Historical Commission

Historical Commission Meeting Minutes - September 1, 2021, Page 1 of 9 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES September 1, 2021 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 6:00 pm via Zoom Virtual Meeting. Present were: Patti Kelleher (staff), Milo Martinez, Larry Spang (Chair), Mark Meche, Rebecca English, Stacy Norkun, Mark Pattison. Not present: Reed Cutting, Vijay Joyce. Presentation on Recreational Fishing Pier, Salem Willows Park Chair Spang asked for clarification on jurisdiction, i.e. that the Commission is only being asked for comments and review on the presentation. Comments will be delivered to MHC as part of review process. Seth Lattrell (Salem City Planner) and Ross Kessler DMF (public access coordinator with Division of Marine Fisheries) were present on behalf of the City to discuss the ADA fishing pier. DMF will be seeking funding in affiliation with the City. MHC will have Section 106 review with the Army Corps, and comments will be ongoing throughout review by multiple agencies/entities. The project is at northeastern point of Salem Willows Park. Images were shown of existing/intended pier. Views looking north and westerly were shown. The conditions for these piers are heavily deteriorated. Pier has been largely closed since Winter Storm Nemo 2013 and has been inaccessible for last 8 years, causing issues for/with harbormaster. Originally permitted in 1894 by Harbor and Land Commission. MHC has 1975 listed as construction date of current pier. Several repair projects were carried out over the years. This is not considered a contributing structure to the Salem Willows Historic District. Entirely timber construction, 176 existing piles, 345 feet long, 220 feet wide. Small section that necks down to 8 feet. Elevation is about 9 or 10 feet. The proposal is a two-phase project; phase 1 is demolition of existing pier. An analysis has been carried out with an engineer that determined the existing pier is not worth or feasible to save at this point given age of timber. More cost-effective to reconstruct. Waterside and shoreside work will be needed, TBD during bidding process. Phase 2 will be to reconstruct the pier largely within existing footprint. Incorporating T-head at end and reducing width; length reduced by about 10 feet; increase fishing access; replacing float system. On north side, historically public access float has existed somewhat separate from DMF project. The elevation of the pier will be lifted; existing elevation of 9-10 feet will be raised to a proposed 13 feet. Greater height was selected (1) for resiliency purposes and (2) to balance accessibility. This is primarily a fishing pier, hence DMF’s responsibility as primary funding source. The intent is to not limit functionality of structure. Materiality; existing is timber. Timber and steel will be incorporated in proposed condition. Existing 176 piles will be ideally reduced to 76 steel piles, likely rock-socketed into bedrock for portions of pier. Superstructure on top of steel piles will be timber decking, timber stringers, timber posts, and steel railings. Image of Deer Island Fishing Pier was shown as most recent fishing/fishery project to show off the shape, look, and feel of materials that builders are going for. In terms of timeline, the comment period is about to close. File of notice and intent will be released to garner public comment. Hope is to get this work permitted by fall in order to bid and construct by end of 2021. Fall 2022 and spring of 2023 for completion. Chair Spang expressed positive reception to the project. He asked if a ramp and set of steps were featuring on the land side from the proposed site plan and profile. He recommended looking at a gentler ramp slope which would eliminate need for handrails and stairs. Mr. Kessler responded to note that the preference was in fact to have a gentler ramping system rather than stairs (the drawings presented were  Historical Commission Meeting Minutes - September 1, 2021, Page 2 of 9 noted as potentially having been out of date). Mr. Kessler noted that 25% ADA compatibility is being incorporated in the fishing area to allow for wheelchair access which will be a departure from existing structure. Mr. Kessler noted that what is being proposed will be hurricane resistant. Chair Spang inquired about light fixtures and whether lights were part of the planned proposal. Mr. Kessler noted that lights are not being planned at this time and that Deer Island had required them on a separate project. Mr. Meche asked how much rise the builders are dealing