2009-03-19-CPC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Regarding the issue of percentage rates for bonding, Mr. Valente suggested that the CPC could alternatively take out a short term bond, for which the rates are 1- 1.67%, and then make a decision later in the year about whether to follow through and bond the purchase, pay cash, or do some combination thereof. He said the Town was in a unique position, but stressed the need for some financial planning on the part of the CPC. There was further discussion about various options for bonding, for a three year period, for instance, which Mr. Valente felt might be more “palatable”, but the CEC was firm in their opinion that cash payment was most prudent under the circumstances. Mr. Wolk asked whether bonding would “wipe out” the conservation buckets in each future year, since payments must come out of the designated buckets. He also questioned the CEC about their support of the article if the CPC voted to bond the acquisition. Mr. Lamb responded that there was a probability that the CEC would not support the Article. Mr. Cohen registered his strong objection to this statement, and Ms. Weiss noted that there would be no vote taken on the matter at the meeting. Mr. Lamb asked if the Committee would come back before the CEC if the CPC decided to bond the acquisition. Ms. Krieger and Mr. Cohen responded that they would. The discussion was brought to a close, and no decision was made about whether to bond or pay cash for the Leary land. Mr. Valente and Mr. Addelson left the meeting at this point. 2.Discussion of Dividing the Leary Acquisition into the Various Buckets - Ms. Weiss opened this topic, andturned it over to Maryann McCall-Taylor. Ms. McCall-Taylor said that she had heard for the first time (at the meeting) that the size of the lot to be used for affordable housing had been reduced to 22,000 sq. ft from 24,000 sq. ft. She stated that if the Leary house was restored, 22,000 sq. ft would be too small and would create a non-conforming lot. She said it would have to be 30,000 sq. ft. for it to be conforming. Ms. Krieger brought up the point that the 22,000 sq. ft. lot would still be large enough since the Local Initiative Project ( LIP) process would be followed, which allowed some departure from normal zoning requirements.. Ms. McCall-Taylor agreed that the smaller lot would be enough to support a LIP development. Mr. Kanter offered that the larger lot (30,000 sq. ft.) would allow greater flexibility, and that the land which was not used for affordable housing could always be returned to conservation after the development process. Mr. Wolk expressed his frustration with the discussion, stating that the Conservation Commission had relied on the Planning Department to come up with an acceptable lot size, which he thought they had done. He said the lot size was immaterial, but that he had to be sensitive to the Estate. He said that affordable housing was acceptable to the Estate and that they had no objection to a historical renovation of the house for affordable housing. 2