Chilmark Board of Selectmen December 2, 2014 Meeting Minutes
Present: Chairman Bill Rossi, Jonathan Mayhew, Warren Doty, Tim Carroll,
Edie Prescott, Jennifer Christy, Ann Wallace, Jim Feiner, Marina Lent, Patrie Grace, Andy Goldman, Rosalie Hornblower, Marie Mercer, Stan Mercer, Connie Taylor, Emma Green-Beach, Isaiah Scheffer, Julie Schmidt, Onnie Palmer, Andy Palmer, Jessica Roddy, Linda Coutinho, Clarissa Allen, Steve Lewenberg, Rick Karney, Joan Malkin, Alex Elvin and Lynn Christoffers.
At 7:00 PM Chairman Rossi called meeting to order in the Selectmen’s Meeting Room.
Minutes:
Draft minutes from November 18, 2014 were reviewed. Mr. Doty moved to approve minutes as presented. Mr. Mayhew seconded the motion. SO VOTED: 3 Ayes
Per Town Counsel recommendation the appeal is in transcript form. The remainder of meeting will be in our regular format.
Transcript of Board of Selectmen’s Meeting
Nab’s Corner Appeals
Recording Begins: 1:34 minutes into recording
William Rossi, Selectman: We have an appeal from the Housing Committee: non-award of preference points. There are two separate appeals and I guess I’ll ask if both people who are appealing are present? Your name, sorry?
Patrie Grace: Patrie Grace.
William Rossi: And yours?
Julie Schmidt: Julie Schmidt.
William Rossi: Ok, so we have both candidates here so we might as well open the hearing for that purpose so we can get that done and move on to other items on the agenda. So, I’m going to first open the hearing for Patrie Grace and you’re here to question the non-award of preference points by the Housing Committee for work preferences and residential preferences.
Patrie Grace: Correct.
William Rossi: Ok, do you want to state your case?
Patrie Grace: Um, sure. So, let’s see, what I initially handed in was totaled up to five years, however not once it was broken down into months. And, at the time, some of my verification was out of the country and not reachable so when I received the notice I also attained further notarized verified living and working references and dates and brought that in.
William Rossi: And, and for work as well? For both work and residential documentation?
Patrie Grace: Yes, I did bring those in.
William Rossi: Ok, is there anything else you would like to say?
Patrie Grace: Um, no. I guess what I’d like to say is that it’s a series of added years which is not a consecutive time as I stated in the letter that I, the appeal letter, where I started out on the island forty years ago visiting family. I’d like to be considered.
William Rossi: You’d like to be considered for these preference points?
Patrie Grace: Yes, I would like to be. Yeah, I’d like to be reconsidered for them. The number of years is cumulative of much more than five years. And, again, I did not gather it all because it appeared when I went through the documents with support from here that it was enough. And, it wasn’t.
William Rossi: Ok, we have members of the Housing Committee here so I’d love to have anyone who wishes to speak on behalf of the Chilmark Housing Committee’s process and awarding preference points. Ann, are you here for that?
Ann Wallace: I am Ann Wallace. I am on the Housing Committee and I’m also on the subcommittee that reviewed applications before they went to the full committee. And, we reviewed applications as they came in before the deadline to see if there were any missing documents. Those that came in at the deadline we couldn’t request any additional documents or assist any applicants because the deadline was the deadline. We then met as a Housing Committee and reviewed the information. And, the full Housing Committee made the determination on preferences. Based on the supporting documents that applicants submitted. So, I believe we could have not added correctly, but I believe we have reviewed, several times, every applicant and added up the number of months, years, whatever was submitted and had the committee vote on that. I mean, I’ve been
brief about it, if you have any questions. On the process?
William Rossi: Well, the appeal is essentially saying that she does qualify for the five year threshold for the residential preference and the work preference and you’ve gone over her application and the information on the application and you’ve made the determination that she did not meet the criteria and is therefore ineligible for the preference points.
