Historical Commission

April 15, 2020, Page 1 of 5 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES April 15, 2020 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 7:00 pm via Zoom Virtual Meeting platform. Present were: Reed Cutting, David Hart, Vijay Joyce, Milo Martinez, Stacey Norkun, Mark Pattison, Erin Schaeffer, and Larry Spang (Chair). 78 Federal Street - continuation Victoria Alla submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace windows Documents & Exhibits ▪ Application: 2/27/20 ▪ Photographs Ms. Kelleher stated that she didn’t hear back from the applicant and she noted that the board had questions that required a response. She recommended denying without prejudice because the application is nearing the 60-day deadline. The applicant could then reapply at any time. Public Comment: No one in the assembly wished to speak. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to deny without prejudice because the applicant didn’t come before the Commission or respond to the Commission’s questions. Mr. Joyce seconded the motion. Mr. Pattison, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Hart, Mr. Cutting, Ms. Schaeffer, Ms. Norkun, and Chair Spang were in favor and the motion so carried. 6 South Pine Street Matthew Murphy and Sarah Morrill submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness to install skylights on rear ell Documents & Exhibits ▪ Application: 3/24/20 ▪ Photographs ▪ Drawings by Helen Sides Matthew Murphy and Sarah Morrill, owners, and Helen Sides, architect, were present to discuss the project. Ms. Sides stated that originally her clients wanted windows on the west side of the house as well as at the rear. They’ve opted to eliminate the proposed west windows and now proposed only the window and skylights at the North and South elevations. She noted that the Commission previously approved a new dormer but the owners are still considering whether or not to include it. They are now proposing 14” diameter skytubes rather than skylights on both roof slopes of the one story Kitchen addition to capture light and brighten the interior space. The roof panel would be slightly larger and would be flat to the roof surface. They would appear black/charcoal grey like the roof. They would be slightly visible from South Pine and the other would be remotely visible behind the chimney. Ms. Sides added that at the previous meeting the Commission approved 2 skylights on the upper gambrel roof that can’t be seen from the street. At front elevation, the Commission approved a dormer to match the existing. They didn’t move forward with the double window at the end of the gambrel roof and there are no plans to add them at either gable end. Mr. Murphy reported that the previously approved fence was moved back to door with a return at either end and the rear shed has been installed. Ms. Morrill added that they added brick at the driveway and will add cobblestones  April 15, 2020, Page 2 of 5 this spring. Ms. Norkun stated that she is uncomfortable approving a skylight that would be so visible from the street even if it’s low profile. Mr. Cutting requested the exterior dimensions. Ms. Sides replied approximately 18- inches x 18-inches, black and flush with the roofline making them less visible than a skylight. There would be one on each side. Ms. Norkun asked if the tube was aluminum and reflective. Mr. Spang asked if light from the kitchen will come up out of the skylight making it an illuminated circle at night. Ms. Sides replied the she didn’t know but they could add a shield to keep the light from projecting out. Mr. Pattison asked if the tube went right up to the glass making it easily visible. Ms. Sides replied yes. Mr. Joyce noted that he doesn’t mind adding a suntube to the left side, but it won’t blend in at night, particularly with a roof pitch so low to the ground, despite it being the most low-profile way to capture that light. Mr. Pattison suggested two be added on the rear slope and eliminate the one on the front slope. Ms. Sides suggested they connect two tubes to one hole like ductwork since they are made to be bent and snaked through spaces. Mr. Cutting expressed concern with losing the light intensity with so many bends. Ms. Sides agreed and noted that additional duct would use up more interior eave space that is currently used for storage. They can explore how to make them less noticeable. The driveway side is most important because it faces East. They could have two that are in-line with the chimney but still above the chimney. They can also determine whether one is adequate or two. A traditional skylight won’t work because it would eliminate too much of their interior storage space. Mr. Cutting agreed that skytubes are the best solution. Public comment. No one in the assembly wished to speak. Mr. Hart stated that he would support Mr. Cutting’s suggestion that this be approved without setting a precedent. Chair Spang agreed with not wanting to set a precedent but noted his concern over a foreign illuminated dot on a flat roof. He had less of an issue with them placed on the other side of the roof. Ms. Sides assured the