Historical Commission

SPRINGFIELD HISTORICAL COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2025 COMMISSIONERS IN ATTENDANCE: Kevin Coffee (in-person) Judith Crowell (in-person) Walter Kroll, Vice Chair (in-person) Alfonso Nardi, Chair (in-person) Vana Nespor (absent) Vincent Walsh (remote) Marisa Zorzi (absent) STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Andrew Strniste, Director of Community Planning (in-person) Attorney Robert Shewchuk, Associate City Solicitor PUBLIC IN ATTENDANCE: Robert Decker (77 Federal Street, Millers Falls, MA | in-person) Lon Goodman (275 State Street, Northampton, MA | in-person) Alberto Ayala (207 Pine Street | in-person) Harry Seymour (68 Washington Road | in-person) Katherine Claxton (92 Firglade Avenue | in-person) Jessica Lugo (33 Agnes Street | in-person) Maudeline Duvert (104 Bowdoin Street | in-person) Alan Vieu (104 Saint James Avenue, Holyoke, MA | in-person) Rudi Hall (14 Apple Road, South Hadley, MA | in-person) Ellen Gallagher (34 Mountainview Street | in-person) Tom Gallagher (34 Mountainview Street | in-person) Evan St. Thomas (340 Ridge Road | in-person) Olivida Lopez (47 Westminster Street | in-person) Frank Robinson (167 Westminster Street | in-person) Jeremy Young (30 Westernview Street | in-person) Christi Young (30 Westernview Street | in-person) Kamileh Crocco (24 Mountainview Street | in-person) Rolando Meono (47 Westminster Street | in-person) Siervo Jimenez (88 Cornell Street | in-person) Dmitriy Dyachuk (238 Sumner Avenue | in-person) Gabby Dyachuk (238 Sumner Avenue | in-person) Ryan Severin (Unknown | remote) I. OPENING REMARKS 1|Page  • Chair A. Nardi opened the meeting at 5:30 PM and informed the public of the Commission’s meeting procedures for reviewing applications. II. ROLL CALL • Chair A. Nardi proceeded with the evening’s roll call: COMMISSIONER ATTENDANCE Chair Alfonso Nardi Present – In-Person Vice Chair Walter Kroll Present – In-Person Kevin Coffee Present – In-Person Judi Crowell Present – In-Person Vana Nespor Absent Vincent Walsh Present – In-Person Marisa Zorzi Absent III. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES – NOVEMBER 6, 2025 MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 6, 2025 CHAIR ALFONSO NARDI YAY VICE CHAIR WALTER KROLL SECONDED – YAY KEVIN COFFEE ABSTAIN JUDI CROWELL YAY VANA NESPOR ABSENT VINCENT WALSH MOTION – YAY MARISA ZORZI ABSENT • Commissioner V. Walsh made a motion to accept the Commission’s meeting minutes of November 6 2025. The motion was seconded by Commissioner W. Kroll. With no discussion on the motion, the motion was approved unanimously. IV. OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY BEFORE THE COMMISSION – INDIAN ORCHARD FIRE STATION (E S OAK STREET IO | 09182-0219): REPLACE OVERHEAD DOORS • Jessica Lugo and Rudi Hall were before the Commission to update them about the Indian Orchard Fire Station, as well as to present a modest project involving the replacement of the overhead doors. • R. Hall informed the Commission that the building had been repointed, damaged bricks had been repaired, the previously approved windows are being replaced soon, and that they are proposing to replace the overhead doors. The proposed overhead doors will be thermal aluminum commonly associated with storefronts that have replaced overhead doors. The slab is in bad shape and they want to ensure that no one drives into the building. The proposal will be fixed storefront windows with the pillars matching the windows. • Chair A. Nardi asked if the frame color that will be installed will be darker than what was presented; R. Hall responded in the affirmative, as the example presented was a sample. 2|Page  • Staff Member A. Strniste advised that a vote was not required; what was being presented was for informational purposes only to ensure that the proposal will be consistent with the impending Indian Orchard Fire Station Preservation Restriction. • The Commission vocalized their satisfaction with the proposal. V. CONTINUED HEARING – 47 WESTMINSTER STREET MOTION TO CONTINUE TO DECEMBER 18, 2025 CHAIR ALFONSO NARDI YAY VICE CHAIR WALTER KROLL SECONDED – YAY KEVIN COFFEE YAY JUDI CROWELL YAY VANA NESPOR ABSENT VINCENT WALSH MOTION – YAY MARISA ZORZI ABSENT • Ronaldo Meono and Ovidia Cataline Lopez-Macario were before the Commission to continue the presentation. Siervo Jimenez, from 88 Cornell Street, was on the phone to discuss the project on behalf the Petitioners. • Chair A. Nardi provided an overview of the application and what has occurred since the last meeting. S. Jimenez advised that he was the general contractor; that an application with