SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
May 7, 2008
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, May 7, 2008 at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Chairman Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Mr. Harper, Ms. Bellin and Mr. Hart.
14 Chestnut Street
Katherine and Dr. Thomas Murray presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to repair the side porch and raise the height of the railing from 32” to 36” to meet current building code.
Mr. Harts asked if it will be the same design and same posts.
Dr. Murray stated that it will be the same design and that the only design change will be that they would like the risers to be one piece with an overhang and molding.
Ms. Diozzi asked if the posts will be proportional with the railing.
Dr. Murray replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the application as submitted.
Ms. Harper seconded the motion
Mr. Hart recommended an amendment to raise the railing height to meet code, rather than specify 36”.
Ms. Bellin so amended her motion.
Ms. Harper seconded the amendment.
The motion and amendment were voted on, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
88 Federal Street
Jacqueline M. and John B. Lander presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for roof replacement. They proposed to change the color to Weathered Wood.
Mr. Hart stated that it looks like there are architectural shingles currently on the roof.
Mr. Lander stated that he believes they are 3-tab. They are only 4-5 years old, but they have had major ice damming. The have filed an insurance claim and received $6100.
Ms. Herbert stated that in her experience, it is not the roof, but rather the clapboards and fascia.
Ms. Lander stated that they also discovered there is no ice and water shield under the shingles.
Mr. Lander stated that 3-tab shingles will most likely be extinct in a few years.
Mr. Lander stated that the proposed color will look more like cedar.
Mr. Hart stated that he was reluctant to approve architectural shingles because the eye goes to the roof, rather than the house.
Ms. Herbert suggested having an experienced carpenter look at the house.
Mr. Lander stated that he is less concerned with the color, but preferred the architectural shingles over the 3-tab, noting that the durability is night and day.
Mr. Hart stated that the roof is not highly visible and therefore the color may not leap off the roof at you. However, he noted that the language in the catalog states that architectural shingles “give your roof maximum dimensionality and depth.” He noted there are architectural shingles on the house now.
Ms. Herbert asked if they will be keeping the current house color.
Mr. Lander replied in the affirmative.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Hart stated that he was willing to say that even though architectural shingles are not appropriate, he is willing to continue what is on the house.
Ms. Diozzi stated that somewhere down the road a new owner may want to change the paint color and it may not work with a brown shingle.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to replace existing architectural shingles with new architectural shingles in either Pewter Gray or Charcoal. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
391 Essex Street
Anthony and Kathleen Sasso presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace double gates and a side yard fence with a privacy fence and to install one section of fence on the Flint Street side of the yard. The fence height will remain 6’. A sketch and photograph were submitted.
Ms. Bellin recused herself from the discussion and left the table and sat in the audience.
Mr. Sasso stated that the fence will be natural, but he would like the option of painting the gates black. They will reuse the same posts if possible.
There was no public comment.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve a 6’ closed board fence with cap and newel post caps as pictured with the option to paint the gates black or leave natural. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
157 Federal Street
Shelby Hypes presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace an existing fence, changing the lattice sections to match the solid panels and filling in missing panels.
Ms. Guy noted that the owner has already received a Certificate of Non-applicability to replace the fence in kind.
Ms. Hypes noted that the fence section being changed is only visible from Kelleher Way.
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.
4 Hamilton Street
Alex and Greg Dwyer presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to reroof their house with 3-tab asphalt shingle in a darker color, per sample submitted. They will change the roofing on the porch to shingles in order to match the main roof. They would also like to add ventilation, either soffit, louver or ridge, and to replace an aluminum gutter with another seamless aluminum gutter. They also provided a second application for paint colors and to remove shutters from two windows on the right side of the house and all the windows on the rear of the house. Paint colors proposed are Kalamazoo for the body, America’s cup for the trim, Wildwood for the shutters and Cambridge for the door.
Ms. Herbert stated the porch roof is not visible from the street.
Mr. Dwyer stated that the roof is relatively small and that they would prefer architectural shingles in Slate color.
Ms. Herbert stated that it is an unusual roof, with little strips that show. She noted that the 3-tab in a light color looks very flat and that architectural may look better.
Mr. Dwyer stated that it does not say in the Commission’s guidelines that architectural is discouraged.
Ms. Bellin stated that she had no problem darkening the color, but felt the color selected was very green.
Mr. Dwyer stated that he was willing to go darker.
Ms. Herbert stated that she has seen the Slate color on Washington Square and it worked well with a brick house. She preferred a darker color for a painted house.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve either a 3-tab or architectural asphalt shingle in either Pewter Gray or Charcoal on the main house and porch roof. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Dwyer stated that the housing inspector suggested increasing the ventilation. He stated that he believed they want a ridge vent.
