SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
September 5, 2007
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, September 5, 2007 at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Mr. Hart, Mr. Desrocher, Ms. Harper and Ms. Diozzi.
Discussion – 20 Chestnut Street/fence installation
James Schooley, owner of 20 Chestnut Street, was present at the request of the Commission regarding the fence installation underway at his home.
Mr. Schooley stated that the Commission’s letter indicates that the post constructed is not the same as the existing post. He provided photographs of the two posts and acknowledged that they don’t match, because the molding immediately under the cover is not exactly the same. He stated that Lowes did not have the molding to match and that he bought as close a match as he could find to the Usovicz post. He stated that he took the measurements of the Usovicz posts which was 9” on one side and on the adjacent side 9 ¼ “. He stated that the only part that does not match is the molding. He stated that he did not find it grievous.
Ms. Herbert asked about the bead marking on the post.
Mr. Schooley stated that it is the marker by the surveyor. He stated that one of the complaints was the fence overlay the property line. He stated that he agreed that one was out of line and there was a little bit of meander, so he dug up 3 of the iron posts had been set in concrete and moved them into straight alignment. He stated that the marker is 2 ½” from edge of the post and that he put a nail on the other post 2 ½” in and provided a photo showing a string between each. He stated that the string stretched there touches one of the posts. He stated that at the last meeting, someone mentioned that the Usovicz side of the fence is not as attractive, so thought it would improve the appearance if he built a square post around the iron post and provided a photograph
as a sample. He noted that by boxing in the post, it overhangs the property line by something like an 1/8”. He stated that if the 1/8” was injurious to his neighbors, he could cut down the post. He stated that he hoped to box in the remaining posts as he felt it would improve the appearance. He stated that he could cap the post, but the overlap over the property line would be 3/8”.
Ms. Herbert stated that she liked the fence that was done along Botts Court, but noted that the Commission had been told that the new fence between 20 Chestnut and 2 Botts Court would not interfere with the brick walkway, therefore the Commission approved it. She stated that it does interfere tremendously, as shown in the pictures. She stated that the Commission does not have jurisdiction over property lines. She stated that the neighbor states that the fence was constructed on her property and that Mr. Schooley needs to settle that with the neighbor.
Stanley Usovicz, 2 Botts Court was present.
Mr. Schooley asked Mr. Usovicz if he agreed that the string touches the post and that he said it was about 1/8”.
Mr. Usovicz replied in the affirmative, but stated that the issue isn’t really about the property line, but is about the brick walk.
Mr. Schooley stated that the brick walk was built over the property line in the first place.
Mr. Usovicz stated that his understanding was that the sidewalk was not going to be impeded upon. He stated that if the posts were on the other side of the fence, it wouldn’t be an issue at all. He stated he did not know how it could be overcome, but agreed that the Commission has no jurisdiction over the property line.
Mr. Schooley stated that he received approval to reproduce the fence as it was before it was taken down and that he has done so. He stated that it would be an enormous undertaking to reverse it.
Mr. Usovicz stated that he believed the finish side of the prior fence was facing the other way.
Mr. Schooley disagreed.
Ms. Herbert stated that you can’t tell from the historical picture which side the posts were on. She stated that the fence was approved with the belief that there was a gate in place and the fence would not be seen from Botts Court, but that there is currently no gate now, so we can see the unfinished side of the fence.
Mr. Schooley stated that a tourist walking along Botts Court has about 50’ of vision on his side of the fence and about 3’ of vision on through the gate opening on the other side of the fence.
Ms. Diozzi stated that she was concerned about consistency.
Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission normally approves fences with the good side out and asked if Mr. Usovicz would be willing to work with Mr. Schooley to move the posts to the other side of the fence, if Mr. Schooley was willing to do so. The fence would not move, but the posts would be on the other side.
Mr. Schooley stated that he has already spent $2000 on the fence and the posts were set in concrete.
Ms. Herbert suggested that perhaps Mr. Usovicz might be willing to move the posts at his expense.
Mr. Usovicz stated that he was willing to try to work it out with Mr. Schooley.
Ms. Herbert suggested continuing the discussion to the next meeting to allow the two to discuss in the meantime.
Mr. Usovicz asked if the Commission has taken up anything with the gate, which would be on his side of the property.