with. Mr. Kessler noted that the structure will be ADA compatible and will come back further to an existing pagoda. Chair Spang noted that the drawing shows a rise of 1.7 feet, give or take. David Smith was present on behalf of GZA and explained that the desire for the ramp was to balance height increase of pier. Options of higher elevation were looked at and held at elevation 13. Mr. Smith noted that going to a 1 and 20 ramp would interfere with intended pathway. What is showing is half the pier width of twelve feet and the ramp will be 6 feet as well. Mr. Meche proposed starting the ramp more offshore, get to 1 and 20, and not have to have steps. Mr. Smith noted that a robust abutment is being proposed and indicated that the ramp must be tied to seawalls on both sides; starting the ramp further out may create emergent issues to contend with. Mr. Meche noted that a landing would not be needed with a 1 and 20 because the ramp would blend into grade level. Mr. Pattison asked about the Deer Island pier model shown, specifically whether that had a height of 13 feet. Mr. Kessler was unsure of the height but noted that many piers are high and cite sea level rise as a factor to contend with; and also noted that the pier did not face northeast. Mr. Meche asked where the flood elevation design would be. Mr. Smith noted that the 100-year flood at Salem is 16 per FEMA. No public comment. Chair Spang expressed interest in taking care of water archaeological items. Mr. Meche asked if the pier is being detailed the same at the rail. Mr. Smith noted that rails at Harborwalk were a combination of metal, vertical balusters, robust railings, etc. The intended pier will have a sophisticated system of railings. Mr. Meche also clarified that materials are galvanized. Ms. Kelleher indicated that a letter of support would be drafted for the Commission’s approval. VOTE: Mr. Martinez made a motion to approve support for the planned proposal. Mr. Meche seconded the motion. Roll Call: Martinez, Norkun, English, Pattison, Meche were in favor and the motion so carried. 18 Chestnut Street - continuation Dorothy Kelleher requested a continuation for application to replace fence. Documents & Exhibits • Application: 5/3/21 • Photographs Ms. Kelleher reported that the applicant is still working with an architect to provide a sample fence gate as requested by the Commission. VOTE: Ms. English made a motion to approve the request to continue the application to the next meeting on September 15, 2021. Ms. Norkun seconded the motion. Roll Call: Martinez, Norkun, English, Pattison, Meche, Spang were in favor and the motion so carried.  Historical Commission Meeting Minutes - September 1, 2021, Page 3 of 9 262 Lafayette Street Unit 2 - continuation Justine Kolsky submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace windows. Documents & Exhibits • Application: 6/23/21 • Photographs • Product specifications Ms. Kolsky was not present on the call. VOTE: Mr. Martinez made a motion to continue the application to the next meeting on September 15, 2021. Ms. English seconded the motion. Roll Call: Martinez, Norkun, English, Pattison, Meche, Spang were in favor and the motion so carried. 33 Carlton Street Unit 3 -- continuation John Osborne submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a HVAC mini-split system. . Documents & Exhibits • Application: 7/6/21 • Photographs • Product specifications Mr. Osborne reported that he was having continued conversation with other condominium owners in the building about the Commission’s recommended changes and requested a continuation to the next meeting. VOTE: Mr. Meche made a motion to approve the request to continue the application to the next meeting on September 15, 2021. Mr. Martinez seconded the motion. Roll Call: Martinez, Norkun, English, Pattison, Meche, Spang were in favor and the motion so carried. 171 Federal Street – continuation Chris and Annie Thompson submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace windows. Documents & Exhibits • Application: 8/2/21 • Photographs • Product specifications Ms. Kelleher reported that several commission members met with the owners earlier this week to view the windows. The owners were initially proposing to replace the windows for deleading. They are now exploring options to restore the windows and have asked for a continuation.  Historical Commission Meeting Minutes - September 1, 2021, Page 4 of 9 VOTE: Ms. Norkun made a motion to approve the request to continue the application to the next meeting on September 15, 2021. Ms. English seconded the motion. Roll Call: Martinez, Norkun, English, Pattison, Meche, Spang were in favor and the motion so carried. 