Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20230719 - Trail Coordination and Management Committee - Agenda PacketTOWN OF HOPKINTON TRAIL COORDINATION AND MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE Draft Minutes – 6/21/2023/7:30-9:00 HCAM offices Lower Level 77 Main Street and Google Meet (Remote) Meeting Hopkinton, MA Attendees (TCMC): Chuck Dauchy, Fran DeYoung, Linda Chuss, Peter LaGoy Select Board: Amy Ritterbusch, Irfan Nasrullah (remote, partial?), Muriel Kramer, Shahidul Mannan (remote) Public Guests who spoke: Bob Snyder, Jane Moran, Steve Frohbiether 1. Introduction, public comment, and address June 14, 2023 minutes. a. Peter stated it’s being recorded and that it’s a joint meeting with the Select Board. b. Public comments: i. Jane Moran - read a statement (see the full statement here - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_GcqfsNEBH0xiE7KD3Mr38ybR5r 0rO-- /edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=115949127491216152837&rtpof=true&sd=tr ue) about numerous topics including engineering studies for segment 1, Legacy Farms abutter notifications, the Gorman property, Hayden Rowe route status, accessibility, surfaces, grant money, and more. She also asked what TCMC and the Trails Club has done about the Western Alternative study. Peter replied that as was reported at the previous meeting (to Bob Snyder from UCTC), there were some initial talks with key landowners, but no more since funds are not available until July 1, 2023. RE: Gorman, TCMC talked with a realtor because they have more experience reaching out. There is an alternative to the alternative that doesn’t require the Gorman property by crossing Daniel Rd, but Peter said that he had told concerned abutters that he would not pursue that route. ii. Bob Snyder - asked if TCMC needs approval from all landowners to proceed using the CPC monies for the western route. Peter replied that TCMC can proceed with the portions of the western route options where landowners have already agreed. c. Minutes from 6/14/23 meeting were unanimously approved. They were mailed to Muriel because she was at the meeting, which was posted as a Select Board meeting as well. 2. Review of hikes for kids - Walk on 6/17 behind Center School. Linda reported it was disappointing because only 2 kids were there, though Chuck, Ken Parker, Krisanne, TCMC June 21, 2023 Meeting Minutes - 1 Linda, and Peter came. What else to do? Threats of rain, conflict with Timlin race, end of school year busy time were some reasons. Linda said we’ll work on one or two groups at a time (even though open to all) - Krisanne will focus on that going forward. Next meeting, Linda and Krisanne will report back on next steps. Peter reported that Nathan, an experienced trail builder, can help sort out how to create a trail on the rocky slope behind Center School that includes a “cave” , which kids will enjoy. 3. Trails Committee Charge - review of draft Charge and discussion of modifications. Proposal was not available at the meeting a. See: Current, approved charge (from 2019): https://drive.google.com/file/d/15PApKDLo8r- 2riLMhwtcSVhzzZioIHTy/view?usp=drive_link Charge with Chuck Dauchy’s feedback from months ago when first looking at this topic: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QWHnrouJSTbg3cL9- uX7OYzL3PjlLLJM/edit?usp=drive_link Jeanine LeBlanc’s one page proposed charge: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FU4nB7oGDSohnSUj1YBxHZlC5Lmm9kw Q/edit?usp=drive_link Peter’s 6/15/23 draft proposal for a new charge: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DzWBb- 3bMZuni8H9QBiHYLvzGBde584U/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=1159491274912161 52837&rtpof=true&sd=true TCMC has provided a comparison document showing the changes between the original approved charge and the 6/15/23 proposed charge: https://docs.google.com/document/d/19576huB2atX9Xe_cT8TuTdyzAA0LtjmN/ edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=115949127491216152837&rtpof=true&sd=true Peter will update the proposed charge based on feedback from this meeting and any other input. At that point, a new comparison document will be provided along with comments in the document about the changes. b. Comments, questions, and discussions about the proposed changes to the charge: i. Fran - has the purpose changed? Peter - yes. ii. Chuck concurs with many changes. iii. Peter explained that new charge proposal has 7 at large/regular members focused on trails rather than 4 at large/3 appointed liaisons as is now iv. Peter’s proposed charge describes a relationship between the new Trails Committee (was TCMC) and a proposed Upper Charles Building Committee (replacing the existing UCTC). It would involve milestones for the UCT that both the TC and UCBC meet and vote on the UCT surfaces, TCMC June 21, 2023 Meeting Minutes - 2 routes, [note that budget and schedule are also listed in the document]. The votes would require ⅔ majority from the combined two committees. v. Fran asks if the votes are binding or are recommendations to the Select Board? Peter replies that everything is a recommendation to the Select Board for their approval decision. vi. Peter added that one supporting reason for this proposal is that funding requests