Loading...
10 GIFFORD COURT - DISTRICT FILES Zvi 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 Cl 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: l0 Gifford Court Name of Record Owner: Maureen 1acoby_(l;nit 1) Toni Fournier(unit 2) Description of Work Proposed: Construction of secondary egress in rear per drawing dated 6/21/06. Non-applicable due to being essentially non-visible from the public way. This certificate replaces the Certificate of Hardship dated 3/16/06(which was rescinded by the Commission on 6/21/06 at the request of the owners). Dated: lune 29, 2006 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION By: J;jjA" OC,4? v�% 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. l _ � l - r top w ' r r+ � I 40 Responses as to Complaint /(vr o� Superior Court Civil Action No: 6-644D z Co John H. Carr,Jr. Plaintiff V. S � Members of the Salem Historical Commission/Jacoby/Fournier Defendents 1. True 2. through 6. True (Note: Kathryn Harper residence is omitted from this list. She resides at 3 Allen Street, Salem, MA) 7. True 8. Clarification: Ms. Fournier is named on the February 27, 2006 application as the record owner of Unit 2. Ms. Jacoby's unit(#1) requires the secondary egress. 9. True 10. True 11. True. Note: The application was apparently signed by Ms. Fournier, as her address and phone number are so listed. 12. Challenge. The"informal discussion"was listed on the agenda of the regularly-scheduled meeting of the Commission of Wednesday, December, 7, 2005. 13. True 14. True 15. True. However,Ms. Herbert's statement"that the Commission would never allow a second door on the front of the house"was stated in the context of changing a window to be a door. 16. True 17. True 18. Clarification: The footnote mentioned is on the application, not on the architect's drawing. 19. True 20. Challenge. As consistent with applications before the Commission, the Chair allows discussion between the Commission members and the applicants to clarify the details of the application before opening up to public comment. Public comment is/was considered before any vote was/is taken. 21. Clarification: The minutes state"John Carr, 7 River Street, stated that, procedurally,he felt that public comment should be asked for sooner in the process." 22. Challenge. The minutes state"He stated that the Commission should determine what extent the doorway is part of the original fabric and if the proposed doorway is appropriate for a vernacular house. He stated that the Commission should make its decision based on historic appropriateness." While meeting minutes are not transcribed word for word,the language provided in Item#22 appears largely embellished beyond what was actually stated by Mr. Carr during the public meeting. 23. True. Clarification: During the public bearing for the alteration of front entry,Mr. Carr was the only person from the public who spoke either in favor or in opposition. 24. Challenge. a. Mr. Carr wrote"following discussion", thereby contradicting his assertion in Item 20 that "the Commission had virtually concluded its discussion before soliciting public comment..." b. The statement that there was no Application for a Certificate of Hardship pending before the Commission is true, but irrelevant. While the Notice of Public Meeting,which is posted at City Hall, indicates the list of applications received by the Commission and slated for discussion at the Public Meeting, the Notice of Hearing(Exhibit??)that is mailed to abutters, abutters to abutters, property owners across the street and their abutters does not indicate the type of application. This is consistent with the Commission's long established practice. In point of fact,as a former member of the Commission,who is also a licensed attorney, Mr. Carr has made motion to approve a • 1 Certificate of Hardship under an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness and has voted in favor of such motion(Exhibit??),minutes of meeting of February 7, 1996, 1 Hamilton Street. c. Mr. Carr's statement concerning Ms. Herbert's motion is true,but abridged. According to the minutes,Ms. Herbert further stated in her motion that,"Included in the motion was the finding that due to the building code requirements for secondary egress,an interior solution was not possible and that all exterior alternatives have been thoroughly explored with only this solution remaining and that the Hardship was not created by the current owners." 25. Challenge. The Commission disagrees that Mr. Carr raised his hand to speak at this time. It wasn't until the following application for 88 Federal Street,that Mr. Carr raised his hand to speak. This was further confirmed by Mr. Carr's comment following the meeting that he had raised his hand to inform the applicant of contractors who provided window repair services. 26.True. Again,Mr. Carr states that the Commission had"further discussion",before voting. Note: The March 15,2006 minutes are in draft form and have not been reviewed for errors or omissions by the Commission,nor have they been approved/accepted by a formal vote of the Commission as of this date. 27. Challenge a. Line 1 -This finding was edited by Mr. Carr. Following the word"remaining"in the Certificate,this sentence continues"and that the Hardship was not created by the current owners." b. Line 2-True,there was no formal site visit as a group. Did anyone go there on their own? c. Line 2 ".....Commission,which relied entirely on the self-serving representations of Ms. Jacoby and Ms. Fournier". In point of fact,the Commission's decision was based on representations made by Ms.Jacoby and Ms. Fournier,drawings prepared by Gundersen Associates, discussion relayed to the Commission that Ms. Guy held with Building Inspector Joseph Barbeau and photographic documentation of the exterior of the building. d. Line 2 "in point of fact....self-serving representations by Ms.Jacoby and Ms. Fournier". The assertion is Mr. Carr's opinion. 28. Challenge. Ms. Herbert's finding that"the Hardship was not created by the current owners"is not the Commission's"standard"conclusionary statement. Ms. Herbert's finding was made based upon facts noted earlier in the March 15th meeting that the"applicants each bought their condominiums, not knowing that the previous owner had not legally converted the units to condos and that the building inspector will not allow the legal conversion to go through until Unit 1 has a legal second egress." This statement was made by Ms. Guy as noted in the minutes(paragraph 4). 29. True 30. i 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: 10 Gifford Court Name of Record Owner: Maureen Jacoby and Toni Fournier Description of Work Proposed: Repair/replace clapboards to replicate existing. Repainting in existing color. No changes in color, material, design or outward appearance. Nan-applicable due to being in kind maintenance/replacement. Dated: April 16. 2008 SALEM I L I SION 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. TI 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. I '3 t �S � `� �_ x. 'w �_ �� ', �_ ' ` '� �.._� �, �*t 1 �ti �� i,': ��, i = �� � ... . a i i' � .�. .; :. . �� .� �. / . '_ /l � � / / /y��l r � pe�� r, 'r�#I I it i � _ T i, ', �Y � '. _ _ � � � y �. � � �. � ,_��_ o �?: ( �. - - — - 5, '� ..o,, �,,; �; `�,�; 1\ -76w- -.7t, AM 06ii16/2006 17:08 FAX 978 825 0068 JOHN H. CARR, JR. , ESO. Z001 JOHN H. CARR,JR.,ESQ. 9 North Sheet Salem,MA 01970 Phone: 978-825-0060 Fax: 978-825-0068 FACSIMILE COVER SHEET FACSRVME NUMBER: (978)740-0404 TO: lane Guy, Salem Historical Commission City of Salem 120 Washington Street Salem,MA 01970 RE: 10 Gifford Court DATE: June 6, 2006 Pages including this cover page: S I I I I i i Tile;;TM mon contained in this t=imik message is 11P11Y Prmi1c*w and coos An infon rA int��m 0*for ncc vse o!the individual m maty tuoocd abma if you ue Tun the iecip ent owned sbovc,you' bueby ' any disminatioo.distribution or copy of this facsimik Incsssgc is Saictly Prohibitcd. If you have rxcived this sc 6csinrile dressage in error,Please notify me imotodiateiy by telephone and rahan ttic original tncssage to me at the above address viatbc Unimd States PasW Swice. Thank you 00,0 8,p /2008 17:09 FAX 978 825 0088 JOHN H. CARR, JR. , ESQ. U002 I I John H.Carr,Jr.,Esq. 9 North Street Salem,MA 01970 Phone: 978-825-0060 F.ur: 978425-0068 I June 6,2006 By Facsimile: (978-745-9157) Elizabeth Renard,Acting City Solicitor Kaufman&Frederick 265 Essex Street Salem,MA 01970 Re: 10 Gifford Court Appeal Dear Attorney Renard: Pursuant to our telephone conversation this afternoon,I am herewith enclosing a proposed draft agreement I prepared which assumed the Historical Commission would be taking this matter up at its regularly scheduled meeting tomorrow evetti ng. Now that it has been rescheduled to the June 21,2006 meeting so that all parties would have ample time to review said draft,and thus,there is now sufficient tune for Ms. Jacoby to obtain a building permit for the alternative solution discussed at the meeting on May 8,2006 attended by myself,Jessica,the Assistant Building Inspector, and Ms. Jacoby,l wonder whether we need an executory contract after all. Assuming Ms.Jacoby obtains a building permit for the alternative solution prior to the Commission's June 21,2006 meeting,the Commission can approve a Certificate of Non- Applicability at said meeting(since the walkway is basically non-visible from a public way)and also rescend its March 16,2006 Certificate of Hardship at the same time,which will effectively make my appeal moot What do you think? Wouldn't that be a lot simpler? I am herewith faxing a copy of the enclosed to Jane Guy,also pursuant to our telephone conversation this afternoon. Very truly yours, John H. Carr,Jr. Enc. / Cc. Jane Guy—By Facsimile: (978)740-0404 J Maureen Jacoby Toni Fournier 08408/2008 17:10 FAX 978 825 0088 JOHN H. CARR. JR. , ESQ. Z003 X214 Pr AGREEMENT This is an agreement by and between the following parties made as of the [ ] day of June 2006: 1. John H. Carr, Jr-, 7 River Street, Salem,MA 01970(hereinafter"Mr. Carr"); 2. Maureen Jacoby,Unit 1, 10 Gifford Court,Salem MA 01970(hereinafter"Ms. Jacoby"); 3. Toni Fournier,Unit 2, 10 Gifford Court, Salem MA 0970 (hereinafter"Ms. Fournier"); 4, The Salem Historical Commission,by its Chairperson,Hannah Dion, Chairperson in behalf of the Salem Historical Commission, 120 Washington Street, Salem,MA 01970(hereinafter"Ms.Dioz&); 5. Thomas St.Pierre in his official capacities as Zoning Enforcement Officer and Building Inspector for the City of Salem, 120 Washington Street, Salem,MA 01970(hereinafter"Mr. St. Pierre'). RECITALS WHEREAS, 10 Gifford Court, Salem,MA is a residential property consisting of two condominium units,being Unit No. 1,owned by Ms. Jacoby(located on the fust floor), and Unit No.2,owned by Ms. Fournier(consisting of the Tw floor and attic story);and WHEREAS 10 Gifford Court is located in the McIntire Historic District established pursuant to Chapter 40C of the Massachusetts General Laws; and WHEREAS,Mr. St Pierre and/or his subordinates have previously detmnined that Unit No. 1 is an illegal residential unit,in that it lacks a valid second means of egress;and WHEREAS,on March 16,2006 Ms.Jacoby and Ms. Fourier obtained a Certificate of Hardship fiom the Commission to convert the existing single entrance on the front(ie. southerly)faWe of 10 Gifford Court into a double entrance as a means of providing a second means of egress for Ms.Jacoby's first floor unit; and WHEREAS on or about April 11,2006 Mr. Carr filed a timely appeal with the Essex Superior Court, Docket No. 6.644D,appealing the granting of said Certificate of Hardship;and WHEREAS the within parties have since strived at an alternative solution,as hereinafter described, which will provide a valid second means of egress for Unit No. 1 without having to alter the front(southerly)facade of the structure, including in particular,the existing period single entrance; and 06"06/2006 17: 11 FAX 978 825 0068 JOHN H. CARR. JR. . ESO. 004 WHEREAS all of the within patties are in complete agreement with said alternative solution; and i WHEREAS the full implementation of the parties' within agreement will resolve Mr. CMT's appeal. ! NOW 77iEREFORE,in consideration of the mutual promises,covenants, and agreements contained herein, the parties hereby mutually agree as follows: I. the Commission's March 16,2006 Certificate of Hardship with respect to Unit No. I at 10 Gifford Court is hereby vacated,rescinded and annulled. I 2. Ms. Jacoby,Ms. Fournier aad Mr. St pierce agree that a second means of egress for Unit No. I shall be effectuated by building an attached walkway approximately( ] feet wide at the rear(northerly) side of the structure,naming parallel with said northerly side and connecting with the existing deck at the westerly side of the building,and on the same plane as said existing deck,all as i shown on the attached plan(Exhibit"A"). 3. Such to such fine-tuning as be deems appropriate concerning materials,railing, dimensions, and supports, Mr. St Pierre hereby agrees to issue a building permit to construct said second means of egress as soon as he receives the requisite i application fee and an application for said walkway in conformity with paragraph 2 and Exhibit A hereof. 4. As part of his continuing enforcement action against the former owner of 10 8 � Gifford Court who created the existing condominiums at said address without providing for a second means of egress for Unit No, 1, Mr. St Pitare shall dA` exercise all re asonable efforts to obtain reimbursement from said former owner (� for Mr.Carr in the amount of$315.00 (representing the$275.00 ailing fee and eight summons in the amount of$5.00 each)in connection with Mr. Carr's appeal of the March 16, 2006 Certificate of Hardship issued by the Commission. 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit 13 is a Clerk's Certificate of Vote of the Salem Historical Commission authorizing Ms.Diozzi to sign this Agreement in behalf of the Commission vacating, rescinding,and aanutling its March 16, 2006 Certificate of Hardship with respect to 10 Gifford Court. 