{Draft}

SPRINGFIELD HISTORICAL COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

Thursday, November 16, 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) None

III. TABLED ITEMS

1) None

IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS

1) 37 George Street: Several alterations to home
PROPONENTS
No one was present to speak in favor of this petition.

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

BOARD DISCUSSION
Commissioner Murphy made a motion, under the category of appropriateness, to approve
the replacement of twenty wood windows with new wood windows, replacement and
expansion of the rear porch to accommodate parking underneath, installation of staircase to
rear porch, replacement of wood handrails to front and side porch, covering of side door
with clapboard siding, and addition of new window; seconded by Commissioner (inaudible).

BOARD VOTE
Moved and seconded to allow a Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of twenty
wood windows with new wood windows, replacement and expansion of the rear porch to
accommodate parking underneath, installation of staircase to rear porch, replacement of
wood handrails to front and side porch, covering of side door with clapboard siding, and
addition of new window.
Voting for: None
Voting against: Murphy, Nardi, S. Walsh, V. Walsh
Abstaining: Rowe

*Commissioner Murphy suggested that the petitioner reapply due to their inability to appear
1
 {Draft}

and the lack of sufficient information.

2) 90 Clarendon Street: Erect two-car garage

PROPONENTS
Marie Norgaisse, of 90 Clarendon Street, Springfield, addressed the Commission. Ms.
Norgaisse stated that she would like to erect a two door garage. She then explained that the
right façade of the garage would have a window and the left façade would have both a
window and a door.

Commissioner V. Walsh questioned what the dimensions of the garage would be, which Ms.
Norgaisse answered twenty-four feet by twenty-four feet.

Commissioner V. Walsh added to the record that Commissioner Nardi had entered the
meeting quorum.

Commissioner V. Walsh questioned if the garage would be attached or detached from the
home, which Ms. Norgaisse answered that the garage would be detached from the home.

Commissioner V. Walsh questioned if the carriage house from the 1939 photograph was still
present, which Commissioner Murphy answered that the carriage house has been long gone.
Ms. Norgaisse added that the carriage house had burned down.

Commissioner Murphy questioned if the petitioner had a builder in place to build the garage
as specified in the presented plans, which Ms. Norgaisse confirmed that she does have a
contractor.

Commissioner Rowe read from the application that the max ridge height would be fifteen
feet from the front floor level, minimum eight feet, which Ms. Norgaisse explained that
roofline would begin at eight feet but the peak of the roof would reach fifteen feet.

Commissioner V. Walsh commented that what the petitioner was proposing was a very
standard garage with standard dimensions and design.

Commissioner Murphy questioned what type of siding the garage would have, which Ms.
Norgaisse answered that the siding would be wood.

Commissioner Murphy then questioned if the wood would be painted, which Ms. Norgaisse
confirmed it would be painted the same color as the home.
2
 {Draft}

Commissioner V. Walsh questioned the Commission if anyone had any apprehensions to the
design of the garage doors as they were being presented, which Commissioner Murphy
commented he might have a slight issue but then questioned the location of the footprint of
the garage, which Ms. Norgaisse explained the general location rear of the home.

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

BOARD DISCUSSION
Commissioner Murphy made a motion, under the category of appropriateness, to approve
the construction of a two car garage, as presented; seconded by Commissioner Rowe.

Commissioner Nardi questioned if the dimensions of the wood clapboard siding would
match the house, which Ms. Norgaisse confirmed it would.

Commissioner Murphy clarified for the other Commissioners that the lot is on the corner of
Buckingham Street and Clarendon Street and its dimensions are in the shape of an obtuse
angle so one side of the garage would be highly visible from Buckingham Street.

Commissioner Murphy questioned how far the garage would be from the main house
structure, which Ms. Norgaisse answered that the garage would be five feet from the rear
property line in the same footprint as the former carriage house.

Commissioner Nardi questioned if the petitioner’s contractor checked that the garage’s
setbacks, as proposed, would meet the City’s zoning requirements, which Commissioner V.
Walsh commented that zoning requirements are out of the Commission’s hands and their
approvals are contingent upon the petitioner also receiving the necessary building permits,
which would trigger a check of the proper setbacks by a building inspector.

