{Draft}

SPRINGFIELD HISTORICAL COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

Thursday, July 20, 2017 at 6:30 PM in City Hall Room 310
Present: Commissioners Murphy, Nardi, Rowe, S. Walsh, V. Walsh

I. ROLL CALL & PROCEDURES

II. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES

1) Meeting Minutes: June 15, 2017
BOARD VOTE
Voting for: Murphy, Nardi, S. Walsh
Voting against: None
Abstaining: Rowe, V. Walsh

III. TABLED ITEMS

1) None

IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS

1) 129 Westminster Street: Replacement windows
PROPONENTS
Nick Leigh, of Pine Point Property Management, addressed the Commission. Mr. Leigh
displayed to the Commission a window sample, as previously requested by the Commission.
He also displayed color options for the proposed window to the Commission.

Commissioner Murphy questioned the numbers sheet provided to the Commission, which
Mr. Leigh explained that the homeowner has researched the cost of replacement versus the
cost of repairing the existing windows. Mr. Leigh further explained that the cost to repair is
substantially higher than replacement.

Commissioner S. Walsh questioned if the homeowner researched reproduction windows,

which Mr. Leigh responded that he has had several window people come to the home to
offer their products. Commissioner S. Walsh further questioned if the homeowner had an
estimate for a window that would look more like the original than vinyl, which Mr. Leigh
responded that this was all the information they could compile in a small timeframe and that
it’s difficult to get window people to come by to pitch a product they probably won’t
purchase anyways.

Commissioner Murphy questioned if the proposed windows could be produced in a dark

color, which Mr. Leigh stated they could be as there are many shades available.

Commissioner Murphy questioned if the proposed windows could have a grid pattern on the
exterior, which Mr. Leigh responded that the window company can generate any type of
grid pattern to replicate what they currently have. Further, Mr. Leigh stated that many of
the windows did not have grid patterns and the few that did, only have a single bar coming
down the middle.

1
 {Draft}
Commissioner Murphy questioned what constituted the request for hardship, which Mr.
Leigh responded the lead in the windows as the homeowner has small kids.

Commissioner V. Walsh questioned if the homeowner had any other window options, which
Mr. Leigh responded that they had exhausted all options.

Commissioner Murphy questioned the cost of the proposed windows, which Mr. Leigh
responded $13,600 for the window replacement but around $19,000, if the windows are
stripped and repaired, also including the boarding of windows.

Mr. Leigh explained that there are a hand full of windows that are either missing a whole
sash or falling apart, especially in the front, in the second floor enclosed porch.
Commissioner Murphy agreed with the petitioner and added that the windows were not
original; however, they were still very old.

Commissioner Murphy read the guidelines for determining matters under the category of
hardship. Further he stated that the Commission is tasked with determining if the $3,000
difference is substantial enough to prove a financial hardship for a window that is
inappropriate. He then explained that the hardship could be solved by stripping the lead
paint and repairing them; however, the homeowner is set on replacing them.

Commissioner Murphy stated that the proposed windows, even in a dark color, are not in
keeping with the architectural style of the district.

Mr. Leigh stated that his client drives around the neighborhood and sees other replacement
windows and can’t understand why they cannot get theirs approved, which Commissioner
Murphy stated that those were done illegally and unfortunately, there isn’t enough staff to
drive around and monitor over 3,000 properties for illegal activity.

Mr. Leigh stated that he believes it’s hard for the average homeowner to understand where
the Commission is coming from, which Commissioner V. Walsh responded that he believes
the average homeowner does in fact understand the position of the Commission has they
have seen plenty of homeowners over the years going through this process. Further, he
stated that homeowners buy historic properties with the intentions of restoring them
appropriately.

Bruce Richardson, of 117 Westminster Street, addressed the Commission. Mr. Richardson
stated that he understands the role of the Commission to preserve the architecture and he
understands the proposed windows are not appropriate; however, he further stated that the
McKnight area in a whole is under a hardship. He then stated that folks are telling
homeowners that they can’t do this and they can’t do that; however, he does not see anyone
handing out tax breaks or money for repairs. Additionally, he stated that the average person
in the neighborhood will simply forego appearing before the Commission and simply choose
the cheapest option and replace because they do not want to go through what the petitioner
is going through today. He then stated that in essence, the Commission is not helping the
2
 {Draft}
neighborhood because maintaining these homes is too expensive. Furthermore, he would
like to know when the Commission will offer up some money as he needs to make some
repairs to his home.

