The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal AboutComprehensive Water Planning -- 2012-11-26 Minutes a..000"111411104 i ii��i/iii � g E p�R4�� Comprehensive Water Planning So ° 9tM Town of Brewster Committee ■ tili y 2198 Main Street " 'im - y Brewster, Massachusetts 02631-1898 r- (508) 896-3701 x1233 4NiiiuriRre`na�a"°o�`\` FAX(508) 896-8089 Date Approved: 1-28-13 Vote:8-0 TOWN OF BREWSTER MINUTES OF COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLANNING COMMITTEE (CWPC) Regular Meeting Monday, November 26, 2012 at 4:30 pm Brewster Town Office Building Vice Chairman Pat Hughes convened the CWPC meeting at 4:30 pm in the Brewster Town Office Building with members, Russell Schell, Elizabeth Taylor,Joanne Hughes, Dave Bennett, Dan Ryan,and Bruce Evans present. Absent: Lem Skidmore,John O'Reilly Also Present:Sue Leven,Jim Gallagher,Chris Miller, Ben DeRuyter(Finance Committee Liaison) Recording or Taping Notification The Vice Chair read"As required by the Open Meeting Law we are informing you that the Town will be audio taping this public meeting. In addition,if anyone else intends to record this meeting they are required to inform the chair." AGENDA Supporting Documents: Citizen Forum 112612_A Executive Summary&final build out Report 1.Review Brewster Build out Analysis—Final Report 112612_B IWRMP Phase II Report 2.Review HWG Phase II Report 112612_C 2013 Meeting Dates 3.Review minutes from 9-24-12,Review current Action items 4.Topics the Chair did not reasonably anticipate Citizen Forum I ` There was no citizen's forum r 1. Review Brewster Buildout Analysis :2 Final Report& Review HWG Phase II Report Hughes, P thanked Leven for the Executive Summary of the buildout report. Leven lead a discussion with the committee. The buildout analysis was discussed first. Leven received written comments from Gallagher in advance of the meeting and sent those comments and her own to Mark Nelson at HWG. Several people had mentioned that Table ES-1 on page number five does not give developmental acres in residential districts. Also information by water shed was part of the scope and needs to be added to the document. Leven found it interesting that population estimates and number of dwelling units were higher under smart growth. Taylor asked how this is possible. Leven explained that in the baseline scenario, the NRPD zoning is applied without any bonuses. NRPD is based on five acre zoning. Taylor and Leven discussed baseline scenario vs. smart growth numbers. The consultant based the buildout on current regulations. Hughes, J asked about 40B. Are they looking for 10% or better?What does the State require? Leven stated they took certain lots and assumed they would be developed under 40B. HWG assumes a certain number of lots to be developed as a 40b. They are not necessarily all affordable houses. The 40B assumption allows for greater density. Hughes, J was looking for a formula from HWG. Leven, Hughes, P and Hughes, J discussed topic further. Hughes, P asked about page number eighteen. 40B Development: Four parcels-twenty acres? Minimum threshold. Leven was not sure and will ask for clarification. Taylor asked about the threshold for the State. Why forty acres?Taylor, Leven and Hughes, P discussed further. CWPC 11-26-12.docx Page 1 of 5 Taylor expressed concern about the formula. Four parcels— 138 Units suggests large developments. Schell stated that in some towns they can limit the impact of large developments by making it available for only 55+age people. Would this be practical to limit school population increases in Brewster? Schell asked Leven to find out if the Town might consider these options. Leven explained the Town has two large developments already for senior age people. She stated she is not sure if the Town would be in a position to do this. Hughes, J projection 718, 138 40B. Where are we now?What is the goal? Increase in children in schools? She would prefer it to be real estate paying residents vs. 40B residents. Hughes, J agrees with Schell. Leven, Hughes, J discussed percentages further. Hughes, P stated 25% of the 138 units are possible affordable units. Leven stated 25%affordable, 34 affordable units. Miller confirmed Leven's statement based on the July Draft report. Bennett asked about Industrial development. He stated there is no change in the smart and baseline scenario. He asked under Smart growth designation should we consider an Industrial area outside of a Zone II. Leven added we have existing Industrial zone and existing uses. Current I zone businesses would be pre existing non conforming if changed zoning. Bennett added when the Town takes more land is it an existence of pre existing, non conforming. From WQRC standpoint-He noted a lot of people are interested in an Industrial zone and can't do their business now. Bennett asked if there is another place for an industrial zone for manufacturing. Leven suggested light manufacturing as an industrial use. The current Industrial zone now includes storage and lighter industry. They discussed changing uses in the Industrial area. Bennett would like to see a vision for a business park vs. an industrial park. An exit to Route 6 would be beneficial. Leven shared an industrial use(mfg.) example. She noted the Planning Board is talking about it and whether it should be changed. They discussed it could be moved and if so where, and could there be a zone to support heavy industry? Bennett and Leven discussed further. Hughes, P summarized that in Phase III, the committee should look more carefully at CH zone and I zone development. Bennett added in a Zone II, limit industrial activities. Leven noted Phase III topic: CH area should be pedestrian friendly like a 6A or Underpass Road location. I zone does not have to be in areas that are pedestrian friendly. Taylor asked about 15.23 acres for commercial development. The Baseline Scenario. Why different? 