SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 19, 2012
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, September 19, 2012 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Ms. Keenan, Ms. Bellin, Mr. Spang and Mr. Hart.
Ms. McCrea arrived later in the meeting.
356 Essex Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, Nick Nowak and Amy and Jeremy Jones submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to repair the front porch, replace porch floor and stairs with 1 x 4 cambara mahogany and stain, replace railing with round balusters to match existing on gate, replace newel post with on that has a cap and paint balusters, handrail, newel post and risers to match existing trim.
Documents & Exhibits
Ms. Guy stated that this application was continued to the meeting of October 3rd and was placed on this agenda in error. No action is required.
44 Derby Street
In continuation of a prior meeting, John and Bridget Crawford submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove asbestos siding and repair or replace the siding underneath.
Documents & Exhibits
Ms. Herbert stated that she went by and took off a piece of siding. It is layer after layer. She noted that in some places it places it goes right down to base board.
Mr. Spang was in agreement and did not think there was any clapboard. He stated that he thinks they should get rid of everything and start fresh at the sheathing.
Ms. Herbert stated that she would want skirtboard and cornerboards.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Hart stated that the owner did submit photos and it looks like there are some remnants of clapboards on one corner.
Ms. Herbert stated that the trim around the windows looks like it might be vinyl.
Mr. Hart stated that clapboards are more indicative of what this style would have been.
John Carr, 7 River Street, stated that the old Bix Variety are remnants of a 18th century house and that it was a great solution to have restored the house and built a compatible new house. He stated that if the Commission is going to approve something, they should make it as compatible as possible.
MOTION: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve siding to be wooden clapboards, 4” to weather, with 6” cornerboards and 2 x 8 water table. The applicant is to retain existing rakes and cornices. The motion is also to continue the application to next meeting in case the owner needs to work out details or submit another siding option.
Ms. Harper stated that she can consult with the owner if he has any questions.
Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
14 Broad Street
In continuation of a prior meeting, Ellen & Jeremy Schiller submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to add a mudroom vestibule to replace the existing side entrance. Clapboards and trim will match existing structure. Rectangular window to be re-used from existing structure. Size of vestibule will be 5’ x 10’. Examples of similar side entrances on Colonial homes are 8 Broad Street, 134 Carpenter Street, 78 Federal Street and the Peirce-Nichols House on Federal Street. Present were Ms. Schiller and architect Helen Sides.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Sketches/drawings of existing and proposed
Ms. Sides provided updated drawings.
Ms. Sides stated that the fence will stay in its current location and that the vestibule will project 6’ and connect to it. They will retain the double door opening in the fence for the car.
Ms. Schiller stated that there is currently one small and one big door for the double doors.
Ms. Sides stated that the vestibule will go back behind the fence 10’6”. The door won’t be seen from the street. She stated that, if the window is not salvageable, they will replace in kind. All materials will match existing, including clapboards, roofing, etc. She noted that the roof extends past the wall to cover the stairs and it will have a decorative bracket.
Ms. Herbert suggested the roof pitch mimic the dormer on front.
Ms. Sides stated that the roof can’t be that steep and it will probably be 4 ½ - enough pitch for weather. It will come up closer to the sills above the existing. It is hipped in 3 directions, and you won’t see much from the street.
Ms. Bellin asked if they are proposing to start at the fence, remove the window to the right and retain the far right window.
Ms. Sides replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Hart stated that he was concerned about 5’ x 10’ size.
Ms. Sides stated that it is 6’ x 10’.
Ms. Schiller stated that 8 Broad Street has a similar dimension, but is deeper back.
Mr. Hart stated that the length concerns him and it seems to function as a mudroom.
Ms. Schiller stated that that is the intent.
Mr. Hart stated that the in the sketches the scale looks nice, but that he would prefer to see a scale rendering of what will look like.
Michael Blier, 8 Broad Street stated that he felt it is a big improvement over what is there.
Ms. Harper stated that the sample pictures are all slightly different and tailored to the needs of those houses. She stated that the proposed is a side entrance and that she felt it is okay.
Morris Schopf, stated that 1 ½ Cambridge Street tacked on very cleverly to the kitchen window. He stated that it is bigger than a little seasonal shed that were used to protect front doors. It is quite successful and is a comparable model. He noted that it depends on where on building it occurs.
