CPC MEETING MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 21 2019-FINALDRAFT -CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
COMMITTEE /COMMISSION: SUBCOMMITTEE
DATE:
LOCATION:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Community Preservation Committee
November 21, 2019
Beverly City Hall, 191 Cabot Street
Chair - Marilyn McCrory, Vice Chair -
Heather Richter, Wendy Pearl, Derek
Beckwith, John Hall, Tom Bussone, Robert
Buchsbaum, Christy Edwards, Nancy Marino
OTHERS PRESENT:
Denise Deschamps - Economic
Development Planner, Planning
Department, acting as Committee staff
Jodi Byrne - Recording Secretary
Richter calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Consultation and Q and A with the CPC 7:00 -7:15 PM -The CPC encourages the public, potential
applicants and other interested parties to bring their questions /comments to the meeting for this 15
minute period.
There are no public applicants present. The meeting continues with the proposed agenda.
CPC Memorandums of Understanding
• Extension Request for Hale Farm Exterior Restoration Project
Denise Deschamps explains that this will be the sixth necessary extension primarily due to the ongoing
process of securing a preservation restriction from the MA Historic Commission (MHC). Deschamps
notes that Emily Hutchings is working with the MHC on revisions to the application for a preservation
restriction. The MOU expiration date was Oct. 30, 2019, and they are asking for an extension to October
30, 2020. Deschamps explains that there is not a specific problem, but that this is just a long process. Tom
Bussone says that he is inclined to not renew until the project receives the Preservation Restriction.
Wendy Pearl notes that it is MHC that is holding up the project's progress. Bussone wonders if a rejection
for renewal by the CPC could act as a vehicle to expedite action by MHC, and Pearl states that she does
not think this would have an effect. Marilyn McCrory notes that because the MOU has expired, it does
not have to be extended, but that she is still in favor of granting this project an extension. Deschamps says
an MOU does not have the power of an actual contract, but the MOU is a mechanism to allow the
Committee to monitor projects. Heather Richter asks what specifically is holding up Mass Historic, and
Deschamps answers that she has not been informed of the specifics. Deschamps says that the physical
work is completed, and that the vendors have been paid. Deschamps has an email from MHC reporting
items that they were reviewing (deeds) dated Nov. 21, 2019. Derek Beckwith asks if the Committee could
grant the extension while indicating that this will be the last one, in order to generate some action.
Bussone asks what leverage the CPC has since the work has already been paid for. McCrory asks if this
is a round two project. Richter wonders if all of the funds awarded have truly been expended, or if the
payment amount is just accounted for on the chart. Christy Edwards states that the MOU in place includes
a clear expectation that has not been met and wonders if this could be used as a tool for the next project.
Bussone says they must deal with the applicant as it is the only communication source, and that perhaps a
good practice in the future would be to withhold a portion of the money until project completion. Nancy
Marino asks why this was already paid.
Deschamps acknowledges the complexity of working with Historic Beverly due to their limited funds.
Pearl asks if the Committee has the legal ability to extend even though it has already expired, and
Deschamps answers yes. Marino asks about possible incentives to push the project forward. Pearl
discusses the difficulty of preservation restrictions.
McCrory invites a motion of how to handle the request for an MOU extension. Bussone recommends that
the Committee should agree to the extension, but with no disbursement until certain conditions are met.
Beckwith asks if the Committee is working to set a precedent on projects that are completed and how this
relates to other projects. Pearl says she is inclined to extend, but not for one year. Robert Buchsbaum
states that six extensions seem problematic. McCrory restates that the majority of work has been done,
with the exception of the last phase. Edwards recommends extension for a lesser time than one year.
Beckwith suggests adding a clause to future contracts, allowing for a review at times of extension for the
disbursement of funds. McCrory says that the Committee recommends not submitting all of the funds
until all work is completed.
Pearl motions to extend the MOU for this project for six months (until April 30, 2020) with no conditions.
Beckwith seconds. The motion carries (7 -2) with Bussone and Buchsbaum abstaining.
Extension Request for Beverly Golf and Tennis to Perform Complete Systems Assessment /Analysis
Bill Lowd from the Beverly Golf and Tennis Association asks for an extension on their building project.
Lowd provides images of the Clubhouse for the Committee's review, stating that while they did submit
the schedule, it has proven a big project. The MOU goes to Jan 24, 2020, and in order to meet this
extension request, Lowd wanted to give at least a thirty-day request notice.
Lowd explains that the project received five bids, and that they selected Heery as the project manager.
Lowd notes that Heery is the company who managed the new construction of the high school, middle
school, and police station. Lowd states that in May 2019, a letter was sent from Mayor Cahill to Heery
accepting them for the job. During the summer, Heery was committed to other projects, and in August,
Lowd updated Denise Deschamps on their progress. In addition, Lowd states that the golf course
manager's contract expired, so that they have committed an RFP for this, and hope to remedy before the
end of December.
