Loading...
Agenda and Minutes 2008-08-06 Community Preservation Committee Agenda DATE: Wednesday, August 6, 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 period ? Acceptance of minutes from July 16 ? Chair's Report ? Fiscal Report ? Review of Round Three timetable (including workshop for applicants, meeting with ? mayor, and likely council timeline) Work on developing preservation restriction guidelines, models, etc. ? Work on developing a model grant agreement ? Work on developing committee By-Laws & Rules of Procedure ? 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, August 6, 2008 Time: 7:00 pm Place: 212 Main St., City Council Chambers Members Present: Jack Hornor, Don Bianchi, Craig Della Penna, Mason Maronn, Tom Parent and George Kohout. Staff Present: Bruce Young, Community Preservation Planner John Frey, Community Preservation Planner Jack Hornor opened the public meeting at 7:00 pm 1. PUBLIC COMMENT ?? None. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ?? Jack Hornor presented the minutes of the July 16, 2008 meeting for approval. ?? Upon motion by Don Bianchi, seconded by Craig Della Penna, all voted in favor of approving the minutes. 3. CHAIR’S REPORT COMMUNITY PRESERVATION PLAN ?? Jack Hornor asked all category experts to review the plan with their respective boards. Mason Maronn will present to the Conservation Commission, Craig Della Penna with the Historic Commission, John Andrulis with the Northampton Housing Authority, Don Bianchi with the Housing Partnership, Tom Parent with the Recreation Commission, and George Kohout will discuss open space planning with the Planning Board. There is no set deadline, but work is expected to move forward on the revised CPP this fall. APPLICANT FEEDBACK ?? Jack Hornor announced the CPC is soliciting feedback from the past grant applicants. Letters have been sent to all applicants and comments are welcome at the August 20, 2008 meeting or in writing to CPC staff. 2 ROUND THREE ELIGIBILITY FORMS ?? Jack Hornor announced the CPC staff has received five eligibility applications to date, four from Valley CDC and one from the DAR. The filing deadline is August 12, 2008. Regarding the Valley CDC applications, Jack Hornor mentioned the CPC is in need of affordable housing guidance. He plans to invite Peg Keller and Jon Hite to the next meeting to present the current status of affordable housing issues. ?? Craig Della Penna voiced his concern regarding the lack of grant applications to date. He hopes to see more grassroots projects applying for CPC funding. ?? Bruce Young mentioned that very discussion has already taken place and the consensus of the CPC was to steer grassroots efforts into partnerships with established local non- profits for professional guidance. Also, regarding the low number of applications to date, the majority of applications usually arrive in the few days before the deadline. ROUND ONE UPDATE ?? Jack Hornor stated the current progress status of Round One projects. Funds have been fully distributed to Mineral Hills, Friends of the Homeless, and Sheldon Field. ?? Bruce Young stated the Elm Street project has been put out to bid; First Churches work is in progress but funds have not been distributed pending an acceptable historic preservation restriction; Forbes Library is working with Chris Pile regarding bonding issues; Habitat for Humanity has requested their funds; The Housing Partnership is still work on their scope of services plan; and Valley CDC has been in contact but still must formally request the funds. ?? George Kohout questioned if CPC money is accruing interest while pending distribution. ?? Jack Hornor confirmed the Treasurer’s office handles the investing of CPC funds. All funds remain in the account accruing interest until distributed. In FY07 investments garnered $21,000 and in FY08 $56,500. ?? George Kohout voiced his concern regarding the same organization applying for another grant before they have actually completed work on a prior grant. ?? Tom Parent questioned whether city boards receiving grants get their funding before work is completed or not. ?? Bruce Young explained the process is the same for all grantees whether affiliated with the City or not. Projects must still go out to bid and payments are not made until work is completed. ?? Jack Hornor stated he believed that the CPC agreed to disburse funds to 501c3 (non- profits) first and then receive report back certifying the money has been spent properly. ***NOTE – PLEASE CLARIFY CORRECT POLICY*** ?? Bruce Young also stated the CPC is essentially purchasing preservation restrictions as well and those must be in place before funds are distributed. . ROUND TWO UPDATE ?? Jack Hornor announced the CPC did meet with the Mayor. Also, Jack Hornor met with the Finance Committee. The Mayor has requested that he also meet with the Finance Committee again at their August 21, 2008. His hope is that the Finance Committee will approve the projects and forward to the full City Council that same evening for a first vote. If that happens the second vote will take place in early September. 