Historical Commission

SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION MINUTES September 3, 2025 A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on September 3, 2025 at 6:00PM via Zoom Virtual Meeting. Present were Chair Vijay Joyce, Brendan Murray, Milo Martinez, Mark Meche, Robert Peterson, Rebecca English, Margarida Raka-Goncalves (left early). Staff: Patti Kelleher. Absent: Emily Gonzalez, Vice Chair Kelly Tyler-Lewis. 17 ½ River Street Frederick Beibesheimer and Lisa Spence applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace rear fence. This application was processed under the minor change category due to limited visibility. No abutter objection was received, and the Certificate of Appropriateness was issued on September 2, 2025. 59½ Summer Street Madeline Mitchell applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness for architectural shingles. This application was considered under the Commission’s minor change policy for architectural roof shingles. No abutter objection was received by August 25, 2025, and a Certificate of Appropriateness was be issued. Request to extend demolition period for Camp Naumkeag, 85 Memorial Drive Chris Genter (Oudens Ello Architecture) and Mike Crounse (City of Salem) were present. SHC found the buildings under consideration for demolition to be historic and preferably preserved. The 18-month Demo Delay period expired, after which point the property owner had six months to act on the demolition. The owner also had the right to request another 6-month extension, which the City was requesting prior to demolition. Chair Joyce asked if delays in the planning process were the reason for the request, which Mr. Crounse affirmed. Mr. Crounse said that the project team did not want to demolish Camp Naumkeag without knowing exactly what would take its place. Mr. Crounse requested to extend the period for demolition approval given additional phases of design deliberation to incorporate designs conceived within the past year. Elizabeth Peterson and Margaret Wood were also present but did not provide comments. Mr. Genter presented slides on the Pioneer Village Living History Museum. Stimson Landscape Architecture, Structures North, Nitsch Engineering, and Object IDEA were also identified as authors of the slideshow. Commemorations of Camp Naumkeag structures were flagged as part of the design and interpretive plan. A timeline of the project schedule was shown to include: issue documents for bidding; bidding and contractor selection; and construction (in 2026). Existing building demolitions (of five buildings) were indicated. A proposed landscape plan was shown. Pioneer Village structures to be relocated from old to new site were shown. Landscape structures were also shown, such as a woven fence, living willow fence, and wood entrance pergola. Camp Naumkeag commemoration was indicated at a historic marker, Naumkeag Overlook (deck at location of former Camp Naumkeag outdoor porch), and Gateway Pergola (narrative interpretive history of site, including Salem Tuberculosis Health Camp  Historical Commission meeting minutes September 3, 2025 Page 2 of 9 and Camp Naumkeag histories). The three interpretive panels were categorized as “timeline panels,” “land-stories,” and “people-stories.” Interpretive sign locations were also shown at more than a dozen locations on the site. A rendered view from Memorial Drive was also shown. A view of relocated structures with sloped walks and granite stoops was also shown. Mr. Murray requested clarification regarding voting to approve an extension. Ms. Kelleher said that the six months would be an extension of time available for demolition. Ms. Kelleher offered a lengthy explanation of the processes that occur in cases of Demo Delay. In this case, the Delay expired, after which point the owner was granted six months to demolish. Ms. English clarified that the Camp Naumkeag buildings were already found historically significant and preferably preserved. Mr. Meche wanted to know how long the applicants were allowed to request an extension, noting that the existing Demo Delay had expired in July. Ms. Kelleher said there was no language in the Ordinance indicating the amount of time granted to an owner to request an extension. Mr. Meche said that the buildings were being demolished incrementally every day and expressed preference toward seeing more of Camp Naumkeag salvaged than was planned. Mr. Meche said that the applicants had been diligent throughout the process. Mr. Martinez said that no plans for mitigation of demolition were shown in the new plans other than historic narrative panels. Mr. Martinez said that the proposed deck did not do enough to retain Camp Naumkeag and proposed building a roof over the deck to replicate appearance of existing covered porch. Ms. English agreed with Mr. Martinez’s comments. Mr. Murray agreed with Mr. Meche that Camp Naumkeag had deteriorated over four decades. Mr. Meche said that voting to continue the application would allow the applicants more time to pin down a timeline moving forward. Mr. Crounse said that Parks & Rec approved the design and was desirous of moving the project forward on what they considered park land. Mr. Crounse expressed the view that providing the deck and memorial pieces were enough to account for commemorating the Camp Naumkeag buildings to be demolished. Mr. Genter said that an existing