Loading...
Agenda and Minutes 2008-11-19 City of Northampton Community Preservation Committee 210 Main Street, City Hall Northampton, MA 01060 Community Preservation Committee Agenda DATE: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 TIME: 7:00 PM PLACE: JFK Middle School, Room 112 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 ? Acceptance of 11/5 minutes ? Chair's Report – Discussion of spending cap ? Discussion of amendment to the First Churches Grant Agreement ? Discussion of Bruce Young’s role in the application review process ? Review of Round Three applications (the intent is to do as much review as possible at ? this meeting -Initial Discussion -Rankings -Further Discussion -Recommendations 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, November 19, 2008 Time: 7:00 pm Place: JFK Middle School, Room 112 Members Present: Jack Hornor, George Kohout, Tom Parent, Fran Volkmann, Don Bianchi, John Andrulis, Lilly Lombard, and Craig Della Penna (7:30pm to 9:00pm) Staff Present: Bruce Young, Community Preservation Planner John Frey, Community Preservation Planner Jack Hornor opened the public meeting at 7:06pm. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT ?? Wayne Feiden, Director of the Office of Planning & Development and the applicant for the Sawmill Hills Project announced the project had received the anticipated State LAND Fund grant. Therefore, he respectfully withdrew their application for further CPC funding. ?? Mason Maronn announced his formal resignation from the CPC. He stated his attendance was sporadic and it would be unfair to the CPC to continue. He continued saying it was great working with you all, and it was a wonderful experience to actually begin a committee. Thanks for the experience. ?? Paulette Kuzdeba, Senior Environmental Planner for the DPW stated she wrote a letter in support of the Marblebrook project. She stated unrestricted public access spreads invasive plants. The land is a core habitat area with endangered species. They feel public access should not be allowed. Also, this is the city’s secondary water supply. It is very crucial to protect watershed. Once given it is hard to take back public access. Twelve monitored hikes per year would be fine, but no unrestricted access. BPW has an interest in holding the CR. ?? Adele Franks of the Nonotuck Land Fund stated they would modify the application request to remove $33,600 for the CR Stewardship. ?? Bruce Young asked if the BPW would waive the monitoring fee. ?? Paulette Kuzdeba stated yes, because the DPW already monitors watershed land. ?? Bruce Young (speaking as a member of the public) stated he has a tremendous amount of respect for Paulette Kuzdeba and the Nonotuck Land Fund. He too, would prefer to see the Marblebrook land protected. However, he has a couple concerns with the acquisition proposal. First, the dollar amount per acre is well above standard value for such a purchase. Secondly, he believes the public access concerns are exaggerated. And finally, 2 if the BPW is willing to accept the CR without stewardship funding it is his role as a city employee to say this is not sustainable without funding. ?? Paulette Kuzdeba rebutted saying the BPW inherited duties of water commissioner. We have over 4,000 acres of land currently being monitored and sustained. That is part of our role. We have right to walk watershed land at any time to monitor land. This is already a funded position. ?? Bruce Young stated he is simply planning for the long-term. ?? Jack Hornor introduced and welcomed Downey Meyer to the CPC as the new proposed representative for the Conservation Commission. His status is pending City Council approval. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ?? Jack Hornor presented the minutes of November 5, 2008 meeting for approval. ?? Jack Hornor suggested a minor correction. ?? George Kohout suggested a minor correction. ?? Upon motion by Lilly Lombard, seconded by Tom Parent all voted in favor of approving the minutes. 3. DISCUSSION REGARDING ROLE OF BRUCE YOUNG IN APPLICATION REVIEW ?? George Kohout stated this discussion arose from a possible conflict of interest for CPC members belonging to the applicant groups. Most often public board members go by litmus test of financial benefit, if nothing gained then no conflict of interest, though CPC is sometimes more stringent. Those who campaigned for the CPA in Northampton did so wanting limited City input. The CPC once thought to hire non-city administrative assistance, but decided it is more effective to use the Planning Department. Bruce Young was hired but also works half time staffing the Conservation Commission. This presents a precarious position for the CPC. ?? Tom Parent stated he does not have the same concerns. Bruce Young is not a voting member; rather, he is staff. He appreciates what Bruce Young says as a professional, but he is wise enough to then make his own decisions. He would not like to lose that input. ?? Fran Volkmann stated the CPC procedures in place are good and need to be the same for all