SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES SALEM .HTSTORICAL COMM_ISSIO_N ,
MINUTES 1988 -
{+
re 4.
L
January 13 , 1988, Page 1
• SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
January 13, 1988
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on
Wednesday evening, January 13 , 1988 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green,
Salem, MA. Present were Chairman Harris, and Messrs. Cook, Slam,
Wolfson and Healy.
Chairman Harris called the meeting to order and asked for approval of
the December 2, 1987 and December 16, 1987 minutes. Mr. Slam made a
motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Wolfson seconded the motion, all
were in favor, motion so carried. -
Public Hearings
42 Broad Street
P.H.I.P. Realty Trust presented an application for the replacement of
existing windows with vinyl windows at 42 Broad Street. The application
proposed the replacement of the existing windows with solid vinyl custom
windows , thermal pane with mutton bars installed between two panes of
glass from A.T. Vinyl of Boston. The glass thickness would be 7/8" and
sash thickness at 1 5/8". The cost would be $249.00/window with a 3-4
week lead time. The applicants' contractor, Robert Centori also
enclosed specifications for an alternate window from J.B. Sash of
• Chelsea. The alternate would be for wood windows to replicate the
existing multi-pane sashes. The thermal pane glass thickness would be
7/16" and the sash thickness would be 1 3/8". The exterior muttons
would be a tru grid system permently attached. The cost would be
$400/window with an 8-10 weer, lead time.
Mr. Philip Vener, Trustee, representing P.H.I.P. Realty Trust stated
that the muttons for the vinyl windows could be placed on the outside
instead of between the panes. Mr. Cook felt the illusion is better when
placed on the outside.
Mr. Slam stated that the guidelines explain that the Commission is not
in favor of vinyl windows and that original materials must be used
whenever possible. Mr. Centori replied that there are 63 windows to
replace. Mr. Slam asked if wood was the original material. Mr. Centori
replied in the affirmative adding that wood is not long lasting.
Chairman Harris asked if there were any comments from the audience to
which there was no reply. Chairman Harris stated that the building is a
nice .Colonial building and that she did not think vinyl windows were
appropriate. Mr. Vener stated that there is not much difference in
. looks. The difference is in the material in that it is more modern.
Mr. Centori further added that wood is less efficient with regard to
both upkeep and insulation and that the cost would be $8000.00 more.
Mr. Centori stated that wood windows would require the need for storm
windows. 61r. Slam asked if the applicant had done comparison shopping?
' Mr. Centori stated that most companies are basically the same. Mr.
Healy stated that J.B. Sash is usually the lowest.
f
January 13, 1988, Page 2
Chairman Harris stated that there were three choices. The first would
• be for vinyl windows with the grid system as proposed. The second would
be for the applicant to come back with specs for windows with muttons on
the exterior. The third would be for the wood windows. Mr. Slam stated
that he could not recall the Commission ever approving vinyl windows,
that is is very rare to get an approval for them and that he seriously
doubts that he would ever vote in approval of them. Mr. Cook stated
that, so as to keep an open mind, he would like to see the additional
specs. Mr. Wolfson stated he would also like to see additional specs.
Chairman Harris stated that she would be inclined to only approve wood.
Mr. Vener asked if it would be a fruitless effort to bring in additional
specs and samples. Chairman Harris stated that it could be, and that
she could not predict how the other Commission members would vote. Mr.
Wolfson added that generally, the Commission does not approve vinyl.
Mr. Vener asked if he received an approval for wood windows tonight,
could he still come in next time with additional specs to try to get
approval on vinyl windows. Chairman Harris replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Vener stated that he would like to amend the application to use the
wood window as described under their alternate style of window on the
application. Mr. Cook made a motion to approve the application as
amended. Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so
carried.
Other Business
• 265-267 Lafayette St. Continuation
Chairman Harris asked Mr. David Jaquith, the architect representing the
Frisch's, if anything has been changed on the drawings since the last
meeting. Mr. Jaquith pointed out the changes that had been made on
drawings and presented them to the Commission. These changes included
the area on the back "L" where a window will be changed to match the
existing window to the left. The roof plane will be evened off. Mr.
Healy asked if the siding would be extended. Mr. Jaquith replied in the
affirmative.
Chairman Harris stated that she had comments to present to the
Commission from Mr. John Carr. Mr. Carr felt there is an awful lot
toward the back of the building. The side of building has 2 deck areas
visible from the street. There are signs of a bracket system and Mr.
Carr feels that railing probably was once there, but it invites a deck
and therefore, awnings , lawn furniture, etc. There would be partially
fire escapes and partially decks, thus being very busy. Mr. Carr would
like to see some things eliminated, to make it simpler. Chairman Harris
_agreed with Mr. Carr that it was too busy.
Mr. Cook questioned if there was an interior solution. Mr. Jaquith
replied that there was a lack of space to do so. Mr. Frisch added that
he had spoken to the Building Inspector's Department and was told that
due to fire reasons they will not allow an egress which would require
one to exit and then re-enter the building. Mr. Frisch stated that it
may be busy in the back but not much can be seen from the street and
that this is the closest to safety needs.
January 13 , 1988, Page 3
• Mr. Slam stated that he was not in agreement with Chairman Harris and
Mr. Carr. He feels the rear of the building is not very becoming and
does not know if the rails will be as nice as Mr. Jaquith's drawings but
does not feel the proposed work will be visually negative.
Chairman Harris stated that she was not convinced that this is the best
solution because of the use of deck which will lead to lawn furniture,
etc. Chairman Harris suggested possibly a more expensive ballastrade.
Mr. Jaquith replied that lawn furniture, etc. was an inappropriate
subject to discuss given that the Commission has no jurisdiction over
such personal novelties of life. Mr. Jaquith added that he would like
the new and existing railing to look consistent. Mr. Frisch stated that
they would like to have the railing for safety as well as looks so as to
decrease the commercial look of the building.
Mr. Slam made a motion to accept the application as submitted with the
proposed drawings presented at this meeting. Mr. Cook seconded the
motion. Messrs. Slam, Cook and Wolfson voted in favor. Chairman Harris
voted in opposition. The motion did not carry.
Mr. Frisch asked what Chairman Harris would approve. Chairman Harris
replied that she would like to see a simplified solution with less
decks, etc. Mr. Jaquith repeated that some of the railing cannot be
seen from the public way.
Mr. Slam withdrew his motion. Mr. Cook withdrew his second. The
• application will be continued at the next meeting.
13 Washington Sq. West Continuation
Mr. Robert Columbo of Sweet Scoops Ice Cream Shop presented new drawings
of the door and window he proposes to install at 13 Washington Sq. West
as well as drawings of a proposed sign and hardware for the door.
Chairman Harris stated that the double door and one wooden door will be
open during business hours and closed at night.
Mr. Slam commented that one third of the top of the door can be seen
over the fence from 30-40' coming from the Common.
Chairman Harris described the proposed sign for the Commission. The
post will be 10' high. The arm will extend 4' from the post. The sign
will be 38" x 32" and will hang just back from the wall. The wall is
5 '9" high from the walk. The arm, etc. will be the same as the Essex
Institute signs. Mr. Columbo presented two types of printing that could
be used for the sign. Both are black lettering on white. The location
Qf the proposed sign was shown on the property plans. Chairman Harris
asked what type of lighting will be used. Mr. Columbo stated he will
install flood lighting in the ground. Nothing will be added to the
building. Chairman Harris asked where the lights will be placed and how
many will be installed. Mr. Columbo replied that he can come back
before the Commission when that is determined and they are ready to
perform that work.
January 13, 1988, Page 4
• Chairman Harris repeated to the Commission that Mr. John Carr would Like
the double doors to have sheet glass so as to read as a barn door open.
Chairman Harris asked what the coloring will be for the doors. Mr.
Columbo answered white and black, the same as the building. Mr. Cook
asked if the proposed handles were brass to which Mr. Columbo replied in
the affirmative. Mr. Cook stated that the hardware should be black
wrought iron. Chairman Harris stated in response to Mr. Carr' s comments
that the muttons could be painted white and the trim dark brown or dark
green or do the whole inset piece black. Mr. Slam felt is was an
interesting option and less stark. Mr. Slam believed he could go along
with that option in order to make a more subdued appearance. Chairman
Harris added that the existing trim could be white but all new work
black.
Mr. Slam made a motion to accept the application as submitted with the
exception of the sign and with the exception that all new wood be
painted black and that all hardware be black wrought iron. Mr. Wolfson
seconded the motion. All were in favor, motion so carried.
Mr. Slam asked if the sign could be put on the brick wall. Mr. Wolfson
stated that the other signs on the property are not on the wall. Mr.
Columbo added that the sign would then be a target for vandalism. Mr.
Cook stated that he would not like the sign on the brick wall but that
he would have no problem with it on the wall of the building nor on the
post. Chairman Harris asked if the sign can come down one foot or so,
so as to be closer to the top height of Lindsey Woolsey' s sign. Mr.
• Columbo stated that it will be the same height because the embankment on
the inner side of the wall is different.
Mr. Wolfson made a motion to accept the application for the sign as
submitted utilizing proposed lettering as indicated in drawing #2 at the
location designated on the plan with the height to be consistent with
the Lindsey Woolsey sign sign with the method of hanging as that shown
in the drawings presented and as the Lindsey Woolsey sign. Mr. Slam
seconded the motion. All were in favor, motion so carried.
271 Lafayette Street
Chairman Harris reviewed the circumstances regarding 271 Lafayette
Street for the Commission. in September Mr. Abelson had received a
letter from the Building I'nspector's Department notifying him to stop
work on a porch on his building at 271 Lafayette Street because the
building permit he received for the roof did not cover work he was doing
to the porch. The Building Inspector' s Department reminded Mr. Abelson
that any work being done to his building must be approved by the
-Historical Commission. After notification by Mr. Abelson that the
railing to be installed on the porch would match the exact style,
dimension and material as the existing railing, Mr. Healy sent
correspondence to the Building Inspector's Department stating that a
Certificate of Appropriateness was not necessary. However, the railing
that is being installed is not an exact replacement and Mr. Abelson had
been asked to appear before the Commission.
January 13, 1988, Page 5
• Chairman Harris stated that the replacement ballastrade fs on the second
floor. Mr. Abelson stated that he had intended to reconstruct the
railing exactly as it was but was unable to locate the exact ballasters
after trying for one month. The ballastrades had been left uncompleted
for one month and finally he had to put something in. He did not know
that if he deviated that he was required to come before the Commission.
Chairman Harris stated that the ballastrades need to be custom made or
he would have to get them salvaged. Mr. Cook asked if the issue was the
ballastrades only. Mr. Slam stated the railing as well. Mr. Cook asked
if they were square or turned. Mr. Healy replied turned and that they
were basically interior spindles. Chairman Harris suggested that Mr.
Abelson try to lean on the contractor a little because the contractor is
required to obtain the appropriate permits. Chairman Harris also
suggested that Mr. Abelson try to find salvage. Mr. Slam stated that it
would be awful hard to find that many. Mr. Slam added that Mr. Abelson
should bring back a drawing of proposed changes and a sample of the
ballaster. Mr. Cook suggested having them turned. Several suggestions
for places for milling were then given to Mr. Abelson. Chairman Harris
suggested Mr. Abelson try to get a refund from the contractor, see if he
could get new ones made or maybe have them installed for free. Mr.
Healy will attempt to locate the accurate spindles. Mr. Slam felt
drawings would be needed because the railing does not go straight
across. Chairman Harris stated she would like the reproduction of the
ballastrades investigated. This item will be continued at the next
meeting.
•
011388
February 10, 1988, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
' February 10, 1988
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on
Wednesday evening, February 10, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green,
Salem, MA. Present were Vice Chairman Oedel, and Messrs. Zaharis, Carr,
Slam, Wolfson and Healy.
Mr. Oedel called the meeting to order and asked for approval of the
January 13 , 1988 minutes. Mr. Slam made a motion to approve the ,
minutes. Mr. Wolfson seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so
carried.
i
265-267 Lafayette Street Continuation
Mr. Oedel informed the applicants that there were five voting members
present and that a. minimum of four votes in favor would be required to
carry a motion for approval of their application. '.,
Mr. . Jaquith stated that he believed that the method of secondary means
of egress that had been proposed at thepreviousmeeting is the most _
appropriate, easiest and most direct with regard to what is visible from
a public way. It would be more complex to change.
There are four of the eight units that require a secondary means of
egress. The description of the work proposed is the construction of
secondary means of egress on rear of building as shown in plans, install
• railings on roof, extend plane of roof on rear ell, replace small
casement windows with 2 over 21s, extend siding over +1-11 and install
ballisters on front porch to match original.
In review, Mr. Carr stated that the building has a pure front but
several accretions had been added to the rear of the building, over the,
years. Some of the accretions appeared to once have had railing on top
but the railing has since been removed.
Mr. . Carr proposed that the ell which serves as a back door egress to the .
porch might be extended upward and that catwalks be added from three of
the units to this extension in order to simplify the manner of secondary
egress, to eliminate the need for decks and to accomplish providing a
secondary means of egress for three of the four units. Mr. Carr added
that the applicant ' s plans concentrate everything to one side.
,Mr. Jaquith replied that because of fire safety reasons the Building
Inspector will not accept egress in which one must exit the building,
reenter and then exit again. Mr. Slam added that this particular
elevation can only be seen from walking behind the house and not from
Willow Street.
Mr. Jaquith stated that regimented Victorian rail would make the
accretions look better than they do now. Except for the piece on top, _
all rail will be around where the brackets were found. Mr. Carr stated
• that Mr. . Jaquith's solution was convenient but that there was no
February 10, 1988, Page 2
historical precedent.
Mr. Slam stated that the rear of the building is "factory-looking" and
feels Mr. Jaquith' s solution is an improvement. He added that one would
have to walk behind the building to see it. Mr. Wolfson agreed with Mr.
Slam that the solution was an improvement and that the impact would be
minimal
Mr. Carr remarked that the change is inauthentic, not just as a
secondary means of egress but also as an addition of decks. The
building is on a corner lot with a pure front but has a hodgepodge in
back. Mr. Carr stated that the property is over-utilized and repeated
that Mr. Jaquith' s solution will only make it work better not make it
historically correct. Mr. Carr stated the result will be exterior decks
which the Historical Commisssion' s guidelines are against.
Mr. Oedel asked if there were any abutter comments. Mr. Healy replied
that there were none.
Mr. Frisch stated that his solution was not a case of wanting more
interior space and. that the building has eight units which will be kept
at eight units. He added that they want to comply with the law as well
as with the Commission but he felt that there may be no perfect
solutions to this problem. Mr. Frisch remarked that they had considered
building up the ell but that would require cutting into the mansade roof
as well as leaving an egress-enter-egress result that the Building
Inspector' s Department said was non-negotiable. He further stated that
they designed the structural changes to be brought more toward the
• interior so as to be less visible but that flat roofs would not provide
the safety and good looks that rails with decks would. Mr. Frisch also
stated that one could place a lounge chair on a flat roof whether there
was a rail or not, therefore, he would prefer the safety of the railing.
He felt that the solution may not be perfect but it would make the
building look less like a barn.
Mr. Carr maintained that it was less intrusive to add an extension
upward onto the building than to use decks which will encourage more
activity. Mr. Frisch felt it would not necessarily result in more
activity to which Mr. Carr replied if so, they should simply construct
catwalks then. Mr. Jaquith answered that railing would look better and
be more consistent.
Mr. Slam stated that he would like to move the question. Mr. Carr
seconded. Mr. Oedel presented the application. Mr. Zaharis asked if
the application proposed any work to the front of the building. Mr.
Carr replied none, only what can be seen protruding from the side. Mr.
Jaquith stated that only ballasters that are missing from the front
entrance will be added.
Mr. Slam made a motion to accept the application as presented. Mr.
Wolfson seconded the motion. Messrs. Oedel, Wolfson, Zaharis and Slam
voted in favor. Mr. Carr voted in opposition. The motion was carried.
•
February 10, 1988, Page 3
There being no further business, Mr. Carr made a motion to adjourn. Mr. .
Slam seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so carried.
Respectfullyubmitted,
Jane Guy
Cler of the Co mission
JHISCOM2/021088
March 2, 1988, Page I
• SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
March 2, 1988
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on
Wednesday evening, March 2, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem,
MA. Present were Chairman Harris and Messrs. Slam, Carr, Zaharis ,
Wolfson, Cook and Healy.
Chairman Harris called the meeting to order and asked for approval of
the February 10, 1988 minutes. Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the
minutes. Mr. Zaharis seconded the motion, all were in favor, motion so
carried.
Public Hearings
15 River Street
Ms. Judith Lavers of MacDonald and Lavers , Inc. presented an application
for work to be done on their property at 15 River Street. The work to
be done, as described by Chairman Harris, includes the removal of
aluminum siding, and the repair or replacement of existing wood
clapboards. Any new clapboards will be consistent with old in terms of
exposure with the smooth side to the weather. If all new is to be
installed it will be with 4" to the weather. The work also includes a
new asphalt roof with two gable dormers which will have cedar clapboard
• siding and 6 over 6 single pane windows with storms. Construction will
also include new wood fascia, ridge boards on the lower two ridges of
the roof, and the addition of detail over the front entrance as shown in
the plans. The door is to be replaced with a 36" six panel wood Brosco
M100 door and new trim will be installed around the door.
Mr. Slam asked the color of the existing roof. Ms. Lavers stated the
color is greenish and the new roof will be Bird Moire Black or
equivalent. Ms. Lavers added that when the aluminum siding is removed,
if what remains is restorable, they wilt paint the clapboards . if not
restorable , stain will be used. If stain is used, the body color will
be with Sears Desert Tan #4904, the trim color will be with Sears
Mission White #4901 and the doors will be with Benjamin Moore Tarrytown
Green #HC-134. If paint is used, the body color wilt be with Benjamin
Moore Alexandria Beige #HC-77, the trim color will be with Benjamin
Moore Putnam Ivory #HC-39 and the doors will be with Benjamin Moore
Tarrytown Green #HC-134. The ridgeboards are to be painted the trim
color. Mr. Carr stated that the house is currently lemon yellow.
Mr. Carr suggested that sidelights be added to the doorway in order to
. light the interior hall. He stated that since the door isnot original
and there are precidents on the street that tights would dress it up.
Chairman Harris replied that sidelights may not have been original to
the house, but when the siding is stripped, there might be evidence of
lights.
• Chairman Harris asked for comments from the public.
r\
March 2, 1988, Page 2
• Ms. Laurie Gadala of 15i River Street stated that her house is directly
in back of the MacDonald and Lavers , Inc. property and she recommends
that the use of gutters be considered. Ms. Lavers stated that there are
gutters on part of the house but not on the front of the house. Mr.
Carr suggested that the option for wood gutters be given to the
applicant in the motion.
Ms. Margaret Hill of 13 River Street stated that there is very little
parking area between her house and that of MacDonald and Lavers, Inc.
resulting in exhaust fumes from the cars entering her kitchen. Chairman
Harris replied that the problem of parking does not come under the
jurisdiction of the Historic Commission but should the applicant need to
go before the Planning Board, Ms. Hill's comments could be addressed
there.
Ms. Ann Knight of 11 River street asked if dormer windows were
appropriate for a Georgian house, adding that usually there are three
with the center dormer being different. Mr. Carr replied that the
Historic Commission has seen them many ways and that there is a
precident for many types.
Chairman Harris questioned if the dormers should be centered over the
windows or with the roof. Mr. Slam prefers them centered to the windows
as proposed. Chairman Harris stated that they are more authentic
centered with the roof.
• Mr. Zaharis made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr.
Carr seconded the motion. Mr. Carr asked if the motion could be amended
to allow the option to install wooden gutters and downspouts. Mr.
Zaharis amended the motion as proposed by Mr. Carr. Mr. Cook seconded
the amendment. The amendment was voted upon, all were in favor and the
amendment was so carried. The motion was voted upon, all were in favor
and the motion was so carried.
Mr. Carr suggested that the stain be clarified as a solid body stain on
the Certificate of Appropriateness.
132 Essex Street
The Essex Institute, represented by architect Staley McDermet, presented
an application to reconstruct the detail and install a new roof on the
Derby—Beebe summer house at 132 Essex Street. Mr. McDermott gave a
brief history of the summer house and explained that, due to a fire in
1885 and neglect, the house has suffered a loss of details. With
research which includes surviving receipts for work done to the house,
artist ' s drawings and examples of other know summer—houses designed by
McIntire, Mr. McDermet has designed plans for the reconstruction of some
of the missing detail.
Mr. McDermet stated that due to the elevation of the landscaping, the
roof can hardly be seen. They intend to retain the pitch and then cover
• it with a copper roof covering in order to protect the structure and the
new work.
March 2, 1988, Page 3
• Mr. Slam asked for examples of the evidence that was found that the
proposed work is based upon. Mr. McDermet produced some of the
surviving receipts which showed that ballastrades had been purchased by
the owner in 1796. Mr. McDermet stated that when something was done on
the Derby Mansion, it was usually done on the summer house as well.
There was also a copy of a bill from McIntire to Derby dated 1800 for 8
vases to which Mr. McDermet felt it was highly unlikely that they would
be put on the roof without a ballastrade. Mr. McDermet further added
that when some of the roofing was torn up to examine the sheeting
boards, outlines were visible. With regard to evidence for blinds, 1
hand—wrought morticed hinge was found. Mr. McDermet stated that because
so much repair and renovations had taken place, it is hard to tell what
is original and what had been added.
Chairman Harris asked if the existing door will be changed. Mr.
McDermet replied in the negative. Chairman Harris asked if the fencing
is existing. Mr. McDermet replied that it did not exist now, but
because there is 8 to 10 inches of miserable foundation with a concrete
step showing, they intend to build up the area, make a pediment and
install a Chipendale fence. They are not asking for approval of the
fence at this time.
Mr. Carr made a motion to accept the application as presented. Mr. Cook
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion was so carried.
Other Business
Chairman Harris read a letter that was sent to her from Maureen Johnson,
the Director of the Salem Partnership, requesting support from the
- Commission in their effort to expand the National Park Service in Salem.
Mr. Carr made a motion for the Historical Commission to send a letter
which will enthusiastically endorse their efforts , and will remind them
that if their long range plans involve construction in an historic
district, approval will be required by the Historic Commission and
therefore it is suggested that they come before the Commission early to
allow the Commission to work with them. Mr. Slam seconded the motion,
all were in favor and the motion was so carried.
Mr. Slam made a motion that upon determining that the National Park is
part of an historic district , a letter be sent to Cynthia Pollack to
remind the National Park Service that the Historic Commission must
review plans for future development of the park. Mr. Wolfson seconded
the motion, all were in favor and the motion was so carried. Mr. Slam
also suggested that Chairman Harris contact Ms. Pollack shortly after
the letter is sent. Chairman Harris so agreed.
Mr. Carr stated that it appears that the owners of 16 Kosciusko Street
are not in compliance with there Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr.
• Carr believes that they have used four or five different ballasters and
have omitted the painting in the work on their porch. Mr. Healy will
look into the matter.
March 2, 1988, Page 4
• There being no further business, Mr. Zaharis made a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Carr seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion was so
carried.
The next meeting will be April 6, 1988.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Guy
C1er of the Commission
JHisCom2/030288
•
•
April 6, 1988, Page 1
• SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
April 6, 1988
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday
evening, April 6, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present
were Chairman Harris and Messrs. Oedel, Carr, Zaharis, Slam, Cook and
Healy.
Chairman Harris called the meeting to order and asked for approval of the
March 2, 1988 minutes. Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the minutes. Mr.
Oedel seconded the motion, all were in favor, and the motion was so
carried.
Public Hearings
315 Essex Street
Due to a possible conflict of interest involving business dealings with the
applicant, Mr. Zaharis excused himself from participating in the discussion
of this public hearing and abstained from voting.
Mr. Robert S. Ginsburg presented an application for the installation of a
sign at 315 Essex Street. The sign will be for an ice cream parlor
adjacent to the photography studio. A sketch of the sign and pictures of
the building were passed for review by the Commission. The sign is to be
• 30" by 48" with lettering of 5" and 6" in height. The bottom of the sign
will be 10 feet above grade, perpendicular to the building. The background
of the sign will be carmen red, the lettering and border will be in 22
karat gold leaf, the ice cream cone will be dark brown and strawberry and
will have an off-white outline area.
Mr. Slam asked if the applicant had gone before the Board of Appeal. Mr.
Ginsburg stated that a variance has been granted. Mr. Carr asked if the
variance was recent. Mr. Ginsburg replied that it had been granted a
variance several years ago and was zoned separately. Mr. Ginsburg added
that a previous use had been a color lab which had the same size sign. The
last use of the space was a quilting shop. Mr. Carr felt the Commission
must take into consideration that this is a non-conforming use in a
residential neighborhood and that changing to a restaurant use may require
a new variance. Mr. Carr stated that a flush sign would minimize the
non-conforming use and that the Commission should encourage conformity.
Mr. Cook questioned if the Commission's position should be with
consideration of zoning. Mr. Oedel replied that the Commission can
consider zoning when its a non-conforming use.
Chairman Harris asked for comments from the public, to which there were
none.
Mr. Carr stated that he would prefer a sign in the panel above the windows.
A perpendicular sign is, in effect, 2 signs and more visually intrusive.
• Chairman Harris stated we should consider what is appropriate for the
Commission and what is appropriate for the area.
April 6, 1988, Page 2
• Mr. Cook stated that the area is heavily residential. There are no
intrusive signs in the area. Mr. Ginsburg presented several pictures of
perpendicular signs that are located in Salem. The Commission reviewed
only those signs that are located within this same district. Mr. Carr
stated that all of the pictures are for signs that were pre-existing. Mr.
Ginsburg stated that his proposed sign is pre-existing as well with only a
change in the lettering. Mr. Carr added that 4 of the 5 or 6 signs are
sitting in their own yards and not flush on the street. He further added
that all changes should be for appropriateness and not for continuance of
past use.
Mr. Carr made a motion to deny the application. There was no second.
Chairman Harris stated that she was more bothered by the size, particularly
the four foot projection from the side of the building. Chairman Harris
suggested that the name of the shop be placed on the panel above the
windows and perhaps allow a "cone" to project from the store front.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Carr
seconded the motion. Mr. Slam voted in favor. Chairman Harris and Messrs.
Carr,. Oedel, and Cook voted in opposition. The motion did not carry.
Mr. Carr made a motion to continue the application until the next meeting.
Mr. Oedel seconded the motion, all were in favor, and the motion so
carried.
• 132 Essex Street
The Essex Institute presented an application for the erection of three new
fences on their property at 132 Essex Street. Ms. Allison Cornish
represented the Essex Institute. One fence is to be erected on the east
boundary of the Gardner-Pingree House, one on the west boundary of the
Gardner-Pingree House, and one around the Derby-Beebe Summer-house. Ms.
