SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
OCTOBER 20, 2010
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, October 20, 2010 at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Mr. Hart, Ms. Harper, Ms. McCrea and Ms. Keenan.
Ms. Guy noted that unless the Commission continues any applications today to November 3rd, there will be no November 3rd meeting due to having received no applications.
31 Chestnut Street
In continuation of a prior meeting, Laura and William Wrightson submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace rotted side fence with different style and to change the terminus location.
Ms. Guy stated that she received a request to continue the application to the meeting of November 17, 2010.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to continue the application to the meeting of November 17, 2010. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
82 Federal Street
In continuation of a prior meeting, Christopher Luneau and Linda Luneau submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for alteration of a gable vent and brackets under the soffit.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Seger Architects drawings dated 9/20/10
- Louver specifications
Mr. Luneau stated that there were shingles under the bracket when he took off the siding, located on the right side of the house. They will just leave it shingled and paint it the body color.
Ms. Harper asked if the house was shingled originally and noted that it fits in with the shingles.
Mr. Luneau believed it had been shingled.
Mr. Luneau showed a picture of the PVC gable vent currently there. He stated that he could replace it with a wooden, paintable version of the same. He stated that it is not really visible from the street because it is so high and there is a tree there. He stated that he also wanted circular rather than hex shingles on the third floor section.
Mr. Hart asked if it will be circular on the entire gable.
Mr. Luneau stated he would like to do clustered courses of 5, 2, 3 and 2. He stated that he would like option to keep the top rail of porch railing in mahogany, unpainted.
Mr. Hart suggested looking at Brosco for the vent.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to retain the bracket feature below the third floor soffit (to remain shingled and painted body color) and replace existing PVC gable vent with wood in either oval (max. 20” x 24”), circular (max 24”) or octagonal (max 24” x 24”). The motion is also, in addition to the approvals on Certificate of Appropriateness dated 10/7/10, for an option for 3rd floor shingles in gable to be circular in clustered courses of 5, 2, 3 and 2 and an option for mahogany top rail on porch railing. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
88 1/2, 90 Federal Street
Roy Gelin submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to add stainless steel chimney caps to the two visible chimneys. The caps will have a wire animal guard and will be painted black.
Documents & Exhibits
Mr. Gelin stated that the rear reconstruction is chimney is complete and they are working on the other.
Mr. Hart noted that 88 ½ is to the east and 90 is to the west.
Ms. Harper made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
60-62 Washington Square South
Hodges Court Real Estate, LLC submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the removal of three chimneys, the addition of two decks in the rear of the building on the second floor and the alteration of the window configuration in the first floor sunroom. Present was Lewis Legon. Also present was Peter Pitman, architect and Atty. Scott Grover.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Pitman & Wardley drawings of existing and proposed
Mr. Legon stated that he will be converting the building to four condominiums. They will refurbish the windows in kind. He stated that one of first things they want to do is chimney removal. He stated that the chimneys are decayed and not in good condition. He noted that all existing wires and pipes will be torn out, along with the chimneys. There will be a new HVAC system.
Ms. Herbert asked the age of the building.
Mr. Legon stated that it was 1890.
Ms. Herbert asked if they are original chimneys.
Mr. Hart stated that they could be and asked the number of chimneys.
Mr. Legon stated that there are three chimneys.
Mr. Hart stated that he felt the chimneys were character defining and that he would be reluctant to see them removed. He suggested talking about a faux chimney.
A resident at 70 Essex St., Unit 2, stated that all three chimneys are visible and that the middle chimney is quite visible from the rear of the house. He stated that he felt that all 3 chimneys should remain as they are. He stated that he has a copy of a 1771 deed which references the middle chimney of the house as being a dividing line of the two families that lived there.
Ms. Herbert stated that it was probably a different house if the deed is 1771.
The resident from 70 Essex Street, Unit 2, stated that it may be different house now, but the chimney could have been there in 1771.
Ms. Diozzi stated that she found chimneys to be part of the scape of the Common. She noted that these are a little more obscure due to the tree, but she did not want to start a precedent of taking chimneys off houses. She stated that she felt they are significant to the skyscape.
Ms. McCrea was in agreement.
Mr. Legon stated that they considered that the Commission might go in that direction and asked if they were open to a faux chimney.
Mr. Hart stated that the existing are diminutive. He stated that they may want to rebuild from roofline up.
Ms. Guy stated that if the chimney were being rebuilt, it would be a non-applicability situation, if there would be no change in outward appearance.
