Loading...
Agenda and Minutes 2008-07-16 Community Preservation Committee Agenda DATE: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 TIME: 7:00 PM PLACE: City Council Chambers, 212 Main Street (BEHIND City Hall) Contact: Jack Hornor, Chair, Community Preservation Committee Jack@JackHornor.com Fran Volkmann, Vice Chair, Community Preservation Committee Franv@comcast.net Bruce Young, Community Preservation Planner byoung@northamptonma.gov (413) 587-1263 Agenda Public Comment ?? Chair’s Report ?? Approval of 06/02/2008 minutes ?? Review of Florence Civic Association revised application ?? Review of Historic Northampton revised application ?? Discussion of number of rounds and possible schedule for 2009 ?? Review of disbursement procedures and CPA Grant Agreements ?? Review of draft CPC Bylaws and Rules of Procedures ?? Other business ?? For additional information please refer to the Community Preservation Committee website: http://www.northamptonma.gov/gsuniverse/httpRoot/comm/ 1 MINUTES Community Preservation Committee Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 Time: 7:00 pm Place: 212 Main St., City Council Chambers Members Present: Jack Hornor, Don Bianchi, Fran Volkmann, John Andrulis, Lilly Lombard, and Craig Della Penna Staff Present: Bruce Young, Community Preservation Planner Jack Hornor opened the public hearing at 7:00 pm 1. PUBLIC COMMENT ?? None. 2. CHAIR’S REPORT ?? Jack explained that when the CPC members met with the Mayor she stated that the CPC has more money than what was reported on the 2008 fiscal reports. Jack explained that the FY 2007 CPA funds were not included on the FY 2008 fiscal reports. The CPC will meet with Chris Pile, Finance Manager, to determine the exact amount of funds available to the CPC. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ?? Jack Hornor presented the minutes of the July 2, 2008 meeting for approval. He suggested a few minor revisions. ?? Upon motion by Fran Volkmann, seconded by Lilly Lombard, all voted in favor of approving the revised minutes. 4. REVIEW OF FLORENCE CIVIC CENTER REVISED APPLICATION ?? Loretta Gougeon presented the revised Florence Civic Center application on behalf of the Florence Civic and Business Association (FCBA). ?? Don Bianchi asked Bruce Young to present the options discussed with the applicant. ?? Bruce Young presented the agreement options discussed during a meeting with the applicant and CPC member Craig Della Penna ?? Don Bianchi stated the following about the revised application. 2 Public access - he believes that the public access provided in the revised application is satisfactory, Form of agreement-Don believes some sort of a Memorandum of Agreement is applicable for this amount of money – Don does not believe that it is reasonable to encumber a historic item with thirty years of mandatory public access and believes that it is too onerous to ask applicant to repay full amount of the CPA grant if any of the items are sold. Don stated that he would like to see an agreement worked out with Historic Commission that states if “x” number of items are sold within “x” number of years then the applicant would have to pay “x” amount to the CPA fund. Don stated that he believes it is fair to require the applicant to maintain a preponderance of the items but it is not fair to ask them to maintain ownership of all items for a minimum of thirty years. ?? Lilly Lombard asked the applicant if the Florence Civic Business Association Board of Directors discussed a way to protect the historic items while providing a public benefit. ?? Robert Ross, President of FCBA, stated that it was not discussed at the meeting. ?? Jack Hornor stated that he feels the FCBA has revised the application and made their intent of not selling the historic items very clear. Jack asked if a restriction could be placed on the building? ?? Lilly Lombard stated that a revised budget was not submitted and asked Loretta Gougeon how much money would go toward the restoration of the building. ?? Loretta Gougeon stated that the money originally requested for the purchase of computers, etc would go toward the building repairs and stated that she has a copy of the revised budget. Loretta’s estimate was roughly $20,000 would go toward the building restoration. ?? Lilly Lombard asked if the building has been deemed historically significant. ?? Bruce Young stated that he had not yet received a letter from the Historical Commission but he believes that the Historical Commission found both the building and the artifacts to be historically significant. ?? Lilly Lombard asked how we could move forward to protect the building. ?? Bruce Young stated that there are many options such as a: Historical Preservation Restriction, Deed Restriction, Mortgage , Memorandum of Understanding/Agreement, etc. ?? Craig Della Penna stated that the CPC should just fund the FCBA project without a restriction because they are great neighbors and a great organization. ?? Jack Hornor stated that the director of Historic Northampton is here and CPC is requiring Historic Northampton to place Historic Preservation Restrictions on all three properties. He stated that it would be unfair to require everyone else to provide restrictions and not require the same from the FCBA. ?? Don stated that perhaps we should not encumber the historic artifacts and that the CPC could focus on protecting the building by requiring the applicant to pay back “x” amount of dollars if they were to change use of building or sell building within “x” number of years. ?? Robert Ross stated that the FCBA is a great organization that functions as a polling place and the FCBA gives a lot back to the City. ?? Loretta Gougeon stated that FCBA raises funds privately and the organization is not going anywhere. They have been around for 62 years. 