OPPONENTS
No one was present to speak in opposition to this petition.

BOARD DISCUSSION
Commissioner Murphy made a motion, under the category of hardship, to approve the
replacement of 34 wood windows with dark colored vinyl replacements; seconded by
Commissioner S. Walsh.

Commissioner Nardi stated that from a production standpoint, this is probably one of the
better vinyl windows he has seen. He said it is relatively, well put together; however, that
doesn’t mean that it is appropriate. Further, he stated that from what he read, it is a steel
framed window, covered with vinyl.

Commissioner S. Walsh stated that other petitioners have come in and been approved for
more appropriate reproduction replacement windows, like tax credit projects that have to put
forth windows that are not the original windows. If they can’t repair them, they will usually
find windows that look similar to the originals.

Commissioner Murphy stated that the conundrum is that everyone wants to replace their
windows with vinyl because it’s cheaper and generally, the issue with the proposed window
is that the frame that the screen fits in protrudes.

Commissioner V. Walsh explained his observation that the proposed window has a much
thicker sash than the original. He further stated that there is a lot of vinyl compared to
actual glass.

Commissioner S. Walsh expressed that she understands the complaint that certain people are
getting away with inappropriate work; however, she stated that there are a number of people
that are doing the right thing.

Commissioner V. Walsh stated that wood windows actually last longer than vinyl ones;
however, most people don’t understand that. He pointed out that many of these homes have
windows that are over a century in age but vinyl windows might only last you about twenty
years. Further, he stated that this particular window proposed is not appropriate for the
house. Commissioner Murphy agreed.

Commissioner S. Walsh stated that the window guidelines and the previously approved
window list are online on the City’s website.

Commissioner V. Walsh then questioned if the petitioner has actually seen this list, which
Mr. Leigh responded that he has seen the list but has already gone through the process of
3
 {Draft}
having several window companies come by the house and he and the homeowner do not
want to continue the process, they simply want to replace the windows.

BOARD VOTE
Moved and seconded to approve the replacement of 34 wood windows with dark colored
vinyl replacements.
Voting for: None
Voting against: Murphy, Nardi, Rowe, S. Walsh, V. Walsh
Abstaining: None

*Commission made decision based on the petitioner failing to justify hardship claim.
Commission requested the petitioner to either repair the existing windows or find windows
that meet the appropriateness guidelines.

2) 108 School Street: Renovations to two chimneys

PROPONENTS
Denis Sirois, property manager of 108 School Street, Springfield, addressed the
Commission. Mr. Roy stated that the homeowner, Sumalee Monaco, lives in Connecticut
and has asked him to present on her behalf. He explained that Ms. Monaco acquired the
property when her husband passed away. He then stated that he nor Ms. Monaco are real
estate people but Ms. Monaco does own commercial and residential properties in
Connecticut. He further explained that there are no structural changes occurring to the
property other than the two chimneys. He then explained that they found out that they were
in a historic district when the contractor attempted to pull a building permit. He then stated
that of the two chimneys, only one is still functional for a fireplace. He then explained that
the home was originally a single family home but later was transitioned to a two-family
home, though he is not certain when the change occurred. He stated that the chimney
associated with the furnace will be repointed. He explained that the chimney going up the
rear of the home is associated with the fireplace. He stated that of the two chimneys, one is
located in the kitchen; another is located in a hallway. He then explained that while the
contractor was on the roof, he found that some of the slate was damaged and needed to be
replaced; therefore, they figured to save money on the project, about $2,500, by capping one
of the chimneys at the roofline. He stated that the non-functional fireplace would be the
chimney to be capped at the roofline.

Commissioner Nardi questioned what the chimney would be capped with, which Mr. Sirois
replied that he wasn’t sure of the material to be used but would accept whatever the
Commission would approve.

Commissioner Nardi then questioned what the reason was for lowering the chimney if it is
not being used, which Mr. Sirois responded because of the cost of other features that need to
be repaired.

Commissioner Nardi further questioned whether the contractor had stated that lowering and
capping the chimney would cost less than repointing, which Mr. Sirois replied that the
4
 {Draft}
chimney would have to be rebuilt.

