HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-03-17-SBFRC-min RECEIVED
2022 09 May, 11 09 aui °m
TOWN CLERK
Ad Hoc Stone Building Feasibility/Reuse Committee LEXINGTON MA
Town of Lexington, MA
March 17, 2022 8:00 AM
MINUTES
Attending: Cristina Burwell, Jeff Howry, Mark Manasas, Meg Muckenhoupt (Appropriations
Comm. Liaison), Melinda Nasardinov (left 9:32), Jacelyn Anderson , Anne Grady, Lester
Savage (left 8:52), Doug Lucente (Select Board Liaison), Paul Smyke, Carolyn Goldstein,
Absent: Suzie Barry (Cary Library Trustees Liaison)
Guests: Elaine Ashton, Mark Anderson (TMM)
Recording Secretary: Cristina Burwell
The meeting began at 8:06 with an online Roll Call & Reading of the Statement on Use of
Virtual Meetings. Minutes for February 3 were approved unanimously, as motioned by Mark
and seconded by Les.
Public Comments & General Announcements
Cristina voiced her displeasure that the SBFRC was not presented with the 2008 proposal
presented by the then Town Clerk and Town Manager to the Library Board of Trustees, and
noted that this would have prevented a lot of duplication of time and energy (edit: this
proposal was recently discovered and sent to the SBFRC members).
Continued review of Final Report components
Melinda led a continued discussion of the Key Takeaways that were reviewed at the last
meeting, having reviewed programming and operational expectations at the prior SBFRC
meeting (discussing the what that the committee has heard, not the how).
Jeff spoke to the design of the front foyer, and the lollie columns on the ground floor.
Melinda noted the renovation needs in the report seem to be very specific, and suggested
that we might be better served by being more general and noting discussions that need to
happen.
Cristina observed that the SBFRC should have Donna Hooper, and Norm Cohen to a meeting
because if the Lexington Heritage Center report, being so similar to what we have discovered,
1
did not result in the building being renovated then we need to understand why it did not
succeed if we are to succeed with our report to the Select Board.
Doug noted that information about the size of the rooms is perhaps not relevant to decision
making, and that decisions made by the Powers that Be 14 years ago might have just not
been right for the time (so that if they are the same as our findings now they might succeed
for different reasons). Doug also indicated that he did not know of the Lexington Heritage
Center documents.
Les agreed with Mark and Cristina that the building needs a champion. He also indicated that
providing too much information in a recommendation might work against getting a group to
take over the building and be that champion by its specificity. Mark noted the difficulty in
working on this project by a Town committee (OML quorum and agendas) means that a
nonprofit will need to take this work on.
Melinda agreed with Mark and Les about being less detailed and getting the report out
quickly. She noted that there is so much detail in the section she and Carolyn have pulled
together from community forums, and that this would be appropriate for an appendix. She
referenced how very few pages the Lexington Heritage Center's report was, and how ours
might be simple, with the goal of it being very readable.
Jeff mentioned that we will have an executive summary that could be 2-3 pages with
references, and that we have to have the details.
Carolyn referenced a question from Kathleen Dalton in the Chat feature about the Lexington
Heritage Center document being made publicly available. Cristina said she would make sure
that gets shared with the Town Webmaster for posting on the SBFRC website.
Meg noted that any work to the building would undergo a public design review process
whereby interested members of the public can comment at a future time. Jeff believed that it
was good guidance to educate people because these issues were really key to such things as
costs.
The SBFRC continued reviewing Key Takeaways listing, such as the need for wifi and internet.
Jeff reinforced the need for an ell to meet building code requirements for egress, and others
disagreed that our committee should leave this to architects at a future time. Melinda
proposed that we summarize in our report that the building needs to be renovated in such a
way to bring it up to code. Carolyn noted that our work is mostly on programmatic visions,
and suggested that we note renovations need to support the programmatic visions.
Renovations need to be acknowledged in these key takeaways - starting with updating the
HSR and emphasizing the importance and commitment to the historic materiel that is on site.
It was asked that Cristina reorganize the renovation list according to those guidelines.
2
"Lexington Lyceum" was proposed as the building's name (with details associated with that
discussed), and spaces within to have names associated with its past - such as Emerson Hall,
Stone and Robbins names, as well as Burdoo which might spotlight another aspect of
Lexington's history not discussed elsewhere. Anne noted that there was once another
Lyceum in Lexington, such that this should be called the East Lexington Lyceum.
Carolyn recommended that the name should, like renovations, reflect the vision that we have
for the building, and since a lyceum is the overarching vision that this is a nice name. And that
what we have heard is that we should aim to connect its past with its future, as perhaps a
21st century lyceum.
Melinda reviewed a draft mission statement:
To provide residents of Lexington with an historic space to meet, Learn, discuss, interpret our past,
and shape our future. This mission builds on the ideas and initiatives championed by the Robbins
and Stone families, Chartes Fotten, Ratph Watdo Emerson, and others who spoke up about the
important social issues of their times as part of the building's prior use as a Lyceum and Library, and
creates a model for preserving the building.
Kathleen Dalton noted that it is missing anything about abolition (both adding that Lexington
might be more than a one-story town and highlighting one of the key features in this
building's importance). Paul commented that he and Jackie would be driving this forward
with everyone's comments here (in their Vision statement), and observed that the deed's
criteria were missing but perhaps not needed.
Anne indicated that Emerson spoke about many topics, but not necessarily the ones noted
here. Carolyn suggested that it is more important to note the social issues than to name
people; Melinda reinforced this and suggested that the lyceum goes front and center in the
first sentence.
Carolyn proposed that we meet on the next 2 Thursdays of the month, seconded by Mark,
and approved unanimously (Les had left). Cristina to confirm zoom links, and send out an
agenda.
In taking a look at next steps, it was held up if the SBFRC looked at the revised mission
statement first or specific recommendations on how to make that happen. Paul asked Doug
to clarify the direction the final report should go - with more details (financial, building) or
more top-level, notional/aspirational. Doug, not speaking for all the SB members, indicated
that summaries were good, with the details in appendices that support the conclusions. He
recommended the �it ;irna;�„ a ir„ Stud I=re . oirt as an example, and which was received well by
the SB. He also emphasized that there does need to be a champion for this as well as a clear
Next Steps for the SB to act on. Mark inquired about the temperature within the town to help
support this building once it was renovated (and there doesn't seem to be enough potential
3
for rent to support it). He indicated that this would be a hard pill to swallow, that Town
departments aren't going to want to pull from their budgets and that the programmatic needs
will need to be defined and sold. Doug provided a recent goal setting (draft) document by
the SB.
Carolyn spoke with the LPS Superintendent - asking if she knew what we were doing, gave
her an opportunity to weigh in, and heard about their DEI initiatives. This led her to sensing
that if our vision dovetails with what the Town is already doing or is developing, that it seems
more like the building's operational costs could be justified at some level. Jeff would like us
to show something about the bottom line costs for operation.
Adjournment
Mark moved to adjourn at 9:34, Anne seconded, and approved unanimously.
(approved and sent to Town Clerk office 4/7)
4