2026-09-03 - Historical Commission
Summary
All seven commissioners attended; every vote was 7-0. The garage roof at 1 Westminster Street was continued to September 17 (deadline October 2). The Commission granted a partially retroactive Certificate of Non-Applicability for in-kind slate and copper valley repairs at 65 Cedar Street and a demolition delay waiver for 60 Shrewsbury Street, where Robert Branca will convert garage doors to a pedestrian entrance and windows as part of adding 10 apartments. It approved both a waiver and a Certificate of Appropriateness for rear porch replacement at 30 Newbury Street (Crown Hill) and for a multi-part repair petition at 48 Cedar Street (Elm Park), where part-owner Ted Conna described chimneys, slate roof, foundation and basement windows as a long list of mostly non-urgent work. It approved the May 14 through July 9 and August 20 minutes with edits; Commissioner Gutierrez Livoti did not vote on the July 9 and August 20 sets.
Summary written from the official minutes; no transcript yet.
Issues discussed: 1 Westminster Street Garage Roof
Official Minutes
Posted on PrimeGov (summary of actions, not verbatim). Page numbers and the remote-participation boilerplate removed.
Historical Commission
Meeting Minutes
September 3, 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
Daniel Forster
Michael Baker, Alternate
Jeffrey Burnett
Commissioners Absent:
Staff Present: Stephen Cary, City Staff
Amelia Clark, Intern
Call to Order – 5:35 pm
Old Business
Building Demolition Delay Waiver
1. 1 Westminster Street (01-013-00003) – BDDW-26-17
Petitioner: Brian Major
Petition Purpose: Replace garage roof
Upon a motion made by Vice Chair Santos Restivo and seconded by Commissioner Andre, the Commission voted
seven (7) in favor and zero (0) opposed to continue conversation of 1 Westminster Street to September 17th, 2026,
meeting with an extended constructive grant deadline of October 2nd, 2026.
New Business
Certificate of Non-Applicability
2. 65 Cedar Street (02-048-00023) – CNA-26-12
Petitioner: Raymond Simoncini o/b/o Rucker Investments
Petition Purpose (partially retroactive): Replace section of roof & copper valleys in-kind
Joseph Sheehan from Raymond James Restoration appeared before the Commission virtually. Mr. Sheehan
described the proposed project, which consisted of the repair of a leaking copper valley and roof section with in-
kind materials.
Chair Helnarski inquired if the repairs would be done on the front of the home, and if the slate would be replaced
with in-kind repair. The petitioner’s representative responded in the affirmative.
Upon a motion made by Vice Chair Santos Restivo, and seconded by Commissioner Andre, the Commission
voted seven (7) in favor and zero (0) opposed to the partially retroactive changes at 65 Cedar Street, consisting of
replacing sections of red slate roof and copper valleys in kind is not under the jurisdiction of the commission, and
therefore approved a Certificate of Non-Applicability.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Certificate of Non-Applicability application for 65 Cedar Street, dated and received August 28,
2026.
Building Demolition Delay Waiver
3. 60 Shrewsbury Street (01-040-00012) – BDDW-26-21
Petitioner: Robert Branca
Petition Purpose: Remove existing garage doors & install new pedestrian doors & windows
Robert Branca appeared before the Commission in person. Mr. Branca described the proposed project, which
consisted of removing existing garage doors and installing a new pedestrian door and new windows.
Mr. Branca stated that in order to add 10 apartments to the building, he would need to change the entrances and
exits and add windows. Mr. Branca described his plan to remove the doors and add an entry door where the silos
were currently located, in addition to two new rows of windows. Mr. Branca stated that he believed that these
plans matched with the ongoing adaptive reuse of the building, as windows have been added and removed and
new additions have changed the appearance and purpose of the building over time. Mr. Branca stated that to keep
the building in use, these demolitions and additions would make sense.
Vice Chair Santos Restivo confirmed that there would only be one door for access to the apartments. Chair
Helnarski confirmed that the façade under consideration is not facing Shrewsbury Street. Mr. Branca responded
in the affirmative. Mr. Branca stated that he would need to repoint the brick and add other windows to keep
cohesive appearance. Commissioner Andre asked if he planned to add new brick. Mr. Branca stated that he did
not, and that new brick had been added in past renovations. Chair Helnarski stated that the changes were beautiful
and served the needs of the city.