Commissioner Murphy stated that he was not sure if this petition should fall under hardship,
which Commissioner S. Walsh chimed in that the petitioner wouldn’t be able to replicate the
former carriage house and the proposed garage is not appropriate to the site.

Commissioner Murphy amended his original motion and made a new motion, under the
category of hardship, to approve the construction of a two car garage with wood siding to
match the reveal of the main home structure, as presented. The hardship is proven in this
case due to the original structure burning down and would be cost prohibitive to reproduce;
3
 {Draft}

seconded by Commissioner Nardi.

BOARD VOTE
Moved and seconded to allow a Certificate of Hardship for the construction of a two car
garage with wood siding to match the reveal of the main home structure, as presented.
Voting for: Murphy, Nardi, Rowe, S. Walsh, V. Walsh
Voting against: None
Abstaining: None

3) 263-267 Central Street: Installation of fencing

PROPONENTS
Kathleen Lingenburg, of Viva Development, 50 Clayton Street, Springfield, addressed the
Commission. Ms. Lingenburg explained that her group is currently redeveloping the
property and during the course of the redevelopment, Eversource Energy determined there
was inadequate infrastructure to bring utilities into the structure. She explained that they
had already performed infrastructure work and placed a pad for a transformer, as requested
by Eversource Energy, only to find out that Eversource changed their plans because they
wanted the property to provide enough voltage to service a three block radius. She added
that her group had to retrench the area, give Eversource Energy a new easement, and give
them a different pad for the transformer. She further stated that following this work, they
were told by Eversource Energy that they needed to remove the fencing around the easement
area to provide them access. Ms. Lingenburg then stated that her group researched how to
fence the area for their tenant’s safety and compliance with Eversource Energy by reviewing
properties across the City of Springfield in various historic districts to see how other groups
like FirstResource fenced their properties. She then explained that the pitch of the new
sidewalk, surrounding their building, lets the water drain against their building foundation,
which is where you would normally have grass, there is only concrete. She then stated that
it was their plan to replicate First Resource, with similar plantings surrounding their
building. She also stated that their proposed plan should beautify the property as well as
prevent folks from kicking in their basement windows, which has been a problem.

Commissioner Murphy questioned locations of the proposed fencing, which Ms. Lingenburg
explained to the Commission using visuals.

Commissioner Nardi questioned if Eversource Energy would allow a fence on their

easement, if provided a key, which Ms. Lingenburg replied that she doesn’t believe it was an
option.

4
 {Draft}

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

BOARD DISCUSSION
Commissioner Murphy made a motion, under the category of appropriateness, to approve
the installation of a three foot fence around the property foundation to allow for plantings
and security; seconded by Commissioner Rowe.

Commissioner Murphy stated that he is fine with guarding apartment buildings right up
against the sidewalk with a fence as it is a different circumstance than homes in the district
where front yards are a prominent feature that he would prefer not to block off with fences.

Commissioner Nardi questioned the height of the proposed fence to be installed, which Ms.
Lingenburg stated they would be three feet in height.

BOARD VOTE
Moved and seconded to allow a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of a three
foot fence around the property foundation to allow for plantings and security.
Voting for: Murphy, Nardi, Rowe, S. Walsh, V. Walsh
Voting against: None
Abstaining: None

4) 173 Westminster Street: Rebuild original porches, front and rear

PROPONENTS
Paul Yusenko, of AAD LLC, Chicopee, MA, addressed the Commission. Mr. Yusenko
presented a visual plan of the proposed work along with a list of materials to the
Commission. He explained that his group poured four sonotubes in the front, with framing
consisting of six by six posts on the sonotubes, two by eight framing, three inch red oak for
the floor decking, and round PVC columns to replicate the size and design of the 1939
photograph.

Commissioner Murphy questioned if the flooring was tongue and groove, which Mr.
Yusenko confirmed that it was.

Using visuals, Mr. Yusenko explained how he would rebuild the lattice as well as railing.

Commissioner V. Walsh questioned if the railing would match the window sill height, which
Mr. Yusenko confirmed that it would.
5
 {Draft}

Mr. Yusenko also stated that he would use two by fours for the top and bottom rails with
two by two inch square spindles. Further, he stated that he would use a one by eight board
for the lattice.

