SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
June 17, 2009
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, June 17, 2009 at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Present were Ms. Harper, Mr. Hart, Ms. Herbert and Ms. McCrea.
9 Chestnut Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, Hamilton Hall, Inc. submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the addition of a railing at the Cambridge Street side. Pamela Jendrysik represented the applicant. A drawing was provided.
Ms. Jendrysik stated that they would like to match the railing at 6 Chestnut Street/
Ms. Herbert asked if it would be hitched to the inside of the post.
Ms. Jendrysik replied in the affirmative, but noted that it will not attached to column. She stated that it will have a newel at the end.
Ms. Herbert stated that in the drawing it does not look like the door could swing all the way with the new railing
Ms. Jendrysik stated that the doors will just pass it, noting that the drawing is a little off. She stated that it will have a little flair at the end and that the curly-q will go out and around.
Mr. Hart stated that it is a knuckle.
Ms. Herbert stated that the newel can be secured better to the granite than brick.
Ms. Herbert stated that she would entertain a motion for a simple top rail per 6 Chestnut Street with a simple curl at the end, with beginning newel post attached to first granite step, curved inward and around the pillar ending with final newel post that will terminate just before the door swing. Newel post will be simple 1 ½ square iron with option for a little bit of design on rail similar to 6 Chestnut St.
Ms. McCrea made the motion. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Hart stated that if they put in the newel post on the step, it cannot be right at the end. He offered an amendment that the newel post be recessed a couple inches and the handrail extend beyond the step a suitable distance.
Ms. McCrea motioned to accept the amendment. Ms. Harper seconded, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Hamilton Hall, Inc. submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to add a granite step 33”w x 6’L x 7”H to existing steps at Cambridge Street entrance. The granite will match the existing granite.
Ms. Jendrysik stated that the new step is to be located in between the columns.
Ms. Herbert asked if the idea is for the step to come out to meet the column.
Ms. Jendrysik replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Hart asked if the landing created will be to code.
Ms. Jendrysik stated that their architect thinks it is. She stated that it is needed because at 9” the stair height is too high into building. She noted that the other two steps are 6-7 inches.
Ms. Herbert questioned if the doors are swung completely open, could someone accidently step off the sides.
Ms. Jendrysik stated that when the doors are completely open, there is a chain there to keep them open.
Ms. Guy noted that the chain could go to new handrail when needed.
Mr. Hart stated that something about the proposal bothers him. He asked architect seating in the audience Ed Neilsen if the platform needs to be 5’.
Mr. Neilsen stated that 36” is code.
Ms. Herbert suggested making just a step and not a whole platform.
Ms. Jendrysik stated that they could notch it out.
Mr. Hart suggested notching it and making the top (depth) of both steps 13”, so have two uniform steps.
Ms. Jendrysik asked if it is notched out and it goes around column, will it cause water problems.
Mr. Hart stated that it can be flashed. He added that it should be cut square so as not to effect the base of the column. He noted that it will be a dirt catcher.
Ms. Herbert stated that she would entertain a motion for the addition of a granite step at the Cambridge Street side entrance, 7”H 6’L, extending out from the building to the columns approximately 37-38” to make 2 equal steps of equal depth of 13” and roughly rising 7”.
Mr. Hart made the motion. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
10 Chestnut Street
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. Herbert stated that a site visit was held. She stated that the center wall has old brick with a lot of evidence of old white paint. She stated that she felt the question is in regard to the width and depth of the grout joints. She noted that for the new wall that is optically uneven, she suggested talking to the mason and having a hair of mortar added under the end of the granite in stead of taking down 8 more courses.
Mr. Strauss stated that he had William Finch come by to view the wall. He also had discussions with architect Ed Neilsen and with John Carr. As a result, they are recommending to 1) build out the mortar in the center wall, so it is essentially as deep as the mortar of the new end walls, 2) cleaning the brick and the granite, including caps and footers, 3) paint the walls white in keeping with main house and 4) seek granite slabs, rather than concrete, for the new end walls that would be reasonably close to existing main wall capstone. He suspected that they will not be able to afford the apex on granite, but each will have 5”granite with flat top.
