SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
October 18, 2006
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on October 18, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Mr. Desrocher, Mr. Spang and Mr. Hart and Ms. Guy.
28 Chestnut Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, Annie Harris and Andy Lippman submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace gutters with heavy duty 6” aluminum on four sides of the main house and downspouts with aluminum or painted galvanized with round profile.
Ms. Guy read a e-mail from Ms. Harris, withdrawing the application.
26 Winter Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, Neil and Martha Chayet presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for 22 items (to be described below as each were reviewed). Also present was Larry Beals, consulting engineer.
Addendum #18 - Replace fence, pedestrian gate and auto gate on Winter Street side
Ms. Chayet provided photographs of the different fence configurations that have been on the property over the last 200 years. Also provided was a landscape layout which illustrated the location of fencing.
The application is to replace the existing wooden picket fence with a spindle style wooden fence, mounted on top of the existing granite foundation with posts. The gate and posts will be in the same location with the house number mounted at the age in black metal 6” high and the old rusted gate hardware on the pillars flanking the driveway will be removed. The new driveway gate will swing into the property on new hardware mounted unobtrusively to the pillars in a similar location. Walpole Woodworkers Historic Spindle Fence was provided.
Mr. Chayet stated that the new fencing will be painted white.
Ms. Herbert asked if there will be an arch in the pedestrian gate.
Ms. Chayet replied in the negative and stated that all fencing and gates will be straight.
Ms. Herbert asked if the pillars next to the driveway will remain.
Ms. Chayet replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Chayet stated that the existing fence is a long stretch with iron posts every 12-18’ behind the pickets.
Ms. Herbert asked if it were possible to have the proposed gate but without the criss-cross.
Mr. Hart noted that it might sag.
Mr. Spang suggested using wire.
Mr. Chayet stated that if there is a way, they would also prefer not to have the criss-cross.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve replacement of picket fence on Winter Street with Walpole Woodworker’s Historic Spindle Fence (not including urn post caps) in wood and of same height as existing fence, mounted on top of granite, running between existing brick pillars. All fencing to be straight, not arched, spindles to be round. Pedestrian gate location to remain and to be same level as fence. Posts to secure gate to be as minimal as possible. Replace hardware on pillars. Driveway gate to swing into property. Fencing and gates to be painted white. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Addendum #19 - Install fence and gates on Oliver Street side
The application states that a small section of fence will be installed to achieve privacy, with a pedestrian gate. There will be a matching gate at the driveway in between the new garage and the adjacent carriage house garage. The style proposed is solid, capped with lattice or spindles on top, all painted white. Included was Walpole Woodworkers Universal Board Fence and Semi-Screen Board Fence with Topper.
Ms. Chayet stated that the fence and gate on the Oliver Street side is either Walpole solid fence with lattice or with spindles. The fence will flank either side of garage.
Ms. Herbert asked for confirmation that there would be no scalloping or arbor.
Ms Chayet replied in the affirmative, that it would be straight. She added that they are asking the Zoning Board of Appeals for clarification on curb cuts.
Ms. Herbert asked if there was parking on their side of Oliver.
Mr. Chayet replied in the negative, noting that all parking is on the opposite side, so no spaces will be lost.
Mr. Hart asked the fence height.
Ms. Chayet stated that it will be the same height as their neighbor David Jones’ fence. She added that they are partial to the spindles, rather than the lattice.
Mr. Spang as the post design.
Ms. Chayet stated that it will be the same as the Walpole Woodworkers catalog cut provided.
Ms. Herbert stated that the spindles should come through the top rail.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the installation of fence with pedestrian gate on Oliver Street side with matching driveway gate. Fencing to be solid, capped, painted white per Walpole Woodworkers Universal Board Fence but without arch or scalloping. Fence located as proposed in landscape plan and to be same height as DJ’s. Individual spindles to protrude through top rail approximately 2-3”. Posts to be 6 x 6 cedar with simple caps, stained white. Approval is subject to submission of final drawing and detail review/approval prior to construction. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Addendum #20 – Install Fountain
Ms. Herbert asked if they are looking to install an antique fountain or a new one made to look old.
Mr. Chayet stated that it will be new, made to look old, similar to David Jones’ fountain. He indicated the location on the landscape plan, noting that it will be off the corner of the trellis fence.
Ms. Herbert asked how wide the fountain will be.
Mr. Chayet stated that it will be 6’ wide at most.
Ms. Herbert suggested putting it in the garden area, particularly if they find a larger foundation. She suggested the names of businesses that deal in antique fountains, including Richard DiFillipo, Paul Burke and Kaminski in Beverly.
Mr. Spang stated that the location of the fountain seems funny.
Ms. Chayet stated that they don’t want it to fight with the formal front entrance, but that they want the sound to help cover the traffic noise by being close to the house.
Ms. Herbert suggested that the consider a small fish pond with a water fall.
Mr. Spang stated that if it is located up against the fence, they should bet one intended to be against the building.
