Springfield Historic Commission reviews draft ordinance overhaul; debates fines, district rules and CPA requirements

The Springfield Historic Commission on Monday held a special public meeting to review a consultant’s draft reorganizing the city’s historic-preservation ordinance and to hear public comment on proposed changes, including minimum fines, new definitions for “historic site,” and requirements tied to Community Preservation Act funding.

The discussion centered on three practical questions: whether the ordinance should explicitly include nonbuilding resources such as parks and benches; whether the statutory minimum penalty listed in the draft ($10 per day) is adequate; and a proposed requirement that small local historic districts obtain a higher-level determination of National Register eligibility before receiving local designation or public preservation funding.

Why it matters: the draft would combine provisions now found in separate sections of Springfield’s code, set procedural standards for review and enforcement, and potentially change how preservation projects funded with public money are reviewed and approved.

Commission President Alan Arvey opened the meeting and read a letter from the Springfield Preservation Trust that recommended several edits, including expanding the definition of “historic site” to cover “historic landscapes that are both natural and designed” and raising the proposed minimum fine. Arvey said aloud a line from the Trust’s letter that “a $10 minimum fine is very inadequate,” noting the Trust’s view that the minimum “should be at least $50, if not more.”

Staff explained that the draft ordinance mirrors state statute for the penalty range: “it says right here, not less than $10 or more than $500,” a staff member (Steph) told commissioners during the meeting. Commissioners and public commenters debated whether that state range should be left as-is, clarified with specific fine tiers tied to distinct violations, or raised through a legal review.

Several speakers urged adding clarity about which park features the commission can review. A resident said the recent removal of a historic granite bench at Sturm Square showed nonbuilding items can be significant and urged the commission to make room in the ordinance to identify “artifacts” and municipal items that should require review. Commissioners and staff noted a statutory limit: state law excludes “landscaping with trees, shrubs and plant material” from local historic-commission purview, but bench, fountain or monument-type features could be covered if the ordinance defines them and sets criteria for designation.

A community preservation representative described how the Community Preservation Committee (CPC) currently ties public funding to local protection. The CPC member (speaking with the committee hat on) said the CPC “requires that if we’re recommending public money to help these historic assets, we want them permanently protected,” and criticized one draft provision that would require districts of five or fewer buildings to secure a determination of National Register eligibility from higher-level agencies. “This ordinance basically requires higher levels of government to do something that they don’t ordinarily do,” the CPC member said, warning that the requirement could block access to CPA-funded work.

Bob (former Planning Department staff) said he worried a requirement to make applicants pay for third-party eligibility determinations would chill preservation, arguing that if the city had always required applicants to pay study costs in the 1970s “what would have happened to historic preservation in Springfield?” He called the proposed fee structure “very anti‑preservation” if applied broadly.

Commissioners and public commenters suggested alternatives: retain the city’s ability to make local determinations of significance, allow preservation restrictions as an alternative to local historic-district designation, exempt or scale fees for small noncommercial applicants (for example churches or nonprofit sites that seek modest CPA grants), and keep the ordinance’s procedural elements separate from district‑specific design guidelines so that guideline changes can be made without repeating an ordinance amendment.

On procedural details, participants cited typical timelines and costs discussed in the meeting: staff noted a local historic-district process can take roughly six months, a tailored preservation-restriction process (and filing with a state entity) can take a year or more, and preservation-restrictions are enforceable by the entity that holds the restriction. A planning‑department representative said the consultant study that produced the draft was paid for from planning funds and that the department budgeted roughly $35,000 to hire the consultant; commenters cited example consultant quotes for other studies ranging from $15,000 to $20,000 in past projects.

No formal motion or vote took place; commissioners agreed to continue reviewing the draft, to collect suggested redlines, and to hold at least one more public session. Several commissioners and members of the public asked staff to prepare alternative language that would remove or revise the provision requiring National Register eligibility for small districts, and to propose exemptions or a sliding scale for the draft $1,500 study fee cited for some district petitions.

"I find this to be a very anti preservation movement," Bob said during his remarks about the potential effects of shifting study costs onto applicants. Arvey summarized the meeting’s next steps by asking commissioners and commenters to provide written suggestions for how the draft should be revised prior to the next public hearing.

The commission scheduled continued work on the draft and signaled it would return the ordinance to drafting staff and legal review before any formal recommendation to City Council.