SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
June 4, 2008
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Chairman Diozzi, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Harper and Mr. Hart.
5 Warren Street
Charles & Kathleen Galvin submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for painting of exterior and trim work, shutters and doors at 5 Warren Street. The body will be Mortar, the trim will be Solo, the doors will be Paprika and the shutters will be Stout.
John Adelman, 45 Broad Street, stated that he was in favor of the application. He stated that Mr. Galvin seems to be a good neighbor and good citizen who follows the rules.
Ms. Harper made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
110 Derby Street
Daniel and Lisa Fox submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove a secondary chimney, noting that the bricks are deteriorating and that the chimney was previously mortared over.
Mr. Hart stated that he felt the chimney is a defining element of the building.
Mr. Fox stated that it is leaking and that the chimney is not in use. He noted that it is located on an addition and that pieces are falling on to the roof. He added that the chimney does not extend below the second floor.
Mr. Hart stated that he was a little concerned, noting that it is a pretty tall chimney and a defining element, but added that it is a subsidiary element.
Ms. Bellin asked if bricks are falling off.
Mr. Fox replied in the affirmative. He stated that he has no motivation to put any money into it, since it serves no purpose.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
23 Warren Street
Nicholas Lewis submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a fence along the boundary line between 21 and 23 Warren Street (side A on drawing) which continues an approved fence at Line B on the drawing provided. It replaces a sheet of lattice that was nailed to the house. The fence has already been constructed.
Mr. Lewis stated that he and Kelly Tyler received approval for the rear section in April of two years ago, but at the time did not have plans for the side. The fence is the same design continued from the rear. He provided photos of the view from the road.
Ms. Guy clarified that they got approval for fence in the back. At the time, the side was the lattice piece. When the lattice came down, they continued the fence that got approved in the back through to the side.
She stated that they are not proposing any additional fence alteration, just ratifying what was done without approval in the same fence design.
John Adelman, 45 Warren Street, stated that he was speaking as Power of Attorney for Charleen Laurion and as a member of the public. He stated that he is also renting space at 21 Warren Street. He stated that he believed what had been approved for the rear was 4’ of latticework but was installed was the equivalent of stockade of 4’ and another foot of lattice work. He stated that he and Charlene are asking is to revert to the original approval of the 4’ lattice work, to remove the 5’ stockade. He stated that when Ms. Laurion almost lost her life and her home in a fire, she worked with Ms. Guy, and he how Ms. Laurion was cooperative with the Board.
Ms. Guy stated that she did not recall any issues, but that she cannot really recall every application that has come before the Board in the 20 years that she has been doing this.
Mr. Adelman stated that when you get approval for something, that is what it should be. He stated that the solid fence blocks Ms. Laurion’s ability to continue her gardening in the home where she has lived for 25 years. He asked the Board to re-order the original approval of the 4’ of lattice work, beside from the other issues of attempts at using criminal complaints as a slap against Ms. Laurion by the petitioners.
Ms. Guy read the Certificates that the applicants received for approval which included:
- March 2, 2006 – Replacement of fencing noted in locations A and B on plan with same fence as rear lot line fence (location D), except new fence to be 5’ high and without lattice or boards on bottom
- April 6, 2006 – Replacement of fencing (location B on plan) to replicate rear lot line fence (d). Both fences to match D which is to replicate existing but be modified by removing the lattice on the bottom and filling with horizontal boards or a solid wood framed panel.
- June 9, 2006 (replaces Certificate dated 4/6/06) – Replacement of fencing (location B on plan) to replicate rear lot line fence (D). Both fences to match D which is to replicate existing but be modified by removing the lattice on the bottom and filling with horizontal boards or a solid wood framed panel. Fence located at B will have no lattice or fill on bottom, so that the fence is 5’ solid with 1’ of lattice on top. Fencing at locations A and C (including gate and arch) has been withdrawn by the applicant.
Ms. Bellin noted A was approved in March 2nd.
Ms. Guy stated that there was a fence approved for A and B, but then they proposed all the fencing match. A and C was then withdrawn, which is why they are coming back to approve A now.
Ms. Tyler stated that their first approval was mistakenly for a 6’ fence with no lattice and that they came back to clarify that it would be 5’ with 1’ of lattice. She stated that there was discussion at the meeting that perhaps we should try to match A and C, but in the intervening time, we decided not to put a fence or gate at C, so it felt appropriate to match the two fence sections.
Ms. Tyler stated that the formers owners had received special permission to make that higher fence than usual, because there is a parking lot behind it. The way they made it taller was to take a 6’ solid flat section and put a foot of lattice on the top and a foot of lattice on the bottom, which we felt was excessive for the front of the property line and went for a convention 6’ fence.
