SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
May 21, 2008
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Chairman Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Mr. Harper and Mr. Hart.
106 Derby Street
In continuation of a prior meeting, Michael Reilly submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace windows with Andersen double hung windows.
Mr. Reilly provided a drawing completed by his contractor for the two front windows.
Ms. Herbert stated that the originals have molding around the edges of the window, which isn’t shown on the drawing. She asked if the drawing was in error.
Mr. Reilly believed the drawing was in error.
Mr. Hart stated that the proposed glass panes may be larger than existing.
Mr. Reilly stated that he is proposing Andersen Simulated Divided Light , which is comparable to LaPage Simulated Divided Light.
Ms. Herbert stated that she wondered if the window should be so low in sill height from a furniture standpoint.
Mr. Hart stated that he was concerned about the manufacturer and material.
Ms. Herbert asked if the grills were fixed.
Mr. Reilly stated that they are adhered.
Ms. Diozzi stated that adhered do not last, noting that she had to re-glue all of hers.
Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission has not seen a sample of the window.
Mr. Reilly stated that it is solid wood with baked on urethane.
Ms. Diozzi asked if they are the same windows that Mr. Reilly installed on the side windows.
Mr. Reilly stated that the side windows are not simulated divided lights and that they have removable grills.
Mr. Hart stated that this house has an unusual configuration and that they are not trying to replicate an historic window. He stated that he did not feel it would be setting a precedent. The muntin is adhered and is designed to fit a current opening that wasn’t necessarily appropriate in the first place.
Ms. Herbert stated that the window drawn does not show sill or trim on the bottom.
Mr. Reilly stated that it will have a sill and trim.
Heidi Milman, 109 Derby Street, asked why the windows don’t have to be totally wood and true divided light.
Ms. Herbert stated that so much of the house has been renovated that there is nothing left to try to replicate. She stated that it still looks like a store. She stated that she felt the proposed is a big improvement over what is currently there.
Mr. Hart stated that the proposed windows are wood, but have a baked on finish.
Ms. Millman stated that she was required to install true divided light windows and that her house had also been renovated.
Mr. Hart noted that the Andersen specification does show a sill.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve replacement of the two front windows as presented in the drawing with sills as presented in the brochure, with windows to have bronze spacers. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert stated that the frame of the side windows is the same as proposed for the front. She stated that the Commission could require that the sash be changed from snap-ins on the inside to glued on in and out.
Ms. Diozzi stated that she did not feel the rear side window was visible enough to distinguish, but noted that the front side window is visible.
Mr. Reilly stated that they may also be replacing the window on right side of the house, behind the chimney.
Ms. Herbert suggested moving the front side snap-in to the rear right side.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to replace the two sashes on the left side with simulated divided lights with bronze spacers, or to relocate the front left sash to the right behind the chimney, replacing the front left sash with simulated divided light. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
10 Broad Street
Donald and Grace Friary submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace pickets on 30’ of fence at the end of the driveway. The existing pickets are 4” wide and the replacements will be 3 1/2” wide. Existing posts and rails will remain and the white paint color will continue.
Ms. Friary stated that the pickets are white cedar and will be spaced ¾” apart.
Mr. Hart asked if the good side will be to the neighbor.
Ms. Friary stated that they are using the existing framework and just replacing the pickets.
Mr. Hart stated that the good side usually faces the neighbor.
Ms. Herbert stated that the fence is visible from the street and that there is a ton of vegetation behind it. She felt it was okay as is.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the application as submitted.
Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
30 Warren Street
Robert Mitnik presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a bay window at the rear, North and a new window at the rear, East side. Drawings were provided.
Chairman Diozzi read a letter from Brandon M. Hartford, Trustee of the Conservatory Condominium Association and a letter from Patricia Cornacchio, Trustee of the Conservatory Condominium Association.
Ms. Herbert stated that any owner of a condominium may submit a proposal for review and approval by the Commission, noting that it does not mean that the work can proceed. A condo owner still has to get approval from the trustees. She stated that the first course of action is to find out if the proposal fits within historic guidelines and therefore Commission review is the first stop because not all condo owners or trustees would know whether it is appropriate or not. She stated that it is perfectly reasonable for the applicant to present his plan and for the Commission to comment on it and for the Condominium Association to discuss it afterward. She explained that this was a good way of doing it because the Commission has no vested interest and will look at it from strictly an historic
preservation standpoint.
Mr. Mitnik stated that there hasn’t been an Association meeting for many months and that he has contacted everyone in the Association, noting that the meeting notice came out prior to his getting to every call. He stated that there are five owners and he knows he will need Association approval. Mr. Mitnik explained that his unit is on the 3rd floor and that for the 6’ x 8’6” room, he is proposing a bump out of 1’6” by 6’ to give a little space. It is in the rear of the building.
Ms. Herbert asked if it is visible from Flint Street.
