DRAFT
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
DECEMBER 19, 2012
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, December 19, 2012 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Mr. Spang, Ms. Bellin, Ms. McCrea and Mr. Hart. Also present was Natalie Lovett of the City of Salem Department of Planning & Community Development.
Ms. Guy announced that Ms. Lovett will be taking over her duties as staff to the Historical Commission beginning with the January meeting. She stated that she will still be undertaking preservation projects and will be available to the public when Ms. Lovett is unavailable.
14 Chestnut Street
Dr. Thomas A. Murray III submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a new roof. The existing is currently two colors and the owner would like a single color using GAF/ELK Grand Slate or Slateline Series.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- GAF/ELK Brochure
Dr. Murray stated that the brown roof on the main part of the house is approximately thirty years old. He noted that the roof is a green color on the garage addition, which is visible from Botts Court. The same roof is on the back porch, which is visible form Hamilton & Essex Streets. He stated that the green roofs are still in good shape, approximately 15 years old. He would like to match the main house to these but use a better shingle. He is proposing Slateline Emerald Green.
Ms. Herbert stated that there is such variation in the Emerald Green and wondered if the samples are a good representation. She asked if it is architectural or 3 tab.
Dr. Murry replied that it is 3 tab.
Mr. Hart stated for the record that he is a Trustee of the Salem Athenaeum, which is an abutter. He stated that he believed the Commission approved a similar roof for 4 Federal Court.
Dr. Murray stated that Grandslate does not match as well.
Ms. Herbert stated that with the Mystic Slate, the green looks a little greyer.
Ms. Spang asked if they propose to replace the entire main house roof.
Dr. Murray replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Spang asked if the rest will remain as is.
Dr. Murray replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Spang stated that he did not think both roofs can be really seen against eachother.
Dr. Murray stated that he could accept either Grandslate or Slateline.
There was no public comment.
Ms. Herbert stated that she preferred Grandslate for Chestnut Street, which she felt would give more flexibility if they were to change the paint color. She stated that she felt it is a neutral and in the same family.
Mr. Hart stated that it is a 3 tab, but that the joints are a little wide. He stated that it simulates wood shingles or slate and that he was fine with either.
Ms. Spang stated that he felt both colors were appropriate. He stated that with the house color, he would pick another shingle.
Ms. Bellin stated that the Commission hasn’t approved Slateline yet and that she was leary of approving something they haven’t approved before.
Ms. Herbert stated that Slateline is not as dramatic as architectural.
Ms. Harper stated that Grand slate is closer to what actual slate would be with straight edges, but that she would approve either.
MOTION: Ms. Harper made a motion to approve the option for replacement of the roof on the main part of the house with either GAF/Elk Grandslate in Mystic Salte or Slateline in Emerald Green.
Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Mr. Hart stated that Slateline is pretty subtle.
Ms. Bellin stated that in the brochure, Slateline looks more square. She felt Grandslate is more like 3 tab.
VOTE: The motion was voted on. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Mr. Spang, Ms. McCrea and Mr. Hart voted in favor. Ms. Bellin voted in opposition. The motion was carried
103 Federal Street
Mr. Hart stated that he is a direct abutter and would recuse himself. He left the table and joined the audience.
ProProcessIt, Inc. submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove a first floor awning window and to reduce the size of a second floor window (front most double hung) on the addition at the left side of the house by approximately three inches narrow and moving it forward. The application is also to add a three bath and one stove vent to the side. The application is also to replace the existing asphalt/rubber siding on the façade facing the alley way on the right with the same reveal as the clapboards. The application indicates that Hardi-plank would be used due to the gap between the houses making painting in place impractical. John McIver was present.
Documents & Exhibits
Mr. McIver stated, that for the window they were proposing to move, he realized how ugly it looked. They have now reconfigured inside, so there is no longer a need to move or shrink the window and withdrew that item from the application. He stated that they would still like to remove the awning window. He stated that it is now in a bathroom, which is being moved. He noted that it is not an original window. He stated that it doesn’t line up with anywhere on the side of the house or anywhere in the house. He would like the option to remove or move.
Ms. Harper asked the age of the addition.
Mr. McIver stated that the original house is between 1770 and 1790 and that the addition is probably mid-1800s. He stated that the front corner where the window is located was added on after that.
Ms. Herbert asked if it is possible to stack two windows on that same side, with size to be determined.
Ms. McIver stated that it was possible.
Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission would need to see some specifications.
