Loading...
14 CHESTNUT STREET - DISTRICT FILES 14 Chestnut St i . o INK Salem Historical Commission 120 WASHINGTON STREET,SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (978)619-5685 FAX(978)740-0404 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS It is hereby certified that the Salem Historical Commission has determined that the proposed: ❑ Construction ❑ Moving ❑ Reconstruction ❑ Alteration ❑ Demolition ❑ Painting ❑ Signage ❑ Other work as described below will be appropriate to the preservation of said Historic District, as per the requirements set forth in the Historic District's Act(M.G.L. Ch. 40C) and the Salem Historic Districts Ordinance. District: McIntire Address of Property 14 C hectnnt 4treet Name of Record Owner: Thomas A. Murrav, III Description of Work Proposed: Replacement of roof on main part of house with either GAF/ELK Grandslate in Mystic Slate or Slate line in Emerald Green. Dated: December 20 2012 SALEM HISTORICA COMMISSION By. f 11 ✓ The homeowner has the option not to commence the work (unless it r tes to resolving an outstanding violation). All work commenced must be completed within one year from this date unless otherwise indicated. THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. Please be sure to obtain the appropriate permits from the Inspector of Buildings (or any other necessary permits or approvals) prior to commencing work. ' ��+�'f. , . .� . N �h`s� �. h:" y �,. � � �: 's � ..�._... J , .,,� ������ 'I�r�LPa Y 1L , � iy����� ���o��o t� � r �� �J t `.� S tii'fh � .. a r 'S ,'Y ,. � ' �' 2 y.' t - �, ._� - �� i YJ� _. Y• ���� � ■ I tl /yGtiasl'nr/� f ��.�/�o i V ' ilk- ly RF.. fit. /Y �i�a�' ��io%id �F � �Ir �y Y i. y/3 9 � 1 � .�., � j 3 �' i ���. r. „`. Jtt7 bit �y'�iesY�d�`' roe r2k)Ao ��`csa�� 'I��D/�D ,/ . � Y I, 4 YI, ` r I 1A li y �/3�9/ _ , ��� � : �. ' -- - ._ , . L.: { � . -sJ �'� �� � kms' r i ' _- �� rn� S�/�%/ h { J,e� \ /�fG6tPsYn� I • •A 1 • 1, � Cie 4.' r� l/�/G`ierl��ff r �s.:' `.� � � 1 � �" r I r aF. ,�.: �Lm"iE'�' .` .. � .,. �� . , r� �. u �= ' __ - , . � a � . . . � \���,\��/y : � §\����\����� \ � a ���, : \ ^�%«�� ' ':«�\% 2 - ®6� ���z \ . ® - y. , . » . . � a�\ _ : - �(4°�\�::�z�� � © �« ' y « ��q. v �/ � s . � � s _ '\�\� ���\ \/ �� ' ." & 9 }�Q;� ` oµ' \ r,wGR�sYn� t : .b v (i , i y��crn�- �J��/�� ti R I owl 111[1{I1` I ,(1 F�11 N i � f �, dw�� � ��ynvj _ �_ .. . ����l�o � �� i � �. � ; .. i J � '* �� � �' •`��. YGW'-6 //'�'J �' ,. , �; , �� �: \ � , .. �, � � t � � a „s�; w:, �- - - A/ � � , A\�J ��, a t m "� 6� ♦� .� Y��iW6„r4p � �Nil �L I��1 I���Y i ,Sj� Yvr �� v ►y =. . r __ � -,, _=:�.�- , ;i� Y � � � -r - �. I 1 �' ,�� /�FG�i�q'7n,/Y y/3/i _t � ° _ : � � .; /l�i���i ��3��- dry , eE - �: „� fir, •�� - i �� �J s. � �t �� _ �' Y � �'" -� - � y__ �. �. ■ w I �• T-- � �� �;' r'� _ � " ., � , E P. �' � a �� ��� �� ti.� - �`R ��� h I J: f o- _ A; E I - _. ,_ 3 /� ���� y N.. :. � � ._ �... yyf ' i. '� -� .. I L � . �.�G; i �"' �� ,: .... �. C,2 6;17'Y.s Cj % - r 71 1 p�' 1 ; 4 . L way, _€ 04_ v tc 7 lei 4 173 o Salem Historical C ommissirA U�y y uyG,t 120 WASHINGTON STREET i. _ ,I 19791619 6a5 -.ax:9 ;;c; COPWAt- APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Pursuant to the Historic District's Act (M.G.L. Chapter 40C) and the Salem Historical Commission Ordinance, application is hereby made for issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for: New Construction ❑ Moving rrI Reconstruction Demolition 11 Alteration Painting ❑ Sign ���� �� L Other District: 11 Derby Street - Lafayette Street I�Fplclntire ' r []Washington Square Address of Property: , I �Sl/V Name of Record Owner(s): `J �i1�j�C, /A Owner Mailing Address: Description of Work Proposed (Please include required scale cb-mvings,paint chips, catalag etas and/or sump/es q materiulproposed, ivhere applicable) &C,4/ zs 144, • • • CM Name of Applicant: #61" Pr/12A,4s/ Axj ncr Contractor Tenant Other: Tel. #: 79Y 16l/6- F-mail Address: SRLeW> Cer4 icate will he mailed to the 1)"wer unless otherwise indictued here: Certificate should be mailed to: Name Mailing address: City: State:_Zip: A PROCEDURES FOR FILING APPLICATIONS A. Be prepared to apply for approvals well in advance of commencing any exterior work. Before making any changes to the exterior of a property in an historic district,the owner should call or visit the Commission representative at the Department of Planning&Community Development tc discuss proposed alterations and to determine the category of the application(Appropriateness,Non-Applicability or Hardship). B. The Commission normally meets on the first and third Wednesdays of each month and notices are posted at City Hall. The meetings are held at 120 Washington Street,3rd Floor,and begin at 7:00 p.m. All meetings are open to the public and any person is entitled to appear and be heard on any matter before the Commission before it reaches a decision. C. An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness or Hardship must be received by 3:00 p.m.on the Monday 16 days before the meetirg in order to make the agenda. An application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability may normally be added to the agenda up to the day of the meeting. In some cases,a Certificate of Non-Applicability maybe issued by the Clerk,without review by the full Commission,after notifying Commission members and allowing 24 hours for any objection. There is no fee for any applications. D. All applications for Certificates of Appropriateness or Hardship require a public hearing. Notice of the hearing must be posted with the City Clerk 14 days before the hearing and abutters must be notified in writing. Commission staff will handle these procedures. A public hearirg is not required for a Certificate of Non-Applicability. E. Applications must be submitted by the owner of the property. A contractor for the owner,at the owner's request,may submit an application on the owner's behalf. In case of a tenant,a waiver of the owner's appearance maybe granted at the discretion of the Commission if it is requested by the owner. F. All applications must include photos of existing conditions,taken from all public ways. No certificates can be issued until receipt of pho:os. G. An application will not be considered complete unless all work items are thoroughly described on scaled drawings and include specifications regarding dimensions, materials, and any other information needed for the Commission to visualize the changes in order to make a determination. Applications for paint colors should include a paint chip or chart. The following items should be included in your drawings as applicable(exhibits should be 8 %:x I 1 or be able to be folded to 8 %:x 11): 1. Site plan showing location of improvements; 2. Elevation drawings of the specific improvements; 3. Details/profiles(i.e.moldings, fence caps,cornices,vents,etc.); 4. Materials(i.e.wood,brick,etc.); 5. Dimensions(i.e.size of trim);and 6. Transformers,heat pump and condenser locations,electrical entries and meters,lamp posts,stove pipes. H. At the hearing,the Commission will discuss the application with the applicant or his representative,hear the abutters and take a vote. Owners having professional consultants such as architects or contractors are urged to have them be present at the hearing. If the application is approved, a Certificate will be mailed to the mailing address provided on the application and copies will be sent to the City Clerk and Building Inspector. Please note that the application can be continued until the next meeting if the Commission deems necessary(i.e. for reasons of incomplete drawings,to perform a site visit,etc.). In any case,the Commission must make adeternination within 60 days from the date the application is received,unless the applicant waives that requirement in writing. 1. A property owner or a contractor cannot receive a building permit unless a Certificate has been issued. Please be sure to obtain appropriate permits from the Inspector of Buildings(or other necessary permits and approvals)prior to commencing work. 1 The homeowner may opt not to commence the work approved(unless it relates to resolving an outstanding violation). Work commenced mist be completed within one year from the Certificate date unless otherwise indicated. K. The City of Salem reserves the right to inspect the project to determine compliance with the conditions set forth in the Certificate issued. Violations A person commencing orcompleting work to the exterior of building in an historic district without the necessary approval of the Commission is subject to fines of up to$500 per day from the date of violation. The Commission is not responsible for an owner's neglect to inquire about necessary City permis and approvals. All records are public and we will confidentially assist you if you are concerned that someone in your neighborhood is in violation. Assistance Tie Commission's guidelines are available for viewing at the City of Salem Department of Planning&Community Development(DPCD),at the Salem Public Library or on-line atbul)://ivwwsalemcom/Pa •/S�iIeniMA llistoric/index. The guidelines provide examples of what ishisto ricallyappropria. (or inappropriate) for Salems neighborhoods including trim, siding, barrier free access, doors, fences, ecuipment,paint colors.parking solutions.porches/steps,roofing,satellite dishes&solarene gutters/downspouts, masonry, mechanic2l etc. These guidelines help you understand what changes are likely or unlikely to be approved. The hetCommissi n supportsegress,skylights,utilities,windows, property and can guide you on historical appropriateness. Further information,includingCi yinventories,our is arts a le. o r more in:orrnation,contact the Clerk of the Commission at the DPCD, 120 Washington Street,Salem,MA 9710,978 619-5985 es, is available. For more Rev.10'12 �k�'•.� itz,., hA; ��t�� r, . II y� . k , Awli �;c `'a ��.�&�► �4 1;� j�a . ;�.e'-. ..b,T'mel►: �► e A c i f' UT %I ip i mg" ftr rs+ y 1 3 a; .r !rI %. }♦(r IVA :.IL AS Ad` : _ l C ` � r � i �r last . ..L , lltwn 6Ssa rc'E9Esw i NO M �# d r iio-rd s° O e A�'FTv!- 7Ry�• �` _ r � 1 rAll � , s %" _ _ 1 U 1 nr f'_�I ♦ f P i f L Y li lya IP `f1R • e «s��� .. �� CA k r AAyypp,, '..I }1• it i/311,-5 v:. .V t 'r `f I�r1 .dy q �R♦•v ,jpf } f rte'v� d C L-'�rvlT 4 y. �IG`jj ��yy W� :'n ►.r9w'�` ws 7r i b- t r I AID, MM �.'f.. y r SLArELINE LIFETIME DP.6'uoo- SHINGLES opr s TM w r� I• , r7- i!x ru - �. .. �• .7uR F a A/PPP� A� LAW Ilk 6. AIIIA U o / 0, 011 \ s � � oAli � _m yyl�Lkkrr 1 ,� p� O ONN �y �c J 1 f Pi f 411 I awl �1. . i W 4 aw I• m F y� S310NIHS -/•�1i�/sd� 3W113d11 r N,UOAU13:lpuku r CAPSTONE LIFETIME De6 ' iterSHINGLES x(1 t , 1 � 1 a i E a . L MIS h , JJ t `1 Ljl. y 4 i � ljti� is r/il '%1#I i/j 'd• "r �' ',j'j�llil � 11 'll , ' ilj'��t;'' r ••+� • 'i rr I � ::. .. . � .tll j�1i1�11.eh� ,tl iii �j,■% ��tr,•� •� ' , S " i. : �g +� e�llll. � ' �Q�' ��/ ■Milo- � • ^ i III t1� 119 1 t � Q'r�ir tltrea t r �; I i1��„Nt Iii y oP ��u'. � �� � 1. t ♦ 1 I ��:.�.j. ���"� �� ;„ i �, ;� � �11■1 � Iy1 '.Ids-t11N. • �a O leePilo's will �qi i!1 l;Ili�;�:► 1 � Q �j 1 11 'E■ -I ■ j t .��1�,'��''■� 1 11 ''i '�'�' 1'!p;! . q' �,•i,�, ,, , ,�. `i 'r � ��jij�, i:� 1 ®•fit :�. ��. ��-� ;�, ISN t,_ �`i 1 ! f 'r9, sl m i `, 1,` (''� - , th ��� ■ !. �n I P� 1, nIlli i r/ r i rt - 1= i� � ■ 't;l'� . ' 1 1 ' t 1 nllr /'ti"r•�� � � � til■ � ��+� _ ■, d �� n�tS' Is 111 =lj�■ 1 ' t i'1 II ��t " n �(�1 �■6 1 ��1 1 ;"t��l� 1 t � s,�li�i�. �f,'` s � ( I� � ' ^ � ail�'�■,'�� ��. r:1' �i��' � all. i' T i■I�i I 1■�j1,9���� .it ti �Wi 1INN Ite° ■� �::1� � r 1F1�+� i■■ till% ffffff I � I a 1J1i g I 00 0 ( OCL) i a) W > �; x Z EE °t3 ` �Wlk �t. i ' II n fII 1 � - 1 S3lJNIHs 3WI13 :11 z ���m I I n1 , I h;1r s 111 r�. 'li��q�,rrrir�(li rf+f�1141'�'4j 1i 1111\4 \r r1l II'111,�Irr y � \ 1 \ \ , I I r r I = _ I � � r Its � I 1 I l Al , lAll 1 1111111 � ;. 1 1 111lI1 . 1 v ' 111 I ' 111 ? 11 1111111111 111,1 VIII / JJ 7 � 11 � � IIS ' 1111 vIr Ir � il �r V , a111111 II III II �Y � � SS / V1 11. 11 , Irllir 1111 1� , � 1v , Ilrll 1 1 1 - III, 1111111 1111 I I l/ 1 ) 11 1A f Ij II Ilij, 1 �� I I 1 �II� � I mum � �w�1ww www a p r }I11ip11va lly� , www www MOM MEW �y 1 I I 1 1 11i�1)'1�11i' 1 j 1 www www www 1,1 .' �F ��.1 l�1\1111111111v1,11v1v�,11�11111i w®w. I� ww NEW Y www ' wwwwww j t r/ l7 / It ,/ rt /rt ,1111 www wwwo� TWIN www w w I www � www � www - ilwww I ' tJ / t / / tI// ( /llt . 111111 wwwm www p wwww www L ` � �. r r fi I •iwww www _ � .m ys'i�. � r t �+ < lIl rlllr IIIIIIIiIr ML �. � �: � r 1111111 tl lrlu• 1u 'tl 1 ,ly'111,11111 � �., _ — �?� %1V 1111r� ,1,1111111111 � ' 111 .. I ' � � �1v r 111(11111111;1111 1 lirl'i � 1 ( \ I II 1 I L� 11 I I rl \ II I 1 11 VAAvr♦ 11 �' 11'I� 1:111 I WA MEMO ,t r ,Ir ��� 1.11 111111'11 frl 1111 I,I�I ��■�I 11 INS j' �I r ' tit ,I 1 1 r MORE •��M�_ I fft!/' //l fl�f tf ! Ir 11 i�11 I r' a owl cu z r ¢ G o`Rp u r E r ¢ c o o _ _ G W L Q != LU .j ` U U cn U o aFz LY m CEn J o ti N 19 R `c m z J C7 — W � U W aaCi m o C c� m C�3 ti cr �• , i O r W H � O t W w a J LZ y � 3 3 C p m 12 m y tz m y' 31 m R v G O y mco i / 1 3 ti y U R m C'3 m Cs y W y a c IZ r h r 'i i i m CZ h _ s ^ y = O zz cc O l y 3 cam ¢R Cs'] y IA � Q1 i � y a cW m a z • r� � mow ' :�, ■■■■■■ _ . i - – — .MEN r MEN WAS r \ / a�:� 9i MIN mm .Li Ir\ ok OF ZZ 47 \ 'I n :. Y � A � v � � Mae The Lifetime y� Designer Shingle h flection From s GAF-Ek '�' `a Simply... The Best! Maximizing your property's "visual appeal" / with a Lifetime Designer Shingle from GAF—Elk can be exciting, fun—and a smart investment. = Best Designs... Whatever your preference, GAF—Elk's Lifetime Designer Shingle Collection has become "the choice" of discerning property owners, designers, and architects. Our wide range of design choices includes shingles that emulate the rich look of natural materials like wood, slate, and stone. F Best Performance... GAF-Elk's Lifetime Designer Shingles far exceed ` industry performance standards—so its no surprise that they include exceptional warranty protection. Every GAF—Elk Lifetime Designer Shingle includes a lifetime ltd. war3anty against manufacturing defects, plus Smart Choice® protection (non—prorated reimbursement for replacement materials and installation labor) for the first ten years, and i3o mph wind coverage." , Best Quality... For your peace of mind, the highly trained experts , at the independent Good t r Housekeeping Institute have performed a rigorous , evaluation of GAF—Elk's research, quality control, NOuS��EVING and other key functions." *' 'See ltd. special warra�as for complete coverage and restrictions.130 mph wind speed coverage requires instillation. GAF-Elk Lifetime Designer shingles a key component of the GAF-Elk Smart Choice°Roof System So6dtlgn, - have aimed the reshglaus o d(louse a ing Seal,which means that Goad Housekeeping stands ehmd the products in A,system.(Refer to Good Housekeeping Magazine for Its consumer pmtectlon policy.) Quality You Can Trust Since 1886.. From North America's Largest Roofing Manufacturer"" ■ visit us at www.gaf.com I I� I5 =.a ■ e e: f �o mr Salem Historical Commission 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (978)619-5685 FAX (978)740-0404 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS It is hereby certified that the Salem Historical Commission has determined that the proposed: ❑ Construction ❑ Moving ❑ Reconstruction ❑ Alteration ❑ Demolition ❑ Painting ❑ Signage \# Other work as described below will be appropriate to the preservation of said Historic District, as per the requirements set forth in the Historic District's Act(M.G.L. Ch. 40C) and the Salem Historic Districts Ordinance. District: McIntire Address of Property: 14 t'hectnnr Street Name of Record Owner: Tom and Kate Murray Description of Work Proposed: Construction ofgazebo in location noted on plan of land Option,for design to be either Amish County Gazebos Pagoda or Majestic in 10'octagonal, painted white to match house trim. Roofshingles to be architectural in either Rustic Cedar or Weathered Wood Dated: July 11, 2011 SALEM HISTORICAL)QMMISSION By: The homeowner has the option not to commence the work (unless Vitelates to resolving an outstanding violation). All work commenced must be completed within one year from this date unless otherwise indicated. THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. Please be sure to obtain the appropriate permits from the Inspector of Buildings (or any other necessary permits or approvals) prior to commencing work. s 9 10 P da H Wawuti 10, MgiesNc ih Missioh Veip, a -- ----- )t --- - ----- --- ----------------- n 1 �i1Tv 10 -Food Ocfiyoh pzeho ,........ .•• /5 eS�c/a�� Po�t/�0.r/h ...�...�.� So `laew, /6 0. aNN it, -Nae svbv,,bs wkere lat sizes are gma/(er. IM I@llllU NIB -'ir ti. a r, / t j�. i i r � � iii � � ✓d CFre�e ks c��ey�N. I Rl �, Al Ki 3 � —^ `h f7i ✓r f S�04� w ` ` � �� Gb'12 v5ck 39-�sS`& io Ov f`�1^t,MMYY22FF»'1 y� ,.:l.R; \ 1• I Yr \. . lll... s Y � Yy 1 a M1 . w r yu♦ t 1 - t `p. �� ` � ,y�` .