HomeMy WebLinkAboutLeary Property Community Housing Task Force 2011-05-25-LEARY-rpt (FINAL)Leary Property Community Housing Task Force
Final Report
MAY 25, 2011
Robert Bicknell, Housing Partnership Wendy Manz, Planning Board
George A. Burnell, Selectmen Liaison Deborah Mauger, Selectmen Liaison
Stephen Keane, Housing Authority Lester Savage, LexHAB, Chair
Bill Kennedy, LexHAB Betsey Weiss, Community Preservation
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary of Recommendations------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
Overview -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2
TheExisting House-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3
ProjectDescription-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5
Neighborhood Character----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5
Density---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5
Numberof Units---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6
ArchitecturalStyle ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6
UnitDescriptions--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6
Traffic----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6
Environmental Considerations& Energy Efficiency ------------------------------------------------------7
Stormwater----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7
Wetlands-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7
Trees------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7
EnergyEfficiency---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7
Recommended Developer -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8
Project Permitting & Funding ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------9
ProcessSummary Timeline ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11
CommunityInvolvement------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12
November 16, 2010:Task Force Community Meeting#1--------------------------------------------- 12
March 17, 2011:Task Force Community Meeting#2-------------------------------------------------- 12
April 8, 2011:Annual Town Meeting----------------------------------------------------------------------- 13
AdditionalMeetings-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13
Appendices------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14
Appendix 1: Comprehensive Cultural Resources Survey Excerpts---------------------------------- 14
Appendix 2: Rehabilitiation Feasibiilty Documents----------------------------------------------------- 15
Summary of the Salemi Report-------------------------------------------------------------------------15
Follow Up Correspondence with Richard Salemi---------------------------------------------------19
PeerReviews------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------22
Appendix 3: Member Weiss' Exception Report----------------------------------------------------------25
Appendix 4: Pro forma Analysis -----------------------------------------------------------------------------30
Appendix 5: Images of Architectural Examples----------------------------------------------------------31
Appendix 6: Meeting Minutes of all groups Related to the Acquisition---------------------------32
Appendix 7: Resident petition & Correspondence------------------------------------------------------37
Appendix 8: Press Clippings ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------38
LEARY PROPERTY COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT
MAY 25, 2011
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
This Report recommends the following:
• 5 or 6 units in one or two structures
o The structures would approximate the mass of the large modern home directly
across the street from the Leary Land, and should be sited in such a way as to leave
open a view of the Leary conservation land.
• Demolition Delay Bylaw—The Selectmen, or their designee, should make prompt
application to the Commission for a demolition permit.
• Investigate a mini traffic study with traffic mitigation measures
• Project be a near-zero energy development
• LexHAB as developer
o It is expected that as the plans for the property are developed,there will continue
to be meetings with the neighbors.
o The Task Forces recommends that the developer, whether LexHAB or not, provide
more information for residents and continue to work toward a consensus solution
that offers reasonable satisfaction to all stakeholders.
• Local funding options be used
• Local Initiative Program should be used for project permitting
1
LEARY PROPERTY COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT
MAY 25, 2011
OVERVIEW
In 2009, Community Preservation Act funds enabled the Town to purchase the Leary property, 14.2
acres of meadowland with a nineteenth century farm house fronting on Vine Street. Thirteen and a half
acres are now preserved as conservation land. Approximately two-thirds of an acre at 116 Vine Street
has been reserved by the Town for affordable housing.
The Leary Property Community Housing Task Force (the Task Force) was charged with
recommending to the Selectmen a plan for developing community housing on the property, which
included determining whether the existing structure could be saved. In doing this the Task Force sought
to balance the Town's need to increase its number of affordable housing units with other important
goals, including respect for historical heritage,viewscape preservation, environmental sustainability,
and neighborhood integration.
A primary objective of the Task Force is to provide high quality affordable housing units on the
limited portion of the Leary Land reserved by the Town for this purpose. The local demand for such
housing greatly exceeds the supply, particularly for two-and three-bedroom units.
Additionally the state requirement that each community have ten percent of its housing stock
affordable (according to the statutory definition) means that the production of affordable units must
continue to keep pace with the production of market rate units. Because Lexington is largely"built out"
there are limited opportunities to site new affordable homes. The reservation of a portion of the Leary
Land for affordable housing presents one such opportunity.
The cost apportioned to the reserved portion ($600,000) is a factor in determining the preferred
number of units.As more units are created,the cost to the Town of each unit goes down. Considering
these factors, as well as some countervailing factors to be discussed below, the Task Force recommends
that five to six housing units be created on this site in one structure consisting of several attached
elements, such as a farmhouse, ell and barn.
In meeting the primary goal of creating affordable housing units, the project should serve Lexington
residents, including neighbors of the project, and add value to the Town as a whole. This requires real
attention to the constructive input raised by abutters and neighbors. Primarily this pertains to the
farmhouse,the proposed number of units,traffic, and neighborhood character.
2
LEARY PROPERTY COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT
MAY 25, 2011
THE EXISTING HOUSE
What to do with the existing structure dominated the first part of the Task Force's work. The group
was charged, in part, to "determine whether the existing structure can be saved." A report, referred to
here as the SALEMI REPORT and funded by a $10,000 appropriation of Community Preservation Act funds
by Town Meeting in 2009, provided a structural analysis of the farmhouse.
The site is in one of the older parts of Town, and displays characteristics typical of pre-Zoning. An
excellent write up of the area's history can be found in the Town's COMPREHENSIVE CULTURAL RESOURCES
SURVEY(Area F, Woburn Street). The house itself is cited by the Assessors' records as being built in the
1840's, with at least two major additions (the back and side ells) since then. Because the house is listed
on the SURVEY it is subject to the Town's Demolition Delay Bylaw,the implications of which are discussed
elsewhere in this document. (See Appendix 1 for the CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY excerpts.)
The structure could be saved. Despite widespread deterioration, mold and water damage,
preservationists agree that the house could be rehabilitated. It is evident that the cost would be higher
for rehabilitation than for new construction. In November of 2010 the Task Force unanimously
supported applying for approximately$11,000 in additional CPA funds to stabilize the structure until a
decision could be made regarding the preservation of the house, as the Task Force had not yet been
able to reach consensus as to whether the Town should seek to permanently preserve it.
While there was an initial preference for saving the farmhouse,the question became, "At what
cost?" both in actual expenditure and opportunity cost. While estimates indicated that the dollar cost
of preserving the farmhouse was considerably more than the cost of building a new one,Task Force
members understood that spreading the total development cost over an increased number of units
would bring the average unit cost down. On the other hand, in addition to increasing the construction
expense,the farmhouse would not be brought up to modern accessibility and other code requirements
and would not be as energy efficient as a new structure without gutting the interior and making major
modifications to the structure. To allow Town Meeting to weigh in on whether or not to support the
cost of rehabbing the farmhouse, the Task Force considered presenting two development options to
Town Meeting, one that rehabbed the structure (to be paid out of CPA funds), and another that would
move ahead without the structure. Subsequent events would foreclose this approach, as detailed
below.
The SALEMI REPORT(and the structure)was later reviewed by two specialists from Cambridge,
providing an estimate of the cost of rehabilitating the structure in the range of$250 to $300 per square
foot, slightly lower than Salemi's figures, but not so much as to call Salemi's work into question. The
supplemental reviewers both felt that these costs could be lowered by averaging the renovation costs
into the larger project(thereby raising the cost of development of the non-historic element). (See
Appendix 2 for excerpts from the SALEMI REPORT as well as follow up correspondence and the specialists'
analysis.)
At this price, approximately$340,000 to$500,000 for the farmhouse, there would remain several
issues with the structure, most notably the floor to ceiling heights would remain low (approximately 7'-0
to 7'-2"), and the floor plan would remain as it currently exists. The experts diverge on additional costs
associated with the foundation,the two extremely steep stairways, and the condition of the buried sills.
3
LEARY PROPERTY COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT
MAY 25, 2011
The Task Force spent considerable time researching the feasibility of a curatorship program to
identify a steward for the house who could direct its renovation, as utilized by the Commonwealth's
Department of Conservation and Recreation for structures in its care. A number of complicating factors
led the group away from this, not the least of which is that the selected occupant would have to be
income-eligible for affordable housing. DCR requires that the occupant steward have the means to
invest in the structure, which greatly reduces the universe of possible stewards. In this case, because of
the need for the person to meet all other affordable housing requirements,the likelihood of finding a
steward was negligible.
Even more important, LexHAB made it clear to the Task Force that it did not wish to manage a
rehabbed structure as an affordable housing unit, as the issues outlined above would be an ongoing
drain on the organization's time and resources.
In November 2010,the Task Force made a formal recommendation to the Board of Selectmen, that
it make funding requests to the Community Preservation Committee for predevelopment work on the
site, and also stabilization of the farmhouse pending a decision on its preservation. Based on the SALEMI
REPORT and the subsequent discussions of it,the Board of Selectmen determined that the preservation
of the existing building would not be appropriate due to the high costs of renovation relative to its
potential re-use as a community housing unit. Further,the Selectmen were concerned that due to the
deterioration of the farmhouse, preservation would involve replacement of such a significant portion of
materials that the end result would be the creation of a replica, rather than preservation of a historic
structure.
At the Task Force's first community meeting with the neighborhood, the residents expressed their
frustration with that decision as they had previously stated their wish to preserve the farmhouse.
However, as the Task Force's role is only advisory to the Board of Selectmen, it accepted the
Selectmen's decision as final and proceeded with their charge on the assumption that the existing
structure would not be a part of the redeveloped site.
Because the house is potentially subject to a one-year demolition delay imposed by the Historical
Commission in accordance with local bylaws,the Selectmen or their designee (LexHAB) should make
prompt application to the Commission for a demolition permit. The enforced delay allows a period of
time for the applicant to seek alternative means to preserve the structure. The Task Force echoes a
statement made at the 2011 Town Meeting, that the structure should be made available at nominal cost
to anyone who wishes to remove it for purposes of preservation. If it is to be removed or subject to a
year delay,the sooner such an application is made the less likely the delay will impact the construction
of the recommended plan, whatever that ultimately turns out to be.
(See Appendix 3 for Task Force member Betsey Weiss' Exception Report on this issue.)
4
LEARY PROPERTY COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT
MAY 25, 2011
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER
Lexington has been very successful in integrating its affordable units in scattered sites around the
Town,where they are virtually indistinguishable from any other housing, and the goal for this site is the
same harmonious integration. The Task Force has listened to the residents of the area who suggest that
even if the Leary parcel could physically accommodate more than six units of housing with off-street
parking, such a number would create a community in and of itself—making integration into the
neighborhood fabric more difficult—something that both the residents and Task Force wish to avoid.
This is one reason the Task Force reduced the number of units it is proposing.
The Task Force spent a lot of time exploring context-sensitive solutions, with particular emphasis on
the architectural design of the structure(s),their energy efficiency, and how the development would
handle storm water and traffic. The Task Force favors incorporating multiple units in a building that
resembles the nineteenth century farm house that now stands on the land, perhaps with an additional
barn-like structure. The structures would approximate the mass of the large modern home directly
across the street from the Leary Land, and should be sited in such a way as to leave open a view of the
Leary conservation land.
The way in which the design of the site is handled can ameliorate many of the neighbors' concerns,
and can ensure that the development is not so large that it will be a neighborhood unto itself, but will
contain enough units to make economical use of taxpayer dollars.
DENSITY
The Task Force's recommendation of up to six units on the site has garnered more attention than
any other recommendation it has proposed made regarding the property. There are a number of
reasons that led the group to recommend that number. One reason relates to the limited land
resources available to the Town for such a development. Another factor is tied to the cost of
development: the more units in the development, the lower the per unit subsidy from the taxpayers.
