Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutPlanning Board -- 2021-11-02 Minutes aEws Brewster Planning Board Approved : 11 / 10/21 �o���OaWmuuuuui�q �/////. Of ELDEq S F % 2198 Main Street Vote : 6 =0 =0 z $P I. Brewster, MA 02631 =1898 o (508 ) 896 =3701 x1133 M = brewplan@brewster-ma .gov oq ° BREWSTER PLANNING BOARD /O//U��Q�/p9lpp�i�pN1\\P0�0\O MEETING MINUTES Tuesday , November 21 2021 at 7 : 00 pm Brewster Town Office Building (virtual ) i '.. Chair Paul Wallace convened a remote meeting of the Planning Board at 7 : 00 pm with the following members participating remotely : Roberta Barrett, Amanda Bebrin , Charlotte Degen , Madalyn Hillis- Dineen , Mark Koch , and Elizabeth Taylor. Also participating remotely : Lynn St. Cyr , Senior Department Assistant , Kari Hoffmann , Select Board Liaison , Donna Kalinick , Assistant Town Administrator, Griffin Ryder, Superintendent, Department of Public Works , Chris Miller, Director, Department of Natural Resources , and Davis Walters , Building Commissioner. 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: http '//records brewster-magov/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 . 7 : 03 PM CITIZEN ' S FORUM No citizen comments . 7 : 04 PM PLANNING DISCUSSION Discuss and vote on proposed Planning Board Stormwater Management Regulations . Documents : • 09/ 16/21 Review of stormwater permit fees • 10/22/21 Stormwater Management Regulations • 10/22/21 Email from Lori Kennedy attaching BMP Fact Sheets • 10/26/21 Email from Paul Anderson , Superintendent , Water Department • 10/26/21 Letter from John Keith , Vice President, Brewster Ponds Coalition • 11 /02/21 Comparison of Minor and Major Stormwater Permit Requirements • 11 /02/21 Aerial photos of impervious surfaces in Brewster Lori Kennedy and Mark Nelson of the Horsley Witten Group participated in the meeting . Nelson reviewed topics of discussion for the meeting . He stated that in the Board ' s discussion on thresholds for major and minor permits , they may want to look to the Water Quality Protection bylaw and use 2500 SF of impervious cover as a threshold . Kennedy reviewed the stormwater management bylaw . She noted that the bylaw includes thresholds at which a project must apply for a stormwater permit . The bylaw also lays out exemptions and definitions . The threshold are 500 SF of net impervious surface area or a land disturbance of 10000 SF to trigger a stormwater permit . The MS4 permit requires a land disturbance of one acre . The 500 SF and 10000 SF thresholds proposed in the Brewster bylaw are based on requirements contained in other town bylaws . Kennedy noted that exemptions were included in the draft regulations and include paving an existing gravel or crushed shell driveway or parking area unless expanding beyond 500 SF . Wallace confirmed with Kennedy that a new gravel or crushed shell driveway would be considered impervious . Additional exemptions include repair and installation of a septic system , repairing an existing roof, installing solar panels on your roof or ground mounted solar panels of less than 500 SF or solar panels over an existing parking lot . Installation of a solar farm would most likely trigger a stormwater permit due to size . Installation of decks are exempt if they are raised , i Page 1 of 7 PB Minutes 11 /02/21 { designed without a roof, pervious underneath and designed to allow rain to flow through . Wallace confirmed with Kennedy that buildings and parking lots are considered impervious . The Board reviewed the thresholds for minor and major permits . Kennedy reviewed thresholds that exist in other Brewster bylaws . Kennedy stated that there are stormwater management requirements under staff review , site plan review , water quality protection district, and wetlands protection district bylaws . Kennedy stated that all development within the DCPC and wetlands protection district triggers stormwater management requirements . Town -wide , for commercial , industrial , or multifamily uses , stormwater management is required for clearing of more than 10000 SF of vegetative ground cover, an increase in floor area by greater than 500 SF or an increase in lot coverage by more than 10% , alteration to a parking facility having 10 or more spaces (2500-3000 SF of impervious area) and an increase in impervious area of 2500 SF or more than 15 % of the parcel whichever is greater. Nelson noted that the 2500 SF or 15 % of the parcel being impervious area trigger requires review by the Water Quality Review Committee and a Special Permit from the Planning Board , The Water Quality Protection District bylaw also requires any project within its jurisdiction to do stormwater management. The requirements are similar to those proposed for a major stormwater permit including managing water quality and infiltrating stormwater runoff through vegetative areas . Kennedy stated that any project