Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutComprehensive Water Planning -- 2014-06-02 Minutes f \\��P�E�yy3� �// Town of Brewster Comprehensive o:: � .,F9 2198 Main Street Water Planning R•. _ ` liE� A`',;' Brewster, Massachusetts 02631-1898 Committee So �;; 'y (508)896-370 I x 1233 % = " brewplan @town.brewster.ma.us 1.0R//// poRo" //lllllf 1,1111 111\\\\ "`�r Date Approved:7-14-14 Vote: 8-0-0 TOWN OF BREWSTER MINUTES COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLANNING COMMITTEE (CWPC) Work Session Meeting Monday,June 2, 2014 at 4:30 pm Brewster Town Office Building Chairman Miller convened the CWPC meeting at 4:30 pm in the Brewster Town Office Building with members Adam Curtis, Russell Schell, Paula Miller, Bruce Evans, Dave Bennett, John O'Reilly, and Elizabeth Taylor present. Absent: Dan Ryan Also Present: Susan Leven, Jim Gallagher, Chris Miller, Mark Nelson and Anne Kitchell from HWG Recording or Taping Notification The Chair read "As required by the Open Meeting Law we are informing you that the Town will be videotaping this public meeting. In addition, if anyone else intends to record this meeting he or she is required to inform the chair." Supporting Documents: AGENDA Storm water draft by-law,HWG 1.Work Session—Discuss storm water by-law text with consultant PowerPoint presentation,HWG To review past/present meetings: www.brewster-ma.gov/documents and archives/Ch 18 video archives/recent videos/other government meetings/ CWPC 06-02-14 Work Session:Discuss draft storm water by-law text with consultant Miller, P opened the meeting by explaining this is a work session meeting to discuss the draft by-law. Skidmore asked what they would like to accomplish tonight. What is the objective besides reviewing the document? He suggested the objective should be set before the meeting. Leven remarked about the annotated comments HWG provided with the committee member comments. HWG comments are also included. Highlighted comments are from HWG. (Yellow if have color copy) Workings and amendments of the by-law. Leven wanted to address the larger concepts not necessarily a line by line review. Miller, P suggested they should have enough discussion to determine if HWG can re-draft a by- law. Do they have the consensus of the committee to send the draft forward to the Planning Board (PB)? Leven explained that the PB will discuss a draft. It will not be approved at their next meeting. Miller, P- final draft-then to PB? CWPC Minutes 6-2-14 Work Session,PowerPoint Presentation available 9/9/2014 10:35 AM Leven noted the PB is the final authority. The CWPC is sending a recommendation. Schell asked if the scope of the meeting would include the regulations and by-law. (Yes) Nelson and Kitchell addressed the committee. Nelson presented a PowerPoint presentation. Applicability • Proposed vs. Town of Dennis (as an example) • How does this work? • Questions and comments. Nelson In summary, this comes from the Phase II report since stormwater is a recognized issue. Recommendations were included. • From Federal requirements under MS4 - must be regulations at a minimum in those areas designated as MS4, in place as of 2003. Draft is pending. EPA working on this About one year out • Kitchell is an MS4 expert. • Water quality mandates • Many areas are outside of the MS4 area • Environmental benefit • Every property to which this is applicable has a site design and incorporates stormwater in some fashion. Not for single family homes but subdivisions, etc. • Guide designer and property owner going forward. Deal with Nitrogen and Phosphorus going forward. • Design requirements - changes both (+) and (-) • Smarter site design that minimizes impervious cover. Not re-inventing the wheel. • Addresses re-development • Improve water quality of the sites • By-law fairly general-manage regulations through the Planning Board, managing the construction project. • Protecting stormwater features as you build. Common within stormwater by-laws (RI and Attleboro, MA) • Improve water resource quality across Brewster. Committee Discussion: Miller, P- Conservation areas? Gallagher-Buffer is 100'to wetlands, 200'to riverfront, and certain projects have to meet storm water standard. Exemptions: Subdivisions of less than four lots, single family homes, re- development is not exempt based on state definitions- needs only to be improvement over existing conditions. Miller, P- Have they ordered any BMP's? (Best management practices) rain gardens, etc. Gallagher-Just what the applicant submits. For new projects, someone else reviews for Conservation Commission. Applicant pays for a consultant to review. Bennett asked if redevelopment gets included in few that have required review. (Yes) Gallagher stated they are not doing a lot of what is being proposed. They hire a consultant. Improvement can be gravel over paved surfaces. Schell asked to what extent will the proposed stormwater by-law deals with pond issues from the Phase II report? CWPC Minutes 6-2-14 Work Session,PowerPoint Presentation available 9/9/2014 10:35 AM Nelson stated it will help but it depends on the applicability. Nelson added that MA wetlands requirements are out of date and do not really address environmental improvement. Gallagher stated that what is happening here is stricter than the State. Linnell Landing, { Fisherman's Landing (re-development projects) are adding catch basins, improvements but not meeting standard. Nelson shared an example. Single family homes in Dennis- Dennis regulates any disturbance over 