SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
October 17, 2007
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Mr. Hart, Mr. Desrocher and Ms. Diozzi.
347 Essex Street
Steven and Ellen Gallagher presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors. The body will be Hinoki and the trim Crème. Paint chips were provided.
Mr. Gallagher stated that the house is in dire need of repainting as it has not been done in over 10 years.
Mr. Hart stated that Massachusetts Historical Commission shows the house as being built in 1885 and added that it is a nice house.
Mr. Gallagher stated that they purchased the house on September 7, 2007.
Ms. Herbert stated that it may look faint next to the neighbor’s yellow house. She suggested using an accent color for the doors.
Ms. Gallagher stated that they would like to paint the doors Domino.
Mr. Gallagher stated that they may fill in the decorative detail on the house later on. He stated that they also need to repair wood trim, clapboards, fascia and the wrought iron fence.
Ms. Herbert asked the color of the storm windows.
Mr. Gallagher stated that they are currently mauve painted aluminum, but that they will paint them the trim color.
Ms. Herbert asked what the sash color will be.
Mr. Gallagher stated that it will be the Crème.
Mr. Hart stated that they may want to consider picking out the details once the body and trim are painted.
Ms. Herbert suggested more of a gray for the doors. She stated that flat black is not welcoming and that black should be high gloss. She also suggested Greenblack.
Ms. Guy suggested Essex Green.
Ms. Gallagher asked about Inkwell.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the paint colors as submitted with the option for the doors to be either Greenblack, Essex Green or Inkwell.
Mr. Hart suggested an amendment to encourage the applicant to come back for a color for the decorative details.
Ms. Herbert added the amendment to her motion.
Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-applicability for repair/replacement of clapboards, fascia, trim and wrought iron fence. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
20 Hathorne Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, Linda Locke presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the existing front landing, steps and rails in wood. The applicant was not present.
Ms. Guy stated that the applicant has requested a continuance to the next meeting.
Mr. Hart provided photographs that he took of various front entrance configurations around the neighborhood.
Ms. Herbert stated that she spoke with the owner for an hour today and she is willing to re-do the work already started. She will meet with the owner this week.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to continue the application. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
83-85 Derby Street
Richard Savickey presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a pediment head board instead of a frieze type headboard at the front entrance of 83-85 Derby Street. The application is also to add a couple of moldings to the flat piece that is between the top of the door and the headboard.
Ms. Herbert stated that Mr. Savickey has done a beautiful job on the house.
Mr. Savickey stated that when he removed the siding he found the original header, so he changed it to a pediment type as was original instead of what was approved. He stated that he also centered the door on the step and moved the windows over a couple of inches in order to align them.
Ms. Herbert suggested that the doorknob be something more historic such as an “S” shape with a thumb latch. She also suggested replacing the hot top section in the front with brick.
Mr. Desrocher made a motion to approve the changes to the front entrance and façade as completed and to encourage the owner install historically appropriate hardware for the front door. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
6 Andover Street
Jeffrey Nicholas and Kerry Rourke presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the existing back door with a new door and to paint it Benjamin Moore Branchport Brown. The door will be Simpson, Douglas Fir, true divided lights, clear glass as per catalog cut provided.
Mr. Desrocher made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
186 Federal Street
Sharon Sullivan presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace single glazed 2 over 2 with same style dual glazed windows. Also present was Robert Savage of R. Savage Builders.
Mr. Savage corrected that the windows are 6 over 6.
Ms. Herbert asked how many windows are being replaced.
Mr. Savage stated that there are 30. He stated that he is proposing a Brosco, single glaze window with an exterior energy panel and provided samples of the window.
Mr. Hart suggested that the energy panel be on the inside.
Mr. Savage stated that the proposed is the closest he can get without going to double glazed. He noted that the actual windows will be larger than the sample and that they will be 54”H by 28”W.
Mr. Hart asked why they are being replaced.
Mr. Savage stated that they have lead paint and are falling apart.
