SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES i
s
FISALEIM� HISTORI�AL COMMISSION
S '
x �
ii
._. r. � . .. +n � rte` — ^`4[•g6. _ _ —
January 3 , 1990, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
January 3, 1990
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday,
January 3, 1990 at 7:30 at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. Present were
Chairman Harris and Messrs. Carr, Cook, Slam, Pierce and Oedel and Ms. Guy.
Note: Temporary Clerk Leonora Sheehy destroyed the notes of this meeting.
Therefore, these minutes have been reconstructed through the recollection
of Ms. Guy.
Public Hearings
18 River Street
Ms. Guy stated that the applicant, Jeremiah Jennings, verbally withdrew his
application and will refile for the paint colors after they have been -
selected.
27 North Street
Ms. Marianne Pantelakis, Trustee of Ambrosia Realty Trust, presented
applications for Certificates of Appropriateness, Hardship and
Non-Applicability for the replacement of windows at 27 North Street. The
application states that the trustees were unaware that the building was in
an historic district and felt that it was neither an historical building
nor a building of great aesthetic value. The work consisted of the
replacement of double hung window's-with large panes, which were in a bad
• state of repair, with double glazed windows. Ms. Pantelakis stated that
she was unclear as to whether double^glazedthermopane windows constituted
storm windows. Mr. Carr stated that thermopane windows were not considered
a storm in that a storm window, when removed, leaves a window remaining and
these would not. -
Mr. Cook felt he would be most comfortable with the application for
Hardship. Mr. Oedel felt that Hardship should be the first application
voted down. Mr. Carr stated that Hardship cannot be self-created.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the application for a Certificate of
Hardship. Mr. Carr seconded the motion. There were no votes in favor.
All were in opposition. The motion did not carry. -
Mr. Slam explained that the Commission has strict guidelines, especially
with regard to windows.
Mr. Cook noted that building is on the edge of the district and that the
building was not significant.
Ms. Harris stated that the building is a circa 1900, post fire building and
that the district consists of mostly pre-fire buildings. Ms. Harris added
that the district was not formed to preserve this type of building and felt
that the building was not significant.
Ms. Pantelakis stated that fifty-seven windows had been replaced.
r Mr. Pierce stated properties on the edge of .the district, especially on
January 3 , 1990, Page 2
main thoroughfares provide the first impression to persons entering the
City and that the first impression should be improved. Mr. Pierce stated
that he could not support any deviation of the intent of the guidelines.
• Mr. Carr agreed that the edges of the district are just as important, but
felt that the retention of the 57 windows would not undermine the district.
Mr. Carr noted that the building had shingles on it which had probably
replaced original clapboards. Mr. Carr stated that the building is without
architectural pretentions and that he .did not get any jarring sense when
looking at the windows on this building. Mr. Carr added. that the building
is one of the most bland in the district.
Mr. Cook made a motion to approve the application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness. Mr. Carr seconded the motion. Chairman Harris and
Messrs. Carr, Cook, and Oedel voted in favor. Messsrs. Slam and Pierce
voted in opposition. The motion was so carried as being appropriate due to
the following findings provided by Mr. Carr:
That the building is a vernacular early 20th century building without any
particular architectural pretentions;
- That the building has already had unsympathetic prior changes (e.g. wood
shingles in place of clapboards) ;
- That while vinyl clad windows do represent a change of what was existing,
the change is not so visually obtrusive on this building; and .
- That the change from 2 over 2 windows to 1 over 1 window style could just
as easily have been in effect when the building was constructed.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the application for a Certificate of
• Non-Applicability. Mr. Carr seconded the motion. There were no votes in
favor. All were in opposition and the motion did not carry.
300 Lafayette Street
Mr. David Coggin presented an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for pa-int colors at his home at 300 Lafayette Street. The
original paint had. been Dutch Boy #155 Provencial Red with a white trim.
The Provencial Red had been discontinued, and therefore Mr. Coggin proposes
to have the color made up special by Salem Paint Co.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Cook
seconded the motion.
Mr. Carr noted that since the color is essentially the same, the
application should be for non-applicability.
Mr. Carr amended his motion to find that the proper application is for a
Certificate of Non-Applicability, that the application should be so amended
and approved due to the color proposed being the color presently on the
building. Mr. Slam seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion
so carried.
26 Beckford Street
Mr. Edgar Allard presented three applications to the Commission for work to
• be done to his home at 26 Beckford Street.
January 3 , 1990, Page 3
Chairman Harris read the first application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for the installation of new clapboards on 4 sides of the
• building, (4" exposed surface) , new cornerboards, rakeboards, skirtboards
to match that which presently exists; replace bandmolding (11," — 1 3/4") on
all exterior windows and doors to match that which presently exists, and
replace wooden gutters on front and back of house. Painting will consist
of the body and trim Cabot Cordovan Brown, similar to existing, doors,
window sash and muntins Tile Red and shutters on the street side only Essex
Green as presently exists. The application is also to install a new picket
fence, south side, from street to back of property. Mr. Allard will retain
the 4' height of fence from the sidewalk to the tree. From the other side
of the tree, which leans into fence line, the fence will be 616" height to
match height of the abutting fence on the property of David Hart. The
fence color will be Driftwood Grey as existing.
Chairman Harris stated that it appears that the entire exterior of the
building is to be replaced.
Mr. Cook noted that the second application, not yet read into the record,
is for the removal of a chimney and that all this work constitutes the
reproduction of the house. Mr. Cook was concerned that the Commission
would be voting on replacing the entire exterior the building.
Mr. Slam asked why all the clapboards must be replaced. Mr. Allard replied
that the clapboards are rotten and that he has been living in the house for
ten years and most of the clapboards are original. Mr. Cook commented that
the original clapboards are a compliment to the property. Mr. Cook added
that he was concerned that this well—kept antique will loose its stature
• through this total replacement.
Mr. Slam stated that he would personally like to inspect the house more
closely and see if some could be salvaged. Mr. Slam stated that he could
not make a decision until then. Mr. Oedel was in agreement. Mr. Carr was
also in agreement and felt that the Commission may need to be satisfied
that the work is necessary.
Mr. Allard stated that the front of the building is not that bad, that the
sides are not in good condition and that the rear is like potatoe chips.
Chairman Harris stated that old buildings are usually not uniform and that
using all new materials which have become standardized would alter the
appearance of the building.
Mr. Slam made a motion to continue the application until the meeting of
February 7, 1990 pending a site visit. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion. All
were in favor and the motion so carried. The site visit will be conducted
on Saturday, January 13 , 1990 at 10:00 am. Ms. Guy will provide a notice
to the members.
Chairman Harris read the second application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for the removal of a chimney on the .North side of the
house. Mr. Allard proposes to remove the chimney down to the floor level
of the first floor to allow for the installation of a window in the North
• wall. Mr. Allard stated that the chimney is deteriorating and unsafe.
Mr. Cook made a motion to continue the application. There was no second.
January 3, 1990, Page 4
Mr. Cook stated that the two chimneys are symmetrical and that although it
may lean a little and need repointing, the top can be seen from the street.
• Mr. Cook felt it is an intregal part of the building.
Mr. Carr stated that the chimney is an important element of 18th century
construction prevalent in Salem. Mr. Carr felt it was quite visible.
Mr. Carr made a motion to deny the application due to being an important
period element of the house. Mr. Slam seconded the motion.
Mr. Slam stated that he did not want to promote that which is unsafe. Ms.
Guy noted that emergency demolition for safety or health reasons that is
ordered by the Building Department or Health Department prevails.
Mr. John Randall of 28 Beckford Street stated that the chimney is unsafe
and had no objection to its removal.
The motion was voted upon, all were in favor and the motion was so carried
to deny the application.
Chairman Harris stated that Mr. Allard could apply for Hardship. Mr. Carr
stated that cost comparisons of the different options would be required and
that the applicant' s ability to pay would be considered. Ms. Guy stated
that cost does not have to be a factor in hardship and that it could be
granted if the applicant proved that to deny the application would cause
detriment to the public welfare. Mr. Carr noted that the applicant would
have to prove that demolition is the only option.
• Mr. Oedel suggested that Roger Hedstrom be invited to the site inspection
of the clapboards.
Chairman Harris read the third application for a Certificate of
Non-Applicability. Mr. Allard withdrew the portion of the application that
refers to the installation of a hanging window on the North side of the
building. The remainder of the application is to remove a "greenhouse
window" from the North second floor dormer, and replace it with
conventional 6 over 6 sash to match the rest of the house. The window will
be painted tile red to match the rest of the windows.
Mr. Carr made a motion to accept the withdrawal of the hanging window and
to approve the replacement of the greenhouse window due to being
non-visible from the public way. Mr. Slam seconded the motion, all were in
favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Cook remarked that with regard to the clapboard and chimney work
proposed, preservation is always the first choice, with rehabilitation
second and, only when no other choice exists, reproduction.
Other Business
Chairman Harris read a letter written to UMass Archaeological Services from
Massachusetts Historical Commission.
• Ms. Guy stated that the City of Salem is applying for a Critical Issues
Fund Grant to do a feasibility study of the Salem Jail. Ms. Guy drafted a
letter of support in hopes that the Commission would endorse the
January 3, 1990, Page 5
application. The Commission enthusiastically supported the application and
Chairman Harris signed the letter on behalf of the Commission.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the minutes of 9/6/89. Mr. Slam seconded
the motion, .all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the minutes of 10/4/89. Mr. Cook
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Cook made a motion to approve the minutes of 12/6/89. Mr. Oedel
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Slam stated that the public process to expand the Washington Square
Historic District should begin in order to solicit support. Ms. Guy stated
that the City' s contracted consultant, Kim Brengle, will have boundaries
prepared shortly. Mr. Carr felt that the actual boundaries will likely be
determined politically and that the Commission does not need to wait for
the consultant. Ms. Harris will be invited to speak at an upcoming Common
Neighborhood Association meeting regarding the expansion. Mr. Oedel
suggested that Ms. Brengle be invited to the next meeting to give a summary
of the progress of the expansion.
Ms. Guy stated that the National Trust Center for Historic Houses and
Historic Preservation magazine have announced the 1990 Great American Home
Awards Contest of which nominations are due by June 30, 1990.
Ms. Guy stated that there is a lecture at the Boston Architectural Center
on January 17 entitled "Grand Plans: A Century of Visions for Boston".
• Other events are listed in the Historic Preservation magazine.
There will be no meeting on January 17, 1990. The next meeting will be
February 7, 1990.
Violations
Ms. Guy stated that the representative for 336 Essex Street came in today
with an incomplete application. He will be returning with a complete
application in order to be on the February 7, 1990 agenda.
Mr. Carr suggested that he and Chairman Harris meet with Atty. Femino to
discuss the status of 14 Chestnut Street. Ms. Guy suggested that they also
get an update regarding 15 Cambridge and 271 Lafayette St.
Chairman Harris stated that she received a telephone call from the owner of
82 Derby Street who indicated that he will address the sign situation
shortly.
Chairman Harris stated that the owner of 174 Federal Street has asked the
firm of Tinti, Quinn and Savoy to represent him regarding his denial of
skylights. Mr. Carr noted thattheappeal time has lapsed.
Ms. Guy stated that the 51 Summer Street owner has been notified that the
window has been approved.
Mr. Carr stated that there is a violation at 362 Essex Street and that a
gazebo has been installed. Ms. Guy will investigate.
January 3 , 1990, Page 6
Mr. Cook stated that he noticed painting being done on a house on Essex
Street. Mr. Cook will provide the address to Ms. Guy.
New Appointments
i
Ms. Guy stated that the regulations in chapter 40C are vague with regard to
new appointments and that she will contact Mass. Historical for
clarification. Chairman Harris stated that Messrs. Zaharis and Geary' s
positions need to be filled and possibly Mr. Wolfson' s. The names of Jim
Bailey, Roger Hedstrom, John Bitner and Peter Strout were provided as
possible candidates for appointment. The discussion will be continued at
the next meeting.
There being no further business, Mr. Oedel made a motion to adjourn. Mr.
Slam seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
l�
J e A. Guy
C erk of the Commission
JHisCom7/010390
•
February 7 , 1990 , Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
• February 7 , 1990
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on
Wednesday, February 7 , 1990 at 7 : 30 p.m. at One Salem Green,
Salem, MA. Present were Chairman Harris and Messrs . Oedel, Slam
and Pierce and Ms . Guy. Mr. Carr entered later in the meeting.
Chairman Harris stated that since only four members were present,
all four votes in favor would be needed for any approval .
Public Hearings
336 Essex Street
Mr. Dennis Vallee presented an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for the rebuilding of an existing addition and
foundation and the installation of 3 new windows and 2 atrium
doors at his home at 336 Essex Street. The application states
that all materials and trim will match existing. The roofing
will be slateline by G.A.F. The windows will be Marvin #WDH2826
6 over 6 to match existing dimensions and detail . The doors will
be Marvin #CFDR 12068. The clapboards will be red cedar with
smooth side to weather. Chairman Harris presented pictures and
drawings to the members and stated that the work had already
started. Chairman Harris stated that the roof is sloped and will
have simulated slate .
• Mr. Oedel stated that the Marvin catalog states that the window
specified is 26" wide, 1 over 1, with options of single glaze or
thermopane, snap in or authentic divided lites, with or without
removable energy panel .
Mr. Pierce stated that Marvin windows tend to have 1� thick
mullion size. Mr. Slam stated that since the elevation of the
facade is unclear, the width of the muntin bar may not be
noticable.
Mr. Oedel stated that the door is not illustrated and read the
specifications found in the catalog. The doors will be 10 'W x
5 ' 8"H with rectangular grills .
Sharon Williams of 342 Essex Street stated that she was not
concerned with the windows or doors but was concerned if other
work would be done such as new stairs, deck or any expansion.
Ms. Williams asked if the house will be staying a single family.
Mr. Vallee replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Vallee stated that 2 of the 4 panels of the doors will open.
Mr. Vallee noted that the egress is 4 ' up and that he has removed
the stairs . Mr. Vallee added that he has not determined what
will be constructed for egress . Chairman Harris stated that new
stairs may not be visible. Ms . Guy stated that Mr. Vallee could
• request a Certificate of Non-Applicability once he has determined
a resolution. Mr . Pierce noted that a Certificate of Occupancy
February 7 , 1990, Page 2
might not be issued until the egress is resolved.
Carter 'Benson of 300 Essex Street felt that a porch or stairs
• would be visible from Beckford. Mr. Benson asked if the
materials, colors, etc . on the work proposed would be the same as
the rest of the house. Mr. Vallee stated that everything would
be consistent.
Chairman Harris asked if the size of the windows would be the
same. Mr. Vallee replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Oedel stated that the catalog indicates that the mullions on
single doors can be either thin or fat, but that double doors are
fat.
Mr. Pierce stated that he has seen some Marvin doors with divided
lites that look good, but look more Victorian than Federal . Mr.
Pierce felt that a better match could be achieved if a Brosco or
J & B Sash door was used. Mr. Pierce stated that a substitute
may be more appropriate.
Ms . Hope Griffin of 14 Beckford stated that she had no objections
as long as the paint color and materials match.
Mr. Slam made a motion to approve the application as submitted
and that the the house and trim colors must match the existing
house colors . Mr. Slam invited friendly amendments to address
the mullion size.
• Mr. Pierce felt that the motion should specify the width of the
muntins and possibly the option to choose a substitute for
Marvin.
Mr. Slam added to his motion that the applicant can substitute
Marvin brand as long as the windows are wood sash, single glaze,
with intregal muntin bars no greater than 7/8" width. Mr. Slam
specified that there be no Low E or tinted glass.
Chairman Harris asked if the energy panel will be permitted. Mr.
Pierce stated that they have not been allowed on the exterior in
the past.
Mr. Slam added to his motion that only interior energy panels be
permitted.
Chairman Harris asked about the molding and sills noting that
usually new windows have a thin sill and old houses normally have
a fat sill . Mr. Pierce stated that the application states that
the work will match existing and that the motion should be clear
as to what it should be matching. Mr. Pierce asked when the
windows will be installed. Mr. Vallee stated that they will not
be installed for approximately one year. Mr. Pierce suggested
postponing a decision until there is more information and so that
the Commission is .not making guesses from the catalog. Mr. Slam
• stated that the motion can specify that the sills match the rest
of the house. Mr. Pierce stated that in the pictures, it doesn ' t
February 7 , 1990 , Page 3
look like there is a deep sill on the rest of the house. Mr.
Slam stated that the addition is barely visible and that
• subjecting it to this much scrutiny is more than the Commission
has done in the past for other applications . Mr. Pierce stated
that he has been less than satisfied with the results of some of
the past work. Mr. Pierce stated that it looks like there are
several different conditions on this house. Mr. Vallee stated
that he could not get a Building Permit to complete the interior
work unless this is approved. Mr. Vallee stated that the
interior work has already been held up 6 weeks.
Mr. Oedel stated that the slateline is no problem since it has
been approved before and that the doors are minimally visible at
best. Mr. Oedel stated that the windows and roof vent are the
only concern. Mr. Vallee stated that the roof vent is not part
of the application and did not know if he will propose it in the
future .
Mr. Slam amended his motion to include that the sills and casings
match the detail on the side of the rear L of the house in
profile and dimension.
Chairman Harris suggested an amendment that the amendments made
to the original motion apply to the doors as well and that the
Certificate specify. no roof vent. Mr. Slam accepted the
amendment . Mr. Oedel seconded the motion. All were in favor and
the motion so carried.
• Mr. Carr entered the meeting at this time.
183 Rear Federal Street
Mr. Mark Pellegrini presented an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to affix external wood grills on two third floor
windows to reproduce 6 over 6 pattern consistent with the
remainder of his house at 183 Rear Federal Street. The applicant
has already completed the work and the application states that
all the paint matches existing colors . Chairman Harris provided
pictures of what is visible from the public way. Chairman Harris
stated that in August, 1988 Mr. Pellegrini came before the
Commission for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the
replacement of these two windows with the larger ones that were
already installed. At that time Mr. Carr was concerned that the
windows were not previously existing elements and Chairman Harris
had been concerned that there were no muntins on the windows
installed. The application had been continued in order for Mr.
Pellegrini to provide proof that the windows were existing
elements .
Mr. Pellegrini provided condominium documentation on file with
the Register of Deeds dated 1986 signed by David Jacquith
architect. Mr. Pellegrini stated that there couldn ' t have been
only one centered window because of the wall in the center of the
room. Mr. Pellegrini stated that there had been two smaller
• windows that he enlarged. Mr. Pierce stated that the document
proves only that it was the condition of the building as of that
f
February 7 , 1990, Page 4
date.
Mr. Carr did not feel that two windows in the gable end were
• appropriate to that building and were likely not to be original
to the building.
Mr. Slam made a motion to approve an application for the two
windows. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion.
Mr. Carr stated that it has been the policy of the Commission not
to approve after the fact what would not have been approved
before the fact. Mr. Carr did not feel that the Commission would
approve the installation of two windows in the gable end of the
attic . Mr. Carr added that in recent discussions on the updating
of the Commission ' s guidelines, it was determined that the type
of muntins installed do not weather well and may no longer be
approved by the Commission. It was noted that the guideline
amendments have not yet been approved by vote.
Mr. Oedel stated that two windows can be found in some homes and
that it was not a reasonable point. Mr. Carr stated that it did
not typically occur and that he was not convinced that the
windows were a prior existing element . Mr. Pellegrini stated
that Mr. Carr must therefore be doubtful of the contention that
the center wall was existing.
Mr. Oedel stated that the application before the Commission is to
affix external wood window muntins on two existing windows. Mr.
• Oedel added that since 60 days has past from the application for
the windows, the question is only whether the Commission wants 6
over 6 windows.
Mr. Slam withdrew his motion because his motion was for approval
of the windows and not just the muntins . Mr. Oedel withdrew his
second.
Mr. Carr made a motion that until the applicant can prove that
the two windows are pre-existing to the creation of the McIntire
Historic District that the Commission find that it is
inappropriate to locate two windows on the third floor of a gable
end and that exterior muntin bars that are not intregal are not
appropriate. There was no second.
Mr. Slam made a motion to approve the application as submitted.
There was no second.
Cindy Cobb of 1838 Federal Street asked what the Commission would
need to prove that the two windows were existing. Mr. Carr
replied that he would like evidence showing the condition at the
time of the creation of the district.
' Mr. Carr requested that Tolles ' Architecture in Salem be
reviewed.
• Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the application as submitted.
Mr. Slam seconded the motion. Chairman Harris and Messrs . Oedel,
February 7 , 1990 , Page 5
Pierce, and Slam voted in favor. Mr. Carr voted in opposition.
The motion was so carried.
• Chairman Harris questioned the installation of skylights . Mr.
Pellegrini provided a copy of a letter from Kent Healy, former
staff person for the Commission, that stated that the
installation of three skylights would not be visible from the
public way and would therefore not be under the Commission ' s
jurisdiction. The pictures provided showed the skylights being
visible as installed.
Mr. Slam made a motion to approve a Certificate of Hardship for
the skylights. There was no second.
Mr. Carr suggested that Mr. Pellegrini submit an application for
their approval .
Chairman Harris suggested that the applicant apply for a
Certificate of Hardship and that the Commission consider waiving
the public hearing.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to waive the public hearing. Mr. Slam
seconded the motion.
Mr. Carr felt any application should go through the normal
process .
• Mr. Oedel withdrew his motion. Mr. Slam withdrew his second.
261-263 Lafayette Street
Gary Green presented an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness on behalf of Maria Gianoulis for the removal of a
stairway, and the extension of two porches at .261-263 Lafayette
Street. The plans and application submitted propose to remove
the stairway on the right side of the right rear porch and extend
the porch. The rail systems will be changed to 2 x 4 rail with
ballasters 6" on center. The left rear porch will be extended
18" to the left for extra room.
Mr. Carr asked if either porch will come out further into the
driveway. Mr. Green replied in the negative .
Chairman Harris asked if the left porch could come out forward
instead of to the left. Mr. Green stated that it would
cantelever over the driveway.
Mr. Joe McLaughlin of 253 Lafayette Street stated that he had no
opinion as to the work proposed and added that it did not add any
beauty to the house.
Ms . Gianoulis ' son stated that it may be better to go out toward
the driveway since it would provide more room.
• Chairman Harris stated that the porch would have a gap with the
lattice work set back.
February 7 , 1990, Page 6
Mr. Carr stated that the first option to extend the porch to the
left would provide posts to the ground with the lattice work all
. around. Mr. Carr stated that the pictures shown did not provide
a good indication of what would be seen from Lafayette Street.
Mr. Carr stated that the second option to cantelever the porch
would leave the lattice set back. Mr. Carr felt that he would
need different angle pictures to determine what would look best.
Mr. McLaughlin stated that he preferred the cantelever because it
would be less visible.
Mr. Green stated that he would use 1 x 4 decking.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to continue the application until the
next meeting to allow the applicant to decide on the preferred
option and to get additional pictures . Mr. Slam seconded the
motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
41 Flint Street
Mr. Wayne Sousa submitted an application for Non-Applicability to
place white aluminum storm windows on the third floor to match
the existing storm windows on the house, to replace missing slate
roof tiles with the same type tiles and to repair or replace the
roof of the second floor bow window. If replaced, it will be as
presently exists, tin with tar coating. The application is also
to repaint the body of the house with the existing color.
• Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted.
Mr. Slam seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion
so carried.
310 Essex Street
The City of Salem presented an application for a Certificate of
Non-Applicability for the repair of the windows at the Witch
House and 310 Essex Street. Ms. Guy indicated that Mr. Pierce
did an inspection of the windows and that Roger Hedstrom
developed the scope of work for the bidding of the project.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the application as submitted.
Mr. Pierce seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion
so carried.
26 Beckford Street
Chairman Harris read a letter submitted by Edgar Allard
rescinding all of his applications regarding 26 Beckford Street.
Mr. Carr provided a synopsis of his recent conversation with Mr.
Allard. Mr. Slam suggested that members informally inspect the
house for discussion at the next meeting. Mr. Carr stated that
the Commission may want to send a letter to Mr. Allard.
Other Business
Mr. Slam stated that he will not be attending the next meeting.
February 7 , 1990, Page 7
Correspondence
• Ms . Guy sent a letter to the Board of Appeal requesting that the
owner' s of 40 Derby Street, who petitioned for relief for
set-back requirements for a pool and deck, file appropriate
applications with the Commission.
Ms. Patricia Durkee of 2 Andover Street submitted a letter
informing the Commission that she will not be petitioning the
State Appeals Board at this time, but would like a copy of the
Commission ' s letter written on her behalf . Mr. Carr will provide
the letter to her.
Ms . Guy stated that she received a letter from Heidi Lutts
requesting that she be informed of any single family colonial or
federal style house available to be moved to a lot in Salem.
Violations
Chairman Harris read a letter received from Mr. Don Wallace
regarding the skylights in violation at 174 Federal Street. Mr.
Carr made a motion that a letter be sent to the City Solicitor
informing him that 30 days has past since the decision regarding
174 Federal Street and to request enforcement. The motion
includes that a copy of the letter be sent to the homeowner. Mr.
Oedel seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so
carried.
. Mr. John Suldenski submitted a letter requesting a 60 day
extension on his period of compliance for the removal of a sign.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to extend the period of compliance until
April 1, 1990 for the removal of the sign and that a letter be
sent to Mr. Suldenski informing him of the extension. Mr. Slam
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so
carried.
Ms. Guy stated that a letter was sent to Mr. Alan Howe regarding
a temporary fence that has not been removed at 10 Chestnut
Street.
Minutes
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the minutes of November 15,
1989 . Mr. Oedel seconded the motion. All were in favor and the
motion so carried.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the minutes of January 3,
1990 . Mr. Pierce seconded the motion. All were in favor and the
motion so carried.
Re-appointments
Messrs . Slam and Oedel requested that they be appointed full
members. Chairman Harris will ask the remaining members if they
• desire to be reappointed. Possible candidates that Chairman
Harris may provide for the Mayor ' s consideration include David
February 7 , 1990, Page 8
Hart, Steve Santry, Peter Strout and Roger Hedstrom.
• There being no further business, Mr. Slam made a motion to
adjourn. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion. All were in favor and
the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Je A. Guy
C rk of th Commission
JHisCom7/020790
•
•
February 21 , 1990 Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 21 , 1990
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commisssion was held
on Wednesday , February 21 , 1990 at 7 :30 at One Salem Green,
Salem Mass . Present were Chairperson Harris and Messrs . Oedel,
Pierce, and Carr and Ms . Guy. Municipal Intern Robert Mal o'nek
was also present .
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Continuation 261 -263 Lafayette Street
Present was Gary Green to represent Maria Gianoulis n continuation
of an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the"
removal of a stairway , and its replacement with an extension of
the existing porch as per plans, and to extend the decking of the
left rear porch at cher home at 261 -263 Lafayette St .
Mr. Green presented a new sketch which showed extending the
existing rear left proch 2 feet cantilevered over the driveway .
There will be lattice work with a rolled overhang. He suggested
the overhang due to the fact it would be visible from the street .
Mr. Carr suggested that the shrubs should stay.
• MR. Carr made a motion to approve the application as amended.
Mr. Oedel seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion
so carried.
3 Broad Street
Elaine Hart from the Salem Housing Authority presented an
application fora Certificate of Appropriateness for aluminum
block, black baked, enamel finish letters to be installed above
the porch on side of building at 3 Broad Street .
Ms . Hart stated that the Oliver School sign will remain on
the front and no other signage will be installed. Samples of
smaller size letters were provided. Ms . Hart stated that the
letters are to be 8 inches in height.
Mr. Pierce asked the dimesion of the facia board. Ms . Hart
replied 12" x 22 ' .
Mr. Pierce stated that it is a 3 piece facia and that the bottom
area is where the sign will go. Mr':. Pierce sf:elt -. that the
letters are larger thann they should be for that., size facia.
Mr. Carr stated that he did not get that feeling when looking
at the picture and did not felt: it was too excessive.
February 21 , 1990 Page 2
Mr. Pierce inquired as to how much border would be left .
• Ms . Hart stated that the facia is 22 feet long with 172 feet
of lettering.
Mr. Pierce asked if any other form of signage was considered.
Ms . Hart replied in the negative and stated that the letters
could be reduced to 6" letters which will leave 3 inches
above and 3 inches below.
Mr. Carr stated that if the letters were too small , it could
defeat the purpose.
Mr'.. Pi6rce stated� that he was not opposed to the sign , but
its relative position on the facia.
Mr. Oedel pelt ' - 8 inch letters are too big and that 6 inch
letters are better. M', Pierce was in agreement .
Mr . Oedel made a motion to accept the sign with 6 inch letters .
Mr. Pierce seconded. All were in favor and the motion was so
carried.
172 :Federal Street
• Ken & Joyce Wallace presented an application for a ,�Certificate
of Non-applicability to replace rotted trim and facia boards
at their home at 172 Federal Street .
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted
conditional that the applicants €replicate existing wood and
details .
Mr. Oedel seconded the motion. All were in favor and the
motion so carried.
29 Washington Square
The Bertram Home for Aged Men presented an application for a
Certificate of Non-Applicability for a temporary sign at
29 Washington Square North. A drawinz7 of the sign was presented.
The sign is 4 feet x 8 feet rounded at the top. The sign will
be inside the fence area near Mall Street corner to the left
of the front door on the Washington Street side.
Mr. Carr asked how long will the sign be up.
Mr. BillCarney,_ representing the Bertram Rome, replied that it
would be up for 8 to 9 months .
February 21 , 1990 Page 3
Mr. Carr stated that the sign should not take away from
the architecture.
•
Ms. Guy asked if there will be lighting
Mr. Carney replied that there may be a small directional
light from the ground.
Mr . Oedel stated that a temporary sign should not have lighting .
Mr. Pierce stated that the street lights will provide lighting.
Mr. Oedel moved to approve the application for a sign to be
removed by October 31 , 1990, to be unlit, to be placed to the
left of the door on Washington Square inside the fence.
Motion was seconded by Mr. Pierce. All were in favor. Motion
so carried.
FISCAL YEAR 1989 SURVEY AND PLANNING GRANT
Ms . Kim Brengle was present to give an update on the status of
the FY89 Survey & Planning Grant. Ms . Brengle stated that the grant
was, to inventory South Salem, North Salem, the Willows and the
Point areas . There were 550 inventory forms for buildings
with a list of recommendations for properties for the National
Register. The FY89 Grant is to finish Gallows Hill area which
has 150 inventory forms and to organize all the forms which
• are at varying levels of usefulness . Some of these inventory
forms date back from the 1960' s to the present time. The
problem is that standards change, and the quality of the
surveys are not good information-wise for today . Some of the
buildings have three generations of inventories , the later of
these being the best . Ms. Brengle stated
that the project is: at a clerical stage. The list has been
compiled and efforts are being made to pool all the information
together while trying not to miss any areas of the city .
Ms. Brengle stated that recommendations for new and expanded
local districts and recommendations for the National Register
will be included in the final report .
Chairperson Harris suggested expansio-a of the Common district
be done in phases , for instance, the side where Winter Street
is .
Mr. Cart stated the report will be helpful in priorit' zing the
neighborhoods , but felt that the Common should be expanded first .
Chairperson Harris suggested that the neighborhood should
push to have the work done.
II
February 21, 1990, Page 4
Mr. Carr stated that the Commission could start contacting
neighbors within the boundaries .
Chairperson Harris suggested that the Buffum Street and Point
areas maybe National Register eligible. Chairman Harris asked if
Bridge Street was eligible. Ms. Brengle replied that it was not
intact enough.
Mr. Oedel suggested that Ms . Brengle come back at a later date
when the recommendations for districts are completed.
Review of Violations
Ms . Guy stated that 174 Federal Street, 14 Chestnut Street, 15
Cambridge Street and 271 Lafayette Street were still in the hands
of the City Solicitor. Mr. Carr made a motion that the City
Solicitor be asked to provide a status report . Mr. Oedel
seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so
carried.
Ms . Guy stated that 362 Essex Street has been sent a Notice of
Violation.
Correspondence Review
Ms . Guy presented a letter received from Allen Howe in reply to
the Commission ' s letter sent 1/22/90 . Mr. Howe will be applying
for a Certificate of Appropriateness at the end of February.
• Ms. Guy stated that Historic Massachusetts is requesting
materials for display for educational purposes . Chairperson
Harris suggested that Ms . Guy send Historic Salem' s handbook and
the Commission ' s brochure.
The Commission members provided Ms . Guy with assistance in
completing a National Park Service questionaire.
Mr. Carr suggested that a letter be sent to the Board of Appeals
regarding the application for a variance for the Salem Armory
project. Mr. Carr stated that letter should show enthusiasm
about the consortion of the two museums, and state that the
Commission is willing to be helpful in any way. Mr. Carr made a
motion to approve the sending of the letter. Mr. Pierce seconded
the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Ms . Guy presented a latter for the Commission' s approval which
will be sent to M.E.P.A. regarding the SESD siting process . The
letter was so approved.
Ms . Guy stated that there will be a consultation meeting at the
MDPW on 3/6/90 regarding the Skerry House demolition.
Ms . Guy stated that there will be no meeting on March 7, 1990 .
i
February 21, 1990, Page 5
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the minutes of 2/7/90 . Mr.
Carr seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so
carried.
There being no further business, Mr. Oedel made a motion to
adjourn. Mr. Pierce seconded the motion. All were in favor and
the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Cheryl LaPo e/Jane G
JHisCom7/022190
i
March 21, 1990, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
March 21, 1990
• A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on
Wednesday, March 21, 1990 at 7 : 30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem,
MA. Present were Chairperson Harris & Messrs. Oedel, Carr, Slam,
and Cook and Ms. Guy.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
37 Warren Street
Don Rose and Nina Simons presented an application for Certificate
of Appropriateness for a new rear addition which consisted of the
removal of a bay window, and the addition of 2 windows , stairs
and door at their home at 37 Warren Street. Drawings were
presented. The roof of the addition will be copper. Ms . Simon
stated that their second choice of roof material would be slate.
Mr. Carr asked what kind of windows would be installed. Mr. Rose
responded that the new windows would be six over one and the
present windows on the rest of the house are six over six.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submiteed.
Mr. Cook seconded the motion.
Mr. Carr suggested that the lower panels be separated so that the
• foundation line continues around. Mr. Slam stated that he did
not have a problem with the foundation line . Chairman Harris
stated that she preferred the continued foundation line but only
as a recommendation.
Mr. Cook stated that he would be in favor of the addition.
Mr. Carr amended his motion to approve the application with the
recommendation that they keep the foundation line. Mr. Cook
seconded the amendment. All were in favor and the motion so
carried.
The applicants presented a second option for the roof treatment
which provided a plane for each segment. Mr. Carr made a motion
to approve the second roof option. Mr. Cook seconded the motion.
All were in favor and the motion so carried.
SALEM COMMON McINTIRE ARCH REPLICA
Ms . Thelma Wiley, representing the Salem Common Neighborhood
Association, presented an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to install a 12" x 8" bronze plaque on the
McIntire Arch replica on the Salem Common. Chairperson Harris
read the proposed inscription for the plaque. The plaque is to
be bronze with raised letters and will be paid for by the Salem
Common Neighborhood Association.
Ms . Guy stated that the proposed inscription did not mention that
March 21, 1990, Page 2
Holyoke Mutual Insurance funded replica nor the names of the
workers responsible for its construction. Ms . Guy presented a
flyer from Holyoke which provided that information. Ms. Guy
• stated that Mr. Pierce had contacted her to state that he had no
objections to the plaque and felt that it should be located on
the lower part of the columns , on the base element, approximately
3 ' off the ground.
Mr. Carr felt that the mention of Holyoke or others responsible
for the arch should be at the option of the Salem Common
Neighborhood Association. Mr. Carr was in favor of the plaque
and felt that the location should be on the Winter Street side at
eye level .
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted
with the plaque to be located on the upright on the right side
when standing at Winter Street and for the Salem Common
Neighborhood Association to have the option to amend the
inscription to include Holyoke Mutual or other recognition. Mr.
Oedel seconded the motion. Chairman Harris and Messrs . Cook,
Oedel and Carr were in favor. Mr. Slam abstained from voting.
