SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
MAY 2, 2012
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, May 2, 2012 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Ms. McCrea, Ms. Bellin, Mr. Spang and Mr. Hart.
Ms. Keenan arrived later in the meeting.
22 Chestnut Street
In continuation of a prior meeting, Nina Cohen & Craig Barrows submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to reshingle the roof to match the existing color roof tile.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- CertainTeed XT30, XT25 catalog pages
Ms. Guy stated that the Certainteed roof appears to be 3 tab, even if it does not say so on the catalog page. She stated that the applicant appeared to have selected a color that most closely matches what they had previously. She stated that she recommended approving it under a Certificate of Non-applicability.
Mr. Hart was in agreement.
VOTE: Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-applicability for roof replacement as has already been completed, 3 tab in same color as was existing. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
362 Essex Street
Peter Atkinson and Jennifer Allen submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove the outdoor deck on the NE corner of the original 1754 home. The deck is not part of the original construction and is estimated to have been built in the middle of the 20th century. It is currently a safety hazard and its removal will return the house nearer to its original intent, highlighting the main entry portico and allowing more natural light into the main house, while improving the architectural symmetry of the façade. The application is also to replace the current door onto the deck with a window, similar to the original design.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Memo from Design Works Architecture dated 11/21/11
Ms. Keenan joined the meeting at this time.
Ms. Herbert asked if the new window will be similar to the adjacent window.
Mr. Atkinson replied in the affirmative. He stated that they will replace it to match the rest in the room - 6 over 6, true divided light. They are planning to save the balustrades and urn and may try to fashion urns for the fence in the front.
Mr. Hart asked if the windows will be single pane.
Mr. Atkinson replied in the affirmative and stated that they may have storms.
Ms. Allen stated that the house next door is really close and therefore the window across in the room is really useless. They are thinking of taking out that window and reusing it where the door is or else fabricate a new window. She stated that the window to be removed is not visible from the street and that the door being replaced is not visible.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove the deck and a Certificate of Non-applicability to replace the door with a window, with the option to remove a non visible window and re-use it in place of the door. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
67 and 69-71 Mason Street
Riverview Place LLC submitted an application for Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance for complete demolition of both buildings, which are seriously dilapidated. The site is being redeveloped for use as a primarily residential apartment complex. Atty. Scott Grover was present representing the applicant.
Documents & Exhibits
Ms. Herbert read an e-mail from Emily Udy of Historic Salem, Inc. requesting denial in order to complete a survey for submission to Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC).
Ms. Herbert noted that HSI will undertake a survey for the Bonfanti Factory building only. She stated that she asked how long it would take and was told 4-8 weeks by Barbara Cleary.
Atty. Grover stated that everything is down on the Salem Suede site. The 2 buildings remaining are the main Bonfanti site and a 3-family vacant house to the left.
Mr. Hart stated for the record that Barbara Cleary is his wife and that he was not aware of the email.
Atty. Grover stated that he understood the desire to conduct a survey of the property. He stated that he believes there is a little flexibility in his client’s schedule. He noted that they have been in permitting for 5 years and that the driving need for demolition is for the environmental clean up of site. He stated that it is more efficient to clean up the whole site at once. He noted that another reason is the disruption to neighborhood by having to come back and start another demolition project if they can’t demolish now.
Ms. Herbert suggested continuing to next meeting to allow HSI to get the survey underway.
Atty. Grover asked Ms. Herbert if photographic documentation was being investigated.
Ms. Herbert stated that she could get those questions answered for the next meeting.
Atty. Grover stated that two or four weeks probably would not be a problem but that four to eight weeks would be a problem.
A letter SP Engineering, Inc. was read into record.
Ms. Herbert stated that two weeks would give Atty. Grover a chance to work with HSI to the get survey going.
Mr. Hart stated that the Commission may want to write a letter to HSI. He stated that MHC’s MACRIS database does not show it as having being surveyed. He stated that he would be looking for a history of the building in terms of construction date and uses, along with taped exterior footprint of building – horizontal and vertical. Photos of interior and exterior should be ¾’s of full on elevations to document existing conditions.
Ms. Guy noted that the Commission reviewed the PNF in February, 2011.
Mr. Spang suggested the photography and measurements take place, allow demolition, and then there is time for the history research.
Mr. Hart stated that the history is important in case they find something unique.
Atty. Grover stated that HSI has had the proposal for four months. He suggested that they act quickly to do this.
Ms. Herbert suggested his client work with HSI to develop time frames between now and the next meeting.
Atty. Grover reviewed the latest approved plans of project with the Commission. He stated that there will be 130 units in the project.
Mike Shea, 5 Brentwood Avenue, stated that he has a property at 54 Mason Street that he goes by the Bonfanti building daily. He stated that he has concerns with homeless persons getting into the property if it stays vacant.
