2026-08-06 - Historical Commission
Summary
Six commissioners were present and every vote was 6-0. 7 Westland Street was allowed to withdraw without prejudice and a Certificate of Non-Applicability was granted for a roof at 9 Crown Street. The partially retroactive waiver for 1 Hancock Street (window trim, windows, front door, shutters removed) was approved, and 180 Harding Street's window replacement was approved after a long discussion of black vinyl versus aluminum-clad wood, with aluminum or wood required on the street-facing front. Retroactive changes at 104 Pleasant Street (paint, security grate parts, front door) were approved. For Abby's House, a fence and Trex side-porch work at 77 Chatham Street were approved in a matching color, while Trex and a handrail on the 19 Crown Street front porch were rejected in favor of structural repairs. 244 Pleasant Street (signage, unapproved windows and security grate) was continued to September 17. The Commission also voted to send updated MHRTC letters of support for seven properties, and staff said the 6 Ashland Street violation would be heard on August 20.
Summary written from the official minutes; no transcript yet.
Issues discussed: Abby's House Crown Hill Properties (77 Chatham and 19 Crown Street), 244 Pleasant Street (Pleasant Wall LLC), 6 Ashland Street (Pleasant Street Baptist Church), MHRTC Letters of Support
Official Minutes
Posted on PrimeGov (summary of actions, not verbatim). Page numbers and the remote-participation boilerplate removed. The minutes' wording of the 180 Harding Street motion is hard to follow as written.
Historical Commission
Meeting Minutes
August 6, 2026
Worcester Inspectional Services, 2nd Floor, Room 109, 25 Meade Street, Worcester, MA
Attendance:
Commissioners Present: Erika Helnarksi, Chair
Ana Santos Restivo, Vice-Chair
Vanessa Andre, Clerk (remote)
Jeffery Burnett
Kristen Gutierrez Livoti
Daniel Forster
Commissioners Absent: Michael Baker, Alternate
Staff Present: Michelle H. Johnstone, Historic Preservation Manager
Call to Order – 6:00 PM
Leave to Withdraw
1. 7 Westland Street (11-008-00030) – BDDW-26-10
Upon a motion made by Vice Chair Santos Restivo and seconded by Commissioner Forster, the Commission
voted six (6) in favor and zero (0) opposed to issue a leave to withdraw for 7 Westland Street without prejudice.
New Business
Certificate of Non-Applicability
2. 9 Crown Street (03-025-00010) – CNA-26-11
Petitioner: Timothy McCann
Petition Purpose: Replace roof
This item was held until the end of the meeting.
Upon a motion made by Vice Chair Santos Restivo and seconded by Commissioner Andre, the Commission voted
six (6) in favor and zero (0) opposed to the proposed changes at 9 Crown Street, consisting of replacing the roof
in kind, are not under the jurisdiction of the Commission and therefore approved a Certificate of Non-
Applicability.
Building Demolition Delay Waiver
3. 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
Chaim Gaval, from First Windsor Holdings LLC, appeared before the Commission virtually. Mr. Gaval described
the proposed project, which consisted of replacing the window trim to better match the original appearance and
described the retroactive petition for replacing the windows and door.
Mr. Gaval stated that the windows and front door were installed without approvals before the time of purchase.
Mr. Gaval stated that the proposed changes consisted of bringing back the arched detail around the dormer and
front windows and removing the black gutters, with a strategic economical approach to not waste the new
windows and door.
Chair Helnarski stated that while the Commission would ultimately support the complete reversal of architectural
details to match the historic photographs, she understood Mr. Gaval’s desire to make use of the new items in good
condition.
Commissioner Forster inquired if Mr. Gaval knew what materials he would use to replace the existing gutters.
Mr. Gaval stated that gutters would remain unchanged, but that he meant that the black shutters would be
removed. Commissioner Burnett inquired if the original siding was shingle. Ms. Johnstone stated that the siding
was the original cedar, just selectively replaced and painted.
Commissioner Andre inquired if Mr. Gaval knew if the original door had been retained in some capacity. Mr.
Gaval stated that the original door was not on site when he purchased the building.
