Loading...
Agenda and Minutes 2007-09-19 Community Preservation Committee Agenda DATE: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 TIME: 7:00 PM PLACE: City Council Chambers, 212 Main Street (BEHIND City Hall) Contact: Bruce Young, Land Use and Conservation Planner byoung@northamptonma.gov Agenda 1. Public comment period 2. Approval of minutes for 08/15/2007 3. Chair’s Report/ Staffing Report/ Fiscal Report 4. Review of the draft Community Preservation Plan 5. Any other necessary business Community Preservation Plans, Project Evaluation Criteria and a variety of documents from other CPA communities can be found at: http://www.communitypreservation.org/CPAImplementation.cfm Minutes Community Preservation Committee DATE: Wednesday September 19, 2007 TIME: 7:00 PM PLACE: City Council Chambers, 212 Main Street (BEHIND City Hall) Members present: Jack Hornor, Mason Maronn, Don Bianchi, John Andrulis, Tom Parent, Chris Kennedy, George Kohout Staff Present: Bruce Young Jack Horner opened the public meeting at 7:00 PM Public Comment -no comments Chris Kennedy moved to approve the minutes for August 15, 2007. John Andrulis seconded the motion. All members of the CPC voted in favor of the motion. Chair’s Report Jack Hornor stated that staff from the Office of Planning and Development has not been available during the past two weeks to work on CPC projects. Jack Hornor stated that there was no interest by current city employees to fill the CPC clerical position. The Human Resources Department will post the position for public application. Jack Hornor discussed the fiscal account summary for Fiscal Year 2007 and the matching funds to be provided by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Discussion on the Community Preservation Plan Jack Hornor passed out his comments on the Community Preservation Plan (CPP). Jack Hornor discussed several decision points in the CPP, which had not yet been adopted by the CPC. Jack Hornor stated that the CPP is incomplete. He stated that the housing application, questionnaire, glossary, and chart from the Community Preservation Coalition have not yet been added to the plan. He also stated that the list of resources has to be expanded. Jack Hornor stated that the goals listed in the CPP overlap with some of the Project Evaluation Criteria and the CPC should combine the goals and Project Evaluation Criteria. Jack Hornor asked if the CPC should raise the threshold for minor project from the proposed amount of $10,000 to $25,000? Don Bianchi stated that the requirement for major projects to be submitted by February 15th seems reasonable and asked the CPC agreed that it is reasonable to wait to vote on projects until February 2008, when the CPC will have a full legislative body. Don also th asked if setting a date, whether or not it is February 15, for major projects is going to be too restrictive for applicants. He also stated that the CPC should begin making the public aware that the CPC will be accepting applications in February 2008. th George Kohout stated that the CPC should wait until October 17 to discuss the CPP and would like to hold off until February 15, 2008 to begin accepting applications. Jack Hornor asked the CPC if the goal is to get draft out by October 3, 2007? th Don Bianchi stated that having a public working meeting on October 17 is reasonable if the CPC members can get their comments and additional information to Bruce within one th week (September 26). Jack Hornor stated that he went to the Community Preservation Coalition’s website and read other towns and cities community preservation plans. The plans that he found to be most helpful were plans from Concord, Needham and Acton. Jack Hornor asked the members of the CPC to submit their comments to Bruce by September 26, 2007. George Kohout stated that there are two parts to the CPP, the application section and the plan itself. He asked if the CPC would like to split these into separate sections for easier reading for applicants. th The CPC decided to reschedule the November meeting to Monday November 19 at 7PM Jack Hornor stated that the goals in the CPP are from the Sustainable Northampton Plan, which has not yet been accepted by City Council. He stated that it should be stated that the CPC would adopt the goals after they have been approved by City Council. Fran Volkman stated that the CPP could state that proposals could be accepted by the CPC for projects that the CPC judges to meet CPC criteria. Lilly Lombard asked if the CPC has decided not to be an initiator of projects and instead be strictly an agent for funding. She asked the CPC under what circumstances would members of the CPC be able to seek projects. Tom Parent stated that as a group the CPC has decided not to solicit projects, but individual members could solicit projects. Jack Hornor asked if it would be a good idea if the CPC, for example, put up 100,000 for proposals for the redesign of Pulaski Park? Mason Maronn stated if applicants are only proposing projects for one or two of the three CPA categories, the CPC should put out RFP’s for the third category. George Kohout asked if the CPA law allows the CPC solicit projects and Chris Kennedy stated that it is allowed under the CPA law. Jack Hornor asked for the phrase Competitive Real Estate Market to be withdrawn from the introduction of the CPP. George Kohout stated that if the CPC accepts project applications off cycle, the CPC might not have other proposals to weigh the application against. Don Bianchi stated that he would prefer to review all projects on a quarterly basis. Jack Hornor stated that CPA funding should be available for predevelopment work. Don Bianchi stated that predevelopment funding is extremely valuable for housing projects and should be available, but probably should not be more than the threshold amount for minor projects. Chris Kennedy asked Don Bianchi to estimate how many housing project applicants will seek predevelopment funding, and is it possible that the CPA could be paying for feasibility studies that would add to a private developers profit margin? Don Bianchi stated that the CPC only evaluates projects that benefit the community. Jack Hornor stated that the CPA Law requires that every project benefit the public and not private developers. Jack Hornor discussed the decision points in the CPP. Chris Kennedy stated that several modifications were needed in the historical section and the needs section could be more inclusive (municipal and non-municipal projects). Jack Hornor stated that the CPP could be restructured or reorganized to the CPC’s liking. Fran Volkman asked the CPC why certain ordinances are listed in the resources section of the Historical Section and not in other sections. Don Bianchi stated that he would like to change the wording on page 19 because the goal lists housing up to 120% AMI. Fran Volkman asked the CPC if they would remove the term in the housing section that states, “improve land values.” The CPC decided to strike the term “improve land values.” Jack Hornor asked if the Project Selection Criteria should be in the introduction of the CPP? Don Bianchi stated that the Project Selection Criteria is more important than the stated goals. Jack Hornor stated that the goals are the threshold and the project criteria are specific for making recommendations and asked the CPC to think about putting the criteria in the introduction. George Kohout asked if historic documents are covered under historic resources John Andrulis stated that some of the low income housing percentages were confusing because the goals use different numbers than the criteria. Don Bianchi explained his reasoning behind including the 30% AMI, 50% AMI and 80% AMI. Jack Hornor asked the CPC members to think about what should be a goal and what should be part of the Project Evaluation Criteria. Don Bianchi passed out copies of language changes for the community housing section John Andrulis asked if Don’s comments would create a means for age discrimination because of the use of the phrase “fair housing.” Don Bianchi stated that he believes the two are not related and he believes that all of the wording is necessary for the local preference section. Jack Hornor would like to change to the minor project threshold to $25,000. Mason Maronn stated that the completion of the plan and presenting it for public comment might be too much work to be completed before next public meeting in October. George Kohout moved to adjourn Mason Maronn seconded the motion All members of the CPC voted in favor of the motion. Respectfully submitted by Bruce Young, Land Use and Conservation Planner