SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
MARCH 23, 2011
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, March 23, 2011 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Mr. Hart, Ms. Harper and Ms. Bellin.
31 Washington Square North
Ms. Herbert made a disclosure that she had previously put an offer on the building, but no longer has an financial interest as the building has been sold.
Michael and Charlotte Shea submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a new fence, install a new door in the rear of the carriage house and install a new garage at 31 Washington Square North.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Plot Plan of Land from North Shore Survey Corp. revised to show garage and fence dated 3/7/11
- Plot Plan of Land from North Shore Survey Corp. revised to show garage and fence dated 3/23/11
- Elevation Plans of renovations dated 3/15/10 (A1, A2, EX1 & EX2) & 2/17/11 (A3) – Richard Griffin, registered architect
- Elevation plans of renovations (A-1 only) dated 3/23/10– Richard Griffin, registered architect
Mr. Griffin stated that the fence will go along Oliver, going from the back of the building to the entryway of the parking area to number 31 and pick up again and go to the end of the property. They are proposing to do a similar fence to the Jones’ fence across the street, but pared down. It is similar to what is there now, but with a little more detail. It will have a base water course.
Ms. Herbert asked if the posts will be hidden.
Mr. Griffin replied in the affirmative.
Martha Chayet, Winter Street, asked if there will be 5 breaks and what will be the pillar support.
Mr. Griffin stated that they will put a piece of trim, rather than pillars.
Ms. Chayet stated that the Jones’ fence has posts as breaks.
Mr. Shea stated that he was willing to put posts at the breaks.
Mr. Hart stated that it is a 5’ high fence and questioned how it would be constructed out of plywood.
Mr. Shea stated that they would be full 5 x 10 sheets turned upside down to get 5’.
Ms. Herbert asked about the lamination properties of plywood.
Mr. Griffin stated that they will use an MDO plywood. The other option would be Azek. He noted that the fence across the street is plywood.
Mr. Hart stated it would have exterior glue.
Ms. Herbert asked the life expectancy.
Mr. Shea stated that it is the same material as highway signs.
Mr. Griffin stated that the posts would be capped. He stated that the posts across the street are 12 x 12, and suggested these be 8 x 8.
Mr. Hart stated that he would like to see an amended sketch.
Ms. Bellin asked if there would be a post at each building or just at the breaks.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to continue the fence. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Griffin stated that they are proposing is to add a second door next to the window where the smokestack is, as per the drawing.
Ms. Herbert asked what the doors lead to.
Mr. Griffin stated a bedroom and a multi-purpose room. The living room and kitchen are upstairs. They are adding it to provide access to the garage they want to build. It is also a more public space in the house, while the other door is going out of a bedroom.
There was no public comment on the door.
Ms. Bellin questioned if they want the two doors to match.
Mr. Griffin stated that they want the arch because of the difference in brick work.
Ms. Harper asked if there will be any projection.
Mr. Griffin stated that it will be flat.
Ms. Herbert suggested having the bricks run vertically.
Mr. Shea stated that it sort of matches the entrance to the carriage house.
Ms. Herbert asked if that façade should be more harmonious, since this a utilitarian side of the building. She stated that the rest of the windows and doors are sort of plain.
Ms. Bellin agreed it doesn’t match and felt it was kind of busy on that side.
Ms. Harper stated that there are a lot of openings and it seems to fit.
Mr. Shea stated that he preferred the arch.
Mr. Hart stated that he did not have a problem with it.
Ms. Herbert stated that she could go either way.
Ms. Diozzi stated she did not see a problem because the façade is not symmetrical.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the additional door and the brick work as proposed and the arched form. The door is to be the same design and materials as the existing door on the facade. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Griffin stated that the proposal is to install a 2 car garage 24’ x 24’, based on what zoning allows for height and setback. They would like it to look like a child of the carriage house, with windows on all sides. It will be 18’ high. There will be a loft floor.