Commissioner V. Walsh questioned if they could lower the chimney but still recreate the top
or would the chimney simply be squared off and capped, which Mr. Sirois responded that
they would accept whatever the Commission would approve.

Commissioner Murphy questioned the exterior location of the chimneys, which Mr. Sirois
replied that the fireplace chimney is located on the south-facing side of the home and the
furnace chimney is located centrally on the roof.

Commissioner Murphy questioned how visible the chimneys are from the street, which Mr.
Sirois responded that the chimneys are highly visible from the public way.

OPPONENTS
No one was present to speak in opposition to this petition.

BOARD DISCUSSION
Commissioner Murphy made a motion, under the category of hardship, to approve the
repointing of the central chimney and dismantling of the south-facing chimney down to the
roofline; seconded by Commissioner Rowe.

Commissioner Nardi stated that he is hopeful to amend the motion on the table. He stated
that he is happy that the detail of the chimney would not be removed, the recess and the
brick; however, he is concerned that if it is capped too close to the roof edge and there is not
enough space to properly flash the masonry, water will enter the chimney creating a mess.
Therefore, if the lowering of the chimney is to be allowed, it should not be lowered any less
than a foot above where the chimney intersects the roof. Commissioner S. Walsh
questioned if he was referring to a foot from the ridge, which Commissioner Nardi
confirmed.

Commissioner Murphy stated that he has no issues with capping the chimney as it is no
longer in use; however, he is not in favor of lowering the chimney as it is decorative in
design.

Commissioner Nardi stated that his issue with the petition is that he cannot believe that
reducing the height of the chimney, putting a cap on it, re-flashing, and all the other work
involved is less expensive than simply capping the top and repointing, which Mr. Sirois
stated that to demolish it and rebuild it to the same specifications would cost about $5,500.
Commissioner Nardi countered that the chimney appears to be structurally sound and
doesn’t understand why the chimney cannot simply be repointed, which Mr. Sirois stated he
was not sure of all the specifics regarding the structure of the chimney; however, he stated
that simply lowering and capping would cost about half as much as opposed to rebuilding.

Commissioner Nardi expressed that he hopes they are working with experienced brick layers
for this job because a brick layer that sees the corbeling effect on the top of the chimney
5
 {Draft}
would more than likely prefer to keep it.

Commissioner Murphy made light of the fact that the gentleman in front of them petitioning
is not the same person as who the homeowner gave permission to speak on behalf of the
petition so he stated that the Commission should probably table the matter. He then
questioned if the gentleman whose name is on the letter, Vladimir Bondar, is actually the
mason for the project, which Mr. Sirois confirmed. Commissioner Murphy then questioned
if it is possible for the mason to come before the Commission because he feels that maybe
the mason understands the scope of work better and can explain in depth why the structure
can’t simply be repointed. Mr. Sirois stated that he would ask the homeowner to have the
contractor present, and then he further stated that he has actually never spoken with the
contractor.

Commissioner V. Walsh apologized to the petitioner for taking up his time, as he did not
realize that the petitioner was not the one listed to speak on behalf of the homeowner.
Commissioner V. Walsh added the Commission cannot render a decision without someone
who is authorized to speak on behalf of the homeowner. Mr. Sirois stated that he should be
able to, as he is the property manager, which Commissioner V. Walsh countered that the
Commission would still need a letter of authorization.

Commissioner Murphy chimed in and stated that in the past, the Commission has allowed
people to come back with a letter of authorization. Further, he stated that there needs to be
more information regarding the conditions of the chimneys and why one needs to be leveled
and capped. Additionally, he went on to say that if both chimneys can simply be repointed,
then the application would fall under the category of non-applicability, not requiring a
hearing.

Commissioner Nardi stated that per the information submitted it appears as though the
chimney they want to repoint is in worse shape than the one they want to take down;
therefore, the one they want to take down must be cheaper to repoint. Additionally,
Commissioner Nardi questioned what exactly he was going to repoint with and what color
would the mortar be, which Mr. Sirois stated that he was not sure.

Commissioner Murphy stated that he would retract his motion. Commissioner V. Walsh
questioned if he would render another motion, which Commissioner Murphy stated it would
probably be better to simply continue the matter, although he stated that he could probably
make a motion for the chimney that they simply want to repoint.

