##VIDEO ID:7uT1pkX0Z3c## this government meeting is brought to you by eastw works and our local cable subscribers all right good evening [Applause] everyone open the U Southampton planning board meeting for October 2nd 2024 we have a quorum Dan La valy Mark darnold Steven Johnson myself Paul demon we have our board consultant Richard Harris uh in attendance and welcome those um viewing on channel 191 our major agenda item tonight is a presentation by Kyle finel who is here from P valy planning commission regarding draft revisions of a water supply protection um zoning bylaw that we had a dlta grant for and uh he's been working on that for the last couple three months so he is here tonight to present his findings and at this point I will give Kyle the floor um he um he had sent an email draft which I had emailed the board but he had some other changes in addition to that so he provided some hard copy tonight um as well so Kyle go ahead thank you um so the purpose of the memo provided is to bring the water supply protection overlay District BW language um again this was part of a DTA project plan Bo requested funds through pdpc and we awarded um adequate funding this is not the entirety of the project this is really just part one of two main tasks the secondary task is uh to host round conversation reconvening former members of the payack bars off protection advisory uh I can provide an update on that as well after we get through the M that's license um as uh the chair mentioned this what you have in front of you is really a version two of the MMO there are some additions um that I will quickly point out um on page five there's a new section I forgot to include speak daughter forward and there was in on special permits there some greater context provided regarding the issue of uh inous surface and um there regulations regarding that to so if it's all right the board I'll I'll walk through the memo and ask forious subsections so as an overview again this is the purpose of this memorandum reviewing the town's current water supply potion District section um article 7 of section 7.2 of the Z bylaw we're comparing the existing bylaw langage to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection um ground water Protection District LA in general the existing bylaw includes many of Standards from the model um discrep [Music] any questions at this [Music] point uh so jumping into definitions um comparing ex definition in the Z bylaw and elsewhere in the general bylaw um most definitions are included in some locations what I've provided is a list of recommended definitions from the mon and definitions that are outside of zoning I put cross reference um 13 Uh current definitions that are recommended exist in the general bylaw of the Town within section sorry chapter 28 which is the ground water protection regulations so what is provided here would uh easily be added to arle two of the Z law which is your definition section section 2.3 specifically um just cross referenes definitions that exist outside of any questions at this point thanks Kyle uh the next topic I'd like to cover District delation umor discrepancy um is for the boundary to cost a l there's no language in the ex how to rec that there is Rec language coming from the model that's provided it's an italic SI right there recommended language reads where the boundary line of the water supply District divines a lot or parcel the requirements established by this District shall apply to the entire lot so it clarifies um for those property owners who might have a large parcel that kind of rests on an aate that if any part of the parcel any part of the L is inside overlay in um is that um so if I have a 20 acre parcel and one square foot of the parcel is in L Protection District the entire parcel is under that jurisdiction I think it'd be useful to have a map that showed the zone 2 boundary and what that change would mean and what if a parcel gets divided let's say you got that 20 acre piece of property and there's one acre within the zone two but all of it gets counted what if you carve off 10 those Acres they not in that does that then change boundary of the um uh water St Protection District I think you'd have to go to town meeting to mend the map to do so but um something that that's when you use property boundaries or use something other than roadways for instance in streams that's where you start having problem with zoning boundaries in particular this type of zoning boundary that sounds quite hypothetical though what you just said what what would what may happen it frequently does really I mean if you use the def the language that it will incorporate the entire parcel and that's the reason I think it's important to see where the zone two boundary would be and what would be if you extended to the perimeter of the parcels so you can see what type of differences are if you got 20 acre piece property and 19.9 acres is in the zone 2 that's not much a change but if it's 19.9 is not in zone 2 and this would make it part of Zone 2 that's a more dramatic change so um the memo says that the line is um geophysical model derived I get that um but it is the best line for this purpose that we have now the analysis to get at this could look at all of those Parcels intersected divide the boundary mhm and compare the acreage inside the boundary to the acreage outside the boundary or simply look at the acreage of the intersected Parcels outside the boundary that you presumptively yeah and then see if it's a big deal or visually scan and say oh for this landowner it's it's the 1% I would tell you it when the line goes through a piece property when it's a 20 acre piece property and goes on the edge that's not a big issue usually uh but when you've got one acre 1/2 acre prop piece of property and somebody's building a house on it and it goes right through the middle of it it's when they want to put a gasoline station on or they want to put some type of or tank or no where did they put stuff at and yeah um so that's or when affects the size let's say so in South ATI for inst allow has Zone district with 30,000 ft Lots if in water spot Protection District BEC 40,000 what if it only gets a