Historical Commission

SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES July 2, 2025 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on July 2, 2025 at 6:00PM via Zoom Virtual Meeting. Present were Chair Vijay Joyce, Mark Meche, Robert Peterson, Rebecca English, Emily Gonzalez. Staff: Patti Kelleher Absent: Margarida Raka-Goncalves, Brendan Murray, Milo Martinez, Vice Chair Kelly Tyler-Lewis. Joint Discussion with the Commission on Disabilities MAAB Variance Request for Pioneer Village. Chris Genter (architect, Oudens Ello Architecture) and Michael Crounse (Director of Facilities, City Liaison for Project) were present. Mandee Spittle, Debra Lobsitz, Kerry Neenan, Darren Black, David Moisan, and Lisa B. Cammarata (Staff) were present from the Commission on Disabilities, as was Jeff Cohen (City Council liaison to COD). Mr. Genter said that this joint meeting was being held in response to the MAAB variance requests for Pioneer Village which had been presented during previous meetings in April 2025. Documents & Exhibits: ● Slideshow Mr. Genter said that variances from the required door height and for handrails at entry steps would be requested by the City to preserve the historic integrity of the Pioneer Village buildings. A slideshow of an abbreviated presentation was shown. Mr. Genter said that all site paths met accessibility requirements in terms of sloping and topography. Accessible pathway materials were identified as asphalt (bituminous), concrete, wood, and stabilized stone dust. Site map buildings were differentiated for 1) those with entries to building at grade; 2) sloped walkways to entry doors; and 3) no public access. Mr. Genter showed a sloped wood walkway to a stone landing in front of four buildings. Mr. Genter said that the door widths to buildings are not in compliance. Mr. Genter said that doors would be widened for wheelchair access to the English Wigman, the Woodbury Cottage, Blacksmith Cottage, and Arabella Cottage. Mr. Genter said that the door heights could not be raised due to the building’s structures. Mr. Genter said that the sloped walks would provide a fully compliant means of entry. Mr. Genter showed a hypothetical mockup of where MAAB would require handrails to be placed and their size. Chair Joyce did not have an issue with Mr. Genter’s requests based on the updated presentation. Mr. Meche questioned why the handrails would be required if a step/sloped walkway featured. Mr. Genter said that a single step requires a handrail, according to MAAB, but clarified that this was not a building code requirement. Mr. Genter was unaware of ADA regulations for this particular means of entry. Mr. Black was unsure of how the ramp related to the step, and asked if the rise of the slope was 7”. Mr. Genter clarified that there was 5’ x 5’ granite landing in front of the entrance door; and to get to that landing a visitor would either walk up a 7” step or a sloped walk to the landing point. Mr. Genter said that this would happen at all four publicly accessible structures. The sloped walk was identified as wood (similar to a boardwalk), in response to Mr. Black’s question. Ms. Spittle clarified that there was a 7” rise on each side of the granite slab. Ms. Spittle expressed concern for persons with visual impairments on the granite landing. Mr. Black asked what the average or acceptable rise of a step was according to building code. Mr. Genter said 7 inches was maximum and minimum was 4 inches. Mr. Black opined that this was not a safety issue for the average white cane user  Historical Commission meeting minutes July 2, 2025 Page 2 of 6 or the average service dog user. Mr. Black recommended that the ADA regulation regarding this be consulted though he opined that this was not necessarily a hazard. Mr. Genter said that a wheelchair could perform a full turn without going off the edge of the landing, in response to Ms. English’s question. Chair Joyce said that a 5’ radius was the standard for ADA compliance. Mr. Genter proposed adding a lip to the side of the landing without one. Mr. Meche said that ADA does not define the minimum number of risers or treads to make a stair. Mr. Black said that the doors to buildings would be left open but was unsure of whether they swung inward or outward. Mr. Black asked how a wheelchair user would be guaranteed that the doors would remain open. Mr. Genter said that when the site was open, any publicly accessible structure would have its door left open. Mr. Genter said that a challenge with these buildings would be if a door closed while a wheelchair user was inside. Mr. Genter said that the City would need to commit to keeping the doors open. Mr. Genter said that any spaces only accessible via stairs or ladders would not be open to the public. Mr. Genter said that all doors would open inward. Ms. Lobsitz directed attention to the incline to the entrance. They were meeting the code requirements, but wanted to note the nuance between compliance versus accessibility. Ms. Lobsitz expressed concern for tripping or ankle turning. Ms. Lobsitz opined that the ground level should be raised up. Ms. Spittle said that users would have nothing to hold onto and expressed concerns that railings did not feature at any of the buildings. Mr. Meche said that the slope of these ramps was negligible. Ms. Spittle said that the terrain would be difficult to navigate for anyone with mobility issues. Mr. Genter responded that the crushed gravel met accessibility requirements. Chair Joyce clarified that there were raised edges along the side of the ramp walkway, which