Loading...
31 CHESTNUT STREET - DISTRICT FILES 31 Chestnut St r c G i Salem Historical Commission 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (978)619-5685 FAX(978)740-0404 November 21, 2013 William Wrightson 31 Chestnut Street Salem, MA 01970 Dear Mr. Wrightson: Please be advised that the Salem Historical Commission has approved your request to extend the expiration date of the Certificate of Appropriateness dated June 11, 2012 to May 20, 2014. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 978-619-5685. Sincerely, -�14&t ---t) Natalie Lovett Community Development Planner Natalie Lovett From: Wrightson, William L. <wlwrightson@we lington.com> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 10:56 AM To: Natalie Lovett Subject: RE: copy of Hist Commission Approval Here is your email — Please extend my certificate; we already started prep work months ago and we start installation in a matter of weeks. I still need to have those dimensions, please. From: Natalie Lovett [mailto:nlovett(a)Salem.coml Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 10:22 AM To: Wrightson, William L. Subject: RE: copy of Hist Commission Approval Hello Mr. Wrightson, Work approved under a Certificates of Appropriateness must be completed within 1 year. Would you please send me an email requesting that the Commission extend your Certificate and stated that amount of time that you will require? I can then bring your request to the meeting this Wednesday. Best Regards, Natalie Natalie Lovett Community Development Planner Department of Planning and Community Development City of Salem 120 Washington Street,3rd Floor Salem,MA 01970 (978)619-5685 Office Hours: M 8-4pm W 8-3pm Th 8-4pm From: Wrightson, William L. [mailto:wlwrightsonPwellington.com] Sent: Monday, November 18, 2013 9:36 AM To: Natalie Lovett Subject: copy of Hist Commission Approval On June 6 2012 we were approved for a new fence. I need a copy of the dimensions and spacing of the pickets — these were discussed in detail but I don't see them in the minutes, want to make sure they are made correctly. Thanks Will Wrightson 31 chestnut St. CO T o}' 3 Salem Historical Commission 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (978)619-5685 FAX(978r 740-0404 To: Salem Historical Commission From: Jane A. Guy,Assistant Community Development Director Date: 6/20/2012 Re: 31 Chestnut Street As requested by unanimous vote of the Commission, I researched the minutes and history of approvals of the side fence at 31 Chestnut for the period of January 1, 2007 through the present regarding Mr. Wrightson's assertion that the Commission withdrew its approval of the wrought iron fence for the side lot line. Attached are the excerpts of minutes related to the topic, along with Certificates issued and emailed correspondence(keep in mind email threads must be read back to front): • May 2, 2007 minutes— Unanimous vote for the replacement of the side wood fence with a wrought iron fence on a granite base interspersed with granite columns. Sections to be equidistant from the arbor post to the existing post and with spacing as close to the existing first section as possible. • May 4, 2007 Certificate of Appropriateness issued to"replace wooden fence on Pickering Street side of house with wrought fence to match existing front iron fence. Fence to be interspersed with granite columns to match existing, with spacing of sections to be equidistant from the existing arbor post to the existing granite post, being as close as possible in length to the existing section starting at the streetscape." • June 11, 2007 email from Mr. Wrightson outlining concerns of Jeff Schiff at Schiff Architectural (two fence styles and spacing),which was forwarded to the Commission members. • June 20, 2007 minutes—Commission discussed and came up with suggestions • June 21, 2007 email from me to Mr. Wrightson outlining Commission's suggestions and suggesting he submit an application this day to get on special meeting agenda of July 10"'. • July 10, 2007 minutes— Unanimous vote to replace wooden fence on Pickering Street side of house with wrought fence to match existing front iron fence, but with no granite base. Fence to have intermittent iron posts 1 'W x 3" round spaced evenly, with matching lemon top. Overall fence height to match existing section of iron fence on the same side,with both the granite posts to remain. • July 12, 2007 — Certificate of Appropriateness to 'Replace wooden fence on Pickering Street side of house with wrought fence to match existing front iron fence, but with no granite base. Fence to have intermittent iron psots 1 ''/s' x 3" found spaced evenly, with matching lemon top. Overall fence height to match existing section of iron fence on same side,with both granite posts to remain." 0 Page 1 • July 30, 2007 email from Mr.Wrightson regarding the fence builders concerns about the fence height and asking if he should schedule another meeting • August 1,2007 minutes—Discussion of Mr.Wrightson's 7/30/07 email—Mr. Hart volunteered to contact the homeowner and me to email him suggesting he submit a couple options for the Commission's review for the September agenda. • August 2, 2007 email from me to Mr. Wrightson telling him that Mr. Hart will be calling him and that he should apply for whichever options he wants, such as both wood and iron options. Told to submit application by 8/20107 to get on the 9/5/07 agenda. No application for any options was submitted until September, 2010, for which an application for a wood fence was submitted. • October 7, 2010 minutes—Lengthy discussion, which concluded that Mr.Wrightson intended to apply for a pergola and brick wall and that rather review in piecemeal the application was continued to meeting of October 20,2010. Following this meeting were a series of emails between me and Mr. Wrightson regarding submitting an application for the pergola so the fence and pergola can be discussed together. Due to being out of state, no application was submitted and Mr.Wrightson withdrew the fence application on November 17,2010. There were no further discussions on the side lot fence until Mr. Wrightson applied for the recently approved fence in April,2012. Conclusion: I found no evidence that the Commission withdrew its approval for a wrought iron fence. 0 Page 2 .�o Salem Historical Commission 120 WASHINGTON STREET,SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (978)619-5685 FAX(978)740-0404 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS It is hereby certified that the Salem Historical Commission has determined that the proposed: ❑ Construction ❑ Moving ❑ Reconstruction -;2r, Alteration ❑ Demolition ❑ Painting ❑ Signage ❑ Other work as described below will be appropriate to the preservation of said Historic District, as per the requiremen_s set forth in the Historic District's Act(M.G.L. Ch. 40C) and the Salem Historic Districts Ordinance. District: McIntire Address of Property_ 31 Chestnut Ctreet Name of Record Owner: William& Laura Wriehtson Description of Work Proposed: Replacement of wood fencing along lot line between 31 and 29 Chestnut Street. New fence to be capped picket with dimensions, heights and attachment to post/pillars per drawing provided 6/5/12. Fencing to run frc:m stone post at front to brick pillar and then begin after new brick wall at brick pillar and run to carriage house. Posts at 8'sections. 3 %:"pickets, '/e"spacing between pickets. Height to match height of iron fence pickets from ground to top of pickets. Remove portion offence at back of lot where two fences meet with different heights and end new fence against carriage house instead of running to the street. Add gate at house ell (middle of lot) matching fence. Finish side offending to face outward. Fencing to be painted white to match house trim Dated: June 11, 2012 SALEM FATORICAL COMMISSION o/ The homeowner has the option not to commence the work (unless i relates to resolving an outstanding violation). All work commenced must be completed within one year from this date unless otherwise indicated. THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. Please be sure to obtain the appropriate permits from the Inspector of Buildings (or any other necessary permits or approvals) prior to commencing work. Ij- 1<0,;e�u i U? y pig-[,&k 2" 9`w REC��`��� � rr ) ecp.rAPR 2 3 2012 Salem Historical Commission CQt*AU^'�YPa_' �'"G$ LOPMENT 120 WASHINGTON STREET,SALEM,MA 01970 (978)745-9595 EXT.311 FAX (978)740-0404 APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Pursuant to the Historic District's Act (M.G.L. Chapter 40C) and the Salem Historical Commission Ordinance,application is hereby made for issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for: Consm ru Moving Reconstruction Alteration emolitio Painting Sign ther as described below. District: CVV'6,�-0, Sr Original Building Construction Date, if known: L Address of Property: 3� C41+flSTlJU S' ��- Name of Record Owner(s): ` C4- Description of Work Proposed (Please include required scale drawings,paint chips,catalog cuts and/or samples ofmaterialproposed, where applicable.) 1 -f&pvo,G. I tj ay PAo P 0-1.01-fg- k a rm.J/lf� Da "%W (3ft.J6< LJ( I�hr�ra� t�n-1.,.;- /�Pt'� f/�-rA-r� GSA-►'PIS 1�fltGta�— (�+►n/cQE-� . • e , � • • • • • e e ea . •(� a �7 � e e � e Signature of Owner: r— Tel.#: ( ( Ly0�J Mailing address: Y-e, City: State:—Zip: RECE "E-D a} APR 2 3 2012 Salem Historical DcPTOF 'tANNIN(:: :,/ "A"'!YUEVELOPME NT 120 WASHINGTON STREET,SALEM,MA 01970 (978)745-9595 EXT.311 FAX(978)740-0404 APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Pursuant to the Historic District's Act (M.G.L. Chapter 40C) and the Salem Historical Commission Ordinance, application is hereby made for issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for: onstructio Moving Reconstruction Alteratio emo (tion Painting Sign t er as described below. District: GOriginal Building Construction Date, if known: Address of Property: N vim, , S-Onllv � Name of Record Owner(s). V" ^ 2� �! 