the Building Department had been filed and that they need approval from the Commission before obtaining approval. • Commissioner V. Walsh advised that the Building Department stated that the current staircase does not meet code and then inquired about the proposed plan. S. Jimenez advised that the support system of the staircase needs to be fixed to transfer the load better. Commissioner V. Walsh advised that the Commission needed a rendering in order to make a decision about what is being proposed. • S. Jimenez emailed Staff renderings of the proposal, which were obtained and displayed for the Commission. S. Jimenez reiterated that the support system needed to be repositioned to transfer the load properly. • Chair A. Nardi asked if any of the materials were changing; S. Jimenez advised that the materials would remain the same. • Commissioner V. Walsh informed the Petitioners that what was built and being proposed is not something that he would vote to approve. He then asked why the staircase was needed. S. Jimenez informed the Commission that when the Petitioner saw the doorway, constructing a staircase would allow them easier access to the second floor to and from the driveway. • Chair A. Nardi confirmed with the Petitioner that the building will remain a single- family dwelling. • Commissioner J. Crowell asked if the staircase could be repositioned so that it is not seen from the public right-of-way. S. Jimenez advised that the staircase would need to be demolished. After additional discussion, S. Jimenez responded that the staircase could likely be repositioned so it is out of sight from the public right-of- way and that materials can be repurposed. • Commissioner V. Walsh advised that if the Commission cannot see the structure from the street, it would not need to come back before the Commission, but it would 3|Page  need to be different from what current exists. He advised that he could vote for something that is less visible, and recommended coming back with a different design. • S. Jimenez asked if they could resubmit drawings and having the hearing continued rather than the application being denied. The Commission responded in the affirmative. • Commissioner V. Walsh made a motion to continue the hearing to the December 18 meeting agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner W. Kroll. With no further discussion, the motion was approved unanimously. VI. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING – 102 THOMPSON STREET MOTION TO CONTINUE TO DECEMBER 18, 2025 CHAIR ALFONSO NARDI YAY VICE CHAIR WALTER KROLL YAY KEVIN COFFEE SECONDED – YAY JUDI CROWELL YAY VANA NESPOR YAY VINCENT WALSH MOTION – YAY MARISA ZORZI ABSENT • Due to the Petitioner, Ziyad Jaraad, being late to the meeting, the Commission first considered the application relating to 47 Westminster Street. With the Petitioner arriving during that hearing, the Commission then reviewed the application. • Chair A. Nardi gave an overview of the project and why the hearing was continued. • Z. Jaraad brought three different examples of spindles to the Commission and inquired as to which spindle he should use. Due to the language barrier, the Petitioner had difficult understanding the feedback being communicated by the Commission. • Commissioner V. Walsh advised that he was confident that Z. Jaraad could recreate the spindles. When the Commission advised of which example would be most appropriate, Z. Jaraad responded that it was the most expensive product of the three presented. Chair A. Nardi advised that he could find other similar products online that would be less expensive and then cut them to size. • Chair A. Nardi provided an example of how the Petitioner could recreated the handrail. Z. Jaraad advised that he had a general understanding of what was expected from him moving forward. Staff Member A. Strniste informed Z. Jaraad that he should visit him the next day to review what was requested from him. Z. Jaraad agreed to be continued to the next meeting date – December 18, 2026. • Commissioner V. Walsh made a motion to continue the hearing to the December 18 meeting agenda. Commission K. Coffee seconded the motion. With no discussion on the motion, it was approved unanimously. VII. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING – 137 BELLEVUE AVENUE MOTION TO APPROVE THE SOLAR PROJECT AT 137 BELLEVUE AVENUE CHAIR ALFONSO NARDI YAY 4|Page  VICE CHAIR WALTER KROLL MOTION – YAY KEVIN COFFEE YAY JUDI CROWELL SECONDED – YAY VANA NESPOR YAY VINCENT WALSH YAY MARISA ZORZI ABSENT • Lon Goodman, a representative from Trinity Solar, was before the Commission to present the application. Chair A. Nardi provided an overview of the application by reading the synopsis from the Hearing Overviews document. • Commissioner V. Walsh commenced with asking if any of the work had been performed; L. Goodman responded no. He then informed the Commission that the project encompasses installing a new roof and solar powered panels. Commissioner V. Walsh confirmed with L. Goodman that the roof is not slate. • L. Goodman informed the Commission that the proposed color was close to the same color that currently exists – a brownish color. • Commissioner V. Walsh confirmed where the equipment and conduit would be located; L. Goodman advised that they would be installed at the rear of the building, minimally visible from the street. • In response to Commissioner W. Kroll’s question, L. Goodman confirmed that the conduit would be inside the building. • Staff Member A. Strniste sought clarification of where the utility equipment and conduit would be located; while visible, Commissioner V. Walsh opined that it was minimally visible, thus meeting the Commission’s guidelines. • Harry Seymour, from 68 Washington Road, provided public feedback advising that he was in favor of the proposed project, as he is a proponent of solar and opined that the proposed project meets the District’s requirements. • No other discussion was had by the Commission; Commissioner W. Kroll made a motion to approve the proposed roof and solar project at 137 Bellevue Avenue as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner J. Crowell. With no further discussion on the application, the motion was approved unanimously. Commissioner W. Kroll advised that should anything change, the Petitioner needs to come back to the Commission for further approval. VIII. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING – 238 SUMNER AVENUE MOTION TO APPROVE THE WINDOWS AT 238 SUMNER AVENUE CHAIR ALFONSO NARDI YAY VICE CHAIR WALTER KROLL MOTION – YAY KEVIN COFFEE YAY JUDI CROWELL SECONDED – YAY VANA NESPOR ABSENT VINCENT WALSH YAY MARISA ZORZI ABSENT 5|Page • Dmitriy and Gabby Dyachuk were before the Commission to present their application relating to replacing the windows at 238 Sumner Avenue. Chair A. Nardi provided an overview of the application by reading the synopsis from the Hearing Overviews document. • D. Dyachuk informed the Commission that they are proposing to replace all of the windows, including making a full-sized second-floor bathroom window a smaller stationary window. • Both Commissioner V. Walsh and W. Kroll asked if the stained-glass window along the staircase could be saved. D. Dyachuk advised that the window is broken and exposed to the elements. • Chair A. Nardi asked if the window model was a previously approved window model; Staff Member A. Strniste would have to check. Commissioner K. Coffee asked the Petitioners about the quotes provided, specifically how that related to a hardship. Chair A. Nardi advised that the application was categorized as appropriateness, and therefore, the hardship justification was not required. • D. Dyachuk informed the Commission that many of the sashes were damaged and the ropes were broken. Chair A. Nardi advised that when replacing the window with vinyl windows, the voids in the window will be filled in. • Commissioner V. Walsh informed the Petitioners that vinyl windows do not last as long. The Commission then confirmed that the historic windows were one-over-one windows. • D. Dyachuk informed the Commission that they are seeking a tan-like color to match the trim. Commissioner J. Crowell advised that the Commission generally seeks windows that are as dark as possible; Commissioner V. Walsh stating black is preferred. • Commissioner V. Walsh inquired as to how long the Petitioners owned the property; D. Dyachuk responded only a few months. Commissioner J. Crowell informed the Petitioners that she would like to see them keep the stained-glass window. • Commissioner V. Walsh opined that the proposed vinyl window model appears to sit low on the window sill, which conforms with slimline versions of windows they often request. D. Dyachuk advised that they looked for a window that was approved in Springfield. Commissioner W. Kroll opined that the windows appeared to be slimline. • Commissioner V. Walsh asked the Petitioners if they were open to darker colors; the Petitioners responded that they were, though they liked the color tan because it matched the trim. Commissioner V. Walsh opined that a darker color would also match the trim. Commissioner W. Kroll advised that the standard relating to windows was always darker. After doing some research, Chair