SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
January 15, 2014
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, January 15, 2014 at 7:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Jessica Herbert (Chair), Laurie Bellin, David Hart, Susan Keenan, Joanne McCrea, and Natalie Lovett. Kathy Harper (Vice Chair) arrived late.
92 Derby Street
David O’Sullivan submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a wrought iron gate in the alley separating 92 and 94 Derby Street. The gate will be 5 feet high on each end and rise to 6 feet in the middle of the gate. David O’Sullivan and Lisa Ainsworth were present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 12/12/13
- Photographs: 12/12/13
- Drawing: 12/12/13
Ms. Ainsworth submitted a picture of a decorative finial for the top of the gate. She states that the door will open in the middle with a knob.
Ms. Herbert asked if they considered installing a wooden gate, which would be more typical for the time period of the house. She stated that the proposed gate is more of Victorian treatment.
Ms. Ainsworth responded that they did not consider wood. They are concerned with durability and keeping people out of their backyard. They also like that the metal will still show a view of the backyard garden.
Ms. Harper arrived at this time.
Ms. Herbert asked if they had a dimension on the spacing between the pickets.
Mr. O’Sullivan responded in the negative. The fabricator did not provide that information.
Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission would need to know the dimension of the individual pickets and the spacing between the pickets. They would also like to know the distance from the ground and how they gates will meet in the middle.
Mr. Hart stated that he would also like to see what the setback of the fence is from the street.
Ms. Herbert asked if the gate would be attached to both buildings.
Mr. O’Sullivan responded that the gate to be held up by two posts, and would not be attached to either house.
Mr. Hart stated that an elevation of the gates would be helpful in addition to how may finials would be used.
Ms. Bellin stated that she would like the applicant to bring additional information on the closing mechanism for the gate.
Mr. Hart stated that a lift latch is typical. He added that the applicant should check with the building inspector to see if there is a height requirement for the gate.
The public commenting period was opened.
Jane Arlander, 93 Federal Street, suggested that the applicants walk around town to see other examples of wrought iron fences and how they close.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to the next meeting. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
30-32 Beckford Street
Rolf Franke-Otten submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a carriage house and fence, per plans previously submitted and approved in 8/7/95 and 8/18/95. The carriage house will house three (3) cars and will also house boats by lift in the loft area. The fence will be constructed out of 1”x1” steel rods with granite block posts. Rolf Franke-Otten was present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 12/30/13
- Drawings: 8/18/95
Mr. Franke-Otten stated that 20 years ago he got approval for the carriage house. The construction was delayed due to environmental contamination from a neighboring property. With the environmental cleanup now complete, he would like to construct his carriage house. He recently discovered however, that his original design would require a height variance. As a result, he has changed the design to conform to the zoning requirements. He presented the Commission with these revised drawings.
Ms. Herbert inquired about an extra door on the drawings.
Mr. Franke-Otten responded that the door is an exit/emergency door to meet building code.
Mr. Hart asked if there was any information on the materials for the carriage house.
Mr. Franke-Otten responded that the siding is clapboards and the doors are barn doors. The roofing would be 3-tab black asphalt shingle to match the main house. The paint color scheme would be the same at the main house.
Ms. Herbert asked if the siding would be 4 ½” cedar clapboard and of what material the doors would be made .
Mr. Franke-Otten responded that the clapboards would be 4 ½” cedar. The door would be made of solid (tongue-in-groove) eastern white pine. The hinges will be cast-iron.
Ms. Herbert asked if there will be any windows in the new design.
Mr. Franke-Otten responded in the negative.
The public commenting period was opened.
Dick Luecke, 2 River Street, stated that he is an abutter to Mr. Franke-Otten and has the most sightline to this new building. He likes the new plans and is support of the application.
Ms. Herbert read into the record a letter of support from Larissa Lucas, 15 River Street.
Ann Whittier, 10 River Street, stated that she is in support the application.
David Hallows, 15 River St, stated that he is in support of the application.
A resident from 13 River Street, stated that she is in support of the application.
