SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
October 1, 2008
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, October 1, 2008 at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Chairman Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Harper, Mr. Desrocher, Ms. McCrea and Mr. Hart.
39-41 Washington Street
Barbara Pervier, Sondra Newman, Gordan Van Huizen, Nikolaus Sucher and Maria Carles, and Douglas McNeish submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for front door and window shutter paint color to be Trelised Ivy, front stair treads to be Tyson Taupe and the archway (including side walls) to be Edgecomb Gray.
Ms. Pervier stated that the front stair risers will be white.
Mr. Hart asked if all the doors will be the same color.
Ms. Pervier stated that the two front doors will be painted Trellised Ivy, but that she was not sure about the other two doors. She stated that they might leave the Winter Street side door as is, but that eventually it will be green.
Ms. Pervier stated that they would like to add shutters to the building.
Ms. Guy stated that shutters were not indicated on the application and were not advertised, therefore the Commission could only offer guidance, but could not deliberate or vote.
Ms. Pervier stated that Mr. McNeish is willing to pay for shutters on the 39 Washington side of the building, but that the 41 Washington side would be done later. They still need to speak with the owner of the third floor unit.
Ms. Herbert stated that she had no problem with half of the shutters being installed.
Mr. Hart was in agreement with Ms. Herbert.
Ms. Diozzi stated that she preferred not to see half of the shutters installed without at least a commitment for the second half.
Ms. Bellin was in agreement with Ms. Diozzi.
Mr. Desrocher made a motion to approve the paint colors as submitted. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
8 North Pine Street
Ms. Bellin recused herself and joined the audience.
Terry Riccio presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors at 8 North Pine Street. The foundation will be Buffalo, the Body will be Eucalyptus Leaf, the trim will be Tusk, the door will be Roasted Tomato and the bead trim at the lentil over the front door will be Guacamole.
Mr. Desrocher made a motion to approve the paint colors as submitted. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
386 Essex Street
Ms. Bellin and Ms. McCrea recused themselves and joined the audience.
The 386 Essex Street Realty Trust submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors at 386 Essex St. The body will be Briarwood, the trim will be China White and the doors and sash will be Black Forest Green. David Clarke represented the applicant.
Mr. Clarke stated that he is hoping to paint this month.
Holly and John Peterson, 33 Flint Street, asked how long until the staging will be down.
Mr. Clarke replied that it will be mid-November.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the paint colors as submitted. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
17 North Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, the Elks Association of BPOE through applicant William Wharff through David Jaquith Architects 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. The continuation includes details of the windows, roof, colors and shutters and treatment of the basement entrance on the north side, screening of the cars on the south side, front foundation level, arched door, mechanicals, chimneys, gutters, downspouts and vent pipes.
Mr. Jaquith stated that they have received approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals, Planning Board and Board of Health with some minor changes to the plans. He provided new drawings and reviewed the changes made since the last time the Commission reviewed the project. Changes include the addition of lattice screens and removal of the addition to the bar entrance. He stated that it will be a little more contemporary in the read and noted that they discovered a water table. He stated that he did not believe that the HVAC units will be visible from the public way, but that they will screen them anyway. They will duplicate the bricky-brack decorative rail in the front. The windows will be Marvin Ultimate Double Hung with 7/8” muntin.
Mr. Hart stated that he preferred a bronze spacer for the windows.
Mr. Jaquith stated that the paint colors will be Manchester Tan for the trim, Alexandria Beige for the body, Essex Green for the shutters, lattice and some of the doors and Cottage Red for the sash and French door. The front door will remain natural. The roof will be Certainteed XT 30 year, Moire Black, 3 tab. The flat roofs and the non-visible areas over the 3rd floor arched dormer windows will the rubber roofing. The shutters will be wood.
Ms. Herbert noted that due to the window configuration, the shutters can only be decorative and not operable.
Mr. Jaquith stated that the basement shed and arched door are gone and there will be no chimneys. The pipe vents for the bathrooms will be painted the roof color. They are not addressing gutters and downspouts yet.
Mr. Hart stated that he felt downspouts would look awkward.
Ms. Herbert asked if the screening between the buildings will also be a door.
Mr. Jaquith replied in the affirmative. He stated that they may want to lighten up the Essex Green and that he could bring the color in to the Commission.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the renovation and new rear addition per plans submitted dated 9/29/08, with windows to have bronze spacers. Mr. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
16 Hardy Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, Deborah Prentice presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install heavy seamless aluminum gutters and downspouts.
