COMMUNITY PRESERVATION COMMITTEE
MINUTES
April 14, 2014
A meeting of the Community Preservation Committee (CPC) was held on Monday, April 14, 2014 at 6:00 pm at 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. Present were Chair Helen Sides, Vice Chair Kevin Cornacchio, Leslie Tuttle, John Boris, Mickey Northcutt and Joanne McCrea. Also present was Jane Guy of the City of Salem Department of Planning & Community Development.
Mr. Moriarty and Mr. Hoskins arrived later in the meeting.
Ms. Sides stated that the CPC will be reviewing the remaining three funding applications based on the additional information that was requested and will rank order each High, Medium or Low. She stated that funding amounts will then be discussed this meeting, where there may be a vote on what to send to City Council. She noted that the City Council has the final vote to approve or reduce recommendations. There will be another funding round in the Fall. Ms. Sides invited anyone present who wants to speak on a specific application to speak now.
Public Comment
Ms. Sides opened up the meeting to public comment.
Nancy Tracy, Director of the Salem Public Library, stated that the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners has a grant program, but that it would not apply in this case. It is for major renovations or new buildings that run in the millions of dollars. It requires that you change the service that is applied to patrons; therefore, the proposed work would not meet the guidelines. She added that State aid is provided every year for books, music, movies, periodicals, computers, software and other annual costs. The aid has gone down from $72,000 to about $49,000 in recent years.
Mr. Hoskins joined the meeting.
Brett Mentuck of Salem Community Gardens stated that she sent an email in response to the four questions the CPC raised. With regard to zoning, she stated that she did get a response that there was no conflict with fencing and that it must be 6’ or lower. With regard to shed, she stated that it does not look like there will be a conflict, as it has to do with proximity to other principal buildings and there are none nearby. She stated that she is meeting with the Park and Recreation Commission tomorrow night. She noted that she also loved the black coated fence, but was trying to be economical. She provided updated quotes for the fence, which is a total of $2000 more for both gardens. Her fence company says that 5’ is not an option. She added that 4’ makes it a sturdier
fence for people to hope over. She stated that the fence is 12’ at Pickman Park. They have 400 gardening families that participate.
Ms. McCrea was concerned about the neighborliness of a tall fence.
Ms. Mentuck stated that 4’ or 6’ are the options and she did not see the height as an issue. She stated that she felt the issue of safety and protection is more important and that theft is bigger issue.
Ms. Tuttle stated that she did not feel that public parks should be fenced. She noted that Palmer Cove is right in front of the water and felt that it will be like a big prison in the corner of the park.
Ms. Mentuck stated that there is no theft deterrent that they can find other than prickly bushes. She noted that it is a concensus of the members who are there year after year. She added that they donate tons of food to the community, so they are trying to find a balance.
Ms. Tuttle stated that the CPC has the burden to be financially prudent, and to spend $30,000 to protect $400 worth of vegetables a year does not feel prudent.
Ms. Mentuck stated that it is protecting the gardeners investment and their time.
Liz Rogers stated that the Salem Community Gardens does not want a giant fence that says keep out. They are balancing it with bilingual signage, and she imagined people planting vines that will climb up the fences. She stated that they intend to make it welcoming and keep outreaching to invite people in. She stated that they have had serious things happen at Mack Park.
Ms. Tuttle stated that the City is not fencing in the kids in the play areas and they she did not feel it was how parks should operate.
Ms. Sides stated that she agreed with Ms. Tuttle and that she felt it is contrary to having something in a public space. She stated that she would not mind if it is a 4’ fence. She noted that chain link is really easy to climb and that if people are that motivated to steal vegetables, they are going to climb the fence. She stated that she did not mind neating it up with a 4’ fence.
Ms. Mentuck stated that she did not visually like it either, but that she was representing gardeners who want it. She noted that Park and Recreation approved a 6’ fence for Palmer Cove.
Mr. Boris stated that a 4’ fence is not a deterrent to keeping people out.
Mr. Cornacchio asked if they have tried other vendors for a 5’ fence.
Mr. Mentuck stated that they tried Malone and Reliable and that they don’t offer it.
Ms. Guy asked if the CPC conditioned their funding on the fencing being 4’ or 5’, would they still accept the funds.
Ms. Mentuck replied that they absolutely would.
