Loading...
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES ya rs t SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION ti M:INUTES�j1�986{ �. �� *• :41 e i SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION r (s {. Minutes of Meeting y' January-.8; 1986 A ,regular meeting,of the .SaleuOlistorlcal-Coidnission was held on Wednesday, `:6January, 8, 1986' at .7: 30 p m; at One-Salem Green. -7 Present were«Ms ,Harris, Chair- -- ' man,' Ms. Hilbert; and Messrs. Cart, Clarke, Cook;`Lippmari, Zaliaris and :Slam. Mr. tOedel, an°Associate Member,' was also in attendance. , Mr; Zaharis made a'MOTION to approve t_he Minutes.of the +De'cember 4, "3985 'meeting. Mr. Clarke,seconded the MOTION.', All-were in.favor:� ' °' 'c • - Local District Operation ` - Salem~Athenaeum,•*337�Essex Street - An♦appli'cation was `receive'd--from the, . 4: ` Salem Athenaeum for staining of .a 'wooden fence.which'is-a duplication replacement of;what was there-orignally. The .color chosen is Cabot's OVT Driftwood Cray stain (#0 144) ` Mr. ;Zaharis made a.MOTION to approve°the'`#application as sutimitted.�'Mr Lip- ' pman. seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. Abutters%to be,notified.'$, ; ' " *` Essex Institute r. Gardner Pingree House" - . 28 Essex Street'= Ttis'fapplica-' ' r `tion was :submitted by'Mr. Dean Lahikaiinen, •Curator of Collections ., Theyypro pose, to paint `all'trim- off-white (including window~frames-`and lintels`, three` door frames'..String courses,;'portico, cornice and balustrade) They will' also grain - three exterior`doors (as:exposedon `the north .door) ;` and, gild ,the metal:decora-. ' .'! tive' work on-fan and sidelights- of both front and-rear 'door: 'Finally; they wouldt"f ` .like to replace;a;fou''r-foot wide section ofoasphalt shingles on' the front 'plane '„ k ,w of. the roof with gray;slaLe to match the rest'of -the ;roof Mr:• Lahikainen'told s,.the Commission .that the .Essex :Ins itute` is embarking•on a ma3or. restoration,of.' ;both the interior and exterior of this house: They had"a-paint analysis done" � • "by' SPNEA in Boston and would like to;change~the trim` to'correspond with-what, 41 ,they found in the,paint analysis. • ,When asked about},;the: graining of tha' doors he explained ihat; SPNEA' had exposed the',' ' th door 'and that the three remaining „. doors will'beftreated to match it. t, M >w�`M�f#� ,,rd"v,e ,. . ,A � Mr.,-Zaharis made a MOTIONtto approv4e�the�apphcation#as{submitted. Mr. o , :• Cook' seconded the.'MOTION��` All=were�in.favor: +Abutter'sdto •be`notified:` , - . .. T l_ P •r ` Mr -liahikainentold}the;Commission'ry°that an application has been submitted ' to` Mass Historical Commission'stPreservation, Pr'ojectskvund,for money`to do the ,rwork'and,,,they request that (the.Salem His to rical'Commission"send a letter support , c. ing the application 1 '� ,;� «, "'s x ,+tv "-°', #. �` ;1 '� ' .. y.. r. Mr.' Carr made a MOTION that'"the�Commission,write a'l`etter`saying that this ' ;_"• * ,is ;a worthy,`application "'Mrs Cook seconded the'MOTION, 'TAW-Y h♦ i as.e e :, '.;r. ..� ^''' a. .. ,� -..p r+.> Under'discussion'Mr,' ,Clarke.,asked what work is included in the application, and 'was told it.includes masonry,"(ch%mneys):p10 raphs,,-signs, carpentry,+roof- ate'^ing and painting' and staging; Th`eis.tarting point is September, l; 1986: > Interior, ' 'restoration will fake two years^andrthey',are working °on,funding:, Bowditch"'SchooliUiolations -"Ms. Hilbert"wrote a •let'ter to .the developers x 4 - : .o t r n �.,�t,4 �a Jj MkY. x r k > y i '.�;ti'` +' .•i r a... SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 2 January 8, 1986 of this project, Crowninshield Corporation, on December 10, 1985. It outlined work which had not been done according to the plans reviewed and approved by the Commission over several meetings in 1985. Most of the items concern landscaping. Representing Crowninshield were Mr. John Serafini, Jr. , their attorney, Mr. David Jaquith, their architect, and representatives of their contractors and crews. Mr. Serafini said that some of the items listed in the letter had already been addressed. Some of the problems were a result of weather conditions and some were the result of field conditions. Ms . Harris began the discussion with the issue of the iron fence at the entrance to the parking lot and the new granite bollards. Mr. Serafini said it was necessary to set the bollards fairly deep into the ground because they are so heavy. In one area when they started to dig they encountered the foundation of an old concrete fence or wall and spent time jack-hammering it. On the left there is a retaining wall which had to be drilled through. They did not add a bollard on the corner because there is an existing storm drain which drains the whole parking lot. It was covered by hot top when the school was there and they had no idea of its existence when the plans were drawn. They might have had to blast to remove it but were afraid to because of the utilities in that area. The solution to all these problems was to put a slight jog in the fence. Ms. Harris noted that the two portions of fence don't match at the top. Mr. Jaquith . said there is a slope change in that area. Mr. Carr said the fence doesn' t read as a continuous fence. Ms. Harris spoke about the fence on the Federal Street side. It is 51z' high rather than 6' high and has no water table. The cap is incorrect and the fence is on the property line of one of the abutters (which has since been cor- rected). Also there may be a potential erosion problem and she said that rail- road ties were to fill in the drop between the bottom of the fence and the ground. The fence was also to be stained or painted. Mr. Serafini said the only reason the fence hasn' t been stained yet is the weather. They plan to pre- sent a color choice tonight. • Regarding the discrepancy in the height of the fence, the Commission was told that the contractor used 6' as a post mark and worked off that within 5" or 6" because of the problem with the slopes. Water tables have now been put on the good side of the fence (on abutters' side along Federal Street) . Ms. Harris said the water table should butt into the fence and as it is presently installed does not look like it does that. ' The builder said a skirt board was put on the bottom as requested. The architect agreed' to redesign the fence caps. Mr. Serafini promised that railroad ties would be put in for the two abutters that requested them. That will be done as soon as the ground has thawed. It was further noted that the issue of the fence being placed on an abutter's property (in the area of sprinklers) has been settled with Crowninshield agreeing to pay to have the line moved. The fence around the dimmpster will be reversed so that it is • facing correctly. Ms . Harris asked about the bollards and chains forithe rear of the property. She was told they were ordered and have arrived. They will be installed as soon as frost breaks. • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 3 January 8, 1986 The color chosen for the wood fence is Cabot's OVT Dune Gray. Next to be discussed was the landscaping. Wood chips were used instead of pachysandra. The Commission was told it was too late in the season to plant. Be- cause of the slope, they had to put something there to hold the soil. Pachysandra will be planted 5" off center interspersed among the chips. After a year it should spread and cover the chips, providing the required erosion control. Ms. Harris also noted use of wood chips near the front entrance to the parking lot. Also English Ivy was to be used along the wood fence and extended around to the front near the iron fence on both sides of the front entrance to the parking lot. Mr. Serafini said that some of the oak trees were not in and they have since been put in. They are smaller than called for; concrete curbing prohibited the root ball of the bigger tree from fitting into the curbin area. They are as big as they could get to fit into that finger area. Regarding one of the birch trees that was to go at the Fowler Street end, Mr. Serafini said there is an existing maple in that area and they could only fit two birches instead of three. They couldn' t plant the birch beneath the maple because of light considerations, but planted three yews there to compensate. Mr. Carr asked how much of a job it would be to put the larger trees in (in the finger areas) in the spring and was told it would involve tearing up each • island. Mr. Carr said the Commission had felt that getting large enough trees was a major item. Ms. Harris asked about the elm tree which was supposed to be in the rear and is not. Mr. Jaquith said that adjacent trees cast too much shade for the elm to survive. They agreed to put something else there to compensate. The plants along the wood fence were planted all in a row contrary to the specifications of the Commission. Mr. Jaquith said there would be no problem readjusting their spacing and location in the spring. Ms. Harris asked whether the boxwood that was planned would be planted in the spring and was told it would. She also asked about the landscaping around the dumpster. Mr. Serafini said landscaping can be. filled in around that area if the Commission would like. Ms. Harris asked how the Commission could be assured that this work would be done in the spring as promised. Mr. Serafini said the developer could put some money aside (similar to a Planning Board bond) . Units are sold out, but the developer will keep out a reasonable amount of money according to his contract which will allow him to make the necessary adjustments in the spring. He estimated approxi- mately $4,000 would complete the work. The city would have access to the account and would get the interest. At this point in the meeting Ms. Harris invited comments from neighbors who were present. Ms. Shelby Hypes of 157 Federal Street said the fence is 5' tall at her area and she is not happy with it at all. She feels it is a privacy issue. She also mentioned the lighting. She was told that the lighting which was installed is what was approved. Abutters feet it is quite bright. • Each of the members was asked fox comments. Mr. Oedel thought the fence f t+ SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION r = ,Page' 6 j « January 8, 1986 would be a 30-degree angle bay same dimensions as previously applied for. Roof material would be either wood or gray or black asphalt shingles., Shutters would not be -approved. . Brosco window number is AB 183442-30. Mr. Lippman seconded -the MOTION. The vote was five in flavor (Mr. .Clarke, Mr. Lippman, •Mr. Cook, Ms. Har- ris and Mr. Slam) and two opposed (Mr. Zaharis and Mr. Carr) . Abutters to be notified. At this point. in the meeting the discussion concerning the Bowditch School', was reopened. •� Mr. Jaquith said that while discussion was suspended they had contacted Mr. ' O'Shea, the landscaper, who, told them that by shaving the root ball they could put 4" caliber trees in the present holes '(finger areas) without tearing up all the curbing. To put 5" caliber `trees in would require removal of too much of the .root ball. Mr.' Jaquith further suggested that they could look for something like upright yews to fill in more beneath the trees. Ms.-Harris wanted to know what would happen if the trees do not survive. Mr. Jaquith said•they have a .one- year guarantee and they are confident.the landscaper will guarantee them for a year. Mr. Slam made a MOTION that the fence cap be provided as drawn. There was no second. 4 Mr. Carr made a MOTION to waive the requirement for the fence cap. Mr., Lippman seconded the MOTION. All were in favor except Mr. Slam who was opposed. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the water table as is. Mr. ,Lippman seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the height of•the wood fence as amended. ' Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION. All were in favor except Mr. Slam,who was opposed. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the color of the wood fence as applied for (Cabot's Dune Gray stain 110567). Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the concept of the recessed jog in the iron fence and eliminate= the prior requirement for a bollard at the corner. . The MOTION further refers the matter of the iron fence height and height' of curbing. back to the architect. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to ask Ms. Hilbert' to review all prior minutes re- garding plantings for this project and that the Commission ask Ms. Fish to review what has been planted, what is being proposed to be planted and to correct what has been planted and come up with a recommendation regarding an adequate bond size and that she make that recommendation to the Commission at its next meeting and Ms. Hilbert report after reviewing all minutes regarding sizes, etc. Mr. Zaharis seconded.the MOTION. . All were in favor. j a SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 7 r' January,8; 1986 t Thedeveloper agreed to install•,railroad ties in those areas where abutters' request them. "Lt was'also suggested, that_.the landscapes" contact Andrea Fish ` and if he can't meet with her, meet with the Commission at the next meeting. Other Business aT: F �Cerfified Local Government - Ms. Hilbert, reminded members of -the Certified 'Local Government meeting to be held in Shirley,`Mass. 'this Saturday. -She empha- sized that itis.very importanCthat everyone attend if at.all possible since the discussion will concern criteria for National Register nominations whichs the Commission, as. Certified Local Government; will now be required to review: r H.S.I. Clinic - Ms. Harris 'said that all. members are invited to attend an " H.S.I. Clinic being presented for contractors',on February, 8,, 1986. The +discus- sion will concern the state of the art in preservation.' r Clerk - It was noted that the Clerk of the Commission, Joan Pizzello, has " resigned, to accept}a''positron in MayorISalvotsdofflce.:rMr ,�,Carrf made a MOTION to thank her for th%el'wo'rk,}she ,tas.?done`aforythe Comm ss n.,, - ir.�''�Lippman seconded. the MOTION. 'All we re -in favor. y t 14 '� g • Mr. Lippman made a'MOTION to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION: The meeting, adjourned,at.•10:00 P.M. ,, Respectfully submitted,, . Joan F. Pizzello Clerk of Commission h SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting January 22, 1986 A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, January 22, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green. Present were: Ms. Harris, Chairman, Ms. Hilbert, and Messrs. Carr, Cook, Lippman, Wolfson, Zaharis. Mr. Oedel, an Associate Member, was also in attendance. Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the Minutes of the January 8, 1986 meeting. Mr. Carr seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. Local District Operation 333 Essex Street — An application was received from Mr. Bradley Smith representing owner Catherine Smith to put a rear exterior staircase on the building for the purpose of secondary egress from the third floor. This is a double house. The egress would not be visible from Essex St. , but it would be visible from Chestnut St. The plans include rebuilding an existing staircase from the third to the second floor and extending the staircase from the second to the first floor. The staircase is not flush with the building because it would obscure the view from the windows on the first - floor. The plans also include replacing one third floor window and one second floor window each with a door and adding a landing from the third to the second floor. Chairman Harris asked if the stairs wood be all wood. The builder replied yes. . • Mr. Zaharis asked if this second egress was a necessity. The builder responded that is was necessary due to fire and building codes. Chairman Harris asked if there was any way to build a secondary egress - - inside the building. The builder felt that this was impossible. Mr. Carr asked the owner how this application came about in the first. place. The owner responded that there was a fire down the street from him . and that the Fire Department inspected the street for violations. The owner went on to explain that he is now in the process of selling the house and it can not be sold unless the second egress is put on the building. Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the application as submitted. . Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION. Under discussion Mr. Carr asked why the stairs are so far away from the building. Chairman Harris responded that it is to avoid blocking the window and the door that would be behind the staircase. Mr. Lippman asked if it was possible to put the staircase on the other side of the property line. He also stated that this was a vast change to the building and questioned whether the staircase could be seen from Cambridge St. ;T' Page 2 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION g January 22, 1986 • Mr. Cook voiced his objection of Mr. Lippman' s use of the words huge, vast and obtrusive. He feels that the staircase is in good taste and the distance from which it can be seen is over 100 feet. Chairman Harris suggested that perhaps a spiral staircase could be used. Peter Zaharis made a MOTION to move the question. Mr. Zaharis and Mr. Cook were in favor. Messrs. Lippman, Carr, and Wolfson were opposed. Mr. Carr felt that no solution could be reached and he was uncomfortable voting on the staircase as proposed. He suggested that they defer this application for two weeks and to visit the site so that the board can see exactly what the situation looks like. Chairman Harris felt that there were two issues that seem to be prevelant during discussion; 1. how close the staircase can be placed to the house, and 2. the lack of detail shown on the plans. She went on to ask the builder if the staircase, which seems to be fairly open, can be placed closer to the house by turning it even though it would obstruct the windows. The builder replied that he could move the staircase closer but it . would be seen more from Chestnut St. • Mr. Lippman responded that in moving the staircase closer to the house it would be farther away from the public view, and it would also look like it belonged to the building. Mr. Cook stated that if he was occupying the building, he wouldn't want to look out his window and see a staircase. Mr. Carr felt that there had to be a balance between public safety and the tenants satisfaction. He said that he would personally vote against the application unless the staircase is a small circular one. The builder informed the board that because of the weight of an iron staircase, this cannot be done down the whole side of the building. Mr. Cook stated again that he felt that because the view was a longshot one over a very narrow area, the intrusion on the public was minimal. Chairman Harris asked the builder to show the board exactly where the property line was located. Mr. Carr asked if a joint effort could be made between the. property owners so that they both could construct a second egress, and if the other property owner resists, can this board do something about it for example having the Fire Department close down the operations of the other building. • • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 3 January 22, 1986 Mr. Smith informed the board that he has already tried to contact the *- other owner, -Dr. Donovan, through his attorney and Donovan will not cooperate. Chariman Harris felt that the board should approve something that they can live with and then pursue other means. She suggested that a circular staircase painted to match the house could be placed down the rear of the building with a platform at the foot connected to the platform of the existing staircase from the first floor. She also suggested that the new door on the third floor be wooden. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the concept of the straight run of stairs from the third floor, the doors on the second and third floors, and the landing and railings as shown on the plan, the pitch of the stairs to be as steep as allowed by code. The stairs from the second to the first floor as shown in the plan, shall be substituted with a circular iron staircase to the right of the sunporch to step out onto a first floor platform. This is only to be approved in "concept. The application will only be finally approved at the time when more detailed plans are presented. Chairman Harris requested that the builder show details of the door, railings, posts and caps to be used and prefers that they are all of wood. Also, details were requested for how the landing from the circular stair will be integrated with the existing landing from the first floor stairs. - • Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. Bowditch School Landscaping — Chairman Harris stated that there was a concern that the iron fence as you face the property on the right hand side was higher than the fence on the left hand side. Mr. Gauthier explained to the board that in actuality the fence is the same height but because of curbing problems one side does seem to be higher. He assured the board that this would be taken care of by adding concrete to the existing curb and raising the fence. Mr. Serafini, Jr. informed the board that the steel bollards and chain are here but cannot be put in until the spring. They are also ready to paint the wooden fence and the railroad ties will go in during the spring. Debra Hilbert informed the board that she and Andrea Fish of the Planning Department went to the site and evaluated the situation. As a result of this site visit, a letter was sent to the developers detailing the work that they felt should be done. She circulated a sheet containing the price list, based on retail price plus 60% for installation, which would . cover the replacement cost of the shrubbery. The total cost was approximately $15,000. She suggested that the board use the letter as a guide and go through each section starting at the front of the property. • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION page 4 January 22, 1986 • According to the letter, the yews along the front of the building should be taken out and replaced with a larger size, and more rhododendron should be planted. At the driveway entrance, the dogwoods should be taken out and replaced with a larger size. It was also suggested that the red oak trees on the parking lot fingers be replaced with pin oaks of a larger size and that eight larger yews go underneath the oak to screen the parking lot. Another suggestion was that all the rhododendron on the Federal Street side of the fence be replaced with larger plants. There should be seven groupings with the rhododendron being a major anchor around which the spirea and viburnum could be arranged. Mr. Carr suggested that there should be more shrubbery put in that area since the fence is so long. Attorney John Serafini, Jr. and Mr. Tom O'Shea, landscaper for the project, felt that the rhododendron could stay and that perhaps some evergreens be added. Mr. Serafini felt that this would be more feasible than ripping out plants. Mr. Carr replied that the plants should be ripped out to break up the "row of soldiers" effect and replaced with groupings. He stated that since June of 1984 this board had met nine times generating 21 pages of single spaced minutes on this issue. He felt that the original promise of grade A landscaping should be met by the developer regardless of .their cost at this point in time. Chairman Harris stated that the board should vote on an amount of money on the bond, and that the developer should bring in a new plan showing what would be removed and what would . stay. Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to request a bond for $12,000. There was no second. Mr. Cook made a motion to request a bond for $15,000. Mr. Carr seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. 256 Lafayette Street — Since the Commission last reviewed this project, the carriage house had been moved from Laurel St. to its present site. Chairman Harris informed the board that all that remained to be discussed regarding the renovation of the carriage house itself were the skylights, roof venting and loft doors. David Jaquith presented his plans to the board. He informed the board _ that there had been a change from the original 10 skylights to six skylights. There would benoskylight in the front of the building, four on the right side, one on the back, and one centered on the left side. The doors would be loft doors opening towards the inside. The railing would match the existing. Chairman Harris and Mr. Lippman felt that the railing should be white wood. Mr. Carr felt that they should be wrought iron. SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 5 January 22, 1986 Mr. Jaquith informed the board that the roof vents would be copper and wood and be at each individual bay. After some discussion, the board required that the vents be made of copper and stated that they would like to see a cutting before the vents would be approved. Mr. Jaquith informed the board that every window in the plan has been documented and drawn as they were. The builders were told to use single pain wooden window, but there is a problem with the tower windows. They are 618" in height. The builders said that they .could try to build up the sills and lintels or use a dead light panel. Chairman Harris requested to see a drawing of this treatment. Mr. Jaquith went on to explain the skylights in more detail. The board noted that the four on the .right side are quite visible from Lafayette Street. Mr. Jaquith replied that he could replace the two at the back with a single skylight, and make the front one smaller. The back one would be approximately 41x4' (GL4) and the front one 221x3' (GLI) . Mr. Carr suggested that the middle skylight be removed so that there are two skylights remaining on the right side of the building measuring approximately 30"x38" and 45"x46". • The skylight in the back of the structure is partially obscurred by a dormer and will be left as is (approx. 38"x42", GL3) . On the left side, the board requested that the skylight be reduced to approx. 30"x38" (GL1) . Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve skylights as redesigned at the meeting and redrawn on plans in possession of the Commission. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION. All were in favor except Mr. Zaharis who was opposed. Reconsideration for Certificate of Hardship Debra Hilbert asked the board to reconsider two votes that were taken at the last meeting for the bay window at 164 Federal St. and the steel door at 50 Derby St. They were applications that the board would normally not approve. She asked the board to grant Certificates of Hardship rather than Certificate of Appropriateness. Ms. Hilbert then read to the board the three criteria for obtaining a Certificate of Hardship. Mr. Lippman felt that if the votes were left as they now stands, the board would be opening itself up for ways to get things approved that would ordinarily be denied as being historically inappropriate. If we grant Certificate of Hardship, the Commission would be preserving the integrity of the Certificate of Appropriateness and not setting any bad precedents. Chairman Harris agreed that the Commission should change its vote. Mr. Lippman made a MOTION to change the Certificates of Appropriateness • for 164 Federal Street and 50 Derby Street to Certificates of Hardship. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 6 January 22, 1986 Other Business At this time Chairman Harris informed the board of two conferences taking place, one HSI' s Contractor' s Clinic on February 8 on building restoration and the other on March 1 for Certified Local Governments. At this time Ms. Hilbert informed the board of situations that may be coming before them. The first was regarding a fence on 15z River Street. The owner may want to put afence up to prevent people from parking on her property. Mr. Carr responded to Ms. Hilbert by saying that he had spoken with the owner and a granite curb may be placed to define the property line instead of a fence. The second issue was regarding 25 Washington Square North. This Colonial Revival house may be converted to 6 condominium units and the garage behind it demolished. Chairman Harris suggested that the board write a letter to the Board of Appeals showing them the interest we have in this situation. Mr. Lippman made a MOTION to write a letter to the Board of Appeals requesting that the owners of 25 Washington Square North come before the Historical Commission. The letter should mention the Commission' s interest in the building and its opposition to changes in the exterior of the • building based solely on an increase in units. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. All were in favor except Mr. Carr who obstained. The board decided that a goodby dinner for Joan Pizzello should take place on February 12, if she is available, to show the board' s thanks to her. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. The meeting adjourned at 9:45. Respectfully submitted, Ellen S. Dubinsky Temporary Clerk for the Commission SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting February 5, 1986 • A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, February 5, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green. Present were: Ms. Harris, Chairman, Ms. Hilbert, and Messrs. Zaharis, Slam, Carr, and Wolfson. Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the Minutes of the January 22, 1986 meeting. Mr. Carr seconded the MOTION. , The vote was unanimously in favor. Local District Operation 333 Essex Street - Ms. Harris opened the meeting by explaining that since the Commission did not reach- a solution to the secondary egress problem at 333 Essex Street at its last meeting, Mr. Bradley Smith, representing the owner Catherine Smith, and Mr. John Beauvais, buyer of the property, were asked to return with revised plans. The Commission had agreed that these plans should contain doors replacing the windows on the 3rd and 2nd floors, a wooden staircase from the 3rd to 2nd floor, a small deck, and an iron spiral staircase from the 2nd floor to ground level. Ms. Harris also explained that the location of the staircase would have to be moved since the stairs would have been within 10 feet of the property line and the owner would have to wait until April to get a variance. Mr. Beauvais' s bank would not grant him a mortgage to buy the property until the egress problem was settled. Ms. Harris visited the site and discovered that there were no alternative solutions, including an interior staircase, to this problem except to work with the • owner of the adjoining house to install one staircase. Dr. Charles Donovan, owner of 331 Essex Street, was willing to install a joint staircase, but Mr. Beauvais would still need a variance and he was not willing to wait until April. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the revised plans which included changing only one third floor window to a door (Brosco M-3984) , a wooden staircase to be rebuilt from the 3rd to the 2nd floor, a railing along this stair, and an iron spiral staircase which is to be installed from the 2nd floor to the ground level off the left rear side of the sunporch. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. The MOTION carried with the amendment that the cap on the railing should be the Brosco fence cap, #8276. In relation to the 333 Essex Street case, Mr. Carr proposed that in the future, when an applicant submits an application to install external stairs for the purpose of secondary egress, the policy should be that: 1. Prior to the filing of an application, the applicant must obtain from the Building Inspector a statement that the nonconforming use is legal either by variance or grandfather and that the number of units in the building is legal. This is so the Commission will not be endorsing an illegal use. 2. There must be verification that there is no internal solution. This should include an onsight inspection before the meeting. SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 2 February 5, 1986 • 3. Ms. Hilbert should put this new policy into language to add to Commission' s guidelines. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve this policy. Mr. Zaharis seconded the motion. All were in favor. Bowditch School Since there were several unresolved issues in this case, it was continued from the last meeting and Mr. David Jaquith was asked to bring in a new set of landscaping plans. Mr. John Serafini, Jr. and Mr. Jaquith presented the Commission with a new proposal to add seven 5 ft. rhododendrons to the Federal Street fence along with the existing rhododendrons in order to form clusters and make a better covering.. Other proposed changes include: one birch at the rear of the property, two upright yews at either end of the Federal Street fence, dogwood trees at a 10' spread, replacement of the yews on the parking lot fingers to be 3 ft. +/- in height and of a 4' spread, 4" caliber pinoaks on the fingers, rhododendrons of a 5' spread and yews of a 4' spread in front of the building, pachysandra as a ground cover at the front of the property and English Ivy along the Federal Street fence, five yews around the transformer, and magnolias near the maples in the rear of the building. Ms. Harris asked if everything marked in red on the plans dated February 3, 1986 had already been planted. Mr. Jaquith replied that the red marks did indicate already existing landscaping. Mr. Carr voiced some concern about the height of the pinoaks in the fingers and whether or not they block the view of the parking lot from Flint Street. Mr. O'Shea replied that the pinoaks would be approximately 10' tall and would replace the existing red oaks. Mr. Carr thought the Comission might make an investment in the future by keeping the existing red oaks which would grow to be broader trees rather than the narrower pinoaks. All were in favor. Ms. Harris asked Mr. Jaquith why he was using a spreading yew instead of an upright and if there would be more planting on the left side of the building. Mr. Jaquith responded that in answer to the first question, the spreading yews would not block the view for cars leaving the parking lot, and secondly, they would agree to put several azaleas of 2i'-3' spread on the left side of the building and yews of 2z'-3' spread around the two projecting parking spaces at the rear ofthelot. Mr. Serafini estimated that the cost without the pinoaks, a credit of $1,500, and the added rhododendrons would be approximately $9,500. Ms. Harris asked if the cost of the new concrete, railroad ties, paintedfenceand added bollards would come to her estimated cost of • $4,000. Mr. Jaquith estimated that with the fence costing $1 ,000, the railroad ties at $400, and the bollard at $400, it may be only $3,000 on top of the landscaping. • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 3 February 5, 1986 Mr. Serafini agreed to draw up a $15,000 Escrow Agreement. This money is to be put into a bank account to assure that the work is completed in a reasonable time. If the work is not completed as agreed, the City will then use the money to do the landscaping work itself. Mr. Carr added that he and Ms. Harris would look over this agreement and get back to Mr. Serafini, but the agreement would have to have the following features: a certain date of completion, a .satisfactory dollar amount, and a way to evaluate whether the work had been done satisfactorily. Ms. Hilbert asked how the City would be able to get at the money and Mr. Serafini responded that the Escrow Account would be put in the names of both the developer and the City and would be dated the end of July. Mr. Carr asked if there could be an agreement made between the owner and the nursery to care for the trees, but Mr. O'Shea mentioned that it was his policy to guarantee the trees for one year. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the following: 1. the plans, dated February 3, 1986, as revised; - . 2. the planting of red oaks as existing; 3. a $15,000 security, the terms of which are to be set by the Commission and approval conditional on reaching a satisfactory Escrow Agreement in two weeks; _ 4. the work to be completed before July 31, 1986, and any other terms to be part of the Escrow Agreement. If there are any problems, they will be discussed at the next meeting on Feb. 19, 1986. Mr. Slam seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. 256 Lafayette Street Mr. David Jaquith presented the Commission with the site plans for 256 Lafayette Street which had received a full approval from the Board of Appeals for 10 units. Mr. Jaquith went through the building elevations explaining the design of the condominiums to be built at the rear of the carriage house. He explained that the carriage house would be tied to the new units by a connecting bridge. Mr. Slam voiced some concern over the bridge and suggested that a trellis be used instead. • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 4 February 5, 1986 • Mr. Jaquith seemed responsive to this idea and suggested making a walkway with open trellis work. He agreed to return in two weeks with drawings of the walkway with trellis work and a concrete patio (The walkway would be approximately 8' long. ). Ms. Harris asked whether or not the second entry would have a trellis, but Mr. Jacquith explained that there would be one gateway with a trellis and one entry rather than a porch. Ms. Harris questioned whether or not the windows and French doors would be wood or vinyl, and Mr. Jaquith responded that the windows . would be vinyl clad with wood trim and the French doors would be painted with fixed glass. The steps leading up to the doors would be wood and have wood railings and balusters. Mr. Carr questioned the location of the decks, French doors, and windows, and their visibility from the street. In an attempt to clear up the confusion, Mr. Jaquith discussed the possibility of returning in two weeks with a cardboard model of the units. Ms. Harris was concerned about whether or not there would be ample parking for all tenants, and Mr. Jaquith assured her that there would be with the addition of six spaces for neighbors. Mr. Jaquith added that he may get a variance for three units next . door at 260 Lafayette Street instead of two. Ms. Harris noted that the north facade was very plain with the appearance of many back doors, and Mr. Jaquith agreed to place canopies (or something Lo- provide shelter) over the doors. Mr. Carr suggested that the Commission not formally approve theI' plans until the next meeting. All were in agreement. In a final comment on this case, Ms. Harris asked whether or not the Commission had jurisdiction over the landscaping at 256 lafayette Street. In response, Mr. Carr informed the Commission that they do not have jurisdiction unless the Appeals Board gives it to them. Nevertheless, Ms. Hilbert was asked to check on that matter. Ms. Harris asked Mr. Jaquith to return on February 19th with a model of the units for the Commission' s consideration. Mr. Carr suggested that the outstanding violations on the agenda be postponed for discussion until the next meeting. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Wolfson seconded the MOTION. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Newton Clerk of Commission SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Minutest of Meeting February 19, 1986 • A regular meeting of the Salem Histoirical Commission was held on Wednesday, February 19, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green. Present were: Ms. Harris, Chairman, Ms. Hilbert, and Messrs. Zaharis, Clarke, Carr, Lippman, Wolfson, and Cook. Mr. Oedel, an Associate Member, was also in attendance. Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the Minutes of the February 5, 1986 meeting. Mr. Wolfson seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. Heritage Trail Ms. Andrea Fish, Assistant Director of Development with the Salem Planning Department, came before the Commission to discuss the painting of a permenant Heritage Trail over the existing temporary trail as well as to get the Commission' s recommendations on signage. Ms. Harris noted that the Commission did not have jurisdiction over the line itself since it was on the sidewalk, but that the Commission did have jurisdiction over the signs. Their comments on the line would be advisory only. Mr. Edward Stevenson of the Heritage Trail Committee added that they had come before the Commission last year when they wanted to paint a temporary trail, and now they would like the Commission' s endorsement • of a permanent trail placed exactly over the existing red line. Also, the Committee would like to paint the line up to the railroad station planned for North Street when it is completed. The Committee has not yet designed that part of the path, but it will take the shortest possible route to the train station. They also considered extending the trail along Chestnut Street, but decided not to promote that idea. - Before this issue went into discussion, Ms. Fish presented the Commission with an example of the signs which would be located at 9 different tourist stations along the trail. These would be placed on posts, fences, etc. The example presented was not to scale; the actual signs would be10"xl2" of 3/4" plywood with a gray background and black logo on top and red lettering identifying the site on a white background on the bottom. During the discussion of the Heritage Trail, Ms. Harris questioned whether or not a map would be made up labeling the historic sites. Mr. Stevenson said the sites would be identified in a map in the Best of Salem booklet. In response to a question about funding from Mr. Zaharis, Ms. Fish responded that the signs would be paid for from Community Development funds. Mr. Zaharis voiced some concern about the permanence of the trail, the confusion over where the trail splits on Summer Street, and the possiblity of the trail going from North Street to Chestnut Street. • In response to the issue of confusion at Summer Street, Mr. Stevenson explained that the tourists would have no difficulty if they SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 2 February 19, 1986 used the map of the trail. Secondly, Ms. Fish added that the paint which is to be used is regular traffic paint and would wear out in a few years. And finally, in regard to the trail going on to Chestnut Street, Ms. Harris mentioned that the residents of Chestnut Street were not in favor of this idea. On the issue of the appearance of the trail, Ms. Harris felt the the line was painted sloppily and that it was too thick and wondered whether or not it could be fixed. Ms. Fish explained that the 8" width of the trail was decided by the Heritage Trail Committee, and that the paint was fuzzy because it was just a band of paint which was sprayed and that the flow was difficult to control because the machine is so large. On Ms. Fish' s request, the Commission noted several location where the Trail was unusually messy. These sites include North Street, the corner of the Common and in front of the YMCA. Ms. Fish admitted that the trail may be sloppy, but that was because of the equipment and that it was done quickly. Ms. Harris asked if the line could be made thinner, 5" or 6" instead of 8" and Mr. Stevenson thought it could because the first line would wear off. The City Planner, Mr. Gerard Kavanaugh, added that if the Committee tries to correct the line, it would look worse, because the City would have a dark narrow line painted over a fuzzy wide line. • In regard to the proposed signs, Mr. Zaharis felt that a lighter shade of gray should be used on the background. Ms. Fish seemed responsive to the idea since they had not made a definite color selection. Ms. Fish and Mr. Kavanaugh went on to explain that the City was planning to consolidate all the signs with the same logo, proportional lettering, and color scheme. Ms. Harris asked if the Venturi—Rauche sign's would be taken down, and Mr. Kavanaugh said that it had been proposed, but had not yet happened. Mr. Kavanaugh explained that, hopefully, there would be four sets of consolidated signs including: (1) Signs at the major entrances to Salem; (2) Informational signs such as those identifying parking areas; (3) Pedestrian directional signs in the parking areas; and (4) Signs labeling the historic sites. There would be 15-20 signs replacing approximately 130. Ms. Harris questioned why the Committee chose plywood instead of metal and whether or not the red lettering would fade. Ms. Fish answered that they had tried other colors and would look into changing the lettering color and that the metal signs were found to be too flimsy. