Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-11-19-CPC-min Community Preservation Committee Meeting Thursday, November 19, 2009 Room G-15, Town Offices 4:00 pm Present: Betsey Weiss, Chair; Joel Adler, Norman Cohen, Marilyn Fenollosa (arrived late), Jeanne Krieger, Wendy Manz, Leo McSweeney, Nathalie Rice, Admin. Asst.; Sandy Shaw and Dick Wolk. Mr. David Kanter of the Capital Expenditures Committee and Mr. Carl Valente (part of the meeting) were also in attendance. Ms. Weiss called the meeting to order at 4:05 pm. The purpose of the meeting was to hear Town Counsel’s determination of whether the 22 projects before the CPC qualified for funding under the Community Preservation Act. 1. Project Review by Town Counsel, Kevin Batt – Town Counsel, Mr. Kevin Batt had been invited to the meeting to discuss the projects before the CPC and whether they qualified for funding according to the CPA statute. Mr. Batt addressed each project, ruling negatively on two. A. Land Acquisition – placeholder – passed over, since there was no submittal. B. Cary Library, Preservation Project – qualified. C. Police Station Renovation (Phase II Design and Eng. - )no funding sought, passed over. There was a considerable discussion at this point, however, of the historic nature of the Police Station building. Mr. Batt noted that the project was legally eligible, but that the Committee should decide how best to use Town funds. D. Building Envelope – Restoration work on Cary Hall and TOB – allowable under the statute (assuming TOB is considered historic) due to the fact that the buildings can be rehabilitated to make them functional for their intended use. E.Muzzey Senior Center – Mr. Batt felt the Historic District Commission or Historical Commission should “weigh in” to be certain the building is historic. If so, the project would be allowed under the definition of rehabilitation. F.Cary Hall/Town Office Building (TOB) HVAC Work – Mr. Batt felt this also qualified under the term of rehabilitation, and would make the buildings functional for their intended use. 1 G.Police Station Ventilation – Again, this project qualified as a rehabilitation project. The Historic District Commission or the Historical Commission, Mr. Batt noted, could help the Town decide whether to consider it historic. H.White House Assessment – qualified. I.Stone Building Stabilization – qualified. J.TOB Renovation – qualified under the definition of rehabilitation, assuming the Town considers it historic. K.Cary Hall Venue Improvements – qualified, especially in light of rehabilitation of the historic venue. L.Minuteman Bikeway – Mr. Batt raised concerns about this project, initially stating that the classification of the Bikeway as a “Public Way” would be an important factor. Ms. Shaw stated her opinion that the Bikeway was a Public Way, noting that it had been constructed with Federal funds. She added that most importantly, it is a valued recreational resource. Mr. Batt pointed out that if it is a Public Way, the Bikeway would not be eligible for CPA funds, anymore than sidewalks or roads would be. He added that if there was sufficient evidence to support its use as a recreational facility, it might qualify for funding. He also pointed out that the work described in the application appeared to be maintenance work. He suggested that it might be possible to separate out the drainage work as approvable, but later in the discussion, said he felt that even the replacement/repair of culverts was more of a maintenance issue. Mr. Adler pointed out that there are safety issues related to the need for drainage work and root penetration work, but Mr. Batt felt such projects fell within the definition of maintenance. M.Stormwater Mitigation at the Old Reservoir/Marrett Road – qualified, and is part of a project previously reviewed for FY 2010. N.Center Playfields – qualified , and again is part of a project reviewed for FY 2010. O.Cotton Farm (Cataldo) Acquisition – qualified. P.Archives Records and Management – qualified, part of multi-year project. Q.Cary Hall Signage – Mr. Batt felt the signage in Cary Hall itself would qualify, but there was some discussion of the signs outside Cary Hall, the Police Station and the Town Offices. Mr. Batt was not definite on the outdoor directional signs. R.Munroe Tavern Improvements – qualified. 