2013-11-14CITY 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
November 14, 2013
City Hall, Third Floor Conference Room B
Wendy Pearl, Marilyn McCrory, Leland McDonough,
Lincoln Williams, Heather Richter, Robert Buchsbaum,
John Thomson and Darien Crimmin
Henry Pizzo
Environmental Planner- Amy Maxner
Amy Maxner
Pearl refers to the agenda and asks Maxner for administrative updates. Maxner reports that the
informational letter and brochure has been finalized and John Dunn determined that the most
efficient way to send this material is through the City's mail house that provides bulk - mailing
services for the tax bills. She explains that the material is in the hands of the mail house for
formatting and John Dunn estimated that it would be out in the mail by the end of this month.
Brief discussion ensues related to the new administration coming in January, possible department
head turnover and the Committee's communication and outreach to Mayor Cahill and the new
Council.
Maxner goes on to explain that the CPC's budget will be incorporated into a submittal of other
budgetary items that John Dunn is putting together. She notes that this will go to the Council
this Monday and will most likely get referred to Council Committee, so she estimates approval
will take a couple weeks. She will keep Chairperson Pearl abreast of whether CPC members
should be in attendance. Maxner provides members copies of handouts that Stuart Saginor
provided during his training for their binders.
Pearl turns attention to the application process, timeline and application forms, starting with the
draft application timeline flowchart and a comparative table of other towns and cities processes.
Members review the draft flowchart and discuss options for timelines and funding cycles.
Members agree that a January 15 deadline is too early for a pre - application and consider
options as to whether a pre - application is useful or necessary at the beginning. Buchsbaum notes
that a pre - appilcation process is very valuable as it saves applicants time and resources in filing
out a full application if their project is not eligible. Williams suggests perhaps two rounds of
pre - application should be considered which would give the CPC a chance to review a project in
the first round, make recommendations and then during the second round the same project could
become a very strong candidate for funding. Pearl notes that this is a very competitive grant
program and doesn't see the equity in giving extra help to applicants that do not have their ducks
in a row over those that do.
Crimmin explains that good grant programs have two funding cycles thereby providing
applicants a second chance to apply if they miss the first round. Extensive discussion ensues as
to the learning curve ahead of the CPC and the logistics of a multiple round process with
members agreeing that multiple cycles may be overwhelming at first. Pearl suggests there would
be value in the CPC holding an informational, Q & A and instructional session for applicants to
gain direction and guidance preceding the pre - application process.
Crimmin asks if a process should be put in place for special circumstances where a project may
need more immediate consideration due to imminent sale, demolition or loss. Discussion ensues
as to developing a process for a special application process to be worked out in the future.
Members turn back to the timeframe flowchart and agree that the pre - application should be due
February 14 with the benefit of a workshop session in mid January. The subsequent deadlines
for inviting full proposal and application submittal are considered. Members agree to keep the
pre - application at one page with the DOR Allowable Uses Chart attached to keep the process
succinct in determining whether a project is eligible for CPA funding.
Pearl notes that the flowchart box indicating other board and committee endorsement should be
considered. Discussion ensues as to whether this should be required for a pre - application or if a
condition of approval should include endorsement by the Historic District Commission for
historic projects. Pearl explains that the HDC will be meeting to discuss the determination of
significance application process next week.
Public outreach for the timeline and application process is discussed with members agreeing that
a press release should be published in early January.
Extensive discussion ensues relative to full application process and as to whether the CPC should
hold a public comment session and whether applicants should be required to present their project
at a meeting. Thomson suggests that written public comment be gathered by a certain date so
that the CPC has comments before it starts its deliberation. Members agree that the project
abstracts should be posted on -line with a subsequent deadline for written public comments in
advance of the CPC meeting to consider applications. Discussion ensues relative to providing the
public ample time to review the abstracts and submit comments allowing at least three to four
weeks for that process.
Pearl turns attention to the timeframe allowed for the CPC to conduct its due diligence and what
that activity would entail. Members discuss the possible tasks the CPC would need to conduct in
vetting applications and time needed to do so. It is agreed that the CPC will target the Council's
first meeting in October to submit its funding recommendations, with an estimated award
announcement on or about November 1 st depending on the action of City Council.
Crimmin asks if there is a need to expedite some projects to help prevent public dissatisfaction
with the potential lag time of the schedule discussed tonight considering that projects may not
even be completed until sometime in the middle of 2015. Discussion ensues relative to the
ability of a City Council to entertain requests throughout the year as opposed to an annual town
Community Preservation Committee
11 -14 -13 Meeting Minutes
Page 2 of 3
meeting framework. Thomson notes that a special project that needs immediate attention can be
addressed on an expedited timeframe. Williams notes that the project would have to be
extraordinary in order for it to be treated differently and suggests that the CPC should endeavor
to make its application process clear and equitable. Buchsbaum notes that the CPC should do its
best to fund projects that have strong public support and are highly visible.
Pearl notes that this discussion segues into discussion relative to application forms and the
format of the December 12 public hearing. She suggests that meeting would be a good forum
to hear from the public as to what projects people would like to see get accomplished and
perhaps the format could allow for an hour of public comment to satisfy the CPC's charge to
study the needs and possibilities of Beverly. Members agree that the meeting should start with
one -hour overview of the evaluation criteria and then allow for public comment for the
remaining time and Maxner will draft an agenda.
Pearl reviews the remaining agenda items noting the press release for the December 12 hearing
should be reviewed. Maxner provides copies of the draft press release noting that she borrowed
heavily from Salem's announcement and incorporated Pearl's edits in red -line. Members review
the draft and suggest edits. Members agree to allow time for written public comments on the
draft evaluation criteria to be submitted through December 20
Pearl asks if any of the boards and commissions had comments to share on the draft evaluation
criteria so far. Maxner and Buchsbaum report that the Conservation Commission had no
substantive comments and was of the consensus that the criteria are comprehensive and
thorough. McCrory reports that the Open Space & Recreation Committee had one
recommendation of adding "acquiring conservation restrictions" as a separate bullet under Open
Space Category. Discussion ensues as to whether public access is required under the CPA as
some CR's do not allow public access to protected properties. McCrory offers to review the Act
for this issue. Others will gather comments from their respective boards and commissions for the
next meeting.
Pearl turns attention to the upcoming schedule with December 5 th the next meeting at which final
comments from boards and commissions will be considered and preparations for the December
12 public hearing will be finalized.
Revisions to the October 17, 2013 minutes are reviewed. Members offer additional amendments.
Thomson moves to approve the minutes as amended. Seconded by Williams. The motion
carries 7 -0.
Items for the next meeting agenda are reviewed, with members agreeing to research other towns
and cities applications and gather ideas.
There being no further business, Buchsbaum moves to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by
Thomson. The motion carries 7 -0. The meeting is adjourned at 8:55 p.m.
Community Preservation Committee
11 -14 -13 Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 3