A. Nardi found the color driftwood, which would be the darkest of that shade. • Commissioner V. Walsh reiterated that he would like to see the stained-glass window saved. D. Dyachuk advised that they will make an effort to save the window. Chair A. Nardi confirmed that the model number of the window was 5500. • The Commission then discussed which bathroom window was being proposed to be converted to a picture window – the second-floor left window when looking at the building from the street. D. Dyachuk reiterated that he will try to save the stained- glass window; then inquired if both bathroom windows should be converted to 6|Page  picture windows for symmetry purposes. The Commission responded no. Clarification about which window was being reduced in size was sought; D. Dyachuk advised that the picture window would remain the same width, just shorter in size. • No public comment was provided. • Staff. Member A. Strniste sought clarification as to which window was being converted to a picture window, as well as sought clarification about the model the number given what was discussed during the meeting and in the application compared to what was provided in the product specification’s document. • Commissioner W. Kroll made a motion to accept the application with the color being changed from tan to driftwood, utilizing the 5500-model window presented at the hearing, with the second-floor middle window being converted to a picture window; the stained-glass window shall try to be preserved, with an interim temporary window utilized if needed, and should the stained-glass window need to be permanently replaced, the Petitioners shall come back to the Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner J. Crowell. With no further discussion, the motion was approved unanimously. IX. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING – 104 BOWDOIN STREET MOTION TO APPROVE THE FENCE AT 104 BOWDOIN STREET CHAIR ALFONSO NARDI NAY VICE CHAIR WALTER KROLL SECONDED – NAY KEVIN COFFEE NAY JUDI CROWELL NAY VANA NESPOR ABSENT VINCENT WALSH MOTION – NAY MARISA ZORZI ABSENT • Maudeline Duvert and another person were before the Commission to present their application relating to the already installed fence at 104 Bowdoin Street. Chair A. Nardi provided an overview of the application by reading the synopsis from the Hearing Overviews document. • M. Duvert informed the Commission that as a first-time homeowner, she contracted with a fence company – Signature Fence – to install a fence in an effort to keep her dogs safe. • Staff Member A. Strniste informed the Commission that while the fence complied with the Zoning Ordinance, the Historic Guidelines of the underlying historic district requires approval from the Commission to install a fence between a building foundation line and the public right of way. • Chair A. Nardi informed the Petitioner that had the fence followed the foundation line, then approval from the Commission would not be required and a violation would not exist. The purpose of the guideline is to ensure that the historic building could be seen when approaching the building when traveling along the road. Staff Member A. Strniste depicted on the screen where the fence could be located without needing Commission approval. 7|Page  • Commissioner V. Walsh opined that removing the fence would not need to be done right away and that they could have until June or July if other Commissioners were okay with that suggestion. • The Commission recommended that the Petitioner call the fence company regarding the issue. The Commission agreed that the Petitioners could have until July 31, 2026 to remove the fence. • Harry Seymour, from 68 Washington Road, sought clarification as to what the Commission was reviewing – the new fence. He then opined that the installer has the responsibility to know the Historic District Guidelines. An unknown public commentor opined that the fence being extended from the side foundation line did not seem feasible given the configuration of the area. Chair A. Nardi advised that they do not get into the technicalities/feasibility of the allowed location. • Commissioner V. Walsh advised that should the fence be removed and a new fence be proposed behind the building foundation line, then approval can be provided by Staff as a Certificate of Non-Applicability. • Commissioner V. Walsh made a motion to accept the application as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner W. Kroll. The motion was rejected unanimously after no discussion. The Commission provided that the fence shall be removed by July 31, 2026. X. NEW PUBLIC HEARING – 257 PINE STREET