For example,the Task Force developed proforma figures based on historical data that showed an
approximate per unit cost of$500,000 a unit for a two-unit development versus $300,000 a unit for a
six-unit development. (See Appendix 4 for the Task Force's development proforma, summarizing the
various hard and soft development costs, and the proposed financing for this project.)
The last town-initiated creation of a net new housing unit occurred over 10 years ago (LexHAB's
project on Rangeway) and produced a stock duplex. When the Leary Land was acquired, it appeared
that the site could hold two such duplexes. However,their design bore no relation to the existing
homes on Vine Street in style, size or historical reference. The Task Force believes that context, as
affirmed by the Vine Street neighbors, is a critical component of a good development. The Task Force is
focused not only on the creation of community housing, but on ensuring that the project fits into the
fabric of the neighborhood,that it be energy efficient, and that the planning of the landscape be
considered as important an element as any other factor in the project. The number of units is important
economically, but more important than the number is how the design of the development fits into the
neighborhood.
The Task Force heard presentations from a number of architects and developers who showed
examples of attractive developments built in other Towns that included small attached units, clustered
5
LEARY PROPERTY COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT
MAY 25, 2011
so as to preserve open space and yet accommodate multiple units with off-street parking. One concept
plan demonstrated that as many as twelve units could actually be built on the land available, and others
showed up to eight units. The Task Force was initially persuaded that eight units could be
accommodated on this site if properly designed and sited. However, after hearing from Vine Street
residents,who were concerned about a density level out of harmony with the existing neighborhood
and about traffic that would increase with additional families, the Task Force has agreed that no more
than six units should be considered.
NUMBER OF UNITS
The Task Force has concluded that a development of five or six units is possible and would not
overburden the site or the neighborhood. Such a development balances the abutters' desire to have an
integrated development which does not overwhelm the neighborhood with new traffic with the Town's
ongoing need to produce a meaningful number of affordable units at a reasonable cost to maintain the
ten percent of affordable units on the state's Subsidized Housing Inventory. Because of limited land
resources and opportunities available to the Town,the Task Force looked to create as many units of
housing as the site could reasonably accommodate.
The Task Force weighed the trade-offs between maximizing the return on public investment in the
site (a low per unit subsidy),general development principles, and the impacts of development on the
neighborhood.
ARCHITECTURAL STYLE
The Task Force believes that the architecture of the redeveloped site should reflect a traditional
New England farmhouse style, in both size and scale. Buildings of this kind would harmonize with other
homes in the neighborhood and would refer to the historic use of the site as a dairy farm. (Appendix 5
includes images of architectural examples.
UNIT DESCRIPTIONS
Based on discussions with both LexHAB and the Lexington Housing Authority,to serve the greatest
demand the unit mix should focus on two and three bedroom units, ranging from about 900 SF to 1,400
SF. In general these are slightly larger (by about 200 SF)than the State's minimums. To comply with
Federal and State Fair Housing law at least one unit should be fully accessible.
TRAFFIC
Vine Street is a very narrow street, with a sharp turn at the point where the Leary Land is sited. In
some spots two-way travel is difficult. Vine Street residents are very concerned about any increase in
traffic on their street for reasons of congestion and safety, particularly for children.
The Lexington Planning Department had a traffic count done, which indicated that approximately 82
car trips occur on the street each week day, and approximately 60 car trips each weekend day. Six units
may generate 40 to 60 additional trips per day, but even the addition of these trips over a 24-hour
period does not reach a level of traffic that would trigger the requirement for a traffic study.
Nevertheless,the Planning Department has indicated its willingness to work with a traffic engineer to
find ways to address the neighborhood's concerns.
6
LEARY PROPERTY COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT
MAY 25, 2011
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS & ENERGY EFFICIENCY
STORMWATER
Several abutters have shared their concerns over the possibility of new development increasing the
area's storm water runoff, and therefore increasing the risk of flooding. Storm water runoff is generated
when precipitation from rain and snowmelt events flows over land or impervious surfaces and does not
percolate into the ground.As the runoff flows over the land or impervious surfaces (paved streets,
parking lots, and building rooftops), it accumulates debris, chemicals, sediment or other pollutants that
could adversely affect water quality if the runoff is discharged untreated. The primary method to control
storm water discharges is the use of best management practices (BMPs).
In this case the Task Force is recommending that the development employ as many low-impact
development (LID) storm water techniques as possible. LID could be briefly summarized as an
innovative storm water management approach with a basic principle that is modeled after nature:
manage rainfall at the source using uniformly distributed decentralized micro-scale controls. A partial
list of LID techniques includes the following: bioretention (rain gardens, grassed swales); disconnectivity
(rain barrels, dry wells); minimize Impervious area (permeable pavers); and, conservation (limit
landscaping water usage).
WETLANDS
The Task Force is aware that the site is bounded by a wetland system to the rear.The Task Force is
committed to protecting the resource area from any deleterious effects of nearby development.
Wetlands protection is most effective when coordinated with other surface and ground-water
protection programs such as mentioned above.
TREES
There would appear to be several trees on the site that are protected by the Town's Tree Bylaw.
The development of the Leary site should employ tree protection strategies to conserve as many healthy
trees on site as possible. Actions to encourage tree protection and reduce the risk of injuring or losing
valuable trees should be taken at every possible opportunity during the development phase of the
project. Conserving as many existing trees as possible will minimize the impacts of construction and
increase the likelihood of a speedy integration of the new development into its context. Healthy trees
enhance property values and community development by providing shade, wildlife habitat, and beauty.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
The Task Force recommends that the structures to be built to reduce the energy demands as much
as possible, ideally near zero. Building attached units reduces heating and cooling costs for a more
ecologically sustainable project, further reducing its carbon footprint. A net zero-energy building (ZEB)
is a residential or commercial building with greatly reduced energy needs through efficiency gains such
that the balance of energy needs can be supplied with renewable technologies.There is no universal
definition of the phrase "zero energy."The Task Force recommends that the project strive to produce as
much energy as it consumes over a year's time. This efficiency can be achieved through active power
production from solar panels combined with passive usage reducers to make the development as energy
efficient as possible.
7
LEARY PROPERTY COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT
MAY 25, 2011
RECOMMENDED DEVELOPER
Because LexHAB has successfully provided single and double units of affordable housing to
Lexington over the past 20 years, it was the first"developer" considered by the Task Force for this
project. However, as this project is somewhat larger than typical LexHAB projects in the past,the Task
Force considered alternative developers.
The Task Force, which includes two LexHAB members, met with a number of developers with
experience in affordable housing projects. Their pro bono contribution to the process should be
acknowledged.
Very early in the process, Sasaski and Associates provided us with several hours of pro bono site
planning work. The Task Force met with the Metro West Collaborative Developers (MWCD), a new
organization formed by two area community development corporations of which the Town is a member,
for pro forma and development programming advice. Later in the process the Task Force invited
Transformations, Inc, a private housing development firm that specializes in green energy building and
affordable housing, and Oxbow Partners, another private developer,who recently redeveloped a site for
the Town of Wayland as a 16-unit affordable development. Ross Speer, a Lexington resident and
architect, sat in on several meetings, and lent the Task Force his expertise as well. The information
obtained from these experts was very helpful in laying out possible development scenarios for the Leary
housing parcel, and setting parameters for design, density and cost.
In the end, however,the Task Force agreed that LexHAB was its first choice as developer. While this
project is not one that LexHAB can develop under its usual partnership arrangement with the Rotary
Club and Minuteman Technical High School, LexHAB has expressed an interest in increasing its
development capacity through strategic partnerships with other groups, such as the Housing Authority
or one of the developers listed above. While larger than the projects typically undertaken by LexHAB,
this is still below the size of development that would attract broader interest from the development
community.
The Task Force feels that because of its established position in the community, its record of
accomplishment, and its willingness to take on the challenge, LexHAB should direct the redevelopment
of the parcel and ultimately own and manage the site.
LexHAB has arranged for and is funding the initial site surveying work. When planning funds
recommended by the Community Preservation Committee were not appropriated by Town Meeting,
LexHAB offered to support this predevelopment work. It has also begun exploring potential
partnerships to secure a general contractor for the project.
8
LEARY PROPERTY COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT
MAY 25, 2011
PROJECT PERMITTING & FUNDING
The site at 116 Vine Street is zoned RO (single-family dwelling)which normally permits a single
residential unit to be built "by-right" on 30,000 square feet of land.
Because of its relative simplicity,the Town's familiarity with it, and the anticipated sources of funds
(no outside funders), the Task Force suggests the use of the "Local Initiative Program," (LIP)
administered by the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD). This
is the program used to get LexHAB units on the Subsidized Housing Inventory in the past and for
inclusionary units in new subdivisions negotiated by the Planning Board. Because it incorporates a
community benefit, a LIP development overrides the existing single family zoning of the parcel by
agreement between the developer and the Town. The Board of Selectmen must endorse the LIP
application, which underscores the Task Force's consensus building approach.
Alternate permitting schemes include pursuing a full-blown Comprehensive Permit or some
combination of variances and rezoning. These options would require more time and resources to
accomplish.
List of permits and/or applicable local bylaws:
• Demolition Permit for the existing farm house, which is potentially subject to a 12-month
delay from the Historical Commission to allow time for any interested parties to come
forward with proposals to preserve the farm house off site;
• Order of Conditions which may be imposed by the Conservation Commission with regard to
wetlands protection;
• Compliance with the Tree Bylaw, which requires compensation for removal of trees above a
certain size;
• Proposed Local Initiative Program application. The LIP consolidates all local permitting
authority into one body,the Board of Selectmen, and allows underlying zoning to be
overridden according to the terms agreed between the developer and the BOS.
Below is a preliminary outline of anticipated project financing. The Task Force hopes to deliver a
project that limits taxpayers' subsidy to approximately$300,000 per unit (including the allocated
$600,000 cost of the land).
Considerations of context and neighborhood preference have kept the project small, especially as
compared to other projects regionally.The State, as well as the private development community has
little interest in funding a project this small, as the size and scope of the project has been reduced below
the level of consideration for these competitive programs, such as Federal Tax Credits, State HOME
funds, etc.
At this time the most likely sources of funding are the following:
• Local HOME Investment Partnership Program funds;
9
LEARY PROPERTY COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT
MAY 25, 2011
• Pending private donation for affordable housing negotiated by the Planning Board as part of
the redevelopment of Jefferson Union;
• Contribution by LexHAB of 10 to 20 percent of the total cost; and
• Community Preservation Act Housing Funds.
10
LEARY PROPERTY COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT
MAY 25, 2011
PROCESS SUMMARY TIMELINE
Acquisition of the Leary property and planning for its use has been an evolving discussion.The size
of the housing parcel was debated and finally settled at the time of the purchase, as land acquired with
Community Preservation Act funds must be legally deed restricted for its intended purpose as permitted
by the statute. The potential number of units on the parcel has been discussed by the Selectmen,the
Community Preservation Committee, the Housing Partnership, and others. While preferences and
estimates have varied, the Town,through its various agencies, has consistently indicated that it wanted
economical production of housing to meet the demonstrated need. The instruction to the Leary Land
Task Force contained no limitation on the number of units it might propose.
