2026-07-23 - Historical Commission
Summary
Five commissioners were present (Chair Erika Helnarski, Vice Chair Ana Santos Restivo, Vanessa Andre, Kristen Gutierrez Livoti and alternate Michael Baker); every vote was 5-0. The Commission continued 7 Westland Street (roof) to August 6, and continued the Second Empire redesign of 49 William Street, presented by attorney Donald O'Neil, to October 15 after commissioners asked for a reshaped mansard, more inset dormers and screening of the foundation windows. Certificates of Non-Applicability were granted to Abby's House for 77 Chatham Street and 19 Crown Street. The Commission denied the demolition delay waiver for 20A Washington Square (0-5) after public comment led by Patrick Maloney of Preservation Worcester, and the chair floated a local historic district study for the block. It continued the garage slate roof at 1 Westminster Street to August 20, postponed 1 Hancock Street to August 6, and approved certificates for solar panels at 22 Somerset Street and a roof at 9 Montvale Road. Approval of the May through July 9 minutes was held over.
Summary written from the official minutes; no transcript yet.
Issues discussed: 20 Washington Square Demolition Delay, 49 William Street (Torvella Cedar LLC), 1 Westminster Street Garage Roof, Abby's House Crown Hill Properties (77 Chatham and 19 Crown Street)
Official Minutes
Posted on PrimeGov (summary of actions, not verbatim). Page numbers and the remote-participation boilerplate removed.
Historical Commission
Meeting Minutes
July 23, 2026
Worcester Inspectional Services, 2nd Floor, Room 109, 25 Meade Street, Worcester, MA
Attendance:
Commissioners Present: Erika Helnarski, Chair
Ana Santos Restivo, Vice-Chair
Vanessa Andre, Clerk
Kristen Gutierrez Livoti
Michael Baker, Alternate
Commissioners Absent: Jeffrey Burnett
Daniel Forster
Staff Present: Michelle H. Johnstone, Historic Preservation Manager (remote)
Stephen Cary, Chief Planner
Call to Order – 6:00 pm
Old Business
Building Demolition Delay Waiver
1. 7 Westland Street (11-008-00030) – BDDW-26-10
Petitioner: Al & Gail Hargrave
Petition Purpose: Replace roof
Upon a motion made by Vice Chair Santos Restivo and seconded by Commissioner Andre, the Commission voted
five (5) in favor and zero (0) opposed to continue discussion of 7 Westland Street until the August 6th, 2026,
meeting with an extended constructive grant deadline of August 21st, 2026.
Certificate of Appropriateness
2. 49 William Street (02-046-00045) – COA-26-16
Petitioner: Don O’Neil o/b/o Torvella Cedar LLC
Petition Purpose: Construct new building
Donald O’Neil, lawyer for Torvella Cedar LLC, and Rafael Hernandez of Acropolis Design, appeared before the
Commission in person. Mr. Hernandez described the proposed changes to the project, consisting of a complete
redesign of the building to match the Second Empire architectural style. Mr. Hernandez described the changes,
which included a central entrance, added symmetry, raised the roof lines, shrunk the dormers, added two-over-
two windows, introduced a proper porch, and a double front door. Mr. Hernandez stated that he planned to use
cement board siding, Harvey windows, asphalt shingle roofs, synthetic trim around the property, wrought-iron
metal railings, and a blue stone or brick stoop entrance. Mr. Hernandez stated that the size of the building shrunk
slightly, but the parking pad remained the same size.
Chair Helnarski stated that she appreciated the changes that Mr. Hernandez had made. Commissioner Gutierrez
Livoti stated that the dormers on the roof were too prominent, especially compared to extant examples of dormers
in historic Second Empire buildings. Commissioner Gutierrez Livoti stated that if the roof was angled out more,
and the dormers were angled in, the design of the roof would look more historically cohesive, and the dormers
would stick out less. Vice Chair Santos Restivo stated that with these changes, the roof would resemble a hip roof
and would appear less pitched. Commissioner Andre stated that the windows appeared to have been placed
afterwards, instead of being intentionally placed into the roof, and with the proposed changes, there would be less
area for snow to collect.