The motion was so carried.
15 Cambridge Street
Kevin Guinee presented an application for a Certificate of
Non-Applicability to re-roof the peak section of his house at 15
Cambridge Street. The material and color will remain the same.
• The applicant was not present.
Mr. Cook made a motion to approve the application as submitted.
Mr. Carr seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion
so carried as being Non-applicable due to being an in kind
replacement.
Review of Violations
Ms . Guy stated that the Commission received a copy of a letter
dated March 14 , 1990 from Kevin Daly to Donald Wallace of 174
Federal Street which requested that Mr. Wallace contact him about
the skylights .
Ms . Guy stated that a letter was sent to the City Solicitor
requesting an update on the lawsuits .
Mr. Carr stated that Peter Copelas at Beckford Street still has
yellow asbestos shingles remaining on one side of his home. Ms .
Guy will check into.
Chairperson Harris stated that 5 Hamilton Street has still not
painted their fence and never received approvals for the rear
porch, fence and railing. Ms . Guy will check into.
• Mr . Cook will speak to Steve Thomas at 14 Broad Street regarding
the removal of fence. Ms . Guy will check the survey form to see
if it is a pre-existing condition.
March 21, 1990, Page 3
Ms . Guy stated that the owners of 164 Federal Street were sent a
letter by the Building Dept. that they were in violation for
. zoning as well as no permits for two decks.
Ms . Guy stated that she has had no contact with the owners of 362
Essex Street since they picked up an application on 3/8/90 . Ms .
Guy will try to contact the owner by telephone.
Work Status
Ms . Guy stated that 82 Derby Street compliance was extended to
April 1, 1990 .
Ms . Guy inquired if the windows have been replaced at 51 Summer
Street. Mr. Carr stated that he would try to check if they had.
Ms . Guy stated that she will send a letter reminding the Burke ' s
at 48 Chestnut Street that their fence must be completed as
approved.
Ms . Guy stated that Mr . Howe of 10 Chestnut Street will be coming
to the next meeting.
Ms . Guy stated that she will send a reminder letter to 100
Federal Street regarding the addition of a railing.
Preservation Awards
• Mr. Carr stated that he would like the Commssion to consider
Sally Wilson ' s dutch colonial garage on Dearborn Street and the
yellow house next to the Shell Station on North Street for
Preservation Awards.
Chairman Harris suggested that the awards be held midday at City
Hall with the Mayor in order to receive press coverage .
Mr. Carr made a motion that the Commission preserve tradition by
presenting the preservation awards at Historic Salem, Inc. ' s
annual meeting. Mr. Cook seconded the motion. All were in favor
and the motion so carried.
Mr. Carr stated that he will arranged for press coverage.
Other Business
Mr. Slam made a motion to send a conciliatory letter to Edgar
Allard at 26 Beckford Street. There was no second.
Ms . Guy stated that 40 Derby Street received a special permit for
a deck and pool from the Board of Appeals . Ms . Guy stated that
she mailed the owners an application for a Certificate of
Non-applicability on March 14 .
Ms . Guy stated that she attended a meeting in Boston, regarding
the Skerry house. The DPW will fence off h
� • y the archaeological
areas. Demolition will occur by the end of March. The Essex
March 21, 1990 , Page 4
Institute will be taking portions from inside the house and the
D.P.W. will fumegate them.
• Ms. Guy stated that she had received two applications from
Richard Savicky, a former Commission member, to install vinyl
siding on two of his houses ( 83-85 Derby, 3 Eaton Place) but they
have been withdrawn for the time being. Ms . Guy stated that she
sent him copies of the Commission ' s guidelines and information on
the misconceptions about vinyl siding.
The next meeting will be April 4 , 1990
There being no further business, Mr. Carr made a motion to
adjourn. Mr. Cook seconded the motion. All were in favor and
the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Cheryl LaPoi e/Jane G y
Minutes/032190
•
1
• SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES OF MEETING
APRIL 4, 1990
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held
on Wednesday, April 4, 1990 at 7:30 P.M. in the second floor
conference room at One Salem Green.
Present were: Chairman Annie Harris, Russell Slam, John Carr,
and Hank Cook. Also present were Jane Guy of the Salem Planning
Department and Eileen Sacco, Acting Clerk.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Annie Harris at
7:40 P.M.
20-22 FOWLER STREET - RICHARD LIS & LYNN RIVENBURGH - NEW RAILING
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
The Commission reviewed the application of Richard Lis and Lynn
Rivenburgh, for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the addition
of a rail to the existing deck located at the rear of the house,
located at 20-22 Fowler Street. The proposed rail is to be
painted the same color as the existing trim on the house. The
applicants were present at the meeting to answer questions from
the Commission.
Annie Harris reviewed the drawing submitted with the application
• with the members of the Commission, which show that the posts
will be 4x4 with ballisters 6" o.c. TM
Pictures show that the deck as existing is not visible from
the public way.
There being no questions or comments from the members of the
Commission, a motion was made by John Carr to approve the
application as submitted, seconded by Russell Slam and approved
unanimously.
10 CHESTNUT STREET - ALAN HOWE - REPLACEMENT OF DOOR AND TRANSOM
FENCE, AND SLIDING DOOR - CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
The Commission reviewed the application of Alan Howe for a
Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the door and transom
of the Cambridge Street side of his property located at 10
Chestnut Street. The application also requests to replace the
temporary cedar fencing on the Cambridge Street side, and to
replace a 712" X 9" sliding door window with a wooden window
resembling the original 6 over 6 window. The applicant was
present at the meeting to answer questions from the Commission.
Chairman Harris reviewed the drawings submitted with the
application for the Commission. The first item discussed was
the fence which will be hinged on the inside. John Carr
•
1
suggested that it would be more appropriate to have the driveway
• opening framed with boxed - in �--)posts to be similar in scale
to granite posts. He also suggested that the applicant dress
up the posts and the addition of a skirt board was suggested. _
Chairman Harris felt that the posts shouldn't be quite as t li _as
the existing, but agreed they should lie larger. Mr. Howe
indicated that he had no problem changing his plans to meet
the Commission' s request. He will submit a new drawing for
the plans for the fence so that the Commission can discuss it
at the next meeting in two weeks.
The next item discussed was the replacement of the door and
transom. The applicant stated that he has the original transom
and that the new door will be made to replicate the original
raised panel door. Annie Harris suggested that perhaps the
original door might be repairable rather than replacing the
door. It was recommended that the original door be repaired
and if not possible, try to replicate the original as close
as possible. The existing trim will be used.
There being no further comments or questions from the Commission,
a motion was made by John Carr to approve the application as
submitted for the door and window' , and to continue the fence
issue until the next meeting, seconded by Russell Slam and
approved unanimously.
11 WARREN STREET - FREDERICK RUSSELL CHAPMAN - REPLACEMENT OF
• PORCH - CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
The Commission reviewed the application of Frederick Russell
Chapman for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the
construction of a second floor deck to the replace the existing
covered porch. The applicant was present at the meeting to
answer questions from the Commission. The porch currently
extends 6 ' and is proposed to extend 8 ' .
Annie Harris reviewed the drawing submitted with the application.
Russell Slam asked if the porch would be visible from Broad
'Street. Jane Guy stated that it is visible from Braod Street,
and that it might be minimally visible from Warren Street.
Jane Guy also showed the Commissioners photographs for the
property that she had taken for this application and from a
previous application for the property.
There being no further comments or questions from the Commission
or those in attendance at the meeting, a motion was made by
John Carr to approve the application as submitted, seconded
by Hank Cook, and approved unanimously
13 LINDEN STREET - LAURA STANLEY - DECK CONSTRUCTION
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
• The Commission reviewed the application of Laura Stanley for
2
a Certificate of Appropriateness for the Construction of a deck
• on the existing roof of her condo at 13 Linden Street.
The applicant was informed that there were only four members
of the Commission present at this meeting and that if she did
not receive all four of their votes in favor of her application
it would be denied. Ms. Stanley opted to postpone the review
of her application until the next meeting of the Commission.
Chairman Harris asked that Ms. Guy ask Massachusetts Historical
Commission if this property should be considered within the
district.
REVIEW OF CORRESPONDENCE
Chairman Harris reviewed the correspondence that the Commission
has received from City Solicitor Kevin Daly, and E. Ware Cady
III.
As suggested by City Solicitor Kevin Daly in his letter, the
Commission decided to invite him to the next meeting to discuss
the pending matters of 15 Cambridge Street, 271 Lafayette Street,
P g 9
and 174 Federal Street, and 14 Chestnut Street.
PRESERVATION AWARDS
Ms. Guy provided the Commission with a list of projects reviewed
over the last two years, in order that the members can provide
nominations at the next meeting.
Mr. Cook stated that the award recipients should not have to
pay the $35.00 fee to attend the HSI dinner to accept their
awards.
OTHER BUSINESS
Jane Guy submitted for the approval of the Commission an
application for Determination of Eligibility for the Salem Neck
area to be listed in the National Register.
Motion made by John Carr to approve the submittion of the
application, seconded by Russell Slam and approved unanimously.
There being no further business to come before the Commission
at this meeting a motion- was made by Hank' Cook to adjourn the
meeting seconded by Russell Slam and approved unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:44 P.M.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY:
Eileen M. Sacco
Acting Clerk
. HC040490
3
r -
April 16, 19 Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
April 18, 1990
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on
Wednesday, April 18, 1990 at 7 : 30 p.m. at One Salem Green, Salem,
MA. Present were Chairman Harris, Messrs . Carr, Cook and
Hedstrom and Ms . Guy.
Chairman Harris called the meeting to order and welcomed new
member Roger Hedstrom who replaces Jacob Wolfson. Mr. Hedstrom' s
term will expire on 3/1/92 . Appointed as full members are
Richard Oedel (term expiration 3/1/93 ) and Russel Slam (term
expiration 3/1/91 ) replacing Daniel Geary and Peter Zaharis .
Reappointments include Annie Harris (expiration 3/1/93 ) , Walter
Cook (expiration 3/1/91) and John Carr (expiration 3/1/91) .
Public Hearings
10 Chestnut Street
Alan Howe was not present for the continuation of his application
for a Certificate of Appropriateness for fence replacement at his
property at 10 Chestnut Street.
There being incomplete information to make an informed decision,
Mr. Carr made a motion to deny the portion of the application
regarding the fence. Mr. Cook seconded the motion. All were in
favor and the motion so carried.
• 27 North Street
Marianne Pantelakis representing Ambrosia Realty Trust presented
applications for Certificates of Appropriateness, Hardship and
Non-Applicability for the installation of 18 vents in the soffit
area at 27 North Street. The roof vents are needed to avoid
condensation in the crawl space of the roof . A sample 4" midget
vent was provided which will be installed every eighteen feet,
flush, and painted the same color as the existing cornice.
Mr. Carr stated that he did not have a problem with the vents as
long as the installation didn ' t look like patchwork. Mr. Carr
was concerned about the basis for an approval .
Chairman Harris felt that. the vents could be approved under a
Hardship application.
Mr. Carr made a motion that the Commission make the following
findings :
1. That the existing crawl space in the attic area needs
ventilation or otherwise a fire hazard will occur;
2 . That venting can only be by roof or soffit venting;
3 . That roof venting is likely to cause leakage problems and
may be more visible than soffit venting;
4 . That soffit vents installed on this particular building
r
April 1&, 198 , Page 2
can be installed without derigating from the
architectural appearance of the building; and
• 5 . That given the particular ventilation needs and the
disadvantages of roof venting, the Commission finds that
a Hardship exists.
Mr. Cook seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion
so carried.
Mr . Cook made a motion to approve a Certificate of Hardship as
submitted based on the above findings . Mr. Carr seconded the
motion.
Mr. Hedstrom stated that location is important and that the vents
should not be randomly placed. Mr. Hedstrom felt that the vents
should be uniformly located and equally distant.
Ms . Pantelakis stated that the air would have to circulate
uniformly.
Mr. Carr asked if there were any skylights on the building. Ms .
Pantelakis replied in the negative.
Mr. Carr stated that the application is for 18 vents which could
be placed with 5 on each long end and 4 on each short end,
equally distant. Mr. Carr stated that they should be centered
between each bracket.
• Mr. Cook amended his motion that the vents be placed equally
distributed apart from eachother around the building that they
be centered between the brackets and that they be painted to
match the existing cornice. Mr. Carr seconded the amendment.
All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms . Pantelakis withdrew the applications for Appropriateness and
Non-applicability.
19 Fowler Street
Charles and Susan Bean presented an application for a Certificate
of Non-applicability to replace the foundation sills on the west
and north side of their home at 19 Fowler Street. The
application stated that the beams on the foundation side are 36
feet. The applicants were not present.
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted
with a strong recommendation that a water table (exterior base
board) be installed. It is recommended due to being more
historically appropriate and that it will prevent the shingles
from soaking up water which results in continuous rot problems .
Mr. Carr also recommended that the owners look into the
feasibility of excavating around the perimeter of house in order
to solve long-term rotted sill problems . Mr . Cook seconded the
motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried. t
hd Yd ,e%ar ems!
un li/ cas 7�'
r
April 19, 1 Page 3
Other Business VV
Ms . Guy stated that she contacted Massachusetts Historical
. Commission with regard to 13 Linden Street. MHC stated that
since Salem' s ordinance did not provide for properties being
absorbed into the district when land acquisitions occured, and ;
that Salem' s ordinance was by boundary lines drawn around
specific properties, the Salem Historical Commission did not have
review authority over 13 Linden St. MHC stated that the
Commission could consider amending its ordinance to include a
buffer zone.
Mr . Carr made a motion to go into Executive Session regarding
lawsuits . Mr. Cook 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 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 4/18/90 .
•
•
i
F 1
April 1.6, 11(5� Page 4
EXECUTIVE SESSION
4/18/90
. City Solicitor Kevin Daly was present to discuss the status of }
legal action on behalf of the Commission.
Atty. Daly stated that it may be important to continue legal J
enforcement of violations in order to get some publicity which
will alert people that they must abide by the City ' s ordinance
concerning historic districts.
14 Chestnut Street
Atty. Daly was provided with a verbal summary of the issues
concerning 14 Chestnut Street. Ms . Guy stated that a copy of a
letter from Dr. Murray' s attorney was forwarded to her by Asst.
City Solicitor Femino. The letter stated that in turn for his
dismissal of his civil action suit, Dr. Murray should be allowed
to retain the roof color and skylights as presently exists .
Atty. Daly was concerned with the effect of William Munroe ' s
office issuing a Building Permit. Atty. Daly stated that
although the City could loose the suit, it is not the right time
to stop the action and that the Commission should continue.
The Commission concluded that allowing the roof color and
skylights was not acceptable and that the Legal Department should
continue to pursue enforcement.
• Ms. Guy stated that she was contacted by Mr. Healy in late
January and was provided with his then current address to forward
tax withholding statements . Ms. Guy stated that she obtained
this information after .the interogatories had been submitted.
Atty. Daly suggested that she forward the address to Atty. y.
Femino.
Atty. Femino will keep Ms. Guy informed of the status of this
lawsuit.
15 Cambridge Street
Atty. Daly was provided with a verbal summary of the issues
concerning 15 Cambridge Street . Atty. Daly stated that he will
have Atty. Femino contact the Guinee ' s lawyer to find out the
status . Atty. Femino will keep Ms. Guy informed of the status of
this lawsuit.
174 Federal Street
Atty. Daly was provided with a verbal summary of the issues
concerning 174 Federal Street . Atty. Daly stated that he had
been in contact with Mr. Don Wallace and that Mr. Wallace stated
that the skylights were not visible from Federal Street and that `
the neighbors were in favor of the work. Mr. Carr stated that
Mr. Wallace was incorrect. Chairman Harris stated that the
Commission would like to pursue enforcement of their
April lb ley Page 5
determination. Atty. Daly will file a complaint in court.
271 Lafayette Street
• 1
Atty. Daly was provided with a verbal summary of the issues
concerning 271 Lafayette Street. Chairman Harris stated that the
ballasters should be closer together and fatter. Ms . Guy stated
that Mr. Abelson ' s last correspondence indicated that he might
take under consideration an alternative if provided with
information as promised when he last attended a meeting. Atty.
Daly will instruct Atty. Femino to proceed with enforcement.
362 Lafayette Street
Atty. Daly was provided with a verbal summary of the issues
concerning 362 Lafayette Street. Ms . Guy stated that the owners
constructed a gazebo-type entry-way without Historical Commission
approval or a building permit from the Building Department. Both
agencies have notified the owners in writing of the violation.
Ms . Guy stated that the owners were given an application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness on 3/8/90 but that it had never
been filed. Chairman Harris stated that the house is now on the
market and asked if the Commission can put any kind of lien on
the property. Mr. Cook did not feel the Commission has the right
to encumber a title. Mr. Carr felt that the title should not be
encumbered but rather a Clerk' s Certificate be filed at the
Registry of Deeds in order to provide a method of flagging a
prospective buyer. Atty. Daly stated that it may be possible to
have an attachment without necessarily having a title defect.
Mr. Carr suggested that Atty. Daly send the owners a letter
requesting they comply with the City' s ordinance. Mr. Carr
suggested a letter be sent to the owner ' s real estate broker.
Chairman Harris suggested a copy of Atty. Daly ' s letter be sent
to the broker. Ms. Guy will provide Atty. Daly with r
correspondence copies regarding this property. Atty. Daly will
have Atty. Femino look into what kinds of encumbrances can be
done for violations .
Mr. Carr made a motion to adjourn the Executive Session. Mr.
Cook seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so
carried.
• d
I
April 1�, 1 Page 6
Violation Status
5 Hamilton St. - Ms. Guy stated that there is no file for 5
. Hamilton Street in the Planning Department. Ms . Guy added that
the Building Department has indicated that a 6 ' fence is 1
permitted on the front lot line provided it is not a corner
property. Mr. Carr felt that correction of the violation should
be pursued. Ms. Guy will draft a letter to the owners.
14 Broad St. - Mr. Cook spoke to Evelyn Blum regarding the fence
that was taken down at 14 Broad Street. Ms . Blum indicated that
she and Steve Thomas would consider putting back the fence and
would like the Commission to consider allowing them to install a
privacy fence toward the end of their driveway. Chairman Harris
felt that a fence would hide the garage which had been installed
without approval . Mr. Carr felt that a comprimise to get the
front fence put back was not appropriate and that it was not
necessary due to the fence removal and garage installation
occuring without proper permits. Mr. Carr suggested that the
owners be notified in writing that they are in violation.
Chairman Harris stated that a 5 to 6 foot solid fence with fancy
spindles may be an improvement and that she was not suggesting a
picket fence . Mr. Carr stated that he would not want the
driveway to look bisected. Chairman Harris stated that the fence
would need to be tall enough so as not to be able to see the
garage or remaining driveway. Mr. Carr felt that the owners
should apply in the usual manner and that the two issues were
separate. Mr. Hedstrom was in agreement and felt that the
driveway fence should be considered on its own merits . Mr.
• Hedstrom felt strongly that the front fence be put back. Mr.
Carr suggested that a letter be sent which states that the fence
had been removed and that a trellis had been erected and that the
owners should come before the Commission with the appropriate
applications . Chairman Harris suggested the letter mention that
the Commission could entertain any new applications for fencing
at the same time. Ms . Guy will draft the letter.
Mr. Cook left the meeting at this time.
82 Derby St. - Ms . Guy stated that Mr. Suldenski will be coming
to the meeting of 5/2/90 with a new application.
51 Summer St. - Ms . Guy requested that a member of the Commission
determine if the windows have been replaced as approved. Mr.
Carr did not believe the sills had been built up as required.
Ms . Guy requested that a member please check for the glass
replacement prior to the next meeting.
48 Chestnut Street - Ms . Guy sent the owners a reminder letter on
3/29 regarding the completion of the fence.
100 Federal St. - Ms . Guy stated that a reminder for the railing
was sent on 3/29 . If no reply is received or the work is not
completed by the next meeting, enforcement may be required. i
• 8-82 Chestnut Street - Ms . Guy asked if the lattice screening had
April 1�, 19 Page 7
been properly installed to screen the door. Ms. Guy will provide
Chairman Harris with the conditions of the approval and Chairman
Harris will check what has been completed.
• 15 Beckford Street - Ms . Guy will write a letter to the owners
regarding the incomplete wall .
164 Federal Street - Ms . Guy stated that the owners had been
notified by the Building Department that 2 decks had been
constructed without Building Permits . Ms. Guy stated that the
owners obtained a Commission application on 3/13/90 but never
filed it. Ms . Guy will write them a letter.
40 Derby Street - Ms . Guy stated that on 3/19/90 she sent the
owners an application for Non-applicability regarding a deck for
a pool which was approved by Board of Appeal special permit. The
application has not been filed. Ms . Guy will write them a
letter.
Mr. Carr asked that the Commission members view the following
properties prior to the next meeting and to consider his
concerns:
56 Washington Sq. S - Mr. Carr stated that the members should
consider the sunroom. Mr. Carr added that the property is on
the market.
346 Essex Street - Mr. Carr stated that the members should
consider the address numbers that have been installed.
. 328 Essex Street - Mr. Carr stated that the property is in
disrepair, specifically a Victorian fence is down, a wooden
fence is down except for one of its posts and a fence which
was set back is stacked up. Mr. Carr stated that rot is
taking over the portico. Mr. Carr will draft a sensitive
letter appealing to the owners . Mr. Hedstrom offered to
assist Mr. Carr.
Preservation Awards
Chairman Harris stated that the HSI annual meeting will begin at
6 : 30 on May 11 and that the Commission can only be given 5 to 10
minutes for awards at the beginning of the meeting with only one
slide per house. HSI expects low attendance . Chairman Harris
suggested a ceremony at City Hall steps with the Mayor and the
press . Chairman Harris stated that Mr. Cook would prefer a City
Hall ceremony as well . Mr. Carr suggested that HSI publicize in
an upcoming newsletter that the Historic Commission is soliciting
nominations for awards which will be presented in the summer and
for people to send in nominations . Mr. Carr suggested that the
awards be presented in conjunction with HSI or an HSI event such
as a cocktail party. Mr. Hedstrom agreed that this year ' s annual
meeting may not be the best time to present our awards . Chairman
Harris suggested a ceremony at City Hall followed by a cocktail
party at the Lyceum. Ms . Guy suggested an open house cocktail
party at Hamilton Hall which would serve as a membership drive
April 1e, 19Page 8
party for HSI and a preservation awards ceremony party for the
Commission. Ms . Guy suggested a cash bar, a speaker representing
HSI and a speaker representing the Commission, and a table with
literature for both agencies . Chairman Harris will talk to Bill
Guenther.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
J e A. Guy
C erk of the ommission
Minutes/041890
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
• MINUTES OF MEETING
WEDNESDAY MAY 2, 1990
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held
on Wednesday May 2, 1990 at 7:30 P.M. in the second floor
conference room at One Salem Green.
Those present were: Chairman Annie Harris, John Carr, Hank
Cook, Dick Oedel, Roger Hedstrom, and Ms. Guy.
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M.
19 FOWLER STREET - CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS - CHARLES
AND SUSAN BEAN
The Commission reviewed the application of Charles and Susan
Bean of 19 Fowler Street for a Certificate of Appropriateness
to replace two double hung windows approximately 67"w x 60"h
on the south side rear of the house with a fixed window
approximately 68"w x 40"h with snap in wooden grills. The
application also requested to replace two double hung windows
67"w x 60"h on west side of house with a single double hung
window 36"w x 40"h with snap in grills, and to change the
exterior trim color from yellow to white. Ms. Bean stated that
the windows would have snap in grids.
• John Carr addressed the applicant and stated that he felt that
the chances of the passage of the rear window would be slim.
He noted that although the visibility is minimal, it is
contemporary change to the building and approval of the change
would go against the purpose of the Commission, noting that
the Commission is supposed to preserve the external appearance
of the building. Mr. Carr suggested that due to the rear window
being minimally visible, that the application be changed to
non-applicability.
Russell Slam asked what the reason for consolidating the windows
was. Susan Bean stated that they would have to be custom made
and she couldn't replace them. She also noted that she wanted
to install a counter in that section of the kitchen.
Hank Cook stated that although it is only a slight angle at
which the window would be visible, it would interfere with the
integrity of the building.
Motion made by John Carr to amend the application from
appropriateness to non-applicability and to approve the
replacement of two double hung windows approximately 67"W x
60"H on the south side rear of the house with a fixed window
approximately 68"W x 40"H with snap in wooden grills, and to
deny the replacement of the window on the west side, seconded
1
•
by Russell Slam and approved unanimously.
• Motion made by John Carr to approve the change of the trim color
from yellow to white, seconded by Russell Slam and approved
unanimously.
CERTIFICATE OF HARDSHIP - 19 FOWLER STREET - CHARLES AND SUSAN
BEAN
The Commission also reviewed the application of Charles and
Susan Bean for a Certificate of Hardship to replace aluminum
gutters with white vinyl gutters to stop water damage to sills
and foundations. Ms. Bean stated that the roof will not sustain
wooden gutters.
Motion made by John Carr to approve the Certificate of Hardship
for 19 Fowler Street to replace aluminum gutters with white
vinyl gutters, due to both being synthetic materials, conditional
that there are no more than two downspouts at either corner,
to be painted the same white as the trim color seconded by
Hank Cook and approved unanimously
7 CARPENTER STREET -CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS NEWHALL MANOR
NURSING HOME - WINDOW REPAIRS REPLACEMENT, DOOR REPLACEMENT,
TRIM PAINT.
The Commission reviewed the application of the Newhall Manor
• Nursing Home for a Certificate of Appropriateness to repair
and/or replace the existing window units, replacement of two
exterior rear egress doors, and the construction of a new
physically handicap ramp at the rear of the building.
John Ciccariello, the Architect for the project, addressed the
Commission and stated that the portion of the application
concerning windows should be continued. He discussed the plans
for the ramp and stated that the nursing home is presently non
accessible under federal regulations. He noted problems removing
patients to the hospital via ambulance. He further noted that
under federal law and Medicaid regulations they need to be
accessible, although they have not been cited for it.
Annie Harris asked if the building had an elevator. Mr.
Ciccariello stated that a vertical lift would accommodate wheel
chairs. Gertrude Levesque addressed the Commission and stated
that patients that are unable to walk are on the first floor.
John Carr suggested that he would like to see the least intrusive
visual contact that will accomplish what the ramp is supposed
to, but will be less obtrusive. John Carr moved to defer action
on the application pending a site visit to the property, seconded
by Russell Slam and approved unanimously.
Carol Dearborn of 12 Carpenter Street was present at the meeting
• 2
and stated that she was concerned about the Carpenter/Gifford
• Court side of the property.
The Commission scheduled a site visit for Wednesday May 9, 1990
at 6:00 P.M.
407 ESSEX STREET - MIROSLAW KANTOROSINSKI - REPLACEMENT OF FENCE-
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS.
The Commission reviewed the application of Miroslaw Kantorosinski
for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a fence 6 ' tall,
80 ' long which will be capped. He also requested to remove
25 ' of fence. Photographs of the area and the proposed fence
were presented for review.
Dr. Kantorosinski addressed the Commission and stated that he
was expanding his property having purchased property from
Dorothea Leonard. He noted that the Board of Appeal had approved
the plans and the Planning Board had approved the parking area.
He explained the location of the fence to the Commission.
Also present at the meeting were Mr. & Mrs. Goodhue who wished
to continue the proposed fence along their property. Annie
Harris informed them that they would have to file a separate
application.
Roger Hedstrom made motion to have a site visit to the property
• seconded by John Carr who noted that the Commission should take
advantage of the opportunity to screen a non conforming use.
The motion was approved unanimously.
A site visit was scheduled for Wednesday May 9, 1990 at 5:30
P.M.
John Carr made a motion to continue the application, seconded
by Russell Slam and approved unanimously.
3
•
May 2 , 1990 , Page 4
Chestnut S ./Flint St. Traffic Barrier
• The City of Salem presented an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness/Hardship for the installation of a traffic
barrier at the intersection of Chestnut and Flint Streets.
Claire Hayes represented the residents who are requesting the
barrier. A footprint drawing was presented. The barrier will be
an island with 3 rough granite bollards on one side of Chestnut
Street and a granite hitching post on the other side of the
street. The bollards will be approximately 3 ' above grade of the
island.
Mr. Carr did not feel that the island will slow traffic . Mr .
Carr preferred more formal bollards and was concerned that the
proposed was not symmetrical. Ms . Hayes stated that previously
there had been several accidents and that since the barrels have
been there for the last 2 winters, there have not been any
accidents and therefore a barrier would be worthwhile . Ms . Hayes
stated that the barrier is not intended as a decoration. Mr.
Carr stated that he would like an investigation of more bollards .
Mr. David Pelletier of 12 Crombie Street stated that he was
alarmed by the asymmetry and felt that a barrier should be more
symmetrical due to Chestnut Street being architecturally
symmetrical . Mr. Pelletier felt more care should be put into the
design and that good materials should be used. Mr . Pelletier
felt there should be a vista at one end and an entrance at the
other. Mr . Pelletier presented a letter and drawing to the
Commission.
• Chairman Harris asked Mr. Carr to chair this portion of the
meeting due to her being a Chestnut Street resident.
Ms . Harris stated that the residents have tried to get a
symmetrical design but the City is concerned that fire trucks and
tour busses would not be able to round the corner . Ms. Harris
stated that the proposed is the only layout that the City will
allow. Ms . Harris stated that Michaud Bus and the Fire
Department have brought vehicles there to experiment .
Mr. Carr did not feel the proposed was a sophisticated solution.
Babe Dube of 4 Chestnut Street stated that she would prefer Flint
be made a one-way.
Ms. Harris stated that, politically, Flint St. as a one-way was
not an acceptable solution. Ms . Harris stated that the solution
must be low-key.
Mr . Pelletier felt that an inappropriate barrier should not be
put on Chestnut Street.
Ms . Hayes stated that the proposal is not to change the
appearance or decorate the street. Ms . Hayes felt the solution
should be essentially transparent.
•
May 2 , 1990, Page 5
Kim Skerry of 19 Flint Street stated that the bollards are ugly
but that safety is a problem.
• Mr. Carr asked if anyone presented challenged the safety issue.
There was no reply.
Ms . Harris felt that the Commission could be more liberal because
it is a safety issue. Ms. Harris stated that the Commission
approved a traffic barrier at the Common and added that the
perfect solution may have to be modified because it is
unobtainable. Mr. Carr questioned if the perfect solution was
unobtainable. Ms . Hayes stated that politically it had not been
acceptable to move ahead two years ago.
Ms . Dube asked what the problem would be in changing Flint to a
one-way. Mr. Pelletier felt that Councillor Furfaro would hinder
it . Ms . Harris stated that Councillor Furfaro would not go along
with the proposal due to articles written in the newspaper in the
past. Ms . Harris stated that since he is the Ward Councillor, he
must introduce it.
Ms. Dube suggested more stop signs.
Ms . Harris stated that the Traffic Department, Fire Department,
Michaud Bus and Councillor Furfaro have been obstructionists and
that the Planning Department would like the least obtrusive
solution. Ms . Harris stated that there is much resentment
against Chestnut Street.
• Mr. Carr asked if the residents can come up with their own design
that accomodates all concerns . Ms . Harris stated that residents
have looked at plans and this is the final . Mr. Carr suggested
proposals and petitions . Ms. Hayes stated that they have done
those and that this proposal is the final result.
Mr. Pelletier suggested that the island be moved closer to the
sides . Ms. Harris stated that it is needed to stop traffic from
coming in on an angle .
Mr. Slam made a motion to approve the concept of a traffic
barrier, but stated that a better bollard solution should be
proposed due to raw granite being a bad solution. Mr. Oedel
suggested a friendly amendment that elevation drawings be
presented and that the application be continued until the next
meeting. Mr . Slam withdrew his motion.
Mr. Carr stated that he did not want to endorse anything that
would close other options .
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the concept pending a detail
elevation showing more finished bollards and to continue the
application until the next meeting. Mr. Slam seconded the
motion.
Mr. Hedstrom stated that he could make mock-ups and that the
May 2 , 1990, Page 6
Commission could do a site visit.
• Mr. Carr stated that he will vote against the motion and felt
that they were being stampeded into a decision. Mr. Cook stated
that he would also vote against the motion.
Mr. Carr felt that another solution should be looked into and
that the Commission should feel sure there isn ' t another solution
before voting.
Ms . Harris stated that the Commission only has jurisdiction on
the bollards . Mr. Carr stated that it includes location and
appearance of the bollards . Mr. Carr felt more lobbying should
be done to get political backing.
The motion was voted upon. Ms . Harris and Messrs . Oedel , Slam
and Hedstrom voted in favor. Messrs. Carr and Cook voted in
opposition. The motion so carried.
It was requested that the Planning Department complete an
elevation drawing and look into more finished bollards .
Mr . Hedstrom stated that he would like a site visit and that he
would provide a mock-up. The visit was scheduled for Monday, May
14 , 1990 at 6 : 00 p.m.
Chairman Harris resumed as Chair of the meeting.
82 Derby Street
• Melanie Marie ' s Realty Trust presented an application for the
removal of existing cedar shingles in the sign area and the
installation of smooth surface plywood at 82 Derby Street. The
application proposes to paint the sign area white and to install
the existing sign in the front of the building. The applicant
was not present.
Mr. Carr made a motion to deny the application without prejudice
due to the Commission having additional questions and the
applicant not being present. The motion includes that the
existing sign be taken down forthwith or legal action will be
taken. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion. All were in favor and the
motion so carried.
Other Business
Ms . Guy stated that she received a telephone call from a neighbor
stating that new doors had been installed at 2 Griffin Place .
Ms . Guy will send the owners a letter.
Ms . Guy stated that the attorney for Sweet Scoops requested an
updated letter of support for their application for variance from
handicap requirements from the Architectural Access Board. Mr.
Carr made a motion to send a letter, enclosing the Commission' s
prior letter, and to say that at a meeting of 5/2/90 , it was
May 2 , 1990, Page 7
unanimously passed to emphatically confirm the content of the
previous letter and that the Commission hopes that in their
profound wisdom, the Architectural Access Board will pass the
variance request . Mr. Oedel seconded the motion. All were in
favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Carr stated that the windows are 51 Summer Street are
acceptable but that the sills had not yet been built up as
required. Ms . Guy will send a letter.
Chairman Harris stated that the Preservation Awards will not be
at Historic Salem, Inc. Mr. Carr will contact Bill Guenther.
Mr. Slam stated that a newspaper dispenser was installed on
Federal Street. Chairman Harris stated that they are considered
temporary. Mr. Oedel suggested that a note be sent asking that
they please be removed. Mr . Slam made a motion to send the
letter. Mr . Oedel seconded the motion. All were in favor and
the motion so carried.
There being no further business, Mr. Cook made a motion to
adjourn. Mr . Oedel seconded the motion. All were in favor and
the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Eileen Sacco/ ne Guy
Minutes/050290
5(16/90 Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
May 16, 1990
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held
on Wednesday, May 16, 1990 at 7:30 at One Salem Green , Salem,
MA. Present were Chairman Harris and Messrs, Oedel , Slam,
Cook and Ms. Guy.
Chairman Harris called the meeting to order and informed all
the applicants that since a minimum quorum was present , all
four votes would be needed to pass any motion.
Public Hearing
7 Carpenter Street
Architect , .John Ciccariello of 88 Waverly Street , Framingham,
MA and Gertrude Levesque, Administrator of the Newhall
Manor Nursing Home presented a new set of plans for
installing a handicap ramp.
• Chairman Harris was concerned they would loose some of the
present porch to start the ramp and suggested keeping the
railing on the porch.
Mr. Slam was concerned with the elevation of the fence.
Mr. Ciccariello suggested vertical ballasters as shown in the
original set of plans for the ramp , leaving the existing rail
and putting a new railing behind it.
Mr. Slam felt that would be better.
Chairman Harris suggested they be consistent with a vertical
railing.
Mr. Slam agreed .
Mr. Ciccariello drew suggestions for treatment of the posts,
etc.
Mr. Oedel suggested facia board of 1 by 6 or 1 by 8 to be
installed .
