HomeMy WebLinkAboutArticle 68 Wrk Grp Minutes - 07 27 2010_201402041900200069ARTICLE 68 WORK GROUP
MEETING HELD TUESDAY, JULY 27th, 2010
AT 10:30 AM, CONFERENCE ROOM, 2 FAIRGROUNDS ROAD
Approved Meeting Minutes
Members Present: Peter Boyce, Cormac Collier, Caroline Ellis, Bam LaFarge, Mark Lucas, Wendy
McCrae, Mike Misurelli, Richard Ray, Seth Rutherford, Lee Saperstein, Ernest Steinauer, and Lucinda
Young
Members Absent: David Fronzuto
Guests: 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 prior to the meeting via e‐mail and was introduced at the
meeting for discussion. Ms. Young solicited comments regarding the agenda. There were no comments
and/or edits raised and the agenda was accepted as distributed.
3. Review and Approval of Minutes of July 13 Meeting
The draft meeting minutes from July 13, 2010 had been distributed prior to today’s meeting via e‐mail.
Ms. Young asked for any comments or corrections regarding these draft meeting minutes. There was
unanimous consent that the draft meeting minutes were acceptable as distributed.
MOTION: There was a motion made by Mr. Boyce, seconded by Mr. Lucas, that the meeting minutes for
July 13, 2010 be approved as distributed. Motion passed.
Mr. Saperstein asked the group if he had their consent to amend the working draft of Article 68, which
was attached to the draft minutes, to include those changes that had been previously supported
unanimously. He indicated that he did not want to make editing changes without announcing them.
Consent was granted and the amended draft is attached.
4. Chair’s Report and Announcements
Ms. Young mentioned that she and Mr. Boyce had investigated the Open Meeting Law (OML) following
the previous meeting on July 13thto be sure that the small work groups conducting assigned tasks
between regular meetings are in compliance with the OML. An official communication from Ms. Young
to all members of the Article 68 Work Group explaining the results of the investigation is presented as
an addendum to these meeting minutes.
2
Ms. Young reminded members of the work group that Ms. Owen from the UMass Cooperative Extension
Service and Dr. Ebdon from UMass Amherst, Department of Plant and Soil Science, will be in attendance
at the meeting scheduled for August 10th. Accordingly, members were asked to provide written
questions or information requests to Ms. Young by Tuesday, August 3rd, so that this information could
be relayed to Ms. Owen and Dr. Ebdon for preparation of responses. Ms. Young also stated that
Representative Madden is scheduled to attend the August 24th meeting of the Work Group; however,
this date is only tentative at this time.
Ms. Young mentioned how important it is that members of the Work Group have a clear understanding
of nitrogen leaching through the soil as a result of landscape practices. There has been confusion in the
past about what is peer‐reviewed science, what is modeling, etc. Ms. Young had asked Mr. Steinauer
to head up a small work group to look through this information (Work Group resource material along
with anything else that is relevant) and to categorize accordingly; in other words, to summarize what
material we have, what we know, and what the knowledge is based upon. Then, it is important to get a
consensus from the entire Work Group regarding this information. Mr. Steinauer had contacted Dr.
Ellen Douglas, a hydrologist at UMass Boston, regarding nitrogen dynamics and tracking nitrogen
through the soil. Mr. Steinauer will contact members of the small group (Mr. Boyce, Mr. Saperstein, and
Mr. Sutherland) to delegate assignments.
5. Reports from Work Groups and Individual Committee Members on Assigned Tasks
Legal History Report – Mr. LaFarge (a committee of one) had reviewed and summarized previous e‐mail
communications, with regard to Article 68, between the Nantucket Town Counsel and Dr. Oktay,
Chairperson of the HPIC. Mr. LaFarge was able to ascertain a situation of ‘pre‐emption’ by the State
Pesticide Control Act based upon a previous court decision (Town of Wendell versus the MA Attorney
General); however, that previous decision was with regard to pesticides and not fertilizer. Mr. Collier
emphasized how important a legal opinion is regarding the work that this group is doing. Ms. Young
mentioned that she had previously requested the proper procedure from Town Administration for this
group to get legal advice on various matters and she has not had any response to date. It was decided
that Ms. Young would continue to pursue the Town Administration route to get some answers.
Landscape Fertilizer Education for Homeowners – members include Ms. Young, Ms. McRae, Ms. Ellis –
Ms. Ellis reported on the group’s meeting; group felt it would be appropriate to keep the message to
homeowners simple; myth versus facts; the 3 C’s: clear‐up confusion, clarify facts, cleanup our waters;
the message of collaboration of the group is important; a broad‐based group reaching a consensus.
Ideas for communication included a 1‐page tear‐sheet for homeowners along Harbor; also, placement of
signs in stores where fertilizer products are sold. Mr. Misurelli suggested that individual landscapers
could send information along with monthly invoices. Funding will be needed; possible funding sources
include the Nantucket Land Council (NLC), Garden Club, Town of Nantucket, landscape associations.
