Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-03-26-CPC-min Community Preservation Committee Public Hearing Thursday, March 26, 2009 Cary Hall 7:00 pm Present: Betsey Weiss, Chair; Marilyn Fenollosa, Vice Chair; Joel Adler, Norman Cohen, Leo McSweeney, Nathalie Rice, Admin. Asst.; Sandy Shaw, Dick Wolk. Absent: Jeanne Krieger and Wendy Manz The meeting was called to order at 7:07 pm. Approximately 30 residents were in attendance. The purpose of the Public Hearing was to receive public comments on four projects under consideration for Annual Town Meeting. Three of these projects had been discussed at a previous hearing in December, but had had significant changes to them, necessitating a second hearing. These three projects were the Stone Building, Center Playfields, and the LexHAB project). The fourth project, the purchase of land at 116 Vine Street, had not been discussed at the December hearing. 1.The Stone Building Mr. Pat Goddard, Director of Facilities, spoke to this project, stating that the initial request to the CPC had been changed in scope, and that in the meantime, the building had been designated as a Heritage Center by the Library Trustees. He explained that the revised project entailed the preparation of an Historic Structures Report, which would give the Trustees valuable information about the condition of the building. The information in this report, augmented by the existing HKT Feasibility Study will be used to conduct stabilization work that is needed in the short term. In the long term, he explained that the Library will be back before the CPC for additional funding to renovate the Stone Building for its future use as a Heritage Center. Mr. Richard Pagett asked what the extent of the stabilization work would be, to which Mr. Goddard replied that it focused on making the building weather tight. It might include repair to windows, or the removal and replacement of the aluminum siding to secure the exterior of the building. Mr. Goddard explained that the stabilization work would be limited to the exterior of the building, not to any structural work. 1 2.Center Playfields Mr. Dave Pinsonnealt addressed this project, explaining that the Center Playfields project had changed significantly since the last public hearing. He said the Recreation Department had received the Drainage Study from Tutela Engineering and it showed that the drainage conditions on the fields were more serious than previously understood. He said the recommendation in the report indicated that the renovations to the fields could cost 2-4 million dollars. With this in mind, he explained that the Recreation Committee had decided to hold off on drainage work this fiscal year, and focus on designing the improvements that were needed to most cost effectively address the problem. For this reason, the request for funding had been reduced from $100,000 to $70,000. There were no questions from the public on this project. 3.Purchase of Land on Vine Street Mr. Wolk, the Conservation Commission’s representative to the CPC addressed this project. The project had not been discussed in a previous public hearing, since negotiations for the parcel were still in the progress at the time of the December Public Hearing. Mr. Wolk described the property with a brief series of slides showing; the location of the parcel relative to abutting conservation lands, the lotting plan (showing 5 lots and associated wetlands and uplands), its trail system, its natural beauty, and the plot plan prepared for Town Meeting, which showed a 30,000 square foot lot on Vine Street set aside for affordable housing. He explained that the Leary land had long been of conservation interest to the Town, and that the parcel was integral to the abutting Vine Brook Conservation land. It contained trails, wildlife, old fields, forest and wetlands, and was important watershed land. He noted that Mr. Leary’s home remains on the land, and is believed to date to 1848. He explained the proposal before the CPC was for a total of $2,763,100, which broke down as follows; $2,692,000 for the purchase of the land; $36,100 for legal, survey and assessment; $25,000 for a land management plan and signage; and $10,000 for the structural assessment of the historic Leary house. He added that the negotiated price of the land ($2,692,000) was less than the appraised value. Mr. Wolk then asked for questions from the public. Ms. Loretta Porter, a resident of Fletcher Road, and a TMMA member asked about the 30,000 sq. ft. lot, stating that she would like to see the lot devoted to affordable housing, specifically senior housing. She said there were few options in Town for senior housing, and that she would urge using the lot for this purpose. Mr. Bicknell, Chairman of the Housing Partnership said the Housing Partnership had not yet voted on the project, but that he was pleased personally to see both the housing and conservation objectives met in the proposal. He felt the land would be a great addition to conservation, and pointed out that the historic farmhouse 2 could be turned into affordable housing if desired. He stated that he hoped the project would go forward. Ms. Porter questioned Mr. Wolk about the number of houses 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 