Neil Chayet, 26 Winter Street, stated that they think the garage is a great addition for the property. He stated that the concern is the proportion, which seems to be in order. He added that the other question was the nearness to the other building and whether it would be improved if it were a little further away. He noted that they met with Mr. Shea and there is a possibility of some adjustment to the curbcuts and stated that curbcuts are important and some adjustment would be beneficial to everyone. He stated that Mr. Shea stated that there will be no additional dwelling units. He stated that Mr. Shea assured him that the remainder of the lot will be green space. He added that some concerns about the project would be alleviated if it goes before the ZBA.
Mr. Griffin stated that they added 5’ of separation from 10’ to 15’ per the revised drawings.
Ms. Herbert asked if they considered doing the garage on the other side of the carriage house so they don’t loose the view of the garden.
Mr. Griffin stated that they tried it but to get to it would loose some parking spaces. They would also not get the 5’ of setback and distance from the building.
Mr. Hart stated that he had no problem with elevation, separation or massing and that it seems to be appropriate.
Ms. Herbert asked if the brick work will be similar to the house and carriage house.
Mr. Shea stated that it will be as close as possible.
Mr. Griffin stated that it will be a water struck brick. The wood windows will match the carriage house, which were Matthews windows approved by the Commission. Window sills will be brick. There is a little bit of white woodwork and he believed they can get a crown molding under the eave. The roof will be black, 3 tab asphalt. The door will match the wood door of the carriage house. The garage doors will be wood with optional glazed panels.
Mr. Shea suggested black for the door color.
Ms. Herbert asked if there will be a need for vents for heating.
Mr. Shea stated that they could put vents in the rear so as not to be seen from the street.
Mr. Griffin stated that there will be spray foam insulation so there is no need for an eave vent.
Mr. Hart asked if they will replicate the brick dentil.
Mr. Griffin replied in the affirmative. He stated that above the dentil, he would probably want a gutter.
Mr. Shea stated that the carriage house has a wood gutter and that they probably would use 4” round galvanized corrugated downspouts painted white.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the garage as submitted as drawn with wood gutters and galvanized fluted 4” downspouts, heating vents on the west façade, wood windows and doors to match carriage house, roof shingles 3 tab black, brick work to match the carriage house in terms of width of joints, character of brick and color, black doors, garage doors with 5 lite paneled wood with option of a glazed panel, option to paint the new brick dentils in white.
Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
60-62 Washington Square South
Lewis Legon, Hodges Court Real Estate, LLC, submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the following:
- Eliminate 1 small window in rear – 2nd floor
- Install 2 vents in chimneys
- Replace rear door, first floor
- Install HVAC vents on left and right side
- Paint trim on exterior, paint front doors – Paint colors are Suntan for body, Navajo White for trim and either Black Forest or Essex Green for doors
- Storm windows
- Install gas meters on left or rear side of building
- Replace 2, third floor windows with double hunger Anderson 200s (already completed)
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Paint chips
Ms. Diozzi read an email sent between Ms. Herbert and Mr. Legon for which Ms. Herbert asked five questions and Mr. Legon provided following answer:
Question 1) On the "chimney vents": ~Do they come in, or can they be painted in a flat off-black color?
Answer: CAN BE PAINTED. DO NOT COME IN.
Question 2) Do you plan to repair and paint the 'fish-scale wood shingles' above the front portico and on the side of the house at the bay windows? ~Are you planning to paint them in the white trim color, or in a gray slate color to define them as roofing and not trim?
Answer: LIKE YOUR IDEA OF PAINTING THEM THE GRAY SLATE COLOR
Question 3) Where do you plan to locate the A/C compressors vs. the A/C vents?
Answer: RIGHT REAR SECTION OF BUILDING, ALMOST HIDDEN IF NOT TOTALLY
Question4) Is the new rear faux chimney the same height as the original?~
Answer: MAYBE 1 FT SHORTER AS IT WAS UNNECESSARILY TALL.
Questions 5) Do you have a landscape plan to share? ~ That would be helpful for the neighbors to see, although it is not part of our official review unless it pertains to screening of the A/C compressor units.
Answer: I HAVEN'T DEVELOPED ONE YET, TOO MANY OTHER ISSUES RIGHT NOW
Mr. Legon stated that his structural person, regarding the height of the rear chimney with consideration to the wind load, advised him to reduce the height of the rear chimney. He stated that it is exact to what is there but lower. He stated that there is a kitchen area for one unit and they were permitted to eliminate a window below and he would also like to eliminate the 2nd floor window.
