HomeMy Public PortalAboutJohn_Lamb_May2016Input from John Lamb referencing Agenda Item 2: (~2.5 minutes to read)
5:45
BCAG
Input
on
Approved
Coastal
Projects
• Discussion
of
whether/
how
the
BCAG
should
offer
input
on
approved
coastal
projects
• Opportunity
for
Public
Comment
on
this
topic
Hi
everyone!
I'm
very
sorry
I
can't
be
here.
I
remain
with
you
in
spirit!
I
had
a
long-‐standing
commitment,
indicated
in
all
“doodle”
polls.
Please
consider
my
thoughts
on
this
topic
…
I'll
be
back!
I'm
quite
concerned.
A
majority
of
our
select-‐board
decided
to
snub
the
consensus
process
last
month
in
a
critical
beach
access
decision.
It
voted
to
create
a
new
car
park
with
a
wide
new
double
entrance
opposite
a
private
driveway
on
Crosby
Lane,
in
a
box
turtle/otter
habitat
coastal
transition
area.
This
isn't
in
DCR's
10-‐year
Nickerson
action
plan,
completed
after
a
consensus
process
last
year,
and
it
is
the
kind
of
radical
action
that
could
be
better
addressed
by
our
initiative.
Our
consensus-‐building
was
created
to
bridge
the
chasm
after
the
disconnect
over
the
beach
access
initiatives
that
triggered
a
500+
citizens'
petition.
87%
of
Town
Meeting
last
September
supported
it
–
633-‐98
of
citizens
–
including
the
Selectmen.
The
Crosby
project
then
was
vague
–
not
surveyed
and
the
full
cost
was
not
shared.
It
is
based
on
a
very
specific
adaptation
strategy
that
may
not
be
our
consensus.
And
it
has
changed
substantially
since.
The
new
parking
is
on
broken
hardtop
and
trees
-‐
former
courts
being
reclaimed
by
nature
for
over
30
years.
More
than
half
the
broken
hardtop
the
cars
would
use
is
within
the
100
ft
of
coastal
wetlands.
It
is
all
within
200
ft
of
a
perennial
brook.
It
slopes
towards
the
wetlands
and
the
brook.
A
Conservation
Commission
review
is
being
avoided
by
saying
cars
will
only
use
the
remaining
hardtop
areas
...
but
if
it
rains,
their
run-‐off
will
track
down
the
slopes,
and
they
will
not
be
ticketed
for
straying
closer
to
the
wetlands!
Also
two
short
sloping
connecting
roads
have
to
be
cut
through
woodland.
Three
selectmen
selected
a
voice/show
of
hands
vote,
close
to
50-‐50,
taken
with
many
fewer
people
at
the
end
of
Town
Meeting,
as
their
justification
for
this,
rather
than
the
87%
petition
vote
of
many
more
people,
which
included
our
consensus
process.
They
ignored
the
adjacent
parking
alternative,
on
existing
clear
area,
agreed
in
a
consensus
process
with
Ben
deRuyter,
DPW,
and
residents
last
May.
These
Selectmen
authorized
the
new
parking
against
the
recommendation
of
our
Board
liaison
Pat
Hughes,
and
in
opposition
to
the
chair,
Ben
De
Ruyter.
This
should
worry
us,
as
Selectmen
usually
follow
the
lead
of
their
appointed
liaison.
After
yesterday's
election,
neither
Pat
nor
Ben
remain
on
the
Board.
The
Selectmen
who
disregarded
the
opportunity
this
process
presents
were
not
interviewed
by
CBI
as
we
started
–
they
were
represented
in
the
interviews
by
Pat
and
Ben.
We
also
heard
from
Chris
Miller
that
the
Town's
expectation
for
this
process
is
that
more
people
build
a
better
understanding
of
what
is
happening
and
needs
to
be
done,
not
that
the
Town
wants
to
hear
the
people
and
adjust
to
reach
a
true
consensus.
I
don't
want
to
pre-‐judge
any
specific
decision
we
may
make,
but
I
don't
believe
three
selectmen
should
either.
They
supposedly
committed
to
this
consensus
process
last
September
with
the
rest
of
us.
I
see
no
point
in
continuing
if
the
three
selectmen
who
control
all
decisions
aren't
engaged
effectively.
We
are
all
investing
a
lot
of
our
time.
I
wonder,
should
we
ask
for
clarification,
or
should
we
respectfully
suggest
that
they
suspend
the
Crosby
decision
for
a
few
months
to
show
good
faith,
as
Pat
Hughes
recommended?