SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
DECEMBER 7, 2011
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, December 7, 2011 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Harper, Ms. McCrea, Ms. Keenan and Mr. Hart.
Ms. Guy stated that there will be no second meeting in December, unless the Commission continues any items.
388-390 Essex Street
Ms. Bellin recused herself, left the table and joined the audience.
In continuation of a prior meeting, Ellen Golub and Steve Sass submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to reconstruct the side entry porch using Fiberon Veranda Grooved Composite decking and Veranda composite rails. Most of the work has been completed.
Documents & Exhibits
Mr. Sass stated that he found balusters on Craigslist and wanted to see if they would be acceptable. He stated that they may be only 30” high and that he would need to check if meets code. He questioned, if they are not high enough, whether he could add something to it.
Ms. Herbert stated that it would require approval for a design change. She suggested making sure that what he buys is high enough.
Ms. McCreas asked if they are wood.
Mr. Sass replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Herbert stated that she would want a simple finish, with no extra pieces making it higher. She believed that the top rail, bottom rail, balusters and space underneath needs to add up to 36”.
Mr. Sass asked if he could replace the balusters with longer balusters.
Ms. Herbert stated that she would prefer a turned baluster or a simple 2 x 2 baluster.
Mr. Hart stated that there cannot be any opening more than 4”.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve rebuilding of the side porch with wooden risers, wooden railing balustrade assembly, with option of Victorian turned baluster or 2 x 2 baluster and composite decking.
Ms. Herbert asked about the posts.
Mr. Sass stated that he wanted to use the posts from the assembly on Craigslist and possibly keep the long post to connect to the roof.
Mr. Hart withdrew his motion, stating that he would want a drawing.
Ms. Herbert stated that she felt the Commission could approve what is there but in the same design in wood, strip the PVC and wrap the posts in pine, with wood risers. She stated the only question is the synthetic decking board.
Dorothy Hayes, 329 Essex Street, stated that she objected to composite. She stated that, according to the guidelines it is supposed to approximate what was there and noted that it is visible from the street.
Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission has approved synthetic decking when in the back or further from the street. She suggested an approval to replicate what was there in all wood.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to replace the side entry porch in kind, in all wood. Ms. Keenans seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve an option for composite decking. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion. Mr. Hart and Ms. Keenan voted in favor. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Harper and Ms. McCrea voted in opposition. The motion did not carry.
Mr. Hart stated that he felt there were too many variables to consider turned balusters. He stated that if the applicant prefers them, they should apply and submit a drawing.
Mr. Sass asked, if he did not bringing the post to the roof overhang, could he use the assembly from Craigslist.
Ms. McCrea and Ms. Harper agreed it would be okay if they were the appropriate height.
Ms. Harper noted that the posts would need to be cut down and capped.
Ms. Herbert stated that she was not sure if the proposed is tall enough and could be used.
Mr. Sass stated that he needs to put in iron railings on the other side and also found one on Craigslist.
Ms. Guy stated that he would need to apply so that the public is notified, but that the Commission could indicate now if they would even consider the Craigslist railing.
Ms. Herbert asked if it has been measured to see if will fit.
Mr. Sass stated that he has an iron worker that says he will make it fit.
Ms. Harper stated that it is difficult to tell from photo what it looks like and if it is or isn’t contemporary.
Ms. Herbert asked if it will have twisted or straight balusters.
Mr. Sass stated that he did not know.
Ms. Herbert stated that, if Mr. Sass buys the railing, he might have to do so much refabrication that it may not be worth it. She stated that if the pitch and everything works, it would be great a solution. She suggested he get the dimensions and have his guy see if it will work.
Ms. Guy suggested getting a better photo.
Ms. Herbert suggested asking the Building Inspector if all those balusters are needed.
Mr. Hart stated that the building code says 4” maximum of any opening.
Ms. Bellin re-joined the Commission at the table.