applicants. We get advice on individual applications from relevant boards and committees on an as needed basis. She does not want any applications to have a special road to the CPC. Bruce Young has enormous background and expertise. Most of his input is broad-based. Only if Bruce Young’s input is focused on garnering CPC support for some projects (such as OPD projects) over other projects (such as the NLF or other non- city projects) is there a problem. ?? Lilly Lombard stated Bruce Young does not present a strict conflict of interest. But there is a dilemma. For instance with the Nonotuck Land Fund application, the OPD wanted to 3 price out the stewardship of the CR. By asking Bruce Young to investigate this it did present a conflict of interest. The OPD view on this application is not brought transparently. ?? Jack Hornor stated that, in general, he is in favor of seeking more information. It is often helpful. He has faith in CPC members to weigh the information wisely. Secondly, now all Bruce Young writes or says will be viewed with greater scrutiny than before, but that is all right. He is not in favor of CPC barring Bruce Young from commenting. He does not want to distinguish factual and evaluative comments. Bruce Young staffs the Conservation Commission three days a week. He reports to the CPC for the other two days. He encourages CPC members to make up their own minds as to Bruce Young’s input. ?? Don Bianchi stated his only concern is in the initial pre-application process. ?? Jack Hornor stated there should be no concern as it is the chair’s responsibility and he is the sole decision maker for pre-application approval. ?? Jack Hornor if there is no motion then the CPC will move on as before. ?? George Kohout presented another scenario. Often we ask multi-application applicants to rank their priority lists. Not a problem coming directly from Downey Meyer as Conservation Commission representative. However, it seems different coming from Bruce Young as a staff member. It carries more weight. For instance, on the Planning Board staff comments are very crucial. ?? Jack Hornor stated he agrees. ?? Craig Della Penna stated Bruce Young is a professional. Personal feelings are not part of the equation. ?? George Kohout stated it is important for Bruce Young not to present the OPD or Conservation Commission applications. ?? Fran Volkmann stated she received a call from a citizen stating she feels this is a conflict for Bruce Young in this case for the OPD versus the NLF. ?? Lilly Lombard stated a mid-way point could be that Bruce Young respond only to questions from the CPC. Not to make comments. ?? Jack Hornor stated that is not acceptable to him. ?? Lilly Lombard stated we are a unique board. We receive applications directly from the OPD. It is not an issue from other boards. ?? Don Bianchi stated it is possible to make progress without formal action. Vetting the issue helps the CPC move forward. ?? Fran Volkmann stated the place where the CPC must be most careful is in conflict of interest with the OPD applications. ?? With no further comment Jack Hornor closed the discussion. 4. CHAIR’S REPORT DISCUSSION OF SPENDING CAP FOR 2008 ROUND 3 ?? John Frey presented the available fund balance, including forecasted funds for 2009 Round 1. ?? Jack Hornor stated the expected state match for 2009 is only 35%. 4 ?? Don Bianchi stated the CPC would roughly have 90k per month average in 2009. That is about $540,000 per round. Again, we have gained insight and do not need to make a formal decision. 5. DISUSSION REGARDING FIRST CHURCHES GRANT AGREEMENT ?? Jack Hornor stated the CPC required a Historic Preservation Restriction in the original First Churches Grant Agreement. Mass Historic is not in position to timely grant the HPR. The Coalition acknowledges this is a problem, but it could take a year to fix. The Coalition advises the CPC to change the grant agreement to not require the HPR. First Churches has had to borrow the money while waiting for their CPC grant. ?? Bruce Young presented the original grant agreement and showed language used for current agreements. He advises the CPC to present a new grant agreement for City Council approval. ?? Jack Hornor stated this proposal does not relinquish the requirement for a preservation restriction. Rather, it just releases money with terms to be met later. ?? Upon motion by Fran Volkmann, seconded by Tom Parent, all voted in favor of the proposal. 6. REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS CONSERVATION COMMISSION CONSERVATION FUND ?? Tom Parent stated that project makes sense but being short of funds makes him feel it can’t be fully funded. He suggested that perhaps the soft costs could be funded. ?? Don Bianchi stated that the concept is sound, but his initial thought was to fund at lower amount. ?? Fran Volkmann agrees. ?? Lilly Lombard has problems with hard costs, but is willing to fund soft costs. She wants CPC to maintain its role in evaluating projects. ?? Jack Hornor expressed some issues with these funds. His principle concern is that the CPC generally funds projects, not funds. He would like answers to questions about oversite. ?? John Andrulis agrees that loss of oversight is troublesome. DAR HISTORIC PRESERVATION ?? The CPC consensus is in favor. FITZGERALD LAKE OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION ?? The CPC consensus is in favor. ?? George Kohout stated that they are a capable group and that this is a good use of money. NONOTUCK LAND FUND OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION ?? Lilly Lombard fully supports this application. Her only question is what exactly are they requesting. 