Lowd explains that it is due to these many delays that he is asking for the Committee to extend the dates
of the project until December 2020. Lowd shows the Committee the proposed project dates with the new
schedule. In addition, Lowd states that the contract with Heery needs to be signed, although there is a
request for additional funds.
McCrory asks if there are any questions. Pearl asks if any of the building plans have changed. Lowd says
that specifications are unknown until the project begins. Pearl indicates that the plans look different and
2
asks if there is support from city engineering. Lowd says that the contract is on the Mayor's desk awaiting
his signature, and that the plans and specifications will be in the feasibility report. Beckwith confirms that
action steps will happen, but may be called out differently, and requests that the new report will have
these details. Edwards requests confirmation that this is the same project that the Committee agreed to
fund. Lowd says that the architect will create the next phase with the feasibility study, and that it is in the
MOU that McCrory possesses. Bussone reads the MOU to the Committee, and Lowd says they are not
changing the scope. Pearl asks if there is a scope for the architect for bid, and Lowd says yes. Pearl asks if
the money from the Committee is being used to hire the OPM and the architect. Lowd answers that the
Committee funds will pay both until they provide plans and specifications, and that the schedule should
have the same deliverables as the original documents. Lowd will update his report and give to
Deschamps. McCrory agrees and asks for the terminology in the updated schedule to not change. Bussone
suggests that Lowd returns to the original document and just change the schedule dates. Bussone
recommends that the Committee wait for the updated schedule and then vote on it at the next meeting.
Pearl asks if the OPM called the report a feasibility report versus plans and specifications, and is
concerned that the language differs. Lowd says that specs include feasibility. McCrory asks if Pearl feels
comfortable verifying that the deliverables are, in fact, what was the original expectation in order to move
forward. Deschamps restates for clarification. McCrory clarifies that the CPC will require evidence that
milestones are reached.
Bussone says that milestones must be achieved on the schedule provided. Otherwise invoices will not be
paid. Deschamps wants to make sure that all parties are in agreement about the milestones identified and
who should really be determining if they are met. Pearl states that the Committee should review the
MOU to see the requirements, and that she is not sure if it is a reimbursement process or milestones
funding. Lowd collects the new document, and agrees to return it to the old language with revised dates.
Pearl asks if the Committee should vote to extend the MOU knowing the condition of the changes, or if
the Committee should wait to vote until the December meeting. Richter suggests they vote on the
extension of the old schedule with a new end date of September 2020. He suggests that they write this
date on the old schedule, and then amend and vote. Lowd makes this date change on the old document
with the extension date to September 30, 2020. Lowd initials this change.
A motion is made by Edwards to extend the agreement to Beverly Golf and Tennis until September 30,
2020. Pearl seconds. The motion carries (9 -0).
• Extension Request for Green's Hill Trail Improvements
Aaron Clausen will speak to this as the MOU expired. While the trail is operating, it is problematic that
the neighbor's parking area encroaches on the city's trail. The Committee agrees to hold the extension
vote until it hears a report from Clausen (to be held later during this 11/21/19 meeting).
The Committee moves forward with the next business.
Review of Pre - applications for Round 7 CPA funds
3
The pre - application copies are passed to all Committee members, and McCrory confirms that the
Committee has reviewed all applications. McCrory frames the discussion's purpose: to determine the
projects' eligibility to be considered for funding, referring to the matrix provided by the MA Department
of Revenue. She notes that the Committee will make note of who owns the property and whether or not it
is the applicant, and if not has the property owner expressed support for the project. The CPC will also
confirm receipt of a determination from the HDC on a project's historical significance, and take into
account other eligibility criteria. McCrory also cautions that not every project is eligible for CPA funding.
She notes that not every application may propose a great project so it is acceptable to reuse or reject a
project. McCrory had asked Deschamps to hand deliver to the Committee members all of the full
applications when they are received since there may be quite a bit of material. With this note of caution,
McCrory asks the Committee to begin its review of the pre - applications (in no particular order).
Solar Now: McCrory reviews this proposed design for these historic solar panels located at
Beverly High School. Deschamps notes that this funding group has been in discussion with the
Mayor for approval. Pearl states that the Committee can vote if the project is eligible for
preservation and rehabilitation restoration. She states that this project has also received a finding
of historic significance from the Beverly Historic District Commission. Pearl informs the
Committee that this site, from 1981, is the only remaining solar panel project from the President
Jimmy Carter administration. The plan is to remove one or two panels and preserve them for
educational purposes. It is noted that traditionally a site would need to be 50 years or older in
order to be deemed "historical," but that there can be exceptions when something is deemed
significant for other reasons. The project aims to preserve the record of this 1981 solar panel site
that has successfully powered the Beverly High School. Pearl explains that a section of panels
will be moved to an area of viewing for educational purposes. She notes that while the Inverter
House is not historic, that the site itself is, as it showcases Beverly on the cutting edge of green
energy back in 1981.