Ms. Guy replied in the negative and stated that an application would need to be submitted.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
104 Federal Street
Mr. Hart excused himself as a member in order to present his application.
David Hart and Barbara Cleary presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors. The body will be Boardman, the trim white and the doors black.
Ms. Cleary stated that they would now like to change the trim color to Quincy Tan, 25% diluted per sample submitted and the door from Black Forest Green. They would also like an alternate door color of Earthly Russet but slightly darker up to 50%.
Mr. Desrocher made a motion to approve the colors as amended. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Hart returned to his position on the Commission.
145 Federal Street
145 Federal St. Condo Association submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors. The body will be Muted Mulberry, the trim will be Wild Oats, the Doors will be Ansonia Peach and the fence will be Wild Oats. Present were Kathy LaBonte, Isabell Leshko and Matt Kleiderman.
Ms. Herbert asked if the doors are currently natural.
Ms. Leshko replied in the negative.
Ms. Herbert asked if there will be an accent color.
Ms. Leshko replied in the negative and stated that they will be using the body color instead of a 4th color.
Ms. Herbert stated that she was concerned about the light color on the door, noting that it will be tough to keep. She suggested using the peach color for the accent and walnut for the door or a color with a purple background.
Ms. Bellin was in agreement.
Ms. Leshko requested that the discussion resume later in the meeting so that she could go home and get more paint chips.
23 Winter Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, Harry and Francoise McCoy submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to relocate fencing and to add a fence/gate.
Ms. McCoy provided new drawings and stated that the gate will be double, opening in the middle, similar to the photo provided. The posts will have two recessed panels and will be 12” square. She provided a photo showing a property on Chestnut Street with a combination of wood and iron fences with wood posts. She added that the contractor states that he has no problem cutting the granite to fit the angle near the house.
Ms. Herbert asked if it is known if the Phillips House had a wood gate.
Ms. Harper asked how tall the posts would be.
Ms. McCoy stated that they will be one foot higher than the fence.
Ms. Herbert stated that she could live with it, if the gate were recessed. She suggested that there be a return and the gate be in line with the house so it reads that it matches the wood of the house.
Ms. Bellin stated that the recess would isolate the triangle.
Mr. Hart stated that he really did not have a problem with the proposal and asked if the wood gate and posts would be painted white.
Ms. McCoy replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the application per drawing submitted. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
29 Washington Square
The John Bertram House Trust submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace bay windows on Mall Street and third floor windows throughout the building with double hung insulated windows. Richard Griffin represented the applicant and provided a Lepage and Vetter window sample.
Mr. Griffin stated that the bay windows on Mall Street need to be custom made due to their size and shape. The long term plan is to replace all windows. They would like double pane for energy efficiency, as well as for safety due to better operation.
Ms. Herbert stated that the Vetter sample looks like it has a plastic or metal mullion.
Mr. Griffin stated that he must have been given the wrong window sample. He stated that the third floor windows are impossible to clean and don’t open completely. They are 3 lites tall and he believed original to the house.
Ms. Herbert stated that the bronze spacer is preferred.
Mr. Hart asked if they have talked to Pane in the Glass or the Window Woman.
Mr. Griffin replied in the negative and noted that the Bertram House is adamant about getting new windows.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the Lepage wood, simulated divided light windows, 7/8” mullions with bronze or darkest available space with arch as specified for the bay windows on Mall Street. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the 3rd floor window replacement to the next meeting in order for the applicant to provide the correct window sample. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
13 Cambridge St.
Michael Sherriff presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove the porch attached to the back of the house to create more green space.
Mr. Sherriff stated that he will be eventually coming in for a new fence that runs along the property line.
Ms. Guy asked if the screen that was put up at the rear of the property between 13 and 11 Cambridge without approval has been removed.
Mr. Sherriff replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Guy asked about the wood between the properties that appears to be there to hold back soil.
Mr. Sherriff stated that it is for soil retention and will be removed when the fence is approved and installed. He stated that he expected to apply for the next meeting.
Mr. Sherriff stated that part of the reason to remove the porch is to investigate some structural problems in the floors of the little addition in the back.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the removal of the deck. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Kate Zubick, 11 Cambridge Street, stated that a pile of wood has been placed on their property, along the property line and that she was concerned with its safety and the view it blocks.
