[MassHistPres] CPA policy

[Judy Markland]

I have been involved with the CPA in two communities, Weston and Whately, 
and both required restrictions on private property that received CPA 
funding for historic preservation.  (In Weston, certain municipally owned 
property was also required to have a restriction, because it was felt that 
it might not remain municipally owned and, even if it did, that the town 
needed some guidance in properly preserving it.)

There are two principles at work here:  1) ensuring that preservation 
monies really do help ensure long term preservation and 2) ensuring that 
public funds really do go to a public good, not just to the benefit of an 
individual property owner.

I can't speak for the rest of our community preservation committee, but I 
personally would not approve the barn restoration funding without a 
permanent restriction and probably would have voted against the feasibility 
study as well.

Judy Markland
Whately

At 12:43 PM 10/14/2011, Tucker, Jonathan wrote:
>All:
>
>We have a community group which successfully sought CPA funds for a 
>feasibility study and rehabilitation of an historic barn.  The group is 
>now requesting that our Historical Commission recommend to our Select 
>Board and Community Preservation Act Committee that the Town waive its 
>normal requirement that any granting of CPA funds for an historic 
>preservation project on a private property be accompanied by a granting to 
>the Town of an historic preservation deed restriction on that property.
>
>The applicants want to not only use the CPA funds they received for a 
>feasibility study, but also want--before the feasibility study has been 
>completed--to use some of the other approved CPA funds to stabilize the 
>building.  They make it clear that there is no guarantee that they will in 
>the end preserve the building.  If the feasibility study proves that the 
>building's restoration will be too costly for their organization, they may 
>seek to demolish it, in which case whatever Town CPA funds were invested 
>in stabilization would be lost.
>
>Funding for study is understood to be a provisional matter.  The answer to 
>the question of whether or not a building can be restored may well be 
>No--the purpose of the CPA funds is to find out.  But the use of Town CPA 
>funds to provisionally stabilize a building that might subsequently be 
>torn down wanders into more questionable territory.  It still allows (and 
>may be necessary) for the possibility or preservation to endure, but it's 
>a deliberate risk of public funds.
>
>How do other communities handle this?  Do you automatically require deed 
>restrictions in exchange for CPA funding of projects on private 
>property?  Do you require deed restrictions for some kinds of projects but 
>not for others (which kinds?  why?)?  Do you allow for waivers?  Would you 
>grant this one?
>
>A toothy matter worthy of a rainy Friday afternoon.
>
>Have at it,
>
>Jonathan Tucker
>Planning Director
>Amherst Planning Department
>4 Boltwood Avenue, Town Hall
>Amherst, MA  01002
>(413) 259-3040
>tuckerj at amherstma.gov
>
>
>
>
>******************************
>For administrative questions regarding this list, please contact 
>Christopher.Skelly at state.ma.us directly.  PLEASE DO NOT "REPLY" TO THE 
>WHOLE LIST.
>MassHistPres mailing list
>MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
>http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
>********************************