SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
JANUARY 4, 2012
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, January 4, 2012 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Harper, Ms. Keenan, and Mr. Hart. Ms. McCrea arrived later in the meeting.
15 ½ River Street
Peter and Jan Eschauzier submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct an addition to their upstairs bathroom, approximately 3 ½ x 5 ½ feet in dimension. The addition will balance the Easterly side of the roof line with the opposite side. Helen Sides, architect, was present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Sketch
Ms. Sides stated that the addition will be visible from Andover Street. It will fill in the space over the one–story addition.
Ms. McCrea joined the meeting at this time.
Ms. Herbert asked if it will be visible through yards.
Ms. Sides stated that it will be visible between one yard. They will be carrying out the same slope. She stated that it fills in what looks like is missing. They will be moving the existing 6 over 6 window.
Ms. Eschauzier stated that they want to switch the position of the window, as the existing window looks into neighbor’s window.
Ms. Sides stated that it will allow for a second sink to be added
Ms. Herbert asked if it will all match the existing, clapboards, windows, etc.
Ms. Sides replied in the affirmative and stated that they will continue the cornerboard up.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the application as submitted, including the new addition and the relocation of window. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
18 Felt Street
Ms. Guy stated that she emailed Commission members copies of the ZBA Petition for Variance for 18 Felt Street, to be heard 1/18/11, which will include demolition of house and 2 accessory buildings.
Ms. Herbert stated that the applicant will presenting at the ZBA, but that we don’t know anything about the design. She stated that it would be interesting to hear from some of the audience members about how they would like to develop it differently. She noted that there could be two units in the house, the barn be a single unit and one new house be built. She stated that it is an important property and that she is planning to be at the ZBA meeting. She stated HSI representatives will also be there.
Ms. Bellin asked if it will be coming before the Commission.
Ms. Herbert stated that it will come before the Commission for a Waiver under the Demolition Delay Ordinance. She stated that at the ZBA, it could be approved, denied or continued if there is not enough information.
Mr. Hart suggested that possibility of conveying to the applicant that they might want to strongly consider applying for the waiver first.
Ms. Guy was in disagreement, noting that it would start the 180 day clock.
Ms. Herbert stated that she would like to see more a fully developed plan before any demolition. She stated that it looks like builder’s experience is more in industrial buildings. She stated that HSI will be working on ideas for development.
Mr. Hart stated that the Demolition Delay Ordinance says that the Commission, if it denies waiver, has to engage with applicant.
Ms. Herbert stated that the owner has no contingency in the purchase contract to get approvals and that he probably had no intention of preserving the buildings. She was concerned that they try to give the impression to the ZBA that this is a hardship.
Ms. Guy stated that she advised neighbors to attend the ZBA meeting and comment on the proposal.
Marie Meegan, 65 Dearborn Street, stated that she is an abutter and is concerned that while she saw a plan with the location of the houses, she had no idea what will be put there. She was told the houses will be in the quality of the neighborhood, but did not know what that means, noting they have a variety of houses in the neighborhood. She stated she could not put in trust without seeing specifics. She noted that the house is in horrible repair, but that she hated to see it go. She stated that she wanted to see project come out well.
Ms. Herbert stated that the resident of the house moved out at the end of July and that it had been in one family since it was built in 1896. She stated that this is the first opportunity for it to be renovated. She stated that she called Attorney Scott Grover to set up a site visit and hoped to do it Thursday or Friday. Atty. Grover will have their architect do an estimate for renovation. She would like to see three estimates. She stated that she understood some plumbing and heating work was done ten years ago.
Andy Fett, 0 Felt St. Way, stated that he felt a tie to the Ropes’ land because there’s was an open parcel that was carved from it. He stated that he initially understood that effort to save house was going to be made but was then told it was too expensive. He stated that he felt the neighborhood could support some kind of uplift. He stated that he did not support saying it was economics as there are a lot of expensive properties in that area. He felt the owner did an 180 turn. He was concerned about what is going to be there. He was told the buyers would come with their own plans, so that it could end up with three totally different styles. He was concerned about his property value. He stated that it was not an area of
Mcmansions.
Dana Andrus, 166 Federal Street, asked if the city could purchase properties using federal funds.
Ms. Herbert stated that the city has no funds and that federal funds are very limited. She stated that the owner could apply for tax credits.
Ms. Anders asked about moving the building.
Ms. Herbert stated that part of the importance is the way it sits. She stated that it is important that it stay in situ.
Brian Dawson, 30 Dearborn Street, stated that he was at the meeting where the contractor went over the plans. It was eluded that he might sell the properties all separately and that they would be dealing with three different people. He stated that the owner’s corporation is worth millions of dollars.
Helen Sides, 35 Broad St. stated that the owner is not asking for a big variance. She felt that opponents cannot be on the attack. She stated that they need to go in with positive feelings and not alienate the owner.
