SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
August 6, 2014
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, August 6, 2014 at 7:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Jessica Herbert (Chair), David Hart, Susan Keenan, Joanne McCrea, and Larry Spang. Ms. Harper arrived late.
310 Lafayette Street
Ken and Monica Leisey submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove the chiropractor sign located in the front yard, remaining from the previous owner.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 6/17/14
- Photographs: 6/17/14
There was no public comment.
VOTE: Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Hart seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Ms. Harper arrived at this time.
188 Derby Street
James Bailey submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace two front pillars alongside the front door. The pillars have deteriorated and the applicant is proposing to replace them with a synthetic pillar.
James Bailey was present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 6/30/14
- Photographs: 6/30/14
- Catalog
Mr. Hart asked for clarification on the specifications for the pillars.
Mr. Bailey responded that it would be a tapered fiberglass pillar (FRP Tuscan-style tapered round). The wood versions are made up of small pieces of wood. The last wood pillars, installed by a developer around 2000, have been fixed several times already and are still deteriorating. Prior to the pillars, the front porch was being held up with 4x4s. He showed the Commission a sample of the proposed pillar.
Ms. Herbert asked if the pillar would be painted.
Mr. Bailey responded that it could be painted.
Ms. Harper asked if the pillar will be the same dimensions as the existing and if the box at the bottom of the pillar would be replicated.
Mr. Bailey responded that the diameter would be the same (12” at the bottom and 10” at the top). He is unsure whether they will need to add to the bottom and if so if that will be built with wood or composite.
Mr. Hart stated that the columns are replacements and not historic to the building. He stated that he had worked on a project that had funding from Massachusetts Historical Commission and asked if they would approve fiberglass pillars; they denied the request. They were able to find a hardwood pillar to use for the project.
Mr. Bailey stated that he doesn’t feel it makes sense to use a substandard quality material for the pillars. Even the cedar pillars will be finger jointed and susceptible to water infiltration.
Ms. Keenan stated that the property is set back from the street, additionally it is susceptible to the ocean air which will accelerate the deterioration. She stated that she is OK with the fiberglass pillar in this case.
Mr. Bailey stated that his first choice is the fiberglass, the second option would be the dipped preserved wood to match the existing pillars.
Mr. Hart commented that the base of the pillar needs to have ventilation in order to guard against deterioration.
Mr. Spang stated that typically he doesn’t like the synthetics because the proportions and detail is not quite right. He wonders if they need a drawing that will show how the pedestal will be installed.
Ms. Herbert clarified that the column itself needs to be ordered to size to fit the space between the base and the capital.
Mr. Hart added that it should be a tuscan-style column.
Mr. Spang stated that the style would be similar to the pillar on page 11 of the product manual.
There was no public comment.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve a Tuscan-style column in 100% wood, sized to fit existing conditions with typical Tuscan details at the base, capital, and shaft. Painted to match the trim of the house. Ms. Harper seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
VOTE: Mr. Spang made a motion to approve a Turncraft FRP Tuscan round tapered pillar, sized correctly to fit from the stairs to the pediment as shown on page 11 of the catalog, and painted to match the existing trim. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. Ms. Keenan, Ms. McCrea, and Mr. Spang were in favor. Mr. Hart, Ms. Harper, and Ms. Herbert were opposed. The motion so failed.
29 Chestnut Street
Maura McGrane submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to make renovations to the rear ell of the house. The project will involve disassembly and reconstruction of the wood framed addition on north elevation. The reconstructed addition will be on the same footprint as the existing structure and recreate the height and roof pitch.
The existing wood frame ell is built of combined stick framing and larger wood framing. The structure rests on a partial rubble foundation faced with granite. The foundation extends only a few inches below grade. The structure is un-insulated and unheated, but is the primary entry into the house from the Warren Street driveway and garage. Electricity is the only utility in the structure.
The overhang of the existing ell will not be replicated. The reconstructed wall will continue the line of the wall immediately adjacent to the north brick wall of the house. The arched openings on the west side will be recreated as window and door openings. A second doorway will be added to the west side. The north gable end will have two windows rather than the window and door combination. The position of the windows on the east elevation will be shifted along with the door. The existing slate roof will be reinstalled. The cornice and rake molding will be salvaged for reuse or replicated. The project also includes the removal of aluminum sliding glass doors along the kitchen wing and installation of a window bay and a pair of windows at the location of the sliding glass doors.
