Members Present: Mr. Walter, Mr. Limbacher, Mr. Fenton, Mrs. Brennan, Mrs. Chisholm

Members Absent: Mr. Duncan (Alternate Member)

Others Present: Members of the Conservation Commission: Mark Stewart, Anthony Jones, Scott Greenbaum and Joseph Urbanski; Member of the Water Resources Committee: Elise Kline; Gene Babin, Supervisor, Water Division of the DPW; Laura Harbottle, Town Planner; and Tim Reardon, Senior Planner, Metropolitan Area Planning Council.

________________________________________________________________________

PRESENTATION BY TIM REARDON (MAPC) ON STORMWATER BYLAW AND REGULATIONS

Tim Reardon introduced himself as a senior regional planner from MAPC and the coordinator of the South Shore Coalition. He explained that MAPC received funding from Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management to help develop stormwater management bylaws and regulations for Scituate, Marshfield and Cohasset. They had five workshops with representatives from all three towns to look at stormwater issues. The project was completed in June. Now they are working with the communities to make sure the bylaw and regulations are implemented or revised if necessary. He said there is still a lot of work to do because it has to be discussed by the boards, brought to the public and then to Town Meeting for approval.

Mr. Reardon said that the stormwater bylaws are one component of a comprehensive stormwater management program. He gave out a written summary of his presentation and said that DPW’s often describe stormwater and drainage systems as the orphan infrastructure. There is no revenue stream for funding of these stormwater management systems.

Stormwater is directly regulated by Conservation Commissions through the Wetlands Protection Act, and by Planning Boards through Subdivision Rules and Regulations. Any activities within the wetlands area or buffer zone are subject to the act and subject to stormwater management standards. Stormwater is regulated indirectly by the zoning bylaws, subdivision rules and regulations, site plan guidelines and Board of Health Regulations which determine how things get built, how much impervious surface there is, how stormwater is controlled etc. Many municipalities have been spurred to adopt new regulations by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, which requires stormwater permitting when over 40,000 sq. ft. is disturbed. Please see the handout attached. Mr. Reardon said the NPDES states that communities have to have in place a plan for managing stormwater that is coming off of sites that are over 40,000 sq. ft. Below that level there is very little specificity but some communities want to regulate to avoid flooding and protect surface waters and groundwater.

Mr. Reardon said at least two dozen communities in the metropolitan Boston area have adopted stormwater bylaws and discharge and/or erosion control bylaws. In the bylaw drafted for the town, MAPC has attempted to reduce construction disturbance which will help control post development stormwater flow.

To administer regulations a Stormwater Authority has to be established. This is probably the biggest discussion point among the different towns Tim has visited. Different towns have authorized different boards; some making the authority the Conservation Commission because they are most familiar with the Wetlands Act; some have made it the Planning Board because they are most familiar with overall development. Some have made a new authority that is comprised of town staff although that tends to be in more urban, built up communities. The bylaw establishes thresholds, submittal requirements, performance standards, a review process and requires operation and maintenance plans. Some towns give credits for use of LID techniques and some have exemptions and waivers. Engineering review fees and surety are collected.

Among the most important pieces of the regulations are the performance standards which regulate the volume and rate of post-development stormwater, set recharge requirements and treatment requirements and prohibit illicit discharges. These can include erosion control requirements and standards for maximum flow as well as site design and landscaping standards.

Mr. Reardon said they came up with a four page bylaw and 12 pages of regulations. They tried to keep the bylaw simple in order to help get it passed by Town Meeting. The Planning Board is the Stormwater Authority but can delegate authority issue permits to other boards, agent or other designee. Applications, though, would be circulated to the Conservation Commission, Board of Health and DPW for review and comments. Members from the Conservation Commission asked if there would be two groups doing the same thing. Mr. Reardon said if a project is going to go to the Conservation Commission and doesn’t need to go to the Planning Board, it could be exempt from the bylaw. There are many development projects, however, that may not have to go the Conservation Commission and that’s why it was determined that the Planning Board would probably be the best permit granting authority. The review mechanisms need to be defined. There was a lot of discussion on the issue of who the designated authority should be.

The proposed thresholds identified were disturbance of 15,000 sq. ft. or greater, disturbance of 1,000 sq. ft. on steep slopes, and proposed land uses with higher pollutant loads. These are defined in Section III of the bylaw. Even ANRs would be subject to this disturbance of 15,000 sq. ft. Mr. Fenton asked how you’d assess the language for an ANR. Ms. Harbottle said anyone coming in with an ANR would have to be made aware that upon application for a building permit, they would have to show on a plot plan by at least a rough sketch how much land they would be disturbing and that they will be asked to address the stormwater issue. Ms. Harbottle said a handout for the public could be given out with any ANR filing.

