Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-12-06-CPC-min Minutes of the Community Preservation Committee Monday, December 6, 2010 3:00 pm Room 207 Town Offices Present: Board Members: Wendy Manz,Chair; Marilyn Fenollosa, Vice-Chair; Joel Adler, Norman Cohen, Jeanne Krieger, Leo McSweeney, Sandy Shaw, Betsey Weiss and Dick Wolk. Administrative Assistant : Nathalie Rice Also in attendance was David Kanter of the Capital Expenditures Committee, and Glen Parker, Chair of the Appropriations Committee. The meeting was called to order at 3:00 pm by Ms. Manz. 1.Archives and Records Management and Conservation – Ms. Donna Hooper, Town Clerk, and Archivist, Ms. Nasrin Rohani met with the CPC to present a request for the fourth of a five year undertaking to preserve important Town records and documents. Ms. Hooper explained that in Year 4, Town Reports from the late 1800’s will be conserved, in addition to the records kept in the Assessor’s vault. The Assessor’s records will be given first priority in FY2012, since the vault will be remodeled for office space. Ms. Hooper explained that HDC records have recently qualified for preservation and will be part of the FY2012 project. Ms. Hooper distributed a list of the conserved documents to date, some 117 entries, containing hundreds of volumes. She said she would be seeking $150,000 in FY 2012 and FY 2013, and smaller amounts of funding per year thereafter. She also noted that the schools have put in a capital request for a significant expansion of their laser fiche system, which if approved, would necessitate their records being stored with the Town’s. Mr. Adler asked Ms. Hooper if she had met the legal requirements for document conservation, and was now concentrating on conservation for historic purposes. Ms. Hooper replied that this was correct. 2.Discussion of Greeley Village Project Pursuant to Town Counsel’s Review of Project Applications – The CPC had received Town Counsel’s opinion on its eleven project applications. Town Counsel, Kevin Batt questioned the legality of the Greeley Village project because it was a remodeling/rehabilitation project. He stated his opinion that the project to 1 rehab a unit to make it handicapped accessible was not defensible under the statute’s definition of the term “support”. Ms. Fenollosa had communicated with Mr. Batt about this issue, and sought further definition on this point. In general, the Committee believed the project was admirable but after some discussion, agreed it must abide by Town Counsel’s opinion. The Committee voted 5-3-1 not to forward the project on to the Public Hearing the following night. Mr. Adler abstained from the vote. 3.Muzzey Condominium Window Replacement Project – Ginger McGuire, Hans Maas and Sally Springer of the Muzzey High Condominium Association joined the CPC to clarify statements made in their presentation on th November 15, regarding the replacement of windows on the historic former Muzzey High School building. Ms. McGuire stated that the Association was applying to the CPC for the entire cost of replacement, $253,915, not just for the FY 2012 amount of $50,517. Ms. McGuire went on to address certain questions raised in her initial meeting with the CPC. She stated that she had researched bridge loans, but that the Association was unable to qualify for such a loan. She also noted that the Association would try to compress the installation schedule if possible, a suggestion made by Mr. Kanter. Mr. Adler asked if the costs of the windows would be included in the purchase price of units when the units were ultimately sold. Ms. McGuire replied that such a decision would be up to LexHAB. Ms. Springer said this question had been posed to LexHAB, and as yet remained unanswered. Mr. Cohen noted that it would in fact be the Selectmen who would make such a decision. There was a discussion about whether the monies appropriated by the CPC could be reimbursed to the Town upon sale of condominium units. Members also discussed the benefits of the project, noting that there was a public benefit to the historic restoration of the windows. The CPC had reservations about the issue of affordability, however, since none of the units due to have replacement windows qualify as affordable. The units are controlled by a 5% appreciation cap per year and Ms. McGuire noted that some unit owners are in the low to moderate income level. None of the units are formally included in Lexington’s affordable housing stock, however. Ms. Manz pointed out that this project, while legally eligible, may be politically problematic. Ms. McGuire addressed the issue of repairing existing windows compared to using new windows by Andersen. She stated that repairing the windows had been ruled out due to difficulty with the interior storm windows, and lack of energy efficiency. Mr. Kanter said he felt this was a decision based upon preference and functionality of the window, not cost, and that the cost of repairing the windows had not been fully considered in the analysis for the CPA application. 2 On a related matter, Ms. McGuire informed the Committee that the Condominium Association had reached an agreement with the Senior Center, enabling the Senior Center to extend its hours. 