2010-11-22-CPC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

The CPC had a general discussion of the project, and noted that the specifics of the project were, and would remain, undefined for some time. Ms. Weiss suggested that perhaps some of the straight-forward elements of the Master Plan could be added to Mr. Pinsonneault’s Monument Restoration project. There seemed to be general support for this alternative, and it was decided that Mr. Pinsonneault and other representatives should return to the CPC after th the Tourism Committee met on November 30. Mr. Wolk urged Ms. Brockway and Mr. Pinsonneault to have specific costs (eg. for square footage of sidewalk) when returning to the CPC for particular projects elements. 7.Needs Assessment Report – Ms. Rice reported that she had received the last of the updates for the Needs Assessment Report and would incorporate them into a draft for members to review. She will send it to the Chair and Co-Chair for initial editing and then to the Committee at large. 8.Muzzey Condominium Association Window Replacement – Ms. Rice reported that she had spoken to Ginger . McGuire of the Muzzey High Condominium Association, and that Ms. McGuire wished to clarify a possible misinterpretation in her presentation at the previous CPC meeting. Ms. McGuire said the Association wished to apply for CPA funds for the entire 5 year project, a total of $253,915, in 2010, not to apply for incremental funding over five years. . Ms. McGuire will be meeting with the CPC at its next t meeting on December 6 to clarify this point, and to update the Committee on any progress she has made in applying for a bridge loan. The purpose of the bridge loan would be to enable the Association to replace all the windows at one time and therefore get the best price for the work. 9.CPC Signs for On-Going Projects – Ms. Shaw showed the Committee a mock-up of a CPC sign for projects in progress. The Committee was very pleased with the sign, and moved to approve the design. There was some discussion of the size of the sign and whether an 18”x 24” format was large enough to be seen at a distance. Members voted to approve the design and size of the sign; the vote was 8-1, with the dissenting vote reflecting the desire for a larger sign. The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 pm. Four documents were reviewed or presented at the CPC meeting; 4