12.5 acres for commercial development—The Smart Growth Scenario. Page number three of the summary. Leven, Hughes, P and Taylor discussed the difference. Report vs. the Summary. Leven stated total development acres include the Industrial area. Taylor noted gain or lose acreage? Gallagher explained the threshold calculation. He suggested the percentage of the number of parcels change that fit the category. Leven added with what could be developed --assumptions are made. They discussed further. Hughes, J asked if the Town has proposed to adopt Smart Growth Scenario. Leven explained that some of it has already been done. Hughes, P explained there is Smart Growth design in Zone II. The Town allows cluster development but does not require it. The build out assumes it is required in the whole Town. Hughes, P would like to see the results by water shed. Hughes, J asked if there will be a meeting with HWG. Leven answered probably not. Leven explained Mark Nelson is working with the criteria that the Committee approved and will be making corrections (Developable acres, watersheds, etc.). Leven reminded the committee the project is over schedule and over budget. Hughes, P asked to take the time they need to review. She referenced the article in the recent Cape Codder about Harwich and their wastewater needs/expenses. Hughes, P noted this build out is an important tool. Hughes, J and Leven discussed corrections to the report. Leven added the only thing that changed was the% increases. Hughes, J asked about the HWG criteria for assumptions. Leven noted it was discussed at previous meetings. Hughes, P noted the current open land to be considered developable. (Cape Cod Sea Camps, for example) Leven added the buildout is a snapshot. This shows the Town now and helps us to determine where we are going forward. This process identifies concerns. She shared examples with the committee. CWPC 11-26-12.docx Page 2 of 5 Bennett stated they should be looking at recommendations for Phase III. He added the committee should not get lost in the report. Look at TMDL's. Recommendations to change Smart Growth Scenario as an example. Hughes, P added she wants to feel comfortable with the assumptions made by the consultant. She would like a discussion with the consultant. Leven suggested when questions are answered then have HWG here to review assumptions. "What does this represent?" This informs us on what Phase III involves. Committee Questions: Hughes, P: Higher amount of impervious cover. Higher density development? Leven—Yes. Analyzing non conforming use? Leven—Nelson will try to add to it. How extensive?Where are non conforming uses? Leven suggested a map. Gallagher asked about Row Commercial. Leven explained it is like Foster Square. (Strip mall) She will double check how it is written in zoning. Hughes, P asked if Town Counsel is clarifying the dirt road by-law. Could the buildout change from this analysis? Leven explained the difference between preexisting non conforming lots vs. dirt road lots, in process. She added this is a snapshot concept. She explained she is not speaking for the"lots"validity or not. There are lots in Town that are considered dirt road lots and could be buildable. Leven explained further and shared an example currently before the ZBA —Punkhorn Road case. The opinion could provide protection to some lots. Bennett stated he is familiar with the by-law. He explained if you have Planning Board approval than that lot is a grandfathered lot. They discussed frontage. There was continued discussion on the dirt road by-law topic. Planning Board influence as well as former Building Commissioner's viewpoint was discussed. Re: The report and the map. Schell commented on large land locked areas. He wanted to know how they are dealt with when you have the appearance of a land locked lot. He expressed concern about access from land locked parcels. Is this considered? Leven noted she could ask. She added there is some consideration if access is by a dirt road. She shared an example. Re: the report-Leven is one third through the report. She likes the explanations of the regulations and the straight forward approach. She added the report is well written. Hughes, P asked Leven to provide an outline in Word format. Leven asked the committee to send any comments to her. She will send one set of comments to HWG. Leven asked the members to note page number and paragraph number. Hughes, P asked about the wastewater calculations. Leven stated that they will be in the Phase II report. Leven will ask Nelson for Word format(report is in PDF). Hughes, P asked about HWG deliverables. Leven explained this is it for Phase II. She will compare the work to the scope. 