Commissioner Murphy questioned if there is still a side section to the porch, which Mr.
Yusenko stated that it is still there but has become a part of an enclosed interior room.

The Commission and petitioner deliberated over a discrepancy between the presented plan
and visuals of the existing design of the structure.

Mr. Yusenko then explained that the posts would be pressure treated wood with rounded
fiberglass casings. He added that the stair handrails would be a black pipe speed rail.

Commissioner Murphy questioned what the height of the rails would be, which Mr.
Yusenko responded that they would be thirty-two inches in height. Commissioner Murphy
then questioned the building code for railing height, which Commissioner Nardi commented
that building code requires a height exceeding what the petitioner is proposing, and Mr.
Yusenko responded that the code required forty-two inches.

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

BOARD DISCUSSION
Commissioner Murphy made a motion, under the category of appropriateness, to approve
the rebuilding of the front and side porches to replicate the 1939 photograph, using
fiberglass columns, speed rail for stair handrails, and for the height of the railing not to
exceed thirty-two inches; seconded by Commissioner Rowe.

BOARD VOTE
Moved and seconded to allow a Certificate of Appropriateness for the rebuilding of the front
and side porches to replicate the 1939 photograph, using fiberglass columns, speed rail for
stair handrails, and for the height of the railing not to exceed thirty-two inches.
Voting for: Murphy, Nardi, Rowe, S. Walsh, V. Walsh
Voting against: None
Abstaining: None

5) 122 Chestnut Street: Several exterior renovations

6
 {Draft}

PROPONENTS
Tom Greco (Director of Construction), of The Silverbrick Group, 122 Chestnut Street,
Springfield, addressed the Commission. Mr. Greco explained that they would be adding a
glass stainless steel and black steel canopy at both the Chestnut Street and Hillman Street
entrances. He explained that they are proposing a curved canopy at the Chestnut Street
entrance to match the curved transom above the front door. Additionally, he stated that
they are looking to reactivate that doorway to make it an entrance again. He then stated that
the canopies they are proposing would be a replica of what they installed at the nearby
Silverbrick Lofts, which the only difference will be that they are curved to match the
transoms. Further, he added that other installations would include a horizontal sign at the
corner of Chestnut and Hillman Street, which the dimensions would be five feet off the face
of the building, four feet long by two feet six inches high. He added that the sign material
will be brush aluminum with black lettering to mimic the nearby Silverbrick Lofts. He then
stated that the sign would project off the building beginning at about one and a half stories
high. He then described two flush mounted signs, which they are proposing to locate one
on the corner of the building along the Chestnut Street façade, nearby the adjacent parking
lot; the other sign would be placed on the rear of the building, facing the attached parking
garage. He added that both signs would be about a third of a story up high. He then
described the signs as being brush aluminum with raised black letters. He then proposed
replacing the existing storefront doors at the Hillman Street entrance with better operating
doors. Additionally, he proposed replacing the Chestnut Street doors as they are
non-operational and completely locked and closed off with a fire exit only sign. Further, he
explained that they are seeking to install lights on either side of the Hillman Street and
Chestnut Street entrance doors.

Commissioner V. Walsh questioned if they were proposing up and down lighting, which Mr.
Greco replied that he is researching if the City of Springfield will expand their lighting
program beyond Main Street, and if in fact the program is expanded, the City prefers the up
and down lighting.

Commissioner Murphy stated that there are already light fixtures on the building and
questioned why the petitioners wouldn’t simply reuse those, which Mr. Greco responded
that they would like to mimic them, although they are not working; however, they hope to
get them working again, if possible. Mr. Greco further answered that he has tried to reach
out to the owner regarding the status of the lights but has received little to no response other
than mention of the previous renovation of the building occurring in the early 1980’s.

Commissioner Murphy questioned why the petitioners are proposing such a drastically
7
 {Draft}

different light fixture than what exists, rather than searching for something similar, which
Mr. Greco replied that the proposed light fixture is what The Silverbrick Group’s owner
requested; however, he has no problem with repairing or mimicking the existing lights.

