Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutPlanning Board -- 2021-08-25 Minutes RSWs Brewster Planning Board Approved : 08/25/21 .�0o\a\omit 6 I ini,/i,//. �c a E�oEp�;9FQ'%, 2198 Main Street Vote : 4=0 =2 a , Brewster MA 02631 = 1898 x o ' y ( 508) 896 =3701 x1133 V0 ' -_— brewplan@brewster-ma . gov %,, FEaFPOPAtj BREWSTER PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, August 25, 2021 at 6 : 30 pm Brewster Town Office Building (virtual ) Chair Paul Wallace convened a remote meeting of the Planning Board at 6 : 30 pm with the following members participating remotely : Amanda Bebrin , Charlotte Degen , Mark Koch , and Elizabeth Taylor. Roberta Barrett and Madalyn Hillis- Dineen did not participate . Also participating remotely : Ryan Bennett, Town Planner, Lynn St . Cyr, Senior Department Assistant , and Kari Hoffmann , Select Board Liaison This meeting will be conducted by remote participation pursuant to Chapter 20 of the Acts of 2021 . No in - person meeting attendance will be permitted . If the Town is unable to live broadcast this meeting , a record of the proceedings will be provided on the Town website as soon as possible . The meeting may be viewed by : Live broadcast (Brewster Government TV Channel 18) , Livestream ( livestream . brewster- ma . gov ), or Video recording (tv . brewster- ma . gov ) . The Planning Board Packet can be found at: httjno//records brewster-ma . gov/weblink/0/fol/118269/Row1 . aspx or by going to the Planning Department page on the Town of Brewster website (www. brewster- ma . gov) . Wallace declared that a quorum of the Planning Board was present. 6 : 31 PM CITIZEN ' S FORUM No citizen comments . 6 : 32 PM PUBLIC MEETING Review and discuss proposed General Bylaw and Planning Board Regulations for Stormwater Management. Documents : • 08/ 17/21 Stormwater Management Bylaw • 08/20/21 Stormwater Management Regulations Lori Kennedy and Mark Nelson of Horsley Witten were present. Kennedy stated that the Board has been provided with a draft bylaw slightly modified from the one reviewed in July as well as draft regulations to be promulgated by the Board . Kennedy stated that Brewster qualifies under the MS4 permit issued by the EPA for urbanized communities . Under the MS4 permit, Brewster is required to have local regulations for stormwater management on construction sites and for post construction for any projects that disturb over one-acre of land . Kennedy noted that many towns are developing regulations for under one-acre of disturbed area because a one-acre area is large . Locally , many small towns are using lower thresholds to mitigate stormwater run off from smaller projects . Nelson stated that some of the thresholds proposed in the draft bylaw correlate to work that has been going on in Brewster for 10 years on the Integrated Water Resource Management Plan . Nelson stated that there has been a strong recognition in town that lower thresholds for stormwater management are important to reduce the impact on the town ' s drinking water, freshwater ponds , and coastal estuaries . Degen asked if it was possible to calculate the current number of minor and major permitting projects . Kennedy responded that staff are working on a review of projects currently proceeding through staff review, site plan review , and review by the Conservation Commission to determine the extent to which projects moving through other permitting may need to go through stormwater permitting . Wallace stated that currently there are no projects going through the proposed stormwater permitting process . Kennedy responded that there are stormwater requirements in the current zoning bylaw but the proposed stormwater permitting process is new to Brewster, Nelson noted that projects that proceed through Conservation Commission review must comply with state stormwater regulations . Nelson stated that he does not expect much of a change in the number of reviews through the Conservation Commission , but the Planning Board could see some changes in site plan review . Nelson stated that at the site plan review level , this permitting path provides more certainty on design for the Applicant . Minor review by staff will be a new process . PB Minutes 08/25/21 Page 1 of 5 The Board reviewed the draft stormwater management regulations . Kennedy stated that there was an outstanding question surrounding authority ( Section 3) as far as which projects the Planning Board would delegate to the Conservation Commission for review . Kennedy directed the Board to Section 4 , Applicability for discussion on minor versus major permits and related thresholds . Kennedy noted the current proposed thresholds for minor permits as a net increase in impervious area of 500 SF — 21000 SF and or land disturbance of 10 , 000 SF — 20 , 000 SF . The minor permits would be reviewed administratively . Examples of projects include additions and modifications to dwellings , paving of driveways , and addition of an impervious patio . At Taylor' s request, the Board paused their review of stormwater management regulations to review the stormwater management bylaw . The Board discussed Section 4 , Administration . Wallace stated that for major permits he would expect the Conservation Commission to address projects already before them and the Planning Board will do the same for any projects proceeding through the permitting process with the Board . Bennett stated that was the intention of the proposed bylaw . The Board discussed Section 5 , Applicability . Nelson stated that a two-car driveway of approximately 500 SF would fall under the minor permitting category as 500 SF of impervious area is being added . Koch asked about the decision process surrounding the 500 SF minimum . Bennett responded that the proposed thresholds are based