John Carr, 7 River Street, stated that he gathered the concern may be that the prototypes are not the same scale. He suggested that the thing to do is to make it more like a little room and bump it out instead of blowing up a vestibule beyond the typical scale.
Ms. Herbert stated that there are two large planes, which she felt could handle a larger vestibule treatment.
Ms. Sides stated that it is located where it needs to be in order to be functional. She stated that she could shorten it on the fence end, but it would probably look stranger to create a dead zone between the fence and building.
Mr. Schopf stated that if it had been added long ago, it would probably have a gable end and alignment rather than a hip roof. He stated that it probably wants to make a bigger statement of itself, but have all the same details and same roof pitch.
Ms Sides stated that the hip roof helps to bring the height down visually. She stated that a different roof won’t fit under windows.
Mr. Hart stated that he would like to see an elevation that shows all the parts on that elevation. He stated that he did not have a good concept of what it looks like overall. He noted that we will be looking at this a long time and that he wants to make sure what is there is compatible,
Mr. Spang stated that he felt it is an improvement over what is there and is generally sympathetic to the house. He stated that he is getting stuck on the roof. He stated that he finds the hip roof to be not quite the way the rest of the house works. He suggested that a shed, rather than a hip, might be better.
Ms. Sides stated you would see the butt ends of gutters and that she felt a hip is more finished looking.
Ms. Herbert suggested a gable with a flat roof.
Ms. Sides stated that she felt it would draw more attention.
Ms. Schiller stated that because there is a huge addition on the back of house, she felt it is not disproportionate to the depth of the house. She noted that hers goes so much further back than other houses.
Mr. Hart stated that it is a fine house and that he could not visualize the whole picture. He noted that he will not be at the October 3rd meeting.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to the next meeting on October 3rd. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
1 Cambridge Street
Sue Weaver Schopf submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the existing wooden gutters on the rear of the building with 6” K section aluminum gutters, white to match all trim. The same was approved for 315 Essex Street.
Documents & Exhibits
Morris Schopf stated that the gutters are only visible between the houses from Essex Street. The proposed gutters are almost the exact exterior profile as his existing wood gutter. He noted that the rear property line is at the foundation. 130’ of gutter will be permanent. They will be white. He stated that he will keep the wood return at the corner at the Essex Street end and that the end of the gutter at the corner of the gable will remain part of the trim.
Mr. Hart asked about downspouts.
Mr. Schopf stated that they will keep the existing galvanized steel, painted. He noted that the wooden gutters up front have held up fine, but the long runs on the back puddle and have rotted.
There was no public comment.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
36 Felt Street
James R. Treadwell presented an application for Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance for the barn at 36 Felt Street (formerly at 18 Felt Street).
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Plan of Charles A. Ropes Estate, March, 1907
- Original plan of land, 18 Felt Street, by ICECAT, December 15, 2011
- Approved plan of land, 18 Felt Street, by ICECAT, June 18, 2012
- Memo from J.R. Treadwell summarizing inspection completed by Woodford Bros., Inc.
Mr. Treadwell stated that he also provided some additional photos of the structure and setting, a drawing of the building and a summation of a visit made by Hugh Stone of Woodford Brothers Inc., specializing in structural renovations.
Ms. McCrea joined the meeting at this time.
Mr. Treadwell stated that he purchased the lot in June, which contains the barn, garage and the beach tree. He stated that the tree is diseased and he is working with Bartlett Tree Company to make it healthy again. The garage was approved for demolition, but there is hope that the new owner of 18 Felt Street will restore it. The barn has been long neglected. In 1989, Peg Ropes put in a cornerpost in an attempt to stabilize. He stated that the carriage room floor is covered with plywood, making the adjourning room inaccessible. He noted that, unfortunately, the barn was stuffed with old artifacts that went to dumpster by the developer. He stated that it was a herculean task accomplished by the neighbors, the Zoning Board of Appeal, Historic Salem, Inc. and the Salem
Historical Commission to save the house. He added that the barn is available for tour, but that he would not go up to the second level as the stairs have rotted. The building survey form says that the house is a Queen Anne building eligible for National Register listing, but only mentions the barn in passing. He stated that, from the beginning, the garage and barn were shown by the developer to be removed. He stated that there will be salvage. He noted that there have been some attempts made to investigate moving barn next to the house. He stated that, if moved, it would change the setting of the house, which would be considered an adverse effect. Mr. Treadwell noted that he had worked for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and was responsible for historic reviews for the Philadelphia office. He stated that the barn is not feasible to rehabilitate. It would be $165,000 to stabilize (put in new foundation,
new roof and rehabilitate structure).
