2009-03-26-CPC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

could be turned into affordable housing if desired. He stated that he hoped the project would go forward. Ms. Porter questioned Mr. Wolk about the number of houses or units that were anticipated on the 30,000 sq. ft. lot. Mr. Wolk responded that this had not been determined, and that there were a number of possibilities for the lot, among them renovating the Leary house. He said it was anticipated that there would be more than one unit on the lot. Mr. Peter Kelley, Selectmen, noted that there were really three elements to the project, with open space/conservation being the most important; affordable housing being second; and historic preservation being third. He felt the historic piece, was “late, but worthy”. He said he was concerned, however, about limiting the options. For instance, he noted that the house was in good shape structurally, but lacked an adequate foundation. He suggested it might be relocated to a different section of the lot, so that a suitable foundation could be poured for it. If there was interest in saving the house, he felt the project needed as much flexibility as possible. He said he would prefer to see the entire frontage go with the lot, and suggested an easement be used for the access to the conservation land. Mr. Wolk responded to this, stating that he, too, felt there were a lot of options, but disagreed on the idea of the easement. He said it was the Conservation Commission’s experience that easements are not effective and difficult to maintain. Mr. Sean Keane of 136 Vine Street stressed the importance of keeping in mind the safety concerns of the neighborhood when making any decisions about the Leary land and the potential affordable housing lot. He said there were many young families on Vine Street, and he was concerned about the traffic that would be generated by any further development. He was concerned about the plan to put parking on the curve in Vine Street, noting that the road is presently not wide enough for two cars to pass one another at that location. He said he had not heard anything about using the Brookwood Drive access to the Leary land for such parking or access. Ms. Shaw of the CPC responded to Mr. Keane, stating that she felt there was a great deal of further work to be done on the proposal and that a number of questions had to be resolved. She said she would support a parking area on Brookwood, but that such discussions would take place after the purchase, when all the alternatives could be evaluated. Mr. Keane was concerned about Town Meeting being asked to purchase the Leary land before the details of parking had been determined. He specifically queried Mr. Wolk about plans to put a parking lot on Vine Street, to which Mr. Wolk replied that there were no plans to put a parking lot on Vine Street. Mr. Wolk said he understood the sensitivity of the neighborhood, and that there would be no decisions about “ancillary services” without input from the neighborhood. He stressed that the article before the CPC was an acquisition article, and that the Town had a unique opportunity to buy the land. 3