SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
April 2, 2014
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, April 2, 2014 at 7:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Jessica Herbert (Chair), Kathy Harper (Vice Chair), Laurie Bellin, David Hart, Susan Keenan, and Joanne McCrea.
Councilor Elaine Milo was present. Tom Gable, SATC, was present video recording the meeting.
27 Hardy Street
The House of Seven Gables Settlement Association submitted an application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability to replace 20 windows on the Nathaniel Hawthorne Birthplace. The Commission requested that the applicant come to a regularly scheduled meeting in order to discuss the scope of work and its impact on the historic fabric of the house. Kevin White was present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 3/25/14
- Photographs: 3/25/14
- Historic photographs: 4/2/14
- Conditions summary
Mr. White showed historic pictures of the house with different window configurations. The house was moved in 1958 from Union Street to its current location. Before the house was moved, the house had 9/6 pane window in the top attic sash and 2/2 in the lower windows. In 1959, the house had the currently window configuration. There was a substantial amount of work completed on the building at that time. The current window sash has a substantial amount of material removed from the bottom rail of the top sash in order to make them fit the opening. They would like to have windows custom made in order to fit the window opening.
Ms. Herbert asked whether they would like to go back to an 18th century version of the window configuration.
Mr. White responded that the house is interpreted as an 1800 house because that is when Nathaniel Hawthorne was born in the house. He stated that the window profile and muntin were designed to mimic the windows at the House of Seven Gables. The windows will have a 7/8” muntin. They will be replicating what is there now.
There was no public comment.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to close the public hearing. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the Certificate of Non-Applicability to replace the windows in-kind. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. Mr. Hart abstained from the vote.
25 Hardy Street
The House of Seven Gables Settlement Association submitted an application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability to replace the soffit, fascia, and crown molding on the Phippen House. The Commission requested that the applicant come to a regularly scheduled meeting in order to discuss the scope of work and its impact on the historic fabric of the house. Kevin White was present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 3/25/14
- Photographs: 3/25/14
Mr. White stated that this work is part of a multi-year restoration. The first phase is the soffit and fascia board repair. There is some original material in the building. The soffit and fascia are in serious disrepair. If there is anything that can be retained, it will be.
There was no public comment.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to close the public hearing. Mr. Hart seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the Certificate of Non-Applicability. Ms. Mccrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
17 ½ River Street
Frederick Biebesheimer submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to:
- Repaint the exterior in colors previously approved by the Commission
- In-kind repair and/or replace of damaged corner boards, soffit and fascia boards
- Install gutters on the East and West roofline.
The applicant requested that the approval include two options for the gutter. One would be to install a half-round single bead 5” copper gutter and plain round downspout. The second option is to install an aluminum “L Section” gutter selected to match the gutters at 17 River Street and painted to match the trim. Frederick Biebesheimer and Lisa Spence were present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 3/7/14
- Photographs: 3/7/14
- Copper gutter detail
Ms. Herbert asked if they were leaning towards one material option.
Mr. Biebesheimer responded that he would prefer the copper, but just in case would like the option for aluminum gutters.
There was no public comment.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to close the public hearing. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the previously approved paint colors. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, were opposed, and the motion so carried.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the gutters with an option for copper or aluminum. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the in-kind repair work. Ms. Mccrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
16 River Street
Melissa Hankens submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to:
- Install house numbers on the front right corner trim.
- Remove plywood inserts on the side of the rear porch. Wood clapboards will be installed to match the clapboards on the remainder of the house. The clapboards will be painted to match the existing house color.
Melissa Hankens was present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 3/17/14
- Photographs: 3/17/14
- Numbers specifications
Ms. Hankens stated that the numbers would be an oil rubbed bronze finish and have the same placement as the house at 7 River Street.
Ms. Herbert asked if the porch was being winterized.
Ms. Hankens responded that the windows are currently insert screens. They are replacing them with permanent windows. It will be partially weatherized but it will still remain very much a porch. The room will remain unheated.
Ms. Herbert asked for public comment.
Mr. Biebesheimer spoke in favor of the application
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to close the public hearing. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Hart seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
86 Bay View Ave
Robert King submitted an application for a Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance to demolish the house and foundation located on the property. The application states that the existing structure was built, and subsequently altered over the years without providing a proper footing for stability. The entire back half of the house was built without any type of foundation and the lumber used for floor joists has rotted beyond repair. The floors above this section sag approximately 4” in the center of the structure. The electrical is antiquated. The methods used at the time of construction are too far from code to justify renovation. The existing structure will be replaced with a similar home.
Robert King and Christine King were present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 4/2/14
- Photographs: 4/2/14
- Drawings
Mr. Herbert asked if the new house will also be a two family.
Mr. King responded in the affirmative. They have received an approval for the demolition from the ZBA. They also have approval and an order of conditions from the Conservation Commission. When you look at the back of the house, they built the second story over a cement patio and then later dug under the second story to place the boiler. There is no foundation and the back of the house is subsequently sinking. The doorways and floors are off by several inches and many of the walls are bowed. They have removed the details from the front porch of the house and would like to reuse them. They will also be keeping the newel post from the bottom of the stairs on the first floor. There is not much more material worth saving.
Ms. Herbert stated that the city records show the date of the house as 1920, however the state database (MACRIS) shows the date as 1885.
