SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
June 20, 2007
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on June 20, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Mr. Desrocher, Mr. Spang and Mr. Hart and Ms. Guy.
10 Summer Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, Hilary Realty Trust submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors at 10 Summer Street. The body will be Wildwood and the trim will be Wood Ash. Ted Richards was present representing the applicant.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
10 Broad Street
Donald Friary and Grace Friary presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors. The body will be Hamilton Blue, the shutters and doors will be Hale Navy and the trim will remain white.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert stated that the colors should be very handsome.
14 River Street
Stephanie Trainor and Danielle Madigan presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors.
The body color will be Graphite and the trim will be Ivory Mist.
Mr. Madigan stated that it will be the same colors as 1 Kimball Court.
Ms. Guy stated that John Carr of 7 River Street called her and stated that he was fine with the colors, but asked the Commission to remind the owners that the need to put back the window molding.
Ms. Guy read a letter from Lisa Spence of 17 ½ River Street, who was in support of the colors.
Ms. Herbert asked the door color.
Mr. Madigan stated that they may replace the door, but for now it will be the trim color.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
3 Lynn Street
H. Jeffrey Brandt and Patricia Roka submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors. The body will be plum brown per the paint chip provided, the same as 4 Federal Court.
Ms. Roka stated that the shutters will remain the same, that the door will be black and that the trim will be Benjamin Moore Simply White.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
254 Lafayette St.
In continuation of a prior meeting, Lewis Legon presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for deck replacement, siding replacement and removal of rear shed. Also present was Eric Chase, carpenter/builder.
Ms. Herbert stated that she looked at the back of the building and noted that there are two bays. One has a lower section that was original. She stated that where the shed was removed, it looks as though there might have been a servants’ door, but it does not look like it would have been a major structure. She stated that she was not disturbed by the removal of the rear shed.
Mr. Chase stated that the interior 2 4 framing appears to be from the 1940’s.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the removal of the rear shed addition and deck. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert made a motion for a Certificate of Non-applicability for the construction of 3 decks in the rear of the property, conditional that they not be visible from Lafayette, Laurel or Holly Streets. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert made a motion for a Certificate of Non-applicability to repair/replace clapboards in kind. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Legon provided a drawing and stated that his architect has suggested bring up the height of the third floor to match the first floor deck. He stated that he believed wood is not as strong five to eight years down the road and that the composite material was built to last and is safer when people lean on it.
Mr. Chase stated that with the composite, the liability is taken off the owners and goes to the manufacturer, since it is 100% guaranteed.
Ms. Herbert stated that they have the right to rebuild in kind, but not that it was not very attractive. She suggested making it a bit smaller and stepping it back from the edge a couple of feet. She noted that people did not go out on decks when the house was built.
Mr. Chase stated that the house was not designed for a deck, therefore the load needs to sit on the outside wall.
Ms. Herbert suggested building the structure, but stepping back the railing.
Mr. Hart stated that it should be painted so that it does not stand out.
Ms. Herbert stated that she felt it historically should not be on the front, so she preferred it be treated more sympathetically.
Mr. Spang questioned the design of the structural element on the drawing and if it matches what is there.
Mr.. Chase stated that the existing deck was sitting on top of the roof. They will have to rebuild the joist system of the roof to keep the same deck.
Ms. Herbert stated that they should be able to pub sleepers on top of the roof.
Mr. Chase stated that the architect does not want a floating deck.
Ms. Herbert stated that the balustrade has nothing to do with the supporting platform. She stated that she would want to find a way to have marketability of the unit, but not destroy the character of the building.
Mr. Spang suggested having a solid wall with a cap, so that it looks like the second floor carries up.
Mr. Chase noted that a wall would provide more privacy.
Ms. Herbert noted that grills and chairs and towels can’t be controlled and are visible.
Mr. Legon stated that he would be fine with a privacy wall.
Ms. Herbert asked the size of the deck.
Mr. Legon stated that it would be 7’ by 7’.
Helen Sides, 35 Broad Street, stated that the 42” height of the railings will make the scale seem too high.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to continue the 3rd floor deck replacement in order for the applicant to look into a solid wall. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Legon stated that he would like to leave the first floor deck the same, but change the spacing of the balusters to 4”.
Mr. Hart suggested putting in wire instead of changing the spacing.
Ms. Herbert was in disagreement.
Ms. Guy asked if the rail was original.
Mr. Chase replied in the negative, noting it was pressure treated.
Ms. Herbert suggested transplanting any plants and shrubs being removed.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to change the spacing of the first floor deck to meet building code of 4”. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
59 ½ Summer Street
Denise Baron presented an application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability to replace 80’ of fencing in kind. She also submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to add a wooden fence/gate that swings inward, with a scallop top.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-Applicability to replace 80’ of fencing in kind. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Baron stated that the fence/gate will actually swing outward and will have the same spacing as the fence.