Commissioner Burnett inquired if there was a rear door to the house, and if it was original to the house, could it
be moved to the front of the house. Mr. Gaval stated that there was a side door on the house, but that it was also
a steel door painted black.
Vice Chair Santos Restivo inquired if Mr. Gaval intended to replace the door with something resembling the
original door. Mr. Gaval stated that they could possibly replace the existing door with a six panel fiber glass or
steel door so that it could look like a grid window at the top of the door. Vice Chair Santos Restivo stated that it
would better keep with the integrity of the house, and inquired if they would be willing to move forward with the
alternative door. Mr. Gaval stated that they would be willing to replace the door, and could paint it in a more
appropriate color.
Commissioner Gutierrez Livoti inquired why the proposed conditions seemed to change the upper windows from
eight-over-eight construction to six-over-six construction. Mr. Gaval stated the proposed conditions did not
include changing the windows, and that they would remain eight-over-eight construction. Ms. Johnstone stated
that the proposed conditions image must be AI, explaining the unexpected change in the window’s appearance.
Public Comment: None
Upon a motion made by Vice Chair Santos Restivo and seconded by Commissioner Forster, the Commission
voted six (6) 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
six (6) in favor and zero (0) opposed to the partially retroactive demolition at 1 Hancock Street, consisting of
replacing the window trim, replacing the windows, removing the shutters, and replacing the front door with a
more appropriate fiberglass door, potentially with three panels on the bottom and one window panel on the top,
would not be detrimental to the historical or architectural resources of the City of Worcester. Having received a
majority affirmative vote, the motion passed and the Building Demolition Delay Waiver was thus approved.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Building Demolition Delay Waiver application for 1 Hancock Street, dated and received June 18,
2026.
4. 180 Harding Street (07-001-00037) – BDDW-26-20
Petitioner: Jeremiah Gallant o/b/o Leonard Lorusso
Petition Purpose: Replace windows
Dino Lorusso, owner of 180 Harding Street, and Jay Gallant, architect, appeared before the Commission in person.
Mr. Gallant described Mr. Lorusso’s intent to replace the windows on the second and third floors of the building
to initiate the larger preservation and renovations of the building, and to renovate the two vacant floors into
apartments.
Chair Helnarski confirmed that the rear elevation would have different windows from the front. Mr. Lorusso
responded in the affirmative, stating that the rear elevation would have six-over-one windows, which would match
the existing windows.
Mr. Lorusso stated that the front windows were ruined with dry rot and were all pivot/swivel windows. Ms.
Johnstone inquired what the new operating mechanism for the windows would be. Mr. Lorusso stated that they
would all be fixed. Ms. Johnstone stated that the existing windows were historic, but not necessarily original to
the building. Mr. Lorusso stated that his intention for the new windows was to create a cohesive appearance for
the entire building.
Commissioner Gutierrez Livoti stated that although the existing windows were not original, their historic
appearance contributed to the historic fabric of the building. Mr. Lorusso stated that he included the transom on
the south and east side to make the building appear more balanced, especially considering the six-over-one
windows in the rear of the building. Commissioner Forster inquired if the garage was included with the petition.
Mr. Lorusso stated that it was not.
Vice Chair Santos Restivo inquired what the window material was. Mr. Lorusso stated that it would be black
vinyl. Ms. Johnstone stated that in the proposal, the window materials were proposed as aluminum clad wood.
Mr. Gallant stated that they had received several quotes, and the vinyl was a better option. Mr. Lorusso stated that
black vinyl was found throughout the neighborhood, and that he preferred the material. Mr. Gallant inquired if
they could amend their application. Ms. Johnstone stated that Mr. Gallant could take a straw poll, but that an
amended application may not be approved. Chair Helnarski stated that she did not feel comfortable voting on the
proposal without the financial comparisons between the two types of windows. Commissioner Burnett stated that
he agreed with Chair Helnarski, and that he would also like to see elevations with the grid.
Ms. Johnstone stated that Mr. Lorusso and Mr. Gallant should return with a financial hardship application. Mr.
Gallant inquired if everything could go to a vote in two weeks. Ms. Johnstone stated that it was possible.
