Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutWWMSC Minutes 2004-10-21 WMSC ASTEWATER ANAGEMENT TEERING OMMITTEE Minutes of October 21, 2004 A meeting of the Wastewater Management Steering Committee was called to order at 10:00 a.m. in Meeting Room Members Present: A, Orleans Town Hall. Augusta McKusick (Board of Health); Ann Hodgkinson (Board of Water Commissioners); John Hinckley (Board of Selectmen); Judith Bruce (Conservation Commission); Charlie  Also Ashby (Finance Committee); Sims McGrath (Planning Board); George Meservey (Planning Director); Present: John Hodgkinson (Citizen's Advisory Committee); Sherman Reed; Kendall Farrar; John Kelly; Rich Delaney (Horsley & Witten); and Mark Nelson (Horsley & Witten). APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION: John HinckleyAnne Hodgkinson On a motion by , seconded by , the Committee voted to approve the minutes of October 7, 2004. VOTE: 5-0-0 The vote passed unanimously . OLD BUSINESS Committee Reports Board of Selectmen - John Hinckley indicated that the Board of Selectmen discussed Article 11 of the Special Town Meeting to be held on October 25, 2004. Town counsel indicated there will be no change of use regarding the transfer of the land without a future town meeting action. This is for the town to remove 3 acres of land and an option for 3 more acres from the Tri-Town District with the approval of town meetings in Eastham and Brewster. Discussion on Article #11 McKusick indicated there was a positive meeting on October 19, 2004 with Michael Ford (Town Counsel) and John Kelly regarding Article 11 on Wastewater and the Tri-Town plant. McKusick read a memo with language for town meeting discussion. Ann Hodgkinson wanted language inserted that stated “was reassured by town counsel”. Hinckley agreed with the amended language. Sims McGrath agreed with the amended language and will stand up at town meeting to speak to the article on behalf of the Wastewater Management Steering Committee. The committee discussed the merits of passing out fliers at town meeting vs. standing up to speak to the issue. The committee decided to do both. MOTION: Judith BruceSims McGrath On a motion by , seconded by , the Committee voted to approve the statement prepared and amended in printed form to be distributed and Sims McGrath will stand up and speak to it at town meeting. VOTE: 5-0-0 The vote passed unanimously. Wastewater Management Steering Committee Minutes – October 21, 2004 Page 1 Review of plans for Wastewater Management Steering Committee’s presentation to the BoS 10/27 @ 7PM McKusick thanked George Meservey and John Jannell for their work on a PowerPoint presentation for the Board of Selectmen meeting on October 27. Each member reviewed their slides and speeches. John Hodgkinson stated that the Citizen's Advisory Committee feels left out of the ongoing discussions by the Wastewater Management Steering Committee. McKusick stated that the Citizen's Advisory Committee is invited to the Board of Selectmen’s meeting th on October 27 for the presentation. Horsley & Witten, team presentation of Draft Report McKusick indicated the receipt of a draft report from Horsley & Witten. Meservey stated the need for a completeness check. Mark Nelson said no case studies have been completed, want to do one with stormwater in the mix. This could be added as an appendix to the report. Nelson said public education task would be near the end – it could be a brochure or a PowerPoint presentation. Mark Nelson noted there are a couple of subtasks that are different from the final scope of work. Administrative Meservey said that it was stated early on that the primary emphasis should be on Tasks 3, 4, & 5 (Administrative, Regulatory and Financing issues). We are looking for more specific recommendations for Orleans. Identify Management options that would require state legislation. Need to know what we require relief from the state legislature. It is easy to lose what you’re trying to accomplish. McGrath – not sure we need a step by step plan of action. If there is a specific regulation that needs to be addressed, we need the specifics of the regulation and the reasons it needs to be addressed. We need an action plan for addressing it, but we need the whys and wherefores. McKusick – The letter has been submitted from the county to Senator O’Leary’s office, and he has promised to file it. It may need a letter of support from the various towns. Mark Nelson – The only other caveat on that issue is I need to triple check that there would be no special legislation needed for the Stormwater Management District component that would phase-in at the later stages of this. Regulatory Meservey – The impacts of sewering is not adequately addressed. There is a comment that there would be more growth. How much emphasis do you need on commercial buildout? Looking for more information on what the market forces are doing out there. What is likely to really happen? It would be helpful to get information from business leaders. There needs to be follow up. McKusick – We’ve got our best guess estimates for buildout and growth from planning and GIS. What would the effect be? That is not in the report. Anne Hodgkinson – That is an important piece because we need all the ammunition we can get when it comes 8-10 years down the road to fund this plan. Wastewater Management Steering Committee Minutes – October 21, 2004 Page 2 McGrath – If you have growth control regulations that are based to a large degree, if not exclusively, on septic discharge and then you take that out of the mix, you’ve let the bear out of the cage and it’s going to run amok. I’m not sure Horsley & Witten’s resources are being used wisely doing the math on how buildout is going to change if zoning regulations are no longer effective (i.e. the septic regulations that limit growth). The really fine points of that take a large degree of planning expertise and expertise with local regulations and I’m not sure that asking Horsley & Witten to develop the expertise to come up with really specific answers on what’s going to run amok and how it going to run amok when we let the bear out of the cage is the way to use their time. Perhaps the Planning Department could provide some oversight or guidance or round numbers on some impact or if Horsley & Witten were to provide round numbers and ask the Planning Department to check their assumptions or their rough math that would be a fairer way to do it and then they can spend their time on the larger issues.. McKusick – The situation has happened in other towns where Title 5 has been the zoning factor. Then, what was served by Title 5 is served by a sewer or whatever. My concern is I don’t see language there on taking a whole neighborhood and you sewer it or put a package treatment plant, the only thing that is going to limit growth there is the height of the house, the lot coverage, the relationship to wetlands and how close you are to them. The Board of Health wouldn’t let you expand unless you had an area on your lot where you can put a septic system. If you build a sewer system with x number of bedrooms, what’s to stop a house from suddenly throwing on two more bedrooms. Suddenly the constraints are gone and you’ve got a community with mega-mansions because there are no constraints. Nelson – I break it into three issues – residential buildout, we know how many additional houses can be built. If the 4-40 rule doesn’t apply on a one acre lot, you can have a six bedroom house. From a nitrogen perspective I would say that impact is small, because those redevelopments don’t change the occupancy of the house in a dramatic way. People will have a bigger house to have extra room for guests. It’s an impact to other things other than wastewater. There are possibilities for limiting mansioning of the community based on sewer. Allocate sewer flow unit to each property. Commercial buildout is an unknown. Parking is limiting item in commercial. It is difficult to go beyond a qualitative guess as to how that would work. There could be growth in the downtown area but it will be limited by parking. Your parking requirements are fairly significant. McKusick – You either have to increase the parking or change the bylaws. Nelson – Need direction on possibilities. There is great benefit in downtown community parking. If you take parking out of the requirements for the lots which has great aesthetic and design benefits to decrease the lot coverage that’s allowed and maintain green space as a result. The way to control it is to design a system that doesn’t allow explosive growth. Anne Hodgkinson – how do others do it? Nelson – We’ve given you information on lot coverage, size of unit to the lot. Oak Bluffs used the size and capacity of the system. They used 3% growth per year over 20 years. If you put sewers in there is significant growth from businesses going to their full potential. McKusick – There are efforts to get no net nitrogen. There are some tools available like no net nitrogen and nitrogen sensitive areas that we have to avail ourselves of and be sure they get pushed on a regional basis so we all can take advantage of them. McGrath – might be useful for prioritization or implementation of a plan. If there is an advantage to declaring an area a nitrogen sensitive area, does it give you more options and improved timetable for implementation of other aspects of the plan. McKusick – When we get our TMDL’s starting at the Pleasant Bay Estuary in December. Wastewater Management Steering Committee Minutes – October 21, 2004 Page 3 McGrath – How does such a declaration affect implementation? Meservey – It gives regulatory ability not otherwise available beyond the TMDLs. McKusick – It is a responsibility on the Cape Cod Commission since they developed the no net nitrogen term. Right now it is piecemeal. They need a good interim tool. Nelson - We can prioritize the embayments based on water quality issues right now plus or minus 2%. Pleasant Bay is going to be first. You can identify some of the sub embayments there are worse off than some of the others. The