Bussone questions if the Committee can fund to preserve the artifacts. Pearl states that the design
is for a display of the historic panels on the site. McCrory confirms that the whole property is
deemed historic in its green energy production since 1981. Edwards feels it is eligible as
historically significant and should meet the criteria for eligibility. McCrory states that they can
better determine if this project qualifies for funding with some more information provided, that
reveals the specifics of the plans. Pearl states that this group is new to this funding process and
could benefit from coming in to speak with the Committee to better develop their plan. Beckwith
adds that while the reconstruction of the Inverter House cannot be funded, funds could be given
to memorialize the site. Marino encourages the Committee to provide guidance to the project
proponents so that they can better articulate their request.
A motion is made by Buchsbaum that the pre - application be eligible for preservation. Pearl
seconds. McCrory notes that the project, as described, is not eligible for restoration, yet the
applicant could make a case for approval with more project details. Bussone suggests using the
language that the Committee is inviting a full application. Buchsbaum motions to approve for the
project to be eligible in the historic preservation category. Pearl seconds. The motion carries (9-
0).
0
Gillis Park Staircase: McCrory confirms that this project to restore a stone staircase has been
deemed historic via its location at Pleasant View Park. McCrory asks if this funding group has
spoken to the Historic District Commission and also to Mike Collins. Deschamps states that a bid
was requested and received by the project applicant, but that it is not included with this
application. Deschamps notes that there is a willingness on the part of the City to undertake and
oversee this project, as it provides access from the playground to the beach, making it a
significant feature of this recreational area. Deschamps received photos of the stairs from the
project proponent(s) and asked if the Committee would like to receive copies of the photos.
McCrory asks if this project fits with allowable uses and this is confirmed.
Marino motions that the project is eligible in the category of historic preservation. Edwards notes
that the project falls into two categories: recreational and historic. Bussone seconds. The motion
carries (9 -0).
Beverly Farms Cemetery Restoration: McCrory states that this project falls into the historic
preservation category in its request to preserve a historic fence. Deschamps states that this fence
resides on city property and that contact has been made with Mike Collins. This location by Hale
and Hart Street is a significant and historical cemetery. Pearl states that the paths, fences, walls,
shrubs, and buildings are all historic. Cassidy Brothers Forge is set to preserve the original
wrought iron in their shop.
Edwards motions that the restoration of Beverly Farms Cemetery fence is eligible in the historic
preservation category. Beckwith seconds. The motion carries (9 -0).
Aaron Clausen joins the meeting.
4. City Hall Records: McCrory reviews the project for the Committee and states that this is a
continuation of activity. It is noted that this project applicant had been previously requested to
submit a plan, and yet no documents are included with the proposal. Beckwith suggests that the
Committee should see a list of the collection of documents to be funded, and asks about project
eligibility. Bussone states that the project is eligible, but that the Committee should see a
projected plan. Edwards states that an inventory and summary of materials should be requested.
Beckwith suggests that the Committee can provide clarity of what they want to see during the full
application process. Bussone wants to know the specific documents that are to be preserved.
Deschamps adds that the City Clerk did report that the project recommended for funding by the
CPC in Round 6 has not yet been bid out. The mayor must still review and approve of the bid
documents. Aaron Clausen states that as soon as the RFP is released, this information can be
added as a part of the application. Deschamps asks if the Committee is aware of what items have
been preserved in the past. Beckwith affirms seeing a past list, and McCrory notes that
deliverables may be in the files. Bussone thinks that the Committee should check for the
historical significance of the documents as it would be feasible to determine the need for the
preservation of different types of records. Pearl notes that the letter from the (Massachusetts
State) archivist states the age of documents that should be considered for preservation. Bussone
5
feels more clarification needs to be presented with the application and that the Committee should
provide clear requirements for the application to ensure the project is the best use of CPA funds.
McCrory states that this pre - application should be eligible, but that they will need the full
application with specific details in order to determine any funding.
A motion is made by Bussone for this pre - application to be eligible under the historic category.
Buchsbaum seconds. The motion carries (9 -0).
McCrory asks the Committee what guidance they should provide to this applicant and the
following requests are made:
1. A project description to be included with the application that identifies all documents under the
stewardship of the Clerk's office, of those documents a list of those that have already been
preserved /conserved and a list of the remaining documents to be preserved /conserved in order of
priority. Also, specify which of these documents are in bound books and what type of action
needs to be taken to preserve /conserve the documents and potentially the bindings.
2. A note that it should not be assumed that CPA monies previously awarded but that remain
unspent will be rolled over into this project. [The CPA has never rolled over funds.]
