SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION.,,X -
MINUTES- 1989 -
F C
mak'
1
s
January 4,' 1989, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
January 4, 1989
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, -
January 4, 1989 at 7 :30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were
Messrs. Carr, Cook, Geary, Slam and Oedel and staff advisor Kathy Winn.
Vice Chairman Carr called the meeting to order. -
I Mr. Geary made a motion to defer the approval of the November 16, 1988 and
December 7, 1988 minutes until the next meeting. Mr. Cook seconded the
motion, all. were in favor and the motion so carried.
�'.. Public Hearings
370 Essex Street
Mr. Pat Cl.oherty, representing the Salem Public Library, presented an
'+. application for exterior work for Phase II Library Rehabilitation. The
lappl.ication proposed the following work:
' Front Entrance - Installation of new brownstone fluted column shafts, as
original; repair of base of engaged pilasters; repair of porch
balustrade; repair of stairs; installation of new porch light;
installation of new small sign with Library hours.
3 Slate Roof - repairs and painting of wooden roof cornice.
1
• Rear bookstack window replacement - East, North and West elevations each
have three casement windows (centered each wall, one window per floo..-)
to be replaced with identical windows with all. glass block to remain.
Installation of three air vents.
a New stair enclosure at rear (appurtenance) .
High rear bookstack roof - rear window of Bertram House changed to door
on third floor (not visible from public way) ; walkway with railings
across roof to new rear stair (appurtenance) ; new stair enclosure on
i roof at rear (appurtenance) ; all required for public safety, for safe _
e egress from third floor of Bertram House.
a
Mr. Robert Farley, the architect for the project, presented plans of the
= j•'' ' work and provided explanations of the proposed work including:
Front entrance - Balusters that are replaced will be of new cast stone
colored to match brownstone in place of the existing
brownstone. New carved brownstone pillars and base.
Steps to resemble rest of current brownstone and
waterproofing. Top two stairs to be replaced with new
concrete to match original brownstone. Stairs to be
repointed with original color mortar. The new light
will be custom made. The existing fluorescant fixture
-" will be removed. Address numbers will be attached to
the inside of the glass entrance - roman style
NO numbering.
January 4, 1989, Page 2
Rear - The secondary egress will be an enclosed fire stairway on the
inside of building except the top portion which will protrude
above the roof and is visible from Federal Street. There will be
windows replaced and two 12 ' x 6'H air intake vents which will
protrude from the rear, centered with the windows will be
installed.
Roof - Will duplicate a skylight with three side windows that was
installed and removed years ago. Architectural drawings are
available but there are no pictures showing the prior skylight.
Skylight will have metal sash instead of wood. All existing
windows in building are metal and the Hopes Window Co. , the
original manufacturer, will make sashes. Railing will be added
to the west side of the roof which will be barely visible from
Flint Street and not visible from Munroe. Part of the rail and
the stair tower will be seen from the driveway. The chimney will
be removed to the roof level due to its height and the danger of
falling. The slate roof will be repaired. The main wood cornice
will be repainted the same color.
East side - Will add copper sloping shed roof to complete egress to
].ower level. One air intake vent will be placed above one
window of which ?will be visible from Munroe.
West side - Window replacement.
Mr. Oedel was concerned that the brownstone on the main columns will
require repairs within fifteen years and suggested the use of a more
durable material. Mr. Farley felt that the brownstown could last up to
• fifty years and that the newer existing materials for repairing brownstone,
as well as those yet to be developed, will be longer lasting than older
methods of repairing brownstone.
Mr. Dave Fixx, representing Betty Callahan of 7 Munroe Street asked how far
back will the door used as rear egress be from the edge of the roof. Mr.
Farley replied 12" to 181 . Mr. Fixx asked if the railing on the outside
will be to the 42" high code. Mr. Farley replied in the affirmative. Mr.
Fixx questioned if the extension from the stairs in the rear was planned in
the first phase. Mr. Farley replied that Phase had not been worked out
at that time. Mr. Fixx asked if the interior metal stairs were gone. Mr.
Farley replied that the stairs are currently there, but will be removed
since they are illegal. Mr. Fixx asked if the new stair will be in the
same shaft. Mr. Farley replied approximately. Mr. Fixx asked if it will
require the removal of any book stack space. Mr. Farley replied in the
affirmative, that the stairs will be larger and must be fire enclosed. Mr.
Fixx asked if it was necessary for it to protrude from the Munroe Street
side. Mr. Farley replied that it was necessary in order to get headroom.
Mr. Fixx asked if the landing and stairs could be brought down from another
location. Mr. Farley stated that relocation would require breaking into
the new children' s library and the boiler room as well. as the rearrangement
of the windows.
Mr. Daniel Pierce of 22 Andover Street asked what other locations for the
stairs were looked at as options during Phase 1 . Mr. Farley replied that
during Phase 1 , they did not study into Phase 2 that far. Mr. Farley
stated that the proposed was the most practical solution due to the
January 4, 1989, Page 3
requirement of secondary egress being the most remote from the primary
egress. Mr. Farley stated that this location has the Least impact and also
works best interiorly.
Mr. Carr asked if they would consider an appeal of the roof enclosed egress
and the use of a spring activated trap door. Mr. Farley stated that a trap
door was investigated and was turned down by the building inspector on the
basis that the elderly, etc. could not easily use it. Mr. Cloherty added
that the snow and ice on the top of the hatch could cause the hatch to seal
shut. Mr. Carr stated that snow and ice removal could be a routine
maintenance task.
Fire Prevention Deputy Chief David Goggin stated that such a door entry
could be used for venting purposes only and that a door knob or push bar is
required for safe fire egress.
Mr. Fixx felt that the library should try for appeal. Mr. Farley stated
that since he was responsible for the design of the building, he was not
sure that he would want to appeal.
Mr. Carr asked if there was a long range master plan that will call for
adding an additional floor. Mr. Cloherty stated that the proposed work is
remaining part of the 20 year plan and that there are no other plans.
Mr. Carr asked what the interior function of the new skylight is. Mr.
Farley stated that it will add light to the new reference library.
Mr. Carr asked the construction timetable. Mr. Farley stated that they
will go for bid in approximately 30 days and will start construction 2
months later.
• Mr. Slam asked if the fire stair will be just a slab of copper. -Mr. Farley
stated that it will be flat-seamed copper with verticle seams that will
look similar to the Peabody City Hall copper work done two years ago. Mr.
Slam asked if there was a more becomming enclosure besides copper. Mr.
Farley stated that the current exterior materials are brick, brownstone and
copper and that they don' t want to go beyond the existing materials.
Mr. Slam stated that the flat board railing was not very attractive. Mr.
Farley replied that it will be painted the color of Essex Green. Mr.
Farley explained that they did not want to penetrate the wood membrane and
that the rail will be free standing and must be self-supporting, therefore,
the simpliest method is to put brackets on the outside, so that they can' t
be tripped over.
Mr. Slam asked about the hours sign. Mr. Farley stated that he did not
have drawings, but that he would like to mount a standard handicapped sign
and an hours sign onto the fence. The hours sign will be black metal with
white letters. Mr. Carr stated that the sign cannot be approved tonight
without drawings.
Mr. Fixx asked if the riser for the new roof stairs will be all copper.
Mr. Farley replied in the affirmative with the exception of the door which
will be painted steel.
Mr. Glenn Yale of 153 Federal Street, Trustee, stated that he was in favor
January 4, 1989, Page 4
of the project.
I
Mr. Dave Fixx representing Betty Callahan stated that he was not sure if he
agreed with the new fire stair access and would prefer to see other means
pursued. Mr. Fixx stated that the work seems to violate the agreements in
Phase 1 that the library made with the abutters to not pursue further
construction on Phase 1 . Mr. Fixx felt that the work was an addition of
Phase 1 and stated that he was only opposed to the headroom access to the
ground level fire stairs.
Mr. Pat Cloherty of 14 Heritage Drive started that the library has tried to
be conscious of the neighbor' s concerns and added that the City Solicitor
and Building Inspector have instructed him that the headroom access is not
construction but roof appurtenance.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the following work as outlined in
Drawing #1 (Front entrance) dated 1/4/89: 1
- Brownstone pillars and base ,
- Waterproof 2 concrete stairs and replace in brownstone
- New light fixture - period style
Mr. Geary seconded the motion.
Mr. Slam asked if there was detail on thel,light. Mr. Farley replied in the
negative and stated that it will be custom made. Mr. Slam suggested the
motion be amended to exclude the light. Mir. Cook was in agreement.
• Mr. Oedel amended the motion. Mr. Geary sleconded the amendment. The
motion was voted on, all were in favor and, the motion so carried.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the folllowing work:
Drawing #2 (East elevation) dated 1/4/89:
- Remove chimney to below roof,' line
- New skylight
- Replacement of 3 windows
- Left most window - addition of vent
Drawing #3 (North elevation) dated 1/4/89:
- Window replacement
- Addition of 2 vents
Mr. Geary seconded the motion.
Mr. Carr asked how much the metal frames will overlap the brick. Mr.
Farley stated that the frames are existing and that the sub-frames are not
being replaced.
The motion was voted upon, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
• Mr. Carr stated that he would like to verify the lack of visibility of the
I i
January 4, 1989, Page 5
secondary egress, railing and ground floor headroom access. Mr. Carr felt
that this work should not be for a Certificate of Appropriateness but
, should be for a Certificate of Hardship)
• Mr. Farley stated that he has tried to come up with other solutions, but
cannot take a chance on liability.
Mr. Cloherty stated that they would like to keep on schedule, that this is
an ideal time for bidding, and that they�lwould wait two weeks only if they
have to.
Mr. Slam stated that he was satisfied with the proposed work presented and
that it seemed to be the best solution.
Mr. Cook stated that he would like more time and that he was not satisfied
with the solution.
Mr. Carr stated that he would personally benefit by going to the site.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to continue the balance of the application until
the January 18, 1989 meeting. Mr. Cook seconded the motion.
Mr. Yale stated that he was concerned by the 21 day right to appeal period
that would go into effect from the date the Certificate of Appropriateness
is filed with the City Clerk which would cause further delays in bidding
and construction than just the two week continuance.
Mr. Farley stated that time delays could result in the increase in prices
or changes in building codes. Mr. Farley added that this is the ideal
bidding time. i
• Mr. Carr stated that the choice is to waitthe two weeks or take a chance
on the Commission denying the application.
Mr. Cloherty stated that they will wait the two weeks.
The motion was voted upon. Messrs. Carr, Cook, Geary, and Oedel. voted in
favor. Mr. Slam voted in opposition. Theimotion was carried.
Mr. Oedel requested a set of plans of the interior.
Mr. Cloherty stated that he would give a tour to the Historic Commission
members.
331 Essex Street
Mr. Alan Howe presented an application for ,work to be done to his property
at. 331 Essex Street. The work proposed is to:
- Modify previously approved design of� secondary egress so as to raise
the front door from the ground levelito the first floor above the
level of the foundation and to provide exterior stairs.
- Remove double window on south facade ' and restore to single window.
- Reduce rear deck to size sufficient only for exit with stairs
running along wall toward Cambridge Street.
• - Remove cellar window and install door for boiler room access.
r
i
January 4, 1989, Page 6
Mr. Howe stated that he will install a formal heavier door. Mr. Howe
stated that his tenant was not willing toIhave the exterior fire exit
removed even though he proposed to install two interior fire exits.
Mr. Carr asked the material of the railing.. Mr. Howe replied the railing
will be iron.
Mr. John Donahue of 6 Cambridge Street stated that he was neutral as to the
work proposed and had no objections but added that he had never received a
Notice of Public Hearing for the last application of Mr. Howe' s.
Mr. Oedel made motion to approve the concept of the work proposed pending
details of the granite foundation, door and stairs. Mr. Geary seconded the
motion. All were in favor. The motion so carried and by agreement the
application is continued until thenextmeeting during which time the 60
day period will be tolled.
Mr. Howe presented a design for the rear of the house. Mr. Howe proposes
to remove 2 windows that were not part of Ithe original building
construction, move the door to the center, replace the door with a like
window with matching trim, and add a boiler room door which will not be
visible.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the concept pending details. Mr. Geary
seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion so carried and by
agreement the application is continued until the next meeting during which
time the 60 day period will be tolled.
301 Lafayette Street
• Mr. Phil D'Amour presented an application for the placement of a sign at
301 Lafayette Street. Mr. D'Amour is a tenant and proposes to install a
free standing sign for his Uniglobe Travel business. Mr. D'Amour presented
drawings, colors and typeface. Pictures were passed.
Mr. Slam asked if the sign will be installed onto the lawn horizontally.
Mr. D'Amour replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Cook stated that the area is residential.
Mr. D'Amour stated the building is zoned for his business and that the sign
will be similar to the chiropractor' s signithat is two doors up but only
smaller.
Mr. Slam stated that Lafayette Street is a ;newer district and that the
chiropractor' s sign was grandfathered in. Mr. Slam stated that the sign
would not have necessarily been approved ifIit had come before the
Commission.
Mr. Carr stated that the Commission' s function is to protect the
architectural image of residential neighborhoods and that free standinbg
signs are not acceptable. Mr. Slam was in agreement that the sign was
unacceptable.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to deny the application. Mr. Slam seconded the
• motion.
I
January 4, 1989, Page 7
David Goggin of 298-300 Lafayette Streetistated that he once had a sign at
his home for his business, but has since itaken it down. Mr. Goggin stated
that he was neither in favor nor in objection of the application.
• Mr. Oedel commented that free standing sil�gns have been allowed in
institutional complexes, such as the Esselx Institute, where signages tie in
together.
Mr. Carr stated that a fixed sign of reasonable scale attached on the side
of the building would be preferable.
The motion was voted upon, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. D'Amour requested that his drawings be mailed back to him.
Other Business
33 Essex x r et
sse Street
Mr. Robert Ledoux notified the Historic Commission' s staff advisor, Kathy
Winn, by telephone on this date, that he will not be changing the existing
downspouts at his home at 343 Essex Street, and therefore the continuation
is not necessary.
335 Essex Street
In continuation from the last Historic Commission meeting, the application
for a Certificate of Non—Applicability foria chimney cap at 335 Essex
Street was presented. The applicants, Robert and Barbara Maler were not
present. Ms. Winn stated that the applicants installed 4 bricks mortared
together which holds a spark screen and bluestone slate, which meets the
safety code. Ms. Winn was told by the applicants that this was installad
as a temporary solution, but it can be left permanently and that it is less
visible than the previously proposed chimney cap. Pictures of what was
installed were passed which indicated whatIwas visible from a public way.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the Cert Iificate of Non—Applicability.
Mr. Geary seconded the motion. There were none in favor. Messrs. Carr,
Oedel , Geary, Cook and Slam voted in opposition. The motion did not carry
and the application was denied.
Ms. Winn will inform the applicants that they are suggested to apply for a
Certificate of Appropriateness.
14 Beckford Street
No application was received nor were representatives present and therefore
the item was removed from the agenda.
Mr. Oedel stated that he has received a memorandum from Historic
Massachusetts Inc. regarding the Preservation Month Calendar of 1989. They
have requested that any events scheduled for the month of May be noted on
their form and returned by March 1 , 1989. Mr. Oedel stated that the Salem
Partnership is having a 4 day symposium. MrI 1. Carr suggested that the Salem
Partnership be invited to meet with the Historical Commission.
r
�I
January 4, 1989, Page 8
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.
. Respectfully s b itted,
Jan A. Guy
Cie of the Co mission
JHisCom4/010489
II
I
I
II
II
II
I
I
III
January 18, 1989, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL' COMMISSION
MINUTES
January 18,11989
• A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday,
January 18, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were
Messrs. Carr, Oedel, Slam, Geary, Pierce,1 Zaharis, Cook and Staff Advisor,
Kathy Winn. Chairman Harris was not in attendance and therefore Mr. Carr
chaired the meeting.
Mr. Carr called the meeting to order and 'welcomed Daniel Pierce as a new
member of the Commission. Mr. Carr stated that in order to move the
meeting along, approval of the minutes will be at the end of the agenda.
26 Lynde Street
Mr. Garry Connor was present to provide plans for the renovation of the
third floor of 26 Lynde Street which is not in an historic district. The
owners, Leonard Berkal, Michael Stelman, Timothy Cavern and Jeffrey
Shribman are requesting that the Commission send a letter of support for
their application for a variance to the Architectural Access Board.
Mr. Connor stated that due to the total cost of the renovations, 100% of
code requirements for handicap access must be met. This includes access to
all floors by elevator, alterationsto the' front entrance, doors and public
toilet rooms.
The front entry doors, which are currentlyl, symetrical, are 2'4" each. The
code requirement would change them to asymetrical doors of 3 ' and 2' .
• In order to achieve handicap access into the building, of which the first
floor is 4z' from grade, a 50' ramp would be necessary. This ramp would go
from the rear of the building to around the side of the building toward the
front. Due to the limited parking in the back, a handicapped person would
have to wheel around three sides of the building to get to the ramp. This
ramp would be visible from the historic district and would block three
windows into the basement. An alternate solution would be a chairlift.
Mr. Geary asked if the Commission has written letters of support for
properties outside of the district in the past. Mr. Carr stated that he
could not recall having done so, but that the Commission, under the
statute, does have the right to advise.
Mr. Slam asked if there were statistics on the number of handicapped
persons who might require access. Mr. Connor stated that the firm has a
reputation for making housecalls to those who are handicapped, etc. and
cannot come to their offices and that this happens only 5 or 6 times a
year.
Mr. Zaharis stated that the alterations required would be an eyesore if the
district were to be expanded to include this property.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to send a letter of �support of the variance to the
Architectural Access Board for Section 26, ramps and stairlift, and Section
• 27, door. Mr. Zaharis seconded the motion. All were in favor and the
January 18, 1989, Page 2
motion so carried.
331 Essex Street
In continuation from the last meeting, Mr. Alan Howe was present regarding
7 alterations to his property at 331 Essex Street. Mr. Howe stated that the
details were not yet available for the work, but provided a photograph of
the new door.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to continue .the application until the next meeting.
Mr. Geary seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so
carried.
370 Essex Street
In continuation from the last meeting, Mr. Robert Farley was present to
provide alternate solutions to secondary egress at the Salem Public Library
at 370 Essex Street and to provide details on the signage and front light.
Mr. Farley provided details of a black aluminum and clear beveled glass
light to be hung from a chain from the center of the ceiling soffit panel
at the front entrace. The light will have 5 candle style bulbs.
Mr. Cook asked the height from the top step to the bottom of the light.
Mr. Farley replied that the measurement is 1116".
I
Mr. Zaharis asked if the doors swing out. � Mr. Farley replied in the
affirmative and added that they are recessed and therefore don' t come near
the fixture.
• Mr. Farley showed pictures of the front gate and details of the hours of
operation sign. The sign will be black on white. Mr. Farleyindicated
where the hours sign and handicapped access sign will be located.
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve both items as submitted. Mr. Oedel
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Farley stated that the original plan for secondary egress was altered
to put the exit door on the roof on the opposite side of the wall and to
remove the rail so as not to be seen from Federal Street. Mr. Farley
showed plans of five alternate solutions to secondary egress.
Alternate #1 is to reduce the size of the stair enclosure on the roof,
glass it in, and have a solid copper roof with green painted framework.
Mr. Farley stated that this will have the least visual impact.
Alternate #2 would be a symettrical structure of Alternate #1 . This would
require increasing the height of the chimney.
Alternate #3 would be a bricked in solution�, to shield the stair enclosure
utilizing the chimney in the design.
Alternate #4 would be with minimal brick shielding.
Alternate #5 would be flat brick false facade which would cover the
• chimney.
I
January 18, 1989, Page 3
Mr. Carr stated that the use of glass will show that the enclosure was
necessary but will be the least visible� and will read as utilitarian. Mr.
Carr felt that brick will look like an architectural design.
• Mr. Slam asked what would be seen from Essex and Munroe Streets. Mr.
Farley stated that the ends of the brick walls would be seen. Mr. Farley
indicated on the plans what would be seen from both the front and the rear.
I
Mr. Carr stated that Alternate #2 might �idisguise the railing from the north
elevation.
I
Mr. Carr stated that even though the pub IIlic hearing was closed at the last
meeting, he would permit questions fromithe audience.
Mr. David Fixx, representing Betty Callaghan of 7 Munroe Street, stated that
the Phase 1 plans showed the fire stair to exit into the building and onto
the ground level. Mr. Fixx stated that he favored the brick.
Mrs. Eleanor Connelly of 135 Federal Street agreed that the stairway that
was originally inside in Phase 1 was totally enclosed. Mr. Oedel stated
that two thirds of the reading room would be lost by doing so, and that the
reading room was traded for the triangular headroom structure. Mrs.
Connelly stated that the building is 9' from her property line and that the
fire exit should be from the inside. Mr.� Carr stated that the State
mandates a secondary egress. Mrs. Connelly stated that in Phase 1 the
issue had been addressed and that the originally presented egress should
have been adopted. Mr. Oedel stated thatlat that time there was a third
floor in the plans. Removal of the third' floor required the secondary
egress.
• Ms. Kathleen Connelly asked how many feet� of brick wall is on the third
floor. Mr. Farley replied 50".
Mrs. Connelly stated that she preferred the glass solution.
Mr. Cook made a motion to accept Alternate A . Mr. Geary seconded the
motion.
Mr. Oedel asked if the roof on Alternate #1 is solid. Mr. Farley replied
that the roof would be solid. Mr. Farley 'stated that he would not advise
glass on the slope in case of breakage which would fall all the way down
the stairway.
Mr. Zaharis stated that he did not like glass because it was too obvious
and modern and that he preferred copper.
Mr. Pierce stated that the mass should be kept as small as possible for
minimal visual impact and that glass may not achieve that effect. Mr.
Pierce felt glass may draw more attention. 1 Mr. Pierce felt the slanted
form still reads as a stair and that the angle should be taken away.
Mr. Geary stated that he preferred the glass so the brick could be seen
through it. Mr. Geary felt that people should know that it is a stairwell
and that it is necessary to be there.
Mr. Carr stated that brick could be confused as a decorative item and that
i
January 18, 1989, Page 4
glass will show as a purely utilitarian and contemporary structure.
Mr. Farley stated the seams on the copper roof could be either flat seamed
copper, verticle standing seams or battoned seams. Mr. Farley stated that
battoned seams would look best. Mr. Farley stated that there will be glass
• on both faces.
Mr. Slam stated that he preferred glass' on the roof and would prefer the
ribbed copper. i
Mr. Oedel proposed a friendly amendmentllithat standing seamed copper be
used. Mr. Cook amended his motion. Mr'. Geary amended his second.
Mr. Geary asked if the cladding around the windows would be copper. Mr.
Farley stated that the cladding would be wood painted pale green to match
the trim.
Mr. Carr stated that because the propose�,d work was clearly not an
architecturally period element, the appl'iication that the Commission votes
on should be a Certificate of Hardship. iThe application was so amended.
The motion was voted upon, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Farley stated that the fire stair enclosure would be copper clad with
the same seamless copper. The dimensions are 6 '8" tall and 9'3" long.
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve drawing #1 in copper as submitted in
order to allow stairwell access.
Mr. Carr asked how the copper will weather. Mr. Farley stated that it will
• weather like a penny after approximately one year.
Mr. Fixx stated that in Phase 1, all egress was to be inside to the ground
level plane. Mr. Carr stated that the Commission can only vote on the
design point of what is submitted. Mr. Carr stated that Phase 1 concerns
are not part of the jurisdiction of the Commission. Mr. Fixx stated that
he preferred to see a glass panel on the side of the triangle and that the
roof material should be non—photochemicaly reactive such as lexan. Mr.
Farley stated that lexan would fog up andibecome scratched.
Mr. Connelly stated that she was under the' impression that the triangle
would be brick.
Mr. Carr closed the public hearing. Ili
Mr. Oedel stated that if the structure on top is transparent, the bottom
should be transparent.
Mr. Farley stated that to do so would makelit more of an architectural
feature. Mr. Farley stated that solid copper would melt into the brick
building since it is almost the same color �tone and will be less intrusive.
Mr. Farley stated that glass would be very noticable.
Messrs. Slam, Carr and Geary agreed with Mr�. Farley.
Mr. Pierce stated that he did not feel comf6rtable with the glass area of
January 18, 1989, Page 5
i
the triangular section on the first levt Iel and also had problems with the
total amount of glass area as shown on 'the roof enclosure.
Mr. Zaharis stated that he was troubledlwith the solution due to the lack
of symetry. Mr. Zaharis felt that it will look out of balance, that he
would rather see the top a brownish color but that he would not make
objections if the rest of the Commission went along with it.
Mr. Cook felt the copper was the least obvious.
Mrs. Connelly asked why it had been changed from brick to copper. Mr.
Patrick Cloherty, the library' s Director, stated that he may have said that
it was to be copper when informally presenting designs to the neighbors,
but that the design had not been finalized at the time. Mrs. Connelly
stated she preferred brick and that brick will blend in most with brick.
Mr. Cook suggested that the motion be changed to brick. Mr. Geary did not
wish to change his motion.
Mr. Carr stated that there is currently no symetry in the back and did not
feel the same materials were necessary.
Mr. Oedel stated that if it is intended to disappear, flat seamed copper
would be best. Mr. Geary so amended his motion. Mr. Slam amended his
second.
The motion was voted upon. All were in flavor and the motion so carried.
Approval of Minutes
• Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the minutes of January 4, 1989. Mr.
Slam seconded the motion. Messrs. Carr, Oedel, Geary, Slam and Cook voted
in favor. Messrs. Zaharis and Pierce abstained from voting. The motion
was so carried.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the minutes of November 16, 1988 with
the following amendments:
I
Page 3 Paragraph 1 change from ". . .relocation of one skylight,
replacement of one skylight, addition of one skylight, . . ." to
"replacement of two skylights, addition of one skylight, . . .".
Page 3, Paragraph 7 change from ". . .visible facades are left
unreplaced. . ." to ". . . visible facadesiof the roof are left
unreplaced. . .".
Page 5, Paragraph 1 under 14 Chestnut Street change from ". . .stating
that the Commission has no. . ." to ". . .stating that Mr. Healy believed
the Commission has no. . .".
Page 6, Paragraph 2 change from ". . . if the skylights' dimensions will
be. . ." to ". . . if the skylight' s dimensions replacing the one at the
west peak will be. . .".
Page 6, Paragraph 8 change from ". . .the �!West slope to the opposite
• slope provided that the skylight remains I the same size but tucked
li
January 18, 1989, Page 6
behind the chimney in order to make it less visible." to ". . .currently
existing on the western slope of theiwing 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 makelit as minimally visable from
Chestnut Street as possible, provided that the skylight remains the
same size."
Mr. Geary seconded the motion. Messrs. Carr, Cook, Geary, Slam and Oedel
voted in favor. Messrs. Zaharis and Pierce abstained. The motion was so
carried.
There being no further business, Mr. Cook made a motion to adjourn. Mr.
Slam seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jan Guy
Cie of the ommission
JHisCom4/011889
I
I
February 1 , 1989, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICALIICOMMISSION
MINUTES
February 1 ,11989
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday,
February 1 , 1989 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were
Messrs. Carr, Slam, Oedel, Pierce, Cook, IZaharis, Geary and Staff Advisor
Kathy Winn. Chairman Harris was not in attendance and therefore Mr. Carr
chaired the meeting.
Mr. Carr called the meeting to order. Tlie minutes of .the last meeting were .
not available for approval.
Public Hearings
20 Beckford Street
Mr. Michael Cooney presented an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to relocate a fence at his property at 20 Beckford Street.
The application proposes to move the fence inward in order to increase
parking. A drawing and photographs were shown. Mr. Cooney stated that the
fence was built by his father in the 1960! s and that prior to that time,
the fence was where he proposes to move the existing fence. Mr. Cooney
stated that the current fence needs repair and that one post is rotted.
Mr. Cooney intends to remove the shrubs and to cobblestone the area where
the parking will be.
I
Mr. Slam asked if there was a particular reason for the need of increased -
parking. Mr. Cooney replied that in order accomodate parking, the gate
must be left open all the time but that the gate looks better closed and
• discourages dogs when closed.
Mr. Carr stated asked if the property is currently a two-family that has
recently been converted to a three-family without a variance. Mr. Cooney
stated that he has documentation that the property is a three-family. Mr.
Carr asked if the property has been used as a two-family for the last eight
years. Mr. Cooney stated that he did not believe it was necessary to
answer Mr. Carr' s question. Mr. Carr stated that due to the zoning of the
neighborhood, any property that is non-conforming for two years can be
grandfathered in but if the non-conformingl,use has not been as such for
over two years, such use may require a variance. Mr. Carr stated that if
the additional parking is needed because of this non-conforming use and the
use does not have the proper variance, theapplicationshould not be
approved.
Mr. William Russell Burns, Jr. of 22 Beckfo'ird Street stated that he was
opposed to the application. Mr. Burns stated that the appearance of
Beckford Street is enhanced by the fence whether open or closed and that
the cobblestone will dimminish the propertyiand its value.
Ms. Betsy Burns of 22 Beckford Street stated that she was mostly bothered
by the shrubs being removed and felt that the cars would be too much of a
tight fit.
Mr. Carr stated that the Commission has guidelines whcih take the position
that call for the retention of fences at the sidewalk.
I
r
February 1 , 1989, Page 2
Mr. Slam stated that the Commission recently refused a similar application
on Washington Square. Mr. Cook recalledla similar application that was
approved on Carpenter Street several yearls ago which the Commission now
regrets now and that many negative comments have been received since the
relocation of the fence.
• Mr. Cooney stated that every other house Ion the street has parking and
questioned why he is not being permitted to do so. Mr. Carr replied that
the property is in an historic district whose architectural integrity is
protected by the determinations of the Historic Commission through the
interpretation of the guidelines which were created under the receipt of a
State grant.
Mr. Cooney stated that the fence was built in the 1960' s and that in the
1940' s the fence would have been at the proposed location. Mr. Oedel
stated that Mr. Cooney' s father built an historically appropriate fence.
Mr. Cooney stated that the fence is in disrepair and that he may decide.not
to fix it. Mr. Carr stated that if the fence should fall down, the
Commission could request its repair and that court action could be taken if
necessary.
Mr. Burns suggested that Mr. Cooney cobble lstone the existing area further
back. Mr. ,Cooney stated that he did not wIIant the entire yard to be
driveway.
I
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr.
Oedel seconded the motion. There were no votes in favor. All votes were
opposed and the application was denied as being inappropriate.
• 331 Essex Street
In continuation from a previous meeting, Mr. Alan Howe presented additional
drawings for alterations to his property at 331 Essex Street.
Mr. Howe stated that he is hoping to install granite stairs but that he
would like approval of the stairs in wood with lattice until he can find
granite in the spring. Mr. Howe stated that he cannot get a Building
Permit until he receives Historic Commission approval. Mr. Howe stated
that he is also trying to find door trim and railings that he likes.
Mr. Pierce asked the Historic Commission procedure should the granite and
railings not be found and the proposed work become permanent. Mr. Carr
st4ted that the applicant is legally boundlto complete the work that is
approved tonight and that the Commission can only approve or deny what is
proposed on the application. Mr. Carr stated that an application for the I
granite, trim and railings will need to be filed
Ibefore Mr. Howe can
install them.
Mr. Zaharis asked if the entrance is visible from the street. Mr. Howe
stated that it is visible from Cambridge Street through the Andrew' s yard.
Mr. Slam felt there was enough detail to approve the application.
Mr. Slam made a motion to approve the application and drawings presented
With the stipulation that the work be completed by July 31 , 1989. Mr. Cook
•
i
February 1 , 1989, Page 3
seconded the motion. All were in favor !and the motion so carried.
Other Business
I
Mr. Carr stated that the Salem Common Neighborhood Association is having a
• general meeting on February 2, 1989 and that the expansion of the Common
Historic District may be discussed. Mr. ' Carr suggested that he and Mr.
Geary meet with Mr. Slam regarding the Neighborhood Association' s interest
in the expansion.
Mr. Zaharis stated that he read adverse publicity in the Salem Evening News
regarding the Historic Commission and the Salem State College area. Mr.
Slam stated that he believed the articlelwas positive because the neighbors
expressed their desire to be included inithe Lafayette Street Historic
District. Mr. Geary believed the article stated that the neighbors want to
be included in the district in order that the Historic Commission could
help them in their efforts with the college.
Mr. Oedel stated that he would like to sele leaflets outlining the benefits
and reponsibilities of owning property inlan historic district to all the
property owners in the four districts. Ms. Winn stated that she has been
speaking with Chairman Harris regarding letters being mailed and that they
are meeting on Monday to further discuss the issue.
Mr. Cook stated that an insert of the Lafayette Historic District should be
made for the Historic District ' s flyer. Ms. Winn will work on an insert.
• Mr. Pierce stated that he was concerned about the construction of the MBTA
parking garage at the train station whichlis across the street from the
edge of the Historic District. Mr. Pierceasked how the Commission can
help with the pursuit of an appropriate deisign for the area and how the
Commission can show the MBTA that we are willing to help. Mr. Carr
suggested that the Commission send a letter explaining that the train
station is adjacent to a National RegisterlDistrict and offering our
assistance. Mr. Slam stated that he was aiso concerned with the Bypass
Road which will go over the district. Mr. IPierce was in agreement and
added that he was concerned with the historic impact and noise polution.
Mr. Geary made a motion that the Commission send a letter to the Salem
Planning Department and the MBTA stating that the Commission, by unanimous
vote, requests to be included in the design review of the two projects due
to the proposed projects being adjacent toga National Historic and local
Historic district and that the Commission offer to provide input regarding
these issues. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion, all were in favor and the
motion so carried. Mr. Pierce will assistlin the drafting of the letters.
Mr. Pierce stated that he will be attending an informational meeting on
Friday regarding the Connector Road and Byplass. Mr. Zaharis made a motion
that Mr. Pierce officially represent the Historic Commission at the
meeting. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion, alil were in favor and the motion
so carried.
i
I
February 1 , 1989, Page 4
Mr. Geary made a motion that the Historic Commission send a letter to City
Planner Gerard Kavanaugh thanking him forlhis cooperation over the past
four years and wishing him good luck in his new position with the Boston
Redevelopment Authority. 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.
Oedel seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
ne A. Gu`�
Y
Jerk of the Commission
JHisCom4/020189 ,,
February 15, 1989, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
February 15, ' 1989
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday,
February 15, 1989 at 7 :30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were
Chairman Harris and Messrs, Carr, Geary and Pierce and staff advisor Kathy
Winn.
Chairman Harris called the meeting to order.
Public Hearings
2A North Pine Street
Mr. John Spinale presented an application for the painting of his property
at 2A North Pine Street. The body of the ,building will be Kyanize Colonial
Yellow and the trim and corner boards will be Harvest Gold. Pictures of
the property were shown.
Mr. Carr asked the colors of the surrounding houses. Chairman Harris
stated that the house next to building is tan and the other side is white.
Chairman Harris asked if there were any comments from the public. There
was no public testimony. i
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Carr
seconded the motion.
• Mr. Pierce was concerned with the potential difficulty of applying paint
over the existing. Mr. Spinale replied that he will be using oil base
stains and not latex. Mr. Pierce stated that there may not be adequate
coverage with yellow. Mr. Spinale stated that his painter does not feel
that he will have any problems covering the existing.
Chairman. Harris stated that she preferred a lighter trim. Mr. Carr
suggested that the applicant select a lighter color. Mr. Carr withdrew his
second to the motion. Mr. Geary withdrew his motion.
Mr. Spinale selected Pittsburg Paints Old Parchment for the trim.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the colors of Old Parchment for the trim
and Colonial Yellow for the body and that the colors be stains to match the
chip colors. Mr. Geary seconded the motion.
Chairman Harris asked what the color of theigarage door will be. Mr. Carr
stated that it should be the trim color. Mr. Spinale stated that he
preferred the body color. Mr. Carr had no hbjections.
Mr. Carr asked the color for the front doorl. Mr. Spinale selected Benjamin
Moore Park Green.
Mr. Carr amended his motion to include that lthe garage door be the body
color and the front door be Park Green. Mr. Geary seconded the amendment.
The motion was voted upon. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
a
February 15, 1989, Page 2
51 Summer St./28 High St.
• Mr. Walter Kallenback presented an application for the replacement of -
existing windows with new Yankee Spirit 6 over 6 same size wood windows.
The windows to be replaced include the 6 windows to the right of the front
entrance facing Summer Street, all 12 windows on the High Street side of
the main block, the 3 windows on the main block facing the rear, and the 2
windows on the "L" facing High Street. The windows will be single pane
glass withtrueintegral 5/8 colonial barsand muntins with individual
lites of glass. - The glass will be high performance, Low-E in prime sash.
Mr. Jerry Alexander of Wes-Pine Millwork presented a sample of the firm' s
window and its corresponding storm.
Chairman Harris asked if the entire window will be wood except for the
tracks. Mr. Alexander replied in the affirmative. Chairman Harris asked
if the storm is all wood except the track and sash. Mr. Alexander replied
in the affirmative.
Mr. Carr asked if the firm produces a unit with the storm on the inside.
Mr. Alexander stated that it is made in aconventional manner for removal
in the summer: and that they do not make one that is self-storing.
Chairman Harris asked if the storm is tinted. Mr. Alexander replied in the
negative.
!Mr. Alexander stated that if the glass on the window catches the light in a
certain way, there is a certain refraction due to the coating on the glass.
Mr. Pierce stated that it is similar to looking throu,,h polarized glasses
• and that you may see a depth to the coating on the glass. Chairman Harris
asked if Mr. Pierce felt the glass would appear odd. Mr. Pierce replied in
the negat we.
Chairman Harris asked if all the frames will be replaced. Mr.. Kallenback
replied in the affirmative. Mr. Pierce asked if the frames are rotting.
Mr. Kallenback replied in the affirmative. Mr. Fierce stated the trim that
is replaced should be duplicated as close as possible and suggested that
the casings be removed and re-installed over the Pew windows. Kr. Pierce
questioned if alll the casin. s needed to be replaced. Mr. Kallenback
replied that he is proposing to replace everything but it depends upor, the
condition of each window. Mr. Kallenback stated that the sizes of the
windows will remain the same. '✓r. Pierce asked if needed, will he apply
new millet'. casing. Mr. Kal�i.enback reoiied in the affirmative.
t1r. Carr stated that he was concerned that only ''z the windows are being
replaced on. the Summer 'Street side and tha,. Ia c;istirction may b2 '-ren due
to Lha: Low-F. tint. Mr. Kallenback stated that he could replace all the
windows on that side if the Commission preferred. Mr. Carr stated that the
appi..'_r..ant could do the windows on the other facades and replace all the
windows on the Summer Street side when financially able to.
Mr. Carr was concerned that the wood surrounding the window on the outside
will make the windows look bulkier anc that the storm undercut;; the look of
the true integral muntins. Chairman. Harris ,stated that she is itappier with
. thetrue integra . mutton windows than the thermopane windows with the fake
snapped-in muntins that the Commission has be-en approving. Chairman „orris
added that the ileal situation would beto h::,:re the storm cr, the insi.de. ,
February 15, 1989, Page 3
Mr. Pierce stated that he was concerned that the storm conceals the
perimeter frame of the sash and obscures part of the window when put on.
Mr. Kallenbach stated that he was more concerned with the window than the
storm and stated that he could put in an interior storm. Mr. Pierce stated
that the applicant may not even need a storm if there is a _tight weather
strip around the perimeter.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application for the windows with the
following finding and conditions:
Finding - That the exterior window appearance is fundamentally altered
by the storm that goes with it.
Conditions - That the exterior storms that go with the unit never be
installed because they unduly obscure the window
underneath; -
That the windows on the Summer Street side be replaced
only when all the windows on that side can be replaced at
the same time.
Mr. Geary seconded the motion. Mr. Pierce suggested an amendment that the
exterior casings -and moldings be restored to match original condition and
if not possible, that they be replaced as close as possible to existing
including sill depth and thickness. Mr. Carr soamendedthe motion. Mr.
Geary seconded the amendment. The motion was voted upon, all were in favor
and the motion so carried. The application was approved due to the window
being the closest the Commission has seen to original windows in both looks
• and materials.
Chairman Harris stated that for future applications, a full window survey
should be done so that full window replacement is not done unnecessarily.
Mr. Carr made a motion to amend the by-laws as follows:
Thal when an application for substantial window replacement is
received, an independant window survey by an Historical Commission
representive is performed to determine the condition of all windows.
Mr. Pierce seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so
carried. _
Other Business
183 Federal Street
Mr. Cunningham presented an application for a Certificate of
Non-Applicability for the replacement of a corrugated fiberglass roof over
the grade level deck at the rear of his house at 183 Federal Street. The
existing wood framework will remain unchanged over the 32' x 12' deck. The
sixteen 26" x 12' panels will be replaced on the roof which is low sloped
and one-story high. .
• Mr. Pierce asked if this is a pre-existing condition being replaced in
kind. Mr. Cunningham replied in the affirmative.
February 15, 1989, Page 4
Chairman Harris asked if the color will be Colonial White. Mr. Cunningham
replied in the affirmative.
• Mr. Cunningham asked if it was possible to add a decorative feature on the
ends of the roof.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the roof replacement since it is a
replacement of a pre-existing element but not to allow the addition of a
decorative feature so as not to expand on a condition that is already
historically inappropriate. Mr. Pierce seconded the motion. All were in
favor and the motion so carried.
Salem Public Library - Application for Certificate of Hardship withdrawn.
