SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
JUNE 15, 2011
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, June 15, 2011 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Diozzi, Ms. McCrea and Ms. Bellin.
60-62 Washington Square South
In continuation of a previous meeting Lewis Legon, Hodges Court Real Estate, LLC, submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of 2 vents in chimneys. Also present was James Maloney of Associated Contracting Services.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Installation instructions for high efficiency condensing gas furnaces
- Regency P42 Gas Fireplace Owners & Installation Manual
Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission members did not get the specifications until today and some members may not have had a chance to review it.
Mr. Legon stated that Mr. Maloney is a certified Regency fireplace installer and has been doing this type of work for 15 years.
Ms. Herbert stated that she felt the Commission could not cover the fireplace tonight because neither of the board’s architects were present and the members did not have a chance to digest the information that was emailed. Ms. Herbert stated that the vent for the second floor fireplace is fine where it is. She stated that the first floor fireplace on the right hand side is not vented opposite from the first floor on the other side is likely due to the screen porch roof. She asked if they could have raised the vent up directly under the second floor or if there is a reason that they need to be separated.
Mr. Maloney replied in the negative and stated that it is a fresh air mechanical air intake and needs a minimum of 6’ between the two vents.
Ms. Herbert stated that it looks like a giant silver pimple on the face of the building and asked if there was something else that could be more flush.
Mr. Maloney stated that it is a patented termination cap from Regency that goes with the unit and is the smallest profile that goes with the unit. He stated that the clearance for that cap is a minimum of 6” from an outside corner or an inside corner.
Ms. Herbert stated that she would like for the two architects to review this and be in touch with Mr. Maloney to discuss it.
Mr. Legon asked if Ms. Herbert was suggesting that Mr. Maloney have an email conversation with Mr. Hart and Mr. Spang.
Ms. Herbert replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Guy stated that this has not been determined to be a violation, so if they are satisfied, there is no reason to put it on the next agenda.
Ms. Herbert stated that she would like to resolve it so it does not become a precident. She noted that if determined acceptable, it would be only for this building. If they are okay with it, then it won’t be a violation and it won’t need to be discussed at the next meeting. She suggested painting it as soon as possible.
Mr. Maloney stated they also had to deal with the lintels over the windows.
Mr. Legon stated that for the chimney caps, he had a specification from the website that Mr. Hart referred to at the last meeting for various custom top-mount caps. He stated that Brad from Essex County Craftsman states that any kind of contained shroud will not work, whether clay or steel, and that it has to be mesh. Snow could accumulate there and there is a risk of carbon monoxide going back into the building. Brad is suggesting building a mesh unit with a 3-5” cap on it, so it looks like a full chimney cap from the street. He would also put mesh on top of it.
Ms. Herbert noted it would be mesh with a collar and asked if it would be steel or copper.
Mr. Legon stated that if it is to be painted, they should just use galvanized sheet metal, rather than waste money on stainless steel. He stated that a round chimney cap could also be done, but felt a rectangular cap would sit nicely. He noted that the bigger vent is about 18” high above the chimney. He stated that if they put a solid chimney cap above it, they would have to go another 12” above. If it is not solid, it would go approximately 3-4 more inches above. Brad suggested that a 4-5” collar would give the full appearance of a regular cap. Mr. Legon suggested painting it dark grey.
Ms. Diozzi suggested matching the roof color.
Ms. Herbert stated that Essex County Craftsman has not done this type of container before.
Mr. Legon replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Bellin asked the mesh dimensions.
Mr. Legon stated that Brad recommends 5/8”.
There was no public comment.
Ms. Bellin stated that she would like to see what it would look like on top of a chimney. Ms. Bellin asked if 21” was typical.
Mr. Maloney replied in the affirmative, noting it would be in the typical range of 18-22”. He stated that it doesn’t look that height from the ground.
Ms. Bellin stated that she wished more members were present.
Ms. Herbert suggested continuing to the next meeting so that Mr. Hart and Mr. Spang could look at it. She stated that she felt that this is probably the best solution since there are two different size vents coming out of the chimney and they are not centered.
Ms. Diozzi agreed that it was a good disguise.
Ms. McCrea was in agreement.
Ms. Diozzi made a motion to approve a galvanized mesh cap with collar approximately 21” off the top of the chimney, collar to be 4-5” in depth with approximately 45 degree angle, painted to blend with roof color, subject to field approval by Ms. Bellin and Mr. Hart.
Ms. Bellin stated that she would like Mr. Hart to review it. She questioned what she and Mr. Hart would do as delegates. She stated that she was reluctant since this is now the only option and Mr. Hart has not had input on this.
Ms. Herbert suggested continuing.
Ms. Bellin was in agreement. She noted it was a bare quorum and a very touchy subject.
Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Diozzi and Ms. McCrea voted in favor. Ms. Bellin voted in opposition. The motion did not carry.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue. Ms. Diozzi seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin stated that having something to show the Commission will facilitate what the Commission does at the next meeting.
Mr. Legon stated that he will get a rendering from Brad.
Ms. Guy suggested forwarding it before the next meeting.
Ms. Guy read an email from A resident at 70 Essex Street, Unit 2, regarding his concern that the 4’ fence section on Washington Square East is too tall for persons backing out and a suggestion that it be adjusted (i.e. extend the swoop further down the driveway and have it end lower than 4’).
Ms. Diozzi stated that most houses in Salem are on the sidewalk, with an entire house blocking the view.
No further action was taken.