30 Broad Street
In continuation of a prior meeting, William M. Ross and Abigail B. Ross submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove storm windows and single glazed wood windows on front and side of house and replace with new double glazed wood windows in either:
- Pella Architect Series Wood Double Hung Window
- LePage SDL, wood exterior
- J. B. Sash Proper Bostonian (wood exterior)
- Marvin Ultimate Double Hung wood windows
- Jeldwen Premium Siteline EX windows in wood
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Pella window on line specification
- Marvin window on line specification
The applicants were not present and Ms. Guy noted that the Commission cannot continue without a waiver of the 60 day requirement.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to deny the window replacement without prejudice. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
1 Brown Street
The Peabody Essex Museum submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to carry out work to stabilize the property, including completed work and planned near term work to be undertaken over the coming winter and next construction season. Following completion, a curatorial study will be undertaken which will result in a plan for full restoration of the building. Concurrent with the study will be identified long term work to be completed over the next 18-24 months, including new roof, restoration and reinstallation of original window sash, doors, frames and other exterior features. Present was Robert Monk.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Stabilization Report dated 11/2/11 with completed work, future near term work and future long term work
FRONT FACADE STABILIZATION Completed Work • Remove asbestos siding at second floor, exposing original c. 1806 clapboards in sound condition. • Remove rotted gutter & modern fascia, exposing c. 1806 facia board in poor condition; remove deteriorated c. 1806 fascia board & store; install new replacement to provide tight closure under roof. • Remove 1806 sash for conservation & install temporary Brosco replacements at windows #10, 11, & 12. • Retain original c. 1806 clapboards and window frames in place at second floor and paint . Future Near Term Work • Retain and paint c.1900/1960 storefront as is with replacement of missing boards at lower left panel. • Retain current front roof shingles as is (there are no leaks at the front pitch). Future long Term Work • Conserve
original 2nd floor sash and install in existing frames to replace Brosco sash. • Remove concrete foundation cap below storefront and install new wood sill once decision is made on treatment of storefront section.
WEST FACADE STABILIZATION Completed Work • Remove asbestos siding, exposing original c. 1806 clapboards. • Record construction details of window frames to facilitate making reproduction frames where needed. • Remove 1806 sash for conservation & install temporary Brosco replacements at all windows. • At rear corner of ell, replace 4’ of rotted sill and loose brick masonry with new oak sill on new cast concrete base faced with brick. • Paint clapboards & trim at main block. Future Near Term Work • Remove 4 rotted original window frames at ell facade (#s 6, 7, 15, 16), install plywood as temporary closure, and fabricate & install new reproduction plank frames, reusing any sound components of the existing frames. • Intstall new clapboards matching c. 1806 clapboards at rear ell where
existing are missing or damaged. • Paint clapboards & trim at rear ell west facade following repairs. • Continue replacement of sill and loose masonry at west ell facade, and possibly main block depending on further investigation of its condition. Future Long Term Work • Conserve original sash, fabricate reproduction sash where originals are missing, and install to replace Brosco sash.
REAR FACADE STABILIZATION Completed Work • Remove asbestos siding and c. 1900 clapboards & shingles under asbestos. • Record evidence of original clapboards and window & rear addition that replaced the clapboards. • Repair rotted section of first floor girt at base of 2nd floor door. • Replace rotted sill and loose brick masonry with new oak sill on new cast concrete base faced with brick. • Sheath in base of 2nd floor door in preparation for restoration of original window in the opening, and install temporary closure to window opening • Sheath in modern 1st floor door opening at left side & restore corner brace. • Replace areas of rotted sheathing and studs @ first floor & straighten bulge @ center of wall. • Install temporary secure door in original center door opening. Remove
& store trim from original door. • Install tyvek over the entire ell rear facade as short term protection. • At rear of main block, remove & store sash for conservation and install temporary Brosco sash. Future Near Term Work • Fabricate & install reproduction plank frame to restore 2nd floor window opening. • Intstall new clapboards matching the c. 1806 lapped and skived clapboards on the west side facade, & paint. • At rear of main block paint clapboards and trim. Future Long Term Work Fabricate and install reproduction sash in 2nd floor window.
