SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
JUNE 20, 2012
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, June 20, 2012 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. McCrea, Ms. Keenan, Ms. Bellin, and Mr. Hart.
297-305 Bridge Street
The City of Salem submitted an application for Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance for the 297-305 owned by Bowley Street Trading Corp. (tax title foreclosure pending). The application states that the property is heavily contaminated as a result of past industrial use including, asbestos, lead and other hazardous materials. Due to the extent of contamination, the EPA’s Removal Program, with additional support from the DEP and MassDevelopment, the City proposes to remediate the site. The property will be available as temporary parking for the upcoming parking garage construction during with the Salem Depot’s parking spaces will be unavailable. Upon completion of the garage, the City plans to seek commercial redevelopment proposals for the property. Tom Devine from the
Dept. of Planning & Community Development was present.
Documents & Exhibits
Mr. Devine stated the building has an estimated construction date of 1955. The property has been taken in tax title due to a default of approximately $250,000. He stated that any funds made on the sale would be taken back by the EPA, DEP and MassDevelopment. He stated that the gain is the clean up of the site, new commercial activity and job creation.
Ms. Herbert asked if the City will be charging for parking.
Mr. Devine replied that the details have not been worked out. He noted that it is 1.2 acres and there is 8000 s.f. of building .
Ms. Keenan asked why city needs to take it.
Mr. Devine stated that the City needs to be the owner in order to have access to MassDevelopment funding. Without that funding there would be no progress for clean up. All funding sources are needed for the clean up.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Hart stated that if there is a vote to approve the waiver, he would advocate that the building be documented with photographs and drawings prior to demolition, specifically wide angle digital ¾ views of all facades, 5mg each minimum. He would also want the same for all surfaces of the interior. He stated that there should be taped measured sketches of all elevations – horizontal and vertical.
Mr. Devine stated that interior photos may be a challenge due to heavy contamination.
Mr. Hart suggested that the interior photos be taken during demolition.
Mr. Devine stated that he would be happy to have it arranged.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance and to require that the building be documented with photographs and taped measured sketches as M. Hart proposed, prior to the release of the demolition permit and that interior photographs be taken during demolition in unable to be done prior. Mr. Hart to seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
138 North Street
Thomas J. Pelletier, Cynthia L. Pelletier and Kellie Overberg submitted an application to convert a carriage house to a single family dwelling which would include changing three doors to windows, installation of a new door, replacement of windows, and installation of a/c vents, pipes and condenser. The applicant would also like the option to add a dormer on the back to resemble the one in the front.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Site Plan
- Plans dated 5/30/06 from Pelletier & Schaarr
- Catalog pages from Walpole Woodworker
Ms. Guy stated that she received an email from Thomas Pelletier withdrawing the application.
1 Harrington Court
Donald Harlow Powell submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a 4’ high flat board fence, to be located on the Bridge/Flint Street corner. The fence will be painted the house color. Present was contractor Daniel Beauvais.
Documents & Exhibits
Mr. Beauvais stated that when the fence application was submitted the owner wanted flatboard. He stated that since then the renter has changed their mind and has asked for a picket fence. He stated that he would like to model it after 66/68 Derby St. He noted that the posts may not be solid; there are existing steel rods in the concrete, so he may have to box around them, but the appearance will be the same.
Ms. Herbert asked if they will be painting the fence grey.
Mr. Beauvais stated that he preferred natural, but if painted, he prefer white. He noted that the funding allotted for the foundation work was used to fix other areas. The owner now wants the fence, to finish windows and to fix foundation.
Ms. Bellin asked what color is preferred.
Mr. Beauvais stated that he would like the option for natural or white. 66/68 Derby Street is natural.
Ms. Herbert stated that the balusters on the porch are natural, so it would make sense.
Mr. Beauvais stated that he told the owner if the fence is painted, he would need to paint the balusters on the porch.
Mr. Hart asked if there is a sketch of where the fence will go on the property.
Mr. Beauvais stated that he will put a post next to the tree, a post in front on either side of the gate and a post on the end of the run. He stated that he could alternatively put a post at either end and make the gate look like fence. The fence will be supported with 1” iron rods.
Ms. Herbert stated that he can put invisible posts in the back for support.