Mr. Hart stated that what was approved was a 6’ high fence, 5’ of solid and 1’ of lattice on the top. He stated that it looks like that was what was installed. He asked if they were seeking approval for what has already been installed, which matches what was previously approved for the rest of the property.
Ms. Tyler replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Adelman stated that Ms. Laurion informs him that she did not get notices of subsequent approvals and that what she expected was the fine side of the fence would be facing her location.
Ms. Tyler stated that it is.
Mr. Adelman stated that the fence if rough and it is following apart and that he inspected the fence from Charlene’s property a week ago. He stated that the work is very shoddy. He stated that Ms. Laurion informs him that she got notice of one of the approval meetings, not two. Mr. Adelman stated that Ms. Guy, without subpoena, was sharing information with Salem District Court on criminal matters, directly related to today’s hearing and asked that it be investigated until this Commission makes any decision.
Ms. Diozzi stated that she did not know if that was relevant and asked for a motion to close the public hearing.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to close the public hearing. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Harper made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Hart seconded the motion.
Mr. Hart stated that he was concerned that there was an assertion that there was no notice.
Ms. Guy clarified that all meeting notices are sent to abutters, abutters to abutters and people across the street and their abutters. She stated that when a meeting is continued, the notice is given verbally at the initial meeting and that no further written notice is issued. She added that it is beyond the period where they could appeal the decision based on notice.
The motion was voted upon, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Adelman asked if there is an appeal process.
Ms. Guy stated that appeal is to Superior Court.
Mr. Adelman stated that the ACLU has expressed interest in this matter.
22 Chestnut Street
Nina Cohen and Craig Barrows submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the fence on the property line at the Hamilton St. sidewalk, beginning from the northwest corner of the main house and extending approximately 77’ along Hamilton Street, ending at the rear driveway, with a jog to the right to meet the garage. Fence to be red cedar and to have one matching gate with fence posts at either side. Fence height 68” including cap and post height 78”. Fence to be continuous, with posts and rails on inner side. Fence cap will have overhang of 1-2”. Fence to be painted house color.
Ms. Bellin asked what will be white.
Mr. Barrows stated that the posts, fence cap and horizontal at the bottom will be white. It will be slightly off the ground to keep it from rotting.
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.
Washington Square - Salem Common Tot Lot
Sarah Wheeler-Gaddipati, Chair 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. The proposal has already received approval from the Park and Recreation Commission and the Salem Common Neighborhood Association (SCNA). Also present was Jon Ninneman.
Ms. Gaddipati stated that the Committee has been in place for 1 ½ years and has researched several vendors and interviewed three. The vendor they prefer is due to customer service and experience with historical recommendations. They also had their second choice create a design similar to their first vendor. She stated that they have gone to Park and Recreation and had a meeting with SCNA to see where they stood with them. After getting Salem Historical Commission approval, they will start going public to seek corporate financing. The materials will be high density plastic and metal. They are trying to keep the plastic to a minimum and wood doesn’t seem to be an option with kids due injuries.
Mr. Ninneman stated that the metal is a treated metal, powder coated and/or Teflon coated steel. It has a 25 year warrantee. They are trying to keep the colors in a natural range, avoiding the yellows, blues and reds, being sensitive to the fact that it is a historical location.
Ms. Gaddipati stated that the estimated cost is $85,000-$100,000 and they have raised $15,000. They are seeking approval for the two options, from two separate manufacturers. The preferred design is $10-15,000 more.
Mr. Ninneman stated that the two designs are similar. There is a toddler play area and more of a 7-8-9 year old area with swings, along with handicapped accessible swings.
Ms. Diozzi asked if the proposed is within the existing tot lot footprint.
Mr. Ninneman replied in the affirmative, but that they are trying to use the space more efficiently.
Ms. Harper asked if there will be a different base material than is currently there.
Mr. Ninneman stated that it is currently wood chips and that there are other options available such as shredded rubber or poured mat. Shredded rubber is easier to contain, is more durable, less likely to blow away and less costly to maintain. The poured mat is very cushy, but very expensive.
Ms. Guy asked how environmentally safe is the shredded rubber.
Ms. Gaddipati stated that they ensured her that it was. She stated that there are 15 handicapped families living at the Salem Housing Authority property across the street and those children cannot use the playground that they overlook. They would like to switch out the bucket swings and there are some textured walls that they can access as well. She stated that they would like the poured flooring at least around the swings so a chair could wheel up and then be transferred.
Mr. Ninneman stated that there would be an area or a path to the swings.
Ms. Gaddipati stated that there will be benches around the perimeter which may be offered as a possible fundraiser. They may also offer flush brick inlay, so that the bricks can be bought for inscription.
