SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
OCTOBER 6, 2010
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, October 6, 2010 at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, and Ms. Bellin. Also present was new Commissioner Susan Keenan.
Ms. Diozzi stated that there is a bare quorum and that all four votes would be needed to pass any application.
Ms. McCrea arrived later in the meeting.
31 Chestnut Street
Laura and William Wrightson submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace rotted side fence with different style, including capped picket and capped posts. The terminus location will be changed.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- 39 page presentation
Mr. Wrightson stated that there are two fences they want to replace - a side fence and a fence in the back which was already approved for removal. The front has a wrought iron fence which includes one section that returns down the side lot line and then transitions to the green wooden fence.
Ms. McCrea joined the meeting at this time.
Mr. Wrightson stated that the top of fence will match the top of the wrought iron pickets and the top of the post would match the top of granite posts. They want to add a gate in the location indicated by the red circle on page 6, along green line. Page 7 shows a dotted line, terminating at orange circle, where the existing fence would be removed. The dotted red line is the fence already approved for removal and the solid red is where new fence would be. Page 11 is the proposal for side lot line fence, a capped traditional picket of white cedar which replaces the green fence. Fence details on page 17 include 5’x5” posts, 1”x3.5” pickets with 2 1/8” gap, 8’ sections with fence cap height to match the existing wrought iron picket tops in front section as per
photo on page 4. The post cap height is to match the top of the granite posts on Chestnut Street end. The proposed rear fence style is on page 14, a Modified Stockade in white cedar, gated with 5” x 5” posts, 1” x 2” boards, 6’ tall, 8’ sections with an open upper section area: open to solid stockade area ration: roughly 1:2-2:5 as per included photo from the manufacturer, can be customized per SHC recommendations/preferences.
Ms. Herbert asked, when they start fence at the second granite post from Chestnut Street, if it will begin with a newel post.
Mr. Wrightson believed he would put a post next to the granite post.
Ms. Herbert suggested not having a post and run the fence right into the granite post and connect it somehow.
Ms. Bellin asked if the fence will be left to weather.
Mr. Wrightson replied in the negative, stating that it will be painted white. He stated that they would like two options 1) center gate or 2) right hand side gate.
Ms. Herbert noted that a typical car width is 9’, so they may want to have smaller gate with two 9’ sections.
Ms. Herbert asked if he had a preference between the Nantucket example and the Salem example.
Mr. Wrightson replied in the negative and stated that they were used to illustrate what has been approved in historic districts.
Ms. Herbert stated that they are actually quite different – the Nantucket one is to the ground and is a cleaner design. The Salem one is off the ground and is kind of busy.
Mr. Wrightson stated that he is proposing the picture from the supplier. He stated that he is flexible with the height.
Maura McGrane, 29 Chestnut Street, stated that the fence divides her yard from 31 Chestnut. She preferred that the fence be replaced in kind. She stated that the fence in the beginning by Chestnut Street is shorter than the section toward the back and the missing section was taken down when he started doing work on the house. It was a large trellis type area that had replaced an existing fence. She stated that she had no objection to the fence on Warren Street. She objects to having the side lot line fence changed.
Mr. Wrightson stated that the proposal he got from Ms. McGrane via email was for a 6’ tall privacy fence. He stated that he sent her a copy of the presentation. He stated that he had no interest in keeping the fence.
A copy of the email between Mr. Wrightson and Ms. McGrane was provided.
Ms. Herbert asked the fence height.
Mr. Wrightson stated that he will match height of iron pickets, which he believed is 42 or 44”.
Ms. McGrane asked if line had been surveyed because she did not know whose fence the current one is.
Mr. Wrightson stated that it has been surveyed. He noted that the fence removal in the rear is logical because it is too narrow to be mowed and all his services, such as electrical, are there.
Ms. McGrane stated that she object to the fence removal. She stated that she wants the fence to stay where it is and to go all the way back to the Warren Street line.
