CONNECTICUT RIVER GATEWAY COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
May 28, 2009
Deep River: Amy Petrone, Nancy Fischbach
East Haddam: Harvey Thomas, Robert Boulware
Essex: Ellen Wexler, Fred Vollono
Fenwick: Chuck Chadwick
Haddam: Scott Thompson, Susan
Bement
Lyme: Kevin Mazer, J. Melvin
Woody
Old Lyme:
Vacancy, Ted
Crosby
Old Saybrook:
Madge Fish, David Lemay
CRERPA: Steve Williams
Midstate RPA: Raul De Brigard, Stacia DeMichele
DEP:
David Blatt
Staff:
J.H. Torrance Downes
Tidewater:
Judy
Preston
Guests: Margot Burns, CRERPA
Call to Order
Chairman Melvin Woody
called the regular meeting of the Gateway Commission to order at 7:35 pm in the
CRERPA meeting room.
Approval of Minutes
Nancy Fischbach moved to accept the minutes from April
23, 2009. Peggy Wilson seconded. Approved unanimously.
Amendment
of Agenda
Nancy Fischbach moved to conduct a priorities discussion after the
referrals section of the agenda with Harvey
Thomas seconding. The motion was unanimously
approved.
Guest
Margot Burns
of CRERPA presented a draft letter which had been reviewed and edited by Nancy Fischbach and Kevin Case of the
Land Trust Alliance. If Commission
members want to make further comments or revisions, they are to send those to
Margot by June 4th. Letter
should include an RSVP so as to determine how many representatives will
participate. Commission agreed to forward the letter to area land trusts and
conservation/open space commissions and committees. Burns reported that Kevin Case, who would be
leading the discussion, would be available the week of September 14th,
with the exception of the 17th. It was agreed to schedule the
discussion during this week. It was
reported that CRERPA will fund the meeting and the time necessary for
preparation. Funding, including the possibility of grants, would be determined
after that.
Correspondence and Staff Report
Staff
presented numerous items of correspondence.
Of note was the notice of annual membership dues for the Land Trust
Alliance and the insurance that accompanies such membership. It was agreed that a check in the amount of
$325 should be prepared, identical to dues paid in fiscal year 2008/09.
Staff briefly
commented on a recent field trip to the Connecticut River shoreline in Old Lyme
with Ted Crosby, Judy Preston and
Torrance Downes. The intent of the trip
was to make riparian buffer measurements according to the draft methodology
developed by Preston. Comments on the
challenge of such measurements within a dense and steeply sloped buffer area
were made.
A
copy of Correspondence and Staff Report notes (Gateway Notes) are filed with these
minutes.
Treasurer’s Report
Upon a motion
by Nancy Fischbach, seconded by Susan Bement, the Commission appointed
Joe Wollack of Lewitz, Balosie, Wollack, Rayner & Giroux as Auditor. The motion was unanimously approved.
Upon a motion
by Peggy Wilson, seconded by Susan Bement, the CRERPA bill in the
amount of $1024.95 and a Tidewater bill in the amount of $1120 were voted to be
paid. The motion was unanimously
approved.
Members of
the executive committee provided signatures for signatory power in matters
concerning the Commission’s Merrill Lynch accounts.
It was the
consensus that the scheduled budget discussion be moved down in the agenda
after the Tidewater Institute report.
Tidewater
– Riparian Buffer Grant
The
Commission discussed the riparian buffer grant and the riparian buffer
regulations with Judy Preston at great length.
Preston related a discussion she had with Linda Krause and Torrance
Downes regarding the issue of whether or not standards or regulations for
riparian buffer work should be adopted at this point in time. Concerns included easing up on the current
standard which prohibits most cutting or clearing within the buffer. The question was posed: should property
owners be allowed to cut within the buffer where a prohibition currently
exists. Comments were made regarding the
continued need for upland cutting outside of the riparian buffer area, an issue
that has long been discussed.
As for
discussion of Preston’s grant, it is understood that the grant deadline falls
on June 30, 2009. Discussion included
whether or not the draft regulations prepared by Preston would meet the
requirements of the grant. Members did
not want to jeopardize Preston’s ability to complete the grant and receive all
anticipated grant funding. Regarding the
hesitation on adoption of standards, members suggested that there is only
limited “political capital” with respect to what the Gateway Commission can
realistically request of member Planning & Zoning Commissions. In addition, it was suggested that the weakened
economy may make it more difficult to receive total support for the adoption of
such standards.
Members
brought up several options for the use of the work performed to date including
writing the standards/regulations in what amounts to a “guideline” format. There was disagreement over whether or not a
guideline format would be productive in place of a regulatory scheme. Interest was also expressed in revising the
information so that it could be written as a “stewardship” manual provided to
the Towns.
Question was
raised with respect to what path to take.
