Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutWater Quality Review Committee -- 2023-01-27 MinutesDate Approved: 3/24123 Vote: 4-0-2 TOWN OF BREWSTER Water Quality Review Committee 2198 Main Street Brewster, Massachusetts 02631-1898 (508) 896-3701 x1121 FAX (508) 896-8089 TOWN OF BREWSTER MINUTES of WATER QUALITY REVIEW COMMITTEE Friday, January 27, 2023 at 9:00 AM VIRTUAL MEETING .f f Attending Committee Members: Chair Cynthia Baran convened the Water Quality Review Committee meeting at 9:01 AM with members Vice Chair Amy von Hone, Kimberley Crocker Pearson, Ned Chatelain, Chris Miller, Robert Michaels and deemed there to be a quorum. Members Absent: Davis Walters Guests: John Tadema-Wielandt, Natural Systems Utilities; Jonathan Idman, Town Planner Item 1: Update on 989 Freemans Way — Solar Array and Landfill Closure, John Tadema- Wielandt of Natural Systems Utilities _ John Tadema-Wielandt addressed the committee. He said the project is about the Daniel's/Antinarelli property over on Freeman's Way. Their client purchased the property to develop a solar array. In the process of transforming that property, they have been removing processed and unprocessed wood waste. As they were doing this, they ran into some materials that were unexpected including a biproduct of screening wood waste and loam with some trash as well. Cyndi asked if it was buried. John T -W answered the pit was overgrown and Cape Sand & Recycling was hired to remove the processed wood waste, and they estimated there to be about 15,500 cubic yards of this material and 5,000 yards of partially processed wood waste. As they started to remove this wood waste, they discovered the partially buried and covered by vegetation unexpected materials. They reached out to the DEP for guidance. They met us at the site in October and said they weren't concerned with what they called as typical residuals. It is difficult to get rid of because nobody wants to take it. The most cost-effective way to handle this is to use it on site. To do that, you would put a deed restriction on the property to identify where the material is and avoid incompatible uses, such as building anything on that material. That is what they decided to do. They met with their client and updated him. Cape Sand continued to remove all the material that he could take. They collected samples to categorize it. He would compare it to something you might find on the side of the road or catch basin of some sort. Rob thanked John for his clear memo and asked about wood waste vs. tailings? John T -W said wood waste is logs and loam, buried organic materials which break down over time. The tailings are a biproduct of what you get after screening — rocks, smaller chunks of wood, some trash, bricks, plastic bags, etc. Rob said it would be the tailing that cause the concern. Cyndi asked if there was an approximate percentage of trash in the tailings. John T -W did not but WQRC Meeting Minutes 1 1-27-2023 said he would estimate between 5-10%. Kim said she noticed some significant heavy metals in there — arsenic, lead, etc. What is the extent of those? John T -W said while there are some metals in there, none of the concentrations are very high or concerning. He took a composite sample from 5 different locations around the stockpile to get a general overview. This is a mixed sample from the pile. John T -W said they did some test pits to determine the exact makeup of the material — rocks, loam, trash; trying to get the thickness of the material, etc. they identified another material called "mixed wood waste" made of logs, concrete, brick, asphalt, some trash, loam, and estimated about 30,000 yards of this material to be processed. To move forward, they propose to reuse the tailings on site as a vegetative berm and covered with loam and seeded with native vegetation. They will also process the other material segregating any asphalt, brick, concrete out, separating wood and trash to stockpile and then taken off site as different waste streams. Any left -over tailings would be added to the berm or buried on site. To move the project forward, they have been reaching out to solid waste to ask about additional permitting needed to be performed. They have not heard back yet. They also reached out to Jon Idman, Town Planner. They plan to meet with Jon and the Town Manager to discuss the project moving forward. Amy wondered how much more wood waste needs to be removed and processed and how long will that take. How does that effect the planning? John T -W said they estimate there to be about 30,000 yards of the partially processed wood waste to be processed on site and about 3500 yards of tailings. With bids from a couple different contractors, they are saying it would take about 60 days to process on site. Amy asked if that needed to be completed before the solar array project to move forward. John T -W answered yes. Cyndi asked if it was possible to do any additional screening of the tailings while the screener is there? John T -W said that material is already screened, and