Ms. Herbert stated that if it has a large bowl, it should be moved into the card. She added that for the proposed location, they could have a wall fountain or natural pond.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the fountain. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Addendum #21 – Install a flagpole
Mr. Spang made a motion to approve the installation of 25’ white fiberglass flagpole in location noted on landscape plan.. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Addendum #22 - Install dryer vent, plumbing vents, basement and attic vents
Mr. Chayet stated that the plumbing and electrical plans have not been drawn, so they don’t know the locations for vents and pipes, etc. He noted that most will be on the rear facades. There are also other mechanical apparatus needed for toilets, drains, air circulation that will be installed in an unobtrusive way with as little seen from the streets as possible with vegetation as appropriate to hide the vents.
Ms. Guy noted that the Commission usually wants vents located behind a fence or, if through the roof behind the chimney, painted to match the surface they are on.
Ms. Herbert stated that roof pipes should be black.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue Addendum #22. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Addendum #23 – Paint colors
Ms. Chayet stated that most of the paint colors were approved with each addendum that was approved. She stated that doors will be black and treads and surfaces of the back porch will be grey.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve paint colors unless otherwise noted in Certificates dated 9/26/06 & 10/10/06, wood surfaces to be Brilliant White, doors to be Black and treads/stairs of rear porch to be gray. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Chayet requested that the application remain open until the final drawings are completed, so that they can do a final run-through and see if there needs to be any tweaking of any details. He noted that the Commission will need to review a basement window.
105 Federal Street
Robert and Susan Hayward submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors and for a new entry gate with arbor. The front door, front steps window sash, window mullions and aluminum storm sash will be painted Twilight Zone. The window casings, front door casing including hood and all molding and aluminum storm frames will be Hemp and the clapboards, corner boards, rake boards, sill plates, eaves, gutter, downspout and window boxes will be Katsura. The arbor opening will be 42” w x 80”h. Gate and fence height to match existing 50”, square lattice on sides or arbor, square profile balusters, all cedar, painted trim color of house.
Due to being an abutter, Mr. Hart abstained from discussion on this application.
Ms. Diozzi read a letter from Elizabeth Burns, 22 Beckford St., in favor of the application.
Mr. Desrocher made a motion to approve the paint colors. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert suggested a square top, rather than curved arbor top.
Mr. Hayward stated that the post is right at the Burns’ fence, so anything extending past the arbor will go over the Burns’ property.
Ms. Hayward stated that they are willing to go with square.
Ms. Herbert suggested continuing the application so the applicants can find a square arbor design. She stated that an arched arbor will look out of place on this property.
Mr. Hayward stated that the fence height will remain the same.
Mr. Spang drew a sketch of a square arbor.
Mr. Spang made a motion to approve replacement of entry fence and gate with new wood fence/gate and arbor. New fence/gate to be same height as existing with square spindles per photograph submitted. All spindles to be uniform in height. Arbor to be per design sketch provided by Commissioner Spang. Entire to be painted trim color. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
268 Lafayette Street
Christine and Keith McClearn submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for temporary construction of a deck in the back of the house for a period of one year. The deck has already been constructed.
Ms. Guy stated that she was informed that the applicants could not be present because they needed to go to a wake. Ms. Guy read from an email sent by Ms. McClearn, requesting a continuance to the meeting of November 15th, so that they can also submit an application for signage at 107 Federal Street and have both applications reviewed at the same meeting.
Ms. Herbert stated that they also need to apply for the French doors that were installed.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to suspend the application until later in the meeting. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
421 Essex Street
George and Paulette Balich presented an application for a Certificate of Non-Applicability, which was advertised under Appropriateness to relocate an existing fence section, to install a wood rail bumper (2x12) with posts (4x4) painted same color as existing decks (approx. 24” high), to remove existing dentist signage, repoint brick, repair gutters downspouts and flashing, repair slate roof and existing skylight, repaint stone headers and sills at doors and windows, repaint and repair existing windows and doors, repaint existing wood stairs, decks and rails, install 3 storm windows and install new bathroom mechanical vents, at the parking side of the building (painted color of brick when in wall, painted black to match slate if located in roof. Drawings were provided.
Ms. Herbert asked how many units are in the building.
Mr. Balich stated that there are three and that they are converting the dentist office to residential. The fence on Warren Street is proposed to be made into a right angle to create a driveway.
Ms. Guy noted that the Commission does not have jurisdiction on gravel or brick pavers.
Margaret Roberts, 51 Warren Street, asked if the brick sidewalk will remain.
Mr. Balich replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the fence relocation as proposed.
Mr. Hart asked how the opening will be demarcated.
Mr. Balich stated that there will be a hidden post.
Ms. Herbert noted that the existing gate is a different height from the fence.
Mr. Balich stated that the gate won’t be reused.
Ms. Herbert stated that the fence is essentially a short stockade and suggested it be capped to help stabilize the fence. She stated that she did not see how the fence can replicated with the tree there. She asked if they will be fixing the missing pickets on the Essex Street side.
Mr. Balich replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Spang stated that he had a problem with bollards at the driveway opening. He suggested that, instead of relocation the fence, they make a gate which could be left open.
