HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-12-17-SSCC-min.pdf DRAFT MINUTES
SCHOOL SITES CONVERSION COMMITTEE MEETING
1
December 17, 1980
Present Mary W Miley, Chairman, Alfred Busa, William Kennedy, Roland Greeley,
William Spencer, Joseph Rooney, Robert Hutchinson. Also present were
Robert Bowyer, Planning Director and Phyllis Smith, Acting Clerk
r Busa, acting as Chairman requested the Committee to vote to go into Executive
Session for the purpose of considering the purchase, exchange, lease or value of
real property and with no intention of resuming open session
!Joon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 6-0 by roll call vote -- Mr Busa,
Mr Kennedy, Mr Greeley, Mr Spencer, Mr Rooney and Mr Hutchinson - to go into
Executive Session
"r Hutchinson. asked Mr Bowyer to give his observations about the proposals submitted.
Mr Bowyer sad he, Steve Asen and Peter DiMatteo, the Building Commissioner, had
reviewed the proposals Taking the proposals in the order in which they appeared on
a matrix previously supplied to the Committee members, gave the following comments
1 Longwood Management Inc and R. Wendell Phillips - Most imaginative, most
interesting proposal They seem to have the best solution to the site
problems of access and parking Recommend consider semifinalist
2 Abbey Group - Didn't come across - they are proposing a sea of parking
there are zoning violations in the parking layout. Proposal involves
the most radical changes - in the character of the facade - transforming
from school to really more of a different type of building Recommend they
not be considered semifinalists
3 Interactive Management System - Proposal for office space - rather vague,
unspecific, unimaginative. Not enough to qualify for further consideration
Recommend they not be considered semifinalists
4 Sacred Heart Housing Cooperative Corp, - Has a lot of different features
Deserves further consideration as a cooperative They talk about preservation
of the building They have some amount of experience in this type of
housing Overall it is a pretty good proposal. Recommend they be
considered semifinalists
5 Lexington Associates (Niles Co ) - Seemed like a pretty good proposal in
the condominium category• in term of their tea, ablest in the area. They
are proposing a sensible number of units (22) , which is a responsible
number for that building Recommend they be considered semifinalists
6 Abrams Management Co - I didn't have a site plan on this They have a
great deal of experience in managing and building low and moderate income
housing to the extent that is a consideration I would give them a
question mark on further consideration
School Sites Conversion Committee Meeting -2- December 17, 1980
7 Bransfield associates - Proposal vague and disorganized Have doubts
about their management or ability to perform as a developer I would
recommend they not be considered semifinalists,
8- Waldorf School - This proposes obviously the least change. Maintains
the building close to what it is now Question is what does it do for
the Town? Do we need another school building? I have some question but
would recommend they be considered semifinalists
9 Crownshield Corporation - This was tough to evaluate - they are an
experienced development firm and could probably perform pretty well
Peter and I thought 42 units was just too much and the size of the
units would be rather cramped. In contrast to some of the other
proposals, they have about 80% more units Peter DiMatteo thinks small
units may be more realistic in terms of handling the whole financial
picture of development I was not enthused about floor plans and layouts
I would recommend they not be considered semifinalists
10 Gilbert Realty - Their garage idea is impractical - couldn't swing cost
against 37 units The remainder of the proposal wasn't really impressive
I would recommend they not be considered semifinalists
11 Boen Development Corp - Interesting proposal - I would have to think about
the loft studio spaces. The number of units is reasonable (26) Setting
aside issue of loft spaces, the proposal is interesting for low and moderate
income housing I would recommend they be considered semifinalists
Mr Bowyer made some general comments regarding the zoning violations Some of the
rsoosals create violations in their parking proposals. He said it might be a good
i=ea to approach 4 or 5 of the developers to discuss ways of resolving access and
to Hing problems and if they are willing to see if they are willing to incorporate
ohanges in their proposals
:he Committee members were then asked to give their preferences on which developers
.could like to talk to further The members voted as follows
1 Longwood Management Inc - 6 yes and 1 no Kennedy, Rooney, Greeley,
Hutchinson, Miley and Spencer voting yes; Busa - no
2 Abbey Group - 3 yes and 4 no Busa, Hutchinson, Miley voting yes; Kennedy,
Rooney, Greeley and Spencer - no
3 Interactive Management System - 4 yes and 3 no Busa, Kennedy, Creels" ,
Hutchinson voting yes; Rooney, Miley and Spencer - no
4 Sacred Heart Housing Cooperative Corp - 5 yes 1 (?) and 1 no Kennedy,
Greeley, Hutchinson, Miley and Spencer voting yes; Rooney with a question and
Busa - no
3 Lexington Associates (Niles Co ) - 7 yes Busa, Kennedy, Rooney, Greeley,
Hutchinson, 'iley and Spencer voting yes
° 6 Abrams Management - 1 yes and 6 no Rooney - yes Busa Kennedy , Greele,
Hutchinson, Miley and Spencer - no
School Sites Conversion Committee -3- December 17, 1980
7 Bransfield Associates - 3 yes and 1 (?) and 3 No Busa, Kennedy, Miley
voting yes; Spencer with a question and Rooney, Greeley, Hutchinson - No
8. Waldorf School - 4 yds and 3 no Kennedy, Rooney, Greeley and Spencer
voting yes Busa, Hutchinson and Miley - no,
9 Crownshield Corporation - 1 yes and 6 no Miley voting yes and Busa,
Kennedy, Rooney, Greeley, Hutchinson and Spencer - no
10. Gilbert Realty - 2 yes and 5 no Kennedy and Miley voting yes; Busa,
Rooney, Greeley, Hutchinson and Spencer - no
11. Boen Development Corp. - 6 yes and 1 no Busa, Rooney, Greeley, Hutchinson ,
Miley and Spencer voting yes and Kennedy - no,
The Committee chose to invite the following six developers to present their proposals
to the School Sites Conversion Committee on Thursday, January 8, 1981 starting at
7 15 p n. and to give them 20 minutes each for their presentation Longwood Management
Inc , Sacred Heart Housing Cooperative Corp , Lexington Associates (Niles Co ) ,
Brensfield Associates, aldorf School and Boen Development Corporation.
The mee_ing adjourned at 6 20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Phyllis Smith
Acting Clerk