` ' �♦,� �� ����°tom — . em767w )g fit• } T � 'r ivy i�� it �1 i' � ,�5� 1 t- V .�A -. � 1� x*."vY Ara 5��0: +K � 'L a Q�,-•vt?1 °I'�'�- .� :�'•t i hf r i � w s j4ra » tebos - t'i •� 1, t � ` ����,/ ��� Nye •`y r f � a SHF d g� :r, t 1' .r.ctl !i x �•:r ,y WDM Np Y a S � ��� 1.F ti�7 k�4 •,.• 7 �f7 R.a 1 T •Y, � 7 ' > _ t Tse' 4 L w M Ir. .. 2 I� ?Q, a t S 1 !•' ! i'n":a •� S ' At 41 4f 2 `` �• .y\' {i \r • �• a y'S r s 3'v • Z, �a. a[� .� 4 • : tz SM1 ^ 9 � '.cam\b�•x\ �` ` ,Y�n Y�� � �''«. u " POP it AN. _ �f a r• y 1 . � •nr• f� - a �• y t , �r L F? � � • J a a Fq qi.,a � �{dy. a YVx. r urs a �� r-.• t I • ■ s S,ay.. • - � -- 1- ,eEt 2�y I •i V 5�'b�✓ N�....Y� r w r � I , f N 4 }4 YI Va ,L r l;heke SAS r lA' Pdit in 101141 1 .r b r � r '�� � �! � ""r;;..`..�. .�� " ,..; •art"'. r T..i: t v ti� ! �.,r�y'lr l.a-'`Y 1 Y�4`,.��r(1��y i•.� 1 - psb i:� p e S t b �� R''S7':Q!�YY, i I.j+ .. v~ � � �`e,14" Ti1R•h�fi`Q�r tr x, 4 y. _ OPTIONS 11.4: r White Vinyl hory Vinyl 5 [ .dlTl Color Choices t� Natural Wood Ckw N%Wd Finish Cedar Redwood 4hianheimmy 4M%UL�sh� 4Gmy 81ue Spruce Me s top Ten Weathervanes � �� Gazebou44Dw � To view our full line of weathervanes visit a AW c is Gke a wpv4e our website at AmishGazebos.com. uN!ltovF a d roY oh 40? -----------------TI --0---------- ----------I--------------- -------- Horse(580) 21'Eagle(502) Country Doctor(54B) Wine Bottle(917) Crowing Rooster(937) -------- ---------- ------ ----- -------------4- ----------- ------- ------- Standing Deer(638) Maher Bird with Chicks(912) Golfer(561) Cat and Butterflies(916) Angel(630) ---- --- - ------------------ -------------------------------------- EXPERIENCE No one has as much experi- Nnce or as many happy custom- !rs in America. Every year we erve homeowners in each of the UNPARALLELED ower 48 states, Hawaii, and the ASSEMBLY ASSISTANCE :aribbean. We've even delivered ,azebos to foreign countries. Our assembly manual, DVD, and customer service are the best WORLD CLASS in the business— after all, we've been perfecting them for over 20 SHIPPING SYSTEMS years. But should you have any We are the only gazebo corn- problems while assembling your )any with its ovm trucks for de- gazebo, our production manager ivering gazebos across the USA. stands ready to assist you. (He tour gazebo weighs more than loves his job...and we love him!) ?,000 pounds, so our packaging You will be given his cell phone tnd delivery systems make sure it number when your gazebo is deliv- s easy for you to accept delivery. ered. Believe it or not, he is avail- able 24/7. Now that's service! ---- -- - - - -- - - - - ------------ - - - - - - - - - -------------- - ------- ARE BETTER { In order to serve you better we now have a facility in CA. As you hill see on the en- Amish Country Gazebos is the closed DVC, our brother Tom only gazebo company with enough and his driving associates love confidence to offer a LIFETIME to deliver gazebos all across GUARANTEE. This guarantee America. applies to both wood and vinyl gazebos. A priceless investment with a lifetime guarantee. ------------ -- - - -- - - - -- --- - --- --- -- --- - -- - - - -- - - - - --- -- - - - - ----- - - - ------- - - -- - - - - - ---- THE BEST LUMBER 2 x 6 FLOOR JOISTS WE ONLY DO GAZEB( We use only hand-selected, Again, some companies use 2 This single-minded focus #1 grade, pressure-treated, twice x 4s. Our Amish Country Gazebo benefits you in many ways: fro kiln-dried southern yellow pine 2 x 6 floor joists are 50 percent engineered precision and quali 111i ghout our Amish Country stronger! craftsmanship, to world-class bos. Other companies throw packaging and clear assemb n #2 and #3 grade lumber SCREWS, NOT NAILS instructions. where they think they can No other gazebo company We are the man get away with it, uses stain-resistant screws facturer, so th And we use throughout the gazebo like is no middlem more of it. An Amish Country Gazebos. — By buying direct fn Amish Coun- Other gazebos are made with specialists, you know try Gazebo nails. We use only screws. you're etting the finest qualit) has 20 to 30 gazebo at the best price, guarai percent more teed. And we back it up with i lumber than oche- 5-STEP PAINT PROCESS best service in the industry. companies' gazebos. Your vinyl We are the only gazebo com- gazebo is equally more substantial. pany that uses the exact same paint booth car detailers use to paint 2 x 6 ROOF RAFTERS Most companies use 2x4s. - -- ---------------- - - - ------------------- - -- -- - - - - - - - - - The 2 x 6 rafters in an Amish OUR / Country Gazebo are 50 percent stronger! 1 x 6 TONGUE AND expensive cars. This enables us to GROOVE CEILING provide the best gazebo paint job Many companies use plywood in America. The five steps include: or knotty cedar boards for the ceil- (1) hand-sanding, (2) prime coat, ing. It pales in comparison to the (3) hand-sanding again, (4) first beauty and strength of#1, hand- coat of paint, and (5) second coat selected, pressure-treated lumber of paint. in a word...smooth. that we use in your gazebo ceiling. SUPERIOR VINYL MATERIALS When you select a maintenance- Really friendly people who free vinyl gazebo from Amish are really easy to reach—Your Country Gazebos, you can be sure gazebo designer is readily avail it won't fade or yellow. It will hold able and eager to assist you fro, its smooth texture and strength. 8:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. Monda} Yes, it may cost us a bit more, but through Thursday and from 9 in the long run it pays to provide a.m. to 3 p.m. Friday and Satu vinyl products made with the day. (Please come visit us to se highest quality resin. your gazebo being made.) 4 -------------------------------------------- Tan's liHle deln,ev� !ruck. - -- _ Chet Beiler (founder), I-eon (general manager), Mel (lead designer), and Tom (trucker) Mel guides you, our valued are committed to core values customer, through the gazebo dis- like integrity, reliability, service, covery process, relying upon his 25 excellence, and total customer years in roofing and construction. That's why Amish Country Ga- satisfaction. In some companies, And Tom, your lead delivery man, zebos never wavers from the time- they are just words in a mission revels in his love of people and less values it holds dear, why each statement, lost in a filing cabinet travel. With well over 2,000,000 individual gazebo is approached as in a forgotten storage room. At miles in his rear view mirror, he a work of an, and why each indi- Amish Country Gazebos, they are wouldn't trade places with anyone! vidual customer is treated as our the lifeblood of the company, only customer. Together, the Beiler Brothers They represent the values —and all of your friends at Amish that were instilled in the Beiler Country Gazebos—are dedicated brothers as they grew up on their to making sure you love every picturesque 100-acre dairy farm. aspect of your gazebo design and And those are the values that to- delivery experience. That's right, _ day form the basis of the compa- love it,just like thousands of other - ny's every interaction. homeowners. SERVING Y Q U It's the best way of ensuring • that, from your first call until you -------------- ------------------- _ -- finally relax inside your new ga- zebo, you will consider your Amish Each brother brings some- Country Gazebo to be one of the thing special to the process that best decisions you ever made. allows you to discover the best possible gazebo for 4 your landscape. Chet applies the vision and Tah C6-4 leadership skills he forged as a scholarship student and student body president at Pepperdine University. Leon brings the maturity and discipline honed Lech as quality assurance manager for Auntie Anne's Soft Pretzels. i' 3 - - ------ ------------------------------------------------------- --- cot r� Although the Amish are famous This is especially impor- t V l+ for their beautiful dairy farms, they Cant to the Beiler Brothers, who have for centuries been excellent themselves grew up on an Amish y •„• woodworkers, too. family farm. And this upbringinf gives you a glimpse into the char- With the increasing difficulty of acter of the family at the heart of "� ' Yn •( r making ends meet on a small farm, Amish Country Gazebos. GAZEBOS/ they have expanded their tmpres- TM sive woodworking skills to adapt 1h” eQ'�yah oh to this changing economy. Indeed, 5 "{` their old world craftsmanship and evident pride in their work are resonating far beyond their farms and fields. As a result, Amish crafts, a; including gazebos, are creating new sources of revenue for the i community and are delighting people worldwide through compa- nies like Amish Country Gazebos. --------------------- - - - ---------- FOUR BROTHEI -- - - - .. i/1�OtN .V�VIAS ave ho�d-,w.- l a by Levi. 1 e Sellev,, ay14'5 5�"w& Faun u4" Md Uel; Leo+ x-d Tan paw q wA - I a Architectural Shingle Color Choices Ru;uc N.'A Virginia Slate Weathered Wood Oxford Grey Rustic Evergreen Olde Ingluh Pewter Rustic Redwood Rtlslic Cedm R,ni llsl:n •'t.�-fiff� Gray Composite Redwood �K .�riYSlt a✓e FOIt�pJS .For' �tKn' Composite be v A !Favors and l e oAw✓k1hy skills. Wood Sfe�her/ F � /Yli%'red ./, I Sd/�,�r} ,9��ierla�urn sa/vo fP a 5.3 �u v hn 0 Z9_T � I a 404 12-70 IV CfJES T/V U T S'T/eEET BENCH 0 �'� I q�MM6 Salem Historical Commission 120 WASHINGTON STREET,SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (978) 745-9595 EXT.311 FAX (978)740-0404 CERTIFICATE OF NON-APPLICABILITY It is hereby certified that the Salem Historical Commission has determined that the proposed: ❑ Construction ❑ Moving ❑ Reconstruction ❑ Alteration ❑ Demolition Painting ❑ Signage ❑ Other Work as described below does not involve an exterior architectural feature or involves a feature covered by the exemptions or limitations set forth in the Historic District's Act(M.G.L. Ch. 40C) and the Salem Historic Districts Ordinance. District: McIntire Address of Property: 14 Chestnut St Name of Record Owner: Thomas & Katherine Murray Description of Work Proposed: Repainting of house in existing colons. No changes in color, material, design or outward appearance. Non- applicable due to being in kind maintenance. Dated: June 23, 2010 SALEM C MMISSION By: The homeowner has the option not to commence the work (unless it relates to resolving an outstanding violation). All work commenced must be completed within one year from this date unless otherwise indicated. THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. Please be sure to obtain the appropriate permits from the Inspector of Buildings (or any other necessary permits or approvals) prior to commencing work. 9��MIry6�� Salem Historical Commission 120 WASHIN13TON STREET,SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (978)745.9595 EXT.311 FAX (978)740-0404 CERTIFICATE OF NON-APPLICABILITY It is hereby certified that the Salem Historical Commission has determined that the proposed: ❑ Construction ❑ Moving -0, Reconstruction ❑ Alteration ❑ Demolition ❑ Painting ❑ Signage ❑ Other Work as described below does not involve an exterior architectural feature or involves a feature covered by the exemptions or limitations set forth in the Historic District's Act(M.G.L. Ch. 40C) and the Salem Historic Districts Ordinance. District: McIntire Address of Property: 14 Chestnut Street Name of Record Owner: Thomas A. & Katherine V- Murray Description of Work Proposed: Repoint chimneys as needed to replicate existing(mortar thickness, color and texture to match existing). No changes in color, material, design or outward appearance. Non-applicable due to being in kind maintenance. Dated: March 17, 2010 SALEM O AL MISSION By: The homeowner has the option not to commence the work (unless it relates to resolving an outstanding violation). All work commenced must be completed within one year from this date unless otherwise indicated. THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. Please be sure to obtain the appropriate permits from the Inspector of Buildings (or any other necessary permits or approvals) prior to commencing work. THOMAI A MU 1 ® 14 CHESTNU ORRA ® MMY ® SALE A 01970-3131 1j 4 , i 1 4F lF.-. e, •y \ 7Katlierii7Murra,; ' ... I 00 fi'�.i+p" w n r r i ...+r' r w a , '$y t i, � �.�- �� Katherine Murrac tea' 14 Chestnut St Salem, MA 0 1970-313 1 r ff t_ t i f , i V . r i wit, ' N l I r_ iI r: ���1 1 J r,. � 1� h�►. y s��i% J � J „ m N ! .Il®rpjl Al, g Km cnp 1 s. ALL_ o+,'v. rh ' b 1•„ 10'. S' 1 . w /7. A n Katherine Mtur;iv 14 Chestnut tic Salem, MA 01970-3131 �Y f ^'.Y"^+. ^M.- ,•!�°' +. "+...fir .�i4 � �'O1,`` ar v/YI'4 • �1:4 /'� �_ �i �.... .eve 1� ..+'� �'�� �?��' �%•. Mrs, Thomas A. Murray, III 14 Chestnut 5treet 5alem, MA 01,970-3131 IN o n u "a5M � t q asw'k� "-nr„awc� is t l:. Salem Historical Commission 120 WASHINGTON STREET,SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (978) 745-9595 EXT. 311 FAX (978) 740.0404 CERTIFICATE OF NON-APPLICABILITY It is hereby certified that the Salem Historical Commission has determined that the proposed: ❑ Construction ❑ Moving Reconstruction ❑ Alteration ❑ Demolition ❑ Painting ❑ Signage ❑ Other Work as described below does not involve an exterior architectural feature or involves a feature covered by the exemptions or limitations set forth in the Historic District's Act (M.G.L. Ch. 40C) and the Salem Historic Districts Ordinance. District: McIntire Address of Property: 14 Chestnut Street Name of Record Owner: Thomas& Katherine Murray Description of Work Proposed: Repoint chimney to replicate existing. No changes in color, material, design or outward appearance. Non- applicable due to being in kind maintenance. Dated: May 26, 2009 SALE T L COMMISSION By: The homeowner has the option not to commence the work (unless it relates to resolving an outstanding violation). All work commenced must be completed within one year from this date unless otherwise indicated. THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. Please be sure to obtain the appropriate permits from the Inspector of Buildings (or any other necessary permits or approvals) prior to commencing work. fir• f r, 4" 4 A R Aft 1 ;AA lk,i > -Are r r< r ' e F r- i .y n� 4� T _ a I�� a ���'�� :„1 f,. !n�. 13�� '. I _ I S�- i� � `—� i Y. ,y +r [1 re:u i i ' p f. a ' T p � t . \ � <' � � - � \ 3. :.. ��� i\ 0 K tR Salem Historical Commission 120 WASHINGTON STREET,SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (978) 745-9595 EXT. 311 FAX (978) 740-0404 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS It is hereby certified that the Salem Historical Commission has determined that the proposed: ❑ Construction ❑ Moving ❑ Reconstruction1 Alteration El Demolition (� Painting ❑ Signage ❑ Other work as described below will be appropriate to the preservation of said Historic District, as per the requirements set forth in the Historic District's Act (M.G.L. Ch. 40C) and the Salem Historic Districts Ordinance. District: McIntire Address of Property- 14 Chestnut Sr Name of Record Owner: Katherine & Thomas Murray Description of Work Proposed: Repair/replace .ride porch to replicate existing. Raise railing height to meet code,posts to be proportional. Risers to he one piece with overhang and molding. No other changes in color, material, design, location or outward appearance. Dated: May 8, 2008 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION By: C? (4 (.eC �/'7 f ' /—(7� The homeowner has the option not to commence the work (unless it relates to resolving an outstanding violation). All work commenced must be completed within one year from this date unless otherwise indicated. THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. Please be sure to obtain the appropriate permits from the Inspector of Buildings (or any other necessary permits or approvals) prior to commencing work. n p Salem Historical Commission 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 �57gi '15 EXT. 311 FAX (978) 740-0404 c LR I IFIC A A E OF NON-APPLICABILITY It is hereby certified that the Salem Historical Commission has determined that the proposed: ❑ Construction ❑ Moving Reconstruction ❑ Alteration Demolition ❑ Painting ❑ Signage ❑ Other Work as described below does not involve an exterior architectural feature or involves a feature covered by the exemptions or limitations set forth in the Historic District's Act(M.G.L. Ch. 40C) and the Salem I Iistoric Districts Ordinance. District: McIntire Address of Property: 14 Chestnut St Name of Record Owner: Katherine & Thomas Murray Description of Work Proposed: Reconstruct f n window on front ofhouse In replicate existing. Repainting ofhouse as needed. No changes in color, material. desisi�n or outward appearance. Non-applicable due to being in kind maintenancelreplacen:ent. Dated: April 3, 3008 SALEMHIS" MISSION By: The homeowner has the option not to commence the work (unless it relates to resolving an outstanding violation). All work commenced must be completed within one year from this date unless otherwise indicated. H IIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. Please be sure to obtain the appropriate permits from the Inspector of Buildings (or any other necessary permits or approvals) prior to commencing work. �,•,�� ' ;��$° M�:.I��,ir^�'°... S Via. IV \ 7 f p'j All 44 �E I Rji V.