you don't want to screen it again because it has the potential to concentrate the contaminants. Chris said he has a lot of familiarity with the site. He does appreciate the solar array coming in and fixing some of the issues. We are concerned with the water quality in the area and want to make sure the buried wood waste is brought above the water table. These large concentrations of organic matter do tend to change the pH of the water, with a lot of nitrogen into the groundwater. This is why we are concerned with this area. We have reports in the past that a lot of materials were buried on this and similar sites in the vicinity that were inappropriate. He would appreciate as you screen this, that you can hand segregate these inappropriate materials and not just process or bury them. Hopefully you won't find much of this, but hearing this large volume is on the site is concerning to us. This raises the issues that we have worked long and hard in the area to correct and work on. Cyndi asked what the depth to groundwater is there on site. John T -W said it varies quite a bit, but there is one spot the lowest area in the NE corner, it is 30ft to groundwater. The tailings would be moved to a berm to the higher elevated part of the property where it's 70ft to groundwater. The material will be used as berm material. Cyndi asked if there would be routine inspection. John T -W said yes, everyday while processing for at least a couple of hours. Cyndi asked how often they would be doing sampling while the process was happening. John T -W said they would collect soil samples after removal of the materials and submit them to the lab throughout the project. The groundwater sampling is conducted on an annual basis in December. Jon Idman addressed the committee next regarding the planning process going forward. This solar project went through the Planning Board process — the Planning Board acted as the special permit granting authority and the site plan approval granting authority. Pursuant to the bylaw, the WQRC acts as advisory to the Planning Board and provides comments to the Planning Board to assist in its review of the special permit, the site plan, and the water quality certificate. WQRC doesn't have original jurisdiction over water quality certificate where the Planning Board is the special permit authority. The issue up for discussion is whether that Planning Board decision needs to be modified. WQRC Meeting Minutes 2 1-27-2023 If it does, there is a hearing process and the WQRC would recommence and provide additional comments to the Planning Board. We have not yet reached a decision whether this needs a formal modification. Typically, we would look to see if there are changes to the site plan itself and how significant they are themselves. As you can see, this is a relatively complicated issue. There is a very long history of this project that involved some legal litigation in the past and he felt it important to bring this to the Town Manager as well. They are planning to get together. He is not certain if there needs to be a modification to the permit. Many of the points brought up today are extremely important. Some of these could be worked into the applicant's submission to DEP as part of that post closure approval. This post closure is DEPs alone, but it would have been nice if they had communicated and included the town in its communications. The town should be copied and communicated with as a matter of course going forward. The Planning Board decision is bereft of any conversation about the issue of buried waste. the three monitoring wells need to be maintained. There's probably less threat to water quality depending on how the materials are placed. Maybe these can be worked into the DEP permit. John T -W said the Planning Board decision was in late 2020, and we didn't start removing this material until late last year, 2022, and that is when these other buried materials were discovered, a significant change in understanding of what was there — and after the Planning Board decision. Ned asked whose decision it is whether this rises to the level of Planning Board action. Jon Idman said it would be up to himself and the Building Commissioner to determine whether this is a significant enough change to warrant a modification of the original decision. Ned asked if the board would be approving the screening, relocation, and use of the tailings on the property as fill and berm. Jon Idman said it would be a change in the site plan. Once that hearing and review process recommenced, we would be reaching out to the WQRC for comments and recommendations at that time. Chris asked about giving their opinion to DEP so there aren't any conflicting requests. Are they aware of our process? Cyndi said there's nothing that prohibits us sending a letter of concerns to DEP if that is fine with the Planning Board. Chris said we might write a letter to the Planning Board, and they write/send to DEP. Jon Idman said it may be more effective to provide those recommendations and try to have the applicant integrate