Prior to the establishment of the Task Force various boards and committees discussed the size of the
parcel to be reserved for affordable housing as well as the number of units to be constructed. Much has
been made of comments made on March 19, 2009, where the abutters feel that the Town promised
only a unit or two to the neighbors. The context in which this statement was made however,
underscores the evolving nature of the project, where the size of the community housing lot,the
number of units, etc, were all in constant flux. On the very same night,the CPC was stating the
importance of the four-unit acquisition proposal. A week before, on March 5,the CPC had discussed not
one but THREE iterations of a four unit plan. Ultimately they deferred on the number of units as they
recognized that they had not been charged with this task, but the point relevant to this discussion is that
the project was not conceived of in a straight linear fashion, but was a dynamic one.
When the Task Force was established in July of 2010 the charge was, "To recommend to the
Selectmen a plan for developing community housing on the Leary property at 116 Vine Street, and to
determine whether the existing structure can be saved." There was no preconception as to the number
of units that could be accommodated nor was the fate of the farm house determined.
Appendix 6 summarizes discussions of other boards and committees prior to the establishment of
the Task Force.
11
LEARY PROPERTY COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT
MAY 25, 2011
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Over a period of months the Task Force met some sixteen times and heard numerous presentations
by developers and others, and came to the conclusion that multiple units were the best solution to meet
the various goals of the Town for this site. The Task Force has reduced its initial suggestion of up to
eight units to up to six in response to residents' input. It also understands that the nature of the
buildings to be built on this site must be in harmony with the character of the neighborhood and should
reference the existing farm house,for which the neighbors feel genuine affection. The Task Force
recommends that the developer, whether LexHAB or not, provide more information to residents and
continue to work toward a consensus solution that offers reasonable satisfaction to all stakeholders.
The Task Force held two community meetings, mailing notice to all residents of the Vine Street area.
The initial meeting of November 16 was held toward the beginning of the Task Force's work when no
specific proposal had been developed, and the second was held March 17,when the Task Force put
forward its initial proposal of eight units. The meetings were well attended and residents have made
their concerns clear. While there seems to be a reluctant acceptance of the need to remove the farm
house and a general acceptance of two new units on the property, residents are still unhappy with an
unaccustomed level of density on their street, and concerned about traffic. It is expected that as the
plans for the property are developed, there will continue to be meetings with the neighbors.
NOVEMBER 16, 2010: TASK FORCE COMMUNITY MEETING #1
This meeting was attended by the Task Force and approximately two dozen Vine Street area
residents. For most of the attending residents, this was the first chance to hear about Town planning for
the portion of the Leary property designated for housing. The Task Force presented a summary of the
acquisition and funding of the property and the intent to develop affordable housing on the edge of the
property abutting Vine Street. The Task Force did not put forward any specific design plan or number of
units to be developed but concentrated on receiving input from the neighbors. A number of attendees
stated that they wished the existing farm house to remain in place, and that they were concerned about
any substantial density of development on the property because of increased traffic and lack of
integration with the existing neighborhood. A few also voiced their concerns about how storm water
runoff would be handled. It was generally stated that the neighbors did not object to affordable housing
per se, as long as their practical concerns were addressed.
MARCH 17, 2011: TASK FORCE COMMUNITY MEETING #2
This meeting was attended by the Task Force and approximately twelve Vine Street area residents.
At this meeting the Task Force suggested that six to eight affordable units could be accommodated on
the Leary housing parcel. They offered illustrations of existing housing developments in other towns
that they believed had incorporated multiple small units in attractive buildings in the style of existing
neighborhood architecture. The Task Force reported that it had advised the Board of Selectmen to seek
Community Preservation Act funding for initial site planning and design work and for basic stabilization
of the existing farm house while a decision was made as to whether to attempt to preserve it. The
Selectmen had forwarded the application for funding for the site and design work, but declined to seek
funding for stabilization of the house. After review of a study of the house's condition, the Selectmen
felt that preserving it would be costly and result in so much replacement as to constitute a replica rather
than a renovated building. They also felt that the expenditure on the house as an affordable unit would
be out of line with the cost of building new units.
12
LEARY PROPERTY COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT
MAY 25, 2011
The attending residents were unhappy with the loss of the farm house, and unanimously agreed
that eight units were too many to be readily integrated into their neighborhood. Some residents made
the point that a dense cluster of housing on a street of individual homes would stand out as different,
making integration problematic. Others were concerned about traffic on Vine Street,which is a so
narrow as to make two-way travel difficult in places. The Planning Department had had a traffic count
done on the street which indicated very low traffic volume of approximately 82 car trips during a week
day and 60 cars per day on weekends. Even assuming two cars per family and 40 more car trips per day,
the volume was well below a level that would trigger any formal traffic study. However,the Planning
Department agreed to consider a traffic evaluation in response to the neighbors' concerns.
The Task Force stressed that they had come to their suggested density in meetings over several
months, as they had seen presentations from developers as to how such housing, including off-street
parking, could be laid out. They also noted that the size of buildings required to house a number of
units on the Leary parcel would not be larger than the substantial homes directly across Vine Street
from the parcel. Residents stressed that in an earlier meeting of the Board of Selectmen, one Selectman
had mentioned only two units of affordable housing, which they considered a promise of that level of
density.
APRIL 8, 2011: ANNUAL TOWN MEETING
Town Meeting discussed a recommendation from the Community Preservation Committee to use
CPA funds for certain predevelopment activities on the site, such as the essential site surveying and
technical analysis work. Article 8(c) requested an appropriation of$30,000 of CPA funds and was
envisioned by the Task Force as the way to transform many of the concepts discussed throughout the
process into schematic development plans that would illustrate them as they might be applied in
actuality.
As this meeting followed on the heels of the March 17th community meeting, the Task Force did not
have time to respond to the neighbors' concerns before they were brought before Town Meeting. A
resident petition was presented which, among other concerns, principally focused on the proposed
number of units. Town Meeting was receptive to the neighbors' concerns and the report of the Capital
Expenditures Committee, which recommended LexHAB fund the effort rather than requiring CPA funds,
and did not approve the use of CPA funds for predevelopment planning.
Appendix 7 of this Report includes the resident petition presented to Town Meeting as well as a
summary of all the input the Task Force received from area residents. Appendix 8 includes all press
clippings published by the Minuteman during the course of the Task Force's work.
ADDITIONAL MEETINGS
The Task Force suggests that as the project moves forward, additional meetings should be held with
neighbors and abutters, perhaps including a field trip to view examples of affordable housing
developments in similar contexts, so as to familiarize residents with the actual appearance and impact
of the density proposed.
13
LEARY PROPERTY COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT
MAY 25, 2011
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: COMPREHENSIVE CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY EXCERPTS
AZt A PO'1'i
3
2f)4 WkSF7N,��7CN E=EET, BQZTON, YA 02aDS
Vi,_e ELaeet
I c Iia�.qe
re.!4 dlnf--i l I
85C.
SourCE
SKETCR MkP
Show liroparty'r locaLim in rTlaition st yle :0ays ttzqe.
to ae:arest cross ELreeLH arid(Dr
geographical fuotures. I rA i ca,t r Ardli tet-t
a'_ buil�
l li3lg,� bt!'U'tteL
proverty mil neartl�t. Extitrior wall fabric.
0LLt.bLYi
Major aitefaLi= (.vilh daLua! S--le C-L
w. W i tf! C-11�,--TKW Ar7:1
:ear el-
Approx, ocreage
bv N 3.1 V: --.;ea -.zde�;
Orgariza-ion fl-0111 A 2-L.1le-tF.
Date __TLFri ;34
:,hiFtq tiere)
14
LEARY PROPERTY COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT
MAY 25, 2011
APPENDIX 2: REHABILITIATION FEASIBIILTY DOCUMENTS
SUMMARY OF THE SALEMI REPORT
The Task Force utilized the entire SALEMI REPORT,the Forward and Cost Estimates of which are
reproduced here. The entire report can be found on the Task Force's website, and on file with Planning
Department.
11OR 1111,11 R()
'We have completed theStUdy Ofthis house thtough on-site observadons and baAIC probhig imade
during multiple visits to the pruperiy- It is to be umlerstOOd fl'Wt OLII'IeVel 01'WOFL,WUS BW
detailed dsnumitling of particular itenis but hased ujj°on obsenlations and Qxperjcnc(�in IhL fields
ofarchitcoture and construldion, Thesc,findifigs present our,analysis of conditious as they exist
With this properly todkly,
T[W study 0 ath iles,nia,lor fac(ors that require wol-k to recondulon this house to a level that will
meet clinent livilli
,"Slands,rds, Other conditions,such as slanting, floors,low 7�2cellilig heighis
and WrIher exploration of possibe Nvood sill deterioration arc not addressed in this report,
The rquil,details exi)aing defiQi,en[conditions oliseryiA and'I he c5firriated costassociated with
correcting these condutions.Weaddress issues Lhal ,ill a1low this house lo meet the standards of
licalth,saf�ty aural welfare requirerlicnis for its fulure occupants.
EW.7.7XG HOUSFARFA CALC(lr.smois
* First Floor IA wing Area 753 SF'
* Second Floor Living Area 602 SF
-1-.................
