Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutCoastal Committee -- 2017-11-27 Minutes B ZE1,15TER TORN CLERK Coastal Committee Meeting Minutes BREW TER TOWN CLERK November 27, 2017 In attendance : Mary O' Neill , Rachel Hutchinson , Pat Hughes, Abigail Archer, Chris Miller ' 1 ? 9i26M 1 . Call to Order 2 . Public Comment Ruth Courtnell had a statement to read, and asked if she should read it now or during the Paine' s Creek discussion under agenda item 4 . The Committee agreed that under item 4 would be appropriate . 3 . Review of Scope of Work for coastal resource management plan consultant Donna and Chris are working on a contract with Carole Ridley & Associates The scope of work will come from the CZM grant application Pat summarized that there are 5 tasks and deliverables . It' s pages 941 from the CZM grant application (Attachment # 1 ) Mary asked when the Committee can meet with Carole . It will depend on the timing of the contract being approved . Chris Miller will see if she' s available for a meeting in December. John Lamb asked if the scope of work available on the website ? Chris Miller had made copies of the scope and handed them out . Once the contract and scope of work is finalized Abigail will ask to have it put on the website . Mary asked who is managing the website . Pat explained that the agendas and minutes are posted by the Town Clerk' s office . Abigail had worked with Chris Miller in Winter 2017 to update the language on the Coastal Committee page . She can work with Chris again to make more updates . 4 . Discuss questions and issues raised at community meeting on Paines Creek Road land purchase Two public meetings were held to discuss Article 8 in the Fall Town Meeting regarding the parcel on Paine' s Creek Rd . One was organized by the Town , and one was organized by Brewster Community Network ( BCN ) on November 2 . Mary gave a summary of the Brewster Community Network meeting on the Paine' s Creek article . The ban on recreational marijuana was discussed as well . Peter Johnson with the Brewster Conservation Trust ( BCT) attended and gave a history of the Paine' s Creek parcel and a woman from the Paine' s Creek neighborhood also spoke . Similar issues came up at BCN meeting as well as Town Public meeting . People expressed issue with process, people wanted to be involved with scoping options, and didn't think the process in the Coastal Strategy was followed . There were calls for early public engagement . There was confusion around funding of the land purchase . Some people didn't think it adhered to the BCT mission . There was concern for the rural character of neighborhoods . There was also concern that there was no formal agreement developed between BCT and Town . The question was asked , " How can we agree to a purchase when there are unanswered questions ." People asked why other options hadn't been explored such as the land on Betty' s Curve ? Are there other ways to gain access to the 9 acres? It was the parking lot aspect people where most concerned about. Pat asked Mary if her report included a summary of both the BCN meeting and the Town meeting? Mary replied that the issues raised were very similar at both meetings . Pat Hughes summarized that it was clear from the Town Public meeting that there were many issues that needed clarification . Mike Embury explained at the meeting that Betty' s Curve was originally purchased for stormwater management . BCT wants to have a trailhead at the Paine' s Creek parcel but they don 't want to patrol for beach parking . More conversation needs to happen on how the Town and BCT could work together. The parking lot will be small , and only on the portion of the property that was developed previously . Pat thought issues that came up in both meetings were helpful . There will be more discussion going forward . The Town Administrator will look at other alternatives . Abigail asked if there was a meeting scheduled to continue the discussion . Rachel replied that the BCT will discuss it at their next meeting . Right now there are no public meetings scheduled . Mary explained that as a group we have communicated to the Board of Selectmen the importance of community engagement . Article 8 was a good learning process . More working together with the town is needed to ensure that public engagement happens . Ruth Courtnell handed out copies of a letter and read it on behalf of the authors . (Attachment #2 ) Ruth also shared her own comments . She read from the Government Study Report from July 2016 . Quoted Issue #19 The recommendation for implementation was to have the Town Planner and Town Administrator to develop a written process and present it to the Board of Selectmen by July 2018 . (Attachment #3 ) Rachel Hutchinson commented that there were questions at the community meetings about why plans hadn' t been developed yet. That's because the project was brought to the public early in the process when there were no plans yet . It's a chicken and egg process, or cart before the horse . The Brewster Conservation Trust just voted on the idea this summer. Chris Miller: There was work on this project for years, but it wasn't public because it was a real estate transaction . It's difficult for the town to discuss real estate transaction in a public meeting. One possibility is to hire an engineer to develop 30% plans . The wetlands would be mapped and a basic layout of where the parking could go . Mary explained that some comments she heard were what' s the rush ? Why can't this be discussed and then brought up to Spring Town meeting . She appreciates that Mike Embury wants to produce an engineered plan, but she would like to explore alternatives . Chris asked what are the other alternatives Mary explained that the BCAG discussed a trolley. There could be smaller parking areas in other locations . She wants time to brainstorm with the community. People in the community add value to the process. Pat Hughes commented that parking is defacto dispersed . There' s parking by the water, there maybe could be some at the traffic triangle, and perhaps a small amount at the parcel under discussion . This is a dry run . The two public meetings brought up ideas. Now we have the winter and early spring to have a more comprehensive and proactive discussion . We may have to think creatively about how to reach people since