoring
up the bottom flooring and interior protective measures. The exterior has a 3-6' burn rating.
Mr. Carr suggested the Commission get the audience comments and then allow a five minute or
reasonable rebuttal period.
Councillor at Large, William Burns, 22 Beckford Street, stated that Andrew Russell quoted him in the
news as saying this project is the dumbest thing that Channel Two ever did. Councillor Burns stated that
he actually said that Channel Two, PBS and This Old House were extraordinary. Councillor Burns
stated that he did not mean to demean Channel Two but meant to demean the Guinee's for waddling into
the neighborhood with this proposal. Councillor Burns felt the Board of Appeal should look at the
project. Councillor Burns noted that the issue is the garage door and that the rest of the work that the
Guine's and Channel Two are doing is great.
Mr. Carr stated that comments should be kept to the design issue. Mr. Carr stated that the public
comments express how they care about the neighborhood.
Atty. McBride requested that Councillor Burns apologize to Mrs. Guinee and stated that it was an
• offensive comment to make to a pregnant woman.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to take a five minute break. Mr. Kelleher seconded the motion, all were in
favor and the motion so carried.
After five minutes the meeting resumed.
Tim Doggett, 9 Lynn Street, stated that he was confused and thought the vote taken was to start with a
fresh slate on whether there should or should not be a garage, not on design.
Mr. Carr stated that at the last meeting the Commission voted to rescind its earlier vote for conceptual
approval. Mr. Carr stated that at this meeting the commission is acting as though no conceptual
approval had happened and is acting on the application.
Mr. Doggett stated that except for some minor examples, most garages in the historic district were
separate until Witchcraft Heights. Mr. Doggett did not feel it was appropriate for the McIntire District.
Tim Morris, 105 Federal Street, stated that it is a case of bringing a house into the 20th century to
accommodate cars. Mr. Morris felt it was inappropriate to let cars damage the district and inappropriate
to convert an existing building meant for people for cars. Mr. Morris felt the logistics were problematic.
• J.P. Lenney, 121 Federal Street, stated that it is a difficult application for the community and that it
should not be taken personally. Mr. Lenny stated that the Federal Street area is one of the best
preserved in New England partly because of the efforts of the Historical Commission. Mr. Lenny was
worried about the process due to pressures bearing down on this. Mr. Lenny stated that the
Commission usually takes a lot of attention to detail and was worried that it was not happening here.
I
September 13, 1995, Page 4
Mr. Lenney felt that carriage doors were more appalling than garage doors, particularly if kept open. Mr
• Lenney stated that there are garage door openers that will open both sides. Mr. Lenney asked the
Commission to maintain the strength it has over the years.
Mr. Oedel asked if Mr. Lenney felt the opening was appropriate or not and if he preferred the carriage
doors. Mr. Lenney stated that he was not sure of the appropriateness of the opening but did not feel the
details were appropriate. Mr. Lenney stated that he was worried that a decision would be made due to
unusual pressures.
Betsy Bums, 22 Beckford Street, stated that it would be a serious injustice to the O'Shea's to have a
garage so close to their house and the Commission's decision should consider the closeness and impact
on the neighbors as well as design.
Dick Lindeman, 113 Federal Street stated that the proximity to the adjacent house looks crowded. Mr.
Lindeman felt that the doors, when open, would cover the bay. Mr. Lindeman did not feel it was fair to
the O'Shea's and that it would not be fair to the Guinee's to have to keep the doors closed. Mr.
Lindeman wished that the garage doors would be marked off and stated that he was concerned of
functionality.
Mr. Carr made a motion to close the public hearing.
Atty. McBride clarified that the doors will go up and down and not pull out and that this design issue
. had been changed to accommodate the O'Shea's. Mr. McBride felt the project was historically
appropriate.
Mr. Carr made a motion to close the public hearing for the time being. Mr. Casey seconded the motion,
all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Carr stated that for him, what is driving the issue is the scale question. Mr. Carr worried that
without a site visit,which we now cannot have, there are problems with the scale of the door opening.
Mr. Carr stated that the drawing is not realistic and that the ell in the drawing is reduced in scale. Mr.
Carr stated that the door already looks too reduced in scale and that the scale drawing may accentuate it
more. Mr. Carr stated that there is very little historic precedent for it and that the project is to
accommodate the auto and not human beings. Mr. Carr stated that the doors will not always be closed
and the Commission needs to consider that view.
Mr. Slam did not feel a case has been made for appropriateness and noted that the applicant's usually
provide period examples. Mr. Slam stated that the drawing mis-states the elevation and the context. Mr.
Slam stated that the context isn't shown. Mr. Slam questioned how it will be pushed up to the O'Shea's
house. Mr. Slam doubted that it would read as a carriage door but felt it would read like a garage door.
Mr. Slam felt it was inappropriate.
Mr. Oedel disagreed with Mr. Slam that there is no precedent and felt there are a lot of secondary
• facades, for example, at Beacon Hill next to 50 Beacon. Mr. Oedel stated that the applicant submitted a
photograph of one in Marblehead that is also similar. Mr. Oedel stated that there are 18 buildings
documented by Strawberry Banke that have this treatment in Portsmouth. Mr. Oedel stated that he had a
real problem with the scale of the drawing, since it means that it won't look like as drawn. Mr. Oedel
stated that the Commission needs better drawings, a site visit or both.
September 13, 1995, Page 5
Mr. Kelleher stated that, on the impact of cars, he agreed with the neighbors concerned with cars taking
• over the district, but saw the importance of bringing the district into the 20th century. Mr. Kelleher
stated that he was sympathetic to the Guinee's desire to have off-street parking and felt the architect has
come up with a creative solution. Mr. Kelleher stated that he agreed with Mr. Oedel that there is local
precedent, although none that he could think of at the time. Mr. Kelleher was concerned that the
drawing is out of scale and saw no other way to handle it but to deny without prejudice until the
applicant's can supply a new drawing.
Mr. Casey stated that he always tries to be user-friendly. Mr. Casey stated that there is precedent for
doors in historic districts and that he originally voted for it. Mr. Casey stated that he then revisited the
site and thought it was out of scale for the property. Mr. Casey stated that when it came up the second
time, he voted against since he was aware it was out of scale. Mr. Casey stated that the Commission
needs to make an intelligent decision and see the site. Mr. Casey added that if he is under pressure to act
he is going to err in favor of denial.
Mr. Kasparian felt that the concept was possible to consider. Mr. Kasparian stated that Mr. Slam's
comments regarding scale, context and detail are design issues that will make or break the application.
Mr. Kasparian stated that the Commission cannot use the drawing based on scale and context.
Chairman Sides stated that dimensionally,the door in relation to the bay is accurate. Chairman Sides
stated that the roof and windows are brought down closer to the garage door head and that the door has
not been shrunken or manipulated.
• Mr. Oedel stated that the situation is if the applicant's elect to waive the 60 day requirement,the
application can continue and be placed on the next agenda. Mr. Carr added that it could be placed on
any agenda the applicant's choose.
Mr. Oedel stated that if the application is voted down,the Guinee's will have to file a new application.
Mr. Oedel noted that waiving the 60 day requirement has been done on a regular basis when the
Commission has run into the 60 day requirement deadline.
Mrs. Arlene O'Shea stated that no matter what the result, she felt the there was never a more dedicated
group of people than the Commission and thanked all the members.
Arty. McBride apologized for the inaccuracies in the plans and stated that they were not aware of them.
Atty. McBride stated that he appreciated the Board's comments, that he wants to correct the plans and
that he would ask that he be allowed to waive the 60 day requirement.
Mr. Carr suggested that he ask to suspend the clock at this time so that when the Board reconvene's it
will be exactly at the same time as is now, either 57 or 58 days.
Mr. Oedel felt the request should be to extend for a specific amount of time.
• Atty. McBride stated that they would extend to the October 4, 1995 meeting and provided the waiver in
writing.
Atty. Skerry asked if the abutters would be notified. Mr. Carr replied in the affirmative and added that
there would be notification of the site visit.
I
September 13, 1995, Page 6
Mr. Oedel suggested the site visit be before the next regular meeting on September 20th.
Mr. Carr stated that he wanted to allow time at the site visit.
Mr. Carr made a motion to continue the application until October 4, 1995 and to schedule a site visit for
6:30 p.m. on September 20, 1995. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so
carried.
There being no further business, Mr. Carr made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Casey seconded the motion,
all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully sub 'tted
Jane Guy
, 'j
Clerk of the Commission
•
•
September 20, 1995, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
• SITE VISIT MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 1995
On Wednesday, September 20, 1995 at 6:30 p.m.,the Salem Historical Commission attended a site visit
at 124 Federal Street as part of the continuing review of Kevin and Deborah Guinee's application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness to alter the rear ell on the Lynn Street side of their home in order to create
a portico. Present were Chairman Sides, Messrs. Cook, Kasparian, Carr, Kelleher, Slam and Oedel and
Ms. Guy.
The applicant's provided a mock-up of the proposed garage door and window on the building as it
would be constructed.
Chairman Sides stated that this was a site visit only and not a forum for discussion.
Mr. Guinee noted that the mock-up is the actual size of the door and in the actual location. Mr. Guinee
stated that the right bollard will not be changed.
Tim Doggett, 9 Lynn Street, asked the layout of the driveway.
Tom Silva,the contractor for the project, stated that the intention is to drive up the street and back in,
and that they would keep away from the O'Shea's as much as possible.
• Mr. Carr asked how much room was available, if the Commission felt there was a problem with scale
and that the door should be larger. Mr. Silva stated that he can add approximately 9" more in height if
need be.
Mr. Carr asked if the door would still pull up from the inside. Mr. Silva replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Guinee stated that the door had been changed at the O'Shea's request from the original plan which
had opened out.
Mr. Silva stated that there is no foundation except for one stone.
Mr. Carr asked if the intention is to drive through to the back yard. Mr. Silva replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Cook asked if the berm stays. Mr. Silva replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Silva stated that the driveway will be all bricked over. Mr. Silva felt that, in his estimation, it would
be difficult to make the corner without backing in.
Mr. Carr stated that he wanted the siting of the bollards on the next plans, their spacing, where they are
existing and where they are proposed.
• Jon Skerry,the attorney for the O'Shea's asked when the next plans would be available. Steve Thomas,
the on-screen personality for This Old House stated that they would be available at the next meeting.
Atty. Skerry asked if they could be filed before to facilitate review.
September 20, 1995,Page 2
Atty. Skerry felt the doors moved to the left and that the windows don't line up as they do on the plans.
Mr. Carr suggested that the mock-up be measured so that the dimensions can be put on the plans. Mr.
Carr felt that the neighbors want to see the new plans a few days before. Ms. Guinee stated that it can be
done.
The mock-up was measured and the dimensions are as follows (edge of building refers to the point were
the Guinee's house meets the O'Shea's house):
67" from the edge of the building to the outside edge of the garage door trim (right side);
73" from the edge of the building to the inside edge of the garage door trim(right side);
185" from the edge of the building to the outside edge of the garage door trim (left side);
192" from the edge of the building to the outside edge of the existing molding;
237" from the edge of the building to the left side, outside edge of the door molding;
242 %' from the edge of the building to the trim;
265 '/2" from the edge of the building to the bay;
90 %2" height to under the molding;
961/2" height to the top of the trim; and
38" from the bay window to the outside edge of the molding.
Atty. Skerry stated that the O'Shea's land is 5.74 feet from the edge of the building.
• Atty. Skerry asked if the mock-up cardboard window represents the size and location of the proposed
window. Mr. Silva stated that it is not the exact dimensions and is the approximate size and location.
Atty. Skerry stated that the Commission is invited to enter the O'Shea's house and look through the bay
window. Chairman Sides stated that the Commission's jurisdiction is what is visible from the public
way.
Chairman Sides asked if one soffit vent could be added per rafter space. Mr. Silva stated that the
Building Code requirements are prohibitive when there is no moisture barrier. Mr. Silva stated that for
every 150 sf. of floor space in the attic, they need to vent one square foot of free air. Mr. Silva stated
that they can use vent strip or drill holes.
