Loading...
2014-02-27CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION: Community Preservation Committee SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: February 27, 2014 LOCATION: Beverly City Hall, Third Floor Conference Room B MEMBERS PRESENT: Wendy Pearl — Chairperson, Robert Buchsbaum, Marilyn McCrory, John Thomson, Leland McDonough, Heather Richter, Lincoln Williams, Henry Pizzo, Darien Crimmin MEMBERS ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Amy Maxner, Environmental Planner; Matthew St. Hilaire, At Large Councilor; Scott Houseman Ward 4 Councilor; Rick Lord, Farms/Pride Community Association RECORDER: Craig Schuster The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. Pearl highlights the items for discussion this evening. She says the Committee needs to review and discuss those recreation pre - applications, which needed additional information from the Coalition in order to come to a decision about their eligibility, review the Historic pre - applications, which were not voted on at last meeting, review and discuss the applicant response letter for form and language, and then discuss, as a follow up to the last meeting, the details on what criteria is to be used to allow applications to come in outside the regular cycle schedule. Administrative Updates Pearl asks Maxner for any administrative updates. Maxner notes there is nothing to update. Continue to Review of Eligibility Determination Pre - Applications Pearl noted which pre - applications needed to be reviewed, they are Obear Park — Bath House Repairs, Obear Park — Construct Pavillion, Dane Street Beach — Renovate Existing Bathrooms, Lynch Park — Renovate Existing Bathrooms, and Ellis Square — Re- design and Landscape Square. McCrory asks Maxner if she could number the pre - applications on the spreadsheet for easier reference. Maxner agrees to add numbering. Pearl notes the distinction that the bigger more complete projects are eligible and the repair /maintenance projects are ineligible. Beverly Parks & Recreation Department, Lynch Park, Renovate Existing Bathrooms Committee members discussed the nature of the work and if it is classified as maintenance versus rehabilitation. Some of the Committee members were unclear with the pre - application as written if Community Preservation Committee 02 -27 -14 Meeting Minutes Page I of 9 this was just a repair or a completed renovation and what constituted a rehabilitation project versus a maintenance project. Pizzo stated that his discussions with the Bruce Doig, DPW Director, that it is the intention of the DPW to demolish the existing structure and construct a new facility at the same location. Thomson cited Stuart Saginor's letter regarding the issue of maintenance versus rehabilitation of a bath house which states "fixing a few broken fixtures and stalls is considered maintenance as opposed to a complete rehabilitation of an entire bathroom ", which would classify the this pre - application as a rehabilitation project. Pearl asked the Committee if a re -vote was needed. The Committee decided that based on the additional information provided that no re -vote was necessary. It was noted that the previous vote was the pre - application was eligible for CPC funding. Beverly Parks & Recreation Department, Lynch Park/Dane Street Beach, Renovate Existing Bathrooms Pearl notes that this pre - application states that stalls are broken, fixtures don't work, and tiles are worn which sounds like a complete interior removal and replacement of all these fixtures. Pizzo noted the cost of $40,000 sounds like more than a complete rehabilitation of the bathrooms and not just a maintenance project. Thomson asked if these bathrooms are stand alone or part of another structure, which is a concern for eligibility. It was noted by other Committee members that this is a building for just bathrooms. Pearl noted that if this bathroom does not work and the interior needs to be completely reconstructed that this would fall under capital improvement /rehabilitation. Committee members agreed. Pearl asked the Committee if a re -vote was needed. The Committee decided that based on the additional information provided that no re -vote was necessary. It was noted that the previous vote was the pre - application was eligible for CPC funding. Ryal Side Civic Association, Obear Park, Bath House Repairs Pearl states that this pre - application is a little odd in that it is asking for funding to install a composting toilet in or adjacent to an existing building. Richter noted there exists a bathhouse building that once was a bathroom but was burned down years ago so it is not functional. Pizzo explains that in order to make the facilities work that an expensive pumping station would have to be installed to get the waste uphill to the existing sewer line. He further noted that the DPW does not desire to spend the money for this pump station, hence the request to install a composting toilet. There was a