6 Description of Work Proposed (Please include required scale drawings,paint chips, catalog cuts and/or samples of material proposed, where applicable) • /�� 6P61V- z R4iDT Az a r LoT ,w1Frc �#11J6 ,,G� i 12-✓A)N i,J 4t�-I� r� !All applications inust include thi-ee to lour 3.5111111 photogialAis 01'existing coiiditio� Signature of Owner: Tel. #: W '7 Mailing address: City: State:_Zip: studio SDA — Schopf Design Associates Architecture. Interior Design.Documentation. Construction Administration One Cambridge Street Salem,Massachusetts 01970 978-741-0410 April 16, 2012 The Salem Historic Commission Jane A. Guy, Secretary 978-619-5685 Jessica Herbert,Chair Kathryn Harper, Vice Chair Laorie Bellin David hart Johanna McCrea Susan Keenan Re: Replacement,renovation and reconstruction of Fences and Pergola at 31 Chestnut Street, Salem, Massachusetts—Wrightson Residence Members of the Salem Historic Commission: I have reviewed the proposal for new fences and pergola being presented tonight to the Historic Commission.The proposed fences are in keeping with the historic models,the Historic Commission's own guidelines for fences and, in fact, follow the model of several other fences in the immediate neighborhood. The presentation is clear. The proposal is appropriate for the Chestnut Street historical period and I am sure the execution will be of the very best quality.This is illustrated by the beautiful renovation of the existing side deck a few years ago. I request that you read my letter into the record and approve the Wrightson's proposed improvements e-signature Morris L. Schopf, RA studio SDA Salem, Massachusetts 31 CHESTNUT Historic Commission Review Fence Changes/Pergola/Patio Wall 1 I : Fence 2 t ry c� U � PC W yqL: ` GOOsIC a C 1niagv,Gild Juri 10,2010 d"3107 n;,N 7U 54'OU 74 w viav .'511 - r Eye ell 3,fi View from Chestnut - - sidewalk Ix • . M' - A: View from Chestnut Street sidewalk7 �F C ^a 31� � •j R a : 1 degree opposed view towards - - -t showing transition between wrought iron and side fence — height of picket 3 foot 6 uncapped primitive wood fence •fq � ' - � w g �. q I A �c f� s 6 Back portion uncapped, taller, board fence next to brick pillar patio � t _ • - • -• to .- building . • Existing Fence is not compliant with Commission Fence Guidelines (bold mine) Salem Historical Commission Guidelines 1. Fences are significant architectural features. They were sometimes architect designed, as those of Samuel McIntire. Therefore, architecturally important fences should be repaired or replaced, where necessary, with new materials that duplicate the old as closely as possible. Other fences may be architecturally unimportant, the result of fence replacement in more recent years. In these cases, property owners would be encouraged to make the design more appropriate rather than duplicate the existing fence. 2. Fences along the street facades of historic houses were meant to serve a decorative purpose. Such fences should not block a house's view, but complement it; they should be in scale to the property. Narrow pickets (approximately 2" in width) are preferred to wide pickets. Back and side yard fences which serve a screening purpose may be higher. 3. The design of a fence should be sensitive to that of the house. Since Federal architecture stressed delicate proportions, the fence in front of such a house should also be delicate in scale, whereas the fence in front of a more massive Victorian house could be heavier_ Also, elaborate fences are suitable for elaborate houses; simple houses should have simple fences. 4. If wood is to be used, picket, capped picket, or spindle fences are recommended for anywhere around the yard. Capped flat board fences are most appropriate for side and back yards. The flat board fence with a lattice top is an excellent privacy option. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Salem's Architectural Traditions Salem's spindle fences are composed of vertical spindles which pierce horizontal rails that are supported by stout square posts. Capped picket fences are constructed of equally spaced flat-topped pickets which are crowned by a molded fence cap, while flat-board fences are made of capped 1" thick boards placed directly against each other. Both capped picket and capped flat-board fences are supported from behind by rails that are secured to posts rooted in the ground. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fence Purposes and Designs The purpose of a fence should be considered before making choices as to materials and designs. Fences along the street often serve decorative functions while those at the back of the property are generally installed to maintain privacy. Privacy fences can be merely functional (the flat board fence) or decorative (the flat board fence with a lattice top). Since fences have an architectural impact on a property, they should be thought of as more than just screens. 8 Proposed Side Fence Design — Capped Traditional Picket, Cedar, White to match picket height of existing wrought iron 9 Image from Avo Fence, fence supplier Salem Example - t 3 eR 111 TlT1 - M ) I �+y.. 10 Nantucket Example a �� j The deck as an architectural element: old deck (now replaced) maw; e r tib ■ �� 1i / / Fro, r r F. 12 New Deck: More traditional, with capped picket railing " Proposed fence design ties in well 1 13 . 0 n K Salem Historical Commission 120 WASHINGTON STREET,SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (978)619.5685 FAX(978)740-0404 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS It is hereby certified that the Salem Historical Commission has determined that the proposed: Construction ❑ Moving ❑ Reconstruction ❑ Alteration ❑ Demolition ❑ Painting ❑ Signage ❑ Other work as described below will be appropriate to the preservation of said Historic District, as per the requirements set forth in the Historic District's Act(M.G.L. Ch. 40C) and the Salem Historic Districts Ordinance. District:_ McIntire Address of Propertv 31 C heerm,r 4treer Name of Record Owner: William and Laura Wrightson Description of Work Proposed: Per presentation pages 28 and 29- Construction of brick wall at the patio between the brick pillars to match the existing brick walls on either side of the patio (5'in height with white wood cap) and construction of pergola with rounded pillars to be located 2 inches from the wall ofthe house. Application for fencing continued to the meeting of June 6'h. Dated: May 18, 2012 SALEM TORICAL OM SI N By. �7,� The homeowner has the option not to commence the work(unless it relates to resolving an outstanding violation). All work commenced must be completed within one year from this date unless otherwise indicated. THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. Please be sure to obtain the appropriate permits from the Inspector of Buildings (or any other necessary permits or approvals) prior to commencing work. ECiyy�"eS rr. tri... . �i.... APR 23 M2 r�of t-�� ., Salem Historical Commiss � �7Yo�,EL�MENT 120 WASHINGTON STREET,SALEM,MA 01970 (978)745-9595 EXT.311 FAX(978)740-0404 APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Pursuant to the Historic District's Act (M.G.L. Chapter 40C) and the Salem Historical Commiss-on Ordinance, application is hereby made for issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for: Construe ' Moving Reconstruction Alteration olition Painting Sign Other as described below. / District: ( ' A'f336J✓C"r Original Building Construction Date, if known: r Address of Property: 3 ( ���� f • � �& / � Name of Record Owner(s): " ~ `� %/� w' Lt Description of Work Proposed (Pleaseincluderequired scale drawings,paint chips, catalog cuts and/or samples of material proposed, where applicable.) k�3 l� .� (Z LCA !.✓1�'Lt- �c�A VC L Y ill�4�tr4 L t P&-5\ 0 vt o 3 tSn,✓G wry r is l�Js� t pd'106) Signature of Owner: Tel. #: e7 - ( Lf/ :�?r7 Mailing address: City: State:_Zip: APR 2 3 2012 Salem Historical Commiss OFP.A,�. INGa 120 WASHINGTON STREET,SALEM,MA 01970 ��''``''��'' ..ffWWT"LIEVELOPMEN7 (978)745-9595 EXT.311 FAX(978)740-0404 APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Pursuant to the Historic District's Act (M.G.L. Chapter 40C) and the Salem Historical Commission Ordinance,application is hereby made for issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for: �emolifion Moving Reconstruction Alteration Painting Sign Other as described below. District: 6)445;! f/J✓T— S '(— Original Building Construction Date, if known: 2� Address of Property: Name of Record Owner(s): Description of Work Proposed (Pleaseincluderequired scale drawings,paint chips,catalog cuts and/or samples of material/proposed, where applicable.) I&�T l/n�Cit� V f5 4401—1 s►� U Fit&Q-1, A 1.t .W WIN • 11#111=11144 1111611• a • • - • • • e • Signature of Owner: Tel. #: z�"N 7L(( Mailing address: A/✓ City: State:j� ip: � New Deck, view from Chestnut St a. tj 'err .......... �'\\\\\\\\\\\\leave ' V. •qr,;,�,,,' p' ,\\ \\: •\; Illi 14 1�t.4 5 F i � ✓.�5µ: M. } II a1• I �x 4 ~ � Well-researched fence opinions from Historic Nantucket "Building with Nantucket in Mind" While there are many fence designs (5) Vertical board fences are the most in the town, charming in their indi- simple of all:6-to 8-inch wide boards viduality,the town displays a few pre- spaced up to 1/2-inch apart with straight dominant fence types:'(1)Picket fences cut ends or a molded top rail. This have 21/2-inch face pickets spaced five unrefined fence should not be located inches on center,the pickets are capped in the front of a lot. (For scale drawing by a molded rail or are pointed. The of these fence types,see Appendix D.) simple picket fence is associated with Fences of other designs and more Types of thelean-toortypicalNantucketQuaker Fences houses.(2)Wood baluster fences with elaborate decoration were built as houses themselves became more deco- round balusters are often 11i4-inches rative after the Quaker influence in diameter with spaces five inches on waned. For instance, wrought-iron center with a molded (or round) top fences are found with the town's few rail.Balusterfencesare associated with brick houses. In the late 1800s when the emergence of more elegant houses American houses became concerned appearing after 1800 and with later with Victorian ornamentation and old classical styles,although fences in the Nantucket houses were `dressed up', Greek Revival style originally did not even fancier fences were built by local include balusters, but were similar to carpenters. the fence in front of the Atheneum.(3) Combination baluster panel fences with turned wood balusters are usually 144-inches in diameter with a molded top rail and a bottom section under them of solid wood panels. These fences are now associated with Clas- sic Revival and other more refined buildings of the 19th century.(4)Hori- zontal board fences have 6-to 8-inch- wide horizontal rails with a similar board laid flat as a top rail.This plain fence is not used in front of dwellings. N , .. 4, 1 �� •. � L2L10 Gaapl. ;eoaf�� lL Nm0 D0-.Jun 10,2010 422106.25'N 70-540824'W • 3 E,.4 1851, Fence Changes: junction with neighbor's red fence view from our yard looking to rear Fence section to be removed Proposed replacement fence is lower in height; Below or equal height of red fence q� Fence Changes: Junction with neighbors fence — • view from Warren street ` 4 , r � 4 :� •4 i Fence section To be removed j. 4 - A, r � �- .T .b.• � r '• ! "^.cam.. - - _. - __ f y i Fit .. ail 1 � t ti 2410 Gecple .