Historical Commission

SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES October 5, 2022 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, October 5, 2022 at 6:00PM via Zoom Virtual Meeting. Present were: Larry Spang (Chair), Mark Pattison, Mark Meche, Rebecca English, Jamie Graham. Staff: Patti Kelleher. Not present: Vijay Joyce, Reed Cutting. Request for Review – proposed design guidelines for sidewalks & paving Ms. Kelleher reported that this discussion will be continued to the next meeting. Request for final review St. Peter’s Church requested review of basement window design. Project architect William Yuhas was present to discuss the project. (Mr. Yuhas clarified that he is retired and should not be referred to as an architect.) The window will be mahogany. Elevation and drawing of window details were shown on materials and trim. Mr. Yuhas noted that detail of window trim was shown to demonstrate proportions different from initial proposal. Jamb and head detail were shown as well. Mr. Yuhas noted that efforts were made to replicate image of window shown in 1800s-era photograph. Applicants received quotes from Boston Sash Millwork and Lepage. Mr. Yuhas noted that 8-10 weeks lead time would be needed thus applicants were seeking approval. Chair Spang questioned muntins being described as simulated divided lites. Insulated glass with bronze muntin inserts at 7/8” wide on inside and outside. Chair Spang clarified that a bronze spacer would feature between two panes of glass, which Mr. Yuhas affirmed. Chair Spang clarified that forest green was the intended color, which Mr. Yuhas affirmed; also noting the ambition to paint to match existing building color. Chair Spang recapped the project to note the intent to replicate historic pattern as best as possible, modify trim detail based on past feedback, add projection to the sill, use simulated divided lites, and paint to match existing; which the applicant affirmed. Mr. Meche clarified that a concrete sill was being used to raise window, which Mr. Yuhas affirmed. Mr. Meche asked if the concrete would be formed in place or pre-made, which Mr. Yuhas was unsure of, though speculated formed in place. The sill is currently granite; Mr. Meche asked if the sill at present is proud of the wall; which Mr. Yuhas noted “very little.” Mr. Meche was in favor of the sill not projecting much. Mr. Meche clarified that exterior trim which has been modified is one piece of wood, which Mr. Yuhas affirmed. Ms. Graham asked if different-colored inserts were typical, citing the planned bronze spacer, which Ms. Kelleher affirmed is specified in the guidelines. Mr. Martinez questioned removing the horizontal muntins to make a 3 over 3 instead of 6 over 6; expressed favor of making all panes of glass the same size. Mr. Yuhas noted that photo in preliminary application materials (from the Frank Cousins collection) showed the original window at 3 over 6 with same-sized panes, which the applicant characterized as having an overall residential feel. Ms. Kelleher presented copy of photo. Mr. Yuhas noted that raising sill six inches also raised the proportions. Mr. Pattison noted that a 3 over 3 may be appropriate given that the size of the lites has been reduced. Mr. Yuhas proposed adding horizontal muntin on bottom sash. Mr. Meche requested that new sill be as low-profile as possible. Photo of existing condition was shown with window at grade, which Chair Spang noted was an 8 over 8. Chair Spang showed a mockup of the discussed revisions, which showed a horizontal muntin added. Mr. Martinez questioned whether Commission members were in favor of a 3 over 6. Mr. Pattison stated preference for 3 over 3 and expressed  Historical Commission meeting minutes 10-05-22 Page 2 of 8 reservations for current orientation. Chair Spang emphasized the objective of achieving historical appropriateness regardless of personal preference. No public comment. VOTE: Mr. Martinez motioned to approve the application with the addition of horizontal muntins on lower sash so that final configuration is 3 over 6, pending finalized drawings to be submitted by Mr. Yuhas. Ms. Graham seconded the motion. Roll Call: English, Martinez, Meche, Graham, Pattison (no), Spang were in favor and the motion so carried. 4 Pickering Street Stanley Smith requested reconsideration of previously approved Certificate of Appropriateness for architectural roof shingle. Stanley Smith was present. At previous meeting, Mr. Smith had proposed the use of Owens Corning Duration shingles in slate grey but the Commission approved IKO Cambridge shingles in Harvard Slate color. Jim Sullivan installer was made aware of this and noted that would drastically reduce warranty firm could offer. Mr. Smith consulted Consumer Reports for guidance on asphalt roofing and found July 2020 issue of Consumer Reports an article on architectural laminated shingles, which were scored. Of the top four, Owens Corning Duration was at top of the list. IKO Cambridge is fifth on the list. Mr. Smith thus desired the Commission to reconsider decision on shingle selection. Chair Spang showed Consumer Reports grading of the products in question, which may have been dated from 2020. The products’ attributes in terms of strength, wind, nailing, and impact were featured. Chair Spang noted that the Commission’s concerns regarding Owens Corning Duration stemmed from the “busy-ness” appearance of the product. Ms. Kelleher noted that an Owens Corning roof is installed on Summer Street. Chair Spang proposed a site visit so that members could see what the Owens Corning would look like in the context of the neighborhood. Ms. Kelleher noted that 34 Summer Street would be the starting point for a 9am site visit on Saturday morning, 10/8. 