SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
March 27, 2013
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, March 27, 2013 at 7:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Jessica Herbert, Kathryn Harper, Laurie Bellin, David Hart, Susan Keenan, Joanne McCrea, and Laurence Spang.
104 Federal Street
Barbara A. Cleary and David M. Hart submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install one 2 ½” diameter x 8’ high pipe on the west façade of the kitchen ell. The pipe will be visible from Beckford Street. It will be painted to match the siding paint color. The pipe will service new mechanical equipment they would like to install. David Hart was present at the meeting.
Documents & Exhibits
David Hart recused himself and moved to the audience.
Mr. Hart stated that they were installing new mechanical equipment for an air conditioner. All of the equipment would be hidden from view except for the pipe included in the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. The pipe will be visible from Beckford St.
There was no public comment.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve as submitted. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Mr. Hart returned to the table
149 Derby Street
Lloyd Michaud submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install two widow’s walks and a hatch on the roof. The platforms will be constructed for two units in the building. The platforms will be placed in the southern section of the roof, 3’ from the perimeter of the roof. The railing height will be 42,” which is standard for widow’s walks and roof decks. The platforms have been designed to minimize visibility from the street. Only the top few inches should be visible from any vantage points. The roof hatch will not be visible from the public way. Lloyd Michaud was present at the meeting.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Manufacturer specifications
Mr. Michaud stated that roof access is granted exclusively for two condo units in the building. He then presented additional photographs of the building and details on the railing. Mr. Michaud stated that the railing would be most visible from the parking lot, where approximately 1 ½ ft of railing would be seen.
Mr. Spang asked if there would be a deck put down over the roof?
Mr. Michaud responded in the affirmative. The deck will be put down over tar roof and would be 6” over the roof at the highest point.
Mr. Spang asked if the building inspector had approved a roof hatch for access to the roof. He stated that there may be an issue of the deck being considered an assembly use, for which the building inspector would require a head house.
Mr. Michaud responded that he hadn’t spoken with the building inspector yet, but wanted to avoid a head house because of the visual impact and cost.
Mr. Hart suggested that an additional railing may be necessary for the entry area surrounding the hatch.
Mr. Michaud responded that if a railing is necessary, they would extend the proposed railing
Mr. Hart stated that it is hard to understand what the potential visibility will be from the street without a depiction of the deck.
Ms. Herbert added that the applicant can put a temporary structure on the roof that would be the approximate high of the railing and take a photograph.
Mr. Spang stated that treating the railing more like a fence might be more appropriate, so that the railing would have an element of concealment to hide chairs and tables on the roof. He continued to stated that a fence with slates would be ok. It would look like screening for mechanical equipment.
Ms. Bellin requested that a bird’s eye view of the railing and roof layout be brought to the next meeting.
There was no public comment.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue to the application to the April 17th meeting for further information. Mr. Hart seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
19 Orne Square
Christine Thomson submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a new window on the first floor. The window will match the existing windows in all ways. Helen Sides was present at the meeting.
Documents & Exhibits
Ms. Sides stated that the Ms. Thomson was not able to attend the meeting and she is presenting the application to the Commission as a friend. The house suffered damage during the winter as a result of a storm. As a result, the kitchen needed to be gutted. Ms. Thomson originally wanted to add a door from the kitchen into the yard, but Ms. Sides recommended installing a window. The window would be a Brosco 6/6. The location of the window close to the corner board gives better balance to the building. The window will also supply the house with better cross ventilation.
Ms. Herbert asked if there would then be two windows in the kitchen.
Ms. Sides responded in the affirmative. The idea is to get more light into the room.
Mr. Hart asked if the window would be wooden, single pane, true divided light with the same trim as the existing windows.
Ms. Sides responded in the affirmative.
There was no public comment.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to accept the application as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
103 Federal Street
ProProcess It, Inc submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to:
- Install rear 2nd floor balcony- The balcony will be approximately 6’ by 16’ over the existing sunroom structure. The railing will be similar to the railing at 97 Federal Street.
- Replace 2nd floor window with egress door- The egress door will serve the new balcony. The door will be 36”x80” 15 lite door.
