audio. >> Yeah, >> there you go. >> Am I there? Yep. Um, >> the meeting's being recorded. Okay. >> You want the sound up? It is up, isn't it?
>> No. >> There you go. You should be all set. >> Okay. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. >> Everyone enjoying the snow?
>> Are you being serious? It was snowing pretty heavily this afternoon. I was out for a walk and I thought I was going to get lost in the blizzard. >> I actually put my shovels away. Stupid me. >> That was your fault then.
>> I know. That's what I said. Stupid me. Oh. So, how's everybody doing? >> Right. >> Good. How are you, Alan? >> Okay. Waiting for spring. >> Yeah. >> Well, pull the snow shovels out and
it'll arrive faster. So, >> good idea. I think I'll do that tomorrow morning. >> I'm going to order a pair of boots. >> Yeah. Or that, too. >> The weather has been great for uh for maple syrup, though. >> Yeah, >> it has. Yeah,
>> we've been we've been getting a so much sap and it's got really high sugar content. >> Fun. >> That's great. That's about >> red red maples um Matteo that you have or >> Yeah, most most of them are red. We have a couple of sugar maples and one black
maple, but most of it is. We want to try doing birch trees this year, too. >> Oh, >> but it has to get a little warmer for that. >> My my brother is up in New Hampshire and he said uh he has a lot of land up there and he said he had 950 gallons of sap
that he was boiling. >> Oh, wow. He's a serious uh he doesn't do it commercially. He just does it for family and friends. >> Oh, really? >> So, we we encourage him. >> It's a lot. It's like 43 gallons of sap
for one gallon of syrup. >> Yeah. >> Birch is more birch is like 110 gallons to one gallon. >> That's a lot of work. >> How many spare time, all this free time? I can definitely >> Oh, yeah.
How many trees do you usually tap, Matteo? >> We have 31 that we do on our property and then Netty taps three at the school she teaches at with the students. >> Wow, that's a lot. >> Yeah. >> And do you have an outdoor uh fire sort
of thing to boil a boiler? >> Yeah, we have one of those barrel evaporators which is not super efficient, but it's a lot of fun. >> Yeah, >> that's great. Um, all right. It is 7:02. We have uh
everybody here. So, we are going to get started. I'm going to call this meeting of the Shootsbury CPC to order. And the first item on the agenda is to review and vote on the minutes of February 19th. Everybody have a chance to take a
look at those? pull it over here. Thank you, Cliff, for the minutes. >> Welcome. Big shoes to fill, but um I'll take a motion. >> I make a motion. >> Second.
>> All right. Any uh discussion? >> Yes. Um, I was not there so I could not vote to uh close the meeting. >> Oh, >> who was it? >> Probably was me.
>> Yeah. >> Well, it says uh Wilson eye, Getty's eye, Reed eye, Pangalo eye, and PO I. Oh, >> so that probably >> was Frell. >> Frell. >> Yeah.
>> Also Wilson uh two has two L's, >> right? >> Both have that gray hair line. >> All right, I will uh edit that and send them in. >> Thank you. Uh, I guess we have to vote. Um,
>> right >> to vote on the um the minutes as amended. Hansen >> I >> Reed >> Io >> I abstain please. Sorry.
Uh, Frell >> I >> Wilson >> I >> Yetis >> hi. >> And Gallo I. >> Okay. Next item on the agenda.
The big one. Uh we're going to discuss and vote on our FY27 CPA grant applications. I have these listed in the order in which we receive them. So, we will um start off with the regional affordable housing coordinator application from Furcog.
Any comments, questions, discussion? There was a a revision. Hopefully you guys all saw that >> but they did address the um some of the questions that came up in our in our previous meeting. >> Yeah. Yeah. No, I think it's it's a great idea and I think having Furcog
involved and joining with other communities makes a lot of sense >> and so their their coordination with uh um community preservation coalition and kind of understanding you know what the limitations are
using CPA funds. So that I think that's been pretty well reviewed. So I I think it's it would be very useful at this juncture. >> Yeah, I know that I know Mariah is very careful about um trying to work with
Stuart to make sure there are things that she will be able to do. It's just that >> those things are being funded with that state grant as opposed to the CPA >> money. And there are at least two other towns I think that are >> looking to join in future years. It's a little regrettable that this is only for
one fiscal year because I don't know how much, you know, she'll actually be able to get done with just one year. Um, but maybe this is something that can lead to a a U. >> Yeah, maybe there'll be more funding. >> Yeah. >> So, I think it's great. I'll I'll make a
motion that we um approve that um request for for funding for the affordable housing coordinator through Furcog. >> I second. Right. Any further discussion?
