SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
July 15, 2009
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, July 15, 2009 at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin and Ms. Harper.
Ms. Diozzi announced that the Commission had a minimum quorum and that all 4 votes were needed to pass any application.
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. Bellin recused herself from discussion.
There was no quorum and therefore the application is continued to the next meeting.
39-41 Washington Square/29 Winter Street
Maria Carles/39-41 Washington Sq. Condo Assoc. submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for aluminum downspouts. Also present were Dan Igo, who purchased Unit 3 and Barbara Pervier.
Ms. Pervier stated that they previously received approval for the option for either galvanized or aluminum downspouts. She noted that they have galvanized conduit which appears silver. They have discovered a new bronze aluminum product, which is currently installed at the Salem Housing Authority property at the former Phillips School, at 25 Washington Square and at 31 Washington Square for which she provided photographs of these, as well as photos of other houses with various gutters in various colors. She provided downspout samples in both bronze aluminum and copper and noted that the bronze aluminum is 30% cheaper than copper and lasts forever.
There was no public comment.
Ms. Diozzi stated that she thought the bronze aluminum is a handsome product.
Ms. Pervier stated that they will be keeping one downspout in courtyard area in galvanized.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the application as submitted for bronze aluminum downspouts as an amendment to the Certificate previously approved and in the same number and locations as previously approved.
Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
17 Chestnut Street
Francis Gauvin presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for deck installation in the back of the house. It is to be 15’ x 12’, 48” high with 36” white wood railing with composite wood flooring. The application is also to rebuild the bulkhead entirely with a copper roof and to replace copper gutters in the back of the house.
Martha Shreve, abutter, was also present.
Ms. Guy stated that the photos taken have a lot of landscaping and was not sure of the visibility in the dead of winter. She noted that it seems to be pretty far back and that it might be minimally visible.
Ms. Diozzi agreed that it will be minimally visible.
Mr. Gauvin stated that they want to amend the application to change the stairs in the submitted plan from in the middle to as shown in the new plan provided. The deck will also be changed to 15’ x 14’from 15’ x 12’. The bulkhead will have clapboard siding as per the picture provided. He noted that here will be no railing at bulkhead even though it is shown in the on-line deck design tool.
Ms. Shreve stated that the window by the bulkhead is to her kitchen.
Ms. Herbert asked if the roof to the door will remain.
Mr. Gauvin replied in the affirmative. He stated that they also want to replace the rotting wood gutter, preferring copper if they can afford it and, if not, using white aluminum to match the existing downspout. The bulkhead is to be white clapboard and in the same dimensions as the current bulkhead.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Gauvin provided samples of composite flooring (Truemarc Meranti) and cedar railing. He stated that the steps would be composite, that the risers and border would be Azek in white and that the lattice would be wood.
Ms. Herbert stated that she would like to see a sample of Azek.
Mr. Gauvin stated that all, but the flooring, is to be painted.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the deck per plan submitted dated 7/15/09, to be 15’ x 14’ per plan dimensions, post cap per photo provided. Decking and stair treads to be Truemarc Meranti and all remaining materials to be wood, all painted white except decking and stair treads. The motion is also to rebuild bulkhead per picture provided using clapboards and trim boarding painted to match house & black door, with roof to be copper or rubber. The motion is also to repair or replace gutters in kind.
Mr. Gauvin stated that he would like to install snow guard.
Ms. Bellin stated that it is not on the application; therefore he would need to apply.
Ms. Herbert amended her motion to continue the application pending submittal of the proposed material for trim boards and stair risers.
Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
329 Essex Street
Dorothy and Eric Hayes submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for alteration of the basement entry, alteration of rear entry stairs and alteration of stained glass window. Consultant William Finch was also present. Sketches were provided.
Mr. Finch stated that there will be beaded matched boarding for the doors.
Mr. Herbert made a motion to approve the deck and bulkhead reconstruction of rear basement entry per drawings provided and application submitted.
Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Finch stated that for the rear entry stairs, they are really rebuilding in kind and changing a couple details, using the same footprint, with posts to be 1 x 1 square.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve rebuilding the back stairway with same footprint, all in wood, with newel post to replicate post in historic photograph and balusters to be approximately 1x1 with standard railing per building code, with framed out lattice underneath.
Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Finch stated that the window is a nice piece of stained glass but is not intrinsic to the house.
Ms. Herbert asked what room it is located within.
Mr. Hayes stated that it is in the kitchen pantry.
Ms. Diozzi asked what they will do with the stained glass.
Ms. Hayes stated that they will save it.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve removal of the stained glass window and removal of the ornamentation above the frame and to install a four light fixed sash with clear glass in the existing window frame.
Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
43 School Street
Eric Couture (buyer under agreement) presented an application for a Waiver of Demolition Delay Ordinance to demolish the house at 43 School Street.
Mr. Couture stated that the new building will be located more central. He noted that it is the same cost to tear down as to rebuild, but with a new building he can meet all building codes. He stated that he did not feel the building could be salvaged at a feasible cost. Mr. Couture stated that the Zoning Board of Appeal has given permission for demolition and new construction in order to meet all zoning codes.
Ms. Bellin asked how close is the lot line to the current building.
