CONNECTICUT RIVER GATEWAY COMMISSION
WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES
June 16, 2009
Deep River: Amy Petrone, Nancy Fischbach
East Haddam: Harvey Thomas, Robert Boulware
Essex: Ellen Whaley, Fred Vollono
Fenwick: Chuck Chadwick
Haddam: Susan Bement
Lyme: Kevin Mazer, J. Melvin
Woody
Old Lyme:
Vacancy, Ted
Crosby
Old Saybrook:
Madge Fish, David Lemay
CRERPA: Steve Williams
Midstate RPA: Raoul De Brigard, Stacia DeMichele
DEP:
David Blatt
Staff:
J.H. Torrance Downes
Tidewater: Judy Preston
Guests: None present.
Call to Order
Chairman Melvin Woody called the workshop of the Gateway
Commission to order at 7:45 pm in the CRERPA meeting
room.
Brief
preliminary discussion of the origins of the $1MM award through Julian
Rosenberg. DiBrigard suggested that having original
participants talk about their memory of those issues. Thomas suggested an oral history of such a
discussion be recorded and transcribed.
Chairman
Woody began with a brief introduction for the workshop – to discuss priorities
and direction for the Gateway Commission in the upcoming year given all the
opportunities that exist. Discussion of “what we do,
why we do it and how we do it” through resurrection of committee structure
from the past. Broad
categorization of “functions”.
Nancy
Fischbach described her thoughts on committee structures as shown on her
5/28/09 outline. The committee
categories include Publicity, Acquisition, Stewardship, Referrals, Standards,
Finance, Rules, Education, Outreach and Membership. It was pointed out that some of the
committees previously existed but are now inactive while others were new ideas. The committee list was presented less to
promote the establishment of the committees but rather to list what Fischbach
considered as major areas of function for the Gateway Commission. Discussion included ideas such as having
fewer, broader categories of function.
An example would be that Publicity, Outreach and Education could fall
under a category entitle “Community Relations” or other agreed upon title. Land-related functions such as Stewardship
and Acquisition could be included in one category as well. Finance committee, it was noted, is the only
active committee, thanks to Peggy Wilson.
Rules and procedures haven’t been dealt with for a while. Education deals with the public. Outreach deals with Commission, Selectmen, etc. Membership might include one or two
Commission members and would involve calling those who aren’t able to attend as
frequently.
Woody
discusses the past shift from acquisition to education based upon the
increasing values of properties. Where a Publicity committee formerly dealt with making sure acquisitions
were accompanied by newspaper stories, now “publicity” includes the
educational materials developed by Judy Preston.
Thomas
discusses two educational efforts:
materials for the public to teach good stewardship and materials that
promote the accomplishments of the Commission, i.e. the fact that the
Commission has surpassed $1MM in contributions for land preservation and
conservation.
DiBrigard
suggests that Outreach and Education also includes the connections necessary for
standards adoption such as discussions with Commissions, Boards and staff. Community Relations can include
Outreach, Education, Publicity.
Crosby
wonders whether or not referrals haven’t been made from some of the eight
towns. Stasia suggests that turnover in Commissions and Boards can lead to
misunderstandings regarding Gateway needs.
Crosby feels that staff and possibly others need to be “churning”
through towns making connections.
Fischbach suggests that, once a year, a community’s Gateway member or
members should appear at a P&Z meeting to offer services. Staff should relate to staff, Commission
member should deal with P&Zs – peer to peer. In Old Lyme, Crosby feels that GW members
haven’t connected with the town’s commissions in years. Where GW members are Commission members, a
connection/steward exists. If members
are not P&Z members, then there
can be a disconnect.
Krause has
long been the public face of CRERPA at local meetings.
Fischbach
indicated confusion of job descriptions between Commission members and staff
and commented on the fact that, with funds down, tasks could be handled by
staff and members, depending upon the
task.
Fischbach
asked if, prior to diving into the details of the memos, perhaps a broader “big
picture” discussion should occur first.
