CPC mtg minutes from 01.16.2020-Final (1)CITY of BEVERLY
COMMUNITY PRESERVATION COMMITTEE
191 Cabot Street
Beverly, Massachusetts 01915
Phone (978) 921 -6000
Fax (978) 921 -6187
Mayor
Michael P. Cahill
Chairperson
Marilyn McCrory
Vice Chairperson
Heather Richter
Members
Derek Beckwith John Hall
Robert Buchsbaum Nancy Marino
Thomas Bussone, H Wendy Pearl
Christy Edwards
CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
COMMITTEEXOMMISSION: SUBCOMMITTEE
DATE:
LOCATION:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Community Preservation Committee
January 16, 2020
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
Chair Marilyn McCrory calls the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
McCrory notes that Wendy Pearl will arrive late. She also states that due to the heavy meeting agenda, the
Committee will review the November, December, and January minutes at the next meeting.
Review of Grant Applications for Round 7
McCrory introduces the scoring process for the proposed projects. She explains that the CPC Committee
bases early evaluations on some of the following criteria: clarification or more information needed on
application, how well the application meets the criteria for the allowable uses matrix, if the project is
consistent with the CPC plan, and if the budget estimate for the project provides adequate data. McCrory
explains that during this round all applications will be discussed and ranked.
Page 1 of 7
Heather Richter distributes a scorecard as a tool to help the Committee determine project prioritization.
Richter explains that the scorecard evaluates how each project fits the required application criteria, and
that the highest scoring projects will be reviewed first. Using this scoring guide, Committee members
individually review the evaluations.
Denise Deschamps notes that she met with Bryant Ayles on Wednesday (1/15/2020), and that he provided
her with new financial data. Deschamps passes this information to the Committee to add to their review.
Robert Buchsbaum informs the group that his family member is working as an intern with one of the
applied projects, and he offers to step back in the voting if necessary. McCrory states that if he feels he
can be objective, his voting participation is permitted.
Project Review in order of Rankings
1. Restoration of Beverly Farms Cemetery
Christy Edwards opens the discussion stating that this application is strong in its organization and in the
applicant's ability to both raise funds and implement the project. She also states that this applicant is
working with a reputed vendor, has a strong cost estimate, and possesses a strong amount of community
support. Edwards appreciates that the cemetery is a historic and visible part of Beverly.
Tom Bussone values the presentation with its specific commitment and well- organized plan. Derek
Beckwith appreciates that this expensive project includes other sources of funding.
Buchsbaum asks if a site historical qualification also gives specific designation to the fence. Bussone
states that the application indicates that the fence is designated historic, meeting the qualifications of a
historic preservation project.
Marino compliments the thorough application, but asks about matching funding amounts reported in the
application. Edwards states that this project includes three phases, showing the financials for each, and
that $209,400 is the total source of funding. McCrory confirms with Deschamps that the city is not
providing any money contribution.
Edwards asks if the final disbursement for CPC funds (for phase two) will be dependent upon phase three
of the work being completed, and it is agreed that the applicant should not have to wait until project
completion for the CPC funds.
Beckwith asks if CPC funds would to the city or directly to the applicant. McCrory requests information
on the project manager and who will manage the money. John Hall asks if the city will have any role, and
Beckwith notes that the city did review the project. Deschamps does not currently know the assigned
project manager, but states that the city will need to designate someone. Deschamps also states that the
usual process includes a contractor sending the invoice, with the CPC directly paying the contractor.
Deschamps says that she will confirm the city's plan.
Page 2of7
McCrory agrees that this is a strong application with many letters of support and adequate private
fundraising. She also requests information on a project manager and notes that the CPC funds (phase two)
cannot begin until this part of the project is approved.
Richter questions the date written on page two of project date (2021 instead of 2020). McCrory requests
updates to all of the Committee's questions prior to the next meeting.
2. Beverly Housing Authority
Buchsbaum notes that while this project requests important and necessary work, that the specific work
may qualify as maintenance and not preservation. Hall agrees with this assessment. Bussone responds that
this is the first time the Housing Authority notes its importance with City Council to distinguish
maintenance. Bussone feels that this project qualifies as preservation because there is no other money
available and would result in a loss of the units.
Beckwith states that he rated this project as a high level priority, as the CPA could cover the roof, making
it eligible. Edwards says that this is a total replacement, qualifying it beyond maintenance. McCrory states
that it may depend upon the types of projects proposed. When past warranties are discussed, Bussone
shares that the Canadian roofing company is no longer in existence, and that there is no existing warranty
in the United States. McCrory states that this is a strong case for both structural and preservation
argument, strongly meeting the CPC criteria.
