HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-11-21-CPC-min
Minutes of the Community Preservation Committee
Thursday, November 21, 2013
3:00 pm, Parker Room
Town Office Building, 1625 Massachusetts Avenue
Present:
Committee Members:
Marilyn Fenollosa, Chair; Richard Wolk, Vice-Chair, Richard Canale,
Norman Cohen, David Horton, Jeanne Krieger, Leo McSweeney, Robert Pressman and Sandra
Shaw.
Administrative Assistant
: Nathalie Rice
Also in attendance was David Kanter, Vice-Chair of the Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC).
The meeting was called to order at 3:04 pm. by Ms. Fenollosa.
1.Final Votes on Projects not requiring the submittal of further information
Ms.
Fenollosa stated that final votes would be taken at the end of the meeting. Mr. Horton asked
for a breakdown of total project requests vs. available funds, and Ms. Fenollosa and Mr.
Kanter provided rough estimates that indicated that there were sufficient funds in the
Community Preservation Fund to accommodate all requests that had been approved in prior
straw polls.
Ms. Fenollosa took the opportunity to remind the Committee of the need to adhere to the
Open Meeting law when emailing. She read a portion of the Open Meeting law as it related
to the distribution of electronic communications. She asked Mr. Pressman to read an email he
had distributed to the Committee relative to emails the CPC had received regarding
affordable housing at the Busa (and Leary) properties and asked that it be made part of the
public record of the meeting. Mr. Pressmans email was as follows:
Since August 2012, I have attended 11 Lexhab meetings. Ellen McDonald is the only other
resident who has ever attended one of these meetings. She attended in August 2012 and about
two months ago. Busa and Leary have frequently been on the published agenda. Lexhab's
position stated two months ago is that they will not move on Leary until after Fairview and
Busa have moved along. Earlier Leary discussions related to demolition of the residence \[a
task the BOS requested Lexhab to undertake\]. There has been no discussion by Lexhab
members on how to move ahead on units at Leary. Leary was not even on the agenda or
mentioned at yesterday's Lexhab meeting. Lexhab allows me full participation when I raise
my hand. Members reply to my comments. The same thing occurred when Ms. McDonald
wanted to speak in August 2012.
If residents don't come to meetings to ask questions and express their opinions, their whining
about Lexhab lacks merit.
Think of it, 7 volunteers with 2 paid staff are implementing the Town's core values at sites
scattered throughout Town, with units totaling 60 plus. Some have been doing this for 25
years.
1
2.LexHAB Proposal for Set-Aside fund for the design and construction of affordable
housing at the Busa Property $750,000
- Mr. Bill Kennedy, Chair of LexHAB, met with
the Committee to request funding for the construction of affordable housing units at the Busa
property (the final number of units yet to be determined by the Selectmen). Aaron Henry,
Town Planner, was present for the discussion. Mr. Kennedy showed the CPC the following:
(1) a site plan and floor plans dated December 27, 2012: (2) an amended site plan, dated
October 20, 2013; and (3) an amended ground floor plan, with a revision date of March 7,
2013. The revised site plan showed two buildings with one curb cut off Lowell Street. Each
building had three units with a one bedroom unit on the ground floor, a two-bedroom unit on
the second floor (ground floor off Lowell Street) and a two bedroom unit on the third floor.
The ground floor access off Lowell Street would be handicapped accessible. Mr. Kennedy
explained that the plans are still in the design stage, since the number of units has not been
approved by the Board of Selectmen. He said the exterior of the buildings would not change
if the plans were adapted to only two units per building, noting that the lowest floor would
then be used for storage. He said the cost estimate of $1.2M for the six units shown derived
from a construction cost of $200 per square foot, and that the estimate included the sewer
connection. Mr. Kennedy added that the units would be very efficient nearly zero energy.
The addition of solar panels would achieve zero energy status.
Mr. Henry explained the process LexHAB would follow in the coming months. He said that
the development will require a Comprehensive Permit, which is issued by the Zoning Board
of Appeals (ZBA). (The ZBA notifies all abutters within a 300 radius and issues the permit
at a public hearing.) The permit requires the issuance of a Sources and Uses Statement by the
Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD). LexHABs application for
the Sources and Use Statement will require construction-ready plans and final cost estimates.
He said the documents will be submitted to the Selectmen who approve and sign off on the
application to DHCD. Mr. Henry suggested that there would be 1-2 meetings with the Board
prior to any approval. After approval of LexHABs application, DHCD then issues a Site
Eligibility Letter, which paves the way for the ZBA public hearing. Mr. Kennedy added that
LexHAB would be having an upcoming meeting with the neighborhood to which an
expanded list of neighbors and the Busa Farm stakeholders would be invited. He said at
LexHABs next meeting with the Board of Selectmen, the same design plans as those
reviewed at the CPC meeting will be submitted. Final plans will not be prepared until the
BOS has endorsed the sketch plans and decided upon the number of units.
Mr. Horton asked whether there were any other sources of funding for the LexHAB
affordable housing project, to which Mr. Kennedy replied that he had not applied for any
supplemental funding. Mr. Henry added here, that the size of the development was below the
threshold for State funding such as HOME funding (Home Investment Partnerships
Program).