25 Warren Street—continuation Megan Millar and Joel Nentwich submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace porch with new addition. Ms. Kelleher reported that the applicants have requested to withdraw the application without prejudice. VOTE: Mr. Martinez motioned to approve the request to withdraw. Ms. English seconded the motion. Roll Call: English, Martinez, Meche, Graham, Pattison, Spang were in favor and the motion so carried.  Historical Commission meeting minutes 10-05-22 Page 3 of 8 20 Hathorne Street—continuation Ruthy LLC submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors. Ms. Kelleher reported that the applicants requested a continuation to next meeting on October 19, 2022. VOTE: Mr. Martinez motioned to approve the request for continuation. Ms. Graham seconded the motion. Roll Call: English, Martinez, Meche, Graham, Pattison, Spang were in favor and the motion so carried. 3 Federal Court Skomurski Development submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to renovate building and carriage house. This item was readvertised from September 21, 2022 meeting. Documents & Exhibits ▪ Application: 9/6/22 ▪ Drawings by Seger Architects ▪ Slideshow/photographs Dan Ricciarelli, project architect, was present, as well Joe Skomurski, owner. Currently a 3-unit house with a carriage house, the applicant wishes to return main building to a 2-unit home and move the 3rd unit into the carriage house. Greek Revival house was constructed in 1829. Changes would be proposed on exterior, one of which is to remove side door (not original) and replace with clapboard. A stairway near door will also be removed. Chimney was also shown which would be taken down; the three other original chimneys would remain. Change all roof shingles; Royal Sovereign 3-tab charcoal grey. Elevation was shown as was addition. Applicants viewed Sanborn maps/atlases from 1890 while in discussion with the ZBA showing the addition was not present though the ell and carriage house were. Proposing to replace roof of and widen the addition. Dan showed a mockup image showing planned roofline and pitch of addition. Chair Spang questioned if the walkway that goes to Ropes Mansion was considered private or public, which Ms. Kelleher noted was likely not considered a public way. A site plan was shown as to where Federal Court ends. Chair Spang questioned what would be placed inside during the remodel of the back addition work, which Dan noted would be the kitchen. Current outline of the addition was shown as well as the size of the planned addition (with modifications). Mr. Meche asked how the planned roof pitch of the addition compares to existing house. Dan noted that the new pitch will match the back of the house. Mr. Meche noted that the planned roof looks rather flat compared to Federal style. Dan noted that eave height is about 8 feet. Chair Spang raised the potential for a flat roof rather than a gable which would be more fitting on an addition of this manner/style; as well as a vestibule rather than a door. Mr. Meche was supportive of making the addition look more historically appropriate than attempting to better an addition which was not original in the first place. Mr. Meche clarified that the foundation wall for the addition has yet to be built; and proposed lowering the addition down a step. Chair Spang was not in favor of extending addition’s entrance side out beyond existing footprint. Ms. Graham also expressed favor for flat roof in the hopes that this alteration may improve the appearance of the extended addition as shown, i.e. featuring an off-center door and a narrowing of the present entry door to the home.  Historical Commission meeting minutes 10-05-22 Page 4 of 8 Public comment: Mary Richards, owner of 4 Federal Court, spoke in favor of the applicant’s decision to not expand the number of units at property from 3 to 4. Ms. Richards spoke to the question about walkway behind Ropes Mansion and First Church of Salem being a walkway that is used commonly by the public. Ms. Richards discussed the history of the street and property, noting that Federal Court was established in 1706 as a private way; which was altered in the 1990s. Ms. Richards registered the opinion that alterations proposed are not visible from a public way, given the historic identification of Federal Court as a private way. Jane Arlander spoke as abutter on 93 Federal on corner of Federal and Federal Court. Registered concern about removal of the chimney and was not in favor of a so-called “2022 addition” on the back of the house. Expressed openness to small addition in order to retain two doors. Ms. Arlander also expressed uncertainty as to whether addition or change in footprint was approved by ZBA, which Dan noted was correct; only the carriage house was approved to become residential use. Chair Spang consulted a city assessor’s map which showed Federal Court as a public rather than private way. Dan clarified that approval was being sought at present meeting as to removal of shingles, chimney, and entry door