SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
MAY 18, 2011
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, May 18, 2011 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Diozzi, Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Ms. Keenan, Mr. Hart and Ms. Bellin. Ms. McCrea arrived later in the meeting.
1 Brown Street
The Peabody Essex Museum submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for removal of siding, gutters and portions or roof shingles to determine condition and temporarily seal and stabilize.
Ms. Guy stated that the applicants have withdrawn the application.
105R Derby Street
Patrick McCormack presented an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of wood window boxes. They will be 8” x 2’ 4” x 8” high, black or existing trim color. They will be hung with brackets attached to the undersill.
Documents & Exhibits
Mr. Hart asked if the façade with the boxes if facing the street.
Mr. McCormack stated that the front of the house is to the side, not facing the street.
Ms. Herbert stated that the boxes are similar to the boxes on the yellow house nearby.
Mr. McCormack stated that his are less elaborate and the brackets will be hidden behind the boxes. He stated that he has not decided which brackets he is using.
Ms. Herbert suggested heavy duty L brackets. She noted that rain will make the boxes heavy.
There was no public comment.
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.
10 Lynn Street
Joseph and Jean Galvin presented applications for Certificates of Appropriateness and a Non-applicability to change two gutters on the left side of the house from wood to aluminum.
Documents & Exhibits
Jim Dalton, 10 Lynn Street, was representing the applicant. He stated that the gutters are going on the left side of the house when looking at it from the street, which is the rear of the house. He stated that most of the house is already aluminum gutters.
Ms. Herbert asked if there was a sample of the proposed gutter.
Mr. Dalton replied in the negative.
Ms. Bellin was concerned that the Commission did not know what is on there now, nor what is proposed.
Ms. Herbert stated that the owner should get a sample from the contractor for the next meeting.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
The applicant will need to come with photos of both sides of the building and a sample of the proposed gutter.
60-62 Washington Square South
In continuation of a previous meeting Lewis Legon, Hodges Court Real Estate, LLC, submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the following:
- Install 2 vents in chimneys as installed
- Replace 2, third floor windows with double hunger Anderson 200s as installed
Also presented was an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace wood handrails with wrought iron and to install a 6’ wood fence in the rear of the property, which would be placed in front of the neighbors chain link fence.
The agenda also included discussion on the windows installed with applied grids and the height of new faux chimney in rear.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Fence catalog cut from Northeastern Fence & Supply Corporation
- Photograph of proposed wood rail
- Plan of Land – North Shore Survey Corporation
Mr. Legon provided a sample of the proposed railing and stated that he was considering using a wrought iron handrail, but was surprised at the cost, so he is proposing a wood railing to replace the existing plain, round wooden railing. It will be in the same location and will have a lower and upper return. He stated that it will be stained, but he was not sure of the stain color.
Ms. Herbert asked the color of the front doors.
Mr. Legon stated that they will be dark green.
Ms. Herbert stated that the railing could be the same as the door color, either stain or paint.
Nancy Tenbroeck, 74 Washington Square East, stated that she was in support of the railing.
Mr. Hart took a photograph of the proposed railing sample for the file.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the replacement of the railing with a hardwood handrail per photograph of the sample provided, to have returns into the building both top and bottom of railing, painted Essex Green to match front doors and supported with brass bracketry. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Legon provided a copy of a survey. He stated that the fence would be along the red line drawn on the survey. He stated that the rear of the property has a chain link fence. They are working with the neighbors to determine the status of the chain link, but if it remains, he will put the new fence in front of the chain link. There is a broken picket fence as it begins to jog and he has spoken to the neighbor and offered to replace the picket fence in kind or with the new 6’ fence. He stated he has not heard back and if he does not, he will install the 6’ fence in front of their picket fence.
Mr. Hart stated that 6’ is kind of high.
Mr. Legon stated that it is standard.
Mr. Hart asked if there is automobile parking there.
Mr. Legon replied in the affirmative and stated that it starts along the fence.
Mr. Hart stated that his concern was people trying to get out onto the street with a 6’ high fence.
