Loading...
01-26-17 CPC MinutesCITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES COMMITTEE /COMMISSION: Community Preservation Committee SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: January 26, 2017 LOCATION: Beverly City Hall, 191 Cabot Street MEMBERS PRESENT: Wendy Pearl — Chair, Marilyn McCrory — Vice - Chair, Robert Buchsbaum, Jon Paddol, Christy Edwards, Nancy Marino, and James Matz MEMBERS ABSENT: Thomas Bussone 11, Heather Richter OTHERS PRESENT: Amy Maxner — Environmental Planner, Suzanne LaMont Ward 2 Civic Association; Don Preston — Habitat for Humanity North Shore, David Gelineau — Purchasing Director RECORDER: Travis Lovett Pearl calls the meeting to order at 7:05pm. Administrative Business Maxner states the Committee received a request for extension on the MOU for the Lynch Park Carriage House feasibility study and reads letter request into the record. Paddol joins the meeting at 7: 1Opm. McCrory states it looked like the last extension expired. Discussion ensues as to the logistics of extending an MOU that has expired, with Maxner noting the MOU is silent as to deadline for such extension requests and that the CPC has no formal policy in this regard. Edwards motions to extend the MOU on the condition of approval of the City Solicitor. The motion is seconded by Buchsbaum. The motion carries 7 -0. CPA Coalition Membership Renewal Pearl notes that the CPC's membership to the Coalition is due, noting that this organization provides tremendous support and guidance to the Committee. Buchsbaum makes a motion for Beverly to renew annual membership to the CPA Coalition at a cost of $2,875.00. The motion is seconded by Edwards. The motion carries 7 -0. Community Preservation Committee January 26, 2017 Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 7 Updates Edwards explains that Pete's Park was not funded by DCS's PARC Grant, which was a request for $200,000. She notes that the project was not as competitive among the other project per the ranking system used by the State. Maxner notes that the City Solicitor has placed a hold on the MOU execution until funding and project scope is revisited and determined. Paddol asked if the State provided a reason for not funding the project. Edwards said the project did not meet the ratings threshold and that there was no other feedback from the grant administrator. Edwards notes that a bill is in the House and Senate for an act to sustain community preservation revenue. CPC's are encouraged to contact elected officials to show support. Matz states he was surprised that the Independence Park group did not submit a pre - application for Round 4 funding. Pearl said someone came to the Historic District Commission to talk about the Independence Park group. They were advised by city personnel to develop a clear plan, from Pearl's understanding. Maxner said the group needed a plan, but everyone was enthusiastic about revitalizing the park. Maxner said they stepped away and she's not sure if the Independence Park group (VIP) would participate in the future. Minutes Approval Member review the December 8, 2016 minutes and offer edits. Buchsbaum motions to approve the minutes as amended. Edwards seconds the motion. The motion carries 7 -0. Pre - Application Review Pearl turns attention to the Pre - Applications, noting that the purpose of reviewing pre - applications is to determine whether projects are eligible or ineligible for funding according to CPA criteria and not on the strength or competitiveness of the project at this point. GAR Hall LaMont notes she is present to answer questions about the GAR application if need be. She states she is excited that Mayor Cahill is supporting the application. Pearl notes this building has been determined to be historically significant by the HDC and the CPC funded a preservation study in the last round for this building and that this phase would fall under historic rehabilitation and restoration. Paddol notes that the funding leverage seems very weak and asks whether the City is contributing funding toward the facade renovation. LaMont explains that at this point, she doesn't know, but she has another meeting with Mayor Cahill to discuss the project and that subject can be discussed. Edwards notes that the application included replacing the windows and front steps and facade work seems more preservation related, but there is some crossover between the two categories. Pearl explains that restoring the historic features goes into the rehabilitation category and thinks the project is fully eligible. Community Preservation Committee January 26, 2017 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 7 Discussion ensues as the need for a preservation restriction, with Pearl and McCrory suggesting it would probably make the application more competitive to include a restriction. Maxner reminds the CPC that as with the Powder House project, the MOU condition stated that if a willing third party could hold the preservation restriction, then the restriction could be placed noting that the HDC (a City board) couldn't hold the preservation restriction on the City. Edwards motions that the GAR Hall facade restoration application is eligible for funding in the historic preservation and rehabilitation category. Marino seconds the motion. The motion carries 7 -0. Golf and Tennis Clubhouse Heating System David Gelineau, City Purchasing Director, attends on behalf the Beverly Golf and Tennis Club and states he can answer questions. Pearl notes the project is to replace the heating system, the boiler, and the base ducts. Gelineau explains the boiler breaks down and it wasn't working in December and the pipes burst and leak resulting in damage to the walls of the building due this old failing pipe system. Edwards asks if the grant would fix the problem and Gelineau said it would. Pearl said she did a little research on the Coalition web site