Chairman Harris stated that the trustees of the .library asked the City
Solicitor to write a letter of opinion on who had ruling over whom
regarding Historic Commission decisions and Building Inspector code
enforcement. In a letter to the trustees, the City Solicitor stated the
the Building Inspector' s ruling supercedes the Historical Commission and
that since more than 60 days have past since the filing of. the application,
the library does not need to come before the Commission again once the
issues with the Building Inspector are resolved. Chairman Harris stated
that the library is trying to appeal the Building Inspector' s ruling to the
State.
Mr. Pierce stated that the Building Code specifies a limited amount of area
of glass and specifies wire glass.
• Mr. Carr stated that since the Historical Commission and Building Inspector
work in tandem, and that since the Commmission ruled on the filed
application within 60 days, the library should have to file another
application if they are to change what the Commission approved. Mr. Carr
stated that the Commission should send a letter to the library stating that
we take issue to the conclusions of the City Solicitor' s letter, that we
would like to work with them and that if they loose their appeal they will
need to come back before the Commission.
i
Mr. Carr made a motion to send a letter to 'Pat Cloherty acknowledging the
receipt of his letter and stating that it is the opinion of the Historical
Commission that a new application must be filed if they change what has
been approved and that a copy of the City Solicitor' s letter be enclosed.
Mr. Pierce seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so
carried. Mr. Pierce suggested that the City Solicitor be copied on the
letter.
Guidelines
Chairman Harris stated that the guidelines for driveways and fences should
be updated. Chairman Harris stated that the guidelines currently show an
alternate to the removal of fences to be their relocation and that it
appears that the consensus of the Commission members is that removal or
relocation of fences from the sidewalk to provide parking is unfavorable.
• Mr. Carr made a motion that the Commission members review the guidelines
for driveways and fences and that the guidelines be amended to show that
the consensus of the Commission members is that removal or relocation of
t
February 15, 1989, Page 5
fences from the sidewalk to provide parking ,is unfavorable and that the
specific language to be put in the guidelines is to be discussed at the
• next meeting. Mr. Geary seconded the motion, all were in favor and the
motion so carried.
Mr. Carr made a motion that the Commission members review the guidelines
for skylights and that the concept be adopted to tighten up the skylight
guidelines on size, material, location and number with the exact language
to be discussed at the next meeting. Mr. Pierce seconded the motion, all
were in favor and the motion was so carried'.
Minutes
12/7/89 - Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the minutes of 12/7/88. Mr.
Carr seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so
carried.
Chairman Harris stated that while the minutes represent an
accurate report on the public hearing for 14 Chestnut Street, she
would like to make clear that on Page 4, where Dr. Murray asked
if there was a meeting on September, 28 1988, she was not asked
this by Dr. Murray until November of 1988.
1/18/89 - Mr. Carr stated that he would like to amend the minutes of
1/18/89 as they described the amendments proposed for the
November 16, 1988 meeting' s minutes but did not accurately
reflect those amendments made. Mr. Carr made a motion to amend
the minutes of 1/18/89 to amend the amendments made to the
• November 16, 1989 minutes listed on Page 5 as follows:
From - Page 3 Paragraph 1 change from ". . .of one skylight,
replacement of one skylight, addition of one skylight,
. . ." to " of one skylight, addition of two skylights,
To - Page 3 Paragraph ) change from ". . . relocation of one
skylight, replacement of one skylight, addition of one
skylight, . . ." to "replacement of two skylights,
addition of one skylight, . . .".
From - Page 6, Paragraph 8 change from ". . .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." to ". . .West slope to the approximate
same location on the ridge pole on the opposite slope
provided that the skylight remains the same size but
tucked behind the chimney to the greatest extent
possible in order to make it as minimally visible as
possible."
To - Page 6, Paragraph 8. change 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." to ". . .currently existing on the
western slope of the wing perpendicular to Chestnut
Street to the approximate same location on the eastern
February 15, 1989, Page 6
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 skylight remains
the same size."
Mr. Geary seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion
so carried.
Mr. Carr made a motion to amend the minutes for the public
hearing of the Salem Public Library as follows:
To be added prior to the vote taken — "Mr. Carr stated that
because the proposed work was clearly not an architecturally
period element, the application that the Commission votes on
should be a Certificate of Hardship. The application and
motion was so amended."
Mr. Geary seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion
so carried.
Mr. Pierce made a motion that:
on Page 1 , 3rd paragraph under 26 Lynde Street, 3 ' should be
changed to 2 '4";
and that on Page 4, 2nd paragraph from the bottom should be
• changed from "Mr. Pierce stated that he did not have problems
with triangular section but had problems with the top
enclosure." to "Mr. Pierce stated that he did not feel
comfortable with the glass area of the triangular section on
the first level and also had problems with the total amount of
glass area as shown on the roof enclosure."
Mr. Geary seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion
so carried.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the minutes of 1/18/89 with the
above amendments. Mr. Geary seconded the motion, all were in
favor and the motion so carried. '
2/1/89 — Mr. Carr made a motion to approve �lthe minutes of 2/1/89. Mr.
Geary seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so
carried. 4
Bertram Home
Mr. Carr stated that the Bertram Home is going before the Board of Appeal
on 2/22/89 for a major addition. Mr. Carr suggested that the Commission
send a letter to the Chairman of the Board of Appeal stating that this is a
sensitive area and that anything approved by the Board must then go before
the Historical Commission.
14 Chestnut Street
Chairman Harris stated that a note should be sent to the following persons
February 15, 1989, Page 7
to thank them for their letters of testimony regarding the 14 Chestnut
Street public hearing and to provide them with follow up information in the
• form of copies of the decisions on the applications:
Johnny Reardon (25 Chestnut Street) , President of the Chestnut St.
Association
Historic Salem, Inc. — Bill Guenther (Hamilton Hall)
Valerie Talmage
Anne Farnam
Roger Hedstrom
John Casey .
Chairman Harris stated that copies of the decisions should also be sent to
all the Commission members.
18 Crombie Street
Chairman Harris stated that she is meeting with Holyoke Insurance
representatives on Friday regarding their plans for the
demolition/relocation of 18 Crombie Street.
Bypass & Bridge -
Mr. Pierce stated that he has gone to two informational meetings regarding
the bypass and bridge. Chairman Harris stated that Historic Salem, Inc.
will be sending out a newsletter with an article on the bypass. Chairman
Harris suggested that Mr. Pierce contact them.
• Correspondence
Chairman Harris stated that copies of all letters sent from any Historical
Commission member be sent to all the members.
There being no further business, Mr. Geary made a motion to adjourn. Mr.
Pierce seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully ;�ubmitted,
014A
Jane . Guy
Clerkof the Commission
JHisCom4/021589
March 1 , 1989, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
March 1 , 1989
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday,
March 1, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were
Chairman Harris and Messrs. Pierce, Oedel, Slam, Geary and Cook. (Mr. Carr
joined the meeting later in the minutes. ) 4M<,10Ar
Chairman Harris called the meeting to order. 0
Public Hearings
51 Summer Street/28 High Street
Mr. Walter Kallenback presented an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to install three skylights and to replace the main door at
his property at 51 Summer Street/28 High Street. The skylights will be
standard flat stationary velux skylights 212" x 272". Two will be
installed on the roof. of the High Street side on each side of the center
windows and 3 ' up from the roof linea The third will be installed on the
High Street side flat roof addition which cannot be seen from a public way.
The main door on the High Street side will be changed to a Brosco M108 1
3/4" door which is very similar to the existing with the glass and panels
the same size. The door is 211011 x 6 ' 10". No casings or frames will be
changed.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the replacement of the main door with
the Brosco M108 door. Mr. Geary seconded the motion. All were in favor
and the motion so carried.
• Mr. Oedel made a motion to disapprove the 3 skylights on the basis that, in
keeping with the Historic Commission Guidelines, the two skylights on High
Street side are visible and will adversely affect the historic character of
the building and that the one skylight on the flat roof should be applied
for under a Certificate of Non—Applicability. Mr. Geary seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Kallenback stated that he would also like to replace the kitchen door
on the High Street facade with a Brosco M113 in order to provide more light
into this dark part of the house. The door frame will match the window
moldings.
Mr. Pierce asked if it was known when the addition was built. Mr.
Kallenback approximated that it was built in the 1940' s due to the type of
construction on the inside.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the Brosco M113 door. Mr. Cook seconded
the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Pierce asked what the applicant intends to do with the porch. Mr.
Kallenback stated that at this time he does not have any intention of
changing the porch but that he will eventually remove the shingles on the
house and reclapboard.
I
The motion was voted upon. Messrs. Pierce, Slam, Geary and Cook voted in
March 1 , 1989, Page 2
favor. Chairman Harris and Mr. Oedel voted in opposition. The motion was
carried due to the addition being a 1940' s contempory addition, and that
therefore a kitchen door of this type would be appropriate for its age.
. Mr. Kallenback presented an application for a Certificate of
Non-Applicability for the installation of the skylight on the flat roof on
the High Street side which is not visible from a public way.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the application for the Certificate of
Non-Applicability. Mr. Geary seconded the motion. All were in favor and
the motion so carried.
128 Essex Street
The Essex Institute presented an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for the demolition of an attached back wood-framed shed at
the Gardner-Pingree House. The shed is approximatedly 6' x 8' with two
steps, a landing and a storm door and is of early 20th century
construction. The design of a new door surround to be determined following
the demolition in order to first see the masonry lines. The shed cannot be
seen from Essex Street. Pictures of the view from Brown Street were shown.
Ms. Alison Cornish, representing the Essex Institute, stated that the !,
entrance is used as a staff entrance only..
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the application as submitted due to the
structure having no historical significance. Mr. Oedel seconded the
motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
13 Washington Square
• The Essex Institute, represented by Ms. Alison Cornish, presented an
Application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability for work to be done on
the Andrew Safford House. The work proposed is to repair, repoint and
partially rebuild the chimneys to match existing, to replace existing
deteriorated copper gutters, flashings and sheet metal work with new 24oz.
copper to match existing, to repair/restore balustrade and replace missing
sections., to repair/restore deteriorated wood cornice and trim elements in
conjunction with re-roofing, and to remove the deteriorated asphalt roof
and replace with unfading purple slate. The material and color of the
slate will match the original roofing slate removed in c.1955. The cost of
the slate is $459.00 per square uninstalled. A square is 100 s.f. A
sample of the original slate and that of the new slate to be purchased from
Vermont Structural Slate in Fairhaven, Vt were shown along with plans of
the work to be done.
Mr. Cook was concerned that the color tone and thickness of the mortar on
the chimneys may not match existing. Ms. Cornish stated that only the top
third of the chimney is scheduled to be repaired and therefore it is
imperative that the mortar thickness and color match.
Chairman Harris asked if the downspouts will be replaced. Ms. Cornish
stated that the downspouts will be replaced with copper but will stay in
the existing locations. Copper nails will be used.
• At this time Mr. Carr joined the meeting.
March 1 , 1989, Page 3
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.
Other Business
• Bertram Home — Discussion
Mr. Staley McDermott was present to provide preliminary designs of the
structural expansion to be done at the Bertram Home for Aged Men. Mr.
- McDermott stated that the Board of Appeal has approved a special permit to
expand on a non—conforming use from a 22 bed facility to a 25 bed facility
but that the 21 day appeal period has not yet passed.
Mr. Pierce noted that the Board of Appeal findings included the requirement
of Historical Commission approval.
Chairman Harris stated that the Board of Appeal decision allows the plans
to be changed without the necessity of going back before the Board of
Apppeal. Mr. McDermott noted that any changes must be in substantial
conformance of the presented plans.
Mr. McDermott provided a model and drawings of the proposed expansion. Mr.
McDermott stated that the Bertram Home was closed in 1987 but that the
corporation still owns and operates it and will be making congregate
housing with individual bedrooms with private baths.
The expansion includes an addition in the rear that will be similar to the
existing annex. Its construction will create a courtyard which will catch
the afternoon sun.
• The 3 story main house' s rooms will be returned to their original sizes.
All rooms will remain in original character except for two.
Mr. McDermott stated that the existing annex has no architectural merit on
the inside and although it is referred to as the carriage house, it does
not appear to have been one. The elevator will serve the annex and the new
addition.
Parking will be moved to the rear and will accomodate 9 cars. Where the
existing parking is will become a grassy area.
Mr. Carr stated that he was troubled that the corner "dining" room in the
main building will become a bedroom. Mr. McDermott stated that it is only
called a bedroom because there is a bed in it and that architecturally it
will be preserved.
Chairman Harris asked what will be done with the fire escape from the
second floor and the chain link fence. Mr. McDermott stated that both will
be removed and that a new fence will be installed although no fence has yet
been selected. Mr. McDermott believed that 'an open picket would be
considered.
Mr. Carr stated that although his personal opinion was very positive, he
did not feel the Commission should provide any preliminary approval without
going through the public process and obtaining neighborhood input.
•
March 1 , 1989, Page 4
Mr. Oedel stated that the Commission can only inform Mr. McDermott on what
is often approved on a regular basis and what is considered when making a
determination on an application. Mr. Oedel stated that some important
issues are materials, scale, matching roof and details, but that the
Commission cannot provide suggestions on how to design the building.
• Chairman Harris stated that the Commission can provide Mr. McDermott with
areas of concern.
Chairman Harris asked the surface for the parking area. Mr. McDermott
replied that he was considering an open-webbed concrete or exposed
aggregate. Mr. McDermott stated that the amount of parking spaces was
determined by his interpretation of the building and zoning requirements.
Mr. McDermott provided site elevations and stated that the addition will be
square with the street.
-Mr. Carr questioned the asymetry of the windows. Mr. McDermott explained
that he wanted the addition to be informal becausethemain house is
formal.
Chairman Harris stated that the color and size of the brick and the mortar
should match and that roofing materials, lentils, etc. should be similar.
Chairman Harris asked if the ballustrade is being used to cover the
elevator penthouse. Mr. McDermott replied in the affirmative.
Chairman Harris stated that the doors appear slightly odd as drawn.
Mr. Geary made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Cook seconded the motion. Messrs.
Cook and Geary voted in favor. Chairman Harris and Messrs. Carr, Geary,
• Slam, and Pierce voted in opposition. The motion did not carry.
Guidelines
Chairman Harris stated that the review of the guidelines should be put on IIS
the next meeting' s agenda.
Connector Road & Bridge
Mr. Pierce' s draft letter to Ellen DiGeronimo was reviewed. Mr. Pierce
stated that the point of his letter was to request a meeting, but since he
had not been aware that there had already been a meeting in December, the
letter should be rewritten to request a follow-up meeting. Chairman Harris
and Mr. Pierce will rewrite the letter.
Chairman Harris stated that a model of the bridge was displayed in Beverly,
but that the model did not show the entire project. Mr. Pierce stated that
the model did not address the waterfront concerns.
Chairman Harris suggested that Mr. Pierce contact Historic Salem, Inc. to
see a draft of their newsletter regarding the project prior to its
printing.
•
r
March 1 , 1989, Page 5
18 Crombie Street
Chairman Harris stated that she and Bill Guenther of Historic Salem, Inc.
met with Doug Ryder and Pat Greco of Holyoke Insurance to discuss their
plans for 18 Crombie Street. Chairman Harris stated that she was told that
• they have no current plans for expansion, but that they had purchased the
land for possible future expansion. However, it was determined that office
space is not feasible for the building.
Chairman Harris stated that she informed them that moving the building is
not a solution. Chairman Harris believes that the Salem Redevelopment
Authority (SRA) will also not be favorable to the building being moved
since the property is in the SRA area.
Chairman Harris was informed that Holyoke may be willing to sell the
building but, since they paid a high price for it, they are probably not
willing to loose money on it. However, Chairman Harris believed that they
may take a lower offer.
Chairman Harris stated that she feels the house may be a 1600 first period
house.
Correspondence
Mr. Pierce presented drafts of letters to James Eng and William Luster
regarding MBTA projects. After making slight revisions, the clerk will
mail the letters.
Ms. Winn presented a draft of a letter to be sent to historic district
property owners. The Commission will review the draft and discuss it at
the next meeting.
Common District Expansion
Mr. Geary and Mr. Carr will attend any informational gathering of certain
members of the Common Association at Mr. Slam' s home in order to discuss
the expansion of the district.
Mr. Carr stated that areas to be considered would include the rest of the
Common (e.g. Boardman to Pleasant, Howard to Pleasant, Winter to Bridge) .
Minutes
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the minutes of February 15, 1989. 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. Mr.
Cook seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission
JHisCom4/030189
March 15, 1989, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
March 15, 1989
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday,
March 15, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were
Chairman Harris and Messrs. Pierce, Geary, Slam, Carr, Oedel and Zaharis. 7�5
(Mr. Cook joined the meeting later in the minutes and replaced Mr. Oedel as
a voting member. )
Chairman Harris called the meeting to order and asked for approval of a
letter to be sent to the Board of Appeals regarding a development at 22
Kosciusko Street. Chairman Harris suggested that the phrase "of any kind"
which follows the word "development" be removed from the letter. Mr. Carr
was in disagreement.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the letter with the phrase "of any kind"
being removed. Mr. Geary seconded the motion. Chairman Harris and Messrs.
Geary, Slam, and Oedel voted in favor. Messrs. Carr and Pierce voted in
opposition. Mr. Zaharis abstained. -
Public Hearings
18 River Street
Jeremiah Jennings presented an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for the installation of two windows and a door at his home
at 18 River Street. The application describes theback door proposed as
being a lite glass door 34' x 78' of J.B. Sash Trugrid design to be
installed on the bottom left on the Bridge Street side of the building,
• directly below the second floor window. The windows will be J.B. Sash Tru
Grid 6 over 6 except that, although the first floor window will have the
same size outside frame as the other first floor windows, it will have two
shorter sashes that butt up against the top of the frame. This will leave
an 8-10" space on the bottom that will be filled in with wood. The windows
will be located on the Lynn Street side of the building (front right) . The
first and second floor windows will be directly over each other and both
windows will be the same distance off center line of building (peek) as the
windows on the left. Drawings and pictures were presented.
Mr. Jennings stated that the door is being kept at the existing location
and is an atrium style door comparible to the Marvin door in the
guidelines. Mr. Jennings stated that the first floor window will have a
full size frame with two smaller sashes in order to accomodate kitchen
counters and will appear to have the look of a full size window.
Chairman Harris stated that the window sizes proposed and their locations
should be on drawings.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to table the application for two weeks in order to
get drawings from the applicant. There was no second.
Mr. Slam stated that he felt there was enough information to make a
decision.
I •
r
March 15, 1989, Page 2
Mr. Carr stated that the decision could be worded to say that the sashes
and frame, etc. must match. Mr. Carr added that the Commission can also
outline requirements of the treatment of the first floor window.
Chairman Harris stated that she would rather have a different window than
have the same size window adjusted. Chairman Harris believed that if it is
different from the other windows, it look different. Chairman Harris was
not in favor of the rails not lining up.
Mr. Pierce stated that the smaller sashes would call too much attention to
themselves and that the entire window could be made smaller. Mr. Pierce
believed that it was not unusual to see an odd window. Mr. Carr stated
that an odd window is not usual on the main block of the building.
Mr. Carr stated that he preferred to see a full size window with a curtain
installed to cover the back of the counter. Mr. Slam stated that there is
no guarantee that a curtain will be installed.
Mr. Carr stated that the rails must line up and suggested the possibility
of a 6 over 3 window with the bottom half fixed. Mr. Jennings stated that
he did not feel comfortable with the window not opening from the bottom.
Mr. Pierce stated that such windows can be made so that the bottom can be
opened.
Chairman Harris stated that the options are to install a 6 over 6 to match
the other windows with the applicant blocking or screening the counter or
to install a 6 over 3 with wood on the bottom.
Mr. Carr stated that blackened panes or non—transparent glass could be
installed which will allow the windows to be full size on the outside and
open normally.
• Mr. Carr.made a motion that the Commission 1) strongly encourage the
location of the two windows on the Lynn Street side to restore the symmetry
and the fenestration on that side, 2) give the applicant the option
regarding the first floor window of'having bottom sash being a 6 over 3
with wood infill panel below or alternatively a bottom sash of 6 over 6
providing that the window opening and molding on the first floor duplicates
the opening of the windows on that wall, and 3) require that the new second
story window match, in all respects, the existing second story window. Mr.
Geary seconded the motion.
Mr. Oedel felt that the Commission should approve only one option, that
being the 6 over 6, and allow the applicant to block the counter as
necessary, whether with blackened glass, curtain, etc.
Mr. Slam stated that the applicant can always come back with another
solution.
Mr. Carr withdrew his motion. Mr. Geary withdrew his second.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the second story windowtobe 6 over 6
thermopane, to be symetrically located and to match the other existing
windows. Mr. Geary seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion
so carried.
i
March 15, 1989, Page 3
Mr. Carr made a motion to give the applicant the option regarding the first
floor window of having bottom sash being a 6 over 3 with wood infill panel
below or alternatively a bottom sash of 6 over 6 providing that the window
opening and molding on the first floor duplicates the opening of the
windows on that wall. Mr. Geary seconded the motion.
• Mr. Oedel was not in favor of allowing a less than full size window.
Mr. Carr stated that although the applicant has done alot of hard work to
renovate the house, he also prefers a full 6 over 6 window and will vote
against his own motion. Mr. Jennings jokingly referred to Mr. Carr as a
"Tower of Jello".
Messrs. Zaharis and Geary voted in favor. Chairman Harris and Messrs.
Carr, Pierce, Oedel, and Slam voted in opposition. The motion did not
carry.
Mr. Pierce stated that the window should be full size to match the existing
and that counter problem should be handled from the inside through
appropriate designing.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the installation of a 6 over 6 window to
match the first floor window in all respects, to be symmetrically located
with the other windows and to allow necessary treatment to be taken from
the inside to screen the countertop. Mr. Carr seconded the motion.
Chairman Harris and Messrs. Carr, Slam, Oedel and Pierce voted in favor.
Mr. Zaharis voted in opposition. Mr. Geary abstained.
Mr. Jennings stated that, visually, the door is substantially similar to
the Morgan M5911-15R with exterior muntins applied except that the interior
• snap—ins will be added.
Mr. Carr stated that the door is a basement door in the rear of the
building which will be minimally visible when the fence is installed.
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the door. Mr. Zaharis seconded the
motion.
Mr. Pierce asked the width of the window above the door. Mr. Jennings
stated that the window sash dimension is 30". Mr. Pierce believed that the
window panes will be very close in size to the door lites.
The motion was voted upon. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
At this time, Mr. Cook joined the meeting. Mr. Oedel will not be a voting
member for the remainder of the meeting.
13 Washington Sq. West
The application for Certificate of Appropriateness from the Essex Institute
for roof work at 13 Washington Sq. West was withdrawn on March 1 , 1989.
•
March 15, 1989, Page 4
Other Business
53 Summer Street
• Ms. Dolores Nangle presented an application for a Certificate of
Non-Applicability for the installation of a 20 year black asphalt
fiberglass roof shingle over the existing one layer asphalt roof on her
house located at 53 Summer Street. There will be no change in color or
materials of the roof. The roof is approximately 2,000 s.f. The
applicant' s representative provided samples of the existing asphalt roof
and the proposed covering.
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Carr
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Guidelines Review
Review of the guidelines will be placed on the next agenda.
Correspondence Review
Mr. Pierce presented a draft of a letter to be sent to Ellen DiGeronimo
regarding the By-Pass Road and Bridge project. Mr. Pierce stated that it
is being sent due to non-action on the part of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts in consideration of the seven historic sites in Salem that
are affected. Mr. Pierce stated that not all the sites listed are on the
Register, but that all are eligible.
Some suggested amendments were provided and Mr. Carr made a motion to
approve the letter. Mr. Slam seconded the motion. All were in favor and
the motion was so carried.
Minutes
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the minutes of March 1 , 1989. Mr. Carr
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.
Carr seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
J e A. Guy
C rk of the Commission
JHisCom4/031589
•
April 5, 1989, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
April 5, 1989
• A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday,
April 5, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were
Chairman Harris and Messrs. Carr, Zaharis, Wolfson, Cook, Slam, Pierce and
Geary and staff advisor, Jane Guy. Mr. Slam will not be considered a
voting member for this meeting. -
Chairman Harris called the meeting to order.
Public Hearings
20 Beckford Street
Mr. Michael Cooney presented a written request to continue his application
for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the alteration of a fence until
the meeting of May 3, 1989.
Mr. Carr made a motion to grant the request to continue the application
until the May 3 , 1989 meeting. Mr. Cook seconded the motion, all were in
favor and the motion so carried.
53 Summer Street
Ms. Dolores Nangle presented an application for Certificate of
Appropriateness for new windows, trim, siding and front door at her home at
• 53 Summer Street. Mr. Ken MacKenzie represented the applicant. The work
proposed includes the removal of existing wood siding, pine corner boards,
mudsill and frieze boards and the removal of old broken windows.
Additional work is to nail existing sheathing to studs, repair or replace
any rotted sills and casings, install Tyvek air filtration barrier paper
over sheathing and under cedar siding and pine trim, install new 6 over 6
single pane thermalpane wood windows with a white vinyl clad trim covering
by J.D. Window Co. , install new 3/4 pine trim around house as existing,
install new clear #1 cedar clapboard siding 4" to the weather to line up on
bottoms and tops of windows, replace front stairs with new pine stairs,
install new 4" fir wood gutters in front and rear of house along with wood
downspouts, new pine trim, doors and hardware on bulkhead, and install a
new front threshold and door 34" x 84". All exterior trim on the windows_
are to be scraped, patched with filler, sanded and painted. Front door
trim to remain the same and the rackboards are to remain. The paint colors
for the body have not been selected.
Mr. Carr stated that he performed a site inspection on the windows but was
not able to get inside of the house. Mr. Carr stated that the sills are in
good shape but that the windows and panes are not. Mr. Carr indicated that
they are mid to late 19th century windows.
Mr. MacKenzie stated that the entire windows will not be replaced but that
some of the molding will be new. Mr. MacKenzie stated that the frames of
the windows will be kept and only the sashes will be replaced. Mr.
• MacKenzie added that only two of the sills will be replaced and the
remaining will be repainted.
April 5, 1989, Page 2
Mr. Cook stated that if possible, only glass should be replaced and not the
entire sash. Mr. MacKenzie stated that the wood is too brittle to replace
just the glass and that if done, they would have to be replaced again in
• three years.
Mr. Pierce asked if the wood was plunky. Mr. Carr stated that it could not
be determined because he could not get inside the building. Mr. MacKenzie
stated that there is no stability in the windows. Chairman Harris stated
that the windows should be continued until Mr. Pierce can inspect them.
Mr. Cook asked if 4" to weather on the clapboards is too wide. Mr. Geary
replied that the guidelines state that clapboards generally vary from 34 to
4".
Mr. Pierce made a motion to defer voting on the application until further
inspection can be done. Mr. Wolfson seconded the motion.
Chairman Harris asked if there will be a railing at the front door. Mr.
MacKenzie stated that a metal railing is existing but asked if the
Commission would prefer wood. Chairman Harris replied that the Commission
would need to view what the applicant proposes.
Chairman Harris asked if the front door can be repaired. Mr. MacKenzie
stated that the door doesn' t open and he did not feel it could be repaired.
Mr. Cook was in disagreement and believed that it could be.
Mr. MacKenzie will notify Ms. Guy as to times available for inspection.
The members prefer 9:30 a.m. on Saturday or early evening on weekdays.
• The motion was voted upon, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
3 Broad Street
The Salem Housing Authority (SHA) presented an application for a
Certificate of Hardship to replace a slate roof with asphalt at 3 Broad
Street. The work proposed is to remove the slate roof from the Broad
Street wing of the building, except for the western hip which is already
black asphalt, and replace with black asphalt shingles. Mr. Roger Sheppard
from The Architects Collaborative, Inc. , representing the SHA, presented
two estimates for work which includes the re-roofing as well as gutter and
snowguard replacement and roof planking soffit/facia and cornice moulding
repairs. The estimate for replacement with asphalt from Rene C. Lamarre
Co. , Inc. is for $25,900.00 which includes the re-roofing and the
additional work. The estimate for replacement with slate from Max Sontz
Co. , Inc. is for $95,500.00 which includes the re-roofing and the
additional work.
Chairman Harris stated that the property is owned by the SHA and that the
building is being redone for congregate housing. Mr. Slam asked if the SHA
is funded by the State. Mr. Sheppard replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Sheppard stated that the roof has been repaired so that it is secure,
but that the slate is not in good condition. Mr. Sheppard stated that now
is the most economical time to reroof while the building is being made into
April 5, 1989, Page 3
congregate housing and that the existing slate roof would be a continued
maintenance problem over the years due to its age.
• Mr. Carr asked the life span of the existing slate. Mr. Sheppard stated
that its life span is continuous but that the cost to repair individual
slates and sheathing, planking etc. underneath the slates will also be
continuous. Mr. Carr asked the life span of the asphalt. Mr. Sheppard
replied that its life span is 20 years. Mr. Carr asked if the motivation
of the application was for convenience, aesthetics, etc. Mr. Sheppard
replied that it is due to the budget and increased maintenance costs on the
slate.
Mr. Slam asked if Federal grants could be obtained to fund the work. Mr.
Sheppard stated that he was not aware of any.
Mr. Carr asked what the maintenance costs on the slate are. Mr. Sheppard
did not have the information available. Mr: Slam asked what previous
maintenance has been done over the last 5 years. Mr. Sheppard was not
aware of any. Chairman Harris noted that the building has not been
occupied.
Mr. Carr noted that the electrical service on the street facade has been
enlarged and should have been approved by the Commission before
installation. Mr. Carr stated that the Historical Commission guidelines
recommend that electrical service be installed in the least visible place
that the electrical inspector will permit. Mr. Sheppard stated that it had
been installed in the place where the original was removed. Mr. Carr
stated that due to the significant increase in size, the Commission members
• should view it and discuss it at the next meeting. Chairman Harris stated
that at the next meeting the electrical service could be discussed along
with other proposed work as indicated in the estimates provided and that
any plans could also be reviewed.
Mr. Slam stated that an application for a Certificate of Hardship from a
State funded agency should require a means test.
Mr. Zaharis made motion to approve the application as presented. Mr.
Geary seconded the motion.
Mr. Carr stated that since the roof is secure against the weather, the
Commission should have comparisons on maintenance costs for upcoming years.
Mr. Carr stated that the building is the old classical high school and
that the Commission favors original materials. Mr. Carr added that if its
underneath condition were rotted, he would feel different, but since it is
not, the slate should be left on.
Mr. Geary stated that there may be a possibility that the State may provide
funds for the replacement of the roof with slate in the future. Mr. Slam
suggested that the SHA explore the possibility of getting a grant to
replace the roof with slate.
The motion was voted upon. Mr. Zaharis and Mr. Cook voted in favor.
Chairman Harris and Messrs. Carr, Geary, Wolfson, and Pierce voted in
• opposition. The motion did not carry and was denied based on the
informatiooavailable.
April 5, 1989, Page 4
Mr. Carr stated that the electrical service should be put on the next
agenda. Mr. Sheppard requested a copy of the guidelines reqarding
electrical services and a copy of the minutes of this meeting. Chairman
• Harris will send a letter to the SHA requesting that they appear before the
Commission.
18 Cambridge Street
Everett and Karen Cady presented an application for a Certificate of
Non—Applicability for the removal of an existing black asphalt mansard roof
to be replaced with black asphalt.
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the application as presented. Mr. Carr
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried. The
work is non—applicable due to being a repair of an existing element being
replaced with like materials.
61 & 61A Summer Street
Mr. Richard Kobuszewski presented an application for a Certificate of
Non—Applicability for the replacement of the righthand side peak window and
shingles at his property at 61 Summer Street. The application proposes
that the 6 over 2 window be replaced as is existing. The shingles will be
replaced as existing with red cedar shingles painted blue, 4z" to the
weather alternating every other shingle 1". Shingles to be 4"-5" in width.
Mr. Pierce stated that he performed a site inspection of the windows and
believed that the sash could be either replaced or repaired but that the
• entire window did not require replacement. Mr. Pierce stated that there
was some rot on the sills and provided Mr. Kobuszewski will information on
a liquid wood and epoxy system for their repair. Mr. Kobuszewski agreed Co
alter his application for replacement of sash only on the windows.
Mr. Cook stated. that windows arethehardest thing to match on a house and
that they are the easiest to "botch up".
Mr. Pierce stated that the sashes could be rebuilt, replaced with new glass
and storms installed. Mr. Pierce stated that the top sash appears to be
the only original sashtothe building but ,that the bottom sash does not
match it. Mr. Pierce added that the Commission should consider that only
one window is being replaced and not the others on the house.
Chairman Harris asked if the other windows are 6 over 2. Mr. Kobuszewski
replied that the other windows are 2 over 2. Mr. Pierce stated that he
preferred that the applicant retain the 6 over 6 quality that was original
to the house and that as other windows need replacement, they be replaced
with 6 over 6.
Chairman Harris noted that the Commission has a consistent policy not to
put thermopane on only one window of a house without replacing the entire
facade's windows.
Mr. Pierce made a motion to approve the application for a Certificate of
• Non—Applicability for the sash replacement only on the righthand side peak
window with the owner having the option to replace with 6 over 6 which is
recommended or with 6 over 2 which is existing element. A conventional
April 5, 1989, Page 5
sash of authentic divided light must be used and the owner has the option
of replacing the storm window. Mr. Zaharis seconded the motion. All were
in favor and the motion so carried.
• Mr. Slam asked the meaning of "authentic". Mr. Pierce replied that
authentic is defined as wood integral muntins.
Mr. Pierce made a motion to approve the application for a Certificate of
Non-Applicability for the replacement of the shingles on the righthand side
peak provided that they are installed in the same pattern, size and
thickness as existing. Mr. Zaharis seconded the motion. All were in favor
and the motion so carried.
Mr. Kobuszewski presented an application for a Certificate of
Non-Applicability for the replacement of the entire roof at 61 Summer
Street and the porch roof at 61A Summer Street. The replacement will be
With existing shingles (Bird Ebony) . Mr. Kobuszewski provided a sample of
the existing shingles and a brochure of the replacement shingle.
Chairman Harris asked if the roof shingles will all match or be shaded.
Mr. Kobuszewski replied that the shingles will match. Mr. Pierce stated
the the applicant should be sure that the order can be cancelled if the
product is not satisfactory when delivered.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to approve the application as presented. Mr.
Geary seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
262 Lafayette Street
• Mr. Stephen Santry presented an application for a Certificate of Hardship
for the replacement of gutters and facia board at his home at 262 Lafayette
Street. The work proposed includes the removal of rotted wood gutters and
facia board on the main roof only and the replacement of the facia board
and gutters using Seamless Gutters. All will be painted with two coats to
match existing paint.
Chairman Harris read a letter from Ms. Kathleen Winn who performed a site
inspection on behalf of the Commission. In her letter, Ms. Winn stated
that there was evidence of water leakage into the house through a bedroom
window.
Mr. Santry provided an estimate from Custom Seamless Gutter Co. for
$2050.00 to replace the gutters in aluminum and for $7890.00 to replace the
gutters in wood as well as an estimate from Richard Langford to replace the
gutter in wood at $8,200.00. Mr. Santry indicated that there are no
estimates for the gutters to be replaced exactly as existing and that a
profile would have to be made.
Mr. Slam asked if the gutters were rotted. Mr. Santry replied in the
affirmative. Mr. Santry stated that water has been found in the crawl
space in the attic and that water is filling a two gallon bucket in his
daughter' s bedroom. Mr. Santry indicated that the gutters were tarred in
1986 when the house was rehabbed, but that it hasn' t worked well. Mr.
Santry stated that the gutters aren't carrying the water to the soffit and
• the water is seaping into the house through the gutters.
r
April 5, 1989, Page 6
Mr. Santry provided samples of an aluminum and wood gutter and stated that
the aluminum can carry more water than the wood.
• Mr. Carr asked if the permanent removal of the gutters might be considered.
Mr. Santry stated that by having no gutters, most of the landscaping would
be washed away on the Laurel Street side. Mr. Carr stated that perferated
piping could be installed along the base parrallel to the house and water
be carried undergroung away from the house. Mr. Carr asked if the gutters
were built into the house. Mr. Pierce stated that the gutters appear to be
built in, are not pitched properly and therefore are not draining. Mr.
Pierce felt the existing gutters would be impossible to repair. Chairman
Harris stated that with a roof of this size, it would make sense to replace
and indicated that she had had a similar gutter problem at her house.
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the application as presented. Mr. Carr
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
51 Summer Street/28 High Street
Mr. Carr stated that he recently observed the window replacement at 51II
Summer Street and felt that the sill thickness is not as was approved. Mr.
Pierce concurred with Mr. Carr and stated that he observed gaps at some of
the window heads, and that the sills, casings and moldings do not replicate
what was existing. Mr. Pierce stated that the glass color does not match
the sample presented and approved at the February 15, 1989 meeting and that
the glass appears highly reflective and blue in color. Mr. Pierce added
that it appears the entire frames are too small for the openings.
Chairman Harris suggested that a letter be sent to the owner requesting
that he come back before the Commission along with the window
manufacturer' s representative in order to discuss the work done. Mr.
Pierce will draft the letter.
Bertram Home for Aged Men
Ms. Guy will schedule a site visit for the members of the Commission for
Wednesday, April 12, 1989 at 6:00 p.m.
Guidelines
Chairman Harris requested that a subcommittee be formed to review the
guidelines and make recommendations to the full Commission. Mr. Carr and
Mr. Pierce volunteered to be on the subcommittee. Chairman Harris
requested that Ms. Guy ask Mr. Oedel if he would also volunteer and be the
organizer of the committee.
Correspondence
8 & 8A Chestnut Street
Chairman Harris presented a letter received by Dr. LeBel updating work
being done to his property at 8 & 8A Chestnut Street. The letter states
that he will be replacing a lattice—work entry gate which was originally in
front of the door. Ms. Guy indicated that she has viewed photographs of
. the gate referenced in the letter and will have copies available for the
next meeting. Chairman Harris asked that Ms. Guy draft a letter to Dr:
April 5, 1989, Page 7
LeBel indicating that the work sounds good but that since the gate has been
missing for so long, drawings should be approved by the Commission.
• By-Pass Road
Chairman Harris stated that she spoke with Ellen DiGeronimo who indicated
that the Skerry house issue is still unsolved, that the DPW has done some
research regarding the Planter' s site which is available at Mass. Historic
Commission (MHC) , and that the Commission should be getting a reply to the
letter that was sent. Chairman Harris added that Mr. William Luster,
Acting City Planner, recommended that a representative of the Commission
attend themonthly meetings regarding the road. The meetings are held at ,
9:00 a.m. on the last Friday of every month. Mr. Cook stated that he may
be able to attend the meetings on behalf of the Commission.
Chairman Harris read a copy of a letter written to James Treadwell from
Valerie Talmage of MHC. Mr. Pierce stated that he had spoken to Mr.
Treadwell who was disappointed in the MHC letter because it did not mention
opening the 106 review process. Mr. Pierce indicated that if the 106
review process is concluded, the MDPW and local City officials are owed
documentation and a Memorandum of Understanding drawn up and signed by the
State Preservation Office. Mr. Pierce added that if the Memorandum is not
in place, the review must be reopened. Mr. Pierce will advise the
Commission regarding the status of the Memorandum and will attempt to
locate acopy of a letter, written in the early 19801s, which claimed that
no historically significant sites would be impacted by the road.
R164 Boston Street -
• Chairman Harris read a letter from the Board of Appeal regarding a petition
of Michael J. Harrington for a Comprehensive Permit to allow the
construction of 64 residential units at R164 Boston Street. A hearing is
scheduled for April 6, 1989 at 7:00 p.m. at One Salem Green.
Miscellaneous
Mr. Slam questioned whether the Historic Commission should have been asked
to waive the. Demolition Delay Ordinance for the recent City Council
approved demolition of the point neighborhood house that had been destroyed
by fire.
. The discussion regarding the letter to be sent to all homeowners in
historic districts was tabled until the next meeting.
The discussion regarding the Old House Fair was tabled until the next
meeting.
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the minutes of March 15, 1989. Mr.
Pierce seconded the motion. Messrs. Carr, Cook, Wolfson, Geary, Pierce and
Zaharis voted in favor. Chairman Harris abstained from voting. The motion
so carried.
There being no further business, Mr. Geary made a motion to adjourn. Mr.
• Zaharis seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
April 5, 1989, Page 8
Respectfully submitted,
s
ne A. Guy
lerk of the Commission
Following the public meeting, the following items were discussed at an
informal meeting between Chairman Harris, Mr. Pierce and Ms. Guy:
Chairman Harris suggested that a subcommittee be formed regarding the Old
House Fair which will be held on May 20, 1989 at the Old Town Hall.
Messrs. Carr, Slam and Cook have been informally elected. Congratulations
Russ. . .you've been invited to be the chairperson of the subcommittee,
responsible for organizing meetings and providing a proposal at the next
meeting regarding the Historic Commission' s participation. Chairman Harris
stated that you may call her if you have any questions.
Ms. Guy will provide the Commission with a list of possible projects to be
nominated for awards which will be presented at Historic Salem, Inc. ' s
annual cocktail party on May 20, 1989.
Ms. Guy will telephone Mass. Historic to clarify public hearing regulations
and the process for reviewing emergency applications.
Chairman Harris asked that the expansion of districts be placed on the next
• meeting' s agenda.
JHisCom5/040589/040589P2
Is
r
April 19, 1989, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
APRIL 19,1989
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday,
April 19, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were
Chairman Harris, Messrs. Pierce, Oedel; Geary, Cook, Carr and Staff Advisor
Jane Guy.
Chairman Harris called the meeting to order. She suggested reversing the
order of agenda since the first applicant for the Public Hearings was not
present.