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a Clerk's Certificate of the Salem Historical Commission with respect to a vote of the Commission at its Jane 21,2006 meeting vacating, rescinding,and annulling its March 16,2006 Cmtificate of Hardship with respect to 10 Gifford Court, subject to the execution of this Agreement by all of the parties named herein. 08/06/2006 17: 19 FAX 978 825 0068 JOHN R. CARR, JR. , ESQ. Z005 7. The parties hereby agree that if then is any unforeseen impediment to the implementation of this Agreement,Ms.Jacoby and Mr. Fournier shall reapply to the Commission to seek approval for any changes necessitated by such unforeseen impediments. 8. Mr. St.Pierre hereby warrants and represents that he has full authority to sign this Agreement in his official capacity as Zoning Enforcement Officer and Building Inspector,and thereby bind the City of Salem concerning the agreed-upon alternative walk-way solution described in paragraph 2 and Exhibit A hereof. 9. upon comphtion of the second means of egress solution described in paragraph 2 and Exhibit A hereof,Mr. Carr shall cause his April 11,2006 appeal to be dismissed. Signed as a sealed instrument as of the day of June 2006. Salem Building Inspector John H. Carr, .fr. Salem, ZoauW Enforcement Office Salem Historical Commission By Hannah Diozzi,Chairman Toni Fournier Maureen Jacoby '4a 'l 08/08/2008 17:23 FAX 878 825 0088 JOHN H. CARR, JR. , ESQ. Z001 a JOHN H.CARR, JR.,ESQ. 9 North Street Salem,MA 01970 Phone: 978-825-0060 Fax: 978425-0068 FACSIMME COVER SHEET FACSIMJLE NUMBER: (978)740-0404 TO: Jane Guy, Clerk Salem Historical Commission 120 Washington Street Salem, Massachusetts DATE: lune 6, 2006 S:oS -r" Pages including this cover page: The infomtation contained in this facsimile use is leoty privileged and confidential informati.tn intended only for the use of Ufa individual or entity named above. If you are not the recipient named above,you are hereby notified that any these.®ation,distribution or copy of this facd=Ut message is strictly prohibited if you hm eeeeived this facsimile message in error,please notify me immcdialely by telephone and return the original tnesurge to me at the above address via the United States Postal Service. Ibank you. 08/08/2008 17:24 FAX 978 825 0088 JOHN H. CARR, JR. , ESQ. Z002 John H, Can,Jr., Esq. 9 North Street Salem, MA 01970 phone: 978-825-0060 Fax: 978-825-0068 June 6,2006 By Facsimile: (979-745-9157) Elizabeth Renard, Acting City Solicitor Kaufman& Frederick 265 Essex Street Salem,MA 01970 Re: 10 Gifford Court Appeal Dear Attorney Renard: Whoops. I just realized there is a typo in paragraph number 3 on page 2 of the draft Agreement I faxed you a few minutes ago,namely the first word should be"Subject"and not"Such." Very truly yours, John H. Carr,Jr. Enc. Cc. Jane Guy—By Facsimile: (978) 740-0404 i COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO: 6-644D JOHN H. CARR,JR.,PLAINTIFF ) V. ) o c DOUGLAS DESROUCHER,KATHRYN ) HARPER,JESSICA HERBERT,LOUIS ) = or MANGIFESTI,LAWRENCE SPANG, ) r AND HANNAH DIOZZI, CHAIRPERSON,DEFENDANTS, BEING ) MEMBERS OF THE SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION,AND ) MAUREEN JACOBY,DEFENDANT ) AND TONI FOURNIER,DEFENDANT ) NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM DECISION OF SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISION TO ESSEX SUPERIOR COURT John H. Carr Jr. as Plaintiff in the attached Complaint, hereby gives notice to the City Clerk of the City of Salem, MA that he has appealed the Decision of the Salem Historical Commission entitled Certificate of Hardship concerning the property located at 10 Gifford Court, Salem,MA, dated March 16, 2006 and filed with the office of the Salem City Clerk on March 23, 2006. A copy of the Complaint filed as Essex Superior Court Civil action no. 6-644D on April 11, 2006 is attached here too Respectfully submitted, ICarr, r.,p Street MA 0 970 4-3 0 281 Dated: April 11,2006 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO: JOHN H. CARR, JR.,PLAINTIFF ) V. ) C ) t, DOUGLAS DESROUCHER, KATHRYN ) HARPER,JESSICA HERBERT, LOUIS MANGIFESTI,LAWRENCE SPANG, ) AND HANNAH DIOZZI, ) V CHAIRPERSON,DEFENDANTS, BEING ) J MEMBERS OF THE SALEM ) HISTORICAL COMMISSION, AND ) MAUREEN JACOBY,DEFENDANT ) AND TONI FOURNIER, DEFENDANT ) COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO M.G.L. CHAPTER 40C, SECTION 12A APPEALING FROM THE GRANTING OF A CERTIFICATE OF HARDHSIP This is an appeal from a decision of the Salem Historical Commission of Salem, Massachusetts (hereinafter"the Commission")filed with the Salem City Clerk on March 231, 2006 on the grounds that the Commission's decision was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, violated due process, exceeded the Commission's authority, violated its own published Guidelines, was based on legally and factually untenable grounds, and was wrong as a matter of law. A copy of said decision is attached hereto as Exhibit El. PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, John H. Carr, Jr., owns and resides at 7 River Street, Salem, Massachusetts, which is located in the McIntire Historic District, established pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 40C, in which Historic District 10 Gifford Court is also located. He previously served on the Salem Historical Commission for over twenty years, including for much of that time as Vice Chairman. 2. Defendant,Douglas Desroucher (hereinafter "Mr. Desroucher") is a member of the Commission who resides at 22 Briggs Street, Salem Massachusetts. 3. Defendant, Jessica Herbert (hereinafter"Ms. Herbert")is a member of the Commission who resides at 70 Webb Street, Salem,Massachusetts. 4. Defendant,Louis Mangifesti (hereinafter"Mr. Mangifesti")is a member of the Commission who resides at 328 Essex Street, Salem, Massachusetts. 5. Defendant, Lawrence Spang (hereinafter Mr. Spang") is a member of the Commission who resides at 125 Columbus Avenue, Salem Massachusetts. 6. Defendant, Hannah Diozzi (hereinafter"Mr. Diozzi") is a member and Chairperson of the Commission who resides at 20 Pleasant Street, Salem, Massachusetts. 7. Defendant, Maureen Jacoby (hereinafter"Ms. Jacoby")is the owner of condominium unit no. 1 at 10 Gifford Court, Salem, Massachusetts, and the recipient of the Commission's March 16, 2006 Certificate of Hardship. 8. Defendant,Toni Fournier(hereinafter"Ms. Fournier") is the owner of the other condominium unit at 10 Gifford Court, Salem, Massachusetts, being unit no. 2, and even though her name does not appear on the February 27, 2006 Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness which resulted in the Commission's March 16, 2006 Certificate of Hardship, she is nevertheless a co-recipient of said Certificate. JURISDICTION 9. This Court has jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to Section 12A of Chapter 40C of the Massachusetts General Laws. 10. This case is timely, as it has been filed within twenty (20) days from March 23, 2006, which is when the Commission's March 16, 2006 Certificate of Hardship was filed with the Salem City Clerk. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS December 6, 2006 Application for Certificate of Appropriateness 11. On Tuesday,December 6, 2005 an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness in connection with 10 Gifford Court was filed with the Commission stating that the "Buildiu has been found in violation of City egress codes", which application sough`"to create 2° egress from Unit#1 to bring the unit up to code", further stating that"plans and pictures to be supplied at Historical Commission meeting on Wednesday, December 7"'. The line on the application form calling for the owner's signature is undecipherable. A copy of said Application is attached hereto as Exhibit A. - 2 - 12. Even though not formally noticed, or on the agenda for the regularly-scheduled meeting of the Commission on Wednesday,December 7, 2005, Ms.Fournier and Ms. Jacoby "informally"met with the Commission that evening "regarding possible options for secondary egress." Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a copy of Commission Minutes of its December 7, 2006 meeting. 13. Accordingly to said Minutes, the previous owner who had sold Ms. Fournier and Ms. Jacoby their units had never legally converted the building into two condominium units, since Ms. Jacoby's unit, unit no. 1, lacked a second means of egress. 14. Also according to said December 7, 2005 Minutes,Ms.Fournier and Ms. Jacoby, stated that their architect had looked at three options for egress, the first being to remove a window and put in a door on the front of the house, the second being to create a new exit on the rear faqade of the building, and the third being to create a door from the interior to the front entrance hallway. 15. Also according to said December 7, 2005 Minutes, Commission member Ms. Herbert "stated that the Commission would never allow a second door on the front of the house," adding "that the most appropriate solution is to have a door into the living room from the Common Area." 16. Also according to the December 7, 2005 Minutes, the secretary of the Commission, Ms. Jane Guy, stated "that the Building Inspector informed her that the previous owner had been in court with the city and that he had agreed to pay the cost for second egress." 17. At its regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, December 21, 2005,the Commission unanimously approved granting a Certificate of Appropriateness to erect an exterior staircase at the northeast comer of the rear faqade of the building. Attached hereto is Exhibit CI and C2 respectively are copies of said December 28, 2005 Certificate of Appropriateness and the Commission's Minutes of its December 21, 2005 meeting. February 27, 2006 Application for Certificate of Appropriateness 18. On February 27, 2006, the owner of unit no. 1, Ms. Jacoby, filed on Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness seeking "construction of historically appropriate double doors, on front of house, which will allow for a second egress for unit no. 1 on first floor. . . Included is a drawing by architect Harry Gunderson for both 36" doors and 32" doors," with a footnote adding that"2/27 Joe just said doors should be 36". Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a copy of said application. 19. A hearing on Ms Jacoby's application was held at a regular scheduled meeting of the Commission on Wednesday, March 15, 2006. - 3 - 20. At said March 15, 2006 hearing, the Commis sion had virtually concluded its discussion before soliciting public comment from those attending. 21. When Chairperson Diozzi finally did ask public comment, the Plaintiff stated that he had both procedural and substantive objections, the former being that as a matter of elemental fairness and due process, public comment should be solicited before the Commission began its deliberations, and not after. 22. With respect to his substantive objections, Plaintiff stated that the Commission should base its decision on historic appropriateness, since that was the sole publicly-noticed issue before the Commission, taking such factors into account as the extent to which the center entrance (including surrounding entabl ature and pilasters) was an integral part of the period design, whether the existing doorway composition represented original or early period building fabric, whether it was appropriate to replace period building elements in good condition with 20d century reproduction elements, whether such a building would LVically have a double entryway, and particularly whether the proposed changes would upset the scale and proportions of the front facade, including the degree to which such elements are an integral part of that style of period architecture. 23. There being no further public comment Chairperson Diozzi thereupon closed the public hearing on said application. 24. Following discussion, and notwithstanding that there was no prior discussion on hardship and no Application for a Certificate of Hardship then pending before the Commission, Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve a Certificate of Hardship "to replace the existing front entry door with simple double doors to replicate 97-971/2 Essex Street (withoit the transom lights). Doors to be 6 panel 32" wood doors. All painted to match existing." 25. At that point the Plaintiff raised his hand seeking to be heard on the issue of hardship, since that issue had not been previously raised, but Chairperson Diozzi refused to allow him to speak. 26. Following further discussion, the Commission unanimously passed Ms. Herbert's motion. Attached hereto as Exhibits El and E2 respectively are copies of the March 16, 2006 Certificate of Hardship and the Commission Minutes of the March 15, 2006 hearing, 27. Included in Ms. Herbert's motion was the finding that due to Building Code requirements for secondary egress, an interior solution was not possible and that all exterior alterations had been thoroughly explored with only this solution remaining. In point of fact, no site visit had been made by any member or representative of the Commission, which relied entirely on the self-serving representations of Ms. Jacoby and Ms Fournier, 28. Also included in Ms. Herbert's motion was a simple (and apparently standard) conclusionary statement that hardship was not created by the current owners, without any further discussion, elaboration or explanation of same by members of the Commission at the March 15, 2006 hearing. -4 - 29. 10 Gifford Court is located in the McIntire Historic District established pursuant to Chapter 40C of the Massachusetts General Laws, and is also listed as part of a National Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places established by the U.S. Department of the Interior. 30. 10 Gifford Court is a late 18`s/early 19d'century structure that is remarkably intact and is in remarkably good condition. 31. Proportion, scale and symmetry are of critical importance in preserving the historic facade of such period buildings. 