3 ?? Jack Hornor also stated the Grove Street project was expedited and approved by the Mayor and City Council. 4. FISCAL REPORT ?? Jack Hornor stated the current balance in the CPC account is $1,198,556.53. ?? Subtracting future encumbered Round One funding for FY09 (Forbes FY09 and borrowing costs, and Habitat for Humanity) leaves $841,556.53 ?? Subtracting Round Two awards of $484, 876 leaves $335,680.53. ?? $129,457 has already been received to date in FY09 tax receipts. This leaves a current bottom line of $420,137.53 unencumbered. ?? CPC income for FY09 is expected to be $1.3M. $735,000 is expected from local tax receipts and $565,000 from the FY08 state match (projected to be ~80% of local FY08 receipts). The state money is expected on October 15, 2008. 5. REVIEW OF ROUND THREE TIMETABLE ?? Jack Hornor stated the CPC is scheduled to finalize its recommendation on December 3, 2008. Dates for meeting with the Mayor and City Council still need to be set. ?? Jack Hornor also stated a workshop for Round Three applicants also must be added. He recommends an informal question & answer period before the regular meeting at 6pm on August 20, 2008. CPC members are not required to appear before the regular meeting starts at 7pm. All Round Three or potential future applicants are welcome and encouraged to attend. 6.WORK ON DEVELOPING PRESERVATION RESTRICTION GUIDELINES HISTORIC COMMISSION, PRESERVATION RESTRICTION POLICIES ?? Jack Hornor presented the letter from the Historic Commission dated July 23, 2008 regarding preservation restriction policies (see Attachment 1 below). ?? Jack Hornor summarized the two major points offered by the Historic Commission, 1.) The HC is willing visit with CPA applicants to instruct them regarding historic preservation restriction options and 2.) The HC is willing to determine the applicability of offered historic preservation restrictions on a case-by-case basis. Jack Hornor stated the CPC must decide if they want that assistance. ?? Don Bianchi stated it is his understanding the CPC is able to accept or not accept the HC recommendations. Therefore he sees no problem with this approach. ?? Jack Hornor stated his opinion that the HC wants more authority than that. ?? Craig Della Penna stated the HC simply wants the flexibility to make decisions on a case- by-case basis. Perhaps we should have discussion with the HC regarding the work “determine”. ?? Jack Hornor stated the HC is also will to be the holder of historic preservation restrictions on behalf of the CPC. They would conduct inspection activities to monitor compliance. Jack Hornor felt this would be a benefit to the CPC and perhaps other authorities would do the same for their respective categories. ?? Craig Della Penna stated the HC has very good expertise and therefore this is a positive 4 for the CPC. ?? Mason Maronn questioned if other boards could hold restrictions for the CPC. ?? Bruce Young stated yes except in the case of acquisition of open space, which must be the Conservation Commission. Any others are open to other boards via the City as stakeholder. ?? George Kohout stated this is a great idea. Let the respective boards do the preparation and monitoring work. It empowers them and makes them active in the CPA. ?? Jack Hornor stated the CPC staff would still oversee. ?? Mason Maronn agreed this puts the experts in charge. ?? Tom Parent stated that in the case of a board needing to oversee one of its own projects they would need to recuse themselves. ?? Jack Hornor stated he disagreed with Tom Parent. The grantee would still need to certify the work completed. ?? George Kohout stated that still the CPC would double check. ?? Bruce Young questioned whether the CPC would want to accept the HC’s determination of regarding preservation restrictions. He warned there could be tension if the CPC went against an HC recommendation but then still expected the HC to monitor the project. ?? Jack Hornor outlined the preservation restriction categories. Jack Hornor questioned wording regarding returned of funds for inappropriate actions taken. He felt this seems too strict in wording and recommended flexibility in such situations. ?? Jack Hornor stated his opinion regarding MOAs. His belief is that the intent is to preserve collections, not specific individual items. Therefore, he recommends the CPC approve the collections policy of an applicant beforehand rather than needing to monitor each item sold later. ?? Don Bianchi stated the ultimate sanction against a grantee recouping of funds. It is the best leverage and therefore the wording should remain. HISTORIC COMMISSION PARTNERSHIP PROPOSAL ?? Jack Hornor presented the letter from the Historic Commission dated July 29, 2008 regarding a proposed partnership between the HC and CPC (see Attachment 2 below). ?? Jack Hornor queried the CPC how