Other Business
Old House Fair
Chairman Harris stated that the Old House Fair, sponsored by the Salem
Partnership, Historic Salem Incorporated, and the Essex Institute, would
take place on May 20th. Chairman Harris volunteered Mr. Slam and Mr. Carr
to put together abooth for the Historical Commission at the fair.
Awards
Chairman Harris stated that from 5:30 - 7 :30 on May 20th following the Old
House Fair, the Commission would present the Annual Awards at the Historic
Salem Annual Meeting. Chairman Harris said that the nominations could be
discussed at the end of the meeting.
Correspondence
• Chairman Harris stated that she had recieved a reply letter from Ellen
DiGeronimo regarding the bridge and the bridge bypass.
Chairman Harris read a letter from Mr. Stephen Santry thanking the
Commission for its knowledgeable, courteous and prompt attention to his
recent application.
Expansion of Districts
Chairman Harris suggested the Expansion of Districts be placed on the next
agenda.
Regulations
Chairman Harris reviewed the Public Hearing Regulations. Certificates of
Hardship and Appropriateness both require a fourteen day abutter notice and
must be posted at the City Clerk' s Office fourteen days prior to the
meeting. Certificates for Non-Applicability can be put on an agenda
without fourteen days notice. There is no provision in Chapter 40C for
emergency applications, but the commission can choose to waive a public
hearing and hear the application that night. If the commission does so,
the applicant must wait ten days before the decision can be filed with the
City Clerk. Chairman Harris added that if a house is destroyed in either a
fire or flood there is a provision in Chapter 40C.
April 19, 1989, Page 2
Chairman Harris stated that with regard to the Open Meeting Law, the City
Solicitor states that the Commission may meet without a public notice only
if the meeting consists of less than the Commission' s quorum, which is
four.
• Ms. Guy will send a copy of the latest revision of Chapter 40C to the
members of the Commision.
Review of Guidelines
Chairman Harris asked Mr. Carr, and Mr. Pierce to provide a report on the
guidelines at the next meeting.
Approval of Minutes
Mr. Carr Made a motion to approve the minutes of 4/5/89 as presented. Mr.
Cook seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion was so carried.
53 Summer Street
In a continuation from the last meeting, Dolores Naugle presented an
application for new siding, trim and windows for her home at 53 Summer St.
The applicant' s representative was not present.
Mr. Oedel asked why the commission had not scheduled another inspection.
Ms. Guy explained that Mrs. Naugle was not receptive to an inspection
because she wants vinyl windows and doesn' t want to repair what is
existing. Ms. Guy stated that she had informed the applicant' s
representative that the windows would most likely be denied if no
inspection occurs.
• Mr. Oedel made a motion to deny the application without prejudice due the
applicant or the applicant' s representative not being present to answer
questions. Mr. Cook seconded the motion. . All were in favor and the motion
so carried.
8 & 8A Chestnut Street
Dr. Richard LeBel presented an application for a Certificate of
Non—Applicablility for 8 and 8A Chestnut Street. The application was for
the replacement of a lattice work fence with a gate, a light fixture and
the installation of a proffesional sign. Chairman Harris passed pictures
of the house to all the Commission members.
Mr. Pierce asked if the outstanding issues on the house were resolved.
Chairman Harris replied that the lattice work fence might obscure the
doorway in question, and therefore this application is to put back the
lattice fence that was once existing.
Chairman Harris stated that some previous photographs show the lattice
work, while others don' t, which indicates that for some period of time
there wasn' t any lattice work. It was noted that the photographs which do
show the lattice fence whow it with a move decorative gate.
Dr. Lebel, stated that only a straight lattice work gate existed when he
bought .the house.
April 19, 1989, Page 3
Dr. Lebel stated that on the pre—existing fence there was some kind of arch
or trellis.
Chairman Harris expressed that the Commission had some question as to
• whether this application should be a Certificate of Non—Applicability and
this is the reason this application shows up on the next meeting' s agenda
for a Certificate of Appropriatness.
Mr. Oedel stated that the application could only be dealt with as a
Certificate of Non—Applicability tonight.
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission could act upon each item on the
application separately.
Mr. Oedel asked if the Commission could declare the application of minimal
impact, make a decision tonight and then wait the ten days.
Ms. Guy commented that if the Commission decides it is of minimal impact,
the public hearing can be waived and notices can be sent to abutters
informing them of the decision. If there are no objections, the decision
will be filed with the City Clerk in ten days.
Chairman Harris stated that since the lighting fixtures are attached to the
building they are not under the Commisssion' s jurisdiction.
Dr. Lobel showed two lighting choices to the Commission. Norwell #1361 was
selected as most appropriate.
Chairman Harris asked where Dr. Lebel was planning to place the
professional sign, since it is a new element. Dr. Lebel replied that the
. sign would be placed on the side of the house facing the garden rather than
the street side.
Chairman Harris was concerned that the fence did not solve the problem of
the door since the fence looked shorter than the door. Chairman Harris
asked the fence height. Dr. Lebel replied six feet.
Mr. Oedel asked what color the fence would be. Dr. Lebel stated that his
application at the next meeting is to change the color of the trim and
fence from white to Puritan White.
Mr. Cook made a motion that the Commission approve the fence as submitted.
There was no second.
Chairman Harris was concerned if the fence should be considered
non—applicable or applicable, requiring a Certificate of Appropriateness,
since there was no clear indication of what had been previously existing.
Mr. Oedel moved to approve the Certificate of Non—Applicability in hopes
that it will fail so that the Commission can act on the Certificate of
appropriateness on the next agenda.
Chairman Harris asked if this motion just included the lattice and the
sign, because they are new elements. Mr. Oedel said he intended the motion
to include the lighting fixture also.
•
April 19, 1989, Page 4
Chairman Harris stated that the lighting fixtures were not in the
Commission' s jurisdiction.
There was no second.
• Mr. Geary moved to approve the Certificate of Non—Applicability as it
applies to the light fixtures. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion. All. were in
favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Carr abstained from voting.
Mr. Oedel moved to deny the lattice work and proffessional sign for a
Certificate of Non—applicability. Mr. Geary seconded the motion. All were
in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Carr abstained from voting.
Chairman Harris asked if the Commission wanted to act on any of the items
on the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness as being minimal
impact and waive a public hearing, but added that she was uncomfortable
with the absence of a site plan.
Mr. Oedel moved to have the certificate of appropriateness be of minimal
impact and to waive the public hearing. Mr. Geary seconded the motion.
Chairman Harris stated that she thought the fence was too high.
Mr. Oedel explained that his motion was just to waive the public hearing
but not to approve the fence.
Ms. Guy explained that if the Commission chose to waive the public hearing,
the application could be approved as an insubstantial change. Ms. Guy
stated that if no abutters write or call the Commission within 10 days
saying they want a public hearing, the Certificate can be filed.
• Chairman Harris wanted to make it clear that they were discussing both the
fence and the sign.
Mr. Oedel stated that his motion was just to waive the public hearing, not
to decide on the application.
Mr. Geary also stated that he seconded the motion only to waive the public
hearing.
Messrs. Oedel, Geary, Pierce, and Cook were in favor. Chairman Harris was
in opposition. The motion so carried. Mr. Carr abstained.
Chairman Harris said she felt that the changes were substantial enough to
have a public hearing. She also felt that a six foot fence was too high.
Mr. Oedel stated that there was another item on the Certificate of
Appropriateness.
Ms. Guy stated that the motion made was only to waive the public hearing
for the two items. The paint change will continue onto the next agenda.
Chairman Harris asked Mr. Oedel if he would like to amend his motion so it
would include the change of the trim color from white to Puritan White.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to waive the public hearing for the paint color
• change. Mr. Cook seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so
April 19, 1989, Page 5
passed. Mr. Carr abstained.
Mr. Pierce asked Dr. Lebel to decribe the beaded trim and clarify a few
missing dimensions, on the fence drawing.
Dr. Lebel replied it was a simple half-round or slat to hold the lattice in
the middle of the fence rather than putting the lattice work at one end or
the other.
Mr. Pierce stated that in order to vote the Commission should know the
dimensions of the fence.
Mr. Oedel questioned the lack of details in the drawings and the rise of
real 2x4' s and stated that he wanted to make sure the applicant was using
appropriate materials. He was also concerned over the lack of detailing on
the cap.
Mr. Carr stated that if the Commission did decide to continue the fence to
the next meeting, there should be a public notice.
Ms. Guy stated that the public notice had already been sent to abutters.
Mr. Carr stated that if the Commission votes tonight that the application
is of minimal impact, then the Commission could approve or disapprove the
application. If the Commission decided that the application did not meet
all the requirements and should be acted upon at next meeting, then unless
the Commission recinds the prior decision and require a pubic hearing,
people would have been invited to come to the Commission's next meeting but
would not be provided with a forum to speak.
• Mr. Oedel moved to schedule a public hearing and to recind the prior motion
saying that the changes on the application were of minimal impact. Mr.
Geary seconded the motion. Chairman Harris and Messrs. Pierce, Geary, and
Oedel voted in faovr. Mr. Cook voted in opposition. Mr. Carr abstained.
The motion was so carried.
Chairman Harris stated that she would like someone to make a motion to
waive a public hearing for the paint color and the professional sign.
Dr. Lebel stated that the Commission had not described the pre-existing
fence with any degree of accuracy. Dr. LeBel stated that he did not
substantially alter the appearence of the fence. Dr. LeBel stated that
regulations, of which he was aware of, state that if the applicant is
replacing something with that which is substantially the same, a vote by
the commission is not called for.
Mr. Carr stated that the burden of prove is on the applicant to show that
in fact what is being proposed conforms with the pre-existing element. The
Salem Board of Appeals Zoning Ordinance states that if there has been a
discontinuance for a year or more of a prior existing condition that is
viewed as an abondonment and is no longer deemed to be a pre-existing
element. In Mr. Carr' s opinion the applicant did not meet the burden of
showing what had been proposed was a prior existing condition either
because there had been a space of time longer than a year or that what was
being proposed did not conform in all respects to what was a pre-existing
• condition. Mr. Carr stated that either one of which is sufficient to deny
April 19, 1989, Page 6
a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Dr. Lebel stated that the fence was removed last fall which is less than a
year.
�• Mr. Cook made a motion to accept the application of Non—Applicability for
the fence and the professional sign. There was no second.
Chairman Harris asked if the applicant comes to the next meeting with more
details on the fence, would there be any other problems that might stop the
application from being approved.
Chairman Harris stated that she wanted the cap of the fence to have more of
a profile and look less like a 2x4.
Mr. Oedel agreed with Chairman Harris and voiced the same concern over the
bottom rail.
The Commission agreed that if the architect improved the detailing then
there should be no problem with the location or the configuration.
9 Warren St.
Mr. John Joseph Flynn presented an application for a Certificate for
Non—Applicability for the repainting of his house trim at 9 Warren Street.
The existing colors will remain light and dark gray. The application also
stated that the body color of the house would not change.
Mr. Oedel moved that the Commissionapprovethe Certificate of
Non—Applicability for painting the house trim only. Mr. Oedel stated that
• his motion did not include any body color change. Mr. Geary seconded the
motion. Mr. Carr stated that this motion was subject to the trim being an
exact or approximate replica. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
281 Laffayette St.
Ms. Hope Edelstein presented an Application for a Certificate of
Non—Applicability for 281 Laffayette St. to strip an asphalt roof and to
install a new one. Also on the application was a request to remove asphalt
siding on four dormers. Chairman Harris stated the application for a
Certificate of Apropriateness to install siding on the four dormers was
filed for the next meeting.
David Groom, the contractor, was present for the applicant. He stated that
he was authorized to do whatever was acceptable to the Commission.
Mr. Carr moved that the Commission approve the application to remove the
asphalt roof and asphalt siding on the four dormers and to the reshingle
the roof. Mr. Carr also moved that the Commission waive the public hearing
for residing the dormers and that the Commission approve the application to
replace the asphalt siding on the dormers with wooden clapboards.
Mr. Geary seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion was so
carried.
VMr. Carr moved to make an amendment so that the clapboards' exposure to the
f
April 19, 1989, Page 7
weather would be three and a half to four inches, that the clapboards be
cedar or redwood, and the body color would match the existing one. Mr.
Geary seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Carr explained to Mr. Groom that he must wait ten days before the
certificate could be issued. But that he could start on the roof
immediately.
3 Broad St.
Ms. Guy stated that the letter to the Salem Housing Authority asking them
to come to this meeting to discuss the electrical entry had not been mailed
but that the architect had called to be put on the agenda for the next
meeting to re—apply for the roof.
Mr. Carr asked if there was anything unacted upon from the last
application.
Ms. Guy stated that the entire application had been denied.
51 Summer St.
Mr. Carr stated that he had made a site inspection and that he noted two
things. He stated that he had noticed that the glass was much too
reflective, much more so than he understood was being applied for. He also
told the Commission that he had noticed that the sills had not been
replicated.
Chairman Harris raised a third issue. She pointed out that the windows did
• not look like full size windows and that there were gaps above and below
the windows.
The applicant informed the Commission that the manufacturer would meet with
the Commission in two weeks to explain the differences in the windows.
Mr. Pierce stated that what the Commission approved is not what the
applicant bought.
Mr. Carr stated that this application should be put high on the next
agenda.
Public Hearings
262 Lafayette Street
The application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for gutter replacement
at 262 Lafayette Street was withdrawn due to being approved under a
Certificate of Hardship at the last meeting.
29 Washington Square North
The Bertram Home for Aged Men presented an application for the renovation
of existing buildings and the addition of a new wing at their property at
29 Washington Square North.
April 19, Page 8
George Gagnon of 25 Washington Square North asked the commission if the
hearing was mute since the issue was now in court.
Mr. Carr stated that if Mr. Gagnon was asking if the appeal from the
• decision to grant special permit to this property made the Commission' s
action on the application mute the answer was negative. Mr. Carr further
stated that both were independent and that one did not take precedence over
the other. Mr. Carr informed Mr. Gagnon that the Board of Appeals relates
to usage and density while the Commission' s jurisdiction relates to design
and what is historically appropriate.
Chairman Harris suggested that the public make comments only after the
presentation had been made.
The architect, Mr.Staley McDermet, made his presentation of the site plan,
revised elevations, and floorplans. He gave a condensed overview of his
project since he had made a previous presentation to the Commission.
After the presentation, Chairman Harris opened the public hearing.
George Gagnon stated that he was opposed to the project for reasons of
density.
Ted Richards of 35 Pleasant St. representing the Dearing Family Trust of
31 ,33 ,35,39, and 41 Washington Square, stated that he agreed with Mr.
Gagnon and asked what powers the Commission had. He also stated that the
project would turn formal gardens into a parking lot.
Mr. Carr stated that the Commission could deny as being inappropriate a
building which was essential to what the architect was proposing. He added
• that the Commission had no jurisdiction over landscaping unless the
Commission had been given jurisdiction by the Board of Appeals. Mr. Carr
also said that the Commission' s was a physical jurisdiction and that if any
addition created a different tone from one use to another untraditional
use, it would be in the Commission' s jurisdiction.
Mr. Richards stated that additional people at the home would change the
tone and the look of the building.
Mr. Carr stated that the home had started out as a single family mansion
and that he would like to adhere to that visual effect. He stated that he
would like to disguise the fact that the use had changed from a mansion to
an institution.
Steve Burke of 12 Williams Street told the Commission that the addition
would be in view of his back yard. He then stated that he was opposed to
the addition but that if the addition were built, he would want the
addition to be consistant with the original house. Mr. Burke also stated
that he would like to see an appropriate fence installed.
Mr. Carr stated that ordinarily he would move that the public hearing be
closed but that he wanted to give the neighbors an opportunity to commment
throughout the procedings. Mr. Carr then stated that this was a very
important building and that the Commission must not make any hasty
approvals. Mr. Carr stated that whenever there was a change which involved
•
April 19, 1989, Page 9
covering over original fabric, the applicant must prove that it was
necessary. Mr. Carr added that he was concerned with the one story infill,
the porch and the degree to which it covered over existing elements. Mr.
Carr stated that the building could look like a mansion that had been
• converted into an institution, which is something that should be avoided.
Mr. Carr stated that he wished the drop off point to be located at the
other side of the addition in order to keep the concrete posts in place.
Mr. Carr stated that he did not agree with the dormer or the chimney being
removed. He also did not like the fact that a lunette window was being
covered over. Mr. Carr showed concern that the addition housing the washer
and dryer interupts the straight line of the building and can be seen from
Washington Square. He also voiced concerns about the height and square
footage of the deck.
Mr. Pierce agreed with Mr. Carr saying that the Commission should have
further discussions on the elevations, additional refinement of details
regarding all the items discussed, and that a series of sketches or slides
would be helpful.
Mr. Oedel requested more plans for trash, transformer, and utility
locations. He also commented that the Commission' s stance in the past has
been that an addition should read as an older addition to an existing
house. Mr. Oedel also wanted to know the exact location of the fence.
Mr. Cook and Mr. Carr voiced an appreciation to the neighbors for sharing
thier opinions and suggested they return to the upcoming meetings regarding
this project.
Chairman Harris asked if the members' concerns were in terms of design, if
they just wanted more details, or if it was a combination of the two.
Mr. Carr stated, that Mr. McDermott had to complete many more drawings.
Mr. McDermott stated that the project was going out to bid in two or three
weeks and asked how long these procedings were going to take.
Mr. Carr replied that on a project of this size and a building of this
prominence that the procedings could take up to three months.
Chairman Harris suggested that the Commission give Mr. McDermott some
direction. She stated that she wanted to see a full rear elevation or
perspective drawing showing the relationship of the one story addition
against the whole back.
Mr. Geary stated that he did not want to see the laundry room jut out.
Mr. Carr stated that the laundry room is disturbing a clear, straight
facade.
Mr. Carr stated that the addition should act as a connector without
significant depth and that the plan reads as a separate building.
Mr. Oedel said he was bothered by the doorway on the back facade.
Chairman Harris stated that she had no problem with the volume and massing
i
April 19, 1989, Page 10
on the back addition but that she had concerns with the transition between
the original house and the addition.
Mr. Pierce voiced a concern over the roof lines and how they met.
• Mr. Carr stated that he had a problem with the elevator. He also said he
was troubled over the drop off point and that the Commission' s guidelines
refer to keeping the line on the sidewalk. Mr. Carr stated that it was
clear that the drop off point was a convenience for the automobile.
Chairman Harris asked if anyone else shared Mr. Carr' s opinion of the drop
off point.
Mr. Oedel said that he had no concern with the drop off point as long as
the concrete posts that were present were reused.
Mr. Carr asked Mr. McDermott if a group had been formed to take over the
use of the building.
Mr. McDermott replied that a consulting firm had been hired to advise on
the development of this building. Mr. McDermott did not know if they would
be hired to manage the facility. He also stated that the ownership and
management would stay with the Trustees for the Bertrum Home for Aged Men
-
Inc.
Mr. Carr stated that Mr. Bill Carney, who had represented the Bertram Home
at the site visit, stated that they were a 5013C charity or non profit
organization.
• Chairman Harris asked if the Commission had a concern about the doorway on
the back facade.
Mr. Oedel felt that it was a main door on a subsidiary facade.
Chairman Harris stated that she had heard concerns about fencing and that
the neighbors wanted it to screen the cars. She also stated that Mr.
McDermott should do research to see if the dormer and the chimney were
original.
Mr. McDermott stated that he was ready to answer the Commission' s questions
tonight and that he could not do more detailed drawings. He also stated
that if he could not convince the Commission of his reasons then things
like the elevator must be accomodated elsewhere. He voiced his concern
that these were major problems.
Mr. Carr stated that unless more detailed drawings were done he would vote
against the project. Mr. Carr suggested that Mr. McDermott make up an
alternate plan or explain why that the original plan was the best.
Mr. Oedel asked Mr. McDermott if he could bring in a design with back up
information that the back door could be period style.
Mr. Carr made a motion that the Historical Commission hold a special
meeting on Wednesday, May 10th, in addition to the regular meeting on the
3rd of May in order to continue this application. Mr. Oedel seconded the
•
April 19, 1989, Page 11
motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Cook asked the members of the Commission if there was any sense of
urgency. Mr. Carr replied that there was not.
Other Business
Award Nominations
Ms. Guy provided the Commission with a list of applications that were
approved over the last two years. Chairman Harris requested that the
members monimate projects by telephone to Ms. Guy before the next meeting.
Demo Delay
Ms. Guy stated, in reply to Mr. Slam' s concern at a previous meeting, that
no ordinance can supersede the requirement for emergency demolition
resulting from a health or safety hazard.
N.E. Telephone
Ms. Guy stated that Mr. Dupuis of 182 Federal St. was concerned that N.E.
Telephone installed equipment on the facade of his home. Mr. Carr spoke to
N.E. Telephone who indicated that the equipment boxes will be painted in
gray primer to allow the owner to paint them the house color. Ms. Guy will
notify Mr. Dupuis.
There being no further business, Mr. Carr made a motion to adjourn. Mr.
Geary seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Kemith LeBlanc
Acting Clerk
JHisCom5/HISCOM/O41989P2
•
May 3, 1989, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
May 3 , 1989
• A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday,
May 3, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were
Chairman Harris, Messrs. Oede1, Zaharis, Carr, Pierce, Slam, Geary, Cook
and Staff Advisor Jane Guy. Mr. Slam will not be voting.
Chairman Harris called the meeting to order.
Public Hearings
20 Beckford Street
Mr. Michael Cooney presented an Application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to remove the center gatepost and lengthen the gates at
his property at 20 Beckford Street. The Applicant proposes to move the
right hand post a negligible amount to the right to create a balanced
symmetrical apprearance. This change would give the gate a more widely
open space so cars can get in driveway much easier. The side location will
remain intact. The design of the fence and fence posts will remain the
same. Drawings and photographs were shown. Mr. Cooney was represented by
Atty. Carol Perry.
Chairman Harris stated that the opening to the gate was going from a 9 1/2
foot opening to a 16 foot opening. Chairman Harris stated that the
applicant proposes to eliminate the walkway gate and the post that is next
to it and to move the post on the right hand side. There will be a little
• bit of fencing on each side, with a double gate remaining. '
Atty. Perry presented a package of information regarding the application.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to approve the application as presented. Mr.
Geary seconded the motion.
Chairman Harris asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak on the
issue. Mr. Oedel asked if the gates will meet in the center. Atty. Perry
replied in the affirmative.
Betsy Burns of 22 Beckford Street stated that she had no objections to the
application as long as two carrs cannot fit in the space. Mr. Carr replied
that the purpose is clearly to have side by side parking. Atty. Perry said
that two cars are not going to fit in there. Mr. Pierce stated that cars
are 6i feet wide. Mr. Slam stated that the Commission has no juridiction
over parking. Ms. Burns asked if the gates will remain on the sidewalk.
Atty. Perry replied in the affirmative. Chairman Harris asked if
cobblestones will be installed. Mr. Cooney replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Cooney stated that he damaged his car getting in the space. Mr. Cooney
proposes to rebuild the two posts that are there.
Mr. Carr stated that he is not convinced that this is not for two cars
because it seems that there is no other reason to have the double opening.
Mr. Carr stated that historically, it is not typical to have a 10' or 20'
fence that is a gate but rather�,it is typical to have a broken fence for a
walkway and a diveway. Mr. Carr stated that he opposed the application
May 3, 1989, Page 2
because it is without precedent to have an entire front yard fence that is
essentially a gate. Mr. Carr stated that if the issue is that the gate
opening is too narrow, the gate could be moved to the right in order to
leave the driveway and gate openings. Atty. Perry stated that the
symmetric balance would be off.
Mr. Cook asked if the gate will be open all the time. Mr. Cooney stated
that when the gate is closed people don't recognize that it' s a driveway
and that if closed, people will park in front of driveway. Mr. Carr stated
that td side of the fence will be against the house of which there is no
historic precedent. Mr. Carr stated that the driveway has been a driveway
for longer than it ' s been in an Historic District and asked that if it was
such a problem, why had no one come before to have it changed. Mr. Pierce
agreed with Mr. Carr. Mr.Pierce stated that he is willing to support an
increase in the width of the opening with the retention of the small
pedestrian gate. Mr. Pierce also feels that 16 feet is too excessive and
inappropriate. Mr. Pierce stated that 12 feet would meet present state and
zoning guidelines and would be accessible for Mr. Cooney. Mr. Oedel felt
that 12 feet is too excessive. He suggested 11 feet between posts is
reasonable. Mr. Oedel stated that a standard parking spot is 9-10 feet.
The motion was voted upon. Mr. Zaharis and Mr. Geary voted in favor.
Chairman Harris and Messrs. Carr, Pierce, Oedel and Cook voted in
opposition. The motion was denied as being historically inappropriate to
eliminate a gateway to a path and to have a large driveway opening.
Mr. Carr made a motion suggesting outer paramters for future applications
on this project be that the driveway have three fence posts, a gate to the
driveway and to the walkway, that the fence/gates be at the sidewalk, that
• there be posts defining the walkway and driveway openings and that the
driveway opening not exceed 12 feet. Mr. Zaharis seconded the motion.
Mr. Pierce stated that the Commission may want to take this under further
discussion and advisement. Mr. Oedel stated that what is appropriate for
this application is not necessarily appropriate for all areas. Chairman
Harris agreed due to the fact that this is a pre—existing condition. Mr.
Carr stated that the motion does not constitute approval but only outer
paramters that coud be further reduced. Mr. Carr withdrew the motion. Mr.
Zaharis withdrew his second.
110 DERBY STREET
Jim—Bob Realty Trust presented an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to install a restaurant sign at 110 Derby Street. The sign
would be based on 10 feet above the sidewalk. The sign itself is 48 by 44
inches with a mast of 92". The sign is designed as the back of a ship on
one side and writing only on the other.
Chairman Harris asked if the owners knew how the sign was going to be hung.
The applicant replied that it would be lag—bolted to the building and that
there would be two guide wirers to hold sign in balance. Ms. Guy asked if
the applicant has received a sign permit. They answered that they have an
application and that they wanted to get an approval here first.
Chairman Harris asked if there will be a sign on Turner Street. The
applicant stated that there will only be a sign on Derby Street. Mr.
May 3 , 1989, Page 3
Pierce felt the drawing was not quite drawn to scale and it appears the top
of the mast would be above the eaveline. Chairman Harris asked how far the
sign will project. Mr. Pierce assumed it would cover most of the sidewalk.
Mr. Carr felt that the Commission as a whole has a major problem with the
49height, the width and the fact that the elevation cannot be seen against
the sidewalk. Chairman Harris asked what the other members felt. Mr. Cook
stated that the overall mass is not too obtrusive because we are talking
about the extra height being comprised of a little poles which don't
particularly obscure the viewer. Mr. Cook stated that he was not overly
disturbed by it. Mr. Geary stated that he was not disturbed by the sign.
Mr. Slam stated he is just as concerned with the body as with the height of
the mast because four by four seems rather large. Mr. Slam stated that it
is hard to visualize. Mr. Carr was concerned whether the sign would read
like a boat or television antenna. Chairman Harris stated that she lied
the design of the sign but was concerned with the size it. Chairman Harris
suggested that either the applicant propose a smaller sign or provide a
better drawing. Mr. Oedel said he' s not as concerned with the 48 by 44
inch because a sign looks generally smaller on the building than on .paper,
especially when you're dealing with 10 feet up rather than 9 or 8, which is
more traditional. Mr. Oedel was more concerned with the mast on top of it.
Mr. Cook made a motion to accept the application as submitted. Mr. Geary
seconded the motion. Mr. Carr did not want to appove the application
because there was no drawing to give the Commission information regarding
the scale of the sign to the building. Mr. Carr also preferred that the
sign be scaled down. Messrs. Zaharis, Cook and Geary voted in favor.
Chairman Harris and Messrs. Carr, Oedel and Pierce voted in opposition.
The motion did not carry.
• Mr. Geary made a motion to continue the public hearing on this application
until the meeting of May 10, 1989 with notices to be sent to the abutters.
Mr. Cook .seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
132-134 DERBY STREET
Wolosinski, MacAllister & Schleicher presented an application for
Certificate of Appropriateness to paint exterior walls and trim at 132-134
Derby Street. The exterior and trim will be Benjamin Moor #1006. Doors
will remain their current color.
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.
105 FEDERAL STREET
John Morris and Joan Griffin presented an Application for Certificate of
Appropriateness to add french doors at rear of addition and place
clapboards where existing door is, replace the window next to existing
door, replace the roof, add a skylight and raise the window in rear, second
floor, to normal height. Photographs were provided which indicated that
much of the proposed work is not visible from the public way. Mr. Morris
stated that the roof line in the rear will be changed to get extra height.
Chairman Harris stated what will be visible is the door removed, the window
change, and roof change. Mr. Morris stated that the window will not be
. visible.
May 3 , 1989, Page 4
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Cook
econded the motion.
Chairman Harris .asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak
• regarding this application. -
H. B. Peabody of 6 Federal Court stated that he did not like people walking
on his property to take pictures. Ms. Guy answered that she did not go on
his property and she took the pictures from the sidewalk.
Betsy Burns of 22 Beckford Street stated that she and her husband were very
much in favor of the changes.
Mr. Zaharis was concerned if the skylight would look like a beacon at night
with the lights on. Mr. Carr stated that a huge 4-square post was on the
other side of the slope and that he did not feel the skylight would look
like a beacon. Chairman Harris asked the size of the proposed skylight.
Mr. Morris did not have a size but stated that it would be standard size.
Mr. Carr amended his motion to permit a skylight not to exceed in
dimensions 3 feet by 242 feet. Mr. Pierce seconded the motion.
Chairman Harris stated that the issues are removing door, changing roof
line to a pitch roof rather than a shed roof, installing skylight which may
be visible and that the other items are not visible. Mr. Oedel felt that
the doors and the skylight should be denied under the Certificate of
Appropriateness and approved under a Certificate of Non-Applicability as
being not visible from a public way. Mr. Carr withdrew his motion. Mr.
Cook withdrew his second. Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the
• application as being appropriate with regard to the roof and the removal of
the door. Mr. Geary seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion
so carried. Mr. Carr made a motion that the skylight, the window and the
french doors facing the rear of the property be denied due to not being
visible from a public way. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion, all were in
favor and the motionso carried. Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the
skylight, window and french doors facing the rear of the property under a
Certificate of Non-Applicability. Mr. Geary seconded the motion, all were
in favor and the motion so carried.
At this time, Mr. Carr left the meeting. Mr. Slam now becomes a voting
member.
8 & 8A CHESTNUT STREET
Chairman Harris stated that at a previous meeting, the Commission had
denied an application for a Certificate of Non-applicability for a
lattice-work fence and a sign because the Commission felt those elements
were new. Although there had once been a fence there, nobody could
remember it and there were no pictures showing it to understand what had
been there. Chairman Harris stated that the applicant has submitted an
application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for these items but he has
also resubmitted an application for a Certificate of Non-applicability due
to having some additional information to present.
Dr. Richard Lebel presented an application for Certificate of
• Appropriateness to change the trim and fence color from white to Puriton
May 3, 1989, Page 5
White, to replace the lattice—work fence and to install a professional
plaque on main facade, right hand corner at the sill line (facing west) at
his property at 8 & 8A Chestnut Street. Drawings of the fence were
presented.
• Mr. Stretch Stevens, the contractor, stated that the drawings are a
copulation of three people that saw it last. Dr. LeBel stated that the
neighbors who remember the fence before it was removed have signed an
affidavit stating that the drawing represents to their best recollection
what had been removed. These affidavits were presented.
Mr. Pierce asked that the conclusions of last meeting with regards to the
Commission' s concerns be summarized. Chairman Harris stated that the main
concern was the need for more details on the drawing. Mr. Pierce stated
that the same drawing has been submitted. Chairman Harris stated that
three applications are before the Commission. One is for a Certificate of
Non—applicability for the fence, one is for a Certificate of
Non—applicability for the sign and the third is for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for fence, sign and painting. Mr. Cavanaugh, the
applicant ' s attorney, preferred that the Commission act on the application
for a Certificate of Appropriateness first. Mr. Cook stated that the
Commission was substantially in agreement with the general design, and that
specifics were needed only. Mr. Stevens stated that there wasn't a
particularly ornate cap on the fence and that the cap was flat.
Chairman Harris stated that the application was for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for the fence, the sign, which will be centered between the
edge of front window and corner of building and which the bottom will line
up with the bottom of the sill line and for the paint color, which will be
changed from white to Puritan White for the fence and trim. Chairman
Harris asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak on this issue.
There were no comments.
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the application as submitted on the
three items. Mr. Cook seconded the motion. All were in favor and the
motion so carried. Mr. Slam abstained from voting.
Dr. LeBel withdrew his applications for Certificates of Non—Applicability
for the fence and the sign.
97 DERBY STREET
Dolores and Alice Jordan presented an application for Certificate of
Non—Applicability for the replacement of 28 all wood windows which are
going to be 2 over 2 thermopane, the installation of new clapboards on the
Derby and White Street sides and for painting the same grey and white color
for their property at 97 Derby Street. Mrs. Jordan stated that she wanted
the windows to be thermopane. Mr. Frank Raffa, their contractor, stated
that he' s going to strip the existing clapboard and install new clapboards
as existing, paint them the same color and keep the trimboard as it is.
Chairman Harris asked if the trim on the windows will be changed. Mr.
Raffa stated that the windows will have the same outside look, but that his
customers would like to use the thermopane to help insulate the home. Mr.
Raffa presented a catalog for the Commission which showed a pop—in grill
from the inside. Mr. Slam asked if the windows are 2 over 2. Mr. Raffa
• replied in the affirmative. Chairman Harris asked if all the windows in
f
May 3, 1989, Page 6
the house will be replaced. Mr. Raffa replied in the affirmative.
Chairman Harris asked if the little building is part of the proposal. Mr.
Raffa replied in the negative. Mr. Cookasked if the clapboards will be
clear cedar. Mr. Raffa replied in the affirmative.
• Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the Certificate of Non-Applicability for
the replacement of clapboards on two sides and the painting for the same
grey and white color. Mr. Cook seconded the motion. Chairman Harris asked
if anyone in the audience would like to speak on this issue. There were no
comments. The motion was voted upon. All were in favor and the motion so
carried.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the replacement of 28 wooden windows for
a Certificate of Non-Applicability.. Mr. Slam seconded the motion. There
were no votes in favor. All were in opposition. The motion did not carry.
The Certificate of Non-applicability for the windows was denied because
the windows are not being replaced exactly as existing.
Ms. Guy stated that the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness
for the windows will be heard at the next meeting.
Chairman Harris stated that the Commission has some concerns regarding
windows. Chairman. Harris stated that they should be wood. Chairman Harris
stated that the thermopane could be an - issue and that she was concerned
that there were no mutton bars. Chairman Harris added that the Commission
requires that a representative inspect the windows and that the Commission
tries to keep as much of the historical fabric as possible and prefers that
th windows not be replaced whenever possible. Mr. Raffa stated that these
are not a replacement window and that it' s a whole complete unit with the
• jam and with the outside casing. Mr. Slam stated that often times windows
don' t need to be replaced that ' s why we need to see them first. Chairman
Harris stated that there are two kinds of thermopane that have been
previously approved. One is a 2 over 2 or 6 over 6 window where each of
the panes is a thermopane and has a real wood mutton bar between it. The
other is one where there is an exterior system of wood mutton bars that are
just applied on the glass along with interior muttons.
Mr. Pierce and Mr. Slam will look at the windows on Saturday at 11 :00 a.m.
386 ESSEX STREET
Mr. David Clarke presented an Application for Certificate of
Non-Applicability to replace aluminium sliding door with an identical sized
wood unit on the second floor of his property at 386 Essex Street.
Pictures were shown. Ms. Guy stated that door was minimally visible from
the public way.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the application as presented. Mr. Slam
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried as being
an insubstantial change of a minimally visible existing element.
•
May 3 , 1989, Page 7
OTHER BUSINESS
51 SUMMER ST./28 HIGH ST.
• Mr. Walter Kallenbach was present to discuss the status of his windows at
51 Summer/28 High Street. Chairman Harris stated that Mr. Kallenbach had
installed 42 customed windows that had been approved by the Commission
after viewing a sample of the window. The application had been approved
because it was understood that the tinting on the glass would be minimally
visible.
Chairman Harris stated that Mr. Kallenbach was in attendance at the meeting
of April 19, 1989 and had been asked to have the manaufacturer attend this
meeting because some Commission members do not feel that the color is
minimally visible, but rather that it is very obvious and has a blue cast
to it. Chairman Harris stated that the sill thickness was also an issue,
but that Mr. Kallenbach had indicated that the sill depth had not yet been
built up. Chairman Harris added that there was concern that the windows
were smaller than what had been there because there are gaps above and
below some of the windows. Mr. Kallenbach stated that the windows had all
been the same size and were replaced with the same size but believed that
some of the headers were bigger on some of the windows and that some of the
windows had had no headers. Mr. Kallenbach stated the sills had not yet
been built up but that they would be.
Mr. Pierce stated that the main issue is the color and flectivity of the
glass.
Mr. Jerry Alexander, representing Wes—Pine Millwork, Inc. , the
. manufacturer, was present to answer the Commission' s questions. Mr.
Alexander stated that the sample presented was the same that was installed
in the house. Mr. Alexander stated that his company makes hard coat low E
windows and provided samples of clear glass and hard coat low E glass. Mr.
Alexander stated that his concern was whether the Commission did not feel
that the sample was not the same as those installed or whether the
Commission just doesn't want Low E glass. Mr. Alexander stated that at
meeting in February he had indicated then when the material was outside it
would certainly pick up some refractory qualities that are aesthetically
hard to describe.
The members of the Commission viewed the samples of the glass to determine
if looking at the glass in the inside light .had en effect. Mr. Alexander
stated that looking through the glass in a normal state it should be very
difficult to tell the difference. Chairman Harris stated that she could
see the difference when the glass pieces are tilted. Mr. Alexander stated
that the difference was more in the refraction of the light. Chairman
Harris stated that when the Commission viewed the original sample, they
were concerned whether the differences would be noticable and had left the
meeting with the sense that it wouldn't be noticable except occasionaly in
certain light. Chairman Harris stated that this is not the case with what
is on the house, that it is alot more obvious and looks blue sunglasses.
Mr. Alexander stated that he did not believe that he led the Commission to
that conclusion. Mr. Pierce agreed that looking straight through the
glass, the relectivity was difficult to see but added that the unit
originally viewed had been lifted around, moved and put up on the table.
•
May 3 , 1989, Page 8
Mr. Cook stated that like a paint chip, everything always looks a little
different on a house. Mr. Geeary stated that he thought it would be much
less visible and came away from the original presentation feeling that it
would be a minimal issue and feels it is more than that. Chairman Harris
• stated that she believed all the members had concluded it would be minimal.
Mr. Alexander stated that it was not fair to state that he had led the
members to that conclusion. Mr. Cook stated that the impression he is
getting from looking at the samples is not the impression he gets when
looking at what was installed. Mr. Cook stated that he hadn't been at the
February meeting so he could not judge what was said but added that there
is a very distinct coloration on that house that can't be picked up on the
samples.
Chairman Harris read from the minutes of the February meeting.
Mr. Alexander was concerned if the point is that Low E glass is not an
approved item or if there is a problem with this particular job. Mr. Oedel
asked if Mr. Alexander' s supplier only supplies one tint of low E hard
coat. Mr. Alexander replied in the affirmative. Mr. Pierce stated that
there were dozens of types of Low E glass and that the judgement they had
made was on visual analysis. Mr. Pierce indicated that low E is a generic
description of which hard coat defines it further. Mr. Pierce added that
thickness, surface of glass, color, and whether it is an insulated unit are
all considerations when specifying glass. Mr. Alexander agreed that the
degree of insulation made a difference and added that he can, under sunny
daylight, distinguish Low E windows of any brand. Mr. Cook stated in the
minutes that were just read, that blue wasn't ever mentioned and that the
blue on the installed windows is blatant. Chairman Harris stated that the
windows would never be considered again unless they could see the windows
. installed on site. Chairman Harris stated that the windows are totally
inappropriate. Mr. Slam felt that the Commission may have made a mistake.
Mr. Zaharis asked if the glass, when produce by the manufacturer, is
different colors at different times such as blue, yellow or green. Mr.
Alexander stated that they have never noticed a difference in their plant
that has been rejected nor has their been an ongoing project that the
variation was enough that anyone complained. Chairman Harris asked if blue
is always the color of the reflection. Mr. Alexander stated that the
reflection has been described as blue, rainbow or yellow. Mr. Zaharis
stated that different manaufacturers use different dyes and if the supplier
is changed and the dye changes slightly, one would get a different color.
Mr. Zaharis was concerned if we saw a sample from a different supplier than
from those windows that were installed, there is a problem in the process.
Chairman Harris stated that the Commission saw a sample of what they
thought was essentially clear.
Mr. Zaharis felt that the problem was the manufacturer' s fault and that
they should arrange to take out the glass and reinstall it. Mr. Zacharis
made a motion that the glass should be removed and there should be new
glass put in. Mr. Pierce stated that there is no way of verifying that the
sample the Commission saw was installed in kind. Mr. Cook stated that the .
manaufacturer should have an awareness of how the glass looks on the side
of a building and that was not made clear to the Commission. Mr. Pierce
stated that the spirit of the motion approving the windows was that it was
a handsome wood frame and sash window that was the closest match to the
existing condition. Mr. Pierce added that because the Commission did not
•
May 3 , 1989, Page 9
approve of the exterior storm that went with the unit, the Commission
considered the option of a coated glass. Mr. Pierce stated that what the
Commission say in the sample, there didn't appear to be a problem with the
glass. Mr. Pierce seconded the motion on the basis that the Commission
thought they were proving a window which was substantially in kind a
replacement of the existing window with the exception of the piece of glass
that had a minimumly noticeable coating that would not change the color.