�Aw �, of m y . ►.I �r Y. `• l r MPF �, '_�- - tea•. ♦ � _ 1`14 !a Ili y v co r 3! Salem Historical Commission ONE SALEM GREEN.SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (978)745-9595 EXT 311 FAX(978)740-0404 CERTIFICATE OF NON-APPLICABILITY It is hereby certified that the Salem Historical Commission has determined that the proposed: ❑ Construction ❑ Moving ❑ Reconstruction ❑ Alteration ❑ Demolition ❑ Painting ❑ Signage ❑ Other Work as described below does not involve an exterior architectural feature or involves a feature covered by the exemptions or limitations set forth in the Historic District's Act (M.G.L. Ch. 40C) and the Salem Historic Districts Ordinance. District: McInIntire Address of Property: 14 Chestnut St. Name of Record Owner: Thomas A. III & Katherine V. Murray Description of Work Proposed: Repainting of house and fence in existing colors. No change in color, material, design or outward appearance. Non-applicable due to being in kind maintenance. Dated: August 19, 1999 EM HISTORICAL COMMISSION By: The homeowner has the option not to commence the work (unless it relates to resolving an outstanding violation). All work commenced must be completed within one year from this date unless otherwise indicated. THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. Please be sure to obtain the appropriate permits from the Inspector of Buildings(or any other necessary permits or approvals) prior to commencing work. i Y • �:..- Y`�r J :M C �: 'DIY: \\r��~ -�� I`� / y Y T' v 5f c � zk? -� `�•,, �, —r rc+xr' � .- —.._ .. Illlilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllil IIIIIIIIII �.._ e ,CON OIT4�� If Salem Historical Commission CITY HALL. SALEM. MASS. 01970 '�'A<'OIMRl6(PSM CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS It is hereby certified that the Salem Historical Commission has determined that the proposed construction [ ] ; reconstruction [ ]; demolition [ ] ; moving [ ] ; alteration [X] ; painting [ ]; sign or other appurtenant fixture [ ] work as described below in the . . . McIntire Historic District. (NAME OF HISTORIC DISTRICT) Address of Property: 14 Chestnut St Name of Record Owner: Katherine & THomas Murray DESCRIPTION OF WORK PROPOSED: Removal of existing landscaping timbers next to driveway and replace with stone wall of same dimensions. will be appropriate to the preservation of said Historic District, as per the requirements set forth in the Historic District's Act (Mass. General Law Ch. 40C) and the Salem Historical Commission. Please be sure to obtain the appropriate permits from the Inspeceor of Buildines prior to commencing work. Dated: 10/6/94 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION 'f BY p _ Chairman I cc; City Clerk Building Inspector *��V��e • Salem Historical COM�aissivn CITY HALL. SALEM. MASS. 01970 CERTIFICATE OF HARDSHIP It is hereby certified that the Salem Historical Commission has determined that the proposed construction [ ]; reconstruction [ ]; demolition [ ]; moving [ ]; alteration ]; painting [ ]; sign or other appurtenant fixture [ ] work as described below in the . . . McIntire Historic District. (NAME OF HISTORIC DISTRICT) Address of Property: 14 Chestnut Street Name of Record Owner: Dr. & Mrs. Thomas Murray III ' DESCRIPTION OF WORK PROPOSED: Replace existing asphalt roof with Bird PRC Seal King "Wood Blende" (work completed) . Install Velux TPS-2 skylight on east roof (changed from location.on West roof) (work completed) . Install Velux TPS-6 skylight on South roof (work completed) . Install Velux TPS-4 skylight on North Roof (work completed) . This Certificate is issued in accordance with JUDGMENT rendered at Superior Court (C.A. 89-642) , Ronan, J. presiding. This certificate also serves as notice that the decisions filed at the City Clerk's office on 2/16/89 regarding this property are annulled. REASON FOR ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF HARDSHIP: [ ] 1 . The application affects only the building or structure on which work is to be done and not the historic district in general. [ ] 2. The application is approved because it does not cause substantial detriment to the public welfare. [ ] 3. The application is approved because it does not cause departure from the intent and purposes of the amended historic district act. will be appropriate to the preservation of said Historic District, as per the requirements set forth in the Historic District's Act (Federal Laws , Ch. 40C) and the Salem Historical Commission. Dated: �i�/9T_ SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION gy L\� Chairman COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT C.A. 89-642 THOMAS A. MURRAY, III, M.D. ) VS. ) JUDGMENT ) ANNIE C. HARRIS, RICHARD A. DEDEL, ) DANIEL GEARY, SALEM HISTORICAL ) SOCIETY COMMISSION ) The above entitled matter came on for trial before the Court, Ronan, J. presiding, and the issues having been duly tried and findings having been duly rendered; It is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED: that the prior decision of the Salem Historical Society Commission be and hereby is ANNULLED, and that the plaintiff, Thomas A. Murray, III, M.D., be issued a Certificate of Hardship. The CZerklMagistrate is directed to send an attested copy of this j mithing thirty (30) days of the date hereof to the Building Inspector, t;. , City Clerk, and the Salem Historical Society Sommission, respectively, of City of Salem. Dated at Salem, Massachusetts this 14th day of February, 1992. 1 ? A cstant C erk A TRUE OpY, ATTEST ASS'T. ERK COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, ss . SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT THOMAS A. MURRAY, III , M.D. ) Plaintiff ) VS . ) CA No. 89-642 ANNIE C. HARRIS, RICHARD A. DEDEL, ) DANIEL GEARY, SALEM HISTORICAL SOCIETY COMMISSION ) Defendants ) FINDINGS OF FACT, RULINGS OF LAW AND CONCLUSIONS STATEMENT OF THE CASE: This is an action brought by a plaintiff landowner who occupies a residence within a designated historical district within the City of Salem, who seeks judicial review and reversal of a decision of the Defendant, Historical Commission of Salem. FINDINGS OF FACT: L. Thomas A. Murray, III, a physician, owns a residence which is situated at 14 Chestnut Street within the City of Salem and find that that locus is within an established historical district. 2. The individual defendants constitute the membership of the City of Salem' s Historical Commission and are sued in their representative capacities . 3 . On Septemer 15 , 1988 the plaintiff secured from and filed with the Commission an application for a Certificate of (2) Appropriateness with respect to certain reconstruction work upon the roof of his residence , to wit , to replace an existing green asphalt roofing shingles (which were then leaking in places) with a different brand of assimulated wood color called "Wood Blend" and to replace one existing skylight , to restore an alleged previously removed second skylight and to install on the rear of the roof an additional two skylights . 4 . On September 15th , 1988 the Salem Historical Commission was operating subject to the constraints of Proposition 2i with an inadequate staffing . A single employee of the planning department who had the title of Preservation Planner by the name of Kent C . Healy , that acted for and on behalf of the Commission. It was he who had custody of the applications and would deliver them over in City Hall to persons requesting the same , and it was he who would secure and act as the filing agency for those applicants who came into City Hall. 5 . The Plaintiff Murray had gone to City Hall looking for the Historical Commission . Its address was listed as 1 Salem Green, City Hall Annex, and he was directed to the Planning Board offices which are in the annex. There , this Kent Healy introduced himself as the clerk for the Commission and delivered over to the plaintiff the application that he sought . Subsequently, Murray returned with the completed application, with a paint sample , with a shingle sample and with a skylight catalog and asked Healy if he should (3) leave those items along with the application. Healy assured him that he need not , but that he would need them at the time of the Commission' s hearing. 6 . Murray went on vacation and upon return made two and perhaps more, inquiries of this Kent Healy as to when it was that the Commission would hear his matter. Healy represented that the Commission "had not placed them upon any agenda" . After some fall storms and resulting in leaks from the roof, upon Murray' s inquiry, Healy asserted that he didn' t need Commission approval and that staff person then wrote a letter to the building inspector that the Historical Commission was "without jurisdiction" . All as more fully appears herein as Exhibit No. 5 . Thereafter, a building permit in fact was issued. All as more fully appears in Exhibit No. 6 . And work on the roof thereafter began. 7 . Subsequently, the Plaintiff Murray by mail received an undated notice of hearing alleged to be from the Clerk of the Commission, but unsigned; that constitutes Exhibit 7 , apparently , and I infer that this notice was sent on behalf of the Commission, in connection with Exhibit 2 . It was only after the plaintiff arrived at the meeting that he learned that the Commission was not acting upon his September 15th, 1988 application. 8. The application dated November 2 , which is Exhibit 7 , apparently was offered by Healy, who partly because of these circumstances , and other inadequacies and deficiencies has since been terminated from his municipal employment and is presently (4) from parts unknown. On prior occasions , Healy has told Commission members and the plaintiff, multiple and diverse stories . He has averred that there was no September 15 , 1988 application. He has stated to the contrary, that there was a September 15 , 1988 application. He has stated that there was , but he ripped it up . He has also stated that Murray gave him something, but it wasn' t an affidavit. It was only after this suit started that in the discovery procedures of 1990 , the September 15 , 1988 application was retrieved from the City Hall Annex Planning Department , where this irresponsible employee had irresponsibly placed it . 9 . The attempt to bring these issues , or the Murray matter, to the attention of the Historical Commission in fact and in law was defective. There was some testimony by the plaintiff that the Commission on November 16th had been alerted because of receiving complaints about the work. It was not Exhibit 7 , Murray' s application. It certainly was not Murray ' s application when the less than fourteen day notice required by Chapter 40 (c) §11 was received. No waiver factually can be inferred by this Court that Murray waived the sixty day right , because there ' s no reason on the evidence to conclude that he was aware that the Commission was bound to act within that period of time. RULINGS OF LAW: Predicated upon the facts herein above set forth and pursuant to Rule 52 , which states that this Court shall separately set forth (5) its conclusions thereunder, this Court now makes its conclusions of law. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: The decision of the Historical Commission on November 16th, 1988 , is not within the provisions of Chapter 40 (c) , since the Commission was bound to act in or within sixty days of the application being filed. In this instance it' s true that the Salem Historical Commission and all the members of it had no knowledge of that and they were deceived by their employee , their lent employee Healy, but that deception cannot be related to the plaintiff in this case. B. On December 7 , 1988 the Defendant Commission denied the application for a Certificate of Hardship for the reasons set forth therein. The first is that it never was established that the application had been made sixty days earlier. That ' s so as factually stated above. It now appears , of course , that that wasn' t SO . C. This is a case in which the Commission performed its public duty with care and concern and reflection and even a rehearing , but it was a situation in which, not through the fault of the Commission, but through the fault of Healy, the sixty day period had run, so therefore, I 'm required to make this ruling and do so. (6) CONCLUSION: The judgment shall annul the prior decision of the Commission and it is ordered that Plaintiff be issued a Certificate of Hardship . John T. Ronan , Justice of the Superior Court DATE: RECEIVED FEB 18 1992 SALEM PLANNING DEPT. O �,COMORI�� Salem Historical Commission ` V CITY HALL, SALEM. MASS. 01970 �j AC01MIN611>�4 t' CERTIFICATE OF NON-APPLICABILITY It is hereby certified that the Salem Historical Commission has determined that the proposed construction [ ] ; reconstruction [X] ; demolition [ ] ; moving [ ]; alteration [ ]; painting [ ]; sign or other appurtenant fixture [ ] work as described below in the . . . McIntire Historic District. (NAME OF HISTORIC DISTRICT) Address of Property: 14 Chestnut Street Name of Record Owner: Thomas & Katherine Murray DESCRIPTION OF WORK PROPOSED: Replacement of roof surface on rear ell extention with duplicate color and materials. Non-applicable due to being an in-kind replacement and based on the representation by the applicants that it is a replacement of the existing with no changes in color, material or details. does not involve an exterior architectural feature or involves a feature covered by the exemptions or limitations set forth in the Historic District's Act (MA. Gen. Law, Ch. 40C) and the Salem Historical Commission. Dated: April 24, 1991 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION By Chairman Saiem Historical Commission ONE SALEM GREEN, SALEM, NIASSACHLJSETTS01970 NOTICE OF DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS RE: 14 Chestnut Street On Wednesday, March 6, 1991, the Salem Historical Commission, by a vote of 3 in favor and 4 opposed, denied an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness from Thomas & Katherine Murray for their property at 14 Chestnut Street regarding a change in roof color on the rear garage extension and new-roof over rear porch . I attest that this is an accurate record of the vote taken, not amended or modified in any way to this date . March 11, 1991 J'zw-ja��14-1 Jane Guy Cler of the Co fission cc : Building Inspector City Clerk JHisCom8/Deniall0 r � s ,s Salem Historical Commission CITY HALL. SALEM. MASS. 01970 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS It is hereby certified that the Salem Historical Commission has determined that the proposed construction ( ) ; reconstruction ( ) ; demolition ( ) ; moving ( ) ; alteration (X) ; painting ( ) ; sign or other appurtenant fixture ( ) work as described below in the . .. MrTnt ; ra Historic District (NAME OF HISTORIC DISTRICT) Address of Property: 14 r•haarn„t ct Name of Record Owner: Thomas & Katherine Murray DESCRIPTION OF WORK PROPOSED: See Attachment A. will be appropriate to the preservation of said Historic District, as per the requirements set forth in the Historic Districts' Act (Mass. Gen. Law Ch. 4OC) and the Salem Historical Commission. Dated: 12/3/90 SALEM /HISTORICAL COMMISSION RI By \' y Chairman J ATTACHMENT A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 14 CHESTNUT STREET 12/3/90 Description of Proposed Work Renovation of rear ell as follows : West facade alterations as per drawings submitted including the addition of 2 dormers , addition of cornerboard, removal of one window and size alteration and relocation on the 3 second floor windows, to be spaced evenly . Option for windows to be either 9 x 12, 9 x 14 or 10 x 15 lights as post and beam construction allows . Windows to be placed as drawn with the window sills to be beefed up to match existing sills . Windows to be intregal wooden windows . Sill height of windows on North facade to line up with those on the West facade . Whichever window size option is selected for installation on the West facade must be installed on the North facade as well (except 3rd floor window) . Owners have option to line up the lst and 2nd floor windows between the cornerboard and door . Window lights on the dormers to be 9 x 10 as drawn, the siding on the dormer to be clapboard to match existing in details and trim color, and the roof color of the dormer to be black . East facade alterations as per drawings submitted including addition of one dormer as drawn, removal of one window, and relocation of one window. Whichever window size option is selected for the West and North facades must be installed on the East facade as well . Skylight was withdrawn and is therefore not approved under this Certificate . 