Historical commission continues review of 3 Square Main Street siding hardship after asbestos finding

The Springfield Historical Commission on March 6 continued a public hearing on a certificate-of-hardship request to replace the exterior siding at the 3 Square/Main Street property after an environmental test showed asbestos in the existing siding.

Tony Will Brock, senior program manager in the Office of Housing, told the commission the property’s existing siding “tested positive for asbestos” and that the program intends to install new siding by wrapping the existing material rather than removing it. Brock said the siding will be selected to replicate the building’s existing clapboard profile and that the project is the final portion of a multi-part renovation that began last year.

Commissioners pressed for more detail: they asked for the contractor’s product specifications, a single selected sample, expected exposure of trim or soffit work, and confirmation of whether wrap-over (installing new siding over the asbestos-containing material) or full removal will occur. Staff noted the application did not include a clear manufacturer specification and said they had asked the applicant to supply it.

Because the application did not include a single chosen product or finished trim details, the commission voted to continue the hearing. The continuation will give the applicant time to deliver the contractor-supplied product specification, a clear siding selection (for example, the proposed double-4-inch clapboard profile discussed at the meeting), and details about porch trim, soffit, and corner boards so commissioners can evaluate the visual effect.

The commission’s continuation request is procedural: it preserves the public-hearing record while allowing staff and the applicant to provide the missing technical documentation commissioners said they need to decide whether a hardship finding is warranted.

Details the commission asked the applicant to provide include the exact siding profile and manufacturer spec sheet, photo or mock-up showing proposed trim and corner-board treatment, and an explanation of whether asbestos abatement work will require removal rather than encapsulation. The applicant also agreed the contractor would make on-site judgments about trim replacement and would return to the commission if the contractor proposed additional changes beyond the scope discussed.

The commission did not make a final finding on the hardship request at the March 6 meeting.