Town of Wellesley, Massachusetts

Ms. Tamara Sielecki came before the Commission for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of an existing 10 foot by 16 foot shed over an existing concrete slab. The proposed shed would have T1-11 wood siding with a gambrel asphalt shingled roof. The height of the structure would measure 12’-2” in height and would have double doors at the entrance. Two side windows would be installed on the western elevation (right side) of the shed.

Ms. Berry began the discussion by asking why Ms. Sielecki had chosen a gambrel roof rather than a gable roof for the shed. Ms. Sielecki noted she liked the gambrel roof and noted a neighbor’s garage had a similar roofline.

Ms. Morris noted the gambrel roof looks more Colonial then the Victorian style of the house. Mr. Smith asked if Ms. Sielecki was wedded to keeping the gambrel style roof. He felt the gable roof was more standard. Ms. McCarthy noted the shed style should match the house as part of the Historic District criteria.

Ms. Berry questioned what types of doors would be placed on the shed. Ms. Sielecki indicated that the shed doors would be double doors and the style she chose a two paneled board and batten door with octagonal framing. Ms. Sielecki felt the plain board and batten doors look too much like a shed. Ms. Watts felt the doors chosen were the most agrarian. Ms. Watts pointed out a two panel rectangular framed door with hidden hinges might be more appropriate.

Ms. Sielecki asked the Commission to what extent the homeowner is allowed to choose aesthetics or if the aesthetics are completely left up to the Commission. Ms. Watts stated in trying to preserve the Historic District with items that are not original to the property, pressing functional needs have altered designs. Ms. Watts noted on the house there are not any gambrel forms and the more barn like designs detract from the house.

Ms. Sielecki asked the Commission if the roof of the shed should have a certain pitch. Ms. Berry noted the pitch to accessory structures is individual to the property depending upon the main house. Ms. Watts noted she would prefer a higher pitched roof. Ms. Sielecki noted the shed would have 7 foot walls so the pitch would be steep.

Ms. Berry stated the Commission’s charge is to keep the District as close as possible to the original. She questioned what style windows are proposed for the shed. Ms. Sielecki stated the windows would be double hung sash windows.

“Approve the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of a 10 foot by 16 foot T1-11 shed with 7 foot walls constructed by Shed U.S. Company, subject to the shed having a pitched gable roof, double batten board doors with two rectangular panels and concealed hinges as seen on page 10 of the Shed U.S. printout, and two double hung windows to be placed on the western elevation (rights side) of the shed.”

Ms. Lisa Abeles came before the Commission for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove an existing covered deck and stairs on the back of the house (east elevation) and to replace the porch with a new screened porch. Additional renovations include raising the rear ridgeline on the second story to accommodate a new bathroom, adding a new Marvin double hung window with wood shutters on the Homestead Road side of the house (north elevation), and to add three dormers: one on the north, south, and east elevations. Ms. Abeles also proposed to remove a portion of the concrete block wall along Homestead and to rebuild the wall to match the Cottage Street stonewall. She also proposes to add bluestone to the existing concrete front entrance stairs.

Ms. Berry began the Commission’s discussion by asking Ms. Abeles to discuss raising the ridgeline. Ms. Abeles stated the intent would be to raise the rear portion of the second story to match the main line of the house. Ms. Abeles pointed out an existing scalloped edge and noted she would keep the scalloping and would continue the trim around the house. Ms. Abeles stated the pitch of the roof would remain the same, but raising the area would increase the roof height so she could fit a 7’-3” ceiling in a new bathroom.

The Commission turned the discussion to the proposed porch. Ms. Abeles stated she would like to remove the existing porch, increase the area and screen the porch in. She stated the design would shift the windows of the porch so the overhang could end without hitting the scalloped trim. Ms. Abeles noted in the design she has kept the doors low enough to maintain the scallop shingle trim around the house. Ms. Abeles noted all of the screen trim is wood. The screen panels would be able to be interchanged with glass panels in the winter.

Ms. Abeles continued the discussion by noting she had created two alternatives for the dormers. She had designed both a hipped roof dormer and a gabled dormer. Ms. Abeles noted in the front of the house there is a hipped roof window, but on both long sides of the house there are gables, so she had difficulty deciding which style dormer was more aesthetically preferable.

Ms. Watts questioned if both designs are fitting Ms. Abeles’ preference. Ms. Berry noted the gable and hipped roof dormers make sense. Ms. Berry felt the Commission might be able to leave the style to Ms. Abeles’ discretion.

Ms. Abeles stated an additional improvement inclines the installation of a new window with shutters along the north elevation. Ms. Watts asked if the new window would lineup with the second story windows. Ms. Abeles noted there is a fireplace in plan view, but stated she would try and get the window as close as possible to aligning with the upper story windows. Ms. Abeles mentioned there were four locations on the house where the shutters are nailed to the house and stated the new shutters and the fixed shutters would be changed to be moveable.

The Commission asked Ms. Abeles to discuss her plans for the front stairs. Ms. Abeles stated the existing front stairs are concrete and that she has an existing bluestone patio. She would like to top the stairs with 2” bluestones. Ms. Abeles mentioned that if a rail is needed for the stairs she would hold off on the stairs and return to the Commission for review.

Ms. Abeles stated the remaining item of her proposal includes moving and improving the concrete wall along Homestead. Ms. Abeles noted her plans include pulling the wall out closer to Homestead to increase her side yard area and replacing the wall with a stonewall to match the existing wall along Cottage Street. Ms. Abeles stated if the budget allows she would also remove the existing railroad ties in her backyard and would replace them with a lesser expensive stonewall.

“Approve the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed renovations at 11 Cottage Street as submitted allowing the applicant to chose either the gable or hipped roof dormers pending discussions with her builder.”

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.