SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
January 6, 2010
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Harper, Mr. Hart, Ms. McCrea and Mr. Desrocher.
Ms. Herbert arrived later in the meeting.
Ms. Guy noted that there will be no meeting on January 20th, unless an application is continued.
20 Albion Street
In continuation of a previous meeting Joseph Salamone, 45 Beacon Street, Reading, submitted an application for Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance for demolition of the house at 20 Albion Street.
Ms. Guy read a letter from Historic Salem, Inc. which did not support demolition, but provided recommendations for the new design should demolition occur.
Mr. Salamone stated that he has done an analysis of the cost and stated that to rebuild and expand the existing would be significantly more than building a new house. He stated that the cost for new would be $200,000 to $250,000. The HSI proposal would be between $300,000 and $330,000, because it is very labor intense and that, in the end, it would be something that would not meet his needs. He stated that he would like a basement that is clean and dry, which can be used for storage. He added that a secondary building is not in the budget. He stated that he will be happy to incorporate design details into the new house, noting it is in his best interest to build something that fits into the neighborhood. He added that he is asking the ZBA for relief from the setback in order to keep it
in line with the others on the street.
Ms. McCrea asked if he has checked if it is possible to excavate a basement.
Mr. Salamone stated that he is confident that he can excavate a basement, without exceeding a height restriction. He stated that if he runs into an issue, he could go back to the ZBA, hammer out the ledge or step around it.
Ms. Harper asked if he would consider using clapboards.
Mr. Salamone stated that it would depend on the cost. He is planning on using a high end vinyl that has a wood look to it.
Morris Schopf stated that he looked at the house and the street and noted that the house is part of a streetscape that is post civil-war and noted most of the buildings are in tact.
Ms. Herbert joined the meeting at this time.
Mr. Schopf stated that the owner was nice enough to let him look at the house. He stated that the house is part of a streetscape that is post civil war and that it is unusual that all the original buildings along the street are intact. He noted that the houses are situated in such a way to get natural light. He asked if the house was on the property line.
Mr. Salamone replied that the existing home is right on the property line.
Mr. Schopf stated that the houses on the street are along the property lines so that the yards are on the south of the building, which he stated is a natural treatment all the way back to the first period when houses were entered from the side. He stated that the raised basement is an important part of the characteristic of the houses down the street. He stated he was speaking as an advocate of the streetscape. He stated that the building is original. He stated that the owner’s proposal regarding scale and material treatment is good. He asked if it will be modular.
Mr. Salamone replied in the negative, that it would be a stick building.
Mr. Schopf noted that the houses are placed on the northerly side of the lot in order to maximize exposure.
Mr. Salamone stated that the placement of the building on the property line is not desirable to undertake maintenance, etc.
John Carr, 7 River Street, stated that this is an application to expedite demolition and that this is what the Demolition Delay Ordinance is intended to prevent. He stated that what he is hearing is that this house contributes to the ambiance. He stated that when you have a building of significance, the process should be slowed down, noting that it is Winter and not a building season anyway. He stated that HSI has made a convincing case. He stated that properties that are period properties and make a contribution should not have expedited demolition.
Mary Whitney, 356 Essex Street, stated that she attended a site visit at the property. She suggested requesting a catalog of materials. She urged the Commission not to issue the waiver and the homeowner to proceed with his intention to fit within the existing streetscape. She did not feel moving the house to the center of the lot would benefit the neighbor on the south side.
Ms. Herbert asked if he needed the basement for any use.
Mr. Salamone stated that he would like to use it for a workshop and for clean, dry storage space.
Ms. Herbert stated that she agreed with Mr. Schopf and Mr. Carr that it would be disruptive to break the chain of structures. She would like to see the owner work with the existing building and construct an addition.
Mr. Salamone stated that he believes the abutters feel this house is a disaster and are in favor of the demolition. He stated that he would rebuild if it made economic sense.
Ms. Herbert noted that this is why the house sold for so little.
Ms. Harper stated that she is hearing that it is not in the owner’s budget to put an addition on the house. She stated that she was at the site visit and that the house is in rough shape and is a gut job inside and, even with that, by today’s standards it would be difficult to live there with the ceiling heights. She suggested stretching the budget to include wood clapboards and trim as well as to maintain the look of the façade of the building.
Mr. Salamone stated that he was amenable to that. He stated that he has no issue with reducing the windows to single size and increasing the pitch of the roof. He noted that the reason for the bump out is to make the floor plan work and to add more depth to the house.
Ms. Herbert asked if there would be cornerboards.
Mr. Salamone replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Herbert felt that the proposed was completely different in character from the existing cottage.
Mr. Salamone stated that he could bring the house up in height. He noted that the width of the new house is only 1 ½ feet larger than the existing.
