SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
November 6, 2013
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednes-day November 6, 2013 at 7:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Jessica Herbert (Chair), Kathy Harper (Vice Chair), Laurie Bellin, Chad Garner, David Hart, Susan Keenan, Joanne McCrea and Natalie Lovett.
33 Carlton Street
Wendy Walsh submitted an application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability to repair the brick around the doorway. The brick was recently revealed after removing the wooden door surround. The repair work will entail repointing, brick replacement, and brick cleaning. Wendy Walsh was present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application:
- Photographs:
Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission requested that the applicant come to a meeting for the Certificate of Non-Applicability because the removal of the door surround had been approved as a Certificate of Appropriateness and the Commission was not aware of how much damage was underneath the surround.
Ms. Walsh responded that the Condo Association was happy to have input from the Commission regarding how the brick should be repaired.
Ms. Herbert stated that it appeared that someone had done additional work to the brick after the surround was removed but before a Certificate of Non-Applicability was issued.
Ms. Walsh responded that she is not aware anyone working on the brick. If there was any incorrectly done, she would like to know so that it can be corrected and she can notify the Association of the importance of getting Commission approval before completing any work on the exterior of the building. She asked what repairs they would be required to implement immediately. She stated that they need to prioritize the work because there is also a portion of the roof that needs to be replaced.
Ms. Herbert stated that they are only required to repair the area around where the surround was removed but in the future should get an estimate of repairing the whole face of the building. The main concern is not just aesthetics but also the preservation of the building. If any water gets in there in the winter and freezes if will cause more damage. She recommended that the applicant get an estimate for repointing the entire front of the building and consider that work for the near future.
Mr. Hart stated that the building was probably originally pointed with a white mortar, but now there are a variety of different mortars. It would be costly to repoint the entire building. The original mortar is soft and was probably made out of just lime and sand. Today, there is some cement mixed into mortar. A soft mortar mix should be used (3-1-1). They will need to cut it a little with gray cement. Otherwise, there will be a stark difference between the mortar colors.
Ms. Herbert wondered if a full cleaning of the façade would reduce the color difference between the different mortars.
Mr. Hart responded that a full cleaning would be expensive.
Ms. Herbert asked whether the graying of the brick above the doorway may be from soot.
Mr. Hart responded that a chemical cleaner could be used around the doorway, if necessary.
Ms. Walsh stated that she is concerned the doorway may never be completed restored to its original condition. She asked if there were any additional documents or information she should submit to the Commission before commencing the work.
Mr. Hart responded that the repair will not look perfect. He suggested that the mason create a plan for the work. This plan could be sent to the Commission and review by the Chair. He stated that he did not think the work could be completed before the winter and suggested that the applicant wait until the Spring. They should speak with a mason to see if he/she has any recommendation for how to protect the doorway during the winter. Perhaps a cloth or tarp could be draped over the doorway.
Ms. Herbert added that the mason should do a test area before moving forward with a full repair. Additionally, if the mason recommends temporary filling of any of the larger holes for the winter, that would be acceptable.
VOTE: Ms. McCrea made a motion to approval of the application. Mr. Garner seconded the motion. All were in favor,and the motion so carried.
173 Federal Street
Gianna Della Monica submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to add four (4) peaked cap pediments above the 1st floor windows. The size of the pediments is 67 ½” W x 72” OW x 24 ½” H x 3 1/8” P. The pitch is 6/12. The pediments will be made out of pine and would be painted to match the existing trim color.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 9/25/13
- Photographs
- Pediment Specification
Ms. Lovett stated that Ms. Della Monica has requested by email that the application be continued.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to continue the application to next meeting. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
7 Hamilton Street
Sean O’Neil submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the short gutter over the front entrance with a standard white gutter the full width of the house. There would also be downspouts on each end of the house. Sean O’Neil was present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 10/15/13
- Photographs
Ms. Herbert asked if the downspouts would be located along the extreme corners.
Ms. O’Neil responded in the affirmative. The gutters will follow along the white molding on the side of the house.