on north side of home. Dan showed Ben Moore Hale Navy for main and carriage house; similar to existing, though the existing has faded. Trim and storms will remain white. Royal Sovereign 3-tab charcoal for shingles. Windows in need of replacement that could not be refurbished would be wood, single glazed, true divided window and historic sill to match existing from Old Bostonian. Dan noted that a direct-vent heat pump system would be used, with regards to questions as to removing a chimney. Dan noted that the three other chimneys are connected to the fireplaces whereas the one to be removed goes straight to the basement, in response to Mr. Martinez’s question as to how it was known whether the chimney was not original. Mr. Pattison conveyed desire to see the chimney as did Mr. Martinez, who expressed concerns about removing chimneys. Chair Spang and Mr. Meche agreed with the need to visit property. Ms. English noted the need to locate any further historic photos of the home. Carriage house has rot at base, the intention is complete restoration. South side would be refurbished. Trellis on front will be removed. Restore the arch. Maintain door in front and seal it in place. Left side of house was shown, windows may be added and would be same as on the main house. Dan noted that these windows would not be seen from a public way. Chair Spang questioned if photos exist showing original window on front of house above ornate archway door. Ms. English questioned if fence to left of the carriage house belonged to this or adjoining property, which Dan noted likely belonged to neighbor. Chair Spang recommended a site visit with proposed paint tested on house. Ms. Kelleher noted that proposed shingles could be approved under a Certificate of Non-Applicability as well as in-kind repairs/maintenance. VOTE: Mr. Martinez motioned to continue the application to the next meeting. Mr. Pattison seconded the motion. Roll Call: English, Martinez, Meche, Graham, Pattison, Spang were in favor and the motion so carried.  Historical Commission meeting minutes 10-05-22 Page 5 of 8 7 Lynn Street Mark O’Donald submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace roof with Permalock system. Documents & Exhibits ▪ Application: 9/14/22 ▪ Slideshow/photographs ▪ Permalock roofing brochure Kyle Keegan, project specialist at East Coast Metal Roofing, and Mark O’Donald, owner, were present. Mr. Keegan noted that he is working with homeowners to change roof. House was built prior to 1800s. Roof needs to be brought up to code with plywood. Metal shingle meant to look like slate profile is being planned in the PermaLock product. Graded to last over 120 years, ideal wind ratings, install snowguards. Shingles are 9x18 interlocking on all four sides; slate-profile aluminum shingles. An image was shown where snow guards would be placed. Tudor brown was being planned. Ms. Kelleher showed other homes in Salem with PermaLock roofs: 4 Woodbury Ct, 21 Barr, 13 Chandler, 17 Eden, 4 Carrollton, and a home on School Street for which address was not known (as well as 7 Meadow Rd and 16 Hancock St in Peabody). Mr. Keegan noted that no insulation would be added by roofing company; rather only plywood and shingles. Fascia board on front of house would also be replaced given existing rot. Mr. Keegan noted that the product can be less than half the cost of slate, but double or triple the price of architectural shingle. Mr. Keegan explained differences in possible finishes. Mr. Meche also requested procuring samples of the materials under discussion. Mr. Keegan noted that the arrangement of the snow guard in an alternating pattern was functional in its configuration. Mr. Meche asked if the shingles make electrons or have any solar feature, which Mr. Keegan responded “no,” noting increased costs of doing so in terms of product itself as well as maintenance to replace electrical panels. Mr. O’Donald expressed excitement for the planned new roof in terms of environmental responsibility of the product, which can be made through recycled material. Mr. O’Donald also expressed hope as to setting precedent for new roofing solutions. Mr. Keegan noted that a sample of exact planned finish will be made available to Commission members. VOTE: Ms. English motioned to continue the application to the next meeting. Ms. Graham seconded the motion. Roll Call: English, Martinez, Meche, Graham, Pattison, Spang were in favor and the motion so carried. 16 Kosciusko Street Sam Clark submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for gutters. Documents & Exhibits ▪ Application: 9/15/22 ▪ Slideshow/photographs Mr. Clark noted that property currently does not have gutters on any lines of the roof. The applicant noted the intent to place gutters on back roofline over the back deck. The back deck houses the main entrance to the home and owners are currently without protection of water dropping from overhead.  