Buchsbaum explains that the Housing Authority has a list of priorities for state funding and that this is not
at the top, encouraging this applicant to apply with the CPC. Marino references the many steps of the
project.
Wendy Pearl joins the meeting at 7:43.
McCrory says that she does not see the details of the cost estimates. Bussone states that the last three
projects probably helped determine the bid estimates. Beckwith agrees that these estimates should be
included.
Buchsbaum has a budget question of total costs versus itemized numbers and asks for this clarification.
McCrory explains that some of each itemized number will be funded by CPA, but not all.
Beckwith is looking for a demolition line item, and Richter identifies this line item on the back of the
report. Deschamps asks if they want her to confirm the itemization, and McCrory states that it is okay as
is, showing just a part of what is eligible to the CPC.
McCrory asks about the schedule, noting that the project cannot begin until the CPC makes a decision.
Pearl suggests that soft design work should be able to begin as the CPA funds are all for construction.
There are no other questions regarding the Housing Authority Project.
"Short return discussion to the Restoration of Beverly Farms Cemetery
Page 3of7
Pearl asks who has site control on the project, and why the CPC wouldn't just fund all of the fence.
McCrory likes that it is in phases and seeks multiple sources of funding. Beckwith asks if this is a city
project. It is noted that the group has met with the city and that the city has reviewed the project. Pearl
also wonders where the bricks are going in the brick fundraiser to keep the landscape character of the
cemetery.
3. Gillis Park Staircase
Buchsbaum asks if this applicant included a letter regarding criteria and Beckwith indicates that it is on
the back of the application. Beckwith states that while this project is highly rated, few funds are coming
from other sources. Marino reports that the applicant also applied with the Recreation Department but
were denied, as Recreation funds were designated to the basketball court project. Marino also states that
she is pleased that the CPC is reviewing this request as a way to properly restore this structure.
Bussone notes that the CPC is the only real source to preserve these stairs. Hall states that he went to the
site to view the area, and deemed it as a strong candidate for CPC funds. Bussone adds that the funding
request is a small amount.
Richter asks about the materials and the effect of rising sea levels. Marino explains that there is a wall
before the stairs, with little impact of seawater to the brick and mortar. The Committee discusses the
materials requested for the project and that any new brick must resemble the original. Edwards states that
a letter noted a past renovation that added brick to existing granite, questioning what the replacement
material should be for both historic preservation and safety. McCrory suggests that the applicant confirm
the original materials.
Pearl states that she approves of this project as it supports waterfront progress, connecting it to CPC
goals.
McCrory wants to know who will manage the project and oversee the standards. Pearl says that the
Historic Commission should review both the project and the bids.
Bussone suggests that this project could be funded under recreation. Marino notes that the stairs are not
ADA required at this time, and therefore disqualify the project as recreational. Pearl adds that this project
will add a hand -rail to the stairs to increase accessibility. Buchsbaum states that while a handrail is not
historical, it is necessary. Pearl suggests that a hand -rail can be added that is compatible with the historic
design.
The Committee then discusses if this project should be funded under the recreational or historic category,
or both, and states that it is open to what is best.
Pearl adds that if the tread shows granite as the original material, it could increase the cost. She also notes
that the brick also now qualifies as historical. Buchsbaum suggests that it qualifies as both historical and
recreational. McCrory asks if granite is a better choice due to the seawater. Marino reports that the stairs
Page 4of7
have never before flooded. Richter notes rising sea levels and the possible effects. It is noted that the cost
for granite is three times the amount of brick.
McCrory asks if the Committee feels that the applicants need to attend a CPC meeting, or if these
questions can just be solved through writing. Pearl suggests that the groups are given a choice to answer
questions in person or in writing, and the Committee agrees.
4. The Cabot Lobby Restoration and Renovation
Pearl feels that this is a transformational project with a well -written report that suggests good financial
support (with the CPC only funding 30% of the cost). Buchsbaum also is in favor of this project but asks
how the CPC ensures that this establishment remains a nonprofit. Marino notes that she did ask about this
and was told that the CPC could hold a temporary lien, so in the event the property was ever sold, the city
could be reimbursed for the money.
Hall asks the source of this concern, and Marino explains the concern that it change from a nonprofit to a
for - profit. Hall notes that this is highly unlikely, but Marino suggests that preventive action could be
taken to protect the city's investment. Pearl suggests a sliding restriction (a short-term loan) with a goal to
protect the public investment. Beckwith notes that this investment could increase the building's value and
that this could be reimbursed.
