SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
May 7, 2014
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, May 7, 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, Joanne McCrea, and Jane Turiel.
242 Lafayette Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, Lucien LaBonte submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to reroof with architectural shingles. The proposed shingle is a GAF Timberline. The existing roof is a 3-tab roof. At the previous meeting, the Commission approved a 3-tab shingle option and continued the architectural shingle discussion in order to do more research regarding whether architectural shingles would be appropriate.
Lucien LaBonte was present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 3/3/14
- Photographs: 3/3/14
- Shingle specifications
Ms. Turiel recused herself as an abutter and moved to the audience.
Mr. LaBonte stated that he understood from the last meeting that he had approval to use either Slateline or 3-tab shingles. Ms. Lovett notified him that the Certificate had only been issued for 3-tab. He stated that he would like to propose a Certainteed Hateras shingle instead. The Hateras is a 4-tab shingle. He submitted a photograph of a bank in Beverly that he believed had installed the Hateras shingles.
Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission is now aware that there are a number of properties that have installed architectural shingles without approval. For a number of these cases, a 3-tab shingle was approved but the owner ultimately installed architectural shingles. The Commission has approved the Hateras shingle in the past, for the property at 84-86 Derby Street. Ultimately, the owner decided to install 3-tab. The concern with the architectural shingles is that the roof of a historic building should stick out as little as possible.
Ms. Bellin asked for clarification on what Mr. Hart had proposed as an option for the roof. The minutes from the last meeting state Timberline Slateline. Did he intend for his motion to include Slateline or only 3-tab?
Mr. Hart stated that he intended for his motion to be only for the 3-tab shingle.
Ms. Herbert noted that the Commission has not seen the Hatteras installed on a building.
Mr. LaBonte stated that he would like the option to use either Hatteras or Slateline, but would most likely use the Hatteras.
Ms. Herbert stated that the picture Mr. LaBonte submitted does not appear to be Hateras. The shingle is more rectangular, while the Hateras in the brochure appears to be more of a square shape.
Mr. LaBonte stated that he had better pictures at home. He left to retrieve the pictures. The Commission proceeded with the other applications and returned to the application at the end of the meeting.
Ms. Turiel returned to the table.
28 Beckford Street
Richard and Jane Stauffer submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to relocate a downspout from the side of the house to the front of the house.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 3/31/14
- Photographs: 3/31/14
Mr. Hart recused himself, as an abutter, from the discussion and vote.
The applicants were not present at the meeting.
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.
60 & 64 Grove Street and 1, 3, & 5 Harmony Grove Road
MRM Project Management, LLC submitted an application for a Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance in order to demolish all existing structures on the site, with the exception of the existing office building located on the 60 Grove Street parcel. This building is planned to be renovated. The waiver is specifically for five buildings, one vehicle bridge, three pedestrian bridges, and one free standing brick chimney. The properties are being redeveloped into a mixed-use development.
Bob Griffin was present, on behalf of MRM Project Management, LLC.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 4/10/14
- Photographs: February 2014
- Existing Conditions plan: 3/25/14
- Renderings
Mr. Griffin gave a presentation to the Commission and pointed out the structures that they would be demolishing. He stated that they are still working on their environmental permits, but they want to apply for the WDDO so that once the other permitting is in place, they will be ready to proceed with demolition and construction.
Mr. Hart recommended that the Commission have on file additional photographs of the building that will be demolished. The current photographs do not sufficiently depict the buildings. A site plan should also be submitted by the applicant.
There was no public comment.
Ms. Herbert listed the standard items that the Commission requests WDDO applicants to submit prior to a demolition permit being issued:
- color digital photos of exterior of all buildings on CD with ¾ views from all corners
- color digital photos of interior of all buildings on CD
- taped elevations of all buildings
Ms. Lovett stated that there was a question regarding whether the approval of the WDDO would interfere with the Section 106 process, which still needs to be undertaken. She contacted the Massachusetts Historical Commission, and has not yet heard back.
Mr. Hart stated that the motion should include that any necessary state and federal permits will be achieved prior to demolition.
VOTE: Ms. Turiel made a motion to approve the Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance with the items discussed. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
17 Cambridge Street
Lillian Hsu submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a trellis along the front corner of the house. The application also includes a request for approval of a granite step that was previously installed.
Lillian Hsu was present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 3/27/14
- Photographs: 3/27/14
- Drawing
Ms. Hsu stated that her initial understanding was that because the step was almost at grade, she did not need to get approval. The step was already under construction when Ms. Lovett notified her that she would need a Certificate of Appropriateness. The granite step was installed, because the previous rise of the step was not to code. The distance between the bricks at grade level and the doorway was approximately 10.”
Discussion then ensued regarding the trellis details. Ms. Hsu stated that there will be a slight space between the house and the trellis. She will be building the trellis herself. It will be 4’ out from the corner, 7’ to the top, set off the ground. There will be 9 verticals, starting at 3.5’ high. She will be using ¾” x 1.5” antique yellow pine wood. She submitted a drawing of the trellis.
