SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
October 4, 2006
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on October 4, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin and Mr. Hart and Ms. Guy.
57 Summer Street
Judith Ritchie and Elaine Hogan submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace a side yard fence. 64’ of stockade fence will be replaced with 64’ of cedar fence as per photograph provided, left natural.
Ms. Herbert asked if the fence was minimally visible.
Ms. Hogan replied in the affirmative. She noted that the new posts will be square.
Ms. Herbert asked how close the fence will be to the neighbor’s porch.
Ms. Hogan stated that it will be within 6 to 8 inches and is needed to keep the dogs in.
Ms. Herbert wondered if the fence could be run up to the side neighbor’s deck and attached arbor, with a shorter fence from the front of the deck and arbor to meet the lower driveway fence.
Ms. Hogan stated that they prefer a continuous 6’ fence, which will hide the neighbor’s barrels.
Ms. Herbert suggested replacing the corner post from the front fence with a taller post and connecting the existing and new 6’ fences.
Mr. Hart asked the height of the existing and proposed fences.
Ms. Hogan replied that both are 6’ high.
Ms. Herbert asked for the paint color.
Ms. Hogan stated that it will remain natural.
Ms. Herbert stated that she would like to continue the application and have the applicant speak with their fence person to explore if something better can be done to join the two fences.
Ms. Hogan stated that she did not want to incorporate the neighbor’s deck into her yard.
Ms. Diozzi stated that since the application is for a fence of the same size and in a style only slightly different from the fence that is being replaced, the owner should not have to defer to the structure on the abutting property.
Ms. Herbert stated that the reason to explore a more harmonious design is not just for the neighbor’s porch, but also for how the new fence will meet the front fence.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to replace the side yard stockade fence with 6’ cedar fence per photo submitted, left natural. The right post of the driveway fence is to be replaced with a new higher post, painted white, to which both fences will connect. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
281 Essex Street - Discussion
Jim Valeriani of Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless was present regarding a submission to MHC to install telecommunications equipment on 281 Essex Street (Tompkins Furniture). Mr. Valeriani provided photographic examples of façade mounted antennae on older brick buildings.
Ms. Bellin asked if they can match the arrays to whatever color is behind.
Mr. Valeriani replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Hart stated that if they are painted the brick color, the joints behind will not be seen. He added that he would want the arrays flush to the building.
Mr. Valeriani stated that they will install them as flush as possible.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to send comments to Massachusetts Historical Commission recommending that the arrays be as flush to the building as possible and that they be the same color as the brick. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
26 Winter Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, Neil and Martha Chayet presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for 22 items (to be described below as each were reviewed). Also present was Larry Beals, consulting engineer and Richard Long, architect.
Addendum #10 - Rework opening above portico
Mr. Chayet provided a drawing of a new second floor door which he said would look like a Palladian window. For the railing, they propose increasing the height from 24” to 36”.
Ms. Chayet noted that the tops of the railing posts are currently 31”.
Ms. Herbert stated that she was okay with the new rail height, noting that the shorter balusters may look skimpy with the new more elaborate opening.
Ms. Chayet stated that they will not have shutters as previously proposed.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the 2nd floor doorway and railing per the 10/4/06 drawing, with no shutters and with a 36” railing on the roof balustrade. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Addenda #15 - Relocate two-car garage and incorporate into addition
#16 - Rework side of one story El and construct addition
#17 - Reduce size and rebuild back porch and stairs
Mr. Chayet provided drawings and a landscape layout plan. He stated that they will remove the rear ell, remove the garage and construct a new addition. He noted that there is need for wheelchair access, which will be inside the structure. The new drawings showed a change from a screen porch to a solid porch.
Ms. Herbert questioned how they will incorporate the hip roof.
Mr. Long provided a drawing and stated that there will be a cricket.
Ms. Chayet stated that the front of the addition will be the kitchen and the back will be the garage accessed from Oliver Street, which is the reason for the different level windows.
Mr. Hart wondered if there was a need to demarcate.
Mr. Long noted that the new addition will be all brick, but that they could put in a pilaster.
Mr. Hart and Ms. Herbert stated that they felt it would not be necessary since the addition is brick.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the removal of the single story ell on Oliver, the removal of the garage and their replacement with a 2 bay garage with door for handicapped access. The new addition will be brick, will have a hip roof and will include the reduction and rebuilding of the porch. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Addenda #12 - Repair and/or replace lintels and sub sills
#13 - Replace windows
#14 - Restore bricked-over windows
Mr. Chayet stated that all windows had 2x4s nailed to the sills which rotted them out. None have original glass.
Ms. Chayet stated that four bricked over windows need to be restored and two bricked over basement windows that will be visible when the porch is removed need to be restored.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve Addendum #14. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Chayet stated that there are 81 windows on the house of which 45 are 6 over 6. She noted that besides the 2x4s attached to the sills, rot has also been caused by gutter failure, lack of maintenance and ill-fitting storms. She noted that no 1811 windows remain. She added that to restore the existing windows would require 70% new materials. She stated that the fanlights are less damaged.
Mr. Chayet stated that the fanlights will be restored as is.
Ms. Chayet provided for concepts for consideration. The costs are based on 45 6 over 6 windows.