EAST FAÇADE STABILIZATION Completed Work • Remove asbestos siding and c. 1900 clapboards & shingles under asbestos. • Leave original sound c. 1806 clapboards in place at upper rear corner. • Repair rotted section of end girt above window #9. • Windows • Remove severely rotted frames @ windows #8, 9, 17, & 20 and install temporary plywood closure. • At #1 install temporary plywood closure; leave original sliding shutter in place. • Remove #18 entirely (c. 1950 addition); frame & install permanent sheath over opening. • Remove sash at # 8, 9, & 17 and store for conservation treatment (sash missing @ #1 & 20). • Remove 20th century sheathing at lower portion of first floor to expose concrete sill and framing. • Dig out concrete & fill between house and the Safford carriage
house to facilitate drainage. • Install temporary protection over entire facade except area of 1806 clapboards; tarp on lower section set up to be lifted to carry out sill replacement, and tyvek on upper sections. Future Near Term Work • Remove concrete ‘sill’ down to sound foundation masonry; install cast concrete base for new wood sill over remaining foundation masonry; install new wood sill and repair framing to sit securely on new sill - work to extend up to front corner. • Fabricate & install reproduction plank frames for windows #1, 8, 9, 17, & 20. • Install and paint modern red cedar clapboards.
INTERIOR STABILIZATION Completed Work • Install temporary egress stair within original stair opening in front room to enable removal of red “X” from the building. • Remove modern stud framing and matched boarding at ceiling in 1st floor of ell. Future Near Term Work • Install framing below 1st floor ceiling to support 2nd floor wall between original stair hall and chamber.
ROOF STABILIZATION Completed Work • Short term repairs at rear pitch to stop leaks at roof penetra-tions (skylight vent pipes). Future Near Term Work • Retain current front roof shingles and rear roll roofing as is (they are currently tight despite worn condition); monitor for any new leaks and repair as needed. Future long Term Work • Repair roof framing with replacement of unsound rafters, purlins and sheathing; install new roofing.
Mr. Monk stated that the goal is to immediately stabilize the building. The sill on all four sides was completely deteriorated. They jacked up the house and repaired the masonry foundation, poured a concrete cap and replaced the sill on the south side and repaired the foundation on east side. They have categorized two stages of work that they would like to proceed with and will apply for some long term work once they have finalized the long term plan. The intent is to use the building in some manner. He stated that from now through summer, they want to continue the sill work, then proceed with the rest of the work. They are replacing the plank framed windows, so they will have plywood in the windows temporarily. They removed most of the sashes and replaced them temporarily with
Brosco inserts. They believe they have enough information to do a circa 1806 restoration. They are asking for approval of the sill work done and for the future near term work. For the interim they will retain what is there and repaint. In the future, they will likely come back for the c1806 restoration.
Emily Udy, representing Historic Salem, Inc., asked the time frame.
Ms. Herbert stated that the short term work will be done from now through next summer.
Mr. Monk stated that the long term would be some time after that.
He stated that there is evidence that there was a standing seem metal roof in the 1900s, but they will probably have a cedar roof. They are not ready to do that roof now.
Ms. Udy stated that she thanked the museum for undertaking this project and honoring this important building on their campus with the attention it deserves.
Mr. Monk stated that the museum raised the funds to do the study of the Essex block, which will be undertaken over the next 18 months. He stated that it was hard to say what will come from that.
Ms. Herbert asked if the building was moved there.
Mr. Monk replied in the negative, stated that it was definitely there.
Mr. Hart asked what treatment of storefront sections means.
Mr. Monk stated that that it will remain as is, or they will return it to an earlier storefront or return it to when there was no storefront.
Ms. Herbert asked if the foundation is fieldstone.
Mr. Monk stated that it is brick.
Ms. Herbert asked if the chimney will be replicated as it was.
Mr. Monk stated that it was a much later addition and the installation of that chimney resulted in most of the structural problems that house has. He stated that it will have a chimney. He stated that the original base and arch is in place.