Mr. Franke-Otten stated that he may need to add some fill to the land around the carriage house due to a swamp creeping in on the property.
Ms. Herbert stated that would be considered landscaping and outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction.
Steve Whittier, 10 River St, stated that he is in support of the application and can vouch for the high level of Mr. Franke-Otten’s craftsmanship.
The public commenting period was closed.
Ms. Herbert stated that given the topography of the lot, this garage will be much lower than the houses.
Ms. Bellin asked the applicant for the door color.
Mr. Franke-Otten responded that the doors would be Black Forest to match the door on the main house.
Ms. Herbert asked if there will be a corner board.
Mr. Franke-Otten responded in the affirmative. The corner board will be at least 6”, there will also be a water table. The foundation will likely be a granite veneer rather than just granite however he does need to get approval from the Building Inspector.
Ms. Herbert asked for the height of the doors.
Mr. Franke-Otten responded that they will be approximately 9’high.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the revised proposal with the details as discussed. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.Mr. Hart recused himself from the vote.
47 Summer Street
Phil Marchand submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the side bay window with one (1) triple double hung unit. The window will be all wood and will match the existing windows in size and style. Phil Marchand was present.
Documents & Exhibits
1. Application: 12/30/13
Photographs: 1/14/14
Ms. Harper asked when the addition added to the building.
Mr. Marchand responded that the house was built in the 1800s and the addition was added in the 1980’s..
Ms. Herbert asked if the windows would be insulated windows.
Mr. Marchand presented the commission with specifications for the Jeld-wen windows they would like to install.
Mr. Hart stated that the specifications show that the window will be argon glass, which is not the same as the existing windows which are single pane with storms.
Ms. Herbert stated that it would be very obvious that the windows are not all the same. She stated that the Commission has allowed insulated glass windows, however in this case where the new windows will be adjacent to existing windows, the Commission would prefer a wood window with a storm. BROSCO makes a window of that kind.
There was no public comment.
Mr. Hart stated that the application also includes replacing the Masonite siding with cedar.
Ms. Herbert asked if any Commission members had a comment about the appropriateness of the triple window.
Mr. Hart stated that because the window is being installed on an addition, which currently has a bay window, he feels it would be appropriate.
VOTE: Ms. Harper made a motion to approve the proposed Jeld-wen window. Ms. Kennan seconded the motion. Ms. Keenan was in favor, Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Ms. Bellin, Mr. Hart, and Ms. McCrea were opposed. The motion so failed.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve a true divided light wood window. Ms.Bellin seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert stated that the sashes and storms should match the existing. The windows should align with the existing as noted in the application.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the replacement of the Masonite siding with clapboards to match the existing clapboards. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
24 Fort Ave
Footprint Power Salem Harbor Real Estate submitted an application for a Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance to demolish all remaining structures and equipment not previously permitted for demolition. The structures subject to demolition delay include the Unit 1, 2, & 3 Fan House, Boiler Building, Turbine Room and Screen House. The structures will be replaced with a new modern power facility. Atty. Joseph Correnti, George Wilson, Lou Erich were present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 12/16/13
- Photograph
- Site Plan
Atty. Correnti stated that in May they were before the Commission for Phase 1 of the demolition. They are now before the Commission to request a demolition waiver for the remainder of the site that is over 50 years old, which encompasses most of the main structures including the stacks.
Mr. Erich stated that Unit 1 and 2 were the original buildings, built in 1951 and 1952. In 1958, Unit 3 was added as an expansion of those buildings. Unit 4 was added later and is less than 50 years old. The drawings provided with the application shows the demolition plan. Everything not intended for reuse will be taken down.
Mr. Hart asked what will remain standing.
Mr. Erich responded that they will be leaving the electrical switchyard, which is located adjacent to the fan house. On the demolition plan, the electrical switchyard is shown near the number 43A in the diagram.
Ms. Harper asked if the final permitting is in place for the new plant.
Atty. Correnti responded that all permits are in hand, however several are under appeal. They are waiting for resolution of several appeals. The plant is closing May 31, 2014. There is currently pre-demolition activity going on now. The goal is to be ready to go 100% with construction on June 1st.