Chairman Sides asked if a fan could be used. Mr. Silva stated that they would have to go through the
roof, but it would cut down on holes. Mr. Silva stated that the only other way is to put a vapor barrier in
the house, which he felt would not seal correctly.
There being no further business, Mr. Carr made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion,
all were in favor and the motion so carried. The application will be continued until the meeting of
October 4, 1995.
Respectfully submitted,
JeGuyCion
September 20, 1995, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
• MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 1995
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, September 20, 1995 at
7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were Chairman Sides, Messrs. Kelleher, Cook,
Slam, Oedel and Carr and Ms. Guy.
108-110 Federal Street
The Federal Realty Trust submitted an application of a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors at
108-110 Federal Street. The siding will be Khaki California semi-gloss, the trim white and the shutters
Coach Green semi-gloss. The application states that the aluminum roof vents will be painted black.
Mr. Carr stated that the trim color should go in the same relationship as where the trim is now.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve painting of the house and garage conditional that what is currently
trim color to remain trim color, for the roof vents to be painted black and doors to be repainted in
existing colors. Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
• 386 Essex Street
386 Essex Street Realty Trust submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint
colors at 386 Essex Street. The body will be Waterbury Cream,the trim will be Montgomery White and
the accent(doors, window sash and shutters) will be Rockwood Red.
Chairman Sides stated that David Clarke has indicated that the front entrance brackets will be replaced.
Barromee Dube, 4 Chestnut Street stated that he was in favor of the colors.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Kelleher seconded the motion, all
were in favor and the motion so carried.
See additional action on this property later in minutes.
124 Federal Street
In continuation from a previous meeting, Deborah and Kevin Guinee submitted an application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness to change the venting at 124 Federal Street.
Mr. Guinee stated that at the site visit his contractor, Tom Silva,had talked about how insulating/venting
• is not often done and may be why the Commission had never addressed it before. Mr. Guinee stated that
if they insulate, there will be problems if there is no ventilation. Mr. Guinee added that, in new houses,
a vapor barrier is installed.
Mr. Can stated that a vapor barrier is one possibility and asked about the possibility of fans. Chairman
September 20, 1995, Page 2
Sides stated that there can be a low velocity fan that will require a fixture on the roof.
• Mr. Kelleher stated that the fans are the same size as the mushroom vents but reduce the number of holes
needed.
Chairman Sides asked if the homeowner was willing to install fans. Mr. Guinee replied in the
affirmative.
Mr. Oedel felt that the homeowner could put as many as they desire at the rear of the house.
Mr. Slam asked if the little walkway behind the house was a public way. Mr. Guinee replied in the
affirmative and stated that between 124 and 126 Federal Street is a deeded way.
Mr. Carr stated that, if so, the Commission has jurisdiction on what is visible from the walkway and
suggested Mr. Guinee speak to his attorney on whether it is a public way or private easement.
Mr. Carr agreed that a fan would be preferable with as few holes on the Federal and Lynn Street sides as
possible.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to allow the installation of one or more low velocity fans on the rear
elevations non-visible from Federal or Lynn Streets and the installation of no more than one 2" diameter
hole covered by screening per each rafter spacing on the Federal or Lynn Street sides and to allow
• addition diagonal or continuous soffit vents on the sides not visible from Federal or Lynn Streets. The
Screen and internal of the soffit holes are to be painted the trim color and it is suggested that the fans be
placed on the non-slate roof surfaces. Mr. Slam seconded the motion.
There was no public comment.
The motion was voted on. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
28-28 '/2 Broad Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, Veronica Morgan presented an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for the installation of a bath window and a skylight at 28-28 '/z Broad Street. Ms.
Morgan submitted a new drawing with a revised window proposal.
Ms. Morgan stated that Chairman Sides had suggested a 2 over 1 window.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the window portion of the application. Mr. Cook seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
• Ms. Morgan stated that she will use the same kind of skylight as is on the back and locate it as close as
possible to the ridge line.
Chairman Sides noted that there are two existing skylights on the house toward the rear and they are
located one on each roof slope.
September 20, 1995, Page 3
Mr. Carr asked if one of the skylights could be removed and asked the proposed dimensions of the new
• skylight.
Chairman Sides stated that the house is very tall and the skylight would not be that visible.
Mr. Oedel stated that it could be seen from across the street.
Mr. Cook stated that light will be seen pouring through the hole.
Mr. Carr stated that the Commission's guidelines speak as to size, location and number.
Ms. Morgan stated that it will be 28" x 34", the same size as the one in the back plus 1" each way. Ms.
Morgan stated that a skylight that was 28" x 40" had been removed.
Mr. Carr made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all were in favor
and the motion so carried.
Mr. Carr felt that the guidelines speak to the number, size and what is driving the application. Mr. Carr
stated that Ms. Morgan is a welcome addition to the neighborhood but felt the Commission should
adhere to the guidelines.
Mr. Slam stated that the skylight doesn't bother him but felt the Commission was required to be
• consistent.
Mr. Cook agreed with Mr. Slam and stated that he was concerned about the spotlight effect.
Mr. Oedel stated that he has not been in the house, but felt that there could have been four skylights
when the house was built. Mr. Oedel stated that he would have no problem blocking up one skylight
and installing a new one.
Ms. Morgan stated that the skylight will be approximately 20" from the ridge pole.
Mr. Carr asked if the new skylight will be more visible than the existing skylights. Mr. Kelleher replied
in the affirmative.
Chairman Sides felt the particular location, distance and spacing between houses and the size of this
house did not warrant the strictness of the guidelines. Chairman Sides stated that she had no problem
with removing one and adding one skylight.
Mr. Oedel stated that the guidelines are just guides and not dogma.
Mr. Carr felt the guidelines applied in this situation.
• Mr. Kelleher made a motion, that due to a finding of no net change, to approve a skylight as proposed
conditional that the rear skylight of the same slope be removed and the opening covered to match the
existing slate. The new skylight is to be wood frame and not to exceed 30" x 38", is to be 20" from the
ridge pole and is to be on the same center line as the window on the second floor. Mr. Oedel seconded
the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
September 20, 1995, Page 4
120 Essex Street
• The Peabody Essex Museum presented applications for Certificates of Appropriateness for signage for
six of the Museum's historic houses. The material is to be painted wood with a height of 50 1/4", width
of 28" and posts 1 '/2" square. The format is a rectangular upper element (18" x 28")to carry the house
information and a rectangular lower element(7 3/4" x 28")to carry public access information. Text,
photos and site plans were provided. Robert Saamio, representing the Museum, was present and
presented a sample of the sign.
Mr. Saamio stated that he was shocked when he first arrived at the Museum to find that there were no
house signs. Mr. Saamio stated that the proposed signage is a result of a seven month internal
discussion.
Mr. Cook asked if they will all be the same size. Mr. Saamio replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Saamio stated that he feared if the signs do not get approval, it may be a long time before the houses
are identified. Mr. Saamio stated that the Ropes, Pierce-Nichols and Assembly Houses will be under a
separate application.
Mr. Carr asked if the signs were free standing. Mr. Saamio replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Carr stated that he thought hung signs were better but added that he was willing to leave it to the
• Museum's call.
Mr. Kelleher suggested using the same font for the bottom section to match the top section. Chairman
Sides stated that it is a graphic design thing to highlight two things that are different. Mr. Slam stated
that he had no problem with the fonts.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Slam made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Carr seconded the motion, all
were in favor and the motion so carried.
17 '/2 River Street
Frederick Biebesheimer presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors at
his home at 17 'h River Street. The body and entry walls will be Cameo White. The trim color,
including corner boards, sillboards, window frames, entry risers, moldings and sills, will be Benjamin
Moore HC-77. The window sash and mullions and entry treads will be Benjamin Moore 1252.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Cook seconded the motion, all
• were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Biebesheimer also submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove and
replace deteriorated clapboards, corner boards and sillboards with work to progress in phases beginning
with the worst face condition(south) followed by east, north and west. Replacement clapboards to be
September 20, 1995, Page 5
standard 6" clear cedar with 3 %" reveal (adjusted to match sill and window heads), smooth face
• exposed. Trim to be replaced to match existing in material and dimension. Missing cornice to be
replaced on south face to match existing.
Mr. Biebesheimer stated that the clapboard exposure is to changed from 4" to 3 ''/Z".
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Cook seconded the motion, all
were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Oedel asked if there were any original clapboards. Mr. Biebesheimer stated that he did not believe
so.
194 Federal Street
William Marchand submitted an application for a Certificate of Non-applicability to replace two window
units on the second floor, left side of house. New units to be the same as existing, Brosco 2/2, 16 x 32,
single glaze with storm, painted to match existing.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all
were in favor and the motion so carried.
31 Ocean Ave.
• Stanley Cahill and Gayle Sullivan submitted an application to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance
for the demolition of the entire one and one-half story structure located at 31 Ocean Avenue. The
application states that the structure was a neighborhood grocery store for a number of years.
Mr. Cahill stated that they bought the property in October of 1992 and that the structure is leaning over.
Mr. Carr stated that it had lovely detail.
Mr. Oedel stated that it would not be difficult to save and would be a relatively small amount of money.
Mr. Slam stated that it was charming.
Mr. Cook stated that it is a terrific enhancement to the property and asked the homeowner's game plan.
Mr. Cahill stated that they want to make the yard bigger and that the structure is 20 x 24.
Mr. Carr made a motion to deny the application. Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all were in favor and
the motion so carried.
386 Essex Street
. David Clark, representing 386 Essex Street Realty Trust, asked if the Commission would approve a
change in the accent color from the Rockwood Red to Raleigh Green.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the accent color of Raleigh Green. Mr. Carr seconded the motion,
September 20, 1995, Page 6
all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Violations/Work Status
Mr. Cook asked Ms. Guy to check if the property after the Assembly House has approval to repair or
replace columns.
Ms. Guy is to send a letter to the homeowner of 278 Lafayette Street concerning a fence that was
installed.
Mr. Carr asked that a friendly letter be sent to the owners of 20 Chestnut Street concerning the deck.
Mr. Carr asked Ms. Guy to check who was delegated for the wail at 2 Botts Court.
Mr. Oedel asked Ms. Guy to send a letter to the owners of 6 Federal Court, thanking them for removing
the signs, noting that one sign is still remaining and to give them his telephone number concerning the
approved signs.
Ms. Guy is to send a letter to the owner of 10 Chestnut Street concerning the front fence.
Ms. Guy is to send a letter to the owner and tenant of 134 Federal Street concerning the deck.
Ms. Guy is to send letters to 35 Washington Square (facia, trellis) and 31 Washington Square (fences,
columns)regarding outstanding issues and shutters that are past due for reinstallation.
Ms. Guy is to initiate the next enforcement step for 310 Lafayette Street (front railings) and 18 River
Street(fence).
Ms. Guy is to send a second letter to the owners of 274 Lafayette Street concerning the cupola of the
carriage house.
Other Business
Chairman Sides stated that she expects that Messrs. Casey and Bailey will soon be resigning from the
Commission and asked the members to provide recommendations for replacements.
There being no further business, Mr. Slam made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion,
all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitt d,
J e A. Guy
lerk of the Co ission
I
October 4, 1995, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
• MINUTES
OCTOBER 4, 1995
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, October 4, 1995 at 7:30
p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were Chairman Sides, Messrs. Oedel, Carr, Casey,
Kelleher, Kasparian, Slam and Cook and Ms. Guy.
124 Federal Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, Kevin and Deborah Guinee submitted an application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness for the conversion of the first floor that abuts property on Lynn Street to a
portico.
Arty. David McBride, representing the Guinee's, stated that he had submitted a letter to the Commission
on October 3, 1995, requesting a continuance. Atty. McBride stated that it is requested, specifically,
because the revised design plans were made available to the public only yesterday and that they received
them only within the last 48 hours._ Atty. McBride stated that the decision was made yesterday given the
problems created previously when there was less than 24 hour notice of the availability of plans. Arty.
McBride stated that they felt that it would be inadequate for the neighbors and the Commission and
added that the applicants have not had enough time to go over the revised plans with the architect. Arty.