Commission that they would only see a square not the circle. Mr. Pattison suggested they install one for review. Ms. Sides replied that her clients would want to do all the work at once. Mr. Murphy and Ms. Morrill requested time to investigate whether light would escape the opening at night. Mr. Murphy added that a nearby owner has installed suntubes on their property and he could ask them to provide night photos after doing some exploration. Ms. Schaeffer noted that other historic buildings have interior light that emanates at night. Mr. Joyce recommended covering with a baffle at night. Chair Spang replied that he didn’t want an approval based on the applicant remembering to close off the light at night and requested the manufacturer provide an example installation for review. Ms. Sides requested a continuance. VOTE: Mr. Cutting made a motion to continue to the next regular meeting. Mr. Pattison seconded the motion. Pattison, Martinez, Hart, Joyce, Cutting, Schaeffer, Norkun, and Chair Spang were all were in favor and the motion so carried. 160 Federal Street – continuation Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, submitted a Certificate of Appropriateness to renovate the building Documents & Exhibits ▪ Application: 3/13/20 ▪ Photographs ▪ Drawings by Icon Architects Mickey Northcutt CEO and David Valecillos Project Manager of the Northshore CDC, Attorney Scott Grover of Tinti & Navins, and Quinn Stuart of VHB were present to discuss the project. Atty. Grover stated they are seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness and the rehabilitation of this structure also falls under the Municipal and Religious Adaptive Reuse Overlay District. Chair Spang noted that the DRB will also review this application next week and the new ordinance requires DRB and SHC comment.  April 15, 2020, Page 3 of 5 Mr. Northcutt stated that they presented this project to the Planning Board on March 6th. The CDC is the developer and they’ve signed a 99-year lease with Archdiocese of Boston. This building will use both state and federal tax credits. They’ve also submitted and received historic credit allocations prior to signing the lease. This building will have 70% affordable and 30% market rate units, and they are maximizing the affordable unit number. They are gearing the building towards 55+ households given its proximity to downtown and the Community Life Center (CLC) next door. Mr. Northcutt stated that there is a large rear parking lot on the north of the building that connects to Bridge Street. Therefore, the north elevation will be the primary entrance although Federal Street will still retain the historic main entrance. They will add landscaping, greenscape, and a brick sidewalk along Federal Street. They will restrict access between the building and the neighboring church. Ms. Stuart stated that the windows are rundown but original. They will restore the windows, repair the sills, and possibly replace some of the glazing. Some rear window sashes have been removed and the openings filled in; new replica windows will be installed. Historically- appropriate hardware and paint color will be used, and the only modern element is an interior energy skrim that has already been approved by MHC. There will be some interior patching, but it is mostly sound. The roof status is unknown. The major replacement item will be the doors that will be replaced with the original doors. The project will meet the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. Ms. Stuart added that they started their review process one year ago and the National Park Service (NPS) has had their application. They also received allocation from MHC almost 1-year ago, and MHC will review the final details. Mr. Joyce asked if any new windows will be added. Ms. Stuart replied only at the previously infilled openings, but they will also create a window at the front lower level leading to the Boiler Room, where original windows were probably used for coal. These were probably infilled when they stopped using coal, it leads to the boiler room. Chair Spang appreciated the exterior site plan improvements and asked if the exterior crosses on the roof will remain. Mr. Northcutt replied that the exterior cross may remain unless its deteriorated. Ms. Norkun asked if MHC and the Park Service has jurisdiction over new items, like the new rear canopy. Ms. Stuart replied that MHC has overview, but the canopy is minimal, as to not detract from the building. Ms. Kelleher stated that the Bridge Street is not within the Commission’s jurisdiction, and the canopy is not visible from Federal Street but can be seen from Flint Street. Ms. Stuart that the view of the canopy would be diminished from so far away. Chair Spang asked if the two existing brick piers at the front entrance would remain. Ms. Stuart replied that they were added in the 1970-80’s, the entrance will remain active and the covering will provide shelter. Chair Spang asked if MHC or NPS stated that they can stay or need to be removed. Ms. Stuart replied that they received no comment on them and they are existing. If they were to be replaced there would be a conversation about what the covering would look like. If they are not being altered then they can remain as is and they tell a story of the evolution of the building. Public Comment: No one in the assembly wishes to speak. Ms. Schaeffer noted her excitement with the project. Mr. Joyce agreed. VOTE: Mr. Martinez made a motion to approve as submitted. Mr. Hart seconded the motion. Pattison, Martinez, Hart, Joyce, Cutting, Schaeffer, Norkun, and Chair Spang were all were in favor and the motion so carried. Atty. Grover requested an approval letter from the Commission to provide to the Planning Board as part of the review under the Municipal and Religious Building Reuse Ordinance. The Commission agreed. 