Ms. Diozzi read letters into the record from:
- Thomas J. Vander Salm, 33 Chestnut Street, in favor of the application
- Carl N. Wathne, 9 Warren Street, in support with the caveat that they refurbish their garage, remove the stack of logs and maintain the lawn and shrubs bordering Warren Street.
Ms. McGrane stated that she objected to an open picket, white, fence. She stated that the existing is a privacy fence and she noted that she has four children. She stated that she would be effected by the fence.
Louis Mangifesti, 324 Essex Street, stated the he believed that Ms. McGrane was questioning the picket fence look and that she preferred a solid fence. He stated that he was not sure if picket was appropriate for dividing between properties and believed most fences are solid white capped board.
Mr. Wrightson stated that both his house and Ms. McGrane’s house are 4’ off the ground.
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission has approved pickets in the past. The questions is what is the spacing that could be a compromise. She noted that even if the Commission approves the removal of the small section of fence, there is nothing that stops Ms. McGrane from applying to add a fence section where it is being removed. She noted that the Commission has approved fences that are solid in the rear and transition to an open fence in toward the street. She added that shrubs can be planted on either side for additional privacy.
Ms. Bellin suggested that the front be picket and that the rear section be the Modified Stockade to match the proposed new fence in the rear.
Mr. Wrightson stated that he was willing to do so. He stated that they will be putting a pergola back in. They may be putting in a brick wall in the center. He stated that the back yard and side yard are very distinct and separate.
Ms. McGrane stated that they are not separate from her yard, noting it is one long stretch.
Ms. Herbert asked the time frame for adding fence/pergola to the center section.
Mr. Wrightson stated that they want to add it as soon as possible, noting that they have chicken wire currently there for the dogs.
Ms. Bellin stated that the problem is that the proposal is coming in to us in piecemeal. She stated that she felt it would be better to have a complete design, including all the front and rear lot line sections and what is proposed for middle.
Mr. Wrightson stated that the proposal provided was for one fence design and that the Commission is suggesting two different fences on the side. He stated that he is willing to work with the Commission.
Ms. Bellin preferred to look at it as a unified piece.
Ms. Herbert stated that she felt Ms. McGrane has a reasonable concern of having this look nice, and suggested the middle section be brought before the Commission for approval and the work be completed by Spring.
Ms. Diozzi stated that she did not like two different fences.
Ms. Herbert stated that the spacing of the picket fence on page 15 is wide and felt closer would be more appropriate.
Mr. Wrightson stated that Page 17 shows the manufacturer specifications.
Ms. Herbert asked Ms. McGrane if color is part of her concerns.
Ms. McGrane stated that the existing color recedes into the background and is subtle.
Ms. Herbert asked if Mr. Wrightson would you be amenable to a green.
Mr. Wrightson stated that he did not want green in the front portion. He stated he was willing to go with leaving it natural in back, but wanted white in front.
Ms. Herbert asked Ms. McGrane if the fence was approved in white, whether she would be amenable to doing some planting to camouflage it.
Ms. McGrane stated that she felt it was a lot to ask.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to continue the side fence to the next meeting, in hopes of having a rough draft of a pergola, and to give Commission members a chance to go to the site and get a better feel in order to consider spacing and color. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission would not be able to approve the pergola at the next meeting, since it had not been noticed.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve installation of a fence in the location as noted on Page 7, 9 and 10 of presentation. Design to be per style indicated on Page 14, fence details on page 17 and with gate location options on page 18 and 19 . Color continued to meeting of October 20th. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Wrightson stated that the deck sits in the ell. The deck is falling apart and appears to be a Home Depot special. The proposed changes are on page 24, with lattice as proposed on page 31. He noted the drawing is based on his best guess of building code and that the Building Inspector may have some changes. He stated that he is seeking approval for lattice, beadboard or solid panel options. He noted that he prefers the lower panels as drawn on page 25, but if not practicable, the beadboard option on page 32. Deck details are on page 39. The deck will be painted white, with decking coming in mahogany color, which may be oiled.
