SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
October 2, 2013
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednes-day, October 2, 2013 at 7:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Jessica Herbert (Chair), Kathy Harper (Vice Chair), Laurie Bellin, David Hart, Joanne McCrea, and Jane Turiel.
55 Warren Street
Richard Jones and Naomi Cottrell submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for exterior paint colors. A Certificate of Appropriateness was recently granted to remove the existing aluminum siding from the house. The application before the Commission now is to repaint the existing wood siding. The proposed colors are:
Body: California Paint Organic White A-13
Trim: California Paint Sugar Sugar DEW380
Naomi Cottrell was present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 9/16/13
- Photographs: 9/16/13
- Paint chips
Ms. Cottrell stated that when they took the aluminum siding off they could see that the house was originally white. She stated that they researched other houses of the same style and they are usually white on white. They wanted enough difference between the body and trim to make the trim pop. That is why the body color is a little darker.
There was no public comment.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Turiel seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Salem Probate and Family Court Renovation/Addition- 30% Design Review
As an interested party listed in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between DCAM and MHC, the Salem Historical Commission has the opportunity to comment on the 30% design plan for the Salem Probate and Family Court renovation /addition project.
Documents & Exhibits
- Site plans:8/30/13
- Exterior Elevations:8/30/13
- Restoration elevations:8/30/13
- Elevation explorations for the new rear addition:8/20/13
Ms. Bellin stated that at the last HSI preservation meeting they discussed the 30% plans. There are five variations of the new rear addition. The elevations show different window configurations. Next to the existing rear of the courthouse, some of the options may be too busy.
Ms. Herbert asked if there was any information in the plans that show how far the addition will project.
Ms. McCrea asked if Emily Udy discussed preservation of the front lamp posts at the HSI meeting. After the previous DCAM meeting, she noticed that DOER hadn’t discussed restoration of the lamps along Federal Street.
Mr. Hart stated he previously completed did a 3 dimensional graphic of the Courthouse complex. He would be happy to give the SketchUp file to DOER’s architect if they found it useful. The elevations don’t give the complete picture as to what the additional will look like from different spots. He will send the file to Ms. Lovett.
Ms. Bellin stated that she was confused by what DMAC has provided. The drawings of the front of the building don’t show much or any change.
Ms. McCrea stated that they don’t show the ramp refiguration in the plans.
Ms. Herbert asked if there is a reason the rear addition is being rebuilt.
Ms. Lovett responded that at the meeting DCAM, they stated that rehabilitation of the addition was cost prohibitive as compared to building a new addition.
Ms. Herbert stated that there should be a drawing showing the existing addition with an overlay of the new addition. In addition, she would like to know what purpose the bump out will have. It doesn’t relate well to the original building.
Mr. Hart added that future submission of the elevations should include a date.
Ms. Bellin stated that she preferred the rear addition option where the two garage doors are not located underneath the bumpout.
Mr. Hart stated that there is no identification of the mechanical systems. They should be shown as they will be with exact sizes, and include generators, venting, and any projections off the building.
Ms. Bellin stated that any other changes to the original building, besides the addition and the ramps, should be identified.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve submittal of a comment letter to DOER with the details as numerated and to be reviewed by Ms. Herbert. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Approval of Minutes
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approval the minutes from 7/17/13. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Ms. McCrea, and Ms. Turiel were in favor. Ms. Harper and Mr. Hart abstained, and the motion so carried.
VOTE: Ms. Turiel made a motion to approval the minutes from 8/7/13. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Ms. Bellin, Mr. Hart, and Ms. Turiel were in favor. Ms. McCrea abstained, and the motion so carried.
VOTE: Ms. Turiel made a motion to approval the minutes from 8/21/13. Ms. Mccrea seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Ms. McCrea, and Ms. Turiel were in favor. Ms. Harper and Mr. Hart abstained, and the motion so carried.
Correspondence
Mr. Hart stated that he would like to discuss the Common Arch. There was a group formed that would like to restore the Common Arch. In March, he presented a history of the Common to the Salem Common Neighborhood Association. Samuel McIntire had designed 2 or 4 of the original arches in 1805. The arches eventually deteriorated and were torn down. Pieces of the arches are held by the Peabody Essex Museum. In 1976, a Salem resident built a replica of the arch. It now sits at the north side of the Common but was originally located near the Hawthorne Hotel.
Marc Meche, from Winter Street Architects, has been volunteering his time to work with the Salem Common Neighborhood Association and complete a study of the Arch, including preservation recommendations. Mr. Hart suggested that the SCNA come to a future Commission meeting to discuss preservation of the arch even though in-kind repair or replacement of the arch would be through a Certificate of Non-Applicability.
Ms. Bellin asked if a new full scale arch would be feasible.
Mr. Hart stated that a full scale replica would be in the six figures.
Ms. Herbert suggested that the Commission also invite other interested parties to the meeting, including Councillor Sosnowski.
Ms. Bellin added that HSI should be included on the invitation.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion for the Commission to draft a letter inviting the Salem Common Neighborhood Association and all interested parties to a future Commission meeting. Ms. Turiel seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert discussed the $5,000 research set-aside included in the Memorandum of Agreement for the St. Joseph’s redevelopment project. She stated that now that the Arch Dieses is filling the apartments, she wants to make sure that they have not forgotten about the research stipulation.
Mr. Hart stated that Leslie Donovan has completed a history of the St. Joseph’s site. The $5000 could help to round out that research.
Ms. Herbert stated that in the MOA it was specified that SHC and HSI would select a historian to complete the history.
Ms. Bellin added that if the history has been completed already, perhaps they could use the money to create a plaque.
Ms. Herbert agreed adding that there could also be pictures made to display in the community room.
Ms. Bellin added that there could also be something more visible on the outside of the building.
Ms. Herbert stated that they key issue is that they need to nail down is who will be the decision maker and who will decide what the plaque would look like.
Ms. Bellin stated that there is also a relationship with the town in Canada where a lot of the immigrants came from. That could be included in the history.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion for the SHC to draft a letter to the POUA requesting information on the status of the $5,000 St. Joseph’s research stipulation. Ms. seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Ms. McCrea stated that she recently noticed a boarded up crescent window at the Old Town Hall. She was told that Gordon College had hoped to repair the window using grant funds, but he grant was not received.
Ms. Lovett stated that she would get an update on the windows and why they were boarded.
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,
Natalie BL Lovett
Community Development Planner
| 