Talk should shift to the question of the larger tasks – land
acquisition, stewardship, education, etc.
Such an approach was presented in Thomas’ memorandum.
Thomas’
approach starts with the authorizing language to pinpoint what the GW duties
should include. Language suggests that
the mission includes more than the
visual protection and includes ecological protection as well. Should reviews and efforts include a larger
component of ecological, scientific and historical values of the lower river
than currently is occurring? Woody
comments that the instruments available were the standards, the “freezing” of
the zoning in a way that existed in the early 1970’s. The other was the State bonded $5,000,000 to
buy easements, not fee-simple. GW only
got $500,000 until the Julian Rosenberg award was made. GW had to work from their position of
strength – the zoning regulations and through the P&Zs.
Thomas’
impression is that reviews including variance applications could legally
include more ecological review than currently occurs. Might the GW be “underperforming” with
respect to statutory authority? Crosby
wonders if the GW has the jurisdiction to review for ecological impacts. Fischbach reads the Legislative Finding for
the Gateway Commission and suggests that statutory language may authorize such reviews. DiBrigard discusses that standards are
authorized for protecting the “natural and traditional riverway scene”, thus
the emphasis on more the visual and less on the ecological.
Woody comments
that ecological issues are being
addressed through efforts such as those being addressed by Tidewater, but the
GW is limited by what can be included in standards. Peggy Wilson indicates that during rewriting
standards, much discussion occurred on the hand-in-hand aspect of the visual
and ecological resources. Thomas would
argue that the GW should be more proactive in protecting the ecological and
historical features of the river. The
zoning regulations can be “pretty elastic” and include issues such as
archaeological resources.
Crosby
comments that standards have been proposed with some accepted and some not.
In one town, the entire new standards have not been adopted. So, no matter what the standards address –
visual or ecological – they’re “not
selling”. The best standards should be
proposed and where there’s disagreement in a Town, a better “sell job” is
needed. Lesser standards shouldn’t be
proposed.
Fischbach
queries if all of the various versions of the standards have been adopted by
all eight towns. What has and hasn’t
been adopted? For example, East Haddam
didn’t adopt standards but developed their own in a way that was supported by
the GW.
Fischbach
summarizes that almost all of the discussion has regarded outreach in some way,
shape or form. Crosby refers to the fact
that Krause spent much time on
standards and feels that it’s not what happens in GW meetings, but what GW
members “take back” to their towns. The town’s connection to the GW is mostly
through letters written. Why isn’t the Gateway member called by the local
Commission or Board “called to” meetings to be available for answering
questions? DiBrigard comments that staff
should be, most important, furthering relationships
with town staff. He mentions the “checklist” for variances
prepared of late. The checklist should
include ecological considerations per Thomas’ comment. Staff conclusions and recommendations on
variance applications should include ecological considerations.
Woody and GW
in general agree with the suggestion that a GW member should appear before a
commission once a year. The GW is a “collaboration of the towns, not a
supervening authority”. Build
relationships, Commissioners to Commissioners and staff to staff. GW is seen as “threatening”. Relationship building will lessen this
issue. Members to appear when there’s
not necessarily a problem or a proposal on the table.
Crosby – the
June 25th MCCF open house at the river museum is a promotion of the
Gateway Commission.
Thomas
comments that the GW should be offering something to the Town. What does GW “bring to the table” that’ll
have them “invite the girl to the prom”....
Gaining more exceptence, having Commissions want to do business with GW is a goal. Crosby indicates we’re bringing a “standard”. In addition to standards, bring expertise and
instruction on science, experience, etc. and help the Town with how to apply
it.
Downes
comments that putting a face to the GW and explaining all of the statutes and
responsibilities of the GW and a local Board has proven to be somewhat of a
carrot. He also indicates that in
addition to staff, it is important that members participate as well. GW members are a member of the community, not some stranger.
