DRAFT
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
March 6, 2013
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, March 6, 2013 at 7:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Jessica Herbert, Kathryn Harper, Laurie Bellin, Chad Garner, David Hart, and Joanne McCrea.
22 Beckford Street
In continuance of a previous meeting, Christopher Sallah and Jocelyn Levin submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace a third floor window with an egress door and an exterior spiral staircase. The exit and stairs are for the purpose of providing a second means of egress from an existing third floor apartment.
Ms. Herbert stated that the application had been withdrawn.
118 Derby Street
Robert Burkinshaw submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a second floor addition to the rear of the property at 118 Derby Street. After the addition is completed the roof will be replaced with architectural shingles in the color slate grey. The windows will be repaired or replaced in kind as necessary. The building will also be repainted:
- Body color: Benjamin Moore Weimeraner
- Trim color: Benjamin Moore Mascarpone
- Shutters: Benjamin Moore Black or Wenge
- Doors: Benjamin Moore Dinner Party
Paul Lessard, Chris Burkinshaw, and Bob Burkinshaw were present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Building Plans
- Paint colors
Mr. Lessard stated that the Burkinshaws recently came into ownership of the building, which is adjacent to their business. They would like to bring the building back to life. The 1st floor is currently used for storage for rolling carts, equipment, and devices for the candy factory. Upstairs is an apartment with 1 bedroom. By extending the top of the structure there would be a 2nd bedroom and an enclosed second means of egress. The rear addition roofline would be extended up to the height of the main roofline.
Ms. Herbert asked if there is a missing window along the face of original building that will be replaced.
Mr. Lessard responded that the window never existed, instead the 1st floor window had been added.
Ms. Herbert asked if there will be a lintel over new door
Mr. Lessard stated that is an existing door and they are not inclined to dress it out with a lintel but rather leave it in its current condition.
Mr. Hart asked if the rear addition is flush with the rest of the building. He stated that is preferable for additional to be set back as it defines the new from the old.
Mr. Lessard responded that the addition it is set back. They are not changing the footprint of the building.
Mr. Hart asked if they thought about raising the roof on the new addition.
Mr. Lessard responded that he didn’t think that would work and they can’t lower the roof because of the location of the windows.
Mr. Hard stated that demarcation of the addition will be on the façade not on the roofline.
Ms. Herbert stated that she wished the windows would be symmetrical. If a window is found behind the wall, then replacing the window could be an option.
Ms. McCrea stated that there is a light in that location that should be removed.
Mr. Hart asked that type of architectural shingles would be used. The Commission prefers 3-tab shingles to architectural as the don’t detract from the building.
Mr. Burkinshaw stated that they also brought a sample of a 3-tab shingle.
Mr. Hart warning about power washing the clapboards as water may be introduced to the interior of the building. Hand scraping may be a better option.
Ms. Bellin asked for clarified that the only setback was the thin piece on the right, and that they are moving the downspouts.
Mr. Lessard responded that they are trying to keep everything where it was. One downspout is being moved.
Ms. Herbert stated that the new gutters on the front and back of the building should be an OG profile.
Ms. Lovett notified the applicant that they can apply for a Certificate of Non-Applicability for replacing the gutters.
There was no public comment.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to accept the application as submitted with the changes of 3-tab charcoal black shingles, Brasco 6 over 6 manufacturer wooden single pane windows, and handscraping only for painting prep.
Ms. Herbert added that a TSP treatment should be used where necessary.
Mr. Hart stated that he just noticed there is not chimney on the drawing.
Mr. Burkinshaw responded that the chimney will be remaining.
Ms. Herbert notified Mr. Burkinshaw that the repointing should receive a Certificate of Non-Applicability.
Mr. Hart stated that the chimney remaining should be included in the Certificate.
Ms. Mcrea added that the light should be removed.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to accept the application with the above stated amendments. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
101/103 Federal Street
In continuance of a previous meeting, ProProcessIt, Inc. submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a small fixed non-operable skylight above a 2nd floor bathroom. John McIver was present.
Mr. Hart stated that he would recuse himself as a direct abutter and moved to the audience.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Skylight cut-sheet
- Installation Specifications
- Building Plans
Mr. McIver stated that they are proposing a slightly smaller skylight than previously included in the application. The new specification is a CO1 Velux skylight, which is 10” shorter than the previously proposed CO4 previously proposed. The pictures included in the application show a mock up of the skylight. The front edge of the mock skylight is flashed with dark brown.
Ms. Herbert which end of the new skylight shorter.
Mr. McIver responded the bottom edge. The window is now up higher to compensate for snow accumulation. The skylight is visible from the street but there should not be light shining through it at night as it is a second bathroom.
Ms. Herbert asked if there was public comment.
Jane Arlander, 93 Federal Street, asked what the dimensions of the skylight are including the height of the roof.