they felt regarding the offer of the HC to conduct a workshop for prospective applicants once each year. ?? Tom Parent stated he would love to have others do this, but he is concerned it may make the process longer for applicants. ?? Jack Hornor stated it is merely a workshop that applicants may or may not attend as they see fit. ?? Mason Maronn questioned whether the CPC should add to the CPA Plan or leave separate. ?? Jack Hornor stated it should be included in the plan. ?? Craig Della Penna stated he is not sure about workshop piece. The HC would conduct once a year; it is not tied specifically to the CPC. ?? Jack Hornor stated the CPC would just reference in the plan the workshop offered by the HC. We will not state a specific time schedule for conducting such. ?? Don Bianchi stated the proposal looks great to him; it is exactly what the CPC is looking 5 for. ?? Jack Hornor summarized the consensus of the CPC to accept the HC’s offer for technical assistance. CPC RESTRICTION GUIDELINES ?? Jack Hornor presented the draft CPC Restriction Guidelines (see Attachment 3 below). He explained the restrictions apply to all funding categories, not just historic preservation. He stated the CPA requires restriction on all projects. ?? George Kohout stated there is ambiguity between the terms acquisition and creation. Restrictions are dependant on that term, not blanket. The CPC needs guidance on this distinction. *** ?? Jack Hornor stated the CPA law has definitions. They are also included in the Northampton CPA Plan. He agreed there are different levels of projects and this gives us the flexibility needed. ?? Bruce Young clarified acquisition has the highest restriction, while others are lower. ?? Bruce Young stated MGL Chapter 184 contains terms for conservation, preservation, recreation and community housing. He questioned if the CPC should utilize those terms or its own. ?? Jack Hornor stated his preference for the CPC to use its own terms to define those categories. ?? Bruce Young stated that in his research he found very little guidance in defining the duration of a historic preservation restriction. He suggests using 20 years as the minimum restriction. He stated it is easier for the applicant if we have a number there ahead of time so they know what they are getting into. He also stated it is possible to make the timeline dependant on the dollar value, but he does not recommend doing that. ?? Bruce Young stated he could put sample restrictions in as an appendix. He stated there is a need for examples so applicants could understand scope. ?? Mason Maronn agreed this would be appropriate for the appendix. For example wetlands protection act lacks examples and so applicants are left stranded. ?? Craig Della Penna stated that would be valuable at this point. No one else has done this. ?? George Kohout stated these are generic examples. Perhaps include URL for specific examples. ?? Jack Hornor stated model preservation restrictions are too limited. This is better. ?? Bruce Young stated the models don’t cover mortgages or MOAs. If we do models for top level only (HPR) then many applicants would be scared away. Bruce Young also stated City Council must approve MOAs, mortgages or deeds, etc. ?? Jack Hornor suggested the CPC make suggestions of scope, and then let staff correct the proposal. ?? George Kohout stated this a is resource document, not final conditions. He could accept this as draft one. Fran Volkmann and Lily Lombard should have some say later on. This could be available for Round 3 applicants as we move through versions. ?? Jack Hornor stated he is not comfortable with temporary draft approval. He suggested working on second draft. The CPC could offer guidance without posting this draft. ?? Mason Maronn agreed with Jack Hornor. He is not ready to vote. 6 ?? Bruce Young stated he needs strict guidance though to move forward. Are these restrictions deemed appropriate? ?? Jack Hornor recommended adding a paragraph at beginning to give context and intent. He stated the intent is to define or promote preservation over restriction. The CPC is looking for preservation guarantees and this defines such. ?? George Kohout stated this puts a positive spin on restrictions. ?? Jack Hornor queried the CPC is they agreed all acquisitions, creation, preservation, and rehabilitation ought to require some preservation restriction. All agree. ?? Bruce Young requested the CPC please change the term preservation though. ?? Jack Hornor queried if the CPC wants to require a 20-year minimum. ?? George Kohout stated he wants to see more examples. Does it fit all our current projects? Perhaps 10-year minimum is more appropriate. ?? Jack Hornor stated Florence Civic only question right now. ?? George Kohout questioned the status of the Sheldon Field restriction. ?? Jack Hornor stated all conditions could be reconsidered and changed. There is recourse. ?? Craig Della Penna stated the term is a line in the sand. ?? Jack Hornor