Ms. Prentice provided photographs of examples of other homes with gutters on the lower levels. She noted that when it doesn’t rain, the basement is dry. She stated that her basement is damp today with the rain. She provided a sample and catalog cut of Englert Rainpro Design Series seamless gutters and provided a sample of the gutter.
Ms. Herbert stated that the roof profile slopes and that she was concerned bout having a square profile that stops abruptly.
Ms. McCrea questioned how the corners will be handled.
Ms. Herbert noted that this is a very low roof line and will be quite visible.
Mr. Hart questioned how the gutters will be hung.
Ms. Prentice provided a copy of the contractor’s quote/worksheet and stated that the quote states they will be hung on the fascia.
Ms. Harper stated that she preferred caps at the ends, which are set back a little.
Ms. Herbert stated that she would prefer if the gutters came to a point.
Ms. Prentice stated that there will be 4 downspouts.
Ms. Guy suggested eliminating one at the street, so that there are 3.
Ms. Herbert was in agreement, noting that the gutters should be pitched to pull the water to the downspout.
Ms. Bellin was in agreement to have 3 downspouts, one for each gutter section.
Ms. Herbert noted the location of the three downspouts (#1, #2 and #3) on the worksheet’s drawing of the house.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the Rainpro gutters affixed to the fascia and the installation of 3 downspouts in locations noted on the worksheet. All to be white to match the house trim. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
18 Broad Street
The Pickering Foundation submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to reroof from a grey 3 tab asphalt to a brown architectural shingle. Richard O’Dwyer, a member of the Pickering Foundation Board, represented the applicant.
Mr. O’Dwyer stated that he has had further discussions with the Board and that some want to try to replicate cedar shingles. He informed the Board that brown architectural shingles are not the Commission’s preference. The Board recently approved changing the application to Grandslate Bristol Grey. He noted that the current roof has tremendous heat build up in summer with the black, so they prefer the light Bristol Grey. They will also replace some gutters and downspouts in kind.
Ms. Harper made a motion to approve roof replacement with Grandslate Bristol Grey. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
164 Federal Street
Donna & Peter Bimbo presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove an 11 x 12 roof on the back of the house that was added over a patio. There is no foundation under the roof and it is falling apart.
Mr. Bimbo stated that it sits on a cement pad and that it is rotted and has mildew and mold. They want to return it to the way the house once was without the room.
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.
36 Warren Street
The Toomey Trust 1979 submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the 80’ of fence on the right side of the house (built in 1980), which has collapsed. The also want to add a fence to enclose the rear of the property. The proposed fence is a 4 ½’ universal with 1 ½’ of square lattice topper. A photos of the fence style and proportions were provide and a sketch of the location of the fencing. It will have pressure treated poles and cedar panels.
Patrice Toomey stated that lattice is a common feature to the surrounding houses. She indicated that their neighbor’s board fence is remaining.
Ms. Harper asked if they will paint the fence or let it weather.
Ms. Toomey stated that they prefer it to be the dark green to match the shutters.
Patricia Zissuski, Trustee of the Spiritualist Church, stated that she was in favor of the application.
Mr. Hart recommended that they use white and not red cedar and that they use a solid stain rather than paint.
Ms. Toomey asked for the option to leave the fence natural.
Mr. Hart stated that the finish side should face the neighbors.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve replacement of existing fence and installation of new fence in location noted on sketch. New fence to be 6’ white cedar fence (4 ½’ universal with 1 ½’ of square lattice topper) with pressure treated posts. Finish side facing outward from house. Option to leave natural or paint green to match the house shutters. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Baker’s Island Light, Lead Soil Remediation Project (was not an agenda item)
Elizabeth Ware and Robert Leavens asked the Commission to request to become a Consulting Party for the Baker’s Island Light, Lead Soil Remediation Project. Ms. Guy read a letter from Mr. Leavens and a letter from Ms. Ware was distributed.
Ms. Herbert asked if MHC was reviewing, shouldn’t it come to the Commission as well.
Ms. Guy stated that sometimes things come to the Commission for comment and sometimes the Commission just gets a letter with a stamp saying that they found there is no effect. She stated that to make sure the Commission has a chance to comment before MHC comments within their 60 days, the Commission should send a letter to MHC that the Commission understands this project is coming up and the Commission would like an opportunity to comment on it.
Mr. Leavens stated that the Commission received a letter from PAL in August.
Ms. Guy stated that it is possible we got the letter, it was read into the record and the Commission chose to take no action.
Mr. Hart stated that the Coast Guard is bound by Section 106. He asked if Mr. Leavens believed that the State Archaeologist, Brona Simon, was mislead.