Mr. Hart stated that we have a clock of October 10th by which we need to provide a preliminary recommendation.
Ms. Herbert stated that this is the second time around for a waiver request. The first was submitted in April by George Wattendorf and it would have ended October 17th. However, in the interim, Mr. Treadwell bought the land with carriage house and therefore he needed to reapply. She stated that she has been working on this property since last October to save the house and the other buildings. She stated that she felt she has left few stones unturned looking for ways to move or save the carriage house. She stated that it would be $60,000 for a new roof and new sills to stabilize. If it were to be renovated into a living space, it would run about $130,000. To move it to the location similar to where the garage is but pushed back would be $16,000 and the slab would be
$4000. She stated that what is left to complete the house is the landscaping which will be a $30-40,000 investment and the new owner wants to also complete the historic deck as well as other things. She questioned, even if Mr. Wattendorf would consider allowing the money set aside to demolish the barn and garage and if she were to be able to find a donor or lender for the other $10,000 to be used for moving it to a slab, when would the new owner be able to invest the money to restore it and how long would it continue to deteriorate. She stated that she has gone to depths to try to save it. She stated that she felt it is important because it identifies what this property was, which is one of the two farms in Northfields. It has now been divided with two people with differing interests, with a large investment. She stated that it really has been investigated.
John Carr, 7 River Street, stated that he grew up at 9 Roosevelt road, just one street over and that in the 1950s there was remnants architecturally of the farm. He stated that Mr. Ropes had an enormous vegetable garden and that the property was maintained beautifully. He noted that there were three farms - Cabot and 2 owned by the Ropes brothers. He stated that the Demolition Delay Ordinance is to hold out hope that something might happen within the six months, no matter how unrealistic at the moment. If the issue is one of safety, the building inspection exists and his decisions trump everything. It is the only remaining vestige of what defines that whole area. It has been a derelict for a long time and it is iconic. He stated that if the building is a danger, then let the
building inspector make that determination. The purpose of the Demolition Delay Ordinance is to preserve, as long as possible, to see if something can be worked out. He noted that maybe nothing will happen, but the Commission should let the Demolition Delay Ordinance work. The Commission should not facilitate demolition of something very worthwhile. He stated that he was thrilled that Michael Blier is buying 18 Felt Street. He noted that the developer of the former Bix Variety originally wanted to tear it down. Once demolished it is gone forever. It should have 180 days, however unlikely.
Mr. Treadwell stated that no one could have more pleasant memories with Ropes than he. He stated that it is a hardship for him as he would have to secure the barn at a considerable expense. There would be no access to demolish through 18 Felt Street if done later. If there is not enough data, the delay is meant to investigate further. The barn has been available for purchase. He stated that he did not wanted to diminish it, but noted that it is not significant, but is an ordinary barn. It could be replicated. He noted that the floors are deplorable from the livestock. He stated that, as far as the building inspector is concerned, he tries not to go beyond his trust. He added that there has been press and investigation.
Ms. Herbert stated that this is not in an historic district and, once the six months elapses, it can be torn down. She noted that five of the six months of the first application have passed. She stated that she has struggled with this and would love to save it, but noted that she really has tried everything. She stated that the only way it could be saved is to move it to Michael Blier’s new property. She stated that no one is coming forward that would move it any place else. She added that Mr. Treadwell is willing to give away parts.
