SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
MAY 16, 2012
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, May 16, 2012 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Keenan, Ms. Bellin, Mr. Spang and Mr. Hart.
8 Gifford Court
Shirley A. Walker and Robin D. O’Neil submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace a fence that was damaged by a falling tree. The previous wooden fence was 6’ high and 12’ long on the Bridge Street side with a gate next to the garage. There was a 5’ high 15’ long unpainted, chain link fence on the side of the house with no gate or opening. The new fence if 6’ high, 12’ long on the Bridge Street side and is unpainted wood with a flat top and a gate next to the garage. It will be extended up the side of the house with no gate or opening.
Documents & Exhibits
Ms. Herbert asked if the fence is cedar.
Ms. Walker stated that she thought so.
Ms. Herbert asked if she will let the fence go natural.
Ms. Walker replied in the affirmative. She stated that the fence is identical to the fence at the house next door. She stated that the only difference is the replacement of the chain link with wood.
There was no public comment
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the fence as constructed. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
31 Chestnut Street
William and Laura Wrightson submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace a fence with a capped picket fence, change the fence layout by adding a matching gate in the middle of the lot and to end the fence at the back of the lot against the carriage house, instead of running it to the street, replace demolished pergola with a new pergola, add a brick wall and caps to match the existing 2 walls/caps to fully enclose the patio with house.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographic presentation
Ms. Herbert read a letter from Morris Schopf, 1 Cambridge Street in favor of application.
Mr. Wrightson reviewed his photographic presentation. He stated that essentially there are two fences. The front and back fence are similar construction with the back fence being slightly taller. He believes at one point the patio was enclosed and did not think the existing fence is something that would have been there originally. He noted it is a high Federal house that was built by a wealthy man. He stated that the proposed fence is 100% compliant with the Commission’s guidelines. He stated it would look most appropriate if the cap of the fence matched the height of the finials on the iron fence. He stated that the capped picket fence will allow air circulation and let light in for plantings. He stated the first change is that they want to change the junction
between their and their neighbor’s fence. They also would like to put a jog in the fence to tie into the carriage house.
Ms. Herbert asked if the top of his fence would be below the neighbor’s fence.
Mr. Wrightson replied in affirmative. He stated that the second change is to have an inner gate for the dog. He provided a couple of fence options. He believes the area is about 10’ wide. He stated that he would use an exact piece of fence section from the regular fence. He asked if the gate was preferred with or without posts and thought that maybe the bottom option in the photograph makes more sense.
Ms. Bellin stated that, if fence sections are 8 feet and the proposed inner fence is 10’ feet, it may look cluttered.
Mr. Hart stated that he preferred the posts as it defines where the gate is.
Mr. Wrightson noted that the gate won’t be centered, but will be where the walkway is
Mr. Hart stated that there will be symmetry in terms of posts, but will have asymmetry where the gate is.
Ms. Herbert stated that she was okay with a half post up against building.
Mr. Wrightson submitted a list of signatures in favor of the proposal from some of the neighbors.
Ms. Herbert asked how to tie the fence into the granite pillar. She stated that one idea was iron lags, so that the fence dies in without a wooden post. She stated that the other item to decide upon was whether or not to have the fence end at the beginning of carriage house.
Mr. Spang asked if the fence will be painted white.
Mr. Wrightson replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Wrightson stated that the height to the top cap of the fence is 3’6”.
Ms. Herbert stated that she did not think she wanted to see a wooden post abutting the granite pillar.
Mr. Wrightson stated that he could have a notched 2x4, invisible from street.
Ms. Bellin asked if the finished side is currently facing their yard.
Mr. Wrightson replied in the affirmative
Ms. Herbert asked if the new fence will also face in or be changed to facing out.
Mr. Wrightson stated that typically the finish side faces the neighbor and that he was willing to do so.
Mr. Spang suggested a 3x with a lag.
Ms. Herbert asked if they will connect the end of the fence to the back side of carriage house.
Ms. Bellin stated that if the fence is removed, they might want to delineate the property line somehow.
Jon Reardon, 35 Chestnut Street asked if they would be working on his existing fence.
Mr. Wrightson replied in the negative.
Dr. Maura McGrane, 29 Chestnut Street, stated that she is the direct abutter and asked when looking straight at the fence, what the distance between planks will be.
