Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutArticle 68 Wrk Grp Minutes - 11 02 2010_201402041900221631ARTICLE 68 WORK GROUP Meeting of November 2, 2010, at 10:00 am 2 Fairgrounds Road, Conference Room Final, Approved Minutes ATTENDING Members: Peter Boyce, Cormac Collier, Caroline Ellis, Bam LaFarge, Mark Lucas, Wendy McCrae ( arrived at 10:27 am), Mike Misurelli (arrived at 10:05 am), Richard Ray (10:25 am), Seth Rutherford, Lee Saperstein, Ernie Steinauer, Lucinda Young (Chair). A quorum existed at the time that the meeting opened. Guests: Ken Brasfield, Gretchen Riley Absent: Dave Fronzuto, Jim Sutherland (Administrative Assistant) CALL TO ORDER Chair Young called the meeting to order at 10:00 am; a quorum was present. REVIEW AND APPROVE PRELIMINARY AGENDA The preliminary agenda, which was projected by Secretary Saperstein onto the screen, was reviewed quickly and approved by acclamation without change. REVIEW AND APPROVE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 19, 2010 The draft minutes of the meeting of October 19, 2010, were distributed previously. Chair Young asked if there were changes or edits to be made. Hearing none, she asked if they could be accepted by acclamation and they were. The final minutes will be posted on the Committee’s section of the Town’s web site. CHAIR'S COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS; COMMENTS FROM THE WORKGROUP Chair Young presented her goals for today’s meeting, which were that the Work Group, WG, would complete its work on the Home Rule Petition, HRP, and, perhaps, the Board of Health, BOH, Regulations and, consequently, she would keep her comments short. She did want to give time to two of the sub-groups for reports of their progress. She would defer most of the discussion of recommendations to the Board of Selectmen, BOS, to the next meeting. Although a draft of the recommendations had been distributed previously, she and Vice Chair Boyce would flesh them out this week and present a revised draft to the Work Group before the next meeting. Homeowners’ Education. Ms Ellis has explored costs and arrangements for the creation of a fertilizer web site and, perhaps, a ‘blog. The Novissimos (web site consultants) suggested that it would cost from $2000 to $10,000 to create a site and that maintenance costs would depend upon frequency and complexity of updates. The Town’s administration was uncertain about maintenance of a ‘blog on its web site. Chair Young was not in favor of the undisciplined nature of a ‘blog forum and would prefer a web site based on the regulations, the material gathered by the Work Group, the Best Management Practice, BMP, Plan created by the WG, and any educational material that is developed by the WG. Mr. LaFarge spoke in favor of using the Town’s web site for the WG presentation. He also reminded the WG that the Harbor Plan Implementation Committee, HPIC, is looking to publish a set of environmental blue pages and that our material should attach to theirs. Mr. Boyce agreed that the Town’s web site was the place for our material. Messers Saperstein and LaFarge each suggested that timeliness of material and updates would be important. Chair Young and Mr. Steinauer both said that we should make our recommendations to the BOS and see how it goes. Best Management Practices. Mr. Lucas, assisted by Messers Collier and Misurelli, told the WG that the BMP sub-group had met in the previous week and intended to meet again by November 18th. Their goal is to create a review draft of the BMP by early December for initial review by the BOS and by qualified experts such as at universities along with the landscape professionals of Nantucket. Chair Young thanked the presenters and mentioned that the WG would need to meet early in December to consider the BMP and, perhaps, the set of recommendations to be given to the BOS. Timing could be a problem and Secretary Saperstein was asked to poll the members for their “out” dates. BRIEF DISCUSSION OF DRAFT SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD OF SELECTMEN, BOS, WITH FULLER DISCUSSION TO COME AT THE NEXT MEETING In keeping with her announcement of meeting goals for today, i.e. completion of the HRP, Chair Young repeated her promise to provide the group with a fleshed-out draft of the BOS recommendations by the time of the next meeting. CONTINUE AND COMPLETE REVIEW AND FINAL EDIT OF DRAFT HOME RULE PETITION, HRP Chair Young opened the discussion of the draft Home Rule Petition by reminding the group that it had worked through Sections 1. through 4. at the last meeting. She indicated that she has received written suggestions for amendments from Messers Lucas, Saperstein, and Steinauer. Secretary Saperstein said that he was prepared to project our master draft of the HRP along with each of the files of suggested amendments. He suggested also that he would project the text of each amendment as it arose. If discussion on the amendment, including any revisions, was favorable, he would move the amendment to the master file, displacing early language upon insertion. In this way, the order of discussion would tend to follow the section order of the draft HRP. Chair Young asked if this was acceptable and the group agreed without dissent. She then asked for amendments. It should be noted that Mr. Saperstein has revised the numbering