3 ?? Jack Hornor stated that FCBA is working with the CPC in good faith and the CPC is working with FCBA in good faith. He believes that both parties can reach an mutually beneficial agreement. ?? Don Bianchi asked Loretta Gougeon if the CPC decided not encumber the historic artifacts, but required the FCBA to restrict the use the building to its current use, for “x” number of years, would the FCBA accept the restriction. ?? Robert Ross stated that the board would vote no to any restriction on the building and artifacts. Robert stated that the FCBA is vested in the community and should get a check from the City of Northampton every year due to their contribution to society. ?? Fran Volkman stated that everyone agrees that the FCBA is a great organization, but the CPC is giving out taxpayers’ money and the CPC needs to show where the money went, how it is being used, etc. The CPC has to know if money for historic preservation is being used for historic preservation that benefits the general public. ?? Robert Ross stated that CPC is asking a lot for a little amount of money. He stated that other people give the FCBA money every day and have not made unreasonable requests by restricting the use of the building and/or artifacts. ?? Jack Hornor stated that there is a difference between funding that comes from taxpayers and funding that comes from individuals. Jack asked if the CPC placed a $20,000 encumbrance on the building for fifteen years, and if the building is not sold, the money would not need to be repaid. ?? Loretta stated that the FCBA did not want to write an application to the CPC to request funds. If she has to return to the FCBA and ask them to accept an encumbrance, it will be denied. ?? Don stated that the CPA funds are not a gift, they’re an investment in community preservation and the taxpayers need an assurance that there will be preservation of something valuable to the community. Don stated that the CPC is willing to work with the FCBA to create a restriction that is the least complicated restriction possible, but if the FCBA were against all restrictions, he would not be able to support an award to the organization. ?? Fran stated the she agrees with Don and stated that the CPC is empowered by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the taxpayers in the City of Northampton to ensure that the funds allocated to these projects meet the requirements for community preservation. Fran stated that the CPC needs straightforward assurances that there will be historic preservation. ?? Robert Ross stated the City of Northampton is getting an assurance everyday by the services of FCBA. ?? Loretta Gougeon asked if there is another way to assure the CPC that the money is spent on historic preservation. ?? Don Bianchi stated that if the applicants were willing to work with the CPC on finding an encumbrance that is reasonable and flexible then he would be willing to work with them. ?? Robert Ross stated that he can only speak as president of the organization and not for the FCBA board, but they have a charter that already provides for what the CPC is asking for. ?? Jack Hornor stated that the Community Preservation Plan Project Evaluation Criteria states that proposals brought before CPC must demonstrate ability to permanently protect historic resources is one of five criteria. The Northampton CPC is following the CPA 4 law by asking for restriction on projects involving historic preservation. Jack asked if the applicant is willing to work with the CPC to guarantee historic preservation in return for funding. ?? Loretta Gougeon stated the guaranteed historic preservation would be demonstrated via the bylaws of FCBA, which require them to protect historic artifacts and the building. ?? Don Bianchi motioned that the CPC recommends the award on the condition that by October 15, 2008, the applicant and CPC meet a mutual decision on appropriate encumbrance for historic preservation. ?? Lilly Lombard seconded the motion. ?? Jack Hornor stated he prefers not to vote on motion and prefers to work with applicant. Jack stated that the funding is reserved until the CPC releases it and doesn’t feel that the motion is necessary. ?? Craig Della Penna agreed with Jack Hornor and stated that he would like the discussions to continue tonight. ?? Don Bianchi stated the purpose of motion is twofold, it states that