Ms. Guy stated that she checked with the Building Inspector and that the wood pile is not considered a structure and that the owners can be place it anywhere on their property that they choose. It is not in the Commission’s jurisdiction. Ms. Guy stated that if it were leaning, it might be an issue, but not an Historical Commission issue.
145 Federal Street
Continuing discussion from earlier, the owners provided paint chips.
Ms. Herbert suggested Beauport Aubergine.
Mr. Hart suggested Plum Island for the door.
Ms. Leshko stated that a saturated color requires too many coats. She stated that the house has four colors on it now and that it looks busy. If the condo owners don’t want four colors, she asked if the Ansonia Peach could be used for the trim and fence, the house body color and the accent color be Muted Mulberry and the door be Beauport Aubergine.
Ms. Herbert stated that she thinks they will want some of the Wild Oats on the house.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve Muted Mulberry for the body. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve Wild Oats for the fence and trim and Ansonia Peach for the door and accent. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Leshko asked approval for Beauport Aubergine for the door, Wild Oats for the fence and trim and Ansonia Peach for the accent.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve Beauport Aubergine for the door, Wild Oats for the fence and trim and Ansonia Peach for the accent. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
166 Federal St.
Dana Andrus presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace a picket fence and gate at the end of the driveway with a custom made fence. The present fence adjoins a 6’, 6” square post on the left and extends on the right to the left side of the house. A 3’ wide gate fastens to the corner of the house. The proposal is to cover the existing 5” posts by two white 8” square wooden posts (slipped over and fastened to the present posts). Photographs and drawings were provided showing the already constructed posts, rails, pointed end pieces that attach to the posts and tapered and detailed round spindles. She is proposing to paint the rails and spindles black to match the house shutters and the posts Navajo White to match the house trim.
To protect the posts and bottom rail from ground rot, she proposes a cement covered brick base at the foot of the posts and run a similar base the length of the fence (approx. 6’ total), under the bottom rails. The base would be approximately 3” high.
Mr. Hart wondered if there was precedent for the black and white mix.
Ms. Herbert asked if it is mixed at 26 Winter.
Mr. Hart stated that the fences are all black except the wood posts.
Mr. Hart asked if it was approximately 10’ of fence.
Ms. Andrus replied in the affirmative and noted that it was set in.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
6 Chestnut Street
James and Julie McLean submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace a rear window with a pair of matching windows and transom. They would also like to substitute simulated divided lights for the true divided lights for the French door previously approved.
Mr. McLean stated that they felt they could make better use of the space if they replaced the window to the right of the door with a pair of windows.
Ms. Herbert questioned putting a transom over the windows.
Mr. McLean stated that he did not have to have the transom.
Ms. Herbert stated that she preferred to have an architect’s drawing rather than a cut and pasted one as provided.
Ms. Harper asked if the first floor windows will line up with the second floor.
Ms. Herbert asked if the building could provide a drawing to make sure it will all work.
Mr. Hart noted the head height drop to put in the windows and stated it was better off to put in a 6’ door and add a second window. He stated that he felt the proposed throws off all the proportions.
Ms. Herbert asked if the kitchen has been laid out, noting that they may need the wall space.
Mr. McLean stated that they did not need the wall space.
Mr. Hart suggested taking the window being removed from the left of the door and putting it between the door and the window on the right, abutting it to the window.
Mr. Hart made a motion to relocate the existing window to the left of the rear door and install it to the left of and abutting the window to the right of the rear door. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Bellin, Mr. Hart, Ms. Harper and Ms. Diozzi voted in favor. Mr. Desrocher abstained. The motion so carried.
Mr. Desrocher stated that he was confused about the proposal and felt a scale drawing should be provided showing the whole plan.
Mr. McLean stated that he would like to change the French door to a slider.
Ms. Diozzi noted that the rear is from far away from Essex Street, the only location where the rear is visible.
Ms. Harper agreed that it is a long distance to see anything.
Ms. Herbert stated that she felt the owner should get a drawing from the builder before allowing him to work on the building.
Mr. Desrocher stated that he did not feel it was asking too much to request a scale drawing.
Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission would need a catalog cut of the slider.
Ms. Bellin abstained from the discussion and vote on the next two applications.