Mr. Hart stated that he assumed they will do research to determine if the shutters were there.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the work completed and the near term work. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
11 Cambridge Street
Steven & Julie Colby submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a shed dormer on the SW side to achieve greater headroom in the bathroom. All exterior materials to match existing. New window will be the awning type.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Sketch
Ms. Herbert read a letter from Helen F. Sides, Architect.
Ms. Colby stated that she was not sure if they will have windows the entire length or just one in the center. She stated that she preferred a center window. They will move an interior wall to gain 8” of space. She stated that until it is opened up, they don’t know how much window can fit within the height.
Ms. Bellin asked if the slope of the dormer roof will change.
Ms. Colby replied in the negative, stating that it will be just the window.
Ms. Bellin stated that she was concerned that the sketch is an indication of what it might look like, but not necessarily what it will look like. She stated that she was not sure if the pitch will be different from what was drawn.
Ms. Colby stated that Ms. Sides has stated that, in order to achieve interior, that is the pitch as drawn. They are not sure exactly what height window will fit in the resultant space.
Ms. Herbert asked if Ms. Colby has any of the dimensions.
Ms. Colby replied in the negative.
Ms. Harper asked if one or both skylights go away.
Ms. Colby stated that the one in the bathroom will go, but the other will remain.
Ms. Bellin stated that the question is if it will be a single centered window or long window.
Ms. Colby replied that she and her husband are discussing. She stated that she personally wants the single centered window.
Ms. Herbert stated that she assumed the dormer will feed into the ridge of the roof and that it will not be raised above ridge line. She stated that she is assuming Ms. Sides is having them intersect.
Ms. Colby stated that it will not be higher.
Michael Blier, 8 Broad Street, asked if it is two dormers or just one.
Ms. Colby replied it is just one.
Mr. Blier stated that it is good that Helen Sides is involved in the project. He asked if the outstanding violation will be resolved.
Ms. Colby stated that the painting of the deck is outstanding and they are willing to do it.
Mr. Hart stated that he did not feel the rendering matched the section.
Ms. Colby stated that it will be an 8’ ceiling.
MOTION: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the width to be 8’0” from the eave and the height of dormer to be 3’0” from roof to the top of the eave as depicted on SK2. The ridge of new dormer is to coincide with the ridge of the existing.
Ms. Colby stated that they cannot live in the house while the work is being done, that they are paying for a rental and are concerned about the timing on the window determination.
Ms. Herbert stated that it makes sense to have one centered window. She questioned why they might want more.
Ms. Colby stated that it would be for additional natural light.
Ms. Herbert stated that they could consider a skylight. She asked if the new window(s) will be one over one, or a single pane.
Ms. Colby stated that they will be the awning type, but that they can’t make the final determination until they frame the dormer.
Ms. Herbert asked if they could reuse the skylight there.
Ms. Colby stated that it is in great condition.
VOTE: Mr. Hart amended his motion to reuse the existing skylight on roof. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin asked if they should delegate the window issue or continue.
Ms. Colby stated that they are starting construction this week.
Mr. Hart stated that he preferred not to delegate, because he has no idea what it will look like.
Ms. Harper made a motion to delegate the window decision.
There was no second.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the window portion of the dormer to the meeting of December 21, 2011. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
60-62 Washington Sq., South
Lewis Legon, Hodges Court Real Estate, submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to change the rear chimney by removing the bluestone cap with brick support and replacing it with a chimney cap that will look like the two chimney caps on the upper roof.
Documents & Exhibits
Ms. Herbert asked if it will have a copper surround.
Mr. Legon replied in the affirmative, but noted that the top of the cap will be solid because the chimney will not be venting gas. He stated that he ran into issues with some leaking and couldn’t figure out what was going on since the roof and faux chimney was new. He had a structural engineer come in, who said that the weight of the blue stone top - with the configuration with a faux chimney versus a regular chimney - had signs of slight cracking. The engineer felt it could be dangerous with certain wind conditions and suggested mimicking what is on the upper roof because the cap would be lighter, which would keep the structure of the faux chimney in tact. He stated that it was also recommended to have a masonry application around the brick to create a water seal that is not visible, which he
has done.