Ms. Herbert pointed out that once the clematis is on the trellis, you will not see much of it.
Ms. Herbert opened the application for comments from the public.
Ken Wallis, 172 Federal Street, asked for clarification on how the trellis would be attached to the house.
Ms. Hsu responded that it will be secured to the house with stainless steel screws.
Mr. Hart stated that he is not sure the Commission has ever seen plantings that are placed directly on the façade of the house.
Ms. Herbert responded that there is a house on Monroe Street that has a trellis. It is not a departure from the Guidelines.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the trellis as designed. Ms. Turiel seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the step as presented. Ms. Turiel seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
370 Essex Street
The Trustees of the Salem Public Library submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove the existing timber retaining walls and install granite curbing. The existing curbing is located along the right and left sides of the Library’s ground level entrance. The granite will be laid out in three foot lengths and will be 6” wide. The proposed granite is Caladonia.
Nancy Tracy, Director of the Salem Public Library, was present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 3/27/14
- Photographs: 3/27/14
Commission members stated that the granite will look very nice.
There was no public comment.
VOTE: Ms. Turiel made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
174 Federal Street
Amy Corvelyn and Coby Carlucci submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to reroof with architectural shingles. The proposed shingle is a GAF Timberline in a charcoal grey color.
Amy Corvelyn and Joe Rogers were present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 4/16/14
- Photographs: 4/16/14
- Shingle Sample
Mr. Rogers stated that their roofer recommended they install architectural shingles, because there have been issues with the quality of the 3-tab shingles. He also has two brothers that are roofers and they agreed that the architectural shingles are better because they last longer.
Ms. Herbert responded that the Commission’s concern with architectural shingles is that they make the roof look busy and you do not need the same skill for installation as you do for the 3-tab shingles. The architectural shingles are more expensive. Additionally, the claim of longevity is still unknown because the architectural shingles have not been around that long.
Mr. Rogers stated that the application cost ends up being the same as the 3-tab shingles because the architectural shingles are quicker to install.
Ms. Corvelyn stated that she owns the other half of the house. She originally submitted the application proposing GAF Timberline, but they would like to amend their application to propose IKO Cambridge AR lifetime shingle.
Mr. Hart noted that the roof on this house is not very visible.
Ms. Corvelyn stated that she understands that the Commission has approved architectural shingles in the past for houses.
Ms. Herbert invited the public to comment.
Joyce Wallis, 172 Federal St, spoke in support of the application.
William Legault, City Councilor, stated that he would be inclined to make an exception because the roof is minimally visible and the color is appropriate.
MOTION: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve this particular application for the use of IKO Cambridge AR black shingles because the particular location of the house is such that the roof surfaces are minimally visible from the street and the color is such that it recedes from the site line. This approval is an exception to the guidelines.
Ms. Bellin stated that she feels this approval sets a bad precedent and the shingle is too similar to the GAF Timberline. It is inappropriate for this style of house in this neighborhood and will be visible to pedestrians.
MOTION: Mr. Hart amended his motion to include the approval of 3-tab shingles in similar color.
VOTE: Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Mr. Hart, Ms. Keenan, Ms. McCrea, and Ms. Turiel were in favor. Ms. Bellin was opposed. The motion so carried.
354 Essex Street
Herbert & Leanne Schild submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace an existing chain link fence with a wood fence. The proposed fence is 6’ high, flat board fence. It will be constructed using white cedar and will have a clear finish.
Herbert and Leanne Schild were present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 4/17/14
- Photographs: 4/17/14
Ms. Herbert read into the record an email from Mary Whitney, 356 Essex Street, stating that they are also replacing their chain link fence with a wood fence. The letter requests that the Commission approve a fence that will enable air flow, as they have had issues with mold and mildew on their clapboards and bulkhead.
Mr. Schild stated that this application is for the right side of the property, adjacent to a parking lot and the apartment building. The fence through the middle of the backyard is owned by 356 Essex Street. He added that the bulkhead at 356 Essex Street was moldy before the 6’ fence was put up.
Ms. Schild stated that they would like to remove the stockade fence and chain link. She presented a picture of the proposed fence design.
Ms. Herbert stated that the sample fence shows a curved top to the boards. A cap rail would be more appropriate.
Ms. Harper stated that it would be nice for the fences on the property to be coordinated.
Mr. Schild responded that they are unsure when 356 Essex Street will be moving forward with their fence replacement. They would like to install their fence immediately.
Ms. Herbert clarified that the fence would be a cedar 6’ high, flat board fence with a top rail. The gate will look like the fence.
There was no public comment.
VOTE: Ms. Turiel made a motion to approve the removal of the existing fence and replace with a 6’ flat board capped fence, left to age naturally. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
100 Derby Street
Martine Shea submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a building sign and blade sign. The wall sign will say “Crotchet Box Country Store” and will be 12’ long. The blade sign will hang over the front door and will measure 2’x2’.