Ms. Herbert responded that the dimensions of the glass are 16”x 20-1/2”. The outside frame is 27 3/8”x21-1/2”.
Mr. McIver added that the curb sits 3 ½ inches off the roof.
Ms. Arlander stated that she came to ensure that we aren’t continuing to degrade the Federal Street and historic areas in Salem just by chipping away a little bit every time we renovate a home. It’s great to have the building renovated, but she hates to see things done to it because what makes it so beautiful is its classic plainness. The developer has tried to minimize the intrusiveness of the skylight and she hopes that it won’t show too much. We need to be fair and hold people to the same standards.
Mr. Hart stated that the proposal is for a non-operable skylight on minor façade. He lives directly across the street from the building and could only see the sample skylight from his 2nd floor window. He didn’t notice the skylight from the street and is in favor of the application.
The public comment period was closed.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve as submitted. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Salem Public Library
As a continuation of a previous meeting, the Salem Public Library is submitting an application to the Massachusetts Historical Commission for a Massachusetts Preservation Projects Fund grant. The grant application includes the restoration of the library windows. Specifically, the work will entail removing and replacing the exterior sills and trim moldings as well as the frames of the windows with a rot resistant wood such as Spanish cedar or mahogany. In order to submit the grant application, the project requires a letter of support from the Historical Commission. John Goff, Nancy Tracy and Bob Farley were present.
Documents & Exhibits
Mr. Hart stated that he met with grant committee a few weeks ago. They discussed that there may be instances where the window trim needs to be repaired instead of whole replacement.
Mr. Goff summarized the concerns that the Historical Commission had at the previous Historical Commission meeting. Namely, the date of the aluminum windows, trim being replaced rather than restored, and more information on grant application. He stated that Nancy Tracy found that the windows were from a 1985 restoration and were installed as a thermal energy efficient measure rather than adding storm windows. Further information is given in the Historical Commission minutes from the 1985 meeting. Mr. Goff also stated that as a result of their meeting with Mr. Hart they have decided to include a list of traditional window repairers in grant application along with elevations of the building for all 4 sides and 1985 drawings showing what was complete in 1985. Additionally, the outline specifications now include language that
the the window trim will be repaired where possible before considering replacement, however they will not know which pieces of will be repaired or replaced until the windows are actually removed.
Mr. Hart added that each window will be treated separately and there will be a process for determining which will be repaired or replaced.
There was no public comment
Ms. Herbert read the draft letter into the record.
Mr. Hart emphasized that the repair will include repair of the existing wood trim and replacement of the wood mahogany where appropriate.
Ms. McCrea stated that the letter should mention that the library is the highest circulation of any system in the north of Boston Noble System.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to accept letter as noted. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion.
All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
North Street Fire Station
The City of Salem is submitting an application to the Massachusetts Historical Commission for a Massachusetts Preservation Projects Fund grant. The grant application includes repointing of the masonry, along with replacement of the windows, and restoration of the decorative fan window. In order to submit the grant application, the project requires a letter of support from the Historical Commission.
Documents & Exhibits
Ms. Herbert read the draft letter into the record.
Mr. Hart stated that he reviewed the specifications. Local preservation historian, Bill Finch, previously completed a preservation report of the building and the specifications reference Mr. Finch’s restoration recommendations.
Ms. Herbert stated that the letter should include a noted that the vinyl windows will be replaced with wood.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the draft letter as noted. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Ms. Bellin and Mr. Hart stated that they attended a meeting regarding the preservation of the McIntire Arch located at the Salem Common. Councilor Sosnowski convened the meeting. The arch is a 2/3 replica of the original 1803 arch. There is interest from the community to restore or replicate the arch. Councilor Sosnowski will be creating a subcommittee on which a member of the Historical Commission will have a seat.
Ms. Herbert questioned if a plaque might be more appropriate than replicating the arch. The arch would need to be maintained. As a tourist, she would prefer to see a plaque that gives history on the arches, why they were erected, and where they were originally located.
Ms. Bellin stated that the issue of maintenance was brought up by the Building Inspector. There need to be funds for maintenance, private funding is being considered.
Conversation then ensued regarding the Historical Commission’s appointee to the Community Preservation Act Committee. Ms. Bellin stated that they need to select a Historical Committee member to serve on both the Arch Committee and the CPA Committee. Ms. McCrea stated that the City Council mentioned in their meeting that all members of the CPA Committee need to be members in good standing and questioned whether their expired terms was an issue.
Ms. Herbert told the Commission members that anyone interested in the CPA Committee can send her an email.
Mr. Hart stated that if no one else was interested, he would attend the McIntire Arch Committee meetings.
VOTE: There being no further business, Mr. Hart made a motion to adjourn. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Natalie BL Lovett
Community Development Planner
| 
