Loading...
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