Ms. Herbert questioned if it would be better to have no fence on Warren Street.
Mr. Spang stated that a fence is better for the neighbors if the yard is becoming parking.
Mr. Hart seconded Ms. Bellin’s motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Balich stated that they need a bumper wall at the fence to protect cars from hitting anything protruding, such as the bulkhead.
Ms. Guy as the material for the car stops.
Mr. Balich stated that they will be railroad ties.
Mr. Hart suggested a curb stop.
Ms. Herbert suggested bollards instead of bumpers.
Mr. Balich stated that he has some granite curbing in the yard that sunk into the ground. He stated that he could reuse it instead of the bumper wall.
Mr. Spang made a motion for the installation of two bollards near bulkhead as noted on plan with the option to use existing granite on site to demarcate left side of driveway.
Mr. Hart stated that he would prefer concrete wheel stops to railroad ties at the four parking spaces.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to offer an option for the four wheel stops to be 6x6 pressure treated or creosote type or masonry. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Spang made a motion to approve the removal of the dentist signage. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Spang made a motion to approve the repair or replacement of gutters, downspouts, flashing, slate roof, skylight, stone headers and sills at doors and windows, windows, doors and wood stairs, decks and rails to replicate existing and repointing of brick.
Mr. Hart asked the percentage of repointing.
Mr. Balich stated that it is approximately 10%.
Mr. Hart stated that the mason should match the new aggregate to the existing aggregate using a 1-3-6 mortar mix and that the mason use a manufactured product such as Prosoco 600 or Vanitrol to clean the mortar after repointing. He stated that them mortar should be recessed to the same depth as existing.
Mr. Spang amended his motion to include Mr. Harts recommendations as conditions for approval. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Hard stated that he did not believe bathrooms need to be vented mechanically if there is a window.
Ms. Herbert stated that if a vent is needed, it could possibly be hidden under the upper deck.
Mr. Balich stated that they want to vent the washer/dryers through the roof.
Ms. Herbert made a motion for the installation of bathroom vent to be under and as close to upper deck as possible, painted brick color. Installation of dryer vent through roof. If not possible to go through roof for dryers on each floor, two to be installed through wall and one through roof. Wall vents to be square metal, flush, painted brick color. Roof vent to be flat box painted to match roof color. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert asked if they will be doing anything with the railing on the porch.
Mr. Balich stated that they were not planning to.
Ms. Herbert encouraged them to consider improvements to the railing.
138 North/2 Dearborn St.
In continuation of a previous meeting, Thomas Pelletier, Cynthia Pelletier and Kellie Overberg submitted an application for exterior alterations to a carriage house including replacement of windows, changing 3 doors to windows, installation of new door and installation of a/c vents and pipes through the Carriage House Ordinance. The applicants were not present.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert suggested sending a letter to the applicant regarding the windows approved for 26 Winter St.
268 Lafayette Street
In continuation from earlier in the meeting, Christine and Keith McClearn submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for temporary construction of a deck in the back of the house for a period of one year.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to continue the application as requested and to request that the applicants apply for the French doors. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
92 Derby Street
Ms. Guy read a letter from John Paskowski regarding the two windows installed without approval. He proposes to replace them with Brosco 2 over 2 authentic divided light sashes. The letter states that the remaining front façade clad double hung windows are not original and were replaced by former owner in 1990.
The Commission accepted the solution.
Ms. Guy stated that she was told by the applicant and their architect, that the rest of the aluminum windows has been installed approximately 5 years ago, under the father’s ownership.
Ms. Herbert suggested that when the Building Inspector conducts the occupancy inspection, he check the remaining windows to see if they are new.
92 Federal Street
Ms. Guy stated that she received three calls from neighbors concerning painting underway at 92 Federal Street. Because she did not have a certificate on file for repainting, she asked the Building Inspector to stop by the house. Ms. Guy stated that Victor Capozzi came in shortly thereafter irate, saying that he had applied and gotten approval. Mr. Capozzi filled out a Certificate of Non-applicability for Regatta Blue. Ms. Guy rechecked the file and found that he had applied for repainting, but that she had erroneously omitted it from the Certificate. She noted, however, that the last paint color approved was for Federal Blue.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to issue a Certificate of Non-applicability to repaint in the colors previously approved. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert stated that she will check if Federal Blue is still available and if it matches what is being painted on the building.
Other Business
Mr. Hart stated that it is okay to remove 95 Federal Street fence from the violation list, as the fence has been changed as required.
Ms. Guy stated that she received a copy of a letter from Massachusetts Historical Commission concerning the telecommunications installation at 281 Essex Street, finding no adverse effect with the conditions previously specified by the Salem Historical Commission.
Ms. Guy noted that the Park and Recreation Commission is going to host a public meeting on the Community Preservation Act on November 28th at 7:00pm at Old Town Hall.
Ms. Guy stated that she inquired with the City Solicitor and also conducted internet research on procedures for handling amendments to motions and provided copies for the commissioners.
There being no further business, Ms. Bellin made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Spang seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission
| 