Ms. Herbert stated that down the road they may want to re-entertain installing iron work on the top. She asked Mr. Carr if that period would have had a wall with thicker grout spacing than the house.
John Carr, 7 River Street, stated that anything would probably have been thicker than the house. He stated that it kind of shouts out right now as not anything he could recall. He stated that painting will make the problems disappear.
Mr. Hart asked if there is precedent for wall ever having been painted.
Mr. Strauss stated that Mr. Finch is pretty sure that the wall was rebuilt at some time and that the prior wall was painted, and then the bricks were turned in and reused. He stated that Mr. Finch saw multiple bricks with white paint and mortar on top of the paint.
Mr. Carr stated that, ironically, for a genuine Federal house, its most significant feature is the fact that at some point, pioneering architect of Colonial Revival architecture Arthur Little, bother of Phillip Little artist, did over house while Phillip Little was on his honeymoon. He stated that he believed the wall was probably built at that time, although he has never seen a photo. He stated that with respect to original Federal houses, and particularly Colonial Revival, painted bricks was a very traditional method. He stated that while it is resolves all the underlying mechanical and construction issues, he felt it celebrates the most significant iteration of the house.
Ms. Herbert stated that it is a visible wall on a corner, not a back garden wall which would have been raw brick. She stated that it is really is a statement wall. She stated that she was on board with painting of it.
Mr. Hart recommended Prosoco for cleaning and added that Keim is a good German mineral paint for masonry.
Mr. Straus stated that Mr. Finch agreed to be on site and supervise and noted that they will do a test patch.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve building out the mortar in center wall so essentially as deep as side walls, to clean brick and granite using appropriate cleaning products, to paint the walls white in keeping with main house using appropriate painting products and to seek granite capstone for side walls to match existing as close as possible, with option for granite slabs to be approximately 5” flat or have an apex.
Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert asked about the iron gate.
Ms. Gerdine stated that they have it, but don’t plan to reuse it. They will come back at a later date for a gate.
Mr. Carr did not believe it was an original gate.
Ms. Gerdine stated that they have pictures with a wooden gate and earlier with the iron fence from the Gardner Pingree.
Other Business
Ms. Guy stated that she forwarded to the Commission two e-mails she received regarding 3 Webster Street.
Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve the minutes of May 6, 2009 with the change on Page 6, paragraph tow, sentence two from “so black” to “flat and the Historical Commission guidelines require black or charcoal gray”. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve the minutes of May 20, 2009. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy stated that she received a report completed for the U.S. Coast Guard for Baker’s Island. Mr. Hart will review the report.
Violations/Work Status
183 Rear Federal Street
Ms. Herbert stated that the windows in violation have not been replaced. She noted that the unit on the first floor is under foreclosure and the people moved out 6 months ago. The remaining owners have had to absorb the extra condo costs. Ms. Guy stated that the Commission’s next step in the violation process is to proceed with a vote to find it an egregious violation and to proceed with the steps to file the Clerk’s Certificate as to Violation.
Ms. Harper made a motion to find the windows an egregious violation and to instruct the Clerk to proceed with the steps toward filing a Clerks Certificate as to Violation.
Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert suggested putting in the letter that the violation would need to be cured on or before any sale of the property.
16 Kosciusko Street
Ms. Guy stated that the owner has provided a photograph showing that the foundation has been painted as required.
Mr. Hart made a motion to remove the property from the violation list. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
331 Essex Street
Ms. Guy stated that the owners repainted the a/c equipment on the roof and provided a new photo.
Mr. Hart made a motion to remove the property from the violation list. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
39-31 Washington Square N.
Ms. Guy stated that she received a letter from the owners indicating that they have raked back the mortar in the archway as requested. She added that she forwarded an e-mail from the owners concerning their request to Mr. McNeish to remove the a/c units as required by the Commission.
Other Violations
Ms. Guy stated that she received a call that 10 Andover Street installed a satellite dish and that Ms. Herbert verified its installation. Ms. Herbert also informed her that 123 Federal Street removed a section of fence.
Ms. McCrea made a motion for Ms. Guy to issue violation letter for both properties.
Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
There being no further business, Ms. McCrea 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
| 
