Historical Commission

DRAFT SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES November 2, 2022 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 6:00PM via Zoom Virtual Meeting. Present were: Larry Spang, Mark Meche (Acting Chair), Rebecca English (joined at 7:00PM), Jamie Graham, Milo Martinez. Staff: Patti Kelleher. Not present: Mark Pattison, Vijay Joyce, Reed Cutting. 20 Hathorne Street–continuation Ruthy LLC submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors. No applicants were in attendance. Ms. Kelleher proposed continuing their application to the following meeting, at which point a decision ought to be made given that this application has been extant for some time. VOTE: Mr. Spang motioned to continue the application to the next meeting. Mr. Martinez seconded the motion. Roll Call: Graham, Spang, Martinez, Meche were in favor and the motion so carried. 7 Lynn Street–continuation Mark O’Donald submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace roof with Permalock system. Documents & Exhibits ▪ Application: 11/2/22 ▪ Slideshow/photographs Mark O’Donald and Kyle Keegan, contractor, were present on the call. Chair Meche noted that visits to the house had occurred in the interim and samples of the Permalock had been received. Sample colors were shown by Ms. Kelleher. Ms. Graham noted that brown was judged to be least suitable color shown according to Commission members’ discussions. Chair Meche questioned what type of texture was desired as different were shown. Mr. O’Donald noted that sheen could be a potential issue, though Tudor Brown would be used. Ms. Graham noted a grayish color was desired, which Mr. Keegan identified as Dawn Gray. Ms. Kelleher noted that Dawn Gray was used on Barr Street house in North Salem. Ms. Graham supported smoother texture in either of the two grays; given that brown seems inapplicable. Chair Meche was in agreement though favored lighter gray color. Mr. O’Donald noted that brown was favored but was amenable to a gray such as the Dawn Gray. Mr. Martinez favored the first and third samples shown. Mr. Keegan noted that the black (all the way to the left) features in the sample case that was shown. No public comment. VOTE: Mr. Martinez moved to approve application to use slate finish Charcoal finish Permalock roofing product. Ms. Graham seconded the motion. Roll Call: Graham, Spang, Martinez, Meche were in favor and the motion so carried.  Historical Commission Meeting Minutes 11-2-22 Page 2 of 8 3 Federal Court–continuation Skomurski Development submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to renovate building and carriage house. Documents & Exhibits ▪ Application: 11/2/22 ▪ Slideshow/photographs Dan Ricciarelli (Seger Architects), Julia Mooradian, and Joe Skormuski were present on the call. Images of front of house and driveway side were shown, as well as carriage house. Carriage house will mainly stay as-is. Front façade will be refurbished; trellis will be removed. Windows will be added to left side (which is believed to be out of jurisdiction); true divided single glazed with storms. Front elevation of carriage house was shown; bead board cladding will remain in place and be sealed under door. Proposed door shown on south elevation; the goal is to shift door over about foot and a half. Existing old loading door will be sealed in place. Refurbished/replaced window to be placed to the right of it. Mr. Ricciarelli noted that paint and shingles had already been approved; trim will be painted white. Sill and foundation work remains to be completed. Attention shifted to changes to small doghouse addition on main house; the intent is to widen addition and go back with shed roof and few new windows in front to bring light into kitchen space. Existing entry which is recessed will stay as-is. Plan is to set back eave to provide canopy and shelter from elements to the front door. Paint and trim to match. Ms. Graham clarified that door on south elevation of carriage house is shifting over a foot and a half, and requested a picture of existing door. Mr. Martinez clarified that the north elevation is not visible from street and is not under jurisdiction; and advised applicants that vegetation is not considered a screen. Mr. Martinez asked if shutters would be placed on first floor window of south elevation; and advised including them. Ms. Mooradian noted that the existing door is not wide enough for egress. Ms. Graham was in favor of replicating the existing door rather than replacing with a regularized door. The applicant noted that the door would not be raised as part of the project. Mr. Ricciarelli noted diagonal beadboard was the existing door. Mr. Ricciarelli noted that more light was desired for the replaced door. Chair Meche also confirmed that spandrel would be used to seal off first floor window (which Ms. Mooradian indicated was situated in a staircase). Mr. Martinez proposed moving the windows on the outside to facilitate added light on interior. Ms. Graham concurred with Mr. Martinez so long as the windows still aligned with each other. Mr. Ricciarelli was open to moving them as well. Mr. Spang also was supportive of moving windows but wished to see drawing to reflect and confirm