SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
MARCH 21, 2012
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, March 21, 2012 at 7:30 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Ms. Herbert, Ms. Keenan, Ms. McCrea, Mr. Spang and Mr. Hart.
Ms. Bellin arrived later in the meeting.
Salem Common
The City of Salem submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of new benches along the walkways in Salem Common. The Benches will be Model C-10, wood benches with wrought iron railings and legs. Currently there are Fourteen 6’ and nine 8’ benches and three old benches with new benches. Plaques to be applied to donated benches.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Victor Stanley catalog page copies
Alice LaPointe of the City’s Park Department stated that the bench program started in 2003, and that, so far, 150 donated benches are in parks around the city. The program is that the donator pays for the bench and the plaque and the city installs them. She stated that the bench that the Commission approved years ago is no longer available. They are proposing using the same bench that is now used in projects undertaking by the Department of Planning & Community Development.
Mr. Hart asked what kind of wood is used.
Ms. LaPointe stated that they can choose either mahogany or ipe wood. She stated that donators typically usually choose their bench location, but that they sometimes suggest locations where benches are missing.
Ms. McCrea asked if there is a design plan that shows the maximum number of benches for the Common.
Ms. LaPointe replied in the negative.
Ms. Herbert asked how many benches are there now.
Ms. LaPointe replied that there are 26.
Ms. Guy asked if they are not asking for a specific number of benches, but rather a blanket approval for this specific bench to be installed along the Common walkways as they get donations.
Ms. LaPointe replied in the affirmative.
Ms. McCrea stated that she felt there should be a plan, so that not too many are installed.
Ms. Herbert suggested making a plan that maps bench locations.
Ms. Guy stated that she could have an intern do this as a project.
Ms. Bellin joined the meeting at this time.
Ms. LaPointe stated that currently have two potential donations for the Common
VOTE: Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mr. Hart seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
19 Fowler Street
In continuation of a prior meeting, Charles Bean and Susan Linder Bean submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a photovoltaic system. Also present was Rick Bingham of Home Depot, Authorized Service Provider for Advanced Performance Solar New England, Inc.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Photo-simulations
- Plans completed by Sollular, LLC
- LG Mononx Catalog pages
- Empase.com pages
- Ironridge Installation Manual
Ms. Herbert stated that there was a site visit last Saturday and that she has been doing some research, noting that the Commission is totally unfamiliar with solar. She noted that this installation would be the first in an historic district and only the second residential installation in salem. She stated that she reviewed the application against the Commission guidelines and noted that there is no secondary building and no room in the yard for an alternative installation. The applicants don’t have a garage or other building big enough to mount the panels and they have a very small yard, which is mostly taken up with parking. The only feasible location is the roof. She stated that it is a gambrel roof and the installation will be on the upper portion only. She noted that the only
example of a solar installation in Salem is at 30 Boardman Street, which uses panels that have a white grid marks on the panels. She noted that the panel the Commission viewed on site did not have white, but was just a shiny black surface. She stated that she wanted to make sure the panel design is very plain and wanted to know if there would be end caps, so that the joining legs will not be sticking out.
Ms. Linder-Bean stated that end caps are included in the price.
Ms. Herbert stated that, at site visit, Mr. Bingham mentioned that what was shown was a large panel, but will be installed will be smaller panels. She wanted to know if the smaller panel is different visually.
Mr. Bingham stated that the panels to be installed are LG-255 and do have a bit of lighter color material on the face of the panel, and that is the nature of the panel. He stated that part of the reason is that they buy the panels in quantity. He stated that the project was designed originally with smaller panels, therefore there would be more panels. As an accommodation of the historic nature of the property, it was redesigned so that there will only be panels on the upper roof. The panels will not be visible when close, and only visible if standing about 20’ away or more, other than a 3” rack.
Ms. Herbert stated that what she saw was a large panel that looked to be solid black.
Mr. Bingham stated that he did not know what they had available to show.
Ms. Herbert asked if the smaller panels will have a white grid.
Mr. Bingham stated that panels will be slightly small than what was show. They will be 40” wide x 66” tall, parallel with the surface of the roof. He stated that it will have a light color grid.
Ms. Herbert stated that she wants the least obtrusive model.
