Loading...
Agenda and Minutes 2010-04-21 City of Northampton Community Preservation Committee 210 Main Street, City Hall Northampton, MA 01060 Community Preservation Committee DATE: Wednesday, April 21, 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 April 7, 2010 o  Committee Discussion of Applications and Funding Recommendations Childs Park o Northampton Community Music Center o Conservation Fund o Upper Roberts Meadow o  Other Business For additional information please refer to the Community Preservation Committee website: http://www.northamptonma.gov/cpc/ Community Preservation Committee Minutes April 21, 2010 Time: 7:00 pm Place: City Council Chambers, 212 Main St. Members Present: Fran Volkmann, Lilly Lombard, Joe DeFazio, Tom Parent, George Kohout, Don Bianchi, Brian Adams. Staff Present: Sarah LaValley Chair Fran Volkmann called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm. Public Comment John Clapp, Friends of Upper Roberts Meadow (FURM), stated that half of the FURM commitment to DPW is complete. The group is Requesting CPC to grant funding for the remainder. The Essex Partnership will be providing a presentation to the BPW. The numbers provided by Essex indicate that hydro is possible, and that it could provide some income. Bruce Degenaro, Essex Partnership, stated that the study looked only at the energy production potential, but did not examine costs. Installed hydropower at the site could produce 100 mwh/year, potentially generating $25,000 per year in revenue. Dee Boyle-Clapp, FURM, explained the groups investment in the project. The dam was built for water supply. While it destroyed a neighborhood, it also created wildlife habitat. A study commissioned in 1980 indicates that Northampton has had a commitment to hydropower installation for 30 years. Gene Tacy, City Councilor, talked about the intense interest of the FURM group in saving the dam. Other communities are investing in solar potential, at a great cost, but hydro power is another green option. Marianne Labarge, City Councilor, stated her support for the Friends and their application, noting that they are working very hard for a good cause Dave Herships, FURM, talked about the 1980 Northampton hydro study of Mill River. The City Council supported hydropower at that time, and since then energy prices have risen and technology has made hydro cheaper to install. The Sustainable Northampton Plan had goals of reducing energy consumption and development energy generation through hydropower. Wayne Thibault noted that state senator Ben Downing is sponsoring legislation to encourage small hydro. Committee Discussion of Applications and Funding Recommendations Upper Roberts Meadow Fran noted that the Committee held off on discussing at last meeting to wait for the Friends’ hydro study. Fran suggested an initial question for the Committee: ‘Does the long-term public benefit of keeping the dam outweigh the benefit of returning the river to its natural state?’ If the answer is no, then the Committee can end discussion. Fran provided an overview of the BPW’s timeline regarding the dam. The new Essex report does not necessarily change the BPW’s decision. The Committee could opt to allocate $25,000 conditionally if the City decides to preserve the dam. Could also opt to do any number of other things, including $500 for support of national register nomination. Fran noted that the CPC’s interest in microhydro can only be indirect, because the goal of the CPC would be to preserve a historic structure. Lilly suggested that the project’s impact to open space should also be considered. George suggested the Committee review eligibility under historic and open space criteria outlined in the plan, with regard to the information in the Essex report. Joe agreed that it is a good approach to evaluate project based on the criteria. Evaluation of hydro potential isn’t within the purview of the CPC. Tom noted that when dams were built they weren’t intended to be environmentally friendly. Fran clarified that the application has already been determined eligible, but must also be weighed against the criteria. George stated that the project does not appear to achieve the goals of the open space criteria. Lilly suggested that public access is not a primary determination for CPA funding; there are many areas where public access isn’t desirable. Don- stated that he is not able to answer whether the river would be better served if the dam were not there, and needs guidance how to evaluate that. Fran stated her opinion that many of the general plan evaluation criteria are met by the project, but that the question becomes to what degree they will be met, as compared to other CPA projects. Dam does have hydro potential, but seems there are other places with better potential. The area is beautiful, but there are many reasons not to maintain it as well. Brian stated his appreciation for the historic nature of the dam. However, he has a hard time with the project fitting in with open space. A free-flowing river always trumps a dam, and dam removal is the best ecological alternative. He asked Bruce what the priority of this dam would be if all dams in Northampton were investigated for hydropower potential, and what a cost estimate for hydro installation would be. Bruce replied that priority would be low, but there are economies of scale if more than one dam is permitted. GZA estimated $750,000 1 million, to install, but that could be much less. Dee stated that FURM would like to work with the City to try and approach hydro installation on more than one dam. Don asked how much CPA commitment is needed prior to BPW reaching a decision about the dam. John stated that FURM is trying to raise money from other sources, but have been pointed toward local sources. If CPA funds are received, FURM will be in a better position to solicit assistance from regional groups. Dee added that $500 may be needed up front to proceed with national register listing. Joe asked whether other boards and commissions have supported. Dee replied that the Historical Commission supported the initial application. The Conservation Commission was not approached for support. Don moved to recommend $25,500 to support dam preservation and National Historic Register nomination, with the condition that no more than $500 be spent until BPW indicates support of dam preservation. The motion was seconded by Joe. Don amended the motion to state that the 25,000 would be specifically to cover the cost between repair and removal. Brian suggested that the $500 be contingent on the Historical Commission agreeing to support the nomination. Lilly stated that the spent $150,000 to preserve a piece of land on the corner of Sylvester and Ryan roads that has limited use, and that was a much larger sum. If the City elects not to pursue retaining the dam, CPA funds will not be spent as conditioned. The risk is very great to the dam if the project is not funded, and this ‘seed money’ can be used to further the Friends’ goals. Tom noted that if the application is funded at the proposed amount, people will be more informed to make additional decisions, but the outcome may not change. Don suggested that the investment to City if funded at $25,000 would be rather small. Joe asked if historic register nomination is an eligible activity. The Committee agreed this could be taken out of administrative funds. Brian suggested that action to remove the dam will not be immediate, and a CPC vote to recommend funding the project will be taken as support of the dam, in spite of silence from other areas of the city. Hydro potential is not significant. Lilly suggested a message of support would not be clear if the approval is conditional, but would send a clear message if funding is not recommended. Don restated his motion to recommend $25,500 to cover the cost between repair and removal of the dam. No more than $500, for National Register nomination, be spent until BPW indicates Northampton Community Preservation Committee Minutes 2 April 21, 2010 support of dam preservation. If support is not provided in a year, funds will be returned. The Historical Commission must agree to support the nomination. The motion carried, 4-3 In favor: Don, Lilly Tom, Fran. Opposed, George Joe, Brian Conservation Fund The Commission discussed draft conditions for Agricultural Commission involvement of agricultural land purchases with conservation fund monies. Joe suggested that the Conservation and Agricultural Commissions get together and draft some conditions that can then be inserted into the contract. The Committee discusses how best to facilitate the communication between the committees for CPA-funded Conservation Fund expenditures, and agreed to require that the commissions develop their own plan for communication. The Committee agreed unanimously about the recommendations in the ‘shopping cart.’ Chair’s Report: Fran suggested that Committee members coordinate about which sessions to attend at the CPA conference in Northampton on May 8. Fran noted that the CPC has a mailing listserve with its own email address. Minutes, April 7 2010 The minutes were approved as presented. Other Business No other business was discussed. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 10:20. Northampton Community Preservation Committee Minutes 3 April 21, 2010