SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
APRIL 7, 2010
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, April 7, 2010 at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Harper, Ms. Bellin and Mr. Hart.
Ms. Diozzi announced that all four votes in favor would be needed to approve any motion.
42 Warren Street
Jennifer and Todd Weissman submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to change the paint color from white body to gray body (Castle Kilkenny) with white trim (Affinity Frostine AF-5) and black shutters (Kookaburra Licorice). Paint chips were provided.
Mr. Hart asked if it is all wood.
Ms. Weissman replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
105 Derby Street
Patrick McCormack and Emily Swilling submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace front fences. The fence at the end of the driveway will be Hamilton, 5’6” +/- high, left natural. The streetscape fence, which turns into the driveway, will be Essex 5’ +/- high, left natural. A catalog cut was provided.
Mr. McCormack stated that there will be two walkway gates in the Essex style fence.
Ms. Swilling stated that the Essex fence may be less than 5’ high.
Mr. McCormack stated that they will use the same posts that are there now.
Mr. Hart asked the color.
Mr. McCormack stated it would be natural stain but did not know the color.
Ms. Swilling stated that they will be coming back for house colors in the near future.
Mr. Hart asked what kind of wood will be used for the fence.
Mr. McCormack stated that he was not sure if it would be pressure treated or cedar.
Mr. Hart stated that it should not go too long unpainted or unstained. He suggested approving the fence with the color of the house body or trim if they do not come back with a stain color.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the fence design as submitted conditional that the applicants come back within 2 months with a stain color, or else paint the Essex style sections the body or trim color of the house. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
330 Essex Street
Ben Larrabee and Melanie Griffin submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to immediately replace three rotted and leaking 6 over 6 windows in the first floor kitchen, including jambs, interior/exterior casings and sash) and subsequently replace all 29 windows. Windows to be Marvin Ultimate double-hung, same as 17 North Street. Fletcher Hall, contractor, was present. A window sample was provided.
Ms. Bellin asked if the Commission approved this window in the past.
Ms. Guy stated that she would have to check the file for 17 North Street.
Mr. Larrabee stated that for the 3 windows on the first floor, they would like to replace immediately because they are leaking and then follow with the remaining windows on the house dependent upon contractor availability.
Ms. Bellin asked if they will all be 6 over 6.
Mr. Larrabee stated that there a few smaller windows that aren’t.
Mr. Hall stated that they may be 3 over 3, but Marvin will duplicate whatever is there as far as configuration.
Mr. Hart asked if the application is to replace the entire window, jambs, casing inside and out as well as sash.
Mr. Larrabee replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Hart asked why are they leaking.
Mr. Griffin believed it was from neglect over time, but noted that they just moved in a year ago. They are leaking from the inside in the kitchen.
Mr. Hall stated that it is probably due to window flashing.
Mr. Hart questioned why they don’t just replace the flashing.
Mr. Hall stated that air is leaky throughout the house and with energy consciousness, they would like to replace them to save heating costs.
Mr. Hart strongly suggested repairing the remaining windows. He felt the 3 were a special case, but the remaining 26 should be repaired and tightened up.
Mr. Larrabee stated that they have looked into the options, and that this is the way they want to go – replacing all the windows.
Mr. Hart stated if you repair them and add an interior or exterior storm to an existing wood window, it will get the same thermal characteristics as any brand new window, assume the new window is installed properly.
Mr. Larrabee stated that they will also be replacing all the storms.
Mr. Hart stated that they will essentially be triple glaze with the new windows.
Mr. Hall stated that they will put a permiter band molding around the windows to match what is there now, so essentially they should not look any different.
Mr. Hart looked at the sample and stated that there is an interior molding on the exterior. He noted that it did not look like a putty line.
Mr. Hall stated that Marvin can provide a beveled edge and the windows will all be painted.