Ms. Herbert asked the cost of the proposed window.
Mr. Savage stated that they are approximately $200 each.
Ms. Herbert asked the labor cost.
Mr. Savage stated that it is $100-$200 per window depending on the existing window condition.
Ms. Herbert asked if there are currently storms.
Mr. Savage replied in the affirmative, but stated that they are in questionable shape. He noted that with the proposed window and the storms, there will be almost double energy savings.
Mr. Hart asked if they were keeping the existing storms.
Mr. Savage replied in the affirmative and stated that they are only replacing sash.
Ms. Herbert stated that for $300 each, they could restore the existing windows. She suggested something without an energy panel or storm.
Mr. Savage noted that the Pella is $400 each and the JB Sash is in the $400 range.
Ms. Herbert suggested that the front façade have double panes without storms and go with the Brosco on the remaining sides.
Mr. Hart stated that he preferred that the front be restored and that they use an interior storm.
Mr. Savage stated that they are willing to replace the front in kind and the rest with the Brosco.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-applicability for in kind replacement of the window sash on the front façade. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Harper made a motion to approve the remaining 3 sides with the Brosco single glazed window with the energy panel. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion. Ms. Harper, Ms. Diozzi and Ms. Herbert voted in favor. Mr. Hart and Mr. Desrocher voted in opposition. The motion did not carry.
Mr. Desrocher stated that he was concerned about the small piece of aluminum that will be seen around the outer edge.
Ms. Herbert stated that it will be hidden by the shutter.
Mr. Hart suggested seeing a mock-up.
Mr. Savage questioned who would pay for the window if it is installed and then not approved.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-applicability for the repair/replacement of the remaining windows in kind. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve replacement of windows with wood, simulated divided light windows, 7/8 muntins, clear glass windows with bronze spacer (or darkest available) in either:
· Pella Architect Series Wood Double Hung Window with ILT's
· LePage 7/8” SDL
· J. B. Sash Proper Bostonian
Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Hart asked what the sash color will be.
Ms. Herbert made a motion for the sash color to be either in kind black or white. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Community Preservation Act
Ms. Joanne McCrea was present to provide information on the Community Preservation Act which is on the November 6 ballot. She noted that it will provide a 1% surcharge on property taxes and will be matched this year 100% by the State. In upcoming years, the match will likely go down to 55-75%. Funds raised must be spent a minimum of 10% on historic preservation, 10% on open space and 10% on affordable housing, with the remaining 70% permitted to be any combination of all three plus recreation. She noted that Peabody used some of its funds for a park for handicapped children and Dracut used some for its Town Hall. There would be a committee to oversee how funds are spent along with a minimum of one public hearing per year. A member of the Salem Historical Commission would serve on the
Committee. The City Council would then approve all expenditures. Funds are placed in a dedicated account, not the general fund account.
Other Business
Ms. Guy provided the Commission members with new copies of a letter from MHC to DCAM with a copy of the most recent Draft Memorandum of Understanding for the Courthouse project, noting that the copies distributed at the last meeting were missing every other page. Mr. Hart questioned the deletion of “DCAM shall solicit the comments of the MHC, the City of Salem, the Salem Historical Commission, and Historic Salem, Inc. concerning the proposals and shall not select a developer/owner for any of the properties until MHC, the Salem Historical Commission and Historic Salem, Inc. have reviewed and provided technical comments on the proposals.”
Mr. Hart noted that during an Essex National Heritage Area Trails and Sails event, he visited Newburyport’s Superior Court which is being remodeled. He noted that the decision to remodel was made in 2005 and was made by the same judge who says remodeling cannot be done at Salem’s Superior Court. He questioned how the Newburyport remodel design could accommodate the three circulation routes that is required for Salem. Ms. Herbert suggested that Mr. Hart try to see the Newburyport design plans. Ms. Guy stated that it was unlikely due to security reasons.
There being no further business, Ms. Herbert 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
| 