Mr. Hart asked if the gate will swing out into the public way.
Ms. Baron replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Hart stated that she should check if it is allowed by building code.
Mr. Spang made a motion to approve the gate as submitted. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy noted that where the fences meet at the corner, there are two different heights.
Ms. Baron stated that she would like to make them the same height.
Mr. Desrocher made a motion for the fence height to be 5’ high all around. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
35 Broad Street
Paul Viccica and Helen Sides submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for chimney repair and to add a stainless steel or galvanized chimney cap.
Ms. Sides stated that she was not sure if they would do a chimney lining. She stated that they are getting a lot of water damage in the attic. They are proposing The Chim Cap Corp Forever Cap. They are looking to find it in black and if not, would get galvanized and try to paint it.
Ms. Herbert noted that the water problem may be the flashing.
Ms. Sides stated that they redid the flashing and it did not help.
Mr. Hart made a motion to repair/replace the chimney to replicate existing and for the installation of the galvanized Forever Cap, painted black. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
22 Chestnut Street
Nina Cohen and Craig Barrows submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to alter their prior approval, including a roof change and the installation of two roof and one wall vents. Ms. Sides was also present.
Ms. Sides stated that the builder is concerned that the roof wasn’t projecting enough over the stairs and for potential water collection and freezing. She provided a drawing illustrating a change in the roof direction. They will also have a new furnace which will need the 3 vents. She stated that she is not sure of the specific location, but that the plans shows the preferred location. The roof vents will be black.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
41 Flint Street
Mary Simpson presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install two fence/gates at the driveway and patch to enclose the yard. They would placed midway up the driveway where the main portion of the house ends, per drawing. The style will be Chestnut Hill or Hamilton.
Ms. Simpson stated that the height will be a maximum of 42”. Option A is for a flatboard fence with a cap. Option B is for a round dowel type fence with 4 wood or 2 granite posts, with 2 wood posts on either end.
Mr. Hart stated that they will need to put bracing in the back of the fence.
Mr. Desrocher suggested setting a maximum height for the posts.
Mr. Hart suggested 48” high maximum.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the installation of 44” high driveway and pedestrian gates at midway of driveway where house ends as noted on plan submitted. Option for design of fence to be either flatboard with cap as per Photograph A or to be round dowel fence per photograph B with either 4 wood posts or 2 granite posts with 2 wood posts at either end. Posts not to exceed 48” high. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
6 Chestnut Street
James & Julianne McLean submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness add a transom over the rear door, recently approved and to alter the door.
Mr. McLean stated that they have significant transoms on the front and side of the house and that they need to bring in more light in the rear. They would like a transom with a lintel.
Ms. Herbert asked if they are going to have a single or double door.
Mr. McLean stated that it will be a double and that they are not moving the stoop.
Ms. Diozzi stated that she did not believe the landing can be seen from Essex Street.
Ms. Herbert wondered if there are any kind of sliding doors that are 15 lite, true divided.
Mr. McLean stated that he has not been able to find true divided light sliding doors.
Mr. Hart stated that the applicant could probably have them made.
Mr. Spang suggested doing the same as the other entry but with two doors, one being fixed. He said it would be essentially as approved but just adding a transom.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to add a transom, similar to those existing, over the rear doors approved on the certificate dated 4/5/07. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
20 Chestnut Street
James Schooley presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to rebuild 3 fences. The first fence (C-D on drawing) lies along the side of Botts Court and is 48’10” long. The second fence (D-E on drawing) is 31’ and turns into the property from Botts Court to where it meets the northerly running fence. The northerly running fence (E-F on drawing) runs behind the garage. The application states that it should be easy to establish the line because the iron posts which remained there for some time were cut off below ground level, but the bases remain. The application notes that the northerly running fence and the Botts Court fence are not parallel due to the differences in the property width at the front and back. Also present was Sara Schooley.
Mr. Schooley stated that he will replace the 3 fences to match the existing fences and the fence before it came down. They will be the same height and in the same location. He provided a 1885 photograph. The D-E fence will be 32” high and will be replaced as it was in 1885. The new fence post will match the one on site. The C-D and E-F fences will be 50” high. The vertical boards will be 6” wide. U-bolts will hold the horizontal in position. There will be base boards on the Botts Court side of E-F.
Ms. Guy asked if all the fencing will be on the property line.
Ms. Schooley replied in the affirmative. She stated that they had a survey completed yesterday and noted that some remnants of the removed fence are still there.
Mr. Hart noted that there is a gate shown in the photograph.
Ms. Schooley stated that the gate is not on their property. She stated that the fence will be tongue & groove.
Mr. Spang asked who is building the fences.
Mr. Schooley replied that he will be building the fences.
Carlotta Tyler, 7 Hamilton Street, asked if any are fences that abut her property.
Ms. Schooley replied in the negative.