Ms. Herbert stated that it should be the lowest vent possible.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve a low line ridge vent along the peak of the main roof. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Dwyer stated that the current gutter is pitched the wrong way.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-applicability to replace the existing aluminum gutter with seamless aluminum gutter. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Dwyer stated that they want to remove all the shutters in the back and on two of the smaller windows on the side of the house on the second floor.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to accept the paint colors as submitted with the inside molding around the door and transom to be painted either the body or shutter color in order to give the feeling of height and to remove the shutters from the two windows as proposed. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-applicability to remove shutters from the rear of the building. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
106 Derby Street
Michael Reilly submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace windows with Andersen double hung windows.
Mr. Reilly stated that his contractor jumped the gun and already replaced two casement windows with double hung.
Ms. Herbert asked if the two windows are together.
Mr. Reilly replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Hart stated that the Andersen specification states that the windows have a removable interior grill.
Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission does not approve snap-on grills.
Mr. Hart stated that windows have to be true divided lights.
Ms. Diozzi noted that the view from the sidewalk is very oblique.
Ms. Herbert asked about the molding.
Mr. Reilly stated that it will stay the same.
Heidi Milman, 109 Derby Street, stated asked if Mr. Reilly will be required to change the windows he replaced back from vinyl to wood. Ms. Milman noted that she recently replaced windows and was required to go with wood.
Mr. Reilly stated that the new windows are coated wood.
She stated that the new windows are also smaller.
Ms. Herbert asked the prior size.
Mr. Reilly stated that they were shorter, casement windows.
Ms. Herbert stated that she felt the size was much better.
Mr. Hart stated that the owner will need to come back with the design of the two front windows.
Ms. Herbert agreed, noting that they will need to know if there will be a divide in the middle. She stated that they need to see what the contract plans to do.
Mr. Hart suggested keeping the same support on each side. He asked if they will be single glazed, with storms.
Mr. Reilly stated that they are hoping to go with double glaze.
Ms. Guy noted that she sent the owner by email the names of the three companies and styles of double glazed windows that the Commission has approved.
Mr. Hart noted that the owner could also do an interior storm. Mr. Hart stated that he would like to take a look at the two windows already installed.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to continue the application to the next meeting. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Ms. Guy stated that she received a request from the owners of 398 Essex Street to extend their Certificates dated May 3, 2007 and February 26, 2007 for one year. Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the request. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Bellin abstained from voting.
Ms. Guy stated that the City Council has designated members of the Historical Commission as Special Municipal Employees.
Ms. Guy stated that the Joseph Fenno House (Women’s Friend Society on Hawthorne Blvd) will be considered for nomination to the National Register on June 11th at Massachusetts Historical Commission.
Ms. Guy stated that she recently reviewed Chapter 40C and 40A with regard to abutter notifications and that sending notification to abutters within 300 feet of a property will better address the intent of the regulations.
Ms. Guy read an anonymous letter with regard to the condition of the carriage house at 23 Chestnut Street. Ms. Guy noted that the Building Inspector is meeting with the owner today.
Ms. Herbert asked Ms. Guy to check on the Waiver of Demolition Delay Ordinance for the former Salem News building to determine the status of the condition included in the vote with regard to the perimeter fence. She noted that the current fence is chain link and is full of various signs.
Telecommunications Facilities
Ms. Guy provided a request from EBI Consulting for comments under Section 106 for the installation of a telecommunications facility at 320 Lafayette Street.
Ms. Herbert stated that she would like a drawing and would like a representative to come in. she stated that she did not know the color or the material.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to request further detail on the dimensions, material and color. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy provided a request from EBI Consulting for comments under Section 106 for the installation of a telecommunications facility at 27 Charter Street.
Ms. Herbert stated that she would like further detail. She stated that she would like a representative to come to the next meeting for both projects and to bring pictures of similar installations. She noted that 27 Charter is one of the tallest buildings in Salem.
Mr. Hart felt that the Peabody Essex Museum should be made aware, as well as the adjoining property owners.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to request further information on dimensions and material and to request examples where like installations have been made and to request that a representative come to the next meeting to discuss the projects. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
J. Michael Ruane Judicial Center
Ms. Guy stated that she emailed the members a letter from HSI to DCAM dated 4/14/08 regarding the Salem Superior Courthouse & County Commissioners Building Re-Use Study Feasibility Report.
Ms. Guy stated that she received a copy of the executed Memorandum of Agreement.
Ms. Guy stated that she emailed a letter from DCAM to Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) dated 4/9/08 concerning their response to the 30% comments.
Ms. Guy distributed copies of MHC’s letter dated 4/10/08 to the Federal Street Neighborhood Association in response to their MOA comments.
Ms. Guy distributed copies of MHC’s letter dated 4/10/08 to Historic Salem, Inc. in response to their MOA comments.
Ms. Diozzi stated that she received a copy of the 90% submittal on the relocation of the church at the 4/29/08 meeting. She stated that the Commission will need to deliberate at the 5/21/08 meeting. She suggested passing the package between members so that everyone has a chance to review it before the meeting. Ms. Bellin will start the review and forward it to Mr. Hart.
