Agenda and Minutes 2010-01-20
City of Northampton
Community Preservation Committee
210 Main Street, City Hall
Northampton, MA 01060
Community Preservation Committee
DATE: Wednesday, January 20, 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
Question and Answer for Applicants
Chair’s Report
Discussion of Eligibility, Northampton Community Music Center
Bean Farm Discussion, Expedited Review
Other Business
For additional information please refer to the Community Preservation Committee
website: http://www.northamptonma.gov/gsuniverse/httpRoot/comm/
Community Preservation Committee Minutes
January 20, 2010
Time: 7:00 pm
Place: City Council Chambers, 212 Main St.
Members Present: Tom Parent, Lilly Lombard, Downey Meyer, Don Bianchi (8:00), George Kohout,
David Drake, Joe DiFazio, Brian Adams.
Staff Present: Sarah LaValley, Wayne Feiden
Vice Chair Tom Parent opened the public meeting at 7:00 pm.
Public Comment
No public comments were submitted
Question and Answer for Applicants
There were no questions from CPA applicants.
Chair’s Report
Tom noted that the athletic field feasibility study was distributed to the Committee, and will be
added to the February 3 agenda.
Discussion of Eligibility, Northampton Community Music Center
Jason Trotta, Executive Director of NCMC was present to discuss the eligibility.
Tom noted that CPC Chair Fran Volkmann recommended that the determination be discussed by
the Committee, as the proposal to do over the lower floor into teaching rooms initially did not
appear to meet eligibility requirements.
Jason explained that the schoolhouse was constructed in 1891, then had a number of renovations.
NCMC did a number of restorations after they moved in in the 1980s. Historically, the bottom
floor had restrooms and served lunches.
The NCMC student body has doubled in size, and the Center is looking at new things to offer. The
Space is not currently utilized due to its condition.
Tom asked about the integrity of the basement. Jason stated that it has been untouched by many
decades, and is in poor condition. The integrity of the building as a whole would be served
through the proposed work.
Tom noted that changing of space isn’t eligible under CPA, but if it would improve the integrity of
the building it would be.
Jason stated that the original purpose of the building was to provide education, and NCMC is
continuing that use.
Jonathan Wright, Wright builders, noted that the school was built around the turn of the last
century, when students went home for lunch. When that changed the basement space was used
as a cafeteria. The lower level has some issues: an old boiler pit must be filled in, water has
infiltrated wall, old urinals must be removed, and there currently are mold issues.
David asked if the building has asbestos. Jonathan said it has no problems.
Lilly reas from a CPA eligibility chart: Acquiring, preserving, rehabilitation and restoration are
eligible. This includes remodeling, reconstruction or repair, including bringing buildings up to
code.
Northampton Community Preservation Committee Minutes 1
January 20, 2010
George noted that the services of school are all fee-based, so it is not open to the general public.
Jason replied that the Center raises money for scholarships for those who can’t afford tuition, and
have never turned away a student. The Center is in good financial health.
Lilly noted that the Committee’s only job tonight, is to decide whether the project is eligible, not
the merits of the application.
David pointed out that the CPA has funded other organizations that typically charge an admission
fee to access the building.
George suggested that the project would be a departure from other apps that have come before
the Committee.
Downey suggested that the applicant should get some guidance for the full application – for
instance, if the mold and basement cracking are threatening the building, that would be eligible,
but the application could potentially include both things that are and are not eligible.
Jonathan noted that the project as a whole contains aspects that are clearly outside CPA scope,
and the project can be parceled.
Lilly Lombard moved to deem the project eligible for consideration. The motion was seconded by
David Drake, and passed unanimously.
Bean Farm Discussion, Expedited Review
Tom Parent stepped down as chair of the CPC for the Bean Farm portion of the meeting, as the
Recreation Commission of which he is a member, is a co-applicant for CPA funds. Joe DiFazio
served as Chair during the discussion.
George noted that at the previous meeting, the Committee decided to accept the application for
expedited review.
Wayne Feiden, Planning Director provided a presentation on the application. At first the
proposal focused on Bean Farm. At the same time, negotiations were underway to purchase the
Allard Farm, but were not able to go public. Council resolutions are open-ended, and the CPA
application submitted is for acquisition of both properties, with cooperation of the Trustees for
Public Land (TPL).
The City currently has a purchase and sale for the Bean parcel, and TPL has an option for Allard.
There are some significant upcoming deadlines that make quick decisions necessary.
The CPC funded a recreation assessment a year ago to identify deficits and find out where
opportunities are on both public and private land. Most overlapped with prime farmland.
The Allard Farm has much more tillable land than the Bean piece.
The presentation included an assessment of buildpout potential, including both subdivision lots
and ANR lots. The ANR scenario would result in spaghetti/porkchop lots. One of these is
already being surveyed.
The City has a right of first refusal, but in ANR scenario it would be piece by piece with higher
prices.
One fear was that Bean & Allard would join properties, creating a new development scenario.
Project budget: grants could potentially cover 60% of acquisition price. The application asks for
40%; $990,000. This includes a small amount for field design that is necessary for future grants
for recreation.
Wayne Feiden noted that between 5-10 acres is hoped to be dedicated for community gardens.
The City is not purchasing the total fee for the entire property, but the land would be permanently
protected.