There was no public comment.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the installation of a wood picket fence to replicate the style of fence at 66 and 68 Derby Street as per photos, with a maximum of 4 wood posts with caps, as per sketch, and the remainder of the fence to be supported by existing steel posts. The fence is to be finish side out, left natural or with white stain to match house trip. If painted white, the balusters on porch are to be painted white to match. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
95 Mason Street
David Cutler submitted an application to Waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance to demolish 95 Mason Street, noting that all framing members are either totally rotten or failing. The property will be rebuilt. Also present was contractor Dan Davison.
Documents & Exhibits
Ms. Guy read a letter from Building Inspector Thomas St. Pierre explaining the chain of events that lead to the partial demolition.
Ms. Herbert stated that the house has had significant changes over years. She wondered how much of the original fabric was left.
Mr. Hart stated that he searched MHC’s MACRIS database and that 95 Mason Street is not listed. He noted that the surrounding houses were built 1840-50 ands stated that it is conceivable that it was built about the same period.
Ms. Herbert stated that basically all that remains are the first floor walls.
Emily Udy, Historic Salem, Inc. asked what the plan is for the lot.
Mr. Cutler stated that they will build using the same footprint. It will be similar in height.
Ms. Udy stated that the street is on HSI’s Most Endangered List. She stated that the way that the houses descend in size is very appealing. She stated that she was concerned about the height.
Mr. Davison stated that they have to build it to building code. Ne noted that there is no room on the lot to go any wider or longer. He stated that the sill is almost underground, so there will have to be somewhat of a build up first. He stated that the current ceiling heights were about 7’ after being stripped. He noted that with flooring and ceiling, it did not meet building code.
Morris Schopf, 1 Cambridge Street, asked if they will plan not to exceed the height limit for the zone.
Mr. Davison replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Schopf asked if Mr. Davison was not saying it will be exact.
Mr. Davison replied in the affirmative, that he was not saying it would be exact. He apologized that work began, noting that when he spoke to Building Inspection, he was not informed of the waiver requirement. He noted that it is a danger now. He added that there is still a special permit required with full plans. He stated that they are just trying to finish the demolition in order to make it safe.
Mr. Schopf stated that he was concerned about what goes back in its place, but noted that that is for another day and another venue i.e. special permit.
Mr. Davison stated that there was an original plan to leave some of the building, but it is not happening now due to the sill issues. He noted that there will be some modifications of the original plan. He stated that the height will probably come up about 8’ to 12’ feet to get in footings and the proper ceiling height.
Phil Verrette, 93 Mason Street stated that he was concerned if it goes above the original height that it will change the lighting that comes into his yard.
Ms. Herbert suggested working on a plan that brings the proposed building closer to what was there. She stated that she understands it will need to be slightly higher, but felt it was important to have an historic look. She stated that she would like to see the plan before it goes to the ZBA.
Mr. Davison stated that he would like to do that, so that everything can move smoothly. He stated that there is a safety issue at hand.
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission does not have meeting before the ZBA meets and suggested delegating someone to work with the applicant. She stated that it would be more saleable.
Ms. Herbert suggested that, through Historic Salem, Mr. Schopf take a look at the proposed plan.
Mr. Schopf stated that the proposed roof pitch is wrong. He stated that they should look carefully at the building that they accidently got permission to tear down. He stated that there was clearly no reason not to complete the demolition, now that it has been started. He stated that they should use the building being demolished as a guide for the new building. The windows, roof pitches and the way the entrance is handled should be handled sensitively and that the people that come to the special permit hearing will be sensitive to those things.
Ms. Herbert stated that there have been many changes made to this building and it would be desirable to rebuild it historically with the proper window placement and size, etc., not necessarily what it was changed to. She suggested Mr. Hart provide the owner with some advice.
Mr. Hart stated that it is a really interesting grouping and wonderful streetscape.
Ms. Bellin asked if they are building a 2 story, not 3 story building.
Mr. Davison replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Bellin stated that the house next door is a 3 story and it would be difficult to get close to that height. She stated that it would be nice to see a mock up on a photo.
Ms. Keenan asked if they will be selling after.
Mr. Cutler replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Keenan noted that they need to be careful with their costs.
Ms. Bellin asked if it will be a single family.
Mr. Cutler replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Hart stated that he is willing to take some interior shots before it comes down.
Mr. Davison stated that it is not safe and there is not much left.