Ms. Herbert gave an overview of the 4/29/08 meeting at DCAM. She provided a copy of the Memorandum of Findings from the Architects’ Study Group, which she stated goes over the recommendations that the Commission has talked about and that others have made. She stated that the review found no excessive storage area and that the trucks will not be 18-wheelers. She stated that deliveries will be made through a sally port by the Registry of Deeds, so the activity will not be seen from the street. She stated that Joan Goody made design changes to the Bridge Street façade and provided 4 alternatives. She indicated that Ms. Goody will do more work on the North Street side. At the meeting they talked about the fritted glass screen and discussed more changes to the columns and roof, as
well as the lines of the building. Ms. Herbert stated that she felt Ms. Good y has taken the project on as her own artistic expression and that she made no major changes to the height, footprint or glass screen. Ms. Herbert stated that she did not think Ms. Goody could be influenced further.
Ms. Harper asked if anyone inquired why the pavilion changed from the model.
Ms. Herbert stated that they did not get a specific answer, which lead he to believe it is a cost issue. She stated that it is now a design issue and it is Ms. Goody’s design.
Mr. Hart stated that he asked if they could get photos of the two boards of drawings, but the request was denied. He stated that he felt written comments should be sent. He stated that he was not sure if the glass wall can be seen through. He thought that in sunlight what will be seen is a reflection. He suggested a stone curtain wall or brick.
Ms. Herbert stated that she would like to see photos of other fritted glass walls.
Mr. Hart stated that the pavilion needs more definition, should have a strong connection to the street and be scaled to human form. He stated that for the North Street façade, they could do a better job of expressing the interior organization on the exterior.
Ms. Diozzi stated that Ms. Goody indicated that she was intended to.
Mr. Hart stated that he would like to see the church perpendicular, not angled. He added that it would be nice to reuse the Superior Court and County Commissioners buildings as small offices or smaller court functions. He suggested reusing the houses as small offices.
Ms. Herbert stated that she asked about having the four penthouses as was proposed in the past, which had almost a widows walk effect. She noted that the group selected drawing “L” as the preferred concept to work from. She stated that she was not satisfied with the 30% plans and did not feel they should go to 60% until they provide more information.
Mr. Hart suggested requesting they stay at 30%.
Ms. Herbert stated that one recommendation was to put the mechanicals under the green space and lower the building by one floor. She stated that she asked if the building could be moved over by 10’ and was told it could not.
Mr. Hart stated that he felt the Commission needs to press ahead and express its concerns.
Ms. Herbert stated that she is working on a draft comment letter and will try to get the comments done by tomorrow.
Morris Schopf stated that he would characterize the meeting as all pandering and noted that the drawings were 1 ½ months old.
Ms. Herbert stated that the point she wanted to win was that Ms. Goody would work with the 3 architects in the study group.
Mr. Schopf stated that DCAM is the client and the interested parties are the inconvenient adversaries. He noted that DCAM has a very good attorney and has covered all their bases. He stated that he believed. DCAM completely forgets that they are public servants and that they are all corrupt and entrenched. He stated that he felt Carol Meeker feels no one will actually sue them, so they are home free.
Darrow Lebovici read and submitted a letter from John Carr dated 5/7/08.
Mr. Lebovici stated that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court spoke in Salem a few years ago and made a point of mentioning John Adams. He stated that there is a direct line from Salem’s history in the 17th century to the U.S. Constitution. Mr. Lebovici thanked the Commission for trying to make the bureaucracy less transparent and more responsive. He stated that he had very little good to say about the design. He stated that the facades are not treated as we were told they would be. He noted that all the public comments have been ignored or dismissed. He stated that the height of the building could not get confirmed and that written documents contradict the numbers in the design. He stated that the reuse plans for the Registry building need to be
requested and that he was concerned the building will be abandoned. He stated that traffic comments have been ignored. He urged the Commission not to give up and to record all concerns and requests in a letter in order to establish a trail.
Ms. Herbert asked if any groups have gone over the reuse plans for the other buildings.
Mr. Lebovici stated that very little of the design document was written after the MEPA process and that there is no significant reuse document that backs up the one page analysis.
Tracey Lawrence stated that all public documents can be requested through MA public records law. She stated that there are some exemptions for personnel and policy development. She recommended sending a request to DCAM’s public counsel.
Mr. Lebovici suggested attaching the Commission’s prior letter requesting information to the comment letter being drafted and sending the request to DCAM’s counsel.
Ms. Diozzi asked what letter is being drafted.
Ms. Herbert stated that there will be a letter coming from the Commission and one from the architects’ group.
Ms. Diozzi asked the purpose of the Commission’s letter.
Ms. Herbert stated that in a few weeks we will get the 60% submittal and that there is no turning back unless there is a lawsuit. She stated that the Commission needs to know if Ms. Goody is working with alternative “L” and what she will be doing with it.
Ms. Guy stated that any letter from the Commission will need to be reviewed at the next meeting.
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
| 
