SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
November 5, 2008
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, November 5, 2008 at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Vice Chairman Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Harper, Ms. McCrea and Mr. Hart.
310 Essex Street
The City of Salem submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for roof replacement, including a new rear gutter and new downspouts. The existing shakes will be replaced with red cedar shingles. Three new downspouts will be located on the rear of the building and shall be 5” square Spanish cedar wood with copper liners. The rear gutter will be a V shape and made of Spanish cedar wood pitched to drain to downspouts. The bid documents includes two bid alternates for the chimney. Alternate #1 t is to rebuild the top 6 courses of brick to match the existing and cap it with a new bluestone cap. It also includes replacement of any deeply spalled brick throughout the chimney. Alternate #2 is rebuilding the full chimney and provide a new bluestone cap.
Representing the City was Kirsten Kinzer from the Department of Planning & Community Development and William Finch, consultant.
Ms. Kinser stated that she is the Project Manager and that the estimate for the alternate to fully rebuild the chimney exceeds available funding. They have two grants from the project – one from Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) and one from Essex Heritage Commission. MHC has reviewed the project and found no adverse effect.
Mr. Finch that the major change is shakes to conventional cedar, which are much closer in appearance to 18th century shingles. The shakes were initially installed in 1944-5.
Mr. Hart stated that the new red cedar will be far more appropriate than cedar shakes.
Mr. Finch stated that the chimney to be altered was probably built using brick from an old chimney or from salvaged brick. Water is running down both the inside and outside and the flashing is gone. He stated that the question is whether to use water-struck brick or to find 18th century brick in better condition than the current brick. They will repoint the entire chimney under Alternate #1.
Ms. Herbert asked how many courses was the entire chimney.
Mr. Hart stated that at 12’8”, it was approximately 40 courses on the back side. Mr. Hart asked if the chimney was rebuilt in 1945.
Mr. Finch replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Hart concluded that it is not original material.
Mr. Finch stated that if they use good brick to rebuild it, it will have a more modern look.
Ms. Kinzer provided photographs of the interior damage. She stated that the City is going out to bid in approximately 1 month and that they will have bids in approximately 2 months.
Mr. Finch stated that the two valleys are also a source of a major series of leaks. He stated that they probably have the original copper flashing that has been tarred over a few times. He stated that some of the new flashing will be grey/black EPDM membrane flashing which will be visible.
Mr. Hart stated that he had no problem with the roof. He noted that the drawings show some flashing at 16 oz and some at 20 oz. He encouraged 20 oz throughout.
Mr. Finch stated that 16 oz is the valley flashing which will last until the next roof replacement. The stated that the chimney base flashing will be lead coated copper.
Mr. Hart stated that since the brick chimney was almost certainly rebuilt, he had no problem with either repair or rebuild.
Ms. Herbert suggested that Historic Salem, Inc. (HSI) might be able to help raise funds for the cost difference between repairing and rebuilding.
Mr. Finch stated that the chimney is structurally sound, but that water absorption was a different issue. He noted that there will be some upcoming additional needs in the future, such as windows.
Ms. Herbert suggested that raising funds for the chimney might wet people’s appetite to be involved in the future restoration efforts. She stated that she would be happy to talk to HSI representatives.
Mr. Finch stated that HSI was created to save this house in the first place.
Ms. Bellin stated that she preferred to see the whole chimney rebuilt.
Ms. Harper asked if there was any sealer that could be put on the bricks.
Mr. Finch stated that they could put on water repellant, but he was not sure of the long-term effect on the brick. He stated that it would have to be reapplied every few years to be effective. He noted that it was not proposed for this project.
Mr. Hart was in agreement, and stated that he preferred to deal with the masonry mechanically, rather than chemically.
Mr. Finch stated that it the Commission wants to keep the chimney “olde”, then it should be repaired and repointed and that if the Commission wants to see a better quality brick, the City will need to use newer brick.
Mr. Hart stated that he would not advocate looking for rustic looking brick. He stated that he was okay with it looking more uniform.
Ms. Herbert stated that she was concerned that the roof will look good, but the chimney will look just okay if repaired
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
25 Beckford Street
David Trainor presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install heavy gauge seamless gutter on the Beckford Street side of the house and the rear of the house. Also present was his wife, Betsy Keefe.
