HomeMy WebLinkAboutArticle 68 Wrk Grp Minutes - 06 15 2010_201402041900179131ARTICLE 68 WORK GROUP
MEETING HELD TUESDAY, JUNE 15th, 2010
AT 10:30 AM, CONFERENCE ROOM, 2 FAIRGROUNDS ROAD
Final Meeting Minutes
Members Present: Peter Boyce, Cormac Collier, Carolyn Ellis, David Fronzuto, Bam LaFarge, Mark Lucas,
Wendy McCrae, Mike Misurelli, Seth Rutherford, Lee Saperstein, Ernest Steinauer, and Lucinda Young
Members Absent: Richard Ray
Guests: Rick Atherton, Patty Roggeveen, Doug Smith, Whitey Willauer
Others: Jim Sutherland, Administrative Assistant
1. Call to Order
Chair Young called the meeting to order at 10:31 am.
2. Review and Approval of Preliminary Agenda
The meeting agenda had been distributed previously via e‐mail and was introduced at the meeting for
discussion. Ms. Young solicited comments regarding said agenda. The meeting agenda was approved
unanimously as distributed.
3. Approval of Minutes for Meeting of June 1, 2010
The meeting minutes from June 1, 2010 had been distributed previously via e‐mail. Ms. Young asked if
there were any comments or corrections regarding these meeting minutes. There was no discussion.
MOTION: There was a motion made by Mr. Boyce, seconded by Mr. Saperstein, that the meeting
minutes for June1, 2010, be approved as distributed. Motion passed unanimously.
4. Announcements and Chair’s Report; Comments from Members of the Working Group
Ms. Young told the Work Group that Mr. Boyce, Mr. Saperstein and she had been working on interim
goals and a timeline which will be presented to members of the Work Group for review, feedback,
advice, and areas where members could get involved and contribute something. As our process has
moved along, we have assumed/decided that the pathway taken in terms of structure is a home‐rule
petition or local bylaw with component of licensing (certification), education and enforcement. Is a
group vote necessary to show agreement/consensus on how group proceeds? Time and team effort are
both important factors. We can do what we want as far as the process. In the end, it comes down to
whether someone challenges what has been done; if so, then the matter can be referred to State law
and whether the process and product are legal. If not, then changes will have to occur.
Ms. Young presented information from a conversation with Representative Tim Madden. He is willing to
come to a meeting with the Work Group; however, the timing and commitment is difficult. He is willing
to meet with a smaller group during a weekend. Ms. Young asked Work Group members to send her
2
any questions etc. regarding this process for Mr. Madden to address. There was some discussion on
how the home rule petition works; the Nantucket Town counsel thinks this is the way to proceed. There
are questions regarding the ability of local municipalities to enact bylaws regarding fertilizer regulation.
Home rule petition can takes varying amounts of time for passage; about 10 percent pass. Perhaps
more legal opinion is needed for this process. Case law could come into play if someone challenges
whatever it is the group decides to do. Mr. Madden thought we should pursue the local regulation
route. Mr. Ray has stated previously that fertilizer regulation could be handled as a public health issue.
Mr. Fronzuto said that if the process is well thought out and well organized, we will be successful.
Coordination is very important. Feedback from the State Attorney General could help structure the
proper format.
There was a consensus that the Work Group would prefer to meet with Mr. Madden as a group instead
of with certain individuals.
Mr. Steinauer stated that a set of guidelines are needed for the Island regardless of whether the product
from this group ever becomes a local law. It was suggested that the Work Group proceed down the
home‐rule petition route and makes changes later, if necessary. The support of the Commonwealth is
both apparent and beneficial, i.e., there is a TMDL for the Harbor which is supported by the state.
Nantucket is one of the few state communities with a state‐approved harbor plan. This should help put
things in proper perspective during the Work Group process.
Ms. Young has asked Mr. Saperstein to summarize any ordinances and regulations that can be
researched on the internet. Mr. Saperstein referred to Suffolk County (New York State; tip of Long
Island), which has a very good ordinance. Mr. Saperstein has asked the Suffolk County folks for their
legislative history in the process.
5. Refining Our Charge
Ms. Young presented the fact that the Charge that the Work Group received from the Board of
Selectmen, whether intentional or not, goes well beyond “fertilizer.” She suggested that the existing
language be modified as presented below. She felt that consent of the membership is needed.
NOTE: For the remainder of these meeting minutes, areas from the ATM Warrant Article 68 under
discussion and consideration are presented in bold.
From: "to develop a comprehensive plan to reduce the amount of nitrogen and phosphorous
in our waters........."
To: after "phosphorous" add: 'contributed by landscape fertilizer practices' in our waters....."
Preliminary permission to make this change is contained in the printed guidance to committees that
Work Group members received with appointment letters. In part, it says,
“ the committee may propose to refine its charge to include the ultimate objective(s) of the
committee and an established timeline for accomplishing this objective” (changes will need the
consent of the Board of Selectmen).
3
MOTION: There was a motion made by Mr. Misurelli, seconded by Ms. McCrae, to refine the charge of
the Work Group as discussed. Motion passed unanimously.
6. Interim Goals and Timeline Discussion
A draft of interim goals and timeline was distributed to Work Group members during the meeting. Ms.
Young asked that members review the document and come to the next meeting prepared to discuss this
document. The intention of distributing this material was to encourage feedback and participation from
everyone on the Work Group.