•� Goo ) 42°31'07 OZ'N ]Q"54'08 74'W al Y 2511 -' �� EYa ali 38311 Change#2 —2 options Gate posts visible from Chestnut, or not Chestnut St. View, see pp 12-13 Capped picket Fence as per Page 8 IIIIIIIII IN III IIIIIIIIIIII III III 1111111111111111111 IN TIT IIIIIIIIIN �n UI Neighbors agree Broad Support from Neighborhood Many Petition Signatures Fence Q/A: II : Pergola/Patio a w I ,� H• r i;7 �, ll. sr , r • I � _ _=eo'C oogle � t - �, i. "'1 EYe mi Stip p k� -� --------------------------- -- --- --'- -- -__ _ _____z==____=__z ---- r= -— _-----_---__as==_ ___=_r=___s_====s_---___ =--- --- ...... ....... �SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS �i'SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS'SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS: - ,,, �SSSI ISIIIIS ISSSSSN'�N�SI�SISSSSSISSSISSSS/IS�ii iiiiiiiiiSSiii%i iiiiiiiiiiii %iiiiii' SSSSSSSSSSSSI SSSSSS iIISS/ISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS'SSSSSSSSS%SSSS'SSNSSSSSSSN%SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSHSSi :::: S::::::ss::::::��i':ii::::::::::�::ii�S:::::::: A' 'iiiiiiSSiiiiSiiiiiiiii%iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ��iiiiiiiiisi ;SfSSSS SSSSSSSSSSSSSOSSSS:W.M.WSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS'SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSiu �SSSSSSSSSSS�SSSSSSSSSiSSSSSSSSSfSSSSSSSSSSSOSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS %SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS'f. :SSSSSSSS'SSSSSSSSSSS'�i%SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS"S'SSSSSS"SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS'S' + iiiiiiii%i P siiii%i%iiiiiiiiii%iiiiiii%i%� i iiiYiiiiiiiiiiii%i iiiiii%iiiiii%iiiiiii%iiiii �iii'S %iii%iiiiiiiiiiii%i%iii%i%i��i i%SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSi%i iSi%SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS�SSSSSSSSS %SSSSSSSSSSSSi%S'SSSSSSSSS '" " i%Si%SSSSSSSSSSi%SSSi%SSSSSS'SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSi SSS'SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS'SSSSSSSSSSS'i SSSSSSSSSSi SSSSSSSSS - ii20 %iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiiiiii�iiiiiiiiii %iiiiiiii�i� i%SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSiSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS'SS ■:,s..s..sssss .;�Siiiiii iiSi%iiiiiiiiSiSiiiiiiiSiiiiiiiiiiiiiiSiSSSii%iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiissssss.....,�.■ �SSSSSSSSSi'SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS'SSSSSSS %SS'S'SSSSSSSSSi . .• MW . ' - • • . - .- . • . • . - . .- . • . - • • ---z-_____________________r___________-- - - -� _______- - ---____ _____- - - -� -�� ---------------- --.Y�------------------------------------------- --------------------- -------------------- -- ----- ----- ---- ---- __-- ---______---- r� ■� rill . Nva Iae sNc _ ® a MEMEMB g®g��S MEME ® MENNEN MOMMER SOME NOWN ® _® ,y®figgMOMMIN NOWN MENUM! ' i� � • I %9+� I III I .. �.�. .. . � �i II 7 . . i ;�. • • i9pi'Y • YII'7 ilii iii5. iiiii rrYI7® �iviiti i �YY III! rIIII:-rIIIA- III/ IIII!'III 2.14,'SHIP rIIIL rIIII-I�I= Nei. I/II-►I I rIII r7II IIIIIIIIII/IIIIISIIIII/IIIIi IIIIII/I/II/I/IIIIIINIII�I/(III/I77r II`♦ III/IIIIII/I/I/IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII/IIIIII(((NINI�I�II/II......I/IIII, IIrN/I/SIIIIII/IIIIII`IIIIII/ISIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII/IIIIIIIIIIIsagII (IIIIII/(IIIIII/I/II/IIIIIIIII/(IIIIII/I Siiiiiiiilii iiiSiiiiliiiiisiiliiiiii :i � ' • • iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiYiSii� SigiIIIIIIIIIIIII/IIIIIIII/INIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII`III/I�Iy�II/IIIIIIIIIIII ISIIIIIIIIIII�I�III/I/IIIIIIIIIIRsII iii mm,-w-ilii iiiii� � iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisiiiiii=i iii ■ ii�Ii.Ii.Ii_������ilits�i�i�%tS�f�iyi�� iii �OS � ���Iiyifl�S� l��S��i��i� i�i�liil��■ . • • • •- . • - •- - • • • - • - • i ar`I! � fie��'• L � I y 4 Source AVO Fence b • Basic Pergola Style — with posts, all wood - cedar photo just to show the square post option if Commission prefers N o �Z I hr uN z r II ; 111 11 �� AN Source:AVO Fence-builder R � 4. w r� Patio area, . . rear, detail, page 7 indicates this area was originally enclosed 01 FMdI 0 AI a Q/A: Basic • • - — with columns, white,all wood — ceda preferred style over the post option, shown next page Source 9 • Fence-builder Proposed Patio/Pergola Plan View: pergola shown in It blue for clarity will be traditional white color HOUSE WALL brick 5brick Wall, Wall. White wood White wood cap cap Back Yard gate Fence Fence Brick Pillar New wall — brick with white wood cap to match existing Brick Pillar Match brick, match mortar, match height, match cap (Patio should appear to have been originally built fully enclosed) Existing Patio/Pergola PLAN VIEW roughly 30x18 (paced off) HOUSE WALL 5'brick - 5'brick Wall. Wall, .,M. . White wood w .r'* �..>r'r -;•. White wood . .' _ cap cap BACK Flower Beds'; '. YARD t. j' w Brick patio gate - . . gate Fence Fence Brick Pillar Brick Pillar NEIGHBOR YARD Basic Pergola Style — with posts, all wood - cedar photo just to show the post option if Commission prefers E 'til Source:AVO Fence-builder • ' ,r • �. .. � U10*10 • • do •!� y � � ...aarr.Xlliiir� +�yi► •« a.i s" n�rnr u rr low�ir�, .., a _ 4wa ^ m ArT VO 40 ArA A�I i•RA ova op bw f W, %!MIA * y. .00 } I x- a wl�. r ++ Jo, ..� S..XZ 4 _ '• J ip Y �"� .t' • �� R��y$, I � > • • -i 19+s1111Cs - -C' P • .� > - At. .� '- jas is c 19 if i w AM dOb wool IWO or a s c MIMI "Ok i " Ak ••R tr;... rA Pilo ' y v `` r �y� OL oft X, d i - k ) � f � r • __ all.••' 4w • �y1 ,r. 1 44 /� # n i dp WL At *a i � w ( s A + Meeting this eve Pagel of 3 Jane Guy From: Wrightson, William L. [wlwrightson@wellington.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 9:56 AM To: Jane Guy Subject: Re: Meeting this eve I am withdrawing the application for the fence From: Jane Guy <JGuy@Salem.com> To: Wrightson, William L. Sent: Wed Nov 17 09:54:59 2010 Subject: RE: Meeting this eve Thanks, However, for my official record, I need you to write that you are"withdrawing the application for the fence". Otherwise, I will need them to vote on it tonight. Jane A. Guy Assistant Community Development Director City of Salem Department of Planning &Community Development 120 Washington St., 3rd Floor Salem, MA 01970 978-619-5685 (F)978-740-0404 0ouy0salem.com www.salem.com From: Wrightson, William L. [mailto:wlwrightson@wellington.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 9:33 AM To: Jane Guy Subject: Re: Meeting this eve I emailed you a few wks ago—I am in new york today: back late, won't be there tonight. And have not submitted the appl for the pergola. From: Jane Guy <JGuy@Salem.com> To: Wrightson, William L. Sent: Wed Nov 17 09:22:512010 Subject: RE: Meeting this eve Are you withdrawing the fence application scheduled for tonight s meeting? Jane A. Guy Assistant Community Development Director City of Salem Department of Planning &Community Development 120 Washington St., 3rd Floor 11/17/2010 Meeting this eve Page 2 of 3 Salem, MA 01970 978-619-5685 (F)978-740-0404 iouy0salem.com www.salem.com From: Wrightson, William L. [mailto:wlwrightson@wellington.com] Sent:Thursday, November 04, 2010 8:38 AM To: ]ane Guy Subject: Re: Meeting this eve Thanks I'm out til late friday. I can fax the appl monday. It's obviously a simple app, I just keep forgetting (and you have the drawing already) From: Jane Guy <JGuy@Salem.com> To: Wrightson, William L. Sent: Thu Nov 04 08:30:17 2010 Subject: RE: Meeting this eve Hi Will, If there had been a meeting, it would have been last night(Wednesday), but we did not have one. Your application was continued to the meeting of the 17th. However, now it is too late to get the pergola application scheduled for the 17th. I suggest you withdrawn the side fence and when you are ready to apply for the fence and the pergola,we can schedule at your convenience. -Jane Jane A. Guy Assistant Community Development Director City of Salem Department of Planning &Community Development 120 Washington St., 3rd Floor Salem, MA 01970 978-619-5685 (F) 978-740-0404 iouyO-salem.com www.salem.com From: Wrightson, William L. [mailto:wlwrightson@wellington.com] Sent:Thursday, November 04, 2010 8:27 AM To: Jane Guy Subject: Meeting this eve Just to be clear,we are not planning to attend the meeting this eve,since the pergola app was not submitted yet. Plus I am out of town. 11/17/2010 Meeting this eve Page 3 of 3 Thanks Will 11/17/2010 31 chestnut pergola.ppt Page 1 of 3 Jane Guy From: Wrightson, William L. [wlwdghtson@wellington.coml Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2010 10:13 AM To: Jane Guy Subject: Re: 31 chestnut pergola.ppt Hi jane, we are going to have to push for another date. I have been on the road for almost a week and it will be hard for me to fax the appl until thurs when I am back.And I guess that means we have to push the fence discussion also since they are linked. Sorry about that, but not much I can do at this end til I am back From: Jane Guy <JGuy@Salem.com> To: Wrightson, William L. Sent: Tue Oct 19 08:58:30 2010 Subject: RE: 31 chestnut pergola.ppt Will, I never received your application for the pergola. Could you please fax or email it to me today? Thanksl -Jane Jane A. Guy Assistant Community Development Director City of Salem Department of Planning &Community Development 120 Washington St., 3rd Floor Salem, MA 01970 978-619-5685 (F) 978-740-0404 iauy0salem.com www.salem.com From: Wrightson, William L. [mailto:wlwrightson@wellington.com] Sent:Tuesday, October 12, 2010 9:10 AM To: Jane Guy Subject: RE: 31 chestnut pergola.ppt Thanks I thought the Commission wanted to discuss them together, now, so I guess I need to continue to 11/3 and I will fax you the application in a few mins for the pergola. It's hard for me to make these meetings, so one is better than two. Apologies for all the spelling errors below. I thought I spell checked it From: Jane Guy [mailto:]Guy@Salem.