HomeMy Public PortalAboutComprehensive Water Planning -- 2014-06-09 Minutes o""munn""rrrr Town of Brewster Comprehensive
s•��o aE E* 4. p
2198 Main Street Water Planning
_' Brewster, Massachusetts 02631-1898 Committee
3 orirl Itirtri E. (508)896-3701 x 1 233
E. brewplan @town.brewster.ma.us
d
irainimu�����oo - "�;=,;y} i; +:;
Date Approved: 6-9-14 - . - = !
^!f
Vote: 8-0-0
TOWN OF BREWSTER MINUTES
COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLANNING COMMITTEE (CWPC)
Regular Meeting
Monday,June 9, 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, Bruce Evans, Dave Bennett, John O'Reilly, and
Elizabeth Taylor present.
Absent: Dan Ryan, *O'Reilly left early
Also Present: Susan Leven, Nancy Ellis Ice
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
060914_A Russ Schell Email 1.Citizen Forum
060914_B Storm water draft by-law,HWG 2, Discuss revised Storm water By-law
3. Brewster Conservation Day,7-12-14
4. Brewster Ponds Meeting,6-21-14
5.Approval of minutes from 5-27-14
6.Topics the Chair did not reasonably anticipate
To review past/present meetings: www.brewster-ma.gov/documents and archives/Ch 18 video
archives/recent videos/other government meetings/ CWPC 06-09-14
14. Citizen Forum
None.
Discuss revised Storm water By-law
The committee had a lengthy discussion about the revised version of the Stormwater Draft By-
law from the Horsley Witten Group (HWG). Miller opened the meeting by acknowledging HWG
for the good job they did assimilating comments and coming up with questions. Miller
requested that the committee address the applicability to single family residences (SFR) by
reviewing the options presented in the draft. 1) Relaxed standards, 2) Simpler procedure. Miller
expressed concern about too many exemptions. Dennis' standards were referenced. She
suggested the committee be more inclusive but have relaxed standards applied. This could be
CWPC Minutes 6-9-14 9/9/2014 10:34 AM
accomplished by keeping SFR's separate. *Disturbance of 5,000 sq. ft or less could be
unregulated if for a SFR, larger parcels, apply relaxed standards. The committee referenced
the Town of Dennis'regulations and discussed ways to move forward. Skidmore referenced the
email from Russell Schell dated 6/9, 3:04 pm. He read the email to the committee.
Text of email:
In response to your request for review, and for discussion at the June 9 meeting, Storm water
Bylaw Draft, page 3, line 21, the following addition is suggested, "that are not within 300 feet of
a pond, or within a contributing drainage area to a pond, and that divert all runoff to vegetated
areas within the site". (add to the 5,000 square foot exemption)
Miller expressed concern again about exemptions.
Leven explained that complaints regarding stormwater runoff or changes to an existing
structure may trigger the by-law.
Miller questioned clarification in the by-law regarding prohibition against drainage leaving the
property. She also questioned enforcement. Is it the Building Dept.? Miller asked the Board if
they exempt single family residences from the 5,000 square feet of disturbance, are they still
missing a lot. She asked the committee for further comments.
Bennett liked the consultant's comments and shared a Dennis example with the committee.
The engineering department manages the process. He also liked the addition from Schell. He
noted they could be more specific regarding retaining stormwater on a site. What about septic
plans?
O'Reilly shared an example and noted that the engineering department relies on the Building
Commissioner in Dennis. Neighbor complaints or silt issues trigger enforcement. Enforcement -
we need to convince homeowners that the regulatory process is simple. Set standard protocols
for single family residences. Put the responsibility on the homeowner and consultant. This
gives the enforcement agent the ability to address. (In Dennis)
In summary, concerns raised by committee:
1) Raise threshold? Miller read from the draft. 1 Section, SFR? - except within 300'feet of a
pond. Skidmore suggested leaving as-is. He stated it is not the mission of the CWPC to write
regulations. We are recommending to a regulatory body. Miller concerned about the written
regulations and SFR's.
2) Will Conservation Commission (CC) enforce? Miller, C stated beyond the 100'buffer, CC
doesn't have authority or the time. This could easily be adopted into the wetland rules and tied
to the Board of Health. Miller, C agreed with O'Reilly. They will need to hire an inspector.
O'Reilly agreed with Skidmore. It is good the way it is now with the highlighted areas.
Enforcement and regulations will come from the Planning Board. Simplify the process and
apply minimum standards.
Bennett explained how it works with the Town of Dennis. Begins with Engineering Department.
• Builder signs the storm water management certification
• Building Inspector gets the plan
• Planning Board determines if it applies and the exemptions apply
In Dennis it does not drive a lot of extra cost. Minimum standards apply.
Bennett agreed with O'Reilly and Skidmore.
CWPC Minutes 6-9-14 9/9/2014 10:34 AM
Miller, P does not want small projects to have a fee and a lengthy process with the Planning
Board.
Leven spoke to Nelson this afternoon. Leven asked for consensus for under 5,000 square
feet of clearing, require downspouts, infiltration into rain gardens, and erosion and sediment
control. It would not require an actual permit unless they go over 5,000 square feet.
The committee generally agreed. There was not a vote.
Miller, P addressed performance standards, Page #4, 999-7 and C. Could they be expanded?
What is required? Miller, P expressed concern that people will not understand what to do.
The committee discussed waivers (999-8) and exemptions. Today the Planning Board
grants waivers of site plan review. Bennett expressed concern about the Planning Board
granting waivers. Skidmore read the waiver information. Is it too restrictive?
