SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
October 1, 2014
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, October 1, 2014 at 7:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Jessica Herbert (Chair), Kathy Harper, Susan Keenan, David Hart, Joanne McCrea, and Jane Turiel.
8 Gifford Court
As a continuation of the previous meeting, Robin O’Neil & Shirley Walker submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove the asphalt shingle siding and repair and repaint the underlying clapboards. The application was continued in order to allow the contractor time to remove the asphalt siding and evaluate the extent of the repairs necessary to the underlying clapboards as well as to better determine which trim details will need to be reproduced.
Robin O’Neil was present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 8/14/14
- Photographs: 9/15/14
Ms. O’Neil stated that there is a 3” gap between the corner and the clapboards. There was undoubtedly a 3” corner boards there. For the skirt board, there will be a 3” strip of wood installed with a 45 degree slant.
Ms. Herbert stated that the skirt board, typically, is approximately 6” wide.
Ms. O’Neil responded that the skirt board is there, but there is a gap between the skirt board and clapboards. There are no other repairs necessary to the clapboards.
Mr. Hart asked what material would be used for the corner boards.
Ms. O’Neil stated that it would be wood, likely pine. She asked if the paint color for the siding should be semi gloss or flat.
Mr. Hart responded that it should not be flat, the paint should have some gloss. He stated that the clapboards should be carefully power washed because the water can get under the clapboards, resulting in damage.
Ms. Harper stated that her house had asphalt siding when she bought it, which they removed. They did not have the clapboards power washed and their paint has held up.
There was no public comment.
VOTE: Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve the application, as submitted and discussed. Ms. Turiel seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
330 Essex Street
Hugh & Diane Pyle and Melanie Griffin & Benjamin Larrabee submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the existing slate roof with asphalt shingles. A majority of the existing slate tiles on both roof lines need to be replaced as they are showing significant flaking and powdering and have led to internal water damage and external rotting of the crown molding. The rear lower extension roofline has already been replaced with asphalt shingles. The proposed asphalt shingle would be a GAF Slateline in Antique Slate.
Diane Pyle was present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 9/15/14
- Photographs: 9/15/14
- Preserve Services Estimate
- JB Kidney Estimate
- Osgood Companies Estimate
Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission prefers for slate roofs to be retained, whenever possible, rather than replaced with asphalt.
Mr. Hart added that slate, depending on where it is from, can last for up to 100 years. He did not feel the email from JB Kidney fully addressed whether the roof could be salvaged. He recommended that the applicant get additional opinions. He is hesitant to approve the removal of a slate roof without additional information on the state of the roof and the extent of the damage.
Ms. Herbert read the email from JB Kidney stating that the condition of the roof.
Ms. Herbert read into the record a letter in opposition from Morris Schopf, 1 Cambridge Street.
Ms. Pyle stated that the cost to replace the roof would be $100,000, which is cost prohibitive. Replacement with the reuse of the existing slate, as quoted by Preserve Services, would be $43,000.
Ms. Pyle called Hugh Pyle to confirm the cost estimates for the slate repair, replacement, and installation of the asphalt shingles.
Ms. Herbert opened the discussion to public comment.
David Williams 342 Essex Street, spoke in opposition to removing the slate roof due to that it will remove part of the architectural history of Salem and may result in more slate roofs being removed.
Mr. Pyle, via phone, stated that they do have interior water damage due to water infiltration indicating that there are some major issues with sections of the roof.
Ms. Turiel stated that she feels that given the disparity of the roof repair estimates, she would also like to see additional estimates for the restoration and/or replacement.
Mr. Pyle, via phone, JB Kidney would not even get up on the roof to review the condition, because he felt it was in such poor condition. Given that there is interior water damage, they are hoping to replace the roof as soon as possible. He stated that the western roofline is in significantly worse condition than the rest of the roof.
VOTE: Ms. Turiel 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.
23 Congress Street
Salem Waterfront Hotel & Suites, LLC submitted an application for a Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance to demolish the entire structure in order to allow for a new 5-story building with restaurant and function space to be built at the location.
Tony Sasso, attorney for the property owner, was present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 9/17/14
- Photographs: 9/17/14
Atty. Sasso stated that they are currently applying for a Chapter 91 license. The new building will come right up to the Congress Street sidewalk. The Ch. 91 license will require a glass viewing area as well as the lengthening and widening of the Harborwalk along the property.
Mr. Hart stated that the demolition does demand recordation of the building. He would request, in addition to the information already provided, the vertical dimensions of the building. The dimensions can be submitted to the Historical Commission.
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.
Community Preservation Plan
The Community Preservation Committee requested comments on the annual Community Preservation Plan update. The Commission is requested to submit comments by November 20.
Mr. Hart stated that he skimmed through the Plan and there does not appear to be any holes in the Plan, however there are a lot of details to review.
The Commission members agreed to review the Plan and fill out the survey form with their comments for the next meeting.
Other Business
Review of application form for Certificates of Appropriateness
Ms. Lovett presented the Commission members with a revised draft of the Application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. The new draft incorporates the Commission members’ comments and feedback. Ms. Lovett stated that she will email the draft to the remainder of the Commission members so that they have a chance to see the final draft prior to the Commission voting to approve it.
Correspondence
Ms. Herbert stated that she is concerned with the number of telecommunications installations going up around the City. She noted that the applicants for the telecommunications projects are the telecommunications companies, rather than the owners. She believes the owner should be involved in the review of the Section 106 application. The Commission needs to find out more information about other design options for the antennae.
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
| 