Scenarios of what land will be used for what purposes won’t be available until the task force
completes its work and makes recommendations.
With the proposed partnership, the City would have control of things it has prioritized, including
community gardens and playing fields
An audience member asked what happens if CPA money is invested and the state is not interested
in investing APR funds.
Wayne stated that once the City has the land and it’s protected, it’s no longer eligible for grant
funds. However, money up-front is critical so TPL can apply for grants, and as an assurance to
Northampton Community Preservation Committee Minutes 2
January 20, 2010
the property owner that the deal will go through. The property won’t be closed on until
everything’s done.
George noted that the cost breakdown makes it appear that acquisition price for Bean has
increased.
Wayne clarified that the acquisition price for that piece is the same, but soft costs are included in
the total for both pieces. However, if pieces are purchased separeately, the associated costs are
greater.
February 5 is the date to determine whether the property will be purchased, not to have funding.
However, the City will be obligated to decide to spend $15,000 on survey costs at that time, which
should not be done unless CPA will authorize the funds.
Lilly suggested thata representative from TPL come in to discuss their plan in relation to the
Committee’s farmland goals.
Wayne noted that it appears that numbers will work for a traditional farmer. Since committees
have made it clear that CSA is important, subsidy is also an option.
Brian asked if TPL would be interested if it was just the Bean property. Wayne replied that they
would not be.
In response to a question about TPL’s feelings about recreation, Wayne replied that it is not one of
their core missions, but is also not a problem. The Trustees build relationships in many
communities on lots of different types of projects.
Joe asked if the City will still be interested in acquisition if only one property proves to be
possible. Wayne replied that both pieces are key for many reasons, either together or separately.
George asked if carving off of a building lot included in this application as it has been for other
acquisitions.
Wayne replied that the Beans are keeping the rights to 6 lots. No plan to sell any building lots,
but could be done if a parcel was being provided to a farmer.
Tom asked about location of an access road for recreation fields. Wayne replied that access could
be provided from the Allard side, but that would be a more expensive option. This will be
determined more by the task force.
Lilly asked about the possibility of future CPA funding requests for recreation on the property.
Wayne replied that a goal is to alleviate competition between recreation and agriculture interests
for every ag parcel that comes up.
There is a chance the City could come back for future CPA requests, but would apply for grants
first. Grants do have match requirements, which CPA could provide.
George asked about the need for new fields, in light of a declining school age population.
Ann Marie Moggio, Recreation Department explained the diversification of leagues and sports,
and ‘off-season’ sports like fall baseball and spring soccer.
George asked if there is any permanence in a decision of what farmer to sell to. Wayne replied
that there can be any restrictions the buyer is willing to.
Lilly asked about state requirements for access by other communities for grant funds. Wayne
replied that teams typically play teams from other towns, so could easily meet that requirement.
Joe asked if TPL could help bridge the funding gap if Allard negotiations break down. Wayne
replied that they likely would not, as the cost per acre goes up as projects decrease.
David Pointed out that since the land is unimproved, there’s less liability if the project falls
through.
Tom asked the Committee to provide further questions to Wayne and Sarah by Monday, and
Wayne will provide answers by next Friday. Minutes will be sent out before the end of the week.
David asked about the potential of unearthing historic remains. Wayne replied that’s not likely
due to the shallow depth required for athletic fields.
George noted that applicants have typically been requested to bring in model language for
restrictions. Wayne replied that a condition could be added that agreements be approved by the
Committee when ready.
George asked about the necessity of a restriction on residential units in the future to prevent sale.
Wayne replied that Article 97 and the CPA prevent that type of conversion.
Joe asked the audience to pose any questions to the applicant.
Northampton Community Preservation Committee Minutes 3
January 20, 2010
Marlene Morin, Florence Rd: noted that there have been several accidents on Florence Road, and
she is concerned about traffic impacts from fields. She requested that the Committee reduce
number of fields to limit traffic impacts.
Jim Durfur, West Parsons Lane noted that the agreement with TPL will allow preservation of a
large piece of land with relatively small cost increase from the City for the Bean parcel alone.
Rebecca Fletcher, Norwood Ave asked if TPL could potentially acquire Bean parcel. Wayne
replied that details about ownership are not finalized.
George Kohout asked about permits needed. Wayne replied that a stormwater permit is required
if disturbing acre or more. Floodplain work requires permit from ConCom, but site plan review
may not be triggered.
Lilly asked if all of Allard prime farmland? Wayne will look into this.
Gene: Task force found it difficult to fit ag and rec on the Bean parcel alone, addition of new piece
made it much easier. Able to disperse some of the traffic as well.
Joe requested that the applicant prepare some funding scenarios before the next meeting.
Downey: Should spend some time preparing daft conditions.
David asked about public process. Gene Tacy, City Councilor noted that: the Allard Farm has not
been public knowledge until late last night but will be in the newspaper, and that the public has
been heavily involved in discussions
Other Business
Sarah LaValley informed the Committee that the state hospital fountain project that was deemed
eligible will not be submitting this round. As a policy, should new forms be required?
The Committee agreed that the same eligibility forms can be submitted for consideration for
future rounds.
Meeting adjourned at 9:55 PM
Northampton Community Preservation Committee Minutes 4
January 20, 2010