31 Washington Square South
Jana Catterson and Fred Hammond presented an application for Certificate of Appropriateness to replace 15 large and 2 small windows with Mathew Brothers windows that were used for the restoration of the carriage house, except in 2 over 2 as they are currently. Also present was Richard Griffin, architect.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Pages from Mathews Brothers website
Ms. Herbert stated she was going to refer to the approval for the Bertram House from which the 31 Washington Square carriage house windows were subsequently approved. She read from the Certificate for the Bertram House for replacement of the third floor sash only with Trimline Heritage Ultrafit Simulated Divided Light all wood windows.
Ms. Herbert noted that the carriage house windows were approved on a night when bare quorum was present and that those present were not familiar with the windows approved for the Bertram Home. She noted that the windows on the third floor would approved very reluctantly and only because they were on the third floor and very difficult to see.
Ms. Guy read the minutes for the approval of the carriage house windows which stated that Mr. Griffin stated that the windows proposed were the ones approved for the Bertram House.
Mr. Giffin stated that Trimline was installed on the third floor.
Ms. Herbert stated that Trimline windows went into the Bertram House, not Matthews.
Mr. Griffin stated that Matthews windows went on the elevator shaft.
Ms. Guy read the Certificate for the elevator shaft, which stated that the windows were to be wood, 6 over 6, true divided lights. She noted that she did not have any approvals in the Bertram House file for Matthews Brothers windows.
Ms. Herbert stated that the windows approved for the carriage house were approved erroneiously and noted that the Matthew Brothers windows have plastic mullions. She stated that if the Commission made a mistake, they are not going to make another. She noted that existing windows that are refurbished and have storms are every bit as energy efficient as insulated glass windows. She stated that there are firms that will refurbish the existing windows and that the owners could still have storms. She stated that the applicants are one unit in the building and there cannot be layers of different windows in different units particularly on such an important and prominent building. She also suggested that the Commission talk with Mr. Shea about replacing the two street side windows.
Ms. Diozzi stated that it demeans an otherwise wonderful project.
Ms. Herbert stated that it was a trail of mistakes that made the carriage house windows happen. She suggested the applicant refurbish the existing windows. She noted that a good example is the Brookhouse Home.
Ms. Diozzi stated that they also don’t want a cheap looking window.
Ms. Herbert stated that the problem with making these beautiful buildings into condominiums is that different unit owners want to do different things.
Ms. Guy stated that they have the right to repair or replace in kind. She stated if they change color, material or design, the Commission has to approve it and there is a problem with a façade having different windows on it.
Ms. Hammond stated that they would like the windows to look the same as well.
Mr. Hammond noted that there are three different kinds of windows on the Bertram House so there is no uniformity.
Ms. Guy noted that it has now been determined that those windows installed are now in violation. It will be up to the board to decide if they want to pursue enforcement.
Mr. Hammond stated that all his neighbors love the carriage house.
Ms. Guy stated that she has actually gotten a verbal complaint about the windows from one of the neighbors.
Mr. Hammond provided a list of eight people who provided signatures in support of the Matthew Brothers windows.
Ms. Herbert stated that Mr. Hart provided an email stating that the carriage house window applied mullions were installed inside out.
Ms. Guy stated the Commission would still have to look at whether a mix of double glaze and single glaze on one façade would be acceptable.
Martha Chayet, 26 Winter Street, stated that she is happy to see work going on next door, that she likes the neighbors and she is supportive of work happening. She stated that her thoughts echo with what Commission stated. She would prefer to see windows in entire building match. She noted that it was built as single family, therefore, it should be look like a single family. She suggested that condo associations apply rather than single owners and that windows should be considered common areas and paid for out of special assessment.
Ms. Bellin noted that a condo association approving one unit is setting a precedent for all the owners in the development.
Ms. Guy suggested noting in the guidelines that condo associations should approve window changes for entire building.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-applicability to repair or replace the existing windows in kind. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy stated that they could also do an interior energy panel.
Ms. Diozzi made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. There were no votes in favor. All were opposed and the motion did not carry.
Mr. Griffin asked if the condo association found a double glaze window, would the Commission consider it.
Ms. Herbert replied in the affirmative.
Other Business
- 72 Loring Avenue – Telecommunications Installation
Ms. Guy read a letter from EBI Consulting regarding a proposed telecommunications installation at 72 Loring Avenue (Eastern Bank). They are proposing a false chimney extension in fiberglass on top of the existing chimney to conceal the 9 antennas and a 8 ½’ x 11” equipment room on the ground level.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to state that the Commission finds that the building has no historic significance and therefore has no comment. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
- Working Group to Update Urban Renewal Plans
Ms. Guy read a letter for Lynn Duncan, Director of Planning & Community Development, inviting a member of the Commission to serve on a working group for the purpose of updating the Urban Renewal Plans. Ms. Herbert stated that she sent Mr. Hart an email to see if he is interested, as he is an architect and has been in Salem for many years. She stated that if he doesn’t want to, the Commission will have to figure out something else. She noted that it is approximately one meeting per month through December.
- 31 Washington Sq./Bertram Home
Ms. Bellin stated that the Commission should pursue the violation for the carriage house due to the mullions being backwards. She added that Mr. Griffin mis-represented that the windows approved for the Bertram house were Mathews and they were not.
Ms. Herbert stated that a violation letter should be sent.
Ms. Guy stated that the letter could state that they are all in violation, but to offer a compromise such as switching the mullions so they are not backwards and/or switching out the four street side windows to be true divided light.
Ms. Bellin stated that the Bertram Home should also be found in violation for installing Mathews Brothers windows when wood was approved.
Ms. Guy suggested that the commission members go by and see if the windows are visible.
Ms. Guy suggested that the letter to Mr. Shea indicate that since he applied for and received approval in good faith that the Commission wants to be reasonable.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to send a letter to Mr. Shea. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin stated that she will look into updating the guidelines for windows, regarding condo associations and uniformity.
There being no further business, Ms. McCrea made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Diozzi seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission
| 
