SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
August 5, 2009
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, August 5, 2009 at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Present were Ms. Diozzi, Mr. Hart, Mr. Desrocher, Ms. McCrea and Ms. Harper.
140 Federal Street
Michael & Stacia Kraft presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to paint shutters in Benjamin Moore 594 Peridot. A letter from conservator Christine Thomson was provided, along with a paint sample.
Ms. McCrea stated that it will look quite different.
Mr. Hart stated that it looks like Ms. Thomson did her homework and noted that she has good reputation.
There was no public comment.
Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
16 Kosciusko Street
Jay Chapin presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to paint the body of his house in California Paints India Trade.
Mr. Chapin stated that the trim will stay green and the foundation will stay red.
Lisa Connelly, 14 Kosciusko Street stated that she liked the color, noting that it is blending in nicely. She stated that there is only one side left to paint and noted that it is the side facing her house where she has a lush garden. She requested that the final side be painted after the garden has gone to rest for season (i.e. around the end of October to early November). She noted that it will also will leave a nice open space to complete the painting.
Mr. Hart stated that it may be late in season to paint past October 31.
Ms. Diozzi stated that it is not within the Commission’s purview and that the homeowners will have to work it out.
Mr. Desrocher made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Hart stated that it is not a good idea to have vegetation that close to a wood frame building, because it tends to hold the moisture against the wood.
396 Essex Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, Laurie Weisman Bellin and Jeff Bellin, Julie & Stuart Brown, Sue Benedict and Daniel Leavitt presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install roof vents.
Ms. Guy read an email from Sue Benedict requesting a continuance to the September 2nd meeting and waiving the requirement that the Commission act in 60 days.
Mr. Hart made a motion to continue the application to the September 2nd meeting.
Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
17 Chestnut Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, Francis Gauvin presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for deck installation in the back of the house. The portion of the application continued was for the use of Azek for trim boards and stair risers.
Mr. Gauvin stated that he would also like to modify the deck that was approved by reducing the size to be same size as used to be from 15 x 14 to 4 x 5. He also provided an Azek sample, noting that with the reduced size, no Azek will be visible.
Mr. Desrocher made a motion to amend the Certificate of Appropriateness dated 7/16/09 to reduce the size of the approved deck from 15’ x 14’ to 4’ x 5’, noting that use of Azek is permitted for risers and trim boards, conditional that they are not visible from the public way.
Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
386 Essex Street
386 Essex Street Realty Trust submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to move one granite post. David Clarke was present representing the Trust.
Ms. McCrea recused herself from the discussion and sat in the audience.
Mr. Clarke stated that he is moving the fence in order to accommodate parking for an additional car as per drawing provided. He noted that he will be coming back for fence approval.
Mr. Hart asked if there was any evidence that something was attached to post.
Mr. Clarke stated that he has owner the property since 1984, and that it did not have anything attached, but noted that there probably was something there in the past.
Ms. Harper made a motion to move on existing granite post to location as indicated in marked-up photograph (at end of driveway, next to hedge).
Ms. Descrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. McCrea rejoined the Commission.
43 School Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, Eric Couture (buyer under agreement) presented an application for a Waiver of Demolition Delay Ordinance to demolish the house at 43 School Street.
A site visit was held by the Commission on July 25th.
Mr. Hart stated that it is a fine little federal style building. He suspected that it was built in 2 or 3 parts. He did not know what is underneath siding. He stated that for a lot of money, it could be rehabilitated. He noted that the windows are replacements, probably 20th century, and that none appear original. He stated that the interior has really been abused and that he was on the fence about the demolition, because there is an extremely narrow staircase that he is not sure could even meet code.
Ms. Guy stated that the Building Inspector and the Zoning Board of Appeals both want it taken down so that it will meet zoning.