discussion among the Committee members as to who owns the facility since the pre - application was submitted under the Ryal Side Civic Association. Maxner explains that the Ryal Side Civic Association submitted for this facility and she contacted Bruce Doig about this duplicate application, hence the Civic Association submitted. Maxner stated that she is not sure the Civic Association has legal ability to do work on this facility since the City owns it. Maxner states that this project could be considered eligible but the appropriate applicant would have to submit the application. McCrory noted that this application was submitted under historic preservation and asked if it has been deemed as such. Pearl noted it was not deemed historical then McCrory stated that this should be noted back to the applicant. Community Preservation Committee 02 -27 -14 Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 9 Williams moved to amend the previous vote to include in the response back to the applicant to have the City and not the Ryal Side Civic Association submit the application, exclude the kitchen from the application since it is not eligible for CPC funding, and to not check the application as historic preservation. Crimmin seconded. Pearl, Buchsbaum, McCrory, Thomson, McDonough, Richter, Williams, Pizzo, Crimmin in favor. None opposed. A discussion followed on Stuart Saginor's letter further clarifying rehabilitation versus maintenance and if such language should be attached to response letters. It was generally agreed that referencing the actual CPA Statute would be more beneficial than Stuart's letter. Buchsbaum noted that the applicant does not necessarily have to be the City since there may be some sort of relationship with the Ryal Side Civic Association. He noted that the Civic Association may be the applicant if they have the legal right and capacity granted by the City. He suggested amending the motion further to include this issue. Committee members agreed. Ryal Side Civic Association, Obear Park, Construct Pavilion Pearl noted that the Coalition's response would consider this a capital improvement with a long term value towards recreational use so would be eligible for CPC funding. Pearl asked the Committee if a re -vote was needed. Maxner explained that the last vote has McCrory opposed. Pearl asked McCrory if a re -vote was needed. The Committee decided that based on the additional information provided that no re -vote was necessary. Ryal Side Civic Association, Bride & Elliot Streets, Shared Lane Markings for Bicycles Pearl noted that this project is clearly not eligible based on the Coalition's response letter. Maxner noted that the Committee voted to table the vote and ask the Coalition for clarification. Williams moved to not to approve the pre - application submitted as eligible for CPC funding. Seconded by McDonough. Pearl, Buchsbaum, McCrory, Thomson, McDonough, Richter, Williams,Pizzo, Crimmin in favor. None opposed. Beverly Parks & Recreation Department, 44 Cole Street, Girl's Scout Camp Paradise, Acquire 12 Acre Property for Park & Recreation Use Maxner explained that the Coalition would need additional information to provide eligibility guidance to the Committee on land acquisitions with existing buildings. The Coalition would need to know more about the parcel, type of building, and potential future use of the land. Maxner suggested to the Committee that they could be safe and purchase the parcel without purchasing the building but does not know if this would be feasible. Pearl suggested that the Committee advise the applicant when submitting the full application to itemize the property to separate out the building cost and the land cost in order to determine CPA eligibility for funding. There was a discussion Community Preservation Committee 02 -27 -14 Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 9 about the viability of separating the two items and how the applicant would accomplish that. Pearl stated that there a number of issues with this project that will have to be resolved outside of this decision and to call this project, if the Committee thinks it is eligible, and then ask for the Coalition's input on what information the applicant needs to provide in the application. The Committee agreed and some noted that the eligibility of the existing building is still a little unclear and will have to be discussed further once additional information is provided during the application process. Pearl asked the Committee if a re -vote was needed. The Committee decided that based on the additional information provided that no re -vote was necessary. It was noted that the previous vote was the pre - application was eligible for CPC funding. The Committee asked for the applicant to breakout the cost of the building and land separately and to include a narrative on the purpose of the building and how it relates to the use of the land. Pearl asked if there is someone on the Committee who has been