2013-10-03CITY 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
October 3, 2013
City Hall, Third Floor Council Chambers
Wendy Pearl, Marilyn McCrory, Leland McDonough,
Henry Pizzo, Heather Richter, John Thomson and Robert
Buchsbaum
Darien Crimmin & Lincoln Williams
Environmental Planner- Amy Maxner
Amy Maxner
Pearl reviews the tentative schedule for finalizing the draft criteria, consulting with the respective
boards and commissions and scheduling a public hearing. She notes that the draft criteria should
be completed by mid to late October and then presented to respective boards and Commissions
during their November meetings and a public hearing scheduled for early December. Members
agree that the schedule is still reasonable and achievable.
Pearl turns discussion to the Committee's progress on revisions made to the General and Open
Space category criteria. Members note they have reviewed these criteria and agree that they are
fine for the moment, but that time should be spent on categories not yet reviewed.
Members turn to the historic criteria, with the first five criteria receiving the top votes. Thomson
notes that bullet five talks to permanent protection of a resource and his understanding that is
already a requirement of the statute. Discussion ensues as to how to reword this criterion to
communicate level of protection.
Pizzo arrives noting that he has a regularly scheduled Parks & Recreation Commission meeting
this evening but can stay for a little while before he has to leave. Members agree to start review
of the recreation criteria to maximize Pizzo's time. Pearl asks if there is consensus around the
first five criteria. Buchsbaum asks if it should always be city -owned land in bullet number two.
Discussion ensues as to revising this criterion and whether the recreation category is meant for
creating new facilities or maximizing density of uses on a piece of land. Members agree to strike
this criterion, as it does not add value to the evaluation process.
The fourth bullet addressed the use of railway corridors, with members agreeing to strike
"railway and other" considering that all of Beverly's railway tracks are in active use. After some
discussion, Thomson suggests rewording the bullet to read: "promote use of corridors to create
safe and healthful non - motorized pedestrian and bicycle transportation opportunities ". Members
agree with that phrasing.
Pearl notes that the fifth bullet seems to address two separate issues. Discussion ensues as to
General Criteria #2, which already covers compliance with other various City plans. Pizzo
explains that the Parks & Recreation Commission has two different plans, one addressing uses of
the Lynch Park Carriage House and the other for City -wide recreation needs. Members agree to
strike this bullet, as it is redundant.
Bullet six is considered, with Buchsbaum noting there is a need to balance the human use with
wildlife habitat values. Thomson notes that this could be addressed with another criterion that
speaks to avoiding conflicts between CPA categories. Discussion ensues as to possible language
for this criterion, with members agreeing on the following language: "project does not create a
conflict between CPA categories" and placing it under General Criteria. Bullet six is left in as
written.
Members agree to strike bullet seven, as it is addressed with the new General Criterion as just
discussed. Thomson asks what everyone would think about a project that involved cutting a
stand of trees to create a ball field. Discussion ensues as to possible scenarios that this type of
conflict would present itself, with Pearl suggesting that perhaps this would be part of the
application process and the applicant's due diligence in getting proper approvals from other land
use boards. Considering these scenarios, members agree to revise the new General Criterion to
read: "project minimizes conflicts between CPA categories."
Members agree that bullet eight that speaks to the health and safety benefits of citizens should be
kept. Bullet nine that speaks to promoting initiatives of Conservation Commission and Parks
Department is considered next, and members agree to strike it as it seems too narrow of a
threshold.
Bullet ten, that speaks to meeting recreational needs, is discussed and removing the parentheses
around "or not adequately met elsewhere in the City ". Pearl notes that this allows for evolution
of recreation and adaptive technologies for accessibility for future recreation opportunities.
McCrory notes she thought about bullet 11 and thinks there is always a need for parking but
CPA is not meant for creating parking. Members agree that this is more appropriate as an
application question and strike it from the criteria list.
