Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cemetery water tower restoration: CPC asks for costs, historic report and DPW maintenance commitment
Summary
At its technical review the Community Preservation Committee flagged missing cost estimates and historic documentation for the Rural Cemetery water tower restoration and asked applicants to provide preservation‑consultant findings, clarify DPW maintenance commitments and explore state preservation grant options.
The Community Preservation Committee’s technical review of a Rural Cemetery water tower restoration application identified several outstanding items including a detailed cost estimate, a professional historic‑materials inspection, and confirmation that the Department of Public Works will accept ongoing maintenance responsibility.
Kevin (applicant) previously submitted an application for restoration work that includes roof repair and related structural work. Committee members said they needed a firm cost estimate for bidding and a preservation assessment from a qualified historic consultant to confirm original materials (the application listed asphalt and referenced cedar shingles as possibilities). The committee also asked whether preservation funding might come from the cemetery’s perpetual fund and whether the proposal could leverage the Massachusetts Preservation Projects Fund or a Mass Historical Commission preservation restriction if appropriate.
Freddie (committee member) and others stressed that the CPC wants evidence from a preservation professional before approving funds for historic materials. Claire (committee member) and others noted the application often had information placed in the wrong PDF fields and requested that the applicant update the application so required fields (project name, timeline, implementation plan and manager/contractor experience) are complete.
Committee members asked for written confirmation that the DPW superintendent would accept maintenance responsibility if the CPC funds the restoration, and for clarification of DPW’s experience with historic‑materials restoration. The committee also asked the applicant to clarify warranty expectations and any special long‑term maintenance obligations tied to historic materials, and to provide the contractor/project manager information once known.
Outcome: The committee found the application conceptually eligible for CPA funding but incomplete. Members agreed to send a technical‑review letter asking for: (1) a detailed cost estimate, (2) a preservation consultant’s report determining roofing material and scope, (3) DPW commitment for ongoing maintenance, and (4) information on potential state matching grants and whether cemetery perpetual funds might offset costs. The CPC did not take a formal funding vote at the meeting.
Ending The applicant was invited to return to a future CPC meeting after providing the requested preservation assessment, cost details and DPW commitment.