Ms. Guy pulled the file for 17 North Street and stated that what was approved was a Marvin Ultimate Double Hung, 7/8” muntins with bronze spacers.
Ms. Harper stated that there are actually two different profiles in the window. She suggested Marvin make straight angle to look like a putty line.
Mr. Larrabee stated that everyone window will be custom made and we told them we want the windows to match exactly what is there.
Ms. Bellin asked if Mr. Hart was thinking that the storms would not be needed.
Mr. Hart stated that the more layers of glaze the better thermally.
Mr. Larrabee stated he thought storms were required because that is what is in place now.
Ms. Diozzi stated that the Commission does not have jurisdiction over storms.
Ms. Bellin stated that most houses would look better without them.
Mr. Larrabee stated that it is also a protection issue.
Mr. Hall stated that he believed Marvin could provide a beveled edge.
Mr. Hart stated that the 3 windows were probably a later addition and would be in favor of approving replacement of those 3 windows with a profile on the exterior muntin that matches a putty line.
Mr. Hall believed they were 1950s Brosco sash in the kitchen, but the rest of the house are original window.
Dorothy Hayes, 329 Essex Street stated that her concern is that the building is sort of two different buildings together, with the applicants in the rear, and that there will wind up being two different sets of windows on the front and back. She stated that she would want the profile to match the profile on the front so there is not two different sets of windows.
Mr. Hart stated that he would like to see the 3 windows installed first and then having the owners come back for approval of the remaining windows on the house. He also encouraged the owners consider repairing the existing windows and felt the owners would probably save money.
Ms. Hayes stated that she saw a Window Woman sign on the front unit of the applicant’s building.
Ms. Guy also suggested looking the return on the windows in energy savings over the years, versus the cost of the windows to see what is most cost effective.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the replacement of three 6 over 6 wood windows in first floor kitchen with Marvin Ultimate Double Hung wood windows with 7/8” muntins and bronze spacers. Exterior muntins to have custom profile to replicate the putty line on the windows of the main house. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
17 Orne Square
Anne Busteed submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace 40’ of backyard fence in same height 5’6”. The new fence will be Northeastern Colonial Privacy Cedar Panels fencing.
Ms. Busteed stated that existing lilts backwards. She noted that not all of the fence is visible. She will be splitting the cost of the fence with the neighbor on Endicott Street, which is not in the district.
Mr. Hart suggested that the post cap have a little more relief (either have a taller post or drop the fence body).
Ms. Busteed stated that the same builder put in a fence next door and that her current fence is the same height. The posts of the new fence will match those next door.
Ms. Bellin noted that the posts next door are a couple inches above. She asked the color.
Ms. Busteed stated that it will be weatherized as is current and which fits in with Orne Square.
Mr. Hart if there was any objection to dropping the fence or raising the posts.
Ms. Busteed stated that she had no objection.
Ms. Guy suggested matching the post and fence height of the neighbor fence, but in the different style.
Mr. Hart suggested a differential of between 4 and 6” between the top of the cap an the top of the fence rail.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve 40’ of backyard fence replaced with Northeastern Cedar Privacy Panels Colonial style (as shown in brochure). Top of the fence post to be 4-6” higher than the rail of the main body of the fence. Top of rail to be 5 ½’ above grade. Color to be left natural. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
316 Essex Street
First Church of Salem submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors of wood window sash, trim and entry doors of the Church and Parish House addition. Colors were chosen based on paint analysis performed by Finch & Rose. The analysis could not determine the original color of the church entry doors (main and 2 side doors), so the selection was based on historic precedent and harmonization with the paint scheme. Church sash and trim to be California Paints Mansard Stone #8635D, Parish House sash and trim to be California Paints Moose Point #8715D, church entry doors to be C2 Paint Spanish Tile C2-1336A and Parish House stucco to be C2 Paint Shitake C2-7146P. Report and color scans were provided.
Lynne Spencer (Menders, Torrey & Spencer, Inc.) and Lynn Taggert were present (First Church).