Ms. Herbert asked when they will go back to finish the demolition.
Mr. Davison stated that they hope to finish as soon as possible, noting that there is liability.
Mr. Herbert asked if Mr. Hart could go over tomorrow.
Mr. Hart replied that he could go over in the afternoon. He suggested that the proponent give a taped exterior measurement.
Mr. Davison stated that it is 16’8” by 39’11”.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance conditional that Mr. Hart be allowed access to photograph the interior and exterior of the property and that the owner provide a copy of the current plot plan which indicate the dimensions of the house. She asked that the Commission be provided with a copy of the plans being submitted to the ZBA. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion.
Mr. Hart asked that an amendment be considered to recognize that the Inspectional Services Department did not notify the proponents that they had to come before Historical Commission for the waiver.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin so amended her motion . Ms. McCrea seconded the amendment. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert suggested that the applicant work together with Mr. Hart on its plan that will be going before ZBA. She noted that it could save a lot of headaches. She added that HSI can also give guidance, so that they will be set for the ZBA.
Ms. Guy noted that through city’s capital budget, the city is proposing to invest in city-wide permitting software, which will have a pre-determined checklist that will include demolition delay. It is proposed for purchase in July and be fully operational by November.
135 Federal Street
Brenton and Elizabeth Dickson submitted an application for a Certificate of Non-applicability to paint an existing fence, replace rotted wood as needed and replicate moldings, etc.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Correspondence
Ms. Guy stated that she received a letter from Massachusetts Historical Commission to the Division of Conservation Services regarding the former Chadwick Lead Mills Acquisition Project that she emailed to the Commission members.
Minutes
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of June 6, 2012. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
31 Chestnut Street – Report on claim that the Commission withdrew approval of a fence
Ms. Guy stated that at the last meeting it was requested that she research the minutes with regard to Mr. Wrightson’s claim that the Commission retracted its approval of an iron fence at 31 Chestnut Street. With her report, Ms. Guy distributed excerpts of minutes related to the topic, along with Certificates issued and emailed correspondence. She stated that she found no evidence that the Commission withdrew its approval for a wrought iron fence and she determined Mr. Wrightson’s claim was erroneous.
18 Felt Street
Ms. Herbert stated that she would continue to abstain from voting due to the possibility that she may be doing some work for the developer.
In continuation of a prior meeting, Ice Cat, LLC submitted an application to Waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance for the removal of the barn. 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. The applicant was not present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Site Study dated 5/2/12 by Schopf Design Associates
Morris Schopf stated that it is a rare surviving example of an agricultural domestic building and is in need of restoration and that the players are not sympathetic to its restorations. 3 of 4 months of Demolition Delay for the previous owner are past. He encourage the Commission, when the new owner comes for relief from the Demolition Delay, that the clock be restarted and that the current application not be floated over from the old owner to the new owner.
Ms. Guy stated that her understanding is that it goes with the owner, not with the land.
Ms. Herbert stated that she believed they intend to let the six months run.
Mr. Hart stated that if the Commission votes to continue, it still leaves it on the table to ask for alternatives. He preferred that it continue to be continued rather than denying the application.
Ms. McCrea stated that she was concerned that they didn’t ask for a continuance.
Ms. Bellin stated that if placed on the agenda for the next meeting, they may be willing to talk to us.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to continue the application to the next meeting . Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Herbert abstained from voting.
Other Business
Morris Schopf stated that he would like to speak to the board about sidewalks in historic districts. He stated that he discovered that policy is if the existing sidewalks are concrete, replacement sidewalks will be concrete, if you had asphalt, you will get asphalt. He stated that on Cambridge Street, there was a piece of badly damaged concrete sidewalk, which the DPW removed it and put back white concrete. He stated that he appreciated the Commission’s assistance if it was something they could look into, if possible.
Ms. Herbert suggested getting some research done and getting a handle on how it has functioned in the past. She stated that it sounds like a project that would be perfect for HSI, such as an intern. She suggested that maybe Ms. Bellin, who is on the HSI board, could help coordinate this initially.
Mr. Hart suggested talking to Lynn Duncan, the City Planner.
Ms. McCrea wondered if there is an issue with Americans with Disabilities in using brick, and that she has heard people complain about them.
VOTE: There being no further business, Mr. Hart made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission
| 