Ann Wallace: The requirement is five years as stated they have to be sequential and in adding up letters and the lease that was submitted it did not meet the five year threshold. I think I am not speaking out of turn to say all of us involved in the process wish we had many more lots.
William Rossi: Thanks, Ann. Anyone else from the Housing Committee would like to speak or comment?
Andrew Goldman: I’d like to make a couple of comments. This is the first appeal that we have had for Affordable Home Lots, to begin with. I don’t remember any other appeals, and I think that this experience to me means the next order of business after the lottery is awarded on Friday will be for the community to work and we have it amongst our plans already on refining the guidelines somewhat because they aren’t very clear on what exactly is required in an appeal, what are the criteria supposed to be, time requirements. So, it just simply says, the Selectmen have an appeal. We imagine that, and we certainly will discuss, what the criteria would be but I would hope we would develop criteria. I think it would be a mistake to consider information submitted subsequent to the application deadline date because it affects other applicants
as well. These Chilmark preferences are very valuable, they greatly increase your chance somebody will be awarded a lot. Fortunately, I understand the Selectmen are considering the creation of additional affordable homesites elsewhere in town so, hopefully, these won’t be the last. Last, in considering an appeal, while there is always the desire to be a good guy and to go with people while a favorable decision to an applicant is hostile to those who have qualified and reduces their chances. As a member of the Housing Committee who participated in the process, I hope you will find that we did it competently and decline these appeals.
William Rossi: Thank you, Andy. Anyone else from the Housing Committee? Patrie, do you want to respond?
Patrie Grace: I do. I would like to respond, thank you. To one point. My application was in prior to and with time to get any additional information if I had been asked that. I actually received a letter stating my application was complete. I came in and I sat with someone who I was referred to from the initial meeting to sit down with me. I also spoke with another, Chuck, I spoke with Jenny who had at the time and correct me if I am misspeaking Jenny said she would join the meeting since she had more familiarity and then needed to be off-island that day and I was very clear in that sit-down with Chuck that I was bringing this all in and asking for support through it which I was told at that meeting was available. I came in, I was in for many hours and walked through it and was told that all of my information was complete. I was never
told there was a lack from the years not adding up in months to cross over that five-year and when I did receive that I immediately brought in additional time, both living and working in Chilmark, and backed up all that time living and working in Chilmark. And, the qualifications, so that’s in relation to the living, and the qualifications for the work was determined on, as far as I know and I don’t know the Housing Committee’s, how long my work periods were each year and those were accurate. It was never brought back to me to ask. The years were 2008 through 2014 which is far more than five years. And, the assumption was made that that was just summer work which is not correct. And, also the numbers that I was given from Jenny when I called and checked in are also not accurate. It wasn’t 10 months that Iived at the Fischer’s, it was eleven and I don’t think I got an honest, fair assessment of the whole thing. I came for support. I received it and the information I got
back didn’t match what I was told. So, I’m following the simple directions that I am being given and responding accordingly and.
William Rossi: Thank you. Anyone in the room tonight want to comment or has anything to add?
Clarissa Allen: I guess I would like to support Patrie’s request. Because I was one of the people she called upon to document her duration of time periods of living. Either on my farm or in my mother’s house and I was not thinking in terms of down to months. I was rounding across periods of time that maybe were not accurate enough. When Patrie said that wasn’t clear, we went back and said, ok she lived in my mother’s house in 1979 when my mother died through I can’t tell you the exact date tonight. We put much more exactness on it and I think that’s why she’s here tonight. I think because she does have the numbers and perhaps it wasn’t all very clear in the documents that were brought here. And, I am not saying that it is the fault of the Housing Committee or any group or anything, but sometimes you’re not clear whether
you’re there for a season, a year and she became very clear to me that it had to be documented as accurately as was possible. Going back so many years and then work experience current.
William Rossi: Ok. Thank you. Anyone else?
Jonathan Mayhew: I am curious. Clarissa, this was before or after that time frame? As far as after the deadline?
