Leary Property Community Housing Task Force 2011-05-25-LEARY-rpt (FINAL)

Browse Search

LEARY PROPERTY COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT MAY 25, 2011 THE EXISTING HOUSE What to do with the existing structure dominated the first part of the Task Force's work. The group was charged, in part, to "determine whether the existing structure can be saved." A report, referred to here as the SALEMI REPORT and funded by a $10,000 appropriation of Community Preservation Act funds by Town Meeting in 2009, provided a structural analysis of the farmhouse. The site is in one of the older parts of Town, and displays characteristics typical of pre-Zoning. An excellent write up of the area's history can be found in the Town's COMPREHENSIVE CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY(Area F, Woburn Street). The house itself is cited by the Assessors' records as being built in the 1840's, with at least two major additions (the back and side ells) since then. Because the house is listed on the SURVEY it is subject to the Town's Demolition Delay Bylaw,the implications of which are discussed elsewhere in this document. (See Appendix 1 for the CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY excerpts.) The structure could be saved. Despite widespread deterioration, mold and water damage, preservationists agree that the house could be rehabilitated. It is evident that the cost would be higher for rehabilitation than for new construction. In November of 2010 the Task Force unanimously supported applying for approximately$11,000 in additional CPA funds to stabilize the structure until a decision could be made regarding the preservation of the house, as the Task Force had not yet been able to reach consensus as to whether the Town should seek to permanently preserve it. While there was an initial preference for saving the farmhouse,the question became, "At what cost?" both in actual expenditure and opportunity cost. While estimates indicated that the dollar cost of preserving the farmhouse was considerably more than the cost of building a new one,Task Force members understood that spreading the total development cost over an increased number of units would bring the average unit cost down. On the other hand, in addition to increasing the construction expense,the farmhouse would not be brought up to modern accessibility and other code requirements and would not be as energy efficient as a new structure without gutting the interior and making major modifications to the structure. To allow Town Meeting to weigh in on whether or not to support the cost of rehabbing the farmhouse, the Task Force considered presenting two development options to Town Meeting, one that rehabbed the structure (to be paid out of CPA funds), and another that would move ahead without the structure. Subsequent events would foreclose this approach, as detailed below. The SALEMI REPORT(and the structure)was later reviewed by two specialists from Cambridge, providing an estimate of the cost of rehabilitating the structure in the range of$250 to $300 per square foot, slightly lower than Salemi's figures, but not so much as to call Salemi's work into question. The supplemental reviewers both felt that these costs could be lowered by averaging the renovation costs into the larger project(thereby raising the cost of development of the non-historic element). (See Appendix 2 for excerpts from the SALEMI REPORT as well as follow up correspondence and the specialists' analysis.) At this price, approximately$340,000 to$500,000 for the farmhouse, there would remain several issues with the structure, most notably the floor to ceiling heights would remain low (approximately 7'-0 to 7'-2"), and the floor plan would remain as it currently exists. The experts diverge on additional costs associated with the foundation,the two extremely steep stairways, and the condition of the buried sills. 3