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 8:39 AM To: Wrightson, William L. Subject: RE: 31 chestnut pergola.ppt 10/19/2010 31 chestnut pergola.ppt Page 2 of 3 Thanks, Will. I have forwarded this email to the Commission members. Your application has been continued to 10/20. For the pergola, I would need your application by 10/18 to get on the 11/3 meeting. If you prefer to discuss the fence and pergola together, please submit an email request for a continuance of the fence from 10/20 to 11/3. Jane A. Guy Assistant Community Development Director City of Salem Department of Planning &Community Development 120 Washington St., 3rd Floor Salem, MA 01970 978-619-5685 (F)978-740-0404 iguy(asalem.com www.salem.com From: Wrightson, William L. [mailto:wlwrightson@wellington.com] Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 8:30 AM To: Jane Guy Subject: 31 chestnut pergola.ppt «31 chestnut pergola.ppt>> Hi Jane, as requested, a drawing of what we envision for the brick patio that is between the two side fence sections. Commission members are of course welcome to stop by. It would be helpful for us if they gave us a knock on the front door so we can show them what has been done inside. Just a quick tour of the 2 main rooms of the first floor. Chances are nobody is home during the day, but just in case, please knock. My wife knows people could be stopping by. If you care to share these comments with the visitors, it might help put our proposal into perspective. -We are trying to do our best to effect a proper period restoration. That should be very evident from the interio-, but we'd like the exterior to also look correct to the best of our ability. The desk design I came up with, that incorporates period details, is in that vein. It took us three years to finish the interior; we were very meticulous, and spent a lot of time research period materials and incorporating them in to the house. We are now starting on the exterior, and obviously it will happen in stages, but we have carefully thought through what we think the original builder might have included. Our gola is to go beyond what is"appropriate"and attempt to do what is "historically correct". -The main house exterior colors are brick red with white trim, esp on the side, where there are no black shutters. We think white is the right color for the fence. All the trim is wh'te on the house, the deck will be white, the gates to the patio are white, the pergola will be white, and the patio fence cap is white. That should be very evident from a site visit. Any color fence other than white will be incongruous,we believe. -We will be planting a lot of perennials. I already have about 20 climbing roses planted on site to acclimate 10/19/2010 31 chestnut pergola.ppt Page 3 of 3 them. They are in a big bunch at present but they will ail be moved to the pergola and along the fences once we have these features approved and in. I have about 2000 bulbs on order that will go in this month; we just regraded and reseeded the back yard. The abutting yard, in stark contrast, has a grand total of three plantings other than a few trees in the back: One hosta and two ornamentals flanking the front door. I am not disparaging that choice, but it is important to note that the two properties are very different with respect to plantings, and our fence choice dovetails closely with our affinity for plants. I also have a vegetable garden, and I grew melons and strawberries this summer and I have pumpkins growing right now. Plants need light and air circulation, esp in Salem where there is a lot of mildew. A stockade fence is the least optimal fence to have if you like plants, as we do. It blocks the sun, and promotes mildew. Roses are particularly susceptible to mildew and when folks are on site, they will see how many I have planted, waiting to be moved to their final locations. We have a lot of climbing roses. The"side fence"and pergola will be covered with them. - I'd like the visitors to go back to Warren Street and take a look at three things: 1)the area where the green and red fence meet, as per the photo in my presentation this week-the junction. 2)the design statement made by the two fence colors, 3)the small sliver of land where I proposed we cut the fence short. Re 1) Visually, the fence intersection on Warren is highly suboptimal, in my opinion. I would argue again that the fence junction should be at one height. Since it is unlikely that the red fence will be replaced, that should be the default height, I think. Keep in mind that even though that area is my back yard, there are houses that face this area and I think we need to consider what they have to look at. Front yard visual standards should apply. The fence as it is currently built looks junky and random to me, from Warren Street. 2) the abutter claimed she liked the green color because it"fades away", yet the bulk of her fence is actually bright red, inside and out. The green color abutting red color does not look right to me, when viewed from the Chestnut Street side, and it looks even siller when viewed from Warren because the fences are such different sizes and also do not meet at a corner but at a T intersection. It does not appear as if the two folks who built these fences originally strived for any type of visual harmony. An on site visit will allow others to have an opinion on this, but if neither of us had a fence here, I highly doubt you would approve of us building what is there now. Two fences with different heights and different colors, not meeting at a corner, probably not. 3) It should be evident how difficult it is to maintain the small space between my garage and the warren street end of the green fence. It should also be pretty obvious to an observer that my proposal to cut my fence short at the yard-side corner of the garage solves two problems—easy access/maintenance of this small sliver of land, and also the visually troublesome juncture of the two fences at different heights, with different colors, and not at a corner. Thanks, and I hope the site visit goes well. I appreciate if you could circulate these notes. If I were on site myself during the tour, these items are what I would point out. Will 10/19/2010 T' rO` y, 'wy 1 N_ Salem / Salem Historical Commission 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (978) 745-9595 EXT 311 FAX (978) 740-0404 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS It is hereby certified that the Salem Historical Commission has determined that the proposed: ❑ Construction ❑ Moving ❑ Reconstruction ^FYI` Alteration ❑ Demolition ❑ Painting ❑ Signage ❑ Other work as described below will be appropriate to the preservation of said Historic District, as per the requirements set forth in the Historic District's Act (M.G.L. Ch. 40C) and the Salem Historic Districts Ordinance. District: Mclntir Address of Property• 11 Chestimi Street Name of Record Owner: William & Laura Wrightson Description of Work Proposed: Installation of fence in localion as noted on Page 7, 9 and 10 of'presentation. Design to be per style indicated on Page 14,fence details on page 17 and with gate location options on page 18 and 19. Color continued to meeting of October 20't'. Replacement of existing rear Bleck with new deck per pages 24 through 39 q/'presentation, including options.for lattice, bead hoard or solid panels below. All to be painted white, with decking to be Tropical Hardwood in a mahogany color. The fiwce alterations for the side lot fence between 29 and 31 Chestnut Street have been continued to the meeting of October 20"' Dated: October 7. 2010 SA EM I TORICX�, OMMISSION By: LAG( �( File homeowner has the option not to commence the work (unless it relates to resolving an outs, nding violation). All work commenced must be completed within one year from this date unless otherwise indicated. 'IBIS IS NO'f A BUILDING PERMIT. Please be sure to obtain the appropriate permits from the Inspector of Buildings (or any other necessary permits or approvals) prior to commencing work. 31 CHESTNUT Historic Commission Review -Fence Changes -Deck Changes 1 Existing Fence Locations 1M1 LIY -.aa _ia i :� n+► it:� t ' tom\ IWTllii'�71'� ;�J ', �i.p �.".T':3 �'%t(,�' Images yY.. t iA. i. t,'.' ',,,� a r�. a . •. . .. J 4 v lot..G . sim If I M lit ,, r r J, Ty e i . • ' {M`p • 1 , �i 1 • '+ � , 9 n Proposed Fence Changes Add small gate, same fence material, at ell 1-f�I�•• .I'f1. ► -� 0'4 MJ _ sy .r11 ♦ = e._ Proposed Fence Changes Red Dotted Fence already approved for removal P1 T * i 1 .♦ Vtf �� � �1 � P� br _ _ i► .�` { .� ewe � . ,� ",. �, 'a f' ` r 0 PIM+I Fence Changes: Jog covered by neighbors fence Jif Fence section To be removed maw was t*.W Proposed Repl Fence Is lower in height; Below ht of red fence 8 Back • • .-�. g .. �..��.. . Vii• , t,. T ♦ TS A� �F�.�'i`�y FY y - Back • • t rpt 10 * r t. W Long Side Fence — Capped Traditional Picket, Cedar, White P .y � I '41i, ilii i I + a 11 Image from Avo Fence, fence supplier r, t A a .�H y J �p Salem Example 13 F 1. 1� _ 2 M• Image • 14 Nantucket Example, Incl Gate Design a . • earn ■ r a • � t � `b s Sii d. 15 Salem Example rtr. _ K � r t 1 �� •'� � , � � � .� rrII � T � 1 -�1'1j S �7'lTTf1TFPv' 4 16 Fence Details • Capped Picket, Side Fence — 5"x5" (nominal) Posts — Pickets 1 3yx3.5" — 2 1 /839 gap — 8' sections — Fence cap height to match existing wrought iron picket tops in front section as per photo page 4 — Post cap height to match top of granite posts on Chestnut St. end • Modified Stockade, Back Fence — 5"x5" (nominal) Posts — 1 "x2" boards — 6' Tall — 8' sections — Open upper section area: open to solid stockade area ratio: roughly 1 :2-2:5 as per included photo from manufacturer, can be customized per SHC recommendation/preferences 17 Back fence proposed setup #1 looking from Warren to Chestnut Carriage house Approx 21 feet ieardon/ Jrightson fence 8 feet -5 feet+/- 8 feet IT gate I swings In 18 Back fence proposed setup #2 looking from Warren to Chestnut Carriage Alternate Gate Location house Approx 21 feet 3eardon/ Jrightson fence 8 feet 8 feet -5 feet+/- I gate swings In 19 DECK 20 Images • Visibleonly • • e 81 foot setbackfrom eo �. Ilk 21 i Images - Existing 7_�.Iawaft ��\�' !`;••tea+..�w,_,�`'.`..^���. ',.�,�,r"I ��� �+r�,_��r•\� � �_1, fir. ti w ., r .. _.j�i' ''9 �_�wr�'�\_ '+mow :X,,. ��'w r i+�✓� ���, @_�� `�� , � 'rnrr~r•r �, tip.. � i�� / ��.� •fit '�� , •, ,y, Imown . ii S' WMA/ Mu Mu on I : ::: ' : ' ..rxc:s�.•� t r me vwir �w ar . . , sr�irrir Ven we =. w rrSWIM : ,• _ rw� _ rr ��� logisoffiambe .. ' �A - - � s I 22 Images - Existing 1 - 4 • - �ONO .. fte, r r■i s. r �: .. s�ov w 23 Deck Replacement: Changes & Improvements • Squared off the curved ends for better railing appearance (hard to build curved rail , segmented rail looks cheap) • Extended deck length 20 inches to butt house wall , eliminates one railing , enhances strength and safety • Add beaded trim under deck, steps • Added beaded panels with diagonal wooden lattice. • Moved steps to safer area, eliminated one railing • Used period features throughout • Decking will be tropical hardwood , ipe or equivalent — durable and does not need painting or staining . Will weather to light grey like teak - traditional 24 � 1 I ��\SJS\�%J\W\JJ\JJ\;\• I�\J\��\VN\�\J� �J\JJ\�\�\s\�i E\�\�\� \:%✓�\�\�\N�\J'�� J,J\V�J.�� iC/�%������W��i`�%J�J�N��!�. •\• 1(�%V�.I��i�Jy\`�\�C�\�\\�\JK�\�\�\�y\�'\\�� \\�\J\�\7\`✓\\,'�\•\•\JJ\K�\S\\�\ \KK�C ANN\�\�\�\�NC\`�NC�\�\\V \V\J�\Jj �I�S�•i�S�SJ�J�S�J�J,�J;�J;�K,�J;�J;\J.(\�!�V�(�!\,J ��V,�\13`J��VJ�JK�\JV3�J\, , �V�� I /�JJJJJJJJJJJJ v CJ %JJJJJJJJVJJJJJY ��I J V J\S\S�S\S\ SV\•\•\•\ %J\S\J\J\S\JJ\J\J\JJ\JJ\J\V Vey �%\J\J\•%\S\J\J\S\J\J\J\J\Jy \ ,�,\�J.