Vice Chair Santos Restivo clarified that the Commission was suggesting for Mr. Hernandez to shift the angle of
the mansard part of the building to ninety degrees and reduce the pitch of the actual roof to resemble a Second
Empire mansard roof. Commissioner Gutierrez Livoti stated that the dormers should be more inset. Mr.
Hernandez stated that he could reduce the width of the lowest roof but keep the pitch.
Commissioner Gutierrez Livoti stated that the layout of the windows on the building made the building as a whole
look like it was sinking into the earth, because the presence of windows in the foundation level is rare in Second
Empire style buildings. Mr. Hernandez stated that the windows were necessary in the size and with additional
wells for egress purposes. Commissioner Gutierrez Livoti inquired if Mr. Hernandez planned to include
landscaping around the ground floor windows. Chair Helnarski stated that the inclusion of landscaping around
the windows would help hide the windows.
Public comment: None
Upon a motion made by Vice Chair Santos Restivo and seconded by Commissioner Andre, the Commission voted
five (5) in favor and zero (0) opposed to continue discussion of 49 William Street to the October 15th meeting
with an extended constructive deadline of October 30th, 2026.
New Business
Certificate of Non-Applicability
3. 77 Chatham Street (03-024-00019) – CNA-26-9
Petitioner: Justin Vartanian o/b/o Abby’s House
Petition Purpose: Replace roof in kind
Repair and repoint foundation
Repaint
Justin Vartanian, senior director of housing at Abby’s House, appeared before the Commission in person. Mr.
Vartanian described the proposed replacements and repairs to the building.
Mr. Vartanian stated that Abby’s House had received a CPA grant to replace the roof. Mr. Vartanian stated that
the roof will be replaced in kind, with alternating rows of purple and green slate roof tiles. Mr. Vartanian described
the proposed repointing of the foundations, some of which is underneath the front deck, all in kind. Mr. Vartanian
described the final change, which would be the complete repainting of the building in kind.
Chair Helnarski stated that she was pleased with the proposed changes, especially the colors of the roof.
Commissioner Andre inquired if the actual top roof was asphalt, or if it was also slate. Mr. Vartanian stated that
it was asphalt. Ms. Johnstone clarified that the back section of the building, which is a new addition, will match
existing conditions.
Upon a motion made by Vice Chair Santos Restivo and seconded by Commissioner Andre, the Commission voted
five (5) in favor and zero (0) opposed to the proposed changes at 77 Chatham Street, consisting of replacing the
roof in kind, repairing and repointing the foundation, and repainting the painted surfaces in kind, are not under
the jurisdiction of the Commission, and therefore approved a Certificate of Non-Applicability. Having received
a majority affirmative vote, the motion passed and the Certificate of Non-Applicability was thus approved.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Certificate of Non-Applicability application for 77 Chatham Street, dated and received July 16,
2026.
4. 19 Crown Street (03-023-00011) – CNA-26-10
Petitioner: Justin Vartanian o/b/o Abby’s House
Petition Purpose: Repaint
Repair and repoint foundation
Mr. Vartanian appeared before the Commission in person.
Mr. Vartanian described the proposed project to repaint the trim and foundation and remove the deteriorating
brick and repoint it. Mr. Vartanian stated that he did not feel obliged to repaint the foundation, even though it had
been included in his application. Mr. Vartanian stated that his contractor had suggested sand blasting to remove
the paint, but that it was expensive, and other options were not appropriate for a historic home. Members of the
commission interjected and said that the age of the brick would make sandblasting unsafe. Ms. Johnstone stated
that either hand stripping or a chemical peel would be appropriate for removing the paint from the brick.
Mr. Vartanian described the remaining project to paint the trim portions around the dormers and around the
building in a light cream color, leaning towards a paint match as opposed to a new paint. Chair Helnarski
suggested that Mr. Vartanian retain the pictures of the damage on the painted brick for any future funding
applications.