questioned what would Historic Commission say. ?? Craig Della Penna stated paint jobs are only good for ten years. Perhaps use pro-rating unless you are trying to change complexion of projects before us. ?? George Kohout stated this is more about guaranteeing land/structure use, not specifics of the project. ?? Jack Hornor stated though that examples pertain specifically to the property, not use. ?? Mason Maronn suggested stating a certain minimum number based on project. ?? Bruce Young stated the need for a long-term minimum in order to avoid comparison of project. The term varies by CPC; it is up to you all. ?? Craig Della Penna stated a 20-year minimum is good rule of thumb. ?? Tom Parent agreed with Mason Maronn. The CPC must reserve the right to do less. ?? Jack Hornor stated it is not unreasonable to add wording to allow for flexibility. ?? Craig Della Penna suggested using “committee reserves right to…” ?? George Kohout stated applicants would need to know up front. He agrees with Bruce Young. ?? Jack Hornor agreed to add that wording. ?? Tom Parent suggested adding a paragraph at beginning referencing the applicable laws so applicants know this is not the CPC requiring. ?? Jack Hornor stated the law only requires for acquisition, not others. ?? George Kohout requested staff put draft numbers and watermarks on all documents. FLORENCE CIVIC CENTER, PRESERVATION RESTRICTION PROPOSAL Jack Hornor stated he is not comfortable inviting Florence Civic back for the next meeting. CPC work on preservation restrictions must progress further first. Mason Maronn also stated the need for Florence Civic to clarify its collection. 7. WORK ON DEVELOPING MODEL GRANT AGREEMENT 7 ?? Jack Hornor presented the sample grant agreement drafted by staff (see Attachment 4 below). ?? Jack Hornor queried the CPC regarding the inclusion of monitoring requirements in Section 5 - REPORTS. The consensus of the board was to strike the optional language and leave the onus of annual monitoring on the CPC, not the applicant. ?? Jack Hornor queried the CPC seeking their opinion regarding Section 10 – CPA AWARENESS. ?? Craig Della Penna stated the CPC must control its branding. Very important for continuity across projects. Perhaps base requirements on grant levels. ?? Tom Parent questioned if the requirements would also apply to grants based on written materials, not a physical building or object. ?? Jack Hornor stated this template is just a model. Some changes would be made on a case- by-case basis. However, all projects are required to reference the CPC funding even if only in written materials. ?? Mason Maronn suggested financing awareness signage out of CPC administrative funds, not requiring the applicant to finance. ?? George Kouhout agreed with Mason Maronn and also suggested the CPC create its own signage templates in order to facilitate continuity across projects. ?? The consensus of the group is to agree with Mason Maronn and George Kohout. ?? Jack Hornor stated Section 6 – RESTRICTIONS would need to be re-written pending the outcome of the preservation restrictions discussion. Approval of the document is tabled to a future meeting. 8. WORK ON DEVELOPING COMMITTEE BY-LAWS & RULES OF PROCEDURE ?? Jack Hornor tabled discussion to August 20, 2008 meeting. Upon motion by George Kohout, seconded by Mason Maronn, all agreed to adjourn meeting at 9:47 pm. Respectfully submitted on August 8, 2008, John Frey, Community Preservation Planner 8 ATTACHMENT 1 – Historic Commission, Preservation Restriction Policies Peg Keller, Senior Planner Office of Planning and Development City of Northampton 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 (413) 587-1288 telephone (413) 587-1264 fax pkeller@northamptonma.gov TO: Jack Hornor, Chair Community Preservation Committee & Bruce Young, Planner FROM: Peg Keller RE: Historic Preservation Restrictions/CPA Projects DATE: July 23, 2008 At a special work session of the Northampton Historical Commission (referred to herein as the NHC) held last evening, the following recommendations were made relative to preservation restrictions for Historic Resources CPA project applications and application protocol. The Commission differentiated between physical projects (i.e. building acquisition, renovation) vs. programmatic projects (i.e. archival efforts). Application Protocol Potential applicants shall be required to attend a regularly scheduled Historical ?? Commission meeting to ascertain project eligibility prior to submitting a final application to the Community Preservation Committee (CPC). The Commission will send a letter to the CPC stating whether or not the project meets either of the two mandated criteria for CPA funding. 