� \Y\"��\�\� \�\•\•\J�\�\ \��\�\ /T•i�•{oiy-.i--�2,/�\J�J�V�J�.TiJ�Y,�.�.y�J�.�� �C\`i\,�:iC�\`•:ci\`�\`!\'1,:\J \\K \M\�+ �. \K��� \A`K'\'�`S:\.J y!`'\r` Em : - . . .•. . • • 0 . - -• • - • - . • Nantucket Historic District Examples 26 A: Cap illlllll � � ��� ,:, B: Rail Support 28 Q Baluster/Rail Design 29 D : Panel Design _ 1 - 181 gym i d . 31 o .. i 30 D : Panel Design 40 a ♦ 1 44 4P r r ♦ ♦ ♦. 4p 1 A ti ♦ ♦ 1 d f! ' tv 41 tet♦ !r rrf + riff++fir p •fKtff�� 0'♦ ff r 31 D: Panel Design WAN "must i;ats r Ir i 32 Beadboard E : Stone Step: Option I i1.. 33 F: Step and Deck Trim "fi S 1 F , 34 G : Panel and Step Panel Treatment Main Panels Triangular Panel Area Under Steps Seek approval for both: Seek approval for all: - Beadboard panels with lattice - Beadboard panels OR insert and beaded frame OR - Lattice OR - Dimensional beaded lumber - Solid raised panels frame with lattice insert Carpenter and code will determine which options we use; we think they are all architecturally appropriate and visually appealing 35 G : All Lattice i 7i J i1P1+11oryl�r! ply pr'�Jrlr v. 36 i ' . • • • . • Main . • Step Panel Y .l it S yypp w v ry k 'E���' _ill f" � I � •F• • � _ q�.y���� .yam G : Dimensional Panel Frames + Solid Step Panels �a Ignore slats .„.7.0.�.ar Deck Details • Deck Height Relative to House : Same • Length : Same as current, extending to abut house • Width : Same as current, with squared corners added • Post Dims: 3x3 or 4x4, dep on code • Top Rail Dims: approx U3, bottom bead , top curve as typ • Bottom Rail Dims : approx U3, bottom bead , top chamfer • Baluster Dims: approx 1x1 "", 2-3" spacing , 2-3 balusters per step , same horizontal spacing on steps and railing , exact measurements depend on code for steps. 1 :2 .5 ratio of wood to spacing appears optimal • Steps: Code Determined • Decking : Ipe or similar tropical hardwood : 3-6" width 39 From: "Wrightson, William L."<wlwrightson@wellington.com> Subject: Re: Upcoming historic commission review for 31 chestnut Date: September 19,2010 4:15:36 PM EDT To: <mmcgrane@mcgranemd.com> I'll be around all week around 7 pm.This eve we are going out for dinner. A 6 foot fence will not be approved,at least for the front section..They will only approve one that is the same height or below the existing wrought iron one. I have already been through one fence approval for this fence and got approval only for that height. As to style.A privacy fence lets no light into our garden.A capped picket is much more of a period style than the one that is there,and the commission usually takes the opportunity to retrofit period styles where they can I can get approval to remove the one that is there without having one in mind to replace,also. From: McGrane Maura <mmcgrane@mogranemd.com> To:Wrightson,William L. Sent:Sun Sep 19 14:12:33 2010 Subject: Re: Upcoming historic commission review for 31 chestnut In response to your notification: 1.1 disagree with your choice of a capped white picket fence dividing the properties.) wish the fence to replaced as is,a stained privacy fence approximately 6 feet tali,and would be happy to discuss this with you prior to the meeting.By the way,have you had a survey done? 2.1 have no objection to the fence on Warren St. 3.Your deck plans are fine with me. Maura McGrane On Sep 15,2010, at 10:00 AM, Wrightson, William L. wrote: Attached please find the handout I plan to use at the next historic commission meeting,which I think is October 6 or so. It is a pdf,and should be self explanatory. You will get a letter in the mail from the Commission soon, I am guessing We are doing basically 3 things. 1. Replacing the rotten green fence between us and Maura with a capped picket,whici is a common period style. It will be white. One change we would like to make is to terminate it at the comer of the carriage house rather than run it along the side of the carriage house to Warren street. Fence remains on the same line as now but is just a bit shorter. It gets very narrow in there between the carriage house wall and the fence,and cable and phone technicians have difficulty back there and it also is very hard to maintain for the same reason. Maura's red fence goes across it so the change will not be visible from the street anyway. Once we open the area up I can get the junk out of there and either seed it or put mulch down. 2. Removing the old back fence(already approved)and replacing it with a new one clDser in towards Our house to create a small off-street parking area. The Hist Commission has no jurisdiction over parking areas,so this application is simoly to install a small fence section across the back part of our at, 10 or 15 feet further in than the fence is today. We have picked a fence style that is already approved and in use in other parts of Historic Salem. It will have a gale. 3. We are going to rebuild our deck. The footprint will be the same except: -I am squaring off the rounded corners -I am extending the deck a couple feet so it abuts the house The deck design will be a bit different from what is there and hopefully will appear to be more architecturally suitable for the house. We took hundreds of pictures of period homes in Salem and Nantucket,where the historic code is probably the strictest in New England,to get design ideas for the deck. Decks are obviously not really period features,but many homes,esp in Nantucket.have raised and covered entryways that are in many ways like decks, so we used those in particular to get ideas. If there is anything you don't like. I'd rather hear about it now than at the hearing. We may agree to disagree,or,you may bang something to my attention that I had not considered,so please let me know. If you approve of what we propose I encourage you to send a supportive email to Jane Guy at the Commission. It can be as simple as-1 have seen Will's presentation and I support all 3 applications". Having abutter approval helps a lot. In this case,I donot forsee any problems with the application anyway.but it helps to stack the deck if you feel like opining. Jane's email is JGuv(cDSalem,mrn Thanks Will«31_chest_deck_stair_detail.zip>> <31_chest_deck_stair_detail.zip> �: �, . . , . � .�_ r. a...-�- °1�� ��• �.. _ i _R �` I �` ,__- '' 'i4`^' ,,,� t e /. � � '{; .. �, oy `�o , y� y � 7 -oma Qy ,:._y _ ..a:��,� REC SEP 2 7 2010 DEPT. OF PLANNING,& COMMUNITY,.;. ,I._LOPMENT September 24, 2010 Jane Guy Salem Historical Commission 120 Washington St. Salem, MA 01970 We received a "Notice of Hearing" concerning the request by the Wrightson's, 31 Chestnut St., to make changes to their fences including installing a new one on Warren St. We would be pleased to support their request with the caveat that they refurbish their garage, remove the stack of logs and maintain the lawn and shrubs bordering Warren St. A photo is enclosed. Sincerely Car �Jtne 9 Warren St. Salem, MA 01970 Changes to fencing and deck at home of William Wrightson, 31 Chestnut Street. Page 1 of 1 Jane Guy From: Vander Salm, Thomas J.,M.D. [TVANDERSALM@PARTNERS.ORG] Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 4:26 PM To: Jane Guy Cc: wiwrightson@wellington.com Subject: Changes to fencing and deck at home of William Wrightson, 31 Chestnut Street. Dear Ms. Guy: I have reviewed the narrative of the plans for fencing and deck changes at the Wrightson house, and have reviewed the various photographs and drawings of several possible options for the deck. As an abutter(at 33 Chestnut Street), I approve and support the suggested changes at 31 Chestnut. From my point of view, any of the various options for the deck changes would be satisfactory. Thomas J. Vander Salm, MD Chief, Cardiac Surgery North Shore Medical Center 81 Highland Avenue Salem, MA 01970 telephone 978 354-2500 fax 978 354-2494 The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance HelpLine http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you in erre but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and proper dispose of the e-mail. 9/15/2010 ^WAflf� Salem Historical Commission 120 WASHINGTON STREET,SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (978)745-9595 EXT. 311 FAX(978) 740-0404 CERTIFICATE OF NON-APPLICABILITY It is hereby certified that the Salem Historical Commission has determined that the proposed: El Construction ❑ Moving Reconstruction ❑ Alteration Demolition ❑ Painting ❑ Signage ❑ Other Work as described below does not involve an exterior architectural feature or involves a feature covered by the exemptions or limitations set forth in the Historic District's Act(M.G.L. Ch. 40C) and the Salem Historic Districts Ordinance. District: McIntire Address of Property: 31 Chestnut Street Name of Record Owner: Wm. Wrightson Description of Work Proposed: Repointing of brick walls as needed to replicate existing(mortar color, thickness and texture to match in kind). No changes in color, material, design or outward appearance. Non-applicable due to being in kind maintenance. Dated: April 29. 2010 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION By: The homeowner has the option not to commence the work (unless it relates to resolving an outstanding violation). All work commenced must be completed within one year from this date unless otherwise Indicated. THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. Please be sure to obtain the appropriate permits from the Inspector of Buildings (or any other necessary permits or approvals) prior to commencing work. O� 1 1 J I _ ��L :F •��rarrs _ .