Jim Kearney, 1 Cambridge St., stated that the three houses that his abuts went through the same argument that the houses were falling apart and required major changes of use. He noted that all three are fixed up marvelously now. He noted that 18 Felt Street has a gorgeous beach tree.
Ms. Sides stated that the house on Boston Street was proposed for demolition, but is now restored due to the way the owner was approached.
Ms. Bellin stated that the owner has the right to build two houses without having to go through the ZBA. Therefore, a denial of the current application may not stop demolition. She stated that if they want to save the house, they need to think it through carefully. She noted it was possible to preserve house and build on back.
Mr. Dawson stated that he owns 1874 Victorian. He asked if the Commission had names of people the neighbors could to in order to help flush out some of the ideas.
Ms. Herbert asked if representatives from HSI planned to meet with the neighbors and discuss ideas.
Emily Udy, representing HSI, stated that she came to gather information. She noted that they have worked with developers in the past. She asked if, at the end of the neighborhood meeting, what feeling the neighbors got from the developer. She asked if he was still intending to go with the current plan or was he considering options.
Mr. Dawson stated that he believed the intention is to tear down the house and build three homes.
Ms. Udy stated that they intend to be involved and will talk to neighbors and the developer, and intend to be friendly about this process. She stated that it is a marketable house. She stated that they will work together and that they are grateful to find out the neighborhood is support of preservation.
Jim Treadwell, 36 Felt Street, stated that the house foundation is not in good shape, therefore it might need to be moved to another part of that site in order for a new foundation to be built. He stated that his impression of the preference of the neighborhood is to retain the home and use it as a single family. He suggest putting forth a proposal of someone buying it as single family. He stated that the attitude of the developer is that people don’t want old houses anymore. He noted that Tom Dalton of the Salem News is writing an article, so there will be some press. He stated that he felt there could be flexibility in the front. He would be willing to buy some of the land. He stated that the broker is saying whether it is 16,000 or 23,000 s.f., it would have
no more value, but he disagreed.
Mr. Kearney stated that people got involved in the storage facility on Bridge Street and got them to put the parking in the back to have a brick façade.
Ms. Herbert stated that she felt the approach needs to be a positive one, with examples that could be done, and to let the ZBA know there is passion for this property and that it effects peoples property values.
Mr. Hart stated that he is hearing that Plan A is to save the property and restore it and that Plan B is, if the lot is to be split, that they want to see good renderings. He stated that Plan A may be costly to renovate, but so what. He stated that it may be worthwhile to try to spin the developer on eligibility for the National Register. He stated that it is a fabulous house.
Ms. Herbert stated that the setting is fabulous.
Mr. Hart stated that positive thinking may turn the owner’s viewpoint around.
Ms. Eschauzier asked how this type of thing can be prevented.
Ms. Udy stated that there was a city study done on neighborhood preservation districts, which are less restrictive, and suggest considering them. She noted that, at a minimum, it can prevent demolition. She stated that it would not be applicable to this property due to timing.
Mr. Treadwell stated that he met with developer at Tinti, Quinn & Grover’s office and felt he is very interested in salvage, such as the slate roof and interior woodwork. He stated that there are a lot of features the owner intends to get payback from salvage. He stated that G V W are the contractors and ICECAT, LLC is the owner.
Mike Munroe, 8 Beachmont Road, asked what happens if they get ZBA approval.
Ms. Herbert replied that they will need to apply to the Commission for waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance, which is a 6 month delay.
Vicky Siriani, representing HSI, asked when the neighborhood meeting was held.
Mr. Treadwell stated that it was before the holidays.
Ms. Siriani asked if there was any indication that they would be meeting again.
Mr. Treadwell replied in the negative.
Ms. Siriani stated that HSI will probably suggest that interested people meet next week. She stated that it was really the neighbors who have to fight the battle. She stated that HSI is more than willing to help. She stated that the group may want to meet with the owner before the ZBA meeting to craft the message that the neighbors want to bring.
Ms. Herbert stated that a well defined plan needs to be presented. She stated that four or five people with different ideas shouting them out at a meeting is not what is needed. She stated that perhaps Ed Neillson could go with Peter Pittman to determined cost the to renovate.
Dorothy Hayes, 329 Essex Street, stating that an increase in profit is not a hardship and that not maximizing profit is not grounds for hardship. She stated that positive alternatives will help to establish that there is no hardship because there are other avenues.
Ms. Herbert stated that according to Atty. Grover, the neighbors don’t want condos. She asked if the plan was for two in the house, one in carriage house and a new building where the barn is, would neighbors go for it.
Jack Kinney, 36 Felt Street, stated that it was suggested at the meeting, but neighbors groaned.
Ms. Bellin stated that the alternative is three new houses. She asked if that would be preferred over a minimum number of condos. She stated that they need to think what is the better alternative.
Mr. Treadwell stated that it is a single family home neighborhood. They have had bad and good experiences with condos. He felt that he could go with three units. His preference is to save the house and have it be a single family. He stated that if it cannot be rehabbed at a feasible cost, then he could go with condos.
