SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
August 6, 2008
A regular meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday , August 6, 2008 at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Chairman Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin,, Ms. Harper, Mr. Reiter, Mr. Hart and Mr. Desrocher.
Salem Common Tot Lot
In continuation of a prior meeting, Sarah Wheeler-Gaddipati, on behalf of Parent’s United’s Tot Lot Committee, presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for replacement of the 25 year old tot lot structures. Also present were Jen Santo and John Ninneman, as well as Andy Berger of Landscape Structures
Ms. Guy noted that Mr. Reiter cannot vote on this application because he was not present at the prior two discussions of this application.
Ms. Gaddipati stated that they spoke with Dean Lahikainen of the Peabody Essex Museum regarding a replica of a McIntire house. They had no one who could undertake the design and had no funds to offer. She provided a matrix showing the four companies that they solicited pricing. A wooden structure would have to be maintained by the City and sanded and sealed every four years.
Mr. Reiter questioned the flammability of a wooden structure.
Ms. Gaddipati stated that wood is definitely more flammable.
Mr. Ninneman stated that steel is the hardest to catch fire and noted that plastic could melt, but the fire would not spread.
Ms. Herbert asked if people hang out there at night.
Ms. Santo replied in the negative, noting that she lives right across from it.
Mr. Ninneman stated that the biggest concern is upkeep, which the city would have to absorb.
Ms. Herbert asked if they have any corporate sponsors.
Ms. Gaddipati stated that all corporations want to see an approved design.
Ms. Gaddipati stated that Bill Goldberg has donated $5000.
Ms. Herbert asked if they will be phasing the project. – so that the entire is approved and then portions installed as funds are raised.
Ms. Gaddipati stated that the feeling is it would loose steam. There is also the concern of 6-7% inflation for the cost each year.
Ms. Herbert suggested having a basic play area and then if a design was approved it might include something like a ship or McIntire house that could be a separate item. She suggested it replace one of the two jungle gyms. She suggested having a space for something really special that is Salem.
Mr. Ninneman stated that he was concerned how to fundraise for something like that.
Ms. Herbert suggested approving with the condition that they include something Salem-related and that the applicants can come back for that one item, so they could at least get started. She stated that some local architects might be able to help with it.
Ms. Harper asked if the existing structures have been maintained well by the city.
Ms. Gaddipati replied in the negative.
Ms. Santo stated that there is a broken swing that has been broken for four months.
Ms. Herbert asked if the city paid for the existing structures.
Ms. Gaddipati stated that it was 25 years ago, that she was not sure if the city paid for it, but that there was a neighborhood group involved.
Ms. Herbert stated that, if sponsored, the sponsor could provide an endowment to maintain it.
Ms. Gaddipati. stated that the tot lot committee is in favor of staying with the original design from Landscape Structures.
Mr. Ninneman stated that as a group, they have two years invested into the project. They have looked into alternatives are concerned about reliability and warrantees.
Ms. Herbert asked if the slides and things were dark, Hunter green.
Mr. Berger replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Herbert stated that that only thing that is neon are the little nylon rope areas in the bright orangey red.
Mr. Berger stated that it is only available in that color and is meant for hand/eye coordination, so there is something bright to grab at.
Mr. Ninneman stated that there are many options for floor coloring.
Mr. Reiter asked if there are any statistics available regarding injuries on rubber versus wood blend.
Mr. Berger stated that surfacing standards are set forth by federal guidelines and that anything he offers would meet any code. He noted that wood chips have some maintenance. Rubber surfacing is less maintenance over time.
Mr. Ninneman stated that rubber is cushiony.
Ms. Gaddipati stated that it is great for strollers.
Ms. Herbert asked if the water rolls off of it or through it.
Mr. Berger stated that it is permeable.
Mr. Ninneman stated that they would use rubber for the swings and areas that are handicapped accessible. The wood fiber surface will be the rest of the surface. He noted that there is also an option for loose rubber that can be colorized, but there is an expense that goes with it.
Ms. Herbert wondered if the loose material will spill onto the rubber material.
Mr. Ninneman stated that they would like to have a border of engraved bricks that people can donate toward and have the brick individualized, which will contain some of the chips.
Ms. Gaddipati noted that the existing has beams.
Ms. Herbert asked if it will be the same footprint as existing.
Mr. Ninneman replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Herbert asked if individuals will also be able to sponsor benches or will be supplied by the city.
Ms. Gaddipati stated that that will be another fundraising method.