that falls under the jurisdiction of the MA Wetlands Protection Act is required to meet MA Stormwater Standards and design under the MA Stormwater Handbook . The MA Stormwater Standards do not apply to single-family homes or development or redevelopment of single -family dwellings on four or fewer lots provided there are no stormwater discharges to critical areas . The Conservation Commission does have requirements similar to what is proposed for a minor permit for those projects not required to meet the MA Stormwater Standards . Nelson stated that the Board may want to review the impervious surface threshold for a minor permit which is currently 500 -2000 SF and consider changing it to 500-2500 SF to be consistent with other bylaws . It may help address concerns regarding impacts to smaller projects . Nelson stated that the Board should consider this threshold for projects town -wide . Bebrin asked which bylaw would apply since the current conservation regulations do not apply to single family homes . Nelson stated that they would possibly overlap . Chris Miller responded and stated that when a house is being built with the Conservation Commission ' s jurisdiction strict standards apply . He referenced the notice of intent application which requires engineered site plans and often requires drip edges or drywells . Miller also stated that the engineered plans need to include a statement from the engineer that there will be no impact to areas of jurisdiction . Miller stated that the proposed regulations will be consistent with the intent of the wetlands protection bylaw. Hillis- Dineen read a letter dated October 26 , 2021 from John Keith , Vice President of the Brewster Ponds Coalition ( BPC ) into the record . Wallace responded to the request in the BPC letter to revise the definition of impervious surface and stated that the definitions are in both the bylaw and regulations and the bylaw has already been printed in the warrant. He further stated that he does not want to make the bylaw more granular than it needs to be . The Board reviewed the administrative authority comment raised in the letter. Taylor asked for feedback from the consultants on the BPC letter. Wallace stated that there are five areas of the letter that need to be addressed : 1 . Definition of impervious surface ; 2 . Thresholds ; 3 . Administrative authority ; 4 . Waivers ; and 5 . Performance standards . Kennedy stated that the definition for impervious surface is already defined in the bylaw. It is standard practice to consider compacted gravel and crushed shell driveways as impervious . Wallace asked if change in runoff coefficient should be considered in the definition and Kennedy responded that including that information would make it extremely complicated to implement the bylaw . Griffin Ryder stated that it would be hard to apply a standard percentage because every site varies . Ryder further stated that it would also be hard to apply a blanket percentage due to the runoff calculations that will need to be made . Miller stated that conservation staff are not engineers so the process would become more complicated , and an outside engineer may need to be involved to review the calculation . He does not believe that is the intent of the bylaw . The Board discussed the comment from the BPC that a single authority be designated to administer stormwater management . Wallace stated that he felt naming a group was good and he would leave it to the administrators to designate the appropriate person . Bebrin stated that applications come in through several channels so there are a PB Minutes 11 /02/21 Page 2 of 7 number of designated agents . Bebrin stated that strong , consistent regulations and checklists are needed so regardless of who is reviewing the outcome is the same . John Keith of the Brewster Ponds Coalition stated that the BPC supports good , strong stormwater regulations . Keith agrees that it would be difficult to have a technical standard for an increased stormwater runoff coefficient. Keith stated that in reviewing runoff he hoped things such as sidewalks and brick versus slate would be considered . He asked for more definition as to what counts and what doesn 't count as pervious surface and that technical guidance be provided to homeowners . Regarding administrative authority , Keith stated that it should not be a burden on residents to go from agency to agency and he would like to see one central location with consolidated records . Wallace responded to Keith ' s comments on impervious surfaces and stated that he saw that as an education piece that would take place between applicants and administrators . Kennedy stated that additional information and examples such as design of a patio could be included in the regulations . Kennedy will review additional language to add to the regulations . Degen commented that in general it is good to have one