corner of it does the entire thing have to be 40,000 now and cuz that can affect somebody's ability to build a [Music] house so without getting into the uh details of a an in depth GIS analysis uh doing the zoning by Zing map excuse me and exploring what can be found at the bottom of page for number two um just with a quick scan of the zoning map and considering what is the water supply protection boundaries of the over theight District aligned with rights of way um would that work to um be definitive boundary and negate the need for this recommended language the amount of roads in creates um I think impossible scenario I don't think it can be done in a way that would actually make a simple kind of Elation you end up with essentially entirety of town if you try to just expand and or you would you know negate parts of zone two which areation included can I share my thought on it I think the line can be the line as the lines where it is that's where it falls if someone has a property it happens to go through it what they can do on one side of that line and on the other side of the line changes but by having a line at all we're providing a much better definition uh of what can happen within a large portion of the water of land in town and the water supply Protection District so I guess I'm not my opinion I'm not so concerned over the those boundary cases that's my thought [Music] it becomes administrative challenge I guarantee you that from a day-to-day perspective um but I'm not sure there's a good or best solution right yet I think generally speaking to to include this type of language and clarify those boundary uh potential disputes uh and generally speaking again you're kind of airing on the side of protection you know this is um the aquafer is your sole water supply for the community if there is a large parcel that um sits on the boundary of the overlay District you're including the entirety of the parcel to try to just add that little bit of protection to your water supply I think to make determination this think you need to see what type of implication that is since we have we haven't proceeded with the updating of the zoning map because of this outstanding question so at this time we we could add a little bit of time to the gis work and try to give some data if the board would like probably be helpful I would think yeah M so so um so to identify the number of parcels that are bisected by the existing Zone 2 delineation and possibly an acreage breakdown of in in and out okay [Music] all right um moving on next section on page four use restrictions so comparing the existing bylaw to the model um there's a few differences in how the water supply protection overlay is shaped in terms of um outlining prohibited uses from this models perspective the town breaks it into two categories with prohibited but also a secondary group of restricted um so it creates kind of two levels of um regulation um the model prohibits uh all except uh Grant that they meet a certain design criteria so it's not hard and fast prohibition the section within the existing bylaw for the town There's no exceptions to the prohibited subsect of seven I believe I think it's help get some illuminate on that a little bit in the model bylaw it lists uses and says these uses are prohibited unless that meet the performance standards stated here in an example of that being storage of liquified petroleum is prohibited unless it's above ground and meets one of these uh containment measures the towns zist bylaw expressly prohibits storage liqui uh liquid trone underground and gas stations car washes which the model bylaw doesn't prohibit you just have to meet these performance standards so I that's a good way of viewing how they are different yeah so if we just get back to the whole what started this whole conversation many many months ago is around the gas station right so by doing this it we would have the potential to authorize such a gas station if they adhere to the what is specified in this bylaw if you use a model bylaw language you'd be able to do that you could in fact make model bylaw you take model bylaw and then say these uses are are permitted by a special permit if they meet performance standards so you say they're prohibited unless special permits granted for that um and that's you Mayall that's what stirred everything up could really hear what you said Sor that's why I stirred everything up about 18 months ago oh yeah um but that's something that's more of a policy issue of so can give Kyle some guidance is how you want to approach now you got the model approach and then you got the town's existing bylaw approach and I think it's helpful to get some idea from the board as to how you want to see that done you want you want to make it more flexible or you want to make it less flexible D model bylaw correct um addresses Zone twos across the state or does it address in particular Soul Source aquifers uh it applies to all Zone twos are there a separate set of performance standards for soul source acers that is a wonderful question I would have to get back to you on that I don't know are all Zone 2s nitrogen sensitive areas in terms of Title 5 requirements maybe that's outside your know that's yeah that's also a good question I would have to get back to you and how that relates to Title 5 I I don't know okay U there's also this raised another question I had not heard of your chapter 280 before PR this Board of Health regulation and that's something we want to take a look at find out because if in fact I don't know where that where it came from uh but MP did promate a groundwater protection Board of Health regulation that if you didn't want to take the approach then the Board of Health could adopt a regulation to regulate groundw right protection protect groundw so I don't know if that's where 280 came from or not but if there needs to be some type of marrying between the two what's the 280 I'm not picking up that's you've got chapter 280 in your code apparently yeah so in the town's General bylaw chapter 280 is specific um groundwater protection regulations as adopted by the Board of Health so that's where there are a bulk of the definitions that are relevant