Cornish presented a plot plan of the house and showed where each of the
fences would be erected. Also presented was a sample of the wood cap for
the fence. The height of the fence will be 4 feet. The fence will have
cedar posts. The cap will go across the top. Ms. Cornish stated that the
only area where the fence may look awkward is where it will butt up to the
cast iron fence. The cast iron fence is 4' with 52' posts. Mr. Carr
stated that the cast iron fence is on an elevation when one is standing on
the sidewalk outside the fence. Mr. Carr felt the awkwardness would not be
simply with the wood meeting the metal but more so a very grand metal
meeting plain wood. Mr. Carr suggested putting in a bush to soften the
look. Ms. Cornish stated that there was some landscaping already there and
added that since plans for the Crownshield-Bentley are undecided, they
don't want to change landscaping as yet. Mr. Slam felt it would look
slightly jarring if there was no landscaping. Chairman Harris stated that
the Commission was getting into an issue of aesthetics more than what is
historically appropriate.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr.
. Zaharis seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion was so
carried.
April 6, 1988, Page 3
• 46 Broad Street
Mr. James Currier presented an application to remove a slate roof and
install Bird, Inc. Mark 80 roofing shingles in Ascot Grey at his home at 46
Broad Street. Mr. Currier stated that the slate cannot be repaired and
presented an estimate by J. B. Kidney & Co. , Inc. whose letter stated that
the slate roof showed signs of severe deterioration and to renew with good
quality slate would cost approximately $12,000-15,000. The roofing
company's suggestion was to secure pricing for renewing the roof with
asphalt shingles. Mr. Currier presented samples of the asphalt shingles.
Mr. Slam stated that he did not have a problem with the replacement of
slate with asphalt, but would prefer the Pepper Black rather than the
greenish.
Mr. Slam made a motion to approve the application as submitted,
substituting Ascot Grey with Pepper Black. Mr. Zaharis seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion was so carried.
15 River Street
MacDonald & Lavers, Inc. presented an application to open three existing
windows that had been covered over with vinyl siding. The applicant
requested that the application be modified to delete the first floor window
to the right of the back door and change the back door to one which would
allow light to enter. The remainder of the application describes the
• windows to be replaced including the window on the first floor at the rear
entry measuring 16" by 56" which would not have a storm window. The second
floor window at the rear corner of the kitchen which faces the rear of the
property would be a wood six over six measuring 30" by 44", single glaze
with a combination screen and storm window to match the existing windows in
the house. Finally, on the third floor at the rear of the building the
window which also faces the rear of the property would be a wood six over
six double hung measuring 30" by 44", single glazed with a combination
screen and storm window to match the existing windows in the house. All
three windows will have trim to match existing.
Mr. Cook stated that he would like to see the door more replicated. Mr.
Carr replied that since it is a back door, he would not like to see the
work held up.
Chairman Harris stated that she would like to see the bathroom window taken
out.
Chairman Harris asked if anyone from the public would like to speak.
Attorney John Vallis representing Lorraine J. Gadala of 15� River Street
voiced a strong objection for reasons addressed in a letter that he
presented. In his letter, Atty. Vallis stated that a portion of the house
is within three feet of interior lot lines of Ms. Gadala' s house and that
Section 303 .2 of the State Building Code states "exterior walls of Type 4
• frame construction shall not have openings of any type when located three
(3) feet or less from interior lot lines" and therefore no windows may be
placed in the rear wall of 15 River Street. Atty. Vallis also noted Ms.
April 6, 1988, Page 4
• Gadala' s concerns of diminished privacy, increased noise and the appearance
of the windows from Andover Street. Atty. Vallis presented a copy of the
State Building Code Commission 303.0 Restrictions Outside Fire Limits.
Also presented by Atty. Vallis was a petition from Lorraine J. Gadala of
15; River Street, Mary J. Pizzo of 14 River Street, Anthony Pizzo of 14
River Street, Alice McLaughlin of 16 River Street and Margaret L. Hill of
13 River Street hereby disapproving of the addition of windows on the rear
of the house at 15 River Street for reasons of an increase in noise level
and additional fire hazard.
Mr. Carr stated that the Commission should approve on historic
appropriateness and that it would be the responsibility of other agencies
to handle the issues addressed in the letter since those issues are out of
the Commission's jurisdiction. Mr. Vallis stated that the window on the
second floor is less than six feet from the interior lot line thereby
requiring that the windows be of fire resistance rated construction, which
is usually a "chickenwire" mesh window, and thus, would not be historically
appropriate.
Mr. Carr asked if Atty. Vallis considered the work to be new construction
to which Atty. Vallis replied in the affirmative. Mr. Carr reminded the
Commission that a precident had been set by work done at property owned by
Jean Lovely in which the Commission had approved the work as historically
appropriate and left the questions of legalities for the appropriate
authorities to handle.
• Mr. Cook felt that the petition was not pertinent because, geographically,
those signing would be unaffected with the exception of Ms. Gadala. Mr.
Vallis replied that the windows can be seen from Andover Street.
Chairman Harris stated that noise and fire does not come under the
Commissions ' s jurisdiction. The Commission could either do nothing until
the Building Inspector's department made a determination or vote on
appropriateness and the Building Inspector could get involved afterward.
Mr. Slam stated the a motion should be made on the merits of the
application.
Mr. Cook made a motion to accept the application as presented with the
proviso that the first floor window to the right of the back door be
deleted, that the back door be a Brosco Wood Door M108 and that the
bathroom window be deleted allowing the applicant to return with a new
proposal for such window. The motion was made based upon historically
appropriate and existing period elements. Mr. Slam seconded the motion.
I
Mr. Oedel stated that the purview of the Commission is to look at inputs of
the people in the neighborhood whether positive or negative. Mr. Oedel
felt that most of the people who signed the petition are in the front of
the house thereby lessoning the significance of the petition. However, a
direct abutter, Ms. Gadala, in the back is very significant. Mr. Oedel
sees a lot of precedent set in that location with that amount of density.
Mr. Oedel feels the windows are historically appropriate.
• Chairman Harris stated that she was uncomfortable with the building issues.
April 6, 1988, Page 5
• Mr. Carr felt the Commission should not deny what was original to the
building based on privacy issues which are not covered by the Commission.
Mr. Carr also felt if the Commission were to go to the Building Inspector' s
Department before voting, the applicant would have to come back before the
Commission and thus the work would be delayed. If we were to approve the
work, she could start right away.
The applicant stated that she would elect not to put in the windows if the
"chickenwire" mesh was required.
The motion was voted upon. Messrs. Carr, Cook, Zaharis, Slam and Oedel
voted in favor. Chairman Harris voted in opposition. The motion was
carried.
Mr. Carr made a motion to continue the issue of the bathroom window
redesign until the next meeting. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion, all were
in favor and the motion so carried.
Chairman Harris voiced concern over the work being done to the outside of
the house and that she did not feel it was what the Commission had approved
at the previous meeting.
Mr. Carr stated that thin vertical strapping is being put up and it appears
that sheathing and then clapboards will then be put on. Mr. Carr felt that
since the rot has not been fixed, this form of repair will expedite further
rot and undermine the historic value of the house. Mr. Carr added that
• building up the over the existing clapboards amounts to an inappropriate
short cut.
The applicant stated that she was under the impression that the outcome is
what is approved, not how the outcome is obtained.
Mr. Carr stated that the walls will not hold up with that method. Mr. Cook
asked if the applicant was putting 1" strapping over the existing
clapboards and then new clapboards over the strapping. The applicant
replied in the affirmative. Mr. Cook was in agreement with Mr. Carr that
this method would not hold. Mr. Carr suggested that the existing
clapboards be removed and plywood be placed on first. The applicant
strongly opposed this suggestion due to the cost to do so.
Mr. Oedel read from the previous meeting's minutes which stated that the
application and motion called for ". . .removal of aluminum siding, and the
repair or replacement of existing wood clapboards. . . .". That motion did
not allow for such replacement over the existing clapboards and that
strapping was not approved.
Mr. Carr informed the applicant that the Commission could issue a Cease and
Desist Order if necessary. Mr. Carr also stated that the applicant could
apply for a Certificate of Hardship. Mr. Oedel added that it may be less
expensive to remove the existing clapboards, put up. plywood and then the
new clapboards than to put up strapping and then attempt to put on new
. clapboards. Mr. Oedel also felt that a hardship cannot be considered if it
is a self-made hardship due to a mistake.
April 6, 1988, Page 6
• Mr. Carr stated that at the next meeting, which would be in May, the
applicant could apply for a Certificate of Hardship, and even then it would
not necessarily be a clear case of hardship. Mr. Oedel stated that if the
work is done as was approved at the last meeting she would have no need to
come back before the Commission leaving the applicant with the choice of
repairing the old clapboards or removing them and replacing them with new
clapboards. Mr. Healy agreed .that the siding should be stripped and
plywood put up followed by the new clapboards as was previously approved so
that the applicant need not reapply. -
14 Flint Street
Thomas and Susan Durkin presented an application for paint colors, the
replacement of front doors and the replacement of railings at their home at
14 Flint Street. The .Durkins presented paint colors of gloss white for the
trim, Puritan Stone for the body, Rockwell Red for the doors, black for the
shutters, and Gloucester Sage for the brick foundation. The door is to be
replaced with a Brosco four panel, two windowpane fir door. The existing
iron rails on the front steps are to be replaced with wood rails that will
match those currently on the front door landing. Also presented were
photographs of the existing front door and steps and a photograph of
similiar work done by the contractor who will do their work. A sketch of
the front steps with the dimensions of the existing and proposed railings
was also presented.
Mr. Carr stated that his only reservation was with the bright gloss white
adding that he preferred the Lancaster white. Mr. Oedel suggested that
they could be allowed to paint the trim with the gloss white and if they
don' t like it can paint over with the Lancaster white.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the
recommendation that the trim be Lancaster White instead of gloss white with
further recommendation to get a door equal or superior to the Brosco 4
panel doorwithglass. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion, all were in favor
and the motion so carried.
54 Turner Street
The House of Seven Gables presented an application for the replacement of
awnings at 54 Turner Street. Mr. Ed Luzinski, the superintendant of the
property was in representation. The application calls for the replacement
of a worn awning at the entrance to the admission building with a new one
made of fire resistant material. The previous awning was dark brown and is
now faded. Mr. Luzinski presented a sample of the awning proposed. The
color green was chosen to blend with both the dark brown building to which
it is attached and the shrubbery surrounding it. Mr. Luzinski stated that
the color will not bleach out.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr.
Zaharis seconded the motion.
• Chairman Harris asked how the awning edge will be finished. Mr. Luzinski
replied that it will not be scallopped as is existing but will be straight
edge. There will be no other color and no lettering.
April 6, 1988
Page 7
• The motion was voted upon, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
268 Lafayette Street
Ms. Eleanor Ledger presented an application for the installation of
garage doors at her home at 268 Lafayette Street. Mr. Healy stated that
Mrs. Leger is requesting approval for the replacement of the existing
swinging garage. doors with a new Sears overhead wooden garage door.
This work is part of a project being funded through the Salem Planning
home improvement program. Mr. Healy added that this is a 1920' s garage
that is minimally visible from the street.
Mrs. Leger was represented by Mr. James Armstrong of the Salem Planning
Department. Mr. Armstrong stated that the applicant is 84 years old and
cannot open or close the existing doors. To rebuild as existing would
cost approximatley $1875.00. The Sears overhead door will cost $759.00.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr.
Cook seconded the motion.
Mr. Carr asked if Mr. Healy had a photograph showing the distance from
the garage to the house to which Mr. Healy replied in the negative. Mr.
Carr felt that there was not enough information to make a determination.
Mr. Oedel asked how someone qualifies for the home improvement program.
• Mr. Healy answered that qualification is determined by income.
Mr. Carr questioned whether a piece of the door could be cut off and
spliced into the new wood to allow the existing doors to open freely.
Mr. Oedel stated that he could not approve this application for
appropriateness and that he felt it was a case of hardship.
Chairman Harris felt that the Commission should continue the hearing
until the next meeting andthatthe application be for hardship rather
than for appropriateness.
Mr. Cook withdrew his second. Mr. Zaharis withdrew his motion. Mr.
Carr made a motion to continue the hearing until the next meeting due to
lack of information and suggested that the application be changed to
hardship. Mr. Zaharis seconded the motion. All were in favor and the
motion was so carried.
13 Cambridge Street
Ms. Evelyn Williams presented an application the painting of her house
at 13 Cambridge Street. The body of the house will be Saltbox Gray, the
trim white and the door Grenadier Red.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to approve the application as submitted with
• the suggestion that the brightness of the red be subdoed. Chairman
Harris did not feel that the proposed dark colors are appropriate for
this house.
April 6, 1988
Page 8
• Mr. Cook seconded the motion and stated that he would rather approve a
motion that had specific recommendations. The motion was voted upon.
Mr. Zaharis and Mr. Cook voted in favor. Chairman Harris and Messrs.
Carr and Slam voted in opposition. The motion did not carry.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the
exception that the body be painted with one of the following options -
Ballroom Tan, Herb Garden Green, Bayberry, Wainscot Olive, Pewter,
Cooper Shop Beige, Fairfield, Veranda Gray, or Gallery Stripe Blue - and
a recommendation that the door be darkened by the addition of black.
Mr. Slam seconded the motion. The motion was voted upon. Chairman
Harris and Messrs. Carr and Slam voted in favor. Messrs. Cook and
Zaharis voted in opposition. The motion was carried.
Mr. Cook stated that he would like to give the owner the perogative to
paint his house with his own colors.
Other Business
23-25 Eden Street
Mr. J. Robert Daffe presented an application for the demolition of the
rear garage at his house at 23-25 Eden Street due to the structure' s
lack of structural integrity. Pictures of the all metal garage were
presented to the Commission.
• Mr. Carr made a motion to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance. Mr.
Oedel seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Carr stated that, as shown in the minutes of February 10, 1988, some
members of the Commission felt that the rear decks of 265-267 Lafayette
Street would be minimally visible a public way and that he felt they
would be indeed visible from the street. Mr. Carr felt that he may be
able to move to reconsider. Mr. Slam stated that he did not approve the
application solely on the basis that it was minimally visible from the
street. Chairman Harris stated the same issue arose for Cambridge
Street. Mr. Oedel added that no abutters had shown up to speak against
either of those applications.
There being no further business, Mr. Oedel made a motion to adjourn the
meeting. Mr. Zaharis seconded the motion, all were in favor and the
motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission
• JHisCom2/040688/0406pt2
April 20, 1988, Page 1
• SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
April 20, 1988
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on
Wednesday evening, April 20, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green,
Salem, MA. Present were Chairman Harris and Messrs. Oedel, Carr, Slam,
Cook, Geary, Wolfson and Healy.
Chairman Harris called the meeting to order and welcomed Mr. Dan Geary
as Che newest member of the Historical Commission, replacing Mr. David
Clarke.
Chairman Harris asked for approval of the April 6, 1988 minutes. Mr.
Carr made a motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Oedel seconded the
motion, all were in favor, and the motion was so carried.
Public Hearings
128-130 Federal Street
Deborah Heaton presented an application to replace mixed aluminum and
copper gutters with all aluminum at her property at 128-130 Federal
Street. Pictures of the 6 unit building were passed for review by the
Commission. Chairman Harris asked which gutters were aluminum and which
were copper to which the applicant replied that the front gutters are
copper and the back gutters are aluminum. The applicant proposes to
leave the existing gutters in the back and replace those in front.
Mr. Carr believes that the guidelines state that the Commission should
not encourage the use of aluminum gutters and asked that the guidelines
be reviewed.
Mr. Slam questioned if copper are still manufactured. Mr. Oedel replied
in the affirmative and added that due to acid rain, wood is better.
Mr. Carr explained to the applicant that the guidelines for gutters are
to replace with the existing material or with wood. The applicant
stated that maintenance on wood gutters would be difficult due to the
height of the house. The house is white and the gutters will be painted
white. The applicant added that she wants to match what is in the back.
Chairman Harris read from the guidelines, ". . .can be important
architectural feature. . .if part of molding and part of architectural
element. . .". Chairman Harris feels that the element is less important
in this case.
Mr. Carr stated that the Commission should not "pick and choose" and
that there must be a set guideline of "wood or existing" across the
board as has been done in the past.
• Mr. Slam asked if the visual difference between wood and aluminum is
less than the visual difference between aluminum and copper. Mr. Healy
stated that copper gutters do not get painted.
April 20, 1988, Page 2
Mr. Carr stated that the discussion should be for what is appropriate.
• Mr. Cook stated that he was inclined to agree with Mr. Carr adding that
there is a very strong view of the building.
Mr. Slam asked if wood would have a different visual impact on the
eaveline. Mr. Healy replied that it probably would. Chairman Harris
agreed with Mr. Healy and stated that wood could change the appearance
but added that aluminum, though, was definately not original to the
building.
Mr. Carr stated that if the Commission changes the policy in this case,
it should change the policy across the Board and not "pick and choose".
Mr. Slam stated that he did not recall any other s-ituation where copper
was the original material. Mr. Carr stated that the past minutes could
be checked.
Mr. Oedel stated that we should consider what will take place in the
futere and that he did not feel that too many applications will be
coming in with copper gutters. Mr. Oedel felt the Commission should
consider the question of whether to allow a particular aluminum gutter -
specifically aluminum only and not vinyl. Mr. Cook questioned as to why
vinyl would be ruled out and not aluminum, to which Mr. Oedel replied
that aluminum is stronger that vinyl. ,
Chairman Harris stated any vote should be delayed until it is further
researched and discussed.
• The applicant stated that aluminum will help preserve the house due to
the ease of maintenance stating that wooden gutters require yearly
cleaning which will be difficult on a three story house. Mr. Slam
stated that he has wooden gutters on his home and that he does not need
to clean them each year and added that the only difference is that
wooden require more painting. Mr. Oedel stated that he is currently
adding wooden gutters to his home, not particularly for looks, but
because they last longer.
Mr. Carr stated that the downspout of aluminum is more flimsy. Mr. Carr
asked the applicant if any cost comparisons were made. The applicant
replied that cost comparisons wre made between copper and aluminum, not
between wood and aluminum.
Mr. Carr made a motion to defer acting on the application until the next
meeting, to have the clerk view the applications submitted over the last
two years to see if a similar situation occured, and to have Mr. Healy
help the applicant obtain estimates. This will allow the Commission
time to consider a change in policy and its ramifications. Mr. Oedel
seconded the motion, all were in favor, and the motion was so carried.
One Pickering Street
John and Linda Locke presented an application for the reconstruction of
• a brick wall at their home on One Pickering Street. The application
proposes the removal of approximately 20' of existing brick wall that is
crumbling and replace with matching brick. It also calls for the
r
April 20, 1988, Page 3
removal of a stockade fence and replacement with brick wall of exactly
• the same height and width of the original (6' x 12") , also using
matching brick such that repaired and reconstructed portions smoothly
match themselves and other sections of the brick wall. This extension
will be on the original footings, which still remain.
Sally Pickering of 18 Broad Street stated that she had no problem with
the application.
Mr. Alfred P. Putnam of 27 Broad Street asked if anything will be
changed on the Warren Street, Pickering Street or Broad Street sides.
Chairman Harris replied that no changes will be made except for this
portion on the side lot line.
Mr. James Lynch of 5 Warren Street, of whose property is seperated by
the wall stated that he approved the application.
Mr. Carr made a motion to enthusiastically approve the application as
submitted. Mr. Oedel offered a friendly amendment to guarantee that
mortar joints match existing throughout and that the color of the brick
and the color of the mortar match the existing. Mr. Carr stated that it
is already included in the motion because the application proposes to
match the existing. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion, all were in favor
and the motion was so carried.
47 Washington Sq. North
• Mr. James Filaretos presented an application for the replacement of
windows, clapboards, and shutters with those of wood and to shorten the
kitchen window at his home at 47 Washington Sq. North. Mr. Gary Rosnick
represented Mr. Filaretos. Mr. Filaretos owns the left half of this
duplex house. The applicant proposes to replace all the windows with J.
B. Sash tru-grid system thermopane windows with snap in muttons inside
and permanently applied muttons on the outside. The applicant also
proposes to delete the two side windows and replace the center window
with a 3' x 3 ' double hung window. The clapboards will be replaced as
necessary with the same exposure and color as existing. Chairman Harris
passed pictures of the house for the Commission to review.
Mr. & Mrs. Ralph County of 49 Washington Sq. North, the owners of the
right side of the house, stated that they would not object unless storms
are added to the house.
Mr. Cook questioned if only one half of the building was being restored
to which Mr. Rosnick replied in the affirmative adding that he will meet
with the Countys to discuss paint colors. ,
Chairman Harris asked if all the shutters are to be replaced. Mr.
Rosnick replied that they are to be repaired and only replaced as
necessary. Mr. Carr asked if the existing shutters are the "old wide
slat" type to which Mr. Rosnick replied in the affirmative. Mr. Carr
• asked if the shutters that are to be replaced, will be replaced with the
new modern type where the slats are closer. Mr. Rosnick replied in the
negative adding that , if necessary, they will be custom made or rebuilt.
April 20, 1988, Page 4
Mr. Cook asked if these were condominiums. Mr. Rosnick replied in the -
• negative. Mrs. County stated that the building will eventually be a two
unit condo. Mr. Carr stated that the buidling becoming condominiums can.
not affect the Commission' s decision. Chairman Harris stated that the
Commission can only deal with one side for this application. Mr. Cook
was concerned about the visual effect of splitting the house.
Mr. Slam asked if the windows will be 6 over 6 to which Mr. Rosnick
replied in the affirmative. Mr. Rosnick stated that the applicant
intends to put cabinets underneath the kitchen window and would like to
have a window put in that will fit in above them. Chairman Harris
stated that the Commission will require a drawing with actual
measurements. Chairman Harris added that the applicant, after
determining what size window will fit, will have to see if that size
window is made. Chairman Harris stated that the windows should not be
considered tonight.
Mr. Slam stated that clapboards and shutters are not applicable because
they are for repair.
Mr. Carr stated that there could be a difference in shutters if they all
can' t be rebuilt and that the use of two different sets would be less
attractive than all new. Mr. Carr also stated that replacement windows
were normally approved with only intregal muttons up until 1z years ago
when a particular company produced snap—ins which were deemed
acceptable. Mr. Carr questioned if J. B. Sash is the company that
produces such windows. Mr. Healy replied in the affirmative. Chairman
. Harris stated that they were deemed acceptable because they were more
energy efficient and the Commission had to consider allowances for
energy efficiency developments and requirements.
Mr. Carr asked if the applicant would be putting up storm windows. Mr.
Rosnick replied that if necessary he would to match the other side of
the house so as not to have the house look foolish. Mr. Cook questioned
why Mr. Rosnick felt the difference in storms would look foolish but not
the differences in the other renovations being done to only the
applicant ' s side of the house. Mr. Rosnick replied that Mr. Filaretos 's
side of the house is actually not as upgraded as the County' s side and
that their renovations will actually be upgrading to match the County' s
side.
Mrs. County asked if they could change the color of the house since all
the surrounding houses are white with black shutters as theirs is.
Chairman Harris replied that the County' s would have to come before the
Commission with their own application.
Mr. Carr stated that the ideal would be no aluminum storms but rather
windows that look like the original 6 over 6's. Mr. Carr asked the
County' s if that was in the foreseable future to which the County' s
replied in the negative.
Chairman Harris stated that she would prefer to see the windows repaired
• and not replaced. Mr. Rosnick stated that he would not mind looking
into it. Mr. Healy stated that repair would be less expensive.' Mr.
f
April 20 1988 Page 5
P � g
• Rosnick stated that he will evaluate the windows and see if they can be
repaired. If they can't, he will come to the May 11 meeting. Mr. Slam
questioned if he would have to either repair all or replace all. Mr.
Geary asked if one side were all repaired could another side be all
replaced. Mr. Carr replied, yes , that only each side' s windows would
need to be consistant.
Mr. Carr made a motion to replace the clapboards as necessary, repair
existing shutters and, if necessary to replace, that the new shutters
must match all existing in size, slat size and framing, etc. , and to
install new wooden gutters.
Mr. County stated that the downspouts are aluminum and questioned if
they would need to be replaced with wooden. Mr. Carr stated that the
Commission' s jurisdiction is with regard to changes only, and that all
changes must be for the better. The downspouts can be replaced with
what is existing or changed to those which are more historically
appropriate. Mr. Rosnick stated that the applicant's downspouts are
currently an octagon shaped aluminum and that they may wish to match
them with the other side 's hexagon shaped aluminum. Mr. Rosnick stated
that he would be willing to discuss the downspouts at the next meeting.
Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion was so
carried.
Mr. Rosnick stated that the applicant will submit a new application for
• downspouts, paint, windows and the kitchen window.
Mr. Carr suggested a more rectangular kitchen window. - Mr. Rosnick
stated that he will try to keep some width. Chairman Harris stated that
the goal should be higher than wider. Mr. Rosnick stated that he would
want it to look right inside the kitchen as well. Mr. Carr suggested
the use of splashboard. Mr. Oedel stated that the ideal is to put in a
full size window.
At this time Chairman Harris closed the public hearings.
Other Business
268 Lafayette Street - continuation -
Ms. Eleanor Ledger presented an application for a Certificate of
Hardship for the installation of an overhead wooden Sears garage door
with an electric motor for her one car garage at 268 Lafayette Street.
Chairman Harris stated that the applicant is 84 years old and has
qualified for a deferred loan from the City by making less than $13,600.
Chairman Harris passed pictures showing the garage's visibility. Mr.
Healy stated that there is approximately ten feet of visibility.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr.
• Cook seconded the motion.
April 20, 1988, Page 6
Mr. James Armstrong, representing the applicant, stated that the Sears
• door is $759.00 while the cost to duplicate the existing would be
$1875.00. Mr. Healy stated that an electric door opener is
approximately $200.00. Mr. Healy added that the City will not fund the
duplication of the existing door because Mrs. Leger 's renovations have
already gone over budget.
The motion was voted upon, all were in favor and the motion was so
carried.
15 River Street — Continuation
The applicant, McDonald & Lavers, was represented by Mr. William
Hartery, for the continuation of the issue of the bathroom window. The
applicants have requested a 6 pane Brosco window to replace the bathroom
window on the first floor. The window is a 6 light, 3 over 3 double
hung, single pane window.
Mr. Carr asked if the opening will change. Mr. Hartery stated that the
original is 24 x 24. The new rough opening will be 26 high by 31 wide.
Mr. Carr asked is the window will still be crowding the door. Mr.
Hartery stated that the picture is deceiving and that the location of
the window cannot be changed because it is in a bathroom and the riser
of the plumbing and the heat duct is on the othersideof the window.
Mr. Carr asked if there will be window molding. Mr. Hartery replied in
the affirmative.
. Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr.
Cook seconded the motion.
Mr. Oedel felt the window is too big. Mr. Carr felt the problem is with
a square going to a rectangle but that he was prepared to approve the
proposed window if it is the only window that can fit. Mr. Hartery
stated that if the window goes any lower, it may interfere with the tub.