receptacle for information and one agent in town government to oversee the system . There is a good argument for a single authority to be either the Conservation Agent or the Town Planner. Kennedy stated that it made sense for the Planning Department and the Town Planner to be the record keeper and the coordinator. The Town Planner is the coordinator for staff review so it may make sense to extend that role to the stormwater bylaw . The applications would be streamlined and administered with other applications in process . St. Cyr asked for clarification on how the process would work with the Planning Department being the coordinator and expressed concern regarding accepting applications for review on behalf of the Conservation Commission . Miller stated that residents come into various town departments to review projects for their property . Town staff steer residents down a certain permitting path and at that time the resident should be advised that a stormwater permit may be needed . Miller stated that the Conservation Department should handle any stormwater applications that fall within their jurisdiction . Town departments can share permit information . A new gatekeeper does not need to be established . Wallace agreed that departments could coordinate efforts , He stated that the Town Planner should be the administrator unless it is in conservation jurisdiction . Degen stated that there is currently coordination between the departments so this process should work . The Board discussed the comment received from the BPC regarding waivers . A waiver based on location was suggested . Kennedy stated that she would like to see this suggestion implemented as a performance standard not a waiver. It is referred to as impervious surface disconnection . Kennedy stated that it is considered a low impact development practice to pitch paved surfaces and direct runoff into a natural vegetated area where it can soak in . She would suggest it be added as a mitigation practice as part of the permit process not as a waiver. Taylor asked for clarification as to whether this would be an exemption or a minor permit . Kennedy stated that, for projects that fall within the minor permit category , an option could be to direct all runoff into a pervious surface . Miller stated that it could be considered for minor projects but should be reviewed further. It may work for the first house in a development but as development continues there will be no place for the runoff to go and it could create unanticipated consequences . Ryder stated that for the option to be approved it would need to be backed up by an engineering calculation that shows that the pervious area being used for the impervious runoff can handle the discharge . Keith stated that he agreed with the approach to include a performance standard as part of a minor permit with a backup calculation . Bebrin stated that she also supported this approach . Wallace asked if administrators would determine whether this performance standard could be used . Kennedy stated that she would look for language in the MA Stormwater Handbook that could be used to determine whether the performance standard could be applied . Ryder stated that staff would work with engineers on calculations . Wallace stated that if the calculations require an engineer, it may be more cost efficient for the applicant to use best management practices . Nelson stated that a performance standard for impervious disconnection is beneficial , and he can work on a calculation and design sheet to provide to applicants . He suggested keeping the impervious disconnection out of the waiver process . The Board discussed comments from the BPC regarding the performance standard of retention of 1 inch of rain runoff from the increased impervious area of the project . Kennedy stated that it made sense to take into consideration the infiltration rate when handling sizing calculations for such things as dry wells . Best management practice cheat sheets will be prepared to help those applying for permits , specifically minor permits which may not have engineer involvement . Wallace directed the Board to Section 6 . 2 paragraph 3 and questioned whether pervious pavements were designed for storage volume equivalent to 1 inch . Keith suggested that sheets offering practical guidance to applicants on infiltration trenches and drywells would be helpful since the 14ch retention does not apply to those features . Kennedy stated that PB Minutes 11 /02/21 Page 3 of 7 infiltration trenches and drywells could be designed as described in the regulations . Guidance sheets could clarify the design options for applicants . Taylor asked for feedback on the comments in the BPC letter related to lowering the major permit threshold of 20000 SF of land disturbance activity to 1 0000S Keith stated that in general the BPC is concerned with large lawns and fertilizer and