The accepted path at this point was for Preston and Downes to discuss
the buffer standards with enforcement officials in an effort to gain a better
understanding of the effectiveness of such standards from the standpoint of
enforcement and the reality of applying such standards to landowners. A suggestion by Downes to present and discuss
the standards with several Gateway town officials was found to be acceptable. Specifically, Downes and Preston will meet
with Jim Ventres of East Haddam, Cathie Jefferson of Deep River and Bernie
Gigliotti of Lyme. The three departments
represented by the foregoing represent various levels of staff and level of
activity. It was agreed that input from
the three – and potentially other officials – could be used to further revise
or refine the standards prior to presentation to the eight member Planning
& Zoning Commissions. The officials
would be asked questions including would such standards help their efforts, would they hinder efforts, and what is the
likelihood of support from their Planning & Zoning Commissions.
Crosby
suggested using federal non-point and point source pollution considerations as
support of the Gateway effort, adding that ZEOs do not currently have
sufficient guidelines for stormwater management. DiBrigard
expressed concerns over enforceability.
Downes commented that such standards should be tailored in a manner that
will likely require a property owner to have a professional – a sufficiently
educated or proficient tree cutter - prepare an application which, in
standards, requires very specific information that a ZEO can review without
having to confirm in the field.
Otherwise, he feared, there may be less support than desired from such
enforcement officials.
Discussion
turned to differentiation of two different aspects of riparian buffer
work: clearing and restoration of
buffers. Fischbach suggested that two different approaches may be necessary.
Regarding the
grant, members of the Commission agreed that Preston should contact the grant
representatives to better determine what will be accepted as products required
by the grant. Preston indicated that ideally they were interested in having
standards adopted by land use commissions or boards. Members of the Commission queried whether the
requirement of adoption is likely necessary, although obviously desired. Question was also raised with respect to
whether or not Preston should/could ask for an additional extension of time,
which would relieve her of the pressing deadline of June 30th. It could be reported to grant supervisors
that the Gateway Commission has the intent of pursuing the adoption of the
standards pending feedback from representatives of the member P&Zs and the
Commissions themselves. The Commission
offered to send a letter to the grant supervisors expressing these suggestions.
Preston will
report on determinations regarding grant deliverables and deadlines with the
Commission at the upcoming June meeting.
The Commission agreed that the final outcome of the grant and what the
Commission feels is necessary at this point may or may not be the same. The Commission may move forward with the
adoption of standards, but that hasn’t been determined at this point in time.
The product moving forward may be educational products including guidelines,
brochures and pamphlets.
With regard
to informal meetings with local officials, it was agreed that formal presentations
and documents were not likely necessary.
Tidewater
– Update on Existing Contract
Preston
presented a document summarizing the status and proposal for three separate
tasks, (1) gateway map and Property Index, (2) an updated Gateway brochure and
(3) a PowerPoint presentation on the Gateway Commission. Discussion regarding how much time has been
spent on the tasks ensued with questions raised regarding the reporting of such details. Although time has been used as a barometer of
work done, it was suggested that updates on product progress rather than
time may be productive. Thomas
suggested, as an example, that one property file should be completely
documented to show what condition to which the final files will be brought
up.
Discussion
ensued regarding the “housekeeping” aspect of managing the property files and
the assimilation of the information for educational purposes. Suggestions for efficiency enhancement
included having Downes (lower hourly rate) conduct housekeeping work while
Preston (higher hourly rate) spend her time on other issues, coming back to the
educational work and production of the final maps and inventory database when
the files have been sorted. Thomas
suggested that a list of what such files should include was necessary,
including a table of contents. Downes
suggested that such information could likely be obtained through
representatives of the DEP Land Acquisition Division and other sources.
It was agreed
that Preston and Downes would produce (1) list of file contents, (2) an
estimate of time for the “housekeeping” task, (3) an estimate of the time
required to produce the map and inventory products once the files have been
organized, and (4) a proposal of how to best manage the work at hand in a
financial and time sense between Preston and Downes. Finally, it was agreed that Preston should determine
how much of the proposed products and tasks have been completed so that she can
submitted a request for partial payment in order to be sure she is paid for
that work.
Referrals/Regulation
Petitions
Per previous
comments from the Commission, Downes reported on three referrals that were
processed at the staff level. The
referrals included a ground cover variance in Essex, the revision of a zoning
regulation in Deep River, and an update of Deep River’s 2007 PC&D (see
accompanying Notes of Interest for details).
Discussion
of Coordinator Position for CY Haddam Neck
Raul diBrigard
updated the Commission on the CY Land Conservation Project. It was indicated that a press release
regarding the effort was completed. It
was reported that the $3000 donation approved by the Gateway Commission had
been sent to Middlesex County Community Foundation to pay for the services of
Coordinator Melissa Spear. Discussion ensued regarding tree cutting in the area
of power lines had been conducted, paving of site roads had been conducted, and
appraisers have been busy valuing land.