Mr. Wrightson replied it will be 1 7/8”.
Ms. McGrane stated that the code says to replace in kind. She stated that she has no objection if the fence is stained in a natural color and if the planks are closer together . She stated that it is changing privacy and that the width is her only objection. She stated that they will be able to see right into each other’s yards. She stated that currently there is no spacing.
Mr. Hart stated that a fence he has at his home is called a closed picket fence, which gives total privacy.
Ms. McGrane stated that the height is an issue because the back area of the fence is significantly higher than the red fence on the back of her property. She felt that bringing it down to 3’ is an excessive reduction and takes away most of the privacy. She stated that 5 ½’ tall is plenty.
Ms. Herbert asked why the applicant wants the proposed height.
Mr. Wrightson stated that height is not the issue. He stated that in front is what needs to blend and that the back needs to tie into the pillar.
Ms. Herbert asked what height it is.
Mr. Wrightson stated that it is maybe 4’.
Ms. Herbert stated that it looks like the old fence is a variety of heights.
Mr. Riordan stated that he built that fence 30 years ago. He stated that from the granite post back to the brick patio wall was roughly 4’ high or so, and then it jumped up to 6’ high.
Mr. Hart stated that he hated to delay the application, but felt there are questions about the heights. He wondered if the Commission could get some a height measurement of the adjacent neighbor’s fence, noting that it doesn’t look like it is 6’ high. He stated that he heard an objection on spacing because there is no space between the pickets now and stated that the applicant may want to investigate closing up the gap.
Ms. Herbert suggested nailing down the height of the red fence in back and determining how they want to terminate the fence into the granite pillar. She stated that Mr. Hart could get the information on the closed picket fence.
Mr. Wrightson stated that they are not interested in applying for that fence. He read a portion of guidelines which state, “Other fence may be architecturally unimportant, the result of fence replacement in more recent years. In these cases, property owners would be encouraged to make the design more appropriate rather than duplicate the existing fence.”
Ms. Herbert stated that the existing flatboard fence is inappropriate and she would not want it to be duplicated. She stated that when last before the Commission, she believe the proposed color of fence was an issue and it had been suggested that the abutter resolve it with plantings. She stated that she can see that the applicant is trying to tie the fence in with his house.
At this time Ms. Wrightson left the meeting to go get measurements and a photo of Mr. Hart’s closed picket fence.
Mr. Wrightson stated that the other proposed changes are the new pergola and a new brick wall to match what is there. He stated that they will probable need a six pillar pergola. It will be white. He proposed two design options and stated that they preferred the one on Page 29 with Doric columns.
Ms. Herbert stated that she thought the square columns would be flimsy for this house.
Mr. Spang asked if they will tie the pergola tie into the house.
Mr. Wrightson stated that it will be attached to the house and that they will use federal design elements to make it look like it has been there a while. He stated that he thinks it should be closer to the house than as drawn.
Mr. Hart asked the height of the new wall.
Mr. Wrightson stated that it will match what is there and be 5’ high.
There was no public comment on the pergola or wall.
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the pergola and wall as presented as depicted on Page 28 and 29, with rounded pillars for the pergola.
Mr. Wrightson suggested it be two inches off of the wall of house.
VOTE: Mr. Hart so amended his motion. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
The applicants requested that discussion on the fence be continued to later in the meeting in order to get the measurements requested.
The application continues later in these minutes.
112-114 Federal Street
Paul and Leslie Tuttle submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the addition of a window on the rear enclosed porch and an application to change the fencing configuration on Andover Street (fence remains same style), change the height and style of the interior fence at Federal Street and add a new fence to divide the yard for separate units.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Parcel maps
Ms. Tuttle stated that there had been a window there at one time. They will match the existing window exactly.
Mr. Spang asked if the window, frame and color will match.
Ms. Tuttle replied in the affirmative.
There was no public comment.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the window installation as submitted. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Tuttle stated that the 4’ picket fence on Andover Street will remain the same style but it will reconfigured in order to make a parking space. There is currently an open 6’ picket fence between their house and 116 Federal; therefore, the one parallel to it will be left to go natural. She stated that the other two will be painted to match the house.