32. As to each of the following Counts, the Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all of the prior allegations recited in paragraphs I —32 inclusive hereof. ARGUMENT COUNT I The March 15, 2005 Certificate of Hardship Violated Fundemental Due Process 33. The application Ms. Jacoby filed on February 27, 2006 was for a Certificate of Appropriateness, not for a Certificate of Hardship. 34. There was never any public notice for a Certificate of Hardship, as required by Chapter 40C. 35. Nor was there any public input allowed at the March 15,2006 hearing on the issue of hardship. 36. For these reasons alone, the March 16, 2006 Certificate of Hardship was fatally flawed as a fundamental violation of Chapter 40C and fundamental due process. COUNT II The Commission's Finding That The Proposed Double Entry Way Is The Only Solution Is Not True 37. On information and belief, no Commission member or representative of the Commission ever performed a site visit at 10 Gifford Court to independently verify the range of options that might be available to solve the second means of egress required for unit no 1. - 5 - 38. Instead the Commission accepted the self-serving representations that Ms. Jacoby and/or Ms. Fournier that the proposed double entry represented the only "remaining solution." 39. In point of fact, there was at least one other solution, namely the exterior staircase on the rear facade of the building that the Commission approved at the December 21, 2005 hearing on the original December 6, 005 application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. 40. At the March 15, 2006 hearing, the owners stated the former would not be possible without obtaining a Special Permit required under the Salem Zoning Code. 41. Yet, on information and belief, the same is true with respect to the proposed double entry approved pursuant to the March 15, 2006 Certificate of Hardship, since a new opening would be created in the exterior wall of a building located on a zero lot line, which is otherwise believed to be prohibited by the State Building Code. 42. On Information and belief, the owners of the two condominium units have not even attempted to obtain the necessary permits from the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals to build the exterior staircase approved at the Commission's December 21, 2005 hearing. 43. Also, the Plaintiff argues that before the Commission makes an affirmative finding that there are no other solutions possible, it should at least independently verify that that is in fact the case. 44. Implicit in the Commission's March 15, 2006 decision to grant a Certificate of Hardship, but not a Certificate of Appropriateness, as applied for, was that the proposed alterations were not historically appropriate. 45. On information and belief, there are in fact other solutions, including interior solutions, which would provide the required second mans of egress to unit no. 1. COUNT III There was and Is No Legally Recognized Hardship 46. According to the Commission Minutes of its December 7, 2005 meeting, both Ms. Jacoby and Ms. Fournier acquired title to their respective units from the person who had illegally created two condominium units at 10 Gifford Court. 47. Presumably both Ms. Jacoby and Ms. Fournier were each represented by competent counsel at the time they purchased their respective units, and thus, either knew or should have known that such units were illegal. - 6 - 48. In any event, their remedy is or should be against their seller, and not the McIntire Historic District. 49. Also according to the Commission Minutes of its December 7, 2005 meeting, the seller is paying for any changes required for a second mans of egress to unit no. 1 at 10 Gifford Court. 50. The question of hardship was simply taken for granted by the Commission at the March 15, 2006 hearing; there was no discussions of same; no public input was allowed; and no prior notice had been given. 51. On information and belief, there is no hardship as a matter of law, either because other solutions are possible, for which the seller is financially responsible, and/or any such alleged hardship is entirely self-created, since both Ms. Jacoby and Ms. Fournier knew or should have known that their units were illegal prior to purchasing same. COUNT IV The Commission's March 15, 2006 Decision Sets A Dangerous Adverse Precedent that runs Counter To The Preservation Goals of Chanter 40C In General, And The McIntire Historic District In Particular 52. A primary function of the Commission is to preserve the historic and architectural integrity of each of the structures in each of its several Historic Districts, including the McIntire Historic District in which 10 Gifford Court is located. 53. The building in question is a remarkably intact late 18`s/early 19`a century building in remarkably good condition. 54. On information and belief, the proposed double doors would upset the historic scale and proportions of the principle elevation of 10 Gifford Court, which is why the Commission refused to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness at its March 15, 2006 meeting. 55. It has been the long-standing and consistent policy of the Commission that where the requirements of a condominium conversion, and preservation conflict, the latter trumps the former. 56. In recent years, there has been a marked increase in condominium conversions in each of Salem's several Historic Districts. 57. The Plaintiff avers that the Commission's March 15, 2006 vote granting a Certificate of Hardship relative to the proposed double-entry at 10 Gifford Court represents a dangerous adverse precedent that runs counter to the integrity and preservation goals of the McIntire Historic District established pursuant to Chapter 40C. - 7 - RELIEF SOUGHT The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter a Judgment for him against the Commission annulling and vacating the Commission's March 16, 2006 Certificate of Hardship in full, and/or granting such other relief as is just and expedient. Respectfully submitted, 481 , rose' Dated: Apri1 11, 2006 - 8 - J 1 t 5 Salem Historical Commission 120 WASHINGTON STREET,SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (978)745-9595 EXT.311 1"(978)740-0404 APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Pursuant to the Historic District's Act (M.G.L. Chtiapter 40C) and the Salem Historical Commission Ordinance. application is hereby made for issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for: Construction ❑ Moving ❑ Reconstruction ❑ Alteration Demolition ❑ Painting ❑ Sign C Other as described below. / District: / ' I &41 LL OriginalBuildingConstruction Date, if known: Address of Property: 110 6 O" "alL Name of Record Owner(s): Description of Work Proposed (Please include required scale drawing s,paint chips, catalog cuts and/or samples of material proposed, where applicable) Vv- ✓i filet {-1 OJ Cm�es . .�- . ZI Signature of O er: Tel.#: l 7 2-1 Mailing address: l o (9, CdZ4 City: 5Cdol— State Zip:01 December 7, 2005, Page 4 Ms. Herbert stated that she preferred to see the chimney stay, but since it is on an addition and the other original chimney remains, she would be okay with removal. Mr. Desrocher stated that he felt it would look better without the skylight. Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve removal of chimney on rear of house and to extend existing single shed dormer on rear of house to encompass two additional windows, so that one new window is to the extreme edge of the dormer addition and that the second new window is centered between the two end windows. The windows shall match the existing 6 over 6,true divided lights. The finish on the panels between the windows and on the sides of the shed shall be clapboards to match the house and shall be stained to match the rear fagade color. The owner will need to apply for vent to replace chimney. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 5 Monroe Street John Hermanski and Barbara Taylor presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a pellet stove vent. It will include a 4"pipe located near the sill on the kitchen addition, extending horizontally from the wall 12",painted the house color and to be removed in the off season. A catalog cut was provided. Mr. Hermanski stated that they will likely remove it during the off season and cover it with a sheet metal cap. He stated that it can't be seen from the top of the fence because of the jog of the kitchen. He added that code requires it be 1' away from the house. There will be a galvanized elbow at the end of the pipe. Mr. Desrocher made a motion to approve the application as submitted conditional that it be painted the body color and that when capped,the sheet metal capping be painted to match the body color of the house. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 10 Gifford Court Toni Fournier and Maureen Jacoby were presented for an informal discussion regarding possible options for secondary egress. Ms. Guy explained that the previous owner sold the two units as condos but had never legally changed them to condos. In order to make the units legal,the current owners have been required by the Building Inspector to install as second means of egress to Ms. Jacoby's unit. Ms. Fournier and Ms. Jacoby stated that their architect has looked at three options for egress. The first is remove a window and put in a door on the front of the house. The second is to take out a closet in Unit 1 and create a new exit to the rear, which would require an exterior stair. The third is to install a door from the interior to the front entrance hallway. Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission would never allow a second door on the front of the house. She added that the most appropriate solution is to have a door into the living from the Common Area. She did not feel it would be practical for guests to unit 1 to have to walk through the bedroom. Eg� Nlb-lf 13 December 7, 2005, Page 5 Ms. Fournier noted that the units were purchased, both had an exclusive entrance and the purchase price reflected that. It would also be the most costly to complete since the stairs go up to the third floor which is also part of unit two. Ms. Guy noted that the interior solution would not be under the Commission's jurisdiction since there is no change to the exterior. She added that the Building Inspector informed her that the previous owner has been in court with the city and that he has agreed to pay the cost for second egress. Ms. Herbert suggested interior French doors like was done on Federal Court. It was suggested that the owners look at the porch design completed at 39-41 Washington Square. Ms. Herbert noted that the concession may be the exclusive use of the yard by the owner of Unit 1. 95 Federal Street In continuation of a previous meeting,Robert and Jan Kendall,Denae Comrie, Mary Ellen Forster and William Aydelott submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for alteration of fencing that has already been replaced. The applicants were not present. Ms. Guy stated that the Commission needs to act on the application due to the 60 day requirement. Mr. Desrocher made a motion to deny the application without prejudice and to require that tt e fence be returned to what was approved or a new application submitted within 30 days. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Other Business Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the minutes of October 19,2005. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Guy stated that she received a copy of a letter from Massachusetts Historical Commission to EBI consulting finding no adverse effect for the telecommunications installation at 320 Lafayette Street. Ms. Guy stated that she received an email from one of the owners at 35 Washington Square stating that the pillar issue has been resolved and that the mason is repairing the pillar. Ms. Guy stated that MHC has prepared a DVD entitled Local Historic District Design Review and offered it to members to take home and return for another member to review. xGztl )) I co 3v 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 ❑ 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 10 Clifford Conn Name of Record Owner: Maureen Jacoby& Toni Fournier Description of Work Proposed: Installation of secondary egress in rear ofproperty per plans submitted dated 12/19/05 with the following amendments: o Roof to be a shed roof instead of hip roof- roof to match color, material and design of house roof o Area under landing and stairs to be enclosed with I"square diagonal lattice to match the side porch o Lattice to be trimmed with 1 x 6 trim board on end and face o Upper landing enclosure under shed roof to be shingled to match house o Entire to be painted to match body color of house. Dated: December 28, 2005 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSI N By: �u/ ir 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. December 21, SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES December 21, 2005 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on December 21,20C Washington Street,Salem,MA. Present were Mr.Desrocher and Ms.Diozzi, Harper and Ms. Guy. 10 Gifford Court Toni Fournier and Maureen Jacoby presented an application for a Certificate — to install a secondary egress from unit 1 in order to meet building code. Dray' which were prepared by Harry Gunderson. Ms. Herbert asked if the new door will be created from the interior closet spa= replied in the affirmative. Ms. Herbert asked how visible it will be. Ms. Jacoby stated that it will be vis Street. Ms. Fournier stated that only the top half will be visible. Ms. Guy noted that only what is visible from Gifford Court, Carpenter Street Court, and not Bridge Street, can be considered. Ms. Herbert asked if there will be a concrete pad at the bottom to step on. M= in the affirmative. Mr. Desrocher asked if they will create a place for storage underneath. Ms. F she did not believe it was allowed without fireproofing. Ms. Herbert stated that more design details are needed including, stringers, he and stair will be connected to the clapboards and corner finishes. Mr. Desrocher stated that the side of the porch will be visible from Gifford Ca Ms. Guy noted that the section under the porch, next to the foundation, shoulc and should probably be open or lattice. Mr. Desrocher stated that lattice should not exceed 1 ''/a". Ms. Harper stated that she preferred the upper half be completely enclosed. Ms. Herbert stated that a similar porch enclosure was done at 41 Washington upper half was open and the lower half above the landing was closed. Ms. Diozzi preferred that the upper half be open. Mr. Desrocher stated that he preferred a shed roof to the proposed hip roof. C ?, December 21, 2005,Page 2 Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the installation of secondary egress in rear of property per plans submitted dated 12/19/05 with the following amendments: o Roof to be a shed roof instead of hip roof; roof to match color, material and design of house roof, o Area under landing and stairs to be enclosed with I" square diagonal lattice to match the side porch; o Lattice to be trimmed with 1 x 6 trim board on end and face; o Upper landing enclosure under shed roof to be shingled to match house; and o Entire to be painted to match body color of house. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Other Business Ms. Guy stated that she received a copy of a letter from Massachusetts Historical Commission to Camp Dresser& McKee Inc. finding that there are no recorded historic or archaeological resources within the project area for the elevated water storage tank. Ms. Guy stated that she received a copy of a letter from Assistant City Solicitor Elizabeth Rennard to Kathleen Zubick regarding outstanding painting work at 11 Cambridge Street. Ms. Guy stated that she received a letter from the owners of 95 Federal Street indicating that they have ordered 12 pickets that will be added to the front section of their fence for the Commissions review. Ms. Herbert asked the members to look at the new fence approved for 2 Andover, noting that the owners, instead of changing the posts from 4"square to 4"round and cutting them down to be level with the pickets,they put wooden caps on the existing square posts. There being no further business,Mr. Desrocher made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Respectfully submitted, Jane A. Guy Clerk of the Commission �G,}1ryg I P T Salem Historical Commission 120 WASHINGTON STREET,SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (978) 735-9595 EXT.311 FAX (978) 740-0404 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: Construction 11Moving 1rYeoReconstruction ❑ Alteration ❑ Demolition ❑ Painting O Sign r Other as described below. �l. District: ' I t�C_rh k re_ Original Building Construction Date, if known:gi94y• Address of Property: /0 (�- ' ' `f�u r 4 ) Un ' I-1 + ( Name of Record Owner(s): dnIQU"cn 7Qa_� 1 VA,ouNn ;ek- J , Uhrf— # oL Description of Work Proposed (Please include required scale drawings,paint )I chips, catalog cuts andlor samples (of material proposed, where applicable.) uc c6v,_ A-et\ 8 n `SF V- ,Ck /1� tL �1 Vld�clhd K `�Qtt�t� �0d"_ AL tMv - 'Avuu_ k/"/( ciIlow for �c �uev� � /u4z ti Um 44 t an /oGt .,1 J 6& �lCr _ cdo t— 4,4 h dU� (_ � -Eo rc t� teen -rt\CL&did -t- dAuAA_ sy �ti : ke- W-�AA� 64M 4e,, Ern Sod 3G ` �1-aor� Cvrtcf � � �I C�-Od'r`( J U _�t v� ��' r cl v r.� s hG^,t_ 1 1A ion Signature of Owner: /IXJJVL -- I � Tel. #: 9-7,t )YL/- S�d 6 Mailing address: l� G ITOr� CJUr� #- ( City: df �?ir�_ State�1�Zip: 09-2 Gunderson -. r— 10 Gifford -� FT Court Condominium ....... .-. .n.mnw �( �1 IT milm Entry Design [L L L� �. EXISTING NOW ELEVATION PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 36"DOORS uueu•.nr - 10 Gifford Court S Salem Massachusetts 11S ------T-- -- -'-------- r _ _- -- rL. - _. i - LL-..i! LII , 1 it .....m, CL �.. .. - ---- ---:.:_ Street M 1 Elevation PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 32'DOORS • Al . o OFFICE Salem Historical Commission za MAH 23 P 121 51 120 WASHINGTON STREET,SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (978)745-9595 EXT 311 FAX(978)740-0404 CERTIFICATE OF HARDSHIP It is hereby certified that the Salem Historical Commission had determined that the proposed: ❑ Construction ❑ Moving ❑ Reconstruction X Alteration ❑ Demolition ❑ Painting ❑ Signage ❑ Other Work as described below has been approved under a finding of Hardship,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: 10 Gifford Court Name of Record Owner: Maureen Jacoby&Toni Fournier Description of Work Proposed: Replace existing front entry door with simple double doors to replicate 97-97%:Essex Street(without the transom lights). Doors to be 6 panel 32"wood doors. All painted to match existing. The Commission made the finding that due to the building code requirements for secondary egress, an interior solution was not possible and that all exterior alternatives have been thoroughly explored with only this solution remaining and that the Hardship was not created by the current owners. Reason for Issuance of Certificate of Hardship: ❑The application affects only the building or structure on which work is to be done and not the historic district in general. ❑The application is approved because it does not cause substantial detriment to the public welfare. ❑The application is approved because it does not cause departure from the intent and purposes of the amended Historic District Act. Dated: 03/16/06 SALEMSTORICAL 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. March 15, 2006, Page 3 choice for that size. Ms. Herbert stated that she felt is was squatty and ugly and asked if he would consider rep the shingles with clapboards and remove the Astroturf. Mr. Desrocher made a motion to approve a Certificate of Hardship to replace two awning type windows on first floor(on either side of entrance door) with 8/8 wood double hung true divided light windows, single glaze, clear glass. Casing to match 2"a floor windows. Approval is conditional that the shingles surrounding the door be replaced with clapboard to match the rest of the house with the addition of 1 x 5 trim at door entry as a comerboard. All to be painted to match the house. The Commission made the finding that the existing awning windows pose a threat to public safety. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 10 Gifford Court Maureen Jacoby and Toni Fournier presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the main entry doors with double doors to allow for second egress on the first floor,to be painted to match the house. Drawings of 36"and 32"doors were provided. Ms. Herbert stated that this issue has been before the Commission a couple of times in the past and that the Commission had approved the installation of a door in the rear of the house that would be installed through an existing closet. She asked why the rear solution is not going to happen. Ms. Jacoby stated that the rear solution posed a problem with encroachment on the neighbors, requiring that the door be moved further over to the closet on the other side of the fireplace. In that location,the stairs would block the basement door, which would require its relocation and the installation of new stairs. In addition, the interior historic doors and molding would need to be replaced code compliant doors. Ms. Guy reminded the board that the applicants each bought their condominium, not knowing that the previous owner had not legally converted the units to condos and that the building inspector will not allow the legal conversion to go through until Unit 1 has a legal second egress. The Commission has examined several solutions for secondary egress. Ms. Herbert suggested keeping the door,but installing a common wall inside that would create a hallway that would have two doors, one directly to Unit 1 and the other to the existing hallway. Ms. Fournier stated that they would have no way to get furniture in and out. Ms. Herbert stated that the proposed is a very elaborate front door on a very small house. She suggested using a design similar to 97 %:Essex Street. Ms. Harper noted that there is also a similar double entry on North Pine Street. Ms. Fournier stated that she would also like the option for an overhang for water protection. Ms. Diozzi asked if there was any public comment. March 15, 2006, Page 4 John Carr, 7 River Street, stated that,procedurally, he felt that public comment should be asked for sooner in the process. He stated that the Commission should determine what extent the doorway is part of the original fabric and if the proposed doorway is appropriate for a verna house. He stated that the Commission should make its decision based on historic :_rK appropriateness. Ms. Herbert stated that the building has been sited for being in violation of the building code for secondary egress,that there are encroachment problems on the side lot line, that there is historic precident for changing entrances and that the Commission, in previous applications for this property, has gone through every other avenue for a potential solution. Ms. Fournier stated that she did not believe the existing door was original and did not believe it is solid wood. Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve a Certificate of Hardship to replace the existing front entry door with simple double doors to replicate 97-97 '/z Essex Street(without the transom lights). Doors to be 6 panel 32"wood doors. All painted to match existing. Included in the motion was the finding that due to the building code requirements for secondary egress, an interior solution was not possible and that all exterior alternatives have been thoroughly explored with only this solution remaining and that the Hardship was not created by the current owners. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. i Mr. Spang rejoined the meeting at this time. 88 Federal Street Eric Martin and Kim Martin presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace four,third-floor windows,two on the east end and two on the west end. Ms. Martin stated that they had a fire in their home a year ago and that the windows had been broken from the fire and are drafty. Peter Palmquist, contractor,provided three window samples. He stated that the Marvin window is preferred and that Brosco doesn't make a window that small size, so that they would have to enlarge two of the four windows. One window sample was true divided light,but had wider mullions. One window sample was simulated divided light. The last window sample was to demonstrate the window frame. Mr. Spang asked the warrantee on the glue-on mullions. Mr. Palmquist stated that it was ten years. Mr. Spang estimated the size of the windows as 4' x 2 ''/z'. Ms. Herbert asked if they will be using storms. Mr. Palmquist replied in the negative, stating that there will be energy panels. Mr. Spang stated that there have been problems in the past with glue-ons falling off over time. 04/12/2008 17:53 FAX 978 825 0088 JOHN H. CARR, JR. , ESQ. Z001 JOHN H. CARR,JR, ESQ. 9 North Street Salem, MA 01970 Phone: 978-825-0060 Fax: 978-825-0068 FACSIMILE COVER SHEET FACSDeBLE NUMBER: (978)740-0404 TO: Jane Guy, Clerk Salem Historical Commission 120 Washington Street Salem, Massachusetts DATE: April 12,2006 Pages including this cover page: Z Z The information contained in this facsimile message is legally privileged and confidential inforr ion intended only for the use of the individual or entity named abovt if you arc not the recipient named above,you an:hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution or copy of this facsimile mcasagc is strictly prohibited. if you have received this facsimile message in error,please notify me immediately by telephone and return the original message to me at the above address via the United States Postal Service. Thank you. 04/12/2006 17:56 FAX 978 825 0068 JOHN H. CARR, JR. . ESQ. X1004 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, SS. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO: �( q JOHN H. CARR, JR.,PLAINTIFF ) Z V. ) DOUGLAS DESROUCHER, KATHRYN > FILED HARPER, JESSICA HERBERT, LOUIS ) INTNESUPERIOR COURT MANGIFESTI, LAWRENCE SPANG, ) FOR THE COUNTY OR ESsE)t AND HANNAH DIOZZI, > APR 1 1 1006 CHAIRPERSON,DEFENDANTS, BEING ) MEMBERS OF THE SALEM ) HISTORICAL COMMISSION, AND ) � �� MAUREEN JACOBY, DEFENDANT ) CL K AND TONI FOURNIER, DEFENDANT ) COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO M.G.L. CHAPTER 40C,SECTION 12A APPEALING FROM THE GRANTING OF A CERTIFICATE OF HARDHSIP This is an appeal from a decision of the Salem Historical Commission of Salem, Massachusetts (hereinafter"the Commission") filed with the Salem.City Clsrk on March 23, 2006 on the grounds that the Commission's decision was arbitrary,capricious, unreasonable, violated due process, exceeded the Commission's authority, violated its own published Guidelines, was based on legally and factually untenable grounds, and was wrong as a matter of law. A copy of said decision is attached hereto as Exhibit E1. PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, John H. Carr. Jr., owns and resides at 7 River Street, Salem, Massachusetts, which is located in the McIntire Historic District, established pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 40C, in which Historic District 10 Gifford Court is also located. He previously served on the Salem Historical Commission for over twenty years, including for much of that time as Vice Chairman. 2. Defendant,Douglas Desroucher(hereinafter"Mr. Desrouchei') is a member of the Commission who resides at 22 Briggs Street, Salem Massachusetts. 04/12/2008 17:57 FAX 978 825 0088 JOHN H. CARR, JR. , ESQ. zoos 3. Defendant, Jessica Herbert(hereinafter"Ms. Herbert") is a member of the Commission who resides at 70 Webb Street, Salem, Massachusetts. 4. Defendant, Louis Mangifesti (hereinafter"Mr. Mangifesti") is a member of the Commission who resides at 328 Essex Street, Salem, Massachusetts. 5. Defendant, Lawrence Spang (hereinafter Mr. Spang") is a member of the Commission who resides at 125 Columbus Avenue, Salem Massachusetts. 