SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
December 6, 2006
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on December 6, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Mr. Desrocher and Mr. Hart and Ms. Guy.
23 Winter Street
Harry and Francoise McCoy submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to change the paint color of shutters to Black Forest Green.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the application as submitted.. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
57 Warren Street
David Braizier submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness and Non-Applicability for rebuilding the side porch and increasing the 2nd floor railing height to 36” and increasing the post height.
Ms. Guy noted that it was determined that the porch is visible and would need approval under Appropriateness.
Mr. Braizier stated that it is only visible from Broad Street. They are keeping the existing structure but may need to replace the two columns in kind.
Ms. Herbert asked the current 2nd floor rail height.
Mr. Braizier stated it is29 ¼”.
Kimberley Gelardi (Braizier) stated that their insurance company may want 42” high, and even though the Building Inspector stated that the Building Code requires 36” for this property, she was concerned about future code changes.
Mr. Hart stated that for liability purposes, they may want to go with 42”.
Ms. Herbert stated that it looks like the balustrade is sitting on the deck and suggested it be raised.
Ms. Bellin asked the post height.
Mr. Braizier stated that it is 35”.
Ms. Herbert stated that if the railing height is 42”, the post height should be no more than 45”.
Mr. Hart asked the proposed color.
Mr. Braizier stated that they will keep the gray trim color. He stated that he will need to pour new footings. He asked if he could use fiberglass or poly for the columns.
Ms. Guy stated that anything other than wood is unlikely to get approval.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the repair/rebuilding of the existing side wooden porch (visible from Broad Street) with the exception that the 2nd floor railing and post height be increased. Option to have either 36” high railing with 39” high post or 42” high railing with 45” high post. Balusters to be 2 x 2 with beveled top and bottom rails as existing. Dimensions and design of posts to remain the same except for height increase. Supporting columns to be replaced if necessary, in kind. Entire to be painted trim color.
Mr. Hart asked to amend the motion to include that the entire porch should be replicated in all respects except for the 2nd floor balustrade.
Ms. Herbert so amended her motion. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
135 Lafayette Street
In continuation of a prior meeting, Salem Lafayette Development, LLC, submitted an application to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance for the former St. Joseph’s Church building. The applicant was not present.
Ms. Guy read into the record a letter from Attorney Joseph Correnti, representing the applicant, requesting that, due to appeals of the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals decisions, the Commission defer any action and allow the six month time period to run, noting that no demolition will occur prior to the delay period expiration of February 8 2007.
Ms. Guy also read into the record a letter from Donna Vinson, Vice President of Historic Salem, Inc., stating that they continue to oppose the granting of a waiver.
John Carr, 7 River Street, stated that when the applicant initially requested the waiver, they had indicated their desire to work with the Commission. He stated that the appeals have nothing to do with the applicant working with the Commission. He stated that the Commission should send a symbolic message and deny the waiver. He stated that the City should not be in the business of demolishing landmarks. He noted that at the last meeting, the applicant stated that they will be commencing the Section 106 Review Process.
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission has four options: 1) approve the application, 2) continue the application, 3) deny the application or 4) defer the application which means taking no action and letting the time run out. The last three options, in effect, continue to invoke the delay.
Teasie Goggin, 9 Wisteria Street, asked if it were determined through the courts that they could only building 3 and not build 6 stories, could they pull out of the project.
Ms. Guy stated that once the six month delay is complete, if they do not use State or Federal funding or permitting, the owners can demolish the building at any time and it is their prerogative if they choose to pull out of the project.
Mr. Carr stated that a denial would send a signal for when they go through the Section 106 Review Process.
Ms. Bellin asked if the demolition can proceed even if the appeals are still in place.
Mr. Carr replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Carr stated that, at the Planning Board meeting, the owners had indicated that the Historical Commission had not denied a waiver.
Mr. Hart stated that no demolition can occur until the Section 106 Review Process is over.
David Goggin, 9 Wisteria Street, asked if the Commission could deny the application and require them to start the six month delay over.
Ms. Guy replied in the negative.
