SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
June 3, 2009
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, June 3, 2009 at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Harper, Mr., Hart, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Herbert and Ms. McCrea. Ms. Diozzi arrived later in the meeting.
385 Essex Street
Grace Church submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the front left and right wooden gutters, which have rotted and partially fallen and to replace 3 or 4 downspouts. Due to financial constraints, the church would like to replace with aluminum gutters. Present were Anne Busteed and Bob Cole. A section of the proposed gutter was provided.
Ms. Herbert asked if it were available in bronze color.
Mr. Cole replied in the affirmative. A color chart was provided.
Ms. Herbert stated that cream will show dirt.
Mr. Hart asked if it will be aluminum downspouts.
Mr. Cole replied in the affirmative and stated that they will be fluted and in same size as is there now.
Mr. Hart stated that he thought bronze would jump out. He stated that he would tend to match the trim.
Mr. Cole stated that the trim is deep cream.
Ms. Busteed noted that there is no trim down the side.
Ms. Diozzi joined the meeting at this time.
Ms. Busteed stated that she would like it to be as neutral as possible. She stated that there are no plans to repaint, but felt that the trim would always be a cream color.
Ms. Herbert stated that she preferred to mimic copper with the bronze color, which would look like aged copper.
Mr. Hart stated that he preferred the copper color on the downspouts but ivory on the gutters.
Ms. Busteed stated that the church has copper. She noted that there will be 2 downspouts
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve aluminum gutters and downspouts in cream. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Diozzi abstained from voting.
9 Chestnut Street
Hamilton Hall, Inc. submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to add a wrought iron railing to the Cambridge side entrance. The new railing will be the same design as the existing railing at the Chestnut Street entrance. Present, representing the applicant, was John Seger of Grey Architects.
Ms. Harper abstained from the discussion.
Mr. Seger stated that they propose to replicate the handrail on the Chestnut Street side. The temporary handrail has been removed.
Ms. Herbert asked how long ago the Chestnut Street handrail was installed.
Mr. Seger stated that he did not know.
Ms. Herbert stated that it has sort of a 1950s flair. She stated that she thought it would be better without curly-q’s.
Mr. Seger stated that they debated whether to go simple or to be consistent with what was there. He noted that the rail will go beyond the column at the top step.
Ms. Herbert suggested having something simple so as not to compete with the columns, such as one piece of flat metal with one support and maybe a finial.
Ms. Diozzi questioned if there was shrubbery near the Chestnut Street entrance. She stated that she also preferred a simpler rail design.
Ms. Herbert noted that there are no columns on the Chestnut Street side.
Ms. Diozzi stated that she thought it is impossible to see them together.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Seger stated that they want the balusters in order to prevent children from going through. He stated that they will be adding a granite slab if approved at next meeting
Ms. Herbert suggested that the application be continued. She stated that she will get examples of some rails.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to the next meeting.
Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Harper abstained from voting.
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 noted that Ms. Bellin and Ms. McCrea could not vote on the application.
Consultant Bill Finch stated that a paint analysis was done and provided a copy to the Commission. He stated that it was determined that the first 5 generations of paint were one solid color. He stated that the original color has been matched to Sherman Williams 6128. Sash was identified as very dark brown, with black in later layers. He stated that the owner would like option to paint black, noting that they have already been approved for the very dark brown Benjamin Moore 2114-10. He stated that the shutters are going back on and will be dark green - Sherman Williams 6216 - matched to 2 shutters found in basement.
John Carr, 7 River Street, stated that it sounds terrific.
Mr. Hart asked the color for the door.
Mr. Finch stated that they will try to clean it up and varnish with a natural finish.
Mr. Hayes stated that it was always unfinished.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the paint colors as submitted.
Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Bellin and Ms. McCrea abstained from voting.
Mr. Finch stated that he has researched available condensers and found Lennox condensers have a lower decibel rating than American Standard. 2 ton and 2 ½ ton units have a sound rating of 63 dB. 4 ton is 70 dB, and 3 ton is 66 dB. He stated that they will be installed on the bed & breakfast side of house.
Mr. Hart stated that if they get noise complaints after installation, they may need to shield the units in order to send the noise upward.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the Lennox air conditional units as proposed.
Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion co carried. Ms. Bellin and Ms. McCrea abstained from voting.
Eric and Dorothy Hayes presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace all roofing and gutters and to repair chimneys.