Mr. Bingham stated that, in terms of the multiple factors that are involved in a solar system, they have done that. He stated that it has a light color grid through it. He noted that every solar panel has a grid. The proposed will probably be a greyer color than at 30 Boardman. He stated that they would have to look it up on line, as he cannot bring a panel to a meeting. He stated that all of this is related to the financial considerations for the owners. The entire project is based on the cost of system and what they pay for electricity. He stated that changing a factor significantly effects the owner’s financial situation.
Ms. Herbert asked, if the Commission wants panels that don’t have a white grid, will cost more.
Mr. Bingham stated that it may cost more.
Ms. Herbert stated that this is a test case and if approved, people are going to use this as an example and say they want the same, because it has been approved. She stated that she wanted to see the actual sample, which is why the Commission asked for a site visit. She stated that what they brought doesn’t help us.
Ms. Guy stated that based on the visibility of Mr. Harts pictures, she wondered if the top of the panel would even be able to be seen.
Ms. Herbert stated that she did not know.
Ms. Guy stated that she was agreement with regard to the grid, but stated that because the nature of this one being on top of the gambrel, she doubted the color of the panel would be seen.
Ms. Herbert stated that she understands the panels were bought in bulk, so that they can offer them at a certain price. She asked if required to use a different panel, if it may cost more.
Mr. Bingham stated that it may. He stated that in this particular situation, it was originally designed with more, smaller panels, on the upper and side roof. Before coming to the Commission, they redesigned the system to reduce the presence of the solar equipment on the roof of the house, so it would be above the site line.
Ms. Herbert asked, if the Commission wants something that is not as heavily gridded, what the cost difference would be.
Mr. Bingham replied that he cannot answer that.
Ms. Herbert asked if he was assumed they are more expensive.
Mr. Bingham replied in the affirmative. He stated that the plan is to offer this particular panel for at least a year and that they purchased enough or contracted for at least seven states. Therefore, it is a huge bulk quantity. He stated that all solar panels, with the exception of possibly some water heating type, will have a grid of some kind built into the panel, because the silicon wafers that collect the sunlight are not big and have to be put together in a grid or matrix.
Ms. Herbert stated that this is developing technology and that it is not known what is in the pipeline and that these will be on the house for twenty years. She stated they would like to get the best model up there for historic houses.
Ms. McCrea asked if there was any house in the Salem area that have the proposed panels.
Mr. Bingham stated that he did not know and noted that they have used numerous in the last few years. He stated that two of their suppliers have at least twenty-five different panels on their choice list for the installers. They all vary based on the manufacturer, who is supplying the lease, what the installers are purchasing and what the integrater is paying for.
Mr. Spang stated that a similar example is the Commission’s review of windows. He stated that we look very specifically at windows even though there may be 100 different manufacturers and the quality and price ranges from inexpensive to expensive. Nevertheless, the Commission will look at the specificity of any proposed window and determine if that window is appropriate for the location. He stated what we are trying to do is something similar for solar panels by saying we understand what we are looking as is a thing that is now going to be sitting up on the roof, as opposed to saying we are going to give you approval for a solar panel and you might go out and say it will look like this or look like that. He stated that that is the specificity we are trying to get to.
Mr. Bingham stated that the closest will can get to looking at the physical panel is to look it up on line.
Ms. .Bellin asked if Mr. Bingham has installed any LG-255 panels.
Mr. Bingham replied that he has not, personally. He stated that the panels have been sold in other states, but just came on line with them two months ago.
Ms. Bellin asked if the Commission could see photos.
Mr. Bingham stated that one of the problems with visual aspects of a solar panel is that they are on a roof surface, they are reflective and is going to be reflective. He stated that in cloudy conditions they will look black and in bright sunlight at the right angel, there will be a reflection and they will look shiny.
Ms. Bellin asked if it is possible to see photos of the LG-255 installed.
Mr. Bingham stated that he will see what he can do.
Ms. Linder-Bean stated that at the Commission’s last meeting when it was asked if there was a solar panel available and the response was that they were not sure if the exact panel was available, someone on the board stated, “how about a piece of black Styrofoam painted black” and that it didn’t really matter as long as the members could see how far from the roof and the edges, etc. She that that is how the bigger panel, which isn’t the exact one going on their roof came, because they were told it would not matter. She stated that Mass CEC has approved exactly what her system has been designed as, right down to every nut and bolt. They are approved for the rebate and any changes will hold it up.
