Loading...
Agenda and Minutes 2008-11-05a City of Northampton Community Preservation Committee 210 Main Street, City Hall Northampton, MA 01060 Community Preservation Committee Agenda DATE: Wednesday, November 5, 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 10/15 minutes ? Chair's Report ? Discussion of FCBA Preservation Guarantee ? Meeting with applicants ? 7:30 – Broad Brook Coalition 7:45 – Nonotuck Land Fund 8:15 – Recreation Commission 8:30 – Conservation Commission/OPD (two projects) Continue review of Community Preservation Plan revisions ?? Other Business ?? For additional information please refer to the Community Preservation Committee website: http://www.northamptonma.gov/gsuniverse/httpRoot/comm/ 1 MINUTES (REVISED) Community Preservation Committee Date: Wednesday, November 5, 2008 Time: 7:00 pm Place: 212 Main St., City Council Chambers Members Present: Jack Hornor, George Kohout, Tom Parent, Fran Volkmann, Don Bianchi, John Andrulis, Lilly Lombard, and Craig Della Penna Staff Present: Bruce Young, Community Preservation Planner John Frey, Community Preservation Planner Jack Hornor opened the public meeting at 7:05pm. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT ?? None 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ?? Jack Hornor presented the minutes of the October 1, 2008 meeting for approval. ?? Jack Hornor requested to change his statement on page 7 to read, “…took him by surprise”. ?? Upon motion by Tom Parent, seconded by Don Bianchi all voted in favor of approving the minutes (Lilly Lombard abstained). 3. CHAIR’S REPORT ?? None 4. DISCUSSION OF FCBA PRESERVATION GUARANTEE ?? Jack Hornor read the FCBA newsletter article regarding the CPC grant. He then described the sample Memorandum of Agreement. ?? Bruce Young stated the parties named in the agreement would be the CPC and the applicant directly. The purpose of the MOA is to guarantee the management of the collection, not the building. The collection needs to be defined. ?? Tom Parent questioned how to define value. ?? Lilly Lombard asked if the CPC is funding the collection or the building? ?? Jack Hornor stated the CPC is funding the building to support the collection. 2 ?? Bruce Young suggested the CPC add an amendment stating once FCBA catalog the full collection then us it to define collection in the MOA ?? George Kohout and Craig Della Penna both agree, reference what FCBA stated for collection in its application. ?? Bruce Young questioned the appropriate timeframe for the guarantee. ?? Tom Parent stated value will be difficult to define since most objects only have value to FCBA and the local community. ?? Fran Volkmann solve by saying “significant to preserve history of Florence” ?? Bruce Young stated this still does not provide enforcement. The CPC would be simply trusting FCBA. ?? Tom Parent stated regarding access of the collection to the public, the CPC should require no set hours, but require FCBA to publicize its availability. ?? George Kohout suggested using the availability language offered in their revised application. Strike minimum hours. ?? Jack Hornor queried regarding the agreement terms, what if FCBA goes out of business. ?? George Kohout suggested they bequeth the collection to CPC or its designee. ?? Fran Volkmann stated adding the terms “…as approved by Historic Commission. ?? Craig Della Penna stated working in partnership with Historic Commission would garner better terms. ?? Jack Hornor suggested changing the term “perpetuity” to “life of the FCBA”. ?? Fran Volkmann suggested changing terms to allow FCBA the possibility to change direction of its organization without needing to go out of business. ?? The CPC consensus was to move forward with this amended MOA. 7. OTHER BUSINESS CPC MEMBERSHIP IN APPLICANT GROUPS ?? Jack Hornor suggested it would be prudent for the CPC members to disclose memberships in applicant groups. ?? Bruce Young stated the conflict of interest law requires you to disclose membership if you belong to group that would receive an impact (not just financial). ?? Jack Hornor, Fran Volkmann, Lilly Lombard and George Kohout stated they are members of Broad Brook Coalition. Jack Hornor, Lilly Lombard and George Kohout stated they are members or past members of the Nonotuck Land Fund. George Kohout and Tom Parent stated they are members of the Recreation Committee programming. 5. MEETING WITH APPLICANTS BROAD BROOK COALITION ?? Jack Hornor welcomed members of the Broad Brook Coalition to discuss their grant application. ?? Bob Zimmerman, president of the Broad Brook Coalition spoke about removing invasive plants species at Fitzgerald Lake. ?? Fran Volkmann stated her site visit showed clear need to remove the invasive species. ?? George Kohout questioned if this is maintenance. 