HomeMy Public PortalAboutComprehensive Water Planning -- 2010-06-28 Minuteso`~ ~oF E ~ . ~~~ '- Town Of Brewster
2 ,~;'e a~ 3 =_ 2198 Main Street
~ ~ ar N ~ Brewster, Massachusetts 02631-1898
~ ~ ~ __ #' ~ ~ (508) 896-3701 ext. 133
= ~~~ ~ FAX (508) 896-8089
'/ ////// ~ ~/ ~ 1~ I! 1 1 1111 I I I I! I l l 111 t l 1 1 1\\\\ \~~~~\\\\
Date Approved: 11/8/10, Skidmore/Taylor, 6-0-1, Pat Hughes abstain
TOWN OF BREWSTER MINUTES OF
COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLANNING COMMITTEE
REGULAR MEETING
Monday, June 28, 2010 at 4:30 P.M.
Brewster Town Office Building
Comprehensive Water
Planning Committee
Dave Michniewicz convened the Comprehensive Water Planning Committee meeting at 4:35 pm in
the Brewster Town Office Building with members Joanne Hughes, Jane Johnson, John Lipman,
Amy Usowski, Lem Skidmore, Elizabeth Taylor. Dave Bennett arrived at 4:45pm
Also Present: Sue Leven, Chris Miller, Ed Lewis
A. Citizen's Forum
Caroll Johnson: raised 3 points that he thought the committee should address:
1. Require a vegetative buffer around all ponds
2. No fertilizers on lawn
3. No phosphorus within 300 feet of a pond shore
A lengthy discussion occurred. It was agreed that some of the specific property locations noted with
issues were a question of enforcement and beyond the committee's authority. It was also noted these
issues may be addressed in the solutions/recommendations from CDM at the end of this phase.
B. Other Business:
Meeting Minutes -March 25 and June 3, 2010
March 25, 2010: Bennett: Motioned to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by J. Hughes.
Vote: 6-0-2 (Lipman, Skidmore)
June 3, 2010: Johnson: Motioned to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by Taylor. Vote: 5-0-
3 (Lipman, Skidmore, Bennett)
C. Follow up on 6/14 Meeting with CDM
Skidmore: Expressed his concern regarding the process.
Bennett: Felt the board was feeling frustrated
Miller: Thought they had gone off on a tangent and we are trying to determine a needs assessment.
At this point we should just be looking at data and our problems but we want to figure out how to fix it.
Maybe the committee needs to focus on an area and what we need to address. CDM needs to make
sure the committee understands the information that we have and then we determine what we need.
Michniewicz: Have we looked at what regulations we have now and will we determine what additional
regulations we need to implement?
06-14-]0 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page ] of4
Leven: To some degree -what CDM has put together is good. We need to understand that we got a
lot of data but it is important in order to figure out what we have and where the holes are and what we
need to do. We can't try to solve this problem now
J. Hughes: What was the original direction: didn't we ask them to develop short term and long term
goals?
Bennett: Doesn't it come down to CDM presenting the findings? I believe we are getting frustrated by
this process and we want to move forward. CDM is the professional and we should be able to rely on
them.
Lipman: What struck him as a consultant is the challenge of trying to figure out what the client really
needs. They are the experts on the technical information but we are the knowledgeable resource for
the town. He would have liked them to look at all the data and then come back to the town to say this
is what we have and here are the areas that we need more information. For example here is the
DCPC and this is the impact.
Leven: During the interview process the committee was very careful about leaving this open and
stressed that they wanted to allow the committee's input.
Skidmore: Sounds like the committee needs to read the proposal again to ensure that direction we
established is what we want them to do and keep everyone accountable on that proposal.
Michniewicz: He agreed, we could lose focus and should review the proposal again.
Leven: Has had conversations with CDM and felt that they would be having a conversation with the
committee on where we are and where we are going and this is what we have left to do.
Michniewicz: If CDM is coming in on the 12th can we ask them to give us a draft of where they are?
Bennett: Thought CDM has come along with some of the things that we wanted but didn't we also
need to have all the halos around the ponds identified.
Leven: CDM is refining a lot of what they have and we are trying to get them some additional
information in order for them to determine the halos.
Bennett: If our biggest problem is ponds then this is going to become a municipal problem. We need
to empower CDM to move forward. How much budget do we have left? Is this is all time and expense
not to exceed. Then we have money we should empower them for the July 12th meeting.