Status of
2004 Standards
Downes
reported that Fred Vollono was sent
an email regarding attendance of Essex representatives at future meetings. The Town of Essex has been unrepresented for a
number of consecutive months while still continuing to not have adopted the
2004 Gateway standards. No response from
Vollono was received. It was
acknowledged that he may be busy and was unable to tend to the Gateway
business. The Commission expressed continued
interest in seeking attendance from members Vollono and Ellen Whaley.
Status of
Gateway Owned Properties
It was
reported that the new deed reflecting ownership by the DEP had been filed in
the East Haddam Land Records. A letter
of appreciation signed by Governor Rell was presented to the Commission.
Budget
Discussion
The
Commission made decisions on line item amounts for the 2009/10 budget. Unknowns included the Tidewater Institute,
the CY Land Conservation Project and the $50,000 Otfinoski pledge. It was determined that, moving forward, the Gateway Commission would pay
Tidewater Institute based upon “product” rather than basing payment on time
spent (although that’s how estimates of cost are developed) due to the
confusion such protocol has created. In
addition, the line item “Tidewater Institute” was changed to read “Contractual
Services” with a budgeted amount of $20,000 being provided for 2009/10.
For unknowns
including the CY project and other unknown expenditures, line entries are to be
placed under Totals to reflect
“potential capital expenses” and “potential donations”. The Otfinoski donation and CY project would
be itemized under those categories.
Finally, $1000 was budgeted for the regional land trust effort being
presented by Margot Burns. It is thought
that budgeting $1000 would lead to contributions to that effort by other
organizations.
Upon a motion
by Nancy Fischbach, seconded by Harvey Thomas, the proposed budget was
approved.
Priorities
Discussion
Documents
prepared by Nancy Fischbach and Harvey Thomas were circulated. The documents presented ideas on priorities
and subcommittee structure. It was
agreed that the Commission would hold a special meeting to further discuss priorities
in coming weeks with Fischbach to
circulate an email that includes a link to a calendar program in order to
select an acceptable meeting date. Fischbach reminded members that they
should endeavor to review current standards and the Commission by-laws (Rules
of Practice) prior to the meeting. What
couldn’t be found online would be provided by staff.
Adjournment
There being
no further business, Peggy Wilson moved
to adjourn the meeting at approximately 10:05pm, seconded by Martha Wallace.
The next regular meeting of the
Gateway Commission is
Thursday, June 25, 2009
A Workshop is tentatively scheduled
for the week of June 15th, 2009
Specific Date TBD.
Gateway Items of Interest
May 28, 2009
Correspondence
·
National Estuary Program, Vulnerabilities
to Climate Change, Report of Collaborative Watershed Program in New
Hampshire/Southernmost Maine. www.prep.unh.edu
· Land Trust Alliance, Notice of Annual Dues, annual membership dues of $325, same as last year. Among other reasons, this membership provides the liability insurance carried by the Gateway Commission for properties under the ownership of the Commission (which will ultimately be transferred).
· Land Trust Alliance, 2008 Annual Report
· Restoring Ecosystem Flows in the CT River Watershed, TNC, CT River Program
Request for contact information from Chris Hatfield (ACOE) and Kim Luntz (TNC). Also, request for the completion of a survey regarding the CT River.
· Signatures on Merrill Lynch Authorization Form.
Staff Report
(1) Riparian Buffer Measurement Field Visit – Member Ted Crosby, Tidewater representative Judy Preston and GW Staff J. H. Torrance Downes visited the riparian buffer off Binney Road in Old Lyme to test the riparian buffer measurement procedures in a location of fairly dense vegetation in a steep slope setting. Preston to discuss the effort during her Tidewater report.
Variance Referrals/Regulation
Proposals/Special Exception Reviews
(1) Essex, 70 North Main Street, Andrew & Elise Kressley. Construction of an addition to a dwelling plus a detached 3-car garage on two lots that have been combined. Project requires a variance of the 7.5% ground coverage limitation. Location of property is such that there is little or no view of the structure from the river or its tributaries or associated wetlands. Project would not be “adverse to the protection and development of the conservation zone” pursuant to Section 25-102h CGS.
(2) Deep River, Zoning Regulation Amendments. Adoption would not be “adverse to the protection and development of the conservation zone”. Of note, in March the Gateway Commission “approved” the modification to Deep River Zoning Regulations to allow preparation or food processing with sale of food products on premises in the Harbor Development District by the river. This proposal splits the permitted use into two separate subcategories – retail and wholesale. Not adverse to the protection, etc. because all of the Special Standards regarding appearance from the river still apply.
(3) Deep River, Amendment to 2007 PC&D. Update to reflect last two years of accomplishments in the goals of the 2007 Plan. No impact.
Status of Standards
No update at this time. E-mailed Fred Vollono to connect with Essex representatives in an effort to have one of them attend meetings. This will enable moving forward on Standard adoption.
Transfer of Gateway Property
The transfer of the Ballek property has been completed with
a copy of the deed and a thank you letter from Governor Rell sent to the
Commission.