Clarissa Allen: It came well before the deadline and then Patrie said there had been a glitch with the numbers, that the months didn’t add up.
Jonathan Mayhew: And, was this before or after the deadline? When you realized there was a glitch, because…
Clarissa Allen: No, I kept coming in with documents and having them notarizing them and adding them to the pile. First, we did it prior, y’know a week prior to the deadline or five days prior to it, and then a bit afterwards with further clarification. First, about the work experience. Not just like if it said weddings it might think that there was like two weddings, one in October and one in June and they run through October and we documented that. And then there is the water tasting and different events like that. And then clarifications on exactly when she was staying at Katherine’s and when she lived at the farm and what little building she built at the farm and things like that.
16:25 minutes into recording
Warren Doty: I’ve paid a lot of attention to this today and went through statements from the Housing Committee and statements from the applicant. And we have, in contrast to what Andy said, we really do have specific guidelines and we did have a firm date and Patrie did satisfy the date requirements for filing so that, so that is not an issue. But, in the written opinion that was just issued yesterday by Michael Goldsmith of Ron Rappaport’s office it says:
“In effect, the reviewing body (here, the Board) is called upon to address questions of policy or law-not facts. While this rule may seem harsh, it is a practical approach to adopt here. Were the Board to allow applicants to submit additional documentation to support an appeal filed, by definition, after the initial application deadline, the application deadline would, in effect, become a “rolling” one. It makes sense to have applications rise or fall based on the initial responses to the detailed application and instructions, which the CHC reviews one at a time, and the appeals to be limited to interpretative or policy questions, none of which are apparent in this case.”
So, although I am not used to adjudicating an appeal, but I have statements from the Housing Committee that says they feel that they reviewed applications carefully and accurately and did not give a Chilmark preference and we have a written an opinion from our attorney that says you have to stick to the material that was submitted by the application date and you are changing the rules if you allow new information submitted after the application date.
William Rossi: I understand our role as well is to determine whether the Housing Committee did their job well and accurately. And, that’s what we’re really looking at. So, at this point I think I’ll close the hearing and bring it back and the Selectmen can come up with a motion.
Jonathan Mayhew: I’ll make a motion that we agree with Michael Goldsmith that basically have Patrie be denied in her appeal.
William Rossi: And, that we support the Chilmark Housing Committee in this appeal.
Jonathan Mayhew: Yes.
Tim Carroll: So, counsel said if you want to do that you need to move to affirm the decision of the Housing Committee. And, then have a very brief list of why.
Jonathan Mayhew: So moved.
Warren Doty: I second.
William Rossi: All those in favor?
Warren Doty: Aye
Jonathan Mayhew: Aye
William Rossi: Aye
William Rossi: Sorry, there will be other opportunities for you and hopefully this process will continue to be more refined and easier to understand.
Patrie Grace: May I say something else about this at this point?
William Rossi: Of course. Certainly.
Patrie Grace: I hear you are going with the law of it, but I just want to say the Housing Committee determined from this work statement which is more than 5 years that it was just the summer months. It’s not notarized that way, it doesn’t say that, it says from 2008 to present. To 2014. So, how is that not sticking with what Warren said, the information was in prior to the application date. That determination was made on it that was actually not true. So, I am missing the point of where this document that was in prior to a notarized isn’t counted and someone made the decision that it was simply summer employment which is not true.
William Rossi: I haven’t gone over your application personally. We had a few people on the committee do that work and they double-checked their work with other members of the committee. They made the determination in the application process that your information didn’t have the required time. To make you eligible. I am sorry we are going to have to move on to the next hearing and that would be Julie Schmidt, right?
21:00 minutes into recording
Julie Schmidt: Yes
William Rossi: And, you’re here to basically question the threshold for savings and age requirements and eligibility on that. Correct? Right, I think, it is $175,000 savings you’re allowed to have if you are 55 years old to maintain eligibility and qualify for affordable housing and would you like to speak to this?
