SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
JUNE 6, 2012
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, June 6, 2012 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Ms. McCrea, Ms. Keenan, Ms. Bellin, Mr. Spang and Mr. Hart.
15 Warren Street
Catherine Miller and Kirt Rieder submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to paint the garage to match the house color, which is Cottage Red.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Paint Chips
Ms. Miller stated that she believes the garage is Navajo Red and they want to go to Cottage Red. It is a metal building.
There was no public comment.
VOTE: Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
6 Monroe Street
In continuation of a prior meeting, Browne Realty Trust, c/o Roger B. Tyler, submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of a telephone system at the front door for resident/visitor access control, which is a requirement of the Licensing Board. The initial proposals was for it to be 16 ¼” H x 6 3/8” W x 2 ¾” D stainless steel panel with trim ring, surface mounted. The alternative proposal is for a Trigon Mini Guard II which is 12” H x 4.2” W x 2.5”D at base and 3” D at top.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Mircom Slim Line Telephone Access System specification
- Site plan
Mr. Tyler stated that the new proposed unit is shorter in height, has less width and is about ¼” more in depth. It can be either brush stainless or powder black finish.
Ms. Harper asked if the key box is black.
Mr. Tyler replied in the affirmative. He stated that the new system will have a weather proof cover.
Mr. Hart stated that Morris Schofp’s building has a similar device in stainless. He noted that it is obvious that it is not a Colonial device. He stated that he thought stainless is less obtrusive than black.
There was no public comment.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the Trigone stainless steel phone access system, mounted on the south side of the entry. Ms. Bellin 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.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Site Study dated 5/2/12 by Schopf Design Associates
Ms. Guy read an email received from Attorney Scott Grover requesting a continuance.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to the meeting of June 20, 2012. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Spang and Ms. Herbert abstained from voting.
Ms. Herbert stated that she abstained due to the possibility that she may be doing some work for the developer. She stated that another Commission member will need to take over her roll in overseeing the Commission’s roll in the Board of Appeal decision.
Ms. Harper suggested that Mr. Hart oversee the Commission’s roll in the Board of Appeal decision.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a to delegate Mr. Hart to oversee the Commission’s role in the Board of Appeal decision for 18 Felt Street. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Mr. Spang and Ms. Herbert abstained.
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
- Sketch
Mr. Wrightson provided a sketch showing dimensions, the height of fence and the method of attachment to the posts. They are proposing to paint the fencing white to match the trim on brick enclosure and on house.
Mr. Hart asked Mr. Wrightson to give an overview of the fence location using the plan.
Mr. Wrightson stated that across the front is a wrought iron fence and there is one section of wrought iron that goes toward back yard, new fencing 1/3 of the way, then brick patio with brick pillars and the brick wall that has been approved, and then fencing continuing toward the rear until it jogs into the carriage house.
Rudolf Cleare stated that he is the brother of Dr. Maura McGrane and asked if they were replacing a six foot height section with a 4 ½ foot section.
Mr. Wrightson stated that he had not measured it, but believed the existing is taller than what he is proposing, and stated it was at least 5’.
Ms. Herbert stated that she thought it graded up and that the post is higher, which is something odd about it..
Ms. Wrightson stated that it undulates because it is in such bad shape.
Ms. Bellin asked if the front section will be roughly the same height as rear section.
Mr. Wrightson replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Herbert stated that she looked at the fencing in the neighborhood. She stated that she noticed that between 29 and 35 Chestnut, there are a lot of repeats. She noted that Dr. McGrane has brick wall after the granite post, as does 35 Chestnut. In the middle, after the granite post, one property has a wrought iron run and another has a natural wood run. She concluded that all houses are related and that there is quite a range of treatments.
Mr. Wrightson stated that the Commission initially approved continuing the still of fence along the side.
Ms. Herbert stated that way back they were considering wrought iron.
Mr. Wrightson stated that the Commission approved it and then changed its mind. He stated that he spent $20,000 in materials, which he ate.
Ms. Herbert stated that she did not remember that.
Mr. Wrightson stated that the side fence and front fence have very minor differences. On one the pickets terminate in the stone and the other it terminates on the iron bar. He stated that he came back to make sure he was putting the right one in and the Commission changed its mind after he bought the materials.
Mr. Hart stated that the record needs to be researched.
Ms. Herbert stated the Commission can’t just change its mind and that she would like to see some documentation.
Mr. Hart stated that he had an approved application. After that there may be another approved application which is different.
Ms. Harper asked if the fence being reviewed tonight is where he was going to put the iron fence.
Mr. Wrightson replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Guy stated that if he received a Certificate, that Certificate is good. Unless the Commission voted for something else, which they would then have to issue a certificate that changes that. She stated that she would have to check the minutes.
Ms. Herbert stated that if you were approved for a metal fence, then it is approved and that now you are applying for approval of a wood fence. She stated that the Commission can’t retract it legally once the vote has been made.
Mr. Hart stated that the finished side should face out. He asked the spacing of the posts.
Mr. Wrightson stated that they will be 8’ centers, with Federal caps and a post every 8’.
