SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
April 3, 2013
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, April 3, 2013 at 7:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Jessica Herbert, Kathryn Harper, Laurie Bellin, Chad Garner, Susan Keenan, Joanne McCrea, and Laurence Spang.
103 Federal Street
As a continuation of the previous meeting, ProProcess It, Inc submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a rear 2nd floor balcony and replace a 2nd floor window with an egress door to the balcony. The door will be 36”x80” 15 lite door.
The item was continued to allow the owner to re-design deck in a way that would be more acceptable to the neighbors and make the deck more private. John McIver and Michael Kehn were present at the meeting.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Building Plans
- Drawings
Mr. Kehn showed revised plans for the balcony. Revision included lattice screens along one side of the balcony.
Mr. McIver added that the screen could be brought down to the floor. There are a couple lattice options, square, diagonal. An evergreen will be planted on the ground (10-15ft tall) to fill in from the ground level. Potted arborvitae can also be added. The lattice in the drawings is 6’. 1 ¼”x 1 ¼” balusters turned diagonally.
Ms. Herbert asked if the railing will be 1 ¼ square cap on square post, small opening lattice, down to the floor screen posts capped, and painted green.
Mr. McIver responded in the affirmative.
Ms. Herbert asked the audience for public comment.
Suzie Hayward, 105 Federal St, stated that details for the balcony must be architecturally appropriate. It feels like they are adding something that doesn’t belong and increases visual clutter.
Jane Arlander, 92 federal street, stated that the Commission needs to made an appeal-proof decision. The guidelines say that anything on the house needs to be contextual. The Historical Commission now has a house that hasn’t been ruined during the years before there was a historical commission, but adding a deck would begin to do so. Historically, people didn’t have back decks, they had second homes. A balcony doesn’t belong on this house and she feels the guidelines support that. Other homes will smaller yards are able to get by. The visual clutter will bring your eye to the porch.
The public comment period was closed.
Ms. McCrea tends to agree with comments brought up about not keeping with the plainness of the house.
Ms. Keenen reserves comment.
Ms. Bellin states that in terms of contextual nature, there are already things added to that house that clearly are not original. In regards to the impact on the streetscape, it is fairly minimal.
Mr. Spang states it is hard to see the porch from the public way and therefore minimizes the concern. If the deck was on the front or side of the house, there would be more concern. He adds that the screen on the deck adds to the clutter, but it was an attempt to minimize the privacy issue raised by the neighbor. The balance is difficult. If you bring the panel of lattice to the ground and plant vines it would feel more in keeping with the house. He suggested planting wisteria on the ground. Alternatively, they could use a board fence with small separation. He’s not sure if the screening helps the situation.
Ms. Harper agrees with Ms. Bellin that the addition on the back of the house was built later than original house. Also, the deck will be less visible from Federal Street Court when there is foliage. She is baffled why the developer didn’t divide the yard between the two units rather than advertising the balcony. That way everyone would have privacy, including the other condo owner and neighbor.
Mr. Garner reserves comment.
Ms. Herbert comments that they were hoping the owners and neighbors would have come to an agreement for this meeting. She asked Ms. Hayward in the audience if the issue for her is more privacy or what is historically appropriate.
Ms. Hayward responded that while privacy is an issue, she is also concerned with the visual clutter making the balcony out of place. She would rather see no balcony at all.
Ms. Herbert asked Mr. McIver why they buyers of the unit thought they would have a balcony.
Mr. McIver responded that the real estate agent included the balcony in the advertisement.
Ms. Keenan stated that for resale value, a deeded portion of yard has better resale than the balcony.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the discussion to the May 1st meeting. Ms. Mccrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
33 Carlton Street
Wendy Walsh, Trustee of the Townsend House Condominiums, submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a railing outside the front door at 33 Carlton Street. The design mimics that at the West India Goods Store, 164 Derby Street. The railing will address a long-standing safety concern with the granite steps. The specifications for the railing are:
- 34” high and 60” long
- Solid steel
- 1” cap rail and 7/8” square posts
- Cap rail will have a scroll detail at each end
- Black finish coat
- Installed along left side of stairs
- freestanding
Wendy Walsh was present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application
- Photographs
- Drawing
Ms. McCrea asked why the railing was proposed for the left side.