110 Federal Street James Daly submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove chain link fence and install evergreen plantings. Documents & Exhibits • Application: 8/15/21 • Photographs Ms. Kelleher reported that this application was reviewed under the minor change category and abutters were notified. Since no objections were received, a Certificate of Appropriateness was issued on August 27, 2021. 329 Essex Street Ian Popken submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install fountain. Documents & Exhibits • Application: 8/9/21 • Photographs Mr. Popken was present and noted that the Commission recently approved a new cast iron Victorian fence for perimeter of his property. The applicant stated that a portion of the property between Essex and Cambridge seems ideal for fountain. Mr. Popken located a period-appropriate 1880s cast iron fountain from an estate in Philadelphia and is in negotiations to bring it to Salem but wanted to check in with Commission’s reception as to its appropriateness. An image of the intended fountain was found. Chair Spang asked if the cast iron fountain had been painted. Mr. Popken surmised that the fountain is bronze and has likely become patina. The sellers believe the color is original, and rust is beginning to come through. Mr. Meche asked if cast iron is usually painted to keep it from rusting. The fountain looks as though it was white or patina green. Mr. Popken clarified that he has not yet seen the fountain in person. Chair Spang asked if a base for the fountain would be planned or procured. Mr. Popken noted that he has been in touch with folks at a granite restoration company to create a base that would match curbing surrounding the property. Mr. Meche asked if the Commission has authority over this matter, to which Ms. Kelleher noted that jurisdiction exists. Mr. Popken suggested that a plinth with a hole in it would be placed to access the cellar reservoir in order to provide water to the fountain. The applicant expressed interest in making this an active fountain. Ms. Norkun was in full support and pointed out that a fountain exists on Flint Street that is somewhat similar to the proposed fountain. Chair Spang showed an image via Google Maps of the existing fountain at 21 Flint Street. Mr. Popken noted that the fountain is self-contained, central area where water bubbles up over top before filling basin and inside of the column; water will not spill out over the top. Mr. Meche speculated that the Flint fountain has multiple basins and cascades. Mr. Martinez asked about the intent regarding color: patina green or black; as well as whether the fountain would be sanded or bead blasted. Mr. Popken noted that the fence will be matte black and asked if the fountain should be stripped and  Historical Commission Meeting Minutes - September 1, 2021, Page 5 of 9 painted black or left in its original condition. Mr. Meche and Ms. English expressed favor for patina. Mr. Martinez was supportive of either option and recommended treating the rust. Mr. Martinez also noted that the fountain would be handsome in black to match the fence. Mr. Meche asked if copper foil over cast iron was ever performed. Chair Spang raised questions on final installation in terms of the plinth size. Chair Spang expressed interest in seeing more details as to how the fountain is installed, exact location, plinth, final deliberation on color, etc. Mr. Popken desired to have the fountain in hand before determining final details. Mr. Pattison asked after plinth material which was said to be of a gray granite- type material. No public comment. VOTE: Mr. Martinez made a motion to approve the application in concept with final details to be determined at later meeting. Mr. Norkun seconded the motion. Roll Call: Martinez, Norkun, English, Pattison, Meche, Spang were in favor and the motion so carried. 361 Essex Street Darcy Birse submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install gutters and downspouts. Documents & Exhibits • Application: 8/16/21 • Photographs • Product specifications David Jaquith was present to represent the applicants. Mr. Jaquith requested a continuation to the Commission’s next meeting to allow time to familiarize himself with the property and proposal. VOTE: Ms. English made a motion to continue to October 6 meeting. Ms. Norkun seconded the motion. Roll Call: Meche, Pattison, Norkun, English, Martinez were in favor and the motion so carried. 