The motion was voted upon, all were in favor and the motion was so
carried.
16 Winter Street
Donald and Ada Roberts presented an application for the demolition of
their garage at 16 Winter Street. Chairman Harris stated that the
application comes before the Commission under the Demolition Delay
Ordinance. Mr. Healy stated that the garage is full of rot and passed
pictures for the Commission to review.
Mr. Slam asked if the garage can be seen from Oliver Street but not from
Winter Street. The applicants replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Carr made a motion to delay the Demolition Delay Ordinance. Mr.
Oedel seconded the motion, all were in favor, and the motion was so
carried.
April 20, 1988, Page 7
The next meeting is May 11, 1988.
• At this time Chairman Harris turned the Chair to Mr. Oedel and departed
from the meeting.
The Commission selected categories and nominations for awards for the
Historic Salem, Inc. annual dinner. The nominations we based upon
applications that have come before the Commission for approval. The
nominations are:
Best Contemporary Adaptation Salem Public Library
Best Major Commercial Rehab Hawthorne Hotel
Best Office Addition Neil Harahan
Best Rehab. Outside District 73 Boston Street
7 Winter Street
150 North Street - Parisol
Best Rehab. Inside District 396 Essex - David Clarke
N. Pine - Jessica Herbert
Beckford St. - Randall
Best Minor Project Corner of Federal & Carpenter
(Co-Winners) Chestnut Street - Pohl ' s
Commission members will vote by telephone by end of business day,
• Monday, April 25 for the Best Rehab. Inside and Outside District Awards.
There being no further business, Mr. Slam made a motion to adjourn. Mr.
Geary seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion was so
carried.
Respectfull submitted,
Jan`e'' A. Guy
C14 of the Commission
JHisCom2/042088
May 11 , 1988, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
May 11 , 1988
• A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday
evening, May 11 , 1988 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present
were Chairman Harris and Messrs. Slam, Zaharis, Wolfson, Carr, Geary, Cook
and Healy.
Chairman Harris called the meeting to order and asked for approval of the
April 20, 1988 minutes. Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the minutes.
Mr. Wolfson seconded the motion and the motion was so carried.
Public Hearings
284 Lafayette Street
Patricia Kessler presented an application for paint colors for her home at
284 Lafayette Street. Pictures of the house were passed amongst the
Commission members. The house was dark green but is currently primed and
is therefore white. Ms. Kessler selected Richmond Bisque or Pittsfield
Buff for the body, Thornwood White for the trim and Rivermist or Tate Olive
for the shutters.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr.
Zaharis seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion was so
carried.
12 Lynn Street
• Jeffrey & Joan Beale presented an application for paint colors for their
home at 12 Lynn Street. The body of the house is to be Salem Grey, the
trim to be Williamsburg Simulated Whitewash, the shutters to be Black and
the doors to be Williamsburg Palace Arms Red.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr.
Zaharis seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion was so
carried.
13 River Street
- Margaret Hill presented an application for the installation of a chain
barrier attached to metal posts. The chain is to be 3/8" and painted
black. The posts, which have already been installed 7 ' apart, are 3' and
will have a cap and bracket for the chain to run through. Mrs. Hill was
represented by Atty. Sumner Raymond of 71 Washington Street. The purpose
, of the barrier is to discourage cars from striking the house. Pictures
were passed showing damage that has been done to the house from cars.
Mr. Healy commented that he has seen the scars on the house.
Mr. Chuck Thornhill, the contractor fo.r the barrier, showed samples of a
similar chain and actual samples of the bracket that will be used. Mr.
Thornhill stated that the house is grey and the pipes are grey and that the
• chain can be painted any color the Commission prefers. There will be a
slight swag in the chain.
May 11 , 1988, Page 2
Mr. Cook questioned how a chain will deter cars from hitting the house,
when a fender could easily get under the chain. Mr. Thornhill stated that
• most of the damage is due to car doors hitting the house and that a chain
is likely to damage the car doors, therefore drivers will be more careful
when opening their doors.
Ms. Barbara MacDonald of 15 River Street stated that she is concerned that
the barrier will not be historic looking and that a ring rather than a cap
may look better. Ms. MacDonald also questioned that with 7' between posts,
the swag could scratch cars.
Chairman Harris asked the contractor what options were available for
attaching the chain. Mr. Thornhill stated that the swag will be minimal
and that the wind would not move it due to the weight of the chain and that
a ring cap would leave more play. Mr. Carr added that painting the chain
will make it blend. Ms. MacDonald stated that she would prefer that the
chain and posts not be painted grey because it will look like galvanized
pipe•
Mr. Joseph Hill, the applicant' s son, stated that someone could damage
their car due to there own human error and such damage would not
necessarily be the fault of the chain.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the
amendment that it be painted black. Mr. Zaharis seconded the motion.
Mr. Slam questioned why the Commission was even considering this. Mr.
Slam stated that this type of treatment has never been given to a house in
• an Historic District before and added that there should be a more elegant
solution. Mr. Slam stated that he could not approve this application as
submitted.
Chairman Harris read a letter presented by Ms. Lori Gadala that stated her
approval of the barrier.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to move the question. Mr. Carr seconded the
motion. Chairman Harris and Messrs. Cook, Zaharis, Wolfson and Carr were
in favor. Mr. Slam was opposed. The motion was carried.
The motion to approve the application as submitted with the amendment that
the barrier be painted black was voted upon. Chairman Harris and Messrs.
Cook, Zaharis, Wolfson and Carr voted in favor. Mr. Slam voted in
opposition. The motion was carried for reason that it is the least
obtrusive fence in a difficult situation.
42 Broad Street
PHIP Realty Trust, Philip Vener Trustee presented an application for the
demolition of a garage and the building of a new garage at their property
at 42 Broad Street. Mr. David Jaquith, their architect, was also present.
Chairman Harris commented that the back of the house is very visible from
Flint Street.
• Mr. Carr made a motion to waive the 60 day waiting period and permit the
demolition of the garage. Mr. Geary seconded the motion. All were in
favor and the motion so carried.
May 11 , 1988, Page 3
Chairman Harris stated that she was concerned that work done to the rear of
the house had not been approved by the Commission. Work done to the house
• had been approved by the Commission due to the belief that the rear of the
house was not visible from a public way. The rear of the house is not
visible from Warren or Broad Streets, however, it is visible from Flint
Street.
Mr. Curry of 46 Broad Street asked if this would permit him to do work on
the back of his house as Mr. Vener has' done. Mr. Carr replied in the
negative and that no approval of such work was given-. Mr. Carr added that
the Commission has jurisdiction on anything visible from a public way.
That which is pre—existing can be replaced, but any changes that are
visible must have an approved application.
Mr. Slam felt that the Commission should review what has been done.
Mr. Carr made a motion to table any further action until the applicant has
an application that is all encompassing and until the Commission is
informed as to what has been done to the property. Mr. Zaharis seconded
the motion.
Mr. Jaquith felt it was unfair of the Commission not to consider this
application since the garage is a separate issue. Mr. Vener stated that
the work done had been approved by the Commission.
Mr. Slam stated that the work done to the house was not relevant to the
garage. Mr. Carr replied that the Commission needs to make an informed
decision.
• Chairman Harris asked what the applicant ' s time schedule was. Mr. Vener
stated that they will need an occupancy permit in 3 weeks and that they
will not be able to rent the units with the garage demolished.
Mr. Carr made a motion to move the question. Mr. Zaharis seconded the
motion. The motion was voted upon, all were in favor, and the motion was
so carried.
The motion to table any further action was voted upon. Chairman Harris and
Messrs. Zaharis, Carr and Wolfson voted in favor. Messrs. Slam, Geary and
Cook voted in opposition. The motion was carried by a vote of 4 to 3. Mr.
Carr stated that this application will be placed first on the agenda at the
next meeting.
40 Flint Street
Boone Realty Trust presented an application for paint colors and fence
installation at their property at 40 Flint Street. Pictures were passed of
this house which is located across from the Bowditch School. The fence
will be a capped picket fence the same height as existing and not pressure
treated. It will be left natural to weather and a paint color will be
selected at a later date. The body of the house will be painted Platinum
Grey, the doors and shutters will be Country Redwood and the trim will be
Charcoal Slate.
• Mr. Wolfson made a motion to approve the paint colors as submitted. Mr.
Carr seconded the motion.
May 11 , 1988, Page 4
Mr. Carr questioned why the applicant wanted to use latex paint which often
q Y PP
peels. The applicant replied that his painter would prefer latex and that
• the house is currently latex.
The motion was voted upon, all were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Chairman Harris stated that the existing fence is stockade and that the
applicant proposes to install the new fence in the same location with post
being 5' x 5' and having a cap similar to the existing. The body of the
fence will be solid with no baseboard and will start at 3 ' and rise to 61 . _
The fence will be scalloped as opposed to slant.
Mr. Carr stated that the house is a contemporary 1960' s house in an area
where most houses are historic and that ordinarily solid fences are
installed for privacy. Since the proposed fence is not for privacy, Mr.
Carr questioned why the applicant would not prefer a picket fence. The
applicant replied that he would like tokeep with the neighborhood which
has a few other solid fences.
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr.
Wolfson seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion was so
carried.
391-3912 Essex Street
Mr. Russ Weston presented an application for the installation of a new
doorway at his home at 391-3912 Essex Street. Chairman Harris presented
the application on behalf of Mr. Weston and asked the Commission members if
• anyone was bothered that she presented the application as well as chair the
public hearing. There were no objections.
Chairman Harris stated that at a previous meeting the fence had been
approved. This proposal is to remove a barred window in the rear and
install a doorway with a custom-made door. The door will be 83 ' x 42 ' with
6 panels.
Mr. Carr asked if the brick and mortar will match the existing. Chairman
Harris stated that there will be no problem with matching the brick since
they will be removing more bricks for the door than they will need to use
to fill the window.
The door on the side of the house will remain. It will be repaired and the
hardware will be removed.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr.
Wolfson seconded the motion.
Mr. Slam stated that although he liked the door, he did not feel it was
appropriate for a rear elevation. Mr. Carr gave an example of a house on
the corner of Bridge and March Streets that has also not used a simple rear
door. Mr. Slam replied that the rear door to that house is to the street.
The motion was voted upon. Chairman Harris and Messrs. Carr, Cook,
• Zaharis, Geary and Wolfson voted in favor. Mr. Slam voted in opposition.
The motion was carried.
May 11 , 1988, Page 5
Mr. Carr requested that the motion be amended for the brick and mortar to
match existing. Mr. Zaharis so amended the motion. All were in favor.
The amendment so carried.
• 28 Chestnut Street
Mr. Zaharis made motion to have Mr. Carr chair the next public hearing
due to the applicant also being the Chairman of the Commission. Mr. Cook
seconded the motion, all were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Andrew Lipmann and Annie Harris presented an application for the
installation of a fence and lattice rail at their home at 28 Chestnut
Street. Ms. Harris presented a diagram for the Commission. The Commission
had previously approved the existing gate, however the shrubs once
providing enclosure no longer exist and only a wire remains. Ms. Harris
proposes to remove the wire, to move the gate back 5 feet and to install a
capped picket fence that is 5 feet high. Ms. Harris stated that they can
leave the curly-Q's on top of the gate or they can be cut off and capped if
necessary. The pickets will be 1" x 4" and the posts will be 5" x 5"
capped. The new fencing will be installed in such a way that it can be
opened to allow entry of vehicles when necessary. New lattice rail will be
installed along the side of the porch.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to approve the application as submitted and that
the decision to leave or remove the curly-Q' s be left to the judgement of
the applicant. Mr. Geary seconded the motion. Chairman Harris abstained
from voting. All were in favor and the motion was so carried.
Mr. Carr returned the chair to Chairman Harris.
365 Essex Street
Bill & Deidre Guenther presented an application for paint colors for their
home at 365 Essex Street. The applicants proposed to change the existing
yellow color to match the yellow of the Locke' s house on Pickering.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr.
Zaharis seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion was so
carried.
Other ,Business
47 Washington Sq. N - Continuation
Mr. Healy stated that the applicant found that the windows are in too rough
shape to repair and would like to replace the windows on their half of the
house as well as the windows on the abutting half. The applicant has yet
to discuss this with the Countie' s, their abutting neighbor.
Mr. Carr made a motion to continue the application until the next meeting.
Mr. Wolfson seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion was so
carried.
128-130 Federal Street - Continuation
,• Mr. Healy stated that he has obtained some information regarding gutters
from David Clarke. Wood gutters will be $13-15/1.f. There could be
problems in hanging due to the fact that the house was not built for wooden
May 11 , 1988, Page 6
gutters and will need something underneath to hang them onto. Kidney
Roofing quoted copper gutters at $50/l.f. which would be lined with lead to
. protect against acid rain.
Ms. Heaton stated that she proposes a heavy gage aluminum gutter with a
K—shaped configuration produced by Mass. Aluminum Gutter Co. She was told
by Mass. Aluminum that wood, because of its weight, would require piecing
of sections across the 56 ' length as opposed to aluminum or copper which
would be made in one piece.
Mr. Slam asked what the time frame was for the work. Ms. Heaton stated
that they could start in 11, weeks and that they will also be fixing the
roof and repointing the chimney while the staging is up. Mr. Slam stated
that he would like to see a sample of the aluminum gutter and that the
application should be continued until the next meeting.
Chairman Harris asked about the downspouts. Ms. Heaton stated that the
front will remain copper as existing.
Mr. Carr stated that he has taken several pictures of gutters in historic
districts. This film needs to be developed for the Commission to view.
Mr. Carr feels that any policy change should be in the form of a decision.
Mr. Carr added that he would also like to continue the applicationandthat
Mr. Healy should check with Mass. Historic in regard to this policy change.
Mr. Carr feels if the application can't be continued, then the decision
will not change the policy.
Ms. Heaton stated that if necessary, she could put aluminum on the two j
sides and copper on the front and meet them. Ms. Heaton added that the
work can begin on May 23rd and that the roof work will be done first.
Chairman Harris stated that what will be required for the next meeting, if
the application is continued, is just a sample of the gutter.
Mr. Slam made a motion to continue the application until the next meeting
and to request that the applicant bring in a sample of the proposed
aluminum gutter. Mr. Carr seconded the motion. All were in favor and the
motion was so carried.
Sweet Scoops
Mr. Carr stated that at a previous meeting the Commission had approved that
the door of Sweet Scoops at 13 Washington Sq. West be painted black. This
door has since been installed and currently has white primer on it. Mr.
Columbo, after seeing the door in white primer, would prefer to paint the
door white rather than black. Mr. Carr feels the white will relate well to
the schematics of the building and would like to allow Mr. Columbo to paint
it as such, however procedurally, the Commission must receive a new
application.
Mr. Slam stated that Mr. Columbo will need an occupancy permit.
Mr. Carr made a motion that the Historic Commission write a letter to the
Building Inspector allowing them to issue an occupancy permit prior to the
resolution of the painting issue. Mr. Zaharis seconded the motion, all
were in favor and the motion was so carried.
May 11 , 1988, Page 7
Elections
Mr. Carr nominated Annie Harris for re—election as Chairman of the Historic
Commission. Mr. Zaharis seconded the motion, all were in favor, and the
motion so carried.
Mr. Zaharis nominated John Carr for Vice—Chairman of the Historic
Commission. Mr. Cook seconded the motion, all were in favor, and the
motion was so carried.
Hamilton Hall
Chairman Harris stated that there is some work done which had not been
approved by the Historical Commission. The items of concern are the snow
catchers on the roof and the copper gutters and downspouts that have
already been added. Chairman Harris stated that representatives of
Hamilton Hall will be at the next meeting and that the Commission members
should visit the site before then.
Applications
Chairman Harris suggested that all the Commission members go through the
application process for their own homes so as to get an indication of the
difficulties encountered by applicants in trying to prepare to come before
the Commission. Chairman Harris feels that since most Commission members
do not live in historic districts, this will give everyone a feel for what
the applicants experience.
•
There being no further business Mr. Geary made a motion to adjourn. Mr.
Carr seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
JHisCom2/051188
r
May 25, 1988, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
May 25, 1988
• A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday
evening, May 25, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present
were Chairman Harris and Messrs. Carr, Geary, Zaharis, Cook, Wolfson, Oedel
and Healy.
Chairman Harris called the meeting to order and asked for approval of the
May 11 , 1988 minutes. Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the minutes. Mr.
Zaharis seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion was so
carried.
Public Hearings
7 Cambridge Street •-
Hamilton Hall, Inc. presented an application for the hanging of copper
gutters and 2 copper downspouts at 7 Chestnut Street. Chairman Harris
passed pictures and stated that the gutters and downspouts have already
been installed. The work is part of a project being supervised and funded
by Massachusetts Historic Society in which the entire project was approved
by the Salem Historical Commission. The Commission believed that all work
to be done was for repair and therefore the gutters and downspouts had not
been tagged as being new. This is the only item in the project that is for
new and not for repair. Chairman Harris read a letter from Kim Brengle,
the project coordinator, who was also present as representation of Hamilton
• Hall. The letter stated that the recommendation to install new gutters and
downspouts came from consultant Neil Pennywitt, who prepared an extensive
Historic Structures Report for Hamilton Hall in 1986. A photograph from a
1915 Frank Cousins photograph shows the downspouts at these same locations
but which apparently had been removed by 1926. Chairman Harris opened the
public hearing.
Mr. Alan Howe of 10 Chestnut Street spoke against the downspouts and the
gutters. Mr. Howe referred to a picture taken with the downspout on the
side and a postcard picture with the downspout on the front and stated
there was no real historic justification for the location of the
downspouts. Mr. Howe also questioned the structural. need for gutters at
all and added that many of the houses on Chestnut Street don' t have
gutters. Mr. Howe felt that gutters look ugly and ruin the classical look
and that instead, an interior drain should be placed on the Northeast
corner with a second downspout in the back. Mr. Howe also stated that the
snow guards installed are longer than the original 6 feet. Mr. Howe
submitted a letter stating the reasons for his objections.
Mr. Russ Weston of 4 Chestnut Street asked Mr. Howe if Mr. Howe' s objection
would mean that Mr. Weston would have to remove his gutters to which Mr.
Howe replied in the negative. Mr. Weston stated that he has a picture of
the downspouts on Hamilton Hall before the front entrance was even put in.
-Mr. Carr read a excerpt from Mr. Pennywitt ' s study regarding the need for
gutters on Hamilton Hall which are required for the prevention from water
•
May 25, 1988, Page 2
damage and asked if there has been much water damage to the building. Ms.
Brengle stated that repointing is being done due to water damage and
several structural repairs have been done, although she was not aware of
• any major seepage in the basement of Hamilton Hall.
Mr. Carr asked if the use of beachstone and funneling out was examined or
the use of an interior drain was considered. Ms. Brengle replied that an
interior drain would be more historically intrusive to building and that
they are trying to historically renovate and preserve it inside as well as
out. Ms. Brengle added that the use of beachstone had not been discussed
and that the recommendations for gutters were made by highly regarded,
reputable companies.
Mr. Cook stated that the downspouts were unattractive and that he was
opposed to them.
Chairman Harris commented that the snowguards are not the same as prior to
the renovation. Ms. Brengle replied that she was told by David Hart that
they had been there and felt that the lack of attention and maintenance was
the reason for the small amount of snowguard that had been left.
Mr. Howe stated that there had been only 6 feet of snowguard over the door.
Mr. Howe further added that the North and West sides have no problem with j
snow, only the south and east sides. Mr. Howe commented that the snow now
would back up due to the snowguard holding it up.
Mr. Carr stated that he was less bothered by the gutters than by the
downspout and asked if only one downspout could be installed on the rear
wall of the building. Ms. Brengle replied that one downspout would not be
• adequate. Mr. Carr asked if Mr. Hart could submit, in writing.,
verification that one downspout would not be sufficient, the possibility of
a downspout on the rear wall and comments as to the use of peastone and the
use of slate.
Mr. Geary stated that the downspout on the corner of Cambridge and Chestnut
bothers him but felt the one at the downtown end of the building disappears
and therefore does not bother him.
Ms. Brengle stated that the original framework to the building is poor and
that historic buildings are not architecturally infallable. Ms. Brengle
added that an effort was made to come before the Commission but
understandood that it was not necessary. Ms. Brengle stated that theirs
was the least obtrusive solution to a difficult problem.
Chairman Harris replied that the Commission' s stand was that all changes
are required to be approved by the Commission and that the gutters and
downspouts had not been clarified as being changed as opposed to repaired.
Chairman Harris stated that she would also like to have Mr. Hart explain in
writing, the need for 2 gutters as opposed to one larger downspout in the
back.
Mr. Geary made a motion to continue the application until the next meeting.
Mr. Cook seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion was so
carried.
•
May 25, 1988, Page 3
42 Broad Street - Continuation
In a continuation from last meeting the application of PHIP Realty Trust,
• Philip Vener Trustee, for the construction of a new garage and the review
of work done to the rear porches of 42 Broad Street was presented. A plot
plan. and pictures of the porches before and after the work was done were
examined by the Commission. Mr. Healy stated that the rear of the building
had open tenement style porches that have been enclosed and that he had
spoken to a neighbor directly behind the property who stated that they were
in favor of the work.
Mr. David Jaquith, the architect, stated that the rackboard is still there
and that the ridge was dropped down. The same footprint was utilized and
the porches are slightly taller.
Mr. Carr made a motion to ratify what had been constructed. Mr. Geary
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Jaquith presented the paint colors as being Driftwood Grey #0144 for
everything including the porches but excluding the door which will be Dark
Grey #0147 and the windows which are trimmed in white. Whatever is white
will remain white. All new work will be Driftwood Grey. Both colors are
Cabot semi-solid stains.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to approve the paint colors. Mr. Cook seconded
the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Plans were submitted for the construction of a new garage. The body and
windows will be Driftwood Grey and the three doors will be Dark Grey. Mr.
. Carr made a motion to approve the application as .submitted. Mr. Cook
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion was so carried.
13 Washington Sq. West
Mr. Robert Columbo presented an application to change the window color of
Sweet Scoops located on the property of Essex Institute at 13 Washington
Sq. West. The Commission had originally approved black for the window and
the applicant would like to change the color to white. Ms. Anne Farnam
representing the Essex Institue would prefer the framework black and the
mullions white. Mr. Columbo would prefer all .white.
Mr. Oedel stated that he would prefer the combination of white and black.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Geary
seconded the motion.
Mr. Carr stated that he would like to give the applicants the option to
choose all white or the white and black- combination. Mr. Oedel was in
opposition and preferred to only approve one. Mr. Carr felt that two
colors would draw more attention to an area that they would prefer to have
fade out.
The motion was voted upon. Mr. Carr was in favor. Chairman Harris and
Messrs. Oedel, Cook, Zaharis, Wolfson, and Geary voted in opposition. The
motion did not carry.
•
May 25, 1988, Page 4
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to give the applicant the option to paint the
window all white or the framework black and the mullions white. Mr. Cook
seconded the motion. Messrs. Carr, Cook, Zaharis, Geary and Wolfson voted
in favor. Chairman Harris and Mr. Oedel voted in opposition. The motion
• was carried.
153 Federal Street
Glen and Dale Yale presented an application for the installation of wood
french doors at their home at 153 Federal Street. The application also
calls for the installation of a new wood, single glazed 2 over 2 double
hung window next to the door to exactly match the other windows of the
house in size and trim detail.
Mr. Yale stated that the muttons on the door will be permanently attached
to the outside and snap—in on the inside. All trim, the door and windows
will be painted white.
Mr. Carr made a-motion to approve the application as submitted. There was
no second.
Mr. Yale stated that the room, used as a family room, is very dark and
requires more light and that he was considering putting in another window
in the back that cannot be seen from the public way. Chairman Harris
stated that Mr. Yale should try to keep the window heights level and the
trim all the same.
Mr. Oedel stated that he was reluctant to approve something that he doesn' t
see in front of him.
• Mr. Carr felt the doors would be far enough back from the public way as to
be hard to discern. Mr. Cook was in disagreement and felt that it would be
very visible as well as that french doors are inappropriate with the houses
in the area. Mr. Cook believed that the Commission has never approved a
french door in a fine period house. Chairman Harris could not recall an
application for french doors that had been approved. Mr. Carr stated that
Jim Carney' s house has a french door but could not recall if it had been
given approval by the Commission.
Mr. Oedel questioned if french doors are appropriate for this house, at
this location, at this elevation from the street.
Chairman Harris asked if the windows will be the same height. Mr. Yale
stated he will try to match the height of the window on the other side from
within the interior. Chairman Harris felt the window could then be higher.
Mr. Carr stated that he liked the french door.
Chairman Harris asked if Mr. Yale had looked into installing an additional
window rather than the door. Mr. Yale stated that aesthetically, something
would need to be centered on the porch and if there was no french door, a
door would have to be put on the side.
Mr. Cook asked if the french doors could be put in the back. Mr. Yale
•
May 25, 1988, Page 5
replied that the fireplace would be in the way and that the doors would
also be used in conjunction with the porch. Mr. Cook felt the concept was
inappropriate.
• Mr. Zaharis made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr.
Carr seconded the motion.
Mr. Oedel stated that aesthetically the doors would not look bad, but the
appropriateness was questionable.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to move the question. Mr. Oedel seconded the
motion. Messrs. Carr, Zaharis, Geary, Wolfson and Oedel voted in favor.
Chairman Harris and Mr. Cook voted in opposition.
The motion to approve the application as submitted was voted upon. Messrs.
Carr, Geary, Wolfson and Zaharis voted in favor. Messrs. Oedel and Cook
voted .in opposition. Chairman Harris was undecided and abstained from
voting. The motion carried
Mr. Carr stated for the record that in the future, the Commission will not
approve french doors for all buildings and therefore no precident has been
set. The prime consideration for voting in favor was due to the distance
from the street.
Mr. Cook stated the prime consideration for voting in opposition was due to
the distance from the street.
9 North Street
• The Salem Lodge of Elks presented an application for the replacement of
existing flatboard on the south side of 9 North Street and the installation
of new wooden clapboards with an exposure of approximately 4 inches with
the. smooth side to weather. Thenewclapboards will be the same color as
the rest of the building and will be installed just beneath the fire escape
so that the whole building will look uniform. The flatboard with
clapboards will be introduced on the full height of the building on the
South side.
C-044
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr.
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion was so carried.
11 Warren Street
Mr. Russ Chapman presented an application for the demolition of a second
floorscreenedporch and the replacement with a 10' x 14' deck on the
second level only. The post will extend to the ground. The deck will be
pressure treated wood left natural to weather and painted at a later date.
The original porch is 6' x 12z. The new deck will be more visible from
Warren Street.
Mr. Carr asked if the porch could be moved over a few feet so that it
cannot be seen from the public way. Mr. Chapman replied that doing so
would cover a window. Mr. Carr asked if the applicant could cantilever the
porch and posts. Mr. Chapman stated it was possible as long as the deck
May 25, 1988, Page 6
would be structurally sound. Mr. Chapman added that it was possible to
shorten the deck.