Mr. Bean noted that the cost went up about $1000, when it was redesigned for the upper roof.
Mr. Bingham noted that the rebates are time limited, based on the time the contract is signed and when it is installed. He stated that a change order would delay it again, because it would have to be resubmitted. He stated that it is not a simple thing. He noted that he had client in Lynn who put off meeting with the installer for a month, and the cost per kilowatt went up 4.4 cents per kilowatt hour to 7.7 because the Massachusetts state deadline was not met.
Ms. Herbert stated that this is the Commission’s first installation, therefore they do not have past experience. She stated that the review got more complicated than when first presented, when she saw the grid at 30 Boardman and the sample we saw at the site visit did not have grid marks. She stated that we need to decide if we feel that you are saying that the grid on this particular model is the light grey versus the white on 30 Boardman Street. She stated it would be a matter if we decide if we take Mr. Bingham’s word for it or if want to get more information.
Mr. Hart stated that the Commission is looking at the first installation in the historic district, so he wants to be sure that they do right by the historic district. He stated that he is personally unhappy when applicants come in and say they have to do it right now because they have a time limit.
Ms. Linder-Bean stated that she did not think the lines could be seen at the angle of the roof.
Mr. Spang asked if the lines were in the panel versus the frame.
Ms. Herbert replied in the affirmative and stated that the lines are really obvious on 30 Boardman Street, while the panel shown at this site visit was clear black. She stated that is when she learned there were different models.
Ms. Linder-Bean stated that the Commission’s on-line guidelines state that the panel should match the roof color, be non-reflective, flush with the roof – and that was “when possible”. She noted it is not always possible.
Ms. Herbert stated that that section of the guidelines were written in November, 2010 for the advent of solar panels. The Commission agreed it wanted to encourage the use of solar energy within the historic district, but wanted to investigate all of the alternatives for the installation, including alternative building, lower roofs and ground installations. She noted that 30 Boardman used big panels and that, with a little advice, they could have gotten a less visible installation on a lower, smaller roof in the back with the smaller panels. She agreed the angle was totally different from Fowler Street.
Ms. Linder-Bean stated that the top of her roof is angled and is three stories up.
Ms. Herbert stated that that may be why the Commission did not see lines on the sample. It may be the sample had lines, but we did not see it.
Mr. Spang asked about the frame.
Mr. Bingham stated that it is dark aluminum. He believed it was dark brown.
Mr. Spang asked how it was anchored to the roof.
Mr. Bingham stated bolts go through the roof into the rafter system below and it is fully flashed. It mount 3-6” off the roof service, not directly on the roof. It is not flush on the roof.
Mr. Spang asked if it is possible to close in the gap underneath the panel.
Mr. Bingham stated that they will be closed in, because there will be end caps.
Ms. Linder-Bean stated that they will be on the sides to keep out snow and rain.
Mr. Spang stated that, given the roof pitch, it seems like one would not see the grid. He stated that he felt he could approve their installation without setting a precedent for everybody else.
Ms. Herbert stated that these will need to be approved on a case by case basis, because every house is different. She stated that luckily the applicants have a gambrel roof. She stated that it may not be able to be done on other roofs.
Mr. Hart stated that you have to back down the street to see it.
Mr. Spang stated that the real impact is the edge trim and he is hearing it will be a dark edge trim and not cantilevered off the roof.
Mr. Hart stated that there are a number of sources on line to see dos and don’ts. He stated that the National Park Service has a site and they show a horrible example of what not to do. He stated that he was concerned about setting a precedent. He noted that for this property, the visibility is rather limited. He stated that he did not want to open Pandora’s box.
Ms. Guy suggested making some findings and vote to find that there is no option to put on a secondary building and no ground option, and that it is on the top of a gambrel roof which a unique situation to this building. She suggested making specific findings to this approval.
Mr. Hart stated that in a way, this is a kind of experiment.
Ms. Bellin asked if this will be as reflective as the one they saw. She assumed it was not a flat matte finish.
Mr. Bingham replied that it is not flat, matte. He stated that they are all covered with tempered glass.
Ms. Bellin asked if he has seen the panel.
Mr. Bingham replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Bellin asked if it looks like a pane of glass, or does it look like the photo, which makes it look matte.