Bullet 12, asking if there is neighborhood support for the project, is considered, with Pizzo
noting that an excellent case in point is the proposed tennis courts at the Cove Playground. He
explains that Endicott College offered to build three new tennis courts to replace two existing
courts, but the neighbors opposed it arguing that the new court surfaces would create too much
heat. After some discussion, members agree to strike this, as General Criterion # 9 already
touches upon this point.
Members agree that the final bullet 13 considering waste disposal and pollution control should be
part of the application questions and strike it from the criteria list.
Pearl notes that Pizzo will need to leave shortly and asks if he has any other thoughts to offer
before he goes. Pizzo states he thinks that this is a great start and covers most bases, noting that
Community Preservation Committee
10 -03 -13 Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 5
he is sure there will be instances when modifications or new criteria will need to be considered
as the Committee gains more experience with project applications. McDonough agrees stating
his belief that the criteria will need annual review and revision as deemed necessary.
Pizzo asks when the next CPC meeting would be scheduled. Members discuss a possible
meeting schedule, but for the short term agree the next meeting should be October 17 Pearl
reminds Pizzo that he will be presenting the draft criteria to the Parks & Recreation Commission.
Pizzo affirms and departs for the evening.
Members return to the historic criteria, with Pearl noting that the third bullet is already a General
Criterion and should be taken out, members agree. The third bullet is discussed and members
agree to strike it, as city owned property should not necessarily be given preference.
McCrory states that bullet four gives preference to city owned properties and asks the Committee
if that should be the case. Buchsbaum states that to remain consistent it should be taken out or
made more general. Members agree to take it out as bullet one sufficiently addresses this
without giving preference to private or city owned resources.
Bullet five is kept as is. McCrory notes she is not sure what bullet six asks the applicant to
demonstrate. Pearl notes that this would imply bringing life to a building or property but the
adaptive use would not necessarily conflict with the historic nature of the resource or even give a
higher evaluation because of the new use. Discussion ensues as to intent of this criterion.
Members agree to reword this to read: "promotes adaptive re -use of historic sites" and Pearl will
take this to the Historic District Commission for further consideration. Bullet seven that asks for
intended use of building is taken out and considered more appropriate application question.
Discussion ensues as to bullets eight and nine that speak to documents of 1600's and 1700's.
Thomson notes that he suggested these because he would weigh and value older resources much
more heavily. Pearl suggests emphasizing the significance, rarity or vulnerability of a resource
as opposed to a specific era. Buchsbaum suggests modifying bullet one to add "rare or
threatened" to address this. Members agree with Buchsbaum's suggestions and strike bullets
eight and nine. Bullet 10 is taken out as members agree that it is redundant. Bullet 11 is kept as
is, with Thomson noting preserved documents should be showcased as opposed to locked away.
Pearl notes that bullet 12 speaks to the significance test, and it is redundant as resources must be
historically significant to be eligible for funding.
Discussion ensues as to bullet 13, with Thomson noting the "historical profile" component as
strategic for Beverly. After some discussion regarding funding educational activities Richter
notes that Stuart Saginor emphasized public awareness of high profile project and their benefits
is critical and she thinks that information should be available to the public. Buchsbaum suggests
shrinking to simply state "enhances the City's historical profile ". Members agree to adopt
Buchsbaum's suggestion. Pearl notes the Committee's obligation to enhance public awareness.
Thomson asks if placing conditions on funding a project is something the CPC can do and it is
something to think about this in the future.
Community Preservation Committee
10 -03 -13 Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 5
Bullet 14 is taken out. Pearl suggests that the level of significance with Maxner reading from the
flow chart provided by Stuart Saginor for the process by which historic resources are qualified.
Pearl responds to Thomson's question explaining that the registry is only for places. Discussion
ensues as to the resource and its significance on state or national levels as well as within Beverly.
Thomson suggests adding a bullet that reads: "does the resource have historical significance
beyond Beverly ". Members agree with this addition.