Mr. Hart stated that like a lot of buildings in the City, it is in violation of setbacks, so he was not sure that it was necessarily a valid reason. He stated that his concern is about the new construction, which he felt was bland and not a good addition to the neighborhood. He added that the façade disturbs him because it is so incongruous within the historical setting. He stated that the design has two entry doors and a blank in the middle. He stated that the design demands something in the middle to distinguish.
Mr. Desrocher suggested the possibility of a jog.
Mr. Hart stated that he would like to see something more appropriate to Salem than the proposed design.
Ms. Guy stated that six months from July 1, 2009, the demolition permit can be issued and that the question is, if the Commission does not want to issue a waiver, what is it the Commission would do between now and the end of the year.
Mr. Hart stated that he would be in favor of asking them to come back with a more appropriate design for the city of Salem and the neighborhood. He stated that he would not vote in favor of immediate demolition.
Ms. Guy stated the applicant is not required to submit a design, but they can by choice. She stated that the Commission can either approve the waiver, deny the waiver or continue the application and if the applicant does not want to wait out the six months, they could get design recommendations from the Board. She stated that if the waiver fails, they can wait out the six months and the demolition will proceed.
Mr. Descrocher made a motion to approve the waiver.
Ms. Harper seconded the motion.
Ms. Harper asked if Mr. Couture had already purchased the property.
Mr. Couture stated that the purchase and sale agreement was contingent upon the Board of Appeal approving the property move. He stated that if denied, he would wait out the six months.
Ms. Harper asked if he would consider modifying the material or design to make it fit better.
Mr. Desrocher stated that changes may make it more saleable.
Mr. Couture stated that he wants to make high energy and high efficiency use homes. He stated that it has been bastardized over and over again with nothing original left to it. He noted there were several new houses in the area. He noted that there are some nice historical houses in the area, but that this is not one of them.
The motion was voted upon. Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Harper, Ms. McCrea and Mr. Desrocher voted in favor. Mr. Hart voted in opposition. The motion so carried.
Mr. Hart stated that he could provide some designers who would give some design assistance to make it more attractive.
Mr. Couture stated that had no problem putting in some porticos in the front or making changes as long as they were cost efficient.
Mr. Hart stated that he felt it could be enhanced with some kind of a simple one or two-story element that could then feed into the two apartments.
Mr. Couture gave Mr. Hart his contact information.
4 Federal Court
Michael Digris and Michele Washburn submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for roof vent installation that has already been completed.
Ms. Guy stated that she had suggested to the owners that, with the long agenda, they continue to the next meeting and that the applicants agreed.
Ms McCrea made a motion to continue the application to the next meeting. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
38 Flint Street
Sheri Rosenzweig presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors. The body clapboards and gable shingles will be Muted Mulberry, the trim will be Tudor Ice, the doors will be Asher Benjamin and the foundation will be unpainted.
Ms. Rosenzweig stated that the house is too small to carry current 2-tones.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Desrocher made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Rosenzweig also submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the front windows to be 1 over 1, two kitchen windows to be 4 over 1 and 2 side windows to be 4 over 4 in Marvin wood, true divided lights with energy panels.
Ms. Rosenzweig stated that the kitchen windows are currently 2 over 2, but are horizontal. She stated that the new windows will be the same size.
Mr. Hart noted that the house was built in 1957.
Mr. Desrocher made a motion to approve the replacement of two side (kitchen) windows with 4 over 1 windows and replace two front windows with 1 over 1 windows. Windows to be wood, true divided light, single glaze with energy panels. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
23 Warren Street
Nicholas Lewis submitted a request to alter the Certificate of Appropriateness dated 10/9/08 for the porch by removing the railroad ties, installing concrete footings and raising the railings by 4”. Ms. Diozzi read a letter from the applicants describing the issues necessitating the changes.
Kelly Tyler Lewis stated that the Building Inspector is requiring 4’ concrete footings and that their contractor will be able to conceal them in the body of porch. The 36” railings were erected today.
Mr. Hart asked how the posts will be capped.
