SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
May 15, 2013
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 at 7:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Jessica Herbert, Kathryn Harper, Laurie Bellin, Chad Garner, David Hart, Susan Keenan, Jane Turiel, and Laurence Spang.
6 Carpenter Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, Michael Chefitz and Robyn Frost submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a porch off of their kitchen. The porch will be made of mahogany wood and will be 5feet off the ground. The balusters and handrails will be constructed out of 2x4 cedar. The bottom of the porch will be covered with lattice. Michael Chefitz was present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 3/25/13
- Photographs: 3/25/13
- Drawings: 3/25/13 & 5/9/13
Ms. Herbert stated that the new drawings submitted show that the deck will be 11’ off of the house and 10’6” across.
Mr. Chefitz stated that the door will be centered on the deck. The door and windows are existing.
Fred Farris, the project contractor, arrived. Mr. Farris stated that he brought a sample of the railing. The decking would be composite and the railing would be stained mahogany.
Susan Keenan arrived at this time.
Mr. Farris stated that the railing height would be 32-36” high. At the last meeting, the Commission said it would want cedar for the deck, but the pine would look the same. They would like to use Asak for the trim near the ground. The lattice would be cedar ¾” square.
Ms. Turiel thought that pine wood would be fine.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Farris stated that the posts would be mahogany with a cap. The size of the posts would be approximately 6” square, whatever fits the cap.
Ms. Herbert asked if the deck would have a skirt board.
Mr. Farris responded in the affirmative. He would like the skirt board to be Asak to prevent rotting.
Mr. Spang asked if the stain will be a clear stain.
Mr. Farris responded that the deck would be a partly natural finish stain and partly white.
Mr. Spang stated that the white paint would be more appropriate for the house, with a stained top rail. The lattice should be painted as well.
Ms. Herbert stated that based on the age of the house, she would expect the decking to be painted. For the composite you can get it in a wood color.
Ms. Bellin asked if the front door railing is white.
Mr. Chefitz responded that it is a light blue.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the rail with the design as submitted in the application, trim within 6” of the ground to be Asak, and all other materials to be natural wood. The lattice will be cedar, the square posts 6”x6” with cap. The rails will be stained natural, the remainder of the deck balusters to be painted or stained white. The decking should replicate natural wood, regardless of material.
Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Ms. McCrea, Mr. Garner, and Mr. Spang were in favor, and the motion so carried. Ms. Keenan and Ms. Turiel did not vote.
100 Federal Street
Marianne Chojnicki submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace three (3) double hung windows. The windows are located on the top right side & back of the home on the 3rd floor. Thee replacement windows are inserts with full screens. The windows will be 5 over 5, Fibrex material with internal grills, in the color white. Marianne Chojnicki was present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 4/22/13
- Photographs: 4/22/13
- Window specifications: 4/22/13
- Material sample: 4/22/13
Ms. Bellin asked if the all of the windows are visible from the street.
Mr. Hart responded that the rear window and rear side window are not visible from the street.
Ms. Harper asked what part of the window will be fibrex.
Mr. Hart responded that the catalog cut seems to show that the entire window is fibrex.
Ms. Chojnicki they are custom building the windows so that the architecture of the windows will not change.
Ms. Herbert doesn’t believe the Commission has approved an internal grill before. Are all the windows wood?
Ms. Chojnicki stated that the current windows are not operable, they are painted shut and there is no heat in the kitchen. The installer said they have used this window on other houses in the historic district, in the back of houses.
Ms. Herbert stated that they would like to investigate these windows located in other houses.
Mr. Spang stated that Anderson Renewal is a big company and the Historic Commission should be careful of setting a president that these windows are acceptable. He suggested that the Commission visit a house that has the windows installed or ask the manufacture to bring a sample of the window to the meeting.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the back windows as Certificate of Non-Applicability.
Ms. Turiel seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Mr. Garner, Mr. Hart, Ms. Keenan, were in favor, and the motion so carried. Ms. McCrea and Mr. Spang did not vote.
Mr. Hart suggested to Ms. Chojnicki that she speak with some local firms that restore windows. Current research shows that rehabilitated wooden window with storm gives same thermo characteristics as a double paned window.
Ms. Chojnicki withdrew the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the side windows.
