SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
October 21, 2009
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, October 21, 2009 at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Mr. Hart, Ms. Harper and Ms. McCrea.
165 Federal Street
165 Federal Street Condo Association submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove shingles that cover a portion of the backside of the house and replace with clapboards. The application is also to add a gutter to the backside of the house. Present was David and Amy O’Connell.
Mr. O’Connell stated that they would like to withdrawn the change of shingle.
Mr. Hart asked if the gutter would be visible from the street.
Ms. Guy stated that it may be visible from Griffin Place.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to add a aluminum gutter to rear of house to match the others on the house, painted to match existing. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-applicability to undertake trim repairs as needed in kind and painted to match existing. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
396 Essex Street
Daniel Leavitt presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace a wooden fence with a black aluminum fence with a Berkshire Greenwich Garden Gate with Type A finials and ball caps.
Mr. Leavitt stated that it was visible from the street, but is at the rear of the property.
Ms. Herbert asked if the condominium association has voted on the fence.
Mr. Leavitt replied in the affirmative, stating that they are all in agreement.
There was no public comment.
Ms. Herbert stated that she thought it was a beautiful fence, but wondered if it was a little overkill for the house. She felt a wooden fence would be more in keeping with the period of Victorian house. She stated that if they already had even a small metal fence in front, it would be okay, but that normally rear fences are wood. She stated that she felt it may take away from the house and be incongruous.
Mr. Leavitt noted that the cemetery next door has a wrought iron in the front.
Ms. McCrea stated that that they won’t have any privacy with the proposed fence.
Ms. Herbert agreed, noting that with a wood fence, you won’t see cars when out in the yard.
Ms. Guy stated that there may be better resale on the house with privacy.
Mr. Leavitt stated that it is a small area, so it won’t be overwhelming. The fence will be 8’ x 6 ½’ plus gate, 3 ½’ return, 4’ high.
Ms. Diozzi stated that she did not have a problem with the metal fence as far as appropriateness, but shared the concern of the view of parking lot through the fence. She stated that she preferred the more simple fence in the catalog, without the spikes.
Ms. Herbert stated that the proposed gate looks like its balusters are thicker than the fence balusters, which is not what would have been done historically. She stated that they should be the same dimension. She stated that she felt the proposed feels very modern.
Ms. Harper stated that she wondered how appropriate a metal fence is for the end of a driveway.
Ms. Diozzi stated that technically it is the front of his yard.
Ms. Herbert asked if the color will be matt or semi-gloss finish.
Mr. Leavitt replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Hart stated that the fence will be relatively transparent, so it won’t stand out.
Ms. Herbert stated that they can put hedges behind it, if needed for more privacy.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the fence replacement using the fence and gate as depicted on the front of the Specrail catalog (Benington woodbridge style 48” high with curved gate), with balusters of all the same dimension.
Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
330 Essex Street
Catherine Toth, Kent Glenzer, Melanie Griffin and Ben Larrabee submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to alter the existing fence between 330 and 324 Essex by adding a gate, re-using the existing fence materials. The gate will be 10’ wide with two 5’ swings. Hardware and braces will be attached to the 330 Essex Street side and will not be visible to the street. The gate will be approximately 80’ back from the street and minimally visible from the public way. Present was Melanie Griffin.
Louis Mangifesti, 324 Essex Street, stated that there is an access agreement that was put on the property by Paul Herrick when he developed it.
Ms. McCrea asked which way the fence will open.
Ms. Griffin stated that it will swing into her property.
Mr. Mangifesti stated that, when closed, it will look pretty much the same as it does now.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the application as submitted, painted to match existing, noting that it will be essentially invisible.
Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
19 Chestnut Street
Natalie Binney submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace 12 third floor windows with same size windows with 9 lites wood windows with low e glass, painted white. The windows will be Marvin wood Ultimate Casement. Steve D. Hayes, contractor, was present and provided a sample of the Marvin window.
Mr. Hayes stated that the interior is so fragile, it has to go in from the outside. The window comes pre-primed, pre-finished white. He stated that it has all the dimensions of a true wood casement window. He stated that it is a 9 lite single window that actually goes up into the rafters and doesn’t really open very far. There is no egress for a double hung. The casement will look like what is there and probably will not be open much. This is a new Marvin series and is custom built for the opening. The sample is a 5/8” muntin, but the windows will be 7/8” muntins.
Ms. Herbert noted that the window has a putty line.