pesticide runoff from those lawns . Nelson responded that the area of land disturbance is established in part to manage erosion and sediment when areas are cleared . In both minor and major permits , there is an evaluation of where the water is going and how it is best managed . The threshold established is a judgment call for the Planning Board to make . Nelson felt the 20000 SF threshold was reasonable . Keith expressed concern for construction that is being done away from ponds . He stated that the Conservation Commission has construction within their jurisdiction well covered but it' s the projects that happen away from the ponds where runoff travels to the ponds that is a concern . This is one of the reasons the BPC would like to see a lower threshold . Wallace stated that he thought a lot of projects were going to fall under a major permit under the current thresholds when the minor regulations would be sufficient. He would like to see the thresholds raised . Bebrin noted that the 10000 SF threshold is included in the bylaw. Bebrin stated that the minor permit is going to manage a lot of the runoff concerns raised . Wallace stated that he believes the major permit requirements will be an extreme burden on applicants . He stated that he regrets that there has not been more feedback from the public on the bylaw and regulations . Koch stated that there could be a financial burden to applicants filing for a major permit. In a conversation with a local engineer, it was estimated that the plans required for a major permit could cost between $200045000 . Wallace stated that it was not always an easy process to find an engineer and get the work completed . Nelson stated that minor and major permits will address runoff to ponds . In a conversation with the former Town Planner, Nelson was advised that there were lots in the town were clearing 20000 SF would create a significant impact. This was considered in establishing the current thresholds . Nelson stated that he believes there is some increase in costs to design for stormwater management but not a significant new cost if you are designing and constructing a home . Barrett directed the Board to aerials provided by the consultants and noted that they were helpful to review for the threshold discussion . She specifically noted the project at the corner of Route 6A and Underpass Road . Barrett also stated that she agreed that the costs for stormwater design would not all be new expenses as some expenses would already be incurred such as surveying the property . Barrett is comfortable with the current thresholds for major and minor permits related to land disturbance . Wallace responded and noted that the project at Route 6A and Underpass Road included 35 parking spaces . If the parking area is removed , the building would still trigger a major permit which Wallace stated was unreasonable . Wallace stated that he is more comfortable with the 20000 SF land disturbance for a major permit than the 2000 SF impervious area addition . He stated that 2000 SF is too low . John O ' Reilly , a local engineer , stated that the Board is correct that projects that fall within the Conservation Commission ' s jurisdiction will require some stormwater management design . He is concerned about homes that do not fall in that jurisdiction but may fall within an area such as the DCPC and will be required to meet the major permit standards . The inspections alone could take approximately 1 . 5 hours of engineer time . O ' Reilly stated that the requirement of having certain documents recorded at the Registry of Deeds is an added cost as well . O' Reilly stated that he liked the idea of giving the homeowner examples of how to meet the performance standards . O ' Reilly suggested another tool for mitigation could be to allow applicants to reduce their lawn size by a certain percent. Bebrin stated that one of her concerns has been the number of inspections required and whether these inspections are duplicating work already being done by the engineer on Building Department . Kennedy responded that there are four inspections listed in Section 7 . 6 of the regulations and they are consistent with the MS4 permit. The notifications listed in Section 7 . 