SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES-`I987
}♦
;.sY.'tom �S ♦'. ' �'+`
a
r
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting January 7 , 1987
A _regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on
>� Wednesday, January 7, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green. Present
were Ms. Harris, Chairperson, Messrs. Zaharis, .Cook, Carr, Clarke, and
Slam.
Ms. Harris called the meeting to order at 7 :35 p.m.
Mr. Zaharis stated that the second to the MOTION to adjourn in the
minutes for December 3 , 1986 meeting was incorrectly listed as Mr.
Oedel . The MOTION was actually seconded by Mr. Zaharis.
Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the minutes as ammended. Mr.
Clarke seconded the MOTION and the vote was unanimously in favor. .
Demolition Requests
12 Hanson Street
A request was made by Milo—Hart & Assoc. to demolish the building a 12
Hanson Street .
Mr. Zaharis asked whether the building in question has any architectural
or historic significance. Ms . Harris responded that a site inspection
had not revealed any particular qualities which would merit preservation
of the building.
Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the demolition request. Mr. Clarke
• seconded the MOTION and the vote was unanimously in favor.
Mr. Grocer — 29 New Derby Street
Action on this application was postponed until the owner' s
representative arrived.
Local District Operation
33 Flint Street — Matthew Power
The applicant submitted a modified plan whichincludedthe alteration of
the rear building roof Line; the modification of a second means of
egress through the addition of a small second story deck; the addition
of French doors on the first floor ; the relocation of a second story
door onto the deck; the installation of windows; and the installation of
a door at the rear ell of the building as per drawing submitted 1/7/87.
Discussion ensued regarding the roof alterations and Mr. Power explained
that the proposalis to raise the roof, so that the rear ellhas a
continuous roofline.
Ms. Harris questioned Mr. Power as to the design of the deck railings.
Mr. Power responded that the railings can be installed to meet the
Commission' s specifications. Specifications regarding the windows were
also requested of the applicant . He responded that he could adhere to
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 2 January 7 , 1987
any specifications required by the Commission.
• Mr. Carr asked Mr. Power if the proposed deck would be visible from
Flint Street. Mr. Power responded in the negative. Mr. Carr then asked
how far the deck would protrude from the house. The answer was 8' . Mr.
Carr then questioned the necessity of the deck as a second means of
egress.
Mr. Power responded that the current situation does not meet the
Building Code.
Discussion ensued as to the recent renovations of the property by the
previous owner and why the existing secondary means of egress is no
longer acceptable. Mr. Power responded that the renovation work that
took place previously did not equal. 25% or more of the value of the
house, thus a site inspection by the Building Inspector was not
necessary.
Mr. Carr pointed out that the Commission' s policy, when decisions are
based upon requirements of other agencies, is to require written ,
confirmation from the agency confirming the applicant ' s claims.
Mr. Slam asked if the approvalof this application could be contingent
upon notification from the Building Inspector. Mr. Carr stated that
this would be less than an idealsituation and that confirmation from
the Building Inspector should come prior to approval.
• Mr. Clarke then questioned the applicant as to the depth of the deck.
Mr. Power responded that the deck is proposed to be 8' in depth. Mr.
Clarke asked why the deck needed to be this wide and Mr. Power responded
that adequate space was needed to walk around the staircase to get to
the first tread. Mr. Clarke asked if there were any alternatives for
this exit point. Mr. Power stated that he did not know. of any
alternatives. Mr. Clarke asked if the applicant had inquired into the
feasibility of turning the spiral staircase 180 degrees so that the deck
exit point would be closer to the house, thus the width of the deck
could be less. Mr. Power stated that this would make it necessary to
enter the spiral staircase in an akward position, but that he had not ,
considered this alternative before.
Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the application as submitted. Mr.
Zaharis seconded the MOTION.
Discussion ensued as to the specifications for the windows and doors and
Commission members realized that sufficient specifications had not been
submitted. Mr. Carr withdrew his MOTION.
Mr. Cook stated that the visualimpact of this application was minimal
and did not warrant such protracted discussion.
Mr. Clarke made a MOTION to table the application untilthe applicant
provides specifications for windows and doors. Mr. Carr seconded the
MOTION. The vote was Ms. Harris and Messrs. Zaharis, Clarke, Carr and
•
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISISON Page 3 January 7, 1987
Slam in favor, Mr. Cook opposed, thus the MOTION carried.
• Since Mr. Power had only submitted a plan and not a written application,
he was asked to fill. out a form for a Certificate of Appropriateness and
return later in the meeting.
76 Federal Street — Dr. Gordon — skylight installation
The Commission was informed that the applicant would like to install
four skylights: one on the Federal Street side, one on the west ( left)
side, and two on the Bridge Street side. The building located at the
corner of North and Federal Streets, already has 2 skylights
Mr. Slam questioned the Commission's jurisdiction over the Bridge Street
location. Mr. Carr responded that the Commission has established that
its jurisdiction continues to the middle of the ramp entering Bridge
Street from North Street , so the Commission has jurisdiction over these
2 skylights.
Mr. Zaharis asked the applicant why the skylights are necessary. Dr.
Gordon responded that he is incorporating the third floor into his
residence and the additionalnatural light is needed to make the area
pleasant and provide lighting to .areas which are now unlit because the
eves are long. _
Mr. Carr interjected that the Commission has been hesitant to approveI.
skylights recently because they introduce an element to a building which
• is not historically appropriate. Mr. Carr further stated that size,
location, and materisal.s of the skylights are important factors when
considering their approval and requested that Dr. Gordon relay
information regarding these features to the Commission.
Mr. John Darling, Dr. Gordon' s attorney, told Commission members that
Dr. Gordon has been extremely conscious of the goals of the Historic
District while designing the `interior renovations of his property and
hopes that the Commission will consider the positive contribution Dr.
Gordon made to the district when he undertook his recent exterior
renovations. Mr. Darling also asked. the Board to consider the fact that ..
the Commonwealth encourages the use of solar light whenever possible,
provided the openings are relatively small and can be camouflaged.
Mr. Clarke stated that the skylights are hard to minimize because of the
size of the house.
Mr. Cook interjected that the view from North Street would not be
adversely affected by the inclusion of another skylight on 76 Federal
Street. Ms. Harris added that the skylight adjacent to 78 Federal
Street may be reasonably blocked out by the close proximity of the
, buildings have to each other. Dr. Gordon responded that the location of
any and all of the skylights is negotiable, but he would request that
some natural light be permitted for his master bedroom.
Mr. Carr asked the applicant if he had explored the installation of a
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 4 January 7, 1987
dormer. Dr. Gordon responded in the negative. Mr. Carr added that a
dormer,' when properly installed, could appear more historically
appropriate then skylights. Mr. Clarke countered that the building
already supports four gables and a dormer in this instance would be as
equally inappropriate as skylights. A discussion concerning the
appropriateness of skylights and/or dormers ensued.
Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the skylights on the Bridge Street
side of the roof, as per 'the application. Mr. Slam seconded the MOTION
and the vote was Ms. Harris and Messrs. Carr, .Slam, Clarke, and Cook in
favor, Mr. Zaharis opposed, thus the vote carried.
The skylight addition to the west ( left) side of the building was
discussed. Several Commission members felt the view of this skylight
was not obscured by 78 Federal. Street.
Mr. Cook made a MOTION to approve the third skylight on the west side of
the house, adjacent to 78 Federal Street. No seconds were forthcoming
for this MOTION.
Mr. Carr made a MOTION to deny the skylight on the west side of the
house, adjacent to 78 Federal Street. Mr. Slam seconded the MOTION and
the vote was Messrs. Carr, Slam, Clarke and Zaharis in favor, Mr. Cook
and Ms. Harris opposed, thus the MOTION carried.
Discussion continued regarding the installation of an additional
skylight on the building in various locations. Mr. Carr stated that he
• did not want to appear callous in his objections to additional skylights
and appreciated the fact that Dr. Gordon is a good property owner, but
given the number of existing skylights on the building, he felt that any
additional skylights would be detrimentalto the district.
Ms. Florence Gel.in of 88z - 90 Federal. Street stated her support for the
application as did Mr. Jim McAllister of 86 Federal Street . A letter in
favor from Charles and Susan Clark was also read. Mr. Murphy, of Murphy
Funeral Home of 85 Federal. Street, submitted a letter of support, but
was not considered since his property is not within the district .
Dr. Gordon was then given the option of attending the next meeting and
submitting different skylight locations to the Commission. No action
was taken on the skylight on the Federal Street facade.
33 Flint Street continued
Mr. Power returned with his completed application form.
Mr. Clarke made a MOTION to approve the first issue on the application
(raising the roof of the rear ell so that it has a continuous roofline)
as being historically and architecturally appropriate for a building of
this era and style. Mr. Carr seconded the MOTION and the vote was
unanimously in favor.
Mr. Clarke made a MOTION to table the rest of the application pending
•
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 5 January 7 , 1987
the submittal. of more information. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION.
• Mr. Carr made a friendly amendment to the MOTION which stated that
before the next meeting:
1 . Mr. Clarke. and the applicant should arrange for Mr. Clarke to make a
site visit;
2. Mr. Power should obtain a letter from the Building Inspector stating li
that his current second means of egress is in violation of code and
explaining Mr. Power' s alternatives for bringing the second means of
egress up to code;
3. the applicant should bring in information on the proposed windows and
doors showing dimensions and materials.
The vote was unanimously in favor.
Mr. Grocer - 29 New Derby Street
Minoan Realty Trust represented by Ms. Marcia Cini of Tinti , Quinn &
Savoy, submitted an application to demolish the Mr. Grocer building at
29 New Derby Street. The building has been vacant since December, 1984
and because of leases Minoan Realty Trust has had no control of the
building until recently. A short time ago the boiler failed which now
puts the sprinkler system in jeopardy of failure so the owners would
like to demolish the building.
Mr. Carr asked what the future plans are for the site. Ms. Cini
responded that there are preliminary plans for moderate priced housing
• units to be erected here.
Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the demolition request which was
seconded by Mr. Cook. The vote was unanimously in favor.
18 Washington Square East - Hawthorne Hotel.
An application was submitted to change window styles on the first floor
of the Essex Street facade; add a set of wooden panels where a plate
glass window currently exists; replace the plate glass window located on
the front facade; change the existing doorway into what was the Sweet
Scoops shop; alter the existing wood panels on the windows; change the
first floor windows on the back of the building; and install awnings as
per drawings submitted January 7 , 1987.
Discussion ensued concerning the three different door styles on the
front facade of the building with a consensus being reached that the
building is so large that three styles do not detract from the building.
The Hotelis seldom viewed as a whole from one location. The design,
however, of the door to the former Sweet Scoops resturant was not felt
to be harmonize well with the building.
Commission members told Mr. Boyles, representing the Hotel, that
specifications would be necessary before action could be taken on the
awnings; also a drawing depicting how the awnings would look when open
on the building would be helpful.
I
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 6 January 7, 1987
• Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve all aspects of the application with
the exception of the awnings and the door to the former Sweet Scoops
resturant. Mr. Clarke seconded the MOTION and the vote was unanimously
in favor.
Due to Mr. Boyl.es' s concern over delays and because he submitted his
application in time to be considered under the new procedures which
state that abutter notification will take place before the Commission
meeting at which the application will be heard, Mr. Carr made a MOTION
to identify the abutter of this property as the Essex Insitute. Mr.
Zaharis seconded the MOTION and the vote was unanimously in favor. It
was explained that Mr. Boyles can get the Institute to sign a waiver
form tomorrow and begin work as soon as a permit is issued. .
396 Essex Street — Deborah & David Clarke
The Clarkes submitted an application for the removal of the existing
fence and the installation of a flatboard fence, Broscoe number 8276,
four feet high ,with a _matching gate as per application submitted January
7 , 1987.
Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the application. Mr. Cook seconded
the MOTION and the vote was unanimously in favor.
Mr. Zaharis raised the issue of interupting the Chair during the meeting
. and expressed concern over the image the Commission portrays when this
type of disrespectful behavior occurs.
188 Federal Street — Mr. & Mrs. Brian Connelly
The Connelly' s submitted an application to replace the existing slate
roof shingles with asphalt shingles.
Before reviewing this application, Ms. Harris raised the issue of the
applicants' noncompliance with a previous application approved by the
Commission.
Ms. Harris presented a picture of the approved enclosed porch addition
and then presented a picture of what was actually built. The
discrepancies were obvious and Mr. Cook expressed concern as to what
action the Commission should now take.
Mr. Carr made a MOTION to deny the application as submitted since
insufficient evidence accompanied the application to determine that
replacement with asphalt was necessary. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION
and the vote was unanimously in favor.
Mr. Carr then made a MOTION that the Commission communicate in writing
to the Connellys that the porch as approved and the porch as built
differs significantly from each other and that they are to come to the
next meeting to explain what steps are going to be taken to bring the
. addition into conformity with what was approved. Also the letter should
• state the Commission has asked the Building Inspector to issue a Stop
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 7 January 7 , 1987
Work Order. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION and the vote was
• unanimously in favor.
Saint James Church, School. Building, 154 Federal. Street
An application was submitted to the Commission for chimney removal.. A
three page engineering report accompanying the application explained
removing the chimneys would be less costly method of dealing with their
deterioated state than repointing or repairing them.
Mr. Carr stated that he would like to see additional information
pertaining to the cost effectiveness of each option as wellas another
opinion on the state of the chimneys from a structural engineer. Mr.
Carr further stated that the burden of proof to show that the chimneys
must be removed falls on the Archdiocese, not the Commission.
Mr. Carr made a MOTION to deny the application because of insufficient
information regarding the necessity of chimney removal. Mr. Clarke
seconded the MOTION and the vote was unanimously in favor.
Other Business
Ms. Harris showed the Commission a letter sent by Mr. Roger Hedstrom
indicating his interest in serving as a member. His resume was attached
to the letter.
• Mr. Carr then asked the' Commisison members if they would like to write a
letter to the owners of the Hawthorne Inn requesting that they keep the
crystal chandeliers in the ballroom, rather than replace them with brass
chandeliers as was suggested by their interior decorator. The consensus
of the Commission was that. this would be a positive action and that,
pending the Chairperson' s review, Mr. Carr could send a letter to this
effect from the Commission.
Mr. Zahaeis made a MOTION to adjourn at 10:00 p.m. Mr. Cook seconded
the MOTION and the vote was unanimously in favor.
Respectfully submitted,
/
Cynthia Carr.
Clerk of Commission
C1003
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting January 21 , 1987
• A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on
Wednesday, January 21, 1987 at 7 :30 p.m. at One Salem Green. Present
were Ms. Harris, Chairperson, Ms. Hilbert, Messrs. Zaharis, Carr, Cook,
Lippman, and Wolfson. Alternate Mr. Slam was also present.
Ms. Harris called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the January 7, 1987
meeting. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION and the vote was unanimously
in favor.
Request for Determination of Eligibility
Pioneer Village Management Associates, represented by David Goss and
Peter LaChapelle, has submitted a request for determination of
eligibility for the listing of Pioneer Village in the National Register
of Historic Places. Ms. Hilbert told Commission members that the City
of Salem has entered into an agreement with the Pioneer Village
Management Associates for the restoration and maintenance of Pioneer
Village. Mr. Goss stated that many of the original .buildings are in a
state of deterioration due to years of neglect by the City and
vandalism. It is the intention of PVMA to restore and maintain these
buildings. Mr. LaChapelle stated that many funding sources (various
grant programs) ask if the property to receive the grant is listed •on
the National Register, thus PVMA is starting the process of listing
• Pioneer Village.
Mr. Goss then presented slides to the Commission which show various
buildings in the complex and their different stages of restoration. Mr.
Goss stated that this complex was built for the Commonwealth' s
tercentenary and the site is the only surviving one created for this
celebration. The buildings were constructed to capture the 17th century
character of early settler' s houses. Only authentic materials, tools
and construction techniques were used during the construction of Pioneer
Village.
Pioneer Village is the only site in the country were replicas of
palisado dugouts and authentic wigwams are in existence. The roof
thatching repair will be done this spring when two Irish thatchers will
lead the restoration effort . Mr. Goss also stated that landscaping is
very important since in 1935, Harlan Kelsey introduced many herbaceous
shrubs and herbs to the site. Many of these varieties grow wild here
today and Pioneer Village is the only place in Salem were many of these
varieties grow at all.
Ms. Harris asked if PVMA planned to use authentic procedures as when the
Village was established. Mr. Goss responded in the affirmative.
• Mr. Carr asked how the Historical Commission can assist the Associates.
Mr. LaChapelle responded •that since PVMA' s first priority is
restoration, funding is essential and the group would like a
determination of eligibility from the Commission.
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 2 January 21 , 1987
Mr. LaChapelle further stated that PVMA is a non—profit, educational
• organization which depends on funds to continue its work, thus a
favorable determination would greatly help the group to secure funds.
PVMA has just started a fundraiser with a goal of $50,000.00.
Mr. Slam asked Ms. Hilbert if there was an age criterion for buildings
to be nominated for listing on the National Register and was told that
usually a buil.ding must be over 50 years old to be considered.
Discussion ensued concerning the criteria used for National Register
listing. A building or district 'must meet at least one of the following .
criteria:
A. have associations with events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of our history;
B. have associations with the lives of personsisignificant in our past;
C. embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method
of construction, or that represent the work of�a master, or that ;posess
high artistic values, or that represent a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction;
D. yield, or be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history.
Mr. Carr made a MOTION that the Historical Commission determine Pioneer
Village eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places
based on Criteria A and C referenced above; The site meets Criterion A
for its associations with the Commonwealth' s tercentary, the early
• development of outdoor museums, and the beginnings of an interest in the
early 20th century of accurately restoring or recreating 17th century
building types. Criterion C was chosen because of the distinctive style
of the structures (20th century recreations of 17th century buildings)
and the craftsmanship used in their construction. Mr. Zaharis seconded
the MOTION and the vote was unanimously in favor.
Local District Operation
76 Federal Street
Dr. Gregory Gordon and his architect, Mr. David Tobias, presented the
Commission a plan which was amended since the January 7 , 1987 meeting to
locate a skylight behind .the chimney on the east side of the roof,
facing North Street.
Ms. Harris reminded Commission members that at the January 7 , 1987
meeting two skylights had been approved for the Bridge Street side of
the roof, and the skylight facing 78 Federal Streethad been denied. Dr.
Gordon was given the opportunity to relocate the skylight and asked for
approval of the new location at this meeting. Ms. Harris then asked Dr.
Gordon if this skylight willbe the same size as the others previously
approved. Dr. Gordon responded in the affirmative. He further stated
that the width and height of the proposed skylight are within the
• confines on the chimney, thus its visibility from North Street is
greatly diminished.
I�
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 3 January 21 , 1987
Mr. Slam made a MOTION to approve the skylight on the North Street
• (east) side of the roof as per plan submitted on January 7, 1987,
amended January 21 , 1987 because its minimal visibility meant that this
modern element would not detract from the architectural or historical
charater of the property. Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION and the
vote was Messrs. Slam, Wolfson, Carr, Cook and Zaharis in favor. Ms.
Harris was opposed because she felt the location depicted on the
originalplan submitted January 7, 1987 was more appropriate and Mr.
Lippman abstained since he was absent from the January 7, 1987 meeting,
thus the MOTION carried.
154 Federal Street - Saint James School
Saint James Church submitted an application for- a Certificate of
Hardship for the removal of the five brick vent stacks on the school
building. Two brick vent stacks have already been removed from the
structure because of deteriorated conditions and now the Church would
like to remove the other five. The Church feels, based on an
engineering report they commissioned, that the chimneys present a safety
hazard and that it would be an economic hardship to repair them.
Ms. Harris summarized the enginnering report for Commission members.
She read that repair to the brick vent stacks would cost approximately
$125,000.00. The report stated that some of the internal walls have
already collapsed and that public safety and the structural integrity of
the building would be factors which would lead to the removal of the
vent stacks. Repair of the vent stacks could be justified only on
• aesthtics according to the engineering report.
The engineering report submitted by Regan Engineering, Inc. of
Braintree, Ma. outlined three courses of action avalabl.e for the Church
to take. They were as follows:
1 . Remove the vents to the roof,
2. Remove and rebuild sections most in need of repair,
3. Lower stack heights and recap.
Regan Engineering recomends that step #1 be taken by the Church due to
safety, stability and cost factors.
Mr. Slam asked on what basis the Church is requesting a Certificate of
Hardship. Ms. Harris responded that cost of removal is why the Church
is seeking a Hardship Certificate.
e
Ms. Harris asked Mr. Ron Plante, +asrepresentative from Boston Chimney
and Tower Co. (contractors on the project) , what the cost difference is
between fixing the brick vent stacks and removing them. Mr. Plante
responded that removal would cost approximately $ 55,000.00 and repair
would cost approximately $125,000.00, a difference of $ 70,000.00.
Discussion ensued concerning the definition of financial hardship and
• criteria to be used when the Commission examines a financial hardship
application. Mr. Carr stated that self creation of the hardship should
be investigated and Mr. Slam interjected that the solvency of the
•
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 4 January 21 , 1987
applicant is another factor which must be determined and considered.
• Mr. Carr further stated that he is not satisfied with making a decision
of this magnitude with only one professional. opinion to be considered.
He also felt that the statement that the repair of the stack vents is
insignificant and purely aesthetic is not accurate and he stated that
the brick vent stacks are a very significant aspect of this building and
the Commission may want to move slowly while making a decision. Mr.
Carr would like the Commission to make a site visit and get at least one
other professional evaluation of the situation prior to making a
decision.
Mr. Lippman stated that cost does not adequately determine hardship, but
that the applicant must demonstrate that the cost difference between
removal and repair constitutes a financial hardship and that the
applicant must submit supporting evidence confirming this hardship.
Mr. Plante stated that it is the parish and not the Archdiocese of
Boston that will be financially responsible for the removal or repair of
the stacks. He further stated that the stacks do present a hazard and
that if they remain in place serious roof repair will also be necessary.
Mr. Plante stated that he will be willing to attend a site visit and
that it will be helpful to bring binoculars for inspection.
Mr. Lippman made a MOTION to table the application until the next
•
meeting andthen deny the application if the Archdiocese or Parish does
not verify the hardship created by the cost difference between removal
and repair ($70,000.00) of the vent stacks. Mr. Carr seconded the
MOTION. The MOTION carried.
Discussion continued as to how many estimates would be necessary and how
the Commission or the Parish should go about getting the cost estimates.
Ms. Hilbert asked if funds from the Historic Commission should be used
to satisfy the condition of receiving another cost estimate. The
consensus of the Commission was against using Historic Commission funds
to secure a second estimate.
Mr. Carr made a MOTION that the Historic Commission ask a qualified .
engineer to assist the Commission by preparing another cost estimate on
a gratis basis. Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION and the vote was Messrs.
Cook, Carr, Wolfson, Zaharis and Ms. Harris in favor, Mr. Lippman
opossed, thus the MOTION carried.
18 Washington Square West, Hawthorne Hotel
Ms. Harris explained that this application was an extension of the
application and plan submitted on January 7 , 1987. Mr. Kenneth Boyles,
the Hawthorne Hotel representative, submitted an amended plan to the
• Commission which included detail on the door of the former Sweet Scoops
shop. Mr. Boyles told the Commission he will come back with awning
details later in the year.
•
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 5 January 21 , 1987
. The proposed plan is to install a "six panel wood door surrounded by wood
panels that correspond to the panels of the door. The existing glass
fanlight over the door is to remain.
Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the apl.ication as submitted. Mr. 'Cook
seconded the MOTION.
Mr. Cook asked Mr. Boyles why the Hotel, is not installing a single large
wood door, rather than installing wood panels as a filler between the
door and its opening. Mr. Lippman asked Mr. Cook if he had strong
objections to the smaller wood door as presented. Mr. Cook responded he
did not have strong objections but felt that one large wood door would
be more aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Carr interjected that the building
was of Colonial Revival. design and this style allowed for more variety
of detail than did 18th century Colonial design.
The MOTION was moved and the vote was unanimously in favor.
188 Federal Street
Mr. Clarke arrived. at the beginning of this dicussion.
Ms. Harris reiterated the situation this property presents to the
Commission showing pictures submitted. with the Connellys' application
for an enclosed porch addition on August 6, 1986 and pictures of the
addition as built. Mr. Carr asked Ms. 'Hilbert to familiarize the ! ,
• Commission with the situation by reading the minutes from the August. 6; * .!
1986 meeting which pertain to this property. After review of the
minutes, application and the MOTION leading to approval of the
application, Mr. Carr stated that the volume of the addition and -the,set
back are in question. Mr. Connelly rpsponded that the addition is set -
back according to the requirements of his approval.
Mr. Lippman stated that everyone was of the opinion that what was
approved and what was built varied significantly and that the Commission
now has to seek a way, in conjunction with the property owner, to
reassess and reach a resolution to this situation.
Mr. Carr stated that this issue raises policy issueswith the Commission
and that it is very analogous with the situation encountered late in
1986 with the Alexanders at 361 Essex Street. -
Mr. Connelly stated that his intention was to put solid glass in the
addition, but he could not find adequate help to install this type of an
addition. He further stated that at the August 6, 1986 meeting the
brochures were submitted as examples of what Mr. Connelly would like his
addition to look like, but he told Commission members that the actual
system would not be installed, rather he would like to install. a similar'
addition.
• Mr. Leonard O'Leary, Ward Councillor for the Connel.lys, then stated that
he had attended the August meeting and remembered Mr. Connelly talking
. about installing an addition similar, but not identical., to the
1.
HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 6 January 21 , 1987
brochures.
. Mr. Clarke asked Mr. Connelly if he was aware that the Commission was
approving the drawings as submitted with the application. Mr. Connelly
responded in the affirmative. Mr. Clarke further stated that the -
approved addition consisted of 7 ' of glass while the addition as built
consisted of 5' of Andersen windows, which is a substantial difference.
Mr. Carr stated that accountability for building a structure as approved
has to be a factor in determining how to continue with this situation.
Mr. Lippman stated that this situation is not relevant to other policy
issues and he felt that a compromise could be reached.
Mr. Carr countered that the addition as built adds an element to the
district .which is substantially different from what was approved by the
Commission, thus necessitating a new application.
Ms. Harris, Chairperson, ruled that this situation will. be a
continuation of the prior application, rather than a new application.
As a continuation the application will not be subject to guidelines
adopted for 1987.
t
Commission members then gave Mr. Connelly ideas on how to finish off the
addition so that it would be more compatable with the style of the
house. Replacement of the storm door with an all glass door, facia
modifications, step railing detail, molding around the door to match
• that around the windows, and a waterboard similar to, the one on the rest
of the house were all items suggested by the Commission members. Mr.
Connelly should include these items on a finshed plan to be submitted
for Commission approval .
Mr. Clarke pointed out that this was an amazing misunderstanding between
the applicant and the Commission and that the Commission should
seriously consider not approving a plan unless it is accompanied by a
drawing which the applicant will use as a definitive plan.
Discussion ensued as to the necessity of Mr. Connelly now submitting a
drawing for this project since the addition is almost complete.
Mr. Carr made a MOTION to table the issue until the next meeting when
the applicant will return with appropriate specifications in the form of
a drawing. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION and the vote was Messrs.
Carr, Slam, Wolfson, and Zaharis' in favor, Mr. Lippman and Ms. Harris
opposed, thus the MOTION carried. Mr. Cook abstained since he was not
in attendence when the issue was discussed at the previous meeting.
It was the consensus that Mr. Connelly resubmit his reroofing
application with estimates including costs for restoration of slate and
examples of work done by those providing the estimates.
•
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 7 January 21 , 1987
New Business
. The new owners of 329 Essex Street, Mr. & Mrs. John Andrew, have
requested that the Commission waive the public hearing requirement when
they apply to replace their wood windows with aluminum windows.
Mr. Clarke stated that a replacement of this type warrants a public
hearing. The Commission consensus was in agreement with Mr. Clarke.