Ms. Harper stated that there were some presentations that included the preservation of the turbine building. She asked if this preservation was still planned.
Mr. Erich responded that preservation of the turbine room is still under consideration. It is part of the discussion with the siting board.
Atty. Correnti stated that they are before the Commission for approval to demolition all of the buildings. The turbine house is more of a turbine hall and is part of the other buildings.
Mr. Wilson stated that they would save the turbine hall because there are overhead cranes. If there were to be a tenant in that space that could use the cranes, it could remain. Only the structural steel would remain.
Ms. Herbert stated that retention of the turbine room seems to be more of commercial significance than historic significance.
The public commenting period was opened.
Meg Twohey, 122 Federal Street, stated that she understands that the turbine hall is a unique structure and represents one of the last un-demolished pieces of the industrial history in Salem. She would ask the Commission to not vote on that building at this time and to request a site visit. There are examples of other City’s where such a structure has been saved and have become landmark buildings.
William Legault, City Councilor, asks the Commission to not put any future or potential impediment in place for the applicant especially, given the project’s importance to Salem.
Emily Udy, HSI, asked if the location of the turbine hall could be clarified. She stated that composition of the building with the windows is something to consider maintaining if the interior structure would be used. She asked that the Commission request a site visit.
Ms. Herbert asked what the feasibility of a site visit would be.
Mr. Correnti responded that it is feasible to view the site, however viewing the inside of the building is more difficult because it is a working power plant. He would need to check with the plant security.
Ms. Herbert asked Ms. Udy when the idea of preserving the turbine room surfaced.
Ms. Udy responded from HIS’s perspective, they have no concerns with the site and environmental issues, however they do have an interest in the demolition of buildings over 50 years old. She stated that she cannot make an official statement on behalf of Historic Salem, Inc at this time because she is still gathering information. However, she does not see a continuance as creating a hardship for the applicant. There is still time before the June 1st construction date. .
Ms. Twohey stated that she understands that the building does hold some promise for Footprint. Additionally, if there is an opportunity here it seems well worth it to investigate the demolition waiver further. She clarified that she is at this meeting representing herself and other residents that were unable to attend, not HSI.
Atty. Correnti states that they are not presenting a demolition option that will leave the turbine hall. They are saying that they may reuse some of the structural steel inside the building, not the building itself. They agree that photographic documentation of the site is important and have already been taking steps to do so.
Mr. Erich stated that they have found over 300 black and white photos that were taken during initial construction of the site. The owners understand the importance of documenting the site and are committed to compiling photographic and probably also videographic documentation of the power plant.
Ms. Herbert stated that she would like to treat the turbine house as a separate application and take some extra time to evaluate the turbine room. It seems that if Footprint is truly considering a tenant retaining the structure would be more feasible than building a new one. She is not looking to hold up the application but would like to take a few more weeks to gather more information about the interior of the building to make sure they are moving in the right direction. Then the Commission can decide whether a site visit is warranted.
Atty. Correnti stated that they can come to the next meeting with photographic information about the interior of the building.
Larry Spang, 125 Columbus Ave, asked how long Footprint has been considering the idea of preserving the turbine building.
Mr. Wilson responded that the idea is relatively new.
Atty. Correnti stated that he believes the Planning Board site plan approval does not include the turbine room. Additionally, every approval for the permitting has shown the turbine hall, within the building, as being gone. There would be some serious repercussions if they were not able to demolish the building. The application before the Commission is to demolish the turbine room along with the other buildings. While Footprint thinks the building could have value commercially and economically, they are looking for approval to demolish the building. They are willing to provide the commission with additional information and pictures .
Ms. Herbert stated that it would be helpful to have information on the dimensions of these other buildings to compare with the turbine room along with the architect opinion that it would not be feasible to save this building.
Mr. Spang stated that he would be concerned with the retention of the steel structure being retained given the great redevelopment plan for the site. He would not want to see a 24 hour ship building business being on the site.