McBride felt the proposal was appropriate but felt they were not prepared to present the plans this
• evening and requested a continuance to the meeting of November 1, 1995 since Mrs. Guinee's work
schedule conflicts with the meeting of October 18, 1995.
Mr. Carr stated that the point of submitting plans at this meeting was to correct what had previously
been submitted and added that it was not like the applicant has to try and figure out what is going to be
proposed. Mr. Carr stated that he understands that the revised plans submitted includes one drawing
depicting the existing mock-up with two additional options on the door.
Atty. McBride stated that they felt the abutters would feel that they did not have adequate time to review
the plans and that the continuance is not something that would benefit the applicants.
Mr. Carr suggested asking the abutters if they had enough time.
Arty. McBride stated that the second point is that since they only received the plans on Monday, they
have not had adequate time to review them with the architect. Atty. McBride noted that there were
deficiencies in the last set of plans.
Mr. Carr asked if the purpose is to make sure that the new plans are accurate. Atty. McBride replied int
he affirmative. Arty. McBride stated that they had to make the decision yesterday if they felt the
abutters had enough time and noted that they could not predict if the abutters would say that they had
adequate time. Arty. McBride stated that they wanted to avoid the possibility of objection due to no
• having enough time
Mr. Slam felt that he had enough information but noted that the Commission, in the past, has never
asked applicants why they are requesting a continuance. Mr. Slam stated that they have always allowed
continuations and that he had no problem with it.
October 4, 1995, Page 2
Mr. Oedel stated that the Commission has continued applications in the past on request except when
• there is a conflict with the 60 day requirement. Mr. Oedel felt the Commission should ask for public
comment.
Mr. Carr stated that the Commission can't ask for comment on something that hasn't been presented.
Mr. Kelleher stated that he had no problem with continuing and felt that since there were so many
people in the audience, he had no problem asking for their comments.
Mr. Kasparian asked if the Commission opened the meeting for comment, would it be based on the new
or prior information.
Mr. Oedel felt it would be for people who can't be here the next time or to read letters sent.
Mr. Kasparian stated that he had no problem with a continuance and no problem taking comments.
Mr. Cook stated that he preferred to go forward.
Mr. Casey did not feel the Commission could go forward if there is no presentation, providing Atty.
Skerry is willing. Mr. Casey stated that the Commission is conducting a public meeting and is obligated
to hear the public.
• Mr. Carr asked if Mr. Casey will still be on the Commission after this meeting. Mr. Casey replied in the
negative and noted that the Commission has an alternate who has been present at all the meetings.
Mr. Carr stated that there is nothing really substantive about the new drawings and questioned what
there was to prepare for. Mr. Carr noted that if public comment is taken, it will have to be reheard at the
November meeting.
Mr. Kelleher felt if the applicant is not prepared, the Commission cannot force them to go forward.
Mr. Slam made a motion to continue the application until the meeting of November 1, 1995 and to open
up the meeting to public comment. There was no second.
Mr. Kasparian stated that there is a technical matter of the door, which is critical and has not been
presented.
Mr. Carr stated that the door was before the Commission previously. Mr. Oedel was in disagreement.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to continue the application until November 1, 1995. Mr. Kelleher seconded
the motion. Chairman Sides and Messrs. Oedel, Casey, Kelleher and Slam voted in favor. Mr. Cook
and Mr. Carr voted in opposition. Mr. Kasparian abstained from voting. The motion so carried.
• Mr. Oedel made a motion to open the public hearing. Mr. Kelleher seconded the motion. Chairman
Sides and Messrs. Oedel, Casey, Kelleher and Slam voted in favor. Mr. Cook and Mr. Carr voted in
opposition. Mr. Kasparian abstained from voting. The motion so carried.
Atty. Jon Skerry stated that he represented the abutters and noted that he wanted to proceed this evening.
October 4, 1995, Page 3
Atty. Skerry stated that he was not concerned about not having enough time and suspected there were
• reasons other than late notice for requesting a continuance. Atty. Skerry stated that he has looked at the
original and amended plans and feels the chalk mock-up does not conform to either set. Atty. Skerry felt
the garage door has been moved to the left and that the plans submitted to the Commission do not
represent the mock-up. Atty. Skerry noted that Tom Silva, the contractor for the project, had indicated
that the driveway would curve out. Atty. Skerry stated that the plans show a straight shot. Atty. Skerry
stated that he has measurements from the plan of land from 124 Federal Street and noted that the
driveway is on the O'Shea's property by approximately 1 '/z feet. Atty. Skerry noted that the zoning
ordinance requires a 2' set back from the lot line. Atty. Skerry asked if there will be additional plans
submitted.
Atty. McBride stated that he resented the implication that the applicants have ulterior motives.
Atty. Skerry stated that the plans are the O'Shea's biggest concern and that they do not conform to the
site visit. Atty. Skerry stated that the Commission has to look at both pieces of property since they are
connected. Atty. Skerry stated that there is nothing like this in the area with the exception of possible
Monroe street.
Carter Vinson, 330 Essex Street, stated that he represented Historic Salem, Inc. Board of Directors. Mr.
Vinson stated that the Board's concerns are that the project involves partial demolition to 18th and 19th
century fabric and noted that demolition is irrevocable. Mr. Vinson stated that the Board is not taking a
position on the application but noted that approval would set a precedent and that the Commission
• should treat the application with all possible seriousness. Mr. Vinson added that when demolition
occurs, all that can be done is reproduction and that reproduction is not preservation.
Chairman Sides read into the record letters from: 1) John Wathne, President of Historic Salem, Inc., 2)
Atty. David McBride representing Kevin& Deborah Guinee, 124 Federal Street, 3) Mr. & Mrs. Timothy
Doggett, 9 Lynn Street and 4) Darrow Lebovici and Meg Twohey, 122 Federal Street and James and
Arlene O'Shea, One Lynn Street.
Mr. Carr asked Atty. McBride to initial the request for continuance change from the October 18, 1995
meeting to the November 1, 1995 meeting. Atty. McBride so complied.
Blake Anderson, 5 Chestnut Street, stated that one gets the sense that this is an adversarial contest and
noted that an adversarial situation is the most expensive and least effective. Mr. Anderson proposed that
the Commission consider an informal subcommittee to meet with the abutters and the owners. Mr.
Anderson suggested a concentual process out of the public hearing and professional counsel setting.
John Morris, 105 Federal Street, felt that nothing should be done outside the public hearing. Mr. Morris
felt there should be complete plans before another meeting is called, since it is a waste of time for
everyone not to have complete plans.
Elliott Milford, 7 Lynn Street, felt that the hearing process is due process. Mr. Milford stated that the
• neighborhood welcomes the Guinees and compliments them on the fine work done on the house. Mr.
Milford stated that this was not hostile but that a lot of neighbors don't agree with the garage. Mr.
Milford stated that he is among them. Mr. Milford stated that parking is a significant issue and
referenced the turning radius. Mr. Milford added that the O'Sheas have a significant issue with the
window being so close to the garage.
October 4, 1995, Page 4
Jeff Brandt, 3 Lynn Street, stated that he drove 1 'h hours to get here and was upset that the continuation
• was allowed. Mr. Brandt stated that the applicant is responsible to show up prepared and that the
Commission should hold them accountable. Mr. Brandt stated that he was opposed to the garage and
requested denial.
Francis Clifford, 142 Federal Street stated that he was opposed to the garage and stated that the
Commission should look out for the people in the district. Mr. Clifford stated that when people buy
property with no land it is saying that they can do without a garage. Mr. Clifford felt that Lynn Street
would have to be made "no parking" in order to allow turning into garages. Mr. Clifford stated that he
though no changes were allowed from the public way.
Chairman Sides stated that the Commission reviews the issue of Appropriateness for changes and that it
is not a case of changes not being allowed.
J. P. Lenney, 121 Federal Street, stated that it is unfortunate for the community that this appears more
hostile than it should be. Mr. Lenney stated that the neighbors are only trying to preserve. Mr. Lenney
stated that he welcomed the Guinees and did not want them to feel unwelcome. Mr. Lenney stated that
he did not understand the role of precedent and questioned if it meant that the Commission would have
to approve the garage if there were precedent. Mr. Lenny stated that, if true, the application has more
implications since then any homeowner will be able to add a garage. Mr. Lenney stated that he did not
want to walk down Federal Street and see a bunch of garages. Mr. Lenney felt the precedent that would
be set should be weighed heavy.
• Mr. Carr stated that there are two aspects of precedence. One is an historical matter, whether it would be
found in that type of setting. Mr. Carr stated that it is up to the application to bolster their case by
showing there is historical precedence. Mr. Carr added that if there is an example in another
community,the Commission must determine the extent that it applies to this community. Mr. Carr
stated that the other aspect is from this point forward. Mr. Carr stated that approval would not
necessarily determine a precedent for all of Salem. Mr. Carr stated that circumstances would have to be
almost identical. If another application were submitted, its case would be enormously strengthened if
the Guinee's application is approved.
Mr. Oedel stated that precedent is site-specific and that it might be relative to another situation. Mr.
Oedel stated that there is a lot of precedent for this treatment around the country but added that it does
not mean it is appropriate for Salem. Mr. Kelleher added that it does not mean it is inappropriate either.
Mr. Slam stated that if the application is approved, if would be much more difficult to disapprove a
similar application at another meeting.
Mr. Kasparian stated that the Commission did approve the concept and therefore shows it is willing to
consider whether this treatment is appropriate. Mr. Kasparian stated that this is a difficult application.
Mr. Kasparian stated that he is willing to consider the concept, but added that, historically, he did not
know yet if it is appropriate for this project.
• Betsy Burns, 22 Beckford Street, felt the project was a gross violation to the abutter. Ms. Burns stated
that it infringes on the abutter's quality of life and that the Commission should look at this personal,
human issue first.
October 4, 1995, Page 5
Wendy Sholds, resident of the Bowditch House Condominiums, stated that she was in support of the
• application. Ms. Sholds stated that she understood where the O'Shea's were coming from but did not
see why anyone else should be concerned. Ms. Sholds felt the Guinee's, the Lynn Street residents and
the O'Sheas's should get together to discuss the situation. Ms. Sholds stated that she has heard tourists
ask that, if Salem has so many beautiful historic houses, why are they falling apart.
Kathleen Connelly, 135 Federal Street, stated that she was opposed on the basis of appropriateness and
the effect on the abutters and the neighborhood. Ms. Connelly stated that the Commission should not
base its decision on what a television station says about Salem.
Elizabeth Hunt, 2 River Street, stated that people are here because they care about the neighborhood.
Ms. Hunt stated that when one buys property in an historic district, they give up certain property rights.
Ms. Hunt felt the garage was inappropriate and urged the Commission not to approve it.
Councillor-At-Large Jane Stirgwolt stated that she had not come to previous meetings on this
application because she had perceived it as a neighborhood issue. Councillor Stirgwolt stated that she
wondered if people would speak on preservation and noted that she was a preservationist by education.
Councillor Stirgwolt stated that it is unpopular to be a preservationist and noted that every time we make
what could be an exception, it opens up to a whole new range of new exceptions that people would not
have proposed due to knowing it would have never previously been approved. Councillor Stirgwolt
stated that she saw the site and felt if it makes the house next door harder to live in, it effects the street,
neighborhood and city. Councillor Stirgwolt stated that we must preserve the essence of architectural
• heritage and should consider whether the alteration is reversible or not.
Fran Atchason, 7 Lynn Street, stated that she had moved from another area in Salem to the McIntire
Historic District assuming that she wouldn't see housing clad in vinyl, vinyl window replacements, etc.
Ms. Atchason stated that she never dreamed discussion of a garage would take place and felt that a lot of
time was being spent on a 20th century convenience.
Dick Lindeman, 113 Federal Street, stated that he was opposed and felt the project was of no value. Mr.
Lindeman felt that, when backing out, a driver will not be able to see around the O'Shea's and therefore
the garage will not be usable. Mr. Lindeman stated that it was intrusive upon the neighborhood and will
diminish the value of the O'Shea's and the Lebovici/Twohey houses.
Mr. Carr asked whatever the proposed is,that the mock-up be corrected. Atty. McBride stated that he
was not sure it was incorrect.