Mr. Pierce stated that reflectivity may not be able to be minimized but
that color should be eliminated.
Chairman Harris asked if the color was in the glass or if it was applied on
afterwards. Mr. Alexander stated that in his knowledge it' s not a color
but rather a metallic coating impregnated in the glass. Mr. Pierce was in
disagreement, adding that the coating is annealed to the glass and that it
cannot be removed.
Chairman Harris asked if the motion was to have the manufacturer replace
the windows. Mr. Oedel stated that it was not specified in the motion who
was to replace the windows, but only that they be replaced. Mr. Kallenbach
stated that he saw the same sample as the Commission saw and he is not
particularly happy with them. Mr. Kallenbach also stated that he is not
going to replace the windows at his cost because he already spent a little
over $13,000 for 42 customed windows. Mr. Kallenbach felt that what he saw
was not what he got. Mr. Slam stated that the gentleman who owns the house
can take legal action against the manufacturer. Mr. Kallenback asked if
the Commission has the right to tell him to sue the manufacturer. Chairman
Harris stated that the Commission cannot sue the manufacturer directly.
Mr. Slam stated that if they made a motion indicating that the manufacturer
is responsible and would have to replace the windows it would give the
• owner more substantial grounds in a suit because the owner was not
delivered the product he expected and he would have the Historical
Commission drawing the same judgement. Mr. Cook stated that maybe the
replacement is not a problem with the manufacturer. Mr. Alexander stated
that he would not replace 42 custom built windows based on the outcome here
that he misrepresented them. Mr. Oedel asked if the windows can be
reglazed. Mr. Alexander replied that sash replacement is a possibility.
Mr. Oedel stated that the frames look good shape and that the Commission is
only concerned with the glass. Mr. Cook stated that misrepresentation was
an inappropriate word and felt that it was a misunderstanding. Mr.
Kallenbach felt that part of the problem was the sample being seen under
fleurescant lights. Mr. Pierce stated that it was a possibility. Mr.
Kallenbach stated that the glass in his home does not look like the glass
in this light. Mr. Kallenbach added that the original sample was not held
flat and added that the blue can be seen the most in the samples now being
viewed when they are held flat to the fleurescant tubes. Mr. Pierce stated
that it was demonstrated as a tilt out window, which when opened was angled
and that he never saw any blue reflection. Mr. Pierce stated they the
Commission never looked for blue glass because they thought it would be
substantially clear. Chairman Harris stated that the window looks nice and
that the Commission can now recommend other windows besides J. B. Sash, but
that she would never vote to approve Low E glass again. Mr. Pierce stated
that he has seen low E glass that doesn't look blue and in the future the
Commission will know the manaufacturer so that they can be approved. Ms.
Guy stated that if the motion passes, the Commission does not have to
determine who has to pay for the replacement. Mr. Pierce was in agreement.
•
May 3, 1989, Page 10
Mr. Oedel stated that the situation should be resolved from an Historical
standpoint, the homeowner' s standpoint and the manufacturer' s standpoint.
Mr. Slam asked what the possibilities were of getting the windows reglazed.
. Mr. Alexander stated that it is as practical to think about new sash as it
is to reglaze the windows. Mr. Alexander stated that the sash do pop out.
Mr. Pierce asked if the sashes could potentially be reused at some future
job. Mr. Alexander stated that he could not address that size and whether
it was a complete custom and whether it could be resold, but he would be
willing to dig out the paperwork and consider the situation.
Chairman Harris asked if the Mr. Kallenbach and Mr. Alexander wanted to
come back in two weeks to finish this discussion after Mr. Alexander' s
research. Mr. Kallenbach stated there could be a compromise between he and
the manufacturer. Mr. Kallenbach may consider giving Mr. Alexander an
order for common outside storms. Mr. Pierce stated that Mr. Kallenbach and
the manufacturer could amicably work out the problem amongst themselves.
Mr. Pierce suggested an amendment to Mr. Zaharis' s motion to clarify that
the Commission requires the replacement of sashes or glass only with clear
glass and not the entire window. Mr. Zaharis seconded the amendment. Mr.
Pierce also wanted to make clear that Mr. Kallenbach may consider separate
storm windows but not those which were designed for the unit. The motion
was voted upon. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
29 WASHINGTON SQUARE NORTH
In continuation on the application for the Bertram Home for Aged Men, Mr.
Staley McDermott presented a slide show and drawings regarding the
restoration of the existing buildings and the addition of a wing. Mr.
• McDermott gave an overview of the slides and drawings which included an
explanation of what is existing, assumption as to the building' s
architectural history and what will be changed.
Mr. Carr rejoined the meeting at this time.
Mr. McDermott provided drawings of the proposed construction where the main
building meetings the annex. and projects toward the Common. Mr. McDermott
stated that he pulled in a portion of the addition from where it was in the
drawings presented at the last meeting. Mr. McDermott provided two options
for the part of the addition that can be viewed from Washington Square.
Mr. McDermott stated that the existing connection overlaps the facade of
the carriage house and abuts the rear of the original dining room. Option
1 shows the addition going behind the dining room and then returns and
abuts in the back. Option 2 comes further forward and buts into the side
of the dining room wall and has a window in it. Mr. McDermott felt that
Option 2 looks better. Mr. McDermott stated that he thought the window
broke it up more. Mr. Carr stated that the existing connector appears to
be a wall even though it isn't and asked if Option 2 was meant to look like
a wall as well. Mr. McDermott replied in the negative. Mr. Carr stated
that if we were trying to make it look like a wall, we wouldn't have the
cornice as thick and there wouldn't be a window. Mr. Pierce stated that he
did not feel every detail has to be matched and that a different sized
window than what is drawn might express that this is a less important
element connected to two more important elements. Mr. Pierce suggested
• relocating the existing window and relocating it in the new addition if the
l
May 3, 1989, Page 11
head heights could be matched. Mr. McDermott stated that the original
windows are huge windows and that he would not want that portion to appear
too busy with so many different size windows existing. Mr. Pierce was in
agreement. Mr. Oedel stated that he did not have any problem with either
option provided that the brick work matches. Mr. Oedel liked Option 2 a
little better. Chairman Harris asked if the roof line could be matched by
removing one of the three windows. Mr. Oedel felt the original fabric
should be left there. Chairman Harris stated that there are too many jogs
and roof lines. Mr. Oedel stated that the existing building has lots of
jogs and roof lines. Mr. McDermott stated that the window is one of the
two original window openings. Mr. Pierce stated that as much as he does
not like seeing a second roof line, he would rather preserve the windows on
that facade. Mr. Pierce stated that he objected to putting any addition
there facing the Common but would be willing to support the most inocuous
of the two proposals. Mr. Pierce preferred either no windows or different
windows and did not feel it appropriate to match them.
Mr. McDermott provided a drawing of the facades. Mr. McDermott stated that
the bay and porch additions are Victorian additions. Mr. McDermott stated
that the windows are wood, double hung, 6 over 6 with a 6 light transom
above and a three light awning window below with wood storm windows. Mr.
Carr felt that the addition will eat up alot of the floor plan. - Mr. Carr' s
major concern was the scope of the bay addition and deck and the degree to
its volume. Chairman Harris asked if anyone else had a problem with the
mass and volume. Mr. Carr stated that the drawings don't really show what
was asked for. Mr. Carr stated that he had asked for the angle showing the
entire rear addition from the Mall Street public way. Mr. Slam stated that
he was having a hard time visualizing the mass of the addition. Mr. Carr
stated that he wanted an elevation which showed the rear at an angle and
not flat on. Mr. Oedel stated that the distance to the street will make
the roof lines appear different. Mr. Zaharis stated that he preferred
Option 1 .
Mr. Carr stated he was concerned with the extent to which the addition
might make the building look institutional from Mall Street. Mr. Pierce
felt that the addition could help unify what at present is a rather
disjunction combination of several additions that have been added to this
building over the past 150 years.
Chairman Harris questioned if there was a concern in anyones mind if there
should be any addition there. Mr. Carr replied in the negative and stated
that the concern was only the scale of it. Mr. Geary did not think it was
that much larger overall than what is there now. Mr. Oedel stated that a
perspective drawing would help.
There being no further business, Mr. Slam made a motion to adjourn. Mr.
Zaharis seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Res ectfully submitted,
Regina Cardinale
Acting Clerk
JHisCom5/050389/050389P2
•
May 10, 1989, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
MAY 10, 1989
• A special meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday,
May 10, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were
Chairman Harris, Messrs. Carr, Pierce, Zaharis, Geary and Ms. Guy. Messrs.
Slam and Cook entered later in the meeting.
Chairman Harris called the meeting to order.
Public Hearings
262 Lafayette Street
Stephen Santry presented an application for a Certificate of
Non—Applicability for the re—painting at his home with two coats of the
existing colors. The work will include the sanding and painting of
columns, railing, ballusters, soffits and facias on the front portico.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr.
Zaharis seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
110-112 Derby Street
In continuation from the last meeting, Jim—Bob Realty Trust presented an
application for the hanging of a restaurant sign at 110 Derby Street. The
applicants presented new drawings changing the overall height from 11 '4" to
7 ' 11", the sign body width from 410" to 312" and the sign body height from
318" to 2 '10". The drawings show the sign installed from the side
• elevation.
Chairman Harris asked if the mast of the sign projects above the roof. The
applicant replied that the sign will now be substantially below the roof
line.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to approve the application as submitted.
Mr. Carr stated that the Commission must approve what could be typical
signage of a tavern on that street at that time.
Chairman Harris stated that the restaurant 's name will be on the reverse of
the sign but that only the front of the sign will have the ship artistry.
Mr. Geary seconded the motion.
Messrs. Slam and Cook joined the meeting at this time.
Mr. Carr stated that the Commission should not practice design control but
should only consider historic appropriateness.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to move the question. Mr. Slam seconded the
motion. All were in favor.
The motion to approve the application as submitted was voted upon. All
• were in favor and the motion so carried.
May 10, 1989, Page 2
Other Business
Connector Road & Bridge
• Mr. Cook stated that he attended the monthly MDPW Bridge and Connector Road
meeting recently. Mr. Cook indicated that Commissioner DiGeronimo stated
that they are complying with local and State regulations as best as they
can, and that she would be willing to come in and speak with the
Commission. Ms. Guy stated that David MacDonald of the Salem Planning
Department had also spoken with Commissioner DiGeronimo. Mr. MacDonald
indicated that Commissioner DiGeronimo would be willing to speak with the
Commission if can be scheduled to be first on the agenda, can appear z hour
before the regular meeting or can attend a specially called meeting for
that purpose. Mr. MacDonald had also indicated that Commissioner
DiGeronimo would want to know specific concerns that she should address.
Chairman Harris stated that particular issues would include that the Skerry
House and Planter' s site reports have not been provided.
Mr. Pierce stated that the Commission should write another letter
indicating that the research has been completed for the archeological
investigation and that the Commission should get a copy.
Chairman Harris stated that the specific concerns listed should be:
1 . Skerry House - Status of study, what would be moved, logistics of
when and how it will be moved;
2. Planter' s Site - Copy of report on boundaries, status report of
• what has been found; and,
3. Impact on the McIntire District.
Chairman Harris stated that there will be an informational hearing on June
15, 1989 at Hamilton Hall. Chairman Harris stated that Commissioner
DiGeronimo should be invited to attend the Commission' s meeting of June 21 ,
1989. Ms. Guy will draft a letter to send to Commissioner DiGeronimo.
Public Hearing
29 Washington Square North
In continuation from the last meeting, the Bertram Home for Aged Men
provided additional plans for renovation work at 29 Washington Square
North. Plans of the footprint of the existing buildings, the outline of
proposed work and areas of demolition were shown. A drawing of the view
from Mall Stret to the inner courtyard/proposed connector building were
provided. Two photographs of the original carriage house were provided.
Mr. Staley McDermott, representing the Bertram Home, gave an overview of
the information presented and explained the reasons for the ceiling heights
and cornice lines.
Mr. McDermott stated that the sun porch is designed as a Victorian bay with
lots of glass.
Mr. Pierce stated that the relative position of the deck project forward in
May 10, 1989, Page 3
the plans but does not appear to in the prospective drawing.
Mr. Carr asked that the prospective be redone to represent better what is
proposed.
• Mr. Pierce stated that the angle of the deck appears awkward due to the
amount of projection and the proximity of the two staircases. Mr. Pierce
stated that he liked the fan-lite door and the marrying of the buildings
with the cornices.
Mr. Carr stated that he liked the floor to ceiling windows with the small
panes, the basic outline of the bay and the marrying of the buildings with
the cornices.
Chairman Harris stated that she would prefer that a smaller deck be
considered with the main deck area to be around the corner. Chairman
Harris stated that the deck should reflect the angles of the buildings and
the bay.
Mr. McDermott stated that the sunnier area is in the front. Chairman
Harris stated that the deck looks too modern by the way the stairs meet.
Chairman Harris preferred that the corners should be cut in more.
Mr. Zaharis asked if the deck could be extended to the existing stairs and
the new stairs be eliminated. Mr. McDermott stated that it could not be
done due to the extension of the top stair.
Mr. Steve Burke of 12 Williams Street stated that while the design looks
good, he would like to see the Commission keep in mind whether the design
would be seen on a period building.
• Mr. McDermott stated that the type of people utilizing the Bertram Home are
frail, and often have trouble going up stairs. The sunporch serves as way
for the men to go outside without the barrier of steps or chairlift.
Mr. Pierce asked if the entrance addition to the carriage house was in
brick veneer. Mr. McDermott replied that it was wood. Mr. Carr stated
that as drawn, it reads as an addition to the carriage house. Mr.
McDermott stated that he had not drawn in the bricks on the main building.
Mr. Zaharis left the meeting at this time.
Mr. Carr stated that it was at Mr. McDermott' s option if he wanted to show
a second option on the cornice lines.
Mr. McDermott presented a slide show of the annex as existing.
Referring to the new addition and its connector, Mr. McDermott stated that
the building will have a double hip simple Federal roof. Mr. McDermott
provided three options for the connector roof:
1 . With balastrade
2. Flat roof with no balastrade
3 . Adjacent hip roof
• Chairman Harris stated that she preferred that the elevator/connector be
May 10, 1989, Page 4
higher or lower. Mr. Pierce agreed and added that Federalists would have
built new additions at the same height but would have gone higher or lower
when not matching eave lines and using a connector. Mr. Pierce stated that
a Victorian connector cannot be used on a Federal design building. Mr.
Pierce stated that he did not care for the ballastrade and felt the hip
roof option did not work well.
Mr. McDermott suggested a flushboard ballastrade with no ballasters.
Mr. McDermott stated that he wanted the doors to the addition to go
straight through the addition. Chairman Harris stated that she had trouble
with the design of the doors. Mr. McDermott stated that he wanted glass
doors so as to see through the building and read as a tunnel. Chairman
Harris felt it was a nice concept but she did not think it would work.
Chairman Harris explained that the lights will be on all the time and
therefore the tunnel will not read out dark. Chairman Harris felt that
since it will not work as intended, the doorway has to be Federal. Mr.
Pierce felt that a larger scale detail on the doors should be presented
that can be discussed later.
Chairman Harris stated that the doors should go with the rest of the
building and that she also has trouble with the deck.
Mr. Carr made a motion to continue the application until the next meeting.
Mr. Geary seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so
carried.
Other Business
• The Historic Salem, Inc. annual meeting and cocktail party will be held on
May 20, 1989 from 5:30 - 7:30 p.m. at the Essex Institute. At the meeting,
the Salem Historical Commission will present its annual preservation
awards. Ms. Guy presented a list of award nominations that were provided
to her from the Commission members by telephone.
Mr. Cook made a motion to present awards as follows:
Development project of substantial rehabilittion:
- 110-112 Derby St. - Jim/Bob Realty Trust
Honorable Mention: 15 River St. - MacDonald & Lavers
Institutional award (co-winners) :
- Essex Institute for the Gardner Pingree House & the Derby
Beebe Summer House
- Hamilton Hall
Small rehabilitation project:
- One Pickering Stret - John &Linda Locke - Wall
Paint colors:
- 4 Hamilton Street - Alice Johnson
Mr. Geary seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so
carried.
Preservation Week
The Old House Fair will be held at Old Town Hall on May 20, 1989 from 10:30
to 4:30. Mr. Slam stated that the Commission's booth should be manned in
r
May 10, 1989, Page 5
three 2—hour slots. Messrs. Carr, Slam & Pierce volunteered to man the
booth. Mr. Slam will work with Ms. Guy to put together an exhibit.
There being not futher business, Mr. Slam made a motion to adjourn. Mr.
Carr seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Guy e A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission
JHisCom5/051089
•
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 1989
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on
Wednesday, May 17, 1989, at 7 : 30 P.M. in the second floor
conference room at One Salem Green.
Those present were : Chairman Annie Harris , John Carr , Dan
Geary, Peter Zaharis , and Dan Pierce . Also present were Jane
Guy, Staff Advisor, and Eileen Sacco, Clerk.
Chairman Annie Harris called the meeting to order at 7 : 30 P.M.
Chairman Harris informed the rest of the Commission that the
application for 386 Essex Street Realty 'Trust has been withdrawn.
CERTIFICATE OF HARDSHIP - SALEM HOUSING AUTHORITY -
ROOF REPLACEMENT AT 3 BROAD STREET
Attorney William J. Lundregan representing the Salem Housing
Authority addressed the Commission concerning their application
for a Certificate of Hardship for property owned by the Authority
at 3 Broad Street . They wish to replace the existing part slate
part asphalt shingle roof with asphalt shingle .
Attorney Lundregan noted that the Authority applied for a
Certificate of Hardship with the Commission at the April 5, 1989
meeting and the application was denied . He also noted that
since that meeting he has. reviewed the minutes of the meeting,
and the findings of the commission with the Architect, S. Roger
Shepard, and the Contractor Rene Lamarre. He stated that it
is their opinion that the roof is gone and that there is no hope
of saving it . He showed the Commissioners pictures of the roof
understructure and noted that it needs replacement .
John Carr stated that he was under the impression that the
understructure of the roof was safe and that there was a -
possibility that the roof could be maintained inexpensively.
Annie Harris reviewed the portion of the Minutes to the meeting
of April 5 , 1989 pertaining to the Housing Authority application.
Attorney Lundregan stated that while the roof is presently secure
so that it is not exposed to inclement weather , it would not
sustain sever storms of winter . He further noted that the
Authority has spent three and a half million dollars renovating
. the building and that now is the time to replace the roof to .
protect the renovations .
r
• PAGE 2 .
Annie Harris stated that she was under the impression that the
roof was in much better shape than the pictures show.
John Carr stated that he thought at the time that is was a case
of the roof being maintainable and asked if they had an estimate
of the cost involved . Attorney Lundregan stated that asphalt .
shingles would cost $60,000, as opposed to $90, 000 for synthetic
slate or $125, 000 for a slate roof . He also added that the
Authority had been cooperative with the Commission ' s requests
in the past with regards to this project, 'particularly on the
issue of the windows .
Annie Harris read a letter from Mayor Anthony Salvo, indicating
his support for the project, and requesting that the Commission
act favorably on the Authority ' s request to allow less costly
repairs so that the project could be completed . (A copy of
Mayor Salvo ' s letter is attached to these minutes . )
Annie Harris asked for comments from those present at the meeting
concerning the application.
Eileen Engall of 12 Broad Street asked what color the proposed
• shingles would be . Mr . Shepard stated that they would be black
or charcoal as stated in the regulations .
There being no further comments on this issue, a motion was made
by John Carr to approve the Application for a Certificate of
Hardship for the Salem Housing Authority property located at
3 Broad Street to replace the existing part slate/part asphalt
roof with black asphalt shingle, seconded by Dan Geary and
approved unanimously.
3 BROAD STREET ELECTRICAL CONDUIT - DISCUSSION
Attorney Lundregan also addressed the Commission regarding the
location of the electrical conduit for the building at 3 Broad
Street . He showed photos of the location where the conduit was
installed . He also noted that there is no ideal location for
the conduit where it will be attractive but that it had been etched in
acid and painted as close to the brick color as was possible.
John Carr asked if the conduit could be moved . He also stated
that as a result of location problems on a previous project ,
New�England Power had agreed to consult with the commission on
the locations before installing conduits . He said that he would
like to contact their legal counsel about the possibility of
moving it around the corner to the easterly side of the building.
He asked the authority if they expected to get an occupancy
• permit within the next three weeks . Mr. Shepard stated that the
project was already a month off schedule and that they have
not yet received the funds for the roof so that there would be
r -
. PAGE 3 .
no extra delay. He also stated that New England Power Company
did not install the conduit , the contractor did, with Housing
Authority money, so he did not think that they would be willing
to move it for them.
John Carr stated that he would still like to try and have it
moved .
Annie Harris suggested that an alternative to moving the conduit
would be to plant something there that would detract from the
appearance of the conduit . Housing Authority Executive Director
Elayne Hart who was present at the meeting, stated that there
is a budget in the project for landscaping and that could be
a possibility.
Housing Authority Board Member William Farrell asked if there
were any other concerns of the commission That they could
address since they were at the meeting. Annie Harris stated
that as long as there were no changes to the plans there would
be no problem.
Annie Harris suggested that the Certificate for Hardship granted
for the roof replacement be amended to include the electrical
conduit. Jane Guy noted that this was only a discussion and
that if necessary it could be addressed at a later date. Chairman
Harris requested that the Authority submit an application for a Certificate
of Hardship for the conduit in time for the next meeting.
APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS - 2-4 GIFFORD CT.
Donna Yates addressed the Commission concerning her application
for a Certificate of Appropriateness for her property at 2-4
Gifford Court. She wishes to remove the shingles on the siding
and put new wood siding on the front and sides of the original
house . The rear wall of the house will not be done at this time.
She also wished to fix the foundation on both sides , the brick
will be replaced to match the existing brick.
John Carr asked what material the shingles would be made of .
Mrs . Yates stated that they would be cedar clapboard . She '
also noted that she had not yet selected a contractor.
Annie Harris asked if there were any comments on the proposed
work from those present at the meeting.
There being no further questions concerning the matter, a motion
was made by John Carr to approve the Application for Certificate
of Appropriateness as submitted to replace the existing shingles
• on the front and sides Of the- original, main block with 3k.-4!1, cedar or
r.edwood.clapboards, smooth side -to weather. The cornerboards..should replicate
thaE which is`foun'd. underneath, and,if none found, the cornerboards should be
a minimum of-411. The brick foundation will be repaired to match what is existing
with regard to size and mortar. The brick is not to be stuccoed over. Mr.
Gearey seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
. PAGE 4.
John Carr also suggested that upon removal of the existing
shingles , if conditions are found that require further work,
the Yate ' s could come to the Commission for advice.
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS - 97-99 DERBY STREET
Delores and Alice Jordan addressed the Commission concerning
their application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to
replace 28 windows at 97-99 Derby Street. The portion of the application
for approval of new clapboards -and painting was withdrawn due to have been
approved under a Certificate of Non-Applicability: at the last .meeting.
Dan Pierce stated that he and Russell Slam made a site visit to
the property and found that the sashes are in disrepair and that
air and water leakage is evident. He noted that there is also
evidence of prior repairs being made . He suggested that an
appropriate sash replacement program be done.
Frank Raffa of Raffa Construction addressed the Commission on
behalf of Jordans and stated that after reviewing the situation
• he suggested the entire units be replaced with Brosco windows ,
and showed the members a cross section of the proposed units .
He stated that they would be single pane windows and would be
6 over 6.
Annie Harris asked if anyone present at the meeting had any
comments about the proposal .
There being no further comments or questions concerning the
proposal, a motion was made by John Carr to approve the
Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted
for the replacement of 28 windows with 6 over 6 singlepane wood windows.
The sills are to be. repl-icated by building up to 2". Molding to match existing.
Mr. Zaharis seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS - 7 BOTTS COURT
The application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the
addition of a porch to the rear of the house at 7 Botts Court ,
was reviewed by the Commission. The purpose of the addition
is to gain access to the first floor . It was noted on the
application that the first floor is six feet from grade, and the
doors open onto a six foot drop. Adjacent to the first floor
is a grade level cellar door, and the porch must not obstruct
• access to the cellar .
The members discussed the application and reviewed the sketches
submitted with the application.
. PAGE 5 .
Annie Harris asked if there were any comments or questions
concerning the proposal by those present at the meeting.
There being no further questions or comments concerning the
proposal , a motion was made by John Carr to approve the
Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness , for the
construction of a porch to the rear of 7 Botts Court, seconded
by Dan Pierce and approved unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE - EQUIPMENT DISCUSSION
Dick Picone from New England Telephone was present at the
meeting to discuss the location of a new cabinet for telephone
service on Broad Street. He said they are proposing to put the
cabinet either in the rear of the Council on Aging Building or
the rear of the Salem Housing Authority Building at 3 Broad St .
He noted that there is a small cabinet presently located on the
corner of Winthrop Street.
• Mr;;; Picone also noted that Councillor Vincent Furfaro is aware
of the proposal and that they would seek and easement for
either property. He said that he will be in touch with the
Council on Aging and the Housing Authority concerning the matter
in the next week.
Annie Harris suggested that when approval on the location is
received from either the Council on Aging or the Housing
Authority that they he should file for a Certificate of
Appropriateness .
CERTIFICATE OF NON - APPLICABILITY - 21 WARREN STREET
Charlene and Joseph Laurion were present at the meeting concerning
their application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability for the
replacement of gutters , and paint/repaint existing colors - Repair
or replace front porch steps , railing and lattice enclosure and
repaint wood existing colors . Repair/replace rear steps and
lattice enclosure, and repaint steps , railing and lattice existing
colors . Repair/replace indoor rear porch enclosure lattice work
and extend lattice work six feet along east side of rear porch,
which is currently chicken wire, and paint or repaint existing
colors . Replace missing or broken pickets on fense around house
and driveway and repaint existing colors . Repoint fieldstone
• foundation near electrical meter on east side of the house.
Joseph Laurion explained the work intended to the Commission .
• PAGE 6.
Motion made by John Carr to approve the Application for a
Certificate of Non-Applicability for 21 Warren Street as submitted,
seconded by Peter Zaharis and approved unanimously.
John Carr also suggested that the Laurion ' s think about changing
the lattice or the railing . Charlene Laurion stated that she
thought that they had to replace what was there . John Carr
stated that they are not required to adhere to what is already
there. He also suggested that they may find some ideas by
looking at photographs in the Essex Institute -and encouraged them to
come back before the Commission with an application for a fancier railing & lattice.
REVIEW OF 6/7/89 PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATIONS
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS - 21 WARREN STREET
Joseph and Charlene Laurion also submitted an application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness for the removal of a metal roof
(awning) on front door overhang to include patching holes and
repainting molding over roof the existing color (white) .
Motion made by Dan Geary to waive the public hearing, seconded
by John Carr and approved unanimously as being inconsequential.
. Motion made by John Carr to approve the Application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness for the removal of the metal
roof (awning) and repairs and painting of same area, as
submitted, for 21 Warren Street , seconded by Dan Geary and
approved unanimously pending the ten day waiting period.
CERTIFICATE FOR APPROPRIATENESS - 19 FLINT STREET
The application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to paint
the exterior of the house located at 19 Flint Street was reviewed
by the commission. the application stated that the color of the
house will be changed from green to Benjamin Moore color "Smokey
Ash" , and the trim will be changed from white to Benjamin Moore
color "Thornewood White" . The rear doors will be repainted black
and the front door which is presently stained will be untouched.
The shutters will be removed and stored temporarily during the
painting.
Annie Harris showed the commission the samples of the colors as
attached to the application.
Mr. Carr..made a motion to waive-the -pub'lichearing, to-approve the paintcolors
- -
As. submitted"wand .to allow temporary remova-l 'of- the, shutters"until, after':-pa� nting. y
,, ,
The motion included the denial to permanently remove the shutters without
prejudice wiMr-iGeary .- lseconded�:the motion nab1._.were- i-ri"favor and the motion
. so'carried
May 17, 1989, Page 7
15 Cambridge Street
The Commission reviewed the application of Kevin & Deborah Guinee for the
painting of their house at 15 Cambridge Street. Chairman Harris showed the
Commission the paint chips attached to the application.
Peter and Eileen Engalls of 12 Broad Street addressed the Commission and
reported that the painting had already begun on the property. Mr. Eng alss
felt that the colors were not appropriate. Mrs. Engalls stated that they
had attended this meeting to see if the Guinee' s had followed proper
procedure. Ms. Guy stated that the public hearing on this application is
on June 7, 1989 and that notices will be sent to abutters on June 24, 1989.
Mr. Carr stated that in view of the circumstances, the public hearing
should not be waived and that the application be heard at the public
hearing as scheduled.
Mr. Carr stated that a letter should be sent to the owners stating that the
Commission has received some concerns regarding their painting, that they
aee requested to cease and desist all painting, that continuation of work
is in violation of the Historic Districts Act and could result in fines
and/or in being ordered to undo all work completed. Ms. Guy will send the
letter certified with a return receipt requested and will attempt to
contact the owners by telephone.
18 Dalton Parkway/1 Warren Court
The application from Bruce and Patricai Fernald and Donna Thompson for the
painting of their property at 18 Dalton Parkway for paint colors was not
reviewed and will be heard at its scheduled public hearing on 6/7/89.
• 29 Washington Square North
-
In continuation on this application for the renovation of existing
buildings and addition of a new wing at the Bertram Home for Aged Men at 29
Washington Square North, Mr. Staley McDermott provided new drawings on the
rear elevation as seen from the Mall Street public way.
Mr. Carr asked the distance from the edge of the stairs to the wall. Mr.
McDermott replied 81 .
Mr. McDermott explained that in his drawings he showed the wood treatment,
further refined the wood windows and doorways and matched the transoms.
Mr. McDermott provided a cross section of the porch entabliture and
provided three options for treatment of the sunporch. The first option is
for a 9' porch. The second option is a reduced porch with cut angles,
which Mr. McDermott states would be a basically unusable porch. The third
option is to have no porch in the front of the bay and for it to be located
in the "infill" area. 'Mr. McDermott stated that this will limit the amount
of sun the porch will receive.
Mr. McDermott provided an option of lowering the roof line. Mr. McDermott
stated that lowering the roof line makes it look like a skinny little
connector and will feel like a tunnel inside the building.
•
May 17, 1989, Page 8
Mr. Carr asked if the facade will be flushboard of clapboard. Mr.
McDermott replied that the facade will be flushboard.
Mr. Carr stated that hereferred the higher roof line but did not like the
P g
porch in the infill. Mr. Carr added that he did not like a porch at all
P
but preferred a grade level patio.
Mr. Geary stated that he preferred the higher roof line.
Mr. McDermott state that the porch breaks up the scale of the 15' wall.
Chairman Harris stated that she preferred the tucked in porch because it
makes the window look more Victorian and doesn't stick out. Chairman
Harris stated that if the porch remains in the front, the corners should be
cut and the railings should be fatter and fancier to look more Victorian.
Mr. Pierce stated that he tended to agree with Chairman Harris but that he
preferred the lower roof line. Mr. Pierce stated that he would need to see
a view of the ball room behind it and the impact of the kitchen beyond it.
Chairman Harris stated that the higher ceiling is more appropriate to the
Victorian era.
Mr. George Gagnon of 25 Washington Square North asked if a ballastrade
could be considered in order to pick up the same roof line. Mr. Gagnon was
concerned that the Commission was considering a Victorian addition on a
Federal period home. Mr. McDermott stated that there is currently a
Victorian addition on the building and the proposed design evolved from it.
• Mr. Carr stated that in looking a the model, he can see where the ballroom
is recessed fromthekitchen and would like to see stakes put up to show
the height.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the
Option 1 design. There was no second.
Mr. McDermott stated that he would like to get an approval of the massing
and heights of the rear including the cornice line and footprint.
Mr. Zaharis excused himself from the meeting at this time.
Mr. Carr stated that he was not satisfied with the massing issue to be able
to vote in favor. Mr. Geary stated that he felt comfortable with the model
and did not need to see stakes.
Mr. McDermott asked what the stages will be for voting. Chairman Harris
stated that the stages will probably include the bump from Washington
Square, the rear facade, the elevator piece, the fence and the new
addition.
Mr. Pierce stated that the Commission should be careful not to behave as
design review and to remind themselves of their responsibilities.
May 17 , 1989, Page 9
Chairman Harris provided a summary of the issues. She stated that the
consensus is to accept the bump from Washington Square if it overlaps, to
accept the addition, to approve the higher height in the rear with a drop
at the entry into the old garage, and to accept the porch if tucked in.
Chairman Harris stated that the Commission appeared to still be stuck on
the elevator shaft and the doorways into the new addition.
Mr. Steve Burke of 12 Williams Street stated that hismajorconcern was the
massing and that it was the most significant issue.
Mr. Gagnon questioned the placement of the new addition with relation to
Mall Street. Mr. McDermott stated that the addition is approximately 18'
back from Mall Street and that the side setback is approximately 10' .
Mr. Carr stated that the Commission has not discussed the site pull off.
Ms. Guy stated that in order to avoid the 60 day automatic approval of the
application, the application must be denied tonight or a special meeting
must be held within the next two weeks.
Mr. Geary made a motion to hold a special meeting on May 31, 1989. There
was no second.
Mr. McDermott stated that he would rather wait until the end of the meeting
before having the application acted upon.
Mr. McDermott presented option for the elevator/connector. Mr. McDermott
stated that lowering the connector will not help and that raising it makes
is look like a bell tower. Mr. McDermott proposes to either have a
• ballastrade with flushboards or a regular ballastrade with plain
ballasters.
Mr. Carr Carr stated that the solid option gives the appearance of volume
and gives the elusion of being a wall.
Mr. Pierce asked if the tower will be brick of flushboard. Mr. McDermott
replied that it will be brick. Mr. Pierce wondered if there was any
precedent in flushboard being on the connector for the main house to the
annex. Mr. Pierce suggested that flushboard be considered for the elevator
connector. Mr. Carr stated that connectors are probably most appropriate
to be the same material as the addition. Mr. McDermott asked what the
connector material had to do with the ballastrade. Mr. Pierce replied that
a flush panel on top would be in keeping with the flushboard connector.
Mr. Pierce stated that he had a problem with the ballastrade. Mr.
McDermott stated that he felt a flat top was anti—climactic. Ms. Guy asked
what is historically appropriate. Chairman Harris stated that there was no
precedent that she was aware of. Ms. Guy stated that if there was no
strong disagreement with any of the choices, the Commission could vote on
each option (flushboard, ballaster, flat roof with cornice line) . Mr. Carr
stated that he preferred the flat. Mr. Geary stated that he preferred the
solid flushboard.
Chairman Harris stated that she was bothered that the three doorways don' t
May 17 , 1989, Page 10
match or relate to eachother and felt that there may be concerns on the
amount of glass lights.
Mr. Carr stated that if the Commission adopts the fiction that the
buildings were really carriage house originally, the doors should be plain
utilitarian doors. Mr. Carr did not have any objections to the door on the
elevator connector.
Mr. McDermott stated that the doors on the addition are clear glass.
Chairman Harris stated that the door on the main facade of the new addition
should read as a front door and be more prominent. Chairman Harris stated
that since the doors will be seen together, she would rather have plain
wooden doors.
Mr. Pierce stated that if the addition were a carriage house style
addition, it would have larger openings with flat lentils above. Mr.
Pierce felt there is precedent not to have an arch on the new addition but
only to have the arch on the elevator connector.
Mr. Gagnon asked if each are double doors. Mr. McDermott replied in the
affirmative. Mr. Gagnon thought single doors with double lites of glass
could be considered.
Mr. Pierce stated that he felt the doors should not be the same.
• Chairman Harris stated that she thought the elevator door won' t be used as
much and that since the doors on the main facades will be viewed as entry
doors, they will be used more. Chairman Harris stated that the two facades
should be single doors with lights and the elevator solid.
Chairman Harris stated that if 6 over 6 windows are being used, modern
element doors should not be used.
Mr. Carr stated that he was comfortable with Mr. McDermott' s drawings.
Mr. Pierce stated that he agreed with Chairman Harris.
Mr. McDermott suggested to add a fan light on the top of the connector door
with multipane windows and to leave the addition doors as double doors.
Mr. Pierce suggested drawing the door with a flat lentil top instead of a
fan or arch top for both elevations.
Mr. McDermott proposed a hip roof on the projection over the rear door of
the new addition.
Mr. Burke stated that he did not like the clear doors.
Mr. Gagnon suggested an over 3 ' wide solid door with glass on sides and top
and asked if it would be too tough for the clientel to open. Mr. McDermott
stated that the door could be power operated but that they would have to be
.� able to get out of the way of it in time.
May 17, 1989, Page 11
Mr. Carr made a motion to deny the application without prejudice because of
the need for additional time to make an informed decision. Mr. Geary
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Correspondence
Mr. Pierce provided a draft of a letter to Thomas McCulloch regarding the
bypass road and bridge project.
There being no further business, Mr. Geary made a motion to adjourn. Mr.
Pierce seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
e -
Eileen Sacco/ a e A. Guy
JHisCom5/051789
•
CITY OF SALEM
MASSACHUSETTS
ANTHONY V. SALVO
MAYOR
May 17, 1989
Annie C. Harris
Chairman
Salem Historical Commission
One Salem Green
Salem, Ma 01970
Dear Annie:
As Mayor of the City of Salem, one of my greatest concerns is the
lack of affordable housing available for our low and moderate income
elderly residents. I would like to take this opportunity to indicate my
support for the Salem Housing Authority' s continuing efforts to deal
• with our affordable housing shortage — a task made more difficult by the
recent decrease of badly needed public subsidies.
When completed, the renovation of 3 Broad St. will provide 16 units
of congregate housing which is designed to serve the frail elderly. Due
to unforseen cost overruns and the state's limited funding capacity, the
Authority seeks to undertake needed roof repairs in the most cost
effective manner possible. I ask that the Commission act favorably on
the Authority' s request to allow less costly repairs so that this much
needed project can be completed.
Thank you for your consideration' of my views.
Sincerely,
Anthony V. Salvo
Mayor
KK789
June 7, 1989, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
June 7, 1989
•' A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday,
June 7, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem 'Green, Salem, MA. Present were
Chairman Harris and Messrs. Slam, Zaharis, Oedel and Cook and Ms Guy. (Mr.
Carr entered later in the meeting. )
Chairman Harris called the meeting to order.
Public Hearings/Certificates
18 Dalton Parkway/l Warren Court
Bruce & Patricia Fernald and Donna Thompson presented an application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors for their home at 18 Dalton
Parkway/1 Warren Court. A paint chart was presented. The body of the
house will be Benjamin Moore /#976, the porch and window trim Benjamin Moore
##979. Ms. Guy presented pictures that she had taken and stated that three
sides of the house are already painted:- Ms. Guy indicated that the color
is browner than it appears in the pictures aftCthat it is very similar to
the existing. - I , - -
Mr. Slam made a motion to approve the application as submitted.. Mr.
Zaharis seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
15 Cambridge Street
• Kevin and Deborah Guinee presented an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for paint colors for their home at 15 Cambridge Street.
Paint chips were presented as part of the application showing the body of
the house to be grey, the trim to be 4E/1448, and the shutters and doors to
be Benjamin Moore New London Burgundy 'HC-61 (1 gallon) mixed with Black (1
quart) . The shutter and door color will be similar to the paint chip
submitted #35-5 Flatiron. Ms. Guinee stated that the paint chip for the
shutters and doors was the closest that she could find to the actual color.
' 1 ,
Chairman Harris stated that at the meeting of;-May 17, 1989, Peter ,and
Eileen Engalls had addressed the Commission and reported that it appeared
that painting had already begun at the property. Ms. Guy mailed a
certified letter to the Guinee' s requesting that they cease and desist
until receiving a Certificate of Appropriateness. Ms. Guy stated that she
received a telephone call from Ms. Guinee, who stated that they had only
begun the priming and not the painting.
Chairman Harris read a letter from an anonymous resident who stated that
they did not want to go on record as opposing the color, but questioned the
historical validity of purple in the neighborhood. Mr. Guinee stated that
he believed the shutter color was closer to black than purple.
Ms. Minerva Shreve of 8 Broad Street stated that she was unaware that
painting was allowed to be done prior to a hearing. Chairman Harris
indicated that the house is only in primer. Ms. Shreve stated that the
trim is an unacceptable color, that the house was always a light color and
that it is unacceptable to have three different colors.
June 7, 1989, Page 2
Ms. Lynn Williams of 13 Cambridge Street felt that the three colors would
clash. Ms. Williams stated that the accent panels on the house have also
• been painted with the primer color.
Ms. Slam asked if the applicant knew the age of the house. Mr. Guinee
replied in the negative.
Chairman Harris asked that, if the trim color also included the panels on
the bay window, what color would the inset panel be. Ms. Guinee replied
grey.
Mary Breed of 11 Cambridge Street asked if the color should be appropriate
to the age of the house or to the neighborhood. Chairman Harris replied
that the color should be appropriate to the house and that the trim appears
to be out of line. Chairman Harris stated that the house color is usually
darker and the trim is usually lighter.
Mr. Oedel pointed to elements of the house on the pictures and asked the
applicant to identify the proposed color. Ms. Guinee stated that the
sculptured clapboards, flatboards above the windows, the bottom side of the
bay and the muttons would be grey and that the windows, window trim and
pediment would be mauve.
Ms. Guy obtained the survey form on file for the house which indicated that
the house was a period colonial revival home. The Commission members were
not all in agreement with the survey form.
Ms. Breed stated that the house was once a two story, small style house,
• similar to the grey house next door.