396 Essex Street
Daniel Leavitt presented an application for a Certificate of Non-applicability to replace a 4’ picket fence with a new 4’ picket fence with 2’ of lattice on top, which has already been completed. The prior fence was built 18” into the rear owners property. The fence is located 150’ from Essex Street and is not visible from the public way.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
394 Essex Street
Essex West Condominium Association submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for fence replacement. Present were condo owners James Michalowski, Derek Binder, Alid Reed and Michael Jackson.
Ms. Guy noted that at the next meeting will be an application from Mr. Leavitt to remove a fence which has already been removed and that this application is to install a new fence in the location of the removed fence.
Mr. Michalowski stated that the fence was removed a year ago after it fell down. He stated that the fence is needed to provide a location to put snow and to close the lot lines.
Ms. Harper asked if the prior fence was stockade.
Mr. Michalowski replied that the prior fence was picket.
Ms. Herbert asked why the new fence would be 6’.
Mr. Michalowski stated that they need a place to pile snow.
Ms. Guy suggested lowering the first section near the street.
Ms. Herbert asked what will happen to the trees.
Mr. Michalowski stated that they will have to trim them back some, but do not want to take them down. He noted that they can put the fence around the trees. He stated that the fence will start at the granite stone.
Ms. Diozzi read a letter from Jeff Bellin, 396 Essex Street.
Mr. Desrocher asked if the old fence was 4’.
Mr. Michalowski replied in the affirmative and stated it had been there over 20 years, but that the weight of the snow took it down.
Mr. Hart stated that he felt a 6’ fence at the street is too high.
Mr. Michalowski stated that they are willing to taper it and put a cap on it.
Mr. Hart suggested a closed picket fence.
Mr. Desrocher stated that a flat board fence is more appropriate than stockade.
Laurie Bellin, 396 Essex Street, stated that she is in support of a fence, but was concerned with the solidity and the height. She stated that she felt 6’ would block a great deal of light and could create a safety issue where someone could break into a window being blocked by the fence.
Daniel Leavitt, 394 Essex Street, stated that he had no problem with a fence at 6’.
Mr. Desrocher preferred a 4’ flat board fence with a cap.
Ms. Herbert stated that a four to five foot fence with capped rail is most appropriate.
Mr. Desrocher suggested using the same as the rear of 394 Essex, just approved, but without lattice.
Ms. Herbert stated that it should be square, not round, posts.
Mr. Desrocher made a motion to approve the installation of a fence along the property line between 394 & 396 Essex Street with 4’ cedar flatboard fence to match fence in rear of 396 Essex without the lattice top. Fence to have standard tapered fence cap. Fence to abut existing granite post and to remain unpainted. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin rejoined the Commission.
111 Federal Street
John Neely and Christine Sullivan submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for permanent removal of gutters and downspouts. The gutters are unpainted copper affixed to the fascia around the entire perimeter of the 3-story house and are beyond repair.
Ms. Herbert asked if the gutter in front of the house functioned.
Mr. Neely replied in the negative and noted that if they replaced it, it would not be maintainable.
Ms. Herbert questioned if water would poor off and how they would get into the front door.
Mr. Neely stated that there is a portico. He noted that if it doesn’t work, they may come back for a “V”.
Ms. Herbert asked about potential icing on the sidewalks.
Mr. Neely noted that 114 and 113 Federal don’t have gutters.
Mr. Hart stated that they may get a drip line that washes out the brick. He stated that, on the other hand, gutters and downspouts are a pain in the neck.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
26 Winter Street
Neil and Martha Chayet submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for amendments/clarifications to approved certificates including shutters, sign, fountain, flag pole, lattice screen, fence posts, pergola porch, window/door lights, lintels, thresholds, back door landing & stairs, gas meter and removal of chimney, as well as materials of chimney caps, landings, steps & railing and bay window. A complete description of the proposed amendments/clarifications is provided in the application. The applicants were not present.
Ms. Guy stated that the owners have requested a continuance.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to continue the application. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Ms. Guy noted that the November 21 meeting falls the evening before Thanksgiving and suggested that the Commission cancel this meeting. Ms. Bellin made a motion to cancel the 11/21/07 meeting. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the minutes of May 16, 2007 with changes previously circulated. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the minutes of June 6, 2007. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the minutes of June 20, 2007 with Mr. Hart’s changes previously circulated. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
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
| 
