By Kim Siebert MacPhail
At Monday’s Selectmen’s meeting, Depot Park Advisory Committee members Joe Piantedosi and John Peterson advocated for a plan to make the second floor of the so-called “Passenger Depot”—located behind the rail car at Depot Park at the intersection of South Road and Loomis Street—handicap-accessible in order to increase rentability.Last week at their January 7 meeting, the Selectmen approved a less controversial request for up to $6,500 for a design plan to improve first floor accessibility, also proposed to increase rental desirability— at least in the short term.
This week, the discussion about second floor accessibility, previously tabled, continued. The scope of the plan included handicap-accessible bathrooms and a “cost effective” form of conveyance from the first to second floor,which was ultimately deemed by the Selectmen to be inconsistent with the overall historic preservation vision for the building.
The recent background of the issue is that at the January 7 Selectmen’s meeting, one of the Depot’s first floor leases was renewed and approval was granted for design funds for first floor renovations, including an entrance ramp.Because questions were also raised at that point about possible accessibility plans for the second floor, an architect was consulted in the interim between meetings to determine whether renovations advocated by the Depot Park Advisory Committee were in keeping with the overall vision for the building. The Depot Park Committee has been working to maintain the building and to make it as self-sustaining as possible.
To frame the issue, Town Manager Reed described what he sees as two different goals where the Depot building is concerned: “The [Committee’s] attempt was to explore some temporary changes to the second floor. . .that wouldn’t violate the Selectmen’s concerns expressed last week. . .that would explore some temporary changes. . .and that would allow the use of the second floor to be expanded from what it is today.”
However, a preservation vision for the building that was created several years ago, Reed said, called for “elimination of most of the second floor” and the “restoration of the interior first floor area in a way that would make it appear as it did at the time that the building was used as a train station—so that you could see the high ceilings and things of that nature. The second floor was not part of the original building.”
Selectman Mark Siegenthaler characterized these two goals as “competing.”
“This is what it comes down to for me,” Siegenthaler explained. “One goal is the total restoration of the building to create what would really be an open floor, [a] one-and-a-half story open building that we hope would be rented, preferably by a single user. . . .I’m very concerned that we are delaying the ultimate goal for this building by continuing to piece together these [current] leases and trying to make it the best we can for the people that are in there now.”
Depot Park Committee’s Piantedosi emphasized that the Committee was striving to make the Depot financially self-sustaining and that only cost-effective ways to improve access to the second floor were under consideration.
“The focus is on making the first floor accessible and doing other improvements that are a part of this design. At some point down the road, the leases in this building are all going to expire, pretty much at the same time. . . .We think it’s valuable for the Town to know if there is an easy way to make that second floor accessible.”
“Short of putting an elevator in there, that second floor is not going to be totally accessible,” said Selectman Cathy Cordes. “What I hear driving this is that [the Committee] needs to collect rent in order to make the Depot Park cost-effective.”
“That’s our plan. That’s always been our plan,” replied Piantedosi.
Piantedosi reported that with full occupancy, the building is “doing pretty good financially”, although “DPW charges”—for snow removal and the like—add to the overhead, making it harder to operate in the black and difficult to put money aside for capital improvements or to establish any sort of rainy day fund.
“We don’t want to be a burden to the town,” Piantedosi said.
But Selectman Siegenthaler turned again to the long-range view. “Right now we’re sort of in this netherworld. . . .I would be much more interested in advancing the real plan which is to restore and to invest in the building as a public building, whether it’s through [the] Massachusetts Historical Commission or our own Community Preservation [funds]. That [level of renovation]—at least in the past—is what we’ve agreed that we wanted to do.
“We are investing Community Preservation money in other historic resources,” he continued.“I don’t see why we would not continue to try to get on with the creation of the space interior to that building and propose to Community Preservation[that we]. . .remove the second floor.”
Don Corey, chair of the Historic Preservation Committee, was also present for the discussion. He added, “There needs to be an on-going dialogue about this. I think, at the present time—given the present circumstances of that neighborhood—to achieve the consultant’s recommendation of having a single entity occupying that building with the second floor removed—is simply not do-able right now.
“What I think all of us [meaning the Depot Park and Historic Preservation committees] are working at is to make the Depot Park financially capable and not a financial burden on the town—to the extent that we can,” Corey continued.“[We should] do adaptive re-use, restore the exterior of the building, like what was done to the Old Town Hall. We have not reconstructed the interior of that building the way it was originally in 1856. . . .Now, the Old Town Hall looks lovely on the outside, the third floor is restored and the rest of the building is generating some income. It’s adaptive re-use and it doesn’t look anything like it used to.”
John Peterson of the Depot Park Advisory Committee added, “A two-level building with more square footage available is going to be more productive financially in the real estate market for rental than a one-floor building would. There are some conflicts[of] interests of [our] objectives so you have to weigh really where you want to take this.”
Ultimately, last week’s approval for up to $6,500 to design accessibility improvements for the first floor remained as it was, with no additional funds approved for consultation about the second floor.
Loading ...