Ms. Fenollosa noted that at the last Annual Town Meeting, LexHABs proposal, though
approved by the CPC and Town boards, was voted down by Town Meeting members. She
questioned how LexHABs presentation would be different at the upcoming Annual Town
Meeting. Mr. Kennedy replied that the addition of specific plans and detailed cost estimates
would be the difference.
Mr. Canale stated that if the Planning Board were to review the LexHAB proposal, in his
opinion they would likely ask that the houses be pushed farther from Westminster Avenue,
2
seek one curb cut, and would find either four or six units acceptable. (LexHAB has sited the
buildings farther from the road, and has eliminated one of the curb cuts.)
Ms. Shaw stated that she thought the design of the buildings was attractive and that the
homes would fit well in the neighborhood. Mr. Kanter noted that for LexHABs presentation
rd
to the CEC on December 3, he would like to see a by category cost breakdown, and the
addition of the information on accessibility added to the application. He stressed that he did
not want LexHAB to have to return to Town Meeting for additional funding. He said he
applauded LexHABs ability to rehabilitate and build affordable housing, and questioned
whether LexHAB had the staffing to oversee the project. Mr. Kennedy replied that the
contractor would be overseeing the project, not LexHAB staff. Ms. Fenollosa asked if
LexHAB would use students from Minuteman Vocational Technical School to do the
construction, thus avoiding labor charges, to which Mr. Kennedy replied that it was their
intention to do so.
(8-0-1)
There was a straw vote on the project, with the CPC voting (one abstention, pending
further information), followed by a lengthy discussion of whether to take a final vote on the
project. Members had been sent a number of emails from several residents of the Vine Street
area and two from residents or former residents of the Busa Farm area. The Committee was
sensitive to the comments of the public, but agreed that the CPC was not the approving
authority for the project. The Committee does not have design review authority, but is limited
by Statute to funding decisions. The Committee felt assured that there would be an
opportunity for public input into the Busa Farm affordable housing proposal prior to Town
Meeting. A majority of members of the CPC felt that there was little additional information
needed on which to base a decision. The Committee was supportive of LexHABs proposal
to build affordable housing, and agreed it was the Selectmens role to modify the design of
the buildings or units if needed. The final vote was postponed until later in the meeting.
3.Hennessey Field Conservation Extension, $300,000
The CPC met with Dan Castagnozzi
and a group of eleven interested abutters and neighbors regarding a neighborhood initiative
to preserve approximately an acre of mature woodlands - the back section of a two acre lot at
7 Mountain Road abutting the Town-owned Hennessey Conservation Field. Mr. Castagnozzi
described the land, highlighting its wildlife value, its proximity to existing Town-owned
conservation land, and its historic nature. The larger two-acre parcel which includes the
proposed acquisition has an existing historic home dating to 1753. The home is on the
Massachusetts Register of Historic Places (the Massachusetts Cultural Resource Information
System)and was moved from Merrimack, New Hampshire to Mountain Road. The historic
home is approximately 3,000 sq. ft, which Mr. Castagnozzi noted puts it in the more
affordable range for Lexington. Mr. Castagnozzi showed pictures of Great Horned owls
which nest on the property and noted that a variety of other wildlife frequents the parcel,
including deer, fox and in the 1990s a black bear. He noted that the parcel serves as a passive
recreation area for walkers and many birders, and provides a cut-through for school children.
Therefore, he reasoned, the proposal addressed three CPA goals, Open Space, Historic
Preservation and Recreation. (Neither the larger lot nor the section proposed for acquisition is
on the Conservation Commission priority list for purchase.)
In response to questions from Ms. Fenollosa, Mr. Castagnozzi explained that the lot is
presently under agreement with a developer until April of 2014. The developer has met with
the Planning Board staff and is pursuing a Comprehensive Permit, which if a By-Right Plan
3
is approved, could lead to the development of four lots and the destruction of the woodlands
on the parcel in question as well as the historic home. (Ms. Fenollosa did not believe a
Demolition permit had been applied for to date.) Mr. Canale updated the Committee on the
status of the Planning Boards review of the proposal. He said the Planning Board staff had
seen site plan sketches, but that the developer had not yet met with the Planning Board. He
said the Board has not taken a position on a By-Right Plan or special permit. He noted that
the Board has received emails from abutters and neighbors. He added that the fact that the
Hennessey parcel is not on the Conservation Commissions list of lands of conservation
interest does not make a difference to the Planning Board since worthy parcels come up for
acquisition on their own timeframe. He added, however, that the parcel had to have a wide
public benefit, not just a benefit to the neighborhood. Mr. Castagnozzi responded here that he
felt that the parcel did have a wider benefit to the Town just as every conservation parcel
does, and that as the neighborhood changed, the parcel would continue to benefit the Town.
He noted the proximity of the parcel to the Paint Mine conservation area, and the NSTAR
power line, which he said functions as a wildlife corridor. It is common he added to see deer
bed down on the parcel in question.
