Back to Wastewater Master Planning Committee Meeting Minutes
OCTOBER 14, 2009
A posted meeting of the Hingham Wastewater Master Planning Committee (Committee) was held in the North Hearing Room, 210 Central St. Hingham, MA.
The meeting was called to order by Dr. Shilts at 7:10pm
MEMBERS PRESENT Kirk Shilts, Board of Health, Chair
Charles Berry, Conservation Commission
Richard (Skip) Hull
Mat MacIver
Frank Mahony
John Riley, Board of Selectmen
Michael Salerno, Sewer Commission
Gary Tondorf-Dick, Planning Board
Mark White
OFFICIALS PRESENT:
CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE INC. (CDM) David Polcari, Project manager, CDM
Thomas Morgan, Community liaison, CDM
AGENDA Dr. Shilts reviewed the draft agenda for the meeting.
Thereafter, the agenda was accepted as drafted.
MINUTES Dr. Shilts reviewed the draft minutes from the September 30, 2009 meeting.
Thereafter, a Motion was made by Mr. MacIver and Seconded by Mr. Salerno and it was VOTED (unanimous);
To approve the September 30, 2009 meeting minutes as amended.
NOMIMATION OF OFFICERS Dr. Shilts stated that if the committee were not able to wrap-up its work this evening, the Committee should elect officers for the current year.
Dr. Shilts offered to continue to take the minutes as committee secretary.
Mr. Mahony nominated Mr. MacIver for committee chairman.
Mr. Riley nominated Mr. White for committee chairman. (Mr. White asked that he not be considered for chairman)
Thereafter, Mr. MacIver shall serve as committee chair and Dr. Shilts as secretary upon the conclusion of the meeting.
COMPREHENSIVE WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT PLAN (CWMP) PROJECT
► PROJECT BUDGET: No update
► PROJECT SCHEDULE: Mr. Polcari said hopefully after tonight, CDM will get working on a final draft of the plan focusing on the methods/areas the committee selects, then the committee would meet to review the final draft, then conduct a forum or mechanism for public comment, and then have a final meeting to sign-off on the project. Mr. Polcari would not estimate on how much time this would likely take.
► PROJECT SCOPE: The Committee members provided their expert perspectives in preparation of selecting the specific wastewater methods(s) and study area(s) that should be included for comprehensive analysis within the project’s final draft.
COMMITTEE PERSPECTIVES:
• SEWER COMMISSION Mr. Salerno stated it was the residents of Hingham that asked for this sewer study and that is why the study appears to have a residential-based attitude. He said the Sewer Commission hopes the study will result in the ability to tie-in the loose sewer connections located around the community.
• PLANNING BOARD Mr. Tondorf-Dick said the Industrial Park seems to be the only study area that actually requires a wastewater solution because without it, the Industrial Park will be hard pressed to support additional commercial development. He said aquifer recharge is an important issue depending on what water will be supplied to this area. He stated that on-site septic disposal with enhanced management is all that currently seems necessary for the residential areas of Hingham.
• CONSERVATION COMMISSION Mr. Berry stated that the Con. Com. is very concerned about the town’s water supply and will only support de-centralized systems that recharge our stressed watershed. He added that the Con. Com. would support sewers for the Industrial area only if the water supply came from outside of Hingham’s aquifer.
• BOARD OF HEALTH Dr. Shilts stated that this summer’s rash of beach closings across neighboring communities, including Hingham, which have either central sewers or on-site septic systems seems to demonstrate that septic system run-off, as a significant contributing factor, is not a valid occurrence. He said that during his tenure the BoH has never had a residential property where a septic system couldn’t be installed, or suggested that it was too cost prohibitive or argued as unappealing relative to the normal landscape. He added that other than the one individual homeowner who attended the CWMP public forum, Hingham’s residential community simply is not requesting sewers.
• GENERAL PUBLIC Mr. White said his experience while on the sewer commission was that residents came to the meeting expressing real hardships, as an example, not being able to expand their homes. He said he is happy that Hingham is not currently experiencing the septic-related environmental degradation as in the past. He said on-site systems make sense because of the aquifer recharge issue. He mentioned that economic parameters principally make certain alternatives the most viable. He stated that lower populated areas in town do not have the same wastewater needs as the more dense areas.
• GENERAL PUBLIC Mr. MacIver said the plan’s current draft lacks a policy section that would govern the actual and eventual implementation of the plan. He questioned what would (should) be the mechanisms for proceeding with this plan. He added that the plan should be a living document where today’s preferred wastewater choices can adapt to future cost/benefit analysis which may well favor different options. He described his draft outline of various wastewater-related policies (mentioned below).