Commissioner Murphy stated that with the Chestnut Street entrance, it appears to be a
traditional style paneled door with a transom. He further stated that with the proposed
plans, it appears as though the transom will remain the same but the door design will be
severely altered. He then questioned why the petitioners would not simply repair the door
or replace with a replica, which Mr. Greco answered that the door is not repairable and
should they replace the door with a replica, it may be cost prohibitive but they will research
the matter. Commissioner Murphy then stated his opinion that the door did not seem like a
complex door, which Mr. Greco replied that it is an entrance that will get a lot of use and he
wants to make sure he will install a door that will last.

Commissioner Murphy questioned the placement of the sign on the corner and why the
petitioner chose that particular location, which Mr. Greco responded that as his team drove
around the building, they felt that a lower scale walking sign along Chestnut Street would be
appropriate because the sign would be noticeable from various intersecting avenues and a
higher sign would be inappropriate as they want to use the sign to capture the people
walking along the street. Commissioner Murphy questioned where the other sign would be,
which Mr. Greco confirmed it would be on the opposite side of the building, three stories
high, between the building and the parking garage.

Mr. Greco stated that they were proposing planters along the public way and questioned if
these features would come under the jurisdiction of the Commission, which Commissioner
Murphy stated that per their guidelines, they do not control landscaping.

Commissioner V. Walsh questioned about the proposed plan to cut new windows into the
building, mimicking the design and dimensions of existing windows, for means of egress,
which Mr. Greco replied that they are adding fifteen new units into the basement and
therefore are proposing to add two new windows, to be located on Hillman Street.

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

BOARD DISCUSSION
Commissioner Murphy made a motion, under the category of appropriateness, to approve
the installation of two canopies, as proposed; the installation of three new signs, as
8
 {Draft}

proposed; the installation of a new door at the Hillman Street entrance; and, the installation
of two new windows, in new locations along the Hillman Street façade; seconded by
Commissioner Rowe.

Commissioner Nardi commented that he has a concern of one of the signs located on the
curved area of the building, which is four feet wide and hanging an additional foot off of the
building. Following deliberation between Commissioners, they came to the conclusion that
they were not all that concerned.

BOARD VOTE
Moved and seconded to allow a Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of two
canopies, as proposed; the installation of three new signs, as proposed; the installation of a
new door at the Hillman Street entrance; and, the installation of two new windows, in new
locations along the Hillman Street façade.
Voting for: Murphy, Nardi, Rowe, S. Walsh, V. Walsh
Voting against: None
Abstaining: None

*The proposed Chestnut Street door, repair or replacement, and the installation of new
exterior lights were continued to be discussed at an upcoming meeting date.

6) 117 Florida Street: Replacement windows and installation of handicap ramp

PROPONENTS
Iris Garcia, of 117 Florida Street, Springfield, and her interpreter addressed the Commission.
Ms. Garcia explained that she applied for hardship to replace the windows as the wood had
been rotting and it was very cold in the house so she went ahead and replaced them. She
also went ahead and installed the handicap access ramp for her handicapped daughter, which
she supplied proof that she had permissions from the City’s Building Department to install
the ramp. She then explained that after the work was performed, she was alerted that she
needed to have the work approved by the Historical Commission.

Commissioner Murphy stated that it appears that a permit was issued for the handicap access
ramp, which other Commissioners acknowledged.

Ms. Garcia stated that a storm last week brought tree branches down, which damaged the
ramp so now she must make repairs to the ramp.

Commissioner Murphy stated that the Commission does not hold homeowners back from
9
 {Draft}

building handicap access ramps, as they are a necessity; however, the Commission simply
wants to weigh in on their design. He then explained that it appears that a permit was
already issued by the City, which is not how the process is supposed to work but it was an
error by the City not to forward the matter to the Historical Commission for prior approval.
He then explained that the Commission tries to render a swift decision; therefore, not to
delay homeowners in desperate need and the Commission typically only allows handicap
ramps on a temporary basis. By allowing ramps on a temporary basis, they ensure the ramp
is only present for the duration of the individual whom requires it; therefore, if the home is
sold, the ramp should be removed.

Commissioner Murphy questioned if the windows had already been replaced, which Ms.
Garcia confirmed it had been.

Commissioner Murphy questioned how many windows were replaced, which Ms. Garcia
replied about thirty windows on the second and third floor; however, she does want to
replace the first floor windows as well.

