SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
AUGUST 18, 2010
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, August 18, 2010 at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Mr. Hart, Ms. McCrea, Ms. Bellin and Mr. Spang.
181 Federal Street
Jefferey and Martha Delaney submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors. The body will be Benjamin Moore Hamilton Blue. The trim will be Bone White, the shutters will be black and front door will be Classic Burgundy.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Paint chips
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Delaney stated that they want to paint two sides this year and the remainder next year.
Mr. Hart made a motion to extend the approval from one year to two years. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
15 ½ River Street
Peter G. and Jan N. Eschauzier submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors and fence replacement. The body of the house will be C2 Tusk. The trim will be C2 Sheer and the front door will be Black Forest Green. The existing fence on the right of the house will be replaced with posts changed to match those on the front fence, with the fence painted either the trim or house color.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Paint chips
- Boston Fence Company proposal
Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve the paint colors as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Eschauzier stated that the only change to the fence are the posts, which will have flat caps to match the front fence. They will also flip the fence, so that the finished side is facing outward.
Mr. Hart asked the finish proposed for the fencing.
Mr. Eschauzier stated that for the front fence, they would like the option to paint it the body or trim color. The new fence will be left to weather.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve replacement of the fence on the right side of house to replicate existing, with exceptions that 1) fence to be turned around so finish side is facing out and 2) post caps to match post caps of front fence. Side fence to be unpainted (to weather). The front fence is to be painted either Tusk or Sheer. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
315-317 Essex Street
315 Essex St. LLC, Steve Morris trustee, submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to revise previously approved side and rear elevations, including the removal of doors and relocation of windows. Morris Schopf represented the applicant.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Schopf Design Associates drawings dated 7/14/10
- Schopf Design Associates drawings dated 8/16/10
Mr. Schopf stated that it took about 10 weeks to empty out the tenants from the rooming house. He stated that the Building Inspector issued a permit to undertake some preliminary demolition so that they could do a structural review of the existing building under Chapter 54. The actual building permit application was filed on July 22, 2010. He stated that the Building Inspector concluded that the rear elevation design had changed from what was approved by the Commission. He stated that there are, in fact, subtle differences in the locations of windows and other things. He stated that on page 301 of the 8/16/10 plans, the front elevation is unchanged and the profiles of the dormers have been corrected and the vertical scaling of the building has been corrected. He stated that there is a
knee wall in the attic where the floor of the attic is actually below the soffit and fascia line, which he had not noticed till they tore the building apart. He stated that for the right side elevation, there was some doors into the first floor units which were not required for egress and messed up the interior plan, which has now been removed. There are somewhat fewer windows in order to keep the window pattern that already existing in the building, rather than to alter extensively. The exception is a window on the first floor at the corner, which is in the reconstructed part of the façade where it wraps around the corner of the building. He stated that the windows on the second floor are not at 8’, but are around 7’. The window heads on the second floor are all at 8’ all around the building. Because of the difference in the vertical scaling, the actual distance between the roof of the one story piece that is being
remodeled in the back and the existing soffit and fascia of the building is 11’, which is now shown correctly, as is the low-pitched roof that wraps around it on three sides. There is a subtle change of the spacing of the windows on the third floor dormer, which has to do with how the inside space is going to be used, and there is now no intention of demolishing the chimneys.
Mr. Hart stated that the lower windows don’t line up vertically.
Mr. Schopf stated that the window rough openings already exist and will be left as they are. The one new window will be lined up with the window below. They are reducing the height of one window opening to accommodate a kitchen sink. He stated that for the second drawing on the second page, they will be patching in two existing window openings and adding two windows to accommodate the kitchens on the second floor.
Ms. Bellin asked the number of units.