Mr. Oedel suggested that the deck size be brought in from one side and
jogged so that it cannot be seen from the street. The applicant would not
be required to get approval from the Commission providing the deck is not
visible from the public way.
Mr. Carr made a motion to deny the application and encourage the applicant
to redesign the deck so as not to be visible from the public way. Mr.
Zaharis seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
386 Essex Street
Mr. David Clark presented an application for the installation of a roof
deck, doors and the repair of a rear porch for his property at 386 Essex
Street. Mr. Clark was not present for the public hearing and no drawings
were available for the Commission to view.
Mr. Russ Weston of 4 Chestnut Street spoke in favor of Mr. Clark' s
application.
Mr. Carr made a motion to deny the application on the basis of lack of
completion of the application. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion. All were in
favor and the motion was so carried.
47-49 Washington Sq. North
Ralph & Jeannette Countie and Mr. James Filaretos presented an application
for paint colors for their property at 47-49 Washington Sq. North. The
applicants were not present to submit information on their application.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to deny the application on the basis of lack of
information. Mr. Carr seconded the motion. All were in favor and the
motion so carried.
Other Business
47 Washington Sq. North - Continuation
This issue of the replacement of windows is a continuation from a previous
meeting on the application of Mr. James Filaretos for his home at 47
Washington Sq. North. The applicant was not present to submit new
information.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to deny the application on the basis of lack of
information. Mr. Carr seconded the motion. All were in favor and the
motion so carried.
13 Washington Sq. West
Anne Farnam of the Essex Institute and Robert Columbo of Sweet Scoops
located at 13 Washington Sq. West were present to discuss the requirement
of a handicap ramp with a rail at the Andrew Safford house.
•
May 25, 1988, Page 7
Chairman Harris recommended that the item be put on the agenda for the next
meeting for design recommendation in order to allow the proper public
hearing process which requires 14 day notice. Chairman Harris stated that
Mr. Columbo needs an Occupancy Permit in order to open. Chairman Harris
would like the Commission to look into having a bond posted in order to
allow for changes that may need to be made to assure the least obtrusive
solution to the issue.
Mr. Carr stated that a bond would have to be issued prior to the issuance
of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Atty. Ben Isanstat of 345 Hale Street, Beverly, was in representation for
the applicants.
Mr. Carr made a motion that a letter should be written to the Building
Inspector stating that the Commission does not object to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy providing a bond agreement is first executed
between the Historic Commission and the applicant in an amount sufficient
to guarantee that the Historic Commission can complete the project as they
require it be done.
Atty. Isanstat suggested a conditional Certificate of Occupancy rather than
a bond. Chairman Harris replied that since conditional Certificates of
Occupancy are not usually done by the Building Inspector, review by the
City Solicitor would be required which will take more time than a bond.
Mr. Geary seconded the motion.
Mr. Healy asked if a condition on lifting the bond would include the
• granting of a variance by the Architectural Access Board. Mr. Carr replied
in the negative and added that the Commission will want to look at the
issue as though it had never been built.
Chairman Harris asked for suggestions for an amount of the bond. Mr. Oedel
stated that the most expensive scenario would be to regrade at a cost of
approximately $5000.00 and therefore he suggests a bond of $6000.00.
Mr. Carr stated that his motion would include $6000.00 amount for the bond
and that the issue be continued until the June 15, 1988 meeting to discuss
a change or ratify what has been done.
Mr. Oedel stated that he would like a closure date of the end of the year
for the date in the bond. Atty. Isanstat suggested a date at the beginning
of the next opening season.
The motion was voted upon, all were in favor and the motion was so carried.
24 Saunders Street
An application to allow for the demolition of the Salem Shoe Building at 24
Saunders Street was presented by Bill Gordon of Brentwood Structures who
were represented by Lee Antone of Serafini, Serafini and Darling, the
attorneys for the developer, Fieldcrest.
•
May 25, 1988, Page 8
• Pictures were shown of the building which was erected C1900-1910 and holds
some historic value but cannot be renovated. The building is all wooden
except for the tower.
• Mr. Geary made a motion to allow the demolition. Mr. Zaharis seconded the
motion. Mr. Geary stated that he spoke to the Ward Councillor who stated
that the neighborhood is in agreement with the demolition.
The motion was voted upon, all were in favor and the motion was so carried.
128-130 Federal Street — continuation
In a continuation from a previous meeting, a sample of the proposed
aluminum. gutter was submitted by Ms. Deborah Heaton for her property at
128-130 Federal Street.
Mr. Healy presented new gutter guidelines for the Commission to review.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve Ms. Heaton' s application as submitted.
Mr. Geary seconded the motion. Chairman Harris and Messrs. Carr, Cook,
Geary, Wolfson, and Zaharis voted in favor. Mr. Oedel voted in opposition.
The motion was carried.
Mr. Carr made a motion to table the consideration of the new guidelines for
gutters. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion. All were in favor and .the motion
so carried.
There being no further business, Mr. Geary made a motion to adjourn. All
were in favor and the motion was so carried.
Respectfully sub i ed,
Ja A. Guy
C1 of the Com ission
JHisCom3/052588/0525885
•
A
t.
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
• JUNE 15, 1988
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on June
15, 1988 at 7: 30 p .m. Those in attendance were : Chairman Annie Harris,
Messrs . Zaharis, Slam, Carr, Cook, and Geary.
Ms . Harris called the meeting to order at 7 :30 p.m.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the minutes of the June , 1988 meeting
of the Historical Commission, as amended. Mr. Zaharis seconded the
motion. The motion carried unanimously.
34 Warren Street -- First Spiritualist Church of Salem
The application for a Certificate of Appropriateness submitted by the
First Spiritualist Church of Salem included the replacement of the side
door and reconstruction of a portion of the railing on the deteriorating
ballustrate . The proposed door replacement would entail the
installation of a 32"x80" door with four lights rather than a 34"x84"
door with eight lights . The door jam will be rebuilt to accommodate the
smaller door.
Mr. Carr noted that the Commission historically requests drawings of any
proposed exterior changes , and requested that a drawing of the proposed
railings be submitted for approval .
• Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the replacement of the bases of the
columns and the door replacement , but to defer action on the railing
pending the submital of a reasonable drawing of the top and bottom rail
to be replaced. Mr. Zaharis seconded the motion. The motion carried.
? Mr. Cook abstained from voting.
386 Essex Street
The applicant , Mr. David Clarke, submitted an application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness to 1 ) repair the rear first floor porch
and construct a ballustrate, 2) install three new brackets to match the
one existing, 3) install 4"x5" wooden gutters , 4) install a 32"x28"
replacement window which is not visible from the public way, and 5)
construct a wooden roof deck and hand rail of which 18" will be visible
from a public way.
Mr. Geary suggested that the roof deck be reduced to 6' so that the
railing would not be visible from the public way.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the porch reconstruction; bracket
installation, gutter installation, and window replacement ; but to defer
action on the roof deck railing pending the redesign of the roof deck.
Mr. Geary seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
4
Page 2
• 128 Essex Street - Gardner Pingree House
The applicant , the Essex Institute, submitted an application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness to install exterior wooden blinds on the
south, east , and west elevations of the main building. The blinds will
be painted green, replicating those which were once on the building.
Mr. Dean Lahikaisen of the Essex Institute informed the Commission that
recent evidence indicates that wooden blinds were used as early as 1760,
and that a receipt for the purchase of such blinds from the year 1806
had been found.
Mr. Carr enthusiastically moved that the application be approved. Mr.
Cook seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
54 Turner Street - House of Seven Gables
The House of Seven Gables submitted an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to replace an existing sign with a brown wooden hanging
sign with white lettering. The sign will be the same size and design as
the existing.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr.
Zaharis seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
• 175 Federal Street
The owner of 175 Federal Street submitted an application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness to 1 ) remove an existing wooden deck and
stairway and replace it with a ground level patio with brick stairs and
iron railing.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve section 1 of the application. Mr.
Cook seconded the motion. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Secondly, the applicant proposed to replace a two story wooden staircase
and ballustrate . There were no drawings of the proposed stairway
provided.
Mr. Carr made a motion to defer action on the rear stairway pending the
submital of a reasonable drawing of the base pieces and cap of the
railing, and that the Commission visit the site to determine the need of
a second stairway. Mr. Zaharis seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously.
The third section of the applicantion involved the blocking of eight
windows with granite and brick to match the existing. Mr. Geary made a
motion to approve section -3 of the application. Mr. Carr seconded the
motion. The vote was unanimously in favor.
The fourth section of the application involved the installation of a 24"
high planter in place of a fallen stockade fence . No drawings were
t
Page 3
• provided. The applicant chose to remove this section from the
application rather than submit drawings at a future date .
The final section of the application involved the reclapboarding and
painting of a shed to match the body and trim of the house.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the clapboarding of the shed with the
same exposure to the weather as the house , and that the body and trim
match that of the house . Mr. Zaharis seconded the motion. The motion
carried unanimously.
126 Derby Street
The applicant , Mr. Michael Zapantis , submitted an application for a
Certificate of appropriateness to paint the body of 1.26 Derby Street
Storm Stai.n ' s "Plymouth Gray stain with Benjamin Moore ' s "Hadley Red"
or "Philipsburg Blue" trim.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the body color of gray, and either red
or blue trim on the corner posts, window surrounds, deck railing,
cornice , and store front window entabalature . All clapboarding is to be
gray, and all trim is to be either blue or red specified in the
application. Mr. Slam seconded the motion. The motion carried
unanimously.
13 Washington Square West -- Sweet Scoops Ice Cream Parlor
• Ms . Harris opened the public hearing
The applicant , Mr. Columbo, came before the Commission seeking approval
of a handicapped ramp and flat board railing which was constructed
without Commission approval .
Ms . Harris noted that the Commission does not endorse the use of a
prominent historic building for purposes which would alter the exterior.
Ms . Harris stated that the available alternatives include 1) widening
and elongating the ramp, 2) relocating the ramp to the existing barn
door ramp , 3) relocating the ramp to the side entrance , and 4) filing
for a waiver from the Architectural Barriers Board.
Ms . Anne Farnham of the Essex Institue spoke in favor of the ramp,
noting that handicapped access has become an essential element .
Mr. Isenstatd, representing Sweet Scoops noted that this type of
structure may have had a ramp historically.
Mr. Healy stated that when he contacted the Architectural Barriers
Board, he was informed that the application could not be reviewed until
late July.
Mr. Carr suggested that the Building Inspector be contacted regarding
• the grade and railing requirements of a ramp .
J
Page 4
• Mr. Carr made a motion to defer action on the application until the next
scheduled Historical Commission meeting when information from the
Building Inspector can be reviewed.
Mr. Isenstadt thanked the Commission for their effort resolve this
issue .
Ms . Harris closed the public hearing.
Hamilton Hall — 7 Cambridge Street
This application for a Certificate of Appropriateness involves the
installation of hanging copper gutters and two copper downspouts on the
exterior of Hamilton Hall .
At the last meeting, the applicant was asked to investigate whether
downspouts were historically appropriate and necessary.
Ms. Harris read a letter submitted by David Hart of McGinley Hart and
Associates , who had been retained as the architect for the Hamilton Hall
restoration project . Mr. Hart stated that there is no evidence that
gutters were originally installed, but that they were evident in photos
in the early 1900's, and on the building itself in terms of brackets .
He further states that gutters and downspouts could aleviate the damp
condition which exists in the foundation wall and the degrading of the
• mortar as a result of spalsh—back. He pointed out that the building has
been repointed four times, and that this is excessive for the age of the
building.
lt�
Mr. Blake Anderson, Director of Hamilton Hall , and abutter at 5 Chestnut
Street spoke in favor of the gutter and downspouts since in his opinion,
it would preserve the $950,000 restoration effort and eliminate the
rotting of the window sills .
Mr. Alan Howe of 10 Chestnut Street submitted a letter opposing the
installation of gutters, noting that they are aesthetically unpleasing,
obscuring the line defining the space where the facade ends and the roof
begins .
The Massachusetts Historical Commission submitted a letter in support of
gutters and downspouts since they were proposed as part of the grant
application submitted by Hamilton Hall and awarded funding in July,
1987. They noted that given the dangers of foundation moisture , and the
fact that Hamilton Hall has historically, though perhaps not originally,
had gutters and downspouts , they agreed to fund new ones , while
recognizing that there may be an aesthetic tradeoff associated with
them.
Mr. Carr made a motion to deny the application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness , and approve an amended application for a Certificate of
Hardship based on maintenance. Mr. Zaharis seconded the motion. The
• vote was unanimously in favor.
Page 5
• Old Business
183 Federal Street
The Commission discussed the installation of a skylight at 183 Rear
Federal Street without Commission approval .
Mr. Carr noted that the owner received a variance from the Board of
Appeal for a three family building on the basis that they were rental
units. Since that time, he believes that the units are being sold as
condominiums . Mr. Healy was asked to check into the matter.
Lafayette Street
Th eConimission asked Mr. Healy to prepare a second letter to the owner
Of Lafayette Street regarding the construction of a ballustrate
since no reply had been received since the first letter was written.
Mr. Carr suggested that the letter state that court proceedings would
follow with a $500 a day fine if the issue were resolved.
Summer Street
The Commission requested that Mr. Healy send a letter to the owner of
10 Summer Street requested that they come before the Commission to
discuss the installation of railroad ties , or run the risk of a fine .
• Policy Issues
A. Enforcement
It was suggested that Mr. Healy divide the Historic Districts into
portions for which each Commission member would be responsible for
monitoring, both looking at new construction and restoration projects . •.
B. Changes During Construction
The Commission discussed those cases in which an approved application
must be altered during construction.
Ms . Harris suggested that each application be automatically continued so
that they can be easily reviewed during the construction period.
Mr. Carr noted that the applicants should be informed that any
alteration to the approved plan is undertaken at their own risk.
There being no further business, Mr. Slam made a motion to adjourn at
10:00 p.m. Mr. Carr seconded the motion. The vote was unanimously in
favor.
Respectfully submitted,
Beth Newton
Acting Clerk
f
July 6, 1988, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
July 6 , 1988
. A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday
evening, July 6, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present
were Chairman Harris and Messrs. Cook, Carr, Geary and Healy.
Chairman Harris called the meeting to order. The minutes of the meeting of
June 15, 1988 were not prepared in time for review at this meeting.
Public Hearings
12 Carpenter Street
Carol Dearborn presented an application for the installation of 39
replacement windows at her house at 12 Carpenter Street. The windows will
be wood interior and exterior, conforming to existing openings with affixed
muttons on exterior in six over six configuration. Pictures of the house
were shown to the Commission members. Chairman Harris stated that the
applicant was given a low interest loan for energy improvements and that a
standard High Performance clear glass will be used which cuts down heat
gain and loss. Chairman Harris read a letter from a Sales Representative
at J. B. Sash which states that the existing windows cannot be repaired and
that the sashes and balances must be replaced._ in order to achieve any type
of insulating value.
Mr. Cook asked if the casings will be replaced to which Ms. Dearborn
replied in the negative.
• Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted due to the
fact that all the windows will be replaced, therefore, leaving no
distinction between old and new windows. Mr. Cook seconded the motion.
All were in favor and the motion so carried.
17 Flint Street
John Casey and Bruce Goddard presented an application for paint colors at
their house at 17 Flint Street. The paints are all Benjamin Moore High
Gloss House Paints. The body will be #17 English Ivory, the trim #72
Navajo White and the shutters #43 Essex Green.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Geary
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion was so carried.
4 Hamilton Street
Alice V. Johnson presented an application to amend a previously submitted
and approved application for paint colors at her home at 4 Hamilton Street.
Ms. Johnson proposes that the previously approved shutter color of Pine
Mountain be changed to Kennebunk Blue. Pictures of the house were shown to
the Commission.
Mr. Cook made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Geary
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
•
July 6, 1988, Page 2
47-49 Washington Sq. North
Co—applicants, Mr. James Filaretos and Mr. Countie presented an application
for paint colors and window replacement at their house at 47-49 Washington
• Sq. North. The .body of the house will be Oxline Taffy, the trim will be
white and the shutters will be black. The window in the rear addition will
be changed from casement to original size and style 6 x 6 to match existing
windows with the top of the window to match height of other windows and
wood shutters to be installed to match existing. All the windows on the 47
Washington Sq. North side and the front windows on the 49 Washington Sq.
North side will be replaced with J. B. Sash historical 6 x 6 trugrid system
wood replacement sashes only.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the paint colors as submitted and to
approve the alteration of the rear window as submitted. The motion also
includes that the remaining window changes be J. B. thermal sash with fake
intregal muntins conditional that the Counties, owners of the 49 Washington
Sq. North side, install the same windows on their side and that all windows
on the street side must be done the same. Mr. Geary seconded the motion.
All were in favor and the motion so carried.
31 Warren Street
Stephen Philips Trust, Alfred Putnam Trustee, presented an application for
the demolition of an existing rear porch and the reconstruction of a larger
rear porch with the rails painted white and the decking and treads painted
grey. The porch will have lattice over the length with a 7z inch facia and
the hand rails on the porch will be 2 x 6 with ballasters. Pictures,
drawings and an assessors map were presented to the Commission.
• The applicant stated that he intends to match the porch that is on the
other side of the house in order to achieve balance and that the dimensions
for the drawings were taken from the other porch.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Cook
seconded the motion.
Chairman Harris questioned why the porch will be left open on the bottom
and the applicant replied that it willprovide light to the basement. The
applicant also stated that landscaping could be put in to soften the look.
Chairman Harris asked if the concrete step will be re—used. The applicant
replied that all the stairs will stay the same, which explains why the
porch comes out a little more than the other side.
Mr. Carr amended his motion to state the application be approved as
submitted with the condition that landscaping, such as hostas, be added.
Mr. Geary seconded the amendment. The motion was voted upon. All were in
favor and the motion so carried.
33 Flint Street
Warren White and Malcom McLain presented an application for the
installation of windows, fence and deck at there house at 33 Flint Street.
The application proposes the installation of 2 new second floor rear
• windows with new sashes, wood, 6 over 6 throughout, the installation of
exterior muttins to new first floor windows, a new black asphalt shingled
July 6, 1988, Page 3
roof and new second floor egress to the 4' x 8" platform and existing
stairs in order to meet the code. Pictures of the house and a set of plans
were presented to the Commission.
• Chairman Harris stated that approximately five years ago the Commission
approved the construction of a circular staircase as a secondary means of
egress and that two years ago the Commission approved windows and the
raising of the roof.
Chairman Harris stated that the platform will be rebuilt, the railing will
have a capped post, the new fence will be 6 ' high flatboard to run along
the side of the property similar to the one along Bowditch School and that
the two new windows will be single pane, wood windows.
Mr. Carr stated that in rebuilding the platform, the applicant was cleaning
up an existing feature and that his only reservation was that the two
windows should be seperated enough to fit the wood shutters.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the
modification that the windows in the rear elevation be placed as roughly
drawn by Chairman Harris on the submitted plan. Mr. Cook seconded the
motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
1 Pickering Street
John and Linda Locke presented an application for the installation of a
brick wall along the Warren Street side of their property at 1 Pickering
Street. The fence is currently stockade. The applicant proposes to
install a brick wall but where the trees are in the way, a 21 foot wooden
• wall will be erected. The wooden wall will be similar to that outside One
Salem Green with 6 x 6 posts with caps.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Geary
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
175R Federal Street — Continuation
In a continuation from a previous meeting, Mr. Walter Dupuis presented
drawings for a new hand rail for his house at 175R Federal Street. The
ballusters will be on the upstairs deck with just a 2 x 4 handrail below.
Mr. Carr stated that a long support beam on the corner of the porch which
had been erected illegally by the previous owner of the building was
visible from the street and that he was troubled by what could be seen from
the corner. Mr. Carr preferred that a new door be punched out so the stair
cannot be seen from the street. Mr. Carr added that due to the visibility
from Federal Street he could not vote in favor of this portion of the
application. Mr. Carr noted that since there were only four voting members
present, approval would require four votes in favor.
Mr. Cook stated that he felt the impact was minimal and that he would
approve it.
• Chairman Harris suggested that the fence be placed nearer to the door so it
does not appear so wide. Mr. Cook felt that it would still be visible.
July 6, 1988, Page 4
Mr. Dupuis stated that the existing is dangerous and the condition was
existing when he purchased the property.
Chairman Harris suggested that this be considered a hardship case and that
• lattice be added at the bottom and up the side to get rid of the space.
Mr. Carr suggested arborvite or vines to soften. Mr. Cook agreed, adding
that it should hide the posts.
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the
modification that lattice be placed on the sides and vines be used to
soften the corner and that the application be for a Certificate of
Hardship. Mr. Cook seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion
so carried.
Shetland Properties — Demolition Delay
Shetland Properties presented an application for a waiver of the Demolition
Delay Ordinance for the boiler room and smokestack at Shetland Properties.
The representative of Shetland Properties stated that the structure was
built on fill and has settled resulting in structural cracks and that the
smokestack is falling apart daily, brick by brick.
Mr. Carr felt that the smokestack was symbolic and preferred that the
applicants consider making it a corner or focal point.
Mr. Cook stated that he had no problem with the demolition.
Mr. Geary made a motion to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance. Mr. Cook
• seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Sweet Scoops/Essex Institute — Continuation
The applicants were not present for the meeting.
Chairman Harris felt that she could not vote in favor of the application as
submitted and provided four solutions for consideration:
1 . The applicants go before the Architectural Access Board to remove the
handrails and then install another piece of granite. Chairman Harris
feels this solution is the easiest.
2 . The applicants remove the ramp and install it where the carriage ramp
used to be.
3 . The Commission keep the bond for the ten year term of the lease and
remove the ramp and rail when Sweet Scoops moves out.
4. The applicants remove the ramp and railing each winter and can put it
out each summer. The ramps and railing would have to be temporary in
order for the Commission not to have jurisdiction over it.
Chairman Harris stated that she thought Anne Farnam would be uncomfortable
with Solution #1 and that Bob Columbo would be troubled by Solution #2.
Mr. Healy suggested that the just the rails be temporary seasonally.
• Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Carr
seconded the motion.
July 6, 1988, Page 5
Mr. Carr stated that the rails remind him of the "OK Corral" and added that
the granite has been covered up. Mr. Carr further added that since the
Commission in striving to meet a solution satisfactory to both the
Commission and the applicants, and that the applicants were not present to
provide information and answer questions, the Commission should deny the
• application as a matter of procedure. Mr. Carr stated that this would
allow the applicants to re-apply.
Mr. Carr withdrew his second. Mr. Geary withdrew his motion. Mr. Geary
made a motion to deny the application because there wasn't sufficient
information available, the applicant was not present to provide answers to
questions and the 60 day time period would run out and therefore,
automatically grant approval of the application. The Historic Commission
would like to work cooperatively with the applicants. The motion includes
a recommendation that the applicants re-submit their application. Mr. Carr
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion was so carried.
Mr. Carr stated that the applicants going before the Architectural Access
Board is his first choice as a solution and that a temporary ramp with
better rails would be his second choice.
Violations
183 Federal Street - front windows
Mr. Cook feels the design is basically the same but just inches
bigger. Chairman Harris asked if the owner would come in with an
application. Mr. Cook believed the owner would and will speak to him
about bringing in an application for any changes.
,-291
Lafayette Street
Mr. Carr will draft a letter to send to the owner. Chairman Harris
suggests twice as many ballasters.
10 Summer Street - Green railroad tie walls - Mr. Healy to send a letter to
the owner.
Mr. Healy will try to get all of the violators to come the next meeting.
lst Spiritualist Church - Continuation
Mr. Carr made a motion that a letter should be sent to the applicants to
remind them that the application has not been formally accepted due to the
incompleteness of detail on the hand rail and that the application should
be completed by July 18, 1988 in order to be on the next agenda. Mr. Geary
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
There being no further business, Mr. Geary made a motion to adjourn. Mr.
Cook seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
ne A. Guy
• lerk of the Co mission
JHisCom3/070688
August 3 , 1988, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
AUGUST 3 , 1988
• A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on August 3 ,
1988 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were Chairman
Harris, and Messrs. Zaharis, Cook, Carr, Geary, Oedel and Healy.
Chairman Harris called the meeting to order and asked for approval of the
June 15, 1988 and July 6, 1988 minutes. Mr. Carr stated that the minutes
of July 6, 1988 should be amended to rephrase the reason for denial on the
Sweet Scoops application. The reason for denial. should state that it was
due to not having sufficient information, that the applicant was not there
to answer questions and that the 60 day time period was running out which
could grant automatic approval of the application. Mr. Carr noted that the
Commission does indeed want to work cooperatively with the applicant. Mr.
Cook made a motion to accept the minutes as amended. Mr. Carr seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Public Hearings
10 Andover Street
Gail Couture presented an application for paint colors at her home at 10
Andover Street. The body will be Moore' s 110 #71 Platinum Grey. The trim
will be Moore' s 110 #72 Navajo White. The fence and shutters will remain
red.
Chairman Harris asked what the trim includes. Mr. Healy stated that the
trim includes corner boards, porch railings, soffits, banding, facias and
• posts. The trim does not include the scalloped shingles.
Mr. Carr questioned as to whether the Commission should consider just the
color of the house or the entire neighborhood, since most of the
neighborhood has grey houses. Mr. Carr also noted that scalloped shingles
were usually painted a third color in a Victorian house.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the
recommendation that the applicant consider the fact that many of the houses
in the neighborhood are already grey and that the applicant also consider a
third color for the scalloped shingles. Mr. Zaharis seconded the motion,
all were in favor and the motion so carried.
4446 Chestnut Street
Applicants Lane & Kathryn Nielson and David & Kathleen Stuchiner presented
an application for paint colors at their house at 44-46 Chestnut Street.
The body color will remain the same. The trim will be changed from white
to off—white and the shutters will be changed from black to grey.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Geary
seconded the motion. All. were in favor and the motion so carried.
4 Andover Street
Mr. Walter Caron presented an application for the rebuilding of a fence at
• his home at 4 Andover Street. His fence, which is rotting and
deteriorating, will be completely reconstructed with the only difference
being that the pickets will be square instead of round.
August 3 , 1988, Page 2
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Carr
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carrid.
33 Flint Street
• Mr. Warren White presented an application for window changes at his
property at 33 Flint Street. Mr. White proposes to change the dimensions
of the second floor kitchen windows from 382 x 60 to 382 x 43'k.
Mr. Carr made a motion to grant the applicant a Certification of
Non-applicability because the windows are not very visible from the street.
Mr. Cook seconded the motion.
Mr. Oedel felt a Certificate of Non-applicability would be a mistake
because the Commission approved a staircase in the same area that was
identified as visible. Mr. Carr replied that the windows are just a wedge
of the facade.
