SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
September 18, 2013
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednes-day, September 18, 2013 at 7:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Jessica Herbert (Chair), Kathy Harper (Vice Chair), Susan Keenan, and Larry Spang.
33 Carlton Street
Wendy Walsh submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove and reconstruct the wooden door surround. The existing wooden surround has begun to fall down and a section of it was removed for safety reasons. The existing surround does not comply with the Certificate of Appropriateness that was issued according to the violation letter from 1987. The applicants would like to the proposed surround to be more historically appropriate. Wendy Walsh was present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 8/8/13
- Photographs: 8/8/13
Ms. Walsh stated that they are unsure whether the drawings included in the Commission file were part of the violation letter or from the subsequent meeting on the door surround. Priscilla, who had been part of the 1987 application process, is still living in the building.
Ms. Harper stated that there was a photograph of another building in the Commission files that shows a historical picture of the 33 Carlton Street building.
Ms. Walsh stated that Priscilla said that a property on Flint Street was used as a comparison property when installing the pediment. They walked down Flint Street however, and could not find a door surround that was comparable. She brought to the meeting pictures of doorways at Washington Square North and March Street (which were also noted in the drawings from the file). According to Priscilla, there wasn’t a door surround present in 1987, but there is evidence of a door surround being there in decades before.
Ms. Herbert asked if the applicant would be open to rounded columns.
Ms. Walsh responded that they would be open to that, but she is not sure what was originally intended. She is wondering what the Commission would want to see with regards to a new door surround design.
Ms. Herbert stated that the wood covering over the brick would have to be incorporated into the design of the building.
Mr. Spang asked if there were historic pictures of the building.
Ms. Walsh stated that she is not aware of any.
Ms. Lovett left the room to pull the file inventory form for 33 Carlton Street. When she returned she stated that she was unable to find the inventory form in the file.
Ms. Walsh wondered if there may be any structural items behind the surround
Mr. Spang responded that there are probably not.
Ms. Harper stated that if the door surround is rebuild, the visible pieces need to be wood. Wood hidden behind/underneath could be pressure treated wood. The door surround that was there is very skimpy, it doesn’t have the depth and substance that it should.
Ms. Herbert stated that the point of the pediment is too low and takes away from the curvature of the window.
Mr. Spang added that they might check the Essex Library to see if there are any historic pictures of the building. He wonders if there was ever a pediment to begin with. The location of the brownstone belt course would be cut off by a pediment. It may have just been a masonry opening with finished brick underneath.
Ms. Herbert asked if the brick underneath looks the same.
Ms. Walsh responded that she it appears to be the same. There are a few things sticking out that were supporting the surround.
Ms. Kennan agrees that the door surround may not have been there originally.
Ms. Harper asked if the original use of the building is known.
Ms. Walsh responded that the historic placard states that the building was built for Moses Townsend. She does not believe that it was built originally for a factory but it appears to have become a factory soon after being constructed.
Mr. Spang stated that the surrounding structures have simple, utilitarian architecture. That area wasn’t built in the high style that is seen in the McIntire District.
Ms. Herbert agrees. She believes that the brownstone with the curved window would have been the decorative feature. There is also another brownstone belt course on the second story.
Ms. Keenan stated that a new doorknob would be nice.
Ms. Walsh stated that she will take both options back to the owners: to replace the door surround or leave it as is. They may prefer to rebuild the door surround for shelter from weather.
Ms. Herbert stated that consideration should be given to where the pediment would cross the brick course.
There was no public comment.
Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission should decide whether there should be nothing around the door and then if Ms. Walsh finds an sample that shows how a new door surround would look she would bring that back in for review. The commission could approve the surround removal for now.
Mr. Spang suggested that the applicant look for similar buildings in Marblehead.
Ms. Herbert added that they should get an address of any properties brought in as an example. She suggested that Ms. Walsh also look at homes on Chestnut Street. The Commission will consider a new door surround as a separate, new application.
VOTE: Ms. Harper made a motion to approve the permanent removal of the wood framing around the door. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert stated that a flat roof over the door way coming down, held up with a few brackets, might be a possibility. She has seen those on some historic factory buildings. She asked if there is paint on the brick that will need to be cleaned.
Ms. Walsh responded that she is unsure. She didn’t take a close look at brick because they assumed that they would be installing a new door surround.
Ms. Herbert stated that before any cleaning of the brick begins, the applicant should contact Ms. Lovett for information on brick cleaning solutions.
Ms. Walsh responded that she doesn’t recall there being a lot of paint, but she noticed things sticking out from the brick that had been supporting the door surround.
Ms. Herbert added that if there are any nails that need to be taken out, that Ms. Lovett can send the recipe for the mortar mix so that the mortar matches.
95 Federal Street
William Aydelott submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove the picket fence bordering the property at 103 Federal Street. The previous fence fell apart and was replaced in 2009. The fence continues to sustain regular damage from snow accumulation in the winter and has recently been damaged by construction vehicles at 103 Federal Street. The contractor has proposed repairing or removing the fence. While outside of the jurisdiction of the SHC, there are a number of attractive mature plantings along the border that provide ample “separation” from the neighboring property. William Aydelott, Janet & Robert Kendall, and Tenai Comrie were present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 8/12/13
- Photographs: 8/12/13
Ms. Herbert asked if the contractor for 103 Federal Street has agreed to remove the fence.
Mr. Aydelott responded in the affirmative. Originally, the contractor was going to fix the fence. However, there have been ongoing problems with the fence even since the previous owner, Jennifer Pickman, lived there. They have been investing in their landscaping and no longer feel as though the fence is necessary.
Ms. Herbert stated that when she lived in that house, she also had problems with maintaining the fence. She suggested that cobblestone along the property line could be considered as an option in the future.
Mr. Aydelott responded that they are thinking of installing additional flowering bushes.
There was no public comment.
VOTE: Mr. Spang made a motion to approve the application, as submitted. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Section 106 Review – 27 Charter Street – Proposed telecommunications facility installation
Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, EBI Consulting submitted project plans for a proposed telecommunications facility installation at 27 Charter Street. In a letter dated July 3, 2013, the SHC requested additional information on the project, specifically renderings of the visual effect of the proposed antenna installation from various public ways. EDI Consulting submitted the requested information to SHC on August 22, 2013 and has requested any additional comments.
Documents & Exhibits
- Letter: 8/22/13
- Renderings: 8/10/13
Ms. Herbert questioned whether the vertical antennae off of the roof could be limited.
Ms. Harper agreed that the antennae along the building are preferable.
Mr. Spang asked what the role of the Commission is in this review.
Ms. Lovett stated that the Commission is reviewing this application as part of a Section 106 review. The Commission should be commenting on the impact of the project on the historical resources in the area.
Mr. Spang stated that it looks as though they misread the previous letter from the Commission. They thought the Commission was requesting renderings of the antennae against the skyline.
Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission should write a response letter that clarifies the previous letter and states that the proposed conditions photo location #1 is the preferred with the antennae against the building.
VOTE: Ms. Harper made a motion to submit a letter of clarification. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Correspondence
Ms. Lovett stated that she received a letter confirming the reappointment of Ms. Keenan as a member of the Historical Commission. Her 3-year term will expire on 3/1/2016.
VOTE: There being no further business, Ms. Harper made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Natalie BL Lovett
Community Development Planner
| 
