Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-11-08-CPC-min COMMUNITY PRESERVATION COMMITTEE Meeting Minutes November 8, 2006 Ellen Stone Room, Cary Hall Members Present: Betsey Weiss, Chair; Joel Adler, Norman Cohen, Marilyn Fenollosa, Wendy Manz, Leo McSweeney, Richard Pagett, Sandra Shaw, Richard Wolk Others: Carl Valente, Town Manager; Mary Keady Betsey Weiss called the meeting to order at 5:00 PM 1. Preliminary discussion of purchase of parcels A and B regarding price and funding and timing/availability Richard Pagett questioned whether there was access to land parcel A: why should the taxpayers spend money on land with limited access? Dick Wolk responded that there is much value to the land. There have been incursions to the wetlands in the past. The Conservation Commission hopes to restore land parcel A for blueberry picking. Carl Valente mentioned that a good model is Weston’s “Landsakes” where children farm and do sugaring in the winter. We should keep that in mind for land parcel A. Dick also suggested that it was possible that land parcel B could continue as a working farm. Joel Adler asked if the deed restriction sought by the Arlington people is still possible. Dick responded that the Conservation Commission will ask Fran Busa about all possible options. Joel asked whether there might be self help funds available to purchase the land. Richard asked whether the access issue would have any effect on valuation. Dick responded that access would be via conservation land. The deal needs to be closed by mid December, 2006. The Conservation Commission will evaluate the two parcels, using Town funds to pay for the evaluations. The CPC voted to declare the purchase of the two parcels “worthy”, and will consider them further as more details are known. 1 2. Discussion of CPA Flow Chart Carl presented a flow chart showing sources and uses of CPA funds during the next four fiscal years, giving examples of how the funds could be allocated. He noted that any excess funds allocated to projects are returned to the CPA coffers. 3. Discussion of Center Playfields – Drainage Project It was asked whether an RFP had been issued and any bids received. Dick wondered whether other funds were available to apply to this project, such as the Recreation Enterprise Fund. Carl said that he would need to do some research to see if this project would qualify. Richard asked whether the cost could vary widely – what would happen if costs escalate? Should we get an estimate of the costs before we approve of the project? Betsey said that she would call Dave Pinsonneault (the project sponsor) and let him know we have project questions, prior to the public hearing next month. 4. Discussion of Cary Hall Lintels Project It was decided that we need to know more about this project. Does it qualify for CPA funds? Is it a maintenance item? 5. Discussion of upgrades to systems at Cary Hall Project Wendy Manz said that she supports this project, but suggested we fund only the project studies (budget items 16 (Design Comprehensive Plan and Documents, $35,000) and 18 (Evaluation and Plan for Building Upgrades, Phase II, $25,000)) at this time. This request would allow Cary Hall to have concerts and performances that are now taking place elsewhere and could bring potential revenues into the Center, such as restaurant patronage, etc. 6. Discussion of Greeley Village Window Replacement Project The Lexington Housing Authority is asking for $240,000 over two years to replace the windows. Does this qualify for CPA funding? Marilyn Fenollosa read the CPA statute: this would probably constitute “preservation”, “protection of personal or real property from injury, harm or destruction, but not including maintenance.” 7. Discussion of Greenway Corridor Project 2 Dick stressed the importance of doing a study, especially given the difficulties crossing Tophet Swamp. The project is complex but the group sponsoring this project has a great track record. Wendy noted that without CPA funding this project would never get off the ground, and added that she thought it was an appropriate concept for CPA funding. Betsey suggested that we invite the group in to speak about it. It was asked if there was federal money to help with construction of the path. Norm Cohen also asked if the project could be broken into phases. Betsey asked about the issue of the path going over private property: what happens? It was also asked whether the path goes through wetlands. If so, what happens? Richard stated that we should not fund projects that the town does not already own. Carl said the question is answered by what is the ultimate use of the property: i.e., is it used by townspeople? Who is the legal entity that would sign the contract? Sandy Shaw said that if Recreation and the Conservation Commission sign on to this project and the project has citizen participation, then that should be enough. Dick suggested that this could be a joint project among the sponsors, the Recreation Committee and the Conservation Commission. Sandy said that if the CPC is interested in this project, we should move to support it. Sandy and Dick will discuss with the project proponents. We must do a study! 8. Discussion of Burial Grounds Project Marilyn noted that the burial grounds are in terrible shape and that two appraisals have been completed, a comprehensive study commissioned by the Lexington Historical Society in 1994 and an update in 2004 by the firm that conserved the obelisk on the Lexington Green. The DPW, Historical Commission and Historical Society have joined to sponsor this application for CPA funding. Richard asked whether the proposal included Munroe Cemetery; it does. It does not include Robbins Cemetery, however, as that burying ground is believed to be in better condition. There was concern about the amount of funds to be used to repair the storage shed. Joel wondered what was stored in the sheds (equipment). Norm wondered whether repairs to the shed could come from the Trust Fund. 3 9. Discussion of East Lexington Library Study Project Marilyn wondered about the $15,000 cost, given the wide disparity of study costs in other projects. Mary Keady explained why the costs could vary so much: a more expensive study would include detailed construction cost estimates, among other things. 10. Discussion of Tourism Signs Project Richard asked whether the old signs would be taken down prior to the installation of the new ones, and noted that no signs could be put up without the approval of the Board of Selectmen. It was also questioned whether all approvals have been secured from the Historic Districts Commission. It was asked whether $10,000 has already been appropriated to the Tourism Committee and if so, when. The other question that came up was the number of tourists to the historic sites. Is it 100,000 or 1,000,000as set forth on the application? Discussion of Buckman Tavern Boiler and Historic House fire alarm project 11. It was noted that Buckman Tavern is Town-owned and leased to the Historical Society, therefore there is a clear benefit to the Town to upgrade the heating system. The three historic houses are owned by the Historical Society but bring in significant tourist dollars; we would not want them to burn down due to inadequate alarm systems. 12. Discussion of Historical Commission Inventory project The project will review, update and complete new research on the approximately 2000 properties listed in the town Inventory of Cultural Resources. It is important that the listings be complete and accurate since the Inventory is the basis for application of the town’s demolition delay bylaw. Richard asked whether all the homes in Merriam Hill, for example, were historic. 13. Discussion of Muzzey School Condominiums project Betsey asked what is the per square foot annual condo assessment and whether there is any reserve left in that account. If so, what? It was asked whether condo fees could be assessed for the window assessments. Mary Keady said that big jobs, such as this one, are charged to each apartment according to the square footage of the apartment. There had been a special assessment for sidewalk repairs earlier. Richard wondered what had been done to maintain the building since 1985 when it was transferred from the town to private ownership. 4 It was also questioned as to what had been done and what had not been done by the Town that should have been done before the Town handed the building over to the Muzzey Condo Association. Does the Town bear any responsibility now? Mary also said that the units are bought at a reduced rate but repairs are at market rate and many people in the building have incomes that are very limited. Therefore, a study is important so that money will be spent where it is most needed and make the most impact. There are very serious heat loss problems on the north side of the building that need to be addressed. 14. Discussion of Housing Partnership proposal for purchase of affordable housing easements Richard said that we need to look at Stowe and Acton to see how those towns are managing the deed restrictions – what mechanisms they are using to control them. We do not want to overburden LexHAB. 15. The meeting was adjourned at 7:15, after scheduling our next meeting for Thursday, November 16th at 5:00 PM. At that time we will continue reviewing the applications for CPA funding for the spring Town Meeting. Respectfully submitted, Joel Adler 5