SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
December 5, 2007
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, December 5, 2007 at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Ms. Bellin, Mr. Hart and Mr. Desrocher. Ms. Diozzi arrived later in the meeting.
20 Hathorne Street
In continuation of a previous meeting, Linda Locke submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the existing front landing, steps and rails in wood.
Ms. Guy read a letter from the applicant requesting a continuance to the January 16th meeting and waiving the requirement that the Commission act within 60 days.
Mr. Desrocher made a motion to continue the application to the January 16th meeting. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
13 Cambridge Street
In continuation of a prior meeting, Michael Sherriff and Eric Richards submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for installation of a 6’ solid board fence along the property line starting from the rear corner of the house extending out to the property line and then following then following the property line to where it abuts the back yard property line of 6 Broad Street. A walk gate will be the portion of fence that extends from the house to the property line. Fence colors will be white and beige/tan matching those of the house. Sketches and photos were provided.
Ms. Diozzi joined the meeting at this time.
Mr. Richards stated that there is a grade change on the lot that will require a dip in the fence. They have removed pavement and have made green space and added grainstone.
Mr. Herbert asked if part of the fence is a gate for vehicles.
Mr. Richards stated that there will be two removable sections.
Mr. Sherriff stated that they will remove the sections after the first snow through the Winter.
Ms. Herbert asked the width of the opening.
Mr. Richards stated that it will be two 6’ sections.
Ms. Bellin stated that a sliding fence may be more appealing at resale than a removable fence.
Mr. Richards stated that he was afraid a sliding fence would look hokey. He stated that he is willing to enclose the gradation change with a skirt board. The fence will be 6’ flatboard with a cap. The posts will be on the side facing his property. The fence will be 63.39’ of which 12’ will be raised. The fence will be placed on the line where the asphalt has been cut.
Kathleen Zubick, 11 Cambridge Street, stated that she was concerned about seepage under the asphalt.
Mr. Richards stated that they installed a drain 3’ below the surface.
Ms. Herbert suggested that Ms. Zubick ask the Building Inspector any questions relating to installation.
Ms. Zubick asked when the fence will be constructed.
Mr. Richards stated that it will be constructed by Spring.
Ms. Herbert closed the public hearing.
Mr. Desrocher made a motion to approve the application as submitted with the addition of a skirtboard. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
6 Hamilton Street
Latta Realty Trust, Lynn L. Frothingham and Charles Newhall trustees, submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove a 4’ high fence between 6 and 4 Hamilton and replace it with a new 4’ high cedar fence, flatboard with 5” x 5” capped posted, natural stain. New fence to face out. Provided was a proposal by J.C. Fence and pictures of the existing fence.
Mr. Newhall stated that the new fence will be a traditional Colonial screen fence.
Ms. Harper asked if it will be similar to the section of fence that it will be perpendicular to.
Mr. Newhall stated that it will be similar, but will be butted together.
Ms. Harper asked if there will be a cap along the boards.
Mr. Newhall replied in the affirmative and stated it will have square posts.
Mr. Hart asked the spacing of the posts.
Mr. Newhall stated that it will be the same as existing because they will be using the same post holes.
Ms. Harper asked the width of the boards.
Mr. Newhall stated that he did not know, but assumed they would be 6-8”. He stated that the posts would be pressure treated.
Mr. Hart stated that he felt a tighter specification was needed on what the fence will look like.
Mr. Newhall stated that it will be cedar flat boards, solid with no spacing, pyramid capped posts and a capped rail.
Mr. Hart asked what the cap rail will be made of and look like.
Mr. Newhall stated that he did not know.
Ms. Harper suggested using the same caps as the adjacent fence. She stated that the cap must be a pyramid cap, not a pyramid cut.
Ms. Herbert stated that the post caps should match the gated fence to the back yard.
Mr. Hart suggested that the applicant get a drawing or photograph of what is being proposed.
Ms. Herbert asked the color.
Mr. Newhall stated that it will be natural stain and noted that the fence is not intended to match the other fencing on the site.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application.
Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
268 Jefferson Avenue
Joshua Levesque presented an application to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance for the complete removal of the cinder block building at 268 Jefferson Avenue due to it being a safety hazard and beyond repair. Also present was Robert Levesque.
Mr. R. Levesque stated that the roof and floors are caved in. They intend to remove the siding on the main house and restore it. The cinder block building was a former cobbler store that will be removed.
Mr. Desrocher made a motion to approve the waiver.
Ms. Bellin seconded the motion.
Mr. Hart suggested an amendment for the owner to record the interior and exterior of the building with photographs and to record the exterior dimensions around the perimeter and height.
Mr. Desrocher accepted the amendment. Ms. Bellin seconded the amendment. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
254 Lafayette Street
Lewis Legon submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to change the paint colors of the dentils and downspouts as has already been painted and to alter the design of the first floor deck posts as has already been constructed.
Ms. Guy stated that she and Ms. Herbert met with Building Inspector Joe Barbeau and Mr. Legon earlier in the day. She stated that the Building Inspector obtained a ruling from the State that any new stairway or replacement stairway will require that the top rail extend beyond the first step by 1 tread depth, noting that the rail may terminate with a newel post on top of the bottom stair, providing that a handrail extends beyond the post enough to meet the 1 tread depth (measured horizontally). ~This determination does not apply to existing partially preserved historic handrails that are being repaired, which can remain with their current configuration. Therefore, the handrail, as constructed does not meet building code.
Ms. Herbert stated that she is okay with the paint color change, the addition of the second set of stairs, the enlargement of the landing and that the railing does not match the new railing on the third floor as was approved in the Certificate and drawing.
Ms. Guy noted that the railing does, however, match the remaining railings on the first floor.
Ms. Herbert stated that in order to achieve the building code requirements, the Building Inspector suggested installing a post in front of the support post.
Mr. Desrocher stated that he would like to see a drawing and suggested continuing the application to the next meeting. Ms. Bellin and Mr. Hart were in agreement.
Ms. Guy suggested, rather than continuing the application and requiring the applicant to come back in two weeks, that the Commission delegate the drawing approval to Ms. Herbert.
Mr. Desrocher made a motion to approve the alteration of paint colors of dentils and downspouts as has currently been painted and the replacement of first floor right elevation stairs, railing and deck as has already been constructed (with expanded landing and additional set of stairs), conditional that new posts be installed in front of the three existing support posts in order to extend the handrail 1 tread depth as per building code. New post to match landing posts and all to be painted to match existing. Prior to commencement of this work, the owner must submit a drawing to Commissioner Herbert who has been delegated to provide final approval (no additional full review by the Commission is required). Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of 7/10/07 with the addition of the sentence “No further action was taken.” at the end of the 20 Chestnut Street discussion. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy read a letter dated 10/28/07 from Historic Salem Inc. to Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) concerning the J. Michael Ruane Judicial Center Memorandum of Agreement.
Ms. Guy read a letter dated 11/1/07 from MHC to BGA Architects concerning the Salem Witch House Accessibility Alterations which determined that the project will have no adverse effect.
Ms. Guy read a letter from MassHighway to MHC dated 11/30/07 stating that they will not be undertaking the extra work (i.e. reconfiguration of the Bridge Street ramps) in conjunction with the North Street project.
Neighborhood Architectural Conservation Districts
Rita Wilson of VHB was present to update the Commission on the development of Survey and Planning Grant project for Neighborhood Architectural Conservation Districts. She noted that there will be 6 to 8 public meetings in January and February. They will create an ordinance and guidelines and two neighborhoods will be selected for detailed study.
There being no further business, Ms. Bellin made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Desrocher seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission
| 