The motion was voted upon. Messr. Carr, Cook, Zaharis and Geary voted in
favor. Chairman Harris and Mr. Oedel voted in opposition. The motion
passed.
28 Beckford Street
John & Catherine Randall presented an application for the removal of the
weather enclosure that covers the front door at their home at 28 Beckford
Street.
Pictures of the door were shown to the Commission. Mr. Geary stated that
the weather enclosure has already been removed and that he believes it is
• an improvement. Mr. Carr agreed that its removal is an improvement.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr.
Carr seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
183R Federal Street
Mr. Mark Pelligrini presented an application for the replacement of two
windows at his property at 183R Federal Street. The applicant has already
replaced these two windows due to rot. The windows are located on the
gable end of the house.
Mr. Pelligrini stated that originally these two windows were approximately
252" x 48" and the rest of the house has windows that are 30" x 52". Mr.
Pelligrini has replaced the two windows with those that are 272" x 52"
Brosco thermopane 6 over 6 double hung windows. Mr. Pelligrini added that
the windows have not yet been painted.
Mr. Carr considered it questionable that two windows in a gable end could
have been original. Mr. Carr stated that the two new windows are now
butted up to eachother so as to read as one. Mr. Pelligrini stated that
the windows are 14" apart. Mr. Cook stated that if Mr. Pelligrini states
the windows were there when the house was purchased, he will not question
the applicant ' s word. Mr. Carr replied that two windows are not
historically appropriate and that typically there is only a single window.
• Chairman Harris stated that there should be muttins attached on the outside
of the windows. Mr. Pelligrini agreed to do so. Chairman Harris stated
that the second issue is whether there was one window taken out and two
August 3 , 1988, Page 3
installed or two windows changed in size from the time of purchase.
Mr. Carr moved to take the application under advisement pending
verification that it is a minor change to a pre—existing element. Mr.
• Zaharis seconded the motion.
Mr. Oedel questioned whether Brosco windows can have exterior muntin bars
attached. Mr. Healy will assist the applicant in obtaining information on
the installation of exterior muntin bars.
The motion was voted upon. Chairman Harris and Messrs. Carr, Zaharis,
Oedel and Geary voted in favor. Mr. Cook voted in opposition. The motion
passed.
13 Washington Sq. North — Sweet Scoops
Sweet Scoops resubmitted an application for the installationof handicappedi,
ramp and railings at 13 Washington Sq. North. Atty. Eisanstat represented
Sweet Scoops.
Mr. Eisanstat stated that he suggests that Mr. Columbo, the owner of Sweet
Scoops, remove the railings at the end of each summer season. The ramp is
nearly grade level and therefore, the Commission would have no
jurisdiction. Mr. Eisanstat stated that the ramp is 18' where the law only
requires 121 .
Chairman Harris stated that actually Sweet Scoops would not be applying for
a Certificate of Appropriateness if they choose to make the railings
temporary. Mr. Carr asked if a new application was submitted. Chairman
Harris replied in the negative, and stated that only the original
• application for a Certificate of Appropriateness was submitted.
Mr. Carr stated that if Sweet Scoops is proposing to make the railings
temporary, an application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability should be
presented and proper 14 day notice of such public hearing be given. Mr.
Healy stated that no public hearing is necessary for a Certificate of
Non-Applicability. Mr. Carr stated that avoiding the issue by semantics is
a disservice to everyone and believes that the Commission should act on the
merits of the application and not on the basis of the railings being
temporary and beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission.
Mr. Carr asked if the applicant has looked into going before the
Architectural Barriers Board (ABB) . Mr. Eisanstat replied that he had
spoken to an ABB member and was told that they do occasionally waive the
requirement for handicap railings. He was given an unofficial opinion from
one of the nine-member Board that it could be possible to waive the
requirement for an historical building. Mr. Eisanstat stated that a letter
from the Commission encouraging the waiver would be helpful. Mr. Eisanstat
stated that he could possibly go before the Board on Monday.
Mr. Carr made a motion to deny the application without prejudice with the
recommendation that the applicant take measures to go before the
Architectural Barriers Board. The motion also includes that the Commission
will draft a letter to the Architectural Barriers Board encouraging a
waiver of the requirement for handicap railings. The motion also states
• that the Commission will neither take any action against the bond nor
access punitive damages providing the applicant is pending approval of a
waiver from the Architectural Barriers Board. Mr. Zaharis seconded the
motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
August 3, 1988, Page 4
176 Federal Street
Ms. Amy Hebb presented an application for paint colors and the building of
a fence at her home at 176 Federal Street. The stain will be Federal Blue
• for the body of the house and the trim will be flat white. The fence will
go between her house and the house next door but will not abut the other
house. The fence will. be 6 ' tall flatboard with a gate and will have two
square posts with cap. There will be no gaps between the flatboard.
Mr. Geary asked if the fence will be set back from the sidewalk before the
stairs and the door. Ms. Hebb replied in the affirmative.
Chairman Harris questioned why the _fence will be six feet. Ms. Hebb stated
that her contractor presented the height but she had no preference.
Mr. Carr asked if there would be any objection to putting the fence at the
corner of the building. Ms. Hebb replied that she needed the fence in
front of the door in order to let out her dogs into the yard. Ms. Hebb
also added that she needed the fence set back from the sidewalk in order to
get her car in the driveway.
Chairman Harris stated that she preferred the fence be lowered to 4i — 5 '
so as to be able to see the front door.
Mr. Carr stated that the Commission' s guidelines state that fences should
be close to the streetscape and that it is not historically appropriate to
put the fence in front of the door. Mr. Carr felt that while the
Commission must consider the reality of automobiles and the need for
parking, the location of the fence was selected mostly to accomodate the
dogs. Ms. Hebb replied that if the fence was installed at the streetscape,
• she would have to install another gate to get her car in. Mr. Carr stated
that he would prefer the fence at the sidewalk, but to accomodate the car
he would approve the fence at the corner. Mr. Carr added that he could not
vote in favor of the fence in the middle.
Mr. Oedel stated that the door is not on the corner of the house, but more
toward the middle.
Chairman Harris stated that she would be willing to allow the location of
the fence before the door if the fence was 41,' with some space between the
pickets.
Mr. Cook stated that aesthically, the granite looks like there should be
nothing there that would cover it up.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to deny the application for the fence without
prejudice. Mr. Carr seconded the motion.
Mr. Oedel suggested that Mr. Healy provide the applicant with design
choices. Mr. Oedel added that since each member seems to have different
opinions as to the location and/or design of the fence, it would be easiest
to address the design first and then decide on a location.
The motion was voted upon, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
• Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the paint colors as submitted. Chairman
Harris asked if the color of the door would be changing. Ms. Hebb replied
in the negative. Mr. Carr seconded the motion. All were in favor and the
motion so carried.
August 3, 1988, Page 5
Other Business
Violations
. Lafayette St. - Mr. Carr to send a strong legal letter.
10 Summer St. - Mr. Cook to assist in determining ownership.
Hawthorne St. - Paint colors were not approved.
347 Essex St. - Letter to be sent stating the fence is the wrong side out.
47-49 Washington Sq. North - Mr. Healy stated that Mr. Filaretos has put in
the new windows on his side, but the Counties ' did not agree to having the
windows installed on their side which was conditional upon the approval of
the Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. Carr made a motion that a letter
be sent to Mr. Filaretos stating that he is in knowing violation of his
Certificate of Appropriateness. The motion also includes that a letter be
sent to the Building Inspector requesting that a stop work order be issued
and that a Certificate of Occupancy be denied pending resolution. Mr.
Oedel seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Patrol of Violations
Mr. Oedel suggested that a photographic record of districts be made in
order to guide the members when they patrolfor violations. Mr. Healy
believes that Salem Planning Department interns could start taking
photographs. Mr. Zaharis stated that Essex Camera would be willing to rent
a camera to the Historic Commission. Chairman Harris asked if the City
could pay the cost of such inventory. Mr. Healy replied that there may be
• some money left over from the Architectural Survey money.
Mr. Carr stated that there should be an accounting of all districts at
least annually. Chairman Harris stated that at the next Historic
Commission meeting, a Saturday in the fall should be selected to patrol
each district.
Mr. Carr suggested that members could be selected on a rotating basis to
sign off projects that have been approved once the work has been completed.
The next meeting will be September 7, 1988.
There being no further business Mr. Geary made a motion to adjourn. Mr.
Carr seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
G
ane A. Guy
Clerk of the Co mission
• JHisCom/080388
September 7, 1988, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
SEPTEMBER 7, 1988
• A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on September
7 , 1988 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were Chairman
Harris and Messrs. Oedel, Zaharis, Slam, Wolfson and Healy. (Nr. &rrjointd Jayit)
Chairman Harris called the meeting to order and asked for approval of the
August 3, 1988 minutes. Since there were only three members present who
had attended the meeting, approval of the minutes has been postponed until
the next meeting.
Public Hearings
87 Federal Street
Mr. Raymond Young presented an application for the addition of a first
floor deck at his home at 87 Federal Street. The color of the deck will be
the same as the house trim which is white. Photographs were passed and
plans were shown. Chairman Harris noted that the deck, which will be
placed in the rear of the house, will be visible from Federal Court and
Federal Street. Mr. Young stated that there are changes to the design on
the plans. Mr. Young intends to remove an existing window, relocate a door
to the rear corner of the building, and install a new triple atrium door.
The atrium door will be swinging rather than sliding. Where the plans show
posts with flower boxes, will be spindles with caps (fluted cap or round
ball) . Where the door is removed will be blank.
• Chairman Harris stated that she was uncomfortable with so many changes
being made to the plans that were submitted. Chairman Harris added that
whe would prefer a traditional straight porch and did not like the
porch/stairs at an angle. Mr. Slam agreed that it should read more like a
porch than a deck by making it a simpler design.
Mr. Oedel felt that the removal of the odd window was appropriate and that
the work being done will significantly help the "mish—mash" in the rear.
Mr. Lance Arlander of 91 Federal Street asked what the square footage of
the deck will be. Chairman Harris replied that the dimensions will be 22 x
12. Mr. Arlander asked if the large tree will remain and Mr. Young replied
in the affirmative. Mr. Arlander asked if the ballastrade will be square
and Mr. Young replied in the affirmative. Mr. Arlander stated that he had
no personal objections to the work proposed.
Chairman Harris stated that she liked the concept of the changes but was
disturbed that the changes weren' t drawn. Mr. Slam stated that he would
also like to see new drawings on the railing and deck.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to continue the application until the next meeting.
Mr. Slam seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so
carried.
Chairman Harris stated that the new drawings should include detail on
railing, posts and deck as well as the windows and doors in rear being
•
September 7, 1988, Page 2
drawn correctly. Chairman Harris recommended that the deck be one step
down to avoid water back—up into the house.
At this time Mr. Carr joined the meeting.
• 3 Hamilton Street
Mr. Richard B. Paul presented an application for paint colors for his home
at 3 Hamilton Street. The body of the house will be Carrington Beige
(HC-93) , the trim will be Lancaster Whitewash (HC-174) and the shutters
will be Bracker House Slate (WF3-1065) .
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the application as presented. Mr. Carr
seconded the motion.
Chairman Harris noted that the fence on the property was illegally
installed. Chairman Harris stated that the fence posts should have been
capped and the fence has never been painted.
Mr. Oedel moved to modify his motion to include that the approval be
contingent upon the fence being painted Lancaster Whitewash. Mr. Carr
seconded the amendment. The motions were voted upon, all were in favor and
the motion so carried.
72 Washington Sq.
Mr. John Sachetti presented an application for the hinging of a wrought
iron fence on his property at 72 Washington Square. The applicant proposed
to cut a 10' section of fence in half and hinge the fence so it will open
• and close in conjunction with driveway installation.
Mr. Carr asked if the two arborvite will be removed. Mr. Sachetti replied
that the arborvite will be replanted in the back of the house. Mr.
Sachetti will also remove an 8" square granite base which supports the
fence in the center.
Mr. Carr commented that the photographs of the fence were not clear and did
not provide adequate visual information.
Mr. Sachetti stated that a second option on the installation of a driveway
would be the complete removal of the fence.
Mr. Carr stated that no drawing has been provided which would indicate what
will actually be done to the center of the fence such as bracing, latching,
etc. Mr. Carr felt that the applicant should check from an engineering
standpoint whether or not the work can even be done. Mr. Carr also stated
that the drawing that was provided is out of scale. Mr. Carr added that if
the applicant proposes to remove the fence, a new application will need to
be submitted and public notices will need to be mailed in order to allow
the neighbors the opportunity to speak either in favor or against the
removal.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to continue the application until the next meeting
contingent upon receiving detailed drawings on bracing and latching. Mr.
Carr seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
•
September 7, 1988, Page 3
Chairman Harris suggested that Mr. Sachetti try to get the curb dropped and
not have the granite removed when adding the driveway.
Mr. Michael Johnson of 74 Washington Square East stated that the applicant
is trying to solve his parking problem with an aesthically and historically
• appropriate solution. Mr. Johnson stated that after seeing the new
drawings, he would like the Historic Commission to approve the application.
Ms. Nancy Sachetti stated that because they have no driveway and must park
their cars on the street, they are subject to petty vandalism which results
in costly repairs which presents a hardship on them.
Chairman Harris suggested that the Johnson' s consider allowing the
Sachetti' s an easement.
Mr. Johnson asked if the fence was too heavy to move, would a replica in
aluminum be acceptable. Chairman Harris stated the the Commission is not
very enthusiastic about the replacement of non-like materials.
331 Essex Street - Discussion
Mr. Alan Howe came before the Commission to discuss solutions for the
requirement of a secondary egress at 331 Essex Street. Chairman Harris
passed photographs and stated that the other half of the house (333 Essex
Street which has a different owner) has a fire egress whose installation
was a mis-representation by the applicant to the Commission.
Mr. Howe stated that he proposes to remove the fire escape on the front of
the house and put in 2 pair of shutters.
Chairman Harris asked if Mr. Howe could combine secondary egress with the
• other half of the house. Mr. Howe replied that since the top condo of that
half of the house is for sale, negotiation would be difficult.
Mr. Carr asked if Mr. Howe preferred to remove what is on the street or if
it was a request by the Building Inspector. Mr. Howe replied that he has
been informed that the existing fire escape is illegal as is. Mr. Howe
stated that original drawings of his proposed secondary egress were not
acceptable to William Munroe, Inspector of Buildings, because the
staircases were too close to each other.
Mr. Carr asked if the Historic Commission were to give theirstandpoint,
did Mr. Howe feel it could persuade Mr. Munroe to reconsider. Mr. Howe
replied in the negative.
Chairman Harris suggested that the Commission go before the State Building
Code Appeals Board with this property as an example.
Mr. Carr asked that if the egress must be put in the rear rather than the
preferable inside solution, should the Commission put the other side on the
enforcement list due to the mis-representation of the egress on the other
side and thus influence the other owner to work with Mr. Howe to install an
appropriate egress together rather than having Mr. Howe add a second
staircase in back.
Mr. Howe asked the feasibility of putting in a staircase on the side with
. clapboards or trellis work. Chairman Harris stated that enclosing could
September 7, 1988, Page 4
read as blank wall. Mr. Oedel felt it was a nice solution. Chairman
Harris suggested that Mr. Howe call Pat Cloherty at the library to see what
process is needed to go before the Building Code Appeals Board.
• Chairman Harris stated that another solution would be to make the second
and third floor one unit.
Mr. Carr made a motion to continue the application until the next meeting.
Mr. Oedel seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so
carried.
Other Business
183R Federal Street
The applicant was not present to provide information on the proposed work
and therefore the application was continued until the next meeting.
28R Goodhue Street
Mr. Jerry LaPointe presented an application for a waiver of the Demolition
Delay Ordinance for 28R Goodhue Street. Pictures of the property were
passed.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance. Mr.
Carr seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
22 Chestnut Street
• Nina Cohen and Craig Barrows presented an application for a Certificate of
Non—Applicability for the repair of the existing roof with matching asphalt
shingles at their house at 22 Chestnut Street. Mr. Healy stated that the
roof is currently green and that the applicant will be replacing shingles
on their half of the roof only. Photographs were passed showing the slight
difference in green of the two halves of the existing roof.
Chairman Harris stated that there could be a problem in getting shingles
that aren' t verigated.
Mr. Oedel asked if the Commission should approve black so that in a few
years, when the owner of the other half of the house comes before the Board
to replace their half, black can also be approved for them. Mr. Oedel.
questioned if the policy should be to solve an individual problem or work
toward what is preferred as a whole. Mr. Oedel asked if it was worth it to
wait to eventually get the roof to be entirely black which is what is most
appropriate.
Mr. Carr agreed that it could be a mistake to approve something that is
inappropriate just to match the other side.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the
recommendation that the applicant replace the roof with black shingles.
Mr. Zaharis seconded the motion. Mr. Slam stated that the Commission
cannot make recommendations on a Certificate of Non—applicability. Mr.
Oedel withdrew his motion on the grounds that it was an illegal motion.
• Mr. Zaharis withdrew his second. Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the
September 7, 1988, Page 5
application for a Certificate of Non—applicability. Mr. Carr seconded the
motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Healy stated that he will informally suggest that the owner replace the
• roof with black or grey shingles. Chairman Harris stated that the owner
should be aware that it is difficult to find non—verigated shingles.
Mr. Oedel made a motion that the Commission send a letter to the owner
requesting that they apply for -a Certificate of Appropriateness for a grey
or black roof.
Salem Public Library
Chairman Harris read a letter written by the Salem Public Library to the
Commission regarding appealing the State Building Code requiring the
enclosing of the main staircase inside the Salem Public Library. The
letter requested endorsement from the Commission.
Mr. Carr made a motion that the Commission send a letter to the State
Building Code Appeals Board endorsing the Salem Public Library' s appeal and
that a member of the Commission attend the appeal meeting to speak on such
endorsement. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion, all were in favor and the
motion so carried.
Violations
Mr. Carr made a suggestion that a letter be sent to City Solicitor Mike
O'Brien suggesting that communications need to flow regarding enforcement
of policies between the Historic Commission and the Building Inspector.
Chairman Harris suggested that some members of the Commission meet with Mr.
Munroe at his convenience to start this flow of communications in order to
make the jobs of both agencies easier.
There being no further business, Mr. Slam made a motion to adjourn. Mr.
Carr seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
J e A. Guy
erk of the Co ission
JHisCom3/090788
•
SIGN
HERE
September 21 , 1988, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
SEPTEMBER 21 , 1988
• A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on September
21 , 1988 at 7 :30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were Chairman
Harris, and Messrs. Oedel, Slam, Geary and Healy.
Chairman Harris called the meeting to order at 7 :30 p.m.
Public Hearings
Mr. Dave Zierhoffer representing Greystone Realty Trust presented an
application for the addition of hand railings for the granite sidewalk
steps at 256 and 260 Lafayette Street. Mr. Zierhoffer stated that there
are currently no railings and his understanding is that the Building
Inspector' s Department will not issue any more Certificates of Occupancy
until railings are installed. Mr. Zierhoffer presented photograghs and a
sample of the black metal piping to be used for the railings. The pipe
would be painted and galvanized.
Chairman Harris made a drawing on the photographs illustrating her
comprehension of the proposed railings.
Mr. Oedel stated that he did not mind the railings in front of the carriage
house but did not like them in front of 256 Lafayette Street. Chairman
Harris stated that it was the most innocuous solution. Mr. Oedel stated
that he would prefer to deny the application and send the problem back to
the Building Inspector. Mr. Zierhoffer agreed that the addition of
• railings was a travesty but stated that if denied, the Building Inspector
will not issue Certificates of Occupancy.
Mr. Slam made a motion to approve the application as submitted based on the
drawing made by Chairman Harris on the photograph. Mr. Geary seconded the
motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Beverly/Salem Bridge
Mr. Bill Finch of the Beverly Historical Commission was present to review
the plans for the proposed Beverly/Salem Bridge. Mr. Finch stated that at
a meeting held by the Coast Guard, the Beverly Historical Commission
testified that it had voted to oppose a fixed-span bridge and support a
draw bridge with a lower height than the proposed fixed-span bridge. Mr.
Finch stated that the Beverly Historical Commission has sent a letter to
Massachusetts Historical Commission requesting the matter be re-opened for
comment under Section 106 Review procedures. Mr. Finch indicated that the
proposed bridge does not go through Beverly' s Historic Fish Flake Hill
District but ends right in front of it which will cause substantial traffic
through the district. Mr. Finch believes that at mean high water the
bridge will be approximately 60-65 ' high leaving a clearance of 50' at the
channel. Mr. Finch does not feel that many 50' boats will be going through
and that a 30' high draw bridge would be sufficient.
September 21 , 1988, Page 2
Chairman Harris stated that her understanding was that a drawbridge was
considered too slow and holds up traffic but that quicker drawbridges are
available than the one that currently exists at the Beverly/Salem Bridge.
Chairman Harris believed that the bridge could be controlled so as not to
• be allowed open during rush hours. Mr. Slam believed that the law does not
allow limited hours. Chairman Harris was in disagreement.
Mr. Finch feels that the bridge was out of scale to the problem and that at
30' high bridge would probably need to be' opened no more than once or twice
a day.
Mr. Slam stated that it is necessary that the bridge accomodate as much
traffic as the new connector road.
Chairman Harris asked if there was a problem with just the height or with
the width as well. Mr. Finch stated that the width was out of scale in
combination with the height and that they would prefer to see no breakdown
lanes. Mr. Oedel stated that the width requirement probably has to do with
the type of funding that is being received and that the chances of removing
the breakdown lanes are thin. Mr. Finch stated that they will be happy if
they can at least lower the height.
Chairman Harris believed that timing is probably the reason why many
involved don't want to make changes to the design. Mr. Finch agreed that
redesign may put the project off a couple of years but that the 6% grade of
the existing design could create a bottleneck in Beverly.
Mr. Finch stated that he would like the Salem Historical Commission to
consider writing a letter in support of re-opening the matter under the
Section 106 Review process.
• Mr. Slam stated that he was opposed to sending the letter and stated that
Mr. Finch did not present a strong enough case regarding the detriment to
Beverly's Historic District. Mr. Geary stated that he was opposed to
sending the letter and believed that the bridge was too far into the
. process for the Commission to get involved. Mr. Slam added that he did not
feel that the Commission has all the issues required to take a stand.
Chairman Harris asked that Mr. Healy try to obtain a copy of the
Environmental Impact Review and added that although she has some problems
with the bridge she has no problems with it from the Salem Historical
Commission' s standpoint.
331 Essex Street - Continuation
Mr. Alan Howe presented drawings for two options for means of secondary
egress to the third floor of 331 Essex Street.
Chairman Harris stated that another solution is to consolidate a staircase
with the adjoining neighbor. Mr. Howe stated that this would require the
removal of the top of a window which would be unattractive.
Mr. Howe' s first option is to construct an open staircase where the two
buildings were attached. The stairs would not be quite flush to the
buildings.
September 21 , 1988, Page 3
Option Two would be to completely enclose the staircase. The disadvantage
would be the loss of windows.
Chairman Harris and Mr. Oedel believed that Option Two was more palatable
than Option one.
Mr. Howe stated that another option would be to vacate the top floor.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve Option Two as drawn with the following
amendments; that the two right hand windows be removed, that the three left
hand windows be centered as close as practically possible on the facade of
the addition and that they be the same level and size as the existing
windows, that the trim and windows match existing in both material and
style, that the windows be 6 over 6, single glazed, that the door be a 6
panel wood door similar to Brosco H100, that there be corner boards on the
back corner as per the drawing, that there be no dentils, and that the roof
not be flat. Mr. Slam seconded the motion. All were in favor and the
motion so carried.
Chairman Harris suggested that Mr. Howe telephone the Building Code Board
of Appeals and investigate the process of 'appeal as an option to the
construction of the staircase. Mr. Howe stated that he would bring the
matter before the Board.
Mr. Oedel made a motion that the Historic Commission write a letter to the
Building Code Board of Appeals in support of Mr. Howe' s appeal. Mr. Slam
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
There being no further business, Mr. Geary made a motion to adjourn. Mr.
. Slam seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
i
Respectfully submitted,
ierk
A. Guy'of the C mission
JHisCom3/092188
r
October 5, 1988, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
OCTOBER 5, 1988
• A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on October 5,
1988 at 7 :30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were Chairman
. Harris and Messrs. Geary, Cook, Carr, Slam, Oedel and Healy.
Chairman Harris called the meeting to order and asked for approval of the
August 3, 1988, September 7 , 1988 and September 21 , 1988 minutes. Mr.
Geary made a motion to approve the minutes, Mr. Cook seconded the motion,
all were in favor and the motion so carried.
72 Washington Square East
Mr. John Sachetti presented an application to remove the entire fence (10'
section) on the south side of his home at 72 Washington Square East. Mr.
Sachetti intends to leave the two posts, relocate the two bushes behind the
house, install cement columns or crushed stone for the tires, 30' back to
fit 2 cars and leave the grass as is.
Mr. Sachetti stated that the first solution to his parking problem was to
hinge the fence, but the fence is too heavy to gate.
Mr. Slam asked if getting a right-of-way through 74 Washington Square would
be a problem. Mr. Sachetti stated that due to the way 74 Washington Square
is set up for their parking, the owner would not be able to grant access to
the Sachetti' s property.
• Mr. Carr requested that the guidelines be checked regarding removal of
historic fences.
Chairman Harris asked if it was possible to utilize the driveway of the
yellow house next door. Mr. Sachetti replied that the house was a family
tenement whose landlord is uncooperative and therefore Mr. Sachetti
believed it would not be possible.
Mr. Carr stated that it is a gorgeous fence and that the Commission' s job
is to approve changes which are historically appropriate. Mr. Carr stated
that the fence is approximately 125 years old and that the Historic
Commission should not allow the removal of such an historic element. Mr.
Carr added that he doesn' t feel it will solve the applicant' s problem. Mr.
Carr stated that the house was knowingly purchased by the applicant without
parking. Mr. Carr quoted from the Historic Commission Guidelines stating
that the Commission discourages fence relocation to accomodate parking but
may consider a gate.
Mrs. Sachetti stated that the application was not just for convenience but
rather for need due to vandalism. Mrs. Sachetti stated that they have
recently paid $500.00 for repairs on their car due to vandalism and
on-street parking. Mrs. Sachetti added that the fence has been backed into
several times. Mrs. Sachetti noted that the fence is the tail section of
fencing that continues to 74 Washington Square, that their house is the
last house in the district, and that the fence is on the side of the house
• which faces away from the district. Mrs. Sachetti added that there has
been no opposition from the neighbors.
October 5, 1988, Page 2
Mr. Carr made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Oedel seconded the
motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
• Chairman Harris stated that other solutions might include changing the
application to that of a Application for a Certificate of Hardship,
relocation of the fence to another part of the property, park elsewhere
through the cooperation of the neighboring properties or the gating of the
fence.