bigger issue on prioritization is how that fits with the commercial downtown area. The focus is on the coastal water quality. If you were going to start a project, you would look at those areas as opposed to downtown. McKusick - If you are talking hypothetically about sewering, that’s going to take a lot longer than getting a selected neighborhood together. Everything would be phased-in at different times and cost different amounts. You have to think about both of them. McGrath – The committee’s charge references the embayments as a priority, but the requirements of the grant are that the entire community needs be addressed. Nelson - There are requirements and allowances in Title 5 that if a system is failing and something is on the horizon you have some ability to wait for the improvements. You have to be closer than you are right now for that to work. You have to have a management plan in place and the sewers are coming soon. The Town can’t make things less stringent than Title 5. Meservey – Need recommendations for bylaw changes. Nelson – The report is a draft after looking at the zoning and to see what is possible to offset wastewater related growth. Need better direction on level of specificity. There may be benefits of having some of the commercial buildout information that could be used to run what if’s with some of the changes we’ve recommended. The goals were to try to create the top of the shop residential capability within that district by looking at the overall footprint and floor area to the lot. Look at the parking requirements and some flexibilities to encourage that, and Impervious cover stormwater related issues. There are specific recommendations on tying special permit to site plan review. We want to have a deeper discussion with the Wastewater Management Steering Committee or the Planning Board . McGrath – Concerned with presenting this at a regular Planning Board meeting. It may be misconstrued as the way the Planning Board is going. May be presented to a subcommittee or the Zoning Bylaw Task Force. Concerned with education and reeducation time spent on this issue. McKusick – This does not provide any help for the Board of Health with what they can do on a local level above and beyond Title 5. They are looking for a blueprint of how the Board of Health can couple with comprehensive wastewater management plan. Need a discussion of what local regulations we need to put in place, what public hearings we need and how to stay on the same page with everyone else. Orleans had trouble trying to institute covenants. We are trying to move forward. I was disappointed in the report. Nelson - I think there will be a large role in the future for the Board of Health in implementing onsite management, coordinating with this new entity. The scale of that is the real question. McKusick – Bob Canning would be the appropriate person to deal with in the Health Department. Wastewater Management Steering Committee Minutes – October 21, 2004 Page 4 Bruce – There was no Conservation Commission information. What can be done. What kinds of regulatory issues would be necessary at the state level. Couldn’t find who is responsible for septics – will it continue to be the Board of Health? What determines which residential properties are septic or satellite. Meservey – That is the management plan. We’ve asked Horsley & Witten to do a study of the districts and how things are managed is what we are asking them. The actual management plan and what are the types of treatments and what do we decide who needs to be hooked up and who doesn’t – that’s the wastewater facilities plan. Bruce – How is the plan managed. What is the structure in town to make the determinations? Nelson - Need better information on how it is coordinating with other agencies in town. The idea of conservation lands is a large issue with a variety of opinions on it. Not sure of the need to reallocate land in Orleans. Anne Hodgkinson – What special legislation is needed to convert the use of conservation land bought by the Open Space Committee? Will it allow subsurface disposal? Can it stay just conservation land? Financing Meservey – Identification of the alternatives is complete. Identifying operations financing option is not complete. Identification of legislation options is complete and thorough. Ashby – How can they come up with a specific financing plan without understanding capital costs? It is too premature to hook Orleans with 50/50 rule. Nelson – Can try to synthesize financing information at the end. Don’t know the costs. Don’t know what new options are coming in the next few years. McGrath – What has been successful in comparable communities? There may be recommendations that are suitable for Orleans and could be useful to other communities. Need to know the reasons for conclusions. Need to show there was a process of elimination for alternatives. Meservey – Method to prioritize treatment solutions: What is a punch list of questions you have to ask yourself depending on the priority? McKusick – If there are 