Mr. Finch stated that 80% of the work is restoration. He stated that the original was Welsh purple slate on pitched roofs. The flat and dormer roofs originally were flat seemed tin. They are proposing Welsh purple slate to go on all pitched roofs. The 5 dormer roofs, the 3 window heads and the 2 gable roofs are to be lead coated copper. The main flat roof will be red copper (flat soldered seem) and the entry porch roof will be copper. The various window roofs that are flashed will be red copper. The 2 flat roofs on rear roofs will be EDPM. One higher flat roof in rear ell will be EDPM. The gutters are to be all red copper. There will be red copper hips. There will be conventional brass snow guards (3 rail system) in locations on drawings.
Mr. Hart stated that the flat roofs are not visible from street and that Welsh purple slate is certainly appropriate.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the roof, gutters, downspouts & snow guards as presented.
Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion co carried.
Mr. Finch stated that there are 3 chimneys – 2 ornamental, and 1 rudimentary. The #1 chimney on the Cambridge St. side is not feasible to repoint and needs to come down. They can reuse a substantial number of bricks and will try to match any new brick as best as possible. For the #2 chimney on the bed/breakfast side, the top course needs to be rebuilt and Mr. Finch believe the rest can just be repointed. The rear chimney is in the same condition as the #2 chimney. All work is essentially in kind.
Mr. Hart asked if they will cricket the chimneys.
Mr. Finch replied in the affirmative for chimney #1 yes, and in the negative for the remaining two. They will reflash.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-applicability for the chimney work as proposed. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion co 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.
Mr. Strauss stated that the original permission was for granite capstones on the extension walls. He stated that they decided to give prominence to shape as opposed to material. He noted that at the last meeting the question was if they could get reasonable feel in terms of texture and color. They provided two samples. He stated that the samples show that it will be indistinguishable in texture and shading. The capstone will have the apex and the shaping will mimic.
Ms. Herbert asked the granite thickness.
Mr. Straus stated that it is 5”, with the middle being an extra ½-3/4 inch. He noted that because the 150 year old granite is weathered, it has a variability to the tone.
Ms. Gerdine stated that they will be able to mix it so as to vary the tone in the concrete.
Mr. Hart stated that he would like a field visit. He stated that he felt there is a disparity in the old and new bricks.
Ms. Herbert wondered if there was more that can be done to age it up.
Mr. Strauss stated that the Commission has their permission to step onto the property. He stated that the inside of the wall is the newly manufactured brick, which has been up longer than the outside of the extensions, and it has been washed and the mortar is drying/setting.
Ms. Herbert stated that her first thought was to get ivy growing on it.
Mr. Strauss stated that there is also an optical illusion where it appears that it is not even. They are going to take down 8 courses of brick and relay them with a 1/16” difference to counteract the optical illusion.
Ms. Herbert stated that the house is painted, so it would be appropriate to paint the wall.
Mr. Strauss questioned the extent to which the mortar should be raked out. The old brick in the center wall has a very decisive raking out, and the newer wall does not. It creates a different shadowing effect.
Ms. Herbert stated that it should match.
Mr. Strauss stated there are two different approached and asked if they should make the statement that the wings are newly built and echo the old, or try to mimic the old .
Ms. Herbert stated that she thought it should be a little of each. She stated there is new and old brick, and felt that the mortar treatment should act the same way with the shadowing as a compromise.
Mr. Hart stated that he felt a field visit is needed.
Jim Kearney, 1 ½ Cambridge Street, asked about the color of the grout.
Ms. Gerdine stated that it changes with time is what the mason assures. She noted that the for the inside wall, that has been up for six months, the mortar has darkened. She stated that the inside has the same brick and same mortar as the extensions, but currently looks different.
Mr. Kearney stated that the bonding pattern is different on the wings.
Ms. Gerdine stated that it was intentional, so as to keep the distinction.
Mr. Hart stated that the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards say that new objects should not be exactly as the old and that there should be distinction between the two. He stated that he would not want to exactly match them.
Ms. Diozzi asked if it was English or Flemish bond.
Ms. Gerdine stated that it is not Flemish and that it is either English or American. She stated that the house if Flemish bond on the street sides, but they cheap out and start turning things less frequently on the back.
Ms. Herbert stated that a coat of white paint will solve all these problems.
A site visit was scheduled for Wednesday, June 10, 2009 at 6:30 p.m.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to continue the application to next meeting. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion co carried
13 River St.
In continuation of a previous meeting, Delpar, LLC submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to reconstruct front door trim. Present were Ray Dellovo and Marc Parella
Mr. Dellovo stated that they are proposing going from black to Beetroot for the door color.