them into the request/proposal to DEP. Ned said in his opinion, the changes are minor from the site plan. If we can keep the process moving along in a timely fashion, he would be comfortable going in that direction. Cyndi asked if it went back for site plan review, is that an opportunity to put special conditions regarding groundwater, etc.? John Idman said yes, it would be related more with the water quality at that point. It would have to be a modification of the process. Everyone's primary concern here is to protect water quality. If it gets into the DEP permit, it is then enforceable through the state. Jon Idman said the next steps might be: • Discuss concerns • Provide to applicant recommendations • They accept or not, come back with questions • DEP can put conditions on their approval • Parallel to that, town staff will meet with the applicant team to discuss issue whether changes rise to the level of Planning Board modifications John T -W said the next step in the permitting with DEP is the landfill closure. Cyndi asked if the letter/report to DEP was just for general concurrence or approval. John T -W said it was for concurrence, and he is working with Jon Idman on next steps. Cyndi said we should put this on our agenda for our next meeting. She thinks the Planning Board should review the permit without a letter to DEP. Chris said he is sure Jon Idman can bring this forward to the Planning Board. Jon Idman said the WQRC would want to discuss their recommendations and give to the applicant before the WQRC Meeting Minutes 1-27-2023 next meeting. Cyndi agreed. Amy said the in-house staff could work with John T -W and Jon Idman on that before the next meeting. Item 2: WQRC Certificate Renewals of 2023 a. Brewster Post 9917 VFW- M46 L41-2 989 Freemans Way b. Colson's Landscaping - M46 L41-4 Commerce Park C. Northside Methodist Church - M37 L52 701 Airline Road d. AMA Excavating - M119 L6 Freemans Way/M131 L1-6 Commerce Park Rd e. Specialty Builders - M46 L41 59 Commerce Park Road f. Mayflower Glass - M46 L7 111 Freemans Way g. Steve Allard Custom Building - M42 L14 Millstone Road h. Dream Day on Cape Cod - M132 L9 165 Nan -Ke -Rafe Path Cyndi asked Amy if there had been any complaints or concerns with any applications. Amy said the only change she is aware of is that AMA Excavating. The current owner still owns the property but has turned the business over to one of his long term employees who is still doing the exact same business with the same equipment. So, this is just a change in name. The Town Planner said that shouldn't require a change in certificate. Rob said he noticed that several applicants checked the septic "yes" box and one checked the fertilizer box. Are there any additional follow-up or questions that we ask these applicants — Dream Day with fertilizer and a couple others regarding septic. Amy said one of the things to be working on is reviewing this process and who is responsible for what as far as oversight and overview with established standards with how we should be reviewing these projects perhaps creating an inspection report form to be used and actually going out and doing inspections. There isn't any clear procedure or policy as it stands now. That piece of further investigation hasn't been established. Amy feels it's a lack of standardization for the applicants and how they need to answer the questions as the application with the self -certification is a new application. Cyndi suggested perhaps having Amy check in with that particular applicant, with fertilizer use, to see what they mean. Amy said that is a perfect example. With all the sites we permit, that is one that is least likely to have major use of fertilizer. Chris asked about putting in recreational fields the last 4-5 years. That is probably what they are dealing with for the fertilizer. Amy was going to check in with them to make sure it's not a significant increase. Cyndi said on the other applications, a need for conformity is evident. Jon Idman re -joined the meeting to discuss this process and how Planning Board starts off. His interpretation is that, technically, the WQRC could have original jurisdiction over water quality certificate, he doesn't know of any who do so because there is also a special permit required which is under Planning Board jurisdiction. The Planning Board has original jurisdiction subject to the advisory comments of the WQRC through that process. Once a project is exercised and built, the WQRC deals exclusively with the compliance of the water quality certificates. He said it has been deemed a "renewal" of the certificate which puts the burden on the applicant to go and renew a certificate. Jon feels strongly that the burden is not on the applicant. It is up to the WQRC to request additional information. It is important with the logic and structure of this permitting that the committee is made up of both staff ex -officio members as well as the broader community or other committees. The importance of that is that some of the requests for the reviews would do with