COMMUNITY PRESERVATION COMMITTEE
MINUTES
December 10, 2013
A regular meeting of the Community Preservation Committee (CPC) was held on Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 6:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Chair Helen Sides, Vice Chair Kevin Cornacchio, John Boris, Ed Moriarty and Mickey Northcutt. Also present was Jane Guy of the City of Salem Department of Planning & Community Development.
Joanne McCrea and Bart Hoskins arrived later in the meeting.
Approval of Minutes
Mr. Boris made a motion to approve the minutes of November 12, 2013. Mr. Cornacchio seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Review of Draft Evaluation Criteria
Ms. Guy stated the CPC members were emailed a copy of the Draft Evaluation Criteria.
Ms. Sides stated that it looked great and that she liked that it is concise.
Mr. Moriarty stated that one criterion is that proposals must be consistent with a multitude of plans. He stated that he finds it formidable that the CPC must be familiar with and have to certify any project that we recommend as being in compliance with all these plans. He stated that it seems impossible to do and that he ws uncomfortable trying to tie it in. He agreed it should be included by reference, but was concerned with making it a condition.
Ms. McCrea joined the meeting at this time.
Mr. Northcutt stated that he has not read all plans, but noted it is the same as how many members of Congress have read all the text of all the bills they review. He stated that he felt the key is if the CPC gets an open space request, he would read the Open Space Plan, which was completed by professionals, to help him determine if it fits with the city. He stated that he did not feel the CPC needs to be an experts in all of plans. He added that it incentivizes people who are going to propose projects to be consistent. He stated that it is up to the applicant to prove us wrong.
Ms. McCrea stated that she has been asked by the Association of Salem Neighborhoods when the 5 year period starts.
Mr. Northcutt believed it was July 1, 2013.
Mr. Moriarty questioned what is the essential character of the city.
Ms. Sides stated that she took it to mean the history .
Ms. McCrea stated that a project’s scale could be out of character.
Mr. Northcutt agreed that the criterion does not serve a purpose and stated that he did not want to create artificial weapons to turn things down.
Ms. McCrea and Mr. Cornacchio preferred to leave it in.
Mr. Moriarty suggested taking out the word “essential”.
All were in agreement to remove “essential”.
Mr. Hoskins joined the meeting at this time.
Mr. Northcutt stated that he fel the primary criteria for community housing should be 30 years. He noted that most subsidy programs are 30 years.
All in agreement to change the criterion to 30 years.
Mr. Moriarty stated that for the criterion “benefit a majority of the city and its resdients, rather than a narrow group of individuals), he admired the spirit, but feel it was anti-democratic. He stated that he felt it was inappropriate for the CPC to determine.
All were in agreement to remove the criterion.
Mr. Hoskins stated that he was not sure why it is important that “projects that would not typically be funded through the city’s general operating budget” be a criterion.
Ms. McCrea stated that the CPA is not supposed to be used for operating budgets, so the criterion makes it doubley clear.
Ms. Sides stated that she felt it was a key thing for people to understand the cpa’s objective.
All were in agreement to reword it to “projects outside of those typically funded through the city’s general budget”.
Mr. Northcutt stated that he did not feel the CPA should be funding housing for moderate income, but rather only extremely low, very low and low income at a maximum of 60% in the secondary criteria.
All were in agrement to change to extremely low, very low and low income at a maximum of 60% in the secondary criteria.
Mr. Northcut suggested rewording “maximize universal access” to “incorporate universal design”.
All were in agreement to change “maximize universal access” to “incorporate universal design” in historic preservation and community housing sections.
Mr. Northcut questioned giving preference to senior housing.
Ms. Guy stated that it was proposed by the Salem Housing Authority board.
Mr. Boris stated that there are a significant number of seniors in Salem.
Mr. Northcutt stated that he many feel poor, elderly people are more palatable than poor people with children. He question why seniors are considered more needy than families, veterans or people with aids.
Ms. Sides was in agreement.
Mr. Moriarty agreed it is tough to pick out special classes of people. He also agreed that Salem has a significant number of senior citizens.
Mr. Northcutt stated that there are a significant number of youth under 20 that are homeless, but there is no criteria favoring them over anyone else.
Mr. Moriarty noted that it is a secondary criteria and that he felt it appropriate for the CPC to acknowledge seniors. He stated that he felt it relevant for this community, and that the CPC should strive to reflect it in its criteria.
Mr. Northcutt stated that he has never heard that Salem has higher a higher percentage of low income seniors than other comparable communities.
Mr. Boris stated that the criteria regarding 3 and 4 bedrooms and supportive livign addresses some of issues Mr. Northcutt is concerned with.
Ms. Sides stated that Criterion D covers all populations.
Mr. Northcutt stated that seniors are being taken out, 3-4 bedroom apartments and supportive living should be taken out.
Mr. Boris stated that he had no problem with Mr. Northcutt’s suggestion.
Mr. Moriarty was in disagreement.
Mr. Hoskins suggested taking out the 3 criteria as Mr. Northcutt recommended and adding a criterion “demonstrates a housing need of an underserved population in Salem”.
All were in agreement to remove secondary criteria - Housing with 3- and 4- bedroom apartments, housing with supportive living and projects that support affordability for seniors - and to add a criterion - demonstrates a housing need of an underserved population in Salem.
Mr. Hoskins stated that he flet the Open Space section was fine as is.
Ms. Guy suggested changing the title from “Draft” to “Interim”.
All were in agreement to change the title from “Draft” to “Interim”
Mr. Northcutt made a motion to approve the Interium Evaluation Criteria as amended. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Review of Draft Determination of Eligibility Application
Ms. Guy distributed copies of the Draft Determination of Eligibility Application.
Mr. Moriarty made a motion to approve the Determination of Eligibility Application. Mr. Hoskins seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Ms. Guy suggested that she draft a press release and that the Determination of Eligibility be released as soon as possible.
Ms. Guy stated that she will try to complete the Draft Community Preservation Plan, the Draft Funding Application and Application Instructions, and the review mechanism for the next meeting. Due to the holidays, she stated that she may need to push the January meeting out one week and that she will let members know when the plan is closer to being ready for review if the meeting date will change.
Ms. Guy stated that the City Council approved the CPC’s recommendation for the budget at its meeting on November 14th.
Next Meeting Date
The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, January 14, 2013, 6:00 p.m. (tentatively).
There being no further business, Mr. Moriarty made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Boris seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Administrator
| 