John Carr, 7 River Street, stated that he thought the color was great.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve Beetroot for the door color. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion co carried
Mr. Parella withdrew the window boxes from the application.
Mr. Dellovo stated that they had a problem with removing the storm door, which pulled off wood underneath. To fix it, he put in piece of ¾ trim around. The result doesn’t show the depth of the fluted columns as vibrantly. He noted that the door is very out of square.
Ms. Herbert stated that what was there to hold the storm, was probably not original. She asked if it was flush from the column over to the door opening.
Mr. Dellovo replied in the affirmative and stated that he added wood over it which is why you see a variation. He stated that if he tried to bring it together, there would be a visible seam and they would have to fill most of it, because there is no way to get a tool in there to get it straight. He stated that he proposed to take off the 3 brackets. He stated that he bought a piece of crown with dentil to put underneath and would return it on the sides. He would like to dress up the top piece with a molding.
Ms. Herbert stated that there is molding there on the face of lentil but it is full of paint and putty. She stated that it so should be replaced with like molding.
Mr. Dellovo stated that he would also like to take off the band molding above the columns, a decorative piece on the facia board of the lentil system. He stated he is concerned about snow loads and ice. He stated that, when removed, they need to make sure to put up some sort of carrying board behind the crown molding.
Ms. Herbert stated that they should replace band molding on the fluted column under header of column.
Mr. Carr stated that he was a little nervous because there is no drawing. He noted it is classic entablature and, wherever possible, they should try to replicate what was original.
Mr. Hart stated that he looked at it pretty carefully, as well as a lot of entablatures around the neighborhood. He stated that typical configuration of a simple hood and a simple molding, and not much else. He suggested not replacing original material, and just leaving it.
Ms. Herbert noted that there are no returns on some of the pieces of molding.
Mr. Hart stated that missing returns did not bother him. He stated that there are many examples in the neighborhood with just a straight shot and no returns.
Ms. Herbert stated that it bothered her and suggested getting the exact same thing with the return on it.
Mr. Hart stated that he was nervous about tinkering with something that was simple and dressing it up. He suggested removing the brackets and see if the hood is sturdy enough to stay.
Mr. Carr stated that he preferred simplicity. He stated that the goal should be to save original building fabric. He noted that the doorway is the only interesting feature of the house. He stated that he would hesitate to take it off.
Ms. Herbert stated that agreed that simpler was better and that she was okay with having no returns, but noted that if it has a miter cut, then it had a return.
Mr. Hart believed it was mitered, but noted that there are a lot of examples of straight along the street.
Mr. Carr stated that it appears to be straight cut.
Ms. Herbert stated that it is mitered on the inside. She stated that one thing they did do was symmetry and doubted then mitered the inside and not the outside.
Mr. Dellovo stated that it looks like it could be mitered, but he can’t be positive. He stated that he preferred to leave it and that he would not use the dentil.
Ms. Herbert questioned what to do if it is not stable after taking off brackets. She stated that the brackets were put there for a reason. She noted that the owners are not legally required to change it.
Mr. Hart stated that when it was originally built, it was fixed into the frame.
Jeremiah Jennings, 18 River Street, suggest putting a 2 x 2 underneath, take the brackets out and see if stays. If it doesn’t, he suggested they go to Home Depot and buy some metal ell brackets, pull out 3 clapboards on the top, screw the brackets into a stud and into the top of the hood, leave them short so you can’t see them down below and it will hold it up.
Phillip Palella, 16 Dartmouth St. Beverly, agreed that they could use ell brackets and feather joint compound so it is not visible to the eye.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to remove 3 brackets on lentil above door and attempt to leave lentil as is. If lentil is not stable, utilize ell brackets above, hidden underneath the clapboards so as not to be visible, as means of support. Band molding running above door, but below lentil, with mitered edge will not be removed, but attempt to find a close match to put returns on that piece. Band molding on top of finger grooved column will attempt to replicate a return piece as well on the street side.
Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion co carried
Ms. Herbert stated that the last piece is the infill around the door.
Photos of what was done were provided.
Mr. Dellovo stated that if they take off the molding, it could be matched in, but a seam will be visible, resulting in a lot of caulking which could result in a lot of water problems.
Mr. Jennings suggested running vertical band molding to cover that seam.
Ms. Herbert stated that it would not look historically appropriate. She stated that the columns are the decorative element on this door front and the idea was to have a smooth, clean wood face that goes into the door opening, without any disturbance, so that the columns are clearly the decorative element.
