2009-12-14-CPC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

the Association, met with the CPC to discuss their amended application for the restoration of the roof and windows on the historic Hancock School Building. Ms. McLeish explained that the Historic District Commission (HDC) had told the Association that the HDC prefers a slate roof for the building, but that they would accept a rubber roof substitute under a hardship situation. The lifespan of a slate roof is 100 years, while a rubber roof is expected to last only 40 years. The Association is requesting $255,000 in CPA funding under a revised application. Their initial request was for $250,000. There was considerable discussion of the three types of roofing, and whether CPA funding was appropriate for such a project. While Ms. Fenollosa felt strongly that the project had valuable historic merit, Mr. Wolk questioned whether approving CPA funding would set a precedent for restoring privately-owned historic buildings that were underinsured. Members discussed the building’s historic value/public benefit versus using CPA funds for the restoration of a private structure. Members did seem to agree that the project would be very difficult to defend on the floor of Town Meeting. Ms. McLeish then described the revision to the window estimates. The amount of the requested appropriation had been reduced from $220,000 to $100,000 with the recent receipt of a more detailed estimate from their contractor. In response to a question from the Committee, Ms. McLeish explained that the cost of just repairing the existing wood frame windows was $84,000. She said the Association felt it would not be cost effective to repair drafty windows, and therefore prepared an application to the CPC for energy efficient wood clad windows for the proposed $100,000. The HDC, Ms. McLeish noted, would not allow metal frame windows. There was a lengthy discussion of the guidelines imposed by the HDC, and the impact of those restrictions on the project. Again, there was a general sense that the window portion of this project would raise a great deal of debate on the floor of Town Meeting. 6.Bikeway Preservation Project Update - Ms. Peggy Enders and Mr. Stewart Kennedy of the Bicycle Advisory Committee were in attendance for this discussion. Ms. Rice updated the Committee on the progress of the Bikeway project, explaining that Mr. Livsey, the Town Engineer, was pursuing the project with Town Counsel. Mr. Livsey believes that the elements of the project in the CPC request were never originally designed into the Bikeway, particularly the drainage work. He feels the proposed work is preservation in nature, not maintenance. He will itemize the proposed work in the CPC application for Town Counsel in order to make this distinction clear. Once this additional information is submitted to Town Counsel, it is Mr. Livsey’s belief that the project will be found eligible. 7.Greeley Village Project Update - Ms. Weiss updated the Committee on the progress of the Greeley Village project, stating that Mr. Steve Keane, Maintenance Superintendent, was working on an amended application. The initial 2