system to be consistent throughout the document. An all integer system has replaced the number/letter system. Mr. Steinauer, as representative from the Nantucket Conservation Commission and as the science resource person for the WG, suggested that he had several amendments or additions to the definitions in Section 4. The actual changes can be found in the “HRP Mark-up Draft” which is attached to these minutes. Section 4. Definitions “Compost” and “Compost tea” are substances frequently applied to soils and plantings by gardeners and, because they are source of nitrogen and phosphorus, they need to be considered in the HRP. The first step is to define them and then to include them in the Standards of Performance, Section 5. A lively discussion ensued among the landscapers and turf professionals about how to consider the nutrient concentrations in these substances. They agreed that, as heterogeneous mixtures of digested organic matter, a definitive application quantity could not be assigned but that, when gardeners use compost and compost tea to feed their plantings, an allowance should be made for these nutrients. The group then accepted Mr. Steinaur’s definitions unanimously. Mr. Steinauer indicated that “Landscaping” should include the act of “transplanting” and insertion of this word into the definition was accepted by all. He also suggested a modest word change to the definition of “Plants” to substitute “organisms” for species. This was accepted as an editorial change. For his final suggested change to definitions, Mr. Steinauer noted that in the definition of waterbodies the legal references (MGL and Nantucket Code) would include a number of dry-land locations and he suggested that we make an exception for these. The group agreed and the revised definition is in the attached draft. Section 5. Standards of Performance At this point the WG undertook a review of the balance of the HRP. Amendments came from Messers Lucas, Saperstein, and Steinauer and discussions were thorough. Section 5.1.2 .(former 5.1.b.). Mr. Lucas suggested that we tighten the fall date from November 15th to the 1st for the prohibition on application of fertilizer and to remove ambiguity on the date of resumption by changing April 1st to March 31st. Mr. Saperstein noted that this provided for an even five months. The group agreed readily to the change. Section 5.1.3. (former 5.1.c.). Mr. Steinauer suggested a change that would protect storm sewers from inadvertent deposition of fertilizer. Mr. Saperstein asked Mr. Ray if storm sewers were identified by the Town and Mr. Ray replied that the DPW did have a list of them. This meant that the amendment did not have to define further the term “storm sewer.” The change was adopted unanimously. Section 5.1.4. (former 5.1.d.). Mr. Steinauer suggested that the 25-ft setback from waterbodies was inconsistent with Conservation Commission Regulations and offered an amendment that cured this. Several people noted that the amendment made the requirement more stringent with an 100-ft setback and might cause some dismay among the public. Discussion ensued that supported consistency with existing statutes and avoided regulatory conflict; the amendment was adopted. Section 5.1.5. (former 5.1.e.). Mr. Steinauer asked that grass clippings, leaves, and other clean-up debris not be deposited into or within 25 feet of waterbodies. After some discussion, the amendment was accepted unanimously. Section 5.2.1. (former 5.2.a.). Mr. Steinauer suggested that we increase the list of applications for fertilizer to include “other plants or soil,” in addition to turf. The amendment was accepted without dissent. Section 5.2.1.1. (former 5.2.a.i.). Both Mr. Lucas and Mr. Saperstein were concerned about the consistency of this section that required all fertilizers to contain 70 percent slow-release fertilizer. Mr. Lucas offered an amendment that would allow lower percentages if the fertilizer application was consistent with the BMP. Mr. Saperstein suggested that the HRP should have enough substance to stand alone without recourse to the BMP. He suggested a two-part amendment: at this point, he suggested that the 70 percent remain but that, consistent with Section 5.3.2., licensed applicators who follow the BMP would be allowed exemptions from the standard. The BMP offers a table of applications that range from 50 to 70 percent depending upon soil temperature and moisture. Mr. Lucas agreed that his concern was covered by Saperstein’s amendment and seconded it. The group agreed. Section 5.2.1.2. (former 5.2.a.ii.). Sections 5.2.a.ii. and 5.2.a.iii. tended to say the same thing. Once the language on following the BMP was inserted into 5.2.a.ii., it was easy to consolidate the two sections into one. Mr. Collier was the one who suggested that the WG look at these two sections. The revision was considered editorial and was accepted unanimously. Section 5.2.2. (former 5.2.b.). Mr. Steinauer was concerned that this section on application rates did not apply to decorative and vegetable beds with high proportions of bare soil and offered additional language as an amendment. Several of the landscapers agreed that fertilizer applied around bedding plants tended to leach into the soil faster than fertilizer applied to turf and seconded the amendment. Some discussion ensued about how to