| Author |
 Topic  |
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2008 : 10:10:16 PM
|
Item #1 - Marchese spoke first. Wanted to make sure that all of the I's have been dotted and the T's have crossed in regards to this sale. Mr Pedulla provided a handout that had a chronology of all(?) of the events of the process. The document seemed to satisfy everyone.
RVC spoke next and asked about putting restrictions on the sale. Pedulla recommended to amend the piece to add any restrictions they wanted. RVC proposed three restrictions, 1) 55+ residential only, 2) maximum of 22 units and 3) community space.
Sachetta then asked for the developer to appear to determine if he had any problems with the restrictions. Mr Cassano said that he would prefer no restrictions but could live with ones that had been proposed. Marchese tried to help him out by pointing out that too many restrictions might prevent the right thing from being done down the line, i.e., what if the community space had to be sacrificed to provide more parking. BTW, Mr Cassano stated that he "thought" only half a parking space would be required per unit. I'm not sure what's right; I'll let someone else sort that out. But, I don't think that the neighbors will agree with that. RVC agreed to change the community space requirement to a desire.
DiPerri then spoke about the difference between the current valuation of the property on the city's books ($7 million) vs. the appraisal value ($850,000). Wanted to make sure that when the building goes on the tax rolls, it is valued at whatever the fair market value is at the time instead of the appraisal price. He went back and forth with the city solicitor on this because they were speaking two different languages; but, they ended up at the same place, I think. This was added as a restriction, which may or may not be needed, after the issue has been reviewed by the asessor's office.
Marcus then spoke in favor of not selling the building. Others pointed how much it was costing to maintain/run the building.
I think that those were all of the main points of the debate. I was distracted at the point of the vote, but I'm sure it passed. Everyone else was going to vote for it but I'm not sure what Marcus' actual vote was. However, since the item was amended, it will have to go back to the CC for concurence. No vote for reconsideration was taken.
Item #34 was indeed the Ferry Street location. RVC pretty much tore him a new one. The police will be shutting him down if he tries to repeat this on Memorial Day weekend. We'll see. He is going to be invited to license committee meeting before the next BOA meeting. In addition to the usual players at a license committee meeting, the police chief and the treasurer, among others have been invited to attend.
A couple of things that I missed in my previous post:
Items #10 thru 12
Wayne questioned the need for a joint convention to discuss these items and he had no idea how long they had been at the State House, I dunno; I think that if I were running for state rep, I could have made some kind of an issue out these items, especially when RVC, earlier in the meeting, had already taken a shot at the state legislature for holding up items (in regards to the Jessica's Law item).
Maybe somebody can help me. I was distracted when Wayne got a little hot with the DCR rep. What exactly happened there? |
 |
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
 Posted - 05/13/2008 : 4:11:49 PM
|
Concerning the parking for the Devens School, do you know if they still heat the building by oil? I remember watching a meeting where someone pointed out if they converted to gas and got rid of the oil tanks that would free up some space and I dont understand the 1/2 parking spot.....it's either a spot or not a spot.......am I mistaken?
|
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2008 : 4:47:24 PM
|
Tails,
As I said in a previous post, I'll let somebody else sort out the actual number of parking spaces that will be required per unit for this development but .5 is definitely a possibility. If it is easier, think of it as one space for every two units with the logic being that, because of the type of development it is, some of the units won't have any cars. Because of the limited parking in the area, I don't think that the neighbors will be happy with a low number of parking spaces but, that's just my opinion. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2008 : 9:33:58 PM
|
| I watched the re-run of that part of the Alderman meeting and you are correct, .5 parking space which is...as you say... one space per two units. I certainly would not be happy if I lived on or around that street. It’s really congested over there and I feel bad for the people that live around there. Parking is like a gold mine in this city and I know the area and if this is how it plays out, there’s gonna be trouble. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2008 : 09:40:38 AM
|
The developer said he will be keeping the original shell of the building. The original school yard is not very big and is oddly shaped. There is a stairway on that side and some very large grates. I would have liked to see the plans on how the developer would reconfigure this area to meet the parking needs. Since parking is such an issue all over the city, I would think the BOA and CC would have asked to see the plans.
I agree with the sale, it should be done with the least amount of impact to that already congested area.
|
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2008 : 09:49:11 AM
|
| I'm actually shocked that no one asked to see the plans. That's just standard I always thought. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2008 : 2:17:29 PM
|
| I hope this wasn't a preview of what is to come when the Wood Waste issue is brought to city government. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2008 : 3:08:55 PM
|
| Actually, I have recently heard from "1" person on the City Council who informs me that other than being opposed to any Thibeault/Wood Waste involvement, the City Council has no official involvement in deciding if it goes forward and the members of the Board of Appeals (who are appointed by the Mayor) have the say, but this person does not want a variance granted to Thibeault and feels that others do not either. Gee...hiring Cardello or Hickey just may get him a "yes" vote. |
|
|
|
Marie
Senior Member
114 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2008 : 3:20:52 PM
|
| I have not figured out the Common Council but as far as the Aldermen go it appears the mayor has his 4 votes on that board. Think back to votes at previous meetings. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2008 : 10:50:48 PM
|
Haven't been keeping up with today's posts so I'm going to go back a bit here.