3 ?? Jack Hornor stated maintenance is ongoing work versus rehab, which is occasional work, not at fixed intervals. ?? Bruce Young stated this project also qualifies as preservation since it is protection against harm. ?? Tom Parent asked why they want to start now. ?? Bob Zimmerman stated it is good to do work while the lake is frozen. ?? Lilly Lombard stated the applicant is asking for 95% of the project costs. She questioned if there has been any effort to leverage funds. ?? Bob Zimmerman stated most BBC funds are designated for acquisition. There is reluctance by the board to use general funds for this work. The USDA funds for support. The BBC will supply significant volunteer labor but that figure is not accounted for in the budget. NONOTUCK LAND FUND ?? Jack Hornor welcomed members of the Nonotuck Land Fund to discuss their grant application. Jack Hornor also stated he contacted Conservation Commission seeking further guidance regarding their recommendation of this project. ?? Adele Franks, of the Nonotuck Land Fund described project. ?? Tom Parent asked if this land is developable. ?? Adele Franks stated there is currently no frontage but could be if abutters sold some of their frontage land. ?? George Kohout asked about public access to the land. ?? Adele Franks stated twelve public hikes per year would be permitted and publicized in the newspaper. ?? Craig Della Penna asked if the land is posted as no-trespassing otherwise. ?? Adele Franks answered yes. ?? Lilly Lombard asked if the current owner would be caretakers, why the $30,000 for city stewardship. ?? Adele Franks stated that amount is REQUESTED for baseline survey as well as walking the land annually. THE FUNDS WOULD BE ADDED TO A STEWARDSHIP ENDOWMENT, AND Interest (NOT PRINCIPLE [sic]) used to fund yearly walking. ?? BRUCE YOUNG WAS ASKED IF HE HAD ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT EXPLANATION. HE CONCURRED THAT IT HAD BEEN ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED. ?? Fran Volkmann stated Bruce Young’s role must be for answering factual questions only, not evaluative criteria. ?? Adele Franks stated the Conservation Committee’s letter seems straightforward. FOLLOWING THE AUGUST CONSCOMM MEETING THE NLF RESEARCHED THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPA FUNDS AND LEARNED THAT there is no requirement for public access IN FUNDING open space projects with CPA funds IF THERE ARE OTHER DEMONSTRABLE PUBLIC BENEFITS. FOR THIS PROJECT there are demonstrable benefits, AND unrestricted public access COULD IN FACT BE DETRIMENTAL [DELETE – In fact access could hurt the land]. 4 ?? Jack Hornor stated the word “support” does not appear in letter. This is quite different than usual for a Conservation Committee support letter. He stated at the meeting it appeared they supported it. That is not reflected in the letter. ?? Bruce Young stated they do support the acquisition of this land for habitat purposes. They did not review price, public access, or logging, only for parcel value. ?? Jack Hornor stated Paul Wetzel is writing a letter to clarify the Conservation Committee’s position. ?? Fran Volkmann stated the evaluative criteria are clearly spelled out. Applicants do not need to meet them all. ?? Fran Volkmann asked if taxes would still be assessed on the property. ?? Adele Franks stated yes, but at a lower rate. RECREATION DEPARTMENT ?? Jack Hornor welcomed members of the Northampton Recreation Department to discuss their grant application. ?? Ann Marie Moggio, director of the Northampton Recreation Department proposed a feasibility study for new playing fields. ?? Craig Della Penna asked if a list of firms had been obtained. ?? Ann Marie Moggio stated the study would go out to bid by city rules. ?? Craig Della Penna asked if the RFP has been drafted. ?? Ann Marie Moggio answered no. The Planning Department would look at the city GIS and the Recreation Department would look at users needs. Then the RFP would seek further details. Surveys happen quickly. Planning has done some work in identifying parcels. ?? Don Bianchi asked how they determined $70,000. ?? Ann Marie Moggio stated $40,000 is for the feasibility study, $30,000 is for city in kind work and $10,000 in fundraising. ?? Lilly Lombard stated the CPC recognizes the need for preliminary work, however study grants were to be capped at $25,000. ?? Jack Hornor stated that is an item that the CPC has not paid attention to though it is in the approved plan. The CPC must discuss. ?? Don Bianchi asked if this project is highly ranked by the Recreation Commission. ?? Tom Parent stated city recreation fields are all fully booked, plus the Oxbow fields cannot be used indefinitely. There is no good city