Ms . Hilbert then requested that Commission members refrain from telling
future applicants that they might be "squeezed onto the agenda". She
reminded Commission members that the new public hearing requirements ,.
leave no room for "squeezing" applicants onto an agenda. ,
Mr. Clarke then addressed the drawing issue which is perceived to be at
the root of some of the misunderstandings encountered between Commission
members and applicants. Mr. Clarke stated that the Commission has to
emphasize that drawings are necessary in order to ensure compliance with
approved plans as well as help to eliminate misunderstandings between
applicants and the Commission. Ms. Harris stated her hope that the new
procedures will help to alleviate this problem. All paperwork should be
submitted with an application under the new guidelines.
Ms. Harris then introduced Mr. Roger Hedstrom to Commission members.
Mr. Hedstrom is interested in becoming a new member when the Commission
next has an opening.
• Mr. Carr made a MOTION to adjourn at 9:15 p.m. Mr. Cook seconded the
MOTION and the vote was unanimously in favor.
Respectfully submitted,
Cynthia Carr
Clerk of Commission
C1029
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting' 'February 18, 1987
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical. Commission was held on
• Wednesday, February 18, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green. Present ` `
were Vice-Chairman Mr. Oedel, Messrs. Zaharis, Carr, Cook, Clarke, and
Wolfson and Ms. Hilbert . The Vice- Chairman noted that all members
present would be voting members. ,
Mr. Dedel called the meeting to order at f7 :35 p.m.
Mr. Carr made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the January 21 ; 1987
meeting. Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION and the vote was unanimously in
favor.
Local District Operation
188 Federal Street
Ms. Hilbert brought Commission members up to date on the situation at
188 Federal Street by explaining that the applicant had received
approval in August, 1986 to build a contemporary sun room addtion. The
applicant has since built an addition which is in no way similar to the
addition approved by the Commission but instead consists of long
single-paned Andersen windows with two skylights on the roof. At the
January 21 , 1987 meeting the Commission members had given Mr. Connelly,
the applicant, suggestions to incorporate into the addition so as to
make it more compatible with the rest of the building. Mr. Connelly
returned tonight with a plan of proposed changes to the partially built
structure and was seeking Commission approval..
Mr. Carr asked if Mr. Connelly intended to keep the two skylights; Mr.
Connelly responded in the affirmitive. Mr. Clarke then asked if Mr.
Connelly would be receptive to installing a top and bottom rail more
elaborate than the type proposed. Mr. Connelly stated he could agree to
this. Mr. Oedel. questioned Mr. Connelly concerning the color of the
clapboarding- on the addition. Mr. Connelly answered that it would be
painted to match the existing color of the house and the clapboards
would be 3" to the weather to match existing.
Mr. Oedel continued the questioning by asking .the applicant about the
gutter and crown molding. Mr. Connelly responded that the gutter will
be 32" and the crown molding will be 3". Mr. Connelly further stated
that the corner boards would be 62" and a 9" waterboard would be
installed. Mr. Clarke asked about the installation of band molding
around the door and the windows. Mr. Connelly responded that the band
molding could be installed around door, but there may be difficulty
installing it around each window since they are placed closely to one
another. Mr. Connelly did state that he would apply molding around the
whole group of windows.
Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the application as submitted. Mr.
Cook seconded the MOTION.
Mr. Carr stated that he did not feel he could vote favorably on the
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 2 February 18, 1987
application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, for he felt even with
• the proposed changes to the addition, the structure would not be
historically appropriate. It was neither clearly contemporary (as
previously approved) nor, if the attempt was to create something more
historical, did it properly harmonize with the house. Mr. Clarke was in
agreement with Mr. Carr.
Mr._ Zaharis stated that the addition is not offensive to him and would
be acceptable within the Commission' s criteria. Mr. Oedelsaid that the
porch as built is extremely different from what was approved and it is
not at the same building level as the rest of the house.
The vote on the MOTION to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness as
submitted was Messrs. Zaharis and Cook in favor and Messrs. Oedel,
Clarke, and Carr opposed with Mr. Wolfson abstaining from the vote due
to a late arrival.
Commission members then outlined options for Mr. Connelly to take in
regards to the addition. He can:
1 . build the addition as approved in August, 1986,
2. apply for a Certificate of Hardship, or
3 . submit another application with different design features.
Mr. Carr then told Mr. Connelly that for a Certificate of Hardship one
must prove that the hardship was not self—created.
Discussion ensued concerning how the Commission could further assist Mr.
Connelly with design plans for his addition which might meet with
Commission approval. Mr. Cook stated that he thought it would be a
challenge for the Commission to come up with suggestions which would
make the addition acceptable. Mr. Carr stated that the Commission would
stay in touch with Mr. Connelly if any appropriate suggestions were
forthcoming.
Mr. Connelly. then told Commission members that he had attempted to get
estimates and suggestions from slaters regarding his slate roof, but to
date he has not been able to arrange for a slater to come to his house.
Ms. Hilbert told Mr. Connelly that she has the names of 3 slaters and
willmail the list to Mr. Connelly.
33R Flint Street
Ms. Hilbert brought Commission members up to date with the situation at
33R Flint Street. Mr. Matthew Power, the owner, has raised the roof at
the rear of the building, as approved by the Commission, but has done so
without obtaining a building permit. The Building Inspector has
inspected the property and believes that Mr. Power has created an unsafe
situation. The building is leaning at least 4" and he believes the roof
is not steep enough. Mr. Power has also proceeded to do work which was
not approved by the Historical Commission including the addition of a
wooden deck.
Mr. Clarke suggested that the Commission ask the Building Inspector to
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 3 February 18, 1987
issue a Stop Work Order. Mr. Wolfson asked if this would be effective
• since Mr. Power is doing work without a Building Permit. Ms. Hilbert
suggested that the Building Inspector be contacted and requested not to
issue a Certificate of Occupancy until the Historical. Commission has
reviewed and approved Mr. Power' s plans in their entirety. Mr. Clarke
also suggested that the Building Inspector be asked not to issue a
Building Permit until. Mr. Power' s plans have been reviewed and approved
by the Historical Commission.
Mr. Carr made a MOTION to notify Mr. Power that he knowingly made
exterior changes without obtaining the requisite approvals from the -
Historical Commission in advance. Mr. Power should file a complete
application for work intended on the property and should cease allwork
until he receives Commission approval. Mr. Power should be notified
that he is required to attend the March 4, 1987 meeting of the _
Historical Commission.
Mr. Cook made a friendly amendment to strike the word "knowingly" from
the notice to be sent to Mr. Power. Mr. Carr did not accept the
friendly amendment and stated that by retaining the word knowingly the
Commission addresses the question of Mr. Power intentionally working on
the building. Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION and the vote was
unanimously on favor.
Mr. Carr made a MOTION to send a letter to the Building Inspector
informing him that exterior changes have been knowingly made at 33R
Flint Street without Historical Commission approval and requesting that
all work be ordered to cease immediately. The letter should further 4.
request that no Building Permits be issued until the unapproved work has
been corrected to the Commission satisfaction. The letter should
further request the Building Inspector not to issue Certificates of
Occupancy until. Historical Commission approvals have been obtained and
all other work is performed satisfactorily.
Mr. Zaharis seconded the MOTION and the vote was unanimously in favor.
Ms. Hilbert suggested that the Commission take action on items 2-7 of
Mr. Power's application submitted on January 7 , 1987 concerning window,
door and deck alterations. This was due to an absence of detail. that
would thoroughly explain the proposed changes. As the 60-day review
period was nearing an end, these changes would be considered approved if
they were not denied within that period.
Mr. Carr made a MOTION to deny items #2-7 of the application as
submitted for lack of specificity and clarity. Mr. Clarke seconded the
MOTION and the vote was unanimously in favor.
154 Federal Street - Saint James Church
Ms. Hilbert told Commission members that she has received no
communication from Saint James Church regarding the application for a
'Certificate of Hardship to remove cold air shafts and would like the
Commission to take action within the 60 day time limit.
J
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 4 February 18, 1987
Since another 2 weeks were available for the Church to submit additional
information requested on January 21 , 1987 Mr. Carr made a MOTION to
• table the application until the March 4, 1987 meeting. Mr. Cook
seconded the MOTION and the vote was unanimously in favor.
On-e Broad Street
Ms. Hilbert told Commission members that she has received phone calls
from neighbors of the property regarding a wooden platform installed
between the two rear turrets where the heat pumps are located. Ms.
Hilbert distributed pictures of the work being done .at the site and
stated that the platform is extremely visible. She added that the
Commission has not seen an elevation drawing regarding the heat pump
unit .
Mr. Carr stated he remembered approving the placement of the heat pump
units, not a platform. Commission members recalled that the heat pump
units were to be sunken into the roof.
Mr. Oedel suggested that the developer, Charing Cross Corporation, be
asked to attend the March 4, 1987 meeting. ,'► '
Mr. Carr made a MOTION to send a letter to Charing Cross stating that
the platform had not been approved by the .Historical Commission, that , ,
work on this aspect of the development stop immediately, and that
drawings be submitted to the Commission for review. A letter should
also be sent to the Building Inspector requesting a Stop Work Order on
this particular aspect of the project. Mr. Clarke' seconded the MOTION F
and the vote was unanimously in favor. ;
188 Federal. Street (continued)
Councilor Lenny O'Leary then requested information on the Commission' s
action regarding 188 Federal Street. Mr. Oedel told Mr. O'Leary that a
contemporary sun porch had just barely been approved in August , 1986.
Mr. Connelly then proceeded to build something that was neither
contemporary nor historically compatable. The changes Mr. Connelly
proposed tonight were not felt to adequately blend the porch in with the
house.
Mr. O'Leary asked if a denial meant that the Commission would not be
working with Mr. Connelly to resolve the problem at his property. Mr.
Carr affirmed the Commission' s intention to work with the Connelly' s and
stated that when the Commission could arrive at a consensus of what
would be appropriate at the site, the ideas would be communicated to Mr.
Connelly. Mr. O'Leary stated that the Commission should try to help out
any long time Salem resident who needs assistance. Mr. Oedelstated
that the Commission tries to give an applicant flexibility and prefers
an applicant toy. bring plans to the Commission rather that giving an
applicant a rigid set of plans from which to work. Mr. Clarke stated
hat the Commission' s function in the City of Salem is to assess a plan
on its historical appropriateness in. relation to the property and the
district.
• i e
• a � 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 5 February 18, 1987
14 Broad Street
• Ms. Hilbert told Commission members that this property has been
purchased by Mr. Steve Thomas who is converting it from a two-family
dwelling to a one-family. Last summer Mr. Thomas met with Ms. Hilbert
to discuss the installation of a metalchimney stack. She explained
that the Commission only reviews changes visible from the a public way.
From Mr. Thomas' s description it appeared this change would not be
visible but now that the leaves are off the trees, the chimney can be
seen. Ms. Hilbert distibuted pictures of the chimney.
-Mr. Cook was of the opinion that the chimney ought to be removed. Ms
Hilbert stated that the owners have installed a new fireplace and
probably would not be agreeable to removal of the chimney stack. Mr.
Wolfson asked if painting it out would minimize its vival impact on the
district. Mr. Zaharis wondered if it needed to be so tall.. Mr. Clarke
responded that the height was necessary in order for the chimney to
clear the roof line. Mr. Carr asked if the Commission could have a site
inspection Saturday, February 21 , 1987 at 10:00 a.m. Ms. Hilbert said
she would contact Mr. Thomas and try to arrange this.
116 Federal Street
Mr. James Bailey, owner of this property, has installed a third floor
window on the east elevation without a Certificate from the Commission.
This window is very visible from Andover Street.
. Mr. Carr made a MOTION that Mr. Bailey be notified that the third floor
window has been installed without Commission approval. Because the
window is a casement and smaller than the other third floor windows, it
is not historically appropriate and should be replaced with a window
matching the other third story windows. The correspondence should also
applaud Mr. Bailey' s efforts for the exterior renovations of the
-
remainder of the house. Mr. Zaharis secnded the MOTION and the vote was
unaimously in favor.
188 Federal Street (continued)
Discussion then reverted to 188 Federal Street and the steps the
Commission should take with Mr. Connelly. It was suggested that a list
of people with drawing skills be sent to Mr. Connelly so that he could
present a clear and specific plan from which the Commission could work.
Mr. Roger Hedstrom stated he could provide a few names to Ms. Hilbert.
Other problems with the property were discussed including the water
table to be installed, the skylights, and the window and door issues.
The Commission felt that a plan which included 2 6/6 wooden windows in
scale with existing windows, removal. of skylights, and a 4-panel wooden
door may be acceptable.
L •
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 6 _ February 18, 1987
Advertising Requirements
. Mr. Oedel then suggested that the new notification procedures be
discussed. Ms. Hilbert stated that since the requirement of the
advertising in the newspaper has been in effect, very few applications
have been submitted to the Commission for review. She would like the
Commission to reconsider advertising in the newspaper and explore other
ways to notify abutters. For. many property owners, the cost of
advertising was a financial burden. Unlike the Board of Appeal, most
applicants before the Historical Commission are unlikely to realize an
immediate financial return from the improvements to their property.
Also, Mike O'Brien, the City Solicitor, has given the Commission an
opinion stating that under Chapter 40C, newspaper advertisement is not
required.
The consensus of the Commission was to eliminate newspaper advertisement
for public hearings and to expand abutter notification.
Mr. Carr made a MOTION to amend the procedures to eliminate the
requirement of publication in the Salem Evening News. Mr. Cook seconded
the MOTION and the vote was unanimously in favor.
Mr. Carr made a MOTION to expand abutter notification to include all
abutters and lateral abutters to abutters on the same side of the street
and those properties which interface the lateral abutters across the
street at the centerline. Mr. Cook seconded the MOTION and the vote was
unanimously in favor.
Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to adjourn at 9:00 p.m. , Mr. Wolfson seconded
the MOTION and the vote was unanimously in favor.
Respectfully submitted,
A
Cynthia Carr
Clerk of Commission
C1111
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Minutes of Meeting March 4, 1987
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on
Wednesday, March 4, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green. Present were
Chairperson Ms. Harris, Messrs. Lippman, Zaharis, Oedel, Wolfson, and
Carr and Staff Advisor Ms. Hilbert.
Ms. Harris called the meeting to order at 7 :30 p.m.
As the minutes from the last meeting were circulated tonight, a motion
on their approval. was postponed until the April 1st meeting.
Local District Operation
14 Beckford Street -
An application was submitted by Thomas and Hope Griffin for the
alteration of two wooden, single-glazed windows at the rear first floor
elevation of 14 Beckford Street which would be shortened by
approximately six inches. This application is being made to accommodate
the remodeling of a kitchen.
Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the application as submitted. Mr.
Wolfson seconded the MOTION and discussion ensued.
Mr. Carr asked if the other windows on the rear elevation were uniform.
Ms. Harris responded that the windows are not completely uniform. Mr.
Carr stated that he was concerned about setting a precedent of approving
window alterations on a very visible facade in the McIntire Historic
District. Ms. Harris emphasized that the windows were on the rear
elevation and Mr. Oedel stated he would be concerned if all the existing
windows were uniform, but since they are not, he was not concerned about
setting a precedent.
The vote on the MOTION to approve the application as submitted was
Messrs. Oedel., Zaharis, Lippman, and Wolfson and Ms. Harris in favor;
Mr. Carr abstained since he arrived late.
Mr. Carr asked Commission members about the specificity of the
application. Ms. Harris responded that the specificity was contained in
the phrasing of the application which stated that all replacement
windows will be identical to the existing, except 6 inches shorter.
Mr. Griffin arrived with his son, Richard Griffin, and told Commission
members that he would like to change the application if possible to
include three windows on the first floor rear elevation. He stated that
by reducing all three kitchen windows, he would be making the rear
elevation more uniform. Mr. Griffin then submitted two letters from
abutters supporting his application. Mr. Griffin stated that the
alterations are being made to an addition; he would not be altering the
original 17th century fabric of the main house.
Mr. Carr asked if the top or the bottom of the windows would be
shortened. Mr. Richard Griffin, who drew the plans for the kitchen
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 2 March 4, 1987
• remodeling, explained that the bottom of the windows will be shortened
and added that he may retain the original windows, but wanted the option
of replacing them with smaller windows.
Mr. Lippman said that he voted for altering two windows because that
seemed Like an anomalous change, but the raising of three sills would
give the appearance of a more substantial design change to the
structure.
Mr. Carr stated that he would prefer the applicant to leave the windows
as they exist and install a splashguard around the counter area, but if
Mr. Griffin did install new windows, he would prefer all three being
changed to minimize the incongruity.
Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the shortening of all three
windows, with all other features of the windows to match the existing.
Mr. Carr seconded the MOTION and the vote was Messrs. Zaharis and Carr
in favor, Messrs. Oedel, Wolfson,Harris, and Lippman opposed. Thus the
MOTION did not carry.
One Broad Street '
Mr. Roger Lang appeared before the Commission to explain the situation
at One Broad Street regarding the platform on the roof to support the
heat pumps . Mr. Lang stated that the installation of this deck-Like
addition was a mistake on the contractor' s part and the structure will
be removed. He further explained that while no screening device for the
heat pumps was proposed or approved, Charing Cross Corp. and the
Commission may want to consider such screening after the heat pump units
are installed on the roof.
Mr. Lang stated that the heat pump units will be installed within the
next two weeks, weather permitting, with maximum visibility of the units
. approximately 38".
Ms. Harris asked about the color of the heat pump units. Mr. Lang
responded that he did not know their color, but that they are usually
beige or a buff tan color. Ms. Harris questioned Mr. Lang as to the
feasibility of painting out the heat pump units . Mr. Lang stated he did
not know if the units could be painted.
Mr. Lang then presented a Landscaping Plan to the Commission. He
explained that this was a simple perimeter treatment with a ribbon of
grass, shurbs and rock rip-rap to prevent erosion. A species list had
been submitted to the Commission.
Discussion ensued regarding the rip-rap and the slope of the bank it was
to retain. Mr. Carr stated that the City has many examples of
unaesthetic rock rip-rap and asked if there were other options for
maintaining the slope. The concensus of the Commission was that a less
. severe slope maintained with plantings would be preferable to the rock
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 3 March 4, 1987
rip—rap.
Mr. Carr asked if the landscape architect had a design scheme for the
building. Mr. Lang responded that landscaping was provided for
green space and color, but not for screening the building. The
Commission felt that mulch at the site should be kept to a minimum and
that dense ivy ground cover should be explored.
Mr. Carr stated he would like to see the rear entrance platform screened
as much as possible and that he did not want the Second Empire style of
the building "cutesified" by the landscaping.
Mr. Lippman said that the smallest amount of landscaping with the
largest size trees would be the most appropriate for this building.
Mr. Lang stated that a revised landscaping plan will be submitted to the
Commission.
33R Flint Street
Ms. Hilbert explained that the Commission had previously approved
raising the roof at 33R Flint St . but denied the installation of a
deck, atrium doors, and new window locations due to lack of specificity
in the application. Mr. Power attended the meeting to explain his plans
for these items, but Mr. Carr objected since no revisions were depicted
on a drawing. Mr. Carr stated that before the Commission takes action
on the new application, a revised plan depicting all changes and all
features with clarity and specificity should be submitted to the
Commission.
Ms. Harris questioned Mr. Power about the proposed deck. Mr. Power
stated that he has some flexibility in its location and is willing to
locate the deck wherever the Commission wants it . Mr. Power further
stated that the windows proposed are double glazed with applied muntins
on the inside.
Discussion ensued regarding the changes Mr. Power has to make to the
exterior of the structure to bring it up to code and the location of
these changes. Mr. Carr asked how wide the proposed deck was. Mr.
Power responded that it was 8 ' wide and will be tied into the spiral.
staircase, which is set in concrete at its base.
Mr. Carr stated that it is the consensus of the Commission that a
minimal deck, of the same material of the spiral staircase and the same
size as the temporary deck now in place, would be the most appropriate
treatment for the secondary means of egress, but asked Mr. Power to
bring in a drawing prior to ordering any items.
Ms. Harris stated that the atrium doors, as proposed, would be minimally
visible from the public way, since they are quite a distance from the
Essex Street as well as being partially screened by a fence.
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 4 March 4, 1987 .
Mr. Power stated the doors would be a total of 8' high and 9 ; wide. The
consensus of the Commission was that the doors would be appropriate.
Mr. Power' s plans for window treatment were then discussed. He proposed
to install four new windows at various locations on the ell. All ,
windows will be of the same size. The existing windows are of various.
sizes and there is no consistency on the ell. The consensus of the
Commission was that the windows should be single glazed and , wooden with
integral muntins.
Mr. Zaharis made a MOTION to approve the installation of the atrium
doors as submittedonMarch 4, 1987 because the doors will be minimally
visible from a public right—of—way- and would not effect the building' s
architectural integrity. Mr. Wolfson seconded the MOTION with Messrs.
Lippman, Oedel, Zaharis, and Ms. Harris voting in favor Mr. Carr was
opposed because he felt the application was incomplete, and, thus,
should not be acted upon. The MOTION carried.
Mr. Carr requested that the changes of the doors denoted by Mr. Power
and approved by the Commission be marked on the plan. Ms. Harris then
altered the drawing accordingly.
Ms . Harris asked Mr. Power if work has stopped at the site. Mr. Power
responded in the affirmitive. Mr. Power stated that the Building
Inspector was concerned with the nature of interior supports of the
building and that his architect and the Building Inspector have resolved
that issue.
. Mr. Carr suggested that a letter be sent to the Building Inspector which
states that the Historical Commission is sufficiently satisfied with the
progress Mr. Power has made and that they have approved some aspects of
the renovations, but request that no Certificate of Occupancy be issued
until. the property has received full. approval from the Historical.
Commission.
Mr. Carr made a MOTION that the Letter just discussed be submitted to
the Building Inspector also stating that Mr. Power can proceed with any
approved exterior work at 33R Flint Street . Mr. Lippman seconded the
MOTION and the vote was unanimously in favor.
Commission members discussed requirements they had of Mr. Power and
asked if he could fulfill. them for the April. 1 , 1987 meeting. Mr. Power
was requested to submit a new application complete with revised drawings
which depicts new window locations (showing number of panes and
mouldings) , the location, size, and dsign of the wrought iron deck, and
the Atrium doors as approved tonight . If wrought iron proves to be
unfeasible for the secondary means of egress, a detailed drawing of
another treatment should be submitted prior to the meeting. The
Commission advised Mr. Power not to cut out holes for the windows until.
he receives approval from the Commission.
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 5 March 4, 1987
• Saint James Church
Ms. Hilbert explained to Commission members that an application for a
Certificate of Hardship has been under review by the Commission since
January 21 , 1987, and that action must be taken on the application at
this meeting or it will be automatically approved under the 60 day time
limit in the Commission' s enabling legislation. Ms. Hilbert further
explained that Saint James has not responded with any of the information
requested for by the Commission January 21st. -
Mr. Carr made a MOTION to deny the application due to lack of supporting
evidence requested by the Commission regarding the nature of the
Church' s hardship. Mr. Wolfson seconded the MOTION and the vote was
unanimously in favor.
Revisions to Historical Commission Guidelines
Ms. Hilbert distributed draft revised guidelines to Commission members
for their review and input . The guidelines concerned secondary egress,
satillite dishes, skylights and porch additions. Exterior secondary
egresses were of major concern to Commission members. Their consensus
was that the guidelines should emphasize the point that visible
secondary egresses will not be permitted unless all other options,
including an interior solution, have been fully explored and an
exterior egress is the only viable way to meet City codes . The analysis
of why an egress must be located on the exterior should be fully
documented for the Commission' s review.
The Commission also stated that satellite dishes were under their
jurisdiction, but antennas are not.
A revised set of guidelines will be reviewed by the Commission at their
next meeting, April 1 , 1987. _
01d Business
Dr. Kantorosinski ' s sign was discussed and it was the consensus of the
Commission that a letter be written to Dr. Kantorosinski requesting the
phone number part of the sign be removed, since it was not part of of
his sign permit application.
Ms. Harris raised the issue of increasing positive neighborhood
relations and made the suggestion that some type of Public Relations
campaign be undertaken so that residents could do more self—policing and
support could be gained from within the neighborhoods to achieve the
goals and objectives of the Commission.
Ms. Hilbert stated that a letter should be circulated to notify property
owners about the elimination of the advertising requirements in the
Salem Evening News. .
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 6 March 4, 1987
Mr. Carr suggested that a tour of the neighborhoods be taken by the
Commission members and that this would not only increase the
Commission' s visibility, but it would also help the Commission to
identify violations which have occured in the Historic Districts.
The Commission agreed that Saturday, March 21 , 1987 at 11 :00 a.m. would
be a good date to take a tour of the districts.
Ms. Hilbert reported that Mr. Jim Bailey has agreed to remove the
inappropriate window form the third floor of his property at 116 Federal
. Street and will replace it with a window to match the existing windows
on the third floor.
Mr. oedel made a MOTION to adjourn at 9:30 p.m. , Mr. Zaharis seconded
the MOTION and the vote was unanimously in favor.
Respectfully submitted,
66
Cyntia Carr
Clerk of Commission
C1119
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
April 1, 1987
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday
evening, April 1, 1987, at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were
Ms. Harris, Chairman, Ms. Hilbert, and Messrs. Zaharis, Cook, Carr, Wolfson, and
Lippman.
Mr. Lippman made a motion to approve the minutes of February 18th and March
4th. Mr. Carr seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
Local Distric Operation
28 Beckford Street
Chairman Harris read the application to the Board which included reclapboarding
of the structure, paint colors and window repair and/or replacement. Chairman
Harris explained that the staff requested additional information from the owners,
John and Catherine Randall. A letter was received by the contractor, Jim
Harrison, addressing these concerns. Cabot's semi-solid stain color samples were
presented to the Board. They were federal blue, dark gray, or slate gray for the
body, white for the trim and black for the doors. The window frames will be
repaired or replaced as necessary. New windows will be 6/6 double pane insulated
glass made by J.B. Sash & Door, a sample of which was shown to the Board. The
• windows are all wooden and the internal window grid can be removed for cleaning
and can be,painted to match. 6/6 grids are glued on to the exterior. The windows
themselves also tilt for easier cleaning.
The Board agreed that the window is one of the best non intregal windows they
have seen. Mr. Lippman asked how many windows were going to be replaced.
Mr. Harrison replied that all the sashes will be replaced. There are two windows in
the dining room where the existing wood will be retained and protected from
further damage. He also informed the Board that he will try to keep the frames
and sill sections whenever possible.
Mr. Lippman suggested that 6/6 windows would be too large for the sides of the bay
window on the front of the house. He also asked if the sill boards will extend past
the molding.
Mr. Harrison replied that everything will be reproduced as accurately as possible.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to accept the application as presented since the new
6/6 windows are good reproductions matching the appearance of.single-glazed
windows, and the repairs and paint colors are consistent with a building of this
period. Mr. Carr seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
Mr. Carr stated for the record that this Board does not normally approve non-
intregal muntin bars.
•
Salem Historical Commission Page 2 April 1,1987
165 Federal Street
This application from Mr. & Mrs. Paul Malawka is for a door replacement on the
west elevation. The door is presently a four panel Victorian door with two lights on
the top. The replacement door is a six panel wooden door (Brosco F66-2) with two
lights on the top.
Mr. Carr made a motion to accept the application as presented because a 6/6 door
is architecturally appropriate to a house with Federal period origins. Mr. Zaharis
seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
Let the record show that at 5:00 p.m. Mr. Russell Slam joined the meeting.
76 Federal Street
Chairman Harris explained to the Board that a skylight was approved on the east
elevation, but because it is to close to the chimney of the house it does not
conform to the building code. Dr. Gordon is here again to make another proposal
to the Board.
Dr. Gordon explained that he would like to move the skylight either ten feet away
from the already approved location or to the opposite side of the house.