measure application rates and note was taken by the BMP sub-group of the need to include methods into the BMP. In addition, Mr. Lucas was concerned that the public would not distinguish nitrogen from nitrates or other sources of nitrogen such as urea and so suggested that the words “of actual nitrogen” be added to this section. Both additions passed unanimously and can be found in the draft HRP. Section 5.2.3. (former 5.2.c.). Mr. Collier suggested that the inclusion of the word “pesticide” might be misinterpreted as a requirement to monitor pesticide applications, which would be contravene state law, and suggested that its removal would not harm the intent of the Section inasmuch as the words “combination products” would remain. The amendment was accepted unanimously. Sections 5.2.4. (former 5.2.d.) and 5.2.5. (new). Mr. Steinauer suggested that these two sections include a statement about the products’ (foliar fertilizer and compost) contribution to total nutrient applications. Section 5.2.5. relies upon the definitions of compost and compost tea that were accepted earlier in the meeting. These changes were accepted without dissent. Section 5.2.e. This section, on irrigation, while of value, was found by several members not to be relevant to our charge and it was suggested that it be removed. The group agreed unanimously. Section 5.3.1. (former 5.3.a.). Mr. Misurelli suggested that the phrase, “for the first time,” was unnecessary and suggested that it be removed. At the same time, Mr. Steinauer suggested language that made this section consistent with Conservation Commission requirements. These changes were adopted without dissent. Section 5.3.b. This section discussed the use of reclaimed water for irrigation. When Mr. Steinauer suggested that it include language that made it consistent with Conservation Commission Regulations, several people suggested that irrigation was not part of our brief and that we had no definition for reclaimed water. Instead of making the draft more complicated by attempting to explain the relevance of these items, it was suggested that this section be removed and agreement was readily reached. Section 5.3.2. Mr. Saperstein indicated that his original drafting of Section 5.3. included a section on exemptions that would be afforded to licensed applicators when they follow the suggestions of the BMP and document their actions. He apologized that the new draft did not include this language and offered it as an amendment instead. As suggested earlier, this amendment will allow licensed applicators to follow the more permissive guidance of the BMP instead of the stricter dictates of the HRP. The group agreed and the amendment passed unanimously. Section 6. Education, Licensure, Enforcement, and Penalties Section 6.1.1. (former 6.1.a.). Mr. LaFarge suggested the editorial addition of the qualifying word “Nantucket” before BMP. The group accepted this change readily. Section 6.2.3. (former 6.2.c.). Mr. Lucas suggested that renewal could be based on continuing education in addition to passage of the test. Mr. Saperstein suggested that the word “hours” replace Mr. Lucas’s use of “credits” to be consistent with professional practice in other fields. The changes were accepted readily. Section 6.4.1 (former 6.4.a.). As written, this section made it seem that unlicensed applicators would be in violation of the regulations every time they applied fertilizer. Suggestions by Mr. Saperstein and others to include the phrase “in violation of this act” made it clear that this section would apply to any applicator, including homeowners, only if they applied fertilizer in excess of the requirements of the HRP. The amendment was accepted unanimously. Section 8. Amendments Mr. Boyce’s draft language on the means by which the HRP would be amended was preferred to Mr. Saperstein’s although specific references to the identity of turf scientists who contributed to the drafting of the HRP were removed. The group moved adoption of the Boyce alternative unanimously. Chair Young reminded the group that a formal motion to adopt and its vote would occur at the next meeting. Such an interval would allow WG members time to confer with their constituencies on the draft. Additional amendments would be entertained at the next meeting if needed. Mr. Saperstein promised to distribute the draft as soon as he could even in advance of these minutes. As mentioned, the HRP mark-up draft and a comment- free version of the same are attached to these minutes. REVIEW AND FINAL EDIT OF DRAFT BOARD OF HEALTH, BOH, REGULATIONS Chair Young suggested that the amended performance sections (primarily Sections 4., 5. and parts of Section 6.) could be inserted into Mr. Ray’s draft of Board of Health Regulations for review and vote at the next meeting. Mr. Saperstein volunteered to merge the two drafts for distribution to the WG. The merged document is attached to these minutes. BRIEF DISCUSSION OF NOVEMBER 9TH AGENDA The meeting on November 9th will be in the kitchen area to the rear of 2 Fairgrounds Road and will begin at 10:30 am. The HRP and the BOH Regulations will be considered formally and then the WG’s recommendations to the BOS will be considered. ADJOURNMENT Adjournment was moved by Chair Young at 12:01 pm and the group acceded unanimously. Minutes taken by Lee W. Saperstein, Secretary