Total House Living Aren 1,355 9V
Submitted By
D Adpp
RichardS., Saleini,AIA
Presidenil 65
Salerni Associates Architects„Inn
15
LEARY PROPERTY COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT
MAY 25, 2011
hv5li.1f d';0h ("t SY- F"�,7 �",F'rl iw X151",� RENOVA IR)AIS
1-,',V ',is' f0R lff'O'R � I�l�r111i1,�'.141'
t, 1 xc.aav adc high gradc arrOauracl arras],disperse:tell cni-siLc $ 2,3f1d1.00
2. Backfill, oarr:ut,, sc od and plarnd gs 2,0000)
"I. ke ncrvc cell-au wrndows and n2plance with rnc),v insulated vonyl CL-id S 1,9501,00*
4, Patch 1,00se rnortar joints,in cxpar;;edc turirar°of Rrnnd olia_rn s 1,000J)0
. Lstrnrarte 101r1g Avoocd sill ciarrnnde,reniove and rcltla oc ,with new S 6,000.tli)
6, Remove all %Hood siding aund rcplacc wvif`.la rrcrw painted claphoar.rd 5i 30,500,00
7Remove wind rgilicca,allvarnclrrwvs with narrw vinyl clad insulated ivindo),vs S 9,6001,00*
ll. R nio5ve,and replaacr,aJt exterior&u)r;s a'ruld paint S 3,3001,W) r
9. Rc:rnrivo ftcrrrt Entry°at'd rebuild with new, tllrrrnc1aa11aar1 sys(asnr S 6,000.1 O
10, ReMOVe side PcsrclaeS anad r°eGnai.ld wvitlr new l'o and atic'rn syrstern �26,250A0
111. Remove unci rcpluce rakes, dusciar,soffit,rrirrr, gotta~;arra]do"nsl,xnits 9,700,00'M'`
1.2, Remove rcrrul`shingles and rclalaacc www l'a nov 11f?'e,rg,lass sbingcs and
}wrovide mnv ridge and soffit venfing; S 3,41)41,00
chimneys lr a g S 2,9(A0Q
t.Rebuild aracul'lino, rru�l i1ra;�lr�uwtar rtcwwr r°ercrCan
,"-Denotes removals oflead lwaased m aledarls
9. Provide celhir detirranichfic.LL(ion system 'S 2,500J)0
2.. Patch 'to,ose in cr°or motlarr jaunts in lrrcu:ndaution and wvatcrproof S 4,500.(')0
i'. Shore floor at Bonn beantr ru;nmvia beam and replace wwritlr nov 7,000.00
1.. l eirrf<;zn°c 75c4a+7caG � ista darw9 dloorwa:od floor beams 11,d1oo,00
S. 1'vemovc4°and replaacc 35"No caf tOttccl woodsub-flooring Fi 6,000,.00
ti,. Remove and rebuitd wood suiirs fau fast.floor 1 1150.010
2. Provide a new Healing systc m throughout frruge S 13,O001.00
R: Provide ar rt ww Water Bl ul-c.r s 800.00
97 Pr ovidc nc vv Plmuubing,di5lr ib ulio.Mn l'vouglzow house,Provide new
itChc'rn, Balli and I aunalry luxtaares. s 11,0001.00
10. Provide new 200 alma l~alc.ctrlcr..'rl ycrwice, v ire diMsur rlwuatrr„n,rcc,efamcics
switches and t xtauTeS,throrugbout tlte house 5 16.01001.O0
1 d.Provide a new loin voltage co/smoke dctection system Lfir wufharort
the fro use S 2,500.010
16
LEARY PROPERTY COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT
MAY 25, 2011
I`n17,11.1.T.7..01" ('(ATS F(M ISP t'41P AND Rk",),OVAT10;VS(continue5)
PYRST110OR WORK S 48,200.00
1. lZemove Lill vva:ward,cloaars and plo.s0cm bream vvallk"and cciling,;s 9,116:0.0:10
2. Replace rotted stctds, 1(54) $ 3,6010.00
3, imam ukttc A arcus throughout the lramttase l 5.50 0.00
10 Wall hL AtlaAtiaaaa(Halt awpu1�4, Ist carni incctccl limmi a % 2'd floor)
• IIISLAGalc iavtvwccaa Gollmtr paalsts
• Ins lain Attica Floor
4, Pluslet tall ww.al.Gs un d Q6..1ings on this level 5,500.00
5. Patch aaaarl acllawish wood dloonr in atoms'102 aan l 1013 9 17300.0 0,
0- Near plywood sUlalloor aatcl iloorimg in rearm 1(l,4 h ll V1J01.0.10
7, New tkcrs,treads and handrails,an t)vct seus of stairs to 2n" floor Y 1.700.1.0'1
8, Pro,vi v,atcvw doors u,nd hardy arc 2,40 0.00
9�. Prov°iclras ncwv vwarwatl trim b 3.5010.00
101, lwrovialQ new Kkclua n s l)-l7a cnr and new linolcaaAm covering 1,400 00,
11, Paint all nm l1a-mc;r, ,voold and exlvaased rmact«,al 1,74:10.00
12. Ncvwr Kitchen cohiatcts and aupplignces 9.5 0(:)00
1lcnoks s iv.moval ofle-ad based materials
SECOND FLOOR WORK S' 14,5011.00111
l. I r aat.vvaalls and floors due to n noistuac alaaniag 2.54:10.0()
2. Patch walls al wnndovv+rein v al aareaas.aracl proviric wvoocl trinr 3,500::1.00
3. 0aaint walls,and"oocMork i, 2.9410.001
al. Nov plywood and calm in cx.is inn Rcraarns 2171,202 and 204 `b 2„800,00
5. 1°'t•aa nc for rtcwwa:Bathroom tmt Rswa:rn 203 1i 1,750A
a ceramic tilc l"boor
6,. Proviclf u-as°w door hasswlwau-e 350.00
7. 1:xPa¢nd closets(31 nn Fraacal ost cl Bedrooms h 900.010'
A TTIC dF't71d'I(: 5 2,1511 0
1. (ia; craAl (Acaaaa out $ 500.00
2.. Ridge vent cutout 4M.00
3. Provide collairtics at tot)frafters
17
LEARY PROPERTY COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT
MAY 25, 2011
TOTAL COSTESITUATE VOR REPA tR AND RENO VA TIONS
P'Ixterior work 103.900,0�O
("Alar NVork Y 7 5,l 50.00
T�rst Floor Work 4 8.2N).010
Second Floor)Work $ 14,500,00
Aide Work $ 2.1`0,00
Sublotal of('onstruction Work 24),9(x).00
Contrauor General Requirements811)
a, 19.500.00
('ontractor Prolit(Wr) g 0'X0 ]24,000,00
Tail Coustructioti Estiniate S 28 7,4 00.00
Planning Costs(A-F Fees) I W'r'o 28,700,00
Contingency Reserve 0 101,,of Subtotal of Construction Work 24,400.00
TO TA L l,',V TISIA Il' S 340,500,00
18
LEARY PROPERTY COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT
MAY 25, 2011
FOLLOW UP CORRESPONDENCE WITH RICHARD SALEMI
June,23,2010
Aaron Henry,AICP
Senior Plaum
Town of Lexington
1625 Massachusetts Avenue
Lexington,MA 024201
Re: The Leary House
116 117ine Street
Dear Nft.Henry!
I want to thank you and the men4bers of LexHab for allowing us,to provide fbither explanation
of our report regardmg the Leary House dining our mEetin held on June 16th at the.Planning
Board Tice.O
The basic questiouppsed by the Board centered on wheffiff the cost to Repair and Renovate the
property for the estimated cost of$340,01001.00(&-defined on page 23 of Our report)is the
maximum expenditure the Town would have,to make in order to bring this property up to,a
"Livable LexHab,Standard.v"
We ofleTed the following regarding the present condition and unimown factor&of the house
which directlyaffect the finalcost to,rehabilitate the property.
L The foundation is stone andin need of repair dite to years of water infiltration-To
properly repair the,foundation would require full excavation mo-and the house which we
strongly do not recommend due to instability of the structize.We do include a=to
provide flus work even 1ho%#we do not advise it-
The question of moving the house to another location on the property(with a new
foundation)isn't a viable option due to the structural condition of the present structure.
Even if the house could be moved the costs associated with a nL-W foinidation and the
actual move would have to be factored into the budget.
2. The wood sill condition would.have,to be exp ored fiirther..Chu study was basic and
noted some decay of the sills on the interior of the house.It is apparent that the,high
grade around the,exterior of the property has caused significant!decay of the clapboard
siding-This,siding appears to have beenreplaced sun melimein the past and isnot as old
as the existing wood sills,.So we senously question if the sills are in good condition.
19
LEARY PROPERTY COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT
MAY 25, 2011
3. The structure itself is monimal and in the case of them=, beam decent.Thefact that
the floors are,not leivl is huffier challenged by the floor to ceiling Mght of'7" 27
Making thefloors leveleither by full joist replacement or by shirarm6mg would lessen an
already lo:w ceiling condition.It should be pointed out that in most arem it would be
necessary to replace joists,rather than shim if floor leveling is required.
4. The water Line brealk which occurred last winter brings a,whole new sd of Problems to
the house.The house now has a higher infiltration ofniold and raildew througliomt.To be
sure it is much more prevalent in the cellar and on the first floor than on the second floor
but none the,less if is more of an obstacle to the rehabilitation of'this house than when we
first entered it into our report..
The costs associated with the additional work presented by items one through four could raise,
the carat of rehabilitation by an additional$150,000 dollars or 50%more than our original
estimate.This could bramlate into a budge�t of close to$5010,0100.
Baring any historic prominmoe;the problems associated with thehouse are,so multi-level and
dr vatic that I question the practicahty of'expending the,foregoing sum to bring this,house up,to
the LexHab staridardfor use.The budget,cost of$3400 to almost's,500k translates into a cost of
$250 to$3651 per sfagot_
Thefb1lowing factors shouldalso lie considered if the house were to be totally reha-bilitated..
a.. Floor to cefling hei&,.,,remains low at approximtely'7'-01 to 7 -27-
b. The floor plan would remain as it currently exists..
c- The two stair wM.are extreniely steep in their riser height ands hart in their tread depth.
Due,to current,floor plan dimensional restraints these stairs would have,to remain;as they
exist.
Unless the house has any outstanding notice of violat3ons and upon completion of renovations
noted in our report,the present Seventh Edition One andTwo Family F3 Code does not
restrict the use of this housein its present floor plan but does require code comphance,for
renovated and rehabilitated areas.
20
LEARY PROPERTY COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT
MAY 25, 2011
II trust the,foregomg accurately slates our opimons presented)dinmg our meenng.If anyone,
any question regarding the:IIr+ 'gain g please contactane directly.
Years truly,,
Rirh rd S-Salemi,AIA
Pmident
5alemii Associates Arclaitecls,IIuc
21
LEARY PROPERTY COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT
MAY 25, 2011
PEER REVIEWS
Page,I of I
Aaron Henry
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
From: Marcia Hannon Ii
sentIFr"� .October D1.2010 3:29 IM
To: M1 Fenallosa;Aaron Henry
Cc: Zimmerman Sally-,Americo Andrade:IMichael Haran
Subject 116 Viine Street Lexington,IMA
Dear(MIs".IFenollosa and IMlir.Henry,
11,was a pleasure to meet you.Thank you for inviting AmericD Andrade and me to see the Leary House
on 116 Viine Street. ALs you lknow.,Cascap has extensively renovated imany properties,and we own and
imaiinage a inuMbeF ofmuffif-famrity properties for I"income individualls and elderly housing. Many of
,our lbuiildiings have been recognized f—cw our sensitive treatment and reuse of histowic structures:,
including a property listed on the INatiiamal Register. That you too for forwarding the engine&ing
report. Ilt,was very helpful and comprehensive-
Base on our past experience,,the information at hand,and the walikthrough of the buillcling,,estimating
S250-$3W pea square footwould be appropriate fow budgeting in the clevellopment proforma.. A amore
,exact price Per square foot is difficuit without a contraictor waliking though the building with at least a
schematic drawing of the proposed renowation- Getting a cost estitnatefromi a contractor specializing in
moving structures would also The extremely helpful-
,Our architect.,Americo Andraidel,thought that the building and site lent itself to removing the side ell
and retaining the main structure.. Additional hnusing on the site could The built in concert with the
historic farmhouse so as to enhance the landscape: The farmhouse anchoring the front of the site with
additional housing conistructed to Present sinnilar to�a barn struchone-
Ulntiil soill testing is done to,ascertairli if you Iha%m any costly soill conditions,itwoulid make sense to,
refrain from assuming the building imust The demofished. With the infomatilon noun soill candktions,,and a
better estimate on iconstructiion costs,an informed decision can be made- ILEnderstandthatyouare al'
,course trying to limit the crusts- II don't knowif there is anything pertinent to this site,lbut the Boston
Society of Civil Engineers maintains a geotechnicall database. As well.,there may be some previous soil
investigations fromii other sites in the area that could be useful..
Best,
Marcia Hannon
Senior Proj*ct Mainager
513112011
22
LEARY PROPERTY COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT
MAY 25, 2011
Page,I off
Aaron Henry
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
From: Americo Andrade
sent: Saturday,&- h r 02,2010 11:36 AM
T�o: 'IMI Fenafibsd;Aamn Henry-,'Zirnmerman Sally
Cc: 'Marcia Hannon'
Subject 116 Viine Letter
Hi all,,this is die,letter I caniposed regarding my visit io Il 6 Vine. I will beKapp,to send it in
:my stattonary.I can do that by Wednesday of next w"k
Please let me k7iow ifyou have-my questians.
Bestregards
,
endo,
Cell.-,NEWONSIM
October 1,201101
Ms. Fenoldosa,Mr.Henry:
Thanks for mviting,Marcia and me to see the,on 116 Vine Street,Lexington.It was a pleasure,
meetmg you.
