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