Members Present: Kerry Adams, Heather Bruce, Gerard Irmer
Members Absent: Beverly Dwyer Ormston, Melville Cote
Advisory Staff: Jon Gilmore
Harbor Master: Chris Flavell
Pier Manager: Rex McKinsey
The meeting was called to
order at 4:38 p.m.
Review and approve minutes of January 7th,
14th, and 21st 2004
Although there was no
discussion on the minutes, it was thought best by all to not discuss them
without the members responsible for the minutes present.
Motion by Heather Bruce: Table discussion and review
of minutes from January 7th, 14th and 21st
meetings as Beverly Dwyer Ormston, and Alison Boutin were not currently present
to revise them.
Kerry Adams seconded the motion and it was
unanimously passed.
None
A voucher was sent to the
committee with December’s Banner Advertisement fees, the committee reviewed the
voucher.
Motion by Kerry Adams: Pay
the Banner the fee as shown on the voucher.
Jerry Irmer seconded the
motion and it was unanimously passed.
Heather Bruce and Truman
Henson discussed at length the implications Chapter 91 had on property owners
and how to best resolve the negative impacts on a town or state level. They both agreed that the best way to “find
more applicable suggestions for Provincetown to provide public benefit on
private beachfronts” would be to keep the definition of “public benefits” open
for discussion and refinement. Members
felt the desire to reduce the penalties of the historic residential properties
just because they do not provide direct beach access as easily as commercial
properties. Chris Flavell confirmed
with Truman Henson that if the Provincetown Harbor Committee comes up with
creative definitions of “public benefit” for shorefronts, that those
definitions (within reason) would be accepted by the DEP.
Heather Bruce continued
conversation with Truman Henson about the State’s use of the Schofield Line as
a MHWM. Ms. Bruce stated that residents
and coastal engineers both see flaws in the line and disagree with its accepted
use by the DEP. Mr. Henson emphasized
that the Harbor Plan was not the mechanism to refute the use of this line, and
that a town cannot refute the line that is officially endorsed as the most
accurate MHWM and used as the jurisdiction boundary of the DEP. However the DEP suggests that a town or
group can challenge the line (through a petition article as
suggested by Jerry Irmer). Appropriate
language to use in the Harbor Plan to mention such an action was recommended by
Mr. Truman to read, “the town suggests further investigation of the accuracy of
the Schofield MHWM.” He also
recommended referencing Edgartown’s Harbor Plan, as it is one of the few with
many similar issues on Chapter 91.
Discussing the topic of monetary
contributions, Truman Henson emphasized that the Harbor Plan is the correct
mechanism to “describe and dictate how the funds are utilized by the
town.” Discussion arose on how the fees
are determined (amnesty and non amnesty) and on the formula used by the DEP
that is incomprehensible to residents.
Mr. Henson assured the committee he would search for a document that
would better depict the highly variable fee-formula. It was also confusing how to interpret Compliance Fees, whether
they were based per unit or parcel of land. The committee agreed that filing
and assessing properties in an address-orderly fashion would be efficient and
helpful to all. Mr. Truman stated that
he was “trying to help Provincetown amend and renew their Harbor Plan and to
interpret State law so the Harbor Plan can be most affective.”
Specificities should be
written into the Harbor Plan for how to allocate the Harbor Gift Funds once
Chapter 91 fees are collected. Rex
McKinsey summarized that in the near future the committee must agree and
prioritize possible actions and developments.
The document’s section on
Public Facilities had no real issues by any member.
Truman Henson alerted the
committee that there was a direct conflict between the Harbor Plan and Chapter
91 in the Water Use Section VII; the Harbor Plan suggests using funds on the
pier, whereas Chapter 91 states no funds shall be used on the pier.
Jon Gilmore asked how to
physically process, format and submit the Harbor Plan Amendments once they are
completed. Truman Henson described that
the committee doesn’t need to “make more of a paper shuffle than necessary” and
that only the sections of the Plan that have been most amended need to be
focused on, the rest can by directly ‘copied and pasted’ for processing. Alice Brock emphasized the need to keep the
old and new versions of the document at hand so we can distinguish the changes.
None
There will be no meeting
Wednesday January 28, 2004. The next
meeting will be in Caucus Hall on Wednesday February 4th, 2004 at
4:30pm. The agenda for the meeting
still needs to be finalized.
Rex McKinsey pointed out
that on the February 4th agenda the applicant for a future Chapter
91 property would meet with the committee to discuss the process. Also, 655
Commercial St will be presented to the committee to make recommendations on
their shorefront development before the property goes to the DEP Public
Hearing. Rex recommended to review the
application, look at the appendices in the Harbor Plan and use this opportunity
to make a recommendation to the DEP, even if there is no objection to the
property development.
This recommendation to the
DEP is also a good way to bring out the new language in the amended Harbor Plan
before it passes. The recommendations
allow the DEP to input from the new language without having the new Harbor Plan
to reference.
Motion moved by Heather
Bruce: Adjourn Harbor Committee Meeting of January 26, 2004.
Kerry Adams seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at
5:55 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Alison Boutin
Gerard Irmer, Chariman