MOTION TO APPROVE THE SOLAR PROJECT AT 257 PINE STREET CHAIR ALFONSO NARDI YAY VICE CHAIR WALTER KROLL MOTION – YAY KEVIN COFFEE YAY JUDI CROWELL YAY VANA NESPOR ABSENT VINCENT WALSH SECONDED – YAY MARISA ZORZI ABSENT • Robert Decker from Sunrun was before the Commission to present the application relating to installing solar powered panels at 257 Pine Street. • R. Decker advised that the conduit would be painted, that one would not be installed on the roof. The panels will be black on black. • Staff Member A. Strniste advised that prior to the meeting, he had discussed with R. Decker about placing the equipment on the other side of the house – behind a fence. • Commissioner V. Walsh advised that while the project can be seen from the public right-of-way, the house itself is not historic, just located in a historic district. • No public comment relating to the application was provided. • Commissioner W. Kroll made a motion to accept the application for 257 Pine Street for the purposes of installing 56 solar powered panels onto the east rear side of the primary building and all sides of the detached garage, the conduit from the garage will be trenched to the east rear side of the primary building; and the conduit on the primary building being affixed to the north side of the building behind the fence and painted to match the surface it is affixed to; no roof conduit will be installed, as 8|Page  presented in the application and during the evening’s hearing. The motion was seconded by Commissioner V. Walsh. With no discussion on the motion, it was approved unanimously. XI. NEW PUBLIC HEARING – 114 HARVARD STREET MOTION TO APPROVE THE SOLAR PROJECT AT 114 HARVARD STREET CHAIR ALFONSO NARDI YAY VICE CHAIR WALTER KROLL MOTION – YAY KEVIN COFFEE YAY JUDI CROWELL YAY VANA NESPOR ABSENT VINCENT WALSH SECONDED – YAY MARISA ZORZI ABSENT • Richard Korfel from Trinity Solar was before the Commission to present the application relating to installing solar powered panels at 114 Harvard Street. Chair A. Nardi provided an overview of the application by reading the synopsis from the Hearing Overviews document. • R. Korfel advised installing panels on the primary building did not seem as if it would qualify for a Certificate of Appropriateness, and therefore, chose to install the panels on the detached garage. The meter would be installed on the rear of the primary building. The equipment and conduit would not be visible from the street with the panels being minimally visible. • Commissioner W. Kroll asked a clarifying question about the shutoff switches; R. Krofel responded by advising that one would be located on the back of the primary building and another would be located on the detached garage. • No public comment was offered. • Commissioner W. Kroll made a motion to accept the application as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner V. Walsh. With no discussion about the motion, it was approved unanimously. XII. NEW PUBLIC HEARING – 165 WESTMINSTER STREET MOTION TO APPROVE THE SOLAR PROJECT AT 165 WESTMINSTER STREET CHAIR ALFONSO NARDI YAY VICE CHAIR WALTER KROLL SECONDED – YAY KEVIN COFFEE YAY JUDI CROWELL YAY VANA NESPOR ABSENT VINCENT WALSH MOTION – YAY MARISA ZORZI ABSENT • Frank Robinson and a representative from Team Sunshine were before the Commission to present the application relating to installing solar powered panels at 165 Westminster Street. Chair A. Nardi provided an overview of the application by reading the synopsis from the Hearing Overviews document. 9|Page  • Team Sunshine informed the Commission that they were proposing the equipment to be installed in a place that was minimally visible; that the conduit would run on the interior of the building, pop out along the side and be painted the same color as the surface it is affixed to as it traversed down the side of the building before connecting with the equipment. • Commissioner V. Walsh asked if relocating the equipment was feasible; Team Sunshine advised that it was not. • Team Sunshine advised that the panels would be black on black, that the dormers were creating problems as to where to place the panels. • Commissioner V. Walsh opined that if there were no visible conduits then he would be okay with the proposal. Commissioner W. Kroll agreed, especially with the black roof. He then confirmed with Team Sunshine that there would be no conduit on the roof. • Commissioner V. Walsh asked if the conduit would be covered in a vinyl casing; Team Sunshine responded in the affirmative. F. Robinson advised that the house was recently painted blue and white, and that the vinyl could be painted white to match