Mr. Genter affirmed and referred to them as “wheel stops.” Mr. Genter said that the lip was 2” on both sides of the wooden ramp. Mr. Black said that having the lip for the tactility to alert cane users to the edge was preferable. Mr. Black said that such an edge should also be placed at the edge of the ramp on the granite landing. Mr. Black said that he would not personally use the ramp for access. Mr. Genter said that the next step for the project was to present to MHC; and requested a letter of support for the variances being sought. Mr. Crounse said that letters had been submitted to each Commission requesting a letter of support, which could be used to craft responses for the project moving forward. Mr. Crounse proposed adding the lip / “wheel stop” to the landing. Ms. Lobsitz asked if Disabilities Commission members were comfortable providing a letter of support. Mr. Moisan, Mr. Black, and Ms. Neenan raised their hands in the affirmative. Ms. Neenan thought the biggest issue was the door width, which had been resolved; and that the edge lip added to the landing was also a positive change. Ms. Spittle expressed the opinion that railings were still needed. Ms. Cammarata asked if the railing was not included for aesthetic reasons. Mr. Genter said that the MAAB requires railings only at a 7” step, but the wood is considered a walkway rather than a step. Mr. Genter said that neither the building code nor MAAB require a railing in this application. Chair Joyce reiterated Mr. Meche’s point that the natural grade of the site was at a steeper grade than the walkway incline. Mr. Genter said that all slopes on the site are required to be 5% or less. Ms. Lobsitz called the improvements “substantial” with regard to accessibility. Ms. Lobsitz expressed comfort providing a letter of support.  Historical Commission meeting minutes July 2, 2025 Page 3 of 6 VOTE: Mr. Moisan motioned to provide a letter of support from the Disabilities Commission. Mr. Black seconded the motion. Roll Call: Lobsitz, Black, Moisan, Neenan, Spittle were in favor and the motion so carried. VOTE: Mr. Meche motioned to provide a letter of support from the SHC. Ms. English seconded the motion. Roll Call: Meche, Gonzalez, Peterson, English, Joyce were in favor and the motion so carried. 6 Harrington Court Anil Mezini applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness for building modifications including altering the chimney after the fact. The applicant was not present. VOTE: Ms. English motioned to continue the application to the next meeting. Mr. Peterson seconded the motion. Roll Call: Meche, Gonzalez, Peterson, English, 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. Chair Joyce recused from discussion of this item. Ms. English served as Chair. Peter Dearborn was present with Ms. Marshall. Ms. Marshall provided a quick update. Masons visited property and determined that a 2’ brick and 2’ wood wall would be double the cost of just wood. Ms. Marshall said this would be cost-prohibitive. Ms. Marshall said that a sample of the wood fence was available at the property for review. Ms. Marshall offered to send renderings of the replica with planned alterations. The posts and railings were built with the fence. Mr. Dearborn later showcased the replica onsite via livestream. VOTE: Mr. Meche motioned to continue the application to the next meeting. Mr. Peterson seconded the motion. Roll Call: Gonzalez, Peterson, Meche, English were in favor and the motion so carried. 1 Pickering Street Ellen and Matthew Marshall applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace windows and architectural shingles. Chair Joyce recused from discussion of this item. Ms. English served as Chair. Documents & Exhibits: ● Application: 6/9/2025 ● Slideshow  Historical Commission meeting minutes July 2, 2025 Page 4 of 6 Mr. Dearborn said windows were in very bad condition and loaded with lead paint. Ms. Marshall showed which windows were to be replaced. Mr. Dearborn expressed concern for lead paint especially considering that the owners have a young child. Replacement windows were said to look exactly like the originals. Windows on the main façade and first floor of rear elevation would be restored, remaining windows were proposed to be replaced. Heat loss was also mentioned as a concern, given they are single pane. Chair English clarified that the proposed window was the Anderson Woodwright. Ms. Marshall indicated which windows would be replaced on marked-up images: two on front of main house; four on side ell; 13 on the back of the house; and another four on side with screened-in porch. Chair English clarified that all windows were 6 over 6. Mr. Meche questioned if the amount of glass would be reduced. Mr. Dearborn said that the mullions (or grids) were basically the same size, but the outside of the windows were a little larger. Mr. Dearborn estimated that in total there would be 10% less glass. Mr. Meche said that the Pickering St side was most important, and that the amount of glass being lost should be indicated in inches rather than percentage. Mr. Meche said that the product should be shown to the SHC, though Ms. Kelleher said that specs had been included in the initial application. Ms. Marshall said that new heating and cooling systems were being installed. Ms. Marshall said that the window specs would be resubmitted. No public comment. VOTE: Mr. Peterson motioned to approve the proposed windows as submitted, Anderson Woodwright. Mr. Meche seconded the motion. Roll Call: Gonzalez, Peterson, Meche, English