to water supply protection are already present in another section of the general bylaw uh it is a a broader recommendation at the end of the memo that there be some type of review of that section of the bylaw and an attempt to you know bring both sections into an alignment and that's since I didn't know about 280 when I did the DTA request that wasn't within scope that requested so what I will do before Cal comes back I will look at 280 and advise Cal and you if I think there's some because I I don't want to go through this whole process of upgrading the zoning bylaw if the Board of Health regulations is going to prohibit the upgrades yeah and yeah and I think this is a time when we particularly need Clarity on this issue right it's not just recent history with a private applicant but town you know they very critical development and it may very well be that my viw of 280 results in a new do request we are we are approaching that planner permanently employed um but yes in addition to the groundwater Supply or groundwater protection uh chapter 280 there are other sections of the general bylaw and the zoning bylaw that would be worth a broader review such as your Water Management Clause you know any of those sections those Provisions um your Earth removal it's got a long title it's uh but those other sections that all have imp implications to your water supply it may be of value to have a broader comprehensive kind of review um but unfortunately just the the grant provided really focuses on this singular section of the zoning bylaw with the additional funds to have a a round table conversation and in light of that thank you for your offer um to look at the public health side of this I would suggest that call to Charlie kcki would expedite the review I want to take a look at first and then I'll call them in well that's fair but yeah yeah that's probably exactly what you should do going well prepared is Prin see tishman still involved in general bylaws oh General bylaw review yeah I think so I think she was just reappointed she should be in on that too I would think now from the zoning perspective is The Bard more client go with the model approach it says it's prohibited by me these performance standards you you can apply for a special permit for the use if you meet the performance standards is is that something you want to have incorporated or the last updated this when 2011 yeah it's it's it's been a while so your biog is based upon the 1990s model yeah earlier yeah much earlier so judging judging by the 18 months ago with that gas station and we had experts on their side of the table that said you know um you could drive uh tanks through these um walls they had around the tanks and the uh barriers and everything else um it it seemed like that guy was up on his his knowledge of what the state regs were back then yet we didn't know about any any of that and regardless of that the sentiment was well sorry that's this is our water supply we don't care how much technology you've got and how safe they are we we don't want it but now we're learning that there's there's communities that have some flexibility so hady for instance uses the model bylaw as tro and storage right you know as I said when that one came before us uh it was lovely site plan and a deep technical uh disser about why it was safe but it was out of bounds for what we could consider by virtue of the way our bylaw mhm simply prohibits it so you know I don't know whether we're needing to consider takings as well but having performance standards and site plan review gives us a couple of bites at the Apple and using the model um with the standards gives hon I would third party Authority not us or the I would tie to special permit and performance standards special permit and performance standards so they apply for special permit for the use and the meet performance standards that that's one of the requirements yeah no I I get that and I agree with you that it gives us more if if you have a stringent bylaw it says no it's not allowed period then it's it's black and white but if you've got some flexibility and every case is different then going by the special permit route and the um um conditions we can put on or whatever we on a Case by case basis that would be the route to go yeah D Performance standards as they may be amended from time to time is that a published piece of Regulation there typically they reference uh the latest amended version of a state regulation or a state standard so we'll put the latest in and make sure that the you know the language allows for policy guidance it's floating in e but if it's in regulation then it's tracked and right yeah so thank you board for that guidance I'll I'll come back with some um there will be some changes Maps I'm sorry do we get to keep the draft Maps I was going to leave one of those with you if that's all right I would like i' would like to take one I'll take special care of it and that would be yours um uh so thank you for that that does clarify the two sections existing the distinction between restricted and prohibited I did wanted to I did include on this latest version there was one topic I didn't know how applicable it was but given that the water supply Protection District is so large um the existing bylaw does not mention um stockpiling or disposal of snow and ice containing deicing chemicals should be in there deicing chemicals alone are mentioned and prohibited or the storage thereof so I think there's you know it's an additional topic it seems relevant to what's existing but it's not explicit um something to consider uh that means no snow piles of big wine is that what you're describing it would be any materials outside of the district coming in taken off site you know like no snow dumps brought into the site yeah they they take it from wherever and truck it out and dump it but again that that's an example they look at the D DP model it prohibits storage of De and chemicals unless unless such storage including loading areas is within a structure designed to prevent the generation and Escape of contaminated runoff or leate M right so that that's what I'm I'm saying I think it's it's important to take these