Board of Selectmen and Wilber School Redevelopment Committee

Joint Meeting

Meeting Minutes of September 8th, 2005

Approved by the Wilber School Redevelopment Committee on September 26th, 2005

Approved by the Board of Selectmen on September 27th, 2005

 

WSRC  Attendees

Michael Baskin

David Gordon

Dave DePree

Marcia Liebman

Craig Edwards

Melissa Mills

Jim Goldsmith

Joel Tran

 

Board of Selectmen  Attendees

David Grasfield

Joe Roach

Bill Heitin

 

 

Guest  Attendees

Ann Bingham – Board of Health

Suzi Peck – Board of Health

Alice Cheyer – concerned citizen

Ben Puritz – Town Administrator

Eric Hooper – DPW

Deena Segal -concerned citizen

Jeanette Keating – concerned citizen

Len Segal -concerned citizen

Paul Lauenstein – WMAC/PB

Robert Young – Historical Commission, Housing Authority and Housing Partnership

Gina Maniscalco - PB

 

 

Meeting Initiation

Meeting was called to order at 7:38 pm by Jim Goldsmith and David Grasfield.

 

Purpose of Meeting

Goldsmith defined the purpose of the meeting as a discussion of the septic issue. He wants “buy-in” by all relevant town Boards/Committees of the restrictions,”as of right” items in the future RFP subject to the additional findings of Weston & Sampson’s CHAPA study. The goal is to bring to the surface, any issues which might come up later.

 

Discussion

1.      Septic capacity of site/Water mounding

Peck agreed that 10,000 gpd is the assumed framework. Need to focus on what is pragmatic and feasible. Need neighborhood center solution to know what is required.

 

Goldsmith asked about selection of houses that would reduce the nitrate levels. He suggested that the BOH, in dealing with these issues, would have a sense of amount of mitigation required.

 

Heitin suggested focusing on the demand needed for the Wilber School property and then on the availability for mitigation of neighborhood.

 

Grasfield stated may need greater than 10,000 gpd system to make site development successful. W&S feel safe with 10,000 gpd. If success of Wilber project depends on doing more on the site and picking up houses to reduce nitrates at the well, then it’s in the WSRC interest to have 10,000 gpd to work with.

 

Baskin asked about the mechanism for adding select homes to septic systems if developer plans for use that is less than full capacity. Grasfield explained that this would be determined by the BOH. Grasfield asked about the worth of mitigating certain houses if Wilber project at 10,000 gpd. If no, then pragmatically don’t need to spend time on houses.

 

Peck stated there are still a number of uncertainties; the sizing of the leaching field is understated, cost of treatment may be prohibitive. 10,000 gpd capacity needs to be confirmed and the potential effect on down hill houses needs to be determined. Key information is missing.

 

Grasfield reiterated questions already raised: mounding issue, cost of treatment and effectiveness. Stated Peter O’Cain had a good handle on the questions. Stated W&S is making a clear and confident case for capacity up to 10,000 gpd. Committee is trying to advance to coordinate with town meetings. He does not see anything to cease process.

 

Peck sees issues as: water volume, cost effectiveness and effluent treatment. Need to determine the leaching field size and impact on neighbors. Unless cost of treatment and hydraulic capacity are known, developer can’t respond to RFP and BOH cannot give approval. States historically systems don’t work as well in actuality as on paper.

 

Hooper confirmed that BOH can only rule on what is in front of it. Can’t supply other set of criteria.

 

Bingham concerned that we may not have all limits on our flow sources. Concerned that we are discussing 4 parts per million (nitrates) and that town is discussing loading sewage onto the site. This will exacerbate the nitrate problem at the well.

 

Peck argued that we can get the nitrates to a safe level, but the feasibility depends on the cost. She added that we need to know hydraulic issues and reliability of treatment because of sensitivity of the area.

 

Grasfield summarized discussion up to this point: we have in hand a working estimate and are subject to a rigorous process ahead. There are abutters. Sewage has to be treated to safe levels. Need to put in RFP our requirement that what is proposed would produce net result we want. If economical, has to be treated to levels for net benefit to the well.

 

Roach added that there is $10,000 dollars left in the CHAPA grant. W&S can provide answers to these questions. Grasfield stated, Peter O’Cain has been circulating the questions we have been asking since the W&S presentation on 8/30 to ensure all concerns are captured. Grasfield encouraged all to email Peter with any additional questions.

 

Roach moved and Grasfield seconded, that Eric Hooper direct Peter O’Cain to answer questions posed at the 8/30 BOS meeting and any others that the BOH, WSRC, members of other concerned committees or concerned citizens may have. Vote passed unanimously.

 

Goldsmith, DePree and Baskin strongly stated that the WSRC needed answers before sending out the RFP.

Goldsmith stated 10,000 gpd not benchmark because of mounding and economic feasibility. Baskin added that it is up to the developer to figure out cost of system and then financial feasibility. Peck countered that we can move faster if we make this a determination beforehand.

 

DePree stated the real issue is use. Library won’t make money. An item of low septic use won’t pay for itself. Money is in rentals or condos, which produce more septic.

 

Baskin is trying to advance prospects for Wilber property. Both municipal and private use (from which the town can generate revenue) and improve town position. How specific do we need to be in the RFP for what they can do versus offering options? The key issue is to establish a waste water output capacity for the site that will be available exclusively for the development of the Wilber property.

 

Grasfield reiterated that10,000 gpd is working figure subject to confirmation. The mounding issue must be looked at before proceeding. Need to know the # of pounds of nitrogen going into the well: we will be held to what can do based on it. We need the basics addressed.

 

Gordon asked about the realistic timeframe for resolving questions from W&S. Hooper stated defined questions should be answered in a short time period as subsurface work needs to be done before Thanksgiving.