9 At that meeting, applicants will be made aware of the historic preservation ?? restriction or Memorandum of Agreement that will be required as a condition of receiving CPA funding. Sample models can be provided, but the Historic Commission reserves the right ?? to determine restriction applicability on a case-by-case basis. Physical projects occurring in local historic districts (only Elm Street currently) ?? will be required to come to the NHC for initial eligibility, then referred to the local historic district commission for actual project review and permitting, prior to applying to the CPC. (This will insure that the CPA funding will not be awarded to a project that is not likely to move forward). Schematic designs for projects not in a local historic district shall be presented to ?? the NHC for their review and recommendation prior to applying to the CPC. If funded, final designs (construction drawings, etc.) will then be prepared for submission to the Building Commissioner’s Office. (This avoids having the applicant expend funds for the production of final plans prior to knowing if they will receive funding or not). Commission is willing to be a party to/holder of the Restrictions (in conjunction ?? with the City) and will conduct inspection activities as necessary to monitor compliance. Historic Preservation Restrictions The Commission differentiated between applications from the municipality, from non- profit/quasi-public organizations and private entities. Members expressed a desire to prioritize the use of these public funds for municipal and non-profit applicants, before awards to private parties. Municipal/Non-Profit Physical Project Applications Preservation Restriction – cover the building interior, exterior, site and ?? environment Activities to be reviewed by the NHC: maintenance, alterations, moving and ?? demolition Duration: in perpetuity ?? Any amount of funding awarded for exterior work brings the entire building, ?? site, etc. into the restriction purview Rehabilitation will be done according to the National Park Service, U.S. ?? Department of the Interior’s “Standards for Rehabilitation”. Maintenance will be done according to the National Park Service, U.S. ?? Department of the Interior’s “Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties”. 10 Funding award amount to be returned if inappropriate action taken ?? Parties to Agreement/ City and NHC; Massachusetts Historical Commission ?? Municipal/Non-Profit Programmatic Project Applications Memorandum of Agreement – stating that no items funded for ?? preservation/protection may be sold or transferred to another entity unless reviewed by the NHC If and when artifacts are no longer desired/needed or to be retained, that they be ?? transferred so as to remain in the public domain Reasonable Public Access required ?? Funding award amount returned if inappropriate action taken ?? Parties to Agreement/ City and NHC; Massachusetts Historical Commission ?? Private Applicants for Physical Projects Preservation Restriction – covers exterior and other historically significant ?? elements Duration – in perpetuity, giving NHC ability to review alterations over time ?? could be reduced on case-by-case analysis, relative to scale of project and o amount of funding awarded Funding award amount returned if inappropriate action taken ?? Rehabilitation and maintenance activities to meet the National Park Service U.S. ?? Department of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation and Treatment of Historic Properties Parties to Agreement/ City/ NHC and the owner; Massachusetts Historical ?? Commission Private Applicants for Programmatic Projects Memorandum of Agreement – stating that no items funded for ?? preservation/protection may be sold or transferred unless reviewed by the NHC If and when artifacts are no longer desired/needed or to be retained, that they be ?? transferred to the public domain Reasonable Public Access required ?? Funding award amount returned if inappropriate action taken ?? Parties to Agreement/ City/ NHC and the owner; Massachusetts Historical ?? Commission Peg Keller Staff to the Historical Commission 11 ATTACHMENT 2 – Historic Commission Partnership Proposal Office of Planning and Development City of Northampton City Hall, 210 Main Street Northampton, MA 01060 (413) 587-1288 telephone (413) 587-1264 fax pkeller@northamptonma.gov TO: Jack Hornor, Chair, Community Preservation Committee Bruce Young, Planner FROM: Peg Keller, Housing and Community Development Planner RE: Northampton Historical Commission Addition to CPA application protocol DATE: July 29, 2008 At the regularly scheduled meeting of the Northampton Historical Commission held last evening, the Commission members committed to: Conduct a workshop, at the beginning of each year for the community at large to: Present information on the basic principles of historic preservation (physical ?? building projects and archival projects) Show a power point presentation (to be created) depicting appropriate vs. ?? inappropriate historic preservation treatments Discuss the CPC application process and what information is required ?? (i.e. the two criteria that must be met, historic preservation restrictions, memorandum of agreements) In addition, the NHC is willing to meet with potential applicants informally (via a sub-committee) prior to formal submission to discuss project ideas. This offer of technical assistance could be put into the CPC’s official documents. The informal session would then be followed by the more formal one at which eligibility and support would be deliberated and voted on. Thank you. Please let me know if you would like the Commission to proceed. 