I don't think that a plan would be a requirement at this point in the process. Think about it in these terms. If you were buying a piece of land on which you were going to built a house, would you hire an architect to design the house before you were certain the sale was going to go thru? In this case, a restriction was placed on Mr. Cassano during the process to limit the number of units he will be allowed. If he had detailed plans already prepared for more additional units, he would be forced to pay to change them. In this age of computer aided design, this might not be a huge deal but I'm sure that a cost would be associated with it. However, in this case, you are switching the usage of a piece of property that borders a residential neighborhood that has parking issues; something more than than a description off the top of the developer's head might have been appropriate.
I've modified my evening stroll the last two evenings so that I've walked down the Liberty Street side of the Devens School. I totally agree with Massdee's assessment of the "playground" area. I just don't see how that space will provide adequate parking for 22 units. It probably could probably handle 11 spaces, but not much more. Even with a limited number of spaces, I'm not sure how all of the requirements in the off-street parking section of the zoning ordinance could be met for a development of this size. Marchese might have been on the right track the other night when he said that part of the building may need to be dropped in order to have adequate parking for the development. Also, Mr. Cassano may need to rethink his statement that he has no plans for the outside of the building. As it stands, the exterior of the building has no curb appeal as a piece of residential property. We don't need another development that can't attract tenants.
I'm not sure that I want to wade into the Wood Waste issue but let's stick a toe in for now. I would have thought by now that everyone would understand that the two main authorities for approving a move of Wood Waste to lower Broadway will be the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Board of Health. I'm sure the Board of Appeals will have to hold at least one hearing on the issue. The members of the City Council will have to make their feelings known at this meeting just like the rest of the public. Their testimony should carry more weight than ordinary citizens since they can appear as elected officials. I'm not sure of the Board of Health process but I think that they can hold public hearings as well. In both cases, these boards are appointed by the mayor, subject to the approval of the Board of Aldermen. As of yet, the mayor has made no appointments to either of these boards. However, that could change quickly. We also appear to have a "gang of four" on the BOA that might insure approval of any appointment that the mayor wanted. It is my opinion that if you are not in favor of allowing Wood Waste to move, your focus should be on the Zoning Board of Appeals. In order for the Board of Health to really do anything that would prevent the move, they would have to present a compelling case that would require a lot of help from the legal department. Since the mayor is in favor of the move, I can't see that coming. The Board of Health can't just say that they don't want it; that's why we have what we have now. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2008 : 08:20:04 AM
|
| Today's Leader Herald has a very interesting "Commentary" on the sale of the Devens School. It appears that it is the writers opinion that city government did not follow MGL. It urges the city to go back to the drawing board and get it right. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2008 : 10:40:37 AM
|
Got a chance to read the Leader-Herald commentary. It's exactly the point I was trying to making last week but I deferrred to the legal department for an opinion. I thought that Mr. Pedulla producing a timeline of events Monday night was a start; it was up to the BOA to judge if that was enough. Since this opinion is really now out in the public, it will be up to the Common Council to decide where we go from here. I would agree that this process hasn't gone by the book but, if it can be proved that the city has at least attempted to live up to the spirit of the law, I'd like to see the sale go forward. If it has to go out to bid again, the city is likely to receive even less for the property and will delay the timeframe of when it can go on the tax rolls. The city can really use that money.
Just to point out one factual error in the Leader-Herald commentary. Until the last two weeks, no vote has ever passed to give any mayor the authority to actually sell the school.
I find the Leader-Herald to be terribly inconsistent. Some weeks, it has some really good commentary; other weeks, it not really worth reading. |
|
|
|
outoftowner
Member
24 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2008 : 12:51:56 PM
|
Tetris,
Please don't rule out the Board of Health in efforts to prevent Wood Waste from expanding. If you look at the case they lost to Wood Waste in the past:
You must be logged in to see this link.
you'll find that they lost only because they waited too long to reveal that they didn't have enough information to grant the permit. It was a technicality, really. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2008 : 12:52:58 PM
|
| Did the paper say how MGL was not followed? Is this another case of printing something without any back-up with it? I have not seen it yet so I cant comment too much but if that is true, I cant believe that it went through four lawyers, the entire city council, where one person is a lawyer, without anyone noticing that but I'll wait until I hear what the Independent meant by that. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2008 : 1:13:42 PM
|
outoftowner,
I clicked on the link above and it's asking for a password.... |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
BOA 2008