Camp cabin had been planned for incorporation at some point but was deemed too deteriorated. Mr. Crounse also said that some of the wood from demolished buildings would be incorporated into benches. Chair Joyce asked if the deck could be re-envisioned in the design as a porch, to emulate what had existed. Mr. Crounse expressed concern about reusing structurally unsound pieces of Camp Naumkeag. Chair Joyce said that a deck with a roof over it could be easily replicable and would not require retaining deteriorated materials. Mr. Genter asked how much of the existing porch and roof were desired to be emulated on the planned site design. Mr. Genter said that such an incorporation would be technically possible. Mr. Meche said that the design of the deck and roof did not need to be litigated by the SHC during the present hearing, and that should be discussed among the client and the architect. Chair Joyce also asked if the interpretive panels could be placed inside of the replicable elements of Camp Naumkeag. Mr. Crounse clarified that the SHC wanted to see this new element as part of the design plan in order to grant a 6-month extension. Mr. Meche said that the SHC wanted to see more Camp Naumkeag. Mr. Crounse said that demolition would not happen until a contractor was procured. Mr. Genter expressed concern that Parks & Rec seemed adamant against adding elements to the plan. Mr. Meche said that the SHC’s requests at the present meeting were nothing new and expressed the view that Parks & Rec did not seem receptive to the SHC’s requests. No public comment was required for this item. Mr. Martinez requested that the deck be square with a hip roof in the new design.  Historical Commission meeting minutes September 3, 2025 Page 3 of 9 VOTE: Mr. Meche motioned to continue the request. Ms. English seconded the motion. Roll Call: Murray, Peterson, English, Martinez, Meche, Joyce were in favor and the motion so carried. 26 Winter Street–continuation Jeremy Schwartz applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness to modify rear fence. The applicant requested to withdraw the application. VOTE: Mr. Martinez motioned to accept the applicant’s request to withdraw without prejudice. Ms. English seconded the motion. Roll Call: Murray, Peterson, English, Martinez, Meche, Joyce were in favor and the motion so carried. 107 Federal Street–continuation Richard Jagolta applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness for building renovations after the fact; rear condenser and fence. Leo Kraunelis was present. Chair Joyce noted that a site visit had occurred. Based on the site visit, Mr. Peterson said that the new door was controversial, inconsistent with what was shown on approved drawings; and that the window on the side was changed from double windows to a single window, and had metal cladding; and that another window was moved to the rear. Mr. Peterson also noted that the mechanical unit was clumsily placed in driveway. Mr. Meche said that the previous approval did not permit metal cladding. Mr. Meche was not a fan of making doors look like windows, as the current applicant was undertaking. Mr. Kraunelis took responsibility for the front door design, without knowing history of the building or consulting with SHC. Mr. Kraunelis was amenable to returning to the original door. Mr. Kraunelis said that the plan had two windows, but that a sole window opening was found original to the property upon interior demolition. Mr. Kraunelis was amenable to putting two windows on the side. Mr. Kraunelis said that the window-door on the side of the house was confusing on the plan – indicating a 3’x4’ door – and the decision was made to have a window look like a door. Mr. Kraunelis said that the windows were not metal clad but PVC-coated. Mr. Meche identified an emailed photo when the building was J Chandler and Tea and said that he was okay with one window instead of two. Mr. Kraunelis identified Andersen Architectural Series (A Series Fibrex coated) as the window type used. Chair Joyce asked if members were okay with two windows instead of one. Mr. Kraunelis said that the front door would be returned to its original state. Mr. Kraunelis requested clarification as to whether there should be glass panels in the front door. Chair Joyce said there should also be plinth and moldings around the door, as per previously approved drawings. Chair Joyce noted that matching a tenant door was specified in previous approval. Mr. Meche cited potential issues with the size of the transom and door leaves.  Historical Commission meeting minutes September 3, 2025 Page 4 of 9 Chair Joyce turned attention toward the Fibrex windows versus specifications from the original approval. Mr. Meche said that “wood window” featured in the previous approval language. Chair Joyce said that the applicant would need to re-apply for the windows, which had deviated from the original application’s approval. Discussion shifted to the window-door on the side of the building. Chair Joyce read the description of what had been previously approved. Mr. Kraunelis said that he had been working off a completely different document from the SHC’s previously approved plans. Mr. Martinez said that a door was needed given its prominence at the street on the first floor. Chair Joyce showed the previously approved drawing of the approved window door, which was labeled “DOOR” on the top