Ms. Shreve stated that the back of the house was added at the turn of the
century and the top of the house was made into a third story. Ms. Shreve
stated that at one time the house was a small cottage.
Ms. Williams stated that the grey primer was not offensive but felt that it
will clash with her pewter house.
Joan Mason of 13 Chestnut Street stated that the colors are inappropriate
for the neighborhood.
Ms. Slam stated that he felt the house was a mid-19th century house and
that he did not have a problem with the body color. Mr. Slam stated that
he did have a problem with the trim and that the mauve was more appropriate
to a Victorian home. Mr. Slam stated that while it was a pretty
combination, it was not appropriate for the house and neighborhood. Mr.
Slam stated that he was not delighted with the shutter color but that he
could go along with it.
I
Mr. Cook stated that he had no problem with the body and shutter color but
had a slight problem with the trim. Mr. Cook added that he would like to
Let the homeowners exercise their perogative because he did not feel it was
that offensive.
• Mr. Zaharis stated that a neighbor's house being the same or similar color
should not be a consideration. Mr. Zaharis stated that he did not care for
the door color but would be willing to go along with it.
June 7, 1989, Page 3
Chairman Harris stated that the Commission should consider what is
historically appropriate and that a lighter trim color is what is
appropriate for this house. Chairman Harris stated that the proposed color
• scheme is Victorian and that the house is not enough Victorian.
Mr. Cook stated that if researched, a precedent could probably be found.
Mr. Cook felt the trim color should not be on the bay. Mr. Cook stated
that he did not feel confident enough to disapprove a Certificate of
Appropriateness.
Ms. Cady of 18 Cambridge Street stated that when Mrs. Williams painted her
house, she had been given a choice of appropriate colors and questioned if
purple is historically appropriate.
Mrs. William stated that the colors will clash with her house. Mr. Oedel
stated that the issue is not whether the colors will clash with other
homes.
Mr. Guinee stated that they could eliminate painting the bow mauve.
Mr. Cook made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the
exclusion of the mauve color on the trim of the second floor bay window.
Mr. Zaharis seconded the motion. Mr. Cook voted in favor. Chairman Harris
and Messrs. Oedel, Zaharis, and Slam voted in opposition. The motion did
not carry. The application was denied as an inappropriate color scheme
based on the age and style of the house as well as neighborhood input.
Color scheme is not traditional color scheme for age and style of house.
• Chairman Harris asked if the applicants wanted to amend their application
and just apply for the body color. Ms. Guiness stated that she did not
know if they would still want grey if they couldn't have the trim color.
At this time Mr. Carr joined the meeting.
49 Summer Street
Gary and Barbara Wuertz presented an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to extend their existing fence and to add a trellis at
their home at 49 Summer Street. The application proposes to extend the
existing fence from the back corner of the house forward so that the gate
is flush with the recessed front corner at the end of their driveway. The
existing gate will be used. The trellis will be placeddirectly behind the
gate and will be stained the same color as the fence, Castle Grey, or
white. Drawings were presented.
Mr. Oedel asked the total height. Chairman Harris stated that the total
height of the fence is 5' and the trellis is 8 ' .
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the
color of the trellis to be left to the discretion of the homeowner. Mr.
Zaharis seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
78 Washington Square East
Mr. Joseph Skomurski presented an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for the removal of 2 existing windows in the kitchen on the
first floor, left hand side of the house and their replacement with two new
June 7, 1989, Page 4
windows at his home at 78 Washington Square East. The applicant proposes
to install two 2'0" x 3 '9" Brosco single glass all wood windows, 2 over 2
• or 6 over 6 with intregal muttins. There will be a 6' filler between the
windows.
Mr. Carr stated that the windows. are not the same size as the rest of the
house but are at the same level as the back wing levels. Mr. Carr asked
why the two windows are being combined. Mr. Skomurski stated that he was
losing a wall in the kitchen.
Mr. Carr asked if the window could be moved in order to have symmetry. Mr.
Skomurski stated that it would then be in the bathroom.
Mr. Skomurski provided a drawing with a single window option.
Chairman Harris asked if there would be real mutton bars. Mr. Skomurski
replied in the affirmative and stated that the windows would be all wood.
Mr. Skomurski stated that the main house is 6 over 6 but the side is 2 over
2.
Mr. Carr stated that he preferred the single window.
Mr. Slam asked if there could be a 12" separation with clapboards in
between instead of 6" of filler and stated that the house isnot currently
symmetrical, so that he has no problem with not making the windows
symmetrical. Mr. Skomurski stated that he could go along with 12" but did
not want to go more or he would lose cabinets.
• Mr. Cook stated that he could go along with one foot.
Mr. Skomurski stated that he is using 6" pine casings and that with one
foot of clapboards in between, he would need -2 feet between the windows.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the removal of the two kitchen windows
and the installation of a single window as drawn in Drawing #1 , Window A.
Mr. Oedel seconded the motion. Chairman Harris and Messrs. Carr, Oedel,
Cook and Slam were in favor. Mr. Zaharis was in opposition. The motion
was so carried.
Mr. Slam made a motion to approve the two window design with 1 foot of
clapboard between window casings and that the casings be 6" to match
existing casings as shown in Drawing #2. Mr. Zaharis seconded the motion.
Chairman Harris stated that two windows are not as appropriate as Drawing
#1 , but added that since it is the second part of the house, it is not as
significant.
The motion was voted upon. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the application as submitted in Drawing
#3. Mr. Zaharis seconded the motion. Mr. Slam voted in favor. Chairman
Harris and Messrs. Carr, Cook and Oedel voted in opposition. Mr. Zaharis
abstained from voting. The motion did not carry and Drawing #3 was denied
_ as inappropriate.
Mr. Skomurski asked if he could put in 6 over 6 windows.
June 7 , 1989, Page 5
Mr. Slam made a motion to allow the applicant to use 6 over 6 windowsfor
the approved schemes and to modify the application to show Brosco, single
• glaze windows with intregal muttons. Mr. Cook seconded the motion. All
were in favor and the motion so carried.
23 River Street
Mr. Michael Slaven presented an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to remove a chimney, redo a chimney with Super Chimney and
to install four skylights at his property at 23 River Street. Mr. Slaver' s
proposal is to remove the chimney on the side of the house closest to the
street because it is leaning. The rear chimney would be redone with super
chimney and enclosed in brick master. The skylights would be placed as
noted in the presented plans. The two on the main part of the house would
be 30 5/8 x 38z and the two in the rear section would be 21z x 38z.
Mr. Carr asked how many units were in the building. Mr. Slaven replied
that there are two units.
Mr. Slaven stated that the fireplaces that lead to the front chimney are
not going to be opened up.
Chairman Harris asked if the back chimney could be repointed. Mr. Slaven
stated that it could be done but it is more expensive.
Mr. Carr asked how the Commission could approve as appropriate, the removal
of a chimney from an 18th century house. Mr. Carr stated that although the
profile of the chimney looks like an Aunt Jemima syrup bottle, it appears
. that the first two feet of the chimney may be remnant. Mr. Carr stated
that removal should be under hardship. Mr. Carr stated that a precedent
was set with St. James Church in which removal of a chimney was denied.
Mr. Slam. stated that a major guideline is the use of original materials and
that brickmaster is not.
Mr. Carr stated that he would like to see a close—up picture of the
"condition of the chimneys.
Mr. Cook stated that two working fireplaces could have a positive effect on
the resale of the property.
Mr. Carr stated that the applicant should take out the "Aunt Jemima" look
and restore to a traditional chimney.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted with respect
to the chimneys. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion. There were no votes in
favor. All votes were opposed. The motion did not carry and was denied as
inappropriate.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the four skylights. Mr. Zaharis seconded
the motion.
Mr. Carr stated that one skylight per roof is more traditional and that the
• issue is the number of skylights and that they be small in size.
The motion was voted upon. There were no votes in favor. All votes were
f
June 7, 1989, Page 6
opposed: The motion did not carry and was denied as inappropriate.
• Mr. Slaven asked if his building would be considered two separate roofs.
Mr. Cook felt it would be separate roofs.
Mr. Carr stated that the skylight should be located near the ridge pole.
Mr. Slaven stated that it would be V from the ridgepole.
Mr. Oedel stated that despite there being two plains, he felt it was still
one building and would want to see only one skylight in the back corner of
the house.
Chairman Harris asked if there are any skylights on the River Street
facade. Mr. Slaven replied in the negative.
Mr. Carr stated that skylights are traditionally centered to cover all
parts of the attick to vent. Mr. Carr stated that since a vent is already
there, he would want only one skylight.
Chairman Harris felt it was more appropriate to put one skylight on the
main portion of the house.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the installation of one velux skylight on
the westerly roof on the main block of the house, at the center of the roof
slope, one foot down from the ridge pole. The size of the skylight to be
size #9, 212 x 272.
Mr. Oedel stated that it should be placed behind the chimney in the back
• corner. Chairman Harris stated that it is typical to be centered. Mr.
Slaven stated that if it were centered, it would be in the closet.
Mr. Carr changed his motion to locate the skylight behind the rear chimney
as shown in the plans.
Mr. Oedel seconded the motion. Chairman Harris and Messrs. Carr, Cook,
Oedel and Slam voted in favor. Mr. Zaharis voted in opposition..
Mr. Slaven presented an application for a Certificate of Non—Applicability
for the reshingling of the black asphalt roof with black asphalt.
Mr. Slam made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Cook
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
24 Warren Street
Mr. & Mrs. Francis Welch presented an application for a Certificate of
Non—Applicability for the replacement of an existing porch on the second
floor of their home at 24 Warren Street. The porch is on the west end of
the building and is rotted. The roof and posts will remain-. The screen
that had been once existing but had fallen off will be replaced.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted and for the
porch to be painted the same color as existing. Mr. Slam seconded the
• motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
a
June 7, 1989, Page 7
22 Beckford Street
• Bill & Betsy Burns presented an application for a Certificate of
Non-Applicabiltiy for the replacement of black asphalt roof shingles and
caps on the east and south side of the roof with new black asphalt shingles
and caps.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the removal of the existing black
. asphalt shingles and the replacement with new black asphalt shingles. Mr.
Carr seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
29 Washington Square North
In continuation from a previous meeting, Mr. Staley McDermott, representing
the Bertram Home for Aged Men presented additional drawings. The drawings
showed the existing two granite posts at the driveway apron. Mr. McDermott
proposes to move the two post assembly to the back for an entrance to the
parking lot. The front driveway will be replaced with a brick pull-off.
Mr. McDermott stated that Mall Street is very narrow with parking allowed
on the opposite side of the street and that it is almost impossible to turn
into the driveway. Mr. McDermott stated that the pull-off will be used to
drop off residents and deliveries. The parking lot will be concrete with
exposed aggregate walks. The pull-out will be flush brickwork.
Mr. McDermott stated that a wooden fence is existing. A new fence is
proposed that is 4' high, flatboard and patterned after the fence between
the Gardner-Pingree and Crowninshield houses. There will be two gates that
• are 4' flatboard.
Chairman Harris asked the height of the granite posts. Mr. McDermott
stated that they are over 5 ' and possibly 6-6z' .
Mr. McDermott indicated on the drawings where trees would be removed or
planted.
Chairman Harris stated that the existing fence is approximately 5 ' and
questioned why the proposed is shorter. Mr. McDermott stated that he did
not want a wall.
Mr. Steve Burke of 12 Williams Street stated that during neighborhood
meetings it had been requested that the parking lot be kept mostly green
and there be no extra concrete. Mr. Burke thought there would be crushed
stone. Mr. McDermott stated that crushed stone for a large lot is hard to
maintain, walk on and snow plow. Mr. McDermott stated that he does not
like asphalt and choose concrete as a light color. Mr. Burke asked what is
historically appropriate. Chairman Harris stated that although it is a
valid question, the Historic Commission does not have jurisdiction on
paving materials. Mr. Burke stated that he was concerned with the
gathering of garbage outside.
Mr. Carr read from the Board of Appeal decision which charges the Historic
Commission with approval of project design. Mr. Carr asked if this fell
• into the terms of project design and stated that the decision was ambiguous
at best. Mr. Oedel stated that the decision did not say building design
June 7, 1989, Page 8
but rather project design.
. Mr. George Gagnon of 25 Washington Square North stated that he preferred
that the Mall Street side have shrubs, trees, hemlock, etc. , to cover the
parking lot and the cars.
Mr. McDermott stated that there is no shrubbery at the lot lines now and
that they intend to leave the trees and replacethefence. Mr. McDermott
stated that he is not looking for a screen but added that he could create
an opaque wall, but would rather have no screen and keep the openness of
land where there is no volume filling the space. Mr. McDermott asked how
to screen the cars. Mr. Gagnon suggested that aborvite be planted. Mr.
McDermott stated that aborvite may not grow under the trees. Mr. McDermott
stated that he did not know which solution is better and that if they
didn' t have trees, he might feel different. Mr. Gagnon stated that he did
not want a fence and would rather see landscaping. Mr. Burke also
preferred hedge to fence in order to keep the green which is being taken
out for the parking lot.
Mr. Carr stated that the pull-off is a concern and did not feel a pull off
was ever used in the 18th-19th century. Mr. Carr stated that the
guidelines show a strong presence on the sidewalk. Mr. Carr felt that the
design was trapazoidal in shape and could not it approve under
appropriateness or hardship. Mr. Carr stated that historically, cars would
pull into a courtyard and that a pull off is for hospitals, etc.
Mr. Oedel was in disagreement. Mr. Oedel stated that there may not be
precedent in 17th-18th-19th century architecture, and may not be
• appropriate for this particular area, but that he wouldn' t rule it out as
having been done.
Mr. Cook felt that it looks institutional.
Chairman Harris asked if there is any design of an historical pull-off.
Mr. McDermott stated that they are usually more grand.
Mr. Cook stated that he could not construe it as appropriate.
Mr. Carr stated that it violates the policy of the fence at the sidewalk
for a use which is not probably cognizant by the Commission.
Chairman Harrisstatedthat she felt the major concern is with the fence
dropping back and asked if there was an alternative to keep the fence on
the sidewalk. Mr. McDermott stated that he could put in two gates with a
piece of fence between them on the sidewalk but could not guarantee that
the fence would be closed and felt that it may be kept open.
Mr. Zaharis asked if the entrance could be Out where the parking lot is.
Mr. McDermott stated that it was a long way away and the result would be
that residents would be dropped off in the street. Mr. Zaharis did not
feel the distance was that great to drop off in the back. Mr. McDermott
stated that Mall Street is very narrow and that taxi' s, etc. , will be
stopping there and holding up traffic. Mr. Zaharis did not feel the street
• was that busy. Mr. Zaharis felt it was dangerous for pedestrians on the
sidewalk where the pull off is designed.
r
June 7, 1989, Page 9
Mr. Slam asked about the use of .the front door. Mr. McDermott stated that
he imagined quite a few residents using the front door because many will be
• walking. Mr. William Carney, representative of the Bertram Home, stated .
that some residents have difficulty walking and managing stairs.
Mr. Carr stated that he did not feel that there would be that much traffic
or drop offs. Mr. Carr stated that drivers can drop off at the front door
or on the street at the side entrance and that it shouldn' t stop traffic
for more than ten seconds. Mr. Carr stated that the posts are original
building fabric.
Mr. Carney stated that the frailist people will use vans such as the
Council on Aging van and there will be groups of people going to church,
etc. Mr. Carney stated that there will be several frail people being ,.
dropped off at once and that it will be more like ten minutes.
Mr. Cook stated that from the prospective of a resident, he can see every -
conceivable reason to have the pull-off but was concerned of the magnitude.
Mr. Cook asked if there will be a resident nursing staff. Mr. Carney
replied in the negative.
Mr. Gagnon stated that i of a car would have to pull out in order to see to
get out and that since the street is so narrow, often trucks must pull on
the sidewalks.
Chairman Harris suggested to consider lowering the curbing in order to pull
onto the sidewalk and to keep the fence along the lot line or jog the fence '
• slightly. Mr. McDermott stated that it was possible to design but that
drop offs would still be difficult.
Chairman Harris stated that a lower fence between two gates would allow for
more visibility. -
Mr. McDermott stated that if the pull-off was moved to the rear there would
still be a visibility problem.
Mr. Oedel stated that if the pull-off is not approved, the alternatives are
no entryway with a fence of a straight entryway. '
Mr. Carr stated that he did not recall problems in the past several years
that the home has been open with drop off and traffic.
Mr. Oedel stated that he was not disturbed either way.
Mr. Zaharis stated that he would like to sleep on it.
Mr. Slam stated that he was undecided.
Mr. Cook stated that he would probably go along with it only for the needs
of the elderly.
Mr. Carr stated that he was against it.
• Chairman Harris stated thatf.he. would probably approve it because of the
fire code.
June 7, 1989, Page 10
Mr. Slam stated that he would probably approve it..
• Chairman Harris stated that she would like to think about it.
Mr. Zaharis stated that he was hesitant to have a drive through for reasons
of safety.
Mr. Cook made a motion to approve the curb cut as drawn for convenience of
the elderly drop off conditional upon City approval. Mr. Zaharis seconded
the motion.
Mr. Carr stated that there is no rational basis to approve it.
Chairman Harris stated that landscaping should be covered at the same time.
The motion was voted upon. Mr. Cook and Mr. Slam voted in favor. Chairman
Harris and Messrs. Oedel, Carr and Zaharis voted in opposition. The motion
did not carry.
Mr. McDermott presented new drawings on doorway treatments and a complete
updated set of drawings that include demolition drawings, site plan, floor
plans, elevations and roof plans.
Mr. Oedel asked if Mr. McDermott wanted to replace the fence with hedge.
Mr. McDermott replied in the negative but asked that the Commission
determine what is appropriate or give the option to do either.
Chairman Harris stated that she would want to see details on the doors,
. etc.
Mr. Carr stated that the Commission could approve the plans in concept but
that he would want to see blow-ups of details.
Mr. Carr made a motion to continue the application to a special meeting on
June 14, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Cook seconded the motion. All were in
favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Election of Officers
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to nominate Annie Harris as Chairman and John
Carr as Vice Chairman. Mr. Cook seconded the nomination. There were no
other nominations. All were in favor. The officers were so elected.
By-Pass Road Project
The Commission reviewed a draft of a letter to Don Klima written by Mr.
Pierce.
Chairman Harris, Mr. Carr and Mr. Cook felt the letter was rather strong.
Mr. Carr stated that the same points can be made a lot softer. Mr. Cook
stated that the Commission never has had visibility as a player in this
• game and did not think they should be. Chairman Harris did not feel the
letter should be sent.
June 7, 1989, Page 11
Chairman Harris asked if there was a motion to send the letter. There was
no motion. Chairman Harris asked if there was a motion not to send the
• letter. There was no motion. Chairman Harris and Mr. Carr will try to
edit the letter.
The Commission reviewed a draft of a letter to Ellen DiGeronimo written by
Mr. Pierce.
Mr. Cook stated that that an air of informality is needed.
Chairman Harris stated that a brief, soft letter should be sent inviting
her to meet with the Commission with a formal list of the issues to be
discussed. Chairman Harris stated that she had problems with the list of
carbon copies. Mr. Oedel stated that copies should only be sent to°Mass. _
Historic.
Ms. Guy to send the list of items for discussion with a cover letter
inviting Ms. DiGeronimo to meet with the Commission.
There being no further business, Mr. Cook made a motion to adjourn. Mr.
Oede1 seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
• aneA. Guy
Jerk of the Commission
JHisCom6/060789/060789P2
June 14, 1989, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
June 14, 1989
• A special meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday,
June 14, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were
Chairman Harris and Messrs. Cook, Pierce, Slam, Oedel, and Geary and Ms.
Guy. Mr. Carr entered later in the meeting.
Chairman Harris called the meeting to order.
29 Washington Square North
In continuation of their application from a previous meeting, Mr. Staley
McDermott, representing the Bertram Home for Aged Men, presented a complete
set of drawings of the proposed renovations and new construction at 29
Washington Square North. The set includes demolition drawings, site plan,
and architectural drawings of the. basement, first floor, second floor,
third floor, roof, new addition as well as exterior elevations. Mr.
McDermott stated that everything previously submitted has been incorporated
into this set.
Chairman Harris stated that the Commission may want to review the set and
then decide whether to approve it in pieces or as one set. Mr. Slam stated
that it should be voted in sections to avoid one "sink or swim" vote.
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve demolition plans D-1 , D-2, D-3 and D-4
dated 6/7/89 as submitted. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion. All were in
favor and the motion so carried.
• The Commission reviewed site plan L-2 dated 6/14/89. Mr. McDermott stated
that the brick pattern of the pull-off was changed, that there will be two
curb cuts with two gates and that the fence will follow the brick pattern.
Mr. McDermott stated that the fence will be flushboard with pickets spaced
22" apart and will go out around the pull off.
Mr. Slam asked why the fence is changed. Mr. McDermott stated thatitis
to differentiate the fences so that the eye jumps from solid and then back
to the gate. Mr. McDermott felt the picket style was more welcoming. Mr.
Slam felt that the new pull-off design will encourage cars to pull straight
in and park. Mr. McDermott stated that with the sidewalk, there would be
approximately 15' and if cars pulled in straight, the tail ends might still
be in the street.
Mr. McDermott stated that there will be two curb cuts, not a curb cut the
length of the brick. Mr. Pierce stated that there may be a problem with
having two curb cuts so close together.
Chairman Harris stated that she thought the ,neighbors were more satisfied
with having a pull-off than not having one.
Mr. Slam stated that he preferred the rounded pull-off to the square and
that the square design compels one to leave a car there. Chairman Harris
felt that cars were less likely to park in the square design because of the
curb. Chairman Harris stated that the round design has a lower curb all
. the way across. Chairman Harris stated that the square .design is more
June 14, 1989, Page 2
historically appropriate and less contemporary.
Mr. Cook stated that he would still want the visual continuity at the
streetscape.
Mr. Pierce questioned having any fence if it necessitates moving an _
historic element and an existing fence. Mr. Pierce added that he was
disturbed by any pull-off and that he preferred to keep the wrought iron in
front along with the existing bollards and to have no new fence.
Mr. Slam felt that people will park in the square drop off.
Mr. McDermott stated that he is trying to keep the design small and
insignificant but big enough to be usable.
Mr. Slam suggested installing 1z' of granite. Mr. McDermott stated that
cars doors would hit it or cars would drive over it due to the length.
Mr. Carr entered at this time.
Mr. Carr stated that the pull-off still does not have an historic
foundation. Mr. Carr felt that it was reminscent of the Burn' s driveway
that he would never accept. Mr. Carr questioned if aged men really need a
pull-off.
Mr. Slam stated that there was originally a driveway gate there. Mr. Carr
stated that cars should pull straight in then. Mr. Carr was not convinced
of the need and felt it was without historical foundation. Mr. Slam felt
that Mr. Carr' s opinion was a minority and that the Commission should try
• to get the best solution it can to the pull-off.
Mr. Pierce asked, if the Commission is willing to relocate the bollards,
why go through the trouble of installing a fence. Mr. Pierce stated that
he preferred to have no new fence installation, to save the granite piers
and to go around them. Mr. Pierce stated that the wooden fence should not
be set in and that the neighbors don't want a fence anyway.
Mr. Cliff Hughes, representative of the Bertram Home, stated that the fence
is necessary for screening. Chairman Harris suggested landscaping. Mr.
McDermott questioned if anything would grow under the trees.
Mr. Pierce stated that he preferred the granite posts to remain where they
are and could not support their relocation.
Mr. Oedel stated that he could go along with relocation.
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the plans as submitted. There was no
second.
Mr. Carr stated that relocation of the posts and the installation of a
pull-off would never have happened in the period the structure was built.
Mr. McDermott stated that before the addition was built, when the annex was
the carriage house, everything was in context. Mr. McDermott stated that
it no longer looks like a carriage house. Mr. McDermott added that the new
• location will have the same relationship to the new addition as the old
June 14, 1989, Page 3
location was to the original carriage house. Mr. Oedel stated that what
might have been there is a standpoint well taken but that the same entry
would be used for two carriage house. Mr. Oedel stated that he could see
relocation of the posts but did not feel either pull off design is a clean
entry or exit. Mr. Oedel felt that there should be a single straight pull
in 12-14 feet wide.
Chairman Harris questioned visibility with a fence. Mr. Pierce stated that
visibility was why he preferred no fence. Chairman Harris stated that the
piers will look ridiculous without a fence. Mr. Oedel felt that Mr.
McDermott' s design of a spaced fence is a good idea. Chairman Harris
stated that it will still be difficult seeing to pull out. Chairman Harris
stated that the ,posts should be left and a cast iron fence installed. Mr.
Pierce stated that the posts were installed for a wooden fence which is
evident by their height. Mr. Slam felt that traditionally posts were for
cast iron. Mr. Oedel stated that a -point could be made either way. Mr.
Pierce examined the pictures and retracted his statement, adding that the
piers could be for cast iron.
Mr. McDermott felt that pulling in and outstraight is horrendous.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve drawing L-2 dated 6/14/89 in hope that it
would fail. Mr. Slam seconded the motion. Mr. Carr amended his motion by
adding that if it should be denied, the stone posts should be retained, the
wooden fence eliminated and replaced with a metal fence relating to the
stone post and design approval for the fence will be required. Mr. Slam
withdrew his second. Mr. Carr withdrew his motion.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the pull-off on drawing L-2 dated
• 6/14/89. Mr. Slam seconded the motion. Chairman Harris and Mr. Geary
voted in favor. Messrs. Carr, Slam, Oedel, Pierce and Cook voted in
opposition. The pull-off as drawn on L-2 6/14/89 was denied as
historically inappropriate.
Mr. Carr made a motion that having denied the pull off plan as submitted,
the Commission would approve in concept, the retention of the two existing
granite posts at the site, allow the removal of the wooden fence, and allow
the installation on both sides of the granite post a metal fence. Approval
of the design of the metal fence and paving between the posts would be
required. No removal of the wooden fence to be permitted until the new
fence plans are submitted.
Mr. McDermott asked that the Commission try to drive in and back out of the
driveway between now and the next meeting. -
Mr. Oedel seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so
carried.
Chairman Harris stated that the neighbors prefer landscaping to the fence
and prefer crushed stone in the parking area. Chairman Harris stated that
she prefered the fence to landscaping and added that privets loose their
leave and may not grow at all.
Mr. Cook asked how many parking spaces are in the lot. Mr. McDermott .
replied that there are nine. Mr. Cook suggested that the lot be moved
• toward the addition and a garden be placed in back. Mr. McDermott asked if
June 14, 1989, Page 4
Mr. Cook wanted all the green spaces together. Mr. Cook replied in the
affirmative. Mr. Pierce was in agreement. Mr. Carr was also in agreeement
and added that the neighbors would be happier.
• Chairman Harris asked if the turn-in could be moved. Mr. McDermott stated
that it could not be moved due to parking across the street. Mr. Pierce
felt cars will have difficulty driving out as designed and felt that zoning
may not allow nine spaces. Mr. McDermott respectfully disagreed.
Chairman Harris thought it would be great to have a garden.
Mr. Hughes stated that the current design breaks up the building and the
parking area and provides two garden areas. Mr. Hughes added that putting
the garden in back will make a massive blob of urban area. Mr. McDermott
did not feel people will go through the parking area to get to the garden.
Mr. Oedel was in agreement.
Chairman Harris asked if the parking area could be shifted back. Mr.
McDermott replied that he had promised that neighbor that he would stay
away from the property line.
Mr. Carr stated that any change should be with the. same number of spaces.
Mr. Pierce stated that if it was moved forward, only five spaces could be
obtained.
Mr. Oedel felt a new design would not gain that much. Mr. Pierce stated _
that if the driveway were moved, trees would be lost. Mr. McDermott stated
that the fire hydrant and utility pole are also in the way.
• Mr. Oedel stated that the granite posts should be mirrored at the entry,
that there should be metal to the posts and flatboard from the driveway
entry to the back of the property.
Mr. McDermott stated that an iron fence in the back yard is not appropriate
and that the iron fence in front is imbedded in granite. Mr. McDermott
stated that a new metal fence will not look good next to the existing fence
in front. Mr. McDermott felt that a wooden fence in the back yard is more
appropriate for privacy.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve a flatboard wooden fence from the North
bollard of the existing curb cut heading North to the property line and
heading east to the property line. There was no second.
Mr. Slam made a motion to approve the site plan L-2 dated 6/14/89 excluding
the pull-off, pull-off curb cuts, pull-off fencing, porch, relocation of
granite posts and 6 granite sidewalk slabs, driveway entry posts, wooden
fence from the south side of the existing granite posts to the southerly
existing granite post, and footprint of new one-story addition. All
exclusions are shown in red on the plan. Mr. Geary seconded the motion.
All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Cook excused himself from the meeting at this time.
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve elevation drawing A-8 dated 6/7/89 items
• #1 , 2, 3, & 4 as submitted. Mr. Carr seconded the motion.
June 14, 1989, Page 5
Chairman Harris asked about gutters.. Mr. McDermott stated that they are
copper hung gutters. Chairman Harris stated that there is no foundation
and that there are copper downspouts., Mr. McDermott stated that the brick
face will match the carriage house.
• Mr. Carr asked if anyone had any difficulty in visualizing due to the scale
of the drawings preventing the. Commission from seeing the details blown up.
Mr. Carr stated that the average homeowner is required to produce larger
scale drawings. Mr. Pierce stated that theCommissioncould ask Mr.
McDermott to provide larger details on specific items if needed. Chairman
Harris asked if anyone required detail on any item. Mr. Slam stated that
he would like detail on the cornice. Mr. Carr suggested detail on the
doorways.
Chairman Harris suggested that the motion be amended to be pending approval
of details on wood cornice and doorways.
Mr. Pierce suggested that details be provided on the dormer andthe
flushboard ballastrade.
Mr. Carr stated that he liked the flushboard ballastrade. Chairman Harris
stated that she was satisfied how the dormer was presented.
Mr. Geary amended his motion to be pending approval of detail on wood
cornice and doorways and that the concept of the wood cornice and doorways
would be approved.
Mr. Carr seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
• Mr. Pierce made a motion to approve Elevation #5, 6, & 7 on A-8 6/7/89
referring to the annex entry and sunroom only and excluding the porch.
Mr. Carr stated that the footprint should be done first. Mr. Pierce
withdrew his motion.
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the footprint of the first floor
addition including the sunroom, sunroom hall, annex entry, back entry but
excluding the sun porch, laundry room and residents toilet as submitted on
Plan A-2 6/7/89. Mr. Slam seconded the motion.
Mr. Carr stated that the volume is a major concern and he was not convinced
of how far it extends and could therefore not vote in favor.
The motion was voted upon. Chairman Harris and Messrs. Geary, Pierce,
Oedel and Slam voted in favor. Mr. Carr voted in opposition. The motion
was so carried.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the footprint of the sunporch only, on
plan A-2 6/7/89. Mr. Geary seconded the motion. Messrs. Oedel and Slam
voted in favor. Chairman Harris and Messrs. Carr, Pierce, and Geary voted
in opposition. The motion did not carry.
At this time Mr. Oedel excused himself from the meeting.
The Commission reviewed elevations #8 & 9 on A-8 6/7/89 for the resident' s
• toilet/laundry. Mr. Pierce asked if the tree could be saved. Mr.
June 14, 1989, Page 6
McDermott stated that it was dependable, but felt that it was likely.
Chairman Harris stated that there is no foundation.
Mr. Carr stated that the Common facade is sacred and that the existing
reads as a two dimensional wall and not the wall of a building producing an
exterior blip for an interior need. Mr. Carr felt that Washington Square
is more important than a washer/dryer.
Mr. Slam felt that it was not of monumental importance, not facade, and
non-obtrusive. Mr. Slam stated that it did not impact the streetscape.
Mr. Geary stated that the existing windows and walls are not in the
greatest condition but felt that it should not be altered.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve elevations #8 & 9 A-8 6/7/89 and A-2
6/14/89 regarding the residents laundry/toilet. Mr. Geary seconded the
motion. Chairman Harris and Mr. Slam voted in favor. Messrs. Carr, Geary
and Pierce voted in opposition. The motion did not carry.
Mr. Geary made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Carr seconded the motion.
Mr. Geary withdrew his motion. Mr. Carr withdrew his second.
Mr. Geary made a motion to continue the application until the next meeting.
Mr. Pierce seconded the motion. All wereinfavor and the motion so
carried.
By-Pass Road & Bridge
Copies of the archeological report performed by U-Mass were presented to
the Commission.
• Chairman Harris stated that she would like to talk to the archeologist
regarding the report because it appeared that only spot holes and a little
trenching were done. Chairman Harris stated that the Commission is
expected to comment on the report.
Mr. Pierce stated that he has drafted a letter based on his conversation
with Brona Simon, who feels committed that the State will open the 106
Review process. Mr. Pierce stated that the letter requests an extension to
comment on the report and felt that the Commission should request a
meeting. Chairman Harris asked who the Commission would want a meeting
with. Mr. Pierce stated that the Federal Highway Administration is
responsible for the 106 review and they usually pass it on to the MDPW, of
which Ellen DiGeronimo is the administrator. Mr. Pierce stated that at the
Historic Salem, Inc. meeting tomorrow night, he will be giving a five
minute talk about the project. -
Chairman Harris was concerned whether the archeologist was allowed to do
all the document research needed to make a determination and if he thought
enough digs were done. Chairman Harris felt that if the archeologist is
satisfied, that she would be willing to sign off on the report. Chairman
Harris added that she was unclear on the other areas, such as traffic and
impact on other historic areas.
Mr. Pierce stated that the March Street Bridge is being sold to us as a
. stand alone project and. that the Commission should not sign off on this
June 14, 1989, Page 7
alone with out the rest of the project. Mr. Pierce stated that the State
should prove that the project is independantly funded and doesn' t need all
the permits for environmental, etc. Mr. Pierce felt that the Commission
should send a letter stating that the report won' t be signed off until all
the archeological work is completed. -
Chairman Harris read the draft of Mr. Pierce' s letter. Chairman Harris.
stated that the Commission should be somewhat cautious as to what is said.
Chairman Harris indicated that Cong. Mavroules, Rep. Ruane and the City of
Salem all seem to be in favor of the bridge. Chairman Harris added that
the Commission should be a little more active than it is has been. Mr.
Carr stated that it should be clear that the Commission is not opposed to '
high speed access out of Salem.
Mr. Pierce stated that if the Historic Commission doesn' t look out for the
residents regarding historic elements, we are not doing what we are charged
with.
Mr. Geary stated that anything the Commission does could look like we are
trying to slow down the project. Mr. Geary felt that the Commission should
walk on eggshells. Mr. Geary added that he must be convinced of the
validity.
Mr. Pierce stated that the Commission only wants information and are the
only ones who can ask for it. Mr. Pierce stated that he felt the
Commission is more concerned aboutpolitics and is frustrated that the
other members are not as willing to get involved. Mr. Geary stated that '
politics is a reality. Mr. Slam stated that politics are not unimportant.
Mr. Carr suggested that whatever is done should be done with care. Mr.
• Geary stated that anything the Commission does to bring this up at this
point in time is political suicide.
Mr. Pierce suggested that he write a summary of the 106 review process for
everyone to read.
Mr. Geary stated that the Commission must be right on the money in its
actions and that he will be willing to fight if he is convinced there is a
right to.
Chairman Harris stated that Ellen DiGeronimo is invited to the next
meeting.
Mr. Pierce stated that Ms. Simon' s letter, which formalizes the extension
he received on Monday when he telephoned the State, should be sent special
delivery or certified mail.
Mr. Geary made a motion to send the letter to Brona Simon. Mr. Carr
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
46 Broad Street -
James and Theodora Ccurrier presented an application for a Certificate of
Non—Applicability for painting at their home at 46 Broad Street. The
applicants propose to repaint the white trim, porches and fence the
existing color.
•
June 14, 1989, Page 8
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr.
Pierce seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Chairman Harris stated that there is a meeting on June 20, 1989 at 8:00
a.m. at One Salem Green regarding the MBTA garage.
There being no further business, Mr. Slam made a motion to adjourn. Mr.
Geary seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
RespectfTilly bmf ted,
/
i
Jane A. G y
Clerk of the Commission
JHisCom6/061489/061489P2
•
SALEM HISTORIC COMMISSION
MINUTES OF BOARD MEETING
JUNE 21 , 1989
A meeting of the Salem Historic Commission was held on Wednesday,
June 21 , 1989 at 7 : 00 P . M . in the second floor conference room
at One Salem Green.
Present were : Annie C . Harris , John H . Carr , Jr . , Dan Geary,
Jacob Wolfson* , Walter H. Cook* , Daniel Pierce , Richard Oedel ,
Russell Slam* , Jane Guy, and Debra Tucker . (':Entered later in the meeting. )
Chairperson Annie C . Harris called the meeting to order .
DISCUSSION: MDPW COMMISSIONER DIGERONIMO
MDPW Commissioner DiGeronimo appeared before the board for discussion
regarding the March Street bridge and bypass road projects .
Ms . DiGeronimo apologized that Ann Booth, Preservation Specialist
for the MDPW would not be present . The board discussed the
• Skerry House to review measures for preservation. An historical
structural analysis by the SPNEA is being conducted and the
interim memorandum report is due back July 17 , 1989 . Annie
Harris read .the scope of work for the analysis . Dan Pierce
asked if there was funding available for the project as of yet .
Commissioner DiGeronimo stated that the SPNEA contract funding
had been approved but that there was still a question of funding
for the projects . Annie Harris said that the commission would
need a copy of the report and would also like to be invited
to the meeting when scheduled.
The University of Massachusetts performed an architectural invest-
igation of the Planters site at the March Street bridge area .
The archeological field work for the site has been completed,
and lab analysis is being done . A preliminary report is due
on June 27 , 1989 with the final report scheduled for on or about
August 15, 1989 . Dan Pierce questioned the timing of the reports.
The Historical Commission was asked to respond by June 16, 1989,
and the Commission had just received the information a week
ago. He also asked if additional time could be granted. Com-
missioner DiGeronimo responded that the contract had already
been awarded and that any comments should be directed as soon
as possible to the Massachusetts Historic Commission. Ms. DiGeronimo
suggested that the Commission read the methodology and summary
background research on the old Planters Settlement .
. Mr . Pierce also asked how the March Street project could be
L
Page 2 of 12
Minutes of Historic Commission 6-21-89
• segmented from the whole access road project . Commissioner
DiGeronimo responded that the MDPW does not see the project
as segmented . Last year major repairs were made to the March
Street bridge, which is considered a separate entity, for emergency
services . The bridge still needs repairs and falls under the
Bridge Rehab and Replacement program. The project was announced
publicly in January of 1988 . Due to the emergency situation
of the bridge , the .work will be done immediately . The wooden
bridge will be reconstructed with the potential to accomodate
any future development . In October or November of 1968 the
Planters site came into focus . An archeological study was completed
by the City of Salem in June of 1988 .
Mr . Cook entered at this time . Dan Pierce asked if the work
is termed "replacement " then how can it be expanded to 2 1/ 2
to 3 times the size of the bridge . Commissioner DiGeronimo
replied that the MDPW can replace a bridge if considered unsafe .
When bridges are replaced they are always improved and modernized.
The MDPW would not ever replace a bridge with a one lane structure .
The March Street bridge will be a two lane bridge, only longer .
• John Carr said that the bridge and tracks are entrenched between
two hills . He asked if the hills were to be preserved. Commissioner
DiGeronimo replied that they would and because the bridge will
be extended to the Planters site and clearance over the tracks
must be provided.
Dan Pierce expressed concern over the Chapter 106 review process
and asked if the MDPW intended to reopen the process . Mr. Pierce
stated that the Chapter 106 review insures that the impacts
and effects on historicproperties will be considered on federally
funded projects. The 106 review is funded by the MDPW. Mr. Pierce
stated that the 106 review process includes a public meeting ,
evaluation of properties, assessment of effects, a consultation phase
and a memorandum of agreement from the advisory council before
proceeding with the project . He said that a letter dated June
6, 1989 to Brona Simon stated that the Salem Historic Commission
had not been notified that the Chapter 106 would be reopened.
Commissioner DiGeronimo stated that she was not familiar with
the letter but that the MDPW had met with the Mass Historic
Commission and has addressed their letters but did not look
at it as a reopening of the Chapter 106 review process . After
a November 1988 letter from the Mass Historical Commission ,
the MDPW had archeological research done . The Skerry House ,
Fish Flake Hill , and the Planter ' s site were all investigated
as one project .
•
Page 3 of 12
Minutes of Historic Commission Meeting 6-21-89
• Annie Harris asked if the MDPW was studying the environmental
impact upon the McIntire district . Commissioner DiGeronimo
said that the project does not directly affect the McIntire
district . The condition of the North River area , from Flint
Street to the old Log Cabin site , was studied before the MDPW
began the process . She stated that the area has been cleaned
out considerably by the MDPW since it took possession of the
land . Billboards and buildings have been removed , the area
has been cleaned and reseeded, and guard rails have been installed
to avoid dumping.
Chairman Harris stated that she had concerns regarding traffic
lights . Commissioner DiGeronimo stated that lights are a City
issue . Annie Harris asked if the MDPW had investigated the
impact on traffic , air quality, and noise , and asked if these
issues were included in the Edwards and Kelsey contract . Com-
missioner DiGeronimo stated whe will look into that .
Commissioner DiGeronimo stated that the Chapter 106 review process
has been completed and all issues except the Skerry House were
signed off in 1981 by the Federal government .
• Dan Pierce encouraged the MDPW to reconsider reopening the Chapter
106 process due to the change of scope in the project since
1981 , and the impact on the McIntire district and the historic
district . Mr . Pierce did not feel that the attempts by the
MDPW to address the concerns were adequate. Commissioner DiGeronimos
said that she would take the issue under advisement, but that
the MDPW had addressed all issues discussed at the December
meeting . Commissioner DiGeronimo will send the Commission a
copy of the list of issues and areas of impact .
