Architectural Commission Approves Same Sign for Two Charles St Locations

The Beacon Hill Architectural Commission faced an unusual quandary at City Hall during its Oct. 18 hearing when an applicant proposed installing two identical signs at storefronts only two doors apart at 122 and 126 Charles St., respectively.

Amanda Pratt of Salon intends to add two wood-blade signs made from Spanish cedar and measuring 30-by-30 inches in front of both locations of what she described as a “contemporary design gallery featuring avant-garde furniture” and highlighting the work of today’s female designers. The commission approved the application by a vote of 4-1-0, with the caveat that both signs be hung at the same height.

In another matter continued from its Sept. 20 hearing, the commission approved by a vote of 4-1-0 an application from the homeowner of 79 West Cedar St. to install a 3-by-2-foot American flag on the second story of the building, with the proviso that the applicant outline specific details of the proposal.

Sean P. Cryts, speaking on the applicant’s behalf, said the applicant and his wife became U.S. citizens about four months ago, and they want to commemorate this milestone with the flag installation.

Meanwhile, the commission was unable to resolve a violation continued from the Sept. 20 hearing for 60 Chestnut St.

The applicant, John Holland of the Boston commercial and residential development firm Holland Companies, said work on the single-family home includes the installation of a railing on the rooftop deck on the rear garage and two HVAC condensers on the garage roof, as well as proposed, temporary mesh-screening in front of the equipment.

Holland said the city had previously issued a certificate of appropriateness for the deck, although he couldn’t provide the commission with this documentation.

Kenneth Taylor, commission chair, countered, “You built a new roof-deck that was 12 inches higher than was approved. You added condensers, added the structure, set the railing back and put in planters without approval.”

Taylor said the commission would reschedule another hearing when the applicant could produce more documentation, including the “certificate of approval for the project that didn’t get built.”

Taylor also advised Holland that the matter needed to be resolved in a timely manner “or there would be other issues to deal with.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.