Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutComprehensive Water Planning -- 2013-01-07 Minutes} k EI.GR;n F ,, Town of Brewster Comprehensive Water Io a 2198 Main Street Planning Committee r ; ..;inc T.\�a Brewster, Massachusetts •,;I or-. 5- ' f'"'"` / 0) 02631-1898 4 '' ` 'Trios A,o �$ (508) 896-3701 x1233 •/ °'iiuititiuimlimoao FAX (508) 896-8089 Date App roved: 2-25-13 Vote: 6-0. TOWN OF BREWSTER MINUTES OF COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLANNING COMMITTEE (CWPC) Regular Meeting Monday, January 7, 2013 at 4:30 pm Brewster Town Office Building Chairman Lem Skidmore convened the CWPC meeting at 4:30 pm in the Brewster Town Office Building with members, Pat Hughes, Russell Schell, Joanne Hughes, John O'Reilly, Elizabeth Taylor, Dave Bennett, Dan Ryan, and Bruce Evans present. Also Present: Sue Leven, Jim Gallagher, Chris Miller, Nancy Ellis-Ice, Peter Johnson, Ben DeRuyter 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." Supporting Documents: AGENDA 010713_a HWG handouts 1. Citizen Forum Build out Final Analysis Report - 2. Review HWG Phase II Final Report&Build out Report with Commens Received and Spread Mark Nelson from Horsley Witten Group (HWG) Sheet. 3. Discuss CWPC annual update for the Town Report 4. Review minutes of 10-22-12 010713_0 2012 Report of the 5.Topics the Chair did not reasonably anticipate CWPC for Town Report 010713_C Comments on HWG Phase II Report I 1. Citizn Forum Peter Johnson of the Brewster Conservation Trust distributed a flyer for the first public presentation for"Pay as you Throw" program. The meeting is scheduled for 1-14-13. 2. Revi w HWG Phase II Final Report and Build out Report with Mark Nelson from Horsley Wittenjroup (HWG) i Craig Pereira and Mark Nelson were present from HWG. Nelson addressed the committee and explained he would be reviewing the Build out Report first. Build opt A draft has been distributed and re-issued. He would like to have a discussion and then update the report and re-distribute. Build opt cont. Nelson explained they have not included the recent Town land purchase since that occurred after the distribution of the report. He added they could issue an update with recent changes. Hughes, P confirmed that the last draft was in October 2012. CWPC 1-7-13.docx Page 1 of 8 r Nelson stated the report was based on the Assessor's database at the time of the report. The report is based on a set of assumptions. The assumptions were reviewed earlier by the committee. He reviewed the handout with the committee. Town of Brewster Build out Analysis Final Report — Comments Received Nelson and Pereira answered the following questions. 1. Why i$ there no difference between the baseline and smart growth scenarios for industrial developMent? Nelson explained zoning was not different for either. They looked at undeveloped existing parcels. If vacant land they assumed 50% could be use. If already built on then they used 25%. They had to make some assumptions. They worked closely with Leven on the assumptions. z. The Committee wants to feel more confident with the assumptions used in the build out. Nelson asked the committee for their concerns. Leven explained further. It was important for us to build a box and there are many ways to do it. There were issues on how 40B were handled. There was a question regarding two hotels in the baseline scenario? Hughes, P explained they needed a lay persons guide for the report. Nelson stated the build out is a worst case scenario based on current zoning. There are assumptions. They should consider how the build out gets applied over time. He added, as a group what is the build out we want to plan for? Look at recent trends. He stated that maybe some of this could be built into the report introduction. Pereira explained some of the assumptions were based on best practices or were location specific. The report includes a mix of planning practices plus working knowledge. Schell was concerned about the large increase of nitrogen contribution as a result of the build out. What were the assumptions? Nelson explained this topic was not covered in the build out report. It is included in the Phase II report. He noted there has not been huge growth in the Industrial area. He asked, in Phase III what are the regulatory changes the Town wants to address? What is the lot coverage that can be applied to an industrial parcel? It is area of potential identified in the Build out Report. Schell asked if they would be looking at recommendations to the regulations in Phase III. Nelson confirmed. Nelson stated part of it is regulatory changes for what is developed on a lot and managing no net increase for nitrogen levels. He stated this is a big part of Phase III. How do we deal with Growth in 0 