2012-04-20-CPC-min - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

advocates were not invited to an April 4th meeting where the Selectmen voted to submit the land purchase application to the CPC for conservation purposes. The advocates were never given the opportunity to present a detailed concept plan or idea prior to the final BOS vote. She said LexHAB and the Housing authority had also sent a joint letter to the Board in December of 2011, stating that both entities supported affordable housing development on the Wright Farm. She noted that affordable housing options on both the Leary and Busa properties were still unrealized, and that since there were six houses on Grove Street across from the Wright Farm property, she felt it was important to retain a strip of land along the road on the Wright parcel for affordable housing or another municipal use. Mr. McSweeney echoed this sentiment. Ms.Manz questioned Ms. Fenollosa as to the historic significance of the structures on the property. Ms. Fenollosa replied that she did not feel the historical aspect of the house or barn was relevant at this time. Ms. Fenollosa then commented on the issue of satisfying all CPA purposes when a land acquisition comes before the Committee. She noted that the CPA statute was an outgrowth of land bank legislation, and that it was the driving force to preserve open space that ultimately led to the passage of the CPA. With this in mind, she said she felt that the CPC was not obligated to look at other uses if a proposal came before the Committee for just one use, in this case conservation purposes. She noted that other uses were not part of the present application. Ms. Manz added that though the CPC does not have the authority to modify applications, it is reasonable to request the applicant to consider all CPA purposes prior to submitting an application for funding. Mr. Cohen reminded the Committee that the Town will have an option to purchase the Wright house lot at some point in the future. Ms. Shaw noted that the word "recreation" had to be used carefully in describing the uses to which the Wright Farm property might be put. She said it is only "passive recreation" that is proposed for the property. She said the Recreation Committee reviewed the application and voted not to suggest active recreation on the parcel due to its topography and location. She said she felt the appraisal of the parcel to be retained by the family seemed low and questioned whether this was done at the seller's request. Mr. Hamilton addressed this concern, stating that the appraisal reflected the full and fair market value, with no input from the seller. Mr. Pressman, a Town resident, voiced his opinion that he would like to see affordable housing on the Wright Farm property and disputed the claim that the parcel was less attractive for affordable housing because it was not accessible by public transportation. 3