placement. Mr. Ricciarelli would review proposed door alterations with client. Public comment: Carol Carr, 7 River Street, has lived here for 50 years and been active in historic aspect of neighborhood. Expressed love for house and property. Expressed disappointment at seeing newly installed electrical panel on driveway side between windows on first floor. Reviewed guidelines to confirm that electrical  Historical Commission Meeting Minutes 11-2-22 Page 3 of 8 panels should be placed in inconspicuous area. Wanted to know if this unit had been approved. The assumption was that electric service had been added. Chair Meche noted that the electrical service was not in the approval set, which Mr. Ricciarelli confirmed. Mr. Ricciarelli asked for guidance as to where electrical systems may alternatively be placed. Mr. Skomurski confirmed electrical service was added to outside of house. The electrical service installer was said to have required the system be installed on exterior as-is. One of the meters is going underground to reach the carriage house. Ms. Carr reiterated concerns pertaining to placement and appearance of new electrical service. Mr. Martinez proposed a two-panel door with two lites at the top on the carriage house, which could be unsophisticated enough to present. Chair Meche felt that a simple carriage door was needed. Mr. Spang proposed continuing the carriage house discussion to give applicant opportunity to submit new drawings. VOTE: Mr. Spang motioned to continue discussion of carriage house to following meeting. Mr. Martinez seconded the motion. Roll Call: Graham, Spang, Martinez, English, Meche were in favor and the motion so carried. Moving on to the doghouse addition, Ms. Graham clarified that the two windows would be double hung; Ms. Mooradian noted that the windows had been widened and made taller since previous meeting. Mr. Martinez took photos of and presented utility windows on subordinate facades. Mr. Ricciarelli noted that the two windows were a means of addressing lack of light; they had been made bigger and deeper. Mr. Spang noted that windows now appear more proportionally correct in new drawings; and expressed desire to see windows built up more to feature a structured mullion in the middle; i.e. to look and feel more historically correct. Chair Meche also favored the new drawing. East elevation of proposed addition was shown. Mr. Skomurski noted that plumbing vent would be brought from shed through the main roof. Mr. Martinez showed examples of nonfunctioning windows on subordinate additions for applicants to use as reference. Mr. Ricciarelli remarked on the example bay window in support of attempting such an item to get more usable space. Ms. Graham and Ms. English expressed support for the windows as newly drawn and proposed. Mr. Skomurski was not in favor of bay window. No public comment on proposed addition discussion. VOTE: Mr. Spang moved to approve demolition of existing addition and construction of new addition as shown as most recent set of drawings with clarification that double hung windows on south elevation have structural support mullion between them more consistent with rendering than with drawing A-21; if interested in changing shape of window itself, further discussion would be needed. Ms. English seconded the motion. Roll Call: Graham, Martinez, Spang, English, Meche were in favor and the motion so carried. 186 Federal Street–continuation Denise Carria submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for alterations to garage.  Historical Commission Meeting Minutes 11-2-22 Page 4 of 8 Documents & Exhibits ▪ Application: 11/2/22 ▪ Slideshow/photographs James Carria was present on the call. Ms. Kelleher, Mr. Martinez, and Mr. Pattison visited property. View of home was shown from street. Mr. Martinez noted that patio which was poured went all the way to the garage. Edge of roof can be seen making its way from top of garage to 8-foot post. View from sidewalk was shown. Image of 8-foot post was shown from sidewalk. Mr. Spang clarified that applicant may cut back how far the planned awning will reach; or return with something that is more consistent with historic district. Mr. Carria did not want to cut it down in size but rather asked for guidance in making it look historic. Corrugated aluminum roofing should not be exposed, Mr. Martinez advised. Rendering of product was shown; Mr. Martinez specified that a piece of 1-by lumber wide enough to cover exposed aluminum should be used. Mr. Spang noted that different pictured designs were shared by the applicant; one features timber-look, another looks more like loose-framed lumber with tie-downs, strapping, etc. As a result of the inconsistency, more clarity needed as far as what is being planned. Mr. Spang also supported Ms. Kelleher’s advice to look at existing porches in the district for references. Chair Meche echoed the inconsistencies flagged, noting that site plan showing patio canopy looks smaller than footprint and is supposed to be tucked behind garage. In terms of dimensions, Mr. Carria noted that patio cover is 14’ x 14’ and garage is 20’ x 20’. No public comment. Ms. English reiterated need for drawing of intended product in order to give valid guidance. Commission members discussed making the patio cover less visible as well as shifting over a certain distance to lessen visibility. Mr. Carria questioned if shingles matching the garage would be amenable, which Mr. Spang affirmed as “a start.” VOTE: Mr. Spang moved to continue application to the next meeting to allow applicant opportunity to prepare drawings. Ms. Graham seconded the motion. Roll Call: Graham, Martinez, Spang, English, Meche were in favor and the motion so carried. 