half and “FIXED PANEL” on the bottom half. Mr. Kraunelis said that the first-floor bedroom needed a window exit, in response to Mr. Meche’s question. Ms. Kelleher recommended that the SHC direct the applicant / owner back to the originally approved plans. Public comment: John Carr, 7 River St, expressed especial affinity for this building which was built by grandson and namesake of builder of his own home in 1788. Mr. Carr expressed concern for the front door to unit 1, where the drawing was at variance with the text. The drawing showed a single door which was not like the original doors, which were the tenants’ entrance to the right. Mr. Carr said that the front door at unit 1 should replicate period doors shown to the right. Helen Sides addressed the Fibrex Andersen A Series windows, noting they were made of fiberglass material and better than vinyl. Ms. Sides lauded the Andersen A Series as better than the 400 Series, which the SHC had approved in the past. Ms. Sides wanted to see a screen share of the application materials during future hearings. Jane Arlander was still not comfortable with the single window and wanted to see the two approved windows on the building. Ms. Arlander said she had never seen a single window on the east side of the building. Discussion shifted to enclosure of the mechanical unit. Mr. Kraunelis said that a previous fence design on Chestnut Street was used as a reference. Mr. Meche showed details of the Fibrex Andersen A Series window. Ms. Kelleher noted that the profile of the muntin was quite thin and shallow. Ms. Kelleher said that paint colors were to match existing according to previous approval. Chair Joyce said that the window at the corner of Beckford and Federal should match the surrounding storefront windows. Flat board and capped fence was shown as the desired fencing to emulate, from 401 Essex, painted to match trim. Chair Joyce said that the front door should match the dimensional style of the tenant door to the right. One window instead of two was determined the preference, with the style and material of window to be continued to future discussion. The fence as discussed was approvable (to be based on 401 Essex).  Historical Commission meeting minutes September 3, 2025 Page 5 of 9 VOTE: Mr. Meche motioned to approve the fence in the flatboard style consistent with SHC standards painted to match trim. Mr. Peterson seconded the motion. Roll Call: Murray, Peterson, English, Martinez, Meche, Joyce were in favor and the motion so carried. VOTE: Mr. Meche motioned to continue discussion of type of window (citing need for more detail and a site visit); one window instead of two; side door / window (more details needed); and front door (need sketch). Ms. English seconded the motion. Roll Call: Murray, Peterson, English, Martinez, Meche, Joyce were in favor and the motion so carried. 62 Forrester Street–continued discussion St. Nicholas Church applied for a Waiver of the Demolition Delay to request to extend demolition period for building older than 50 years. Sean Brennan and Joe McMannus were present. Ms. Kelleher noted the original denial of the demolition waiver was issued on January 2023 and expired on July 4, 2024. The reasons for the denial were: the building was constructed between 1897 and 191 as part of residential development; architecturally important as one of a series of buildings that document an historical period; and demolition for an as-yet undefined green space adjacent to an existing parking lot would detrimentally affect historic streetscape of Forrester Street. Mr. McMannus noted that new drawings were available of the Church’s plan / intention. Mr. Meche said that the previously shown sketch was not impressive. Mr. McMannus said that a finalized rendering had been prepared. Mr. McMannus understood concerns about the expansion of a parking lot. Mr. Martinez reiterated past comments that a green space would not mitigate the loss of an historic building, and that the Church had already removed other three-story buildings in order to make a parking lot. Mr. Martinez also noted that the Church had been granted $25,000 in CPA funds to restore their domes, whereas finances had previously been cited as a concern to simultaneously maintain both the property in question and the Church. Chair Joyce said that the goal of the 18-month demo delay was to identify alternatives to demolition, in response to Mr. McMannus’s question of the building’s significance. Chair Joyce said that when the delay period expired on July 4, 2024 the six-month period where delay could have occurred came and went. No public comment. VOTE: Ms. English motioned to find the building historically significant. Mr. Martinez seconded the motion. Roll Call: Murray, Peterson, English, Martinez, Meche, Joyce were in favor and the motion so carried. VOTE: Ms. English motioned to find the building preferably preserved. Mr. Martinez seconded the motion. Roll Call: Murray, Peterson, English, Martinez, Meche, Joyce were in favor and motion carried. 4 River Street Request to amend previously approved Certificate of Appropriateness. Helen Sides, architect, and Brendan and Lindsey Wakeham, owners, were present. Front elevation (existing) was shown. Interior demolition revealed reframing needs, identified by a structural engineer.  