Mr. Hayes stated that none of the current windows open and noted that the new windows will open out.
Mr. Hart asked if the windows on the Chestnut Street side are operable.
Mr. Hayes stated that they are 9 lite single sash that are set back and go into the rafter almost, were once operable, but are no longer. Some windows on Chestnut Street have combos. The side windows do not have storms, because most don’t open, of which some are painted shut.
Ms. Herbert asked if he had investigated 6 over 6 windows.
Mr. Hayes stated that the sash would be 16-17” and wouldn’t meet egress codes. He stated that a casement window is the only way to get 9 lites in one piece to match what is there. He did not know if the current windows are original, but stated that they are old.
Mr. Hart stated that this is a typical Federal with the 3rd floor being diminished.
Ms. Herbert stated that usually they would still have the same number of panes and glass size.
Mr. Hayes stated that there will be no storm windows on the third floor.
Ms. Herbert stated that without storms, the 9 panes will be more prominent and opening out may look weird in the summer.
Mr. Hart stated that they usually open in and is unusual to open out.
Ms. Herbert stated that she was concerned about having awning windows on Chestnut Street.
Mr. Hart suggested having a site visit.
Ms. Herbert was in agreement, and stated that she would like to get comments from the neighbors.
Mr. Hayes stated that he could ask Marvin if they can make them to swing in.
Ms. Diozzi agreed that swinging in would look much better.
Mr. Hart stated that it is a precedent setting situation.
Ms. Harper asked if the windows that are operable go up all the way.
Mr. Hayes replied in the negative, stating that it is a foot at best.
Ms. Herbert suggested having a discussion with the Window Woman and Pane in the Glass to see if they could suggest a way for treatment from a safety standpoint. She stated that she felt a need to explore all alternatives. She noted that there may only be a need to make one window in each bedroom operable and the other could be non-functional.
Mr. Hayes stated that you need to get ventilation also.
Mr. Hart stated that exploring a way to get ventilation would be appropriate as well. He stated that they could also be hopper windows. He advocated having Window Woman or Pane in the Glass rebuild the existing windows.
Ms. Guy suggested asking the building inspector exactly what is needed for code.
Ms. Herbert stated that when casement windows are open, it is going to be a big hole.
Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Mr. Hart and Ms. Harper stated that they are not available for the 11/4/09 meeting.
Mr. Hart made a motion to continue the application to the meeting of 11/18/09. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy asked if the commission would consider approving the Marvin Ultimate in a 6 over 6 and adding it to list of approved windows.
Mr. Hart questioned the rabbit and wondered if the other 3 approved windows had a rabbit because you will see a different shadow.
Ms. Harper stated that she would like to research more before okaying the Marvin.
Mr. Hayes stated that Marvin may offer something that is flush. He stated that he would like to get the owner to come in.
1A Cambridge
Judith Kearney submitted an application for a Certificate of Non-applicability for repainting using the same colors, per attached samples, with body being Mouse Gray, trim/molding/fence being Noodle and Doors being County Redwood. The applicant was not present.
Ms. McCrea stated that she did not believe the colors were the same because Jim Kearney had emailed her asking the name of the colors at 386 Essex Street. She stated that it was pretty similar.
Ms. Guy will check the file for what was previously approved at this address.
Other Business
Ms. Guy stated that she received the material samples for the lift.
Mr. Hart stated that he was in favor of Brainstorm Bronze for the metal and Smoked for the plexi-glass.
The remaining members were in agreement.
Ms. Guy will notify the architects.
- Salem Port Expansion – Ms. Guy distributed a letter from Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) to US. Army Corps of Engineers dated 10/9/09 which included a Memorandum of Agreement for the project.
- Salem Mission Phase III – Ms. Guy stated that she emailed the Commission members copies of a letter from Salem Community Arts Center to MHC dated 10/13/09.
Ms. Harper made a motion to approve the minutes of June 3, 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 June 17, 2009. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Harper made a motion to approve the minutes of August 5, 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 September 16, 2009. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the minutes of October 7, 2009. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
4. Ms. Harper stated that she has been looking at mansard roofs with dormers and saw that many in Salem have a solid piece of solid wood (ie. Cedar or clear pine) on dormer sides. She suggest approving the option for 182 Federal Street. Ms. Harper made a motion to approve the option for solid wood on the dormer sides at 182 Federal Street. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Hart abstained from voting.
There being no further business, Ms. McCrea 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
| 