Mr. Leavens replied in the negative, and stated that he feels the Conservation Commission was mislead by an inaccurate presentation of the letter that Ms. Simon gave for something different.
Ms. Ware stated that the Assistant Keeper’s Cottage is going to be remediated. At the Conservation Commission meeting last week, it was represented that Ms. Simon’s letter to do the remediation on the building was actually a letter saying to go ahead and do the remediation in the soil.
Mr. Leavens stated that his concern is that the Coast Guard and their contractor is feeling the need to go ahead, but they don’t have all their ducks in a row. He stated that PAL has not yet distributed their report on the archaeological survey.
Ms. Guy stated that one problem is that if the Conservation Commission is meeting again on October 9th, the Commission is not meeting again before then. Ms. Guy questioned how MHC could make a finding if they do not have the PAL report.
Mr. Leavens stated that the Coast Guard and the contractor are representing to the Conservation Commission that they want to get started. He said they seemed to be expecting an Order of Conditions at the meeting of September 25th.
Ms. Ware stated that archaeological resources were downplayed at that meeting. She added that the plans presented didn’t even show the Atlantic Ocean. They are proposing to land a barge on the Coast Guard beach and then earth moving materials up the coastal bank to the site and then at the site removing 1200 cubic yards of lead contaminated soil. She stated that the plans also omitted one building (Jeep Shed) which is within 25’ of inland wetland, which is on their property. They also did not have the proper property boundaries.
Ms. Guy asked if any demolition was being proposed.
Mr. Leavens replied that there was no demolition proposed to his knowledge. He noted that the whole of the Light Station is on the National Register.
Ms. Harper asked if the goal is to have the material treated more sensitively because there could be artifacts there.
Mr. Leavens replied in the affirmative and that he believed it was highly probable and stated that PAL concurs that it is a site that highly sensitive archaeologically.
Ms. Guy stated that MHC may be waiting for the PAL survey report before they do anything. Ms. Guy stated that since Ms. Simon was the State Archaeologist before becoming the MHC Director and believed that this would something that she would be on top of. She stated that maybe the Coast Guard is saying certain things to the Conservation Commission, but that does not mean that MHC will sign off on it.
Mr. Hart stated that archaeological materials are under the Commission’s purview, because they are historic resources, and felt it would be worthwhile to contact MHC and ask what is going on.
Ms. Guy suggested requesting being a Consulting Party in order to have an opportunity to comment before MHC comments.
Ms. Herbert asked if there should be a representative from either the Commission and/or MHC at the site visit being held by the Conservation Commission on October 4th.
Mr. Hart stated that typically a survey is done and then if there is potential for archaeological remains, then they develop a plan to carefully test. He stated that it appears the Coast Guard does not want to wait for that.
Ms. Ware is concerned that it will be done in the dead of Winter.
Ms. Harper asked if they are required to wait for the survey.
Mr. Leavens stated that they are waiting, but it appears they are trying to get all the permits more quickly than they would if they waited.
Ms. Ware stated that on the plans, they did not show any of the coastal bank and stated that they were going to be 70-75’ from the coastal bank. She stated that in order to get vehicles onto the site, they are going to have to widen existing paths and go up the coastal bank.
Ms. Guy stated that that is probably part of the reason why the Conservation Commission has chosen to have a site visit and noted that some of that stuff will come out.
Ms. Ware stated that they are going out with the Harbormaster.
Ms. Herbert felt someone should go from the Commission.
Mr. Hart made a motion to send a letter to MHC to get more information on the situation regarding archaeological potentiality and to request to be a Consulting Party. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Ms. Guy stated that the City is interested in connecting the Peter Tracy Walkway to the new bypass road via an abandonee railroad right of way (ROW), which the city owns and which is located within the Bridge Street Neck National Register District. When the ROW was abandoned by the former railroad company, the underpass at Cross Street was filled. What remains today is a granite retaining wall in an area that is inaccessible. The slope creates ponding which the Board of Health monitors for mosquito control. In order to connect the two bike paths, the city will need to fill in a significant portion of the ROW, which could cover a great deal of the granite retaining wall. The city has requested that MassHighway do this as part of the Bridge Street reconstruction project. Ms. Guy
provided a map and photos of the area and asked if the Commission had any initial concerns. She stated that through the Section 106 process, the project will be coming before the Commission for comment, but that it would be helpful to get any concerns now, before the formal process.
Ms. Guy asked if there was any action the Commission wanted to take with regard to the documentation provided at a previous Commission meeting regarding the proposed flood mitigation facilities for the Peabody Square area. There was no motion.
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
| 