Martine Shea and Phillip Shea were present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 4/17/14
- Photographs: 4/17/14
- Sign dimensions
- Bracket specifications
- Drawing
Ms. Lovett stated that Andrew Shapiro, Economic Development Planner, reviewed the sign application and it meets the dimensions requirements of the sign ordinance.
Ms. Shea stated that she would like the blade sign to be centered over the door. The “Crotchet Box” sign is existing and the new half of the sign, “County Store,” will be butted up against it.
Ms. Herbert suggested that the butted ends be sawed off so that they appear to be one sign.
Ms. Shea stated that the blade sign will be a painting of the house and say “Crotchet Box Country Store” across the middle, like the building.
Ms. Herbert suggested that the blade sign be along the corner so that it doesn’t detract from the architecture of the pediment and the building sign. The blade sign should be set over the division line above the house marker. An open flag could be placed to the left of the door.
Ms. Harper added that the blade sign should be affixed to the corner board rather than along the clapboards.
There was no public comment.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the building sign on the front of the building using the existing “Crotchet Box” sign moved over and the addition of the “Country Store” sign to match; the butting ends perfectly matched so they appear to be one sign; the blade sign, dimensions as submitted, painted on both sides to look like the front of the house including the building sign; and the bracket option of Napoli or Florence styles to be positioned on the right side of the house above the historic plaque, set 10’ high along the corner board. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
242 Lafayette Street
The Commission then continued the architectural shingle discussion from earlier in the meeting.
Ms. Turiel recused herself as an abutter and moved to the audience.
Mr. LaBonte presented to the Commission the installation specifications of the Slateline and the Hateras as well as additional pictures of the Beverly bank roof. He stated that the exposure of the Hateras is 8” and the Slateline is 7.”
Ms. Herbert stated that the picture of the bank’s overhang still appears to show a more elongated shingle than the Hateras.
Mr. Hart showed the Commission a picture of a house with wood shingles which shows that they weather square which would look closer to the Hateras. He then showed a picture of a slate roof, which has a more rectangular look, similar to the Slateline.
Ms. Bellin stated that she would support the antique slate color for the Slateline or colonial slate color for the Hateras.
Ms. Herbert stated that the house is dramatically changed from its original Greek Revival architecture (porch balustrade and brick front). All that remains original is the roofline, front door, and the chimneys.
Ms. Bellin stated that while the two options have different shapes, they are not as distracting as some of the other architectural shingle options.
Mr. Hart stated that he would note that approval of these shingles is a semi- experiment.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the Slateline in antique slate or Hateras in colonial slate. This approval is an exception to the guidelines and sets no precedent. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
320 Lafayette Street- Section 106 Review
In continuation of a previous meeting, the Commission received an invitation to comment on a proposed telecommunications facility at 320 Lafayette Street. The Commission requested additional information from the EBI Consulting regarding the visual effects of the facilities. EBI Consulting submitted the requested information to the Commission on April 10, 2014.
Documents & Exhibits
- Letter: 4/10/14
- Renderings
Ms. Lovett stated that MHC has found the project to have no adverse effect on historic resources, however EBI Consulting would still like to have an opinion from the Commission to include in their file.
Mr. Hart stated that given that MHC has found no adverse effect, the Commission should accept that decision.
The Commission members discussed that regardless of the findings of MHC, the installation is in close proximity to a historic district (Lafayette Street), which is also an entrance corridor into the City. They agreed that continual installation of telecommunications equipment detracts from the nature of the neighborhood and the community. This property in particular, has an extraordinary number of telecommunications facilities on the roof.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to draft a letter including the discussed comments. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
36 Federal Street – MHC Americans with Disabilities Act Consultation
The accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Department of Capital Assets Management submitted to the Commission an ADA Consultation Process form requesting a letter of support for a variance from altering the front granite steps at the Probate and Family Court building. The existing steps do not comply with accessibility requirements due to differing rises. In order to correct this issue, the steps would need to be reset or replaced, which would alter the iconic façade. While the front steps will not comply, they will be installing two new compliant ramps along both sides of the steps.
Documents & Exhibits
- ADA Consultation Process Form
The Commission members spoke in favor of the variance and agreed that the front stairs should be left unaltered.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to draft a letter of support for the variance. Ms. Turiel seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Approval of Minutes
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the vote on the minutes to the next meeting. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Correspondence
Ms. Bellin asked if Mr. Spang would circulate the pictures he took during the tour of the Footprint Turbine Hall. Commission members also asked if it would be possible to have another tour of the building.
Ms. Lovett stated that the Commission was included on the copy of a letter from MHC to the House of Seven Gables Settlement Association. MHC reviewed project plans for various buildings on the House of Seven Gables Settlement property. They have given approval of this work pending approval from the Commission.
Ms. Lovett updated the Commission on the Preservation Master Plan update project. MHC will be holding a kick off meeting soon. She will continue to keep the Commission up to date on the project.
The Commission discussed the thoroughness of applications and whether the application form should be revised to make the process clearer.
VOTE: There being no further business, Ms. McCrea made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Turiel seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Natalie BL Lovett
Community Development -Planner
| 
