2013-03-14CITY OF BEVERLY
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OR COMMISSION
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE:
LOCATION:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
OTHERS PRESENT:
RECORDER:
The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m.
Ad -Hoc Community Preservation Ordinance Committee
March 14, 2013
City Hall, Third Floor Conference Room A
Chair Wendy Pearl, Marilyn McCrory, Shawn Mahoney,
Matt St. Hilaire, Lincoln Williams Heather Richter,
Cathryn Keefe O'Hare, Peter Von Zweck and Robert
Buchsbaum
Planning Director Tina Cassidy, Environmental Planner
Amy Maxner
Amy Maxner
Pearl asks if everyone is satisfied with the Establishment and Membership /Appointing Authority
sections. Members agree they are. Maxner notes that the crux of last meeting's discussion
centered upon the Duties section. Cassidy notes that Section (c) (i) has been split up into three
separate paragraphs with some further word - smithing. She offers to print off additional copies of
the red -line version of the ordinance for others who did not bring it along.
Von Zweck asks where the language was taken from in these paragraphs. McCrory explains that
they borrowed from Gloucester, Newburyport and model by -law. Pearl notes that it was decided
to remove the requirement of a "plan" and replace it with "guidelines" in order to give the
permanent Community Preservation Committee (CPC) flexibility, but to have those guidelines
established within six months of its first meeting. She notes that the second paragraph addresses
the need for public outreach and consultation with other boards and commissions in conducting
its studies, and the third paragraph addressing on -going public informational process and
publication requirements. She explains that a "plan" could very well be a product that comes out
of the studies and would be something that the CPC decides to undertake, but it was agreed that
including a requirement for a plan should not be written into the ordinance.
McCrory expresses her concern relative to striking the word "such" in the second paragraph and
wonders if that word has a purpose since it was included in the model bylaw. She thinks leaving
it out may suggest that the committee must consult with the public, boards and commissions
adnauseum for every single thing that it studies or undertakes. Discussion ensues as to what
activities the CPC undertakes would require direct public consultation. Members agree to
reinsert the word "such" studies to tie public hearing and consultation to those studies.
O'Hare asks if a public meeting or hearing is required for developing the guidelines, and
discussion ensues as to whether this is addressed in the second or third paragraph, or both.
Buchsbaum arrives.
Community Preservation Ordinance Committee
03 -14 -13 Meeting Minutes
Page I of 3
Williams asks if including a public hearing for the guidelines would require more than six
months. Discussion ensues as to an appropriate time frame in developing the guidelines, with
McCrory asking for clarification as to what is meant by guidelines. Pearl notes she envisioned
that the guidelines would provide a framework within which to evaluate "shovel ready" projects
that may come in fairly quickly. Discussion ensues as to what the guidelines would contain,
whether it be application procedures or goals, objectives and priorities. Williams thinks that
interpretation of guidelines should be left to the CPC, with Pearl agreeing noting that the CPC
can decide what the guidelines will include and address a plan when it deems appropriate.
Members agree that a public hearing should be required for the development of the guidelines
and to add language to that effect at the end of the first paragraph, and allowing for six months
for that process to be completed.
Members move on to the third paragraph, with Mahoney asking a clarifying question if the
statute speaks to CPC incurring expenses, with Cassidy explaining that if expenses are incurred
prior to the collection of funds, the Council can appropriate funds to assist with those expenses
pending CPA funds becoming available.
Sections (ii) and (iii) are reviewed, with no comments offered on (ii). Cassidy notes that (iii)
was tweaked, as the model by -law language was clumsy to read. Pearl notes that language was
then added that speaks to the issuance of bonds and CPC's recommendations to the Council for
expenditures and the required percentages per year, with no amendments to these paragraphs
offered by members.
Section (d) is reviewed, with Mahoney suggesting that the CPC must provide cost estimates to
the Council as opposed to "endeavoring" to do so. Discussion ensues as to current procedures in
obtaining cost estimates for expenditures with Cassidy noting that it is customary to bring a ball
park estimate to the Council, which may be a bit on the high side to ensure costs are adequately
covered and proceed from there. Discussion ensues as to this process, with members agreeing to
strike "endeavor to" thus requiring a cost estimate to be provided.
Von Zweck states his opinion that the procedures for receiving proposals and an application
process should be made clear. Pearl suggests that additional language could be added that
requires the CPC to make clear its application procedures. Cassidy suggests the following
language "The CPC shall clearly define its application requirements and evaluation procedures."
After some discussion, members agree to insert the following language as new section (iii) "The
Committee shall clearly define and make public its application requirements and evaluation
procedures ". Von Zweck asks if the committee's rules and regulations mentioned in section (v)
should be publicly posted. Members agree to add that requirement.
Buchsbaum asks a clarifying question as to the quorum requirements and whether it prohibits the
CPC from forming sub - committees in the absence of a quorum of the full committee. Cassidy
explains that she does not see this as a problem considering an ad -hoc or subcommittee would
not be acting as the full committee and therefore would not be subject to the quorum
requirements of the full committee. Discussion ensues as to mechanics of quorums for full
committee and subcommittees and applicability of open meeting law to subcommittee business.
Community Preservation Ordinance Committee
03 -14 -13 Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 3
Pearl notes the next section is amendments speaking to the CPC being allowed to review the
ordinance and recommend amendments to the Council. No substantive changes to this section
are recommended.
Cassidy reports on her consultation with Solicitor Gelineau with regard to the severability clause,
noting that Gelineau confirmed that the current clause at the beginning of the City Ordinances as
a whole covers all of the subsequent sections, but he would not object if this committee felt
strongly that it should be added to this draft. Members agree to leave it out.
McCrory reminds members that Stuart Saginor of the CPA Coalition has offered to review the
draft. Cassidy notes that revisions based on this evening's meeting would be relatively simple to
make and she could have it ready for Monday, and asks McCrory if she'd be willing to forward it
to Saginor, letting him know of the timeline of getting this draft to the City Council. Discussion
ensues as to what comments from Saginor would require another meeting of this committee.
Members agree that if there are any egregious or substantive errors of law found by Sagnior, then
another meeting would be necessary.
Cassidy explains that she will draft, for the committee's review and approval, a cover letter to
accompany the draft ordinance, which would convey the issue of assigning the Open Space &
Recreation Committee (OSRC) a seat on the permanent CPC. Members agree that it should be
communicated that there was spirited discussion over this ending without consensus. Additional
discussion is resumed relative to assigning the OSRC one of the at -large seats. Members agree
not to take this to another vote but to make sure that the cover letter explains the committee
members' rationale for and against the issue.
Timeline for submission to the Council is discussed, with Cassidy noting that if finishing touches
on both the draft ordinance and cover letter can be completed by March 26 or 27 she would
submit to the City Clerk on Thursday the 28 to be placed on the April 1 st City Council meeting
of the whole.
Cassidy will send out the draft cover letter and ordinance with tonight's revisions by Monday for
members' review and comment. Members agree to reserve March 28 as a back -up date in case
there are major issues with the draft based on Saginor or the Solicitor's review.
Buchsbaum moves that this committee approve the draft ordinance document as amended and
forward it to the City Council for it final approval. O'Hare seconds the motion. All members in
favor, the motion carries 9 -0.
There being no other business, Buchsbaum moves to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Williams.
The motion carries 9 -0. The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
Community Preservation Ordinance Committee
03 -14 -13 Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 3