through the purchase of land for open space, which would know the nuances of the process, could contact the Coalition for more guidance on the purchase of land. Buchsbaum volunteered to contact the Coalition. McCrory offered to join Buchsbaum in contacting the Coalition. Pearl noted that the conversation with the Coalition should not just be about this particular project but about land acquisition issues in general. Williams noted that at some point they don't want City to come back to the CPC asking for a rehabilitation of the building since it was acquired with CPC funds. We want to keep the building as separate as possible. Crimmin asked if there has been a Committee discussion about bonding since there are two large pre - application projects. The Committee agreed it is a worthy discussion but should be discussed under "Other Business" for tonight's meeting if there is time otherwise it can be discussed at the next meeting. The Committee decided that based on the additional information provided that no re -vote was necessary and that further discussion of the different issues will be taken up during the application process. Beverly Main Street, Ellis Square, Re- design and Landscape Square Pearl asked McCrory her thoughts on Ellis square. McCrory cited the Coalition's response to the sharrows and its explanation of the creation of recreational land. This explanation has raised questions for McCrory about what is being proposed at Ellis Square and if this can be classified as creating recreational space. There was a discussion among the Committee members if this application is a park or not. It was generally agreed that this is a park. Pearl noted if Ellis Square is under control of the Parks and Recreation then it would be indicative that there is permanent recreational value versus if it was owned by some other entity with no guarantees that it would remain a park. If not owned by the Parks and Recreation then the application would have to note that this area would be transferred to the Parks and Recreation to be eligible for CPC funding. Community Preservation Committee 02 -27 -14 Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 9 Pearl asked the Committee if a re -vote was needed. The Committee decided that the previous vote should stand at 5 -2 and no re -vote needed. Pearl asked if there were other CPC pre - applications to go over. There was a general discussion about the two tennis court applications not being eligible for CPC funding and that some Committee members thought the pre - applications are in a gray area of what is rehabilitation and what is repair. CPC Eligibility Determinations & Feedback to Applicants Pearl noted that at last night's Historical District Commission meeting that all requests for historical significance was approved. Pizzo noted he talked to a number of individuals who thought they could not submit pre - applications to the CPC if the Historic District Commission did not approve them. The Committee then proceeded to review the Historical pre - applications. Beverly Historical Society, 39 Hale Street, The Hale House, Repair Chimney Williams noted for the record that his property abuts the Hale House, which he believed would not make him bias in any way towards reviewing the pre - application. He also offered the Committee to step out during the deliberations if the Committee so chose. The Committee agreed that Williams can stay for the deliberations on this pre - application. Pearl noted that the pre - application came under rehabilitation and that the Hale House is listed on the State Register and they noted that they would meet the federal standards. Pearl also noted that this pre - application could have come under preservation as well. The Committee discussed and agreed to advise the applicant to have the application come in under preservation since this pre - application is more in line with preservation than rehabilitation. Thomson moved to accept pre - application submitted as eligible for CPA funding. Seconded by McCrory. Crimmin, Pizzo, McDonough, Williams, Thomson, Buchsbaum, Richter, McCrory and Pearl in favor. None opposed. Beverly Historical Society, 117 Cabot Street, Cabot House, Rehabilitate chimney, roofs, columns, and windows Buchsbaum suggested advising the applicant to prioritize their projects to help in the CPC reviewing of their applications. The Committee discussed if this application could come under preservation since the nature of the work, window glazing, repair sashes, repair copper roof, is actually preserving the building. The Committee decided to advise the applicant to come in under preservation for the application. Williams moved to accept pre - application submitted as eligible for CPA funding. Seconded by Pizzo. Crimmin, Pizzo, McDonough, Williams, Thomson, Buchsbaum, Richter, McCrory and Pearl in favor. None opposed. Community Preservation Committee 02 -27 -14 Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 9 Beverly Historical