Loading...
Agenda and Minutes 2010-04-07 City of Northampton Community Preservation Committee 210 Main Street, City Hall Northampton, MA 01060 Community Preservation Committee DATE: Wednesday, April 7, 2010 TIME: 7:00pm PLACE: City Council Chambers, 212 Main Street (BEHIND City Hall) Contact: Fran Volkmann, Chair, Community Preservation Committee Franv@comcast.net Tom Parent, Vice Chair, Community Preservation Committee ParentBridge@hotmail.com Sarah LaValley, Community Preservation Planner slavalley@northamptonma.gov (413) 587-1263 Agenda  Public Comment  Chair’s Report  Minutes March 17, 2010 o  Public Discussion of Applications Childs Park o Northampton Community Music Center o Conservation Fund o Upper Roberts Meadow o  Funding Recommendations Discussion  Other Business For additional information please refer to the Community Preservation Committee website: http://www.northamptonma.gov/cpc/ Community Preservation Committee Minutes April 7, 2010 Time: 7:00 pm Place: City Council Chambers, 212 Main St. Members Present: Fran Volkmann, Lilly Lombard, Downey Meyer, George Kohout, Don Bianchi, David Drake, Brian Adams. Staff Present: Sarah LaValley Chair Fran Volkmann called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm. Public Comment There was no public comment unrelated to project applications. Public Discussion of Applications Northampton Community Music Center Emily Green, NCMC Staff, Florence resident stated that she is a violin teacher building a Suzuki program at the school. The Center is getting very limited in terms of space The Center is hoping to hire another violin teacher, but there is little space for new staff. Many faculty have waiting lists of new students. Kathy Brown, Leeds, and her son Ryan Brown. Ryan is a violin student at NCMC, and told the Committee about his experience at the school and why it is important to him Tolly Jones, Leeds, told the Committee about her daughter’s experience at the school. Budget cuts have resulted in reduction or elimination of music programs in public school, and the NCMC chpir program has been a benefit. NCMC offers generous scholarships and payment plans to provide opportunities to as many children as possible. Jason Trotta, NCMC Executive Director, provided an overview of the importance of the school. More than 700 students from over 30 towns participate. Music education has declined recently, NCMC tries to fill that gap. The Center has never turned away a student for inability to pay. Jason read a letter from Eleanor Lincoln, a past NCMC student and current music education student at UMass in support of the application. Jason stated that the South Street building has allowed NCMC to grow to current size. Supporters have already spent more than 1 million on renovations. The requested CPA funds would provide half the funding needed to renovate the basement. Jonathan Wright, Wright Builders, stated that Northampton has lots of glorious buildings, but the South Street school isn’t one of them. However, it was built very well for its purpose. Once the building is structurally secured, mold will be attenuated, and space can be prepped for music activities. The new space won’t need any additional maintenance. Significant energy is currently being lost through the basement, and with planned upgrades, the net energy usage of all three floors will be less than is currently used for two. John Clapp noted that his son participated in NCMC, and he supports their efforts. Bill Feinstein, Ashfield, former Northampton resident, and NCMC founder stated that music is an activity that supports mental health by providing a way for children and adults to bond, absent judgment. It communicates that children, and also adults, matter. NCMC also has programs for people with autism and alzheimers. Research shows that if musical intelligence not developed by age 9, it is essentially dead. Bill noted that NCMC is an example of Northampton’s commitment to the arts, and funding for the original renovation of the South Street building was provided largely by residents. Joe Blumenthal, Chapel Street, noted that the proposed project is to be done in two phases, and money is only being requested the first portion from CPA. NCMC has already invested lots of money into many elements that aren’t really visible, such as the roof. Once basement renovations are complete, the building’s improvements will be complete. Upper Roberts Meadow John Clapp, member of Friends of Upper Roberts Meadow, stated that the cost to repair the dam is $25,000 more than the cost to remove it. The Friends have raised enough money to hire Essex Partnership, hydro installers, to determine how much power and money can be generated by the dam. The consultant has estimated $25,000 per year in income. The Friends plan to look for grant funding for hydropower installation. The CPA funding is sought to determine exactly what needs to be done to repair the dam, provide historic designs, and