I am encouraged that there might bemterest in a possible plan to mccqporzte the emst3ng farm
house into afliture expanded development of the parcel for affordable housing.Clearly overall
affordability of such a plan would have to be careMy weighedinto my final decision-
Both the,apparent positioning of the,hatise relative,to the,site well situated in a comer of the
lancl,allowing for added development to attatch or exist aroundit),aninferest in preservig the,
spirit off" house'"and sensitivity to resmirces(re-use of the shell)all guide in the direction
of an effort for Preservation. 'The structure,with the removal of a small L dk)e-s lead itself very
well Physically to such a solution,without impin�ging on the,flexibility of what is added to it.The
farm house would then be retained as a demom-;Irationof a solid past and work as a welcome and
fnendly gesture to whatever is added to the side,and rear.With an inclining site,to the rightside,
the added structure w(nild tend to diminish in scale and provide an easy visual trawitioii6 much
as barns have done for centimes..
II see the,costs to be in the vicinity of$250 to$300 per sq.ift.for construction for a rehabbed
structure(as well as new),that will be efficient in its conservation characteristics-good windows,
high inadation,95%,efficiency heating and AC systems,ilurable,maintenance resistance
materials,maintenance reduced landscaping,much along the,LEED Gold rated design and
specifications recently completed on a CAC A "project for affordable housing in Cambridge.If
prevailing wages are required,this number might vary a bit..
The cost of the work to rehabilitate the farin house,(repair of the fbiundation,re-grading of the,
mea mound the,fmindation,new j oists and girder,replacement of water damaged studs,comer
bowds,andsiding,new stair to meet safety requirementsnewinsulation,new roof new,
electrical and new systems as outhmed above)would be in hine,with.any new constniction
budgets and as such woulld not mpinge or burden it in overall cost tabulations,while at the same
time exemplify a respect for the,past and offer the hope,that similar dwelling s in the,Lexington
community could follow along the,same pathos when expansion needs are considered,an
513112011
23
LEARY PROPERTY COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT
MAY 25, 2011
Page,2 of 2
opporhty to lead on a sensitive subject.
Please don't hesitate to contort if you have any questions..
Best regards,
Amenco
513112011
24
LEARY PROPERTY COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT
MAY 25, 2011
APPENDIX 3: MEMBER WEISS' EXCEPTION REPORT
I am writing an exception report because of the process that occurred last fall with regard to the
farmhouse.The house is an 1840's farmhouse and is on Lexington's Historic Inventory.
In mid-October, the Ad Hoc Leary Committee which is an advisory committee to the Selectmen
voted 6-0 to request$11,000 in Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds to stabilize the farmhouse
along with the$30,000 for predevelopment planning.This CPA appropriation request was sent to the
Board of Selectmen for their approval on Nov. 1, 2010.
At the Nov. 1st meeting,the Board of Selectmen's vote was as follows: one selectman supported
both appropriations, one selectman abstained,who is also on the Community Preservation Committee
(CPC) and three selectmen voted down the $11,000 appropriation request.Therefore, the $11,000
request to stabilize the farmhouse did not move forward to the CPC. Unfortunately at the November 1st
meeting,there were no experts present who rehabilitate historic units into affordable housing to give
their input nor members of the Historic Commission.
At the Nov. 16th Vine St. neighborhood meeting,the neighbors all spoke in support of preserving
the farmhouse. I read a quote from an Oct. 1, 2010 letter that night from Americo Andrade, an
affordable housing historic preservation expert in Cambridge who has toured the farmhouse that said
"The cost of the work to rehabilitate the farmhouse would be in line with new construction budgets and
as such would not impinge or burden it in overall cost tabulations, while at the same time exemplify a
respect for the past and offer hope that similar dwellings in Lexington could follow along the same
paths when expansion needs are considered."
In November,the Historic Commission wrote a letter to the selectmen asking them to preserve the
farmhouse and support the$11,000 request to stabilize the house.
At the Dec. 1, 2010 Ad Hoc Leary Committee meeting,the members who were present had
consensus and supported a request for a vote from the selectmen to include the farmhouse in a Request
for Proposal (RFP).The RFP would give the Ad Hoc Committee concrete numbers on the farmhouse
along with the additional affordable units that would be built and would create economies of scale for
the farmhouse renovation. At the Dec. 6, 2010 Board of Selectmen's meeting, the selectmen did not
vote on the Ad Hoc Leary Committee's request for a RFP that included the farmhouse. I spoke at the
BoS's meeting that night saying that Lexington values history and has three historic structures that are
tourist destinations (Munroe and Buckman Taverns plus the Hancock- Clarke House), I had heard the
neighbors input wanting to preserve the farmhouse on Nov. 16th, and read my quote from Americo
Andrade. The selectmen said we voted on Nov. 1st and that vote stands.
The opponents of the stabilization say that it is too expensive to rehab the farmhouse and it is not
worth doing. However, $11,000 in funds would stabilize the house and a RFP would give the Town
concrete numbers, not estimates so the town could then decide what is the best path forward. On Oct.
8, 2010, Davis Square Architects, an architectural firm that rehabilitates historic structures into
affordable housing, wrote a memorandum that estimated the Leary farmhouse renovation to be
$235,000 which is $175-$200 per square foot and $210,000 for the additional new units. Salemi
Associates Architects was hired by the Town and wrote a Condition Report on the farmhouse. Salemi
Associates estimated the farmhouse renovation would be $340,000-$500,000 due to the additional
water main break damage in the farmhouse. It should be noted that Salemi Associates only looked at
the farmhouse renovation costs without including any additional affordable units which creates
25
LEARY PROPERTY COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT
MAY 25, 2011
economies of scale. Americo Andrade estimated the costs to be $250-$300 per sq. ft.for construction
of a rehabbed, energy efficient structure. Therefore,there is a wide discrepancy in the estimates.
I also understand LexHAB's concerns that the farmhouse ceilings are too low, the stairs too steep,
the floors are slanting,the layout has problems,the sills are in poor condition, and the resulting
difficulty meeting affordable housing code regulations. However, my concern is that the BoS's Nov. 1st
vote occurred without input or concrete numbers from experts who rehabilitate historic homes into
affordable units.The experts' input is an important part of the process, if the Town is going to move
forward to an informed conclusion.
My last point as a Town, we are trying to be green and recycle and rehabilitate buildings when
possible. The Leary Farmhouse could be another opportunity to recycle a structure which is also historic
and be green.
NOTE: The Salemi Report and Mr.Andrade's estimate are included in Appendix 2. Davis
Square Architect's memo of October S, 2010, is included below.
26
oAvis
LEARY PROPERTY COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT
MAY 25, 2011
u 50'wetland"
Atiri Fraanehouse k
4
�""
000 wetlllaikds
r
tlw��rrrr� �� rm^,rraRo'k«•
t I AI M'S AIM 1.3"ni0101ILw
awXmn» ..
..,,
Ulm 4
� � G�F61AN-
� ,pVIIaIru
41
0U Rf �C1
V'= 2 ,—W,
.......... ....,..... ,,,,,,,...,.. ........,,
D.Mgr W11le 'M'i.
28
LEARY PROPERTY COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT
MAY 25, 2011
landmark Structures Corp.
Ieary Faun Stuc]y for:
Dav�s Scluaie Xchilect
Budqek Esf4mala,
(,Dc . 8, 2010
Scheme I Budqef�
Renovate F'xisfing Fciirnhcuse $235,0(,')0
4 LJ�'I�f 'F(,)'M'lh0U50 $840,0(0
Totak 1$1 ,075,000
Scherne 2 Budget:
7c,77-1vak" Tc"Tr—mhc-�—use $2 35,00C)
6 Unit Tovvnd�uube $ I 230,000
loid, $1 465,5-00
Scheme 3 Budget:
Renovale L,xistinq Fairnhousc, $2:1,x,(,0(,)(,:?
6 UO lownhciiuse plus 2 Unit TH. 600,000
TotaI: $1 ,815,000
Above bascNJ on non r,)rc'vadk,)q wn�,,jes
If [) cvcAhnq wciqilr.s a cply° Act c1 15% to ak�)Ova prices,
29
LEARY PROPERTY COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT
MAY 25, 2011
APPENDIX 4: PRO FORMA ANALYSIS
This analysis was conducted to summarize,very generally,the various hard and soft development
costs, and the proposed financing for this project, based on historical data provided to the Task Force.
' O.O e0 S+i 445 4f5 4 s+'r 0.S O M O o IXF O M M o cOo m r�i
� o co m c
.= e.i vt Ig uh ci an en N n7 o-i w
an. crs ers ers va'. rrs sa rx..'.ur ur sa� ar ah..s o-s efr '. sa�ur err"err en vn at a4 arr �,...
� "ro" o 8 cN c o' o'
r, * !=„ r -
r
crs"'z�
O C l ti"hW-"cY N"E'" 6a C Ir d M M h rn V m
O', 4fY art fr3 H4 eA #1 M.Nr Yr"d3 4f3 f# 1} Hr by aH L4"ffr £4 4#H4: 4r 4r : sA
O 4'4 st O C
O ? 4 k? � R6 s9. C}
cd" ars"" o",m r:; g
carr' *-
rrr,',H3 N3' ey', H3'eH"xfY vG+fr H3"`.in vt a.Y-rxr �: xf3�ern H3' [fr eft eh;`:. ern ern ', �
o o a o ii'-. sin fn ra'i apbo m <, 'a a m o 0 0
IIS
eA m
O o,4 a} 4t.( N o-Y f6 CY O 4 f0 0
4' O S Oar 4IY N
>NI d 4A 5v5 h o" O B 1+ 9} S.; 4l'f 47 O"lr5" 4r} 0 0
❑ � �-s �-rma' � � w�,rms+ e`av;a's � �;
ci
a3 n
6 4d 04, 6o
a0 Q5 4 Orr C O h 4 s�,44 a6 h
MQ5
2
o'ci cn en, so sis "sci F' ati' u^; ess d o,*�' �.ri o d m' y N
;y N N cr"t 66t us ,qay as in rv. yy yr a`s
a' e r exs e3'vr ers e» err as «rr f» ea ern ��s wr en vs'x � yr ert ern' ern d-r �s�,?,
e»....'.rrs � eri' exs asr�..ur err�,v§ err" � e«s � ams an as ars ea;an;et.;rr rrs ars
O""SC'
a as a r 03 o
O
C,eaf}
1 �',..� u} esl ut u3 4t3 HY VY i9 cs ua. cr-r H3 erh VS NS vt s err ag Ntr; Vl st U9';�+...
4 g sc : nT n;ti d o r3 rw c3 A. 5,
�• �.,,'r � r `•�;� � abr N � � e'r a#'�, A. m �
erk:ars ars v>i u3 ars art:as ux es".arr ws' � sa ut vs ats"vY a �arr arn' vs ss err
.6 oC
rn rn Z @) @)
LL LL O m
_ rr o Q U rn
L � O � 0 ¢ ` � N p o✓S
O rn W
` ? � y
o @) .. ¢ c o LL E N
N o Q a a £ r u w e0a
N — .A_. C o v O d d d o yip
m 0 0 0 0 0 - o a �' V a C7 C7 o V_
o .L^ -
x > >
m o E U
o
"J w
U
o ? 'o ¢ y m y
m
o .w .� b a a
0 0 a a m J d p R
a a o w a o o 0 UCD
LL 2 :S S (n w H H W H O H H d
30
LEARY PROPERTY COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT
MAY 25, 2011
APPENDIX 5: IMAGES OF ARCHITECTURAL EXAMPLES
The following images are illustrative of the
character the Task Force is pursuing. We hope that
these examples convey to all,that it is possible to
have a high quality, affordable development.