Kathy Winn, Deputy Director for the Department of Planning and Community Development stated that the City submitted two applications for Winter Island – one for multi-purpose trail and one to begin restoration of Fort Pickering. CPC funding would providing matching funds for the City’s PARC Grant application. She stated that the City now wants to focus on the trail application rather than Fort. The PARC program prefers the trail application and possibly some interpretive signage for Fort, but would not be funding restoration of the Fort. The City is going to focus on the trail.
Ms. Sides asked that, in a way it is saying that CPA may be the only source to fund the Fort. She asked about the overlap with the Friends of Winter Island (FOWI).
Ms. Winn stated that it looks like FOWI is doing masonry work. She stated that the only overlap is removal of invasive species.
Mr. Boris recapped that they are pulling back on restoration.
Ms. Guy asked if $50,000 is enough for the trail project.
Ms. Winn replied in the affirmative and stated that $50,000 will get the City $150,000.
Vote to Recommend FY15 Budget (reserves and administration)
Ms. Guy stated that the Assessor’s Office has estimated that FY15 tax surcharges will be a minimum of $435,000. The State match is estimated at 23%, or $92,000, for a total of $527,000. As in FY14, the 10% minimum (or $52,700) is reserved for each of the three categories, 5% for administrative expenses and the remainder in Budgeted Reserve.
Mr. Boris made a motion to recommend the FY15 budget to the City Council. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion to so carried.
Review of FY14 Funding Applications Received - Continued
- 13 Funding Applications
- Additional information as requested from 3 applicants
Ms. Guy stated that there are a number of members who have conflicts of interest, or the appearance of conflicts of interest. She will read their disclosures with each application, and those with conflicts will be asked to leave the room during the discussion of those applications.
The CPC reviewed each of the three remaining applications for primary and secondary criteria. Comments provide by Tim Shea were read into the record.
Salem Public Library Roof - City of Salem
A letter from Nancy Tracy, Director, was read into the record.
Ms. Tuttle stated that she was leaning toward High priority due to all the water issues,
Mr. Cornacchio, Mr. Hoskins and Mr. Northcutt were in agreement.
Mr. Northcutt stated that he felt it was saving taxpayer’s money.
Mr. Cornacchio stated that everybody uses the library.
Mr. Northcutt stated that it is such an historic resource.
Ms. McCrea was in agreement.
Ms. Tuttle made a motion to rank this project High priority. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Salem Community Gardens
Disclosure from Ms. Tuttle and Ms. Sides were read into the record.
A letter from Brent Mentuck of Salem Community Gardens was read into the recored.
Ms. Tuttle stated that she thought it was crazy to spend $25,000 to protect $500 in vegetables. She noted that they have not raised any funds. She agree with 4’, to look better, but not for security.
Mr. Hoskins stated that he had mixed feelings, noting it is better if the space is defined, but adding that 4’ is a “why bother”, and 6’ is too tall.
Ms. Sides stated that she felt security should not be the issue, noting that it is public park. She stated that defining the space and making it a relevant part of the park is the larger issue. She stated that she did not feel it is a priority at this point.
Ms. Tuttle questioned that a 6’ fence at Palmer is $8200, but that a 4’ is $1500. She wondered if it was a mistake. She noted that the quote from Reliable for the black fence is $2000 for 4’ and $10,000 for 6’.
Ms. Sides stated that a dog park would be different, because it would be about safety.
Mr. Cornacchio agreed and stated that he felt the fence is low priority.
Mr. Hoskins noted that community gardens are important community builders.
Ms. Tuttle stated that she felt they would be getting more bang for buck with a 4’ fence.
Mr. Boris made a motion to table discussion until the Park and Recreation Commission’s position is clarified. Mr. Northcutt seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Conant & Choate Statues
A letter form Natalie Lovett, Community Development Planner, was read into the record.
Ms. Sides stated that she felt the two applications should be separated.
Ms. Tuttle stated that she felt the 5 year time frame for Conant is more maintenance than restoration.
Ms. Sides stated that Choate needs some serious work, and agreed that the Conant proposal is more maintenance.
Mr. Cornacchio made a motion to rank both statues Medium priority. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. Mr. Cornacchio, Mr. Boris, Mr. Northcutt, Mr. Hoskins and Ms. McCrea voted in favor. Ms. Sides and Ms. Tuttle voted in opposition. The motion so carried.
