SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
MAY 5, 2010
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, May 5, 2010 at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper and Ms. Bellin. Ms. McCrea arrived later in the meeting.
330 Essex Street
Kent Glenzer and Catherine Toth submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace existing house numbers with new metal house numbers, which are slightly larger and more visible than the current, to be located either in the existing location or from top to bottom below the door knocker.
Ms. Herbert asked if the door knocker is brass.
Ms. Toth replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Bellin stated that as a design issue, she felt things are harder to read in the vertical.
Ms. Toth stated that the new numbers’ height is 1” higher than the prior numbers.
Ms. Herbert asked if there was any reason why they don’t like the old numbers.
Ms. Toth replied that she felt they were 1960s numbers and nothing special.
Ms. Herbert stated that she felt they had the look of old English scroll. She stated that the house has a nice antique brass knocker and the brass numbers and she questioned why they want to go to commercial numbers.
Ms. McCrea joined the meeting at this time
Ms. Diozzi stated that she had no problem with the larger size of the numbers.
Ms. Herbert stated that she would vote against, only because she felt the existing could be shined up and would look outstanding. She stated that if the owners wanted the numbers more pronounced, they could set them on a little block.
Ms. Bellin stated that she felt it was kind of an aesthetic thing.
Ms. Herbert stated that existing numbers are not longer available and that one would have to go to Restoration Hardware.
Ms. Bellin asked how strong the owners felt about the new numbers.
Ms. Toth replied that they did not feel that strong at all, that she bought them before they realized they were in an historic district and that she thought they were 1960s numbers, but is delighted to learn that that is not the truth.
Ms. Herbert stated that the numbers also go well with the leaded glass windows.
Ms. Toth withdrew the application.
31 Chestnut Street
William and Laura Wrightson submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to permanently remove a small fence section along the back of the property.
Ms. Diozzi read a letter from Carl & Alice Wathne in support of the application.
John Reardon, 35 Chestnut Street stated that one can see a lot of the existing fences around Salem and that a wood fence with extended pickets above is common.
Ms. Bellin asked if they were planning to replace the fence.
Mr. Wrightson replied that they might be back with something.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
396 Essex Street
Ms. Bellin stated that she is a resident of the property, abstained from voting and sat in the audience.
Garney House Condo submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the roof using architectural shingles, install roof vents, and repair or replace gutters. Sue Benedict was present representing the condo. Robert Laughlin, Laughlin Homes, Inc. was also present.
Ms. Benedict stated that they won’t be doing architectural shingle.
Mr. Laughlin stated that they will be using a standard 3-tab, 25 year shingle. He noted that a ridge vent cannot be used because it is hip roof. They are proposing one louver on the back of the hip roof and one each on the back of the left and right side dormers, so that they will not be visible from the street.
Ms. Herbert stated that she did not believe they will be visible.
Mr. Laughlin stated that the vents will be low profile, 1’ x 1’ square, PVC vinyl, which come in black, and probably projects off the roof 3 ½ to 4”. He noted that the gutters are in really good shape and do not need to be replaced. They will clean, linseed oil and do a little flashing. If they have to replace anything, it would be small section spliced in.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-applicability the replacement of a 3-tab, black asphalt roof in kind and to undertake repair and maintenance to wood gutters in kind.. The motion is also to install 3 low profile, 1’x1’ black PVC roof vents in locations as noted in drawing, conditional that they are non-visible from the public way. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin rejoined the board.
61R Summer Street
Susan Colford submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for paint colors, to repair/replace all cracked and rotted window trim, fascia, corner boards and rake boards. Repairs include: replace 6 window frame trim sections, replace 50’ of pine corner trim, replace 6’ wood gutter and related trim, replace 2 rotted windows sills on awning windows and replace 3 sections of brick molding on window trim on awning windows and replace left hand side of rear door frame molding. Body color will be Rocky Hill, and trim will be Asian Jute.
Ms. Colford stated that she wanted to change the trim color to Jewett White. The front door will be left natural. She stated that she would like to make side door disappear by painting it the house color, including the door trim.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve Rocky Hill for the body and Jewett White for the trim with the side door and door frame to be Rocky Hill. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve a Certificate of Non-applicability for all the repairs. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
119 Federal St.
Fred and Linda Lipton submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install 6’ high maximum wood fence to be located form the rear of the house to the rear of the property as noted on the plot plan provided. Fence to be painted gray to match existing fence. The application is also to add a 4’ x 8’ panel at the end of the driveway to match the existing fence and separate the patio from the driveway.
Mr. Lipton stated that last year the Commission approved a fence.
Ms. Lipton stated that she loved the fence originally approved by the Commission, however, when they asked Helen Sides to look at it, Ms. Sides suggested something with more light between the two yards to maximize light and air. She also suggested two arbors so it will appear to be one property separated into little gardens.
Mr. Lipton stated that it will still be a balustrade fence of the same height but it will have the top be 18” instead of 12” on the top.