Ms. Garcia explained that the price difference between wood and vinyl windows were that
the vinyl windows were approximately $450 cheaper than the wood version. She further
explained that the vinyl windows that she went with cost her just over $200 per window.

Commissioner Murphy explained that window salesmen are really good at persuading
people to replace their windows, when a homeowner can simply repair their windows, at a
fraction of the cost of replacement. He added that the petitioner would get better efficiency
out of repairing her wood windows and adding energy efficient storm windows than
replacing her windows with cheap vinyl replacements.

Ms. Garcia questioned if her first floor windows are rotted and damaged, would she be able
to replace them, which Commissioner Murphy stated that it would be up to the Commission
to determine if the windows are damaged beyond repair by seeing visual evidence, either
through pictures or a site visit.

Commissioner V. Walsh questioned who did the work of replacing the windows on the
second and third floor, which Ms. Garcia responded she ordered the windows from ABC but
had a relative install the windows.

Commissioner Murphy stated that a permit is supposed to be pulled for that type of work.

10
 {Draft}

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
installation of a temporary handicap access ramp and side entry door, as presented, with
conditions that the ramp shall be painted, and the door shall be painted a dark color;
seconded by Commissioner Rowe.

Commissioner Murphy made a motion, under the category of hardship, to approve the
installation of white vinyl windows on the second and third floor; seconded by
Commissioner Rowe.

Commissioner Nardi questioned if the Commission should take a site visit to inspect the
windows, which other Commissioners responded that they have already been replaced.
Commissioner Nardi then stated that it may still be worthwhile to inspect the window
replacements.

Commissioner V. Walsh questioned if they should stipulate the replacement windows be

painted a dark color. He then stated that the original windows were a one-over-one pattern
which the petitioner replicated.

Commissioner Murphy explained to the petitioner that per the Commission’s window
guidelines, they require windows to be of a dark color, especially when dealing with vinyl
windows, which come in prefabricated colors. He further explained that the windows were
of a dark color, historically.

Ms. Garcia explained that other homes in the neighborhood have white colored windows,
which Commissioner Murphy replied that the not all windows replaced in the neighborhood
were done so legally with approvals from the Historical Commission.

Commissioner Murphy stated that the Commission could deny the proposal then come up
with some sort of remediation plan, as they have in the past.

Commissioner Nardi stated that it appears they were not awarded a permit to alter the
windows, which Commissioner V. Walsh chimed in that the permit approval was only for
the ramp.

11
 {Draft}

Commissioner V. Walsh stated that the hardship is real; however, you cannot create a
hardship to get what you want.

Commissioner Murphy stated that the Commission would allow the petitioner to paint the
replaced windows as a remediation to the unapproved windows. Commissioner V. Walsh
added that only the windows that could be seen from a public-way needed to be painted.
Commissioner Murphy explained that if the petitioner agrees to paint the windows, then the
Commission could extend a reasonable timeframe to complete the work.

Ms. Garcia questioned if she could paint the windows a beige color to match the first floor
windows, which after deliberation by the Commission, they conferred that a beige exterior
color would be sufficient.
Commissioner Murphy made a motion to allow the homeowner to paint the white vinyl
replacement windows on the second and third floor to match the beige trim color to
remediate the replacement windows within the next ten months; seconded by Commissioner
Rowe.

BOARD VOTE
Moved and seconded to allow a Certificate of Hardship for the installation of a temporary
handicap access ramp and side entry door, as presented, with conditions that the ramp shall
be painted, and the door shall be painted a dark color.
Voting for: Murphy, Nardi, Rowe, S. Walsh, V. Walsh
Voting against: None
Abstaining: None

*The temporary approval is contingent upon the homeowner removing the handicap access
ramp prior to sale and transfer of ownership of the property.