Steve Bjorklund said all this is going to be creating a huge expense for someone who is desiring to add just a garage and deck to their home. They’d have to spend $20,000 worth of engineering fees to prove they won’t be at the thresholds. He asked if the Conservation Commission would be required to make an intense review if someone is going to remove 2,000 sq. ft. of phragmites? Mr. Reardon said Cohasset requires a sketch plan only if the disturbance is from 5,000 to 20,000 sq. ft. All this is up for discussion. Mr. Reardon said all the Boards have to be comfortable with whatever thresholds they decide on. 80% of drinking water for Scituate comes from groundwater which receives stormwater runoff that is recharged. There are already higher standards in the WRPD.

Mr. Limbacher said the threshold needs to be tempered or it won’t pass Town Meeting. Mr. Reardon said Cohasset uses the 40,000 sq. ft. but Mr. Bjorklund said there’s a huge area of Cohasset that requires 60,000 sq. ft. lots and if a home is built over a certain size, they have to have a public hearing. It was suggested to start with a survey of needs but Mr. Reardon said the town first needs to establish a bylaw. A survey won’t help if the town can’t do anything about its stormwater problems. It was said that just having square foot requirement may not be adequate. There may have to be language saying that if someone is covering so much of a lot, this will be required. Mr. Reardon said all these issues have to be addressed in concert. He said it may take mapping and understanding the different stormwater issues in different parts of town but that’s not something that most municipalities have had time to look at comprehensively. It’s beyond the scope of current resources.

Ms. Harbottle said it’s important to get started. She said they could look at the WRPD, coastal estuaries, and other obvious sensitive surface and groundwater resources to discuss thresholds.

In response to Mr. Bjorklund’s concerns, Mr. Reardon said it would be important to look at how redevelopment is defined. Would a garage on the side of a house constitute redevelopment? He said the idea is to get developers to figure out drainage issues earlier in the process.

Funding is part of the comprehensive stormwater program. How is enforcement going to get paid for? Mr. Reardon said maintenance of the town’s stormwater systems requires people and funds.

It was asked if there could be working groups for discussion of the various issues discussed tonight. Mr. Reardon said they held five workshops; the last of which was in Marshfield. He said he can’t staff working sessions. Mr. Limbacher said they should start figuring out if they want the bylaw. He said in its present state, it won’t work. Mr. Fenton suggested having a small working group work out a second draft He said it needs to be a working group to point out the holes and give potential solutions. Mr. Limbacher said the sponsoring organization should start the working process. He said a smaller group should look at it. They could find the holes and report back. Members of the Conservation Commission, Planning Board, Water Resources Committee and town officials who volunteered for the working group were Mark Stewart, Mark Fenton, Elise Kline, Gene Babin, Pat Brennan, and Bill Limbacher.

Mr. Walter called the remaining portion of the Planning Board meeting to order at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Limbacher moved to approve the agenda as written. Mr. Fenton seconded and the vote was unanimous.

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: MIXED USE SPECIAL PERMIT – 6 OLD COUNTRY WAY APPLICANT: JOHN HALLIN. OWNERS: JOHN AND MARY HALLIN

Mr. Limbacher moved to open the continued public hearing. Mr. Fenton seconded and the vote was unanimous.

The five sitting Board members will be voting on this proposal.

Mr. Walter explained that although this was a continuance, it had not been heard before. It had been scheduled and immediately continued. This is the first Mixed Use Special Permit in the Village Overlay District.

Mr. Paul Mirabito of Ross Engineering said this lot is comprised of an existing commercial building and single family dwelling. The site has gravel parking for two buildings and a sidewalk around the rear. It is connected to sewer. They are proposing to remove a portion of the existing home and add more units.

The parking requires 24 spaces and they have 27. The parking in front and to the side of the commercial building will stay. The site is very flat. The water from the upper parking area will be channeled to a shallow basin. There will be a substantial reduction in runoff to Country Way. It’s all sandy material. He spoke to Dave Nyman who asked that they identify the stormceptors. They did so and don’t believe there is any conflict. A gravel parking space would be problematic for ADA. Mr. Donovan was concerned about the turning radii for the fire department but Mr. Mirabito said they have used this for other projects. They could cut the berm back 1-2’ if it is desired. They have been to the Board of Selectmen and have been denied any additional sewer but they expect a private septic system will not be a problem. The house is already connected to sewer. If they have to provide for any additional flow, they could put it under the parking lot.

Mr. Hallin said they will be increasing the use of the property and eliminating one curb cut. They will have a sidewalk which is important because the site is within walking distance to the train station. They’ve kept the density under what is allowed. They are proposing eight units plus the two existing. They provided a buffer to abutters. They are keeping the main house per the Design Review Committee comments which is a 90 year old home but they will be making design modifications. He said they tried to blend in with the neighborhood. The garage is being eliminated and the building will be further away from the property line than it is at present. There are three 1 bedroom units, five 2 bedroom units and the two existing units are one bedroom.