Ms. Bellin noted that just because it’s a single family home, does not mean they will be a good neighbor.
Mr. Treadwell stated that Peter Pittman, architect in the city, has been asked by the owner to go through the building one more time to see what needs to be done to be rehabbed.
Ms. Eschauzier stated that the developer will be looking for a return on his investment. If all are converted to condos, he may be able to make more money and have condo agreements that are written to preserve it the buildings.
Ms. Siriani stated that maybe the owner could be referred to 328 Essex Street, which was successful.
Ms. Bellin stated that her property was also successful.
Mr. Hart suggested developing a series of positive developments that have occurred in Salem, such as 40 Boston Street, to counter the assertion that it is not financially feasible.
Ms. Siriani stated that she wanted to be clear about what HSI can and cannot do. She stated that they are more than willing to meet and help understand what the cost will be. She stated that they cannot say what the cost of a hundred different solutions are. She suggested neighbors go to the meeting with a very clear idea of options. She stated that they need to hone in what the first, second and third preferences are and what they will go to the ZBA to support.
Mr. Treadwell stated that there will be support for demolition, as well. There are people of influence who are in favor of demolition.
Ms. Sides stated that they should not give up on retaining some control on that either, noting that it is important to have three nice houses rather than three bad houses. She added that they should not give up on there being another way, as people can turn around once they understand something.
Ms. Guy stated if he does a great job, he can use it as model.
Ms. Harper was in agreement, noting that the developers of 13 River Street were from out of town. Ms. Herbert worked with them and it was very successful for them and the neighborhood.
Ms. Keenan stated that the owner seems like an investor, not a rookie.
Mr. Kearney stated that they have to get a variance. He stated that they should have thought of this before they purchased.
3 Harmony Grove Road
Ms. Guy stated that today she emailed Commission members copies of three Planning Board applications for 3 Harmony Grove Road and 60-64 Grove Street, which will include demolition of some buildings
Ms. McCrea stated that she went to the presentation at the Moose Lodge.
Mr. Hart stated that, at a minimum, the Commission should push for recordation.
60-62 Washington Street
Ms. Guy read an email from a resident at 70 Essex Street, Unit 2, which stated that the rear chimney has been not been raised up, has been capped with copper and that the plumbing pipe extends through the cap.
Ms. Guy stated that she responded she is working to get this resolved and is working with the City Solicitor’s office. She contacted Mr. Legon and informed him that the City Solicitor has indicated that he will either need to correct the chimney to one of the two approved options, or he may apply for a new option via the process and that the Commission cannot make deliberate outside of a meeting.
Ms. Herbert stated that he may be preparing to do what he said he was going to do - in matching the top chimneys - noting that the copper cap is done by a different person than the screen tops. He was not approved to do that.
Ms. Guy stated that technically he has a year to complete but the timing is a gray area. For the original approval, the year has gone by. The second approval was this past December. She stated that the other issue is who now owns it if it is a violation.
Ms. Herbert stated that the original rear chimney was thinner, taller and leaning. She thinks the new chimney may be larger.
Ms. Harper stated that it is definitely shorter.
Ms. Herbert was in agreement. She stated that for the upper chimneys, she though they would be similar to others around town, where the screen would be inside the chimney and not to the edge. She stated that she would never again recommend caps as was done on the main roof.
Ms. Harper stated that he did the copper first and was going to leave it at that and then just built off it, when the Commission did not approve it with just the copper.
Ms. Herbert stated that he has taken off the brick build-ups on the rear chimney and got rid of the blue stone which was too heavy, because the chimney was constructed with just plywood with thin veneer brick and was not sturdy enough to hold the blue stone and now it is even shorter.
Ms. Harper suggested framing it with plates and going up. She stated that when he originally did the back chimney, the height of the chimney was questioned and Mr. Legon replied it was only partially built up.
Ms. Herbert felt the Commission should stick to what was approved and if he doesn’t do it, he is in violation. She stated that it may mean he has to take the chimney down and rebuild it. She stated that she felt it was already in violation because he put the copper cap on it, which was not part of what the Commission approved.
MOTION: Ms. Harper made a motion to send a letter to Mr. Legon and to copy the other property owners stating that he is in violation and requiring him to do one of the two options that was approved.
Ms. McCrea stated that the letter should include that the pipe is sticking out.
VOTE: Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert questioned how long he has to correct the problem.
Ms. Guy stated that the question is that because the Commission has two separate approvals, one he would be in violation for and then a second approval in December. She questioned if he is in violation because a year has gone by, or does he technically get a year to complete the new approval.
Ms. Herbert stated that while he may have gotten an approval in December, he has violated it by putting the copper cap on.
Ms. Guy stated that normally she would give 30 days to correct a violation.
Ms. Herbert, Ms. Keenan and Ms. Harper agreed with 30 days.
Ms. Guy stated that she would have the City Solicitor look at the letter before sending it out.
Mr. Hart, Ms. Keenan and Ms. Bellin agreed that advice is needed from the City Solicitor.
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
| 