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 on file at the Salem Planning Department . All must match in size and detail and sill heights must all line up . In order to make the top window on the North facade different in size from the others on that facade, if 9 x 12 window lights are selected for the lst and 2nd floors, the top window should have 9 x 10 lights ; if 9 x 14 are selected for the lst and 2nd floors, the top window should be 9 x 12; and if 10 x 15 are selected for the lst and 2nd floors, the top window should be 10 x 12 . 4 f''II c V Wiem mestoracaa 11„0MM1ssao1� ONE SALEM GREEN. SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 51 7)745-9595-EXT. 311 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 9/6/90 It is hereby certified that the Salem Historical Commission has determined that the proposed work as described below in the McIntire Historic District will be appropriate to the preservation of said Historic District, as per the requirements set forth in the Historic Districts ' Act (M.G.L. , Chapter 40C ) and the guidelines and practices of the Salem Historical Commission . Address of Property : 14 Chestnut Street Name of Record Owner : Thomas & Katherine Murray Description of Work Proposed: West facade, Drawing A-3 dated 5/5/90 and amended 8/15/90 - Main roof as drawn (without skylight ) provided roof material is black asphalt shingle. Roof vent as proposed. North facade Drawing A-4 dated 5/5/90 - Porch as drawn outlined in blue circle on plan with black asphalt roof . Trim (pilasters, molding, ballasters, handrails, etc . ) to match trim on house . Relocation of staircase . Construction of railings on the back porch to match construction of railing on West facade. Wood materials . Relocation of two top most windows as drawn, to be replaced with wood, 6 over 6 windows with intregal muttins to match window on first floor so that the 3 center windows are identical in size. Removal of door on first floor, right hand side and replacement with window. Installation of door on left hand side . East facade Drawing A-5 dated 5/5/90 with amendment received 8/15/90 - Black asphalt roof on east facade porch and main roof , removal of existing window adjacent to porch ( #1 on plan encircled with dotted line ) . Installation of window #D to match windows #E ( 2 existing windows #A to remain as is ) . All 5 windows to be the same size . Completion of reclapboarding the rear of the main part of the house and addition (in locations noted on sketch) , smooth side to weather, same exposure as existing. Approval of clapboards is based on the replacement of existing clapboards which were already replacements and not original clapboards . Repainting to match existing colors . 14 Chestnut Street Certificate of Appropriateness 9/6/90 Continued Fence - Painting of flatboard fence under construction to the color which is the same as the house body for the entire fence, inside and out . (Owner has waived the gray that was previously approved. ) All plans referenced above were prepared by James H . Ballou . September 6, 1990 THE SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION By Chairman J3809 Salem Historical Commission ONE SALEM GREEr4. SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 NOTICE OF DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS RE : 14 Chestnut Street On Wednesday, February 6, 1991, the Salem Historical Commission unanimously denied an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness from Thomas & Katherine Murray for their property at 14 Chestnut Street regarding the change in roof color . The application was denied due to the applicant not being present to answer questions and provide samples needed to make a determination , thereby making the application incomplete . The applicants are encouraged to submit a new application when roof material samples are available . I attest that this is an accurate record of the vote taken, not amended or modified in any way to this date . ti February 11, 1991 Jarh A. Guy Clk of the Cckiission cc : Building Inspector City Clerk JH.isCom8/Denial9 ;� .111 �� I ;;; .• it / •y.-�,�u ����'��L��_ �li Fes+• II � 1•+= ;- 11111111 17 JAMES H. 13ALLOU 54 CAMBR!DGZZ f - OOX 807 AUG 16 \•, -�, -_ i I �. x a.l i f r — `J W -1 I_� �y _� m a ,� _ �� m �I I ,i i I - I ,I �� II I 12-11 ONE SAL4-M GREE-N.SALEM. MASSACHU3ETT3 01?70 ^-°595. EXT.3' NOTICE OF DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE 0.? APPROPRIATENESS RE: 14 Chestnut Street 9/6/90 On Wednesday, August 15, 1990, the Salem Historical Commission denied the following work as proposed on an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness from Thomas and Katherine Murray for their property at 14 Chestnut Street which included architectural plans prepared by James H . Ballou dated May 5, 1990 and amended August 15, 1990 . After first unanimously finding that the proposed work was visible from one or more public ways, the following alterations were denied as being historically inappropriate changes that would be contrary to the Salem Historical Commission Guidelines and the established policies and practices of the Salem Historical Commission: West facade Drawing A-3 Motion to approve skylights , brown color roof shingles, expanded windows and rear stair on exterior facade . None in favor. All opposed . North facade Drawing A-4 Motion to approve door on second floor, staircase from second floor, removal of center window that stair would cover. None in favor . All opposed. Motion to deny brown roof shingles . All in favor. None opposed East facade Drawing A-5 Motion to approve entire facade with exception of porch that was previously approved at this hearing. None in favor. All opposed 14 Chestnut St . Denial - 9/6/90 Continued Motion to approve two elongated windows on east facade . One in favor . Four opposed. Motion to deny exterior stairs as shown from east elevation. All in favor . None opposed. Motion to deny skylight . All in favor . None opposed. The Commission found that the elongated second story windows would be unduly highstyle for the second floor of an ell , that they would remove original building fabric, and that they would destroy the uniform size and symmetry of the existing fenestration on the ell , of which symmetry and size is typical for this style building. The exterior staircase was found to be an inappropriate accretion to the exterior of the building and against the Salem Historical Commission Guidelines and consistent policy of the Commission. The same was found true for the skylights . I attest that this is an accurate record of the vote taken, not amended or modified in any way to this date . September 6, 1990 t� �. � Jane . Guy Cleof the Co ission cc : Building Inspector City Clerk Minutes/Denia18 _ FEB 16 J HII 'l�J m a m m , • 'JYE SALEM GREEN, =ALEM. MASSnCHUSETTS 07370 :ITY =LL. •• Decision on Application for Certificate of Appropriateness App lCication Axed — 11/2/88 Acted Upon — 11/16/88 I. Findings At its November 16, 1988 meeting, duly called and at which a quorum was present, the Salem Historical Commission made the following Findings: A. That the building in question represents a remarkably unaltered and magnificent example of a high—style Greek—revival mansion. B. That the building in question is located on Chestnut Street in Salem, a street world famous for the quality, cohesiveness, and unaltered condition of its period residential architecture. C. That as one of the largest and most monumental buildings on the street, the building in question makes an important contribution to the streetscape, and is highly visable from all three surrounding streets, i.e. Hamilton Street, Essex Street , .and Cambridge. Street , all of which are located in the McIntire Historic District. D. That the McIntire Historic District is the largest and most architecturally significant of Salem' s four local historic districts established pursuant to G.L. c. 40C, and that Chestnut Street is the most architecturally significant component thereof; . E. That Chestnut Street is also a designated landmark on the National Register of Historic Places, established by Federal statute. F. That the Salem Historic Commission has established Guidelines for the subject matter of the work being applied for, and has consistently implemented said Guidelines since their adoption in 1984, which Guidelines are available at the Salem Planning Department and the Salem Public Library. G. That the work was commenced prior to any application having been filed. H. That the Applicant had prior experience with the Commission and was or should have been aware of Commission procedures and jurisdiction. 2. Decision A. Approvals The Commission voted to approve the following: 1.. The proposed trim and body paint colors as being appropriate for a high—style Greek Revival mansion of that particular type and scale. 2. The relocation of the skylight currently existing on the western slope of the wing perpendicular to Chestnut Street to the approximate same location on the eastern slope of said roof, i.e. at the ridge pole but moved laterally behind the chimney to the greatest extent possible to make it as minimally visable from Chestnut Street as possible, provided that the skylight remains the same size. The Commission found said relocation, as approved, met the Guidelines and established practice of the Salem Historical Commission in that it represented no net increase in the number of skylights visable from the street, and no increase in the visabiLity of the existing skylight, and indeed, regarding the latter, the relocation of the existing skylight should represent a decrease in visability. The Commission did not approve the relocation of said skylight lower on the roof slope, as applied for, because this would tend to make the skylight read as a modern amenity ( i.e. roof window) rather than in its tradional role as a functional element ( i.e. opening for ventilation) , since skylights were traditionally located at or near the ridge pole in order to maximize attic ventilation. B. Denials The Commission voted to deny the following aspects of the application: 1 . The new skylight proposed for the front slope of the roof parallel to Chestnut Street. Not only would this be increasing the number of skylights, in violation of the established practice of the Commission, it represents a modern two—dimensional glass and metal element being located immediately adjacent to a period three—dimensional wooden dormer, in a location highly visable from the street ( indeed, over the main facade) , the incongruity of which is further exascerbated by the fact that the flat skylight and the three—dimensional dormer are completely asymetrical to one another. 2. The skylight already installed on the rear slope of the roof parallel to Chestnut Street for the reason that it is visable from Hamilton, Essex, and Cambridge Streets and violates the Guidelines of the Salem Historical Commission in that it is significantly larger than traditional skylights, is square whereas traditional skylights are rectangular, and is located too low on the roof, all of which emphasizes its non—traditional and inappropriate role as a modern amenity ( i.e. roof window) rather than its traditional utilitarian role ( i.e. opening for ventilation) . Being also located adjacent to an existing period wooden dormer, the skylight was additionally denied for the same reasons enummerated in the preceding paragraph. 3 . The proposed Light brown shingles, for the following reasons: a. That the proposed light brown shingles do not simulate wooden shingles (which were probably the original roofing material) in either color or texture, and thus, should conform to the Guidelines established by the Salem Historical Commission for non—original or synthetic roofing materials; b. That the proposed light brown shingles would be the only example of same on the street, the overwhelming majority of the houses having either slate, or dark grey or black asphalt; C. That the Commission has consistently implemented its Guidelines since their adoption in 1984 regarding roofing materials, by rejecting all applications for light colored roofs, including on buildings and in locations of far lesser significance than the building in question; d. That the Commission's Guidelines provide that where original roofing materials are prohibitavely expensive or impractical, dark grey or black asphalt (only) should be used as an alternative, which, unlike lighter colors, do not draw attention to the roof, or its synthetic roofing material, and also allow future homeowners wider latitude in choosing paint colors for the body and trim. e. That dark grey or black asphalt is particularly indicated in this instance, given the huge area of roof and its visability from Chestnut, Hamilton, Cambridge and Essex Streets. C. Rejection of 60 day argument The Commission did not accept the Applicant ' s contention made after the vote on his application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, that he was entitled to a Certificate of Hardship as a matter of law pursuant to G.L. c 40C, Section 11 , which rejection was based on the following reasons: 1 . That it was never established that the application had been filed more than sixty days earlier — the Applicant himself testified to different dates regarding when he filed his original application at the November 16, 1988 and December 7, 1988 meetings. 2. That even if filed more than sixty days earlier, the Applicant's original application was superceeded by a new and broader application he subsequently filed (covering not only paint colors, but also the skylights and roof shingles) , which subsequent application was acted upon within the sixty day limit. ( Indeed, the foregoing was underscored by the Applicant himself, who knowingly proceeded with seeking approval of his application for a Certificate of Appropriateness at the November 16, 1988 meeting, and for a Certificate of Hardship at the December 7, 1988 meeting, neither of which would have been necessary had a completed application been filed on September 13 , 1988, as contended. Also, this agrees with communications received from various neighbors, who indicated that the Applicant initially apprised them only of the proposed paint colors. ) 3. That even if an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness covering all of the proposed work had been filed on September 13, 1988, the application was not deemed to be a completed application (meeting the minimum requirements for same established by the Salem Historical Commission) , and thus, the sixty day period never commenced running. 4. That the Salem Historical Commission acted upon the Applicant' s November 2, 1988 application for a Certificate of Appropriateness on November 16, 1988, well within the sixty day period; it is aware of no other application as of said meeting. 