(Starting to the right and then clockwise) '
Picture 1: Farmhouse with ell and garage in rear
Picture 2: Small single-family with one car garage
Picture 3: A detached barn containing two units
Picture 4: Dwelling connected to barn y/
Picture 5:Two-unit Georgian Coloniala� �"
� I
rte"
0
F
I
31
LEARY PROPERTY COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT
MAY 25, 2011
APPENDIX 6: MEETING MINUTES OF ALL GROUPS RELATED TO THE ACQUISITION
DATE GROUP Minute Excerpts
Feb. 26, 2009 CPC Conservation Acquisition—Ms. Mullins said the greater part of the
lot would be devoted to conservation purposes, and that LexHAB might
do a limited development off the Vine Street Frontage. Discussions of
affordable housing, she noted, had focused on one lot off Vine Street,
which Mr. Hayes had suggested could support a duplex.
Ms. Fenollosa reminded those at the meeting that the Leary house is
an historic house, dating back to the 1840's. She suggested that there
might be some potential for restoring it for affordable housing and noted
that this would enable the CPC to do a three-way split of the funding
between historic, housing and conservation "buckets."
There was considerable discussion of the possibilities for affordable
housing, in what,to date, had been only a conservation acquisition.
March 5, 2009 CPC With 150' of frontage,they felt it would be easiest to use the LIP
zoning approach, or a friendly 40B. This way,the Town could waive the
dimensional requirements, and potentially fit in two duplex units on the
Vine Street frontage. They were exploring three possible scenarios for
siting two duplex buildings.
Ms. Fenollosa brought up the issue of the historic nature of the Leary
house, which dates back to 1840, and questioned whether a renovation
of the structure might make sense. Ms. McCall-Taylor responded to this
possibility, saying that it was unlikely that LexHAB would do such work,
and noted that historic rehab is usually quite costly. She said to bring the
building up to current code, deal with issues such as lead paint, etc.,
would increase the costs significantly. If the Town desired to renovate
the structure, however, she added it could be done.
Mr. Adler said he felt the number of units on the Leary land was
critical to a vote on funding by the CPC, and felt that such details should
be established before the purchase came to Town Meeting. He felt it
would be unwise to let the purchase go forward without a commitment
of affordable housing.
Mr. Wolk said the Land Acquisition Committee had decided to include
one unit of affordable housing on Vine Street. After meeting with the
Selectmen in Executive Session,the Land Acquisition Committee had
been encouraged to consider two units.
A lengthy discussion ensued as to how the CPC should divide up the
funding appropriations for the property,given the tight time constraints
imposed by the upcoming Town Meeting. Ms. McCall-Taylor stated that
an ANR or Property Rights plan would give a basis for the acreage and the
value of the two lots on Vine Street.
March 19, 2009 CPC 2. Discussion of Dividing the Leary Acquisition into the Various
Buckets- Ms. Weiss opened this topic, and turned it over to Maryann
McCall-Taylor. Ms. McCall-Taylor said that she had heard for the first
32
LEARY PROPERTY COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT
MAY 25, 2011
DATE GROUP Minute Excerpts
time (at the meeting)that the size of the lot to be used for affordable
housing had been reduced to 22,000 sq. ft. from 24,000 sq. ft. She said
it would have to be 30,000 sq. ft. for it to be conforming. Mr. Kanter
offered that the larger lot (30,000 sq. ft.)would allow greater flexibility
and that the land which was not used for affordable housing could always
be returned to conservation after the development process.
There was a discussion of whether the 22,000 sq. ft. allowed enough
flexibility for both the restoration of the Leary house and the addition of
affordable housing units. Mr. McSweeney said he felt that the option of 4
units, as was shown on a previous plan reviewed by the Committee,was
very important.
March 19, 2009 BOS Mr. Cohen explained to the abutter of 116 Vine Street that the land
has been on the Conservation Commission's wish list for many years. The
Community Preservation Committee has money to purchase the land;
there is an agreement of the price. The Town is also looking at the
possibility of including some affordable housing units.
Mr. Kelland, Chair of the Historical Commission, provided information
on the house at 116 Vine Street.The Historical Commission feels the
house is an important part of the history of Lexington's farming
community and should be saved and protected.
Several residents spoke and are in favor of preserving the beautiful
piece of land for conservation;they also want the house preserved. They
are not against affordable housing, but do not want significant
development and want it to fit in with the current neighborhood.
Mr. Cohen made it clear to the abutters that the Town is only
considering a single or duplex affordable housing unit that would have to
fit on the 22,000 sure foot area designated.
March 2S, 2009 CPC 1. Update on the Leary Acquisition— Mr. Wolk updated the CPC,
stating that the amount of the request to the CPC had been decided upon
at$2,753,100. He said this was $7,000 less than the appraised value, and
that a lot of 30,022 sq. ft. for affordable housing had been established
that encompassed the Leary home. He said it represented a legal lot, and
that based upon] the appraisal of the lots, he would suggest its value at
$720,000. .
Suggestion to add money for the purposes of an historic structure
analysis of the Leary home (built in the 8140's).
March 26, 2009 CPC The plot plan prepared for Town meeting, which showed a 30,000
Public square foot lot on Vine Street set aside for affordable housing.
Hearing Ms. Porter questioned Mr. Wolk about the number of housing or
units that were anticipated on the 30,000 sq.ft. lot. Mr. Wolk responded
that this had not been determined, and that there were a number of
possibilities for the lot, among them renovating the Leary house. He said
33
LEARY PROPERTY COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT
MAY 25, 2011
DATE GROUP Minute Excerpts
it was anticipated that there would be more than one unit on the lot.
The Conservation Commission had approached LexHAB to see if the
lot could satisfy any housing needs. She said it was better to have a legal
sized lot, hence the 30,000 sq.ft. but that any decisions on housing
wouldn't be determined for quite some time.
Ms. Shaw noted that this was the first time the CPC had reviewed
such a mixed use project, and admitted that the process "Hadn't been the
best".
The CPC voted 5-0 to approve the Leary acquisition;to accept the
present plot plan which showed 30,000 square feet being potentially
devoted at affordable housing, and to change the allotment of$720,000
to $600,000 for the affordable housing portion of the purchase.
March 30, 2009 CPC Mr. Cohen stressed the importance of the acquisition, and
uncertainty of the housing and historic preservation elements.
Mr. Michelson of the Appropriation Committee pointed out that
some individuals have said the best way to preserve the original Leary
house would be to sell it. Ms. Fenollosa responded to this comments,
noting that the sale of the house would preclude any affordable housing
on the land. Ms. Manz added that she felt the CPC had flexibility on this
issue, since the Local Initiative Project (LIP) process would allow the
renovation of the house as well as the constructions of new units.
April 1, 2009 BOS The Selectmen took positions and support the following articles:
Article 12, Land Purchase—Off Vine Street
April 13, 2009 BOS Vote as to the Uniqueness Status of Leary Land
Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 5-0 to sign the
Record of Vote of the Board of Selectmen dated April 13, 2009 with
respect to the uniqueness status of the Leary Land.
May 4, 2009 BOS Article Positions for Special Town Meeting
The Selectmen took positions on the May 6 Special Town Meeting
Articles
All of the Selectmen support the following articles...
Article 6 Land Purchase Off Lowell Street
May 6, 2009 BOS Sign Leary Land Purchase and Sale Agreement
The Purchase and Sale Agreement for the Leary Estate land, 116 Vine
Street, which was approved for purchase by the 2009 Annual Town
Meeting, has been executed by Mr. Woodbury,the Executor of the Estate
for Joseph R. Leary, and is ready for the Selectmen's approval and
execution. The Purchase and Sale Agreement was prepared and
approved by Anderson & Kreiger.
34
LEARY PROPERTY COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT
MAY 25, 2011
DATE GROUP Minute Excerpts
Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted -0 to approve
and execute the Purchase and Sale agreement,for the purchase of the
Property,that was delivered to the board on May 6, 2009,which
purchase was approved under Articled 12 of the 2009 Annual Town
Meeting.
Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted 5-0 to authorize
the Town Manager to take all actions on behalf of the Town that are
reasonably necessary, in the judgment of the Town Manager,to complete
the purchase of the Property by the Town in accordance with the
Purchase and Sale Agreement and the applicable Town Meeting vote,
including without limitation deliver closing funds and signing closing
forms and documents as well as settlement statement.
June 4, 2009 CPC 3. Updated on Leary and Busa Acquisitions—Ms. Rice updated the
Committee on the Leary land, reporting that the Purchase and Sale
Agreement has been signed by the Selectmen. She said that Ms. Mullins
of the conservation Department is scheduling a 21E assessment to
determine if any hazardous waste is present on the Leary property, such
work to take place in the next 2-3 weeks. Ms. Mullins also noted that
some inconsistencies in the title search may necessitate additional survey
work.
September 14, CPC 4 Updates on Ongoing Projects
2009 a) Leary Acquisition Ms Krieger and Mr. Cohen gave a brief update on
the purchase of the Leary land.The property is now owned by the Town
and the ANR (Approval Not Required) plan has been recorded. Discussion
turned to the Leary home and how to move forward on the structural
assessment of the structure. Ms Fenollosa said the assessment must be
done by a historic structures engineer and suggested that Ms Rice contact
Mr. Rhodes, the Building Commissioner, to see if he would be the
appropriate person to prepare an RFP for this work.
October 8, 2009 HPB The partnership discussed the possibility of applying the pro bono
work to the Leary land which is now owned by the town and which has
not yet defined how the housing option will be realized. Bob [Bicknell] will
query the Town Manager and LexHAB on whether this idea has merit and
if so coordinate it with Sasaki Assoc.
October 14, PB Board Reports
2009 Ms Manz said the Housing Partnership joined a consortium with
Waltham Belmont and Watertown to provide an affordable housing
consultant possibly using HOME funds. Sasaki Associates offered pro
bono help to work on siting plans for affordable housing on the Leary
Land
November 19, HPB Plan for Leary Land Housing on Vine St.
2009 Meeting held with stakeholders and Sasaki Assoc.
35
LEARY PROPERTY COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT
MAY 25, 2011
DATE GROUP Minute Excerpts
Agreed to have Sasaki prepare a presentation which we would show
the interested public to explain options for providing affordable housing
units on the site.
We would then meet again to review their work. Scheduled for
tomorrow, Nov. 20 at 2 pm in room 111 Town Hall.Then we would have a
meeting with abutters to present the material that Sasaki has prepared.
This would result in an approach for LexHAB to follow in developing
the site.
The town has also initiated work to define what will be done to the
existing historic farmhouse and what options will cost.
January 11, 2010 CPC There was also discussion of the Leary property and its affordable
housing component relative to upcoming pressure for CPA funds
May 17, 2010 BOS Designate Selectmen for Housing Discussion
Mr. Valente provided the Selectmen with a copy of the Leary House
Condition Report and discussed moving forward on the affordable
housing component and the need for members of the Selectmen to be
part of the process. Conservation, Planning, Historical Commission,
LexHAB, Housing Partnership and Community Preservation Committee
are all interested in the development of the parcel.
June 21, 2010 BOS Leary Property Discussion
Ms Mauger and Mr. Burnell attended a meeting with representatives
from LexHAB, Planning, Historical Commission and Housing Partnership to
discuss how to move forward with community housing on the Leary
parcel. The group recommends :
the plan should address density number and size of units and
whether the existing historical structure can be restored
July 12, 2010 BOS Vote to establish Task Force and appoint members. The charge to the
committee was:
To recommend to the Selectmen a plan for developing community
housing on the Leary property at 116 Vine Street, and to determine
whether the existing structure can be saved.
36
LEARY PROPERTY COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT
MAY 25, 2011
APPENDIX 7: RESIDENT PETITION & CORRESPONDENCE
In advance of the 2011 Annual Town Meeting, 38 residents of the Vine Street area endorsed the
following statement.