Mr . Slam entered at this time . Commissioner DiGeronimo stated
that the war plaque has been added to the Edwards and Kelsey
scope of work. Mr. Wolfson entered at this time.
Chairman Harris requested that informational materials on the
North Street bridge be sent by Ann Booth including copies of
reports and letters .
Mr . Pierce also asked that the Salem Historic Commission request
that the Mass Historic Commission not concur with the archeological
report until all reports are received and reviewed , and that
the Salem Historic Commission not sign off on the March Street
bridge until all three reports are reviewed.
Commissioner DiGeronimo stated that only since the MDPW now
• owns the land in question does the City of Salem realize that
Page 4 of 12
Minutes of Historic Commission Meeting 6-21-89
• these sites are of historical significance.
Walter Cook wished to thank Commissioner DiGeronimo for the
time spent with the board.
PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION: 29 WASHINGTON SQUARE NORTH
Jacob Wolfson wished that it be noted in the minutes that he
abstained from voting on the 29 Washington Square North matter
as there were 8 members present and only 7 may vote.
Annie Harris referred to A2 of the demo plan and noted that
the commission had approved D1 through D4 . The landscaping
plan had been approved excluding the pull off and curb cuts .
The plans for the back porch, solarium, and the Washington Square
alteration had been denied . The exclusions are noted in red
on site plan L2 .
Jane Guy stated that the turn off had been denied. A retention
of two granite posts was accepted, and the commission allowed
that wooden fence be replaced with metal .
Annie Harris said that the footprint of elevation plan A8 1-4
had been approved as amended . Elevation 5 and 6 were approved
• as of June 7 , 1989 . Elevation 7 for the sun porch had not been
approved . Numbers 8 and 9 regarding a laundry romm and toilet
facility had been denied.
Architect Staley McDermott stated that a wooden 10 x 12 porch
with removable wooden screen on specifications was submitted
on May 15 , 1989 on two attached drawings ( one elevation and
one sectional ) dated May 15 , 1989 . The size of panes was noted
in red .
Dan Pierce said that he felt approval should be subject to submission
of detailed drawings on cornices and doorways .
Dan Geary motioned, subject to submission of detailed drawings,
to approve in concept the sunroom plans , as submitted on thedrawings
. identifi'ed ,as, Numbers 5 , 6 , and 7 on A-8 June 7, 1989 excluding
the sun porch on elevation #7 includes footprint as noted on
L-2,74ncludesr.c2: attached drawings dated May 15 , 1989 with size of panes
as noted in red. Mr. Carr seconded the motion: All were in "favor .and the motion
so carried. — I
Mr . McDermitt showed on Elevation A7 the dormer for ventilation
purposes .
John Carr moved to approve the revised A7 plan dated June 21 ,
1989 regarding the dormer . Dan Geary seconded the motion, and
it was unanimously approved.
Page 5 of 12
Minutes of Historic Commission Meeting 6-21-89
• The board discussed the carriage house skylight visibility from
different angles . Mr . McDermott stated that the original design
of the carriage house was with the corridor in the front and
the windows in both the back and front . He has reversed the
plan to accomodate Mr . Deering . The windows have been moved
to the courtyard side. For both ventilation and lighting purposes
motor driven skylights are a necessity.
Richard Oedel moved to approve the two skylights as submittd
on A- 5 dated 6/21/89,to be placedon the rear of the exisitng carriage
house on the facade facing Oliver Street . John Carr seconded
the motion, and the vote was unanimously opposed.
John Carr moved to approve as architect ' s choice of one of either
of the two skylights proposed positioned in the middle or at
the end of the roof . There was no second.
John Carr motioned to keep the auestion of the revised skylight
plan open to be taken up at the next meeting . Richard Oedel
seconded the motion, and the vote was unanimous .
A3 dated June 21 , 1989 supercedes previous plan.
Walter Cook motioned that regarding the pull up driveway, that
• the Commission allow the movement of one granite post of the
architect's choice a maximum of six feet to accomodate comfortable
entry to the driveway and to allow the newly exposed ground
to be filled with granite slab to match existing as close as
possible. Dan Geary seconded the motion.
Mr . McDermott stated that in the revised plan L-2 June 21 , 1989
one granite slab would be moved approximately two feet . John
Carr said that he did not want the original areas upset . In
order to improve the turning radius he would argree to one slab
width of approximately two feet .
Walter Cook stated that he would like to amend the original
motion that he made regarding the granite_ slab to allow placement
of a maximum of tworanite slabs
9 and movement_ of posts,.a maximum ofr;four feet
six inches rather than six feet as originally of
Mr . Geary
seconded the motion.
Mr . Carr questioned the ability to match the concrete slabs .
Mr . Oedel made a motion to move the auestion. Mr. Cook seconded
the motion . Chairman Harris and Dan Geary, Walter Cook, Daniel
Pierce, Richard Oedel , and Russel Slam voted in favor . Mr . Carr
voted in opposition. The motion was so carried.
Mr . Cook' s motion was voted upon:
•
Page 6 of 12
Minutes of Historic Commission Meeting 6-21-89
Ayes Naves
Annie Harris John Carr
Richard Oedel Dan Pierce
Russel Slam
Walter Cook
Dan Geary
Richard Oedel asked what materials were proposed for the parking
area . Mr . McDermott replied that exposed aggregate concrete
was proposed. Dan Pierce asked what controls they had for assuring
that it look uniform. Mr. McDermott said that he had a concrete
curb stop to match . Russell Slam asked if Mr. McDermott would
be lowering the wooden flatboard fence . Annie Harris replied
that the fence would remain as approved last time.
Richard Oedel moved that regarding the driveway closest to Washington
Square North the board approve a concrete drive twenty feet
long and fourteen feet wide of exposed aggregate concrete with
control joints to match the walkways as submitted on L-2 June
21 , 1989 . He also moved to approve the proposed wooden fence
as per detail on drawing L2 dated June 21 , 1989 from the existing
iron fence on Mall Street marked X-1 northerly to the granite
fence marked X2 . John Carr seconded the motion and it was approved
unanimously.
• Richard Oedel moved to approve the gate in the fence and enclosed
aggregate concrete walkway as per the drawing in the locae-ion•.mark'ed x3 . Mr.
Geary seconded the motion, and the vote was unanimous .
John Carr moved to approve the rear driveway entry as presented
on drawing L2 dated June 21 , 1989 . Dan Geary seconded the motion,
and the vote was unanimous .
Richard Oedel motioned to reconsider the vote on the residents '
toilet/laundry addition located on the Northeast side of the
property . Mr . Slam seconded the motion . Chairman Harris and
Mr . Slam, Mr . Cook, Mr . Pierce , and Mr . Oedel voted in favor .
John Carr and Dan Geary were opposed to the motion. The motion
was so carried.
John Carr stated that he would like to see the bump at the residents
laundry/toilet facilty addition recessed as much as possible .
He felt that the site should have clean lines .
Russell Slam said that the bump would be insignificant and unob-
trusive . He stated that the building currently is not made
with "clean lines" due to the many additions .
Annie Harris said that it would be very minimal but could be
• seen . It would be very difficult to meet all considerations
Page 7 of 12
Minutes of Historic Commission Meeting 6-21-89
• and other possibilities have been tried.
Mr . Oedel made a motion to approve A-2 June 7 , 1989 and A-8
#8 and #9 and prospective adjunct drawing dated May 3 , 1989
as shown regarding the residents ' laundry/toilet addition .
Brick to be a substantial match to existing carriage house brick
in coursing, mortar color, brick texture and size, pending approval
of cornice detail . Motion includes drainpipe, gutter , and down-
spout . The motion includes that the tree nearby remain or be
replaced in size and kind. Russell Slam seconded the motion.
Dan Pierce asked to amend the motion to add that the brick sample
be approved by the board to match mortar color and joint thickness
and closely match brick.
Richard Oedel said that he would refuse the friendly amendment .
He would not like to make a judgement on a sample and would
leave that to the architect .
The vote was as follows :
Ayes Naves
Annie Harris Dan Geary
Richard Oedel John Carr
. Walter Cook Dan Pierce
Russell Slam
Mr . McDermit stated that there were three options for the porch:
the original one , a revised one , or no porch . The original
porch was constructed somewhere between 1892 and 1937 . He said
that he intends to try to reconstruct the porch.
John Carr made a motion to approve the stairway proposed marked
Option #3 on A2 dated June 21 , 1989 . Russell Slam seconded
the motion.
John Carr made the motion pending approval of the detail of
the railing. All were in favor and the motion was so carried.
Russell Slam motioned to approve Option 2 of A2 dated June 21 ,
1989 with approval of the detail of the railing and lattice
work and steps . There was no second . Russell Slam withdrew
his motion.
Russell Slam motioned to reconsider the original porch proposal
now entitled Option 1 of A2 dated June 21 , 1989 . Richard Oedel
seconded the motion, and the vote was as follows:
•
Page 8 of 12
Minutes of Historic Commission Meeting 6-21-89
• Ayes Nays
Annie Harris Walter Cook
Russell Slam John Carr
Richard Oedel Jacob Wolfson
Dan Geary
The motion was not passed.
Richard Oedel made a motion to continue the remainder of the
application. Dan Geary seconded the motion, and it was approved
unanimously.
APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
72 WASHINGTON SQUARE EAST
Mr . Wolfson replaces Mr . Slam as a voting member at this time .
Annie Harris stated that this application was for fence alteration.
The applicants , John and Nancy Sachetti , wish to re_olace the
wrought iron fence to black steel posts of the same dimension
and intend to replace the top ornaments . The new fence would
be hinged in the center in order to allow parking space.
Mr. Sachetti said that the new fence which is located adjacent
to another driveway would deter some of the vandalism that occurs.
• His property is in an area at the very end of the historic district .
The new posts would be of the same dimensions but made of black
steel .
Walter Cook stated that he had seen the site and that the Sachettis
have improved their property especially the landscaping . He
said that he felt that the Sachettis are entitled to be able
to park on their own property.
Jane Guy said that she had received an unidentified call asking
if the garden area of the property would be altered . Ms . Guy
replied in the negative . The caller did not state whether he
was for or against the fence alteration.
John Carr stated that the fence in question is an original liarback
fence with mid 19th century iron work . The posts have great
detail unlike just plain 4" square steel posts .
Russell Slam asked if there wasn ' t a precedent set by another
decision made on a Chestnut Street property. Annie Harris said
that their was . Walter Cook siad that this property was located
at the far corner of the last building in a historic district,
and that the area was not highly visible from the district .
He said that this is the 20th century and a person has the right
to be able to park on his property.
Page 9 of 12
Minutes of Historic Commission Meeting 6-21-89
John Sachetti echoed this sentiment . He said that as a 20th
century homeowner he needs this enclosed parking area. He stated
that he has tried to do the best with his property . He has
worked with the various City committees . The post that he is
looking to replace is in disrepair . He has had to wedge one
of the posts so that it will not collapse , and in the present
condition the fence will continue to fall . Mr . Sachetti said
that he will not try to repair this fence if it does fall .
He also commented that a 10 foot section of fence at the adjacent
condominium was removed with no problem.
Annie Harris asked if it would be possible to keep the posts
as they are and to hang a fence off steel braced posts, or if
there were any other alternatives . Mr . Sachetti replied that
the iron posts were rotted . He said that he has also looked
into the possibility of granite posts , but this would change
the look of the area even more . He feels that he has found
the best solution.
Annie Harris asked if it would be possible to reproduce the
corner cutouts in more closely cut detail . Mr . Sachetti replied
that it may be possible . Annie Harris replied that she felt
that the board would be willing to approve a steel reproduction
fence if it could closeley match the current fence.
• John Carr stated that it was the little details that make Salem
uniaue.
Walter Cook stated that he felt that it was an obligation of
the board to allow a home owner access to his property with
a vehicle if possible when it is in good taste.
John Carr motioned to approved the plan as presented for a Certi-
ficate of Appropriateness with the 4 1/4 inch square posts to
be of original dimension and that the ornament caps be put back
in place. Richard Oedel seconded the motion.
Richard Oedel stated that he felt that steel posts are not appro-
priate . He stated that it would be a lot of work to reproduce
the fence in steel . He suggested withdrawing the motion and
continuing the application . He would like the Sachettis to
get clearer drawings showing the finnials .
Mr . Oedel withdrew his second. Mr. Carr withdrew his motion.
Mr . Sachetti said that it would take time and effort to get
these drawings . Dan Geary said that there would be a strong
possibility to get the fence approved if more detailed drawings
were provided.
• Annie Harris asked that the application be continued until the
r
Page 10 of 12
Minutes of Historic Commission Meeting 6-21-89
next meeting.
Richard Oedel motioned to continue the Application for Certificate
of Appropriateness for fence alteration at 72 Washington Square
East . Dan Geary seconded the motion, and the vote was unanimous .
The Application for a Certificate of Hardship was not presented.
APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF HARDSHIP: 3 BROAD STREET
Annie Harris stated that the Salem Housing Authority was seeking
to install a telephone cabinet located at the rear of 3 Broad
Street through a Certificate of Hardship. Mr. Richard Picone,
a representative for the New England Telephone Co . , appeared
before the Historic Commission. He explained that the cabinet 's
dimensions would be 12 inches deep, 66 inches high, and 70 inches
wide and would be set on a five foot by seven foot concrete
pad. The pad could be less wide if installed deeper into the
ground. Ingress and egress would be by four four inch PVC under-
ground conduits . All work is to be completed by New England
Telephone . Dan Pierce asked what the color of the cabinet would
be. The answer was that it would probably be green. Photographs
were presented showing size, finish, color, etc .
• Dan Geary motioned to approve a Certificate of Hardship for
the Salem Housing Authority for the property at 3 Broad Street
in order to install the telephone cabinet at the rear of 3 Broad
Street . The cement pad dimensions will be 18 inches by 6 feet
flush with the street pavement . Richard Oedel seconded the
motion, and the vote was unanimous .
APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS :
285 LAFAYETTE STREET
The board discussed an application for Certificate of Appropriateness
for exterior house paint colors at 285 Lafayette Street . Sane
Guy showed the board samples of the proposed colors . The body
of the house is to be painted platinum grey, the shutters and
doors will be a mixture of equal portions of platinum grey and
charcoal slate as presented on the chart , and the trim high
gloss white.
Dan Geary motioned to approve the issuance of a Certificate
of Appropriateness for 285 Lafayette Street for the exterior
house paint colors requested. Richard Oedel seconded the motion,
and the vote was unanimous .
HISTORIC COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the minutes of Historic Commission minutes for meetings
• on April 19 , 1989 , May 3 , 1989 , May 10, 1989, and May 17 , 1989
Page 11 of 12
Minutes of Historic Commission Meeting 6-21-89
awas postponed until the next meeting in order to give all board
members time to review them . Dan Pierce asked that all board
members have the minutes read by the next meeting so that they
may be approved at that time.
DISCUSSION OF VIOLATIONS OF PREVIOUS DECISIONS
The board discussed several violations .
87 Federal Street :
The board discussed a violation at 87 Federal Street . The owner
has started painting his house but his application is not scheduled
to be heard until July 5 , 1989 . Ms . Guy informed the owner
and the contractor that proceeding with the painting was at
their own risk of being denied their color choice and having
to remove it .
82 Derby Street :
The board discussed an illegal sign erected and painting
done at 82 Derby Street . Jane Guy was instructed to send a
letter regarding the violation to the owners , and to instruct
them to file an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness,
281 Lafayette Street :
There are four dormers at 281 Lafayette Street that appear to
have been painted a different color than that the board had
approved. Ms . Guy will send a letter to the owner.
2713Lafayette Street:
Russel Slam motioned that the Historic Commission issue a 30
day deadline to the owners of 271 Lafayette Street stating that
they must comply with the Commission' s determination that their
railing is inappropriate and the issue must be resolved. Richard
Oedel seconded the motion, and the vote was unanimous .
The Commission members wished that Peter Zaharis get well soon.
Dan Pierce asked that Annie Harris call Brona Simon of the MPDW
regarding the meeting with Commissioner DiGeronimo . He asked
that the Historic Commission request an extension to the middle
of July in order that the Commission have time to review, draft
a letter , and reply. John Carr stated that he would like to
avoid going over the time limit . Russell Slam asked if Annie
Harris could delegate a few board members . Dan Pierce said
that he had written the last letter . Walter Cook asked that
the board not write too inflammatory a letter as he would not
like to jeopardize the whole bridge project . He felt it would
be best if the review process were not reopened. Ms . Guy will
Page 12 of 12
Minutes of Historic Commission Meeting 6-21-89
send the Commission members copies of letters on the Skerry
House scope and the methodology and summary preliminary report .
Russell Slam made a motion that the meeting be adjourned at
10 : 34 P . M . Dan Gear seconded the motion,ion, and the vote was
II unanimous .
Respectfully submitted by:
Debra A. Tucker, Acting Clerk
•
July 5, 1989, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
July 5, 1989
• A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday,
July 5, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were
Chairman Harris and Messrs. Oedel, Geary and Cook and Ms. Guy. Mr. Carr
entered later in the meeting.
Public Hearings
29 Washington Square North
In continuation from a previous meeting, Mr. Staley McDermott was present
to represent the Bertram Home for Aged Men. Mr. McDermott provided drawing
A-3 7/5/89 indicating locations of two skylights. One skylight is to be
located by the elevator shaft and the other on the main roof. Cornice
details and details of the sunroom walls and hall were provided on A-9
7/5/89.
• Mr. Carr joined the meeting at this time.
Chairman Harris asked about the gutters. Mr. McDermott stated that the
existing copper gutters will be kept on the main house and that new
suspended copper gutters, , round, will be installed on the carriage house.
Mr. McDermott provided details of the door jams and stated that the doors
will be Morgan, 61811, thermopane, individual light, stock glass doors. Mr.
McDermott provided transom details and details for the back landing. The
landing will have a stock railing as shown in the Cumberland Woodcraft Co. ,
Inc. catalog.
Mr. Geary made a motion to accept the above drawings as submitted. Mr.
Carr seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
A Certificate of Appropriateness can be issued.
23 RiverStreet
Mr. Michael J. Slaven presented an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for the replacement of stairs and the installation of
window sashes at his property at 23 River Street. Mr. Slaven proposes to
replace the existing stairs on the side of the house leading to the second
floor with pressure treated wood. Mr. Slaven also proposes to install new
2 over 2, single pane, wood window sashes.
Mr. Slaven stated that the staircase will be the same but will be pressure
treated wood. Mr. Oedel stated that the certificate should be for
non-applicability.
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-Applicability for
the replacement of the stairs in kind with pressure treated wood
conditional that they are painted within one year. Mr. Carr seconded the
motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Geary made a motion to disapprove the application for a Certificate of
July 5, 1989, Page 2 .
Appropriateness for the stairs. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion. All were
in favor and the motion so carried.
• Chairman Harris asked if Mr. Pierce had inspected the windows at the
property. Mr. Slaven replied in the negative. Chairman Harris stated that
she preferred to have the windows inspected before allowing any
replacement.
Mr. Carr stated that another issue is if 6 over 6 windows are more
appropriate to the style of the building than the existing 2 over 2
windows. Mr. Oedel asked if the applicant is willing to install 6 over 6.
Mr. Slaven replied that he would be willing if they are within his budget.
Mr. Carr stated that he preferred to differ action until the applicant can
research the installation of 6 over 6 windows.
Mr. Geary made a motion to continue the application with regard to the
windows. Mr. Cook seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion -
so carried.
110 Derby Street
• Jim-Sob Realty Trust presented an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to remove a garage and install an enclosed refrigerator at
110 Derby Street. The cinder block garage is located on the Turner Street
side of the building. Plans of the proposed refrigerator enclosure were
provided.
Chairman Harris stated that the applicants are really proposing a shed and
that it cannot be seen from Derby Street.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Geary
seconded the motion.
Mr. Oedel asked if any vents were visible. The applicants replied in the
negative. Mr. Oedel asked if there is a door. The applicants stated that
the door is in the back and is not visible.
The motion was voted upon. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
87 Federal Street
Mr. Raymond Young presented an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for paint colors at his property at 87 Federal Street. The
body will be Cape May, the trim will be Socorro and the door and shutters
will be Presidio as taken from Guild' s Historical Paint Colors. A paint
chart was provided.
Chairman Harris stated that she was uncomfortable with the door and shutter
color and .felt that green would be the most appropriate but that blue or
black would be acceptable. Chairman Harris stated that the shutters and
door should be dark colors and that the applicant' s color should be
darkened.
Mr. Oedel stated that the house is Colonial Revival and agreed that the
• shutters and doors should be darker. Mr. Oedel suggested that the body and
trim color be approved and that the Commission see a color sample of the
July 5, 1989, Page 3
shutter and door color.
• Mr. Carr felt that the shutters should be black. Mr. Carr stated that if
the shutters were scrapped down, the original would probably be dark red,
green or black.
Mr. Young considered other colors and selected Benjamin Moore New London
Burgandy HC-61 for the shutters and door.
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the application as revised. Mr. Oedel
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
14 Flint Street
Thomas and Susan Durkin presented an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for the replacement of a roof, the replacement of a
skylight and the installation of a fence at their home at 14 Flint Street.
The applicants propose to replace the gray asphalt roof shingles with black
asphalt shingles and to replace an existing flat skylight that is 36" long
x 22" wide x 5" high that does not vent with one of similar size and shape
• in velux that will have a handle crane and would lift from the bottom. A
drawing was presented which showed where a #2, 6' cedar stockade fence
would be installed perpendicular to Flint Street replacing a 4' chain link
fence. The section of fence closest to Flint Street would curve down to 3 '
high. The posts would be #1 posts.
Mr. Durkin stated that he wants a similar size skylight that is not
stationary, but that it will be thinner against the house.
Mr. Carr suggested a solid board fence that keeps the scallop and stated
that it may be less expensive and more attractive. Mr. Oedel suggested a
flatboard fence with a cap on the end. Chairman Harris suggested replacing
the parrallel fence at the same time.
Mr. Durkin stated that he would also like to install two small black roof
fents on the back elevation.
Mr. Carr stated that the skylight should be for a Certificate of
Non-Applicability.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the
roof shingles. Mr. Carr seconded the motion. All were in favor and the
motion so carried.
Mr. Oedel made motion to approve a Certificate of Non-Applicability for
the replacement of a single skylight at the top center of the roof line
with a skylight of essentially the same size, due to being minimally
visible and being essentially a replacement of what is there. Mr. Geary
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to disapprove a Certificate of Appropriateness for
the skylight because the type and number of skylights is not appropriate
for this building. Mr. Cook seconded the motion. All were in favor and
the motion so carried.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to deny the fence installation without prejudice as
r.
July 5, 1989, Page 4
not being appropriate. Mr. Geary seconded the motion. All were in favor
and the motion so carried.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the installation of any roof vents
placed on the back side that are not visible from the public way under a
Certificate of Non—Applicability.
Mr. Carr felt that drawings should be provided showing where they will be
placed.
Mr. Oedel withdrew his motion.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to continue the roof vents until the next meeting.
Mr. Oedel withdrew his motion.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve two roof vents on the rear elevation
under a Certificate of Non—Applicability due to being minimally visible
from the street and inconsequential in size, shape and massing. Mr. Geary
seconded the motion. Chairman Harris and Messrs. Oedel, Cook and Geary
• voted in favor. Mr. Carr voted in opposition. The motion was so carried.
1 Harrington Court
Lawrence and Barbara Cleveland presented an application for a Certificate
of Appropriateness for the removal of a back porch and the installation of
a steel door, the installation of a steel bulkhead, the replacement of two
windows, the installation of blue—grey vinyl siding, the replacement of
gutter and drain pipes and the replacement of facia boards at their home at
1 Harrington Court. The application stated that the old windows had been
replaced and that the house is half sided but that the roof was reshingled
before the house was purchased.
Chairman Harris gave a summary of the details leading up to this
application:
1 . On May 25, 1989 Chairman Harris notified Kathy Winn of the Salem
Planning Department that a contractor' s sign was displayed at the
property and that it appeared that vinyl siding was going to be
installed. Ms. Winn called the Clevelands and told them any work
required approval from the Historical Commission. The Clevelands
stated that they thought that their contractor had taken care of
necessary permits, that they were going away for the weekend, and asked
if someone could call them next week. Ms. Winn stated that no work
should be conducted. (See note to Ms. Guy from Ms. Winn. )
2. On May 29, 1989, Ms. Guy asked Mr. Harris of the Building Department if
the Clevelands had a building permit for any work being done at their
property. Mr. Harris stated that there was none issued and went to the
site the following day to see what was being done. Mr. Harris told Ms.
Guy that it appeared that only windows were being replaced, which do
not require a building permit.
3. Ms. Guy attempted to contact the Clevelands by telephone on May 29, 30
and 31 but no calls were returned.
4. On May 31 , 1989, Ms. Guy mailed a letter to the applicants indicating
July 5, 1989, Page 5
that they were in violation and requesting that they cease and desist.
• The letter was sent Certified Mail. The post office attempted to
deliver this letter on 6/1/89 and 6/6/89 but it was returned to the
Planning Department unsigned.
5. On June 8, Mr. Harris issued a stop work order for being in violation
of the Mass. State Building Code, Section 113 .0 (No permit on record)
after visiting the site again and seeing vinyl siding being installed.
At some point between 6/8/89 and 6/14/89 the stop work order was
removed or sided over. Another stop work order was issued.
6. On June 12, 1989, Mr. Santo of the Building Department, unaware that
Mr. Harris had the departmental card out of the file due to the
violation, issued a Building Permit.
7. On June 14, 1989, Mr. Santo revoked the Building Permit.
8. On June 14, 1989, Mr. Cleveland contacted Ms. Guy. Ms. Guy mailed the
Clevelands Historical Commission applications.
• Pictures showing the amount of work already completed were shown.
Mr. Carr stated that 4 shortened windows had been installed. Mr. Cleveland
stated that they had been installed before he knew that Historical
Commission approvalwas required.
Chairman Harris asked if the Clevelands have paid for the vinyl siding yet.
Mr. Cleveland replied in the negative.
Mr. Cleveland stated that a man from Woburn Electrical had indicated that
the first stop order was issued for electrical and that the man removed the
stop order from the property. Mr. Cleveland stated that most of the siding
was instal-led between the two stop orders.
Mr. Carr stated that although Mr. Cleveland may have been unaware that
vinyl siding requires Historical Commission approval, a homeowner is
required to accept the responsibility to comply with the City statutes
which include not only historical appropriateness but plumbing, electrical,
zoning, etc. Mr. Carr stated that a licensed contractor must be aware that
permits are required and must be responsible for them. Mr. Carr stated
that the Commission should approve or disapprove the application based on
historical appropriateness and without consideration of the events that
transpired.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to deny the vinyl siding due to not being
appropriate to the house and being in violation of the Historical
Commission guidelines.
Mr. Carr stated that the City bent over backwards to try to catch and stop
the work from being done. Mr. Carr felt that the owner should not have to
pay for the vinyl siding since the contractor did not pull the necessary
permits and that it should be the responsibility of the contractor to
remove the siding.
Mr. Geary seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so
carried.
r
July 5, 1989, Page 6
Ms. Pamela Lousier of 5 Harrington Court asked what age a house must be to
be included in a district. Chairman Harris stated that any house located
in a district must get approval for changes regardless of its age.
Mr. Cleveland stated that he may have to go to court against the
contractor. Mr. Carr stated that the Historical Commission would be
supportive of the homeowner.
Mr. Cleveland stated that the State wants to take part of his back yard,
including his tree, for the new road. Mr. Carr stated that the Commission
would support him on .that issue as well.
Mr. Carr stated that the Clevelands should provide the contractor with the
Commission' s letter of denial and request that the siding be removed. Mr.
Carr stated that violations are liable for up to a $500./day fine.. Mr.
Carr stated that the contractor should have known that permits and
approvals are required and that the siding should be removed at the
contractor' s expense.
Mr. Cleveland withdrew the remaining items on the application.
• 72 Washington Square East
In continuation from a previous meeting, the application of John and Nancy
Sachetti to replace fence posts and alter their fence' at 72 Washington
Square East was reviewed. The applicants were not present.
Mr. Carr made a motion to deny the applications for Certificate of
Appropriateness and Certificate of Hardship without prejudice due to the
applicant or the applicant ' s representative not being present to answer
questions and provide additional information. Mr. Geary seconded the
motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Violations
82 Derby Street — Ms. Guy stated that the owner telephoned her and that he
will be submitting an application for the sign and paint colors.
281 Lafayette Street — Chairman Harris read a letter of response from the
owner who indicated that the paint on the dormers is the same as the body
but that the body color is weathered.
100 Federal Street — Mr. Carr stated that a deck had been installed in the
rear and that the edge of the deck and the railing are visible. Chairman
Harris asked if they received a building permit. Ms. Guy will check. Mr.
Carr stated that he had had a conversation with the new owner who had
stated that he bought the house with the deck but was willing to consider
changing the rail or adding a fence. Ms. Guy will send a letter to the
owner asking them to come before the Commission as per his conversation
with Mr. Carr.
Lawsuits
Lenny Femino would like to meet with Commission members regarding 14
July 5, 1989, Page 7
Chestnut Street. Jane will notify the members when a time is arranged.
• The owners of 15 Cambridge Street have filed a lawsuit.
Minutes
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the minutes. of 4/19/89. Mr. Geary
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the minutes of 5/3/89. Mr. Cook
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the minutes of 5/10/89. Mr. Cook
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Bypass Road
Chairman Harris stated that she will send a letter to Brona Simon.
There being no further business, Mr. Cook 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
JHisCom6/070589
July 19, 1989, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
• July 19, 1989
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday,
July 19, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were
Chairman Harris and Messrs. Oedel, Slam, Cook and Geary and Ms. Guy.
Chairman Harris called the meeting to order.
Public Hearings
23 River Street
The application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability for window
replacement at 23 River Street was withdrawn by the applicant and therefore
denied without prejudice by the Commission.
104 Federal Street
David M. Hart and Barbara A. Cleary presented an application for a
.Certificate of Appropriateness to construct 5' x 7 ' garden house at their
home at 104 Federal Street. Photographs and plans were presented. Mr.
Hart stated that the garden house will: be minimally visible through the
yards on Beckford Street.
Chairman Harris asked what color it will be painted. Mr. Hart stated that
it will be the same color of the house which is grey with white trim.
• Mr. Slam asked the height. Mr. Hart stated that it will be approximately
13 ' to the top of the cupola. Mr. Oedel asked if the cupula was necessary.
Mr. Hart stated that it was sort of a fantasy adornment. Chairman Harris
felt it was an unobtrusive, whimsical element.
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Oedel
seconded the motion.
Mr. Oedel asked the roofing material. Mr. Hart replied that it would be
black asphalt.
Chairman Harris asked if they needed a zoning variance for it. Mr. Hart
stated that he already received one.
The motion was voted upon, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
4 Pickering Street
Stanley and Josephine Smith presented an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to convert an existing screen porch into a year-round,
partially solar heated room at their home at 4 Pickering Street. A
schematic floor plan and elevations of the front and side elevations were
presented along with pictures of the existing porch. Ms. Smith stated that
they would like approval of the concept before submitting final drawings.
Mr. Oedel asked if it will be all glass or some glass and some black
panels. Ms. Smith replied that it will be all glass.
_ 1
July 19, 1989, Page 2
Chairman Harris stated that the bottom and top window panels will be fixed
and the center will be double hung windows.
• Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the application in concept only as
submitted with all glass combination of sash and fixed pane with a french
door. Drawings to be required for approval prior to issuance of any
certificate. The application to be continued until the next meeting. Mr.
Geary seconded the motion.
Chairman Harris asked if the porch will be coming out further. Ms. Smith
stated that the porch will go into the yard further. Mr. Slamstatedthat
therefore the footprint was changing.
Ms. Smith stated that one window will be covered and that the final
drawings will show how far forward the porch will go.
Mr. Slam asked if the porch will be built out more toward Broad Street.
Ms. Smith stated that it will be approximately 5-6" longer.
The motion was voted upon, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
12 Broad Street
Peter and Eileen Engel presented an application for a Certificate of
Non—Applicability for repairs to their home at 12 Broad Street. Work
proposed includes roof, facia, clapboard, flashing, dormer and one window
• repair/replacement. All repairs done will match existing, all repainted to
match existing and replacement shingles to be the same color.
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. W. Joel Caron presented an application for a Certificate of
Non—Applicability for the replacement of black asphalt roof shingles with
new black asphalt roof shingles at his home at 4 Andover Street.
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Oedel
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
242 Winter Street
Kathleen Long, Paul Durano and Mark Meche presented an application for a
Certificate of Non—Applicability to paint their property at 242 Winter
Street. The trim, shutters and body will be repainted their existing
colors. The shutters are to be temporarily removed to accomodate painting.
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Oedel
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the mtoion so carried.
• 146 Federal Street
Esther M. Henry presented an application for a Certificate of
July 19, 1989, Page 3
Non—Applicability to repaint the front door at her property at 146 Federal
Street. The door is to be repainted the existing color which is black.
• Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Slam
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
15 Flint Street/30 Warren Street
The Conservatory Condominium Trust presented an application for a
Certificate of Non—Applicability to repaint the body and trim of their
property at 15 Flint Street/30 Warren Street. The East and South sides are
to be repainted and the North and West sides are to be touched up using
existing colors.
Mr. Oedel made amotion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Geary
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Review of August Applications
15 Flint Street/30 Warren Street
The Commission reviewed the application of the Conservatory Condominium
Trust for a Certificate of Appropriateness to paint four sets of shutters
and a door at their property at 15 Flint Street/30 Warren Street. The door
is located on .the Flint Street side and the shutters are located on the
Warren Street side. The proposed color is Benjamin Moore Charcoal Slate
#86.
• Mr. Cook made a motion to waive the public hearing. Mr. Geary seconded the
motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the application as submitted..
Mr. Slam was concerned that the change in color will emphasize the fact
that there are no shutters on the rest of the house.
Chairman Harris stated that historically, cream is not an appropriate color
and that the charcoal will be more appropriate. Chairman Harris felt that
the change would be an improvement.
Mr. Geary seconded the motion.
Chairman Harris stated that she did not have a problem with the change
providing the full facade has shutters.
The motion was voted upon. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
5 Monroe Street
The. Commission reviewed the application of Richard and Tory Stevens for a
Certificate of Appropriateness to remove a ground level enclosed porch at
their home at 5 Monroe Street . The porch is approximately 16 x 8 x 8 and
is circa 1940.
. Mr. Cook felt that the door that will be seen after the porch is removed
may not be appropriate. Mr. Geary suggested that the applicants put up
July 19, 1989, Page 4
something to block the view to the door. Chairman Harris suggested
lattice. Mr. Geary added that the Commission cannot force them to change
the door if it is existing.
• Mr. Cook stated that the porch is in disrepair.
Mr. Oedel did not feel the public hearing should be waived. Mr. Slam was
in agreement.
Mr. Oedel stated that he would want to know what will be placed there.
Ms. Guy will ask the applicants to provide plans of what will be in place
of the porch and what will be seen including door, windows, etc.
82 Derby Street
Ms. Guy explained that Mr. John Suldenski, the owner of 82 Derby Street,
had been notified that he had done some painting and erected a sign without
the permission of the Commission. Mr. Suldenski submitted an application
for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the paint and sign which is on the
next meeting' s agenda.
Mr. Suldenski presented an application for a Certificate of
Non-Applicability to repaint the body and trim of his property at 82 Derby
Street with the existing colors. Ms. Guy stated that the applicant
informed her that when he had purchased the property, the body was partly
cream, partly green and partly in primer. Mr. Suldenski finished priming
over the green and is requesting to complete the painting of the creme
• color. Ms. Guy indicated that the applicant would be willing to paint the
property another color if the Commission suggests it.
Mr. Oedel felt that until the violation is resolved, no action on any other
application. should be taken. Mr. Slam was in agreement.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to continue the application for a Certificate of
Non-Applicability until the next meeting. Mr. Geary seconded the motion.
All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Violations
Chairman Harris read a draft letter to the owner of 271 Lafayette Street
who are in violation regarding their railing.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to send the letter as drafted. Mr. Slam seconded
the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Skerry House
There will be a tour of the Skerry House on Wednesday, July 26, 1989 at
8:30 by Ann Grady of SPNEA. There will be a meeting in Boston on July 28,
1989 at 10:00 regarding the disposition of the Skerry House. All
Commission members are encouraged to attend.
Correspondence
Chairman Harris read the letter that was sent to Brona Simon regarding the
July 19, 1989, Page 5
March Street Bridge Project.
• Chairman Harris read the letter to be sent in response to Kevin Guinee,
owner of 15 Cambridge Street, regarding his request for the minutes of
6/7/89.
There being no further business, Mr. Geary made a motion to adjourn the
public meeting. Mr. Slam seconded the motion. All were in favor and the
motion so carried.
Mr. Geary made a motion to go into Executive Session regarding lawsuits.
Mr. Slam seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Chairman Harris, the presiding officer, stated that the Commission will go
into executive session and will not reconvene after the executive session.
As per Chapter 39, Section 23A of the Massachusetts General Laws, the
minutes of the executive session may remain secret as long as publication
may defeat the lawful purposes of the executive session. After. such time
the minutes will be attached and become part of these minutes of 7/19/89.
JHisCom6/071989
•
July 19, 1989, Page 6
Executive Session
7/19/89
Lawsuits
14 Chestnut Street
Chairman Harris stated that Ms. Guy found the original application of Dr.
Thomas Murray, the owner of 14 Chestnut Street, which is the application
that Mr. Healy had lost. The application was dated September 15, 1988, was
for paint, roof and four skylights and was stamped as being received by the
Planning Department on September 15, 1989. Ms. Guy found the application
amoung Mr. Healy' s papers on July 12, 1989. Chairman Harris stated that
Atty. Femino has indicated that the Murray' s would like to settle out of
court and have not been notified that the application has been located.
Since this is a crucial element to the case, Arty. Femino suggests that the
members decide on what they would be willing to settle for.
Mr. Geary suggested that the roof be kept but the skylights be removed.
Chairman Harris stated that the Commission will probably have to give the
Murrays one skylight. Mr. Geary stated that the one facing Summer Street
is the least obtrusive and suggested that it be allowed.
Mr. Slam stated that it should be made publicly known that the items the
Murrays are given were won on the basis of technicality only. Mr. Slam
felt that this will be a bad precedent and could encourage others to do the
same thing. Mr. Oedel was in agreement and suggested that a statement be
published after the issue is settled. Mr. Geary felt that it should not be
published until after the work is completed.
. Chairman Harris asked if the members would be willing to accept the roof
color and stated that she felt the skylights were more important.
Mr. Cook stated that the roof looks like hell but that he felt the
Commission. should trade off on it for the skylights.
Mr. Oedel felt that the Commission should give him the skylight that was
flipped over from the West roof to the East roof but that it should be
tucked up as was approved. .
Ms. Guy stated that if a counter offer is necessary, then the skylight
location as was installed could be permitted.
The members were in agreement to allow the roof color and the one skylight
that had been flipped over from the West roof to the East roof but tucked
in as was approved as .an out of court settlement due to the original
application being found.
15 Cambridge Street
Ms. Guy stated that Mr. Guinee was present before the public meeting this
evening to review paint charts on file. Mr. Guinee intends to have his
wife look at the paint charts next week. Chairman Harris is unsure as to
whether or not the Guinee' s intend to proceed with the lawsuit,
July 19, 1989, Page 7
Mr. Geary made. a motion to adjourn from executive session. Mr. Oedel
seconded the motion.
Mr. Geary made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Oedel seconded the
motion.
Respectfully submitted,
JaA. Guy
Cl k of the Commission
JHisCom6/071989
August 23, 1989, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
August 23, 1989
• A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday,
August 23, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were
Chairman Harris, Messrs. Slam, Oedel, Zaharis, Cook and Pierce and Ms. Guy.
Municipal Intern, Robert Malionek was also present. Mr. Geary entered
later in the meeting. .
Chairman Harris called the meeting to order.
4 Pickering .Street
In continuation from a previous meeting, Stanley and Josephine Smith
presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to convert an
existing screen porch into a year around, partially solar heated room at
their home at 4 Pickering Street. Mr. Smith provided new drawings and
explained that the size has been cut down from 5 bays to 4. The drawings
included a typical wall section. Mr. Smith stated that he will treat the
foundation as a heat bank by having a concrete foundation with crushed
stone.
Chairman Harris stated that the house was a 1950' s colonial style house.
Mr. Pierce asked if they will be keeping the flat roof. Mr. Smith stated
, that the roof will be rebuilt but will stay flat. Mr. Pierce asked if it
could be pitched. Mr. Smith felt that it might pitch slightly but not much
due to the windows and stated that it could possibly pitch 1". The pitch
•- will be for water to drain.
Mr. Slam made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the
drawings as presented this evening. Mr. Cook seconded the motion.
Mr. Oedel asked what the porch will be painted. Mr. Smith stated that it
will be painted all white. Mr. Smith stated that the house is currently
yellow with white trim and green doors.
The motion was voted upon, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
5 Monroe Street
Richard and Tory Stevens presented an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for the removal of a ground level enclosed porch of
approximately 16 x 8 x 8, circa 1940 at their home at 5 Monroe Street.
Mr. Stevens stated that behind the porch is the exterior kitchen wall with
a glass door and no windows. Mr. Cook asked if windows had been there.
Mr. Stevens stated that there had been one. Mr. Cook asked if there is
plywood there now covering where the window was. Mr. Stevens replied in
the affirmative.