5. That even if a completed application for a Certificate of Appropriateness covering all of the proposed work had been filed on September 13, 1988, the November 2, 1988 application constituted, in effect, a written extension of the sixty day requirement within the meaning of G.L. c.. 40C, Section 11. Dated as of the 16th day of November, 1988. Annie C. Harris Chairman l."l- i L Witnes Jane Guy Clerk f the Commission J2819 FEB (u J 5.2 JA '89 h7lem Ast©ricai COMMIssi©lf - i:NE SALEM GREEN. _ALEM. IdASSACHUSET'S 01370 ;ITY Decision on Certificate of Hardship 14 Chestnut St. Application Filed - 11/23/88 Acted Upon - 12/7/89 I. Findings A. That the building in question represents a remarkably unaltered and magnificent example of a high-style Greek-revival mansion; B. That the building in question is located on Chestnut Street in Salem, a street world famous for the quality, cohesiveness, and unaltered condition of its period residential architecture; C. That as one of the largest and most monumental buildings on the street, the building in question makes an important contribution to the streetscape, and is highly visable from all three surrounding streets, i.e. Hamilton Street, Essex Street, and Cambridge Street, all of which are located in the McIntire Historic District; D. That the McIntire Historic District is the largest and most architecturally significant of Salem's four local historic districts established pursuant to G.L. c. 4OC, and that Chestnut Street is the most architecturally significant component thereof; . E. That Chestnut Street is also a designated landmark on the National Register of Historic Places, established by Federal statute; F. That the Salem Historic Commission has established Guidelines for the subject matter of the work being applied for, and has consistently implemented said Guidelines since their adoption in 1984, which Guidelines are available at the Salem Planning Department and the Salem Public Library; G. That the work was commenced prior to any application having been filed; H. That the Applicant had prior experience with the Commission and was or should have been aware of Commission procedures and jurisdiction. II. Decision At its December 7, 1988 meeting, duly called and at which a quorum was present, the Salem Historical Commission unanimously voted to deny all three skylights being applied for, which vote further ordered the immediate removal of the two that had already been installed ( i.e. on the front and back slopes of the roof parallel to Chestnut Street, the latter having been installed before November 12, 1988 and the former having been installed since the November 16, 1988 vote denying a Certificate of Appropriateness for same) and the immediate covering over of the well that had been installed to receive a skylight on the eastern slope of the roof perpendicular to Chestnut Street, since that was not the location approved at the November 16, 1988 meeting. By a 5 to 2 vote, the Commission also denied a Certificate of Hardship for the light brown roofing material being applied for, ordering its removal by June 1 , 1989 and its replacement by new roof singles (to be approved by the Commission) meeting the Guidelines of the Salem Historic Commission. As reasons therefore, the Commission stated the following: 1 . That the Applicant had had previous experience with the Salem Historical Commission and was aware or should have been aware of the Commission's procedures and jurisdiction; 2. That the Applicant commenced the painting and roofing of the house and had installed at least one skylight (i.e. the one on the rear of the roof parallel to Chestnut Street) before the hearing on this application, the painting before September 1 , 1988 and the skylight before the November 16, 1988 meeting, and thus, any hardship with respect to same is entirely self—created; 3 . That the second skylight now being applied for had been installed since the November 16, 1988 meeting ( i.e. the one on the front roof parallel to Chestnut Street) , in knowing and flagrant violation of the November 16, 1988 vote specifically denying same as being inappropriate; 4. That a well for the third skylight now being applied for ( i.e. on the eastern slope of the wing perpendicular to Chestnut Street) had been installed since the November 16, 1988 meeting in a location different than that approved at said meeting, in knowing and flagrant violation of said vote [the third skylight has since been installed in said well] ; 5. That new information has come to the attention of the Commission that, notwithstanding the Applicant' s representation to the Commission at the November 16, 1988 meeting that the brown roofing shingles could not be returned without cost, it may have been possible for the Applicant ' s roofing contractor to have exchanged the unused brown roofing shingles for black asphalt roofing shingles (of the type approved by the Guidelines of the Salem Historic Commission) at little or no cost; 6. That at the time of the November 16, 1988 meeting approximately 30% of the roof had been covered with the new brown roof shingles, with the balance of the roof still covered by the former asphalt shingles — since said meeting the Applicant has completed approximately 80% of the roof in the new material, and has removed much of the remaining former shingles, making the completion of the roofing an absolute necessity; That Mr. Healy did not and does not have authority to waive the jurisdiction of the Salem Historical Commission over the proposed skylights and roofing material ; 8. That based on his prior experience with the jurisdiction and procedures of the Salem Historical Commission, even if the Applicant did indeed rely on said letter, it was unreasonable for him to suppose that Mr. Healy had the authority to waive said jurisdiction; 9. That based on the Applicant's representations to Mr. Healy regarding skylights and wooden roof shingles that had formerly existed on the roof, the Applicant may have caused or contributed to Mr. Healy' s apparent belief that the work being applied for represented replacement of then pre-existing elements, in which case the Applicant would have been entitled to proceed with said work as a matter of right pursuant to a Certificate of Non-Applicability; 10. By commencing work prior to the filing of any application, the Applicant caused or contributed to a crisis atmosphere which made any mistakes such as Mr. Healy' s letter much more likely; 11 . That it is not clear whether the Applicant purchased all of his materials prior to Mr. Healy' s letter in any event; 12. That the Salem Building Department (through the Building Inspector) has concurrent jurisdiction with the Salem Historical Commission - obtaining a permit or certificate from one does not negate the need to obtain a permit or certificate from the other; 13. That even if the Applicant by his actions and representations did not cause or contribute to the mistakes contained within Mr. Healy's letter, and even if the Applicant' s reliance on same was reasonable, the Salem Historic District Commission, and the neighborhood it is entrusted (and required by statute) to protect , should not be bound by the mistakes of a municipal employee - if the Applicant has been monetarily damaged by said mistake, his proper remedy should be for money damages, which should be directed at the source thereof; 14. That for the above reasons either no legally-recognized hardship has been shown by the Applicant, or that he himself has caused or largely contributed to same. III. Rejection of 60 day argument The Commission did not accept the Applicant ' s contention made for the first time after the vote on his application for a Certificate of Appropriateness at the November 16, 1988 meeting that he was entitled to a Certificate of Hardship as a matter of law pursuant to G.L. c 40C, Section 11 , which rejection was based on the following reasons: 1 . That it was never established that the application had been filed more than sixty days earlier - the Applicant himself testified to different dates regarding when he filed his original application at the November 16 , 1988 and December 7, 1988 meetings; That even if filed more than sixty days earlier, the Applicant' s original application was superceeded by a new and broader application he subsequently filed (covering not only paint colors, but also the skylights and roof shingles) , which subsequent application was acted upon within the sixty day limit. ( Indeed, the foregoing was underscored by the Applicant himself, who knowingly proceeded with seeking approval of his application for a Certificate of Appropriateness at the November 16, 1988 meeting, and for a Certificate of Hardship at the December 7, 1988 meeting, neither of which would have been necessary had a completed application been filed on September 13 , 1988, as contended. Also, this agrees with communications received from various neighbors, who indicated that the Applicant initially apprised them only of the proposed paint colors. ) ; 3. That even if an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness covering all of the proposed work had been filed on September 13, 1988, the application was not deemed to be a completed application (meeting the minimum requirements for same established by the Salem Historical Commission) , and thus, the sixty day period never commenced running; 4. That the Salem Historical Commission acted upon the Applicant' s November 2, 1988 application for a Certificate of Appropriateness on November 16, 1988, well within the sixty day period; it is aware of no other application as of said meeting; 5. That even if a completed application for a Certificate of Appropriateness covering all of the proposed work had been filed on September 13, 1988, the November 2, 1988 application constituted, in effect, a written extension of the sixty day requirement within the meaning of G.L. c. 40C, Section 11 . Dated as of the 7th day of December, 1988. + L.� Annie C. Harris Chairman z With s Jane A. Guy Cle k of the Commission J2824 �Rr oo" cum Salem Historical Commission CITY HALL. SALEM. MASS. 01970 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS It is hereby certified that the Salem Historical Commission has determined that the proposed construction (k ) ; reconstruction 6t) ; demolition ( ) ; moving ( ) ; alteration ( ) ; painting ( ) ; sign or other appurtenant fixture ( ) work as described below in the . . . McIntire Historic District (NAME OF HISTORIC DISTRICT) Address of Property: 14 Chestnut Street Name of Record Owner: Thomas & Katherine Murray DESCRIPTION OF WORK PROPOSED: Reconstruction of front fence as per drawings submitted to be painted trim color. Removal of stockade fence. Construction of flatboard fence as per drawings submitted with good side facing the abutters . Wood 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 6 ' from 4 ' . will be appropriate to the preservation of said Historic District, as per the requirements set forth in the Historic Districts' Act (Federal Laws, Ch. 40C) and the Salem Historical Commission. Dated: July 12 , 1990 SALEM HISTORICALCOMMISSION By �.,,/,r./ ( , �aE`/G2���-a Chairman �j P:3 J J n h o Sj O � I l i I[jI I PIS it di<l P9 z � r 07v f 3e i Co T�Pc�2 4 • y ` a 1C2/ 6-V SCLP �',.• y k��f X3'6" �'�„ arRrmu�c��rr�d���4,����searrrr�rarr®aRs�a�+r®rrr+sr r�r�e�aRixRiiwrprWrrrrrrixir■ ix�We�� me/r�■■e\■..Rine.ni.■■anga\q.■■■■■qi■ uiq■x■a■xq.■■uxu tR�ik': :CCa:CCuuuC:C i�CC:CCCCC:CC:::::CCC:C:CIC::CIi:Cu.iCC�:C� 34 .CCC' rii■■■wli■Ri■■i.■/irr.ills.!.■i■\.aaa■l■liaa\.■■aaa ■■■■■ l■■�q�l■ ■\ii' 0amx■ .■a .R ■■./Wil■aa■.■■■q■. ■pp■iW.■ :agq:.\. .. q■ ■ ■e Ra.Mq.aagl■.a ■■C■ a■■■■■x■a■■q■■■■■S■.■■■El.■aal■q■■xle■■:■■Ne■a ■■■■a ■■■ q .Ola ■■MOOSE: �:S:::::::M�::::::::::::■�:SSM:S:SS■:5::::5:■�:■::: x :l:MI a.■:.■: o■■■ ■■Ola .. . a a a ':'::: :::E:::::::::::::::::::::::::::y:::a■::::::::::E:::::�:::: :C::C:. .:::' "::::::::::::�::::::::C:::::::::::::EE:::SI::S::':::::::':: e :C:E•CM1 Ion oo ■ ■: : :■ : S . . . ■■■■■■■■■■■ =ExE■■q.■. t■■i■iii■q■■■■a■alxq■■/\■■■■l■i .■..... ■i■ii IEE EE:EEEIIEEEis?: :noun o:mE:EaEB EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEilmn: EEoEEEEE99EEmine Eaor■o■■ ..o■ ��pE .xm..■■0 onam SS .::::CC::CCmmommo::�5:. ■om.■x■aoe:osommo:.o.■::Sh::■■ooNMI m x■ .■x■■■x■■■■■■■■\■ ■mxW■■x ■ .■ o■■ ■ ..■m■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�..q..�uAe■■■■■■C■■C ■.ue■■■■RIR ■x. W■mgW ■■x■■■■xq■a■giiN■m ■iW■i ■m■\..■37l/ wx■iRi■C=. ■■■Cqq�:a■■■:uaC:CSu:xi■u:gali:Sai:: m ■/�xxi■■:.mi■■"Nomoe ■. mmmoxiC:aq�i . CEmoso :::NEC0�GMCCCai aa■■■o■■oM --m■a■■E:M::: !Oona■■■. ■e ■': ■Eo.■q ■oo.m■R■■m■aama■■ oalq'I=ME■a■lao.■■■■: ao iEua■■q.C■. ■ ■t■a■axNgxa a■■a■■a■■a■aa■\=■■■ ■aSR\ a\■■aan ao .S.■.1... x■a■a.a.�iR ■tta q\N ME■■aqua■q■ .a■■ ■■ M■■ ■■l■ ■ ■ t 0 ■ Ma ■=E■■■R\lR.mo q■a■���:5::�■�:::mC •■ ■■■ ■ e■a■:■ ■pp�N�■\1■■on .■ xy■■■■mmom aE'oaTii--"�'�"'iC::°E■ENEESE:ONO::E� no son:N.o.■a:ol:::�=E■■1�:�.■::::S:S e ■■■■■w■■gaa a■■ ■■■■■■■■■x■ R■q■■E■■x■w■■/■ l■nx ■■■ ■■l. ■■■ei■lr.r R■ii\ ■■■ta ■ ■ R■■■■■■■a ■a O\ a/ m■■■■■m■ M■■■■■ ■■ ■■■■■■■ ■■.■■■iiRLn: EE aEI':': .. ::1::::::E. ::EEEE.CE::::::::::.M :E::E:�.:::::::E:::::::E:: q. C ■ ■ ■a ■■■■a■aMMM.■N alae■■na■a■■■.O MOE■aa.aEEEEEW■aq■■■aR Eli. as ■ qa■ ■ a■■l■q.a aa■a■q:e q■■a a■aam:.Moga Ma ■ qm■■comma.■a.. N ■. ■ .a■■■R■■eCa■teaaa■■CMEE■a:000 mx■eEEaC■ lC Mn■..m.a■e■f� CC ■.xq..�ii i Sia ::i■C:CCC:CC:CCie:CC°:CCCuoii=.q`�a:SSC■ MEMEN:MMED CC ■R\eWExq■ ■C::C:CCCCCCCCCCCC:C:CE:::Cu■aS■�iCC:■a:CCw. ■lm:o:i CCCECi Csiiiia■C ■ixa .'°:�Cia.'�C:CCCCSan■CCC:C:C:SCai::ai■■:■o:m xooC::C:CCpow m::m■o■mSC EE ...... ml ■ ■■n..i■R.laxalauSWngWaxmna■aa■■ Ex \i■.■muco! m■a■a■■E o■ ■■■ ■a■aomWma i ■Mao a■aa■■■ .ox 0E.R i! m ■a■xmq ■axae/.p Manx a■ax■gwma �p.x■■ ■■■a■ ■aa■ ■ i9 B! .�:Wmma u .paaa.aea ■OO ■a■■■■■■a.x.:extmonoEoml■:�■xmm.e�.: SSS:N x:.a ■::q.x■a::NCa now 0 �■a■■W.xa.m:l:::�:::::�■.�■■a�:SS:S .lalala■ aeC:: ■Es CClaa■.ga■ga■C\q Cn■■■■u■. ■Cq■aC■■�lo■.::.■:::x■Eeee: .l■■xq■x ■■R s a■■.an/.n■■nR■n x■a\■■a\l■ ■■n.s■i■■■ ■■■■eR■■lE■■■■Reey .Ria■■. ����■ /.e■■a ■.■■■\it■■■■■ ■ RIaE a■■xalgi■■■ ■n ■■■■ggaaaa.aq■■■r.ei an aM..:■■■lal:E Sq �■.:......n■■onR:lS■EEI:■ollomo■■.a■:■._=::a■E•�\\:n n::ema6 ■■■ao■a■■u■a MR R■ a ■an°■q■oala.■.■■ ■■■■laM■m.m■a■laEaa MM ■ a0M■■■■.xq■. ■ EaloeeE■■.■q■■■a■ aE■■oMMaa■p■■llll■. .M. xCCagaaM■RRR: ■:ian■■BER as■e ■ q■.aa■■q■■a■■■ R■■ll■■■gmm■■a a: ■ ■ :x N ea .. ....■.::Rso mommo�m■ :E. E .......■■....... .■■■manow�mmommosonii■eMam■■■■a::..E:.:.Eom:l°::■maxamm:EI■R:R. mou u■eo■loa■x■■O.el ■me■■■\..R■.■■■■a:agaall.xx■■aaaa■..■■�■Ns wR■■■■q■xeR eR m■iiiiRe iR..r■i\iwi■■■rr/m.■i■\refill aM■ ■■■■xaaNRi\ n■■qt■q■■Ra■iiq.ageaiR■oRHlaxR■q.x■■mR■ ■ .Keefe x emMxggq ■ :S:ue■■Bgegqx■■ aOMaxlmmagq■■■■.Manu■.C.:: BEEN! xC.nmMmossm=Cexe�a �MOaaW■.■MmMagai:■xmammooo..ax�moma_q■x.xo.e.oxugoERRmomwn KNEW x•CWass ianammmiaa:xigtea:E :C�::CCu:C::C�■q■� on C :�::E•°:°°� t ■■■■nme■aman xa■EMWlaOmmm.M■ta■d\ta■\■i■xi■■■ ■a■m ae■■■■ HEAR mm ■ ■aRy ■xoom C=Mxl�■ �a .tax■xsaa■■Sx■■a■i■axNa■■x■x■ti■i■■■lq■■■■Rxi ■■R■■■ =q° :Row �■■::: :::SS:�:::_:_■:::CC:::_:ee��SOM:�:■:ENRON- ::■moo[No �aie\ CiG:oo :aSC::—■°CC�Ci1S::CCC� i:EaNONE iE: =Cii's MEN R■m \ :lS immomo:::::SNo�®N::::S■ 5:::� ■ ■■■��■■R■■i.■�■l■xin■■.i■gxaxgw■■ .■■m■■xe�� xmmW■■am■mE.e.mOxmaxxu:EmommommonsSMEMO mm maq xmm M m■ E n msgs=CSe omte:■ l mem m:i n 0 :nmm� eaono a■■ mm .ao:C��xau:�■:�■CS::C■oemia:Mama ■giC■°:C:■xilxiw am■RRi ■■n q ■ ■ .Enema/ mnna■o■aM■■am■■C■ICCEM■a ■me■e■:S■a■n� ■ux.mmq■Cma■Ca■■.iann■■■m■■e■■■RR■.a:CS110 RRA ■ a ■ ■x■mx■m ■ ■■i■■■/■■■mWw■i■■x ■seo•a■.eiee� ■ q ■C■xexo■ax:CaCa■■a■■u..mx■■■■ ■■CCom ■■■■'■R ■ MEMO ..... mS mam■mo■nmen■■l■■aaaxa.ma■■■ CCS■oEMMx�ESMmi•s . mammae ■m■■■■■a■omm■om■■■E■■gEE. ■ ■■m ■ MMMOOx..x� =. mMm.m■C■m.■o■.aO■a■aa■■moME.EMC. \.tammm®Vo ■ ■■.M■ma.mn� qm■ m\a■■mOOeaaa■■la■■■■m■aa■■a\t ■ ■Mx®me■. ,j ■ ■MEM. nmaEm� Eqm.� o■lmia■■■■■■a.xeEma■■a■a ■ .■ ■ mq■RaO baw, ®�n�■■Mia=Ca■iu:a:C:C:CEES:axaM MENEEM Ems 0 ■�. u e. ■■■ax■Ra■ :C�Sai:oi:a e� ■..■mmO■Sa■■N.Emm �xm®aMMO:■C.CM■■MCECa®a■:■C■lCSaima■:■C■:riOBE:.■..�ml■ia:laiaa■Caq■OCa■ xmgi:::::CRa:=R " omM■l■Rf.e ■■■osm °em■e ■"VER lemq��f!■Rmmgm.coq.xxq\.■aMxtgRiw■nm■MM..Mmae■\\■m■qa.l■■A®S�fiF/�����R '�.• �• ' p� In\ .ill ! IF � ftp�• l•♦ '.. t.y� �� y' } I � �X;�•,y�� ., I. �IIIIh � 1 I � or I 1 pr INV µ.cuxon4� ° Salem Historical Commission CITY HALL. SALEM. MASS. 01970 5 pCdlMM6�� CERTIFICATE OF NON-APPLICABILITY It is hereby certified that the Salem Historical Commission has determined that the proposed construction [ ] ; reconstruction [xx] • , demolition [ ] ; moving [ ] ; alteration [ ] painting [ ] ; sign or other appurtenant fixture [ ] work as described below in the . . . McIntire Historic District. (NAME OF HISTORIC DISTRICT) Address of Property: 14 Chestnut Street Name of Record Owner: Thomas Murray III DESCRIPTION OF WORK PROPOSED: Replace existing clapboards as necessary as noted in locations on application submitted with same as existing. Wood to be redwood or cedar with the smooth side to the weather. Same exposure to the weather as existing. Non-Applicable due to being an in kind replacement. does not involve an exterior architectural feature or involves a feature covered by the exemptions or limitations set forth in the Historic District's Act (Federal Laws, Ch. 40C) and the Salem Historical Commission. Dated: 9/21/89 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION By Chairman �, ,, P r ' � �, ! *,.�.� r•r, r � � +� �� � IIS � F �� , /YF�•--�T//9� 9,�e� ;.. . _ � �,; ;;.� f .+d .. } . ._�__. iz /YCti'Ps�a� �' =; . � '� I� ,. � r`M ` r;. N: • t�,; 4 ... � z Db /YG/�yOvJ ��/Q 7 V}� . !_l °�, I •` / i x� , 11,E ��i �i � � ,; 'I I ' � � / �. III I�-��,.. �Y ��;��� 9����'� ,; ;� , ply . h1>;� :� .� `, '�" '�� z .,r.!..Y,�,i �!'�i q . 1. �,� 'r r I` �, /`/ �.S t/lvr FEB b 9 ilsLoricai Comm SNE SALEM GREEN. --ALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01370 Decision on A22 lication for Certificate of Appropriateness A1pplCLcation Ai ped - 11/2/88 Acted Upon - 11/16/88 I. Findings At its November 16, 1988 meeting, duly called and at which a quorum was present , the Salem Historical Commission made the following Findings: A. That the building in question represents a remarkably unaltered and magnificent example of a high-style Creek-revival mansion. B. That the building in question is located on Chestnut Street in Salem, a street world famous for the quality, cohesiveness, and unaltered condition of its period residential architecture. C. That as one of the Largest and most monumental buildings on the street, the building in question makes an important contribution to the streetscape, and is highly visable from all three surrounding streets, i.e. Hamilton Street, Essex Street, and Cambridge Street, all of which are Located in the McIntire Historic District. D. That the McIntire Historic District is the largest and most architecturally significant of Salem' s four Local historic districts established pursuant to G.L. c. 40C, and that Chestnut Street is the most architecturally significant component thereof : . E. That Chestnut Street is also a designated Landmark on the National Register of Historic Places, established by Federal statute. F. That the Salem Historic Commission has established Guidelines for the subject matter of the work being applied for, and has consistently implemented said Guidelines since their adoption in 1984, which Guidelines are available at the Salem Planning Department and the Salem Public Library. G. That the work was commenced prior to any application having been filed. H. That the Applicant had prior experience with the Commission and was or should have been aware of Commission procedures and jurisdiction. 