Mr. Carr stated that he cannot see removing a fence which is protected by
an historic district. Mr. Carr felt that the applicants purchased the
house knowing there was no offstreet parking and therefore does not feel it
is necessary to remove it. Mr. Carr stated that the fence falls under the
same criteria as any other in the quidelines regarding fences.
Mr. Oedel stated that he agreed with Mr. Carr but added that parking is not
the issue and that if the fence was not there, the Commission would have no
jurisdiction.
Mr. Cook made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Geary
seconded the motion. Chairman Harris and Mr. Cook voted in favor. Messrs.
Geary, Carr, Oedel and Slam voted in opposition. The motion did not pass
and the application was denied as inappropriate.
Mr. Oedel suggested that the applicants continue to try to find a way of
/ gating the fence. _
Mrd Sachetti requested that she be forwarded a copy of the appeals process
for the Historical Commission.
• 238 Lafayette Street
Mr. John Bitner presented an application for paint colors for his home as
238 Lafayette Street. The body will be Boothbay Grey HC165, the trim will
be Montgomery White HC33 , the shutters will be Hale Navy HC154 and the
accents will be Hadley Red HC65.
Chairman Harris asked what is considered accent . -Mr. Bitner replied that
the bay windows, inset molding, some trim on the board and the carving over
the gable is considered accent. Mr. Bitner stated that the colors were
selected by a color consultant who will also advise him on the accent
painting.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Geary
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Healy suggested that the wreath above the door should probably be kept
white.
105 Federal Street
Mr. John Morris presented an application for the replacement of a tin roof
with balck asphalt at his home at 105 Federal Street. Mr. Morris stated
that it is difficult to locate anyone to do tin roofing.
• Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Cook
October 5, 1988, Page 3
seconded the motion.
Mr. Oedel stated that he hated to loose the last tin roof in the Historic
• District.
The motion was voted upon, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
8 Carpenter Street
Amy Burbott and Kathleen Karydis presented an application for work to be
done to the44--home at 8 Carpenter Street. Pictures were passed and plans
of the proposed work were presented. Chairman Harris stated that Mr. Healy
has indicated that the rear elevation of the house is not visible from a
public way.
From the plans, Chairman Harris read the work to be done which includes, in
the front, changing from shingles to 6" clapboards and installing new wood
window casings and moldings on first two stories with 6 over 6
non-thermopane windows with muttins. Mr. Carr suggested that the applicant
try J.B. Sash thermopane windows with applied muntins and mullions.
Chairman Harris asked if gutters will be installed. Ms. Burbott stated
that drip edge will be used instead of gutters.
Mr. Cook asked if the cornice is the same on each floor. Ms. Burbott
stated that the cornice is slightly smaller on the second floor.
Chairman Harris continued reading from the plans that there will be a false
ballastrade on the rear flat roof, that they will be taking off the shed
• from the rear where the pantry is, adding one window and that the lanterns
have not been selected yet. In the rear, 1 window will be taken out, 1
window will be added and one window will be enlarged. The doors will stay
the same.
Mr. Oedel suggested that the Commission get details on the front door.
Chairman Harris added that the Commission should get the specifications on
the windows. Mr. Carr stated that the Commission could approve the
application with windows from J. B. Sash so that the applicants don' t have
to come back for such approval.
Mr. Carr stated that he was concerned with the ballastrade and that it may
be too fancy to add to a house in that area. Mr. Slam did not feel. the
ballastrade looked very appropriate.
Mr. Cook stated that the fluting and detail on the door needed
clarification.
The applicants stated that they will provide more detail. on the door and
windows but would prefer to keep the ballastrade because of the view of the
roof from the side of the house. Mr. Carr suggested that wide trimboard be
wrapped around the cornice. Mr. Oedel agreed that 12" cornice may correct
their problem.
• Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the
following exceptions - that action be deferred on the door pending more
October 5, 1988, Page 4
detailed drawings, action be deferred on the windows pending more detailed
drawings, that action be deferred on the ballasters in order for the
applicants to reconsider and that the clapboards be 4". Mr. Geary seconded
• the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
The applicants presented paint colors of Boothbay Grey for the body, Pure
White for the trim and Black for the shutters. Mr-. Carr made a motion to
approve the paint colors. Mr. Geary seconded the motion. All were in
favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Geary made a motion to continue the application until the next meeting.
Mr. Carr seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so
carried.
Sweet Scoops
Mr. Healy stated that he was informed by Ben Isanstat that the
Architectural Appeal' s Board' s in-house policy is that anything in place
can' t be torn down. Therefore, Sweet Scoops would like to take down the
handicapped access ramp as soon as they close for the season and reapply to
Architectural Appeal' s Board afterwards.
There being no further business, Mr. Oedel made a motion to adjourn. Mr.
Geary seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
. Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission
JHisCom3/100588
•
October 19, 1988, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
October 19, 1988
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday,
• October �.(,�, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were
Chairman Harris and Messrs. Carr, Cook, Geary and Healy. Mr. OBd�t�Jd,�ld la7lX.
Chairman harris called the meeting to order and informed the applicants
that since there were only four voting members present all motions voted
upon would require a unanimous vote in favor in order to pass.
23 Warren Street
Perer M. Craig and Anne C. Mar.on presented an application for kitchen
alterations as detailed in plans that were provided for their home at 23
Warren Street. The work proposed includes moving two existing Andersen
^asement windows to the corner sink area, installing Brosco double hung
windows (6 over 6 single glazed all wood like the remainder of the house)
in the casement window locations on right elevation, removing the back
attached shed, adding a casement window in back, installing two flat velux
21" x 38" skylights on the east roof, installing a French/atrium door on
the south end of the kitchen, building a raised patio using railroad ties
approximately 12" high, rebuil'ding existing back door landing on the west
side and making all siding, trim and paint to match existing conditions.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Geary
seconded the motion.
Mr. Joe Lorian of 71 Warren Street viewed the plans and thought they were
• terrific.
Mr. Carr asked how visible the skylights were and stated that since the
Commission doesn' t usually approve the skylights, when they are considered
for approval, it is customary for the Commission to consider no more than
one skylight. Mr. Craig replied that one skylight will. definately not be
visible.
Chairman Harris stated that she was bothered that they may not be invisible
and had a problem with approving two rather than one. Mr. Healy stated
that he believed only the ].ower half ofone of the skylights will be
visible.
Mr. Craig stated that the purpose of having 2 smaller skylights rather than
one large skylight t was to allow the rafters to be exposed from the inside.
Mr. Carr withdrew his motion and Mr. Geary withdrew his second.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the
exception of the skylights pending a site visit by the Comaission and that
approval of the skylights be continued until. the next meeting. Mr. Geary
seconded the motion, o11 were in favor and the motion so carried.
59 Summer Street
Ted and Susan Sillars presented an application for paint colors for their
October 19, 1988, Page 2
home at 59 Summer Street. The body of the house will be Somerville Red
HC-62, the trim will be Carrington Beige HC-93 and the shutters will be
Gloucester Sage HC-100. The door color has not been selected and is not
included in the application.
• Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Geary
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
131 Derby Street
Mr. Roger Hedstrom presented an application on behalf of Larry Lebouf for
the hanging of a sign at 131 Derby Street. Mr. Healy stated that he was
informed by Mr. Hedstrom that the sign is exactly the same shape as a sign
which previously hung on the existing brackets. The sign will be 48" x
32".
Mr. Geary made amotion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Carr
seconded the motion.
Mr. Thadeus Wlodyka of 137 Derby Street spoke in opposition of the sign and
stated that the sign is very large and that he does not remember a sign
extending from the building over the sidewalk in the past.
Mr. Carr stated that it is relevant if the sign was a pre-existing
condition. If so, the Commission can approve on the basis of it being a
pre-existing condition. If not pre-existing, the sign might not be
appropriate.
Ms. Thea Wolosinski of 132 Derby Street stated that she has not seen a sign
there during the two years of her residency and feels that while the design
• is fine, the sign is too large.
Mr. Carr asked if Ms. Wolosinski felt that perpendicular was okay or would
she prefer flat to the building. Ms. Woloskinski preferred flat to the
building.
Mr. Carr withdrew his second to the motion. Mr. Geary withdrew his motion.
Mr. Gear made a motion to deny the application for reason that the new sign
was determined to be too large. Mr. Carr seconded the motion. All were in
favor and the motion so carried.
At this time Mr. Oedel joined the meeting.
8 & 8A Chestnut Street
Due to a possible conflict of interest, Mr. Carr excused himself from
participating in the discussion of this public hearing and abstained from
voting.
Drs. Richard and Janice LeBel presented an application for paint colors to
repaint the entire rear wooden portion of #8A and the shutters, door and
trim of the front brick portion of #8. The remainder of #8 will remain the
current color. Chairman Harris read a letter presented by Dr. LeBel which
stated that the present color of #8A is a very light version of the
Harwichport Gray. The trim of #8A is the same color and the shutters and
October 19, 1988, Page 3
doors are similar to the Deck Green shade. Because #8 is the more
predominant portion of the building and closest to the street, they would
like to repaint #8A the same color as #8. Cohasset Stucco is the present
color of the #8 brick. Dr. Lebel would like to paint the trim for both
• structures white. Presently the trim on #8 is the light version of the
Harwichport Gray and the shutters are the Deck green shade. The front door
of #8 is already black but the door must be replaced. Dr. LeBel would like
to paint the shutters and doors for both structures black. Dr. LeBel would
like to change the present fence color from the light version of
Harwichport Gray to black. Additionally, Dr. LeBel would like to repair
broken slats on the fence and add wood finials to the main posts identical
to those at 2 Andover Street. Photographs were presented for the
Commission toview which showed that a new front and rear door had already
been installed as well as 2 rear door lights.
Mr. Oedel questioned if the back of the house should read as an addition or
as an original part of the house. Chairman Harris stated that it is
historically obvious that the rear is an addition and that it didn' t matter
if it was all the same color. Mr. Cook stated the it was not the
Commission's perview to decide whether to blend or not blend. Mr. Oedel
questioned whether it was appropriate or authentic for the time period for
an addition to be painted a different color. Mr. Cook stated that the
paint colors selected were appropriate for the time period.
Mr. Oedel stated that he preferred that the shutters stay green. Mr. Cook
did not feel the Commission should deny an appropriate color. Mr. Oedel
questioned if black was inappropriate. Chairman Harris stated that black
was not inappropriate. Mr. Geary felt the color should not be denied if it
isn't inappropriate. Mr. Oedel questioned if black was appropriate for a
house in that area for that time period. Mr. Cook stated that the
is
Commission has set precedents in the past where black has been approved.
Mr. Oedel read from the 40C section regarding the Commission considering a
building' s historical significance and its relation to the surrounding area
when considering applications.
Mr. Healy stated that in a study done by Dean Lahikainan, shutters were
"predominantly" green.
Dr. LeBel stated that other houses in his neighborhood have black shuttes.
Mr. Oedel asked if there was any precedent regarding a black fence.
Chairman Harris stated that she did not recall any applications for black
fences. Mr. Cook could neither recall any applications.
Mr. Oedel stated that the dead white trim bothered him, but added that it
is an appropriate color.
Mr. Cook made a motion to approve the application as submitted for the
paint colors only, with the exception of the fence. Mr. Geary seconded the
motion. There were no comments from the public. All were in favor and the
motion so carried.
Mr. Oedel stated that he did not like the color of the fence or the finial.
Mr. Oedel added that it is a small fence that was not designed to be
• ornate and didn't know of any historic president. Dr. LeBel stated that
October 19, 1988, Page 4
there were 4 in the area. Mr. Oedel questioned as to whether the finials
were appropriate for the time period of the house and preferred to continue
the issue until the next meeting.
Dr. LeBel stated that there are finials on the fence post at 2 Andover
• Street, Carlson Realty, the Ballou' s house on Cambridge Street and a house
on Federal Street as well as Essex Street.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to continue the issue of the fence color and
finials. Mr. Cook seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion
so carried.
Chairman Harris stated that she senses that white or grey will be
preferable to black.
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the front door. Mr. Oedel seconded the
motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Oedel stated that the rear door was not appropriate. Dr. LeBel stated
that the existing door had 6 light panels. Mr. Oedel stated that the door
installed is not a like replacement. Mr. Oedel stated that the door could
be replaced with a 1 to 6 panel door with an optional 2 lights on top
similar to Brosco H100.
Dr. LeBel stated that the tree will significantly block the back door.
Mr. Cook stated that he did not feel the door installed ever existed
historically and that it is an exception to true Colonial design.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the rear door as installed. There was
• no second.
Chairman Harris stated that the applicant could try to get a photograph of
the old door and prove that the replacement is significantly similar or of
like style to the old door or else the applicant could try to prove that
the door installed is historically appropriate.
Mr. Geary made a motion to deny approval of the rear door as installed.
Mr. Oedel seconded the motion. Messrs. Geary, Cook and Oedel voted in
favor and Chairman Harris voted in opposition. Mr. Carr stated that if
four votes are required to approve an application, four votes should be
required to deny an application.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the rear door as installed. Mr. Geary
seconded the motion. There were no votes in favor. Chairman Harris and
Messrs. Geary, Cook and Oedel voted in opposition. The motion was denied
for the reason that the rear door as installed is inappropriate to a
federal style house in the period.
Mr. Oedel stated that light fixtures are not appropriate on a period house,
but that they were a fact of modern day living as well as probabley a
requirement of the building code.
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the light fixtures as installed. Mr.
Cook seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
•
October 19, 1988, Page 5
21 Chestnut Street
George and Beatrice Thenault presented an application for the removal of a
copper roof and its replacement with a black asphalt shingled roof. Ms.
Thenault stated that she was provided with estimates of approximately
$40,000 for a copper roof and $4965.00 for an asphalt roof.
Mr. Carr asked if the neighboring Zoll ' s roof was more in the black or grey
direction. Ms. Thenault replied that it was more black.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted for a black
asphalt roof. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion. All were in favor and the
motion so carried.
Other Business
4 Pickering Street
Mr. Stanley Smith presented an application for a Certificate of
Non-Applicability for the installation of new windows as described in his
letter that was presented. Mr. Smith states that the exterior energy panel
will be removed for warm weather and therefore constitutes a storm window.
The new windows will be made of wood, painted white, and manufactured by
Marvin with six over six authentic divided lights of low-E emissivity glass
separated by wood muntins which are approximately i wide. An exterior
energy panel will cover the single glazed sash. The existing storm windows
will not be removed. Ms. Smith stated that they will not be replacing the
wooden frame and that the windows will be custom made.
Mr. Carr stated that if this is considered more like a window, then the
. application should be for a Certificate of Appropriateness and that if it
is considered more like a storm, then the application should be for a
Certificate of Non-Applicability. Mr. Carr added that if it tends to apply
to the sash itself, then it is more a window than a storm.
Chairman Harris asked if the panels could be put on the interior. Ms.
Smith did not know but felt they would not look attractive from the inside.
Mr. Carr stated that he would like to see an example of the sash. Mr. Carr
is concerned that when the sun shines upon it on an angle, the light will
bounce off and the muntin bars will not cast a shadow. This will obscure
the muntin bars.
Mr. Oedel stated that the extra plate of glass could be viewed as a storm.
Chairman Harris stated that she would like to see a sample of the window so
that the Commission can consider it as a new alternative prior to setting a
' precident even though it is less precident setting because this is a newer
non-historic house in an historic district.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the Certificate of Non-Applicability.
Mr. Carr seconded the motion. There were no votes in favor. Chairman
Harris and Messrs. Carr, Oedel, Cook and Geary voted in opposition. The
motion did not pass. -
Chairman Harris stated that the application should be for a Certificate of
October 19, 1988, Page 6
Appropriateness.
285 Lafayette Street
Ms. Cecile Abodeely presented an application for a Certificate of
Non—Applicability for paint colors. The applicant was not present and
paint colors were not provided on the application.
Mr. Carr made a motion to continue the application until. the next meeting
and to write the applicant instructing her to provide sufficient
information for the Commission to make a decision. Mr. Oedel seconded the
motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
National Register Nominations
Stott & Dempsey presented eight structures to be put on the National
Register.
The following properties were deemed eligible by Stott & Dempsey:
Ft. Lee — Salem Neck
St. Nicks Orthodox Church
Shetland
Derby Wharf and Central Wharf
The following properties were deemed ineligible by Stott & Dempsey:
Pioneer Village
North River Canal
South River Seawalls
• Derby Powder House Wharf — while deemed ineligible it is possible that the
entire Winter Island can be considered as a
complete archeological district.
There being no further business, Mr. Geary made a motion to adjourn. Mr.
Cook seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
JaneeG
ClerC mission
JHisCom3/101988
•
November 2, 1988, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
November 2, 1988
• A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday,
November 2 , 1988 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were Aed
Chairman Harris and Messrs. Carr, Zaharis, Slam, Geary, Wolfson and Healy.mr'(ODdt {N�
14
Chairman Harris called the meeting to order and asked for approval of the
minutes of October 5 and October 19. Mr. Geary made a motion to approve
both sets of minutes. Mr. Carr seconded the motion. Chairman Harris and
Messrs. Carr, Slam, Geary, and Wolfson voted in favor. Mr. Zaharis
abstained from voting. The motion so carried.
87 Federal Street
Mr. Raymond Young presented an application for the addition of a porch
along with window and door changes to his property at 87 Federal Street.
Chairman Harris read from the minutes of September 7, 1988 in which a
motion was passed to continue the public hearing from that meeting in order
that new drawings indicating all changes could be presented. Mr. Young
presented such new drawings and gave an overview of the proposed work. The
proposed work is in the rear of the house, at ground level and is visible
from Federal Street and Federal Court.
Mr. Slam questioned if the triple atrium door will be visible. Chairman
Harris stated that it will be slightly visible.
Mr. Carr stated that he was enthusiastically in favor of the work. Mr.
• Carr asked if there are three units in the house. Mr. Young replied that
there were three units including his.
Mr. Slam stated that he like the new design of the porch.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to approve the application as presented with the
new drawings. Mr. Carr seconded the motion, all were in favor and the
motion so carried.
4 Pickering Street
Mr. Stanley Smith presented an application for the installation of french
doors, an exterior stairway and replacement windows for his home at 4 '
Pickering Street. Due to the accidental misplacement of the drawings of
the proposed work, Mr. Smith provided 1948 blueprints of the house,
although they are slightly different than as-built. Mr. Smith proposes to
remove the two windows in his dining room and install a porch with steps.
Mr. Smith indicated that approximately two feet of the railing will be
visible and that the french doors will not be visible. The french doors
will be 2 ' wide each and will. have side lights.
At this time, Mr. Cook joined the meeting.
Mr. Smith stated that the ballasters will be of square 2" x 2" stock or
will be slightly tapered round ballasters. The posts will be 4 x 4
straight square or round posts, painted white and capped. Mr. Smith
November 2, 1988, Page 2
indicated that he would like to begin the work within two weeks.
Chairman Harris stated that she preferred to continue the railing until the
next meeting in order to see the drawings.
• Mr. Carr stated that since only the railing is visible, the rest of the
work, with the exception of the installation of the new windows should be
considered for an Application of Non-Applicability.
Mr. Carr made a motion to grant a Certificate of Non-Applicability for the
removal of the two dining room windows, the addition of a deck, stairs and
atrium door. Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all were in favor and the
motion so carried.
Mr. Carr made a motion to defer action tonight and close the public hearing
for the railings, and, in order for the applicant to provide detailed
drawings, continue the application for railings until the next meeting.
Mr. Geary seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Smith provided a sample of both his existing windows and the proposed
Marvin windows with the removable energy panel.
Mr. Slam asked the cost of the proposed windows. Mr. Smith replied that
depending on glass, paint, the use of authentic lights and the need for
custom size, appoximately $300-400 per window. Mr. Slam questioned if the
proposed windows had real muttins. Mr. Smith replied /in the affirmative
and added that Marvin utilizes a wood replacement for putty and the muttins
are stapled in.
Mr. Carr felt that the flat panel of glass on the outside of the window
• obscures the sense of depth and the muntins. Mr. Carr stated that if the
Commission considers the panel a storm, then the Commission has no
jurisdiction, but if considered an entire sash, the effect on the three
dimensional depth must be considered in the decision. Mr. Carr felt that
during the six months when the panel is off, the windows will look terrific
but that during the other six months, the depth will be disturbed. Mr.
Slam stated that there is no incentive to remove the panel during the
warmer months.
Mr. Carr stated that if the Commission is considering this as an energy
alternative window, years of building an arguement against
non-shadowcasting windows could be destoyed by setting this precident.
Mr. Healy stated that the Commission should consider that the house was
built in 1949.
Chairman Harris stated that this is a good house to try an alternative
window since it will not be precident-setting due to its age.
Mr. Slam added that if the Commissionviewsit as a storm, then the
Commission has no juridiction. Mr. Cook agreed with Mr. Slam.
Chairman Harris stated that if the Commission determines the window a
storm, then it will set a precident as a storm which will automatically
allow such use in older houses. Chairman Harris preferred to consider it
as a window and approve it based on the age of the house.
•
November 2, 1988, Page 3
Mr. Slam asked how many windows are in the house. Mr. Smith replied 25.
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the application for the windows as
submitted. Mr. Cook seconded the motion. Mr. Slam offered a friendly
• amendment to the motion that the windows are deemed appropriate due to the
house being a contemporary house built in 1949. Mr. Geary so amended his
motion. Mr. Cook seconded the amendment. Chairman Harris and Messrs.
Cook, Wolfson, Slam and Geary voted in favor. Mr. Carr voted in
opposition. Mr. Zaharis abstained from voting. The motion so carried.
Mr. Cook excused himself from the remainder of the meeting.
110-112 Derby Street
James Bailey and Robert Curran presented an application for changes to
their property at 110-112 Derby Street (No Name Pub building) .
The applicants presented as-is drawings and a list of proposed work.
Item 1 - Roof - black shingles (black is existing) -
Item 2 - Replace and realign the eaves and front edging on Derby Street and
replace aluminum gutters with wooden and install corresponding
wooden downspouts.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to approve the black roof shingles and the
repair/replacement of the Derby Street side wood eaves to match existing
and the replacement of aluminum gutters and downspouts with wooden. Mr.
Carr seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Item 3 - Replace the window sills with a 2z-3 inch in height colonial sill
• to extend approximately 1" beyond sides of windows and window
trim.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to approve Item 3. Mr. Geary seconded the
motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Item 4 - Replace three windows on Derby St. , with 6 over 6 windows.
Item 5 - Replace windows and sash with 6 over 6 windowsonTurner St.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to approve Item 4 and 5 with all windows being
single glaze, wooden using the same sills as in the previous motion. Mr.
Slam seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Item 6 - Replace apartment door and casing on Turner Street, with complete
colonial 6 panel (Step up door) 2 glass lites at top - M108.
Item 7 - Replace front door on Turner St. , with same type 6 panel door with
no lites - M100.
Chairman Harris stated that she feels that the M100 type door could be
found in a better quality.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to approve the Item 6 M108 door and the Item 7
M100 door or a door of better quality. Mr. Geary seconded the motion. All
were in favor and the motion so carried.
Item 8A - Repair or replace clapboards as required.
November 2, 1988, Page 4
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve Item 8A. Mr. Carr seconded the motion.
All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Item 8B - The large front window on Derby Street is to be removed and
replaced by a window design to be compatible with the other front
floor windows.
Drawings of the new design were not provided. Chairman Harris suggested
moving over the left window on the second story, the addition of a third
window on the second story and the replacement of the large window on the
first floor with two that line up with the center and right windows of the
second story. The applicants prefer to make the window deeper which will
line up with the windows on the other side of the doorway in order to be
symetrical. Chairman Harris did not feel such a design would get approval.
The applicants stated that moving windows on the second floor could not be
done due to inside walls.
Chairman Harris suggested commercializing that portion of the building by
making a storefront and letting the property read as two buildings.
Item 9A - Demolish concrete block bulkhead building
Item 9B - Build a wooden structure with clapboard where concrete block
building was.
Item 10 - Place metal bulkhead on Turner Street.
Item 11 - The front central entrance on Derby Street to be selected from -
the Brockway-Smith catalogue. -
Item 12 - Complete storm windows with brown finish.
Item 13 - Brick side entrance to apartment on Derby Street. Cut-away
section of hot-top on Turner Street at the entrance of the
• apartment and replace with brick trimmed cobblestone.
Item 14 - Landscape both sides of the main entrance on Turner Street with
shrubs, perennials and annuals.
Item 15 - Paint: clapboard and trim dark brown, window sashes white, white
front door way trim on Derby and Turner Street. Red door.
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the following paint colors from Item 15:
Charcoal Brown flat stain for body, glossy white paint for trim.
Mr. Carr stated that he was not sure if the paint colors were appropriate
for the building. Chairman Harris agreed and stated that the colors for
that period style house were usually lighter. Mr. Zaharis stated that the
colors did not bother him at all.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to move the question. Mr. Carr seconded the
motion. Messrs. Carr, Zaharis, Wolfson and Geary voted in favor. Chairman
Harris and Mr. Slam voted in opposition. The motion so carried.
The Commission voted on the approval of paint colors as per the motion.
Messrs. Zaharis, Wolfson, Geary and Slam voted in favor. Chairman Harris
and Mr. Carr voted in opposition. The motion so carried.
Mr. Slam made a motion to approve Item 9A which will allow the demolition
of the concrete block and to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance. Mr.
Geary seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
• Mr. Carr made a motion to continue Items 8B, 9B, 10 and 11 and the red
November 2, 1988, Page 5
color of the door until the December 7, 1988 meeting when drawings can be
viewed. Mr. Slam seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so
carried.
Items 12, 13 , and 14 are not within the jurisdiction of the Historical
• Commission.
Other Busines
23 Warren Street — Continuation
Mr. Peter Craig and Ms. Anne Macon were present for a continuance of their
application for the approval of two skylights to the rear L at their home
at 23 Warren Street.
Mr. Carr verified that only one corner of one skylight will be visible.
Mr. Carr stated that the other skylight is non—applicable due to it being
non—visible from a public way.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve one skylight. Mr. Geary seconded the
motion. Chairman Harris and Messrs. Carr, Geary, Wolfson and Slam voted in
favor. Mr. Zaharis voted in opposition. The motion was carried.
8 & 8A Chestnut Street — Continuation
Due to the applicants not being present, Mr. Geary made a motion to
continue the application until the next meeting. Mr. Wolfson seconded the
motion. Chairman Harris and Messrs. Zaharis, Slam, Wolfson, and Geary
voted in favor. Mr. Carr abstained from voting. The motion so carried.
• Pickering House
Mr. Healy stated that the Historical Commission has been asked to send a
letter endorsing the Pickering House' s application for a Preservation
Project ' s Grant from Massachusetts Historical Society in order to build a
new fence. The letter would be included as part of Ms. Pickering' s
application.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion that the Historical Commission send a letter of
endorsement for the project. Mr. Slam seconded the motion. All. were in
favor and the motion so carried.
