Historical Commission

March 17, 2021, Page 1 of 4 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES March 17, 2021 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, March 17, 2021 at 6:00 pm Zoom Virtual Meeting Present were; Reed Cutting, Milo Martinez, Mark Meche, Stacey Norkun, Mark Pattison, Erin Schaeffer and Larry Spang. Not present: Rebecca English, Vijay Joyce. 5R Broad Street/Broad Street Cemetery – CONTINUATION The City of Salem submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a historical marker at Broad Street Cemetery. Documents & Exhibits ▪ Application: 2/19/21 ▪ Photographs Ms. Norkun recused herself as a direct abutter. Mr. Kim Emerling, Director of Veterans Services for Salem, was present to discuss the project. Mr. Emerling stated that the proposed marker is for Brigadier General Frederick West Lander and they would need to remove the brick façade, compose the wording and install it. The Veterans Council is back to requesting a bronze marker with fewer words, to fit over the existing brick façade with 1” exposure of brick around the edge of the marker. Chair Spang suggested removing the brick and installing stone which way be more difficult. Mr. Emerling replied that a bronze marker would last longer than the ground mounted smaller markers and they want this to be similar to the Pickering House. They will edit the text on option #1 and will add a rededication date of March 31, 2021, so it’s known that the marker is not historic. Mr. Meche noted that this method won’t damage the historic brick. Mr. Pattison arrived at this point in the meeting. Chair Spang stated that if the removed the brick you may see into the tomb. Mr. Pattison suggested keeping a marble stone but adding a free-standing marker, so the face of the tomb doesn’t change. Mr. Emerling noted that Peter Rossy sent this to the person who will create the marker. Mr. Meche noted that the brick is already a change to the façade and offered to review the proposed wording and marker size or a mock-up to ensure the writing is legible when standing. Ms. Kelleher stated that the Pickering plaque had an installation date added to it and a similar headstone at Howard Street to indicate that it was also added by descendants and is not a historic feature. Public Comment: Michael Steinitz, Friends of Broad Street Cemetery. Supported the introduction of information material but would prefer something not affixed to the tomb. Structures North recently did an assessment of the structures and some tombs aren’t in good condition or lean. This tomb may not be in good shape and it would be better to straighten the face of the tomb rather that attach something with added weight. He asked if anyone has probed the tomb to see if there is an apron. The executive committee supports their efforts but would advise caution to affixing anything to the tomb. Mr. Meche agreed with Mr. Pattison, affixing the plaque is reversable but more should be done to resolve the problem. He tested the text on the proposed marker size and the lettering would be between 5/8” – 1/2” high that  March 17, 2021, Page 2 of 4 could be visible from approximately 6-feet away. Chair Spang stated that he would prefer to see the marker on the ground, so it does not become a wall with a plaque. It should remain just a burial tomb but he is willing to support it. Mr. Martinez agreed with Chair Spang and added that if the plaque were flat to the ground, it could be even larger but placement on the tomb isn’t the best option. Chair Spang suggested they reuse the foot pad if it is still there. Ms. Schaeffer suggested a continuance to determine whether the flat ground stone exists and the condition of the tomb. Ms. Kelleher replied that the report stated that the wall leans back and should be watched in the future. Chair Spang noted that drilling four holes to secure a plaque on the tomb may not be sufficient. VOTE: Mr. Cutting made a motion to approve as submitted. Ms. Schaeffer seconded the motion. Roll Call: Cutting, Meche, Schaeffer, Martinez, Spang were in favor. Mr. Pattison was not in favor. 5 in favor and 1 not in favor, and the motion so carried. 3 Lynn Street James Moran submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness copper gutter and downspouts. Documents & Exhibits ▪ Application: 3/1/21 ▪ Photographs Mr. Moran was present to discuss the project. Mr. Moran stated that the house had no gutters on the main structure and aluminum on the addition, but heavy rain runs down the face of the façade and heavy icicles in the winter. They are proposing a half round double-bead copper gutter with two downspouts at 3” in diameter with a bottom elbow. The metal roof at the door would be copper and the two lower windows would receive copper caps. The downspouts would be attached to the corner board which is a minimum of 6-inches wide. JB Kidney will perform the work. Mr. Meche stated that the inventory form shows a downspout at this location in 1981. Public Comment: Ms. Kelleher stated that she received one letter of support from Meg Twohey. Alan Hanscom, SATV. Stated that the Google Street view from 2012 shows a gutter and downspout. Mr. Meche added that the gutter was a half round gutter in 1975. No one else in the assembly wished to speak. VOTE: Ms. Norkun made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Pattison seconded the motion. Roll Call: Cutting, Norkun, Meche, Pattison, Schaeffer, Martinez, Spang were in favor. 7 were in favor and the motion so carried. 