to the state for trails in town should be coordinated within the town, based on a previous experience where separate committee requests didn’t result in what may have been the best priority for the town. vii. The proposal includes TC looking at trail connections to other towns too, like an expected trail coming in from Westboro and Southborough. viii. Fran asks if there is a responsibility for an overall strategy, approach at the aggregate level that aligns with the town master plan, growth study, that should be shared with the Select Board and Planning Board? The vision, the 10,000 foot view? Peter replies that it is not in here. Linda said she thinks that is useful. Muriel commented that an overall global strategy would be helpful, to help with guiding tough decisions. Fran suggests a unified north star is needed. ix. Muriel talked about different guidance for different kinds of trails, perhaps trails that don’t connect versus those that do? Linda suggests a single global plan to address all. Chuck refers to the segments of the UCT as perhaps serving both a local neighborhood purpose and part of a through route. Peter refers to models in other towns we can look at in terms of combining trails into a network. He describes UCT as one slightly different trail, e.g. needing more handicap accessibility than other trails, higher end. x. Peter concurs with having a vision statement. Muriel recommends we have a shared nomenclature - what makes the trails different, etc to help with communication, even if not a single vision. xi. Linda notes we already work with other trails - HALT, Sudbury Valley - there is a big network of state trails in town. Even though we don’t control those trails, the overall plan should take those into account. E.g. no need to build a town trail right next to an existing state trail. Muriel notes uses like horseback riding should be considered. xii. Peter says we look at making sure all corners of town are served by trails when deciding on project priorities. Putting all this on paper makes sense. xiii. Peter noted that annual tasks (on the last page of the charge are 2024 tasks) would be shared with the select board annually. xiv. Muriel noted the dog leash “goal” was a tough one. See more discussion in agenda item 5. xv. Amy asked about what changed. TC will provide a version with what changed between the existing charge and the proposed charge. TCMC June 21, 2023 Meeting Minutes - 3 Numbering of 6.1 - Peter believes it is correct. Peter noted we are adding a key new responsibility that TC guides the building of trails. xvi. UCT would be turned over to TC once the trail is complete, for maintenance. xvii. Peter noted the proposed charge indicates of the 7 members, 1 (or 2) would also serve on the UCBC. xviii. Linda asked how the select board ensures applicants match the expectations. Amy noted it’s more general than say the Historic District Commission. Peter said the primary priority should be trails passion/experience. The Select Board said the page of charge with the qualifications is included in the packet when they make appointments to compare the candidates to it. Peter said we want new blood on TC, not necessarily members who look good on paper. Amy says it’s subjective because it’s general. She added that if it’s uncontested, the person would be appointed even if they didn’t meet the qualifications. Muriel said they also consider the resumes. xix. Members of TC would be assigned to liaison to other relevant committees, e.g. a TC member would attend 2 Con. Comm. meetings each year and reach out to them if there is something coming up. Linda notes that 2 meetings a year for 7 members works. xx. As for the 2024 goals, Peter noted the Select Board should be made aware. Muriel noted liaisons should reach out, e.g. to her when TC has topics. There’s no need to send minutes to Muriel, unless there’s something of note. xxi. Peter said that minutes have been sent to Connor but Peter isn’t sure where they are located. The search feature is being worked on, notes Muriel. TC should submit them to Town Clerk email. xxii. Peter called out item 4 in the 2024 tasks about creating guidance documents - we’d pull a report together and that’s a task we’d contract out. Chuck notes we’ve developed guidelines with the other relevant groups over the past few years and we’re ready to make those more official. xxiii. Linda notes that a 2024 task to be added is outreach, especially the web site. We need help from IT especially to fix up the broken pages. Muriel notes we can reach out to her. Amy notes that we can use Google site for the committee like they did on Historic District. TC will consider doing that. Fran suggests a summer intern could do that. xxiv. Amy suggested adding liaisons to groups particularly Youth Commission, Council on Aging, Disability. Linda asked if that would be in their charter or ours. Peter wondered if the Select Board should make those suggestions to committees. Muriel said we should have a contact in relevant groups and reach out when relevant. Linda noted the charge indicates liaisons can be added. TCMC June 21, 2023 Meeting Minutes - 4 xxv. [Noted after the meeting - the new charge should use the term Select Board instead of the old charge’s terminology of Selectmen.] 