• Mr. Carr explained to Dr. Gordon that the Board's guidelines typically discourage
the use of skylights. The previous skylight was approved because it was hidden by
the chimney. He did not feel that placing it on the opposite side where it would be
more visible would be an acceptable option. Dr. Gordon was asked if he would
consider removing the existing skylight on the west elevation which now lights a
stairwell so that he could substitute the skylight he wants for the third floor
bedroom.
Chairman Harris asked Dr. Gordon if he would consider a dormer instead of a
skylight which would give him more light.
Russell Slam questioned whether a single dormer would be better than a skylight.
Mr. Lippman responed that it is easier to declare a dormer appropriate than a
skylight.
Mr. Carr stated that the dormer would have to be very well designed.
Dr. Gordon asked the Board what view was most important to them.
Mr. Carr stated that any view that can be seen from a public way concerns the
Commission. Since this house is located at a gateway into the City the front
should be as "pure" as possible.
Dr. Gordon asked the Board for their suggestions to get light into the back room of
• the house.
. Salem Historical Commission Page 3 April 1, 1987
Chuck Thornhill, contractor for Dr. Gordon, suggested that the existing skylight on
the west elevation be removed and replaced with one lighting the bedroom. Then a
glass wall could be put in the bedroom so that light can filter through to the
stairway.
The Board agreed that this was a good solution and requested that a scaled drawing
of the proposed plan be provided to Board. They also discussed possible dimensions
of 21" x 27" for the skylight.
Russell Slam made a motion to approve the additon of a 21" x 27" skylight at the
spot indicated. Mr. Lippman stated that he would not approve anything in concept
until a scaled drawing showing the actual dimensions of the skylight is provided.
Mr. Cook seconded the motion. Messrs. Slam, Wolfson, and Cook voted in favor of
the motion. Messrs. Lippman, Zaharis, and Carr and Ms. Harris voted in
opposition. Motion did not carry.
Chairman Harris stated that her opposition was based on the lack of a drawing.
31 Flint Street
Ms. Hilbert explained to the Board that the former owners of the building, Majorie
and John Rosss, were in violation of the McIntire Historic District Ordinance
because of a screen porch addition that was never approved by the Commission.
. The new owner, Ann Dayment, has removed two windows on the south elevation
and has proposed to modify the existing view of the porch by installing a fence and
trellis along the structure.
Chairman Harris suggested that a letter be written to the current owner advising
her that she is in violation of the Commission.
Mr. Carr informed the Board that he has been made aware that the Rosses are
concerned about being sued by the buyer.
Ms. Hilbert stated that she has been inside the house and the new owner has put a
great deal of money into the structure and feels that a fence and trellis is an
appropriate solution. Ms. Dayment will have to appear before the Board to make
these changes and the Board can inform her of their concerns at that time.
Discussion ensued of the possibility of the Board putting a Notice of Liens Pendens
on the property. This would be a notice that the owner is in violation of the
Historic District Ordinance, and would help correct violations since the City
Solicitor has too large a workload to enforce violations.
Mr. Lippman suggested that the Mass. Historical Commission be called to see if
any other Board has taken this approach.
Mr. Cook was not in favor of recording such liens, but if this idea does come to
fruition he felt that all properties should be grandfathered.
•
• Salem Historical Commission Page 4 April 1, 1987
There being no further business, Mr. Lippman made a motion to adjourn. Mr.
Zaharis seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
Respectfully su itted,
Ellen S. Dubinsk
Y
Acting Clerk
•
•
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
• MINUTES
April 15, 1987
(as amended May 6, 1987)
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday
evening, April 15, 1987, at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were
Mr. Oedel, Vice Chairman, Ms. Hilbert, and Messrs. Zaharis, Cook, and Wolfson.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to approve the minutes of April 1st. Mr. Cook seconded .
the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
Public Hearings
14 Broad Street
Vice Chairman Oedel explained that this application was for approval of paint
colors for the house, garage and chimney located at 14 Broad Street. A site visit
was made in February to evaluate the best solution regarding the metal chimney.
Ms. Hilbert and Mr. Wolfson who were present at that site visit, felt that the
chimney should be painted the same color as the body of the house. The body of
the house, the chimney and the garage will all be painted with Benjamin Moore GN-
47 (gray). The trim color will be Benjamin Moore O-W 23 (cream) and the shutters
will be Benjamin Moore GN-45 (dark gray).
• Mr. Zaharis made a motion to approve the application as presented since the color
would be appropriate to the age and style of this property. Mr. Cook seconded the
motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
Mr. Wolfson commented that the very top of the chimney be painted black,
however, there was no concensus from the Commission to require this.
Vice Chairman Oedel voiced the dissention of Chairman Harris regarding the
inappropriateness of the chimney.
Mr. Stephen Thomas, owner, explained to the Board that he would like to tear the
garage down and build a carriage house.
The Board informed Mr. Thomas that they could not comment on the change until
they are presented with plans of the new structure.
13 River Street
This application from Margaret Hill is for the replacement of existing gray black
and red asphalt shingles with new black asphalt shingles on the sloped part of the
roof; no work is being done on the flat part which cannot be seen.
Mr. Cook made a motion to approve the application as presented as black shingles
are felt to be inobstrusive and roughly match the appearance of original roofing
materials. Mr. Zaharis seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
Although not on the agenda, Mr. Chuck Thornhill, the contractor for 13 River
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 2 April 15, 1987
Street, asked the Board for their opinion on paint colors for 78 Federal Street. The
• house has been newly clapboarded with Cabot's dune gray proposed for the
clapboards, navajo white for the trim, and black for the doors and the bulkheads.
The Board informed Mr. Thornhill that those colors seemed reasonable.
122 Federal Street
This application for a Certificate of Appropriateness from Darrow Lebovici and
Margaret Twohey included a porch addition and partial fence removal at 122
Federal Street. The house is located on the corner of Federal and Lynn Streets.
The owners presented a model to the Board depicting the porch addition. The roof
will be of the same pitch as a sear ell and be shingled with black asphalt. The
wooden columns will be 8" and there will be one granite step. The fence along
Lynn Street will largely remain but a section is being changed to a gate to allow
for one-car on-site parking. The new fence, posts, and gate will match the existing
and the paint colors will match the house and trim colors of the porch. The color
of the deck will be dark green to match the fence and the house shutters or dark
grey.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to approve the application with the color of the deck to .
be either dark green or dark grey. The motion was made because the porch was
very well-designed and well-integrated with the style of the house. Mr. Cook
seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
Other Business
• 164 Federal Street
Donna Bimbo appeared before the Board to ask for advice regarding window
replacement. She explained that last year a bay window was given a Certificate of
Hardship and at the same time a plant window was put in that was never approved.
She asked the Board if she could duplicate this on the upper story and was told that
a Certificate would not be granted for that work. Since the existing plant window
is already a violation, it can't be duplicated on the second floor. The bay window
was approved a a hardship and also should not be duplicated.
The Board replied that they would not issue any kind of certificate for the existing
plant window and she is liable for this action. The options that she has are to
replace the existing windows with exactly what is there which needs no formal
application or submit an application for different windows. If the windows are
changed to double glazed windows, this change also has to be approved.
Mr. Carr joined the meeting at this time.
Vice Chairman Oedel also stated that the Board would take the existing plant
window under advisement at this time.
One Broad Street
Ms. Hilbert explained to the Board that there is a section of fence missing between
1 and 3 Broad St. There is a fence to match the existing in front of the transformer
• and the applicants would like to relocate the transformer fence to the front of the
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 3 April 15, 1987
building. They would also then erect a historic iron fence salvaged from Lowell in
front of the transformer.
John Carr asked if the Board has approved the lighting installed at the site. No one
could recall reviewing this aspect of the project.
Ms. Hilbert also informed the Board that the developers,want-to change
.J
treatment of the back steps. Theywant to face the steps in slate insteadz of granite.
John Carr felt that the steps should be all granite as originally approved and the
rest of the Board agreed.
The Board also expressed their concerns regarding the heat pumps, and also
questioned whether the roof deck construction was what had been originally
approved.
Ms. Hilbert suggested that the developers to be invited appear before the Board to
talk about the lights and at that time the Board can air their other concerns
regarding the project.
6 Flint Street
Vice Chairman Oedel explained to the Board that the owners of 6 Flint St., Mr. &
Mrs. Raymond Farmer, have purchased 37 vinyl 1/1 windows and have a $4,500
deposit with the window manufacturer/installer with a balance or $4,500
remaining. Vice Chairman Oedel informed the Board that he had spoken to the
owners and they explained to him that they did not realize that they had to appear
• before the Board for such an alteration and they made reference to the fact that
their neighbor had made alterations to a porch without prior approval.
Mr. Carr felt that there was no way the owners could not be aware of this Board
and its regulations because of all the literature that has been sent to every
homeowner in the District. He suggested that a formel letter be sent to the
owners making them aware that if they install these windows, they will be in
violation of the McIntire Historic District Ordinance. A copy of the Commission's
guidelines should be enclosed and it should be explained to her that any attempt to
install these windows without approval could result in legal action and fines. This
letter should be sent registered certified, return receipt requested.
Mr. Zaharis suggested that a copy of the letter should also be sent to the window
installer.
Mr. Carr made a motion to send a registered letter to Mr. & Mrs. Farmer informing
them of what had transpired at this meeting with a copy sent to the window
installer. Mr. Zaharis seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
2 Flint Street
Vice Chairman Oedel explained the Historical Commission's previous involvement
with this property, which the Farmers of 6 Flint St. had complained about. The
porch has been removed on the second floor of this Colonial Revival building. The
removal was permitted but nothing could have been done about the door that was
:�./'� remaining as it was an existing feature. It appears that a fence may have been
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Page 4 April 15, 1987
removed. (Note: After the meeting, Ms. Hilbert determined that only some
• landscaping had been done.)
Mr. Carr made a motion to make the Building Department aware of this situation.
Mr. Wolfson seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
Mr. Carr suggested that another mass mailing be sent out now that the Commission
was not requiring newspaper advertising. A draft, for the Board's review, should be
made available for the next meeting.
28 Beckford Street
At the April 1, 1987 meeting, an application was approved for red cedar clapboards
and the contractor, "Jim Harrison, wanted to know if he could switch to fir.
Mr. Carr informed the Board that he had seen the fir and felt it was of similar
quality to the cedar and would approve for this request. The other Board members
concurred.
There being no further business, Mr. Carr made a motion to adjourn the meeting,
Mr. Zaharis seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
• Ellen S. k ky
Acting Clerk
M23WP
• SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
May 6, 1987
A regular meeting of the Slame Historical Commission was held on Wednesday evening,
May 6, 1987, at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were Chairman
Harris, Ms. Hilbert, and Messrs. Cook, Zaharis, Wolfson, Lippman, Carr, and Oedel.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the minutes with the following change: The second
paragraph on page two read: The Board informed Mr. Thornhill that those colors seemed
reasonable. Mr. Wolfson seconded the motion, all were in favor with Ms. Harris
abstaining, motion so carried.
Public Hearings
78 Federal Street
Chuck Thornhill appeared before the Board on behalf of Charles Clarke with an
application to paint the clapboards of this house dune gray and the trim navaho white in a
Cabot semi-solid stain.
John Carr made a motion to approve the application as presented as these colors are light
enough in tone to be historically and architecturally appropriate for a Federal period
house. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion, all were in favor.
• After some discussion over whether the grain of the wood would show through with semi-
solid stain, Mr. Carr made a motion to amend the approval that a flat solid paint as shown
on the color chart be applied to the house. Peter Zaharis seconded the motion, all were in
favor with Mr. Lippman voting in opposition, motion so carried.
Russell Slam joined the meeting at this time.
362 Essex Street
James and Susan Maloney submitted an application for a new fence installation. The
fence would be white wood in the classic round style as manufactured by the Brattle
Fence Company. It would be installed along the front property line with a gate at the
driveway.
Mr. Carr suggested that a drawing be submitted with more detail such as length from post
to post before the Commission takes action.
260 Lafayette Street
David Jaquith, architect for this project, appeared before the Board with window and door
alterations for the building located at 260 Lafayette Street.
The Board requested that the skylight on Laurel Street be removed from the drawings as
this was included in error. Mr. Jaquith concurred.
• Mr. Jaquith requested the addition of two skylights in the rear of the main structure and
one tucked to the left of the dormer on the rear ell, right side elevation.
• Mr. Lippman wanted to be assured that not only were the skylights invisible from a
public way, but also that light from them could not be seen.
Mr. Jaquith also informed the Board that a set of windows on the first floor of the
right side elevation was to be removed. Instead, he proposed a four panel door in
the corner that would not be visible from the street, and two new wooden single-
glazed 6/6 windows to line up approximately under the second floor windows.
At the rear elevation a door will be replaced and moved slightly. The windows on
the first floor Laurel St. projection will be replaced with 2 double hung windows to
match the existing height of the first floor windows. Mr. Dave Zeirhoffer,
representing the owner, Greystone Realty Trust, then requested one window in this
location instead of two.
In addition a casement window to the left of the projection will be replaced with a
double hung window, the same size as the one to the left. All replacement windows
will be single-glazed 6/6 wooden sash.
The changes to the windows result in three windows that are all the same size.
The right side elevation skylight will be 45' x 46' and the two rear elevation
sklylight will be 53' x 521. The Building Department told the applicant he needed
natural light if the third floor was to be living space. Mr. Carr asked if the Board
received a correspondence of that effect from the Building Inspector. Ms. Hilbert
responded in the negative.
. Ms. Harris also informed Mr. Jaquith of some inconsistencies between the plans
that the Commission approved and what actually exists on the site of the adjacent
construction at 258 Lafayette Street.
On the left elevation the trim around the windows shown on the drawings is missing
and the trim piece around the sliding glass door is missing. On the right side the
fancy clapboarding and trim is missing. The windows also seem to be in a different
position. There is also an existing fence that has not been approved.
There are also some inconsistencies in the front building. The railing around the
corner is not present. Ms. Harris recalled that the existing railing was
supposed to have been repaired and reinstalled. There are also two lamps on the
front of the building that were not approved.
Mr. Carr suggested that the Board defer action on the existing violations at 258
Lafayette Street until the next meeting so that the developer has a chance to
either rectify the problems or submit changes.
Mr. Cook made a motion to approve the application submitted for 260 Lafayette
St. as amended because the changes involved either are not significant enough to
impact the architectural integrity of the building or they correct earlier
alterations which destroyed the house's symmetry.
Mr. Carr stated that he had no problems with approving the door and window
changes, but he did have a problem with approving the skylights becuase he was not
. convinced that they could not be seen.
Mr. Cook asked Ms. Hilbert for her opinion on whether or not the skylights can be
seen or not.
-2-
6
• Ms. Hilbert replied that they are largely invisible and possibly a small part of one
skylight could be seen farther down Lafayette Street.
Mr. Cook made a motion to move the question. Mr. Cook seconded the motion.
Messrs. Cook, Wolfson and Slam were in favor, Messrs. Zaharis, Carr, Lippman and
Oedel were opposed.
Mr. Lippman suggested that all approvals but the skylights be granted this evening
and that the applicant reapply for a Certificate of Non-Applicabilty for the
skylights, if they are in fact invisible.
Mr. Zaharis asked for a clarification of whether or not the skylight or any effect of
the skylight such as night lighting can be seen. Ms. Hilbert replied that you may be
able to see effects of the skylight but was not sure, this would have to be checked.
Mr. Lippman made a motion to amend the application by removing the three
skylights from it. Mr. Carr seconded the motion. All were in favor except Messrs.
Cook and Slam who were opposed.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application with the amendment. Mr.
Lippman seconded the motion. All were in favor except Mr. Cook who was
opposed. Motion so carried.
362 Essex Street
The Maloneys returned to the meeting with a drawing of the fence showing that it
• would be three foot high, and built in 2 sections. One section would be 26 feet long
from post to post aross the house and the other section would be 12 feet long with
a gate across the driveway.
Ms. Harris commented that it looks as if the fence should be higher than three
feet. Ms. Maloney responded that the fence will sit on top of a railroad tie and
may be higher.
Mr. Carr was concerned whether the fence could support 26 feet without and
additional center post. He asked what the original Essex Institute pictures of the
house showed for fence.
Ms. Harris asked the applicants if they would put in another post.
The applicants replied in the negative stating that the width of the house was too
short and another post would make the lot look narrower when they were trying to
make it look wider.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to approve the fence. Mr. Slam seconded the motion.
Mr. Oedel asked if the spindels were round or square. Ms. Maloney replied that the
spindels would be round.
Mr. Lippman was concerned about the height of the fence and asked if Mr. Zaharis
would withdraw his motion so that the applicants could return to the next meeting
• with more information. Mr. Zaharis did so.
-3-
• 6 Flint Street
Mr. Carr asked to withdraw from this discussion because he has dealt with
Ms. Farmer, one of the owners, in her capacity as a Clerk with the Court and felt
he would be in conflict. The Board agreed.
Ms. Harris read a letter that was sent to the Farmers explaining to them that
window replacement is under the jurisdiction of the Commission, and if windows
were installed without proper approvals, the owners would be in violation of the
district.
Ms. Farmer stated that her house was not the original one at its location. The
original was burnt in the Salem fire. Presently there are vinyl siding and aluminum
shutters on the house, work done prior to the creation of the McIntire district. She
also stated that she did not feel she had to appear before the Board because all the
replacement would be taking place through the interior. Ms. Farmer stated that
she was replacing the windows to unify the house. with all 1/1 windows.
Mr. Cook asked if additional muntin bars could be applied to make 2/2 sash.
Ms. Farmer replied that the window manufacturer was supposed to be present with
a sample of the window and he did inform her that muntin bars could be applied.
Mr. Farmer felt the windows would improve the neighborhood unlike the work of
his neighbor at 2 Flint St. who took off a second story porch and left a door hanging
in mid-air. He commented that he thought this Board was only of an advisory
• nature.
Ms. Harris informed him that this Board is enpowered by the State under Chapter
40C , and has jurisdiction over anything in the district that can be seen from a
public right of way.
Mr. Cook stated that technically this replacement is wrong, but he felt this was an
innocent error.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to deny the application.
Mr. Lippman stated that even if this house is not historically significant this Board
has domain over all houses in the district. The issue was left that the Farmers
would return to the next meeting with their window contractor and a sample of the
proposed window.
Mr. Carr suggested a letter be written to the owner of 2 Flint St. informing him to
take action by the introduction of a second floor window or the addition of a new
porch.
Mr. Oedel left the meeting at this time.
One Broad Street
Roger Lang, architect for the project, appeared before the Board to update them
• on the construction and to try to solve the heat pump screening problem. Mr. Lang
requested a change in awning color to a terra cotta solid style number 4622
sunbrella brand.
-4-
• Mr. Lang informed the Board that the heatpumps are set on a platform. Ms. Harris
stated that she recalled that they were to be sunken into the structure. Mr. Lang
informed her that this was structurally impossible to do. He showed the Board
drawings of three options that would screen the heat pumps:
1. an open balustrade;
2. a wood panel screen; and
3. a supra-slate parapet.
Mr. Lippman asked about the visibility of the heat pumps. Mr. Lang replied that
they should be almost invisible especially if the 3rd treatment is used.
Mr. Zaharis commented that he favored the second drawing.
Mr. Lippman made a motion to approve the 3rd drawing as a way to screen the heat
pumps provided the parapect does not extend above the trim. He felt this option
was the most architecturally harmonious and least obtrusive of the three. Mr.
Slam seconded the motion. All were in favor except Messrs. Zaharis and Carr who
were opposed.
Mr. Carr informed Mr. Lang that four lights illuminating the parking lot on high
metal poles with contemporary light heads have been erected without approval of
the Board.
Mr. Lang replied that he thought this was approved and he would explore this
• further with his client.
Mr. Lippman suggested that discussion be tabled until Mr. Lang has an opportunity
to look into the situation.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the awning color of terra cotta sunbrella style
#4622, as this color would harmonize with the brick color of the building. Mr.
Cook seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
Ms. Hilbert informed Mr. Lang that Certificates of Appropriateness have been sent
to his client detailing all of the approvals that have taken place for the project.
Mr. Lang was not aware that his client had received such information.
Preservation/Restoration Awards
Ms. Hilbert distributed pictures of the candidates for this year's awards. They
were: 262 Lafayette St., 180 Derby St., 8 Lynn St., 116 Federal St., 86 Federal St.,
30 Warren St., 30 Broad St., and 396 Essex St.
After some discussion the Board voted to award 3 major awards and 3 recognition
awards as follows:
•
-5-
Major Development Awards
• -Major Development Award within a Historic District - Stephen W. Santry and
Paul A. Langford for their renovation/restoration of 262 Lafayette St.
-Homeowner's Award within a Historic District - Jonathan and Suzanne Felt for
their renovation/restoration of 86 Federal St.
-New Construction Project within a Historic District - Harry Andersen and Lynn
Phillips for their porch addition at 30 Warren St.
Recognition Awards
-Renovation Project within a Historic District - Roland and Barbara Baker for
their exemplary exterior painting of their home at 30 Broad Street.
-Renovation/Restoration Project within a Historic District - Brookhouse Home
for Aged Women - for their slate roofing, work and efforts to obtain funding
from the Massachusetts Preservation Project Fund.
-Major Renovation Project within the City of Salem - James A. Bailey for his
renovation/restoration of 81 Essex Street.
Other Business
Mr. Zaharis spoke to the Board to caution the Commission in regards to
• interuptions of other members or applicants while they are speaking.
Mr. Cook made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Slam seconded the motion all were in
favor, motion so carried.
Respectfully s mitted,
Ellen Dubinsky
Acting Clerk
M24WP
•
-6-
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
• MINUTES
May 20, 1987
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday
evening, May 20, 1987, at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were
Chairman Harris, Ms. Hilbert, and Messrs. Zaharis, Slam, Cook, Oedel, Lippman,
and Wolfson.
The Chairman called the meeting to order and introduced Sam Healy, who will be
the Commission's new aide. She also introduced Mr. Roger Hedstrom, a carpenter
who is interested in being a board member, and asked him to join the members at
the table.
Public Hearings - Continued from May 6th
6 Flint Street
Chairman Harris explained that this application was for window replacement at 6
Flint St. The proposed windows are double glazed, 1/1, and vinyl clad. The
contractor was present and brought a sample window. The windows are 7/8"
insulated glass, tilt in for cleaning purposes, and have removable screens. All the
windows are custom made. The existing wooden sills will be covered with vinyl.
The inside trim moldings will remain.
• Chairman Harris suggested that the Commission vote upon a Certificate of
Hardship. Mr. Oedel felt this was not the correct action to take since the hardship
was self-created. The Farmers, owners of the house, have already put down a
$4,500 deposit (50%) and the windows are 75% manufactured.
Mr. Cook made a motion to approve the application,as a Certificate of Hardship
since the house has lost its integrity with the application of vinyl siding and the
applicant has invested a considerable amount of money into the project. Mr.
Wolfson seconded the motion.
Mr. Lippman suggested that a Certificate of Non-Applicability be granted, because
the change would have a minimal impact on the district. Ms. Hilbert explained
that although the Commission's policy is not to grant hardship if it is self-imposed,
hardship can be granted for minimal impact.
Mr. Zaharis felt that the applicant should reapply, since the present application is
for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
The Chairman asked if there was anyone in the audience that wanted to speak. No
one did. Chairman Harris, Messrs. Cook, Lippman, and Wolfson voted in favor of
the motion. Messrs. Oedel and Slam were opposed, and Mr. Zaharis explained that
he could not vote for or against the motion. Motion carried.
Mr. Oedel asked about applied muntin bars.
The Chairman explained that there was no discussion regarding muntin bars and the
original application calling for 1/1 will be accepted.
-1-
• 256-260 Lafayette Street
Chairman Harris explained that the applicant is before the Board to seek approval
for the installation of three skylights at 260 Lafayette Street. Two of these
skylights are not visible from the street. At the last meeting, the visibility of the
third skylight had not been determined and the issue was tabled.
Ms. Hilbert informed the Board that the applicant placed a piece of cardboard on
the roof the size and location of the questionable skylight and it could not be seen
from the street. She suggested that a Certificate of Non-Applicability be granted.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to allow the skylights as proposed and that a Certificate
of Non-Applicability be granted. Mr. Slam seconded the motion. Ms. Harris and
Messrs. Lippman, Slam, Cook, Wolfson and Oedel were in favor. Mr. Zaharis was
opposed. Motion carried.
Chairman Harris asked Mr. Jaquith to update the members on the other concerns
raised at the last meeting regarding 256 Lafayette Street.
Mr. Jaquith responded that the missing balustrade will be replaced.
Ms. Hilbert requested that the scallop edging be reproduced as was originally there.
She also informed Mr. Jaquith that changes to what was originally a granite wall in
front of the building must be reviewed by the Commission.
Mr. Jaquith suggested to the Board that he have a working session with them to
discuss the other discrepencies found.
Ms. Harris suggested that the Board meet at the site at 7:00 p.m. on June 3rd.
362 Essex Street
Chairman Harris explained the application to install a fence at 362 Essex Street
has been continued so that the contractor could be present to clarify how the fence
would be installed.
The contractor explained that every six feet there will be a four inch wrought iron
square support post that cannot be seen above the fence in addition to the larger
posts at either end of each span. The fence will sit on top of the railroad ties and
the bottom rail will be approximately three inches above the railroad tie.
Mr. Lippman questioned the 30 foot long span of the fence in front of the house and
felt it would be more appropriate with a post every fifteen feet. He also felt that
a three inch space above the railroad tie was too high.
Mrs. Maloney agreed to cut off the railroad tie where the posts go so that they can
rest on the ground. Then the fence would only sit one inch above the railroad tie.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the fence as per the drawing submitted with
the exception of the decorative posts in three locations extending all the way to
sidewalk grade. Russel Slam seconded the motion.
• Mr. Lippman made a motion to amend the original motion to add a post to the
enter. There was no second.
he orignal motion was voted on, all were in favor, motion so carried.
-2-
• New Public Hearings
346 Essex Street
Hank Cook excused himself from this agenda item, as the applicant is his wife.
Chairman Harris informed the Board that this application is for paint colors,
construction of a deck and an exterior staircase. The existing second floor
staircase will be removed. The body and trim of the house will be painted with
Benjamin Moore semi-gloss Hamilton Blue and English Ivory respectively and the
doors will be painted black.
Mrs. Cook and Mr. Jaquith presented the plans to the Board.
Chairman Harris asked if the deck could be made smaller.
Mr. Jaquith replied in the negative because of the configuration of the spiral
staircase and the locations of the bulkhead and a window.
Mr. Oedel suggested that a cap be placed on the posts for the deck railing. Mr.
Jaquith drew the adjustment onto the plan. He also added a fancier handrail and a
molding detail at the base of the posts supporting the deck.
Mr. Slam made a motion to approve a Certificate of Hardship instead of
Appropriateness for the rear deck and spiral stairs. This was done because exterior
• stairs are generally considered inappropriate, but in this case, the stair was
replacing an existing one and would have a minimal impact on the district. The
motion incorporated the changes in design made at the meeting. Mr. Oedel
seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
Mr. Lippman made a motion to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the
paint colors which are very close to what presently exists on the house. Mr. Slam
seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
Mr. Carr joined the meeting at this time.
6 Kosciucko Street
This application is for window replacements of the center second floor front and
rear windows at 6 Kosciucko Street. The window sashes will be removed and
replaced with new sashes. The paint color will be the same as the existing. The
change is to make the bottom part of the window operable instead of a fixed sash
which is existing. The window will be single hung, all wooden, thermal pane, with
glued muntins on the outside and snap in muntins on the inside. The present muntin
pattern of each window will be duplicated with the addition of a meeting rail.
Chairman Harris also informed the Board that Ms. Bentman, the owner, has
received a letter of support from the National Park Service.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to accept the application as presented. Mr. Carr
seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
•
-3-
• 164 Federal Street
This application from Peter and Donna Bimbo and Susan and J. David McLean is for
the replacement of four wooden windows with 6/6 single glazed windows to
duplicate the existing, clapboarding of the garage (now shingled), and removal of
asbestos shingles and replacement with clapboards. The paint colors (Cabot's
O.V.T. Stain) are Navaho White for the body, Federal Blue for the trim and the
shutters will be black. The new roof shingles will be black.