Commissioner Murphy made a new motion, under the category of non-applicability, to

approve the repointing of the central chimney with the mortar color to match the historic
appearance; seconded by Commissioner S. Walsh.

Commissioner V. Walsh stated that if during the process of repointing, they realize there
should be structural changes needed, they should come back before the Commission.

6
 {Draft}
BOARD VOTE
Moved and seconded to allow a Certificate of Non-Applicability for the repointing of the
central chimney with the mortar color to match the historic appearance.
Voting for: Murphy, Nardi, Rowe, S. Walsh, V. Walsh
Voting against: None
Abstaining: None

* The matter of the petition for the second chimney to be lowered and capped was continued
for additional information to be gathered from the mason/contractor.

3) 173 Westminster Street: Reinstallation of front and side porches.

PROPONENTS
Paul Yusenko, of AAD, LLC, Chicopee, MA, addressed the Commission. Mr. Yusenko
explained that he is trying to restore porches to the front and side of the home. He then
explained that when his group took over the property, there were no porches or stairs present
along the front or side of the home.

Commissioner Murphy stated that he is familiar with the home; however, he does not have a
recollection of the appearance of the former porches, nor does he have any available photos
to go by. Additionally, he stated that the submitted renderings don’t really accurately
display the relation of the porches on the house.

Mr. Yusenko displayed some photos he had in his possession displaying the house with the
former porches intact to the Commission.

Further, Mr. Yusenko explained that they are withdrawing their proposal to remove the
chimney and they will come back before the Commission, at a later date, regarding the front
and side porch renovations.

Commissioner Murphy questioned if it was the intent of the petitioner to restore the porches
to what was there previously, which Mr. Yusenko confirmed and added that he wanted to
use pressure treated wood. Commissioner Murphy questioned where he wanted to use the
pressure treated wood, which Mr. Yusenko responded that he would use the pressure treated
wood for the framing of the porches.

Commissioner V. Walsh questioned the material of the other features of the porch, which
Mr. Yusenko replied that he would use Trex flooring which is a material that looks like
wood and he would match the color of the previous porch floor. Commissioner V. Walsh
stated that they would want to see a porch, not a simple deck being installed.

Commissioner Murphy questioned if there would be rounded columns installed, which Mr.
Yusenko confirmed there would be.

Commissioner V. Walsh stated that the Commission is going to need more information,
particularly a list of materials and pictures, to render a decision; Commissioner Murphy
7
 {Draft}
agreed.

Commissioner Murphy stated that he does not believe Trex manufactures or sells tongue and
groove flooring but offered the petitioner could research this. He also offered for the
petitioner to review the 1939 photograph to understand what is appropriate.

OPPONENTS
No one was present to speak in opposition to this petition.

BOARD DISCUSSION
The Commission decided to continue the petition for the front and side porch installation to
allow for the petitioner to provide a list of materials as well as a more detailed elevation
plan, displaying the true appearance of the new porch.

BOARD VOTE
As the Commission has requested for additional information to be provided for a later
meeting date, no vote was taken.

V. PRESERVATION OF HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT BUILDINGS

1) 15-17 Broad Street (including 20 Elmwood Street and 22 Elmwood Street): Part of
redevelopment project in South End.
PROPONENTS
Jim Demos, representing Balise Automotive Realty, addressed the Commission. Mr. Demos
explained that his group is continuing a quest to clean-up the South End and hopefully
implement a major project in the near future to make everyone happy, especially the tax
payers. He then explained that 20 Elmwood Street was City owned and boarded up, which
they acquired from the City. He then added that 22 Elmwood Street was owned by a Mr.
Marsh, who recently passed away, and the home has been vacant ever since. Further, he
explained that he did not have any pictures of the interiors but he has been through the
buildings and he believes there is nothing significant about the structures in terms of historic
values. He then stated that 15-17 Broad Street is very modern, as well as the exterior has
been renovated; however, the interior is not finished. He added that finishing the interior
would cost about $100,000. He further stated that he offered up the property to the City as
well as the South End Citizens Council but he has not received any offers.

Commissioner Murphy questioned if these were the last houses left on either street, which
Mr. Demos confirmed they were, and added, there would only be commercial buildings left.