500 square feet regardless of the land use. Nelson asked the committee to think of pond shorelines with steep slopes. He reviewed Applicability. They discussed Foster Square and limited stormwater management. They discussed possible improvements to parking, best management practices and future development. *Winslow Landing drainage issues. O'Reilly mentioned applying to Conservation under the current regulations. He discussed } further with Nelson. HWG shared a residential example. Kitchell explained the need to meet certain standards for redevelopment. Capitalize on redevelopment. Manage a percentage of the impervious cover. Need to show why you can't do it without a waiver. They discussed further. Bennett asked if upgrading septic systems would apply. He read from the proposed by-law and questioned the language. Kitchell-disturbance of pavement. They discussed in detail. (stormwater management) Bennett questioned that the stormwater had to be contained on the site. Evans asked if 40% redevelopment rule could be applicable to redevelopment. Is it flexible? Kitchell stated if you want to show improvement, you need to manage Nitrogen off 40% of the site. Miller, P stated that disturbance and creation of impervious area are two different things. Nelson confirmed "disturb or alter" the amount of land area. Nelson explained they are not changing existing zoning,just managing land use. They are not removing impervious threshold from Water Quality Protection by-law. He shared an example about a lot next to their office. They are tying things to construction and impervious cover. O'Reilly shared an example with the committee. A system failed. They replaced and enlarged. The disturbance was outside the 100'buffer. This by-law would give the Planning Board the opportunity to ask the owner for improvements. (onsite drainage) A discussion could occur. Leven noted that upgrading the parking lot is up to the owner not necessarily the site plan review applicant. O'Reilly and Nelson continued to discuss the applicability of the by-law. They shared examples and commented on disturbance over 5,000 square feet being especially important near ponds. They could exempt outside certain areas. SF Homes: Miller, P - What size home would not alter 5,000 square feet?The by-law would cover most. Miller, C. - Is this okay for most residential developments? Time period, triggers for work. Leven suggested they could also limit lawn size and minimize disturbance. CWPC Minutes 6-2-14 Work Session,PowerPoint Presentation available 9/9/2014 10:35 AM Miller, P asked for committee comments. O'Reilly stated it should be similar to the Board of Health. 300'up gradient, 100'down gradient. Leven- Keep in mind runoff from your house, depending on the slope of the land. Nelson explained if it can go to the pond, it should be managed. They will try to map all ponds even the smaller ones. The map will include a GIS layer with boundaries. They can include language requiring people to map what has not been mapped. Bennett noted that everything is in a watershed. New homes, reconstruction? He questioned the level of scrutiny. Nelson noted they can run town wide. Erosion and sedimentation on all lots. It will be a process but will not be overly burdensome. Rain garden at the edge of a driveway, dry wells for roof runoff. Miller, C noted that certain things should apply town wide under certain circumstances. What are the sensitive receptors? Gallagher asked about keeping water on the site. What if it isn't? Where do we report it? DPW if discharging to a town road. O'Reilly stated if from one property to another it is a civil matter Miller, C explained they have tried to contact the State for NPDES violations and they do not help. Having a local authority would help. He shared a loose sediment example. Nelson added that the NPDES permit threshold is an acre. Single family homes are the issue. Linking to resource area, but consider groundwater too. Bennett asked about applicability. Will this include every Town road paving project. Capture catch basins that are going to be direct discharges?The State does not fix their storm water systems. Nelson stated they cannot enforce State actions on Route 6A. This applies to all Town roads. The by-law includes a waiver the Town could ask for. Leven added this would catch most road betterments. (private roads) Gallagher shared an example of a road betterment within 100' of a pond. There were clearly more improvements that could have been made, but they were not required. More could have been done, but they could not afford it and they said so. Nelson stated the CWPC may make recommendations but the Planning Board will decide. Nelson asked how they want to move forward. Miller, P asked for a definition of"activity" Kitchell explained it is there because of development and redevelopment suggests building as opposed to cutting trees. In Dennis, "all persons that create a construction site" is a defined term. It can be defined further. They discussed Applicability Draft, Slide Exemptions, single family, multi family, two family- residential. Surface watershed resource areas? Ground water is everywhere. This addressed whether the by-law is town wide or not. Gallagher asked about exempting single families less than 5000 square feet. (Yes) CWPC Minutes 6-2-14 Work Session,PowerPoint Presentation available 9/9/2014 10:35 AM There was further discussion but no obvious decision. Nelson made a few suggestions regarding exemptions. Miller stated that these comments will result