Mr. Couture stated that he could pass coffee between the two houses on one side and that it is 30+ feet on other side. He noted that he did not have engineer look at the building, but that the second story does not have a floor in part of the area. He added that the house has been on the market for almost a year. The proposed building will be 52’ x 27’, while the current is more than 52’.
Ms. Harper asked what siding will be used on the new building.
Mr. Couture stated that he will use vinyl, and noted that aluminum is predominant in the neighborhood.
Ms. Herbert stated that she personally does not like to slow down the process, if in fact the building should be demolished. She noted that one of Commission members is on vacation and is an architect from which she would like to get input. She suggested keeping the main historic part and refurbishing, but demolishing the rest, and maybe have an L-shape that is more modern. She stated that she would like to do site visit to see the interior of the original building. She stated that she had no problem with taking away the additions. She noted that it is an early 1800s building and that restoring the building may give the applicant a lot more in financial return in the long run. She stated that two condos - one in the historic section and one in new section - may appeal to two different
markets. She stated that the Commission’s objective is to save historic buildings if possible and that she would like to work with the applicant. She noted that the building has been bastardized, the window openings changed, and there is vinyl siding, but noted that it still has the frame.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to continue the application to the next meeting and to schedule a site visit for Saturday, July 25th at 9:00 am at the site.
Ms. Bellin asked how close is the lot line to the current building.
183 Rear Federal Street – Discussion of Violation
Ms. Guy stated that she sent, via certified and regular mail, a Notice of Vote of Egregious Violation to John and Monica Zisa with regard to the Harvey windows in violation at 183 Rear Federal Street. The owners were not present.
Ms. Guy stated that in August, 2008 the Commission voted unanimously to deny 6 Harvey vinyl windows and to require that the owners either return the windows to original condition or apply for appropriate replacement windows to be installed within 9 months. The 9 month deadline (5/7/09) has passed. She noted that in her last conversation with Ms. Zisa, she was told that the contractor is not returning their calls and she indicated that they are trying to sell their unit. She added that it is unfortunate that one of the units was foreclosed upon and that the remaining owners have had to make up the difference in maintenance costs. Ms. Guy recommended that the Commission vote to file a Clerk’s Certificate as to Violation to protect a potential buyer so that a new owner does not buy into a
violation unaware. In a title search, the Certificate will come up and it gives them the option of putting money in escrow, of fixing it before the sale or the new buyer accepting the violation responsibility. Once voted, Ms. Guy would send out another notice and the owners will get another 30 days to comply.
Ms. Herbert agreed that a Clerk’s Certificate needs to be filed.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to instruct the Clerk of the Commission to file the Clerk’s Certificate as to Violation at the Registry of Deeds as per the process in the guidelines. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin noted that the owners can still go after the contractor.
Ms. Harper noted that the work was not done with approval of their condominium association. She stated that the Certificate allows them to wait to replace the windows until they have the funding to replace the windows.
Ms. Herbert suggested that the remaining condo owners be notified once the Clerk’s Certificate is filed.
386 Essex Street
386 Essex Street Realty Trust submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to move one granite post.
Ms. Bellin recused herself from discussion
Due to their being a lack of quorum to discuss the application, the application was continued to the next meeting.
Other Business
Ms. Guy stated that she received an invitation to comment, pursuant to Section 106, on a telecommunications facility replacement at 281 Essex Street. Ms. Herbert suggested putting discussion on the next agenda when Commissioner Hart will be present. Ms. Bellin stated that she would like better drawings. Ms. Guy suggested requesting a conceptual rendering & photos of existing. She will also remind that they must go through the SRA.
Ms. Guy stated that she received a packet of information regarding the proposed telecommunications facility at 181 North Street. Ms. Herbert suggested putting discussion on the next agenda when Commissioner Hart will be present.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of April 2, 2008. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy read an email from the owner of 10 Andover Street concerning the satellite dish installation. The email states that the owner spoke with the tenants and that Direct TV is supposed to come back and move the dish to a less visible area. Ms. Guy suggested that Commission members go by and see if still visible.
1 Brown Street
Ms. Diozzi stated that the Peabody Essex Museum (PEM) owns 1 Brown Street and that she heard through grapevine that the building is not part of their long range plan. She stated that she would like to draft a letter to the PEM and request a meeting with PEM representatives.
Ms. Harper stated that Frank Kulik, City Assessor, spoke with Thomas St. Pierre, Building Inspector, who said that he was inside and it has nothing original left. Mr. St. Pierre stated that the main carrying beam is rotted. Mr. St. Pierre offered to set up site visit for the Commission. There is a possibility that the PEM may want to move the 17th century John Ward House to that site.
Ms. Herbert suggested that Ms. Guy talk with Mr. St. Pierre and set up a site visit prior to sending a letter.
Ms. Bellin stated that if the Commission sends a letter, it should be cc’d to the newspapers.
Ms. Harper stated that she was concerned that this would be another National Guard building that is allowed to deteriorate until it is too late.
Ms. Bellin stated that discussion of “demolition by neglect” should be added to any letter.
Ms. Harper stated that she did not believe that the museum cut up the building and destroyed in the inside, but stated that she believed the original fabric on the interior is long gone.
Ms. Herbert stated that the interior is not such a big issue, that it is more the frame, etc.
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
| 