Mr. Dellovo stated another solution could be to take off the ¾ board and put in ¼ board to the flute, so the thickness of the flute will be more vibrant. He noted that he preferred to leave what he has done because it is completely sealed.
Ms. Herbert stated that because the door is out of square, that piece of wood stayed in one position and the door went another. It would have to be scribed in there.
Mr. Dellovo stated that you can only get the joint so tight and it is not fair to the people who buy the house. He noted it is completed sealed as is now.
Mr. Carr stated what was done looks gross, and is inappropriate. He stated that the flutes are supposed to pop out from the plane that they jump out of. He stated that it competes with the flutes. He stated that whatever is in the neighborhood’s interest is in their interest.
Mr. Jennings stated that underneath new trim is another piece of trim that he can see. He suggested passing a saw and making a straight cut, putting in a couple of bisquit joints in there and stick another piece in there and put a little caulking in.
Mr. Dellovo stated that it can be done, but it won’t look as clean as what was done, noting that it is lapped and caulked, backed with foam insulation, so there is no water getting in there. He stated that the house is crooked.
Mr. Jennings agreed that the columns should stand out. He stated that it being all original is a good selling point.
Mr. Dellovo stated that if they take it off, which he is willing to do, it will be seamed together, scribed and filled with caulk.
Mr. Jennings stated that there is the same basic vertical joint at corner boards where it meets the clapboards.
Mr. Dellovo stated that ice and snow will be dripping off that.
Mr. Carr stated that a flush plane is what was there.
Mr. Hart stated that he like the idea of bisquiting and using waterproof glue so they don’t have to mess with caulk.
Mr. Dellovo stated that the sheathing is not truly plumb, so there will be some variation and will see overlap, one board higher and one board lower. He stated that it won’t look as clean as it is there now. He stated that they were willing to do it, however.
Ms. Herbert asked if the wood was rotted where the storm door was attached.
Mr. Dellovo replied in the affirmative. He stated that they did have to cut out some rot.
Ms. Harper agreed that it won’t look as clean, that it will be hard to get something in there to cut and that there will always be a seam visible. She suggested using epoxy for waterproofing.
Mr. Dellovo stated that from the bottom of the jamb to the top it goes from 0 to 3 ½”, which shows how crooked it is.
Ms. Herbert suggest taking it back to the column on both sides and then putting in a whole new face piece around, butting right to the column and epoxy in any irregularities.
Ms. Dellovo stated that it was a good point and that he could take a chance and put the blade as deep as it can go and run right on top of the flute. He stated that there was no guarantee that he won’t damage the flute.
Ms. Herbert stated that there is so much globbed paint on the columns, so a knick could be filled in. She stated that the fence is handsome and that, although they did not have to, the owners took up concrete and have the garden running down to the fence. They also exposed the granite hearth, and put in pea stone and stepping stones. She noted that they have done a lot of extras, including building the neighbor’s fence at no charge.
Ms. Diozzi stated that there were several things to consider. She stated that her first priority would be the waterproofing, and then also consider clean cuts and historicity. She asked what the options are for waterproofing.
Ms. Herbert asked if it is one large flat piece of wood under with columns attached to it or several pieces of wood with columns over.
Mr. Dellovo showed on the picture where there was a piece of strapping added for the storm door.
Ms. Harper stated that it is possible to be opening up the corner to water problems. There will be a seam there and the question is how clean a cut they can get.
Mr. Dellovo stated that he will try to do it, if that is what people want.
Mr. Carr suggested trying and seeing if it will work.
Mr. Hart stated that if it is brought back to flush appearance, it will make a dramatic difference in the front entry.
Ms. Diozzi asked what kind of waterproofing or treatment can be done if brought back.
Mr. Dellovo stated that they can epoxy it, because there will be a butt joint. He noted that the exterior sheathing is all crooked, so there still may be variations on the column.
Mr. Carr stated that one of the nice things about old houses is that nothing is flush or at right angles.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to remove the added surround and replace it with wood to be flush from the opening of the door jamb to the column as would have been original.
Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion co carried
Mr. Jennings stated that there appears to be some extra wood added around the front windows and wondered if it had been applied for.
Ms. Herbert noted that it was built out a little to accommodate the old clapboards.
Mr. Dellovo stated that not all of the windows have it.
Mr. Jennings stated that he did not think it looks good and did not understanding the reasoning.