as to HVAC projects and that she found several other HVAC projects were funded in other communities. Pearl said heating a building is a preservation effort, to protect it from harm and destruction. Marino said this is a historically significant building and an asset to the city. She said it is also a marketing tool for Elliott Landing as well. Buchsbaum motions that the Beverly Golf and Tennis Club heating system project be deemed eligible for funding in the historic preservation and rehabilitation /restoration category. Paddol seconds the motion. The motion carries 7 -0. The Committee encourages the applicant to obtain support letters from a broad cross section of the City. Habitat for Humani Don Preston is representing Habitat for Humanity of the North Shore and provides background for this pre - application. He has researched the pricing for properties on the market in Beverly and estimates that acquisition would probably start at $200,000 and would probably be closer to $300,000, with Habitat targeting purchase of foreclosure properties. Preston explains that Habitat creates affordable housing for families earning $35,000- $56,000 (40% to 60% of the median income) per year, and build energy efficient homes with estimated heating cost in these homes of about $500 per year. They do rehabilitation and construction as well. Pearl summarizes the proposal in that it is essentially an advance of CPA money to be ready once a property comes available. Preston confirms this, noting that the CPC and City Council approval process takes too long for Habitat to be competitive in the open market to purchase properties. Very extensive discussion ensues as to: mechanics of an MOU for a proposal that is not property specific, the ability of the CPC to rank such a proposal as there are no points of reference, and whether "advancing funds" would be setting a precedent for other categories in CPA. Further, Community Preservation Committee January 26, 2017 Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 7 the Committee carefully reviews the DOR Chart definitions within the Community Housing category. Edwards notes that Support only applies to the Housing category and discussion ensues as to activities allowed under Support. Edwards motions that Habitat for Humanity's acquisition funding proposal to be considered eligible in the Community Housing category under the project purpose of Support. McCrory would like discussion on the motion, noting that she is uncomfortable limiting it to the Support activity and asks if Edwards would reconsider her motion. Marino states her belief that "Support" is an all- encompassing term related only to Housing and it prevents other groups from claiming precedent to CPA funds in this respect. Edwards notes that Support is unique to Community Housing, and therefore would like to confine this approval under that activity only. Paddol seconds the motion. The motion carries 7 -0. Girdler House Maxner reminds the CPC that the Girdler House application came in for the same project during the last cycle with a late Pre - Application, which the Committee reviewed and determined not eligible. The Committee accepted the application and made the determination that it was not eligible. She is not sure why they came in again as she thought the CPC's determination letter was clear. Discussion ensues as to how the Girdler House is an affordable housing entity and if there would be any other projects that they would like to undertake that could be considered eligible. Members agree that Girdler House representative(s) should attend an upcoming meeting for a general discussion, but agree that this particular proposal is not eligible. Edwards motions that the Girdler House project is not eligible for funding, since the Girdler House was not acquired or created with CPA funds. Buchsbaum seconds the motion. The motion carries 7 -0. Municipal Document Preservation in the City Clerk's Office Maxner said the documents to be restored would be more than 100 years old as required under the HDC's umbrella historic determination. Edwards motions that the City Clerk document preservation project be deemed ligible for funding in the historic preservation category. McCrory seconds the motion. The motion carries 7 -0. Lynch Park Carriage House Pearl notes that as just voted by the CPC the Round 1 MOU was extended which funded a plan to guide restoration of the Carriage House. McCrory said she supports the project but thinks there is a disconnect between the Round 1 and Round 4 projects which haven't caught up with each other. Pearl notes the Carriage House report will be done in April and the Round 4 application would have to be informed and based on this plan. Pearl thinks all of the work looks to be eligible, but a competitive application would have to be connected to the plan, and that this Community Preservation Committee January 26, 2017 Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 7 should not fall in the recreation category and would be a better fit in the historic preservation category. McCrory motions that the Lynch Park Carriage House restoration project be deemed eligible for funding in the historic preservation category, with the understanding that any proposed project needs to be consistent with the plan that was previously funded by the CPC, and that this project is not eligible under the recreation category. Edwards seconds the motion. The motion carries 7- 0. Cabot Performing Arts Center Matz asks if the project stipulations would be any different from Beverly Golf and Tennis Club. Pearl notes this property is privately owned, so they should consider the possibility of a restriction in some form. Pearl notes the property is considered to be historically significant and is on the Massachusetts Historical Commission inventory. McCrory states there would need to be strong demonstration of public benefit in order to