Upon a motion made by Vice Chair Santos Restivo and seconded by Commissioner Andre, the Commission voted
five (5) in favor and zero (0) opposed to the proposed changes at 19 Crown Street, consisting of repairing and
repointing the foundation, and repainting wood trim, are not under the jurisdiction of the Commission, and
therefore approved a Certificate of Non-Applicability. Having received a majority affirmative vote, the motion
passed and the Certificate of Non-Applicability was thus approved.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Certificate of Non-Applicability application for 19 Crown Street, dated and received July 16, 2026.
Building Demolition Delay Waiver
5. 20 Washington Square (02-013-00C+D) – BDDW-26-13
Petitioner: Stephen Madaus o/b/o Washington Square Exchange LLC
Petition Purpose: Demolish building
Stephen Madaus appeared before the Commission in person. Mr. Madaus stated that the owner of the building
20A Washington Square, which is attached to 20 Washington Square, wished to demolish the building. Mr.
Madaus noted that the building proposed for demolition was not on the National or State Historic Register, nor
was it in a local historic district of the city. Mr. Madaus stated that the intended demolition of 20A Washington
Square was to accommodate further renovations at 20 Washington Square.
Chair Helnarski inquired what would go in place of 20A Washington Square. Mr. Madaus stated that he did not
know, as proposed uses and design plans had not been finalized. Commissioner Gutierrez Livoti inquired why
the demolition of the building was necessary if plans had not yet been finalized. Mr. Madaus stated that the
owners’ intention would be to increase light access in 20 Washington Square, which had been blocked by the
three-story building.
Chair Helnarski voiced her confusion at the “average to poor” rating of the condition of the building, stating that
from the provided pictures she could not see the poor conditions of the building. Mr. Madaus stated that the
building had been vacant for many years and had not been maintained. Chair Helnarski inquired if the building
was vacant when the owners bought it, or if they purchased it and it became vacant. Mr. Madaus stated that they
purchased it vacant. Vice Chair Santos Restivo inquired if the owners were aware of the preservation success of
the Mission Chapel next to 20 Washington Square. Mr. Madaus responded in the affirmative. Vice Chair Santos
Restivo inquired if the owners would be amenable to exploring preservation options for 20A Washington Square,
and stated that the building would make an attractive apartment building complex. Chair Helnarski stated that this
neighborhood of Worcester had lost most of its historic buildings to urban renewal, and that the Commission
would appreciate knowing the owner’s plan for the building so that they can hopefully slow the spread of urban
renewal.
Public Comment:
Patrick Maloney, Executive Director of Preservation Worcester, appeared before the Commission virtually. Mr.
Maloney expressed Preservation Worcester’s concern regarding the proposed demolition of the Cooney block on
Summer Street in Washington Square. Mr. Maloney illustrated the historical importance of 20A Washington
Square, stating the original construction date in 1883 by James Cooney on land purchased by James Chapen’s
brass foundry. Mr. Maloney stated that the building is thought to be an apartment house constructed by Cooney,
who was a local saloon keeper.
Mr. Maloney stated that along with the Mission Chapel, 20A Washington Square is one of the rare remaining
structures in the neighborhood, and is an architecturally sound and solid historic and functional building. Mr.
Maloney stated that the building was included in the 1977 citywide architectural survey conducted for the
Massachusetts Historical Commission. Mr. Maloney stated that Preservation Worcester would look forward to
again working with Chacharone Properties, and urged the owners to seriously consider preservation.
Susan Ceccacci, architectural historian, appeared before the Commission in person. Ms. Ceccacci expressed
strong support for the potential preservation and reuse of the building. Ms. Ceccacci stated that Summer Street is
one of the oldest streets in Worcester, and emphasizing the lack of historic buildings on the street with the removal
of 20A Washington Square will further alienate the appearance of Mission Chapel.
Randy Feldman appeared before the Commission virtually. Mr. Feldman stated that if the historic building would
be knocked down for a parking lot, the lots from St. Vincent’s and City of Worcester street parking should be
strongly considered.
Jonathan Ostrow appeared before the Commission in person. Mr. Ostrow congratulated the Commission for
recognizing the historical importance of the building. Mr. Ostrow stated that the architects of the building may
have been Stephen Earle or Barker & Nourse, based on his research done at the American Antiquarian Society.
