NEWBURY CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Special Meeting Minutes Oct. 3, 2006
Present: William Weiler, Deane Geddes, Frank Perrotta, Suzanne Levine and Katheryn Holmes; Consultant Ann Poole
Old Business: Conservation Plan
The meeting began at 1:20 p.m. in the Municipal Building conference room with Chairman Weiler reading from an e-mail he sent to Poole Sept. 16, 2006 stating his concerns about her approach to developing a Conservation Plan for Newbury and “why it deviated from the outline” in the commission’s Request for Proposal. A main objection was that Poole had already submitted plan objectives when the RFP states that a public hearing is necessary before developing objectives.
The commission reviewed the language of the RFP and Poole’s “Final Goals and Objectives” submitted via e-mail on Sept. 9. Asked by Holmes about how closely Weiler wanted the two to coincide, Weiler said that they should either coincide or Poole should explain why there are differences. Another e-mail from Poole, submitted Sept. 10, “Conservation Plan Outline,” was “not similar to the requirements stated in the RFP,” Weiler said. He said Poole also has research to do to update the Newbury Natural Resources Inventory. He said the RFP was written to be explicit about the needs for the conservation plan Poole is to produce.
Weiler said he thought Poole understood that public input was needed early on. Poole responded that she thought the commission wanted something to show the public at the first hearing. Holmes said she understood the process required the NRI to be updated before a plan is written. Weiler said the commission has to go to the public first, and then seek input from the Planning Board and Board of Selectmen.
Geddes interjected that the first issue in producing a conservation plan is the process. Poole asked what he meant by process. Poole said she had gotten ahead of myself after a misunderstanding at the last meeting with the commission. She said she had forgotten the specifics of the RFP, but her goals and objectives can be rearranged. For one, she said she could take the NRI-related items out and make them a separate item.
Geddes noted the RFP had required four meetings to prepare. He said he had written an outline for the RFP and had learned there were nine steps to be taken. He said he had reviewed two other towns’ plans and had boiled the steps down to five.
Holmes focused on the five steps in the RFP, reviewing with the commission possible titles and subtitles. After discussion it was decided they should be:
I. Data Gathering
A. Planning Board meeting; B. Public hearing; C. Update the NRI (including field work); D. Assessment of features proposed for protection; E. Environmental and Land Protection in abutting towns
II. The NRI Update (writing an addendum to update)
III. Specific Objectives (review and select objectives, develop plan elements, set strategy and write a draft conservation plan)
IV. Outreach.
A. Meet with the Planning Board; B. Hold a second public hearing
V. Final Plan (make corrections; add recommendations for action, including recommendations for regulations; put the plan into final form ready for publication
Weiler asked Poole to discuss what she meant by Significant Resource Areas in her statement of Final Goals & Objectives. She explained that she and the mapping subcontractor will use the maps developed to create GIS layers. The layers would be examined in groups using a process called co-occurrence mapping to identify areas of significant resources. Weiler commented that Poole needed to educate the commission about the terminology and technology it would need to make choices. Poole said she was planning to do that, but while she was going to evaluate the town ecologically, it would be the commission’s role to identify objectives for land protection.
Poole said that after the discussion she had a better understanding of the goals and objectives for the conservation plan she is to write.
Levine pointed out that there were some problems getting maps. Poole agreed, but distributed several rough drafts of maps already produced.
Perrotta asked Poole if she had a working timetable. She said she would write a summary of the discussion at today’s meeting, then turn to perfecting the needed maps. She said the next step would be a “plan of work.” She hoped to have an addendum updating the NRI by Thanksgiving.
The commission discussed when it might be appropriate to meet with the Planning Board. Weiler said it could not be done on the night of the board’s regular meeting. He suggested a first or second Tuesday, or inviting the board to a regular conservation commission meeting, or to an off-cycle commission meeting.
Geddes and Levine said they had to leave for other commitments and the meeting was adjourned at 2:51 p.m.
Prepared by: Frank Perrotta
| 