2. Decision A. Approvals The Commission voted to approve the following: 1 . The proposed trim and body paint colors as being appropriate for a high-style Greek Revival mansion of that particular type and scale. 2. The relocation of the skylight currently existing on the western slope of the wing perpendicular to Chestnut Street to the approximate same location on the eastern slope of said roof, i.e. at the ridge pole but moved Laterally behind the chimney to the greatest extent possible to make it as minimally visable from Chestnut Street as possible, provided that the skylight remains the same size. The Commission found said relocation, as approved, met the Guidelines and established practice of the Salem Historical Commission in that it represented no net increase in the number of skylights visable from the street, and no increase in the visabiLity of the existing skylight, and indeed, regarding the latter, the relocation of the existing skylight should represent a decrease in visability. The Commission did not approve the relocation of said skylight lower on the roof slope, as applied for, because this would tend to make the skylight read as a modern amenity ( i.e. roof window) rather than in its tradionaL role as a functional element (i.e. opening for ventilation) , since skylights were traditionally located at or near the ridge pole in order to maximize attic ventilation. B. Denials The Commission voted to deny the following aspects of the application: 1 . The new skylight proposed for the front slope of the roof parallel to Chestnut Street. Not only would this be increasing the number of skylights, in violation of the established practice of the Commission, it represents a modern two-dimensional glass and metal element being located immediately adjacent to a period three-dimensional wooden dormer, in a location highly visable from the street ( indeed, over the main facade) , the incongruity of which is further exascerbated by the fact that the flat skylight and the three-dimensional dormer are completely asymetrical to one another. 2. The skylight already installed on the rear slope of the roof parallel to Chestnut Street for the reason that it is visable from Hamilton, Essex, and Cambridge Streets and violates the Guidelines of the Salem Historical Commission in that it is significantly larger than traditional skylights, is square whereas traditional skylights are rectangular, and is Located too Low on the roof, all of which emphasizes its non-traditional and inappropriate role as a modern amenitv ( i.e. roof window) rather than its traditional utilitarian role ( i.e. opening for ventilation) . Being also located adjacent to an existing period wooden dormer, the skylight was additionaLly denied for the same reasons enummerated in the preceding paragraph. 3. The proposed light brown shingles, for the following reasons: a. That the proposed light brown shingles do not simulate wooden shingles (which were probably the original roofing material) in either color or texture, and thus, should conform to the Guidelines established by the Salem Historical Commission for non-original or synthetic roofing materials; b. That the proposed light brown shingles would be the only example of same on the street, the overwhelming majority of the houses having either slate, or dark grey or black asphalt; C. That the Commission has consistently implemented its Guidelines since their adoption in 1984 regarding roofing materials, by rejecting all applications for Light colored roofs, including on buildings and in locations of far lesser significance than the building in question; d. That the Commission's Guidelines provide that where original roofing materials are prohibitavely expensive or impractical, dark grey or black asphalt (only) should be used as an alternative, which, unlike lighter colors, do not draw attention to the roof, or its synthetic roofing material, and also allow future homeowners wider latitude in choosing paint colors for the body and trim. e. That dark grey or black asphalt is particularly indicated in this instance, given the huge area of roof and its visability from Chestnut, Hamilton, Cambridge and Essex Streets. C. Rejection of 60 day argument The Commission did not accept the Applicant 's contention made after the vote on his application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, that he was entitled to a Certificate of Hardship as a matter of Law pursuant to C.L. c 40C, Section 11 , which rejection was based on the following reasons: 1 . That it was never established that the application had been filed more than sixty days earlier - the Applicant himself testified to different dates regarding when he filed his original application at the November 16, 1988 and December 7 , 1988 meetings. 2. That even if filed more than sixty days earlier, the Applicant' s original application was superceeded by a new and broader application he- subsequently filed (covering not only paint colors, but also the skylights and roof shingles) , which subsequent application was acted upon within the sixty day limit. ( Indeed, the foregoing was underscored by the Applicant himself, who knowingly proceeded with seeking approval of his application for a Certificate of Appropriateness at the November 16, 1988 meeting, and for a Certificate of Hardship at the December 7 , 1988 meeting, neither of which would have been necessary had a completed application been filed on September 13, 1988, as contended. Also, this agrees with communications received from various neighbors, who indicated that the Applicant initially apprised them only of the proposed paint colors. ) 3. That even if an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness covering all of the proposed work had been filed on September 13, 1988, the application was not deemed to be a completed application (meeting the minimum requirements for same established by the Salem Historical Commission) , and thus, the sixty day period never commenced running. 4. That the Salem Historical Commission acted upon the Applicant' s November 2, 1988 application for a Certificate of Appropriateness on November 16, 1988, well within the sixty day period; it is aware of no other application as of said meeting. 5. That even if a completed application for a Certificate of Appropriateness covering all of the proposed work had been filed on September 13, 1988, the November 2, 1988 application constituted, in effect, a written extension of the sixty day requirement within the meaning of G.L. c. 40C, Section 11 . Dated as of the 16th day of November, 1988. Annie C. Harris Chairman Witness Jane Guy Clerk Wf the Commission J2819 7 yyyy�� * fir ^' FEB (u 3 :2 al _. CNE SALEM GREEN. _.4LEfd. MASSFCHUS'c%S G.?7J :ITY Decision on Certificate of Hardship 14 Chestnut Street Application Filed — 11/23/88 Acted Upon — 12/7/89 I. Findings A. That the building in question represents a remarkably unaltered and magnificent example of a high—style Greek—revival mansion; B. That the building in question is located on Chestnut Street in Salem, a street world famous for the quality, cohesiveness, and unaltered condition of its period residential architecture; C. That as one of the largest and most monumental buildings on the street, the building in question makes an important contribution to the streetscape, and is highly visable from all three surrounding streets, i.e. Hamilton Street, Essex Street, and Cambridge Street, all of which are located in the McIntire Historic District; D. That the McIntire Historic District is the largest and most architecturally significant of Salem' s four local historic districts established pursuant to G.L. c. 40C, and that Chestnut Street is the most architecturally significant component thereof; . E. That Chestnut Street is also a designated landmark on the National Register of Historic Places, established by Federal statute; F. That the Salem Historic Commission has established Guidelines for the subject matter of the work being applied for, and has consistently implemented said Guidelines since their adoption in 1984, which Guidelines are available at the Salem Planning Department and the Salem Public Library; G. That the work was commenced prior to any application having been filed; H. That the Applicant had prior experience with the Commission and was or should have been aware of Commission procedures and jurisdiction. II. Decision At its December 7 , 1988 meeting, duly called and at which a quorum was present, the Salem Historical Commission unanimously voted to deny all three skylights being applied for, which vote further ordered the A immediate removal of the two that had already been installed ( i.e. on the front and back slopes of the roof parallel to Chestnut Street, the latter having been installed before November 12, 1988 and the former having been installed since the November 16, 1988 vote denying a Certificate of Appropriateness for same) and the immediate covering over of the well that had been installed to receive a skylight on the eastern slope of the roof perpendicular to Chestnut Street, since that was not the location approved at the November 16, 1988 meeting. By a 5 to 2 vote, the Commission also denied a Certificate of Hardship for the light brown roofing material being applied for, ordering its removal by June 1 , 1989 and its replacement by new roof singles (to be approved by the Commission) meeting the Guidelines of the Salem Historic Commission. As reasons therefore, the Commission stated the following: 1 . That the Applicant had had previous experience with the Salem Historical Commission and was aware or should have been aware of the Commission's procedures and jurisdiction; 2. That the Applicant commenced the painting and roofing of the house and had installed at least one skylight (i.e. the one on the rear of the roof parallel to Chestnut Street) before the hearing on this application, the painting before September 1 , 1988 and the skylight before the November 16, 1988 meeting, and thus, any hardship with respect to same is entirely self—created; 3. That the second skylight now being applied for had been installed since the November 16, 1988 meeting (i.e. the one on the front roof parallel to Chestnut Street) , in knowing and flagrant violation of the November 16, 1988 vote specifically denying same as being inappropriate; 4. That a well for the third skylight now being applied for ( i.e. on the eastern slope of the wing perpendicular to Chestnut Street) had been installed since the November 16, 1988 meeting in a location different than that approved at said meeting, in knowing and flagrant violation of said vote [the third skylight has since been installed in said well] ; 5. That new information has come to the attention of the Commission that, notwithstanding the Applicant' s representation to the Commission at the November 16, 1988 meeting that the brown roofing shingles could not be returned without cost, it may have been possible for the Applicant ' s roofing contractor to have exchanged the unused brown roofing shingles for black asphalt roofing shingles (of the type approved by the Guidelines of the Salem Historic Commission) at little or no cost; 6. That at the time of the November 16, 1988 meeting approximately 30% of the roof had been covered with the new brown roof shingles, with the balance of the roof still covered by the former asphalt shingles — since said meeting the Applicant has completed approximately 80% of the roof in the new material, and has removed much of the remaining former shingles, making the completion of the roofing an absolute necessity; 7. That Mr. Healy did not and does not have authority to waive the jurisdiction of the Salem Historical Commission over the proposed skylights and roofing material ; 8. That based on his prior experience with the jurisdiction and procedures of the Salem Historical Commission, even if the Applicant did indeed rely on said letter, it was unreasonable for him to suppose that Mr. Healy had the authority to waive said jurisdiction; 9. That based on the Applicant' s representations to Mr. Healy regarding skylights and wooden roof shingles that had formerly existed on the roof, the Applicant may have caused or contributed to Mr. Healy's apparent belief that the work being applied for represented replacement of then pre-existing elements, in which case the Applicant would have been entitled to proceed with said work as a matter of right pursuant to a Certificate of Non-Applicability; 10. By commencing work prior to the filing of any application, the Applicant caused or contributed to a crisis atmosphere which made any mistakes such as Mr. Healy's letter much more likely; 11 . That it is not clear whether the Applicant purchased all of his materials prior to Mr. Healy' s letter in any event; 12. That the Salem Building Department (through the Building Inspector) has concurrent jurisdiction with the Salem Historical Commission - obtaining a permit or certificate from one does not negate the need to obtain a permit or certificate from the other; 13. That even if the Applicant by his actions and representations did not cause or contribute to the mistakes contained within Mr. Healy's letter, and even if the Applicant' s reliance on same was reasonable, the Salem Historic District Commission, and the neighborhood it is entrusted (and required by statute) to protect , should not be bound by the mistakes of a municipal employee - if the Applicant has been monetarily damaged by said mistake, his proper remedy should be for money damages, which should be directed at the source thereof; 14. That for the above reasons either no legally-recognized hardship has been shown by the Applicant, or that he himself has caused or largely contributed to same. III. Rejection of 60 day argument The Commission did not accept the Applicant' s contention made for the first time after the vote on his application for a Certificate of Appropriateness at the November 16, 1988 meeting that he was entitled to a Certificate of Hardship as a matter of law pursuant to G.L. c 40C, Section 11 , which rejection was based on the following reasons: 1 . That it was never established that the application had been filed more than sixty days earlier - the Applicant himself testified to different dates regarding when he filed his original application at the November 16, 1988 and December 7, 1988 meetings; That even if filed more than sixty days earlier, the Applicant's original application was superceeded by a new and broader application he subsequently filed (covering not only paint colors, but also the skylights and roof shingles) , which subsequent application was acted upon within the sixty day limit. (Indeed, the foregoing was underscored by the Applicant himself, who knowingly proceeded with seeking approval of his application for a Certificate of Appropriateness at the November 16, 1988 meeting, and for a Certificate of Hardship at the December 7, 1988 meeting, neither of which would have been necessary had a completed application been filed on September 13 , 1988, as contended. Also, this agrees with communications received from various neighbors, who indicated that the Applicant initially apprised them only of the proposed paint colors. ) ; 3. That even if an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness covering all of the proposed work had been filed on September 13 , 1988, the application was not deemed to be a completed application (meeting the minimum requirements for same established by the Salem Historical Commission) , and thus, the sixty day period never commenced running; 4. That the Salem Historical Commission acted upon the Applicant's November 2, 1988 application for a Certificate of Appropriateness on November 16, 1988, well within the sixty day period; it is aware of no other application as of said meeting; 5. That even if a completed application for a Certificate of Appropriateness covering all of the proposed work had been filed on September 13, 1988, the November 2, 1988 application constituted, in effect, a written extension of the sixty day requirement within the meaning of G.L. c. 40C, Section 11 . Dated as of the 7th day of December, 1988. Annie C. Harris