50 Bridge Street Francesca R. Sparacio and Randy Greenspan submitted an application for a Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance to demolish rear building. Documents & Exhibits  March 17, 2021, Page 3 of 4 ▪ Application: 2/24/21 ▪ Photographs Mr. Greenspan was present to discuss the project. Mr. Greenspan stated that that the property is in an R2 zone but has two buildings, one is a residence and the other is zoned as commercial. It is wood with no foundation, some concrete slabs are at different heights, it’s in poor shape and the neighbors have complained. The Building Commissioner made a site visit last year and determined that it needed to come down. but they never received official documentation. They have an architect to construct an addition but need to remove the structure first. The neighbors said the previous owner added a porch to help stabilize the structure. Ms. Kelleher stated that the inventory form has it was constructed in 1873, is in the early Bridge Street Neck area, but it is currently not in good condition. Mr. Greenspan noted that two architects reviewed it and deemed that there is nothing significant at the interior to salvage. The Fire Department also came out to take photos. They are proposing to construct a 2-car garage with a 3-bedroom apartment above, making it one large building. Mr. Meche noted that the applicant went to ZBA for lot size because they need 15,000 square-feet and the lot is only 8,000 square-feet. Chair Spang requested a site visit before they speak on the project and that a report from the Building Commission be submitted stated that the structure should be demolished. He also suggested that the new structure have some of the characteristics of the existing. Mr. Greenspan stated that the new garage will be located where the driveway is now. He has not been on the second floor of the structure in years, it was used for storage, but the roof now leaks making the upper level dangerous. The structure will be attached to the residence rather than separated due to zoning restrictions, which will give them a 30-foot x 66-foot rear yard. Ms. Schaeffer suggested the applicant seek a special permit to reuse the structure and lift it to add a foundation below it. Mr. Greenspan replied that there is nothing to salvage. Ms. Schaeffer noted that the juxtaposition on the property is important and these two being separate is important although not practical given the proposal. Ms. Norkun agreed and noted that she too would need formal paperwork before she felt comfortable voting for a demo delay and agreed that the new structure could mimic the features of the existing structure to continue the narrative. Chair Spang suggested the applicant could return to the ZBA and request to rebuild the carriage house and create parking at two levels. The streetscape has garage doors which is never a good condition. Mr. Greenspan replied that he would have issues with creating parking for all the vehicles without zoning relief. Chair Spang noted his concern with the proposed massing and location and the 6-month demo delay from the date of application. Ms. Schaeffer noted that if the applicant had an interest in a Special Permit and parking relief it could produce a different outcome. Mr. Greenspan replied that he looked at both options and this made more sense than salvaging the existing structure and they’d prefer the garage. Public Comment: No one in the assembly wished to speak. VOTE: Mr. Meche made a motion to continue to the next regular meeting on April 7th, 2021. Mr. Pattison seconded the motion. Roll Call: Cutting, Norkun, Meche, Pattison, Schaeffer, Martinez, Spang were in favor. 7 were in favor and the motion so carried. The Commission agreed to a site visit on Saturday, March 20, 2021 at 9AM. Other Business  March 17, 2021, Page 4 of 4 Women’s Friend Society: Ms. Kelleher stated that the organization has requested a letter of support for their CPA application to restore their original windows. They have been investing a lot in their building, but they also have a preservation restriction on the building so there is significant oversight. VOTE: Mr. Martinez made a motion to support the grant application and draft letter. Mr. Cutting seconded the motion. Roll Call: Cutting, Norkun, Meche, Pattison, Schaffer, Martinez, Spang were in favor. 7 were in favor and the motion so carried. Design Guidelines Update: Ms. Kelleher updated the Commission on the progress of the Design Guidelines Update. Mr. Pattison suggested including what traditional fence designs look like. Chair Spang noted that there are differences to historic and there needs to be specifics. Ms. Kelleher noted that they completed phase 1 (looking over the guidelines and comparing them to other across the country) including layout, pros and cons, architectural styles, etc. The consultant is getting up to speed with Salem. They will visit Salem and the historic districts at the end of the month, and possibly hold a stakeholder meeting and a joint meeting with the Commission or one on one. The guidelines will include a segment relating to climate change The project is funded by MHC who will also review their progress. Meeting Minutes No meeting minutes to review. Violations Mr. Martinez asked about the status of the Gedney Street retaining wall at 49 Summer Street and the fence violation at 384 Essex Street. Chair Spang noted that he spoke to owner of the retaining wall about what was built. 123 Federal Street: Chair Spang stated that the applicant is submitting a revised application for their proposed fencing on April 7th. Ms. Kelleher noted that she spoke with the realtor, the new owner, and City Solicitor to resolve the issues. The current owner submitted a new application last week to keep the side fences the way they were built but this design is substantially different. She told the realtor that more substantial changes are required, and the application submitted was not accepted. Mr. Martinez stated that the status of the fence violation at Hodges Court also needs to be updated. Adjournment VOTE: Cutting made a motion to adjourn. Pattison seconded the motion. Roll Call: Cutting, Norkun, Meche, Pattison, Schaffer, Martinez, Spang. 7 were in favor and the motion so carried. The meeting adjourned at 7:40PM Respectfully submitted, Patti Kelleher Community Development Planner