Ms. Herbert asked the total cost with the minimal surfacing and installation.
Ms. Santo stated that it is $89,000. All rubber would be $57,000 additional.
Ms. Herbert asked if the city or Landscape Structures would prep the surface.
Mr. Berger stated that the Park Department would do it and that the price assumes some city assistance including removal of the existing and prepping the site.
Ms. Guy read letters into the record from:
o Diane Heppner, 3 Ocean Terrace – in favor of the application
o Doug & Carrie Cabot, 1 Forrester St. – in favor of the application
o Douglas Bowker, Vice President, Parents United of Salem
Alicia Hart, 47 Washington Square, stated that she felt plastic is not in keeping with the historic nature of the Common. She stated that the structures will interrupt views of the important architecture. She stated that she was concerned of the Common becoming a recreation field. She stated that on some weekdays, she has 50 or 60 kids parked in front of her house and that on summer camp day she is listening to screaming kids for about 2 hours. She stated that she was concerned about overuse and mis-use and stated that it is not a recreation field. She stated that with regard to the expansion, the more you have these kids come, there will be an increased demand to expand the playground and it will turn the Common into a mess. She stated that the Common needs to be protected and
preserved. She stated that 2 jungle gyms is excess and plastic is not in keeping, not matter how dark green it is. She stated that the proposal could be anywhere in any town. She stated that the proposed is not as sensitive as it could be and, even if it takes more time, suggested get something that we can all agree with and live with and will be an enhancement to the Common, not a detriment. She stated that the proposed will create more chaos. She stated that the more you build and turn it into Disneyland, the more it will become Disneyland and it will be a real threat of overuse and inappropriate use of the Common
Matt Krenel, 18 Briggs Street, stated that history also has a human element and quoted Salem historian Joseph Felt. He stated that the current effort to have the Salem Common upgraded and protected is very similar to the historic efforts of 1801 by Salem citizens who go together to improve the Common at their own expense and did the work energetically and well.
Ward 2 Councillor Michael Sosnowski asked how much of the proposed will be dedicated to handicapped use. He stated that Centeny Park in Peabody is a wonderful park that abled and disabled children can use. He asked if any of the plans considered exceeded the current footprint
Ms. Guy stated that there were no plans to exceed it.
Councillor Sosnowski stated that there was a volunteer effort done at MaryJane Lee Playground to install the play structures, which he was sure cut the price way down. He noted that several persons in the audience are Salem Common Neighborhood Association members and serve as stewards of the park, and we are lucky to have people who take care of this park. He stated that he felt it would be maintained properly. He stated that he was in favor of maintaining historic integrity of everything in Salem, but did not feel the proposed is a nuisance. He stated that it is a Common for the common folks, including kids, and added that he was in support of the proposal.
Mr. Berger stated that he worked on and designed Centeny Park. He stated that the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act provides that a certain number of elevated play must be accessible by transfer route. The proposed design has play elements that are accessible from the ground and also from the upper levels by the code. For accessible ground level components, it is required to have 3 and the design proposed 6. For elevated components accessible by transfer, it is required to have 4 and the design has 5. Therefore, they are exceeding the code. The playground in Peabody is accessible by ramp, which is a total different animal in design, approach and cost. It was meant to be 85-90% accessible by ramping. He added that his firm did the MaryJane Lee Playground project and
that the Common could also be done as a volunteer/build project, which would save money in the end.
Councillor Sosnowski stated that the city can provide benches. With regard to retention for the flooring material, he stated that they have a wall that looks like elongated Lego blocks that is a natural, organic fill which needs to be refilled every couple years as it disintegrates back into the ground. He stated that in the interim, he will see that the swings are fixed.
Debra Griel, 34 Boardman Street, stated that she has twin granddaughters and they use the Common. She stated that this is a grass roots organization and that banks, if they do fund, $5,000 might be a limit – and if more, then they usually want to discuss signage or other issues. She did not think banks will write large checks for this project. She stated that she was a nursery school teacher and worked with children with special needs for many years. She stated that in the life of a child, months can make a huge difference on how they use their body and develop and grow. She added that it is exciting to walk by and see a vibrant community of people using the Common as their back yard instead of moving out and spending their money in shops elsewhere. She stated that we should
all think about it as our front and back yard for our community and continue that vibrancy. She stated that we need to say to those families that we want to keep them.
Ms. Herbert stated that banks might right a check for a $1000 monthly mortgage on it, which translates $12,000 a year. She stated that it could start quicker if mortgaged. She agreed that a lot of condo owners do not have the luxury of a yard with swings and it is nice to have a central park.