Chairman Harris was concerned the caps of the posts should
extend some. She showed Mr. Ciccariello an approved cap in
• the Commission's guidelines. Chairman Harris suggested a
flat board fence with cap on Carpenter Street to Mr.
Ciccariello.
The members were in agreement .
5/16/40 Page i
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the revised handicap ramp
as drawn with modifications as drawn (on the two sets of
• plans submitted) , with 1 by 6 or 1 by 8 facia board for a
water table, caps as per guidelines, lattice as drawn,
ballasters on existing and rebuilt sections of porch to match
those of ramp, and four to six shrubs to be planted for
screeningtin designated areas on drawing. The railing is to
continue all the way across the run of the roof where
existing porch is so that the roof exterior will appear to be
the same level .
Mr. Slam seconded the motion .
All were in favor and so the motion so carried.
Mr. Slam made a motion to continue the fence portion of the
application.
Mr. Oedel seconded the motion. All were in favor and the
motion so carried.
A drawing of the proposed doors was provided. The left door
is to be a stock paneled door with plastic intrega.l panes.
The right door will be metal and will have one glass panel .
Mr. Oedel objected to the doors.
Mr. Slam felt the doors were minimally visible, and what is
• there is not distinguished.
Mr. Ciccariello stated the right door is four feet wide and
stated that the life span of a wooden door is not as great as
a metal door. Mr. Ciccariello felt that if they were painted
black you could not tell if the door was of wood or metal .
Chairman Harris noted that a light was needed to shine
through .
Mr. Oedel stated that Brosco catalog has standard doors up to
six feet wide.
Mr. Cool: felt there was minimum exposure°from the public way 'of %-ne gid' "Dors'.
Chairman Harris was sympathetic, but stated that there is a
policy of not approving metal doors.
Mr. Slam stated that the building was an institutional use.
Chairman Harris asked if there was any one in the audience
to speak on the issue. There was no reply.
5/16/90 Page 3
Chairman Harris asked if the members would allow one steel
door.
• Me. Oedel said he would not be in favor.
Mr. Slam moved to approve the doors as :suubmi-Led:7
Mr. Cook: seconded the motion.
Mr. Oedel did not feel the motion would pass and suggested
the issue be continued. Mr. Cool; withdrew his second. Mr.
Slam withdrew his motion.`,
f�'
Mr. Oedel moved to continue the door issue.
Mr. Cook: seconded the motion .
Mr. Ciccariello stated he would rather not come back and felt
that if wood doors were the issue, he would rather get wood
and install flat doors slabs back in. He stated he would
make flat , not paneled , wood doors and put flat glass back
in.
Chairman Harris stated the ideal thing is paneled wooden
doors, but if they cannot be obtained then neither is a
better solution.
Mr. Ciccariello stated he cannot find paneled wooden doors of
• that sire. He would have to but flat doors and put on
molding.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve a wood paneled door on the
left according to Prosco M3984 or equivalent and a steel door
on the right as specified.
Mr. Slam seconded the motion.
All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Chairman Harris read the Mr. Pierce's letter with regard to
his window inspection and felt the windows were generally in
good condition .
Mr. Ciccariello stated he will repair the sashes and balances
as necessary, repair the stops and may replace the storm
windows.
Mr. Oedel moved to approve a certificate of� non-
applicability for window repairs.
Mr. Cook seconded the motion .
•
S
5/16/90 Page 4
All were in favor and the motion so carried .
• 407 Essex Street
In continuation from the last meeting, Miroslaw K:antorosinski
presented Application for Certificate of Appropriateness to
install a six foot tall fence, eighty feet long, capped , with
four by four posts, and to remove the old fence of
approximately twenty-five feet.
Mr. Cook stated that if it was decided at the site that the
good side of the fence should face the abutters.
Mr. Slam made a motion to approve the application(as submitted
and that the fence should be installed with the good side
facing abutters.
Mr. Oedel seconded the motion.
Mr. Cool:: stated that the posts should replicate Mr.
Leonard's posts rather than a beveled top, and should be
placed every eight feet. Mr. Oedel was in agreement .
All were in favor and the motion so carried.
48 Derby Street
.
Brian and Kaaren Condron presented an Application for
Certificate of Appropriateness for the painting of a door
overhang`, side fence, hatchway, and trim white. The
application also proposes to install three flower boxes on
the first floor also painted white and for the removal of
aluminum siding.
Mr. Slam moved to accept the application as submitted
including the removal of siding .
Mr. Cook seconded the motion.
All were in favor and the motion so carried.
122 Federal Street
Darrow Lebovicci and Margaret Twahey presented an application
for a Certificate of Appropriateness to add wooden gutters to three
sides of Elie.,,porch constructed two years ago in order to
prevent deterioration of deck . The gutters will be painted
to match existing trim. A sample was presented. The
application stated that the gutters will join into the
downspout on the building.
•
ti
• 5/16/90 Page 5
Mr. Oedel moved to accept the application as submitted.
• Mr. Cook seconded the motion.
All were in favor and the motion so carried.
60 Derby Street
Ms. .Jean Sortevik Conant presented an application for a
Certificate of Non-Applicability to paint the entire house,
the same color brown , and to replace some rotted clapboards
as needed.
Mr. Cook: moved to accept the application as submitted.
Mr. Oedel seconded the motion.
All were in favor and the motion so carried.
174 Federal Street
Mr. Cbn Wallace presented application for a Certificate on
Non-Applicability to reconstruct three windows at the rear of
the house.
Ms. Guy stated, that the applicant proposes to reconstruct a bay window
Wi til~'- - ..three windows at the rear facade of the house,
• and that it was not visible.
Mr. Slam moved to accept the application , as long as the
windows constructed are not visible from the public way. .
Mr. Cook seconded the motion.
All were in favor and the motion so carried.
78 Washington Street
Mr. .Joseph R omurski presented an application for a
Certificate of Non-Applicability to replace rotted sills,
clapboards on rear addition, remove old bulkhead and replace
with a closed in one, and to replace an awning window with 6
over 6 wood double hung window.
Ms. Guy stated that the clapboards and window are minimally
visible.
Mr. Slam moved to accept the application .
Mr. Oedel seconded the motion .
All were in favor and the motion so carried .
•
r
5/16/90 Page 6
160 Federal Street
• On behalf of the Archdiocese of Boston , t`he City of Salem
requestedan.Application for a Certificate of Applicability _'f or
epa ,,y.ing in order to accommodate handicap accessibility.
Ms. Guy stated that their applications for Appropriateness
and Hardship were withdrawn.
Mr. Cook moved to approve a Certificate of Non-Applicability.
Mr. Oedel seconded the motion.
All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Chestnut Street
r�
In continuation from last meeting',1 he City of Salem
presented an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness/Hardship for the installation of a traffic
barrier at Chestnut and Flint Streets, with three bollards
approximately three feet high above grade of island .
Mr. Cook suggested trees instead of bollards. _
Chairman Harris stated that the trees would block: the view.
• Mr. Cook stated that he will not approve bollards.
Mr. Slam moved to continue the application.
Mr. Oedel seconded the motion .
All were in favor and the motion so carried .
Other Business N�
Ms. Guy presented a letter for the Commission to a
Tercentenary stamp.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to send the letter.
Mr. Cook seconded the motion .
All were in favor and the motion so carried .
Minutes
Mr. Cook moved to accept the minutes of March 21 , 1990.
• 5/16/90 Page 7
Mr. Slam seconded the motion.
• All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Letters
Chairman Harris read a letter received in response to the
Commission's letter to three Hamilton Street .
Chairman Harris read a letter received from Steve Thomas in
response to the Commission's letter regarding fourteen- Broad
Street . `
There being no further business, Mr. Slam moved to adjourn.
Mr. Cool: seconded the motion .
All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Deborah A. Guy
Clerk:
June 6, 1990 Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
June 6, 1990
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held
on Wednesday, .June 6,1990 at 7:30 P.M. at One Salem Green,
Salem, MA. Present were Chairman Harris and Messrs, Cool:: ,
Oedel , Pierce, Slam. Carr and Ms. Guy. (Mr. Carr entered
later in the meeting) Chairman Harris called the meeting to
order.
Public Hearings
Chestnut Street Traffic Barrier
The City of Salem presented an application for a Certificate
of Appropriateness/Hardship to install a traffic Barrier at
Chestnut and Flint Streets with three bollards to be
installed approximately three feet above grade of island.
This is a continuation from the May 16, 1990 meeting.
• Chairman Harris stated that action had to be taken concerning
this application tonight.
Mr. Oedel moved to appoint a member of the historical
commission to pick the bollards and to approve an application
for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Mr. Slam suggested that it be along with a member of the
Chestnut Street Association.
Mr. Oedel amended his motion to designate a member of the
Historical Commission, a member of the Chestnut Street
Association and a representative of the City of Salem to
.iointly select the bollards and for the bollards to be
finished granite, square, and preferably with a slight taper
Mr. Slam seconded the motion . Chairman Harris and Messrs.
Pierce, Slam and Oedel voted in favor. Mr. Cook voted in
opposition. The motion was so carried. Chairman Harris was
designated as the Commission's representative to pick: the
bollards.
164 Federal Street
Donna and Peter Bimbo applied for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for a porch and a deco: that was already
installed at their home at 164 Federal Street .
Mr. Slam asked Ms. Bimbo if there was a problem with
painting rather than staining .
• Ms. Bimbo replied in the negative.
Chairman Harris stated there was also a greenhouse window
installed.
Mr. Slam stated that he would accept the porch if it were
painted white, so as not to stand out from the rest of the
• June b, 1990 Page 2
house.
Chairman Harris suggested certificate of hardship.
Mr. Slam motioned to approve a Certificate of Hardship for
the porch provided the applicant paint the porch Navajo White
on the basis that the owner bought a pre-existing condition
and also moved to approve a Certificate of Non-Applicability
for the pool deck: since it is not visible from the public
way. Mr. Cook Seconded the motion .
Chairman Harris stated the porch should be painted Navajo
White, and the deck: be painted blue.
Mr. Carr joined the meeting at this time.
Mr. Pierce asked if the applicants would consider minor
modifications of the railing .
Mr. Slam agreed the railing was unappropriate.
Chairman Harris suggested a Certificate of Appropriateness if
the railing was modified.
Mr. Slam withdrew his motion.
Mr. Pierce was concerned that the railings were applied on
the outside and suggest they be cut off and applied inside.
• He also suggested a better top rail .
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the porch as installed to
be modified as per sketch by Mr. Pierce and that the porch be
painted Navajo White, with the deck painted federal blue or
slate gray. The modifications to the porch inside replacing
the top and bottom railing, cutting the existing ballasters
and resetting them and the addition of a few ballasters as
necessary on the slope area. Mr. Pierce seconded the motion.
All were in favor. And so the motion carried. Mr. Carr
abstained.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-
Applicability for the pool deck due to it not being visible
from the public way. Mr. Pierce seconded the motion . All
were in favor. And so the motion carried.
2=4 Gifford Court
Donna Philip Yates applied for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for the completion of siding, three new
windows, construction of porch, removal of porch ,
and the reconstruction under a porch, at their home at 2-4
Gifford Court .
Ms. Yates indicated that she was told at a previous meeting
that she could reuse three aluminum windows on the portion of
her house that was not facing the historic district .
• Mr. Pierce motioned to separate the issue of the porch from
the other issues. There was no second.
Mr. Slam stated that drawings were needed.
Mr. Pierce stated that there were three pertinent issues.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve of the residing of the
June 6, 1990 Page 3
• remaining portions of the house with matching cedar
clapboards with corner boards, water table and facia to match
the rest of the house. Mr. Pierce seconded the motion. All
were in favor. And so the motion carried.
Chairman Harris stated that drawings were also needed
concerning the three windows for dimensions and location.
Ms. Yates stated that the windows are smaller and was not
sure where they would be installed.
Mr. Pierce stated he would like to refer to the minutes of
the meeting in 1984 concerning this address.
Mr. Slam agreed that the motion should be checked and felt
that drawings would also be needed for the porch.
Ms. Yates stated that she is required to have a second means
of egress.
Mr. Slam stated that as far as the porch on the second story
of the house, he was having a problem visualizing .
Mr. Oedel stated that a letter should be supplied from the
Building Department that says that a legal means of egress is
needed .
Mr. Carr recommended a site visit to examine what other
options there may be.
Mr. Pierce stated that there could be internal solutions.
Chairman Harris scheduled a site visit inspection on
• Wednesday, .June 13, 1990 at 6:00 F.M. Jane Guy is to tall, to
the building inspector to try to get a letter.
Mr. Pierce motioned for a continuation of the windows, porch
construction, porch removal and reconstruction under porch.
Mr. Carr seconded the motion. All were in favor. And so the
motion carried.
10 Chestnut Street
Alan Howe applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness for
fence construction at 10 Chestnut Street . Drawings were
presented.
Chairman Harris read a letter from Mr. Howe's neighbor, John
Donahue, opposing to the fence continuing on his property.
She asked Mr. Howe if he was willing to move the fence post
by twenty-six inches.
Mr. Howe replied that he could end the fence in either place
and out in a piece iron in temporarily in order to allow the
neighbor to install what he wants.
Mr. Carr motioned to approve the application with the option
that the post at the property line of 10 Chestnut Street and
6 Cambridge be placed either at the property line or abutting
6 Cambridge Street as determined by the applicant and his
• abutter. He also added that he would like to send
June 6, 1990 Page 4
Mr. Donahue a letter stating that the Commission has
accommodated his concern but that the fence would be more
• appropriate if abutting 6 Cambridge. Mr. Pierce seconded the
motion. All were in favor. And so the motion carried.
29 Washington Street
The Bertram Home applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness
for paint colors and a handicapped ramp at 29 Washington
Square North . Mr. Staley McDermot represented the applicant .
Paint colors, drawings and pictures were shown . Mr. McDermot
stated that paint scrapings had been done.
Mr. Carr motioned to approved to the colors as submitted. Mr.
Cook seconded the motion . All were in favor. And so the
motion carried. Proposed ramp drawings were provided.
Mr. Carr asked if the proposed porch was a variation on the
porch that had been previously denied. Mr. McDermot replied
in the affirmative and that the porch was needed as a landing
for the ramp.
Chairman Harris felt there was already handicap access thru
the elevator lift .
Mr. Carney of the Bertram Home stated that they appeared
before the Architectural Access Board and that the lift was
inadequate. The Bertram Home received some waivers of
handicap requirements.
Mr. Pierce wanted to know the reactions from the
Architectural Access Board.
• Mr. Carney stated that the AAB approved a waiver for the size
of the elevator with conditions and waived the lift on the
front door. Mr. Carney stated that they were told they must
have a ramp.
Mr. Carr asked if the waivers received were conditional on a
ramp. Mr. McDermot replied in the negative but stated that
it was an understanding that they would pursue a ramp.
Chairman Harris suggested the owner try to obtain a variance.
Mr. Carr stated that there was no legal requirement for the
ramp because it was not conditional on the variances they
received. Mr. McDermot stated that he was contacted by an
advocacy group who stated that they will be by when the
building is finished to check it out for handicap access
Mr. Pierce stated that if a variance is granted, the advocacy
group could work- on a reversal of the variance, and also
bring the owners to court. Mr. McDermot provided additional
sketches for the ramp and porch .
Chairman Harris wanted a motion to continue and to gather
more information.
Mr. Slam stated that the ramp was not the issue and that the
porch was the issue, because the porch hides the ramp.
Mr. Carr stated that they need to act on the basis that
they want the ramp. The people who maybe in a wheelchair,
•
v `
June 6, 1990 Page 5
even if their rooms were in the building in the back , will
use the ramp .
• Mr. Carr motioned to approve plan option #1 . driven by
reasonable need for ramp. Mr. Pierce seconded the motion.
All were in favor. And so the motion carried. Mr. McDermot
stated that the same railing system as proposed will be used.
171 Federal Street
The 171 Federal Street Condo Trust applied for a Certificate
of Appropriateness to replace a fence at 171 Federal Street.
The drawing presented showed what was proposed and what had
already been constructed before the applicant appeared before
the Salem Historical Commission.
Mr. Dick Malone, 507 owner of the building , stated the finish
side was facing inward.
Mr. Carr felt that the good side of the fence normally faced
out to the neighbors.
Chairman Harris stated they usually did, but not always.
Mr. Carr stated that the fence has started to be constructed
without an application.
Mr. Robert C. Lane of 169 Federal Street, Salem, MA, abutting
neighbor, appeared before the Salem Historical Commission to
oppose the fence. He stated that the rain lifts up the dirt
onto the fence and discolors the fence. Mr. Lane would
prefer sheathing and a plain natural board fence.
Mr. Carr stated to Mr. Lane that the Board can only act
within their jurisdiction for fences and other buildings that
can be viewed from the public way, to be sure they are
historically and arcitecturally appropriate. Only one narrow
stretch of fence can be viewed from Federal Street and can be
!ender the jurisdiction of the Historical Commission. Mr.
Carr stated they would act on what side the finish faces.
Mr. Lane and Ms. Adams, the other 50% owner, felt the fence
on the other side of the property would be visible in the
winter.
Mr. Cook felt the abutters concerns were important to
consider.
Ms. Adams stated that she opposed the fence aestetically and
that the Condo Trust had not agreed upon the erection of the
fence.
Mr. Carr stated that the fence is visible from Fowler Street .
Mr. Carr motioned for a site visit and to continue the
application pending the site visit which is scheduled for
Wednesday, .June 13, 1990 at 5:30 P.M. Mr. Pierce seconded
the motion. All were in favor. And so the motion carried.
•
June b, 1990 Page b
100 Federal Street
Bruce and Kristie Haskell applied for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for construction of a fence at 100 Federal
Street . Fence is to installed in front in order to shield
the deck . The fence will be eight foot sections at a thirty-
five degree angle, six feet in height .
Mr. Carr preferred a capped fence that would be more
traditional .Bruce Haskell stated that it would be too
expensive to install .
Mr. Carr suggested a dressy lattice stock .
Mr. Pierce suggested the fence be parallel with driveway with
three eight foot sections.
Mr. Carr suggested making the fence at a ninety degree angle
and continue another eight feet .
Mr. Oedel asked what the applicant proposes for a fence.
Bruce Haskell wants an eight foot section of fence across and
four feet going back .
Mr. Carr stated that the four foot section should be enlarged
and changed to a more appropriate fence with a cap and raised
posts.
Mr. Carr made a motion to continue the application. Mr.
Pierce seconded the motion. All were in favor. And so the
motion carried.
20 Pickman Street
Kevin M. Kiley applied for a Waiver of Demolition Delay
Ordinance for the barn at 20 Pick:man Street. Mr. Kiley sited
dangers such as fire and structural problems as reason for
the demolition.
Mr. Cook stated that he and Mr. Pierce had examined the
garage.
Mr. Pierce stated that the garage is in terrible condition
and would require a significant amount of money to repair.
Mr. Carr stated that he had a problem with allowing the
demolition.
Chairman Harris asked Mr. Kiley if he has any interest
in leaving the better half of the garage.
Mr. Kiley stated that he has estimates done for that purpose
but the prices are very high. There has been a fire in the
garage and he also stated that he is concerned as the owner
concerning his liability.
Mr. Oedel wanted to know what the structure was like.
Mr. Pierce stated the entire substructure would have to be
rebuilt .
Mr. Cook motioned to accept the application as submitted.
Mr. Oedel seconded the motion.
June 6, 1990 Page 7
Mr. Cook stated the Commission should not financially burden
the homeowner to keep the building .
Mr. Pierce stated that it was beyond the realm of feasibility
to repair.
Chairman Harris stated that to delay the demolition six
months will not make a difference since the homeowner has
lived with the problem for ten years.
Mr. Oedel suggested placing the demolition on the back burner
and taking the matter up again in a month.
Mr. Kiley stated that he does not want this matter taken up
in thirty days because he is very concerned about his
liability as a homeowner.
The motion was voted upon. Chairman Harris and Messrs.
Pierce, Slam, Cook and Oedel voted in favor. Mr. Carr voted
in opposition. And so the motion carried.
40 Derby Street
Glenn and Sandra Soucy applied for a Certificate of Non-
Applicability for a deck and landing at 40 Derby Street .
Pictures provided showed that the deck was visible from the
public way.
Mr. Oedel motioned to deny. Mr. Carr seconded the motion.
All were in favor. And so the motion carried.
7 Carpenter Street
Newhall Nursing Home applied for a Certificate of
Appropriateness regarding fencing, this was a continuation
from the meeting of May 16, 1990. Architect, .John
Ciccariello and Gertrude Levesque, Administrator of the
Newhall Nursing Home were not in appearance at this meeting.
Mr. Carr motioned to deny as there were added questions that
could not be answered. The motion includes that construction
already approved cannot commence until the fence application
is resolved . Mr. Oedel seconded the motion. All were in
favor. And so the motion carried .
Other Business
Minutes from the meeting of February 21 , 1990.
Mr. Carr motioned to approve. Mr. Pierce seconded the
motion . All were in favor. And so the motion carried.
July 4, 1990 meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was
voted to be moved to July ll , 1990 and there will be no
meeting on .July 18, 1990.
June 6, 1990 Page S
Bridge Street Roadway Discussion
. Mr. Carr stated that Ellen DiGeronimo of the Massachusetts
Department of Public Works gave a presentation at a
residents' meeting recently. Mr. Carr stated that the
connector road has been revised and that Bridge Street will
be widened to four lanes and that the canal between Boston
and Flint will be moved. Mr. Carr stated that the change
must go through a 106 review and that Massachusetts
Historical Commission will refer the review to the Salem
Historical Commission for comment . Mr. Carr stated that the
residents in the River Street area hope to keep Bridge Street
at two lanes, move it to the other side of the tracks and
make the area between a park . Mr. Carr stated that he was
concerned about noise and traffic impact that four lanes
would have on the McIntire district .
Mr. Pierce stated the Commission should push for reopening of
the environmental impact review process since the design has
been substantially changed.
Mr. Carr stated that Ms. DiGeronimo's opinion was that the
newest design has less impact on the environment than that
design of which the E.I .R was originally approved in the
1970's.
• Mr. Carr stated that when the MHC refers the design to the
Commission for comment , he would like a two lane road
recommended to begin at Flint , approximately 20' from Bridge
Street along the corridor taken by the MBTA, with land
between filled in and a park on the other side in order to
avoid impact on the McIntire district . Mr. Carr stated that
there will be a public hearing on 6/25/90.
There being no further business, Mr. Dedel made a motion to
adjourn . Mr. Carr seconded the motion. All were in favor
and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Deborah A. Guy
•
I
June 20, 1990
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
June 20, 1990
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held
on Wednesday, .June 20, 1990 at 7:30 P.M. at one Salem Green ,
Salem, MA. Present were Chairman Harris, Mr. Slam, Mr. Cook: ,
Mr. Hedstrom Mr. Pierce, Mr. Carr and Ms. Guy.
2-4 Gifford Court
Donna Phillip Yates applied for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to install three new windows, construction of
porch, removal of old porch and reconstruction under porch ,
continuation .
Ms. Guy stated that the property has not been formally sited
for lack: of a second egress.
Chairman Harris stated that no drawings or photos were
• submitted .
Mr. Carr stated that a motion could not be made without
drawings. Does not want to go against the guidelines and he
cannot go along with it . The applicant can replace the
stairs and fix the foundation .
Mr. Slam stated that even with the drawings he does not think
that it would be approved based omw,'at'w'a described at the
site visit.
Mr. Carr stated that there is a second means of agress
through the cellar which is preferred and legal .
Mr. Yates asked if a porch could be placed on the other side
of the house.
Mr. Carr felt it would be atypical due to the different
levels.
Chairman Harris stated that the applicant was looking for
guidance and that she could go along with a porch on the
other side if it were symmetric.
Mr. Carr suggested symmetrical features to up grade but not
to design features that would be undesirable.
Mr. Slam and Mr. Hedstrom felt they could go along with a
porch on the other side..
Chairman Harris stated that it could have been added BO-100
Y-
June 20, 1990 Page 2
years ago.
• Mr. Pierce presented a drawing of a porch from Cambridge's
guidelines could be modified for this home. He stated that
he was sympathetic to the request of the applicant to replace
the porch but has reservations to do so to the other side of
the house and he likes the idea of fixing the other side.
Mr. Carr stated that if the doorway did not exist he would do
the same.
Mr. Slam suggested a victorian type of stair case.
Chairman Harris suggested Mrs. Yates submit drawings of one
that is symmetrical to the existing stairway.
Mr. Pierce stated that 'he would, also have an impossible time
on Voting in favor o£�the window cha_ng es'-6.ecause'of>s i e�a n_d det a'il• He
could only approve that which is close�to an exact match .
Mr. Carr subscribed to what Mr. Pierce was saying.
Mr. Carr motioned to approve the repair of the foundation
under a non-applicable application for the underneath side
porch with matching brick to the existing brick .
Mr. Pierce seconded the motion.
• All were in favor. And so the motion carried. Mr. Carr
motioned to deny the rest of the application without
prejudice and allow the applicant to refile for the windows
and the removal and reconstruction of porch with drawings.
Mr. Slam seconded the motion.
All were in favor. And so the motion carried.
171 Federal Street
171 Federal Street Condo Trust applied for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for replacement of fence, continuation.
Chairman Harris read a letter of withdrawal from the Condo
Trust . Applicant stated that the said fence will be removed.
Mr. Carr suggested that Ms. Guy send a letter to inform the
applicant that what was there has to be restored and will
entertain another application.
•
June 20, 1990 Page 3
107 Federal Street
• Bruce and Kristie Haskell applied for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for construction of a fence, continuation.
The applicants were not present and new drawings were not
submitted.
Mr. Pierce motioned to continue the application.
Mr. Carr seconded the motion .
All were in favor. And so the motion carried.
6 South Pine Street
Albert and Sherrie Goodhue applied for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for replacement of fence and a Certificate of
Non-Applicability for repainting.
Chairman Harris read a letter from the Goodhue's explaining
the phases of the fence construction and that the
construction will be done within one year. The fence will
not be painted.
v
Mr. Carr motioned to approved the application as submitted
contingent that it be completed within one year.
• Mr. Cook seconded the motion.
Chairman Harris stated that she thinks the fence that was
approved by the board to Dr. Kantorosinski at the May 16,
1990 meeting should look uniform with the Goodhue's fence in
color. Chairman Harris felt both should be painted.
Mr. Cool:: stated that the issue was never brought up before
and the Commission never approved a color for Dr.
Kantorosinski 's fence.
Mr. Goodhue stated that Mrs. Leonard's fence is of a natural
color and that Dr. Kantorosinski is planning on staining his
fence.
Mr. Pierce suggested that Ms. Guy write Dr. Kantorosinski a
letter stating that he was not to do any painting or staining
on the fence until an application was submitted.
Mr. Carr stated that his motion'y-
i,is for no color.
All were in favor and so the motion carried.
•
June 20, 1990 Page 4
Paint colors for repainting the body of the house Banana
Cream, the shutters, Copper Verde', and the trim 'SimplyWtiite
• were shown .
Mr. Carr motioned to approve the application as submitted.
Mr. Cook seconded the motion. All were in favor. And so the
motion carried.
94 Federal Street
Joseph and Marilyn McEachern applied for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for paint colors and shutter replacement.
and a Certificate of Non-Applicability for roof repairs.
Mr. McEachern submitted paint colors which will be Silver
Gray, white trim and the replacement of six shutters to be
painted Boxford Black . The trim will include windows, facia,
soffit and 4x4's on porch.
Mr. Carr suggested that all shutters missing or in bad
repair:r.be replaced to_mafch-the"others and tBat—all`the slats point up.
Mr. Carr motioned to approve the paint colors as submitted.
Mr. Pierce stated that since the shutters have to be replaced,
they sou-'D�be reinstalled on hangers.
Mr. Carr amended his motion to approve the paint colors,and
to approve that all damaged shutters be replaced with wooden
shutters to match the other shutters and that the slats point
so as to shed water when closed and that they be hung on
hinges.
Mr. Slam seconded the motion.
All were in favor and so the motion carried.
Mr. McEachern presented an application to replace a twelve
foot by thirty foot roof with black roll '600fitng,;!`He stated
that there was too much of a pitch for shingles.
Mr. Carr stated that it was not visible from the public way.
M. Slam motioned to approve the application as submitted.
Mr. Carr seconded the motion.
All were in favor and so the motion was carried .
•
June 20, 1990 Page
172 Federal Street
• Kenneth and Joyce Wallace applied for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for fence replacement .
Mr. Wallace provided drawings of the construction of the
fence's. The side fences will be flat board , capped fence
painted white and the front fence will be a capped picket
fence three feet six inches in height .
Mr. Carr asked if the fence across the front yard would be on
an angle.
Mr. Wallace stated that it was drawn on more of an angle than
it would be. Mr. Wallace stated the fence will be installed
behind the second staircase in from the driveway.
Mr. Slam motioned to accept the application as submitted.
Mr. Pierce seconded the motion.
All were in favor and so the motion carried. Mr. Carr
obstained because he could not visualize the location of the
front fence.
• 80 Federal Street
Esser. Institute applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness
for replacement of roof on the barn at 80 Federal Street .
The Essex Institute presented to the board the change of
asphalt shingles to natural wood shingles to the barn and the
carriage house.
Mr. Carr motioned to accept the application as submitted.
Mr. Pierce seconded the motion.
All were in favor and so the motion carried.
182 Federal Street
Walter Dupuis applied for a Certificate of Non-Applicability
for repainting side of porch at 182 Federal Street .
Mr. Carr motioned to accept the application.
Mr. Slam seconded the motion .
June 209 1990 Page 6
All were in favor and so the motion carried.
• 175 Federal Street
Walter Dupuis applied for a Certificate of Non-Applicability
for repainting the house at 175 Federal Street.
Mr. Slam motioned to accept .
Mr. Cook seconded the motion . All were in favor and so the
motion carried.
337 Essex Street
The Salem Athenaeum submitted an application for a
Certificate of Non-Applicability to replace a roof and
rebuild a skylight at 337 Essex Street .
Mr. Carr abstained from voting on this issue because he is
on the Board.
The ft at tar and grave l-"co� wi1116e_rjIaced with a rolled rubber
roof . y
Mr. Slam motioned to accept the application as submitted.
Mr. Cook: seconded the motion .
All were in favor and so the motion carried . Mr. Carr
obstained.
74 Washington Street
1803 Condo Trust submitted an application to remove tar and
tin roof material over the entranceway, replace with flat
seam 1602 copper roof and reinstall roof ballastrade at 74
Washington Square East .
Mr. Pierce motioned to accept the application as submitted.
Mr. Carr seconded the motion. All were in favor and so the
motion carried. Mr. Hedstrom obstained.
NEXT MEETINGS APPLICATION
42 Chestnut Street
June 20, 1990 Page 7
Ms. Guy asked that the Commission approve a Certificate of
Non-Applicability for the repainting of 42 Chestnut Street
the same colors. The applicant wants to start painting on
June 25, 1990, and Ms. Guy sent a letter to the applicant
stating she would try to persuade the commission to approve
the application of non-applicability tonight and act on the
shutter colors at the next meeting.
Mr. Carr _iCade.az,motion-y _ <:-Ito amend the application
to Non-Applicability for the painting of the body color only
and to approve the Certificate of Non-Applicability for the J
repainting in the existing color :
Mr. Slam seconded the motion .
All were in favor and so the motion carried.
Other Business
Minutes of April 4, 1990.
• Mr. Carr motioned to approve.
Mr. Cook seconded the motion .
All were in favor and so the motion carried.
Minutes of April 18, 1990.
Mr. Carr motioned to approve.
Mr. Cook seconded the motion.
All were in favor and so the motion carried.
May 2, 1990 meeting.
Mr. Carr motioned to approve.
Mr. Cook seconded the motion.
All were in favor and so the motion carried.
• May lb, 1990 meeting.
r
r
Noted that there was not enough of a quorum for voting.AThey
will be taken up at the next meeting. `j
June 20, 1990 Page 8
Violations
• Ms. Guy provided the following status;
82 Derby Street
Ms. Guy noted that the owners of this address took down the
bubble sign but that there was still some pink: left .
174 Federal Street
The City Solicitor filed a complaint with the district court
on May 18, 1990.
51 Summer Street
Scheduled for the -July 11 , 1990 agenda for replacement of
shingles and clapboards.
15 Beckford Street
Fainting has already been started and will be finished by
labor day.
• 3 Hamilton Street
Fainting is finished.
14 Broad Street
The board has received no plans as yet.
Griffon Street
Two doors already installed to be discussed at next meeting .
36 Warren Street & 5 Beckford Street
Ms. Guy noticed that there were ladders leaning against these
houses. It was suggested that Ms. Guy send friendly notes as
to inquire on what is being done.
347 Essex Street or 1 Hamilton Street
Mr. Carr noticed that a fence was installed in between the
June 20, 1990 Page 9
two houses. It has the bad side facing the street the fencing
neither painted nor treated.
Mr. Carr suggested the Commission members drive by and it be
taken up at the next meeting.
89 Federal Street
Mr. Carr stated that a massive skylight has been installed at
this dwelling and looks oml'oi�s. -
Mr. Carr would like the commission to make a visit to see it.
Other business
Chairman Harris asked that Ms. Buy call Mass. Historic about
what constitutes an in kind replacement under Non-
Applicability.
The preservation awards has been agreed to be done in the
late summer. It was suggested that , nominations be /
accepted and then the board will vote on them. Ms. Buy will
ask: Susan Sillars to assist her with the planning of a joint
Historic Commission/Historic Salem cocktail party.
Mr. Pierce brought up the Bertram Home. He stated that the
back addition facing the common, the bricking does not match
the preexisting joint coursing. The board wants a site visit
and wants the minutes from the June 6, 1990 meeting to verify --.
the motions that were made. Mr,.�,Carr" stated that 'the ha'k of the hirgher� "
aiTditaoil 'ecim be seen, "
Commission members are invited to tour the Salem Public
Library on .June 21 , 1990 at 7:30 P.M.
Ms. Buy will write a letter to the Cambridge Historical
Commission requesting permission to use excerpts 'of their
guidelines.
Chairman Harris asked that Ms. Buy draft letters of thanks to
.Jack Wolfson and Peter Zaharis.
There being no further business Mr. Slam motioned to
adjourn. Mr. Carr seconded the motion. All were in favor
and so the motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
�� .
Deborah A. Buy
July 11 , 1990 Page 1`
Salem Historical Commission
Minutes
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held
on Wednesday, July 11 , 1990 at 7:30 P.M. ,'at One Salem Green ,
Salem, MA. Present were Chairman Harris, Mr. Wedel , Mr._ ,
Hedstrom, Mr. Slam, Mr. Pierce and Ms. Guy.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
100 Federal Street
In continuation from a previous meeting Bruce and K:ristie
Haskell presented a new drawing for their application for,
Certificate of Appropriateness for installation of a six foot
high flat capped Hamilton fence as per picture on page 58,
photograph B; with post as shown ending the eight foot
section .
• This application is a continuation and the board noted that
this application had to be acted upon tonight .
Mr. Oedel stated that he had no problem with the fence.
Chairman Harris stated that she would like a post anchor at
the end of the fence. s
Mr. Slam stated he,wOUld like to see a classic traditional
screen fence.
Mr. Pierce suggested colors as per the guidelines as
published.
Mr. Oedel motioned to approve the installation of a eight
foot section of fence as shown on page 5B, photo B, a flat
capped Hamilton fence, si•r, feet high with a full post at the
end of the eight foot section and a one half post at the
house to be painted white or house body color. Fence to be
located as per drawing submitted only modified so that •the
fence' is attached to the rear corner board of house as noted
on drawing . Mr. Hedstrom seconded the motion . All were in'
favor and so the motion carried.
k
1-2 Griffin Street
Application was withdrawn . To be placed on agenda of August
15, 1993 meeting.
I'
i
July 11 , 1990 Page 2
42 Chestnut Street
• James Ayer applied for an application for Certificate of
Appropriateness for painting shutters at his home at 42
Chestnut Street . Shutters to be painted dark green as per
paint •chips submitted, 44A-1A or 602. Painting is to be
started on .June 25, 1990. ,
Mr. Slam stated he approved of the Benjamin Moore #602 green '
or the equivalent green to the Gardner Pingree House shutter
in glass not flat paint.