Mr. Oedel felt it is incorrect and requested that the architect go back and look at it.
Darrow Lebovici, 122 Federal Street, stated that he was opposed. Mr. Lebovici stated that when the
owners and agents go through the process to get the plans and mock-up right, the should outline the
driveway.
Meg Twohey, 122 Federal Street, asked what would represent timely arrival.
• Mr. Carr stated that it has not been ascertained whether the plans and mock-up are accurate or not. Mr.
Carr asked, if there is a discrepancy, could it be corrected within a week of the November 1, 1995
meeting.
October 4, 1995, Page 6
Ms. Guinee stated that the mock-up is correct and that she has not looked at the plans and measured if
• they are correct.
20 Chestnut Street
James and Janice Schooley were present to discuss a recent violation notice they received concerning a
deck at 20 Chestnut Street.
Mr. Schooley stated that there was no porch construction and that apparently the Commission was
referring to a railing. Mr. Schooley asked if the concern was that it has been stained and not painted.
Mr. Casey felt that that was the feeling.
Mr. Carr asked if the railings are a duplicate of what was there. Mr. Schooley stated that it was close.
Mr. Carr felt that the concern was whether the trellis and porch were a repair of that which was
previously existing and that a second concern was the color. Mr. Schooley stated that it was not exactly
the same but quite similar.
Mr. Carr suggested that the matter be delegated in order to determine if it is substantially the same.
Mr. Carr made a motion to delegate Mr. Cook to determine if what is currently there represents a change
and to assist the homeowners in preparing the necessary application. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion, all
• were in favor and the motion so carried.
5 Chestnut Street
Blake Anderson was present to request a modification in his approval for the windows of his dormer at 5
Chestnut Street. Mr. Anderson stated that the windows approved were the conventional Brosco type and
that his contractor suggests using insulated glass with real wooden muntins. Mr. Anderson stated that he
was considering Pella or Brosco.
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission has approved the Pella Architectural Series with a 7/8" profile.
Mr. Anderson asked if applied wooden muntins would be permissible.
Mr. Slam suggested that the Commission approve the Pella and give the homeowner the option.
Mr. Carr suggested that it be delegated.
Chairman Sides stated that she wold approve the Pella applied but not the true divided.
Mr. Carr made a motion to delegate Chairman Sides to give window approval. Mr. Slam seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
• Mr. Cook asked what was approved for the ends of the shed. Chairman Sides stated that the drawings
were approved and indicate the material.
October 4, 1995, Page 7
Minutes
iMr. Oedel made a motion to approve the minutes of August 15, 1995 with an amendment to page two,
third paragraph changed from"disparaging"to "disparate treatment". Mr. Cook seconded the motion,
all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Chairman Sides and Messrs. Casey and Kelleher submitted changes for the minutes of September 6 and
September 13, 1995. Ms. Guy will issue a revised draft.
Correspondence Review
Ms. Guy stated that she received a Neighborhood Improvement Task Force Referral Form for the House
of Seven Gables concerning the chain link and stockade fences. Ms. Guy stated that the stockade fence
belongs to the Derby Street property and that it appears the chain link fence pre-dates the district. Ms.
will reply that the Commission has no authority to require replacement with something more
appropriate.
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission received a copy of a letter from Massachusetts Historical
Commission(MHC) to the Gulf of Maine Research Center regarding 100 Lafayette street. Ms. Guy
stated that the owners are pursuing a lending application.
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission received a letter from MHC to HUD concerning 5 Barton
Square/140 Washington street and 290 Essex Street which are public housing facilities for which
• rehabilitation work is being proposed. Mr. Casey asked for a copy of the letter. Mr. Carr asked that Ms.
Guy request that the Commission receive copies of the information regarding the project.
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission received a copy of the answer of defendants Kevin and Deborah
Guinee concerning the civil action by James and Arlene O'Shea.
Ms. Guy stated that 22 Hardy Street is on the Board of Appeal agenda and that she has prepared the
standard letter to the Board offering design review. Chairman Sides signed the letter on behalf of the
Commission.
Violations/Work Status
Mr. Carr stated that he and Mr. Kasparian had been delegated for the brick wall at 2 Botts Court. Mr.
Carr stated that it has been built and he and Mr. Kasparian will make a report to the Commission.
Ms. Guy read a letter received from Judith Doering concerning 35 Washington Square/2 Oliver Street.
Mr. Carr will draft a letter thanking the homeowner for fixing the facia, stating that the trellis is not the
same and to suggest removal and suggested that they apply for appropriate screening.
Ms. Guy read a letter received from Ralph Doering concerning 31 Washington Square. Mr. Casey stated
that photographs are being researched to see if the fence was down prior to the district. Mr. Carr stated
that it may be a hardship argument if the car that hit the fence was uninsured. Ms. Guy will place both
Doering letters on the next agenda.
Ms. Guy stated that she has gone by 2 Flint Street and it appears the landscaping now hides the deck.
October 4, 1995, Page 8
Mr. Casey was in agreement. Ms. Guy will remove it from the violation list.
Ms. Guy is to send letters to the owners of 44 Warren Street and 10 Hamilton Street.
Ms. Guy is to remove 6 South Pine and 7 South Pine from the violations list.
Mr. Kasparian will inspect the porch at 398 Essex Street. Mr. Kasparian noted that the painting is
complete.
Mr. Casey stated that two sides of the carriage house at 376 Essex Street are still unpainted and
requested that a letter be sent complimenting the job and asking when it will'be finished.
There being no further business, Mr. Slam made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Kelleher seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
• Clerk of the Commission
I •
October 18, 1995, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
• MINUTES
OCTOBER 18, 1995
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, October 18, 1995 at
7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were Chairman Sides, and Messrs. Carr, Cook,
Kasparian and Kelleher and Ms. Guy.
26 Beckford Street
Mary Lee Storrs presented an application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability to repair two chimneys
in kind with no alteration to the size or style of the existing structures. Any replacement required to
bricks or mortar will be as closely matched to the current materials as reasonably possible.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Cook seconded the motion.
Mr. Kelleher asked how far down the chimney would be taken. Ms. Storrs stated that one may need to
go down to the roof.
Mr. Carr suggested taking a photograph of the existing condition.
Mr. Cook noted that new mortar tends to be much thicker than older and the color is different, although
• it doesn't have to be.
The motion was voted upon, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Storrs also presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors. The body
will be George Davenport House Green, Martin Senour Paints, Williamsburg collection. The door will
be British Red, Stulb's Sturbridge Paints. The shutters will be a slightly darker shade of the body color.
Ms. Storrs provided a summary of research she conducted on the paint colors.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted.
Mr. Carr asked if the proposed was a darker tone than what was previously approved. Ms. Storrs replied
in the affirmative.
Liz Hunt, 2 River Street, felt the selection was good.
Don Hunt, 2 River Street, stated that he was impressed with the research.
Mr. Kelleher seconded Mr. Carr's motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
. Mr. Carr made a motion to extend the expiration date for Ms. Storrs's Certificate of Non-Applicability
for clapboard replacement for one year. Mr. Cook seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion
so carried.
October 18, 1995, Page 2
278 Lafayette Street
• Marie Plamondon submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for fence replacement at
278 Lafayette Street. Chairman Sides read a letter from the applicant dated October 10, 1995 requesting
that the Commission continue the application until December 6, 1995.
Ms. Guy stated that the 60 days will run out prior to the December 6, 1995 meeting and questioned if the
60 days applies to violations.
Mr. Carr made a motion to continue the application conditional that the applicant provide a waiver of the
60 day approval period in writing and if the applicant fails to do so that the application be reviewed at
the next meeting. Mr. Kelleher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
175 Federal Street
Mark& Kristin Meche submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the
existing asphalt shingle roof over the front wing with Moire Black. The alternate plan is to replace both
the front and rear with Moire Black. The application is also to do expected incidental repairs to
clapboard lead flashing, etc.
Mr. Meche provided a sample of the proposed shingle and noted that it is the closest match to the newer
roof in the back. Mr. Meche felt that a year from now it would be even in color. Mr. Meche stated that
• he would remove the roof fan.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Kasparian seconded the motion.
Joyce Wallace, 172 Federal Street, stated that she was in favor.
The motion was voted upon, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
60 Boston Street
Osram Sylvania presented an application to Waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance to demolish all
buildings and ancillary structures at 60 Boston Street. John Wathne of Milne Associates, Gregg
Klemmer from Hunneman and Frank Rossi were present representing Osram Sylvania.
Mr. Wathne stated that they are going to the Conservation Commission with a Notice of Intent and
added that the research shows that 60 Boston Street is not the original site of the company. Mr. Wathne
noted that there were no significant inventions there. Mr. Wathne described the conditions of each
building as identified alphabetically on the site plan provided.
Building A was built in 1916,building B in 1918 and the link between, building C, was built in 1924.
Building K will remain. Mr. Wathne felt that the glass block in Building A was added some time later.
• Mr. Wathne felt that there were some structural problems in building A and stated that the concerns are
with the columns and spandrel intersections. Mr. Wathne felt there was some retrofit stabilization and
noted that he has obtained repair estimates. In building B, Mr. Wathne stated that the brick seems fairly
intact, but that the slab on the lowest level is all over the place. Mr. Wathne stated that there are
October 18, 1995, Page 3
undulations on the first floor well over 1", which are probably due to the North River settlement. Mr.
• Wathne stated that there is as much as 8" difference in the elevations of the columns.
Mr. Rossi stated that on high tides,they get tidal water on the first floor.
Mr. Carr commented that, if the building is structurally unsound, shouldn't it be before the Building
Department to determine or shouldn't the Commission have a copy of the report. Mr. Carr stated that he
talked to the City Planner, Bill Luster, who indicated that the property is zoned manufacturing and that
the owners propose to rezone to commercial. Mr. Carr stated that Mr. Luster indicated that the City is
against that proposal. Mr. Carr stated that it appears that if the buildings are demolished, the ability to
rezone may be enhanced. Mr. Carr noted that originally the property was High Grade Lamp, a Salem
company that evolved into Sylvania.
Mr. Wathne stated that they could not get a copy of the report and because it is in Germany.
Mr. Carr did not feel the Commission could vote tonight, since a large part of the discussion is on the
engineering report. Mr. Carr stated that just because these are manufacturing buildings does not mean
they do not have a part in preservation.
Mr. Wathne stated that building C is a link between buildings A and B. Mr. Wathne stated that it is not
clear if building D was built in 1917 or 1817. Mr. Wathne noted that the site changed ownership and
that it is difficult to get records. Mr. Wathne stated that building F is sitting on concrete pile caps and
• was possibly brought down from Maine and reassembled. Mr. Wathne noted that building F did not
exist in 1897.
Mr. Kelleher believed that the owners would have to file an Environmental Notification Report (ENF)
with MEPA.
Bob Graham, Cutler Associates, 43 Harbor Street, Worcester, the design/build contractor for the project,
stated that he was told that they would not need an ENF.
Mr. Kelleher stated that if an ENF is needed, it will automatically require review by Massachusetts
Historical Commission(MHC). Mr. Kelleher stated that MHC would likely request a report by a
historical consultant.
Mr. Graham stated that he did not feel they have triggered any MEPA requirements. Mr. Kelleher noted
that any hazardous waste resulting from the demolition may trigger an ENF.
Mr. Graham stated that DEP has that jurisdiction and that they will be going through the process.
Mr. Carr suggested continuing the application in order to give time to get the engineers report and to
allow the Commission to see if other agencies are involved.
• Mr. Wathne stated that they are making every effort to work with the Planning Department and Osram in
order to make an amicable resolution.
Mr. Carr made a motion to continue the application until November 15, 1995 and to conduct a site visit.
October 18, 1995, Page 4
Mr. Rossi noted that the boiler room will remain. Mr. Wathne stated that keeping building K will make
• Mr. Luster happy, while demolishing the remaining buildings will make Sylvania happy.
Ms. Guy felt that the Sylvania representatives did not understand the position of Mr. Luster and that her
impression was that he is opposed to any demolition and that he was surprised that an application was
submitted.