Historical Commission meeting minutes 10-05-22 Page 6 of 8 Mildew is also building up on railings of porch and paint chipping. The applicants would prefer to add a fiberglass gutter; a photograph was shown of the planned product. Aluminum downspouts would be used. Mr. Meche asked if Fiber Gutter or a different brand was planned; Mr. Clark noted that the Fiber Glass Gutter Company (Pembroke, MA) was planned. Chair Spang clarified that two downspouts were planned running down each cornerboard, which Mr. Clark affirmed, also noting that a tiny downspout was desired over the small enclave on the back deck which would drain directly down and direct water away from the home. The downspouts would be white aluminum, Mr. Clark noted. Mr. Meche proposed extruded aluminum Duragutter product as an extra alternate option (also noted the better affordability). Mr. Meche also noted the option of half-round gutters. Mr. Clark indicated that an extra piece of wood would be needed to help gutter protrude away from home rather than right on the roofline. Chair Spang requested a detail of the contractor’s proposal. Mr. Clark displayed a line item inventory of the order for the project. Mr. Meche requested a cross-sectional drawing, preferably to scale, to identify the exact appearance of the work that is intended; which Chair Spang supported. Chair Spang asked whether the Park Service side of the house is under the Commission’s jurisdiction, to which Ms. Kelleher noted the home’s visibility from public ways. Chair Spang proposed continuing the application to allow applicant time to review DuraGuard product. Chair Spang proposed that applicant request a detail of the eave condition to show how it attaches. No public comment. VOTE: Ms. English motioned to continue application to the next meeting. Mr. Meche seconded the motion. Roll Call: English, Martinez, Meche, Graham, Pattison, Spang were in favor and the motion so carried. 111 Federal Street Amanda Ray submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace basement windows. Documents & Exhibits ▪ Application: 9/19/22 ▪ Slideshow/photographs Ms. Ray was present on the call. One window being planned for replacement is visible from public way on Federal Street. The visible window was shown. Initial application proposed vinyl window, though a wood window is now planned following discussion with contractor. Ms. Kelleher noted that a Brosco all- wood window with true divided lites had been previously approved for Chestnut Street as a similar property and planned change. Chair Spang questioned the paint color, which Ms. Ray noted would be painted to match existing. Ms. Graham questioned if single or double pane was planned, which Ms. Ray responded with single; though was open to double pane given Ms. Graham’s comments on added insulation. No public comment. VOTE: Mr. Meche motioned to approve application as submitted adding that it will be painted to match existing window sash and trim color in either single glazed or double glazed, both as true divided lites. Ms. Graham seconded the motion. Roll Call: English, Martinez, Meche, Graham, Pattison, Spang were in favor and the motion so carried.  Historical Commission meeting minutes 10-05-22 Page 7 of 8 Other Business Columbus Avenue Seawall The City has submitted Columbus Avenue Seawall construction project to MHC for review under Section 106. Upon review MHC concluded that wall needs to be rebuilt; cannot be saved as-is. A review letter to City was shown, indicating request for memorandum of agreement between City and MHC with the SHC being the conferring party. Requirement of MOA is for design review (as well as photo documentation of existing seawall, notifying SHC of demolition date). MHC has requested City to work with SHC on finalizing design details. The SHC needs to vote on making itself a conferring party. VOTE: Mr. Martinez motioned for the SHC to sign the document as a concurring party. Ms. Graham seconded the motion. Roll Call: English, Martinez, Meche, Graham, Pattison, Spang were in favor and the motion so carried. Minutes VOTE: Ms. English motioned to accept meeting minutes for July 20, 2022 and August 3, 2022. Mr. Martinez seconded the motion. Roll Call: English, Martinez, Meche, Graham, Pattison, Spang were in favor and the motion so carried. VOTE: Mr. Martinez motioned for the SHC to sign the document as a conferring party. Ms. Graham seconded the motion. Roll Call: English, Martinez, Meche, Graham, Pattison, Spang were in favor and the motion so carried. Violations Ms. Kelleher noted that several violations exist in the City. The ordinance indicates that formal votes need to be taken to issue violation letters. Ms. Kelleher proposed alerting residents of violations prior to issuing formal violation letters to solicit applications from property owners for Commission members to review. Photographs showing a recently installed fence were shared for 46 Broad St property, as an example. Chair Spang and Mr. Meche raised the idea of alerting fencing, painting, HVAC, vinyl window, and other companies as to the need for compliance with existing guidelines/ordinance, as well as a copy of district maps. The property at 5 S Pine was also noted as having made alterations without approval. VOTE: Mr. Meche motioned to approve Ms. Kelleher’s request that residents receive violation notices with requests to submit applications for work performed prior to the issuance of formal violation letters. Ms. English seconded the motion. Roll Call: English, Martinez, Meche, Graham, Pattison, Spang were in favor and the motion so carried. Adjournment VOTE: Mr. Meche made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Graham seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.  Historical Commission meeting minutes 10-05-22 Page 8 of 8 The meeting adjourned at 8:45 PM. Respectfully submitted, Dan Graham, Historical Commission Clerk