Ms. Lewis stated that the front of house has egg shaped caps, the side has round balls, and the rear originally had round balls. She stated that they could do round balls or just a plain pyramid cap. She proposed that the caps match the proposed fence scheme for which they have also submitted an application.
Chris Anderson, 14 Flint Street stated that he was in support and that the porch was in dire need of replacement.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the amendment. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
The owners also presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a new fence/gate for the rear garden.
Ms. Lewis stated that the porch and fence is visible down the driveway at an oblique angle and that they want two elements and the existing privacy fence to be harmonious. They consulted George Nash’s book on fencing and looked at fencing in the district. They provided photos of example fences. She stated that they prefer a fence similar to 105 Federal Street.
Ms. Harper asked the spacing between balusters.
Ms. Lewis stated that the balusters will be 1 ½” balusters and the spacing will be between 2 ¼ and 2 ½”.
Letters were read into the record from:
- Lauren Fornter, 25 Warren Street;
James Logan and Deborah Jackson, 17 Warren Street;
Karen Vitone, 19 Warren Street; and
Catherine Miller, 15 Warren Street
who all were in favor of the application.
Mr. Desrocher made a motion to approve the fence in figure #5 with pyramid caps and for there to be pyramid caps on the porch as well. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
122 Federal Street
Margaret Twohey and Darrow Lebovici presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the back porch roof with 3-tab sea green asphalt to match the existing roof and to make gutter repairs, changing the size of the wooden gutters from 3 x 4 to 4 x 5.
Ms. Harper asked the age of the old roof.
Ms. Twohey stated that the green roof is about 15 years old and the black is about 20-25 years old. She stated that Steve Whittier recommends that the gutters be widened due to the enormous amount of water they must handle.
Mr. Hart asked the location of the downspouts.
Ms. Twohey stated that they are at the left hand side of porch and on the other side of the porch. She stated that they will be leaving the downspouts
Mr. Descorcher asked if only one gutter is being replaced.
Ms. Twohey stated that it is only the gutter on the porch, which goes all around the porch.
Ms. Harper made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
The owners also presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a stove vent.
Ms. Twohey stated that the vent will be 8” and painted to match surface it is on. She provided a vent sample.
Mr. Hart noted that it will be installed to the left of the cornerboard and gutter on the addition, west elevation, approximately 18” to the right of the existing window, approximately 8’ above grade. He noted that it will be visible from Lynn and Federal Streets.
Mr. Desrocher made a motion to approve the vent installation, painted the house body color.
Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
374 Essex Street
John & Alyce Davis presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace a kitchen window.
Mr. Desrocher asked if the sink is in front of the window.
Mr. Davis replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Hart stated that they are essentially replacing one large window with two flanking windows.
Mr. Davis stated that the windows are Jeldwen, wood, simulated divided lites, with 6 panes and permanent wooden bead. He stated that the two end windows will open up, but that the middle are fixed.
Mr. Desrocher asked if they have looked into a configuration that was more like the original windows, such as two 6 over 6 windows side by side. He sated that he knows they want as much light as possible, but felt the proposed window is pretty contemporary.
Mr. Hart suggested considering having head heights of the two windows the same, with the windows being taller. He asked if the muntins are glued to the exterior and interior.
Mr. Davis replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Hart asked the muntin width.
Mr. Davis stated that it is 7/8” bead.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the replacement of the kitchen window with Jeldwen, wood, simulated divided light window in the configuration provided of 4 windows with 6 panes each. Center windows to be fixed. Muntin bars to be 7/8”. Painted to match existing.
Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
EBI Consulting, Inc., on behalf of Verizon Wireless, is seeking comment on the proposed telecommunications facility replacement at 281 Essex Street. Present were
Carl Gehring, Kathryn Emmitt and Chuck Weberly.
Ms. Guy reminded the project proponents that the work must be approved by the Salem Redevelopment Authority (SRA).