Mr. Carr stated that Mr. Luster was emphatically opposed, was surprised to hear about the demolition
application and thought it was in bad faith on Sylvania's part.
A site visit was set for Saturday, October 21, 1995 at 10:00 a.m.
Mr. Kelleher seconded Mr. Carr's motion.
Mr. Klemmer stated that he had a meeting with Scott Schlissel and Bill Luster concerning the site's
marketability. Mr. Klemmer stated that it has almost a negative value to improve and rent and that no
developer with buy and renovate.
47-49 Washington Sq. N.
Ralph and Jeannette Countie and Robert and Ingrid Sewall presented an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to replace roof slate with asphalt tiles.
• Attorney Charles Belmer, representing the homeowners, stated that they have selected the color closest
to the existing slate. Atty. Belmer stated that they have an estimate of$23729 to replace with slate and
$14560 to replace with asphalt shingle. Arty. Belmer noted that two years ago, Mr. Sewall came before
the Commission to request shingle and was ordered to replace with slate or repair the existing slate.
Atty. Belmer stated that the slate was repaired and that the roof is leaking again. Atty. Belmer stated
that contractors won't guarantee slate repair and therefore it is either an all or nothing situation. Atty.
Belmer noted that Mr. Sewall purchased his house at $210,000 and that it is now valued at $160,000.
Atty. Belmer stated that to require a$24,000 roof, the Commission should consider the value to the
owners. The Counties are on the easterly side of the building and the Sewalls are on the westerly side.
Mr. Carr asked if both sides had leakage. Messrs. Countie and Sewall replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Kelleher asked what caused the damage the last time. Mr. Sewall replied that it was a storm. Mr.
Countie added that two years ago a hurricane damaged both sides. Mr. Kelleher asked how much was
damaged two years ago. Mr. Sewall stated that approximately 20% was damaged.
Mr. Sewall noted that the insurance company would not pay for replacement slate and that there was no
guarantee on the repair from the contractors.
Mr. Kasparian asked if there were broken or missing slates. Mr. Sewall replied in the affirmative.
• Mr. Kasparian asked where the leaks are occurring. Mr. Countie stated that they are around the dormer
and the chimney. Chairman Sides questioned whether or not these are the locations of the previous
leaks. Mr. Countie stated that the leaks could be anywhere and that water comes in where it can find a
way.
October 18, 1995, Page 5
Mr. Carr suggested a site visit. A site visit was set for 11:00 a.m. on Saturday October 21, 1995.
• Mr. Carr made a motion to continue the application to the next meeting and to have a site visit.
Mr. Sewall stated that two contractors have stated that the slate is disintegrating and turning into mud.
Mr. Kasparian seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Carr stated that if asphalt is approved, the guidelines recommend that the color be either black or
charcoal grey.
Approval of Minutes
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the minutes of September 20, 1995. Mr. Kelleher seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Kasparian provided Ms. Guy with revisions to the minutes of September 6, 1995.
Other Business
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission received a letter from John Ronan, 274 Lafayette Street requesting
an extension on the cupola until June, 1996. Mr. Carr made a motion to continue the application until
• the meeting of June 5, 1996. Mr. Kelleher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so
carried.
Ms. Guy stated that she issued a Certificate of Non-Applicability for 397 Essex Street for roof/chimney
replacement which was applied for as a result of Mr. Carr speaking to the workmen on site. Ms. Guy
stated that she spoke to the Building Inspector who indicated that the contractor, A.B. Carnes,
consistently begins work without having pulled the proper permits. Ms. Guy read a written warning
from the Building Inspector to the contractor. Mr. Carr noted that the chimneys were taken down to the
roof line and that he feels the new chimneys are shorter than the previous. In addition, the left hand
chimney had a peak that is not there now. Mr. Kelleher stated that he took photographs of the area
recently and will see if they show the previously existing chimney.
Mr. Carr asked if an intern can be employed to photograph existing conditions in the districts. Ms. Guy
noted that the survey update includes photography. Mr. Kelleher asked if Ms. Guy can look into
increasing the number of photos produced for each property surveyed.
Mr. Carr suggested establishing a policy on brick sidewalk replacement whereby repairs or replacement
should be with used brick.
Violations/Work Status
• 35 Washington Square - Ms. Guy will draft a letter requiring that the trellis be removed or to apply for a
new enclosure and to require that the shutters be installed by June 30, 1996 or the Commission will
commence the next step in enforcement.
31 Washington Square - Ms. Guy will draft a letter suggested that the applicant apply for a Certificate of
October 18, 1995, Page 6
Hardship for the fence and inquire if there had been an insurance claim. The letter will also require the
columns to be replaced by June 30, 1996 or the Commission will commence with the next step in
enforcement.
2 Botts Court - Mr. Carr stated that he and Mr. Kasparian were never contacted as delegates for the post
and cap details and noted that he has received several complaints from neighbors. Chairman Sides
stated that for future Certificates where Commission members are delegated, it should indicate that the
applicants are responsible to contact the member delegated. Mr. Carr noted that instead of 3 posts on the
straight section, there are four and that all four posts extend above the wall heights. Mr. Carr stated that
he had asked if the homeowners would be willing to take down the two posts in the middle and that they
were emphatically opposed. Mr. Carr stated that the most they would consider is 2-4 courses on the
posts and making the top flat. Mr. Carr stated that he preferred taking down the middle posts. Mr.
Kasparian felt that the only appropriate gate would be a plain board, wooden gate. Mr. Carr stated that
the Commission should communicate that the wall was not built as approved or as applied for and that
they homeowners should come before the Commission concerning the post height and the gate. Mr.
Can will draft a letter.
134 Federal St. - Mr. Carr stated that there is a 2 x 4 fence on top of the flat roof on the one story `
addition. Ms. Guy will send a letter.
140 Federal St. - Mr. Carr questioned the status of the column replacement. Mr. Kelleher stated that the
Commission should pursue it when the Certificate is closer to expiration. Ms. Guy will add it to the
• violation/work status list.
20 Chestnut Street- Mr. Cook stated that he could not find any photographic history. Mr. Carr felt there
would be something at the Essex Institute Library and offered to check.
5 Chestnut Street - Mr. Cook stated that the roof is not what was applied for. Chairman Sides stated that
the homeowner never called her about the windows. Mr. Carr suggested that everyone look at it and that
the Commission discuss it at the next meeting.
398 Essex Street - Mr. Kasparian stated that it can be removed from the violation/work status list.
331 Essex St. - Mr. Kelleher stated that he spoke to Diane Pabich and that they have not painted the
equipment. Mr. Kelleher noted that the roof is red asphalt and that they would rather paint the
equipment black. The Commission agreed to black.
There being no further business, Mr. Cook made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Kelleher seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submed,
Jae. Guy
ClCo ission
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
OCTOBER 21, 1995
• The Salem Historical Commission conducted a site visit on Saturday, October 21, 1995 at 10:00 a.m. at 60
Boston Street with a site visit following at 47-49 Washington Square. Present were Chairman Sides, Mr.
Kelleher and Mr. Kasparian. Present representing Osram Sylvania were Frank Rossi, Atty. Scott Schlessel,
Howard Lange, Anthony Graffeo and David Dutton.
60 Boston St.
Commission members were given a tour of each building while representatives from Osram Sylvania explained
issues relating to safety.
Building A
Representatives from Osram Sylvania noted rotting beams, sloping floors, outer walls pulling out and the stairs
that do not meet the building code. It was noted that this is the oldest building, that it has asbestos flooring and
that it has no set backs from the street. Reinforcing of gussets at beams anc columns was done 30 years ago.
Building C
This is a newer building which cannot stand alone when Buildings A and B are removed.
Building B
• The floor is very uneven. It was questioned whether the building is on fill which is responsible for the sinking.
Flooding occurs when the North River crests.
Building D
The building has exterior asbestos shingles. The building is vacant.
Building F.
This building was possibly moved to the site from Maine. It is on piers and appears to be sinking in the middle.
Building K
This is the newest of the buildings and is proposed to remain.
47-49 Washinglon Square
It was noted that there are probably flashing issues at the chimneys and that there are no crickets. Flashing is
deteriorated and has been tarred over.
There is a satellite dish on the exterior wall.
Respectfully submitted,
i
Helen Sides
Chairman
November 1, 1995, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
• MINUTES
NOVEMBER 1, 1995
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday,November 1, 1995 at
7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were Chairman Sides, Messrs. Oedel, Carr, Casey,
Kelleher, Kasparian, Slam and Ms. Guy. Mr. Cook entered later in the meeting
124 Federal Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, Kevin and Deborah Guinee submitted an application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness for the conversion of the first floor that abuts property on Lynn Street to a
portico.
Chairman Sides read a letter from the homeowners wishing to withdraw their application. Chairman
Sides stated that, in the past, the Commission has accepted withdrawal on receipt of written request.
Mr. Carr stated that he spoke with the City Solicitor, who indicated that, at this late date, the
Commission must move on acceptance of the withdrawal request.
Mr. Kelleher made a motion to accept the withdrawal. Mr. Casey seconded the motion.
• Mr. Carr stated that the Commission has spent eleven hours on this application and that the homeowners
are now requesting withdrawal at the last meeting. Mr. Carr felt the Commission should know the
reasons for withdrawal and felt that the homeowners should not size up how they feel the vote is going
and withdraw if they feel it won't pass. Mr. Carr noted that the public has come out to be heard and hear
a final decision.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to move the questions. Mr. Slam seconded the motion. Chairman Sides and
Messrs. Oedel, Casey, Kelleher, Slam and Kasparian voted in favor. Mr. Carr voted in opposition. The
motion so carried.
On the motion to accept withdrawal, Chairman Sides and Messrs. Oedel, Casey, Kelleher, Slam and
Kasparian voted in favor. Mr. Carr voted in opposition. The motion so carried.
278 Lafayette Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, Marie Plamondon submitted an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for fence replacement at 278 Lafayette Street. Ms. Guy noted that the applicant has
requested to continue the application until December 6, 1995 and that she wrote a letter requesting that
the owner send a written waiver of the 60 day decision requirement or the Commission will have to act
at its meeting of November 15, 1995. Ms. Guy suggested that the Commission continue the application
until the November 15, 1995 meeting.
• Mr. Oedel made a motion to continue the application until the meeting of November 15, 1995. Mr. Carr
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Cook joined the meeting at this time.
r
November 1, 1995, Page 2
47-49 Washington Sq. N.
• In continuation of a previous meeting, Ralph and Jeannette Countie and Robert and Ingrid Sewall
presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace roof slate with asphalt tiles.
Chairman Sides stated that she and Messrs. Kelleher and Kasparian attended a site visit. Chairman Sides
stated that it is difficult to judge if slate is deteriorating or not. Chairman Sides stated that it looks like
the main problem is around the chimneys,that there are not crickets at the chimneys, that they are in bad
shape and that it could be the cause. Chairman Sides suggested considering repair around the chimney.
Mr. Sewall stated that the problem has been at the center of the roof. Mr. Sewall added that as they
replace slates, others start falling down.
Chairman Sides asked if the repairs are holding up. Mr. Sewall replied in the negative and added that
the other side of the house did not leak two years ago, but is leaking now. Mr. Sewall stated that the
chimney is not where the problem is and that it is the main roof itself.
Chairman Sides stated that she observed a satellite dish. Mr. Sewall questioned if they were allowed.
Chairman Sides replied in the negative. Mr. Sewall stated that he will take it down.
Mr. Kasparian stated that the Commission's guidelines say original material should be retained. Mr.
Kasparian noted that the applicant has sited leaking problems and has provided two cost estimates, one
• for complete re-roofing with slate and one for complete re-reroofing with asphalt, but no estimate for
selective repair work. Mr. Kasparian also recognized that the applicant has sited inferior slate material
that is turning to mud.
Mr. Sewall stated the two contractors have informed him that this slate is no longer available and that
with each repair of new slate, it causes a domino effect of failure of the old slates.