Atty. Correnti stated that the Manhattan architectural firm presented examples to the Planning Board of reuse of industrial buildings. The firm determined that reuse was not feasible for this building, which is why they drew up the existing plans. For the next meeting, they will pull together parts of that presentation for the next meeting.
Mr. Hart stated that he understands that during demolition there will be as-built photographs taken. Those would be helpful for the Commission to have.
Ms. McCrea asked if this is the same application that went before the Planning Board. If the turbine room is separated from the application, what would the repercussions be.
Atty. Correnti responded that they would wait the 6 months delay period. If they decide to preserve the turbine room, they would need to amend a number of permits. The approved plans do not show a turbine hall on them. They are talking about an interior hall with structural steel that may be commercially beneficial. They are not stating that exterior structure has any historical significance.
Ms. McCrea stated that she has a concern with the legal ramifications of separating the Turbine Room from the remainder of the application. She wonders if the Commission should check with the City Solicitor before proceeding.
Ms. Herbert responded that the Commission is able to break out the buildings as it wishes. The Commission is just asking for additional information, which they would typically asked for from applicants anyways. The Commission would like to have this documentation, and HSI has expressed concerns, so they should take that into consideration.
Atty. Correnti clarified that the architect’s presentation was related to the reuse of the entire plant, not just the turbine room. It shows some of the magnificent structures that were built and repurposed in the early 1900s.
Mr. Wilson stated that the point of the presentation was to show that architects need to be involved in the design of power plants. The existing plant was designed by an engineer and does not have the architectural integrity of past plants.
VOTE: Ms. Harper made a motion to approve the Demolition Delay Waiver for the boiler building, screen room, and fan room. Mr. Hart seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Ms. Bellin, Mr. Hart, and Ms. Keenan, were in favor, Ms. McCrea was opposed, and the motion so carried.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue discussion of demolition of the Turbine Room to the February 19th meeting. Mr. Hart seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
129 Columbus Ave
Lawrence and Deborah Callahan submitted an application for a Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance to demolish the existing building. The foundation would be left intact. The applicant states that the existing building is structurally unsound and unstable. The framing does not comply to existing building code requirements, the mechanical and electrical systems, kitchen and baths, and the interior finishes, all require replacement. The cost of replacement will be less than the cost of the required rehabilitation, and replacement will prodce a better quality dwelling.
The new building will be of a similar scale and proportion as the existing building and will be architecturally compatible with the existing neighborhood. Richard Griffin, Lawrence and Deborah Callahan were present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 1/6/14
- Inspectors Report: 10/30/13
- Photographs: 1/3/14
- Drawings: 1/3/14
Mr. Griffin submitted to the Commission a summary from Peter Stout stating that he would conclude that the structure should be demolished.
Ms. Herbert asked if the applicants currently own the building.
Ms. Callahan responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Griffin stated that the building was originally built as a summer cottage. The layout is not ideal and the framing is light: 2x6 spanning 8 feet. The walls are bowing. The structure was originally constructed in 1895, but the original bungalow features of the house is no longer present.
Ms. Herbert stated that this building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places as a contributing building in the Willows District. Looking at the building, it has been so altered that she personally feels it is no longer significant.
Mr. Hart stated that MACRIS shows that the house was listed as a contributing building for the Willow District in 1994. MHC says that it is significant. He would not feel comfortable approving the demolition of the building.
Ms. Herbert stated that there have been so many changes at the Willows, this could seem to set a precedent for demolishing other structures in the area. She asked Mr. Griffin about the cost to replace vs. restore the house.
Mr. Griffin said he made this statement based on personal experience along with the information received from Peter Strout, Tom St. Pierre (City Building Inspector) and the engineering firm he works with. There is a fair amount of insect damage. The new house replicates the bungalow features typical of Willows properties. They have received a variance to build the house, and the abutters were in support. There is a lot more flexibility by building up from the foundation rather than restoring the existing building. He stated that the existing house would not be as livable as the new house. They are replicating the Willows architecture even though it is outside of a local historic district.
Ms. Harper asked if they would be using the existing foundation
Mr. Griffin responded that they expect to use the existing foundation however, will not know for sure until the existing structure is demolished.