A resident at 70 Essex Street, Unit 2, stated that he preferred no revisions be made that are visible from Washington Square East.
Ms. Herbert stated that the rear window does not look original.
Mr. Hart stated that he had no problem with it.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve removal of the rear, second floor window.
Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Legon stated that the vents in the chimneys are actually air exchange vents to feed the HVAC system as an option to venting through the slate roof. He provided pictures of several buildings at that corner with similar vent structures and stated that they are very common. He stated that he is willing to paint them.
Ms. Harper asked why it was not brought up when he got permission to do the faux chimneys.
Mr. Legon stated that he initially thought they would vent through the building, but they decided to take advantage of it during the construction of the faux chimneys.
Ms. Bellin asked how much is sticking out.
Mr. Legon stated that he believed it was approximately ¾ of a foot.
Ms. Herbert asked if the a/c vents could be lowered.
Mr. Legon stated that there has to be clearance above the chimney.
Ms. Harper stated that the other option would be to vent them through the roof.
Mr. Legon replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Harper stated that it is difficult to see what is happening in the chimneys in the surrounding properties through the pictures.
Ms. Diozzi stated that they are very visible on this house.
Ms. Herbert stated that there is precedence for it, but did not know if there was historic precedence. Ms. Herbert suggested clay pyramids that go on top. She stated that any time we can get rid of vents is preferred. She stated that what was installed is very modern looking. She suggested they be painted and the item be continued to see how it looks and to also look into the clay caps.
A resident at 70 Essex Street, Unit 2, stated that the neighbors chimneys are working chimneys. He stated that this is a faux chimney that was approved to look exactly like it did before and preserve the skyscape. He stated that we are not here to accommodate Mr. Legon’s bells and whistles and there has been continuous bait and switch.
Ms. Harper stated that she would like a continuation so she can look at the surrounding buildings and for Mr. Legon to look into the caps.
Ms. Bellin stated she is troubled by the way this has unfolded and that now we are proposing putting something extra on the chimney. She asked if this were to be presented prior, where the Commission would want to put the vents. She stated that we should look at it as if it were not done and how we would approve it.
Ms. Harper was in agreement.
Ms. Guy suggested that they look into alternate locations for the vent.
Mr. Hart stated that the Commission has often approved chimney caps.
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission should look at a chimney cap at this location as they would for any homeowner coming in for a chimney cap.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to continue the chimney vents. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Legon stated that he proposes to match the front 6 panel door on the rear.
The resident at 70 Essex Street, Unit 2, stated that it should look as it did with no change in size or design.
Mr. Hart stated that a 4 panel is more indicative to what should be there.
Ms. Herbert agreed it should be a 4 panel.
Mr. Hart suggested going to the Brosco catalog and selecting a 4 panel, noting he did not care if there was glass.
Ms. Herbert suggested restoring the existing.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to repair or replace the 1st floor rear wood door in kind, with upper 2 panels to be either solid or glass. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Legon stated that the HVAC vents are a building code issue. He provided a photo of the proposed vent and stated that it will go on each side. It is required to be 8’ off ground.
Ms. Herbert stated that it is ugly on the Washington Square side and preferred it be in the rear.
Mr. Legon stated that it is a code issue, and that he could paint it the body color of the house.
Mr. Hart stated that high efficiency furnaces are becoming more prevalent and this is how you vent them.
The resident from 70 Essex Street, Unit 2, asked if these are the vents that are already there. He preferred that they not be on Washington Square East.
Mr. Legon stated that even if installed in the back, it would be just as visible from Washington Square East.
Ms. Herbert asked if it could be on the fascia. She stated that anything added to the exterior must first be approved by the Commission, stating that it is infuriating to be approving items that are already installed.
Mr. Legon noted that he also has to deal with building code and fire safety.
Ms. Herbert stated that the architect should key into these things earlier.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the vent as presented, approximately 4” x 8”, painted the body color in locations proposed. She noted that there is a latex bonding primer for PVC.
Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert asked if the fireplace vents could be painted.
Mr. Legon stated that they will be painted the body color.
There was no public comment on the paint color.
Ms. Herbert asked if the fish scale wood shingles could be painted a color to blend with the slate roof.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the colors as submitted with the option for the doors to be either Essex Green or Black Forest Green and to paint the fish scale shingles to blend with the slate (with the color choice to be approved by Ms. Herbert).
Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission does not have jurisdiction over storms.
Ms. Herbert stated that they should be the same color as the surface they are on.
Mr. Legon stated that when he bought the building there were meters going into the basement and by creating living space they needed to be relocated. He has been wrestling with National Grid who does not like to put meters in the basement. When National Grid came by for consultation, they recommended hanging them on Washington Square East. He noted that Ms. Guy suggested saying to National Grid that they are not allowed, which he did. He stated that National Grid has since agreed to put them in the basement and withdrawn the gas meter portion of the application.
Mr. Legon stated that the windows replaced can barely be seen from Washington Square East. They are more visible when you go further back to Essex Street. They were double hung and were replaced in the same opening.
Ms. Herbert noted that they are one over ones and the other dormers are two over twos, but in a different size. She noted it was minimally visible, but would have preferred two over twos.
The resident from 70 Essex Street, Unti 2, stated that this is the same pattern of doing before applying.
Mr. Hart asked if they are single or insulated.
Mr. Legon stated that he believed they are insulated.
Ms. Bellin preferred to continue to look at the specifications and get dimensional information.
Mr. Hart and Ms. Harper noted that there is one window installed that is an applied interior grill, not true divided light.
Ms. Bellin moved to continue the window replacement. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to give the option for alternative body and trim colors to match 225 Cabot Street in Beverly.
Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy stated that she got a phone call regarding work being done to a basement door.
Mr. Legon stated that he is repairing the foundation and that they are digging down to the bottom of the foundation on two sides of the house. The hole into the foundation will be filled back in.
Ms. Harper asked if the bead board on the new porch was there prior.
Mr. Legon replied in the affirmative.
66-68 Derby Street
Ms. Diozzi recused herself and left the table.
66 Derby Realty Trust, Jay and Neal Levy Trustees, submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for partial demolition and renovation and restoration of existing structure and to erect a second building on the remaining portion of the site. Present were Jay and Neal Levy, architect David Jaquith and realtor Betsy Merry.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Drawings completed by David F. Jaquith Architects dated 3/7/11
Mr. Jaquith stated that they initially wanted to demolish the building and install two units in the center of the lot. At one time it had been a tavern, as well as more than one store with a housing unit above. It is currently not able to be occupied. They know the front part is the original building and believe the original doorway was on the side of the house. After discussions with Ms. Guy and Ms. Herbert and looking at Sanborn maps, he stated that they are proposing to save the 18 x 30 piece, put back a fireplace, make some window alterations. remove the rear addition and put on a new rear addition. They would construct a new house on the other side of the lot, and all of the units would be condominiums. They are looking to get support to go to the Board of Appeals. The
proposal is similar to the density in the neighborhood. It is proposed to be a simple colonial. They need the two extra units to justify the work to be done. There was once a building on the lot in the 1950s. The details have not been worked out, but it will have classic entries, primarily double hung windows and chimneys 4’ above the ridge.
Ms. Herbert asked the value of the condos.
Mr. Levy stated that they are thinking about 1400 square feet per unit.
Betsy Merry stated that they would be approximately $324-329,000.
Mr. Jaquith stated that the lot is currently a missing tooth. They need 3 units to make the project work. There will be a total of 6 parking spaces.
Mr. Levy stated that they need the Commission’s support to tear off the back section, rebuild the front and construct a total of 3 units.
Glenn Morrison, 3 ½ Becket Avenue, stated that he is in the condo in the building behind the property. He stated that it looks like there will be green space.
Mr. Jaquith stated that they will need to take down the tree.
Noreen Casey, 72 Derby Street, asked how far the building will be from the wall.
Mr. Jaquith stated that they will leave and repair the wall and it will probably be about 5 feet from the wall. The wall is a couple feet over their property line and 72 Derby is probably 1 ½ feet from the property line.
