SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
May 20, 2009
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, May 20, 2009 at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Ms. McCrea and Mr. Hart.
329 Essex street
In continuation of a previous meeting, Eric and Dorothy Hayes submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for trim paint color and installation of air conditioning condensers.
Ms. Guy read a request from the applicants to continue the application to the first meeting in June.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to continue the application to June 3, 2009. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
10 Chestnut
In continuation of a previous meeting, 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. Guy read an email request for a continuance to the next meeting.
Ms. Herbert 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.
13 River
In continuation of a previous meeting, Delpar, LLC submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to reconstruct front door trim.
Ms. Guy stated that she did not believe the applicants were coming to this meeting, but would be at the next meeting.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to continue the application to the next meeting.
Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
47 Washington Square North
Barbara Swartz presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace existing replacement windows with new Pella Architect Series or Jeldwen Siteline Ex wood replacement windows in 6 over 6, to replace the rear door with like Simpson fir door, replace wood shakes on rear with cedar clapboard 4” to weather to match rest of house, and to install a new Pella or Jeld-wen 6 over 6 double hung window that will be approximately 20” shorter than those on the front façade. Present were Ms. Swartz and her brother, Steve Swartz, who owns the contracting firm, Carnegie Development.
Mr. Swartz stated that they have decided to go with the Pella window.
Ms. Guy asked if it will have 7/8 muntins and bronze spacers.
Mr. Swartz replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the replacement of existing windows with Pella Architect Series Wood Double Hung Windows with ILT’s, 7/8” muntin, with bronze spacers.
Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Swartz stated that they want to put the transom back in, but will try to get it to line up with the door. The glass size will be the same.
Ms. Herbert stated that it will be nice to have the new windows line up with door, noting that it currently looks a little strange.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to replace the rear door to replicate existing and to replace the transom above to be adjusted so window glass lines up with glass in door.
Ms. McCrea seconded the motion.
Mr. Hart asked if they are keeping the storm windows.
Ms. Swartz replied in the affirmative.
The motion was voted on, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to the replacement of wood shakes on rear with cedar clapboard, 4: to weather to match rest of house.
Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Swartz provided a sketch of the location of the new window and stated that they want Pella 6 over 6, double hung, so that the windows will look same, with same width, molding, shutters and flower box. However the window will be just slightly shorter. It will be roughly centered between the door and the edge of the building, but may be a few inches off.
Ms. Herbert asked if they will do anything with the vent.
Ms. Swartz stated that it will probably be modified.
Mr. Hart suggested painting it.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve a new 6 over 6 window to the right of the rear door in addition, 20” shorter than those in front, with matching shutters and window box, and with a new vent below of minimal profile painted to match body color of building.
Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert suggested plantings to disguise fact that window is shorter.
Mr. Hart asked if the head height of the new window will match.
Mr. Swartz replied in the affirmative. He stated that the head height will match, but will be 20” shorter from the bottom.
87 Federal Street
Ray Young submitted an application for a Certificate of Non-applicability to install a new section of roof in the rear of the house to match existing.
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.
Other
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the minutes of April 1, 2009. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the minutes of April 15, 2009. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy stated that she received a letter from the MBTA dated 5/8/09 regarding the repair/rehabilitation of the railroad bridge between Beverly and Salem. Mr. Hart suggested sending a letter saying that the Commission awaits the cultural resources survey report from the Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc.
Ms. Guy stated that she received a copy of a letter from Massachusetts Historical Commission the City of Salem dated 5/4/09 stating that they need additional information regarding the project.
Roofing
Mr. Hart stated that he would like to take step back and think about what it is that the Commission wants to recommend, such as whether a replacement roof should emulates wood shingles or slate.
Ms. Guy asked if the Commission even wants a replacement roof to emulate anything.
Ms. Herbert stated that what to consider includes pitch, exposure and different fenestrations, such as gables. She stated that every roof is different and the way that the sun hits it can make a huge difference. She stated that she thought the 4 Federal Court shingles look good on that house, but may not look good on another house that had more angles. She noted that some 3-tab black asphalt roofs on larger roofs are too much roof and look like cheap installations. In those case, we may want to have more dimension. She stated that it really needs to remain case by case.
Ms. Guy suggested listing the things that the Commission will take into consideration.
Mr. Hart noted that Victorian styles have a variety of different roof configurations, such as scalloped, flat and v-shaped. He stated he did not object to attractive roofs, but objected to random, architectural roofs with angles. He agreed some flexibility could be introduced on a case by case basis. He stated that an architectural shingle on a relatively flat pitch can be hardly noticeable.
Ms. Harper stated that some architectural shingles look very good and some do not. She stated that she did not know if it was the difference in manufacturers, combined with the height of the building, pitch in roof, style or color. She added that she feels color makes the biggest difference.
Ms. Diozzi stated that there is a big Italianate on North Street with a light brown roof and it looks stunning on that house.
The Commission determined that the elements to consider include shape, exposure, house style, roof color, roof pitch, building height, and roof features (dormers, etc.).
Ms. Herbert agreed that the decision will be based on the various elements that effect the appearance of the material to be used.
Ms. Harper stated that the Commission needs to be sensitive to the homeowner’s desire to put a roof on that is going to protect their house for a longer period of time. She stated that it is a huge expense and did not feel that a lot of the architecturals are bad at all.
Ms. Guy will distribute another draft.
Ms. Guy noted that she is sending out an email to members regarding solar shingles from This Old House.
Ms. Harper stated that we may need to think about considering colors that absorb more sun.
Ms. Herbert stated that tawny roofs that mimic wood shingles could be considered in certain situations.
Ms. Guy agreed that maybe black and charcoal are preferred in situations where you are trying to not draw attention to the roof. She suggested that the Commission think about whether the Commission wants to the guidelines to say that black and charcoal gray are preferred.
There being no further business, Ms. Herbert made a motion to adjourn. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission
| 