Ms. Herbert stated that she felt the proposed lattice is particularly beautiful
Ms. McGrane stated that the proposed deck is visible to her and felt it was lovely and she supported it.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve replacement of the existing rear deck with new deck per pages 24 through 39 of presentation, including options for lattice, bead board or solid panels below. All to be painted white, with decking to be Tropical Hardwood, in a mahogany color. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
82 Federal Street
Christopher Luneau and Linda Luneau submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove an existing porch and balcony knee wall railing and replace with wood columns, balusters and railings. The application is also to replace balcony decking, remove vinyl siding at first floor front elevation, restore and paint existing wood cedar shakes and window trim, and remove existing brick stair and metal railings at porch and replace with wood stair and balusters. John Seger, architect.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Seger Architects drawings dated 9/20/10
Mr. Seger stated that they will remove the vinyl on the front including the metal panning around the windows and will restore trim. The vinyl will be replaced with clapboards. They will removed the shingle balcony wall and the two knee walls for the porch. They will recondition all existing wood trim and paint all cedar shakes. They are proposing a hex shingle for the third floor section below the gable peak. The new porch is to have 2 x 2 balusters, with posts a little larger than 4 x 4. The decided to change from the proposed mahogany top rail to white. Another change from the initial proposal is to add recessed panels on the base of the column. Cedar shakes are no longer proposed for the first floor, as they will be clapboards. The lattice under the porch will be
square, painted black to match door.
Mr. Luneau stated that the storm windows will be black. They will be replacing the storm door. The main door behind it will stay.
Mr. Seger stated that they will replace the treads with composite. They are also proposing Hardiplank for clapboards.
Ms. Diozzi stated that the Commission has never approved anything but wood for clapboards.
Ms. Herbert asked the material for the gable vent.
Mr. Luneau stated that it is PVC and that he is open to replacing it.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to amend application to include the front vent. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Luneau stated that they are proposing Sherman William Naval or Rookwood Green for the body color with white trim and black accent. The door will be remaining black. The storm door and windows are to be black. They would like the option to do the window sash in black.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to remove existing porch & balcony knee wall railing and replace with wood columns, balusters and railings as proposed in drawings dated 9/20/10. Balusters to be 2 x 2. Columns to have recessed panels on base. Lattice under porch to be square. Replace balcony decking. Remove vinyl siding at first floor elevation and install wood clapboards. Restore and paint existing wood cedar shakes and wood trim. Remove existing brick stair and metal railings at porch and replace with wood stair and balusters. Stair treads to be made of composite. Install hex shingle for third floor section under gable peak. Paint colors: Sherman Williams Naval or Rookwood Green for body, trim to be white, door, storm door and storm windows to be black.
Option for window sash to be white or black. Lattice under porch to be black. Gable vent and bracket under third floor soffit continued to the meeting of October 20th. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
4 Pickering Street
Stanley and Jody Smith submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to add chimney caps to prevent water leaks and reduce carbon monoxide and rust build up from small boiler that heats the sunporch.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Photo of possible caps
Mr. Smith stated that the first question is whether to go with hip/ridge or flat. He stated that flat less visible but hip would be better for snow to come off. The material options are stainless steel, copper or stainless steel with powder coating. He stated that it could be either top mount or side mount, but that he was confident he did not want side mount. He stated that he selected a size that leaves enough room for two flues and leaves about 3’ all around the top of the chimney.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the application installation of chimney cap(s) to be top mounted, black powder coat or copper material, hip-and-ridge design, with lowest height possible. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Ms. Guy stated that she received a copy of a letter from Massachusetts Historical Commission to Historic New England, regarding the drainage repair project proposed for the Phillips House at 34 Chestnut Street, finding they are unable to determine the area of potential impact and requesting additional information.
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
| 