Kevin McCarthy, 51 Lafayette Street, stated that he is a stay at home Dad and that the Common is the only park he can take his children, because he has a disability and does not drive. It is the only place he can reach on foot. He stated that the proposed is a great idea. He stated that the city would not have built a basketball court and the existing tot lot if they did not want it used as a park.
Douglas Balker, 41 Forrester Street, stated that the existing is in such poor condition and that if the argument were about aesthetics, there would be a huge outcry about at least restoring it, but there is not. He stated that existing looks horrible. He stated that it is a miracle that there has not been a lawsuit from bolts hanging down and other things that are just crying out for someone to be seriously injured. He noted that when he is at the Common, he hears tourists criticize the bad shape of the playground. He stated that even if it were restored to what is was, it is not enough for what the city is now. He stated that the Common is the central park for Salem residents where people come to meet. He stated that people who use it also help to maintain it and it provides a sense of
community and that it is vital to move forward with this.
Ms. Hart stated that she is not anti-family and not against improving the playground, but is against the Common looking junky and very plasticy. She stated that the Commission has an obligation to think about historic importance and that this is not just a bunch of parents deciding that it is convenient. She stated that the City of Salem has a larger mission to the United States and the people who visit about protecting and preserving. She stated we need to pay attention to the appearance and putting in some plastic design that could be seen in any town anywhere is a poor choice. She stated that we do need to consider aesthetics and the history and not just accommodating all the families. She stated that the Common is more than just about families, but is also about protecting and
preserving appearance for future generations and for the visitors.
Ms. Herbert estimated that at the last meeting there was discussion about exploring a ship component or a McIntire playhouse, but it looks like they are pretty expensive. She stated that the tot lot is less 5% of the entire Common, which is not much. She stated that there are fields wide open and the bandstand for wedding pictures, etc. She stated it would be nice to have a water feature. She noted that the footprint is not expanding.
Suzanna Barrett, Williams Street, stated that two structures serve a large variety of ages and is used by the Boys & Girls Club and the Salem YMCA, not just people in condos around the Common, but people all over Salem. She stated that the two structures accommodate two groups of children which address the current problem that everybody uses the one slide and other structures. The two structures addresses that by splitting up the two age groups.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to close the public hearing. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Hart stated he had no objection to the contemporary structures proposed and provided a photo of Central Park’s tot lot of modern and clean structures. He stated that he would want a limitation on the footprint so that it is does not exceed what is there now.
Ms. Harper stated that she was in favor of the proposal. She stated that the Common is for community use and that this continues the use. She stated that she saw a similar tot lot in Society Hill in Philadelphia, a 19th century residential neighborhood. It brought a lot of life to the neighborhood and did not feel it took one thing away from the historic structures and did not think this proposal would either.
Mr. Desrocher stated that he lives on Briggs Street and has 3 children, the youngest six, and that they still go to the Common. He stated that he would like to see a little more detail and that he felt the brown, tan and green blended better than the burgundy and looked forward to seeing the finished project.
Mr. Reiter stated that he brings his children to different parks around town. He stated that he liked the proposed materials and agreed that the tan and green was better.
Ms. Santo stated that she preferred the brown and tan.
Councillor Sosnowski suggested that the Commission consider that certain colors absorb and become dangerous to touch.
Ms. Guy suggested that they use the city standard bench that is already on the Common.
Mr. Hart made a motion for the replacement of existing tot lot in concept, layout, materials & equipment per 3 dimensional rendering by O’Brien & Sons, Inc. dated 6/11/08, conditional that the footprint of the new design does not exceed the footprint of the existing.~ Details on color, surfacing, borders and benches has been continued to the meeting of 9/3/08. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Reiter abstained from voting.
183 Rear Federal Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, John and Monica Zisa submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for replacement of windows, which have already been installed.
Mr. Zisa stated that the windows are only visible driving against the one-way Federal Street.
Mr. Hart stated that the second floor is visible from the street.
Ms. Herbert asked how many windows were installed.
Mr. Zisa stated that 7 sere installed, 4 that are visible, 1 in the rear that is not visible and 2 that are visible seasonally.
Ivan Jenson, 183R Federal Street stated that the windows are different from the rest of the house. He stated that if approved, then the rest of the house is open to install them. He stated that he has been trying his best to restore his existing windows – sanding and glazing for about a year.
Ms. Jenson, 183R Federal Street, stated that her main concern is that the dividers are white, while the rest of the house is red.