1. Alison Hardy (The Window Woman) $4000 per window - Ms. Chayet stated that Ms. Hardy deals mostly with the sash, would require one month of the windows being worked on off site. They would then need a carpenter to custom restore the jambs. She stated that there would be a risk of a bad fit between the two contractors’ work and storms would still be needed.
2. David Webb $5110 per window - Ms. Chayet stated that he would do all work on site, but paint would have to be removed first by a different contractor. It would take six months. Storms windows and repainting would then need to be completed.
3. Pella, Marvin, Eagle or other specialty vendors $2500 per window - Although high quality, none of the windows are really true divided lights. These would take one month for installation by a separate contractor. A Pella window sample was provided.
4. Custom JB Sash windows $1400 per window - These windows are approved and used in Boston’s Back Bay and Beacon Hill historic districts and are true divided light. Painting required. A window sample was provided.
Ms. Chayet stated that the estimated cost for all 81 windows for each option is:
1. $329,000
2. $409,000
3. $215,000
4. $121,000
Mr. Chayet stated that the JB Sash 1 3/8” single hung wood window has a real putty profile, insulated glass, 6 individual pieces of glass for each sash and no storms needed. It is available in tilt, although they will not be getting them in tilt. The cost is $707 per unit for 6 over 6, not including installation. They will have the upper sash fixed.
Mr. Hart stated that the interior profile appears early Federal period. He stated that the only thing that bothers him is the indent around the perimeter of the exterior and the exposed staples.
Ms. Herbert asked if there was any way to obscure the staples.
Ms. Chayet stated that she believed the staples could be obscured with putty as would be done with a visible nail head.
Mr. Hart stated that they should specify that the staples be stainless or bronze. He stated that the factory could probably flush out the indent. He added that the Pella and the custom JB Sash have different profiles and that he felt the custom was superior to the Pella.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to remove 8 windows as noted on drawings and for replacement of 73 existing windows and installation of 13 new windows in JB Sash custom true divided light, wood, double glaze, clear glass windows on house and new addition. 6 over 6 windows to have fixed upper sash. Staples in windows to be non-corroding and puttied over so as to be invisible. All windows painted white. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Chayet stated that the windows above the bay are faux lintels.
Mr. Chayet stated that he found them offensive and wants to put in real lintels. He requested approval to repair where possible, replace where needed with cast stone which matches as best as possible and replace the faux lintels to match as close as possible. Lintels to be painted white.
Ms. Chayet stated that they also want to put in stone sub sills in the 6 windows above the bay.
Mr. Hart suggested a product called Keim.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to repair lintels to replicate existing, replicate lintels that are missing and the option to replace 7 faux brick lintels with true lintels or to apply surface coating to simulate lintels. The motion is also to replace wood sub sills in 6 windows with stone sub sills to match rest of house. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Addendum #7 - Replace gutters and downspouts
Mr. Chayet stated that he spoke with Kidney Roofing and that there is a $25,000 difference between copper and aluminum gutters. He stated that Kidney recommends copper. He provided a sample of the OG style gutter.
Ms. Chayet stated that the downspouts will be round, fluted and 3” diameter. She provided a sample downspout and noted that they will remain essentially in the current locations.
Mr. Chayet stated that a trough will be built into the portico.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to replace gutters with copper 16 or 20 ounce ogee style gutters on all roof eaves. Option for gutters on new addition to be smaller in proportion, but same design. Install 3” fluted copper downspouts on building corners. Portico to have invisible trough, with downspouts on both sides of portico. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Addenda #8 - Remove pipe hand rail at front door and replace with wrought iron hand rail
#11 - Retain a small landing and steps from door to the right of the bow window.
Ms. Chayet stated that they will use #22-0-09 start, bronze oval #223 round rail and #306 post to be installed at the front door, the landing to the right of the bow window, the back door and the screen porch.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve replacement of existing landing to the right of the front door with Option C, curved stairs. Railing for front door, landing at right of bow window, back door and screen porch to be metal with #922-0-09 starter, bronze oval #223 round handrail and #306 post. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Three options were provided for the landing.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve curved Option C for the stairs at the door to the right of the bow window. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to continue Addenda #18 through #23. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
138 North/2 Dearborn St.
In continuation of a previous meeting, Thomas Pelletier, Cynthia Pelletier and Kellie Overberg submitted an application for exterior alterations to a carriage house including replacement of windows, changing 3 doors to windows, installation of new door and installation of a/c vents and pipes through the Carriage House Ordinance. The applicants were not present.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to continue the application. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
8 Winthrop Street
8 Winthrop Street Condominium submitted an application for a Certificate of Non-applicability to replace the roof with a 30-year architectural of like color and apply new aluminum flanges over all vent pipes. The application is also to repair brick mortar of foundation.
Ms. Guy provided photographs showing that the existing roof is 3-tab.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-applicability for a new 3-tab roof in black or charcoal gray, replace flanges and repairs to brick foundation. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Mr. Hart stated that the State is filing an ENF for the courthouse project and that an informational hearing is going to be set up for either November 1st or 2nd. He suggested that if the meeting is scheduled for the first, that the Commission consider having its regular meeting earlier in the evening, so that those interested can attend both.
Ms. Herbert stated that she met with Robert Dana concerning 135 and 137 Derby Street. He had put bead board over the door which was not approved. She advised him to apply for new paint colors and for detail changes on the lower panels.
There being no further business, Ms. Bellin 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
| 
