Historical Commission

SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES May 21, 2025 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on May 21, 2025 at 6:00PM via Zoom Virtual Meeting. Present were: Vijay Joyce (Chair), Kelly Tyler-Lewis (Vice Chair), Mark Meche, Robert Peterson, Rebecca English, Brendan Murray (arrived late), Emily Gonzalez (arrived late). Staff: Patti Kelleher. Absent: Milo Martinez, Margarida Raka-Goncalves. 103 Federal Street Jennifer Lucht applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the rear fence. This application was processed under the minor change category due to limited visibility and minimal design changes proposed. No abutter objection was received and a Certificate of Appropriateness was issued on May 9, 2025. 377 Essex Street–continuation Deegan Partners LLC applied for a Certificate of Hardship to alter chimney (after the fact). Kelly Tyler-Lewis and Brendan Murray recused from vote. Aiden Church, attorney (Seaside Legal Solutions) was present to represent the applicant Maureen McCarthy who was also present. Mr. Church delivered a presentation on the supplemental narrative. A recap was delivered presenting a timeline of the repair and repointed rear chimney. Mr. Church stated that a mason had determined the chimney to be in unsafe condition at an unsafe height and that it needed to be reduced. Following this, a Building Inspector had directed applicant to finish repointing remainder, apply for building permit, and seek a Certificate of Non-Applicability (staff correction: this should state a Certificate of Appropriateness). Applicant eventually withdrew that application and reapplied for Certificate of Hardship. Restoring the chimney to its original height would result in substantial financial hardship. Mr. Church noted that the Commission’s Guidelines provide maintenance recommendations that leaning chimneys should be stabilized in a manner that is out of the public view. To the extent that the secondary chimney was visible from the street, any bracing from chimney to roof would be similarly visible. Mr. Church referenced M.G.L. c. 40C Section 7 in noting that this secondary chimney was hardly visible from Essex Street. Mr. Church said that surrounding neighborhood was full of brick chimneys, and that the front facade would retain its prominent, primary brick chimney. Mr. Church said that only the very top portion of the secondary chimney was ever visible from the street. Mr. Church also cited M.G.L. c. 40C Section 7 to point out that the Commission should not make recommendations except to prevent work that was incongruous with historic district. Mr. Church also alleged that the chimney was in a condition specifically affecting structure and causing hardship. Mr. Church said that restoring the chimney to its original height would cause substantial financial hardship, for which the applicant had received two quotes for approximately $16,000. The applicant previously stated that the mason determined that the existing chimney base could not support reconstruction. Mr. Church said that the removal of the chimney in an unsafe condition benefited tenants  Salem Historical Commission meeting minutes - May 21, 2025 Page 2 of 10 and the public. Mr. Church said that the applicant would retain and maintain primary chimney in good standing. Mr. Church expressed the opinion that the applicant met Certificate of Hardship factors and stated that the applicant was seeking a reasonable resolution. Chair Joyce said that the applicant had previously taken many actions on and around the chimney, pulling many permits to do work on the building dating back to 2006. Chair Joyce said that in this case, the SHC never had the opportunity to look at the existing conditions prior to removal. Chair Joyce also noted that the identity of the mason who reached the determination of the chimney’s unsafe condition had never been disclosed to the Commission. Mr. Meche questioned if Section 7 of Chapter 40C had a definition of hardship that included financial. Mr. Meche questioned if the mason had taken pictures of the catastrophic conditions of the about-to-fall chimney. Ms. Kelleher directed attention to photographs that had been shared by the applicant one day prior to the current meeting. Chair Joyce said that no photos had been taken from the lift. Only a zoomed-in photo of the chimney was presented. Mr. Church asked what the applicant had to gain from removing the chimney versus its restoration. Chair Joyce said that this application would be precedent-setting, given that the SHC has a process, which the homeowner seemed to understand based on past practices yet did not adhere to in this particular instance. Chair Joyce did not want to allow a precedent where a building inspector was not contacted for a permit. Mr. Church was appreciative of not setting a bad precedent. Mr. Church asked if the hardship criteria would have passed the SHC’s protocol if the applicant had applied