Beth's cat has something to say. No. >> Just almost disconnected me. Goodbye. >> All right. Well, then we'll put it to a vote. Hansen. >> Hi. >> Reed. >> I >> Frell.
>> I. >> Wilson. >> I >> Gettys. >> I >> Pangalo. Hi. All right. The next one is the spear building porch rehabilitation application. Any comments, questions, discussion?
I I know at the last meeting we were trying to address the uncertainty of the range of um cost estimates. It it wasn't pinned down. And um is it because in the application it it does give the range
but um the wording in well I I guess I'm jumping ahead to the um the wording of the warrant article but um so um is uh it appropriate to have it um
considered up to that certain amount the 85 um thousand for for that um >> I mean my my sense is that um you know ideally they would come in under budget
but I I um I'm a little conflicted on this. I feel like this is an important project and it should definitely be done given the state of the porch, but I feel that the um the application is so unclear in the budget and I know that in
in the budget summary it says contractor estimates will be secured to determine final cost. I kind of wish that had been done before the application had been submitted. Uh, and as we discussed previously, there's also no indication of I mean the budget detail section is just completely blank and there's no
indication of other funds. It literally just says unknown in that box. Um, and I feel if it seems like an important project and as an important project, it's important for it
to have a pretty clear budget which it doesn't have. And it feels odd to be asking town meeting to commit so much money uh to something that hasn't been sort of clearly prepared. I don't know.
Those are my reservations. I don't know if I'm the only one who has that. >> I agree with you. I mean, it's such a wide range between 55 and 85 and not knowing who's going to
match this. I'm just the portrait's going to fall off, but um and it might be that this is rolled into the reuse um committee's prerogative
and that might come up next year when the idea of of reusing this building hopefully will be resolved. I mean, I guess maybe Rita could speak to this in more detail, but it seems to
me that there are certain things in the reuse plan, whatever it turns out to be, that CPA funding probably could be used for if it's related to his like something like the porch, right, or historic parts of the property that are uh in need of rehabilitation and
compliance with with the uh the standards. But then there are also certain things that CPA money would not be eligible for. Um, and just like just as we sort of disentangled uh or we didn't end up having to having to disentangle it, but we could have
disentangled um uh CPA funding for the track and field project from the cost of artificial um surface for that artificial um turf. Something similar could be done with the reuse project where these parts of the
spear reuse rehabilitation because they are compliant with historical renovation could be funded with CPA money and that might then sort of relieve some of the pressure on the town and paying for you know septic or or you know what whatever other things need to be done the heating
system or whatever. Um though I don't know how old the heating system is. Maybe that does qualify for historic rehabilitation given it's >> no no, you know, kind of the the building envelope um and um would be, you know, would be
something that we would potentially be looking for for CPA, the you know, the the exterior, the um the slate roof, um the the siding, um the porch, Uh then
you the interior, you know, I think and and Henry was at our last when when we met with the jointly with the select board uh last week, you know, I think we reached the conclusion that we would be
doing um minimally doing a a bathroom, so needing, you know, water and septic there regardless of of the final use of the building. So, um,
yeah, I'm Yeah, I'm kind of two minds. I'm I'm not Yeah, I'm not really sure how to how to go on this one because doing the doing the the porch without knowing what else we're going to be doing on the outside
of the building does seem like it doesn't make a lot of sense. I don't know, Henry, do you have a thinking about it in those terms now that you mention it. >> Um, yeah, I mean
on the other hand the Porsche doesn't need the steps in the Porsche need to be fixed no matter what happens to regardless. It's it's not it's not um >> it's sinking just >> Yeah. And I I run this by the historical
commission. There wasn't a lot of enthusiasm for putting up much money >> for the porch. >> Sorry, >> for the porch itself, you mean? >> Yeah. >> Yes. Yeah. Do you think Henry if there were I mean I guess you can't speak for
the whole commission but if there were a larger sort of full building project plan that included portions that involved historical restoration like or rehabilitation like the porch that that's something that the commission might be more inclined as opposed to