Petition Regg-rding the DevelaII"rr ant afthe Lea Prope�
We the undersigned are most troubled by the recommendations of the 1'eary Property
Community pity Housing Task Force to create six to eight fruits of'af'affordable housing on the site.
The neighborhood concent is based on:
• When the TMMA Bus"rouur visited,the property,we understand that Town Meeting
Members were told that the Leary f°arrnhouse would be preserved and that one or two
units of affordable housing would be created,., "I"he creation of'one or two;af'fordable
housing units wale further supported by staateumemns theSelectmen made to the
neighborhood at its meeting onMatch 19,2009,
• Sueh densities are out of character with the neighborhor'A,contrary to the way Lexington
has historically created affl_urdaable housing,and contrary to the Goals and()bJectives as
defined in Lexington's Comprehensive Plan which states that creation of affordable
housing"should be achieved without sacrificing the qualities of existing residential
environs through unreasonable density,departures,introduction of disruptive traffic or
other,impacts,,or buil.din,g i.n a wavy that is inwitsistunt with its context."
• The inability of"dine Street to safely support more:tr ff"ic or storm water runotlm and the
detrimental impact of such development on the adjacent conservation land..
Thu,. we:respectfully ask that theSelectmen intervene to mitigate the densities being discussed
to no more than two units,
The Task Force also received correspondence from the following:
• February 21, 2011: Email from J. Barrett regarding drainage concerns at 132-134 Vine Street.
• March 20, 2011: Email from Anne Engelhart forwarding a statement sent to Selectmen.
• March 21, 2011: Series of emails between P. Litchev and A. Henry regarding differences
between affordable ownership and affordable rental developments.
• March 23, 2011: Email from C.Thomson regarding a request for Task Force minutes.
• March 24, 2011: Email from Vine Street residents to Precinct 5 Town Meeting members.
• March 25, 2011: Email request from C.Thomson for a copy of the SALEMI REPORT.
• April 6, 2011:Text copy of H. Hemond's presentation to Town Meeting.
• June 1, 2011: Letter from J. Barrett regarding the unit count and potential water problems.
37
LEARY PROPERTY COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT
MAY 25, 2011
APPENDIX 8: PRESS CLIPPINGS
ble
ri,'lask,
fxwce
ho, using, plan for iStreetsiite :",
19IAl"rNmaldlP ally Ulrr4r.VamdImcarewl •rr awwrndal' vlmm-^.dulrw`lal am ANauld mot, lrw- wwhkilN )d'ad arlreadiy oad-
rrrdgrpaf�0�ir1 m�MiHwv.Ji oriurtom IuffiBmarlymarewcarl 0048 W, d0de racrNmultrvow, tribwtr^al M u'w llw'adrdraanbch"'a�
m�u�lax-- Ulan+�L�-°wdu�t�lre�F�,� '"'��'�'&am�w,xwRa�aG1�uW�f4m�rwduw �ml�xm;dd. Nk,r� url"�a�rMp�l
wwwd. sW luw�ap l u scm,c- rurdawnLrJa aal mwi wtelt rale uf., '(,"a,mu wemrae°m-r ih,a l°rbmtw vraaare nmywor110M
mrr wl llble l t 2r acvo Ixumarp unlwalfta . lmarr; a:r wadd l la tarorarr� Nl r,urallwa1 a we atra3wr
Pdrl ,aqy q KID . firm .m
on 4, o ave, rlmra [F.r iwwrf tlrl IN s ra 5w "Cl lr
taa umaru ltdwwam�dra
D la�tLrk�mrIVwa I ua�r r aaudrq .Iawm lrrKl Nndtw.rw°rlN&wanal0,4amA tilsd ir;ur rrar Tmm'lw+dawrmuull+rat. "'RAyqllhnst lrr Lffl nw J urw r b-.
1G w dw;ior� m @ ad vrrinnhk Chuuso mam 1,10 rflt Wau•p4llfl evict,Irma S°aaxpw' ww!am a, t, the tvid^ tanlar sralydlaboal I mparl Ifirara
Nmw��laraa� lw,waw�iruwl��l�!mr�C.Rmarr�- +ass�loz�a!^mrm+ r^aaa•�uma��aarar9�rrrv�;at 4'uw¢w°w wwF�rauar�L.s�w.�mk�ra'wnm Bwxawr�u- 7n��armr`rLrcurl�l�dm���dx�w>aa:n„�✓a�iuils,°�w,
V'wadww l:lijuk]iQo,hii,wraroa.0 �'�7�s+mL�hwr�,r�awwrvud4'�CaC� �@ur, rmaai78wL �mr.ardwrre w wumlr.�wrad��ww�JLin9��kl�F
be determtnVA' r the f4ri u ti tAr,,,"vaid°°law , w(W^�rw�� ra�lmmrw r lI€d 1'ad�urn 1n'w nl�tml°tlN it t�md gwew�rt"usuh_
1 u It aarym'lmrrlp a" I"6HIll- jtW, 'l a na relrcllmdk asirt' nlrrmag ta'du pww 4w rwwrm nfae rraarirc uwvw 9wr srrowl �o�r
luaaxrmtaitlNrwdmoaE lwaln ravrus Idwwllpihr-&dawu (ANwB.rr°w� � �w,m.Btlr Y rrM P arrwpin
Js wfilm mralir lbau e rapiAl,
derload 1111MOV be rLjllr by drnr l.we'lrwn,
dmw ldn.�0� waampor"bgff l.ar<, lma� kra*Jrq rxonwr,muiaiting,rwnrr, °1XhmimlmrnrKrrmaaarall"k"'on wf7 rwllraNwaw,rluau°imamru l lwt
1wV.wa u)dmµmm'r Eke s ; wLwar mm malaug,r azl swmww mn Ix n� .Dmlrmruuaarn2, rowj ! a ruepid,0 omr, fwd fur laa� cr�mula lua ga°w w
vw"0%amaTx "Bak]'Lash" wg rnunrt u;mmrrsw'the to wlA d",, tumor %M)e"JQ maCPA irtvUtur dut itq rewplart.lsw I'lm�v�wLeat�_
lQCttw awmrcrmr,tpstarSnu"mo l', 61rdkIR,luxmingadimm� v'Na r, clo a Irma davchal-raaml silr, man, 7krhb, ar r�wdsuwamro.i�
'rha raEk la.;mwa° ralarm9wwr,inny4iftwitivwtiannffibG, jpbb'ul, "wa4s'wmi'lN ^dam'hnuld Inwo hmm.d"m lrmom
I.Vs V a�rr�laa ,r�rNmraraw�9'l,uu ala eB Gnd hmlrwar.w`l rwdnsvda m mu , lr,;olLwa, a°d„an°rmwar w nmL .�r lar,:— four slim Vwl`opk.,
d�lvtmrraaa7 mom wWlarama r w um, F4"mwar aaawr auwmamnd mmlrlrva inn,t1r�a Imnmt,Y�dr aralmawu� r, r wlapa vW` " Maagknbas,
luarsPr a4�,w,�
vobleh the umr3°tlmom i�Fall-r cawna gAoda ;' L mw aamwu t "1d�+r al
!Narar�xr mrr uau lr a amwtrmw u.�w b7' u lihow"vrglw,a a wLmrrew ra wrrwwPraypwmali�w.°6naaaae Arlo-A'Nrpw'w 05aaorlon the, rw ul--
al L'ni(1 l,vw)!,i,rwun Art ^w A,) Part url the has9rndr•dµtw ra n omal>ypr a, r1al ming uolmrlm-'io Iwn'lNraln w�uu,d'am'rw
11 r anwtial�swwm l°�ra�r y1w � 1Nura w a avr udr rJ^dldBuau.the-, w w'kiaall Nualll Yala a�m a„1 a�al ul mwa qe(E'b adm nd wanr'Lm
rasa,anslaiwkdt1GlwmruagarrtymwY yneratlalmldaardarllN rawuwttra,maarl rnrnla jfslJ'AflinaraiTtg,`113rw ewes'ahwviP'ha`lwrc,rwwad,hw'� r
rima pnrgatrt)r vdwsrWl' ramorluara, ra,l°lrAri.rlfaram 6fa,arrwawdn, Aniarmrma4rrluva rswa-vrr r vd rrra
wsuwmm q'wimar'aam land, with vm BB�laalrc�liwr-ar.arl�Ilg�ra ln,ll�r�L a,rrad� l.Nwr�am pl�rm llar�',lli- am nTialmraiwA; a�ax�ww���rLw�wsruu�,
arnaWl Gant Hut modw On ewarm- dn.. 1"Jrnr wa” vwt rdl terra .....m.
rrmwmrBt .lNdtrr�wrrEw m.rv6'q"aiawtalbnwtrim anLna
he'trak rn'lllxrw to mllrasrrktNnaxiknboawmaiI'mmrluldmgMN
ou.nmrraarrandl.di"fiB Illi°twwsrx lvrjtt,u tho ir,,xzfandlaLa,Hmrn of ffm I
vlshits af a aus.dlaVh&tucmudvg kfoOa&9.ra,Y,thc s r,lr,,. nm r W,-
Imwr crrrmah y"tx1l ayo dwe Ionia rl,q�i�,1w� lwrmntLi¢w�atur°
38
LEARY PROPERTY COMMUNITY HOUSING TASK FORCE FINAL REPORT
MAY 25, 2011
' ? u
4MUR
ummaur m ��� o q areulVail
mmm rmw
-,,
r�, a pwdlmmmgcemrrreu amlammmrem aadfruuggm taraua .rm- angammr wm¢auasirrm d.mamaaum admin`,
rfG7 uau�auaady 4adarma9,r,am�maummd yuy f� baa +tl �4�a�u�p,aN�w �����rvay°sawa� lra�a arW `<
al4ia wuobr �M pI~grN�gV�r dNmaa a.quie% I'mamla- meo-Awa II,2 ,N� 9aaur ^ir,�
9 r,d ateBd'b�dd u��u wg� m aiat"��;rruua C�a�e a�� asahaandrp,�kaIg��a4�u,�u���, �wo�a
I at+b, dnliNWV lbspi m "aw�u�w�o,a���soua�Nq��'q��uad�'��t� I°�x��a,,1^Y+n- KsOryke° m a, in him
raf pip' A Ila 7*% gjWjy' ' " "q SOW .
