These minutes are not verbatim – they are the secretary’s interpretation of what took place at the meeting. – Open Meeting Law, G.L. c. 30A § 22.
Board Members: Marc Garrett, Paul McAlduff, Larry Rosenblum, Bill Wennerberg, and Tim Grandy
Planning Board Alternate: Ken Buechs
Staff Members: Valerie Massard
Recording Secretary: Eileen Hawthorne
Appointment:
Plymouth Redevelopment Authority/1820 Courthouse Consortium
Bob Wollner, Plymouth Redevelopment Authority (PRA) Chairman, began the presentation on the 1820 Courthouse. The PRA is committed to moving forward with the restoration and development of the 1820 Courthouse which will be a dynamic and diverse project, but needs the cooperation of the Board of Selectmen, Planning Board, and Advisory and Finance Committee to make it a viable project.
Dean Rizzo, PRA Secretary, focused on the completed Historic Structure Report. The PRA identifies the goals of preserving the 1820 Courthouse, integrating the Courthouse into a larger mixed use, public-private development, capitalizing on its landmark character and central location and re-energizing the downtown by opening the Courthouse as soon as possible. The Historic Structure Report (HSR) addresses how the buildings evolved; what defines their historic character; the existing physical condition of the structures; code compliance issues; preservation, restoration, renovation recommendations; reuse options; capital improvement costs; potential to be self-sustaining and deliver broader economic and other benefits; and options on how to proceed. The Courthouse structure evolved from 1820 through 1962 and the Commissioner’s Building evolved from 1884 through 1954. The HRS identifies that the shell and the roof of the Courthouse structure are sound, but the following updates and
repairs are necessary: brick needs re-pointing; window replacement; heating, plumbing, electrical systems need to be replaced; the interior needs a complete upgrade including bathrooms; and in order to comply with building codes, a new fire suppression system, elevator and new rear entrance are also needed. A full building upgrade will cost approximately $5.7M with an interior upgrade of the front portion costing approximately $1.6M. The shell of the Commissioners Building needs significant work; heating plumbing electrical upgrades will be needed; the interior needs major restructuring to work with multi-tenant users, new bathrooms, etc.; in order to comply with building codes for uses other than the existing single-tenant office use, installation of a fire suppression system and an elevator upgrade are necessary. Full code and upgrades of the Commissioners Building are estimated to be $3M. The PRA feels that the best opportunity for development would be to
issue an RFP for a partner that would create a large, mixed-use development within the entire corridor. Design and development guidelines would be created to streamline the process and enhance the opportunity for development. The PRA will be contacting the National Park Service to ascertain whether they are interested in creating a district designation for the downtown area and open a visitor center in the Courthouse portion of the building. Mr. Rizzo noted that the Blackstone Valley and New Bedford have recently created district plans with the National Park Service. The PRA will also be applying to the National Historic Trust to list the Courthouse as a historic structure. The HSR recommendations include creation of the Courthouse corridor and design and development guidelines, packaging the opportunity in a developer RFP, and reopening the 1820/1857 portion of the Courthouse as soon as possible (could be done for under $2M). The PRA’s
work plan includes the following:
Apply for National Historic Trust listing for the Courthouse
Seek National Park district designation for the downtown, with the Courthouse as a visitor center
Create a business plan to support a +/- $1.6M CPA grant to open the front portion of the Courthouse for public and office use
Seek both loans and grant to support creation of development guidelines and a developer RFP
Work to help the community better understand its options and the uniqueness of this opportunity, as it relates to Plymouth 400 and beyond
Continue building stabilization work
Mr. Rizzo stated that the Board of Selectmen will be reviewing the documentation to be sent to the National Park Service. The Federal delegation would have to file the proposal as an act of legislation. He also noted that the Historic District Commission and the Plymouth Center Steering Committee have submitted letters of support for the preservation and redevelopment.
Valerie Massard stated that staff is here to listen to seek a consensus from the community to help move the interest of the Town forward.
Ken Buechs asked how long the Blackstone Valley/ National Park Service process took and what phase of the process are they in.
Mr. Rizzo explained that the process took approximately six years and involved three states. The designation has been approved by the community and will then be presented to Congress for acceptance. Once it is accepted by Congress, funding eligibility is immediate.
Mr. Buechs asked for an update on the funding for the Courthouse project.
Mr. Rizzo explained that since the Historic Structure Report has been completed, the PRA can apply for grants and loans. The PRA needs to have a direction and a consensus of support from the community and Town Boards.
Bill Wennerberg asked why the building could not be gutted now rather than investing funds in updating the interior when it may not fit in with a future developer’s plans. Mr. Wennerberg noted that a zoning overlay district would need to be created before a developer would even be interested. Mr. Wennerberg asked about the status of the private property within the proposed corridor and the school property.