There was no public comment
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the fence alterations as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
358 Essex Street
Ellie Realty Trust, Andrew Greer, submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of a range hood vent which has already been completed.
Documents & Exhibits
Mr. Greer apologized for not having first come before the commission prior to installing the vent. He provided photos of other vents in area that had been approved. He stated that it has been painted to match the clapboards.
Ms. Herbert stated that it is pretty well disguised.
Mr. Greer stated that it is not very visible from the street.
Mary Whitney, 356 Essex Street stated that this isn’t the first time that the owner has not asked permission to do work on the house. She stated that he has done work the on interior without permits and the proper techniques for dust control. She stated that she moved to the historic district because she knew there would be protections. She noted that the applicant’s house has stood since 1729 with only minor alterations. She provided four books with photos of the house at various times. She stated that it is essentially unchanged through the centuries and is a museum quality house. She stated that the owner knows it is a historic district. She noted that other changes done and not approved are the cellar windows. She stated that her understanding is that
anything visible from street needs permission.
Mr. Greer stated that his understanding is now completely different from before and realizes it now.
Ms. Herbert asked why they need the vent.
Mr. Greer stated that it is for a range hood. He stated that it wasn’t a kitchen there before.
Ms. Herbert asked if the kitchen was done with permits.
Mr. Greer replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Herbert asked if he lives in the house.
Mr. Greer stated that it is a condominium and that he will be living at 358 ½.
Ms. Herbert asked who lives in the unit with the new vent.
Ms. Guy stated that the Commission needs to look at the application as though the vent had not already been installed. She stated that the Commission has approved similar vents. She noted that vents are not required to be non-visible, but that they should try to be kept minimally visible and unobtrusive.
Mr. Greer stated that the unit is and that it will be sold. He stated that it is a post and beam house and that it is difficult to put ducts up in the beams.
Ms. Herbert stated that there may be other options for venting and suggested a continuance.
John Carr, 7 River Street stated that he did not know the particulars, but agreed the inside and outside of the house is museum quality. He stated that he hoped it is given the highest degree of care in the resolution of the issues.
Ms. Bellin questioned if there is a minimum height requirement for a vent.
Mr. Spang asked if it is possible to get the vent to the back yard.
Mr. Greer stated that it is not possible. He stated that it would be an extremely long run, filling with grease.
Mr. Spang suggested running it along the ceiling to back.
Mr. Greer stated that it is framed across and is about the height of his head. He stated that everything about the framing works completely against doing it.
Ms. Bellin asked if he installed the vent himself.
Mr. Greer replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Hart stated that he was not sure if there is another alternative, but agreed it should be continued until the owner can explore alternatives.
Ms. Whitney asked if it was up to Mr. Greer to come back with other solutions, or to bring in someone knowledgeable with experience. She stated that she was asking to have objective information.
Mr. Hart stated that it is up to Mr. Greer to respond and the Commission to determine if it is an adequate response.
Mr. Greer provided photos of houses he felt were significant with approved vents.
Mr. Carr stated that it appears what is driving the vent is the interior. He stated that, traditionally, a room like a kitchen is not put at the front of the house. He stated that formal rooms are usually forward. He noted that maybe it is too late for that.
Mr. Greer stated that the alterations to the room were basically putting cabinets on the wall. He stated that he did not feel comfortable selling a recirculating vent to someone.
Ms. Herbert stated that she has had a recirculating range vent at her home for over fifteen years.
She suggested the owner investigate recirculating vent, as well as a flatter vent and come back.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to the next meeting. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
67 and 69-71 Mason Street
In continuation of a prior meeting, Riverview Place LLC submitted an application for Waiver of the Demolition Delay Ordinance for complete demolition of both buildings, which are seriously dilapidated. The site is being redeveloped for use as a primarily residential apartment complex. Scott Grover was present representing the applicant.
Documents & Exhibits
Ms. Herbert stated that Historic Salem, Inc. was originally going to do a study of the building but determined that it would likely not be eligible for the National Register and therefore are not going to do the survey. She stated that as long as it is photographed and measured, they are okay with granting the waiver subject to the Commission receiving those items.
Atty. Grover asked what is wanted for measurements and if it is just the exterior.