Michael Blier, 8 Broad Street stated that he is in the process of purchasing 18 Felt Street. The lot purchased extends to the end of the driveway. The way in which this transaction was brokered has come about to accomplish saving the house. Behind all that was the thinking that we would purchase back half of that lot and we would unite the garage and beach tree with the house. That has not happened yet. In question is the barn, house, garage and site. Once the barn is picked up, it is eligible to be moved anywhere. He noted that to move it closer to main house might look odd as it is a tall structure. He stated that he felt it will be a lot more money than what has been estimated to move and rehab it. He added that in a perfect world, it would be reunited as is with
the main house, but that it is a difficult thing. He noted that getting the house saved was the primary goal.
Mr. Carr stated that he can think of three period barns in North Salem, one of which the lot was separated and the barn sold and rehabilitated with the house next to it. He noted that a hardship can’t be self created and that Mr. Treadwell knew the issues when he purchased it. He noted that the barn at Cabot Farm is 18th century. The Historical Commission stands for preservation. There is no immediate urgency: the barn is not going to fall down. He stated that he felt the barn is more important than the garage. He stated that the barn is an iconic, neighborhood symbol. The Demolition Delay Ordinance was chosen to have six months as a reasonable time to see what might happen.
Andrew Carr, 7 River Street, stated that he is a professional painter and has a studio in the Bowditch House at 9 North Street. He is desperately looking for new space. His dream is to some day move into a carriage house in Salem, and the barn would be perfect for that. He stated that to see this go is unfortunate. He noted that Jackson Pollack had a barn in New York with a small stove for heat and that he doesn’t need much to make the space work.
Jack Kinee, 36 Felt Street stated that the house had been available for a year. He stated that if ICECAT had their way, we would not have a house and would have three monstrosities. He stated that all the sentimental value is in the past. He noted that the barn is not in good shape and is not workable. It is out of site, as far as money is concerned.
Morris Schopf, 1 Cambridge Street, stated that he has been in the building and it is in very delicate condition, but is completely original except for the plywood. He stated that he was disappointed that a building of that age and delicacy does not have an advocate. The Demolition Delay Ordinance is a relief of the bylaw that gives everyone a six month delay to demolish. He stated that with the purchase of a buildable lot goes responsibility. He stated that he understands that responsibility for the beach tree and the barn is part of the acquisition of this piece of property and along with that goes stewardship.
Ms. Herbert stated that she has been working to save the entire campus for almost a year. She noted that almost twice the delay period has elapsed. She stated that a delay of weeks, while Mr. Treadwell finds people to take parts, might be appropriate. She stated that she has looked into all kinds of schemes and has personally done for the Commission the mission as to what could be done.
Andrew Carr stated that the last chance is a kick starter to get money from the internet - a few months of fundraising.
Mr. Treadwell stated this is 12500 s.f. lot and is not buildable. He stated that he has been very active in preservation issues, including St. Joseph’s complex and the MBTA Signal Tower. He stated that the barn would stay if it were feasible. He noted that a house could have been built on this lot before he purchased it and that this has been precluded. He stated that the garage has a slate roof and matches the house and makes the main house more attractive. He stated that he has been responsible, noting that the idea to save garage was his and he is working with the new owner to save the tree.
John Carr stated that all of the preservation conditions that were built into the zoning variance came to naught, because Mr. Treadwell the purchased lot.
Ms. Keenan asked if the barn has structural damage.
Ms. Herbert stated that the foundation has settled and the building is racked. She stated that she did not think the building inspector will feel it should be condemned.
Ms. Bellin stated that, looking at the regulations, she can’t say this doesn’t qualify for demolition, but noted that she did not see any urgency for a waiver. She stated that there may be a new opportunity and that you never know what is going to happen, as unlikely as it may be. She stated that she has heard nothing that says this needs to be rushed. She stated that it is of some historic value. She stated that she felt the delay should let run its course.
Ms. Herbert stated that it doesn’t have to be the full six months; it can be weeks or months.
Ms. Bellin stated that she was not convinced of the urgency and that she was not comfortable hastening demolition.
Ms. McCrea stated that she was in agreement with Ms. Bellin. She stated that she felt it is a historic structure and is thought of as an iconic building. She did not think the Commission should rush.
Mr. Hart stated that he has heard of the efforts that Ms. Herbert has personally has made, and they are appreciated. He stated that this is a project with many moving parts, which have been moving around for months. There is a new owner, it’s a new ballgame and the parts are still moving around. He stated that maybe the barn was not there in 1907, but it was there before 1962.