4. Charge of the Upper Charles Trail Committee and its relationship to the Trails Committee. The Select Board asked for our thoughts, as the other town trail committee, on the issue with and charge of the Upper Charles Trail Committee and ways to move forward. See the draft proposal Peter provided for an Upper Charles Building Committee at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yZUnFKn- qsDALxYKXYLNVYa0z8rfn3Te/edit?usp=drive_link\ a. There is one Trails Committee and the Upper Charles committee is about building that trail. b. There is some overlap between the UCBC and the TC charge e.g. voting on the key milestones among the two committees (e.g. expenditures - first paragraph on the second page) c. UCBC proposal recommends 7 at large members, 1 or 2 who are also members of TC. Members should have trails experience and on multiple types of trails and shared use paths. d. Linda summarized this proposal was in response to Muriel commenting last week they don’t know how they’ll move forward and that the Town Meeting article hadn’t provided details. Peter added it tries to address known issues from the past. Muriel advised we update it and finalize it as a committee and formally submit it to the Select Board. Peter noted we will annotate it with the rationale. e. Linda notes that the Upper Charles Trail is a project, whereas the Trails Committee doesn’t have an end date. f. This proposed charge (and all documents) will be made available with the minutes. g. Jane asked if the Select Board will review all of this with both the TC and the UCTC. Muriel said the process is the survey and any input people want to provide. h. Linda noted that serial, separate communication doesn’t allow discussion and wondered if a forum with both groups and the select board could get together. Jane noted that the Select Board had asked Norman to facilitate a meeting like that. Muriel said we should include that in our feedback. Linda notes that a joint meeting would be time consuming, but would save time relative to how much it’s taking this way. Jane said the process should take the time to do it right. Linda clarified her comment about a joint session would be about the charge. Jane stated she believes the UCTC budget is different from TC. Linda noted that an outside voice, like TC, could address things like the topic raised last week of “do we a pursue a grant to get the funds even if the project doesn’t serve us that well?”. 5. Dog on the trails. Deferred due to lack of time, but the topic came up at two other points in the meeting and those comments are consolidated here. TCMC June 21, 2023 Meeting Minutes - 5 a. Peter said we want a campaign because it may be more our problem than anyone’s. Linda noted the reason we would address this is people aren’t using our trails because of this. She added we should work with other groups on it; Peter suggests TC lead that charge. Fran asked if the Select Board would want us to take this on; he thinks it’s not under our purview. Peter replied that because dogs are using the trails and causing issues, we should look at it. Linda noted we talked about ideas and will be talking more about it. Muriel says it should not be part of the charge or goals, just a campaign. b. Peter says we would hold public forums and we may be able to do something to improve things. E.g. a certain day on a certain trail might be dog free (e.g. like no hunting on Sundays) - safe days, or dog free trails. Jane suggested we look at other town’s approaches, like notifying the Town Clerk about offenders who can levy additional fees. Linda said we have and will discuss that. Shahidul had no further comments. c. Peter said the TC would provide education and awareness. Peter noted that a safe day or trail by itself would increase awareness, e.g. with a QR code that explains it. Steve Frohbieter noted that two conservation areas in town now don’t allow dogs: Waseeka and Whitehall Woods. d. Peter noted a public forum could help too. e. Muriel said the opposite of a dog free day might be a good idea - have a day at a trail or some trails where dogs can be off leash. Chuck and Peter noted Pratt Farm might be a good spot for that. f. Fran said it’s tough, might not what we should take on now. Peter agreed it’s complicated and not low hanging fruit but starting it is useful. Chuck noted it would be ongoing. g. The above input was added to the running document about this topic at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JLcx06ucA70brPjXFdZhVLFSnX77cSgdL05 m0a5i2As/edit?usp=sharing 6. Trail Volunteer July workday project on July 1 from 9-12. Rock moving at Brook Hollow or Rock work and bench cutting at Greenwood have been suggested as options. Peter added and recommended Echo Trail rocks could be moved to make more parking and a fence that was knocked down could be repaired. Chuck added that invasive removal at Echo would be useful. Linda added Brook Hollow isn’t urgent. The committee unanimously voted to approve Echo Trail for the July workday. 7. Next meeting in mid July: a. TC charge b. UCBC charge c. Dogs - start the process (discussion that happened here is captured in agenda item 5) d. Next kids walk e. Update on web site corrections and taking on our own web site update