Commissioner Forster inquired when the last time vinyl windows had been approved for other buildings in the
area. Ms. Johnstone stated that there have been few instances when a full replacement of wood windows with
vinyl had been approved. Mr. Lorusso inquired of examples of full wood window replacements within the
neighborhood. Ms. Johnstone stated that the Walker Shoe building, a tax credit project, had used wood windows.
Vice Chair Santos Restivo suggested replacing the front façade windows with wood, aluminum clad wood, or
aluminum, and the back with black vinyl windows, and inquired if Mr. Lorusso would be interested in this plan
as an alternative. Ms. Johnstone inquired if Mr. Gallant knew if the proposed windows would include grids
between the glass, or just simulated divided light. Mr. Lorusso stated that the grid is inside, between the glass.
Commissioner Gutierrez Livoti stated that the grids would raise the cost of the windows. Mr. Lorusso stated that
he knew and wanted the aesthetics of the grids. Mr. Lorusso stated that he was amenable to returning to a no-grid
design. Chair Helnarski stated that the Commission would approve grids, if they were applied to the outside of
the glass, not in between the panes. Mr. Lorusso stated that he would change the type of grid design to what the
Commission suggested.
Chair Helnarski stated that the Commission was leaning to request that Mr. Lorusso revert to original proposal
and allowing vinyl on sides and back but not on front, and require aluminum, wood, or aluminum-clad wood on
the front windows. Mr. Lorusso stated that he was amenable to these changes. Mr. Gallant expressed his concern
with mixing building materials. Chair Helnarski assured Mr. Gallant that it had been done before.
Public Comment: None
Upon a motion made by Vice Chair Santos Restivo and seconded by Commissioner Andre, the Commission voted
six (6) 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
six (6) in favor and zero (0) opposed to the proposed demolition at 180 Harding Street, consisting of replacing all
the windows on the second and third level, specifically the Harding Street elevation to have no grid aluminum
windows, the side windows to be replaced with vinyl, aluminum clad wood, or aluminum windows, and the CMU
to be replaced with the proposed six over one orientation and grids between glass vinyl, would not be detrimental
to the historical or architectural resources of the City of Worcester. Having received a majority affirmative vote,
the motion passed and the Building Demolition Delay Waiver was thus approved.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Building Demolition Delay Waiver application for 180 Harding Street, dated and received July 16,
2026.
Certificate of Appropriateness
5. 104 Pleasant Street (03-022-00005) – COA-26-21
Petitioner: Yerih Darwin Ortega Comas
Petition Purpose (partially retroactive): Exterior painting
Replace components of security grate
Replace front door
Yerih Darwin Ortega Comas appeared before the Commission in person, accompanied by an interpreter.
Mr. Ortega Comas stated that the owners and the tenants informed him that they had changed the door, the metal
on the door, and the exterior color of the building. Mr. Ortega Comas stated that did not do the work, and he was
willing to explain to the Commission why the changes were made.
Ms. Johnstone stated that this originally came before the Commission as a violation, and that the three main
changes included painting the storage system where the security grate was held from maroon to black, the
replacement of the front door, and the replacement of components of the security grate since it had been rusted.
Ms. Johnstone inquired if the grate had been in the upward position since the violation notice. Mr. Ortega Comas
stated that there had been no changes. Vice Chair Santos Restivo clarified Ms. Johnstone’s inquiry, and asked
Mr. Ortega Comas if the grates were currently being stored up. Mr. Ortega Comas confirmed that the grates had
been elevated.
Vice Chair Santos Restivo inquired if the other decorative elements on the storefront were retained. Ms. Johnstone
stated that the exterior decorative elements had been painted long before the changes currently under review. Ms.
Johnstone inquired when the door was replaced. Mr. Ortega Comas responded that he did not know the exact
date, and that he had asked but the only answer that he received was that the door had been replaced a while ago.
Commissioner Burnett inquired if the original doors were retained somewhere on site. Chair Helnarski inquired
if the door opening had widened. Ms. Johnstone stated that it had originally been a double door, and that the new
door may have been brought forward.