Mr. Zisa stated that the new windows are being aluminum storm windows.
Ms. Harper stated that it is very clear that there are two types of windows on the house. The vinyl installed have just strips while the wood have real muntins. She stated that the color difference is also visible.
Ms. Diozzi stated that the master deed for the house does say that owners will maintain architectural integrity of the house and she did not feel that the windows installed meet that.
Ms. Herbert noted that the contractor did not take out a building permit when he installed the windows; therefore the owner has recourse against the contractor. Shed stated that the rear window is not visible and so the Commission does not have jurisdiction over it. The owner will have to deal with the condo association in that regard. She noted that the house is on the border of the historic district and that from time to time renovations are done without permits, which is what the Commission is trying to stop. She stated that the condo documents require that the unit owners get permissions and permits. She stated that the Commission would be willing to put their support into any legal action the owner takes against the contractor.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to deny the six visible vinyl windows installed and to require that they be replaced with returned to original condition or a new application for an appropriate replacement be submitted for approval and the approved windows be installed within 9 months. A seventh window, in the rear, may be retained as it is not visible from the public way. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Hart stated that the owner could install an interior or exterior storm in order to achieve energy efficiency.
4 Federal Court
In continuation of a prior meeting, Michael Digris and Michele Washburn submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace a 3-tab asphalt roof with architectural shingles. Also present was roof contractor Jim Doucet.
Mr. Digris provided photographs of architectural installations. He stated that it is arguable that architectural shingles are liked or disliked. He stated that they look more like wood shingles and that wood shingles were on his house at some point. He stated that architectural is more similar to wood shingles than 3-tab. He stated that the preponderance of opinion is that architectural are more durable and last longer and are more resistant to wind. He stated that they want to maintain the historic quality of the house and that there is nothing historic about 3-tab asphalt. He stated that he wants to protect his house with something better than 3-tab.
Mr. Doucet stated that he has been a roofing contractor for 37 years and in his opinion, Woodscape simulates wood more so than any other shingles. He noted that the house previously had wood shingles.
Ms. Herbert stated that it is a fairly small house in terms of roof area.
Mr. Doucet stated that people don’t want the liability of maintenance of wood.
Mr. Digris stated that they prefer the color Pewterwood.
Ms. Diozzi read a letter into the record from Dr. Jane Curtis Arlander, 91-93 Federal Street, in support of the application.
Marie Olsen, 3 Federal Court, stated that she has been there 13 years and that 3 Federal Court has had 3 prior owners, who never kept up the house as well as the current owners.
Eric Olsen, 3 Federal Court, stated that he was in favor of the application.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert stated that approval opens the door for architectural shingles throughout. She stated that some are very obvious and she did not want that. She sated that the roof should not become the most prominent part of the house.
Mr. Hart stated that he has done research on 3-tab roofing and several have 30 year warrantees.
Mr. Digris stated that he cannot be convinced that he should like 3-tab just because it has the same warrantee.
Mr. Hart stated that he is an architect who has restored older homes that have had wood shingles. Wood shingles do not look random, they are fairly uniform and there is no continuous seem. He stated that 3-tab more replicates wood because it is more uniform pattern. He stated that he objected to the use of architectural shingles unless it is on a Victorian that may have had a tiled roofline.
Ms. Harper stated that she has been concentrating on roofs on the way home from work. And that she is surprised by the number of roofs that have architectural shingles – that she never noticed. She stated that 2 gambrels were the only ones that screamed out at her. She stated that an asphalt shingle is an asphalt shingle and does not see it having the look of wood. She stated that she did not think architectural shingles detract from the house. She stated that she would prefer a color closer to a weathered look. She stated that she felt the extra life that architectural shingles get is valuable to the house.
Ms. Herbert stated that approval must be on a case by case basis and not a blanket decision. She stated that his house was already bastardized in the 1910-20’s with windows. She stated that the proposed is not bad and she would consider architectural in this case because it is significantly altered.
Mr. Reiter stated that there is a need to look at the whole house and its upkeep and preservation. He stated that even if it draws attention for a moment, it is the details around the doors and windows that is primary and the roof shingles become secondary.
Ms. Bellin stated that she was torn and agreed it should be a case by case basis. She stated that if it is already altered, it is not the time to do more inappropriate alterations. She stated that historically, roofs weren’t necessarily flat looking.
Ms. Herbert stated that her concern was with the angular cuts.
Mr. Doucet stated that they should be a random pattern.