 

Peck explained that the developer determines the number of gallons needed and we should provide guidance on cost of the treatment system. Baskin stated W&S said it is difficult to zero in on accurate figures without having designed the system. The only people to design the treatment system are the developers. Baskin does not think we need to come up with a cost. Peck, felt we need to provide a rough cost in the RFP.

 

Baskin reiterated the range stated by W & S of $800,000 to $1.2 million dollars for treatment system to produce a 0.15 ppm impact to well, as cited from the CHAPA report.

 

2.      Timing of RFP

Goldsmith is concerned that answers may not be received until winter; should RFP delay to spring. We may not need to put cost into RFP.  Is real question, the mounding issue and if yes, can we get it addressed?

 

Hooper stated RFP will tell the developer to design treatment plan in a specific way and will state that there is no net increase to nitrates in well #4. Developer will cost-out 10,000 gpd facility but can only use x capacity.

 

Goldsmith stated we need to talk to Lealdon Langley about treatment plants.

Grasfield advised not to guess. Need Mr. Langley’s expertise but can still move forward.  Mounding question, however, needs to be answered.

 

Baskin discussed the schedule. Town meeting is held first Monday in May. Need to determine point when committee receives responses to RFP so it can give evaluate and make a recommendation to BOS. Means WSRC has to make a decision by February. We are looking for a measure of technical and financial expertise. WSRC needs RFP to go out by November.

Grasfield argued that it is important to do it right and only once if possible, not to squeeze process.

 

DePree pointed out that it’s at least a six month process from the day the RFP is put out. He asked about a separate town meeting if committee is unable to be ready by May town meeting. Tran added that process may be longer if no one responds or if poor response is received; will need to reset parameter and send out new RFP.

 

Grasfield responded that the Wilber property is of big enough interest that there is leeway to warrant a special town meeting. Roach/Heitin agreed.

 

3.      Building preservation/Wording of RFP

Tran questioned Selectmen and Young regarding historical designation:  1) preserve building façade or tear down or 2) put out RFP to preserve building as only option doing  second round that includes building can be raised only if no or unacceptable response.

 

Goldsmith stated that the majority of the WSRC feel, if push comes to shove, if the only way to economically develop site is to not preserve the building, then that is trade off most would make.

 

Young stated that the Historical Commission is not firm in its belief entire Wilber School will be preserved but that some historical significance will be preserved. Anticipate that the developer will preserve some pieces of the facade. Opposed to tearing down entire building. At May, 2004 Town Meeting, there was little opposition to the historic district being created.

 

Goldsmith thought the attendees at town meeting may not have been apprised that the building is in far worse shape than thought. DePree stated the interior layout is prohibitive. Young cited the Standing Building Committee, which said it was more expensive to knock down and start from scratch.

 

Goldsmith pointed out that determination was made when the site was looked at for municipal offices. There is more information now regarding different desired development criteria which leads us to believe it is less appealing to the town to maintain the building.

 

Tran asked Young as a representative of the Historical Commission, his opinion as to how to pose the RFP 1) Leave existing façade and if get no response, send out second RFP or 2) have an RFP with 2 options, but stating that preservation is preferable.

 

Baskin stated planning consultants are convinced that unless historic designation is changed in advance there is no benefit to put out the RFP with any option for demolition.

 

Gordon asked Young if the Historical Commission saw certain parts of the façade as relatively more important than other parts. Young replied that the façade was viewed as a whole and the historical importance was based on research and the architectural awards won for the school.

 

Roach stated cost already spent on preserving the Wilber School is reaching the $2 million dollar mark. Thinks money spent indicates that the community is interested in keeping at least the front façade.

Baskin stated the building, built as a school, could be readily converted for municipal use. Conversion for private commercial or residential use is a problem due to floor plates and the current window layout. In addition, the building is set rather far back from street for commercial use. Green space in front near corner of Main and Station should be maintained.

 

With reference to the RFP, Heitin stated he prefers a two-track approach. Due to the shape of the building it is more likely to get demolition than preservation options. Roach is strongly opposed to tearing down the building. Grasfield favors maximum flexibility and would like to see the façade kept. He would like to see the two-track approach for the RFP.

 

Baskin stated the RFP consultant has indicated a preference for flexibility in the RFP. Let developer offer response and give developer points for keeping historic building. Design consultants, on the other hand, feel should give developer more concrete information to work with.

 

Goldsmith stated he wants input from BOS as to whether to take down the building or leave it up.

 

Liebman stated people need concrete reason for letting building go. Disagrees with just saying take building down. RFP should include preservation of building façade; if no response, or unacceptable response, voters will have concrete information on which to make a decision about changing the historic designation.

 

Segal suggests public education, like community TV is important for the proposal to be viable. If voters do not have information provided before town meeting and frequently through multiple medium, the chance of failure is high.

 

Baskin stated best strategy may be to proceed with RFP that preserves building or key historic features of building. If no developer response, then go to TM to remove site from historic district. If approved, RFP can be reissued with change of historic designation that would allow building demolition.

 

DePree received mixed response from the developers as to what to do. The bottom line is how much money the town wants to make on the project. If town wants to keep a certain feel, look or identity, tearing it down brings a different feel to the town center. We need to weigh this versus maximizing our profit.

 

Goldsmith stated if option of tearing down then you are not trying to preserve the building. It will be hard to convince town meeting that every effort was made to save building/façade. Heitin agreed and changed earlier statement saying, dual path will not convince town meeting. If RFP fails, with preservation as the only option, have pure evidence that historical designation did not have all the benefits thought it would have.

 

Meeting Adjournment

Heitin/Roach moved to adjourn meeting at 9:15 pm; motion carried unanimously.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Rachelle F. Levitts