20 projects, how do you rate them? Meservey – trouble with the timeline. The implementation plan has misperceptions. Public education is on the way. Anne Hodgkinson – shows a lack of coordination from chapter to chapter. There are inaccuracies between chapters. McKusick – Looking for a blueprint on how the town would move forward in the future to make this happen. McGrath – willing to work on the planning piece. John Hodgkinson – The report is broadbrushed, generalized. We are looking to the wisdom of the firm and what other towns have done. Here is what could or has happened Give us more specific options. The report is full of inconsistencies. Wastewater Management Steering Committee Minutes – October 21, 2004 Page 5 Meservey – How do you look at district issues? Gussie McKusick – need pros and cons John Hodgkinson – Financial – what can happen on the regional level - needs clarification. There is the chance for significant financial assistance. Meservey – Need a model report separate for the small flows issue. Nelson – trying to reach Graham Knowles. Need guidance on where you want the specifics. We will give you recommendations and options from other places and our opinion on it, but we need direction on where the specifics need to fall. Meservey – Where do you start with public education? Need specifics. We are going to lean on this for future planning. McKusick – there needs to be layers of education. There are different levels of interest. John Hodgkinson – Need general awareness. When the plan is done, then publicize it. Rich Delaney – want to hear constructive comments – this is a give and take discussion. Ken Farrar – They are asking for more guidance than they were initially given. McGrath – We are looking for an outline of the speech. What points to raise to get the audience’s attention. How to present your alternatives? That explains the implementation plan. How have other towns done it. Nelson – There is a linkage between the timeline and the public education task. Maybe there is a blending here of what we really provide you at the end of this for both of those tasks that gets the right people off and running. It may be the beginnings of that campaign strategy as well as some of the initial tools to implement the strategy. . Maybe it is not a brochure if there are brochures out there that you like already. Maybe there are better things we can do to guide the town. McGrath – I’m not suggesting that you offer content in a draft brochure. The framework on approach that a body like Citizen's Advisory Committee can take and hang specific community information and schedules on that framework. It is important to educate the public on the variety of solutions as the implementation plan is being released to the public. If there is a coordination of one subject with another aspect of the plan then that’s important in the education process. We are not looking for site specific; we are looking for an outline that someone else can put the specifics to. Delaney – We could design the criteria that an outreach campaign would use to be successful. Sims McGrath - Someone else would get the details to fill it in. John Hodgkinson – Then Orleans can pick from that shopping list what is most useful for us rather than Horsley & Witten trying to learn what would be most useful for us and then tell us. Sherman Reed – The one area of the 50/50 pricing – There is a whole history of how FEMA approached things – they went from 75/25 to 80/20. The whole idea was the big buck outfit which is the town vs. the ranges of “little fellas” out in the suburbs vs. in the center of town. Different economic situations for them. I would strongly suggest that you not nail it at 50/50, but you say 50/50 up to 75/25 leaving to the town the possible enducements to get people to get behind a program of wastewater management. The town has the ability to go out and get grants and do things like that where the private homeowner does not. The business might be able to get a grant so you might have an adjustable ratio. I think it might be worthwhile exploring. Leaving it as a range is better than 50/50. Wastewater Management Steering Committee Minutes – October 21, 2004 Page 6 Nelson – The final decision comes down to the extent of the community that is connected to a community facility. If it is 90% of the community, your range might be very different than if it is 25% of the community. There is some value in a range. We can be a little clearer. Our best success has been in the 50/50 range and we’ve presented that because it is probably the same level of community participation in Oak Bluffs that you are probably going to see here. A lot of lots are going to stay on site and they are not going to want to pay for the people on the other side of town. McKusick – People understand 50/50. Nelson – We don’t have to say that the town has decided this. The meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Karen C. Sharpless, Recording Secretary Wastewater Management Steering Committee Minutes – October 21, 2004 Page 7