Ms. Tyler stated that she had no problem if they were gone.
Craig Barrows , 22 Chestnut, noted that most of the fences abutting her property were his.
Win Wilkins, Botts Court, asked if the fence on Chestnut will remain as is.
Ms. Schooley replied in the affirmative and stated that the fence may be straightened out.
Ms. Wilkins asked where the fence will be in connection with the brick path.
Ms. Schooley stated that the brick path was added after the fence came down.
Mr. Schooley stated that the brick path will not need to be altered.
Ms. Wilkins asked if the fence will be on his side of the brick path.
Mr. Schooley replied in the affirmative and noted that, coincidently, the property line is in line with the brick path.
Ms. Wilkins asked the paint color.
Mr. Schooley stated that it will be white.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
31 Chestnut Street
Ms. Guy stated that she got an email from the owner of 31 Chestnut that stated “My fence guy called me back (Jeff Schiff at Schiff Architectural), and after his site visit he noted two things that we did not consider in our meeting: A: there are actually two styles of fence on my property in the picture- look at the bottoms - one type (the short side piece) has each baluster inset into the stone and the other style is a sectional piece with a base rail, mounted atop the stone.~ The tops of these fences are virtually the same.~ The base rail style is what is across the front of the property.~ The "inset"-style section is just the short side section you see here.~ I think that all the sections should match, and to do that I should use the base rail type sections on the side, which
requires removing the small non-conforming piece you see here.~ So everything matches closely, matching the front in essence. B: We talked at the formal Commission hearing about spacing stone posts every 8 or 10 feet - I forget exactly what the approval said, but the fence installer said that traditionally, these fences only had such posts at transitions, such as the wood fence you see here, or the terminus.~ He strongly recommends we install a base of stone all the way to the terminus and have a continuous "iron" (really steel these days) fence without any intermediate vertical stone posts - just one at the front corner, seen here, and one at the end.~ Since the end is a brick pillar, we might even want to argue that the brick pillar should be the end post, but I really don't care which we use.~ The fence builder also said that installing a large stone column every 8 or 10 feet would be very difficult to do, and very expensive.~ You can see in this picture that
they are prone to frost heave, so keeping them nice and aligned is quite difficult over time.~ There are other iron fences in the neighborhood that were built with this continuous fence concept (no posts, save the ends). I am happy to host a site visit or whatever the Commission deems appropriate.~ The fence builder said he could get you a drawing. The real point of the effort is to get rid of an old rotten wooden fence and replace it with something that looks like it belongs there (matches), of course.~ I'm confident that the Commission understands that my intent is to upgrade this property, and is likely to work with me a little bit as a result, but in this case I do think I have a situation that requires a little clarification (can we use the base rail throughout?), and given some inputs from the builder, a minor change (no stone posts except at termini), and I want to proceed with the full blessing of the Commission for the design that the builder thinks makes most
architectural sense, assuming the Commission agrees.”
Ms. Guy stated that she had forwarded this email to the Commission members.
Ms. Herbert stated that she felt that the Commission overdid this approval. She felt the fence should be less grand than what is out front. She suggested that he apply for a fence with granite along the property line, a continuous iron fence sitting on a rail, not drilled in the granite and that it is okay to end with a granite post.
Mr. Spang stated that he was okay with getting rid of the granite base.
Mr. Hart suggested they provide a drawing.
Mr. Spang suggested just leaving the posts and existing granite and that the tops align.
Ms. Herbert stated that they will need to see the intermittent posts.
Other Business
Ms. Guy read a letter from Massachusetts Historical Commission to the Essex National Heritage Commission finding that the preparation of an Historic Structures Report for the Witch House at 310 Essex Street will have no adverse effect. Mr. Hart stated that if the building is a totally preserved building under the Massachusetts Building Code Appendix H, that there should be no need to change the interior at all. Mr. Spang suggested consulting with Historic Salem, Inc. regarding the landscaping.
Ms. Guy read a letter from MHC to the Preservation of Affordable Housing finding that the acquisition and rehabilitation is unlikely to affect significant historic or archaeological resources.
Ms. Guy stated that she sent the Commission response letter to MassHighway concerning the North Street Reconstruction Extra Work Order on June 11, 2007. She read an email from Jeffrey Shrimpton requesting that the intersection improvements be discussed at a meeting scheduled by the Commission on July 9th or 10th. The Commission decided to schedule this meeting on July 10th at 7:00 pm. Ms. Guy noted that she forwarded a letter from the Federal Street Neighborhood Association dated 6/11/07 to the Commission. Ms. Guy passed out a letter from Mayor Kimberley Driscoll dated 6/18/07and one from Historic Salem, Inc. dated 6/10/07. She stated that she got a telephone call from John Carr, 7 River Street, who stated that he hoped the Commission would keep in mind the
parking garage and Bridge Street By-pass projects.
There being no further business, made a motion to adjourn. seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission
| 