years? He stated it will vary based on land use. Hughes, J asked Nelson how they came up with the increase in the number of school age children. (from 142, now 158) Pereira stated there was no 2010 seasonal data. They made a statement up front. Hughes, 3 explained we are struggling whether to close the second elementary school. Pereira stated a baseline is an estimate. Schell added if you assume 40B developments are for people age 55+ you could reduce those numbers by 17 or 18%. He recommends indicating this in the report. Then the school enrollment would be less. CWPC 1-7-13.docx Page 2 of 8 Leven stated she is not sure they can assume that scenario because the State might not allow it. Nelson added to include in the report that the build out is a worst case scenario. Add in. Review later. Hughes, P asked O'Reilly how the school district projects their numbers. O'Reilly stated they regulate five years out. They count births but not beyond 5 years. The numbers are flat now and not growing. 3. How were landlocked parcels considered as developable? Leven worked with HWG to identify land locked parcels. They reviewed with the Assessor, Dave Tately. These are parcels lacking frontage. Pereira explained the identification process further. Schell asked if any land is really truly landlocked. He asked if you could buy a lot, do a tear down and add a road. Leven stated some subdivisions that don't allow access via landlocked parcels. Some parcels are actually landlocked. Pereira explained the assumption. It was assumed land locked and not for future development. Nelson added you have to pick an assumption and stick to it. It made sense from a planning stand point to look at it this way. Leven shared an example with the committee. Recently she has discussed a parcel that goes over Harwich and Brewster town lines. She added there probably are not real landlocked parcels but you have to draw a line somewhere. Hughes, P added this could be part of an update or a watch list. Nelson stated you make assumptions, develop reports, and review again later when new developments arise. DeRuyter asked if they mean one unit per five acres and is this based on the dirt road by-law. Leven confirmed and stated you can't subdivide. It is a minimum of five acres but even if you have twenty you only get one house, Comments from Sue Leven (2nd part of the handout) 1. Can We swap out the GIS ID with Map and Parcel info for in the report? Nelson explained the GIS ID which is built out of the map and parcel number. They could make a switch. He will follow up with Leven and have a separate conversation. Nelson explained there was a request in the RFP to organize by major watershed. The HWG Scope did not include this. It was the committee's intention but was not included in the HWG Scope. He added they have broken it out by Pleasant Bay and Zone II's. He asked the committee what other major water sheds? How is the data going to be used? Herring River and Bass River Water shed? (MEP studies, nitrogen reduction) If so, then in would be part of Phase III. Leven agreed with Pleasant Bay (have TMDL), Herring River (no TMDL), Bass River not sure. Leven explained what the committee was looking for. The area for reduction of nitrogen levels was important. CWPC 1-7-13.dooc Page 3 of 8 Hughes, P was concerned about the Cape Cod Bay water shed. CDM did a chart that estimated a number of different parameters for the water sheds. (In final report) Z. Did we provide build out information broken out by major watershed area? Nelson stated the GIS system now has watershed boundaries in the system. (Cape Cod Bay, soils and systems - we have data) A TMDL for Herring River - there might be a nitrogen component for Harwich. He would not rule that out. Hughes, P suggested the committee approach Harwich and come up with something to address the water shed. It makes sense to her to have that water shed done. Taylor asked if they can pull out the build out information and provide the information by sub water shed to have discussions with Orleans. Nelson stated yes but they would have to make sure it makes sense. It has been done. They could talk to all three towns about Pleasant Bay now. (Issue in future, Herring River, Phase III) 3. Table,fS-1 - There is no info provided on the number of buildable acres for residential lots. Should there be? Pereira explained build out is based on number of units. They can get a number. Is it important? He did not see value in the number. Hughes, P asked for number of acres. 61 parcels are xx acres. She thinks people generally think by acres. They discussed further. Nelson added it may be confusing. Leven noted especially if a dirt road exists. Hughes, P asked for additional comments from the committee. There were no additional comments. 