Ms. Spencer stated that the Church has received an MPPF grant. The paint colors selected would also be used in future treatments. She stated that the original church has a sanded paint for a least two layers before using regular paint. Sanded paint was used to make wood look stone-like.
They have determined the original color of the Parish House. The have been unable to find the original color for the church doors, so they have proposed an appropriate store color. They will repair the stucco, but due to budget, will not do much more to the stucco. It is quite dirty and discolored. In the future when they do the addition, the Church has been advised to think about applying a protective coating for both the original structure and the addition to unify them using a paint coating of Keim Soldalit system to match the two. She withdrew the Shitake.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the application for painting as submitted, with stucco to be Keim color in the future (not Shitake). Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Also submitted was an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to expand the 1927 Parish House block with a 24’ x 24’ addition to create universal access and egress. The addition includes a new entrance and elevator bay at the south elevation and an egress door at the north elevation. Original entry and lancet window at the south elevation and two small windows at the east elevation to be removed. Large arched staircase window at the east elevation to be reused in the staircase of the addition. 1987 stained glass window over door to be relocated within the addition. Fire escapes to be removed from the north elevation and second floor exterior doors to be replaced with windows to match existing windows. New window trim will match existing parish House trim. New
sash will be custom-made SDL, wood windows with muntins matching width of existing muntins at Parish House. New entry doors will be painted wood with glazing. Drawings were provided.
Ms. Spencer stated that the church was built in 1836 as a meeting house. In 1927 an addition was built as well as an expansion below the sanctuary to create Willson Hall. The addition included classroom and offices. Willson Hall has had problems with flooding issues. The church has wrestled with accessibility, egress and energy sustainability. Her firm has recommended an addition to the 1927 building which would include an elevator and new staircase. It would reference some of the features of the existing. They will recycle some existing windows into the new addition. The addition would go into the existing garden space. There would be two at-grade entrances as well as an elevator with 4 stops. The 1927 staircase would be removed, floored over and become an
office and a new staircase added in a different location. The new addition will have the main entrance which is meant to draw you to it. Rondell windows will stay in place. There is no change to the windows on existing 1927 rear elevation. Presently staircases and fire escapes exist for classrooms. The fire escapes will be removed, and an interior staircase added for second egress. Material for the new addition will be true stucco, covered with Keim to unify it with the existing. The base of the building is to have granite veneer on portions of the original building and new addition. They have not selected the type of windows yet. Some windows on back are clad with metal, but they are not talking of changing them at this point. The garden would become accessible via a graded walkway. They would like the approval certificate issued for 2, rather than 1 year.
Mr. Hart stated that he was reluctant to approve the application without seeing elevation drawings.
Ms. Hayes suggested some type of window or something to the right of new main entry of the addition.
Mr. Hart suggested considering having an imbalanced arrangement on the addition, similar to one of the facades of the existing. He also suggested adding something more above the new entrance at the roof. He stated that conceptually the design works, but could benefit from a little playfulness to give homage to some of the earlier architecture. He noted that it is a fairly substantial addition to a fairly substantial building. He stated that he was not sure about bringing the granite around to the new addition.
Ms. Harper stated that she thought that extending the granite works really well.
Ms. Spencer stated that they will need an architectural access board variance for the front entrance, balcony and pulpit.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to the May 5th meeting. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
- 30 Warren Street – Request for Extension
Ms. Guy stated that the Conservatory Condominium submitted an email request to extend their Certificate of Appropriateness dated April 16, 2009 for clapboard repair/replacement and painting.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to extend to the certificate until October 30, 2010. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of March 24, 2010. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy distributed various information on solar panels and suggested that Commission members review the information in order to eventually add a section to the Commission guidelines regarding minimum standards. She suggested that members highlight things that they would like to see in the guidelines.
There being no further business, Ms. Bellin made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission
| 
