Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
K. Mintues - June 26, 2013, Approved
SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MINUTES
June 26, 2013
        
A meeting of the Salem Historical Commission was held on Wednesday, June 26, 2013 at 7:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA.  Present were Chairperson Jessica Herbert, Kathy Harper, Laurie Bellin, Chad Garner, Susan Keenan, and Joanne McCrea.  Laurence Spang arrived late.

343 Essex Street
Edward Bryce Morris submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for work previously completed. The work includes repairing and replacing rotten clapboards and painting the siding, trim, shutters, and windows. The paint colors are:
                
Clapboard- Benjamin Moore Winter Gates
                Shutters, Door, Windows- Benjamin Moore Essex Green
                Trim- Benjamin Moore China White

Edward and Caroline Bryce Morris were present.

Documents & Exhibits
  • Application: 6/3/2013
  • Photographs: 6/3/13
  • Paint colors: 6/3/13
Ms. Herbert read into the record a letter from abutter Marlene Juedes and William Goldbert, 8 Botts Court, supporting the approval of the application.

Mr. Bryce Morris stated that the base color has remained very similar, however the trim and window colors have changed. He submitted a letter signed by four neighbors in support of the new paint colors.

There was no public comment.

VOTE:   Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the paint colors as submitted. Mr. Garner seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.


19 Broad Street
Georgia Montouris submitted an application for aCertificate of Appropriateness to replace an existing wooden railing, on the side steps, with a wrought iron railing to match the existing railing on the front porch/steps. The wrought iron railing would be painted black.  

Documents & Exhibits
  • Application: 5/30/13
  • Photographs: 5/30/2013
Ms. Lovett stated that Ms. Montouris was unable to attend the rescheduled meeting and has requested that the application be continued to the next meeting.

VOTE:   Ms. Bellin made a motion to continue the application to the July 17th meeting. Mr. Garner seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.


6 Hamilton Street
Ben and Marjorie Wittner submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a shed in the back yard. The dimensions of the shed are:
  • 8’ wide x 6’ deep
  • 6’ high to bottom of roof
  • 4” overhang
The roof of the shed will have black shingles and be made of pine wood. It will be stained and trimmed in the same colors as the house. The shed will have two vents.

The shed will be located in the back right quadrant of the yard, as shown in the plan submitted. Ben and Marjorie Wittner were present.

Mr. Spang arrived at this time.

Documents & Exhibits
  • Application: 5/30/2013
  • Photographs: 5/30/2013
  • Plan: 5/30/13
Ms. Herbert asked if the shed is prefabricated.

Mr. Wittner responded in the affirmative.

Ms. Herbert asked what the house colors are.

Ms. Wittner replied that the house color is brown with a cream trim color. The shed will be the exact same colors. The paint colors are from Waters and Brown.

Ms. McCrea asked if there has been any objection from the neighbors.

Mr. Wittner responded that the neighbors are happy with the proposal.

Mr. Garner asked if there is currently a shed.

Ms. Wittner responded in the negative.

There was no public comment.

VOTE:   Mr. Garner made a motion to approve the shed and paint colors as proposed. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.


104 Federal Street
Barbara Cleary and David Hart submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to revise a previous Certificate related to a pipe necessary for an HVAC system. The previous approved pipe was to be a 2 ½” diameter, 8’ high pipe on the west façade of the kitchen ell. The revised proposal is for one 3 ½” diameter pipe running horizontally across the house. The pipe would be painted to match the siding.

Documents & Exhibits
  • Application: 6/3/13
  • Photograph: 6/3/13
Ms. Herbert stated that this application amends a Certificate previously approved for a HVAC pipe location.  Once painted, the pipe should blend with the clapboards. It is not visible from Federal Street.

Ms. Herbert asked for public comment.

Jane Arlander, 93 Federal Street, asked if the pipe is for ventilation.

Ms. Herbert responded that the pipe services the HVAC unit.

The public comment period was closed.

VOTE:   Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the application as submitted.  Mr. Garner seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.


20 Chestnut Street
Craig and Shawn Smith submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a single copper gutter and downspout across the front of the house roof line. In the back of the house, one copper gutter would be installed along the roofline of a single story section above the AC/heat pump units. The back gutter is only visible from Botts Court. The gutters will be identical to those approved for 22 Chestnut Street. Craig and Shawn Smith were present.

Documents & Exhibits
  • Application: 6/3/13
  • Photographs: 6/3/2013
Mr. Smith showed the Commission members a clearer photograph demonstrating the location along the rear addition.

Ms. Herbert asked if the copper gutters will be left to age naturally.