Moved and seconded to allow a Certificate of Hardship for the installation of white vinyl
windows on the second and third floor.
Voting for: None
Voting against: Murphy, Nardi, Rowe, S. Walsh, V. Walsh
Abstaining: None

Moved and seconded to allow the remediation of the unapproved white vinyl replacement
windows to be painted a beige color on the exterior to match the window trim color. The
windows shall be painted within ten months of the meeting date.
Voting for: Murphy, Nardi, Rowe, S. Walsh, V. Walsh
12
 {Draft}

Voting against: None

Abstaining: None

V. PRESERVATION OF HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT BUILDINGS

1) None

VI. OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY BEFORE THE COMMISSION

1) Non-Applicability (37 George Street): No discussion occurred as petitioner not
present.
2) 133 Longhill Street: Mr. Joseph Marois, of Marois Construction Company, South
Hadley, MA, Bill Spires, Founder and President of Springfield Prep Charter School, and
Kelvin Molina, Vice Chairman of Partners for a Healthier Community, addressed the
Commission. Mr. Marois explained that the Springfield Prep Charter School is seeking
to purchase the Melha Shrine building 133 Longhill Street as the Shriners organization
has diminished over the course of time; however, they will maintain residence at the site
until they decide on what they will do with their organization. He then explained that
they are proposing to construct an addition, as shown on a plan displayed to the
Commission, for the proposed charter school. Mr. Marois then displayed to the
Commission, using visuals, the concepts of their exterior design plans and particular
uses of portions of the building overall. Additionally, he explained, again using visuals,
the portions of the property that were zoned either in a residential zone or business zone.
He then went on to explain that as part of the project, two houses along Warner Street
would need to be demolished for the project.

Commissioner Murphy warned that any proposed demolitions in that area would most
likely trigger the City’s Demo Delay Ordinance, which Mr. Marois questioned the
specifics of the ordinance. Commissioner Murphy explained that; although the two
properties may not be located within a local historic district, they are more than likely
over one hundred years of age, which is what triggers the Demo Delay Ordinance.

Commissioner V. Walsh then explained that that the demolition delay period lasts for
nine months unless the Commission awards a waiver. He then went on to explain that
this mechanism is in place for the Commission to seek alternatives and potentially save
structures, if possible.

Mr. Marois explained that the buildings are falling down and they have a deadline of
August 2018 to complete the project and get the school up and running, which
Commissioner V. Walsh chimed in that the timetable seems very ambitious.
13
 {Draft}

Commissioner Murphy questioned what the rationale is for putting an addition, which
will block the front elevation of the existing historic building, which Mr. Marois
contended that the front entrance is located on the side of the building. Commissioner
S. Walsh then chimed in that the front elevation, regardless if it contains the main
entrance is still the most visually exposed portion of the building from Longhill Street.

Commissioner Murphy stated that he is concerned with the placement of the addition
and questioned if the addition can be positioned elsewhere on the property besides the
front of the existing building, which Mr. Marois stated that they tried moving the
building around the property in preliminary designs; however, this was the only
placement that made sense.

Commissioner Murphy questioned if they have engineering reports that would suggest or
confirm the building could not be placed elsewhere on the lot, which Mr. Marois replied
that they did have reports that led to their conclusion.

Commissioner Murphy stated that he assumes they are looking for an informal
discussion, as they are not on the agenda for a public hearing, which Mr. Marois
responded that they just wanted to alert the Commission that they are prepared to move
the project forward in the very near future.

Commissioner Nardi questioned if the addition could be built into the rear as there is a
downward slope that would allow the building to disappear from view, which Mr.
Marois stated this was not possible because they would have to dig forty feet into the
earth to accomplish this.

Commissioner V. Walsh stated that as the plans have been displayed, the existing
building would essentially be hidden by the addition, which other Commissioners
agreed. Commissioner Murphy then displayed the historic front door of the property,
using the 1939 photograph, reiterating that the current entrance is just a side entrance;
therefore, insisting that the proposed addition will block the original building entrance.

Commissioner S. Walsh applauded the ideas for reuse of the structure and stated that she
had previously been inside of the building and thought it was a great structure but
conceded that it is a large facility that could be hard to find a reuse.

Mr. Marois stated that their group has exhausted all efforts and searched all over the City
14
 {Draft}

for a suitable site and this site was the only one they found suitable.

Commissioner Nardi questioned how many students would attend, which Mr. Spires
stated that they currently have 216 enrolled; however they were hoping to potentially
max out at 480.