Mr. McIver stated that the whole house is in complete symmetry. He stated that trying to get two to stack up will be a challenge. He stated that they might have to be narrower. He stated that he would like to get permission to remove the window now and come back in 2 weeks to look at reuse.
David Hart, 104 Federal Street, stated that there are many examples of blocked off windows around. He stated that they could have one floor with a real window and one with a false window.
Mr. Spang asked if the owner thought the window was put in in the 1960s.
Mr. McIver replied it the affirmative, noting it is cheap construction . He stated that even if it were kept, it would need to be replaced.
Mr. Spang stated that if it were original, he would ask to leave the surround and clapboard in. He stated that if it is a 1960s window, he would tend to say get rid of it and cover it over.
Mr. McIver stated that it seems like it was put in to vent the bathroom.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the awning window removal (first floor addition on left side) and replace with clapboards to match existing. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in the favor and the motion so carried.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the item to the next meeting to discuss window reuse options. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in the favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. McIver stated that the vents will be sprayed to match the color of the house.
Ms. Herbert asked if they will be the flat flat type with louvers.
Ms. McIver replied in the affirmative. He stated that the bath vents will be 4” and the stove vent will be 6”. Both will be square. He stated that he did not know if the stove vent can have louvers.
Ms. Herbert asked if it can be vented out to the back.
Mr. McIver stated that he might be able to go up to the roof and to the back of the house.
MOTION: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve three bath vents (flat, painted to match the house) and to continue the stove vent.
Mr. McIver stated that he actually needs four bath vents.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin amended her motion to four vents in the locations as drawn on the photographs. Ms. McCrea seconded the amendment. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. McIver stated that he may want to add a skylight to one of the baths for light, noting it is pretty flat roof.
Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission would consider it if it has a period feel.
Mr. McIver stated that it would be Velux, fixed, non-operable.
Ms. Guy stated that he would need to apply.
Mr. McIver stated that the siding facing the alley appears to be from the 1920s and is not asbestos. He stated that they can’t get in there to paint. The builder recommends pre-painted Hardi-plank installed with a special nailing gun. He stated that he did not think he would want to use grain surface. It will be the same color as the house. There is a 25 year warrantee on the finish and it has a one hour fire protection rating.
Ms. Bellin stated that it is pretty minimally visible.
Ms. Guy stated that she thought a case could be made that it is a hardship.
Ms. Spang stated that he has used Hardi-plank. He stated that the lap is not beveled, but that the cornerboard at the end should hide it. He asked if there is a water table on the bottom, noting that Hardi-plank should not be put into the ground.
Mr. McIver replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Hart stated that the existing siding is barely noticeable. He stated that while he is not enthusiastic about Hardi board, he has no objection here where it will not be visible.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to replace the siding on the right of the house in the alley with Hardi-plank, pre-painted to match the house color. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin asked if the house painted recently.
Mr. McIver replied in the affirmative, noting it was before he realized paint color was in the Commission’s jurisdiction, noting that in Marblehead, paint color is not.
Ms. Guy suggested applying with the skylight application.
Ms. Herbert asked if he will be changing doors.
Mr. McIver replied that he was not planning on it, but was open to it. The doors are black now.
Ms. Herbert asked if the sash will stay white.
Mr. McIver stated that whatever is white stays white. They were repainted white when the house was repainted. He added that the non-visible deck on the back was changed.
Ms. Guy stated that he should submit an application for a Certificate of Non-applicability for the deck.
Mr. Hart rejoined the Commission at this time.
Other Business
Ms. Guy stated that she drafted a letter of support for North Shore Community Development Coalition’s request for Massachusetts Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credits to rehabilitate eleven properties in the Point Neighborhood.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to submit the letter of support. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy stated that she recently forwarded the Commission a Certified Local Government Opinion on Eligibility for the National Register for 92-96 Lafayette Street. She stated that the owner of the building is hoping to apply for tax credits.
Mr. Hart noted that Massachusetts Historical Commission will make the final decision.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to issue the CLG opinion. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin a motion to approve the minutes of October 17, 2012. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the minutes of November 7, 2012. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy stated that she received a letter from Massachusetts Historical Commission to the MBTA stating that the copies of Memorandum of Agreement for the Salem Intermodal Station have been signed.
Mr. Hart stated that he, Ms. McCrea and Ms. Guy, at the invite of MBTA and the Public Archaeology Lab, attended a tour of the MBTA archaeological dig. He noted that PAL will have a voluminous report.
Ms. Bellin acknowledged Ms. Guy’s service to the Commission.
VOTE: There being no further business, Mr. Hart made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission
| 