• GENERAL PUBLIC Mr. Mahoney said the neighborhoods on either side of the North Sewer District boundary look pretty similar to those within the District relative to the size of the home compared to the size of the lot, an empirical indication that public sewers don’t necessarily cause greater density. He added that he likes Mr. MacIver’s suggestion about including wastewater governance policies within the plan.
• GENERAL PUBLIC Mr. Hull added that all the alternatives should be included within the final Plan for establishing cost/benefit comparisons.
FINAL SELECTIONS:
• DR. SHILTS Dr. Shilts selected alternative #7, and the Industrial Park refined alternative.
• MR. BERRY Mr. Berry selected alternative #7, and the Industrial Park refined alternative, conditional that the water supply for the Industrial area not come from the Hingham (Weir River) aquifer.
• MR. HULL Mr. Hull selected alternative #1, for the Fulling Mill, Hingham Center & Prospect St. study areas, and the Industrial Park refined alternative.
• MR. MACIVER Mr. MacIver thought favorably of the Industrial Park refined alternative, and did not believe he was adequately prepared to identify any other alternative or study area.
• MR. MAHONY Mr. Mahony selected the Foundry Pond (Northern) Hull/East Street refined alternative, and the Industrial Park refined alternative.
• MR.SALERNO Mr. Salerno selected the Central Street project refined alternative, the Summer Street (Northern) Martin’s Lane refined alternative, the Foundry Pond (Northern) Hull/East Street refined alternative, alternative #2 for the Liberty Pole study area, and the Industrial Park refined alternative.
• MR. SULLIVAN Mr. Sullivan indicated in his 10/13/09 email as favoring the Central St. project refined alternative, the Foundry Pond (Northern) Hull/East Street refined alternative, and the Industrial Park refined alternative.
• MR. TONDORF-DICK Mr. Tondorf-Dick selected alternative #2 for the Liberty Pole study area, the Foundry Pond (Northern) Hull/East Street refined alternative, and the Industrial Park refined alternative.
• MR. WHITE Mr. White selected the Summer Street (Northern) Martin’s Lane refined alternative, the Foundry Pond (Northern) Hull/East Street refined alternative, alternative #2 for the Liberty Pole study area, and the Industrial Park refined alternative.
• MR. RILEY Mr. Riley selected alternative #7, and the Industrial Park refined alternative.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: The following issues remain outstanding.
• SECTION #3, “STUDY AREA PRIORITY
RANKING” Dr. Shilts mentioned that the three-tier “priority ranking” system approved at the previous meeting needs to be populated with study areas relative to their “Final Score” listed in Table 2-7 and described in section 3.2.
• SECTION #4, “REFINED ALTERNATIVES
EVALUATION” Mr. Salerno mentioned that the “Foundry Pond” refined alternative listed in 4.1 and 4.3.2 should be changed to “Foundry Pond (Northern) Hull/ East Street”, which is a very specific sub-region within the broader Foundry Pond study area. Figure 4.3-4 would be similarly and appropriately changed.
Mr. Mahony mentioned that the “(and the 7th)” reference to “Foundry Pond” on pages 3-1 & 3-2 should be removed.
• SECTION #2, (NEW CATEGORY) Mr. MacIver mentioned that the plan requires a new subsection that outlines the numerous ‘policies’ that govern wastewater decisions in Hingham. These policies reside with the Sewer Commission, Board of Health, Planning Board, Town Meeting, Board of Selectmen, and the Aquarion Water Co. (including the Con. Com. & Water Supply Committee). The policies address issues of sewering priorities, governance & process, public project participation, and financial & budget.
SCHEDULING The next meeting of the Committee is tentatively scheduled for Thursday, November 12th at 7pm.
ACTION STEPS: (1) All members: Forward to Mr. MacIver the existing, or desired, wastewater-related policies as mentioned above.
(2) Mr. Tondorf-Dick: Forward to the Committee a copy of the Planning Board’s 2002 Hingham Master Plan, wastewater section.
(3) Mr. Salerno: Forward to the Committee a copy of the Sewer Commission’s sub-dividing criteria and expansion policy.
ADJOURNMENT The October 14, 2009 meeting of the Hingham Wastewater Master Planning Committee adjourned at 9:56pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Kirk J. Shilts, D.C.
Chair
Hingham Wastewater Master Planning Committee