401 Essex Street 401 Essex Realty LLC submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors. Documents & Exhibits ▪ Application: 11/2/22 ▪ Slideshow/photographs Brendan Collins was present. Paint color approval on rear ell is desired. Building is brick. Elevation was shown. Ell was originally covered in cedar shake over the clapboard. Rockport Gray is desired to be approved for clapboard on rear ell. Mr. Martinez clarified that upper and lower portion of ell would be painted. Mr. Collins noted that White Dove would be used for trim; not stark but softer white color. No public comment.  Historical Commission Meeting Minutes 11-2-22 Page 5 of 8 Mr. Spang clarified that white trim will match white that runs around the brick façade. VOTE: Mr. Spang moved to approve Rockport Gray for body of small addition, trim color to match white of existing trim for brick part of house. Ms. English seconded the motion. Roll Call: Graham, Martinez, Spang, English, Meche were in favor and the motion so carried. 393 Essex Street Old Fezziwig LLC submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for architectural roof shingles. Documents & Exhibits ▪ Application: 11/2/22 ▪ Slideshow/photographs Carling Audette, Dan Ricciarelli, and Julia Mooradian were present. The objective was to change out roof shingles. GAF Slateline antique shingles in slate were planned. Images were shown of product specs. Ms. Kelleher showed addresses receiving previous approval for this product: e.g. 9 Cambridge; 19 Flint; 15 Chestnut; 53 Summer; demonstrating that this model had been approved in the district before. Dormers are clap on sides, Mr. Martinez clarified; which Mr. Ricciarelli affirmed. Ms. Graham asked if all roofs being replaced, which Mr. Ricciarelli affirmed. No public comment. VOTE: Ms. Graham moved to approve application as submitted for GAF Slateline antique shingles. Mr. Martinez seconded the motion. Roll Call: Graham, Martinez, Spang, English, Meche were in favor and the motion so carried. 33-35 Warren Street Joseph Kaye submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for fencing. Documents & Exhibits ▪ Application: 11/2/22 ▪ Slideshow/photographs Joseph Kaye was present on the call. Three townhouse condos were shown. Mr. Kaye noted that he and neighbor(s) have driveways and dogs; would like to add 4-foot-high picket fences with gates at back of each driveway. Proposed fence design was shown as was color. Essex Green was determined to be original paint color, Mr. Kaye noted. Mr. Martinez clarified that the fence will be painted Essex Green. Chair Meche confirmed that caps/tops of fence posts are wood, which Mr. Kaye noted matched fences in backyard. Ms. Kelleher noted a recent application was approved on Warren and Pickering. Ms. Kelleher noted that different numbers of horizontal bars were shown; applicant favored two rails/bars, which Chair Meche also preferred. Chair Meche questioned how close to ground the bottom rail would be, which Mr. Kaye noted near enough to the ground to prevent dogs getting out of yard.  Historical Commission Meeting Minutes 11-2-22 Page 6 of 8 Public comment: Leanne Rotman, owner of 35 Warren, acknowledged presence on call to answer any questions as needed. Mr. Martinez questioned if pre-fab 8-foot panels would be used; Mr. Kaye believed the product would be custom-made to fit driveway dimensions. Mr. Martinez desired to know how many vertical posts were planned along an 18-foot run. Ms. Rotman noted that the brick walkway layout makes the 1-foot jog necessary, which Mr. Martinez had also questioned. Mr. Martinez asked how long driveway is, which Mr. Kaye noted 3 car lengths (i.e. approximately 45 feet). Mr. Spang noted three sections at six feet each would feel correct. VOTE: Mr. Spang moved to approve fence as submitted with the option to have 3 equal panels or one larger in center and two smaller on the side, painted Essex Green. Ms. English seconded the motion. Roll Call: Graham, Martinez, Spang, English, Meche were in favor and the motion so carried. 