Loading...
Agenda and Minutes 2009-05-20 City of Northampton Community Preservation Committee 210 Main Street, City Hall Northampton, MA 01060 Community Preservation Committee Agenda DATE: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 TIME: 7:00 PM 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 Bruce Young, Community Preservation Planner byoung@northamptonma.gov (413) 587-1263 Agenda Public Comment ? Acceptance of 05/06/2009 Minutes ? Chair's Report ? Report from Bruce Young and discussion of agricultural land preservation ?? Discussion of an expedited review policy for Community Preservation Act ?? applications 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, May 20, 2009 Time: 7:00 pm Place: City Council Chambers, 212 Main St. Members Present: Fran Volkmann, Tom Parent, Lilly Lombard, Jack Hornor, David Drake, Don Bianchi, and Downey Meyer Staff Present: Bruce Young, Community Preservation Planner John Frey, Community Preservation Planner Fran Volkmann opened the public meeting at 7:01pm. 1. PUBLIC COMMENT ?? Ann Renee, 54 Columbus Ave., stated she supports local farmland and it’s funding belongs in CPA. Food and agriculture are tied to the tradition of place. Preserving farmland and encouraging local food production are important today. High quality farmland. We all need to eat and current system in unsustainable. Tagline to remember is either “No food equals no freedom”, or “know food equals know freedom”. ?? Bruce Hart, Florence, stated we would continue to lose farmland in flood plain because of development alternatives such as recreation, educational, housing etc. We have made too many compromises lately and agriculture protection has suffered. ?? Susan Lantz, Lyman Rd., stated she is proud of her community that voted in the CPA. New England will be called upon to feed itself in the near future. We need to support all possible current options to protect farm land. ?? Kathy Bonnet, East St., stated we are facing an economic and global warming crisis. Northampton must continue to become healthy and sustainable. Food security is imperative to that goal. The disproportionate funding in favor of historical preservation discourages her. We cannot be relaxed about our situation. Commit to funding more agriculture protection. Write it in the CPA Plan. ?? Adele Franks, Florence stated her support for more agricultural protection by the CPC ?? Phil Korman, Baystate resident and Executive Director of CISA, stated he is happy and impressed the CPC is acknowledging this need. He lends his support and expertise in answering the difficult questions posed to the CPC. ?? John Lieben, Summer Ave., stated there has been an enormous increase in support for local agriculture. It is what people want to see protected. It is a pragmatic solution to our problems today. He wants our kids to see agriculture as a career option and therefore supports CPA spending on agricultural education. This is why we voted for the CPA. ?? Collin Reed, State St., stated there are dangers of relying on such a centralized economy and agricultural system. He supports local spending on local agricultural protection. 2 ?? Rachel Chandler, Florence stated the global food crisis is no longer a conspiracy theory. Growing locally is about more than just a stable economy; it is of nutritional importance as well. ?? Fran Volkmann stated Montgomery, Lowenthal, and Draber-Levitz all emailed her stating their support of CPA dollars for agriculture protection. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ?? Fran Volkmann tabled the approval of the May 6, 2009 minutes to the next meeting. 3. CHAIR’S REPORT FCBA STATUS ?? Fran Volkmann stated a letter was sent to FCBA on May 14, 2009 requesting an update regarding their application. No response has been received yet. FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS ?? Fran Volkmann stated she is attending the City Council meeting tomorrow to answer questions regarding the funding recommendations. ?? Bruce Young stated the Planning Department would be requesting two reading to expedite the Manhan Trail funding request. Wayne Feiden asks for CPC support of this request. ?? Fran Volkmann stated this seems like a policy decision. ?? Jack Hornor stated the fact that the CPC has conducted an expedited review already demonstrates our support for a speed review. We have sent the message by taking swift action. ?? Tom Parent stated once it is out of our hands, it is City Council’s decision. ?? Lilly Lombard stated it is not considered poor form to ask for a double reading. She does not see the harm in supporting such a request. ?? Downey Meyer stated the project is important enough to request an expedited vote. He would hate for this project to be lost on a technicality. Perhaps the policy should be to recommend all expedited requests receive a double reading. ?? Don Bianchi stated asking City Council was not part of our deliberation. It now must fall to the applicant to request it. It would not be wise or necessary for the CPC to request it. ?? Downey Meyer stated Fran Volkmann would be there to answer questions anyhow. ?? Fran Volkmann stated we had a discussion with the applicant, and he stated two votes would be possible within the timeline. It is not a good idea to impose on City Council. The applicant can do so if desired. ?? David Drake agreed the applicant is free to make case to City Council. It is irrelevant to us. ?? Don Bianchi agreed with Fran Volkmann and David Drake. We could still advocate as citizens if desired. 