SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
MARCH 3, 2010
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, March 3, 2010 at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Harper, Ms. Bellin and Ms. McCrea.
Ms. Diozzi announced that all four votes in favor will be required to pass any motion.
31 Washington Sq. N
Michael Shea (under agreement) submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to 1) install new shutters on main house and carriage house, 2) install new windows and doors on carriage house, 3) paint exterior trim white, 4) install door with 6 panel wood and two side lites and transom on carriage house, 5) point brick and 6) replace missing section of antique rod iron fence in front of main house (if section can be located). Attorney George Atkins and architect Richard Griffin represented the applicant.
Attorney Atkins stated that Mr. Shea has a purchase and sale agreement. They are going before the Zoning Board of Appeal (ZBA) for single family use of the carriage house. They proposed to rehabilitate the carriage house.
Mr. Griffin provided drawings and stated that the carriage house has a partial concrete floor and that they will be doing a gut rehab on the inside. The outside windows will be replaced with double insulated Matthews Brothers wood windows with simulated divided lites - the same windows that were used for the Bertram House next door. The existing barn door will be replaced with a front entry with a six panel door and a side light surround. The two side doors will be replaced with a pair of double hung windows with raised panels underneath. They prefer to use Azek instead of wood for the panels for longevity. There will be two six panel doors, one in the back of the building and one at the main entry in the front and the question is if a fiberglass, painted six panel door is
acceptable. The original shutters that are currently stored inside the carriage house will be restored and rehung.
Ms. Bellin asked if any window sizes will change.
Mr. Griffin replied in the negative.
Mr. Shea stated that they want to put back the shutters on the main house, and would like the option for the carriage house.
Ms. Guy noted that the property currently has a Clerk’s Certificate of Vote for the shutters that were removed from the main house in violation by the current owner. She noted that the applicant had applied for shutters prior to learning of the outstanding violation.
Mr. Griffin stated that they will also replace the carriage house slate roof with black or charcoal grey 3-tab shingles.
Ms. Diozzi read a letter from Neil and Martha Chayet, 26 Winter Street.
Joe McCall, fence contractor, stated that there is approximately 50’ of fence missing.
Morris Schopf stated that he is aware of a section of fence in the back garden.
The proposed fence is King Architectural Metals 45-9701 spears with fleur-de-lis finials which would be installed on the left side from left of entryway with approximately 50’ of replacement fencing to the lot line. They will repair the approximately 30’ of fencing on the right side. The new fence will not replicate the existing fence.
Ms. Harper asked if the block of granite that is worn away will be replaced.
Mr. Shea stated that they will turn it upside down.
Ms. Harper asked if they intend to go up the front stairs with new fence.
Mr. Shea replied in the negative.
Jeff Laaff, 24 Winter Street, stated that the shutters on the carriage house should be wood to match the main house shutters in storage. He stated that the clock is invaluable and that he supports its repair, or if financially non-feasible to be left in situ.
Ms. Shea stated that he will try to have the clock repaired.
Mr. Laaff asked about parking and how 6 spots will accommodate 4 units. He asked about any plans for the adjacent open lot.
Mr. Shea stated that there are no plans for the open lot.
Mr. Laaff asked if use of the lot could be tied to the permitting.
Ms. Diozzi stated that the Historical Commission does not have jurisdiction over use.
Mr. Laaff asked about the column at the back porch that the previous owner had replaced with a 4 x 4.
Mr. Shea stated that it has been replaced.
Ms. Guy explained that going back as early as 1994, the columns and shutters were in violation with the previous owner and the Commission had filed a Certificate of Vote violation at Registry of Deeds. Since then it appears that the column has been corrected. The Certificate typically results in a red flag with the title search, which could hold up the sale. In order to complete the sale, the Commission would have to remove the Certificate. She stated that in this case, the prospective buyer has applied for the shutter work, before learning that they were in violation. She recommend allowing the Certificate to be removed. She asked the closing date.
Mr. Shea stated that the closing is approximately April 15th.
Atty. Atkins stated that it is dependent on the outcome of the ZBA in two weeks.
Ms. Guy asked if the ZBA denied, would the sale still go through.
Mr. Shea replied in the negative.
Ms. Guy recommended that the discharge be conditional on a positive outcome from the ZBA.
Ms. Diozzi stated that she would like to continue the fence.
Ms. Harper asked if the new windows will be wood.
Mr. Griffin replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Harper asked if the window can have a bronze spacer.
Mr. Griffin stated that he assumed that they could get it.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to reinstall existing shutters on the main house and option to craft new matching shutters for the carriage house. Shutters to be black or Essex Green. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Harper made a motion to approve the windows as submitted with bronze spacer. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve the six panel doors as submitted in wood only, painted black or Essex Green to match the shutters. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-applicability to repaint exterior trim on both structures white. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin made a motion for removal of the barn door and replacement with new entry as per plans dated 2/19/10. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-applicability to repair clock if feasible or to leave it in place non-operational. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-applicability to repoint brick on both buildings as needed with mortar to match in color, thickness and texture. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to replace 2 doors with windows as per plans with wood raised panels and with Azek for the narrow baseboard trim of the carriage house where the baseboard meets the stone, painted white. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Shea stated that the slate roof of carriage house is leaking and that slate is missing everywhere. He noted that he has been a roofing contractor for 7 years and that the slate is too far gone to be repaired.