Mr. Mitnik stated that it is only visible from the neighbor’s yard.
Mr. Hart stated that it is heavily vegetated and that, depending upon where you stand, it can potentially be seen through the vegetation, but that it is not highly visible.
Mr. Mitnik stated that he will copy the brackets around the house. He will not touch the crown molding or flashing on the roof. He is proposing either Marvin or LePage Simulated Divided Lights that are 2 over 2.
Ms. Harper stated that she walked by and can partially see it.
Mr. Hart agreed, noting that it will not jump out at you.
Ms. Herbert stated that it is a house of additions.
Ms. Guy stated that it is a very interesting house because it is so not uniform.
Ms. Guy asked Mr. Mitnik to confirm that he is proposing the bump out, 1 window being replaced and 1 new window per the drawings.
Mr. Mitnik replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Diozzi asked if there was any public comment.
Mr. Hartford stated that he was present if the Commission had any questions.
Mr. Hart stated that the Commission does not want to get into the legalities with the condominium association. He stated that from an historic standpoint and due to their being such a variety of windows on the building, he had no objection to the proposal.
Mr. Mitnik stated that he will check with the building inspector to see if there are any zoning issues.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve installation of 1’6” bumped out (bay) window as per drawings submitted on rear, North side; replace of one window; and installation of new window on rear East side in location per drawings submitted. All 3 windows to be double glazed, wood, LePage 7/8” SDL, clear glass, painted to match existing. Work is conditional that the owner get all required approvals (including condominium association) prior to commencement. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
401 Jefferson Avenue
Esther Realty, Inc. submitted an application for Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance for demolition of the single family dwelling and single car garage at 401 Jefferson Avenue. Frank Bertini represented the applicant.
Ms. Diozzi noted that the plans for the lot are still in the planning stages.
Mr. Bertini replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Hart stated that the house is located right next to the commercial property at Canal and Loring.
Ms. Herbert asked what is wrong with the house.
Mr. Bertini stated that it became available and they decided to purchase it. When the plans fell through, they looked into rehab, but it is cost prohibitive. He stated that it is has been vacant for a year and noted that insurance companies don’t like vacant properties. There are currently no plans and they will just grade off the site and fence it in temporarily.
Mr. Hart stated that it is a nice little Dutch Colonial house.
Mr. Bertini stated that it is pretty beat up and noted that the floor joists are sagging.
Ms. Herbert asked how it is zoned and if it is commercially zoned.
Mr. Bertini stated that he believed two zones go through the property.
Ms. Herbert asked the age of the building, suggesting 1910-1920.
Mr. Bertini stated that he did not know. He stated that he grew up across the street and that his old house is probably 80-90 years old and that he believed this house was older.
Ms. Herbert asked if they would be chopping the tree down.
Mr. Bertini replied that it would probably have to come down to demolish the house.
Ms. Herbert sated that she was concerned about paving over the lot and cutting down trees.
Mr. Hart stated that it was a cute little house which has been used for 80-90 years and that he had a problem approving demolition without first trying to reuse it.
Ms. Herbert asked the purchase price paid for the house.
Mr. Bertini stated that he believed it was approximately $400,000. They bought it for another reason and those plans fell through. He noted that it adjoins their other property, which includes Eastern Bank building and the property in back.
Ms. Diozzi stated that she would like to let it be known that this house might be available to be moved somewhere else and see if something like that could happen in 6 months.
Mr. Bertini stated that he explored that avenue with a contractor to have someone purchase and move it, but they did not want it. He questioned if it was considered historic.
Mr. Hart replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Guy stated that if it does not pass, six months from May 5th, you will be able to get a demolition permit. She stated that in the meantime, the commission could work with the owner to get it moved or restored. She noted the demolition cannot be denied, only delayed.
Mr. Hart made a motion to deny the waiver. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
55 Summer Street
Damien & Kristy Mount presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to repair the front porch with a change to the rail height to comply with current building code of 36” and to paint the porch floor Winding Path.
Ms. Herbert stated that she thought the posts look huge and suggested slimming them up.
Mr. Hart stated that they may not look so enormous with the higher railings.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the porch reconstruction with the railing height being raised to comply with current building code and the porch floor painted Winding Path. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
43 Chestnut Street
John Fifield and Cynthia William submitted an application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability to reconstruct/replace the front door entry column bases and to reconstruct/repair the brick garden wall.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
The homeowners also submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the re-approval of a south facing family/garden room, 17 x 27 in the Federal style. The original approved plan has since been modified with a copper, sloped roof and rounded south end. Drawings were provided.
Mr. Fifield stated that the current kitchenette will be taken down and a new building constructed. The windows will be custom, true divided light with a little wavy glass. He stated that from the street, over the garden wall, all that will be visible is the roof line and top of columns. The columns are designed to match the pergola in Doric design. They will expand the terrace with a few steps that are not visible from the public way. He stated that the project solves the only strategic problem with the house – that there is no place to sit and enjoy the garden.
