Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-11-13-CPC-min (4PM) Community Preservation Committee Monday, November 13, 2008 Legion Room 4:00 pm Present: Betsey Weiss, Chair; Marilyn Fenollosa, Vice Chair; Joel Adler, Norman Cohen, Jeanne Krieger, Wendy Manz, Leo McSweeney, Nathalie Rice, Admin. Asst.; Sandy Shaw and Dick Wolk. David Kanter, CEC liaison was also present. Absent: Wendy Manz The meeting was called to order at 4:06 pm. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the eligibility of the projects under consideration by the Committee with Town Counsel, Kevin Batt. These included the two articles to be brought to Special Town Meeting (FY2009), and the fourteen projects being considered for Annual Town Meeting (FY2010). 1. Special Town Meeting Articles, FY 2009 Mr. Batt explained that the purchase of the Goodwin parcels was clearly an eligible project under the CPA. The Harrington Playground, he noted was also eligible, since it was a new playground. He also pointed out that it had previously been approved at the 2008 Annual Town Meeting. 2. Annual Town Meeting Projects, FY 2010 a.Town Office Renovations – Mr. Batt noted that the Town Office building is in the historic district and that much of the work was eligible for funding. Ms. Fenollosa added that the building is in the Registry of historic places (?), but questioned whether the Committee could fund aspects of the proposed project such as “realignment of staff”. Mr. Batt replied that this was a very gray area that might fall under the broad term of “remodeling”, and said that the Committee could look at the design documents and select the work that seemed to qualify most clearly for CPA funds. Mr. Kanter noted that the design document is in the process of completion. b.Fire Headquarters - This project is to “research and study the use of the building”. Mr. Batt noted that renovations to the building qualify under the CPA, but that any additions would not. The Committee pointed out that since there is no cost estimate associated with the request, it is difficult for them to properly review the project. Mr. Kanter updated the Committee on the progress of project, noting that st estimates which were due November 1, are expected to come in mid 1 December. Mr. Batt suggested that the Committee could “tease out” the study costs associated with the addition. c.Stone Building - The Committee and Mr. Batt discussed the “ell” addition to the Stone Building. Mr. Batt felt that since the “ell” had been an historic part of the building, its reconstruction would qualify for funding under the CPA. He said he understood that the “ell” would house equipment and an elevator, and added that the exterior of the addition should remain in historical context. d.Stormwater Mitigation at the Old Reservoir/Marrett Road - Mr. Batt felt this project was eligible since it involved the preservation of an existing resource. He said there is clearly damage, injury and harm to the resource and its recreational use. He compared this project to the Seideman vs. Newton case and felt there were clear distinctions between the two. In his opinion, he said the rational for the project was the damage to the Old Reservoir that is occurring with the inflow of bacteria- laiden stormwater. e.Park Improvements/Athletic Fields - Mr. Batt noted that the improvements to the Town’s athletic fields were eligible for CPA funds as long as the work corrected harm to the recreational resource. This would include drainage work, particularly those issues that had arisen recently or within the last eight years. He said the CPC cannot authorize funds for the purchase of new turf, benches or back stops. f.Pine Meadows Drainage Issues – Mr. Batt noted that the first phase of work at Pine Meadows qualifies for CPA funds because there is clear damage to the resource due to flooding. He said the dredging of the pond would prevent future damage to the golf course. He added however, that the Committee would need to be careful in future years, since routine dredging for maintenance purposes is not eligible under the CPA. g.Archives and Records Management/Records Conservation – This project was eligible for CPA funds Mr. Batt noted, and received no further discussion. h.Cary Vault Climate Control - Mr. Batt said this project was eligible for CPA funding. i.Building Envelope - This project involved the repair to the roof of Cary Hall, which Mr. Batt said was clearly eligible for CPA funds. j.Lexington Police Station Needs Study - Mr. Batt noted that the study was not necessarily “tied to CPA” work. He said, “a case could be made 2 that it’s a preliminary study to see what needs to be done”. (The station is in a historic district.) A discussion ensued about how to define the “historic” restorations of the building and whether the DOR would object to such a project if approved. Mr. Batt responded to this question, saying it was ultimately the voters who the CPC were responsible to, and that their scrutiny would be more rigorous that the DOR. He suggested that the Committee look at the design document and “pull out the things that didn’t preserve the historic resource”. k.Greeley Roof Repairs – Mr. Batt stated that the replacement of the Greeley roofs was an eligible project, but that maintenance of roofs is “a bit fuzzy”. He also noted that the skylight installation included in the project did not qualify, only the repair of the roof in kind. There was a question from the Committee about whether energy improvements could be seen as “supporting” affordable housing. Mr. Batt felt this was a difficult issue that fell somewhere between the law and Committee policy. l.Conservation Planning - Ms. Weiss addressed the issue of CPA funds being used for general conservation planning. She said she had spoken with Stuart Saginor of the Community Preservation Coalition and had been told that the Committee could not approve of conservation planning funds for general projects. She said Mr. Saginor suggested that the CPC put monies in their Administrative budget to pay for such things as appraisals, site surveys, and legal work. In this way, the CPC would be able to make “proper determinations” about a specific project before they recommended it to Town Meeting. Mr. Batt said it had been the preference of the Town Manager to put the planning monies in a conservation fund, but that he (Mr. Batt) was “troubled by upfront costs that would not lead to acquisitions”. He said appraisals are mandated in the CPA, and there are allowances for funding surveys, purchase and sales agreements, 21E work, and legal work. However, he said he felt the cleanest way to fund the planning needs of the Conservation Commission would be to put the money in the CPC Administrative budget. Mr. Kanter also noted that from a procedural point of view, this might be beneficial, since the CPC would be more closely informed during an acquisition process. m.Munroe Tavern Historical Structures Report and Capital Needs Assessment - Mr. Batt reported that this project was eligible for CPA funds. n.LexHAB, Purchase of Three Properties – This project was also eligible for CPA funds Mr. Batt noted. There was a brief discussion on the ability of the CPC to require restrictions on the projects funded with 3 CPA monies to insure long-term compliance with low and moderate income guidelines. The meeting was adjourned at 5:40 pm. Respectfully submitted, Nathalie Rice Administrative Assistant Community Preservation Committee 4