the trim. • Commissioner K. Coffee asked in the solar panels could be moved to another portion of the roof where it would be less visible. Team Sunshine advised moving the panels was not feasible because it was a north facing roof that they were trying to avoid. • Commissioner V. Walsh made a motion to accept the application at 167 Westminster Street, which involves 17 solar panels with no roof conduits, and the vertical conduit to match the house. The motion was seconded by Commissioner W. Kroll. With no discussion on the motion, it was approved unanimously. XIII. NEW PUBLIC HEARING – 92 FIRGLADE AVENUE MOTION TO APPROVE THE SOLAR PROJECT AT 92 FIRGLADE STREET CHAIR ALFONSO NARDI YAY VICE CHAIR WALTER KROLL MOTION – YAY KEVIN COFFEE YAY JUDI CROWELL YAY VANA NESPOR ABSENT VINCENT WALSH SECONDED – YAY MARISA ZORZI ABSENT • Katie Claxton and a Ryan Severin from Empower Energy Solutions were before the Commission to present the application relating to installing solar powered panels at 92 Firglade Avenue. Chair A. Nardi provided an overview of the application by reading the synopsis from the Hearing Overviews document. • R. Severin informed the Commission that solar arrays were being installed on both side of the roof – that there would be two separate systems, one to serve two different and individual dwelling units. • Chair A. Nardi inquired as if there were going to be two meters and two sets of equipment; which R. Severin responded in the affirmative. 10 | P a g e  • Staff Member A. Strniste informed the Commission about the history of the application – specifically that the Building Department had inadvertently approved the project without the Commission’s approval, and then put the permit on hold once the mistake was discovered. He then sought clarification about the submitted plans, as he had only obtained plans for one of the systems. • Once the plans for both systems were distributed to the Commission, Commissioner W. Kroll asked how many total panels there would be; R. Severin responded 46 panels. • Commissioner V. Walsh asked where the conduits would be located; R. Severin advised towards the back of the building and on the back of the building. • Harry Seymour from 68 Washington Road vocalized support for the proposed project. Kamileh Crocco from 24 Mountainview Street also vocalized support for the proposed project. • Commissioner W. Kroll made a motion to accept the project 92 Firglade Avenue noting that the project is comprised of two systems, with the equipment being placed at the rear of the building and conduit being painted to match the exterior of the building. The motion was seconded by Commissioner V. Walsh. With no discussion on the motion, it was approved unanimously. XIV. NEW PUBLIC HEARING – 17 OXFORD STREET MOTION TO APPROVE THE WINDOW PROJECT AT 17 OXFORD STREET CHAIR ALFONSO NARDI YAY VICE CHAIR WALTER KROLL YAY KEVIN COFFEE YAY JUDI CROWELL SECONDED – YAY VANA NESPOR ABSENT VINCENT WALSH MOTION – YAY MARISA ZORZI ABSENT • Alan Vieu from Window World was before the Commission to present the application relating to installing replacement basement windows at 17 Oxford Street. • A. Vieu advised that they are replacing various basement windows with a slider window. • Staff Member A. Strniste informed the Commission that some of the windows could be seen from the City’s right-of-way; A. Vieu advised that only three could be seen from the right-of-way. • Chair A. Nardi asked if the windows had been previously approved by the Commission. Staff Member A. Strniste advised that it was unlikely. Commissioner V. Walsh opined that he did not have an issue with the proposed windows. • Kamileh Crocco from 24 Mountainview Street opined as someone who walks past the property frequently that she had never noticed the windows. • Commissioner V. Walsh made a motion to accept the application to replace the eight basement windows with the model presented. The motion was seconded by 11 | P a g e  Commissioner J. Crowell. The Commission clarified that the application only related to the windows. The motion was approved unanimously. XV. OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY BEFORE THE COMMISSION – 2026 HISTORIC COMMISSION SCHEDULE • Due to the proximity to the Fourth of July, the Commission agreed to cancel the July 2, 2026 regularly scheduled meeting. XVI. OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY BEFORE THE COMMISSION – ADMINISTRATIVE UPDATES • Staff Member A. Strniste informed the Commission that the other applications not heard that evening that were originally on the cancelled November 20, 2025 meeting were: 223 Longhill Street (the