�1 J B. r ellLe, ell b / JI p I.W-1 Ell -v / It P � � J f= t - - - iii - ■ " �I Al � _ '� � iIN� N �i�� 4111 i W i IL� 1 SII a - Ism .SO s� s� 19 4 . � �� � _: ,. - �.: i , � � � � _ � __ _ �. �; , ,. � � L �P � ,_ , _ ,� <� -� L _ $i -- - - i _ - - �: ` ' _moi i --- -�-_-ice— - -'-� ---`- L —i -. r � _ - �__ - __-_ `s ' i111111111r - /�� X31 Chestnut Fence Restoration Pagel of 2 Jane Guy From: Wrightson,William L. [wlwrightson@wellington.coml Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 2:56 PM To: Jane Guy Subject: FW: 31 Chestnut Fence Restoration Jane, I continue to get suggestions from the blacksmith about the fence. Here is his latest drawing as you requested. You will note that the posts are proud of the fence which is NOT what you asked for but that's my challenge, not yours. It's sort of a moot point, as I will get to later. You may recall the historical Commission did approve a design, which in this letter, is called Plan A—it was comprised of granite posts and steel fence sections to match the existing lemon tops. We discovered that I in fact had two types of fence section so I asked for another Commission meeting to determine which of these the Commission preferred, and to inquire if I could omit the granite fence posts as the fence builder said they were not of period style and would not stay upright. During that discussion the Board noted that it regretted the initial approval and we reached a compromise that defined the fence section I could use and then permitted me to add iron posts instead of the granite, and then the Commission wanted to get rid of the granite foundation. The fence builder replies in this letter that a 36"or so section is actually more historically appropriate length for the balusters due to the supplies available then. If we mount the 36" sections on the granite foundations, as originally planned, we would match the overall fence height in the front. If the Commission were dead set against the use of the granite foundation, then perhaps it would consider dropping the fence height to permit the smaller baluster(picket) length. Finally, using cast iron posts is going to cost$30,000, and I don't think it's worth it to spend that extra amount. I wo.11d be asking to have a continuous fence, as I did in the second application. I am in the unfortunate position of being intermediary between a craftsman and your Commission, which is disadvantageous for me to say the least, so the process continues. Shall I schedule another meeting to see if we can figure this out one final time, or should I move on to other projects and just skip this? I don't like wasting your time, and I sure don't like wasting mine. What I would be asking for is to use three foot lemon top pickets, either over a granite foundation, which would match the existing fence height, orjust a few inches over the bare ground, which would drop the fence height down. No posts. You cannot answer this question via email, but the question is: should I both applying for this, or should I just drop the whole cast iron design idea and go with wood? I want the metal fence but it is not worth an extra $30,000+for me to add those metal posts, and I agree that the granite ones were inappropriate. Thanks for any suggestions,just want to avoid drawing this out if what I propose is unacceptable to begin with Will From: Schiff Architectural Detail [mailto:Priorityl@SchiffArchitectural.com] Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 12:19 PM To: Wrightson, William L. Subject: 31 Chestnut Fence Restoration Attached please find a letter and drawing regarding the alternatives on the fence. Please call with questions or comments. 7/31/2007 31 Chestnut Fence Restoration Page 2 of 2 Thank you, Jeff Esche,Administrator Phone 617-887-0202 Fax 617-887-0127 Emailjeff@SchiffArchitectural Detail S-,hiff Architectural Detail 120 Eastern Ave Chelsea, MA 02150 7/31/2007 F-1 July 23, 2007 Mr. William Wrightson 31 Chestnut St. Salem,MA 01970 Dear Mr. Wrightson, Enclosed please find a drawing showing the"plan B" alternative suggested by the Historic Commission. With the limitation of the committed of the balusters. This revision adds 32 cast posts with the lemon tip and will require pattern making at a cost of$2900. Each cast post will cost$850=$27,200 plus the$2900 pattern adding$30,100 to the$44,000 cost to which you are already committed. Plan B lowers the curb height and therefore the"Height Over Ground" line of the fence,creating an aesthetic and historical anomaly, as does the change in posting from granite to iron. A little history on fence iron in the late 18thand early 19th century:nice square dimensional iron bar was beyond the scope of American blacksmiths and our fledgling casting and forging mills. Dimensional iron was available from Europe as a product called"Merchant Bar' which came in approximate 100 lb bundles with a length of 12'4" or 148". The material was costly,subject to high tariffs and used as economically as possible. A 148"bar cut in 4 pieces yielded a 36 1/2" picket,cut in 3 pieces height would have been 49". A search through the streets of Salem would probably find mostly pickets of 36" and far fewer 48" pickets.Seen from a historic viewpoint the 36" picket is probably the historically correct choice. For your project a change in picket length will also add cost,especially as we have already procured and begun working with the 36" stock.There is no easy/inexpensive way to convert to a height change;a splice would probably cost$18 per picket.Further more the cost of the new cast iron posting will also go up for the additional height. To recap: "Plan A" cost $44,000 in ironwork plus the granite costs and is probably the most historically accurate. "Plan B" costs$$74,100 less the granite cost,plus the low curbing cost drops the fence line height,is less historically accurate. "Plan C" -with a historically accurate fence line on an historically incorrect picket adds $12,500 to $14,000 to the"Plan B" cost making it the most costly and least historically accurate choice. The choice,of course,is yours.Schiff Architectural is ready to implement that choice and resume work on the project as this change has placed the project on a"stand-by"basis. Call if you have questions or comments. Thank you, Jeff Schiff (( IZoo6 IUc� ,XeR�kill- t�A�� 4�- AV2_ per .I vv 13 toy 57-b 1-41- (4,47 :`t q r3 2.9b 7 {� v H�ND+zeu wF Bvr1D�3 !a� 3l�9ac�pNCe�S la'tt- w �nrct�4so(oL lVal`l�+ POSTcYrTIG�I- 3s S� O3"QIt}X '1�,t-�+ O,i'\�-- �-r' Utz•., 3���.. ey�Qebp•,.¢.-.�' 5�, z � �'�4}elyet2ryD 1 1 12. 14 t tP j 24, X3 1 Yx 36 y fe N I 6 I Jm'l 14 1 so I 99 1 AS I Sz 1 To 1 LOItIO /" LOtI� IOHd 1 ' PPPJ mac• oq'Y= �,NS-. SFl,wpEL 2°x Yi rcB g' 61q +F. <.UKS czw m�>,6y ;RIaNI� �L tl7nts�r �'�'. � � fs vl3t�� � • I � Dttiu.. �.e�w+=k Salem Historical Commission 120 WASHINGTON STREET,SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (978)745.9595 EXT.311 FAX(978)740-0404 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS It is hereby certified that the Salem Historical Commission has determined that the proposed: ❑ Construction 0 Moving El Reconstruction Alteration ❑ Demolition ❑ Painting ❑ Signage ❑ Other work as described below will be appropriate to the preservation of said Historic District, as per the requirements set forth in the Historic District's Act(M.G.L. Ch. 40C)and the Salem Historic Districts Ordinance. District: McIntire Address of Property 31 Chestnut Street Name of Record Owner: William&Laura Wrightson - Description of Work Proposed: Replace wooden fence on Pickering Street side of house with wrought fence to match existing front iron fence, but with no granite base. Fence to have intermittent iron posts 1 %" to 3"round spaced evenly, with matching lemon top. Overall fence height to match existing section of iron fence on same side, with both granite posts to remain. Dated: July 12, 2007 SALEM TORICAL COMMISSION By: The homeowner has the option not to commence the work(unless it relates to resolving an outstanding violation). All work commenced must be completed within one year from this date unless otherwise indicated. THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. Please be sure to obtain the appropriate permits from the Inspector of Buildings(or any other necessary permits or approvals) prior to commencing work. A Re: 31 Chestnut St Drawing Jane Guy From: Wrightson, William L. [wlwdghtson@wellington.com] Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 12:17 PM To: Jane Guy Cc: davidatsalem@comcast.net Subject: RE: 31 Chestnut St Drawing I can bring a copy of the plot plan, showing the yard and the house, and draw in exactly what the description that I submitted would imply, about location, posts, etc. if that helps; I think that would suffice given David's interest in the bigger picture. You can use the working drawing from the installer to verify that we are matching the front fence as exactly as is possible, in terms of the detail. From: Jane Guy [mailto:JGuy@Salem.com] Sent:Thursday, June 28, 2007 12:12 PM To: Wrightson, William L. Subject: FW: 31 Chestnut St Drawing -----Original Message----- From: David Hart [mailto:davidatsalem@comcast.net] Sent:Thursday, June 28, 2007 12:09 PM To: Jane Guy; Doug Desrocher(E-mail); Hannah Diozzi (E-mail 2); Hannah D!ozzi; Jessica Herbert(E-mail 2); Kathy Harper(E-mail); Larry Spang (E-mail); Laurie Weisman (E-mail 2); Laurie Weisman (E-mail) Subject: Re: 31 Chestnut St Drawing Jane: Looking through his submission of 5/2/2007, I found only photographs. I would recommend asking Will for a plan view of the fence(s). Doesn't have to be down to the inch; just a plan showing the different elements. Then we can integrate the details he just submitted. David On 6/28/07 11:10 AM, "lane Guy" <JGuy@Salem.com> wrote: Please let me know if you think he will need to provide more information. Thanks! Jane A.Guy Asst.Community Development Director City of Salem Department of Planning&Community Development 120 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 (978)745-9595, Ed. 5685 Fax: (978)740-0404 jguy@salem.com www.salem.com<http://www.salem.com/> -----Original Message---- From: Wrightson,William L. rmailto:wlwriahtson@wellinaton.com1 Sent:Thursday,June 28, 2007 11:03 AM To: Jane Guy Subject: FW: 31 Chestnut St Drawing Let me know if this does not suffice 6/20/2012 Re: 31"Chestnut St Drawing will From: Schiff Architectural Detail [mailto:Priorityl@SchiffArchitectural.com1 Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 10:54 AM To: Wrightson, William L. Subject: 31 Chestnut St Drawing Mr Wrightson, Attached is the drawing for your fence project. Please call Jeff with questions or comments. Thank you, Kaari Phone 617-887-0202 Fax 617-887-0127 Email kaari@SchiffArchitectural Detail Schiff Architectural Detail 120 Eastern Ave Chelsea, MA 02150 6/20/2012 31 Chestnut Fence Restoration Jane Guy From: Wrightson, William L. [wlwrightson@wellington.com] Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 9:44 AM To: Jane Guy Subject: RE: 31 Chestnut Fence Restoration Thanks Will do. From: Jane Guy [mailto:JGuy@Salem.com] Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 9:07 AM To: Wrightson, William L. Subject: RE: 31 Chestnut Fence Restoration Yes, he seems to be a responsible contractor. Your application would need to be submitted by August 20th to get on the September 5th meeting. Jane A. Guy Asst. Community Development Director City of Salem Department of Planning & Community Development 120 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 (978) 745-9595, Ext. 5685 Fax: (978) 740-0404 ipuy(d)salem.com www.salem.com -----Original Message----- From: Wrightson, William L. [mailto:wlwrightson@wellington.com] Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 9:05 AM To: Jane Guy Subject: RE: 31 Chestnut Fence Restoration O, I'm sorry about all this—the fence guy keeps coming back with rebuttals on your suggestions. I suppose on the margin that is a good thing, as he does care that the fence is built as it would