Mr. Kasparian stated that, if complete re-reroofing is necessry because of inferior slate material , this
may be a case of hardship. Mr. Kasparian noted that there are two dormers,two chimneys and a roof
hatch as penetrations in the roof and that the flashing around them is in poor condition. Mr. Kasparian
felt if these problem areas were addressed, the historic slate roof might be salvagable. Mr. Kasparian
stated that he would like to see a piece of slate that has fallen off.
Mr. Kelleher asked if his contractor is experienced in repairing slate. Mr. Sewall stated that the
contractor is M & M roofing and that he also got an estimate from Kidney Roofing two years ago. Mr.
Sewall stated that three contractors have all said basically the same thing -that they couldn't work with
the existing slate.
Mr. Kelleher stated that he would be interested in seeing an estimate on slate repair. Mr. Sewall stated
that it was repaired two years ago and is leaking again.
• Ms. Guy stated that the applicant had indicated that the contractor would not guarantee the repair work.
Mr. Oedel stated that the Commission has a record of repair work.
Mr. Sewall stated that he wanted the asphalt to match the color of the slate.
November 1, 1995, Page 3
Mr. Carr asked where the damage was two years ago. Mr. Sewall stated that it was in the center of the
• roof.
Chairman'Sides read the Kidney estimate of April, 1993.
Mr. Casey noted that the current estimate for asphalt includes gutters and downspouts.
Mr. Carr stated that, if approved, it should be under Hardship. Mr. Carr suggested having Kidney update
their appraisal.
Mr. Sewall stated that the roof is leaking. Mr. Slam asked when they want to replace the roof. Mr.
Sewall replied that he would do it immediately and noted that slate is three times the cost of asphalt.
Mr. Oedel stated that it is clear the replacement is needed and noted that he did not recall the
Commission ever requiring complete slate replacement.
Mr. Slam agreed that one place the Commission needs to be more flexible in the guidelines regarding
original material is with regard to roofs.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve a Certificate of Hardship for standard cut, Bird Sable Black asphalt
• roof shingles.
Atty. Belmer Charles Belmer, representing the applicants, stated that he spoke to people in the
neighborhood and that there was no objection.
Mr. Slam seconded the motion.
Mr. Casey suggested including the gutters and downspouts.
Mr. Oedel amended his motion to include gutters and downspouts. Mr. Slam seconded the amendment.
The motion was voted on, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Kasparian abstained from
voting.
262 Lafayette Street
Brian and Gail Roberts submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the
existing mortar chimney cap with a stainless steel cap.
Mr. Roberts stated that it is the cap on the rear chimney that needs replacement due to the back puffing
into the stove. The existing allows water to get into the brick work in the house. Currently there is a
. half domed shaped cap that can be seen from Laurel Street. The new cap will look like 258 Lafayette
Street.
Mr. Slam stated that he suspected that the cap is minimally visible.
r ,
November 1, 1995, Page 4
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve chimney cap replacement and to delegate such replacement cap to
• Commissioner Kelleher. The motion is also for Mr. Kelleher to look into the cap at 258 Lafayette
Street. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion.
Mr. Kasparian asked if there will be any alteration to the masonry. Mr. Roberts replied in the negative.
The motion was voted upon, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Kasparian abstained from
voting.
Mr. Carr asked if the applicants had looked into any other caps. Mr. Roberts replied in the negative.
Mr. Carr stated that they can look into alternatives with Mr. Kelleher.
376 Essex Street
Linda Nichols, Trustee of Charter Trust submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness
and Non-Applicability for the construction of handicapped ramp at the rear of the property.
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission has received a request in writing for a continuance.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to continue the application until the meeting of November 15, 1995. Mr. Carr
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Kasparian abstained from voting.
• Ms. Guy noted that she spoke to their attorney's office and that they will finish painting the carriage
house, but that they are investigating termite damage.
20 Chestnut St.
Rachel Taddeo, daughter of James and Janice Schooley, requested that the issue of the porch railings be
discussed. Ms. Taddeo noted that the railings were replaced in 1982.
Ms. Guy informed Ms. Taddeo that,at a previous meeting, it was decided the Mr. Cook would look for
photographs to determine if the railing replacement was an alteration or a substantially similar
replacement. Mr. Carr further had offered to check the Essex Institute library. Ms. Guy stated that once
it was determined which application was necessary, Mr. Cook was to assist Mrs. Schooley with its
preparation.
Mr. Casey stated that there was a further question of staining and that Mr. Schooley had stated that what
was replaced was close to what was there.
Mr. Carr stated that a homeowner has the right to replicate but the Commission needs evidence of what
was previously there.
Mr. Slam stated that if the Commission has not noticed it in thirteen years, it has not been detrimental to
• the district.
Mr. Slam made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-Applicability due to it being an insignificant
alteration replacement. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion.
November 1, 1995, Page 5
Mr. Casey suggested an amendment for it to be appropriately painted. Mr. Slam so amended his motion.
• Mr. Oedel seconded the amendment.
Mr. Cook felt it was unusual that the rest of the design is standardized. Mr. Cook stated that ''/� x 2
boards was odd and asked if there had been square balusters. Ms. Taddeo replied in the negative.
Mr. Carr noted that they are the same kind that the Commission required Dr. White to take off.
Ms. Taddeo stated that they would paint it white to match the trim. Mr. Casey stated that the balustrade,
railing and step risers should be the trim color.
Mr. Cook stated that the deck needs to be uniform in color to match the existing deck color.
Mr. Casey stated that the lattice should be the shutter color and that the steps and deck should be the
existing deck color. Mr. Casey suggested that the work be completed by June 30, 1996.
The motion was voted on. Chairman Sides and Messrs. Cook, Casey, Kelleher, Slam and Oedel voted in
favor. Mr. Carr voted in opposition. Mr. Kasparian abstained from voting. The motion so carried.
151 Federal Street
Thomas & Lucille Henry submitted an application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability to replace the
• left and right side clapboards as needed and to repaint in the color previously approved and painted on
the front of the house. Ms. Guy noted that the color was approved in 1986 but was never painted on the
sides. Paint chips were provided.
Mr. Carr suggested that the approval piggyback on the 1986 approval but require that all sides be
painted.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-Applicability as submitted and to extend the
1986 paint color approval provided that all sides of building are painted. Mr. Oedel seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Kasparian abstained from voting.
153 Federal St.
Glenn and Dale Yale submitted an application for a Certificate of Non-applicability for repainting at 153
Federal Street. Colors to replicate existing siding of Charcoal Grey and trim of white.
Ms. Guy stated that the former contractor for the project telephoned her and stated that the homeowners
have altered trim.
Mr. Carr stated that he went by the house and that it appears they have cut through the crown molding
for new copper gutters, which he thought may be oversized. Mr. Carr noted that there was an alarm box
• on the eastern side and it looks like there is a new or larger electric service. Mr. Carr stated that a now
guard has been added to the roof. Mr. Carr suggested that the Commission write a letter to the
homeowners.
3 �
November 1, 1995, Page 6
Violations/Work Status
• 169 Federal St. - Ms. Guy stated that she received a telephone call from a neighbor who stated that a
greenhouse window and 6 over 6 replacement windows have been installed. Mr. Carr stated that he
went by the house and that they homeowners have done this work in the ell. Ms. Guy will send a
violation letter.
35 Washington Sq. - Ms. Guy read a draft letter to the homeowner. Mr. Casey stated that the facia is not
a replication of the rest of the house. The Commission will view and discuss at the next meeting.
31 Washington Sq. - Ms. Guy read a draft letter to the homeowner. The letter was approved to be sent.
134 Federal St. - Ms. Guy read a letter from the homeowner stating that the roof deck was added 25
years ago. Ms. Guy provided a 1981 picture that shows no roof deck. Mr. Carr made a motion to send a
letter to the homeowner requiring that the deck be removed forthwith and to copy the Building
Inspector. Mr. Casey seconded the motion and requested that it also include a reminder on the porch
violation. All were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Kasparian abstained from voting.
397 Essex St. - Mr. Carr made a motion to send a letter to the homeowner stating that the chimney
replacement does not replicate the existing and that they are not as tall and that the left chimney is
missing the cap. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Chairman
Sides abstained from voting.
• 25 Washington Sq. - Mr. Slam stated that he could not see any violation and that it can be removed from
the violation list.
6 Federal Ct. - Mr. Oedel stated that the sign remains. Ms. Guy will send a second letter.
2 Botts Ct. - Mr. Carr stated that he will draft a letter stating that there are discrepancies as to what was
built and approved with regard to the wall cap on post, gate location, number of posts and cap on wall
and that the gate design needs to be resolved. Mr. Kasparian stated that this application was presented
with a grossly insufficient material describing the proposed new wall and should never have been
approved by the Commission. Mr. Kasparian stated that, had he not been forced to abstain as an
alternate member, he would have voted against it. Mr. Kasparian also stated that his attempt to negotiate
with the applicants was reduced to disagreements over interpretation of the vague sketches and
semantics. Mr. Kasparian feels that the brick wall cap is inappropriate, but within the understanding of
the applicants, approved by the Commission. Mr. Kasparian added that the gate and"post caps" are not
yet approved and no additional ornament on the wall should ever be approved in the future.
2 Flint St. - Ms. Guy will send a second letter concerning the timbers.
310 Lafayette St. - Ms. Guy will send a letter to the City Solicitor.
10 Flint St. - Ms. Guy will send a letter requiring the fence be painted forthwith.
1 Hamilton St. - Mr. Casey requested that a letter be send to the homeowner requiring the outstanding
work be completed forthwith with a copy sent to John Boris of the Licensing Board. Mr. Casey also
requested that the Commission send a letter to Mr. Boris outlining a history of the property violations.
November 1, 1995, Page 7
10 Chestnut St. - Ms. Guy will send a letter requesting the fence be installed forthwith.
• 336 Essex St. - Ms. Guy will send a letter requiring the work be completed forthwith.
Peabody Museum signage - Ms. Guy will send a letter to Mr. Saamio requesting the temporary signage
be removed forthwith.
Other Business
Ms. Guy stated that she issued Certificates of Non-applicability for:
38 Flint St. - Chimney reconstruction
9 Lynn St. - Repainting
140 Derby St. - Clapboards &trim
271 Lafayette St. -Repainting
266 Lafayette St. - Repairs
Ms. Guy read a resignation letter from James Bailey.
Ms. Guy noted that Mr. Bailey is restoring the roof balustrade at 81 Essex Street.
Mr. Carr suggested that the Commission look at the soffits approved for 124 Federal Street. Mr. Carr
• felt it looked like Swiss cheese. Mr. Oedel stated that when the screen goes on and is painted, it should
read out.
Mr. Carr made a motion to adopt a policy that when the Commission receives applications for Non-
Applicability, it require the applicant to submit three to four 35mm photographs of the existing
conditions. Mr. Slam seconded the motion. Ms. Sides stated that it should be for any application. All
were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Kasparian abstained from voting.
Mr. Carr stated that when the Commission votes to approve an application in concept, it should not issue
a Certificate. Ms. Guy felt that whether to issue a Certificate or not should be part of the motion because
sometimes the approval is given so that a Certificate can be issued to allow portions of the project to get
a Building Permit.
Mr. Carr stated that he would like a letter sent to the appropriate person regarding the use of the Charter
Street cemetery during Haunted Happenings.
There being no further business, Mr. Slam made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion,
all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Kasparian abstained from voting.
Respectfully submitte
•
JanKGyClemission
November 15, 1995, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
• MINUTES
NOVEMBER 15, 1995
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, November 15, 1995 at
7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were Chairman Sides, Messrs. Carr, Kasparian,
Slam and Ms. Guy.
278 Lafayette Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, Marie Plamondon submitted an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for fence replacement at 278 Lafayette Street. Ms. Guy noted that the applicant had
requested to continue the application until December 6, 1995 and that she wrote a letter requesting that
the owner send a written waiver of the 60 day decision requirement or the Commission will have to act
at its meeting of November 15, 1995. Ms. Guy stated that the Commission did not receive any written
response and suggested that the Commission deny without prejudice and require the applicant to
resubmit within 30 days in order to resolve the violation.
Mr. Carr made a motion to deny without prejudice. Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all were in favor and
the motion so carried.