Ms. Harbottle said that it’s good to get this first Mixed Use application but there is a lot of activity shown on a small site. She said the Design Review Committee had a lot of comments and she’s not sure they were all addressed. They wanted the building to look more like a more traditional hip-roof type. The landscaping is attractive. She said if one of these units is affordable, the town gets to count them all because they will be rentals. She thinks the driveways are wide and it’s unfortunate that the people in the apartments will have to go through the commercial entrance. Parking can’t be counted as open space. She asked what the actual area percentage is. Mr. Mirabito said it meets the 20%.

Mrs. Chisholm said it looks expansive in the photos but how much room is actually there

in between the four units. Mr. Mirabito said there is 45 to 50’ between buildings. Mrs. Chisholm asked if there is an entrance in the back for the apartments but there is not. She is concerned about people moving in and out and said they will be parking on the roads.

Mrs. Brennan asked if the landscape architect was aware that there might be a septic system in the back. Mr. Mirabito said it will be under the parking lot. Mr. Ohrenberger said it will most likely be tied to sewer. Worst case scenario would require a small septic system. Mrs. Brennan asked if they had proposed any noise mitigation but other than insulated windows and 2x6 construction, they had not.

Mr. Limbacher said that in January they showed a driveway on the right side and asked why they can’t do it that way? Mr. Mirabito said they couldn’t get the drainage to work. The land is very flat. Mr. Limbacher said there were 20 parking spaces in back and 5 in front. Now there are 18. There is a handicapped space. He asked how the existing parking for the garage is utilized today and Mr. Hallin said some tenants use the space; two pick up trucks belong to Devlin and one dumpster belongs to Devlin. Mr. Limbacher said he is still concerned about the fire department reaching access to all of the buildings. If there are dump trucks parked there instead of pickups, the firetruck won’t be able to get in there at all. He said the retail space is about 800 sq. ft. and he asked Mr. Mirabito what the gross square footage of the residential units is. The application says 6900 sq. ft. He is concerned about the balance. Mr. Limbacher is concerned also that virtually all traffic into the buildings will go down Union Street. Mr. Hallin said there should be a 4-way stop at Union and Old Country Way.

Mr. Fenton asked what the shallow detention basins are. Mr. Hallin said they are mowable and go down about 2-3’. The slopes are 4:1. Mr. Fenton said there will be a retaining wall around the parameters. The project doesn’t strike him as a Low Impact Development. He said this kind of site would benefit with a more distributive system. He said it would look more like intentional swales along the parking lot. Is there any way to mitigate asphalt? Does it have to go all the way to the street? Is there a way to ease the intense use of the site? Can any of the parking be gravel? He said Traffic Rules and Regs also asked about the fire vehicles and what would happen to the intersection? They asked for a traffic analysis. Mr. Fenton said if they were to go down that road and ask for a full traffic analysis, he would call it Full Transportation Analysis because he would want to give the site credit for the proximity to the train station and acknowledge that a certain percentage of people would be through to and from the train. He said Traffic Rules Committee talks about adequate turning spaces for the three spaces. Can a vehicle in the three spaces back out and go forward. Mr. Mirabito said they can. He asked if a van could do that? Mr. Limbacher doesn’t think so. Mr. Fenton wants to use the minimum parking requirement use. His question is how to lower the intensity of the site and how can you turn the space into more pervious surface? There’s 26 spaces total being offered on the site. Mr. Hallin said he is trying to get rid of the dumpsters and that arrangements are being made to get them out of there. Mr. Fenton said he likes the landscape plan but would much prefer to have an LID. He’d like to see the parking in front of the garage redesigned and he’d like to see defined parking spaces. There needs to be a clear entry and exit. He’d like to see a small green island with some infiltration and a sidewalk.

Mr. Limbacher is concerned about the total lot coverage. This isn’t what he envisioned in the Village Overlay District. Mr. Walter asked if they need all 26 spaces and Mr. Hallin said in practicality they do. Mr. Walter asked if they could take out 3 or 4 but Mr. Hallin said they already did take out 5. Mr. Mirabito said that the breaking up of the asphalt and using a more pervious surface makes sense but that won’t meet the WRPD requirements.

Mr. Fenton told them to be thinking out of the box. He said the entry needs to be clearly defined and they should be thinking of implementing a parking policy.

Mr. Walter said that any pavement they can take away is a win. Mrs. Chisholm said that when the driveway was on the other side, it was much nicer but Mr. Hallin said it can’t be done. Mr. Walter asked if the basin to the west could be an under-pavement galley system but Mr. Mirabito said no. It has to be a 4:1 slope. Mr. Fenton said the sidewalk ought to connect to the sidewalk on the street. Mr. Hallin said it might be better to use a series of pavers. Mr. Fenton is amenable to that.