Mr. Gehring stated that he understood that there was some misunderstanding with prior review of the installation. The Commission request that the antennas be as flush to the building as possible and as a result they were changed from 22” to less than 12” after it went through SRA. He noted that Verizon has a new requirement to swap out the antennas. He provided drawings and before and after simulations and described the types of antennas.
Mr. Desrocher stated that in some past installations, they are able to manufacture something that will trick the eye without all the hardware stuck on the side of the building. He stated that he preferred in the future to have something camouflaged in the center of the building, like an elevator shaft.
Ms. Guy noted that the PCS and the cellular and LTE48 are pretty much the same height. If the Commission prefers the one that is a little more flush, it will also be taller.
Mr. Hart stated that he preferred that the antennas be centered between the brackets on the Essex Street side and that they make a good faith effort to investigate this possibility.
Mr. Gehring stated that structurally, the antennas may have to be in those locations.
Ms. Guy will forward a comment letter with Mr. Hart’s recommendation.
Omnipoint Communications, Inc. is seeking comment on the proposed telecommunications facility installation at 181 North Street. Present was Bryan Wilson.
Mr. Wilson stated that after the initial review by the Commission and Massachusetts Historical Commission, they have reduced the height of the simulated chimney down to 10’. He stated that they will try to match existing chimneys in massing, height, width and depth and that the intention is to try and hide the antennas as much as possible and make it harmonious.
Mr. Hart suggested building two instead of one of same size, or to make it wider if there is only.
Mr. Wilson stated that they are proposing 3 ½’, but could do 5 x 5 or 6 x 6 with no negative impact on system.
Mr. Hart stated that he prefered 6 x 6 x 10’.
Ms. Guy will forward a comment letter with Mr. Hart’s recommendation.
1. Scenic Byway Local Advisory Group
Ms. Guy stated that she received a request for one Commission member to join the committee. Ms. McCrea volunteered.
- Salem Mission Seeds of Hope
Ms. Guy stated that she received a copy of a letter from MHC to Winter Street Architects regarding their submission for comment under Section 106 for the proposed housing project at the Salem Mission, 56 Margin Street, for which MHC has requested additional information. Ms. Guy stated that rather than wait until tonight to read the letter and then have the Commission request copies of the Winter Street submissions, she went ahead and contacted Winter Street and asked them for both the original submission and the new submission in response to the MHC letter.
Ms. Diozzi recused herself from the discussion, noting that she is on the board of the Salem Theatre Company.
Mr. Hart disclosed that he has been approached by Salem Sounds to develop an arts center. He noted that he has not been engaged by them, but is in negotiations. He recused himself from the discussion.
Ms. Harper stated that she did not like the idea of removing the stained glass windows.
Ms. Guy suggested that the Commission members read the submissions and discuss at the next meeting. She stated that the comments should be limited to the exterior renovations that are being proposed.
- Salem-Beverly Transportation Improvement Project
Ms. Guy stated that she forwarded by email the response letter from MassHighway concerning the Commission’s comments on the handicapped access changes for the by-pass road.
Mr. Hart stated that he may want to draft a response.
Ms. Guy stated that she received a letter from MHC to EOEEA dated 7/14/09 with further comments on the lead soil remediation project.
- 75% Bridge Street Reconstruction Plans
Ms. Guy stated that she has a copy of the 75% plans available for review and that she has recently forwarded to Commission members a copy of their 25% comments and a response from Tetratech. She also noted that MassHighway has approved brick sidewalks on 1A Bridge Street from Howard Street Extension to Webb Street on both sides of the roadway. The Planning Dept. is in discussions about crosswalk material, with the city proposing the thermal imprint material. She noted that Larry Spang has offered to review the plans and make comment. She suggested that the Commission take a quick look at the plans now to see if there is any major questions that anyone may want to bring to the public hearing at the Carlton School on the 17th. The Commission should come up with
comments by the next meeting.
Mr. Hart suggested that the plans be provided to Mr. Spang.
There being no further business, Mr. Hart 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
| 