be eligible in her opinion. Edwards motions that The Cabot HVAC project be deemed eligible in the historic preservation category under rehabilitation and restoration. Buchsbaum seconds the motion. The motion carries 7 -0. McCrory would strongly encourage the applicant to come in for a consultation with the CPC, members agree that an invitation for a discussion is in order. Livermore House Maxner states that the HDC reviewed this project at its meeting last night and determined the building to be historically significant. Pearl said the property is a private residence, noting that based on her research, Cambridge gives out historic preservation funding to private owners all the time and that Newburyport has also approved similar projects. She notes that $35,000 to fix a roof and windows is a really low estimate. Paddol wonders if the owners are working with the Beverly Historic Society. Discussion ensues as to the public benefit of such a project, with Edwards noting any private entity applying for funds, the expectation would need to be higher, especially since the public benefit would be debatable. Members discuss mechanism for funding a roof project, which Pearl notes all homeowners need to fund at some point, but she would be willing to perhaps fund the difference in cost between a regular asphalt shingle roof and a historic roofing material and treatment under the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Members agree with this possible approach, and a discussion with the applicant would be beneficial. Buchsbaum motions that the Livermore House project be deemed eligible for funding in the historic preservation category under rehabilitation restoration and preservation. McCrory seconded the motion. Motion carries 7 -0. Pearl said the owners need to come in to talk with the CPC about the project. Tennis Court at Cahill Park Community Preservation Committee January 26, 2017 Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 7 Pearl notes this project has been previously determined eligible but was not funded. Paddol motions that the Cahill Park tennis courts be deemed eligible for funding in the recreation category under rehabilitation and restoration. Buchsbaum seconds the motion. The motion carries 7 -0. Cooney Field Lights McCrory states her belief that lights are not essential to the use of the field and that the lights do not make it functional for its intended use. Matz concurs with McCrory. Paddol said this effectively extends the use of the fields for multiple groups. Buchsbaum sees the project as an amenity that could be considered an enhancement and believes the lights extend the functionality of the asset. Pearl reminds the Committee that this project will be competing against other recreation proposals. Paddol motions that the Cooney Field Lights proposal be deemed eligible for funding in the recreation category under rehabilitation and restoration. Buchsbaum seconds the motion. The motion carries 5 -2, with Matz and McCrory opposed. Colgate Park Matz said the project seems eligible and the equipment is in rough shape. Edwards motions that the Colgate Park proposal be deemed eligible for funding in the recreation category under rehabilitation and restoration. Marino seconds. The motion carries 7 -0. Paddles Park Maxner notes that this dog park was named after former Mayor Bill Scanlon's dog. Buchsbaum notes he is unsure whether this project would be eligible for funding. Pearl is curious as to the application of "decomposed granite, and notes that this park could have been more thoughtfully designed in the beginning. General discussion ensues as to what constitutes recreation and whether allowing your dog to run freely is truly recreation in the CPA sense. McCrory motions that the Paddles Park project be deemed eligible for funding in the recreation category under rehabilitation or restoration. Paddol seconds the motion. The motion carries 5- 2, with Buchsbaum and Matz opposed. Beverly Cove Improvement Association — Cove Center Improvement Project Matz states he is a member of the Beverly Cove Association but believes he can be impartial in voting on this project. Paddol abuts the property and recuses himself. McCrory notes she has trouble understanding how the project qualifies in the recreation or open space categories. Pearl states she could see how the community garden would qualify. Edwards states this would have to be limited to the recreation category for rehab ilitation/restoration. Community Preservation Committee January 26, 2017 Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 7 McCrory asks if this comes in under historic preservation. Pearl states that perhaps the front steps could come under historic preservation if the building were historically significant. Maxner notes the applicant opted to not come under historic category and did not seek HDC determination. Matz expresses his opinion that only parts of the project that are open to the general public are eligible as the gardens are not open to the general public but only available to Cove Association members. Edwards motions that Beverly Cove Improvement project be deemed eligible for funding in the recreation category under rehab /restoration, but limited to activities related to general publically accessed areas which includes picnic areas, bocce courts, and basketball courts. She adds that this is not an open space eligible project and all other tasks listed are not eligible. Buchsbaum seconds the motion. The motion carries 6 -0 -1, with Paddol abstaining from voting. Next CPC Meeting and Adjournment The next CPC meeting will be held at Beverly City Hall on Thursday, February 16t' at 7:00pm. Matz makes a motion to adjourn the meeting. Buchsbaum seconds the motion. The motion carries 7 -0. The meeting adjourns at 9:llpm. Community Preservation Committee January 26, 2017 Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 7