3 ?? Bruce Young stated the request is on behalf of the OPD. If the OPD made the request it may seem suspect as they are a governmental department. ?? Fran Volkmann stated the OPD has asked for two readings many times before. It is very unlikely the City Council would not support it now. MEETING SCHEDULE ?? Fran Volkmann stated next three months would have just one meeting each on the third Wednesday of each month. The next meeting is June 17, 2009. She encouraged the working groups to schedule meetings soon. 4. REPORT FROM BRUCE YOUNG AND DISCUSSION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION ?? Fran Volkmann thanked all in attendance for coming. She summarized that the CPC does its work by receiving applications for funding projects. The past couple years the CPC has done significant preservation like the Forbes Library and many woodlands projects, as well as many affordable housing projects. The CPC currently feels it has lacked in open space protection efforts, especially agricultural applications. The sense is that it is more complicated than woodlands protection. Therefore, the CPC has asked Bruce Young to brief us of the opportunities, options, and pitfalls of agricultural protection. We want you all onboard and helping to bring us funding options. Reference the CPC plan for exact funding options and application. ?? Bruce Young began by stating the question is why haven’t we (CPC, City Council, etc.) protected more farmland, and what are our options for doing so. An interesting note is that much of the woodland we have protected recently used to be farmland. ?? Bruce Young then went on to present a PowerPoint overview of agricultural resources in Northampton and the protection options for such. The presentation can be accessed here… http://www.northamptonma.gov/gsuniverse/httpRoot/comm/uploads/listWidget/7156/Agr iculture%20Presentation.pdf ?? Bruce Young finished by summarizing the City’s objectives. There is a fine balance between the overall goals of protecting farmland versus allowing other development needed to sustain Northampton. The City has not identified specific parcels deemed crucial to protect from development. Some goals are spelled out in the Sustainable Northampton Plan, but nothing specific. There is currently no staff to manage agricultural protection. The citizens of Northampton must demand it as a priority for action to be taken. ?? Fran Volkmann reiterated leadership must come from the community at large. ?? Lilly Lombard stated the presentation was very informative. She was appreciative. She is curious to know about the minimum size for the APR option. She also would like to know about land not currently assessed as agricultural land. What is the process to have it re-assessed? She urged the community to creatively discover more agricultural land. ?? Bruce Young stated APR options from the State not likely to happen. The parcels available in Northampton would not compare favorably to other lands that are vying for that money (our parcels are not as valuable as others vying for protection because of 4 development potential or lack there of). Local protection options more likely to be successful. APR dollars for Spring Street would be very small since most is in floodplain already. Floodplain land is more developable in other towns because of zoning. Protecting this land is a delicate game; price is dropping as potential use is reviewed. ?? Lilly Lombard asked if community gardens in other towns are public or private. ?? Bruce Young stated he knows of examples of both. It is nice to have municipal gardens, but often the neighborhood is against it. Private options are easier to execute. 