4. Table;ES-2 - There is slightly more impervious cover in the smart growth scenario compared to the baseline Can we explain this? Pereira explained there is more impervious with smart growth scenario, but in the assumptions they put baseline, because there is more development on existing roadways, with smart growth, Cluster subdivisions, more roadways. It has to do with the assumptions. 5. Figures ES-1 and ES-2 Is there a way to distinguish these two maps more. The main issue is the number of lots shown in the /eaend. Are these also different in the redline boundaries on the mays?If so, having tie color for buildable and vacant makes that hard to see. Nelson asked why the maps are different. They are not different. It could be one map instead of tWo. Same lots being developed in two different ways. 6. Can we provide more of a description/context on the discussion of non-conforming uses? Why was it done and what does it mean? Nelson stated they can and asked for more discussion. There are a few non-conforming. It is more of a red flag for Planning Board or the development review process. Comments received from Jim Gallagher. Nelson explained these can be addressed in the final report or in a future update report. Gallagher stated they are parcels that are random parcels, part of the golf course, etc. They both followed up with Tately. Nelson stated the final version would be sent to Leven in two weeks. CWPC 1-7-13.docx Page 4 of 8 Second handout Comments on HWG Phase II Report. Nelson suggested discussing the comments and then they will finalize the report. He will include the entire spreadsheet in the final report. He noted they are good comments. He suggested reviewing the comments on the hand out. Skidmore asked Schell if he shared the Pleasant Bay watershed, nitrogen reduction achieved by wastewater management comment. Schell suggested adding fertilizer management. Schell sent the comment to Skidmore only. Nelson noted the comment. The Comments: Page: Table Nelson and Leven discussed the formatting suggestion. Table of Contents only. (format of numbers) Page: ES-1 Both the RFP and the Technical Proposal indicate that regionalization was a big part of this - it does not seem tobe. Nelson explained it is a big part but not a large part of what has been done to date. They will review the executive summary. Skidmore stated looking for regional opportunities could be incorporated into the report. Nelson agreed. Page: 4 The SEA,project was completed in 2012 Leven explained the "bridge" portion is complete. SEA is continuing to work with DPW on additional MIS4 survey work. Page: 5 Wasn't Mere a recent amendment to the Clean Water Act - I think this October which has changed the pollutant levels? This comment came from Taylor and she will be sending the EPA report to Nelson and Leven. Page: 1 g 300-foot setback. Where setback cannot be met the max separation provided w/SAS + to GW flow. No recommendation regulation. Bennett asked if it is a regulation. It is a current regulation. It happens when there is a real estate transfer. He was concerned about high density houses in water shed areas. Bennett would like to see a reason to go back and look at a septic system, for a larger house inside the watershed. You could encourage the purchase of land locked or undeveloped property to receive nitrogen credits. Page: 1# No mention of RE transfer SI requirements could identify more than 1 BR/10,000 as either BON failure if in Zone jII. Schell asked about surrending a bedroom. Would you remove a door from a room? Ellis Ice asked the same question. Bennett stated if it was illegal, it becomes an issue of enforcement. CWPC 1-7-13.docx Page 5 of 8 He wants to see control of IA (Innovative Alternative) systems. The Town approves only one or two types. Nelson added, only one or two are approved. They need to understand performance and eXpectations. Part of Phase III. Hughes, J noted IA's are always changing. There would need to be some flexibility built in. Bennett agreed. Hughes, J asked about the 300 foot setback. What is the issue? Nelson stated there is possibly not enough recommendation. He will review it again. The committee discussed if there was a recommendation. Leven mentioned page 109. Nelson stated the recommendations come later in the report. Page: 87, 93 The Story Brook and Herring rivers provide habitat for diadromous (2 types - anadromous River Herring and cata'gromous - Eel) species - herring go upstream to spawn, eels go upstream to grow up. Taylor explained her comment further. (Noted, from anadromous to diadramous) Page: 9$ DOH regulation for RE transfers to indentify more than 1 BR/10,000 SF as criteria of BOH review to surrender BR or I/A treatment. (Asking for