Ms. Bellin stated that she would like to continue the roof.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to remove the Clerk’s Certificate of Vote at the Registry of Deeds regarding the shutters following a positive vote by the ZBA and to require the new owner to reinstall the shutters within one year. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Shea stated that he could get a letter from a slate roofer.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the roof and fence to the March 24th meeting. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
315-317 Essex Street
Stephen Morris submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace and relocate windows and doors, replace exterior clapboards and install raised dormers at the attic on the sides and rear, along with new HVAC, electrical, plumbing, gas fitting and related systems to renovate an existing rooming house into six 2-bedroom condominiums. Present were Attorney George Atkins and design consultant Morris Schopf, who is also an abutter. Plans dated 2/10/10 were submitted.
Atty. Atkins stated that this property is also before the ZBA at their next meeting. A limited liability company has been formed where Ray Young is the manager. The LLOC has entered into an agreement with seller to buy the property. The ZBA proposal is to create 6 residential units, eliminate 2 commercial units and eliminate the lodging house on the third floor. Also before the ZBA is a technical dimensional requirement.
Mr. Schopf stated that he believed the stores were installed in the 1930s. He noted that the entire rear yard is asphalt. It is a 14 unit SRO on the second and third floors. The proposal is for six 2-bedroom condominiums with 10 parking spaces in the rear. The building box will be unchanged. They proposed to modify the elevations so to be consistent with Federal details. The window openings on second floor and attic on the front will stay in the same location. The new first floor windows will line up with the second floor. The windows will have 6 over 6 sashes with proper trim. Shutters will be installed only on the front facade. They will be adding additional windows on the sides and rear. There are currently 2 parking spaces on the street in front of the
property and they will eventually go before the city council to get them from 15 minute spaces to regular street parking. He noted that the single entrance at front has interior entrances to the right and left units and stairs going up to the second floor and down to the basement. The unit in back has an entrance at the corner of the rear where the single story in back pushes out. They proposed to move the rear stairway from outdoors to just inside the building.
The are requesting to demolish the storefront, install 6 over 6 sashes throughout, add shutters on the front, add decorative windows in foyer, install a proper federal entrance in front and a federal entrance in the rear of the property for third floor. They will be keeping 8 existing dormers, with the 2 on front façade to be unaltered. For the left side elevation they propose adding 6 windows. They propose adding shed dormers between the existing dormers on the sides with 2 new shed dormers per side. They propose adding 6 windows and 2 doors to the one story addition in the back and 6 windows will be added to the second story of the main house in back. There will be windows in each of the 4 new shed dormers. They will be adding 6 new windows to right side to match the left side. The rear stairway of the one story addition will be enclosed and it will have a sloping roof. There will be 6 gas fire places, but none will be vented on the front of the building. They are also
requesting removal of two chimneys that are essentially not visible from the public way. They will reclapboard as needed. All new window trim will match existing window trim. Windows will be double glaze wood windows from Commission’s approved list. They are willing to come back with windows and paint.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to demolish the store front. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the configuration on pages 4, 5, 6 and 7 which are 6 over 6 wood windows with windows to be either the JB Sash, Lepage or Pella windows already approved. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve front door design including 2 decorative windows and side door design as shown on sheet 4. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve the addition of 4 shed dormers as drawn on pages 5, 6 an 7. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve enclosing the rear stairway as submitted on pages 6 and 7. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve 4 new door openings on the sides and back per pages 5, 6 and 7 with doors to be six panel wood with transom. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Schopf stated that they will be coming back with chimneys, vents, paint color, fence for east side, granite curb and an option for fiberglass doors.
Atty. Atkins requested that the certificate be issued in the name of Ray Young.
Other Business
- Salem Jail Redevelopment Project
Councillor Sosnowski stated that on Tuesday there is a meeting at city hall to discuss parking in the lot in front of the Salem Jail project. He stated that he is looking for all the help he can get to preserve the historic site. He stated that he did not want to tell the Commission what to say, but that he would appreciate if members could come and say something.
Ms. Guy stated that she just heard of the meeting this week and brought copies of the parking proposal. She provided a plan of the lot before the roadway was installed and a copy of the Salem Redevelopment Authority approved design for the roadway turnaround at the site. She stated that the city is supporting the parking.
Councillor Sosnowski stated that there are 39 metered spaces proposed.
Ms. Guy stated that during the numerous public meetings held for the jail redevelopment, the public wanted to have access into the historic building. She noted that there will be a jail exhibit which will provide some public access and that a restaurant will provide additional public access into the interior of this historic building. She stated they are keeping the walls and floors and opened up the ceiling. She stated that the city would like support for the plan. Ms. Guy stated that she would like a vote to send a letter so that there is a uniform Commission decision and not each Commissioner giving their own personal opinion, should any members decide to attend the meeting.