Mr. Cook asked if there was a time limit for these alterations, since the asbestos
removal is not planned for this year.
Mr. Oedel responed that the Commission has a two year time limit.
Mr. Cook made a motion to approve the application, as the proposed work either
would not involve a change of appearance or would result in restoration of original
features. Mr. Carr seconded the motion.
Mr. Carr specified that the smooth side of the clapboards be placed on the outside.
Mr. Oedel specified that the clapboards on the garage should be four inches to the
weather.
Mr. Cook amended his motion to include the above changes. Mr. Carr seconded the
motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
33 Carlton Street/96-98 Derby Street
Chairman Harris explained that a picture of the original doorway was found and the
condominium association would like to replicate the pediment of the doorway.
They intend to reproduce the doorway of 40 Felt Street with flat pilasters instead
of fluted ones.
It was pointed out to the developer's representative that most of the doorways of
that time had fluted pilasters.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to approve the application with fluted pilasters. Mr.
Carr seconded the motion.
Two members of the audience, Alice and Delores Jordan of 97-99 Derby Street,
asked to review the drawings, having no objections the question was moved.
All were in favor of the motion, motion so carried.
104 Federal Street
This application is from David Hart for the installation of a bay window on the rear
elevation of 104 Federal Street. The window will be a Brosco 6%: ft. x 5 ft. bay.
Black asphalt shinges will cover the top and plywood will be used to face the
surface below the window. The window will project 16" and will be a single thick
pane of glass with real muntin bars. The plywood would be painted the same color
as the body of the house.
-4-
• Mr. Hart informed the Board that he has spoken with his neighbors and they have
no objections to the bay window.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to approve the application as presented largely becuase
of the window's minimal visibility and minor impact on the district. Mr. Slam
seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
8 Lynn Street
This application was for paint colors for 8 Lynn Street. The body of the house is to
be painted slate gray, the trim, museum white, and the door burbank red. The
paint will be Pratt and Lambert solid stain.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to approve the application as presented as the colors
were felt to be appropriate for this Federal period house. Mr. Carr seconded the
motion.
Abutters were present in the audience. They asked to see the drawing and the
paint colors. They had no objections.
All were in favor of the motion, motion so carried.
Other Business
• 16 Cambridge Street
Ms. Hilbert explained that Mr. McCarthy's painter is leaving the country in two
weeks and asked the Board if they would conditionally approve the paint colors and
then hold a public hearing in two weeks.
Mr. Slam felt that this was a dangerous procedure to follow.
Mr. Lippman felt that the changes were not significant enough to warrant a public
hearing and the Board could approve the colors and send out abutter notifications.
Mr. Carr made a motion to move the old rules. Hank Cook seconded the motion,
all were in favor, motion so carried.
Mr. Cook made a motion to approve the paint colors of Sandstone for the body,
Soft White for the trim and Ranch Blue for the shutters and door (Ox Line Paints).
These colors were felt to be appropriate to a Federal period house because of their
lightness in tone. Mr. Lippman seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so
carried.
Mr. Lippman and Mr. Oedel left the meeting at this time.
125 Derby Street
This application was for Benjamin Moore paint colors for 125 Derby Street. The
body is to be painted Alexandria Beige, the trim Montgomery White, and the doors
and the shutters black.
-5
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to accept the application as presented. Mr. Carr
seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
One Broad Street
The Board was made aware that the heatpump treatment that was proposed to hide
the machinery on the roof may not have served its purpose. The machinery can
still be seen over the parapet. Also, there has been no response from the developer
on a solution to the lighting.
Mr. Carr also asked the Board to note that there are no lights on the front door or
on the entire front of the building. He felt such lighting would be a positive
addition to the project. Chairman Harris requested that Ms. Hilbert call Roger
Lang and inform him of the Board's concern with the lack of lighting on the front
of the building. Mr. Carr also felt the multi-colored bulkhead painting was too
strident.
Mr. Carr made a motion to send a formal letter to the Building Inspector with
copies to Messrs. Lang and Singleton informing Mr. Munroe not to issue a building
permit becuase of the concerns of the Historical Commissions. Such concerns are
as follows: exterior lighting, the adequacy of the parapet screen covering the
machinery on roof, front door lighting, painting of bulkhead, and others. Mr. Slam
seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
8 Lynn Street
• Mr. Edwards informed the Board that the gable window on 8 Lynn Street is
supposed to be 6/6 and not 1/1 as it is currently.
Mr. Carr made a motion to send a letter to the owner informing her that this
correction shold be made, or that a new plan must be submitted to the Board. Mr.
Cook seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
Other Business
The Board questioned the conformance of Dr. Gordon's skylights at 76 Federal
Street.
Ms. Hilbert felt the relationship was different but it was not substantial.
Mr. Carr made a motion have a dinner for Ms. Hilbert so that the Board can
express their gratitude for her 2Y: years of efficient and superb service to the
Board. Mr. Zaharis seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
There being no further business, Mr. Slam made a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Mr. Cook seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Ellen S. Dubinsky
Acting Clerk
M25WP
-6-
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
June 3, 1987
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday
evening, June 3, 1987, at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA . Present were
Chairman Harris, Ms. Hilbert, and Messrs. Healy, Oedel, Cook, Zaharis, and Carr.
The Chairman called the meeting to order and added 256 Lafayette St., Elections,
and the July and August meeting schedule to the agenda under other business.
88 Federal Street
Ms. Kathryn Wright appeared before the Board with an application for 88 Federal
Street to strip the existing clapboard, reclapboard, sand the trim, and paint the
house. The clapboard will be four inches to the weather. The body of the house
will be painted with Cabot Stain Desert Sand, the trim in Benjamin Moore
Lancaster Whitewash, and the doors and shutters in either Benjamin Moore Cottage
Red or Black.
Mr. Carr made a motion to accept the application as presented. Mr. Cook
seconded the motion. Mr. Oedel suggested that it be stated the clapboards be
smooth side to weather. Mr. Carr agreed, and altered his motion. All were in
favor of the motion, motion so carried.
• 113 Federal Street
This application is from Mr. Richard Lindeman for paint colors at 113 Federal
Street. The body will be painted Cabot Stain White, the doors New England. Red
(O.V.P.), and the shutters Salem Grey (Ox Line Paint).
Mr. Carr made a motion to accept the application as presented. Mr. Cook
seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
2 Essex Street
John-and Janet Andrews apeared b fore the Board with an application for window
replacement and paint colors for 3 2 Essex Street.
Mr. Andrews explained that he would like to paint the body and the trim of the
house gray and white with maroon accents on certain architectural details. The
color scheme will consist of four colors. The main body color would by Benjamin
Moore GN41 gray flat. The color for all of the trim except for the inside of the
windows would be Benjamin Moore OW30 or 29 white. The trim color for the
arched band of trim on the window would be HC61 maroon. All the remaining trim
on any flat surface or plane will be GN91 gray. The front door outside moldings
will be dark gray and the inside will be the light gray. Balastrades and capitals will
be white. The outside columns for the entry porch will be white except for the
inlay at the bottom which will be light gray on the inside and the body color around
the edges.
• Mr. Oedel made a motion to accept the paint colors as presented. Mr. Cook
seconded the motion.
In the discussion that followed, Mr. Carr made a comment that he felt the accent
colors seemed bland and that the difference between the two grays were almost
unoticeable. Ms. Harris stated that she felt the grays that were chosen were harsh
and that perhaps other gray tones could be chosen.
The motion was voted upon, all were in favor, motion so carried.
The second part of the application was the replacement of the windows. Mr.
Andrews explained the heating system in the house is only four years old.
However, during the cold winter just experienced, the Andrews were forced to
leave their home due to the heat loss caused by the deteriorated windows. He
explained that only one out of every ten windows in the house are operable. He
would like to remove the filler boards that were installed to accomodate storm
windows, remove the storm window frames and replace the windows with aluminum
and vinyl thermal pane windows with intregal or snap on interior muntin bars that
can be fixed or removable. The two semi-circular windows will have a fixed
transom on the top portion. Mr. Andrews stated that they had looked into wood
windows, but they were invariably too expensive, could not be made of hardwood as
the originals are, and would warp within five years.
Mr. Cook asked if all the wooden sill and trim would be removed.
Mr. Andrews replied that none of the existing woodwork would be touched.
Mr. Oedel stated that he objected to the materials being used to manufacture the
windows and felt these windows were totally inappropriate. He then suggested that
• each Board member give their opinion on the issue.
Each of the Board members explained that they were sympathetic to the energy
loss, but also felt these windows were inappropriate and they felt more research
should be done to find a company that would manufacture wooden windows with
intregal muntin bars at a competative price.
Mr. Peter Merry who lives �at 345 Essex informed the Board that he too was
sympathetic to the Andrews'problem, but would like them to explore the possibility
of wooden windows with intregal muntin bars.
Mr. Carr made a motion to deny the application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for window replacement at 329 Essex Street. He suggested that if
during the next two weeks the Andrews' did appropriate research and found that
wooden windows were exorbinately expensive, then they could re-apply for a
Certificate of Hardship due to financial difficulties. Mr. Oedel seconded the
motion. All were in favor, motion so carried.
256 Lafayette Street
Chairman Harris explained to the Board that after a site visit by some members of
the Board, herself, and David Jaquith, the architect for the project, several
inconsistencies were found on the site from the drawing approved by the
Commission. Mr. Carr suggested that a written document be prepared and sent to
the developer informing him of these inconsistencies and suggesting how each
• should be rectified. He also suggested that in the letter there should be some
mention of the items that the Commission would let slide to show the developers
-2-
• that the Commission is willing to give a little. Chairman Harris listed each
discrepancy and after some discussion the Board outlined a list of things they felt
should be adhered to. They are as follows:
1. The fan pattern on the arch windows should be replaced with straight horizontal
clapboards, and the applied muntins should be removed from the inside.
2. Mr. Jaquith should draw up a design for railings on all the porches and stairs.
After the drawings and samples are reviewed, the Commission will then decide
whether to have all the railings done this way, or just to have them painted white.
3. The underneath section of all porches should be enclosed either with diagonal or
vertical lattice.
4. The chimneys should be made taller. They should be dismantled down to below
the corbeling and be rebuilt. The Commission also felt that some of the existing
chimneys are in violation of the building code.
5. The heat pump pad on the let elevation must be removed unless a valid
explanation for their presence can be provided.
6. The rear free standing building should have the trim band added as the plans
show. The window treatment that has been approved should also be adhered to.
7. The rear windows, the decorative trim, and the railings on the porches are all
different than what the plan shows. The Board suggested Mr. Jaquith draw up new
• design plans for the Board to review.
S. A little window is missing on the Carriage house. The Board also specified that
the railing detail should match the front railings.
9. The new door on the right elevation should have a platform and railings to
match what will be approved. (see /k2)
10. The clapboards are not smooth on this building, but the Board decided to leave
them as they are.
11. The Board should coordinate with the Planning Board on issues regarding
lighting, the missing pathway, and the facing of the front wall.
12. The electrical entry at the Victiorian Cottage must be removed and screened
adequately.
13. The doorways in the old house should have trim placed around them to matcch
the doors' scale with the rest of the building.
14. The window on the first floor left elevation that is not installed should be
double hung 6/6 to match the window to the left.
Mr. Jaquith was then asked how he felt about the list and he concurred that many
of the items listed were issues he felt should be addressed.
• The Commission asked that Mr. Healy draft a letter to the developers and then
-3-
r
• send it to each Commission member to solicit their opinions. If it was approved he
could then send it to the developers in hopes of a response at the June 17th
meeting.
Historical Commission Guidelines
The revised guidelines were mailed to members prior to the meeting for their
review.
Mr. Carr made a motion to accept the revisions with the corrections of striking the
last sentence in paragraph three and adding to the section of porches in paragraph
one ", including the relation of the proposed porch to the building.
Mr. Oedel seconded the motion with the changes. All were in favor, motion so
carried.
Preliminary Review of Boundaries for the Washington Square Historic District
Ms. Hilbert explained that two approaches were taken in formulating new boundary
lines. The conservative approach would focus on the predominatly federal houses
around the Common and all of Winter Street. The second approach, which was the
more liberal approach, would encompass a broader area as shown on the map which
included houses that have been altered but the changes are not irreverseable.
Mr. Carr suggested that the new liberal boundary lines include the Salem jail and
the cemetery, and also expand the blue boundary line to Webb Steet and all the way
• down Essex Street, so that the Russian Church would be included.
She informed the Board that this map would be reduced and a copy given to each
one of the members so that they could research the proposed areas .
Summer Meetings
Chairman Harris suggested that the Commission only meet once a month during
July and August as do other Commissions in the City. The Board agreed to this
suggestion.
Elections
Mr. Carr made a motion to elect Ms. Harris as Chairman of the Commission for
another term. Mr. Cook seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
Mr. Cook made a motion to elect Mr. Oedel as Vice Chairman of the Commission
for another term. Mr. Carr seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so
carried.
• -4-
Other Business
Chairman Harris informed the members that the Common fence had been hit again
and a guard rail was going to be installed to protect it from further damage.
There being no further business, Mr. Carr made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Cook
seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Ellen S. Dubinsky
Acting Clerk
M25WP
•
-5-
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
• June 17, 1987
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday
evening, June 17, 1987, at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were
Chairman Harris, and Messrs. Carr, Zaharis, Wolfson, Slam, and Clarke.
The Chairman called the meeting to order and called for approval of the minutes of
5/16/87, 5/20/87, and 6/3/87.
Mr. Clarke made a motion to approve the minutes with a correction to the 6/3/87
minutes changing the heading 392 Essex Street to 329 Essex Street. Mr. Zaharis
seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
Public Hearings
123 Federal Street
James and Sharon Maguire presented an application for the painting of their house
at 123 Federal Street. The body of house will be painted Old Salem Gray (Benjamin
Moore) and Navajo White (Cabot Stain) on the trim that is now white and Richmond
Gray on the remainder of the trim. The doors and shutters will be painted black.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as presented. Mr. Zaharis
seconded the motion. Mr. Clarke offered a friendly amendment that the trim
• remain off-white. This was left to the discretion of the owners. The motion was
voted upon, all were in favor, motion so carried.
4 South Pine Street
John and Anna Silvia presented an application for the reshingling of the roof with
the same color shingles and to replace the siding with red cedar unpainted shingles
with a clear finish coating at 4 South Pine Street.
Mr. Clarke cautioned Mr. Silvia that some cedar shingles turn black if treated with
the wrong chemical. Mr. Silvia explained that the clear coating the painter will
apply would deter such a process. Mr. Clarke then suggested that two coats be
applied.
Mr. Carr asked if the trim of the house will remain white. Mr. Silvia answered in
the affirmative.
Mr. Carr made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Clarke seconded the
motion. All were in favor, motion so carried.
Mr. Clarke made a motion to accept the application as presented. Mr. Carr
seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
12 Gifford Court
Ms. Christiane Munkholm presented an application to change the trim color of her
• � g�$i�tvr�rr fa4�id Court from dark brown to Navajo White. The pink aluminum
- 2 -
Mr. Carr made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Zaharis seconded the
• motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
Mr. Clarke made a motion to accept the application as presented. Mr. Wolfson
seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
256-260 Lafayette Street
Mr. Healy explained to the Commission that Mr. Zierhoffer did not receive the
letter the Commission sent until two days prior to the meeting and did not feel he
had sufficient time to bring a complete response to the requests. Therefore, it was
decided that the subject would be continued to the July 1st. meeting.
I Broad Street
Mr. Roger Lang appeared before the Commission to discuss the following issues: 1.
The inbalance of lighting between the front and rear portions of the building, and
the existing unapproved lighting in the rear and side parking lots. 2. The heat
pump facade treatment. 3. The paint colors of the bulkhead.
Mr. Lang informed the Commission that the bulkhead is being repainted. The trim
color will be dark brown, and the body will be medium brown, as shown on the color
charts for the project. Mr. Carr suggested that the bulkhead be painted all one
color, possibly the dark brown.
Mr. Lang explained that the heatpump screening did a portion of its job. He
suggested that the heatpumps be painted slate gray to blend in with the slate roof.
• He also informed the Commission that he is exploring the possibility of swapping
the larger front heat pump with a smaller one from the rear, however, he stated
this option did not look hopeful.
Mr. Lang agreed with the Commission's concern regarding the lack of lighting at
the front of the building. He is proposing to suspend a pendant light from the
transom in the front door. He explored the option of installing wall hung lighting
flanking the door on the building but all the locations where they would be placed
are brick or brownstone and would be difficult to access. The other option is to put
light posts in the ground. Mr. Carr suggested that a pair of poles in front of
building would be appropriae, preferably a black metal post with substantial light
fixtures very similar in nature to those on the Common. Mr. Carr also suggested
that one of the lamp post be placed on the corner of the street.
Mr. Lang suggested that the the large modern pole on the side of the building be
replaced with a period fixture and the pole shortened to under ten feet. The
Commission agreed with this suggestion and stated that it should match the poles
suggested for the front of the building.
Mr. Lang expressed the developers desire to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for
the building and asked if the developer posted a bond for the remaining work, the
Commission would allow the developer to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy.
Chairman Harris felt that a bond in the amount of $10,000 would be acceptable.
• Mr. Carr made a motion to notify the Building Inspector that while there are still
Lpancyonlry i lthe developer post agree$10 000 bonduance of a
f
- 3 -
• Mr. Zaharis seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
Mr. Lang requested that the developer be notified of this action in writing.
Mr. Carr made a motion stating that the consensus of the Commission of the design
changes that must be satisfactorily completed in order to release the bond are:
The bulkhead be painted in a medium brown or with dark brown trim and a medium
brown body. The heatpumps be painted gray to match the slate roof. The pendant
light be installed to be seen through the front door transom and that lamp posts be
placed on the northwest and northeast corner be installed and that they also be
identical or substantially similar to those on the Salem Common, if not, the
Commission must review detailed drawings. The Commission also approves the two
rear existing light fixtures and also that the lighting fixture at the southwest
corner of the building be bafled to reflect the light to the rear of the building. Mr.
Zaharis seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
12 Broad Street
Mr. Healy explained that this is a pre-application for a roof vent that is needed to
relieve the heat trapped in the attic at 12 Broad Street. At present, the attic heats
up to 1450F on a hot day. The house is located on the corner of Cambridge and
Broad Streets. The roof vent is a mushroom style and will be seven inches above
the roof line and 28 inches in diameter. The vent will be aluminum and will be
painted to match the roof and can only be visible from Cambridge Street.
• Mr. Clarke stipulated that the location of the vent be as far towards Pickering
Street as possible.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to move the old rules. Mr. Carr seconded the motion.
All were in favor, motion so carried.
Mr. Clarke made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the
stipulation that the location of the vent be as far west i.e. towards Pickering
Street as possible and that it be painted the same color as the roof. Mr. Wolfson
seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
At this time, Chairman Harris excused herself from the meeting due to a conflict
of interest with the final application and turned the Chair over to the senior
member of the Commission present, Mr. Carr.
329 Essex Street
Mr. Carr explained to the Board that the Andrews had appeared at the last Board
meeting with an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install thermal
pane aluminum windows, which was denied, and that the Commission had indicated
that the appropriate application was for a Certificate of Hardship, but that before
that could be considered the Commission would have to have detailed comparitive
information on the cost of repairing the existing windows, and the resulting best
savings, versus the cost and heating savings of wooden thermal pane windows versus
aluminum pane ones. The applicant would also have to address whether other
• measures (such as insulation) could be taken without inference to the historic
r
- 4 -
• problem, which could help alleviate their problem of heating the building.
Mr. John Serafini, attorney for the Andrews, submitted several cost estimates for
wood and aluminum windows for the house. A quote for wooden windows from
Continental Remodeling Comapany in Salem was for $65,000. There was a quote
from P & G Aluminum Products for $475 a window in aluminum.
Attorney Serafini also submitted a letter from Donna Lee Carimello of 129 Essex
Street stating that wooden windows installed by J.B. Sash Company were of
inferior quality.
Mr. Andrews stated that there was not enough time to get more estimates. He
showed the Commission an aluminum replacement window that has been approved
for historical rehabilitation from the Boston Historical Commission.
Mr. Clarke cautioned the Andrews that if windows are being installed from the
inside the actual window size would be reduced.
Mr. Andrews replied that the glass area will remain the same.
Mr. Don Costin of 300 Main Street, Wenham, a previous owner of the house spoke
about its history and the heating system he installed approximately four years ago,
which was measured and should provide the necessary BTU's for heating the
building.
• Mr. John Donahue of 6 Cambridge Steet, Salem, who lives behind the Andrews and
is an architectural historian, spoke in favor of aluminum replacement windows. He
felt that the look the same as wood and they do not warp as wood would.
Mr. Clarke made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Slam seconded the
motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
Mr. Clarke stated that he lived in an eighteen room house built in 1887 and the
source of the majority of his heat loss was not from the windows but from lack of
insulation. He stated that the insulation of the house would be more cost effective
and the Andrews' would realize a marked improvement in the warmth of their
house. He suggested that Mr. Andrews might need to insulate his house.
Mr. Healy stated that J.B. Sash is a reputable company and they quoted him
between $600-$650 for a thermal pane windows plus $100 per window to install.
Hinda Sterling from Salem Glass Company quoted approximately $700 per window
and betwwen $80-$90 to install arched windows. O.G. Poor Company from
Swampscott quoted $305 per window.
Mr. Andrews explained that wood windows were not guaranteed and the aluminum
ones are.
Mr. Clarke explained to him that the guarantee is only as good and the Company's
reputation and some aluminum companies will not stay in business as long as the
guarantee is for.
•
l
- 5 -
• Mr. Carr asked what type of wood windows are in the house now.
Mr. Andrews did not know.
Mr. Clarke assumed that they are probably some type of pine. Mr. Clarke stated
that any wood window should be protectd by a storm window.
Mr. Carr asked the Board if they would prefer a thermal pane window or an
exterior storm. The Board informally agreed that they would prefer the thermal
pane window instead of the storm.
Mr. Clarke explained that if the wood window is properly maintained it can be
efficient without a storm window according to the R factor. A single glaze window
with a storm has the same R factor as a thermal pane window without a storm.
Mr. Serafini asked if the Board has ever approved aluminum windows before. He
also asked what was the Board's criteria for hardship.
Mr. Carr answered in the negative. Mr. Carr explained that cost alone is not the
only criterea in determining hardship, that conceptually the cost of restoration is
always more expensive than more expedient measures. This is an important house
in an important part of the district, and the proposed application called for
synthetic material, to replace original building fabric, that the Commission had no
experience witht he proposed windows, that this had enormous precedential
implications and the Commission could not vote to grant a Certificate of Hardship
until it was covinces by reliable evidence that no other reasonable solutions
existed. He also stated any maintenance on this house would be expensive because
of its size.
Mr. Zaharis asked if the moisture from the water and the sea and santhe
aluminum.
Mr. Clarke responded that the house is far enough away from the ocean so this
would not be a problem.
Mr. Carr asked if the aluminum would need to painted.
Mr. Healy stated that aluminum would fade and need to be repainted and could not
be sure that the paint would hold.
Mr. Clarke stated that he has not seen any evidence and is not convinced of any
hardship.
Mr. Serafini asked the Board what the Andrews had to provide them with to show
hardship. Price quotes have already been submitted. The Commission was not
impressed with the reliability or the thoroughness of the estimates that had been
submitted, in contravention of what had been requested at the last meeting.
Mr. Carr explained that more detailed quotes, especially for wood windows, need to
be submitted. Marvin, Dorchester Door and Window, J.B. Sash Co., and Harvey's
• Door and Window are all manufactures of wooden windows and should be asked to
estimate the job and to perhaps give a presentation to the Board.
- 6 -
• Mr. Clarke volunteered to go to the house with a representative from Harvey's
Door and Window and Mr. Healy stated that he would ask Alan Hezekiah, a local
contrator, to be there to estimate the work. Messrs. Healy and Clarke decided
that on Tuesday, at 10:00 a.m. they would meet at the site.
Mr. Carr suggested that all action on this application be defered until the July 1st
meeting. At that time more detailed quotes from wooden window manufacturers
can be obtained and preferably a representative from a wood and aluminum window
company can be present to answer any questions the Board might have.
Mr. Clarke also asked for a detailed and accurate plan drawing of the existing
windows and how the new windows will be put in.
Mr. Slam stated that the applicant was asking for a great deal since they want the
Commission to break one of its primary guidelines by using an unappropriate
building material in one of the most visible houses in the City.
There being no further business, Mr. Clarke made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Zaharis
seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
Respectfully Submitted,
Ellen S. Dubinsky
M26WP
•
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
• July 1, 1987
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday
evening, July 1, 1987, at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were
Chairman Harris, and Messrs. Carr, Clarke, Oedel, Slam, and Healy.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Mr. Healy explained that due to the Clerk's vacation, the minutes did not get
finished.
Mr. Carr made a motion to defer the approval of the minutes of June 17, 1987, until
the next meeting. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so
carried.
The Chairman informed the Board that the next meeting will take place on July 15,
1987.
Mr. Healy distributed Mass. Historical questionnaires to the Board members. They
are being used for the Certified Local Government Workshop. They are due on July
20th, and can be dropped off at the Planning Department. Mr. Healy will send the
questionares to the members not present and will call and remind all the members
when the deadline is.
416 Lafayette Street
• Mr. Healy informed the Board that he had received a call from a woman who was
concerned with what she understood to be the demolition of part of the Morgan-
Metcalf-Atwood house at 416 Lafayette Street. The house is the oldest house on
South Lafayette Street.
Mr. Carr made a motion to send a representative from the Commission to the
Planning Board meeting to make them aware that the Historical Commission is
concerned over this property and that no action be taken until the Commission has
more information regarding the project. Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all were in
favor, motion so carried. Mr. Carr volunteered to attend the meeting.
256-260 Lafayette Street
David Zierhoffer, Mark Baron, and David Jaquith appeared before the Board to
address the letter that was sent to them regarding the variations between the
approved drawings and what was actually built. Mr. Zierhoffer distributed a letter
that answered the concerns of the Board as follows: 1. The applied muntins and
fan patterned clapboards will be removed at the rear of the building. 2. Mr.
Zierhoffer explained that one railing has been modified, but they prefer not to
change all of them. The Commission would like to see all of them be uniform,
possibly with a design solution by Mr. Jaquith, and painted white. 3. The trim for
the dormer windows on the left elevation will be applied. 4. Mr. Zierhoffer
explained that they would like to keep the underneath of the porches open because
of weed control. Mr. Clarke suggested that black plastic and crushed stone be
• placed on the ground to control the weeds and that removable vertical boards or
-1-
c-
diagonal lattice be installed. 5. The chimneys will be extended and the corbeling
moved. 6. Mr. Zierhoffer explained that the cement pad was placed where it is
• because if it was placed in the back it would cut off access to the walkay. The
Board will go back to the site and look at the situation, if the pads cannot be
moved then perhaps a landscaping or fence system would be an alternative solution.
7. The windows that should have been placed on the east side of the free standing
building are no longer available, and Mr. Zierhoffer felt that it would be financially
prohibitive to alter the building at this point in construction. Mr. Carr felt very
strongly that the plans should be adhered to. Mr. Jaquith assured the Board that a
solution could be drawn up. 8. The Board informed the developers that they feel
the right elevation plans have been completely ignored. Mr. Jaquith informed the
Board that new drawings to solve this will be done. The cement walkway for the
right elevation has not been poured. Mr. Zierhoffer asked that the walk consist of
asphalt. The Board suggested that concrete might be a more acceptable solution
and that the walk be staked out for the Board's review. 10. Mr. Zierhoffer agreed
to install the railing on the turret of the Gothic Cottage to match or replicate as
closely as possible the old photograph and the rails on the front bay. 11. Mr.