Mrs. Chisholm said there are no places for kids to play. There are three detention basins and the kids will fall in. She thinks it’s hazardous and affects the whole area. Ms. Harbottle said that if they could lose a little parking, they might need less recharge. Mr. Fenton suggested doing swales. Mr. Mirabito said they’d need a variance from the WRPD bylaw. That bylaw requires them to recharge on the site. Mr. Ohrenberger said the may need some modification to the overlay districts where there are conflicting bylaws.

Mrs. Burbine of 10 Pennycress Road said she is a huge proponent of the Village Overlay District but she is concerned about the residents going into the site when the commercial contractors are coming out. She is also concerned about a roofing company being in the WRPD. The site seems too tight. The dumpster in the back next to the parking for the residents seems inaccessible for residents trying to pull up to empty their trash. It seems too small for the number of residents. She said the driving force for the bylaw was to have a mixed use of retail and residential. There is 6900 sq. ft. of residential and 800 sq. ft. of retail and to her, that doesn’t seem to work. There is not even place for someone to put a grill. She asked if there is any way to scale back the square footage– maybe cut two 2-bedroom units and the rest be one bedroom units. If the building could be scaled back, there could be less parking and more green space.

Mr. Walter said he is looking for a lighting plan in terms of safety for residents.

Mr. Charles Fagan is concerned about the dumpsters and the landscape plan. He’d rather see some sort of evergreen rather than forsythia and he said it’s right against his office.

Mr. Limbacher said to enumerate his concerns, they are:

Site saturation

Site percentages (residential vs. retail.) He’d like to see more retail.

Full (handicap) access to building, especially in the rear of the building.

How can they say a 3-story structure blends in to the neighborhood of mostly 1 ½ stories.

Traffic flow within the site needs to be managed.

Dumpster needs to have a better spot than side of the basin.

Mr. Limbacher would clearly like to see the driveway on the other side.

Mrs. Brennan said this is not a family friendly site. It needs substantial separation between the buildings. She’d like to see the vegetation reconsidered. She suggested the use of Holly rather than Forsythia because Forsythia won’t provide a good buffer. Also on the swales, she’d like to see other choices on the swales than meadow grass as there are a lot of other grasses that are available.

Mr. Fenton said most of his comments have been talked about already. He would like to see the parking requirement table to be sure everyone is on the same wavelength. He’d like a fully accessible pedestrian access including ADA requirements from the sidewalk. He thinks they can make the green space more viable. He said they could make a couple of swales and eliminate one basin. They need to have a parking management program rather than a transportation management program. Bike parking would be viable. Structural modifications on the commercial side - - should do a better job of delineating the commercial from the residential. Mrs. Chisholm asked if there is a way to get a 4-way stop. She’d like to open a dialogue with the Traffic Rules Committee.

Mr. Walter said he wants to see the lighting plan. He also wondered if there is a way to do a bigger basin in the rear. There might be a meandering rain garden which could eliminate a basin. He asked if they could use grass for over-flow parking. He said while it would be nice to have more retail, he’d actually like more residential.

Mr. Fenton moved to continue the public hearing to November 8th at 8PM. Mr. Limbacher seconded and the vote was unanimous.

OLD BUSINESS/NEW BUSINESS

Mr. Limbacher had a comment to add to the CVS draft submitted by Ms. Harbottle reading CVS has worked well with our Design Review Team and we ask for that effort to be continued. Mrs. Brennan said the 4th bullet seems to be contradictory. She said we should decide which we want and say “OR”. She asked that we add Broad Street in Hanover, Rt. 53 in Weymouth, Rt. 123 in Norton, Rt. 123 in Brockton, Rt. 123 in Easton and Rt.3A in Cohasset. None of those use Scotchprint. She said maybe we could also note that their competitors, Walgreens, Brooks, and Osco as well as Stop & Shop Pharmacies do not have scotchprint windows. It was decided to cc the Design Review Team.

On the letter to Mr. Danehey, Mr. Limbacher said:

The third sentence should say: As you saw, we are proceeding in accordance with the Town Meeting Vote to expend CPC funds.

Also, he’d like the last paragraph to read: It would appear prudent that the Residential Development Committee (RDC) you have proposed be melded with our effort to create an affordable housing plan. I would propose that potential RDC members be told that they will be working on a project that is already ongoing and their assistance and support is critical to make sure the Town progresses towards the goal of providing affordable housing that is suitable to the Town of Scituate. We look forward to including them and working with them to this effort.

Mr. Limbacher moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:25PM. Mrs. Chisholm seconded and the vote was unanimous.

Respectfully submitted,

Kay Ramsey, Recording Secretary for the Evening