SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
May 1, 2013
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, May 1, 2013 at 7:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Jessica Herbert, Kathryn Harper, Laurie Bellin, Chad Garner, David Hart, Susan Keenan, Joanne McCrea, and Laurence Spang.
302 Lafayette Street
As a continuation of the previous meeting, 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.
The item was continued to allow the applicant to look for alternative options for architectural shingles. Steve Anezis was present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 3/15/13
- Photographs: 3/15/13
Mr. Anezis presented a sample of a Slateline architectural shingle which is a replacement for a Grandslate. He stated that Grandslate has been discontinued. The Slateline is designed to replicate slate. Color will be antique slate.
Mr. Hart responded that GAF ELK Slateline has been approved by the Commission for previous houses.
There was no public comment
VOTE: Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the GAF ELK Slateline shingles in the color antique slate. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion.
All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
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 was present at the meeting.
Mr. Hart recused himself as an abutter and moved to the audience. Ms. Herbert stated that at the advice of counsel she would recuse herself due to a potential financial conflict and moved to the audience.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 3/6/13
- Photographs: 3/6/13 & 5/1/13
- Renderings: 3/6/13 & 5/1/13
Mr. McIver presented a new option for the balcony design. They looked at options for include lattice to screen the deck to the neighbors. Ultimately, they decided on a railing system with square pickets. He also presented a photograph of the house from federal court in the spring. The balcony is barely visible from the public way.
Ms. Harper read a quote from page 4 of the Historical Commission’s guidelines that “The Commission makes a clear distinction between changes which would be appropriate for the principal elevations of a building and those acceptable at rear, private, “family living” sections. … Since, historically, rear elevations were altered over time to meet changing family needs, modern date alterations – skylights, greenhouse windows, French doors, decks – should be restricted to the less important facades of the house.”
Ms. Bellin asked if the railings proposed will look like the Hayward’s fence shown in the application.
Mr. McIver stated that there will be a 1 ½” space between the pickets. The railing will look like the fence but with a top railing. There will be two horizontal boards, one 6 inches off the top. The railing height can be between 36-48 inches tall.
Mr. Spang asked if the railing would be painted white.
Mr. McIver responded in the affirmative.
Ms. Bellin asked if the Hayward’s fence could be seen from the balcony. Otherwise, why match the two?
Mr. McIver responded that the fence cannot be seen from the balcony.
Ms. Harper asked for public comment
Susan Hayward, 105 Federal Street, stated that she would prefer there not be a deck. The lattice along the side of the balcony looks out of place and does look historic. The deck was not original to the house, but if there is going to be a deck it needs to look historic. She stated that the Commission needs to approve a balcony that is keeping with the historic nature of the house.
Ms. Harper read into the record a letter signed by 24 Federal Street residents requesting that the Salem Historical Commission deny the application for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
John Carr, 7 River St, stated that the Historical Commission guidelines state that the addition of porches and steps must be contextual. The lattice that the applicant has proposed has nothing to do with the architecture but with providing privacy, but the commission does not have jurisdiction over privacy. The balcony is not architecturally contextual. No other buildings from that period have rooftop decks. Decks get cluttered with chairs and grills, people are going to be up there and that adds to the diminution of the historic character. He had proposed back deck years ago for his property and it was denied by the Commission.
Susan Hayward states that she agrees with the letter even though she did not sign.
Jennifer Lucht, buyer of 103 Federal Street, stated that her and Jim are excited to move into a historic area and would like to speak to the outdoor space. The suggestions that the yard can be divided would not be possible.
Jane Arlander, 93 Federal Street, hopes the Historical Commission denies the application before the balcony is not contextual for house and could set a precedent. Sometimes the guidelines are deviated from when there is a hardship house. However, this house was bought for a decent price and she doesn’t believe there is a hardship
Connie Arlander, 91 Federal St, agrees with John and Jane. Approving this application would set a precedent. There are guidelines set for the historic districts and they need to be adhered to. While the current buyers have agreed to the privacy lattice, it may be removed by future owners.
Maryanne Williamson, 92 Federal Street, states that the Historical Commission needs to consider the neighbors and their small yard. There needs to be consideration for everyone involved. The balcony wasn’t there historically and shouldn’t be approved.
Jim Gwinn, buyer of 103 Federal Street, states that walking down Federal Court you can barely see the back of the house, in the spring you can’t see anything from the public way. There are balconies on neighboring houses that are visible from the public way. Those balconies have been added within the last 20-30 years. He feels that the back addition looks out of place and adding the balcony would make it look more appropriate. He stated that they are not going to have a grill outside of their bedroom.
The public comment period was closed.