Mr. Legon stated that he is considering angling the last section by the sidewalk.
Mr. Hart noted that it would create the same problem for the neighbor trying to get out from their driveway.
Ms. Herbert questioned how a cut down would look.
Mr. Hart suggested dropping down the last section, not having an angle. He added that there could even be two steps.
Ms. McCrea joined the meeting.
Ms. Herbert stated that there are a lot of variables with drop-downs and the possibility of a section of picket for the neighbor. She felt the Commission needed to be specific on how exactly it is going to look.
Ms. Herbert noted that the nice ornamental tree was removed, against her recommendation.
Tom St. Pierre, Building Inspector, was asked if a six foot fence is permissible going to the sidewalk.
Mr. St. Pierre stated that there is no requirement to taper it down, although common sense would suggest it.
Mr. Hart stated that he would like to know what will exactly go there, whether all solid, or combination of solid or picket.
Mr. Legon stated that it will definitely be solid and he is waiting for his neighbor to respond if they want the picket. If he does not hear from them, he will install all solid.
Ms. Herbert asked if it was determined if the chain link is on the property line.
Mr. Legon stated that the surveyor stated that the fence is essentially the property line.
A resident at 70 Essex Street, Unit 2, stated that the chain link fence belongs to him. He felt that pulling out of the driveway is a safety issue and is their major concern. He felt a solid 6’ fence is not appropriate. He stated that it will block views of the Common. He stated that he would be in favor of a picket fence. He noted that, at this point, the chain link fence is not going to be removed. He noted that a parking lot is going there and that according to the Commission’s guidelines, fences are discouraged to accommodate off street parking. He stated that he is not in favor of a 6’ solid fence particularly for the safety issues.
Blair Caldwell, 70 Essex Street, stated that the corner has been a safety issue and it is an extremely tight corner, particularly in Winter.
Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission approved a fence for the house across the street, which divides the two parking areas. She agreed about the safety issues.
Mr. Legon stated that he was willing to slant down the last section or drop it to 4’.
Ms. Bellin stated that she felt 4’ was still high for a person sitting in a car and suggested 3’.
Ms. Guy suggested that the last 8’ section have 2 drops or 1 drop with one half without lattice.
Ms. Diozzi asked why he did not want an open fence.
Mr. Legon stated that it is for privacy and so as not to see the unsightly chain link fence behind it.
Ms. Guy asked how much of the proposed 6’ fence is lattice.
Mr. Legon stated that he thought it was 15 or 16 inches.
Ms. Herbert asked if the step downs would have the lattice.
Mr. Hart stated that the lattice should be on the dropped sections as well. He stated that he would like a scaled drawing.
Mr. Legon noted that a car is not going right from the property to the street but will go across a sidewalk of 4 or 5 feet.
Mr. Hart and Ms. Keenan volunteered to be delegated.
Ms. Tenbroeck noted that there are pedestrians to consider.
Ms. Caldwell stated that there are children on sidewalks, which should be considered.
Mr. Finestone stated that he may remove the chain link fence, but not until this new fence goes up.
Ms. Harper stated that the step downs will look better than a solid wall of fence. She stated that visually, she felt a large solid fence is not appropriate and two step downs would make it a littler lighter and decorative, while still providing privacy.
Ms. Guy summarized that Mr. Legon would prepare scaled drawings for a fence with two step downs at the street for Mr. Hart and Ms. Keenan to review.
Mr. Hart stated that we would to be sure that a person sitting in a car would be able to see over the last section.
Ms. Herbert added that the step downs would also have lattice.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve a 6’ solid cedar Northeastern Fence & Supply Corporation’s Melrose fence (height including the lattice) along the rear property line, with two step downs at Washington Sq. East, conditional that a scaled drawing be provided to delegated Commissioners Hart and Keenan for approval of details of the termination at street, including height and length of step downs, as well as proportion of lattice to fence for the entire fence. The finished side of the fence is to face to the neighbors. Fence to be unpainted. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Ms. McCrea abstained from voting.
Ms. Harper stated that the two 3rd floor windows on either side are true divided light and they have an energy panel.