8 are not required by the MS4 permit and should be deferred to town staff as to whether they should all be required . Miller responded that these inspections are similar to those being completed for projects within the Conservation Commission ' s jurisdiction . Miller stated that the Conservation Commission also requires an as built plan be provided by a professional engineer confirming that the work was completed in accordance with the requirements . Wallace stated that he is considering 500 - 10000 SF as the minor impervious threshold and 10000 — 30000 SF for the minor land disturbance threshold . Wallace stated that he believes all the sensitive areas in town are already covered by rigorous regulations . Miller responded that 10000 SF of land disturbance seems reasonable to trigger a minor permit and he believes most single-family family homes will fall under the minor permit threshold . Wallace responded that in his work with the Planning Board , gravel driveways were considered pervious and after reading the regulations and realizing they would be considered impervious he decided a higher threshold should be considered . PB Minutes 11 /02/21 Page 4 of 7 Keith stated that the intent of the regulations is to encourage people to reduce the addition of impervious surfaces and with higher thresholds you may encourage more impervious surfaces . Keith suggested a 5000 SF threshold would be more encouraging of adding pervious surfaces . Nelson stated that the average driveway is 1200 SF so constructing a driveway will always fall under a minor permit . If you add another 1200- 1800 SF for a home , you ' ll fall under 2500-3000 SF of impervious coverage . Nelson stated if you increase the threshold to 10000 SF you are allowing commercial and industrial projects to take advantage of the minor permit requirements . Nelson further stated that a commercial lot gets more traffic typically and there is a higher pollution load coming off those properties , so a higher level of design and inspection is appropriate . He also stated that these standards are already applying to projects under the water quality review bylaw . Nelson stated that a 2500 SF threshold would be consistent with the water quality review bylaw . He stated at this threshold very few single-family homes would trigger the major permit . Taylor stated it was important to remember the intent of the bylaw is to protect our natural resources , groundwater, and ponds . Taylor stated that there are costs to development and regulations cannot be ignored because there are costs involved . Degen supports the increase to the impervious surface threshold to 2500 SF . Degen believed there was merit to the argument that there is added pollution from commercial properties that needs to be considered . She would leave the other threshold as is . Hillis- Dineen stated that the thresholds could always be raised but it would be more difficult to lower them . She stated that there is an education piece that the Conservation Commission could provide to all of us on mitigation . Hillis- Dineen suggested starting off conservatively and reevaluating if needed . She would agree to raising the impervious surface threshold to 2500 SF . Barrett stated she also supports the 2500 SF impervious surface threshold . Wallace stated that he believes the regulations will restrict new housing and businesses . The Board took a straw poll and Hillis- Dineen , Bebrin , Barrett , Degen , and Koch supported the increase of the impervious surface threshold to 2500 SF . Taylor and Wallace did not vote on the increase . The Board discussed the land disturbance threshold and decided no change was necessary . The threshold will remain as 10000 - 20000 SF for a minor permit and over 20000 SF will trigger a major permit . Kennedy reviewed additional edits made to the bylaw including procedural changes as a result of conducting public meetings not public hearings and changes to construction site stormwater management performance standards . Kennedy will review the definitions to make sure they are consistent in the bylaw and regulations . St . Cyr stated that no additional public comment was received during the meeting . Kennedy also noted an addition to Section 7 regarding roadway projects . Kennedy stated that the Board should also discuss fees . Wallace read an email dated October 26 , 2021 from Paul Anderson , Superintendent , Water Department into the record . St. Cyr noted that the fees were proposed at $ 50 for a minor permit and $ 100 for a major permit. The Board supported those fees . Bebrin stated there was a note in the current draft to discuss tree diameter on page 24 . The Board agreed with the 4 inches diameter currently included in the regulations . The Board decided they would like to review a final draft of the regulations at their next meeting on November 10th . Nelson stated that changes to the regulations could be made in time for the November 10th meeting . Guidance documents and sample applications would not be available in time for the meeting . PB Minutes 11 /02/21 Page 5 of 7 Wallace stated that he would like to see the language on the disconnected impervious surfaces added to the regulations for review. He stated that the educational documents should be separate from the regulations and can be reviewed at a later date . Kari Hoffmann , Select Board Liaison , stated that she is glad the Board will vote on the regulations at their next meeting as that was a priority members discussed at the last meeting . She thanked everyone for their work and the community for their input . 