Ms. Guy stated that paving surfaces are not within the Commission’s jurisdiction, but that she would not consider the rubber a natural paving surface. She noted that the Commission can still comment on the flush brick. She stated that the Commission could make a finding hat the rubber is flush and therefore paving material and not take a position on it. She stated that she felt the rubber is a gray area.
Mr. Hart suggested that the Commission review the equipment first and that the applicant’s come back with the surface choices as they get the funding.
Ms. Harper stated that she would like to see at least one section be accessible.
Ms. Guy suggested that the rubber surface be brick color. She stated that the green will not look like grass.
Alicia Hart, 47 Washington Square, questioned why the tot lot was being updated. She stated that she liked the existing materials, noting that it is understated. She stated that she felt an upgrade would be extending the purpose beyond what was originally intended. She was concerned about creating this really extremely large area, stating that the Common is not a playground, it is a military field.
Ms. Gaddipati stated that there is currently a 20 minute wait for children to get on the slide after 5:00 pm when parents get home from work and take their children to the park.
Ms. Hart stated that there are other playgrounds around Salem where parents can take their children.
Ms. Gaddipati stated that there are 108 families in Parents United. Some of the play dates are at the Common, but there is not enough for children to do. There are a lot of houses around that have been made into affordable condominiums for families. There nothing to do for older siblings and the current equipment is not safe.
Ms. Harper stated that she used to live at 78 Washington Square and that there has always been a playground there with lots of children. The current was installed in the 1970’s and the current proposal is it’s contemporary.
Ms. Hart stated that this is an historic common with historic buildings. She stated it does not have to necessarily serve the purpose of creating a child center on the Common, noting that that is a bonus. She stated that there is no responsibility to turn it into a playground and that she has concern with the historic nature of the common being disturbed. She stated that it looks like a circus or Disneyworld.
Ms. Guy asked if Ms. Hart attended the SCNA meetings when this was discussed.
Ms. Hart stated that she was not aware, that she is a member, but may have missed the notice.
Gabriel Ciocila, 11 Winter Street, stated that he was the Chairman of the Common Committee for the Salem Common Neighborhood Association and that the organization is supporting this effort. He noted that Philadelphia has a very modern playground in their Common, which is surrounded by historic properties and therefore it is possible to bring a good, modern playground to an historic neighborhood. He stated that Salem Common’s existing equipment is old and not optimally safe. He stated that the existing equipment does not meet current standards for child safety and that the playground has not been maintained and suffers from deferred maintenance.
Ms. Hart stated that she is not anti-child, but noted that people from all over the world come to Salem. She stated that these structure interrupt the view of the common and is an eyesore. She stated that she did not feel it was very good looking, and felt it was inconsistent with the tone of the neighborhood. She added that there is a need for playgrounds for kids, so that Salem is a family-friendly town, but felt that there needs to be a balance and felt that other locations should be considered. She stated that the Common ‘s McIntire replica fence is in desperate need of repair and has been neglected by the city for years. She stated that a new tot lot is a misdirection of what the Common needs. She stated that it will be a magnet for more kids on the Common and thought
that is a problem. She felt that there is a need to think more closely about the priorities for historic protection.
Ms. Guy asked if the equipment is available in other colors.
Ms. Gaddipati stated that there are many color choices available. She stated that lighter colors were not recommended for the slide because of scuffing.
Mr. Ninneman stated that they tried to stay away from bright colors and noted that lighter colors show the wear quicker.
Ms. Gaddipati stated that they could see if the canopy could be lowered or not have the canopy.
Ms. Guy asked the purpose of the canopy.
Mr. Ninneman stated that he did not know, but stated that it could be structural to tie the posts together for rigidity. He stated that it was designed so as not to be taller than the swings, which are roughly the height of the existing swings.
Ms. Diozzi stated that she did not feel it was a issue of the Common being quite now and that a new tot lot would make it noise. She stated that the Common is noisy, lively and wonderful now. She stated that she was concerned about the bright green, preferred the dark green, but liked the beige relief.
Ms. Gaddipati stated that their proposed vendor did MaryJane Lee Park, which is mostly in khaki colors. They also did Dick’s Park in Beverly on Route 127, the Beverly School for the Deaf (which has the rubber matting) and a huge handicapped accessible park in Peabody. The other company did the Boston Common.
Ms. Bellin stated that she was curious to see the color options, but felt the concept was fine.
Ms. Guy suggested looking into alternatives for the canopy, which will help make it less solid.
Ms. Harper suggested getting samples of the materials.
Ms. Gaddipati stated that she could try to get the samples.