Historical Commission meeting minutes September 3, 2025 Page 6 of 9 The right half with door and three windows was the original house; portion to the left was added later. Ms. Sides said the only visible exterior change would be that the exterior window would be raised to align with the other two windows (as well as three windows on driveway side) and reconstructing the roofline of the addition. Drawings were shown of these proposed changes. Ms. Sides said that the eave line on the rear of the house would be raised to provide more headroom. Chair Joyce asked if the raised windows on the driveway side would meet the bottom sill of the existing third-floor window. Ms. Sides said that the windows would be raised the same height as the front elevation window to be raised, which would still leave space between the driveway windows and the third-floor window. No public comment. VOTE: Ms. English motioned to approve the changes to the original plans. Mr. Murray seconded the motion. Roll Call: Murray, Peterson, English, Martinez, Meche, Joyce were in favor and the motion so carried. 398 Essex Street QMH Realty LLC applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install EV charger after the fact. The applicant was not present. Ms. Kelleher noticed the charger upon visiting Fowler Street. Ms. Kelleher said that the line set had not been approved but had been in place for many years (since 2019), but had not been painted out. Ms. Kelleher said that all sides of the property were visible from a public way. A variety of utilities apparatuses exist on the rear (north side of property). Mr. Meche said that the EV charger was the best- looking thing in the utilities corner. Chair Joyce said that the EV charger was placed where the guidelines suggest they should be. Mr. Meche said that flexibility should be used in instances of EV chargers. Mr. Meche said that EV charger hoses are much like garden hoses. Mr. Murray doubted the efficacy of boxing in the charger in this particular scenario. Public comment: Jeff and Laurie Bellin, Essex Street, noted that the EV charger was inconspicuous when vehicles were parked in the driveway. Lori noted that the house was visible on all four sides and the EV charger was already installed on the rear. The Bellins were not opposed to the EV charger. Dan Graham, 0 North Pine, spoke in favor of the application as a direct abutter, citing the fact that there were no other areas to install the charger and that vehicles typically screened it from view. Mr. Meche wanted to see the utility area cleaned up and the line set painted. Ms. English was not in favor of installing a fence. Mr. Martinez said that the conduit to the charger could be painted. Mr. Meche wanted to see anything not in use removed, and any remaining utilities painted. VOTE: Mr. Meche motioned to approve the EV charger and to request the applicant paint the conduit to the charger, remove anything not in use, and paint any remaining utility items to match house. Ms. English seconded the motion. Roll Call: Murray, Peterson, English, Martinez, Meche, Joyce were in favor and the motion so carried.  Historical Commission meeting minutes September 3, 2025 Page 7 of 9 115 Derby Street The House of the Seven Gables Settlement Association applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness for an HVAC condenser. Paul Wright was present and said a mini split system was planned for installation. The historic barn was recently re-roofed. Those two units have two broken heaters and no A/C. Need a more efficient heating and cooling system. Approximate location of proposed HVAC condenser unit was shown. The line sets would be routed through a parapet wall. Different options were raised for how to route line sets. Mr. Wright said that the line sets would likely only be visible from the garden area. Mr. Meche proposed heat pumps that were self-contained in a through-wall system, which could perhaps be mounted underneath a window (without line sets to run) at the same efficiency and high performance. Mr. Wright said that there was no space for installation on the other side of the parapet, in response to Mr. Peterson’s question, citing existing condensers. Chair Joyce said that visibility would be minimal from public ways. Mr. Wright said that condensers could be painted but this was not recommended by the installer (i.e. overheating could occur), in response to Mr. Meche’s question. Mr. Martinez asked if a louvered screen around the condenser (painted black) could be used. Mr. Wright said that lattice screens had been installed elsewhere on the property. Mr. Martinez said that louvers could blend in with clapboards. Mr. Wright reiterated that the unit would be minimally visible to the public. Mr. Meche was in favor of a site visit. Ms. Kelleher said that any exterior changes to a building with a preservation restriction were within the SHC’s purview. No public comment. VOTE: Mr. Peterson motioned to continue the application to allow time members to visit the site. Mr. Meche seconded the motion. Roll Call: Murray, Peterson, English, Martinez, Meche, Joyce were in favor and the motion so carried. 