Mr. Hart stated that he visited the property twice and his concern is that this might set up a domino effect of people coming into town and buying a property and tearing it down. He noted that 62 Aborn and 69 Boston Street were saved from demolition and rehabilitated after Historic Salem, Inc. met with the owners and showed them interesting factors about them, noting 69 Boston was in much worse condition that 20 Albion. He stated that as a registered architect with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, who does a lot of historic restoration work, he was not sure he would agree that 20 Albion was in that bad shape. He noted it has been occupied for 150 years. He added that with Historic Salem and the neighbors help, 13 River was rehabilitated. He stated that it is a wonderful streetscape on
Albion Street and he could not support waiving the Demolition Delay Ordinance.
Ms. McCrea stated that she also has a concern if everyone were to come in to town to purchase property and tear it down.
Mr. Desrocher stated that, if it were him, he would rather have a workshop on the main level. He suggested putting a slab down in the back.
Mr. Salamone stated that he would loose living space and noted that he would still have setback requirements, although he added that he hadn’t considered that option and would have to look into it.
Mr. Carr stated that at 13 Lynn Street, the owner originally proposed something that went against several elements of zoning. The neighborhood opposed the zoning, to enable the homeowner to work with the neighborhood, for which the final design was supported by the neighborhood and the Commission.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to deny the waiver without prejudice, to encourage the owner to come back in as soon as he can with a proposal that will fit in better and to encourage the owner to work with HSI to develop the design.
Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission is willing to support any application to the Zoning Board of Appeal for changes that would defy the variance rules, so he can get something close to what the Commission would like to see. Mr. Hart seconded the motion. Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Mr. Hart, Mr. Desrocher and Ms. McCrea voted in favor. Ms. Harper voted in opposition. The motion so carried.
42 Warren Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, Todd & Jennifer Weissman presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of three double hung windows with Fibrex, double glaze Renewal by Andersen windows with pine interior.
Mark Mordini with Renewal by Andersen was present and provided a sample of a window with non-removable grids applied on the exterior. He noted that each window is custom made.
Ms. Weissman stated that 3 windows on the second floor had been previously replaced, which had been permitted by the Building Department. She stated that they will add the grids to those windows.
Ms. Herbert stated that the two abutting windows at the rear corner should be replaced at the same time, so that it is harmonious. She felt that spot replacement will make it more noticeable.
Ms. Weissman stated that the rest of the house is primarily 2 over 1, with a few smaller windows being 1 over 1. She stated that they will keep 2 over 1 throughout and switch the 3 windows installed to 2 over 1.
Mr. Hart asked if there could be a bronze spacer.
Mr. Mordini replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Desrocher agreed that the windows should be 2 over 1.
Ms. Harper asked if the window was available in wood.
Mr. Mordini replied in the negative.
Ms. Herbert suggested rehabbing the windows.
Ms. Weissman stated that having working, energy efficient windows is the primary goal.
Linda Locke, 1 Pickering Street asked the material.
Mr. Mordini stated it is 40% wood and 60% polimer and it is not clad and is always maintenance free.
Mr. Desrocher stated that the guidelines specify wood.
Mr. Weissman stated that if they keep the existing windows, they will have to retain storms.
Ms. Herbert stated that she did not feel the proposed window looked like wood at all.
Mr. Desrocher stated that when he went by the property, the windows stood out because they were one over one, not two over one. He stated that the proposed is a quality window, but felt it would set a precedent to not follow the guidelines. He stated that materials should be kept consistent.
Ms. Herbert noted that the window on the front is adjacent to the bay window.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve as submitted. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, there were no votes in favor and the application was denied as not appropriate.
Mr. Carr stated that if something has been replaced without permit, it should be applied for and noticed, so that there the public has an opportunity to comment.
Ms. Herbert stated that the owners need to apply for the windows already installed without approval. She stated that a picture of the 4 front windows, of which the 3 were already replaced, would be helpful.
127 Derby Street
Max and Shannon Engelhardt, Karen Yourell and Louise Spohr presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace an existing black 3-tab asphalt roof with black architectural asphalt roof. Max Engelhart, Karen Yourell and Louise Spohr were present.
Mr. Engelhart stated that half the roof has been replaced with architectural. This occurred because the contractor applied for a building permit and began the work before the Building Department contacted him and told him that they would not issue a building permit until the Historical Commission issued approval.
Ms. Herbert asked the installation cost.
Mr. Engelhart stated that it is $12-13,000, due to all of the plywood needing replacement.
Ms. Yourell stated that four other contractors said that black architectural was required in historic districts.
Mr. Hart stated that the shingles are not totally objectionable. He stated that he would like to go by the site. He suggested issuing a certificate of non-applicability for the other side.
Mr. Carr stated that it should be a uniform roof and the contractor should be responsible for the cost of whatever he put on without permit.
Ms. Harper noted that the updated roofing guidelines draft says that architectural shingles are not recommended for gambrel roofs.
