Loading...
2014-01-09CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES BOARD OR COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: LOCATION: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT: RECORDER: The meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. Community Preservation Committee January 9, 2014 City Hall, Third Floor Conference Room B Wendy Pearl, Leland McDonough, Lincoln Williams, Heather Richter, Robert Buchsbaum and John Thomson (Thomson is not eligible to vote as his appointment to the Planning Board has yet to be confirmed by the City Council) and Henry Pizzo (arrives at 8:10 p.m.) Darien Crimmin & Marilyn McCrory Environmental Planner- Amy Maxner, Suzie Lamont - HDC member Amy Maxner Pearl introduces Suzie Lamont, member of the Historic District Commission, who is sitting in to observe this evening. Pearl asks Maxner if she has any administrative updates. Maxner notes there is no updates related to CPC business but offers to review the names of the newly appointed department heads. Members thank Maxner for the update. Discussion ensues as to whether the CPC should do concerted outreach to the new City Council. It is agreed that the CPC request time on an upcoming City Council agenda (probably February 3 and provide an overview of the Committee's charge and activities to date. Discussion ensues as to the upcoming informational meeting on January 23 and how some members have conflicts that arose for that evening. It is agreed that this meeting will be shifted a week out to Thursday January 30, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. Maxner will book the Council Chambers. Pearl notes that the main purpose of tonight's meeting is to finalize the Evaluation Criteria based on the December 12 public hearing and written comments received through December 20 She asks the group's impression of the hearing. Members agree that it was a positive outcome with attendees seemingly engaged in the CPA process. Pearl suggests reviewing the draft minutes from the public hearing to glean possible changes to the criteria. She notes her impression that there weren't any major objections to the criteria that necessitated revising, other than reexamining or clarifying TTOR's Wes Ward's question about habitat protection by way of invasive species management. Discussion ensues as to the scope of the invasive specie removal effort and if it is a maintenance activity versus a true rehabilitation of an area. Members agree that depending on the scope, this activity could fall within preservation category and there is no need to change the criteria for this. Pearl observes that most of the comments and questions at the hearing were clarifications on definitions and process, and some not related to CPA. Members agree. Pearl explains that the HDC suggesting adding the word "sensitive" to e. to Historic Category. Members agree. Pearl moves to the written comments received, recommending that the grammatical corrections as suggested by Pete Johnson be accepted. Members agree. Pizzo arrives at 8:10 p.m. Questions and comments from Beverly Main Streets are reviewed and responded to accordingly: 1. It is unclear which category would apply to using funds to improve public areas such as Beverly Common, Ellis Square and Veterans' Park. They aren't used strictly as "recreation" and don't appear to fall into the "open space" category. Please clarify. CPC response: It depends on what the purpose of the project is (i.e. housing? historic preservation ?) The project determines which category it falls under. 2. What category would a building such as the GAR Hall fall into? CPC response: It depends on the purpose of the project, what is the proposal: housing? historic preservation? 3. If I understand it correctly, the requirement that all projects in the Historic Preservation category "be carried out according to the ... Standards" is unreasonable. For example, the Lynch Park Advisory Committee chose not to make improvements to the Carriage House according to those standards because of the cost and time involved, yet the Carriage House has been and is being beautifully restored. We would like to do the same for the GAR Hall but this requirement will make it cost prohibitive. Is there an alternative? CPC response: The State Community Preservation Act law requires that historic projects follow the Secretary's of the Interior's Standards - its not optional under the law. 4. Please clarify what "allows public access" means. CPC response: The CPC recognizes that there are varying degrees of public access depending on the resource. Public access does not necessarily mean handicapped access. The CPC emphasized that public access is only one of many criteria and a project will not be necessarily disqualified if public access is not allowed or feasible. 5. Would you have to have the Historic Commission's designation of a building as "significant" before you apply? CPC response: The Historic Significance Determination application deadline is February 14th (same as the deadline for the Eligibility Determination with the CPC) So it is not necessary to get your historic determination before you apply with the CPC as they are coincident. 