12 ATTACHMENT 3 – CPC Restriction Guidelines Restrictions on Community Preservation Act Projects: Acquisition (Open Space, Historic Resources, Recreation, Community Housing) An open space, historic resource, recreation or community housing real property interest that is purchased with monies from the Community Preservation Fund shall be bound by a permanent restriction that meets the requirements of chapter 184, limiting the use of the interest to the purpose for which it was acquired. The restriction shall run with the land and shall be enforceable by the city or town or the commonwealth. The restriction may also run to the benefit of a nonprofit, charitable corporation or foundation selected by the city or town with the right to enforce the restriction. Open space purchased under Article 97 of the Amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts may be exempted from additional Conservation Restrictions. Creation (Open Space, Recreation, Community Housing) Open space, recreation or community housing projects that are created with the use of monies from the Community Preservation Fund shall be bound by a restriction deemed appropriate by the Community Preservation Committee. Preservation (Open Space, Historic Resources, Recreation, Community Housing) Open space, historic resource, recreation or community housing projects that are preserved with monies from the Community Preservation Fund shall be bound by a restriction deemed appropriate by the Community Preservation Committee. Rehabilitation/Restoration (Open Space, Historic Resources, Recreation, Community Housing) Open space, historic resource, recreation or community housing projects that are rehabilitated/restored with monies from the Community Preservation Fund shall be bound by a restriction deemed appropriate by the Community Preservation Committee. *Note- Open Space, Recreation and Community Housing rehabilitation/restoration projects are only allowed if they were acquired or created using Community Preservation Act funds. Definition of Restriction: 13 For the purposes of the Northampton Community Preservation Committee, a restriction means a right, for a minimum of twenty-years, whether or not stated in the form of a restriction, easement, covenant or condition, in any deed, will or other instrument executed by or on behalf of the owner of the land or in any order of taking, appropriate for the protection of conservation, preservation, recreation or community housing. Restriction Management: Real property interests acquired shall be owned and managed by the city of Northampton, but the legislative body may delegate management of such property to the conservation commission, the historical commission, the board of park commissioners or the housing authority, or, in the case of interests to acquire sites for future wellhead development by a water district, a water supply district or a fire district. The legislative body may also delegate management of such property to a nonprofit organization created under chapter 180 or chapter 203. The Community Preservation Committee shall review annual reports for all real property interests acquired. All other restrictions shall be held by the City of Northampton and managed by the Community Preservation Committee. Examples of Perpetual and Temporary Restrictions: *The following is a list of examples of restrictions and is not a conclusive list of all restrictions that may be approved by the Community Preservation Committee. **Applicants may need to obtain legal advice prior to acceptance of a restriction. Conservation Restriction-(Perpetual): A Conservation Restriction means a right in perpetuity executed by or on behalf of the owner of the land or in any order of taking, appropriate to retaining land or water areas predominantly in their natural, scenic or open condition or in agricultural, farming or forest use, to permit public recreational use, or to forbid or limit any or all (a) construction or placing of buildings, roads, signs, billboards or other advertising, utilities or other structures on or above the ground, (b) dumping or placing of soil or other substance or material as landfill, or dumping or placing of trash, waste or unsightly or offensive materials, (c) removal or destruction of trees, shrubs or other vegetation, (d) excavation, dredging or removal of loam, peat, gravel, soil, rock or other 14 mineral substance in such manner as to affect the surface, (e) surface use except for agricultural, farming, forest or outdoor recreational