Zierhoffer informed the Board that the relocating the electrical entry would cost
approximately $40,000.00. Mr. Zierhoffer also stated that Mass Electric will not
service the meters if they are moved. Mr. Oedel stated that if this is the case, a
Certificate of Hardship accompanied by three separate estimates should be applied
for. Mr. Carr stated that he would like to see the meter sockets in the basement,
since this is a museum quality house and these should not be visible. Chairman
Harris suggested that the interior closet be recessed and the meters be placed in
the closet with a hidden door over them and plantings be placed around the
transformer. The trim around the rear door of the Victorian House has been
salvaged from the previous existing door. The first floor window is missing because
a meter is placed there. The Board suggested that a blind window with shutters be
• constructed in its place.
The Commission scheduled a site inspection for Wednesday, July 8th at 6:30 to
address the concerns not finalized at this meeting. The problems still needing
solutions are as follows: Mock up of railing and painting. Suggested filling
underneath the porches. The moving or disguising of the cement pad. The three
missing windows on the free standing building. The trim along the back elevation.
The removal of the electrical meters from the Victorian building. Staking out of
the walkway. Solutions on how to disguise the transformer.
Mr. Zierhoffer also informed the Commission that the Post Office will not deliver
to each unit and they want to place a large sixteen unit mailbox next to the
tranformer. Mr. Carr informed Mr. Zierhoffer that the Commission will deal with
the Post Office.
One Broad Street
Roger Lang and Attorney John Darling appeared before the Commission to address
the four remaining issues the Commission has requested be resolved. Mr. Lang
stated that the heatpumps have been painted out gray, and the bulkhead has been
painted dark brown. The light on the southwest of the building has been reaimed
and shielded. Mr. Lang showed the Commission the replacement pole and light for
the northwest corner of the building. The light fixture was identical to the
Common fixtures as asked for, however he explained the exact post which is a
• Nantucket post is not available, but the Quincy posts which are very similar can be
delivered in a weeks time. Mr. Oedel asked the price of the post and the fixture.
-2-
f
.. r
Mr. Lang stated the post is $1,000.00 and the fixture is $500.00. Mr. Lang also
showed the Commission a picture of the pendant light (#CA384). It is 17" high and
• should fit between the door and the arch. The color is Matt Black. Mr. Lang said
his client would not agree to placing a light on the corner of Summer and Broad
Street.
Mr. Carr explained that Board voted on a comprehensive solution. All the
requirements would have to be met.
Chairman Harris explained that a bond was never posted, because all the changes
could be done in the same amount of time it would take to post the bond.
Attorney Darling stated that the Commission does not have jurisdiction over light
fixtures, but developer has agreed to change the other light fixtures to suit the
Commission, and he felt that the Certificate of Occupancy should not be held up
because of one light fixture.
Mr. Carr stated that Attorney Darling is correct that the Board normally does not
have jurisdiction over lights, but the Commission has jurisdiction over the pole that
supports the fixture. The Commission approved a comprehensive solution at the
last meeting. Mr. Carr felt very strongly that this is a monumental building and all
details such as the light poles should be done right.
Chairman Harris asked Mr. Lang to described the cost and difficulty involved in
installing the light.
Mr. Lang responded that the cost would be approximately 5000+ to install this
light. The contractors have to excavate through already finished landscaping and
• drill through the foundation to lay the conduit, back fill the wiring, and connect the
electricity to the main panel which means removal of some finished interior
surfaces. Since the crews are not on the site, people will have to be called in at a
premium cost. Mr. Lang felt that the City should be obligated to light the public
way. He stated that the building code only requires the developer to provide safe
entry and lighting at the entry. He felt this light would not enhance the overall
project.
Mr. Carr asked Mr. Lang the status of the granite to finish the rear stairs.
Mr. Lang replied that the granite has been ordered, and it should arrive shortly.
Mr. Lang informed the Commission that he would produce a copy of the cancelled
check for proof that the granite has been ordered.
Chairman Harris agreed that the light on the northeast corner would be nice, but
since it has been brought up so far after the fact, and the project is essentially
complete, it is not right to hold up the project any longer. Russell Slam agreed
with Ms. Harris.
Mr. Slam made a motion to rescind the order for a light fixture on the northeast
corner of the project and to approve the fixtures shown to the Commission
including the pendant light and the Nantucket light with the Quincy post. Mr.
Oedel seconded the motion. Ms. Harris, Messrs. Slam, Clarke, and Oedel were in
favor of the motion. Mr. Carr was in opposition. Motion so carried.
• Mr. Carr suggested that security bond be posted because the granite finish is not
completed.
-3-
Mr. Carr made a motion to inform the Building Inspector that we would not be
opposed to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy with the filing of a bond for
• $5,000 because the granite veneer has not been completed. There was no second.
Mr. Slam made a motion that the Building Inspector grant a Certificate of
Occupancy with the proof of the cancelled check and purchase order for the
granite providing all other items as stated in the letter dated June 22, 1987, and
amended on 7/1/87 are completed. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion, Ms. Harris, and
Messrs. Slam, Oedel, and Clarke were in favor. Mr. Carr was opposed. Motion so
carried.
329 Essex Street
Chairman Harris declared that she had a business relationship with the applicant
and felt it appropriate that she not partcipate int he proceedings and asked Vice
Chairman Oedel to Chair the meeting.
Vice Chairman Oedel stated for the record that voting members present are
Messrs. Slam, Carr, Clarke and Oedel. He also state that any vote taken must
have unanimous approval in order to be passed.
At the beginning of the meeting Mr. Carr had given the Andrews' the pertinent
section of MGL Chapter 40C along with some other information pertaining to
historic windows made available that afternoon by the Mass Historic Commission.
Mr. Carr informed the Andrews that since there were only four voting members
present thus they would need a unanimous vote for passage, they may want to
withdraw their petition until the next meeting. The Andrews and their attorney
• Mr. Clyde Lyndsey left the room and confered over this matter for several
minutes, and returned and announced they wanted to go forward this evening. They
thereupon filed their Certificate of Hardship which Mr. Oedel read aloud.
Mr. Carr stated that three steps must be met in order to prove hardship as cited in
Section 40C Subsection 10 of the Mass General Law. All three elements must be
found for the Certificate of Hardship to be valid. He also stated that he has
spoken with Mass Historic and expense is not the only creteria for determining
hardship. Basically the reasonable alternatives for curing the problem is the test.
All alternatives to the problem should be explored and the main purpose of this
Commission is to, first repair, second replace with like materials, and only when
these options prove to be too much of a hardship should synthetic material
replacement be used.
Clyde Lyndsey, an attorney and friend of the Andrews, and Russel Hadia from New
England Window Systems in Boston were present.
Mr. Slam asked Mr. Oedel, who was not present at the last meeting, if he was
aware of the proceedings at the last meeting.
Mr. Oedel stated he was informed about the situation. The Commission felt the
documentation provided at the last meeting was inadequate to make an informed
decision. The Board provided the Andrews' with names of several contractors and
offered their assistance to allow them to gather more estimates on wood
replacement windows.
•
-4-
The Commission had stressed at the last meeting that the burden of proving
hardship was on the applicants and that they would have to have detailed
• comparitive information on both the costs and functionality of-the various
alternatives.
Mr. Carr made the Andrews aware of his previous statement regarding Mass
General Law Section 40C Subsection 10 and the three elements to prove hardship.
He also reviewed several articles that Mass Historic had provided him with
including documentation from the National Park Service, the Secretary of the
Interior guidelines, and the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation that
original material should be retained and repaired or that original materials be used
for replacement. There was also an article dealing with effective ways to deal
with heat loss, and a Mass Supreme Court case excerpt which had upheld a Local
Historic Commission decision on the denial of replacing original materials with a
synthetic product.
Mr. Carr commended the Andrews' for their patience in this process to rehabilitate
this very important structure. He went on to state that he had spoken with Mass
Historic for about 3-4 hours during the day and they emphasized that cost alone is
not the only basis for hardship to be granted. He stated that some of the things
that have to be considered are: if the windows can be repaired with more efficient
storms and what is the cost and heat savings compared both to to aluminum
thermal pane windows and wood thermal pane windows. Also, what heating
solutions are available without requiring removal of original building fabric.
Attorney Lyndsey asked on what basis the original application was denied.
Vice Chairman Oedel read the original application and informed Mr. Lyndsey that
• the application was denied because the materials being proposed were not
original to the building or appropriate to the building and therefore were
historically inappropriate.
Mr. Lyndsey asked if expert testimony was presented at the last meeting.
Mr. Oedel responded in the affirmative, and stated that the application was denied
as a matter of procedure and policy because of the inappropriate materials.
Mr. Clarke stated that last Tuesday, himself, Sam Healy, Alan Hezekiah, and a
salesman from Harveys Door and Window went to the site to measure the windows
for replacement estimates.
At this time Mr. Hadia prepared a slide presentation for the Commission to view.
He showed slides of four buildings at Harvard that he replaced the existing windows
with aluminum windows. He showed slides of the Little Building were the sashes
were replaced in 1,500 windows. He also showed replacement windows he installed
in the Walker Building in Boston.
Mr. Lyndsey asked Mr. Hadia what Historical Commissions have approved
aluminum windows. Mr. Clarke also asked if he has done any aluminum
replacement in wooden residential buildings.
Mr. Hadia responded that he mostly does commercial windows, and all the
Commissions that have approved the aluminum replacement windows the structures
• were masonry. He has not installed aluminum thermal pane windows on wooden
buildings. The Commissions included, Harvard, Cambridge, South End, Back Bay,
Lowell, and Lexington.
Mr. Lyndsey asked Mr. Hadia to explain why this house was different.
-5-
Mr. Hadia explained that this house is different because of the size of the windows.
• They are actually commercial size windows. Wood windows, in his opinion, would
not work properly because the balance systems are not designed like the tandem
balance system in aluminum windows. The tandem balance has two balances on
each side of the sash. Sash cords just cannot handle 40-50 pounds of double glazed
glass. He went on to state that storm windows cannot be guarenteed because they
become loose and can injure someone, and also because wooden windows become
loose and when air infiltration occurs the storm windows tend to frost up.
Mr. Carr stated that he has seen the condition of some of the windows which
appeared to him to be repairable, and he said he would like to hear if the window
could be repaired and would like to compare the R factor of the repaired window
versus the proposed thermal pane aluminum.
Mr. Healy and Mr. Clarke felt that the windows could be repaired. Mr. Healy
quoted that a Marvin, double hung, single glazed window with no storm has the R
factor of 1.09, and a single glazed, wood pine window with a storm has the R factor
of 2.27. He also stated that the glass thickness does not make a difference because
the heat transfers the same. Thus the heat savings of all three windows were
essentially equal.
Mr. Oedel asked if the aluminum windows have applied muntins. Mr. Andrews
replied in the affirmative.
At this time the applicants presented cost data to the Board.
They presented a quote from Groom Construction in Swampscott for wooden
• replacement J. B. tilt double sash 1/2" insulated glass at $1,400 per window x 36
windows. The estimated stated that the windows would be identical to the
existing.
Mr. Oedel read an estimate for aluminum replacement windows with muntins on
the interior from Groom Construction for $700 per window. These windows do not
come curved so some windows cannot be replicated exactly.
A quote from New England Window Systems for the exact replication of the
windows in aluminum including installation for approximately $20,000 - $25,000.
Mr. Healy submitted an estimate from Hinda Sterling of Salem Window and Door
for double glazed wood J.B. Sash windows with permanent exterior muntins and
snap in interior muntins. The price for the flat top windows are $315 per
rectangular set of sashes uninstalled, $706 per ropund top set of sashes uninstalled
and $87 for balances per window. The prices were based on 17 rectangular windows
and 17 round windows. The price for installing the round windows are $90 per
window. The price for installing the rectangular windows are $45 per window. The
average price including installation is $787 per window.
Mr. Slam asked the applicants if they were aware of this estimate.
Mrs. Andrews explained that she was aware of this estimate but she does not want
to install J.B. Sash windows because of the problems the condominium owners next
door to her are having.
. Barnard Woodworking Company estimated for the installation of new sashes $1,200
per window for a total price of $40,000.
-6-
• Mr. Healy stated John Smith, a contractor working for Historic Boston, has a letter
in transit with prices for the complete rehab of 4'x8' 2/2 windows (larger than the
Andrews') for $500 per window. Mr. Smith also quoted over the phone $1,200 per
window to install completely new wooden windows.
Mr. Clarke stated that he owned two Victorian houses with 1806 windows and that
if he were living in the house he would rehab the existing windows and install
custom wooden storms on the exterior. He also stated that he would insulate the
house to make it more energy efficient.
Mr. Lyndsey asked question about infiltration and the quality of the existing
windows since they are approximately 115 years old.
Mr. Healy responded that the older the wood is, the drier condition it is in, and the
amount of expansion and contraction is miniscule in these drier windows.
Mr. Carr asked the applicant if he has looked into insulating the house the house
due to the cold tempatures.
Mr. Andrews replied that he is an engineer and his expert opinion -
Vice Chairman Oedel pointed out to Mr. Andrews that since he is the applicant and
his judgement is biased, his expert opinion cannot be accepted.
Mr. Andrews went on to say that blowing insulation into the house would be very
difficult because of the ways the walls are plastered.
Mrs. Andrews stated that her hardship involves the cold tempatures of 500 in the
winter time when they had to abandon the house because her children were
freezing. She also stated she has a financial hardship because if she replaces the
windows with wood she will have to maintain them every 3-5 years at an additional
expense. She also stated that her heating bills are $600 a month in the winter
times to heat the house at 500
At this time Mr. Jim Carney, a neighboring resident of Essex Street, stated that he
was sympathetic to the Andrews' problem, but he is concerned with the long term
impact aluminum windows in a house like this would have.
Mr. Carr made a motion to close the public hearing at this time. Mr. Slam
seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
Mr. Carr made a motin to approve the Certificate of Harship for aluminum
replacement windows as submitted. Mr. Slam seconded the motion.
Vice Chairman Oedel asked if there was any discussion.
Mr. Carr stated that before this meeting he was going to vote in favor of the
hardship because he wanted the storm windows eliminated, but after reading the
law and hearing tonight that there are other reasonable alternatives such as
insulation and repair of the existing windows and the istallation of custom storm
windows, and because of his discussions with Mass Historic about the importance to
• restore the original fabric of the building he cannot vote for the hardship.
-7-
Mr. Slam stated that the major goal of this Commission is to preserve the original
• materials of these structures. He felt a case of hardship has not been proven and
that there are other viable alternatives.
Mr. Clarke also echoed the same reasons the other members stated for not voting
in favor of the application.
Vice Chairman Oedel called for a vote. There were no votes in favor. Messrs.
Oedel, Carr, Clarke and Slam all voted in opposition to the approval of the
Certificate of Hardship.
Mr. Carr stated that under the statuate, the Commission can make
recommendations to the applicant of what they would approve, and if these
changes are adhered to the Certificate of Hardship would automatically be granted
without another public hearing process.
Vice Chairman stated that the hardship has been denied with prejudice.
The Andrews' declined to hear the recommendations of the Board and did not wish
to alter their application.
There being no further business, Mr. Clarke made a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Mr. Slam seconded the motion. All were in favor, motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
• Ellen S. Dubinsky
Acting Clerk
M26WP
•
-8-
Page 1 , July 15, 1987
• SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
July 15, 1987
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commissionwasheld on
Wednesday evening, July 15, 1987, at 7:30 p.m. at One' Salem Green,
Salem, MA. Present were Chairman Harris , and Messrs. Carr. , Lipman, Cook
and Healy.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Mr. Carr made a motion to defer the approval of the minutes until the _
end of the meeting. Mr. Cook seconded the motion, all were in favor,
motion so caried.
Public Hearings ..
1262 Federal Street
Deborah W. Heaton presented an application for the painting of her house
at 1262 Federal Street. The body of the house will be painted Briarwood
Grey 73 , the trim and the door will be painted to match the existing
colors of Whornewood-White HC-27 (trim) Georgian Brick HC-50(door) . All _
` �• paints are Benjamin Moore. -
Mr. Carr stated that the body color of the house next door is in the
same tone. Chairman Harris explained that the color was not
inappropriate but suggested that the owners could choose another color.
Mr. Lipman made a motion to approve the application as presented. Mr.
Cook seconded the motion. Mr. Carr suggested a friendly amendment to
the motion for the owner to consider a color that is different.
Chairman Harris suggested that Mr. Healy could present the possibility
of another color to the owner. Mr. Healy offered that the neighbors he
spoke with liked the color. The motion was voted upon, all were in
favor, motion so carried.
141 Federal Street
Steven Gregory presented an application for the installation of a board
and lattice fence along the front of his house on 141 Federal Street,
and a capped picket fence to be installed along the right hand side of
the house. The picket fence is a joint undertaking with abutters at 143
Federal Street. Mr. Gregory presented the Board with diagrams and paint
colors.
Chairman Harris presented a description of the diagrams for the Board.
The lattice fence is 6' high with the bottom 4' being 1"x4" boards and
the top two feet being 1" lattice. The posts are 5" x 5" with built up
r-• caps. The lattice fence is in 8' sections in which the body will be
painted grey and the trim of the fence cream to match the house. The
j
i
Page 2, July 15, 1987
• picket fence is 4' high and has 1" x 4" cedar pickets with 2" spacing
between the pickets. The posts are 5" x 5" pressure treated with built
up caps. The fence is in 8' sections with a -2" x 3" top rail. The
fence will be painted white.
Mr. Carr stated that the lower fence should graduate in height to meet
the higher fence. Mr. Gregory explained that the 4' boards of the
lattice fence match the height and style of those of the picket fence.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as presented. Mr.
Cook seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
59 Summer Street
C. Theodore Sillars presented an application for the painting of his
house on 59 Summer Street. The body of the house will be painted
Castillian (California) , the trim white (Benjamin Moore) and the
shutters and door Jarrytown Green (Benjamin Moore) .
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as presented Mr.
Cook seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
At this time, Chairman Harris closed the public hearings.
256-260 Lafayette Street
• Mr. Healy distributed a summary of solutions that Middlesex Constracting
Co. , Inc. .proposed in response to the letter that the Board sent to them
regarding the discrepancies between the approved drawings and what was
actually built.
1 . Agreed — Applied muntins will be removed and fanned clapboards will
be replaced with horizontal clapboards.
2. Agreed — Railings will be left as is and painted white.
3 . Agreed - Trim will be applied to dormers.
4. Agreed — Lattice will be applied with removable panel on one side.
Chairman Harris stated that the lattice will have to be tightened up to
1"sq.
5. Agreed — Sub contractor will remove bricks below corbeling, raise
the height of chimneys, and then add new corbeling on top.
The Board agreed to the same corbeling but up higher.
7. Agreed — David Jaquith' s design solution is acceptable.
• The trim board will go all the way around the building. David Jaquith
agreed to this.
,I
i
Page 3 , July 15, 1987
8. No Solution - David Jaquith will come up with new design solution.
•
David Jaquith distributed drawings for the trim of the upper windows .
Mr. Healy stated that different gable ends of the right elevation have
different clapboard designs, some with horizontal, some in a sunburst -
patern. These should be consistent , either one or the other.
Chairman Harris called for site photographs.
9. Agreed - An asphalt walk will be installed, nicely trimmed.
Chairman Harris questioned what nicely trimmed meant. Mr. Healy
answered that it applied to the edging. Mr. Cook suggested edged with
pressure treated wood. Chairman Harris agreed. This was later added to
the motion.
r
10a. Agreed - Railing substantially similar to existing will be
installed.
lOb. Agreed - Same as #2.
10c. Agreed - Same as #7. yW/�VI
Ila. Agreed Electrical entry meters will be recessed into interior
closet and fake wall will be installed that can open from the exterior,
and will be practically invisible.
,
11b. No Solution - Still need decision on landscaping or structural
blind or combination of both.
llc. Agreed - This is original trim and doesn' t need replacing.
11d. Agreed - Installed as asked for.
6. Agreed - Condensing unit will stay where it is and be shielded with
either a structural or landscaped blind.
The drawings for the blinds that Mr. Jaquith brought in show transformer
pads will have 1" square lattice work enclosure to match what was called
for under the stairways.
Transformer #1 - Mr. Carr suggested plantings of Azaleas, Rododendrums,
Andromeda. He stated that they shouldn' t be bushy but low. Chairman
Harris suggested 3 yews, 2 azaleas at minimum and 1 flowering fruit
.i tree. Mr. Carr felt there should be sufficient numbers to effectively
screen, but that they should be mature - not sprigs. The Board agreed
upon 2' 6" dia bush yews and 2'dia azaleas.
'x
Transformer #2 - The enclosures around the transformer is 1 ' taller than
the transformer. It should be 3"-3' " off the ground. Mr. Cook
suggested there be a flowering tree such as dogwood or fruit ,tree.
Chairman Harris suggested 5 yews, 4 azaleas and 1 flowering tree of 2' 11
i
Page 4, July 15, 1987
• caliper with a height of approximately 10-121 .
Transformer $3 (Laurel St. side) - Heat Pump. Chairman Harris
questioned if it could be moved down farther on the wall. Mr. . Carr felt
that the pump is not that offensive as long as it is not attached to the
building. He was adament that the pump should not be attached to a
museum quality house. Mr. Jaquith explained it could be moved back 4'
from the plane of the building and 2' off the walkway for a total of
approximately 61 .
At this time Messrs. Oedel and Slam arrived making six voting members
present. The commission members then each gave their opinions as to the
solution. Mr. Oedel and Mr. Slam did not feel it should be moved at
all. Mr. Cook deferred from an opinion. Mr. Slam stated it is less
obvious than moving it outward. Mr. Carr felt it should be away from a
"Museum Quality"building.
Mr. Lipman made a motion to leave the pump at its original site. There
was no second. Chairman Harris stated that she was looking for a motion
for approval of the entire list of solutions that came about at the
sight visit the previous Wednesday. Mr. Lipman made a motion to approve
everything as decided the previous Wednesday except the three boxes.
Mr. Carr seconded the motion, all in favor, motion so carried.
• Mr. Carr made a motion to approve lattice screens for boxes 1 and 2 to
include plantings of azaleas, bush yews and flowering trees as described
previously. Mr. Lipman seconded the motion, all in favor, motion so
carried.
Chairman Harris pointed out location of box 3 on Mr. Jaquith's plans.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the proposed location with the hope
that the motion would not pass. Mr_. Slam seconded the motion, Mr. Slam
voted in favor, Chairman Harris and Messrs. Carr, Oedel, Lipman and Cook
voted in oposition. Motion was denied.
Mr. Carr moved to allow three heat pumps (rear of building, other side
of walk and at rear of L between parking spaces 1 and 2 to be enclosed
and they be sufficiently screened with Olantings. Mr. Slam suggested
the painting of the heat pumps. It was thought by Mr. Jaquith that
painting them might be a problem because they get hot. Mr. Lipman
questioned if the plantings would interfere with the pipes. Mr. Jaquith
answered in the negative. 6' tall arborvite was recommended for
screening the third pump. Mr. Carr suggested to screen with creeper on
the lattice.
Chairman Harris made a motion to locate the third pump between parking
spaces 1 and 2 with a tree between the lattice and the walkway and that
creepers be applied to all of the lattice boxes. Mr. Oedel seconded the
motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
Page 5, July 15, 1987
. Essex Institute
Ms. Anne Farnham and Ms . Alison Cornish of the Essex Institute joined
with the Board to provide an overview of possible future plans for
institute restoration. Ms. Farnham distributed a diagram and gave a
brief history of their focus since 1984 with regard to their "Museum
Neighborhood". Some of the exteriors have reached anniversaries of 25,
50 and 75 .years . They then informed the commission of a large grant
" from the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) . They realize it
is time to renovate and need to raise $3.00 for every $1 .00 given by
their grant. Climate control is needed in the library. They have
divided this restoration into three phases being Phase I — Federal
Period, funded by NEH, Phase II — 17th Century Period and Phase III
which is the furthest away. Estimation of completion of renovations is
10 years.
Ms. Cornish outlined the proposed renovations and changes for each of
the phases: - -
Phase I — Gardner Pingree House — 4 feet of new slate to the roof,
repairs to the chimney, repointing, painting, carpentry on front facade.
Landscape in back — oval path and new plantings based on Derby' s
garden. Lombarti poplars have been put behind summer house. They are
unresolved on the shutters because they do not have documentation if
cthey°were original and -how soon they might have been added. . Bray House
• roof needs complete renovations. Petitions on shutters and Bray house
work should be coming through this season.
Crowinshield Bentley — unresolved, considering moving it because of
false impression of houses in that period with relation to Essex Street.
They can also create useful space by moving it. The basement currently
has only 5' of headroom.
Phase II — Due to be completed in 1992. They plan to move the John Ward
house 90 degrees and slightly forward.
Phase III — Andrew Safford house needs increased exhibit space and
collection space. Roof needs repair as they have had leaks in the
attic.
The trustees plan to hire mostly Salem or local laborers.
Chairman Harris called for a discussion on Mass. Historical Commission
surveys. Mr. Oedel suggested to submit one as commission wide. It will
Fi be further discussed at the next meeting.
Chairman Harris read a thank you note from Debbie Hilbert for dinner the
previous Wednesday.
• The Chairmaninformed the Board that the next meeting will be the
beginning of next month. There will be no second meeting next month.
'1
Page 6, July 15, 1987
Mr. . Carr made a motion to defer the approval of the minutes of June 17 ,
1987 and July 1 , 1987 , until the next meeting. Mr. Cook seconded the
motion, all were in favor, motion so carried. Mr. Carr gave the clerk
his amended minutes.
There being no further business, Mr. Carr made a motion to adjourn the
meeting. Mr. Cook seconded the motion. All were in favor, motion so `
carried.
Respectfully submitted,
ne A. Guy
lerk
mins/JHISCOM
,i
Page 1 , August 5, 1987
• SALEM HISTORICAL. COMMISSION
MINUTES
August 5, 1987
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on
Wednesday evening, August 5, 1987 at 7 :30 p.m. at One Salem Green,
Salem, MA. Present were Chairman Harris, and Messrs . Oedel, Carr,
Wolfson, Zaharis and Healy.
The Chairman called the meeting to order and stated that there were four
voting members.
Chairman Harris opened the Public Hearings.
Public Hearings
159 Derby Street
Andrew W. Pasquina presented an application for the painting of his
house at 159 Derby Street. Mr. Paul Nathan was the representative in
place of Mr. Pasquina. The house will be painted Benjamin Moore colors
Hawthorne Yellow and Windham Cream. Mr. Nathan presented photographs
and a paint chart for the Board. _
• Chairman Harris stated that the colors selected are almost identical to
the current colors of the house.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to approve the application as presented. Mr.
Odel seconded the motion. The motion was voted upon, all were in favor,
motion so carried.
15 Warren Street
Debra J. Hilbert and Andrew G. Knapp presented an application for
removal of aluminum siding, repair and replacement of clapboards,
installation of roof vents and paint colors for their house at 15 Warren
Street.
Chairman Harris ' s description of the work proposed was removal of
aluminum siding; repair or replacement of clapboards as necessary to
match existing, same number of inches to the weather, smooth side out;
repair or replication of window and eave trim to duplicate original;
painting of the body Olympic color Navajo Red, the trim Olympic color
Navajo White and the door Olympic color Ebony; and installation of roof
` vents.
At this time Mr. Carr arrived to make five voting members.
'<• Chairman Harris presented pictures and a color chart before the Board.
Chairman Harris stated that it was nice to have a different color and
also noted there would be one visible roof vent.
4
i
Page 2 , August 5, 1987
• Mr. Zaharis made a motion to approve the application as presented. Mr.
Wolfson seconded the motion. The motion was voted upon, all were in
I
avor, motion so carried. Mr. Carr abstained from voting because he
arrived late but stated lie would have voted in favor.