7. Continue Review of Draft Version of Article 68
Began discussion at
Section 11. Prohibited Conduct.
Applicators shall not:
1. apply fertilizer immediately before or during heavy rainfall such as but not limited to,
thunderstorms, hurricanes or north eastern storms or when the soil is saturated due to
intense or extended rainfall.
There were comments concerning how to quantify rainfall with regard to the Article statement and that
some defining parameters are needed. It was suggested that the related information could be put into
the Best Management Practices section. The real question here is how to keep fertilizer in the soil and
available for plants; we don’t want it to percolate into the groundwater where it becomes unavailable to
plants. An educational process is involved. It was mentioned that intensity and duration are used to
measure precipitation; the whole situation is dependent on weather forecasts. Record‐keeping and
monitoring are important. The 1/8th inch – 1/10th inch quantification is a good criterion to use.
Reference should be made in the main document to Best Management Practices, BMPs which would
contain the quantification criteria.
All of these sections of the Draft Version of Article 68 will be revisited and re‐worked following review by
the Work Group.
2. apply fertilizer between December 1 and April 1 of any calendar year.
There was some discussion surrounding the actual dates include in this statement. It was suggested that
the Fall date should be either November 1st or November 15th. No final decision was made in this
regard; this section will be re‐visited later.
3. apply, spill or deposit fertilizer on any impervious surface and fail to remove the applied,
spilled or deposited fertilizer immediately.
No issues with this statement; the concept presented in this statement is an important educational
component of the Article.
4. apply fertilizer closer than twenty‐five feet to water‐bodies.
4
A better definition of ‘water‐bodies’ is needed. Wetlands are a different entity; the restriction is 100
feet without permission. Question as to whether reference should be made to ConCom’s jurisdiction.
5. deposit grass clippings, leaves, or any other vegetative debris into water‐bodies, retention
and detention areas, drainage ditches or storm water drains, or onto impervious surfaces
such as, but not limited to, roadways and sidewalks, except during scheduled clean up
programs.
There was general agreement that this section was well‐written.
SECTION 12. Fertilizer Content and Application Requirements for Applicators
A. The following restrictions shall apply to the content of fertilizer to be applied to turf:
1. An applicator shall not apply any fertilizer to turf unless the fertilizer contains a minimum
of 70% slow‐release nitrogen as the nitrogen additive.
There was a question about restricting the statement to ‘turf’ or ‘landscaped areas’ or to the ‘ground’.
Some legal counsel probably is needed here. The annual application rate is important. This area will
need further discussion in the future. Need to address the language that should be included for foliar
products. There was mention that retailers are required to have informational signage within a certain
distance of where the fertilizer products are being sold.
2. An applicator shall not apply fertilizer that contains phosphorus, unless a soil test
indicates a phosphorus deficiency.
Typically, phosphorus is required to grow seed and in areas where new sod has been applied. Tests for
phosphorus on an annual basis are sufficient except if something is done to change the soil composition.
This is another area where a strong educational component is needed. It was suggested that an
updated list of recommended fertilizers would be a good idea.
3. Any fertilizer applied to soil with a demonstrated phosphorus deficiency shall comply with
the recommendations of the Northeast Organic Farmers (sic) Association Standards for
Organic Land Care.
It was suggested that the ‘Nantucket’ document prepared by the Work Group and other outside
resource people would contain its own organic component of the educational material. Soil health is an
area that needs to be explained.
B. Fertilizer application shall not exceed the manufacturer’s recommended rate.
There was discussion about whether the rate should be stated specifically. It is important not to confuse
the actual pounds of nitrogen with actual pounds of product. More education needed. This section will
be addressed later.
C. The above‐referenced application requirements shall apply without limitation to the
application of pesticide and fertilizer mixtures, including but not limited to, “weed and feed”
products.
5
It was decided previously to strike “weed and feed” and use “combination products” instead. There was
discussion about corn gluten, which is high in nitrogen content, and a great product to use as an
alternative to an herbicide.
SECTION 13. Exemptions
A. The following activities shall be exempt from Section 12 of this Act:
1. Application of phosphorus when:
a. Establishing vegetation for the first time, such as after land disturbance, provided the
application is in accordance with the Northeast Organic Farmers Association Standards
for Organic Land Care.
There was uncertainty and concern about whether these products would be beneficial in an area where
rapid establishment is required. Sometimes there can be severe soil erosion and nutrient loss before
poor areas become established with vegetation. Outside expertise was suggested for criteria and
wording in this section. Synthetic products may be more appropriate for use under certain conditions.
There was some disagreement among Work Group members here. Some soils just are very poor and
require upgrading before they become suitable for vegetative growth.
b. Re‐establishing or repairing turf after substantial damage;
This is part of the same issue immediately above.
2. Use of reclaimed water for irrigation, provided it is not used within twenty‐feet of any waterbody.
The discussion at the June 27th meeting needs to be continued for this and the following sections.
8. New Business and comments from members of the Working Group. Agenda Items for the
next meeting will be reviewed briefly
Time ran out before reaching this section.
9. Adjourn
MOTION: A motion was made by Mr. Collier, seconded by Mr. Misurelli, to adjourn the meeting. The
motion passed unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 pm.
Next Meeting: Tuesday, June 27th ‐ 10:30 am in the Conference Room at 2 Fairgrounds Road
Respectfully submitted,
James W. Sutherland, Administrative Assistant
Lee W. Saperstein, Secretary