An email from a resident at 70 Essex Street, Unit 2, was read.
Ms. Herbert asked if there are vents pipes in the chimney.
Mr. Legon stated that there is one plumbing pipe, not a furnace pipe, which is below the chimney top.
Ms. Herbert stated that what was constructed had brick extensions and a bluestone cap, of which the extensions have now been taken down. She asked if he will build it back up.
Mr. Legon stated that he is proposing to match the chimneys on the main roof, so that all three are identical.
Ms. Herbert stated that the supports for the bluestone cap added approximately 1’ to the height. She asked if he is proposing to cap it at the current height and not increase the height back up.
Mr. Legon replied in the affirmative and stated that the copper cap will sit on top of it. He noted that the cap on the main roof is 16” tall. He noted that the rear chimney is a smaller chimney in diameter, so the cap can be left at 16” or dropped down to 14”.
Ms. Herbert stated that even at the level of the reconstructed chimney with the bluestone, she felt the chimney was shorter than the original. She stated that the rear chimney was overly tall compared to the other chimneys on the house and when it was reconstructed, it was reconstructed shorter.
Mr. Legon stated that it wasn’t by much.
Ms. Herbert stated that the extensions were added and the bluestone cap. She stated that now the top and extensions are gone, so it is even shorter.
Ms. Harper asked if the engineer suggested rebuilding the chimney to be able to support the bluestone cap.
Mr. Legon replied in the negative.
Ms. Bellin suggest that the Commission specify that we want the chimney built up to a specific height.
Ms. Herbert stated that we don’t know the height of the original chimney. She stated that the rear chimney was a tall, skinny chimney.
Ms. Harper asked how it was framed.
Mr. Legon stated that it is framed with plywood.
Ms. Harper asked what is holding the plywood.
Mr. Legon stated that it is wrapped with ice and water shield.
Ms. Harper asked what is inside the plywood, if it is just a plywood box.
Mr. Legon replied in the affirmative, stating it is braced to LVL’s underneath with ½ brick.
Ms. Harper wondered if it were taken down and reframed with 2x’s, if it would carry the weight of the cap.
Ms. Herbert felt it must be framed and asked what the plywood is nailed to and if it is studded out.
Mr. Legon stated that it is studded out.
Ms. Herbert stated that a faux chimney doesn’t really need chimney cap. She stated that she was thinking that the height of chimney should be raised as it was, with no cap, so as to replicate what was there.
Mr. Legon stated that he believed what was originally there was a bluestone cap. He stated that he preferred a cap for water protection and to mimic the other two chimneys, so that they look uniform and symmetrical.
Ms. Herbert asked how big was the bluestone cap.
Mr. Legon stated that it was a couple hundred pounds, and maybe 28 x 24 thereabout.
Ms. Herbert asked, because it is only one veneer of brick over plywood, what the engineer is saying.
Mr. Legon stated that with the weight of the stone, he was worried about cracking and that he was also concerned with hurricane force winds.
Ms. Herbert stated that it is basically studs wrapped with plywood sheathing and then thin brick veneer. She stated that there really isn’t a lot of weight there. She stated that what could have been done to stabilize it would have been metal bracing inside.
Ms. Harper stated that she would like to hear from the engineer to see how it could be made to carry the weight of the cap. She asked if the engineer was only concerned about wind for that chimney but not the other two.
Mr. Legon replied in the affirmative, noting that the other two do not have bluestone caps.
Ms. Herbert noted that they are wider, as well.
Ms. Bellin stated that it seems like the issue is how high the chimney should be. She suggested trying to extrapolate from the photographs.
Ms. Herbert stated that the cap does not have to be bluestone. She stated that the chimney could be rebuilt like it was with the extensions, but could have a light metal cap, rather than a mesh or bluestone cap. She suggested building the brick back up and adding a light metal top.
Mr. Legon stated that he could do that.
Ms. Herbert stated that the question left is height. She stated that it turned out to be maybe a foot shorter.
Mr. Legon stated that he did not think it was that much shorter, but did not remember. He stated that it was very large and very tall and unnecessary. He stated that everyone questioned why it was so tall.