7 - 13 N. Pine Street -
Emanon Trust, Eugene A. Calabro, Trustee presented an application for
hand railings on front entry, a wooden enclosure for exterior gas meter
and a rear fence for 7 - 13 N. Pine Street. Ms . Jessica Herbert
represented Emanon Trust.
At this time, because of a possible conflict of interest, Chairman
Harris turned the Chair over to Vice Chairman Mr. Oedel.
Mr. Oedel read a description of the work proposed which included
replacement of hand railings at front entryways with custom-made wrought
iron railings; wooden enclosure for exterior gas meters located at rear
of buildings , under decks; and replacement of chain link fence along
rear of property with a cast iron fence. Mr. Oedel showed site
photographs as well as a plan for the fence that was being proposed.
The fence would have a No. 9X spear.
Ms. Herbert stated that the investors had not decided if they shall
install a fence, but she wanted to present one for approval prior and
• then try to influence them to install it.
Mr. Healy stated that the fence is perpendicular to Fowler Street.
Ms. Herbert added that in the case of the front entry rails, anything
over three steps needs additional railing to meet code.
Mr. Carr felt the railing was a quality design, compatible to the
overall style of the property. Mr. Carr also added that the fence was
not just utilitarian, but very attractive. Mr Carr questioned if there
was a way to encourage investers to adopt the fence if the Commission
were to approve leaving the meter boxes outside. Ms. Herbert replied
that the cost of the fence is approximately $3600.00 and that the
investors were reluctant to install that particular fence at such a
cost. Mr. Carr said he was not troubled by the enclosure, but he would
like to see the chain link removed and have a fence installed.
Ms. Herbert explained that she originally thought the meters would be on
the inside, but Boston Gas said they were to install only .one and not
four meters, thereby requiring installation on the outside. Because of
the season, she agreed, regrettably. Ms. Herbert also added that she
would like to speak to Boston Gas about their behavior. Mr. Oedel asked
for further comments. Mr. Carr asked Ms. Herbert ' s opinion if the Board
were to defer approval of the boxes. Ms. Herbert did not feel Boston
Gas would move the boxes to the inside. Mr. Carr explained that it had
• been done before, therefore at precident had been set.
r
Page 3, August 5, 1987
• Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the applications as submitted. Mr.
Oedel asked Mr. Carr if he would like to make a contingency. Mr. Carr
answered in the negative. Mr. Wolfson seconded the motion. The motion
was voted upon, all were in favor, motion so carried.
At this time, Mr. Oedel turned the Chair back over to Chairman Harris.
61A Summer Street
Richard Kobuszewski presented an application for the reconstruction of
porch & exterior wall and paint colors for 61A Summer Street. Chairman
Harris called for drawings and then described the project along with Mr.
Kobuszewski . Mr. Kobuszewski stated that after they tore out the wall ,
it was found that the kitchen floor boards extended to the porch and
hypothesised that the wall they were proposing to build was actually
where the original wall was. With a photograph he pointed out the
apparent original walls of the first and second floors. Mr. Kobuszewski
proposes to square off the building so that it has no jags. He would
like to make the walls flush. Mr. Kobuszewski would retain the existing
stained glass window.
Mr. Zaharis questioned why the work had already been started. Mr. Healy
replied that the Building Inspector issued a permit in error, probably
because he was unaware that the house was in an historic district. This
house, is in the Last lot of the district. Mr. Kobuszewski presented to
• the Board, a list of telephone conversations between himself and the
Building Inspector' s Department which summarized the dates in which
worked was started and ordered stopped.
Mr. Carr questioned why can' t the rippled shingles be matched to the
second floor. Chairman Harris stated that the shingles are the same, it
was the placement. Mr. Healy stated it was the cut by the carpenter.
Chairman Harris then referred to the door and riser specifications. It
is not a double door jam.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application with three
modifications: 1 . Specify Brosco F-66-2, (LF2132) for the door.
2. Replicate cut shingles with those on second floor
with regard to placement and cut.
3. Eventually match front porch to rails.
Immediately eliminate piece now existing.
.a.
Mr. Zaharis seconded the motion.
a Mr. Oedel asked if the left hand elevation had any windows. Mr.
Kobuszewski replied in the negative, but that he may put some in. Mr.
Healy stated that they would not be able to be seen from the street.
Chairman Harris suggested that Mr. Healy recheck at the site tomorrow.
If they would be seen, then an application would need to be presented
before the Commission.
i
The motion was voted upon, all were in favor, motion so carried.
I
Page 4, August 5, 1987
• Mr. Healy will notify the building inspector that work should now be
allowed to continue.
Mr. Kobuszewski presented paint colors of Cabot ' s Federal Blue for the
-
body and Silver Grey trim with black shutters. Mr. Oedel moved to
approve the paint colors as presented. Mr. Carr seconded. All were in
favor, motion so carried.
Other Business
188 Federal Street
Mr. Brian Connelly distributed plans for the resolution of the porch
enclosure issue. Mr. Healy produced photographs that were taken as of
February. Mr. Healy asked Mr. Connelly if any work had been done since
that time. Mr. Connelly answered in the negative . Mr. Carr asked if
the plans had been drawn by an architect. Mr. Connelly answered in the
affirmative. Chairman Harris described the plans as having cupboard
siding, facia board at the eaves, trim around the windows and door.
Also, the aluminum door would be removed and a new aluminum door added.
Chairman Harris asked if there would. be applied wooden muntins on the
exterior of the windows. Mr. Connelly replied in the affirmative.
Chairman Harris questioned if the molding on the windows and doors would
match the existing trim around the house. Mr. Connelly replied that
• they would be similar. Chairman Harris suggested that Mr. Connelly add
more railing on the side to match the other railing. Mr. Carr felt that
this would draw too much attention to the entryway.
Mr. Carr noted that the foundation is to be stuccoed over. Mr. Carr
made a motion to approve the application. Mr. Oedel suggested the
addition of a post. Mr. Carr preferred that there be only one. Mr.
Carr made a motion to approve the application with one post.
Mr. Oedel made reference to the skylights.. Mr. Connelly stated that
they were 45" x 45".
Mr. Wolfson seconded the motion.
MY. Carr stated that he would only approve because he felt the mistake
was not intentially done. Although he does not want a precedent set
here to do work and then get it ratified, he does feel that Mr. Connelly
has done as best a job as he could by working around the existing
elements.
Mr. Oedel stated that the motion should contingent upon the clapboards
being smooth side to weather and that the stuccoed foundation color
match the existing foundation color. Mr. Carr agreed explicitly.
Mr. Zaharis felt very strongly that the Commission should not
. comprimise. He stated that it would set a precedent.
I
Page 5, August 5, 1987
• The motion was voted upon. Chairman Harris and Messrs . Carr, Wolfson
and Oedel voted in favor. Mr. Zaharis voted 'in opposition. The motion
was passed. Mr. Healy will notify the Building Inspector.
Minutes for last three meetings
Mr. Wolfson asked if he should vote on the approval of the minutes for
any meetings that he did not attend. The Board replied in the negative.
Mr. Carr asked to defer the approval until the end of the meeting to
give him a chance to review the amended minutes from June 17 and July 1.
The Board continued on with other business.
Mass. Historic Commission Surveys
Chairman Harris read the answers to the MHC survey questions as answered
for the Board by Mr. Healy.
1 . What topics would you like to see the Leadership and Preservation
Planning Workshop focus on? Mr. Healy answered funding, education,
relations with the community and relations with local government.
2. List of success stories of your commission. Mr. Healy answered that
we have established four local Historic Districts over the past 16
years. Both a Demolition Delay Ordinance and a Carriage House Ordinance -
have been enacted. We have secured CLG status and have z time payed
staff.
3 . What year was your commission established? Mr. Healy answered 1971 .
Has it been consistently active? Mr. Healy answered in the affirmative.
4. What are your top three projects? Mr. Healy answered Salem City
Hall restoration, Expansion of the Washington Square Historic District
and Archeological Survey of City as part of Survey and Planning Grant.
Chairman Harris questioned the progress of the archeological survey.
Mr. Healy stated that the Request for Proposals are going out, the grant
was for $17 ,000.00, and the archeologist wants to use Salem as a field
project.
5. What are your top three obstacles? Mr. Healy answered Funding for
low income home owners inside Historic Districts and community -
perceptions of the Historical Commission.
IA:
Mr. Healy asked the Board for a suggestion on an answer for the third
obstacle. Mr. Zaharis stated lack of education.
6. Do you have clearly defined goals and objectives? Mr. Healy
�i
answered in the affirmative.
F•
i
Page 6, August 5, 1987
7 . Do you work with your local government? Mr.- Healy answered in the
• affirmative. Are you part of the planning process? Mr. Healy answered
in the affirmative. The survey then asked for City departments that the
Historic Commission works with. Mr. Healy checked off Planning Board,
Community Development Office, Conservation Commission and Building
Inspector.
8. Do you have an annual budget from the town? Mr. Healy answered in
the affirmative in the amount of $2640.00. Do you receive grants? Mr.
Healy answered in the affirmative. Mr. Healy then listed those grants
as City Hall , Preservation Projects Grant, MHC $40,000 and Survey and
Planning Grant, FY86 $9,000 (Supports CLG activity)
The Board suggested adding two funding grants that were resently
. approved.
Do you do any creative fundraising projects? Mr. Healy answered in the
negative.
u
9. Do you work with any local non-government agencies? Mr. Healy
checked off Historical Society and Civic Groups.
The Board suggested that he add Common Associations.
10. Are you visible within the community? Mr. Healy replied in the
affirmative. . Does the community support you commission? Mr. Healy did
• not reply.
Mr. Carr, Mr. Oedel and Mr. Healy replied in the affirmative. Mr.
Zaharis and Mr. Wolfson did not comment.
11 . Do you sponser any community-wide educational projects or work _
within the local school department? Mr. Healy replied in the negative,
that this has been done by Historic Salem, Inc.
12. Would you be willing to provide information about your projects and
commission for Historic Massachusetts to provide to other commissions?
Mr. Healy answered in the affirmative.
13. I or a member of my commission is interested in serving on Historic
Massachusetts ' Committee for Historic District and Historical
Commissions. Mr. Healy answered in the affirmative.
14. The question for any additional comments was left blank.
•
Page 7, August 5, 1987
• Revolving Loan Fund
Mr. Healy stated that funds could be received from EOCD and/or the
National Trust in leverage position. Mr. Healy asked for the blessing
of the commission to pursue this .. As he is currently working with
housing in the Planning Department, he can grant monies to fix code
violations but he is currently unable to grant money to restore historic
buildings to original shape. They could possibly loan money at 5%
interest.
Chairman Harris was enthusiastic about the idea.
At this time the Commission returned to the approval of the minutes of
the last three meetings.
June 17 , 1987 Minutes
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the amended minutes with a correction
on Page 5 with regard to Mr. Zaharis ' s comment changing the phrase from
rot the aluminum to eroded the aluminum. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion,
all were in favor, motion so carried.
July 1 , 1987 Minutes
Mr. Carr made a motion to defer the approval of the minutes until the
next meeting because he had not yet read the amended minutes. Mr. Oedel
• seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
At this time Mr. Lipman joined the meeting.
July 15, 1987 Minutes
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Carr seconded the
motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
Mr. Carr stated that on a recent pass by One Broad Street, he noticed
that there was granite showing on the long side; but the short ends were
cinder block on the inside, profile edge and then cinder block. Mr.
Healy will telephone them tomorrow.
Chairman Harris asked Mr. Healy to ask the Essex Institue store to
remove the projecting Kodak sign to the inside of the store.
Mr. Carr stated that Mr. Slam was told by the Essex Institute that the
Carriage House of the Sanford house may be adding an ice cream store.
He felt Ann should have mentioned this at the previous meeting.
There being no further business, Mr. Carr made a motion to adjourn. Mr
Zaharis seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
i• 8587/JHisCom
r
G'
Page 1, September 2, 1987
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
• MINUTES
September 2, 1987
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on
Wednesday evening, September 2, 1987 at 7 :30 p.m. at One Salem Green,
Salem, MA. Present were Vice Chairman Oedel, and Messrs . Slam, Lipman,
Cook and Healy.
Mr. Oedel called the meeting to order and asked for approval for the
August 5, 1987 minutes. Mr. Cook seconded the motion, all were in
favor, motion so carried. Mr. Oedel opened the Public Hearings.
Public Hearings
4 N. Pine Street
F. Richard & Margaret Bowen presented an application for painting of
their house at 4 N. Pine Street. Mr. Oedel described the colors
proposed as being Moorewood Solid Color Exterior Stain — Seagull Gray
for the siding and Navajo White for the trim. Mr. Lipman made a motion
to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Cook seconded the motion,
all were in favor, motion so carried.
106 Derby Street
• Mr. David Smaltz presented an application for the painting of his house
at 106 Derby Street. Mr. Oedel described the colors proposed as being
Benjamin Moore Yorkshire Tan for the siding and Benjamin Moore Georgian
Brick for the trim. Mr. Smaltz stated that he will be coming back
before the Commission for a new door some time in the future. Mr. Cook
made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Slam
.seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
25 Warren Street
Mr. Martin Landers presented an application for installing gable roof on
existing deck, enclosing deck inside existing rails in glass , painting
all trim and details white, and siding gable end with aluminum blue
siding to match existing on house. The Commission examined photographs.
Mr. Frank Salvo, the contractor doing the job, accompanied Mr. Landers.
Mr. Oedel questioned if the deck used to have a roof? Mr. Landers
replied in the affirmative and that it had been taken down two years ago
and he now wants to put it back. .
Mr. Wolfson joined the Commission at this time.
Mr. Oedel questioned if the deck can be seen from Broad Street. Mr.
Healy responded in the negative and that the photograph shows the only
• visible spot. Mr. Landers stated that he intended to put glass on the
inside. He also stated that the house was aluminum clad .siding and had
been for twenty—five years. Mr. Landers will maintain the ballasters
and rails.
f -
a
t Page 2, September 2, 1987
Mr. Oedel asked if there were any further comments from the Board. Mr.
• Slam stated that he would not be in favor of the enclosure, but, it is
hardly visible from the street. Mr. Oedel asked if there were any
comments from the public. There were no replies. Mr. Cook made a
motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Oedel asked what
the p. : -,,t colors were. Mr. Landers replied that the trim would be white
and t —re would be aluminum siding on the gable end. Mr. Lipman
suggested a Certificate of Non—Applicability. Mr. Slam agreed. Mr.
Slam made a motion for a Certificate of Non—Applicability based on
"negligable impact". Mr. Lipman seconded the motion, all were in favor,
motion so carried.
126 Federal Street
Roger & Carol Hedstrom and Mr. James M. Keefe presented an application
for paint colors for their house on 126 Federal Street. The clapboards
will be stained with Pittsburgh solid stain SC-29 Green Stone. The
windows, door and house trim will be Navajo white and the paint shutters
black. The doors will be painted with Moore's 11120 bright red.
Mr. Oedel questioned if the shutters were there before the house was
stripped. Mr. Hedstrom answered in the affirmative. Mr. Oedel asked if
there were any comments from the public. Mr. Lipman made a motion to
approve the application as submitted. Mr. Wolfson seconded the motion,
all were in favor, motion so carried.
• 25 Chestnut Street
Mr. Richard Pohl presented an application for the addition of a brick
driveway on the left side of his house at 25 Chestnut Street. It will
include a gate being added to the fence along the street and the
installation of new fence at the back end of the driveway to match
railing on the two back porches.
Mr. Slam questioned if Mr. Pohl would be removing shrubbery. Mr. Pohl
replied that not all the shrubbery would be removed, but that he will
loose some. Most of it will be moved to the side. He stated that the
gate will allow entrance to the back yard and that the theme of the
pickets on the porch and fence are to be similar. Mr. Oedel asked for
comments from the public and the Board. Mr. Lippman added that the only
change would be two new posts. Mr. Pohl noted that the gate will be off
center because of the elm tree. Mr. Wolfson made a motion to accept the
application as presented. Mr. Cook seconded the motion, all were in
favor, motion so carried.
Salem Public Library
The next scheduled application to be presented was that for fence
installation for the Salem Public Library. There were no
representatives in attendance to present the application. However,
• citizens that were in attendence requested that the Commission review
the information available to the public. Mr. Slam questioned if it was
proper to present an application when the applicant is not present. Mr.
Page 3, September 2, 1987
Lippman stated that it is not required that. the applicant be. in
• attendence for the application to be submitted. Mr. Lippman added that
he would like to review the application, but he suggested that no
determination be made at this meeting because of the lack of information
and ambiguousness of the application. Mr. Cook was in agreement.
Mr. Oedel stated that the fence would be of wood as per the' plans in his
possession.
Ms. Catherine Connelly of 135 Federal Street asked the width of the
pickets and what the space is between the pickets. Mr. Cook suggested
that copies of the plans be given to those who want them. Copies were
distributed. Mr. Healy stated that the pickets would be 212" wide by
3/4" thick.
Mr. Carr arrived at this time.
Mr. Healy added that the space from center to center between pickets is
3 5/8". Mr. Lippman noted that it would be a lk" gap. Mr. Healy also
added that the height of the fence as stated in the plans would be 4
feet, however, he felt that the height was not "carved in stone". Mr.
Frank Hale of 5 Monroe Street asked what the application states. Mr.
Oedel replied that no application was made available.
All of the abutters in attendance showed concern that the Salem Public
Library should not violate the Superior Court Land Court "Stipulation"
. which states that landscaping shall include "a new five foot (51 ) spaced
picket fence for the entire boundary". The fence shall be "of
sufficient size and strength to impede passage from the Hale property."
Abutters are concerned about privacy as well as small animals being able
to crawl through a too—small gap between the Pickets. The Commission
suggested that the abutters attend the re—scheduled Public Hearing for
the Salem Public Library that they will receive notice of.
10 Monroe Street
Catherine C. Lindsay and Joseph A. Delfino presented an application for
fence installation at their house at 10 Monroe Street. Mr. Oedel read
for the Commission the application as follows ; replace an existing 4'
high, white board fence with a fence of 6' high cedar board with molded
(2" x 3") backing rails. Top of panels will have a cap strip, which is
routed 2" x 3". Posts will be planed cedar with a pyramid style cap.
The fence will be stained white. The application further states that
the site plan shows the existing fence and that the tree shown on Monroe
Street has died and will be removed prior to the fencing work being
carried out. Photographs were included with the application.
Photograph #1 shows the face side of the proposed fence. The fence will
face outward on Monroe Street and inward along the common property line
with the adjacent property. The remaining photographs show the existing
fence and the height of the proposed.
• Mr. Cook questioned if the fence on Monroe is 4' or 6' high. The
applicant replied 6' . Mr. Cook asked how many feet on Monroe Street.
The applicant replied 35' . Mr. Carr asked if this is a privacy issue.
The applicant replied that it is a privacy issue as well as the fence
f
Page 4, September 2, 1987
needs replacing.
• 'hr. Lippman commented that there is a definite visual distinction from
the current fence to the new 6' fence and that it would change the
streetscape. It would be like installing a drive—in movie screen on the
street . If approved, a transition between the 3z foot picket fence to
the . fence on Monroe Street would be necessary. -
Mr. Dave Fix of 7 Monroe Street agreed with Mr. Lippman that a 6' fence
on the street would be too high.
Mr. Steven Glovsky of 131 Federal Street has no problem with a 6' fence
between the houses but agreed with Mr. Lippman about the street side.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application with a stipulation
that the fence on Monroe Street be no higher than existing and to add
additional bottom trim board. The applicant felt that this would not be
acceptable and therefore withdrew the application.
Other Business
Shetland Properties
An application was presented by Mr. John Johnson representing the
Shetland Properties for the demolition of the Duchess Shoe Building.
Mr. Johnson stated that the building has no historical significance and
respectfully requested that the Commission approve the application for a
. Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the building to make room for
parking. Mr. Slam made a motion to approve the application as
submitted. Mr. Cook seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so
carried.
256-260 Lafayette Street — Greystone
Mr. David Zierhoffer stated that at the previous site visit, it was
difficult to visualize the placement of the condensors. It is now
apparent that there is not enough room on the island at the proposed
spot. Mr. Oedel read a letter from an HVAC mechanical contractor
concerning difficulties with placing the condensor in this spot. Mr.
Zierhoffer added that problems with servicing, snow removal and people
driving into them were also concerns of the mechanical contractor. Mr.
Zierhoffer suggested that one be placed on either side of the bulkhead
and one on original pad and screened with shrubs.
Mr. Slam believed that Mr. Zierhoffer' s suggestion is a good solution
and would agree to it.
Mr. Carr questioned if the developer had a right to have a heat
pump/condensor at a museum quality house, noting that adding anything to
the exterior would not be an appropriate change.
Mr. Zierhoffer stated that they are applying to have one condensor on
• either side of bulkhead and one on the pad. Mr. Lippman stated he would
prefer all three bunched on the pad.
Page 5, September 2, 1987
r
Mr. Carr commented that condensors should be placed after more
information is gathered. He felt the need to talk to an HVAC
contractor.
Mr. Oedel stated that the island is not a good place from a practical
standpoint and that they should be placed on the side or the back of the
house. He asked that each member give an opinion.
Mr. Lippman stated his first choice is the rear. of the house and his
second choice is massed on side.
Mr. Wolfson stated his first choice is the rear of the, house and his
second choice is massed on side.
Mr. Cook stated that it didn' t matter that much but would tend to choose _
the rear but might opt for the side based on the applicant's request.
Mr. Oedel stated that his first choice would be on the side — split up.
Mr. Carr stated that he was against putting it against the house at all
but at least make sure screening shrubs are thick, full and of good
height.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to deny the application as split up on side and
instead approve condensors at rear of building. Mr. Cook seconded the
motion. Mr. Slam was also in favor. Mr. Carr, Mr. Lippman and Mr.
Wolfson voted in opposition. The motion did not pass.
Mr. Lippman made a motion to approve three condensors massed on existing
cement pad with mature and thick shrubs as screening with option of
lattice around to screen as well. Lattice to be at least 4" above
condenser height. Mr. Slam seconded the motion. Messrs. Oedel,
Lippman, Wolfson, Slam and Cook voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Carr
voted in opposition. The motion was so passed.
Mr. Carr made a motion that Mr. Healy should send a letter to the owner
of 33 Carelton/96-98 Derby Street stating that the doorway as built
doesn' t comply with the Certificate of Appropriateness nor is it
historically appropriate and to ask- them to come to the next meeting to
work out the problem. Mr. Lippman seconded the motion, all were in
favor, motion so carried.
Mr. Healy stated that he would like to request backing for Homeowner's
workshop. The Commission was generally in favor of it.
There being no further business , Mr. Lippman made a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Cook seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
9287/JHisCom
t
Page 1 , September 16, 1987
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
• September 16, 1987
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on
Wednesday evening, September 16, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green,
Salem, MA. Present were Vice Chairman Oedel, and Messrs. Carr, Wolfson,
Zaharis, Slam, Lippman and Healy. -
Mr. Oedel called the meeting to order and asked for approval for the
September 2, 1987 minutes with the amendment that on Page 5, "Mr. Oedel '
made a motion to deny the application as split up. . ." to "Mr. Slam made
the motion. . .". Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the .minutes as
amended.. Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so
carried.
Public Hearings
28 Carelton Street
Mr. Nathan King, Trustee, presented an application on behalf of Crotchet
Box Condo Trust for the installation of a single step at the front door
of their property at 28 Carelton Street. Mr. King presented pictures to
the Commission and explained that the existing is dangerous.
Mr. Carr stated that he would have no problem approving if Public
Property/Building Inspector approves it.
• Mr. Slam asked if the step would be poured or pre—fabricated concrete.
Mr. King replied believed poured. Mr. Carr asked .the height as
existing. Mr. King replied an approximate 12" rise.
Mr. Zaharis felt that Mr. King should get approval from the Building
Inspector before the Commission gave its approval. Mr. Wolfson stated
that the Commission could give approval subject to approval from the
Building Inspector. Mr. Zaharis commented that he has seen problems in
the past with "subject to" approvals. Mr. Lippman agreed but felt that
it would not be a problem in this case.
Mr. Carr stated that he would not have a problem with a conditional
approval but he would want a more specific application, as to the actual
dimensions of the step' s height and size and exact construction methods.
Mr. Carr made a motion to defer the application until the receipt of an
appropriate application and plans. Mr. Zaharis seconded the motion, all
were in favor, motion so carried.
46 Broad Street
James and Theodora Currier presented an application to replace a 4'
picket fence with 6' stockade fence (#1 fencing) at their home at 46
Broad Street. Mr. Oedel stated that the house was one house removed
from the corner of Flint and Broad Streets. Mr. Currier pointed out on
• his sketch, the existing fence and what he wants to replace. Mr. Healy
presented pictures for the Commission.
Page 2, September 16, 1987
Mr. Carr questioned if one could see the stockade fence over the picket
• fence. Mr. Currier replied in the affirmative. Mr. Oedel asked if the
stockade proposed would be the same as the existing. Mr. Currier
replied in the affirmative. On the photographs, Mr. Currier indicated
-- what would be changed from picket to stockade. Mr. Carr asked if the
fence would be painted the same color. Mr. Currier explained thathe
would next year, after it weathers. Mr. Carr asked if he had ordered
the fence as yet. Mr. Currier replied in the negative. Mr. Carr asked
if he could be encouraged to use flatboard. Mr. Currier stated that he
would like to match the existing fence.
Mr. Oedel asked for a motion or a discussion. Ms. Ann Dayment .of 31
Flint stated that she would be in favor of the fence. -
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as presented. Mr.
Slam seconded the motion.
Mr. Slam stated that he was unenthusiastic about the stockade fence,
but, felt that stockade is better that incongruous flatboard. Ms.
Dayment suggested a fancier post. Mr. Slam asked Mr. Currier's opinion.
Mr. Currier stated that he would prefer continuity between the fences.
The motion was voted upon. Messrs. Oedel , Carr, Wolfson and Lippman
voted in favor and Messrs. Slam and Zaharis voted in opposition. The
motion was carried.
• 131 Federal Street
Mr. Steven M. Glovsky presented an application for the construction of a
driveway storage compartment at his home on 131 Federal Street. Mr.
Glovsky intends to paint the compartment to match the existing on the
house and its- trim (white or yellow) . Mr. Glovsky prefers white. Mr.
Oedel described on the plot plan where the compartment will be situated.
Mr. Carr asked if the access to the compartment would be from the yard
or the driveway. Mr. Glovsky replied from the driveway. Mr. Slam asked
the height of the compartment. Mr. Glovsky replied 3z feet. Mr. Carr
questioned if it was possible to bring the fence out, because they would
be taking a picket fence, which is appropriate, and covering it with a
utilitarian box. Mr. Glovsky felt that that positioning would actually
show the box more. Mr. Oedel asked what material would be used. Mr.
Glovsky showed a sample of the wood and explained that the slant of the
roof would be in to the yard. Mr. Lippman commented that snow would
build on top and fall atop the fence. Mr. Glovsky replied he preferred
not to be able to see the roof of the compartment.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to approve the application as presented. Mr.
Lippman seconded the motion. Mr. Oedel asked if there were any
comments. Mr. Oedel questioned if the boards would be verticle. Mr.
Glovsky replied in the affirmative and stated that the roof would be
black asphalt. The motion was voted upon, all were in favor, motion so
• carried.
Page 3 , September 16, 1987
370 Essex Street
• Rebecca Curran representing the Salem Public Library presented an
application for fence construction at 370 Essex Street. Ms. Curran
explained that the fence would be 220 l.f. , 51 , spaced picket fence
painted white as shown in the pictures and on the plans being presented.
The spacing will be 1 1/8". Mr. Oedel asked if there were any comments
from the neighbors.
Ms . Maureen Connelly of 135 Federal Street asked the size of the post.
Ms. Curran replied 5'8".
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as presented. Mr.
Wolfson seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
Other Business
31 Flint Street
Ms. Anne Dayment appeared before the Commission to resolve questions
concerning her fence and shutters at her home at 31 Flint Street. Ms.