Ms. Herbert asked if there are downspouts located on the house now.
Ms. O’Neil responded in the affirmative. However, the downspouts are currently located in the middle of the house. The new gutter will pitch the water towards the sides of the house.
Ms. Herbert asked if the profile of the gutters will be be Ogee style with fluted rectangle downspouts.
Ms. O’Neil responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Hart stated that he would like to know the size of the gutter. He is concerned that the new gutter could obscure the decorative dentil detail along the roof line. The existing gutter allows the detail to show. He recommended that the new gutter be the same size as the existing gutter.
Ms. O’Neil responded that she is unsure of the exact size of the gutter, but it is the standard gutter used for residential buildings. Her understanding is that the gutter will run right underneath the lip and will not obscure the building’s detail.
Ms. Bellin asked for clarification on whether the downspouts will be located along the front corners or the sides.
Ms. O’Neil responded that they are planned for the front, but they could be on the sides if that is preferable.
Ms. Herbert stated that she does not think that having the gutter make the turn and the downspouts come down the sides is feasible.
Mr. Hart agreed that is it more feasible for the downspouts to run down the front corners.
There was no public comment.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the standard residential size gutter, with the proviso that the new gutter is the same size and profile as the existing gutter and the downspouts will be on the front face of the cornerboards. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. All were in favor,
and the motion so carried.
141 Boston Street
Peter Copelas submitted an application for a Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance to demolish the structure and reuse the property for parking. Peter Copelas was present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application:
- Photographs:
Mr. Copelas stated that there is nothing left in the house and it has been empty for years. The heating system was removed and the pipes are now frozen. A few years ago he purchased the house. He would like to demolish the house in order to increase parking for the adjacent commercial space, which he owns.
Mr. Hart showed a picture of the house from 11 years ago. The house looks the same. From an urban planning standpoint he is hesitant to approve the removal of a house for parking directly along the roadway.
Ms. Herbert stated that it is a shame there isn’t more land associated with the house.
Ms. Keenan asked if Mr. Copelas has considered restoring the house.
Mr. Copelas stated that he does not believe that restoration is economical. That the house would have to be gutted plus there is no associated parking for the house.
Ms. Herbert asked for public comments.
Bill Legault, City Councilor, stated that he greatly appreciates what the Commission does, and the advice that they give applicants. He is familiar with the building, it was a very nice house at one time, but he supports the demolition. Given the parking issues in Salem the additional parking would be helpful.
Emily Udy, from Historic Salem Inc., stated that HSI recently participated in a study of Boston St corridor. This section of Boston Street was identified as one of the last areas along Boston Street that has retained its residential feel. The house is on the corner and brings the streetscape towards Boston Street. Demolition would drastically change the streetscape. She asked if the applicant could speak more about how much parking would be created and address the need for that parking.
Ms. Copelas responded that he does not need the parking but it would be helpful. It would also be helpful for the condos behind the house.
Ms. Udy stated that perhaps there is a commercial option for the building. It is important to consider how the demolition is going to affect the residential feel of the neighborhood.
Ms. Bellin asked how many parking spaces are currently on the site.
Mr. Copelas responded that there are 4-5 parking spaces allocated for the commercial building.
Ms. Herbert asked if Mr. Copelas has been working with a broker to help him lease the adjacent commercial space.
Mr. Copelas responded that he has a contract with the Drumlin Company, but the building has still been empty for 3-4 years.
Ms. Herbert suggest that he should hire a broker to investigate the highest and best use for the house and Peter’s Laundry space. If commercial use isn’t the highest and best use for the property, the parking may not be necessary.
Mr. Hart stated that he is concerned that demolishing the mid- 19th century residential building, sitting directly along the street, will create a gap along the streetscape. He referred to another Boston Street house recently being preserved.
Ms. Herbert responded that typically restorations of houses like this can be costly for the restorer.
Mr. Garner added that he lives in the house Mr. Hart is referring to (Pope House). It was a very complicated process to restore the house. In addition, the house is 100 years older than the one they are currently discussing. He continued that as a resident of the area, he has noticed that there have been houses converted to commercial space but without the foot traffic the businesses have struggled.