Mr. Pierre motioned to approve the Benjamin Moore #602 or the
equivalent green to the Gardner F'ingree House shutters`in
gloss not flat paint . Mr. Oedel seconded the motion . , All
were in favor and so ,the motion carried .
28 High Street and 51 Summer Street
r _
Walter D. Kallenback. , Jr. applied for an application for
Certificate of Appropriateness for removal of existing
shingles and clapboards. Installation of half inch TUFF-R
sheathing to bring out the siding for window,casings.
Installation of red cedar clapboards, smooth side to weather,
4 inch exposure. Repair existing facia boards or replace
same if rotted. Build sills down-to previous existing
• thickness as approved before. Strip paint from existing door
entry trim. Installation of wooden cedar gutters with
aluminum or galvanized downspouts. Install conerboards to `
match what is now existing but not exposed.
Mr. K:allenback asked if. aluminum or galvanized downspouts is
preferred. '
Mr. Oedel stated corrigated galvanized(is
perfectly appropriate. Chairman Harris suggestetl smooth
faced red cedar clapboards. Mr. Hedstrom suggested Mr.
K.allenback install water tables.
Chairman Harris stated that not much insulation should be put
in so as to keep the windows raised .
Mr. Kallenback: stated that if he could not use insulation°he
will use Tyvek,
Mr. Oedel motioned to approve the removal of existing
shingles. Install one half inch Tuff-R insulation sheathing_
and repair or replacement of red cedar clapboards, smooth
side to weather, four inch exposed . Repair or replacement of
cornerboards.. Repair or replace facia boards. Build up
windows sills as required in previous certificate. Install
wooden cedar gutters with corrogated , galvanized downspouts.
Install water table a minimum width of eight inches by two
inches with beveled edges. Paint body of house Chippendale
4
July 11 , 1990 Page 9
Rose ( B.M. - Moorglo7 , trim with Wheeling Nuetral and doors
with Whitehouse Tavern Fed (Calif . Paints : Whenever
possible repairs are preferable toreplacement.
Mr. Slam preferred a lighter trim color. a <
Mr. Fierce was in agreement .
Mr. K:allenback selected Maritime White.
Mr. Oedel so amended his motion. Mr. .Hedstrom seconded the
motion . All were in favor and so the motion carried.
40 Derby Street "
Glenn and Sandra Soucy submitted an application for
installation of a deck and landing : The deco. , landing, p ;
railing and stairs were already installed:* Pictures were
shown of what can be seen from the public way. The rail is
lattice with a stairway going out to a pool . Drawings were
submitted with application but Ms. Gory stated that they were
not to scale and %';accurately showed the relationship of the
deck and landing to the house.
• Chairman Harris suggested painting the fence.
Mr: Slam stated the lattice has nothing covering the raw "
edges and suggest trim be put on it .
Mr. Oedel suggested one inch square ballasters.
Mr. Slam motioned to approve the deck and landing as
constructed conditional that the fence. be painted in the same
color as the house, trim lattice edges with one by four
parallel railings and capped with two by four cap as per
sketch . The work: is to be completed within ninety days. Mr.
Pierce seconded the motion . All were in favor and so the
motion carried.
7 Carpenter Street
The Newhall Nursing Home presented new drawings and an
application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the
construction of a fence along the front sideyard•at 7 ,
Carpenter Street . The fence will screen the handicap ramp
already approved. The fence will be six feet and will be 6 and wd,11:be
installed between 7 and 5 Carpenter Street' and will std'p on
property line which is about eighteen inches from 5 Carpenter
Street unless neighbors are willing to allow it to abut their
home.
• Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve the fence as per drawing
submitted conditional that it abut 5 Carpenter Street .
Mr. Pierce suggested that the motion be amended to include
that the rear of the fence be painted after.a suitable period
of weathering, not to exceed one year.
• EI
M
July 11 , 1990 Page 4
Mr. Oedel amended his motion . Mr. Fierce seconded the
motion. All were in favor and so the motion carried.
361 Essex Street
Robert and Elizabeth Alexander submitted an application for
repainting the house a medium gray, trim and shutters in
existing colors5 (and an application for a' Certificate of Non-
Applicability for the repair or replacement of roof with
black asphalt shingles; and repairing molding to be painted
white. „
Mr. Oedel stated to the board that he believed there was an
outstanding issue concerning the porch windows at this
address and questioned if the commission should be dealing
with another issue as the issue from three to four years ago ,
has not been resolved. He also inquired as to whether the .
porch can be seen from Esse: Street. 1 .
Chairman Harris stated that she did not want to hold up the
painting and that Ms. Guy would, lool% up the minutes
concerning Such issue.
Mr. Slam motioned to approve application for Appropriateness
as submitted with Boothbay Grey "RC-165.( Mr. Fierce
seconded the motion . All were in favor and so the motion
• carried .
Mr. Slam motioned to approve the Non-Applicable application
for roof and molding repairs,), replacement and repainting t
trim, shutters and doors. Mr. Fierce seconded the motion .
All were in favor and•so the-motion carried . "
• 9
14 Chestnut Street
Thomas and Katherine Murray submitted an application for
Certificate of Appropriateness for reconstruction of ,fencing s
with some alterations to provide central support to front
fence. Alterations of back fence will be with western red
cedar, cedar board painted . White stain will be for the
front fence and brown stain for flatboard fence. Drawings
were submitted .
Chairman Harris asked the Murrays if the posts to the fence
would be of wood or pipe. ".
(Katherine Murray stated they would be of pipe and. that the
posts will be custom made to go back to what was original in
height . An old photograph was presented .
Mrs. Murray asked for recommendations on the cap for the
posts.
• Chairman Harris preferred-what was drawn .
y
t '
'r
. a
fir, �
July 11 1990 Page
Mr. Pierce stated the cap as drawn would be fine.
• Mrs. Murray stated that they will be taking down the stockade
fence. She added that they will maintain the scallop turner
on the side at the house and that portions of the fence will
curve up to six feet. The right `side will be Pewter Grey
facing the neighbor. The front fence will be trim color and
all exterior surfaces of the flatboard fence will be Pewter.
Grey.
Mr. Oedel motioned to approve the application for the
reconstruction of front fence as per drawings to be painted
trim color. Removal of stockade fence. Construction of
flatboard fence as per drawings submitted with good side
facing the abutters. Wood is to be smooth and not rough .
Exterior surfaces to be painted Pewter Gray. Scalloped taper
to remain on side. Portions of fence to curve up to six feet
from four feet . Mr. Hedstrom seconded the motion . All were
in favor and so the motion carried .
134 Derby Street a
Kenneth and Susan Schleicher applied for a Certificate of
Non-Applicability to install a skylight in the rear of the
south side at 134 Derby Street . Drawings were submitted.
• Mr. Pierce asked the Schleichers if the skylight would be
flat or- bubb:le. y -
Susan Schleicher stated that the skylight would be flat . '
Pictures shown indicated the skylight would not be visible
from the public way.•
Mr. Slam motioned to accept the application as submitted.
Mr. Hedstrom seconded the motion . All were in favor and so
the motion carried.
Mrs. Schleicher noted that several palm reading signs have
been installed at 135 Derby Street . Ms. Guy will check into
the issue.
r
36 Warren Street
Mrs. .John Toomey, .Jr. applied for a Certificate of Non-
Applicability for repainting the house the same'colors.
Mr. Slam motioned to accept the application as submitted . -
Mr. Pierce seconded the motion . All were in favor and so the
motion carried .
{
'July 11 , 1390 Page 6'
n
145 Federal Street
Lauralee Tillman applied for a Certificate of ,Non- "
Applicability to strip and reroof with same type of black:
asphalt material .
Mr. Fierce motioned to accept the application as submitted,
Mr. Slam seconded the motion . All were in favor and so the
motion carried.
- z <
5 Beckford Street
a
Ms. Guy stated that she did not have pictures, ready.
Mr. Slam motioned to continue the application until the next
meeting. Mr. Fierce seconded the motion. All were'in favor
and so the motion carried .
27 North Street
• Mr. Oedel read a letter from Ambrosia Realty Trust , the
trustee of 27 North Street requesting that permission be
granted to place the vents previously approved•under a
Certificate of Hardship in an equidistant manner on three
sides of the building , rather than on four sides.
Mr. -Slam motioned to amend the Certificate as ,requested.
Mr. Hedstrom seconded the motion. All were in favor and so "
the motion carried.
Other Business
Violations
Ms. Guy is to send letters to 6 Botts Court and 359 Esser
Street for notification of violations.
95-97 Federal Street is to be checked for' inslallation of a
deck: on the back of the house on the first floor.
A letter is to be sent to B9 Federal Street in regards to a
large skylight that has been constructed.
15 Cambridge Street is to be sent a letter suggesting that
• the Commission provide choices of more color for -the house.
/ July 11 , 1990 Page 7
Salem Beverly Bridge
• Chairman Harris stated that she needs to commen tj on'the
Environmental Impact Report by .July 26th on how'the widening
of the roadway will have an impact on the McIntire district. „
She read two statements made from the Commission and from
Historic -Salem Inc, that were made at the`recent. public ,
meeting. -
Ms. Guy is to Call the owners of One Harrington Court to see i
if land is still being taken.
Mr. Pierce stated that the scale of the four lane road the
type and the design would be deemed an impact on the
historical district .
Mr. Carr stated the historical district was expanded in 1980
and the home owners have made a significant improvement over
the years.
Chairman Harris suggested including another district map .
She also read the letter of June 25th from Valerie• Talmage to
the Federal Highway Adminstration .
Mr. Pierce stated that Secretary DeVillers should not sign
off on the Environmental Impact Report until the section 106
is complied;r with. W.
Chairman Harris stated that she would draft a letter for Ms.
Guy to type up.
Ms. Guy noted comments made in North Shore life Magazine by
Steve Thomas and that David Clarke's home had-been .
highlighted in the magazine.
• Ms. Guy noted that 102 Federal Street, Unit #2 is being
forclosed upon according to a legal notice in the+,Salem
Evening News. S,
There being no other business Mr. Slam motioned to adjourn.
Mr. Oedel seconded the motion. All were in favor and so the
motion carried.
Respectfully,
Deborah A. Guy
A _
:a r
Salem Historical Commission "
Minutes r
A special meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held,
on Wednesday, .July 23, 1990 at' 7:30 P.M. •at One Salem Green,
Salem, MA. In attendance were Mr. Slam, Mr. Pierce, Mr'.
Carr, Mr. Cook: Mr. Oedel and Mr. Hedstrom.
Bridge Street Roadway
Meeting was called to review the- commissi.on's letter, drafted
by Chairman Harris, that was sent to the Massachusetts
Department of Public Works concerning the proposed roadway :.
between Washington and Bridge Streets.
Mr. Tim Mallot of 6 Harrington Court wanted a new letter sent
to the Environment Department opposing the widening of the
roadway. He stated that by widening,the roadway it would
magnify the noise in the area and added that creating a
dragstrip and dredging the canal would allow the water to run
into their property thus making the historical district
undesirable. Mr.. Carr stated that the commission will be
able to comment during the 106' review process and will
• further assess the impact- of the project in the future.
Mr. Carr also stated that the commission's letter did not
oppose the widening of the roadway but felt in reality they
should 'be. Paul Willis of 14 River, Street was opposed to the
street lights and stated that they plan on using lights that
eluminate day light at night .
Ed Kliner of 12 River Street stated that the environment-view
does look to be extensive and the signs on the ends of the
roadway will be reduced is what is proposed for the extending
roadway realigning the road .
Pahl Willis of 14 River Street was opposed .to on premises
advertising that he believes has been alreadyappropriately
removed .
Opposing the roadway were Debra and .Jeramiah :Jennings of 18
River Street , Steve Whittier of 10 River Street , Margaret
Hill of 13 River Street, Charles Von$rUn .of 3 River Street ,
Kathy Willis of 4 River Street and Pamela Burns of 12 River
Street .
MY h.
Mr. Carr read a letter he drafted to' be sent-to Mr. '
Bracaglia of the Department of Public Works as an amendment
to Chairman Harris's original letter. Mr. Pierce stated
that he liked the revised letter and that it+contains all the
right points although he would like added to paragraph five
' • such issues as traffic noise; pollution and lighting which
are all factual words that are important to the commission .
Mr. Oedel stated he would like to modify the first part of
the sentence.
Mr. Pierce stated that the section concerning the .106 review
was a good point .
A'
July 23, 1990 Page 2
Mr. Carr also stated that he wanted'to add to the letter that
the revised letter was to correct Chairman Harris's innocent
. mistake.
Mr. Slam asked if -there was going to be a 106 review if the
commission stated their interest in it.
Mr. Carr stated that he would help reiterate the Commission's
desire to be a part of a 106 review process.
Mr. Pierce stated that although the ,letter is addressed to
Mr. Pracaglia that Deviller's would really receive the
letter.
Mr. Oedel stated that he wanted inserted into the letter. that
the commission was just not correcting the previous letter
that the commission was opposing the widening of the roadway.
Mr. Carr spoke on various design issues that he was opposed
to.
Mr. Cook stated that they meeting was called to verify a
certain issue and he was not prepared .to deal with other
issues as this time. He added that the issue pertaining to
this meeting was to correct Chairman' Harris's innocent '
statement and that Mr. Carr.would create a stalemate by
bringing up other issues at this point . _
Mr. Carr motioned to accept the letter as amended. Mr.
Fierce seconded the motion. All were in favor and so the
motion carried .
There being no further discussion the meeting was adjourned.-
Respectfully,
Deborah A. Guy
� Y
z.
r 4
R a
August ,l , 1990
Salem Historical Commission
Minutes°
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held
on Wednesday, August 1 , 1990 at One Salem Green, Salem, MA.
In attendance were Ms. Harris,•Mr. Oedel , Mr. Pierce,, Mr. z
Carr, Mr. Cook and Ms. Guy.
Public Hearing
5 Munroe Street
Richard and Victoria Stevens applied for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for paint colors. Colors being English Ivory
for the body of the douse and Navajo White -for the trim and
Essex Green for the shutters. Mr. Carr stated that that ,,
which is currently white should be considered trim.
Mr. Carr motioned to accept the application as submitted.
• Mr. Cook seconded the motion . All were in favor. And so
the motion carried.
25.5-259 Lafavette Street
Lafayette Court Condo Association applied for a Certificate
of Appropriateness for paint colors and a certificate of Non-
Appl icabil ity for repainting et 255�259Lafayette Street . 'The "
body will be painted as per sample submitted .G,
Bruce Block: of 257 Lafayette Street stated that the window
sashes would be repainteTb o n�a-n-�11the trim 'repainted high
gloss red . The doors, shutters .and wrought iron would also
be repainted in existing' colors.
Mr. Carr motioned to accept the application for
appropriateness as submitted. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion.
All were in favor. And so the motion was carried.
Mr. Oedel motioned to approve the application for Non-
Applicability. Mr. Pierce seconded the motion. All were in f
favor: And so the motion was carried .
10 Broad Street
Ann Neubert applied for an certificate of Appropriateness for
• paint colors. The body being Hawthorne Yellow, trim being
Thornwood White and the door Tobacco Brown. ,The corner
boards will be consistent with the trim.
Mr. Carr motioned to approve the application as submitted.
Mr. Oedel seconded the motion. All were in favor. And so
x
a
A .
August 1 , 1490 Page 2,
the motion was carried.
• Mr. Oedel stated that anything that is not clapboard is
considered trim and should be painted white including
cornerboards, facia and watertable.
' xr
24� Lafayette Street
Peter LaPonte applied for a Certificate of Non-Applicability
for repainting , to replace porch gutters, to repair the upper
porch railing post and to replace the rear roof of the house
with black: Asphalt shingles. All materials, color and design
to be as existing.
Mr. Carr motioned" to accept the application as submitted.
Mr. Oedel seconded the motion. All were in favor. And so
the motion carried .
14 Chestnut Street "
Thomas and,Katherine Murray applied for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for window alterations, secondary egress,
door relocation , porch alterations, completion of residing ,
roofing and painting , fence painting . _ Lirawings submitted .
Mrs. Murray stated that her neighbors prefer that the fence
be painted brown rather than the gray that was approved for
the solid board fence for the side and rear property lines.
• Mrs. Murray stated that the top of some of the windows willbe
of same height as they are now, but will be elongatiel"-� a „
skylight will be added , the entrance way that is crawl space
as of now will be replaced by ,a door, removal of a window,
installation of second egress staircase in rear, installation
of roof vent , access door will be removed, a,porch roof will
be added with the same brown shingles that were installed on
the main roof ,_ railings will match the existing railings that
are presently on the house. Page five of the drawings shows
two windows to be extended, adding a window and eliminating
another window, and a new egress. -
a
Mr. Oedel asked if there were(�a�y�'� triple windows on the
second floor now. j
Mrs. Murray replied in the negative. .
Mr. Oedell asked if the basement windows would stay as is.
Mr. Murray replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Cook felt the issue may be what is .viewable from a^
public .way.
Chairman Harris suggested: a site visit of the exterior of the
house.
Mr. Carr agreed that a site visit was necessary before the
commission can take any action on the application .
Mr. Carr suggested scheduling a •site visit for Wednesday,
August Sth with a fall back: date of Tuesday, August 14th.
Time to be 6:30 P.M. "
August 1 , 1990 Page 3<
Mr. Carr motioned to continue the application pending the ° r
site visit . Mr. Oedel seconded, the motion . All were in
•" favor. And so the motion carried. '
155 Federal Street
Paul and Jeanette Malawk.a applied for a. Certificate of Non-
Applicability for reroofing and replacement of gutter and
facia. The house has light gray shingles at present and the "
applicant would only like to do half of the. roof .
Chairman Harris stated that the practice of the commission is
for black: or dark gray asphalt shingles but that the
applicant is doing only one half of the roof .
Chairman Harris was concerned that the two slopes would not
match .
Mr. Carr agreed that' there maybe different color tones until
the newer half weathers.
Ms. Guy suggested obtaining samples of the roofing material .
Mr. Fierce suggested to finding out if the applicant has
already replaced the other half of the roof , or will be
replacing it soon , or if they would be willing to replace it
in black .
Mr. Carr motioned to defer from making any action on this
application pending these questions. Mr. Oedel seconded the
motion . All were in favor. And so the motion carried .
• _ Beckford Street "
Peter Carnicelli applied for a Certificate of Non-
Applicability for repainting his home at 5 Beckford Street in
existing colors.
Mr. Oedel motioned to approve the application as submitted .
Mr. Carr seconded the motion . All were in favor. And ,so the
motion carried.
5 Botts Court
..Gary and Nancy Petersen presented an application for a
Certificate of Nan-Applicability to repaint their home at b
Botts Court with existing colors.
Mr. Carr made 'a motion to approve ,the application as
submitted. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion. All were in favor
and so the motion carried .
e
359 Essex Street
Arthur and Jessie Errion applied for a. Certificate"of Non-
Applicability for repainting the main building and carriage r
R
a
a
August 1 , 1990 Page 4
house. and front side fence aC359 Essex Street with existing
colors.
Mr. Oedel 'motioned to accept the application as submitted. , 4 -
Mr. Carr seconded the motion. All were in favor,., And so the
motion carried.
135 Derby Street
Thaddeus Wlodyka applied for a Certificate of Non-
Applicability for repainting the first floor of. 13.5 Derby
Street with existing color_
The work was already completed and Chairman Harris did not -
feel the painter matched the color. 7
Mr. Carr stated that by not repainting the entire house, would
make it a two tone house due to uneven weathering . Mr:-Carr suggested
a. letters_ be sent asking Mr. Wlodyka to inform the '
commission as to when he will be painting the �rest of the
house.
Ms. Harris suggested approving the Certificate of Non-
Applicability as long as the colors for repainting match the
rest of the horse.
Mr. Oedel motioned to approve the application as long as the
paint matches the rest of the house. Mr.. Carr seconded the
motion. All were in favor. And so the motion carried.
15 Cambridge Street Discussion
Ms.. Guy suggested the Commission pick: a few color schemes for
15 Cambridge Street that would likely be approved based on
the age and the style of the house.
Faint colors chosen by the commission were.
1 . Body of the house - gray as requested in prior
application , trim -Navajo White; Shutters -Essex -Green or
black .
Body of the house'- Sand Piper, triff, -.. Pittsfield Buff ,"
Shutters -: Essex Green.
3. Body of the house - Limestone gray, trim - Quarry Dust', ,
shutters Essex Green or Black .
4. Doors - New London ''Burgandy.
" Body of house - Gray as requested in prior application,
' trim -Navajo White,. Shutters -Black . r
Ms. Guy will send the owners a letter with these color
schemes. @
Violations
89 Federal Street
August 1 , 1990, Page 5
A letter was sent to the owners stating that they were-in
violation of a skylight that was noticed to have been
installed. Ms. Guy stated that the owner's called her and
stated that the�sl::ylight had been installed before the
historic district was formed.
Mr. Carr was in disagreement .
Lynn Street (White house opposite Andover Street)
Mr. Carr noted that the single family is now a two family and
that the gate to the driveway has been removed and a large
parking lot has been installed.
.Other Business
Mr. Fierce stated that a letter should be sent to DeVillers
concerning the demolition of the Bridge Street signal tower
and stated that it was a historical landmark dating back to
the 1920's.
Ms. Guy stated that the FY69 Survey and Planning Grant was
complete and that she will send a copy of the report to each
member.
There being no further business Mr. Oedel motioned to
adjourn . Mr. Cook: seconded the motion . All were in favor.
And so the motion carried .
• Respectfully, ,
Deborah A. Guy x
r
r
c ?
d
l
Augus g, 1990, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
AUGUST 8, 1990
A site visit was held by the Salem Historical Commission on
August 8, 1990 at 6 : 30 p.m. at 14 Chestnut Street. Present were
Chairman Harris, Messrs . Cook, Carr, Oedel and Pierce and Ms .
Guy.
The site visit was held to determine what is visible from the
public way and to confirm the work being proposed for 14 Chestnut
Street. Katherine and Thomas Murray were present, along with
their architect James Ballou. Drawings were viewed during the
site visit.
Mr. Oedel felt that most of the work will be visible from at
least one public way. Chairman Harris stated that, if so, all
proposed work will come under the Commission ' s jurisdiction.
From the street, the left side of the building was viewed first.
Chairman Harris felt the windows as drawn were not in scale with
what is- proposed. Mr. Carr stated that the bottom of the second
floor windows as drawn would come down to the top of the first
floor window. Chairman Harris also questioned the width of some
of the windows as drawn. Chairman Harris noted that a window is
shown as a bulkhead in the drawing. Mr. Carr noted that the
• Commission can only act on the drawings as presented. Mr. Ballou
stated that he would resketch the windows and present new
drawings .
Mr. Oedel asked if the gutters will be retained. Mr. Murray
stated that they would probably not be. Mr. Carr asked that if
removed, would there be plain facia underneath. Mr. Murray
stated that it would match the rest of the house. Mr. Oedel felt
it may be better to not match the front of the house.
Regarding the rear of the building, Mr. Oedel stated that the
work included a new ridge vent, new windows, new solid doors with
no lights and a secondary egress . Mr. Oedel added that the work
also included a new porch roof with a new railing. Mr. Oedel
felt that the porch railing would not be seen from the public
way. _
Mr. Pierce stated that the second floor right window on the side
of the rear L was drawn too close to the end of the building.
Chairman Harris stated that the secondary egress will be an issue
and asked if the applicants would allow the Commission to see
inside. Mr. Oedel stated that the issue might be solved by
building out the rear with a new wall in order to allow an
interior solution. Mr. Carr noted that outside stairs have been
denied in the past .
The Commission viewed the inside of the garage to see if there
could be an interior solution to secondary egress . Mr. Murray
` August .9, 1990, Page 2
noted that an interior stair could not be installed through the
garage because a 36" width is required which would bring it too
• far into the garage.
Mr. Murray stated that he would like to change the fence color
that was approved from gray to brown and that the only part that
would be gray would be the exterior facing the Bacall ' s and the
Athenaeum.
The Commission walked around the block to see what was visible
from the public way and to put a site line on the plans.
Mr . Pierce felt that fences were typically a light color and did
not feel the brown was appropriate.
Mr. Murray asked if Mr. Howe ' s recently approved fence will be
higher than that which is currently on Cambridge Street. Ms. Guy
will check the approved drawings .
Mr. Oedel felt that most of the exterior sides of the fence
should be gray. Mr. Carr felt the color should be uniform around
the house .
Mr. Oedel noted that the rear fence of the property next door was
charcoal gray.
Mr. Murray stated that most of the fences in the neighorhood
match either the body or trim color of the house . Mr. Murray
• considered both the brown used as accent and the white as trim
colors. The Commission was not necessarily in agreement that the
brown could be considered trim.
Mr. Cook suggested brown on the inside and that which matches the
abutters on the outside.
Chairman Harris suggested the body color for the fence. Mr. Carr
agreed that trim or body color seems to be the precedent on the
street. Mr. Pierce stated that he was comfortable with the body
color.
Mr. Murray stated that he would waive the gray as approved and
request the body color of the house for the entire fence .
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the replacement of the gray
color for the flatboard fence under construction to the color
which is the same as the house body for the entire fence, inside
and out. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion. All were in favor and
the motion so carried.
361 Essex Street
Mr. Barry Carnes on behalf of Mr. & Mrs . Alexander presented an
application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability for the repair
• of rotted crown molding using pieces provided as samples for
their home at 361 Essex Street. Ms. Guy stated that Mr. Carnes
had told her he was unable to find anyone who could replicate the
August 9, 1990 , Page 3
existing molding and that the roof is off awaiting the
Commission ' s decision to allow the replacement with the samples
provided.
Mr. Oedel made a motion to approve an application for a
Certificate of Non-applicability for the replacement of crown
molding with pieced crown molding as per sample provided. Mr.
Cook seconded the motion.
Mr . Pierce felt it would be simple to replicate what is existing
and that Jeffers Lumber of Roger Hedstrom could likely do it.
Mr. Pierce noted that it would have to be done before the roof is
installed.
Mr. Carr and Mr. Pierce stated that they could not approve the
pieces when it was possible to have it milled as existing. Mr.
Pierce stated that it would be easier to do it correctly.
The motion was voted upon. Chairman Harris and Mr. Oedel voted
in favor . Mr. Cook, Carr and Pierce voted in opposition. The
motion was denied.
The site visit having been concluded, the Commission adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
neA. Guy
Jerk of th Commission
Minutes/080890
}
N
9 l •
August 15, 1990
SALEM HISTORIr_.AL• COMMISSION
z
MINUTES "
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission` was held
on Wednesday August 15, 1990 at One Salem Green , Salem, MA at
7:30 F.M. In attendance were Mr, Carr, Mr. Fierce, Mr. ,
Oedel , Mr. Coot. , Mr. Hedstrom and Ms. Guy, (Chairman Harris
appeared later on in the meeting) . Mr. Carr acted as
chairman for the commission and opened the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
14 Chestnut Street
In continuation of their application from a. previous meeting, r
Thomas and Katherine Murray applied for a Certificate of°
Appropriateness for window alterations, secondary egress,
• door relocation , porch alterations, completion of residing,;
roofing and painting , and fence paint colors for their home
at 14 Chestnut Street .
NOTE: Commencement on this application began at 7:30 F.M.
Mr. Murray recorded portions of the meeting .
Mr. Carr stated that the Historical Comm issinn had reviewed
the application at the first meeting dated .July 11 , 1990 and
that a site visit was made on August s, 1990 at 6:30 F.M.
Mrs. Murray presented the Historical Commission with a
revised set of drawings and proceeded to read a. statement
that she had prepared whic : indicated that the proposed work7
was reviewed by a representative of SF'NEA.
Mr. Carr asked Mrs. Murray at the completion of her statement
if she would like to submit her statement as part of the
records of this meeting.
Mrs. Murray replied in the affirmative and' renderedithe" '
statement to the Historical Commission for the records,
Mr. Carr stated that the revised plans that were submitted .
contained changes on plan A-3 and A `
Mr. Carr stated that the bottom of the windows appear to be
more accurately drawn . Mr. Carr- tried to establish exactly
what the changes were on the revised documents .
Mr. James`Ballou, the architect for the project .- stated that,
on page A-`, which was revised , a window was moved and the
sl.-ylight also appears which was not shown before,
Mr. Carr stated that once the 'drawings were deemed complete
for the proposed worts , the public would be invited
to speak . The Murrays could then add to the remarks , before
the public hearing was closed and the Commission deliberated.
Chris Eaton , hired by the Murrays to advise on the design y
process, was present . Ms. Eaton stated that she was an
architectuta1 conservator of SFNEA. Ms. Eaton reviewed the
- a
August 15, 1990 Page 2
plans with the Commission and explained that the owners were
restoring the interior division of the house between the
service area and apartment area/Ain house as shown on Plan
A-1 , ,
Mr. Carr stated that the Historical Commission only has ,
jurisdiction of what is visible from a oublic,way. He also
asked what the floor level in plan A-2 had in relation to the
windows,
Mr. Pallou stated that he was involved in the changes of the
dwelling in 1957 and all door ways and windows have remained
in place since 19`
Mr. Carr asked Ms. Eaton if she had any knowledge as to the
age of the windows.
Ms. Eaton stated she thought them to be there before 197 and
felt they were mid to late nineteenth century as exists. She
further stated that the lowering of.the floor level
necessitates the triple hqngyµr.indows, The relationship from
the window heads to the<.ornice- will remain as is and as
1 �iy, always was. jhe skylrght proposed is only for light
• and ventilation in the bathroom. Plan.-A-4 indicates -an
existing window being moved down and stairs as a secondary
egress, located on the outside which will be pressure '
treated , not painted . There is a hatch in. the middle which "*
may be original . Ms. Eaton stated the second story window in
the rear is not original . The windows on the 'porch in back.
will stay the same and the stairs to the porch will be
centered , while presently the stairs are off centered.
Mr. Hedstrom asked about the- use of materials on the porch .
Ms. Eaton stated that -411 materials would match; She also
stated that on plan A-5, new windows installed will be at the
e same height of the existing .window heads but lowered for the � -
floor level .
Mr. Carr stated that the Historical Commission understood the
t plans from the first meeting.
Ms. Eaton stated that she did not have a problem with w
regular-izincr the fenistration of A-5 and A-3 facade. `3She
added that it is not untraditional except for, perhaps, the
triple windows.
Mr. Carr asked Ms. Eaton if she could think of any building
an Chestnut Street or any mansion in Salem with triple
windows. s
Ms. Eaton replied in the negative and stated triple windows
were usually as openings onto a terrace. She a] co•stated
that it will go with the aesthetics of the Historical,
District ,
Mr. Carr stated that the Commission is not concerned with
aesthetics but historical appropriateness: He also added
that this is an application for a Certificate of
:=appropriateness.
Ms. Eaton felt the windows were needed to resolve a practic,
resolution to a problem while leaving the window heads and
cornice relationship,
'6
August 15, 1990 Page 3
Ms. Eaton stated that there are other triple hung windows on
• the facade of the building . She also stated that there is a
division of priority and high style.
Mr. Carr stated that the Historical Commission is a legal
process and the application that is before the commission is
to decide if the windows are at all historically appropriate. "
He also stated that if there is a need that cannot be
addressed by the appropriateness then^ a Certificate ,of
Hardship should be filed. All the commission can deal with
if the windows historically appropriate. He also asked Ms.
Eaton that if in her consultation with the Murrays did she
consult the guidelines of the Historical Commission with
reference to skylights and roof color.
Ms. Eaton stated that yes she did , and added that she wrote.
to the Murrays saying that she had wished they had called her
about the brown roof color for she would have advised against
it .
Mr. Carr asked Ms. Eaton what she was familiar with as far as
the guidelines of the Historical Commission for skylights.
Ms. Eaton stated that `--he was aware that the commission would
not approve of skylights that are visible from a public way.
t Ms. Eaton stated that she did walk around the historical
district and did see skylights and fire escapes.
Mr. Carr',ask:ed if Ms. Eaton felt there was ever a skylight in
the location now proposed .
Ms. Eaton replied in the negative.
• Ms. Eaton stated that she thought the'sk:ylights proposed
world be appropriate in this case.
Mr. Carr asked M=_ . Eaton if that was because of their
function or because of -architectural appropriateness.
Ms. Eaton stated then she did not think they would be,
architectural distractions in this account.. .
Mr. Carr asked Ms. Eaton if she considered the number of -
skylight=-
f •sk:ylights on the house. ''
Ms. Eaton stated that she did not want to address the
previous issues but that she did not agree with one of the
skylights when asked by the Murrays about those already
installed.
Mr. Carr asked Ms. Eaton if there was anything else she would
like to add .
Ms. Eaton stated that there was nothing"more to, add other
than she felt the secondary egress was appropriate. '
Mr. Carr invited Mr. Ballou to speak .
= Mr. Ballou stated that he had nothing further to add except
as far as the triple windows are concerned, there are triple
windows Salem but could not inform the commission as to
where.
Mr. Carr asked if he knew of any service wings with triple
windows. on Chestnut Street .
Mr. Ballou replied in the negative.
Mr. Carr stated that the Historical Commission has. guidelines
and the practice of the commission is not to permit designs
. • _ 1
August 1�, 1440 Page 4
it
that make .a rear ell or service wing appear fancy. Mr. Carr
felt the elongated windows' are not historically appropriate.
Mr. Ballou stated that this was the twentieth century not the '
ntneteenti century and that ^if faced with this problem in the
past , any architect would have designed the job- the same way.
Mr. Carr asked if there was anything else the applicant would
like to say.
Mrs. Murray stated that they'were speaking to the whole
Historical Commission not to just .John Carr.
Mr. Murray added that there is no other place for secondary
egrees that will conform to code.
B
Mr. Carr addressed the audience as to if there was anvone who
would like to speak 'on the Murray's application . There was
no public testimony.
Mr. Oedel motioned to close the public hearing .
Mr. Pierce seconded the motion . All were in favor and so the
motion carried
.rN "`�"�
Mr. Oedel ask:edjrxf. the Murrays,would_be removing th exgytters. a_
Mr. Murray replied that he felt the Historical Commissionhas
no jurisdiction over the gutters, but that they will be
_removing them as part of the reroofing .
Mr. Cook asked Mrs. Murray as to what extent of serious
structural damage she was referring to in her statement at r
the beginning of the meeting .
Mr. Murray stated that the existing floor was rotting and
that it was never framed properly. Mr. Murray stated that
• the second floor interior has sagged over six inches.
'Mr. Oedel asked when the floor was built .~
Mr. Murray stated it was part of the original post and beam.
construction . t
Mr. Oedel asked Ms. Eaton if she had any' idea when it was 4
constructed.
Ms. Eaton stated that she felt it was part of the original
but was very poorly designed.
Mr. Pierce asked why they decided to lower.the floor.
Mr. Murray stated that there is another 4 evel underneath ,
which is about three feet between the second and the first e
floor and is like a hayloft .
Mr. Carr inquired if there wa=_.'a way to repair the-structural
defect by rebuilding the floor and retaining 'the orientation
towards the windows.
Ms. Eaton stated that they could but they would loose the
loft, space.
Mr. Carr asked if this is what was driving the project .
Ms. Eaton stated no, that is not her jurisdiction and asked
to change the Certificate of Appropriateness to a Certificate.
of Hardship .
Mr. Carr stated that the Historical Commission can.only deal,
with the application in front of them and that application
only. a
4 Auaust .'15; 1990 Page 5 w
r
Mr. Oedel asked if the Historical Commission should deal with
the whole application in voting or in parts. He also stated
that the new porch roof should be shingled in black: asphalt
shingles and that4Erown would be: inappropriate, and the
Historical Commission doetnnot approve anything bort black.
He .went on to say thatos`fo t serest of. the porch he had no
problem with . The portf�i's��rela� "lye minimally visible
, except from Essex but that it>co_rld be appropriate. ' Mr.
Oedel stated that he has no problem with Q,je first floor
window lettered "U" . Mr. Oedel also had no problem with
removing a window on that facade. However, he stated -he does
have= a. problem with the skylight and the color of the roof .