Ms. Bellin suggested having a scale drawing showing the tot lot within the entire common, so the size can be viewed in context.
Mr. Hart agreed that a bird’s eye view would be helpful to see the existing configuration and superimpose the proposed configuration.
Ms. Guy suggested checking if there were environmental or choking hazards associated with the crushed rubber to babies, dogs, birds, etc.
Ms. Gaddipati stated that it is shredded and packs down when you walk on it. She was told it does not blow around.
Ms. Harper stated questioned if it would get tracked onto the grass. She stated that she would like to see the colors available for the rubber.
Mr. Hart stated that he heard the public comment and understood the concerns, but felt the common is pretty active, including softball, soccer, basketball and dog walkers.
Ms. Hart noted that those activities are fluid and move around, but this will be a permanent structure.
Mr. Hart noted that there are permanent structures currently on the Common and stated that the design is contemporary design so it won’t be mixed up with an historic building. He stated that he did not feel the proposed was overwhelming and had no problem with it.
Ms. Hart asked if the property was on the National Register and thought there might be constraints on it.
Ms. Diozzi stated that there are no constraints unless federal funds are involved.
Ms. Hart stated that if it is on the National Register, it is offered federal protection.
38.10
Ms. Guy stated that protection is limited to when the project has federal or state funding or permitting.
Mr. Hart stated that his understanding that if a structure or historic element is on the National Register you can still do almost anything to it unless $1 of federal funding or a required license under Section 106 or if it is a transportation project under 4F. He stated that he did not want to advertise that you can do almost anything to a National Register property, which provides only federal protection, but not private protection.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to the next meeting. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
143 Derby Street
Captain Dusty, Inc. submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the front two and one side window with windows that will open and provide ventilation. The application is also to paint the trim around the windows to match the sign color. Lisa and John Bartlett represented the corporation.
Ms. Bartlett stated that they want to change the windows in front to two double hung, so that it would have a single frame and larger mullion down the middle. The trim will match the color of the words “Captain Dusty” on the sign. She provided a paint chip of Violet Majesty, noting that it was not the exact color, but the closest she could find.
Ms. Diozzi asked about the shutters.
Ms. Bartlett stated that they would be the same purple or would be removed altogether. She stated that the windows will be wood.
Ms. Guy asked if they knew the window manufacturer.
Ms. Barlett stated that she did not know.
Mr. Hart stated that he would like to see the window specification.
Ms. Harper asked if the door will be painted in the purple.
Ms. Barlett stated that everything that is currently blue will be purple, as well as the door trim.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Ms. Guy read a letter from Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) to EBI Consulting regarding the telecommunications installation at 320 Lafayette Street and finding No Adverse Effect.
Ms. Guy stated that Catherine Miller, 15 Warren Street has requested an extension for their Certificate of Appropriateness for their fence approval for one year. Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the extension. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy read a letter from MHC to Children’s Friend and Family Services, Inc. regarding renovations at 110 Boston Street and finding No Adverse Effect.
Ms. Guy stated that she forwarded an email on 6/3/08 from Icon Architecture concerning structural reinforcement required for the Salem State College Interim Library in Building 1 at Central Campus. The Commission did not have any comment.
J. Michael Ruane Judicial Center
Ms. Guy stated that on 6/3/08 she forwarded a letter from DCAM to MHC dated 6/3/08 concerning the J. Michael Ruane Judicial Center design review process.
Ms. Guy also distributed copies of letters from HSI dated 5/20/08 and 5/30/08 to DCAM.
Ms. Guy explained that Ms. Herbert did not have a draft letter….see tape. Mr. Hart stated that he felt a written statement is still good to fall back on.
Mary Whitney, 356 Essex Street, stated that at the 30% public meeting held at the Bentley School, Commissioner Perrini stated that there are state guidelines for courthouse design, which is the reason that they cannot reuse the current courthouses. She asked if the state ever provided a copy of the guidelines. Ms. Bellin stated that anyone can make a public records request. Ms. Guy will send an email to DCAM and inquire.
Ms. Harper read a section of the state’s guidelines which explains why the foundation for the church should not be built to 100%.
Abutter Notice Policy
Ms. Guy provided examples of abutting parcels at 100’, 200’ and 300’ for each district. She stated that 100’ does not necessarily cover abutters, abutters to abutters and people across the street, but that 300’ was extremely large and has resulted in an exorbitant amount of mail that the city is sending. She asked if the Commission would adopt a policy that goes back to the prior method or for 200’ or something in between. Ms. Bellin made a motion that, at a minimum, notices be sent to abutters, abutters to abutters, people across the street and their abutters, regardless of whether they are within the district, and any larger area as the Clerk of the Commission may deem appropriate. Mr. Hart 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
| 
