WELLESLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
TUESDAY JANUARY 10, 2006
REGULAR MEETING
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE, TOWN HALL
Members Present: |
Jean Berry, Edwina McCarthy, Laura Glen, Ellen Watts and Meghan Conlon |
Also Present:
|
Dave Neilson, Anne Mahoney, Wendy Dillon, Carolyn Morris |
Chairman Jean Berry called the meeting to order at 6:45 pm.
|
6:45pm. |
21Cottage Street |
Demolition of existing uncovered front porch |
HDC 14-05
|
Ms. Wendy Dillon came before the Commission for review of a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove the existing uncovered front porch at 21 Cottage Street. Ms. Dillon stated the sill and porch are rotted. Her plan includes removing the porch, keeping the adjacent covered entrance porch intact, and replacing any damage on the sill and front façade. Ms. Dillon noted the front façade would match that of 23 and 25 Cottage Street, which are in the same style as 21 Cottage Street.
The Commission questioned what was underneath the porch that would be seen from the street. Ms. Dillon stated she believed the field stone foundation would be exposed. She noted plantings would be added to the front of the house after the porch was removed.
Ms. Watts stated since the covered doorway would remain and the removal of the porch would not detract from the house as seen in 23 and 25 Cottage Streets she felt the removal of the porch was acceptable.
The Commission after a brief discussion moved, seconded, and voted unanimously to:
“Approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the existing uncovered front porch located at 21 Cottage Street as presented.”
|
7:00pm. |
22Cottage Street |
Change in window size |
|
Mrs. Anne Mahoney came before the Commission for a modification of her existing plan, which was approved in April of 2005. Two windows in the second story rear bathroom have been limited by the shed dormer. One window is in the rear of the house and cannot be seen from a public way. The second window on the west side of the house has an obstructed view from the public way. Mrs. Mahoney noted the original plans included 36” windows; her contractor has indicated a 16” window is necessary for the space.
Mrs. Mahoney noted the Commission’s original concern over the proposed addition to 22 Cottage Street was to maintain existing rooflines. Mrs. Mahoney stated the reduction in window height would allow the rooflines to remain unchanged. Mrs. Mahoney stated the replacement windows would be custom made to match the remaining windows in the house.
The Commission after a brief discussion moved, seconded, and voted unanimously to:
“Approve a modification to the original Certificate of Appropriateness to reduce the window size from 36” to 16” on two corner second story bathroom windows, one located on the south elevation and one located on the west elevation.”
|
7:15pm. |
32 Cottage Street |
Window Replacement |
13-05
|
Mr. Neilson proposes to remove four existing windows on the east side of the house and replace the windows with two awning windows. The proposed windows would be Marvin windows with 6 authentic divided lights. On the west side of the house, Mr. Neilson proposes to replace and reconfigure three existing windows of varying type and size with three casement windows of the same size. The proposed windows would measure 2’ by 3’ with Pine casings and authentic divided light glass.
The Commission began the discussion by question why Mr. Neilson would want to reduce the size of windows in the home. Mr. Neilson stated the changes in window types on either side of the house are to accommodate interior spaces. On the east side of the house the window removal and replacement would allow for built in bookshelves. The west side would accommodate a zero clearance gas stove and furniture.
Ms. Watts felt on the west side of the house the proportions of the windows appeared squat in comparison to the steep gabled front of the house and the long windows seen throughout. Ms. Glen questioned if the three windows could be grouped to mimic the dormered double hung windows above. Mr. Neilson stated the kitchen cabinets prevent the grouping of the windows.
After review of the submitted sketches the Commission rescaled the window sketches to the requested size and felt the original representation did not accurately portray the windows. The rescaled windows looked more appropriate. The Commission discussed using double hung windows in place of the casements. Mr. Neilson was not opposed to the double hung windows. The window size agreed for the west side of the house were three double hung 28” x 40” windows with a 4’ trim and two over two divides. The Commission felt the 2 over 2 would make the windows appear more vertical. The windows would be Marvin Pine wood true divided lights.
The Commission returned to the east side of the house, which was previously discussed at the December 13, 2005 meeting. The Commission began the discussion by noting the bump out currently has a sweep of vertical windows. Mr. Neilson had previously indicated the removal of two windows was necessary for the installation of built in bookcases. Ms. Berry questioned if two windows of the four could be removed and the remaining two windows could be left in their current state. Ms. Watts agreed and noted the house has a theme of paired windows. Mr. Neilson indicated it might be possible to keep the last two windows and to remove the first two windows.
Mr. Neilson asked the Commission if it mattered which two of the four windows were removed. The Commission agreed to allow Mr. Neilson discretion over which two windows of the four would be removed in return for keeping the existing types of windows on the east side.
Ms. McCarthy noted the window closest to the street should be considered window number one for purposes of describing which windows he chooses to remove.
The Commission after further review and discussion moved, seconded, and voted unanimously to:
“Approve a Certificate of Appropriateness for the revised proposal which would include three double hung Pine true divided light windows that would measure 28” wide by 40” high on the west façade and to eliminate two windows and retain two windows of the property owners choosing on the east elevation.”
The Commission stated they would meet on January 24th to meet two prospective candidates for Commissioner, Carolyn Morris and David Smith. Two candidates are needed to replace Mary Rich and Arshag Mergeurian.
The Commission continued the review of the minutes from 12/13/05, 10/18/05, 2/08/05, and 7/12/05 until that time.
The Commission adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Meghan Conlon, AICP
Town Planner
Minutes Approved: March 21, 2006
| 