5 ?? Tom Parent stated that this must go into tier two of the rankings, because the CPC needs to discuss conditions. ?? George Kohout rebutted that they can basically tell us now: they are asking for 85% of $141,720. There are also questions regarding public access. What if CPC asks for more access? Will BPW still steward? ?? Paulette Kuzdeba stated that the BPW would view it as water protection. ?? Jack Hornor asked what the landowner would say if we asked that. ?? Adele Franks stated that they haven’t asked that, and so she doesn’t know. She stated that at that point we would need to re-negotiate. ?? Don Bianchi stated there are many reasons to fund. First, he believes it is an appropriate value; he is comfortable with the applicant’s figures. Second, the Conservation Commission is fine with the value as long as access is permitted. He stated that they seem to be close in understanding. Third, he stated that a forestry plan must be in place. The conditions are not deal killers; they just need to be discussed. ?? Adele Franks stated that all CRs require a forestry plan. The Conservation Commission will need to weigh in. The current owner logs approximately every 9-10 years. ?? Downey Meyer, Conservation Commission representative stated his concern that the forest stewardship plan not just be a forest cutting plan. He stated that this is an important legal distinction. ?? Jack Hornor stated that the CPC would look to boards for guidance. He remarked that two boards are in conflict, especially over access. ?? Don Bianchi stated that the key word is guidance, and that it is up to the CPC to assess. ?? Tom Parent asked if it is the choice of the CPC as to who holds the CR? ?? Jack Hornor responded yes, that the CPC could condition approval. ?? Fran Volkmann stated that the key issue is to preserve the open space, and that the CPC can do that with or without public access. She stated that it is generally seen as good to allow access. She further stated that given this is taxpayer money, we shouldn’t have to pay for monitoring. RECREATION COMMISSION FEASIBILITY STUDY ?? Lilly Lombard stated that the CPC plan caps feasibility studies at $25,000. ?? Tom Parent responded that this is good point but we didn’t know how much this would cost. $40,000 seems to be the needed figure. This is likely to go out to bid in springtime. VALLEY CDC FORECLOSURE RESCUE FUND ?? Don Bianchi stated that this application is as important and compelling as any need this round. He believes that the issue around eligibility could be easily resolved. There is a question of benefiting ongoing affordable housing stock. He suggested a third condition that any funds recaptured be put in a fund to benefit affordable housing primarily below 80%, with long-term affordability. ?? John Andrulis stated his opposition to giving money to a group to spend as they see fit. He stated that this fund does not create housing, and that it only concerns ownership. ?? Michelle Morris stated that lenders tend to have housing sitting vacant and they lose value quickly. Recaptured funds could be returned to CPC. Many owners simply lost jobs, not had bad loans, but many others were subject to bait and switch loans. 6 ?? Tom Parent queried whether $7,500 is enough to save these homes. ?? Michelle Morris responded that that is why we have the recapture provision. There is no risk for the CPC. She also stated that Valley CDC is renegotiating these loans so the terms should change. ?? Don Bianchi disagrees with John Andrulis. He commented that foreclosure has dramatically increased; that it is not just a result of bad decisions, but that there are a variety of reasons including sub-prime loans; and that foreclosure is a community problem, not just an individual problem, in that it has an impact on values, crime and tax revenues. ?? Fran Volkmann first spoke on behalf of two citizens opposed to project. She then stated her belief that that there is a very clear public benefit with this project, in that it prevents people from moving back to low-level rental property or possibly homelessness. She stated her belief that regardless of the decisions the individual homeowners make, the project is still a benefit to community. She expressed that we get a bang for our buck in keeping people in their homes. ?? Jack Hornor stated that the CPC has leeway here; DOR is not regulating this area. VALLEY CDC KING STREET & MAPLE STREET SRO COMMUNITY HOUSING ?? Tom Parent stated that $263,000 