performance stands we can and incorporate those into the prohibited uses are prohibited unless it get special permit and meet these performance standards and is the building inspector or the health agent that has thought de be the Building Commissioner and that's reason I need to look at chapter 280 because zoning is enforced by The Building Commissioner 280 I presume is enforced by public health agent right and so there has to be some type of be sure we on the same page right and I think that's an open question in itself whether either one of these employees uh maybe need some training or engagement around what we're doing uh under masterin law the The Building Commissioner if you have a Building Commissioner The Building Commissioner is the Zone enforcement Agent Officer we do have one of those right Paul you yeah well I haven't met the gentleman but and so I won't come in further some communities don't have building commission they have building inspector and then they have Building Commissioner that another entity that oversees it so it's convoluted process but yeah I wouldn't rule that out either but um yeah I think training the staff might be an issue um one section that is inserted into the uh marked out version of the bylaw at the end end of the memo uh the model does explicitly list U permitted or allowed uses um I inserted this language for the sake of clarity I think um reviewing the table of uses in the zoning bylaw there are several references back to the this section section 7.2 water supply protection in relation to to pretty regular uses of land or property so I thought for the sake of clarity an audience you know a property owner or potential developer in um Zone 2 or the water supply Protection District for the sake of clarity I think it's it worthwhile to add this short list of permitted uses aligning with zoning broadly just to make it easier and clarify any confusion I'm happy to exclude it if the board doesn't think it's necessary but I'm no lawyer but it's must put something positive into a b it's not bad right yeah I'm of the opinion that to the extent they can put the uses into the use table it's better because it then goes across all the districts you got column there the water supply Protection District it's a graphic U presentation and proper foot not referencing back to this section you're fine but doesn't a column like every other zoning that's right um suggest that it doesn't overlay those other no that's why you have that have footnote that yeah footnote I I almost think a different graph cuz it cuts across um PR to all no it's it it gets more difficult with certain type uses but generally I think it's beneficial to have all your overlay districts on the use table and they should be noted that the overl districts right I defer to your experience yeah so so currently there's no distinct column for either of the overlay districts okay um right now they're just in a general note column to refer back to the appropriate bylaw so happy to leave that as is if that's the board's preference you're the master of the table of uses I'd like to tell you i' like put if we can if we can make it work and make it understandable I'd like to have this will be the test of your comprehension if you can translate the words into the table then we're in good shape so we'll see how we how it comes out all right happy to help um but I would generally agree you know the for the sake of uh the length of the document and just ease of comprehension tables are typically uh kind of interpreted and understood more easily so and very frankly most many people all they do is look at the use table right and you don't have that District even listed they don't even think go back and look at that District the use restrictions you've got number seven being the stockpiling um seven on shouldn't that be eight because seven and in the existing is U animal feed Lots there's already a seven view oh I'm sorry that I I inserted as a uh a proposed prohibited prohibited that's where that restricted um that restricted group so it's going under prohibited use to not rest that that's you know to be determined if we're reviewing both of those sections now looking at the model providing the standards you know where um where performance standards are appropriate or um permissible that would just lead to the special permit process so I think the the restricted and prohibited would be merged in the next version yeah I think some of the restricted will move into special permit right uh which is a good segue to our next topic which is the special permits so by and large as the bylaw exists currently it's very similar to the model uh in terms of applying for special permit and um conditions um to be applied uh the one topic that I think is of note um and I would like to draw your attention to um uh uh consider consider adding the following Lang language to the subsection Uh current h2b uh which I believe is on the very back of the uh memo it's on the last page at the very top uh there are three existing um conditions and uh recommending a fourth uh a proposed downg gradient location for groundwater monitoring wells should the planning board deem the activity a potential groundwater threat um that's language straight from the model uh I wanted to include that because of the extent of the water supply protection overlay District um and the fact that it is your sole source of drinking water uh it I believe it's worth considering you know for those uh special permit applications that you think uh do pose a realistic threat or concern uh this is just another monitoring tool that the board can U put in place to make sure that you know the sole source of drinking water is protected is downgradient defined or how you determine where downg gradient lies on a given right um it's a good question I believe it would have to be delineated within the site plan right so I I think it would just have to be to some topography on some Contour that's you know at a lower elevation the applicant has to bring a technical argument about where down gradient lies right and it could be a potential problem to do because they can only do on their property true and depending on how much