Mr. Ostrow expressed concern over the possible demolition of the building, based on the perceived weakness of
the building demolition delay ordinance.
Upon a motion made by Vice Chair Santos Restivo and seconded by Commissioner Andre, the Commission voted
five (5) in favor and zero (0) opposed to close public comment.
Mr. Madaus stated that Preservation Worcester had been involved with and in some way responsible for the
ordinance, and that Preservation Worcester knew the owner of the building. Mr. Madaus stated that the 12-month
delay term was originally only six months, and that he was aware of other buildings in Worcester that had been
preserved after the delay term.
Commissioner Gutierrez Livoti inquired if Mr. Madaus believed that the owners would be willing to work with
the Commission, based on his prior comments. Mr. Madaus stated that he made the comment as a reminder of the
purpose of the demolition delay. Chair Helnarski inquired if Mr. Madaus knew if the owners would be willing to
work with the Commission. Mr. Madaus stated that the owners know that there will be a 12-month delay, and
would not be against someone coming forward and helping them.
Chair Helnarski asked the Commission if it would be possible to work within the block to initiate a local historic
district study or something similar in response to the unknown intent for the demolition. A status update for
ongoing conversations was planned for the August 20th, 2026 meeting.
Upon a motion made by Vice Chair Santos Restivo and seconded by Commissioner Andre, the Commission voted
zero (0) in favor and five (5) opposed to the proposed demolition of 20 Washington Square, consisting of
demolishing the entire building, would not be detrimental to the historical or architectural resources of the City
of Worcester. Having failed to have received a majority affirmative vote, the motion failed and the Building
Demolition Delay Waiver was thus denied.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Building Demolition Delay Waiver application for 20 Washington Square, dated May 29, 2026,
and received June 2, 2026.
6. 1 Westminster Street (01-013-00003) – BDDW-26-17
Petitioner: LCT Construction o/b/o Brian Major
Petition Purpose: Replace roof and trim elements on garage
Brian Major appeared before the Commission virtually. Mr. Major described the proposed demolition to replace
the broken slate shingles on his garage roof to match the new asphalt shingles on his home.
Commissioner Andre stated that the roof on the garage did not look completely damaged. Chair Helnarski
inquired if slate shingles from the non-street facing side of the garage could be reused to replace the broken ones
on the visible parts of the slate roof. Mr. Major stated that this would not be possible, because there are large
holes in the roof caused by animals and weather damage, not seen in the provided photos. Mr. Major stated that
the zinc coating on the rims of the roof have deteriorated, and the structure of the garage required reinforcement
as a result of the animal and weather damage.
Ms. Johnstone stated that while the garage was most likely original to the house, there was already a significant
amount of degradation to the historic integrity of the property. Commissioner Gutierrez Livoti inquired if Mr.
Major had received any quotes from roofing companies that replaced slate. Mr. Major stated that he planned to
work with the roofer who had replaced his house’s roof. Commissioner Gutierrez Livoti encouraged Mr. Major
to find other roofers to discuss the project with.
Chair Helnarski stated that the Commission would need more information in order to make an informed decision,
including more quotes from a variety of roofers. Commissioner Andre stated that Mr. Major should look into
replacing the public-facing slate roofs, and do asphalt on the slopes that are not visible from the street.
Commissioner Andre inquired if Mr. Major knew his contractor’s intent for the slate after removing it from the
garage. Mr. Major stated that he did not.
Mr. Major inquired if he could cover the visible hole in the roof while the Commission deliberates. Ms. Johnstone
stated that Mr. Major should stabilize the roof to the best of his abilities.
Public comment:
Susan Ceccacci appeared before the Commission in person. Ms. Ceccacci stated that the reusing slate could last
for centuries, and that this is a viable plan for Mr. Major’s renovations. Ms. Ceccacci stated that slate makes a
building look great.
Jonathan Ostrow appeared before the Commission in person. Mr. Ostrow stated that there were environmental
and aesthetic advantages to slate roofs. Mr. Ostrow expressed his concern over reroofing the garage in asphalt, as
it may set a precedent within Worcester to completely remove slate roofs.