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve: (1) the concept of the signs within the Derby Street and Washington Square Historic Districts, to be located at the House of Seven Gables, the Salem Witch House, the Essex Institute, and the entrance of the Common with the amendment of a lighter gray on the background; and (2) a recommendation that the SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 3 February 19, 1986 • present line be made permanent and be 6" in width instead of 8". Mr. Clarke seconded the MOTION. All were in favor with the exception of Messrs. Cook and Lippman who abstained. Local District Operation 31 Broad Street An application was submitted by Mr. Peter Copelas of 31 Broad Street to change the paint color of the body of the house to Benjamin Moore' s Montgomery White (HC-33) with Lancaster Whitewash (HC-174) trim and black shutters and fence. The body color would be slightly lighter than it is presently and is being repainted because it is yellowing. Mr. Lippman made a MOTION to approve the change in paint color. Mr. Carr seconded. All were in favor. 17 Beckford Street An application was submitted by the Sigma Realty Trust, Peter Copelas, trustee, for the approval of stripping the clapboards on the street (east) and driveway (south) sides of the house down to the bare wood and then staining them with Cabot ' s Semi-Solid Stain #0151 Sagebrush (green) with #0101 white on the trim. • Mr. Copelas, explained that he had chosen a semi-solid stain because he was told by the salespeople that it would not blister or peel as easily as the solid and that it had a gurarantee where the solid stain (O.V.T. ) didn't. Ms. Harris had asked Ms. Hilbert to do some research on the solid stains and as a result of this investigation, Ms. Hilbert found that Cabot' s did not guarantee the solid stain although they felt it would not peel if it were applied over a properly prepared surface and if the house had no moisture problems. Mr. Carr voiced some concern over whether or not it would be possible to see the grain of the wood after it is stained, and Mr. Copelas assured them that the stain would cover the clapboards thoroughlt. Mr. Carr was also concerned that by only staining two sides, the rear facade (presently covered with asbestos) would remain yellow, providing an unappealing contrast. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the application providing: (1) that a minimum of two coats of stain be applied and more if necessary to ensure that the grain of the wood did not show through; (2) the stain must read like a flat oil base paint; • (3) the rear asbestos shingled wall be painted green this year. SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 4 February 19, 1986 • Mr. Clarke seconded the MOTION and later repealed his second because he had not realized that painting the asbestos was part of the MOTION. Messrs. Clarke and Zaharis felt that requiring Mr. Copelas to paint or remove the asbestos shingles on the rear wall this year would be putting an unnecessary hardship on the applicant. Mr. Copelas asked if he might have two years to finish the rear wall, but Mr. Carr felt that since this was an important street, it should be done now. Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to go along with the first two sections of Mr. Carr' s MOTION that there must be at least two coats of stain and that the surface read like a flat oil base paint. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION and then later repealed his second. Mr. Carr made a third MOTION that: (1) the house be painted with Cabot' s Semi-Solid Stain, the body to be Sagebrush (green) and the trim white. This work is to be done in two installments (See part #3 of MOTION) ; (2) there be two coats of stain and that the stain read like a flat base oil paint; (3) the street (east) and driveway (south) sides are to be stained • this year. Within two years the asbestos shingles on the rear side must be removed, the underlying clapboards repaired or replaced, and Sagebrush green stain with white trim must be applied. Mr. Clarke seconded the MOTION. All were in favor except Mr. Cook who was opposed. The MOTION carried. It was noted that since Mr. Copelas owns the property next door at 15 Beckford Street, an abutter' s notice should be sent to the owner of 13 Beckford Street instead. 40 Flint Street An application was submitted on behalf Barbara Copelas, owner of 40 Flint Street, to remove the paint from cedar shingles by sanding and scraping and to replace paint with Cabot' s semi-solid stain #0151 Sagebrush (green) with #0101 white on trim. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the application. Mr. Lippman seconded. All were in favor. 24 Hathorne Street The owners of 24 Hathorne Street, David and Martha Martini, are requesting that the Commission approve the addition of two velux skylights, TPS-1, 31 3/4" x 39k", as well as the addition of two vinyl clad windows in the attic. SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 5 February 19,1986 • Ms. Harris noted that there is a public right of way on the right side of the house from which you can see the skylights, but they are not visible from Hathorne Street. Mr. Robert Chalifour, the contractor, mentioned that they are also proposing to replace two windows, one in the left gable and one in the right. After some discussion about vinyl clad windows, he agreed to replace the window on the right side with a 6/6 single-paned wooden sash. The window in the left gable end has already been replaced with a vinyl sash. Since that window is barely visible, the Commission decided to allow it to remain in place. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve: (1) two 31 3/4" x 39i" skylights on the rear facade as shown in the application; and (2) a single-glazed wooden 6/6 window on the right gable end. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION. All were in favor except Ms. Harris and Mr. Zaharis who were opposed because they felt that the skylights were too big. The MOTION carried. 84 Federal Street • An application was submitted by James and. Chislaine Dykes, Jr. to replace wooden gutters with aluminum gutters on their house at 84 Federal Street. Ms. Harris read -a letter from the owners who could not attend the meeting because they both work evenings. The letter stated that they would like to replace the wooden gutters with white aluminum gutters because the wooden ones were rotten, did not work, and had caused water damage to one ceiling. They also stated that they would like to replace gutters on the porch. Mr. Clarke was asked to look at the house. He found that the problem was not only with the gutters but also with the fascia boards which were rotten. The gutters are tied into the fascias and cornices. Therefore, if the gutters are removed, the owners will be left with cornices hanging in mid air. Mr. Clarke went on to explain that the fascia board leaks will have to be repaired first and that the wooden gutters may cost more but would last longer. The problem with aluminum gutters is that when ice gets behind them, they break apart. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to deny the application and to send the Dykes a letter stating that the application had been denied because replacing the wooden gutters with aluminum gutters would be problematic and that the edges would be jagged. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. All were in favor except Mr. Cook who was opposed. • 175 Federal Street SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 6 February 19, 1986 Ms. Harris explained that this was a preliminary review of an application to remove asbestos shingles, repair and replace clapboards and add shutters to the front facade. Ms. Hilbert informed the Commission that the owners could not be at the meeting and would like to postpone. She felt that the Commission could go over the application anyway and then forward the results to Mr. John Anastasi, the owner of 175 Federal Street. Ms. Harris read the application in which the owners propose to remove the asbestos shingles, repair the clapboards, paint the body of the house with Benjamin Moore' s Pebble #47130 with Navaho White trim. Shutters would be added on the front facade to be painted a peach color, Benjamin Moore' s ST #30. . Ms. Harris mentioned that the peach shutters did not match the colors chosen for the body and trim. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the application except for the color chosen for the shutters, and with the amendment that these shutters must be the correct size, must be hung from the window casings not the building, and must have their slats facing up when the shutters are open. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. - The owner, Mr. John M. Anastasi would be asked to return with an alternative selection on the color of the shutters. 256 Lafayette Street Mr. Jaquith, the architect for George Belisle, presented the Commission with the plans for the construction of condominiums at 256 Lafayette Street, but explained that he would like to postpone because several issues had not yet been resolved and that the model was not yet completed. Some changes from the plans reviewed at the February 5th meeting were circled in red on a new set of plans. M. Jaquith would also like to postpone until the next meeting so that the contractor and the developer could be at the meeting. Other Business CLG Meeting Ms. Hilbert reminded the board that a CLG (Certified Local Government) meeting would be held on March 1st from 9 a.m. until 3 p.m. in Shirley, MA. Ms. Hilbert told the Commission that the meeting would be on Local District Administration and asked how many members would be able to attend. Ms. Harris, Mr. Oedel, Mr. Lippman, Mr. Cook and possibly Mr. Carr may attend. Derby Street Neighborhood Meeting Ms. Hilbert met with Mr. Robert Shapiro and Mr. Oedel before the SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 7 February 19, 1986 meeting to plan a Derby Street Neighborhood Meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to present options on the difference between neighborhood conservation districts and local' historic districts. Mr. Oedel mentioned that owners as well as residents are going to be encouraged to attend the meeting which is tentatively scheduled for April 22, at the East Branch of the Salem Public Library. Nominations to the National Register Ms. Hilbert told the Commission that a list of properties and districts eligible for the National Register of Historic Places must be submitted to the Massachusetts Historical Commission this June. Ms. Harris added that it was the responsibility of the Commission to nominate properties and districts to the Register. Ms. Hilbert mentioned that the Gothic Cottage at 260 Lafayette Street might be one such property to nominate. Mr. Carr reminded the Commission that the developers of the Gothic Cottage had applied for a variance for four units with the Board of Appeals, but it had been denied. Since it was less than two years ago, the developers had to go to the Planning Board for permission to return to the Board of Appeal for a variance for three units rather than four. The Planning Board approved the request. Since this is such a fine example of its type of architecture, Mr. • Carr made the suggestion that three units is too many. The interior of the structure is largely intact. Mr. Carr made the MOTION that the Commission contact the Board of Appeals by letter requesting that there be no more than two units, stressing the architectural significance and the fact that the Commission is acting only in an advisory capacity. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. All were in favor except Mr. Cook and Ms. Harris who were oppose 0 tstanding Violations presented the Commission with the list of Outstanding Violations and asked whether or not she should go to the City Solicitor with the violations. The Commission decided to go through the list and rate them as to the severity of the violations. A code was developed which consists of: A - Serious violation, bring case before City Solicitor; B - Less severe, maybe bring it to City Solicitor if no solution is reached by sending a letter; C - technical violation, not worth attending to. A code was also developed for the letters which are to be sent. This code is as follows: Letter #1 - harsh violation letter, property owner must come in and apply; Letter #2 - less harsh violation letter, property owner must come in and apply, but will probably be approved; Letter #3 - letting the property owner know that the work was done without an application but the Commission approves it anyway and Letter #4 - noting a violation and requesting the status of the property. SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 8 February 19, 1986 16 Koscisusko St. C - Stone Wall on side of building 112 Derby St. B - Letter #1 - Signage on the ice cream shop 94 Federal St. Letter stating that the color green was not approved and it is not being grandfathered The property owner must submit a new application to repaint in that color. 100 Federal St. A - Doorbells and fence not approved 95 Federal St. C - Trash bin in wrong location 31 F1 'nt Sr - y Torch on rear�� 2 Gifford Ct. Letter #4 to remind them to finish windows 54 Flint St. Letter #1 - Bricked in windows, shutters, outdoor mailboxes, eagles, 1/1 sash. If new owner, can he/she sue previous owner to recover for changes made? 2A N. Pine St. Letter #4 - Check application, odd window 6 Botts Ct. Letter #3 - Fence not built as approved Quaker Meeting House A - Shutters 398 Essex Street 4 Chestnut St. Letter #3 - No application was ever made for fence 15 Hathorne St. Letter #1 - Missing fence 13 Warren St. A - Aluminum siding, check building permit 3 Warren St. A - Skylights, check for application 76-762 Federal St. A - Satellite dish Phillips School Letter #1 - Never approved main entrance 334 Essex St. Letter #3 - Window not approved. Paint color different from what was applied for. 13 Beckford St. Letter #4 - Steps 96-98 Derby St. Letter asking them to clean brick Simon Forester House C - Fence • 188 Derby St./11 Hodges Ct. c . SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 9 February 19, 1986 Bowditch School Councilor Lenny O'Leary came before the ,Commission asking whether or not Keleher' s Way would be maintained by the developers of the Bowditch School. Mr. Carr responded that if it were part of the legal agreement between the City and the Crowninshield Corp. , then the developers would have to maintain that street.' Mr. Carr discussed the Escrow Agreement which was drawn up by John Serafini, Jr. He found that it was more of a pledge rather than an Escrow Agreement. Therefore, Mr. Carr drew up a new agreement which states that: (1) $15,000 is to be placed in escrow with two nominees, one from the City and one from the developer; (2) if the work is completed satisfactorily, the funds will be returned to Crowninshield; (3) if the work is not completed, the City can communicate in writing to the bank holding the account to forward the funds and the City will finish the job; (4) if there is any breech, Crowninshield will be liable and if the landscaping, costs more than $15,000, they are also liable for the balance. Mr. Lippman made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. The meeting ajourned at 9:40 p.m. SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting March 5, 1986 A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on j Wednesday, March 5, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green. Present were: Ms. Annie C. Harris, Chairman, Ms. Hilbert, and Messrs. Zaharis, Cook, Carr, Lippman, and Wolfson. Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the Minutes of the February 19, 1986 meeting. Mr. Carr seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. Local District Operation 175 Federal Street At its February 19th meeting, the Commission agreed to approve the applicant' s request to remove asbestos siding, repair and replace clapboards where necessary, paint the body Pebble #47130 (California Paints) with Benjamin Moore' s Navajo White #72 trim, and install shutters on the front of the house. It was stressed to the applicant in a letter dated February 25, 1986, written by Ms. Debra Hilbert following the meeting, that (1) the new clapboards should be installed smooth side out and should be the same number of inches to the weather as the existing, (2) that each shutter on the front facade should be the half width of the window, and (3) that the shutters should be hung on the window trim and not on the building itself and the slats should point up when shutters are open. Also stated in the letter was the fact that the x� Commission felt that the color chosen for the shutters was too pink and did not match the body and trim. Ms. Hilbert suggested several colors which matched the body and trim from which the owners might choose. The owners, Mr. and Mrs. John Anastasi chose one of Ms. Hilbert' s suggestions, Newport Blue #35. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the amendment to the application of Newport Blue #35 paint on the shutters. Mr. Lippman seconded the f . MOTION. All were in favor. R Ill Derby Street An application was submitted by the owners of 111 Derby Street, Joanne Twomey and Gary Blattberg, requesting the Commission' s approval of (1) black lettering reading "HARBOR RENTAL & REALTY" (design per drawing) to be placed in the left center section of the front door (approximately 4 of the distance from the top and bottom of the door) , and (2) a 2' x 3' white 3/4" plywood projecting sign with maroon lettering to be hung from a black bracket on the Derby Street facade. The owners would also like the option of adding gold leaf to highlight the maroon lettering on the sign. After reading and clarifying several points on the application with the owner, Mr. Blattberg, Ms. Harris and Mr. Lippman asked what color the building was and whether or not the address would be placed on the door also. Mr. Blattberg responded that it was a grayish green color SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 2 March 5, 1986 and that they had not, at this time, decided to place the address on the door. Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Carr seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. 262 Lafayette Street An application was submitted by the owners of 262 Lafayette Street, Paul A. Langford and Stephen W. Santry, requesting the Commission' s approval to complete the following: 1. Repair and point three existing chimneys, keeping the original design and extending height, re-using the brick, as well as using gray tinted mortar to match the existing chimney as per photo; 2. Strip existing roof shingles and reshingle with new rust brown shingles; 3. Strip all existing siding, blow in insulation, wrap with Tyvek and re-side with new cedar clapboards at 4" to the weather; 4. Repair or replace soffits, fascias, gutters and trim as needed, • keeping all as existing; 5. Remove existing door at rear of house and board and side over; 6. Install 36" x 36" flat velux skylight in flat roof of rear ell as well as a skylight of the same size on main roof behind chimney. After discussing all of the proposed modifications in detail, the Commission found several issues of concern. First, since the skylight which is on the rear ell is hardly visible, the Commission agreed that it could remain as described in the application, but the second skylight ; located between two dormers and behind a chimney was too large. Mr. Lippman suggested that the skylight be made smaller to appear as if it were an old air vent. A 21 5/8" x 27 1/2" skylight (GGL #9) was suggested to the owner, Mr. Santry, and he felt that a smaller skylight would be acceptable. Ms. Harris and Mr. Carr questioned whether or not the corner boards would be matched and Mr. Santry responded that they would. Ms. Harris asked whether or not the chimneys would be reproduced with the same material and whether they would be the same height. Mr. Santry explained that he would be sure to use gray mortor and that the chimneys may be slightly higher. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the application as submitted with the following amendments: (1) corner boards to match or be wider, not to exceed 8" on each edge; (2) a modified skylight to be 21 • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 3 March 5, 1986 5/8" x 27 1/2" GGL-9 on the main block of the house; and (3) a flat skylight on the rear ell. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. Since Mr. Santry has not yet received quotes on window work, he would like to submit an application for the approval of new windows and paint colors at a later date. Nevertheless, Ms. Hilbert thought it might be helpful to discuss Mr. Santry' s choices regarding the window replacement. Mr. Santry explained that he planned on using J & B Sash or Marvin windows with real wooden muntins, 2/2 and 1/1 where appropriate. The windows will be double insulated with a wood stop on the outside (no glued on mutins) and will be indivudually paned. 3 Broad Street Although no formal application was submitted, Ms. Elayne Hart of the Salem Housing Authority asked Mr. Feldkamp, the architect preparing the plans for 3 Broad Street, to attend the meeting to get the. Commission' s endorsement and recommendations on the plans thus far. Mr. Feldkamp informed the Commission that the Executive Office of Communities and Development, which is funding the project, has been completely satisfied with the schematic designs thus far. • Ms. Harris added that Mr. Feldkamp had to get far enough into the project with the State, before coming to the Commission for endorsements. Ms. Hilbert was asked to give the Commission some background on the history of the building. She informed the members that 3 Broad Street is not listed individually on the National Register of Historic Places but is part of an NR district. Reading from Architecture in Salem, she stated that the building was erected in 1819 from the design of a Bulfinch disciple. It is a two-story hip-roof Federal style building, rectangular in shape, which was enlarged in 1842. Ms. Harris noted that 3 Broad Street (the former Oliver School) is one of the oldest schools in the area. Mr. Feldkamp mentioned that over a year ago, they began rehabing the building and proposed an addition which they had hoped would accommodate 20 residents, but were asked to reduce the number of units to 16. They had also proposed a porch on which residents can sit and a 60' recess infill on the other side of the building. Mr. Feldkamp then discussed the issue of the property line between 1 and 3 Broad Street and the layout of parking spaces which are being dealt with by the Salem Planning Dept. The likely site plan would call for an entrance between the buildings so that the condominiums next door at 1 Broad Street can have 18 spaces with an exit onto Summer Street • while 3 Broad Street will have 5 spaces. • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 4 March 5, 1986 Ms. Harrisaddedthat the developers of both 1 and 3 Broad Street have been negotiating on the location of the parking spaces and that a new driveway has been added. Further details will have to be worked out through the Planning Department. On the issue of the access to the parking areas, Mr. Feldkamp felt that there would be an entrance serving both 1 and 3 Broad Street, and there would be green and landscaping between 3 and 5 Broad Street, making a visual tie with the Senior Center. Ms. Harris asked if the basement at 1 Broad Street was being developed. Mr. Feldkamp responded that there would be living spaces in the basement, therefore, window wells were proposed by the developer of 1 Broad Street to light the space. Mr. Carr asked what the Housing Authority planned to do about the fire escapes, and Mr. Feldkamp replied that the fire escapes would be removed. He also added that they would like to propose the following: a porch in the location shown on the plans dated March 5, 1986, a new elevator shaft and staircase with three stairs on the east side of the building, the removal of a head house, the removal of the fire escapes, the removal of an enclosed entrance, the lowering of several windows, and the removal of a door. • In regard to the removal of a door, Mr. Carr asked what had been proposed to replace it, and Mr. Feldkamp answered that a window would take the place of one door., Mr. Feldkamp explained the Housing Authority' s reasons for lowering several windows. The sill height is 3' 4" which is too high for the elderly to see out of from a sitting position and secondly, the windows must be easily opened. EOCD recommended that Mr. Feldkamp lower the sill height approximately 1 foot, requiring 6/9 windows rather than 6/6, which in turn would result in the removal of the balustrades on some windows. Mr. Lippman suggested that the floors be raised rather than lowering the windows. Mr. Feldkamp felt that that was an idea to look into, but would probably be prohibitive because of cost. He also added that they were only asked to lower the windows in the bedrooms, but not the windows in the rear of the first floor. Mr. Zaharis asked what type of vents were on the building, and Mr. Feldkamp responded that they were air handling vents which would remain as is. Mr. Feldkamp then stated that he would like the Commission' s approval on (1) the general plans, (2) the addition which was scaled down, and (3) the window issue. Mr. Carr responded that he had no problem with the elevator shaft, • the bathrooms, or the porch and door, but he did have a problem with the lowering of the windows and the fact that they would not be uniform on all sides. He felt that if there was an interior solution, that would be more acceptable. SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 5 March 5, 1986 • Ms. Hilbert added that 3 Broad Street is also in a district listed in the State Register of Historical Places. Because state funds are being used, the Massachusetts Historical Commission must review the Housing Authority' s plans, and they probably would not approve the lowering of the windows either. Ms. Harris mentioned that she would not like to see the windows lowered, and would like to see more detailed drawings on the new door and the top of the elevator shaft. She also stated that she would like to remind the Housing Authority of the fact that there are several violations still outstanding regarding the Phillips School. They include the aluminum door on the main entrance onto the Common and the two entryways on Essex Street which were not made to design. Messrs. Wolfson and Cook felt that the dropping of the sills on the windows would present a problem and Mr. Zaharis added that he would like the developers to remove the black vents which should be replaced With bricks from another area of the building. Ms. Harris asked what materials the windows were made of and Mr. Feldkamp answered that the windows would be wood restoration. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to: - endorse the concept of the porch in the location shown on the elevation drawing dated March 5, 1986; • - endorse the location of the proposed elevator shaft on the eastern side of the building as shown on a site plan dated February 11, 1986, provided this addition is of brick and that further detailing is worked out at a subsequent meeting; - reject the concept of any changes to existing windows with the exception of the windows on the south elevation which would light the stairwell (located on the left half of the center bay) ; - endorse the concept of installing new windows to match the existing in the blind brick arches at the rear of the building; - endorse the concept of a new door on the east side of the building where a window is now as shown on a site plan dated February 11, 1986; - endorse the removal of the fire escapes; - endorse the removal of the vent grates if the infill can be done in an architecturally sensitive manner; - and further that all the above-mentioned items are approved in concept only and that specific details must be worked out at a later date. SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 6 March 5, 1986 An amendment was added to the MOTION which states that before any elevations progress to an irreversible point, the Commission must be contacted especially if changes have been made from the plans reviewed tonight. Also, concern was expressed about lowering the building ceilings because this will be visible from the exterior (although the Commission only has jurisdiction over exterior changes) . Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. Ms. Harris asked Mr. Feldkamp to keep the Commission informed on the status of the windows, and Mr. Feldkamp agreed to return in 3-4 months With more detailed plans. 256 Lafayette Street The architect developing the the plans for the condominiums on 256 Lafayette Street, Mr. Jaquith, brought in a model of the condominiums for the Commission to look over. Ms. Harris noticed that there were several skylights on the roof of the carriage house that had not been approved by the Commission. Mr. Jaquith explained that the old plans had been used to make the model, and that some of those skylights would not actually be installed. Mr. Jaquith went through the model of the condominium addition ..� pointing out the skylights over the front doors to the units which will give a greenhouse effect, the balusters on the front porches, and the absense of the trellis work along the 8' passage ways which will be reviewed during construction. Regarding the rear of the condominiums, page 16 of the plans, the proposed changes include: the porches on the back with 2" x 2" railings with 4" top caps, Brosco doors, and white vinyl clad casement windows (6'8" x 71211) Noticing the multiple adjacent windows in the gables on the rear elevation, Mr. Cook was of the opinion that there were too many windows and asked what purpose they would serve. Mr. Jaquith responded that the windows would enliven the buildings and add light to the upper floor. While using the same material, size and textures as the surrounding buildings, Mr. Jaquith felt that the windows added a new feature, but Mr. Cook felt that it was too excessive. Mr. Jaquith felt that he could get the same effect if he removed the 2 triangular windows on each side and filled them in with clapboards. Mr. Cook agreed that that would cut down on the excessiveness of the windows. - Mr. Cook also felt that the windows over the front doorways, drawing ##14, were unnecessary and would prefer a covered doorway instead of greenhouse windows. Mr. Jaquith felt that the windows could be removed over the doorways without too much difficulty. Ms. Harris asked if the porch could be extended to allow the residents to sit on the porch or to put out some plants. Mr. Jaquith agreed that the porch could be extended approximately 1 ' to 14" to allow for a potted plant. SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 7 March 5, 1986 Mr. Jaquith added that since only ,one of the French doors opens, the � residents can still have a screen door. Mr. Lippman voiced some concern over the long windows at the side of the staircase (drawing #22) . Mr. Jaquith noted that the stairway and the door could not be changed and that the windows were of a Queen Anne style. Mr Zaharis asked where they planned on having fencing and Mr. Jaquith pointed out that the fencing would be on the Laurel Street side. Ms. Harris and Mr. Zaharis informed Mr. Jaquith that the Commission would prefer it if there were not so many skylights, and Mr. Jaquith agreed that several of them had been removed on the new set of plans. Ms. Hilbert asked how the buildings would be lit if they removed the skylights, and Mr. Jaquith. said that he would work with putting windows on the ends of the buildings. Ms. Hilbert asked Mr. Jaquith to draw up a new set of plans with the removal of several skylight and to bring them to the Commisssion' s next meeting on March 19th, 1986. Mr. Jaquith agreed, but felt that he really needed the skylights on the rear of the building for lighting. Viewing the rear of the buildings on the model, Mr. Cook question whether or not both units would have egress to the porch which connected them. Mr. Jaquith said that only one unit would have access to the porch through French doors. • Since there were several modifications to be made on the plans, Ms. Harris felt that the Commission should wait until the next meeting to make any MOTIONS. Mr. Jaquith was asked to. return with two sets of modified drawings which are to include: the removal of the windows over the doorways and in the rear gables, the added foot on the front porch, the removal of several skylights with windows to compensate for the loss of light. Ms. Harris asked for volunteers to be the project representatives to check out the work on the condominiums. Mr. Cook and Mr. Carr volunteered to be the project representatives. Other Business 3 White Street A letter written by Misses Jordan of 97 Derby Street was received by the Commission last week. The letter stated their concern over the razing of Mr. Ouellette' s property at 3 White Street and.the proposed new construction on the site. While the structure is in the Derby Street National Register District, it is not part of the local district. The Commission decided to write the Misses Jordan a letter explaining that although the Commission has no design review Jurisdiction over the property, it does act in an advisory capacity on historic matters to the City as a whole. In the future, any of their SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 8 March 5, 1986 concerns should be relayed to the Commission' s. staff person before a situation becomes irreversible. The Commission also appreciates the Jordan' s concern in this matter and will forward their letter and the Commission' s letter to the Board of Appeals. CLG Meeting Ms. Hilbert informed those members of the Commission who were not able to attend the March 1st meeting in Shirley, MA of what had taken ,place. The first item concerned public relations. It was suggested that the Commission members should attend other board meetings, deal more with neighborhood relations, and get involved in general politicking. The second itemrelatedto good decision making. It was suggested that the Commission be more consistent in its decisions, base their decisions on Chapter 40C, and state in the minutes why or why not an application was approved with the reason phrased in language from the Commission' s guidlines or Chapter 40C. The reasons for such action stem from several lawsuits other Commissions have been involved in. Mr. Carr mentioned that he would like to have some time to evaluate how the Commmission uses its discretion. Ms. Harris suggested that the Commission draw up a list of things from 40C to put in the minutes and to do the same with the approvals and denials. • The third item discussed on Saturday' s meeting involved procedures. It was stated that the Commission may be depriving abutters their due process by not notifying them of theproposed changes until after the issue has been discussed at a meeting. The Commission may want to outline and then revamp their procedures. In regard to the abutters being denied due process, Ms. Harris suggested that all applications to be heard on a particular meeting should be in one week prior to the meeting so that abutters can be notified and attend the meeting if they wish. 84 Federal Street At the Salem Historical Commission' s meeting on February 19, 1986, Mr. and Mrs. Dykes application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of aluminum gutters was denied. A letter informing them of this denial was sent on February 25, 1986. Nevertheless, they proceeded to carry out this work. Therefore, their action is subject to a fine of not less than $10 and not more than $500 per day for every day that the violation continues. The Commission will strongly urge them to remove the aluminum gutters immediately and submit. a new application for a Certificate of Appropriateness reflecting the options suggested in Debra Hilbert' s letter to them of February 21, 1986. Mr. Carr added that this action must be taken in order to get the - • word out to the tradesmen that the Commission' s decisions should be followed. SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 9 March 5, 1986 • Mr. Carr made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION. The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Newton Clerk of Commission SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting R March 19, 1986 A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, March 19, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green. Present were: Ms. Annie C. Harris, Chairman, Ms. Hilbert, and Messrs. Carr, Lippman, Slam, and Associate member Mr. Oedel. Mr. Lippman made a MOTION to approve the Minutes of the March 5, 1986 meeting. Mr. Carr seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. Local District Operation Heritage Trail Signs Ms. Hilbert presented the Commission with a sample of the nine , signs to be placed at historic sites along the Heritage Trail. Five out of the nine signs will be placed within the historic districts over which the Commission has jurisdiction. These five signs will be placed on 7 foot, 2" diameter galvanized posts and will be located at the following sites: 1. The Salem Maritime National Historic Site - Sign to be located at the corner of the information booth, behind the chain; ' 2. The House of Seven Gables - Sign to be located at the corner of Derby and Hardy Streets (where the trail turns onto Hardy Street) ; 3. The Salem Witch Museum - Sign to be located to the right of the entry path on the sidewalk, flush with the fence; 4. The Essex Institute Museum - Sign to be located on Essex Street, midway between the Armory and entrance path to museum. Sign to be flush with granite wall; 5. The Witch House - Sign to be located either on North Street between bushes and corner of the Witch house or on Essex Street. Ms. Hilbert informed the Commission that the Heritage Trail will be extended up to the Rope' s Mansion, and Ms. Harris added that since the Commission had endorsed the concept of the signs at the February 19th meeting of the Historical Commission, all that remained to be done was to approve the location and design of the signs. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the design and location of the Heritage Trail signs because the design, material and color of the signs blend well with the surrounding architecture. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. 33 Warren Street • An application was submitted by the owners of 33 Warren Street to request the Commission' s approval on the following: SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 2 March 19, 1986 • 1 . The installation of one Porch-Lift, #58016, with a locking gate 36" wide by 42" high on the rear porch. The gate is designed to be installed at the top landing at the end of the "over-the-step" bridge or on the lifting platform. The gates are self-closing and equipped with mechanical and electric contacts which prevent movement of the Porch-Lift unless all gates are closed; 2. The removal of one porch railing which must be removed to install the lift properly; and 3. A 4" concrete pad to be installed over 3'-4' of crushed stone. After some discussion and clarification of where and how the lift would be installed, Mr. Lippman made a MOTION to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Carr seconded the MOTION. The MOTION carried unanimously. 256 Lafayette Street At the March 5th meeting of the Historical Commission, Mr. Jaquith, the architect developing the plans for the ,the condominiums at 256 Lafayette Street, was asked to return with revised plans which were to include: 1) the removal of skylights on both the doorways and roofs; 2) • the extension of the front porches to approximately 11411, and 3) the removal of triangular windows on the north facade gables. Mr. Jaquith presented theCommission with the revised plans and model which included the suggested removal of skylights, the removal of the triangular windows to be replaced with horizontal clapboards, and the extension of the south facade balconies to 1 '4". Other revisions to the plans include: 1. the pushing out of one balcony on the 5th unit; 2. the pulling out of one chimney from the building; 3. the addition of four small windows under the bridge to Building D in order to enliven the blankness; 4. the addition of two skylights on Building D, one on the right side and one behind the chimney; and 5. the removal of the balcony effect on the 2nd floor; 6. the addition of windows in the gable ends of the units to make up for lost skylights. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the plans as revised because the • condominiums will be compatible in size, material, design, and texture ` to the surrounding structures. SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 3 March 19, 1986 • 396 Essex Street An application for a Certificate Appropriateness was submitted by the owners of 396 Essex Street, David and Deborah Clarke, to request the Commission' s approval on the following: a. the replacement of a window with a door; b. the building of a deck to match existing — Molded for hard—rail, 1 5/16" balusters, lattice parcels underneath; C. new dormers — trim to match existing dormer and one 2/2 window; d. the replacement of asphalt shingles with clapborads on the sides of the existing east and west dormers; e. one velux skylight, GGL 4; f. a dormer to accomodate door (similar to existing on building) and window as per plan; g. a new deck, molded for hard rail, balusters 1 5/16", 6" o/c; h. the replacement of old aluminum gutters with fir 4 x 5 wood • gutters; i. installation of a steel spiral staircase on rear to be placed near window in far ell as shown in drawing and to be as close to the building as possible. Mr. Clarke presented the Commission with several photos taken from various location walking from Essex, North Pine, and Federal Streets in order to illustrate whether or not the proposed spiral staircase could be seen from the street. (This staircase had been approved in concept approximately two years ago. ) It was determined that the spiral staircase may be seen if walking from Flint, Essex and North Pine Streets. Looking at the plans presented by Mr. Clarke, Ms. Harris asked whether or not the new deck would cover the entire roof. Mr. Clarke responded that the deck would follow the roof line, held in about 1 foot from the eaves, dropping down 1 foot in order to follow the line of the roof, creating a step. Mr. Clarke' s proposal regarding the installation of one spiral staircase would include moving the staircase as close to the new deck as possible and the installation of a concrete platform. Ms. Harris asked whether or not the developer had investigated constructing a second egress in the interior of the building. Mr. Clarke explained that in order,to install the staircase on the interior, he would have to go through an existing bedroom and kitchen. Therefore, SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSSION Page 4 March 19, 1986 the stairway would be in someone' s unit, wiping out an existing bathroom • and exiting in a kitchen on the first floor. Ms. Harris suggested that part of one bedroom,could be blocked off, but Mr. Clarke stated that the two egresses would be too close together, creating a violation of the fire code. Mr. Lippman suggested that the second egress be an emergency exit only, but Mr. Clarke informed the Commission that it is not possible to have an emergency exit going through a unit, and that this secondary egress would be used mainly by the occupants of the 3rd unit. Agreeing that it appeared that Mr. Clarke' s only alternative would be the installation of an exterior staircase, Mr. Zaharis asked whether or not the Board of Appeals had approved the plans. Mr. Clarke responded that he had received approval from the Board of Appeals and that he had no plan to convert the building to condominiums. Mr. Zaharis and Ms. Harris voiced some concern regarding the skylight and asked whether or not the applicant would agree to a 31" x 38" skylight (GGL #1) . Mr. Clarke felt that if the two dormers were approved, the skylight would not be visible. Nevertheless, Mr. Zaharis suggested that the Commission approve the application, but with the elimination of the skylight because it would not add to the historic and architectural value and significance of the building and would set a precident in the district. Ms. Harris added that the application should be revised to also include: 1) the door to be added in the dormer • should match the existing doors, and 2) the spiral staircase should be installed no further than 6 inches from the building. Mr. Clarke agreed to remove the skylight from the application and may come before the Commission at another time to reapply for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install one skylight. Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the application with the deletion of the skylight and the revisions listed above. Mr. Slam seconded the MOTION. Three members approved, while Mr. Lippman voted present. Other Business Outstanding Violations 5 Warren Street — The owners of 5 Warren Street have been in violation for the installation of skylights without receiving a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Commission. Ms. Harris suggested that since the house is fairly new, built in 1962, that the Commission agree to send the owners a letter stating that the skylights had not been approved, and, therefore, they are in violation. Since the building is fairly new and the skylights do not contrast too much with the surrounding area, the Commission will take no .action. All were in favor. 84 Federal Street — At its March 5th meeting, the Commission voted • to send a strong letter of reprimand to the owners, Mr. and Mrs. Dykes, SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 5 March 19, 1986 • who had been in violation for installing aluminum gutters after being denied a Certificate of Appropriateness. This application had been denied because Mr. Clarke discovered that the problem was not only with the gutters, but also with the fascia boards which were rotten. The gutters were tied into the fascias and cornices, and, therefore, if removed, the cornices would hang in mid air. Upon viewing the completed work, the Commission decided that although the Dykes are in violation of the Salem Historical Commission ordinance, the work completed did not constitute a substantial detriment to the district since the house was already sided. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to send the Dykes a standard "B" letter informing them of the violation, but stating that no action would be taken at this time. Mr. Slam seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. 260 Lafayette Street — On the February 19th meeting of the Commission, Mr. Carr made a MOTION approved by the Commission stating that a letter should be sent to the Board of Appeals requesting that there be no more than two units allowed in the Gothic Cottage at 260 Lafayette Street, and stressing that the Commission is acting in an advisory capacity to try to preserve this architecturally significant structure. Since that time, the architect and developer have assured Ms. Harris that the detail of the building will be kept intact and that the addition of kitchens would not be damaging to the structure since they would be constructed in the rear addition. • Messrs. Slam and Carr asked if it might be possible for the Commission to tour the building before next Wednesday' s Board of Appeals meeting. Mr. Jaquith, the architect designing the renovations, invited the members to tour the building on Saturday, March 22, at 10 a.m. Mr. Lippman made a MOTION to retract the letter which was to be written to the Board of Appeal regarding the Gothic Cottage until after - Saturday' s tour. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. All were in favor accept Mr. Slam who voted present. Library Ms. Harris informed the Commission that Mr. Nutting had contacted Ms. Hilbert to voice his concern over the proposed office building to be located at the South Branch Library. Mr. Carr also voiced some concern over a non—conforming use being introduced into a residential area and suggested that the neighborhood and Ward Councillor may want to work on this issue. Since this issue is not within the Commission' s jurisdiction, Ms. Hilbert was asked to inform Mr. Nutting that the Commission would be happy to offer any constructive advice, if asked, but that this matter would be better handled by the Board of Appeals. Derby Street Neighborhood Meeting Since the proposed date of the meeting is this spring, Ms. Harris • brought the matter of a neighborhood meeting in order to inform the residents of the difference between a historic and conservation district • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 6 March 19, 1986 to the Commission' s attention. She also stated that with all the projects Ms. Hilbert is undertaking at the present time, she will require some help from the member in order to get things ready. Ms. Hilbert informed the Commission that the preparation for the presentation would consist of the following: putting together a slide show, a presentation describing the differences between the districts, information on why the neighborhood would want to be in either district, and getting the word out through mailing or leafletting. Since many of .the members would be unavailable to help this season, Mr. Oedel suggested that the meeting be postponed until September. All were in agreement. Formulating MOTIONS Based on the information presented at the CLG meeting attended by several members, Ms. Hilbert presented the Commission with a handout listing information taken from Chapter 40C which could be used in formulation the MOTIONS in order to show consistency in the Commission' s decisions.Ms. Hilbert noted the following factors to be considered by the Commission in making decisions: • — Historic and architectural value and significance of the site, building or structure; — General design, arrangement, texture, material and color of the features involved; and Relation of proposed alterations to similar features or buildings and structures in the surrounding area. When making decisions regarding new construction and building additions, the Commission should consider: — Appropriateness of the size and shape of the building or structure in relation to land area upon which the building is situated and to structures in the vicinity; In general: — The Commission may only make recommendations for the purpose of preventing developments incongruous to the historic aspects or architectural characteristics of the surroundings and of the historic district; and — Changes to buildings must be appropriate or compatible with preservation or protection of the historic district. • Mr. Lippman suggested that the Commission read over Ms. Hilbert' s suggestions and discuss it at the April 2, 1986 meeting of the Commission. All were in favor. SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 7 March 19, 1986 Mr. Slam made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Zaharis • seconded the MOTION. The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Newton Clerk of Commission • • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting -April 2, 1986 A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on April 2, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green. Present were: Ms. Annie Harris, Chairman, Ms. Hilbert, and Messrs. Zaharis, Carr, Clarke, Wolfson, Cook and Slam. Local District Operation 143 Federal Street An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was submitted by the owners of 143 Federal Street, William and Louise Clough, requesting the Commission' s approval of the proposed construction of a second—story rear addition. The addition will be approximately 25' from ground level and run the entire length of the existing rear ell with the second story extending 3' 6" out over the first story. The exterior material will be clapboards painted white to match existing. Also, several windows have been proposed which will match the existing 6/6. Mr. and Mrs. Clough presented the Commission with several photographs taken from various angles to determine to what extent the addition might be seen from Flint and Federal Streets. It was determined that the most visible view would be from across the parking lot on Flint Street. Ms. Harris asked whether or not the new roof would be level with the existing roof, and Mr. Clough responded that the proposed roof would be approximately 1' lower. Also, the owners plan to enclose part of the existing porch and chimney, install a new staircase to serve the addition, and add 4 6/6 windows on the east facade as well as 4 6/6 windows on the west facade to match the existing 6/6 windows. Noticing a column on the east facade porch, Ms. Harris suggested the the owners try to keep it on the exterior rather than clapboarding it over or keep it visible on the interior. Mr. and Mrs. Clough plan to enclose the bottom section of the chimney while leaving the upper portion exposed. Mr. Clarke asked whether the door and window trim would match the existing, and the owners assured him that it would. The application was revised to state this. Mr. Carr suggested that if the Cloughs wish, the Commission would be glad to write a letter to the Board of Appeals to assist them in receiving a variance. From the discussion, the Commission arrived at the consensus that the addition would be appropriate to the building because of its general design, arrangement, and materials. Also, it would be compatible with the goal of preserving the historic district' s character. • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 2 April 2, 1986 • Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the application as revised and if the applicants need a letter in support of the addition to present to the Board of Appeals, it shall be written. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. Hawthorne Inn The manager of the Hawthorne Inn, Mr. Kenneth Boyles, requested the Commission' s approval to remove existing windows and lower sills on the first floor (on Essex Street side) and install new colonial wooden windows 1 3/4" thick as shown on plans. Appropriate mullions, muntins and wood molding are to be painted white to match existing building exterior trim. Also, Mr. Boyles is requesting the Commisssion' s permission to remove a false door and replace it with brick and mortar to match the existing wall. Mr. Boyles is requesting these alterations because he feels that the proposed changes will provide street visibility for their new. restaurant. Mr. Boyles presented the Commission with several pictures of the Inn pointing out where the proposed windows will be located. He explained that the location of the existing openings would be kept as well the limestone lintels. Ms. Harris asked whether the windows would be wood, and Mr. Boyles responded that the windows would be wood, arched at the top. Ms. Harris • also added that in regard to the proposed alterations to the false door, that she had spoken to the architect designing the proposed plans for the Inn, and he suggested that the door could either be removed, recessed, and patched with brick or it could be replaced with a wooden panel door. Mr. Carr felt that removing the door would be the best choice, but since it was difficult to match the brick and mortar, it should be recessed at least 2" and the lintel should be removed. He also felt that the decorations to the wood panels over the windows should be eliminated because it was too overdone. Mr. Cook voiced some concern over whether or not the contractor would place wood over the archways and requested more details on he windows. Mr. Boyles agreed to return at the next meeting with more detailed plans of the windows. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the application in concept, as being appropriate in design, texture and materials to the building, but that Mr. Boyles should return on April 16th with more details on -the windows, a sample of the brick and mortar to be used to fill in the false door, as well as a sample of the existing brick and mortar. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. Noticing the slab of granite along the bottom of the building, Mr. Carr amended the MOTION to include that the slab of granite must match the existing. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 3 April 2, 1986 • 7 Botts Court An appliction was submitted by the owner, Jonathan S. Horwitz, to - request the approval of the construction of a landing and stairs on the east facade of their home at 7 Botts Court. The landing would run the entire length of the existing French doors, approximately 12 feet, and be no more than 5 feet in depth. Mr. and Mrs. Horwitz presented the Commission with several pictures of the rear of the house as well as a picture of the existing staircase on the north facade (the proposed staircase would be identical, matching lattice work and railing) and pointed out that all that may be seen from the public way would be the railing. Mr. Horwitz also added that they would attempt to make the stairway as narrow as possible, possibly 3' instead of 51 . Messrs. Carr and Clarke suggested that since drawings are usually required for any proposed addition, the Horwitz' s should return at the next meeting with a set of drawings for the proposed staircase. After some discussion, the owners agreed to do so. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the concept of the proposed staircase with the provision that the Howitz' s present a drawing at the next meeting on April 16 for final approval. Mr. Slam seconded the • MOTION. 26 Beckford Street An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was submitted by Edgar H. Allard, the owner of 26 Beckford Street, requesting the approval of the following: 1 . the replacement of existing windows with a matching 6/6 style; and 2. a change in body paint color from red to Cabot' s Cordovan Brown, #0137, with the window sashes painted Cabot' s Driftwood Cray, #0144, to match existing color of door and fence. After some discussion, Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the application as submitted as being appropriate to the historic character of both the building and the district. Mr. Carr seconded the MOTION. 12 River Street The owner of 12 River Street, Jeremiah Burns, submitted a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace a fence which was taken down during reconstruction. Mr. Burns has proposed installing a picket fence with a gate, approximately 32' high, painted white to match the existing house trim. The fence will run along the front of the property • and follow the sidewalk along River Street. SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 4 April 2, 1986 • Viewing a phototgraph of 12 River Street, Mr. Carr made the suggestion that the Commission strongly recommend that the fence be no more than 3' in height so it will be proportional in size to the building. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the application, but with a strong recommendation to Mr. Burns that the fence be no more than 3' in height making it proportional in size to the existing structure. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. The design, materials and color of the fence were felt to be compatible with the historic character of the building, and the vote was unanimously in favor. Other Business - 186 Federal Street The owner of 182 Federal Street, Ms. Sharon Sullivan, has informed Ms. Hilbert that her neighbor at 186 Federal Street plans to install a retaining wall and a chain-link fence without prior approval from the Commission. Ms. Sullivan believes that such construction will destroy the vegetation on her property and will be unattractive. Mr. Wolfson suggested that a letter be sent reminding the owners of . 186 Federal that their building is in a historic district and as. such any alterations to the exterior of his building must be reviewed by the Commission Mr. Carr suggested that the Commission request that Ms. Sullivan to write a formal letter to the Commission stating the facts as she knows them, but Ms. Harris felt that the Commission could write a letter stating, "It has come to the attention of the Commission that you are contemplating installing a fence and retaining wall, and if you intend to do so, you should be reminded that you must receive a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Commission. . .". Mr. Clarke made a MOTION that letter be sent by Ms. Hilbert informing the owner of 186 Federal Street of the requirements to construct or alter the exterior of a structure within a historic district. Mr. Slam seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. Crowninshield Escrow Agreement - Bowditch School Mr. Carr informed the Commission that a finalized Escrow Agreement has been accepted by the Crowninshield Corporation except that the word "reasonably" should be added to paragraph 5 on page 3 as it relates to the Commission being final arbitor of when the work is completed and. whether it conforms to the approved plans. • Crowninshield will be putting up the money which will be transferred to the Shawmut Bank. The Commission must send an agreement to John Serafini and select a co-escrow agent to sign the agreement. SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 5 April 2, 1986 Mr. Clarke made a MOTION to designate John Carr as co—escrow agent. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. The MOTION carried. Preservation Conference Mr. Cook informed the Commission that a Preservation Conference will be held on May 9th co—sponsored by the Massachusetts Historical Commission and Historic Massachusetts. 249 Lafayette Street The owner of 249 Lafayette Street, Dr. Winer, has requested information regarding the possiblity of receiving a Certifiacte of ' Appropriateness to install aluminum siding on 2 sides of his building. Since the Commission rarely approves the installation of aluminum siding because it does not add to the historic and architectural significance of a building, several reputable painters were suggested including Steve Lovely and Country Shore from which Dr. Winer might choose. Mr. Slam made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION. The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. . Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Newton Clerk of Commission • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting April 16, 1986 • ` k A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, April 16, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. Present were: Ms. Annie Harris, Chairman, Ms. Debra Hilbert, and Messrs. Oedel, Lippman, Wolfson, Cook, and Carr. Mr. Cook made a MOTION to approve the minutes of both the March 19, 1986 and the April 2, 1986 meetings of the Salem Historical Commission. Mr. Wolfson seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. Local District Operation 1 Chestnut Street An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was submitted by Dr. Constantine Mekelatos, owner of 1 Chestnut Street. The proposed alterations include (1) the replacement of the existing fence along the west property line with a shadow—box fence that would be 3' high along the driveway and 6' high behind the driveway, and (2) moving an existing lattice—work fence at the back of the driveway forward 3' to allow ample room for wheelchair access to an existing porch—Lift. This fencework has been approved by neighbors and can mainly be seen from Chestnut Street. After viewing the proposed drawings of the fencework, Mr. Cook felt • that the proposed 6' fence in the front, along the driveway, would be incongruous and would not render any more privacy since there is an existing hedge running along the driveway. The contractor for 1 Chestnut Street added that the neighbor at 5 Chestnut Street would like to extend the shadow—box fence in the rear approximately 100' to his garage. Mr. Lippman made a MOTION to approve the application as submitted with the exception of the 3' high shadow—box fence along the driveway because it was incongruous and did not match the existing architectural design of the lattice—work fence or the building. Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION. All were in favor except Mr. Carr who abstained. Hawthorne Inn As requested at the April 2, 1986 meeting of the Commission, the owners of 18 Washington Square West presented the Commission with revised plans detailing the corner ornamentation on the proposed first—story windows as well as the proposed changes to the existing false door. The latest set of plans include a change of the current south side false door to a multi—paned window with a railing and simplification of the corner trim of the windows. First, Messrs. Cook and Oedel felt that if the proposed windows • were to be approved, their moldings must be equivalent in depth, width and scale to the moldings of existing windows on the other facades. SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 2 April 16, 1986 • Also, the proposed window to replace the false door must harmonize with the other new windows. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the replacement windows on the south facade provided the proportions of the trim duplicate the windows on the west side of the building. Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION. The MOTION carried, but Mr. Lippman felt that the approval of multiple items on an application should not be broken down into separate MOTIONS. Ms. Carol Manley, representing the Hawthorne Inn, presented the Commission with the revised plans detailing the window replacing the false door on the first floor. The idea of bricking in this door was abandoned since matching brick could not be found. The proposed plans include a railing along the bottom of this window, which Mr. Carr felt gave it a second—story look. He suggested that a plain panel be used rather than a railing and that the window be brought forward to be flush with the other windows on this facade. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the application as submitted with the following conditions: 1. that the proposed window to replace the false door be on the same plane as the replacement windows; and 2. that the proposed railings on the first—story windows be • - replaced with a plain panel. Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION because the proposed alterations are similar in design, arrangement and material to the existing features on the building. The MOTION carried, and Mr. Lippman again voiced his opposition to splitting the MOTIONS. Ms. Hilbert was also in agreement with the policy of one MOTION per application. 333 Essex Street Mr. John Beauvais, the owner of 333 Essex Street, has submitted two applications. First, he is requesting a Certificate of Non—Applicability to (1) replace an existing skylight with a new 45" x 45" skylight which will protrude only 5" rather than the existing 16" and (2) the installation of a 3' x 8" diameter section of metal asbestos chimney (painted red/brown to match existing vents and pipes) through the flat section of roof at the rear of the building. Ms. Hilbert informed the Commission that, since the skylight and chimney could not be seen from any location, the changes were not in the Commission' s jurisdiction. Therefore, Mr. Cook made a MOTION to approve the issuance of a Certificate of Non—Applicabiltity. Mr. Oedel seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. Mr. Beauvais also submitted an application for a Certificate of • Appropriateness to repaint his building with the existing colors as well as to replace the existing slate shingles with gray asphalt shingles on SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 3 April 16, 1986 tboth the front and right (west) side hips. Since Mr. Beauvais does not own the entire house, Mr. Carr felt that the Commission could only approve the replacement of the shingles on the west side of the house. Also, since the house was being painted the same colors, a Certificate of Appropriateness was not required for this aspect of the work. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the replacement of shingles on Mr. Beauvais's section of the house contingent on -the receipt of a similar application submitted by the other co—owner. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION. The MOTION carried because the proposed shingles are similar in material and texture to the structures in the surrounding area. 7 Botts Court At the April 2, 1986 meeting of the Commission, Mr. and Mrs. Horwitz had received the Commission' s approval on the concept of installing a 12' x 7z' deep staircase to the rear of their building. The application was tabled because the Horwitz' s did not provide the Commission with drawings of the proposed staircase. Since that time, the Horwitz' s have provided the Commission with the requested drawing. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the application as submitted • because its design and materials are appropriate to the historic character of the building. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. 105 Federal Street An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was submitted by John Verre and Susan Brown requesting the Commission' s approval to stain the body of 105 Federal Street with O.V.T. Solid Stain #0551, Sagebrush, to stain the trim #0548, Aspen Green, and stain the sash and doors #0520, Tile Red. After some discussion, Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the application because the proposed colors are compatible with the historic character of the structure. Mr. Oedel seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. 30 Broad Street The recorded owner of 30 Broad Street, Roland Baker, has requested a Certificate of Non—Applicability to conduct the following: (1) reclapboard the front, east, and west facades with cedar clapboards, same number of inches to the weather as existing; • (2) replace window molding with new molding to duplicate existing; and r SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 4 April 16, 1986 . • (3) stain the body of building with Cabot' s O.V.T Gray Stain with , white trim to match existing. Since the proposed modifications will not result in any visible change, Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve Mr. Baker' s application for a Certificate of Non—Applicability as well as to send Mr. Baker a letter congratulating him on his revised application. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. 28 Chestnut Street An applicaion for a Certificate of Non-Applicability was submitted on behalf of the recorded owner, Ichabod Tucker Trust, to undertake the following work: (1) sandblast and repaint black an iron fence along front of property and add a support strut to match existing two; (2) remove gate at the rear of driveway temporarily; and (3) repaint front of house same color as existing. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the application, but the removal of the gate is subject to replacement of the sameorapproval of an • application for an alternate gate. Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION since the application involved changes not subject to Commission review. The vote carried with Mr. Lippman and Ms. Harris, owners of the property, abstaining. Other Business The Commission has been notified that the owner of 76 Federal Street, Dr. Gordon, is currently reclapboarding his home. The Commission discussed whether or not a letter should be sent requesting the owner to apply for a Certificate of Non—Applicability and decided not to do so. Mr. Carr felt the Commission should adopt as an official policy that property owners seeking to make any exterior changes should apply for either a Certificate of Appropriateness, Hardship, or Non—Applicability. The Commission discussed several options including a mailing informing residents of the new policy, but decided to take no action at this time.They also decided not to adopt Mr. Carr' s recommendation since it merely restated the requirements of Chapter 40C which property owners must follow by law. 256-260 Lafayette Street Ms. Hilbert informed the. Commission that George Belisle has withdrawn as the developer of this property. The new developer, Middlesex Contracting Company, will be appearing before the Board of Appeal on April 30, seeking a variance to allow 3 condominium units at • the Gothic Cottage at 260 Lafayette Street. SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 5 April 16, 1986 • Bowditch School Mr. Carr informed the Commission that the money to finish the Bowditch school landscaping has been placed in a bank account. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION. The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. 6 Respectfully submitted, Elizabe h Newton Clerk of Commission • r SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting May 7, 1986 • A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on May 7, 1986 at One Salem Green at 7:30 p.m. Present were: Ms. Annie Harris, Chairman, Ms. Hilbert, Messrs. Carr, Wolfson, ,Oedel, Slam, Lippman, Zaharis, and Cook. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the April 16, 1986 meeting of the Salem Historical Commission. Mr. Oedel seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. Winter Island Ms. Andrea Fish of the Salem Planning Department came before the Commission with proposed plans for the rehabilitation of Winter Island. The Planning Department requested that the Commission write a letter to the Massachusetts Historical Commission verifying that the proposed alterations would in no way disturb or destroy any of the Island' s historic characteristics. The proposed alterations include the following: a. widening the road from 16' to approximately 201 ; b. replacing tennis court with a playing field; C. constructing a 26 car parking lot behind the barracks building; d. extending a stone path leading up to the fort but not beyond it; e. moving a Fotomat Booth that presently serves as a gatehouse; f. removing some old chicken coop foundations of no historic value; g. creating a concrete floored picnic area surrounded by a trellice-work fence; h. rehabilitating the existing radio shack; i. cleaning the existing moat; j . restoring an existing Powder House by securing what is presently there and adding a new roof and walls; k. constructing a bathhouse with shower stalls and bathrooms; 1. installing bollards along the side of the road; and M. taking erosion control measures along the water' s edge. After presenting all of the proposed alterations, Ms. Fish assured the Commission that work on Fort Pickering would be avoided and that all added utilitieswouldbe underground. She also added that the proposed construction would be supported by an Urban Self-Help Grant from the State. Ms. Harris asked Ms. Fish exactly what were the historic sites on the Island, and Ms. Fish said that they could possibly include the barracks, the hanger and the fort. This will also be determined through funds provided by the State if the City of Salem receives the grant. • Ms. Hilbert was asked what other historic sites may be of concern to the Commission, and she responded that one concern would be .with the archaeology of the site. The proposed digging may unearth some SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 2 May 7, 1986 • significant historical artifacts. Ms., Fish assured Ms. Hilbert that the only digging would be in the areas of the tennis court and the foundation of the old Coast Guard Station which only dates back to 1935. Also, Ms.- Fish added that extreme caution would be taken to salvage any artifacts uncovered through the dig and that they would also avoid the area where there are several large concrete cavities used to store bombs during the war. Mr. Wolfson asked Ms. Fish how the City planned to protect the site from vandals, and Ms. Fish answered that in order to receive the grant, the City will have to present a plan of how the Island will be managed. After some discussion, Mr. Slam made a MOTION to recommend the proposed plan and to write a letter of support to the Massachusetts Historical Commission. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. Local District Operation 115 Federal Street - The owners of 115 Federal Street, Darleen Melis and Irving Ingraham, requested a Certificate of Appropriateness be issued so that they may paint the body of 115 Federal Street Oxline Cement #5393M, the . trim Oxline Bone China #5620W with existing high gloss black shutters. Mr. Lippman made a MOTION to approve the application because the proposed colors are compatible with the historic character of the structure. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. 331-333 Essex Street At the April 16, 1986 meeting of the Commission, Mr. John Beauvais was granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the ,existing slate on both the front and right (west) side hips contingent on the receipt of a similar application submitted by the owner of 331 Essex Street, Mr. Charles Donovan. As requested, Mr. Beauvaus and Mr. Donovan have submitted an application to replace the slate on the entire roof with black asphalt shingles. Mr. Lippman made a MOTION to approve the application as submitted because of the roof' s minimal visibility and the fact that the proposed shingles are similar in material and texture to those on structures in the surrounding area. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. The votewas unanimously in favor. - 335 Essex Street An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was submitted • by the owners of 335 Essex Street, Richard and Susan O'Connell requesting the Commission' s approval to paint the body of the house SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 3 May 7, 1986 • Cabot' s English Ivory #17, the trim Cabot' s Navajo White #72 and the shutters and doors Cabot' s Georgian Brick #HC-50. Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the application because the proposed colors are compatible. with the historic character of the structure. Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. 149 Derby Street An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was submitted by the owners of 149 Derby Street, 149 Derby Street Condominium Trust, requesting the Commission's approval, to paint the trim and rear stairs of their building Cabot' s Colonial Blue and the floor of the porch Cabot' s Pewter Gray. Mr. Cook made a MOTION to approve the application because the proposed colors are compatible with 'the historic character of the structure. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION. Messrs. Carr and Zaharis were opposed. 262 Lafayette Street An application fora Certificate of Appropriateness has been submitted by the owners of 262 Lafayette Street, Mr. Stephen Santry and Mr. Paul Langford, requesting permission to paint the exterior siding and trim as well as to install new 2/2 window units. • The proposed windows would be Marvin units of all wood construction and of the same size and configuration as existing. The new units would have insulated glazing, authentic wood dividing bars, and from all appearances be the same as existing windows. The leaded glass side or top lights at either entranceway, the diamond sash on the first floor, and the leaded top sash at the first floor Laurel Street side would remain as is. The proposed exterior staining would include the body being painted Cabot' s #0567 Dune Grey solid stain with a custom mixed Cabot' s Dune Grey trim. At present, they are also requesting permission to strip the front and rear door and then varnish if it' s in good condition. Otherwise, they plan to reapply for a change in paint color. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the application as submitted because the proposed colors and window replacements are compatible with the historic character of the structure. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. At the last Commission meeting, Messrs Santry and Langford were granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to install one 21" x 27" skylight behind the chimney. At the time, Mr. Santry was unaware of how small the glass would be and is now requesting that a larger skylight be allowed. Since he did not have a specific skylight size in mind, he was • asked to return with another application for a larger skylight. SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 4 May 7, 1986 • 17 Warren Street An application for aCertificate of Non-Applicability was submitted by Ms. Deborah Jackson requesting the Commission's approval to install a 30" x 39" Velux flush mount skylight between two dormers on the main facade as well as to remove a non-conforming fiberglass awning over the front door. i Prior to the meeting, Ms. Hilbert visited the site and found that the proposed skylight would be visible from on Warren Street, therefore, a Certificate of Non-Applicability would not be appropriate in this instances. y After viewing the proposed drawing and several photos of the structure, Messrs. Carr, Zaharis, Oedel and Cook felt that the proposed skylight would be inappropriate for the following reasons: (1) there is too little room between the existing dormers to allow for the harmonious placement of the new feature; (2) since the house is so small, a skylight in the middle of the roof would be aestheically incongrous; and (3) the size of the skylight was such that it would be architecturally inappropriate to a 19th century house. Mr. Oedel suggested that a smaller, old style skylight with a hatch cover approximately 12" x 12" might be appropriate, but Ms. Jackson decided not to consider a smaller skylight. • After some discussion, Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the removal of the fiberglass awning over the front door, but to deny the _ installation of a skylight between the dormers because it would detract from the .historic character of the structure. Mr. Slam seconded the MOTION. Ms. Harris and Mr. Lippman were. opposed to the denial of the entire application. Ms. Jackson informed the Commission that she plans to incorporate the existing porch into her home, changing several windows and asked if the Commission would be willing to assist her in picking out an appropriate design when her architect draws them up. The Commission agreed to do so. 178 Federal Street The owners of 178 Federal Street, Paul and Marin Konstadt, have requested a Certificate of Appropriateness to (1) replace an existing fence along the front of their property with a new fence moved forward to allow for a flower garden and (2) to remove an existing greenhouse foundation or reconstruct the greenhouse on the principle facade. The existing stockade-type fence will be replaced with a 3z' high wooden slat picket fence with 5" square wooden posts. The material would be cedar stained white with black wrought-iron hinges. SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 5 May 7, 1986 • The existing greenhouse base is approximately 32" high and can serve as the foundation of a new greenhouse or be removed depending on the Commission' s recommendation. Since Mr. Konstadt was unable to find a photo of the original greenhouse and since it was a nonconforming structure, the Commission recommended that the base be removed. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the removal of the greenhouse foundation and the installation of a 32' high picket fence in a new location along the front of the property since the fence would be compatible in material and size to the historic character of the house and surrounding area. Mr. Oedel seconded the MOTION. 171 Federal Street An application for a Certificate of Non—Applicability was submitted by Katharyn Faulkner and Deborah Hefernan requesting permission to repaint the body of 171 Federal Street gray with off—white trim and antique blue shutters to match existing. Since the proposed colors will match the existing and will be compatible with the historic character of the building, Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. • 1 Broad Street The architect for One Broad Street, Roger Lang, presented the Commission with detailed plans for the proposed 12 unit residential development previously approved by the Board of Appeal. The developer plans to make the following repairs, contingent upon the Commission' s approval: a. repair and restore all exterior lower slope roof surfaces, flashing, and gutters; b. repair or replace and. repaint all exterior wood trim, including soffits, eaves, and window frames; C. clean and repoint exterior masonry; d. repair existing site features, including perimeter fence, front entrance steps, curbs and walks; and e. preserve and repair all existing wood sash. Proposed exterior changes which also require the Commission' s review include: a. the installation of skylights at turret roofs; • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 6 May 7, 1986 ,• b. the installation of storm windows; C. addition of window wells at grade; d. replacement of existing entrance doors; e. construction of new entrance platform and canopy at rear to accomodate handicapped access lift; and f. site work (paving and landscaping) to accommodate eighteen parking spaces, electrical transformers and heat pump units. After reviewing the proposed plans, the Commission questioned the location of 4 2z' x 3 ' heating/air conditioning pumps located along the front of the property to be screened by evergreen trees.. The Commission was concerned with their visibility and questioned whether or not they could be placed in the rear or on the roof with the other 8 units, but Mr. Lang explained that there wasn' t ample room on the roof or in the rear to meet allrthe requirements for parking and exiting required by the Planning and the Fire Departments. Mr. Carr suggested that the heating elements be depressed, and Mr. Lang responded that he will look into alternative solutions to the placement of the four units and present them at the Commission' s next meeting. Looking at the plans for the proposed landscaping, Ms. Harris • proposed that the Commission,be given jurisdiction over the landscaping, and Mr. Lang agreed. He pointed out that the berm will be altered, leveling the slope to allow for grass maintenance. The proposed window alterations include removing and rehabilitating all windows and then replacing any deteriorated elements as well as installing storm windows to comply with the state's energy codes. The basement level windows will be lowered to allow for ventilation and light. Window wells will be added on all four sides surrounded by black iron fences to preclude anyone from falling in. Mr. Carr voiced some concern over the size and visiblity of the fences and requested that Commission be allowed to visit the site before making any decision on the proposed window wells. Several issues concerning the rehabilitation were discussed at length, including the proposed work on the gutters which will consist of relining the existing copper gutters with EPDM roofing membrane, the installation of a wheelchair lift on the rear facade, the repair and replacement of the lower slate roof slope and the replacement of slate on the upper slope with Supra—Slate (Bangore Black color) , proposed exterior paint colors, and the replacement of existing doors with painted wooden doors with single light glass. Ms. Harris requested that Mr. Lang present the Commission with photos of the original front door, if possible, before making a decision on its replacement. The proposed 8 black metal 3 ' x 5' skylights will be located on two turrets, four on each, approximately 42" in height. The proposed SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 7 May 7, 1986 • skylights will be visible from Summer and Broad Streets as well as from the cemetery. Mr. Lang informed the Commission that the skylights will be the only source of light and ventilation for the turrets and will provide for cross ventilation. Several members of the Commission felt that four skylights were too many on each turret, and Mr. Lang agreed to return with an alternative solution at the next meeting. Mr. Oedel made a MOTION to approve the first section of the application which includes the restoration of the roof, flashing and gutters, the repair or replacement of wood trim, soffits, eaves and window frames, the cleaning and repointing_ of exterior masonty, the preservation of all wood sash, and the repair of the steps, curbs, fence .and walkways. Mr. Slam seconded the MOTION because the proposed restorations are architecturally appropriate according to the Commission' s Design Review Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior' s Standards for Rehabilitation. Several unresolved issues which will be addressed at the next meeting following a site inspection which include: a. the location of the heat/air conditioning units; b. the visibility of the window wells and fencing; c. the door replacements; c. the installation of skylights; d. landscaping; e. the bronze light fixtures; and f. suggestions for exterior paint colors. . Other Business i Annual Preservation Award The Annual Preservation award will be given at the Historic Salem w g > Inc. Dinner on May 15th at Hamilton Hall. Dinner will be served at 6:30 p.m. followed by an award ceremony. Ms. Hilbert presented the Commission with a list of possible candidates for the awards, and each was discussed at length until 5 candidates were selected in following four categories: l CO-WINNERS FOR BEST RESTORATION/RENOVATION Costello, Frattaroli, Gonthier, Red Cross Building, 314 Essex Street - Jessica Bevill Herbert, 95-97 Federal Street BEST NEW CONSTRUCTION IN AN HISTORIC DISTRICT Stephen D. and Ann M. Whittier, 10 River Street BEST AUTHENTIC PERIOD COLOR SCHEME Steven Greogory and Kathy Braton, 141 Federal Street SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 8 May 7, 1986 HONERABLE MENTION FOR REHABILITATION y Lawrence Frej and Constance Vallis, 111 Derby Street/33Turner Street Each recipient will receive a certificate from the Commission. Demolition Delay Ordianance ` The Demolition Delay Ordiance will be before the City Council on May 8th, Messrs. Carr and Oedel were asked to phone members of the Council to voice the Commission' s views on this ordinance. Unapproved sign A large sign has been installed at 407 Essex Street without the Commission' s issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness. Messrs. Oedel and Wolfson feel that the sign is inappropriate due to its size and shape in relation to the building. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to send a letter to the owner requesting that the sign be removed and that he come before the Commission with an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. Mr. Slam and Ms. Harris were opposed. National Park Service — Marina at Derby Wharf • Mr. Carr requested information on the status of the National Park Service' s proposal to have a private developer install a marina at Derby Wharf. He said that the Derby Street Historic District residents would like to be invloved in the planning of the proposed marina. Mr. Slam made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Wolfson seconded the MOTION. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Newton Clerk of Commission • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting May 21, 1986 As Corrected 6/4/86 A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commissionwasheld on May 21, 1986 at One Salem Green at 7:30 p.m. Present were: Mr. Clarke, Vice-Chairman, Ms. Hilbert, Messrs. Zaharis, Wolfson, Carr, Lippman, and Cook. Mr. Lippman made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the May 7, 1986 meeting of the Historical Commission. Mr. Carr seconded MOTION.. The vote was unanimously in favor. Directional Signs in Historic Districts Ms. Hilbert presented the Commission with two sample signs to be placed in 5 locations within the historic districts. One was a directional sign and the other a trolley stop sign. The signs will be placed at the Witch Museum, on the corner of Hawthorne Blvd. and Essex Street, on North Street near Lynde Street, on the corner of North and Essex, and at the House of Seven Gables. These signs will be placed on 7 ' tall galvonized 2" diamter metal posts. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the design of the signs. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. Commission members felt that there was not enough information to approve the location of the signs and it was agreed to table that part • of the discussion to the end of the meeting when a phone call would yield further details. 45 Mason Street As a result of the recently approved Demolition Delay Ordinance, - the Commission has been asked to review the demolition of a concrete block building on 45 Mason Street before the owner can be issued a demolition permit. This structure was part of the Salem oil and Grease Company and was built between 1911-1925. Ms. Hilbert informed the Commission that through her research, she has found no evidence to suggest that this structure has any architectural or historical significance. - As a result of the findings, Mr. Carr made a MOTION to recommend that a demolition permit be issued. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION. Local District Operation 126 Federal Street An Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was submitted by Roger W. Hedstrom requesting the Commission' s approval to conduct the following: •, 1. change existing side door (south) in rear ell to a 6/6 window; SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 2 May 21, 1986 • 2. change existing window on east elevation to 6 panel raised wooden door to be located near existing side door entrance and install pilasters and an entablature; 3. replace existing clapboards on main. and rear facades with cedar, the same number of inches to the weather; 4* remove porch on south (front) facade and replace door with a panel wood door, pilasters and entablature; and 5. add a roof deck. Members of the Commission felt that several of the modifications, especially the removal of the porch on the main facade and the scaling down of the front door, would be improvements to the building. Nevertheless, Mr. Carr felt that the Commission could not approve the roof deck since no detailed plans were presented to illustrate its size, height, material, and visibility from public ways. He also felt that the new doorway on the east facade sho.uldµbe_,;simple r.athan-.the-_fron-t=;doorway because it is a secondary entrance. The Hedstroms agreed to return to the June 4th meeting with more details on the two doorways. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to: -approve the reclapboarding of the house, removal of the south side porch, and replacement of the south side door in the rear • ell with a 6/6 sash. -approve the concept of redesigning the south side (front) door and installing a door on the east side in the location shown on the plans, with doorway detailing to be reviewed at the next meeting. -deny the roof deck because the applicant was unable to produce detailed drawings of the proposed deck. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION because the proposed alterations would be consistent with the general design, materials, and arrangement of the structure. All were in favor except Mr. Cook who abstained. 115 Federal Street . An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was submitted by Darlene Melis and Irving Ingraham of 115 Federal Street. The owners are requesting gutter and portico alterations because the existing portico has rotted as a result of poor gutter drainage. The proposed alterations would include recycling an existing wooden gutter from the main roof to be used as a gutter for the portico, cutting back the rough boards which presently project beyond the finished moldings, providing a new nailing surface to hang the gutter, and providing a molding to make a transition from the existing top cove molding to the gutter underside. The roof slope would also be modified so that water would fall into the gutters, and the gutter downspout is. to be installed at the junction of the portico and the main house. L . _ SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 3 May 21, 1986 iMr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the application as submitted since the proposed alterations would harmonize with the general design and materials of the structure. Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION. 156 Derby Street - Salim Kinslieh and Harriet Leone came before the Commission for a preliminary review of the proposed alterations to 156 Derby Street which they intend to buy. The proposed alterations would include changing an existing sign, approximately 24" x36", to a painted sign labeled "Witch' s Brew Cafe". The Commission felt that the colors of the proposed sign, gray, black, yellow and white, would be appropriate, but suggested that a simpler, less cramped design would be more effective. The owners were asked to return with an exact drawing of the proposed sign for the Commission' s review. Other proposed alterations would include the stripping and natural staining of two facades presently painted green t6 match existing main facade as well as to change the existing front door to a 6 panel door. The new owners also plan to change the existing first floor window to a multi—paned picture window, and the Commission suggested that this window should duplicate the dimensions of the second story window. Other window alterations would include adding a window to the east facade. The Commission suggested that the owners might want to remove • an existing air conditioner and replace it with windows to match the dimensions of the existing second story windows. The final alteration would involve the lighting of the sign and front entrance. The owners felt that a flood light to light the sign and a lantern over the front door would be appropriate. Several lighting suggestions were provided to Ms. Leone and Mr. Kinslieh who agreed to return at a future meeting _ with detailed plans for lighting as well as other proposed alterations. 45 Warren Street - An Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was submitted by Gordon Bownell of 45 Warren Street to conduct the following: 1 . remove an existing corner door and surrounding windows (west) on the rear facade and replace it with two windows; 2. install 6' patio doors with a fan window on the south facade; 3. replace a porch with a stairway and deck connecting to an existing walkway with a railing to match existing; and 4. install an oval window on east facade. After discussing the proposed al-terations, Mr. Carr felt that Mr. Brownell should present the Commission with elevations of the proposed • stairway and platform to determine exactly what is proposed and its visibility from public ways. SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 4 May 21 , 1986 • Mr. Carr made a MOTION to table the application until Mr. Brownell is able to present the Commission with detailed elevations of the proposed porch and stairway. Mr. Wolfson seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimous. Mr. Brownell had also submitted an Application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability to paint the house white with black shutters and doors to match the existing. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the application as submitted since the Commission has no jurisdiction if existing colors are being duplicated. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimous. One Broad Street Mr. Roger Lang, the architect designing the alterations for One Broad. Street, came before the Commission to discuss several unresolved issues from the May 7th meeting of the Commission. First, at the last meeting of the Commission, several members were concerned with the location of four heat pumps to be placed in the west corner in front of the building. Mr. Lang has come up with an alternative solution to place these four heat pumps on the flat roof along with 8 other pumps. Ms. Hilbert suggested that a fence be placed • around the units, but Mr. Lang explained that the units would be placed back 5' and that the Secretary of Interior' s Standards for Rehabilitation may be violated since it would be adding another new element to the building. The only visible view of the proposed pumps would be from the cemetery at the rear of One Broad Street. Second, the Commission had asked Mr. Lang to conduct research in an attempt to find information on the original front doors to One Broad Street. Mr. Lang was able to determine that the original front doors were 4 panel solid wood doors which were in-swinging, but were removed and new doors placed in their present location. Mr. Lang felt that in-swinging doors may not be appropriate because all buildings with a specific number of residents must have out-swinging doors. The - - Commission felt that, if possible by code, doors to match the original placed back 3'6" would be appropriate. Mr. Lang agreed to investigate this possibility. Third, the unresolved issue regarding the eight 5" Roto skylights to be placed around two turrets was discussed at , length. Mr. Carr felt that two skylights would provide ample lighting, but Mr. Lang felt that the addition of four skylights would have a minimal impact and would validate the use of this space. Since a resolution to this issue could not be found, Mr. Lang agreed to return at the next meeting to discuss the issue further. • • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 5 May 21 , 1986 Fourth, the proposed color scheme presented by Mr. Lang would include the following: Group/Area Element Proposed Colors Roof Tower & Turret Trim Downing Straw Panel Trim Rookwood Dark Brown Cornice Downing Straw Eave Soffits Downing Straw Dentil Brackets Rookwood Dark Brown Metal Ventilator Rookwood Dark Brown Walls Window Head Brackets Downing Cream Downspouts Rookwood Medium Brown Wall Louvers Brick Red Fenestration Window Sash Rookwood Medium Brown Window frames Rookwood Medium Brown Storm windows Anodized Bronze Door frames Rookwood Dark Brown Doors Rookwood Medium Brown • Metalwork Fence Black Railings Black Bollards and chains Black Accessories Canopy Downing Cream and Yellow Site lights Anodized Bronze All colors sited are from Sherman Williams "Heritage Series". Fifth, the rear entrance of the structure would include a concrete pad with a stairway on one side and a wheelchair lift on the other. Over this platform would be a yellow and white striped fabric canopy. The proposed rear door would be a wooden framed door with a large vision panel for disabled occupants or visitors. Mr. Wolfson suggested that the fabric canopy be a- darker shade so it' s not such a drastic contrast from the rest of the building. Mr. Lang agreed that the striped canopy gave the building a resort—like look and agreed to return with an alternative color scheme. Sixth, the proposed window wells for the basement level were once again discussed at length. Mr. Carr questioned whether there could be an alternative solution to the wells since they were visible from the street. Mr. Lang explained that since the basement would have a • residential use, there must be a means of egress other than the one door. SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 6 May 21, 1986 • This would mean using a window as an egress, and therefore, would require lowering and a window well to allow easy access. Mr. Lang would also have to -install small fences around the wells to prevent anyone from falling in. And finally, the proposed roof alterations would include the repair of slate on the lower slope and the installation of synthetic Supra Slate on the upper slope. Mr. Cook made a MOTION to approve the application as revised for tonight ' s meeting, including the concept of the front door, the specifics of which would be approved later.. There was no second for the MOTION. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the following: 1 . the installation of 12 heat pumps on the roof; 2. the painting of the exterior of the building the "Sherman Williams "Heritage Series" colors stated above; 3. a glass rear door with a wooden frame; • 4. 2'6" window wells surrounded by iron fences; 5. Supra Slate installed on the upper slope of the roof; 6. the installation of a concrete platform in the rear of the building; and 7. the concept of installing a solid wood recessed front door. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION because the proposed alterations are architecturally appropriate according to the. Commission' s Design Review Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior' s Standards for Rehabilitation. The vote was unanimously in favor. Since several issues regarding the proposed skylights, awning color and shape, and the front door were deferred to the next meeting, Mr. Lang was concerned that he may not receive a building permit from the Building Inspector. Therefore, Mr. Carr made a MOTION that in the event that Mr. Lang is not issued a building permit, the Building Inspector should be notified that the Commission feels Charing Cross should be allowed to proceed on all issues approved tonight. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimous. Directional Signs, Disucussion Reopened . Commission members realized that they did not have as much information as they would like to adequately review the location of the signs but made the following suggestions. SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 7 May 21, 1986 The sign to be place across the street from the Witch House should be at least 25 yards from the right turn onto Summer Street and should be facing travelers coming into the downtown area from Highland Avenue, the sign on North Street should be placed in front of the Elk' s, and the sign at the corner of Hawthorne and Essex should be placed at the end of an existing brick wall in front of the Stafford House. Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION. The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elizabet Newton Clerk of Commission SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting June 4, 1986 As Amended July 2, 1986 A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on June 4, 1986 at One Salem Green at 7:30 p.m. Present were: Ms. Harris, .. Chairman," Ms. Hilbert, and Messrs. Zaharis, Carr, Clarke, Wolfson, Slam, and Lippman. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to amend the minutes of the May 21 , 1986 meeting so they would state that theCommissionreserved approval on the front (south) and side (east) doors of 126 Federal Street until detailed plans could be presented at the June 4, 1986 meeting of the Commission. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. Mr. Zaharis also made a MOTION to amend the minutes of June 4, 1986 meeting stating that the word "made" was to be removed from page 6 so the statement would read "Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION." Mr. Carr seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. 126 Federal Street At the May 21 , 1986 meeting of the Historical Commission, the owner of 126 Federal Street, Mr. Roger Hedstrom, was asked to return with detailed drawings of the proposed south side (front) and east side door replacements since adequate drawings were not available to evaluate these alterations. Mr. Hedstrom presented the Commission with a drawing • of the proposed front (south) doorway which he felt would be appropriate to a Georgian house (although the proposed doorway is actually Federal in characterter) . The entrance would have a 6 panel wooden door with fluted pilasters, fanlight , and entablature similar to existing houses at 151 Federal Street and 81 Essex Street. The east side doorway would be similar in design except that there will be no fanlight , the pilasters would be plain, and the entablature would be lowered 12"-15". Mr. Carr felt that replacing the existing door with a replica of an earlier door would not be within the Commission' s guidelines since it , would not preserve the evolutionary details of the structure. Nevertheless, Ms. Harris and Mr. Clarke felt that the proposed replica would be historically appropriate. Mr. Clarke voiced some concern over the 6 ' width of the existing front doorway and suggested that a smaller door be used with pilasters . no larger than 10". , Ms. Harris questioned whether the previously approved porch removal - would involve the addition of wooden and granite steps, and Mr. Hedstrom responded that when the porch is removed, he will determine whether they will have to be replaced with granite or not. Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the drawing and the application as submitted because the proposed doorway alterations would be consistent with the general design, materials and arrangement of the • structure. Mr. Wolfson seconded the MOTION. The vote carried with only Mr. Carr in opposition. SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 2 June 4, 1986 • Mr. Clarke made a MOTION to amend the MOTION to include that the main entrance (south) be installed with a minimum of 3" on the right and left side to allow for corner boards on both sides of the doorway. Mr. Slam seconded the MOTION since the spacing on both sides of the doorway would harmonize with the general design of the structure. All were in favor except Mr. Lippman who was opposed. It was agreed that if there was not 'adequate width to allow for 3" ' on either side of the doorway, Mr. Hedstrom would return to the Commission with a revised design. 45 Warren Street Mr. Gordon Brownell, recorded owner of 45 Warren. Street, had* � submitted an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness at the May ' 21 ,1986 meeting to (1) install a Brosco,OVB-5 oval window in the bay on the street facade; (2) remove a door and two windows on west facade to be replaced with two 6/6 windows to match existing; and (3) remove a portion of fencing at rear ell on west facade. Since detailed plans of the proposed alterations were not presented at the. May 21 , 1986 meeting, Mr. Brownell was asked to return. After viewing the proposed location of the alterations, Ms. Hilbert determined that the alterations would be visible from a public way, therefore, they were within the Commission' s jurisdiction. • After a discussion of the proposed changes and modifications to the drawings of the proposed windows so they would be in scale, Mr. Lippman made a MOTION to approve the application as submitted since the proposed alterations would be consistent with the general design, materials and arrangement of the structure. Mr. Slam seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. 2 Broad Street Mr. Philip Burke, the owner of 2 Broad Street, submitted an - Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install. a 16 ' x 12 ' roof top deck extending from the back of an existing chimney to the rear of the building. . Since the proposed deck would be placed along the edge of the building, it would be visible from Summer Street and would not be historically appropriate for the district. Therefore, Mr. Clarke suggested that the deck be set back 3-5 ' so that the railing of the deck is not vivible from a public way. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve Mr. Burke' s application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability to install a roof top deck provided that the deck and its railing are not visible from a public way in the historic district in any season of the year. Mr. Slam seconded the MOTION since the proposed construction was not within the Commission's jurisdiction. The vote was unanimously in favor. SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 3 June 4, 1986 • 76 Federal Street Dr. Gregory Gordon submitted an Application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability to .install a second story deck on the rear ell facing Bridge Street with access through a proposed new second story door. The dimensions of the deck would be 16 '4" wide x 8' deep with a railing consisting of 1 3/8" square fir balusters placed 6" on center, with a , standard 2" x 4" railing cap, and corner posts. The railing would be 42" high. Prior to tonight' s meeting, it was believed that the proposed deck would not be visible from a historic district, but after reviewing the . legal description of the historic district' s boundaries from the McIntire Historic District Ordinance, it was discovered that the map which had been used to determine district boundaries was drawn incorrectly. Therefore, Dr.- Gordon was informed that he would have to receive a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct the proposed deck. Mr. Carr felt that since the deck would be seen when entering the McIntire Historic tDistrict it would not read" as a historically " - appropriate addition and furthermore if!a stairway were added, it wbul.d disrupt the facade. Dr. Gordon responded that the fence would be barely visible since it would be surrounded by a 6 ' fence. � r p Mr. Clarke suggested that the deck be scaled 'down to 6' wide rather than 8' and be brought in 1 ' on- each side making the width 14' rather than 16 '4". Mr. Slam made a MOTION to issue a Certificate of Appropriate to Dr. Gordon to install a second story deck on the rear ell with one accessway , with the following conditions: 1 . the dimension are to be no more than 14' wide by 6 ' deep; 2. no stairway leading to the deck is ever to be installed; 3 . the door to be installed should be a 6 panel wood M100 Brosco door or equivolent; and 4. the deck is to be supported by 11 '6" tall posts. Mr. Clarke seconded the MOTION since the proposed construction would be compatible in design and material to the structure. All were - in favor except Mr. Carr who was opposed. 172 River Street An. Applicati.on for a Certificate of .Appropriateness to change paint colors was submitted by the owner, of 172 River Street, Mr. J. Frederick Bush. The proposed color changes would .involve painting the body of the • house Benjamin Moore' s Sherwood Green, the window casings, trim, SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 4 June 4, 1986 . cornerboards, fascias and soffits to be painted white, and the main. doorway to be painted Benjamin Moore' s Clinton Brown. Present at the meeting was Mrs. Lorraine J. Gadala owner of 15z River Street who voiced her opposition to the proposed colors since she .felt the green was much too bright and not historically appropriate. Mr. Carr requested that the meeting be closed to the public so that Commission members could discuss the issue amongst themselves. Ms. Harris suggested that Mr. Bush tone down the color by mixing it with a darker shade of green. Mr. Bush agreed to do so and will contact the Commission when he has had a chance to paint a sample patch for the Commission' s review. No vote on the application was taken at this meeting. 3 Broad Street A representative from .EOCD, Mr. Paul McHartl.and, and Mr. Alex Cvijanovic from The Architects' Collaborative came before the Commission to present the Salem Housing Authority' s proposed plans for the Oliver School. The Salem Housing Authority had come before the Commission on March 5, 1986 and received conceptual approval on several proposed alterations including the removal of fire escapes, the installation of a porch, and several other changes. One issue which was not approved at the March 5th meeting involved the lowering of several windows to allow • — the elderly to operate the windows easily. After a reading of the March 5, 1986 minutes of the meeting at the request of Mr. Carr, Mr. Cuijanovic presented the Housing Authority' s proposed plans for altering the windows at 3 Broad Street. The Authority has now decided to leave the window size as is and raise the floor approximately 4" by placing flooring on top of the existing. Also, they plan to change the paning of the windows to 9/6, lowering the meeting rail by 1/3 to allow the elderly to operate the windows. Mr. . Cvijanovic felt that the proposed windows with 9 panes in a fixed upper sash and 6 panes in an operable lower sash would be more historically appropriate than the existing. Since the Authority would only like the Commission' s conceptual approval, no drawings were presented. Ms. Harris explained that since the Authority needed the Massachusetts Historical Commission' s approval, it may be in their best interest to acquire old photos of 9/6 windows within the McIntire Historic District, to have drawings of the proposed windows, and to call the Massachusetts Historical Commission regarding the issue. Once the MHC has given its approval, the Salem Historical Commission can make their final recommendations and vote on the proposed alterations. Mr. Cvijanovic agreed to do so, but would like to be scheduled on the next meeting's agenda to present the Commission with detailed plans on proposed porch and door altertions. The Commission agreed to review the plans at the next meeting on June 18, 1986. • I . SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 5 June 4, 1986 10 Summer Street ' , An Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was submitted by Mr. Frederick Small requesting Commission approval to (1) install aluminum columns on front portico; (2) install clapboards on the lower slope of gambrell in rear ell; and (3) stain body of house Moorwood Alaska White, trim Moorwood Sandpiper, and doors and shutters Moorwood Country Redwood. Mr. Small had come before the Commission several months ago and received approval to construct a gambrel. roof addition, recl.apboard all facades, install replacement 6/6 wooden windows, and stain the exterior of the building Blue Rock (California Solid Stain) with Sherwin Williams Colonial Revival Ivory paint on the trim. Since that time, Mr. Small has made several alterations such as removing a portico and installing new windows without receiving a Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. Carr suggested several options the Commission could take to rectify the situation which included requesting a Stop Work Order issued by the Building Inspector. Mr. Carr then made a MOTION to send Mr. Small a letter stating that he should attend the Commission' s next meeting on June 18th to explain the work. that is presently being done in order to receive a Certificate of Appropriateness .or he will be faced with a fine or a Stop Work Order. It is also to be stated that any work which is done prior to the receipt of this letter will be done at the owner' s own risk, and any interior changes cannot. be used as justification for external changes that would be historically appropriate. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. Mr. Lippman then objected to the threat of a Stop Work Order as a punishment for past work since the work about to be done may in fact be appropriate. He felt that instead a warning should be issued that inappropriate work may have to be reversed. Mr. Carr agreed ,to amend his MOTION to reflect Mr. Lippman' s statement. Mr. Zaharis seconded the amendment. Mr. Carr maae a MOTION to deny the installation of aluminum columns and clapboarding on the gambrel roof of the rear ell because the proposed alterations would not be historically appropriate and would not blend well with the existing design and material of the building, and secondly to defer voting on the paint colors until the next meeting. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. 91-93 Federal Street An Application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability was submitted by the owners of 91-93 Federal Street, Jean and Lance Arlander, requesting Commission approval to: 1 . replace clapboards on east and west facades same number of inches to the weather as existing with gray opaque stain also to match •, existing; SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 6 June 4, 1986 • 2. replace window casings as necessary, including moldings to duplicate existing; and 3. replace existing storm windows on east facade with new windows to match existing front facade windows. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the application as submitted + since all proposed changes would match existing, and therefore, would not be within the Commission' s jurisdiction. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. 9 Warren Street An Application for a Certificate of Non—Applicability was submitted by John and Jean' F1ynn of '9_ Warren Street requesting permission to: 1 . replace.a stockade fence along' rear of car port to match existing as closely as possible; 2. replace a picket fence along the side of car port to match existing; and 3 . replace roof shingles to match existing. After some discussion on whether or not the scollops would be removed from the stockade fence, Mr. Lippman made a MOTION to approve the application for the replacement of- thestockade fence (either scalloped or not) , the picket fence and the roof shingles (both to match existing) . Mr. Clarke seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. Other Business National. Register Properties Ms. Hilbert presented the Commission with a list of several sites which the Planning Department indeded to recommend as eligible for listing in the National Register. Ms. Hilbert informed the Commission that the list is due at the Massachusetts Historical Commission on June 12, 1986 and any additions should be submitted to her before that date. Regarding the proposed South Salem National Register District, Mr. Lippman suggested that the boundaries should include the north end of Linden Street and the east side of Lafayette Street down to West Street as buffer areas. Mr. Zaharis felt that Forest River Park should be included in the South Salem district so that funds might be available for Pioneer Village restorations. Salem Common Neighborhood Association Meeting . Recently at a Salem Common Neighborhood Association meeting, Mr. Slam had asked Ms. Hilbert and Ms. Harris to speak to the neighbors SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 7 June 4, 1986 about historic districts. He voiced some concern over Ms. Hilbert informing the neighbors of the possibility of creating a Neighborhood Conservation District.. Mr. Slam felt that since he was not sure whether the Commission endorsed the .concept of Neighborhood Conservation Districts, the subject should not have been introduced. Ms. Hilbert explained that since she was asked to speak about historic districts, she took that to mean historic districts in general and not specifically local historic districts. The Commission agreed to discuss the issue of Neighborhood Conservation Districts at a future meeting. SHC Dinner Mr. Carr requested that the Commission set up an annual dinner at which policy and procedures could be discussed. Ms. Harris was asked to schedule such a dinner. itPossible Violations Mr. Carr informed the Commission that the Bramble property at 102 Federal Street was for sale. Since the Commission had requested a fence be replaced at the property and it had not yet been done, he suggested that the Assistant City Solictor be contacted and asked to put a lien on the building until the work can be done. Also, Mr. Carr suggested that Mr. Copelas' Certificate of Appropriateness requiring him to remove asbestos shingles and paint the back side of his building at 17 Beckford Street within two years be recorded at the Registry of Deeds. And finally, Mr. Carr suggested that the developers of One Broad Street be contacted regarding the possible use of one large skylight rather than several small ones and secondly request the relocation of the wheel chair lift. Future Agenda Items Several issues were discussed including the Commission' s recommendations on the usage of satellite dishes, possible candidates for Vice—Chairman, and finally the specific guideline on the issuance of a Certificate of Non—Applicability. Ms. Hilbert and Mr. Carr were asked to review Section 8 of Chapter 40C in an attempt to clarify the specific. ,. requirement for the issuance of such a certificate. Mr. Clarke made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Slam seconded the MOTION. The meeting adjourned at 10:15• p.m. Respectfully submitted, f Y a � Elizabeth Newton Clerk of Commission SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting June 18, 1986 • A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on June 18, 1986 at One Salem Green at 7:30 p.m. Present were: Mr. Clarke, Vice—Chairman, who chaired the meeting in the absence of Ms. Harris, Ms. Hilbert, Messrs. Zaharis, Lippman, Oedel, Cook, and Carr. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to defer approval of the minutes of the June 4th meeting until the July 2nd meeting of the Commmission. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. Local District Operation 10 Summer Street At the June 4th meeting of the Commission, Mr. Frederick Small had applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness to paint the exterior or 10 Summer Street Alaskan White with Sandpiper trim and Country Redwood doors and shutters, to install aluminum columns on the front portico and clapboard the lower slope of the gambrel on the rear ell. The installation of aluminum columns on the front portico and the clapboarding on the rear gambrell was denied because the Commission found that the materials would be incongruous to the historic aspects and architectural characteristics of the building. The issue of paint colors was deferred until the owner, Mr. Small, could be notified to • attend the meeting to explain work that had been done without Commission approval. It was also determined .at the June 4th meeting of the Commission that a letter should be sent to Mr. Small stating that any further work done on the building without Commission approval would be done at the owner' s own risk. As a result, Mr. Bob Walker, supervisor of the construction project at 10 Summer Street, came before the Commission to discuss the reconstruction of the building. Ms. Hilbert informed the Commission that in October of 1985, it had approved the removal of aluminum siding, replacement of windows to match existing, the construction of a 3rd story gambrel—roofed addition, and paint colors. Since that time, the owner has made several alteration without Commission review. These issues were discussed at length by the Commission. First, Mr. Carr pointed out, that on the north facade, one window on the third floor had been studded for support and then blocked, and a second story window had been relocated. Upon Mr. Carr' s suggestion, Mr. Walker assured the Commission that a smaller third story window would be installed in the second bay to restore symmetry, provided the internal arrangement allowed for the placement of such a window (a chimney may be in the way) . Second, the Commission has become aware that the present portico does not match the original. Mr. Walker informed the Commission that the carpenter did not follow the plans exactly, but that he would modify the portico to match the original. SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 2 June 18, 1986 • Third, Mr. Carr pointed out that the bay window above the portico had different dimensions than the original. Mr. Walker explained that a piece of plywood had been placed over the window for protective purposes only. Fourth, the front wall had been straightened in order to make the structure plumb resulting in a 9" reveal for the water table. Mr. Clarke informed Mr. Walker that before such action, the building should have been raised, stabilized, and secured. The wall then might not have been exactly plumb, but it would be structurally sound, avoiding the water table problem. Mr. Walker informed the Commission that he had found wooden columns (rounded) and dentils to match the existing, and asked the Commission' s recommendation on the color mortar to be used on the chimney. It was suggested that to match the existing would be appropriate, and Ms. Hilbert informed him that the mortar shoud have a high lime content to be softer than the bricks; Portland Cement would be inappropriate. Mr. Walker also asked for the Commission' s recommendation on window molding and entryways. Mr. Carr suggested that Mr. Walker look at several photos at the Essex Institute or Mr. Kimball' s book on McIntire in order to find moldings and entryways to duplicate. Mr. Carr also • suggested that 1 3/4" molding around the windows might be appropriate. Mr. Walker asked the Commission' s consensus on bathroom and dryer vents, and the Commission suggested that they should be be tucked behind the chimney or vented through the roof. Mr. Walker added that 6 out of 12 have already been vented through the roof and that he will do the same with the remaining 6. After discussing each unresolved issue, Mr. Clarke offered to visit the site to offer any technical assistance the contractor might need. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to (1) defer action on the front wall pending Mr. Clarke' s meeting with the owner' s crew, and (2) approve the changes in the fenestration of the north facade and the installation of a 3rd story window in the second bay to line up with the existing. This approval is conditional on the installation of the third floor window. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION because the .proposed alteration would be consistent with the historic character of the building. The vote was unanimously in favor. The Commission also agreed that it should be stated on the certificate that the cornice treatment match the original and that the fascias and soffits have a crown molding. Mr. Lippman made a MOTION to approve the proposed paint colors, Benjamin Moore Alaskan White body, Sandpiper trim, and Country Redwood doors and shutters because the colors would be appropriate to the • historic character of the building. The vote was 4 to 2 with Messrs. SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 3 June 18, 1986 • Carr and Clarke opposed. Mr. Clarke added that his opposition was a result of not wanting to vote on an application which has several unresolved issues. 361 Essex Street An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Robert Alexander of 361 Essex Street to replace an existing fence with a new flat board fence approximately 5' high toward the front of the property and approximately 6' tall towards the rear. The proposed fence will slope down to meet the fence post along the Essex Street side. Mr. Carr suggested that the fence not be sloped, but rather drop straight down to meet the post. Mr. Alexander agreed. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the application as modified June 18th stating that the first section of fencing be approximately 5' in height as shown on straight red line on plans dated June 13 , 1986 so as to meet the post on the sidewalk and the height of the remaining fencing be approximately 6' in height. Mr Oedel seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. • Mr. Lippman made a MOTIONtoallow the applicant the option to jog the fence so that it would have a straight run of 6' right up to the post. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. The MOTION was denied. Messrs. Lippman and Zaharis voted in favor; Messrs. Cook, Clarke, Carr and Oedelvotedagainst. 180 Derby Street Mr. Ralph Hobbs submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness on behalf of the Brookhouse Home for Women at 180 Derby Street to replace the existing slate roof with asphalt shingles. Mr.. Carr suggested that Supra Slate may beusedinstead of slate or asphalt after verifying cost of whole roof replacement, and Mr. Oedel was of the opinion that slate would be a better long term solution. Several - options were offered including replacing only those sections in need of repair, and Mr. Hobbs agreed to get a second opinion as to whether or not the entire roof needs replacing. At such time as Mr. •Hobbs is able to determine how much of the roof needs repair, he will return to the Commission for final approval. 156 Derby Street The intended purchasers of 156 Derby Street , Salim Kinslieh and. Harriet Leone, came before the Commission requesting approval on window, door and signage alterations. • Ms. Leone presented the Commission with an example of the proposed sign labeled Witch' s Brew Cafe. Ms. Leone was. unable to give the Commission a specific size and will have to get information SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 4 June 18, 1956 • regarding overhanging signs from the sign ordinance and the Building Inspector. It was the consensus of the Commission that the proposed design of the sign was appropriate. The proposed window alteration would entail the installation of a multi—paned window on the main facade whose dimensions would match the existing three second story windows. After some discussion on the replacement of the proposed window in relation to the door, Mr. Kinslieh and Ms. Leone were asked to return with plans drawn to scale so that the Commission could make a final decision. After discussing possible door replacements, it was determined that an appropriate door would be a 6 panel Brosco wooden door (M1OO). Mr. Carr made a MOTION that it is the consensus of the Commission that specific drawings of the proposed multi—paned window be prepared by an architect and presented at a future meeting for approval. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in. favor. Mr. Kinslieh and Ms. Leone were asked to return with specific details on -the size of the sign, the type of hanging aparatus to be used, the lighting of the sign, the location of the front window, and any other proposed changes. At this point, Mr. Lippman left the meeting. • 116 Federal Street An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was submitted by James Bailey of 116 Federal Street to conduct the following: 1. replace an existing skylight with a flat velux skylight; 2. install a second skylight on the rear of the building; 3. replace existing roof shingles with black asphalt shingles to match existing; 4. replace clapboards on main facade as well as repair clapboards on other facades as needed; 5. replace sashes as needed; and 6. paint exterior with Salem Paint ' s Bayleaf Green with French Gray trim. After reviewing the application, Mr. Carr asked Ms. Hilbert to read the regulations on the addition of skylights. The regulations stated that skylights are to be placed as inconspicuously as possible, and as a result, Messrs. Zaharis and Carr felt that the addition of a second • skylight would be conspicuous. • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 5 . June 18, 1986 Mr. Clarke offered Mr. Bailey some suggestions on the door alterations including removing the bottom panel and restoring the 7 panel door or having one custom made. Mr. Bailey agreed to. look into the matter when a representative from M & M Window visits the site. After discussing each item on the application, Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve: — the painting of the house with a flat Bayleaf Green stain on the body and French Gray paint on the trim; — the reclapboarding of the main facade and repair of clapboarding on all other surfaces; — the reroofing with black asphalt shingles; To defer action on the proposed door or approve the duplication of the existing door; and To deny the installation of a second skylight on the rear roof. Mr: Zaharis seconded the MOTION because the proposed alterations would be consistent in design and material to the structure. On the • vote Messrs. Carr and Zaharis were in favor with Messrs. Cook, Oedel and Clarke opposition. Mr. Cook made a MOTION to amend the previous MOTION to include the installation of a second skylight because it would be of minimal impact. Mr. Oedel seconded the MOTION. A vote was taken with Messrs. Cook, Oedel, and Clarke in favor and MEFssrs. Carr and Zaharis were in opposition. After the vote was taken, Mr. Bailey asked the Commission' s approval to replace shutters on the main facade which had been removed some time ago. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to amend the previous MOTION to allow the applicant to install wooden shutters on each window of the main facade withtheslats facing up when the shutters are open and the color to be deferred until Mr. Bailey has chosen a color. Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION. Since Mr. Bailey was unable to state which shutters would be repaired and which replaced, Mr. Carr withdrew his MOTION until such time that Mr. Bailey can determine his exact plans for the shutters. 253 Lafayette Street An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was submitted by Charles McManus, Jr. requesting Commission approval to replace 2 existing basement sashes on the north side of the buildingandto add a • third window between these two. Mr. Carr objected-to the new window because it gave the appearance that the basement was being used as living space which was not its SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 6 June 18, 1986 historic function. Mr. Clarke felt he could accept a third window provided the three windows did not line up in a row. Mr. Oedel felt a third window symmetrically placed would be alright. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to deny the proposed window alterations because they gave the appearance of a historically inappropriate use. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. All were in favor except Mr. Cook who was opposed. 26 Beckford Street At the April 2, 1986 meeting of the Salem Historical Commission, Mr. Edgar Hasting Allard, owner of 26 Beckford Street, received Commission approval to replace several windows to match existing and paint the house Cordovan Brown with Driftwood Gray trim. Since that time, Mr. Allard has also installed two shutters on the street facade painted Essex Green. He is now requesting Commission approval on these two items. Mr. Oedel made a MOTION to approve the application as amended since the paint colors would be consistent with the historic character of the structure. Mr. Carr seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. 172 River Street At the June 4th meeting of the Commission, Mr. J. Frederick Bush had presented an application to paint the exterior of 172 River Street Sherwood Green. The Commission had suggested that the color was too bright and Mr. Bush agreed to mix a new paint sample for Commission review. Before the June 18th meeting, he called Ms. Hilbert to have her ask Commission members to actually look at the Sherwood Green color on the site to see how they felt about it. Mr. Carr presented the Commission with letters of opposition from the owners of 12 Lynn Street, 4, 7 and 152 River Street which Mr. Oedel requested be entered into the record. Members mentioned that they had in fact gone out to see the color on the building. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to deny the application because of neighborhood opposition and the color was felt to be inappropriate. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. The MOTION was unanimously in favor. Other Business China Square Partnership A representative from the China Square Partnership, Mr. Michael Padnos, came before the Commission requesting permission to demolish structures behind the Peabody Block and the Post Office Building at 118-128 Washington Street, including 247 Essex Street, and two structures on Barton Square. SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 7 June 18, 1986 Mr. Padnos outlined the proposed condominium development which would involve adding a story on an existing building, an undreground parking facility, and constructiion of new and infill buidings. After reviewing the Demolition Delay Ordinance, Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the proposed demolition and waive the waiting period. Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. Ancient Way An archaeological stud revealed an Ancient Way at the Fafard g Y Project on First Street off Highland Avenue. The Planning Department. _ has requested that this way be preserved an marked, and therefore, Ron Killian, Planning and Land Use Coordinator for Fafard would like the Commission' s input on a marking system for this path. Six signs were proposed at different locations on the site. Ms. Hilbert put together a statement for the proposed signage which states, "This sign marks the course of the Ancient Way, a former Indian trail later used as a colonial road. From •1626 to 1666, the Ancient Way was the only overland route for colonists travelling between Salem and Marblehead. Mr. Carr added that the signage should include a drawing of how the trail relates to the site and a second drawing illustrating how the site relates to Salem. Mr. Oedel felt that the signs should be made of bronze or brass and the drawings should be an overlay. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to endorse the concept of the signs as worded, the location as proposed, the height to be eye level, and to strongly recommend that the sign be approximately 18" x 24" and the design to include two maps. One map would illustrate how the trail overlaps with the roadway and a second map would illustrate how the trail relates to Salem and Marbleheadld Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. All were in favor except Mr. Cook who was opposed. Putnam-Balch House - It has come to the Commission' s attention that the Putnam-Balch House at 329 Essex Street is being sold and converted into 3 condominium units. Therefore, Mr. Carr made a MOTION to notify the new owners by letter of the Commission' s guidelines and jurisdiction. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. Mr Zaharis made a MOTION that a similar letter be sent to the new owners of the Cabot House at 365 Essex Street since it has recently been sold. Mr. Carr seconded the MOTION. Mr. Cook made MOTION to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Res ectfully submitted, Elizabet Newton Clerk of Commission SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting July 2, 1986 A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission-was held on Wednesday, July 2, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. Present were: Ms. Harris, Chairman, Ms. Hilbert, Messrs. Lippman, Zaharis, Carr, Cook, Wolfson, and Oedel. Local District Operation 33 Bridge Street — A request to demolish a structure at 33 Bridge . Street was submitted by Mr. Michael Gianelli. Mr. Gianelli is also the owner of the adjacent building at 33A Bridge St. , where his business is located, and feels that the structure at 33 Bridge is a safety hazard. . Ms. Hilbert and Salem' s Assistant Building Inspector, Mr. 'Ed Paquin visited the site and Mr. Paquin determined that the building was not a health and safety hazard. Ms. Hilbert informed the Commission that the. structure was not an eligible National Register building and it was not in a National Register District. Since the structure has no historic significance, Mr. Carr made a MOTION to waive the demolition delay .period and recommend that a demolition permit be issued. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. A vote was taken in which all were in favor except Ms. Harris and Mr. Cook who were opposed. 172 River Street — Mr. Frederick Bush submitted a revised application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to paint 172 River Street a custom mixed dark green, with white trim and a Benjamin Moore • Clinton Brown door. The applicant had previously come before the Commission for approval to paint the body of the structure Benjamin Moore' s Sherwood Green, but was denied a Certificate 'because the ._ Commission felt that'the proposed color would be incongruous to the historic and architectural characteristics of the building and several neighbors were opposed to the color. Since that time, Mr. Bush has mixed darker shade of green and has placed a. test patch. for review on the west side of the building facing Lynn Street. Mr. Cook made a MOTION to approve the revised application as submitted. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION. During discussion, Ms. Harris suggested that the entire entryway be green to match the body color rather than being entirely white. Mr. Lippman made a MOTION to amend the MOTION to include the entryway painted green to match the body .with white trim. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to amend the MOTION to extend the abutters to include all homeowners on River Street and those homeowners on Andover Street north of Lynn Street. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION. A vote was taken on the proposed amendments to the MOTION with all in favor except Messrs. Cook and Zaharis who were opposed. A vote was taken on the original MOTION with all. in favor except Mr. Wolfson who abstained. One Broad Street — Mr. Roger Lang, the architect for Charing Cross Corporation, came before the Commission to seek approval for the front entranceway, eight skylights, and a rear canopy. SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION -2- July 2, 1986 • Mr. Lang proposes. to duplicate the original entry which has since been recessed and replaced with an aluminum door. The new paired doors will still be recessed so that they will open out in order, to meet building codes. The proposed doors, which are duplications of the originals based on early photos of the building, will have glazed upper panels of bevelledglass (safety or standard) to mime the recessed panels below. One door will be fixed with the other operational. The 8 proposed 30" x 57" skylights are to be placed on the two rear hip-roofed turrets (4 on each turret, 1 on each roof slope) , and will be 5" in height with glass set in plane. Mr. Carr voiced some concern over the skylights' visibility from High and Summer Streets, and he. explained that the Commission has had a policy of denying skylight installation in non-original locations. Mn. Lang informed the Commission that according to the building code, any living space must have mechanisims for providing lightand air equal in size to 10% and 5% of the floor's square footage respectively. Mr. Oedel suggested that a single face of glass might be used in place of two skylights, but Mr. Lang felt that The National Park Service would not approve such a change for tax- act purposes because it may destroy too much of the historic fabric. Mr. Lang' s proposal for the rear awning had included a new canvas canopy which was to be yellow and white stripes. The Commission felt - that the proposed colors were not consistent with the historic character • of the building and suggested that Mr. Lang return with an alternative color scheme. Mr. Lang' s present coloration would consist of yellow and brown stripes to match the colors used on the structure' s trim. Mr. Carr felt that a canvas canopy would be too ephemeral and suggested that something more architectural be used in its place, but Mr. Lang explained that he must comply with the Secretary of Interior's Standards and may compromise the Charing Cross' s tax credit if something more architectural (and therefore less easily reversible) is proposed. Mr. Zaharis suggested that a brick colored fabric might be more esthetically pleasing, and Mr. Lang agreed to look into the suggested colorations and return to the Commission with a fabric sample. Mr. Carr questioned the location of the handicapped lift and suggested that it be located on the left of the stairway for esthetic reasons. Mr. Lang explained that all. manufactured chairlifts are designed with a right side access and, therefore, he would not be able to locate the lift to the left of the stairway. Ms. Harris questioned whether or not landscaping designs had been or will be presented for Commission review. Mr. Lang responded that he had presented landscaping plans in general, but would return before planting in the fall with detailed plans. Charing Cross' s attorney, Mr. John Darling, informed the Commission that a letter will be sent as the developer' s commitment to return with detailed landscaping plans. • Mr. Cook made a MOTION to approve the duplication of the original i SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISION —3— July 2, 1986 • wooden door with bevelled glass in the upper panels because it would be consistent with the historic character of the building. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. Mr. Cook made a MOTION to approve the eight skylights as shown on the plans dated February 18, 1986 because they would be minimally visible. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION. Avote was taken with three in favor (Messrs. Wolfson, Lippman and Cook) , three against (Ms. Harris, Mr. Zaharis, and Mr. Cook) , and Mr. Oedel in abstention. Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the awning coloration of a copper, brownish red. Mr. Oedel seconded the MOTION. Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to amend the MOTION to include the option of brownish red and yellow stripes. Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION. A vote was taken with all in favor except Mr. Carr who was opposed. Mr. Lang presented the Commission with an alternative plan for the proposed skylights. He proposes to use the same number and size of skylights, but to place them on the innermost quadrants. Ms. Harris asked Mr. Lang how much glass is needed to meet the building codes, and Mr. Lang responded that he would need at least three skylights to meet light and air requirements. Mr. Cook made a MOTION to approve the application as amended • allowing for four skylights to be placed on the innermost quadrantsof each turret. Mr. Wolfson seconded the MOTION. A vote was taken with all in favor except Messrs. Carr and Zaharis who were opposed. Viewing the proposed drawings, Commission members discovered that a proposed deck railing had not been included on the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. Lang assured the Commission that the railing would not be constructed without Commission approval. Mr. Oedel made a MOTION to accept the plans as modified July 2, 1986 with the exception of the roof deck railing. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. The roof deck railing, will be reviewed at a later date after the members have a chance to examine its potential visibilty. 40 Chestnut Street — An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was submitted by Anthony DiCroce to remove a 13 ' — 14' section of fencing to allow access to a driveway. Ms. Harris asked how the fence will be ended, and Mr. DiCroce responded that the fence will be ended on an individual picket. Ms. Harris suggested that the fence might be moved back and Mr. Carr added that according to the Commision' s guidelines, it is of critical concern to keep the illusion of a fence along the sidewalk. Mr. Carr asked whether or not Mr. DiCroce would consider a gate with an opening, and Mr. DiCroce agreed to look into the matter. • Mr. Oedel made a MOTION to approve the concept of opening up the. SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION -4- July 2, 1986 • fence with the use of a gate, functional or not, until further details can be worked out. Mr. Carr seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. It was agreed that Mr. DiCroce would return to the July 16th meeting with further details on how he would relocate the exsisting fence sectons to form this gate. Ms. Harris asked Mr. DiCrose what he planned to do with the granite curbing and suggested that it either be dropped or placed at the end of the driveway. , 156 Derby Street - At the last meeting of the Commission, Ms. Leone had presented plans for proposed window, door, and signage alterations and was asked to return with more specifics on the size of the sign, type of door and architect' s drawings of the main facade. Ms. Leone presented the Commission with an architect' s drawing of the main facade, which included a Brosco M100 wood panel door, a multi-paned wood window with nonoperable muntins, a new lantern, and a gray, black and gold 3 ' x 4' sign to be placed on an existing black wrought iron bracket lit by two exsisting spotlights. Ms. Leone also proposes to strip the paint from all sides to match the main facade and allow them to weather. Mr. Cook •made a MOTION to approve the,applica7tion0as3submitted ' allowing the applicant to choose the method of stripping. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION because the proposed alterations would be consistent in material and design to the structure. A vote was taken and all were • in favor except Mr. Carr who felt that Ms.- Leone should choose a more historically appropriate lantern. 10 Summer Street - Ms. Hilbert informed the Commission that Mr. Bob Walker, contract supervisor for Mr. Small ' s development at 10 Summer Street, had contacted her regarding the installation of awooden, 6 panel door with sidelights. Commission members agreeed to approve the concept of the door but would require a detailed drawing or manufacturer' s brochure before final approval could be granted. 180 Derby Street - At the last meeting of the Commission, Mr. Ralph Hobbs , representing the Brookhouse Home for Aged Women, had presented plans for removing slate roofing and replacing it with asphalt shingles. The Commission determined that the owners of the home should get a . second opinion on whether the slate was repairable and how much Supra Slate would cost to install. Since that time, Mr.. Hobbs has informed' Ms. Hilbert that they intend to repair the existing slate rather than replace the entire roof. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to deny the application to install asphalt roofing shingles because by removing the exsisting slate, the building owners would be destroying important historic fabric. Such a change would be incongruous with the historic aspects of the structure. Mr. Oedel seconded the MOTION. A vote was taken with all in favor except Mr. Lippman who voted present. • • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION -5- July 2, 1986 Other Business Mr. Carr made a MOTION to amend the minutes of the June 4th meeting so they state that (1) 2 Broad Street' s proposed roof deck "including the railing" must not be visible from a public way; (2) when discussing the proposed paint color of 172 River Street,, Mr. Carr requested that the meeting be closed to the public so the Commission members could discuss the issue amongst themselves; and (3) Mr. Carr voted in opposition to the proposed fence alterations at 9 Warren Street. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the June 18th meeting of the Salem Historical Commission. Mr. Oedel seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. Vice-Chairman Election - Mr. Oedel made a MOTION to nominate Jack Wolfson as Vice-Chairman. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION. Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to nominate John Carr as Vice-Chairman. There was no second. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to nominate Mr. Oedel as Vice-Chairman. Mr. Wolfson seconded the MOTION. A secret .ballot was taken and Mr. Oedel was voted ' in as Vice-Chairman. Mr. Lippman made a MOTION for unanimity. Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION. All were in favor except Mr. Zaharis who was opposed. • Ms. Hilbert presented the Commission with a list of projects she will be working on in the next few months for the Commission' s review. The members decided to look over the list .and discuss it at the July 16th meeting. The Commission was informed that In aPig' s Eye restaurant on Derby St . has been purchased by Ms. Marcia Shreve of 17 Chestnut Street. Ms. Hilbert was asked to send her a letter outlining Commission guidelines. Mr. Lippman made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Carr seconded the MOTION. The meeting asdjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Elizabeth Newton Clerk of Commission • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting July 16, 1986 '- A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on July 16, 1986 at One Salem Green at 7:30 p.m. Present were: Ms. Harris, Chairman, Ms. Hilbert, Messrs. Lippman, Cook, Oedel, Zaharis, and Slam. Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the July 2, 1986 meetng of the Commission. Mr. Slam seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. Local District Operation 12 Franklin Street — Ms. Sally Byors came before the Commission requesting permission to demolish a complex at 12 Franklin Street. It was determined that the building had no historic significance, and, therefore, Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to waive the demolition period and allow the demolition to take place. Mr. Oedel seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. 40 Chestnut Street — Mr. Anthony DiCroce had requested Commission approval to remove a section of fencing allowing access to a driveway. It was determined at the July 2, 1986 meeting that an alternative solution utilizing a gate might be more appropriate. Mr. DiCroce's present proposal consists of utilizing the existing • gate, rehinging it to the post on the left, shortening the span 21 , moving one post to the corner, adding rollers to allow the gate to be opened, and adding a bar along the bottom and possibly one across diagnally for support. This would make the gate approximately 718" long. The granite presently along the bottom of the fence will be tipped in. Since the proposed alterations would be historically appropriate in design and material, Mr. Lippman made a MOTION to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. 172 River Street — Mr. Frederick Bush has come before the Commission on two occassions seeking approval to paint 172 River Street green with white trim and a brown door. Mr. Bush's first proposal to paint the body Sherwood Green was denied by the Commission because it was felt to be inappropriate. His second proposal to paint the body a darker, custom mixed green, was approved by the Commission, but the Commission has received requests for a public hearing by four abutting residents. Ms. Hilbert read the letters from Ms. Barbara Yagerman of 8 Lynn Street, Mrs. Carol Carr of 7 River Street and Ms. Lorraine Gadala of 152 River Street to the Commission. All the letters voiced concern over the proposed color and requested that a public hearing be held. The fourth letter from Ms. Ann Knight of it River Street refered to the original • Sherwood Green color and, therefore, was not considered as part of this discussion. • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 2 July 16, 1986 Mrs. Bush voiced her opinion on the concept of color and asked the Commission not to grant a public hearing based on only three abutters' opinions since she felt them to be very subjective. Mr. Lippman explained the abutter notification process to the applicants, and added that the neighbors have a right to be heard regarding the matter. Mr. Slam made a MOTION to grant a public hearing. Mr. Oedel seconded the MOTION. A vote of 4 to 2 was taken in favor of a public hearing. 16 Kusciusko Street - Mr. Jay C. Chapin came before the Commission requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness to install one 36" x 55" 2/2 wood, single-glazed window on the second floor of the rear facade. The window would have a wooden sash and muntin bars. Since the proposed window would be consistent in design and material to the structure, Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the application. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. 8 Lynn Street - Ms. Barbara Yagerman of 8 Lynn Street has requested a Certificate of Appropriateness to conduct the folliwing: - replace roofing with asphalt shingles to match existing; - install clapboards (cedar) the same number of inches to the weather as existing; • - rebuild bulkhead to match existing in size and material; - stain clapboards taupe, a light taupe trim and cherry red door; - extend window sills to original size; -- - repair or replace gutters and downspout with aluminum; and - install new Brosco 8463 window casings. Ms. Yagerman questioned whether or not an aluminum bulkhead could be used in place of wood, but the Commission members agreed that a wood bulkhead would be more appropriate. Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the application except for the paint colors since Ms. Yagerman was unable to provide paint chips for the Commission' s review. Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. 21 Fowler Street - Contractors for Yee Teung, owner of 21 Fowler Street, came before the Commission for approval on several alterations currently in progress. The contractors were unaware that they needed a Building Permit or that they were in a historic district and are now seeking approval to: • - remove siding and replace with clapboards 4'k" to the weather stained Cinnamon with white trim; SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 3 July 16, 1986 • - install 1/1 wood windows; - enclose the west side 2-story porch; - install one steel door in the porch enclosure and a wooden door on the north facade; - replace existing 2' x 3' skylight; - rebuild a door surround on Fowler Street elevation; - replace roofing with with new seal tab shingles on the lower roof slopes and 18" exposure roll roofing on the upper roof slopes; and - install two roof vents in upper roof slopes. After discussing each of the alterations at length, Commission members felt that several alterations were inappropriate in design and material. First, the replacement of 6/6 windows with 1/1 windows was determined to be inappropriate in design, and Ms. Harris suggested that 6/6 muntin bars be glued on the exterior. Second, the installation of a steel door in the porch enclosure was found to be inappropriate as well, and several Commission members. agreed that a 6 panel wooden door would be more historically appropriate. Third, the installation of two roof • vents was discussed and it was determined that flat roof vents should be used on the. upper slope of the roof so they are minimally visible. And finally, Commission members felt that the molding around the. main doorway should be painted white to be historically appropriate. Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the application as amended which would include the following: - removal of old siding and installation of new clapboards 4k" to the weather stained Cinnamon with white trim; - installation of 1/1 Brosco wood windows provided that 6/6 muntin bars are glued onto the exterior; - enclosure of the west side 2-story porch including new windows as specified above; - installation of 2 wood 6-panel doors one on the north elevation, and the other in the new porch enclosure. The doors are to be Brosco M10O or equivalent. The recently installed steel door must be removed. In addition the owner has the option of installing a third door on the Fowler Street facade in the new entrance way. The doors are to be painted black or dark green; - replacement of existing 2' x 3' skylight; • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 4 July 16, 1986 • - rebuilding of door surround on Fowler Street elevation provided the oak trim pieces are painted white; - removal of existing roofing with with new seal tab shingles on the lower roof slopes and 18" exposure roll roofing on the upper roof slopes; and - installation of two flat roof vents in upper roof slopes. Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION because the proposed alterations would be consistent in design and material to the structure. A vote was taken with all in favor except Mr. Slam who was opposed. The MOTION carried. The contractors for Mr. Teung also requested Commission approval to replace the existing aluminum gutters and bulkhead door to match existing. Mr. Cook made a MOTION to approve the replacement of the gutters and bulkhead door. Mr. Oedel seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. 104 Federal Street - An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was submitted by Mr. David Hart requesting Commission approval to install a 5' high picket fence. Since no specific details were supplied on the fence, Mr. Oedel made a MOTION to approve the concept of the fence, but to table .the application until the applcant could furnish the Commission with the type of pickets to be used, capped • or not, details on the posts, the type of hinge to be used, and the spacing on the pickets. Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. 180 Federal Street - An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was submitted by Benjamin and Linda Roe requesting Commission approval to install a 6 panel wooden door on the main facade and the replacement of existing 2/2 windows with 6/6 single-glazed wooden windows. From the application it was not clear if all or only some of the windows were to be replaced. . Mr. Slam made a MOTION to approve the application with the following conitions: the door must be a Brosco M100 or equivalent, the first two floors of the front facade must have 6/6 windows with the strong recommendation that 6/6 windows be placed in the two dormers on the main elevation, and 6/6 windows and 6/6 windows could be placed elsewhere at the owner' s discretion. Mr. Oedel seconded the MOTION because the proposed alterations would be consistent with the historic character of the building. The vote was unanimously in favor. 391 Essesx Street - Mr. Russell Weston has requested Commission approval to remove an existing stockade fence at his rear property line and install a 6' flatboard fence with lattice top to duplicate a fence • at 4 Chestnut Street. After viewing several photos of the proposed fence, Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION ro approve the application as submitted because it would be consistent in design and material with the historic SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 5 July 16, 1986 • character of the building. Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. 10 Summer Street - An application fora Certificate of Appropriateness was submitted by Mr. Frederick Small requesting permission to: - install a new 6 panel wooden door with B-2FD-808 sidepanels set back 14" on the main facade; - install Brosco 8019 bed molding at the cornice; - install pine molding along the chimney to mask its distance from the building (the chimney stands at about 4" from the house) ; - cut the water table of the front facade back on right side as far as possible and rework the NE corner so that the water table jogs up on the north elevation at least 8' back from the corner; and, - install Brosco wooden shutters. Ms. Hilbert informed the Commission that she and Mr. David Clarke had visited the .site and made several recommendations to the developers which included the cutting back of the sill and requiring that . landscaping be used to hide the depth of the water table. After discussing each proposed alteration, Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the application with the following conditions: - the molding placed along the chimney must be painted to match the body color; - - landscaping plans to hide the water table must be submitted for Commission review; and - the shutters must be hung off the windows and be wide enough so that, if closed, they would cover the entire window with the slats pointing down. - Mr. Slam seconded the MOTION because the proposed alterations would be consistent in design and material with the historic character of the structure before it was rebuilt. The vote was unanimously in favor. Other Business Salem Common Guard Rail - It has come to the Commission' s attention that the City Council has ordered Mr. Kavanaugh, the City Planner., to investigate the installation of a guard rail at the intersection of Winter Street and Washington Square North at Salem Common. Ms. Hilbert recommended that the Commission send a letter to Mr. Kavanaugh with its suggestions for the design of such a rail. Ms. Harris felt that granite bollards should be used with large orange plastic barrels filled with SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 6 July 16, 1986 i sand placed in front. The sand was suggested as a way of cushioning the impact of an accident. Mr. Lippman made a MOTION to send a letter to the City Planner stating that the Commission agrees that a guard rail should be erected, but would recommend that either granite or metal bollards be used. The Commission would aso like to discourage the use of a standard aluminum guard rail and would encourage an investigation of other alternatives. Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. Mr. Slam made a MOTION to send a copy of the letter to Mr. Richard Anderson, President of the Salem Common Association. Mr. Oedel seconded the MOTION. All were in favor except Mr. Zaharis who was opposed. Bowditch School Landscaping — Ms. Hilbert presented the Commission with a list of concerns regarding the landscaping at the Bowditch School. These concerns included the relatively small birch trees in the rear, the installation of more but smaller dogwoods in front, and the improperly erected fence at the rear. Commission members were requested to inspect the property themselves so that the issue could be resolved at the August 6th meeting. At that time either the Escrow funds will be released or further changes will be requested. • Mr. Lippman made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, f Elizabeth Newton Clerk of Commission SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting August 6, 1986 • A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on August 6, 1986 at One Salem Green at 7:30 p.m. Present were: Ms. Harris, Chairman, Ms. Hilbert, and Messrs. Clarke, Zaharis, Lippman, Carr, and Oedel. Public Hearing — 172 River Street A public hearing was held regarding the paint color of 172 River Street which had been approved by the Historical Commission at the July 2, 1986 meeting. Several abutting residents had voiced concern and sent letters to the Commission requesting a public hearing. On July 16, 1986, the Commission voted to hold a public hearing. Ms. Harris read Mr. Bush's application and presented a sample of the proposed paint color to the audience. The meeting was opened to neighbors in opposition of the proposed color. Ms. Carol Carr of 7 River Street voiced her opposition to the color and stated that she felt the color to be historically inappropriate. The meeting was then opened to`those in favor of the proposed color. Mr. Paul Willis of 4 River Street stated that although he was not completely in favor of the color, he did not have a strong _ opposition to it. The owner of the adjoining building at 17 River Street, Sanford England spoke in favor of the proposed color stating . that he felt that the color was appropriate. The meeting was then • closed to the public and Commission members discussed whether or not to reconsider their decision. Mr. Carr made a MOTION not to reconsider the Commission' s decision to approve the painting the body of 172 River Street green with white trim, a green entranceway and brown door. Mr. Clarke seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. Mr. Willis of 4 River Street informed the Commission that there was apiece of plywood presently over the front doorway and asked if this was something that would be permanent. Mr. Bush informed the Commission that the plywood would be removed as soon as possible. Minutes Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the July 16, . 1986 meeting of the Historical Commission. Mr. Clarke seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. 47 Ocean Avenue An application for a Certificate of Non—Applicability was submitted by Mr. Thomas Ford for his project to convert the former South Branch Library building into offices. The proposed repairs include the replacement or repair of flashing, gutters, and downspouts, improved landscaping, repair of stucco to match existing, the removal of plywood over the windows, and repair or replacement of windows to match existing. Mr: Ford also added that the planned mezzanne.would not-have a visual impact on the exterior of the building. SALEM HISTORICALCOMMISSIONPaget August 6, 1986 After discussing the proposed alterations, Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the application as submitted because the repairs involved are not under the Commission' s jurisdiction. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously ,infavor. +- Bowditch School At the July 16, 1986 meeting of the Historical Commission, members were asked to visit the Bowditch School site to make a judgement regarding the release of funds held in Escrow for landscaping work. After visiting the site, Commission members agreed that although some changes had been made the approved plan ( for instance planting 2 small dogwoods on each side of the entrance instead of one 10' dogwood on each side) , Crownenshield had largely fufilled its part of the agreement. Mr. Oedel added that the rhododendrons appeared to be dying, and Mr. Adams explained that they needed to be watered more often and that they were going to be adding new faucets on the exterior for that purpose. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to release the Escrow funds because the work is substantialy complete, but in the event that any plants die within one year from this date, the developer must replace them at his own expense. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. • - 396 Essex Street - Carriage House An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was submitted by David and Deborah Clarke to repair the carraige house at 396 Essex Street. The proposed alterations include: - new 6/6 wood insulated, divided light windows; - new Atrium Style French doors; - - reclapboarding all facade the same number of inches to the weather as existing; - repairing roof trim as needed; - installing of a 6 panel wooden door; - - the recreation of an old hay loading door and sliding carraige door and runner; and - the installing of a stove pipe. After discussing and reviewing each item of the proposed plans, several members of the Commission agreed that the proposed alterations were consitent in material and design with the historic character of the • building, but stressed that the stove pipe must be boxed in and stuccoed. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the application as revised SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 3 August 6, 1986 to include the change to the stove pipe. Mr.Zaharis seconded the . MOTION. All were in favor except for Mr. Clarke who abstained. 396 Essex Street David. and Deborah Clarke submitted a second application to make the following alterations on the main house at 396 Essex Street: — rebuild front portico using existing columns and rebuilding lower section with balusters and molding to match 386 Essex Street (photos were provided) ; — paint the body Sherwin Williams Downing Sand, trim Renwick Rose Beige, and accent sash, cornice brackets, dormer scallops, and panel moldings on portico - - bat and column bases ,painted Renwick Heather; and ` — build two chimneys, one of brick and the other stucco. After reviewing the application, Mr. Carr stated ,that the carraige house should be painted to match the main house so it appears to be one property. There was. some talk about making the body color bolder, but the general consensus was to go with Mr. ,Clarke' s color choices. Several members of the Commission questioned the appropriateness of a stucco chimney, and Mr. Clarke explained that he would be using metal ' and asbestos piping and, therefore, a brick chimney might betooheavy. • Nevertheless, Mr. Clarke agreed to revise the application to include two brick chimneys, the rear chimney being lower, but both to match the existing in color, mortar and coarsing. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the application as amended because the proposed alterations would be consistent in design and material to the historic character of the building. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. All were in favor except Mr. Clarke who abstained. 188 Federal Street An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was submitted by Mr. Brian Connelly of 188 Federal Street requesting Commission approval to construct a wood frame, 10' x 51 , sun room off the rear facade. Ms. Hilbert had visited the site and determined that the addition would be visible from the street. Mr. Carr voiced concern over adding a contemporary element to. such an antique facade, and suggested that the addition be set back as much as possible. Ms. Harris stated that if the addition looked like a new element, it would be acceptable to her. Mr. Clarke suggested that a 2' recess panel underneath the glass might lesson the impact of the structure. After discussing several possible alterations to minimize the impact of the addition, Mr. Lippman 'made a MOTION to approve a wood. framed sun room to be set back 4" making the SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 4 August 6, 1986 dimensions 10' X 4'-8". Mr. Oedel seconded the MOTION because the • addition would be minimally visible. Ms: Harris, Messrs. Oedel, Zaharis, and Lippman voted in favor of the MOTION, and Messrs. Clarke and Carr were in opposition. The MOTION carried. 104 Federal Street An application for a Ceritificate of Appropriateness had been submitted by Mr. David Hart at the July 16, 1986 meeting of the Commission. Mr. Hart had. proposed installing a picket fence along the ' rear of his property and a gate, but did not furnish the Commission with .a sketch. Therefore, he was asked tb return .with more details. Mr. Hart' s present application consists of installing: - a capped fence at the rear of the property; - a picket fence along the east property line; - - 6" x 6" square posts with a beveled top„and possibly decorative urns; and - a picket gate with a slight scallop. Upon review of the proposed plans, several members of the Commission were concerned over the. plainness of the proposed gate posts. After looking through several sketches of gate posts, Mr. Hart agreed • to install gate posts designed by Staley McDermet, as shown in the Commission' s Guidelines Notebook. Mr. Clarke made a MOTION to approve the application as. amended to include gate posts designed by Staley McDermet and fence installation per application dated August 6, 1986. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. 33 Flint Street Mr. Matthew Power has submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to: - construct two decks on the SE and SW elevations; - add two doors on the SE elevation - reduce the existing circular staircase; ' r ' - add a second story door on the SW elevation; and - change the roof line on rear ell. Mr. Carr reminded the Commission that a great deal of time was spent when the Peper' s made an . + x SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 5 August 6, 1986 • application in 1984 to find a solution to a .secondary egress problem. That review resulted in the approval of a spiral staircase. He also added that the proposed changes would give the. building a tenament appearance and, therefore, would be inappropriate. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to deny the application as being incongruous with the historic characterofthe structure. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. The MOTION carried. 30 Warren Street Mr. Harry Anderson of 30 Warren Street submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to rebuild an existing deck into a 10' x 22' porch with a pitched asphalt shingle roof. Architect David Berner presented the proposed plans which include installing new lattice work over the existing porch foundation, fluted wooden columns, and wood railings and cornices. After viewing the proposed plans, Commission members asked what color was proposed for the porch, and Mr. Anderson agreed to amend his application to include a paint color to match the existing trim color (beige) . ` Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the application as amended August 6, 1986 to include painting the 10' x 22' porch beige to match the existing trim color. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION because the proposed porch would be consistent in design and material to .the • historic character of the building. The vote was unanimously in favor. 31 Chestnut Street An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was submitted by Christopher and Susan Burns requesting Commission approval to install a capped flat board fence along the east (left side) property line extending from the second granite post. The fence is to be painted green or black, with acorns to match the rear fence, and is to be the same height as the existing iron fence. Also included in the application was the installation of pickets on top of the flat board fence along Warren Street to match the Reardon fence next door at 33 Chestnut Street. • �t �, , • . ' After reviewing the proposed plans, Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION because the proposed construction would be consistent in design to the historic character of the property. The vote was unanimously in favor. 151 Federal Street- y An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was submitted by Thomas J. and Lucille M. Henry requesting Commission approval to paint the exterior of 151 Federal Street. Benjamin Moore' s Moonstone Grey with Benjamin Moore' s Country Slate trim. • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 6 , August 6, 1986 • After discussing the proposed color' s appropriateness, Commission members agreed to specify two possible shutter and door colors. The applicants could either accept one of the colors or come in with another application. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the application as amended which is to include the painting of the shutters and door either Essex Green (Benjamin Moore) or black. Mr. Oedel seconded the MOTION because the proposed colors would be consistent with the period of the structure. The vote was unanimously in favor. 3 Broad Street Representatives for the Salem Housing Authority had come before the Commission on several occasions for preliminary reviews of the proposed alterations to the Oliver School which is slated for elderly housing. They have now submitted a formal application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to make the following alterations: - replace existing 6/6 sashes with 9/6 on all elevations to fit in existing openings; - add an elevator infill on the left side elevation; - add a porch and window openings on the right side elevation; • - remove fire escapes; and ' - replace vents on front facade with matching infill brick. The proposed window alterations would allow the elderly residents to operate the windows with ease and are in conjunction with raising the floor for that same purpose. Commission members agreed that the application should include that all lintels must match the existing sandstone (they may be concrete with color added). Mr. Carr also added that the brick to fill in the left side . elevation should match the existing in color, size, and joints. Mr. Cvijanovic agreed that this could be done by using the bricks removed when the wall is taken down. Since Mr. Cvijanovic was unable at this time to provide working drawings for the proposed porch on the right side elevation, Commission members agreed to postpone approval on the porch. Detailed drawings would be needed to properly evaluate this element. Following discussion, Mr. Clarke made a MOTION to approve the following:• - replace existing 6/6 windows with 9/6 and lintels to match • existing sandstone (colored concrete may be used as an option) ; SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 7 August 6, 1986 - add an elevator infill on the left'-side elevation; - the concept of adding a porch and window openings on right side elevation; - remove fire escapes; •and ? �' - replace vents on front facade with matching infill brick (all - brick mortar must match existing) . Mr. Carr seconded the MOTION because the proposed alterations would be consistent in design and material to the structure. The vote was unanimously in favor. Further approval will be needed on the porch, doorway and door removal when final plans are developed. 158-162 Derby Street Mr. C. Anderson Inge came before the Commission requesting that a letter be written in support of a proposed retail and residential development at 158-162 Derby Street. Mr. Inge is going before the Board of Appeals for a Special Permit regarding parking. After presenting his plan, Commission members agreed to write a letter of support to the ` Board of Appeals. Mr. Lippman made a MOTION to send the letter outling • the following advantages to this development: - the building is architecturally important to the district; - the proposed redevelopment is sympathetic to the character of the building; - the structure is important to the history of the Polish community in Salem; - it is important that the site be renovated; and - that the Appeals Board make every effort to make this kind of use possible. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. 8 Lynn Street An application for a Certiciate of Appropriateness was submitted by Barbara Yagerman requesting Commission approval to paint the body of 8 Lynn Street dark putty with light putty trim and a lavender door. After some discussion regarding the historic appropriateness of the proposed door color, Mr. Carr made a MOTION to reject the door color, i SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 8 August 6,1986 but to approve the painting of the body and trim putty. The colors Rookwood Red (Sherwin Williams) and Essex Green (Benjamin Moore) were suggested as alternative colors for the doorway and added to the application. If those colors are not acceptable, Ms. Yagerman can reapply for door color approval. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION because the approved paint colors would be historically appropriate to the period of the building. The vote was unanimously in favor. 407 Essex Street An unapproved sign has been placed at Dr. Kantorosinski' s chiroractic office at 407 Essex Street. Dr. Kantorosinski recieved a sign permit because the Planning Department did not realize that the. Commission has jurisdiction over the design of signs in historic districts. This issue was discussed at the May 7, 1986 meeting but the ` proposed solution of writing Dr. Kantorosinski was difficult for Ms. Hilbert to implement because the problem was created by another party' s error. Mr. Clarke made a MOTION to send a letter to the Building Inspector' s office requesting that the sign permit be retracted. A copy of this letter should also be sent to the Planning Department. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. Bridge Street By-pass Ms. Hilbert informed the Commission that of all the structures to . be effected by the construction of the Bridge Street By-Pass, two possessed historical significance and should be saved. One, at 22 Conant Street, is being moved on its site. Ms. Harris felt that the Historical Commission should be involved in moving the other house, 18 March Street, to a city lot. Ms. Hilbert informed the Commission that as of yet no City-owned sites had been identified and that she would send out a list of possible sites to Commission members. She also added that if the State DPW would move 18 March Street, it could be used for City purposes or sold for development. Mr. Lippman made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Elizabeth Newton Clerk of Commission s ` SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES OF MEETING SEPTEMBER 3,1986 • A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on September 3, 1986 at One Salem Green at 7:30 p.m. Present were: Ms. Harris, Chairperson, Ms. Hilbert, and Messrs. Wolfson, Slam, Clarke, . Cook, Lippman, and Zaharis. ' MINUTES Ms. Harris made a MOTION to approve the the minutes from the August 6, 1986 meeting of the Historical Commission. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. 361 Essex Street An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was submitted by Robert and Elizabeth Alexander for a porch enclosure. The porch is partially built, because the applicants believed that it would not be visible from the street. As it turns out, the porch is slightly visible, thus the submission of the application. The porch has the same roofline as the existing ell, and will be painted the same color as the house. It was determined during renovation work that a porch probably existed in that location before, although exact dates of the previous structure had not been determined. Mr: Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the application as submitted since the alteration would be appropriate to the historic character of the building and the district in general. Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. 7-13 North Pine Street An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was submitted by Ms. Jessica Herbert to rebuild rear decks on four units to provide secondary egress from all units. It is noted that because the property is on the edge of a District, to get a straight on view, one has to stand outside the District. Other aspects of the renovation work will include removing all aluminum siding, repairing the roof,,and,.- where necessary, replacing windows. x Ms. Herbert came to the Commission to get suggestions on the replacement of slate on the roof as well as a concept approval for the rear balconies. Rear facade renovations would include window and door rehabilitation to provide access to rear egress from all units as well as a more consistent door/window set up than currently exists. The balconies and spiral staircases would be made from wrought iron. Ms. Harris stated that much more specific design specifications would be necessary before the Commission could consider granting a Certificate M L SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 2 September 3, 1986 of Appropriateness for the actual construction of such rear egresses. Ms. Herbert informs the Commission that no structural change is to take • place concerning the third floor, the egresses will only service the first and second floors. • j Mr. Cook made a MOTION to give approval to the concept of 2 seperate wrought iron decks, 2 stories high, each with a centrally located spiral staircase, pending detailed drawings. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION. Discussion then ensued about the past problems that the Commission has had with approval of exterior staircases. Mr. Slam stated that the reason .the Commission should not approve exterior staircases in the Districts is because.it sets a. bad precedent. Mr. Slam also mentioned that it may not be fair to the applicant to give conceptual approval tonight, noting that other members of the Commission were not present who would not approve of the concept, thus making it difficult for the applicant to recieve final design and construction approval. Mr. Lippman suggested that even though the Commission has not looked favorably on spiral staircases in the past, this application must be looked at on individual merit, which includes noting the rowhouse character of the building, the location of the property close to the boundaries of the District, and the improvement over what is currently existing. It was noted that this will also be the only form of secondary access to the units. A vote was taken on the MOTION made by Mr. Cook with Mr. Zaharis in • opposition, Mr. Slam abstaining, and Ms. Harris, Mr. Lippman, Mr. Cook, Mr. Clarke and Mr. Wolfman in favor of the MOTION. The MOTION thus carried. A word of warning was given to the applicant from Mr. Lippman stating that spiral staircases are a hot item with this Commission and even though the concept has been approved, execution of a plan may prove to be difficult. 37 Warren Street An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was submitted by Annette L. Swartz for a rear porch infill to be composed of molded panels and windows. The porch is barely visible from the street and currently has lattice work over the openings. The .applicant would like to create a permanant foundation for the porch. The porch would be concrete with brick face. Its mouldings would be of . quality wood and the side which is most visible would consist of 5 or 6 wooden windows. The existing balsusters may also need to be replaced. SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 3 September 3, 1986 Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the conceptual design of the porch infill as submitted. Mr. Cook seconded. the MOTION. Mr. Slam would like more detailed information on the composition of the panels. It is suggested that the Commission give conceptual approval to the plan, but hold back on construction approval until the applicant produces a more detailed plan. Mr. Zaharis amended the MOTION to read that approval of the plan would be pending detailed drawings. The vote on the amended MOTION was unanimously in favor. Mr. Swartz, representing the applicant, agreed to return to the next meeting: with a more detailed drawing. 13 Warren Street An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was submitted by Robert J. and Mary R. Dooley for the replacement of single glazed wood windows with double glazed vinyl, paint colors and replacement of a fence. The applicant explained that exterior work on the property will be ongoing and that he was mostly concerned with the replacement of windows for this application. The applicant requested replacement of single .glazed wood windows with double glazed vinyl windows for energy efficiency purposes and also stated that vinyl windows were in keeping with the aluminum siding on the house, .easier to maintain, not out of keeping with the surrounding • houses in that area and that•the vinyl will not be noticeable since the applicant is going to keep the storm windows which currently exist on the house. The muntin bars for the new 2/2 sash would be located between the panes. Mr. Cook was strongly opposed to any change that would eliminate exterior muntin bars. The applicant was asked to show pictures of the windows he wishes to install and to try to come up with some,way in which to include glued-on exterior muntin bars. Mr. Zaharis suggested that Mr. Dooley withdraw his application and return with more details. Mr. Cook stated thatinview of the rest of the house, vinyl materials . did not bother him so much as the muntin bar issue. Mr. Lippman responded that the integrity of building materials is very important to the Commission. and that wooden windows with cemented exterior muntin bars would be acceptable. Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to deny the application. The MOTION was not seconded. Mr. Lippman stated that the house is within a District and dispite the individual particularities of the house, its location is always a factor in determining the approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. Clarke suggests that Mr. Dooley contact J & B Sash in Cambridge for some ideas on exterior muntin bars as well as energy efficient wooden • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSIOM Page 4 September 3, 1986 windows. He felt. that there would not be much difference in energy efficiency between double—glazed wood or vinyl windows. • It was noted for the applicant that no vinyl clad windows have been approved by the Commission in recent memory. The applicant agreed to return in two weeks and to bring examples of windows with him. 86 Federal Street An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was filed by d Jonathan & Suzanne Felt for the removal of aluminum siding, replacement clapboarding as necessary, and paint colors. The applicants stated that since they do not know what is under the aluminum, the extent of reclapboarding is not known at present,. but any new clapboards would not exceed V to the weather. The applicants were also not sure of the condition of the trim and other structural parts of the building, but when in need- of replacement, they will be replaced with materials matching the existing as closely as possible. Stain colors discussed and the applicants asked the Commission for their opinions on what to use. A beige and 2 shades of gray were suggested by the applicants as possible body colors. After discussion about period color paints and books to look through it was suggested that the Felts may want to wait to choose colors so that the choice will reflect what might be found underneath the aluminum siding and what characteristics they may want to emphasize. A look at the Red Cross . building (314 Essex St. ) was suggested by Ms. Hilbert so that the applicants can get an idea of different color schemes used on trim. Mr. Clarke made a MOTION to accept the application as being appropriate for the historic character of the building and the district in general, with the Felts coming back to the Commission when stain colors are choosen. Mr. Slam seconded the MOTION. The vote was , unanimously in favor. 173 Federal Street An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was submitted by Francis & Kathleen Linehan to paint their house body Dune Gray (Cabot' s O.V.T. Stain), trim Navaho White ( Benjamin Moore paint) and door black. Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to aprove the application as being appropriate to the historic character of the building and the district in general. Mr. Clarke seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 5 September 3, 1986 174 Federal Street Mr. Don Wallace submitted an application for a Certificate of Non—Applicability for clapboarding repair, and staining the same color and an application for a Certificate of Hardship for the placement of a window on the rear east facade (already installed) . Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the Certificate of Hardship after reviewing pictures which show the window' s minimal impact from the street. Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION. Mr. Slam questioned the use of Hardship suggesting that hardship is only of a financial nature. It has already been determined by the Commission that an applicant cannot be considered for financial hardship if he/she has built themselves into the hardship. Also Mr. Slam questioned the appropriateness of using Hardship when the impact of the renovation is minimal. He suggested a change to a Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. Lippman sugested that this may be good opportunity to look into the policy the Commission has established of using Appropriateness only for renovations of a "pristine" character. Ms. Hilbert read from MGL CH.40C, Section 10(C) , that a Certificate of Hardship can be granted if "owing to conditions especially affecting the historic district generally, failure to approve an application will involve a substantial hardship, financial or otherwise to the applicant" and that "such an application may be approved without substantial detriment to the public welfare and without substantial degragation from the intent and purposes of this Chapter." In this caserthe conditions • especially affecting the building (the fact that the house is so close to # 172 and the window is set so far back from the street) mean that the change is so minimal that it would be a hardship for Mr. Wallace to reverse the alteration. A vote was taken on the MOTION to approve the application of Hardship, with Mr. Slam in .opposition and Messrs: Clarke, Cook, Wolfson, Lippman, Zaharis and Ms. Harris in favor of the MOTION. The MOTION thus passed. Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the application for a Certificate of Non—Applicability. Mr. Slam seconded the MOTION and the vote was unanimously if favor. 20-22 Fowler Street r' Ms. Julie Lockhart submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to the Commission for the removal of asbestos shingles, clapboard replacement, where necessary, and painting the body of the .house red, trim beige, and the door blue (as presented) . Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the application as being appropriate to the historic character of the building and the district in general. Mr. Wolfson seconds the MOTION and all were unanimously in favor. • � 4 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 6 September 3, 1986 148 Derby Street • An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was submitted by Martha Shreve & Jennifer Reardon for the review of the wooden sign for In a Pig' s Eye resturant. The sign is already hanging and is insured. It is a rehabilitation of the old sign, so there have been no drastic design changes. Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the application as being appropriate to the historic character of the building and the district in general and Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. 10 Monroe Street An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was submitted by Catherine Lindsay/Joseph Delfino for paint colors already applied to their house. The applicants live in New York and have been hard to contact. In a letter addressed to the Commission they wrote that they did not realize the Commission had jurisdiction over paint colors, so did not previously submit an application. Mr. Cook remarked that he thought the house had lost some of its texture with the new color scheme, but that it was not objectionable. Mr. Cook made a MOTION to approve the application as being appropriate to the historic character of the house as well as the district in general, Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION and it is unanimously approved. Mr. Lippman requested that Ms. Hilbert respond with a letter asking that before future assumptions are made as to what is under the jurisdiction of the Commission and what is not, the applicants should ask the Commission. It was agreed that this letter should be sent. Other Business Mr. Zaharis brought up the issue of abstaining from voting on a MOTION. Mr. Lippman stated that abstensions are usually reserved for when a conflict of interest occurs. A Commission member is not supposed to use the absention option when he/she is undecided. It was agreed _ that members should meter their use of abstentions. • 4 1 • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 7 September 3, 1986 Ms. Harris brought up the issue of a Neighborhood Conservation District vs. a Historic District. Ms. Hilbert discussed her survey of streets around the Common which are not in the District. She suggested that the Common neighborhood was probably more receptive to inclusion in a Historic District than is the Derby St. area. Ms. Harris suggested that the Commission come up with a list and boundaries for inclusion in a District with logical reasons for choices, not gerrymandered boundaries. At the end of October, when Ms. Hilbert' s survey is completed, the Commission would go to the Common Neighborhood Association to gain support for District expansion. If there is resistence, a Conservation District is still an option. Mr. Lippman made a MOTION to adjourn, with Mr. Slam seconding the MOTION. It is unanimously agreed with. The meeting is over at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cynthia Carr Clerk of Commission r � ' X f + SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting September 17 , 1986 A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on �., Wednesday September 17, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green. Present were: Ms. Harris, Chairperson, Ms. Hilbert, and Messrs. Zaharis, Clarke, Carr,Slam, Lippman, and Oedel. Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the Minutes of the September 3 , 1986 meeting. Mr. Carr seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. Demolition Requests 28 Goodhue Street Mr. Steven Smith requested permission to demolish a small metal building with wooden shingles on one side which is part of an industrial complex. Ms. Hilbert explained to the Commission members that the building will probably be condemned by the Building Inspector if demolition does not occur. Ms. Harris asked if the age of the building in question was known. Ms. Hilbert said that it was not. Mr. Slam asked for clarification of what exactly was to be demolished, the whole complex, or the individual building. Ms. Hilbert explained that only one building was covered by this request. Mr. Zaharis asked Ms. Hilbert if there was any known architectural significance to the building and she responded that no research had been done on the complex. Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to allow the demolition to occur. Mr. Carr seconded the MOTION. All were in favor. Almy' s .— Essex Street The Pickering Wharf Development Group submitted a request to demolish the old Almy' s building. Ms. Hilbert explained that the Italianate facade which once stood on the site was completely removed when the new brick facade was constructed in 1959, bringing into question whether the building is actually more than 50 years old. Mr: Lippman made a MOTION to approve the' demolition. Mr Zaharis seconded the MOTION. Mr. Carr requested to see plans concerning what is supposed to replace the existing building so that a void will not be left after demolition occurs. a SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 2 September 17, 1986 i e • Mr. Richard Ness of the Pickering Wharf Real Estate Development Group and Mr. 'Victor Vitol-s, the archietect, were available with plans for future construction. The plans call for the ,complete demolition of the existing Almy' s building to be replaced by a condominium—commercial development. Part of the ground floor level would be used as a courtyard and as a limited drive—in area. The complex would also encompass a public pedestrian passageway. The design would be a modified version of the Federal style on the Essex Street side and would be approximately 6 stories high. The townhouses as well as the businesses would be accessable from the public pedestrian passage, which would be open to the sky. The marketing strategy is to construct a building which has historic character, as do many of the surrounding buildings. The Church Street side would be higher (approximately 8 stories) in order to accommodate the needs of the developer. A cross section of the proposal was presented. Mr. Slam asked the name of the proposed project. Mr. Ness replied that it was still under consideration, but for now it is called Essex Condominiums. Mr. Lippman suggested that the question be moved. A vote was taken with all present in favor of the MOTION except for • Mr. Clarke who abstained due to a late arrival. - National Register Eligibility Review Robert and Anne Fraser of 452 Layfayette. Street have requested that the Commission examine their house and determine its eligibility for National Register listing. The house is a good example of a Queen Anne design. A list of National Register eligibility criteria was handed out to Commission members and Ms. Harris pointed out the 4 items they are to base their decision on. Buildings are eligible that: A. are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; B. are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; C. embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic value or that represent`a significant and? distinguishable entity whose components may lac kindividu l'distinction; SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 3 September 17, 1986 D. have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. • Ms. Hilbert pointed out that only one of the criteria has to be fufilled in order for a property to be determined eligable. Ms. Harris stated that the property is listed in Brian Tolles's survey as being a distinctive house. Mr. Slam asked what other buildings are individually listed in Salem. Ms Hilbert responded that the Nathanial Bowditch House, City Hall, Hamilton Hall, as well as the Judge Story House are amoung buildings which are individually listed. Mr. Carr asked if the criteria for individual listing were more stringent than for a district,. Mr. Slam mentioned that this was a nice house but that there were . many others of its quality available for listing and questioned whether the Commission should seek out more spectacular houses to sponsor for inclusion in the Register. Mr. Clarke felt that the fact that numerous other properties are avalible for inclusion is irrelevant when considering a property. Mr. Lippman concurred with Mr. Clarke and added that it behooves the Commission to get as many properties on the National Register as possible for protective purposes, not just to pick the "best examples". Commission members were reminded that uniqueness is• not a criteria and that Register listing is generally a positive action to support so long as the property meets the criteria. The discussion continued with Mr. Carr pointing out that buildings in Salem now listed are spectacular individually and Mr. Lippman replied that it does not devalue the Register if less spectacular buildings are also included. Mr. Zaharis added that he would eventually like to see all of Salem included in some type of a Historic District and that to now include as many properties as possible is important. Mr. Clarke voiced concern over the property' s glassed—in porch. The applicant responded that the porch is an original part of the house but the glassed—in work is new. Mr. Clarke also wanted to know how much research has been done on the house and who has done it. The applicant responded that the research available has been done by Historic Salem, Inc. Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION that the house be declared eligible for the National Register lising, based on criteria C. Mr. Carr seconded the MOTION. Ms. Harris asked if there is any further discussion. o • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 4 September 17, 1986 Mr. Oedel requested to know who will write the statement of • significance on the eligibility form. Ms. Hilbert responded that she would. It was explained .that a nomination form would have to be prepared in two sections, archietectural and historical significance. Ms. Harris asked why the applicants wanted their house listed and was told they wanted to be' listed to protect the property and as a recognition of its significance. ' Mr. Zaharis asked to move the question and a vote was taken which was unanimously in favor. r LOCAL DISTRICT OPERATIONS 7-13 North Pine Street A status report was given on this project with Ms. Harris reminding the Commission that at the last meeting a second egress concept was approved and that Ms. Herbert is now in front of the Commission to, present archietectural drawings of a more fully executed design. A discussion ensued about the proximity of the property to the District' s boundary (which runs on this property' s rear lot line) and Mr. Zaharis questioned why the location within the District was important, since it was already established that the property is in the District and thus under the Commission' s jurisdiction. It was replied • that it was important to establish that the proposed work was clearly visible from -a public right of way which is located in the District. At the last meeting, Ms. Herbert had presented a design consisting of two seperated external egresses, made of wrought iron, with a spiral straircase servicing each of the egresses. Ms. Herbert was in front of the Commission with a revised plan which included the joining of the two egresses through a deck—like structure covered with lattice work. The design also included atrium doors , realignment of windows and doors for a more consistent look from unit to unit, and enlarged doors at the ground level to accomodate safety codes. On the front facade, Ms. Herbert proposed replacement of original coal loading with a windows. Discussion ensued concerning the proposal Ms. Herbert presented. Mr. Slam asked for an explanation of the difference between atrium doors and French doors. It was explained that atrium doors have one side which swings out while both sides swing on French doors. Mr. Slam then aked the applicant how she planned to get the lattice to cover the spiral staircase; Ms. Herbert responded that soaking the lattice makes it pliable enough to mold. • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 5 September 17, 1986 Mr. Carr discussed the design and layout of the property and questioned Ms. Herbert about the design changes which have made a rear second egress necessary as well as the applicant' s ability to seek an • internal solution to the secondary egress problem. Mr. Carr asked if the external egress would be necessary without the stacking of the units. Mr. Clarke told Ms. Herbert that more detail was necessary before any plans could be approved. Mr. Zaharis questioned the applicant as to what she wanted from the Commission. Ms. Harris responded that the applicant was in front of the Commission for design approval since she recieved concept approval at the last meeting. Mr. Carr asked if the applicant was intending to make the egresses serve more than safety code feature with their proposed expansion into decks. Ms. Harris stated she felt this building could support a full Victorian style porch iftheapplicant favored that approach. The maximum/minimum egress options were discussed by the Commission with no consensus being reached. Ms. Harris, stressed that it will be up to the applicant to supply the Commission with full plans of the entire proposal as well as more detailed plans for specific renovations before any approvals can be given. 90 Federal Street An application was submitted for gutter replacement by Florence and • Roy Gelin. The applicants would like to remove the rotted wooden gutters on the front and right side of the house and replace them with white aluminum gutters. Chuck Thornhill, the applicant' s builder, stated that installation costs of wooden and aluminum gutters are approximately the same, but maintenance costs were of concern to his client. Mr. Gelin stated that the wooden gutters have been replaced several times since he has owned the house and each time they cause him trouble with maintenance and rotting, thus creating hazardous conditions with the drainage off the house. Mr. Lippman asked the applicant why he had such problems with wooden gutters and Mr. Gelin responded that leaf blockage and the difficulty of finding someone to do maintenance on gutters as high as his caused him trouble. Messrs. Oedel, Slam and Clarke felt that perhaps the gutter installed for the applicant were not of good quality, since their experiences with wooden gutters has not been as problematic as the applicants' . • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 6 September 17, 1986 Mr. Lippman pointed out that the gutters are part of the design of the roof and to replace them with aluminum gutters would alter the • character of the property. Mr. Thornhill responded that the roof doesn't have to be touched in order to replace the gutters. Ms. Harris questioned Mr. Thornhill about a technique of lining the gutters with tar to help prevent the problems Mr. Gelin has been having. Mr. Carr suggested using Cabot' s gutter paint. Ms. Harris pointed out that aluminum gutters are distorted by the ice and thus rendered useless, so the applicant may very well have problems if aluminum gutters are installed. Mr. Lippman put forward the suggestion that the applicant install aluminum gutters on the five story side of the house (Bridge St. ) and the rest should be replaced with wooden gutters. Mr. Slam made a MOTION to approve the application with aluminum gutters installed on the Bridge St. side of the house and use wooden gutters for the rest of the house. Confusion over the locations designated in the MOTION became apparent. Commission members looked at the map of the house to define what covered by the MOTION. Mr. Slam amended his motion to grant a Certificate of Non—Applicability to Mr. Gelin to use aluminum gutter replacements were they will not be visible from the street and wooden gutter replacements where visible. Such a change would not be under the Commission' s jurisdiction, justifying the Certificate of • Non—Applicability. Mr. Oedel seconded the MOTION, with the vote being unanimously in favor. 183R Federal Street w An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was submitted by Mr. Metzger for paint colors for his house with the body color being charcoal, the trim light gray, and the window sashes and doors red. Ms. Hilbertpassedaround a photograph of the house and explained to the Commission members that the house is minimally visible from the street. Mr. Clarke made a MOTION to approve the application as being appropriate to the historic and architectural character of the building and district in general. Mr. Slam seconded the MOTION and a vote unanimously in favor was taken. • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 7 September 17, 1986 91 - 93 Federal Street An application for a Certificate. of Appropriateness was submitted • by the Arlander family for window replacement and paint colors with the option to remove the shutters. The application is to remove 6 of the existing windows, three on the first floor and three on the second floor. Two of the windows on the second floor are now 12/12 windows which the applicants propose to replace with 6/6 windows. All replacement windows will be 6/6, single glazed, wooden windows with real muntin bars as exhibited by Mr. Thornhill from the Brosco catalog. The applicants asked for permission to remove the shutters, or paint them black. Discussion ensued about the appropriateness of the ' shutter removal option. Mr. Carr stated that shutters are the most vulnerable part of historic buildings, being the first structural feature to be removed by many people. Mr. Carr also stated that shutters, .although not original features on many homes, are generally old enough to be considered historically appropriate features which should not be removed. Ms. Harris stated that since the shutters were not an original feature, it would not be inappropriate to remove the them. The paint color submitted for the front door is black but the Arlanders would like the option of leaving it white. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the application as submitted, but with the shutters remaining. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. • The Commission members once again stated their views on the shutter removal option with Mr. Carr making reference to an article from Antiques magazine which traced shutter features on houses back to the 1800' s. Mr. Carr amended the motion to accept the application as submitted, with shutter removal being at the discretion of the applicant, since such changes would be appropriate to the historical and architectural character of the building and the district in general. A vote was taken on the amended MOTION which was unanimously in favor. 396 Essex Street An application was submitted by David & Deborah Clarke for paint colors at 396 Essex Street. The body of the house is to be rose with the trim gray and highlights green, as presented September 17, 1986. Mr. Lippman made a MOTION to accept the application as submitted as being historically and architecturally appropriate and Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. .The vote was unanimously in favor. s SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 8 September 17, 1986 OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Harris brought up the denied application of 33 Flint Street which was submitted at the August 6, 1986 meeting. Ms. Harris stated - that the applicant would like a response from the Commission about a revised plan which would reduce the size of the proposed second story deck to either side of the spiral staircase. The proposed alteration to the roofline would still be part of the application. Mr. Lippman asked about the existing Certificate of Occupancy and it was explained that if an owner does X amount of renovations, then the building must bebroughtup to code. It was also explained that the building codes have not changed, but their enforcement and interpretation has become stricter during the current administration. Mr. Carr suggested that the applicant should seek an internal solution rather than using an external means of egress which he considered architecturally and historically inappropriate. ' Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 9:35 p.m. Mr. Slam seconded the MOTION and the vote was unanimously in favor. Respectfully submitted, • - Cynthia Carr Clerk of the Commission I i t SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting October 1 , 1986 • A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, October 1 , 1986 at One Salem Green. Present were: Ms. Harris, Chairperson, Ms. Hilbert, Messrs. Lippman, Oedel, Wolfson, Carr, and Zaharis* Mr. Lippman made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the September 17, 1986 meeting. Mr. Wolfson seconded the MOTION. The vote was unanimously in favor. Local District Operation 116 Federal Street Mr. James Bailey submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace a fence at the rear of his property which is visible from Andover Street . The fence would be a capped picket as per the Guidelines Notebook, 4'8" tall, and would be straighter than the existing picket fence. The applicant would install a waterboard around the bottom and use 7/8" pickets with a milled cap. Ms Harris asked the applicant if the fence will. end with posts. Mr. Bailey responded that the proposed fence runs into another existing stockade fence, thus he does not intend to use posts. The applicant also proposes to replace first floor sashes with • duplicate wooden, single—paned 6/6 sash with real muntin bars. He would like to have the option of replacing the rear door with a duplicate. Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to accept the application as submitted since the proposed changes would be historically and architecturaly appropriate to this building and the district in general. Mr. Oedel seconded the MOTION and the vote was unanimously in favor. 361 Essex Street Robert and Elizabeth Alexander appeared at the Commission' s request since there was some neighborhood concern about the porch enclosure they are building to the rear of their house. The application was submitted at the September 3, 1986 meeting and was approved for a screened in porch off the back of the house continuing the same roofl.ine as the existing ell.. Concerns were raised when the applicants enclosed the I bottom of the addition and placed storm windows over the screens. There are 4 storm windows visible from the District. Mr. Zaharis asked what the problem was since the application had been previously approved. Ms. Harris responded that the addition the Alexanders built varies significantly from what neighbors and some j Commission members had envisioned when the application was approved. Mr. Lippman commented that previously the Commission voted under the understanding that a screened structure would be minimally visible _ ._• from the street, thus of negligible impact. r • - j SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 2 October 1 , 1986 Ms. Hilbert read what was approved from the September 3 , 1986 • minutes. Mr. Wolfson questioned if the structure was any more visible from the District now than before. Mr. Oedel responded that he, had voted approval of a screened in porch not a quasi-sun .room. Mr. Carr polled the Commission about their response to the structure if it had been submitted as currently built. The response was mixed., The applicants stated that what is currently existing is not a finished product, so the Commission could not adequately judge the addition to their property. Mr. Zaharis raised the question as to whether, orfnot storm windows ' r . are under the Commission' s jurisdiction. ,Ms. ,Harris responded that they . are not. Mr. Lippman stated that the Commission would have jurisdiction when storm windows are installed to function as windows not for the purpose of covering existing windows. Mr. Carr questioned whether the problem was that the storm windows are 1/1 . Mr. Oedel stated that his interpretation of a screened in porch was a structure that had screening from floor to ceiling, not small window areas of screening. - Ms. Harris reminded the Commission that approval was given without the submittal of a drawing by the applicants. Mr. Carr delineated two issues in front of the Commission. The • first was whether to accept the current structure under the old application and Certificate. The second was the issue of negligible impact on the District , which was one reason the original application was approved. Mr. Lippman responded that the existing structure no longer has a negligible visual impact. In light of neighborhood concerns and the question of the existing structure' s appropriateness, Mr. Carr asked if the Commission should vote on a new application. A proposed new application was read asking permission to build a porch with the same footprint and roof slope as in the previous application with screen/storm windows and cl.apboarding added to the structure, as currently being constructed. Mr. Carr suggested that the Commission not make the same mistake it made with the past application and approve a structural addition to a property without definitive drawings from the applicant. Mr. Carr made a MOTION that exterior work cease until a new application has been submitted accompanied by sufficent details so there will be no question as to what the Commission members are voting on. Mr. Oedel seconded the MOTION. • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 3 October 1 , 1986 • Discussion ensued as to the characteristics of a screen porch. Mr. Zaharis stated that the applicant should not be responsible if the Commission members have varying ideas as to what defines a screen porch. Ms. Harris commented that there is sufficient detail in a photograph taken October 1 , 1986 for the Commission to make a judgement . Mr. Oedel suggested the Commission use the Building Inspector' s definition of a porch addition which would be that footings would be used, not a permenant foundation. The question was moved and a vote on the MOTION was taken with Messrs. Carr and Oedel in favor, Messrs. Zaharis and Wolfson opposed and Ms. Harris and Mr. Lippman abstaining due to a close personal relationship with the applicant. Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the application as submitted. - • 4 Mr. Carr responded that this would be compounding a previous mistake by not requiring a drawing and that his objection to approval of the application was procedural. at this point since there was no new application formally in front of the Commission. Ms. Harris suggested that the Alexanders and Ms. Hilbert take some` time to fill out a formal application while the agenda item is tabled. The Commission will return to this matter later in the evening. Mr. Oedel made a MOTION to table the agenda item. Mr. Carr • seconded the MOTION and it was voted unanimously in favor. 13 Warren Street An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was resubmitted by Mr. Robert Dooley for window replacement and paint colors on his porch, stairs, and front door. The windows are to be replaced with double glazed 212 wooden windows with wooden muntins glued to the outside of the windows. The front door is to be painted white with the porch and stairs painted gray duplicating the existing colors. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. Zaharis questioned the difference between the existing and the proposed work. Since it was agreed the differences were minimal, Mr. Carr amended his MOTION to approve a Certificate of Non—Applicability since the proposed work, by esentially duplicating existing conditions would not be under the Commission' s jurisdiction. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. Messrs. Zaharis, Carr, Oedel, and Wolfson and Ms. Harris were in favor, Mr. Lippman was opposed, thus the MOTION carried. SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 4 October 1 , 1986 • 18 Washington Square West - Hawthorne Inn An application was submitted for removal of all loose and peeling paint; caulking of openings around windows, doors and trim; reglazing of sashes; priming of all areas to be painted; painting of -all wood surfaces with one coat of quality beige paint (as presented October 1 , 1986) ; painting of all cement masonry one coat gray paint ( as presented October 1 , 1986) ; painting of aluminum storm windows beige; painting of fire escapes black enamel; and staining of fence where previously stained. Sur-faces to be painted include windows, storm window frames, entryways, concrete dentil blocks, foundation and trim, fire escapes, fences, mechanical equipment, and ductwork. Work also includes wrought iron rails, canopies, cornices and area above cornice, mahogany doors, and windows at Main Brace resturant. Ms. Harris asked the applicant if all masonry trim is currently painted. Mr. Kenneth Boyles, representing the Hotel., responded in the affirmative. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to .approve the application as submitted . since it is appropriate to the historic and archietectural character of the building and the district in general. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION and the vote was unanimously in favor. Mr. Boyles stated that the trim color to be used is the same color • as it was five years ago. 37 Warren Street - Annette Swartz previously submitted an application for a porch enclosure. Due to a lack of detailed information, at the time the Commission approved the conceptual idea of the application. The applicant has since drawn up a. detailed plan which was presented to the Commission on October 1 , 1986. Mr. Carr asked the applicant about the roof of the porch enclosure and the applicant responded that the roof would be flat, as it cuurently is. The applicant explained that the porch enclosure will have single-glazed wooden windows with integral muntins, recessed panels, and a new balutrade, which is being custom made. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the application as submitted as being appropriate to the historic and archietectural character of the house and the district in general. Mr. Wolfson seconded the MOTION. Mr. Lippman requested that the submitted drawing be considered for an award at the end of the year. • The vote was unanimously in favor of the MOTION. SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 5 October 1 , 1986 • 18 Chestnut Street An application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability was submitted by Jacquelyn Fredriksen. The application was for removal and replacement of black asphalt roof shingles and removal and replacement of all rotted crown moldings. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the application as submitted since the changes involved were not under the Commission' s jurisdiction. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. Ms. Harris asked the applicant if replacement materials will duplicate what is existing on the house. Ms. Fredriksen responded that she will duplicate all materials she removes. Mr. Oedel asked if there was any documentation as to what is currently existing as a point of procedure. Ms. Harris responded that the whole issue of enforcement of Certificates of Non-Applicability was something which should be discussed at a later time. A vote on the MOTION was taken and itwasunanimously in favor. 78 Federal Street Charles and Susan Clark submitted an application for a Certificate • of Non-Applicability for the reclapboarding of therear elevation of their property. The reclapboarding willbe done using 1z" X 6" cedar . clapboarding exposed 3z" to 4" to the weather. At the meeting the applicants asked that the east and west sides of the house be included in the application, but work will probably not be done on them until the spring of 1987. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the application as submitted since the repairs involved were not under the Commission' s jurisdiction. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION and the vote was unanimously in favor. 82 Derby Street An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was submitted by Fredrick. Small for paint color -options. The options the applicant has submitted are to paint the body of the building either soft white (70-982) with the trim Bedford Beige (70-975) or the body Duckingham (70-942) with Sandstone trim (70-940) . All. paints will be Oxline. � f e i + Mr. .Carr made a MOTION to approve the application as submitted as being appropriate to the historical and architectural character of the building and the district in general . i • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 6 October 1 , 1986 Ms. Harris suggested that the Commission recommend that the applicant seek a solution that would better blend the roof between the • first and second floors with the rest of the building. Mr. Carr modified the MOTION to include the recomendation that the applicant either remove the decorative roof between the first and second floors or paint it the body colorsothat it better blends with the rest of the building . Mr. Zaharis seconded the modified MOTION and the vote was unanimously in favor. - 361 Essex Street - resumed The finished application was brought before the Commission and Ms. Hilbert read it to Commission members. - Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the application as submitted. . Mr. Wolfson seconded the MOTION. Discussion ensued about the construction of the porch enclosure and ` t paint colors to be used on the finished structure. Ms. Harris requested - to know how the applicants plan to end the clapboarding. Do they plan on using corner boards and trim around windows? The applicants responded that they would if that was the required or the technically feasible fashion in which to apply clapboarding to their structure. . Mr. Oedel asked the applicant if they planned to install window sills and a top trim to the storm windows. The applicants responded that they did; Mr. Carr questioned the angle of the porch enclosure. The Alexanders responded that the porch follows the lines of the house and the roof is sloped in a continuation of the slope of the existing roof. The question was moved and the vote was Messrs. Zaharis and Wolfson in favor, Messrs. Carr and Oedel oppossed, and Mr. Lippman and Ms. Harris abstained since they are friends and abutters. The MOTION did not carry. Mr. Carr stated that he could not vote in favor of the application because of the procedural. issue. Mr. Carr continued thathe did not feel the applicants presented enough detailed information on which the Commission could base a decision. He thought that the applicants should provide aplan with specific information so there will be no doubt as to what Commission members are voting on and how the completed structure will appear from the street. The Alexanders stated that the Commission had previously granted them a Certificate of Appropriateness without requiring detailed plans SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 7 October 1 , 1986 • so they did not feel they should be subjected to going through the application process again. They felt that they applied for a screened porch and built a screened porch and now have a problem because Commission members are in disagreement as to what a screened porch should look like. Mr. Oedel made a MOTION that the applicants cease work on the porch until a complete application with detailed drawings is submitted to the Commission. Mr. Carr seconded the MOTION. The vote was Messrs. Carr and Oedellin favor, Messrs. Wolfson and Zaharis opposed, and Ms. Harris and Mr. Lippman abstaining. Ms. Harris mentioned that the Commission. did approve an application at the September 3 , 1986 meeting and in fairness to the applicants felt that a solution should be reached at this meeting. The applicants requested to know what appeal process is available to them. Ms. Harris responded that legal recourse is always an option. Messrs. Carr and Oedel asked that the Commission finish the agenda and then speak informally with the applicants. This was the consensus of the Commission members. F • 7-13 North Pine Street - Ms. Jessica Herbert presented detailed drawings of proposed work for 7-13 North Pine Street, including the installation of 8 Atrium doors and two two-story iron decks each being serviced by a spiral staircase on the rear facade. The tops of the rearwindows will be lowered approximately 611 in order to be even with the doors. The applicant proposes to repair the slate roof where necessary with like materials. The dumpster will be on the south property line and will be enclosed with lattice. All deteriorated clapboards, moldings and windows will be replaced in kind with duplicate materials. The applicant proposes to replace the front basement doors with windows. Paint colors are to be; body Chippendale Rosestone, trim Lancaster White, and highlights New London Burgundy (from Benjamin. Moore 's 100 Years of Exterior Colors chart) . Masonry will be power washed and repointed. Ms. Harris questioned Ms. Herbert about the roof and what needs repairaswell as what materials will be used. Ms. Herbert responded that there is a ten foot section of the roof which will be repaired with slate matching the existing. Mr. Lippman asked the applicant what. plans were made for the heat ' vents. Ms. Herbert explained that the chimneys are double chimneys, thus the gas fired, hot water heating system will be vented out of the chimneys. Mr. Lippman asked about the placement of kitchen vents. The I SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 8 October 1 , 1986 applicant responded that they were not designed and any suggestions from • the Commission would be incorporated into her plans for the units. Mr. Lippman then suggested that the kitchen vents be placed under the porch for the first floor and under the roof eaves for the second floor. Ms. Harris questioned the applicant as to what was being done to the sides of the buildings. Ms. Herbert replied that in the middle of the north side a door now exists and she would be replacing it with a window to match the other windows. Ms. Herbert explained that the 4 front double doors will. remain as they exist. She then told the Commission that the brick has been power + washed and stripped and repointed. Clapboards will be replaced where necessary. No exterior changes will be made to the south side. Mr. Lippman made a MOTION to approve the application with the addition of the kitchen vents as described above and that highlights either all be painted or not at all. The MOTION was made because the proposed work is appropriate to the historic and architectural character of the building andtheDistrict in general. Mr. oedel seconded the MOTION. Mr. Carr began discussion about the rear egress by stating that the plans were well executed, but after a site visit he wondered about the character of the rear egress as proposed and the suir_ablity of it to the building and its lot. Mr. Carr felt that the porch—like stucture was • uncharacteristic because it draws attention to the rowhouse effect of the building and creates too much activity for the smallarea behind the house. Mr. Carr also stated that he would prefer a minimal exterior egress, rather than the porch type proposed by the applicant . Ms. Harris questioned the applicant about the possibility of tucking the spiral staircases in a bit closer to the house. Ms. Herbert responded that setting the spiral staircases any closer to the building would cause entry problems with the second floor doors. The vote on the MOTION was Ms. Harris, Messrs. Lippman, oedel, Zaharis and Wolfson in favor, and Mr. Carr in opposition Thus the MOTION carried. • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 9 October 1 , 1986 Y 331 Essex Street i • Ms. Hilbert raised the issue of the property owner seeking a variance from all density and setback requirements in order to install 6 units in the building. She explained that the building is a duplex and that when the Commission approved an exterior staircase at 333 Essex Street, concern was raised about 331 Essex Street. At the time the owners of # 331 and # 333 were not able to coordinate a solution to the exterior egress problem. Mr. Carr stated that ahigher density allowance usually undermines a neighborhood and the historic quality of a District. Mr. Lippman suggested that a letter be read into the record at the Board of Appeal meeting which states that the Historic Commission does not approve exterior renovations or modifications to a historic property in order to accommodate an increase in units in the building above that allowed by zoning. Mr. Oedel. further suggested that a representative from the Commission be in attendence at the meeting to voice the Commission' s policy as well as have the letter entered into the record. Ms. Hilbert read a draft of the letter and Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to have a representative from the Commission at the Board of • Appeals meeting to present the letter. Mr. Oedel seconded the MOTION and the vote was unanimously in favor. Mr. Lippman volunteered to attend the Board of Appeal meeting. 361 Essex Street Mr. Oedel stated that the Commission seems to be at a stalemate And it is obvious that not all Commission members had a clear understanding of what the applicants had in mindwiththeir original application. The applicants addressed the Commission stating that they felt they should not bear the burden because the Commission did not previously require detailed plans before approving their application. Also the abutter responded after the 10 day -response period given on the public hearing waiver form. The discrepancy between the application and what was built was again discussed with no apparent conclusions resulting from the discussion. Mr. Zaharis suggested that the Commi.ssionrecess for 20 minutes, look at the property and the work being done and then come back and vote on it again. SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 10 October 1 , 1986 Returning to One Salem Green was not acceptable to Commission members so a site visit was arranged with the application process being held over to the next meeting. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to adjourn at 9:40 p.m. It was seconded by Mr. Zaharis and the vote was unanimously in favor. Respectfully Submitted, Cyn,hia Carr Cleric of the Commission s • r SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting October 15, 1986 A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on • Wednesday, October 15, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green. Present were: Ms. Harris, Chairperson, Ms. Hilbert , Messrs. Lippman, Cook, Carr, Zaharis, Wolfson, Clarke, and Oedel . Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the minutes submitted for the October 1 , 1986 meeting. Mr. Lippman seconded the NOTION and it was voted unanimously in favor. LOCAL DISTRICT OPERATION 149 Federal Street An application was submitted by Francis and Marguerite ArcharrbauIt for paint colors for their house. The body of the house is to be Blue Mist , the trim,- Wnite and the shutters, Black. All paints are to be Sear's Acrylic Satin Latex Weatherbeater as per application presented ons October 15, 1986. Ms. Harris questioned whether the trim areas were clearly defined in this application, and stated that trim should include connerboards, sills, window trim and the door infill . Mr. Zaharis Trade a MOTION to approve the application as submitted as being historically and architecturally in character with the building and the district in general . Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION. Mr. Carr asked if Ms. Hilbert had received any complaints from the neighbors. Ms. Hilbert responded that she had not received any corpIaints. The vote on the NOTION was unanimously in favor. One Broad Street One of Charing Cross's representatives had not arrived, so the C ormission decided to continue with the agenda and address One Broad Street later. 19 Warren Street While there was no formal application before the Commission, William and Susan O'Neill requested that the Commission preliminarily review plans for a window alteration they would like to make. Nis. Hilbert explained that the proposed alteration is located on the rear ell , an addition to the original structure. The O'Neills would like to undertake kitchen renovations and asked for the Commission's advice. , Ms. Hilbert suggested that the Commission consider allowing the window alteration, which would involve shortening a set of paired 6/6 sash, since the change does not affect a primary window, and is proposed for the rear addition to the house where none of the`existing windows match. Ms. Hilbert further explained that she felt the applicants should leave SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 2 October 15, 1986 the framework of the currently existing pair of windows to mark the . original dimensions of this element . Mr. Cook asked Ms. Hilbert if the existing windows are the original . Ms. Hilbert responded that they are probably original to the rear addition. Mr. Carr questioned the Commission as to the options a person has when doing renovations on a historic property and wants to alter a window. Three options were mentioned. They were: (1 ) shorten the window, (2) block the window ( in this case with a sink) , and (3) rearrange the renovations so exterior change is not necessary. Mr. Lippman stated that the Commission has not allowed for window alterations when a principle view of the property is in question, but since this is not a principle view, or part of the main section of the house, he sees no problem with approving a window alteration when the O'Neills submit an application. Mr. Carr stated he would have a problem approving the window alteration if all existing windows were symmetrical , but since they are not , an alteration would not be objectionable. Mr. Oedel suggested that the O'Neills use flat boarding inside the frame of the window rather than using vinyl siding, which is the covering on the rest of the house. Ms. Harris suggested that the O'Neills use a 6/6 replacement window and that the sills line up with a nearby Anderson window. 9 Warren Street Mr. John Flynn submitted an application to reshingle his roof with black asphalt roof shingles (Bird Windseal 80 - Black Blend) to replace the existing green asphalt shingles. Mr. Carr made a MJTION to approve the application as submitted as being historically and architecturally appropriate for the building and the district in general . Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION and the vote was unanimously in favor. One Broad Street Nis. Harris asked the representatives from Charing Cross Development to explain the issues before the Corrmission tonight . i SALEM HISTORICAL COWL SSION . Page 3 October 15, 1986 Mr. John Darling, attorney for Charing Cross, told the Comnission that . because the voltage on Sumner Street was not high enough to accomnodate the originally agreed upon placement of the transformer, relocation is necessary. Other issues which were included in the application were the addition of a roof deck behind the rrain roof turret and landscaping. Mr. Cook asked Mr. Roger Lang, architect for the project , to inform the Corrmission as to the size of the transformer. Mr. Lang responded that the pad on which the transformer site is 5' X 6' and the metal box is 416" high, 4' deep and 316" wide. Mr. Cook asked if the developers could recess the the transformer into the ground. They answered that it is not permissible to recess the transformer into the ground for safety reasons. Mr. Cook then asked about bringing the electrical wire under the ground from Broad Street to the agreed upon location. Ms. Harris responded that there could be a voltage reduction when a line is run underground. Charing Cross representatives also pointed out that if the lines needed repair they would have to dig up a large section of their parking facility. Charing Cross representatives stated that it was their preference to have the transformer out front with screening materials to disguise it . The idea of putting the transformer inside was raised, but it was pointed out that an inside location would have to be in a room with the • capacity to be fire resistant for three hours and that this requirement made it prohibitively expensive. Mr. Cook asked if the transformer could be placed on the roof . Mr. Ron Bouchard responded that the transformer is Soo heavy to be situated on the roof . Mr. Carr asked if the Charing Cross representatives could explain the forrrula used by the Mass Electric to determine whether or not a line is to be upgraded. Mr. Carr further asked why the developers did not want to increase the voltage on Sumner Street in order to facilitate the transformer location . Mr. Bouchard responded that Mass Electric examines the installation costs of increased voltage and the rate of return over a five year period, the difference would be charged to the developer seeking the voltage increase. This charge for upgrading Surmier Street vas reported to be $50,000.00. Mr. Carr expressed the idea of contacting the power corrpany to see if this is indeed the procedure and policy they follow. Charing Cross representatives told the Commission that they have 3' from the window to the parking lot in some spaces and that there were a limited nurrber of options for the transformer location . Ms. Harris suggested eliminating a window in order_ to tuck the . i SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 4 October 15, 1986 transformer closer to the building. Mr. Carr stated that it is the Commission 's function to balance the public/private conflicts that occur during redevelopment or renovations of historic properties. Placement of the transformer near the street is not in the public's best interest . Mr. Lippman asked the Charing Cross representatives to submit correspondence from Mass Electric for the Commission's examination. Evidence of a financial hardship to the developers would have to be proved beyond doubt for transformer relocation. Mr. Carr made a NOTION to table the transformer location so that the other parts of the application can be addressed. Ms. Harris told Mr. Lang that complete drawings would be necessary before the Commission can take action on this aspect of the application. Mr. Darling asked if Charing Cross could have a conceptual guide from the Commission since they are under time constraints for construction corrpletion . Mr. Carr responded that it was difficult to voice an opinion without seeing something concrete. He added that he would have no opposition to a transformer near the street if it could be sucessfully disguised, but he had serious doubts that proper screening techniques could be employed. Mr. Carr asked if the applicants had examined a site on their plan near parking space #13. Mr. Oedel stated that this area appeared to be approximately 12' from the building thus may be able to accomodate • the transformer. Mr. Cook stated that if what the applicant claims about financial hardship is true, he has no opposition to the relocation of the transformer with proper screening. Mr. Zahahris was in concurance with Mr. Cook so long as propoer landscaping and enclosure can be shown on a plan prior to approval The issue of needing a 12" dike around the transformer pad on three sides was raised by Mr. Oedel . This added to the space necessary for proper installation, thus further limiting the choice of locations. Ms. Harris suggested that Charing Cross would need aproximately 12' for screening in order to do a proper job. Mr. Wolfson added that he had no reservations about the location and screening idea if all alternatives had been looked at , but he was not convinced that all alternatives had been examined. Mr. Lippman stated that a non-optimal situation should only be allowed by the Commission when the applicant has demonstated, beyond a doubt , that financial hardship would be involved in a more.appropri ate site. He further stated that he could not approve a conceptual idea without some plan; he also asked that Commission members be given due respect when information is requested from the applicant . SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 5 October 15, 1986 Ms. Harris told the applicant that she had no problem with the concept • of screening and landscaping, but she would need a drawing or a mark-up before she could approve a plan. Ms. Harris also stated that she would need documentation proving hardship. Mr. Carr suggested that the abutters be invited to the next meting so that they can hear the developers plans, and explainations for the revised plans. Mr. Cook commented that Mr. Carr's suggestion assumed dessent concerning the plans from the neighbors and the Commission should not assume negative reactions. Mr. Lippman agreed with Mr. Carr, stating that on a project of this magnitude the abutters have a right to input into the decision making process, not just to respond to decisions made by the Commission and the developer. Ms. Harris suggested that the Commission explore the other issues in front of them before deciding on whether or not to hold a public hearing. Mr. Darling raised the issue of the Commission's jurisdiction over the transformer location, since its definition as a structure may be debatable. Mr. Carr responded that litigation could always solve the question of the Commission 's jurisdiction, but it may wreck havoc with the developers timetable. Mr. Lang presented the applicant 's plan to include a roof deck at the rear of the tower turret . He Passed around photographs with sticks at the deck elevation representing the height of the railing as well as the • height of a person. Mr. Lang continued by stating that the addition is obliquely visible from Broad Street and that the pickets are simple in design, to match the window well pickets, and they will be made of wrought iron. Mr. Carr asked if the sticks could remain in location until Commission merrbers could visit the site and have a clearer impression as to the impact of the proposed deck., Mr. Lang said that it was possible to reinsert the sticks and leave them up. for a while. Mr. Carr said that the Commission should have a policy against the addition of non-historic elements to historic structures,and thus he would be against the addition of a roof deck. He also stated that a roof deck application was denied to an abutter of this property, thus it would be hard to reconcile an opinion in favor of a roof deck at One Broad Street . Mr. Lippman qualified Mr. Carr's statement about the roof deck of the abutter by stating that the application was not denied, but a requirement of non-visibility was made. Mr. Clarke thought that a roof deck would look incongrous on a building of this size, but contended that it may have had a structure similar to widow's walk at some point in time. • SALEM HISTORICAL COWL SSION Page 6 October 15, 1986 Mr. Cook made a MOTION to accept the addition of a roof deck off the main roof turret as submitted as being historically and architecturally appropriate to the character of the building and the district in general . Mr. Wolfson seconded the MOTION. Mr. Cook stated that the Corrmision should develop guidelines to use when considering the renovations of historic properties. He put forward the idea of not expecting pristine restoration of buildings, but to allow for modern, non-offensive, minimal changes to historic structures in order to facilitate the rehabilitation of the buildings. Mr. Clarke questioned the applicant on the finished size of the deck and it 's visibility from different locations within the district . Mr. Lang responded that the finished deck would be approximately 5' X 14' and would be visible from a southern and northern view from Broad Street , but the turret eliminates the view of the roof deck from Sumter Street . Mr. Carr interjected that it was not only the view of the deck which should concern the Commission, but also deck appurtenances such as furniture 'which would be visible and incongruous. Mr. Lang told the Commission that the deck is only to serve one unit , and will not be a common deck. It 's entrance wilIPbe off the main bedroom of this one unit . Ms. Harris asked if the deck could be trimmed. Mr. Lang replied that It ' could be trimmed, but would never be invisible, and a trimming of the deck would'decrease it 's attractiveness to the occupants. The applicant told the Commission that the railings would be of a crested variety which would match those submitted and approved for the window wells. The MOTION was moved with 01s. Harris, Messrs. Lippman, Oedel , Wolfson, Clarke and Cook in favor and Messrs. Carr and Zaharis opposed, thus the NDTION carried. Mr. Lang asked Commission members if they had a chance to review the previously submitted landscape drawing with the species list . Ms. Hilbert , wkio was expecting a presentation at the meeting, had not mailed the drawing to Commission members. Mr. Cook suggested that the Commission hold off on landscaping since the plans will change when the transformer location has been established. It was decided that the transformer location and the landscaping will be • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 7 October 15, 1986 issues discussed at the November 5, 1986 meeting. • Mr. Bouchard from Charing Cross invited Commission merrbers to the site on Friday morning, October 17, 1986, from 10:00 a.m. until 12:00 p.m. The developers will be there to review their plans. 396 Essex Street - Carriage House David and Deborah Clarke submitted an application for the renovation of an existing carriage house behind the main house at 396 Essex Street . The Corrmission had previously approved a renovation plan, which was not satisfactory to the Massachusetts Historical Commission Because the regularity of the design obscured the building's original character as a carriage house The Clarkes are now reapplying with a plan that is acceptable to the Massachusetts Historical Commission. Mr. Cook asked Mr. Clarke to explain the differences between the two plans. Mr. Clarke replied that the sliding door feature was changed to preserve more of the feeling of a carriage house. The paint colors to be applied to the carriage house will match the main house with the body being grey and the trim dark grey . Mr. Carr made a NOTION to approve the application as submitted as being historically and architecturally aporopriate 'to the house and the district in general . Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION and it was unanimously approved. 361 Essex Street At the October 1 , 1986 meeting, the Alexanders have submitted an application for approval of the porch enclosure as built . Mr. Carr asked Ms. Hilbert if a vote on .the application was necessary at this meeting or if it could wait . Ms. Hilbert responded that the Commission could delay it 's decision until the next meeting and still be within the 60 day limitation period. Mr. Clarke made a MOTION to table the agenda item until the Noverrber 5, 1986 meeting. Mr. Lippman seconded the NOTION and the vote was unanimously in favor. OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Harris raised the issue of discussing Ms. Hilbert 's work schedule for the year. The work schedule is part of the Survey and Planning Grant from the Massachusetts Historical Commission for fiscal year 1986. Ms. Hilbert informed Commission merrbers that Massachusetts Historical Commission representatives will be atending the Commission's next r� C501 ' • SALEM HISTORICAL COMM ISSION Minutes of Meeting November 5, 1986 A regular meting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, November 5, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green. Present were: Ms. Harris, Chairperson, Ms. Hilbert , Messrs. Clarke, Wolfson, Zaharis, Cook, Carr, and Lippman, and Messrs. Slam and Oedel , alternates. Mr. Carr made a NOTION to approve the minutes of the October 15, 1986 meeting as submitted. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION and the vote was unanimously in favor. Local District Operation One Broad Street In light of an abutter response concerning the Commission 's approval of a root deck for the rear of the main turret at One Broad Street , the Commission discussed the possiblity of a public hearing concerning this issue. Mr. Philip Burke submitted a letter to the Commission stating his concern over their decision to allow a roof deck to be installed at One Broad Street when, in June of this year, his application for a roof deck at 2 Broad Street was only approved (Certificate of Non-Applicability) on the condition that the deck not be visible from a public way . Ms. Harris stated that her memory of the application was that a smaller, less visible roof deck than the one proposed for 2 Broad Street might be permissable. Nlessrs. Carr and Slam stated they remembered that non-visibility from a public right of way was the restriction placed upon roof deck construction at this address. Mr. Lippman said that his memory concurred with Messrs. Carr and Slam and that it wes the applicant who chose not to redesign the roof deck to fit Historical Commission criteria. Mr. Carr then stated that the letter submitted by Mr. Philip Burke questioned the Commission 's consistency with their roof deck policy but did not object to the roof deck at One Broad Street . Mr. Lippman suggested that the Commission respond to Mr. Burke with a letter explaining the differences between the two buildings and why a roof deck is more appropriate for One Broad Street than it would be for 2 Broad Street . Mr. Clarke stated that the size difference of the buildings should be emphasized and Mr. Carr, added that style differences should be mentioned. Mr. Clarke Trade a NOTION that the Commisison send a letter to Mr. Burke explaining the different circumstances of the two applications for roof decks. The letter is to emphasize that the Victorian era, Second Empire styling, height ,and scale of One Broad Street man that it can support a minimally visible roof deck, particularly an iron one, since this material is typical of roof cresting. By contrast the Georgian style and domstic character of 2 Broad Street mean that the deck Mr. Burke proposed would be acharacteristic of such a structure would not be SALEM HISTORICAL CONNIISSION Page 2 November 5, 1986 historically appropriate. Mr. Carr seconded the NOTION. Mr. Cook made a friendly ammendment that the term incongruous be used • when explaining the roof deck rather than inappropriate. Mr. Slam asked if the deck approved for One Broad Street was visible from a public way in the district and was answered in the affirmative. Mr. Clarke explained that it will be tucked behind the main roof turret . Ms. Harris added that the deck will be composed of the same railings as the ones used on the windows wells. Mr. Carr stated that the letter should downplay minimal impact and emphasize the fact that the building is undergoing a complete renovation of the structure and the use. Ms. Harris suggested that the letter include the Commission's willingness to consider a smaller, yet visible, deck at 2 Broad Street . Mr. Clarke agreed. Mr. Lippman stated that to emphasize the differences of the two properties is enough for the letter. If Mr. Burke would like to reapply with another roof deck design that should be his decision. Mr. Carr agreed with Mr. Lippman that to encourage a reconsideration would make the Commission look inconsistent . He added that under no circumtistances would a gambrel roof , such as that at 2 Broad Street , have supported a roof deck. Mr. Carr also stated that the roof deck issue will apply to other properties throughout the district and criteria' which can be applied to all applications should be developed. • Mr. Clarke moved the NOTION. Mr. Cook retracted his friendly amendment . e The vote was unanimous with Ms. Harris and Messrs. Lippman, Clarke', . ' . Carr, NJolfson, and Zaharis voting in favor. 361 Essex Street - Porch Enclosure Ms. Hilbert brought the Commission up to date with the status of this application. The application was filed by Dr. and Mrs. Alexander at the October 1 , 1986 meeting for a porch enclosure as built . A previous application had been approved for a screened porch without plans being submitted. Actual construction resulted in a porch enclosure which, to the Commission 's minion, was not a screened pi orch, but a quasi addition to the house. To date the current application has not been changed. Mr. Clarke made a NOTION to deny the application as submitted. Mr. Carr seconded the NOTION. Mr. Cook opened discussion by asking how acrimonious the situation • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 3 Noverrber 5, 1986 between the Commission and the applicants was. Ms. Harris explained that there have been no apparant solutions for the application. Mr. • Lippman added that the applicants currently do not feel they went to change the porch enclosure but as time goes on they may alter their plans. Mr. Carr reminded the Commission of the irrpl ications of the vote. If the MOTION to deny fails the converse (approval of the application) is not true. The vote was Messrs. Clarke, Carr and Oedel in favor, Messrs. Zaharis and Wolfson opposed. Messrs. Lipprran, Slam, and Cook and Ms. Harris , abstained. Since 4 votes are necessary to carry a MOTION, the MOTION failed. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the aoplication as submitted. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. The vote was ib'essrs. Zaharis and Wolfson in favor, Messrs. Carr, Clarke and Oedel opposed. Messrs. Cook, Slam, and Lippman and Nis. Harris abstained. Thus the MOTION failed and the application was denied. Reasons for the abstentions were requested. Mts. Harris and Mr. Lippman explained that they abstained because of a close personal relationship with the applicants as well as for financial reasons. Messrs. Cook and Slam abstained because of their absence during the previous deliberations; they felt they did not know enough about the application. A The question was raised as to how many votes were required to sustain a • MOTION to deny an application. Chapter 40C specifically states a majority of the Cormission (not just a majority of those present ) is necessary to approve an application, but does not mention denials. e t t Ntr. Cook raised the issue of abstentions and how they are used by Commission merbers. Mir. Lippman asked Nis. Harris to find Mr. Cook out of order, since the issue was not on the agenda. Ms. Hilbert asked the Commission to explain its reasons for not approving the application. Mr. Carr stated that the application was not denied for procedural reasons, but because both the fenestration (a wall of one/one windows) and the massing were inappropriate to the structure and because the alteration was neither a screened porch nor a properly designed addition for a building of this period. Mr. Clarke raised the issue as to the Commission's role now that the application has not been approved. Will the Commission ask for the structure to be removed? Mr. Oedel made the suggestion that the Commission's action regarding 361 Essex Street be corrrunicated to the Building Inspectors office and asked whether this will hault the issuance of further building permits. Mr. Cook asked why the Commission is not sending a letter requesting removal of the addition. Mfr. Carr found Mr. Cook out of order since S SALEM H I STOR ICAL COMM I SS IOil Page 4 November X,, 1986 he abstained from voting on the issue. • Mr. Clarke suggested that the Commission wait 30 days and then send a letter to the Building Inspector. The enforcement of any building code violations will then be in his jurisdiction. Mr. Oedel stated that the Commission approved a screened porch and the applicants have the option of building a screened porch or returning to the Commission with another design. Mr. Slam suggested the Con-mission clarify the Alexanders' options in a letter. Mr. Clarke stated that written correspondence should reiterate the minutes of the meeting when the Commission approved a screened porch. Mr. Zaharis made the observation that the Commission was back to the beginning of their problem by not having a clear definition of what constitutes a screened porch. Mr. Carr was of the opinion that it is the applicants' responsibility to respond to the Comnission 's decision. The consensus of the Commission was that the Building Inspector should be Tailed a letter detailing the Commission's decision and that future alteration of the structure should occur at the applicants' initiative. Old Business 407 Essex Street - Chiropractor's Sign Ms. Harris explained the situation as being one where the applicant went through the sign ordinance procedure, had his sign reviewed by the is Planning Department and was issued a sign permit by the Building Inspector before any officials realized the property was located within a historic district . Ms. Hilbert had a conversation with the owner of the sign, Dr. Kantorosinski , who stated that he has a legal sign permit , so does not feel obligated to go through another approval process. - Mr. Carr rrade a NOTION to write a letter to the owner of the sign stating that his sign was erected without gaining all necessary approvals and that he can present his sign before the Commission at its next meeting on November 19, 1986 or the Commission will refer the matter to the City Solicitor. Mr. Clarke stated that the sign permit can be revoked since proper approvals were not obtained. Mr. Carr added that a municipality is not bound by actions taken because an employee was in error. Mr. Zaharis moved the question with the vote on the NDTION being unanimously in favor. Mr. Carr made a h'DTION to write to the Building inspector asking him to revoke the sign permit . Mr. Lippman seconded the NOTION and the vote was unanimously in favor. SALEM HISTORICAL CONh11SSION Page 5 Noverrber 5, 1986 , Ms. Harris requested that Mr. Carr do some research on this issue since the applicant wil bring his lawyer if he attends the Noverrber 19, 1986 • meeting. Old/New Business Nis. Harris raised the issue of the Commission's procuedural review process which has been ongoing for several weeks. An examination of N1;L Chapter 40C has been undertaken by several Commission merrbers and it has been determined that the Commission should change its procedures in order to allow for greater abutter participation in the decision making process. Draft procedures were submitted to the Commission members as follows: 1 . Before making any changes to the exterior of a property in a historic district, the owner should call or visit the Commission office to discuss proposed alterations and to determine the category of application - " Appropriateness", "Non-Applicability", or "Hardship". 