Mr. Schopf stated that there will be six, two on the first floor front, one in the 1 story addition in the back, one across the front on the second floor and two in the back that are duplexed into the attic. He stated that windows W15, W14 and W13 windows are all new. W14 is intended to align with the existing window above. W113 will line up with W226 existing above. There are 2 blanked off ones, one new one, then 2 existing which more or less line up with one another, then the three windows where the building turns at a slight angle are all existing and the three windows in the new dormer at floor two in the rear are new windows and the window in the stairway is a new window. W110 is existing. For the rear elevation, we had shown dormers on the back, but there were never really any dormers
to go on the back, because there is nothing to frame to. He stated that he continued the dormer at the rear of the building from the dormer on the side all the way around three sides to the dormer on the other side. The dormer on the third floor is straight across and is set back a foot from the existing dormers to create a reveal behind the existing dormer.
Mr. Spang stated that it is trying to look like the right side elevation.
Mr. Schopf replied in the affirmative. The front elevation is an existing dormer. He stated that originally he showed a raised dormer between the existing dormers on the side and they are no longer going to do that. They are going to leave the side elevation from the two dormers all the way around to the two dormers on the other side elevation exactly as it is now. Before they got permission to raise the roof between the two dormers on the side and are now asking not to have to do that. He stated that he is looking to get the new elevations blessed. There will be one door on the back and two on the side that are now gone. He stated that the units have fire ratings even though they are not required.
Dorothy Hayes, 329 Essex Street, stated that the plans that she looked at as part of the application are not what is being discussed. She stated that the windows on the rear side appear to be different.
Mr. Schopf agreed they were different and stated that the existing transom windows, that were installed during the partial renovation of the first floor, are to be reused for the sun porches on the second floor, because they have transoms.
Ms. Hayes stated that those are not consistent with what was seen earlier and not really in character with the building.
Mr. Schopf stated that they are already a part of the building.
Ms. Hayes noted that they are moving them around.
Mr. Schopf confirmed that they are moving them around.
Ms. Hayes stated “well, that’s a little different. I think what was originally the plan we talked about were these windows, so that is a change then.”
Mr. Schopf replied that it is a change and stated that those are Pella Architectural windows that were approved for the renovation of the first floor, which he thought could be reused on the two porches and around the back and around the other side.
Ms. Hayes stated that she did not feel it was part of the application that these windows would be swapped out and stated she had a problem with that. She asked if the shutters will be full sized.
Mr. Schopf replied in the affirmative, noting that they will be wood.
Ms. Hayes stated that other than the windows being swapped out, she did not have a problem, but did not feel the transom windows were appropriate, in terms of style and felt it was not the proper treatment given what they are trying to achieve on the rest of the house.
Mr. Schopf stated that the Commission does not have to let him use the transom windows.
Ms. Guy stated that the transom windows were originally approved the by the Commission, but recalled that after installation some Commission members expressed an issue with the windows because they were shortened and did not match the upper windows. She stated that they were approved, but feel some members were disappointed with them.
Ms. Diozzi questioned the degree of visibility.
Ms. Guy asked what kind of windows will be in the third floor dormers.
Mr. Schopf stated that they will be 6 over 6.
Ms. Guy stated that sometimes third floors have smaller windows anyway and maybe reusing them in the third floor may be more appropriate.
Ms. Bellin noted that the dormers are more forward, so they might be more visible.
Mr. Schopf stated that the windows in the front dormer are staying the same size, which is 6 over 6. The windows on the dormer in the back are shorter. He stated that the heads all line up and are about 3’ off of the floor.
Mr. Spang stated that the transom windows proposed for the rear, if visible, the right side elevation might be seen from across from one of the other streets through the properties.
Ms. Diozzi stated that possibly Cambridge Street.
Mr. Schopf stated that the transom and the double hung window height together are the height of the window openings in the building.
Jim Kearney, 1½ Cambridge Street, asked the width of the shutters on the front of the house and if they will meet when closed.
Mr. Schopf replied in the affirmative and stated that the will be half the width of the window, noting that the they are wider than they look on the drawing because, when hung, they overlap the frame of the window because they are hung tight to the window sashes. They will be correctly proportioned to the windows and will be hung on hardware.
Ms. Guy noted that when closed they should shed water away from the building.
Mr. Kearney stated that he was not in favor of the windows with the transom and felt that they will be visible from North/Summer Street and between the park and the houses.