Ms. Harper asked when they bought the property.
Mr. King responded that they bought the house in December.
Ms. Herbert asked for public comment.
Emily Udy, Historic Salem Inc, stated that while she is not opposed to this waiver, she would like to point out that this is the 3rd waiver in 3 months in the Willows. She stated that it seems this house was purchased for demolition and hopes that future demolition waiver applications will be considered on their own merit.
Ms. Herbert affirmed that the Commission takes every application for WDDO individually.
Mr. King stated that the house is in such disrepair that anyone who bought the house would have needed to rebuild.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to close the public hearing. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Hart stated that the new design is in keeping with the Victorian era, however he has concern with the fact that the property was allowed to go to ruin and now cannot be repaired. He stated that he does not feel confident approving the demolition waiver without a report from a professional detailing why the house cannot be restored.
Ms. Herbert asked the Commission members is they felt they needed a site visit. Ms. Mccrea, Ms. Keenan, Ms. Harper and Ms. Herbert did not feel the need for a site visit. Ms. Bellin and Mr. Hart were in favor of a site visit.
Ms. Herbert asked which materials would be salvageable if the house were restored.
Mr. King responded that not much would remain. All of the windows would be replaced, the aluminum siding would be removed, and the roof would be replaced.
Ms. Herbert summarized that in order to restore the house you would need to take the building down to the skeleton. As a restoration project, so much of the house would be gone that there would be hardly anything left.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion for a site visit. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. Mr. Hart was in favor, Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Ms. Bellin, Ms. Keenan, Ms. McCrea were opposed, and the motion failed.
VOTE: Ms. Keenan made a motion to approve the Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance. Ms. Mccrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried. Mr. Hart abstained from the vote.
Historic Salem Inc. Preservation Awards
Historic Salem, Inc. released a call for nominations for their annual preservation awards. Preservation effects on properties throughout the city, not just in the historic districts, and completed within the last five years are eligible for nomination. The Commission discussed whether they had any projects to nominate.
Ms. Herbert asked if any of the Commission members had suggestions. She suggested to Emily Udy that the Committee look at 1 Harrington Court. The restoration is not strictly historic but it is very good.
184 Lafayette Street- Request for Determination of Significance
As required for their application for Community Preservation Act funds, Northeast Arc has requested a determination of significance for the stucco wall located at 184 Lafayette Street. The Commission is asked to vote on whether they find the wall to be of historic, cultural, or architectural significance. The house on the property was built in 1922 and was the first stucco home and stucco wall built in the City of Salem. Northeast Arc is proposing to restore the wall by rebuilding it. Susan Brady was present.
Ms. Keenan stated that she would love to see the wall repaired.
There was no public comment.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to close the public hearing. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
MOTION: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the request for significance. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion.
Ms. Mccrea asked if they should clarify the type of significance of the wall.
Mr. Hart disclosed that he has a contract with Northeast Arc in Peabody, but has no financial interest in this project.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to determine that the wall is of historical significance. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
City of Salem- Request for Determination of Significance
As required for their application for Community Preservation Act funds, the City of Salem has requested a determination of significance for three resources:
- Choate Memorial
- Roger Conant Statue
- Common Fence
The Commission is asked to vote on whether they find the statues and fence to be of historic, cultural, or architectural significance. Natalie Lovett, Department of Community Development and Planning, was present to discuss the projects.
There was no public comment.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to close the public hearing. Ms. Harper seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to determine that the Roger Conant statue is of historical significance. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to determine that the Choate Memorial is of historical significance. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to determine that the Common Fence is of historical significance. Mr. Hart seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Correspondence
Ms. Lovett announced to the Commission that the City received a MHC Survey & Planning Grant for the City of Salem Preservation Master Plan Update. Work on that project will begin in the summer.
Approval of Minutes
Ms. Herbert asked that Ms. Lovett simplify the minutes from the 2/19/14 meeting, as has been practice for the more recent minutes. The minutes should capture the important details of the applications and the pertinent discussions concerning each application.
Emily Udy, Historic Salem Inc, stated that she does look back through the SHC minutes from time to time and it is helpful to have some indication of the discussion.
Linda Healey, spoke in favor of meeting details being included. For projects that are unique or controversial it would be helpful to have more information.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of 3/5/14 with comments. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Procedures
Ms. Herbert asked the Commission members if they had any specific questions regarding the Sunshine Ordinance or Conflict of Interest law.
Ms. Bellin asked when the Commission members could review the minutes.
Ms. Lovett clarified that the Sunshine Ordinance states that the minutes must be made publicly available on the website at the same time as the draft minutes are sent to the Commission or no later than 21 days after the meeting.
Ms. Bellin added a clarification on the Conflict of Interest law; when you abstain, you abstain from the entire discussion, though you are able to comment as a member of the public during the public commenting period.
Ms. Herbert added that if there is a financial interest in a project, the member may be best leaving the room.
Discussion ensued regarding the Conflict of Interest law.
Linda Healey, asked if there was any information available yet regarding the Section 106 process for the power plant. She felt as though the Commission was bullied into the WDDO decision.
Ms. Herbert stated that they are in the process of obtaining that information and scheduling the tour of the building.
VOTE: There being no further business, Ms. McCrea 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
| 