Chairman Wit s Jane A. Guy Cle k of the Commission J2824 � �_ -- ; M � sw • �� ' ��, r �� E�� _r � �. - �. CC: Building Inspector City Clerk Calcni Historical Commission CITY HALL. SALEM. MASS. 01970 res\ r CERTIFICATE OF NON-APPLICABILITY It is hereby certified that the Salem Historical Commission has determined that the proposed construction [x] ; reconstruction [ ]; demolition [ ] ; moving [ ]; alteration [ ]; painting [ ]; sign or other appurtenant fixture [ ] work as described below in the . . . McIntire Historic District. (NAME OF HISTORIC DISTRICT) Address of Property: 14 Chestnut street Name of Record Owner:Thomas A. III and Katherine V. Murray DESCRIPTION OF WORK PROPOSED: Pool as per plans on file with Building Inspector's office. Non-applicability to be effected by fence extension completed by May 1, 1985. Application enclosed for specification of fence extension details. ,a does not involve an exterior architectural feature or involves a feature covered by the exemptions or limitations set forth in the Historic District's Act (Federal Laws , Ch. 40C) and the Salem Historical Commission. Dated: October 30, 1984 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION Chairman I e,y�coFM4,(Q� �dA�ppp Salem Historical Commission a � CITY HALL. SALEM. MASS. 01970 �A A��1MM6 NTS' CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS It is hereby certified that the Salem Historical Commission has determined that the proposed construction [ ] ; reconstruction [ ]; demolition [ ] ; moving [ ] ; alteration [ ] ; painting [x]; sign or other appurtenant fixture [ ] work as described below in the . . . Chestnut Street Historic District. (NAME OF HISTORIC DISTRICT) Address of Property: 14 Chestnut Sf, At Name of Record Owner: John H. and Pamela P. Brown DESCRIPTION OF WORK PROPOSED: painting exterior body in muted yellow (Sunset gold) trim in soft white will be appropriate to the preservation of said Historic District, as per the requirements set forth in the Historic District's Act (Federal Laws , Ch. 40C) and the Salem Historical Commission. Dated: SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION BY Chairman v � Salrm Historical Commission Minutrs of YFeting January 6, 1982_ .: The Salem Historical Commission met for its regular mreting on Idednesday, January 6, 1982• Present were Messrs. Carr, Cook, Lahikainen, Wolfson, and Zaharis, Mrs. Whraton, and Ms. Harris. Also attending werr Associate Nk mbrrs Russell Slam and Margaret Millar, new Associate Member Oscar Padjrn, Peter Kroyenbrrg, Ralph Hobbs and companion, Robrrt Zarrlli, and Joseph Tarnowski. Thr meeting was called to order by Chairman Jacob Wolfson. Local District Operation The Commission first considered the application of Joseph Tarnowski for a second-story sun porch at 7-9 South Pine Street. Mr. Wolfson reported that at the special meeting of December 17, the Commission, with Mr. Tarnowski's assent, had voted to defer a decision on the application until this meeting so that members might have an opportunity to view the site with copies of Mr. Tarnowski's plan for construction. Members at the December 17th meeting had been particularly concerned about the relation of the new roof to the existing roof and how these roof lines might be made more sympathetic., Of thP ' options of curving the new roof to reflect the curve of the existing roof and continuing the line of the existing roof, Mr. Padjen felt strongly that the latter would be the most successful due to the water/flashing problems posed by intersecting the two under the dormers as planned. Mr. Padjen felt continuing the existing roof line would probably provide the 6'8" head room required by code and that with the fascia removed, there would be no structural difficulty. Concern was expressed that there be some attempt to line up the sun porch windows with those below on the first floor, and it was suggested that 3 windows would be optimal. The motion to approve the application as per the plans but with the roof of the addition following the line of the existing roof; 3 hairs of windows similar to the second pair on the first floor, double hung with wooden mullions and some alignment with the first floor windows; and shingles; roofing, and colors all as per the rest of the house was approved unanimously,:waiving public hearing and accepting the standard definition of abutters and pending notification of abutters. The Commission thanked Mr. TarnowskI for his cooperation, and Mr. Padjen volunteered to meet with Mr. Tarnowski at the site to discuss construction details. The next item on the agenda was an application from the Home for Aged Women, 180 Derby Street, for sign construction. Mr. Ralph Hobbs, Vice-president and Chairman of the Building and Grounds Committee, was present to submit the application calling for a free-standing white, wooden sign of about 84" to be located in the center of the lawn to the left of the path. He explained the need for a more visible sign and presented a drawing of the proposed sign. In answer to members' questions and comments, he explained that the lettering was to be routed not chipped and agreed to abandon the scroll or pediment motif in favor of a simple rectangle or half-moon topped rectangle and to the addition of molding which will be painted white. The motion to approve the application amended to the rectangular or half-moon topped rectangular shape with white trim and non-chipped black block lettering was approved unanimously by the 3-part motion, waiving public hearing, accepting the standard definition of abutters, and approving the application. Certificate to be mailed is pending notification of abutters. S.H.C. 1/6/82 p. 2 National Register of Historic Places Shetland Properties. Mr. Peter Kronenberg, Property Manager for Shetland Properties, Shetland Properties/Andover, next met with the Commission to discuss the eligibility of the Shetland Properties, Congress- Street, for nomination for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. He explained the interest in tax credits and desire for a letter of recommendation to the Massachusetts Historical Commission stating that the Salem Commission finds the property qualified for nomination. Following the National Register criteria, his report on the significance of the complex noted its distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction (Criteria C) in the reinforced concrete and steel structural system following those designed by Albert Kahn of Detriot only a few years earlier. A number of the buildings also represent the Art-Deco style as it was being simplified and applied to industrial architecture. He further pointed out in his report the relation of the complex to historical patterns (Criteria A) in the importance of the Naumkeag Steam Cotton Company to the economy and cultural life of Salem as well as the relation of the complex to fire code history and technological change. Clerk will make copies of the report available for members for study prior to the Commission's February meeting at which time a decision as to endorsement of the nomination will be made.. Local District Operation--continued The Commission next returned to local district operation and its continuing review of plans for the Phillips School site at 84-88 Essex Street. Mr. Robert Zarelli, architect for the planned conversion to handicapped housing, was present to review his most recent preliminary drawings for the main school complex and the new construction on the Essex Street side. In addition to these plans, he presented, as per the Commission's request, streetscape elevations of Essex Street showing the new construction there set between the existing buildings. A similar streetscape elevation was available for the Washington Square view. He explained that current plans call for 18 units, 2 one bedroom units, 4 two bedroom units, and 12 thrEe bedroom units, and 25 parking spaces. The Phillips School main building will be chemically cleaned and window size retained as at present by pocketing the ceilings inside to accomodate the lower ceiling heights. Members expressed concern about the appearance of the windows and suggested that the original windows be retained with exterior storm and screen windows added for energy efficiency. Mr. Zarelli agreed to explore this option after inventory of the existing windows and assessment of their ease of operation for the population involved. He noted that saving the existing windows, if they were in sufficiently good condition, would be a financial savings. With regard to the two buildings to be constructed on Essex Street, members expressed concern that the windows were not sufficiently vertical and that the window openings were too small in proportion to the amount of wall space. There was also concern about the use of stock windows with "pop—in" mullions which are unsatisfactory and might well be removed. Members recommended instead the use of stock 6 x 6 sash with storm windows. There was also concern about the absence of any raised foundation on the building comparable to those adjacent to it. No raised foundation can be used due to the need to make the entrance wheelchair accessible, but Mr. Zarelli agreed to the use of a trim board. Buildings are to be clapboarded with 4" or less exposure to the weather. S.H.C. 1/6/82 P. 3 Another area.'of concern were the absence of a symmetrically placed window to one side of the entry on each building which Mr. Zarelli explained was necessary due to the location of the stairs there. It was agreed that it was preferable to include the windows which could be curtained or simply uncovered with the stairs visible. The location of parking between the two Fssex Street buildings and cut in the fence there was a matter of major concern to the Commission which objected to the break in continuity along the street, the intrusion of cars there, and to the safety of egress to Fssex Street by backing out from such slots. Mr. Zarelli agreed that these concerns were important and proposed to eliminate this parking from the plan. Mr. Zarelli explained that the Phillips School conversion will be presented to the Board of Appeals on January 20 and asked that the Commission address a letter to that board expressing its general approval for the plans and describing its cooperative and continuing working relationship with William Farrell of the Salem Housing Authority and Mr. Zarelli. There was some discussion as to whether the Comprehensive Permi%which Mr. Zarelli -described might be issued by the Board of Appeals in a case sponsored by the Executive Office of Communities and Development (FOCD), would supersede the requirement of Commission review in a local district. Mrs. Wheaton and Mr. Carr will investigate so that if this is the case, the Commission's letter to the Board of Appeals can specify the Commission's interest in continued design review control. Mr. Zarelli explained that at the February meeting of the Commission, he should be at the,design development stage and Commission review and suggestions then will be very important pefore working drawings, which become more difficult to change, are begun. Local Ustricts (,onaominium i,onversions in Historic Districts. As its next item of business, the Commission considered the matter of condominium conversions in historic districts. Mrs. Wheaton mentioned that she had questioned City Solicitor Richard Stafford relative to the appropriateness of a communication to the Board of Appeals outlining a general Commission position or viewpoint on conversions. She noted the timeliness of the issue due to the current suit against the Board of Appeals conversion denial to Thorivald Lauritsen of 14 Chestnut Street. After some discussion, the Commission chose to vote immediately on the issue of 14 Chestnut Street, voting unanimous assent to a motion supporting the decision of the Board of Appeals relative to 14 Chestnut Street. A second unanimous vote made it a matter of Commission policy that, in future cases of condominium conversions in historic districts before the Board of Appeals, the Commission will review the particulars of the specific building and neighborhood involved and communicate their assessment to the Board of Appeals for their review and consideration in any decision. A communication is to be addressed to the Board of Appeals requesting that such review be considered in their decisions. Finally, the Commission came to an agreement on a general statement of concerns and critical conditions involved in condominiui conversions in historic districts. The statement was approved by unanimous vote. The Commission viewpoint approved regards condominium conversions in historic districts as potentially beneficial or harmful depending upon several critical conditions First is the quality of repair of the building itself and its architectural integrity. Second is the relation of the building to its surroundings. In an area or S.H.C. 1/6/82 p. 4 street where there is a strong sense of architectural unity and a high degree of preservation of historic architecture, compromises in the historic quality of any single building impacts very strongly on the area as a whole. The Commission also identified several factors which might be more or less problematic in condominium conversions in historic districts depending upon those conditions of building and neighborhood. These factors ares First is the factor of initial conversion changes. This factor could become a very serious problem should a property be actually purchased before Commission review of possible substantial conversion alterations. The Commission would look very negatively on claims of hardship made by an investor making a conversion who failed to seek Commission review of such alterations before finalizing a purchase. Second, the Commission is aware of a general sentiment concerning the quality of maintenance of small—scale condominium units where disagreements surrounding maintenance expenditures and priorities may lead to some deterioration in the exterior appearance of the building. The Commission is concerned that the Board of Appeals not assume that that a building's exterior is protected simply by location in a local historic district. The Commission has no jurisdiction over or ability to require regular maintenance. Third, the Commission is concerned about the impact that condominium conversion--or multiple ownership--may have upon the historic integrity of our period architecture, especially in the case of buildings always architecturally identified as single rather than multi—family units. Multiple ownership will inevitably mean an increase in the number of requests for exterior alterations to suit the various needs/interests of those different owners. Some of these cases will involve legitimate financial or, more commonly, other hardship. In such cases, the Commission would be required to permit more exterior modifications to a property than it would desire or than it would allow under single ownership. Fourth,though interior modifications are not an area falling under the Commission's jurisdiction, as preservationists the Commission feels a responsibility to comment on the potential for the destruction of rereplacable historic interior architecture which conversions may imply. Local District Operation--continued In its final matter of business, the Commission approved unanimously, pending notification of abutters and by the three—part motion, the application for a sign at 21 Washington Square North. Mrs. Wheaton explained that Mr. Paul Rabchenuk, tenant at that address,--had submitted a drawing of the proposed sign for comment at the meeting of December 17: At that time, the Commission recommended a simple rectangular, rather than scrolled, design with all block, rather than block and script, lettering. Mrs. Wheaton reported that Mr. Rabchenuk felt these suggestions would, in fact, produce a more appropriate sign for this building, and she showed the Commission a drawing indicating the proposed location of the sign, flat against the front of the building between the two windows to the left of the entry. The final specifications for the sign as approved call for a 12" x 24" x 3/4" hardwood stock rectangular S.H.C. 1/6/82 P. 5 sign with a flat black background, gold trim�and gold block lettering, all as per submitted plans. Respectfully submitted, FlizrYMth B. Wheaton, Clerk of Commission tt I f! A S�i^� {7�1��'I• � A' a TT ... :+"�. a+ sLMRCmf..+YC4 - sC»'auswi3"+dftr��t'wo.Yl: .-�l' .+ 7P=a+Z.�,�•:;'..«, memo _ O i W LM 1 1cAY1 (SN. FXSSt. SASM _ - _ 7g ,-• TO --- r— / _ _�__ L - U i L i K � T _ l ._: �.. __—_— X 1. � Q As. cc Q _ ca rr coccG Nf-W 2 fL 1 — r R j - i I Q m r. \y t i ci_ _.--- t -4A CL 711 cc r2r c0 O -- --- ca cc REVISIONS: 6R#w WHOLZ IFACADAI •90 DATE: I� 1990 tAL I/4 n j i I i p D'wg. No.A3R / r 11cAVl bt4ft L _ _ �LJ-4 i L rn cn �LT - - !- cu_. _ CD r co cc Cc c -4 —77 .