Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-05-06-CPC-min Minutes of the Community Preservation Committee May 6, 2010 2:30 pm Room 207 Town Office Building Present: Board Members: Betsey Weiss, Chair; Marilyn Fenollosa, Vice Chair; Joel Adler, Norman Cohen, Jeanne Krieger, Wendy Manz, Leo McSweeney and Sandy Shaw. Administrative Assistant: Nathalie Rice Absent: Dick Wolk Also in attendance were Selectman, Hank Manz; David Kanter and Shirley Stoltz of the Capital Expenditures Committee (CEC); John Bartenstein of the Appropriations Committee and Dawn McKenna, Chair of the Tourism Committee. Ms. Weiss called the meeting to order at 2:35 pm. 1.CPC Review of Municipal Projects – Ms. Weiss opened the discussion and explained the need for deadlines for the receipt of information on municipal st projects. She suggested that the November 1 deadline should apply to th municipal application submission, and offered the date of December 15 for the final receipt of any addenda. There was a lengthy discussion of the Town Office Building (TOB) project, with many members agreeing that the process had been difficult. There was a sentiment among some members that the Town should be held to the same standard as all other applicants, and that if information was not received in a timely fashion, a municipal project should be either turned down or postponed to the following fiscal year. Ms. Weiss recalled the timeline of the TOB project and said she did not receive requested additional information in a timely fashion. There was some question among members whether the receipt of the information would have changed the ultimate CPC vote, and others questioned exactly how much information was appropriate for the CPC to request. Mr. Kanter stated that the Capital Expenditures Committee did not ask for an additional breakdown beyond the 6-page report received by the th CPC on March 11. He said it was not the role of his committee to analyze the details of the project and that CEC members did not have the expertise to do so. Ms. Manz stated her belief that the CPC needed to decide upon the level of detail needed for its decision-making. She supported Mr. Kanter’s opinion that committee members do not have the expertise to make decisions on detailed elements of proposed projects. 1 There was also a discussion of the TOB project relative to the Town Meeting th presentation on April 28. Some members felt the discussion of the TOB project should have been on the merits of the project. They argued that the ADA component and the video presentation made it difficult to speak against the proposal. Ms. Shaw pointed out that negative comments were interpreted as anti-ADA, which was unfair to members of the CPC who did not support the project for cost and priority reasons. Ms. Krieger defended her presentation of the TOB project on behalf of the CPC, in which she gave the floor to Virginia Buckley, Chair of the Commission on Disability. Ms. Shaw pointed out that the CPC had never recognized other speakers as part of their project presentations, other than to answer questions. It was agreed that there had been a great deal of frustration surrounding the review process and subsequent Town Meeting presentation of the TOB project. 2.Future Land Acquisitions – Need for Multi-Use Designation – Ms. Weiss addressed this topic, stating that she believed that the warrant and motion for any future land purchases should also include the possibility for community housing and recreation. Mr. Kanter said he felt this recommendation would do little to harm the intent of future acquisitions, and said the CEC would probably look favorably upon such a policy. Ms. Manz also agreed with Ms. Weiss, and stated her belief that the CPC had an obligation to consider all the purposes in the CPA statute when evaluating a land acquisition. A motion was made that, “the warrant and the motions for land acquisition articles funded with CPA funds be worded to include all applicable CPA purposes”. The motion was seconded and passed 8-0 in favor. 3.Globe Article Regarding Town Office Building Project – There was a brief discussion of an article about the Town Office Building project that had appeared in the Boston Globe after Town Meeting. The article had attracted the attention of Mr. Jeffrey Seideman of Newton, (the individual who had successfully sued the City of Newton over a playground project that was not eligible under the CPA statute). Members agreed that the two cases had little similarity, and that the Town Office Building passed the “historic” litmus test, and had been thoroughly vetted by Town Counsel. The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 pm. Respectfully submitted, Nathalie Rice Administrative Assistant Community Preservation Committee 2