it was anticipated that there would be more than one unit on the lot. Mr. Peter Kelley, Selectmen, noted that there were really three elements to the project, with open space/conservation being the most important; affordable housing being second; and historic preservation being third. He felt the historic piece, was “late, but worthy”. He said he was concerned, however, about limiting the options. For instance, he noted that the house was in good shape structurally, but lacked an adequate foundation. He suggested it might be relocated to a different section of the lot, so that a suitable foundation could be poured for it. If there was interest in saving the house, he felt the project needed as much flexibility as possible. He said he would prefer to see the entire frontage go with the lot, and suggested an easement be used for the access to the conservation land. Mr. Wolk responded to this, stating that he, too, felt there were a lot of options, but disagreed on the idea of the easement. He said it was the Conservation Commission’s experience that easements are not effective and difficult to maintain. Mr. Sean Keane of 136 Vine Street stressed the importance of keeping in mind the safety concerns of the neighborhood when making any decisions about the Leary land and the potential affordable housing lot. He said there were many young families on Vine Street, and he was concerned about the traffic that would be generated by any further development. He was concerned about the plan to put parking on the curve in Vine Street, noting that the road is presently not wide enough for two cars to pass one another at that location. He said he had not heard anything about using the Brookwood Drive access to the Leary land for such parking or access. Ms. Shaw of the CPC responded to Mr. Keane, stating that she felt there was a great deal of further work to be done on the proposal and that a number of questions had to be resolved. She said she would support a parking area on Brookwood, but that such discussions would take place after the purchase, when all the alternatives could be evaluated. Mr. Keane was concerned about Town Meeting being asked to purchase the Leary land before the details of parking had been determined. He specifically queried Mr. Wolk about plans to put a parking lot on Vine Street, to which Mr. Wolk replied that there were no plans to put a parking lot on Vine Street. Mr. Wolk said he understood the sensitivity of the neighborhood, and that there would be no decisions about “ancillary services” without input from the neighborhood. He stressed that the article before the CPC was an acquisition article, and that the Town had a unique opportunity to buy the land. 3 Mr. Bartenstein, a member of the Appropriations Committee and TMMA member, (not speaking on behalf of the Committee), voiced his concern about rehabilitation of the Leary house, and the access issue. He suggested that there might be other conservation land that could be used for housing purposes, which might be better suited than the Leary land. He suggested identifying an existing parcel of conservation land that might be a better site for housing, and “swapping” it for the housing proposed for Leary parcel. He said he did not like the idea of restoring a historic farmhouse, and then putting an adjacent house in its front yard. Mr. Wolk explained that taking land out of conservation for such purposes would in all likelihood not be possible, since it involved a vote of the State legislature. The correct time, he noted, was before the land was voted for conservation purposes. Ms. Miller, Chairwoman of the Conservation Commission, informed the hearing that the Conservation Commission had never done such a swap, and that in this case, 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. She added that the Commission would not plan any parking without public input, but noted that the access off Brookwood was surrounded by wetlands. (Ms. Fenollosa left the hearing at this point.) Upon further inquiry from Mr. Keane about the finality of the 30,000 sq. ft. lot, Mr. Cohen stressed that the Town had the unique opportunity to acquire the land, and that the acquisition should be the priority. Mr. Cohen said he was concerned that the land would go to a developer if the Town did not act in a timely manner. He said there was a greater risk in not voting the project, than aspects of the proposal that might seem “predetermined”. Mr. Adler added that it was far easier to have options for affordable housing up front, and that any unused land could always be returned to conservation. Ms. Dianne Carlson, an abutter to the Leary property also asked about parking, specifically for possible housing. Mr. Wolk addressed this point stating that there would be parking for the affordable housing, and that any parking for conservation could be incorporated or could be separate. Ms. Carlson noted that the access off Brookwood Drive appeared to be primarily upland, and perhaps would be better suited for the conservation parking. Mr. Michael Eppling of 15 Manley Court, stated that he was a conservation supporter, but felt a bit “held hostage”. He said the only way he could vote for the conservation acquisition was to also vote for housing. He said he