Commissioner Murphy questioned if the petitioner could share any information regarding
the major project the petitioner had referred to, which Mr. Demos replied that everything is
only conceptual right now. He went on to state that there could be anything from a hotel,
apartments, or even another car dealership.

Commissioner Murphy stated that he is not concerned about these particular houses;
however, is larger concern is that Main Street buildings will be knocked over for the likes of
8
 {Draft}
a Hampton Inn with a sea of parking.

Mr. Demos explained that his group does not have a specific development plan at the
moment.

Commissioner Murphy stated that the only house of the three that was surveyed was the
Broad Street property. He added that the properties did not seem to have any significant
historic history. Further he stated that the properties don’t really contribute significantly to
the area because the area has already been paved over, in his opinion.

OPPONENTS
No one was present to speak in opposition to this petition.

BOARD DISCUSSION
Commissioner Murphy made a motion to approve the waiver of the 9-month demolition
delay period; seconded by Commissioner Nardi.

BOARD VOTE
Moved and seconded to allow the waiver of the 9-month demolition delay period.
Voting for: Murphy, Nardi, S. Walsh, V. Walsh
Voting against: Rowe
Abstaining: None

2) 20 Elmwood Street: Part of redevelopment project in South End.

PROPONENTS
See comments above from the 15-17 Broad Street petition.

OPPONENTS
See comments above from the 15-17 Broad Street petition.

BOARD DISCUSSION
See comments above from the 15-17 Broad Street petition.

BOARD VOTE
Moved and seconded to allow the waiver of the 9-month demolition delay period.
Voting for: Murphy, Nardi, S. Walsh, V. Walsh
Voting against: Rowe
Abstaining: None

3) 22 Elmwood Street: Part of redevelopment project in South End.

PROPONENTS
See comments above from the 15-17 Broad Street petition.

OPPONENTS
See comments above from the 15-17 Broad Street petition.
9
 {Draft}

BOARD DISCUSSION
See comments above from the 15-17 Broad Street petition.

BOARD VOTE
Moved and seconded to allow the waiver of the 9-month demolition delay period.
Voting for: Murphy, Nardi, S. Walsh, V. Walsh
Voting against: Rowe
Abstaining: None

VI. OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY BEFORE THE COMMISSION

1) Letter of Support: Mr. Roger Roberge addressed the Commission regarding a request
for tax credits. He explained that he is seeking tax credits for the redevelopment of a
block of six row houses between 174 and 184 Maple Street. Additionally, he explained
that he is working on a property across the street, 169 Maple Street.

Moved and seconded to provide a letter of support for historic tax credits for 174, 176, 178,
180, 182, 184 Maple Street.
Voting for: Nardi, Rowe, S. Walsh, V. Walsh
Voting against: None
Abstaining: S. Walsh

Moved and seconded to provide a letter of support for historic tax credits for 169 Maple
Street.
Voting for: Nardi, Rowe, S. Walsh, V. Walsh
Voting against: None
Abstaining: S. Walsh

2) Certified Local Government: No new updates to discuss.

3) Community Outreach: Commissioner Murphy explained that he had a discussion with
MGM representatives regarding historic signage and placards.
4) Outdoor Mechanical Equipment Guidelines: Commissioner Murphy suggested with
the approval of the new Apremont Triangle Local Historic District, the Commission
should consider revamping the guidelines in conjunction.
5) New guidelines: Commissioner Murphy suggested with the approval of the new
Apremont Triangle Local Historic District, the Commission should consider revamping
the guidelines in conjunction.
6) Preservation Restrictions: The Commission discussed with Mr. Roberge about the
status of preservation restrictions attached to his properties.
7) Noncompliance: The Commission discussed the procedures of non-compliant matters as
well as the status of 3 Sumner Avenue and 79 Thompson Street.
8) MGM Springfield: Commissioner Murphy stated that the matter of MGM and their
involvement with 13-31 Elm Street came up at the City Council meeting earlier in the
week. He further stated that there were a few City Councilors who voiced their
opinions and were not happy about having a parking lot on the corner of State and Main
10
 {Draft}
Streets. He concluded that MGM made it clear that it was not their project.
9) Public Speak Out: No discussion occurred.

Meeting was adjourned.

x_______________________________________ __________________________
Vincent Walsh, Chairman Date

11