Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06102013 Coastal Management Plan Work Group Minutes 1 MINUTES: Coastal Management Plan (CMP) Work Group – June 10th, 2013 PRESENT: Sarah Oktay, Carl Borchert, Jamie Feeley, Kirk Riden and Emily MacKinnon Also Present: Dave Fronzuto, Jeff Carlson, Kara Buzonowski Meeting called to order at 5:00 pm Agenda: The agenda was approved with a motion by Emily and a second by Carl. Chair Announcements: Sarah announced that the Board of Selectmen will be having a workshop at 6:00pm on Wednesday June 12 at 4 Fairgrounds Road in the Training Room. On their agenda is the access to Baxter Road and coastal bank stabilization proposal from SBPF. The Con Com meeting will be held at 4pm on the same day downstairs in the Community Room. The Workshop will be a public meeting, but not a public hearing. Sarah encouraged all interested to attend. Sarah has not heard anything conclusive from the NILB about their participation, and has not heard back from Andrew Vorce about attending a meeting to discuss One Big Beach easements. Dave mentioned that Andrew had been away. Sarah suggested asking Jim O’Connell back to speak to the CMPWG about coastal engineering structures and the Committee decided that he should be asked to attend a meeting in September. Jamie will brainstorm a coastal engineer to invite to the same meeting. Dave will advertise the summer meetings which will be scheduled for Monday July 8th and Monday August 12. Both meetings will be public hearings to gather additional input from the public on the CMP. Sectors 1-5 will be focused on at the July 8 meeting and Sectors 6-10 will be focused on at the August 12 meeting. Sarah asked Jeff to compile lists of all Town owned property within each Sector prior to the summer meetings. He agreed to do so. CZM’s Stormsmart Coasts Fact Sheet 1: No Adverse Impact Approach: The Committee had a lengthy discussion on the language of CZM’s NAI Fact Sheet 1, which is referenced under the Erosion Control sections of the draft Plan, and whether it should be included or incorporated into the Plan. Carl came prepared with some suggested alternative language for Erosion Control Statement 1, which is included at the end of these minutes. Jeff suggested that the NAI approach could be used by the BOS when they are reviewing proposals for projects that are to be constructed on Town owned land. It would show them that the applicant had considered those interests/concerns outlined by the NAI approach. Jamie stated that his primary concern was that he doesn’t want the language of the CMP or of documents referred to by the CMP to be any more restrictive of activities in the future. Emily said that she doesn’t interpret the Fact Sheet (NAI approach) as being any more restrictive, but that instead it just gives the BOS some guidelines for reviewing projects. Kara raised a concern regarding emergency situations, such as a compromised sewer line, that would require immediate action and would not allow time for any additional review or process. Jeff agreed and emphasized that Town emergencies need to be considered differently from a project that can afford the luxury of time and consideration. 2 Dave commented on Towns that build berms, etc in advance of storms for protection. He asked if there was a significant storm anticipated and the Town wanted to move sand/dunes around in order to protect infrastructure or reinforce structures in anticipation of the storm, how would a permit be obtained? Jeff suggested that this could be an instance where the Town could seek an Emergency Permit/Certification. Dave added that the Town has received funding to write a hazard mitigation plan for the island which will help to prepare for emergency situations in the future. Sarah reminded the Committee that CZM’s stormsmart program is essentially why we are here drafting this plan and has been a part of our charge and should be included in the Plan. Jeff said that CZM’s program is definitely a great resource available to the group and should be considered/used as appropriate but that the Committee originated from the moratorium voted on at Town Meeting. It has also been a way for the Town to fund and assist the process. Dave suggested that at the same time the Committee should not discount CZM’s level of expertise and experience. Jeff agreed but suggested it should be seen as a tool rather than a requirement for inclusion. He stated that we are not required to adopt 100% of their policy. Sarah again stated her thought that the Committee should refer to it and include it in the Plan. Emily agreed because it is well written and makes good sense for the Town. Jamie agreed that it could be included, but as Jeff said there is no requirement for the Committee to use it. Emily reiterated the view that their policy is not written as a “pass” or “fail” test, but a spectrum of issues to be considered and responded to. Dave agreed that it should be used as a tool in the toolbox. Jamie stated that when he reads the NAI Fact Sheet #1, his interpretation is that it totally