changes to floor plans or septic — which the Building Commissioner or Health Director would otherwise know. Jon said as you see that 3 years approaching, you should discuss whether the committee would like to receive any further information from that applicant relative to compliance. If you've heard from Chris or Amy that there hasn't been any changes, there is nothing in the bylaw that mandates there be a renewed certificate. Cyndi said there is also nothing in the bylaw that precludes the WQRC from requesting information. We are required to review them every three years. WQRC Meeting Minutes 4 1-27-2023 Ned said he thinks it's a short term project on getting some clarification on how we are using the bylaw moving forward. With respect to these applicants, past practice has been to ask for a renewal. He would be comfortable approving these applicants with the caveat of Dream Day to find out more information. Jon Idman said he thinks a different way of going about the renewals would be refreshing because it gives the committee a high level of discretion to deal with matters that will truly affect water quality and wouldn't need to spend a lot of effort on matters with little risk of affecting water quality. Cyndi agrees with Ned that this is a much larger issue than we can resolve today. She thinks we need to give staff time to come up with a new procedure or recommendations and then consider them at a future meeting. At this point, we need to review and approve the applications in front of us. MOTION to approve Certificate renewals a -g. MOVED by Ned Chatelain. Seconded by Rob Michaels. Roll Call Vote: Kimberley Pearson — yes, Ned Chatelain — yes, Robert Michaels — yes, Chris Miller — yes, Amy von Hone — yes, Chair Baran- yes VOTE: 6 -yes 0 -no Chris said maybe Dream Day could provide us some information and wouldn't need to come in front of the committee. Rob agreed. Chris said the application rates of the fertilizer with quantity and timing would be important to know. Cyndi said the size and area of application would be helpful as well. If we have additional questions, we can go from there. Item 3: Discussion/Update on 1399 Freemans Way/Alexander Avenue (Map 131 Lot 16) on Boat Storage Violation Order Jon Idman worked with Davis on this letter. Reading through the bylaw, even though it is allowed in the industrial district, it is prohibited in the overlay district boat storage. Based on Davis's inspection acting as the Chief Zoning Official, he sent a letter to the property owner. Jon Idman is not sure if any action has been taken, but as the zoning official, Davis would inspect again. If there isn't action taken, we would take action then. Jon Idman went on to say that at first there were boats stored there, then they were removed, now they seem to be back. The limitation in the bylaw deals with commercial boat storage. That is the more concerning issue with activity and volume. Cyndi asked if this were a separate parcel than the grow lab. Chris answered it is one of the subdivided lots — separate from the grow lab, but a subdivided lot. Item 2: A royal of Minutes from 12/23/22 MOTION to approve the 12/23/22 Meeting Minutes as written. MOVED by Kimberley Pearson. Seconded by Rob Michaels. Roll Call Vote: Kimberley Pearson — yes, Ned Chatelain — abstain, Robert Michaels — yes, Chris Miller — yes, Amy von Hone — yes, Chair Baran- abstain VOTE: 4 -yes 0 -no 2 -abstain Item 4: For Your Information a. March Meeting Changes WQRC Meeting Minutes 1-27-2023 b. Cape Sand & Recycling GW Monitoring Report November 2022 C. February 2023 Meeting Calendar Amy said a/o March 1 st committees and the public will be meeting in person per Select Board policy with a hybrid option continuing forward. No further discussion. Item 5: Matters Not Reasonably Anticipated by the Chair - none Next Meeting: February 24, 2023 9AM MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 10:47AM. MOVED by Ned Chatelain. Seconded by Robert Michaels. Roll Call Vote: Kimberley Pearson — yes, Ned Chatelain — yes, Robert Michaels — yes, Chris Miller — yes, Amy von Hone — yes, Chair Baran - yes VOTE: 6 -yes 0 -no Respectfully Submitted by: Beth Devine Action items: Davis - • keep the committee informed about CS&R and the high levels of manganese and their continued groundwater monitoring (carry-over from last meeting) • keep committee updated re: boat storage violation and next steps Amy - • look into Grow Lab Certificate and next steps (carry-over from last meeting) • in-house staff to work w John T -W and Jon Idman on recommendations for the applicant and the Planning Board for the next meeting re: 989 Freeman's Way/Solar Array • touch base with Dream Day regarding fertilizer use on property • work with Jon Idman and other staff to come up with a new procedure or recommendations for certificate renewals to bring to the committee to consider at a future meeting Beth - • send email to approved certificate applicants Packet of additional documents available on the website for public review WQRC Meeting Minutes 6 1-27-2023