Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Community Preservation Committee <br />Public Hearing <br />Thursday, December 11, 2008 <br />Cary Memorial Auditorium <br />6:30 pm <br /> <br /> <br />Present: <br />Betsey Weiss, Chair; Marilyn Fenollosa, Vice Chair; Joel Adler, Norman <br />Cohen, Jeanne Krieger, Wendy Manz, Leo McSweeney, Nathalie Rice, Admin. Asst.; <br />Sandy Shaw. <br /> <br />Absent: <br /> Dick Wolf <br /> <br />The Public Hearing was called to order at 6:31 pm. Approximately 20 residents were in <br />attendance. <br /> <br />The purpose of the Public Hearing was to receive comments on thirteen projects under <br />consideration by the CPC for Spring Town Meeting. Discussion of the CPC’s <br />administrative budget was also on the agenda. <br /> <br /> <br />1.Athletic Field Improvements <br />– Dave Pinsonneault, Superintendent of Public <br />Works, spoke to this request for $100,000 for FY 2010 to conduct field <br />improvement work on the Town’s Athletic fields. The total cost of the <br />improvements was expected to be $200,000 with half the cost to be appropriated <br />from the tax levy. This request by the Recreation Department was the follow-up <br />to recommendations made in a Field Renovations Report funded by the CPC in <br />2007. The FY 2010 request is for drainage improvements to the area between the <br />varsity baseball field and the main varsity softball field. The CPC monies would <br />not be used for turf, but would be used specifically for piping, catch basins, and <br />other drainage related needs. Mr. Pinsonneault said funds would be used only for <br /> <br />aspects related to the protection of the resource. <br /> <br />Several questions arose at this point both in regard to the project, and to the larger <br />issue of CPC project review. Mr. Ken Kreutziger posed the question that while <br />the Athletic field project might fall within the letter of the CPA statute, there <br />might be other projects with greater priority. He also questioned the eligibility of <br />the athletic field project, given the recent Seidemen vs. Newton case. Ms. <br />Fenollosa addressed this legal point and noted that restoration can only be on <br />recreational facilities acquired with CPC funds, but that protection of an existing <br />resource (the athletic fields in this case) is allowable under the statute. Mr. Cohen <br />added that all the projects under consideration by the CPC for FY 2010 have been <br />approved by Town Counsel for eligibility. <br /> <br />Mr. Kreutziger raised the larger issue of CPC policy, and suggested that the <br />Committee develop policies for project acceptance. He said the legality of the <br /> 1 <br /> <br />