Approved on
Committee
Attendees
Jim
Goldsmith Chairperson |
Marilyn
Z. Kahn |
David
DePree Co-Chairperson |
Bob Levin |
Michael
Baskin |
Marcia C.
Liebman |
Craig Edwards |
Joel Tran |
James
Glaser |
|
Guests
Dave
Martin Historic Commission |
Paul
Lauenstein Planning Board |
|
Barbara
Nadler Library |
Meeting Initiation
Meeting was
called to order at
Meeting Minutes
Approval of
the November 7th minutes was deferred to a future meeting.
Overview
General
discussion focused on the type of developer that might be interested in the
Wilber property. DePree stated that getting a developer for affordable housing
is comparatively easy. He noted that a non-profit developer has access to
various grants and may be able to take advantage of new market tax credits. (Example:
both Mass Inv Corp and Bank of America specialize in this area and may provide
a list of developers.) Goldsmith suggested targeting a developer who can make
money. Tran suggested that a local developer may be looking for a profit but may
also be interested in the community. It was also suggested that under the
Community Redevelopment Act, developers may want to put money back into the community.
It was speculated that some of the local banks might assist with funding.
Abatement/RFP Process
The
committee discussed the approval at Town Meeting of the funding of $750,000 for
abatement of the Wilber property. Baskin stated that by statute, once the
approved amount reaches $500,000, the project is assigned to the Standing
Building Committee with a designee assigned by the Board of Selectmen to
temporarily join the SBC as a voting member on matters related to that
particular project. An RFP will be put out for a consultant team for abatement,
which will include a structural engineer. Currently tests on the building contents
exist, but need to be reassessed. A structural engineer must decide if the
building is safe. If the process moves quickly, it could take 3-4 months to
have the abatement contractors bid. Concerns about demolishing the building
were alleviated by Baskin, as he and Martin reminded attendees that the Wilber
building is in an historic district and cannot be demolished without a permit
from the Historic Commission.
The feeling
of the committee is that we are moving in a positive direction: the water
report is pending and we have gotten funding for abatement which shows positive
community interest. Now we can put in
the RFP that the building will be free of asbestos, lead paint and
contaminants.
The WSRC recommended
Michael Baskin as the Wilber representative to the SBC for the abatement
project.
Tran
reiterated that a timeline needs to be followed for abatement. The water study
is coming soon and that information can also be included in the RFP. He
suggested that we look at the draft RFP Crane provided and be prepared to
discuss it in detail at our next meeting.
Goldsmith suggested
including the Board of Health early in the process, creating more of a
partnership and preventing problems in the future. DePree stated the BOH will
not act until they see a solution that the nitrates are removed or lessened.
Baskin suggested we lay out the minimum criteria and offer the BOH the opportunity
to reduce nitrates at the town well. Determine what the standards are. All
problems cannot be solved at once.
Kahn stated
that the DEP is developing new standards. By using the new state criteria, such
as reusing grey water, and rain retention gardens on roof and ground, we can
minimize mounding and nitrate impacts allowing us to increase density. This way
we may be able to attract more developers. Tran suggested that in order to keep
things going, we should put into the RFP that 10,000gpd can be exceeded;
parking requirements can be exceeded but need to meet the requirements of DEP
and mitigate run-off. It can be accepted
if show how to manage water, parking and traffic situations.
DePree
suggested that we need to layout the RFP with the solutions laid out as well.
Kahn/Lauenstein
talked about looking at waste water, storm water and water used. They will
determine cost and report back to committee. The question of Do we need a water study
before drafting the RFP? was posed and the committee stated their opinions as
follows: Edwards, no, Tran/Glaser stated to include a paragraph within RFP to
include mitigation and Liebman/Kahn/Levin stated the more problems that are
solved within the RFP, the more likely of its success.
Next Steps
Future Meetings:
Glaser/DePree
moved to adjourn meeting @
Respectfully
submitted,
Rachelle F. Levitts