Edwards asks for a review of the project narrative which includes CPC funding of the arch - ceiling, the
rose window, and the walls. She wonders if remaining items may not be eligible based upon the
information the applicant provided. Pearl notes that the request may include the design fund. McCrory
reports that the applicant did not provide the funding eligibility form, and that they will need to add a
budget and schedule form. McCrory wants to ask the applicant if the CPC funding is for only the items
highlighted in yellow, and if so, what is the difference between the $275,000 amount and the total funding
request.
Beckwith asks if possible funds are going to the elevator. Pearl suggests that request is in rehabilitating
the lobby, but notes that the applicant needs to be specific in the funding items.
The Committee discusses which items are deemed eligible. Pearl shares that some new features are a part
of renovating. Bussone states that giving a private enterprise money challenges him unless the public has
access. Pearl says the window and chandelier may be viewed from the outside, yet Hall says the marquis
blocks the window.
McCrory feels they make a strong case for The Cabot and its benefit to the people of the city.
Pearl notes that Historic Beverly is not that different from this private group as both are nonprofits.
Marino suggests a plan in place to protect the public funds (such as a temporary lien). A memorandum of
agreement with a sliding recapture was suggested by Pearl, keeping them responsible in their agreement
with the city. Bussone suggests that this funding be recorded in the registry of deeds.
Page 5of7
Beckwith notes the public benefit of The Cabot. He suggests that it means much to the downtown, and
that this group does host free events for the public. Buchsbaum states that many nonprofits charge for
entry, and while it is noted that there is no private owner, it is asked that this be clarified.
Edwards asks about the letter from the architect. She states that at the end of paragraph two, it states that
no filing of the project will go to Mass Historical. She asks if this is required, and Pearl says it is not
required. Pearl suggests that the Committee consult with the Historic Commission to see if the project
needs more ongoing oversight, or even if the Historic Commission could contribute a consultant to
oversee. Edwards notes the application's openness for review and supports the idea of the Historic
Commission's involvement and guidance.
The Committee requests specific information of CPC funding. The project's ranking is decreased because
they did not include the required forms and specify the items to be funded.
Marino thinks an in- person visit is needed, and Beckwith asks if the applicant could provide the deed.
5. Solar Now, Inc.
Beckwith suggests that the application lacks information such as visiting plans after project completion,
other funding sources, and the role of the city's involvement.
Hall feels strongly that this project should be preserved, but agrees with the vagueness of the application.
He questions if the inverter house qualifies for funding.
Marino supports the funding of this project. She suggests that the application process can be difficult for
new applicants, and that this project is enthusiastically embraced by the community. She also notes that
not having other funding sources shouldn't deter from the application. Marino states that she visited this
site to better see and understand the value of this project.
Buchsbaum is also in favor of funding this project and notes its Historic Commission approval. He
acknowledges the vagueness of the application and requests that the applicant add more letters of support.
Pearl states that the application does not indicate what work will be done on the inverter building.
Edwards favors the project and overall vision, yet shares concerns that the scope of the project does not
qualify for CPC funding. She says that more details are needed in the application such as specific items
for funding and the repair and building status. Marino suggests that these specific requests be addressed
and sent to them in writing,
Richter confirms that Solar Design Associates are the vendors who will be designing the project and
receiving the funds.
McCrory asks about the city's role as this site is on city property. She would like to know who is
overseeing the project and the status of ongoing maintenance commitments from the city. If Solar Now,
Inc. is overseeing the project, McCrory would like it to see the agreement authorizing them as project
Page 6of7
managers on city property. McCrory also notes that this application is missing the signature page and
acknowledges concerns that this applicant is not bringing any money to the table.
Hall requests information on the plan for the panels not preserved in this project. Beckwith requests
information on Solar Now's type of nonprofit status. Deschamps will ask applicant if they have requested
funding from other sources. Beckwith would also request information on the educational component of
this project.
6. Beverly City Hall Historical Records Conservation Project
Due to time constraints, the review of this project will be postponed until the next meeting of the CPC.
Closing Discussion
Edwards asks about the timeframe for project approvals, and McCrory reviews the schedule noting that
approved projects are sent to the Council in May.
Due to the February scheduled meeting date conflicting with school vacation week, the next regular
meeting of the CPC is scheduled for February 27th, at 7pm.
Buchsbaum suggests that the CPC meet one more time before the regular meeting to discuss the last
application, and a special meeting is scheduled for January 30th, at 7pm for one hour. At this meeting the
Committee plans to approve past minutes and discuss the last project application.
It is stated that February 20th is the deadline for applicants to respond to requests.
Edwards moves to adjourn the meeting. Bussone seconds. The meeting adjourns at 9:10 pm.
Page 7of7