Mr. Oedel did not feel the second floor three tier windows
were appropriate and stated that it .just is not done on a
second floor minor facade He also has a problem with the
revised triple windows and skylight on Flan A-O. Mr. Oedel
asked Mr. Murray abort the bulkhead that was drawn on plan A-
1 , and whether they would be leaving the window.
Mr. Murray stated there would be no bulkhead .
Mr. Oedel carefully circled the bulkhead area on plan A-1 in '
blue ink to indicate it's non existence, Mr. Oedel suggested
that with the removal of the gutters and downspouts the facia'
should be redone:
Mr. Murray stated that there was a 1/2 inch round molding
Mr. Oedel stated that he has a problem with the ridge vent
regarding visibility, especially Wit is aluminum. Mr.
O@del asked if it was drawn.
Mr. Murray replied in the negative and stated that low
profile black plastic will be used for the vent .
Mr. Oedel stated he would have no problem providing the
asphalt is black: to match . He went on to say that the window a' '
being removed and the change of the back: door to a window and the
two proposed windows on the first floor rear were°not'a '
problem. Mr% OWN stated he was completely opposed to the
exterior staircase. He suggested an internal staircase which
is more historically appropriateaj�',Which could .be accomp l-K47
by framing it in to create an interior staircase. a
Mr. Murray felt itwas less appropriate to,extend the
building four feet• than 'to,have an outside staircase:
Ms. Eaton agreed .
Mr. Oedel stated he had no problem with the door on the
first' floor being moved to the left hand side.
Mr. Tierce.stated that his first concern i that-the Tss- g.f;✓
original fabric is irnfo'rtunate whether it is original from
• construction or only- as long as can be recalled. He felt
this includes doors, trim, siding and especially windows.
Mr. Tierce's second concern is design and that the main house
is a fine example of greek: revival and is,an elegant home,, +
Mr. Fierce addedQhUAW&Arell does not have ornate molding
and is a fine example of a. subservient addition which does
not compete with the main house Mr. Tierce stated the main
A
- 6
August 15,, 1.9901 Page 6
house is of high style and that the rear should be 1-eft so, a
not to compete. Therefore, Mr. Pierce stated that he had a
problem with the rear windows, especially= a second floor.
Mr. Pierce stated that he had no problem with the porch and
the relocation is more appropriate. Mr. Fierce stated that `
the roof form appears more appropriate but felt that the top
edge of the roof sho_rl d.be lowered be]-ow the window Iedg.e+ so ;
as not to rot the window sill ,^ ,though'it tmot .an issue of
appropriateness. The exterior 4stairr se is a problem as it
would change the character of the house. .Mr. Pierce supports
�
tthe g�idel fines which frown upon exterior stairs to s'oly, v e �n
r� Xr 1715terio problem. He felt it would draw attention and ma4::e ,
it appear more like an apartment"or tenement , ' Mr. Fierce he
a problem with the skylights and stated that he objects to
more than one.
Mr. Hedstrom stated that he was not ,present at the site ;isit
but knows the .house we11 , ,He stated that he was opposed to
the plans A-3 and A for four windows which will draw
attention to the rear: of the house and for that he would not
vote in favor as they are drawn . Mr. Hedstrom felt it would y
destroy the original fabric and world change it to the point
• where it draws attention to the rear of the house. He .also
stated he has a problem with the staircase and roof color.
Mr. Cook stated that he was opposed to .the color of the roof ,
opposed to both skylights, and opposed' to the exterior I'
staircase ,
Mr. Carr stated that he shares all of the Commission's
comments as. said previously, and added that the goal of
the Historical Commission is to preserve what is appropriate
and Qt the was particularily opposed to the exterior, °
staircasewhich goes against the guidelines along with the
s` number of sky.li'ghtsa d;.their.location . rMr. Carr stated .that
the windows in the rear are not piniform and symmetrical and
that elongated windows would detract your attention to the:
rear and away from the main house. He' also stated that he',
was unsure concerning the roof vent . He has no problem with
the windows faring north although he did regret the loss of ,
original fabric. He has no problem with• the porch design but
was opposed to the roof color. �°I
Mr. Murray stated that the existing windows are not the
original windows but are plastic covered spiral • bound
windows. Mr. Murray presumed the placement is original .
Mr. Fierce stated that the frames and sills are original .
Mr. Murray replied that the sashes are original and that the
door was probably a triple hung window at ground level to a
garden . He went on to say that there is.a picture of the
house at the Essex Institute,' but did not bring the picture
with him to the meeting , which showed a garden and indicated
the possibility of a tripe hung window.
Mrs. Murray referred to the tripl.o�window on plan A-4 and }
stated that the eye will not be drawn back: since the building
is set back: and due to the length of the driveway on the
August 15, 1990 Page
western side.
Mr. Carr asl::ed the Murrays if there was anything else they
would like to add.
Mrs. Murray stated no.
Mr. Carr asked for a motion as to tfie visibility from the
public way, and suggested that each facade be handled
seplaratply.
Mr. Oedel suggesteo .that when the commission votes it shn. uld .
be with respect to °the entire plan as a unit ,
Mr. Carr stated that there is no requirement of doing that.
Mr. Oedel stated that he would lil::e to go on record as
wanting to vote on the whole plan as a package.
Mr. Cook disagreed.
Mr. Carr stated that he would have to vote in opposition ,tr.)
the entire plans and would like to vote going through
each facade.
Mr. Oedel motioned to find all facades being visible as per
sitelines drawn . There was no second ,
Mr. Carr stated the first plan is A-3 on the western facade.
Mr. Oedel amended his motion to be that the western facade is
entirely visible from Rotts Court and Chestnut Streets.
• Mr, Cook seconded the motion . All were in favor and so the
motion carried.
Mr. Oedel motioned to approve the skylights, the brown
shingles, the expanded windows and the visible portion of the
proposed rear exterior stairs in the hopes that it .fails.
Mr. Pierce seconded the motion. There were no votes in
favor. All were opposed and so the motion failed.
Mr. Oedel motioned to approve the reroofing ,in black: asphalt
shingles, the roof vent and the porch roof as drawn,on the
western facade as modified in plan A-3.
Mr. Hedstrom seconded the motion . All were in favor and so
the motion carried.
Mr. Cook motioned to accept the windows as proposed on the
western facade. There{was no second ,
Mr. Oedel, referring to plan A-4, motioned to find allitems ,
drawn to be visible from a public way,
Mr. Hedstrom seconded the motion . All were in favor and so
the motion carried.
, ,Mr. Oedel motioned to approve the exterior door on the second
floor, the staircase coming down, and the removal of the
center window that the stairs would cover with the hopes
that it will fail as inappropriate.
Mr. Pierce seconded the motion. There were no votes in
favor. All were opposed and so the motion failed .
Mr. Oedel motioned to approve the porch as drawn , indicated
by the blue circle on the plan, but with black: asphalt
shingles and trim matching the main houses -which includes
handrails, ballasters., molding and pilasters and that the
••` . lattice work be painted the body,,color andto approve.--the �r-e.location oflthe
porch staircase. - -
-August 15, 1990 Page B `
Mr. Pierce seconded the motion adding that the construction
of the railings match the railings an the western facade and
be of wooden material .
Mr. Oedel accepted the amendment . All were in favor- and so
the motion carried.
Mr. Oedel motioned to disapprove the brown .shingles.
Mr. Cook seconded the motion . All were in favor and so the
motion carried. ,
Mr. Oedel motioned to approve the relocation of the window'on
the north facade, for the two top most windows as drawn and ' ' . .
-replacements to be ,of the same size and type made of wooden
materials, six over six with intregal m_rntins.to match those
existing on the first floor, removal of the `do,or and ..{{
replacement with window on the first floor right hand sidel
and placement of a door on the left hand side, first "floor
Mr. Cook seconded the motion .
Mr. Pierce stated concern of removing one °door- and allowing
r� - �-
' it to be relocated , if not necessary s.inceDt.He 'staff"rcase� waQ.,
disapproved .
Mr. Oedel stated that the condition of the door warranted the
action. h
Mr. Carr asked if the three center windows are to be
identical in size.
Mr. Oedel replied in the affirmative.
All were in favor- and so the motion carried.
Mr. Oedel motioned that work proposed on Ai-5 is visible from
Cambridge Street and that the commission has jurisdiction .
• Mr. Hedstrom seconded the motion . All were in favor and so
the motion carried.
Mr. Oedel motioned to approve the whole facade in the hopes
that it,wi,l1 fail . ,.
f There ino second�j
Mr. Oedel motioned to epRrove the entire facade with the
exception of the porch4wh1�h,, "was previously approved, in-hopes
that it will fail .
Mr. Hedstrom seconded the motion.. Therelwas one vote in
favor. The rest opposed, the motion, did not carry.
Mr. Oedel motioned to approve black asphalt shingles for the
roof on the eastern facade shown on plan A-5, or the perch
and main building and to,allow the removal of the existing
window which is shown on the plan with a dotted line and
numbered #1 and is adjacent to the porch , and to allow the
installation of window (D) to match the existing .window (E)
with two existing windows lettered "A" to remain as is.
Mr. Hedstrom seconded the motion.
Mr. Carr added that all five windows on the easterly facade
should be of same size. "
Mr. Oedel amended his motion.
Mr. Hedstrom seconded the amendment . All were in favor and
so the motion carried.
Mr. Cook motioned to approve the two elongated windows on the
east facade.
r J
• r
August 16;' 1990 Page 9
Mr. Carr seconded the motion. Mr. Cook voted in favor and
• Messrs, Fierce, Oedel , Carr and Hedstrom voted in opposition .
The motion did not carry.
Mr. Oedel motioned to disapprove the exterior staircase on'
the eastern elevation.
Mr. Hedstrom seconded the motion . All were in favor and so
the motion carried. ,
Mr. Oedel motioned to disapprove the skylight on plan A-6,
Mr. Pierce seconded the motion. All were in favor and so the
motion carried. r
'
Mr. Murray stated that�the,ne,siding_pr__oposed�.i.s_to-con.t.i,n.ue-.the=wors k
previously approved in order to make the house uniform. It
would include the rear part of the main-house and the
addition.
Mr. Oedel motioned to approve the reclapboarding and
repainting in existing color the .rear of the main part of the
house and the addition ,to match existing exposure, the smooth
side to weather. Mr. Oedel noted that the replacement is
replacing non-original clapboards.
Mr. Carr provided a sketch as an exhibit of the
reclapboarding location .
Mr. Pierce seconded the motion . All were in favor and so the
motion carried.
NOTE: the time at the completion of this Public Hearing .
was 9:14 P.M.
Chairman Harris entered the meeting at this time.
• "
1=2 Griffin Place
John and Kathleen Walsh applied for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for the replacement of front doors at .1-2
Griffin Place. '
Mr. °Walsh stated that he replaced the front doors two months
ago and did not know he needed the approval of the Historical
Commission and submitted pictures of the new doors. He,also
stated that the screens of the original- doors did not close
properly and they were chipped so he replaced the exterior
doors with the present steel doors which are currently primed
white.
Mr. Carr asked Mr. Walsh when the building was built .
Mr. Walsh stated about the nineteen hundreds.
Mr. Oedel noticed.from the pictures submitted that the
transom lights hAd, been covered over.
Mr. Carr stated that this was not a building that reflected
the historical district and found no problem with the present
doors but would like the transom put back: .
Mr. Cook motioned to accept the application as submitted.
Mr. Pierce questioned the surrounding context and if this was
a post fire building.
Mr. Carr stated that it was not .
August iG, 1990 Page iO
Mr. Oedel seconded the motion and suggested that the
commission suggest the applicant to,--replace the transom.' "
Mr. Cook amended his motion .
Mr. Carr suggested an5amended that due to the age and non
pretentious architecture of the building that the commission
could approve this type of door with paint color. Geing white
Mr. Cook so amended his motion .
Mr. Oedel seconded the amen }ents.
Mr: Walsh stated that the doors were black: before.,;,
Chairman Harris noted that the shutters are black .
Mr. Cook suggested cream or something. that would read away.
Mr. Hedstrom felt it should remain white.
Mr. Cook amended his motion that the doors and trim remain "
" white. . Mr;/Oedel seconded the amendment. w + ''f' " "•
All were, in favor and so the motion carried.
409 Essex Street
Stanley Kantorosinski applied for a,Certificate of
` Appropriateness for the rebuilding of stairs and repair of
front porch at 409 Essex StreetLo OAsketch was provided. , Mik:e
Kantorosinskiwas present and stated that he will replicate
the stairs to match 407 Essex Street, refinish existing and
put in trellis wort:: , «
• Mr. Carr wanted to know if the .lattice will match the
building to the right and if the lattice will be square or
'diamond shape.
Chairman Harris felt there was no need for the lattice to
match 407 Essex Street . , , 'cam
"Mr Kantbr'osinski statedthat the-porches are rotten znd -that,he; will
f repair or replace fhe firstand"second floor„ porches.
Mr. Carr motioned to approve the new, set of .wooden stabrs to
match the set of -stairs presently attached tp Dr.
Kantorisinski 's office at 407 Essex, Street , to' repair or
replicate the porches, porch Galixste,�.ra'ilings. and skirting
on the second and first floors--ith the lattice to
replicate the existing square lattice:
Mr. Carr noted that the motion is not based on the diawinq_
submitted,
Mr. Oedel seconded the motion .
Ms. Harris stated that she wanted the applicant to understand
that the commission wants— to repair what already exists or if
necessary to replace, that all details match exactly.
Mr. Kantorosinski agreed .
f •
All were in favor and so the motion carried.
Mr. Carr .made a motion to deny any other variation of his 1
motion .
J
Mr. Oedel seconded the motion . All were in favor and so the
motion carried. x
t
1
August 15, 1997 Page ii
194 Federal Street
• Bill Marchand applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness
for replacing the roof at 194Federal Street . Mr. Marchand
stated that the roof will change from asbestos to asphalt.
Mr. Marchand amended his application +or black asphalt or
charcoal grey shingles.
Mr. Carr motioned to approve a certificate of appropriateness
to replace the roof .with black: or charcoal grey shingles and
for the entire roof to be replaced •at one time. . '
Mr. oedel seconded the 'motion ' "All were in favor and so.'the
motion carried. ,
i
• +
Chestnut Street
Blake and Nina Anderson applied for as Certificate of Non-
Applicability
on-Applicability for installation of french doors at the rear
kitchen ell of 5 Chestnut Street. t
Mr. Anderson noted that. the doors would 'not be visible from
the public way.
Mr. Cook was in agreement.
Mr. Carr motioned to approve' the application as submitted.
Mr. Fierce seconded the motion. All were in favor and so the .
motion carried . k
• Mrs. Hedstrom abstained. * '
Mr. Anderson asked, if flag poles were under the juris ,.c Iy
of the Commission .
Ms. Guy replied in the affirmative.
165 Federal Street
✓
Paul and .Jeanette Mal awka applied for a Certificate ofYNon-Applicability
for reroofing one half of the roof at 165 Federal Street.
Ms. Guy noted that this was a continuation from the-,last :
meeting and that the other half of the roof had been done two '•
years ago. The application is also to replace one wooden
gutter and facia board.
Mr. Carr motioned to _accept the application as submitted.
Mr. oedel seconded the motion . All were in favor and so -the
motion carried. J
Y t
Other Business
9 Cambridge Street 4
,
Ms. Guy noted that'the owners, of 9 Cambridge are going before
the Board of Appeals to apply for a permit to convert to a
September 15, 1990 Page 12
two family:
t Mr. Carr motioned for a letter to be sent to the Board of t
Appeals.
Mr. Carr stated that he believes that the commission has
found tfiattiWhen any s sing -e fam.iyy..house--- -='�s converted into a
multi family house there is most often a loss of historical
details. Mr. Care noted that the building ,is adjacent to a
National Register Property and believes 9 ,Cambridge was
historically built as a single family,
Mr. Oedel seconded the motion . Chairman Harris", Messers
' Carr, Oedel , Pierce and Hedstrom voted in favor. Mr. Cool:., ,
voted in oposition . All were in favor and so'the motion
carried.
Mr. Cook felt that the infringement by Hamilton. Hall to the.
homeowner was greater than 9 Cambridge to Hamilton Hall and' , . +
felt it was an absurd arguement to defend the issue of a
r ,
single family.
95-97 Federal Street
Ms. Guy stated that the deck: to this fiouse- had been approved
Mr. Hedstrom noted that the horse has raised planters in the
back.
Ms. Girt/ is to take a better picture for the next meeting,
f
• Kolbe and Kolbe Windows
A sampled of the windows was left by a representative of
` Kolbe and Kolbe for the Commission to examine for possible''
use within the historic district .
The commission examined the sample of the window that was
1 eft by Kol be and Kol be.
Ms. Harris stated that the finish was not appropriate and the
�- 'munntt�in�s lw_ere�thicl:: , She also stated that they would have
to see the 7f8 inch sample and that double glass was not-
There
otThere being no further business;
Mr. Cook: motioned adjourn. CC.JJ
Mr. Decal seconded the motion. All were in favor and- so the
motion carried .
Respectfully Yours,
Deborah A. Guy, ti
i
September 5, 1990
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MEETING
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission,was held
on Wednesday, September 5, 1990 at One Salem Green, Salem, '
MA. In attendance were Ms. Harris, Mr. Carr, Mr. Slam, Mr.
Hedstrom, Mr. Cook and. Ms. Buy.
5 Chestnut Street a
Blake and Nina Anderson of this address applied for a
Certificate of Appropriateness for adding two skylights to ,
the roof of the kitchen evenly spaced (33" x 55")
Mr. Anderson amended his application to one flat vel _ix
skylight to be installed which will be centered. Additional-
pictures were •provided showing a three and one-half� nch kigh�
template placed on the roof , which is essentially a flat
•
roof .
Mr. Slam suggested a Certificate of Non-Applicability.
Chairman Harris felt'it might be seen in the winter.
Mr. Carr felt that a Certificate of Non-Applicability was
appropriate for the skylight due to being minimally visible,
or non visible and being placed' on a wing much later in age.
Mr. Slam motioned to•approve a Certificate of. Non-
Applicability for one skylight centered on the rear kitchen
addition due to being minimally vieible, located on a modern
addition and that it would not effect the historical purity
of the building. Skylight size to be 33x55
Chairman Harris was concerned of. the light °at night being
visible.
Mr; Hedstrom felt it would be minimally visible at best .
Mr. Carr seconded. Four votes were in favor. Mr. Hedstrom
abstained. And so the motion carried.
407 Esser. Street
Miroslaw Kantorosink:ski applied for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for taking down the existingstairs, building
new three tier balcony and building a dormer to match
existing dormer on the west side, the repairing of door w .
frames and changing of ,the doors in front at 407 Essex
Street.
Mr. k::antarosinsk:i withdrew the application for doors and
submitted drawings 6or- the porches, anddormer:
Mr. Carr inquired as to why the building was built the way
it was in the first place and stated that while the dormer
September 5, 1990 Page 2
would give symmetry, he was concerned that it would be
• changing from a "T" to a cruciform by adding a second dormer.
Mr. Cook stated that the second dormer did nothing
appearance wise, but that ,the house was not significant.
Chairman Harris stated that she felt it was not a significant
enough °of a house and she was not bothered by the dormer.
Mr. Slam stated that he did not mind the dormer either.
Chairmen Harris stated that the issue is what is appropriate °
and felt that it would be.
Mr. Slam was in agreement .
Mr. Carr stated that he felt that by adding another dormer
the house would loot:, top heavy and was a vidrat increase in
density.
Mr. Coot:: stated that he does not like it but would vote in
favor for it .
Mr. Carr stated that when a. decision is made one cannot take
into account of the potential. use of the house.
Chairman Harris stated that the drawings show a large a
skylight and inquired as to if the stairs to be, replaced at °
the rear of the dwelling with porches will have stairs. `
Mr. Kantorosinski showed the Commission drawings of the
proposed porches and stated he would move the st::ylight to
where it would not be visible or skip `the sk:ylight.� Mr.
Carr stated that there was a problem withi' buildings
with attics being used as living spaces. LHe ent further to
state that there was no means of egress for the second, floor
•
- and no architectural design president on balcony attics. He
also stated he would not have a porch on an attic window.
Ms. Guy inquired about a second means of egress-on the second
floor.
Mr. Kantorosinsk:i stated it was not needed since it would be
part of the second floor apartment, Mr. Kantorosinsl:i further
stated that the third floor was no longer an attic since the
addition of dormers, ect . _
Mr. Carr stated that it reads as,one architecturally'. j
Mr. Slam stated that architecture has changed and agreed
that it now reads as a third floor.
Mr. Cook stated that the addition of dormers can come close
to the third floor living space. He further stated that the
ceiling is sixty percent of the area that one can have only
one floor with the addition of dormers to change the texture
of,the third floor. '
Mr. Slam motioned to accept the application as,submitted with
the amendment of taking out the skylight, and for the railing
design and posts to be determined in another motions
Mr. Cook seconded the motion. ,
Chairman Harris and Messrs. Slam and Cook: voted in favor. s
Mr. Hedstrom and Mr. Carr voted in opposition. The motion
did not carry.
Mr. Carr suggested separating the two halfs of the
G h .
September 5, 1990 Page 3
• application. Mr. Carr motioned that the Commission approve
the application for two-level porch, with detail on railings
to be determined , to be with or without a roof at the '
applicants discretion. There "was -)no second."
Mr. Kantorosinski stated he did not want to replace the
staircase if he could not have all three porches. k "'
Chairman Harris suggested a site visit . Mr. K:antorosinski
stated that he feels the Commission is being ridiculous and
all he wants 'to do is add a living space for himself .
Mr. Cook stated that the exposure from the rear is limited.
Mr. Hedstrom motioned to schedule a site visit and continue
the application. There was no second. „
Mr. Slam motioned to accept the gable.
Mr. Cook seconded the motions.
Mr. Hedstrom stated that he was not comfortable with the
gable and preferred a site visit .
Mr. Cook withdrew his second .
Mr. Slam withdrew his motion .
i Mr. Carr motioned f-or a site visit for Wednesday, September ;
13, 1990 at 6:30 P.M. and to continue the application.
Mr. Slam seconded the motion . . All were in favor and so the
• motion carried .
135 Derby Street
John Marks, tenant of Ted G. Wlodyka, applied for a
Certificate of Non-Applicability for hanging a temporary .sign
to be located in the front window for six months at 135 Derby
Street.
• ,. . gid.
Mr. Marks submitted pictures of the proposed sign with the
application . An application was submitted fora permanent
sign which will be heard at the next meeting . Mr- Hedstrom
abstained from voting on this matter. 4
s
Mr. Cook motioned to accept the application as submitted .
Mr. Carr seconded the motion and stated that he has a problem
with approving a temporary sign forasuch a length of time. `
Mr. Cook amended his motion to .approving a temporary sign for
sixty days;
< Mr. Carr withdrew his second. y
Mr. Carr, motioned to grant a Certificate of Non-Applicability
for two weeks and the applicant can come back: in with an
• application for a`permanent sign later.
t
A �
4
r
4 F
, b _
September 5, 1990 Page 4
• Ms. Guy stated to Mr. Marks that between the present meeting
and the next one he should check: into price and delivery and
that the applicant can apply for an extension for the
temporary sign if need be.
Mr. Cook: seconded the motion . All were in favor and so the
motion carried. Mr. Hedstrom abstained.
4 River Street
Paul and Catherine Willis applied for a Certificate of Non-
Applicability for replacment of existing front door with a
y'
mahogany door of the same design , replacement of clapboards
on front and left side of building with new clapboards, and
replacement of rotten plinths with new ones of the.!same
design , that exist on either side of the front door at 4
Fiver Street .
Ms. Guy stated that an application for a'.Certificate of
Appropriateness ( ' is pending for the next meeting as the
intention df replacing the front doors does indicate a '
change. ,
Mr. Willis withdrew the application for the plinths and
stated that it is the molding that needs to be replaced as
they rotting away.
• Mr. Cook: asked if all the clapboards are to be replaced on
the front and the sides.
F .atis_ .
>
Chairman Harris'repl ied in the affirmaki.v_eand also stated •
that the house is not of original ' clapboards.
Mr. Willis stated reclapboarding was ;dohe, in 1956..
Mr. Hedstrom inquired as to the low windows on the house.
Mr. Willis stated that it was an area.that maintain a forge
and that that portion was added on about 1930.
Mr. Carr inquired as to if this would be a reproduction
doorway. r
Mr. Willis replied in the affirmative and added that it would
be of mahogany because the last door which was made of sugar
pine has rotted out and cost a lot of money. Mr. Willis also
stated that the door panels have been pulled out and .
reversed . The mahogany reproduction will be six panels back:
to back. .
Mr. Hedstrom stated ,that with six panels back to back the
panels move differently on the inside and outside and that
twelve panels would be better.
Mr. Hedstrom felt each panel should be an individual panel .
Chairman Harris inquired as to painting . r
Mr.- Willis stated' that he would like to reserve Judgement._
that issue until the next meeting and would like to see what
the doors will look. like up first .
• Mr. Carr motioned to accept the applicationras submitted , for
•
4
September 5, 1990 Page 5
a replacement door, replacement of the rotting clapboards and
• molding and threshold as necessary with the clapboards to
match existing, on the other side, in western red cedar,smooth
side out . -
Mr. Hedstrom seconded the motion . All were in favor and so
the motion carried .
Mr. Willis stated that he world like some direction from the
Commission as to what paint colors for the body of the house
which is in application for the next meeting.
Mr. Willis was shown the Commission's guidelines.
177-179 Federal Street ,
.John T. and Therese A. Lask:aris applied for an application'
for a Certificate of Non-Applicabilitv'for restoration of
existing ,porch and side entrance at. 177-179 Federal Street .
Mrs. Lazkaris asked for the option of replacing or restoring
the porch .
Mr. Carr motioned to approve the repairing as needed to the
existing front and side porches.
Mr. Slam seconded the motion. All were in favor and so the
motion carried.
• Chairman Harris informed Mrs. Lazk:aris that if she wanted to
install a gutter '�jdownspout, she should put it -on the
application that is in process for the next meeting.
• r
160 Federal Street
The Archdiocese of Roston applied for a Certificate of
Hardship for the existing wrought iron fence to be capped
with removeable tube sleeves, painted black to match _existing.'
fence at 160 Federal Street . This work must be done to
protect children at the Federal Street School because the
existing fence has pointed pickets which a child could impale
himself on .
Mr. Carr motioned `to approve the application as submitted.
Mr. Slam seconded the motion. All were in favor and so the
motion carried.
415 Essex Street
City of Salem applied for a Certificate of Non-Applicability
for repainting of .all wooden trim, shutters, fans and railing
to match existing at 415 Essex Street .
r
r
' f
September 5, 1990Page 6
Mr. Carr motioned to accept the application as submitted.
• Mr. Slam seconded the motion. All were in favor and so the
motion carried .
23 Grant Road
Mr. and Mrs. William Haskell presented an application to
Waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance to tear down a garage at,
23 Grant Road .
Mr. Carr motioned to accept the application as submitted.
Mr. Slam seconded the motion. All were in favor and so the
motion carried.
12 South Pine Street
The First Spiritulaist Church applied for a Certificate of
Non-Applicability for replacement of back stairs due to
rotting and unsafe conditions. Gable trim to be replaced due
to rotting, with no changes made in materials, color or
design .
Mr. Cook ,motioned to accept the application as submitted.,
Mr. Hedstrom seconded the motion. All were in favor and so
the motion carried .
` S
• 145 Federal Street
The 145 Federal Street Condo Association applied for a
Certificate of Non-Applicability for paint colors 'to match
the existing. Ease to be Putrnam Ivory; Trim to be Lancaster
Whitewash and the doors to be similar to Duxbury Gray-.
Mr. Carr motioned to accept the application as submitted.
Mr. Slam seconded the motion . All were in favor and so the
motion carried.
174 Federal Street
- Donald Wallis applied'for a Certificate of Non-Applicability
for staining the portion of the fence installed at 172 '
Federal Street facing his property. The inside fence facing
• Mr. Wallace's property cannot be seen from the public way, f
The stain will be of Drift Wood Gray to match the hOuSe
color.
A letter from the owner's of the fence at 172 Federal Street,
was read which gave their permission for the painting.
Mr. Carr motioned to accept the application as submitted on
the statute of not being visible from a public way.
September S, 1990 Page 7
• Mr. Slam seconded the motion . All were in favor and so the
motion carried. � •
60-62 Washington Square
Ms. Sarah Pickering on behalf of Mr. Gerald Leland applied
for a Certificate of Non-Applicability for the estate of
Beatrice Lesses for repainting to match existing colors at
601-62 Washington Square. The work: has already commenced .
Mr. Hedstrom felt the color was a change.
Mr. Carr motioned to deny on the basis of being a change and
requiring an application fbr, Certificate of Appropriateness .
Mr. Hedstrom seconded the motion. All were in favor and so
the motion carried.
Other Business
f
Ms. Guy read to the Commission a letter from the
'Massachusetts Department of Public Works. Ms. Guy stated w,
that there will be a site tour on Thursday morning, September
13; 1990 for the bridge/bypass project .
Ms. Guy also stated that Mr. Pierce was concerned that
Massachusetts Historic should be reminded that they must
follow the proper process and felt that there should be a
public hearing with Massachusetts Historical Commission and Y
Massachusetts Department of Public Works<, - "invited.
Mr. Carr suggested that a letter be sent to the Department
Of Public Works stating that they should get on with the
process and he will draft something td .lane later on in the
week .
There being no other business Mr. Slam motioned adjourn. Mr.
Cook seconded the motion. All were in favor and so the
motion carried.
Respectfully,
Deborah A. Guy
r
September if, 1990
SALEM HISTORICAL. COMMISSIOR
MINUTES
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission, was :held
on September 19, 1990 at One Salem Green, Salem, MA. In
attendance were Ms. Harris, Mr, Cook:•, Mr. Slam, Mr. Hedstrom
and tis. Guy. Chairman Harris noted that four votes in favor '
would be needed to pass on- any certificate.
407 Essex Street
in contin_ration from a prior meeting, Miroslaw Kyntorosinski
applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness to takedown the
existing stairs, construct a. new three tier balcony, and
build a dormer to match an existing dormer on the western
side at 407 Essex Street ,
Mr. Kantorosinski asked for a. postponement for the
Certificate of Appropriateness until such time whet there
were more than four members of the board present ,
Mr. Hedstrom motioned for a continuance. ,
Mr. Siam seconded the motion . All were in favor and so the
• motion was carried.
Chairman Harris mentioned that the ,skylight was visible from
a public way.
Mr. Kantor-osinski stated to Ms. Harris to withdraw the
skylight .
109 Derby Street
Anna C Browne applied °for a Certificate 'of Appropriateness
to paint her property at 109 Derby Street a color close to Benjamin Moore
prhilipsQrgj§Que withgntgomery( Wite trim.
Ms. Alice Arnold was present representing Ms. Browne:
" Ms. Arnold stated that she would like to.use colors such as
Philipsburg Blue with Offwhite, Creme trim or Montgomery
White if the commission approves. As far.4as the doors are
concerned the applicant has not as yet decided which color of
stain will be used, but stated that she may want to. go-
natural or body color,
Ms. Harris asked about the fence around the house.
Ms. Arnold stated that it would be repainted in the ,same
color as the trim on the house.
Mr. Hedstrom stated he was willing to go -along with•
everything but the door and>sugge=_ted the body color of •the•
shouse or black: for door colors.
Mr. Cook motioned to approve the application with the
• provision that 'the door be painted body color or black: .
Mr. Slam seconded the motion. All were in favor and so the "
motion was carried.
e
September 19,, 1990 Page 2
40 Derby Street
Glenn Soucy applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness to
raise ' deck railings from 31 inches in height to 36 inches in .
height. These railings were previously applied for and
approved but for 31 inches in height .
ApplA cant'submitted revised drawings and pictures of the
proposed railings.
Mr. Slam motioned to accept the application as submitted
Mr. Hedstrom seconded the motion . All were in favor ,and so
the motion carried.
17 Flint Street
john H. Casey and Bruce E. Goddard applied for a Certificate ,
of Appropriateness for replacement of shutters on all sides,
erection of fencing between the garage and house;
replacement of stockade fencing to the back of the property
and side, and erection of a pergola from garage into yard,
dimensions to be 10 feet by 14 feet . - Scale drawings ind
• paint chips were provided.
Chairman Harris asked if the shutters would be done in
sections and if they will match the existing shutters and be
hung.
Mr. Goddard stated that the same type of wood shutters will
be used but will be done in phases except for 'the front which
is already existing . -Mr: Goddard stated that they will be
fixed lou-00 and that some of the bay windows will be double.
Mr. Slam asked if they would be hung with hinges with the
slats facing out . Chairman Harris_ inquired as to` the back:
and side of the fence.
Mr. Goddard stated it was the side fence between the concrete
pillars that would be replaced.
Mr. Slam inquired as to where the fence started,
Mr. Goddard stated that it started at the back: of the garage.
r
Mr goodard also stated that the new fence will separate the,
garden from the driveway andthat they plan to eventually '
replace the cedar fence which is marked in blue on the plan .
Chairman Harris inquired as to agate for the new fence.
Mr. Goddard stated that there' wo_ld be a small gate,
Chairman Harris asked if the applicant was talking about
installing a single gate.
Mr. Goddard replied that they were planning on installing a
four "Edot ^single gate.
Chairman Harris asked the applicant if the fence would,be in
• eight foot sections,
Mq! Goddard stated that the back: fence would be in eight foot
sections. Mr. Goddard also stated that the,new fence would
be a two foot section with a jog , an eight foot section and
an english lattice top on.' a four foot gate,
Chairman Harris stated that the first section would be a two
foot section with a four" foot gate all with the shiplap
September 19, 1990 Page.3
engl ish lattice shove.
Mr, Goddard stated the pergola would go approxiinately one E '
and one-half feet from the garage. Drawings were shown , The
column base would be eight feet and.the columns would match
the house.
Chairman Harris inquired as to whether the pergola would be
attached .to the house.
Mr . Goddard stated that the pergola. Would be free standing
and be approximately ten feet by fourteen feet . +
Mr.- Hedstrom motioned to accept the application as submitted .
Mr. Cook: seconded the motion. All were in favor and*so the
motion carried .
1 CI Federal Street
— s Y
Darrow ;_ebovici and Meg 'Twohey applied for an Application 1507 Certificate of
Appropriateness for replacing existing asphalt roof shingles ,
Ms, Twohey stated that only one side was being replaced at
this time not both sides.
Mr. Slam inquired as to the color of the roof .
Ms. Twohey •stated that it would be the same Peisting green
Chairman Harris stated that the applicant should have applied
for a Certificate of Non-Appl icab il ity san[ e the ro�'wi.1-1 be
done in the same existing green shingles.
Ms. Twohey stated that she did not want.to,apply for black: on e
the one side since she felt that both sides could be seen
together in the winter.
.' Mr, Slam motioned to change the application from a
Certificate of Appropriateness to a Certificate of Non-
Applicability and approve the application as submitted.
Mr. Hedstrom seconded the motion. All were' in favor and so t
the motion carried.
4 Fiver Street
Paul and Catherine Willis applied for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for painting 4 River Street in') enjamin Moore
oil based solid body stain , main building to be stained plum
as per sampled attached, painting of trim and windows a
lighter shade of plum (plum mixed with cream) . The trim
color includes windows,,sash and front door trim. New doors
of same existing design changing from black: to natural , . '
mahogany.
Chairman Harris inquired as to whether the sample was the
color of the body and the doors. -
Mr. Willis stated he would like "the doors to be natural , x
Mr. Hedstrom stated that he:yiewed the body as being
appropriate,.but felt the trim should be considered on another
application.
Mr. Willis stated that he needs to be able to paint °the trim
as soon as the body is,done but that he does not want to mix
the trim color until .they see tthe body color on the house.
September 19, 1990 Page 4
Chairman Harris stated that she did not have a problem
• approving the trim color as long as it is lighter.
Mr. Willis inquired as to a water table, and went on the say
that the entire house was being painted and the front door
along with the entry, it is ,lust the trim that has not been
decided upon. I.
Mr. Hedstrom inquired if two weeks was enough time to decide
the color of the trim and, suggested that a' week from. toni*ght
there be a site visit .
