HomeMy Public PortalAboutPlanning Board Packet 11/02/21Town of Brewster Planning Board
1011 11 2198 Main St., Brewster, MA 02631
brewplan@brewster-ma.gov
0001*
r ! l ``' z y' _ (508) 896-3701 x1133
MEETING AGENDA
�rOR i i p \,
November 2 2021 at 7:00 PM (Remote Participation Only)
Planning Board
Paul Wallace
Chair
Charlotte Degen
Vice Chair
Madalyn Hillis -Dineen
Clerk
Roberta Barrett
Mark Koch
Elizabeth Taylor
Senior Department
Assistant
Lynn St. Cyr
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.aov), or Video recording (tv.brewsler-ma.uov),
Meetings may be joined by:
1. Phone: Call (929) 436-2866 or (301) 715-8592, Webinar ID: 841 0778 1002. Passcode: 612505.
To request to speak: Press *9 and wait to be recognized,
2. ZoomWebinar: httos://us02web.zoom.us/i/84107781002?owd=VTVSV1ExaUNCL253NmNZV21Gdmo4dz09
Passcode: 612505.
To request to speak: Tap Zoom "Raise Hand" button or type "Chat" comment with your name and address, then wait to
be recognized,
The Planning Board
packet can
be found at:
htto://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).
1. Call to Order.
2. Declaration of a Quorum.
3, Meeting Participation Statement,
4. Citizens Forum. Members of the public are invited to address the Planning Board during
this time. The Planning Board asks that a 3 minute maximum comment period be
respected by the speaker. In order to avoid any possible interpretation of a violation of
the Open Meeting Law, the Planning Board will not provide comment in return to the
speaker, however the item may be moved to a future agenda if discussion is deemed
warranted.
5, Discuss and vote on proposed Planning Board Stormwater Management Regulations,
6. Discuss proposed Stormwater Management General Bylaw and revote Planning Board
recommendation, as needed.
7. Discuss public outreach and education on proposed bylaw amendments on stormwater
management, water quality protection district, and floodplain district.
8. Discuss town meeting procedures including presentation of proposed bylaw
amendments on stormwater management, water quality protection district, and
floodplain district.
9. Approval of Meeting Minutes: October 13, 20211
10. For your Information.
11. Matters Not Reasonably Anticipated by the Chair.
12. Next Meetings: November 10, 2021 and December 8, 2021.
13. Adjournment.
Date Posted: Date Revised: Received by Town Clerlc:
10/ 29/ 21
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
PUBLIC COMMENT
Lynn bt.
From.
Sent.
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Dear Brewster Planning Board,
John Keith <john.keith@brewsterponds.org>
Thursday, October 28, 2021 3:17 PM
brewplan
Kari Hoffmann; Susan Bridges
Comments on Proposed Stormwater Bylaw and Stormwater Management Regulation
Stormwater reg comments 10-2&21.docx
Attached are the comments and suggestions of the Brewster Ponds Coalition regarding the Proposed Stormwater Bylaw
and Stormwater Management Regulation.
As you probably know, the Brewster Ponds Coalition is a local non-profit organization with a mission of protecting the
health, beauty, and enjoyment of Brewster's Ponds. We have over 400 local members, all concerned about protecting
our ponds and water resources.
Consistent with our mission, we are in general in full support for a bylaw and management regulation to address
stormwater. Stormwater runoff can carry silt, fine solids, nutrients and bacterial contamination to our ponds and
marine waters. Stormwater has been identified as a significant contributor to degradation of our ponds. The BPC
believes that effective management of stormwater is essential to protect and preserve water quality, ecological health
and enjoyment of Brewster's ponds — a valuable recreational resource and major attraction of Brewster.
We have a number of specific questions, concerns and suggestions regarding the proposed bylaw and regulation, as
given in the attached.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments.