60 Boston Street
• In continuation of a previous meeting, Osram Sylvania presented an application to Waive the
Demolition Delay Ordinance to demolish all buildings and ancillary structures at 60 Boston Street. Atty.
Joseph Correnti of Serafini, Serafini and Darling represented the applicant.
Atty. Correnti requested that the application be continued until the next meeting in order to allow time
for Osram Sylvania to meet with the City Planner regarding the site's future development. Arty.
Correnti hoped to present a more concrete plan at the next meeting.
Mr. Carr suggested that Osram Sylvania withdraw. Arty. Correnti stated that they would be willing to
waive the requirement that the Commission act within 30 days.
Mr. Carr made a motion to continue the application and that the 180 day delay clock stop and commence
again at the next presentation. Atty. Correnti stated that they do not want to stop the clock. Mr. Carr
withdrew his motion..
Mr. Correnti stated that, as representative of Osram Sylvania, he waives the requirement that the
Commission act within 30 days.
Mr. Carr made a motion to continue the application until December 6, 1995 with the condition that the
applicant has waived the requirement for the Commission to act within 30 days. Mr. Kasparian
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Chairman Sides noted that there were only four members present and that any application will require all
four votes to pass.
4
November 15, 1995, Page 2
153 Federal Street
• In continuation of a previous meeting, Glenn and Dale Yale submitted an application for a Certificate of
Non-Applicability for repainting at 153 Federal Street.
Ms. Guy stated that the applicants could not be present, that they have submitted a new application for
the December 6, 1995 meeting and that there are outstanding issues relating to the gutters, snow guard
and electric service.
Mr. Carr made a motion to continue the application. Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all were in favor
and the motion so carried.
25 Washington Square
George Gagnan submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove existing gutter
at 25 Washington Square North.
Mr. Carr asked if it is a Victorian gutter that is part of the woodwork of the cornice. Mr. Gagnan replied
in the affirmative.
Mr. Gagnan noted that water is getting under, that he has repaired what he can and that water is still
getting in. Mr. Gagnan noted that repairs have been ongoing every year.
• Mr. Carr asked if it is on top of the crown molding or built in. Mr. Gagnan replied that it is part of the
molding.
Mr. Slam felt a site visit was needed.
Mr. Kasparian asked if the specific proposal was to remove the rest of the gutter as has already been
done in one section. Mr. Gagnan replied in the affirmative and stated that he is proposing a 12' facia.
Mr. Kasparian stated that a 12" flat board facia would not be appropriate and that the profile of the
cornice must be preserved.
Mr. Gagnan stated that it will not fit under the slate and that he needs to flash over it.
Mr. Carr made a motion to continue the application to the next meeting pending a site visit. Mr. Slam
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
A site visit was set for 3:00 p.m. on Sunday,November 19, 1995.
One Peabody Street
Water Front Realty Trust submitted an application to Waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance to
• demolish the structure at the intersection of Lafayette and Peabody Street, including abutting concrete
wall and foundation and to demolish the metal storage building on the same site at One Peabody Street.
Ms. Guy stated that a Wendy's will be built there and that its design have been approved by the Salem
November 15, 1995, Page 3
Redevelopment Authority and the Planning Board. Demolish will open up views to the waterfront. Ms.
• Guy stated that the administration is in favor of the project.
Mr. Slam made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Carr seconded the motion, all
were in favor and the motion so carried.
376 Essex Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, Linda Nichols, Trustee of Charter Trust submitted an application
for a Certificate of Appropriateness and Non-applicability for the construction of handicapped ramp at
the rear of the property. Atty. Joseph Correnti of Serafini, Serafrni and Darling represented the
applicant.
Atty. Correnti requested a continuance and suggested that a site visit be conducted prior to the next
meeting.
Mr. Carr made a motion to continue the application until the next meeting and to set a site visit for 2:30
p.m. on Sunday,November 19, 1995. Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion
so carried.
124 Federal Street
• Kevin and Deborah Guinee submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the
existing fence across the front of the house with the fence proposed in the drawings submitted. Ms.
Guinee noted that the fence will be custom.
Mr. Slam made a motion to approve the application as submitted. There was no second.
Ms. Guinee stated that the side fence is staying for now.
Darrow Lebovici, 120 Federal Street, asked if the gate will provide access to the public way. Ms.
Guinee stated that it is not a public way, but rather an easement to Mrs. O'Shea's property and that the
gate will replace the gate that is there now.
Mr. Lebovici asked if the fence will be lockable. Ms. Guinee replied in the negative.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the fence to be painted white.
Mr. Kasparian stated that the center post of 19th century fences is usually concealed with a continuous
rail.
Ms. Guinee stated that the modeled the fence after the Pierce Nichols House with a smaller scale.
Mr. Carr amended his motion to recommend that the center post be eliminated and replaced with a
hidden support post behind the fence. Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion
so carried.
November 15, 1995, Page 4
4 Hamilton Street
• Alice Johnson submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to enclose the porch at the
rear of the house per the rendering submitted. The porch will be covered by clapboards with an end
board and a double hung, six over six, window with shutters that match the rest of the house. It will be
painted to match the house. The lattice work under the floor will remain. The roof will not change.
Ms. Johnson stated that they will put in a corner board and that the footprint will not be increased.
Mr. Carr stated that he did not have a problem with enclosing the porch but would like to work within
the porch details.
Fred Nathans stated that the porch appears to have been built in 1918.
Mr. Slam stated that he was in favor and felt it would read like an ell.
Mr. Kasparian asked if the window had to be shoved against the main house. Ms. Johnson stated that
they need as much wall on the driveway side as possible.
Mr. Carr asked if it is on the same plane as the main block. Ms. Johnson stated that it will be set back
like the porch, approximately one foot.
• Mr. Carr felt a site visit was needed and stated that he would be willing to vote at the site.
Mr. Carr made a motion to continue the application to the site visit at 2:00 p.m. on November 19, 1995.
Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
115 Federal Street
Irving Ingraham and Darleen Melis submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to
install a skylight on the kitchen wing, approximately one-third the distance from the ridge pole. The
rough cut opening will be 21 ''/2" x 39". The application states that the skylight will only be visible from
one driveway on Beckford Street.
Ms. Melis stated that there used to be a window illuminating the stairs that had been covered over and
that the skylight will be installed to illuminate the stairs. Ms. Melis stated that they will install it as high
to the ridge as possible.
Mr. Carr was concerned of the proximity to the window on the rear facade of the main block.
Ms. Melis stated that it was the smallest skylight they have and that it matches the front skylight.
Mr. Kasparian felt it had marginal visual impact. Mr. Slam was in agreement.
• Mr. Slam made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Carr seconded the motion, all
were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Carr asked if Ms. Melis could estimate the distance from the ridge pole. Ms. Melis estimated it
November 15, 1995, Page 5
would be approximately three feet.
Other Business
Peter Paskowski was present to introduce himself as the newly elected Councillor of Ward One.
Ms. Guy provided a list of properties in the McIntire District that are proposed for survey updating being
conducted this year by Tremont Preservation Services.
Mr. Kasparian gave Ms. Guy some revisions of the November 1, 1995 minutes.
Ms. Guy read a letter from Rudy Rozoski of Aliquippa, PA which included a brochure on the Auto-
Turn-About.
There being no further business, Mr. Kasparian made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Slam seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfull�tted,
Je A. Guy l
• Clerk of the Commission
• November 19, 1995, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 19, 1995
The Salem Historical Commission conducted three site visits on Sunday,November 19, 1995
beginning at 2:00 p.m. at 4 Hamilton Street. Present were Chairman Sides and Messrs. Carr,
Kasparian and Slam.
4 Hamilton Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, Alice Johnson, submitted an application for a Certificate
of Appropriateness to enclose the porch at the rear of the house.
The Commission members present had no objection to the concept of enclosing the c1917 side
porch.
Mr. Carr felt that there were two basic ways of enclosing the porch. The first is to retain the
sense of the existing porch by keeping the columns with small paned glass walls. The second is
to create a more solid look of a one story addition with corner boards, clapboards, etc. Ms.
• Johnson stated that she preferred the latter method.
None of the members present felt the latter concept was inappropriate. However, all four
members expressed concern with the proposed trellis covering an otherwise open raised
foundation. The consensus was that a solid look to the foundation was more appropriate.
Chairman Sides felt that it would be unreasonable to force the applicants to incur the expense of
replicating the raised brick foundation of the side walls of the main block of the house.
After reviewing porches of neighboring properties, it was determined that vertical tongue-in-
groove boarding, approximately 3 '/z to 4 inches in width, would be acceptable. It was further
decided that the footprint, height and roof pitch of the addition should be identical to the current
porch, that the corner boards and watertable of the new addition should be identical with that of
the old, that the water table should line up and be horizontal with that of the main block (albeit
on the recessed southerly wall of the new addition), that the clapboards be clear cedar, smooth
side out with the same exposure to the weather as the main block and that the cornice of the new
addition be identical to that of the current porch.
The members also felt that the window should be centered on the southerly wall of the new
addition,that it should be identical in width and configuration (i.e. 6 over 6) with the windows of
the main block, and that the window trim should also be identical, including with respect to the
• thickness of the sill, which should be on the same horizontal as the window sills of the main
block. The height of the new window should meet the bottom of the existing cornice. The new
window should also have properly sized shutters in the same style as those on the rest of the
• November 19, 1995, Page 2
house. Shutters on the rear windows under the existing porch should be salvaged and reused
with the new(or salvaged)window, if possible.
With respect to the enclosed wooden foundation of the new addition,the vertical tongue-in-
groove boarding described above should be encased in equally sized corner boards,
approximating the current corner boards with an equally sized vertical board in the center. There
should also be a horizontal board running along the ground, the height of which is not to exceed
the height of the watertable (exact dimension to be worked out by Mr. Kasparian). The vertical
tongue-in-groove boarding is to be encased behind these (i.e. recessed by the thickness of such
boards).
The trim and body color of the main block will be replicated on the new addition. The vertical
boarding will match the body color.
Ms. Johnson stated that she was agreeable to the foregoing.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness containing all of the above
elements. Mr. Slam seconded the motion.
• Mr. Kasparian felt that an elevation was advisable. Chairman Sides and Messrs. Slam and Carr
were in agreement.
Mr. Kasparian volunteered to prepare a drawing after receiving copies of the minutes from Mr.
Carr.
Mr. Carr modified his motion to delegate final design details to Mr. Kasparian consistent with
the foregoing. Mr. Slam seconded the amendment. It was also added, in keeping with the
current Commission policy, that the applicant was to file four or five representative photographs
of the existing porch conditions, including photographs showing the current facia above the
porch,the current roof pitch and height and the current trellis and trim detail under the porch
prior to the issuance of a Certificate.
The motion was voted upon. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
376 Essex Street
At 2:30 p.m.,the Salem Historical Commission attended a site visit at 376 Essex Street as part of
the continuing review of an application of Charter Trust for a Certificate of Appropriateness and
Non-Applicability for the construction of a handicapped ramp. Attorney Joseph Correnti of the
firm of Serafini, Serafini and Darling and Donald DiPanfilo, Director of Facilities of the North
• Shore Medical Center were present representing the applicants. Also present were the following
neighbors or interested parties: Palmer and Elma Swecker, John Casey, Steve Gregory, Katie
Bratun and Marfr Hodgman.
• November 19, 1995, Page 3
The partially constructed ramp and railings were examined and it was noted and acknowledged
that the work had begun without benefit of Commission approval. The owner suspended work
on the ramp approximately two-thirds into completion. In the interim, the owner has planted
three 8' arbor vitae bushes which screened the view of the construction from Essex Street (i.e.
looking down the driveway toward the left rear corner of the building).
The Commission and the interested parties examined the views from the public way including
Essex, Flint, Federal and Munroe Streets. It was determined that new construction (including a
realigned rear door) was visible from either side of 38 Flint Street and also from the right hand
side of 141 Federal Street. Atty. Correnti felt that since similar 8' arbor vitae bushes had been
planted along the westerly and northerly boundaries, in time these views would be obscured by
the growth of the bushes.