Ms. Herbert asked if they were made in a straight cut.
Mr. Doucet stated that he did not know.
Mr. Desrocher made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Harper seconded the motion.
Mr. Hart stated that he was not trying to stand in the way of a homeowner preventing leaks. He stated that the Commission relies on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards which say to respect the history of the building and the changes made over time and that those changes retain historicity in their own right. He stated that the Preservation Brief makes a strong case for retention. He stated that he was reluctant to see the wholesale architectural shinglization of the historic district.
The motion was voted upon. Ms. Harper, Mr. Desrocher and Mr. Reiter voted in favor. Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Herbert and Mr. Hart voted in opposition. The motion did not carry and the application was denied.
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. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to the meeting of September 3, 2008. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
29 Washington Square
The John Bertram House submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish and reconstruct an existing elevator shaft.
Ms. Guy stated that the applicants have requested a continuance to the meeting of September 3, 2008.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to the meeting of September 3, 2008. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
329 Essex Street
Dorothy and Eric Hayes submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for replacement of entry porch roof balustrade, removal of wrought iron gate, removal of greenhouse, changing of a door to a window, removal of metal crenellations on rear cellar entry roof, and boarding up one window. Representing the applicant was also Bill Finch who provided a c1900 photograph of the house.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the temporary removal of entry porch roof balustrade, conditional that it is replaced with approved balustrade within 2 years. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the removal of wrought iron gate at front entry steps. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the removal of glass greenhouse on rear of house. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Hart noted that the Building Inspector may have problem with the door opening to the roof.
Ms. Herbert stated that the door will need to be secured.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the removal of the metal crenellations on the roof of the rear cellar entry and their placement in storage pending historic research of their origin. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Finch stated that they would like to change the application to restore the window per the photo evidence, with the grade roughly as he is showing and match the granite as close as possible, including addressing the rock faced granite with tooled margin.
Ms. Herbert made a motion for the West cellar entry (where window and frame are missing) – utilizing 8/6/08 altered photo which evidences a window and 3 granite blocks previously removed and the drawing provided, to approve restoration as close as possible using 36 x 36 wood sash and frame to match existing basement windows. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Jim Kearney stated that he was very glad to see interest shown in this house. He stated that he would like to see construction start at a reasonable hour.
34 Warren Street
The First Spiritualist Church submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to add a wood baluster handrail. A sketch was submitted. Representing the Church was the Board Preseident, Brad Gosselin.
Mr. Gosselin stated that in order to bring the stair to code, it requires a balustrade.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve replacement of existing stairs in kind with additional of wood balustered handrail per sketch submitted, utilizing 2 x 2 balusters, 4 x 4 posts, pyramid post caps, standard Brosco handrail. Height of railing and length of handrail along stairs to be per building code. Lattice below to be wood, of sturdy quality. Entire to be painted white. Option to use Trex for deck and stair treads. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
27 Charter Street
Kirsten LeDuc of Wellman Associates, Inc. presented the proposal for the installation of 6 wireless antennae on the roof of 27 Charter Street. They will be screened by an enclosure painted and textured to match the existing penthouse.
Ms. Guy noted that the Planning Board has approved the proposal, conditional that the blue door match the penthouse. They are going before the Salem Redevelopment Authority on September 13th.
Mr. Hart asked if all equipment will be inside the enclosure.
Ms. LeDuc replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Hart stated that it will essentially look like the penthouse.
Ms. LeDuc stated that no antennae will go above.
Ms. Diozzi stated that she did not feel it adds adverse effect.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to find that the proposed has no adverse effect and to concur with the Planning Board to paint out the door to the brick color and also to recommend painting the rail. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Ms. Guy stated that the Woman’s Friend Society at 12-14 Hawthorne Blvd. has been voted eligible by the State Review Board.
Ms. Guy stated that she received a letter dated 8/1/08 from Public Archaeology Laboratory, who has been retained by EA Engineering, Science and Technology, Inc. on behalf of the U.S. Coast Guard to conduct an intensive archaeological survey of the soil remediation project tare with the USCG property at Bakers Island Light.
Ms. Guy stated that on 8/5/08 and 8/6/08 she emailed letters regarding the J. Michael Ruane Judicial Center 60% submission received from Federal Street Neighborhood Association dated 8/4/08, Historic Salem, Inc. dated 8/5/08 and Lynn Duncan, City of Salem Director of Planning and Community Development dated 8/4/08
There being no further business, Mr. Hart 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
| 