6. Defendant, Hannah Diozzi (hereinafter"Mr. Diozzi") is a member and Chairperson of the Commission who resides at 20 Pleasant Street, Salem, Massachusetts. 7. Defendant, Maureen Jacoby (hereinafter"Ms. Jacoby") is the owner of condominium unit no. 1 at 10 Gifford Court, Salem,Massachusetts, and the recipient of the Commission's March 16, 2006 Certificate of Hardship. 8. Defendant,Toni Fournier(hereinafter"Ms. Fournier') is the owner of the other condominium unit at 10 Gifford Court, Salem, Massachusetts, being unit no. 2,and even though her name does not appear on the February 27, 2006 Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness which resulted in the Commission's March 16, 2006 Certificate of Hardship, she is nevertheless a co-recipient of said Certificate. ,JURISDICTION 9. This Court has jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to Section 12A of Chapter 40C of the Massachusetts General Laws. 10. This case is timely, as it has been filed within twenty(20)days from March 23, 2006, which is when the Commission's March 16,2006 Certificate of Hardship was filed with the Salem City Clerk. PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS December 6, 2006 Application for Certificate of Anorooriataness 11, On Tuesday,December 6, 2005 an Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness in connection with 10 Gifford Court was filed with the Commission stating that the "Buildinf has been found in violation of City egress codes", which application sought "to create 2" egress from Unit#1 to bring the unit up to code",further srating that "plans and pictures to be supplied at Historical Commission meeting on Wednesday, December 7r"". The line on the application form calling for the owner's signature is undecipherable. A copy of said Application is attached hereto as Exhibit A. - 2- 04/12/2008 17:59 FAA 978 825 0088 JOHN H. CARR, JR. , ESQ. Z006 � 12. Even though not formally noticed, or on the agenda for the regularly-scheduled meeting of the Commission on Wednesday, December 7, 2005, Ms. Fourier and Ms. Jacoby "informally" met with the Commission that evening "regarding possible options for secondary egress." Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a copy of Commission Minutes of its December 7, 2006 meeting. 13. Accordingly to said Minutes, the previous owner who had sold Ms. Fournier and Ms. Jacoby their units had never legally converted the building into two condominium units, since Ms. Jacoby's unit, unit no. 1, lacked a second means of egress. 14. Also according to said December 7,2005 Minotes, Ms. Fourier and Ms. Jacoby, stated that their architect had looked at three options for egress, the first being to remove a window and put in a door on Ute front of the house, the second bemF to create a new exit on the rear fagade of the building, and the third being to create a door from the interior to the front entrance hallway. 15. Also according to said December 7, 2005 Minutes, Commission member Ms. Herbert "stated that the Commission would never allow a second door on the front of the house," adding "that the most appropriate solution is to have a door into the living room from the Common Area." 16. Also according to the December 7, 2005 Minutes, the secretary of the Commission, Ms. Jane Guy. stated "that the Building Inspector informed her that the previous owner had been incourt with the city and that he had agreed to pay the cost for,second egress." 17. At its regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, December 21, 2005, the Commission unanimously approved granting a Certificate of Appropriateness to erect an exterior staircase at the northeast corner of the rear fagade of the building. Attached hereto is Exhibit C1 and C2 respectively are copies of said December 28,2005 Certificate of Appropriateness and the Commission's Minutes of its December 21, 2005 meeting. February 27 2006 Application for Certificate of Aopropriataness 18. On February 27, 2006, the owner of unit no. 1, Ms. Jacoby,filed on Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness seeking "construction of historically appropriate double doors, on front of house, which will allow for a second egress for unit no. 1 on first floor . . . Included is a drawing by architect Harry Gunderson for both 36" doors and 32" doors," with a footnote adding that "2/27 Joe just said doors should lie 36". Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a copy of said application. 19. A hearing on Ms Jacoby's application was held at a regular scheduled meeting of the Commission on Wednesday, March 15, 2006. - 3 - 04/12/2008 18:00 FAX 978 825 0088 JOHN H. CARR, JR. , ESQ. IA 007 20. At said March 15, 2006 hearing, the Commission had virtually concluded its discussion before soliciting public comment from those attending. 21. When Chairperson Diozzi finally did ask public comment, the Plaintiff stated that he had both procedural and substantive objections, the former being that as a matter of elemental fairness and due process, public comment should be solicited before the Commission began its deliberations, and not after. 22. With respect to his substantive objections, Plaintiff stated that the Commission should base its decision on historic appropriateness, since that was the sole publicly-noticed issue before the Commission, taking such factors into account as the extent to which the center entrance (including surrounding entablature and pilasters) was an integral part of the period design, whether the existing doorway composition represented original or early period building fabric, whether it was appropriate to replace period building elements in good condition with 2Vh century reproduction elements, whether such a building would typicall have a double entryway, and particularly whether the proposed changes would upset the scale and proportions of the front facade, including the degree to which such elements are an integral part of that style of period architecture. 23. There being no further public comment Chairperson Diozzi thereupon closed the public hearing on said application. 24. Following discussion, and notwithstanding that there was no prior discussion on hardship and no Application for a Certificate of Hardship then pending before the Commission, Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve a Certificate of Hardship "to replace the existing front entry door with simple double doors to replicate 97-971/2 Essex Street(without the transom lights). Doors to be 6 panel 32" wood doors. All painted to match existing." 25_ At that point the Plaintiff raised his hand seeking to be heard on the issue of hardship, since that issue had not been previously raised, but Chairperson Diozzi refused to allow him to speak. 26. Following further discussion, the Commission unanimously passed Ms. Herbert's motion. Attached hereto as Exhibits E 1 and E2 respectively are copies of the March 16, 2006 Certificate of Hardship and the Commission Minutes of the March 15, 2006 hearing. 27. Included in Ms. Herbert's motion was the finding that due to Building Code requirements for secondary egress, an interior solution was not possible and that all exterior alterations had been thoroughly explored with only this solution remaining. In point of fact, no site visit had been made by any member or representative of the Commission, which relied entirely on the self-serving representations of Ms. Jacoby and Ms Fournier. 28. Also included in Ms- Herbert's motion was a simple (and apparently:standard) conclusionary statement that hardship was not created by the current owners, without any further discussion, elaboration or explanation of same by members of the Commission at the March 15, 2006 hearing. - 4 - 04/12/2008 18:02 FAX 878 825 0088 JOHN H. CARR, JR. , ESQ. 1�008 29. 10 Gifford Court is located in the McIntire Historic District established pursuant to Chapter 40C of the Massachusetts General Laws, and is also listed as part of a National Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places established by the U.S. Department of the Interior. 30. 10 Gifford Court is a late 18'h/early 19`h century structure that is remarkably intact and is in remarkably good condition. 31. Proportion, scale and symmetry are of critical importance in preserving the historic facade of such period buildings. 32. As to each of the following Counts, the Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all of the prior allegations recited in paragraphs I — 32 inclusive hereof. ARGUMENT COUNTI The March 15,2005 Certificate of Hardship Violated Fundemental Due Process 33. The application Ms. Jacoby filed on February 27, 2006 was for a Certificate of Appropriateness, not for a Certificate of Hardship. 34. There was never any public notice for a Certificate of Hardship, as n quired by Chapter 40C. 35. NOT was there any public input allowed at the March 15, 2006 hearing on the issue of hardship. 36. For these reasons alone, the March 16, 2006 Certificate of Hardship was fatally flawed as a fundamental violation of Chapter 40C and fundamental due process. COUNT II The Commission's Finding That The Proposed Double Entry Way Is The Only Solution Is Not Truc 37. On information and belief, no Commission member or representative of the Commission ever performed a site visit at 10 Gifford Court to independently verily the range of options that might be available to solve the second means of egress required for unit no 1. - 5 - 04/12/2008 18:04 FAX 978 825 0088 JOHN H. CARR, JR. , ESO. 4 009 38. Instead the Commission accepted the self-serving representations that Ms- Jacoby and/or Ms. Fournier that the proposed double entry represented the only "remaining solution." 39. In point of fact, there was at least one other solution, namely the exterior staircase on the rear facade of the building that the Commission approved at the December 21, 2005 hearing on the original December 6, 005 application for a Certificate of Appropriateness- 40. At the March 15, 2006 hearing, the owners stated the former would not be possible without obtaining a Special Permit required under the Salem Zoning Code, 41. Yet, on information and belief, the same is true with respect to the proposed double entry approved pursuant to the March 15, 2006 Certificate of Hardship, since a new opening would be created in the exterior wall of a building located on a zero lot line, which is otherwise believed to be prohibited by the State Building Code. 42. On Information and belief, the owners of the two condominium units have not even attempted to obtain the necessary permits from the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals to build the exterior staircase approved at the Commission's December 21, 2005 hearing. 43. Also, the Plaintiff argues that before the Commission makes an affirmative finding that there are no other solutions possible, it should at least independently verify that that is in fact the case. 44. Implicit in the Commission's March 15, 2006 decision to grant a Certificate of Hardship, but not a Certificate of Appropriateness, as applied for, was that the proposed alterations were not historically appropriate. 45. On information and belief,there are in fact other solutions, including interior solutions, which would provide the required second mans of egress to unit no. 1. COUNT HI There was and Is No Legally Recognized Hardship 46. According to the Commission Minutes of its December 7, 2005 meeting, both Ms. Jacoby and Ms. Fournier acquired title to their respective units from the per•;on who had illegally created two condominium units at 10 Gifford Court. 47. Presumably both Ms.Jacoby and Ms. Fournier were each represented by competent counsel at the time they purchased their respective units, and thus, either knew or should have known that such units were illegal. -6 - 04/12/2008 18:05 FAX 878 825 0088 JOHN H. CARR, JR. , ESQ. 0;010 48. In any event,their remedy is or should be against their seller, and not the McIntire Historic District. 49. Also according to the Commission Minutes of its December 7, 2005 meeting, the seller is paying for any changes required for a second mans of egress to unit no. 1 at 10 Gifford Cowl. 50. The question of hardship was simply taken for granted by the Commission at the March 15, 2006 hearing; there was no discussions of same; no public input was allowed� and no prior notice had been given. 51. On information and belief, there is no hardship as a matter of law, either because other solutions are possible, for which the seller is financially responsible, and/or any such alleged hardship is entirely self-created, since both Ms. Jacoby and Ms. Fournier knew or should have known that their units were illegal prior to purchasing same. COUNT IV The Commission's March 15, 2006 Decision Sets A Dangerous Adverse Precedent that runs Counter To The Preservation Goals of Chapter 40C In General And The McIntire Historic District In Particular 52. A primary function of the Commission is to preserve the historic and architectural integrity of each of the structures in each of its several Historic Dist icts, including the McIntire Historic District in which 10 Gifford Court is located. 53. The building in question is a remarkably intact late 18`h/early 19`h century building in remarkably good condition. 54. On information and belief, the proposed double doors would upset the historic scale and proportions of the principle elevation of 10 Gifford Court, which is why the Commission refused to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness at its March 15, 2016 meeting. 55. It has been the long-standing and consistent policy of the Commissit in that where the requirements of a condominium conversion, and preservation conflict, the latter trumps the former. 56. In recent years, there has been a marked increase in condominium conversions in each of I Salem's several Historic Districts. 