Ms. Bellin asked if the applicants planned to demolish the building when they bought it.
Mr. Callahan responded that they planned to remodel the house, however they soon found that this would be difficult.
Mr. Hart asked when the house was last occupied.
Mr. Callahan responded that the house was occupied as recently as several months ago by two nieces of the family. He was shocked to find that someone had been living there. The ceiling is coming down, and there are water leaks.
Mr. Griffin stated that at first glance the house seems OK, but when you look down the side of the house you can see the buckling walls.
Larry Spang, 125 Columbus Ave, stated that he has lived in the house next door for 15 years. The previous owner was elderly and mostly housebound. The family had hoped they could do something with the house. Some of the family kids took free rein over the house. There are substantial leaks that were not address. Typically, he supports restoration or preservation of Willows cottages. There is not substantial historic exterior remaining on this house, however. The exterior of the house was completely redone in the 1970s and he does not see what is worth preserving on this property. To recreate the house without any photographs of what was there originally would be fiction anyways.
Mr. Hart stated that he is still hesitant to set a precedent of demolish buildings because they have not been maintained properly. The new design looks appropriate, but he is still concerned.
Ms. Bellin stated that she agrees with Mr. Hart.
Ms. Harper stated that the design keeps the shape and design of the house and streetscape. There does not seem like there is much to save on this house. She would be sympathetic to the demolition waiver.
Ms. McCrea agrees with the comments from Mr. Spang and Ms. Harper.
Ms. Bellin points out to the Commission that the new design appears to be a story taller than the existing.
Mr. Griffin responds that she is correct that the new house will be taller than what is there now, however the house will still be shorter than everything around it. It is also 7’ shorter than allowed by zoning.
VOTE: Ms. Harper made a motion to approve the application for a Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Ms. McCcrea, and Ms. Keenan were in favor, Ms. Bellin and Mr. Hart were opposed, and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert stated that the Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance is always considered on a case by case basis. With this case, one concern is that it was structured as a summer cottage with minimal framing and would have to sister up everything on the inside. In addition, there is no documentation of how the house originally looked. This decision does not mean that the Commission is changing its view of demolishing historic structures.
3 Webster Street
Renewal Ventures, LLC submitted a request for a Letter of Support for their MA Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credits application. Constructed in 1887 by the Lynn & Boston Electric Railroad Company, the Car Barn is a unique example of the industrial architecture built in Salem during the late 19th century. The project will involve converting the Car Barn into six residential units. Historically appropriate and energy efficient windows will be installed and repairs will be made to the masonry. The large wood doors will be reintroduced to the original trolley car bays.
Ms. Lovett handed around a draft letter of support for the Commission members to review.
Ms. Herbert stated that if the applicant is applying for tax credits they will have to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s guidelines.
Mr. Hart stated that Dan Ricarelli and John Seger are the architects for the project. He has viewed the plans, and it looks like they will be doing a nice job.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the Letter of Support. Mr. Hart seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Preservation Master Plan Update
The Department of Planning and Community Development submitted a request for a Letter of Support for their application for Survey and Planning Grant funds to undertake an update to the City of Salem’s Preservation Master Plan. The goal of the Preservation Master Plan update would be to better integrate current historic preservation activities with broader planning, environmental, social, economic, and sustainability goals and procedures.
Ms. Lovett handed around a draft letter of support for the Commission members to review.
Ms. Bellin asked is the plan update will also be funded with Community Preservation Act funds
Ms. Lovett responded that she was unsure whether or not the project qualifies for CPA funds, or whether the grant match will utilize a different source of city funds.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the Letter of Support. 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 approved the minutes of November 20, 2013 with revisions. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
VOTE: Ms. McCcrea made a motion to approved the minutes of December 4, 2013 with revisions. Mr. Hart seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Correspondence
Ms. Lovett stated that DCAM is holding a meeting for the Family and Probate Court renovation project. She will resend the meeting information to the Commission by email.
VOTE: There being no further business, Mr. Hart made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Natalie BL Lovett
Community Development Planner
| 