Mr. Hart stated that it should be a taped perimeter measurement on a plot plan and the vertical heights. He volunteered to take interior and exterior photographs.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance, conditional that the Commission get photos and measurements before a demolition permit is issued. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
18 Felt Street
In continuation of a prior meeting, Ice Cat, LLC submitted an application to Waive the Demolition Delay Ordinance for the removal of the barn. The barn is in disrepair. Removal is needed to allow subdivision of the property per variance granted 4/4/12 to add an additional lot to the property for a new house to be built.
Ms. Herbert stated that she spoke with George Wattendorf and believes she convinced him to let the continuance continue.
Atty. Grover stated that it was his intention to ask for a continuance.
Ms. Herbert stated that, if demolished, at the very least she has people who would want to salvage pieces of the building.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the barn waiver request to the next meeting. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Spang abstain from voting.
Ms. Herbert stated that Mr. Wattendorf was not aware that three or four more windows needed to come out in order to accommodate closets and bathrooms in his design. She stated that she will be working with him on some redesign.
A letter from Morris Schopf dated 4/16/12 was resubmitted.
Mr. Hart noted that in a lot of buildings, when windows are removed, they leave the window frame to show where it was and to allow future reinstallation.
Mr. Carr stated that if Mr. Treadwell purchases only a piece of the lot, there will be no need for the variance. If he buys the whole lot, the variance would stick.
31 Chestnut Street – continued from earlier in meeting
Mr. Wrightson stated that on Page 19, the height of the red fence to the fence cap is 5’3”. The green fence is roughly a foot taller. On Page 7, he noted that the property slopes. The height to the top of the green fence, where the cap should be, is 5’8”.
Ms. Wrightson stated that she looked at Mr. Hart’s property. She stated that the front fence is more evenly spaced than the back fence. She stated that she doesn’t feel a closely spaced fence will look right. She stated that his front fence has 3 ½” pickets with 2’ spacing and the back fence has 3 ½” pickets with 1” spacing.
Mr. Wrightson stated that if he were standing in his kitchen on the first floor, he is 10-12’ off the ground and therefore would need a 12’ fence for privacy. He stated that he is willing to compromise and consider Mr. Hart’s fence in back. He stated that he did not think it would look right in front. For the front they are proposing approximately 1 7/8” pickets with spacing roughly same. It would be 3 ½” pickets with 1” spacing in back with the top of fence tying into the height of the pillar. He stated one could argue that it is okay to have a different fence in the back from the patio.
Mr. Hart stated that he still feels the need to get a definitive set of dimensions. He stated that he hears what is being presented, but personally felt it is a lot of fence and that definitive answers are needed on picket width, space between the pickets and height of all the different fences. He stated that he thought a 5’ fence is more of privacy issue for people in their yard sitting down.
Ms. Herbert stated that once the Commission gets all the dimensions, it should be ready to go. She asked if anyone had a problem with the fence painted white.
There were no comments from the commissioners.
Ms. Herbert asked if Ms. McGrane had any problem with the side of the carriage house being exposed.
Ms. McGrane stated that she wouldn’t want a gap, but had no problem with the exposure.
Ms. Herbert stated that the applicants should show how the fence will die into the granite pillar in the front and the granite pillar in the back.
Mr. Spang stated that he thought the fence in front has a nicer relationship of solid to void than the side fence.
Mr. Hart suggest they provide a diagram of fence A, B and C with the heights proposed.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to continue the fence application to the next meeting. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Review of Project Notification Form for MBTA Salem Commuter Rail Station Improvements
Ms. Guy stated that she announced at the last meeting that she received a copy of the Project Notification Form for the construction of a 715 parking space intermodal facility. The developer will be filing an Expanded Environmental Notification Form later this year. She asked if the Commission wants to comment.
There were no comments from the Commissioners.
Other Business
Ms. Guy stated that she received an email request from Mike Shea , asking for an extension of his Certificate to install a deck at 31 Washington Sq. North for one year.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the extension request. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Hart stated the for the City Hall project, he did not know if an architect had been selected yet. He stated that he wants to be sure that when one is selected that the Commission monitor what the proposed preservation of building is and if there will be any changes made.
Ms. Guy stated that she will get an update and to try to keep the Commission informed.
VOTE: There being no further business, Ms. Bellin made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission
| 