Mr. Stevens provided a drawing of what he proposes to do with the wall that
will be exposed.
Mr. Geary entered the meeting at this time.
August 23 , 1989, Page 2
Mr. Stevens stated that his application was for removal of the porch only
and did not include the alteration of the wall but that he intends to put
in a 6 panel door and a 15 pane window. Mr. Stevens provided pictures of
proposed grill work, dentils and cornices for the door. Mr. Stevens stated
• that the panes on the window would be 9 x 12 with fixed, wooden,
individually mulled sash.
Mr. Cook stated that removing the porch will provide a direct shot of the
facade and felt that the size of the proposed window may be out of context
with the remainder of the facade.
Mr. Slam made a motion to continue the application. There was no second. _
Mr. Slam felt that a new application should be submitted which included the
proposed facade alteration.
Mr. Cook made a motion to approve the application as submitted for the
removal of the porch. Mr. Zaharis seconded the. motion.
Mr. Pierce suggested that the motion be amended to be conditional that a
application be submitted for treatment of the facade by the next meeting.
Mr. Cook felt that you cannot force an applicant to submit an application
to change a facade. Chairman Harris stated that the problem is that once
the porch is torn down, what is behind it is inappropriate. Chairman
Harris stated that it is too late to get on the next meeting' s agenda and
that the application would have to. be heard the following meeting. Mr.
Stevens stated that he would submit an application for the facade
treatment.
Chairman Harris and Messrs. Pierce, Cook, Geary, and Zaharis voted in
• favor. Messrs. Oedel and Slam voted in opposition. The motion was so
carried.
82 Derby Street
The applicant could not be present regarding 82 Derby St.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to continue the application until the next meeting.
Mr. Cook seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so
carried.
46 Broad Street
James and Theodora Currier presented an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to take down a picket fence and replace it with a stockade
redwood fence which will be. painted after one year of weathering at their
home at 46 Broad Street. The application is for the fence along the rear
lot line only. The applicants were not present.
Ms. Guy provided the pictures and application of September, 1987 of which a
different portion of fence was permitted to be replaced with stockade.
Chairman Harris felt that there was some confusion as to what had been
approved previously and why, as well as what would be visible should the
current application be approved.
• Mr. Zaharis made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr.
August 23, 1989, Page 3
Cook seconded the motion.
Chairman Harris felt that the applicant should be present to answer
questions.
• Mr. Zaharis withdrew his motion. Mr. Cook withdrew his second.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to continue the application. Mr. Cook seconded
the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
180 Federal Street
Ms. Robin Eldridge presented an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to replace the rotted 2 over 2 window sashes with 6 over 6
sashes on the sides and back facades, to reroute the furnace flue to allow
the use of the fireplaces, to repaint the house and to replace a window in
the first floor bathroom with a smaller 6 over 6 window at her home at 180
Federal Street. The windows will be Brosco single pane, solid wood, with
intregal muttins. The sizes of the windows will not change except for the
bathroom. The paint colors will be Pittsburg Paint Gunstock for the body,
Parchment for the trim and black for the door. The bathroom window is on
the West elevation.
Ms. Eldridge withdrew the portion of the application relating to the
furnace flue.
Mr. Pierce asked if the stops will be retained in the windows. Ms.
Eldridge stated that she will put in aluminum balancers. Mr. Pierce
explained that it is the piece of the window that the sash slides on. Mr.
Cook stated that he wouldn' t be too worried about those being aluminum.
• Ms. Eldridge stated that she may want to paint the trim the body color.
Ms. Eldridge stated that the bathroom window on the first floor West facade
will be changed to be 9" shorter to accomodate a sink. The window is next
to a door and will match the 2 windows above, and all will be 6 over 6.
Mr. Oedel stated that the .existing window is the only one of that size on
the facade.
Mr. Slam made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the
applicant having the option to paint the trim Parchment or Gunstock. Mr.
Geary seconded the motion.
Mr. Oedel felt that on this period house, a different trim color in not
necessarily appropriate.
Ms. Eldridge withdrew the trim color.
Mr. Slam amended his motion to omit Parchment and to paint the trim
Gunstock. Mr. Geary seconded the amendment.
The motion was voted upon, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Eldridge presented an application for a Certificate of
Non—Applicability to replace the existing clapboards where needed.
•
August 23, 1989, Page 4
Mr. Cook stated that she should be sure to replace them only where
necessary.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the application as submitted and to
• include that the clapboards be the same exposure, with smooth side to the
weather. Mr. Slam seconded the motion. Mr. Pierce stated that they should
match existing. Mr. Cook asked if they were feathered. Ms. Eldridge
replied in the affirmative. Mr. Oedel stated that they are original
materials. Mr. Pierce statedthat she may only need to replace them up to
the sill lines.
Mr. Oedel amended his motion to approve the repair of existing clapboards
and any replacement is not to exceed 20% of the facade. Mr. Slam seconded
the amendment. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
72 Washington Sq. E
John and Nancy Sachetti presented an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to hinge a section of their fence at 72 Washington Square
East in order to make a gate for a driveway. Mr. Sachetti provided a
detailed drawing of the proposed alteration. Mr. Sachetti stated that. the
contractor indicated it would be difficult to duplicate the detail of the
post in iron, so he proposes to run a black iron post within the existing
post. There will be new footings. The same type hinges will be used that
are on an existing gate at their property.
Mr. Slam asked which way the gate will open. Mr. Sachetti stated that it
will open either way.
• Chairman Harris asked if the existing posts are on granite. Mr. Sachetti
stated that they are now granite but will be redone in concrete. Mr. Oedel
suggested a granite face on the concrete. Mr. Sachetti stated that part of
back fence has concrete.
Mr. Oedel stated that the leg in the center of the two posts should meet
the center piece of granite and that two black iron supports should extend
down to the block. Chairman Harris stated that the center graniteblock
should be retained, lowered, but not be flush. Mr. Oedel suggested 1"
above grade.
Chairman Harris stated that the City should reset the curb on the sidewalk
so it is flush. Mr. Sachetti stated that he would have it done if it is
not too costly for him. '
Mr. Oedel made the amendments suggested to the drawing presented.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness with the amendments noted on the drawing. Mr. Zaharis
seconded the motion.
Mr. Slam suggested a friendly amendment that if there is a problem with
resetting the granite curb, the applicant must come back and disguss it
with the Commission. Mr. Oedel so amended his motion to continue the
application to the next meeting if a problem shouldarisedue to the cost
of resetting the curb. Mr. Zaharis seconded the amendment. All were in
. favor and the motion so carried.
August 23 , 1989, Page 5
The application for a Certificate of Hardship was withdrawn.
3 Harrington Court
Pat Scialdone presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness
for paint colors at 3 Harrington Court. The body will be Philipsburg Blue
and the trim will be Montgomory White gloss. Ms. Scialdone stated that she
had not decided on the door color. Chairman Harris stated that the
Commission could approve a few colors as part of the application.
Mr. Slam asked what the trim included. The applicant stated that it would
include the sashes, cornice, window casings, corner boards and posts around
the porch.
At the applicant' s request, Chairman Harris amended the application to
include black, dark blue or slate grey for the door.
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the application as amended. Mr. Zaharis
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Scialdone presented an application for a Certificate of
Non-Applicability for the repair or replacement of existing hand rails,
ballisters and posts at the rear entrance, for the replacement of a 2 over
2' window in her son' s bedroom in kind, and to reglaze the windows in the
master bedroom. Any window replacement will be with wood, single glaze to
match existing windows in size, etc. Ms. Scialdone stated that channels
will be used inside of the windows instead of weights.
Chairman Harris indicated on the pictures presented, which windows will be
• replaced/repaired.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr.
Geary seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion was so carried
as being non-applicable due to being in kind replacements/repairs. -
11 Warren Street
Ms. Angela Nannini presented an application for a Certificate of
Non-Applicability for the construction of a wood deck and the installation
of a new door at her home at 11 Warren Street. Ms. Nannini believes that
the work is non-applicable due to not being visible from a public way. The
deck will be placed on the first floor rear of the building. It will be
12' x 141 , 26' off the ground with at 28" high wood railing. The door will
be 30" or 32" wood glazed with mullions. The door will be located to the
right of the window.
Ms. Guy presented pictures of the property which indicated that the
existing porch cannot be seen due to shrubbery in the rear of the property.
The window can be seen from one view from Broad Street and the existing
door can be seen from another view from Broad Street.
Mr. Slam was concerned that in the winter, when the leaves are off the.
trees that the deck may be visible.
Ms. Nannini stated that there is a railing there now with no rails and that
• the existing porch is 26" above grade. Mr. Pierce stated that at that
.f
August 23 , 1989, Page 6
height, a railing is not required by code. -
Mr. Slam left at this time.
• Mr. Zaharis made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr.
Oedel asked on what grounds could it be approved under a Certificate of
Non-Applicability. Chairman Harris suggested under minimum visibility but
questioned if it should be considered under appropriateness because the
bushes could get trimmed down or removed and it might then be visible.
Mr. Pierce stated that the two story porch structure would still be
retained and that the existing is not appropriate as is and therefore the
owner would be modifying. a currently non-appropriate porch. Mr. Pierce
felt that the application should be for a Certificate of Non-Applicability
for minimum visibility. Mr. Pierce felt that the deck would not get
approved under a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Mr. Oedel seconded the motion due to being minimally visible from a public
way.
Ms. Guy stated that the door will be visible and questioned if two doors
would be appropriate. Chairman Harris did not feel that both doors could
be seen from any one view.
Mr. Zaharis amended his motion to approve the deck only. Mr. Oedel
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-Applicability for
the door. Mr. Zaharis seconded the motion. There were no votes in favor.
. All votes were in opposition and the motion did not carry due to being
visible from a public way and therefore requiring approval under a
Certificate of Appropriateness.
30 Oakland Street
Mr. James Cullen presented an application to waive the Demolition Delay
Ordinance to demolish a one car wood garage at the rear of his property at
30 Oakland Street which is not in a district. The two car garage will
remain.
Mr. Geary made a motion to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance. Mr. Oedel
seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. `
Violations
Ms. Guy stated that she noticed that trim painting is underway at 254
Lafayette Street and that the owners have not submitted an application.
Ms. Guy stated that she has called and left a message for the owners and
drafted a letter to cease and desist. 'Chairman Harris authorized the
letter to be sent to the owners.
Mr. Cook stated that 387 Essex Street has begun painting and that a letter
should also be sent to them.
Ms. Guy stated that there has been no reply to the letter sent to 271
Lafayette Street regarding the railing. Ms. Guy will resend the letter
August 23 , 1989, Page 7
certified mail.
Skerry House
Chairman Harris stated that the Essex Insitute, SPNEA and other interested
parties were given a tour of the Skerry House on August 21 , 1989 to allow
them the opportunity to present a proposal to the MDPW for the salvaging of
any historic elements in the house. The house will then be demolished
after SPNEA has documented the construction and framing elements of the
house.
Chairman Harris stated that she had received the results of the UMass
archeological survey along with comments from Massachusetts Historical
Commission. Chairman Harris would like a letter sent to MHC stating that
the SHC has received the report, has found it interesting and concurs with
UMass' s recommendations that further testing should be done.
The Commission members welcomed Robert Malionek, the new Municipal Intern.
There being no further business, Mr. Cook made a motion to adjourn. Mr.
Zaharis seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
• J A. Guy
1
Ir
of the Co fission
I
JHisCom6/082389
September 6, 1989, Page 1
Salem Historical Commission
MINUTES
September 6, 1989
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday,
• September 6 , 1989 at 7 :30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were
Messrs. Carr, Zaharis, Slam and Wolfson, Ms. Guy, and Municipal Intern, Rob
Malionek. Chairman Harris was not in attendance and therefore Mr. Carr
chaired the meeting.
Mr. Carr called the meeting to order.
Public Hearings
Before any applications went before the Commission for discussion, Mr. Carr
informed those present that because there were only four members present—
constituting the quorum — it would be necessary to have a unamious vote of
those present in order for a motion to carry. Mr. Carr asked the
applicants if any would prefer to withdraw and be scheduled on the next
agenda. There were no withdrawals.
46 Broad Street
Mr. James Currier was present for the continuation of a hearing on a
Certificate of Appropriateness for fence replacement at this home at 46
Broad St.
The request before the Commisssion was to take down an existing fence and
replace it with a stockade fence. After one year of aging, the fence would
then be red—wood stained. Mr. Currier stated this had been done on other
• sides of his house and desired to complete the project.
Photographs of the area were introduced for the perusal of the members.
Mr. Slam expressed concern about the issue of visibility. I'
A map of the property was also viewed by the Commission. The side fence
was formerly approved by the Commission. Mr. Slam made a motion to approve
the application as submitted. Mr. Zaharis seconded the motion. Messrs.
Carr, Slam and Wolfson voted in favor. Mr. Zaharis voted in opposition.
Motion failed to carry.
5 Broad Street
Mr. Stephen Weimert of the Salem Planning Department appeared on behalf of
the Director of the Salem Council on Aging at 5 Broad Street.
Mr. Weimert presented a request for the removal of the present sign
designating the building as the .Salem Senior Center and in its place to
erect two signs.
Mr. Weimert introduced photographs and a plot plan. The proposal called
for two signs, one on each side of the walkway. The signs would be 34' x
40' and placed perpendicular to the street.
Mr. Slam stated that residents were. familar with the area and that the
September 6, 1989, Page 2
present sign was perhaps sufficient.
Mr. Carr was concerned as to the need for two signs to replace only one and
whether the signs should be perpendicular or parallel to the street.
• Mr. Carr further questioned the purpose of new signs because those
utilizing the center know where it is located.
Mr. Weimert stated that the present sign was small and that it blended into
the building.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to allow one new sign on either the left or the
right side of the building. There was no second.
Mr. Slam commented that he would be inclined to turn the request down but
would suggest that the Commission invite the director, Ms. Rochna, to the
next meeting to provide greater detail before the matter was voted upon.
Mr. Slam moved for continuation. Mr. Zaharis seconded. All in favor and
motion so carried.
8 Chestnut Street
Dr Richard LeBel presented an application for Certificate of Appropiateness
for the installation of a kitchen window at this home at 8 Chestnut Street.
The application stated that the window would be 36" x 36" facing the rear
of 6 Chestnut Street. Dr. LeBel circulated photographs of the site. Dr. .
LeBel also presented a scale rendition of the house, including elevation.
• Dr. LeBel stated that the window will be located on the facade facing his
abutter, Mrs. Busteed. Dr. LeBel stated that he had discussed this with
her and that she was not opposed to the installation..
Dr. LeBel stated that he would like to amend the application for the window
to be 24' x 24' . The application was so amended.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to approve the application as amended. Mr. Slam
seconded the motion. All in favor and the motion carried.
60 Derby Street -
Mrs. Jean Sortevik presented an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for window replacements at her home at 60 Derby Street.
Mrs. Sortevik presented a written proposal of the work to be done based on
the inspection done by Dan Pierce. The proposal included the replacement
of 7 sills and 1 sash on the . downstairs 6 over 6 windows with repairs to
some balances and stops The eight upstairs 2 over 2 windows will all be
replaced with 6 over 6 windows. They would be wood, single glazed with
intregalmuntins to match the first floor windows. Ms. Guy stated that in
a phone conversation with Mr. Pierce, he had indicated that 3 to 6 windows
do require replacement and the remaining need frame repairs or sash
replacement.
Mr. Slam inquired as to whether the sizes of the windows would be changed
• and Mrs. Sortevik stated that the size would not be changed.
September 6, 1989, Page 3
Mr. Carr asked which windows would be replaced. Mrs. Sortevik replied that
all upstairs windows and sills are to be replaced, including sashes (4 in
front and 2 on each side) .
• Ms. Guy stated Mr. Pierce had indicated that only 3 to 6 windows needed
replacement.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to approve the application.
Mr. Slam made suggested the motion be amended to approve the proposal dated
September 6, 1989 as submitted. Mr. Zaharis so amended his motion. Mr.
Wolfson seconded this motion. All were in favor and motion so carried.
17 Warren Street
Ms. Deborah Jackson presented an application for a Certificate of Non-
Applicability to replace a black asphalt roof with a new black asphalt roof
at her home at 17 Warren Street. Ms. Jackson did not appear.
Mr. Zaharis made a motion to approve. Mr. Wolfson seconded the motion.
All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Review of next meeting' s applications
254 Lafayette Street
Ms. Guy stated that Mr. Edward Mello was present prior to his scheduled
public hearing on September 20th in hopes that the Commission might waive
the public hearing and vote on his application. Mr. Mello was unaware of
his need to apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness in order to change
• the color of the trim at 254 Laafayette Street. The trim is to be Cottage
Red 22. The body will be re-stained with Briarwood 73.
Mr. Carr explained to Mr. Mello that waivers of public hearings are used
sparingly and then only in matters of hardship or other serious basis. Mr.
Carr did not feel this public hearing for this application should be
waived.
Mr. Slam advised Mr. Mello that it is the right of abutters to be heard on
the matter and be so notified. He also stated that it has been his
experience that the abutters do attend and do express their concerns.
There was no motion to waive the public hearing.
Other Business
82 Derby Street
In continuation from a prior meeting the applications for Certificate of
Appropriateness for paint colors and a sign and for Certificate of
Non-Applicability for painting were reviewed for 82 Derby Street.
Mr. Slam made a motion to deny without prejudice both applications for
reasons that there were questions regarding applications which could not be
answered by the submitted material.
•
September 6, 1989, Page 4
Mr. Carr suggested an amendment there was a finding that the proposed color
may not necessarily be the existing
Mr. Slam so amended his motion. Mr. Wolfson seconded the motion. All were
• in favor and motion so carried.
Approval of Minutes
The matter of approval of prior minutes was continued to the next meeting
because there was not a quorum present who had been in attendance at those
meetings and could amend and/or approve the minutes as submitted.
Correspondence
Ms. Guy stated that she had sent a cease and desist letter to Don Wallace
-
of 174 Federal Street who has started to install a skylight on this
property.
A letter from Wes Pine Millwork in reference to 51 Summer Street was read.
They would like to attend an upcoming meeting to discuss energy
conservation and window technology. Mr. Carr stated that the point of the
meeting should not be to discuss conservation but rather appropriateness
and suggested that they be scheduled for the October 4th meeting.
Ms. Guy stated that she received copies of three letters from James
Treadwell regarding Skerry House. Copies will sent to the members.
Mrs. Joan Sweeney forwarded additional data regarding the development in
Blubber Hollow (Salem)/Howley Street (Peabody) . Copies will be distributed
to the Board.
There being no further business to come before the Commission, Mr. Slam
made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Carr seconded the motion.
All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Marie V. Whitmore
Acting Clerk
Marie/090689
d
September 20, 1989, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
September 20, 1989
• A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday,
September 20, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. at One Salem Green, .Salem, MA. Present
were Chairman Harris, Messrs. Zaharis, Slam, Geary and Ms. Guy. (Mr. Carr
arrived later in the meeting. )
Chairman Harris called the meeting to order and informed the applicants
that since there were only four members present, all four votes would be
needed for approval of any application. Chairman harris stated that those
desiring could withdraw their applications and reschedule. There were no
withdrawals.
Mr. Carr joined the meeting at this time.
Public Hearings
5 Broad Street
Mrs. Jean—Marie Rochna, Director of the Council on Aging was present. for
the continuation of a public hearing for an application for a Certificate
of Appropriateness to install two new signs at 5 Broad Street. Mrs. Rochna
presented photographs of the present sign,and a sketch of the proposed
signs. The signs will be wood, 1 .3/4 x 34 x 40, two sided, Ronan dark blue
with 22 karat gold leaf indented letters.
Mr. Slam stated that there were no other signs on Broad Street and that he
• was concerned with the location, size and the need for that much signage.
Mrs. Rochna outlined the various services of the center and stated that
many activities were attended by people from out of town and not just
Salem' s elderly.
Chairman Harris asked if the signs proposed were in conformity with the
City ordinance. Ms. Guy stated that the Planning Department is working
with the Council on Aging and that she could check the status. Chairman
Harris asked if the sign was too large for the facade according to the
ordinance. Ms. Guy stated that because the parking lot of the center
extended to the corner of Winthrop Street, the lot was viewed as a corner
lot which would allow both facades to be considered for maximum square
footage.
Mr. Geary stated that he would favor one sign in front of the building,
perpendicular to the street. Mr. Carr agreed with Mr. Geary.
Mr. Carr moved to approve a revised application for one sign to be placed
to the right of the walkway leading to the main door, perpendicular to the
street, with dimensions as shown in the submitted drawing, conditional to
the conformance to the ordinance and the approval of the City. Mr. Geary
seconded the motion.
Mr. Zaharis suggested an amendment that the location not be limitted to the
left or right, but left to the discretion of the Director to determine the
40 _ best side for visibility. Mr. Carr so amended his motion. Mr. Geary
seconded the amendment. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
September 20, 1989, Page 2
405A Essex Street
•
Atty. Donald Koleman of Cooper's Realty Trust appeared befor the Commission
on an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a new entrance,
repainting and sign restoration at 405A Essex Street. Atty. Koleman
presented photographs of the property as it was in the 1960' s with the Esso
pumps. Atty. Koleman stated that although the gas tanks were removed, he
would like the building to appear as it did at that time. Atty. Koleman
stated that the present overhead door was an emergency replacement and
presents a security problem if he puts back the style which has a small
pass through door. Atty. Koleman presented sketches for a new access
entrance to the right of the overhead door. Atty. Koleman further plans to
repaint the building white with green, retaining "Cooper' s Garage" and a
small sign "Competition Motors d/b/a Cooper' s Garage".
Mr. Carr asked why the basement door couldn't be used as an entrance.
Atty. Koleman said that there was an enormous set of concrete stairs there.
Mr. Carr asked if the same kind of door could be located in the large
door. Atty. Koleman replied that it was not feasible for security reasons.
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Slam
seconded the motion.
Atty. Koleman stated that plans of the door's location were still with the
architect and told the Commission that he was interested in symmetry. Mr.
Carr stated that he approved of the concept but that he would like to have
the architect's plans before approving a Certificate. Atty. Koleman stated
that he was being pressured by the Building Inspector as he is in violation
• of the ordinance and needs permission for the sign.
Mr. Geary withdrew his motion.
Chairman Harris asked if Atty. Koleman was getting an antique sign for the
pumps and if so, what would be the material. Atty. Koleman replied that he
was trying to get a reproduction, and if he could not, he would use
perplex, which is transluscent plastic that will not be lit. The sign
would be red letters with a white background.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve an oval reproduction or perplex Esso sign
conforming to the photograph, provided it be installed in the existing sign
pole extension. Mr. Geary seconded the motion. Messrs. Carr, Geary, Slam
and Zaharis voted in favor. Chairman Harris voted in opposition. The
motion was so carried.
Mr. Carr stated that the property was the first garage in the City. Mr.
Carr asked if the original style doors pulled out sideways could be
installed as he might object to the new doors if the intent was to restore
the building to its original appearance. Chairman Harris stated that the
doors rolled overhead. Mr. Carr stated that they appeared to be more
contemporary. Atty. Koleman stated that Ray St. Pierre, former owner,
indicated that the doors were always overhead doors.
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the remaining portions of the
• application as submitted contingent upon the approval of the drawing and to
continue the hearing until the next meeting. Mr. Clam seconded the motion.
Chairman Harris and Messrs. Zaharis, Slam and Geary voted in favor. Mr.
1
September 20, 1989, Page 3
Carr voted in opposition. The motion was so carried.
• 254 Lafayette Street
Mr. Edward Mello presented an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for trim color on his property at 254 Lafayette Street.
Chairman Harris stated that the body will be repainted with Briarwood 73, a
similar color to the existing, and the trim will be changed to Cottage Red
#22.
Mr. Slam made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Geary
seconded the motion. Chairman Harris and Messrs. Carr, Slam and Geary
voted in favor. Mr. Zaharis voted in opposition. The motion was so
carried.
17 Warren Street
Ms. Deborah Jackson presented an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to remove asbestos siding and repair or replace clapboards
as necessary, the same exposure, smooth side to weather and for paint
colors at her home at 17 Warren Street. Ms. Jackson provided a color chart
for the Commission to view. The body will be Salem Paint 37A914 (light
grey) , the trim will be Sherman Williams Perma White, the shutters will be
Benjamin Moore, Exterior Dark Blue 133 34 and the door will be Benjamin
Moore Georgian Brick HC-50.
Ms. Angela Nannini of 11 Warren Street spoke in favor of the application.
• Mr. Zaharis made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr.
Geary seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
18 Washington Square W.
Mr. Robert Pellegrini appeared on behalf of the Hawthorne Hotel for a
Certificate of Appropriateness to install a canvas awning over the entrance
to the Tavern on the Green at 18 Washington Sq. W. The awning will be the
same color as the existing awnings at street level, with white letters.
The entrance is located to the left of the main door.
Mr. Pellegrini presented sketches and photographs showing that the doorway
to the Tavern on the Green was recessed. Mr. Pellegrini stated that
"Tavern on the Green" would appear on all three sides of the awnings.
Mr. Carr was concerned that the facade would appear too cluttered. Mr.
Slam stated that he had seen this type of awning arrangement in New York
that worked well and he would favor this.
Mr. Slam made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Geary
seconded the motion. Chairman Harris and Messrs. Zaharis, Slam and Geary
voted in favor. Mr. Carr voted in opposition. All were in favor and the
motion so carried.
11 Warren Street
• Angela Nannini presented an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to install a new french door painted white at her home at _
September 20, 1989, Page 4
11 Warren Street. Ms. Nannini presented a drawing of the door and stated
that she will remove the existing window on the rear facade so that the new
• door will open onto the porch. The door will be 8'H x 61W, wood, single
glazed, with intregal mullions. Ms. Nannini stated that she may decide
that she would prefer an atrium door to the French door.
Deborah Jackson of 17 Warren Street spoke in favor of the application.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the
option of a french door with screen or an atrium door at the owner's
discretion. Mr. Geary seconded the motion. All were in favor and the
motion so carried.
5 Monroe Street
Richard and Victoria Stevens presented an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to remove six 6 over 1 windows and replace with 6 over 6
wood, single pane windows with intregal muttons to match existing, to
install a new door and window on the facade of the rear addition where the
enclosed porch was removed and for paint colors. Photographs and drawings
were presented. Option 1 is for one window with 15 lights. Option 2 was
for 2 windows with 9 lights each. Mr. Stevens stated that the new window
on the rear facade could be either awning or casement. The paint colors
proposed were Clarksville Grey HC102 for the body, blackforthe shutters
and door, and Pratt and Lambert YG456W Foam for the trim.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the replacement of the six 6 over 1
windows with 6 over 6 as presented. Mr. Geary seconded the motion. All
• were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Carr felt the size of the new window in Option 1 appeared overscaled.
Chairman Harris stated that she preferred two windows, 6 over 6.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve Option 2 as submitted. Mr. Slam seconded
the motion.
Chairman Harris questioned how the window would open. Mr. Slam preferred
that the window open to the side. Mr. Carr stated that he would leave it
to the option of the owner to open awning or casement .
The motion was voted upon, all were in favor and the motion was so carried.
141 Federal Street
Steven Gregory and. Katy Bratun presented an application for a Certificate
of Appropriateness for porch removal, new addition and restoration of a bay
window. Mr. Gregory presented a photograph of the property taken in 1890.
Mr. Gregory submitted a sketch and explained his proposal.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted for the
demolition and removal of the rear porch and the restoration of the
original oriel window bay on the second floor. Mr. Geary seconded the
motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
•
September 20, 1989, Page 5
Other Business
• 14 Chestnut Street
Dr. Thomas Murray presented an application for a Certificate of
Non-Applicability for replacement of clapboards at 14 Chestnut Street. The
application indicated the portions of the house that will be replaced with
redwood or cedar clapboards, similar to existing with smooth side to
weatherandsame exposure as, existing. Dr. Murray stated that his painter
and contractor told him it would be more practical to replace the
clapboards with the smooth side in. Mr. Carr stated that historical
appropriateness would have to be adhered to.
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the application to replace clapboards as
necessary, smooth side out, existing exposure to weather with redwood or
cedar clapboards. Mr. Zaharis seconded the motion. All were in favor and
the motion so carried.
` 374 Essex Street
The Tosho Company presented an application for a Certificate of
Non-Applicability to repaint existing colors at 374 Essex Street. Laurie
Michalski represented the Tosho Company. The body will be Charcoal Slate
86, with white trim and black doors.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as presented. Mr. Geary
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion was so carried due
to being an in-kind replacement.
Approval of Minutes
Ms. Guy reviewed the minutes to determine if the members present
constituted a quorum of members at the meetings of the minutes awaiting
approval. Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the minutes of 5/17/89,
6/14/89, 6/21/89 and 8/23/89. Mr. Slam seconded the motion. All were in
favor and the motion so carried.
The minutes of 6/7/89, 7/5/89 and 7/19/89 will be placed on the next
meeting's agenda.
Correspondence
Additional information was received from Joan Sweeney regarding Mike
Harrington's development proposed for the Blubber Hollow area. After
review, the Commission directed Ms. Guy to send a letter to Mrs. Sweeney
indicating their empathy but explaining that the Commission had no funding
nor personnel for archeological research. Ms. Guy stated that she will
contact Massachusetts Historical Commission to check the 106 review
requirements.
Chairman Harris read a letter from Valerie Talmage of MHC to Robert Johnson
of the MDPW regarding archaeological findings at the Skerry House agea.
• Violations
Ms . Guy stated that she received a complaint regarding vinyl windows
September 20, 1989, Page 6
installed at 403-405-4052 Essex Street. Ms. Guy stated that this can be
discussed with the owner when he comes in next meeting for approval of dome
awnings.
A letter was received from Clifford Abelson regarding the ballasters in
violation as his property. Mr. Geary made a motion that a letter to the
legal department be sent for enforcement. Mr. Carr seconded the motion.
All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy stated that a notice of violation was sent certified mail to Don
Wallace regarding skylight installation at 174 Federal Street. After 2
attempts, the post office returned the letter unclaimed. Ms . Guy stated
that Mr. Wallace has requested information regarding the City' s Home
Improvement Program and. that the Commission's letter was mailed with the
information he requested.
Ms. Guy stated that there has been no attempt by Mr. Bruce Haskell of 100
Federal Street to apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness to resolve the
deck issue. Mr. Carr made a motion that a letter be sent to the Assistant
City Solicitor regarding the deck in violation. Mr. Carr said the letter
should state that the Commission has had no response from the owner and
therefore the City should commence legal action within 30 days. A copy of
the letter should be sent to Mr. Haskell. Mr. Geary seconded the motion.
All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy stated that Mr. Suldenski has indicated that he will reapply for
the sign and paint at 82 Derby Street.
Discussion
Mr. Carr was concerned that the Commission may have given additional weight
on applications for off—street parking due to the personal plights of the
applicants. Mr. Carr noted that, having improved their property, many
owners have, coincidentally or not, put their properties on the market and
that the applications may not have been for hardships but rather to
increase property value. Mr. Carr noted that 72 Washington Square, which
recently received approval to hinge a gate for car safety, has a for sale
sign on the house. The other members felt that the appropriateness of the
application was the factor on which their decisions were made and that the
properties being for sale would not change their positions.
There being no furhter business, Mr. Zaharhis made a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Geary seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so
carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Marie Whitmore/ ane Guy
• Minutes/092089
October 4, 1989, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
October 4, 1989
• A regular meeting of Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday,
October 4, 1989 at 7:30, at One Salem Green, Salem MA. Present were
Chairman Harris, Messrs. Carr, Cook, Oedel and Wolfson and Ms. Guy.
Chairman Harris called the meeting to order.
Public Hearings
405A Essex Street
In a continuation from a previous meeting, the application of Cooper' s
Realty Trust for a new entrance and repainting was reviewed.
Due to the applicants not being present, Mr. Carr made a motion to
continue the application to next meeting. Mr. Wolfson seconded the
motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
403-405-4052 Essex St.
Benjamin Allen presented an application for Certificate of
Appropriateness for dome awnings that were already installed at his
property at 403-405-4052 Essex Street. Pictures of the awning as
installed were presented.
Chairman Harris stated that the Commission had been informed that vinyl
windows had also been installed at the property. In viewing the
• pictures, Mr. Carr was concerned that a doorway had also been replaced
without approval.
Mr. Allen stated he had replaced the door but that it was replaced in
kind. Mr. Carr felt that the doorway was previously centered and not
off-center as is now. The survey form for the property was reviewed.
Mr. Carr stated that the survey form shows the windows were 2 over 1 and
now they are 1 over 1 . Mr. Oedel stated that the back windows are 2
over 2.
Mr. Cook stated that while windows in front were vinyl, the building
still was early 20th Century. Mr. Allen stated that he had installed
the vinyl windows in the front only and not the back of the building.
Mr. Carr responded that he had no problem with the windows due to the
nature of the building but that he did have a problem with the door.
Mr. Carr was unsure about the awnings. Mr. Carr stated that the survey
form pictured a centered door and that current door was not in
conformance to guidelines.
Mr. Allen said he purchased the building in May 1988 and at that time
the door was not centered.
Mr. Cook made a motion to approve the application as submitted. There
was no second.
•
October 4, 1989, Page 2
Mr. Carr said action on the application could not be taken until the
violation is resolved and that the applicant must prove that the doorway
was not centered at the time of his purchase. Mr. Carr felt that this
could be proven by the applicant obtaining pictures from the realtor.
Mr. Carr felt that if the door was not centered, it could be approved
• under hardship due to Mr. Allen having inherited the violation.
Mr. Carr moved to .defer action until the next meeting and that the
application should reflect all changes of items not receiving prior
approval. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion.
Mr. Allen stated that he would not be able to obtain a Certificate of
Occupancy unless the Commission approves the awnings. Mr. Carr stated
that the Commission cannot act on an application when there are
violations outstanding and that Mr. Allen should have received approvals
for the work prior to commencing it. Mr. Cook was in disagreement and
felt that action should be taken on the application to allow Mr. Allen
to received the Certificate of Occupancy.
Mr. Allen stated that he had not known that this property was in an
historicdistrict and felt that there are several violations throughout
the City that the Commission is not enforcing. Mr. Allen stated that he
had sold his property at 27 North Street and the new owner installed -
vinyl windows with the Commission' s approval. Ms. Guy stated that the
Commission is trying to get to each of them.
Mr. Carr told Mr. Allen to submit consolidated application which the
Commission would place on the agenda for the next meeting.
Chairman Harris and Messrs. Carr, Odell and Wolfson voted in favor. Mr.
• Cook voted in opposition. The motion was so carried.
Mr. Oedel stated that Mr. Allen .should be contacted 3 days before the
next meeting to be sure he has obtained a photograph from the realtor.
Ms. Guy was concerned that approval of the vinyl windows would set a
precedent.
265-267 Lafayette Street
265-267 Lafayette Street Realty Trust presented an application for
Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors at 265-267 Lafayette
Street. The body of the house will be Sherman Williams Heritage II
Victorian Rose, the trim Gazebo White, the shutters and door Black and
the detail work/inserts Gray Ashler. The trim includes the windows and
sashes. The details included the pillar insets.
The applicants requested that they be given the option of installing
shutters. Chairman Harris stated that the shutters would have to be
hung with real brackets, be of wood, functional, full height and width
of window with the angles of the louvers pointed so that when closed
they will shed the rain.
Mr. Odell moved to approve the application as amended with the owner' s
otion to install shutters as stipulated by Chairman Harris and that they
be black, be on at least the front facade and that no facade has
•
October 4, 1989, Page 3
incomplete shutters. Mr. Carr seconded the motion. All were in favor
and the motion so carried.
Other Business
• 5 Broad Street
Ms. Guy stated that the Council on Aging would like to have their
Certificate of Appropriateness for their sign amended to reflect changes
in the sign posts due to the sign now being two sided. Ms. Guy
presented a drawing of the changes.
Mr. Odell moved to approve new amended drawing with recommendation
upright cross piece butt against each other rather than extending as in
drawing. Mr. Cook seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion
was so carried.
265-267 Lafayette Street
265-267 Lafayette Street Realty Trust presented an application for a
Certificate of Non-Applicability for the replacement of aluminum gutters
as necessary.
Mr. Odell moved to approve the application for the replacement of
.aluminum gutters anddownspoutsas necessary with in kind replacment.
Mr. Cook seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so
carried..
Review of Violations
• Ms. Guy reviewed the following violations:
27 North Street - Mr. Oedel suggested that the vinyl windows be
checked.
174 Federal Street - Ms. Guy stated she re-mailed the letter to Don
Wallace on 9/20 and has not had any response. It should be
discussed at the next meeting to allow sufficient time for Mr.
Wallace to respond.
82 Derby Street - Ms. Guy stated Mr. Suldenski received a Notice of
Denial Sept. 7 and he was told to re-file within 30 days or the sign
must be removed. The thirty days expires October 8, 1989. Mr.
Odell moved that the Commission send a letter to Attorney Femino for
enforcement on October 10. Mr. Carr seconded the motion and
suggested that Attorney Femino agressively pursue fines of up to
$500 per day.
81 Derby Street - Mr. Carr asked Ms. Guy to look into yellow vinyl
siding installed at 81 Derby Street.
51 Summer Street Ms. Guy read letter from Wes-Pine Millwork
regarding the windows. The letter proposed replacing one window for
the Commission' s approval with single strength B glass. Ms. Guy
stated that Mr. Pierce had informed her of the type, class and
quality glass that the Commission requires and Ms. Guy read the
•
October 4, 1989, Page 4
Commission' s reply to the proposal which specified these
requirements.
• 271 Lafayette Street — Ms. Guy reported that a letter was sent Atty.
Femino requesting his enforcement regarding Mr. Abelson' s violation
for ballasters.
1 Harrington Court — Mr. Carr asked the status of the removal of the
vinyl siding. Ms. Guy stated that she will ask Atty. Femino if he
knows the status.
Approval of Minutes
Because there was no quorum of members present to vote on the minutes of
6/7/89 and 7/19/89, they will be continued until the next agenda
Mr. Cook moved to accept the minutes of July 5, 1989. Mr. Oedel
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Document Review
Ms. Guy presented a packet to the Commission. The packet contained a
draft letter to all property owners in historic districts, a list of
procedures, a description of application types and the SHC brochure
which will be sent in a mailing. The brochure also encluded copies of
the 3 forms used by the Commission. Ms. Guy asked that all the members
review the forms so that they can be approved at the next meeting.
Ms. Guy said she is implementing a system with the Assessor' s office
whereby she is notified monthly of all transfers of property in
Historical District. Letters welcoming new owners and advising them of
the SHC regulations will be sent monthly. A draft of the new owner
letter will be mailed to the members for review and approval at the next
meeting.
There being no further business to come before the Board on motion made
by Mr. Cook to adjourn and seconded by Mr. Carr the meeting adjourned at
8:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Marie hitmore/Jane A Guy
Minutes/100489
October 18, 1989, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
OCTOBER 18, 1989
• A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday,
October 18, 1989 at 7:30 p.m.' at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were
Chairman Harris, Messrs. Oedel, Slam, Cook, Geary and Pierce and Ms. Guy.
Chairman Harris called the meeting to order.
Public Hearings
405A Essex Street
In continuation from a previous meeting for an application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness, Mr. Donald Koleman, representing Cooper' s
Realty Trust, provided drawings which show the size and location of the new
entrance at 405A Essex Street. Mr. Koleman stated that he preferred a flat
door with no windows or panels and for it to be metal or solid core wood.
The colors of the buildingwould be. a approximately the same and "1916" would
PP Y
be painted on the top of the building. The clock would be removed and
"Esso" would be painted in its place. The large sign will be removed to
accomodate the new door. Mr. Koleman noted that the door on the right side
of the facade has a panel with glass in it.
Mr. Slam made a motion to .approve the application as submitted and stated
that he had no problems with a steel door for this use which is industrial.
Mr. Geary seconded the motion.
• Mr. Oedel was uncomfortablewith the door and preferred one panel on the
bottom with wired safety glass in the middle. Chairman Harris was bothered
by a steel door. Mr. Koleman stated that glass offers little security.
Mr. Oedel suggested wired safety glass. Mr. Koleman stated that wired
safety glass is not available in the paneled configuration, but is
available in the steel. Mr. Koleman stated that wired safety glass still
offers only limited security. Mr. Pierce stated that since there are
windows on the front of the building, they would defeat the purpose of the
steel door. Mr. Pierce stated that he would be comfortable with a paneled
door without glass.
Mr. Slam amended his motion to substitute the metal door for a Brosco
M-1073 or similar design. Mr. Geary seconded the amendment.
Mr. Pierce asked if it was possible to put the door on the side of the
building. Mr. Koleman stated that the building is his property line and
that there was no other place to put the door due to the stairs.
Mr. Mike Kantorosinsky of 407 Essex Street stated that there is no other
location to put a new entrance.
Mr. Pierce stated that he liked the large sign. Mr. Koleman stated that he
could paint the sign on the door. Mr. Slam liked the idea. Chairman
Harris stated that they could either put the sign on the overhead door or a
smaller sign above the new door.
Mr. Pierce stated for the record that he would not have approved the roll
October 18, 1989, Page 2
up door that has been installed. Mr. Slam stated for the record that Mr.
Carr would also agree with Mr. Pierce.
• There were no other amendments to the motion. The motion was voted upon.
Chairman Harris and Messrs. Cook, Slam, Oedel and Geary voted in favor.
Mr. Pierce voted in opposition. The motion was so carried.
