SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
April 1, 2009
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, April 1, 2009 at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Chairman Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Ms. Bellin, Mr. Desrocher and Mr. Hart. Ms. McCrea arrived later in the meeting.
315 Essex Street
Stephen Morris presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to change the first floor street façade to make more residential and various other additional window locations. The ground floor of the building is being changed to 4 residential apartments. David Jaquith, architect, 81 Railroad Avenue, Rowley, MA 01969, provided drawings and photographs.
Mr. Jaquith stated that the first floor was initially going to remain commercial, but with the market change, they have decided to change to residential. The upper two floors have 13 SRO’s which are fully occupied. The first floor will have three 1-bedroom units and one 2-bedroom unit. He stated that they intend to use the same windows previously approved for the first floor. He added that they have gone to the Zoning Board of Appeals once to change from commercial to residential and are going back on April 15th. He noted that the ZBA did not want the storefronts retained, so they are proposing to take the storefronts out. Otherwise there will be no other changes except for a few added windows on each side.
Mr. Morris stated that the units will be apartments and not condos, which looks like the only thing that is viable. He believed the building was built in 1910.
Mr. Jaquith described the window changes on the plans and noted that one door will be blocked up. The rear will remain as approved.
Ms. Herbert suggested some kind of molding be installed under the band across the front. She suggested a simple cap and base for the corner columns that makes it a little more sympathetic.
Ms. McCrea joined the meeting at this time.
Ms. Herbert asked if they will add a water table.
Mr. Jaquith stated that they added one in the back, but they do not plan one for the front.
Ms. Herbert suggested putting a veneer over the front band so that it is a smooth surface.
Mr. Jaquith stated that the joints will be visible, but that they could plan the joint location. He stated that it may work better to remove the band and putting up plywood. He noted that the brick will remain.
Ms. Herbert suggested raising the pediment because it looks squatty.
Mr. Jaquith stated that he could add some base to it and pull the line of the pediment up.
Mr. Morris stated that they could install elongated raised panels instead of the band and keep it centered over the windows for symmetrics.
Mr. Hart suggested sending the Commission members a PDF of the revised elevation prior to the next meeting.
Ms. Herbert asked if the body color will remain the same.
Mr. Morris replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Herbert stated that the downspouts should be painted the same color as the surface they are over.
Ms. Harper asked if the windows were approved, because they look so different from what is upstairs.
Mr. Jaquith replied in the affirmative and stated that they needed a little more light and a higher ceiling on the first floor. They are consistent on the first floor.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to the meeting of April 15, 2009. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
10 Chestnut Street
Marshall Strauss and Elaine Gerdine presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to changed the approved capstones for the wall extensions to shaped concrete capstones formed to echo the slope of the current granite capstones on the main wall.
Ms. Herbert stated that she remembered that there would be some metal on the corners.
Ms. Gerdine stated that it was optional, but they are not planning to install it.
Mr. Strauss stated that they are considering requesting putting metal work on the front of the house that would echo what was there already, reusing a piece that was there already.
Ms. Gerdine stated that they were originally planning to use granite capstones on the two wall extensions.
Mr. Strauss stated that their contractor has suggested using concrete, using the same shape, color and texture as the granite. It would look starkly different if it were granite because it would look new (thick slab). He stated that the contractor has indicated that it could be cone in a way to give the impression of segments.
Ms. Herbert asked if it would be prohibitively expensive to get it in big thick granite.
Ms. Strauss stated that they know it would be expensive because it would be 6-7” thick granite that would need to be shaped, which is the real expense. He stated that it won’t look identical, but will closer echo to what is there.
Mr. Hart stated that they could probably match the color, but it will clearly look like concrete, not granite.
Mr. Desrocher suggested having a smaller profile, so that it looks more obviously different.
Mr. Hart preferred, if concrete, to replicate the shape.
Ms. Gerdine stated that the original idea was to use modern materials on the wall extensions but in the same style as the main wall. She stated that instead of keeping the material and changing the shape, they decided to keep the shape and change the material.
Mr. Strauss stated that they have wondered Salem and Marblehead and found a surprising high number of concrete capstones, especially for older walls. In some cases they assumed they were granite, but when came up close found many to be concrete.
Mr. Hart suggested talking to the fabricator to see if they can make a rubber impression of the existing.
Ms. Herbert stated that she felt it was okay as long as they try to match the color and texture. She stated that there is historic precedent for concrete.
Mr. Strauss stated that they will be coming back to deal with gates.
Mr. Hart suggested they inquire as to the replication process and report back.