Mr. Bingham stated that it is not matte, but it does have a black background. He stated that it is somewhat reflective and if the sun is on it, you are going to get a reflection. He stated that there is always a layer of glass on the outer surface because that is what protects the wafers below, which are made out of silicone.
Ms. Bellin stated that it appeared reflective to her at the site visit and she wondered if the actual panel will look just about as reflective.
Ms. Linder-Bean stated that Bakers Island has 64 cottages, that 60 have solar and that are all different. She stated that the proposed will not be matte, but will have irregular shaped shiny, oddly reflective prism crystals things in them. You would have a blue and then stuff in there that is flat that reflects the light in different ways - but it is not glass shiny.
Mr. Bingham asked if reflectivity is something the Commission wants or doesn’t want.
Ms. Bellin stated that she would like to know what the Commission saw and is trying to get a sense.
Mr. Hart stated that it would be nice to see a sample panel. He stated that he did not want to see a photograph, he wanted to see a panel.
Mr. Bingham stated that they are stored in a warehouse and that if he could get one, he would try to do that. He stated that they are probably located in New Jersey.
Mr. Bean stated that at the angle of the roof, it will not be visible.
Ms. Herbert asked Mr. Hart can live with going forward as an example. She asked if the applicants would share the economics of this so they can get a handle on how feasible this is for other people.
Ms. Linder-Bean stated there’s will be a very small system. She noted that they are very green, so there won’t be as much usage as the average person. She stated that their electric bill is a maximum of $30 per month. She stated that it will now be $2 per month.
Mr. Bingham stated that has volunteered to do a presentation to the board based on a specific or theoretical place to explain how the economics work, but cannot divulge a particular customer’s financial information.
Mr. Spang stated that, on one hand, we could approve it because it really can’t be seen, which is a standard thing that we deal with all the time. On the other hand, he noted that getting into the specifics of a panel is what the Commission does for windows all the time. We say that one is no good because it doesn’t belong, and this one is okay because it does belong and we get grief from the homeowners because the window that they don’t want to use is more expensive, for which we say sorry, but that is the decision. He stated that the interesting conundrum is that this system has other attributes to it, one of which is this grant, which as a timing issue.
Ms. Linder-Bean added that it has built in converters that go with the panels, so we don’t have a big box.
Mr. Spang stated that we would like to see a panel, because that is what we look at – we look at windows, we look at doors, we look at gutters. He stated that, for this particular installation, he is hearing there really isn’t a choice for a second panel. He stated that they have this panel, it is part of this deal and because of the timing of things, this whole deal could fall apart. He suggested not focusing on the panel itself, but focus if it can be seen or not, and approve it because we can’t see it.
Mr. Bellin asked the deadlines.
Mr. Bingham stated that the deadlines have to do with how many other people in MA apply for the grant money and get their approval before the Beans.
Mr. Spang asked if it is a finite pot of money.
Mr. Bingham replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Linder-Bean stated that they started the process in early November and just got the congratulations letter from Mass CEC last week.
Mr. Bingham stated that nothing being done on the exterior of their home is non-reversible. It is designed to be taken off at the end of the lease and the roof restored as close to original condition. All that remains are the mounting holes, which can be sealed and filled.
Ms. Herbert asked, as technology goes forward and perhaps panels get smaller, if the customer is locked in for 20 years or if they can upgrade.
Mr. Bingham stated that they are locked in to the agreement for 20 years.
Ms. Herbert questioned, for future applications, if the Commission should wait until technology catches up.
Mr. Bingham stated that the reality is that photovoltaic rely on the number of square feet of collector that you have to collect enough sunlight to manufacturer the electricity. So you may only have marginal differences.
Ms. Guy suggested that the approval state that this installation is being considered a pilot, so the Commission can see an installation, particularly one that is minimally visible, in order to see the reflectivity and be guided for future applications.
Mr. Spang asked where in region these panels are located.
Mr. Bingham stated that he would have to look it up, but that they may not be that specific panel
Mr. Spang stated that if the Commission sees a panel that it likes better, it could set the clock back. He stated that knowing what a panel looks like for this property is irrelevant.
Mr. Hart asked if it is possible to flesh out a draft approval tonight and finalize it in two weeks because he wanted to make sure it was air tight.