2. The Corrmission hears applications twice each month, normally on the first and third Wednesdays, unless otherwise posted at City Hall . Meetings are held at One Salem Green, 2nd floor, and begin at 7:30 p.m. 3. An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness or Hardship rust be received by the Monday 16 days before the meeting to be scheduled for the next agenda. An application for a Certificate of • Non-Applicability may be brought in up to the day of the meeting. 4. An application will not be considered complete unless all work items are thoroughly described including specifications regarding dimensions, materials, and any other information needed for the Commission to make a determination. Applications for changes other than paint colors must be accompanied by drawings that adequately illustrate the change. The requirement of a drawing may be waived at the discretion of the Commission if the change involved can be adequately described with words. 5. If the applicant is applying to do work that requires a variance or a Special Permit from the Board of Appeal , that variance or Special Permit must be obtained before the Historical Corrmission will hear the application. 6. Applications rust be submitted by the owner of the property . In the case of a tenant , a waiver of the owner's appearance may be granted at the discretion of the Commission if it is requested by the owner. 7. Any application for a Certificate of Appropriateness or Hardship rust be heard at a public hearing. Notice of the hearing nest be placed in the Salem Evening News 14 days before the hearing, and the City Clerk and abutters oust be notified in writing. Commission staff will handle these procedures. The applicant must pay for the cost of advertising in the News before his/her application will be • SALEM H I STOR ICAL COMA SS ION ?age 6 .Noverrber 5„ 1986 e heard. A public hearing is not required for a Certificate of Non-Applicability. • 8. At the meeting, the Cammission will discuss the application with the applicant or his representative, hear the abutters and take a vote. If the application is approved a Certificate will be'issued, copies of which will be sent to the City Clerk and Building Inspector. 9. A property owner or a contractor cannot receive a building permit unless a Certificate has been issued or the applicant has a letter from the Commission stating that the change involved is not subject to the Commission 's jurisdiction. The procedures also list the types of alterations that are and are not under Commission jurisdiction. Ms. Harris pointed out that perhaps the most difficult point of enforcement would be requiring that all applications be submitted at least 16 days before the meeting. Since all meetings will be public hearings, advertisement of the application will be necessary in the Salem Evening News. The cost of advertising will be paid for by the applicant and until the advertising fee is paid, an application will not be considered ccrrplete. Ms. Harris then explained that the meetings would be run similar to those of the Board of Appeals: 1 . Applicant presents his/her proposal • 2. Commission members question applicant 3. Floor is open to the public, first those opposed, then those in favor 4. The public nearing is closed and the applicant has a 5 minute rebuttal period 5. Commission merbers discuss the proposal amongst themselves and take a vote. N1s. Harris stated that a letter will be sent to ail property owners in the districts and that their cooperation in submitting applcations at least 16 days prior to the date of the meeting will be necessary in order for the new procedures to be effective. Ms. Harris also suggested that a letter be railed to property owners every 6 months reminding them of the procedures and updating them on Commission activities and concerns. Mr. Lippran made a NDTION to adopt the procedures as submitted. Mr. Carr seconded the NOTION and discussion ensued. Mr. Cook questioned the procedure of continuation of a public hearing. He was concerned that the advertising would need to occur every time a hearing needed to be continued from one meeting to the next . Mr. Lippman responded that a public hearing could be continued from one meeting ,to another without further publication in the News. Mr. Oedel made a friendly amendment to the NDTiON which stated that a • SALEM HISTORICAL CONMISSION Page 7 November 5, 1986 dollar amount be added to the procedural information package being mailed to district property owners. Nls. Hilbert responded that this was not possible since she was not sure how much the advertisement vas going • to cost . She vias going to try to get all the agenda items run as one advertisement , vhich would reduce the cost of advertising for the applicant . Mr. Lippman refused to accept the friendly amendment . Mr. Carr made a friendly amendment to the NOTION v%hich stated that paragraph 4 of the procedure information sheet errphasize that a drawing of some sort is the preferred choice of the Commission. Mr. Lippman accepted the friendly amendment to the NOTION. Mr. Carr then raised the issue of defining when an application is complete. He suggested that Ms. Hilbert be in charge of reviewing the applications and making the decision of completeness. Mr. Cook asked if the payment of the advertising fee vies to be used as a criteria for definition of completeness. Mr. Slam asked for the cost of the advertisement if each is run individually. Ms. Hilbert responded the cost of individual adverisements will be between $25.00 and $30.00. Mr. Slam then asked how large projects will be handled under the new procedures. Ms. Harris responded that each time a different issue is brought before the Commission it will be treated as an individual application, thus requiring abutter notification as well as advertisement for a public hearing. Mr. Lippman suggested that many of the larger projects could be • discussed informally at a Commission meeting prior to a public hearing so that some clear basis of discussion is acheived. Mr. Carr stated that the reason the procedures are being changed are to have greater abutter participation in the decision making process. He added that the voting of conceptual approval should be avoided and that ` only general advise be given before an actual plan is submitted. Mr. Cook interjected that the new procedures may prolong the meetings as" well as add to the number of superfluous issues raised. Mr. Clarke questioned other Commission members about paragraph 5 lAhich states that an applicant should obtain all necessary Special Permits or Variances prior to having an application heard be the Commission. Ms. Harris made a friendly amendment to delete paragraph 5 and leave the order of approvals up to the applicant . Mr. Lippman did not oppose this friendly amendment . Mr. Carr stated that he thought the neve procedures may result in more professional discussion, as well as spending less time on each application and will stop arguments between applicants and Commission members as has happened. Mr. Carr made a friendly amendment that the procedures explain that the tells them that Historic • SALEM H I STOR ICAL COiNKII SS ION Page 8 Noverrber 5, 1986 Commission Guidelines are available at the Commission office and should • be consulted before an application is made. Mr. Carr added as part of his friendly amendment that exterior staircases should be added to page 2, paragraph 4, that all work items be included on the submitted plan accompanying an application, that all applications need a drawing or, specifications except for paint colors, and finally that the last sentence be removed from page 1 , paragraph 4. Mr. Lippman accepted the friendly amendment . Nlr. Zaharis asked if Commission members would get a final draft copy of the procedures before they are sent to district property owners. Ms. Hilbert answered in the affirmitive. Ms. Harris suggested that "similar appurtenances" be struck from #4 under the section that describes work not under the Commission's jurisdiction. Mr. Carr stated that the phrasing of the statute included "similar appurtenances", thus the Cormission is obligated to state #4 as submitted. Mr. Lippman made an amendment which stated that 4 votes of the Commission are needed to deny an application. This implies that agreement among a majority of Con-mission rnerrbers would be necessary for approval or denial of an application. Mr. Carr seconded the amendment . Mr. Cook asked if 4 votes are necessary to carry an approval for an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. Carr responded that the statute clearly states that a majority vote of the whole Commission is necessary to approve an application, 'not a majority of the merrbers present . Mr. Lippman stated that his amnendment would make it necessary for a majority vote of the whole Con-mission would be necessary for all NOTIONS granted by the Commission. Mr. Slam raised the issue of stalemates if 4 members were necessary for any NOTION to carry. Mr. Carr stated that the statute is clear in its requirement that a majority of Commission members rust agree to pass an application for any kind of Certificate. Mr. Slam then raised the issue of stating reasons for denial of an application. It was the Commission's consensus that reasons for denial of an application should accompany such a decision. Mr. Cook asked who would be notified about the public hearing. Mr. Lippman responded that abutters will receive direct notification; other interested parties will be notified by way of the News advertising and posting at City Hall . Mr. Lippman then stated that once the public hearing is closed there can be no more interjections from the public, unless recognized through the Chairperson. These are rules of procedure and do not need to be voted upon by the Commission. Mr. Lippman added that the Chairperson can • override these procedures if the occasion ever arises. Mr. Carr added SALEM HISTORICAL COP✓MISSION Page 9 Noverrber 5, 1986 that this issue was procedural and not substantive, so it can be changed if the procedures do not fit the Commission 's needs. • Mr. Lippman amended his NOTION to include wording that the Chairperson can overrule procedures of the Commission if the need arises to do so. Mr. Zaharis seconded the amendment . Mr. Carr suggested that it may be a good idea to comms up with a policy for larger applications which would contain ar p ocedure for public input throughout the application process. Mr. Lippman responded that the Chairperson can waive or change procedures as necessary so Mr. Carr's suggestion would not be necesary at this point in time. The amendment was moved with the vote being Messrs. Carr and Clarke opposed and ,Messrs. Zaharis, Lippman, Wolfson, and Nis. Harris in favor of the amendment . The NOTION was moved with the vote being unanimous) ifavor. vor. The draft letter to property omers in the district was discussed. Mr. Slam suggested that the date on the letter may prove to be a problem. Mr. Clarke suggested that the letter state that the procedures take effect the first of the calender year. Par. Slam then suggested that the envelopes state that the contents were of importance. Mr. Zaharis countered that 'the envelopes should be left plain. Mr. Lippman made a NOTION that the procedures be deferred from enactment until January 1 , 1987. Par. Carr seconded the NOTION and it was • unanimously approved. b1r. Cook raised the issue of abstentions. He stated that a Commission member should do his/her best to fulfill the responsibilities of the Commission and not to abstain if at all possible. Mr. Clarke interjected that members should always try to make an objective decision rather than abstain. Mr. Lippman responded that all Commission members are avrare of their responsibilities and that the use of abstentions should not be abused, but there is a legal right to abstain when a Commission member feels the need. Mr. Carr suggested that abstentions be brought to the Commission's attention at the beginning of the application procedure so alternates can step in. Mr. Oedel then quoted from the NOL Chapter 268 Section 23 giving the right to abstain, and indeed making abstentions necessary when financial interest or other conflict is involved. Mr. Carr stated that this is commonly known as the Conflict of Interest statute and that every Commission member signed a card stating he/she understood this law when he/she became a memebr. It is up to each individual. to determine whether he/she has a conflict . It was .the consensus of the Commission members that if a merrber is going to abstain from a vote, he/she should do so at the begining of the application. The abstaining member rrust refrain from the discussion and • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 10 November 5, 1986 remove himself from the table with an alternate stepping in. The alte mate is to be chosen on basis of senority of membership on the C omm i ss ion. • Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION that the Chairperson indicate which members are voting before each application is heard. If a merrber arrives half way through a discussion, then the alternate is to finish the application. The Commission's alternates are Messrs. Slam and Oedel , listed in order of senority. Mr. Clarke seconded the PDTION and the vote "as unanimously in favor. Mr. Carr made a NOTION to adjourn at 9:30 p.m. Mr. Lippman seconded the NDTION and the vote was unanimously in favor. Respectfully submitted, , Cynthia Carr Clerk of Commission C537 • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting November 19, 1986 A regular meeting of the Salem Historical. Commission was held on Wednesday, November 19, 1986 at 7 :30 p.m. at One. Salem Green. Present were: Ms. Harris, Chairperson, Ms. Hilbert, Messrs. Wolfson, Slam, Cook, • and Carr. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the November 5, 1986 meeting as submitted. Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION and the vote was unanimously in favor. Local District Operation Hamilton Hall 9 Chestnut Street - letter of support to MHC Ms. Joan Bacall of Hamilton Hall presented a Structures Report done on the building. This report willbe submitted to the Massachusetts Historical Commission with a prelimary application for a Massachusetts Preservation Projects Fund Grant. Ms. Bacall explained that Hamilton Hall became a non-profit institution in October of 1985, and will be granting the State an easement, the provisions of which dictate that the exterior of Hamilton Hall will not be changed. Ms. Bacall further stated that the report outlines the structuralcondition of the building and various stages of renovations it has to undergo in order to be preserved. Ms. Bacall has notified MHC that Hamilton Hall is in a local historic district and is individually listed on the National Register. Any work effecting the outside of the structure would have to be approved by the Salem Historical commission. Ms. Bacall asked the Commission to write a • letter of support for Hamilton Hall, to submit with its preliminary application. Mr. Carr asked Ms. Bacall if the grant process was a two tiered one. She responded in the affirmative and noted that MHC reviews preliminary applications and then asks certain chosen applicants to respond with a formal application. Mr. Carr asked Ms. Bacall what is included in the scope of work to be submitted with the application. Ms. Bacall. introduced Mr. Neil. Pennywitt who prepared the report for Hamilton Hall. Mr. Pennywitt told Commission members that the report outlines severalstages of renovation work necessary to make Hamilton Ha11, a structurally sound and usable building. The amount of work done will depend on the size of the grant received, but structural work to stabilize the framing is of primary importance. 'Thereportoutlines approximately $150,000.00 worth of renovations and repairs which range from frame stabilization to roof repairs an43 interior wiring. Grants usually range from $30,000.00 to $60,000.00, but have been awarded as high as $100,000.00. Mr. Pennywitt stated that with the submission of the report, Hamilton Hall. has done more than is asked for from a preliminary application. More detail.. as to cost breakdowns and scope of work will be forthcoming if Hamilton Hall is asked to submit a formal application. SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 2 November 19, 1986 Mr. Slam asked if submitting a letter of support for this project would ' prevent the Commission from writing a letter of support for the Brookhouse Home for Aged Women. Ms.- Harris responded in the negative. She explained that MHC has an annualbudget of approximately two million dollars for this program and supports 50-60 projects ,a year. Mr. • Pennywitt further ,stated that .geographical location may be used as a criterion for funding determination, tbut it is not a primary criterion. Mr. Carr abstained from the .vote because of a financialinvolvement with Hamilton Hall. He is a shareholder. Mr. Slam made a MOTION to submit a Letter in support of Hamilton Hall' s preliminary application to MHC for the Massachusetts Preservation Projects Fund. Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION and the vote was unanimously in favor, with an abstention from Mr. Carr. Brookhouse Home for Aged Women - 180 Derby Street - leter of support to MHC Ms. Hilbert explained to Commission members that the Brookhouse Home was asking for a letter of support to the Massachusetts Preservation Projects Fund, as was Hamilton Hall. The Home has reslated only 4 of its roof (the west side) and is applying for funds to complete the job. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to submit a letter in support of the Brookhouse Home for Aged Women' s preliminary application to MHC' s Massachusetts Preservation Projects Fund. Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION and the vote was unanimously in favor. 7-13 North Pine Street - paint colors, window and deck alterations • Ms. Harris read the application to Commission members. Mr. Carr opened the discussion by asking the applicant ' s representative, Ms. Jessica Herbert , about the windows which have been installed at the rear of the property. He explained that the previously approved application stated that the windows would be 2/2 with integral. wooden muntins. Ms. Hebert stated that she was under the impression that the muntins could be applied to the thermal.pane windows. Mr. Carr raised the issue of the Atrium doors installed at the rear of the property. These were shown in the plan approved at the October 1 , 1986 meeting as having muntins, which Commission members understood would be integralto the doors. Plain glass doors have been installed. Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission approved Atrium doors and these doors are always manufactured with glued on muntins applied after installation. She did not believe these doors came with integral muntins and explained that the muntins have been purchased to be installed later. Mr. Carr stated that the windows and the doors installed at the rear of the building give it a very contemporary look. He further • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 3 November 19, 1986 stated that the Commission usually does not approve snap—on munti lied muntins P Rs because a PP s usually lack the depth necessary tocreatea historically appropriate appearance. • Ms. Herbert responded that she was prepared to use both internal and external glued—on muntins; and she felt this would give an authentic character to the windows and doors. The next item discussed was the proposed change in material and dimensions of the rear deck. Previously the Commission approved an attached wrought iron rear deck with 2 se erate spiral P p staircases. Ms. Herbert told the Commission that, after consulting with three contractors, this design would be too heavy for the building to support. Ms. Herbert stated that the joists run the wrong way (side to side instead of front to back) so that the entire building would have to be restructured in order. to support an attached wrought iron deck and spiral staircases. The modified application shows a plan with the decks being constructed of wood and spiral staircases being made of wrought iron. The supports are pulled in so that it is less likely they would be hit by cars backing up. Mr. Carr asked whether or not the issue concerned parking rather than design. Ms. Herbert responded that the modified design would allow for greater turning radius for vehicles, but that was not the main reason for the change. Ms. Harris stated that much more detail was necessary as to the design of the decks before she would act on the application. She stated that, • as submitted, the applicant could either do a nice job or a terrible job and that there was not sufficient detail to insure the Commission that a nice job would be done. Specifficall.y she wanted more detail on 'how they posts work and how the wooden decks would meet the iron stairs. ' Mr. Carr stated that the rear of the property is much moreivisible from the district than originally believed (especially on Essex Street) and he suggested the Commission defer action pending submission of more detail on the modified proposal. Mr. Carr also suggested that Ms. Herbert be given time to glue muntins on the installed windows and glass ' doors for the Commission' s inspection. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to defer action on the new application which shows wooden decks and wrought iron spiral staircases, pending submission of a more detailed drawing of the deck. Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION and the vote was unanimously in favor. Mr. Carr then made a MOTION which requested that the applicant present specifications which will illustrate how the installed rear window and doors will be brought into conformity with the approval granted at the October 1 , 1986 meeting and that the solution be in place, at the site, by the next meeting, with respect to one window and one door. Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION and the vote was unanimously in favor. • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 4 November 19, 1986 Mr. Slam suggested that Commission members make a site visit before the next meeting but after the glued-on muntins have been installed. • Saturday, November 29, 1986 at 10:00 a.m. was the date and time set for a site inspection. Ms. Harris stated that there were two more issues concerning 7-13 North Pine Street to be discussed. Ms. Herbert has submitted paint color changes to the Commission. Mr. Carr suggested that Ms. Harris note on the plan designated areas to, be painted in body, trim, and accent colors so that no future misunderstanding will. occur. Ms. Harris made the notes on the plan submitted October 1 , 1986. The changed paint colors are body-Rosebisque II, trim-Finesse I, and highlights and doors-Rosewood V. A1.1 paints are to be Pratt and Lambert' s Oil Stain. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the paint colors as submitted and explained on the October 1 , 1986 plan as being appropriate to the Victorian character of building and the district in general. Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION and the vote was unanimously in favor. Ms. Herbert explained that the request to locate gas meters behind wooden panels where windows had been approved on the basement floor of the front facade was submitted because the Gas Company has changed its regulations about gas meter location and is behind on its installation schedule so location at the rear of the property will not be an option until next spring. ' Ms. Harris stated that she would need more detail on the. proposed • enclosures, including materials. Mr. Carr said he would rather try to help the applicant by scheduling a meeting with the Gas Company to explore other options. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the submitted application, but contact the Gas Company with the Commission' s strong opposition to a front location of gas .meters and encourage cooperation with the applicant regarding a rear location of the meters. Mr. Slam asked if there was an internal solution to the gas meter location problem. Ms. Herbert responded that the meters could be located inside a bedroom closet. Mr. Carr withdrew his MOTION. Mr. Carr then asked the applicant if the gas meters could be tucked under the stairs such as in the houses located in the Back Bay area of Boston. Ms. Herbert answered that there was not enough room at 7-13 North Pine Street to locate the gas meters in this location. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the application as submitted on November 19, 1986 for the location of gas meters. Mr. Slam seconded the MOTION. No votes were in favor and the MOTION failed. SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 5 November 19, 1986 Mr. Carr made a MOTION that the Historic Commission formally contact the Boston Gas Company and inform them of the following: • 1 . The Salem Historical Commission has denied an application to locate gas meters at the exterior front of 7-13 North Pine Street. 2. The location of gas meters at such a location would subject the Gas Company as wellas the owner to possible fines. 3 . This building is an important one in the Historic 'District ` and the gas tie—ins should be located inside the building. r � 4. A Gas Company representative is requested to attend the next ' scheduled meeting of the Historical Commission to seek solutions. , Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION and the vote was unanimously in favor. 407 Essex Street — chiropractor' s sign ' Ms. Harris explained to .Commission members that the City had granted Dr. Kantorosinski a permit for a sign at this address without realizing that Historical Commission approval was necessary. The Historical Commission had sent Dr. Kantorosinski a letter asking him tomakean application for the sign he had installed. Attorney Philip Moran represented Dr. Kantorosinski and focused on the • fact that his client has had a sign permit from the Building Inspector since February 12, 1986 . Dr. Kantorosinski then recounted the procedural circumstances which he has encountered since locating his office in Salem. He stated that he made the sign himself and that it is a very precise sign with no letter being more than 2 millimeters different from any other. He further stated that since he has a valid sign permit, he does not understand the problem. Mr. Carr responded that an applicant has the responsibility to obtain all the proper applications and approvals prior to. erecting a sign. Mr. Carr further stated that Dr. Kantorosinski was notified that the sign was hung without proper approvals being received and has two options available. He can sue the individual who issued the Sign Permit or he can apply totheHistorical Commission and try to abide by any action the Commission may take regarding the sign. Mr. Cook interjected that the sign creates a problem aesthetically, but that the property is not a "gem" so perhaps painting the sign the main body color would make it blend better. Mr. Carr responded that the problem with the sign is its scale, not its color. The size of the sign is inappropriate for the size of the building. Mr. Carr further stated that even though the building is not a "gem", it is in a very important location in the City since 2 major entrance roads meet here. SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 6 November 19, 1986 Ms. Harris suggested Dr. Kantorosinski apply for a Certificate of Hardship. Mr. Carr responded that hardship needs to be justified in a financial manner. Dr. Kantorosinski stated that approximately 30% of • his clientele come to him because of the sign. Mr. Moran interjected that the statute states hardship can be financial or otherwise, so a financial justification need not be the only one the Commission uses to grant a Certificate of Hardship. Mr. Slam made a MOTION to approve a Certificate of Hardship because they applicant was misled by City officials and was acting in good faith. Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION. Mr. Carr made a friendly amendment to the MOTION which stated that the Certificate of Hardship is applicable to this sign only and that any change of the sign or property owners will invalidate the Certificate of Hardship. Mr. Cook seconded the friendly amendment. The vote was Messrs. Slam, Cook and Wolfson and Ms. Harris in favor of the MOTION, Mr. Carr opposed, thus the MOTION was carried. Other Business The draft letter to historic district property owners was discussed and grammatical and stylistic changes were made. Mr. Slam made a MOTION to authorize Ms. Harris to prepare a final draft of the letter to be mailed to al.l property owners. Mr. Carr seconded the MOTION and the vote was unanimously in favor. Ms. Hilbert mentioned that the owners of 126 Federal Street were issued an application last June for a 6 panel door. Since that time they have changed their mind and would like to install a 6 panel. door, with the • top panels being changed to windows. It was the consensus of the Commission that this should be on the next agenda as no application form had been submitted. Mr. Slam made a MOTION to adjourn. Mr. Carr seconded the MOTION and the vote was unanimously in favor. The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, &r'vLa'CaA"'-� Cynthia Carr Clerk of Commission C804 • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION - Minutes of Meeting December 3, 1986 As Amended January 7 , 1987 A regular meeting of the Salem Historical. Commission was held on • Wednesday, December 3, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green. Present were: Ms. Harris, Chairperson, Ms. Hilbert, Messrs. Zaharis, Cook, Carr, Wolfson, and Lippman. Alternates, Messrs. Slam and Oedel were also present. Ms. Harris called the meeting to order at 7 :35 p.m. and identified the voting members as Messrs. Lippman, Zaharis, Oedel, Cook, Carr, Wolfson and Slam. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the November 19, 1986 meeting as submitted-. Mr. Lippman seconded the MOTION and the vote was unanimously in favor. Local District Operation 7-13 North Pine Street - Emanon Realty Trust Because of a perceived co-f14ct -f interest, Ms. Harris requested that Mr. Oedel. chair the meeting for this application. Mr. Oedel read the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness which included the following: 11. Dormer and basement windows on front and rear to be 1/1 thermal-pane, replacing existing window combinations of 1/1 , 2/2, • 4/4 and 12/12. Bay windows will retain original 1/1 side windows. 2. Approved rear 1st and 2nd story windows to be increased in height by 8" to match existing windows on front and side of building. Windows to be 2/2 .single pane glass, allowing a muntin bar that replicates the existing. Muntin bars will be integral and will be identicalto the existing Fowler Street facade. 3 . Rear balconies to retain balustrade and spiral staircases as - approved on October 1 , 1986. Platforms to be all wood vs. the approved all steel frame to accommodate structural considerations and cost constraints. (per drawing) 4. Atrium doors to be adorned with a period, styl.e lintel increasing overall door height ,to match window height. 15 light muntin bars for a clearer, more consistent and less "busy" look. . Mr. Carr stated that the site visits he and other Commission members made clarified the height problem with the 1st and 2nd floor rear windows as well as made clear the desirability of a lintel over the Atrium doors to achieve an even appearance of all design elements at the rear of the building. Mr. Zaharis asked the applicant why the originally approved windows were not installed. Ms. Herbert responded that there was some confusion on her part as to the type of window approved. She 'stated that she was SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 2 December 3, 1986 under the impression that applied muntins on both sides of the glass would be considered to be integral. • Mr. Charles DeMarco, the archietect for the project, then explained to the Commission the difference between the thermal. pane with applied muntins and integral muntins and single paned windows. He stated that many Commissions run into problems when requiring an applicant to use single paned windows with the R factors required by the State Building Code. Mr. DeMarco further stated that many old buildings cannot achieve the required R-value if the walls are not insulated unless thermal. paned windows are installed.. An integral thermalpaned window was exhibited which consisted of 4 panes and had very thick muntins. Mr. Oedel reminded Commission members that the Commission approved the thermal paned windows with integral muntins at 262 Layfayette St. , but they were installed on the whole house, so all the windows were consistent. Mr. Carr asked Mr. DeMarco what criteria was used to determine the wall. R-value and whether or not insulation added to the wall areas would be sufficient to bring the R-value to code. Mr. DeMarco responded that the R value is determined by a formula based on cubic feet of area. Walls need to maintain an R-value of 12 and roofs need to maintain an R-value of 20. Mr. Lippman asked the value of the exhibited window. Mr. DeMarco responded it was R4 or R5. Mr. Carr stated that there are various ways in which to meet the R-value requirements and that other insulation and storm windows may serve the purpose as well as thermal. paned windows. • Mr. Carr asked why integral muntins were not purchased on the Atrium doors. Ms. Herbert responded that the Commission did not specify integral muntins for the doors and as such she felt that applied muntins would be adequate to fulfill the conditions:. Discussion ensued concerning the installation of taller windows on the 1st and 2nd floors of the rear elevation. Ms. Herbert responded that the increased height was to achieve a more consistent look with the Fowler St. elevation. The lintels proposed to be applied at the top of the Atrium doors will further help to achieve a consistent height throughout the rear of the building. Mr. Oedel asked if the lintels will mimic those on the 3rd floor. Ms. Herbert responded in the affirmative. - Next the Commission members discussed the rear deck proposal. Ms. Herbert explained that an all steel deck, as originally approved, would be too heavy for the building to support. Ms. Herbert further stated that a freestanding deck, as Ms. Harris suggested at the November 19, 1986 meeting, would require the addition of posts against the rear of the property, which would be unattractive. Ms. Herbert also mentioned that .the cost difference between an all steel. and a partially wooden structure is substantial and the partially wooden deck is much more economically feasible for the developers of the property. • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 3 December 3 , 1986 Discussion followed which focused on the originally approved design of the rear deck addition and what supports would be used for this structure. Mr. Oedel asked if the supports were cantilevered under the staircases. Ms. Herbert explained that the modified plan will have 4"X4" posts as shown in a detailed drawing. Mr. Oedel. asked Ms. Herbert to clarify the reasons for the proposed change to wood. Ms. Herbert reiterated that the cost of the decks will be greater 'if the developer uses an all steel deck. Also the all steeldeck would not be able to be attached to the building for structural reasons. Ms. Herbert explained that the proposed wooden treatment will soften the deck appearance as well as be financially and structurally achievable. Ms. Herbert further stated that the new proposal will. have a wooden floor and skirt around the deck and that all. other aspects will be made of wrought iron. Mr. Oedel pointed out the location of the posts. Ms. Hilbert also pointed out the proposed bricking. over of an existing doorway on Fowler Street with brick. Ms. Herbert responded that this opening was not necessary to any of the units so she proposed to block it up with bricks which would match the existing. This item was added to the application form. Mr. Slam raised the issue of the gas tie-in which was discussed at the November 19, 1986 meeting. Mr. Oedel suggested the Commission deal with that as a separate issue. Mr. Carr interjected that the issue has been resolved by his discussion with the Boston Gas Company. He confirmed • that the gas tie-ins will be at the rear of the property and will be done in coordination with other utility installations when the developer opens up Fowler Street. Mr. Lippman asked the applicant if this is the definitive plan for this property. Ms. Herbert responded she believed that all the design and i structural problems she has encountered have been worked out with the submittal. of this application. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to close the public presentation portion of this application. The MOTION was seconded by Mr. Zaharis and the vote was unanimously in favor. Mr. Oedel reviewed the application as amended soliciting opinions from all Commission members after each point was made. Regarding the window and Atrium door treatment and the blocking of the door on Fowler St. , members either approved of the changes or had no comment. Most of the discussion concerned the rear decks. Mr. Slam commented that the posts were too ornate, with Mr. Cook countering that the post design was very Victorian, therefore appropriate for this building. Mr. Lippman stated that if he originally knew how visible the decks were from Essex St . , he would never have approved them in concept or otherwise. He then questioned Ms. Herbert about the lighting fixtures which are depicted in the new drawing. Commission members responded that lighting fixtures 'are not under the Commission' s jurisdiction. Ms. Hilbert read from the Salem Historical Commission 1 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 4 December 3, 1986 Ordinance which states that the Commission does not have jurisdiction over lighting fixtures. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the application as amended with the following conditions: 1 . Any storm windows on the rear of the building must be located on the interior. 2. Dryer vents must be located under the decks to be minimally visible. Mr. Slam seconded the MOTION. Mr. Oedel opened the discussion by asking whether or not the vent locations will be the same as shown on the previously approved application. Ms. Herbert answered in the affirmative. • Mr. Carr withdrew condition number 2, substituting a reference to the plan approved on October 1 , 1986 as to location of all vents. Mr. Lippman made a friendly amendment to the MOTION which stated that all exterior lighting fixtures be removed. Mr. Carr did not accept this as a friendly amendment. Mr. Lippman made a MOTION to amend the MOTION to include the removalof all exterior lighting fixtures. There being- no second the amendment to the MOTION failed. • Ms. Hilbert asked if the front windows were to be refurbished. Ms. Herbert answered in the affirmative. Mr. Slam made a MOTION to move the question. Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION and the vote was unanimously in favor. The vote on the main MOTION was unanimously in favor. 19 Warren Street — Susan & William O'Neill — window alterations An application was submitted by Susan and William O'Neill to replace a pair of existing kitchen windows with one wooden single paned 6/6 window to be aligned at sill level. with the existing Andersen window on the east elevation. This alteration would occur at the rear ell, an addition to the original structure. Siding to match the existing white vinyl will cover the areas to be filled in due to this alteration. Ms. O'Neill explained that the alteration is being sought because of interior kitchen renovations. Ms. O'Neill. submitted a letter from Ms. Deborah Jackson of 17 Warren Street supporting the proposed alterations. Ms. Jackson is an abuttor and has direct visibility of the east side of the house. Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Slam seconded the MOTION. • SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 5 December 3, 1986 Ms. Harris brought to Commission members' attention the fact that the proposed panes on the new sash will. be smaller than those on the other existing 6/6 windows. Mr. Carr asked if the submitted drawing was representative of the proposed changes. Ms. O'Neill responded that the submitted drawing was as close as she could come to accurately describing the changes. The vote was unanimously in favor. Wesley Methodist Church - 8 North Street - letter of support to MHC The Wesley Methodist Church, represented at this meeting by Mr. Jack Mansfield, is submitting an application to the Massachusetts Historical Commission' s Massachusetts Preservation Projects Fund for slate roof repairs and pointing of bricks. Ms. Hilbert explained that the property was individually listed on the National Register. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to submit a letter of support for the Wesley Methodist Church. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. Mr. Lippman made a friendly amendment to use the wording "enthusiastically in support of" in the letter. The vote was unanimously in favor. 126 Federal. Street - Roger Hedstrom - door alteration, east facade • Mr. Hedstrom has submitted an application which slightly alters a previously approved plan. He would still. like to install a 6 panel door on the east facade, but he now proposes to have the top two panels consist of glass. Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the application as submitted, with the choice of glass (plain or bull ' s-eye) being at the discretion of the applicant. A six-panel door such as this would be appropriate to the Georgian character of this house. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION. Mr. Cook raised concern over the type of glass the applicant should install in order to have the door be historically appropriate. Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to move the main MOTION. Mr. Oedel seconded the MOTION and the vote was unanimous. The vote on the main MOTION was Messrs. Lippman, Carr, Zaharis, Wolfson, Slam, Oedel and Ms. Harris in favor, Mr. Cook opposed. 262 Lafayette Street - Stephen Santry - window alteration Ms. Hilbert informed Commission members that Mr. Santry is considering an alteration to a diamond paned/1 window on the south side of his building. He has stated that to duplicate the diamond paned window with integral muntins would be prohibitively expensive. and has requested SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 6 December 3 , 1986 Commission input and a site visit prior to his submittal of an application. • Commission members agreed that they will oblige Mr. Santry with a site visit. 407 Essex Street — Dr. Kantorosinski — chiropractor' s sign Ms. Hilbert informed Commission members that the telephone number portion of this sign was not included in either Dr. Kantorosinski's sign permit application nor in his Historical Commission Certificate of Hardship. She explained that Mr. Moran, Dr. Kantorosinski's attorney, was speaking to Dr. Kantorosinski about the issue and will be in touch with the Commission. New Business Mr. Carr asked Ms. Hilbert if an application had been submitted for the change of paint colors at 260 Lafayette Street. Ms. Hilbert responded that she will contact the property owners and obtain an application from them. Mr. Lippman made a MOTION to adjourn at 9:10 p.m. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION and the vote was unanimously in favor. Respectfully submitted, Cynthia Carr Clerk C824 � I 1 . ( r r 3 1 • CCOPRE�S�S;� 260) YELLOW 25M BLACK 25072 LIGHT BLUE 25M DARK BLUE25074 LIGHT GRoW 25075 LIGHT GREFX 25076 MRK GREW 25M VNGERINE 25078 RED 25079 EXECUTNE .. WITH WATER.AESiSViNT PRESSTE X �=� Acco 11111, ~~' . , :, ; ._