Public comment: None
Upon a motion made by Vice Chair Santos Restivo and seconded by Commissioner Andre, the Commission voted
seven (7) 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
seven (7) in favor and zero (0) opposed to the proposed demolition at 60 Shrewsbury Street, consisting of
removing and replacing garage doors would not be detrimental to the historic or architectural resources of the
City of Worcester. Having received a majority affirmative vote, the motion passed and the Building Demolition
Delay Waiver for 60 Shrewsbury Street was thus approved.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Building Demolition Delay Waiver application for 60 Shrewsbury Street, dated July 29, 2026 &
received July 30, 2026.
Certificate of Appropriateness & Building Demolition Delay Waiver
4. 30 Newbury Street (06-006-00027) – COA-26-27
Petitioner: Bruce Broadard o/b/o Beverly A. Brown
Petition Purpose: Replace rear porches
Beverly Brown and Bruce Broadard appeared before the Commission in person. Mr. Broadard described the
proposed project, consisting of reinforcing and replacing the rear porches to address the settling and deterioration
in the rear porches before the issues get worse.
Mr. Broadard showed images of the lean of the decks to the Commission and explained that the lean is because
of the deterioration. Mr. Broadard stated that he planned to have the decks completely replaced.
Chair Helnarski stated that the porches in question did not look like the original porches because of railing height,
and because it was currently a safety and structural issue, the project should move forward.
Chair Helnarski inquired what building materials Mr. Broadard planned to use. Mr. Broadard stated that he
planned to use pressure treated Trex or something similar, but that he did not currently have a complete estimate.
Mr. Broadard stated that he had received a quote for pressure treated wood, but believed that it would not be best
for longevity. Chair Helnarski inquired what the color and grain of the synthetic wood would be. Mr. Broadard
stated that it would either be dark brown or grey, and that he would probably choose grey since it would match
with the aesthetics of the house. Mr. Broadard also stated that he planned to replace the railings.
Public comment: None
Upon a motion made by Vice Chair Santos Restivo and seconded by Commissioner Andre, the Commission voted
seven (7) 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
seven (7) in favor and zero (0) opposed to the proposed demolition at 30 Newbury Street, consisting of replacing
two rear porches would not be detrimental to the historic or architectural resources of the City of Worcester.
Having received a majority affirmative vote, the motion passed and the Building Demolition Delay Waiver for
30 Newbury Street was thus approved.
Upon a motion made by Vice Chair Santos Restivo and seconded by Commissioner Andre, the Commission voted
seven (7) in favor and zero (0) opposed to the changes at 30 Newbury Street, consisting of replacing two rear
porches, would be appropriate for the Crown Hill Local Historic District. Having received a majority affirmative
vote, the motion passed and the Certificate of Appropriateness for 30 Newbury Street was thus approved.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Certificate of Appropriateness & Building Demolition Delay Waiver application for 30 Newbury
Street, dated & received August 10, 2026.
5. 48 Cedar Street (02-046-00040) – COA-26-28
Petitioner: Ted Conna o/b/o Robert Ciottone + Sherrill A. Conna Revocable Trust + William
Vogel Revocable Trust + Craig Wiener
Petition Purpose: Rebuild two chimneys, repair/selective replacement of roof surfaces, replace a rear
door, replace porch lattice, repair shutters, repair damaged siding/trim, rebuild
sections of foundation, repoint foundation as needed, install new windows in
boarded up openings, replace entry stairs
Ted Conna appeared before the Commission in person. Mr. Conna stated that he came to Worcester to work on
the building at 48 Cedar Street in 1983. Mr. Conna stated that the project at hand consisted of all in-kind
replacements and clarified that there were four main priorities for his current petition: rebuilding the chimneys,
repairing the roof, repairing the foundation, and installing new basement windows. Mr. Conna stated that the two
chimneys were in rough shape, and his goal was to repair or make them look like the original. Mr. Conna described
his intention to repair the slate roof with in-kind grey slate, most likely with Pennsylvania grey slate.
Mr. Conna stated that the foundation in the front of the house required repairs and repointing in sections, and
added that it was predominantly granite slabs that needed repointing. Mr. Conna stated that the brick in the back
of the house was deteriorating and needed to be rebuilt. Mr. Conna stated his intention to reclaim the chimney
brick to repair the foundation, and stated he knows the mortar needs to be soft and light grey or white to match.
Mr. Conna described his intention to install two basement windows in existing boarded up openings. Mr. Conna
stated that the new windows would be built higher off the ground with bricks, and he would use security covers
to match the new windows to the front four windows.
Chair Helnarski inquired about the other items in the application.
Mr. Conna stated that he also wanted to replace the rear door to match the front door and reminded the
Commission that he installed the current door in 1983 and wanted to replace that door with an in-kind repair.