most live near the beach are non- resident taxpayers . A challenge is that most of the people who own property on the beach roads are non -resident tax payers . Abigail commented that there may not be viable alternatives, it' s still useful to go through all the brainstorming and thinking together. Process is important . Mary commented that someone should have another meeting soon to discuss parking at Paine' s Creek . Ruth commented that she doesn' t live in the Paine' s Creek neighborhood, but is opposed to it. She would like the Town to back up and consider of this is even a good idea . This is an idea from 2015, from the past, and voices are from now and going to the future . Pat asked Ruth if she goes to the beach in the summer, and how she gets to the beach . Ruth said by car, sometimes by bike, and goes during off times . Pat commented that if she lived near a beach she would walk . What about the people who do not live on the road and cannot walk because it' s too far? At the end of many roads is a public beach . It' s very complicated . The biggest challenge is balance with folks in coastal neighborhood who don't want change, and the fact that at the end of road is a town beach , How do we balance that? Early discussion is really important. We need to have conversations with people who live close to the beach and those who do not live within walking distance . Chris Miller: It's not just about dry space on the beach with a space to lay your towel . People go out on the flats. Brewster flats are municipally controlled land . Most people are active on the beach . People go to watch a sunset at low tide on Paine's Creek . We' re always going to have demand . We need to think about our aging populations and shrinking parking lots . S . Update on historic research Abigail gave an overview of the goal of the historic research project . She discovered there was not a list of when and how our town owned parcels came to be . She did research at the Historical Society on two days, read through Town Annual reports in the library, and found a binder in the Conservation Department that lists information about coastal town properties, She handed out a draft timeline she prepared (Attachment #4) The next step is to work with Kathy Lambert to put together a map using the town GIS system so that the individual parcels are clearly marked . Chris Miller brought up that the salt marsh ownership could get complicated, because there weren't great deed references . Abigail stated she would focus on just the beaches for now . Breakwater, Little Breakwater, and Paine' s Creek are the oldest landings . They existed before 1915 . 4 areas were designated in 1915 as town landings, and are just the width of the road , Other parcels were purchased by Town Meeting . Sometimes eminent domain was enacted as a way to clear titles to the land, but the town still paid the owner. The next step is to do some newspaper archive research to learn if any of these purchases were controversial . We have 10 town beaches . Is this the result of the town pursuing opportunities as they came up? Or the result of some active planning? She is also doing research on the groins . There are references in the annual town reports . Some of the groins were financed with both town and private funding . Abigail has reached out to Mark Borelli at Center for Coastal Studies, and Greg Berman with the Cape Cod Cooperative Extension to see if they have any info on who built the structures and when . Pat said that DCR Division of Waterways has a survey of Public and Private owned coastal structures . You can find info by Town . Mary asked when the parking lots came about? Pat and Chris explained that people would take wagons to the beach shacks, and often the activity was commercial . The beach shacks were hard infrastructure on the beach — they were a place to change into your bathing costume . Abigail will continue to do work on the project as time allows . She asked if the Committee wants her to go in a particular direction ? Chris would like to see some discussion on the different ways the beaches and coastal areas were used . How have areas been used as bathing beaches, access for fishermen, commerce, packet ships etc. Ruth Courtnell suggested inviting people to give oral histories. Abigail responded that the Committee could use the NPR StoryCorps program as a model . 6. Review of specific elements of John Lamb' s presentation at October meeting Mary thanked John Lamb for a very comprehensive presentation at the last meeting. She thinks that even though the process was used for large corporations, many aspects of it can be adapted for the Coastal Committee , One of the main questions is, "What problem are we trying to solve ?" Pat suggested framing it as, "What opportunities are we trying to pursue" ? Mary stated that it's important to ask ourselves "why" as we work on certain projects . The public engagement section in John's presentation was also helpful . Communication with the public is important but also with the other committees . It assumes that everyone has the same good intent . Pat brought up that we could use the capital planning process as a model . It' s an opportunity for the town to think out may years ahead into the future . It' s a process that people and committees could get involved in early in the process . It' s the plan around which the budget is developed . But the process would have to be more robust than it is now . Abigail stated that she also found John' s presentation helpful . We need a process, and a clearly understood process will help people know exactly where we are in the decision making process . Is it initial scoping ? Final comments on a plan ? It was also helpful to think about having clear Go, NoGo or Redirect decision points . Those were useful to think about . Pat sees the CRMP as a way for the town to identify what projects we might pursue in the future . Right now it' s hard to work on coastal projects more than one deed at a time . And it could help identify aspects that other boards or committees could take the lead on . Mary asked how does the CRMP and the Capital Planning process connect? Pat anticipates that the CRMP will analyze and define the challenges and opportunities along the coast, will identify one or more actions that could be taken, and will set some priorities . Those