337 Essex Street The Salem Athenaeum submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for accessibility improvements. Documents & Exhibits • Application: 8/16/21 • Photographs • Drawings by Spencer Preservation Group Jean Marie Procious (executive director at Salem Athenaeum), Lynn Spencer (principal, Spencer Preservation Group), and Doug Manley (principal, Spencer Preservation Group) were present. Ms. Spencer noted that a preliminary consultation meeting was carried out; the goal is to achieve handicap access through front entrance of Athenaeum. Building dates to 1904 and has strong presence on Essex Street. The Athenaeum has a strong civic and community engagement program which served as the impetus for the masterplan that Spencer Preservation Group has been working on. Improvements to the building for accessibility will make it easier for all members of the public to use and enjoy the  Historical Commission Meeting Minutes - September 1, 2021, Page 6 of 9 Athenaeum. What does it mean to introduce accessibility through a vertical lift. Mr. Manley noted the large flights of steps are impediments to accessibility. This formal architecture is not compatible with accessibility. Ms. Spencer noted that the project team, including members of Athenaeum as well as Mark Mazorelli, a landscape architect, explored grade issues and how to integrate the building’s walkway to the Essex Street sidewalk in a way that is respectful to all visitors. Solution proposed is an additional sidewalk off the main sidewalk that would lead via gentle slope to a vertical wheelchair lift that would bring individuals to landing level by front door. An additional six-inch landing would be added to the top of the existing staircase to provide access to the building at grade from the lift. Ms. Spencer noted that a handsome wrought-iron fence features here; introduction of gate will be added to that fence. Repurpose section of wrought-iron fence and maintain the existing curve in the fence. To do so, the design involves embedding granite curb at the grade level. When the building is open, the gate will be open by personnel rather than visitors. Mr. Manley noted that new landscaping would be in keeping with what already exists; rhododendrons and a new section of lawn with a new brick sidewalk into the new entry. A plant list was also shown to detail existing kinds of plants: lady ferns, pachysandra, azalea, etc. Ms. Spencer showed a visual of rendered impact of proposed changes. A brick wall will be built in front of the proposed vertical lift, will have a granite top to match existing granite. Proposing to paint enclosure of lift something like burnt sienna; not to replicate brick necessarily but to establish similar/same feel. Vertical lifts are not great outdoors, will require maintenance, but this is most sympathetic means of introducing access to all as well as respecting historic character of building. Mr. Manley spoke to plan for recessed lighting in ceiling of portico, adjustable lights, to support/provide access; as well as a lighted sign, minimal LED lighting. Product specs were shown for planned recessed lights, bricks, granite, and vertical lift. Details were also shown with dimensions, clearances, etc. Mr. Manley also noted that the proposal has been sent to Mass Historical Commission, which holds a preservation restriction on the building. MHC found no adverse effects to the historic character of the building. Ms. English asked if controls will be on outside of the lift or if staff will be needed to operate. Mr. Manley noted that operating buttons will be accessible to people who need to use it; the controls would be on mounted piece adjacent to the lift. Ms. Spencer noted that signage will also be used to direct users to lift. Ms. Norkun lauded the thoughtfulness of the application and design and expressed curiosity about bricks being used for the new wall in front of the lift. Ms. Spencer noted that the desire would be to match finish and color as closely as possible, using Stiles and Heart Brick Company. Ms. Spencer noted that cut brick set in an asphalt bed would aim to match brick façade to the planned brick walkway. Ms. Norkun also asked if the recessed lights would have a dimmer option. Ms. Spencer noted that the proposal includes 3,000K LED lights and agreed that it would be sensible to allow the lights to be controlled in terms of light temperature. Mr. Meche asked for clarification that the existing steps have bull nosing and asked if the landing at the top would be straight or bull-nosed. Mr. Manley answered that the plan is to replicate bull nose at the landing. The fence to gate