Ms. Herbert stated that, due to limited visibility and that all panels are probably not that much different, she is leaning toward going forward and approving this as a test case. She stated that down the road they could do research and have Mr. Bingham bring in a panel. In terms of this particular situation where it is a gambrel roof and so minorly visible and it is part of their package, she is leaning toward going forward. She asked what would happen with this situation if they had to come back in two weeks.
Mr. Bingham stated that he could not guarantee the pricing wouldn’t change.
Mr. Hart asked who Mr. Bingham represents.
Mr. Bingham stated that he works for Advanced Performance Solar New England, Inc, which is the sales arm for UR Solar, that buys the panels and has a contract with Home Depot as a service provider. We work inside Home Depot stores and we also work outside Home Depot stores. We are an integrator, which we bring a bunch of things together to accomplish the goal
Mr. Hart made a motion to approve the application for the installation of photovoltaic system per Solular, LLC plan E-1 dated 12/21/11 and photo simulations. Panels to be LG Mono X LG255S1C with end caps. Installation to be on the upper portion of the gambrel roof. Frame to be aluminum, mounted with Iron Ridge XRS Solar Rail System. Approval is based on the following findings:
- This application is unique in that it is the first solar application being reviewed by the Commission and that the Commission has limited experience with which to adequately judge the application.
- With regard to this specific installation and house, it was determined that there is no subsidiary building for an alternative location, there is no adequate yard space for a ground installation and there are no architectural features for which the system can be completely hidden from the public way. It will be placed on the upper slope of a gambrel roof, which has been determined to be less visible from the public way and due to the minimal roof slope, it will only be visible at a significant distance from the house.
Mr. Spang suggested specifying that it be dark framing.
Mr. Hart accepted the amendment and added to the motion that the proponent shall provide a physical sample of the LG255 panel for the Commission to view within 60 days.
Ms. Guy suggested adding that this installation is a pilot or test case.
Mr. Hart accepted the amendment.
Ms. Guy stated that once it is installed, the Commission can tweak its guidelines accordingly.
VOTE: Ms. Keenan seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Keenan, Ms. McCrea, Mr. Spang and Mr. Hart voted in favor. Ms. Bellin abstained from voting. The motion so carried.
Mr. Spang suggested that for future applications for solar, homeowners request a pre-approval, so they don’t wind up in a bind. He suggested they get approval ahead of time and provide a sample panel.
Cora Nucci, 78 Washington Sq. East suggest the Commission put on the website that homeowners should apply to get the hardware pre-approved.
Mr. Spang stated that he discussed with Ms. Guy about state laws on solar access. He stated that it is interesting that it almost seems that it says that in Massachusetts, solar cannot be denied. He suggested talking to the City Solicitor to see if solar can be denied if there is no choice in installation location but the front of the building.
60-62 Washington Square
Lewis Legon submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to alter the rear chimney with either 1) finish the rear chimney with a metal/mesh cap to match the 2 chimneys on the main house or 2) add 9” of brick corner supports to existing chimney and complete with light metal cap. Mr. Legon was not present.
Ms. Guy provided photographs of the original chimney, the revised chimney with the bluestone cap and the current chimney.
Ms. Herbert stated that the last time this was reviewed, the applicant was approved to add another 1’ of brick course and 1’ of brick corners to support a metal cap, thinking it would reduce the load. Apparently, adding the extra foot of brick is going to create the same leaking problem that was there before. The options before the Commission now are to keep what is there and add a copper box to match the front chimneys or to add 6 or 9” of brick corners and a flat metal cap.
Ms. Guy stated that in January he sent a drawing that said 3” brick corners and 3” cap with two different suggestions for edges. His application says 9” of brick corner supports and the light metal cap.
Ms. Herbert asked if the Commission wants to try and replicate what he had there which is similar to what the original looked like, or match the two other chimneys with the copper cap and the mesh.
Ms. Guy stated that she gave Mr. Spang all of the information and asked him to look at this with fresh eyes. She asked if it was possible to put a metal sleeve on the inside with bricks on it.
Mr. Spang thought it was weird and curious to him that the claim is it leaks when it is taller. Mr. Spang stated that Ms. Guy has asked him if it is possible to raise the height of the chimney with 1’ of brick course and 1’ of brick corners. He stated that the answer is maybe. He noted that the roof framing has to hold the gravity load of the brick and that it may or may not be up to it. He stated that it doesn’t sound like a lot to have that little amount of brick in terms of brick loading. He stated it was hard for him to imagine that it would tip over due to the roof framing. He stated that there is also the horizontal load from the wind or seismic events. He stated that, depending on how it is structured, it could start to tip if it were taller. He noted that
he felt it was hard to imagine that an extra foot of brick would make that difference. He suggested getting a letter from a structural engineer saying absolutely you cannot do that.