Development of Funding Recommendations
Ms. Sides stated that moving forward, she felt the CPC should act conservatively and noted that other projects will be coming before the CPC, such as Greenlawn Cemetery, which did not make it in this round. She stated that she appreciated Stuart Saginor’s advice about judging something about its benefit to the public. She noted that if the CPC agree to fund something privately owned, there has to be something that benefits this city. She stated that, typically, the public purpose is served by the acquisition of a preservation restriction, which is essentially an interest in the property.
Ms. Tuttle stated that she did not feel the CPC should spend all available funds, but should be building a reserve. She stated that she felt that for non-profits the CPC needs to look at what they are leveraging.
Mr. Moriarty joined the meeting.
Congress/Dow Housing
A disclosure from Mickey Northcutt was read into the record and Mr. Northcutt left the room.
Ms. Guy noted that the City included an additional $75,000 to the project in its FY15 CDBG Action Plan.
Mr. Cornacchio made a motion to recommend $40,000 from FY14 Housing Projects Reserve and $52,700 from FY15 Housing Projects Reserve under Community Housing: Acquisition, which includes the condition that a CPA project sign be installed and with the public benefit of an affordable housing restriction. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
15 Ward Street Pocket Park
A disclosure from Mickey Northcutt was read into the record.
Ms. Tuttle stated that the CPC could look at applications geographically, as well.
Mr. Cornacchio noted that the Point Neighborhood recently got a park at Peabody Street.
Mr. Cornacchio made a motion to recommend $40,000 from FY14 Open Space & Recreation Projects Reserve under Recreational Land: Creation, which includes the condition that a CPA project sign be installed and with the public benefit of restriction that it remain a public park in perpetuity. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Northcutt rejoined the meeting.
184 Lafayette Street Wall
A disclosure from John Boris was read into the record and Mr. Boris left the room.
Ms. Sides questioned the public benefit. She noted that they may want to sell the property in time and that a restriction would limit that. She stated that she did not feel it was suitable for CPA funds and was not comfortable funding it.
Mr. Northcutt questioned if the wall would be considered a public treasure.
It was noted that while the agency provides important services to the community, the building is not open to the public.
Mr. Cornacchio stated that he thought the public would have hard time if this were to be funded.
Mr. Moriarty stated that the CPC could give the applicant the opportunity to understand that it would require a public restriction in perpetuity, which would impact the resale value and that its resale would not be enhanced. He stated that he agreed it is a stretch to fund.
Ms. McCrea made a motion to continue the application. Mr. Moriarty seconded the motion. Ms. McCrea and Mr. Moriarty voted in favor. Ms. Tuttle, Mr. Cornacchio, Mr. Boris, Mr. Northcutt, Mr. Hoskins and Ms. Sides voted in opposition. The motion did not carry.
There was no motion to fund the project and therefore the project was not recommended for funding.
Mr. Boris rejoined the meeting.
Old Town Hall
Ms. Guy noted that there is already a preservation restriction in place for this building.
Mr. Moriarty made a motion to recommending funding the full amount of $45,000 plus $1,000 for a CPA project sign from FY14 Historic Projects Reserve ($40,000) and from FY14 Budgeted Reserve ($6,000) under Historic Resources: Preservation, which includes the condition that a CPA project sign be installed. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Salem Common Fence
It was suggested that the CPC recommended an additional $50,000 over what was requested in order to do additional fence sections.
Mr. Moriarty stated that he felt the CPC should recommend what was requested.
Mr. Northcutt stated that he felt it made more sense to do one large blast, which will go further than two separate projects for $50,000.
Ms. Guy noted that the preservation restriction is already in place.
Mr. Northcutt made a motion to recommend funding $100,000 from FY14 Budgeted Reserve under Historic Resources: Restoration, which includes the condition that a CPA project sign be installed. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. Ms. McCrea, Ms. Tuttle, Mr. Cornacchio, Mr. Boris, Mr. Northcutt, Mr. Hoskins and Ms. Sides voted in favor. Mr. Moriarty voted in opposition. The motion so carried.
Salem Public Library Roof
Ms. Sides stated that she was inclined to approve funding.