Mr. Levy stated that they will need variances. The existing house does not meet zoning, but it is grandfathered as a two family.
Mr. Jaquith stated that the goal is to keep the houses in scale with the surrounding neighborhood.
Charles Hildebrand, 46 English Street, asked if the concrete wall belongs to the lot or to the neighbor.
Mr. Jaquith stated that it could be either.
Mr. Hildebrand asked if it will remain, preferring it not remain.
Mr. Levy stated that if it is determined to be part of the lot, they may remove it, but in any case would certainly improve it.
Mr. Hildebrand stated that the design appears to be massive and have a lot of parking lot.
Mr. Levy stated that it will likely be brick pavers and will not be black asphalt. It will resemble a courtyard.
Mr. Hildebrand asked about having a 3rd unit in an R2 zone.
Ms. Herbert stated that it would be taken up at ZBA.
Mr. Hart stated that he was a little concerned about the parking and understood the situation, but felt it would need extra attention. He asked the age of the front portion.
Mr. Jaquith stated that it was 18th century, but did not know the date of the addition. He stated he will fully document it before demolition, with photographs.
Mr. Hart stated that he would want elemental documentation and photographs if it were approved for demolition. He stated that he liked the way the streetscape works because the new is differentiated from the old, and by not making an attempt to replicate gambrel houses.
Ms. Herbert suggested that the block wall be replaced with a fence. She stated that she liked the idea of the enclave and it was a refreshing change. It is a departure of what is happening on the street and will add visual interest. She stated that she felt the big hurdle with ZBA will be the parking.
Ms. Harper asked the height of the existing building.
Mr. Jaquith stated that it was approximately 26-27’ and the other buildings will be +/- 1’, but will not be exactly the same.
Neal Levy stated that they will be substantially shorter than the buildings on either side.
Ms. Harper liked the idea of restoring the existing building and the idea of adding a missing building on the street, but was concerned that it is not considered a buildable lot.
Mr. Jaquith stated that there will be a lot of little issues to be addressed at the ZBA.
Ms. Harper stated that she was concerned with precedent.
Mr. Levy stated that precedent is exactly why there is a zoning board. He stated that the ZBA evaluates on a case by case basis because every situation is a little bit different. He stated that you would be hard pressed to find a building in the neighborhood that meets the current zoning.
Mr. Jaquith stated that the financial investment will have a positive impact on the neighborhood.
Mr. Hart stated that Salem is an urban environment and this responds to the urban environment. He stated that he liked how the concept is developing.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the concept of demolition of the rear addition, renovation of the main front section, construction of one additional building with 2 units and addition to original structure as proposed in the concept drawings submitted.
Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Diozzi rejoined the meeting at this time.
Other Business
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of February 16, 2011. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
- Ms. Guy stated that via email to the Commission members she recently forwarded copies of letters pertaining to the South River navigational Dredging Project from:
- Massachusetts Historical Commission to US Army Corps of Engineers – 2/11/11
- Apex Companies, LLC to Massachusetts Historical Commission – 2/16/11
- James Treadwell to Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs – 3/10/11
- Apex Companies, LLC to the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs – 3/11/11
Ms. Guy stated that her understanding is that the initial comment period is over, but that there will be additional opportunities to comment as part of the remaining permitting. She asked Commission members to review the materials and let her know if they want to take any action or add it to the next meeting agenda. She stated that she believed that an ENF was available and that she would obtain a copy if any Commission member requests one.
Ms. Bellin felt most of the work will be off shore and would not have an impact.
Mr. Hart stated that we should wait until we see an EIR.
Ms. Diozzi suggested we hold off on adding this to an agenda at this time.
- Ms. Guy stated that Ms. Diozzi submitted a letter of support for the nomination of Annie C. Harris and Thomas M. Leonard for the 2011 MHC Preservation Awards: Individual Lifetime Achievement Category.
- Ms. Guy stated that she received a letter from MHC dated March 4, 2011 regarding Riverview Place at 72 Flint Street, in response to the Commission’s letter.
There being no further business, Ms. Bellin made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission
| 