- Replace rear windows and doors
- Replace rear windows with bay window- The windows along the first floor back addition will be removed and replaced with a bay window or 3 - 6 over 6 double hung windows mounted side by side and centered on the wall.
- Remove 1 rear window
- Replace picture window
John McIver and Michael Kehn were present at the meeting
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Building Plans
Mr. Hart recused himself as an abutter and moved to the audience.
Ms. Herbert asked if the reason for the changes to the sunroom windows are due to the sunroom being turned into a kitchen and room is needed for cabinets.
Mr. McIver responded in the affirmative, however they have tried to retain as many windows as possible.
Ms. Herbert asked if the three double hung windows at back will be over the sink and if they will be shorter than the existing windows
Mr. McIver responded in the affirmative.
Ms. Herbert asked for clarification on the door replacement: the existing 15 lite door is being replaced, the window to the right of the door is being eliminated, and width of window to the left is being reduced. The new window will be 4 over 4.
Mr. McIver responded in the affirmative.
Ms. Herbert asked if the window to the left of the other entry door would be reduced to 4 over 4.
Mr. McIver responded in the affirmative.
Ms. Herbert stated that the picture window between the doors will be changed to 6 over 6.
Ms. Harper asked if the date of the sunroom is known.
Mr. Kehn responded that they do not have an exact date, but it was probably built less than 80 years ago.
Ms. Herbert asked if any windows on second floor will be changed.
Mr. McIver responded negative.
Ms. Herbert asked for public comment regarding the windows and doors.
Jane Arlander, 93 Federal St, asked if there was going to be a bow window.
Mr. McIver responded that the window was initially proposed as a bow window but they changed it to a double hung.
Ms. Arlander stated that window changes looked ok.
Ms. Arlander asked if there will be a second door between the backdoor and the unit.
Mr. McIver responded that the decision had not yet been made. There may be a second door and then that area would be a little mudroom.
The public comment period was closed.
Ms. Herbert asked if the existing rear door on left will be changed to match the other door.
Mr. McIver responded in the affirmative.
Mr. McIver stated that they would like to put a double glazed window over the sink. The window they would prefer is Anderson 400 series with simulated divided light.
Ms. Herbert responded that she felt the windows were far enough away from public way and the Historical Commission has approved simulated divided light window for similar circumstances in the past. The Commission’s bigger concern would be the muntin and a bronze metal around the glass.
Ms. Herbert asked if the existing windows are all wood.
Mr. McIver responded in the negative. The second floor windows are vinyl.
Ms. Harper asked what is proposed for the first floor windows.
Mr. Kehn responded wood simulated divided light window are possible. It seems as though Anderson vinyl clad windows would not be acceptable by the Commission.
Mr. Spang stated that typically people bring in specifications for the specific windows they are proposing. However, in this case the windows are so far away from the public way real or simulated may not matter.
Ms. Bellin asked if the Commission could give an option as part of the decision. For example, the option of Brosco with storm or the Pella simulated divided light. The same thing could be done for the doors.
Mr. Kehn responded that they would like to install Jeldwin doors.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the 1st floor window replacement for 8 windows, Brosco with storm windows or any one of the previously approved solid wood windows with double glaze. There will be three 4/4 windows and five 6/6. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to replace existing doors to 15 light double glazed solid wood, in the color black. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Conversation then ensued regarding the proposed balcony.
Mr. Kehn summarized that they reduced the depth of balcony is reduced to 6’ to minimize its visibility from Beckford St.
Ms. Herbert asked if the railing would have a square balustrade.
Mr. Kehn responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Spang asked if the railing would be made out of wood.
Mr. Kehn responded in the affirmative. It would be painted white.
Mr. Spang asked how high the deck would be off the roof.
Mr. Kehn responded that it would be 4 ½ inches. They will stand the 2x4 vertical rather than laying down. The balcony will only be accessed from the master bedroom.
Ms. Herbert asked for public comment.
Susan Hayward, 105 Federal St, feels as though the deck will infringe on their privacy.