Ms. Harper stated that she felt the size of the chimneys from the front look small for the house. She noted that the chimneys were there to vent wood stoves and she felt they go with the building. She stated that it is one thing to take down one falling down chimney and another to take down three chimneys that are not falling down and that are character defining.
Ms. Herbert asked how to support a real chimney from the roof line up.
Ms. Hart stated it is easiest is to build on top of an interior chimney.
Mr. Legon stated that they are taking out the chimney from the roofline down.
Mr. Hart stated that it will require some steel support.
Ms. Herbert asked if there was a bluestone cap on top.
Mr. Pitman stated that it is charred and sooted, so it is hard to tell.
Ms. Herbert stated that they would also need to replicate the blue stone cap.
Mr. Hart stated that, stylistically, it appears the addition may have been built at the same time as the house.
Ms. Herbert asked the condition of brick, if they are in decent condition.
Mr. Legon replied in the negative and stated that he felt they are dangerous.
Ms. Herbert stated that she was wondering if there was a way to reuse the brick in a patio or walkway.
Mr. Hart stated that he would like photographic documentation of the chimneys.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-applicability to repair or replace chimneys in kind with the proviso that the exterior experience match the existing and be documented photographically from 3 different perspectives.
Ms. Herbert seconded the motion. Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Mr. Hart, Ms. McCrea and Ms. Keenan voted in favor. Ms. Harper voted in opposition. The motion so carried.
Mr. Pitman stated that they are proposing to change the window configuration for the back porch. He agreed that the addition was probably built near the period of the home, but felt that the porch was added probably in the 19-teens. He stated that they are looking to limit the amount of glazing to provide some wall area. He stated that he felt the proposed will be similar in the amount of glazing versus shingling on the rest of the home. He stated that they will reuse 3 of the 5 windows.
There was no public comment.
Ms. Herbert agreed that it was probably a later addition, noting that the windows are 6 over 6 instead of 2 over 2 like the rest of the house. She stated that it was probably an open porch which was then walled in. She wondered if the windows should be 2 over 2 instead of 6 over 6.
Mr. Hart stated he felt 6 over 6 is later and that he had no problem with the configuration as it demonstrates the growth of the house.
Ms. McCrea stated that she felt in taking 2 windows out, it no longer looks like a porch.
Ms. Harper stated that since the rear and side windows can all be seen at once, they should not be two different configurations.
Mr. Hart stated that the option to removing the windows is to wall the windows from inside.
Mr. Pitman stated that they could black the glass prior to walling on the inside, as was done at Bertram House.
Mr. Hart stated that he preferred to see the windows walled.
Mr. Pitman stated that his concern is that when walling is done, it is usually up high and far away. He noted that these windows are very close to grade and may not be hid that well. He stated that he did not want to cross from faux into fake.
Ms. Harper suggested keeping the frames and installing clapboard on inside of the windows.
Mr. Pitman stated that even if the windows are removed as proposed, they could be restored by a future homeowner if they choose. He stated that the removal will balance out clapboards to glass. He noted that it will still leave a lot of glass in the room.
Ms. Herbert asked if they will still have leader board under windows all the way across
Mr. Pitman replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Hart stated that he preferred that the applicant rethink alternatives to block up the windows with clapboards.
Ms. Herbert suggested installing closed shutters and then they could do anything they want behind.
Mr. Pitman noted that there are no shutters on the rest of the home, so he did not want to introduce a new element.
Ms. McCrea asked if the 6 over 6 windows are the same size as the 2 over 2 windows.
Mr. Pitman stated that the 6 over 6 are a little longer and narrower.
Ms. Diozzi stated that she had no problem with the proposal.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the application as submitted for the window alterations. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion. Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Keenan and Ms. McCrea voted in favor. Ms. Harper, Mr. Hart and Ms. Herbert voted in opposition. The motion did not carry.
Mr. Hart made a motion to continue the window portion of the application to the meeting of 11/17 in order for the applicant to explore more options. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion. Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Mr. Hart, Ms. Harper and Ms. Keenan voted in favor. Ms. McCrea voted in opposition. The motion so carried.
Mr. Legon stated that they are not prepared to submit a design for the decks and requested a continuance if the Commission was willing to consider the concept of adding a deck.
Ms. McCrea made a motion to continue the decks to the meeting of 11/17/10. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Pitman stated that the challenge is structural, and they did not know yet if decks are practical from a structural point. If structurally possible, they want to consider adding them, but if the Commission is not receptive, they do not want to study it further.