Leven: Also, we should have a timeframe update. And we should discuss the next community
meeting? Ideally, it would be in August.
Michniewicz: The original schedule showed that they would be ready in mid-August. and if they aren't
going to be done then they need to let us know now and the reasons for the delay. It needs to be
identified upfront not after the fact.
Lewis:
it is tough to deal with 9 different viewpoints -but the committee needs to come together as to whether
CDM is on course or off course. He wasn't that impressed with the last community meeting it seemed
like there was a lot of redundancy to the first meeting.
Bennett: Hasn't seen a lot but maps -did we include a review of existing regulations
Leven: Thought the group had asked them to review the regulations
06-14-10 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page 2 of 4
Michniewicz: Thought they needed to review the RFP again
Leven: Data gathering was part of phase 1 she would check on the regulations to see if that was a
part of the RFP
Bennett: Would it be appropriate to draft a letter to frame what the committee would like to see at the
12th meeting
Lipman: Thought maybe a one page memo with just 4 or 5 key points that the whole committee
agreed on. Would be a good way to address this issue.
Michniewicz: Thought that was great idea -are we prepared to do that today or do we need to do it at
a future date?
Leven: To you want to do that before the 12th -she would go through the proposal and review
J. Hughes: Looking at the technical proposal and saw some of what they proposed to do and the
committee hadn't seen yet.
Leven: Pointed out some open meeting law changes especially the email communications
acknowledgement
Bennett: Frustrated by the fact that we are trying to do CDM's work. The proposal says what they are
going to do. Let CDM address because they are driving the process and let them answer where they
are at on each of the phases listed in their proposal.
Leven: Read through the items they listed in their work plan. Noted what they were missing -the
summary task memos on everything through task 4
Bennett: Motion that we request a summary task memo for all tasks for a basis on discussion on the
July 12th meeting. The committee would also like to have updated project plan to see status.
Seconded by Skidmore. Vote: All Aye.
Lewis: Pointed out that the chairman of the committee should be reviewing and approving all
invoices.
Bennett: Would like the tasks listed on the next agenda.
Michniewicz: Would like to see the information prior to the 12th and requested the committee to review
the RFP again
J. Hughes: The back pages/work plan of the proposal are key to what the committee is looking for.
Leven: Would send out copies of the RFP, work plan
Skidmore: Thought this information should all be in the a-room; Leven agreed to make this happen
Michniewicz: Do we agree that we won't be able to set the date for the 3~d community meeting in
August?
Leven: We should discuss on the 12th But she would really like to see a community meeting in August
so that the temporary residents could be in attendance.
Lewis: What is CDM suppose to have done at the end of the phase?
06-14-10 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page 3 of4
Leven: A written report summarizing what they have so far and a plan on moving forward. We want a
strong foundation to stand on and based on that data/information this tells us what we need to do.
Lewis: Need to make sure that we are clear on what the mission of the committee is. It gets very
technical and laymen don't understand the technical. There is a mission for the plan based on the
science and it needs to be clear for the town.
Skidmore: Agrees that we need to be clear and inform the citizens on what is happening behind the
scenes.
J. Hughes: Thought the 1St community meeting was great - it defined the phases.
Miller: Thought another handout showing this is the project and this is where we are at in the process.
Leven: Agreed and suggested that a chart showing all that has been done would be helpful.
Taylor: Wants to make sure that the committee reviews all the information before the next community
meeting. She was very disappointed that they did not receive the presentation until the day of the
meeting. She felt it was still way over everyone's head.
Bennett: Was disappointed that they had low attendance at the 2"d community meeting
Taylor: Holding the 3~d meeting in conjunction with the non-resident tax payers meeting would be a
good opportunity to get attendance.
Leven: The non-resident taxpayers' group gets copies of all the handouts.
Bennett: Left at 5:50
Johnson: Has really learned a lot over this process. It sounds like we have all the information and
everyone wants to move forward. Wanted to know if the committee could move forward on some of
the items mentioned before for example write a letter regarding the wrong classification of a low grade
on Sheep's Pond, or what about the Consodine ditch report..Was anything ever done? Not to anyone's
knowledge. Are we are going to get reports on this for the 12tn~
Leven: It is her understanding that the committee will receive a report for phase I concerning what we
have, where we are and where we are going next.
Lipman: Motioned to adjourn at 6:04. Seconded by Hughes. Vote: All Aye.
Respectfully, bmitted,
`~
s
Ja nne ci/Senior Department Assistant
06-14-10 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.US Page 4 of4