�dmmwtlurmmrad pa,am sins°saiazmmrdra., mamr m1tlF°a�umm r�Nmamra,.dmdsaa lralmNy
�mma,crmbla r emir CAI,mxasq,tl r.�ma � r aaym uaaruatl ml n Uwiar,um���
rmuarcuaa Nmamrd awr4 mind daa T�-- dloa � IbMI
gmdrmkbrr r drum liiar �at q Wrfml1Wu rN:
err a gmmPumram¢arrwaa best 001,04
r auaaumam Imawmma Uwa�w4 murrm rpr'dvr q
be m4 x�adbl®r
Ri FAMOUSb`arau Im Nr da ma
Nqr kNa"�d f`JXk ma is ajadra t
or �wrxylm,w-Ml a aaaamr pkr, m�mr mal a am maaal°oma aN aaq;r°. :
��, � r°am„u OW,m,�iu,aml�imuaa��qm m umm.Ydmm�rmE,
a�w� p l a`wojhyra uw�°anf I"�u� zu¢dHr�re� a� q °uihV ",°rrga mm& aq � aa.�7fs��;=Ya hh�
/� %iii' sego, wtt m sin w lm dmbNal�a karJr,Pi w s u�� a awe a ak asu'r Zmjtpr hgn��9°+a9 au+ Iasi%i�a�k; amu, s� rc6u;ct�rga yiu�Ya aal�h^r a�-o
adaN,a�r uaF m Ir rdamar+ um m ma a;r lmialaq wdul°ma mai ma d um rr q c amda
lba4 q ma�m�M 1 4.a,d,mfm ml d
%i/�i����� ��� vmd'u�akdamro����ra�,w�a�quad���rq`r��wrarrwR°�'d��uwa��mw�q,�'�u�u�rpba��aFrrm�ua��r�eErwdoraamPammrm�w°irma'uiisanirr�, �I��akti�,cu�l?air�rhYaa� ww'9, �e,�-
yr�;i w riT a;la�w .ad mra�mdw hla,a- Vin d�a�acatmfjm�� aqh aaa „u�$e-q �rvluq -q�ma�q�gaomarerrtcd' fo qruudaa, 011Tc,�TrcM gym,
v,;� ' lam L6Lfdamms sin m' � was mxry �a maia,ama I�arN �m�a a 4�aaairo �a 1,ar,uam�m"x9 y l'mMOW aaC kr mai rOrrpl iu Oa7fiy oImu mm u
lid ama� '. Wkm aN�G z wi x�,N limwkmd mouse rabi w q� a&urm�,r�mNm.,
ma auaynrygaawmlw� wmq;rgN9't
aaldy lummaa�p llaam m amCa�, aR etr.a.mNmm r aha4m Orin r°m^rmd,gamwr:°° p� n�an� umqu,,air q m�umm wr4a� - A Irmo
iia�� mar°arumWw axa,rdN mmflaaum�i mYP arrw4 va�aM ggir�aaamlu.r7Cau,awar , lai'a�mrmGum�rmwia�lquOxNmraud°m: captain wa�i° ar,dre
haaroau Nr qd,"ar,rlY'gjrmwj��a��areg 69'4'ha1wgrrdm36,m9read` Imp
aaaatllma amu��mummm�m,fmw°wa"}l�Ngrep
�� arm Momwaglaaewa� sam uxamV� uuWro tr
�/'���r i� � bt'rpadramaOCNwr.w&aamaaauq^,,=� gr�wLuda�N NamapdmN!q� umammiamsrr4lflmdd", k�rdga�m,a�aadgailar�am
y��; lNamti�aaaa`4Nmaaar arrrd�aawUN ab�ggadmmirarpluia�o�:uaNa ` aiiq '�
�/, mar�iiu+ate danrb rraam'Om ga�um,u 1,m m4�rardmm kiuq! m mgwu aOdtlf
glwm mew wgmwwrrrm grin 4raa1 �oalgPx+ a aqd°wamr,@ rmm w .N mc� sin aaa-puama mamaa��,s�maq mr,
�l� idNUr a2r, oo y�r oao�w ur� a mug'm';d�Y v mq q: Wilk1hal limprho r,4 q��m�lU n�a,^��pgY gar�au�a�u�k uE e�a d,mi»�u &gao�..
�!
u.ru
6af qd m rd e a N N��un k,Oce m�daa:[rm m rim�m�m �q�� q,. � �9di16F�,mwv"411mrw �illdda t6gL#va+am
llwimijl +a�rmaaarerrrarnrer,Ry,��K ua�mm.mmriWaaq gsmq�Y
r ma. y Omuuia°ammoammoua.:
maa,eryr,uwd"4lrq Islam qua°a � gyP, `;N� `d� auad�brr.SgawJ' ,¢, C�7k �^�u l,amwu jmrarmravmymaareG�.mmdmaa d'a�gnam ,.
1„9i� Yualmrm,id�igc bOama VYuaadurr.°aamm 4�muamuuawicra'l'Nm'M� �� q.
% `, tlamC,ay,radaaaa imral m wrmiarmlNA Rimm Lurm�emrmruru i6Gm �`alda-' lu tau la mmaremlVmP�aj;Ommmm& �,da„ qa ul a4rremrggam .
,amain rdat mhn ImeauNle ' gmmr��,,C 4.u.m du-uad�m r
l uru�,aa^aOma�E �om4�7
y 4 aw ma�a l aamam raird mioq ml ad � 4 a aid q%m��N a lm�twam aqu °mm�`"«dam r�mjm 4m0f rvq 51 I”,
um uoo-lw4r rrdadamOq min R,dNw fiD3Tr,1bbs�maw amm auva uru mYid al. comma �lma,Rmm lrm4 'm rm*r _�I;m• a�,a. m m rern-amflx;aii;v 0m m-u.0
'rr ; +mL4wduQulra gRlhr�Nxaam lama°aaodwiiva°pgm�NammdpOuomgal,�aa�ruim��mmu4gm.q��°I�aak, �,
Nmti�l�, uqu, F,P�q 'rmmmrwadttiyr,r,aru��dr"r
ammw srrrrr q wa+.»HVrr kmrmmwmgt FaaLeel,�uNipteIaN�ro°a uC�mwgraaam�xO�ari mm�ukare N Y � cob wm�N;a to'dimums bales--'a,
grmaig mm'ralrarrfaftl• camascWawwommgmANarWam faaaaTlq�a�ama4�p�,g�7datr aurL&°dLtld��H Ir, �i� Maseoumangrsalaauuam Nu au<mcarak rweralaa; NamaNwyr4;r, mmYa+WrLRrmagm!1 ad�glr�am�w1u�i.rmhma�°dmuofgawmA �aura,mair: �Ym,l,qsa Ltla .
wra°eod.°a
w lou"k Nowrm�mN aM0 L�mOm �a {�rIN'-�A a ardmada aim i 9a�amwd,mNmm Mir gii mein�x-r�w� ar romV;duaivaar� �fwu,mluu�Nwrq�9lllm� �mdsr���uvura �'
N tl�,� ��m hm j& urm8 l a s ama�mg � rtlrN"mYta,cl r„a mem mN,pi mrwma sake urC pr ua°9u�'u:mla,a r
l ri1�� ii m�lin4r °�, +are°m,gamaaMamtt�mk.” dlmaa atuodOak dna r rrc;aa laaalr �gair, lsrrm�gar,l�vaa,l:��d�brium�r4zr'4u:. °mN°o�wd m� .dqu,glum;drrr��Irrv;mmar �mu�nrwamN�»
�igfi %///„ q uaiS rLum�rmmm mdu rvkawral �m0mlumwaa�-a ua flim id;Ram dmde kh"u,r °d rG m�9am ��ur�,� k�a� rwa�Barr:m•ruamaaaga�rwmm�ia��b ammgii
'u �/l' a+arraEmn.umrmigku ;a mau l��,a mer "ma,'Nm marwruk lmNmd mamm 8arlqu d m,m lVr,d �mail'Nuam, »mmq�rg mgmmmw �8 �da,.,.;
momr'a,
%' r ma Lrmq �a Yamr,ms.�d,a ul cmdluro amine°;dma;a 9"`Nm miss rmar urs l � d mllr,
aye u� m l a rum radair �mu��miR�.m maaVau Zm 4 m�ti a dd�m. ip %Kmwarlm amdY iammu wV ,d
mm"W m ar mmwG i8 uwamr=a a,Y a➢q Nmr lmar°arlq'a immomeltiv Vq'! mwu V �m`d�a'gm Pdaa �tm4 ream°ma$ a rm�mm mmu md7ar' a
"'t�t�i arm,"Tames Na„ w=ur rvm �a,q Lid ra�iurt.,9aNmgtaagmm¢� mruauia ur,�,ri gwa� la kinin�u �mrndrr �� �RN1r,Rq;�ammm mYmr�n maa �srraml
ori Y� d "�,%aq �;Umrruda4tieNT<Iq�r^i,la.rOd%14N�ofu, V,
aom Brrwq��au^krorirr,m^��gmamN�r�, md�r+s�uaraa;mnml mm�[amLmamm� amiea; ��- w•,aur1;Jrra�,mrmglia!aaalva��>a+a, aagm u4'rehlmre+mwsq muramalu,dagGrmr�^am�I�Nrw.mwam,
/ � ri of IJDry baa ammima a ra ad mtm, lamaampfmk, mid Irl^mem mi;pmr error
yoga m mmldd;ly romra uaapnimr, ft'hr�mmdidvafifl °w�dauammrr a�u9r awhedto,
i1i'o',i� admiV0.lan"rV"daH a ivaiawflu'dN yavilm44
mmma wltlLw , mzuavhdrHll�rmmmmlWky �����to.�u' ���1rxadrMmurraa�aalrmmr�mm,Vam��wm/m4,ti.aast�rn�irxmm��U��1
darNmgamm s°ambmmm,amm rM•arr,anrm 4;m�aarmga ,lmaa°m�drmMaramoi� as
mmmmuaagr,kYaa lm msaa�� au m owlmmd m�^m�iraltsm�s� ,4lmrvOqu�a"M man 'fymmauh Nya rvr lNbm,d.; �i°maC 4mau�� ',S"�ml gwad'rwyi q mgd�l gamre:al,;
��; ii gaar arru,atlm�9aa a�Nraa'i"akdsmlam°aarul� {maa>nmtiaw.d aamaamikd�,r���mrummhYmlr°sV ruin a, md�rmrr Na�kiJmym�4 im�4muri ml„kr�rmwr rujiv awmadofrrmr�. Gmarar,.;
yf/'�� ,mudmal8ae dm.m4mrgIgrm-u;am,EwuauaaN; Rivrmacer"°1squaapay mfjadNo ImLO- d� au'im�aar.r�44�l,dmgrax,Nm`d�gUf �mqL�mlmam'aroku^IIIVaumua-am mamagaarr�a d
i,thea rrm,rur rem; ram lrlwrr m and v 7�� Lrard�: mmr'HawN�'amMRB;�m9!mun,m :ma�r�
ram a dY"Cmaa q,ana�rvrmw!arargaom Fara raaamramar rmmuad,la irvmukm aauwra �armrOid
rmar& ammlvNam„Nag1mHTaem� grNr,lpaaNm&rmd�gkrfdrl��� amd. w
�l Pq awsa q iga�gmaa m 4q tam Barr rev madaN qa�d°ugm lm�rc am l mmm� Nr,waara w;awl L d�,auam dv.ar;�r�agm4�lt;7,r@udwbe. mramm w l a° a4a 14Maw lm r
+ �°jBY«��"a4aYa^rl q;mmmYYNik1ml4rigmj�'aprcmuaba,,, Nma!mauid°vda;agNau�dmmJ^�, gm�'4i;lmamdi a�7m�mar kgW4ar4"rmrmArl'° mllali .!�"a:"gY; asaoi�iatyalJl� byq
qulm ON i ,9 comm t t 4 m,rx m� g WT90,'G d mum as 4r�ra m maswa'- I
la°mlal4aq� ramtip'Nr m R T1mraumrta uamwr; agawimm amiymm4lrmmwmoqumaa
a�pm iq Nu- a�wp°rmm Lar t aL„a as KWr1NlVa: 'omwma tusaad
ora.0 ; rfir,
a 0anmamV.matkrd�, ; r daNr u?U. dmr ipmi�l�.,,,d
% moo
r�amaadaSm nr_
mu�1a�a.4�am dmf��m�u�rm almrm -B daOmammmmwdr arm,°bmsr uq�Nr�sa;a �_vr�gmlrmrlrtiaaarTma,lad�gmavaanNm'm
, ,11ty um lr� timernme �-em fhe vM11,10 UfFV mer awq r a 1%mua�garargyq,rur,Nmm':
,am�jd%/„<, Ymat�mrugrauu4Nwmar�amll>usmrr+�G n�mrw�ra�,mlymaiurRw��ma�q'�rm�m s"ru.a�;i,rGo va�iq°asad��vm+rww°gVlatrvl
39