Dayment stated that the shutters would be coming down before the house
is sold. She will also be building a fence to hide the sliding doors
from Flint Street. The fence would be 6' high with a gate. Ms. Dayment
also intends to take down the chain link fence and leave just the hedge.
She has already taken the plastic window boxes off. Presently, the
• house is grey with white trim and a green door.
Mr. Carr asked Ms. Dayment if the fence would be left to weather. Mr.
Healy stated that it should weather the same as white cedar shingles.
Mr. Lippman stated that construction of a fence would warrant an
application. Mr. Slam questioned why Ms. Dayment is waiting to remove
the shutters. Ms. Dayment replied that the house is currently for sale
and that it looks better for selling with the shutters on but that she
will notify the prospective buyers that they will be removed prior to
the sale.
Mr. Lippman asked about the possibility of changing the swing spans.
Ms. Dayment replied that she has seen the flat and feels that they do
not look as nice because of the cap molding. Mr. Lippman stated that
her choice is uncommon for the area. Mr. Lippman also stated that he
prefers stain to weathering. Ms. Dayment felt that weathering will make
the fence similar to her neighbors and that staining would not.
Mr. Carr agreed with Mr. Lippman that the looping of the fence is common
in a suburban area, but not in a dense neighborhood such as this. Mr.
Carr also stated that the Commission' s function is for archetectural
appropriateness, not what is preferred by personal taste. Mr. Carr
added that he can not be positive that the fence would weather to match
the color.
• Mr. Zaharis stated that he was not bothered by the fence but he
preferred that the shutters come down before the house is sold.
Page 4, September 16, 1987
Mr. Slam asked if various prices were obtained for the fence. Ms.
Dayment replied in the affirmative, and that her choice was not with the
• lowest, but with the company she felt most comfortable with. Mr. Slam
stated he agreed with Mr. Carr and Mr. Lippman on the looping. Mr. Slam
would prefer straight across and painted rather than weathered.
Mr. Wolfson agreed with Mr. Slam.
Mr. Slam explained he would not want the looping because he does not
want this house to set a precedent in the neighborhood.
Mr. Carr stated that approval of applications presented to the
Commission are not to make the houses in an historic neighborhood
similar but to improve upon them as each application is presented.
Mr. Healy will work with Ms. Dayment on her application and Ms.
Dayment 's application will be presented at the next meeting.
69 Essex Street
Ms. Marie Marquez appeared before the Commission for a Design Review as
part of a variance per the request of the Building Inspector for her
house at 69 Essex Street. This house is not in an historic -district.
Ms. Marquez showed pictures of the existing house and the proposed
changes. Ms. Marquez expained that she intends to install windows like
those that existed before the store front was installed. She will take
the glass window off and replace with new window. The store facade will
• be removed.
Mr. Wolfson asked if it will be flush in front. Mr. Oedel stated that
there may be a slight elevation. Mr. Carr asked if the windows will
match exactly. Ms. Marquez replied in the affirmative. Mr. Slam asked
if aluminum siding will be installed. Ms. Marquez answered that she
will use asphalt shingles to match the rest of the house.
Mr. Carr stated he would like to see better designing of the door. Mr.
Lippman stated that Design Review does not have to use the same criteria
as the Historical Commission. Mr. Carr disagreed because the Historical
Commission was delegated as Design Review. Mr. Wolfson stated that he
would prefer some trim. Mr. Zaharis stated that the drawing was too
poor to make an accurate judgement. Mr. Wolfson added that he would not
want to over—trim the door because the rest of the house does not have
much trim. Mr. Oedel stated that the Board could make suggestions for a
door. Mr. Carr stated that the addition to the house was originally for
a store and changing it to all residence leaves a difficult design
problem that should not be decided with just catalog materials. Mr.
Zaharis agreed with Mr. Carr. Mr. Lippman agreed with Mr. Oedel about
giving Ms. Marquez some suggestions. Mr. Slam asked if her time frame
would allow her to redraw using the Commissions suggestions. Mr.
Lippman asked if the Commission was holding her up. Ms. Marquez replied
that yes, she wanted to begin as soon as possible, but she would be
• willing to redraw the plans and attend the next meeting. Mr. Carr
stated the reason that design approval should not be made from the
drawings presented was that we tend to make our biggest mistakes when we
Page 5, September 16, 1987
leave things to the imagination and that past experience has taught us
that interpretation by the Commission and the appli.ca�nt is not always
• the same.
Mr. Healy will aid Ms. Marquez with suggestions of an acceptable door
and facia and Ms. Marquez will attend the next meeting.
4 Federal Court
Mr. Robert Healey appeared before the Commission to resolve questions
concerning his house at 4 Federal Court. Mr. Healey reviewed the
situation for the Commission. The kitchen faces the former nursing home
and had two 6 over 6 windows. In doing over the interior of the
kitchen, they found that this wall was the only side that they could put
up cabinetry. Mr. Healey removed the two windows and put in a central
casement window with transom on top. That side. of the house is 75' from
Federal Street. Mr. Healey re—clapboarded from the base of the sill up
5 or 6 courses above the window. This is to be painted the same color
as the rest of the house. This area has a narrow sight view with
questionable visual impact.
Mr. Healy stated that the work had been started, and is now stopped,
but, they need to finish the kitchen and require approval from the
Commission to allow the Building Inspector to permit interior work to
continue.
Mr. Oede1 asked that if the Commission decided that the window must come
• out, yet allow for the finish of the kitchen, what would happen. Mr.
Healey stated that the interior work is mostly done but they needed to
do the electrical work when they were stopped. He added that since, he
has put in window stops. Mr. Slam asked if the Commission would allow
work to be completed on the interior, would we loose our leverage of
approval. Mr. Healey stated he would have to, take that risk.
Mr. Carr made a motion in view of applicant' s agreement to bear the risk
that we may ask to remove the new window and re—install the old, that we
send a communication to the Building Inspector to allow continuation of
interior work. Mr. Zaharis seconded the motion, all were in favor,
motion so carried.
10 Monroe Street
Mr. Healy stated that Catherine C. Lindsay and Joseph A. Delfino
notified him that they would be willing to go with the Commission's
suggestion that the fence on Monroe Street be no higher than the
existing and to add additional bottom trim board. It is the consensus
of the Commission that Ms. Lindsay and Mr. Delfino will have to
re—apply.
•
Page 6, September 16, 1987
Mr. Oedel stated that a letter should be sent to the owners of the house
• on the corner of Carelton and Derby Streets for them to appear at the
next meeting. with regard to their door that is not in compliance with
their Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. Healy stated that he spoke to
the owner on the telephone and requested that they appear. This item
will be added to the next agenda.
Mr. Oedel asked for the approval of the July 1 , 1987 minutes. Mr. Carr
made a motion to approve the minutes of July 1 , 1987 . Mr. Zaharis
seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
There being no further business , Mr. Zaharis made a motion to adjourn
the meeting. Mr. Carr seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so
carried.
..-Respectfully submitted,
Kne e Commission
JHisCom/91687
October 14, 1987, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION -
MINUTES
October 14, 1987
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on
Wednesday evening, October 14, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green,
Salem, MA. Present were Chairman Harris, and Messrs. Oedel, Clarke,
Wolfson, Carr, Zaharis, Slam and Healy.
Chairman Harris called the meeting to order and asked for approval of
the September 16, 1987 minutes. Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the
minutes. Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so
carried.
Public Hearings
Joseph Delfino and Catherine Lindsay presented an application for the
installation of a fence at their home at 10 Monroe Street. Chairman
Harris stated that the application is for a fence along the side of the
yard between 10 Monroe Street and the neighboring property at 6 Monroe
Street. The fence is currently 4' high and the proposed fence will be
6 ' high. Photographs were passed showing the current fence. Ms.
Lindsay stated that the fence is desired to block the view of the
neighbor' s cars and to block the view and smell of the neighbor's
garbage cans.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the application as presented. Mr.
Clarke seconded the motion.
• Mr. Carr asked which way the finish side would face. Ms. Lindsay
replied that the finish side would face into the property. Mr. Carr
felt that guidelines prohibit fences from turning out and requested that
the guidelines be viewed. Ms. Lindsay stated that horizontal framing
would be the same on both sides and would actually be a cap. Mr. Carr
showed concern on how the 2 fences would meet and the differences in the
planks. Ms. Lindsay stated that it is not possible to find planks that
wide. Mr. Carr replied that her statement was factually not true. Mr.
Carr questioned if the application called for the removal of the corner
post? Mr. Zaharis asked to see a design plan of the fence. Chairman
Harris explained that with the application a photograph has been
presented which shows the exact fence that will be made by the
contractor. Mr. Zaharis felt that it was not sufficient. Mr. Slam
stated that it was very sufficient. Chairman Harris felt that there
should be a transition point. Ms. Lindsay argued that there would then
be the smell of the garbage. Mr. Carr replied concern about smell was
not the function of the Commission. That problem would be for the Board
of Health. Ms. Lindsay asked what distance would be required for the
scallop. Chairman Harris stated four feet. Ms. Lindsay was very
unhappy with 4 feet stating that she may not be able to put a post where
the old post is. Mr. Slam stated that not all members necessarily agree
on a scallop. Mr. Oedel added that he personally does not particularly
favor a scallop, but wants to see a corner post similarto the existing
corner post but only feet high.
•
October 14, 1987, Page 2
The motion on the floor was voted upon with Messrs. Slam and Zaharis _
voting in favor and Chairman Harris and Messrs. Clarke, Carr, Oedel, and
Wolfson voting in opposition. The motion did not pass.
• Mr. Carr stated that he did not care whether the scallop is 2, 4 or 6,
etc. , adding that the Commission should not design but rather only set
parameters. Ms. Lindsay stated she would agree to 4 feet.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the
amendment that the existing corner post be retained, that the finished
board face inside and that there be a scalloptorise to 6 feet high
from the post to 4 feet back. Ms. Lindsay asked if the scallop would be
curved or a straight line. Mr. Carr answered that it would be curved
for this motion. Ms. Lindsay stated that she would prefer straight.
Mr. Clarke seconded the motion. Chairman Harris, and Messrs. Oedel,
Clarke, Wolfson and Carr voted in favor and Messrs. Zaharis and Slam
voted in opposition. The motion was carried.
18 Washington Sq. West
Mr. Ken Boyles presented an application on behalf of the Hawthorne Hotel
for the installation of awnings at 18 Washington Sq. West. Mr. Boyles
presented a floor plan of the building and noted where the windows with
the existing awnings were located. Mr. Boyles stated that since the
windows have been opened, they would like additional awnings for the
remaining windows along Essex Street and Hawthorne Boulevard as well as
the three windows facing the parking .lot. Mr. Boyles also presented
photographs and a material sample. The awnings are to be dark green
With black and will be fire resistant. The awning material will be
• installed beneath both marquees and will have a 1-2" flap so as not to
blow in the breeze as much.
Chairman Harris questioned if there would -be any lettering on the _
awnings. Mr. Boyles answered that at the front marquee the awning
material will have the words "Hawthorne Hotel" on both sides. The front
will be lettered with the "H" logo. The side marquee will have
"Hawthorne Hotel" on both sides and "Nathaniels" on the front. There
will be no lettering on the remaining awnings. Fluorescant lights will
be installed at both sides of both marquees.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to approve the application as presented. Mr.
Carr seconded the motion.
Mr. Clarke questioned if it is a clear proposal of what is being done
concerning the lettering. Mr. Boyles stated that the "H" logo would be
just in the front of the front marquee with "Hawthorne Hotel" on the
sides of the marquee. The existing signs would come down: Mr. Clarke
questioned if there should be something on the application about the
sign. Mr. Carr asked if the flourescant fixtures will be seen. Mr.
Boyle answered that they can only be seen if you look up from under the
marquee. Mr. Carr asked if the eagle would remain and Mr. Boyle
replied in the affirmative. Mr. Carr asked if this was a conscientious
design choice. Mr. Boyle replied in the affirmative. Chairman Harris
asked if the lettering would be .gold or beige and Mr. Boyle replied
• beige.
October 14, 1987, Page 3
Chairman Harris repeated the motion as being for awnings for all windows
along Essex Street and Washington Square and 3 facing the parking lot.
All to be dark green with the shape to be as per the photograph. The
• letters are to be beige. There will be 1-2 inches of fringe or flap.
The front of the side marquee will be lettered "Nathaniel's Fine
Dining".
The motion was voted upon, all were in favor. , motion so carried.
31 Flint Street
James and Anne Dayment presented an application for the installation of
a fence and window boxes for their home at 31 Flint Street. Chairman
Harris passed photographs of the house. An old photograph showed the
door that had been replaced by the previous owner as well as the 2
windows in the rear that had been removed. A fence sketch was shown.
Ms Dayment stated that the shrubs are to be kept and the chain link is
to be taken down and the gate removed. Mr. Carr asked what the new
fence will be attached to. Ms. Dayment replied that it will be hooked
up to the chain link in the rear. Chairman Harris asked how tall the
fence will be and Ms. Dayment replied 6 feet. Mr. Oedel questioned if
it would be a flat board cap fence and Ms. Dayment replied in the
affirmative. Ms. Dayment stated that the fence has already been
installed. Chairman Harris suggested that the Commission members view
the fence at the site and the discussion be continued at the next
meeting. Mr. Carr stated that it is very incumbent to try to make a
decision with something so minimally designed.
Mr. Carr made a motion to defer any action on the application pending a
• site visit. Mr. Slam seconded the motion. Mr. Clarke abstained from
voting due to conflict of interest. All were in favor, motion so
carried.
31 Broad Street
Chris Copelas presented an application on behalf of Boone Realty Trust
for the installation of a fence at 31 Broad Street. The fence is to be
4 feet and the post 4'3". Mr. Copelas stated that his application is to
raise the height from 3 '1" to 4" and the post to 4'3". Chairman Harris
noted that the existing fence is quite short compared to the foundation.
Mr. Carr asked if the fence is basically the same. Mr. Copelas replied
that everything will be rebuilt entirely the same except taller. Mr.
Clarke asked if he would prefer a cap rail. Mr. Copelas replied in the
negative.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to approve the application as submitted with
no change in the paint color. Mr. Carr seconded the motion. Chairman
Harris asked if Mr. Copelas would consider a cap picket. Mr. Copelas
replied in the affirmative. Mr. Carr felt it should be left to his
option. Chairman Harris asked if Mr. Zaharis would like to amend his
motion. Mr. Zaharis replied that he did not want to amend the motion.
The motion was voted upon. Messrs. Oedel, Wolfson, Carr, Zaharis, and
Slam voted in favor and Chairman Harris and Mr. Clarke voted in
opposition. The motion was passed.
•
October 14, 1987, Page 4
4 Federal Court
Robert and Christine Healy presented. an application for window
• installation for their home at 4 Federal Court. Mr. Healy stated that
his application is for the removal of four 6 over 6 windows, 2 on West
side, one on North side and one on East side from the kitchen,
reclapboard opening and replace with Anderson easement with half round
transom above on west wall and cedar clapboards the same color as the
rest of the house. Photographs were shown where the windows had already
been removed from the North and East sides of the kitchen and where one
casement window had been installed. It can be slightly seen from the
public way. Mr. Healy added that a stop had been placed on the window
so that it does not open more than three inches.
Mr. Andy Calkins, a neighbor at 95 Federal St. , stated that he felt that
he was the only person who would see the window and he spoke in support
of Mr. Healy's application.
Jessica Herbert, also of 95 Federal Street stated that she had no
problem with the window since the stop was placed in it.
Mr. Carr made a motion to ratify/approve the application as submitted.
Mr. Zaharis seconded the motion. Mr. Clarke suggested that the motion
be amended to state that "Due to the obscurity of the location I move to
approve the application as submitted with the provision that a 3" stop
be placed in the easement window. Mr. Carr amended his motion as
suggested. Mr. Zaharis seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion
so carried.
• 360 Essex Street
Mrs. Alan Freedberg presented an application for the installation of a
new widows walk railing/balustrade at their home at 360 Essex Street.
Mrs. Freedberg presented a sketch and pictures. Mr. Carr asked if the
ballusters are flatboard or turned. Mrs. Freedberg replied turned,
pressurized wood to be painted. It will be capped with spindles every 2
feet. Mr. Carr stated that he would like a beefier balluster and asked
if she could get a stock balluster that is thicker. Mrs. Freedberg
stated that she proposes at 3 x 3 ballaster which is actually 212 — 2
3/8, with a 2 x 4 rail on top which would be close to a total of 36"
high.
Mr. Clarke stated that it is a problem when the drawing is not in scale _
because he fears that a sketch might be out of scale with the house.
Mr. Carr was concerned that it will look "spindly" from that high up.
Chairman Harris stated it may not look spindly at that height because of
the closeness of the ballusters. Chairman Harris added that she was not
bothered by those on the application although she would prefer beefier
ones. Mr. Carr asked what the time pressure was. Mrs. Freedberg stated
three weeks from the time she last spoke to the contractor. Mr. Carr
asked if she would object to the Commission trying to locate sources to
get thicker ballusters. Mrs. Freedberg replied thatshewould mind, but
she was led to believe that her ballusters would be okay and her
contractor may have already ordered the ballusters.
•
October 14, 1987, Page 5
Mr. Carr made a motion to continue the action until the next meeting so
that Mrs. Freedberg can find out if the ballusters have been ordered,
• and if so, what the lead time is. Mr. Healy will try to locate a wider
comparably priced ballaster. Mrs. Freedberg feels the contractor will
be at her house next week and he may be ready to do the work then.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to approve the application as submitted.
Chairman Harris stated that the motion should be as submitted with the
amendments of ballustrades to be 5 every 2 feet, flat cap 2 x 4 cap
rail, flat cap top posts of 6 x 6. The motion was so amended. Mr.
Oedel seconded the motion. Chairman Harris and Messrs. Oedel, Wolfson,
Zaharis and Slam voted in favor and Messrs. Carr and Clarke voted in
opposition. The motion was passed. Beefier ballusters will still be
attempted to be found. Mr. Healy will ask the Building Inspectors
Department about the Building Code.
4 Hamilton Street
Ms. Alice V. Johnson presented an application for the painting of her
house at 4 Hamilton Street. The body of the house will be painted
Moore' s Sandpiper, the door frame and house trim to be painted
Pittsfield Buff and the shuttersto be painted Pine Mountain. Ms.
Johnson asked for the Commission's opinion as to the color of the door.
Ms. Johnson stated that she does not want to draw attention to the door.
Mr. Clarke suggested that the application be amended to show the door
being painted the same color as the house trim. Mr. Carr made a motion
to approve the application as submitted and amended. Mr. Oedel seconded
the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
• 401 R. Essex Street
Mr. David Schaejbe presented an application for shed dormer and
alterations to carriage house at 401 R. Essex Street. Chairman Harris
passed photographs of the view from South Pine and sketches of the
proposal to do shed dormer and install windows.
Mr. Carr asked the square footage. Mr. Schaejbe replied 20 x 40. Mr.
Carr stated that any approval made should be subject to zoning
regulations. Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as
submitted and to send a copy to. the Building Inspector making the
Commission's approval subject to the necessary approval by the Board of
Appeals to change the structure from an office to a dwelling. Mr.
Zaharis seconded the motion.
Mr. Healy stated that the roof is slate. Chairman Harris asked the age
of the structure. Mr. Schaejbe stated 80 years. Mr. Clarked noted that
there are no specifics on windows, trim, the roof, etc. Mr. Slam asked
is the structure was only visible from S. Pine and Mr. Schaejbe answered
in the affirmative. Mr. Slam questioned how visible and Chairman Harris
stated very visible. Chairman Harris asked if the slate would be taken
off and replaced with asphalt. Mr. Schaejbe replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Carr offered that some members of the Commission have a problem
with the drawing. Mr. Zaharis stated that he did not. Mr. Clarke
• stated that he did. Mr. Carr withdrew his motion. Mr. . Oedel suggested
}
October 14, 1987, Page 6
that the Commission approve the concept if Mr. Schaejbe obtains the
correct materials. Mr. Carr made a motion to defer any action tonight
but to send a communication to the Building Inspector' s Department so as
• to see if the Board of Appeals approval is required. Mr. Zaharis stated
that Mr. Schaejbe should be given a list of guidelines for architecture.
Mr. Zaharis seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
Mr. Carr questioned as to what the material of the building is. Mr.
Schaejbe replied stucco and it will remain stucco. Mr. Carr stated that
he would like to Visit the site to see the scale of the house against
the surrounding structures. Chairman Harris gave Mr. Schaejbe a list of
concerns from the Commission with regard to materials and design
including that the windows should be wood (easement okay) , bow window is
okay but would prefer slightly smaller, if stock bay or not and if stock
need cut, door needs more detail (Victorian brackets) , stucco okay if
painted grey. If Mr. Schaejbe does not have to go to the Board of
Appeals, then he must come back with drawings.
At this point Mr. Oedel left the meeting.
Other Business
33 Carelton St.
Although Priscilla Maki was not present sketches and photographs were
shown of her entryway at 33 Carelton Street. Her proposal is to bulk up
pediment. Chairman Harris stated that the Commission would need a
profile and her agreement.
69 Essex Street
• Maria Marquez presented a new drawing for Design Review of her house at
69 Essex Street. The structure will have a 6 panel door. Mr. Healy
asked if the existing windows are wood and Ms. Marquez answered in the
affirmative. Mr. Healy asked if the proposed windows would be wood and
Ms. Marquez replied affirmatively that they would be the same all
around. Chairman Harris asked if the siding would be asphalt or cedar.
Mr. Healy stated it would be asphalt or asbestos. The front will be the
same plane across. Mr. Healy asked the Commission if the trim board
should continue through or stop. Mr. Carr stated that he preferred
stopped. Ms. Marquez was in agreement. Chairman Harris suggested the
addition of a transom. Mr. Clarke asked the ceiling height. Ms.
Marquez answered 12 feet. Chairman Harris drew a transom on the sketch
and showed it to the Commission members. Mr. Clarke stated that a
transom will cost about $200.00 more but will give more light. Mr. Carr
added that the transom will line up with the windows. Ms. Marquez
showed concern about the reflection of car light inside the house. Mr.
Carr suggested a curtain. Mr. Slam asked if a bedroom would be behind
that door. Ms. Marquez replied in the negative. Mr. Carr made a motion
to approve the design review pursuant to delegation of Board of Appeals
design as submitted and changed. Mr. Wolfson seconded the motion, all
were in favor, motion so carried. Mr. Healy will send a letter to the
Building Inspector.
•
• October 14, 1987, Page 7
256 Lafayette Street
• Dave Zierhoffer came before the Commission to resolve the problem of
mail boxes and electrical entryway.
Mr. Zierhoffer has been informed that a location for gang boxes has been
decided. Mr. Carr stated that the Postal Authority is adament that it
is required to be outside the building for a structure this size and he
suggests that the most minimally visible location is selected. Mr. Carr
noted two locations on the plot plan as suggestions. Chairman Harris
stated that the gangbox should be freestanding. Mr. Carr added that it
is recommended that it be enclosed in a shed of two posts with a roof on
top. Mr. Carr made a motion to allow the gangbox to be installed along
the back wall of the property perpendicular to Laurel Street. Mr.
Wolfson seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
Chairman Harris showed photographs of the electrical entry as installed.
The previous solution was to bury in the wall with a door. Mr. Paul
Tuttle, City Electician is adament that is is neither to code nor
appropriate and it must be outside of the building. Chairman Harris
questioned if a shrub could be placedin front of them or is there not
enough room. Mr. Zierhoffer was not sure. Mr. Carr stated that Mr.
Tuttle recommended that they be trenched and put in the basement of the
main house. Mr. Zierhoffer stated that Mr. Tuttle had already approved
them as is. Although trenching would conform to Mr. . Tuttle, there would
be a problem with Massachusetts Electric. It would require two service
disconnects. The transformer is located where Massachusetts Electric
requires it to be. The Victorian is fed through that transformer.
. Mass. Electric insisted metering be done on the outside of the building.
Conduits have been in place since November and are cemented over with
one foot of sand over that. Moving may be possible but cost is not.
The cost associated with this move without including down time, etc. ,
would be $11 ,590.00.
Mr. Carr felt it is very important to keep in mind what the Commission' s
purpose is. He stated that we should ask ourselves if we would approve
this if it was first submitted prior to being done. Mr. Carr does not
feel it would have been approved nor does he feel it could be considered
a hardship. He added that it is a "Pristine" building. How would the
public react to this huge transformer. The Commission must rule on
historical appropriateness. Mr. Carr added that our job is to prohibit
this sort of thing. Mass. Electric should not be allowed to control
this. Architectural standing has priority that shrubs and painting will
not solve.
Mr. Clarke stated that Mr. Zierhoffer' s estimate was within reason. Mr.
Zierhoffer stated that he has seen other buildings in other districts
with more view of an electrical entry. He questioned why his building' s
electrical entry was such a detriment when thedrawingshad been
approved as drawn. Chairman Harris replied that the transformer was not
on the drawing. Mr. Zaharis felt that the Commission would be batting
heads against the wall with Mass. Electric and that since it is a
necessity, shrubbery should be okay. He does not want to give the
•
October 14, 1987, Page 8
contractor more headaches. Mr. Slam questioned if it could be enclosed.
Mr. Zierhoffer replied the Mr. Tuttle had explained that it would be
• acceptable provided it was vented so that the equipment would maintain
the UL listing and rating. This would require venting from the bottom
and sides. Mr. Clarke stated that he has had approval for a basement
installation for his own building with 4 meters on Essex Street and he
felt shrubs would draw more attention to it. Mr. Slam felt the issue
now was for cost rather than movability. Mr. Carr repeated that it
should not be approved because the Commission would not do it on first
impression. Chairman Harris asked if anyone had a motion.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to approve the entryway as installed and
preferably paint the boxes the same color as the body of the house, to
remove the existing shrub and plant an evergreen. Mr. Slam seconded the
motion. Chairman Harris stated that she preferred a 6 ' tall evergreen.
Mr. Slam suggested boxwood that is already grown. Chairman Harris
suggested cypress or juniper. Mr. Carr asked if this was for a
Certificate of Appropriateness. Chairman Harris replied in the
negative, and that it was a continuation.
The motion was voted upon. Chairman Harris and Messrs. Slam, Zaharis,
and Wolfson voted in favor. Mr. Clarke was opposed as was Mr. Carr
emphatically opposed. The motion was passed. Mr. Healy will send a
letter to the Building Inspector stating that design review has passed.
Mr. Zierhoffer stated that he has received Planning Board approval in
writing for the location and fixtures on lamps. Mr. Healy will take
pictures of the lamps and bring them to the next meeting.
• 2 Flint Street
Mr. Healy stated that a neighbor has complained about an illegal porch
on 2 Flint Street. The second floor porch had fallen, and the door
leading to the porch was left there. The owner was supposed to either
rebuild the porch or remove the door and add a matching window. As is,
it is both unsighly and unsafe. Mr. Healy will locate the minutes from
the meeting that contained that determination.
Guidelines
Mr. Clarke stated that we must make a list of what is required for
meetings. Chairman Harris stated that drawings must be supplied with
the application. Chairman Harris noted items that should be listed and
given to each applicant. Mr. Healy will draft a list for the Commission
to review.
There being no further business, Mr. Carr made a motion to adjourn. Mr.
Zaharis seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
101487
•
October 28, 1987, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
October ;,g, 1987
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on
Wednesday evening, October 28, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green,
Salem, MA. Present were Chairman Harris, and Messrs. Oedel, Zaharis,
Carr, Cook and Healy.
The Commission took a moment to welcome Municipal Intern, Roxanne Byrne
who was appointed by the City of Salem from Bishop Fenwick High School.
Chairman Harris called the meeting to order and asked for approval of
the October 14, 1987 minutes. Mr. Carr made a motion to defer approval
of the minutes until the end of the evening. Mr. Zaharis seconded the
motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
Public Hearings
28 Carelton Street
Crotchet Box Condo Trust withdrew their application for the installation
of a single step.