Mr. Canale said he had walked the parcel, and that it was lovely. He noted that from a
connectivity standpoint, however, that the acquisition would be enhanced by a public trail
easement out to Demar Road. (There is apparently an existing trail from Demar to the
Hennessey land.) Steven Van Evera, the owner of 24 Demar Road offered later in the
meeting to put a public trail easement on his lot (Lot 7) to increase the access to the
Hennessey field. (It was never made clear if this is the location of the current trail.)
Mr. Wolk noted that the Conservation Commission had commented on the development of
the lot under agreement. He said the Commission did not feel it could recommend the
acquisition of the lot, but had (in a letter dated October 24, 2013) voted unanimously to
recommend to the Planning Board that the Board seek a 100 buffer from the Hennessey
Field conservation area and place a trail easement on the property.
Mr. Cohen noted that if the deal with the developer does fall through, the neighborhood
might ask the owner to donate the property to the Town and realize the tax benefits from the
gift.
The CPC discussed the proposal at length with the applicant, and generally concluded the
following:
a)The timing on the application on the acquisition prevented the CPC from acting on the
proposal at this time, since the property was under agreement with a developer.
b)Mr. Castagnozzi and the neighbors needed to wait until the agreement between the owner
and the developer expired before pursuing Town funding for the parcel.
c)The CPC was unable to vote on any proposal without an appraisal (two, in fact, per CPC
policy), and that it might be worth the neighbors chipping in for such an appraisal if the
homeowner were willing to grant permission.
d)The neighborhood should try negotiating with the developer if the development of the
parcel ultimately received Planning Board approval.
e)It would be worth meeting with the Conservation Commission in the short term to further
discuss the acquisition, since the ConsCom could expedite the proposal and request CPC
funds for an appraisal if it endorsed the project.
4
Ms. Fenollosa stressed that under the CPA a private group of citizens could request CPA
funding, and urged Mr. Castagnozzi and the neighborhood to remain involved. She and the
Committee noted the presentation of a large box top which tens of neighborhood children had
signed requesting a favorable ruling on CPA funding.
4.Final Votes on Projects not Needing Further Information
Ms. Fenollosa noted the
attendance of Dawn McKenna who had joined the meeting, and asked her for an update on
the status of the Visitor Center Project. Ms. McKenna explained that the Board of Selectmen
(BOS) had accepted the Visitor Center Revised Programmatic Report, but had not endorsed
it. She said they then went on to unanimously approve the funding of the Town portion of the
design work, $220,500. In response to a question from Ms. Fenollosa, Ms. McKenna
explained that this meant that the BOS did not fully endorse all the programmatic elements of
the Report, but wanted to see it move along through the design phase. Ms. McKenna said
there would be plenty of opportunity for public input in the coming months. She also
explained that the FY15 design work was a recommendation in the Traffic and Pedestrian
Study suggested in the initial Visitor Center Report, not a recommendation in the Report
itself. Ms. McKenna discussed the Visitor Centers importance to the tourist population and
to local visitors, and stressed the important role the Visitor Center plays in promoting
economic growth. Ms. Fenollosa questioned the Committee about the need for further
information; with no further information needed on the Visitor Center Project, the Committee
(9-0)
took its final vote of to approve CPA funding for the project.
The remainder of final CPC voting on FY15 Project Applications is as follows:
a)Hennessey Field Conservation Extension - (0-9)
b)Cary Memorial Building Upgrades - (9-0),
subject to the receipt of further
information
c)Community Center Renovation (9-0),
subject to the receipt of furtherinformation
d)Visitor Center Design Phase (9-0)
previously noted
e)Hasting Park Overhead Wires (0-9)
f)Vynebrooke Village Renovations (9-0)
g)LexHAB Set-Aside Funds for Development at the Busa Property (8-0-1)
with
one abstention pending further information
h)Lincoln Park Field Improvements (9-0)
i)Park and Playground Improvements (9-0)
j)Park Improvements Athletic Fields (9-0)
k)Park Improvements Hard Court Resurfacing (9-0)
l)Parker Meadow Accessible Trail D&E (9-0)
m)39 Marrett Road Acquisition Debt Service (9-0)
n)Wright Farm Acquisition Debt Service (9-0)
o)39 Marrett Road D&E Phase II (9-0)
p)Administrative Budget (9-0)
th
5.
The minutes from the meeting of November 13 were approved as amended.
5
6.
The next meeting of the CPC will be on December 12, 2013 pending any urgent matters that
need to be addressed by the full Committee.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:02 pm.
The following materials were submitted at the public meeting:
1.Proposed Triplex for LexHAB, Lowell St. Lexington, Mass. Dated December 27, 2012,
revised 3/7/13, showing the revised Ground Floor Plan.
2.Town of Lexington Assessors Map, showing Lot 70A at 7 Mountain Road. Property ID 86-
70A.
3.Photographs of nesting Great Horned Owls on the Castelman property as part of the
Hennessey Field Extension proposal, and an unpublished book entitled Owls, showing
photographs taken by Dan Castagnozzi (returned to Mr. Castagnozzi at the end of the
meeting).
4.FY15 CPA Project List (Nov. 21, 2013).
Respectfully submitted,
Nathalie Rice
Administrative Assistant
Community Preservation Committee
6