on existing staff review bylaw thresholds . Wallace expressed concern that the proposed thresholds would pick up a lot of projects . Nelson responded that simple components could be used to address smaller projects . Kennedy gave an example of adding a trench along a driveway as one example of a simple stormwater management practice . The Board reviewed Section 7 , Stormwater Management Regulations . Kennedy directed the Board to paragraph B ( 3) and noted that minor stormwater permits will include , but are not limited to , additions and modifications to existing single and two-family residential properties . The Board reviewed and discussed Section 13 , Waivers . Wallace asked for clarification on Paragraph F ( 1 ) whereby a waiver may be granted if the stormwater authority finds that " application of some of the requirements is unnecessary or impracticable because of the size or character of the development activity or because of the natural conditions at the site" . Kennedy gave an example of redevelopment of a contaminated property where the Board would not want stormwater infiltrating contaminated soil . In this case , erosion sediment control could be required during construction but not infiltration practices . Kennedy noted an outstanding enforcement question that needed to be reviewed by town counsel regarding the appropriate mechanism for appeals in Section 14 , Paragraph B ( 5 ) . Degen asked about review of the proposed bylaw by Town Counsel and Bennett stated that Town Counsel will review the article after the Board recommends it to Town Meeting inclusion . The Board continued review of the proposed Stormwater Regulations . Degen asked if the town had any obligation to provide public information on the administration of minor permits . Kennedy responded that under MS4 guidelines , there are requirements for notification for any project with over one-acre of land disturbance but for any projects under one-acre the town can decide on a process . MS4 does not require a public hearing but does require that the public be able to provide comment to the stormwater authority . Kennedy recommended that minor permits be processed consistently with other administrative review processes . Wallace stated that for minor permits being handled administratively he expected no public outreach and review by staff. Bennett agreed and noted that the Conservation Commission may have a consent agenda that minor stormwater permits will be included on . Major permits will follow the notification process of the stormwater authority in accordance with the zoning act or wetlands act. Bebrin stated that if public notification was required for minor permits , it could become cumbersome very fast . The Board discussed language in Section 4 . 1 A ( 1 ) regarding single family and two-family dwellings and whether multk family dwelling should be the language used . Bennett will review further . The Board discussed applicability and decided that the thresholds should apply to all land use activities including commercial activity which will be eligible for minor permit review . Taylor stated that the water quality review bylaw is only PB Minutes 08/25/21 Page 2 of 5 subject to properties located in Zone II . Nelson stated that under water quality review , the one-acre threshold is in effect for commercial properties of one-acre or more located in Zone II and the Pleasant Bay watershed . The two bylaws are not consistent with each other . Kennedy suggested that higher polluting land uses could be directed through major permit review regardless of size . Wallace stated that he would stick with the proposed threshold regardless of land uses to determine the permitting path . Bebrin expressed concern that smaller businesses and uses would get tripped up in major permitting if the proposed language is left as originally proposed . Degen asked if administrative review of commercial uses for minor permits would cause undue burden . Bennett stated she does not believe a technical review will need to occur through the administrative agent , but the engineers will provide the necessary information to comply with the regulations . Wallace expressed concern that undue burden and expense would be placed on commercial projects and gave the example of a 550 SF paving project needing to proceed through the major permitting process . Bennett reviewed the example given by Wallace and stated that a residential driveway could also be paved and required to implement some mitigation for run off to town storm drains . The Board would need to find a balance between commercial and private projects . Nelson stated that the details are in the regulations which can be adjusted over time through a simpler process . The Board further discussed the proposed thresholds . Bennett suggested the Board review feedback from the public during the public hearing process regarding land use and thresholds as they relate to minor and major permitting . The Board decided to leave the proposed thresholds as is for the time being and that minor permitting would be applicable to all land uses . Taylor noted that the Board needed to recognize that there were wetlands that could be impacted by businesses along Route 6A and Underpass Road . She stated that there is not just a drinking water issue but also an impact to beaches . The Board discussed fees as outlined in Section 5 . 3 . Wallace noted concern about the language speaking to costs incurred by the Applicant and suggested language to include a requirement that consultant costs incurred by the Town be discussed with the Applicant prior to authorization of services . Kennedy suggested fees be reviewed by Town Counsel . Nelson noted that fees are received prior to the consultant review so the Applicant will agree to proceed or withdraw . Koch also suggested the fee language be reviewed by Town Counsel . The Board discussed having Town Counsel review the appeals procedure outlined in Section 5 . 