12/10 is the next meeting. Leven asked for comments by 12/6. Hughes, P asked Leven about the Phase III scope. Leven will ask HWG about timing. The committee discussed the look and format of the Chesapeake Bay Report. A link was provided to the committee by Schell. Hughes, P stated there is a 2003 EPA report on line. Schell stated that the EPA is more sympathetic to the soft solutions than DEP. He added the DEP resolution has to have EPA approval. He is in favor of the soft solution. Hughes, P stated that those are the kinds of solutions that are appropriate. Hughes, P referenced the Cape Codder, Page 15, Harwich wastewater article. Cost estimates have increased. Possible arrangement with Chatham. Leven explained they are talking about sending a section of the wastewater to Chatham. Hughes, P referenced another article that mentioned the Pleasant Bay Alliance evaluation of the plan. The consultant analysis is lower gallon per day rate than the estuaries project. Miller commented that the district has certain restrictions because of water use. Hughes, P was interested in why the lower rate was used. Leven explained there is a huge difference of opinion between the Planning Board and the East Harwich Collaborative. CH2 zone. Development options were discussed. Leven stated they need to come to Town Meeting together. CWPC 11-26-12.docx Page 3 of 5 Taylor wants a discussion about the Cape Cod Bay Report. She wants a discussion about storm water treatment sites. Why not Betty's Curve? Miller explained they already have a conceptual plan. Leven stated the purpose was to get us plans. Leven shared idea/plans conceptual designs for Betty's Curve. The idea is to create a vegetated wetland to capture water from Route 6A and other roads. It is waiting for funding. Bennett asked if it is a state project. They discussed the Livable Streets Project. It is a pilot project. Bennett asked about the private roads that tie into the Route 6A area. Miller explained further including the roads and water flow. Bennett and Miller discussed further. Taylor suggested the report may help get things done. Taylor stated they cannot ignore Cape Cod Bay. She was concerned about eelgrass and runoff from beaches into the bay. Miller and Taylor discussed further. Hughes, P stated it takes about a month to replace the water in the Bay. The Bay is an asset to the Town. There is dense development along the shore line. She believes they should pay attention to these areas. There may not be shellfish or swimming closures but it is important. Leven stated Brewster will not be spending the next thirty or forty years building a sewer system. Miller added at Spring Town Meeting—fix storm water at Ellis Landing. Leven explained a lot of this work is being done to meet deadlines. She could ask Horsley Witten for a brief overview of the Bay and define what to look at short term. Schell asked Leven if the IDDE (Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination) provisions of small MS4 storm water plan are implemented it will give us a more granular feel about contamination to the Bay. Leven stated it is possible. Hughes, P suggested some of the discharges are pretty obvious. Schell stated it has been overlooked. Bennett commented on industrial site monitoring. It is coming. Evans asked about the condition of the Bay. He stated there is no problem with the water right now. Hughes, P explained no problems in Brewster but in other Towns it is a nuisance. —Algae, seaweed, etc. Hughes, J stated in June of this year it was the first time ever that the all Bay Beaches were closed. Miller noted it was a storm water event. There are theories that this bacteria sits on the sand. Hughes, P explained in Provincetown they are clearing seaweed at the hotel beaches(rack line) They are looking at what is in it exactly. They are looking at water quality. The Town is looking into it. Leven noted there was a math error in the executive summary of the buildout that she provided. The school Age Children figure under the smart growth scenario should be 1,609. 3. Rev,*minutes from 0-24112,Review current Action Items _ Hughes, J made a Motion to accept the 9-24-12 minutes as written, Bennett Second, All Aye, Vote 6-0-1. Ryan abstains. The committee did not review the current action items. 4.Topic;the Chair did not reasonably anticipate ! `° None Hughes, J made a Motion to adjourn, Evans Second, All Aye, Vote 7-0. The meeting ended at 6:00 pm Next Meeting: 12/10/12 @ 4:30 Re •-ctfully s • itted, flP Air .4 - . �i�!� ► _ ', C erk Kel y oore, = '•r Department Assistant Planning `', CWPC 11-26-12.docx Page 4 of 5 CWPC Action Items, Post 11-26-12 Meeting Updated 11-28-12 A(:'I 1ON I'i i{MS MITI?'PING (:()MMI?N'I•S I?S'I•IMA'I'l;I) SI A'I'IIS DA I. COMI'IF'1'ION OA'I'I: Stitt , of Bridge Projects: Data Synthesis- GIS/Build-out,Ponds,Storm water Geo- location Horsley Witten Group(HWG)Phase II 10%design on three storm water retro fit projects, 10-9-12 Concept designs Committee Ongoing HWG-Walker's Pond received 9-6-12 discussed Breakwater Beach Town seeking Breakwater Beach Town Hall RG grant money Data Synthesis and GIS-Maps accessible from 9-10-12 Waiting for install Waiting for funding Pending web site—Request from Taylor. date for People GIS Phase II Final Report Review 11-26-12 Committee Comments to Pending reviewing Leven by 12/6 Questions to include in tax bills about water 1-9-12 Leven to discuss TBD Pending usage.Ask HWG for ideas,online form?Etc. with Mark Nelson *Local Comprehensive plan link too... &Lisa Vitale Cranberry Growers Association Contact CGA and ask if they might talk to the bog Fall 2011 Leven emailed CCCGA would like Pending owners and find out when discharging into the Gates-Allen 8-3 to discuss another ponds—to take samples. approach Misc: ' MS4 Compliance Update 2011 Kleinfelder/HWG Work ongoing Ongoing ; Bennett asked for reports done by Peter Weiskel 2-27-12 Not ready until Pending regarding tri town treatment plant early 2013 Follow up on the ponds testing process 9-10-12 Hughes,J 12-31-12 Pending Hughes,J to request final report from the State Ed Eichner Pond Study 9-24-12 Leven Final version Dec. Pending How many IA systems are in the Pleasant Bay 9-24-12 Bennett to send Pending water shed&cranberry bog information info to Leven for committee/HWG , CWPC 11-26-12.docx Page 5 of 5