403-405-4052 Essex Street
Atty. John Vallis was present to represent Mr. Benjamin Allen in
continuation of his application for a Certificate of Appropriateness from a
previous meeting for his property at 403-405-4052 Essex Street. Chairman
Harris summarized the last meeting and stated that the application now
before the Commission is for 3 dome awnings, vinyl windows on the front
facade from 2 over 1 to 1 over 1 and replacement of 3 wood doors. All the
work applied for has already been completed.
Mr. Vallis provided the realty broker' s pictures of 4/1/88 which showed the
doorways being off-center. Mr. Pierce stated that the survey form showing
the doors centered appeared to be an optical illusion and felt that the
doorways had always been off-center.
Mr. Pierce asked if the fan light is still there under the awnings. Mr.
Allen replied in the affirmative.
Atty. Vallis provided a copy of the deed as well as letters of two
abutters, Mr. David Schaejbe and Mr. Mike Kantorosinski, writing in favor
of the work performed.
• Mr. Cook stated that the doors appear mahogany with a panel pulled out and
replaced with a stained glass lettered panel. Mr. Allen stated that Brosco
makes the door that way for appearance and hallway light.
Mr. Cook made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Geary
seconded the motion.
Mr. Kantorosinski of 407 Essex Street stated that the building had always
been an eyesore and that Mr. Allen has made much improvement to it, inside
and outside. Mr. Kantorosinski stated that the neighborhood looks much
nicer now. Mr. Kantorosinski added that the windows that were replaced
were beyond repair. j
Ms. Guy reminded the Commission that she has been receiving telephone calls
from a person named Steve living on Federal Street who is questioning if
the vinyl windows are allowed to remain at 403-405-4052 Essex Street, will
he be allowed to put vinyl windows in his home. Ms. Guy stated that any
motion approving the windows should be worded so as not to set a precedent.
Mr. Slam stated that he would prefer to vote on each item seperately
because he would have to vote against the motion as stated. Mr. Slam
stated that he did not like the awnings but felt they were a temporary item
and could go along with them. Mr. Slam stated that he felt the door was
okay but that the windows go against the Commission' s guidelines. -
• Mr. Oedel stated that he would have to vote against the motion for the
windows under a Certificate of Appropriatenss. Mr. Oedel stated that the
October 18, 1989, Page 3
windows are not appropriate for the building style or age but that since
the building is of little historic significance he could vote in favor of a
Certificate of Hardship.
• Mr. Cook asked that the Commission consider that the Bowditch School was
approved for vinyl windows and felt that the Commission was stretching to
require such adherence to the guidelines for such an insignificant
structure.
Mr. Pierce felt it was a shame that the work had been done before coming
before the Commission and stated that the purpose of the Commission is to
help owner' s make the right choices. Mr. Pierce stated that the Commission
would have supported Mr. Allen to improve his property but with the correct
choices. Mr. Pierce stated that violations should not be voted for under a
Certificate of Appropriateness.
Mr. Cook stated that the work is completed and asked how far the Commission
is willing to go to the wall for the violations.
Mr. Cook withdrew his motion. Mr. Geary withdrew his second.
Mr. Cook made a motion to approve the 3 doors and 3 awnings under a
Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. Geary seconded the motion. All were
in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Cook made a motion to approve a Certificate of Hardship for the vinyl
windows because:
• - The work affects only the building on which the work is done and not
the historic district in general because the building is of
relatively recent constuction as it is a post-fire building while
most of the structures in the district predate the 1914 fire by 40 to
150 years;
- It does not cause substantial detriment to the public welfare because
the building does not have any particular architectural or historic
significance to the historic district;
- It does not cause departure from the intent and purposes of the
amended Historic District Act because itisa building of more recent
design and therefore the windows do not detract;
Mr. Geary seconded the motion.
Mr. Pierce suggested a friendly amendment that the Commission is not
setting a precident due to the unique exception for the reasons herefore
mentioned (as listed above.) . -
Mr. Slam stated that the Commission has made a consistent effort to treat
the salvages of the district the same as the main buildings and that saying
it does not set a precedent does not mean it won't. Mr. Slam stated that
in approving it, it still sets a precedent and that he will vote against
the motion.
Mr. Cook stated that Mr. Slam is obsessed with precedent and that each
decision is based on the facts in front of the Commission for each
• individual application and that the Commission can approve or deny based on
each individual situation.
October 18, 1989, Page 4
Mr. Pierce also disagreed with Mr. Slam and believed that each application
is different and that the particular criteria of this application may not
be met on another application. '
• The motion was voted upon. Chairman Harris and Messrs. Cook, Oedel, Geary
and Pierce voted in favor. Mr. Slam voted in opposition. The motion was
so carried.
48 Chestnut Street
Philip and Shirly Burke presented an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to accomodate a driveway at their home at 48 Chestnut
Street. The application states that 9' of fence on the right side of the
house as viewed from the street has been removed temporarily. Three feet
represent an existing gate, which will be re-attached to open outward from
the left support post. The 6 ' section on the right will be re-attached to
open outward as well. Whether or not a vehicle is in the driveway, the
fence will always be in a closed position, maintaining the integrity of the
fence line because the fence can only swing outward onto the sidewalk. The
application stated that the bottom of the 6' section of fence will be
consistent with the bottom of the 3 ' gate.
Chairman Harris stated that Tolles' Architecture in Salem shows the gate
not having any posts.
Mr. Burke stated that he will modify the application slightly so that the
bottom of the 6 ' section will remain as is but cut up about 3/4" and that
he will put a small wheel that the 6" on the bottom of the fence will hide.
• Mr. Burke stated that he would also like to add a 1" post to go into the
ground to secure the fence.
Chairman Harris was comfortable with the gate opening outward.
Mr. Oedel stated that 3/4" may not be adequate and that more may need to be
taken up.
Mr. Slam asked if there were any code restrictions of a gate opening out
into the street. While no one was positive of an answer, Mr. Cook felt
that the code was not pertinent since the gate could not be left open.
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the application. Mr. Cook seconded the
motion.
Mr. Pierce asked if the roller wheel would mean there would be no diagonal
wires or bracing to keep the fence stiff. Mr. Burke stated that he would
try not to use any wires or bracing.
Mr. Slam asked how the gate will be latched. Mr. Burke stated that it
would be secured with a post into the ground. Chairman Harris stated that
she would not want any diagonal bracing.
Mr. Geary amended his motion to prohibit any diagonal bracing on the 6 '
section. Mr. Cook seconded the amendment.
. The motion was voted upon, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
October 18, 1989, Page 5
38 Broad Street
Mr. John Szala presented an application for a Certificate of
• Appropriateness for paint colors at his home at 38 Broad Street. The
application is to paint the front and rear porches, all doors, basement
window trim and shutters in Hancock paint, #680 Coastline white. The body
and remaining trim to remain the same. Mr. Szala stated that everything
else is a mustard color and that the house is vinyl sided. Mr. Szala
stated that everything that is white will remain white including the posts
and lattice and that the shutters will be changed from black to white. Mr.
Szala stated that the windows are clad.
Mr. Oedel stated that white shutters will look odd. Mr. Pierce and
Chairman Harris were in agreement.
Mr. Szala amended his application to leave the shutters black.
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the application as amended. Mr. Cook
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion was so carried.
Other Business
23 Charles Street
Adelbert St. Pierre presented an application to waive the Demolition Delay
Ordinance for a two car block and stucco garage at 23 Charles Street.
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.
Mr. Slam requested that future requests include a picture of the entire
property and not just the proposed structure for demolition.
180 Derby Street
Mr. Ralph Hobbs, member of the Board of Trustees and Chairman of the
Building and Grounds Committee for the Brookhouse Home for the Aged was
present to discuss the proposed demolition of a wall at the rear of 180
Derby Street. Mr. Hobbs stated that some of the employees would like a
portion of the rear wall removed to accomodate more parking and that the
Board of Trustees would like an opinion from the Commission. Mr. Hobbs
stated that he would hate to disturb what is there and would like a letter
from the Commission opposing the proposed demolition of historic fabric.
Due to the absence of a formal application, the Commission informally
considered the demolition and Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the
demolition in concept. Mr. Geary seconded the motion. There were no votes
in favor. The motion did not carry and the Commission will send a letter
to the Board of Trustees informing them that the Commission was not
favorable to entertaining an application for such demolition.
Minutes
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the minutes of 7/19/89 as submitted.
. Mr. Geary seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so
carried.
October 18, 1989, Page 6
Mr. Oedel made a motion to amend the minutes of 6/7/89 as follows:
• - That on page 3, third from last 'paragraph under 15 Cambridge Street,
last line be continued with "as well as neighborhood input. Color
scheme is not traditional color scheme for age and style of house."
Mr. Slam seconded the motion. Chairman Harris and Messrs. Cook, Slam and
Oedel voted in favor. Messrs. Pierce and Geary abstained from voting.
Document Review
After making amendments to the property owner letters, summary and
procedures, the Commission believed that the documents presented were
appropriate to be sent to all property owners in the districts.
Mr. Slam suggested that all historic district property owners residing
outside the City be sent their mailing certified mail.
Mr. Slam suggested that the Commission send periodic reminders after the
mailing.
Violations
81 Derby St. (Vinyl siding) - Ms. Guy will draft a letter to the owner
stating that they are in violation and that all work requires a
Certificate.
27 North Street (Vinyl windows) - Ms. Guy will draft a letter to the owner
is
stating that they are in violation and that they should apply for a
Certificate.
174 Federal Street (Skylights) - Mr. Oedel will call Mr. Wallace and ask
him to come before the Commission to avoid legal action by the City
Solicitor.
1 Harrington Court (Vinyl siding) - Ms. Guy will draft a letter to the
owner saying the Commission is willing to help support the owner should the
issue go to court and inquire about the status of the removal of the siding
installed.
Mr. Pierce asked that Ms. Guy check to see if a window had been replaced at
the front facade of 78 Washington Square East.
Correspondence
Ms. Guy stated that she has received a copy of a letter to Elsa Fitzgerald
of Massachusetts Historical Commission from Pioneer Village Management
Associates stating that they are in disagreement of the determination of
eligibility prepared by Claire Dempsey which determined that Pioneer
Village was ineligible for National Register status. The SHC had concurred
with Ms. Dempseys finding' s. Ms. Guy stated that the MHC is currently
reviewing the information and will concur or disagree in the near future.
From 11/2/89 to 12/1/89 there will be an exhibit of photographs from the
. Historic American Buildings Survey in Beverly presented by the Bank of
Boston and the MHC.
October 18, 1989, Page 7
By—pass Road/Skerry House
Mr. Pierce presented copies of letter from Don Klima to James Walsh dated
. 9/14/89 and from James Walsh to Jim Treadwell dated 9/7/89 which indicate
that the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has indicated that they
feel the FHWA should reopen the Section 106 Review Process. Mr. Pierce
stated that the Commission has an obligation to participate in the process.
Mr. Pierce added that the Commission was not provided copies of these
letters because the FHWA and Advisory Council do not know that the
Commission wants to know. Mr. Pierce suggested a letter be sent requesting
that the Commission participate in the 106 review process and receive
copies of all correspondence related to the project.
There being no further business, Mr. Geary made a motion to adjourn. Mr.
Oedel seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Ja A. Guy
C1 k of the C mmission
JHisCom7/101889
Salem Historical Commission
Minutes of Meeting
November 1 , 1989
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held
on Wednesday, November 1 , 1989 at 7:30 P.M. in the second floor
conference room at One Salem Green.
Present were: Chairman Annie Harris, John Carr, Dan Geary,
Dick Oedel, Dan Pierce, Russell Slam, Jane Guy, and Eileen Sacco,
Clerk.
PUBLIC HEARING - 57 SUMMER STREET - CERTIFICATE OF
APPROPRIATENESS - REPLACEMENT OF WINDOW SASHES AND PAINT COLORS
57 Summer Street - Paint Colors
Judith A. Ritchie and Elaine Hogan were present at the meeting
to request approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness to change
the colors of their property located at 57 Summer Street. Ms.
Ritchie submitted a letter to the Historical Commission detailing
her request which Chairman Harris read to the Commissioners.
Her letter stated that the colors chosen include a pale brownish
color with a slight pink or salmon tinge for the main house
color. The trim paint chosen is an off white. Shutter and
• door color is planned to be a dark brownish red tone. She noted
that these colors were chosen for their appropriateness for
the approximate period, size and style of the house and the
ability of this color scheme to blend with the existing
neighborhood. She attached color samples for the review of
the Commission.
There being no questions or comments from the Commissioners,
a motion was made by John Carr to approve the Certificate of
Appropriateness as submitted, seconded by Dan Geary, and approved
unanimously.
57 Summer Street - Replacement of Window Sashes
Judith Ritchie and Elaine Hogan also requested that the
Commission approve theirapplication for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to replace the existing window sashes along
the front and part of the side of the first and second floors.
Chairman Harris read Ms. Ritchie's letter in its entirety, a
copy of which is in the files of the Historical Commission.
The portion referring to the window sashes stated that the
windows throughout the house are either of one on one or two
on two design. Of a total 35 windows 15 or 43% are one on one.
Many of the windows have been damaged by water over a long period
of time, some have been repaired or held together by metal
• brackets. At this time they would like to replace the sashes
and lights in thirteen windows along the front and side of the
1
• house. This replacement will be limited to the sashes and glass
only and will not alter or effect the size or outside trim of
the windows. Replacement is planned to be an all wood inside
and outside double insulated glass construction in one on one
design. Wood construction is chosen as it will maintain the
original character of the house. Double insulated glass in
one on one design is requested in consideration of the following
factors:
1 . Some of the existing windows, including 6 on the front of
the house, are one on one.
2. The Salem Handbook, a Renovation Guide for homeowners, 1977
for Historic Salem, indicates on page 44, 2 on 2 or 1 on
1 as a traditional window design of 1850-1860.
3. One on one construction alleviates the problems associated
with heavy wood muttons dividing lights of double insulated
glass.
4. The owners preference is for one on one design.
5. Double insulated glass is superior to single pane glass
in terms of energy conservation.
6. Double insulated glass will allow for the eventual removal
• of the existing aluminum storm windows which will enhance
the historic character of the house.
7. Low E glass is not requested due to its reflective
properties.
8. Due to the varying sizes of the windows each individual
sash must be custom made. The cost of the individual window
units with divided lights is significantly more (30%) than
a one on one design. As the house is in need of significant
future repairs including electrical wiring, new heat, and
water systems, painting, and insulation, the additional
cost is prohibitive at this time.
Dan Pierce made a site visit to the property and reported his
findings to the Commission. He stated that there were two issues
that were of concern to him. One was the appropriate style
of the windows in relation to the aesthetics of the house.
His other concern was that since the house was not heavily
ornamented he felt that it was important for the windows to
provide detail. He said that he would like to see two on two
windows retained, but agreed that one on one would be
appropriate.
John Carr asked if the existing windows could be repaired.
• Dan Pierce replied that they are in rough shape and probably
could be repaired but it would be very expensive.
2
• John Carr stated that the pictures of the property indicated
that two on two windows were originally used and that they should
be replaced in kind.
Russell Slam asked if the possibility of double glazed with
intregal muttons had been considered. Judith Ritchie stated
that she had looked at properties around the city that used
J & B Window sashes. She noted that muttons in the windows
in the building across from the Gardner Pingree House were coming
apart and bowing. She said that she had spoken with J & B and
they claimed that they had not received any complaints, and
were not sure if they installed these or not. She also noted
that she did not want to use interior storm windows because
they would have to be heavily curtained and would take away
light, and for fire safety reasons.
Dick Oedel stated that the use of one on one or two on two
windows was the preference of the person who built the house,
and that he did not see why one on one could not be used. Mr.
Oedel added that since they had not seen any intregal muttins
that are without problems, he would tend to go along with the
one over one.
Annie Harris stated that what the Commission should be dealing
with is what is appropriate not what is aesthetically pleasing.
• Russell Slam suggested using two over one windows.
Judith Ritchie stated that as an alternate, two on one would
be acceptable to her.
There being no further comment or questions from the
Commissioners, a motion was made by Russell Slam to allow the
replacement of thirteen window sashes at 57 Summer street with
either two on one or two on two with J & B True Grid Window
sashes, double glazed. He further noted that the upper most
windows are part of the mansard, which are distinctly separate
and it is not necessary to replace them at this time. Motion
seconded by Dick Oedel and approved unanimously.
174 FEDERAL STREET - DON WALLACE
Don Wallace was present at the meeting to discuss a violation
at his property at 174 Federal Street. John Carr stated that
he did not feel that the Commission should discuss the matter
at this time since a Public Hearing is scheduled for the next
meeting of the Commission on November 15, 1989.
Annie Harris apologized to Mr. Wallace for mix up. He requested
a copy of statute regarding Historic Districts. Jane Guy gave
• him the statute and the matter will be discussed at the Public
Hearing.
3
• CORRESPONDENCE REVIEW
Annie Harris reviewed the Board of Appeal agenda and noted that
two properties on the agenda were of interest to the Commission.
The property at 27 North Street is on the agenda for a variance
from use and parking. John Carr , suggested that a letter be
sent to the Board of Appeal requesting that approval not be
granted until they resolve their violations with the Historical
Commission. Jane Guy will send the letter, and Annie Harris
will talk to Jim Flemming concerning it.
The other property was 401 Essex ,Street, regarding the conversion
of a carriage house. Jan Guy will send a letter to the Board,
informing the Board of the Certificate granted and the conditions
that were part of it.
Annie Harris read a letter regarding the Salem - Beverly Bridge,
sent by thesalem Historical Commission to Valerie Talmage.
She alos read letter sent by Valerie Talmage to James Walsh
A copy of each is in the file.
VIOLATIONS
Jane Guy reviewed the violations that are pending.
98-100 Federal Street -Assistant City Solicitor Leonard Femino
has sent a letter to Mr. Haskell notifying him that he has 30
days to comply or legal proceedings will commence. She reported
that the 30 days are up and she has not heard from Mr. Haskell.
51 Summer Street - A letter was sent to Wes Pine- Milwerle
on September 28, 1989 informing them of the conditional
acceptance of their proposal but no reply has been-received.
Jane Guy will call the owner to see if he has heard from Wes
Pine.
271 Lafayette Street - Assistant City Solicitor Leonard Femino
sent a letter on September 28, 1989 informing them that they
have 30 days to comply or legal proceedings will commence.
No response has been made.
Annie Harris suggested sending a letter to Leonard Femino
requesting the status of 14 Chestnut Street, 15 Cambridge Street,
271 Lafayette Street, and 98-100 Federal Street.
OTHER BUSINESS
Jane Guy asked the Commissioners to rescind their motion
regarding the certified mailing of the guidelines to out of
town landlords due to the cost. She noted that records will
• be kept of the mailing. The motion was so rescinded.
4
• Jane Guy also noted that when going through the files she found
revisions to the guidelines that were never put into the book.
She stated that she was putting them in the book and gave copies
to Dan Pierce, Dick Oedel, and ,John Carr. They will set up
a meeting themselves to review the guidelines, for additional
revisions. John Carr stated that he was concerned that many
of the doors approved for replacement arestock raised panel
doors. Dan Pierce suggested that door inspections should be
done before approval is granted,.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion made by Dan Geary to approve the minutes of the meeting
of September 20, 1989, seconded , by Russell Slam and approved
unanimously
Chairman Harris provided amendments to the minutes of October
18, 1989. Page 3 paragraph 6 should be removed and replaced
with "Mr. Cook made a motion to 'approve a Certificate of Hardship
for the vinyl windows because:
-The work affects only the building on which the work is done
and not the historic district in general because the building
is of relatively recent construction as it is a post-fire
building while most of the structures in the district predate
• the fire by 40-150 years;
-It does not cause substantial detriment to the public welfare
because the building does not have any particular architectural
or historical significance to the historic district.
-It does not cause departure from the intent and purposes of
the amended Historic District Act because it is a building of
more recent design and therefore the windows do not detract; "
Motion made by Dick Oedel to approve the minutes of the meeting
of October 18, 1989, as amended, seconded by Russell Slam and
approved unanimously.
There being no further business to come before the Historical
Commission at this meeting, a motion was made by Dan Geary to
adjourn the meeting, seconded by Dick Oedel, and approved
unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:45.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:
• EILEEN M. SACCO, CLERK
5 '
L
Salem Historical Commission
• Minutes of Meeting
November 15, 1989
A Regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held
on Wednesday, November 15, 1989, at 7:30 P.M. in the second
floor conference room at One Salem Green.
Present were: Chairman Annie Harris, John Carr, Dan Geary,
Dick Oedel, Dan Pierce, Jane Guy, and Eileen Sacco, Clerk.
Municipal Intern, Robert Malionek was also present.
Chairman Harris called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
82 DERBY STREET- CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS-PAINT COLORS
AND SIGN
John Suldenski was present at the meeting to answer questions
from the Commissioners regarding his application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness, for his property, located at
82 Derby Street. i
Chairman Harris read a letter from Timothy C. Masters of 78
Derby Street, concerning Mr. Suldenski 's applications before
• the Commission. (A copy of his letter is attached to these
minutes. )
Chairman Harris passed around photographs of the property showing
the existing sign and the previous sign on the property. The
building houses a laundry.
i
John Carr asked if the sign meets the requirements of the City
sign code. Jane Guy stated that since the location is a corner
lot, the amount of square footage is determined from the
frontage on both sides. Ms. Guy stated that Mr. Suldenski has
obtained a sign permit application, which is pending this
Commission' s approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness.
John Carr clarified that the issues before the Commission were
the color, the size, and the design of the sign. Mr. Carr also
questioned the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness,
and stated that maybe the applicant should be looking for a
Certificate of Non-Applicability.
Annie Harris stated that she felt that the Certificate of
Appropriateness was in order.
John Suldenski addressed the Commission and stated that he was
unaware that he needed the approval of the Commission before
doing work to the building. He also stated that he had no
problem changing the color of the band which is presently pink
1
to something that is more appropriate.
Chairman Harris asked if there was anyone in the audience that
wished to speak either in favor of the application or in
opposition of it.
Don Wallace of 174 Federal Street, Salem, stated that he was
friend of Mr. Suldenski 's and felt that he had performed quality
work on the property, in a location that needs cleaning up.
Mr. Suldenski stated that he had spent $70,000.00 on new
equipment for the facility and that the neighborhood was pleased
with the renovations. He also stated that outside of the
building needs to be renovated and he was only trying to do
that.
John Carr stated that he could not approve the pink color that
has been applied to the building, or the large contemporary
sign. He also questioned whether the Commission would have
approved the plans had they been presented before the work was
done. He urged the Commission to consider this at this time.
Mr. Oedel stated that a carved or painted sign could have been
attached to the building in the 19th century which may have
pictured a product.
Dan Geary stated that he does not particularly like the sign
• or the pink color, but he could live with the sign if the color
was changed.
Dick Oedel suggested that the band could be painted the same
color as the body of the building.
John Suldenski reviewed paint charts showing the Commissioners
the colors that he had in mind for the building. He referred
to a soft white for the body of the building, with a white trim.
He also noted that since the building is brick and wood
construction it would be difficult to match.
Annie Harris suggested a third color be chosen for the band.
Dan Pierce suggested that he would be willing to allow the sign
to remain as is if the band could be removed to expose the brick.
Dick Oedel stated that he didn't think that the removal of the
band would be practical since you can' t tell what is under there.
John Suldenski stated that he felt that the removal of the band
would detract from the building, given it's use as a business.
He stated that he felt that the band was constructed to bring
attention to the building. He further stated that he felt that
the removal of it would detract from the building. He also
stated that he felt that if it was removed it would never go
2
back up because the Commission would never approve it.
• Dan Pierce suggested painting the band the same color as the
body of the building.
John Carr made a motion to approve under a Certificate of Non-
Applicability, the color soft white as shown on the color chart
presented for the color of the body of the building, the body
of the building to include the band which is currently pink,
seconded by Dick Oedel, and approved unanimously.
Motion made by John Carr to approve a Certificate of
Appropriateness for the trim colors to be masonry 61301 and
wood 63901 , as shown on the paint charts presented, the trim
to include all windows on the first, second and third floor
as well as all cornice work, seconded by Dan Geary and approved
unanimously.
Motion made by John Carr to amend the application of
Non-Applicability submitted to an application for a Certificate
of Appropriateness, and to waive the public hearing, seconded
by Dick Oedel and approved unanimously.
Mr. Carr made a motion to deny the pink color of the band of
shingles. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion and it was unanimously
approved.
• Motion made by John Carr to approve the portion of the
application concerning the sign in the hopes that if fails,
seconded by Dan Geary. The motion failed 3 - 2 with John Carr
and Dick Oedel voting against it.
Annie Harris informed Mr. Suldenski that he could resubmit the
application for approval at another time or investigate other
possibilities such as removing the band all together, or the
design of a new sign.
18 RIVER STREET - JEREMIAH JENNINGS - PAINT COLORS - CERTIFICATE
OF APPROPRIATENESS
John Carr informed the Commission that the applicant wished
to continue the matter to the next meeting since they are not
ready. Mr. Carr made a motion to continue the application.
Mr. Oedel seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion
so carried.
174 FEDERAL STREET - DON WALLACE - SKYLIGHTS - CERTIFICATE OF
HARDSHIP.
Chairman Harris read letters to the Commissioners from the file
concerning the history of the renovations of the property located
at 174 Federal Street which concerned four skylights that have
• already been installed.
3
• Motion made by Dick Oedel to append the correspondence read
into the record by Chairman Harris concerning this matter,
seconded by John Carr and approved unanimously. (Copies of
these letters are attached to these minutes. )
Chairman Harris informed Mr. Wallace that he could make a
statement to the Commission concerning his applications.
Mr. Wallace stated that it was his understanding that he only
needed Commission approval for renovations that were visible
coming down the one-way street. He also stated that he has
done a tremendous amount of work on his property and in doing
so has tried to restore it as well as he could. He also stated
that the skylights were necessary to add light and ventilation
to a very tight area.
Chairman Harris asked if there was anyone in the audience that
wished to speak in favor of the application.
Nancy McCauley of 174 Federal Street addressed the Commission
and stated that she felt that Mr. Wallace was not aware that
the Commission approval was necessary if the work was not visible
from the street. She also noted that she felt that you really
have to look for the skylights and specified that at certain
times of the year they would be more visible such as when the
leaves are off the trees. She also stated that she did not
• feel that Mr. Wallace was being vicious about installing them.
Mr. Wallace of 172 Federal Street spoke in opposition to the
applications stating that he can see the skylights and noted
instances concerning the workmanship and disposal of materials
on previous projects.
John Carr made a motion to close the Public Hearing, seconded
by Dick Oedel, and approved unanimously.
Chairman Harris informed Mr. Wallace that he could make a
statement of rebuttal concerning the remarks made.
Mr. Donald Wallace showed the Commissioners photographs of the
property identifying the improvements that he has made since
he has owned the property. He stated that he respected the
role of the Commission, and noted that he has done as much as
he could to preserve the integrity of the history of the
property.
Dick Oedel read the skylight guidelines to those in attendance
at the meeting.
John Carr stated that the Commission should consider the
application as though it were submitted prior to the installation
• of the skylights, in accordance with the guidelines and based
4
on historic appropriateness. He further noted that the
• Commission is opposed to skylights. He also noted that the
skylights are visible from the street and he did not see how
the Commission could approve them. Mr. Carr stated that one
skylight is traditional.
Dan Geary was in agreement and felt that he could only approve
one skylight in a traditional location. Mr. Geary referred
to the guidelines and stated that Mr. Wallace had been before
the Commission on other occasions and he should have known that
he needed Commission approval before any changes were made to
the exterior of the property.
John Carr moved to deny the Certificate of Appropriateness for
four ( 4) skylights as all four are visible from the street,
they are in violation of the guide lines and are inappropriate
contemporary changes, and should be removed and the asphalt
roof material should be restored, seconded by Dick Oedel and
approved unanimously. Mr. Wallace stated that the top floor
needed ventilation and left the meeting.
CERTIFICATE OF HARDSHIP - 174 FEDERAL STREET
The Commission reviewed an application for a Certificate of
Hardship from Mr. Donald Wallace for the installation of four
skylights at 174 Federal Street. Mr. Ken Wallace of 172 federal
Street spoke in opposition to the application.
John Carr made a motion to deny the application for a certificate
of hardship because the skylights are visible and the hardship
was self created, since Mr. Wallace was knowledgeable of Historic
District requirements, seconded by Dan Geary and approved
unanimously.
John Carr made a motion to send a copy of both denials to the
City of Salem Legal Department, Mayor Elect Harrington, and
the Building Inspector, seconded by Dick Oedel, and approved
unanimously.
John Carr made a motion to amend his motion on the denial of
both the Certificate of Appropriateness and the Certificate
of Hardship to establish a time of thirty ( 30) days for the
skylights removal and that asphalt roof material shall be
restored, seconded by Dan Geary and approved unanimously.
37 CHESTNUT STREET - CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Mark and Helen Blodgett of 37 Chestnut Street submitted an
application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to change the
color of the shutters on their property from black to Essex
green which was discovered to be the original color of the
shutters.
• Motion made by John Carr to approve the application as submitted
5
for a Certificate of Appropriateness for 37 Chestnut Street,
. seconded by Dick Oedel and approved unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
109 DERBY STREET - CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
Jane Guy addressed the Commission and stated that she felt the
Commission could act on this application and waive the public
hearing since they are requesting to strip the existing green
roof and replace it with black asphalt.
Ms. Alice Arnold, the manager of the property owned by Anna
Browne, was present.
Motion made by Dick Oedel to waive the Public Hearing seconded
by John Carr and approved unanimously.
Motion made by Dick Oedel to approve the Application as submitted
to replace the roof at 109 Derby Street with black asphalt,
seconded by John Carr and approved unanimously.
ESSEX INSTITUTE
Ms. Anne Farnam, representing the Essex Institute, was present
for an informal discussion regarding the proposed construction
• of a seasonal admissions plaza. Ms. Farnam stated that the
museum was investigating moving the Crowninshield-Bentley House
but for security, expense and logistical purposes, it had been
abandoned. Ms. Farnam stated that the design of the admission
plaza would be similar to a version of the Derby-Pickman House
Cupola of which a picture was shown. Ms. Farnam stated that
there may be some terrace with brick as well as planters and
benches and that the fence may be moved.
Mr. Carr felt that the removal of fencing would be a mistake
because the ribbon fence is continuous around the museum
neighborhood and would be sad to lose. Ms. Farnam added that
the fence provides more security.
Mr. Pierce stated that the plaza could be put at the corner
toward the ribbon fence where the building would almost become
an extension of the fence. Mr. Pierce suggested that the new
modern keosk at Faneuil Hall be viewed because it is quite
jarring.
Ms. Farnam stated that the museum will probably be coming in
for new signs.
CORRESPONDENCE REVIEW
Ms. Guy reviewed the narrative for an application that the City
• will be submitting for the FY90 Survey and Planning Grant.
6
The application will be to complete a Master Preservation Plan.
The Commission was enthusiastic about the project.
Ms. Guy stated that two properties within the Historic Districts
will be going before the Board of Appeal. Mr. Carr suggested
that a letter be sent to the Board of Appeal regarding both
properties. Mr. Carr stated that the Commission should request
that no action be taken on 27 North Street until they have
resolved the violation issues. Mr. Carr suggested that the
letter regarding 401 Essex Street provide a copy of the findings
of the Commission's decision.
Mr. Carr made a motion that a letter be sent to Mayor-Elect
Harrington offering congratulations and to state that the
Commission looks forward to working closely with him, and invite
him to attend an up coming meeting to share what the Commission
is all about. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion. All were in favor
and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy stated that a mailing to all owners of property in
historic districts was mailed on 11 /9/89 or 11 /13/89.
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 BY:
Cc-
Eileen Sacco ane Guy
ES/JHisCom111589
7
December 6 , 1989, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
December 6, 1989
• A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday,
December 6, 1989, at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were Chairman
Harris, Messrs. Cook, Slam, Pierce and Oedel and Ms. Guy. Mr. Geary
entered later in the meeting.
Public Hearings
100 Federal Street
Bruce and Kristie Haskell presented an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for the installation of a railing at their home at 100
Federal Street, Unit 1 . Pictures and drawings were presented. Mr. Haskell
stated that he proposed to remove the existing rail and bench on the deck
in the rear of his property and to install a new railing as shown in the
details.
Chairman Harris stated that the bottom rail in the drawing sits on the
floor of the deck and felt that there should be a gap in order to avoid
rot. Mr. Slam was in agreement and believed there should be little
footings. Mr. Haskell stated there would benoproblem in putting in small
spacers.
Mr. Slam stated that the plans show the ballasters at 16" on center and
believed it was too wide. Mr. Pierce stated that normally there is six
inches between posts which would amount to approximately 8" on center.
• Mr. Oedel asked how much higher the new railing would be. Mr. Haskell
replied that it would not be much higher and that he will take off the
existing 2x6 board.
Chairman Harris felt it was unusual not to have posts. Mr. Haskell stated
that he will use the existing 3 x 3 posts.
Mr. Slam asked the height. Mr. Haskell replied that the height is 18 to 24
inches. Mr. Oedel stated that it should not exceed 24".
Mr. Slam made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the
modification that the ballasters be spaced 8" on center, the height not
exceed 24" and the bottom rail be spaced off the floor of the deck by
spacers and not exceed 211. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion.
Mr. Haskell stated that he would like to paint the railing white.
Chairman Harris stated that she was bothered by the lack of extended posts
and asked if anyone else was. Mr. Oedel replied in the negative.
Mr. Pierce suggested an improvement regarding the scallop on the rail. Mr.
Haskell stated that the rail is per the sample he was given by Ms. Guy.
Ms. Guy stated that the sample was from Chairman Harris' s rear porch.
Chairman Harris stated that she would prefer the posts be extended and
capped. Mr. Oedel felt that it would look odd on that type of railing.
i
December 6, 1989, Page 2
The motion was voted upon, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Haskell withdrew his application for Certificate of Appropriateness for
a fence.
Mr. Gearyentered the meeting.
Other Business
373 Essex Street
Donald and Martha Hodgman presented an application for a Certificate of
Non-Applicability to repair and replace the existing black asphalt shingles
on the roof of the small addition at their home at 373 Essex Street.
Mr. Slam made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Cook
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion was so carried as
being non-applicable work due to. being an in kind replacement.
2 Andover Street
Ms. Patricia Durkee was present to request support of her appeal to the
State Building Commission for her home at 2 Andover Street. Chairman
Harris stated that Ms. Durkee' s home has been cited for lack of adequate
secondary egress access from the third floor and that such egress enters a
lower floor apartment. Chairman Harris stated that the third floor' s
secondary egress is through a trap door to a flight of stairs and that the
trap door is considered unacceptable access to the staris. Ms. Durkee is
attempting to determine an adequate solution for the trap door. The other
• code issue is that the staircase from the trap door, although is direct to
the first floor entry, passes through the second floor apartment. Chairman
Harris stated that it appears that there is no interior solution to the
staircase issue and if her appeal is not granted, the Commission will
probably be seeing an application for an exterior secondary egress.
Chairman Harris noted that Ms. Durkee is not here to discuss if the
Commission would entertain an application for an exterior solution but
rather to ask for a letter from the Commission to the State Building
Commission in support of her appeal. Chairman Harris added that if the
secondary egress is not resolved, Ms. Durkee will not have a legal three
family home. Chairman Harris noted that Ms. Durkee would not loose the
income from the third floor since it could be considered a border
situation. Chairman Harris felt if Ms. Durkee can get a solution to the
access, she may have a good case to appeal the staircase issue.
Mr. Cook did not feel the Commission should support the appeal since
building code issues are not within the Commission' s jurisdiction and
because the Commission has not seen the building.
Mr. Pierce stated that based on the guidelines, the Commission would
require an interior solution.
Mr. Slam stated that he had problems getting involved and putting the
Commission between the local and state authorities on safety issues. Mr.
Slam felt it would be taking a terrible responsibility and setting a
precedent.
December 6, 1989, Page 3
Mr. Pierce stated that the Commission' s letter would not have to comment on
the specifics of the issues, but rather only that the Commission prefers an
interior solution.
Mr. Geary did not feel that any action would set a precedent and noted the '
circumstances in the library and Lynde Street appeals.
Mr. Cook stated he would rather see an interior solution, but was concerned
how to state so without supporting an appeal for safety issues that have
been determined to be against the law. Mr. Cook did not feel the
Commission should get involved with safety issues that it knows nothing
about.
Mr. Oedel felt that a strong letter should be sent stating that an exterior
solution goes against the Commission' s guidelines and that the Commission
supports an interior solution. Mr. Oedel stated that the letter should
include that the Commission has always been in favor of interior secondary
egress and that the guidelines preclude exterior solutions especially on
prominent buildings such as this. Mr. Oedel stated that reference to the
site and being a key building in the neighborhood should also be made.
Mr. Slam stated that the Commission should vote on the specific wording.
Mr. Pierce stated that whatever the interior solution is, it should be
satisfactory to the appropriate officials having jurisdiction. Mr. Slam
noted that it should be an interior solution that can be satisfactory to -
the State.
The Commission provided the following language:
• It has been brought to our attention that the building at 2 Andover
Street has been cited for lack of adequate secondary egress from the
third floor apartment. Being the Salem Historical Commission, duly
appointed. . . . .it has been our position over the years that only
interior solutions are acceptable. . . . . .because of the prominent nature
of the building, all four sides are visible and its site within the
framework of the McIntire Historic District. It -is contrary to the
Salem Historical Commission' s guidelines to approve any exterior egress
visible from a public way. Therefore, we hope this board will assist
the applicant in achieving a satisfactory interior solution to their
problem.
Mr. Geary made a motion to approve the letter. There was no second.
Ms. Guy read back the language proposed.
Mr. Slam made a motion to approve the letter. Mr. Oedel seconded the
motion. Chairman Harris and Messrs. Cook, Oedel, Slam and Pierce voted in
favor. Mr. Geary abstained.
Ms. Guy noted that Mr. Carr has volunteered to go to the appeal hearing.
Mr. Cook stated for the record that he is in opposition to encourage
homeowners to come before the Commission for issues not relating to the
Commission' s jurisdiction. Mr. Cook felt that the Commission is being
. asked to circumvent the authority of the building inspector. Mr. Geary and
December 6, 1989, Page 4
Mr. Oedel were in disagreement.
51 Summer Street
• The Commission members were informed on November 30, 1989 that the window
directly to the left of the High Street door on 51 Summer Street was
replaced in hope of the Commission' s approval.
Mr. Oedel stated that he did not see the window during the day.
Mr. Slam stated that the new glass looks better and it appears clear. Mr.
Slam stated that he has no problem with the new window.
Mr. Cook stated that he looked at the window in the evening but that he did
not have any problem with it.
Mr. Geary stated that he did not see it. -
Mr. Pierce stated that he viewed the window at 3 :15 p.m. but would
preferred to have seen it at 9:30 a.m. Mr. Pierce felt it was an
improvement but could not tell if it was clear unless he viewed it under
brighter skies, direct sun or with the interior lights on. Mr. Pierce felt
that a letter could be drafted but not mailed until next week in order to
allow him time to see the window in the morning light. Mr. Pierce stated
that if he found the glass not to be clear, he would notify Ms. Guy.
Mr. Slam made a motion to send a letter informing Wes—Pine that the
replacement glass is acceptable. Mr. Cook seconded the motion. All were
favor and the motion so carried.
• Correspondence
Ms. Guy provided a draft of a letter in reply to Ms. Joan Sweeney regarding
development in Blubber Hollow. Mr. Oedel made a motion to send the letter
as drafted. Mr. Pierce seconded the motion. All were in favor and the
motion so carried.
Ms. Guy stated that she received a letter from Massachusetts Historical
Commission (MHC) notifying the City that 39 Essex Street is being
considered for nomination to the National Register as part of a Thematic
Resource Area which includes buildings in other cities under a project
conducted by Boston University. The nomination will be considered on
December 13, 1989 at 1:00 p.m. at the State Archives Building in
Dorchester.
Chairman Harris read a copy of a letter send to James Walsh of the FHWA
from Don Klima of the ACHP regarding the Bridge and By—pass project.
Minutes
Mr. Geary made a motion toapprove the minutes of November 1 , 1989. Mr.
Oedel seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
The minutes of September 6, 1989 and October 4, 1989 could not be approved
due to insufficient attendees present.
December 6, 1989, Page 5
Violations
1 Harrington Court — Chairman Harris stated that the vinyl siding is no ,
longer on the building.
• 336 Essex Street — Ms. Guy stated that the owner' s representative picked up
an application on November 28, 1989 but has not yet returned it.
27 North Street — Ms. Guy stated that the application is on the agenda for
1/3/90.
174 Federal Street — Ms. Guy stated that it .appears that Mr. Wallace will
be filing an appeal.
Ms. Guy did not know the status of 271 Lafayette St. , 14 Chestnut or 15
Cambridge St.
Misc.
There will be no meeting of the Commission on December 20, 1989. The next
meeting will be January 3, 1989.
Mr. Geary announced his resignation from the Commission due to his
acceptance of employment as the City of Salem' s Administrative Aide to the
Mayor.
Ms. Guy stated that Mr. Zaharis has also given his resignation to the
Commission and that she will read up on the Certified Local Government
procedures fornew appointments.
There being no further business, Mr. Pierce made a motion to adjourn. Mr.
Cook seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jan uy
Cl ?AG the Comission
JHisCom7/120689
•
e
•
25070 YELLOW
260TI BLACK
250!2 LIGHT BLUE
2m DARK SLUE
25074 LIGHT GRAY
25075 LIGHT GREEN
25076 DARK GREEN
26077 TANGERINE
26076 RED
25078 EXECUTIVE REO
WITH WATER RESIS0INT
COVERS
® ACCO INTERNATIONAL INC. ..
CHICAGQ ILLINOIS 80619