per unit seems very high. ?? Jack Hornor stated that Joanne Campbell has sent a letter explaining the high costs, and that it is the standard for SRO housing. ?? Tom Parent stated that it seems like a better location could be found with more space. ?? Jack Hornor responded that this project is highly leveraged. The location on King St. is understood to be a prime location for SRO housing as it is located near services. Jack Horner stated that he is most concerned about the overall CPC budget. ?? John Andrulis is strongly in favor of this project, as it provides actual housing and it is focused on the poorest citizens. ?? Don Bianchi agreed with Tom Parent that it is expensive per unit, and that this is most usual for these projects. He is most concerned about the feasibility of this project going forward. He favors conditioning disbursement of a significant portion of the money on its going forward to limit the City’s exposure. ?? George Kohout stated that the applicant indicated that the Maple St. project is ranked ahead of the King St. project. ?? Bruce Young stated that since the applicant has done due diligence, its opinion may have changed. ?? Jack Hornor stated that Joanne Campbell stated that they are working on zoning problems. He also stated that King St. does add units not already supplied by the current affordable housing stock. ?? Fran Volkmann stated that SRO housing is losing ground in Northampton, and that it is very important to try to fund both projects. She agrees that it is very expensive, but countered that the CPC is only funding a small portion, and so this is the CPC’s best leveraging opportunity. She stated that other municipalities would receive this money if we don’t. She is not prepared to give up on either project. 7 ?? Don Bianchi stated that it would be problematic to give this much to housing each round, but that he believes that these two projects rank highly, and noted that in the first two CPC rounds housing constituted only about 20% of the funds awarded. ?? Tom Parent would like more information regarding the status of the applications. He inquired whether they will they fall through again. ?? Don Bianchi stated that it is important to fund this now because timing may not work later. He stated that we could solve the problems by conditioning the grant agreement. ?? George Kohout stated that he has a problem with the costs. ?? Don Bianchi responded that you could argue the value of housing projects that have such a high cost to develop relative to other proposed projects, but that the cost of the project is consistent with what it costs to develop such affordable housing. ?? Fran Volkmann stated that by funding these projects, it buys affordability, and that adds costs. VALLEY CDC PREDEVELOPMENT FUND ?? Jack Hornor stated that the Housing Partnership strongly supports this project. Jack is in favor of approving $25,000 for now to get this started. The CPC can condition this to our liking; Housing Partnership is willing to accept conditions. DAVID RUGGLES CENTER HISTORIC PRESERVATION ?? Don Bianchi stated that the community benefit and feasibility of the project are two issues. He stated that the community benefit is very strong. He is concerned that the real estate deal may not work as a stand-alone project. He argued that the CPC may need to find a way to support it for pre-development for about $15,000-$18,000, and then let the applicant come back with complete plans. He stated his belief that this would not slow down the project, as they are not really ready. ?? Bruce Young stated that the application for zoning and Conservation Commission are incomplete and likely will not be ready until January. ?? Jack Hornor stated that this project had the best collection of truly original letters of recommendation. CPC members then ranked the projects (see Appendix A). The projects will be discussed in this ranking order at the December 3, 2008 meeting. 7. OTHER BUSINESS ?? None Meeting adjourned at 10:00 pm. Respectfully submitted on November 26, 2008, John Frey, Community Preservation Planner 8 APPENDIX A- 2008 Round 3 CPC Funding Recommendations Tier 1 - Projects ready to fully fund at this time. Tier 2 - Projects the member has some questions about or which she or he believes needs further discussion before voting on a funding recommendation. Placing a project in this tier will indicate neither support nor opposition. Tier 3 - Projects the member is not ready to recommend for funding at this time, for whatever reason he or she may have. Project Name Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Rank DAR Historic Preservation 8 0 0 1 Fitzgerald Lake-Open Space Preservation 7 1 0 2 Valley CDC Predevelopment Fund 6 1 1 3 Recreation Commission Feasibility Study 5 3 0 4 Valley CDC King Street SRO Community Housing 5 2 1 5 Valley CDC Foreclosure Rescue Fund 5 1 2 6 Valley CDC Maples SRO Community Housing 4 3 1 7 Nonotuck Land Fund Open Space Acquisition 3 5 0 8 David Ruggles Center Historic Preservation 1 7 0 9 Conservation Commission Conservation Fund 1 6 1 10 9