cover the difference between repair and removal. John noted that the dam is high hazard, but DCR assigns that status to all dams with homes in the floodplain. The consultant will be providing a presentation to the BPW the CPC is welcome as well. Barbara Pelissier, Westhampton Historical Society, Friends of Upper Roberts Meadow, stated that the dam is 127 years old, and noted that a similar dam in Vermont has been placed on National Register. The Upper Roberts Dam was built after the Mill River Flood with ‘new’ engineering developed after that disaster. The Dam provides wildlife habitat, is historic and unique. Joseph Misterka, Chesterfield Road, Friends of Upper Roberts Meadow stated that he has done calculations, and has determined that dam does not pose a downstream risk. The City engineer and consultant disagree, but Joseph stands by his original calculations. Fran Thibault, Chesterfield Road, Friends of Upper Roberts Meadow, stated that the CPA grant would provide an opportunity to repair the dam, install hydropower, and hopefully lead to hydro installation on other dams in Northampton to reduce dependence on coal and oil. Jonathan Wright, Beacon Street, Florence, stated that the High Head Dam in Leeds powered streetcar system, and there was a time when all power used in Northampton was generated in Northampton. He applauded the Friends for their efforts, but is really here to talk about NCMC. Chair’s Report Fran noted that at last meeting, the Committee decided to have some special sessions. The first of these is scheduled for May 19. Pam Schwartz and Peg Keller will discuss and Northampton Housing Partnership and community housing needs. The Committee should have a chance fordiscussions about exactly what is needed prior to scheduling other sessions. The Committee will discuss the form of minutes and staff priorities at an upcoming meeting. Sarah will look into access to email in council chambers. Minutes Minutes were approved as presented Funding Recommendations Discussion Fran provided an overview of past process- all committee members can discuss and provide opinions on each application, and no decision will be finalized until all the applications are considered. This process was agreeable to the Committee. Child’s Park Brian asked how often the Pond requires dredging- the Committee noted that the application said only that it hasn’t been dredged in over 40 years. Brian asked if any conservation commission permitting is needed. Downey noted that the water currently in the pond is collected rainwater, although when dredged it will be supplied by city water. This may require a Conservation Commission permit. Lilly noted that public support for the project hasn’t really been demonstrated. The pond has limited value, as there is another pond within the park. David expressed support for the project. An established historic park in the city does contribute to the city as a whole, and meets the CPA criteria of benefit. George suggested that the application could have been more comprehensive, and more public support could have been expressed. However, the project meets a number of criteria and he is in favor of support. Northampton Community Preservation Committee Minutes 2 April 7, 2010 Downey noted that Childs Park is often taken for granted, although the City provides it no financial support. Don expressed support. Brian suggested that the applicant didn’t present themselves well, wonders why. However, he enjoys Childs Park and supports the project. Fran stated that she enjoys the urban green space, but agrees that the application wasn’t comprehensive. Brian moved to put the application into the shopping cart for the requested amount. The motion was seconded by Downey, and carried unanimously with no discussion. Discussion of conditions and additional language to recommendation to mayor. A discussion was held about any need for conservation commission permitting; a condition is added that the applicant is required to contact the conservation commission for all appropriate determinations. Conservation Commission Conservation Fund Brian asked about prior awards- Downey noted that the Conservation Fund has been awarded $110,000 in all prior rounds, and the balance is currently $0. Don noted that he sees a distinction between using the money for acquisition, and for using money for other costs. Should have a discussion about the use of predevelopment funds in general, but is aware that conservation funds may be different from housing predevelopment funds. George stated that he is in favor, as OPD has used the fund in great ways in the past, but the requested amount is too high. Downey noted that hard costs over $20,000 must obtain CPC approval. In limiting conservation fund, may be susceptible to other future requests for expedited review. Lilly noted that there is disagreement between value of land for agriculture and wildlife habitat. Have learned from Bean/Allard that public input