Loading...
CPC Meeting 06-16-2022 Minutes FINAL *DRAFT* PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES CITY OF BEVERLY BOARD OR COMMISSION: Community Preservation Committee SUBCOMMITTEE: N/A DATE: June 16, 2022 LOCATION: Beverly City Hall, 3rd floor Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Heather Richter; Vice Chair Derek Beckwith; Robert Buchsbaum; Thomas Bussone, II; Nancy Marino; Christy Edwards; Danielle Spang; Suzie Lamont MEMBERS ABSENT: Marilyn McCrory OTHERS PRESENT: Darlene Wynne, Planning Director; Lisa Crowell, Larcom Theater; Kristin Carlson, HCP, Andrew DeFranza, HCP (arrived at 8:00pm) RECORDER: Stacia Chamberlain • Call to Order Chairperson Richter calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. • Welcome and Remarks Suzanne (Suzy) LaMont is introduced as the new Historic District Commission representative. • Consultation and Q & A with the CPC The CPC encourages the public, current or potential applicants, and other interested parties to bring their questions/comments to the meeting during this 15-minute session. GUEST: Lisa Crowell, Larcom Theater—Ms. Crowell is present to discuss the Larcom Theater, their challenges, and potential plans for the building. Members discuss that it can be necessary to put a restriction on activities funded with CPA funds under the historic preservation category. Richter recommends that the applicant start making partnerships and refers her to the Planning Department. A representative from the Historic District Commission adds that they would need to apply for designation as a historic building, adding that she would not see a problem with this designation. Marino provides recommendations for the applicant on completing her application, including that she first start by reaching out to the HDC. • Review and approval of Community Preservation Committee draft minutes i. Minutes from May 19, 2022 Members offer recommended edits to the draft meeting minutes. Bussone moves to approve the minutes of May 19, 2022, as amended. Seconded by LaMont. The motion carries 8-0. • Vote to end the COVID-19 Emergency Housing Assistance Program and return all unspent balance as of June 30, 2022 to the CPA account Wynne clarifies that there is no reason to use a rescind clause, that to end the program and return remaining funds to the CPA balance would suffice. Bussone believes that the program should run its course and that a vote is unnecessary. Wynne mentions that the MOU expires on June 30, 2022. Members discuss the precedent that it might set if they vote. The Committee determine to not take a vote on this issue. • Community Preservation Plan Spring 2022 Status Richter asks Wynne if the Open Space and Recreation Committee has finished their plan. Since they do not yet have the OSRC's action plan, the Committee determines that they will wait until the CPC August meeting to review the updates to the Open Space section of the CPC plan. • Election of officers Beckwith moves to elect Heather Richter as Chair by acclamation. Seconded by Bussone. The motion carries 7-0, with Richter abstaining. Bussone moves to elect Beckwith as Vice Chair by acclamation. Seconded by Edwards. The motion carries, 7-0, with Beckwith abstaining. • Small Preservation Projects Program Proposal and Next Steps 011 on agenda) Richter states that it is important to establish guidelines but not essential to create funding caps or special funds. Bed The CPC discussed establishing basic procedures explaining the three (3) requirements: must be a non-public entity, may include a claw back, deed restriction, etc. at the discretion of the CPC based off project type and funding requested, and the project has to be within access or public view/public way. The Committee changed the name to Non-Public Preservation Projects. Marino thinks it's a good framework and that they should go through the normal process with a framework. Bussone believes it should fall into normal procedures. He believes that there should be public access or view as criteria. Beckwith recommends that this would be incorporated into their online guidelines. Edwards references the Livermore House project as a case study. • Temporary and Permanent CPA Signage Richter states that she does not believe it's appropriate to set aside funds for CPC signage. Edwards states that she did not envision additional funds set aside but that it should perhaps be built into large project budgets-Members discuss the differences between public, non-profit, and private non-profit in terms of signage and public use. • Review of full, out-of-cycle CPA application submitted by Harborlight Community Partners and Beacon Communities - relative to a request for additional housing funds for the Briscoe Village for the Living and the Arts, 7 Sohier Road Andrew DeFranza, of Harborlight Community, is present to discuss the grant proposal. Beckwith reads aloud the CPC special application criteria. Richter opens the discussion. Bussone asks that the cost of the acquisition be for the payment of the building; Mr. DeFranza affirms that it is. Bussone makes the point that he is not satisfied by several points of the application's financial details. Beckwith points out his surprise that the city cannot find the funds anywhere else besides the CPA grant fund. Mr. DeFranza responds that every one of their projects are experiencing the same problems with capital sources. He clarifies that all lenders and investors have put more money in as well, to meet project needs. He states that some of the investors required local municipal money. Mr. DeFranza states that his organization was also told that they were not able to go to other financial resources, because of the 30B and RFP purchasing process per state laws. Bussone counters that the Mayor may be able to amend the 30B. Mr. DeFranza states that he believes they did not think they were allowed to. Marino asks if the requested fund amount is from DHC or from Harborlight. Mr. DeFranza replies that DHCD did not care about the specific value, and that it was a quote created by Harborlight, stating that it's not an actual cost value. Beckwith asks then what the quote is based on. Mr. DeFranza explains that this is a shortfall to make up funds estimated to complete the project. Beckwith mentions how the Emergency Housing Assistance Program funds, if there is a balance, seems a fitting resource to transfer the money to this grant. Marino agrees with Beckwith that it would be fitting use. Edwards asks if money in the Affordable Housing Trust could be used for this grant as well. Edwards asks if this project will increase in costs and they will ask for additional funds to complete the project. Mr. DeFranza replies that timeliness of a decision will help the project move to completion and limit additional costs. Bussone states that he thinks that the CPA's financial approach should be to undercut the grant funding that is being requested, stating that it's his opinion that underfunding the requested value would not affect the state's willingness to financially support the project. Spfang Spang disagrees. Marino is concerned for future viable projects if they are to earmark the requested grant amount for this project. Beckwith brings up the funds in the Affordable Housing Trust, as well as the remaining funds from the Emergency Housing Assistance Program, expressing his wish that the CPA fund the full grant request. Richter moves to approve the pre- application of the Harborlight Community Partners for Briscoe Village. Seconded by Marino. Motion passes 8-0. Bussone moves to fund up to $300,000 from the general fund in CPC funds to the Harborlight Community Partners for the Briscoe Village project. Seconded by Marino. Spang makes a motion to amend the vote in order to fund the project up to 400k from the CPC general fund. Wynne takes a roll-call vote. The motion passes 6-2, with Bussone and Marino voting no. Richter would like to state that they should not set the budget ahead of the normal funding schedule. Bussone and Beckwith mention wanting to learn more about bonding. Richter believes that they need to have a subjective scoring system for grant funding. Beckwith adds that they should include specific evaluation criteria. Members discuss how to assign numeric value to projects based on how they meet the evaluation criteria. Members discuss scoring pre-applications and full applications. The conversation is continued to the August 2022 meeting. • Other items not known in advance of the posting of this agenda Members discuss whether or not to hold meetings in person or to host them virtually. • Adjournment Bussone moves to adjourn at 9:08 p.m. Seconded by Marino. The motion carries 8-0. The next regular meeting of the Community Preservation Committee will be held on Thursday, 2022, via Google Meet.