142 Federal Street Ashley Flynn and Eric Romeo applied for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace garage and modify fence. Ms. Sides was present with the applicants. Ms. Sides said that an existing concrete block garage existed and was in a state of disrepair (cracks in walls, pulling apart on inside) set off from the main property. Interior renovation of house was not projected to start until 2026. Building a new garage was identified as the goal. The garage roofline was partially / minimally visible from street, Ms. Sides said. Ms. Kelleher noted that Flint Street is named in the district and therefore views from this street were in the Commission’s jurisdiction. Ms. Sides noted that the new garage construction would be even further out of sight (further behind the house). Ms. Sides said that the garage could not be greater than 18’ tall. Drawing of proposed front elevation was shown. Two garage doors would be sheathed in wood, paneled, and painted out (cedar clapboard finish) to match the house. Other elevations shown would not be visible except a portion of roofline from lower Flint Street. Ms. Sides said that the garage would fall back into the yard and not compete as a statement building. Mr. Martinez clarified that the garage would be longer along the property line and would no longer be square. Mr. Murray opined that the existing garage did not seem in any way historic, but more like a 1930s/1940s construction. Mr. Murray said that it needed to be rebuilt as it was falling apart. Mr. Meche  Historical Commission meeting minutes September 3, 2025 Page 8 of 9 showed an historic photograph of the rears of properties on Federal Street (from Survey HABS MA-333 photograph collection). Public comment: Stacia Kraft, 140 Federal Street, requested clarification as to the placement of the garage and in which direction it would be lengthened. Ms. Sides said that the garage doors would be further back than they were at present. Ms. Kraft was shown and satisfied by a survey of the new garage’s placement. Mr. Martinez was not in favor of demolishing buildings in historic districts but agreed that this particular garage would be better off demolished and rebuilt as presented. VOTE: Mr. Murray motioned to approve demolition of the existing garage and construction of a new garage as presented. Mr. Peterson seconded the motion. Roll Call: Murray, Peterson, English, Martinez, Meche, Joyce were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. Sides said that the existing fence was deemed unsafe but would not be reconstructed for some time. Ms. Sides pointed out quirks of the existing fence. Ms. Sides proposed to reconstruct the fence so as to meet the house at grade level. A marked-up image of the fence was shown to specify the location of reconstruction. Ms. Romeo also said different sections of the fence were unstable and falling apart. Ms. Romeo spoke to the applicants’ desire to preserve the fence as much as possible. Ms. Sides noted that a portion of the fence overhanging into the driveway was planned for removal in order to expand the driveway surface. Ms. Sides said that the post to the left of the driveway would also be removed, in response to Mr. Meche’s question. Ms. Sides said that gates used to feature at the mouth of the driveway. Ms. Romeo said that historic photos had been consulted to see what Samuel McIntire had originally drawn or intended. Ms. Sides said that the intent was to repair/restore the fence in-kind. Chair Joyce spoke to how deliberate the fence seemed and expressed interest in a site visit. Ms. Romeo and Ms. Sides spoke to the wonkiness of the cobbles and Belgian blocks in and along the driveway. Public comment: Stacia Kraft complimented the idea of getting rid of brick and having the cobbles all throughout the driveway. Ms. Kraft opined that grading would draw water away from the house. Ms. Kraft said that she had also had a door to nowhere removed in a past application. VOTE: Ms. English motioned to continue the application to the next meeting. Mr. Martinez seconded the motion. Roll Call: Murray, Peterson, English, Martinez, Meche, Joyce were in favor and the motion so carried. Request for letter of support The City is seeking a letter of support for restoration of City Hall entrance doors. The City was applying for CPA funds off cycle to restore City Hall doors in place. Mark Pattison was identified as the builder. Ms. Kelleher showed photographs of doors and the application itself. Ms. Kelleher noted that a letter of support for the CPA application was desired which would go to the CPC at a meeting next week. Restoration in 2026 was the identified goal.  Historical Commission meeting minutes September 3, 2025 Page 9 of 9 VOTE: Mr. Murray motioned to issue a letter of support. Ms. English seconded the motion. Roll Call: Murray, Peterson, English, Martinez, Meche, Joyce were in favor and the motion so carried. Other Business Minutes VOTE: Ms. English motioned to accept the August 6 meeting minutes. Mr. Meche seconded the motion. Roll Call: Murray, Peterson, English, Martinez, Meche, Joyce were in favor and the motion so carried. Preservation in a Changing Climate Conference Ms. Kelleher gave a reminder that the conference is coming up on September 17. Preservation Awards Upcoming Ms. Kelleher gave a reminder that the ceremony was coming up on September 6 at Salem High School. Violations Mr. Martinez asked about ongoing violations at 20 Hathorne Street and the (PEM) fence along the rear of Essex block on Brown Street. Adjournment VOTE: Mr. Meche motioned to adjourn. Ms. English seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried. The meeting adjourned at 10:07 PM. Respectfully submitted, Dan Graham, Historical Commission Clerk