have been originally, but it makes for a long process From: Jane Guy [mailto:]Guy@Salem.com] Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 9:03 AM To: Wrightson, William L. Subject: RE: 31 Chestnut Fence Restoration David Hart is going to give you a call. Essentially, you should apply for whatever options you really want (i.e. an iron option and a wood option) and see if the Commission approves one or both. Jane A. Guy Asst. Community Development Director City of Salem Department of Planning & Community Development 6/20/2012 +1 Chestnut Fence Restoration 120 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 (978)745-9595, Ext. 5685 Fax: (978) 740-0404 iauv(&salem.com www.satem.com -----Original Message----- From: Wrightson, William L. [mailto:wlwrightson@wellington.com] Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 2:56 PM To: Jane Guy Subject: FW: 31 Chestnut Fence Restoration Jane, I continue to get suggestions from the blacksmith about the fence. Here is his latest drawing as you requested. You will note that the posts are proud of the fence which is NOT what you asked for but that's my challenge, not yours. It's sort of a moot point, as I will get to later. You may recall the historical Commission did approve a design, which in this letter, is called Plan A—it was comprised of granite posts and steel fence sections to match the existing lemon tops. We discovered that I in fact had two types of fence section so I asked for another Commission meeting to determine which of these the Commission preferred, and to inquire if I could omit the granite fence posts as the fence builder said they were not of period style and would not stay upright. During that discussion the Board noted that it regretted the initial approval and we reached a compromise that defined the fence section I could use and then permitted me to add iron posts instead of the granite, and then the Commission wanted to get rid of the granite foundation. The fence builder replies in this letter that a 36"or so section is actually more historically appropriate length for the balusters due to the supplies available then. If we mount the 36" sections on the granite foundations, as originally planned, we would match the overall fence height in the front. If the Commission were dead set against the use of the granite foundation, then penaps it would consider dropping the fence height to permit the smaller baluster(picket) length. Finally, using cast iron posts is going to cost$30,000, and I don't think it's worth it to spend that extra amount. I would be asking to have a continuous fence, as I did in the second application. I am in the unfortunate position of being intermediary between a craftsman and your Commission, which is disadvantageous for me to say the least, so the process continues. Shall I schedule another meeting to see if we can figure this out one final time, or should I move on to other projects and just skip this? I don't like wasting your time, and I sure don't like wasting mine. What I would be asking for is to use three foot lemon top pickets, either over a granite foundation, which would match the existing fence height, or just a few inches over the bare ground, which would drop the fence height down. No posts. You cannot answer this question via email, but the question is: should I both applying for this, or should I just drop the whole cast iron design idea and go with wood? I want the metal fence but it is not worth an extra$:0,000+for me to add those metal posts, and I agree that the granite ones were inappropriate. Thanks for any suggestions,just want to avoid drawing this out if what I propose is unacceptable to begin with Will From: Schiff Architectural Detail [mailto:Priorityl@SchiffArchitectural.com] Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 12:19 PM To: Wrightson, William L. Subject: 31 Chestnut Fence Restoration Attached please find a letter and drawing regarding the alternatives on the fence. 6,'20/2012 31 Chestnut Fence Restoration Please call with questions or comments. Thank you, Jeff Esche,Administrator Phone 617-887-0202 Fax 617-887-0127 Email jeff@SchiffArchitectural Detail Schiff Architectural Detail 120 Eastem Ave Chelsea,MA 02150 6/20/2012 31 Chestnut Fence Restoration Please call with questions or comments. Thank you, Jeff Esche,Administrator Phone 617-887-0202 Fax 617-887-0127 Email jell@SchiffArchitectural Detail Schiff Architectural Detail 120 Eastern Ave Chelsea, MA 02150 6/20/2012 ��v11 Salem Historical Commission 120 WASHINGTON STREET, SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (978)745.9595 EXT.311 FAX(978)740-0404 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS It is hereby certified that the Salem Historical Commission has determined that the proposed: ❑ Construction ❑ Moving ❑ Reconstruction ❑ Alteration ❑ Demolition ❑ Painting ❑ Signage ?5 Other work as described below will be appropriate to the preservation of said Historic District, as per the requirements set forth in the Historic Districts Act(M.G.L. Ch. 40C) and the Salem Historic Districts Ordinance. District: McIntire Address of Property- 31 Chestnut St. Name of Record Owner: Wm. & Laura Wrightson Description of Work Proposed: Permanent removal of'small.fence section (board fence with, extended pickets) along back of property. Dated: Mav 7. 2010 SALEM HISTORICAL CCAOMMISSION By: C aa4 / The homeowner has the option not to commence the work(unless it relates to resolving an outstanding violation). All work commenced must be completed within one year from this date unless otherwise indicated. THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. Please be sure to obtain the appropriate permits from the Inspector of Buildings (or any other necessary permits or approvals) prior to commencing work. Page 1 of 2 Jane Guy From: Wrightson, William L. [wlwrightson@wellington.com] Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 5:42 PM To: Jane Guy Subject: FW: `ence removal—apolication photos Attachments: IMG_0269.JPG; IMG_0271.JPG; IMG_0272.JPG; IMG_0273.JPG; IW1G_0274.JPG; IMG_0275.JPG Jane, I include 6 attached picture files plus one I hope you can see below. Application will be along soon, for fence removal. Red 1_ne below denotes fence location Thanks Will Wrightson l �M r TP 1. 41 ISI �V -----Original Message----- - • 4/13/2010 a G �D; x YYa 1�•Y � t '.� Xw t °.�. .. ,.i .. .�.IL airol : ° Y' w . r } _ t s # O ✓r ,5 v a ri • } ` V fir`� •ilk (' � . ' y F 6 M � r _ W . ��Td v ti • y y-' J'1ar �• i hL (jam ' fyF �� 1 �• ''�, • A' � � _ •*maw /` 0 4e VA r ( y7 a • " • � y i _ 'ti 1 �^e y ,•� „� .�' �► �~ ..�,� ti�,, � , . '� jay , d ` � ` \a � '� Bye-•+ i• ►1i y� '� r t3Y ` yy, y 'v N �• z. �,- t; A I p OL _ e � za►- - ..- r , r n _- e i IN .. / - � dom' e � ♦ • _ i f f ar N a sq lk } wt • �'�'` � - ; _ �.� fig, K F Y Salem Historical Commission 120 WASHINGTON STREET,SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (978)745-9595 EXT 311 FAX (978)740-0404 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS It is hereby certified that the Salem Historical Commission has determined that the proposed: ❑ Construction ❑ Moving ❑ Reconstruction Alteration ❑ Demolition 0 Painting ❑ Signage ❑ Other work as described below will be appropriate to the preservation of said Historic District, as per the requirements set forth in the Historic District's Act(M.G.L. Ch. 40C)and the Salem Historic Districts Ordinance. District: McIntire Address of Property�3LChecrnnr Sr Name of Record Owner: William&Laura Wrightson Description of Work Proposed: Installation of% round copper gutters to the rear addition faVade which faces Pickering Street. Gutters to match those currently on the house. Replace wooden fence on Pickering Street side of house with wrought fence to match existing front iron fence. Fence to be interspersed with granite columns to match existing, with spacing of sections to be equidistant from the existing arbor post to the existing granite post, being as close as possible in length to the existing section starting at the streetscape. Demolition of lattice,fence above brick wall and arbor beams - conditional that within.six months, the owner submit an application for a new design that meets the Commission's approval for an appropriate replacement for the existing arbor enclosure. Dated: May 4, 2007 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION By: The homeowner has the opti (unesson to resolving(/ violation). All work commenced must be commence ted within one year from relatesthis date un ess otherwise utstandinndicated. THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. Please be sure to obtain the appropriate permits from the Inspector of Buildings (or any other necessary permits or approvals) prior to commencing work. #31 Chestnut Street Historical Commission Review May 2, 2007 Index to Pages Application Reference Page Gutter Fence Arbor Roof 3. Upper Flat Roof Detail X X 4. Lower Flat Roof Detail X X 5. Intersection of Iron Fences X 6. Fence Detail X 7. View of Fence to Terminus X 8. Back View of Pergola X X 9. Inside Pergola X X 10. Overhead View of Flat Roof X 2 Upper Roof Gutter Area I sm t 1 � i 4. iL` �►a r� a : r ��. t.. .�, rr' '7!�" �� it { �1 •` . �3h1� a,• k gI•,iY'"�, fir' � � Iog% vi - I , I i IIII�� `t4 , eA , y c 1 n �'•j n�l �� y d � ' a � I R � 1 SII I f � — sl millL I - � a 1 yyI • .:� n.a,) .x./ �! °�'�'�' . ,,,999 - ( � 9 i� k jj r �j:T Y11 '. • 3 • • • ' • • • . •• •• • • . 1 44 Air. p. 000 d�1,F, ;� W Off, —Ikx 0; ISO 1 w� pn gF � i C31T r A y. Y L .R �'\ Wal • �� '� 46 1do xic _.I 1Im. . 1 4. { vv� a . Inside of arbor, view of front brick pillar, and side fence. Arbor condition also evident. ♦. .,nom♦s� � ♦` ]�� Odom Y k s r' • + '40�. 9 IMP c( ' lill W lr� .Y.r '.� , VOM` ' - � � � � v � • ' ',_ - '.sa s � $ „1�r eAAe`�� � o .�� �'e � Aes � Av .t s ♦ t o�p +p 0, ag3E4AAAA ♦ rAAt► AAAt O Atet A AAI �� � " � A'A �� ♦ AAA AAAAAAAAt !� ►°� I PW W L .WK!QT-);,N 1.50 _ " Tif jKC Igat ,' � tcrc Flc.K�:t' V4 x 3b,, F .I Hl4r A ��I a L MflRj 900 Ii/V F7' 7 776, l 2P>f�F{ Gv/y;��+ ✓�J j 3 Pi tJ E��.< _ �E r',� LaN� } 11�5�J. 3.4L,* N0J 4/4 A7- I �S FRH.r IV0V e --- q. } I? PIZ� itiEt L L I�PPED V OAL Je-*T►r N t5ft+4,-6 90++ /3+� hex S�•E%(, r POST w44 =`�`t aE_,} roti -� .