Ms. Herbert stated that the proposed appear to be straight shingles.
Ms. Harper stated that she felt the top of the roof was not visible and suggested approving architectural for the two top halves and 3-tab for the bottom sections.
Mr. Hart stated that he would like to go by the site.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to continue the application. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
- 129-151 Lafayette Street – Planning Office for Urban Affairs – Review and comment on Project Notification Form. Present were David Armitage and Molly Eckert of the Planning Office for Urban Affairs (POAH).
Ms. Guy stated that she distributed a copy of the Project Notification Form at the last meeting.
Mr. Armitage stated that POAH has been around for about 40 years and that they have developed over 2000 properties. As part of the project, they will also work on the park across the street. The project will be affordable mixed income and elderly housing with with retail on the first floor. Section 106 requires that they submit the PNF to Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC).
Ms. Herbert asked if the project has changed from the original.
Mr. Armitage replied in the negative, noting that the exception is that there will be retail instead of the community life center. He stated that currently they are proposing 8 units in the rectory building, but noted that it could be office space. He stated that the school is what triggered the PNF. They will be using Section 202 funds for 20 elderly housing units. There will be no addition to the building, but they will have elevator equipment on the roof. The new building will be 73 units. It will be a four story building with housing on the top 3 floors.
Ms. Diozzi asked if they pay taxes on the building.
Mr. Armitage replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Ekhert stated that the condition assessment is from the 2005 reuse study.
Mr. Carr stated that what is before the Commission tonight is to evaluate the significance of the buildings and the site. The 2005 study speaks to the significance and states that it is eligible for listing on the state and National Registers. It states that the convent is not architecturally significant. He provided a letter from Stanley Smith, past president of SHA, HSI and Historic Boston. He stated that the Commission is being asked by MHC to determine the significance of the existing buildings and report back from the local level. He noted that to demolish one of the three significant buildings, the project would not qualify for 20% tax credit. He added that the use of Federal funds are not to undermine the National Register.
Jean Martin, 24 Leavitt St., stated that she is 7th generation in the point neighborhood. She stated that the church is an important representation of French culture and that, if destroyed, it will destroy a major part of historic culture.
Mr. Schopf, 1 Cambridge St, stated that this is not a new discussion and that it illustrates the importance of these structures collectively. He stated that National Register eligibility is criteria for preservation and felt that inconvenience is not a criteria for demolition of a historic building. He stated that he felt the structures could be sympathetically reused for a viable purpose.
Emily Udy, HSI, stated that the church is landmark, but noted that two other buildings also have historic fabric.
Anna Delamonica, 18 Prescott Street, stated that the first time she heard of St. Josephs was as a teen taking art courses in Boston. She stated that the teacher spoke about the cruciform building being constructed in Salem. She stated that she felt it belongs to the French community morally. She added that it is rare architecture and a priceless historical work of art.
Mr. Carr stated that POAH has initiated something that involves federal funding, so if their choice is to use federal funds, it triggers a determination if the church building is significant, individually and as part of the complex.
Ms. Guy read an FAQ section from MHC’s website which detailed what happens once the PNF is submitted to MHC.
Ms. Whitney stated that all you have to do is walk by the site and you would note the complex is architecturally significant.
Ms. Locke stated that she has a number of properties in the Point, provided a book of pictures and noted that the upper windows of the church have the names of the saints and the evangelists.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to close public comment.
Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Hart stated that he was not sure of the accuracy on whether the property has been deemed eligible, noting that the opinion of the consultant is that it is eligible. He noted that Page 3 of the PNF does not state if the complex eligible. He suggested sending a letter to MHC suggesting that they take under consideration the whether church and complex are eligible. He stated that the entire complex should be evaluated. He noted that Section 106 asks the effect of a project on the historic fabric of the surrounding area as well and stated that MHC should examine that as well.
Ms. Guy suggested that the Commission request to be an interested party.
Mr. Hart noted that on page 25-26 of the 2005 study is pertinent information relating to site.
Ms. Herbert stated that, if deemed eligible and would have an adverse effect, the applicant should look at alternatives.
Ms. McCrea wondered about the adverse effect of it sitting there and rotting.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to draft a letter to MHC with the Commission comments relating to individual and complex eligibility, effect on the historic properties in the neighborhood, alternatives and request to be an interested party. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
- Salem Common – City of Salem – Determination on whether new tot lot plan is substantially equal to prior plan.
Ms. Guy provided copies of the initially approved plan by O’Brien & Sons and the plan submitted by Little Tikes, who won the bid.
Mr. Desrocher stated that he felt it looks substantially similar.
Mr. Hart made a motion to find that the new plan is substantially similar to the prior plan and to amend the Certificate of Appropriateness to include the new plan. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
- Approval of minutes – 12/2/09
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the minutes of December 2, 2009. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
There being no further business, Ms. Harper 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.
| 