Landowner requested that her application be approved due to it expiring); 79 Thompson Street (the Petitioner requested a 30- day extension and to be continued the December 18 agenda); and a Section 106 Review (the Petitioner withdrew the application). • Staff Member A. Strniste then reviewed the updates provided in the Hearing Overviews: o Recently Approved Certificates of Non-Applicability  39 Bellevue Avenue  Pallet Fence Behind Front Foundation Line  164 Sherman Street  White Vinyl Fence Behind Front Foundation Line  65 Firglade Avenue  Repair Existing Rotted Front Porch Steps Floorboards  65 Firglade Avenue  Replacement of Windows with Same Model Windows  34 Westminster Street  Replacement of Front Storm Door o Violation Resolution in Progress  21 Mountainview Street  Did not resolve replacement windows that were part of the original 2023 application  104 Bowdoin Street  Installation of a Wooden Fence (Application on 11/20 Agenda)  174 Pineywoods Avenue  Installation of Compressor Unit (Contacted by Landowner)  207 Pine Street  Deviations from Issued Certificate (Expected on Future Agenda) o Unresolved Violations  158 Sherman Street  Replacement of Side and Front Porch Railings  19 Normandy Street  Foundation Painted; Replaced Front Door  275 Pine Street  Replacement of Rear Porch Railings o Resolved Violations  164 Sherman Street  Installation of a White Vinyl Fence (Certificate of Non-Applicability Issued)  34 Westminster Street  Replacement of Front Storm Door (Certificate of Non-Applicability)  39 Bellevue Avenue  Installation of a Pallet Fence (Certificate of Non-Applicability) XVII. OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY BEFORE THE COMMISSION – QUORUM CALL 12 | P a g e  • Commissioners A. Nardi and V. Walsh informed the Commission that they would be unable to attend the next regularly scheduled meeting – December 18, 2025. Commissioners W. Kroll, J. Crowell and K. Coffee will be in attendance. I. OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY BEFORE THE COMMISSION – PUBLIC SPEAK OUT • Thomas Gallagher from 34 Mountainview Street was before the Commission to vocalize his concerns about the landowner at 21 Mountainview Street opening a sober house in the neighborhood. He vocalized concern for everyone, including the young children, in the neighborhood. • Kamileh Crocco from 24 Mountainview Street was before the Commission to also vocalize concern about the proposed group home at 21 Mountainview Street. Specifically, K. Crocco advised that the historical restoration that occurred at the property as a restoration abomination, with vinyl windows being installed without approval, smaller windows being installed, and a smaller door being installed. Furthermore, proper materials were not submitted to the Fire Department and the building is not up to code. The grids were glued to the window and the foundation was painted with a stone face. • Staff Member A. Strniste advised that an application had been submitted and gave additional context as to what had occurred. • K. Crocco then advised that there are 30 elementary school-aged children in the area, and wants the Historical Commission to be a warrior to stop the sober house from being established. There has been a lack of oversight that puts people at risk – that these types of living arrangements have put people at risk. The only way to stop the proposed use from endangering children is to unleash the fullest authority possible onto the development. • Ellen Gallagher from 34 Mountainview Street vocalized similar concerns, stating that many neighbors on Westernview and Mountainview Streets have concerns. • Commissioner W. Kroll informed the public in attendance that the Springfield Historical Commission only has jurisdiction over historic aspects of a building, and that the zoning regulations and building codes are places where to review use and structure standards. The Historic Commission only reviews guidelines. • Staff Member A. Strniste reiterated that an application relating to the property will be on the next meeting agenda – December 18, 2025, and then provided his understanding of the how a group home would conform with planning and zoning regulations. • Commissioner W. Kroll advised that the City could have Staff inform the Building and Planning Departments about the public speak out session. • T. Gallagher opined that there is another facility down the road and that this proposal is a scam. • J. Hodge opined that they understood the Commission’s role and that this property has real and clear violations of the historic guidelines. • The Commission adjourned at 7:59 PM. 13 | P a g e