is important, and feel that ConCom meetings aren’t well-attended enough to provide a good public forum. David expressed support, but feels that amount requested is high. A discussion was held about limitations to hard costs. George expressed concern about slowing the process if threshold for CPC approval were lowered. A discussion was held about conservation uses and agricultural uses, and whether agricultural land is afforded an equal chance at purchase and preservation, especially since the agricultural commission is a recently developed committee. Fran suggested that people create draft conditions for consideration at the next meeting. Downey noted that if each acquisition requires CPC approval, the flexibility of the fund will be lost. Prime farmland soil maps could be used as a threshold where Agricultural Commission comment should be required. Fran noted that the Bean/Allard acquisition was a substantial cost, and the conservation fund request seems high in light of that. Downey move to put the application into the shopping cart at $60,000. The motion was seconded by Brian. Don moved that the motion be amended to put the recommendation in the shopping cart at $40,000. A compromise was reached- Don moved to put into the cart at $50,000. The motion carried unanimously, with no additional discussion. Chesterfield Road Dam Downey noted that this is a difficult request. Preservation of dam as historic resource is legitimate. However it could open a door for activities that don’t have much to do with the CPA. Feasibility studies have traditionally been not regarded favorably by CPA, since they provide no guarantee of ultimate preservation. David noted that the dam is unquestionably historically significant. However, its creation destroyed the surrounding neighborhood. Public access is limited, and there is also a lot of evidence that a healthy river is free-flowing and dams should be removed. Northampton Community Preservation Committee Minutes 3 April 7, 2010 Lilly stated that she is concerned about dismantling a potential source of clean energy; one of the criteria of the CPC plan. She expressed support for the $25,000 study of the embankment. George applauded efforts of the Friends, but noted that the area is not in danger of being developed, and the area is primarily only visible to neighbors and those in cars or on bikes. Though hydropower is important, there are many other dams in the City. The area will remain beautiful even if the dam comes down. Don agreed with Lilly that the initial study could reduce some of the immediate need to remove the dam. Brian stated his opposition to allocating CPA funds. Public utilization is really not possible. A stream flow analysis hasn’t been completed, and hydro potential doesn’t make sense. Although hydropower is important, this dam isn’t really appropriate. Also, the BPW has indicated that the embankment vs. dam structure study isn’t technically feasible. The CPC discussed needs for ongoing maintenance and associated costs. Fran stated that she is sensitive to the fact that the CPC cannot decide whether the dam is repaired or removed. She asked the Committee:  Is it worthy of CPC support as a historic structure?  Does it rise to level of other historic resources that have come before the committee?  Under what conditions would CPC support be possible?  What is the long-term public benefit of repairing the dam vs. returning river to its natural state? Fran suggested that the Committee needs to know what that the feasibility of hydropower is, and whether it is acceptable to the city. Brian noted that stream flow must be measured over a year, and that even if no CPA funding is awarded, will likely be years before any action is taken due to the number of high-hazard dams in the Commonwealth. Fran suggested that the CPC look at the study to come on Monday regarding hydro. George suggested that putting off a recommendation won’t have any real effect; personally has enough to act tonight. The Committee agreed to table a recommendation until next meeting. Northampton Community Music Center Downey stated that he initially struggled with CPA eligibility of the application, but agrees that NCMC is a valuable cultural institution, and is in favor of supporting the first phase of the project. Lilly stated that she is in favor of fully funding. David stated that he is in favor of funding, and noted that the Center seems open to public participation. Brian noted CPA language is ‘functional for intended use,’ which renovations are proposed to do. Fran stated that the Mayor is amenable to placing a preservation restriction on the building. David moved to put the project in the ‘cart’ for $150,000 in the current year, payable over 2 years. The motion was seconded by Lilly, and carried unanimously with no additional discussion. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 10:20. Northampton Community Preservation Committee Minutes 4 April 7, 2010