Julie Schmidt: First, I would like to thank everyone and the Town and the committee for taking the time to go through the process. It’s pretty exciting this opportunity is here for people. I have been here since about 2000 and I’ve really worked hard to try to stay in Chilmark. The reason I ended up appealing was that I was found ineligible because of my savings. And, I’ve worked really hard to create those savings so that I could live on Martha’s Vineyard and I wanted to live in Chilmark. And, then it was kind of used against me in this application process. Based on that threshold. And, it didn’t seem like there allowed a range for different ages and I am not above 55. So, I wondered…part of it is I looked at the guidelines and they are from 2007. Which is over seven years ago and when you think about inflation and you think
about seven years I would imagine that housing crisis and everything. With that I also feel that I fit the purpose of why you developed the affordable housing. I work at Chilmark Chocolates. I’ve worked there for over 14 years. I work at the high school as a teacher. And, I’ve also been volunteering in the community for over 10 years. So, I’ve worked really hard to be part of this community. So, I wondered if there is a way to readdress those guidelines? For the assets. I don’t have a wealthy family that’s going to come in and give me money so that I can buy land. So, I’ve worked hard to save that.
William Rossi: It is commendable that you have an aggressive savings plan. I don’t know if this is a dealable item for us, quite frankly. If this is a guideline that’s been voted on by the Housing Committee when they developed these guidelines for eligibility. And they were approved by the Selectmen and done in an open meeting. This is all accepted guidelines at this point. I think, in the future, you could certainly go to a Housing Committee meeting and state your idea for raising the limits or increasing the age for eligibility if you have so much savings and I think they would entertain that. But, at this point I think the guidelines are the guidelines and they were followed. Warren, Jonathan?
Warren Doty: Well, I agree. This is sort of a catch-22. In terms of home ownership and affordable housing we have gone through this many times. In terms of how to get home ownership to people of modest incomes and have that home ownership remain permanently in the affordable housing stock. We have gone over this in Chilmark many times in the last ten years. It’s an issue that we have gone over and over in Chilmark and I think you bring up a great point. That we’re actually penalizing you for being frugal and thoughtful and planning ahead. And, not spending money to go see the world and not buying a new car and putting aside your money for a new home.
Mary Beth Grady: And not hiding it.
Warren Doty: Yes, ok.
Mary Beth Grady: Let’s put it right out there.
William Rossi: There’s no way to determine that.
Mary Beth Grady: But, it’s a fact.
William Rossi: I am sure those situations exist. I am positive they exist. Anyone from the Housing Committee want to comment on the threshold numbers?
Andy Goldman: They are all subject to review. This is a very unfortunate case. It is well to recommend that they be changed, but this is what they were at the time we went through this application process and the basis on which we made our determination. As they said earlier, we intend to go through these guidelines and update. They haven’t been revised for 7 or 8 years now. And, when you use absolute numbers in a guideline time has a way of making those numbers not the best numbers or the right numbers and that is really very unfortunate. For these applications, though, the Housing Committee followed the rules.
William Rossi: Anyone else from the Housing Committee?
Jim Feiner: I think that when you look at the threshold we tried to find out what a reasonable point where someone would be able to afford and of course with the age factor it becomes more difficult. We did our best at the time to establish the threshold based upon what we thought was fair. Of course the market is always changing, the market is not static.
William Rossi: Would anyone else in the room like to comment?
Andy: Two things: Julie has been living with us for two years now. We figured out what she has saved in rent over the house that she was skunked out of three years ago is exactly how much she is over the threshold. She has been helping with household expenses. If she had been paying us rent for those two years she would be eligible. It’s just crazy that she banked that money and everybody here is on the same page…So, I guess my other point is I did read somewhere that the criteria can be changed at the discretion of the Selectmen before the awarding of the lots. That was at the bottom of some page and I just wanted to say that that is really unfortunate and, secondly, why if you are 55 you can suddenly have $100,000 more but at 40 you can have $25,000. It needs work and I just wonder if there is any way, in this particular case, we
can relook at this because Julie is the kind of person that Chilmark—that you want to have in this town. That’s all.