Ms. Smith responded that the front copper gutter will be left natural. They would like to have a painted galvanized downspout in the back.

Ms. Harper asked if the gutter in the rear will be galvanized or copper.

Mr. Smith responded that they would like the whole rear gutter and downspout to be galvanized.

Ms. Herbert asked if the galvanized downspout will hold paint the same as aluminum.

Mr. Spang stated that it will hold paint, but not quite as well as aluminum would.

Ms. Harper stated that aluminum could be an option in the back.

Ms. Herbert asked if the gutter will be an ogee profile in the back.

Mr. Smith responded in the affirmative.

There was no public comment.

Mr. Smith stated that they would like to have the front downspout run along the front of the house, in order to keep the water off their walkway. This would match the downspout location for 22 Chestnut.

VOTE:   Ms. McCrea made a motion to accept as submitted with an option for the back gutter and downspout to be either aluminum or galvanized and for the front downspout to run along the front of the house to match the downspout at 22 Chestnut Street.  Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.


22 Chestnut Street
Nina Cohen submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a stainless steel chimney cap on top of the chimney. Additional work to repair and rebuilt the chimney was approved as part of a Certificate of Appropriateness. Craig Barrows was present.

Documents & Exhibits
  • Application: 6/4/2013
  • Photograph:
Ms. Herbert asked if there is currently a cap on the chimney.

Mr. Barrows responded that there is no cap in the chimney currently, however there is a cap on the chimney at the back of the house. The proposed cap will match.

Ms. Herbert asked if the existing cap is stainless steel.

Mr. Barrows responded in the affirmative.

There was no public comment.

VOTE:   Ms. McCrea made a motion to approve as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.


118 Derby Street
Architect Paul Lessard, on behalf of Robert Burkinshaw, submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to add a roof ridge vent or gable attic vent, add 1” wide continuous soffit vent, add one more window to a bedroom that is part of the previously approved addition. Paul Lessard was present.

Documents & Exhibits
  • Application: 6/11/13
  • Photographs: 6/11/13
  • Drawings: 6/11/13
Mr. Lessard stated that when he saw the previously approved plan he thought that just one window was minimal light for a bedroom. The architecture of the house lends itself to close together windows. For the venting there are two options: a ridge vent or a gable vent. Gable vent would be on the street side.

Mr. Spang asked which window is being added.

Mr. Lessard stated the the second window in from the back of the house. The previously approved window for the addition would be moved in.

Ms. Herbert stated that the window is minimally visible.

Mr. Lessard agreed that the window is minimally visible from Derby Street.

Ms. Herbert asked if there will be shutters on the windows.

Mr. Lessard responded in the negative.  There are some existing windows with shutters and some windows that are closer together do not have shutters.

Ms. Herbert asked if the shutters would remain on the front windows.

Mr. Lessard responded that the existing windows will be remaining.  

There was no public comment.

Ms. McCrea asked if the windows looked a little too close together.

Ms. Herbert stated that the windows are not very visible from the street and the existing windows are already oddly placed.

Ms. Bellin stated that she prefers the look of the ridge vent. It seems less obtrusive than creating a new shape on the building.


VOTE:   Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve ridge vent. Mr. Garner seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Ms. Bellin, Mr. Garner, Ms. Keenan, and Ms. McCrea were in favor. Mr. Spang abstained, and the motion so carried.


VOTE:   Mr. Garner made a motion to approve the additional window, as submitted. Ms. Bellin seconded the motion.  Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Ms. Bellin, Mr. Garner, Ms. Keenan, and Ms. McCrea were in favor. Mr. Spang abstained, and the motion so carried.

Mr. Lessard clarified that there will be a little bit of a break between the ridge vent and the roof from the soffit.   


VOTE:   Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the soffit under the ridge vent. Mr. Garner seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Ms. Bellin, Mr. Garner, Ms. Keenan, and Ms. McCrea were in favor. Mr. Spang abstained, and the motion so carried.


103 Federal Street
As a continuation of a previous meeting, John McIver submitted an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a rear 2nd floor balcony. The balcony will be 6ft by 16ft built on top of an existing sunroom structure. The railing for the balcony will be 42” high, the design will mimic the fence at 97 Federal Street. The railing will be painted white. John McIver was present.

Documents & Exhibits
  • Application: 5/14/2013
  • Photographic Depiction: 5/14/2013
  • Sketch: 6/26/2013
Ms. Herbert stated that the Historical Commission received an email from Assistant City Solicitor Robin Stein regarding the legality of an applicant reapplying to the SHC. She found that there is no time restriction for reapplying in Mass. General Law 40C. In addition, Ms. Herbert stated that the SHC has approved balconies in the past when deemed appropriate. An example is 134 Federal Street, which is very visible from Federal Street.