Society, 117 Cabot Street, Cabot House, Repair and restore iron fence No discussion. Thomson moved to accept pre - application submitted as eligible for CPA funding. Seconded by McCrory. Crimmin, Pizzo, McDonough, Williams, Thomson, Buchsbaum, Richter, McCrory and Pearl in favor. None opposed. City of Beverly, City Clerk's Office, City Hall, De- acidify /conserve significant municipal documents No discussion. McCrory moved to accept pre - application submitted as eligible for CPA funding. Seconded by McDonough. Crimmin, Pizzo, McDonough, Williams, Thomson, Buchsbaum, Richter, McCrory and Pearl in favor. None opposed. Hastings House, 14 Oak Street, Develop architectural analysis and rehabilitation /preservation plan The Committee asked Lord where the other $8,000 is coming from since the project cost is listed at $24,000 and the application is only asking for $16,000. Lord responded that it would be raised through fund raising efforts. Pearl noted that this application could not be considered preservation since no physical work is being done and should be under the rehabilitation category. Crimmin questioned Lord on why does this work need an architectural plan instead of doing a less costly capital needs assessment. Lord responded an architectural plan is needed to get ADA accessible bathrooms and to study the existing space, which does not work well. Pearl noted the plan would be done in a way to reflect the federal standards for preservation, which contributes to the cost of the project. Williams moved to accept pre - application submitted as eligible for CPA funding. Seconded by Thomson. Crimmin, Pizzo, McDonough, Williams, Thomson, Buchsbaum, Richter, McCrory and Pearl in favor. None opposed. First Parish Church, 225 Cabot Street, Shim & level sanctuary floor, install new flooring Crimmin noted for the record that he belongs to the First Parish Church but is not a voting member of the Church. Committee members had no concern with this disclosure. Community Preservation Committee 02 -27 -14 Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 9 The Committee discussed the nature of the work presented in this pre - application and its eligibility. The Committee noted a number of items they have concern about: replacing carpet is not CPCA eligible, it is unclear what is causing the "creaks" and "bounces" in the floor (is it structural ?), why does the application ask for new flooring, the work is interior and in a privately owned building with limited public access even though the public uses it for public events from time to time, is this work preservation or rehabilitation? Pearl noted that the Committee should advise the First Parish Church to prioritize their pre - applications. Williams moved to accept pre - application submitted as eligible for CPA funding. Seconded by Richter. Crimmin, McDonough, Williams, Buchsbaum, Richter, McCrory and Pearl in favor. Pizzo and Thomson unsure due to the lack of information on the nature of work. The Committee continued the discussion of preservation versus rehabilitation and noted that if this work is maintenance then it is not eligible for CPA funding. As a result of the discussion Williams withdraws his earlier motion. Thomson moved to accept pre - application submitted as eligible for CPA funding on the understanding that carpets are not eligible, the applicant has to prioritize their projects, and that this pre - application may be construed as maintenance therefore, the applicant needs to justify it as preservation in order for it to be eligible. Seconded by Pizzo. Crimmin, Pizzo, McDonough, Williams, Thomson, Buchsbaum, Richter, McCrory and Pearl in favor. None opposed. First Parish Church, 225 Cabot Street, Accessibility Improvements Thomson noted that this pre - application meets the requirements for eligibility and is not maintenance. Buchsbaum moved to accept pre - application submitted as eligible for CPA funding. Seconded by Williams. Crimmin, Pizzo, McDonough, Williams, Thomson, Buchsbaum, Richter, McCrory and Pearl in favor. None opposed. City of Beverly, Lynch Park Carriage House, Complete preservation plan, develop feasibility study for building upgrades Buchsbaum stated that he is a little surprised that with all the work done on the carriage house that a plan is not already in place. Pearl noted all the work that the carriage house has done over the years and feels that a comprehensive plan would help them balance the business planning they have been doing with preservation and capital needs. McCrory noted that this pre - application definitely meets the eligibility under CPA statute. Buchsbaum moved to accept pre - application submitted as eligible for CPA funding. Seconded by Williams. Crimmin, Pizzo, McDonough, Williams, Thomson, Buchsbaum, Richter, McCrory and Pearl in favor. None opposed. Community Preservation Committee 02 -27 -14 Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 9 At this point Pearl wanted the Committee to be aware that