William Rossi: Thank you. Anyone else?
Stan Mercer: How long ago was the threshold set?
William Rossi: Would anyone from the Housing Committee answer that?
Ann Wallace: It was voted by the Board of Selectmen in 2007 I think. The 18th of December.
Stan Mercer: So, the cost of living from 2007 has not increased? It has not stayed the same and the threshold should be changed considerably.
William Rossi: Thank you. Yes?
Mary Beth Grady: Tomorrow will be 20 years ago that Alison and I were able to buy Chilmark Chocolates. The property that it is on and the reason that we were able to buy it when all the numbers didn’t work out and we didn’t meet the criteria of any bank to get a mortgage because we run a very untraditional business but the reason why we could get a mortgage was Everett Poole was on the Edgartown National Bank board and he spoke up and he said these are guidelines and Chilmark Chocolates is something special, something unique. How about finding a way for them to have a mortgage. And, I think that you have referred to these things as guidelines and I think that guidelines are something to be interpreted and I think that tonight you can decide if they’re guidelines or if they are rules and I think that the Housing Committee is made up
of people who live in this community, people who had a vision, people like Molly (Flender) who got it going and started. I think that the type of people that Molly was thinking about were people like our special ed teachers and I think that’s a choice that you have a chance to weigh in on. And, then I think when a lottery comes it’s a drawing, y’know, it doesn’t guarantee anything but I think putting her name in that hat would be a fair way to look at it and I don’t think it takes from the other people who have worked hard to see if they qualify. There is a tremendous number of hours that people who are on the community have put into-I think we’re all just people, we’re not perfect. Everything is still just a work in progress.
William Rossi: Thank you. Anyone else in the room? Jonathan?
Jonathan Mayhew: One of the problems I have with the present is that there are some people that didn’t apply because they were told that they had too much money. For much the same reason that you have. So, you’re not the only one that would be now eligible. It’s not just one person. It’s at least one other person that I know of. And, maybe more that didn’t apply at all because they were told no sorry you have too much money. It’s not a bad idea to change things for the future but for the present I think we really have to stay with what we did. With what occurred. That’s the way I feel.
William Rossi: I think that from this meeting it really appears that we really should look at our guidelines. And, update them to reflect current day situations. I think it would be impossible for me to overlook it when we use that to do every other applicant. I’m very glad you brought it up. I would suggest you go to a Housing Committee meeting and bring this up and ask them to review that guideline. There will be other properties coming in the future and you may be eligible for them if that gets changed. Warren?
Warren Doty: I think that, in this case, we are in an unusual position where we are not just doing what the Selectmen think is right. But, acting on an appeal inside the rules of the appeal. And, that’s why we got a two page memo from our town counsel saying what is proper and how the Selectmen need to behave in reviewing an appeal. And, this appeal is not questioning the facts. This appeal questions whether we’ve made good guidelines and good policy. I think we have to go back and look at that policy, but tonight I think we have to say no to the appeal and stick with the legal process that we’ve got. If we don’t stick with that we’ve open up a whole lot of possibilities for other people who will question what we’ve done.
William Rossi: I’m going to close the hearing now. And, entertain a motion.
Jonathan Mayhew: Tim, what do we have for the motion?
Tim Carroll: The lawyers asked you to either affirm or rescind the action of the Housing Committee. But, I don’t know if that fits this particular case. You may just affirm the guidelines.
William Rossi: Make a motion that the Chilmark Housing Committee followed their guidelines appropriately and we should support the Housing Committee.
Tim Carroll: And, that you affirm the action of the Housing Committee.
Jonathan Mayhew: So moved.
Warren Doty: Second.
William Rossi: All those in favor?