prior to the chimney’s removal. Mr. Church said that the applicant had considered a false chimney (i.e. a brick veneer, not real brick) to match what was removed, in response to Ms. English’s question as to pursuing alternatives, which was where the conversation ended in this application’s previous hearing. Chair Joyce said that the previous conversation had discussed inviting the SHC to the grounds with a mason onsite to explore possibilities. Mr. Church expressed belief that options were still on the table to coordinate with a mason. Mr. Meche said that it would be far simpler to put more bricks on top of existing chimney, which did not constitute difficult masonry. Mr. Church said that if the base was structurally sufficient, then we would be back to the original hardship argument (i.e. restoring the original height of the chimney was financially unattainable). Discussion shifted to the SHC’s obligation, if any, to explore claims of hardship further. Ms. Kelleher said that the SHC could look into the structural integrity of the chimney base, i.e. what a mason determines regarding an ability to reconstruct, in this particular case. Ms. Kelleher did not think that the SHC should look further into an applicant’s finances. Ms. Gonzalez agreed with Chair Joyce’s comments and concerns. Ms. Gonzalez did not want to see a tenant shoulder the costs of an applicant’s mistakes. Mr. Meche recommended that a mason or engineer’s opinions be considered. Ms. Gonzalez confirmed that due diligence would yield another continuation. Mr. Peterson said that none of the continuations for this application had been helpful. Mr. Church said that continuing to pursue due diligence was advisable  Salem Historical Commission meeting minutes - May 21, 2025 Page 3 of 10 but questioned what a denial of a Cert of Hardship would mean for the applicant. Ms. Kelleher said that the applicant would be required to restore the chimney to its previous condition. Public comment: Maureen McCarthy, owner, noted that Helen Sides had advised engaging legal counsel to understand laws in Salem, rights of homeowner, rights of SHC, and so forth. Ms. McCarthy said that Ms. Sides did not want to have a site meeting. The cost estimate for a shorter chimney was said to be the same as reconstructing the chimney in its original entirety. Ms. McCarthy said that there was no intention to flout SHC’s guidelines. Ms. McCarthy said that rebuilding the chimney would result in raising tenants’ rents. Mrs. McCarthy said that no error was committed in handling this situation. John Hermanski and Bob Leveque, both neighbors of the property. Mr. Leveque said that the morning the chimney was taken down, there was no intent to repair but to remove as quickly as possible. Mr. Leveque said that the owners paid $600K for the house and had more than $1 million in equity. Mr. Leveque called this application “absurd.” Mr. Leveque also said that the chimneys were “straight as an arrow” in the photographs that were shown. Mr. Hermanski said that the application was being permitted to carry on indefinitely. Mr. Meche proposed a site visit with a structural engineer qualified in historic masonry work, ideally a neutral party. Mr. Meche said that the NPS offers vast guidance on chimney masonry. Mr. Church said that a continuation was favorable to a “no” vote. Mr. Church suggested that the applicant should select the engineer. The Commission determined that the engineer should meet specific professional qualifications with experience with historic masonry. VOTE: Mr. Meche motioned to continue the application to arrange a forensic engineer to be onsite to inspect property with SHC present onsite. Ms. English seconded the motion. Roll Call: Peterson, Gonzalez (no), English, Meche, Joyce were in favor and the motion so carried (4-1). Salem Common–continuation City of Salem applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness for bandstand improvements. The City requested a continuation. VOTE: Mr. Peterson motioned to continue the application to the next meeting. Ms. English seconded the motion. Roll Call: Tyler-Lewis, Peterson, English, Meche, Joyce were in favor and the motion so carried. Salem Common–continuation City of Salem applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness for new ramp for bandstand. The City requested a continuation.  Salem Historical Commission meeting minutes - May 21, 2025 Page 4 of 10 VOTE: Mr. Peterson motioned to continue the application to the next meeting. Ms. English seconded the motion. Roll Call: Tyler-Lewis, Peterson, English, Meche, Joyce were in favor and the motion so carried. 