4.Battle Green Master PlanImplementation – Mr. Dave Pinsonneault, Superintendant of Public Grounds, and consultant, Ms. Cindy Brockway met with the CPC to discuss the possibility of combining this project with Mr. Pinsonneault’s Monument Restoration Project. Mr. Pinsonneault explained that he and Ms. McKenna, Chair of the Tourism Committee and proponent of the Implementation project, would ultimately like to combine projects. Mr. Pinsonneault had checked with Town Manager, Mr. Valente, whose approval would be needed to alter either project. He said Mr. Valente would like to see the projects remain on separate tracks, but that the Town Manager could ultimately see them joined if more information became available. Mr. Pinsonneault explained that the Implementation project would include addressing the areas around and in front of the monuments that would be restored in Mr. Pinsonneault’s Monument Restoration Project. Ms. Brockway noted that the surface in front of many of the monuments has eroded, with stone dust mixing with the soil underneath. Her suggestion would be to redo these areas, by adding granite landing stones on the most heavily-used areas and stone dust or a more durable surface surrounding the granite. Mr. Pinsonneault explained that the Tourism Committee would be taking the Master Plan to the Selectmen for approval in early January, and that if the Board approved the Master Plan and the granite/stone dust project, the two projects might be combined prior to the close of the warrant. There was a general discussion about the wisdom of combining the two projects, with Mr. Wolk questioning whether there would be changes to the general “geography” of the Green. Ms. Brockway responded that there were no changes recommended to the general outline of the Green, and that any changes to the areas around the monuments would be permanent. Mr. Kanter asked Ms. Brockway if there was a cost range for the upcoming FY 2013 Master Plan Implementation Project, to which Ms. Brockway replied that it was too early to discuss such numbers, even in very general terms. 5.Housing Partnership Down Payment and Closing Cost Assistance Program – There was a general discussion of this project in light of Town Counsel’s review of the CPC applications. Mr. Batt questioned the project, since it did not seem to have the benefit of increasing affordable housing stock, which is one of the CPA goals. Further, he felt the public benefit of the assistance, was to the advantage of certain individuals or families, rather than to the pool of low and moderate income applicants. Ms. Weiss reported that 3 she had called Ms. Sunnarborg, consultant for the Partnership, and said Ms. Sunnorborg felt an Assistance Program in Lexington would narrow the affordability gap. She noted that applicants still have to come up with 1.5% down payment. After a general discussion of this project and Mr. Batt’s legal opinion of the application, the CPC voted 8-0-1 to forward the project to the CPC Public Hearing to be held the following evening. Ms. Fenollosa abstained from the vote. 6.LexHAB Set Aside Funding for Acquisition of Housing – Co-Chair Mr. Bill Kennedy, Board member Lester Savage, and Senior Town Planner, Aaron Henry met with the CPC to present this application. Mr. Bill Hays had previously familiarized the Committee with the proposal. Mr. Kennedy presented the application for $450,000 in funding to enable LexHAB to acquire affordable housing units with CPA funds in a more expeditious manner. There were a number of questions from the Committee; Ms. Krieger questioned why the amount of $450,000 had been requested, to which Mr. Kennedy responded that it was approximately the cost of one unit. Mr. Wolk asked what would happen to the $450,000 appropriation if a unit were not purchased in FY 2012. Mr. Kennedy said the funds would accumulate in preparation for a future acquisition. Discussion then turned to the CPC guidelines that would be put in place should the CPC and Town Meeting vote positively on the proposal. The Committee concurrred that it would need an agreement with LexHAB regarding the use of the funds, accumulation of funds from year to year, CPC approval of projects, and as Ms. Fenollosa suggested, a possible price range for acquisitions. Mr. Kanter expressed his opinion that such a document would be critical to present at Town Meeting in order give Town Meeting members confidence that LexHAB’s appropriation was properly regulated. Mr. Parker, Chair of the Appropriations Committee commented that his Committee would like to know how funds were spent, and preferred that they not simply accumulate. 7.Needs Assessment Report – Ms. Manz summarized her final comments on the draft, and Ms. Weiss and Ms. Fenollosa noted that they had also made changes. It was decided that Ms. Rice would circulate the draft with the changes showing, so all could see the specific edits. After that draft is accepted and edited for one last time, the Report should be complete. Members noted that there will have to be an upcoming Public Hearing on the Report. 4 8.CPC Signs for Ongoing Projects - Ms. Shaw noted that she had received a more accurate cost figure for the proposed CPC signs. She said the “per sign” cost was $175, not $100 as she had originally reported. There was a discussion of the appropriate size of signs for indoor and outdoor use. Ms. Shaw noted that there was more discussion needed before she ordered the signs. She said she would meet with Ms. Rice to review how many signs might be needed for inside and outside use. 9.Historic Districts and Historical Commissions’ Review of CPC Projects – Ms. Fenollosa reported that the Historical Commission had reviewed the CPC applications in the Historic Preservation category, and had voted 4-1 to support one project - the Muzzey Condominium Association Proposal for the Replacement of Windows. st 10.Future Meeting – The CPC will be meeting on December 21 at 10:30 in the Legion Room. The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 pm. Two documents were presented at the CPC meeting; (1) A list of archived documents presented by Donna Hooper, Town Clerk, entitled, “CPA Funded Records Preservation, Town of Lexington Archives, dated Monday December 6, 2010”. This document is on file in the CPC office. (2) A list of project applications and costs for the upcoming CPC Public Hearing entitled, “Public Hearing, Community Preservation Committee, FY 2012 Project Applications, December 7, 2010”. This document is on file in the CPC office. Respectfully submitted, Nathalie Rice Administrative Assistant Community Preservation Committee 5