57. The Plaintiff avers that the Commission's March 15, 2006 vote granting a Certificate of Hardship relative to the proposed double-entry at 10 Gifford Corot represents a dangerous adverse precedent that runs counter to the integrity and p7eservation goals of the McIntire Historic District established pursuant to Chapter 40C. - 7 - 04/12/2008 18:07 FAX 978 825 0088 JOHN H. CARR, JR. . ESQ. 14011 RELIEF SOUGHT The Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter a Judgment for him against the Commission annulling and vacating the Commission's March 16, 2006 Cenificate of Hardship in full, and/or granting such other relief as is just and expedient. Respectfully submitted. John H. Carr, Jr.,pro se 7 River Street Salem, MA 01970 (978)744-3400 BBOt#075281 Dated: AA26111.2006 - 8 - 04/12/2006 18:07 FAX 878 825 0068 JOHN E. CARR, JR. . ESQ. x012 gw Salem Historical Commission 12o'•vASHINGTGN STREET.SA4e11,a1ASSACHUSe'TTS 01970 (978) 745-9595 EXT 311 FAX(878)740-0404 APPLICATION FOR A CER TWICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Pursuant to the Historic Districes Act (M.G.L. Chapter 40C) and the Salem Historical Commission Ordinance_application is hereby made for issuance of a Certificate of Appropriatcmcss for: Construction ❑ Moving ❑ Reconstruction 0 Alteration Demolition 0 Painting 0 Sign ❑ Other as described below. M — l Disci: !' I�( Jn '1J1(� �^ Origin//aall Building Construction Date, if(mown: � � � /4t- Address Address of Property: , � Name of Record Owner(s): UA44,� ' Deseription of Work Proposed (Please include required scale draw' paint chips,catalog cuts and/or samples ojmaterral proposed, where applicable.) �uA liar a - � Vvi/i VI&fi 6-GL l?c &JU-vCA -h lie It c .e. Z"LP J0 WIN Signature of Oer: Tel. k: �Ol ? z!le ` fall -,q I c ocity:—Sc�cw StatE Zip: Mailing address: �97 04/12/2008 18:08 FAX 978 825 0088 JOH N R. CARR, JR. , ESO. Z013 `111D( ! rE December 2005. Page 4 Ms. Herbert stated that she preferred to see the chimney stay, but since it is on an addition and the other original clurnney remains, she would be okay with removal. Mr. Desrocher stated that he felt it would look better without the skylight. Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve removal of chimney on rear of house and to extend existing single shed dormer on rear of house to encompass two additional windows, so that one new window is to the extreme edge of the dormer addition and that the second new window is centered between the two end windows. The windows shall match the existing 6 over 6, true divided lights. The finish on the panels between the windows and on the sides of the shed shall be clapboards to match the house and shall be stained to match the rear fa4ade color. The owner will need to apply for vent to replace chimney. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 5 Monroe Street John Hermanski and Barbara Taylor presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a pellet stove vent. It will include a 4" pipe located near the sill on the kitchen addition, extending horizontally from the wall 12", painted the house color and to be removed in the off season. A catalog cut was provided. Mr. Hermanski stated that they will likely remove it during the off season ajtd cover it with a sheet metal cap. He stated that it can't be seen from the top of the fence be :ause of the jog of the kitchen. He added that code requires it be P away from the house. There will be a galvanized elbow at the end of the pipe. Mr. Desrocher made a motion to approve the application as submitted conditional that it be painted the body color and that when capped, the sheet metal capping be panted to match the body color of the house Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried, 10 Gifford Court Toni Fournier and Maureen Jacoby were presented for an informal discussion regarding possible options for secondary egress. Ms. Guy explained that the previous owner sold the two units as condos but had never legally changed them to condos. In order to make the units legal,the current owners have been required by the Building Inspector to install as second means of egress to Ms. Jacoby's unit. Ms. Fournier and Ms. Jacoby stated that their architect has looked at three options for egress. The first is remove a window and put in a door on the front of the house. The second is to take out a closet in Unit 1 and create a new exit to the rear, which would require an exterior stair. Tne third is to install a door from the intenor to the front entrance hallway. Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission would never allow a second door on the front of the house. She added that the most appropriate solution is to have a door into the living from the Common Area. She did not feel it would be practical for guests to unit 1 to have to walk through the bedroom. 04/12/2008 18:10 FAX 978 825 0088 JOHN H. CARR. JR. , ESQ. Z014 Ex- December 7, 2005, Page 5 Ms. Fournier noted that the units were purchased, both had an exclusive entrance and the purchase price reflected that. It would also be the most costly to complete since the stairs gra up to the third floor which is also part of unit two, Ms. Guy noted that the interior solution would not be tinder the Commission's jurisdiction since there is no change to the exterior. She added that the Building inspector informed her that the previous owner has been in court with the city and that he has agreed to pay the cost For second egress. Ms. Herbert suggested interior French doors like was done on Federal Court. It was suggested that the owners look at the porch design completed at 39-41 Washington Square. Ms. Herbert noted that the concession may be the exclusive use of the yard by the owner of Unit 1. 95 Federal Street In continuation of a previous meeting, Robert and Jan Kendall, Denae Comrie, Mary Ellen Forster and William Aydelott submitted an application for a Certificate of)appropriateness for alteration of fencing that has already been replaced. The applicants were not present. Ms. Guy stated that the Commission needs to act on the application due to the 60 day requirement. Mr. Desrocher made a motion to deny the application without prejudice and to require that the fence be returned to what was approved or a new application submitted wit}tin 30 days. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried, Other Business Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the minutes of October 19, 2005, Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Guy stated that she received a copy of a letter from Massachusetts Historical Commission tc EBI consulting finding no adverse effect for the telecommunications installation at 320 Lafayette Street. Ms. Guy stated that she received an email from one of the owners at 35 Washington Square stating that the pillar issue has been resolved and that the mason is repairing the pillar. Ms. Guy stated that MHC has prepared a DVD entitled Local Historic District Design Review and offered it to members to take home and return for another member to review. 04/12/2008 18: 12 FAX 978 825 0068 JOHN H. CARR, JR. , ESQ. Z015 10 Salem Historical Commission 120 WASHINGTON STREEr,SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (978) 745-9595 EMT.311 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 Cl 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_ 10 Gifford Catirt Name of Record Owner. Maureen Jacoby& Toni Fournier Description of Work Proposed: Installation of secondary egress in rear of propertyper plans submitted dated 12/19/05 with the following amendments: o Roof to be a shed roof instead of hip roof roof to match color, material and design of house roof o Area under landing and stairs to be enclosed with 1"square diagonal lattice to match the side porch o Lattice to be trimmed with 1 x 6 trim board on end and face o Upper landing enclosure under shed roof to be shingled to match house o Entire to be painted to match body color of house. Dated: December 28, 2005 SALEM 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 incicated. 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_ 04/12/2006 18: 13 FAX 978 825 0068 JOHN H. CARR. JR. , ESQ. 2016 December 21, 2005, Page I SALEM HISTOIz1CAL CON iMJSSION MINUTES December 21, 2005 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on December 21,2005 at 7:30 p.m.at 120 Washington Street,Salem. MA. Present were Mr. Desrocher and Ms. Diozzi,Ms. Herbert and Ms. Harper and Ms. Guy. 10 Gifford Court Toni Fournier and Maureen Jacoby presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a secondary egress from unit I in order to meet building code. Drawings were provided which were prepared by Harry Gunderson. Ms. Herbert asked if the new door will be created from the interior closet space. Ms. Jacoby replied in the affirmative. Ms. Herbert asked how visible it will be. Ms. Jacoby stated that it will be Risible from Bridge Street. Ms. Fournier stated that only the top half will be visible. Ms. Guy noted that only what is visible from Gifford Court, Carpenter Street and Harrington Court, and not Bridge Street, can be considered_ Ms. Herbert asked if there will be a concrete pad at the bottom to step on. Ms. Fournier replied in the affirmative. Mr. Desrocher asked if they will create a place for storage underneath. Ms. Fournier stated that she did not believe it was allowed without fireproofing. Ms. Herbert stated that more design details are needed including, stringers, how the new porch and stair will be connected to the clapboards and corner finishes. Mr. Desrocher stated that the side of the porch will be visible from Gifford Court. Ms. Guy noted that the section under the porch, next to the foundation, should not be clapboards and should probably be open or lattice. Mr. Desrocher stated that lattice should not exceed 1 ''Va". Ms. Harper stated that she preferred the upper half be completely enclosed. Ms. Herbert stated that a similar porch enclosure was done at 41 Washington Square, where the upper half was open and the lower half above the landing was closed. Ms. Diozzi preferred that the upper half be open. I Mr. Desrocher stated that he preferred a shed roof to the proposed hip roof 04/12/2006 18:15 FAX 978 825 0068 JOHN H. CARR, JR. . ESQ. Z017 December 21. 2005, Page 2 Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the installation of secondary egress in rear of property per plans submitted dated 12/19/05 with the following amendments: o Roof to be a shed roof instead of hip roof; roof to match color, magmal and design of house roof; u Area under landing and stairs to be enclosed with 1' square diagonal lattice to match the side porch; o Lattice to be trimmed with 1 x 6 trim board on end and face; o Upper landing enclosure under shed roof to be shingled to match bouse; and o Entire to be painted to match body color of house. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Other Business Ms. Guy stated that she received a copy of a letter from Massachusetts Historical Commission to Camp Dresser& McKee Inc. finding that there are no recorded historic or archaeological resources within the project area for the elevated water storage tank. Ms. Guy stated that she received a copy of a letter from Assistant City Solicitor Elizabeth Rennard to Kathleen Zubick regarding outstanding painting work at 11 Can Street- Ms. treetMs. Guy stated that she received a letter from the owners of 95 Federal Street indicating that they have ordered 12 pickets that will be added to the front section of their fence for the Commissiors review. Ms. Herbert asked the members to look at the new fence approved for 2 Andover, noting that the owners, instead of changing the posts from 4" square to 4"round and cutting them down to be level with the pickets, they put wooden caps on the existing square posts. There being no further business, Mr. Desrocher made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Respectfully submitted, Jane A. Guy Clerk of the Commission 04/12/2008 18:18 FAX 978 825 0088 JOHN H. CARR, JR. , ESQ. X018 Salem Historical Commission 120 WASHI.NGTCN STREET, SALEM.MASSA CHU SETTS 71970 (978)745.9595 EXT. ]n FAX 19781 740-C-04 .APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Pursuant to the Historic District's Act (M.G.L. Chapter 40C) and the Salem Historical Conunission Ordinance. application is hereby made for issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for: Construction 11 Moving V Recorutvction ❑ Alteration C Demolition 0 Painting ❑ Sign Other as described below. District: -1h%r Im kr-e_ �! Original Building Coamction Date, if known:S=X. I` O Address of Property: /(0 r /' 1 to r d cf- f' *� CL Name of Record Owner(s):/2aUrEtrl 7a "�T Un I• fh I TQr1 FDV7-1 i 2l^' ,00- * Description of Work Proposed (Please include required scale drawings, paint chips, catalog cuts and/or samples of'material propose(4 where cpplicable.) G 4��lk6, h �'A ror"CA //� K�ppn � �� Nj3e"SC- Aadw_ ✓> L M �- Jata.t_ aA:c� w I( CtIteW -/Far Gtt ' ten d `.�.�I w.J r\,- vM +}+' c cn 14- l 0 d N . Cts/o r— 4,4 hwa a� C fie.p -Co r,d,4 .-Pn cL,-du-d '-4 -4— &,,xuAA SY Ctnc h : 1 c� ! � 6on Aetui,— 6a� bodk 361 �oor� 4-e-,d 4- _ lI� Jve 111110 it Immill Ism M 101111111 IN WEI will shusi in SignatureofOwner: V _�-- ___ Tel. 0: q7Y r� G / Mailing address:__/0 G -f o t1 I -GJVI ( City: State)An zip: Q rn , Gundemer • ry l '1 L 1 L'v:1 rp f• __ 7 C� GiE(ord 11-Lill Con JU Condominlu _ r Ci Entry Desigl Ix EMTM MOMM ELEVATION IROP0 NO MMURU10NW0D 1 .. +� 10 Gifrord Cour i— Salem Massachusetts ml m J til LM i1 '+ - - --= N - J �- - ---- Stre1 Eievetio IAO1UlED f=IN ELEVAnON St'DOOM N YII�w4IMti�w N � .