SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
September 17, 2008
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Chairman Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Harper and Mr. Hart. Chairman Diozzi welcomed new member Joanne McCrea.
Ms. Guy read a resignation letter from Michael Reiter, effective immediately.
17 North Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, through architect David Jaquith, the Elks Association of BPOE submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to renovate the existing 2 story front of the building and add a new rear addition on the existing footprint in order to convert the building to condominiums.
Ms. Guy read an email request from the applicant to continue the application to the meeting of October 1, 2008.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to the meeting of October 1, 2008. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
16 Hardy Street
Deborah Prentice presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace existing 6 over 6 windows with wooden, double pane, simulated divided light windows with spacer bars. There would be not changes to exterior trim. The application is also to install heavy seamless aluminum gutters and downspouts.
Ms. Prentice proposed the Marvin Ultimate Double Hung.
Ms. Herbert asked if they were all wood windows.
Ms. Prentice relied in the affirmative.
Ms. Herbert stated that the insert looks bronze, which is what the Commission looks for.
Ms. Diozzi asked how many windows were being replaced.
Ms. Prentice replied that there were ten.
Ms. Herbert asked if the windows are currently 6 over 6.
Ms. Prentice replied in the affirmative and noted that they had storms.
Ms. Herbert stated that because the house is Victorian, they could also to 2 over 2.
Mr. Hart stated that they could also be 6 over 1.
Ms. Prentice stated that she preferred to stay with 6 over 6.
Ms. Harper stated that the window specification calls for brick mould casing, which is a narrower casing.
Ms. Herbert noted that the application states that they will keep the existing trim and assumed that the contractor would remove the brick mould casing and retain the existing molding.
Ms. Harper suggested that Ms. Prentice inform the contractor that the windows must match existing 1 x 5 and to not install the brick mould casing.
Ms. Herbert asked the cost per unit.
Ms. Prentice stated that JB Sash quoted $529 each, while Moynihan Lumber quoted $720.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to replace all ten windows with wood, 6 over 6, Marvin Ultimate Double Hung, simulated divided lite windows with bronze spacer and 7/8” mullions, painted to match existing window trim. Casing to match existing 91 x 5, not brick mould casing). Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Prentice stated that she did not have gutters on her house now and that she believed it is typical to have a K or ½ round profile for gutters. She proposes to install gutters under the mansard drip edge.
Ms. Herbert stated that perhaps they should be installed on top of the mansard.
Mr. Hart stated that he felt gutters would look strange in either location.
Ms. Prentice stated that the basement is wet and the window sills are punked.
Ms. Herbert stated that it could be that the basement needs treatment, rather than gutter installation.
Ms. Hart stated that he preferred to see the problem cured in another fashion, noting that it is unusual to see gutters on this type of roof configuration. He stated that the gutters would not be inconspicuous.
Ms. Herbert suggested having a roofer look at the house.
Mr. Hart suggested looking into how the soil around the foundation is being treated. He suggested putting down an impervious material, such as clay, to direct water away from the house and then covering it with loam.
Ms. Herbert suggested getting a survey and having someone look at the basement to see if it needs waterproofing and having someone look at the roof.
Ms. Diozzi stated that sometimes regrading works wonders.
Ms. Herbert stated that it should be determined where water is coming into the basement, whether it is surface or subterranean.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the gutter and downspout portion of the application. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
10 Chestnut Street
Marshall Strauss and Elaine Gerdine submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to rebuild and extend a brick wall per plan and for downspout replacement. Also present was mason Brendan Murray, 14 Chestnut Street.
Mr. Strauss stated that they have saved the brick from the prior wall and that some of it can be reused. They will also reuse the cap stone. They proposed to have the brick portion of the wall be taller, with less ornamental iron on top. They will come back for approval of the iron work top, but noted that it will be simpler than want is in the older photographs. He noted that the ground slopes seven inches between the two pillars and that in order to have the top be level, the brick courses will decrease with the level of the slope.
Ms. Herbert asked when the iron work had been added to the wall.
Ms. Gerdine stated that she believed it was in the 1840s.
Mr. Strauss stated that they will not replace the existing gate and was told it had been a recent addition.
Ms. Herbert stated that it is a heavy cap stone shown on the older picture and did not feel it worked with the wall and the metal fence.
Ms. Gerdine stated that the whole wall is mysterious. It has two giant piers that don’t relate to anything.
Ms. Herbert asked if the wooden fence goes away.
Mr. Strauss replied in the affirmative. He stated that for the center section between the pillars, they will reuse the brick from the old wall on the street side of the new wall as much as possible. If there is not enough old brick, they will randomly use water-struck brick that they will purchase. They will also use a thin mortar in order to give the feeling that this section of the wall is older. They will install a 4’ gate, but are not sure what it will look like yet. There will also be a 10” gate that they will come back for approval. He stated that the two outer sections will appear newer. They will reuse the capstone in the center section, but not in the outer sections, which will be 2” thick capstone.