like taking it one piece at a time. >> Uh I don't know. I mean questioning running by them. I >> Yeah. >> Yeah. because I'm not sure where else the um you know where else a match could come
from. Mattail yeah how much of a match would make make a difference here is my question I guess you know we don't have a lot of money >> well I don't know I don't know that I'm not saying that the historical commission should be ponying up for this
but I but I do wonder you know are there e either grant sources or as we said with the Elliot Park uh thing um you know the the donation of inind labor right there's only so much you can do in terms of historical rehabilitation in in
kind labor donations. But I I mean I only mention it because this is one of the criteria in our list of general criteria, right? Having a a well-developed budget. um I don't remember the exact phrase we use but something like that a thoughtful budget
>> and uh having identified um other potential sources of funding >> are two of I mean whatever a dozen different criteria but those are two that we've considered important in the past. Well, one one approach might be that uh
we u look at this at another time when perhaps there are other sources of funding. Um uh I don't think it's an urgent project. Rita, do you do you suppose I mean I didn't get the
impression it was urgent. Well, it's no, it's not urgent in the in the sense that we we don't have a identified use for that building right now. >> Yeah. >> So, um you know, we're still the the committee
is still in the process. We only got so far last week as as saying, let's move ahead with um uh determining what it would cost to get the water and sewer in there. and then
um come back and you know talk about next steps about what you know how how we might use that building. Uh so >> are there any serious suggestions so far? I mean, >> well, you know, we've talked about the
potential for moving the police station, you know, making it into a police station >> or um making it into meeting space, you know. So, those were the two um
those were the two uses that were identified. Um and yeah. >> Okay. >> Each each one of those um comes with a
um you know with a with a cost that's u pretty significant >> really. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So I go back to my question. How much of a difference? How much would
make a difference? Let's say as a matching fund, you know, >> or in kind. Yeah. 10% is >> 10%. So that would be five,000 $8,000.
>> $8,000. See, now that that would take our whole budget away. >> Yeah. We couldn't afford to to put up that much. >> I suppose if some of it were inind then >> Mhm. could >> could manage that.
>> At least some of the the demolition if not the reconstruction >> could be done in kind. >> Yeah. >> I I guess one other question is the porch is not part of the original structure, is it? The porch was rebuilt
previously, I thought. So, it's it's not really part of the historic building. Or is it? >> I don't know the answer to that, Elaine. >> Nor do I. Uh, it's
Yeah, >> I mean, if it's if it's deteriorated now and knowing the way the ramp um deteriorated, I I would think that that porch has been rebuilt a couple times. Yeah. I I think there was always some
there was so always some entryway there, but it has been rebuilt. Yeah. Yes. >> Yeah. >> So, does that then fall under historic preservation? >> Yes. It I mean you would be Yes. trying
to restore it to kind of where it was. It was kind of the same as like with the first house. >> There it is. >> There. Yeah. >> I don't know the date on that photo. Mhm. >> Oh, wait. Uh 1896,
>> right? >> Looks majestic. >> Field. >> But you know the um so if you're or if you're doing something according to code, you couldn't do that exact thing because you'd have to have handrails.
And >> um >> so it would never be historically exact >> um because you couldn't do it if it was if it was built to code. So
>> but having some sort of porch there makes sense. It's a second means of egress from the >> from the building. >> You have to have that >> right. It does keep the historic I mean both of the oldest photos of that building have a porch there so it retains the profile of the building as
it was to have that porch. >> Right. >> Right. >> So where are we on this? >> I think nowhere. >> Nowhere. Um, yeah, >> I'm going to make a motion.
>> Yeah. >> To table this to a future time when there is a better uh idea of the study committee's project
and we get involved with that. Do we know how long that might be? Elie, >> it should be a year. >> Yeah. You know, I think the committee would like to wrap up by the end of this fiscal year. Um, so, you know, do the
the final recommendations. >> Um, so, >> all right, there's a motion. Is there a second? Motion to table the application. Sure,
I'll second it. >> Any discussion? >> All right, seeing none, we'll put it to a vote. Hansen, >> hi. >> Reed, >> I. >> Leo, >> I. >> Frell, >> I'm going to abstain.
Wilson. >> Hi, >> Ketty's. >> I'm gonna go with my boss and abstain. >> I'll do it for you. >> My leader, >> a political animal.