-i 04/12/2008 18: 19 FAX 978 825 0088 JutiN K. cAKK, JK. , naa. pJu4e C i 11 OF C Q lF� Salem Historical Commission Nub mAR23rD 120 WASHINGTON STREET.SALEM.MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (978)745-9595 EXT.311 FAX (978) r40-0404 CERTIFICATE OF HARDSKP It is hereby certified that the Salem Historical Commission had determined that the proposed: ❑ Construction ❑ Moving ❑ Reconstruction �' Alteration ❑ Demolition ❑ Painting ❑ Signage ❑ Other Work as described below has been approved under a finding of Hardship, 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: 10 Gifford Court Name of Record Owner- Maureen Jacoby&Toni Foumier Description of Work Proposed: Replace existing front entry door with simple double doors to replicate 97-97%2 Essex Street(without the transom lights). Doors to be 6 panel 32"wood doors. All painted to match existing. The Commission made the finding that due to the building code requirements for secondary egress, an interior solution was not possible and that all exterior alternatives have been thoroughly explored with only this solution remaining and that the Hardship was not created by the current owners. Reason for Issuance of Certificate of Hardship: ❑ The application affects only the building or structure on which work is to be done and not the historic district in general. ❑The application is approved because it does not cause substantial detriment to the public welfare. ❑The application is approved because it does not cause departure from the intent and purposes of the amended Historic District Act. Dated: 03/16/06 SALEM STORICAL COMMISSION By lrt2�� 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. 04/12/2006 18:20 FAX 918 825 0068 JOHN H. CARR. JR. , ESQ. Q021 March 15. 3006. Page 3 choice for that size. Ms. Herbert stated that she felt is was squatty and ugly and asked if he would consider replacingj�� �+ the shineles with clapboards and remove the Astroturf. Mr. Desrocher made a motion to approve a Certificate of Hardship to replace two awning type windows on first floor (on either side of entrance door) with 3/3 wood doubit hung true divided light windows, single glaze, clear glass. Casing to match 2°d floor windows. Approval is conditional that the shingles surrounding the door be replaced with clapboard to match the rest of the house with the addition of I x 5 trim a'door entry as a comerboard. All t i be painted to match the house. The Commission made the finding that the existing awning windows pose a threat to public safety. Ms. Harper Seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. 10 Gifford Cotut Maureen Jacoby and Toni Fournier presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the main entry doors with double doors to allow for second egress on the first floor, to be painted to match the house. Drawings of 36" and 32" doors were provided. Ms. Herbert stated that this issue has been before the Commission a couple o f times in the past and that the Commission had approved the installation of a door in the rear o the house that would be installed through an existing closet. She asked why the rear solution is not going to happen. Ms. Jacoby stated that the rear solution posed a problem with encroachment on the neighbors, requiring that the door be moved frrrther over to the closet on the other side of the fireplace. In that location, the stairs would block the basement door, which would require its relocation and the installation of new stairs. In addition, the interior historic doors and molding would need to be replaced code compliant doors. Ms. Guy reminded the board that the applicants each bought their condominium,not knowing that the previous owner had not legally converted the units to condos and that the building inspector will not allow the legal conversion to go through until Unit I has a legal second egress. The Commission has examined several solutions for secondary egress. Ms. Herbert suggested keeping the door, but installing a common wall inside that would create a hallway that would have two doors, one directly to Unit I and the other to the existing hallway. Ms. Fournier stated that they would have no way to get furniture in and out. Ms. Herbert stated that the proposed is a very elaborate front door on a very :mall house. She suggested using a design similar to 97 Y_ Essex Street. lvls. Harper noted that there is also a similar double entry on North Pine Stre :t. Ms. Fournier stated that she would also like the option for an overhang for water protection. Ms. Diozzi asked if there was any public comment. 04/12/2006 18:22 F.4% 978 825 0068 JOHN R. CARR. JR. , ESQ. 4022 March l5. 2006, Page 4 John Carr. 7 River Street• stated that, procedurally, he felt that public comment should be asked for sooner in the process. He stated that the Commission should determine N�hat extent the doorway is part of the original fabric and if the proposed doorway is appropriate for a vemacular house. He stated that the Commission should make its decision based on historic appropriateness. Ms. Herbert stated that the building has been sited for being in violation of the building code for secondary egress, that there are encroachment problems on the side lot line, that there is historic precident for changing entrances and that the Cotmnission, in previous applications for this property, has gone through every other avenue for a potential solution. Ms. Fournier stated that she did not believe the existing door was original ani did not believe it is solid wood. Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve a Certificate of Hardship to replace the existing front entry door with simple double doors to replicate 97-97 '/2 Essex Street(without the transom lights). Doors to be 6 panel 32"wood doors. All painted to match existing. Included in the motion was the finding that due to the building code requirements for secondary egress, an interior solution was not possible and that all exterior alternatives have been thoroughly explored with only this solution remaining and that the Hardship was not created by the current owners. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Spang rejoined the meeting at this time. 88 Federal Street Eric Martin and Kim Martin presented a-t application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace four, third-floor windows, two oa the east end and two on the west end. Ms. Martin stated that they had a fire in their home a year ago and that the windows had been a broken from the fire and are drafty- Peter Palmquist, contractor, provided three window samples. He stated that the Marvin window is preferred and that Brosco doesn't make a window that small size, so that they would have to enlarge two of the four windows. One window sample was true divided light, but had wider ` mullions. One window sample was simulated divided light. The last window sample was to demonstrate the window frame. Mr. Spang asked the warrantee on the glue-oh mullions. Mr. Palmquist stated that it was ten years. !I Mr. S,pang estimated the size of the windows as 4' x 2 I Ms. Herbert asked if they will be using storms. I I Mr. Palmquist replied in the negative, staring that there will be energy panels. Mr. Spang stated that there have been problems in the past with glue-ons falling off over time. R�cevAj 2 VN p 2006 CpMM�IYIryOPF pI/ f NT to TO: The Salem Historical Commission FROM: Maureen A Jacoby 10 Gifford Court #1 Salem, MA 01970 DATE: June 19, 06 C/O Jane Guy To The Commission, I am requesting that the Salem Historical Commission rescind the Certificate of Hardship granted on March 16, 06. Sincerely, Maureen A. Jacoby Z-- r d --1 ;' �, -- ,. _� ,,, ', ,,� �. _ _ „�_.� •- '; •I �_ _ -��� s� j �- . I _ A - � _ __ � T � �_ 1 � L q � - �_y, � _' L �) "�',., 4, I . 1-_ �. 1 � - 1 _ � -�.. �...� -. .. ... - _ _ __ I �_ ._..__ � _ ____ J ._��_ _-' __�.�. A _—_ I �.� ��l^ �� ��� � ������ `4f� - �t Salem Historical Commission 120 WASHINGTON STREET,SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (978)745-9595 EXT 311 FAX(978)740-0404 CERTIFICATE OF HARDSHIP It is hereby certified that the Salem Historical Commission had determined that the proposed: ❑ Construction ❑ Moving ❑ Reconstruction >< Alteration ❑ Demolition ❑ Painting ❑ Signage ❑ Other Work as described below has been approved under a finding of Hardship,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: 10 Gifford Court Name of Record Owner: Maureen Jacoby&Toni Fournier Description of Work Proposed: Replace existing front entry door with simple double doors to replicate 97-97 '/z Essex Street(without the transom lights). Doors to be 6 panel 32"wood doors. All painted to match existing. The Commission made the finding that due to the building code requirements for secondary egress, an interior solution was not possible and that all exterior alternatives have been thoroughly explored with only this solution remaining and that the Hardship was not created by the current owners. Reason for Issuance of Certificate of Hardship: ❑The application affects only the building or structure on which work is to be done and not the historic district in general. ❑The application is approved because it does not cause substantial detriment to the public welfare. ❑The application is approved because it does not cause departure from the intent and purposes of the amended Historic District Act. Dated: 03/16/06 SALEM STORICAL 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. ® Ylt 5 IZ. r J �� - a -. �__"� � 1' 1 1 ,� _\. •:; � _ 1 f� 44 Y � _ ri '��M�p Vt, � I, Y � � .y ,� tr moi► i�=i'��'�ia ia1 �'t� ob _ 1VA 1 fa, t Ii 1 ii _ _ a iaW-s a -=ale mat af�rw+r x•: :' riw� 01 �� r I 1 i r ,,,: Ij 'y � ' l j. .._. ����,...,, :���� I _ L {; r. � � � �. 1• � I -- , ,,W-. � ' � .� _ _ -rfa�rn.� � � - _ __ �- Y i i �� -_ - ��� �� f �'- _:ono r - ,ni�lgl III '� -�IIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII � �_ .:_, ,,, ,: ! IIIIIIIIIIIIII ■fi r �rt,r., ... -A Awl ' ASAM OWL v jam- I � RJA 4 Y. 13.1 A 0 1 e lees IH bl — Nk Sit t� dim ryJ4 •'�4.. \,1.4.9 Y 4 7 } N i +a s 4law Aw �� 4� 7t Aw W L � .�' MA $ 4oi � `a MI ., _ -� _ i moi. �■ i MAT i '!+ - vrm Mm :ate AM �� �: .0.z- al:-� ILa=.'M +mss - tsM sE� -_jW =s A� t� moi; _ 7 w it j! I WAk ma 71 r_ Gmidersm . ,n -J�rN1 .- D IT] DI � F 0 C Gifford �� Court Condominium w1 11 � o ® ® F [EllEntryDesign EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 36°DOORS 10 Gifford Court Salem Massachusetts ----------- ---- ._ -mores ___________________ --- .-------__._____ _. _-nrnerm I Street Elevation PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 34"DOORS �v.M Al C4 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 ❑ 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- 10 Crifford Coma Name of Record Owner: Maureen Jacoby& Toni Fournier Description of Work Proposed: Installation of secondary egress in rear of property per plans submitted dated 12/19105 with the following amendments: o Roof to be a shed roof instead of hip roof- roof to match color, material and design of house roof o Area under landing and stairs to be enclosed with 1"square diagonal lattice to match the side porch o Lattice to be trimmed with 1 x 6 trim board on end and face O Upper landing enclosure under shed roof to be shingled to match house o Entire to be painted to match body color of house. Dated: December 28,2005 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSI N By: an1�+r (� ��� 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. 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 ❑ 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- 10 Gifford Court 111 & 112 Name of Record Owner: Maureen Jacoby and Toni Fournier Description of Work Proposed: Installation of two downspouts in the rear of the property to match the two downspouts on the front. Dated: October 6, 2005 SALEM 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. 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 b 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 Districts Act(M.G.L. Ch. 40C) and the Salem Historic Districts Ordinance. District: McIntire Address of Property: 10 Gifford Court i I1 & 112 Name of Record Owner: Maureen Jacoby and Toni Foumier Description of Work Proposed: Repair, replace and/or real ffa gutters and downspouts to replicate existing. No changes in color, material, design, location or outward appearance. Non-applicable due to being in kind maintenance/repair/replacement. Note: Change in material, installation of new downspouts or relocation of existing downspouts will require review through a Certificate of Appropriateness application. Dated: September 14. 2005SALE // 9RICAL COMMISSION By: (/(/if 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. P1 �I -r_ e I 1 1 .t Mimm IMF . v Ci i bw Li w. •MYl� �� _ Lv Y1 y- MINNOW- 11V r Y. Z,7 i �tr� in 4 i ' 1 � • � ��� %; 1 � Y y ,^ dr- ti r � t N • �'t I �•J .� . a � / � if ! : � . ���:, � �� ,_ �;, _ � ;�r �� �:__, , '�"' rte ._ •„ ,� _ _ �� �� % � �,/ /: �\. ��'�/, �, , ,� , �, � -,� � _ � y V �� Jq� 8 W� WROOM Awl.om WA a�M-l� L�.y. Y �k, ,w ��� �� �� err 1 b ._... ~a• � `Y'. ,, .,Y / / j\4� �� i ��� r �`; 1 1 j �;� � 1 � � i"' + ' ��.: , � _ �`"_ ► �" � ��-.� ^ypY �lr�". �� - - ,s�.A , `'� � \ � a .a F I'9,y1.1'��• „g � r tr z&n , �- -4 ( 4" a 4,epa- 8 p of c1� 'i.� �� � �! .. ;� ' �: � ; rg ,� � .� i. 3-f �� 'I ' '� A.':y � M,. ��_ � �1 I . I� I � � . ; .. t;, ,: ,. � � � � � �-�' � ��� �—�.dy- r v .Y .y � 1 � r M t' ty '•♦ �'�` \ '� �� ��i �+ . " ', 1 � " ' .� AIP a n ,M�f '• i . 14 7 t Ems. i 7 .n. pis •, �, , .. `iii I � � I � � ; i j � � � � I , ,1 /�� � � . :� R�. I~ - 4T ' 1. a � n 1t� Salem Historical Commission 120 WASHINGTON STREET,SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (978)745-9595 EXT.311 FAX 978)740-0404 CERTIFICATE OF NON-A}�PLICABILITY It is hereby certified that the Salem Historical Commission has determined that the proposed: ❑ Construction Cl Moving Reconstruction ❑ Alteration ❑ Demolition `lZ 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: 10 Gifford Court r T 1 Name of Record Owner: Maureen Jacoby Description of Work Proposed: Repair/replace/rebuild and repaint porch to replicate existing. No changes in color, material, design, location or outward appearance. Non-applicable due to being in kind maintenance/repair/replacement. Dated: September 14. 2005 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION By: /I 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. , 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: 10 Gifford C7 #2 Name of Record Owner: Toni Fournier Description of Work Proposed: Repair/replace porch decking to replicate existing. No changes in color, material, design or outward appearance. Non-applicable due to being in kind maintenance. Dated: August 17, 2005 SALEM TO AL 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. 