Councillor Sosnowski stated that the historic part is the granite wall the surrounds the entire perimeter of the building.
Ms. Diozzi asked how the wall would be affected by the building.
Ms. Guy noted that the wall was repaired and stabilized as part of the by-pass project. She added that there is more green space in front of one section of the wall. She suggested that the Commission consider supporting the plan with the removal of the seven spaces next to the wall.
Councillor Sosnowski stated that the site in front of the wall is all brand new and is not historic. He stated that he does not want any parking there at all, does not want to hide the beautiful wall and wants the green space. He stated that he supports New Boston Ventures, but not the essentially dedicated parking.
Ms. Guy stated that it wouldn’t be dedicated parking.
Councillor Sosnowski agreed, noting that it is metered. He stated that no metered spot would be guaranteed to be available for the residents.
Ms. Guy stated that it would be available to residents for snow emergencies.
Ms. McCrea noted that there is a parking lot and garage nearby.
Councillor Sosnowski stated that if it is so important for them to have dedicated parking, they may want to have a private arrangement with the church for after 5:00pm. He stated that he talked to Dan Riccarelli, who is a Salem resident and is the architect for the project and that he challenged the scale of the drawing. He noted that everyone from the Bridge Street Neck Neighborhood Association is gearing up for the meeting on Tuesday.
Ms. Diozzi stated that in January she could not find space to attend a concert at the Universalist Church and felt that parking is desperately needed on Friday and Saturday nights in the winter and that this is the time when these places need the business the most. She stated that there is green space in front and that there is a plan for there to be a driveway anyway. There could be a row of trees or a nice fence to shield the cars and create a buffer.
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission does not have jurisdiction over use per se and that the preservation issue is that there is a historic building that is going through adaptive reuse that can be open to the public. The parking gives the opportunity for people to come in and see the interior of the building. She stated that the Commission can support the plan with conditions that preserve the wall, such as not supporting the seven spaces adjacent to the wall and/or adding granite curbing.
Ms. Bellin stated that we are getting a huge parking garage just down the street.
Councillor Sosnowski stated that anecdotally speaking, there is no other restaurant in the city that has dedicated parking.
Ms. Guy stated that it is not dedicated.
Councillor Sosnowski stated that he understands that it is not dedicated, but noted that the rationale behind asking for it is to satisfy the requirements of the restaurant, so in that sense it is dedicated. He stated that the city just had a downtown parking study. He agreed parking is a problem in the city, but professionals are saying just the opposite. He noted that they don’t understand the city like we do.
Ms. Guy noted that where there was roadway before is now green space, so there would still be a net gain of green space with the parking spaces.
Ms. Bellin did not know if the drawing can be relied upon.
Ms. Guy stated that we do not know that the drawing is not to scale.
Ms. Bellin asked if the Planning Department supported the proposal.
Ms. Guy replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Diozzi stated that she supported the proposal.
Ms. Bellin stated it would be great to do a letter but felt there was no consensus among the Commission members and noted that all four present would need to agree.
Ms. Guy stated that if anyone goes to the meeting, they can’t speak for the Commission officially because there is no consensus.
Ms. Bellin was concerned that they did not provide an appropriate drawing and she was concerned about people parking up against the historic wall. She stated that she was not sure what she supported, but did not support the spaces against the wall, particularly where it is not an appropriate drawing.
Ms. Guy suggested a letter stating that the Commission cannot reach consensus, but that at this point, the Commission does not support the seven spaces against the wall.
Ms. Bellin was in agreement and suggested emphasizing that it would be more appropriate if we had a good drawing before us.
Ms. Harper added that she would like to know how much green space would be retained.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to find that there is no consensus on the parking plan proposed, that the Commission does not support the 7 spaces adjacent to the historic cemetery wall and would prefer a scaled construction drawing showing the layout of spaces and amount of green space that would be retained. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
- 38 Front Street – Review of CDBG funded commercial rehabilitation project
Ms. Guy stated that the project is to replace one storefront window with an entry to match an existing entry with sidelights currently on that façade.
There were no comments from the Commission.
- 221 Essex Street – Review of CDBG funded commercial rehabilitation project
Ms. Guy stated that the project is for storefront rehabilitation as per plans provided.
There were no comments from the Commission.
Ms. Guy stated that she received a request to extend a Certificate of Non-applicability for roof and gutter work until 4/1/10.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the extension request. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. McCrea stated that the balustrade over the front entrance has been removed.
Ms. McCrea made a motion to send a violation letter to the new owners. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of February 17, 2010. Mr. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy read an e-mail from Neil and Martha Chayet concerning items for auction that were listed on line erroneously claiming to be from the Storey House and noting that the auction house has agreed to correct the misimpression. They also noted that a court appearance for copper downspouts that were stolen from their property is scheduled for March 18th.
There being no further business, Ms. Bellin 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
| 