clarification from the "commenter") Nelson - Phase III, credits for I/A. Page: 113 The brochure describes the process more than the potential solutions. Do we need to update/redo the frochure to represent some of the findings of this phase? The committee discussed the brochure and suggested a fact sheet to include the results of Phase U, they also discussed other printed materials such as door hangers and brochures. Leven explained that the Planning Department can create a fact sheet. The committee discussed further. Hughes, P concerned about Town meeting in the spring and fall. (Hand outs) Fact Sheet: Nelson made recommendation. First steps in Phase III. What has been done and what are you doing in Phase III. APP D-1: Would it be possible to add labels identifying the towns associated with each section of the flow chart? Could tale contributing and receiving ponds and creeks also be included? Nelson does not recommend. Planning areas work. Hughes, P stated maybe it does not need to be in this report. Leven suggested additional explanation before the flow charts. This information was provided for background only. Adding Town labels might be possible but there will be multiple Towns associated with some sub-watersheds and ponds. Contributing/receiving pond and creeks are already shown it, the flow diagrams. Nelson told the committee the draft scope for Phase III will be coming soon. There will be an updated report the week of 1-21-13. The committee thanked Nelson and Pereira. CWPC 1-7-13.docx Page 6 of 8 3. Discus CWPC annual update for the Town Report Skidmore received comments. Taylor expressed concern that most of page one was the same as last year. Skidmore explained a few minor updates. Leven stated she is looking for a report from SMAST. I 4. Revi w minutes of 10-22-12 Moore received one edit from Schell via email. Bennett trade a Motion to approve the minutes of 10-22-12 as amended, Hughes, ] Second, All Aye, Vote 8-d. Evans abstains. Topics the Chair did not reasonably anticipate. Bennett Captain's golf course Ground water monitoring program - report There is historic nitrogen data for the wells. This should be incorporated into the reports. There is also data for the stump dump monitoring wells. Can the Committee take on possibly making expenditure to have the wells at the golf course bench marked for monitoring? This would make the data available to the consultants. 8 wells (Bennett sending summary to Leven) Leven asked about the cost. O'Reilly and Bennett discussed resources and costs. Hughes, J asked if there will be "bridge" projects. Leven stated no. The committee discussed further. Bennett asked about the Herring River TMDL. They had received reduction zones spreadsheets from Dave Young. 10-23-12. Leven went to a Herring River presentation in September. There was no indication that Brewster would have a TMDL. Bennett,asked for an update for Orleans plan. Leven explained there is a new organization called Orleans CAN. They are focusing on a plan. Hughes,! P mentioned recent Cape Codder Orleans articles. It said nothing about septic systems. Bennett asked about Brewster's participation in the Tri Town Plant. Leven stated it is a question for Sumner. Leven said years ago, Orleans wanted to terminate the agreement. Leven explained Brewster had not commented on the plan status. Hughes,P said they need the space for a wastewater facility. She added the plant is in terrible shape. Leven said nothing has really happened. Brewster has a seat on the technical review committee and it does give the Town the opportunity to discuss further. Hughes, P made a Motion to adjourn, Bennett Second, All Aye, Vote 9-0. The meeting ended at 6:00 pm Next Meeting: 1/28/13 Re.pe k, •mitted, VIl1hor ,��• �r ; 0 Dave BTAF tt, lerk Kelly Moore, Sen',;1i Department Assistant Planning -7-13 •.. Page 7 of 8 r CWPC Action Items, Post 1-7-13 Meeting - Action Items were not reviewed. U 'dated 1-9-13 ACTION ITEMS MEETING COMMENTS ESTIMATED STATUS DATE COMPLETION DA Statu of Bridge Projects: Data Synthesis- GIS/B ild-out, Ponds,Storm water Geo- locatl•n Florsley Witten Group(HWG) Phase II 10%design on three storm water retro fit projects, 10-9-12 Concept designs Committee Ongoing HWGr Walker's Pond received 9-6-12 discussed Breakwater Beach Town seeking Breakwater Beach Town Hall RG grant money Data$ynthesis 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 Done 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 *Loca Comprehensive plan link too... &Lisa Vitale Cran erry 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:j 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 Hughos,J to request final report from the State Ed Eiohner 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 1-7-13.docx Page 8 of 8