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 ❑ 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- 10 0ifford Caurt#2 Name of Record Owner: Toni Fournier Description of Work Proposed: Replacement of all existing window sashes with wood, double-hung, 6-over-6, single-glazed, true divided lite window sashes with clear glass. Existing exterior window casing and sills and paint color of window sash to remain unchanged. PLEASENOTE: In conjunction with single-glazed windows, the applicant has the option to install exterior and/or interior storm windows in order to meet State energy code requirements. Installation of storm windows is not regulated by the Historical Commission. Exterior storm color shall match the trim color of the house. Dated: October 12, 2004 SALEM 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. 0 a Salem Historical Commission 120 WASHINGTON STREET,SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (978) 745.9595 EXT.311 FAX(978)740-0404 NOTICE OF DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS RE: 10 Gifford Court On Wednesday,October 6,2004,the Salem Historical Commission voted unanimously to deny an application fora Certificate of Appropriateness from Toni Fournier for replacement of existing windows with 2-over-2, J. B. Sash Tilt Unit Tru-Divided-Lite Double-Glazed'Windows. This action was due to the Commission's determination that the proposed replacement windows are not appropriate. Built prior to 1830, #10 Gifford Court is a late Federal style house. Existing windows on the house, including double-hung 6-over-6,6-over-1,and 2-over-2 sash,represent a combination of inappropriate late 19"and early 20 century alterations. The appropriate treatment for a house of this period and style is wood,double-hung,6-over-6, single-glazed, true divided lite windows. (See: The Salem Handbook. 1977, p. 14; Commission Guidelines Notebook. 1984, rev. 1997,p, 36-38; and The Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation #2 and#6). Consequently,on Wednesday,October 6,2004,the Commission voted to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for replacement of existing windows with wood,double-hung,6-over-6,single-glazed,true divided lite windows. (See separate Certificate). PLEASE NOTE: The applicant also has the option to submit anew application for wood,double-hung,6-over-6, double-glazed,true divided lite windows. The Commission has not previously approved 6-over-6,double-glazed, true divided lite windows. In order to consider such an application, the applicant must submit a manufacturer's specification and either a salesman's sample window or the address of a local property where such windows may be inspected on site. I attest that this is an accurate record of the vote taken, not amended or modified in any way to this date. October 12,2004 LanKasparian / Chair cc: Building Inspector City Clerk �--�_ - - .- �_ ,�� 1 ' ) Y -�'�--� } r i _ _ -- .�� i @dr' 1 � _ ._�-- �,_.- - _--- �-- ... � li. �� `� , �-- 4 I 1 ,r/ . . __ . � �i y . _� r_ � �' ,4 _ ' �� F sates ��, _ - . _ _ a � �_� - = y \ � a �� / � � ) � % A 2 § . ( . \/ . � { l . . . � \ � � } \ , / � r' h h ' ti i j ��l � I/ _: �'.T �_�- �—.--- � �_-� _ c,'-:=^ h . �� .: N � I 'NIP i 3� r Salem Historical Commission 120 WASHINGTON STREET,SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (978)745-9595 EXT. 311 FAX (978)740-0404 TO: File(all Gifford Court properties) FR: Jane A.Guy,Clerk of the Commission/Lance Kasparian,Chair DT: May 19,2004 RE: 2,4,6 and 8 Gifford Court Windows 6 Gifford Court-In June,2001,a Certificate ofNon-applicability was issued to replace existing 2/2 double-hung, single-glazed,true divided-lite wood windows in-kind at 6 Gifford Court. 8 Gifford Court- In June,2002,a Certificate of Appropriateness was issued to replace all windows at 8 Gifford Court with new windows to match the windows recently approved and installed under Certificate of Non- applicability at 6 Gifford Court. 24 Gifford Court- In January,2004,the owners of 24 Gifford Court applied for a Certificate ofAppropriateness to replace existing windows with new windows to match the windows recently installed at 6 Gifford Court and approved under prior Certificates ofNon-applicability and Appropriateness at 6&8 Gifford Court. Following individual site visits and review of files, Commissioners determined that the windows approved for 6 Gifford Court under Certificate ofNon-applicability were in-kind replacement of 2/2 true divided-lite,single-glazed, wood windows. What was installed, however, were 1/1 wood windows with exterior and interior glue-on muntins simulating 2/2 configuration. These windows are not in compliance with the Certificate of Non-applicability of June, 2001 and thus, technically in violation. In discussing this matter, Commission members cited problems with glue-on muntins, including poor performance(falling off at 129 Essex Street),the appearance of the gap between the interior and exterior muntins and the unpainted sash rebates, which show through the inter-space of the insulated glass panels. CONSEQUENTLY, The application to replace windows at 24 Gifford Court with new windows matching those recently installed at 6 and 8 Gifford Court was not approved. A Certificate of Appropriateness was issued to replace window sash at 4 Gifford Court and both sash & frames at 2 Gifford Court with new 2/2, double-hung, single- glazed,true divided-lite wood windows matching those originally installed(and partly surviving)on the house. The owners of 24 Gifford Court (Donna Yates) stated that they did not want to create problems for the owners of 6 Gifford Court. THEREFORE,on February 4,2004,the Commission unanimously VOTED: 1. To take no action on window violations at 6&8 Gifford Court, in view of the misunderstanding by the property owners about what had actually been approved in the Certificates of 2001 and 2002, and also in view of the delay before this misunderstanding and resulting violations were brought to the attention of the Commission. 2. To place a memo in the files of 2,4, 6& 8 Gifford Court summarizing this matter and stating that the 1/1 wood windows with exterior and interior glue-on muntins,as currently installed at 6&8 Gifford Court, were installed without approval of the Commission and are not entitled to be retained in perpetuity under future Certificates of Non-applicability. Salem Historical Commission 120 WASHINGTON STREET,SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (9781 745-9595 EXT.311 FAX(978)740-0404 NOTICE OF DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS RE: 10 Gifford Court On Wednesday,July 21,2004,the Salem Historical Commission,voted unanimously to deny an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness without prejudice from Toni Fournier for window replacement. The denial was due to the applicant not being present and the requirement that the Commission act within 60 days of receipt of the application. The applicant may reapply at her convenience. I attest that this is an accurate record of the vote taken,not amended or modified in any way to this date. July 28,2004 Jane A.&Y Clerk of the Commission cc: Building Inspector City Clerk 06/102004 11:37 NATUFE 130STON i 19787400404 N0.584 002 Jane Due to work travel I will not be able to attend the upcoming meeting of the Historical Commission on June 15'n. I will also be out of town the week of July 5th and will not be able to attend the meeting on the 70'. Is there a way that I can accomplish what I need to via mail and/or phone. My travel schedule is erratic, and it is very difficult for me to be home in the middle of the week. If this is not possible then I will have to continue until there is a Wednesday that 1 am not traveling. Could you please let me know when the next meeting(following the July 7s' meeting) will take place? Thank you for your help Toni Fournier 10 Gifford Court Salem Ma 01970 617-216-8211 I J.B. Sash & Door Company: Custom Windows Page I of JB Sash Custom Replacement Windows AeW k, a OewC The Beauty & Charm of Real Wood PluG The Advantage of Maintenance Free Vinyl ! OMNI Romp Sizes to fit virtually any window. Product Accessories & Options ! The TB Sash Warranty . Request a Brochure ! t�%e�0 mo The Replacement Window That Revolutionized the Industry. Sizes to fit virtually any window. Product Accessories_& Options ! The TB Sash Warranty. http://www.jbsash.com/jbwin.htm 5/14/2004 J.B. Sash& Door Company: Custom Windows Page 3 of 4 "Custom Design" your JB Tilt Window to suit your taste and /ACCESSORIES AND OPTIONS match your decor. No other Four Different Grille Systems window or window ma n A. Snap-in interior wood grille, suc versatility. B. Snap-in Tru-Grid System interior wood grille with 1115 . vinyl profile grille on exterior. JB True Devided Light ! Narrow C. True divided lighcmuntin bar, bars actually built into the sash D. Internal Grille(in between panes of glassi. creating individual panes of Screen insulating glass or single strength • Full and half screens available in white and bronze. glass. Grip-Tight Locks and Sash Lifts • Bronze locks are standard.White and solid brass available. JB Tru-Grid ys em . Combine • Sash lifts are available in bronze. white-ind solid brass. our grill system on the interior with an applied vinyl grill on the A. B. exterior providing an authentic profile of individual lights on both sides. JB Grille System ! Add a snap-in wood grille to the interior of the sash to give the appearance of a `•. multi-plane window. { . C. D. Any Size or Shape ! We make the JB Tilt Double Hung Replacement Window to fit almost any opening. Bowed Double Hung Windows, Half Circle Top Windows, Segment - Top Windows are also available as well as Bay Windows, Picture Windows and Gliding Windows. Back to Windows page. I Home I Histm I Prodacta I Services I Contractor's Corner I Events I http://www.jbsash.com/jbwin.htm 5/14/2004 Salem Historical Commission 120 WASHINGTON STREET,SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (978)745-9595 EXT 311 FAX(978)740-0404 NOTICE OF DENIAL OF APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS RE: 10 Gifford Court On Wednesday, May 19, 2004, the Salem Historical Commission unanimously voted to deny an application for a Certificate of Non-applicability from Toni Fournier for replacement of single glaze windows with double glaze windows. The denial was due to the proposal being a change in design, therefore requiring review and approval under a Certificate of Appropriateness. I attest that this is an accurate record of the vote taken, not amended or modified in any way to this date. May 26,2004 C) 4 Jane . Guy Cler of the Commission cc: Building Inspector City Clerk CO vQ' M. �a�Yy1181 Salem Historical Commission ONE SALEM GREEN,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 ❑ 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: 10 Gifford Street Name of Record Owner: Victor& Susan Simonians Description of Work Proposed: Replace existing roof surfaces with Moire Black or Black Blend asphalt shingles.. Dated: January 6. 2000 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSIIOON By:- The y'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. 0 Salem Historical Commission ONE SALEM GREEN,SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (978)745-9595 EM.311 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: 10 Gifford Ct. Name of Record Owner: Victor Simonians Description of Work Proposed: Paint entire house in Dense Forest. Brick over top and risers affront steps with railing to be preserved and repainted. Dated: March 16, 2000 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION 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. Floating Garden A SW2253 Wilmington TWT SW2254 Shoreline 1154 SW2255 Aqua Breeze TWT SW2256 Blue Ridge A SW2257 -- ivy Wall C SW2258 Dense Forest C =259 Samples appioximale the actual paint color. 237 &9B EXTERIOR COLONS v ,�„. q� • lofIT ,A pp rw I II 1� j D • A F�,e� T BARS i A i `�R 1 Amp._ J t AO0r _ Sr IP- Ul,QU� i `fi,cwa,�b cc: City Clerk 4 Building Inspector 7t t4f�U6vtcff Salem Historical COMMASSIM Cn CITY HALL. SALEM. MASS. 01970 -� ,:7 C) CSD n Y 745-9595, ext. 311 m CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS N CA It is hereby certified that the Salem Historical Commission has determined that the proposed construction ( ) ; reconstruction (x) ; demolition ( ) ; moving ( ) ; alteration O; painting O ; sign or other appurtenant fixture ( ) work as described below in the . . . McIntire Historic District (NAME OF HISTORIC DISTRICT) Address of Property: 10 Gifford Ct. Nile of Record Owner: Gale Couture DESCRIPTION OF WORK PROPOSED: Rebuild everything mentioned in write up (attached in file) to match existing with like materials. 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:-i,//K / SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION By Chairman My A S S O C I A T E S 20 Cerftl Steel C2 Salem,Massadimts 01970 978.744.1000 FAX 978.744.9389 10 Gifford --- - - S -- - Court - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - THIRD FLOOR - - - - _- - - - - - - - - Condominium - - - - - - - - on ominium oe NEW,bI��ED ROOF Stair Design NEW HIPPED ROOF WITH FIBERGLASS — -- SHINGLES WITH FIBERGLASS SHINGLES - SECOND FLOOR ---------- ------------- PAINTED TRIM -- --EXISTING'WINDOWS — — —TYPICAL - PAINTED TRIM PAINTED COLUMN COVERS TO MATCH EXISTING 40 _ 10 &lS NEW DOOR - INFILL EXISTING —WINDOW — -- -- --- -- — 3 - - - - -FIRST FLOOR SIDEWALK WOOD SHINGLES T OLR AND SPACING COLORNEW AND SPACING — — —_� EXISTING DOOR _ - CO MOATCH EXISTING K ��-�,` G L 10 Gifford Court TO MATCH EXISTING GRADE C'0 ( J�Qt)P � ---- ----- � -- , � , -- - ---- � Salem -- C vn EXISTING STOCKADE FENCE Massachusetts 60 - - - - - - BASEMENT CONCRETE SLAB 'GRADE s,-0„ 1 CONCRETE FOUNDATION SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION 4`0" SCALE: 1/4" =1'-0" SCALE: 1)/4"= 1'-0" no. revision date job no.: drawn: checked: scale: date: 19 DEC 05 Stair Design 0A I a m 10 Gifford Court: Salem, Massachusetts