Mr. Treadwell stated it was built in 1912.
Mr. Hart stated that it if it were replicated, it is not going to be the same thing. He stated that maybe Mr. Treadwell will have a change of heart or someone who wants to buy it will be found. He stated that he did not want to be in the position to allow old buildings to be knocked down because the owner says it is not significant or that it will cost too much money. He stated that he felt the Commission should enter into some consultation with Mr. Treadwell to see if there is some way to save the building.
Mr. Spang asked how long the building has been deteriorating
Mr. Treadwell stated that in 1989, a cornerpost was put in to try to stabilize it. Mr. Ropes died in the 70s. It was last used as a barn in 1930.
Mr. Spang stated that it is at least 30 years into benign neglect. He stated that he is considering the precedent on what the Commission has done for waiver requests. He stated that he appreciates Mr. Treadwell is usually on the preservation side. He noted that the Commission frequently asks proponents to come back with more justification, such as to say what it would take to restore the house or other options. He stated that that he did not feel it has ever been taken at face value that it is too expensive. He stated that he is not saying it is not expensive, but that in normal due diligence, the Commission has asked for some substantial information. He wondered the long term gain. He questioned if there is a situation to stabilize it for another 10 or 15 years and see what
happens. He suggested cables and bracing on the inside, boarding it up and leaving it. He stated that he did not think that tonight he could vote for a waiver. He stated that there are pieces he would like to investigate further. He stated that he might be able to in four to six weeks.
Ms. Herbert stated that the only reason that she would vote for this, is that she has been so intimately involved and knows what has been attempted. She stated that in a few weeks it will be a year. She felt it very unlikely that anything can be done.
Mr. Treadwell stated that he takes offense that he takes this lightly. He noted that Hugh Stone from Woodford Brothers provided an estimation. He stated that if it is not done within the next few weeks, the driveway that provides access to the house will be paved, so heavy equipment would not be able to access the barn. The house to rear will be landscaped, so it won’t be able to provide access. The beach tree in the front is under so much stress, so he can’t gain access that way. He stated that they could come across his back yard and take down his fence, but that it is a hardship. He stated that he has spent $175,000. He wants the buffer to go from 13 to 75 feet and will sell 25 back to the new owner. The urgency is also salvage, noting that people won’t
wait around forever to take the best parts. He stated that it is a financial hardship to stabilize. He stated that maybe it is not in deplorable condition, but that already kids have been in there. He stated that it has been secured, but that it is almost impossible unless the windows are boarded up with plywood. He stated that he thinks we are wishing that the ordinance says more than it does. He stated that further investigation is up to the commission, not the property owner, according to the law. He pleaded that the Commission make a decision sooner rather than later. He noted that the house has been saved.
Ms. Herbert suggested continuing to 10/3/12 and added that she would like to have site visit. She noted that the owner will be able to demolish within 6 months no matter what.
Mr. Treadwell stated that it George Wattendorf can’t get into the site to demolish it, his recourse will be not to pay.
Mr. Carr stated that a difficult decision doesn’t get any easier by putting it off. He stated that he agreed the barn is in terrible condition but added that 95 Federal Street was also.
Mr. Treadwell stated that he challenged that it is eligible for the National Register.
Mr. Spang suggested a site visit.
Mr. Treadwell stated that anyone can call and come over.
MOTION: Ms. Bellin made a motion to make a preliminary recommendation to the Building Inspector against issuing the demolition permit, with an eye toward continuing the discussion over the next 180 days.
Mr. Hart seconded the motion.
Mr. Spang suggested an amendment to also continue the application to the meeting of 10/17/12.
Ms. Bellin accepted the amendment.
Mr. Hart seconded the amendment. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Keenan, Ms. Bellin, Mr. Spang and Mr. Hart voted in favor. Ms. Harper voted in opposition. The motion so carried.
A site visit was scheduled for Sunday, September 23rd at 2:00pm.
Other Business
Correspondence
Ms. Guy stated that she received a letter dated 9/10/12 from E. Avila Patterson suggesting a Christian service for all the victims of the witch hysteria.
Minutes
VOTE: Ms. .Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of August 15, 2012. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
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
| 