Madge Fish
comments that it is a member’s responsibility to communicate in their town, to
deal with the ZEO, the Town Planner and all the Commissions and Boards. Its especially
important to have a relationship with the First Selectman and the Board of
Selectmen. There has to be support and
interest from the elected officials in local government. Such communication is the GW homework that
must be done. The ZBA must be “looked in
upon”.
Fischbach
asks if Old Saybrook’s Gateway regulations are strong because Madge is a Zoning
Commission member?
Woody comments that although Mazur doesn’t attend GW meetings, but he’s
connected to Woody and supporting the GW at P&Z. Regarding membership, Downes reports that the
“all hands on deck” memo to GW members resulted in the resignation of Scott
Thompson. When going
to the towns, a history should be discussed, the reason why the compact was
established over thirty years ago.
Current Commission and Board members aren’t original members who know
how and why the Gateway started in the first place. Crosby relates his “what does eagle taste
like” story.
DiBrigard
queries on variance review process and suggests that, if important enough, the
letter to the local Board should be read into the record with a GW member to
answer questions on the decision. Staff
could suggest in particular circumstances that a member appear at the local
meeting. Crosby indicates that the Town
won’t request Gateway presence at a meeting, its up to
the Commission/staff. Downes indicates
that he has to prioritize connection with town staff and
Commissions/Boards. Fischbach suggests
that GW rep should attend as well as much as possible, for positive or negative report is being presented.
Crosby raises
the example of wind turbines in Old Lyme and help that can be provided through
similar situations in other towns. Fish
indicates that courts are supporting regulatory language referring to “the
look” of a town.
Woody
discusses acquisition and indicated that in the past, members used “prowl” the
area for opportunities. Fischbach
suggests that Town Plans identify land for acquisition. Blatt indicates DEP has
the same. Woody indicates that an
acquisition committee should be re-established so that initiation of
acquisition can be started. Woody also
questions whether or not the GW should “own” either land or easements. If not,
stewardship issues are moot. Discussion
on whether or not statutes differentiate the purchase of land with State funds vs. the private funds held
by the GW. Wilson reads statutes. What if State contributes to purchase?
Wilson feels that money from the State refers to GW using money that was provided to them by the State. With land off the GW “books”, insurance costs
go down. Wilson indicates that the
problem with owning land is really one of lack of ability for stewardship.
Fischbach
discusses easements that are given to the State. The State doesn’t “steward” such
easements. Blatt indicates that
theoretically they do, but they don’t have the resource to effectively
steward. As such, to what extent should
the GW philosophically maintain an interest in easements. With easements, GW should keep track of
underlying ownership of easements.
Woody suggests reviving acquisition/stewardship committee with such
committee handling review and making report to full Commission.
Another night
has been considered for additional discussion.
Should GW form the two groups discussed?
Acquisition/stewardship and Community Outreach. DiBrigard suggest that a committee of one or
two can discuss job description for staff with
staff. Fischbach suggests that Downes
start an outline of his job description for circulation and discussion. Fischbach asks that one list of the meeting
dates for the various P&Zs and ZBAs be compiled
for consideration. Thomas queries
whether GW should develop an approach for outreach strategy for GW talking to
Town boards/commissions outreach programs.
Downes and several GW members would be appropriate.
Woody
summarizes that finance committee exists, and outreach and acquisition
committees have been identified as important as this time. He wonders why a job description is necessary
at this time. There are several “known
things” that are job requirements. What does Downes think regarding the types
of projects that should be assigned
to him. Thomas
queries whether there is there a “contract” between GW and CRERPA? Downes suggests that an assignment of
priorities is more important that a “job description” which he will
prepare. Blatt queries what the
availability of Tidewater will be going forward. Crosby reminds that Preston
has submitted a proposal. Members
discuss of projects to be undertaken by Tidewater and how to contract with
Preston. DiBrigard wonders whether it
should be staff that oversees independent contractors. Downes indicates that he has had
conversations with Preston regarding status of the inventory work. Fischbach wonders if it would be helpful to
have a GW member be a part of a subcommittee for such discussions. Not necessary for Downes, but if the GW wants
that, that would be fine as well. Downes
could have monthly meetings if there were “product” updates. Thomas suggests that Downes could be
supervisor of “contracts” on behalf of the GW and indicates that a better
handle on “products” will be desired for upcoming projects.
