SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
July 2, 2008
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, July 2, 2008 at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Chairman Diozzi, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper and Mr. Hart.
401R Essex Street
David and Mary Schaejbe submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness and a Certificate of Hardship to replace a slate roof with asphalt at 401R Essex Street.
Ms. Bellin recused herself and joined the audience.
Mr. Schaejbe stated that the back side is leaking on the interior.
Ms. Diozzi asked if the building as a converted garage.
Mr. Schaejbe replied in the affirmative and stated that he has lived there for five years. Prior to that, he had a business there for 15 years. He stated that he has a roofer there to repair the slate roof 3-4 times in the last three years, but they cannot find the source of the leak.
Ms. Herbert asked if the slate was salvageable.
Mr. Schaejbe stated that he imagined whoever takes off the slate will reuse it.
Ms. Herbert stated that she did not have a problem with the application because everything about the building is 1940’s, noting that it may be a slate roof because the original owners had extra slate on hand. She stated that she also felt the current owner has done due diligence to find the leak.
Mr. Hart stated that his experience was that this particular slate is not the best and that it appears to be Virginia, rather than Vermont slate. He added that it is a utilitarian building.
Ms. Herbert stated that there is nothing obvious that the roof and windows are from the same period.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace slate with black or charcoal grey, 3-tab asphalt, with the option for a low profile ridge vent. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin returned.
41 Washington Square
Barbara Pervier, on behalf of the condominium owners at 41 Washington Square, presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors in the building archway.
Ms. Pervier stated that they want to make the entrance more lively and interesting and noted that they may soften the white. She provided several color options and noted that they want to keep the door black.
Ms. Bellin stated that the blues may look better with the brick than the greens.
Ms. Herbert suggested the stair treads be black rather than brown. She suggested using Historic Morning Dew for the archway.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to paint the interior of the archway in either Citadel Blue, Vinal Haven or Historic Morning Dew and the painting of the stairs in Stealth Jet. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
183 Rear Federal Street #2
John and Monica Zisa presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of windows as has already been undertaken.
Mr. Zisa stated that they replaced seven windows, 3 in front, 3 on side and one in rear.
Ms. Herbert believed that only the front 3 are visible.
Ms. Diozzi asked how much of the second floor he owned, if it was all the way across.
Mr. Zisa stated that it was half way.
Ms. Diozzi asked how many units are in the building.
Mr. Zisa stated that there are 3.
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission needs to review the application as though the work has not been done.
Mr. Zisa stated that they have a 2 ½ year old that stands on the baseboards and leans against them and it is scary. He stated that they caulked them over the window and in the summer put in towels around the air conditioning. He stated that their unit spans the second and third floors.
Ms. Bellin noted that the ones installed are not red.
Mr. Zisa stated that he installed vinyl windows behind the existing aluminum storms.
Mr. Zisa stated that they were heating the outdoors.
Ms. Diozzi stated that the muntins are on the inside and that from the street, behind the aluminum storms, they are not noticeable. She stated that from inside the property it is clear they are vinyl. She stated that she was concerned if the storms are taken off that the vinyl windows will be visible.
Mr. Zisa stated that when the building was converted in the 80s, some liberties were taken. The electrical meters are on the front of the house and his unit has skylights.
Ms. Guy asked if there is a condominium association.
Mr. Zisa replied in the affirmative and stated that they are present.
Ms. Diozzi stated that the issue is not always with windows being replaced, but the type of windows being replaced with. She stated that the Commission’s guidelines includes certain types of replacement windows that are allowed. She noted that muntins and mullions should be dimensional on the outside of the glass, not inside has the applicant has installed.
Ms. Herbert asked if the other owners are planning on doing windows.
Mr. Zisa stated that he did not know and that they don’t have an open, positive relationship. He stated that their condominium documents say that each owner are responsible for window replacement.
Ms. Herbert stated that usually windows and doors are part of the common area.
Mr. Zisa stated that their documents are very specific that it is from the exterior of the outside pane of glass of the window in. He noted that the difference in cost is $300 versus $600-900 per window, so that it is also an economic situation. He noted it is set off the street.
Ms. Herbert asked if the windows on the rest of the building are the original wood windows.
Mr. Zisa stated that he did not believe they were the original to the house.
Julianne Guiffre, 183 Rear Federal St. U1, stated that she was surprised when the windows were installed, noting that they were never notified. She stated she was home alone with her son and woke up and found strange men in her yard, with no name on the truck, which was off-putting.
Kim Armstrong, 183 Rear Federal St. U3, stated that she has a problem with the color change of the cross bars from red, which is on the rest of the house, to white. She felt that if it wasn’t for the color change, it wouldn’t be noticeable.