Mr. Spang stated that the prevue of the Historical Commission is not privacy, it is what is historically appropriate for the building. He stated that they application should be denied only if there is no way to add a deck on that would be appropriate. The idea of clutter on the balcony is a red herring. The Commission has no jurisdiction over what people do in their driveways or yards. He also stated that this application is not being considered under a hardship, purely appropriateness.
Ms. McCrea stated that she has concerns about the contextual nature of the deck. The deck seems to draw attention to the added on sunroom.
Ms. Bellin stated that the deck is visible from a public way, so is within jurisdiction. The public’s references to the regulations are confusing porches and decks. A porch is different from a deck. The back of the house is not part of the streetscape, and only part of the deck is visible from the public way. Additionally, the deck is not a major feature or on the front of the house. She feels the rear of house has been already been aggravated by the sunroom addition. The deck doesn’t seem terribly inappropriate, but she was hoping the owner and the neighbors would come to an agreement. Her other thought was to move the deck away from that side of the house so there would be more privacy
Mr. Garner states that he agrees with what Ms. Harper previously stated about the back of the house already being altered. He is not able to vote on the item because he missed the last meeting, but if he had he would have voted for the approval of the balcony.
Ms. Harper stated that the privacy issue is not within the prevue. The Commission was hoping that everyone would come to agreement. The deck is proposed for the rear of the house and is not at all visible from federal street court in spring. Given that sunroom and shed seem to be contemporary additions, the railing would add to what is there rather than take away. She wouldn’t want to see the fence replicated other than the style of the balusters and spacing. She would prefer to see a top railing.
Mr. Spang and Ms. Bellin agree with Ms. Harper’s comment on the railing.
Ms. Harper added that 42” railing height would add more screening than 36”. She would also prefer that the other window, further from the neighbor be made into the door
VOTE:
Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the railing as indicated in the plans with 42” high, 1 ½” square balusters with 1 ½” spacing to match neighbors fence. The window further from the side of the house to be changed to a 15 light door, as submitted. The dimensions of the deck will be 6x15ft deck. There will be a top rail and the railing will be painted white to match the house trim. The railing will be made of solid cedar or solid mahogany Ipe. Mr. Spang seconded the motion.
Mr. Spang, Ms. Bellin, and Ms. Harper were in favor, Ms. McCrea and Ms. Keenan were opposed and the motion failed.
Mr. Hart and Ms. Herbert returned to the table.
6 Carpenter Street
Michael Chefitz and Robyn Frost submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a porch off of their kitchen. The porch will be made of mahogany wood and will be 5feet off the ground. The balusters and handrails will be constructed out of 2x4 cedar. The bottom of the porch will be covered with lattice. Robyn Frost, Michael Chefitz, and Fred Farris were present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 3/25/13
- Photographs: 3/25/13
Ms. Frost stated that the porch is partially visible from the street. It leads off of the kitchen into their courtyard.
Ms. Harper asked how far the porch would come off of the house.
Mr. Hart stated there is no plan or elevation of the deck so it is hard to know what is being proposed. He would prefer to see an elevation of the porch in order to get a sense of its position to the door.
VOTE:
Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to the next meeting. Ms. Mccrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
354 Essex Street
Herbert and Leanne Schild submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to repair the front porch. The porch floor and stairs will be replaced with 1x4 cambara mahogany and stained. They are proposing to use the same materials and stain as being used at 356 Essex Street, an attached neighbor, in order to ensure a consistent look for the building. Leanne Schild and Jeff Grinamil were present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 4/8/13
- Photographs:4/8/13
Ms. Schild stated that they are not making any changes to the design of the porch. They are changing the floor material so match the neighbors and repairing rotting boards. The stairs will also be repaired. The risers will be painted a cream color.
Ms. Herbert stated that the biggest change is that the flooring will now be a natural color rather than painted.
There was no public comment.
VOTE: Mr. Hart made a motion to approve as submitted. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion.
All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
13 Washington Square West
The Peabody Essex Museum submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace a chain link fence gate with a cast iron gate, fabricated to match existing fence and gates. The gate is located adjacent to the Armory. Robert Monk was present.
Documents & Exhibits
- Application: 4/10/13
- Photographs:4/10/13
Mr. Hart stated that he has a proposal to PEM to do some work for them. He does not believe that impacts this project, but wanted to disclose.
Mr. Monk stated that the PEM would like to use the gate for access behind the armory. They would like to replace the current chain link gate with an operable gate to match the existing cast iron fence.
Ms. Herbert asked if there would be gates.
Mr. Monk responded in the affirmative.
Ms. Herbert asked for public comment.
Willard and Priscilla St. Cyr, 8 Brown Street, stated that they were in favor of the proposal.
The public comment period was closed.
VOTE: Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion.
All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
VOTE: There being no further business, Mr. Garner made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. All were in favor and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Natalie BL Lovett
Community Development Planner
| 