Ms. Bellin noted to Ms. Herbert that it appeared that a member of the audience was videotaping the public hearing. Ms. Herbert asked the audience member, Andrew Carr of 7 River Street, if he was using a video camera. He responded in the affirmative.

Ms. Herbert stated that the guidelines allow the Historical Commission to review and approve historically appropriate additions to buildings. The subject of privacy has been brought up in previous meetings regarding this application; however privacy is an issue of zoning and not one for the Historical Commission to consider. The SHC should vote based on what is historically appropriate, noting  that the balcony is minimally visible from the public way of Federal Court.

Mr. McIver stated that the balcony is minimally visible from Federal Court, and is only visible from that street in the winter. The balcony is not visible at all in the summer. Additionally, there are other examples of balconies throughout the McIntire District. He stated that he has planted a Rose of Sharon along the property line which helps to obstruct the view into the neighbor’s yard. He is also planning to plant a full height arborvitae. He stated that he brought a new option for a railing shape that cuts the corners of the balcony. The corners would then allow room for planters. The shape may also be more historically appropriate. The baluster structure would be a straight square picket, similar to 134 Federal Street.  They could have a full obstruction panel at the corners or sides.

Mr. Garner stated that the landscaping additions are nice, but isn’t within the purview of the Historical Commission.

Mr. Spang asked if the change to the design is just the clipped corners.

Mr. McIver clarified that the change is the clipped corners and the panels on the balustrade.

Ms. Herbert asked the height of the panels.

Mr. McIver responded the height would be the same as the railing.

Ms. Bellin asked which of the options is the one being proposed.

Jim Gwinn, buyer of 103 Federal Street, responded that they would prefer the full balcony with panels on the Hayward’s side.

Ms. Herbert wondered if it may be more appropriate to have the panels along both sides and wrapping around the corner.

Ms. Bellin asked if the balcony is extended, if it would then be visible from Beckford Street. If so, the SHC would need to take that into consideration.

Ms. Herbert stated that the 134 Federal Street balcony is set back approximately 2 feet along the front and approximately 1 foot around the sides. She stated that this might look a little awkward and that it may be better if the set back were even around the entire balcony.  

Ms. McCrea asked if clipping the corners deals with the privacy issue.

Ms. Herbert stated that it would be mostly an aesthetical change. She noted that the sunporch addition is newer.

Mr. McIver stated that snow removal has been an issue in the past. The roof structure is fairly flat.

Mr. Garner asked if the panels make the balcony more or less visible.

Ms. Herbert responded that it could make it more visible, but would add to the privacy for the neighbor.

Ms. Harper asked if the proposed door is in a different location than the previous application.  

Mr. McIver responded in the affirmative. The door will be located at the location of the inner window rather than on the end.

Ms. Herbert stated that the door will be 15 lite door to match the doors previous approved for the 1st floor.

Ms. Herbert opened the meeting to public comment.

Jane Arlander, 93 Federal Street, asked if the SHC had received a written letter from the City Solicitor.

Ms. Herbert responded that the Assistant City Solicitor responded in an email.

Rob Hayward, 105 Federal St, asked what would prevent this instance of a reapplication from happening in the future.

Ms. Herbert responded that there is nothing to preclude an applicant from reapplying.

Mr. Garner asked if he could make a motion to close public comment, unless there are new comments to be made.

Ms. Bellin stated that if there was public comment at the previous public meeting that was closed. Then the Commission could close the public commenting period now.

Ms. Herbert stated that she would like to hear additional public comment if there is any new information.

Susan Hayward, 105 Federal Street, showed the SHC a picture demonstrating that the roof line of the sunporch had been altered. It previously had a pitch and is now flat.

Ms. Herbert stated that if the SHC approves the balcony then the issue of the roofline change would be moot, as the balcony proposal encompasses the roof changes

Andrew Carr, 7 River St, asked if the SHC residents are allowed to change a roof line without previous approval from the SHC. When you submit an application, how specific does it have to be.

Ms. Herbert responded that when the SHC votes on the item it will be very specific. The balcony has not been approved yet. The roofline cannot be changed without approval. If the work approved will obscure the roofline, then the change becomes moot because the roof will not be visible.

Ms. Bellin asked if it is known when the roofline was changed.  