Is the by-law a tool to create regulations? Some were concerned that it was not simplistic
enough. Does the Wetland Act address performance standards?
Miller was concerned about the lack of specifics. She compared it the Water quality by-law.
O'Reilly stated the warrant article would simplify the intent and purpose of the by-law.
Bennett stated they could reference the MA storm water manual. Taylor thought it might be a
problem. (telling people to refer to something else like MS4) Skidmore stated the answer is you
need to maintain storm water on your site.
Miller, P suggested adding it to the performance standards. Taylor was in favor of adding
bullets under performance standards. Bennett suggested not using acronyms.
(Spell out MS4, NPEDS, and PB) Section 999-4 for performance standards.
*2,500 for commercial properties- same language as SFR's.
O'Reilly asked if this covers only ponds. What about other water bodies? Consodine Ditch,
creeks. Wetlands are covered now within 100'. Ice confirmed setbacks to ponds (septic systems)
• 300'from pond
• 100'from wetland
Miller, P confirmed the committee will have mapped pond areas.
O'Reilly expressed concern about contributory sources.
Schell commented about the DEP web site for wetlands. You can see low elevation areas of
Brewster-intricate area of wetlands and uplands. Take 100'from wetland, then whole series
of islands. Take 300'-no uplands.
Miller, C suggested addressing what will be impacted (sensitive receptors). Do not include the
Consodine Ditch. Work on what is impacted now. Address ponds and how can we fix them.
Bennett commented on wetland areas. He felt the committee was getting too specific. The
Planning Board will define and designate. It is important to have a plan that says you are in or
out.
Miller, P referenced Page #3, Line #25, Ref. to Maps- in or out? What are we doing about the
other 2,500 square feet? Apply same standards to both.
Skidmore noted it should be included within 300'of a pond.
Bennett stated they both should have similar language and be subject to review of Planning
Board. Who determines designated recharge areas? Miller and Bennett discussed further.
CWPC Minutes 6-9-14 9/9/2014 10:34 AM
Same exemption standards to non-residential. (Yes)
The 2500 square foot projects- minimum standards apply.
Miller & Bennett- 2,500 square feet proposed in the by-law
Bennett - Minimum standards if exempt.
I.E. - Roof gutters to dry well, catch basins filter fabric during construction, gravel apron at
entrance of property.
The committee continued to discuss exemptions. *Noted on plans? Form in Building
Department?
Skidmore made a Motion to forward the by-law to the Planning Board after submission of
comments to Horsley Witten Group, 5000 square foot SFR and 2500 square foot comments
from Schell, including suggested exemptions that all properties are subject to minimal storm
water controls, Bennett Second, (for example gutter roof areas, and protect catch basins,
minimum performance standards)
Discussion:
All projects exempted subject to minimal controls.
Miller, P suggested HWG's wording not Schell's wording from the email. Miller noted that HWG
will revise the by-law.
Taylor asked for a definition of NPDES. (added during modification by Skidmore)
Bennett modified the Motion,to be consistent with Schell's language
*(Bennett, Skidmore agreed so not amended, the main motion is modified.)
Evans noted not just ponds.
Bennett - Minimum performance language -except when you fall into designatrd areas-noted
process.
Schell noted support of exemption in one sentence.
Bennett added the plan showing areas should be included when the by-law goes to town
meeting. *By-law will reference a map.
Curtis agreed with Bennett.
Taylor asked about leaving all HWG comments in the document. They will remain.
She asked about the creation of an overlay district. Leven noted that was a good question.
Pond protection area? Designated Recharge Areas?
5:40 pm
vote 7-0-0 (O'Reilly left the meeting and was not included in the vote)
Miller stated the nature of the conversation should go to HWG. All comments go through Leven.
Taylor asked for members to go the Planning Board meetings.
Leven added that the meetings could be joint meetings with both committees.
All three documents will be sent to the Planning Board.
Mark Nelson will attend the Planning Board meetings. There will most likely be two joint
meetings. If this is to go to Fall Town Meeting, it needs to be done by mid July.
A final draft will be available early next week. It may be reviewed by the Board 7-25-14. A draft
will be sent to Town Counsel. The zoning changes goes to town meeting and the regulations
follow. Regulations are worked on after the by-law is ready. The comment boxes will go into a
summary to help people understand the by-law.
Miller, C asked about the availability and funding of a map to support the by-law.
CWPC Minutes 6-9-14 9/9/2014 10:34 AM
HWG is working on a map now.
Taylor expressed concern about vernal pools.
Miller, C stated that vernal pools may depend on storm water.
This by-law might not be ready for Fall Town Meeting and may have to go in the spring.
3 'Brewster Conservation Day, 7-12-14
No discussion.
4' Brewster Ponds Meeting,6-21-14
Planning is in good shape. No further discussion noted.
5,Approval of minutes from 5-27-14;
Skidmore made a Motion to approve the meeting minutes of 5-27-14 as amended, Curtis
Second, 6 Aye, 1 abstain (Evans), Vote 6-0-1. Gallagher submitted minor edits.
.J 6, Topics the Chair did not reasonably anticipate
There were no topics the Chair did not reasonably anticipate.
Taylor made a Motion to adjourn, Bennett Second, All Aye, Vote 7-0-0.
Se meeting ended at 5.55 pm.
Next Meeting: Monday, 6/23/14 @ 4:30 pm
Respectfully submitted,
tt, 'e Chair & Clerk
Kelly Moore,Senior Department Assistant, Planning Will
CWPC Minutes 6-9-14 9/9/2014 10:34 AM