Mr. Legon stated that it is a Brosco true divided light. He stated that the two double windows in the center were double hung vinyl and were replaced with Anderson 200s one over one. The Anderson 200 is a wood window that is vinyl clad.
Ms. Herbert noted that all the other dormers on the third floor have true divided wood, two over two’s. The only windows that are different are those in the rear. She noted that it is minor visibility.
Ms. Diozzi stated that it is close to an in kind replacement.
Ms. Herbert agreed it was nearly in kind. She noted that the windows are slightly shorter than the other dormer windows. She wondered, if the Commission had reviewed them prior to installation, if we would have considered wood two over two’s, which would have smaller panes, and questioned if smaller panes would look strange and stuck out more.
Ms. Diozzi stated if the applicant came in with an application for a Certificate of Non-applicability for vinyl clad one over one to replace vinyl one over one, she would have felt it was okay.
Ms. Bellin questioned if vinyl clad would be considered an in kind replacement.
Ms. Guy stated that the exterior remains vinyl.
Ms. Herbert stated that a wood core instead of a vinyl core is not something we are going to see. She felt because it is the core and doesn’t have applied muntins, it could be called in kind.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the two center 3rd floor windows as installed under Non-applicability as replacement in kind. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Legon stated that the height of the new faux chimney in the rear is essentially the same height as what was there. He stated that his engineer had concern about the structural integrity and felt it should not be built as high. The height may be off by inches but is essentially the same height.
Ms. Harper asked if it is tied into the framing.
Mr. Legon replied in the affirmative.
It was concluded that the chimney in rear was completed in kind.
Mr. Legon stated that he painted the vents coming out of the chimney in black. He stated that he looked into installing a chimney cap, which was about $800 each, and felt it would be ugly and noted he has copper chimney caps up there. He stated that the alternative would be to redirect the venting which would be an enormous amount of work and expense. He stated that it is approximately 45’ up in the air. He stated he thought the painted vents has made it become a non-issue. The vents serves as an air exchange for the gas conversion and it needs to be at that height so no exhaust can be drawn back in.
Ms. Herbert stated that chimney caps in general are something the commission needs to address in the districts.
Ms. Harper stated that she has done a lot of research and was advised that the manufacturer’s instructions should be followed. In order to put something around the chimney, it would need to be determined if it is allowed by the manufacturer. If allowed, something like a chimney pot or shroud or something with mesh on the side could allow the air exchange, due to being open on the top. She felt that, even though they are black, which is better than white, two pieces sticking out on one side of the chimney was not appropriate.
Mr. Legon stated that he is at the end of the project and has spent a lot of money on the project. He stated that around the Common the majority of the houses in 2011 are venting through chimneys. He stated that he felt he was being singled out since he is surrounded by other properties in the immediate area that are using galvanized metal through the chimneys. He asked the Commission to start its diligent approach around this issue going forward, after his project. He stated that he has talked to some of the neighbors and that he has not had an objection. He stated that he is ready to put the units on the market on June 1st.
Ms. Harper stated that it did not have to be this way, if he had applied before installing the vents.
Mr. Legon replied that it is correct, but that he and Essex County Craftsman saw what was around the Common and it was an innocent mistake.
Ms. Harper stated Mr. Legon knows that everything done to the exterior requires approval and that this is the third project he has worked on an historic district.
Ms. Bellin stated that she agreed with Ms. Harper and stated that the Commission did not approve the location of the vents. She stated that there is no evidence that the Commission approved any vents he is seeing in the neighborhood. She stated that the Commission has to look at this as though it had come before the Commission prior. She stated that if he were proposing it now, for her personally she would want the vents to be disguised.
Mr. Legon asked if Ms. Bellin liked the current installation painted black.
Ms. Bellin replied in the negative. She stated that if he were proposing it, she would have the same problem and that it needs to be disguised.
Mr. Legon stated that he erroneously went forward based on the neighbors having similar vents. He stated that due to the height he did not think it looks that bad.
Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission allowed him to remove 3 chimneys and replace them with faux chimneys and the Commission assumed they would be handsome chimneys that would add to the building. She stated that they did not assume that things would be popping out of them. She noted that Historic Salem, Inc.’s building on 9 North Street has two faux chimneys, of which Mr. Hart brought up at the meeting when the chimney replacement was approved. She noted that one of them has a small circular vent which is almost invisible, so it can be done.
Mr. Legon stated that he did not want the faux chimneys, but accommodated the Commission.
Ms. Herbert noted that there are also five new vents on the building, 3 on the side and 2 on the front which have been installed without approval.
Mr. Legon stated that there will be landscaping.
Ms. Herbert stated that the Commission is not asking to reroute the system, but is asking the chimney vents to be disguised or changed.
Mr. Legon stated that there is a disagreement between him and the Commission. He stated that he did not want to be contentious, but felt he and the Commission are on a different page. He added that he did not know the dispute resolution process.
Ms. Guy stated that it is through Superior Court.
Mr. Legon stated that it is unfortunate that this building is being singled out.
Ms. Herbert stated that it is not being singled out. She stated that almost all the various changes have been done without approval and that afterward he has come in to ask forgiveness. She stated that this is not the way the Commission conducts business. She noted that based on prior approvals, he knew that anything new protruding from the building would have to be reviewed. She asked why there are now five new vents installed without having been approved.
Mr. Legon stated that they are for 5 new on demand water heaters that have to be vented and that landscaping will conceal them.
Ms. Herbert stated that Mr. Legon does not understand that he is supposed to come here and give the Commission the plans and that the Commission may have better ideas on how to do it better and cheaper.
Mr. Legon stated that there is also a water hook-up.
Ms. Herbert stated that it is a continuous bait and switch. Mr. Legon claims it is a misunderstanding and that she feels it is willful misunderstanding. She stated that it needs to be resolved and that it will not hold him up from marketing. She suggested that Mr. Legon check with his plumber and find out what can be done in terms of covering the vents. She stated that a brick build-up is not that expensive.
Ms. Harper stated that she did not believe any vents are on the Common that look just like these and believed every time someone does come in to tell us they are going to vent something, they bring in the actual vent cover and bring in a description and we either approve or don’t approve. She stated that it is not just what is coming out of the chimneys, but it is what is not coming out of the chimneys.
Ms. Bellin stated that it was a mistake to make an assumption that the vents in the chimneys were acceptable.
Mr. Legon stated that it is 2011 and this is how current heating systems are vented.
Ms. Bellin stated that he had an avenue of appeal if he wished to take it.
Mr. Legon stated that this is not like he is the first person to put a vent in coming out of a chimney. He stated that there are four houses with them across the street. He asked if this was a retribution for not coming before the Commission.
Ms. Bellin stated that she would not have voted in favor of the installation if he had applied before the fact.
Ms. Herbert made a motion to approve the PVC venting out of the two main chimneys as installed without covering. Mr. Hart seconded the motion. There were no votes in favor, all were opposed and the motion did not carry.
Ms. Harper stated that she believed the Commission needs the manufacturer’s determination.
Mr. Hart asked if it was a solid copper cap.
Mr. Legon replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Hart stated that it might be possible to fabricate something and solder it to the existing copper.
Ms. Herbert stated that there are also clay pots or building up the brick (four corners with bluestone) as options.
Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the vent application to allow Mr. Legon to look into some type of chimney cap. Ms. Herbert seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Tenbroeck stated that she looks out the window at this building and has no objections.
Election of Officers
Ms. Bellin nominated Ms. Herbert as Chair. Ms. Herbert accepted the nomination. Ms. Bellin made a motion to elect Ms. Herbert as Chair. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Herbert assumed the role as Chair of the Commission.
Ms. Herbert asked for nominations for Vice Chair. Ms. Diozzi nominated Ms. Harper for Vice Chair. Ms. Harper accepted the nomination. Ms. Diozzi made a motion to elect Ms. Harper as Vice Chair. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
There being no further business, Ms. Diozzi made a motion to adjourn. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission
| 