337 Essex Street–continuation The Salem Athenaeum applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a new accessible ramp. Brendan Murray recused from vote. Pamela Hartford was present, as were David Shimmel and Jean Marie Procious. A site visit was conducted in the interim. Ms. Kelleher showed plans dated May 14 from Landworks Studio. Ms. Hartford said that abutters’ recommendation to move access plan to west side of location was not feasible, citing obstructions. Ms. Hartford said that only a service path would feature on that side of the property. Ms. Hartford also showed slopes of paths along planned walkways and indicated where handrails were required. Ms. Hartford noted that the goal was to keep the historic building as minimally impacted as possible. Mr. Meche asked if proposed sloped paths would be MAAB compliant. Mr. Meche said that those regulations required 4 feet between handrails. Mr. Shimmel said that the handrails were compliant as drawn. Ms. Hartford said that a civil engineer was engaged to ensure that the drainage was well-handled. Path and Wall materiality diagram was shown. Mr. Shimmel identified Deer Isle Granite as the desired granite type. Finalist finishes were also shown for the “floating” bridge. Different planting plans were also shown, though Chair Joyce noted that the SHC did not have jurisdiction over plantings. Perennials, groundcovers, and privacy screening views were shown, with considerations for seasonality to provide color across all seasons. Mr. Meche called the plans “marvelous.” Ms. Gonzalez also lauded the application. Chair Joyce expressed appreciation for the wire railing system. Public comment: Robert and Barbara Maier, 335 Essex Street, first thanked those who attended the site visit. Mr. Maier stated that the Maiers remained opposed to the applicants’ approach. Mr. Maier wanted to see other approaches taken. Mr. Maier said that an open view to the rear of the property from Essex St would be lost as part of this plan. Mr. Maier proposed a simple lift at the main entrance instead of a 150-foot ramp. Current and applicant-proposed views of the left of the property were shown. Mr. Maier said that the space intended to be built over was among one of the only remaining grassy areas left on Essex Street. Additional views of the Athenaeum’s property were shown. Sightlines from the ramp would make the Maiers’ windows easily viewable for visitors to the Athenaeum. Ms. Maier also showed an inverted photograph which put the ramp on the other side of the building.  Salem Historical Commission meeting minutes - May 21, 2025 Page 5 of 10 Sharon Williams asked for clarification on the amount of space between the ramp and the abutter property. Mr. Shimmel said that the closest point between pathway and neighbor’s property was closer to 6 feet than the previously stated 8-10 feet. Chair Joyce invited the applicants to respond to the Maiers’ plans. Ms. Hartford said the west side was never considered because the tree roots were enormous and the critical root zone to protect was 60 feet in circumference. Services to the building were carried out from the west side to the front of the building, and Ms. Hartford did not want solid surfaces placed over the west side of the building. Ms. Hartford said that none of the services or HVAC could be placed on the east side of the building. Ms. Tyler-Lewis lauded the success of the application while noting that the design would also change the character of the residential neighborhood. Ms. Tyler-Lewis asked how much residential privacy was within the purview of the SHC. Ms. Hartford said that a locked gate would be a feature of the new design. Ms. Hartford said that potential increased visitation to the Athenaeum would be monitored moving forward. Ms. Hartford said that the pathways would be approximately 9 to 10 feet away from the neighboring property. Mr. Shimmel said the desire for the ramp system was to be functional while also allowing resting moments along the path to enjoy the garden. Ms. Hartford said there would be no contact between the ramp and the existing historic well at the corner of the building. Concerning the site visit, Ms. Tyler-Lewis would have preferred having something to allow community members to see the scale of the project in the environment, instead of trying to imagine the scale. VOTE: Ms. English motioned to approve the application, with options on granite finishes to be confirmed by deputized member during construction phase. Ms. Gonzalez seconded the motion. Roll Call: Murray (recused), Tyler-Lewis, Peterson, English, Meche, Gonzalez, Joyce were in favor and the motion so carried. 1 Pickering Street–continuation Matt and Ellen Marshall applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness to modify perimeter wall. The applicants requested a continuation. VOTE: Mr. Meche motioned to continue the application. Ms. Tyler-Lewis seconded the motion. Roll Call: Tyler-Lewis, Peterson, English, Meche, Gonzalez, Murray, Joyce were in favor and the motion so carried. 