Ms. Herbert stated that we are dealing with historic features, so the question of why is irrelevant.
Mr. Legon stated it was not an original chimney, but was an add-on.
A resident at 70 Essex Street, Unit 2, stated that he attached some photos to the email he sent.
Ms. McCrea asked when the photo was taken.
The resident at 70 Essex Street, Unit 2, stated that it was taken in 1913. The rear chimney is on the lower roof. He stated that he felt the reason why the chimney was oversize, was because it had to clear the upper roof. He stated that the idea was to replicate what was there. He stated that the existing does not look like a working chimney because it does not clear the upper roof. There was no wind load issue before, because it was a working chimney. He stated that he agreed that the chimney needs to be braced and done properly. He stated that he felt if there is a wind load issue, it is a result of going the cheap way. He stated that there are not enough chimneys left in the area.
Mr. Hart asked if it was correct that the Commission approved a specific chimney for that location.
Ms. Herbert replied in the affirmative. It was specified to be the same design and height as the original with brick extensions and blue stone cap as was there.
Ms. Harper stated that she thinks it was built at least a foot shorter.
Mr. Legon stated that he had those discussions with the Commission in the past and he weren’t sure how much off it was, but he did not think it was a foot difference.
Ms. Herbert stated that from the photographs, the rebuilt chimney did not clear the 3rd floor. It is shorter. She did not think a height was specified, only that it be rebuilt to the height of the original.
Ms. Guy read the Certificate issued.
Ms. Harper asked if the chimneys were documented with photographs.
Mr. Legon stated that he thought they were. He stated that it has been a while and he did not know what happened. He stated that the chimney was approved with the bluestone cap and it does not work.
Ms. Bellin stated that before the work was done, Mr. Legon was supposed to have submitted photographic documentation of the original chimney.
Mr. Hart stated that he might have some photos.
Ms. Herbert stated that we may have some photos, but with the angles, we may have to extrapolate.
Mr. Hart questioned if it was up to the Commission’s to extrapolate and suggested the proponent extrapolate.
Ms. Bellin stated that she would like the proponent to go back and see if the evidence exists.
Mr. Legon stated that he remembered that the mason taking pictures with his cell phone and he remembered that the cell phone got destroyed by his dog. He was not sure if those pictures were on the cell phone, but he could check.
The resident at 70 Essex Street, Unit 2, stated that it was a tall oversized chimney. He stated that he looked at the chimney for 25 years and it did clear the roof. He stated it was a working chimney at one time and that he thought it was going to be replicated.
Mr. Legon suggested that he build it up a foot, if the Commission wants. He also asked about Ms. Herbert’s idea of building up the four corners.
Ms. Keenan thought that was the easiest way.
Ms. Herbert stated that, in order to get the height that it was, she feels there is a need to build up the chimney another foot, then do the extensions topped with a light weight metal cap.
Mr. Legon suggested rebuilding the cap with copper to be in sync with the upper chimneys.
MOTION: Ms. Harper made a motion to add on to height of chimney by 1 foot and build up the brick corner extensions.
Mr. Hart stated that he was getting increasing frustrated that the Commission is designing people’s projects. He stated that he felt the proponent should bring in a design and we should approve it or not. He stated that he did not think it was the Commission’s roll to design other people’s property. He stated that he understands there is an approval to rebuild a specific chimney and that the owner can go back and see if he did take photographs of the existing. Based on that he can also bring forward a different design that he would like to build that will meet our approval.
Ms. Herbert stated that he asking for a different design now.
Mr. Hart stated that he does not see it and there is a question of the height.
Mr. Legon stated that the only issue is height and the design is the same as the upper two chimneys.
Ms. Herbert stated that the owner is asking to take off the extensions and blue stone and cap it at that point with a copper cap to match the front chimneys.
Ms. Guy stated that what Ms. Herbert and Ms. Harper are proposing is to build up the existing chimney by a foot, add the corner extensions (height still to be determined) and put on a metal cap.