Mr. Moriarty stated that he had concerns as to the immediacy and questioned if it was deferred maintenance or preservation. He stated that it is an important historic structure and has historic civic and educational function, but he felt the project was more maintenance than preservation. He noted that the roof was constructed in 1987 and had 20 year warrantee; therefore there was an awareness of when the warrantee would expire and that emergency circumstances that exist now were foreseeable. He stated that he would only accept $99,000 which could be characterized as historic and would increase it to $100,000 for a sign.
Mr. Hoskins stated that the preservation is the internal damage and to protect what is on the interior.
Mr. Cornacchio stated that there could be mold.
Ms. McCrea stated that the Library is also coming before Salem Historical Commission for repointing of the façade. She questioned if the Library Trustees have a forward plan for restoration and preservation.
Ms. Tracy stated that the repointing is for a little retaining wall. She stated that they also have other projects lined up and that they try to do as much as they can each year, but there is no formal written plan.
Mr. Northcutt made a motion to recommend funding of $135,000 ($52,700 from FY15 Historic Resources and $82,800 from FY14 Budgeted Reserve) under Historic Resources: Preservation, which includes the condition that a CPA project sign be installed. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. Ms. McCrea, Ms. Tuttle, Mr. Cornacchio, Mr. Boris, Mr. Northcutt, Mr. Hoskins and Ms. Sides voted in favor. Mr. Moriarty voted in opposition. The motion so carried.
Mr. Boris left the meeting at this time.
Winter Island - Fort Pickering (City)
Mr. Northcutt made a motion to carry over the application to the next funding round.
Mr. Cornacchio seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Winter Island - Scenic Trail (City)
Ms. Sides stated that agreed that a bike path, in the long term, works to encourage bike access to all of the city. She stated that it was great to encourage less cars to Winter Island.
Mr. Northcutt stated that Winter Island is one of the best resources in the city.
Mr. Moriarty stated that there is interplay with the revenue generated by RV’s, etc. and Winter Island’s maintenance.
Ms. Tuttle stated that it is a revolving fund that goes back to Winter Island to a certain extent.
Ms. Tuttle made a motion to recommend $51,000 from FY15 Open Space & Recreation projects Reserve under Recreational Land: Creation, which includes the condition that a CPA project sign be installed. Mr. Cornacchio seconded the motion, all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Winter Island (FOWI)
Disclosures from Mr. Moriarty and Ms. Tuttle were read into the record. Mr. Moriarty left the room.
Mr. Northcutt stated that he was curious as to the City’s support.
Ms. Tuttle noted that it is part of the master plan.
Mr. Northcutt noted that there is no cost estimate.
Ms. Sides questioned how the City rates this piece of the work in the overall plan.
Mr. Northcutt stated that the CPC needs a clear understanding from the City on who is going to do the work.
Ms. McCrea made a motion to continue the application to the May 13th meeting pending more information on cost estimates and coordination with city efforts. Mr. Northcutt seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Mr. Moriarty rejoined the meeting.
House of the 7 Gables/Phippen House
Ms. Sides stated that this is an important institution in Salem, but that it is hard to pull this building out and say it is significant to the city.
Mr. Northcutt stated that there are so many historic resources that have a direct impact on taxpayers and that this is not one of them. He stated that the City has an overwhelming number of historic resources that they are responsible for preserving, that are falling apart. He stated that this building is not the taxpayer’s burden.
Ms. Sides stated that the Gables board considers it part of their mission to maintain their buildings, but noted that down the road they could change their mission and sell them. She stated that if they were asking for funding for the House of 7 Gables building, she would feel differently.
Mr. Moriarty was in agreement. He stated that he liked the mission of Settlement House and its history and traditions. He agreed that the city is loaded with historically significant buildings. He stated that he would like to see this structure more closely in tune to the history and tradition of the Settlement House which is totally consistent with a public purpose, which is assimilation, democratic education, cultural enlightenment and architectural improvement, etc. He added that he thought it is relevant that the Trustees purchased the building in 1965, which is not part of the original campus or the Emmerton vision, and that even the Gables acknowledges that it as a non-contributing building to the campus in their own documentation.
Ms. Tuttle stated that office space is not a public purpose.
Mr. Northcutt stated that he felt the CPC should decline it now and not carry it over.
Ms. Sides stated that this is not to say that the Gables shouldn’t apply for something else. She also noted that any funding would necessitate a preservation restriction.