Mr. Cleare stated that he did a walk of Chestnut Street and all the houses that front Chestnut Street. There are 32 separated property lots fronting on Chestnut Street. They virtually all have decorative open fencing of some sort, either along the street, or surrounding front lawns or gardens and in some cases, running part way between side yards along the main structure. He noted that with 2 exceptions, all have closed privacy fencing of some kind between them, extending from a point usually parallel to the rear of the main structure and continuing to the fence at the back of the property across the rear. He stated that the ordinary height of the back yard fences seem to be 5 to 6’. He stated that the stone wall that separates their property to 27 is 5 ½’
high, which connects to a 6’ high privacy wooden fence along Warren Street. The two exceptions are 26 and 28 Chestnut Street. 26 Chestnut has a black picket fence, 4’ tall, running the entire length of the street and down both side boundaries to the back fence. 28 Chestnut has an open wire fence that is 3’ tall the entire length of both side boundaries and wrought iron picket across the front. In these 2 isolated cases, property owners have created privacy with plantings. His observation is the general character of the street is that front fencing is decorative and generally somewhat open and that majority of fencing in the rear is designed for some privacy of 5’ or higher of closed fencing, not open picket. He stated that less than 10 % of back yard fencing in the street is non privacy in character, and it would seem odd to allow new construction that would deprive 29 Chestnut street of back yard privacy.
He stated that, in this instance, by allowing replacement of a 6’ tall fence, with open picket fencing of 4’ height, it both disturbs the overall aesthetic of the street and the integrity of the backyards. He noted that Dr. McGrane’s red fence at the rear is a closed slat of 6’ high and is met by the 6’ green fence. He stated that he finds the front section quite in keeping, but was concerned that a fence that replaces that rear section be a privacy fence as much as possible.
Dr. McGrane noted that the previous lattice work above the patio had also provided privacy.
Ms. Herbert stated that 33 Chestnut is the one that has a roughly 3’ iron picket fence running what appears to be the whole length.
Dr. McGrane stated that the backyard does not go all the way to Warren Street and that it is the middle of three properties.
Ms. Herbert asked if the applicant would consider replicating the fence that runs along Warren Street from the edge of the carriage house to the new brick wall.
Mr. Wrightson stated that it is not what they are applying for and preferred not to replicate that fence. He noted that for most houses, back privacy fences aren’t seen.
Ms. Wrightson stated that they have plenty of plantings and mature shrubs and did not think one will be able to see through the pickets. She stated that they want spacing for the circulation.
Ms. Herbert stated that there is a precedent of an iron fence running a good length of the division between two properties at #33. She stated that there is a precedent of a short open picket fence, that happens to be in wrought iron.
Ms. Guy stated it is clear that the two neighbors are in disagreement, and noted that the question is if the proposed fence is historically appropriate.
Mr. Hart stated apparently there is agreement on the front section. He would prefer to do the fence in two motions and stated that he would entertain a site visit for the back section.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the front section of fence from the granite post to the previously approved brick wall as submitted in the sketch, painted white, finish facing outward, with posts at 8’ sections. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Having missed one meeting on this application and not having an audio tape to review, Ms. McCrea and Ms. Harper did not vote.
Mr. Wrightson stated that the legal mandate for the Commission is to prevent inappropriate applications. He stated that the proposed is an appropriate fence and, for the record, the Commission is required to approve.
Ms. Herbert asked the time frame for fence installation.
Ms. Wrightson stated that they currently have chicken wire up for 2 sections of the fence.
Ms. Bellin stated that she is not objecting to a site visit, but was not sure what it would provide. She stated that what the neighbors want or what hedges are doing relevant. She questioned the value of a site visit.
Mr. Hart stated that if the Commission approves the fence, Dr. McGrane could come in with an application to construct a privacy fence on her property.
VOTE : Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the rear section of fence to match the front section of fence as approved. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried. Having missed one meeting on this application and not having an audio tape to review, Ms. McCrea and Ms. Harper did not vote.
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
Ms. Guy stated that she received an e-mail from Mr. Greer withdrawing his application.
187 Federal Street
Kristin Edwards submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the picture window and casement windows with Andersen 400s
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- On-line specification of Andersen 400 Series Casement Windows
Ms. Edwards stated that 185 Federal has Renewal by Anderson windows. For her side, she is asking for Anderson 400s in vinyl clad wood to match casement/picture window/casement design that is there now. She noted that 185 has white windows. Her contractor gave her the option for white or to go with a color to match the house exterior.
Ms. Herbert noted that both sides have a white storm door.
Ms. Bellin stated that she preferred the beige.
Ms. Edwards was in agreement, and stated that she though white is abrupt.
Ms. Herbert recommended changing the storm door.
Mr. Hart stated that the door could be painted to match the house.
Ms. Guy stated that if the new window is beige, then it wouldn’t stand out that the 2 picture windows are different materials.
Mr. Hart stated that it would set up the situation that this is two houses.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the front window replacement with Anderson 400s in beige. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Viewing of sample solar panel being used for 19 Fowler Street
Ms. Guy stated that as required by approval of solar for 19 Fowler Street, a sample panel is being presented. She noted that no vote is required.
Rick Bingham presented the sample panel. He stated that they are commodity items, and a lot of orders are grouped into one. In this case, the company that supplied the system contracted with LG for the panels. Other companies have contracts with different manufacturers.
Other Business
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of May 2, 2012. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the minutes of May 16, 2012. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Ms. Guy stated that Ms. Herbert received a letter from Annie Harris, thanking her for the letter of support for the Massachusetts Historical Commission’s 2012 Nomination for Individual Lifetime Achievement.
VOTE: Mr. Hart requested that Ms. Guy research the minutes with regard to Mr. Wrightson’s claim that the Commission retracted its approval of an iron fence at 31 Chestnut Street. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
VOTE: There being no further business, Mr. Hart made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Clerk of the Commission
| 