Mr. Stam stated that it is unusual to grant an open ended
Certificate on the issue of the trim.
Mr. Willis stated that the trim would not be excessive but a
lighter tone up .
Chairman Harris, inquired as to fences.
Mr. Willis stated that he is replacing the fence against the
house '.':to yduplicate.*j i the neighbors fence and that it,
will be painted the trim color.
Mr. Slam motioned to approve the application as submitted
with trim to be painted a lighter tone up than the body
c6lor. The door will natural color, �
Mr. Hedstrom seconded the motion. All were in favor and so
the motion carried ,
60-62 Washington Street
Sarah Pickering applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness
• for the Estate of Beatrice Cesses for painting of 60-62 `
Washington Street .
Chairman Harris read a letter from Emily Dubrule, a neighbor
of 60-62 Washington Street , that was sent to the commission .
Mr. Slam motioned to accept the.application as submitted . „
Mr. Hedstrom stated that he had a problem with applicants
taking liberty of changing the color of a house and then r
going through the procedures of the commission . He also
stetedthat he had been by the house and it is a change of
color and stated that he wanted"a fetter sent to the real
estate offices in Salem stating that this is the procedure of
the Historical Commission as per the guidelines and they
should be followed and an application should be ,sent to the
commission before any work commences,
Mr. Slam amended his motion to include a letter to be sent to
the real . estate offices of Salem.
Mr. Cook: seconded the motion, All were in favor and so the
motion carried .
135 Derby Street
tMr „John,,'M�arks.,,tappt led for A. Certificate of Appropriateness,
for the install ac ion of a sign;•-at er
135 Dby Street.
Mr. (I—Marks- tEUbmitted .new drawings of th—e proposed signand'`J;
stated that it would be 2 by 3 feet .
September 19, 1990 Page a
Ms. Guy inquired as to when he proposed to install the sign .
•
Mr. Marks ,,.instated that he would, 1ike to install it as.hon
as possible preferable by the end of the month.
Chairman Harris inquired as to who was making the sign. .
Mr. ". .Mar-ks.,'; stated that Arrow 'Sign in Chelsea was pa4nting
the sign and Mr. Hedstrom would make the-wood.
Hr. Slam. inquired as to if the sign would be of white`back
ground with red lettering .
Mr.-Marks y replied in the affirmative and stated that the
lettering would he in renaissance and that there :may be one
hand with a' red palm.
Mr. Cook requested the sign language sign book so he could
suggest some type of style for the sign . Mr. Slam inquired
as to whether the sign would be 2 feet by feet and 2 .feet
high .
Mr. RMacks replied i:' in the affirmative.
� 1
Mr. Hedstrom stated that the code is •for 10 feet high from,
the sidewalk.
Chairman Harris inquired where exactlythe sign will be hung.
Mr. ',Marks. =fated that it would be hung 16 'feet from the
sidewalk) near the far right corner of the building .
Chairman Harris suggested that the [` �painte4y; a
drawing .
Mr. Hedstrom stated that he needs drawings, showing .the
relationship of the bottom of the sign to the building.. Mr.
Hedstrom alsofelt that it appeared that the bracket would be
attached to the second floor.
• Chairman Harris was concerned as to where, beneath the #
molding or above it, the sign would be hung .
Mr. Cool:: stated that the sign has to be hung higher-:
Mr. Hedstrom inquired as to where in' location the sign will
be hung .
Mr° .Mark s ,_stated that it would be hung on the front corner.
Mr. Hedstrom suggested a site visit and that he could make a
mock-up . ;
Chairman Harris suggested a lighter color for the letters
with a darker background and that the painter make a_ drawing. `
Mr. Slam stated that he would like to see a.fini=_.hed„version . .
Mr. Hedstrom stated that the commission have a. site visit and
require more detailed drawings.
Mr. Cook: inquired as to whether the sign was integral 'with
Derby Street and further stated that it is the commissions
job to see that it is appropriate for the area.
Chairman Harris agreed that she would also like to see more
detailed drawings.
Mr. Hedstrom motioned for a postponement until the next
meeting and until a site visit can be performed and more
detailed drawings can be submitted and to extend the time
period for a temporary sign for two more weeks.
It was agreed that a site visit would take place on
Wednesday, September 26, 1990 at 6,00 F.M. .
i
September 19, 1990 Page 6
Mr. Slam seconded the motion . All were in favor and so the
• motion carried . `
177-179 Federal Street
John T. and Therese A. Lask:aris'applied for„a Certificate of
Appropriateness for replacement of the front porch at 177-179
Federal Street as,existing with a federal style porch . The
applicant will supply a plan at a later date.
Mr. Slam inquired as to who the contractor was.
Ms. Laskaris submitted drawings and stated that Bron Miller
from Haverhill is the contractor.
Chairman Harris stated that the concept was great but more
specific drawings were needed.
Messrs Hedstrom, Cook-and Slam were in agreement .
Mr. Cook stated that the commission needs measurements on the `
drawings. He also stated that the commission does not want
to discourage Ms. Laskaris.
Mr. Hedstrom stated that the contractor should provide a
scaled drawing and that the commission needs molding
Profiles, etc .0 '
Mr. Slam stated that from the drawings that Ms. Laskaris- _
submitted that were provided by the contractor that it looked
like she did not know what she really would be getting in 'the
• end .
Chairman Harris stated that if the porch was built exactly as
the drawings submitted then the commission would not be happy
with the results and neither would the applicant. She
further stated to Ms. Laskaris that the project she was
undertaking is complicated and expensive and that she should
get more detailed drawings to protect herself . '
Mr. Hedstrom stated that the,commission needs more detailed
drawings to refer back to at a later date after construction
to be sure the project is completed as approved .
Mr. Cook: stated that there was an issue about the space on
the side of the door. Chairman Harris stated that with the
way the columns are now it does not seem they will fit back:
into place.
Mr. Hedstrom stated that the commission needs more detailed
. drawings on locations, granite, and the door must be"drawn.
Mr. Cool:: felt it would loot:: great but technical backup was,
needed to keep the contractor honest .
Mr. Slam inquired as to whether the contractor was going to
use stock or replicate the material himself .
1 A
`
September 19, 1990 Page 7
Ms. Laskaris stated that she really did not k:now,Mr. Siam
motioned to continue the application pending more detailed
drawings.Mr. Cook seconded the motion . All were- in favor and
so the motion carried .
266 Lafavette Street
Maude Pert-ins applied for a Certificate of Non-Applicability
w-
,
for repointing masonary brick on a garage including the
replacement of bricks as necessary with those of the same
color as existing with mortar color and thicknessvto match ,
no changes to design„ removal of` a chimney from the garage ,
and temporary_ removal of the garage doors until spring of
1991 - then t.o-; rept ace with . 5new wood doors.
-Dan Trembley, representing the applicant as the contracto
stated that the garage is of sixty years in age and is in
need of total repainting job and that the owner is
concerned about the kids in the neighborhood being injured by
the chimney falling. He further stated that he world remove .
• the doors and install plywood up as temporary doors and .
replace the plywood with new wood doors in the spring and
pictures will be ta4ien to insure that they, will be exactly as
they were previously,
Mr. Siam inquired as to if the chimney should be on
appropriateness or non-applicability.
Chairman Harris felt that it would he alright on non-
', applicability if`not significant to the district.
Mr. Slam stated that a garage does not need a chimney.
Mr. Slam motioned to accept the application as' submitted, to
temporarily take off doors and plywood up and .for the doors
to be duplicated in the spring.
Mr. Hedstrom seconded the motion . All .were. in favor and so
the motion carried.
2 North Fine Street
The 2 North Pine Street LTrust applied for a Certificate of
Non-Applicability for replacement of existing roof shingles
with white asphalt , Present shingles are of white asphalt so .
there would be no change in color.
Ms. Guy stated that the applicant does not ,want black asphalt.
shingles,
Mr. Slam motioned to accept the application as submitted .Mr.
Hedstrom seconded the motion but added he would like a. letter
• to go out urging the applicant to use black or dark grey
asphalt shingles. All were in favor and so the motion
carried.
September 'l9; 1990 Page S
• 26 Beckford Street
Edgar Allard applied for a Certificate of Non-Applicability,
for the replacement of shingles on the rear side of 26
Beckford Street with wooden clapboards, to be painted in .
existing color to match the remainder of the house.
Mr. Slam motioned to accept the application as submitted .
Mr. Hedstrom seconded the motion . All were in favor and so '
the motion carried .
Carpenter Street
Paul and Catherine Cragin applied for a Certificate of Non-'
Applicability for the replacement of 3 casement windows
on the second story of the rear addition at 6 Carpenter
Street to be painted in existing color and the replacement -of
rotted clapboards on the second story of last addition
stained to match the existing color.
Mr. Cook stated that the applicants may be real estate
clients but he was not sure, "
Chairman Harris and Messrs. Hedstrom and Slam did not feel
that there was a conflict and �did not have a problem with Mr.
Cook voting .Ms.`, Guy stated that the aoplicants may want' to
paint the windows white and put on weatherstripping :
There was some concern as to what weatherstripping consisted
rf .
Chairman Harris stated that this was a Certificate of Non-
Applicability and that white paint or weatherstripping would
indicate a change and the applicants should be informed that
if they wish to install white weatherstripping or change the
paint then they must apply for a Certificate of
Appropriateness.
Mr. Slam motioned to accept the application for Certificate „
of Non-Applicability as submitted .
Mr. Hedstrom seconded the motion. All were in favor and so
the motion carried.
190 Lafayg to Street
The Bradlee Trust applied for a Waiver of Demolition relay
oridinance for the , left garage (#1) at 190 Lafayette Street
for it is becoming an eyesore. Proposal of demolishing
garage #1 would leave garage #2 standing . Survey of the
garages was attached.
.. s
Mr . Slam motioned to accept the application as submitted.
Mr. Cook seconded the motion . All were in favor and so the '
• motion carried .
' a
September 19, 1990 Fuge 9
Other Business
Middle School West _ Plan Review
Beth: Debski of the Salem Planning Department and
representati 'es of Earl Flansburgh and Associates were
present to provide progress drawings for Middle School West—,
Massachusetts Historical Commission has-has--coca r d' that there
would. be no adverse effect to the building. The present
windows of the school are to remain in place and the
foundation needs to be pointed and repaired. Courtyards will
be installed and be symmetrical around the rear of the
building . Detailed stairs are in progress of being designed
and will maintain the balance of design that already exists:
The intent of the architects —" is to present the commission r
with more design as it progesses. Additions to the' building
will be masonry. ,
• Chairman Harris stated that she felt_the plan wassympathe"tic regarding
symmetry but did not completely agree with theenestratian.
The architects stated that they are developing and`
researching the detail =_ :
Chairman Harris further stated that she was concerned with
the design and inquired as to how it allows the children to
board the buses without confusion at a point where the
parents feel comfortable and how the pian was to get the
buses into the rear of the b_tilding . -
Chai'rman Harris was also concerned with the buses going
through the recreation area and the children waiting for the
bus.
Ms. Debski stated that since it will be the only middle
school in the city, it may not have outdoor recess.
Mr. Slam stated that ,the presentation has taken him, totally
off guard and wo_ild have preferred to have seen the school
first .
Mr. Hedstrom suggested a site visit before the architects
return with further progress on the proposed 'design .
The architects stated that further progress drawings will be
provided in about a month .
Chairman Harris suggested a site visit one week: before the
architects return with more updateddrawings but felt there
was general approval of what has been designed.
Preservation Awards
• Ms. Guy stated that at the next meeting of the Historical ,
Commission she required nominations from everyone on the
board . . Stie also stated that the award ceremony is to be held s
November 16,' 1990.
September 19, 1990 Page 10
18 Crombie Street
Ms. Guy stated that 13 Crombie Street is up for a Waiver of
the Demolition Delay Ordinance at the next meeting .
Mr. Slam motioned that a letter be sent to the Massachusetts
Historic and the Architectural Conservation Trust to out the
building on their Endangered Properties Lists and that
letters requesting support be sent to SPNEA, MHC, Historic „
Mass, Inc. , The Salem Partnership , The Essex Institute,
Historic Boston , The Peabody Museum, Historic Salem, Inc. , '
The National Alliance Reservation Commissions, The- Bay State
Historical League, The National Trust for Historic
Preservation, The House of Seven Gables and the National Park '
Service.
Mr. Cook seconded the motion . All were in favor and so the
motion carried. w
;There being:.no further business, Mr. Slam motioned to adjourn. Mr. Cook seconded
the mo ti on�A lh-`were'in favor and the motion so ;carried.
�-
Respectfully� tted,
. Deborah Guy
' 4
4
r
. r ,
October 3, 1990
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held
on Wednesday, October 3, 1990 at One Salem Green, Salem, MA.
at 7:30 R.M. In attendance were Chairman, Harris; Mr.
Fierce, Mr. Cook. , Mr. Carr and Ms. Guy.
18 Crombie Street
Holyoke Square, Inc . applied for a Waiver of Demolition Delay
Ordinance for the demolition of 18 Crombie Street .
Pill Lundregan 'spoke in behalf of Holyoke Square, Inc . and
asked for a continuance of the application until November lb,
1990 due to representatives of Holyoke being on vacation and
architects being unavailable. ;
Mr. Carr motioned to oontin'ue�the application . There was no
second.
Chairman Harris stated that the application was filed on
September 19, 1990 and that the Commission mast act within
• thirty days.
Mr. Carr stated to Mr: tiLund�egann,,that if Holyoke did not
withdraw the board world have to make a decision within
thirty days one way or another and the application was
applied for September 19, 1990.
Mr. Lundregan withdrew the application .
t
Mr. Carr motioned to allow the applicant to withdraw without
pre, and reapply for the November b, 1990 meeting.
Mr. Lundregan stated that he will file a new application
after October 7, 1990.Mr. Pierce seconded the motion . All
were in favor and so the motion carried .
407 Esser. Street Miroslaw Kantorosinl::i applied for a
Certificate of Appropriateness for removal of existing stairs
and errecting a 3 tier balcony and a dormer to match an
existing dormer on the western ,side of 407 Essex Street and a
Certificate of Non-Applicability for repairing and repainting
the front , first floor porch with existing ,colors also at 407
Esse; Street . This application is a continuation from a
previous meeting and new drawings were submitted.
Mr. Kantorosinski stated that he wants to fix up the front
parch with ballasters and railings to be done in the same
paint color —:�
Chairman�Har,is asked :why.�the second story of. the house, ;
«w
+ does not match"the first story of the house and asked if he
would paint the house in the same color the next time.
Mr. Kantorosinski stated that he would repair the upstairs
porch if the Commission desired but that he would have to
make the railings higher to meet the new code.
Chairman Harris asked if both railings would match .
Mr. Kantorosinski sta*_ed that the railings would be the same
" October 3,' 1940 Page 2
• as the house next door to him on 409 Essex Street and will ,
meet the code required by the board with matching1railings
to the first floor.
Mr.. Carr asked Mr. K::antoresins4::i if there was anything more
4
than_.verb-al` y.description he could present to the '
commission .
Chairman Harris showed Mr. Kantorosinski a oicture of what
she thought he had in mind and inquired as to whether he
would consider changing the color of the house.
Mr. Kantorosins4::i stated that he had already purchased the
paint or the house which is the same color but , if the -
commission could make some suggestions he might consider ` .
changing the color.
Mr. Carr motioned to approve the,second floor railing to
match the first floor railing in all respects, to repair
porch and porch rail and to repaint the porch in existing{ ,
colors under a Certificate of Non-Applicability.
Mr. Pierce seconded the motion. All were in favor and so the
motion carried .
Mr. Kantorosinski asked if he could withdraw portions of the,.
application for Certificate of Appropriateness if he chose
to.
Mr. Carr replied in the affirmative and suggested the
Commission review the rear porches first.
• Chaiman Harris suggested Mr. Kantorosinski come back: at a
later date for the third floor porch, after the first and
second are built .
Mr. Carr inquired as to if it were possible to replace the
roof with a flat ,roof .
Mr. Pierce stated that it was possible witt new roofing
material to install a flat membrane roof . .
Mr. Kantorosinski inquired as to if it was necessary when
doing the railings to fill. in with cinder block.--
Mr. Pierce stated that it was not necessary to fill in with
cinder blocks and that he preferred that he fill it in with
lattice. 1 11
Mr. Carr motioned to approve the application as submitted
with respect to the rear porch with the following changes:
there will not be a third floor porch at this time, that
there be a roof , that there is no prejudice to Mr.'. .
Kantorosinski applving-Jora rd floor porchat a later date,
that''the applicant come back with photos as to the handling of
under porch details and that the door is not i6cluded.�
Mr. Patrick: Collins of 38 Warren Street , a• next door neighbor
of Mr. Kantorosinski , was in attendance •at the public
hearing and stated that he was ,concerned at first and when
Mr. Kantorosinski was constructing the new fence, he made
one request and Mr. K:antorosinski followed through on it and
the fence came out much better than he thought it would and
• feels that Mr. Kantorosinski is willing'to cooperate and
a.
r
a
l °
P
October 3, 1440 Page 3
thinks the work he has proposed will be an improvement .
• Mr. Cook: seconded the motion.
Mr. Pierce stated that there was one thing missing 'in the
motion and that was the roofing material which had not been
determined .
Mr. Fierce suggested that Mr. Carr amended his motion to
include roofing material to lapped rolled roofing_ of black:
asphalt color or black. membrane roofing . �
Mr. Carr so amended his motion ,
Mr. Cook: seconded the amendments. All were 'in favor and soi.
the motiohj carried
Mr. Kantorosinki stated that for tiie proposed dormer,-he
would(- - ;withdraw the skylight .
Mr. Carr motioned to approve the application as 'submitted
with regard to the dormer except for the skylight as am6nded
on the application .
Mr. Fierce seconded the motion . All were in favor and so the
motion carried . t
135 Derby Street
John- Marks :;appl ied for a Certificate of Appropriateness
for the installation of a sign. Drawings were submitted.
This application is a continuance. .
7Ms. Gu.y' stated that'- . • -
Mr. Marks =, ° requested a continance and an extension for the
temporary sign for two more weeks.
• Mr. Fierce motioned to continue the application and extend
the Non-Applicability Certificate for two more weeks.
Mr. Carr seconded the motion. All were in favor and so the
motion was carried. '
177-174 Federal Street
John T. and Therese A. Lask:aris applied for a Certificate of
Appropriateness•for the removal of the front porch and
replacement ) with Federal style supplying plans at a. later
date, Thisapplication was a. continuance. The applicants
were not present .
Mr. Carr motioned to continue the application .
Mr. Fierce seconded the motion . All were in favor and so the
r motion carried.
271 Lafayette Street
Clifford N. and Susan J. Abelson applied for° a. Certificate of .
Hardship for one above-ground telecommunication cabinet at
the rear of 271 Lafayette Street, The cabinet will provide
upgraded telephone service for approximately 500 customers .
along Lafayette and adjacent streets. Dimensions of, cabinet
are 1 ' inches deep by 66 inches high by 10 inches wide with a
supportive 18 inch by 78 inch cement concrete pad . Ingress
and egress to this cabinet will requirQ 4-4 inch, "_"P.V.C.
underground-conduits from the concrete pad to Lafayette
• Street . All wort:: will be, performed by the Telephone Company.
October 3, 1990 Page 4
• Mr. Carr inquired as to if the cabinet c;uld be installed
more to the right and over a little on the proposed area with
a plant in front of the cabinet .. Mr. Carr made a motion to
continue the application and encouraged members of the
commission to make a site visit to see what is least visible.
Mr. Pierce seconded the motion. All were in favor and so the
motion carried .
19 North Street
• Mary Sackrider, trustee of the Mary Stewart Realty Trust "
applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness for replacement
of a deteriorating wooden sign with a. flush-mounted facsimile
of a cast bronze sign with facsimile of polished bronze
lettering mounted with concealed studs anchored into brick:
exterior.
Mr'. Carr inquired as to the size of the sign and how it will
fit into the corner of the building .
Chairman Harris stated that the exisfing sign is about40
inches long and the'proposed sign is approximately 30" long
but will be taller.
Mr. Carr stated that it maybe placed in the same location but
could not picture the new sign an the building 'and stated
that he would prefer .a drawing showing the sign on the wail .
Chairman� Harris stated that she felt it was small enough to
• replace what is 'already there and did not feel uncomfortable
without a drawing .
Mr. Cool. stated that he has no problem with the sign . Mr.
Carr inquired as to whether the left hand corner of the old
sign is where the new sign is to be placed.
Mr . Carr motioned to approve the application for the sign to
be centered between the window and the corner of the building
with the top edge of the new sign to be the same ,as the old,
sign .
Mr. Pierce seconded the motion . All were in favor and so the
motion carried.
"s
20-22 Chestnut_ Street
.Jan Schooley, .Jim Schooley, Nina Cohen and Craig Barrows
applied for a Certificate of Non-Applicability forr repairing
water damaged sheathil9 above entry way with existing flashing
and boards with all work to be tracked as much as possible
the existing• construction . Also the repairing of fence post
curved baseboard and skirt boards where waterdamaged caused
wood rot - left side of building only with replacement to
follow exact appearance of existing fence. Work .has already
been completed. A Certificate of Non-Applicability for
exterior painting,replacing ex i stingy col or,.Was•also applied for.
Mr. Carr stated that he would 1ike' to 'ao,by the house before
• voting on the application .
it 3
October 3, 1998 Page c ,t
• Mr . Pierre stated that he 1,,.a.s upset about voting on An
application where the :work has .already been completed.
Chairman Harris stated that the a.pplica.tion'ioas not
intentionally ignored.
Mr. Carr motioned to continue the a.pplica:tion until next `
meeting.
Mr . Cook seconded the motion. Ali were in favor and so the
mottich carried. -
33 Chestnut �;treet .
John J. Fifield applied for a Certificate of Non-
Applicability for repairing front porch due to destruction of
main beam ends by ants. (Work to be an exact replacement of
former structure in size, jolor , material and details with
reusing all useable members, parts and detailing where
appropriate including columns, capitals, dental ;blocks., ,
railings, end posts, etc . Melt column bases, facia, sofets,
molding, gutters and copper roof all to be of same
dimensions, Gauge as measured from removal -material, .allof
the same material , pine and fir, to be painted in existing
color . . The applicant •was not present .
Chairman Harris stated that she had talked to the contractor
and he stated that the bases had been ,worked on at some* point
and the columns are being restored.
Mr .' Pierce stated that he wants to insist •that the .
. ballastr.ade be restored.
Mr . Carr stated that he .would like the commission to review
n
the items that have been removed that !will not be re-used and
,,ould like them *to make every attempt to save all old ,,:iood
whenever possible ,
Chairman Harris stated that what has already been;Fe owed"
has been replaced. �� - ` _ ? • '� •5
Mr . Carr stated that every,attelp�should be made to use the
same old wood hoUdever fa.r gene it may be then only do you
make the decision to replace and a Certificate of Non-
Applicability means. tha.t. the commission makes the
determination of what is reusable riot the homeowner .
Mr. Cock questioned that f..>ct .that the .applicant tpok it upon
themselves to determine what w.a.s replaceable and 1wh.at 1was
not , 1
Mr . Carr stated that he would like to rev ie,.w the, old material
that has already been reinstalled such as the column_
, including the capitals.
Mr. Cook stated that he was told by the contractor that the .'
old parts were in the backyard a.nd available fon inspection .
Mr. Pierce stated that he thought the .old parts were still in
the backyard.
a
41
,
October 3, 1??0 Page 6 -�
Mr. Carr motioned to accept the application as submitted with
the following conditions: that where ever possible the prior , e
elements will be used again including at a minimum the
ballasters, in posts, railings to the.ballasts, lentils, the
columns including capitals and that all prior elements deemed
by Chairman Harris and Mr. Pierce to be non-salvagable shall
be exactly replicated and that no further work: continue
pending said determination . The Commission then reviewed
Chapter 40 of the Massachusetts General Laws.
Ms. Guy will call the Massachusetts Historical on who makes
the determination when work: is non-applicable..
Mr. Pierce stated that there is need for confirmation that
the material is on location before he and Chairman Harris •
conduct a site visit . Mr. Carr stated that Ms. Guy is to
revoke the building permit tomorrow, October 4, 1990.
Mr. Pierce stated that a building permit should net have been
.issued until the commission .approved the Certificate of Non-
Applicability.
Chairman Harris suggested that she ask the contractorl—to stbp
work: for only a few days until she and.,Mr. Fierce can-get'
•
out to the work site.
Mr. Fierce stated that he would make a site visit withinn -a
few days, but would like to add an amendment to'Mr. Carr's
motion that the contractor •be informed that further
construction being done is at their own risk: . ,
Mr. Carr amended his motion that any work: is at their own
risk and that the Commission's view point is that further
work: would be illegal
Mr. Cook: stated he would vote in favor because Mr: Fifield
stated in a private conversation that if he screwed up he
would suffer the consequences. t
Mr. Pierce seconded the motion . All were in favor and so
the motion carried.
13 Fiver Street
Margaret Hill applied for a Certificate of Non-Applicability .
for repairing concrete foundation , replacement of two first
floor and two second floor windows on the front of the house, -
- replacement of rear door, replacement of bulkhead , all work;
to match existing in color, design and materiels except for
the door at 13 Fiver Street. "
Ms. Guy stated that Mrs. Hill is utilizing the city's Home
Improvement Program. 4 .
Mr. Carr suggested that Mrs. Hill is a proud woman and does
• not understand the historical district . He also felt that`
the door would be visible. He also stated that 611 is not a ........
window that would have been there and should be 616. Mr. Carr�f,elt the
concrete for the foundation should be more detaile_d,but `zdded_he_;
realizes what is be nc3,,oroposed-kince the` back dooF""- visible 4
y.�4...�
from a pUiblic way l Mr. Car;�would. li_k,eVoredetail on the
door (but felt the bulkhead.is.l
October 3, 1990 Page 7
not visible. Mr. Carr had no problem with the concrete but
4
.Wold d 1 lk:e 'to urge the applicant to_put In 6'over 6jPwindows On the -
street side since city funds should be spent on appropriate
details,
Chairman Harris felt that there were inconsistencies in the
application and was unsure if the window size would be
changing,
" Mr. Fierce motioned to approve part of the application as
follows: to accept the foundation repair and the ink.ind
bulkhead reolacement and allowing a continuance until the
next meeting for the remaining items on the application
pending more detailed drawings for the door replacement and
windows and associated trim and to request catalog cuts
and dimensions of everything. Mr. Fierce suggested that the �•
contractor come in.
Chairman Harris questioned the Certificate of -Non-
Applicability. Iz'
Mr. Carr stated the commission could act on a Certificate of # `
Appropriateness providing notices go out tomorrow for a
waiver of public hearing .
Chairman Harris suggested an amendment that the window=_ and
doors require a Certificate of Appropriateness which be
deleted from the application for a Certificate of Non-
Applicability and that the application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness will be entertained at the next meeting .,
x Mr. Cool:: seconded the motion. All were in favor and so the
motion carried .
,
26 Winter Street
Kathleen Atchison applied far a Certificate"of Non-
Applicability for the replacement of two entry way brick
piers to replace the existing and repair-entry way gate at 26
Winter Street .
Mr. Carr motioned to approve the certificate as submitted.
Mr. Fierce seconded the motion. All were in favor and so the
motion carried.
18 Broad Street A
Sarah C. Pickering applied for a Certificate of Non-
Applicability for repainting the front of the house at ,18
Broad Street in existing colors.
Mr. Carr motioned to approve the:application as submitted.
Mr. Pierre seconded the motion . All were in favor and so the
motion carried.
Discussion'- Preservation Awards Nominations
•
Mr,. Carr nominated: inside district
Oliver School
Mr. and Mrs. Smith - Pickering Street`.
Joel Caron - 4 Andover Street - fence
x
October 3, 1990 Page S
Amy B_rrbott �- 12 Carpenter Street A-
Honorable Mention - 51 Summar Street
Forbes - Flint Street -. paint.
Lesses - 60-62 Washington Square - paint
Mr. Hedstrom - paint i
Alexanders - Essex Street - paint
Goodhue - S._Pirie Street - paint
Ingra.ms - Federal- Street
Forbes - Summer Street - paint, +
outside'District I
Brown Horse next to North Street Shell .
The Peabody Museum —sensative construction - for the
addition to the building.
Honorable Mention outside of historical district. ,
Don Clark: - 3 Brown Street - for conversion of a two
family back: to a single family.
Sally Wilson - Dearborn Street
Fred .Johnson - B_rffum Street
Faint Colors:
3 Dearborn Street .
House on the Salem Marblehead Line - Victorian ,
Lafayette Street . '
Russ Slam
Ted Richards -Pleasant Streets
11 Winter Street
Chairman Harris Nominated :
Allan Howe - Essex Street staircase,a '
Murray's front fence - 14 Chestnut Street
Nina Simons - 37, Warren Street - rear addition .
Harts Garden House
Sweet Scoops
Fierce Nichols - Essex Institute - roof .
Dan McHugh - between the AOH and Boston Street
Jackson/Logan Warren Street - asphalt removal .
Debora Heaton"i)- Federal Street -gutters.
Discussion _ Vendinq Machines
Mr. Carr read a letter he received from 'Bill a.nd Betsy Burns
stating that the present news vending machine is ,
inappropriate at Federal s.nd Beckford Streets: Mr, Carr
suggested a letter be sent to the Salem News. ,' .1 .
' Chairman Harris stated that she tallied to Nelson Benton about
moving the machine down the street but , he said he would not a
do that . Chairman Harris stated that she informed him that
the Historical Commission has jurisdiction over the machine
and that it is a non-appropriate element for Federal Street .
• 'Chairman Harris also stated that she would like to get the a
• y � F
f
October 3, 1990 Page 9
• Salem Evening News to voluntarily agree^to move the machine,
Mr.. Pierce motioned for Chairman Harris to cal 1, Nelson Benton
again and 'ask again if they will consider relocating the
machine and that in legal opinion it is a change and an .
application must be submitted 'and they are welcome to address
the commission . There was no second.
,
Mr. Carr suggested a •vote at the nest "meeting. ,
Mr. Pierce stated that in order to vote there must be an
application submitted on the issue.
r • u 9
Other Business
Chairman Harris ask:ed' Ms. Guy to see if it will be possible
to inspect 12 Crombie Street .
Ms. Guy presented a,Determination of , Eligibility for .St .
Peter's Church and asked for a motion approving the 'CLG
opinion and to send it to MHC. rr '
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve theliDEtermination •of
,,Qigibility and to mail it to MHC,
Mr. Cook seconded the motion . Ail were in favor'`and so the
motion carried.
Ms. Guy read 2,,letter'.-received from MHC finding no adverse
effect for an ATM machine for Salem State College and -
renovation 'work at- Middles School` West .
There being no further business Mr. Carr made.a motion to
adjourn . Mr. Pierce seconded the motion. All were in favor
and so the motion carried. ;
Respectfully submitted # +'
Deborah 'A. Guy
' d
, Y
y
IN
October 17, 1940
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical' Commission was held
on October 17, 1440 at 7:30 P.M. at One Salem Green, Salem,
MA. In attendance were Mr. Carr, Mr. Hedstrom, Mr. Oedel ,
* Chairman Harris and Pts. G_ry,. ` It was noted that all four
votes would be needed to approve any application ,
271 Lafayette Street
Clifford N. and Susan J. Abelson applied for a Certificate •of
Hardship for the New England Telephone and Telegraph Company
to place one (1) above-ground telecommunications cabinet at
the rear of 271 Lafayette Street , This cabinet will: provide
upgraded telephone service fgr`approX4nnately 500 customers
along Lafayette and adjacent streets.
The dimensions of this cabinet are ia'" deep by 66" high by
70" wide, with a supportive `18" by 78" cement concrete-pad .
Ingress and egress tothis cabinet will require 4-4" P.V.C.
• underground conduits from the concrete pad to Lafayette .
Street . All wnrk to be done by the Telephone Company.
' x
Mr. Carr stated that he noticed that on 'the right corner is a
granite curb where the land is level andinquired as to if
they plan on going underneath the granite curb .
Mr. Richard-Picone, representing New England Telephone,
replied in the afrirmative.
Mr. Carr stated that a bush should.be planted in front of the
cabinet .
Mr. Pierce stated that there was no problem in planting an
evergreen , -
Mr. Carr motioned for approval of the application providing ,
,that the granite curb be undisturbed and an evergreen
sufficient to screen be planted in front of the cabinet .
Mr. Hedstrom seconded the motion . All were in favor and so
the motion carried. '
13 Fiver Street
r/ Margaret Hill •'applied for _ a Certificate of t
.-
Appropriateness to remove four window units (six over one)
and install new six over one window units. The windows. are '
to appear the same size and style as existing , Adyjreshingling around the window to match
existing. The application is also to install a new rear entry door-to match x
. the front door. The public hearing would need to be waived
as the application was received past the deadline.
Ms. Harris inquired as to why they are reshingling if only
the sash is being replaced, according to the city'=_. Home
Improvement Program write-up .
Mr. ChUCk Thornhill , the contractor for the applicant , stated 4
that reshingling was necessary because of the tearing out of
the old windows rather than just sash replacement .
Mr, oedel inquired as to if the-same- will be replaced.
• Mr.".Tho� nh ll replied' in the affirmative and'that the windows are
sing]epaned
Y
Mr. Carr felt the application should be for Non Applicability
for the windows.
Mr. oedel inquired as to if the frames would be an enact
duplicate.
1r. Thornhill-replied,, in the affirmative and stated that they
would be custom made to size.
Ms. Harris stated that they are replacing the same not
repairing it . �
Mr:,Thornhill stated that the present windows are currently
falling-out of the wall .
Chairman Harris was concerned with a total replacement and
preferred that; an inspection be done.
i
Mr. Carr agreed with Chairman Harris concerning an inspection
which was considered standard policy. .
Mr. oedel inquired as to : sing the exact frame and stated
that replacing windows that are not original is riot thht
important , 1 -
Mr. Carr. was concerned that i_:fathe framing—was -r'eplaced,' that it may '
not match-,exactly.
Mr, oedel .f_elt -if the-contractor,'coul;d g rarantee the new will be
identical to'the old windows then a Non-Applicable.
• application is appropriate, Mr. Oedel also stated that the
other possibility is 6/6 under appropriateness. Mr. Wedel
further stated that he has no problem with the doors _ender
appropriateness.
Mr. Thor`hld 'st'atedthat he canSgRarantee 'they will be the same.
Mr�Hedstrom inquired about the exterior casing.
Mr' 'Thor nhil]."reb, led that the casing was no good.
Mr.,S -Hedstrom inquired abort the interior casing.
Mr.7Thornhillst� ate'dthe interior casing is fine.
Mr. Hedstrom stated that the contractor will have to match
the interior casing for it to fit ,
Mr. Carr, motioned to waive ,pubiic hearing for the doors.
Mr. Carr seconded the motion . All - were in favor and so the
motion carried .
Mr. Carr motioned to approve the application as submitted
regarding the door replacement .
Mr. oedel second the motion . All were in fav1. or 'and so the
motion carried. `
11
Mr. oedel motioned to deny the Certificate of .Appropriateness
for 6/1 windows.
Mr. Carr seconded the motion . All were in favor and so the
motion carried.
Mr. Carr motioned to approve the 6/1 windows under a
Certificate of Non-Applicability with a strong recommendation
that they be replaced with 6/6 and indicated that 6/1 is not
the most appropriate.
October 17, 1440 Page 3
Mr. Hedstrom seconded the motion . All were in favor and so
the motion carried.
Mr. Oedel motioned to waive the public hearing and approve a
�. Certificate or' Appropriateness for 5f6 windows.
Mr. Carr seconded.. the motion. All were in favor and so the
motion carried. `
20-22 Chestnut Street
.Ian Schooley,, Jim Schooley, Nina Cohen and Craig Barrows
applied for a Certificate of Non-Applicability for the repair
of water damage-,d sheatiing above entrance, consisting of
replacement to existing flashing and boards. All work"o
track as much as possible the existing construction. The
repair of fence post , curved baseboard and shirt boards where
water damage caused wood rot - left side of building only. '`
Replacement to follow exact appearance of existing fence, and
a Certificate of Nan-Applicability for exterior repainting in
existing colors at 20-22 Chestnut Street, Also presented was
an application for a Certificate ,of Appropriateness to change
the paint color to a brighter yellow.