National Register Nominations
Mr. Healy asked if the Historical Commission had any objections to the
conclusions made by the consultants Stott & Dempsey that the properties of
Fort Lee, St. Nicks Orthodox Church, Shetland, and the Derby and Central
Wharves were deemed eligible for the National Register. There were no
objections from the Commission.
Mr. Healy stated that the next phase of surveys will include the Willows,
Point Neighborhood and Witchcraft Heights. Chairman Harris suggested that
the arcades at the Salem Willows be done.
Mr. Carr suggested that a subcommittee be formed to investigate expanding
the local districts including the remainder of Winter Street, Williams
•
November 2, 1988, Page 6
Street, Oliver Streetandthe remaining side of the Salem Common. Mr. Carr
and Mr. Geary volunteered to be on the subcommittee. Mr. Slam stated that
the subcommitte can work with the Common Neighborhood Association.
Connector Road and Bypass
Chairman Harris informed the Commission that the new connector road may be
going over a major archeological site and may be endangering a first period
house. The archaeological site is known as the old planters site and the
property is the Skerry' s house which was built in 1650.
Mr. Healy indicated that Mr. Peter Butler of the Salem Planning Department
has contacted the Massachusetts Historical Society, Historic Salem, Inc.
and Historic Boston to investigate this concern. Mr. Healy will have Mr.
Butler contact Chairman Harris.
Violations
Chairman Harris noted the following violations:
Hamilton Street — house painted, but fence was not painted, which was
condition of approval. Two more fences have also been added. The
property has changed owners three times since coming before the
Commission.
Bob Murray — Chestnut Street — paint color
Chairman Harris sugggested a mailing be sent to all properties in the
districts which will inform residents of the benefits of the Historical
Commission as well as its regulations.
Mr. Carr suggested that Commission members be assigned districts in order
to do an inventory of all violations, that the violations be divided up
into 3 categories of severeness and that such violations then be addressed
as appropriate to their category.
There being no further business, Mr. Geary made a motion to adjourn. Mr.
Carr seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully subm'tted, _
ne A. Guy
Jerk of the Com ission
JHisCom3/110288
November 16 , 1988, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
November 16, 1988
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday,
November 16, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were `
Chairman Harris and Messrs. Oedel, Geary, Zaharis, and Cook. �M� �a�f
Chairman Harris called the meeting to order and asked for approval of the
minutes of November 2, 1988. Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the
minutes. Mr. Geary seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion
so carried.
132 Essex Street
Ms. Alison Cornish presented an application on behalf of the Essex
Institute for the painting of the summer house in the garden behind 132
Essex Street. The application is to paint the body a "stone" color as per
paint analysis completed by the Society for the Preservation of New England
Antiquities consulting service. The work is related to work approved by
the Commission on March 3 , 1988 of which the omission of paint color on the
application was an oversight. Ms. Cornish stated that the paint analysis
has not shown any coloron the door and unless they find evidence of a
color when the door is removed, they will paint the door the green that is ',
the same as the blinds. Ms. Cornish stated that the stone color and the
green will match the main house.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to approve the application as submitted and
include the green for the door and blinds unless the applicants return for
a different color approval. Lir. Geary seconded the motion. Chairman
• Harris and Messrs. Oedel, Geary, and Zaharis voted in favor. Mr. Cook
abstained from voting. The motion was so carried.
274 Lafayette Street
Mr. Ernie Belleau presented an application for paint colors and garage
rebuilding for the carriage house on his property at 274 Lafayette Street.
The body will be Sherman Williams Renwick Beige #94101 . The trim, blinds
and front door will be 10% darker.
Mr. Oedel asked if there is a precident for two colors in that style.
Chairman Harris did not know if there was a precident, but felt that it was
more common to have three colors.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to approve the paint colors. Mr. Cook seconded
the motion.
Mr. Oedel stated that he preferred a contrasting color for the blinds and
door. Mr. Belleau stated that he could paint the blinds and doors Rookwood
Dark Red #94275. Mr. Zaharis so amended his motion. Mr. Cook seconded the
amendment. The motion was voted on, all were in favor and the motion so
carried.
Mr. Belleau stated that since the carriage house was damaged by fire and by
a tree and he wants to tear down the structure and rebuild, salvaging
whatever can be. Mr. Cook stated that there is fantastic detail. on the
November 16, 1988, Page 2
panels.
— At this time, Mr. Carr joined the meeting.
Chairman Harris stated that if the entire building is taken down at once,
there could be a problem with rebuilding due to zoning and asked if Mr.
Belleau could rebuild it in sections. Mr. Oedel stated that repairs do not
require a variance if the structure is kept standing. Mr. Oedel added that
if Mr. Belleau tears down the building, he may have to go to the Board of
Appeals if he wishes to rebuild.
Mr. Oedel stated that the Commission could provide a letter to the Building
Inspector stating that it is important that the facade be retained
irrespective of repairing or rebuilding.
Mr. Belleau presented drawings of the existing carriage house and stated -
that the rebuilding will be the same as the original drawings.
Mr. Carr stated that the zoning amendment allows carriage houses to be
transferred to residences without a variance. Mr. Carr stated that he
would prefer to rehabilitate it as it stands rather than tear down and
start over.
Chairman Harris asked if the building will be rental or income property.
Mr. Belleau replied in the negative.
Mr. Cook stated that the best part of the building is salvageable and that
clapboarding is the easiest to replace.
Chairman Harris suggested that the front be braced and kept intact while
• the rest is rebuilt. Chairman Harris added that a waiver of the Demolition
Delay Ordinance to demolish the rest of the building would be necessary.
Mr. Carr suggested that Mr. Belleau speak to Mr. Jeremiah Jennings of River
Street, who has done similar rehabilitation. Mr. Belleau stated that he
will check into what can be done regarding bracing and subsequent
rehabilitation work.
Chairman Harris stated that the Commission does not have to do anything on
this until Mr. Belleau decides.
— At this time Chairman Harris turned the Chair over to Mr. Oedel and
excused herself from the remainder of the meeting.
4 Pickering Street
Mr. Stanley Smith was unable to present an application to enlarge and
enclose the porch on the south side of his home at 4 Pickering Street due
to the plans not being ready for presentation.
Mr. Smith provided plans of the railings which were continued from the last
meeting. Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the railings as drawn. Mr.
Carr seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
14 Chestnut Street
Dr. Murray presented an application for a new wood blend roof, replacement
•
November 16, 1988, Page 3
of two skylights, addition of one skylight.,, and for paint colors at his
home at 14 Chestnut Street. The paint colors are Richmond Beige for the
body and white for the trim. All skylights will be velex. Pictures were
passed which showed the work on the roof has already been started and that
the house has already been painted.
• Dr. Murray -stated that he gave an application for such work to the Planning
Department in September but was never put on the agenda for a meeting.
Mr. Carr referred to the guidelines and read from the section that
specifies what the Commission advocates regarding skylights. Mr. Carr
stated that more than one skylight located as a window is less acceptable
than one utilized for ventilation. Mr. Carr added that since this policy
has been applied to 40 or more homeowners in the past, he doesn' t see how
the Commission could approve these three skylights.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the paint colors as presented. Mr. Geary
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Carr referred to the guidelines regarding roofing materials and read
that black is recommended if the original color and materials cannot be
used so that the roof will read as void or otherwise the shingles should
"successfully imitate slate or wood". Dr. Murray stated that the original
was a wood shingle and felt that the wood blend would be close to the
cedar. Mr. Carr stated that the question is if the wood blend is a good
duplication to a wooden shingle. Mr. Oedel stated that the guidelines lean
toward Permaslate and added that there is no precident on a wood imitation.
Mr. Carr stated that the question is if brown asphalt will read as a wood
shingle. Mr. Oedel felt that it looked like a brown asphalt shingle.
• Dr. Murray stated that he gave the Planning Department his application on
September 16, 1988. Mr. Oedel stated that the application before the
Commission is dated November 2, 1988. Dr. Murray stated that this new
application was filled in by Mr. Healy. Mr. Carr stated that the
Commission could be in a 60 day situation which could require automatic
approval.
Mr. Oedel stated that only the visible facades of the roof are left
unreplaced at this time and that it appears that 30% of the roof is done
with 70% remaining. Mr. Cook stated that black asphalt could be done on
the front as long as only the black is visible from the public way.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to disapprove the application as submitted for
the roof. Mr. Geary seconded the motion. Mr. Carr suggested that Mr.
Zaharis amend his motion to approve the application as submitted for the
roof. Mr. Geary withdrew his second. Mr. Zaharis withdrew his motion.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the wood blend shingle with the hopes
that the motion would fail. Mr. Zaharis seconded the motion.
Mr. Cook stated that he would like all rooftops visible from Chestnut
Street black.
Dr. Murray stated that some of the original shingle is left on his roof and
it is wooden. Mr. Oedel stated that the application is for simulated and
that if Dr. Murray wanted to replace it with wood, the Commission would
November 16, 1988, Page 4
likely approve it.
The motion was voted upon. Messrs. Oedel, Cook, Zaharis, and Geary voted
in opposition and Mr. Carr abstained due to not having seen the roof.
• Dr. Murray stated that if he could produce a copy of the original
application, it would be dated over 60 days. Mr. Carr stated that the 60
day automatic approval was instituted as a way of assuring that the
Commission does not make motions continueing public hearings too many times
before rendering a decision on the application and believed that the
meaning of the law was that the 60 days started from the first public
hearing and not from receipt of the application.
Dr. Murray stated that he has a letter signed by Mr. Healy stating that the
work being done to the roof did not come under the jurisdiction of the
Commission and would like the opportunity to go home and get it.
Mr. Geary made a motion to continue the public hearing until later in the
evening. Mr. Carr seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion
so carried.
5 Chestnut Street
Mr. Blake Anderson presented an application for the installation of a fence
on his property at 5 Chestnut Street. It will be a Federal period fence
and gate and will be of wood construction. The paint color will match the
house trim color. Design and dimensions will be as per drawing presented.
It will be installed in two sections running Easterly from NE and SE
corners of the house - parallel to Chestnut Street. Mr. Anderson stated
that he will trim the bushes back and put the fence around the bushes.
• Mr. Oedel asked if the fence will have round or square spindles. Mr.
Anderson stated that he preferred the round spindles and will use 1 1/8
dowling and mill the last six inches.
Mr. Oedel believed that the back fence should be simpler and not as ornate
as the one on the streetscape. Mr. Anderson stated that he would be
willing to simplify the back fence.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted and allow
the applicant' s judgement in toning down the back fence. Mr. Zaharis
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
131 Derby Street
Mr. Roger Hedstrom presented an application for the hanging of a sign at
131 Derby Street. Mr. Hedstrom provided pictures of a sign which was hung
from the existing brackets by the previous owners. The sign was hanging
for 5 or 6 years and was taken down approximately li years ago. Mr.
Hedstrom also provided a 1980 Historic Commission Certificate of
Appropriateness for the original sign. Mr. Hedstrom' s sign will be exact
in size and shape to that of the original owners sign.
Ms. Thea Wolosinski of 132 Derby Street asked what size the sign would be.
Mr. Hedstrom replied that the original sign was approved at 3 ft x 2z ft.
Ms. Wolosinski stated that at the previous public hearing for this
•
November 16, 1988, Page 5
sign, the size was quoted at 48" x 36" and that she had no problem with the
sign at 30" x 36".
Mr. Thadeus Wlodyka of 137 Derby Street spoke in opposition o.f the sign,
. stating that the bracket covers one half of the sidewalk. Mr. Wlodyka
stated that he would prefer the sign to be on the left side of the house in
the driveway. Mr. Wlodyka added that if approved, other applicants will be
applying for similar signage.
Mr. Carr stated that the sign is an existing element.
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr.
Zaharis seconded the motion. Mr. Oedel closed the public hearing.
Mr. Geary noted that the approval for the original sign was conditional
upon the sign height of 8' above the sidewalk and that the same height
should be acceptable for this sign.
The motion was voted upon. All were in favor and the motion so carried. -
47 Washington Sq. North
Mr. James Filaritos presented an application for the installation of
railings at 47 Washington Sq. North as shown in plans. The applicant
stated that the railings have already been installed and were copied from
49 Washington Sq. North railings, however, the applicant did not bring
drawings.
Mr. Carr made a motion to continue the application until the next meeting.
Mr. Zaharis seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so
• carried.
14 Chestnut St.
In continuation from earlier in this meeting, Dr. Murray presented a sample
of the shingle proposed, a copy of the letter received from Mr. Healy
stating that Mr. Healy believed the Commission has no jurisdiction over the
proposed roof work and a copy of his building permit. Mr. Oedel stated
that Mr. Healy is not authorized to sign such a letter on behalf of the
Commission and that only the Chairman may do so. Mr. Oedel noted that the
letter did not state what the proposed work was to the roof at the time of
the issuance of the letter and that the letter was not dated. Mr. Carr
added that a Certificate of Non—Applicability, as approved by the
Commission, is the only acceptable proof of non—jurisdiction by the
Commission that the Building Inspector' s Department is authorized to accept
and that the Building Permit should not have been issued.
Mr. Oedel stated that there was a possibility of putting black asphalt
shingles on the remaining visible portions of the roof. Dr. Murray stated
that he did not want to have the roof z and z.
Mr. Carr stated that he was sympathetic regarding the roof due to the
mix—up with the letter and application but had a hard time being
sympathetic regarding skylights due to the Historic Commission guidelines.
Mr. Carr added that he could never vote in favor of the skylight over the
• doorway facing Chestnut Street. Dr. Murray stated that the skylight was in
November 16, 1988, Page 6
the bathroom when the house was built. Mr. Oedel stated that it was
doubtful that it was installed when the house was built, but may have been
added at a later date.
Mr. Oedel asked if the skylights' dimensions replacing the one at the west
peak will be the same. Dr. Murray replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Cook stated that he could live with the skylight over the chimney and
the one in the back that is existing.
Mr. Carr made a motion to deny the skylight on the slope of the roof panel
facing Chestnut Street, to approve the relocation of the skylight from the
West slope to the opposite slope provided that the skylight remains the
same size but tucked behind the chimney in order to make it less visible
and to approve the installation of the skylight on the rear facing Essex
Street. Mr. Cook seconded the motion.
Mr. Oedel stated that he could go along with moving the skylight.
Mr. Carr stated that the house was "L" shaped and that historically
skylights were installed to ventilate. The one behind the chimney vents
that area and the one in front vents the other area. Mr. Carr believed
that it will read like the original purpose.
The motion was voted upon. Messrs. Carr, Geary and Cook voted in favor.
Mr. Zaharis and Mr. Oedel voted in opposition. The motion did not carry.
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the relocation of the skylight from
currently existing on the western slope of the wing perpendicular to
Chestnut Street to the approximate same location on the eastern slope of
said roof, i.e. at the ridge pole but moved laterally behind the chimney to
the greatest extent possible to make it as minimally visable from Chestnut
Street as possible, provided that the skylifht remains the same size. Mr.
Cook seconded the motion. Messrs. Carr, Geary, Cook and Oedel voted in
favor. Mr. Zaharis voted in opposition. The motion was carried.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the skylight facing Chestnut Street. Mr.
Geary seconded the motion. There were no votes in favor. Messrs. Carr,
Geary, Cook, Oedel and Zaharis voted in opposition. The motion was denied
as inappropriate.
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the installation of the skylight on the
slope facing Essex Street on the basis of functionality and in light of the
mix—up with the roof.
Mr. Oedel stated that the skylights should be considered independantly from
the roof and that skylights should not approved based on the roof issue.
Mr. Carr stated that the two skylights will not be seen together from any
pubic way and that the skylight facing Essex Street could have been there
historically.
Mr. Oedel stated that in looking at the picture of the house, the skylight
will be painfully obvious especially with the color of the roof. After
looking at the picture, Mr. Carr stated that he did not realize that there
. was a dormer on that portion of the roof. Mr. Carr added that the dormer
November 16, 1988, Page 7
defeats the argument of heat ventilation.
Mr. Cook seconded the motion. Mr. Geary and Mr. Cook voted in favor and
Messrs. Oedel, Carr and Zaharis voted in opposition. The motion was denied
as inappropriate.
Mr. Oedel stated in review that on this application the paint colors were
approved, the wood blend shingles were denied, the black asphalt singles
were approved, the relocation of one skylight was approved and the
installation of the remaining two skylights was denied. Mr. Oedel asked
Dr. Murray to sign his application and Dr. Murray signed the application.
Dr. Murray questioned why his next door neighbor was permitted to have 2
skylights. Mr. Carr stated that he did not recall the Commission approving
skylights on the Salvo house but added that the addition of a skylight as a
window on a contemporary addition is not architecturally important. Dr.
Murray asked if the records showed that the Horowitz ' got approval on the
two skylights, what action could he take. Mr. Carr stated that Dr. Murray
could file an appeal with Superior Court or come back and apply for
reconsideration.
Other Business
8 & 8A Chestnut St. — Continuation
On October 19, 1988, an application presented by Dr. Lebel for the addition
of finials and the paint color for the fence on the applicant' s property at
8 & 8A Chestnut Street was continued until November 2, 1988. The
. application was continued at the meeting of November 2, 1988 due to the
applicants not being present.
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the remainder of the application which
included the addition of finials and paint color for the fence. Mr. Cook
seconded the motion. There were no votes in favor. Messrs. Oedel, Cook
and Geary voted in opposition. Messrs. Carr and Zaharis abstained from
voting. The application was denied due to the applicant not being present
to provide further information and answer questions and on the basis of
lack of specificity on the issues which the applicant was supposed to
provide information on.
There being no further business, Mr. Geary made a motion to adjourn. Mr.
Cook seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission
JHisCom3/111688/Page 7
December 7, 1988, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
December 7, 1988
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday,
December 7, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were
Chairman Harris, Messrs. Cook, Geary, Oedel, Slam, Wolfson and Carr, and
staff advisor Kathy Winn.
Chairman Harris called the meeting to order. Mr. Carr made a motion to
table the approval of the November 16, 1988 minutes. Mr. Slam seconded the
motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Public Hearings
18 River Street
Jeremiah and Debbie Jennings presented an application for alterations to be
done to their home at 18 River Street. The work proposed includes new JB
Sash tru grid 6 over 6 Low E windows which will match new dormer windows,
Brosco M100 style or substantially similar door, shed dormer as shown in
drawings, 3z" clapboards with smooth side to weather, black asphalt roof
and new door trim the same as 26 Upham Street. Two upper windows will be
slightly shifted to accomodate an internal staircase. The lower windows
will be lined up with the upper. . This application does not include the new
door in the back, which has not yet been selected, nor does it include the
fence or electrical entry.
Chairman Harris asked if the door trim will include dentils. Mr. Jennings
• stated that he preferred not to have the dentils.
Mr. Carr stated that the door may need to be moved slightly over to
accomodate the pilasters and suggested that it be measured to make sure it
doesn' t encroach on the first floor window.
Mr. Oedel asked the material on the sides of the shed dormer. Mr. Jennings
replied that the material will be clapboard.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Cook
seconded the motion. There were no comments from the public. All were in
favor and the motion so carried.
343 Essex Street
Robert Ledoux presented an application for the replacement of aluminum
gutters with wood gutters and the repainting of the body with the existing
color, Antique Rose, at his home at 343 Essex Street .
Chairman Harris asked if the gutters will be standard hung the same as the
aluminum. Mr. Ledoux replied in the affirmative and added that he will
rehab the existing aluminum downspouts.
Mr. Carr suggested that the aluminum downspouts be boxed in wood. Mr.
Ledoux stated that he could look into it.
. Mr. Oedel made a motion to continue the issue of downspouts until the next
December 7, 1988, Page 2
meeting. Mr. Carr seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion
so carried.
Mr. Cook made a motion to approve the application for gutters and paint
• colors as submitted. Mr. Geary seconded the motion. All were in favor and
the motion so carried.
6 Flint Street
Raymond and Margaret Farmer presented an application for the construction
of a rear deck as shown in the plans submitted for their home at 6 Flint
Street. Mr. Robert Ledoux represented the applicant. Per a Board of
Appeals decision, the 2 story porch with roof must not have stairs between
the porches. Rear elevation, plot plan, details on cornices, pictures and
drawings indicating publically visible views were presented to the
Commission.
Mr. Cook stated that 2 houses away, down Flint going towards Warren, is a
porch which is almost identical.
Mr. Carr asked if the porch will be painted the body color. Mr. Ledoux
stated that according to the Board of Appeals decision, the porch must be
painted with the existing house colors. Mr. Ledoux stated that the
existing bulkhead will be removed.
Mr. Spiros Flomp of 50 Broad Street spoke in favor of the proposed porch. ,
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Geary
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
• 313 Essex Street
Mr. Roger L'Heureux withdrew his application for fence installation and
will resubmit the application in the spring.
8 Botts Court
Peter and Betsy Merry presented an application for the erection of a fence
as shown in the plans presented. Pictures were passed of the fence which
has already been installed.
Ms. Merry stated that the fence installed continues into the neighbor' s
fence and that there was an existing fence which was replaced with this
fence. The fence is the same color as the house.
Mr. Robert Ledoux of 343 Essex Street stated that he had no objection to
the fence.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Cook
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
14 Chestnut Street
Dr. Thomas Murray presented an application for a Certificate of Hardship
for work proposed for his home at 14 Chestnut Street. The description of
• work proposed on the application is to change the color of roof to "wood
December 7 , 1988, Page 3
blende" (Bird PRC Seal—King) , to replace the existing skylight with change
in location to previously existing location on East roof (Velux TPS-2 30
5/8" x 55") , to replace a previously existing skylight on South roof (Velux
TPS 6 — 212" x 382") and to install a skylight on the North roof (TPS-4 44
3/4" x 462") . Photographs taken prior to the last Historic Commission
• meeting were presented.
Chairman Harris gave an overview of the events leading up to this
application. Chairman Harris stated that she had heard from Dr. Murray in
early September, when he had contacted her stating that he had painted the
front facade of his house and that he had decided to continue the brown
color while the painters were there and apologized for not coming before
the Historic Commission. Chairman Harris stated that she had recommended
that Dr. Murray still submit an application for the work in order for the
Commission to ratify it. Chairman Harris stated that Dr. Murray had
indicated that he had submitted an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to the staff person of the Planning Department on September
13 , 1988. Chairman Harris stated that Mr. Healy, the staff advisor,
recalls receiving an application, but is unable to pin down a date when it
was received. Chairman Harris stated that upon returning from his
vacation, Dr. Murray apparently contacted Mr. Healy to see if he was on the
agenda for the Commission and Mr. Healy had indicated that he was not.
Chairman Harris stated that a new application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness was submitted on November 2, 1988 and that there is some
confusion as to whether it was broader than the original application, why
the original application was omitted from the previous agendas, why a new
application was submitted and whether the first application was lost,
withdrawn or thrown away. Chairman Harris stated that it was the November
2, 1988 application for a Certificate of Appropriateness that was acted
upon at the November 16, 1988 meeting, which was the earliest that said
• application could be acted upon. This application was for three skylights,
paint color and the wood blend roof. At the meeting,. the .paint color was
approved along with one skylight on the East facade. The two other
skylights and the roof were denied. Since the basis for the denial of the
denial of the two skylights and roofing material had been that such work
was historically inappropriate, and since the Applicant had already
purchased the materials for the work, which he said could not be returned,
and since the Applicant had already commenced the installation of the
denied work, the Applicant was advised by the Chairman and the Vice
Chairman that his only other recourse was to submit an application for a
Certificate of Hardship. Chairman Harris stated that Dr. Murray contends
that he was told by Mr. Healy that the work proposed was not required to be
approved by the Historic Commission which is the reason why Dr. Murray
proceeded with the work and that Mr. Healy had written a letter to the
Building Inspector indicating that a building permit could be issued.
Chairman Harris is not certain why Mr. Healy wrote that letter, if Mr.
Healy was unclear as to what Dr. Murray was proposing or if Mr. Healy
misunderstood the law or the guidelines, which was unlikely since Mr. Healy
has been staff advisor for almost two years. Chairman Harris stated that
the Building Inspector notifying the Historical Commission staff advisor
prior to issueing a permit is an informal arrangement that is not set up by
State statute. It is done in order to require the person to go before the
Historic Commission prior to the building permit being issued. Chairman
Harris stated that Dr. Murray had put almost 1/3 of the roof in prior to
the meeting of November 16, 1988.
•
December 7, 1988, Page 4
Chairman Harris stated that the Historic Commission guidelines encourage
applicants to use original materials when making changes to the exterior of
their homes. Provided that when it is not practical to use original
materials, since original roof materials are sometimes prohibitively
• expensive, the Guidelines recommended that an understated asphalt shingle
is used, typically black or grey, because they tend to become unobvious and
any color that one would paint their house tends to go with black or grey.
Chairman Harris stated that the Applicant indicated that he had hoped to
simulate the original wood shingles by installing the wood blend color
shingle. The Historic Commission has never previously approved that color
because the Commission members felt that it doesn' t simulate the original
cedar shingles in color or texture. The guidelines state that a skylight
mounted very high on a peak roof and used for ventilation may be
appropriate. Chairman Harris stated that typically new skylights are not
used for ventilation, but for windows, are mounted much lower on the roof
and are of modern plastic materials and therefore, they look less
authentic. The Commission encourages applicants to do the minimum number
of skylights, to make them as small as possible and be as descrete as
possible in the. placement, particularly not to place skylights on the front
facade. Chairman Harris stated that she understands that the applicant has
since installed the two skylights and a well for the third, two of which
are near to where Dr. Murray contends other skylights at one point were in
the roof. Chairman Harris stated that there was once a skylight on the
East facade over the doorway which was almost in the elbow of the roof. It
appears that the skylight had not been there when the house was originally
built and the wood that has since covered the skylight over is a different
color from the original roof. When the skylight was added is unclear,
although there is a picture from the Essex Institute that shows it there at
some point. It appears a second skylight was added which could have been a
glass skylight or a ventilation hood in the bathroom on the south facade
• facing Chestnut Street. The Applicant has, since the 11/16/88 denial,
installed a skylight nearby but not exactly where that skylight was. The
third skylight is on the rear facade of the property facing Essex Street
and is visible from Essex and Cambridge Streets. This skylight is near the
back dormer where there was no skylight previously. Chairman Harris stated
that three weeks ago, there was only one existing skylight on the roof
which has now been removed and the three proposed skylights have already
been installed. Chairman Harris thereupon asked the applicant to present
his application.
Dr. Murray stated that he submitted his original application on September
13 , 1988 and that he had been told that the next meeting was to be held on
September 28, 1988 and that by submitting it on Tuesday, he was in time for
that meeting. Dr. Murray stated that he was told by Chairman Harris at
some point that there had been no meeting on September 28, 1988. Dr.