Public comment: None
Upon a motion made by Vice Chair Santos Restivo and seconded by Commissioner Andre, the Commission voted
six (6) 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
six (6) in favor and zero (0) opposed to the retroactive changes at 104 Pleasant Street, consisting of painting the
exterior, replacing the components of the security gate, and replacing the front door are appropriate for the Crown
Hill 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 104 Pleasant Street, dated July 16, 2026, and
received July 17, 2026.
6. 77 Chatham Street (03-024-00019) – COA-26-22
Petitioner: Justin Vartanian o/b/o Abby’s House
Petition Purpose: Replace fence
Replace components of side porch
Justin Vartanian appeared before the Commission virtually. Mr. Vartanian described the proposed project, which
consisted of replacing the fence with vinyl, and reinforcing the side porch by replacing components with Trex
decking, which had been used in the stairs and the stair treads. Ms. Johnstone stated that the side porch was
attached to a late 20th century addition.
Chair Helnarski confirmed that they were only discussing the side porch. Commissioner Gutierrez Livoti inquired
if the side porch was visible from the street. Ms. Johnstone stated that the porch was visible from the street. Mr.
Vartanian also confirmed that the porch was visible from the street. Ms. Johnstone stated that Trex decking was
appropriate for the deck. Chair Helnarski inquired if the railing was being replaced. Mr. Vartanian stated that the
railing would be replaced with the brown-and-black railing, included in the decking purchase, as shown in the
image.
Chair Helnarski stated that the big white vinyl panels would be a stark difference and would not be an appropriate
change. Mr. Vartanian stated that the white vinyl was chosen because it was the cheapest option, but there were
other grain and color options for the fence as included in the materials. Chair Helnarski stated that a color and
grain, either the select or premium, that matched the new decking would be preferred to the white with no grain.
Commissioner Burnett inquired what the price difference would be between the plain vinyl and the select or
premium. Mr. Vartanian stated that he had received a quote for full wood fence, and that it was nearly double that
of the vinyl.
Public comment: None
Upon a motion made by Vice Chair Santos Restivo and seconded by Commissioner Andre, the Commission voted
six (6) 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
six (6) in favor and zero (0) opposed to the proposed changes at 77 Chatham Street, consisting of replacing the
components of the side porch with proposed Trex materials and replacing a fence to match the color of the
proposed Trex materials which is in the color Saddle, are appropriate for the Crown Hill 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 for 77 Chatham Street, dated and received July 16, 2026.
7. 19 Crown Street (03-023-00011) – COA-26-23
Petitioner: Justin Vartanian o/b/o Abby’s House
Petition Purpose: Repoint and repaint foundation
Replace components of front porch
Justin Vartanian appeared before the Commission virtually. Mr. Vartanian described the proposed project,
consisting of replacing the railing with Trex decking on the front porch, and reminded the Commission that the
repointing and repainting had already been resolved.
Chair Helnarski stated that neither Trex nor a handrail would be appropriate for the property, as it is on the front
façade. Members of the Commission agreed. Chair Helnarski stated that it would be too visibly different from the
other historic elements on the front façade to be appropriate.
Ms. Johnstone inquired what necessary changes would need to be made to the porch to make it usable. Mr.
Vartanian stated that he could repaint the front porch in the existing purple color, repaint the existing railings
black, and possible replacing the footing underneath the rightmost corner six by six post on the porch. Mr.
Vartanian stated that the post was no longer sitting fully on the existing footing. Ms. Johnstone inquired if the
entire post needed to be replaced. Mr. Vartanian stated that the footing would need to be repoured, but that would
be the only repair to stabilize the post.
Public comment: None
Upon a motion made by Vice Chair Santos Restivo and seconded by Commissioner Andre, the Commission voted
six (6) 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
six (6) in favor and zero (0) opposed to the proposed changes at 19 Crown Street, as amended, jacking up the
porch, pouring a new footing, selective carpentry as needed, and repainting to match existing paint throughout
the front porch are appropriate for the Crown Hill 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 for 19 Crown Street, dated and received July 16, 2026.