land. ?? Fran Volkmann stated this is a great project, the city need recreational opportunities. However, she is having hard time understanding the use of money. ?? Ann Marie Moggio stated the study would go out to bid. Hopefully the study would take a large area and do detailed analysis, then prioritize to our needs. The study would include a site plan. ?? Wayne Feiden stated the Planning Department can do GIS work looking to id candidate sites. Consultant will then figure plans to do full cost development, including site plans. ?? George Kohout asked if there is a precedent to fund this type of project. ?? Bruce Young stated yes, no problem. ?? Jack Hornor stated the CPC is looking to turn never used land into recreation land. Therefore it is eligible. 5 ?? Wayne Feiden stated the city has exhausted all city owned sites. However, they are likely to find appropriate private land. ?? Jack Hornor asked how priority sites would be decided. ?? Ann Marie Moggio stated the Recreation Commission would sponsor public input sessions to determine the best sites. ?? George Kohout asked if public input would be sought before or after the feasibility study is produced. ?? Ann Marie Moggio stated they could do user group input before feasibility study. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/OPD (SAWMILL HILLS) ?? Jack Hornor welcomed members of the Conservation Commission and Office of Planning & Development to discuss their grant application. ?? Wayne Feiden stated the status of State LAND Grant funding for the project is uncertain. ?? NOTE: On November 8, 2008 Wayne Feiden notified the CPC that the State LAND Grant has been approved. He formally withdrew the proposal for further CPC funding. CONSERVATION COMMISSION/OPD (OPEN SPACE FUND) ?? Jack Hornor welcomed members of the Conservation Commission and Office of Planning & Development to discuss their grant application. ?? Downey Meyer explained this would be a fund set aside so the Conservation Commission could move quickly to purchase land when opportunities appear. ?? Craig Della Penna asked if this would be a revolving fund. ?? Downey Meyer stated replenishing would not necessarily happen automatically. They would come back for further funding. ?? Wayne Feiden clarified some parcels would be revolving like the Fish and Wildlife grant. Money used to purchase the land would be replenished with their grant. Other small parcels would not work that way. The fund would be used to purchase short-term opportunity land. ?? Lilly Lombard stated it is hard to justify the bulk of this fund as budgeted. Soft costs seem fine but expedited consideration would be appropriate for hard costs. ?? Wayne Feiden stated the soft costs would vary from project to project. Regarding hard costs the fund is needed to move very quickly. Some projects happen as fast as 45 days and those are discounted for that fact. ?? George Kohout stated this kind of plan is sensible, but asked how do we monitor. ?? Wayne Feiden stated the City has been leaving small parcels on table because of failure to move quickly. 6. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF CPA PLAN REVISIONS ?? Fran Volkmann queried the CPC as to whether it wants the annual report in the plan. If so the introduction will become too long. The plan is for applicants. Perhaps a separate yearly report is necessary. ?? Don Bianchi stated he likes that idea. ?? Lilly Lombard suggested perhaps referencing the annual plan in the introduction. 6 ?? George Kohout agreed. The annual report could perhaps be an appendix in the plan. The plan would be short history of the CPC. ?? Craig Della Penna stated he would like the plan to be static, but report to be flexible. 7. OTHER BUSINESS (CONTINUED) ?? George Kohout requested the CPC discuss at the next meeting Bruce Young’s role in order to clarify. ?? Bruce Young asked for clarification of what the CPC would like regarding application support letters. ?? Jack Hornor stated emailing them out to CPC members and maintaining a copy in the master file is sufficient. ?? Fran Volkmann stated we have public comment time allotted if applicants would like support recorded into the record. ?? Bruce Young stated an applicant submitted a support letter post-deadline but wanted it inserted on web as well. This would be burdensome and he requests guidance. ?? George Kohout stated with other committees the chair reads into record with discretion. ?? Craig Della Penna suggested merely attaching letters to minutes. ?? Fran Volkmann stated the problem is in making it a part of the record. ?? Jack Hornor stated the CPC would continue discussion at a later date. Meeting adjourned at 9:47 pm. Respectfully submitted on November 17, 2008, John Frey, Community Preservation Planner 7