transition was highly commended by Mr. Meche, though he expressed interest in seeing the red brick color become less conspicuous. Mr. Meche also expressed dislike for the color as well as the brick wall. Mr. Meche also expressed desire to let the brick become transparent like the iron work. Mr. Manley noted that the preferred placement was desired in order to provide better light to the window. Mr. Pattison echoed Mr. Meche’s comments about the brick wall in front of the lift, expressing openness to an alternative so as to not clash with existing brick of the building. Mr. Pattison asked about the intention with existing granite curb. Mr. Manley noted that the plan would be to recess the existing curb using same piece of stone. Mr. Pattison expressed aversion to LED lights, and asked if uplights from the ground could be used. Ms. Spencer noted that recessed lights would be less vulnerable than uplights which were used in the past and had been kicked over, rendered defunct in the past, etc. Mr. Manley and  Historical Commission Meeting Minutes - September 1, 2021, Page 7 of 9 Ms. Procious cited the desire to have the lights close to the sign of the building and avoid affecting neighbors’ windows. Mr. Pattison suggested that the lights over the building sign was more of a modern look. Mr. Martinez noted that the Commission did not have jurisdiction regarding lights when they are attached to the building. Mr. Martinez asked if the planned burnt sienna wall will always be up, which Mr. Manley and Ms. Spencer confirmed. Mr. Martinez proposed using the wall as a space for announcements or to show off neighborhood artwork instead of blending the wall away. No public comment. Mr. Martinez asked if the board members felt that the proposal should be broken into individual pieces given concerns raised: the landing, gate, brick wall, and mass. Mr. Pattison was open to individual pieces. Mr. Martinez noted that the landing should be in Milford Pink, granite 6” tall, with bull nose finish. Mr. Pattison asked if the same plinths that are in the columns now will be used. Mr. Manley affirmed that this is the case, specifying that the granite is 6” high and plinths are 9”. Ms. Spencer clarified that the plinths are marble, and Mr. Manley noted that one giant slab cannot be used so joints must be used to conform around the existing plinths. Mr. Manley noted that one extra tread is being added. VOTE: Mr. Meche made a motion to approve details of the landing in Milford Pink, with granite 6” tall, with bull nose finish. Mr. Pattison seconded the motion. Meche, Pattison, English, Norkun, Martinez were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Martinez noted that the Commission does not have jurisdiction over the brick path which is at grade. Mr. Martinez expressed approval for the overall materiality of the project. Mr. Meche expressed interest in knowing what else the designers have considered, and offered suggestions such as taking the white top off of the brick wall, decreasing transparency, or perhaps using no brick at all. Mr. Manley noted that the vertical lift is simply steel out of the box, something of a sheet metal monolith which would be an imposing feature, citing a desire to soften that impact. Mr. Meche asked if ironwork going from top to bottom had been considered, which Mr. Manley and Ms. Spencer affirmed. Ms. Spencer noted that placing ironwork from top to bottom would also be visually imposing, again citing the intent to soften the impact. Mr. Meche asked what material is on the side of the steps, which Mr. Manley noted was a gray concrete finish, cement parging for the side wall. Mr. Meche expressed desire for brick over parging. Ms. Spencer noted that the Athaneum wants to apply for grant funding, and permits are needed prior to applying. This project is not going to construction documents right away; jurisdictional permits are needed: historic district and Mass Historical Commission. VOTE: Ms. Norkun made a motion to approve details of the brick wall with the specification that materials be as close a match to bricks and mortar with a white cap as shown; as well as supporting the black fence as submitted. Ms. English seconded the motion. Roll call: Norkun, English and Martinez were in favor with Pattison and Meche opposed. The motion did not carry. Mr. Martinez explained that a bare quorum of 4 is always needed for any motion to pass. Mr. Pattison expressed interest in seeing a granite wall in front of the lift instead of the proposed extension of brick, noting that the extension as proposed looked out of place and unnatural. Mr. Meche also expressed interest in seeing different materiality for the wall in front of the lift, as well as a granite entrance and one less tread. Following the brick wall motion not passing, Mr. Meche expressed the desire to provisionally change “no” vote to “yes,” if permitted to do so.  