Wetlands, Waterbodies, and Non‐Application Barriers – members include Mr. Steinauer, Mr. Fronzuto,
Ms. McRae – Mr. Steinauer reported on a meeting with Dr. Oktay, Mr. Rogeveen, Ms. Carberg
(ConCom), and Ms. MacKinnon (NLC) – the work group went through wetland regulations. The ConCom
prohibits any fertilizer applications within 100 feet of a water resource; waivers in certain
circumstances; certain BMPs could be changed if necessary. However, there is no enforcement in effect.
Mr. Steinauer mentioned that the Article 68 Work Group might want to develop a watershed
perspective. Mr. Ray mentioned that enforcement is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve, and that
public education should be the ultimate fail‐safe for communicating the important information.
3
6. Review and Discussion ‐ Nantucket Landscaper’s Association “Best Management Practices 2003”
Mr. Misurelli reported on the document prepared by the Nantucket Landscape Association, Bartlett Tree
Experts and the University of Maryland. This report provided an overview of all previous reports on the
topic, and it provided a recommended course of action for professional landscapers on Nantucket to
follow in order to assist the Board of Health with the goal of protecting Nantucket’s watershed. The
intent of the document was to educate professionals. Mr. Misurelli emphasized that the document is
too technical for homeowners. The Turfgrass Selection (page 5) section is a strong point for this
document; Soil Nutrient Analysis (page 5) is a weak point of this document. The Fertilizer Ratio section
(page 5) should have a simple explanation that homeowners can understand. Mr. Steinauer asked if
there was some definition of the term ‘slow release’? Clear definitions are important on labels.
Mr. Misurelli felt that Fertilizer Rates (page 6) and Application Timing (page 6) were important sections
missing from the original Article 68 material, and that Watering After Fertilization (page 7) should be
expanded into a section dealing with Water Management. Organic Matter Incorporation (page 7) is
becoming an important practice on the Island.
The section on Fertilization of Trees and Shrubs (page 8 ff) will be included in the Nantucket document.
In particular, the section on Determining Goals and Objectives (page 8) is a good way to introduce and
develop education for turfgrass and for trees and shrubs.
Mr. Misurelli stated that, currently, a low percentage of landscapers rely on soil tesing for knowledge
about fertilizer application; maybe 10‐15% of the total group. Its popularity is increasing, though, and
the Nantucket BMP document needs to emphasize this area and its importance. In addition, Cation
Exchange Capacity (CAC) (page 10) is a very important topic that deserves attention in the new
document for landscaper education.
Mr. Misurelli feels that all Island landscapers should be required to have state certification for fertilizer
and pesticide application (currently only pesticide application requires certification); that process takes
the burden off of the Work Group and the Town since continuing education (credit hours) is required for
maintaining licensure. Mr. Saperstein mentioned that the license should be easy to get if the
educational component is satisfied; and it should not be unreasonably expensive. At the state level, for
pesticides, there are different commercial categories for certification; MA pesticide regulations are not
easy to understand; the current challenge is to take this local BM/ educational document and bridge the
gap to achieve what the Island needs for this period of time.
Overall, Mr. Misurelli stated that the Nantucket BMP ‐2003 document needs work in certain areas. Ms.
Young asked the small work group to come back with some revised document for the next meeting.
7. New Business. Comments from the Work Group.
Ms. Young reminded Work Group members about getting questions and informational requests to her
by Tuesday, August 3rd so that she can forward this material to Ms. Owen and Dr. Ebdon.
8. Brief Discussion of Agenda Items for Next Meeting.
Time ran out before this agenda item could be discussed.
4
9. Adjourn
MOTION: A motion made by Mr. LaFarge, seconded by Mr. Misurelli, to adjourn the meeting. The
motion passed.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:58 am.
Next Meeting: Tuesday, August 10th ‐ 10:30 am in the conference room at 2 Fairgrounds Road
Respectfully submitted,
James W. Sutherland, Administrative Assistant
Lee W. Saperstein, Secretary
5
Communication about Open Meeting Law (OML) from Lucinda Young
Dear Article 68 Committee members,
Since our last meeting both Peter and I have looked further into the Open Meeting Law (OML) to be sure
we are in compliance as we move forward with our work, especially as tasks and assignments will need
to be carried out between official meetings in order to meet our charge in the time frame allotted.
At the official website of the Attorney General of Massachusetts,
( www.mass.gov/Cago/docs/Government/openmtgguide.pdf )
I found: the 'Attorney General's Open Meeting Law Guide'.
It provides a clear overview and explanation of the OML, including what meetings are covered by it.
Under the heading 'What meetings are covered by the Open Meeting Law?' it states the following:
" A meeting is generally defined as "a deliberation by a public body with respect to any matter within
the body's jurisdiction"
then asks " does the communication constitute a deliberation?"
under ' What constitutes a deliberation?' is the following answer:
' to be a deliberation, the communication must involve a quorum of the public body, thus a
communication among less than a quorum of the members of a public body will not be a deliberation'.
In my humble opinion, as long as less than a quorum of our group is working on assigned tasks between
meetings, and bringing their ideas or suggestions to the committee for deliberation, we do not need to
follow the same rules as when a quorum of the committee meets, and we are in compliance with the
OML.
I hope this clarifies the questions about complying with the OML that were discussed at our last
meeting.
Lucinda Young
Chair Article 68 Workgroup