3½ Rear Buffum Street Elton Cela applied for a Waiver of the Demolition Delay to remove more than 50% of roof of building older than 50 years. Documents and Exhibits: ● Application 5/7/2025  Salem Historical Commission meeting minutes - May 21, 2025 Page 6 of 10 ● Slideshow/photographs Elton and Erxhina Cela were present. Ms. Cela said the plan was to add a second floor unit to the house. Photographs of existing conditions were shown. Ms. Cela said the footprint would remain the same as would the design of the roof. Ms. Cela said that many other houses in the neighborhood were also two- or two-and-a-half stories. Ms. Cela said that an existing deck would be partially removed so as to make space for more parking onsite. Chair Joyce and Mark Meche noted that the house was built in 1950. Ms. Cela noted that the property was only accessible through an easement. Chair Joyce and Ms. Tyler-Lewis did not find the building to be historically significant. Chair Joyce noted that homes like this one were built as starter homes which were meant to be expanded. Mr. Peterson supported Chair Joyce and Ms. Tyler-Lewis’s comments. Ms. Kelleher said that this property was not included in a survey that found Buffum Street eligible for the National Register. No public comment. VOTE: Ms. English motioned to find the property not historically significant. Mr. Peterson seconded the motion. Roll Call: Tyler-Lewis, Peterson, English, Meche, Gonzalez, Joyce were in favor and the motion so carried. 28 Chestnut Street The 28 Chestnut Street Nominee Trust applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness to add handrails to side steps. Documents and Exhibits: ● Application 4/22/2025 ● Slideshow/photographs Andrew Lippman and Annie Harris were present. The applicants said the plan was to add a railing to side entry to enhance safety in winter especially (with ice and snow buildup). The applicants said that a tenant of 20 years recently sustained a significant leg injury. Mr. Lippman showed other properties with railings on side entryways. The applicants wanted to pursue the design used at 35 Chestnut, to be performed by the same contractor. The applicants were completely open to SHC’s advice. Chair Joyce said that emulating already-approved applications would be acceptable, to match materiality. Mr. Meche clarified that treads and risers would be emulated from the 35 Chestnut Street example as well. Chair Joyce clarified that the railing would die into the house, which Ms. Harris affirmed. Ms. Tyler-Lewis requested that the applicants return to SHC with specific details (i.e. materials, colors, spacing, code compliance) after discussing with their contractor. No public comment.  Salem Historical Commission meeting minutes - May 21, 2025 Page 7 of 10 VOTE: Mr. Meche motioned to approve application in scope with an SHC member to be deputized to confirm the configuration, with details to match any of the three previously approved examples which were submitted to the SHC. Mr. Murray seconded the motion. Roll Call: Tyler-Lewis, Peterson, English, Meche, Gonzalez, Murray, Joyce were in favor and the motion so carried. 125 Derby Street 125 Derby Street Condominium Association applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace gutters. Documents and Exhibits: ● Application 4/27/2025 ● Slideshow/photographs The applicant was unable to attend. Ms. Kelleher presented the application to replace wood gutters with fiberglass at corner of Derby and Hardie Streets. Image of property was shown with areas of gutter replacement indicated by Ms. Kelleher. Only rear ell would feature gutter work. The main house would remain as-is without gutters. Mr. Meche asked if a known product would be used, such as Fibergutter. Aluminum extruded gutter was said to be cheaper than Fibergutter by Ms. Tyler-Lewis. Ms. Kelleher confirmed that downspouts would remain in place. Chair Joyce confirmed that a specific product was not identified in the application. Ms. Kelleher said that fiberglass could be specified if the application were approved. No public comment. VOTE: Mr. Meche motioned to approve the application in either fiberglass or extruded aluminum product, profiles to match existing, painted to match trim. Ms. English seconded the motion. Roll Call: Tyler-Lewis, Peterson, English, Meche, Gonzalez, Murray, Joyce were in favor and the motion so carried. 401 Essex Street 401 Essex Realty LLC applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace and paint new fencing. Documents and Exhibits: ● Application 4/28/2025 ● Slideshow/photographs Brendan Collins was present. Mr. Collins said that an existing fence was to be replaced with a more historically and stylistically appropriate fence in the exact same location. Mr. Collins shared an example of a capped flatboard fence to be identically replicated, the address of which was 22 Chestnut (on Hamilton side of street). The fence would be painted to match the trim, Benjamin Moore White Dove. Chair Joyce confirmed that there would be no gate in the fence. Chair Joyce said that an SHC member could be deputized. No public comment.  