>> Pangalo. I All right. Tabled, but not rejected. Um the next application is the Elliot Park Structures Project uh which we did at our previous meeting have some uh
questions or requests for additional content in the form of the um I think it was the matching fund information asking them to incorporate the uh the value of the inind labor which see here I'm looking
>> could be yeah >> does seem to be in in the budget, right? >> Well, the amount of the the value of the labor isn't in there, but it is listed as an underfunding thing. >> Uh any comments, questions, discussion
about this application? All right. Seeing none, I would entertain a motion. >> I move that we approve the um Elliott Park uh what what is it called? The
>> restoration and repair. >> Restoration and repair application. >> I second Any discussion? Seeing none, we'll put it to a vote. Hansen, >> hi. >> Reed,
>> I. >> Leo, >> I >> Wilson. >> Hi, >> Gettys. >> I >> Pangalo I. All right. And our last grant application is the Southbrook
Conservation Area Expansion. I'm going to recuse myself from deliberation and voting on this one as an a butter to the parcel in question. So, I leave it in your hands. Beth, I don't know if you want to take the lead on it.
>> Sure. Um I think the only comments at our last meeting was um similar to the Elliott Park. We uh had some numbers a little bit wrong with the match and the on the budget and I went back and corrected my addition.
Um but I think that was about about it. Um yeah, we're looking to buy the 9 acre plus parcel between um Locks Pond Road and Wendell Road. Um and we we've gotten
a match from Kestrel that's that's over 10%. And yeah, anybody have any questions? I see uh there's some hands up in the public. Am I should I call on them, Matteo, or do you want to call on
people? You want me to do it? >> Um I I can do that if you um >> Yeah. Recognize uh Diane and Greg Adams. >> Hi everyone. So, our property abuts the
parcel on the north side of the parcel and we've been doing some reading of minutes and trying to inform ourselves of um information that we may have missed. I have a question. And I don't know if it's um okay to ask a question
about the minutes from the South Brook conservation expansion on 1218 your your meeting for determination of eligibility and it starts by saying this is
essentially a building lot and I was wondering if you could clarify what what you mean by this is essentially a building lot. Is it the whole nine plus acres? Is it are you look I know you've
we've read about um the two plus acres that you to make a building lot would be carved out of that. >> Yeah, that's that's one potential plan of um the property. um tonight. This
this proposal is really just for the money to buy the 9 plus land. And then the only thing in the budget that has any connection at all with the potential of of a like like you said like a 2acre lot over on Locks Pond is we are asking
for money for um a survey of the whole par the whole nine plus but the especially that two acre area and then also a perk test. just it's sort of like the due diligence or the beginning of looking to see if there could be a
parcel there that could be used for housing. So, uh this request of money is really mostly just to buy the land. Um there really hasn't been any any further discussion or decisions about building
on one little portion of it beyond that at this point. And there will be more discussion in the future, more information as it >> Oh yeah, definitely. If that ends up being what happens, there would there would be definitely Rita would know more
about sort of the process if that was to happen. >> Yeah. So um in the case where um the so if the town votes to acquire the property at town meetings, so we make the recommendation and the town goes
ahead and um I believe that that the way that we are wording this article that we're using the CPA funds um for open space and um community housing. So, it's a combination of taking open space and
and community housing funds and and then if the um if the town decided that they wanted to make a a piece of that parcel available for say
a a building lot like they have done in in other communities, for example, for a um to to carve off, you know, a a building lot for Habitat for Humanity.
Um, then it would go through a process where it would have to be um, as Beth said, you know, all due diligence. There'd have to be perk tests, there would have to be wetlands evaluation to make sure it was in fact a buildable
lot. So it would have to go through the the permitting process and um and then uh an RFP would have to be done to pick that um that developer and if it was
Habitat then they could come forth um come forward. But the the limitation with CPA funds is that um any housing that's built there has to be affordable
to a household at a maximum of 100 100% of the area median income. So um in most instances that is that sort of limits you know who can um who can build and
who can afford to to live there. So Habitat has been one of the few um developers that can uh that can make houses affordable. We did another house in we did there was one other house done in Shootsbury that
was a Habitat house. >> We use CPA funds for that. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. Uh I think David Alden has his hand up. David. >> No, maybe not.
>> I don't see them. >> Oh, I thought he had his hand up. Maybe not. Um, okay. I don't see any other questions then. >> All right. Any further discussion from the uh from the committee?
Okay. Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. >> I'll make a motion that we approve the application for the Southbrook Conservation Area Expansion. >> Second. >> Any further discussion?