discourages the “Basic” and “Better” part of the spectrum and really focuses on promoting or allowing “No Adverse Impact” projects only. Kara asked, for example, if the entire Washington Street area were to wash out could the DPW get in there to make repairs without going through a lengthy application process? The Committee responded that yes this would likely be allowed as an emergency situation. Emily reminded the Committee that Bobby has previously raised concerns about emergency situations and that the Committee had decided to include a section in the plan on Emergencies. Jeff concluded that in his opinion the CZM NAI Approach should be included or referenced in the Plan, but that the Plan should also include or address the ability for the Town to repair emergencies. He added that the Board of Selectmen are the best venue/forum for the Town to discuss and evaluate projects and to review them against the CMP (with NAI Approach) along with any other applicable Town plans. Kara added that the Committee may want to include CZM’s NAI approach with language that will reflect future changes to the document/policy. Sarah reviewed the alternative language suggested by Carl and thought it provides some wiggle room to consider options and alternatives when the BOS are reviewing projects. 3 Dave asked if the East Street bulkhead repair was done with the benefit of a permit? Jeff said no, that it fell under regular use and maintenance of the structure, not requiring an additional permit. He also added that in the future when the BOS are voting on whether or not to allow a Notice of Intent application to move forward for work on Town property, it would be nice for them to have guidance or guidelines to assist their discussions…CZM’s Fact Sheet #1 provides this guidance. Sarah suggested that all Committee members review Carl’s proposed language and the CZM policy again and we can continue the discussion at the next meeting. Jamie suggested there were two ways to look at the approach, to get as far as you can while doing no harm vs. looking at the end goal to be achieved and doing as little harm as possible along the way. Sector 2, 3, 4 and 5 Drafts: Emily has not updated Sector 4 and 5 drafts since the May meeting yet. She only needs to add Bam’s concerns for emergency access to Tuckernuck. Public Comment: Bam suggested that the NAI Approach be looked at as a philosophy rather than a regulation. D. Anne continued that the whole intent of the Plan was to be proactive so the Town can look ahead and consider future planning with an overarching retreat philosophy rather than waiting for the last minute and reacting to emergencies. Dave added that the Gund property should be considered a good example. The end scour evident on either end of this structure has done significant harm/damage to the neighboring properties. The Committee discussed Wednesday’s BOS workshop. Jeff and Kara said that staff is recommending that the Town seek a professional engineering consultant and additional legal advice prior to completing their discussions and voting on whether to consider the threat of erosion on Baxter Road an Emergency…and whether to seek Emergency Certification to move forward with structural protection for the eroding Coastal Bank. Carl made a motion to have the CMPWG submit a letter recommending the same. The Committee discussed this option and decided to wait until the BOS had further discussion around what was being proposed. The next CMPWG meeting will be a public hearing for Sectors 1-5 held Monday, July 8 at 5pm at 4 Fairground Road in the Training Room. There will be an additional public hearing focused on Sectors 6-10 to be held Monday, August 12 at 5pm at 4 Fairgrounds Road in the Training Room. The meeting was adjourned at 7:05pm Respectfully submitted, Emily MacKinnon 4 Erosion Control #1 3 Alternative Paragraphs CMP Work Group Carl Borchert June 10, 2013 1) Any projects that are considered on Town property within Sector __ shall be reviewed by local commissions and boards having jurisdiction as well as taking into consideration CZM’s No Adverse Impact approach. The long term viability or sustainability of such projects shall be vetted by said boards and commissions and be carefully considered. 2) Any projects that are considered on Town property within Sector __ shall be carefully considered for long term viability or sustainability by Town boards and commissions having jurisdiction. During said consideration the CZM No Adverse Impact approach shall be reviewed and applicable sections and recommendations taken into account during the approval process. 3) Any projects that are considered on Town property within Sector __ shall be reviewed using CZM’s No Adverse Impact approach as a guideline in addition to thorough review by local boards and commissions having jurisdiction. In order to provide for the long term viability or sustainability of such projects careful consideration of all regulations and NAI suggestions should be exercised by said local boards and commissions during the approval process.