3. A running record of what work has been completed.
4. A reference to the notes from previous CPC meetings and what has been previously requested of
the applicant.
5. An RFP for the work approved in Round 6, in addition to a detailed plan and inventory of
completed versus non - completed work. This should include unique items.
McCrory recommends a pause in the meeting for Aaron Clausen to report on the Extension
Request for Green's Hill Trail Improvements
The City created a trail connection extending from Bridge Street to Green Street. After hearing from
Clausen, the Committee discusses an extension of the MOU instead of initiating a new application
process. Clausen explains that the City Council recently authorized the Mayor to sign an agreement with
the property owner. A remaining issue, however, it that the owner of the adjacent property has been
parking their car on city -owned property for 20 years. Clausen explains that a HUD foreclosure happened
at the time of the creation of the trail, so that it was worked out with the property owner to reach a
settlement. This settlement states that the owner may park on the corner (easement) that the city owns.
The city will put up a split rail fence with a pathway, to accommodate the property owner, so that they
may retain this parking space. A second easement settlement was signed and approved, and it is noted that
the city has been working with the property owner for two years.
With the agreement to install the split rail fence and add additional landscaping at the access point,
Clausen notes that the project is able to move forward with an estimated spring completion date. He states
that this agreement was settled with the property owner and city with no need for court action. The
request is to extend the project date until summer 2020.
McCrory asks for a motion to extend the date to June 30, 2020. Beckwith moves to extend the MOU to
June 30, 2020. Richter seconds. The motion carries (9 -0).
The Committee returns to the Review of Pre - applications for Round 7 CPA funds
A
Beverly Public Library: This pre - application request falls under the historic preservation
category. The request is to digitize the newspaper records currently on microfilm. Beckwith
confirms that this is not in digitizing the actual newspapers, but to digitize the microfilm and
create an online, digitized index for people to easily access articles, photos, or public notices.
Pearl shares the Beverly Historic District Commission discussion, in that these films are the only
record formats left for these newspapers. McCrory confirms that this process is not to preserve or
restore, but to make the data accessible, perhaps not justifying the Committee to be the right
source of funding for this project. Edwards asks if this project could qualify under restoration and
rehabilitation in order to make the information an asset functional for its intended use. After a
brief discussion, the Committee determines that the CPC is not the right source for funding.
While it is acknowledged that this project is worthy, it is decided that it is not eligible for CPA
funding as presented. Bussone notes that the Committee would still welcome a full application.
Beckwith states microfilm lasts for 500 years, so that this project would not fall under restoration
or preservation.
A motion is made by Bussone that this project is not eligible for funding. Second by Buchsbaum.
The motion carries (9 -0).
6. The Cabot lobby restoration: This pre - application is requesting funding to restore the high vaulted
ceiling and original rose window in The Cabot lobby. This applicant owns the property, and
(since 2014) holds the Beverly HDC's designation as a historically significant property. The
Committee discusses the qualification of this request under both the preservation and restoration
allowable uses, noting that the request to the Committee is funding only for the ceiling and the
rose window.
Edwards motions that this project is eligible in the historic preservation category as both a
restoration and preservation allowable use. Beckwith seconds. The motion passes (9 -0).
Roger Conant Roof Replacement: Pearl suggests that the applicant first determine if the roof is
under warranty. It is noted that this application falls under the housing category as a preservation
activity, and that in the past the Committee has approved roof repairs as eligible for funding.
Beckwith notes that this falls under the structural protection of property, and that the City
Council has supported this in the past. Bussone agrees to check the warranty, but agrees that this
pre- application is eligible based upon past approvals of the same type of project.
Bussone makes the motion to approve this project as a community housing preservation. Marino
seconds. The motion carries (8 -0). Note - Pearl left the meeting at 9:05 and was not present for
the vote.
Approval of Minutes
The approval of the following minutes will be moved to the next meeting:
• September 19, 2019
• October 10, 2019 (Informational Public Hearing)
7
Date of Next CPC Meeting
The next meeting of the CPC Committee is scheduled for December 19, 2019 in Beverly City Hall.
Before this meeting, Deschamps will send out letters to all of the applicants for Round 7 Grants,
informing each of the Committee's decision regarding their pre - application. Beckwith requests that the
Solar Now organization come to the December 19th meeting in order to provide more information to the
Committee regarding their request.
The Committee decides to meet on December 19th, from 6pm - 6:30 pm, jointly with the Beverly Historic
District Commission, to hear from a consultant visiting from Pennsylvania regarding the development of
an historic preservation plan for Beverly. The joint meeting will adjourn at 6:30 PM and the CPC
meeting will convene to meet with the requested Round 7 funding applicants. The Committee will then
relocate the meeting to SOMA at 8pm.
Adjournment
Bussone motions to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 p.m. Edwards seconds. The motion carries 8 -0.
N