Ms. Diozzi read a letter from Bruce Goddard and John Casey of 17 Flint Street and Martha and Neil Chayet of 19 Flint St.
Mr. Fifield stated that construction workers will park on Warren Street by his side of the street and when loading/unloading will pull up to their gate on Flint Street, at the sidewalk, and then move the vehicle.
Mr. Fifield provided a letter from Richard Jagolta, 41 Chestnut Street, and a letter from Mark Audette, 395 Essex Street which were read into the record.
Mr. Fifield stated that the common side of the house, with 41 Chestnut, will have a cricket that is not visible.
Ms. Herbert asked if there will be downspouts or gutters.
Mr. Fifield stated that it is designed as a drip edge and there will be an internal gutter to a buried open drain. There will be a copper water shield over the door. He noted that the wood columns are round and stand independently of the structure.
Mr. Hart asked about handrails.
Mr. Fifield stated that the final decision has not been made, but suspect they will be black wrought iron. They will not be visible. He noted that all wood will be painted white.
Mr. Hart suggested having a little element on the roof.
Mr. Fifield stated that he may go with a spike.
Mr. Hart asked about the windows.
Mr. Fifield stated that they will be true divided light, 6 over 9, double hung, single glaze and may be slightly rippled. He stated that they are still considering internal or external storms.
Mr. Hart suggested that they be careful about getting carried away with the rippled glass so that it does not look bogus.
Ms. Herbert asked if there will be a new fence.
Mr. Fifield stated that there is one in place that will be replaced, but it is not visible.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Harper seconded the motion.
Mr. Hart suggested an amendment to allow for a decorative element on the roof.
Ms. Herbert amended her motion to add a decorative element to the peak of the rounded section of the roof, with the element’s design delegated to Mr. Hart. Ms. Harper seconded the amendment.
The motion was voted on, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
EBI Consulting – Telecommunications installations at 27 Charter Street and 320 Lafayette Street – Section 106 Comments
Mary Stadalnick of EBI Consulting and Kristen LeDuc of MetroPSC New England were present.
Ms. Stadalnick stated that they are not prepared to proceed with 27 Charter Street and will come back when they are ready.
Ms. Guy also read the Commission’s comment letter for the last time a wireless facility being installed at 320 Lafayette.
Ms. LeDuc noted that the area around 320 Lafayette is a difficult area to find places for wireless communication facilities. She noted that they will install what is similar to the Cingular facility already on the building. It will be fiberglass, which is needed to transmit. They will put the equipment on the right corner and have a screen wall to match the existing penthouse.
Ms. Guy noted that the 320 Lafayette installation was approved by the Planning Board on April 17, 2008.
Ms. Diozzi stated that the building itself is an adverse impact on the neighborhood.
Mr. Hart stated that the wireless facility proposal fits in with the cubist architecture of the building and that he had no problem with it.
Ms. Guy will draft a comment letter and send a copy to Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC).
Other Business
Ms. Guy read a letter from the Building Inspector to Samuel and Marjorie Zoll, condemning the one level addition of the carriage house at 23 Chestnut Street and requiring they repair the rest of the carriage house.
Ms. Guy stated that Ms. Herbert has reviewed and approved the submission of Martha and Neil Chayet for the fence posts and pillar finial caps at 26 Winter Street.
Ms. Guy read an email from Matt Picarsic of RCG, LLC regarding the temporary construction fence at the old Salem News site. They hope to get it ironed out in the next few weeks
J. Michael Ruane Judicial Center
Ms. Guy stated that she emailed members a letter from the Federal Street Neighborhood Association to DCAM dated 5/21/08, as well as one from Historic Salem, Inc. to DCAM dated 5/20/08.
Ms. Guy provided members copies of a letter from MHC to DCAM dated 5/8/08.
Draft letter in response to 4/29/08
Ms. Herbert provided a draft letter from the architect’s group to Joan Goody. She stated that she got the impression that Ms. Goody was not willing to change the pavilion design. She may make a few changes, but nothing dramatic. Ms. Herbert stated that she would like to finish the draft on Thursday and distribute it in order to get it out on Friday. She stated that she would like to keep it as short as possible and as positive as possible, so that they can get in the door.
Ms. Guy suggested concurring with MHC’s comments.
Comments on 90% plan for church relocation
Mr. Hart distributed some written comments on the plans, concerning ownership of salvage, the need to formally reference the Moving Historic Buildings documents, percentage of completion of the foundation, damage control precautions and acceptable limits of damage.
Ms. Diozzi stated that the church should be perpendicular, not angled. She stated that she felt it should be the same direction as the other houses on the street.
Ms. Guy will draft a comment letter for review on Thursday.
There being no further business, Ms. Harper 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
| 