Mr. Dellovo stated that some of the clapboards were shorter and he did not want water leaking into the house, so he added little filler strips pieces in different areas of the windows. He stated that a prior owner had changed the windows. He stated that the most added are 1” or 1 ½” to seal it properly.
Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission previously approved removal of shingles and replacement of clapboard, trim and watertable, as needed.
Ms. Guy noted that the application is still open.
Ms. Harper noted that it just makes the casing a little bit wider.
Mr. Jennings stated that it looks out of place. He stated that the owners should have applied for it instead of making a change on the fly. He felt it could have been remedied easier by taking the molding off and moving it out.
Mr. Palella questioned if there would have been an issue of removing 1” to 1 ½” of original molding rather than adding ¾” to fill the gap.
Ms. Herbert stated that Mr. Jennings was suggesting reusing the old molding.
Mr. Jennings stated that the header piece might have required a longer piece.
Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Ms. McCrea and Ms. Bellin stated that they had no problem with the filler.
Mr. Hart stated that he was neutral, recognizing that it is a difficult problem to deal with.
Ms. Herbert noted that these are not even the original windows and that they have been adjusted.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve a Certificate of Hardship to adjust window casings as has been completed to add roughly ¾” to 1” on certain windows.
Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion co carried
95 Federal Street
William Aydelott, Robert and Jan Kendall, Denae Comrie and Mary Ellen Forster submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove a deck with attached lattice work, as has already been removed.
Mr. Hart recused himself from the discussion.
Ms. Guy read a letter from the applicants concerning the status of restoring the widows walk balustrade.
Ms. Herbert stated that she had no problem with deck/lattice removal.
Ms. Herbert made a motion for removal of lattice fencing, wooden deck in front side yard.
Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion co carried. Mr. Hart abstained from voting..
Ms. Herbert noted that a trellis and 4 separate raised garden bed frames were also removed.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to remove the arbor and 4 raised garden bed frames.
Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion co carried. Mr. Hart abstained from voting..
Mr. Aydelott stated that they are having ongoing roof and gutter issues.
Ms. Herbert was curious why gutters were replaced. She stated that the house had 8” cedar gutters brought down from Canada and installed in 1984.
Ms. Kendall stated that they have constant water problems.
Mr. Aydelott stated that they are looking at various solutions to the water problems and stated that everything is rotted at the common entryway and they are looking into using plastic composit. He stated that the balusters cannot be leaned on and many of the balusters are rotted, as well as the columns by the sidewalk.
Ms. Herbert stated that those are all Walnut and were installed in 1984.
Mr. Aydelott stated that they need to finally get the roof and gutter situation under control first and have a better economic situation.
Ms. Kendall stated that the widows walk had been stored under the side porch, which became rat infested, exterminators came for months and everything was cleaned out and removed.
Mr. Aydelott stated that the widows walk would have to be rebuilt from scratch. He noted that he did not even know there was a widows walk.
Ms. Herbert stated she imported period doors, windows and trim when she completed the project in 1984. The widows walk was already gone at that time, but from a picture supplied by the Arlander’s, she rebuilt it in pine, which she admitted was not the best material. She stated that she had to rebuild it 10 years later, in 1994, after it rotted out. She noted that the house was in pristine condition when it was sold. She hoped that the widows walk could some day be rebuilt again, even if in 10 years.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve a Certificate of Hardship to remove the widows walk and to encourage the owners to come back with a design for reinstallation after the water problems have been solved and the economy is better.
Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Hart abstained from voting..
Mr. Kendall asked if they need to do anything with the Commission with regard to the porch.
Ms. Guy stated that they need to apply for any work being done to the exterior. It could simply be an application for non-applicability which she can turn around in 2 days.
Ms. Diozzi stated that under non-applicability, it would have to be replaced exactly as it is now.
Mr. Aydelott stated that the only decision is the material to be used, i.e. red cedar, mahogany, or combination of plastic composite and red cedar.
Ms. Guy stated that if they have a wood existing feature that they want to replace with wood, they can apply under non-applicability. However, if they want to replace with plastic, they need to come before the board. She stated that if they propose to change color, material, design, location or outward appearance, it must go through the board.
25 Washington Sq. N
Gary and Jennifer Santo submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to change the approved garage edging (apron) to match the existing trim on the first floor , to change windows to 6 over 1, for flashing not to be copper and to remove 2 windows.
Ms. Guy stated that the applicant withdrew the application.
Other Business
Mr. Hart stated that 4 Federal Court has installed a vent without approval. Ms. Bellin made a motion to send them a violation letter. Ms. McCrea 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
| 