Mr. Conna stated that he also planned to replace and repair the porch lattice. Mr. Conna stated that the rear lattice
was not original, but was sheet lattice, and that the front had a diamond pattern that he had constructed during his
original renovations. Mr. Conna stated that people keep backing into it with their cars, and someone else installed
the sheet lattice.
Chair Helnarski inquired if Mr. Conna owned the building. Mr. Conna stated that he is a part owner and full-time
manager of the property. Mr. Conna stated that the building’s ownership was originally a partnership of five, but
it now consisted of two remaining owners and two trusts.
Vice Chair Santos Restivo inquired what within the lattice would be replaced and repaired. Mr. Conna stated that
he planned to repair everything he could with the matching diamond pattern, and that he would only replace the
lattice if it was necessary.
Chair Helnarski inquired if the building was used as apartments. Mr. Conna stated that the building was used for
offices and that the interior of the building remained historic.
Vice Chair Santos Restivo inquired what parts of the entry stairs would be replaced versus repaired. Mr. Conna
stated that the roof of the stairs would be repaired with matching slate, and the stairs would not be replaced unless
the precast concrete fails, otherwise he would replace them with wood.
Chair Helnarski confirmed with Mr. Conna that this is laundry list, and that all items within his petition were not
necessarily immediate repairs. Mr. Conna stated that most of the items were not immediate repairs.
Mr. Conna stated that he intended to do occasional repairs on the shutters, not total replacements. Mr. Conna
stated that he had replaced the shutters in 1983 and 2011, and since the last time he had worked on the shutters
he did major repairs, any immediate changes would be small.
Chair Helnarski inquired about Mr. Conna’s siding and trim repairs. Mr. Conna stated that the petition was a
catch-all, and that he intended to repair any broken wood with new wood. Mr. Conna stated that he had repaired
intricate details on the side gable and reinforced the details for longevity.
Mr. Conna inquired if the Commission wanted to see the bricks he planned to use in his repairs. Chair Helnarski
stated that Michelle Johnstone had already showed the Commission the bricks and they were all on board.
Public comment: None
Upon a motion made by Vice Chair Santos Restivo and seconded by Commissioner Andre, the Commission voted
seven (7) 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
seven (7) in favor and zero (0) opposed to the proposed demolition at 48 Cedar Street, consisting of rebuilding
two chimneys, repairing and selective replacement of roof surfaces, i.e. slate tiles, repairing the porch lattice,
rebuilding and repointing sections of foundation as needed, replacing entry stairs, if needed, would not be
detrimental to the historic and architectural resources of the City of Worcester. Having received a majority
affirmative vote, the motion passed and the Building Demolition Delay Waiver for 48 Cedar Street was thus
approved.
Upon a motion made by Vice Chair Santos Restivo and seconded by Commissioner Andre, the Commission voted
seven (7) in favor and zero (0) opposed to the changes at 48 Cedar Street, consisting of rebuilding two chimneys,
repairing and selective replacement of roof surfaces i.e. slate tiles, replacing the rear door and its roof with slate,
replacing the porch lattice where needed, repairing shutters as needed, repairing damaged siding and trim as
needed, rebuilding sections of foundation and repointing foundation as needed, using bricks to match existing in
color, dimensions, and texture and using a mortar visually and chemically compatible with existing historic
masonry, to be approved by city staff, installing new windows in boarded up openings, and replacing entry stairs
if needed, are appropriate for the Elm Park Local Historic District. Having received a majority affirmative vote,
the motion passed and the Certificate of Appropriateness for 48 Cedar Street was thus approved.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Certificate of Appropriateness & Building Demolition Delay Waiver for 48 Cedar Street, dated &
received August 12, 2026.
Other Business
A. Policies & procedures.
B. Invitation from City of Worcester Housing Division to comment on proposed projects at 20 Worth Street
and 29 Bridgeport Street.
No comment.
Approval of Minutes
May 14, 2026; May 28, 2026; June 11, 2026; June 25, 2026; July 9, 2026; August 20, 2026
Upon a motion made by Vice Chair Santos Restivo and seconded by Commissioner Andre, the Commission
voted seven (7) in favor and zero (0) opposed to approve the May 14 and 28, June 11 and 25, July 9, and August
20, 2026 meeting minutes, with the edit that Commissioner Andre was not present on May 14th, 2026, and with
the amendment that Commissioner Gutierrez Livoti did not read the minutes for July 9th and August 20th, so she
only voted on the other meeting minutes.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 6:23 PM.
Transcript
Transcript pending: YouTube captions can't be retrieved yet (see the Worcester playbook).