2010-12-21-CPC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

the Historical Commission had not endorsed the project and referenced their letter to the CPC, dated December 17, 2010. Ms. Manz reminded the Committee that the only issue before the CPC was the approval or disapproval of the $30,000 in planning funds, and that the matter of the Selectmen’s vote on the use of the Leary house was outside the focus of the CPC discussion. After considerable discussion, the CPC voted (6-2-1) to approve the project. c.)East Lexington Fire Doors - Replacement – Ms. Manz voiced her objection to this project, noting that despite the East Lexington Fire House being in a Historic District, the building itself did not have historic significance in her opinion. The CPC voted (8-1) to approve this project. d.)LexHAB Request for Set-aside Funds – The CPC discussion of this project questioned whether the full amount of $450,000 was an appropriate level of funding. The Committee noted that LexHAB had sufficient funds to be able to complete acquisitions should the CPC vote a lower amount of support for this project. Ms. Fenollosa expressed her opinion that LexHAB should “have an equity stake” in the purchase of affordable units. The Committee agreed that a set of guidelines for CPA funding would be necessary for the CPC to vote affirmatively on the project. Members noted the receipt of a submittal from LexHAB, which contained a set of preliminary guidelines prepared by co-Chair Bill Kennedy. The CPC voted (8-1) to approve this project, with the provision that it remain pending subject to final agreement on acquisition guidelines with a provision that the CPC review all LexHAB acquisitions. This project will be brought back to the CPC for a vote of confirmation. e.)Muzzey Condominium Unit Owners’ Replacement of Windows - Discussion focused on the poor state of the Muzzey Building, the economic status of its residents, and specific terms of the appropriation should the CPC approve the project. Members were in agreement that if the CPC appropriated the $253,915 for the project, they would consider the appropriation to be an interest free loan. Loans would be granted to individual unit owners with the stipulation that the loan be repaid upon sale of the unit. The amounts of the monies returned would not include any depreciation on the windows, but would be the entire amount of the loan. Members agreed that the inclusion of this provision would be the only way the proposal would be likely to be approved at Town Meeting. Ms. Fenollosa noted the Historical Commission’s recommendation for approval of the project. Ms. Manz commented that repurposing historic buildings as affordable housing could leave residents subject to unaffordable requirements for maintenance and restoration as has happened at Muzzey. She stated that she was not inclined to approve this 2