Murray stated that he asked on 9/16/88 for the issue to be put on the
agenda for the October 5, 1988 meeting. Dr. Murray stated that on the
evening of the 5th, when the meeting was held, he was on call and could not
make it to the meeting and did not realize that he should have received a
Notice of Public Hearing. Dr. Murray stated that on the following day he
telephoned Mr. Healy to find out the results of the meeting and was told it
had not been considered. Dr. Murray stated that he asked to be put on the
next meeting but by 10/18/88 when he had not received a Notice of Public
Hearing, Dr. Murray telephoned Mr. Healy who told him he was not on the
October 19, 1988 meeting agenda either. Dr. Murray stated that Mr. Healy
• was unable to tell him why he was not on the agenda, that Mr. Healy thought
December 7, 1988, Page 5
that Dr. Murray was going to telephone him, that he could not locate the
application and that he would look for it. Dr. Murray stated that he asked
to be put on the next meeting, which he was told by Mr. Healy would be on
November 16, 1988, although he had since learned that there had been a
meeting on November 2, 1988. Dr.. Murray stated that on the meeting of
• November 16, 1988, the application that was presented was not submitted by
him, but was written out by Mr. Healy. Dr. Murray stated that he was asked
to sign that application at the meeting in order to make it official. Dr.
Murray stated that he learned at the November 16, 1988 meeting of the 60
day requirement for action on an application and asked Mr. Healy to search
for the original application. Dr. Murray stated that Mr. Healy told him it
had been thrown away but could not answer why it had been thrown away. Dr.
Murray stated that he had tried in good faith to have his application heard
but that since the winter was coming, the roof was leaking and the workers
were ready to begin, he told Mr. Healy he really needed to start work on
the house, which is when Mr. Healy wrote the letter to the Building
Inspector.
Mr. Carr questioned what the scope of the original application called for.
Mr. Carr stated that his understanding was that the original application
was for paint colors only. Mr. Carr believed that the second application
was expanded to include the roof and the skylights. Dr. Murray stated that
all three issues were addressed on his original application and that
samples of the roof were also submitted. Mr. Carr asked if Dr. Murray had
a copy of the September 13, 1988 application. Dr. Murray replied in the
negative. Mr. Carr asked if Dr. Murray submitted drawings showing they,
placement of the skylights on the roof when he filed the application. Dr.
Murray stated that he did not submit such drawings when he filed the
application and that he was not told that he needed to file them at that
time and could bring them to the meeting.
• Mr. Cook asked if the phraseology of "replacement of existing roof"
appeared in the application. Dr. Murray replied in the affirmative. Mr.
Cook asked what the existing roof was. Dr. Murray replied that the
existing roof was Seagreen, a combination of green and red. Mr. Cook asked
if the request for the brown color was in the application. Dr. Murray
replied in the affirmative and stated that he had brought in a color sample
chart and does not know what happened to it either.
Mr. Carr asked if the copy of Mr. Healy' s letter to the Building Inspector
was available. Chairman Harris read Mr. Healy' s letter. Mr. Carr asked if
the letter is dated. Chairman Harris replied in the negative but guessed
that it was written around the same time that the Building Permit was
issued which was November 7, 1988. Dr. Murray agreed that it was probably
written around November 7, 1988. Dr. Murray stated that since Mr. Healy
had written the application dated November 2, 1988, which had been
submitted last meeting, Mr. Healy was obviously aware of the work proposed.
Mr. Carr stated that what baffles him is how Mr. Healy could have written
such a letter, where he has no authority to do so, because he has been the
staff advisor for almost two years and knows that if there is the slightest
change over an existing element, the Commission would have to pass on it.
Mr. Carr feels that there may have been some confusion as to the scope of
work when Mr. Healy wrote that letter, or whether Mr. Healy may have been
under the impression that the proposed work constituted replacement work,
as otherwise Mr. Healy's writing of such a letter is astonishing. Dr.
Murray replied that Mr. Healy stated he would "take the heat" for the
December 7, 1988, Page 6
letter.
Chairman Harris stated that she had a memo written by Mr. Healy outlining
• his recollection of the events. Mr. Carr stated that he did not feel the
letter should be read. Mr. Oedel agreed and added that the issue should be
avoided of who said what, who did what, etc.
Chairman Harris opened up the public hearing to those who wanted to speak
for the Certificate of Hardship.
Ms. Mackey Scagliotti of 38 Chestnut Street presented a petition of
signatures which represents in excess of 50% of the homeowners on the
street who approved of the Certificate of Hardship. Mr. Carr stated that
he had received unsolicited calls, from one individual in particular,
stating that the individual had been caught unaware, that the petition had
been "shoved under his nose", and he had been asked to sign it without a
fair explanation of what was involved. The individual signed the petition
and is recanting his signature and felt that it was a very one—sided
solicitation. Mr. Carr stated that this was the individual who is the
President of the Chestnut Street Associates. Mr. Carr stated that the
individual felt pressured on a neighbor—to—neighbor basis. Prior to this
call, Mr. Carr stated that this same individual had called saying he was in
opposition to the skylights and the roof. Chairman Harris read the
petition.
Ms. Jacqueline Fredericson of 18 Chestnut Street, who is a direct abutter,
stated that she approved unequivably of the skylights and the roof.
Mr. John Horowitz of 7 Botts Court, a direct abutter, spoke in favor of the
skylights, roof and paint color and stated that the Commission should be
responsible for its own actions and the actions of its employees. Mr.
Horowitz stated that since the first snow could come at any day, he did not
feel that Dr. Murray had any choice but to complete the work. Mr. Horowitz
believed that Dr. Murray went through the process in good faith. Chairman
Harris stated that the Commission does not employ anyone, that a secretary
and a staff person are assigned to the Commission through the Planning
Department. Mr. Horowitz stated that he was amazed that an application
filed on a house on Chestnut Street, which is of significant importanceto
the Commission, for major changes could be overlooked in that way. Mr.
Carr believed that the work had begun at least two weeks prior to any
application being filed. Dr. Murray stated that only the painting had been
done in July. Mr. Carr asked if Dr. Murray had been previously before the
Commission for the work done in July. Dr. Murray replied in the negative.
Mr. Carr pointed out that Dr. Murray had had previous experience with the
Commission with respect to his pool, and should have been aware that no
work should have bommenced without prior Commission approval.
Ms. Channing Bacall of 12 Chestnut Street stated that in view of the
circumstances, that by reason of hardship only, the roof should be
considered, but not the skylights.
Chairman Harris opened the public hearing to those who wishedtospeak
against the Certificate of Hardship.
Mr. Blake Anderson of 5 Chestnut Street spoke against the skylights and
December 7, 1988, Page 7
stated that he feels the approval process is straight forward and believes
that the Chestnut Street homeowners are the beneficiaries of historic
architecture and that the Commission was formed to protect their historic
rights. Mr. Anderson stated that all parties must support the process and
that communication must be started on both sides, especially on the side of
the applicant.
Mr. Jeffrey Loff of 24 Winter Street stated that he could understand the
approval of the roof due to the malfeasance of the Historic Commission but
added that the skylights are a detriment and should be eliminated in order
to restore the pristeen nature of Chestnut Street.
Ms. Nina Anderson of 5 Chestnut Street stated that the Scagliotti petition
did not clearly represent the issues raised at the last meeting.
Mr. John Pfeiffer of 43 Chestnut Street stated that he felt the issue
should be addressed as to the staff person's error and how it can be
corrected.
Mr. Alan Howe of 10 Chestnut Street stated that he was not happy about the
roof material but could live with it and stated that while the skylights
were inappropriate, he was most disturbed by the applicant filing for
hardship just because he happended to get caught doing the work. Mr. Howe
stated that he was therefore strongly against it. Mr. Howe felt that
hardship was an inappropriate way to resolve the issue.
Mr. Carr made a motion to close the public testimony portion of the
hearing. Mr. Geary seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion
so carried.
• Chairman Harris read the letters received regarding the application. The
letters received were from Jonathan Almy Reardon or 35 Chestnut Street,
Roger Hedstrom of Fine Woodworking and Restoration located at 131 Derby
Street, William Guenther, President of Historic Salem, Inc. , Anne Farnam,
President of the Essex Institute, Valerie Talmage, Executive Director of
the Massachusetts Historical Commission, and John Casey of Salem Interiors
located at 17 Flint Street.
Mr. Oedel stated that he would like to have clarified how many skylights
are currently on the house. Mr. Oedel stated that at the last meeting,
there was only one skylight on the house. Dr. Murray stated that there is
now 2 skylights and one hole covered with a tarp. Dr. Murray stated that
the skylight on the West roof was removed. Mr. Carr stated that the roof
is otherwise shingled. Dr. Murray stated that the hole covered with the
tarp is where the skylight is to be installed which was approved by the
Commission at the last meeting. Mr. Geary asked if that was the skylight
that should be tucked behind the chimney. Chairman Harris stated that it
is not tucked behind the chimney. Mr. Carr stated that it appears what was
approved and what was built are two different things.
Dr. Murray stated that color is the most important and overriding factor in
Greek revival houses. Dr. Murray stated that dark colors are inappropriate
any place on a Greek revival home by all the research he has done and to
put a black roof on a house is not in character of the house. Dr. Murray
stated that light colors, pastels and those that resemble stone or other
December 7, 1988, Page 8
natural materials were used. Dr. Murray stated that it was that research
from which they chose to get away from a black roof and that they selected
a color which was most appropriate to the overall color scheme of the
house. Dr. Murray stated that the materials were less important than the
• effect in Greek revival homes and that wood was used extensively to
simulate stone. Dr. Murray stated that although the brown does not
duplicate the original materials, it comes close to duplicating the effect
of color. Dr. Murray stated that, to the best of his research, the house
was originally built as an oblong structure with the gable end to the
street with a side entrance. Dr. Murray stated that in approximately 1870,
an addition was added to the east surface of the roof which caused the
removal of the dormer on the east side of the roof and that at the site the
dormer was removed, a sky window was placed. Dr. Murray showed a picture
of the house taken in 1873 provided by the Essex Institute which shows that
sky window in place. Dr. Murray stated that at the time the addition was
made, a second floor bathroom lost its window and he presumes, since there
is no evidence to the contrary, that when the house assumed its present
shape that a sky window was added to vent the bathroom. Dr. Murray stated
that when the picture was taken in 1873 , from certain vantage points on the
street, it was possible to view three skylights on the roof. Dr. Murray
believes that in 1873, there were three skylights, although in the picture
only two can be seen. Dr. Murray stated that the one in the bathroom
cannot be seen in the picture nor in a second picture shown, which was
taken from the exact same angle and was taken at a time when the skylight
was known to have been installed in the bathroom. Dr. Murray stated that
there were three skylights at one time and that he proposes to put three
skylights back on the roof, only two of which will be seen from the front.
Dr. Murray stated that they would be put in as close as possible, from
practical considerations, to their original locations. Dr. Murray stated
that one that is visible would be moved up about a foot to get it out of
the valley of the roof and added that leaking is probably the reason why it
had been removed before. Dr. Murray stated that it will be approximately
the same size. Dr. Murray stated that the skylight that was placed on the
front surface was moved over 1z feet to ventilate and add light to a
stairway where there isnoelectricity to the third floor. Dr. Murray
feels that the effect from the street would be negligable. Dr. Murray
stated that the skylight on the rear surface of the roof did not exist but
was necessary to expand the use of his home, has limited visibility from
the street and that during the summer it will be obscured from two
directions by trees and will only be visible from one location. Dr. Murray
presented pictures of homes in the neighborhood that have more than one
skylight.
Atty. David Gallagher, representing Dr. Murray, stated that Dr. Murray is
entitled to the Certificate of Hardship because the work that was done does
not substantially derogate from the intent of the statute and does not
substantially injure the public welfare which is the standard under the
statute. Atty. Gallagher stated that if Dr. Murray is not granted the
Certificate of Hardship, he will suffer a substantial hardship financially.
Atty. Gallagher stated that Dr. Murray has relied on the actions of the
Commission, in good faith, and that the Commission failed to make a
decision on his initial application within the 60 day period under the
statute and therefore Dr. Murray is entitled by law to a Certificate of
Hardship. Atty. Gallagher stated that Dr. Murray relied on the information
supplied by the Commission in the form of a letter by Mr. Healy and that
•
December 7, 1988, Page 9
the Building Inspector relied on the actions of the Commission in the form
of the letter, and that if the representative of the Commission acted
improperly, Dr. Murray should not suffer the consequences.
• Mr. Slam questioned why Dr. Murray didn't consider calling the Chairman of
the Commission, who lives three houses away from him. Dr. Murray stated
that he did not do that because Chairman Harris is a neighbor and felt that
to do so would be asking for favors that others may not have access to.
Mr. Slam did not feel that such contact would be asking favors. Dr. Murray
stated that he went through the normal process that anyone else would,
which is to go to the Planning Department, talk to Mr. Healy who is the
representative of the Commission, show him the materials, filled out the
application and that he relied on communication directly with Mr. Healy.
Mr. Cook clarified that the Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for the roof was denied at the November 16, 1988. Mr. Cook
asked if anything has changed on the roof since that meeting. Mr. Carr
stated that the Commission acted under an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, which, under the guidelines, such work was not deemed
appropriate. Chairman Harris stated that also denied were two of the three
skylights. Mr. Carr stated that the third skylight was to be relocated,
but just flipped over and not at the location where the well is now. Dr. ,
Murray stated that the skylight is between the exact two rafters on the
other side of the roof as was approved. Mr. Carr stated that the vote
taken reflects that Dr. Murray' s interpretation of location is incorrect
and should have been tucked in toward the chimney. Mr. Cook asked if work
has continued since the last meeting. Mr. Carr stated that the work has
been nearly completed. Mr. Oedel asked why Dr. Murray continued with the
color. Dr. Murray stated that it was a financial hardship to stop the work
• and that the roof was leaking.
Mr. Carr asked Atty. Gallagher if he was maintaining that as a matter of
law a municipality is bound by the mistakes of its municipal officials.
Mr. Carr stated that there is a substantial case law in Massachusetts where
if a municipal employee errs and does something for which he has no
authority and that authority is vested in a Board or Commission that no one
can vest that authority from them and that the proper grievance is against
that official or the City as a whole. Mr. Carr stated that the City can
not be bound by the official' s mistake. Arty. Gallagher stated that the
application was filed prior to September 16, 1988 and no action was taken
within 60 days and the law is very clear on that. Mr. Carr stated that his
understanding was that the application had been filed but then possibly
refiled and expanded in scope. Mr. Carr was also concerned, as a matter of
law, when and if the application was ever completed, if it ever met the
requirements for an application, whether it came with drawings and a clear
definition of what was proposed, and if the application had been expanded
at some point, since some portions of the work had begun as early as July.
Mr. Carr asked that if the Certificate should be passed as a matter of
right due to the 60 day period, why did Dr. Murray sit in on the November
16, 1988 meeting or be at this meeting since he would then be entitled to
get a Certificate automatically. Dr. Murray stated that he had no
knowledge of the 60 day rule at the time.
Dr. Murray stated that he has one of the largest roof areas in the
neighborhood and that the addition of three skylights is not
•
December 7, 1988, Page 10
disproportionate to the roof size, area or shape.
Mr. Carr made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Oedel seconded they
motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried. '
• Mr. Carr stated that he would like to remind the Commision that this is not
an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness but for a Certificate
of Hardship. Mr. Carr suggested that the two elements of the application
be seperated.
Mr. Carr stated that the roof is a huge expense and a necessary requirement
that it be closed off to the weather. Mr. Carr stated that the
consequences of not waiting for a resolution are catastrophic.
Mr. Carr stated that skylights are an ammenity and that characterizing them
as a hardship is not sensible either in cost or consequences if they are
not approved. Mr. Carr stated that the guidelines which were endorsed by
Massachusetts Historical show clear evidence that they are inappropriate.
Mr. Carr stated that the guidelines were produced under a $50,000 or
$60,000 grant that was coordinated through the preservation program of
Boston University. Mr. Carr stated that the building has gotten along
quite well over the last 70 years without skylights. Mr. Carr stated that
the applicant installed the skylight in the rear oversized and added that
it is quite visible during all four seasons of the year. Mr. Carr added
that the applicant has installed the skylight over the front door, quite
flagrantly, since the vote taken at the last meeting and has created a well
in a location which was not what the Commission approved at the last
meeting. Mr. Carr stated that from the standpoint of cost, he does not see
it as a hardship issue. Mr. Carr stated that the skylights are very
• visible and very detrimental from an appropriateness standpoint without any
countervailing reason to have them. Mr. Carr stated that the Commission' s
mission is to protect the historic and architectural integrity of the
district and that skylights were originally a functional element, to vent
warm air in the attic and not to be treated as windows. Mr. Carr stated
that they were to be restricted in terms of numbers and size. Mr. Carr
stated that some of the examples of windows that Dr. Murray showed predate
the guidelines and some predate the district. Mr. Carr added that some
photographs taken are at angles that are misleading as they are not visible
from the street or the district. Mr. Carr added the point that as the
Commission grows, it brings more sophistication than it did when it was
formed 16 years ago and that some things that passed in the early stages
would never pass now.
Mr. Oedel stated that he agrees with Mr. Carr regarding the question of
hardship on the skylights. Mr. Oedel stated that he did not know which
roofing company Dr. Murray was using but stated that he has gotten in touch
with the Bird Roofing Company and was told that roofing materials are
returnable and on November 16, 1988 the roofing materials could have been
returned. Mr. Oedel stated that from November 16, 1988 to this meeting
what the Commission is dealing with is a self—created hardship and under
the definition of hardship the Commission cannot approve a self—created
hardship. Mr. Oedel stated that lots of money has been expended that
didn' t have to be because Dr. Murray went against the Commission' s
decision.
December 7, 1988, Page 11
Mr. Carr made a motion to deny the application for a Certificate of
Hardship with respect to the two skylights that have been installed and to
require the third on the slope of the roof perpendicular to Chestnut Street
be located where it was approved at the last meeting. Mr. Geary seconded
the motion.
Mr. Slam stated that he feels that while there are grey areas involved, to
a large extent this is a self—imposed hardship. Mr. Slam stated that one
reason is Dr. Murray' s previous recollection of his previous experience
with the Historic Commission. Mr. Slam recalls that Dr. Murray had been
before the Commission regarding a swimming pool and that Dr. Murray was
aware of the situation within a Historic Commission and added that Dr.
Murray is an educated person who lives in one of the most highly regulated
historic districts in Salem and believes Dr. Murray knew what the
regulations were and possibly with blinders on, went ahead and did the
work. Mr. Slam stated that he did have access to Chairman Harris and could
have inquired as to the status but did not avail himself of that. Mr. Slam
stated that the work done since the decision of the Commission was done
heedlessly when Dr. Murray knew what the Commission' s position was.
Mr. Cook also felt the hardship was self—imposed.
Mr. Geary stated that he was against a hardship on the skylights.
Mr. Carr amended his motion to include the immediate removal of the two
skylights and that the well be covered over. Mr. Geary seconded the
amendment. The motion was voted upon, all were in favor and the motion so
carried.
•
Fir. Carr stated that he was convinced that some blame for this situation
was generated by Mr. Healy and that the Commission should consider that
they have heard from everyone but Mr. Healy. Mr. Carr stated that if the
Commission voted to remove the roof, Dr. Murray would not be expected to do
so until the summer. Mr. Carr felt that action should be deferred on the
roof until Mr. Healy is heard.
Mr. Geary made a motion to deny the Certificate of Hardship for the roof.
Mr. Slam asked if Mr. Geary would accept a friendly amendment to allow the
removal of the roof in the spring. Mr. Geary so amended his motion.
Chairman Harris stated that Mr. Healy could be present at the next meeting
if needed.
Mr. Geary .stated that being the most recent appointee to the Commission, he
has learned that what looks good is not always what is appropriate. Mr.
Geary stated that he feels that part of the hardship is self inflicted due
to the roof work moving forward after last meeting' s denial.
Mr. Oedel asked if Mr. Geary would accept a friendly amendment that the
roof be removed by June 1 , 1989 and that it be replaced by a roof meeting
the Guidelines of the Salem Historical Commission. Mr. Geary so amended
his motion.
Mr. Cook seconded the motion. Messrs. Geary, Slam, Wolfson, Cook and Oedel
voted in favor. Chairman Harris and Mr. Carr voted in opposition. The
December 7 , 1988, Page 12
motion was so carried.
4 Pickering Street
. Mr. Stanley Smith submitted an application for enlarging and enclosing the
front porch at his home at 4 Pickering Street. The applicant was not
present to answer questions and drawings had not been submitted.
Mr. Carr made a motion to deny the application without prejudice due to not
having materials necessary to make an informed decision. Mr. Oedel
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Carr suggested that the Clerk of the Commission write a letter
informing Mr. Smith of the vote taken.
Other Business
110 Derby Street
In continuation from the meeting of November 2, 1988, Mr. James Bailey and
rMr. Robert Curran presented drawings for work not yet approved on the
application submitted. The items continued were as follows:
Item 8B - Large front window on Derby Street - remove and replace
Item 9B - Build a wooden structure with clapboard where concrete block
building was
Item 10 - Place metal bulkhead on Turner Street
Item 11 - Front central entrance on Derby Street
Red door
• The applicants submitted colors for the red door of either Salem Paint Barn
Red #611 or Brilliant Red #403 . The applicants prefer the brilliant red.
The applicants presented 2 alternatives for the window on Derby Street.
Mr. Carr stated that he sees a precedent in the drawing identified as
Alternate #1 . Mr. Cook was in agreement.
The applicants presented 2 alternatives for the recessed door on Derby
Street. The applicants stated that the recessed door would be brought back
18 inches but will still be recessed enough to allow for the door to not
open up over the sidewalk and that the pilaster panels will be on the plane
of the building.
Mr. Carr stated that the building should have one defined front door and
that the other doors should not compete in fanciness. Mr. Carr stated that
it was unprecidented to have such fanciness on a second door. The
applicants stated that the door is the primary entrance to the building.
Mr. Oedel felt that with such a massive building, it should not be of
concern.
The applicants stated that handicapped accessibility must be addressed at
the back doorway although the applicants would prefer not to. Mr. Carr
stated that the Commission could write a letter to the Architectural
Barriers Board in support of their appeal.
•
December 7, 1988, Page 13
In order to put a bar in the rear to add atmosphere, the applicants would
like to put in a small 10 x 10 addition where the old porch is and enclose
the back with a wooden structure with a batton door and put in a wooden
recessed bulkhead. To continue the wall, the applicants must have Historic
Commission approval before going to the Board of Appeal. The fence in
front of the wooden structure will be coming down.
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the Brilliant Red door. Mr. Carr
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the window identified as Alternate #1
with the heavy sill and intregal muttins. Mr. Cook seconded the motion.
All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Carr stated that he was troubled by the fluting on the doorways. Mr.
Oedel agreed and stated that he feels the recess will look odd with the
fanciness of the fluting. Chairman Harris stated that there should be a
little roof sticking out 6-8 inches. Mr. Carr stated that the pilasters
should be plain like 26 Upham Street. The applicants stated that the 26
Upham Street door would be acceptable except for the flat top. Mr. Carr
stated that he was not concerned whether the applicant used a triangular or
flat pediment.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the front doorway essentially identical
to 393 Essex Street without the fluted pilaster or 26 Upham Street exactly
as is. Mr. Carr seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so
carried.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the rear entry as per drawings with
. vertical batton door with the exception of handicapped access and that the
Historic Commission write a letter to the Architectural Barriers Board in
support of the applicants' appeal. Mr. Carr seconded the motion. All were
in favor and the motion so carried.
,. Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the wooden bulkhead. Mr. Geary seconded
the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the rear addition as drawn from the
design standpoint and that the Historic Commission communicate to the Board
of Appeals that it is neither in favor nor against the variance but is in
approval from a design standpoint. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion. All
were in favor and the motion so carried.
47 Washington Sq. N
In a continuation from the last meeting Mr. James Filaritos submitted
drawings for railings that have already been installed at 47 Washington Sq.
North.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the installation of the railing. Mr.
Oedel seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
30 Warren Street
Donald and Melissa Humphrey presented an application for a Certificate of
•
December 7, 1988, Page 14
Non-Applicability for the replacement of a roof deck that was previously
removed due to severe decay in most of the support posts, rails and floor
boards. The new deck will be identical as to size, shape, design and
color. The foundation, which cannot be seen from the street will be
• slightly different. Pressure treated wood will be used. The applicants
wish to obtain a Certificate of Non-Applicability because they are
replacing an existing element that was recently removed.
Mr. Carr made a motion to accept the finding that the roof deck is an
existing element and approve the application for a Certificate of
Non-Applicability. Mr. Geary seconded the motion. All were in favor and
the motion so carried.
335 Essex Street
Robert and Barbara Maler presented an application for a Certificate of
Non-Applicability for the installation of a chimney cap which is required
in order to comply with the Building Department' s code to meet installation
requirements for a wood burning stove and its appropriate chimney lining.
The chimney cap keeps the elements out of the flue. Mr. Mater presented
the cap which will be above the chimney line and will be visible from the
public way. Mr. Mater stated that he could paint the cap black.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to continue the application until the January 4,
1989 meeting in order to allow the applicant to explore alternate methods
for solving the problem. Mr. Carr seconded the motion. All were in favor
and the motion so carried.
Preservation Projects Grant Application
• Chairman Harris read a fact sheet prepared by the Salem Planning Department
for the Preservation Projects Grant Application for the Master & Keepers
House located at the Salem Jail.
Mr. Carr made a motion to write a letter enthusiastically endorsing the
work proposed. Mr. Cook seconded the motion. All were in favor and the
motion so carried.
Commission Appointments
Chairman Harris stated that Dr. Richard Lebel is being considered by the
City Council as a replacement for Andy Lippman. Chairman Harris stated
that the appointment went to Council and was tabled.
Chairman Harris expressed concern that Dr. Lebel has installed some
improvements to his home which may end up in litigation and that Dr. Lebel
would therefore be an inappropriate appointment.
Chairman Harris stated that Mr. Pierce, who has been attending most of the
Historic Commission meetings, is an architect and is an appropriate
candidate.
Mr. Geary made a motion for the Historic Commission to inform Mayor Salvo
that Dr. Lebel is an inappropriate appointment. Mr. Oedel seconded the
motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
December 7, 1988, Page 15
December 21 , 1988 meeting
Mr. Carr made a motion tocancelthe December 21, 1988 meeting providing
that anyone who has submitted applications agrees to do so. Mr. Geary
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
There being no futher business, Mr. Geary made a motion to adjourn. Mr.
Carr seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried. li
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission
JHisCom4/120788/1207PT2/1207PT3
•
0
o ® o p
25070 YELLOW
25M BLACK
25012 LIGHT BLUE
26M DARK BLUE
25074 LIGHT GRAY
25076 LIGHT GREEN
25078 DARK GREEN
25077 TANGERINE25078 RED
'
28079 EXECUTIVE RED
WITH WATER RESISTANT
COVERS
ACCO.
ACOO INTERNATIONAL INC.
CHICAGq ILLINOIS 60619
o
• _ _ ^ti-. r tetra,.-_ ._�_. —•