Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors and commissioners clash over proposed Buckingham Street house in McKnight Historic District
Summary
The Springfield Historic Preservation Commission heard extensive public opposition to a proposed new-construction plan for a house on Buckingham Street, with neighbors citing scale, front-facing garage and a protected tree. The commission chose to continue the application and urged the petitioner to submit a redesigned plan.
SPRINGFIELD — Neighbors and preservation commissioners questioned a proposed new-construction house on Buckingham Street during a public hearing Wednesday, pressing the petitioner to submit a revised design that better fits the McKnight Historic District.
The petitioner’s representative, Jeff Stafford, presented plans for a new single-family house and site layout, while several neighbors said the design’s scale, a front-facing garage and the house’s relationship to the street are inconsistent with the historic district. “Nothing in this design is appropriate for the McKnight Historic District,” read a letter from a neighborhood resident that commissioners placed on the record.
The project drew repeated comments from Jim Boone, a neighbor, who opposed the front-facing garage and modern suburban massing, and from Harry Seymour, who urged the commission to require design guidelines for new construction. “Having garages in the front of the house is completely imperfect for the historic district,” Seymour said during public comment. Kevin Allen and other neighbors raised concerns about a large tree on the lot that appears to exceed the city’s 35-inch diameter threshold for protected trees and the development’s potential impact on that tree.
Commissioners asked for clearer site drawings showing how the proposed front elevation, porch depth and driveway relate to adjacent houses, sidewalks and the neighborhood’s traditional setbacks. Commissioners flagged the need for more accurate site-plan dimensions and an explanation of how the new house would sit relative to neighboring front yards. A commissioner noted the design appears to set the new front elevation significantly behind other houses on the street and asked the petitioner to clarify distances and the design’s visual relationship to the street.
Given the volume of public comment and outstanding technical questions about the site plan and tree protection, the commission voted to continue the application so the applicant can supply revised elevations, clearer site plans and information about the tree and driveway. The petitioner was urged to return with a design that responds to the district’s scale and setbacks rather than a modern suburban prototype.
The commission set a continuance to the next available meeting so the applicant may revise plans and consult further with staff and neighbors.
The commission’s action did not approve the final design; commissioners said they wanted a new submission that responds to neighborhood character and tree protection requirements.