John Keith
Vice President, Brewster Ponds Coalition
1
October 26, 2021
To: Brewster Planning Board
From: John Keith — Vice President, Brewster Ponds Coaon
Subject: Proposed Stormwater Bylaw and Stormwater Management Regulation
The Brewster Ponds Coaon (BPC) expresses its full support for a bylaw and
management regulation to address stormwater. Stormwater runoff can carry silt,
fine solids, nutrients and bacterial contamination to our ponds and marine waters.
Stormwater has been identified as a significant contributor to degradation of our
ponds. The BPC believes that effective management of stormwater is essential
to protect and preserve water quality, ecological health and enjoyment of
Brewster's ponds — a valuable recreational resource and major attraction of
Brewster.
The following are the comments and questions of the Brewster Ponds Coalition
regarding the above proposed Bylaw and Management Regulation.
Definition of Impervious Surface -Overall the various definitions in the proposed
bylaw and regulation appear appropriate. However, the definition of "Impervious
Surface" should be clarified. How much of an increase in runoff results in a
condition that "significantly impedes the infiltration of water into the underlying
soil"? Is a change in the runoff coefficient from, say, 5% to 10% significant? 1%
o2%? 20% to 40%? Without clear guidance, there is likely to be confusion and
inconsistency in interpretation. Perhaps an increase of over 10% or 20% should
be defined as "significant".
Related to the above comment, we note that the paving of a gravel or shell
driveway is proposed to be exempt providing that the total area is less than
10,000 sq. ft. and any expansion is less that 500 sq. ft. This is based on the view
that such driveways are already impervious. However, the perviousness of such
driveways varies with the type of installation, degree of compaction and age. In
general, new gravel or shell driveways allow for significant infiltration of rain into
the underlying soil, but this perviousness decreases over time as the driveways
become compacted. In any case, paving will increase imperviousness of such
driveways — perhaps, say, for a young (e.g. less than 2 years old) driveway from
50% to 95%, and for older driveway from 80% to 95%. Exempting such paving
seems contrary to the purpose of the bylaw and regulation. The BPC believes
that such paving should not be exempted, as paving will result in increased runoff
that can endanger our ponds. We note that stormwater management features
can generally be included in driveway pavement projects, such as directing runoff
to a swale or rain garden, and that if such features are not practical due to site
conditions, there is a waiver process included in the proposed regulation.
The above comments also raise the question of now other common outdoor
features at houses and other developments should be considered — features
such as brick or stone walks, Belgian block aprons, loose stone patios, slate or
flagstone patios with spaces between the stones, etc., where some increased
runoff may occur, particularly in heavy rains, but in general rainfall will soak into
the ground (similar to what happens with decks with soil beneath — a construction
feature also exempted, appropriately.) Where such features are stand-alone
projects and less than 500 sq. ft., clearly they are below the applicability
threshold. However, it will be fairly common that such features will be part of a
larger project totaling over 500 sq. ft., so there should be clarity about how they
will be .considered. Is any such construction to be included in the impervious
surface calculation and required mitigation measures? Is paving of such features
(e.g. converting a brick walk to a paved walk) to be exempt as proposed for
paving stone or shell driveways? As with paving of driveways, the BPC believes
that the more protective (of our water resources) interpretation should be taken.
The applicability triggering a minor stormwater permit is a total land disturbance
for an entire project) of 10,000 sq. ft. or more (~1/4 acre) and/or an increase in
impervious surface of 500 sq. ft, or more. These limits seem generous — i.e. less
protective than they could be. For example, these limits would allow for the
clearing of natural vegetation and installation of a quarter acre of lawn with no
permit. Such a lawn could result in significant use of fertilizer and pesticides,
which in turn could impact ponds and groundwater. The 500 sq. ft. impervious
threshold would allow for construction of 20 x 25 ft. addition (or small house) with
no consideration of stormwater impact — a substantial project. The BPC
recognizes that there must be some level of small project that does not require a
stormwater permit, and that setting the threshold for such de minimis projects is a
judgment call that must consider both the water quality benefits and the
administrative and cost burdens on the town and residents. Overall, the BPC
thinks that the 500 sq. ft. threshold for impervious surface increases is
reasonable. However, we believe the 10,000 sq. ft, threshold for land disturbance
is too high; a 5,000 sq. ft. threshold (e.g. 50 x 100 ft. area) would be more
appropriate and protective of our ponds and water resources, while still allowing
considerable leeway for small projects.