5. DISCUSSION OF AN EXPEDITED REVIEW POLICY FOR COMMUNITY PRESERVATION ACT APPLICATIONS ?? Jack Hornor suggested we call them guidelines instead of policies. ?? David Drake stated he is pleased with the wording regarding accepting review is not automatic support of the project. ?? Tom Parent stated he thought we were ok before, but this is an acceptable summary. ?? David Drake asked what if an expedited review results in a negative finding. ?? Fran Volkmann stated this is a catch 22 because an applicant can only request an expedited review if time is of the essence. But there is no rule against an applicant re- applying. ?? Don Bianchi agreed the edits are excellent. ?? Downey Meyer stated there is a fine balance between encouraging the applicant and providing a hard line. He asked how we hold the applicant accountable to meeting the review deadlines. ?? Jack Hornor stated he is in favor of holding applicants accountable. However, in this case though he could see a scenario where delays are inevitable. There must be some flexibility. ?? Don Bianchi stated the CPC always has the right to judge based on the quality of the application. Current language is clear and strong. ?? Fran Volkmann stated she does not want to tie the CPC’s hands. She would hate to send back applications because of a technicality. ?? David Drake stated we would consider the application when it is complete. ?? Upon motion by Tom Parent, seconded by David Drake, all voted in favor of the expedited review guidelines. It is accepted as part of the CPC Plan. See Appendix B below for final language. 6. OTHER BUSINESS ?? None All agreed to adjourn the meeting at 9:21pm. Respectfully submitted on May 28, 2009, John Frey, Community Preservation Planner 5 APPENDIX A – Agricultural Land Preservation Presentation by Bruce Young Follow Link… http://www.northamptonma.gov/gsuniverse/httpRoot/comm/uploads/listWidget/7156/Agriculture %20Presentation.pdf APPENDIX B – Expedited Review Policy Expedited Review of CPA Applications (effective 5/20/09) The CPC believes that in general the public benefit is best served when the committee conducts its review of applications in its two regularly scheduled yearly rounds. At those times available funding is known, applications can be weighed against one another to prioritize recommendations, and the process is clearly spelled out and maximally transparent. At the same time, we recognize that occasionally a situation may arise in which a project that would normally be of very high priority may require fast-track funding due to time constraints such as a requirement to close on an unexpected real estate purchase, a deadline for matching or leveraging funds in an unforeseen grant opportunity, or other reasons that could not have been known at the time of the previous CPC review round. In order to accept an application for expedited review, the CPC must make the following two determinations: 1. Expedited review is necessary for successful project completion. (If yes, proceed to Determination 2). The CPC shall make this determination by considering the following 3 questions: a. When is a CPC commitment needed and why? b. When is disbursement needed and why? and c. What is the impact on the project of the deadlines for CPC commitment and disbursement not being met? 2. High priority goals of community preservation in Northampton are supported by expedited review. (If yes, expedited review is approved) The CPC shall make this determination by considering the following 2 questions: a. Why is the project important to community preservation in Northampton? and b. What are the potential negative impacts to community preservation in Northampton of reviewing this project on an expedited basis? Note: The CPC may consider any relevant information in answering the two questions, including but not limited to the merits and drawbacks of the proposed project, the availability of CPC funds, anticipated future project requests, and anticipated fairness to future project requests. 6 The CPC’s agreement to undertake expedited review is not an agreement to recommend the project for CPC funding. If the CPC approves expedited review, the following conditions shall apply: 1. The CPC will inform the applicant of the expedited timetable for review and of information it needs to conduct the review in addition to a completed application. If the applicant does not provide a completed application and all requested information within the time deadlines established by the committee, the CPC may rescind its decision to review the application on an expedited basis. 2. The review will go forward according to the standards and processes spelled out for all reviews in the CPC Plan, except that the committee’s goal will be to complete the review in a single meeting. The quality and completeness of the application will be especially important in supporting the expedited review process, where time does not permit successive rounds of questions and answers. 3. The committee will inform the applicant of its decision within 24 hours. If it makes a funding recommendation, it will send that to the Mayor and City Council within 48 hours. Applicants should understand that the post-CPC elements of the process may not be expedited unless the City Council agrees to take its two required votes at a single meeting. 7