the Harbor Light's pre - application also checked off historic preservation as a one of the categories, so the application came in under two categories. Thomson excused himself from this discussion. At this point the Committee discussed the issue of applicants not submitting pre - applications by the February 14 deadline because they thought they needed their property to qualify as historically significant before submitting. Some Committee members thought this Committee should reach out to the applicants to explain the CPC process further while other Committee members stated that they already did an exhaustive outreach process noted the deadline for the pre - applications. The result of this discussion that no further action with the applicants is needed and that the deadlines were the deadlines. At this point Maxner handed to the Committee members a draft response letter to be mailed to the all the applicants. The Committee discussed the letter and suggested the following changes: • Clarify in the letter the number of pre - applications submitted, the number of pre - applications found eligible with associated total dollar value (not actual but use approximate range), and list available CPC funding • Add into letter for the ineligible applicants that this determination does not in any way preclude the applicant from resubmitting a pre - application of the ineligible project at a future date. • Add into the letter the conditional requirements for those applicants discussed in tonight's' and previous meetings. • At this point the Committee discussed the idea of adding into the letter the determination of eligibility, during the pre - application process, would remain valid for some period of time. The Committee generally agreed with this, however, the length of time could not be agreed upon or if the pre - applications should be held over year to year or resubmit them. The issue remained unresolved and will have to be discussed at a future meeting. • Letter to be signed by the CPC Chairperson, Wendy Pearl Pizzo asked if there is any time restriction on these approvals if the applicant does not have all the funds in place at the time of the application approval. Pearl noted that a memorandum of agreement would be executed with the applicant and would outline the disbursement of funds and any other requirements. Pearl noted that this will part of the CPC's deliberation during the application process in which the applicant will have to provide proof of funding. The CPC's memorandum of agreement will be based on the information the applicant provides a schedule, financing model and the CPC provides the funds to support this. Emergency /Special Proiect Circumstances Situations The Committee discussed the Town of Concord CPC special project circumstances as a model for Beverly. The Committee thought the Town of Concord model was very good to start with for this Committee with a recommendation to make this Committee's special circumstance rules less land acquisition centric and more generic. The Committee suggested that Pearl and Maxner create a draft and submit to the Committee at next meeting. Maxner and the Committee discussed some Community Preservation Committee 02 -27 -14 Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 9 clarifications on the Town of Concord model and how they would or would not apply to this Committee. At this time Maxner asked a general question if an applicant could submit a pre - application at any time. The Committee noted that the applicant could not submit a pre - application at any time because the concern the application might be misplaced. The CPC will send notices out when pre - applications can be submitted. Upcoming CPC Tentative Schedule — Meetings & Tasks Inviting full applications by March 14, 2014. No meeting before then required. The Committee discussed the issue of deciding on a regularly scheduled meeting for the Committee. It was agreed to be the third Thursday of every month. The next scheduled meetings will be March 20, 2014, April 17, 2014, and May 15, 2014 Maxner noted last meeting's meeting minutes were not ready for this meeting because she wanted to fully review them before submitting for approval. Other Business The Committee discussed the merits of bonding as a way to pay for some of the larger cost projects that the CPC will be involved. The Committee noted even though bonding is a funding option, to use caution since this is the first time the CPC is going through the pre - application/application process and the commitment of future funds and how it can affect funding of current projects. The Committee decided to invite the City Finance Director to the March 20, 2014 meeting to discuss how bonding works. Adiournment McDonough moved to adjourn the meeting. Pizzo seconded the motion. All in favor. None opposed. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Community Preservation Committee 02 -27 -14 Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 9