WELLESLEY HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
TUESDAY MAY 30, 2006
REGULAR MEETING
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE, TOWN HALL
Members Present: |
Jean Berry, Laura Glen, David Smith, Carolyn Morris, Eric Cohen and Meghan Conlon |
Also Present:
|
Inger Nielsen, Larry Young, Forrest Gasdia |
Chairman Jean Berry called the meeting to order at 6:45 pm.
|
6:45pm. |
41 Cottage Street |
Gutters, Chimney Removal |
HDC 02-06
|
Ms. Inger Nielsen and Mr. Larry Young came before the Commission for review of the removal and replacement of wooden gutters with aluminum gutters and the removal of an existing chimney. The Commission began the review with the gutters.
Mr. Young noted the existing gutters are made of fir, and the cost of replacing the gutters with wooden gutters is high. Ms. Glen stated the applicants had submitted pictures of 45 Cottage Streets aluminum gutters. She noted 21 Cottage Street also has aluminum.
Mr. Cohen asked the cost difference between the aluminum and wood gutters. Mr. Young stated the cost difference is a 4 to 1 ratio.
Ms. Berry asked if the gutters have a warranty. Mr. Young stated the aluminum gutters would last for a long time if the owner were cautious not to dent the gutters. Mr. Young also noted the aluminum can be painted to match the house paint or trim.
Mr. Cohen questioned how the gutters would be affixed to the roof edge. Mr. Young stated the roof would be replaced at the same time and the drip edge would be placed underneath the new roofing materials.
The Commission after a brief discussion moved, seconded, and voted unanimously to:
“Approve the removal and replacement of all of the existing wood gutters with aluminum gutters as presented.”
The Commission began the discussion on the proposed chimney removal. Ms. Berry questioned if the chimney was in need of repair. She questioned why the homeowner would want the chimney completed removed rather then replaced or fixed. Ms. Nielson stated there is no fireplace in the house and that the furnace used to vent out of the chimney.
Ms. Berry questioned the cost comparison of repairing the chimney versus the cost of removing the chimney. Mr. Young stated a cost estimate for repairing the chimney was never done due to the amount of interior work needed. The replacement would require opening the interior walls of the house and replacing the chimney from the roof to the basement.
Mr. Smith questioned if the chimney could remain in place on the interior and questioned if the deteriorated portions of the exterior could be replaced. Mr. Smith asked if the new furnace would be a direct vent and if so where the vent would be located. Ms. Nielson stated the direct vent would be on the back wall of the house and not seen from a public way.
Ms. Glen questioned the roof materials proposed for the new roof. Mr. Young stated architectural asphalt shingles with a staggered layout would be used. Ms. Nielson stated she is considering cedar shakes for the roof, but the cost would be a determining factor. Ms. Berry noted that the Commission does not have review over roof materials or color.
Ms. Berry stated there are many old small chimneys along Cottage Street and she wondered if the chimney removal would detract from the house. Ms. Glen noted 12 Waban removed a chimney several years ago, and 11 Cottage Street received approval to remove a chimney several months ago. The Commission noted of the houses allowed to remove a chimney, additional chimneys remained on the building.
Mr. Smith noted historic homes have chimneys, whether the chimney is used or not. Mr. Smith asked if the top of the chimney could be repointed from the roof to the top of the chimney. Mr. Cohen agreed and noted the chimney is a nice artifact that the District would hate to lose.
Ms. Nielson asked if the Commission was insistent upon her keeping the chimney if she could move the chimney to the other side of the roof ridgeline because its current location goes through the living room.
Ms. Berry noted the preponderant opinion is that there should be a chimney on the roof. Mr. Cohen stated if you are knocking the chimney down you are losing the function anyway, and he recommended installing a mock chimney in the current location.
Mr. Smith noted the importance of having a chimney visible from the front of the house to emulate the character of the district.
The Commission discussed the potential for a faux chimney and the chimneys location. The Commission agreed the chimney should remain in the same location. Mr. Cohen had several concerns over the ability to support the mock chimney.
Mr. Cohen stated the premise of the discussion is that the Commission understands the existing chimney is unsafe and cannot remain in place. Ms. Berry agreed and noted if the chimney were replaced it would need to meet code and would be larger than the current chimney.
Mr. Cohen was skeptical the chimney would look appropriate. Mr. Smith stated the Commissions responsibility is to insure the exterior of the house matches the District, how the applicant achieves the look is up to them. Mr. Smith and Mr. Cohen both felt if possible the chimney should be left in place. Mr. Young noted if the chimney did not look appropriate, the applicant would return to the Commission for reconstruction of the chimney.
The Commission after a brief discussion moved, seconded, and voted unanimously to:
“ Approve the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the removal of the existing chimney and replacement with a nonfunctioning reproduction chimney in the same style, size and location as the existing chimney.”
Ms. Nielsen asked the Commission to briefly discuss what is appropriate in the District in terms of garages. Ms. Nielsen is considering replacing her existing garage.
Ms. Berry recommended Ms. Nielsen look around the neighborhood for some direction. The Commission in general felt a two bay garage with a pitched roof similar to the pitch of the house would be appropriate.
Mr. Young noted the new garage would be placed on the existing footprint and stated the pitch of the garage roof would be similar to the dwelling. He questioned if the Commission required a specific type of garage door like a carriage style door. The Commission noted many style doors could be appropriate and that direction should be taken from the architectural style of the house.
Ms. Nielsen also pointed out that she is considering removing her side entrance porch and replacing the porch area with a stone patio. The Commission noted the removal of the porch would need approval, but noted stone is present in the district.
The Commission noted that a pergola had been installed at 32 Cottage Street and had not been reviewed by the Commission. It was decided a violation letter would be mailed to 32 Cottage Street.
The Commission adjourned at 8:05 pm.
Meghan Conlon, AICP
Town Planner
Minutes Approved: July 11, 2006
| 