Ms. Herbert suggested that the mason create a small piece, photograph it and send a copy so the Commission can see if they are able to achieve the color and texture close enough.
Mr. Hart stated that it is critical that they use the same sand throughout or they will get varying results.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to the May 6th meeting. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
316 Essex Street – First Church – Discussion
Steve Palmer, representing the First Church, and Lynne Spencer of Menders, Torrey & Spencer, Inc., architects, were present.
Ms. Spencer stated that she is providing consultation to the Church for proposed phased improvements. She stated that the Church was built in 1865 with Quincy granite. It has pointed windows, stained and clear glass and gothic revival elements. It has a 1927 addition. In 2000, a existing conditions assessment was done and the Church has since gotten a $100,000 Massachusetts Preservation Projects Fund grant. They are currently looking at sustainability, accessibility and energy conservation. They are proposing a modification of the rear addition, including an elevator and a new walkway with grade changes, along with interior improvements. The proposed addition is 15’10” x 20’ or 320 s.f. They will also remove the exterior fire escape and create a second
egress on the interior with an internal staircase. She noted that the 1927 addition is stucco. They propose to reuse windows and recycle windows from other churches. The new addition will have a slightly lower roof line. She reviewed conceptual drawings.
Mr. Hart suggested trying to differential the addition in a subtle way, such as offsetting it a couple inches instead of having a flat plane. He suggested that the Bowditch House and Witch House be added to future drawings. He stated that the architects have done a thoughtful job.
Other Business
Minutes
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of 6/4/08. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of 8/4/08. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Desrocher made a motion to approve the minutes of 3/4/09. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Correspondence
Ms. Guy stated that she received a copy of the PNF for Hawthorne Cove Marina. Mr. Hart will review the PNF and prepare any comments for the next meeting.
Violations
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission has been working to get rid of some of the older violations on the list. She had two items on the violation list to review, which she believed were no longer in violation.
Ms. Guy stated that 3 Harrington Court was a violation against the prior owner for a satellite dish and for porch alterations. The Commission had a Clerk’s Certificate of Vote against the property, but removed it in order for the new owners to purchase it, in exchange for their commitment to correct the violations. Photographs of existing conditions were provided. Ms. Herbert made a motion to find that the violations no longer exist and to remove it from the list of open violations. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy stated that in discussion with Lynn Duncan, it was suggested that for violations for which a certificate is issued, the certificate state the requirement that the owner send a photograph as proof that the violation has been corrected.
Ms. Herbert thought it was a great idea.
Ms. Guy stated that she has reviewed the list and that for anything that was on the violation list, but did not have a violation letter in the file, she removed from the list. She also added anything for which the Commission recently sent a violation letter. She stated that she is trying to get the oldest ones off.
Ms. Guy stated that 25 Washington Square also had violations on the prior owner, including roof eave, fascia and porch rails. The new owners had gotten approval for several improvements including improvements that would correct the violations. She provided photographs of the existing conditions. Ms. Herbert made a motion to find that the violations no longer exist and to remove it from the list of open violations. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy suggested for the remaining open violations that a letter be sent to the owner requesting that they send a photograph that documents that the violation has been rectified.
Ms. Guy stated that 183R Federal Street is the house that put in the Harvey windows. She stated that she got a call from the wife, who stated that they are having a problem getting the contractor back and wanted to know if she could come in and discuss keeping them. Ms. Guy is under the impression that they are planning to sell the house. She informed the owner that it was unlikely that the Commission would let them keep the vinyl windows. She explained that if the windows are not done by the deadline, that the Commission will file a clerk’s certificate of vote. She stated that the deadline is 5/7/09 and suggested that the Commission start the violation process at the May 20th meeting. Ms. Herbert stated that the owners could initiate a claim in small claims against the
contractor. She also noted that one of the other units have gone into foreclosure. Ms. Guy stated that the wife mentioned it and stated that the remaining condo owners have to make up the difference in condo fees, which is why they don’t have the money to do the work. She stated that they could make it part of the sale and have an escrow.
Roofs
Mr. Hart stated that he did not have to go far to find architectural roofs near his house and that the Commission members have gotten copies of the emails between him and Ms. Guy. He noted that Ms. Guy now issues Certificates that specify 3-tab, rather than just stating replace “in-kind”.
She noted that one problem may be that the homeowner gets the certificate, but does not inform the contractor. She stated that the City has a new FAQ’s program on the website, for which she can add an FAQ about architectural shingles.
Ms. McCrea suggested talking to the building inspector to ask them to be aware when roof replacement building permits are issued.
Ms. Harper stated that the guidelines need to be updated.
There being no further business, Ms. Bellin made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission
| 