10 Andover Street
• Mr. Healy presented an application on behalf of Ms. Gail Couture for the
installation of aluminum gutters at her home on 10 Andover Street. Mr.
Healy explained that Ms. Couture ' s reconstruction of her home is being
funded by the City of Salem' s Home Improvement Program which will
provide Ms. Couture with either a low interest loan or a Loan of which
payment can be deferred until the sale of her house. Mr. Healy stated
that all reconstruction except the gutters will match existing utilizing
materials as described in the work write-up and estimate sheet that he
presented to the Commission. Mr. Healy added that the existing house
has wood gutters and that because of the expense, Ms. Couture ' s
application is for aluminum gutters. Mr. Healy passed photographs and
explained that because of the limited budget of $10,000, the purchase of
wood gutters would mean eliminating some other work. Aluminum gutters
would cost $995.00.
Mr. Carr asked what the price of wood' gutters would be. Mr. Healy
replied that he did not have a price on wood. Mr. Carr asked what other
work is being done. Mr. Healy summarized that the work would include
the front porch - demo and remake, repair and repoint foundation, repair
bulkhead, build new door, remove and replace threshold, re-roof, remove
and replace storm windows, repair windows, repair storm doors, repair
gutters and downspouts, repair wood cornice by removing rotted or
defective soffit boards, fascia boards, and mouldings and installing new
wood members to match existing, and repair exterior sill boards. The
balance of the work would be interior (heating system, piping, handrail ,
etc. ) . Mr. Cook asked if the concrete wall/fence would beremovedand
that it was an abomination. Mr. Healy replied that there was no money
to do that.
October 28, 1987, Page 2
Mr. Carr stated that decisions are difficult when there are no cost
• comparisons. Mr. Carr explained that there are three specific areas
with regard to Certificates of Appropriateness. First, there is
non-applicability which in this case non-applicability cannot be _
considered. Second, there is hardship, but since the project is being
City funded, hardship cannot be considered. Third is appropriateness,
but aluminum gutters are not appropriate. Mr. Carr felt that a
determination should be made on the basis of appropriateness not on
money budget. Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application amended
to utilize wood gutters and that a recommendation be made to remove the
concrete wall. Mr. Zaharis seconded the motion, all were in favor,
motion so carried.
Other Business
Essex Institute
Mr. Healy presented a letter that he received from Alison Cornish of the
Essex Institute. Chairman Harris read the letter for the Commission
which stated that the Essex Institute had drafted a letter for the
Commission to send to the Massachusetts Historical Society in support of
the Institute' s application for funding for work to be done to the
Andrew-Safford House including repairs to chimneys, caps and associated
flashings, re-roofing in either asphalt or slate, repairs and
replacement of the roof balustrade, repairs and replacement to the
formed copper gutter and replacement of copper downspouts.
• Mr. Carr stated that he is in favor of the Letter provided that there is
already asphalt on the roof. If it is a combination of asphalt and
slate the letter should be modified to state, what we consistently
recommend, that there be an attempt to repair the existing roof. Mr.
Carr made a motion to defer action until the next meeting, in order to
find out more about the existing roof, to make it the first item on the
agenda and to delegate Sam to handle it. Mr. Zaharis seconded the
motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
31 Flint Street
A continuation from previous meetings, Ms. Anne Dayment's .application
was reviewed for the addition of white wooden flower boxes on two first
level windows, replacing green plastic ones, removal of chain link fence
and the installation of a new flat board fence with cap. The fence will
be painted platinum grey. Most of the work has been done already. Ms.
Dayment stated that her neighbor, David Clarke was in approval of the
work done.
Mr. Carr asked if the chain link in the rear is visible. Ms. Dayment
replied in the negative. Mr. Carr stated that his concern was not with
the chain link fence removal but with the shutters that he felt should
be removed immediately. Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the
application as submitted with the mandate that the shutters be removed
immediately. Mr. Zaharis seconded the motion. Ms. Dayment stated that
• she had no one to do the shutters. Mr. Carr replied that it would be a
requirement of the motion. Chairman Harris stated that she was
uncomfortable with the fence tops and stated that they should be cut off
October 28, 1987, Page 3
• as they would not have been approved if they were presented prior to
installation. Mr. Oedel suggested that the motion be amended to lop off
the top of the posts to be even with the rail and then seal them. Mr.
Carr accepted as a friendly amendment. Mr. Zaharis seconded the motion.
The amendment was voted upon, all were in favor, amendment so carried.
The motion was voted upon, all were in favor, motion so carried.
2 Balcomb Street
Mr. Charles Brett presented an application for demolition of a small
corner store at 2 Balcomb Street. In order to avoid waiting the six
months, required by the demo delay ordinance, he is required to come
before the Salem Historical Commission. Mr. Oedel questioned that if
the requirement is only for buildings of 50 years of more, is this
building applicable. Mr. Healy said it is questionable. Mr. Carr made
a motion to approve the demolition. Mr. Zaharis seconded the motion,
all were in favor, motion so carried.
401 R. Essex St.
In a continuation from the previous meeting, the Commission reviewed the
application of Mr. David Schaejbe for shed dormer and alterations to
carriage house at 401 R. Essex Street. Chairman Harris read the minutes
from the previous meeting with regard to this application. Mr. Healy
asked Mr. Schaejbe if the contractor had spoken to the Building
• Inspector to see if he would be required to go to the Board of Appeals.
Mr. Schaejbe did not think the contractor had. Mr. David Harris from
the Building Inspector's office stated that the necessity of going to
the Board of Appeals is dependent upon the previous use and whether the
owner had appeared before the Board for the change to the current use.
Mr. Schaejbe was not sure if it had or not. Mr. Harris questioned if
this could be considered an illegal office. Mr. Carr stated that he
believed that the necessity of Board of Appeals would be dependent upon
square footage but that there are black and white answers in the
ordinance. Mr. Healy stated that there appears to be enough square
footage to be considered a habitaL space and that the plot plan
presented shows the building as a legal office.
Mr. Oedel stated that the concern for the Commission is if the design is
adequate. Mr. Carr felt that the Commission should work with all
concerned parties to make sure nothing slips through the cracks. Mr.
Carr added that the Commission would be wasting its time to approve
something that cannot be built legally. Mr. Oedel read from the design
that the windows would be Anderson Prime casement windows and that the
the existing front door would remain but the door swing would be
changed.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the
provision that it be subject to referral of the matter to the Building
Inspector for a determination that all zoning requirements are met for
the conversion of an office to a dwelling particularly with respect to
• the required minimum square footage for a dwelling unit and any proposed
new construction. Mr. Zaharis seconded the motion.
October 28, 1987 , Page 4
Chairman Harris pointed to windows and doors on the plan and asked Mr.
• Schaejbe which were new or existing and asked if the muttons were snap
in or real. Mr. Carr added to his motion that the motion is also with
the exception that all windows must have intregal mutton bars and for
any non—intregal mutton bars there must be a consultation with the
Preservation Planner and then further determination to be sent to the
Building Inspector. Chairman Harris clarified that they must be painted
wood windows not encased in vinyl.
Mr. Zaharis seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
Chairman Harris stated that she would like to send an application to the
Massachusetts Historical Commission for the funding of public
streetscape improvements such as trash baskets, similar to those in the
Common to be placed in various locations, particularly Lafayette and
Derby Streets, and the uncovering of the gravelstone streets and granite
crosswalks to slow down speeding in high traffic areas. Mr. Zaharis
asked where, stating that they can be a hazard. Chairman Harris gave
Essex, Chestnut, Derby and Federal Streets as examples. Mr. Healy will
look into the matter.
Mr. Carr stated that on page one of the October 14 1987 minutes, the
. last line stating "corner post but only 6 feet high" should read "corner
post but only 4 feet high". Mr. Carr made a motion to defer the
approval of the minutes until the next meeting. Mr. Zaharis seconded
the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
Chairman Harris stated that the next meeting will be held on Wednesday,
November 18, 1987.
There being no further business Mr. Oedel made a motion to adjourn the
meeting. Mr. Carr seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so -
carried.
102887
•
December 2, 1987, Page 1
• SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
December 2, 1987
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on
Wednesday evening, December 2, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Gren,
Salem, MA. Present were Chairman Harris, and Messrs. Cook, Zaharis,
Carr, Slam and Healy.
Chairman Harris called the meeting to order and asked for approval of
the October 28, 1987 minutes. Mr. Zaharis made a motion to approve the
minutes. Mr. Cook seconded the motion, all were in favor,_ motion so
carried.
Mr. Zaharis stated that he would like clarification as to how the
Commission members are to be made aware of when Historical Commission
meetings are scheduled, because notices and agendas are not always
received in the mail. Mr. Healy stated that members will be notified by
mail or by phone prior to the meetings. Members should not come to One
Salem Green unless they have received notification by mail or telephone.
Chairman Harris stated for the record that the next meeting will be on
December 16, 1987 and the following meeting will be held on January 13 ,
1988. Mr. Healy stated that there are already two agenda items for the
December 16, 1987 meeting.
• Public Hearings
7 Cambridge Street
Hamilton Hall Associates presented an application for the painting of
trim and shutters at Hamilton Hall at 7 Cambridge Street. Chairman
Harris reviewed the application for the Commission.' The application is
to paint the trim and shutters to the original colors which are Benjamin
Moore Camel Beige CB-41 for exterior trim and Lafayette Green HC-135 for
blinds and doors. The metal work will be. black. Kim Brengel, the
Hamilton Hall Associates consultant, stated that the repainting of the
trim was included as part of a grant that Hamilton Hall received. Mr.
Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Cook
seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
6 Andover Street -
Ms. Agnes Harney presented an application for the removal of ''z of a
slate roof on the entryway side of the -house and replacement with
asphalt shingles after repairing sheathing at her home at 6 Andover
Street. Chairman Harris passed pictures before the Commission and
stated that the application is for a Certificate of Hardship which is
supported by two exhibits, one being an estimate for renewing the slate
roof at a cost of $8,400.00 from J. B. Kidney & Co. , Inc. and the second
being an estimate for the installation of asphalt shingles at a cost of
$3 ,700.00 from Thornhill Insulations & Carpentry. Mr. Healy stated that
the applicant preferred asphalt and that the contractor was present if
there were any questions. Chairman Harris noted that the pictures show
December 2, 1987, Page 2
• where the roof is sagging and where there are several tar—patched
sections.
Mr. Cook asked if this is a hardship application. Chairman Harris
replied in the affirmative. Mr. Slam stated that he couldunderstand
how this could be an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness
because he did not feel slate is essential; but he questioned why the
application was for hardship. Mr. Carr replied that the replacement is
with a twentieth century material in an historic district. Mr. Cook
added that it is also of a different style. Mr. Carr further commented
that a Certificate of Appropriateness is an issue of necessity and that
slate is more historically correct and therefore more appropriate. Mr.
Carr felt that the application should be for hardship and believed that
this application was one of the few genuine hardships coming before the
Commission. '
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to approve the application as presented. Mr.
Carr seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
95 Derby Street
The VFW Post 1524 presented an application for the installation of a
satellite dish at their post at 95 Derby St. The application states
that the dish is 9' in diameter and will stand a total height of 121 .
Chairman Harris stated that the location on the building has not been
determined on the application and that the VFW would . like the
• Commission' s recommendation. Chairman Harris passed pictures of the
building and map before the Commission.
Jean—Guy Martineau, the treasurer of the VFW corporation stated that
Post 1524 was one of the last two active veteran'g groups as far as
owning their own building. Mr. Martineau stated that most of the
current members are between the ages of the high 60' s and early 70' s
from World War II and that they are trying to attract veterans from the
Vietnam and Korean wars. ' He further added that currently, the post has
cable television which costs them $138.00 per month and includes NESN
and the Sports Channel. Mr. Martineau stated that they would like to
purchase a satellite dish for financial purposes and to attract new
members so as to keep the post open, adding that keeping the post open
will allow the continuationofthe charitable projects that the post
often does.
The president of the VFW, who showed on the map and pictures where he
would like the dish located, stated that he would prefer a location
behind the air conditioning units. He marked this location on the map.
He further added that the dish will not interfere with resident 's
television sets.
Mr. Carr questioned if this was for a Certificate of Hardship. Chairman
Harris replied in the negative and stated that this is a 1950' s building
and that the Commission should consider if the satellite dish is
• appropriate with the building and the district.
December 2, 1987, Page 3
• Ms. Dolores Jordan, an abutter, residing at 97-99 Derby Street, which is
across White Street from the VFW stated that she felt an article that
size is a negative force. She further added that the VFW currently has
3 large obstacles on their roof and that the noise from their air '
conditioning is bad. enough without having yet another infraction on the
site. Her opinion is that it would infringe upon the resident' s rights
because they Live in the neighborhood and the members do not. A
satellite dish would be unattractive on the streetscape of Derby Street
and because it would be in physical view of the people who reside there,
she and her sister, who is also in attendance, are opposed.
Chairman Harris asked Ms. Jordan if the dish were not in view would she
favor it. Ms. Jordan replied that she would not if it was on the roof
because she lives on the second floor and would still see it. Chairman
Harris questioned if it were in the parking lot with a fence around it,
would Ms. Jordan then favor it. Mr. Jordan replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Carr asked what the difference is between the cable television cost
and the cost of the dish noting that the Commission obviously could not
consider this appropriate to an historical district and that it would
have to be considered for hardship due to declining membership. Mr.
Carr felt• the Commission should compare costs. Mr. Healy stated that
the payback would be approximately 21-22 months or approximately
$3000.00 for the dish. Mr. Carr stated that the Commission should
consider visual effect versus club necessity.
Mr. Healy asked if the VFW would consider placing the dish in the
parking Lot. Mr. Martineau replied that it would result in the loss of
parking spaces in an area where there is already little parking.
In Mr. Carr's opinion, the concern is for visual impact. Mr. Carr felt
he could not approve the application under any circumstances. It would
go against the Historical Commission Guidelines and would set a
dangerous precident in the case of other applicants applying to install
satellite dishes. Mr. Carr would want to see elevations and drawings
relative to screening and a VFW financial report. He stated that it is
a non-conforming use in a residential neighborhood and that the
Commission cannot perpetuate non-conformities. Mr. Carr added that he
would probably approve something on the ground and in the back.
Mr. Slam stated that he agreed with Mr. Carr that a satellite dish would
be detrimental to the streetscape regardless of the type of building and
that it would set a negative precident. Mr. Slam' s opinion was that the -
problems of the VFW do not seem to outway the damage to a historic
district and he would be inclined to only approve a Location in back of
the building on the ground.
Mr. Cook stated his high regard for the VFW and his positive feelings
for the group and its work but felt he would still have a strong problem
approving this application. Mr. Cook suggested another Public Hearing
with more public input.
•
December 2, 1987, Page 4
Chairman Harris asked if the VFW would consider putting the dish in the
• parking lot. The President of the VFW stated that he would talk to the
cable company to see if there were other options beside the roof.
Chairman Harris added that the reasoning behind having historical
districts is to serve the residents of the districts. Mr. Martineau
stated that they will go back to the Board of Directors for the VFW to
discuss an alternate location and will come- hack before the Commission.
Mr. Martineau stated that the VFW formerly withdraws its application.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the October 14, 1987 minutes. Mr
Zaharis seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
Mr. Carr stated that he noticed a Gambrel house by Flint Street at the
end of Gifford Court where framing was being erected for a porch or a
deck. Mr. Healy will look into the matter.
There being no further business, Mr. Zaharis made a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Carr seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission
•
12287
December 16, 1987, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
December 16, 1987
• A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on
Wednesday evening, December 16, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green,
Salem, MA. Present were Chairman Harris, and Messrs. Cook, Slam,
Wolfson, Oedel and Healy.
Chairman Harris called the meeting to order and asked for approval of
the December 2, 1987 minutes. Mr. Slam made a motion to approve the
minutes. Mr. Cook seconded the motion, but since there were only three
people present who were also at the December 2, 1987 meeting, the
approval of the minutes was postponed due to lack of a quorum.
Public Hearings
265-267 Lafayette St.
265-267 Lafayette St. Trust presented an application for the
construction of a secondary means of egress on rear of building and for
the installation of railings on the roof. Chairman Harris passed
pictures of the building and read a letter from the Building Inspector' s
Department stating that the current means of egresses are unacceptable
and that the installation of exits, stairs and connecting balconies is
recommended but subject to approval by the Historic Commission. Mr.
Slam asked if this has been presented to the Commission in the past.
Chairman Harris replied in the negative.
• Mr. David Jaquith presented plans to the Commission and stated that the
current means of egresses are aluminum ladders. Chairman Harris asked
how many units are in the building. Mr. Jaquith replied that there were
eight existing and no more planned. Mr. Jaquith showed on the plans
those units that were of concern, where exits, stairs, balconies and
railings would. be added and of those which would be seen from a public
way. Some railing will be seen on top of the flat roof portion on the
Willow Street side which will be a Victorian 2 x 2 (12 x 12) ballastered
rail. Mr. Healy asked if it will be basically milled top and Mr.
Jaquith replied in the affirmative. Mr. Jaquith added that the Willow
Street elevation will have railing on top utilizing the brackets found
there which appeared to have held rail post. The rear elevation is
partly visible from a public way. The center dormer will pick up fire
balcony to the stairs. Two doors are to be added, one door already
exits.
Chairman Harris questioned if all of this work would be balcony or just
egress to which Mr. Jaquith showed one spot that was not necessary for
egress but rather would provide a methodology and continuity that would
keep the building in character. Mr. Slam asked if there was any other
means of egress existing besides the ladders to which Mr. Jaquith stated
that there was none. Mr. Frisch, who with his brother and sister are
owners, stated that when the building was purchased, they were not
comfortable with the current means of egress and went to the Building
. Inspector' s Department for input.
December 16, 1987, Page 2
Chairman Harris stated that her opinion was that there was alot of
complicated information to absorb and suggested that there be a site
visit followed by a further discussion at the next meeting. Mr. Wolfson
• was in agreement. Mr. Cook felt that the owners were making an attempt
to blend everything in and agreed that a site visit would be
appropriate. Mr. Healy will make copies of the set of plans for the
Commission members. Mr. Slam asked if they would be permitted to see
the inside of the building as well. Mr. Cook stated that the interior
was not within the jurisdiction of the Commission. Mr. Slam explained
that by being asked by the Building Inspector' s Department to approve
secondary means of exterior egress it is assumed there are no possible
means of .secondary interior egress and therefore it would be within the
Commission' s jurisdiction to be sure that there are no interior
solutions overlooked before approving and exterior work.
Chairman Harris preferred that the means of egress be tighter within a
particular area. Mr Frisch stated that it would result in the loss of
needed light in some of the units. Chairman Harris asked if a spiral
staircase had been considered. Mr.. Frisch was under the impression from
the Building Department that spiral staircase was not acceptable. Mr.
Cook did not feel spiral would be considered unacceptable and questioned
if the owners would have any problem with it. Mr. Jaquith felt the
better solution is as he has presented expecially since they discovered
brackets which suggested there was rail there in the past.
Chairman Harris asked about the railing being added to the front of the
building. Mr. Jaquith stated that there is simple railing there now and
- felt it would look better than what is existing.
• A site visit was set up for Saturday, January 2nd at 10:00.
1 Brown Street/13 Washington St. West
Sweet Scoops Ice Cream Shop (Robert Colombo) presented an application
for the installation of a door and window as shown in their plans.
Chairman Harris stated that Sweet Scoops will be located in the barn of
the Andrew Safford House on the Essex Institute property. The plans
show 3 existing openings, one remaining closed, and two which will be
opened during business. Also, a window is located on the side of the
building but it is not visible from a public way. Of the two that will
be opened during business hours one is a double door in which glass
window panes will be installed along with a wood panel approximately 15"
x 24" at the bottom about 116" above floor. The door and window trim
will be flat pine. The other opening will have a 3 '6" x 7'0" glazed
French door in new wood frame with a wood panel on the bottom. The trim
will be 3 x 3/4 — Z round, close off. Mr. Healy stated that the windows
will each have 2 individual single panes , not single sheet thermal pane.
Mr. Oedel stated that it will be safety glass not thermal pane.
Chairman Harris asked if they intend to add lights to signs or to the
building. Mr. Columbo stated that he would like to keep the existing
flood lights and also install lights in the ground shining on the
building but he will not attach any to the building. Chairman Harris
asked if there will be any changes to the upper windows. Mr. Colombo
•
� r
December 16, 1987, Page 3
replied that there will be no changes. He further stated that there is
no transformer, that the heat pump and condensor cannot be seen from a
public way and that the electrical entry and meter will be underground
• and inside the house.
Mr. Slam asked why the trees were taken down. Mr. Columbo replied that
they were rotting and were uprooting the brick fence. Ms. Anne Farnam
added that they are thinking of putting in a new tree.
Mr. Oedel asked what is to be done with the doors that are existing .
Mr. Columbo answered that they will be refinished and painted black,
exactly the same. No detail will be done on the wood door.
Mr. Columbo presented a sketch of a sign which he intends to put near
the gate. Chairman Harris asked how it will be hung. Mr. Columbo
replied that it will be hung on a wood post on the inside of the
property exactly like the Essex Institute signs with the same
dimensions. The lettering would be black trim with dark blue lettering.
Ms. Farnam stated that the Essex Institute has black lettering on white.
Mr. Oedel stated that the same lettering would be required in order to
get his approval. Mr. Wolfson asked if the sign will extend over the
wall. Mr. Columbo replied in the negative and that it would be only
above the wall. Chairman Harris stated that more detail on the sign is
needed. Ms. Farnam stated that the Essex Institute would require that
the new sign be exactly the same as their's. Mr. Slam asked how high
will the sign be over the wall. Chairman Harris believed that it would
have to be higher that the Institute' s signs in order to be seen over
the wall. Ms. Farnam disagreed. Mr. Healy stated that the elevation
• inside the wall is different than that outside the wall. Chairman
Harris stated that the sign issue should be continued at the next
meeting when they have more detail.
Chairman Harris stated that Mr. John Carr had concerns which he
requested that she please read for the Commission. The first was with
extending the commercial use in the building. Chairman Harris replied
to which that she did not feel this concern was within the jurisdiction
of the Commission. The second was that when the doors are open, which
would be most of the time, that there should be a blank space so as to
still look like the opening to a barn. He felt it should appear to read
as a void by having one huge piece of tinted glass and black aluminum.
Chairman Harris noted that Mr. Carr had not seen the plans. Mr. Wolfson
stated that it would tend to look more modern. Mr. Healy stated that it
could jeopardize the Essex Institute's National Register designation
because it would be historically inappropriate.
Mr. Slam asked what is the season of operation. Mr. Columbo replied mid
March/first of April to first of December.
Ms. Farnam stated that it could be designed so that it would look like
two French doors by putting something down the middle, thereby having 2
windows instead of one. Chairman Harris asked if they would want the
windows to open in the summer. Mr. Columbo replied in the negative
stating that the air conditioning would be in operation. Mr. Cook
stated that the doors would be stationary. Mr. Oedel felt it would look
•
December 16, 1987, Page 4
better as asingle unit than to redesign.
Mr. Wolfson made a motion to approve the application as submitted with
• the amendment that there be a divided window and with the exception of
the sign issue. Mr. Cook seconded the motion. Mr. Oedel asked about
the details on the French door. Mr. Wolfson withdrew the motion.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to accept the windows and door as proposed with
the proviso that the existing covering doors be kept shut during
non—business hours. There was no second.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to table the application until next meeting and
request specifications on the French door option or a central door. Mr.
Slam seconded the motion. The motion was voted upon. Chairman Harris
and Messrs. Slam, Wolfson, Oedel voted in favor. Mr. Cook voted in
opposition. The motion was carried.
Mr. Oedel suggested that new drawings be made and both sets be brought
to the next meeting so that there are two options. They will require
dimensions, thickness and mutton detail, blown up sketch and lighting as
well as sign information including a picture of the posts and its
height.
74 Highland Avenue
74 Highland Avenue Trust presented an application for a waiver of the
demolition delay ordinance for 74 Highland Avenue. Atty. John Serafini
represented the applicant. Mr. Serafini stated that the building has
• been vacant for approximately one year and that the owners of the
Colonial Plaza have purchased it. Mr. Serafini added that the Board of
Appeal has granted the petition to demolish the building. The intention
is to demolish the house and put in a parking lot.
Mr. Healy stated that he and Ms. Debra Hilbert visited the site and
found that other than being 120 years old the building has no historical
value and there is no interior or exterior detail. Mr. Healy stated
that it has been rumored that the house was built in the 1830's but from
the evidence at the site it appears to have been built in the 187`01s'
Chairman Harris stated that the building will be demolished and that the
Commission can only waiver the 6 month demolition delay ordinance.
Mr. Slam stated that the issue is not the house but the streetscape. ,
Mr. Slam felt that to take down the house to put in a parking lot is a
deterioration of the street. He questioned whether the Commission would
want to see Highland Avenue become a series of shopping malls. Chairman
Harris reminded Mr. Slam that the application is to waive the delay.
She added that the delay is to try to change the owner' s mind or get the
building moved, etc. , therefore the most significant issue is to
determine historical value of the house. Mr. Cook stated that the
Commission should not be threatened by the eventuality. Mr. Oedel
stated that Massachusetts Historical Society could become involved.
Chairman Harris stated that there is no balancing at that section of
Highland Avenue. The house is surrounded by doctors' offices, the Salem
December 16, 1987 , Page 5
Hospital and the shopping plaza. There are very few residences and no
consistent streetscape. Chairman Harris did not feel there would be a
. major impact. Mr. Cook stated that he was inclined to agree. Mr.
Wolfson was also in agreement and added that, historically, across the
street was farm and not residential. Mr. Slam stated that he would also
be in agreement if the house would be replaced with another structure
but not for a parking Lot.
Mr. Serafini stated that the owners feel the area is very congested. He
added that the necessary variances and approvals have already been
granted. Mr. Serafini further stated that the minutes of the Board of
Appeal ' s meeting will state that in their statement, the Salem Police
Department was pleased with the demolition because it will close the
curb cut. The area will also be landscaped. Mr. Serafini felt the
streetscape had no cohesiveness. He added that the house has a frontage
of about 60' , which he felt was insignificant. Mr. Serafini noted other
parking lots which are in the surrounding area including on the same
side an area at Colby Street and the gas station as well as across the
street at the doctor's office and the used car lot. Mr. Serafini stated
that the total area does not have a coherent residential effect between
the house in question and Proctor Street.
Mr. Slam stated that the deterioration of streetscapes take place one
building at a time, eachsinglynone may have no major impact, but
altogether the ambiance is destroyed. He further stated that the
Commission is given applications for demolition delay outside Historic
Districts to see if there is an impact. Mr. Oedel agreed but did not
feel this house was that significant. Mr. Cook agreed the house was not
•
that significant and felt that the area may deteriorate a few more feet
but cannot see how it would deteriorate that much. Mr. Slam questioned
if the house could be put to some other use such as a doctor' s office.
Chairman Harris replied that the owners had been given that suggestion
but are not willing to put the house to reuse because they need the
parking.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to allow the demolition and waive the demolition
delay ordinance. Mr. Wolfson seconded the motion. The motion was voted
upon. Chairman Harris and Messrs. Wolfson, Oedel, and Cook voted in
favor and Mr. Slam voted in opposition. The motion was carried.
The next meeting of the Historical Commission will be held on January
13, 1988. There being no further business, Mr. Cook made a motion to
adjourn the meeting. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion, all were in favor,
motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission
JHisCom2/121687
25070 YELLOW
25071 BLACK
25072 LIGHT BLUE
25073 DARK BLUE
28074 LIGHT GRAY
25075 LIGHT GREEN
25078 DARK GREEN
25077 TANGERINE
25078 RED
25m. - EXECUTIVE RED
WITH WATER RESISTANT
COVERS
MRAccom ACCO INTERNATIONAL INC.
CHICAGO;ILLINOIS 60515
a