6. Can there be an "Other" category for projects that don't fit into any of the 4 categories? CPC response: The categories are set by the state CPA law and there are no options for an "other" category. 7. If properties are owned by the city (such as Ellis Square), does the city have to be the applicant? If so, which department within the city would be responsible for applying? If not, what Community Preservation Committee 01 -09 -14 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 4 involvement / approvals from the city would be required? CPC response: The owner does not have to be the applicant. For the Full CPA Funding Application, the owner must sign off on the application if he /she /it is not the applicant. If we were to submit a proposal for Ellis Square or the GAR Hall, how complete does the proposed design need to be? Do we need plans, building specs, cost estimates, permits, etc? CPC response: The application sets forth minimum requirements for supporting information. An estimated budget is necessary for the Eligibility Determination Application, and a complete budget is needed for the Full Application. So you would need some solid plans /specs to achieve a realistic budget. 9. Can you apply for funding for a feasibility study to determine an under -used property's best use, design, specs, cost estimates, etc? CPC response: Yes if the study's purpose fits into allowable uses chart (the chart is part of the Eligibility Determination application). Pearl notes that takes care of the comments and questions from the public hearing and asks if there are any other amendments needed to the Evaluation Criteria. Members agree there are none and Williams moves to finalize and adopt the Criteria as amended and developed to date. Seconded by Richter. The motion carries 6 -0 -1 (six in favor, none opposed, one abstention by Thomson). Buchsbaum notes that he had a question posed to him as to whether the CPA surcharge is tax deductible. Discussion ensues and members agree that the Coalition probably has the answer to this question. Pearl welcomes a member of the public sitting in on the meeting, Martha Martini of 85 Lothrop Street who wanted to attend the meeting and gain an understanding of how the Committee operates. Pearl turns attention to the draft application forms. Maxner notes that she assembled all of the forms into a package and developed a cover outline that provides an overview of the entire process and tentative timelines for application deadlines and CPC decision - making. Members agree to review the application forms and discuss whether the owner should be required to sign off on the pre - application and it is agreed that owner information should be included but signatures not required. Other minor amendments are made to the pre - application form. The format of how the CPC will respond to pre - applications is discussed and it is agreed that a short form letter detailing the CPC's determination is appropriate. Pearl turns to the full application form, which has been fashioned after Gloucester's. Thomson notes that the package should include a copy of the Evaluation Criteria. Extensive discussion ensues as to the format and contents of the application material. Members suggest other edits to mirror the format of the pre - application as just discussed. Applicant and owner signature lines are included. Members suggest other edits relative to the required attachment list and organization of items in the narrative section of the application. Community Preservation Committee 01 -09 -14 Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 4 Brief discussion ensues as to the process for formatting memorandum of agreements or understanding and at what stages of a project should funds be disbursed. Members agree that sample MOA/MOU will be researched. A notation at the end of the full application form will be added indicating fund disbursement will be established per MOU/MOA's. Pearl notes the time, and moves to discussing the process timeline. Minor edits are made to the process outline cover page, which includes the timetable for HDC determination of significance, timeline for receiving written public comment, CPC due diligence and final funding recommendations to the City Council and anticipated action by the Council. Pearl asks if the Committee wants to see the final edits before the application materials are posted on line. Members defer final review to Pearl. Publicizing the application posting, opening the application round and advertising the January 30 informational meeting is discussed. Format for the January 30 meeting is discussed, and it is agreed to divide the meeting time into two blocks — the first hour will be for public informational session, second hour reserved for regular Committee business. Williams moves to approve the October 30, 2013 and December 12, 2013 meeting minutes. McDonough seconds. The motion carries 6 -0 -1 (Thomson abstaining). There being no further business this evening Williams moves to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Pizzo. The motion carries 6 -0 -1 (Thomson abstaining). The meeting is adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Community Preservation Committee 01 -09 -14 Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 4