Major permits are triggered when a project's total land disturbance (for an entire
project) is 20,000 sq. ft. or more (�1/2 acre) and/or the increase in impervious
surface is 2,000 sq. ft. or more. This 2,000 sq. ft./20,000 sq. ft. threshold allows
for a quite substantial development, such as a nice 30 x 40 ft. Cape Cod style
house (maybe 1,800 sq. ft. total including both floors), plus a 12 X 40 ft. driveway
and 200 sq. ft. for walks and maybe a garden shed. And the builder could also
put in a 0.4 acre lawn - all under a minor permit! Clearly it is a judgment call as
to where to set the thresholds for a major permit. The BPC considers the 2,000
sq. ft. threshold for new impervious surface reasonable, as it allows modest
houses (or substantial additions) without unduly burdening the builders or owners
who may be of more modest means), while requiring more substantial (and
more engineered) stormwater measures for truly large houses or developments.
On the other hand, the BPC believes the stormwater management regulations
should discourage overly large lawns, which are known to often present risks to
groundwater and ponds due to use of fertilizers and pesticides. The BPC would
prefer to see the overall disturbed area threshold triggering a major stormwater
permit set at 10,000 sq. ft. — a still large ~% acre but not nearly presenting the
same risk to ponds and groundwater as ~1/2 acre.
We note that the administrative authority —the "Stormwater Authority" -for the.
stormwater management permit program, as per Section 3.2, is the Planning
Board unless the proposed project comes under the jurisdiction of the Wetlands
Protection Program, in which case it is the Conservation Commission. In section
5.1.a of the proposed regulation it states that the "Designated Agent" for minor
stormwater permits is the Town Planner, Director of the DPW, Conservation
Administrator or Building Commissioner. This division of responsibility for
administration of the stormwater permit program seems to open the possibility for
confusion as to who is in charge, and perhaps inconsistent administration or
some items "falling through the cracks." The BPC suggests that clear
responsibility be given to one department or group, with one designated agent,
so there is consistency of administration and good record-keeping. Perhaps the
Conservation Commission and Conservation Agent are the appropriate
Stormwater Authority and Designated Agent, as their remit is closely tied to
protection of groundwater, ponds, wetlands, streams and the seacoast — i.e. the
resources intended to be protected by this program.
Waivers —The BPC supports the ability for the approving Authority to grant a
waiver from the mitigation requirements for stormwater runoff increases related
to projects. Certainly there could be some projects or site conditions where the
mitigation requirements are not possible or do not make sense. We also think it
is reasonable that waivers for minor permits be able to be granted by the
Designated Agent (presumably the Town's Conservation Officer), rather than the
full Conservation Commission, in order to keep the administrative burden low.
However, it should be made clear that the waiver is only from the mitigation
requirements, not from the requirement to obtain a minor or major stormwater
permit.
One consideration may be worth including in the waiver consideration: location.
Consider projects being done in areas where runoff from any impervious surface
addition 1) does not drain to ponds, streams, wetlands, beaches or the sea, 2)
does not drain to roads or parking lots that drain to these, and 3) actually flows to
natural vegetation areas where it can be expected to go down into the soil. In
this case, the impact of the runoff from the impervious area is the same as if it
were discharged to a rain garden or other stormwater management feature.
Such a case is likely to be reasonably common for additions or new single family
homes in many areas of Brewster. A waiver for such a case would seem
reasonable i.e. a waiver stating that due to location considerations, the runoff
from new impervious surfaces will have no net environmental impact even
without a stormwater management feature.