Mr. Spires explained that it was the schools mission to serve children in and around the
downtown area as he heard several complaints of students having to be bussed 45-50
minutes to other areas of the City for schooling; therefore, his group worked really hard
to find a site in or around the downtown area. He added that MGM had in impact on
their search for a downtown site as they devoured a lot of buildings, which could have
been sufficient options for a school, into their development of the casino. Further, he
added that the front elevation was chosen for the addition because of the fact that any
other placement would be detrimental to their need for sufficient amounts of off-street
parking and they want to be a good neighbor.

Mr. Marois added that they have been working with VHB to assess traffic counts in that
area of the intersection of Longhill Street and Warner Street. He further stated that
VHB recommended that their current building placement served the best means of traffic
flow on the site. He then explained that the building would mimic a lot of the design
features of the nearby Sumner Avenue School to give some continuity to the
neighborhood.

Commissioner V. Walsh questioned what types of vegetation are located along Longhill
Street, which Mr. Marois responded mostly pine trees. Mr. Marois stated that their
design person embellished a little bit with the vegetation on the design plans.

Commissioner V. Walsh questioned if the zoning is already appropriate for the proposed
use, which Mr. Marois confirmed that it was.

Commissioner Murphy questioned if it was going to be the plan as presented or no plan

at all, which Mr. Marois responded that it was a likely possibility that they would simply
walk away from the project if the proposed plan were to be denied at a public hearing.

Commissioner S. Walsh questioned if the plan as proposed would alter the original
structure, which Mr. Marois confirmed that the structure would not be altered.

Commissioner V. Walsh commented that his thinking is if this charter school decides the
15
 {Draft}

existing building is no longer useful, then they may attempt to tear it down, which Mr.
Marois countered that the charter school would have to come back before the
Commission for that sort of approval. Commissioner Murphy countered that if the
existing building is covered by a new building and no longer visible from the
public-way, then that changes how the Commission can vote on the matter.

Mr. Spire explained that they originally started the school five years ago and they have
been looking for a site in the downtown area ever since. He then added that if this
project could not move forward on Longhill Street, then they would probably look to a
site in the Smith & Wesson Commercial Park, as that may be the only alternative.

Commissioner Nardi stated that this is a really good site for this use; however, they are a
Commission to protect and preserve existing structures. He then stated that they have to
figure out a way to find a common ground with the design. Commissioner Murphy
added that if the school needs to apply for zoning variances, as a way to accommodate
moving the proposed structure elsewhere on the lot, then it would not be out of the realm
for the Commission to offer their recommendations to the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Commissioner Nardi questioned if the proposed structure could be built in the footprint
as presented; however, eliminating a section of the building that covers the front façade
of the existing structure. Commissioner S. Walsh also questioned if the existing
building could be moved to a location on the lot where it would not be visually impacted
by the proposed structure, which Mr. Marois replied that this would not be possible as
the existing building has been added onto over time and because of the construction of
the additions, the building could not easily be moved.

Commissioner Murphy suggested that another way to protect the existing structure
would be to add a preservation restriction. Mr. Marois questioned what this would
mean, which Commissioner S. Walsh explained that the preservation restriction could be
used to preserve exterior and interior features of the building by attaching restrictions to
the property deed in perpetuity. Commissioner S. Walsh added that should the
proposed design be approved, then a preservation restriction would protect the existing
building should someone decide fifty years from now to demolish the structure, which
would be hidden by the proposed school building.

Commissioner Murphy mentioned that the Head Start building on Central Street sits on a
slope and was added onto with the addition sinking below the original building into the
downward slope. He then questioned why the charter school could not do the same,
16
 {Draft}

which Mr. Marois answered describing issue with handicap accessibilities, if they were
to build into the slope.

Mr. Marois explained that the Shriners really want to have their building and site
repurposed for youth activities and education. He also stated that prior to looking at the
Shriners site, they had a RFP bid into the City of Springfield for developing the former
Brookings School; however, they lost their bid as the City decided for low income
housing instead.

Commissioner V. Walsh questioned if they looked into the former Balliet School, which
Mr. Spire responded that the former school site is too far outside of their capture area of
the downtown and inner neighborhoods.

Mr. Marois explained that their charter school is currently located at 378 Pine Street,
sharing space with the Veritas Charter School; however, their lease agreement ends
following this school year.