Ms. Harper stated that the Commission does not seem to have dimensions, but it would get it closer to what the original chimney was.
Ms. Bellin stated this would not be redesigning, but would be clarifying what the original approval was but with one alteration of using a light metal piece instead of natural bluestone. She stated that we want the original design to be implemented, but are clarifying that we think what was attempted was a foot too short and we are also trying to facilitate replacing the actual bluestone with a piece of metal.
Mr. Legon replied that this is correct. He suggested that the extensions be two courses of brick.
Ms. Harper suggested 1’ of extensions.
Mr. Legon stated that it would be taller then.
Ms. Herbert stated that it would end up being the height it is now with 2’ of height, including an extra foot of brick chimney and an extra foot of the extensions and that would match what was there before. Instead of a blue stone cap, because it is a faux chimney, a light weight metal cap.
Mr. Legon felt that by building it up the 2’, it will be beyond what was there originally.
Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin and Ms. Harper were not in agreement.
Ms. Herbert stated that the photographs on file show that the original extensions were higher than what was built.
Mr. Legon stated that they looked the same to him.
Ms. Bellin stated that the alternative is to find the photos and show us what we are trying to extrapolate.
VOTE: Ms. Harper amended her motion that there be 1’ of brick extensions, with lightweight metal, flat cap. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Legon stated that he would try to dig up photos.
Ms. Guy asked Mr. Hart to take a photograph tomorrow of the chimney as it is currently.
122 Federal Street
Margaret Twohey and Darrow Lebovici submitted an application for a Certificate of Non-applicability to alter the fence at the rear of the property on Lynn Street, annually, to allow for temporary removal of a section of fence during the Winter months (November 15 to March 30) to permit access to a new one car driveway. Fence section to be altered is 14-16 feet.
Documents & Exhibits
Ms. Twohey stated that last winter, they were snowblowing from the street onto the property and are now loosing trees.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve temporary removal of 14-16’ fence section on Lynn Street side annually from no earlier than November 15th to no later than March 30th to accommodate Winter parking. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Minutes
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of November 2, 2011. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Correspondence
Ms. Guy stated that she received a copy of a Project Notification Form for Collins Cove Beach Debris Removal, to which Massachusetts Historical Commission has determined will unlikely affect significant historic or archaeological resources.
St. Josephs Complex Redevelopment
Ms. Guy stated that she emailed a copy of correspondence from Ruth Silman of Nixon Peabody Attorneys at Law to Paul Silverstone.
A letter from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to Secretary Shaun Donovan of HUD dated 12/7/11 was read into the record indicating that the ACHP has decided to enter the consultation process.
Ms. Harper asked, regarding a Preservation Restriction, who it is given by.
Ms. Guy stated that it is typically between MHC and the owner and that it typically runs with the land and could be for 5 years, 10 years or in perpetuity, etc. She stated that she did not know if there was a way of entering into one that could be rescinded if all parties agree.
Ms. Harper stated that Hamilton Hall’s Preservation Restriction provides for an opportunity to consult with MHC for changes. She did not think having one is as dire as it has been made out to be - that they will never be able to sell the building..
Ms. Guy stated that City Hall has one in perpetuity and we notify MHC when we are going to do something that is not ordinary maintenance.
Ms. Bellin stated that if it is an agreement that is subject to amendment, then all the parties are notified and agree to a certain change.
Ms. Guy stated that it doesn’t have to be the template Preservation Agreement, but something that they could be willing to enter into.
Ms. Herbert stated that without a Preservation Restriction, they could demolish both buildings and all we have is a six month delay.
Ms. Harper agreed that a Preservation Agreement is needed.
Ms. Herbert stated that she thought they may go along with one that is not as restrictive as the standard. She stated that the value is in building not land, so it is to their advantage to retain these historic buildings.
Mr. Hart stated that the Preservation Restriction is administered by the SHPO and you have to alert them to contemplated changes.
Ms. Bellin stated that the Commission should write a letter to the SCHP that we want to be a part of what happens next and we want to be an active part of consulting process, because we did not get this letter directly.
VOTE: 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
| 