purposes or purposes permitting the land or water area to remain predominantly in its natural condition, (f) activities detrimental to drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion control or soil conservation, or (g) other acts or uses detrimental to such retention of land or water areas. The secretary of environmental affairs must approve a Conservation Restriction. Affordable Housing Restriction-(Perpetual): An Affordable Housing Restriction means a right in perpetuity executed by or on behalf of the owner of the land appropriate to (a) limiting the use of all or part of the land to occupancy by persons, or families of low or moderate income in either rental housing or other housing or (b) restricting the resale price of all or part of the property in order to assure its affordability by future low and moderate income purchasers or (c) in any way limiting or restricting the use or enjoyment of all or any portion of the land for the purpose of encouraging or assuring creation or retention of rental and other housing for occupancy by low and moderate income persons and families. Without in any way limiting the scope of the foregoing definition, any restriction, easement, covenant or condition placed in any deed, mortgage, will, agreement or other instrument pursuant to the requirements of the Rental Housing Development Action Loan program or the Housing Innovations Fund program established pursuant to section three of chapter two hundred and twenty-six of the acts of nineteen hundred and eighty-seven or pursuant to the requirements of any program established by the Massachusetts housing partnership fund board established pursuant to chapter four hundred and five of the acts of nineteen hundred and eighty-five, including without limitation the Homeownership Opportunity Program, or pursuant to the requirements of sections twenty-five to twenty-seven, inclusive, of chapter twenty-three B, or pursuant to the requirements of any regulations or guidelines promulgated pursuant to any of the foregoing, shall be deemed to be an affordable housing restriction within the meaning of this paragraph. The Massachusetts director of housing and community development must approve an Affordable Housing Restriction. Historic Preservation Restriction-(Perpetual): A Historic Preservation Restriction means a right in perpetuity executed by or on behalf of the owner of the land or in any order of taking, appropriate to preservation of a structure or site historically significant for its architecture, archeology or associations, to forbid or limit any or all (a) alterations in exterior or interior features of the structure, (b) changes in appearance or condition of the site, (c) uses not historically appropriate, 15 (d) field investigation, as defined in section twenty-six A of chapter nine, without a permit as provided by section twenty-seven C of said chapter, or (e) other acts or uses detrimental to appropriate preservation of the structure or site. The Massachusetts historical commission must approve a Historic Preservation Restriction. Deed Restriction-(Temporary-Minimum of Twenty Years): Deed restrictions are restrictions on the deed that place limitations on the use of the property. deed restriction may run with a property for no more than thirty years. A However, a deed restriction may be extended if it is written to allow the holder of the restriction to re-record it prior to its expiration. The Northampton Community Preservation Committee and the Northampton City Council must approve all deed restrictions. Memorandum of Agreement-(Temporary-Minimum of Twenty Years): A memorandum of agreement (MOA) or cooperative agreement is a document written between parties to cooperatively work together on an agreed upon project or meet an agreed upon objective. The purpose of an MOA is to have a written understanding of the agreement between parties. The MOA can also be a legal document that is binding and hold the parties responsible to their commitment or just a partnership agreement. The Northampton Community Preservation Committee and the Northampton City Council must approve all Memorandums of Agreement. Mortgage-(Temporary-Minimum of Twenty Years): A temporary, conditional pledge of property to a creditor as security for performance of an obligation or repayment of a debt. The Northampton Community Preservation Committee and the Northampton City Council must approve all mortgage agreements. 16 ATTACHMENT 4 – CPC Grant Agreement City of Northampton Community Preservation Committee Grant Agreement This Grant Agreement is made this _________day of ______________,200__ ,by and between the City of Northampton, through its Community Preservation Committee (hereinafter "Northampton CPC") with an address of 210 Main Street, City Hall, Northampton, MA 01060 and [recipient] (hereinafter "Recipient") with an address of [ ], Northampton, MA, [zip]. The purpose of this Grant Agreement is to implement the following grant award: Project Name: Project Description: Project Location: Date of City Council Execution of Final Appropriation: This Grant Award is subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. Award. