2010-05-06-CPC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

There was also a discussion of the TOB project relative to the Town Meeting th presentation on April 28. Some members felt the discussion of the TOB project should have been on the merits of the project. They argued that the ADA component and the video presentation made it difficult to speak against the proposal. Ms. Shaw pointed out that negative comments were interpreted as anti-ADA, which was unfair to members of the CPC who did not support the project for cost and priority reasons. Ms. Krieger defended her presentation of the TOB project on behalf of the CPC, in which she gave the floor to Virginia Buckley, Chair of the Commission on Disability. Ms. Shaw pointed out that the CPC had never recognized other speakers as part of their project presentations, other than to answer questions. It was agreed that there had been a great deal of frustration surrounding the review process and subsequent Town Meeting presentation of the TOB project. 2.Future Land Acquisitions – Need for Multi-Use Designation – Ms. Weiss addressed this topic, stating that she believed that the warrant and motion for any future land purchases should also include the possibility for community housing and recreation. Mr. Kanter said he felt this recommendation would do little to harm the intent of future acquisitions, and said the CEC would probably look favorably upon such a policy. Ms. Manz also agreed with Ms. Weiss, and stated her belief that the CPC had an obligation to consider all the purposes in the CPA statute when evaluating a land acquisition. A motion was made that, “the warrant and the motions for land acquisition articles funded with CPA funds be worded to include all applicable CPA purposes”. The motion was seconded and passed 8-0 in favor. 3.Globe Article Regarding Town Office Building Project – There was a brief discussion of an article about the Town Office Building project that had appeared in the Boston Globe after Town Meeting. The article had attracted the attention of Mr. Jeffrey Seideman of Newton, (the individual who had successfully sued the City of Newton over a playground project that was not eligible under the CPA statute). Members agreed that the two cases had little similarity, and that the Town Office Building passed the “historic” litmus test, and had been thoroughly vetted by Town Counsel. The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 pm. Respectfully submitted, Nathalie Rice Administrative Assistant Community Preservation Committee 2