were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Marshall said that the current roof was past the useful point of its life; and that it was mismatched in many places and leaking. A drawing was shown indicating portions of the roof that would be replaced. Existing copper roof would remain, though all other sections would be replaced (including a shed in the backyard). Ms. Marshall said that three different roof types currently featured on the property. Existing roof would be replaced with GAF Timberline shingles in charcoal color. Ms. Kelleher said that the GAF Timberline NS had been approved in the past. Mr. Meche clarified that this was not a minor change category request. Ms. Marshall said that the application and presentation materials should indicate the “NS” version of GAF Timberline. Ms. Kelleher clarified that “NS” stands for “natural shadow.” No public comment. VOTE: Mr. Meche motioned to approve the GAF Timberline NS architectural shingles. Mr. Peterson seconded the motion. Roll Call: Gonzalez, Peterson, Meche, English were in favor and the motion so carried. 16 Eden Avenue Aysel Yilmazkulas applied for a Waiver of the Demolition Delay to demolish more than 50% of roof on building older than 50 years. Documents & Exhibits: ● Application: 6/9/2025 ● Slideshow  Historical Commission meeting minutes July 2, 2025 Page 5 of 6 Nelia Moskolocz (daughter) was present on behalf of the applicant. The house was badly damaged by a fire and the roof was not repairable. Ms. Moskolocz said that asbestos needed to be removed along with the roof. Ms. Moskolocz said that the whole roof needs to be replaced. Ms. Kelleher showed photographs of the property provided with the application. Ms. Moskolocz said that a neighbor’s roof was being used to emulate the new roof. Chair Joyce said that no MACRIS inventory form existed for this property. Ms. Kelleher said that this area had not been surveyed in depth. Chair Joyce said that a neighboring property with a MACRIS form was a triple decker. Ms. Kelleher said that many of the home’s historic details had been lost over time, as well as owing to the second-floor fire. Ms. English pointed out that many homes on the street featured hip roofs. Chair Joyce said that mansard and gable roofs also featured. Ms. Kelleher said that the house was likely constructed around 1920. Ms. Gonzalez did not feel that the house was historically significant, nor did Mr. Meche. No public comment. VOTE: Mr. Peterson motioned to find the house not historically significant. Ms. Gonzalez seconded the motion. Roll Call: Meche, Gonzalez, Peterson, English, Joyce were in favor and the motion so carried. Request for review under CPA requirements–292 Essex Street roof replacement Ms. Kelleher said that the Salem Housing Authority received CPA funding to replace the roof of the building that houses the YMCA. Any building that receives funding that is historic must receive support from the SHC. Ms. Kelleher referenced a similar roof project at 5 Barton Square. Ms. Kelleher said the height of the roof would be raised above the cornice line and fascia would need to be removed. Ms. Kelleher also showed a drawing of the proposed cornice detail. Mr. Meche noted that a profile of the existing cornice condition was not available, only a photograph. Ms. Kelleher noted that the SHC could request changes or more information. Mr. Meche felt that the application was approvable though more details should be supplied. Chair Joyce said that the two inches where the cornice returns should be increased, in order to reduce the amount of infrastructure being set atop the existing cornice. Mr. Peterson and Mr. Meche agreed with Chair Joyce. Mr. Peterson cautioned against setting the concealed splice plate back too far, noting that ice could build up. Ms. Kelleher vowed to relay guidance on pushing back the setback. Members were in favor of issuing a letter of support. No public comment. VOTE: Mr. Meche motioned to provide a letter of support. Mr. Peterson seconded the motion. Roll Call: Meche, Gonzalez, Peterson, English, Joyce were in favor and the motion so carried. Other Business  Historical Commission meeting minutes July 2, 2025 Page 6 of 6 Minutes VOTE: Ms. English motioned to approve minutes for the June 4, 2025 meeting. Mr. Meche seconded. Roll Call: Meche, Gonzalez, Peterson, English, Joyce were in favor and the motion so carried. 17 Fowler Ms. Kelleher noted that the applicant’s neighbor was amenable to raising the height of the property fence to 6’ but wanted to raise the height of the entire fence as such (rather than leaving a portion of the fence to remain 4’). Ms. Kelleher noted that the fence does not extend all the way to the sidewalk, because of a fire hydrant at the sidewalk. Chair Joyce clarified that only the first panel - the one closest to the sidewalk - would have remained 4’. The applicant was amenable to the 6’ fence. Mr. Meche said that a higher fence would help hide the condenser better. Mr. Meche and Ms. English expressed support for the whole fence being 6’. Chair Joyce said that the style should match existing. Ms. English added that the approved paint color should be used. VOTE: Mr. Meche motioned to support the whole fence being 6’ with the existing style retained and painted the approved paint color. Ms. English seconded the motion. Roll Call: Meche, Gonzalez, Peterson, English, Joyce were in favor and the motion so carried. Adjournment VOTE: Ms. English motioned to adjourn. Mr. Peterson seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:09 PM. Respectfully submitted, Dan Graham, Historical Commission Clerk