The Harwich Local Planning Committee accelerated its work on the Local Comprehensive Plan (LCP) this week, adopting a streamlined evaluation system to sort through 87 proposed town actions. Tasked with refining a massive spreadsheet of goals before a June 30 technical deadline, the committee opted for a simplified 2x2 matrix that weighs the potential community impact of a project against its practical feasibility. The decision followed a presentation by Sharon Rooney of Tighe & Bond, who suggested a multi-criteria scoring system based on significance, ease of implementation, cost, and time. Rooney noted, I tried to keep this simple. You could do weighting, but it gets complicated. The idea is to generate total scores for each action in a workshop setting to reach consensus.

Planning Director Christine Flynn urged the committee to prioritize efficiency as the town prepares for the Fall Special Town Meeting. I want to get consensus from the committee in the simplest form possible—short, medium, and long-term goals, Flynn said, emphasizing the need for a finalized framework. Committee member Mary Jones advocated for a method developed by fellow members Brian and David Spit, which uses specific definitions to categorize goals into Do Now, Do Next, Do Later, and Do Last. Jones explained that the grid gives you categories... we could use this as a baseline and then use Sharon’s criteria to narrow it down. G. Curran questioned the precision of the tools, asking, Is there a particular weighted scoring mechanism? Or is it subjective? Following a brief discussion, the committee reached a consensus to utilize the 2x2 matrix for its initial culling of the 87 items.

The committee immediately tested the new system on water resource management, a high-priority topic in Harwich following recent $35 million sewer expansion approvals for the Great Sand Lakes. Evaluating a proposed Resource Management Plan for town ponds, Margo Fenn suggested an Impact 4 rating, the highest possible, but cautioned on its viability. Impact is a 4. It's very important. Feasibility is a 2 because of the funding question, Fenn noted. Similarly, an initiative to acquire open space in public water supply areas was deemed a home run with high impact and high feasibility due to available Community Preservation Act funding. Regarding stormwater management, Ed suggested that some goals were already well underway, noting that the highway department already does this as part of road maintenance. It's low-hanging fruit.

However, the matrix highlighted significant political hurdles for certain environmental goals. A proposal for a townwide fertilizer management bylaw received high impact marks but a feasibility score of only 1. David Spit remarked that there is massive political opposition from landscapers. It gets shot down every town meeting. The committee also addressed emerging contaminants like PFAS, which the Board of Health has recently begun researching for private well mandates. Fenn characterized PFAS monitoring as a growing nationwide concern, though the committee gave it moderate scores for both impact and feasibility as mitigation plans remain in early stages. Motion Made by G. Curran to table the approval of the April 1, 2025 minutes to the next meeting's consent agenda. Motion Passed (6-0).

To meet the looming June deadline, members agreed to score the remaining 70-plus actions independently before their next session. D. Spit noted he is still refining sections related to community design and waste management to ensure they reflect current town needs. The committee intends to hold a final high-intensity workshop on April 28. Members Bernadette Wack, Barbara Nickerson, and Joyce McAra joined the consensus to move forward with the manual scoring process, which Ed suggested would be more expeditious than digital tools. The committee remains under pressure to reconcile these planning goals with the town's shifting economic landscape, including the recently identified $220,000 income threshold required for local homeownership.