Commissioner V. Walsh questioned where this information leaves the Commission,

which Commissioner Murphy retorted that the Commission cannot vote on the matter,
which Commissioner V. Walsh replied that he understood that it was not a public
hearing item.

Commissioner S. Walsh questioned if the purchase and sale of the building had been
executed, which Mr. Marois answered that they were in process.

Commissioner Nardi suggested a site visit for the Commission to understand the issues
of topography, which other Commissioners agreed.

Commissioner Murphy stated that no action could be taken at this meeting; however,
when the charter school decides to apply and appear for a public hearing, he suspects
there will be plenty of public weigh-in.

Mr. Marois stated that when the Melha Shrine leaves, and they will in fact leave, if there
is no one else in place, the building will simply fall into disrepair.

*Commissioner V. Walsh exited the meeting.

Commissioner Murphy stated that he believes they have had plenty enough discussions
17
 {Draft}

to understand the project and it’s limitations.

Commissioner S. Walsh questioned when the charter school would actually apply to
appear before the Commission for a public hearing, which Mr. Marois stated they would
prepare their materials then reappear before the Commission once they’ve done so.

Commissioner Nardi explained that the charter school should make their case by
supplying photos of the lot; therefore, the Commission can understand what can be seen
from the public-way. Mr. Marois countered that you really can’t see much because of
trees and vegetation, which Commissioner S. Walsh countered that she can see the
existing building on her drive down Longhill Street.

Commissioner Murphy suggested that the charter school schedule a site visit with
Commission Staff-person, Alvin Allen.

*Commissioner V. Walsh re-entered the meeting.

Commissioner Murphy stated that the next available meeting that the charter school
could apply to appear at would be December 21st.

Commissioner Nardi recommended that the charter school meet with the Forest Park
Civic Association prior to coming back before the Commission for a public hearing,
which Mr. Spires questioned if meeting with the neighborhood council would have an
impact on the Commission’s ruling, which Commissioner Murphy answered that it could
in fact impact their ruling. Commissioner Murphy added that having the public weigh
in, for or against, could make an impact on their decision making. Commissioner Nardi
added that public input could hold up their decisions as they may want to take further
review into matters.

3) 211 Worthington Street: Commissioner Murphy briefed the Commission that the
preliminary report was being drafted to be sent to the Massachusetts Historical
Commission for the creation of the Driscoll Block Local Historic District.

Commissioner Murphy made a motion to send the preliminary report to the Massachusetts
Historical Commission for the creation of the Driscoll Block Local Historic District;
seconded by Commissioner S. Walsh.

Moved and seconded to send the preliminary report to the Massachusetts Historical
18
 {Draft}

Commission for the creation of the Driscoll Block Local Historic District.
Voting for: Murphy, Nardi, Rowe, S. Walsh, V. Walsh
Voting against: None
Abstaining: None

4) 280-302 Worthington Street: Commissioner Murphy briefed the Commission that the
preliminary report was being drafted to be sent to the Massachusetts Historical
Commission for the creation of the Underwood Building Local Historic District.

Commissioner Murphy made a motion to send the preliminary report to the Massachusetts
Historical Commission for the creation of the Underwood Building Local Historic District;
seconded by Commissioner S. Walsh.

Moved and seconded to send the preliminary report to the Massachusetts Historical
Commission for the creation of the Underwood Building Local Historic District.
Voting for: Murphy, Nardi, Rowe, S. Walsh, V. Walsh
Voting against: None
Abstaining: None

5) Community Preservation Act: No discussion occurred.

6) Certified Local Government: No discussion occurred.
7) Community Outreach: No discussion occurred.
8) Outdoor Mechanical Equipment Guidelines: Commissioner Murphy briefed the
Commission that he has drafted some guidelines that he will forward to the Commission
for review.
9) Creation of District Guidelines: No discussion occurred.
10) MGM Springfield: No discussion occurred.
11) Preservation Restrictions: No discussion occurred.
12) Noncompliance: No discussion occurred.
13) Public Speak Out: No discussion occurred.

Meeting was adjourned.

x_______________________________________ __________________________
Vincent Walsh, Chairman Date
19