Mr. Hart recused himself from deliberating or voting on this application and sat in the audience.
Mr. Trainor stated that the sidewalk is listing in to the house from the rain and the bricks are getting loose. On the back side, they have a lower gutter because it is two-tiered. They want to put in an upper gutter because they are getting a lot of water damage from it pooling as it comes down from the second tier, resulting in the need to replace a lot of clapboards and part of the roof on the lower section above the kitchen. Therefore, they will be doing the Beckford Street side and the rear in heavy gauge aluminum in white to match the trim of the house. The currently have an aluminum gutter on their half of the rear (River St. side) and have a wood gutter on the lower section of the West side where the porch is.
There was no public comment.
Ms. Herbert asked if they explored wood gutters.
Mr. Trainor stated that it is a lot more expensive and a lot more maintenance. He noted that most of his neighbors have aluminum.
Ms. Bellin asked if the downspouts will be square.
Mr. Trainor stated that he will put the downspout on the rear of the house, so it won’t be seen on the Beckford Street side.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the application as submitted, painted white to match the trim and downspouts installed in the rear. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Hart returned to the Commission.
20 Fowler Street
Avalito and Franziska Garcia submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a chimney cap.
Ms. Bellin recused herself from deliberating or voting on this application and sat in the audience.
Mr. Garcia provided a flyer on The Chimney Top caps, available in stainless steel or copper.
Mr. Hart stated that the chimney is not visible from Fowler St., but is visible from North Pine St.
Ms. Herbert preferred stainless with a matte finish.
Mr. Garcia noted that rain comes straight down the chimney into the house. They have 3 flues in the chimney.
Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve a stainless steel chimney cap in matte finish. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin rejoined the Commission.
39-41 Washington Square North, Unit 1
In response to a notice of violation, Douglas McNeish, 39-41 Washington Square North Condominium, presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install an air conditioning condenser on a flat roof with appurtenant tubing for refrigerant supply extending from the soffit about 6’ down to the condenser, as well as electrical supply 6’ extending from the soffit to the condenser as has already been installed. The condenser is 23 ½” wide by 31 ½” deep by 26 ½” high. It is sitting on a rubber mounting pad approximately 4” high.
Mr. McNeish stated that he installed the unit mistakenly believing that it was not visible and did not require approval.
Ms. Herbert stated that with the leaves off the trees, it is much more visible.
Mr. McNeish stated that he is responding to the Commission’s notice of violation. He wanted a/c on 2 floors of his unit. He noted that his unit is on the corner of Route 1A and that he could not sleep with the windows open in summer. He installed the equipment on the roof above his unit and at that time of year, the unit was not visible.
Ms. Bellin asked when it was installed.
Mr. McNeish stated that it was about a month ago.
Nikolaus Sucher, 39-41 Washington Sq., Unit 2, stated that he and his wife have been overseas and when they returned they saw the condenser on the roof outside their bedroom window and wondered what happened. Consequently, there has been a condo association meeting and a site visit. A memo has been send to Mr. McNeish, a copy of which Mr. Sucher provided to the Commission. He stated that the condo rules only allow removable window a/c’s between Memorial Day and Labor Day.
Ms. Herbert read the condominium association’s letter to Mr. Sucher into the record, which required that the a/c condenser and related attachments be removed and the damage caused be fixed. The letter also requests that alternate remedies be reviewed by the condo association prior to further discussion with the Salem Historical Commission.
Ms. Herbert noted that Mr. McNeish had already applied before receiving the condo association’s letter.
Ms. Guy stated that he responded to the Historical Commission’s violation letter and that he could not just withdraw the application based on the Condo Association’s letter.
Francoise McCoy, 23 Winter Street, stated that she has full view of the back of this building and the flat roof. She stated that it is one more thing added to this roof and that she is not in favor. She was concerned that other unit owners will want to add additional machines.
Mr. McNeish stated that the alternative is to have several window units throughout the building.
Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission has had situations in the past where the condo owners do things and then ask for permission afterward. She stated that she felt it would be very useful if all the condo owners of this building had a HVAC professional look at the entire building and determine the best locations for equipment. She noted that the Commission has approved condensers in the past, but typically they are screened, whether with fencing, parapet roofing or ground vegetation. She stated that she felt they needed a master plan for a/c for the future if others want them.
Ms. Bellin asked how long they have lived at the unit and how many floors they are on.
Mr. McNeish stated that they purchased in August and that he is on 3 floors.
Ms. Bellin asked if there was anyone below him.
Mr. McNeish replied in the negative.
Ms. Herbert stated that that the Suchers have the wing on the two floors on Winter Street, then they have stairs up to a master bedroom, over Mr. McNeish’s three floor.
Mr. McNeish stated that the a/c unit cannot be put on the ground, because the feed cannot go that high up. He stated that he might be able to move it further out on the roof.
Ms. Herbert stated that, if approved, the Commission would want some kind of screening.
Mr. Hart stated that the owners should consider potential vibration, noise and visual screening. He stated that it was not unprecedented that condensers sit on roof.
Ms. Herbert stated that there needs to be a plan, that all the condo owners can get together on, that meets the condo owner needs and the historic provisions. She noted that adding a/c done properly has a positive effect on a unit’s value, which could benefit the other owners, as well, and that the unit owners who may not want a/c now, may want it when they go to see the unit down the road.
Ms. Guy suggested that the Commission either allow the applicant to withdraw with agreement that he will apply with a resolution to the violation within a specific amount of time or vote to deny the application without prejudice and require removal within 6 months, which would give all the owners time to come up with a plan.
Ms. Bellin preferred the denial, so that the violation remains and it has to be dealt with within 6 months. She stated that it doesn’t hurt to send a strong message for owners who put something in before coming to the Commission. She noted that if the application came before the Commission prior to installation, she did not believe she would have voted for the unit in that location.
Mr. Hart stated that the Commission would be concerned about the visual aspect wherever it is located.
Mr. McNeish if a manner of disguising it would be considered.
Ms. Guy replied in the affirmative, noted that a widow’s walk is one example.
Ms. Harper stated that she would also want to know if the tubing and conduit could be painted the color of the bricks.
Mr. McNeish noted that there is a lot of other hardware sitting on that roof and did not know if it was all functional.
Ms. Guy suggested that the association apply to remove those items that are not functional. She stated that if this application came before installation, the Commission would have asked what other alternative locations were considered and why those locations were dismissed and would have considered the abutters comments before making a decision. She stated that, to be approved, they would likely require a screening design be submitted.
Ms. Bellin wondered if a larger unit, which serviced more than one condo could be on the ground.
Mr. Hart stated that, as an architect, such a situation could be fraught with difficulties, and that individual units is the way to go.
Ms. Bellin noted that window air conditioners are not within the Commission jurisdiction, no matter how many are installed.
Ms. Herbert asked if the condenser was only for the top floor.
Mr. McNeish stated that it is for 2 of the 3 floors, serving the bedrooms.
Mr. Hart made a motion to deny the application without prejudice and to require removal of all equipment and that the altered area be returned to original condition within 6 months. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of July 2, 2008. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of October 1, 2008. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy stated that she received the following letter copies from MHC:
- 10/20/08 to Woman’s Friend Society that the Joseph Fenno House has been accepted for listing on the National Register of Historic Places
- 10/23/08 to Bohler Engineering that additional information is needed for the proposed demolition and new construction at 450 Highland Avenue
- 10/14/08 to Wellman Associates, Inc. that more information is needed for the proposed telecommunications installation at 27 Charter Street
- 10/22/08 to US Coast Guard requesting additional information on the Baker’s Island Lead Soil Remediation Project
Ms. Guy stated that she received a copy of letter from the Salem Conservation Commission to Kristina Wacomestevick of 18 Kosciusko Street informing her that work proposed is not within their jurisdiction, but is within a historic district. Ms. Guy noted that the owners have since applied to the Commission under Non-Applicability.
Ms. Guy provided a DVD from MHC on local historical commissions and asked the members to circulate it among themselves.
There being no further business, Ms. Bellin made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission
| 