Ms. Walsh responded that was the side the doorknob is on.
Ms. Bellin asked if it required by building code that the railing extend past bottom step. This issue arose for a previously property.
Ms. Herbert responded that typically this is required, but not in all cases. It is up to the Building Inspector to decide if the railing would become an obstruction.
There was no public comment.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Mccrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
302 Lafayette Street
Steve Anezis, Trustee of the 302 Lafayette Street Realty Trust, submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the roof with architectural shingles.
Steve Anezis was present.
Documents & Exhibits
Mr. Anezis stated that he would like to replace the roof with charcoal black architectural shingle. They are a better material than the 3 tab shingles. He feels as though the siding is so garish that the architectural shingles wouldn’t stand out.
Ms. Harper asked if he looked at other manufacturers.
Mr. Anezis responded that Ms. Lovett mentioned that there were some styles of architectural shingles that have been approved in the past.
Ms. Harper stated that generally they prefer straight lines over tapered for architectural shingles.
Mr. Spang asked if they liked the architectural shingles for the look or because they last longer.
Mr. Anezis responded primarily because they last a lot longer. There is a 50 year guarantee versus 30 years for the 3 tab. Installers also like the architectural shingles better. Because the 3 tab shingles have an open tab they wear faster.
Ms. Harper stated that Grand Slate also has an extended guarantee but it has a much different look.
Ms. Herbert stated they could approve the Grandslate or 3-tab.
Ms. Harper recalls the Commission previously approving other architectural shingles that are straight.
Mr. Spang stated that the house may have originally had a slate roof.
Mr. Garner asked if warrantee is an issue or the price for using the slate style architectural shingle.
Mr. Anezis responded that going from the proposed architectural to the slate style is a big difference. Architectural shingles vs 3-tab is about the same.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve 3-tab black or charcoal grey and continue review of the architectural shingles to the next meeting. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
VOTE: Mr. Garner made a motion to approve Grand Slate architectural shingle in black or charcoal grey. Ms. Keenan seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Mr. Spang, and Ms. McCrea were in favor, and the motion so carried. Ms. Bellin abstained.
Other Business
Ms. Lovett read a copy of a letter received from the National Register Director, Betsy Friedberg, at the Massachusetts Historical Commission. The letter states that draft nomination for the Point Neighborhood Historic District was only partially addressed MHC’s previous comments and recommendations. As a result, MHC will retain the nomination but will not substantially review it until the nomination has been revised to reflect all of the recommendations.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the March 6th meeting minutes. Ms. Mccrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Ms. Lovett read a letter from MassDOT regarding a Clearance Memorandum prepared by Public Archeological Laboratory (PAL) for the Archaeological Data Recovery Program on the Salem Intermodal Station property. As part of the Memorandum of Agreement, MassDOT is requesting comments regarding the Clearance Memorandum.
Mr. Spang stated that the findings of the archaeological dig are in line with what they expected.
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to submit letter of concurrence. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Conversation ensued regarding the need for buyers to know that their homes within a Historic District.
Ms. Harper stated that when people buy in the historic district they need to also understand the historic guidelines.
Ms. Bellin stated that it is not within the purview of the Historical Commission, but she was wondering what recourse a buyer would have by not being notified that all work needs to be approved by the Commission. She questioned whether real estate ads include that in the details of the home.
Ms. Keenan stated that they should. The broker is responsible for notifying the buyer.
VOTE: There being no further business, Mr. Spang made a motion to adjourn. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Natalie BL Lovett
Community Development Planner
| 