In addition to the incomplete ramp, stairs and railings, it was also determined that one of the two
door openings at the northeast(rear) corner of the building had been raised to accommodate the
height of the new ramp and stairs, which work was also completed without prior Commission
approval. The door itself was original and was recycled in the new opening.
Discussion was then focussed as to the owner's parking plans and the extent to which parking
• was grandfathered.
Atty. Correnti stated that the commencement of work without Commission approval was
inadvertent. Atty. Correnti stated that they have since reviewed ramps approved by the
Commission including those at the Bertram Home, Health and Education Services and the
Newhall Manor Nursing Home.
It was noted that the north and east sides of the carriage house had not been painted to match the
new color scheme of the house and that a fence at the rear lot line had fallen down due to rot.
Mr. Gregory requested permission to put the remaining fence fragments in the dumpster. Atty.
Correnti was in agreement of Mr. Gregory's request.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-Applicability for removal of fence
fragments. Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. DiPanfilo stated that he would see to it that the painting of the rest of the carriage house was
completed soon.
The application will continue at the Commission's December 6, 1995 meeting.
25 Washington Square
• At 3:00 p.m., the Salem Historical Commission attended a site visit at 25 Washington Square as
part of the continuing review of an application of George Gagnan for a Certificate of
• November 19, 1995, Page 4
Appropriateness for gutter removal.
Mr. Gagnan had already removed a section of the original gutter along the Mall Street side of the
building and had substituted a flat 12" facia,thus providing a before and after example of his
proposal.
The Commission members were united in their opinion that the detail of the original gutter is an
important design element of the facia and must be preserved, even if non-functional.
It was suggested that as much of the gutter be retained as possible and be capped with copper,
particularly around the barrel turret. The look of the original gutter should be replicated where
the rot in the original is too far gone. This could be done by either having a matching gutter
specially milled or by fabricating covered crown molding to replicate the look of the existing
gutter. Chairman Sides stated that it might be cheaper to mill a matching gutter than purchasing
soc wooden gutters, given the length that would be needed.
Mr. Gagnan will bring a sample of the exiting gutter and a sample of his proposed replacement to
the Commission's meeting of December 6, 1995, along with a sketch of his proposal. Mr.
Gagnan will provide sample close-up photos of all views from Washington Square and Mall
Street.
Respectfully submitted,
J H. Carr, Jr.
Vice Chairman
i
December 6, 1995, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
• MINUTES
DECEMBER 6, 1995
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, December 6, 1995 at
7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were Chairman Sides, Messrs. Cook, Oedel and
Kelleher and Ms. Guy.
Chairman Sides noted that there were only four members present and that any application will require all
four votes to pass.
25 Washington Square
In continuation of a previous meeting, George Gagnan submitted an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to remove existing gutters at 25 Washington Square North. Mr. Gagnan submitted
samples of the existing gutters as well as proposed MDO board/molding samples.
Mr. Gagnan felt the gutter was too wide to cover. Chairman Sides stated that she was hoping to retain
the existing profile. Mr. Gagnan stated that there are boards above and below the gutter. Chairman
Sides suggested flashing over the face of the board and over the gutter. Mr. Gagnan noted that the
existing is rotting. Chairman Sides stated that it would be a drastic change to the profile of the house if
the gutter profile was gone.
• Mr. Oedel felt that the wood is intact and is solid. Mr. Oedel felt it would hold up and suggested
capping. Mr. Gagnan asked what product would be used to cover it. Chairman Sides suggested copper.
Mr. Oedel stated that it could be tum coat.
Mr. Oedel felt the application should be continued so that the applicant can come back with a method to
cover the gutter.
Mr. Oedel stated that it could be covered with 3/8 plywood over the top on a slant. Chairman Sides
stated that it would have a drip edge.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to continue the application. Mr. Cook seconded the motion, all were in favor
and the motion so carried.
60 Boston Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, Osram Sylvania presented an application to Waive the
Demolition Delay Ordinance to demolish all buildings and ancillary structures at 60 Boston Street. Arty.
Joseph Correnti of Serafini, Serafini and Darling represented the applicant.
Atty. Correnti requested that the application be continued until the next meeting.
• Mr. Oedel made a motion to continue the application until the next meeting. Mr. Kelleher seconded the
motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
December 6, 1995, Page 2
376 Essex Street
• In continuation of a previous meeting, Linda Nichols, Trustee of Charter Trust submitted an application
for a Certificate of Appropriateness and Non-Applicability for the construction of handicapped ramp at
the rear of the property. Atty. Joseph Correnti of Serafrni, Serafini and Darling represented the
applicant.
Atty. Correnti requested a continuance.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to continue the application until the next meeting. Mr. Kelleher seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
26 Chestnut Street
Dr. and Mrs. Arthur J. Kavanagh, Jr. submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to
remove the slate roof on the carriage house at 26 Chestnut Street and replace with asphalt shingle. Matt
Kavanagh represented the applicant. The roofing contractor, Kevin Kidney, was present.
Ms. Guy stated that she did not have photographs of the carriage house.
Mr. Oedel suggested a site visit.
• Mr. Kavanagh stated that they have already unsuccessfully attempted to repair the slate. Mr. Kavanagh
stated that slate replacement would cost$20,000 and replacement with asphalt would cost $8000. Mr.
Kavanagh noted that there were no abutting homeowners with slate roofs. Mr. Kavanagh stated that the
gable roof is to the street, that only the edge can be seen and that only %of one side can be seen from
Hamilton Street.
Mr. Kidney stated that he did a significant amount of work at the Kavanagh's this year. Mr. Kidney
stated that the vibration from one side during repair caused slates on the other side to fall out. Mr.
Kidney provided nail samples and noted that the heads are completely rusted off. Mr. Kidney provided
a slate sample and noted that it was poor quality slate.
Chairman Sides asked if the slate was beyond reuse. Mr. Kidney replied in the affirmative and noted
that it can not be reset. Mr. Kidney stated that the main house has better quality slate which is fastened
with brass fasteners. Mr. Kidney stated that they are proposing GAF Slate Grey Blend with a shadow
line. Mr. Kidney stated that they are proposing a 17" shingle so that there is more of a look of slate. Mr.
Kidney also provided a sample of the 12" option.
Mr. Kelleher asked if one side of the carriage house is worse than the other. Mr. Kidney stated that it
seems typical throughout the roof.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to continue the application and to delegate Mr. Kelleher to visit the site and
• provide an opinion at the next meeting as to the proposed replacement options. Mr. Cook seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Kelleher asked if there will be a ridge vent. Mr. Oedel stated that it can be included in the approval.
December 6, 1995, Page 3
Chairman Sides asked if the carriage house is heated. Mr. Kavanagh stated that it is no longer heated.
• 153 Federal Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, Glenn& Dale Yale presented an application for a Certificate of
Non-Applicability for repainting at 153 Federal Street. Also submitted was an application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness for repainting, for repair and replacement of downspouts, and for the
moving of the electrical service from the front to the rear of the house.
Chairman Sides asked if the cornice was altered. Ms. Yale stated that it should be the same. Chairman
Sides stated that it looks like when it was previously installed, there was some chopping done.
Ms. Yale stated that they moved the electrical service three years ago and that it was originally on the
front of the house. Ms. Guy suggested painting the box to match the color of the house.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the application as submitted conditional that the electrical box and
conduit be painted to match the body color of the house. Mr. Kelleher seconded the motion, all were in
favor and the motion so carried.
310 Lafayette Street-Discussion
Dr. Joel Green was present to discuss the railings at 310 Lafayette Street.
• Chairman Sides stated that the current railings in violation look like interior stair railings. Dr. Green
stated that the person who constructed them had been shown a picture of the old porch and tried to
model them. Dr. Green provided a photograph of the historic porch railings.
Chairman Sides stated that the newel post is so projecting and therefore out of scale. Chairman Sides
noted that the beauty of the original railings is in their scale and proportion. Chairman Sides stated that
when they are elongated, they are out of proportion. Chairman Sides also noted that the balusters are not
close together.
Mr. Kelleher stated that the existing railings cannot be improved to be approvable.
Mr. Kelleher made a motion that should the homeowner fail to apply for a new railing design by January
30, 1996, that the Commission is to take the next step in enforcement. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion,
all were in favor and the motion so carried.
16 Orne Square
The Trustees U/Article 8 u/w Stephen Phillips submitted an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for window replacement, baluster and lattice replacement and wood deleading at 16
Orne Square. The applicant was not present.
• Mr. Oedel made a motion to continue the application until the next meeting. Mr. Cook seconded the
motion.
Ms. Guy will ask the Commission members to do individual site visits.
December 6, 1995, Page 4
47 Washington Square
• Robert Sewall submitted an application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability to reconstruct the rear
chimney which blew down.
Chairman Sides stated that the Certificate should indicate that it must match the existing in cap, height,
brick detailing, and mortar thickness and color.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the application to reconstruct the rear chimney providing it match
the existing in cap, height, brick detailing, and mortar thickness and color. Mr. Cook seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Approval of Minutes
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the minutes of 8/16/95. Mr. Kelleher seconded the motion, all
were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the minutes of 9/6/95 (second revision). Mr. Cook seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Kelleher made a motion to approve the minutes of the site visit of 9/20/95. Mr. Cook seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
• Mr. Kelleher requested that the minutes of 10/4/95 be changed on page 2, eleventh paragraph from
"cannot enforce it"to "cannot force them to go forward". Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the
minutes of 10/4/95 with Mr. Kelleher's amendment and with an amendment to change the date on the
upper right corner of each page to October 4, 1995. Mr. Kelleher seconded the motion, all were in favor
and the motion so carried.
Chairman Sides stated that the minutes of 11/1/95 should be changed as follows: page 1, 4th paragraph,
change "was" to "must'; page 2, 2nd paragraph, change from"judge is"to "judge if'. Mr. Oedel made a
motion to approve the minutes of 11/1/95 as amended. Mr. Kelleher seconded the motion, all were in
favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Ms. Guy reminded Messrs. Slam, Cook and Oedel that they must be sworn in at the City Clerk' s office.
Ms. Guy read a letter in which Massachusetts Historical Commission(MHC) finds no adverse effect for
the Route 107 Safety Improvement project at Essex and Boston Streets. Mr. Kelleher briefly described
the proposed safety improvements for the intersection.
Ms. Guy stated that a copy of a letter from MHC to New England Power was received requesting
• additional information concerning proposed installation of fender piles at the Salem Harbor Power
Station.
Ms. Guy read a letter from the Peabody Essex Museum concerning event signage as well as a draft letter
in response. Ms. Guy was authorized to send the response letter.
December 6, 1995, Page 5
Ms. Guy read a letter from Orille L'Heureux concerning 1 Hamilton Street and indicated that the work
• should be complete at the end of the month. Ms. Guy noted that 1 Hamilton Street is on the next
Licensing Board agenda.
Ms.Guy read a letter from Atty. Debra Mayfield in response to the Commission's second request letter
sent to the Peabody's concerning 6 Federal Court. Atty. Mayfield indicated that the Peabody's are out
of town.
Ms. Guy read a letter from A.B. Carnes, Inc. concerning 397 Essex Street. Mr. Kelleher stated that the
response should be sent to the homeowner with a copy to A.B. Carnes. Ms. Guy will draft a letter
indicating that the Commission has photographs of the previously existing chimney.
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission received a copy of a letter from MHC to MEPA concerning Stop &
Shop and finding that it constitutes an adverse effect.
Ms. Guy stated that there had been a question as to whether doors were approved at 396 Essex Street.
Ms. Guy stated that there is a certificate on file.
Ms. Guy stated that per a telephone conversation with a member, she had written herself a note that said
"Stearns bulkhead" but did not remember what it referred to.
Ms. Guy stated that she received a telephone call from Susan Bean who stated that 8 North Pine has
• installed a metal chimney cap. Ms. Guy will ask the members to take a look at the chimney.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to send a notice to the owners of 1-3 North Pine that discussion of the
violation is being placed on the next available agenda and that the Commission may vote to file a
Clerk's Certificate of Violation. Mr. Kelleher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so
carried.
There being no further business, Mr. Oedel made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Cook seconded the motion,
all were in favor and the motion so carried.
;Respectfully sub itted,e A. Guy
rk of the ommission