An application was also submitted to install a cantilever sliding gate along the Warren Street driveway.
Maura McGrane, Grace McGrane and Lynn Spencer, the applicant’s architect, were present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 7/10/14
- Photographs: 7/10/14
- Drawings:5/28/14
Mr. Hart stated that he had a business relationship with Ms. Spencer 30 years ago, but has not since then, and does not feel it will affect his vote.
Ms. Spencer summarized the project for the Commission. She stated that they research the history of the rear addition, but were unable to find much information. They believe that it used to be a separate building on the property and was at one time moved and attached to the main building. All architectural woodwork will be reused or recreated in-kind. They are proposing simulated divided light window. She showed the Commission a sample of the window glass, one regular glass and one low-e. The paint colors will be Benjamin Moore Cottage Red on the body and Benjamin Moore Marble White for the trim.
She discussed the sliding glass doors in the kitchen. They believe that there was a plan for a deck at one time that never came to fruition. They are proposing to install a bay window in its place. This work will involve mortar analysis and matching to historic brick.
Ms. Herbert asked if the bay window can be seem from the street.
Ms. McGrane stated that it is minimally visible.
Ms. McGrane spoke to their need for the cantilever gate door. They have had numerous trespassers on their property and need the gate for security. The black post visible in the rendering is the gate mechanism.
Mr. Spang asked if it would be better for the innermost arched window to look like the french doors, just fixed in place.
Ms. Herbert stated that another option would be to have a fixed window rather than a doorway at the outermost opening.
Ms. Spencer stated that the use pattern for the area closest to the main house will be different. The reason for the window is that they are looking to keep the area as warm as possible.
Ms. Herbert asked for clarification on the platforms outside the french doors.
Ms. Spencer responded that there will be a platform although they are still unsure of the material.
There was no public comment.
VOTE: Ms. Harper made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
94-96 Derby Street
Townsend House Condominiums submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to block off one rear basement window and install a new dryer vent. The work also includes making repairs to the foundation which are the result of erosion and water infiltration.
Wendy Walsh was present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 7/16/14
- Photographs: 7/16/14
Ms. Lovett clarified that the front door repairs have already been approved through a Certificate of Non-Applicability.
Ms. Walsh presented to the Commission close-up pictures of the basement window. The inside of the window, behind the metal screen, is at a lower grade than the pavement. As a result, water infiltrates the basement.
Ms. Herbert asked if louvered venting could be used instead.
There was no public comment.
VOTE: Mr. Spang made a motion to approve the removal of the window and its screening, bricking in solid with a gray toned brick to match the granite and a louvered vent rather than the proposed pitched vent. Ms. Mccrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
131 Bridge Street
As a continuation of the discussion from the previous meeting, the City of Salem has requested comments from the Commission regarding a rehabilitation project being undertaken as part of the City’s Housing Rehabilitation Program. The property is located within a National Register district and, as a result, is subject to the Commission’s review.
Ms. Herbert stated that a comment could be that the 3rd floor windows should be 6/6 single pane wood windows with storms rather than vinyl.
Mr. Spang added that any deleading work on the exterior be done as sympatric to the historic fabric as possible.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to submit a letter stating all of the comments discussed by the Commission. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Approval of Minutes
VOTE: Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve the minutes of 6/18/14, with comments. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Mr. Hart gave the Commission a summary of the Point Neighborhood National Register nomination meeting.
Correspondence
Ms. Lovett stated that the Commission received a letter from MHC regarding the CLG Opinion for the Buffum Street district. MHC wrote that it is unable to concur with the Commissions opinion until an updated area form is completed for the street. The City does not have money to proceed with the area form update at this time.
Ms. Lovett stated that the Commission also CC’d on a letter from MHC regarding the telecommunications facility proposal for 217-222 Essex Street. MHC stated that the applicant should provide the Commission with the information it requested in its letter so that the Commission ca further review the project.
Ms. Lovett stated that additional archaeological reports have been completed for the Essex County Sewerage Pipeline and the Underground Cable Replacement project. These reports are available in the Commission’s files.
Ms. Herbert stated that she spoke with the consultant for the 310 Lafayette Street telecommunications facilities installation project. In order to have the existing antennae consolidated, the owner would need to request so from the various telecommunication providers.
VOTE: There being no further business, Mr. Hart made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Spang seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Natalie BL Lovett
Community Development Planner
| 