Atty. Grover asked the Commission to also communicate with HSI.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to the next meeting. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
18 Felt Street
Ice Cat, LLC submitted an application to Waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance for the removal of the barn and garage. The barn is in disrepair. Removal is needed to allow subdivision of the property per variance granted 4/4/12 to add an additional lot to the property for a new house to be built.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Site Study dated 5/2/12 by Schopf Design Associates
Ms. Herbert stated that the applicant has requested a continuance. She noted that Morris Schopf provided a plan on how it is possible to get a new house of same size as the mansion on the lot, while saving the garage, barn and trees. She read a letter from Morris Schopf, Schopf Design Associates received 5/2/12 (dated 4/2/12).
Atty. Grover stated that Ms. Herbert has been involved with administrating the Board of Appeal conditions. He stated that the applicant is most interested in taking the garage down sooner rather than later. They are willing to wait on the barn. He stated that two weeks continuance for the garage is not a problem. He stated that the Schopf drawing really cramps the existing house, which is why they want to get the garage down. He did not believe the garage had any significance.
Ms. Herbert stated that if they take down the garage, they could keep the slate for patching the house. She noted that they are also considering moving the garage to the other side.
Mr. Hart asked if the age of the garage is known.
Ms. Herbert stated that she believe it was from the 30s or 40s.
Mr. Hart stated that he had no objection to garage coming down.
Ms. Keenan, Ms. McCrea and Ms. Harper stated that they also had no objection.
Mr. Hart stated that he would like dimensions and photographs of the exterior.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance for the garage subject to the Commission receiving photographs and dimensions. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Spang abstained from voting.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue barn portion of the application to the next meeting. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Spang abstained from voting.
Mr. Hart stated that he could prepare a memo of what documentation is wanted and send it to Ms. Guy to forward.
31 Washington Sq. North Rear
Michael and Charlotte Shea submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a new water fountain, install a new section of fence and install a pergola. The pergola is 7’ high and 5’ wide. The fountain is approximately 7’ tall and 4 ½’ wide.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Sketch of yard
Mr. Shea stated that the color of the fountain is to be natural white. He stated that the fence is white. The pergola will be 50’ in from the fence. The fence is to be identical to the fence on Oliver Street and is to be located on the rear property line, of which a portion can be seen from the street.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
6 Monroe Street
Browne Realty Trust, c/o Roger B. Tyler, submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of a telephone system at the front door for resident/visitor access control, which is a requirement of the Licensing Board. It will be 16 ¼” H x 6 3/8” W x 2 ¾” D stainless steel panel with trim ring, surface mounted. Also submitted was an application to replace deteriorated wood railings at a rear deck and replacement of a small side entrance landing, stairs and railings at the east die of the house. The proposed railings for both installations would be 36” in height measured from the stair tread or deck surface to the upper surface of the rail system. The railings will be constructed of 4” x 4” fir corner posts, 2” x
2” fir balusters and 2” x 4” fir top and bottom rails. There will be a 4” maximum space between the balusters. The hand rails will be beveled. The side entrance landing of three 1” x 4” fir risers and the kick boards will be pine painted white. The railing for the deck and stairs and the railing for the entrance landing will be coated with a clear waterproof sealer.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Mircom Slim Line Telephone Access System specification
- Site plan
Ms. Herbert asked if there was any way to do wood band molding around the system.
Mr. Tyler stated that he didn’t know why they couldn’t. He stated that he might be able to recess it.
Mr. Spang stated that the doorway looks pretty original, and that recessing may be more intrusive to the historic door.
Ms. Herbert added that wood molding might be more like gilding the lily.
Ms. Guy stated that it may draw the eye to it. She stated that since the system is not appropriate, she suggested not trying to make it look appropriate.
Ms. Harper asked if it could be put underneath the knock box.
Mr. Hart stated that he felt it would be less obtrusive to put it on the right hand side. He stated that they could put up a piece of plywood and then mount it on the plywood.
Ms. Harper stated that she wondered if putting it underneath the box would be better than intruding on the design of the paneling, which is a nice feature of the entryway.
Mr. Spang stated that the specification shows a pedestal mount option.
Mr. Tyler stated that he could go back and see if he can come back with a smaller design.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the access system to first meeting in June. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Tyler stated that a piece of deck is visible.
Mr. Hart suggested double checking with the Building Inspector to be sure 36” high railings are okay.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the replacement of wood railings as proposed. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
66 & 68 Derby Street
Jay and Neal Levy submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of gutters, to be OG style, 5 inches, 032 heavy gauge aluminum, painted Wicker to match the trim. Jay Levy was present.
Documents & Exhibits
Mr. Levy stated that the gutters will go in standard locations.