13 Hawthorne Boulevard – continuation Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston, Request for Comment under the Municipal & Religious Building Reuse Ordinance  April 15, 2020, Page 4 of 5 Mickey Northcutt CEO and David Valecillos Project Manager with the Northshore CDC, Attorney Scott Grover of Tinti & Navins, and Quinn Stuart of VHB were present to discuss the project. Atty. Grover stated that this school building next to the Immaculate Conception Church is just outside the historic district boundaries. Under the Municipal and Religious Building Reuse Ordinance, the Commission must provide comment on the plans. Mr. Northcutt stated that this 1941 school building will be renovated for living/workspace for creative professionals due to the excellent interior light, high ceilings and 6,000 square-foot Auditorium. They considered adding additional apartments at the upper level of the auditorium but didn’t want to break up the space. It will be a communal space and art gallery. They will explore adding slop sinks, dark room, etc. and it can be open to the public at times. This is the Northshore CDC’s first building in downtown Salem, and they know and understand the detail of historic restoration. Ms. Sturt stated that the oversized double-hung window of the main school building are damaged and 80% of them have severe rot and deterioration. MHC has approved replacing most of those windows including some that have already been replaced with vinyl windows. They will maintain the front and side entry for residential use and will clean and repaint as needed. The rear Auditorium and Gym have large windows in varying condition and they are proposing to restore them rather than replace them. The windows will be removed, cataloged, restored and reinstalled with interior storms added for energy savings. The mixture of historically inaccurate doors and windows that will be replaced at the rear and a new HC ramp and window will be added at the loading dock for accessibility to the rear parking off Union Street. The basement windows will have shallow wells to the lower residential units that won’t require railings. The full height windows at the gym will be retained and anything in need of replacing will be replaced in kind. The front elevation windows are hardwood, and window inventory was dome to identify what would be replaced, salvageable and existing to remain. The new windows will be double glazed with exterior applied muntins that match the existing profile with a spacer to mimic a true divided lite window. The building’s masonry is in good condition and will be repaired inkind. Chair Spang requested a review of the site plan. Ms. Stuart replied that at the property boundary between building and the church. They will provide a public walk on the North side of the building. Ms. Kelleher noted the existing chain-link fence a rear of the property along Union Street. Mr. Northcutt replied that it will be retained and repaired. VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve a letter of support from the Commission. Mr. Pattison seconded the motion. Pattison, Martinez, Hart, Joyce, Cutting, Schaeffer, Norkun, and Chair Spang were all were in favor and the motion so carried. Meeting Minutes No minutes to review. Violation Notices No violations to report. Correspondence There was no correspondence.  April 15, 2020, Page 5 of 5 Other Business Mr. Martinez stated that the HSI Education Committee met the day before. Ms. Kelleher noted that she and Emily Udy of HSI spoke to several neighborhoods about historic protections. Mr. Joyce noted that this effort has been put on hold during the COVID-19 shutdown but HSI has set up links on their website to distribute the information. Mr. Martinez stated that the Common Neighborhood Association wants to contact Ray Jodoin about new LED lights that have been installed on the Common. Ms. Kelleher stated that she will contact DPW, Parks Dept & Electrical Department too. Ms. Kelleher stated that the new apron at the Common Bandstand was poured last week. Mr. Martinez stated that a tree fell along the east perimeter of the Common due to rot. VOTE: Mr. Cutting made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Joyce seconded the motion. Pattison, Martinez, Hart, Joyce, Cutting, Schaeffer, Norkun, and Chair Spang were all were in favor and the motion so carried. Respectfully submitted, Patti Kelleher Community Development Planner