SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
March 4, 2015
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 7:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Jessica Herbert (Chair), Laurie Bellin, David Hart, Susan Keenan and Jane Turiel.
Larry Spang, arrived later in the meeting.
18 Washington Square West
As a continuation of a previous meeting, the Hawthorne Hotel submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to modify the hotel’s main entrance for universal accessibility. The changes include the installation of a new ramped entrance to replace the existing temporary ramp, a lowered sidewalk, curb cut, and new handrails and planters along the ramp.
At a previous meeting, the Commission approved the installation of the planters and removal of the associated step. The Commission found that they did not have jurisdiction over the ramp, curb cut, or sidewalk. Discussion of the handrail design was continued.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 10/20/14
- Photographs
- Grey Architects, Inc. Plan dated 8/1/14
- Rendering
- Newel Post Options Draft dated 12/2/14
Ms. Guy stated that the applicant has requested a continuance to the meeting of April 1, 2015.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to the April 1, 2015 meeting. Mr. Hart seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
57 Warren Street
As a continuation of a previous meeting, Kimberly Sparks submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a ductless mini-split heating/cooking system. The work was previously completed and the Commission issued a violation letter and requested the owner submit an application of approval for the work. The exterior portion of the system consists of two heat pump inverters and a series of PVC conduit runners connecting the inverters to the internal portion of the system. The inverters are located behind bushes on the side of the house that faces Warren Street Court, and are hidden of view from the street. The PVC conduit runners are visible from Warren Street, but the majority are hidden by the bushes and trees on Warren Street Court side of the house.
Ms. Sparks was present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 1/3/15
- Photographs: 1/3/15
Ms. Guy noted that Ms. Keenan and Mr. Spang cannot vote on this application, having not been present for two meetings where the application was discussed.
Ms. Sparks provided a marked up picture showing what the conduit would look like if it were moved. She noted that there would still be short section of vertical piping on the front.
Ms. Bellin asked if it could be moved the other way so it is closer to the bay window.
Mr. Sparks stated that it were possible, but it would be more obvious on the inside.
Mr. Spang joined the meeting at this time.
Ms. Herbert stated that she preferred anything than can be done to minimize the piece of conduit. She added that it will be better for the value of the house.
Mr. Hart stated that the proposed is better than the existing, but agreed it would be good to get as close as possible to bay.
Ms. Bellin suggested it be a little more to the left (as drawn), like a sideways “C”.
Ms. Sparks stated that she felt it could be done.
MOTION: Mr. Hart made a motion to accept modification of the exterior piping as shown on exhibit 2 with further modification that the vertical element exit point be moved as far as possible to the circled dot on the photo, which is close to the bay window trim. The vertical piece to painted to match the house body color. Ms. Turiel seconded the motion.
VOTE: All were in favor, and the motion so carried. Mr. Spang and Ms. Keenan abstained from voting.
8 Botts Court
Alexander Marks and Kimberly Tompkins submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install two roof vents. The vents are necessary in order to decrease the temperature differential between the living and attic spaces as a result of 6” of new spray insulating foam having been installed in the attic. The vent will be either mushroom or square shaped. The precise location of the upper roof vents is unknown. Ideally, they will install the new vents at an equal distance and spacing from the existing vents.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 1/31/15
- Photographs: 1/31/15
- Contract for Products/Service Work: Conservation Services Group dated 1/15/15
- Explanation of need: 3/3/15
Mr. Marks was present.
Mr. Marks stated that a MassSave assessor provided information on why more ventilation is needed.
Mr. Hart stated that his understanding is that the application is for two vents.
Mr. Marks replied in the affirmative and stated that the two could wind up in any of the three locations noted. The vents would be on the low angle of the roof.
Mr. Spang asked if they can be put on the back of the house, rather than front.
Mr. Marks stated that Rick at Atlantic initially expressed that there is flexibility, but noted that he needed to get up there, and may need one to be close to the front. He stated that Rick now thinks he could put both in the back of the roof. MassSave believes there are five vents currently on the roof. Mr. Marks stated that he believes the two raised sections on upper part are where two of the five existing vents are located. The amount of vents needed is based on the size of the attic and he was told they do not have enough ventilation.
Ms. Bellin asked if three are on the Botts Court side and two are on the back.
Mr. Marks replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Herbert asked the type of the existing vents.
Mr. Marks stated that it is believed they are 8” rectangular, but was not 100% sure how this was estimated.
Ms. Herbert asked if there has been any discussion about changing the existing vents to larger vents in order to gain what is needed.
Mr. Marks stated that it is possible to re-write the contract to expand the capacity of the existing vents, and that he was told it is more expensive and is a difficult job. He was told that they prefer not to go that route and that they would rather cut two new holes.
Mr. Hart stated that he did not feel there is a good plan of where existing are located.
Ms. Guy stated that they appear to be minimally visible.
Ms. Bellin stated that she also did not know exactly where the proposed are going. She asked who makes the decision. She noted that larger vents could become visible.
Mr. Marks stated that Atlantic makes the decision. He noted that, if they back out, he would have to find another MassSave approved contractor.
Ms. Keenan stated that she though the applicant should get another opinion.
Mr. Hart stated that when ventilating an upper roof, an option is for a louvered vent in the vertical wall.
Mr. Spang stated that for two vents on the vertical wall, one would be very visible, but one could be more tucked away. He stated that the Commission needs to determine if a little vertical square vent is preferable to a mushroom on top.
Ms. Bellin stated that she also wanted to avoid making five existing vents larger which could make them more obvious.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to the April 1st meeting. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Correspondence
There was no correspondence
VOTE: There being no further business, Mr. Hart made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Turiel seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
| 