generally supports housing, but not in this location. He said he had concerns about traffic issues and aesthetic considerations, but supported the rehab of the house. Mr. Harry West of 56 Vine Street spoke in support of the acquisition of the land, stating that it was a remarkable place to observe birds. He added that he is not in favor of parking on Vine Street, and supported preserving Mr. Leary’s house in its present location. He also said he did 4 not favor a house on Brookwood Drive, noting it would jeopardize the integrity of the conservation land. There was a question about the sewer easement that bisects the Leary land, and a resident of Vine Street commented on the existing safety of Vine Street, noting that Mr. Leary himself had twice been struck by cars on his walks down the street. Ms. Porter questioned if there was enough land to allow for the needed flexibility in planning affordable housing on the 30,000 sq. ft. lot. Mr. Wolk responded that the Conservation Commission had met with the Planning Department and Engineering, and felt that many options had been preserved. The issue of the uplands off Brookwood Drive were discussed, with Mr. Keane making the strong point that it appeared to have considerable uplands for parking purposes. Mr. West responded to this question, stating that although it had uplands, there were few trail options from this section of the property. He noted that access to the rest of Vine Brook Conservation Area can only be gained in August or when the wetlands are completely frozen. Mr. Kanter made the point with respect to the suitability of the Brookwood uplands for housing, that the primary purpose in acquiring this parcel of conservation land was to preserve the integrity of the Vine Brook conservation lands. Mr. Kelley noted that this was the first time such a land acquisition had come before the CPC. He asked if the project could be amended on the floor of Town Meeting or whether it had to be approved or turned down as proposed. Mr. Cohen spoke to this issue, noting that applicants bring projects to the CPC, and that the CPC reviews them and votes on whether to recommend them to Town Meeting. He said this acquisition was voted on the previous day, and had unanimous 9-0 approval with the housing lot as shown. The project as presented to the CPC and approved would go before Town Meeting, and could not be amended on the floor. Mr. Kanter added here that if the article failed, the CPC could reconvene, and reconsider a reconfigured plan under the same motion. 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”. She suggested that in the future, a subcommittee be appointed to help plan such projects. Ms. Deb Mauger, a TMMA member, asked about the process of review by the CPC. Mr. Cohen explained the Committee’s review process and stated that the Committee had given final review to the Leary land acquisition the previous day and took a straw vote on it, with all members in favor. Ms. Mauger asked that if there were any subsequent votes on the project that were not unanimous, she would appreciate a minority report. She said she felt such reports by the financial committees were very helpful in assessing the various articles at Town Meeting. With no further questions or comments on this project, the discussion was brought to a close. 5 4.LexHAB Purchased of Three Properties Mr. Bill Hayes spoke to this project, explaining that LexHAB’s project had changed over the course of the three months since the last public hearing. He said that one of the properties, the Ross Road property, had not been suitable for sale, and another property at 1001-1003 Massachusetts Avenue had been substituted in its place. He said that the request before the CPC had changed to $845,000 from its initial request of $797,500. The request for $845,000, he noted represented 80% of the purchase price. There were no questions on this project. 5.Administrative Budget Overrun Ms. Weiss explained that due to increased salary costs and legal fees associated with the review of projects, there would be an overrun of the Administrative budget in the present fiscal year. The initial appropriation for the Administrative Budget had been $50,000. She did not specify the amount of the overrun. The Public Hearing was adjourned at 8:40 pm. The CPC met after the public hearing and discussed the Leary project with representatives from the Conservation Commission, and members of the public. The plan of the land showing the 30,000 sq. ft. lot was reviewed, and there was considerable discussion of the options regarding affordable housing. The Committee also discussed the allotment of the purchase price that would be devoted to the affordable housing “bucket”. At their meeting the previous day, the Committee had decided to allot $720,000 for the 30,000 sq. ft. lot, but after additional discussion, the Conservation Commission and the Committee agreed upon the figure of $600,000. 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 to affordable housing; and to change the allotment of $720,000 to $600,000 for the affordable housing portion of the purchase. The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 pm. Respectfully submitted, Nathalie Rice Administrative Assistant Community Preservation Community 6