Historical Commission Meeting Minutes - September 1, 2021, Page 8 of 9 Ms. Spencer expressed openness to continuing to think about the brick wall, such as the idea of lowering the wall so that it is not at the current landing level as well as the materiality. Ms. Spencer also clarified the current granite at the site is quite weathered whereas new granite will be Milford Pink rather than gray. VOTE: Mr. Pattison made a motion to have piece of fencing removed, converted to a gate, and have the curb sunken into grade as long as same piece of granite is used. Mr. Meche seconded the motion. Roll Call: Norkun, English, Pattison, Meche, Martinez were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Kelleher noted that guidance would be explored as to the possibility that Mr. Meche could alter vote on the brick wall motion. Ms. Spencer asked for clarification that the application could request another vote if the project design was amended. She suggested that the brick wall be lowered one tread and the height of the fence extended. Mr. Pattison asked if the applicants would also be open to altering the materiality from faux brick to granite, though Mr. Meche noted that this would likely be a separate motion. Ms. Spencer was open to bringing the brick wall down a tread as this was something already discussed with the client, though more time would be needed to vet the possibility of altering materials. VOTE: Mr. Meche made a motion to lower the wall one tread with the top of the fencing to remain as shown in the plan. Ms. English seconded the motion. Commissioners Meche, English, Norkun and Martinez were in favor and Pattison was opposed. The motion so carried. Mr. Meche asked if the board supports the granite. Mr. Martinez expressed interest in seeing Milford Pink juxtaposed with the existing granite onsite. Ms. English also was open to granite but expressed wish to see a rendering of the material. VOTE: Ms. English made a motion to continue application to September 15 for Athenaeum to consider alternative material and return if they would like to propose something other than what was approved tonight. Mr. Pattison seconded the motion. Norkun, Pattison, Meche, English, Martinez were in favor and the motion so carried. For clarification purposes, the Certificate of Appropriateness was approved for the wall as shown in plans which was reduced by one tread, to be finished in brick material with granite cap. FY22 Community Preservation Plan Ms. Kelleher noted that the Commission is asked to provide comments on the CPP plan on a yearly basis. Ms. Kelleher noted that any project seeking CPA funding under historic category is required to comply with Secretary of the Interior’s standards but there are no provisions to oversee how that is done. Mr. Martinez asked how many buildings fall into the historic category, as not all historic buildings get CPA funding under this category. Ms. Kelleher noted that in FY20 about half awards granted went to Historic Buildings and half to Community Resources. Given Chair Spang’s absence, Mr. Martinez proposed continuing this discussion until next meeting. Mr. Meche noted not having seen 2021 projects in the planned CPP and questioned whether they were known or available yet. Ms. Kelleher noted that any project not in a district that receives CPA funding is required to have a preservation restriction attached to the building.  Historical Commission Meeting Minutes - September 1, 2021, Page 9 of 9 VOTE: Ms. English made a motion to continue review of CPP plan to next meeting. Mr. Meche seconded the motion. Roll Call: Norkun, Pattison, Meche, English, Martinez were in favor and the motion so carried. Other Business Mr. Meche noted that he and Mr. Pattison looked at Hamilton Street slate roof house to discuss options with the property owner. The owner is not averse to finding way to keep the slate and is in need of help and advice. Roger of Salem Sheet Metal had done the work. Patrick Shea of professional roofing is willing to go look at the roof. Mr. Meche requested that Ms. Kelleher connect with Mr. Shea and seek out additional contacts. Adjournment VOTE: Mr. Meche made a motion to adjourn. Ms. English seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:15PM. Respectfully submitted, Dan Graham, Historical Commission Clerk