a restriction is necessary and that the CPC is willing to work with applicant. ?? John Andrulis stated that we are working with applicant and the CPC has already stated the restriction is necessary. ?? Jack Hornor stated that he hopes that the applicant understands that the CPC is willing to work with them and that a guarantee of historic preservation is required by law. ?? Loretta Gougeon stated that it would be up to the CPC to draw up the encumbrance because the FCBA would not pay for legal fees to encumber themselves. ?? Robert Ross stated that the legal fees for such an encumbrance would not be worth the $40,000 the FCBA is asking for. ?? Jack Hornor stated he would work with the applicant and provide options to the CPC. ?? Don Bianchi withdrew his motion. ?? Lilly Lombard withdrew her second of the motion. ?? Don Bianchi stated that CPC needs direction from the Historic Commission regarding restrictions on artifacts, buildings, etc. ?? Fran Volkmann stated that restrictions have been required for historic properties, open space, recreation and community housing. ?? Loretta Gougeon stated that some of the past CPC funding decisions have been “iffy” and that the funds should go to an organization like the FCBA. ?? Jack Hornor closed the discussion. 5. REVIEW OF HISTORIC NORTHAMPTON REVISED APPLICATION ?? Jack Hornor stated the Historical Commission would be reviewing Historic Preservation Restrictions on July 22, 2008 and that information should be discussed at the August 6, 2008 CPC meeting. ?? Lilly Lombard asked if the next meeting is a working session on historic preservation restrictions. ?? Jack Hornor stated that it would be the number one priority at the August 6, 2008 meeting. ?? Lilly asked if artifacts would be included in the discussion with the historic commission. 5 ?? Jack Hornor stated that Kerry Buckley is here and stated that he has submitted a letter to the CPC. ?? Kerry Buckley stated that museums have policies on museum artifacts accessions and de- accessions that are museum board decisions. He stated that the CPC could consider whether there is a policy on artifact collections prior to deciding on restrictions. ?? Jack Hornor summarized the letter from Kerry Buckley. ?? Don Bianchi stated that in principle the applicant has agreed to a historic preservation restriction. ?? Kerry Buckley said yes, and stated that the property is on the national historic register, which does not have same protection as a Historic Preservation Restriction. ?? Don Bianchi stated that exterior work is a reasonable request (with preservation restriction). ?? Fran Volkmann seconded what Don Bianchi has stated and stated that it makes sense to use the money for the exterior. Fran corrected Kerry’s assumption that proposal as whole was approved. Fran stated that the committee approved a certain section of the proposal. ?? Lilly Lombard seconded Fran Volkmann and stated that there was discussion of leveraging funds for additional work. ?? Kerry Buckley stated that on September 20, 2008 there would be an antiques road show type event to raise additional funds and future campaign. ?? Lilly Lombard asked Kerry Buckley about the roof of the Parsons House. Lilly stated that the proposal gave two options and Kerry Buckley chose the lower dollar option (cedar vs. asphalt roof) and that the CPC may have wanted to bring the options to the Historic Commission. ?? Kerry Buckley stated that it could be restored to 1730, 1790 or 1955 and he believes it is a design issue, not a CPC issue. ?? Jack Hornor stated that CPC might decide if they want a standard for rehabilitation. ?? Kerry Buckley stated that there are several guidelines and interpretations of historical preservation. ?? Lilly Lombard motioned to allow historic Northampton’s funds, originally slated for interior work, to be used for exterior work. ?? John Andrulis seconded the motion. ?? Don Bianchi stated that he supports the motion as long as the original condition of Historic Preservation Restriction exists. ?? All vote in favor of the motion with the original conditions. ?? Don Bianchi stated that he agrees with Craig that in future Historical Commission should review all historic CPA projects. ?? Lilly Lombard stated that Historic Commission may review, but their approval is not an approval by CPC. Lilly Lombard also stated that CPC can act as a check on a project - used example of the hotel making it through the design review board, but if they were requesting CPA funds, the design could have been further reviewed by CPC. ?? Jack Hornor stated he believes CPC should at minimum adopt a standard for historic preservation ?? Lilly Lombard stated she would like to take a look at standards for historic preservation. 