Mr. Rizzo stated that the installation of the heating and ventilation system is needed to preserve the historic wood in the Daniel Webster Courtroom. The only other alternative is to remove the wood and put it in storage. There is a difference of opinion regarding gutting the building depending on whether the preference is to reopen the Courthouse sooner rather than later. Mr. Rizzo stated that the abutting neighbors are aware of what could happen on the site and they want to be part of creating a vision. He noted that there is an article proposed for Spring Town Meeting that would transfer the ownership of the parcel held by the School Department to the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Rizzo asked the Board to support creation of a corridor Master Plan, design guidelines and an RFP for the project.
Larry Rosenblum stated that the proposal to spend $1.6 to $2 million was predicated upon a plan in which none of the changes that are being made now would have to be redone; that the money spent in the first phase to stabilize the building would not be lost in the second phase. The back of the courthouse building is in the best shape and could easily be moved into with much less work than the front portion of the building. The entire building has to have a fire suppression system installed. Mr. Rosenblum stated that the community will have to decide whether to invest what it will take to get the building up to code and whether it should be a public and/or private use. He felt that once a developer becomes involved, it is likely that the Commissioner’s Building and the rear of the Courthouse would be demolished. Mr. Rosenblum noted that it is important to make a distinction between the short and long term benefits and there is a difference between flipping the property now vs.
treating the property as part of a master planned development. In the absence of consensus from the Town and the community, no developer will be interested in this project.
Mr. Wennerberg agreed that with the current zoning, a developer could not meet parking requirements and would not be able to rent the property.
Tim Grandy asked what type of funding the National Park Service (NPS) has available and whether the State delegation has been involved in the process.
Mr. Rizzo stated that the NPS probably has limited funds available, but they need to be engaged to discuss what the opportunities are. He noted that the State delegation is aware that the Historic Structure Report has been completed and they will be sent a letter at the same time the Federal delegation is contacted regarding the possibility of NPS participation and/or partnership.
Mr. Grandy stated that structured parking would be an important part of the overall corridor and that a transportation center would help to bring people into the downtown. He asked if the School Department has approved the conveyance of their property to the Board of Selectmen.
Mr. Rizzo replied that the School Department has not approved the conveyance. The PRA will advocate with the Board of Selectmen for the Town to create a corridor master plan before the end of January.
Mr. Grandy questioned whether it would be prudent to invest $2 million now when no end use has been determined. He agreed that the corridor should be considered as a whole. He asked how the residential abutters feel about abutting a potential parking structure.
Mr. Rosenblum stated that the owners of the residential properties have been involved and they realize they are surrounded by Town properties. Their options would be to stay, possibly move the houses to the top of the hill, sell to a developer, or do a swap. He noted that current height limitations would not support structured parking.
Mr. Grandy asked what type of development would work on the site and how a sale of the old police station (there is an existing RFP for the site) would affect the courthouse development. He also asked what the corridor study would cost.
Mr. Rizzo replied that the site lends itself to a mixed use including residential, office, retail, restaurant, and public use are being considered. The interested developers are aware of the potential NPS involvement. He stated that the PRA has asked the Board of Selectmen to rescind the RFP on the police station. Mr. Rizzo explained that $200,000 was the proposed cost of the corridor study, but if some of the work was done in house and with outside consultants, the cost could be less. The process would take approximately six months or longer.
Marc Garrett felt that the Boards should have been brought into the process sooner. He felt that the design and development guidelines and the creation of other overlay districts was largely generated and funded by the private sector. He was supportive of the National Park Service involvement. The work plan is a wonderful study and approach to doing the project, but has no funding to support it. One source of funding is identified which requires CPC authorization and support from various Boards and Town Meeting. It is uncertain at this time whether the Board of Selectmen would support the zoning changes. Mr. Garrett was uneasy with the mixed community support. He is supportive of the corridor and creating the RFP, but a level of support is needed from the Boards, Precinct Chairs and Precincts,
the legislative body, and the community. A consensus is needed by Fall 2012 or Spring 2013 or we may loose the opportunity to move forward.
Mr. Rosenblum stated that there is an obligation to provide a leadership role. The Town owns the buildings which are deteriorating and we won’t find people willing to buy the property as it stands. He suggested that the Board should commit to partnering with the PRA in the planning process. Mr. Rosenblum asked if the discussion could continue to another night when there is a full board.
Valerie Massard agreed with the idea that the corridor concept is important, but struggled with the concept that staff would have the time being suggested here in terms of the corridor planning – staff is busy. Ms. Massard agreed that when a developer is involved, as has been the case on all of the major projects described as examples, the private sector provides the hundreds of hours of time and expertise at their expense. Creating a zoning overlay district and design guidelines are usually done with participation of a developer. Talking with neighboring properties owners in addition to the four residences in the middle of the “corridor” should also be part of the discussion to see what ideas they would support. If there was signed participation from owners, the Town could move forward with the
Chapter 43D process which gives a faster approach for site plan approval. Staff needs consensus from the community and will do what it is able in light of that consensus.
Bill Wennerberg moved to continue the discussion to a future date; the vote was unanimous (4-0).
Respectfully Submitted,
Eileen Hawthorne Approved: January 30, 2012
Administrative Assistant
| 