2 S.Greeley Village/Vynebrook Bathroom Upgrades – Mr. Batt explained that he had concerns about this project. He said he felt the upgrades to the bathrooms to make them ADA compliant, and the upgrades of 8 additional bathrooms did not qualify as preservation projects. They could only be considered “rehabilitation” projects, and therefore approvable, if Greeley Village and Vynebrook had been purchased with CPA funds. The Committee questioned the FY 2010 approval of the window and roof work at Greeley Village, but Mr. Batt maintained that this work was to preserve the building from harm and destruction. He said the project would be more likely to qualify if the bathrooms were leaking to the point of jeopardizing the structural integrity of the building. The Committee questioned how interior rehabilitation work could be conducted on the Town Offices or Police Station, but not a housing project, which had very real needs. Mr. Batt explained that the TOB and Police Station projects qualified as historic buildings, and that they could be rehabilitated to make them functional for their intended use. T.LexHAB Purchase of Two Properties – Mr. Batt first indicated that the purchase of units by LexHAB represented somewhat of a gray area. After discussion with the Committee and Mr. Kanter, it was made clear that the CPC does not reimburse LexHAB, but pays the mortgage on the buildings. Mr. Kanter was very clear in explaining that the CPC neither reimburses nor refunds payments to LexHAB. U.Hancock School Roof and Windows – qualified. V.Battle Green Master Plan – qualified. This project had not yet been reviewed by the Committee and there was some discussion of its merits. Mr. Valente answered questions about the project, and explained why the cost was set at $50,000. There was general agreement that the project had to be part of an overall plan for the Battle Green, and that the proponent should work closely with the 2020 Committee. Mr. Batt added that he would question the money associated with this project, if it did not lead to actual physical improvements. Ms. Weiss thanked Mr. Batt for attending the meeting, and he left the meeting at this point. 2. Battle Green Master Plan – Request for Deadline Extension – The Committee then returned to the discussion of the Battle Green project. Ms. Dawn McKenna, Chair of the Tourism Committee, had submitted the project the day of the meeting, st with a request to waive the November 1 deadline. The Committee discussed the importance of the project and noted that it may be integral to work of the 2020 Committee. The Committee was reluctant to waive the deadline, but did not want to delay work on the Battle Green. Ms. Manz noted that there was still time to interview Ms. McKenna, and that the late submission would not delay or affect the scheduled Public Hearing. Mr. Cohen made a motion to accept the late application and waive 3 st the CPC deadline of November 1. The vote was 8-0 in favor of accepting the late application, with Ms. Krieger abstaining. 3. LexHAB Purchase of Two Properties – Mr. Bill Hays, Chairman of LexHAB, met with the Committee to present LexHAB’s request for $695,000 for the purchase of two properties. One property is located at 454 Marrett Road, across from the Old Reservoir. It has three bedrooms, 1 bath, a sizeable yard and is located on a commuter bus route. The home is priced at $400,000, and LexHAB will do $30,000 in repairs and upgrades (at their expense) prior to renting the property. The second property is located in Emerson Gardens, (#142) and has a purchase price of $295,000. It is a two-bedroom unit, which Mr. Hays described as an “up and down”. In response to a question from Mr. Adler, Mr. Hays explained that the home on Marrett Road had been tested for lead, and that some levels were detected in the kitchen, which will be renovated. The exterior of the building is vinyl siding and is stable, and will therefore not need any remediation. Unrelated to the lead issue, Mr. Hays noted that the owner will replace the roof prior to completion of the sale. Mr. Hays stated that LexHAB was seeking the full purchase price of the two buildings because LexHAB had been able to qualify for 100% lending from their bank. (Historically the CPC has funded 80% of the purchase price after LexHAB has made a downpayment.) There was a lengthy discussion of the funding of the units, with Mr. Hays explaining LexHAB’s rationale for seeking full support. He said he had kept the number of units to two this year, (as opposed to three last year), and noted that LexHAB wants to be in a position to be able to buy units at Katahdin Woods when they become available. (He updated the Committee on the likelihood of being able to do so, noting that the report from their lawyer was due shortly.) 4. Busa Query – Ms. Weiss notified the Committee that the Busa farm neighborhood group had contacted the Community Preservation Coalition, to see if the use of CPA state matching funds triggered Massachusetts General Law, Chapter193 for the preservation of agricultural land. Ms. Weiss referred the Committee to an email she had received from Stuart Saginor of the Coalition, which stated that CPA matching funds were considered to be those of the municipality’s rather than the state’s, and therefore did not trigger Chapter 193. The meeting was adjourned at 5:42 pm. Respectfully submitted, Nathalie Rice Administrative Assistant Community Preservation Committee 4