Affordable housing took center stage as committee members and public participants expressed concerns about the sluggish progress in this area. Previous funding efforts seemed to have yielded minimal results, with only two new units developed in collaboration with Habitat for Humanity. An RFP for more housing solutions resulted in just one non-viable proposal, highlighting the need for fresh ideas and initiatives. The committee pointed to a consistent allocation of $200,000 to the housing office that has not yet resulted in any new units on the Subsidized Housing Inventory (SHI).

Issues arose regarding the absence of housing in earlier proposals for the high school’s future, which leaned toward mixed-use development. John Bell emphasized the community’s opposition to losing the sports fields on the high school property, stressing their local importance. He suggested that any housing development should preserve these fields, proposing an RFP that mandates their retention while allowing for housing development on the site.

Cost concerns were prevalent, with mentions of the high expenses associated with renovation and the projected $72 million needed for a full conversion into a community center. The importance of a plan addressing various community needs was emphasized, with suggestions for the planning board to take a more proactive role.

Further dialogue touched on the importance of involving the Affordable Housing Trust in discussions with consultants to shape the planning and development process. The challenges of water and sewer infrastructure were noted as potential complications in the conversion process. The meeting also addressed concerns regarding the potential impact of increased low-income housing on the local school population. However, a counterargument pointed to the town’s aging population and the need to attract younger residents to maintain community vitality.

Switching to historic preservation, the committee noted the limited number of town-owned historic buildings and their generally good condition. The conversation included the incorporation of recreational projects, such as a playground at Matt Cumber School, and the involvement of the Westport Land Trust, which is engaged in three active preservation projects. Although the Community Preservation Committee (CPC) expressed interest in supporting these land trust projects, legal restrictions and timing constraints posed challenges.

A significant topic was the protection of land used for playgrounds and recreational projects funded by the Community Preservation Act (CPA). While restrictions are mandatory when CPA funds purchase land, they are not required for playgrounds but are recommended. Concerns were raised about the possibility of the town selling or repurposing land on which playgrounds are built. The committee debated the merits of imposing restrictions for a fixed duration, such as 25 years, or considering more permanent restrictions to ensure these spaces remain dedicated to playgrounds.

Specific projects like the Gford Road project and the bsentennial project were discussed, with the annex project now completed. The necessity of input from the Recreation Commission regarding restrictions on properties where CPA funds were allocated was recognized. The conversation delved into the legal complexities of defining restricted areas on properties with existing buildings, raising questions about potential future alterations.

The idea of establishing a 25-year restriction on playgrounds emerged as a compromise to balance current use with future considerations. Differing perspectives were expressed on the balance between preserving historical integrity and allowing for future development opportunities. Concerns were raised about potential decreases in property value and complications in future sales due to restrictions, while others argued for preserving the building’s historical character and the role of CPA funding in maintaining integrity.