Community Preservation
Committee
Judge Welsh Hearing Room
July 12, 2005
9:00 a.m.
Members Present: Elaine
Anderson, Mona Anderson, William Dougal,
Eric Dray (arr at 9:15 a.m.), Nancy
Jacobsen, and
Winthrop Smith.
Members
Absent: Tim Hazel
(excused absence)
Stephen Milkewicz (unexcused absence)
The
meeting was called to order at 9:02 a.m.
There
were none.
Laura
called and said she couldn’t make the meeting because she had to be in
Providence on a family matter. Elaine Anderson - after receiving a list of
available dates from Laura – decided to stay on schedule and ask for her
availability on July 26th. It was also thought that if she were not
available, perhaps the new proposed forms could be received by all the
Committee members via e-mail prior to the next meeting.
The
general consensus was that Form 2 would be the preferred one. Everyone felt that Form 2 was a good
starting point but they had many suggestions for tweaking.
To
best summarize everyone’s opinion on Form 2, the following suggestions were
made:
2.
Community
Need is more in line with goals. There
should be multiple choice of perhaps 3 options and maybe a narrative could be
attached.
6.
Success
Factors: Elaine wants it left in – Eric
wants it left off (redundant).
12.
Should become #6 (regulatory compliance)
13.
Should
become #3 with a phrase added “and goals of Economic Development Council and
the Local Comprehensive Plan (LCP).
14.
Should
be additional number detailing “Prior to submission a checklist should be
submitted.”
Also
under the section entitled ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION: Numbers 10 through 13 should have titles, i.e. #12 Regulatory
Compliance, and all of these titles should be highlighted.
There
were two Form 2s and since none of the proposed forms were either dated or
paginated it will be difficult to track future versions.
MORE COMMENTS FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Bill
Dougal said after reading over #12, “Are
we implying that applicants have to go before ConCom before presenting to us?”
Mona
Anderson wondered if it is limited to renovation projects? She feels that it is unclear? Bill said that it may not require all those
approvals.
There
were a few scenarios thrust about which would come under the title of “what
ifs?” and had no concrete proposals as examples.
CONCLUSION:
It
was thought that it would be valuable for any applicants to come before the
Committee for “discussion only” purposes.
They would talk about what they would like to do and would be guided by
the Committee. They would not be able
to go to regulatory boards and say, “We have the Community Preservation
Committee’s blessing.”
After
the applicant had the discussion and went to the different regulatory boards,
they would be asked to then return for final approval. Bill Dougal also would like to require that
the votes of the different boards, as well as, letters regarding support and/or
non-support be presented to the CPC at that time. In that way, the Committee would be able to gauge community
support for a particular project. This
puts the onus on the applicant.
There
were a few financing questions that are being held for Laura’s input.
Bill
Dougal said there is a philosophical question cloaked in all these
discussions. The longer the Committee
waits to act, the less capacity we have to do things. Property values are escalating.
Eric Dray also agreed, saying, “The earlier we spend this money, the
better.”
Mona
asked, “In terms of giving money to the applicant – do we just give blanket,
requested amounts of money to the applicants – or do we receive progress
reports much like a construction loan?
Would we structure our money like a construction loan?” Mona would prefer it that way. She also thinks a checklist is
important.
Bill
– referring to Economic Development – said the LCP is not a big thing with the
BoS. Eric feels LCP should be important
to the BoS. The group agreed.
It
was decided to send the changes that the Committee had hammered out to Laura
and ask for a redo on July 19th so it can be digested before the
meeting on the 26th.
Bill
said a matrix system should be devised – regarding community support for
projects. This Community Preservation
is for the community and if the community doesn’t perceive that we’re
fulfilling a need, then we have failed.
Mona would like to take a poll of the townspeople. Eric Dray said that whatever project comes
down the Pike; it will get a whole lot of press. Thus the public will be informed. Bill added that we’re still under Chapter 40B, “so just remember
that.”
Mona
asked if the Committee should tell the applicants that the projects are
contingent upon public approval? Eric
said that he is not afraid of supporting projects that the Town is not
particularly in favor of.
Elaine
Anderson worried that the Committee shouldn’t set itself up as a wall – but
rather as a partner. This Board has to
agree on what we see as guidelines and priorities. That’s the first order. She
will request from Laura that everyone gets the redo by the 19th so
everyone has something to report on.
Approval of June 14th
minutes.
There
was a change at the bottom of page 1 regarding Laura Shufelt’s Invoice. There is no need for an RFP because
the invoices are considered intergovernmental services.
Motion: Eric Dray made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Bill Dougal seconded the motion and it was approved 5-0-1 abstention (MA).
Approval of June 28th
minutes.
There were a few corrections to the minutes that Win Smith took. He will make these corrections and submit the final copy to the Town Clerk.
Motion: Bill Dougal made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Eric Dray seconded the motion and it was approved 5-0-1 abstention (MA).
Mona Anderson had e-mailed Elaine Anderson with a comment that it could be a discussion item.
Mona’s
idea: Since the Tides Motel will be
torn down, the Committee should petition the BoS to bank those bedrooms for
future use in affordable housing plans. She said she will – if pointed in the
right direction – go forth and work on this.
When the acquisition is complete, she would like to be able to deed-restrict
them.
Bill Dougal said he was at the BoS meeting yesterday and the BoS is very interested in this concept; also combining it with the Economic Development Council and how bedroom counts are allocated. There are certain critical red-dot properties that haven’t connected to the sewer and how these bedrooms will be allocated.
Mona
– with all that said – wants the bedrooms committed to the CPC – but WD says it
should be in the Growth Management group.
Mona wants a specific granting of bedrooms and Bill said that it won’t
happen. Bill Dougal said that there is
no system for capturing lost gallonage of flow. “There is just no policy for that.”
Eric
said the group’s goal should be to find ways to reduce costs so a developer can
come before us with a project for 100% affordability. Elaine said she would like to keep this before the group as an
open discussion. Laura would support
that as well.
Win said that the Planning Board is about to rewrite Category 3 of the Growth Management By-laws. He suggested the CPC work closely with the Planning Board on Category 1, changing terms to those consistent with C.P.A. documents and, for example, rewarding 1.A low/moderate income year-round rental housing units so that everyone is in agreement. Mona agreed saying that there needs to be permanency for people who are forced to move from place to place depending on the season. She toyed with perhaps establishing a category called “lifetime tenancy.”
Bill
Dougal said that the Committee’s charge is to produce 120 rental units. There
is a lot of confusion about 1 bdrm and 2 bdrm, etc. how do we do it? He
doesn’t want to support a project on that basis but will support a by-law if
needed. (1st come – 1st serve basis doesn’t work any
more.)
THE NEXT MEETING WILL HAPPEN ON JULY 26TH AT 9:00 A.M.
The
meeting adjourned at 10:40 a.m. by a unanimous vote.
Respectfully Submitted
E. Rogers Gaudiano
Approved
by: _____________________________ on ______________________
Elaine Anderson, Chair Date