8. 244 Pleasant Street (03-026-08+15) – COA-26-24
Petitioner: Matheus Fagundes o/b/o Pleasant Wall, LLC
Petition Purpose
(partially retroactive): Installation of signage
Removal of unapproved rolldown security grate
Installation of unapproved door handles
Installation of unapproved storefront windows
Matt Fagundes appeared before the Commission virtually. Mr. Fagundes described the proposed project at 244
Pleasant Street, consisting of the installation of signage, the roll down gate, the door handles, and other changes.
Mr. Fagundes stated that he had communicated with the tenant about the roll-down gate, and the gate would be
removed within the next week. Mr. Fagundes stated that he wanted to see if the other changes could be kept as-
is.
Chair Helnarski confirmed that the gate and storage system would be removed, as it was in violation of their grant
terms. Chair Helnarski stated that although the door hardware was different from what was approved, it was still
a new door and the hardware was appropriate for the doors. Chair Helnarski stated that the window proportions
and decal signs were less appropriate for the historic building.
Commissioner Gutierrez Livoti stated that she was concerned about the height of the sign and inquired if it was
attached to the building. Commissioner Forster inquired if the removal of the grate and storage system would
allow for the lowering of the sign to be in line with the rest of the façade. Mr. Fagundes stated that it would most
likely be possible, and that he would confirm with his contractor. Chair Helnarski stated that the Commission had
no issue with the open sign hung in the window.
Vice Chair Santos Restivo noted that the vinyl decals on window were busy and seemed to reduce visibility from
the street of the interior of the building. Chair Helnarski inquired if the design was meant to increase the privacy
of the interior of the building. Vice Chair Santos Restivo stated that the decals were inappropriate for a historic
building. Chair Helnarski stated that the decals were busy and detracted from the aesthetic appeal of the historic
building. Commissioner Andre stated that removing the vinyl from the doors could be a better alternative. Ms.
Johnstone inquired if the sign could be painted to match the blue and green color scheme.
Mr. Fagundes inquired what alternatives would be appropriate for the store’s façade. Ms. Johnstone directed Mr.
Fagundes to the Commission’s style guide and stated that the signage should be smaller without taking up entire
storefront. Mr. Fagundes stated that he would work with the owner to alter the sign to better fit the Commission’s
guidelines. Vice Chair Santos Restivo inquired if the open sign was necessary if the vinyl was removed, because
the public could see if the business was open anyways.
Upon a motion made by Vice Chair Santos Restivo and seconded by Commissioner Andre, the Commission voted
six (6) in favor and zero (0) opposed to continue 244 Pleasant Street to September 17th, 2026 meeting with an
extended constructive grant deadline of October 2nd, 2026.
Other Business
A. Policies & Procedures.
Ms. Johnstone stated that the Commission was supposed to have a status hearing on 6 Ashland Street regarding
their violation notice, but since they submitted their application, they would be heard at the August 20th, 2026
meeting.
B. Invitation from City of Worcester Housing Division to comment on proposed projects at 37 Hapgood
Road, 1 Stevens Road, and 88 Stanton Street.
No comment.
C. Invitation from City of Worcester Business Development Division to comment on proposed project at 2
Blossom Street.
No comment.
D. Request from Epsilon Associates for updated letters of support for MHRTC allocations for 134 Gold
Street, 240 Main Street, 316 Main Street, 340 Main Street, 401 Main Street, 300 Southbridge Street.
Upon a motion made by Vice Chair Santos Restivo and seconded by Commissioner Andre, the Commission
voted six (6) in favor and zero (0) opposed to send an updated letter of support for 134 Gold Street, 240 Main
Street, 316 Main Street, 340 Main Street, 401 Main Street, and 300 Southbridge Street.
E. Request from The Beantown Companies, Inc., for updated letter of support for MHRTC allocation for
70 Winter Street.
Upon a motion made by Vice Chair Santos Restivo and seconded by Commissioner Andre, the Commission
voted six (6) in favor and zero (0) opposed to send an updated letter of support for 70 Winter Street.
Approval of Minutes
None.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:42 PM.
Transcript
Transcript pending: YouTube captions can't be retrieved yet (see the Worcester playbook).