Mr. Schopf agreed that the windows will be visible from the public way from the driveways on North and Summer Streets and possibly from Cambridge Street.
Mr. Hart suggested that the applicant look into changing the transomed windows to 6 over 6.
Mr. Schopf agreed that the alternative for the Commission is to approve ten new windows to match the rest of the house. He stated that he could move the 10 transom windows off the site.
Mr. Spang stated that for the front elevation, he was concerned with the distance between the sill of the lower window and the water table, noting that it feels low, compared to the distance between the second floor sill and the first floor head. He stated that the windows appear tight to the ground and asked if they could be nudged up a bit.
Mr. Hart stated that windows are typically 2’6” above the finished floor.
Mr. Schopf stated that the plans may not be drawn exactly to scale.
Ms. Spang stated that he felt the front elevation was key. He stated that he was okay with reusing the existing openings. He stated that he did not have a strong opinion on reusing the transom windows on the back, but felt the front elevation needs a little massaging to get the proportions correct.
Mr. Hart and Mr. Spang stated that it did not appear to be drawn correctly.
Mr. Schopf stated that he will come back to the Commission with the correctly drawn front elevation.
Ms. Bellin agreed that the windows looked a little low.
Mr. Hart stated that he was in favor of the applicant investigating swapping out the transom windows with 6 over 6 windows.
Ms. Bellin was in agreement.
Mr. Schopf asked for approval of the third floor and the second floor dormers as drawn.
Mr. Hart made a motion to revise the Certificate of Appropriateness dated 3/4/10 for door and window alterations, and for detail corrections as per plans dated 8/16/10 with the following two exceptions:
Exception #1: that the 10 transom windows as drawn, be changed to 6 over 6 to match the new wood windows shown to be installed elsewhere on the house. Option for the following (all wood exterior):
- Pella Architect Series Wood Double Hung Window with ILT's
- LePage 7/8” SDL
- J. B. Sash Proper Bostonian
Where there is a wood choice, it should be cedar.~~ When available, the spacers between the glass should be bronze.
Exception #2: that the front elevation be redrawn to depict the actual conditions and the actual proposed location of first floor windows, with this elevation to be continued to the meeting of September 1, 2010.
Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
9 North Street
Historic Salem, Inc. submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to revise the approved fence vent installation. The new proposal is to install the vent pipes at least 7’ above grade in the south (right) corner of the west wall. The two vent pipes will be 4” and 3” in diameter and will be painted grey to match the body color of the house. The preference is to install the vent pipes so that the tops are at 8’6” above grade, parallel to the top of the window. The reasons for the change are:
- high efficiency boilers vented 7’ above grade to not require carbon monoxide detectors be installed throughout the building. The revised proposal minimizes CO risk and eliminates costs of CO detectors
- The vent pipes will be located farther from the window per the previous approval
- The vent pipes run will be shorter so venting issues will be less likely
- The vent will be farther from Eaton Place and the parking lot and less visible
- The pipe (particularly the air intake) will be well above the snow line and well away from the area where it can be damaged or blocked by snow from plows clearing the parking lot.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs illustrating proposed alteration
Mr. Hart stated that he provided unpaid advice to the applicant regarding the application.
Ms. McCrea stated that she liked the vents lining up with the window head.
Mr. Spang made a motion to approve the proposed revision. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
171 Federal Street
Jeremy and Amber Oberc submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors. The body will be California Paints Emma. The trim will be Pure White and shutters and front door will be Winter Balsam.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Paint chips
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
- Ms. Guy stated that she received a letter from Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) to Gordon College finding no adverse effect for the proposed heating-system upgrade at Old Town Hall.
- Spring Pond - Ms. Guy stated that she received an email from Aikaterini Panagiotakis regarding potential Native American graves at Spring Pond, which she forwarded to Commission members.
Mr. Spang noted that the project will likely go through the MEPA process.
Mr. Hart stated that he will suggest that she contact Ed Bell at MHC.
- Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of August 4, 2010. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
There being no further business, made a motion to adjourn. a seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission
| 