24 Fort Ave
Footprint Power Salem Harbor Real Estate LP submitted an application for a Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance to demolish seven (7) steel tanks and one (1) 250’ chimney, and all associated and accessory structures. The structures are part of the aging power plant that is being decommissioned so that a new, combined cycle gas fired electric generation facility can be constructed. Joseph Correnti, Lou Arak, and George Wilson were.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Plans
Ms. Herbert asked what method will be used to demolish the chimney.
Mr. Arak responded that the chimney will be demolished brick by brick. They are looking to begin demolition of the chimney in August. Demolition of the tanks may begin in July. The tanks first will need to be abated. The two other chimneys will remain for the time being. Those chimneys are still in service. The smaller stack has already been decommissioned. Stacks 1 & 2, as shown on the drawing, are twins of Stack 3 which was removed in the last 10 years.
Mr. Wilson stated that they working through the FEIR/MEPA process, they have completed public hearings with the Energy Siting Board and are just beginning the local permitting process. Currently, the project in front of the Salem Planning Board.
Mr. Hart asked if all of the materials being demolished are being removed from the site.
Mr. Arak responded that they will reuse what is possible for fill. The remainder of the materials will be removed. All of the tanks will be removed from the site. There will new tanks installed for the new facility.
Mr. Spang asked if all of the containment walls of the tanks will be removed.
Mr. Arak responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Spang asked how the site surface will be treated after demolition and before construction begins.
Mr. Wilson responded that they will level the ground and cover with gravel. The tank farm will be used for parking during construction.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Arak stated that Footprint will return to the Historical Commission for a Waiver of the Demolition Delay for the remaining structures on site.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the application for a Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance with the pro visa that in interim period after demolition prior to reconstruction the site will be leveled and appear to have no remnants of the prior structures.
Mr. Correnti stated that the condition of the site and that the issue of all remnants being removed is an issue being discussed at the Planning Board meetings. This requirement is troublesome because the area will be used as a staging site. The new facilities will be a LEED platinum building, which partially involves reusing/recycling the materials from the old plant.
Mr. Spang stated that a requirement to level the land after demolition ends and before construction begins shouldn’t be a problem.
Mr. Correnti responded that the construction schedule is not fully set to define when demo ends and construction begin and the language of “leveling” is too specific.
Mr. Spang stated that the Commission’s concern is how the site will look after demolition so that it is not an eye sore.
Mr. Correnti responded that the neighborhoods, Planning Board, Health Board, Building Inspector, Conservation Commission, and Chapter 91 licensing processes will determine the site conditions. Perhaps there is less specific language that can be used.
Ms. Herbert stated that the site can’t just leave debri building up. It will be considered a hazard. She asked Tom St. Pierre, Salem Building Inspector, if this is correct.
Mr. St. Pierre stated that the project is complex especially given the reuse of the materials. The developer needs flexibility for how they move the site. If they have things in a manner that cause problems, it would be addressed.
Mr. Correnti stated that requiring the site to be maintained in an orderly fashion would be OK. The Historic Commission needs to be careful about the conditions being set.
Mr. St. Pierre stated that another constraint for the site is that demolition materials may need to be tested prior to being removed from the site.
Ms. Herbert stated that she is not sure the condition of the site after demolition is within the prevue of the Historical Commission.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the application for a Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance with the pro visa that in the interim period after demolition and prior to reconstruction the site will be maintained in an orderly fashion.
Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Ms. Kennan, Mr. Garner, and Mr. Spang were in favor, and the motion so carried. Ms. Turiel did not vote.
Other Business
Ms. Lovett stated that a vote is required to appoint a member of the Historical Commission to the Community Preservation Committee.
VOTE: Mr. Garner made a motion to appoint Ms. McCrea to the Community Preservation Committee.
Mr. Hart seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Keenan, and Mr. Spang were in favor, and the motion so carried. Ms. Turiel did not vote.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of 3/27/13 with changes.
Ms. Keenan seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Mr. Hart, Ms. Keenan, and Mr. Spang were in favor, and the motion so carried. Ms. Turiel and Mr. Garner did not vote.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of 4/3/13.
Ms. Keenan seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Mr. Garner, and Mr. Spang were in favor, and the motion so carried. Ms. Turiel and Mr. Hart did not vote.
VOTE: There being no further business, Ms. Bellin made a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Garner seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Mr. Hart, Ms. Keenan, and Ms. Turiel were in favor, and the motion so carried. Mr. Spang did not vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Natalie BL Lovett
Community Development Planner
| 