Ms. Lipton stated that it was suggested to reduced the size of the posts.
Mr. Lipton stated that the fence across (B) would turn into diagonal oversized lattice.
Ms. Herbert asked if it will be flatboard below.
Mr. Lipton replied in the affirmative and stated that it will be 4’ of flatboard and 2’ of lattice. The lattice will be cedar and the other boards are to be pressure treated.
Ms. Lipton stated that the original decision was to paint both fences the same grey of the current fence, but noted that they may want to paint Fence B a more garden green color such as Van Courtland Blue. They would like the option for fence B.
Ms. Diozzi read a letter from Mary Whitney and Nick Nowak encouraging fencing that will not alter the micro-climate by blocking air and light flow.
Ms. Herbert asked if they preferred a blue gray versus a green gray. She suggested giving some greener options as well.
Ms. Lipton suggested Woodlawn Juniper, Café Blue, Jekyll Sans Soucie Green and/or La Fonda Villa Fountain.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the installation of Fence A (as noted on plan) as previously approved but making the balustrade top 18” instead of 12”. Posts to be approximately 5” instead of 8” with corners and ends to be 6” square, with one arbor centered between location of Fence B and rear lot line. Fence to be painted same gray as existing fencing. The motion is also for the installation of Fence B (as noted on plan) to be 6’ tall (4’ wide lattice of 4” diamonds on top and 2’ of flatboard siding underneath) with arbor as shown in drawing and located as per plan, or centered in the length of fence. Fence to be painted either Van Courtland Blue, Woodlawn Juniper, Café Blue, Jekyll Sans Soucie Green or La Fonda
Villa Fountain.
Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Lipton stated that, for privacy, they would like to add a temporary panel during the summer by adding two holes in the ground to create a patio. It would be located to hide the bench at rear of the driveway and be the same height or slightly shorter than the side fence. It will be flat board, capped, with the same grey with white trim.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve a temporary, removable 8’ wide fencing panel to match side panel along driveway, to be same height or a few inches shorter and in same colors to be located at end of driveway in front of bench to create patio space. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert suggested they consider having the panel sit on wheels with non-visible arms to keep it from going backwards and forwards. She suggested that they also have two separate panels with wing bolts.
Ms. Bellin amended her motion to include the option for two 4’ panels connected with wingbolts and to have wheels. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
386 Essex Street
386 Essex Street Realty Trust submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove 80’ of existing steel/iron fence and replace with 6’ high flatboard 1 x 6 cedar fence with Brosco fence cap #8276 and to repair iron fence to tie into the new fence on the west side of the property. David Clarke represented the applicant.
Ms. Bellin stated that she received an abutter notice and would need to abstain from voting.
Ms. McCrea stated that she is a tenant and would need to abstain from voting.
Without a quorum the application will be placed on the next agenda.
316 Essex Street
In continuation of a prior meeting, First Church of Salem submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to expand the 1927 Parish House block with a 24’ x 24’ addition to create universal access and egress. The addition includes a new entrance and elevator bay at the south elevation and an egress door at the north elevation. Original entry and lancet window at the south elevation and two small windows at the east elevation to be removed. Large arched staircase window at the east elevation to be reused in the staircase of the addition. 1987 stained glass window over door to be relocated within the addition. Fire escapes to be removed from the north elevation and second floor exterior doors to be replaced with windows to match existing windows. New window trim
will match existing parish House trim. New sash will be custom-made SDL, wood windows with muntins matching width of existing muntins at Parish House. New entry doors will be painted wood with glazing. Stucco cladding for the existing Parish House and addition will be cleaned and coated to match C2 Paint “Shitake” #C2-7146P. Drawings were provided.
Ms. Guy stated that she received an e-mail requesting a continuance to the meeting of May 19th.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to the May 19th meeting. Ms. Harper seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
- Telecommunications at 320 lafayette street.
Ms. Herbert stated that without a simulation photo it is difficult to comment. She stated that the prior installation by MetroPCS was not installed as per the photo simulation submitted – it is not flush, it is raised and there are visible brackets. She stated that she is concerned about additional clutter on this one particular building. Ms. Guy will draft a letter to send to EBI Consulting with these comments.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of March 3, 2010. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of April 21, 2010. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy stated that she received an anonymous complaint regarding brickwork done, with mortar too thick. She noted that the Commission did not have a Certificate on file and that she asked the Building Inspector to go by, who stated that the painters were prepping wood for new paint and that he would have the painters have the building owner contact me. She suggested that the Commission members go by the property.
Ms. Guy stated that she has received 66 emails (4 from Salem, 1 from Peabody, 1 from Marblehead, 8 from Lynn and 53 from out of state) regarding the Walmart/Lowes project near Spring Pond. All but 2 of the letters read the same and she read one into the record.. She noted that the Commission does not have jurisdiction for this project.
There being no further business, Ms.Bellin made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission
| 