Mr. Hart stated that he believed that the City of Salem has Definitive Plan which shows where all the funding is coming from.
Mr. Carr stated that on February 8th, the owner can demolish using its own funds. He suggested that the Commission take this opportunity to weigh in. He stated that he felt the applicant might explore other sources of funding that don’t kick in the Section 106 Review Process.
Mr. Hart stated that he did not feel the project would be financially feasible without State funding.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to deny the application. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Hart made a motion that the Commission communicate with Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) by sending a letter notifying them that the Commission has denied the waiver, requesting the status of the Section 106 Review Process (if a Project Notification Form has been submitted) and asking to be considered an interested party in the process. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Window Presentation - Bonneville
Glenn Guyette was present to provide samples of the Bonneville Gold Series Double Hung with 5/8” SDL. He stated that he is a manufacturer’s representative for the company which has been in business in Canada for 60 years. They specialize in custom wood and PVC windows. The window sample provided is putty glazed and has 3 different available casings. It has a 2 ¼ historic sill with horns as long as are needed. The bottom rail of the lower sash is 3 5/8 and it has concealed jamb liners. The tilt release is located at the sash lock. They have four or five color options for the spacer bar between the glass.
Mr. Hart stated that it is very similar to the JB Sash custom window recently approved.
Ms. Herbert asked if they would be able to provide a sash sample in white with white spacer bar.
Mr. Guyette replied in the affirmative. He noted that there are no finger joints.
Ms. Herbert stated that it looks like it would work in the districts.
Mr. Desrocher suggested that the spacer bars be made of wood.
Mr. Hart stated that it looks like a good window but noted that he was not sure how if will look from far away and if the spacer is visible.
Ms. Herbert suggested that they also provide photographs of installations.
268 Lafayette Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, Christine and Keith McClearn submitted an application for the installation of French doors, already installed.
Ms. Guy read an email request to continue the application to the Spring and to waive the 60 day requirement.
Ms. Herbert stated that the painting of the unapproved French doors, that are clearly visible from the street, should have been completed before this meeting as agreed. She noted that these applicants have previously requested retroactive approvals when violations were cited. She noted that this puts the Commission in a very awkward position, particularly when the additions made would likely not have been approved without modifications to bring them into compliance with the Commission’s guidelines. Ms. Herbert recommended that, rather than an automatic denial, a 6-month extension be granted to get all the other components of the project completed.~ She added that the Commission should send a letter to the adjoining property at 266 Lafayette Street, copied to 268, reminding that applicant of his
representation at the September Commission meeting to plant a full row of tall evergreens along the drive to mask the view from Laurel Street of his recent additions.
Mr. Desrocher stated that he felt a continuation to the fist meeting in April would be sufficient.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to continue the application to April 4, 2007 meeting and to send a letter notifying them of the continuation and requesting that prior to that meeting, to paint the visible set of French doors in the house trim color. The letter should also state that, to aid in the Commission’s decision, we encourage Dean McClearn to also paint his two sets of French doors and, while not under the Commission’s jurisdiction, to plant the row of tall evergreens (arborvitaes) along the driveway at the property line that Dean McClearn suggested that he would do at the Commission's 9/9/06 meeting to help minimize the view of the alterations to building from Laurel Street. Letter to be copied to 266 Lafayette. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so
carried.
Other Business
Ms. Guy stated that she received a fax from Salem Harbor CDC regarding the proposed housing project at 50 Palmer Street. The building is not over 50 years old, so it does not require a waiver from the Demolition Delay Ordinance. However, because it is using state or federal funding, it still needs to go through the Section 106 Review Process as a formality, which SHCDC neglected to do before demolishing the building. They are hoping for a “no adverse effect” from Massachusetts Historical Commission, but MHC wants the Commission to comment. Ms. Herbert made a motion to find that the demolition of 50 Palmer Street has no adverse effect on area historic properties and to note that the building was in poor condition and of no historic significance. Mr. Hart seconded the motion.
All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of October 18, 2006. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the minutes of November 1 and November 15, 2006. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
There being no further business, Ms. Bellin made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission
| 