Salem Historical Commission meeting minutes - May 21, 2025 Page 8 of 10 VOTE: Mr. Meche motioned to approve the application as submitted with deputized SHC member(s) to confirm that sketches matched the approval. Ms. English seconded the motion. Roll Call: Tyler-Lewis, Peterson, English, Meche, Gonzalez, Murray, Joyce were in favor and the motion so carried. 18 Sutton Street Jonathan Magnuson and Carolyn Evans applied for a Waiver of the Demolition Delay to remove more than 50% of roof of building older than 50 years. Documents and Exhibits: ● Application 5/2/2025 ● Slideshow/photographs Andrew Falkenstein was present, architect of Brookline, Mass. The house was a circa 1960-1970 ranch house, located in Salem Willows Historic District. In the National Register nomination, the house was listed as non-contributing. The plan was to put a second story addition (a story and a half) on main wing (parallel to Sutton Ave). An image of the property was shown. Mr. Falkenstein said that a single-story one-bay garage would also be demolished to add a two-car garage. The chimney would remain but the lower half would not be visible. In summation, a two-car garage left of the house, and a second story added on the main wing. Mr. Falkenstein said that this would be an extension of existing non- conforming, in response to Mr. Meche’s question as to whether the applicants needed approval for relief in a velocity zone. Chair Joyce remarked that the ranch house was a postwar house that was built with the intention or expectation of expansion. Mr. Meche and Ms. English did not feel that the house met criteria for historic significance. Mr. Falkenstein said that the ridge would only be raised about 8 feet. The addition would be higher than the left wing, and the garage would be lower than others. Mr. Falkenstein felt that the alterations would fit into the neighborhood very well. Public comment: Jonathan Magnuson and Caroline Evans thanked the SHC for taking the application under consideration. VOTE: Ms. English motioned to find the building not historically significant. Mr. Peterson seconded the motion. Roll Call: Tyler-Lewis, Peterson, English, Meche, Gonzalez, Murray, Joyce were in favor and the motion so carried. Other Business Approving Gutter Material Changes under “Minor Change” Ms. Kelleher asked if changes in gutter from wood to alternative material could be considered under “Minor Change” category in the future. Mr. Meche said that gutters would need to be painted to match.  Salem Historical Commission meeting minutes - May 21, 2025 Page 9 of 10 Requests for Letters of Support House of Seven Gables Ms. Kelleher noted that the Gables was applying for additional funding to implement plans through a Coastal Resilience Grant. Ms. Kelleher noted the Gable’s intent to use funding to move one of the buildings on the coastline further back as well as floodproofing the Hooper-Hathway building. Ms. Kelleher showed plans. VOTE: Mr. Meche motioned to issue a letter of support. Ms. Tyler-Lewis seconded the motion. Roll Call: Tyler-Lewis, Peterson, English, Meche, Gonzalez, Murray, Joyce were in favor and the motion so carried. Restoration of Historic Court Buildings Ms. Kelleher said that the Historic Court Buildings - the Essex County Superior Courthouse (SAL.2271) and the Old Granite Courthouse (SAL.2272) - were applying to the state for the underutilized properties program. They asked the SHC to provide a letter of support for their application. Ms. Kelleher noted that the court buildings have historic preservation restrictions. VOTE: Mr. Meche motioned to issue a letter of support. Ms. English seconded the motion. Roll Call: Tyler-Lewis, Peterson, English, Meche, Gonzalez, Murray, Joyce were in favor and the motion so carried. 318 Essex Street Ms. Kelleher said that additional public comment letters were received on this application (adding bollards) which was already approved. El Centro El Centro drafted a Memorandum of Agreement for the SHC to approve. Ms. Kelleher said that the MoA had been revised slightly based on recommendations received from Historic Salem Inc. Ms. English clarified that no demolition was to occur before all permitting and funding were secured, as per discussion from a previous meeting. Ms. Kelleher questioned if SHC would be open to supporting the new MoA with the revisions included therein. Members agreed to read the revised MoA before taking a vote of potential support. Minutes VOTE: Mr. English motioned to approve May 7 minutes. Mr. Peterson seconded the motion. Roll Call: Tyler-Lewis, Peterson, English, Meche, Gonzalez, Murray, Joyce were in favor and the motion so carried. VOTE: Mr. English motioned to approve April 16 minutes. Mr. Peterson seconded the motion. Roll Call: Tyler-Lewis, Peterson, English, Meche, Gonzalez, Murray, Joyce were in favor and the motion so carried.  Salem Historical Commission meeting minutes - May 21, 2025 Page 10 of 10 Adjournment VOTE: Ms. English motioned to adjourn. Mr. Meche seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried. The meeting adjourned at 9:11 PM. Respectfully submitted, Dan Graham, Historical Commission Clerk