Ms. Gerdine stated that they will be coming back for the iron work fence that will run the rest of Cambridge Street and around to Chestnut Street.
Ms. Herbert stated that she was concerned, because that since the Commission will not know what the metal work will be and it is going to be smaller, that she does not know what the finished product will look like. She asked if they were close to a design on the metal work for the fence.
Mr. Strauss stated that they have been wrestling with the design challenges. He stated that few craftsman and professionals bring a comprehensive expertise that allows them to say here is a specific amount of money to give us four designs we can pick from. He stated that we are bumping into middle ground between landscape architecture and structural architecture. They are also bumping into a clash between the still of Colonial Revival and the style of the early 1800s. When adding all that up, it is difficult to come up with a comprehensive design within a practical cost. He stated that they are trying to create a platform upon which a reasonable piece of metal work can go on top, and get the yard enclosed for Winter. Otherwise, they will have to wait until next year.
He stated that they could consider building the brick part of the wall and stopping before putting on the capstone.
Mr. Hart stated that if the Commission looks at it from the standpoint of a stand alone wall, he has no problem with approving it without the iron and noted that it would still leave room for the iron top.
Ms. Bellin stated that if approved, they may wind up with some sort of compromise top, to which she was uncomfortable. She stated that she preferred to replace the wall up to the height of the previously existing wall until the top design is resolved.
Ms. Harper stated that she was fine with the proposal as submitted.
Ms. Herbert stated that she still finds the original a very awkward design. Since they are not trying to replicate the original wall, she considered that maybe the old capstone not be reused and that there be the same 2” cap throughout with no iron work. She stated that she was worried about having such a heavy cap stone and then finding a metal top to justify the big wall underneath. She stated that iron work usually looks better on a painted wall.
Mr. Strauss stated that they are trying to make the portion between the pillars different from the rest.
Ms. Herbert suggested having a little bracketing at the pillars.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the application for construction of a new brick wall per plan submitted, reusing as much of the brick from the former wall as possible for the center section between the two pillars. Any new brick introduced will be full range water struck brick. Mortar to be 1/8” thick. Reuse capstone on center section. Outer sections to have 2” capstone. 8” section of metal work fence to be placed on top center section (to be applied for and approved at a later time). Overall height of left section to be 6”. Overall height of center section (with metal work) to begin at approximately six feet and continue right so that the top of the wall is level with the 6’ left section, with brick coursing decreasing with the level of the slope. Gates to be applied for and approved at a later time. Ms. Harper seconded the motion. Chairman Diozzi, Ms. McCrea, Ms. Harper and Mr. Hart voted in favor. Ms. Herbert and Ms. Bellin voted in opposition. The motion so
carried.
Ms. Herbert made a motion for an optional wall design: Omit 8’ section of metal work fence on top of center section and raise brick wall and cap so that all 3 sections are level. Option to add angled bracket or transition piece at pillars, with actual design to be applied for and approved at a later time. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. Chairman Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin and Mr. Hart voted in favor. Ms. McCrea and Ms. Harper voted in opposition. The motion so carried.
Ms. Gerdine stated that they propose to keep the wood gutters and metal downspouts.
Mr. Strauss stated that they have one PVC downspout that they want to remove and replace in galvanized steel to match the rest of the house.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the PVC downspout replacement with galvanized steel to match other s on the house. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to offer an option to replace existing gutters and downspouts with copper gutters and galvanized downspouts on the clapboarded rear extension and on the porch off of the dining room, painting the downspouts to match the surface then run down. The motion is also to offer the option to paint the copper gutters to match the surface they run along. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
140 Derby Street
Leo and Judith Murphy submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the half of their building that is currently cedar shakes with cedar clapboards to match the existing clapboards on the house and to repaint in recently approve colors to match the rest of the house.
Ms. Guy stated that the applicants could not be present, due to a death in the family, but asked that the Commission review the application.
Ms. Harper made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of 2/6/08 with corrections she provided by email. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of 9/3/08. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy stated that she received a letter dated 9/9/08 from Massachusetts Historical Commission to Dohler Engineering concerning the proposed retail development at 450 Highland Ave, finding that they cannot determine the effect that the proposed demolition and new construction will have on historical or archaeological properties and requesting additional information.
Ms. Guy stated that she received a Project Notification Form for Tinkers Island Mooring Field, stamped by Massachusetts Historical Commission that it is unlikely to affect significant historic or archaeological resources.
Ms. Guy provided Commission members with copies of an Environmental Notification Form for the Flood Mitigation Facilities for Peabody Square and a copies of a letter from the Salem Conservation Commission dated 7/18/08. Commission members determined that they would like to review the information and discuss it 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
| 