>> Seeing no discussion on the motion, we'll put it to a vote. Hansen. Hi >> Reed. >> I >> Perrell. >> I >> Wilson. >> Hi >> Gettys. >> I
>> Pangalo. Abstain. >> All right, that completes item two on our agenda, which brings us to item three to discuss and vote on the uh draft warrant articles for the May 9th annual town meeting. Um, I sent out the
uh draft articles and um I think maybe the easiest way to do this instead of going through each one individually is just to say like I mean if if there's we'll have a general discussion about them if there are any comments about how I've tried to sort of
divide up um uh the uh the sums for some of these larger ones and then uh and then I guess we can just vote on the on them as a batch if that makes sense. Um, I will say so my my goal was really
to try to ensure that we weren't drawing down any of the accounts any of the accounts uh extraordinarily. Uh, which is why I tapped into the undesated fund for several of these. Um, obviously for the South Brook one, it's important to have, as Rita was just saying, the
community housing funds included so that if the parcel if part of it becomes used for community housing, you know, it's been purchased with that funding. Um, but uh, yeah, I guess we'll just have a general
discussion if there are any concerns anybody had, if I got the math wrong or anything. >> Looks good to me. I don't >> Yeah, looks good to me. Yeah. >> Um just just a point of clarification. I was wondering about the searchcharge
revenue that is new revenue or is that and what is it exactly? >> It is the um it is the new revenue from the CPA search charge. Um so the portion
of the um the portion it's not the it's not a tax which is why we don't call it tax revenue. It's the the portion of revenue that's generated from property tax bills that the people in town pay.
>> Um which makes up the the majority of our CPA revenue each year. Um, you know, we do get a small match from the state >> this year. 15.5 I think is what they said. >> Yeah, 15.5% match. Um, but otherwise,
yeah, the search charge is the the funds we raise locally. Um, which comes to about six bucks a month per person or sorry, per household. So, you've taken the spear building
one off now. >> I Yeah. So, uh I assume that we are we're we're going to be discussing and voting on the projects that we approved tonight plus the two sort of administrative articles. Um one for the
committee's operating costs and one for the distribution of the revenues into the different accounts. >> So, I guess I'm I'm looking at what you sent the uh um Well, I guess it's the article for the
newsletter. No, I'm sorry. That was the wrong thing to be looking at. >> Yeah. And I might I might revise that. Brennan uh the newsletter isn't going out for a while. >> Brennan had a deadline that was fair it was earlier than our meeting and so I wanted to be just, you know, I didn't
want to say we were or were not passing anything. Um, >> but now that we've taken that vote, I can revise it and see if he'll accept a late article, newsletter article, not warrant article. >> Mhm. Any
other concerns or questions in the draft articles? >> No. >> All right. In that case, I will entertain a motion to approve the um
draft warrant articles for the May 9th annual town meeting. uh administrative costs of the CPC, Elliot Park Structures Project, operational transfers of CP funds, regional affordable housing coordinator,
um Southbrook Conservation Area Expansion, and rescending community garden grant. >> Some moved. >> You don't want to say the whole thing? My assistant will >> Oh, your assistant's getting big.
>> Wow. >> Um, is there a second? >> Second. >> Any further discussion? >> All right. Seeing none, we'll put it to a vote. Hansen. >> Hi. Reed >> I
>> fleo >> I >> Frell >> I >> Wilson >> I >> Gettys >> I >> Pangalo I All right the last item on our agenda is unanticipated business.
>> Um I I have uh two things. one one I just wanted to say thanks for the um document the CPA impact that was very helpful to have in summarizing everything right there so that was uh um great for tonight's meeting um the the
other uh thing I wanted to ask about the um minutes that apparently um for some of our meetings are not uh did did not get to the web committee or that there were some some
of it. >> Okay. Okay. Great. And if if you need any of the ones that I had done in your absence that uh >> No, I think I have. Okay. >> I have them all and I sent them in. >> Okay. Good. Thanks.
>> Yep. >> Yes. Thank you to our minute takers. >> Was that a second? >> Yes. All in favor? >> Um, so because because we've taken care of both the grants and articles tonight,
we we uh aren't going to meet again uh in in April. There's no need to at this point. >> Um, our next scheduled meeting is May 14th after annual town meeting to vote on the grant agreements. Um, does that make sense?
>> Yeah. Mhm. >> You said May what date? >> May 14th. >> May 14th. Okay. >> And that'll be at 700 p.m. >> Yes. >> Okay. Any other unanticipated business?
All right. Seeing none, I will entertain a motion to adjourn. >> I move that we adjourn tonight's meeting. >> Second. Any discussion? Seeing none, Hansen.
>> Yeah. Hi >> Reed. >> I >> Leo. >> I >> Frell. >> I >> Wilson. >> I >> Gettys. >> Hi >> Pangalo. I thank you all. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Good night everyone. Good night. >> Good night.