priorities could be incorporated into a capital planning process . Abigail asked if the Pleasant Bay Alliance management plans could be useful to guide our process ? Chris explained that it' s an ACEC area, that the plans cover 4 towns, and they are guidance documents . The management plan is updated every 5 years . Pat added that in that every 5 years they review what has been accomplished . Mary thinks that the town wide strategies listed in the Strategy provide a good starting point . Mary wants to move quickly to get something solid in place . She wants to build understanding as we go along and develop priorities . Rachel commented that as we go along we can evaluate if the process we used worked . Abigail wondered if we would all agree what the problem is that we are trying to solve ? Chris and Pat both prefer to think of it in terms of opportunities . Abigail clarified that it' s not bad or good if we all agree or do not agree — it would just be useful to know . Ruth asked about community membership . The Committee membership was 5 and then 7 and now 4 . How will the new person be folded in ? Pat replied that the new person will have homework to do to get up to speed . Rachel clarified that we reduced the committee membership because of interest . If 3 more people were interested in being on the Committee we would ask the Selectboard to increase our size . 7 . Discussion of proposed DCR bike trail route Chris Miller gave an update . The comments received were compiled from the state . They were encouraged that feedback was generally positive . The two significant issues were the 6A Crossing and where the trail would end on the beach . 8 . Set next meeting date and agenda Wednesday December 13 at 4 : 15 and Tuesday January 2 at 4 : 3013M -Call to Order - Public Comment - Discussion with Carole Ridley -The Coastal Committee website - Discussion of the question, "What are we trying to solve ? " with the Coastal Resources Management Plan . What is the purpose of the CRMP ? - Proposed DCR Bike Trail -Approval of minutes - Discuss agenda for next meeting -Other business Mary suggested talking about the Paine's Creek parcel . Committee decided that it could go on the January agenda . Abigail asked if Mary meant for the Paine's Creek specifically, or a process in general . Mary wants to work on a process in general . 9. Other business that may legally come before the Committee which the Chair did not reasonably anticipate October 23, 2017 minutes were approved Moved by Abigail, Seconded by Mary APPROVE 4 OPPOSSEDO ABSTENSIONS 0 Pat announced that she is giving a presentation on the Coastal Adaptation Strategy during the Cape Coastal Conference on December 5 . Abigail reported that she is in contact with Elizabeth Taylor and she will let us know when the next Open Space Committee Abigail reported that we missed the deadline to get the survey into the Recreation Commission November email . Abigail will work with Ellen Bearse to determine the next opportunity. Abigail Moved to Adjourn Rachel Seconded APPROVE 4 OPPOSED 0 ABSTAIN 0 ATTACHMENTS Attachment #1 Scope of Work that was included in the CZM grant Tiinetine tiu - Sep Oct- Nov-: Tec Tan Feb Hier- 17 17 i7 ' 17 17 18' ' : . 18 18 ' .,JAp 18 18 . 15 Task 1: Project scoping and public process plan I I I l l l I I I I Task 2: Issue summaries and I f analysis I Task 3: Facilitate public r Jf discussions I I ! I I I Task 4: Draft Phase I 11C12M report !I Task 5: Present Phase I report to I Select Board I ( I I l l l l l l i I I Project Complete (June 30, 2018) I I I ( 1 I I I I I Bu*et loaertean Attachment #2 375 Paine's Creek Rd . Project - Neighbor Feedback ( pdf document) Attachment #3 Page 32 of the Government Study Committee Report that was delivered to the Selectboard on July 2016 ISSUE 19 The Town would benefit by establishing a written process for initiating all Town projects . Description : Brewster has recently seen controversy seemingly caused by projects which are not presented until implementation is imminent . Citizens feel that when plans are presented , it is too late to give input or affect the design . Analysis and Discussion The Town relies on Town employees and department heads to identify needs , plan , and implement improvements . While there may be discussion and presentations in public meetings of boards and committees , too often citizens feel surprised by projects which are ready for construction . Town residents often do not feel engaged at the outset . Recommendation The Town should develop a written process for developing public projects . The process should begin with identifying the need , and request input from all citizens , not just those considered stakeholders or abutters . Supporting Arguments Citizen involvement in public affairs is very important for maintaining the culture of Brewster . Brewster residents have expertise which may not be known to the Town administration . The Town may be able to take advantage of this expertise by publicizing project needs and ideas before design begins . Creating resident ownership of projects early in the process avoids conflict during implementation . Opposing Arguments The Town hires qualified professionals to staff it ' s departments . They are best able to define the needs of the Town . Citizen outreach and involvement would add significant time to the planning of Town projects . Smaller projects do not need extensive planning . Some projects must be done quickly to take advantage of outside funding . Implementation The Town Administrator and Town Planner should develop and implement a written process for all Town projects . The process should be presented to the Board of Selectmen within two years of the adoption of this recommendation . Budgetary Implications Impact would depend on the size of the project . The increase in time and money spent soliciting input from residents would be offset by the ease of project implementation . Resources : httpso / / www . auburn . edu / outreach / cgs / documents / RuralToolKit_tools_for_sm all_towns . pdf https : / / issuu . com / clathensplanner / docs / essence_of_athens_plan_final httpo / / www . massdot . state . ma . us / planning / Main / PlanningProcess / Pro3ectDevel opmentProcess . aspx Attachment #4 Draft Beaches Timeline prepared by Abigail Archer for the 11-2747 Coastal Committee meeting ( pdf document)