Mr. Legon stated that they are truing to model the railing as per widows walks found around the historic districts.
Ms. Herbert stated that if it were a widows walk, it would be on top of the house. She stated that she personally liked the idea of adding a deck over the second story.
Mr. Hart stated that he had no problem with the concept.
Mr. Legon stated that buyers like outside space.
Ms. Keenan asked if the area would be common or dedicated.
Mr. Legon stated that it would be private.
Ms. Keenan stated that she liked the idea a lot and felt it was too bad that the chimney is there.
Mr. Legon stated that he could understand keeping the front chimneys, but felt that the rear chimney is not appealing. He suggested that the Commission reconsider chimney removal after looking around the city.
Mr. Hart stated that he preferred to keep all three chimneys.
Ms. Herbert stated that the front of the house is balanced architecturally. She stated that in back it is completely utilitarian.
Ms. Harper stated that she agreed with Mr. Hart.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to continue the application for the rear chimney. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. McCrea and Ms. Keenan voted in favor. Ms. Diozzi, Mr. Hart and Ms. Harper voted in opposition. The motion did not carry.
12 Orne Square
Laura Luckey submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the top two panels of the side door with glass in order to admit more light. The panels are 7 ½ x 15”. The application states that they are unlikely to be notices from the street, especially in Winter when storm doors are reflective.
Documents & Exhibits
Ms. Guy read an email from the applicant, withdrawing the application.
29 Washington Square
Ms. Herbert recused herself from discussion on this application, due to her mother being a resident of the Bertram Home, and left the room.
The John Bertram Trust submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to change the design of the fence with the addition of a fence cap.
Documents & Exhibits
Application
Photographs
Jennifer Santo, 25 Washington Sq. N, stated that she was opposed to the new fence.
Ms. Harper stated that the posts are higher and are now visible. She noted that the caps are screwed in with galvanized screws and it looks pretty bad. She added that the gate is crooked causing the gate and fence heights to be different and that one post is twisted.
Ms. Santo asked who built the fence.
Ms. Harper stated that the sign says Reliable Fence.
Ms. Santo stated that it is awful looking and does not fit in with the beautiful building that Bertram House is. She stated that it is not a historic looking fence and does not belong with the Bertram House.
Peter Pitman stated that he was just recently voted in as a Board of Directors member for the Bertram Home. He did not know about this application being heard tonight. He stated that he has heard some negative comments about the quality of the craftsmanship of the fence. He stated that the John Bertram Trust should have come before Commission for the changes, such as the posts, cap and hardware prior to fence replacement. He stated that it would be a shame to rip out the entire fence and stated that he would like the opportunity to try to rectify it. He stated that he was not in a position to present anything tonight.
Ms. Harper asked if this should have gone before Bertram House Board of Directors before it came here.
Mr. Pitman stated that he is new to this, but felt it would likely go before the Grounds Committee Board first. He noted that for the last 6 months there has been a gap where there was no professional on the board.
Mr. Hart made a motion to continue the application to the meeting of 11/17/10 in order for the applicant to reevaluate the fence design, noting it is not same as existing and for the Commission to send a letter to the applicant. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
25 Chestnut Street
Crespo, LLC submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the relocation of the fence on Pickering Street. Jeannette Crespo and Raphael Crespo
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Bird’s eye view sketch of property
- Copy of portion of 1874 atlas
Mr. Crespo stated that the existing is not an original fence. He stated that he has already gotten a curb cut permit. He stated that there is a tree in front of the existing driveway on Chestnut Street. They will brick the new driveway and have plantings.
Ms. Crespo noted that a tree will hang over the new fence.
Ms. Diozzi stated that she did not feel the fence on Pickering Street adds anything.
Ms. Harper made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Ms. Herbert rejoined the meeting.
- Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the minutes of September 15, 2010. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
- Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the minutes of October 6, 2010. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert stated that her neighbor wanted to purchase bench on common, and when they talked to Parks and Recreation, they were told that they were not doing any more benches because the vendor approved by Commission is not available anymore. Ms. Herbert noted that the Commission does not approve vendors, only the bench design and location. She stated that she will call Parks & Recreation and if not successful, will have Ms. Guy contact them.
Mr. Hart stated that he received a complaint about a hitching post being removed at 329 Essex Street. Ms. Guy is checking into it.
Ms. McCrea asked if property owners can install shed, noting that there is a new one at 388 Essex Street. Ms. Guy stated that a shed is a structure and requires approval by the Commission.
There being no further business, Ms. Herbert 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
| 
