2009-11-12-CPC-min (4PM) - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Mr. Kanter of the CEC, pointed out that the projects proposed by the Housing Authority were really two different projects. The ADA upgrades in the community rooms were a one-time project, while the renovations to the eight bathrooms could be seen as a long term project. Mr. Kanter encouraged Mr. Keane to give the CPC a five year cost projection of the latter project. Mr. Keane pointed out that he hoped that the bathrooms could be upgraded on a yearly basis, but that other safety and health issues might become priorities, such as replacing the GFIs (Ground Fault Interupters) in the bathrooms. Mr. Kanter asked for a breakdown of the costs of the two different jobs, noting that this was difficult to assess from the spreadsheet in the application. 2.Recreation Update – Town Turned Down for State Grant - Ms. Shaw informed the Committee that the Recreation Department had heard from the State, and that the Town had not received the 40/60 grant for the Old Reservoir/Marrett Road Project which would have supplemented a prior CPA allocation. She said they are planning to meet with the State to see why the grant was turned down. The work on the drainage improvement work will continue despite the absence of grant monies, since the CPC funded the entire amount for the project for FY 2010. 3.Hancock School Roof and Windows – Mr. Scott Robins and Ms. Susan McLeish introduced this project, which requested $470,000 in funds for the replacement of slate shingles on the former Hancock School building and the replacement of its windows. (Mr. Norman Cohen, a resident of the Hancock School Condominiums, recused himself from the discussion and left the room at this point.) Ms. McLeish, representing the Hancock School Homeowners Association, gave a brief introduction to the project, and a overview of the history of the building, which lies in the Historic District. She explained that the proposal for $250,000 in roof replacement costs was due to the difference between asphalt shingles and slate shingles which might be required by the Historic District Commission (HDC) to meet historic restoration standards. She added that the Homeowners Association had recently met with the HDC, and said the HDC had approved the use of a rubber shingle, which resembled slate. She explained that this would reduce the request to the CPC by some $40-50,000. There was a lengthy discussion of the insurance coverage on the building, and why the repair of the building was not fully covered. Ms. McLeish stated that some owners were not adequately insured, and that the building exterior and windows are not covered by individual policies. She noted that the building envelope itself was underinsured. Mr. Adler brought up the point that it may be beyond the scope of CPC to fill the gap when individual owners failed to carry adequate insurance. Ms. Fenollosa pointed out that it is very hard if not impossible to get full coverage on a historic building, 2