9 : 15 PM PLANNING DISCUSSION CONTINUED Discuss proposed Stormwater Management General Bylaw and revote Planning Board recommendation . Documents : • 10/08/21 Stormwater Management Bylaw The Board decided to hold off on discussing the bylaw until the final draft of the regulations were reviewed . 9 : 16 PM PLANNING DISCUSSION CONTINUED Discuss public outreach and education on proposed bylaw amendments on stormwater management , water quality protection district and floodplain district . Nelson stated that work is ongoing on outreach materials . Feedback is needed from town staff before the documents are presented to the Board and made available on the town website . Keith stated that the BPC is happy to be a resource to assist with public outreach and education . Hoffmann stated that there will be opportunity to do education at Town Meeting possibly through a power point presentation or with handouts . Wallace stated he would like to see the information shared on the website and through email . He stated people are not paying attention to this with other things that are going on in town and some will be surprised . Degen stated that if the outreach documents were not complete it would still be beneficial to see drafts . 9 : 21 PM PLANNING DISCUSSION CONTINUED Discuss town meeting procedures includinq presentation of proposed bylaw amendments on stormwater management , water quality protection district and floodplain district. Documents . 11 /15/21 Town Meeting Warrant The Board discussed who would present the bylaw amendments at Town Meeting . Wallace agreed to present the floodplain district amendments and noted talking points received from Shannon Hulst that will be shared with the Board . Donna Kalinick stated that the stormwater management bylaw is a general bylaw and would be presented by both a Select Board and Planning Board member. The Select Board is the sponsor of the bylaw and the Planning Board is the regulator. Kalinick stated that administration will speak to the moderator about having the stormwater management and water quality protection district bylaw taken together. The floodplain district will be handled separately . Kalinick stated that typically presenters take about five minutes to present the bylaw with highlights to the purpose and major changes . She suggested having a prepared written statement. Kalinick noted that the stormwater bylaw was a general bylaw and required a majority vote whereas water quality and floodplain were zoning bylaws and required two thirds vote . This is the first indoor town meeting since COVID so safety measures will be implemented including limiting comment times . The Board should also be prepared to take questions from the floor. Hoffmann sated that she would be happy to present the stormwater bylaw with a member of the Planning Board . Hoffmann asked if staff member and consultants would be available to attend town meeting . Kalinick responded that department heads are required to be at Town Meeting if there is something on the warrant relevant to their work. St . Cyr asked if the consultants would be able to respond to questions from the audience and Kalinick responded that the moderator would make that decision . Nelson stated that he would be available to attend Town Meeting and answer questions . The Board discussed the presentation of the bylaws at Town Meeting . Hoffmann and Bebrin will present stormwater management , Bebrin will present water quality protection district , and Wallace will present floodplain district with Degen as a backup . Kennedy noted that amendments to stormwater management and water quality protection district have been prepared at the request of town counsel in case the bylaws do not pass as currently drafted . PB Minutes 11 /02/21 Page 6 of 7 9 : 35 PM PLANNING DISCUSSION Approval of Meeting Minutes : October 13 , 2021 . The Board reviewed the October 13 , 2021 meeting minutes . Motion by Taylor to Approve October 13 , 2021 Meeting Minutes . Second by Bebrin . Vote : Degen -aye ; Taylor-aye ; Hillis - Dineen -aye ; Bebrin -aye ; Koch -aye ; Barrett-aye ; and Wallace -aye . Vote : 7 -0 -0 . 9 : 36 PM MATTERS NOT REASONABLY ANTICIPATED BY THE CHAIR The November 10'h meeting will begin at 6 : 30 pm . Please let Lynn St . Cyr know if you would like a copy of the Open Space and Recreation plan being discussed at the November 101h meeting . The Vision Planning Committee is beginning outreach and would like the Planning Board ' s input. A December meeting date is possible . Motion by Taylor to adjourn . Second by Bebrin . Vote : Barrett-aye ; Koch -aye ; Bebrin -aye ; Hillis -Dineen -aye ; Taylor-aye ; Degen -aye ; and Wallace -aye . Vote : 7 -0 -0 . Meeting adjourned at 9 : 39 pm . Next Planning Board Meeting Dater 11 / 10/21 Respectfully submitted , Lynn St . yr, Senior Depa ment Assistant, Planning PB Minutes 11 /02/21 Page 7 of 7