Ivan Armstrong, 183 Rear Federal St. U3, stated that he more neutral on the application. He noted that he has been restoring the windows on his unit by hand from the inside because he did not think vinyl would get approved, after reading the Commission’s guidelines. He stated that he would assume if the vinyl windows get approved, that down the road, the Commission would approve similar windows for the rest of the house.
Ms. Diozzi asked the name of the condo association.
Mr. Zisa stated that it is the Willis Tuttle Condominiums.
Mr. Armstrong agreed that the documents say it is the owners responsibility for windows, although it does not state which outer glass (i.e. storms). He stated that they also say that condo approval is needed and that all permits have to come from the condo association.
Ms. Armstrong stated that the unit owners are responsible for monetary costs, but the association is responsible for ensuring all work done to the building is permitted, allowed and up to code.
Ms. Guy stated that it is irrelevant what the condo documents state and it would be up to them to decide who is responsible. She stated that the Commission should decide which windows are visible and which are not. She stated that the ones that are not could be approved and that the Commission would need to deliberate on those that are visible.
Ms. Herbert stated that she would like to go by the building and preferred to continue the application.
Mr. Hart was in agreement.
Ms. Herbert suggested that the contractor provide an estimate for true divided light wood windows with non-insulated glass.
James Shields stated that he is the contractor and that all the windows were replaced in the 80s. He stated that they are Brosco 6 over 6 single glaze windows, which would probably be $300 each.
Ms. Herbert stated that if continued for two meetings, it would give the others to get estimates if any others want to replace windows and for owners to try to sort this out.
Mr. Hart asked if a building permit was required.
Mr. Shields replied in the affirmative, noting that it was an oversight he didn’t obtain one.
Ms. Herbert stated that she understood the need to put good insulated windows in, as the oil prices go up. She stated that when you have an historic house that has a condominium association, she would want there to be a uniform look and for the condo owners to be in agreement. She stated that the idea is too keep the house as historic as possible.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to continue to the August 6, 2008 meeting. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Shields stated that he will also provide an estimate for simulated divided light windows. Mr. Shields stated that he installed Harvey windows. He will get a quote for Brosco for single glaze and Marvin for simulated divided lights.
Ms. Guy noted that there have been three simulated divided light windows that have been approved, including the Pella Architect Series, JB Sash Proper Bostonian and a LePage. She stated that the Commission has not seen the Marvin or Harvey.
27 East Collins Street – Discussion
Ms. Guy provided a copy of the work write-up and photographs for 27 East Collins Street which is going through the City’s Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program funded with federal funds. She stated that the property is located in a National Register District and therefore she is seeking comment from the Commission. The consultant that prepared the NR application stated that the property was a contributing structure to the district, but Ms. Guy stated that she tended to disagree, noting that it was built in 1949 and is a cape style with vinyl siding and an asphalt roof. This is a city loan to a low to moderate income homeowner, an elderly man. Ms. Guy asked if the Commission had comment on the work being done.
Mr. Hart stated that he had problems with the architectural shingles, noting that they jump out. He noted that they are replacing all the windows in vinyl.
Ms. Herbert questioned the painting of vinyl siding.
Ms. Harper asked if the Commission could take hardship into consideration in its comments.
Ms. Guy replied in the affirmative. The project is before the Commission for comment because federal funding is being used. She noted that if the Commission disagrees with any part of the work write up and the homeowner does not agree to the change, she will have to forward the information to Massachusetts Historical Commission, which could delay the project up to 90 days.
Ms. Bellin asked if someone else bought the house and wanted to use their own money, would it not come before the Commission for comment.
Ms. Guy replied in the affirmative, noting that because he lives on the corner of the National Register district, it needs to come before the Commission for comment.
Ms. Harper stated that she preferred not to comment. Ms. Bellin, Ms. Diozzi and Ms. Herbert were in agreement.
Mr. Hart stated that he had a problem with the architectural shingles.
Ms. Guy stated that she would see about getting that changed on the work write-up.
Ms. Herbert stated that it may look better with architectural shingles because the house is so modern and boring. She stated that it would add texture.
Mr. Hart made a motion that Ms. Guy explore the possibility of changing the work write up from architectural to 3-tab. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion. Mr. Hart, Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert and Ms. Bellin voted in favor. Ms. Harper voted in opposition. The motion so carried.
Other Business
Ms. Guy stated that MHC has awarded the City a $50,000 MPPF grant for the Witch House for the replacement of the wood shingle roof system, chimney restoration and interior and exterior universal accessibility improvements. Ms. Guy stated that the City also received received a letter from Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) dated 6/16/08 finding no adverse effect for roof and chimney repairs.
Ms. Guy stated that she mailed a copy of a letter dated 6/19/08 from DCAM to MHC concerning comments on the Church Relocation Specifications.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of July 18, 2007. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
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
| 