6 8. REVIEW OF DRAFT CPC BYLAWS & RULES OF PROCEDURES ?? Don Bianchi requested to discuss CPC rules and procedures at this time or defer the discussion to a later meeting. ?? Jack Hornor opened discussion on CPC rules and procedures. ?? Fran Volkmann stated she would like more of the issues discussed by the CPC to be included in the bylaws. ?? Jack Hornor stated that some of the CPC’s internal procedures are included but more could be included. ?? Don Bianchi stated that this document is a good start and he has four or five comments. strd ?? -3.3 regular meetings - 1 and 3 Wednesdays of each month ?? -3.6 public participation - could state there will also be a public comment period ?? -3.62 language regarding disorderly individuals - chair may eject unruly members - is it appropriate to order people to leave ?? -3.10 language change - (3.9 talks about quorum) might want to say majority of those present at a duly constituted meeting need to vote for something to be approved ?? -4.0 second section - 4.1 use of email - would feel comfortable with except for following - any member may send email to chair, vice chair, or staff with purpose that email will be read at the next duly constituted meeting ?? Committee thanked Jack Hornor for getting ball rolling but the CPC needs more time to review. ?? Jack Hornor stated that any members with suggestions should please feel free to send them to him. Also, maybe the CPC should leave sections in that are not objectionable. 6. DISCUSSION OF NUMBER OF ROUNDS & POSSIBLE SCHEDULE FOR 2009 ?? Jack Hornor asked CPC to review schedule for 2009. ?? Lilly Lombard made a motion to have just two funding rounds in 2009. ?? Craig Della Penna seconded the motion. ?? All voted in favor of the motion. ?? Schedule will be placed in Community Preservation Plan but could be on website prior to adoption of new plan. ?? Jack Hornor stated that a round three workshop needs to be scheduled and the meeting with the Mayor needs to be scheduled. 7. REVIEW OF DISBURSEMENT PROCEDURES & CPA GRANT AGREEMENTS ?? Jack Hornor presented the City of Quincy Grant Agreement for discussion. He stated that it is a good agreement. ?? Craig Della Penna asked where the idea of an agreement originated. ?? Jack Hornor stated that the CPC worked hard in 2007 on the plan and during the first funding round the robust application process took up time and the CPC did not have disbursement procedures in line. Friends of Homeless needed a closing and Wayne Feiden took a standard agreement and modified the document to fit their needs. ?? Jack Hornor asked the CPC to allow him to work with staff to develop a draft. ?? Craig Della Penna asked for the draft to have track changes applied. 7 ?? Jack Hornor asked the CPC to send comments to Bruce Young. ?? Jack Hornor stated that there is a reporting section and a deed restriction section. The deed restriction section does not address anything beyond the acquisition of historic properties. Section 10 talks about signage – it does not address whether CPC will fund the sign or the applicant will fund the sign – administrative dollars could fund the sign. ?? Craig Della Penna stated that sign requirements should be funded out of the CPC administrative budget. ?? ***Note - sign requirements should be included in the application. ?? Jack Hornor stated disbursement procedures - would CPC disburse funds to an applicant that is in process of obtaining a restriction. ?? Craig Della Penna stated that this will be on website and could be referenced in application. ?? Don Bianchi asked if separate conditions possible prior to disbursal, at disbursal, and post disbursal. 9. OTHER BUSINESS ?? Jack Hornor stated he does not want to cancel a meeting until CPC is caught up on policies and procedures ?? Lilly Lombard requested discussion regarding historic restrictions at next meeting - will be sent out prior to meeting. ?? Fran Volkmann stated she believes the CPC is one man show – Jack does all the work and one person cannot do all of the work - the CPC should have a subgroup working on Preservation Restrictions, Policies and Procedures, etc. The Committee members should have a role to play in all of the CPC’s work. There could be three or four subcommittees at one time. ?? Jack Hornor stated he is open to suggestions for subgroups, etc. ?? Craig Della Penna stated he has eight meetings a month and does not have time for additional work. ?? Jack Hornor stated most people on CPC represent another board and are busy, but he welcomes any guidance or assistance. ?? Jack Hornor stated that the review of the Community Preservation Plan will be time consuming and the CPC will need to add their comments. ?? Craig Della Penna asked why CPC would revisit the plan after one year. ?? Jack Hornor stated the CPC is required to revisit by law and there are some weak areas that need to be clarified and expanded. The application section needs to be revised to include CPC policies. He would like to invite applicants to give feedback including written feedback on the application process. Jack would like a subcommittee to work on the plan. ?? Other possible subcommittees include - Preservation Restrictions, Bylaws, Executive Committee, Community Preservation Plan Committee, and Workgroup Committee. Upon motion by Fran Volkmann, seconded by Lilly Lombard, all agreed to adjourn meeting at 9:54 pm. 8 Respectfully submitted on July 24, 2008, Bruce Young, Community Preservation Planner 9