Mr. Hart asked if there are any guidelines in the Demolition Delay Ordinance that discusses how the Commission should address financial concerns.
Ms. Herbert responded that there is nothing in the Demolition Delay Ordinance that says the Commission should take into account financial concerns.
Ms. McCrea stated that she is concerned with issuing this waiver without knowing what is going to happen to the commercial space.
Ms. Bellin and Ms. Herbert agree. Ms. Herbert continues that if the commercial space were to become a residential this building, restoration of this house would be a nice plus for the project. She would like the Commission to work together with the applicant to see if there is a different use for the house. The just need the right plan to ensure tha thte expense of restoring the house is reasonable. She stated that she would like to work with Mr. Copelas to find a broker that will help work out a design plan and find architects to restore the building. There is quite a market for rentals right now.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to deny the waiver of the demolition delay ordinance. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Washington Square- McIntire Arch Preservation
In response to a request from the Historical Commission, the Salem Common Neighborhood Association was in attendance to discuss the proposed preservation of the McIntire Arch located at Salem Common. Mark Meche, from Winter Street Architects, and Peter LaChappelle, from the Salem Common Neighborhood Association, were present.
Mr. LaChappelle stated that there were originally 4 arches that were erected until approximately 1850. The existing arch is a replica created in the 1970s. The SCNA is working with Mark Meche and the Boy Scout Troop 24 to move this project forward.
Mr. Meche gave a presentation to the Commission on the restoration project. He stated that this is a small project focused on repairing and replacing in-kind and stabilizing the arch. There are grander ideas for the arch, but right now they are limiting the scope of the work. The City Council has already endorsed this work, however they asked that they apply for a building permit, even though it is not necessary. There is also a preservation restriction on the arch. He added that the original location of the arch was across from Brown Street. The replica was originally located near the Hawthorne Hotel.
Mr. Meche continued that the immediate concern is to remove the McIntire carvings. They will be seeking a Certificate of Non-Applicability for temporary removal and eventually restoration of the carvings. They will be looking to hire a historic carpenter for the project. Because there is a preservation restriction on the Common and all of its structures, they need someone who will treat the arch as if it falls under the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.
Mr. Meche stated that they will be using Spanish cedar, which is also the existing material, to restore the arch. There is a steel frame secured into concrete bases. Above the capital molding the wood looks good besides the paint peeling. When you look at the columns there was some MDO plywood added when the arch was moved. The plywood was all that they could afford at the time. Some of the joints are opening and the trim is falling off. They would like to use stainless steel screws to replace the existing nails. The wood would be coated on all 4 sides. The carvings are delaminating and failing in spots. They plan to trace the carvings onto the arch when they remove them and put up a sign that stated the carvings have been temporarily removed for repair.
Ms. Herbert asked if they had giving any consideration to adding something under the arch to cover the ground, like dedication bricks.
Mr. Meche thought that was a good suggestion and could possibly help with drainage.
Mr. Hart stated that storyboards discussing the history of the arch would be helpful.
VOTE: Ms. McCrea made a motion to support the initial in-kind work for beginning the restoration of the arch. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Community Preservation Committee Guidelines
The Community Preservation Committee (CPC) is requesting input from various City boards and commissions regarding the development of a CPA Plan. It is requested that the Commission develop a consensus on a list of survey questions and submit its comments to Jane Guy, in the Department of Planning and Community Development, by noon on Friday, November 22nd.
Documents & Exhibits
- Overview and Implementation Guide
- CPA sample success stories across Massachusetts,
- Examples of evaluation criteria from other communities
- Survey questions
- Taxpayer Information Guide.~
Ms. Lovett requested that the Commission members send her their comments prior to the next Commission meeting. She will compile the comments into a letter to review and approve at the next meeting.
Ms. McCrea recommended that the Commission members attend the public hearing being held next week in order to hear what the public comments are for the Guidelines.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the discussion to the next meeting. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
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
| 
