By Kim Siebert MacPhail
The question of whether to spend Community Preservation (CP) funds on renovations for the historic passenger train depot building at Loomis Street and South Road was the issue that caused the greatest amount of debate on the second night of Town Meeting 2013. Although the measure ultimately passed by a slim-majority vote, a high number of critical comments made speculation about outcome difficult until all hands were counted.
Current tenants who believe they will be inconvenienced, their businesses disrupted and, ultimately, that they might be displaced were the most vocal in their criticism of “phase two” of the depot’s planned restoration/renovation, although another citizen questioned the wisdom of spending $100,000 in CP funds for the project as well. The scope of this part of the long-term restoration plan includes a handicap accessible exterior ramp to be installed on the north side of the building, the first floor bathroom to be retro-fitted for accessibility, a platform to be built on the west or Loomis Street side up to the original entrance which will be restored and the existing entrance closed. New exterior siding for part of the building is also planned that encompasses half of the front, one end, and half of the rear.
To question the proposal, resident Susan Grieb, a member of the stained glass cooperative that rents part of the depot’s second floor, rose to ask what the long-term vision for the building is.
“My understanding is that this project will only address the handicap accessibility of the first floor— but not the second floor—and only half the front and half the back of the building will receive siding, leaving the other sides undone,” Grieb said. “Could someone elaborate on what building codes will addressed and what work will be done with $100,000 from Community Preservation and will there be another project in future years to make the rest of the exterior of the building consistent? What’s the total cost to the town to complete necessary renovation if we go forward with this part of the project? Also, are we dependent on receiving state grants to do this project and will the building be completely up to code at its completion?”
Don Corey, a member of the Historic Preservation Committee who has intimate knowledge of the project and funding plans, was asked to address Grieb’s concerns. He said that work—such as replacement of the old asbestos roof—has been done in earlier phases and that the next phase includes the $100,000 from CP as well as an application for a dollar-for-dollar matching grant from the state’s Massachusetts Historical Commission.
Corey said that the amount received from the state would determine how much of phase two could be completed and that other funds would be sought at a later date to complete the remaining work.
“The second floor is something that was added by [James] Stander when he purchased the building from the railroad,” Corey said. “It’s not compliant. I don’t think the stairs to the second floor are code-compliant. There’s no handicap accessibility in the second floor. Dealing with that is something to be considered in the future. One of the plans for restoration was, hopefully, to have a nice restaurant in the building, in which case the second floor would be taken out and it would go back to its original structure internally, as designed.”
“Do we have any idea how much it’s going to take to complete the building,” Grieb asked. “If we put siding up on half of the front and half of the back and leave half undone, it’s going to look a little strange,” replied Grieb. “We’re starting down a road that we’ll have to continue. Do we have an idea of what the minimum amount is that we’re going to need to spend on the project over the next years?”
Corey replied that another phase after this one is anticipated that will complete the exterior work. He added that a consultant estimated the work now planned for this phase would require about the expected $200,000 from CP and the state and that the remainder of the exterior would cost another $200,000-$400,000, although that would depend on the condition of the layer underneath the current siding.
John Monahan of JR Antiques, resident and renter of half of the first floor of the depot, objected to the work because it would have negative effects on his business.
“With the exception of Bedford Babe Ruth baseball storage, it was not that many years ago that the building was an empty shell with very little revenue being generated to the town,” Monahan said. “As the first retail tenant to occupy the building [I know that] the ‘For Rent’ sign stayed up for quite a while before other tenants made the vacant building fully occupied. All current tenants are Bedford residents.
“Over a three-year period, JR Antiques has paid an excess of $30,000 to the Town in rent, operation and user fees, and property taxes,” Monahan continued. “Although I can’t speak for the other tenants, I suspect the radical design changes proposed by this article will also have a negative effect on their occupancy. I understand that change is inevitable but I don’t believe this multi-stage plan is the right approach for Bedford to take at this time. I urge a ‘no’ vote on this article.”
Jayna Manzelli, another tenant and Bedford resident, then spoke as a retail business owner on the second floor, saying the disruption of construction would be detrimental to her business.
“The way I see the plan, every exterior portion of my space is going to be affected by the renovation, making it impossible for me to work in there. This is how I make my money. I’m told it will be a twelve-week project so while I fully support community preservation of the [historic] buildings in Bedford, this does have some impact to me personally. The multi-stage approach raises concerns, particularly leaving the façade half-done.”
Two other members of the stained glass cooperative—Barb Purchia and Donna Waghorne—spoke as well. Purchia reported that the doorways to the retail spaces in the building were not handicap accessible, even if the building itself were to become accessible. Waghorne asked why the building had been painted in the last year if the intention had been to remove and replace the current siding.
Corey replied that it is his understanding that making the first floor doorways accessible is part of the project and that the depot had been recently painted to maintain a decent appearance. He reminded the audience, that the whole area had been derelict a number of years ago and added that it would be another year or more until the exterior work would be done, even if the vote for funding the project passed.
“You may recall when the bikeway came to Bedford, the whole area—the freight house and the depot—could all best be described as ‘shabby,’ Corey said. “Since the Town has spent money on refurbishing the freight house, bringing in the [railcar] and restoring that, doing a lot of work in the neighborhood, fixing up the intersection and starting work on the depot, the revitalization in that area is unmistakable. We are strongly supportive of fixing the depot the way that [everything else] has been fixed. The depot is the last building that needs something done to it and we believe that once the work is completed on the exterior that that will enhance the appearance of the building and bring more business to the retail tenants that are there.”
Facilities Director Richard Jones also added that he had spoken with all four tenants about the upcoming project. Jones and Stephen Carluccio, a volunteer for Babe Ruth who also serves on the Finance Committee, confirmed that Babe Ruth has found alternate space for the interim when the construction will be done. If the disruption is great, temporary spaces might be found for the businesses.
Resident Bob Jacobs, the last to speak before the vote was taken, said he opposed spending more money for the depot because he believed the funds would be best used elsewhere in town.
“I think the building is aesthetically pleasing just the way it is and that the status quo should be kept,” Jacobs said.
After a voice count failed to bring a decisive conclusion, Town Moderator Betsey Anderson called for a hand count that resulted adoption of the measure with a vote of 63 in favor and 49 opposed.
Loading ...