Ms. Herbert stated that Morris Schopf told her that this project was one of the nicest jobs he has seen.
Mr. Levy stated that it is not more difficult or expensive to do it, if you plan for it.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the installation of gutters & downspouts. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
- Review of Draft CLG Opinion on Eligibility for the Point Neighborhood
Ms Guy stated that the North Shore CDC hired Patty Kelleher to prepare a draft CLG Opinion of Eligibility for the Point Neighborhood, which was distributed to the Commission. She stated that in order to a National Register nomination, the Certified Local Government has to submit an opinion. This is in the first step in the nomination process. She noted that MHC called her today asking for the opinion because they have tax credit applications they are reviewing next week, including one for the North Shore CDC. She stated it is basically to say that the Point Neighborhood is eligible for listing.
Ms. Bellin asked if this was creating a local historic district.
Ms. Guy replied in the negative. It is just saying that the Historical Commission is saying this is eligible for listing, which opens the door for the nomination process..
Mr. Hart stated that he understood the CLG opinion is for the district nomination process and that if any individual property comes up for tax credits, then MHC will look at that individual property.
Ms. Guy stated that once a property is listed on the National Register district or individually, a property is still considered listed. She stated that there can be contributing and non-contributing properties in the district.
Mr. Spang asked if the City wants the Saltonstall School in the district.
Ms. Guy stated that the City has not voiced its opinion as yet. This is just the CLG opinion, which is the Historical Commission.
Ms. Keenan asked the benefit.
Nina Cohen, North Shore CDC, stated that she understands that there is an application for state historic tax credits. The CLG opinion will establish their eligibility to apply for these tax credits in order to do some renovations to their properties. She stated it is the first step in the process for federal register application. She noted that the final district has not yet been delineated. She stated that the benefit would be for certain property owners in the Point to be able to apply for these state historic tax credits which is a substantial new source of funding for housing rehabilitation. She stated that the other benefit is recognition which can bring focus, attention and resources to individual properties.
Mr. Hart stated that listing on the National Register it permits certain property owners to apply for state and national tax credits. It is a very beneficial designation.
Ms. Herbert stated that listing on the National Register, and not the local historic district, does not save a building from inappropriate changes or demolition.
Mr. Hart stated that the Section 106 would kick in when using federal funds or permitting.
Ms. Guy stated that the boundary is not set and that it is a long process. The map is a draft. She did not think she would submit a map with the CLG opinion and noted that the study of the Point for the Neighborhood Architectural Districts completed by VHB had a larger boundary recommendation. She stated she will tweaking the wording of the draft opinion. She stated that she would probably not submit a smaller boundary than what is eligible. She stated that she would probably go with the larger boundary, as it is easier to go smaller than to go larger. She stated that she is looking for a vote that says the Point in eligible and to send the CLG opinion to Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC).~
Mr. Spang asked what limitations it would put on the city if they want to do work to the Saltonstall School.
Ms. Guy stated that if it is included in a district, and state or federal funding is used, it would need to go through the federal Section 106 or the state Chapter 9 process. She stated that the school may not be part of the National Register district. This form is not the nomination. This is the only the opinion that this is eligible. Then a nomination is drafted, which is a whole other vetting process. She will include everything from the VHB report for the eligibility opinion. The process is that the consultant applied the National Register criteria and uses it, along with looking at the VHB and other reports, to draft the CLG opinion narrative. The Commission then sends in this one page form that says we agree that it is eligible for listing. It has nothing to do with
finalizing boundaries; that is way in the future. She stated that, at some point, whoever wants to spend the money, will hire a consultant to draft the nomination. Then there is a series of steps and public hearings that are done which will start tweaking those boundaries. It may be during that process that the City may say it does not want the Saltonstall School in the district.
Ms. Keenan asked if homeowners have to agree.
Ms. Cohen stated that there is a lot of chance for public comment and that it is approximately a two year process. She stated that this is only the first step.
VOTE: Ms. McCrea made a motion to submit a CLG opinion on the eligibility of the Point Neighborhood with Ms. Guy tweaking the draft for submission. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of March 21, 2012. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
VOTE: Mr. Spang made a motion to approve the minutes of April 4, 2012. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
- Ms. Guy stated that she received a copy of a letter dated 4/17/12 from MHC to Historic New England, regarding 34 Chestnut Street, and finding that the proposed drainage project will have no adverse effect.
- Ms. Guy stated that she received a copy of the Project Notification Form for the construction of a 715 parking space intermodal facility. The developer will be filing an Expanded Environmental Notification Form later this year. She stated that she will put the PNF on the next agenda in case anyone wants to comment.
- Ms. Guy stated that she received a copy of a letter dated 4/12/12 from the Secretary of the Commonwealth awarding Annie Harris with a 2012 MHC Preservation Award.
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
| 