in a revised draft for the committee that would then go to the Planning Board. Nelson asked about disturbance in watershed area or town wide? Nelson stated that single family dwellings outside watershed are exempt if fewer than 5,000 square feet of disturbance. Within in the watershed = smaller threshold. Schell commented regarding the flow of Phosphorus; consider 100 yards south of Route 6A from Wobbly Barn to Thad Ellis Road. Nitrogen from the Considine Ditch ends up in Cape Cod Bay. The proposed exemption would exempt that area Nelson noted they can work with it away from the meeting. Single family homes not in the resource area are not as important. Tie into wetland regulations. Taylor- Didn't riverine definition change? Considine Ditch? Gallagher explained if you have a blue line on the USGS it is a river. If you have three days in non drought conditions with no flow it is not a river. In general it is not considered to be a river. Miller, P asked Nelson how to move the discussion forward. Nelson - 2nd bullet- multifamily and 2 family, resolve septic repair issues. Miller asked why do we have 15%? Kitchell explained it is in line with thresholds from the Water Quality Protection by-law. Nelson explained this would apply to a small high traffic spot. Gallagher commented on residential. Town wide will become a nightmare if all single family homes are treated differently. Pick a threshold and apply town wide. He agrees with exemptions. Miller, C agreed with Gallagher but thought of it as a zoning map- either in or out Schell expressed concern about excluding intermittent streams. Nelson stated it is hard to know the best way to implement without having discussions about distances. Simplicity is better. Set a threshold and stick to it. He suggested taking out 15% of impervious area *Evans left the meeting at 6pm. O'Reilly asked Nelson about permitted projects- to what extent? Building, site plan reviewed? Nelson stated it is defined in the by-law. They addressed the highlighted areas. Page #2 at the top. Enforcement is either DPW Director or Building Commissioner. Miller, C expressed concern that it may be a budget issue. Leven will ask Town Counsel. Miller, C stated the Town will need more staff to enforce. Nelson stated that there are already inspections. Site Plan Review, etc. Gallagher stated it is likely they will need a new staff person. Miller, C explained they need to look at the impact to the Town. Bennett asked if volunteers from the Boards could be assigned. CWPC Minutes 6-2-14 Work Session,PowerPoint Presentation available 9/9/2014 10:35 AM Leven commented on the Planning Board process with roads. Gallagher stated they should not use unpaid volunteers. Nelson explained that puts a volunteer in a contentious position. Bennett and Leven discussed further. Hire a consultant? Who will oversee? Are there bonds involved? Nelson: • Enforcement Agent? • Long term inspection requirements? Shouldn't it be going on now? Will look at these. • Off-site storm water mitigation- focus upgrades to Town roads on things that really matter. • Applicability covered • 40B's- might have to comply with MS4. Leven to get a legal opinion. (See page #9) Miller, P-alternatives not under administrative? Nelson will look at it. O'Reilly- Re: 40B, LIP Regulations. Leven will check with Harwich. Nelson will follow up on enforceability and town government questions. Revised draft to come. Comments should be sent to Leven. Taylor explained the Planning Board encourages people not to pave. Can anything be permanently pervious? Nelson noted they need to manage compacted surfaces. Kitchell added for a single family driveway, think of it and treat as something that becomes impervious. Miller suggested T-base, road at the farm - no street flow run-off. Nelson explained they can negotiate and discuss what runs off, and what absorbs. O'Reilly suggested- Residential home Threshold. Look at single family homes where you give applicants or site designer "keys" (rain garden, etc.) Could there be a design guideline? Don't reinvent the wheel every time someone comes in front of the Planning Board. Nelson stated it comes down to topo and soils. Further discussion required. Gallagher commented on administration and procedure. When Conservation Commission gets involved, everything should be looked at the same way. It may not be consistent if different Boards are doing it. He wants more consistency and does not want to take on the entire review process. Nelson wants to get this to the Planning Board. He commented on timing. He can send a draft if no major comments or noted ongoing discussion could go the Planning Board. Bennett expressed concern about arduousness of process. Couldn't we just note our comments? Miller, P wants comments addressed in the text before it goes to the Planning Board. Taylor wants the Board to have what the CWPC has finished working on. Leven noted budget. Nelson stated he would have a revised draft next Monday. 6/9/14. He suggested getting Planning Board input on some points might be better. At some point both the Boards should meet. Bennett made a Motion to adjourn, Second by Skidmore, All Aye, Vote 7-0. Evans left early. The meeting ended at 6:30 pm. CWPC Minutes 6-2-14 Work Session,PowerPoint Presentation available 9/9/2014 10:35 AM Nest Meeting: Monday, 6/9/14 @ 4:30 pm Respectfully submitted, 1041P ilk irett Vice hair & Clerk n Kelly Moore,Senior Department Assistant, Planning CWPC Minutes 6-2-14 Work Session,PowerPoint Presentation available 9/9/2014 10:35 AM