275 Lafayette Street MD Property Development LLC submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to renovate building and add new constructions. Documents & Exhibits ▪ Application: 11/2/22 ▪ Slideshow/photographs Jack Dahlstedt, Drew Murphy, Dan Ricciarelli, and Julia Mooradian were present on the call as part of the project. team Old chapel built around 1946 was shown. Has not been used as chapel for long time; has been used for different uses. Originally, Lafayette was not front; Summit Ave was front of building. Interior has been worked over into offices and abandoned for about a year now. Applicants propose to adapt building (one-story shingle-style; asphalt shingles was original cladding); wood shakes were switched over to in 1970s/80s. Building is outlier in the neighborhood in terms of design, shake, materiality, and so forth. Proposal is to adapt for ten units, some small/large, mix of 1- to 2-bedroom units; as well as new building on Lafayette. Large unfilled paved space could likely fit 30 cars. The applicants were not seeking approval on specific items but rather guidance in the existing building’s redesign. (The applicants still need to go before the ZBA.) Proposed east and south elevations were shown. Dashed outline of proposed new building was shown over existing parking lot. Ms. Graham asked if view from Summit is part of Commission’s purview or only view of Lafayette. The east edge of the property seems to be included in historic district map on border of Summit. Ms. Kelleher confirmed that all elevations of chapel building would be subject to Commission review. Mr. Spang enjoyed shed dormers being added to back of existing chapel. Mr. Spang encouraged more intervention on east façade. Chair Meche asked why ramps feature on right and left, which Mr. Ricciarelli answered to note one goes to basement and the other to first floor. Mr. Spang clarified that units would feature in the basement as well, which Ricciarelli affirmed. Chair Meche clarified that there is no elevator, which Ricciarelli affirmed. Chair Meche noted that the new building would obscure the ramps, though the planned ramps were quite prominent. Ms. Graham lauded the uniqueness of the new building’s potential orientation which would create two front facades placed one in front of the other. Chair Meche noted the rise of the ramp to the first floor may be integrated to make it not appear as a  Historical Commission Meeting Minutes 11-2-22 Page 7 of 8 ramp. Ms. Graham clarified the project’s goal to have a certain number of accessible units to warrant two ramps. Chair Meche and Ms. Graham spoke to the potential maintenance of ramps versus elevator installation. Mr. Dahlstedt clarified that both ramps are already existing. Ms. Graham expressed appreciation in seeing plan with scale of buildings on either side of Lafayette; in terms of elevation and site plan. Mr. Spang showed Google Street views demonstrating carriage houses in backs of properties. Mr. Spang proposed that the back building attempt to function as a carriage house would have in being subordinate to main house, but nonetheless bearing a relationship to one another in some manner. Chair Meche clarified what the setback from street will be, which Mr. Ricciarelli noted 15’. Ms. Kelleher presented 1874 and 1911 atlases to show street lines/borders. Public comment: Jeff Cohen, 12 Hancock Street, Ward 5 Councilor. Spoke to the durability of existing ramps, describing them as really remarkable and solid ramps. Lauded project team’s communication with self and community. Polly Wilbert, address unknown, resident of South Salem since 1981. Noted that the Great Salem Fire stopped at Holly Street. Chapel was built in 1946/47, dedicated in ’48. It was built to provide a hall after St. Joe’s fire had occurred. Meant to serve French Canadiens. Built chapel in an effort to expand into larger community for increased use. Expressed a number of concerns: i.e. the number of units put into chapel and number of units in basement; very little window space for most units (they will be very dark in winter); parking that abuts parking on Summit Street side; drainage of slope from Lafayette down to Summit; ability to handle water as it comes down to Summit, especially that close to the coast; potential offset of planned new construction; lack of outdoor space/green area; the issue of whether the property will have city or private trash needs to be clarified; and snow plowing (as not much snow storage space was shown in preliminary plans). Jean Porcello-Giusto, owner occupant next door at 271 Lafayette. Thanked the applicants for taking over property. Concern for area regarding parking in the area; adding 23 cars to that area may be dangerous. Police calls are made on a daily basis that residents’ driveways are being blocked. Another concern is that 15 units in that vicinity will be too many. Anthony Porcello expressed concern for front and side yard setbacks. Noted position of property line in relation to own property. The new building made block sunset from hitting their building. Does not want property encroached upon. Mr. Martinez expressed disenchantment with shed dormers. Wanted to see gable dormer instead which may give more character and be more intentional. Mr. Martinez also encouraged that the applicants/designers be influenced by religious architecture given the building’s history. Mr. Dahlstedt expressed openness to Mr. Martinez’s guidance. VOTE: Ms. English motioned to continue application to December 21. Mr. Martinez seconded the motion. Roll Call: Graham, Martinez, Spang, English, Meche were in favor and the motion so carried.  Historical Commission Meeting Minutes 11-2-22 Page 8 of 8 Adjournment VOTE: Ms. English made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Spang seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:10PM. Respectfully submitted, Dan Graham, Historical Commission Clerk