Ms. Herbert stated that a letter has been requested by Ms. Guy and is already in the works.
Mr. Spang stated that if the structural engineer states that the existing chimney cannot handle the load, then they would have to reinforce the roof framing with additional framing from below, take apart the ceiling to support the additional gravity load and wind load.
Ms. Guy stated that it would require going inside the unit and into the person’s ceiling or wall.
Ms. Herbert stated that the complication is that he doesn’t have permission from that particular unit owner to tear their ceiling apart, for which he would have to get approval from the condo owner to allow it to happen.
Ms. McCrea was her sense was he was trying to avoid that.
Mr. Spang stated that it would be both for the cost, as well as the process.
Ms. Guy read an email into the record from a resident at 70 Essex Street, Unit 2, who stated that he does “not support any alteration or changes in the initial agreement that the rear chimney be in kind to what was agreed upon at the last meeting.~(height, four sides on top with open middle)”
~
Ms. Herbert suggested that any change in approval be subject to receiving an engineering report which states that building it up with an additional foot of brick as previously approved is not possible structurally.
Ms. Bellin asked how this would work, if the approved would not work.
Ms. Guy stated that part of it may be that he has a plumbing pipe in the chimney, which does not have to be above the chimney, but can’t be too far below. She stated that she believed he is willing to do the corners, because he will still get the air in.
Ms. Herbert stated that the weight issue difference is that the prior had a giant piece of heavy bluestone. He can rebuild it with the corners and have a light metal cap, so it will be the same height, but the top weight won’t be the same force pressing down.
Mr. Spang stated that that is not nothing in terns of the weight of that brick and this will be a lighter scheme.
Ms. Herbert stated that apparently it was the bluestone that created the leak problem, but she is not sure how.
Mr. Spang stated that that seems weird to him.
Ms. Bellin asked if the proposed will be shorter with a lighter cap.
Ms. Herbert replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Herbert stated that the original chimney was thinner and when they rebuilt it, they rebuilt it a little fatter. She noted that one of the mistakes that the Commission made was not getting the dimensions of the existing chimneys, so we could be sure what was rebuilt measures to that. Ms. Herbert she stated that, unfortunately, the Commission learned the hard way. She noted when we saw the metal caps originally, we were shown just the cap and not shown on the chimney. She thought it would go inside the brick like most, but this is mounted right on top of the chimney. She did not think they would necessarily approve those again,
Mr. Hart made a motion that the developer shall submit a letter from a structural engineer which explains how the previous approval of adding 1’ of brick along with 1’ of brick corner supports to the existing reconstructed rear chimney is not structurally feasible and that following acceptance of the letter, the developer will alter the reconstructed rear chimney by adding 9” of brick corner supports and top with a lightweight metal flat cap in matte black color to match the cap color of front chimneys.
Ms. Bellin stated he cannot build anything until there is an engineering report.
Ms. Guy stated the concern is he doesn’t care whether he builds it or not, so there needs to be some incentive that he will do it. She suggested an amendment to find the property in violation if the engineering report is not provided within 30 days, and to not allow the alteration to commence until the report is received and that failure will result in it being a violation.
Ms. Herbert asked if the report should be submitted by the next meeting.
Ms. Guy suggested 14 days for the engineering report so she can come to the meeting and say she received it. She did not feel it would need to be reviewed at the meeting.
Ms. Herbert suggested 30 days for chimney completion.
Mr. Hart so amended his motion.
VOTE: Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Ms. Guy stated that she received an e-mail from Steven Sass, owner of 388-390 Essex Street who stated that the satellite dish should already be removed from the front of the building and that the metal on the second story bay seems to be an overly large drip edge, which they will attend to in the next 45-60 days.
Ms. Guy stated that she received a copy of a letter from Massachusetts Historical Commission finding that the masonry work proposed for the Collins Middle School at 29 Highland Avenue will have no adverse effect provided that the EIFS material be used only in the secondary locations described in the February 13, 2012 submission.
VOTE: There being no further business, Ms. Bellin 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
| 