Mr. Oedel suggested that Roger Hedstrom abstain for the fence
portion of the application where he is the contractor for
this project and it would create a. conflict of interest . Mr.
Hedstrom agreed .
• Mr, Carr motioned to approve sheathing .
Mr. Oedel seconded the motion . All wer-e 'in favor and so the
motion carried.
Mr. Oedel motioned to continue thefenc'e_ portion of the
application until the next meeting , since there were not four
voting members.
Mr. Carr seconded the motion . All were in favor and so the
motion carried.
The applicant withdrew the non-applicability application for .
paint , I
Mr. Oedel motioned to approve a Certificate of
Appropriateness for exterior painting of house, fence, garage
as proposed and for the trim and door, to be painted white as
The applicant stated that the shutters will not be repainted.
Mr. Carr seconded the motion . - All were in favor and so the -
motion carried . '
497 Esse: Street
Miroslaw Kantorosinski applied for a Certificate .of
Appropriateness for new front doors on the first" floor of 407
Essex Street .
r
October 17, 1990 rage 4
Mr. Hedstrom inquired as to whether the glass on the front
doors would be beveled.
• Mr. Kantorosinski stated in the affirmative.
Mr. Carr motioned to approve the application with plain 91ass
and beveled edges, Nord Wellington style door. '
a
Mr. Hedstrom seconded the motion. All were -in favor and so
the motion carried .
18 River Street
Jeremiah J. and Deborah Jennings ap'Plied for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for dark: red opaque stain (special mix)
identical to dark red at 3 Elm Street , Marblehead. Pictures
were supplied. Stain is to cover the body of the house and
all trim excluding the front and back: doors,• which is to be l
decided at a later date,
Mr. Carr stated that the mix used at 3 Elm Street is recorded
at Norman's paint .
Mr, Oedel motioned to approve the application as submitted.
Mr. Carr seconded .the motion . All,. were in favor and so the
motion carried .
92 Derby Street
Blanch Pasl::owski applied for a Certificate of Non-
Applicabiiity ,for .the stripping of three sides of clapboard,
• front and two sides, and reclapboarding with ,red cedar and
repaint the same color.
Frank Raffa the contractor for the project stated that the
clapboards are no good. Mr. Raffa stated some cornerboard ,
freeze boards and sk:aterboards on the bottom will be
replaced. .
Mr. Oedel stated that he. would not like to see everything
` stripped but felt that �sPot replacement would be alright . He
,further stated that he wild like to schedule a si_te'visit
since they are proposing to replace everything .
Mr. Carr felt that the clapboards were not original and that
they would have been replaced in the front of the building as
it has been exposed to the ocean , and if there is a remote
possibility that the clapboards are original clapboards, a
site visit is necessary to determine if they are original .
Pts. Harris suggested they d'o a site visit to see what is
being replaced, - . t
Frank Raffa stated that the window trim, gutters, facia,
rakeboards and soffet quarters would not be touched-just the
clapboards, water table and cornerboard . The i'eft side of
the building has been patched from time to time.
Mr. Hedstrom suggested a site visit also.
Mr. Dedel motioned, to continue the application until the next
meeting .
r ,
-
October ,i?,"1990,0 .Page
Mr . Hedstrom seconded the motion . All were in favor and so
the motion carried . `
• A site visit was scheduled for Wednesday, October 24, 1990 at
_ ,30 P.M.
9 Cambridge Street
Michael and Ann M. Tomsho applied for a Certificate of Non-
Applicability for completion, of the repair of the roof , f
repair• of three wooden gutters, and replace gutters around .�
small section on the north side roof of 9 Cambridge Street.
Mr. Tomsho stated that the top of the roof is done in green
asphalt shingles and that they will be dowing the bottom .
portion only to match the top.
Chairman, Harris stated that .the new shingles will not have
the diamond shape,
Mr. Carr stated that the roof is not all the same color at
present .
Mr. Oedel motioned to accept the repair4'of the three
wooden gutters and the replacement of gutters at the portion
of the north side roof as. proposed .
Mr. Carr seconded the motion. All were in favor and so the
motion carried.
Mr. Oedel motioned to decry the replacement of the roof
because it would not fall under a Cer-tificate,of Non-
Applicability application . Mr. Carr seconded the motion.
All were in favor and so the
motion carried .
°
Mr. Carr inquired as to the cost of repairing the whole roof .
Mr. Tomsho stated that it would be significantly expensive.
Mr. Carr explained to the Tomsho's why the commission would .
only approve dark: gray or black: asphalt shingles and not
green and why a Certificate of Appropriateness is needed
rather than a Certificate of Non-Applicability because there
will be a change made meaning in color to the roof. Mr. Carr
also stated that he would prefer, black shingles and have two
colors until the owners can do the top portion than to have
the non-appropriate green.
Mr.. Oedel motioned to waive public hearing and to approve a
Certificate of Appropraiteness for a black or, charcoal gray
roof .
Mr . Carr seconded the motion.
Chairman Harris and Messrs. Hedstrom and Oedel' voted in
favor. Mr. Carr voted i.n opposition . The motion-did not
carry. The homeowners will apply for the next meeting .
135 Derby Street
F
Mr. .John Marks applied for a„Certificate of Appropriateness
• � e 3
6
October 17, 1990 Page 6
for the instalalation of a palm reading sign at 135 Derby- `
Street .
Ms. Guy stated that the applicant was in the hospital and
could not attend the meeting , but requested the commission
approve the sign recently installed in the window. Ms. Guy
presented pictures.
Mr. Hedstrom motioned to extend the Certificate of Non-
Applicability for the temporary sign: until November 28, 1990.
Mr. Oedel seconded the-motion .
Mr. Carr asked for an amendment to the motion that there has
to be a permanent sign by the 8th and that there would be no
more temporary sign extensions permitted.
Mr. Hed=_trom withdrew his motion.
Mr. Carr motioned to send a letter to 'the applicant to
encourage him to submit the sign-design that was discussed at
the site visit and in consideration of his .health the
commission will approve the temporary sign placement with the
one now in the window up until November 28, 1990 meeting but ,
there will be no further extensions and to denv the
certificate as appropriateness due to a lack of drawings.
Mr. Oedel seconded the motion. All were in favor and so 'the-
motion was carried.
177-179 Federal Street
.John T. and Therese A. Lask:aris applied for a Certifictae of
Appropriateness for the removal of' the front porch as
existing and replace with federal style, will supply plans at `
a later date at 177-179 Federal Street .
Mr, Hedstrom abstained from voting on the application4 "; to
there not being any drawings to malie a determination and not
enough time to continue the application,y
Mr. Oedel motioned to approve the application as submitted.
Mr. Carr seconded the motion. The motion failed with three
votes in favor and one abstention . (Four votes needed to
approve)
Mr. Carr motioned to send a letter to the applicant along '
with the denial pointing out that the commission is excited
about the new porch but some type of action had to be taken
tonight and do not constrew the denial .as permanent . The
commission wishes to•enCwUrage the applicant to reapply.
Mr. Oedel seconded the motion . All were in favor and so the
motion carried.
19 North Street
Mary Stewart Fealty Trust applied for an application for a
Certificate of Non-Applicability for repainting the exterior
in existing colors,
M � ,
e e
9
October 17, 1990 Page 7 y.
Mr. Hedstrom motioned to approve the application• as
submitted . 11
Mr. Carr seconded the motion , All were in favor and so the
motion carried .
12 Andover Street
Jeff Verrill applied for a Cartificate of Non-Applicability
for stripping the existing roof , reshingling with the same
existing color black asphalt .
Mr. Oedel motioned to accept the application as submitted, '
Mr. Carr seconded the motion . All were in favor and so the
motion carried .
One Broad Street.
One Broad Street Condominium Trust applied for a Certificate
of Non-Applicability for maintenance and repair of roof with
existing color, material and design of original construction
at One Broad Street.
Mr. Oedel motioned to accept the application as submitted
provided that the slates are the same color, size, texture
and design.
Mr. Carr seconded the motion. All were in favor and so the
• motion carried .
Preservation Awards
Ms. Harris stated that the presentation of the awards will be
held on November 16, 1990 at 7:30 P.M. at the Witch Museum.
Ms. Guy suggested that some of the names on the list be
eliminated ;- Ms. Gary provided Mr. Pierces votes for,.awards.
Mr. Oedel stated that a member of the commission cannot
receive an award but can be mentioned at the award ceremony.
The commission agreed. The commission reviewed the list of
nominees. Several names were removed from the list .
Mr. Hed5trcmi motioned to approve the following awardsa
4 Andover Street - Fence
Pierce Nichols - Roof
17 Warren Street
51 Summer Street
^e Carpenter Street
14 Chestnut Street —,Fence
37 Warren Street - Addition
3 Broad•Street
4 Pickering Street - Addition
Mr. Oedel seconded the motion. All were in favor' and so the
moion carried.
•
October 17, 1990 Page 8
i Mr. Oedel motioned to approve Paul Willis of d River Street
as the sole paint award.
Mr. Carr seconded the motion. All were in favor and so the
motion carried.
i
Mr. Carr,motioned to Qive awards.+:.o 37 Dearborn S� treet , iJ9
North Street and the Peabody Museum.
Mr. Oedel seconded the motion . All were in favor and so the
motion carried ,
r
Vending Machines
4 �
Ms, Harris stated that she met with Mr. Nelson Denton about
removing the machine at Beckford and Federal Streets and that
circulation for the newspaper does not want to move the ..
vending machine. She also stated that she would like to talo::
with Mr.. Denton a little more about the vending machine. Mr.
Denton stated that they would like the chance to reply back:
to the commission about the vending machine. .
Mr. Oedel stated that it is not the machine itself , it is the
design of the machine in that ditrict .
Mr. Carr stated that he would like to send a letter for
• request of removal of the vending machine or apply with the
appropriate application .
Mr. Carr motioned that the paper must submit an application ;
or take out the vending machine.
Mr. Oedel seconded the motion . Messrs. Oedel , Carr and
Hedstrom were in favor. Chairman Harris voted in opposition.
The motion did not carry.
Mr. Carr motioned to postpone until the next meeting. Mr.
Oedel seconded the motion . All were in favor and so the
motion carried .
Minutes
B
AuQLrst 1 , 1990.
Mr. Oedel motioned to approve the minutes
Mr. Carr seconded .the motion. All were in favor and so the
motion carried.,
Discussion -
Ms, Guy presented a sample window from Kolbe and Kolbe, ..
Windows are avaiable in plain singled glazed panes. Mr.
Hedstrom asked if .they are available in all glass sizes,
Ms. Gary replied in the affirmative,
Mr. Hedstrom stated that the exterior caeinq_ is too small ,
the sills are not thick enough , and that he did not approve A
of the exposed outer plastic channel . The commission would
like to encourage the company to work: with them to develop a
proto type,
r
4
s
October 17, 1990 Page 9
Violations
Ms. Guy will send the following letters;
s
1 . 7 Lynn Street for fence.
2. 95-97 Federal Street to screen or apply for the raised
patio.
3. 41 Flint Street - skylight .
4. 82 Derby Street - concerning the pink paint on ,the. house,
5. 10 Chestnut Street - to finished fence by November 28,
1990.
6. 100 Federal Street - inquiring as to when the ,fence will
be erected.
7, 15 Beckford Street - paint wall or be at the next
meeting.
8. 14 Broad Street - letter inquiring as to why plans have
not been submitted .
9. 154 Federal Street - railing_ .
10. 391 Essex Street = gutters.
89 Federal Street -skylight , .]ane sent a letter stating it
was in violation , the owner stated that the skylight was
installed before the district was formed, a letter. is to be
sent requesting proof that the skylight predates the
district .
Mr. Carr will talk; to the City Solicitor regarding 27?
Lafayette, 362 Essex and 15 Cambridge Streets,
• Mr. Carr motioned to .insert jurisdiction for the color of
storms.
Mr. Oedel seconded the motion . All were 'in favor and so the
motion carried .
Ms. Guy will add storm color to the summary of the
Commission's jurisdiction that is sent to district
homeowner=_.,
174 Federal Street - the commission is still waiting for
court_ dates.
171 Federal Street - commission is to drive by 171 Federal
Street to make sure they are satisfied with the wort:: .
Mr. Carr will review:.decisions for door and trellis for 8-
81/2 Chestnut Street ,
Other Business_.
Ms. Guy stated that Mr. .F'ierce would like .to discuss
protocol , procedures and conflicts at the next meeting . ,
There being no -4urther business, Mr. Oedel made a motion to, '
adjourn . Mr. Carr seconded the mation. k_All were in favor
and. so the motion carried .
Respectfully submitted ,
Lieb rah A. Guy
,
nP
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
November 7, 1990
A regular- meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held
on Wedneasday, November 7, 1990 at 7;30 P.M. at One Salem
Green , Salem, MA. In attendance were Chairman Harris, Mr.
Pierce, Mr. Slam, Mr. Cook , Mr . Carr, Mr. Oedel , Mr. Hedstrom
and Ms. Guy.
i
20-22 Chestnut Street '
Tan Schooley, .Jim Schooley, Nina.Cohen and Craig Barrows '
applied for a Certificate of Non-Applicabi7ity for fence
repairs at 20-22 Chestnut Street . This application is a4 ,
continuation from October 17, 1990.
p
Mr. Carr- motioned to approve the application as submitted :'
Mr. Slam seconded the motion . All were in favor and so the
motion carried.
• 92 Derby Street '
Blanch Paskowsk.i applied for a Certificate of Non
Applicability for the stripping of three sides of clapboard
in the front and two sides, reclapboard in red cedar and
paint at 92 Derby Street . This. is a continuation from
October 17, 1990 meeting.
There was a site visit conducted on Octobert24, 1990 in order
to visualize the extent of the work: and the buildings
existing details.
Mr. Carr noted' that the front wall was built out about two
inches from the basement plane.
Chairman Harris stated that the clapboards were not original
clapboards.
Mr. Carr suggested that the owner eradicate the window on the s
store front to leave the appearance that it is a later
architectural addition.
Mr. Pierce stated that- he was not sure that it is a later
addition,
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve the application as
submitted with the exception of the first floor portion and
for the sills to match . There was no second. '
Mr-. Carr stated that he does not want to approve anything
that has not been applied for and motioned to approve the
reclapboarding as submitted subject to being four- inches td `'
weather with smooth side out and with the recommendation '
that the store front be treated G either closing a of the
1 _ P
window or 4 enlarging the window and making other changes
that would highlight the store front. Such changes would
require the owner to file an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness. The motion also includes that,the sills be
. M
i
1
November 7, 1990 Page 2
beefed up to match the original sills.
• Mr. Slam seconded the motion . All were in favor and so the ,
motion carried .
13 River Street
The application for Margaret Hill for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for the replacement of two first floor and
two second floor windows on the front and the replacement of
the rear door at 13 River Street was approved at the last
meeting through a Waiver of Public Hearing.
82 Federal Street
Eva Fournier applied for a Certificate of Non-Applicability
for the repair or replacement of the trim on the entire ha_rse
and repaint the trim white, repair or replace the shingles on
the front of the house, and repair back porch , stairs and
repaint at 82 Federal Street .
This project is assisted-by the city's Home improvement Loan
Program.
Chairman Harris asked what exactly would be repaired or
replaced .
The contractor for the project stated that he will refasten
and reputttylthe facia, rake boards, soffits and crown molding.
• A latfice piece,lsk:irt molding, one band molding and some
shakes on the front of the building are to be replaced with ,, t
cedar and-allowed to weather. Trim is to be refastened ,
scrapped and painted and stained white. The metal. rail on
the rear porch will change to wood and will have' Gllasters.
Mr. Oedel inquired if the rear porch is pressure treated.
The contractor for the project replied in negative and stated
that it was KD. - Chairman Harris asked if there was any other,
cotion ,with the ,rear railing . -
The contractor stated that everything in the rear was to0far
rotted.
Mr. Oedel stated that the porch rail will have to be under a
Certificate of Appropriateness: I
Mr. Oedel motioned to approve the Certificate of Non-
Applicability with the exception of the rear porch", providing
that the reshingling and repairs are not more than ten x
percent of the total surface area and to deny a Certificate
of Non-Ap�lica6il ty' for the porch rail .. -
Mr. Slam seconded the motion . All were in favor and so the
moion carried.
An application for a. Certificate of Appropriateness to change
paint colors was withdrawn by the applicant .
4 Andover Street
Joel and Walter Caron applied for a Certificate of
November 7,' 1990 rage 3
Appropriateness for fence replacement at 4 Andover, Street .
• The application is to replace the fence on the westerly
border with a three foot chain link: fence .to run
approximately sixty feet along the length of the property.
Mr. Slam motioned to approve the application as,submitted.
Mr. Carr seconded the motion for the'pur-pose of discussion
only in the hopes that it will fail .
Mr. Slam stated that the problem was that the commission does
not allow chain lino:: fences, it is not in the guidelines and
the appropriate thing is to disapprove the application . Mr., r
Slam further stated that it may be an improvement over wire
but neither material is appropriate.
Mr. Carr stated that the commission cannot approve for an
eighteenth century house a. material that did not exist -in` the °
eighteenth century.
Mr. Oedel stated that the Carons can get an appropriate
fence that is not very expensive. All were• opposeid and so
the application was denied.
18 Crombie Street
Holyoke Square, . Incorporated applied for a Waiver of
Demolition Delay Ordinance for thedemolition of the building -
at 18 Crombie Street .
• Attorney William Lundregan of 81 Washington Street
represented the Holyoke Insurance Company and presented the
commission with , opening remarks. Mr. Lundregan stated `
. that this is not just an issue of an old house, and ithat the `
commission has to take into account the situation of Holyoke,
and that the house is not historical . Mr- . Lundregan felt
that the character of the neighborhood will not be effected
from the house being taken down . Mr. Lundregan stated that
Holyoke provides most if not all employee parking on site and
they have been purchasing real estate since 1800 on that
block: to build their existing building . The company owns
real estate on Summer, Norman, and Gedney Streets and they
also own .Joe's Laundry and,part of the block where 18 Crombie
Street sits. 18,Crombie' Street is oast of a strategic long
term plan . He went on to read an order. from the City of
Salem from 1975 and rendered that statement to Chairman
Harris as part of the records. The order commended Holyoke
for providing parking on sitE. Mra ,Lundregan stated that , at
that time, land w.asCj deQ: d the city'by Holyoke in order to
round off street corners. Mr. Lundregan went on to state
that Crombie Street was bought primarily because it abutts•
what they already own and the purpose is to bury as much
property as they can for corporate expansion. The,,second
reason was to use.the building as a corporate meeting center.
However, it was determined' thet to bring the building up to ,
code and use as a meeting center would cost approximately
t
November 7, 1990 Page 4 .
I195,000,00. ,Mr. Lundregan stated-that Holyoke will not put
$120 - $194,000.00 into the house to rehabilitate it ,"' if they
are not allowed to demolish. The price of the property was
$169,000.00 and to have this project,scratched is
uneconomical . He further stated that the proposal is to tear
down the house because Holyoke pians on doing nothing with
the house if they are not allowed to tear it down The, h
tried to have the house moved to Pioneer Village,40HoLy_oke�sexpense to which
the Park: and Recreation Department thought to be a good idea,
'�` but since the contract went to the
Gables, they were not interested . . Holyoke ha=_.. spent one and
one-half years trying to find a solution and has not come up
with anything that is feasable. Mr. Lundergan went on to .
state that the house wash nha'oitaabldand it is not economical
to sell the house due to the market being down and the house
in its present condition would sell for about $1001000.00 to
$110,000.00, and that the house needs about $120,000.00 to. -
$194,000.00 worth of repairs to it . Mr. Lundregan stated
that Holyoke will either rakz?) the horse or leave it as it
stands .now, boarded up and at some' point in •time some city
agency will order them to tear the house down. Holyoke will
riot sell because they want the land. `
Mr. Oedel inquired as to what Holyoke intended to do with the
land once the house was torn down .
Mr. L_rndergan stated that a single level 'parking lot would be
constructed .
• Mr. Slam asked if there were any other plans for the lot
besides a parking lot .
Mr. Lundregan replied in the negative.
Mr, rook asked how many parking space it will provide.
Mr. Lundregan replied eight to twelve.
Architects, Pon Jarek: and Charles DeMarco of' the
DeMarco/.Jarek: Partnership of Pickering Wharf , Salem, MA gave
a presentation concerning the condition of the.building at 18
Crombie Street complete with picture boards.
Mr. Jarek: and Mr. DeMarco went through the history of the
house from the 17th century. They stated that the house is
of a normal gab el roof , and that there were fifteen owners
to the house, and there were no unusual ch.aracterists about
the dwelling that warrant it "being special . ; .
Mr. DeMarco gave a presentation concerning the neighborhood
which he felt had not changed since it was built . Mr.
DeMarco stated that it is not residential zoning but
grandfathered in and is essentially non-conforming used.
DeMarco stated that there are problems with the house. . The-
.size of the living room in'the house is :2018. The house is
rooted and found to be on a creek , and the foundation has -
shifted and water has been leaking' into the basement for
years. He further stated that there is an addition tb .the
kitchen which is basically holding the house together in the
rear of the building and it would take around $113,000.00 to
bring the house up to habitable standards. Shingles have
1
9
November 7, 1990 Page 5 ✓
opened up on the outside and the house has racked to its
side. Clapboards are racked and deteriorated by two inches,
the ceilings are rotted by beetles and the porch _addition has
carpenter ants throughout . Struictural photographs were
shown. Mr. Demarco 'felt the house was not vented-properly
and drainage of "roof was not to code. Mr. Demarco-stated
that/The house will cost some very serious money to repair
and it is not a handymans type of job and the hoose itself =is
not sound . The chimney is not flued and there are no "g`
historical details to contribute to the matter of- making the
house note worthy.
Mr. Lundergan inquired of Charles DeMarco,about the
e..
neighborhood and if the house WATibutedto the 'neighborhood.
Mr. Demarco stated that the lack of this house would" not
detract from the neighborhood which is mixed commercial and
residential . Mr. Demarco added that removal would not make
the neighborhood less residential as a paring lot . '
Mr. nedel inquired as to how• long the DeMa:rco/Jare' k
partnership has been working an the project .,
Mr. Jarek: replied they have been working on the project for
• six months,
Mr. Dedel inquired of Mr. Lundregan as to who had beenthe
architects before Demarco/Jarek . Mr. Lundregan stated that
they had Martel Coneft Design Incorporated when th?v;were
considering a hospitality center. `
Mr. Slam inquired if a buyer could occupy the house as a
residence.
Mr, .Jarek replied in the affirmative and stated that they
could bury as a residential .
Mr. Slam inquired as to when they hid considered the house
for a meeting center, whether the rehabilitat ion,15 based on A
residential or state commercial. codes.
Mr. Jarek stated that it would have been state codes.
Mr. Slam asked if those were more restrictive than
residential , a
Mr; .Jarek replied in the affir-mative.t +
Mr. Carr inquired as to how long the house has -been owned by
Holyoke and how long it has been unoccupied.
Mr. Lundregan stated that they have owned it since 1976 and
it has remained unoccupied since then .
Mr. Carr inquired as to why they wanted to demolish the
house, was it because they did not want to spend the money on
fixing it .
y
1
November '; ,1990 " Page 6
Mr. Lundregan stated that selling the house was not an
option. And that the company wanted the real estate, and
that the cost to fixing the house is not an alternative to
tearing the building down . He went on to state that the
building is over fifty years old and that the rules are that
they have to come before the Salem Historical Commission , and
while demolition may not be the best solution , it is
reasonable from Holyok:e's point of view to tear the house
down . -
Mr. Carr inquired as to whether Holyoke wanted a demolU on to
create a parking lot with useful land and expanding on that
lot later on in the future.
Mr. Lundregan replied in the negative. '
Mr. Carr believed that the house is to be dated older than
Holyoke is leading the Commission to believe and inquired as
' to whether the house was moved to the present site at some
point in time. e I •
Mr. Lundregan stated that the owner of ?oe's Laundry says
that it was moved from Chestnut Street but there was no
evidence and believed that a barn was moved from. Chestnut
Street at one time.
• Mr. Carr stated that the house, appears to be of greek: revival ,
with greek elements.
Mr. .7arek stated that the house was built in the 1830's on
the lot . ` - k
Mr. Oedel inquired as to who did the research on the house.
Mr. Lundregan .stated Murray Goth did the research and would
supply the commission with a copy of the report .
Chairman Harris opened the public hearing to the audience.
Mr. William Burns inquired as to if there was any impediment
to buying the house and moving out of the neighborhood.
Mr. Lundregan stated that from a. corporate point of view no
there isn'tr QQ would have to come before the Historical
Commission for that approval as well .
Mr. Burns stated that moving the house would solve alot"of
problems for the people. Mr. Lundergan replied in
-affirmative. I +
Mr. DeMarco stated that the frame is stable as long asA e
house can be taken off of its foundation and it can be done
but it will be have to be done in pieces.
Mr. DeMarco felt the foundation would crumble.
Nancy McCarthy of 15 Summer Street asked that when Holyoke
bought the house in 1985 was it zoned to allow it to be torn
-down .
Chairman Harris stated that it is zoned B` which could be
residential or a parking tot ,
• Ms. McCarthy felt that at its purchase, Ithe building would
have been inspected and the problems would have been inown .
then . She felt that the company purchased the building with
the intent to turn it into a. parking lot .
Mr. Lundregan stated that it was brought primarily because
it abuts Holyoke land .
M
November 7, 1990 Page 7
Ms. McCarthy asked why Holyoke did not buy Joyce Cook 's.
• Mr. Lundregan said it was still a possibility.
David Pelletier- of 1 ' Crombie Street stated that a principal
owner .in the neighborhood is Holyoke and he would like the
president of the company to be the talkers and the lawyers to "
listen and that this is not a court room, they are neighbors
and that the corporate executives should be the ones to
answer the neighbors questions.
Ms. Pelletier felt Holyok:e's strategic plan; is not for
parking lots. Mr. Pelletier further stated that you do not
buy a house for $169,000.00 and let it just, sit for years.
Mr. Pelletier felt Mr. Ryder, the president , would not
purchase a building where ,he would not hit his head on the
doorways.
Mr. Lundregan stated that at the time the house was
purchased, Frank: Story was the president of the company.
Mr. Lundregan stated that strategically Holyoke wants to use
the land and that there is no plans other than a parking lot
and that there may be in twenty years. --
.Jane Stirgwalt of Andrew Street inquired as to the option of
tong term leasing of the horse so the house can remain
in existance 'until .Holyok:e has plans in twenty years. "
Mr. Lundregan stated that if someone did live in the house
they would be faced with the same problems. The building
asbestos, and lead paint,: Holyoke did research it , but Mr.
Lundregan stated it would have liabilities and was not
• _ feasible. I '
Mr= Carr asked if a lease were possible.
Mr. Qedel stated that his own company has purchased land r
with a horse on the lot and has, leased it out for the last
seven years and they are holding on to it for the future.
Mr. Lundregan stated that it was
certainly a reasonable question to ask: blit the question of
liability on the landlord is excessive and that the tenant
and the landlord cannot waive the possibility of lead paint
and. that it is not worth the risk: and the liability, Mr.
Lundregan stated that it was to costly to delead.
Chairman Harris stated that she did not feel that long-term
leasing has been adequately researched and would want to
cheep: if a lessee could .waive landlord liability on lead
Paint .
Mr. Dube of Chestnut Street suggested that if Holyoke is
looking for parking spaces, to consider the back of the
building .
Mr. Lundregan stated that it could 'be used as a parking lot
but that the company agreed with the city when they built the
+. building that they world preserve the area as open space;
. Mr. Cook asked if they implied that the corporate life blood
is being threatened if they could not tear down the building.
Mr. Lundregan replied in the negative and stated that Holyoke
is preparing for future needs.
Mr. Carr asked if the current parking on the site is
November 7, 194+r Page S
adequate. ' a
• Mr, Lundregan replied in the negative and stated that .Holyoke
employees are approximately IFirty to fifty parking spares
short not counting customers or,salesmen .
Mr. Carr inquired that if they plan on generating ten to
twelve parking spaces that it would stili leave a 'deficit of
spaces
Mr . Lundregan rep lied in affirmative.
Mr. Carr stated that the way the shingles were cut on an a
angle would indicate that the wall has been leaning for a
long time.
Mr . DeMarco stated that the foundation is crumbling and
cannot withstand much more on the present foundation and will
become a public liability.
Mr. Fierce inquired as to how many square feet are in the
existing office building ,
Mr. Lundregan replied approximately 40,000 square feet but
was not completely certain .
Mr. Fierce asked Ms. Stirgwalt , who is on the Board of o
Appeals, what is the zoning requirements for a building for
parking if Holyoke has in excess of what is required by code.
Ms. Stirgwalt stated that she would have to figure it. out .
Mr. Lundregan stated that the company is now providing,more
spaces that the code req_rires, and that this matter has been
approached since they built the building.
Mr•. Pierce stated that he wanted a number as to how many `.
. employees Holyoke has , square footage, people who Visit
the business, etc , , and if the need exists for more parking
spaces versus requirements.
Mr. Lundregan stated that graphics have been done and it
comes bark: to the thirty to fifty parking spaces.
Mr. Fierce asked if Holyoke did an economic analysis to spend
that kind of money per parking space at iS Crombie,
Mr. Lundregan stated that it was irrelevant , and they want
the land. He further- stated. that financial considerations to
rent or sell are unacceptable, so they are forced into the
cost per space due to long term goals., _
Mr. Pierce stated that they have no economical viable proof
for Parking spaces.
Mr. Pelletier asked if using the city sidewalk: space for
access ��"c'�1 would continue.
Mr. Lundregan stated+hey, wouLd�notrise the sidewalk at 16
Crombie Street-+as are _g at Joe's and the sidewalk will not be.-11IFre`d„ Mr. Lundregan stated previous
use had been approved by the city. ,-
Mr. Pelletier asked what the pians were for the large tree
that gives ambience to the lot .
Attorney Lundregan stated the initial design is without the
tree but he expects the(will ask: to leave it there.
Mr. Pelletier asked if HA yoke was in the Gerber's building
before the fire.Gttorney Lundregan replied in the
affirmative.
Mr. Pelletier inquired as to if the building was gone is
November 7, 1990 Page 9
•
there some interest to improve' the neighborhood in the spirit t in building a better neighborhood, would Holyoke consider a
design that calls for not having that access across the
sidewalk that would eliminate the feel .of a parking lot and
would be more creative by looking at the lot as a whole^on
architectural stand point of view.
Mr. Lundregan stated that access tothe filling station has,
always been over the sidewalk: and to change that requires ,
total beconfiguration . He further stated that all issues
will be addressed before the SRA and that they want to geJas
much parking as them can. . ,
Mr; Slam asked if the house at 16 Crombie Street appeared on
the market world Holyoke purchase that house also,
Mr. Lundregan stated that it wol_rld depend upon the economical 4
" climate profit picture and on how welt received this project
is by the Mous boar and state- absolutely they would
consider pure-a.sing it .
Mr. Dube inquired as to why they won't take Joe's. Laundry for
parking .
Mr, Lundregan stated because they have a lease with Joe until
1992 and they would rather tear down the existing building
than to displace .Joe and his employees, also the lease of the .
building generates income for the company. '
Frank Montessi of 15 Crombie Street who is licensed builder, ,
and contractor stated that when 18, Crombie was for sale, he
approached the bank: and toured the building. He stated that.
• he assessed the problems and saw the same things that are
wrong with. the house now has been wrong with dt for a while
and felt that $601000.00 was the amount needed to fix the
house. He also stated that he knew Holyoke paid $169,60,00
for the house that was not worth it and knew they had every
intention to tear down the house in the first place and had
no intention to fix it up . Mr. Montessi that the current
construction rates could allow the house to be fixedCu for -'
much less than the architect's estimate �
Stephanie Montessi of A Crombie Street stated that :Joe's
and Holyoke have been wonderful neighbors but feel that
parking was not the reason the 'building was purchased . Ms.
Montessi stated that she was insulted by the way Holyoke was
presenting this while they have allowed the building to erode
since it was purchased. She added that the neighborhood is
frustrated for the fact that business has disintegrated the
neighborhood and that the plan is .just not for parking, She
also stated that the people at 16 Crombie Street will move
out of the city and she is sure-that that will be the next
house Holyoke will take and she is frustrated with this back:
door approach and does not ,lik:e'the way thls' sitl_latlon has
been ,handled .
Joan Griffin of 105 Federal Street stated that she has heard
nothing on encouraging the Holyoke elTlployees to take public
transportation or car pool ,
Ann Farnam of 19 1/2 Broad Street , president of the. Esse„
a
November 7'; 1990 Page 10
Institute, read a statement and felt that the house is an
important part of the National Register District and feels
•. that it is important to preserve what remains .of the area and
fears demolition . She also stated that%it provides unique
visual cornerstone and urged Holyoke to reconsider its
priorities,Ms. Farnham disapproved of the demolition on
behalf of the Essex Institute and rendered that letter as
part of the records. x
David Hart of 104 Federal Street read a letter from'Bill
Guenther of Historic Salem,, Inc , to Doug Ryder dated April
20, 1989 andjq_ t it is still pertinent . The letter was to
reiterate'`Hy„�?`,','sdproosition to demolition or removal of 18
Crombie. The letter was also rendered to the commission as
part of the records, e
Ty Goodhue of h South Fine Street stated that he felt that
the house ,is something that should be preserved in,Salem.-
Frank Montessi stated that there is a picture at ^the Essex
Institute -of Crombie Street lined with Houses, now there are
only five and it is a shame to tear down one more.
Ms. Montessi stated that three trees were excavated when .
White Hen Pantry was built .
Chairman Harris read letters that were sent to the Commission
concerning the matter of the demolition of 18 Crombie Street .
Letters were sent from:
Elsa Fitzgerald of Mass. Historical Commission, Mr. and Mrs.
Lames Bennett of 16 Crombie Street , Ms. Judith Wolfe of 24
• Norman Street , Ms, y Donna Lee Carmello of 10 Crombie Street ,
Alan Schwartz of the Architect Conservation Trust. of
Massachusetts, and B. Dube of 4 Chestnut Street .
Chairman Harris asked Mr. Pierce to comment on the site• visit
undertaken at 18'Crombie Street, <
Mr. Pierce stated-that he was surprised by the interior of
the building and that it was virtually intact, in terms of
original condition although not 'oonate. The fireplaces art
in good condition `and the mantels are still in place, and are
simple but elegant . The doors were in place, He further
stated that the hardware is of mixed periods all authentic to
early 18th to 19th century. Mr. Fierce st_ated, he was ,
generally very impressed and that there was no significant
deflection in the floors: wails or ceilings.
R
} r
xyovember,7, 1990 Page 1.1
N " N
Mr. Pierre stated that it would have been common to•expect
fork a house of this age to have a two inch deflection, in thele
floors. Mr. Pierce stated that his impression is'that the
house had been moved to the. site than it would have gone
!ender some.restoration at the time of the move. He felt that
renovation=_ would be post 1825. The basic shell could •
predate, and evidence seer, in doors, trim .and boing of post,
showthat the body of the house could be dated 1730 to 1780
which confirms bass Historic's opinion of c ,17161 The "
structure appears to him to be sound, and h&has seen houses
that are substantially worse that are habitable, In Mr,
Pierce'=_ opinion the house was not racked as much as the
architects estimate-and,that 'there is no evidence that the
house is continuing to rack: , and it is not deteriorated
beyond what it has reachedyear's earlier. l°Mr. Pi'erce stated '
that he saw only two small areas of rot in the sills and saw
minor brick spallingL The structure in, his opinion is not
unsound and- he disagrees with, all findings of the architect
hired by Holyoke. 4 .
Mr. Slam agreed with Mr. Pierce. The floor's are sound
• and the sills are structurally sound and better than most
older home=_.. He feels that the house has had' one hundred and
seventy-five years*of gradual settling and that racking is
not a condition to prove the structure to be unsafe or
unsound . ��
Mr. Carr stated 11AM""Way'zmazed with the charm and
completeness of the interior and stated that. this house is _
favorable comparison to the houses that have gone under
repair on Fiver Street . He, felt the house was in
extraordinarily in good shape and essentially in tact . Mr.
