Agenda and Minutes 2010-06-16
City of Northampton
Community Preservation Committee
210 Main Street, City Hall
Northampton, MA 01060
Community Preservation Committee
DATE: Wednesday, June 16, 2010
TIME: 7:00pm
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
Sarah LaValley, Community Preservation Planner
slavalley@northamptonma.gov
(413) 587-1263
Agenda
Public Comment
Chair’s Report
Minutes
May 19, 2010
o
Valley CDC Budget Amendment Requests
King Street SRO
o
Maple SRO
o
All About Conservation Restrictions
Finances Overview
Review of Contracts and MOA’s, Round 1 2010
Conservation Fund
o
NCMC
o
Childs Park
o
Other Business
For additional information please refer to the Community Preservation Committee
website: http://www.northamptonma.gov/cpc/
Community Preservation Committee Minutes
June 16, 2010
Time: 7:00 pm
Place: City Council Chambers, 212 Main St.
Members Present: Fran Volkmann, Brian Adams, George Kohout, Don Bianchi, Downey
Meyer, Lilly Lombard, Katharine Baker
Staff Present: Sarah LaValley
Chair Fran Volkmann called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm.
She thanked George Kohout for his participation on CPC, as this is his last meeting. CPC
members expressed appreciation for George’s presence and input.
Fran introduced Katharine Baker, the new planning board CPC representative
Public Comment
There was no public comment.
Chair’s Report
Fran informed the Committee that the website is progressing, and asked for volunteers to take
pictures of some of the projects.
Minutes, May 19 2010
The minutes were approved as presented.
Valley CDC Budget Amendment Request
Patrick McCarthy, Valley CDC, provided an overview of requested changes to the Maple Street
SRO project.
The $115,000 allocated to construction in the application budget is requested to be allocated to
‘acquisition,’ which will be used to settle permanent debt existing on the property.
Fran asked if any changes to the end result of the project will occur. Patrick responded that there
will not.
Lilly moved to accept the revised project budget, seconded by Downey. The motion carried
unanimously.
George asked for an update on the King Street project. Patrick replied that bids will be received
Friday.
Fran asked if it is OK to take photos of the SRO projects. Pat said that it is, and he will provide
some ‘before’ pictures to staff.
All About Conservation Restrictions
Fran reminded the Committee that a discussion of CR’s was held in relation to a previous project,
and the CPC realized that there are many different types of CR’s to protect different interests, and
that a detailed look at CR’s would be beneficial. Fran welcomed Wayne Feiden, Director of
Planning and Development, to provide a CR presentation.
Wayne noted that the City is working on updating the Open Space Plan, and has been looking as
part of that process at various CRs it holds.
Wayne explained that there are different ways to own property, or an interest in property, and
there are also different types of restrictions that can be placed on property. These can be both
negative (things you can’t do) and affirmative, things you must do (farm, maintenance).
Sometimes the holder of a restriction has more rights than the fee owner.
State approval of CR’s is not absolutely required, but must be received if a tax benefit is to be
realized.
Wayne provided an overview of CRs held in Northampton, including public access, terms,
grantors and grantees, and any issues.
“Merger of interests”- the same person/organization can’t own both the land and hold the
restriction, because the CR would then no longer be valid. CRs should include a provision to
prohibit this.
George asked if CR’s require public access. Wayne replied that they do not, but the public benefit
to prohibiting public access must be proven to the state.
CPC Minutes 1
June 16, 2010
Bank subordination is usually required for city-held CR’s so that a CR will not be lost if the
mortgageholder forecloses. However, if a CR is donated, this isn’t required, because the risk is
much less.
Katharine asked if easements are recorded with the state. Wayne replied that they are recorded at
the registry of deeds, but do not require state approval.
Brian asked if CRs are ever not approved. Wayne said that Northampton has never had this
happen, but it might happen elsewhere.
Wayne noted that recent case law that indicates that a new CR can’t remove existing public access
(prescriptive easement).
Anything goes, if you agree ahead of time. If something is not specified as allowed in the CR, it’s
not allowed. Wayne provided examples of some activities that the City had no issues with, but
were not allowed because they were not provided in the CR.
Wayne explained that there are different types of tree cutting – vista pruning, removal of
dead/storm damaged trees, logging for habitat, and logging for profit.
The ‘big picture’ should be considered when drafting a CR: what’s the goal, how does the property
you’re looking at fit into the big picture?
Wayne noted that each management partner has a different role. For example, Arcadia, has day-
to-day responsibility for management of the land, and BBC, who holds a CR with little to no
management on Sheldon Field.
Katharine asked who monitors CR’s. Wayne replied that OPD does this on a priority basis. But
the City’s restriction language also specifies that lack of enforcement doesn’t waive right, and the
right to enforcement in court. George added that staff also relies on the public for tips.
Brian asked if CRs have to be voted on by city council. Wayne replied that they do, but the BPW
has independent authority.
Brian asked if public access provides the right to build a trail. Wayne replied that would need to
be spelled out in the CR. Wayne noted that staff doesn’t build trails, but does encourage ‘Friends’
groups to do so.
Some CR’s come about as a result of planning board requirements as part of special permit
conditions.
Wayne highlighted what is important to include in the structure of a CR: description of the
property, including current condition, ‘Prohibited, except as allowed,’ injunctive relief clause,
reimbursement of court costs, disclaimer of liability, 21E, outstructures, naming rights, burial
rights, and silviculture.
Lilly asked if CRs are held by other groups that the City owns in fee, and what prevents the City
from later selling the land if a CR is not in place. Wayne replied that some CR’s are in place on
City-held land. Conservation land is owned by the Conservation Commission, so disposal of that
property would need their vote, a 2/3 vote of state legislature, as well as needing to meet any CPA
conditions if CPA funds were used for acquisition. Many parcels were acquired with grants, which
have their own restrictions.
Fran asked when it’s appropriate to use a CR versus an APR. Wayne noted that most APR’s are
paid for by the Commonwealth. The value used to determine APR value is the difference between
the value of the land with an APR, and the land with no restrictions. So, for example, the
meadows don’t have much value for APR purposes. Some property owners also don’t like the
obligation to farm. A CR could written a that permits, or even mandates, farming.
The Committee thanked Wayne for the presentation.
Finances Overview
George, John and Sarah met this week to discuss finances of the Committee.
It was decided that staff will present quarterly financial reports to the Committee.
The Committee looked at the current overview and projections for funding availability at the next
round.
Katharine asked if the funded projects to date reflect the Committee’s goals for types of projects.
Fran replied that recreation spending has been down statewide.
Don added that restrictions in the CPA law also prohibit improvements to existing recreation
areas. Fran- also not required to set aside 10% for rec.
Northampton Community Preservation Committee Minutes 2
June 16, 2010
Review of Contracts and MOA
The Committee agreed upon conditions and contract language for the projects funded during the
first 2010 round.
Other Business
The Committee discussed the Upper Roberts Reservoir Dam. Sarah noted that MHC, as part of
Section 106 review, determined that it is unsure whether the dam is eligible for national register
listing, and requires additional information.
Fund transfer – the Committee reviewed the fund transfer request to City Council for the next
Fiscal Year. These reflect the required ten percent set-asides, as well as transfer to the
administrative fund. Lilly moved to present the request to Council, seconded by Downey. The
motion carried unanimously.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:15.
Northampton Community Preservation Committee Minutes 3
June 16, 2010