Upon a motion made by Vice Chair Santos Restivo and seconded by Commissioner Andre, the Commission voted
five (5) in favor and zero (0) opposed to continue discussion of 1 Westminster Street to the August 20th, 2026
meeting date with an extended constructive grant deadline date of September 4th.
7. 1 Hancock Street (07-001-00037) – BDDW-26-18
Petitioner: Chaim Gaval, First Windsor Holdings
Petition Purpose (partially retroactive) Replace window trim
Replace windows
Replace door
This item was taken out of order at the beginning of the meeting.
Upon a motion made by Vice Chair Santos Restivo and seconded by Commissioner Andre, the Commission voted
five (5) in favor and zero (0) opposed to postpone 1 Hancock Street to the August 6th, 2026, meeting with a new
constructive grant deadline of August 21st, 2026.
Certificate of Appropriateness
8. 22 Somerset Street (02-047-00036) – COA-26-10
Petitioner: Lunex Power o/b/o Jim May
Petition Purpose: Install solar panels
Daniel Gawrych, owner of Lunex Power, appeared before the Commission virtually. James May appeared before
the Commission in person. Mr. Gawyrch described the proposed project to install solar modules on the roof.
Commissioner Gutierrez Livoti stated that the solar panels would be installed on the back-facing main part of the
roof and on the lower portion of the rear of the roof. Chair Helnarski confirmed that none of the solar panels
would be installed facing the street. Commissioner Gutierrez Livoti inquired if Lunex Power offered color-
matching so that the solar panels would blend into the roof. Mr. Gawyrch stated that he had in the past, but that
the vinyl had deteriorated quickly and ruined the modules.
Mr. May stated that he had plans to build a library and solar-powered EV chargers in his buildings for WPI
students. Chair Helnarski stated that she appreciated knowing his future plans, and that Mr. May would have to
submit subsequent plans for any outside work to the Commission.
Public comment: None
Upon a motion made by Vice Chair Santos Restivo and seconded by Commissioner Andre, the Commission voted
five (5) in favor and zero (0) opposed to close public comment.
Upon a motion made by Vice Chair Santos Restivo and seconded by Commissioner Andre, the Commission voted
five (5) in favor and zero (0) opposed that the proposed changes at 22 Somerset Street, consisting of installing
solar panels, are appropriate for the Elm Park Local Historic District. Having received a majority affirmative vote,
the motion passed and the Certificate of Appropriateness was thus approved.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Certificate of Appropriateness application, 22 Somerset Street, dated June 18, 2026, and
received July 1, 2026.
9. 9 Montvale Road (02-007-00031) – COA-26-19
Petitioner: Laura Marek o/b/o Stephen McElroy
Petition Purpose: Replace roof
Chet Marek appeared before the Commission virtually. Mr. Marek described the proposed project, which
consisted of replacing removing the existing asphalt shingles and replacing them with new asphalt shingles.
Commissioner Andre inquired if the rubber roofing would remain rubber, or if it would be replaced with asphalt
shingles. Mr. Marek responded in the affirmative.
Public comment: None
Upon a motion made by Vice Chair Santos Restivo and seconded by Commissioner Andre, the Commission voted
five (5) in favor and zero (0) opposed to close public comment.
Upon a motion made by Vice Chair Santos Restivo and seconded by Commissioner Andre, the Commission voted
five (5) in favor and zero (0) opposed that the proposed changes at 9 Montvale Road, consisting of replacing the
roof in kind, finding that they are appropriate for the Montvale Local Historic District. Having received a majority
affirmative vote, the motion passed and the Certificate of Appropriateness was thus approved.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Certificate of Appropriateness application for 9 Montvale Road, dated and received June 29, 2026.
Other Business
A. Policies & procedures.
None.
B. Invitation from City of Worcester Business & Community Development Division to comment on
proposed project at 70 James Street
No comment.
Approval of Minutes
May 14, 2026; May 28, 2026; June 11, 2026; June 25, 2026; July 9, 2026
All minutes were held for a meeting at a later date.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:46 PM.
Transcript
Transcript pending: YouTube captions can't be retrieved yet (see the Worcester playbook).