2010-12-06-CPC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

rehab a unit to make it handicapped accessible was not defensible under the statute’s definition of the term “support”. Ms. Fenollosa had communicated with Mr. Batt about this issue, and sought further definition on this point. In general, the Committee believed the project was admirable but after some discussion, agreed it must abide by Town Counsel’s opinion. The Committee voted 5-3-1 not to forward the project on to the Public Hearing the following night. Mr. Adler abstained from the vote. 3.Muzzey Condominium Window Replacement Project – Ginger McGuire, Hans Maas and Sally Springer of the Muzzey High Condominium Association joined the CPC to clarify statements made in their presentation on th November 15, regarding the replacement of windows on the historic former Muzzey High School building. Ms. McGuire stated that the Association was applying to the CPC for the entire cost of replacement, $253,915, not just for the FY 2012 amount of $50,517. Ms. McGuire went on to address certain questions raised in her initial meeting with the CPC. She stated that she had researched bridge loans, but that the Association was unable to qualify for such a loan. She also noted that the Association would try to compress the installation schedule if possible, a suggestion made by Mr. Kanter. Mr. Adler asked if the costs of the windows would be included in the purchase price of units when the units were ultimately sold. Ms. McGuire replied that such a decision would be up to LexHAB. Ms. Springer said this question had been posed to LexHAB, and as yet remained unanswered. Mr. Cohen noted that it would in fact be the Selectmen who would make such a decision. There was a discussion about whether the monies appropriated by the CPC could be reimbursed to the Town upon sale of condominium units. Members also discussed the benefits of the project, noting that there was a public benefit to the historic restoration of the windows. The CPC had reservations about the issue of affordability, however, since none of the units due to have replacement windows qualify as affordable. The units are controlled by a 5% appreciation cap per year and Ms. McGuire noted that some unit owners are in the low to moderate income level. None of the units are formally included in Lexington’s affordable housing stock, however. Ms. Manz pointed out that this project, while legally eligible, may be politically problematic. Ms. McGuire addressed the issue of repairing existing windows compared to using new windows by Andersen. She stated that repairing the windows had been ruled out due to difficulty with the interior storm windows, and lack of energy efficiency. Mr. Kanter said he felt this was a decision based upon preference and functionality of the window, not cost, and that the cost of repairing the windows had not been fully considered in the analysis for the CPA application. 2