7 (4) . Kennedy summarized the requirements of obtaining a Stormwater Management Certificate of Compliance . Degen asked for more information on the Operation and Maintenance Plan requirements and authority . Wallace directed Degen to Section 8 . 3 regarding the requirement to record the Operation and Maintenance Plan at the Barnstable County Registry of Deeds . Wallace stated he believes the plan will run with the property . Kennedy directed the Board to Section 8 . 5 regarding Changes to Ownership and/or Operation and Maintenance Plans and the responsibilities of the permittee . Bebrin asked who was responsible for conducting inspections outlined in the Operation. and Maintenance Plan . Kennedy summarized inspection options including annual self-certification by permittees and Operation and Maintenance reports for larger projects with requirements outlined in Section 8 . 2 . The Board reviewed Section 6 , Performance Standards . Kennedy provided an overview of construction site stormwater management and post-construction stormwater management practices . She mentioned resource sheets that are available to help homeowners and contractors meet best management practices . The Board discussed permitting fees and Bennett stated that further research is needed . Wallace stated that he hoped residents would participate in the public hearing and offer comments on this important bylaw . Motion by Taylor to Refer the Stormwater Management Bylaw to the Select Board . Second by Bebrin . Vote : Koch -aye ; Bebrin -aye ; Degen -aye ; Taylor-aye ; and Wallace -aye . Vote : 5 -0 -0 . 7 : 48 PM PUBLIC MEETING CONTINUED Review and discuss proposed amendments to the Water Quality Protection District Zoning Bylaw ( Chapter 179 , Article XI ) t Documents : • 08/ 17/21 Water Quality Protection District Bylaw • 08/24/21 Planning Staff Memo Bennett introduced proposed amendments to the Water Quality Protection District which is a zoning overlay that includes properties within Zone II and the District of Critical Planning Concern ( DCPC ) , predominantly comprised of the Pleasant PB Minutes 08/25/21 Page 3 of 5 Bay Watershed . Amendments are being brought forth to clarify some of the applicability of the performance standards in the existing bylaw , bring the performance standards for calculating nitrogen loading standards under the jurisdiction of the Board of Health ( BOH ) , align the water quality bylaw protections with the proposed stormwater bylaw , and streamline the permitting process for nitrogen loading . The BOH will begin working on regulations . The proposed amendments will slightly alter the thresholds for commercial uses within the Pleasant Bay watershed further reducing the impact on buildout within that watershed . Nelson reviewed proposed changes to the bylaw . Nelson clarified that the nitrogen loading standards apply to all properties within the DCPC area even if a special permit is not being sought. Nelson noted that two of the use regulations under Section 179-56 paragraph A ( 1 ) and paragraph (2 ) are proposed to be removed as they are not regulated by the zoning bylaw. Proposed changes to paragraph 3 include thresholds as larger lots and uses will need to obtain a special permit. Under Section D (2 ) , Uses/structures allowed by special permit, paragraph c is proposed to be removed as it would create duplicative permitting with the proposed stormwater management bylaw if that bylaw is approved at town meeting . Nelson directed the Board to Section 179-57 , Performance standards . Nelson stated that the performance standards apply to all projects that need a special permit but also all projects within the designated area . For example , if there is a new single-family home being built , the homeowners must meet these performance standards to protect drinking water and minimize impacts to Pleasant Bay . Nelson stated that it is recommended that the nitrogen loading calculations within the performance standards be removed from the bylaw and imbedded a new BOH Regulation being drafted . The nitrogen loading calculations are best reviewed by the staff working with the BOH . Nelson stated that for residential uses within the DCPC , the 5 mg/ L standard is proposed to remain with the BOH regulation dictating how the calculation is done . For those who cannot meet the standard , offset fees are proposed so that the town can mitigate nitrogen sources someplace else . A separate standard of 3 ppm is proposed for the business industrial district that is within the DCPC and would reduce the impact of buildout in this area by 25 %- 30 % . Nelson has reviewed projects in the area to see if the proposed standard can be met and for lots of one-acre or above it seems as though the standard can be met for the most part. It is more challenging to meet the standard on smaller lots , but it depends on the project being proposed . Nelson reviewed issues for the Board ' s consideration in amending this bylaw including a BOH calculation to govern the nitrogen loading calculations , a separate standard for commercial zoning districts , and the pros and cons of the offset fee . Wallace stated that he agreed that there should be a BOH regulation for nitrogen loading calculations . Taylor asked if the BOH would now be taking over the fertilizer bylaw which is currently under Planning Board jurisdiction . Nelson stated that he would review the fertilizer bylaw . Taylor asked if the BOH would be reviewing other properties regarding nitrogen loading standards or just those in the DCPC . Nelson stated that further discussion was needed regarding the scope of the BOH ' s