HomeMy Public PortalAboutPlanning Board -- 2010-05-24 Minutesthe flood zones and the impervious groupings. Thi~y established ranking criteria on Zoning
and the depth to groundwater groupings.
Keep in mind that each of these criteria are being compared equally against all the other
criteria. Table 1 shows the raw data and gives us a ranking of 1 - 5. Table 2 is the picture
of Table 1. Table 3 is a very similar spreadsheet but shows the risk to water quality.
David Young: the take away from all this is that this information is a summary of all the
data you have seen in the past.
Musci: Presented a slide that showed a new overview of the water quality risk scorea for
the watersheds without the, MEP reports taken into consideration. The next slide showed
the weighting towards Pleasant Bay because it incorporates the MEP reports and the Zone
2. To recap they have pulled the raw data, they have developed a ranking and compiled
the risk associated with the information.
b. Discuss draft ponds evaluation process
2nd Matrix -PONDS: Bernadette - provided a recap on the pond analysis, process, the
indicators and the special factors. They then pulled all the information together and
provided a slide that showed the classifications of the different ponds in Brewster.
Joanne Hughes requested that the rankings match between the watersheds and the ponds
(i.e. rank 1 =good and rank 5 =bad)
Kolb provided a slide that showed the watersheds needing protection or restoration. And
finally she showed a slide that combined the watershed categories and the WQ scores.
Joanne Hughes asked that CDM walk them through one pond (as an example) to show
how that pond was ranked and how it got to a red category. Musci walked the committee
through the process.
Pat Hughes opened the floor to the public. A few questions were asked and addressed. It
was noted that the information is based on the existing density and not the potential
density. The potential density would be looked at in the final analysis and in CDM's
recommendations.
John Lipman left at 5:45.
Cape Cod's regional plans have resources available to help better understand this
information and help to organize all this information. Look at their goals and see where we
stand in relationship to the Commissions goals.
Young: how much information would the committee like to be presented at the community
meeting. This is a good point when someone in the audience might be able to shed some
light on the questions they have.
Bennett: Seems like there are some questions in the data. Is it really ready to be
presented to the community? Young -yes, they are truth testing the data but think it is
ready to be presented to the community.
Pat Hughes: would like to recommend that the committee review all the information to
make sure it all makes sense. Given the fact that there may be some questions she would
recommend not presenting all the data but would want to provide an overview of what the
committee and CDM are doing. Some of the slides provide a good overview. She wants
OS-24-10 www.TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.LIS Page 2 of4
the community to understand where they are, what they are doing, and where they are
going before overwhelming them with data.
Leven: showed some of the overview slides and thought the community meeting should be
geared toward the education and process.
Kolb: would you be comfortable with showing the slide that shows the Watersheds needing
protection or restoration
Michneiwicz: left at 6 pm
Leven: Cautioned that the specific map could commit us to something that may change.
Bennett: would like to show the criteria and the ba^e maps -something more concrete and
visual. The public are going to be expecting to see what has been done.
Young: a lot of the information that was presented to the committee two meetings ago may
be a good place to start with the community.
P. Johnson: Need to be careful that everyone in the audience is not at the same level and
that you should be ready to bring the general public up to speed and start at the beginning
and give a quick overview (i.e. nitrogen and phosphorus impacts)
Joanne Hughes: Suggested a glossary of terms
Bennett: at this point, he would not want to show the areas that need work until the
committee has had a chance to evaluate the data
Leven: felt it was "food for thought" and could be presented.
Kolb: how about showing these areas that need protection -but not showing them in color.
Bennett: yes
P. Hughes: Thanked CDM for the amount of work they have done.
Kolb: specifically on the ponds what is the Committee comfortable with presenting.
Bennett: ok with showing the ponds data just not the rankings.
Young: felt he had a good handle on what should be presented.
4. Community Meeting No. 2 -June 3rd at 6 pm
P. Hughes: any other comments on what is to be compiled for the meeting?
Leven: any comments should be sent to her by Thursday. She will confirm that someone is able
to videotape.
5. Other with CDM: Young: Harwich is looking at having a meeting with the Cape Cod
Commission -they were wondering if Brewster would consider having a joint meeting in late July
early August. - no comments
OS-24-10 www.'TOWN.BREWSTER.MA.tJS Page 3 of4
6. Next CWPC Meeting with CDM
a. Monday, June 14, 2010 at 4:30 pm
C. Schedule work session to discuss prioritization opt[ons for watershed and pond
evaluation
a. Monday, June 7th at 4:30.
Other Business:
- P. Hughes: noted that they have 1 seat on the committee open -feel free to let the selectman's
office know if you have an interest
- Review Meeting Minutes: March 22, April 12 and April 26th
1. March 22, 2010 - Bennett: Motioned to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by Taylor.
All Aye.
2. April 12, 2010 -Bennett: Motioned to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by Taylor. All
Aye
3. April 26, 2010 - J. Hughes: Motioned to approve the minutes as written. Seconded by Taylor.
All Aye
Bennett: Motioned to adjourn. Seconded by Taylor. Vote: All Aye.
1
yann Sci/Senior Department Assistant
1`x"1
~~r :i::
I
fl
Imo...
I,j I
' ,
._.I
'Tl
r..a -'
r_.~. :;e
os-24-1o La:~ ,K,www.TOWN.BREWST'ER.MA.US
:~
Page 4 of4