Downes indicates
he will pursue discussions with the ZBAs.
Stasia cautions that, with elections coming up, starting such
discussions prior to elections may result in discussions that may have to be
repeated with newly elected members.
Stasia suggests that perhaps staff should be talking to staff first.
Woody indicates that if several committees have been identified, how will
committee membership be determined? Should it be determined “tonight”. GW agreed to
discuss this further at the next workshop yet to be scheduled.
Adjournment
There being
no further discussion, Sue Bement moved
to adjourn the meeting at approximately 9:30pm, seconded by Harvey Thomas.
The next workshop is scheduled for Monday,
July 13, 2009
The
following is Nancy Fischbach’s synopsis of the meeting. Figured
that I might as well include it. Hopefully there aren’t conflicting
thoughts.....
Torrance will be sending you more
detailed minutes from our meeting Tuesday night, but here is the synopsis we
thought might be helpful to all.
As our Chairman said, we were looking
at what we do, why we do it, and how we do it. There was a review of our
duties, the statutes, and our funding (which was clarified as not being from
the state, the state's only money having been spent on land years ago).
There was consideration of our role in the preservation of ecological,
archeological and historical characteristics of the district, as well as the
scenic.
We found that in looking at our various
areas of responsibility, natural groupings occurred. Land Acquisition,
Stewardship and possibly Referrals fell into a "Land" group, and
Outreach, Education and Publicity fell into a "Community Relations"
group. Similarly, our Rules of Procedure and Membership could be paired.
Much of our discussion came back to
"Community Relations", with increasing recognition that much of what
we do depends on the relationship we have with town land use agencies, land
use staff, selectmen, Gateway property owners, and the public at
large. It was agreed that Torrance would begin outreach to ZBA staffs
right away, and that would be followed by outreach by commission members to
their local ZBAs, Zoning, and Planning Commissions, as well as First Selectmen,
perhaps involving an annual appearance at these agencies' regular meetings.
Torrance would also start attending the ZBA hearing if Gateway has
commented against a variance.
As to the "Land" group, it
was noted that State Statute appears to allow for Gateway's holding of land, so
long as that land is not purchased with state funds. It was agreed that
acquisition today might mean going after easements rather than ownership, and
that stewardship still applies, even if the land or easement is not in
Gateway's name, especially considering the resources for the holder of those
easements and land (often the state) is limited.
There was some discussion on process
and the benefits of having committees make recommendations to the full
Commission. It was thought that this might make our monthly meetings more
efficient.
It was agreed that two committees will
be formed at our Regular Meeting next week: Community Relations and
Acquisition/Stewardship. These two committees would be charged with
making recommendations as to what each committee's future role should
be long term. If you
are not going to be at next week's Regular Meeting, please let Torrance know in
which of these two groups you'd be interested in serving. (jhtdownes01@yahoo.com) (My note: A commitment to what
we might call the formation or interim committee should not be construed as a
commitment to a permanent commitment.)
A brief discussion ensued as to what
staff's role is and should be, and Torrance will prepare a draft outline of
what he does for Gateway, perhaps along with anything else he feels might be
appropriate job responsibilities for staff. This will be made available
to the Commission prior to our next special meeting, for consideration at that
meeting. Torrance commented that such a job description would help him
prioritize his work. It was also agreed that any consultant should be
supervised, either by Torrance, an individual commissioner or Gateway
committee.
THERE WILL BE ANOTHER SPECIAL MEETING TO
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION ON MONDAY, JULY 13 AT 7:30 PM.
Hope this captured the
highlights. If anyone has any additions/corrections, please "reply
all" and send them out.
Nancy