Jane Arlander, 93 Federal St, wants to reiterate Susan’s comments. She empathizes with having a deck that close. She also states that 101/103 Federal St has a very large yard for Salem. She does not feel that a deck is necessary. Finally, she feels that the Federal Street neighborhood is becoming an endangered species and hates to see anything go too array of the historic guidelines and wants to maintain the beauty of the neighborhood. The Historical Commission has the power to make decisions about this thing needs to think about adding deck. She has asked the building inspector to look at the set back for the porch.
Suzie Welden, 106 federal St, reiterates both of the previous comments. She feels the deck will impact the ability of the Hayward’s to sell their property. She feels the deck is not in keeping with the integrity of the neighborhood; everyone in the Federal St neighborhood would like to put up a second floor deck, but abiding by the historical district there are some things that they are not able to do. She feels that approving the deck, even if barely visible, is setting a precedent. She is supportive of the other work being done on the house, but concerned about losing the little bit of how things should be done. Many of the homes on the street are being turned into condos.
Connie Arlander, 91 Federal St, applauds what developer is doing to make the building livable but feel as though the building was knowingly bought in a historical neighborhood and the buyer should know that they can’t have all. She asks of there is a compromise for the buyers, especially given that other neighbors have much smaller parcels.
Mr. McIver stated that there is evidence of balconies on homes in history. A balcony could be historically appropriate.
Ms. Herbert asked if both units have use of the yard. There may be ways to make the yard private. This situation is unique because the house next door is tiny, and the balcony really does seem to encroach on the neighbor’s yard. In the past, when balconies have been approved they have not been that close to neighbors.
Mr. Spang stated that he is uncomfortable with morphing the conversation to potential impact of use. That is an issue of zoning rather than does it look and feel appropriate to the style of the house. He appreciates comments from the public of closeness, but doesn’t think there is much difference between looking out of a balcony vs. out of a window. He is uncomfortable saying the balcony is inappropriate just because the use. Maybe there are things that can be added to the balcony to make it more appropriate. Perhaps a screening on that side.
Ms. Herbert states that she is questioning balcony only being 6’ deep as inappropriate to the building. Not that it is infringing on the neighbors.
Ms. Bellin states that the balcony was moved in because it was originally visible from Beckford Street. She suggested that the balcony be moved over and switch the adjacent window to a door. She states that if the Historical Commission cannot reject the balcony, maybe there is a compromise that can be made with the neighbors.
Mr. McIver states that if a door is approved for the roof, a short railing could be installed. This would enable access to the roof but it isn’t necessarily a deck.
Mr. Spang reiterated that saying the use isn’t appropriate feels beyond the boundaries of the Historical Commission. That question should be addressed by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Ms. McCrea questioned whether the balcony is in line with the architecture of the house.
Ms. Harper didn’t think it would be, however the sunroom was not original to the house either. In that context, it would be ok for a balcony there. She agreed with Mr. Spang that they can’t deny the balcony for use reasons.
Mr. Spang stated that lattice screens are sometime put up at the end of balconies. The owners might consider that option.
Ms. Bellin states that they have to judge how the project looks from the public way, but they are trying to accommodate the concerns of the neighbors.
Ms. Arlander asked why the property was advertised as having a deck if it wasn’t approved.
Mr. Kehn responded that they have a building permit to build the deck, but then they stopped work when Historical Commission notified them that the terms of the Certificate of Non-Applicability could not be met.
Ms. McCrea asked if the buyers would be open to changing the size of the deck and addressing the privacy issue.
Ms. Harper added that Botts Court has good examples of screening.
Ms. Herbert reiterated Ms. Bellin’s suggestion to switch the entry door to the other window and push back the balcony to limit visibility.
Ms. McCrea responded that she was worried about the symmetry.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue to the discussion of the balcony and entry door to the April 3 meeting. Mr. Spang seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Ms. Herbert stated that Mr. Hart will be the Historical Commission representative for meetings on the McIntire Arch and that Ms. McCrea will be the Historical Commission representative for the Community Preservation Act Committee meetings. A representative is also needed for Historic Salem Inc.’s preservation award committee
Ms. Keenan offered to be the representative.
Ms. Harper suggested that 31 Flint St be recommended for an award.
The Commission then discussed the draft minutes for February 6th and February 20th.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the February 6th and February 20th meeting minutes with Ms. Herbert’s corrections. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
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,
Natalie BL Lovett
Community Development Planner
| 