review. Taylor noted that the BOH has pond regulations , but they do not have regulations dealing with fertilizer. Nelson stated that the purpose of this bylaw is to set up a standard for nitrogen loading . The BOH regulation will provide details on the calculation to determine compliance with the standard . The BOH regulation could be used to determine compliance within other bylaws . The Board discussed proposed offset fees . Taylor did not support use of such a fee . She stated that this will allow a one- time fee offset but continued non -compliance . Nelson has started to review possible fees associated with the offsets and they have the potential of being quite high . Most projects would be able to meet the 5 mg/ L standard without an offset fee . The projects subject to the 3 mg/L standard will have a more difficult time . In response to a question from Taylor, Nelson stated that this bylaw would not overrule Title V requirements . Bennett stated that there are significant costs associated with the DEP watershed permit for Pleasant Bay and offset fees could help mitigate impacts . Degen asked how the offsets would be administered . Bennett stated that further research is needed . Bennett stated that the Cape Cod Commission does use technical bulletins to show calculation for these types of costs . Taylor asked what would happen if the mitigation project did not work. Bebrin suggested that an annual offset fee could be used for those projects that were not able to comply . Nelson stated that there could be logistic challenges with imposing annual fees . Bennett stated that the offset fee should take into consideration a projection for non -compliance over many years . The Board asked for additional information on offset fee options for further review and discussion . The Board discussed the different standards proposed for residential and commercial projects . Taylor asked if certain projects would be grandfathered and only required to meet the 5 mg/ L standard .; Nelson responded that any new , expanded , or altered commercial use would need to meet the proposed 3 mg/L standard . Bennett stated that the regulation would not be retroactive . Projects would not need to meet the 3 mg/ L unless there was an alteration or expansion . Wallace asked for more information on the reasoning behind the two standards . Bennett responded that it PB Minutes 08/25/21 Page 4 of 5 was directly tied to the buildout impacting he Pleasant Bay watershed . Nelson stated that there is the potential for significant nitrogen loading to Pleasant Bay based on future development in accordance with town regulations . Two-thirds of the nitrogen loading impacts are expected to be from commercial uses and one-third from residential uses . Nelson stated that the watershed permit requires the town to treat current nitrogen loading and plan for future nitrogen loading . Taylor stated this would mean that commercial activity in the area would be held to a 3 mg/ L standard while a subdivision or 40B development would only be held to 5 mg/L standard . Nelson stated that a 40B development could potentially waive this zoning requirement. Taylor stated that businesses were being held to a higher standard than housing . Nelson stated that in reviewing the buildout , he saw less potential for subdivisions or large housing developments and more potential for single houses being built on individual lots . Wallace stated that there should be one standard for which every project should have to comply . Nelson stated that a common standard could pose challenges on the residential side and the town would have to find other ways to reduce the nitrogen loading impact . Nelson identified a wastewater collection and treatment system as one option . He estimated that such a system would cost $ 10-$ 15 million . There is also an additional option for managing nitrogen at the golf course which can be researched . The commercial standard proposed seemed to be the best of the options proposed for reducing the impact of nitrogen . Bebrin stated that she understands that different standards may be needed for different uses based on impacts the uses create . Wallace asked about the costs of reducing nitrogen levels to the 3 mg/ L standard . Nelson responded that an option could be to install an innovative alternative system for between $ 10 , 000- $20 , 000 . Degen requested further information on the offsets . Nelson proposed the use of offsets for commercial activities only and the Board indicated that they would like to see more on that option . Nelson reviewed additional proposed changes to the bylaw which included removal of performance standards related to stormwater management as they were being included with the stormwater management bylaw . Nelson reviewed changes proposed by the Water Quality Review Committee . Taylor asked about adding the Herring River and Bass River watersheds as designated areas . Nelson stated that to include those watersheds , a process through the Cape Cod Commission separate from this bylaw review process is needed . Further discussion on these proposed bylaw amendments will occur at the September 8th meeting . 8 : 46 PM PLANNING DISCUSSION Approval of Meeting Minutes : August 11 , 2021 . The Board reviewed the August 11 , 2021 meeting minutes . Motion by Degen to Approve August 11 , 2021 Meeting Minutes . Second by Bebrin . Vote : Taylor-aye ; Bebrin -aye ; Koch -aye ; Degen -aye ; and Wallace-aye . Vote : 5 -0 -0 . Motion by Bebrin to adjourn . Second by Taylor. Vote : Taylor-aye ; Bebrin -aye ; Koch -aye ; Degen -aye ; and Wallace -aye . Vote : 5 -0 -0 . Meeting adjourned at 8 : 48 pm . Next Planning Board Meeting Dater 09/08/21 Respectfully submitted , Lynn St . yr, Senior D6 artment Assistant, Planning PB Minutes 08/25/21 Page 5 of 5