Carr stated that the,ceiling beams showed no evidence of bug
or water damage except for the one area in the architect's
picture. Mir. ON stated that the outside old brick: patio
and landscaping shows the house had been taken care of by the
previous owner ,
Mr. Oedel stated that he was not on the site visit bort
stated that Holyouke's architects haYsaid the frame 'could
withstand another 100 ?ears and asked what is the current
foundation condition.
Mr. Pierce stated that the foundation is a ~solid brick:
foundation with evidence of granite.Mr. Pierce felt that the
house was monied there was possibly in the 1800s.- ,He went on
to say that the condition o1 the brick is remarkable and that
there are no major crack:s, ,settiement or fissures, Mr.
Pierce felt there is no evidence a corner is slipping. His
opinion is that if the'fo ;ndations are nut of plum it .would
• not bother him because they world not be structurally-
unsound. One or two inches is not surprising for the age of
the house, He stated that"the brick:.: is original but +d.oes. not
know if that is the original foundation ;
Chairman Harris stated that the condition of the house is
4' al of better Chan she had expected and the basement was
November 7, 1990 Page 12
• extremely dry.
Chairman Harris stated that she saw onlv •one small area of
sill rot and that the insects are on the back: porch' which is
a later insignificant addition . Chairman Harris stated that
it does appear that the building was moved there.
Mr. Slam stated that there was no musty smell to the house'
indicating that there has been no sepa.ge of water into the
"basement and that the site visit had been one hour after a
major downfall .
Mr. Carr motioned to deny the application to waivefIthe
demolition delay ordinance. L
Mr, Slam. seconded the motion .
Mr, Cook stated that he would not want to change Holyoke as a
" neighbor for any other corporation , but as a real estate
agent asked Holyoke to leave the piece of real estate at 19
Crombie,Street alone and find another solution.
Mr. Oedel stated that he could understand the business
reasons, but felt it was irresponsible to ask for the
demolition of a house on the National Register.
Mr. Oedel stated that he feels it is irresponsible of them,
to request a waiver of demolition and suggested a. solution;of
a third or fourth level of underground parking. He also
felt it was not sensible since there are no further plans and
felt that Holyoke should look: into ways to keep it until
there ary_pians., Mr. Oedel quickly added that MHC and ACT .
• have k, dicated'�hat there is no solution but to keep the d
building:Mr. Oedel stated he was reluctant to take
irreversible action now.
Mr. Slam stated that the r_.eighborhood has been under Beige
for the city of Salem for the oast ten years with businesses `
and shelters, he feels that the neighborhood is being
nickeled and dimed out of existance. He also stated that
Holyoke would not be a good neighbor to whittle away twenty
percent of the neighborhood for eight parking spaces,
Mr. Carr stated that he has respect for Holyoke and Attorney
Lundregan but felt the building and the highborhood are not
separate, Mr. Carr stated that he could not go along with
the demolition , it is not appropriate to move the house. The
house..is an important remnant and to tear it down for eight
to ten parking spaces is not justification for demolition and ,
there has to be other solutions, He also stated that it was 1
foolish to tear down a building when there are no plans for
an ultimate use and there has to be ways in which they can
leave the building standing . He further stated that once the
building is gone there - is no remaking of an 18th century
building and it would be a tremendous loss,
Mr. Pierce stated that while some of the 'integrity was lost
;''w^£h, other buildings it should not continue by demolishing `
this building which is in the National Register District and
Heritage Plaza blest . Mr. Pierce felt that any further loss '
of that is a crime and that the commission cannot support
• anything but to allow the house to remain . Mr, Hedstrom "
; November 7, 1990 Page 13
_ stated that'he agrees with the other members of the
• - commission on the points that they ha0 already made
concerning the house and that tearing down a building on the
Historical Register should be given clot of thoughtito and
that the whole plan should be rethought about , Mr. Hedstrom
felt that Holyoke should Qconsider more options to •preserve
and maybe rethin4. .Joe's Auto Laundry. Mr. Hedstrom stated if
Holyoke's plans change in 15-20 years, and they move to route
122, they cannot bring the building back: ;
Chairman Harris stated that the house is a significant
building to the district and hopes some other ideas wilCbe
thought about , such as long term lease. The building issue
and how few parking spaces are gained by tearing" down this
building is not worth it , -She further stated that the Mayor
is considering instilling angle parking on the street between
Gedney and Norman Streets which would allow-for extra parking
and allow the building to be perserved and .Gedney is being
considered for narrowing . ,
Mr. L_rndergan stated that it was a bigger issue than this
little old house and would. l_ik:e room for dialogue between the
Holyoke and the commission and stated that they will meet
with the commission at any,timel ' , _
Mr. Carr motioned to make Ypreliminary recommendation
against issuing a. demolition permit .- , i . '
Mr. Fierce seconded the motion, All were in favor and so the
motion carried. Mr. Pierce made a. motion to send copies of
all letters received concerning 12 Crombie Street to the SRO
and to request that the commission be notified of any
meetings so that the letters carr. be read into their records.•,
« Mr. Carr seconded the motion. All were in favor and so the
motion carried ,
9 Cambridge Street
Mr. Michael Tomsho applied for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for the repair of three sections of roof with
charcoal gray shingles at ,9 Cambridge Street .
Mr. Dedel motioned to 'approve the application as submitted.
Mr. Pierce seconded the motion . All were in favor and so the
motion carried .
135 Derby Street
.John Marks applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness for
the installation of a 2 foot by 3 foot sign at 135 Derby
Street .
Mr. Marks stated that he wo_uld 'lik;e approval for the color
scheme as presented in the picture and the design as per
plans provided, The sign will be ten feet above the sidewalk: .
Mr, Carr motioned to approve the application as submitted for
. 1
m m
November 7,. 1940 Page 14
a. carved sign with back ground to be dart:: green .as per photo.
• and to have J770 brackets.
Mr. Coed; seconded the motion .
Mr. Hedstrom. stated that the sign had to be ten feet above
the side wall:: .
Mr. Carr felt it was a contemporary ,looking sign.
Chairman Harris and Messrs. fierce, Hedstrom, Slam, -Qedel and
Cook voted in favor. Mr. Carr voted in opposition. The
motion carried.
6 South Pine Streef_
Albert Goodhue, III applied foraTertificate of
Appropriateness_ for the replacement of a front door and to
add :a. storm door to the back door at 6 South Fine Street .
Diagram of the proposed door was submitted with the
application . I
Mr. Carr stated that the proposed doors were great but asked
if the present door is an original . After looking at the
pictures, Mr. Carr stated the exis-.ting was` ndt�a}pe7riodrdooy
Mr. Carr motioned to approve the application as s+_rbmitted
for both doors. . Mr. Cool:: seconded the motion . All were in '
favor and so the motion carried .
16= Federal Street. .
• Health and`Ed+_rcation Services_. Inc . presented an application
for a Certificate of Non-Applicability to*repaint 162 Federal
Street in existing colors.
Mr-'. Carr made a. motion to approve the application. as
submitted. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion . All were in favor
and so the motion carried .
14 Chestnut Street
Thomas and Katherine Murray applied.for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for the changes to the east and wast facades
of the rear ell at 14 Chestnut Street Work: proposes on the
west facade includes the removal of one a ,
window, change in location of three windows, addition of
dormer, and the addition of a. sky light . The east facade
includes the removal of 'one window, the change in location of
one window, and the addition of a dormer. Preliminary
sketches were submitted .
Katherine Murray stated that they tool:: the north facade' work
of the pians that were recently approved and worked with that
for the west and east facades. Mrs: Murray described the work
proposed using the pictures and preliminary plans.
Mr. Carr stated that he does have a problem with eliminating
the _window but that dropping the window concerns him, Mr. r
i
s
November ?, 1990 Page 15
Dedel stated that he does not have a problem with eliminating
• the window but was concerned with the blank that would left
ro
in removing the window.
Chairman Harris-stated that it was interesting approach but .
they might want to add , corner board .
Katherine Murray stated that •if the commission feels the
ideas are Wright they will go ahead with more detailed
plans.
,
Mr. Qedel stated that there was no problem with the windows
but there is a problem with the sky lights. He also stated
that he liked the idea of the dormers but , is not sure iV it
is appropriate, but it could be and would have to considerit
further. ••
Chairman Harris did not feel it was inappropriate to add
dormers.
Mr. Carr stated that the .member's should ask themselves if
the windows world loot lik`.e they are where they would
appropriately be. "
Chairman Harris stated that it
appears that the back: ell had alot of. things played with and
the windows may be irregular.
Mr. Slam stated that he could go for the new plans...
Mr. Cook was inagreement .,
Mr. Carr stated that he had no problem with the dormers but
he had a problem with the sky= light and was unsure about the
r�
windows. , Mr. Carr stated that the commission wa=__40 acting)
• Uialj and will take a vote at the next meeting ani"that
some of the work: could still get voted down at the .ner;t
meetingy and that some of'the'work could still be voted down at the next meeting. -
Mr.Qedel did not approve the skylight but felt okay about
the dormer and windows. "
Mr. Fierce stated that he had no problem with the dormers
and the windows bort has a problem with the sky light and
suggested they insert tran=__omes over the garage doors, Mr.;
Fierce felt it was an improvement over the last application
'but added he would'rathersee_25rdormer's.Messrs. Cook' , Carr And
Slam_ were, in agreement -
Mr. Hedstrom agreed with the extra dormer and was not in .
favor with the sky light . Mr. Hedsf om stated that he would
like to see aailed drawing on the idea of transome=_."to `
make the build"Mg appear as a carriage house. Chairman
Harris inquired about the staircase, if it would be interior.
Katherine Murray replied in the affirmative andstated' that ' ,,
they had solved the problem. Chairman Harris stated that she
preferred the addition of the two dormers and would like to
see ; =` cornerboa.rd to emphasize the break: ,•
Mr. Fierce stated that there was some merit by not making the
door regularly spaced and that balance should ,not be forced
on the rear. . _
Katherine Murray stated that she felt the doors should be a
little more balanced.
Mr. Carr- statedthat he felt the commission needed tomove
November 7,` 1990 page 16
slowly and should not throw out suggestions that the
• commission could be held to.
Ms. Guy stated that the Murray's could provide a few options
as was done with tie Bertram Home.
Mr. Oedel agreed and stated that the applicant could provide
overlay=_..
Mr. Hedstrom motioned •to continue the application . Mr. Cool:;
seconded the motion . ` Ali were in savor and so the motion
carried.
1
e
n
i
N
November 7, 1990 Page 17
335 Esse_: Street
Barbara and Robert Maier presented an application for a
Certificate of Non-Applicability to reroof 335 Essex Street
with black asphalt as existing . The applicants propose to do
1/ ' of the roof this year and the remaining 11v next year.
Mr. Carr motioned to approve the application as submitted.
Mr . Siam seconded the motion. All were in favor and so the
motion carried.
News Vending Machine
William and Betsy Burns and were
present to request that the commission take action with
regard to the news vending machine installed at Federal and
Beckford Street .
The Salem Evening News stated to Chairman Harris that they
felt that the commission has no jurisdiction on the machine
• and the news stated that it is a freedom of speech issue.
Chairman Harris stated that she felt that it was not a.
freedom of speech issue and that Mass Historic says that the
commission has juridiction through court cases settled by the
Attorney General .
tir. Carr stated that the news has installed the machine
without the commission's approval .
Mr. Carr motioned to send a letter in the politest terms as
possible stating that the commission takes the position that
they have jurisdiction over vending machines, that before a
�+..- .Val
machine is installed it must be�pu�rsuan�t"ttpri'orapapproval of either
a Certificate of Appropriateness, Hardship or Non-
Aoolicability, that they it must apply for and receive a
certificate installing a vending machine and that-they ,remove -
the existing vending machine forthwith .
Mr. Fierce asked if the commission Would allow a vending
device to be installed if an appropriate device was designed
Chairman Harris stated that it was possible that the news
could research and find a historically appropriate'and'
suitable solution.
Mr. Fierce seconded Mr. Carr's motion . All 'were in favor
and so the motion carried . Mr. Pierce suggested a time frame
for removal ,
Mr. Carr replied that the letter will State that it must be
removed forthwith. -
• Approval of Minutes .
May 16, 1990 meeting . Mr. oedel motioned to approve the
-minutes. Mr. Carr seconded the motion . All were in favor
and so the motion carried .
November 7, 1990 Page 13
• June b, 1990 meeting. Mr. Oedel motioned to approve the
minutes. Mr. Slam seconded the motion , 'All were in favor-
and so the motion carried .
June 20, 1990 meeting . Mr. Fierce motioned to approve the
minutes. Mr. Cook seconded the motion . All were in favor
and so the motion carried ..
July 11 , 1990 meeting .' Mr. Oedel- motion to approve the
minutes. Mr. Hedstrom seconded the motion . • All'`•were in
favor and so the motion carried.
July 23, 1990 meeting . Mr. Carr motioned to approve the
minutes. Mr. Fierce seconded the motion. All were in favor 1
and io the motion carried. Chairman Harris abstained..
August 8, 1990 meeting . Mr. Carr motioned to approve the*
minutes. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion. All were in favor
and so the motion carried .
September 5, 1990 meeting . Mr. Carr motioned to approve the
minutes. Mr. Oedel seconded the motion. All were in favor
i
and so the motion carried. ,«
• Future Meetings
9
It was decided upon that because of the holidays the next
meetings would be:
November 28, 1990, December 12, 1990, and January 2, 1990;
Correspondence
r .
Ms. Guy received a letter from the 'Bertram Home which stated
that balusters on the rear porch were substituted , that they
would be applying for a sign , and that the commission was
invited to tour the building .
Chairman Harris suggested that Ms. Guy reply that they must
apply for a Certificate of Appropk ateness, for the "
ballasters, that the commission looks forward to nevi wing_,;
their sign application and that the members would enjoy a
tour.
r IF
Ms. Guy received a letter from a trustee of 95-97 Federal
Street which states that they have planted evergreens in the
planter which should hide it during all seasons. The :
commission will forego further artion . 3,
Ms . Guy reviewed a letter from 89 Federal Street owner
stating that the skylight has been installed in 1975 and that
• they did no+have receipts for the wool::. 'The commission will
forego further action .
M S
November 7, 1440 Page 19
Ms. Guy received a letter from Assistant City Solicitor,
Femino with regard to 14 Chestnut Street and the proposed
settlement by the Murray's attorney. Mr. Carr motioned that.
the Chairman and-the Vice Chairman meet with the Attorney
Femino to respond to the letter.. Mr. Dedel seconded the
motion. All were in favor and so, the motion carried.
Other Business
,
Ms. Guy suggested a press release be sent to the Salem
Evening News regarding the preservations awards.
There beina.no further business, Mr. Slam made a motion to
adjourn . Mr. Cook seconded the motion . All were in favor .
and so the motion carried .
•
Respectfully submitted,
ZOLZ "C.
Deboarh A. Guy
w,
t
November 28, 1990, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
NOVEMBER 28, 1990
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on
Wednesday, November 28, 1990 at 7 : 30 p .m. at One Salem Green,
Salem, MA. Present were Chairman Harris and Messrs . Cook,
Pierce, Slam, Oedel, and Stanton and Ms . Guy. Mr . Carr joined
later in the meeting.
Chairman Harris welcomed new member Kevin Stanton and called the
meeting to order .
157 Federal Street
Shelby Hypes presented an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to replace slate shingles with clapboards on the
front right dormer of her property at 157 Federal Street .
Repairs to the leaking dormer have already commenced. Ms . Hypes
indicated that two of the remaining three dormers already have
been resided with clapboard and the last has roofing shingles .
Mr . Slam stated that he had never heard of slate on a dormer
before .
Ms . Hypes indicated that in the Spring she will be returning to
apply for additional renovation work including painting.
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.
2 Bedford Street
Antonio & Maria Justo presented an application to waive the
Demolition Delay Ordinance for their garage at 2 Bedford Street .
The applicants were not present . Ms . Guy stated that the .
applicants informed her that when it was attempted to repair the
garage, it fell in . The garage has since been removed.
Mr . Oedel made a motion to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance
for the garage at 2 Bedford Street . Mr . Pierce seconded the
motion .
Mr . Stanton asked if waiving the Ordinance after the fact would
cause a precedent . Ms . Guy stated that the Commission had the
option to go through the City ' s legal department and institute a
fine of $500 . 00 for demolishing the building before receiving the
proper approvals . Chairman Harris felt that the building was not
worth such action .
The motion was voted upon . All were in favor and the motion so
carried.
Mr . Carr entered the meeting at this time .
November 28, 1990, Page 2
14 Chestnut Street
• In continuation from a prior meeting, Thomas and Katherine Murray
presented new drawings along with their application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness for renovations for the rear ell
portion at 14 Chestnut Street .
The applicants described the work proposed for the West facade of
the building and provided 3 tissue overlays for window options .
The options are for window lights of 9 x 12, 9 x 14 or 10 x 15 .
Mr . Murray indicated that the large beam under the second floor
windows would determine the height feasibility of the windows .
Mr . Murray stated that they prefer the largest window, but won ' t
know if it is feasible until the building is opened up .
The proposed work includes the removal of one window, relocation
of three windows on the second floor, spaced evenly, the addition
of 2 dormers and the addition of corner board. The original
windows have 9 x 12 lights .
Mr . Murray stated that the smallest existing window on the main
house has 11 x 15 lights .
Mr . Slam stated that he saw very little difference in the window
sizes . Mr . Carr stated that he preferred the larger . Mr. Oedel
stated that he did not care either way .
Mr . Pierce felt the dormer and window widths should be the same
regardless of which window is selected. Mr . Pierce added that if
there were no corner boards , he would prefer the widths stay the
same, but did not feel strongly about it.
Chairman Harris stated that once the windows are dropped, the
larger windows may work better .
Mr . Carr stated that he assumed that whichever window is
installed, the North side will match in sill height and window
size . Mr . Murray replied in the affirmative . Mr . Carr stated
that the larger windows don' t seem to compete with the main
building when looking as the tissue overlays .
The applicants described the work proposed for the East facade .
The work includes the removal of one window, the addition of a
dormer, and the relocation of one window to be the same height as
whichever windows are installed on the West facade .
Mr . Carr stated that he preferred not to remove more detail from
the East facade which already has some blank portions . Mrs .
Murray stated that the East facade of the main house is
completely blank .
Mr . Carr made a motion to approve the West facade as submitted
including the dormers , the cornerboards, the 3 window options
placed as drawn with the window sills to be beefed up to match
• existing sills , and the windows to be intregal wooden windows .
The motion includes the option to line up the 1st and 2nd floor
November 28, 1990, Page 3
windows between the cornerboard and door . The motion also
includes that the windows on the North facade line up with those
• on the West facade and for the windows selected for the West
facade to be installed on the North facade as well . The motion
also includes that the window lights on the dormers be 9 x 10 as
drawn, the siding on the dormer to be clapboards to match
existing in details and trim color, and the roof color of the
dormer to be black . Mr . Slam seconded the motion .
Mr . Pierce stated that while he would not object to the motion,
he preferred to keep the asymmetry on the rear wing.
The motion was voted upon . All were in favor and the motion so
carried.
Mr . s Mrs . Murray withdrew the portion of the application
regarding the installation of a skylight .
Mr. Cook made a motion to approve the East facade as submitted
with the dormer as drawn and for the windows to line up with the
North and West facades as approved. The windows installed on the
East facade must match the size and detail as installed on the
West and North facades . Mr. Cook noted that the skylight was
withdrawn .
Mrs . Murray asked if the Commission would prefer a cornerboard on
the East facade . Chairman Harris replied in the negative .
Mr . Slam agreed with Mr. Carr that removal of the window will
make the facade appear naked. Mr . Slam stated that he did not
want to make it look like a barn by taking away what little
detail is there .
Mr . Oedel seconded the motion.
Mr. Pierce objected to the dormer in the end corner with no
windows below it . Mr. Pierce would want either a window below or
no dormer . Mr . Oedel asked if there could be a dormer in the
center . Mr. Murray stated that it is a loft area and that there
is a staircase below the dormer that necessitated the window
removal . Mr . Carr stated that it would be better if there was
another dormer on the other end to have balance .
Mr . Oedel made a motion to move the question . Mr . Carr seconded
the motion . All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr . Cook' s motion was voted upon . Chairman Harris and Messrs .
Slam, Oedel, Cook and Stanton voted in favor . Messrs . Carr and
Pierce voted in opposition . The motion so carried.
Mr . Oedel noted that the eight windows which have been approved
to be all the same size based on the three options have been
circled in pink on the plans .
• Mr. Oedel made a motion that the top window on the North facade
have lights of 9 x 10 to match the dormers . Mr . Stanton seconded :
November 28; 1990, Page 4
the motion .
• Mr . Pierce felt that the window should be raised so that the sill
matches the dormer window sill height . Mr . Carr questioned
whether .the windows should be viewed in relation to the windows
below it or the dormers . Mr . Carr felt that if the window were
raised, it would leave an enormous gap .
In order to make the top window on the North facade different in
size from the others on that facade, Mr. Oedel amended his motion
that if 9 x 12 window lights are selected for the 1st and 2nd
floors , the top window should be 9 x 10 ; if 9 x 14 are selected
for the 1st and 2nd floors , the top window should be 9 x 12 ; if
10 x 15 are selected for the lst and 2nd floors, the top window
should be 10 x 12 . Mr . Stanton seconded the amendment . Chairman
Harris and Messrs . Cook, Slam, Oedel , Pierce, and Stanton voted
in favor . Mr . Carr voted in opposition . The motion so carried.
Mr . Murray asked if the Commission would consider a dark
brown/black mixture for the roof . Chairman Harris stated that
the Commission would have to see a sample .
7 Lynn Street
Robin s Arthur Bell presented an application for a Certificate of.
Appropriateness to remove a section of a picket fence which
served as a gate to the driveway at their property at 7 Lynn
Street . Chairman Harris stated that the work was completed
without approval of the Commission and that the owners had been
sent a Notice of Violation.
Mr . Bell stated that the length of fence that had been hinged to
serve as a gate had been permanently left open for several years
and was removed in the Summer.
Mr. Carr felt that the fence removal was an enlargement of the
the break in the fence . Mr . Carr noted that a small section of
fence was also .removed from next to the house and that the
opening no longer looked like a driveway opening. Mr . Bell
stated that it was difficult to negotiate the driveway with the
small piece of fence there . Mr . Carr stated that the
Commission ' s guidelines try to keep the fences on the stre.etscape
and that the removal of the fence defeats the guidelines . Mr.
Carr preferred that the small fence 'be put back and that a gate
be reinstalled that could be closed if desired.
Chairman Harris asked if cars could drive in and park on an
angle . Mr. Bell replied in the affirmative .
Mr . Oedel made a motion that the applicant replace the picket
fence from the house to the end of the landscaping timber and
replace the gate that was hinged to the left of the driveway.
There was no second.
• Mr . Bell stated that he wouldn ' t mind adding pickets next to the
house if some pickets could be removed from the other side . Mr .
November 28, 1990, Page 5
Oedel stated that since the applicant has been given some
direction, he should come back with a proposal. .
• Mr . Carr made a motion to continue the application . Ms . Guy
stated that since no applications were received for the December
12 meeting, it has been cancelled. Since the time limit on Mr .
Bell ' s application would expire before the January 2 meeting, Ms .
Guy stated that the application must either be denyed or
withdrawn.
Mr . Bell withdrew his application and will. apply for one of the
two January meetings .
82 Federal. Street
Eva Fournier presented an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness to change the rear porch railing at 82 Federal
Street to wood as per drawings submmitted. The steps , poles and
porch size will remain the same . The work proposed will bring
the railing up to building codes .
Mr . John Audesse, the contractor representing Ms . Fournier,
provided photographs of the traditional railing proposed that he
had installed on other properties .
Mr . Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted.
Mr . Cook seconded the motion . All were in favor and the motion
so carried.
Other Business
18 Crombie Street - Ms . Guy stated that the Design Review Board
will be discussing the proposal by Holyoke to demolish 18 Crombie
Street on Wednesday, December 5, 1990 at 8 : 30 a.m. Ms . Guy
stated there is also a possibility that the Salem Redevelopment
Authority (SRA) may discuss it at their December 3, 1990 meeting .
at 4 : 30 p .m. Ms . Guy stated that Stanley Smith of Historic
Boston, Inc . sent a copy of a letter he wrote to Joan Boudreau,
Chairman of the SRA.
Ms . Guy stated that there will be no meeting on December 12 ,
1990 . The next meeting of the Commission will be Wednesday,
January 2, 1990 .
Ms . Guy stated that she received a copy of a letter from Brona
Simon to the Federal Highway Administration regarding the Skerry
House Archaeological report .
Ms . Guy asked if the fence at 10 Chestnut Street had been
completed. Chairman Harris replied in the negative and requested
that another reminder letter be sent indicating that the deadline
to complete the fence has passed.
Ms . Guy asked if the reclapboarding at 15 Beckford had been
• completed. Mr . Carr stated that the asbestos shingles had been
removed and it appeared work was in progress at preparing to
November 28, 1990, Page 6
reclapboard. Ms . Guy stated that she will hold off sending a
letter .
• Ms . Guy asked if any of the members checked the fence at 171
Federal Street . Mr . Carr stated that he would ride by it .
Ms . Guy stated that the members could borrow a preservation video
that the Planning Department has purchased from New York state .
Mr . Pierce so borrowed the tape .
Policies, Procedures, Protocol & Conflicts
Mr . Pierce stated that he was concerned with the perception given
to the public when Commission members do work on buildings
located in historic districts . Mr. Pierce felt it is in
violation of the interpretation of the Conflict of Interest
bylaw. Mr . Pierce was concerned that the public will feel if
they want something approved, they should hire himself as the
architect, Mr . Hedstrom as the carpenter, Mr . Cook as their
real.tor, or Mr . Carr as their lawyer, etc .
Mr . Pierce stated that he has spoken to Assistant City Solicitor
Femino who stated that if the Commission wants to pursue whether
any conflicts exist, the Commission must vote to send a letter to
him requesting his review and preparation of a judgement . Mr .
Femino had indicated that each individual case is separate .
Mr . Slam stated that he thought that Chapter 40C required
preservation professionals on the Board and felt that the two
laws conflict .
Mr . Carr stated that the statute is not only for actual. conflicts
of -interest but for the appearances of conflicts . Mr . Carr
agreed that the public could perceive that in order to get an
easy time with the Commission, they should hire a Commission
member . Mr. Carr added that even if the member abstains from
voting, the public might perceive that through respect for the
abstaining member, the application will. have an easy review.
Mr . Slam asked if anyone in the community has complained.
Chairman Harris replied in the negative .
Mr . Stanton felt a conflict would exist even if the member
removed himself from voting on the particular application .
Chairman Harris suggested that Messrs . Carr and Stanton research
the issue and render a preliminary opinion .
Mr. Pierce noted that he has refused six projects in historic
districts because he is on the Commission and felt it would be a
conflict of interest .
• There being no further business, Mr . Slam made a motion to
adjourn . Mr. Cook seconded the motion . All were in favor and
November 28, 1990, Page 7
the motion so carried.
Respectfully mitted,
Jane Guy
Clerk f thlCmission
JHisCom8/112890
December 12 , 1990, Page 1
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION .
MINUTES
DECEMBER 12, 1990
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on
Wednesday, December 12 , 1990 at 7 : 30 p .m. , One Salem Green,
Salem; MA 01970 . Present were Chairman Harris and Messrs . Slam,
Carr, Hedstrom, Oedel and Stanton and Ms . Guy.
The Commission members congratulate Dan & Tracey Pierce on the
birth of their daughter.
111 Federal Street
Mary Hanley presented an application for a Certificate of
Non-Applicability for the complete rebuilding of a second floor
exterior rail around the porch at her home at 111 Federal Street .
The applicants contractor, David Full, stated that he will reuse
the 62 pieces of existing wrought iron ballasters .
Mr . Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted.
Mr . Slam seconded the motion . All were in favor and the motion
so carried.
174 Federal Street
Donald Wallace presented an application for a Certificate of }
Non-Applicability to restain the body Driftwood Grey, the ,
• pediment and accent trim Slate Grey and the remaining trim white
as existing at his home at 174 Federal Street . The application
is also to replace 7 rotted windows with Anderson Thermal pane in
the same height and width as existing in the locations noted on
the application . The rear door as noted in the application is to
be replaced and the application proposes temporary installation
of 6 wooden window boxes until 1/2/90, replacement of missing
clapboards, replacement of missing sillboard and replacement of
sash on the third floor front facade window. Ms . Guy stated that
she had taken pictures of the property and felt that the 7
windows and door were not visible from the public way . Ms . Guy ,
showed on the pictures where the applicant proposes to replace
missing clapboard and sill.board. Ms . Guy noted that Mr . Wallace
will be filing an application for permanent installation of the
window boxes for the next meeting. _ Ms . Guy stated that the
painting had already commenced and that Ms . Joyce Wallace of 172
Federal Street had telephoned with concern that portions of the
house may have different body tones .
Mr . Carr was concerned that the pediment of the building was not
being painted the body 'color and felt that the homeowner should
establish what the pre-existing color was . Mr. Carr stated that
the pediment should be the body color .
Mr . Carr made a motion to approve the application as submitted
• with the exception of the painting, conditional that the windows
and door are . not visible from the public way . The motion
includes that the Commission strongly recommends that the
December 12 , 1990, Page 2
homeowner duplicate the existing windows . The motion also
•
includes that the homeowner cease and desist all painting and appear at the 1/2/90 meeting to establish the pre-existing color
scheme of the building of which the Commission believes was
without an accent color. Mr . Hedstrom seconded the motion .
Chairman Harris felt that the Commission could allow the
homeowner to paint the body but not the pediment .
Mr . Carr amended his motion that the applicant should cease and
desist the painting of the pediment only.
Mr. Slam stated that the applicant should have known better than,
to commence painting without an approved application .
Mr . Carr withdrew his amendment . The motion was voted upon . All
were in favor and the motion so carried.
Preservation Master Plan
Ms . Kim Brengle of Northfields Preservation Associates, the
consultant hired to complete a Preservation Master Plan, was
present to discuss the scope of the project and to solicit input
from the Commission members . Ms . Brengle also will consider the
impact that expansion or creation of districts will have on the
Commission ' s workload.
• Mr. Carr suggested that the plan address projects that will
improve historic districts such as underground utilites and
period lighting with streets and neighborhoods prioritized.
Mr . Carr stated that he was concerned if a second commission were
added that the two boards will have different standards . Mr.
Carr stated that the Board of Appeals oversees the entire City
and that it was politically unheard of in Salem to have two
boards for the same purpose .
Mr . Hedstrom suggested that applications for properties in
specific districts be considered at separate meetings and that
additional meetings may be needed each month.
,Mr . Carr suggested that there be a mechanism for joint meetings
of neighborhood and preservation groups .
Chairman Harris suggested that someone from the Commission be on
the Board of the Salem Partnership . Chairman Harris also felt
that the duties of the Historic Commission staff be expanded and
additional staff added.
Mr . Oedel felt that more public relations was needed. Mr. Oedel
stated that a 14 person rotating board could be considered.
Washington Square District Expansion
• Ms . Guy presented a map which provided boundaries of the existing
local and National Register districts around the Salem Common.
December 12 , 1990, Page 3
The map also provided the suggested boundaries for expansion of
the National Register District that were defined by Ms . Brengle
„• and Debra Hilbert in 1987 . Ms . Guy stated that the map showing
the boundaries for expansion of the local district has been
misplaced and, for the sake of discussion, the National Register
expanded boundaries could be used.
Ms . Brengle provided a summary of the steps to expand a district .
Mr . Carr felt that a portion of Bridge Street and the area around
Pleasant and Webb Streets should be added.
Mr . Slam asked if it were possible for the expanded area to
exclude paint colors . Ms . Brengle replied in the affirmative .
Chairman Harris felt that paint color could be eliminated. Mr.
Hedstrom suggested a separate committee for paint colors .
Mr . Carr stated that a notice should be sent from the Historic
Commission to everyone within the proposed boundary, inviting
them to a public hearing to provide information on the expansion
of the district .
Mr . Oedel made a motion that a public meeting be held before the
end of January, 1991 and that the public notice be sent on
Historic Commission letterhead. Mr. Slam seconded the motion .
Chairman Harris preferred that the meeting be before
mid-February .
• The motion was voted upon . Messrs . Carr, Slam, Oedel , Hedstrom
and Stanton voted in favor. Chairman Harris voted in opposition .
The motion so carried.
Mr . Oedel made a motion the an invitation be sent to each
location within the green boundary and to include Pleasant to
Bridge St . Mr . Carr seconded the motion. All were in favor and
the motion so carried.
Mr . Carr suggested a slide show at the public hearing. Mr.
Hedstrom suggested that the Commission obtain slides from the
Essex Institute to show how houses used to look. Mr . Carr
suggested that areas that look better then than now be included.
74 Washington Sq. E
Ms . Guy stated that, at the request of a Commission member, she
had sent a letter to the owners of 74 Washington Sq. E who had
commenced painting on their home . Ms. Guy read the reply she
received from Michael Johnson, on behalf of the condominium
association, which included a copy of a letter sent by Mr . Kent
Healy to the Building Department . Ms . Guy showed the Commission
a draft letter she had written in reply.
• Mr . Carr stated that the letter should add "Mr . Healy was
incorrect . and that the Commission should approve a Certificate
of Non-applicability now and enclose it with the letter .
December 12 , 1990, Page 4
Mr. Carr made a motion to approve a Certificate of
Non-applicability for repainting at 74 Washington Sq. East . Mr .
Slam seconded the motion . All were in favor and the motion so
carried.
Bridge Street Project
Chairman Harris read copies of letters sent to FHWA from Brona
Simon and Don Klima .
Ms . Guy presented a plan of the newest design on the portion of
the Bridge Street project from Washington to Boston Street . Mr .
Carr stated that he, Mayor Harrington and Ellen DiGeronimo met
with several neighbors last evening and felt that the neighbors
were generally receptive toward the new design . Ms . Guy stated
that Mayor Harrington is hoping for the Commission ' s endorsement
even if a special meeting is called before the January 2 meeting.
Mr . Carr stated that the Commission could not formally vote on
the design without a public hearing and that any vote could not
endorse the design of the entire project without seeing the
remaining designs .
The members felt that altou)A it would be difficult to get a
quorum before Christmas, it might be possible to have a meeting
on Thursday, December 20, 1990 . Messrs . Slam and Oedel stated
that they were not available on that evening. Chairman Harris
asked that Ms . Guy speak with Mayor Harrington on the issue .
• Violations
Chairman Harris stated that 29 Chestnut Street has started to
remove fencing.
Mr . Hedstrom stated that 9 Chestnut is constructing railing and
steps .
Ms . Guy will send letters to both property owners .
18 Crombie Street
Ms . Guy stated that Historic Salem, Inc . has sent a letter with
an addressed postcard to Joan Boudreau to all of their
membership, requesting that they indicate their opposition to the
demolition by mailing the card in .
Ms . Guy stated that she received a letter in opposition to the
demolition from the National Trust for Historic Preservation to
Joan Boudreau .
Guideline Revisions
Ms . Guy provided the guidelines subcommittee with drafts of
several sections of the guidelines . Chairman Harris suggested
that Mr . Stanton also review the drafts . Ms . Guy suggests a
subcommittee meeting in February .
December 12 , 1990, Page 5
Their being no further business, Mr . Slam made a motion to
adjourn . Mr. Hedstrom seconded the motion. All were in favor
and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submit ed,
Jane A. G
Clerk of t e Commis ion
JHisOom8/121290
•
4
25070 YELLOW
25071 BLACK
25072 LIGHT BLUE
25073 DARK BLUE
25074 LIGHT GRAY
25075 LIGHT GREEN
25076 DARK GREEN
25077 TANGERINE
25078 RED 4
25079 EXECUTIVE RED
WITH WATER RESISTANT
[D[jEg ff4C52Z®
COVERS
CaAC
A000 ACCO INTERNATIONAL INC,
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60619
O
6