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, the City of Northampton agrees to award the [spell out words and numbers] Recipient the amount of in for the above referenced project. 2. Project Application. The Project Application submitted to the Northampton CPC, as may be amended by conditions of the CPC upon award, is incorporated into this Grant Agreement by reference. 3. Term. The term of this Grant Award is _____________ (___) years from the date of the City's execution of this Grant Agreement (the "Commencement Date.") All of the work described in this Grant Agreement must be completed no later than five-years after the Commencement Date (the "Completion Date"), unless the Northampton CPC grants an extension for good cause shown. Funds not utilized on the Project must be returned to the Community Preservation Fund Reserve and will made available for future appropriation to other recipients. 17 4. Budget; Other Sources of Funding. Prior to the commencement of the work, the Recipient, must submit a complete project budget that accounts for (1) the expenditure of all funds awarded under this Grant Agreement; and (2) all other sources of funding, if necessary, to complete the project as described herein. Recipient shall not expend any grant funds until the Northampton CPC has approved the project budget. If the Northampton CPC determines that fundshave been spent on goods or services not included in the project budget or otherwise not authorized under the CPA, the Recipient shall be responsible for repayment of such funds to the CPA Fund. 5. Reports. Every six months until the Completion Date, the Recipient shall provide the Northampton CPC with a written update on the progress toward completion of the work. A Final Report, including digital photo-documentation of the project where appropriate, is due with 30 days after the Completion Date. The Final Report shall be to the satisfaction of the Northampton CPC, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. OPTIONAL-An annual report shall be submitted to the Community Preservation Committee by st July 1 of each year. Annual report requirements can be obtained in the Community Preservation Plan. All documents, including but not limited to photographs, videos, etc. submitted to the Northampton CPC shall become the property of the City of Northampton and shall be available for use by the City and available to the public under the Massachusetts Public Records Law. 6. Restrictions. Projects funded through the Community Preservation Act project shall be c. subject to restrictions on the property that meet the requirements of M.G.L. 184, limiting the use of the interest to the purpose of the funding. Where applicable, Recipient agrees to the imposition of such restrictions in a form acceptable to the Northampton CPC. 7. Compliance with Laws and Agreement. Recipient understands and agrees that projects funded through this Award are made pursuant to and must comply with the requirements of the . Community Preservation Act, M.G.L. c. 44BRecipient also agrees to comply with all requirements of this Grant Agreement. 8. Permits and Licenses. It is the obligation of Recipient to obtain all permits and licenses necessary for implementation of the Project. The award of this Grant waives no local permit or license. 9. No Liability of City. By making this award, the City does not accept any liability whatsoever for any acts, omissions or errors associated with the Project. Recipient agrees to indemnify and defend the City from all claims, suits or demands resulting from implementation of the Project. 10. Community Preservation Act Awareness. Prior to beginning work on this project, Recipient agrees to post, in an appropriate location mutually acceptable to the parties, a sign stating, "This 18 project funded in part by the citizens of Northampton through the Community Preservation Act." Recipient shall also identify that the Project was funded through the City of Northampton Community Preservation Act in its written materials about the Project, including press releases, brochures, etc. 11. No Assignment. Recipient may not assign this Grant Agreement without prior written agreement by the City of Northampton. 12. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties hereto, and may be amended only in writing executed by both the City of Northampton and the Recipient. Signatory below acknowledges and avers that he/she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of Recipient. Executed as of the date set forth above: The City of Northampton, [Recipient's Full Name] _________________________________ ________________________________ Mayor _________________________________ Chair, Northampton CPC As to Form: _________________________________ City Solicitor 19