The BPC agrees with and supports the requirements for Construction Site
Stormwater Management. This includes requiring such management practices
for minor permit projects.
The list of Post -Construction Stormwater Management mitigation measures for
minor projects is good. As discussed above, the BPC thinks that such measures
should also be applied to and are generally possible for driveway (or walk)
paving projects, and so such projects (e.g. paving stone or shell driveways)
should not be exempted from minor permits if the total project is over 500 sq. ft.
of new impervious area. In particular, rain gardens, vegetated swales and/or
pervious pavement are generally practical for such driveway projects (and for
additions and small houses) at a reasonable cost.
We note that the performance standard stated in the proposed regulations for
minor permit mitigation measures — i.e. the ability to retain 1 inch of rain runoff
from the increased impervious area of the project. This seems a reasonable
standard. It is clear how this standard could be applied to rain barrels, rain
gardens and swales that provide retention capacity, but it is unclear how this
would be applied to pervious pavement, infiltration trenches or drywells, where
stormwater retention is not the aim, but rather are intended to facilitate the rapid
infiltration of rain runoff into the underlying soil. Perhaps the design standard
should be clarified — e.g. for stormwater management features (like pervious
pavement, infiltration trenches and dry wells), the feature should have capacity to
infiltrate the runoff from new impervious areas generated from a 1 inch per hour
rainfall or more (a pretty good storm.)
The post -construction performance standards for major permits and
redevelopment projects seem appropriate and of course follow the guidance of
the Massachusetts Stormwater Standards.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Stormwater Bylaw
and Stormwater Management Regulation. The BPC wants to work with the Town
to protect our water resources.
Lynn St. Cyr
From: Paul Anderson <panderson@brewster-ma.gaov>
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 20212:04 PM
To: Kari Hoffmann <khoffmann@brewster-ma.gov>
Cc: brewplan@brewster-ma.gov. <brewplan@brewster-ma.gov.>; Peter Lombardi <plombardi@brewster-ma.gov>
Subject: RE: Proposed Stormwater Management Bylaw
Good Afternoon Kari,
I have reviewed the proposed Stormwater Management bylaw and I think its well written. The purpose and objectives
are clearly defined as is who will administer them. The regulations make sense, and the exemptions seem reasonable. I
think the only topic that could have varying opinions is the applicability section but that is often a section that attracts
attention. I support the bylaw overall and would have little objection if the applicability portion was modified slightly if
deemed necessary.
Best -Paul
From: Kari Hoffmann <khoffmann@brewster-ma.raov>
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2021106 PM
To: Paul Anderson <panderson@brewster-ma.gov>
Subject: Proposed Stormwater Management Bylaw
Good Afternoon, Paul,
It was great speaking with you regarding the proposed Stormwater Management Bylaw. Please feel free to review and
comment and, also, share with Commission Members, as appropriate, and others who may have an interest in this
process.
The Brewster Select Board is in the process of bringing a general Stormwater Management Bylaw before voters at Town
Meeting on November 15. As the Select Board liaison to the Brewster Planning Board, I am reaching out to you.
The Planning Board has been hard at work on this project, along with?
zoning bylaws, and would like some input from
stakeholders. I am attaching Town Meeting Warrant -Article 9 with commentary. The Planning Board is in the process
of completing the accompanying regulations (DRAFT also attached.)
It would be helpful to the Brewster Planning Board if you would review the documents and send your
questions/comments to brewp/anC�brewster-ma.gov, If you are available, please consider attending the upcoming
meeting of the Planning Board on Wednesday October 27 at 7:00 PM. Information can be found on the Brewster
Town Calendar at https://www.brewster-ma.gov/. This is a public meeting, and anyone can attend and share their
thoughts.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions or need any other information. Thank you so much for your
comments.
Best regards,
Kari
Kari S: Hoffmann
Brewster Select Board
Town of Brewster
2198 Main Street
Brewster, MA 02631
1