�sc�:�•� ��t+F�- c Nrt c_-i��►sfT�c�vo �� 1 f P��; RS K�IIAN r d 3 Arh S Pc<< S��T a•' ' SIP. NO+ti, U CfRoU?ep { 1.i'� IK Q I alai JSS/SAD-6/25/2007 a ©Schiff Architectural Detail 120 Eastern Ave Chelsea, MA 02150 j1J PI �: ���c.T� 661788700127 faze Im" Patriot Properties Salem 06/25/2007 Abutters List 10:52:56AM Filter Used: DataProperty.ParcellD='25-0261-0' OR DataProperty.ParcellD='25-0262-0' OR DataProperty.ParcellD='25-0263-801'OR DataProperty.ParcellD='25-0263-802' OR DataProperty.ParcellD='25-02.. RECEIVED B JUN 2 5 2007 DEPT.OF PLANNING S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 06;25/2007 Salem Pape 1 of 1 ParcellD Location Owner Co-Owner Mailinq Address City State Zip 25-0220-0 38 CHESTNUT STREET CUTLER DONALD R 38 CHESTNUT ST SALEM MA 01970 25-0221-0 34 CHESTNUT STREET SPNEA INC HISTORIC NEW ENGLAND 141 CAMBRIDGE STREET BOSTON MA 02114 25-0222-0 30 CHESTNUT STREET PHILLIPS JANE A 30 CHESTNUT STREET SALEM MA 01970 25-0223-0 28 CHESTNUT STREET 28 CHESTNUT STREETNOM TR LIPPMAN ANDREW/HARRIS 28 CHESTNUT STREET SALEM MA 01970 25-0239-0 27 CHESTNUT STREET 27 CHESTNUT STREET TRUST PADJEN OSCAR/PADJEN RI' 27 CHESTNUT ST SALEM MA 01970 25-0240-0 29 CHESTNUT STREET MCGRANE MAURA F 29 CHESTNUT ST SALEM MA 01970 25-0241-801 31 U1 CHESTNUT STREET WRIGHTSON WILLIAM L III WRIGHTSON LAURA S 31 CHESTNUT STREET Ut SALEM MA 01970 25-0241-802 31 U2 CHESTNUT STREET WRIGHTSON WILLIAM L III WRIGHTSON LAURA S 31 CHESTNUT STREET U1 SALEM MA 01970 25-0242-0 33 CHESTNUT STREET VANDERSALM THOMAS J VANDERSALM ADELAIDE S 33 CHESTNUT ST SALEM MA 01970 25-0243-0 35 CHESTNUT STREET REARDON JONATHAN JENNIFER M 35 CHESTNUT STREET SALEM MA 01970 25-0244-0 37 CHESTNUT STREET BLODGETT MARK W P O BOX 721 FITZWILLIAM NH 03447-0721 25-0261-0 5 WARREN STREET GALVIN CHARLES M GALVIN KATHLEEN A 5 WARREN STREET SALEM MA 01970 25-0262-0 9 WARREN STREET 9 WARREN STREET TRUST WATHNE CARL N 9 WARREN STREET SALEM MA 01970 25-0263-801 11 U1 WARREN STREET WINTMAN ELAINE S 11 WARREN ST U1 SALEM MA 01970 25-0263-802 11 U2 WARREN STREET SCHWARTZ HAL N UPTON MELISSA L 11 WARREN ST U2 SALEM MA 01970 25-0264-0 13 WARREN STREET DOOLEY ROBERT J MARY R 13 WARREN STREET SALEM MA 01970 25-0265-0 15 WARREN STREET MILLER CATHERINE R RIEDER KIRT A 15 WARREN ST SALEM MA 01970 End of Report . � a 7769- nM � J T= N 62 81 i M1 N } 42 �8 4 t ,p , 7 .F' ?5 TQC ° e �' � ;. nn" questions about fence approval at#31 chestnut Page 1 of 2 Jane Guy From: Jane Guy Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 3:53 PM To: David Hart(E-mail); Doug Desrocher(E-mail); Hannah Diozzi (E-mail 2); Hannah Diozzi (E-mail); Jessica Herbert(E-mail 2); Kathy Harper(E-mail); Larry Spang (E-mail); Laurie Weisman (E-mail 2); Laurie Weisman (E- mail) Cc: wlwrightson@wellington.com' Subject: FW: questions about fence approval at#31 chestnut To: Historic Commission Members Below is an e-mailfrom the owner of 31 Chestnut Street. The certificate you recently issued was to "Replace wooden fence on Pickering Street side of house with wrought fence to match existing front iron fence. Fence to be interspersed with granite columns to match existing, with spacing of sections to be equidistant from the existing arbor post to the existing granite post, being as close as possible in length to the existing section starting at the streetscape." Please remember that due to Open Meeting Laws,you cannot review and comment by email on what may or may not be historically appropriate. However, I can pass on this information to you so that you can go by the property in advance of our meeting on June 20th. I can then get back to Mr. Wrightson on June 21st with a recommendation on how to proceed. Thanks, Jane Jane A. Guy Asst. Community Development Director City of Salem Department of Planning &Community Development 120 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 (978)745-9595, Ext. 5685 Fax: (978)740-0404 4guy0salem.com www.salem.com -----Original Message----- From: Wrightson, William L. [mailto:wlwrightson@wellington.com] Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 3:25 PM To: Jane Guy Subject: questions about fence approval at #31 chestnut Picture attached below: My fence guy called me back(Jeff Schiff at Schiff Architectural), and after his site visit he noted two things that we did not consider in our meeting: A: there are actually two styles of fence on my property in the picture-look at the bottoms-one type(t-ie short side piece) has each baluster inset into the stone and the other style is a sectional piece with a base rail, mounted atop the stone. The tops of these fences are virtually the same. The base rail style is what is across 6/11/2007 questions about fence approval at#31 chestnut Page 2 of 2 the front of the property. The "inset'-style section is just tie short side section you see here. I think that all the sections should match, and to do that I should use the base rail type sections on the side, which requires removing the small non-conforming piece you see here. So everything matches closely, matching the front in essence. B: We talked at the formal Commission hearing about spacing stone posts every 8 or 10 feet- I forget exactly what the approval said, but the fence installer said that traditionally, these fences only had such posts at transitions, such as the wood fence you see here, or the terminus. He strongly recommends we install a base of stone all the way to the terminus and have a continuous"iron" (really steel these days)fence without any intermediate vertical stone posts -just one at the front comer, seen here, and one at the end. Since the end is a brick pillar, we might even want to argue that the brick pillar should be the end post, but I really don't care which we use. The fence builder also said that installing a large stone column every 8 or 10 feet would be very difficult to do, and very expensive. You can see in this picture that they are prone to frost heave, so keeping them nice and aligned is quite difficult over time. There are other iron fences in the neighborhood that were built with this continuous fence concept(no posts, save the ends). I am happy to host a site visit or whatever the Commission deems appropriate. The fence builder said he could get you a drawing. The real point of the effort is to get rid of an old rotten wooden fence and replace it with something that looks like it belongs there(matches), of course. I'm confident that the Commission understands that my intent is to upgrade this property, and is likely to work with me a little bit as a result, but in this case I do think I have a situation that requires a little clarification (can we use the base rail throughout?), and given some inputs from the builder, a minor change(no stone posts except at termini), and I want to proceed with the full blessing of the Commission for the design that the builder thinks makes most architectural sense, assuming the Comm ssion agrees. I'm around all week and over the weekend if anyone needs me to be anywhere for a meeting, formal or nformal. Thanks Will Wrightson 617 951 5376 6/11/2007 i W-4; r �. A ,n Salem Historical Commission 120 WASHINGTON STREET,SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 (978)745-9595 EXT 311 FAX (978)740-0404 CERTIFICATE OF NON-APPLICABILITY It is hereby certified that the Salem Historical Commission has determined that the proposed: Construction ❑ Moving Reconstruction -$4 Alteration ❑ Demolition ❑ Painting ❑ Signage ❑ Other Work as described below does not involve an exterior architectural feature or involves a feature covered by the exemptions or limitations set forth in the Historic District's Act(M.G.L. Ch. 40C) and the Salem Histori Districts Ordinance. District: McIntire Address of Property: 31 Chestnut St. Name of Record Owner: William and Laura Wrightson Description of Work Proposed: Repair slate roof and copper gutters to replicate existing. No changes in color, material, design, location or outward appearance. Non-applicable due to being in kind maintenance/repair/replacement. Replace rubber over copper roofs with new,/lat seam copper roofs on two roofs over rear addition. Non- applicable due to being non-visible from the public way. Dated: _April 19, 2007 SALEM HIS C OMMISSION By: The homeowner has the option not to commence the work(unless it relates to resolving an outstanding violation). All work commenced must be completed within one year from this date unless otherwise indicated. THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. Please be sure to obtain the appropriate permits from the Inspector of Buildings (or any other necessary permits or approvals) prior to commencing work. a� c.c. City Clerk, Building Inspector uauc Salem Historical Commission CITY HALL. SALEM. MASS. 01970 744-4580 CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS It is hereby certified that the Salem Historical Commissicn has f determined that the proposed construction ( ) ; reconstruction ( ) ; demolition ( ) ; moving ( ) ; alteration ( ); painting ( ) ; sign or other appurtenant fixture ( ) work as described below in the . . . McIntire Historic District (NAME OF HISTORIC DISTRICT) Address of Property: 31 Chestnut Street Name of Record Owner: Christopher and Susan Burns DESCRIPTION OF WORK PROPOSED: Installation of capped flat board fence along front of property. Fence to be same height as existing iron fence and is to be painted green or black. will be appropriate to the preservation cf said Historic District, as per the requirements set forth in the Historic Districts' Act (Federal Laws, Ch. 40C) and the Salem Historical Commission. Dated: August 18.1986 SALEM HISTORICAL COMMISSION BY. ck- JU Chairman � r b� , � ;_'i'}A �4 i • .y'a --•� it '!N 12521301 640 POLAROID® 9 h 3r Chi[/{J�✓�- 1� - - �'Iiil�-C 114 vi bl. FNS D tii,z way Xf660 Cj ax v JUL 1986 J w LAW I c 4 0 M r^ ,svz , — r c z � J r _ m m • o � • Z � o . y� 4 1 \1 I � J K K' C IPy• K' K' K'1 �j � LL � R, A Ali-wraufo I _OD14 DP ALI.-ser Y =14-�x4 --- 'luno v u o +na�; P.L.. surest M.Lfa eu - � r zvaeuv, -.. ,. --1,un wcnoa¢p � Y all- - -7t IiKiDfi f�16> B= art _ P- I wiLW _ 'MllC4�FLdAli4. a - 'Ocn-Ga.T 4x4 rv,T Q -LVM Ofll4�{,LMn HVL I, 1'.I¢P6F'2 Ztry I L -- I :l ?Ai t GKT0.r L - 'na�t+atL� o frz v � ryQ,(yr:yQ �uvi11 ALS Jrnuti aT FJ.I�,DULwtL¢, Z+'IC — r3TSufp Dy,ODpaLD 6wa,..L DL Uu,�laa � �-'I,vamaLLr w x¢ul7rsroeac 6Pl.ot 4TIX Haw— &T ZU._ vo..... BE 6TTCR.b Papc C%x _ oa.Dy-"Fir- otG. LtcTLL 441raLT - /rLD aa. "YaA20 "JY Orwli4• FIN15N N11N TD as 11$90 it fAI, G i0 �j �\ -( tt•Me ALS. sra.L mu.an wLt 6�+M1TEL s�.b ay Al rc 4.. O o •00 d-L�AkI ,1 GLS "D,n L L o` D� W� a ]C .•c �d t yLVLiIdM�,eupipJN. 1 KfEIIEN ¢aMovsrarRmt®u Lu P / W pWFo¢M _ 7.I•_ . -ON 8f. LYa++cco cu.•...cove 1 • A � O _ -_ ._ _ _ _ — — _ _ __ - tu.¢iuci rur,wa-is{a'IEo IK4 , •� e EGK e I-1 60(xYL, �j — • • I pl••'L •Fi'p7 Glt2 N8 2'4•;' Id I I I L I tJ ' 9 Lu ° — � .dRDRl CD[N�uN E�hID_ V J l�OMMdd/OAf -rte•I,w v)pI�{pyw +I N 3 �4W'114 r y% 7 xii'O+t'vo-.Rl wTv�D ,b W � e LC'I.fYS ' t TTS � �- � � a .wD. 9yertO(y, I I I I X64 W dlv(bV. i i I I I I I I O a i l.LL1JYIL•R '>r�u_9B [c�PFe.iuER F I I 1 Zc.tre.v �.vo a1.1._ cl+-sa+.0 ewew y 1 1 I I I•+I� �tt AWMI �+•lT llutid •.TeMP �F�uRd « 0e wer•Dlo yu.vw12CD « OC-SL�I(a.6b 'Y2Cc. - -r. f. T �` ��` `���. � ''°�i\ �ti�. , i vy `i , � .. � �� \ \ �� � � `\� � ��i � i \ �