--1 I _ - r ' l i { I i s _ i I ,f4Irz_ 44 p (n cc 4-4 -- F>> REVISIONS: j7b 0tvW WHots f FAD DATE: � l�• 1990 yr ��• A. l C�11��/ rEYwg. No.A-3 a I 1 V rn_ ' m i J4 lA4 I Q I < } - E EjI Q i cc � N LOF? ¢IDOK I 00 00 a ' L. rwJALA90 m TA m s . i r gMOYG \J\ d j 1_y c - J-� f . NE•w hro,t2 O in i i N v� OrB r i t 4 Wi + m co— -- ' Q E IE ca 13 O -------- - - 1 i cc -- D - REVISIONS: ( DATE: 11A k � �99U L Ev A'C I c� N �>e�r�:� �n, �; � IiAC/�L(_.�i.3 D'wg. N o. A - 5 ! '� �'�•a� y , ` �r� . 7' WN ' I .�`C, i� 1 �!.�Yj r` : .Ir� t <' , •a .. ��1IR j" lam` I r�"'' ., m :� ►MCI d .. g d • v ___ ' 44 1 ILI L • w., Y iY+ir.4 —. Aft T e . • I • Yv�'. t� 1� r,��� }'. r .a'/ O '.l �jh5 :Y' 1� �.. `� ,.,. . 5 F► - EXI�,7' Ci I'Of�C�f IoT _ �aJI � �/ ✓ 1V � T)OVN7, Q�G�te raj I7 1``�� VV VV r , <iE k E �! I� «1H 4CHfD0Lf i' 10' wv, Rt, TRK' TYf - Q1 0 ¢ 'OMAN aC cMgCL(f'oq Zz ,� i 3 1 N 7 23 Cl Q m 24 m � v 6LocC uP 2 Q ,� Q 2 -- — -- 2� *`� ,_ IJ£UI STEEL •, 00 — = z �- �1 Ij Q m m U I1 ►t`'� 1 -k - — cc j iJE CDL• tltilE nr: .._,� ,, ,,� r: � � ! lY C U) " AIZFA OFco h { jf _- �^ ALTELA710td I ( �2 �j n E man a ' 4l �Lrr '//r2U:7tilZ1 D2U14' - U '9 SGr 5L' �i OG` C2 REVISIONS: TG AIM,- �(Nccviss- 11 -90 E W r J(�L. AftDATE: MAY ' i yyT ° s 1 o- • . w I i o t'XCH U, ArZ64 .._.—_1 T1 !c' hA!lV'$cl:+ AITEaa,- WEVJ Ci)�.� y^•,3,J�^C.rhJ �� I2�T ! � L �?T� L CONS"CRUGTIoN LE<E.NL� ;� •� _ I NOOP 'F1'+'.AM0L I DFYWALL � - ) • 4 s ,M14 EAnA! _ E�CI 4 Td rt 2: MOVE �...-..� . - • • ,,. 'M 019 D wg. t, r N E_W (49 P4C U'Y& Olt FLOC k- 142ST � ovrz G� iAf+ rZS3"� `�,. tlw �2) 7"� 8" a,r �?s �PSEP �i�z n II f4 1yAi2�llANl 21v•c� irME!� ___—__ -__---_.._.__.._._._.._.._._ __ ---_.--=___.-- ..:._.r�� •.:� .--. --»-j>- ._amu—:.-_---,. . —' 3��X11�¢ ---------- T4 – T� T, 41L- j j , • 3 r I t I 1 I ' I L�ASttltjCt f FF f i , r� � ! .: . Cot • : f � � f ( tt , i TLS`•' � _'1j � 1 l /Gr<�Nf? �i(�L J 1 I . _ - 14 1_� ff i = I �1 v Amoi_ WOOD 1 rJ 2- lAY�2� " 5lyr 'cv' �? ° « IcaS + d � Yr° O MOWNm 1~cr cn _ y�e Q.A.A . r gcat� rI4" _ { - �' Q cn� . �CAll � �• -=" � —D pews. 5•t Ir Td `�/AI CZ w d3 ^r r� s I vow�.i I Yl Q O o •, ,. r � Sri J 1 I' 11 — TpN. 13 f2 m 15 CD INEI 8 ` etc { Iril! 'jl�/LIGNT I O Q /_ 7 cc _y \ 1+ --- CC UEf ' M1"( - I (.�� .� -3 ' tr 4 - ii REVISIONS: –T_ 4, _. 1 j 1 • =r s DATE �7oi1�{2 a - - -r FILA - A L4 , 1 ,C r _ t 7 W / f � dfto CD fn _7 news Names cc JA - - - I { SIM. ;'�LbJ<-�' ` � 0 i I � � �. � 1 r•..yn..._.� _ _ ( y I O N k inn Qs� 1W otw4 • A-3 R -. �:; _ � � I � � 1 1 � ? � Cc x _ _ . _ _ _ 1 I i a _ ---- --- , CD f , Q � ,__ __, � +�--•� s t _ �� ! -_€ori I I, 1 �j. 3 N t' ti (� E , Cc I – , -• _ � � . – _ __ _ _ —. -���_ .. , � I - —, . .—___. ._._` _ –_ _ _ __ (gyp GLVLRAL 110T= 4 OUTLIVE Gl'LCIYICATIOV01 U _ 1. All materials and construction shall conform to the Meuachumat. (!kM4SEµEN ' state building code and to any aad &li Lacll ordinances. 12. The final payment, not less than five percent (5%) of the REVISIONS: contract amount shall be retained by the Ower for a period --.--- - The Contractor shall secure all required permits prior to pro- of thirty days (30), following completion of the Contractwork, ceading with the work. to allow the Owner time to tabulate a list of Incomplete and unacceptable Stems. The withheld fundi will be released to 3. The Contractor shall notify the Architect or the Engineer of the Contractor provided the thirty days has elapsed or as Jt any field conditions that vary from tms Information shown on mutually &greed. �( ( the Drawings. The Contractor shall veslfy all dimensions In V �-/-, �jti\ [Dtz,�/ /e'�1 the field prior to proceeding with the work. Th. Contractor shall take all precautions to prevent the spread of dust, dirt, and debris to other partnof any adjacent ■true-. H a, The Contractor shall secure the Architect or the Owners approval turoa, If any, and or adjoin Ing property. )le shall take all �7 JJ� _ ) �t for any material abbotitutions or chaigas in the work. procaualons and provide adequate guards and,barricaaa to pro- (A. { f/ vent injury to persons and property. 5. dTherawings Owner shall select all Colors and if not thew on the i ` drawings the ower shall se/het all act be materials. All of la. ma cnwitho to the scope of work or to the Contract will D. DATE: ^ / I-l- rYJ+t-/`�, which shall be included In the contract between the Owner and made without a Change Order to be signed by the Ower wad the Ooatractor, the Contractor. 6. The Contractor shall coordinate the votx of all Utility 15. Unless otherwise toted all dimensions shown are from outside Company& involved in the work. exterior wall studs, or foundation wall to centerline of Int- -- _ erlor partitions, doors, windows etc. ' 7. No signs or advertisements will be al.awed to Da displayed e on the premises without the approval of the ower. 16. All workmanship, materials etc. shall be of a quality'mqual r(', to that set forth in the Si recommended by the various 'i i g. The Contractor shall protect all finismed surfaces, Sae luding Trade Associations, American woodworking Institute, American the jambe and soffits of all openings used as passageways or Concrete Institute etc. . through which anterial/ are handled aggaainst any possible damage resulting from the conduct of Vue work by all trades. 17• The Contractor shall pay for all required labor, material, staging, apparatus necessary to complete the Werk In gdod 9. The Contractor shall purchase and ■alptain such insurance as and worknanlika sensor. Provide, maintain and pay for will protect him from claims which may aria out of or result Workingmons Compensation and Public Liability Insurance. from the Contractors operations under the contract, whether Il . Obtain and pay for all permits necessary to carry on the work. ; ' ' such operations be'by himself or by aay sub-Contractor or by Refer to Owner/Contractor Building Contract for Stems mod/or anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them or by additions, deletions or clariflcatloa. anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable. 18. The General Contractor (Contractor) shall carefully. No •raise 10. Upon cox the site and all conditions affecting the work. No elaams �- �e p pia anon, the Contractor chall deliver all Manufacturers 1 wadi requirednb .th guarantees and a cartitDepa me Occupancy if for additional wle compeasationcondit will De allowed bonsuth re n D `A,ts. A'O• required by the City or Town caul Laing Department. lack of kbe dem en conditions.big&. Any conall be vee therein � that may be detrimental to his work shall be reportedto 11. All Labor and Maberlals shall be guaranteed by the Contractor the Ower Immediately. Failure to take such a report con- - r W-ft• for a,period of One Year atter the Data eL Completion. stltutes acceptance of the conditions than existing. f; ill�l®1 JEER � i E I t ow O O • _- .wau aw.sw.�+q�+ iYPd+6'.sYrww�^ „aNc�.o,3..tim.'�1':�•_YGSt ;,C'�. - -."•C"J:.:i�a.a ,6._ �^ -_ - .. � ^—._ }, I ' HeAvw Lt" hofs, SAsN � l cc , W,�o•�D• ` -- _ r Q N Q zoo — _ _ _ � _ 40,r •r � TV OD O o New 2`ftoo �I ; m m _.._ _._.___ . .Cc........_ _. :. �- ta i CD ca � I — t f — I I' ' I - ICS REVISIONS: f IFrw W P40Ls FACAO •}0 i� ow5 11. 24 .90 �_ ti� t. v N140�1 �!J S T DATE: t� f990 \' lh i a 3 , t D'wg. N o.A-3 R a - - .:.:. .v.: 'lf' ,, ✓ A .S'.. 1 + t✓+'yvk e+ rr ". C oA ,a.. �iq"^u "5: �< �},:,. .�fr f x r:rlxa AA C,�IV i'+F^ '.��dl�• �rx. . 7. h�, s;d 7 �•4 " J �i� ,� � �r , •..,< �x ,:D Ba i� +1x r q� /fi:fa.�j. �, :.* r a a r y?� x:�r a r::'�" . x ` f x� 4�' S4 � !�'M1 ,:,"`'r 4 t rr,.�,e b � 'd �,. k %+�'��.� .t.y , r A� ' y ;lr�• ; � d ¢. $ a•v' A* S�' 7., "' r$ ,'k -,. Mgr�y��,.'`S t.i .y"..: q+',�W'': ;v r „ "::f a n "ft:4.'. n' ' •o ���>ia'/Yi" `k�� gA15e ?:r r _G .f k'r }:1i'E�'rt 'F" �„%AV (p dL1�. .. y P .� ��'( �x �•^�. ,C�t � Pqx . L ",e . o'�Y �e ��� r y+ �+G yti � x� >1�{ y�.+ss�yy"F?v'}q�.i x d ✓ A'. 1�... ; t y .K9'�k'�n r M� + 'd x�}}E' k t _. Sir < f ZI CY (13 ca 9 --_ �'-sr•-'_"wk's"..-x-sa-t-`—w+a+*.xa^.-: x-vs-r.-v�rwamae-- ..a --:�xmcaas^�x'.v<t.'_zv':�+._+.K'se-. -_ '---^_-pct-.._ '^_•.— _. � "q '�i+°.�� � .....-1_=,�y._ ,+ � V s -- 1 _. _ ! Re M.Uvco .. G7s.t(9T.. cocc x CO - - - /�/� t W t ' q . 1209WCc2 l? m cc I 1 � n P, _. I ` r j 1 t DATE: L G- V A-n ® til �r-rzot^ IV or27-4 YA +i — 6tA kJrZe7 . -rJ wv,) ; t ID'Wg. No. A- I i r f I i f f-LAsNiN� _ - PSPNAI ( vim, ctsco + c ---..a---._—_— r O CO 71 /�I�W O LLUOfZ I - I j % FL.00e ;J ! Q m m L., -� r. a T - cc r N>E•N Nr+�2 d o ' ' , ,�„L,E�"'t�'C:v_E'M'S>• - __,_ __- ---- � �- J` a r - - - - n �� { I !I + i I _�j EQ v r� cc REVISIONS: 1 P4 DLwjipG I �,n`` IZO/�/` LA 'r7T f1ACt.�, t PD/�CbI �JTnik' 4 PA)LIII�1 DATE: � Ll�, VA-T I Oq \A1 , 1j'%U v J f'v LJTb2 DETAIL. 40 i S � MwA9 _ FDwg. No. A -- 5 t - � Y `� f� :��'a►.L�yP,'". ice' • c .✓ •• -i4 •L'7 � ,� � � �� . I n r.,-- ms's_ \ t .�" }�i• _ r { _ '� -��- � ,- - : _�~ , - + . • 4 - ,»,?!rte ,\,�- < „r y[- t lop ?rc%;L'/,) F2OSE- D A%,.-.m..eATiom4 To APARTME14T t:► ' 1 � Vol 17 � .. I. s . _ I IT i I V-XIly7't-�4 rVize q -� w j N ��� 1'V� �✓�/J �i �G�fZ. CJC�fEDt�L� I r "► �t ( , �I2E `PCNLC DOLEZ2 ILIO, Wer / 14t. TNI(• TYP1� TO 0 'z f zo � ��f 11V11 012 CDNSTU��II Q r w v N 22 i = r" L ?3 NEW W INoa t/ `- -- --- - -- - - - - --- z� Q E OVE!Z 00 GGG a i� M� iJE Cad• LI JE 6K- opt F CO k DI'fN1 !{ 1 TI PSAS rt A2FA OF ALTE2A7r6►4 ca L v ` ' 4 (�� �t M K' I� l4� SE�ONsr �!OO ft REVISIONS Ir I ro `yy -RR— I 1~ 1 1j/j/)L AWE � � DATE UA-Y" z Ip OF , feF M �� AL?E2ATIor1�? 1- - - - - - � I QST -TLG�� L. �. COfi15!'QlKT1oN LErENn = Wpo7 FIZb•�c } DRYVJALL 114," -T E-4ISTiN4 Td rtFMAI11 -- -- ate , . : ::,.; coNcrz �� ,� — - - . ►,��, �a>rs�7,�, lo.s �., D'wg. No. A- ! - - TD BE aEtilo v co � ,• '�:' N>:W CaNc2rE"fE a,c BLOCK . - �, • t r45 T Ir 0 -c.. . .. .. . .w>...:.wvv.'Ju.....-_._ _... saw.. aL. '..c...—ri..1 .. NI.P�t._u ,.:. • ... ... \ J - - RAF rCS *,tot 4.. NEN1 r'Z) Z �C �" RAf7Yct�S 'ASEo ai�z 11W PAM-1+LLAAk 2tp<4 � �Ititlf• --- -- ----- - -� _ _ - i _ —_ f*W-ALLAIA fzrraGE.? - i 1 eA` - — VZ4 4Yp Y30AIZc, I 71 _ J I I _ I �t I j i • � ' '. V , i L V000 X ._t G _. fes. u— ----- E - -- - - -- ----- -- L+'IYYc�LI t �' �rz�sr. GGao1C'+"� I I 1r T II �tS-fIN� CoNG yt,�4+g W r - a _ �/ L- Q N IF �75GTlO- @ - ---- � CTt �N Y 14" ` N h FE A A ' ► '�`�" y SAI: _- 1 -C —j �i cALE r Q d Q E -- Q tv - -.- - m W. rg a cv ' O o 111111111 m 1 _ _ 1 r rn 2 ` u` W fit`— µtin' N L LINEN (3f..v,, I WALL �jl�/LIrH ( � - - -- -- - -- 301K 3& ll \j E cc ♦Vi rlaf .�yy, U'-\11��, pcarto�l j V Fil t REVISIONS: - . O I FL ;-- i _ --- -- DATE: k'A-/ �5 990 N�k D'wg. No. A 1 } i w 11J se 36. — — 1 ! ,('14~? (ZE PI1+bCE faux �iN Eg7Tf I N!, �..—_ _._.... - - w� :___. -----� J � � - -- -t L�rT ^(UIL6T WYt�e.QE R�'tSltJ/l2£!� .,,..... _ ,«,�,.......e +.- - .. I \ I -t- j { o __ __ __ __�,__�_ _ _ _ _ _ •- --- — o — zz co I f tl n FtN. 41aak I -r ICD seems I f 11 Q so b -- �-- - ' I Tim= I jlei Iicc f —+ _ . , N -4 I C cc GOLHAL 8OTO l OUTLINE Ll'ECSYSGATIOtICi l - I 1. All uNt1aL and construction shall conform to the Maes achuse U. p•G r.N_t. State Dulldla coda and to any and all Local ordinances. 12. The final pa7aent, not less than flea percent (5%) of the REVISIONS: �- g contract amount ;hall bo retained by the Owner for a period -- 2. The Contractor shall secure all required permits prior to pro- of thirty days t50), following completion of the Cont roc tvork, ceeding with the work, to allow the Owner Lima to tabulate a list of incompla to and/or unacceptable Stems, The withheld funds will be released to -� j, The Contractor shall notify the Architect or the Engineer of the Contractor provided the thirty days has elapsed or as any field conditions that vary from the information shown on mutually agreed. X �l`� 2'1 `�, 1 Cl 1 [Dyz ���� � the Deavinge. TDe intreefer shall verlf7 all dimemalans In 1�1' l the field prior to proceeding with the work. 15. The Contractor shall take all precautions to prevent the epre.0 of dust, dirt, and debrla to other partsot any ad cant atruc- 4• The Contractor shall secure the Architect or the Owners approve_ furan, if any, and er addo Sning propnrtY. �1a ,hal take all ,t ,{ if ' , ^ ,t for any material e4Detltutlons or changes in the work. precautions and provide adequate guards and Darrludu to Dra- �71a 5. The Owner shall select all colors and if not shown on the went injury to yeraom! and property. drawings the owner shall select all finish Materials. All of 14. No changes to the scope of work or to the Contract will be DATE: MAY -/ which shall be included in the contract between the Owner and made without a Change Order to be signed by the Owner and the Oontractor. the Contractor. 6. The Contractor shall coordinate the work of all Utility 15• Unless otherwise noted all dimensions shown are from outside y.--- Companys Involved in the work. exterior wall studs, or foundation wall to centerline of 1st- F„ erdor partitions, doors, windows etc. 7. No ■Igoe or advertisements emants will De Allowed to be dlaplaY;d 16. All workmanship, materials ate. shall be of a quality equal f•,�. on the premises without the approval of the owner. ' to that eat torch So the STAN DARDB recommended by the various s 8. The Contractor shall protect all finished surfaces, in. Trade tee Institute American Voodwo rking Institute, American the Jambs and soffits of all openings used as pauagews7e or Concrete Institute etc. through which materials are handled against any possible ly. The Contractor shall pay for all required labor, material, ,lir damage resulting from the conduct of the work D7 all trades. ataging, apparatus necessary to comylets the work in good Y 9. The Contractor shall purchase and maintain such ineurancs as and workmanlike manner. provide, maintain and pal for "rF will protect his from claims which may arise out of or result Uorkingmens Compensation and Public Liability Insuraacee work./ - from the Contractors operations under the contract, whether Obtain and pay for all yernuie Buibsclding Contrss&rYact to carr? em the work. '•l\Y/// such operations Darby himself or by any sub-Contractor or by Refer to Owner/ContraCi02 8u11d1sg Contract for Stems and/or anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them or ty additions, dslatlone or clarifications. anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable. 18. The General Contractor (Contractor) shell carefully exmine 10. Upon completion, the Contractor shall deliver all ttanufacturer the site and all conditions affecting the work. No clalea �tWg. NO. A- - warrnntlea and guarantees and a certificate of Occupancy SL' for additional compensation .111 De allowed because of a H required by the uara to 'sown nui ie!nd icate of Occupant: lack of knovlegge of conditions. Any conditions therein that may be detrimental to his work shall be reported to the Cwncr immediate l7. Failure to make such a report con nor All Labor and Materials shall be guaranteed by the Coctractor ;tit tes acceptance of the condltians then existing. for a period of One Year after the Date of Completion. I�1 1 1 � I , I L_ ETIT iZ► �I ver ` o 1 #---_ < � N I cc i L�1l1 c• . ASFUALT SM ^4 G ¢ o v� ao M W L cL cc ^_ I!jAftr`,' ", _Q v) I I I dw � - N" PcMp+i POO 14 l:S Q✓S (D E O �iCc' r - _ - '/\NCI,V S--- ' � � REVISIONS 07ff E: MA'( 5Igja L G V or ' __ _ _ ,! c ++i zE Htis -ra r � ensr. D'wg. N o. A - f -- _. _- _. _„eft,-• .. .Y... . r:.:. .i VJU V m cu is 1--___—y +GQ �• �". _ � f1 �. Lo FT ¢LpoK cc_I � � ., � O o a �1 co tJEt�J PP�r2iH * �2 TU x ' �! G. o M ll VA Li i (us,n� N a' Cco Wo NOW c 6 i REVISIONS: _ C,Oc1FgG ft—. V A� I 4::rzoAA5"r [ A66`L 17j DATE: MAY '5 , To I A . LD'wg. No. A .;IF. r" w• r A NI R i. 1= t r/ \` f �71 � Fly- 's S acc q fl LOfT ¢LOOK t: 7 w c I - -►-_ - -_ �} O 0 t ry PL �♦VY([�`� QO LIv ` gE IZFMn�- f 1 9AoS>. O E E m k R ISIONS: =.. . _ c71`� Y �� AS� L�AC�L��i ( ✓h �PSrr1� DATE s D'wg. No. �A rf pg clots � Tyv,t�c IL i , ! i i r , r i I f i ! A!z� - - 3"0ry STo OWA1 W /q ,c ?,Z 3 P/'-4oc. A { lt7/ N d 1 I ? ( f _ B r i Ir t I I f 101 Pr-C � *lEM-/NA as o (AE'gal"W .1) L DD 4� I ti LOFT LODZ kAMr �-l � a 0 hCA i,l~ 4 -O 1 rL 5T I lour Q m 4 m w cc Cuf exi5 . -Floor slab I 1 ti l i �) as re4uircd, rerrove �, Q o I P t 9ht I exist, footin9, install `O �C -io 4 I"C 'Pill y O" :GAG• s ref` 8~!d �ONO,C• -7 r w '' h 4" .rn,n . new -Foo+ir-q 4 Patch slab. �. X Cn sh+-,nK rout F- m 9 Base X 10 with O �I 4ASSAAEM-T f lxr -, 2 - " 0 bolts, IV lq. Vapart. icc N } /0i4RL4.A.c1f ij — /Z6S7 3FAM a +� ' ami II 3�1!x //�4 Agawc + r' /NTi -wk-4er U)�i �V /M MiISO.t/2Y Cv�4LL � � 0 CJ N a i e 21 ON _. M. I IN OtZ REVISIONS: T I Ft with Uv 10 ` 0 bo Its DATE: Ajt A ` 'i . ! 13D ERIS'fiN�i fNtO�f iyy - [XI elff#4 4 Ahf"NiA!-T 3Z OD COI IZEvcAc6 w»w[s n�aP'n,� ID 6& rT '-L^Csv It y b CRL6 /4 a 1�2" D!2-I(wt.A� Top of exist r See A-A N(�vJ (2-) - 2 a"h (� 3 'O"0,�. fdn. wall . ' V INSULA� 14 6/ 41.0 A* '67AtNECII or f'A1Q'T-,a N hs r>!!:t*dC'TEr.2 6y owwe,a r)j�,TA ► L AT � A 1 L� (,P rijD'w9. N0. S- 1 4LAl4k- 3�4" s { = d " SCA LIF fir, _ I , �„