Mr. Northcutt made a motion not to recommend the project for funding. Mr. Moriarty seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Pocket Parks
Ms. Guy noted that the City has put the priority on Driver Park
Mr. Northcutt stated that three of the four only amount to $25,000.
Ms. Sides stated that the CPC could recommend putting money in reserve and let city decide which work to do, or it could pick specific parks for funding.
Mr. Northcutt stated that he felt the CPC should recommend Patten Park in order to do some work in that area.
Mr. Cornacchio made a motion to recommend $22,500 for Driver and Patten Parks ($20,800 from FY14 Budgeted Reserve and $1,700 from FY15 Open Space and Recreation Projects Reserve) under Recreational Land: Rehabilitation, which includes the condition that a CPA project sign be installed, to not recommend funding for Swiniuch Park and to carry over the park at Jefferson/Lawrence to the next funding round. Ms. Tuttle seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Conant & Choate Statues
Ms. Sides stated that Conant seems more like maintenance while Choate seems more like restoration.
Mr. Northcutt stated that the Salem Common neighborhood raised a ton of money and did three-fourths of the work only needs $10,000 to finish.
Ms. Tuttle stated if we are working on our mission and this is maintenance, then we shouldn’t fund it.
Mr. Northcutt asked if we are only looking at a slice of it. They have paid $25,000 of a $35,000 restoration and all that is left is what they couldn’t afford, which seems like maintenance, but is a completion of the restoration.
Mr. Hoskins stated that it is a bad message to send to neighborhood groups who raised most of it. If you do preservation now, it prevents restoration later.
Ms. Sides stated that the City has a newly established Arts Commission and wonders if there will be money going into it.
Mr. Northcutt stated that he did not think they have money behind them, but are supposed to review public art.
Ms. McCrea was in agreement with Mr. Northcutt and Mr. Hoskins, noting that the $10,000 would finish the preservation work.
Ms. Sides stated that it would reward them for their good effort.
Mr. Cornacchio was in agreement.
Mr. Northcutt stated that it was a lot of money for a group to raise.
Mr. Moriarty stated that he did not disagree with what others were saying, but noted the CPC is bound legally and as members are sworn to duty. He thought it sounded like it would be making a political judgment to complete their mission because they have gone this far. He stated that he felt it was not the CPC’s job to do and may be another body’s jurisdiction, such as Park and Recreation or City Council. He stated that the CPC’s authority is very limited and that the more you play with and give leeway to or insert leverage in very strict areas of our jurisdiction, the more we are creating policy rather than just administrating as best we can applications on a case by case basis within our strict guidelines. He stated it was good for the community what some did, but did not think it was a
relevant issue.
Ms. Sides questioned if the neighborhood can come up with $35,000, can’t City come up with $10,000 to complete it.
Ms. Tuttle stated getting back to maintenance, that she felt this is putting on lacquer that will last 5-10 years, which is like painting your house. She stated that it does not seem like a permanent thing and still has to be waxed every year. She stated that the lacquer is estimated to last five years. It never had the lacquer on it and has lasted a hundred years.
Mr. Northcutt stated that it was a good point.
Ms. McCrea was in disagreement. She did not think it was policy. She felt it was preservation and reiterated that the neighborhood raised the money.
Mr. Northcutt made a motion to carry over Conant to the next round. Mr. Cornacchio seconded the motion. Mr. Moriarty, Ms. Tuttle, Mr. Cornacchio, Mr. Boris, Mr. Northcutt, Mr. Hoskins and Ms. Sides voted in favor. Ms. McCrea voted in opposition. The motion so carried.
Mr. Moriarty made a motion to recommend $40,000 for Choate from FY14 Budgeted Reserve under Historic Resources: Restoration, with the condition that a CPA project sign be installed. Ms. Tuttle seconded the motion; all were in favor and the motion so carried.
Other Business
Review of Determination of Eligibility Application’s (DOE) Received
There were no applications received.
Year-To-Date Budget Report
Ms. Guy provided copies of the year-to-date budget report.
Next Meeting Date
Ms. Guy stated that the next meeting date is Tuesday, May 13, 2014.
There being no further business, Mr. Moriarty made a motion to adjourn. Ms. McCrea seconded the motion. All were in favor, and the motion so carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane A. Guy
Administrator
| 