Jane Arlander, 93 Federal Street, stated that the roof was changed when the roof was redone this spring. It was always a hip roof in the past. Her concern is that the roof was changed before the developer received permission from the commission and they are now proposing a deck to make it more appropriate. This sets a horrible precedent.

Ms. Herbert responded that when structures are changed prior to work being approved and the Commissionis made aware of the change, the SHC sends out a violation letter to have the owner apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness. The application currently before the Commission is whether or not the balcony is appropriate.

Ms. Herbert read into the record a letter from Peter Eschauzier, 15 ½ River St, who is opposed to the approval of the deck application.

Ms. Herbert stated that she had hoped that there would be a compromise between the parties.

Ms. McCrea wishes that the house had not been advertised with a deck without prior approval from the SHC.

Ms. Herbert stated that often times brokers list a property with certain amenities and they do not always check with the developer prior to advertising. The facts are the soon-to-be owners thought they were buying a unit with a deck. While there is also an element of the neighbor wanting to have privacy, the SHC needs to comply with its jurisdiction.  

Jeff Brant, 3 Lynn St, stated that roof decks don’t go with federalist architecture. The balustrades on the roof do not fix this issue. This proposal is hurting the house and upsetting the neighbors. He urges the applicant to reconsider the balcony.

Paige Provone, 9 Crombie St, asked if it is the duty of the SHC to look into violations and asked if there is a recourse for a violation.

Ms. Herbert responded that the SHC looks into reported violations and issues violation letters. The SHC’s recourse is to place a lien on the property for violations not resolved.

Ms. Bellin stated that when the SHC receives applications for work previously completed, it  reviews the application as if it hadn’t been completed. She cited an example of 343 Essex Street which was the first item on tonight’s agenda. She noted that in the 103 Federal application, the balcony approval would include changing the shape of the roof.

Susan Hayward, 105 Federal St, reminded the SHC that 24 neighbors signed a letter in opposition to the balcony. This letter was submitted at a previous meeting.


VOTE:   Ms. Bellin made a motion to close the public commenting period. Mr. Garner seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Ms. Bellin, Mr. Garner, Ms. Keenan, and Mr. Spang were in favor, and the motion so carried.  Ms. McCrea abstained from the vote.


Ms. Herbert stated that the SHC now needs to consider whether the hexagonal design is appropriate.

VOTE:   Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the hexagonal shape balcony design. Mr. Garner seconded the motion. All were opposed, and the motion failed.


Jane Arlander, 93 Federal Street, told the SHC that the balcony is also visible from Federal Street and showed a picture demonstrating this.
 
Ms. Herbert stated that the picture appears not to have been taken from the street, but from the front garden in front of 95 Federal Street.  

Ms. Bellin stated that she is hesitant on the full deck. The shorter deck minimized the visibility from Beckford Street.

Ms. Herbert stated that it was questioned in the previous meeting whether the full depth deck would be more aesthetically appropriate.

Ms. Bellin commented that given the distance from the public way, it may not be necessary to have the balcony match the roofline.

Ms. Herbert asked what the dimensions of the addition are.

Mr. McIver responded that the addition is approximately 10’x16’.
Ms. McCrea commented that the deck dimensions should be 14’x9’ or 14’x6’ to add an edge of about a foot around the perimeter.


VOTE:   Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the 9’x14’ full depth deck with 2x2 square balusters. Mr. Garner seconded the motion. All were opposed and the motion failed.


VOTE:   Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the 6’x14’ deck with 2x2 square balusters as proposed. Mr. Garner seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Ms. Bellin, Mr. Garner, Ms. McCrea, and Mr. Spang were in favor, and the motion so carried. Ms. Keenan abstained.


VOTE:   Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the option for the side panels to be closed panels with balusters along the front. Mr. Garner seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Ms. Bellin, Mr. Garner, Ms. McCrea, Ms. Keenan and Mr. Spang were in favor, and the motion so carried.


VOTE:   Ms. Bellin made a motion to approve the 15 lite door at the location of the inner window. Paint color to match the existing black trim as submitted. Mr. Garner seconded the motion. Ms. Herbert, Ms. Harper, Ms. Bellin, Mr. Garner, Ms. McCrea, Ms. Keenan and Mr. Spang were in favor, and the motion so carried.


Other Business
Ms. McCrea gave an update on the Community Preservation Committee. The first CPA meeting was last night. The boards should begin to think about what projects they would like to see the CPA money used for. The regulations specify that a minimum 10% of the funds should be for historical preservation projects. On July 9th there will be a training session, open to the public, on the CPA. The training begins at 6pm.


VOTE:   There being no further business, Ms. McCrea 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