Bullet 15 speaking to resources to manage the property, with members agreeing this is an
application question. The remaining Bullets 16 through 19 are stricken as they are either
addressed by the General Criteria or previously discussed bullets.
The housing category is considered next with Pearl asking if the title should be Affordable
Housing or Community Housing. Thomson notes community housing is the term used in the
statute, members agree with community.
Lengthy discussion ensues on bullet eight that speaks to the 10% affordability per Chapter 40B.
Members consider ways to reword this criterion and whether the definition of affordability as
defined in 40B as same as the CPA, and definition in the Act is reviewed. Because the City is
currently above the 10% threshold members agree to strike this all together. Buchsbaum notes
that if the City ever falls below that 10% then housing projects may get the majority of the
funding in particular years to bring that back up.
Pearl asks if there are any comments on bullets one through seven. Bullet seven is discussed
with McCrory asking McDonough the logistics of reaching the affordable unit threshold.
McDonough explains that developers are able to receive lower financing rates if the project
consists of a certain percentage of affordable units, noting that these units stay affordable for a
finite amount of time as the term runs out, a.k.a "expiring use ", and the units revert to market
rate. 40B requirements are discussed and members ask Maxner to research the percentage as
called out in 40B, to be incorporated into the following language: "intermingles affordable and
market rate housing at levels that exceed that as defined by 40B ? % ".
Thomson notes that due to expiring use as McDonough explained, long -term affordability is
desirable. After some discussion, members agree to keep this criterion as written. Members
agree to keep bullet two as written.
Bullet three is reviewed with discussion examining the defined income levels. Members agree
that this bullet should be separated into two separate criteria with the following language:
"addresses the needs of a range of qualified residents" and "addresses the needs of very low, low
and low- moderate incomes ". McDonough states that it is important to keep this as broad as
possible as mixing certain populations is not always advisable.
Members agree to keep bullet four as written. Bullet five is discussed, with McDonough noting
that renting options to build up to ownership is not always workable or achieve the desired goal
of pride in ownership. Pearl notes that the housing is most flexible category as to how the
money can be used, for instance down payments and other types of assistance like first time
homebuyer opportunities. Discussion then ensues as to the need to include the rental
Community Preservation Committee
10 -03 -13 Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 5
opportunities, with Buchsbaum pointing out that people rent because they cannot afford
ownership. Members agree to reword this criterion to read: "provides affordable ownership ".
Bullet six, nine, ten, eleven and fifteen are considered and members agree they are more
appropriate for application questions as they relate to the applicant's due diligence and general
proposal. Bullet twelve is eliminated, as it is a hard criterion to measure or expect.
Bullet thirteen is discussed and members agree that preventing expiring use is desirable. Bullet
fourteen is reviewed with McCrory asking whether the word "new" is needed. Thomson notes
that it does not make a difference whether a new unit is created or if existing units are saved
from expiring use. Members agree to keep the criterion as follows: "creates affordable housing
units ".
Pearl asks if the group would like to review these criteria one more time in a regular meeting,
members agree that Maxner will make the revisions and email in advance of the next meeting for
review.
Pearl notes under Other Business relative to the draft budget with McCrory noting the total
should not include the state match this year. Pearl suggests that the administrative costs should
be detailed and defined better, and members provide examples of possible expenses. Pearl notes
that based on Boxford as an example, the full reserve fund was not fully calculated perhaps due
to fluxuating taxes. Thomson states that it should be to the penny, members agree. The budget
will be revised and reviewed at the next meeting along with the informational flyer and other
outreach materials.
Pearl asks if everyone has had a chance to review the September 12, 2013 minutes. Members
offer amendments to Maxner, with McCrory asking if Dunn had retracted a statement on page
one later in the meeting. Maxner will review the recording and get back to the Committee on
this.
There being no further business this evening, Thomson moves to adjourn. McCrory seconds the
motion. The motion carries 6 -0. The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Community Preservation Committee
10 -03 -13 Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 5