Jonathan Mayhew, Warren Doty & William Rossi: Aye
MEP reps arrived, Dr. Brian Howes, Ronald Samimy along with Matt Poole
Massachusetts Estuary Project:
Dr. Brian Howes of UMASS/ Dartmouth discussed the process needed to continue the project and discussed the draft of report on Chilmark Pond. Dr. Howes said that there are new regulations, to continue this process the DEP requires the Town of Chilmark to request the MEP to continue prior to them giving us the report. Discussion ensued. Mr. Doty moved to accept the report, to move to the next level. Mr. Mayhew seconded the motion. SO VOTED: 3 Ayes
Discussion turned to scheduling a 1 & ½ hour workshop in mid-January 2015. Mr. Carroll will be confirming with Ronald Samimy on day and time.
Extensive discussion ensued about nitrate levels in Chilmark Pond and the cleansing of Chilmark Pond through openings. Dredging was discussed to bring in more water volume.
Mr. Lewenberg discussed the opening of the pond schedule. He said the association schedules openings three times a year. Unfortunately a very important spring time opening for the health of the pond after heavy rains is not possible due to piping plovers and endangered species.
MV Commission Executive Director Search:
Joan Malkin the Chilmark representative on the Martha’s Vineyard Commission spoke about the process of finding an Executive Director for the Martha’s Vineyard Commission. Ms. Malkin said all are invited for public forums at the Martha’s Vineyard Commission office at 33 New York Ave in Oak Bluffs December 10, 2014 at 5:00 and December 11th at Noon.
Joan Malkin said that she is interested in being re-appointed the Chilmark Selectmen’s representative on the Martha’s Vineyard Commission. Mr. Doty moved to appoint Ms. Malkin as Chilmark Selectmen’s representative on the Martha’s Vineyard Commission.
Mr. Mayhew seconded the motion. SO VOTED: 3 Ayes
Shellfish Mussel Grant Public Hearing:
Mr. Carroll said our Shellfish Constable Isaiah Scheffer noticed that the ad in the paper for posting the deadline for Mussel Grant applications was listed as December 28, instead of November 28 so this will be rescheduled to the January 6, 2014 Board of Selectmen instead of tonight. Mr. Carroll stated that the Selectmen have received in writing from Mr. Gale that he returned the grant to the Town of Chilmark.
Source of funding & effective date for Town Clerk & Maintenance Supervisor Grade Increases:
Chairman Rossi said Town Treasurer Melanie Becker researched and has provided a figure of
$ 3,563.56 to fund increases to Treasurer, Accountant, Town Clerk and Maintenance Supervisor for a reserve fund transfer. The reserve fund transfer will be brought to the FinCom for approval. The increases to Town Clerk and Maintenance Supervisor will start in January.
Source of funding & effective date s Continued…
Linda Coutinho a member of the FinCom asked why this was not done within the budgeting plan for the next fiscal year.
Chairman Rossi said that the Human Resources Board recommended the pay increase start in a timely manner as the Treasurer and Accountant pay increases did. Discussion ensued. Mr. Mayhew moved to increase the Clerk and Maintenance Supervisor for January 1, 2015. Mr. Doty seconded the motion. SO VOTED: 3 Ayes
Mr. Mayhew moved to send the Human Resources Board a recommendation of policy from now on that future grade increases must be part of the budget process and go into effect at the beginning of the next fiscal year. Mr. Doty seconded the motion. SO VOTED: 3 Ayes
USACE Jetty Repair Update:
Mr. Carroll reported on the telephone conference he and Mr. Mayhew had with Craig Martin from the USACE. The deadline for RFP was November 25, 2014. The lowest bidder was a company called RCD. Mr. Carroll said that there will be a meeting in mid-December with the contractor. The USACE has given a 24/ 7 work timeline. The water work will be completed by March 31, 2014 and the parking lot will be clear May 21, 2014.
Special Bonding Legislation Update:
Mr. Carroll said that the Governor’s Office has received our request for special legislation and we hope to have a positive outcome soon.
At 8:56 PM Mr. Mayhew moved to adjourn. Mr. Doty seconded the motion.
SO VOTED: 3 Ayes
Minutes respectfully submitted by Diana DeBlase. Approved 12/16/14
| 