of the property is being developed true um and house being developed there may or may not be a location downg gradient um valid point and and fair to provide maybe a basis for denying the special permit because you want to be sure that and J it's going to be something that has some type of Hazard material associated with it storage liquid codium may be a case where you going downgradient well in case there's any Le any CP whatever that you measure determine it um and so some ways that may be something that you incorporate into your requirements in their special Perman application that's that's a particular thing so so they plan for it ahead of time as opposed to find out after they get approved they right right it's the whole wber thing with WR Grace and how do you prove that groundwater flows underneath a Surface body and affects properties on the other side you need monitoring wells in the right place and the right dep okay on I I think this is an important one but some going to figure out write up the requirement to put it on the applicant because I don't want our chairman out there trying to figure out which way is downgrade he's busy enough my in inclination would be in the bylaw itself that the plans include a proposed location for downgradient moning well where there's potential for a threat to groundwater Supply yeah and um that and that way it's has to be addressed in the application we don't need word Smith it here now it needs to be clear that it's not on us to but I'm I think that's something he needs to incorporate into that that's requirement for special Perman ification to address that yeah I mean downgrading too um you know is that ground downgrading as groundwater flows or surface water flows I mean a lot of public water supply you need to check downg gradient subsurface sub surface flow and subsurface flow are often 180 it can be different so that is and you're more worried about the downwater right uh flow Direction rather than the surface water flow in this Cas yeah cuz you can redirect the surface water flow easily yeah D something to say about that too but no this is good stuff isn't easy right so the delineation of the zone two right the line on the map there's no new studies no new information to move the line from the last time we went through the Sens size is that correct uh that is correct to the best of my knowledge I don't know if there is uh at the state level any effort to Red delineate these zones these primary recharge areas um you know for as referen another type of water delineation that takes a long time you know updating flood plane uh firm you know flood insurance rate Maps MH we're still basing those overlay districts on maps from the 1980s so uh I don't I don't know exactly the last time the um primary recharge areas were mapped but I wouldn't be surprised if it was about as old my guess unless there's a new well installed or a well is put to Greater depth or greater um withdrawal rate that would require yeah I doubt that you're going to see a redelineation of a boundary that makes sense that's the only thing that would trigger it okay yeah I thought we'd included it but um yeah so as proposed currently the the downg gradient um monitoring groundwater monitoring Wells uh inserted into section h2b uh would only apply to businesses uh with a hazardous materials manag plan so I believe just to clarify what I'm hearing from the board you're open to this condition but more broadly for all special permits is that accurate or are we still focusing just On the Hazardous Materials business any special permit application that would uh involve the um storage or generation of a material that would require special performance standards for operation and that pretty much covers it would you just described or titled is that the same as the hazardous materials management plan no it's a little bit broader than that but yeah yeah okay I'm I'm basically thinking back to what how the model prohibits unless has got performance standards and what those generally consist of and that's what I'm thinking that's where you want to have cuz that's where you got the threat threat generally yeah uh so the next topic which uh I was able to provide a little bit more context to uh it was mentioned briefly in the original Memo from last week but I expand it upon here um consideration consideration um regarding permissible area of impervious surface um currently the bylaw reads um and forgive me I'm not locating it quickly but oh here we go uh the second to last page uh special permit uses MH one C the rendering impervious of more than 20% of any single residential lot um uh the threshold as it is is actually um greater than the threshold established by the Massachusetts Wellhead protection regulation uh which requires the 15% uh or 2,500 square ft whichever is greater unless a system of artificial recharge is provided that will result that will not result in the degradation of groundwater quality so I brought this before the board to consider you know currently the bylaw has um a greater threshold Which is less protective and it's um in what it's proposing or requiring rather and it's limited to just residential lots so by adopting language that is an Alis italics here on in the middle of page five that paragraph starting with the rendering impervious that's uh closely in line with the model language it's been expanded on a little a little bit um and so that's really for the sake of um requiring a special permit so that the planning board can then determine you know if the amount of proposed impervious surface um is actually um appropriate and if the um uh remediation strategies the the um the recharge is actually protected and and maintains the same you can do it a few different ways um there's two sections of similar best practice management best management practices excuse me um that does break it down between residential and non-residential residential being the number one bullet non-residential being um uh bullet number two um with that reading for comma placement I think this is also headed in the right direction right bring it alongside the model and make sure that it applies not just to residential lots that seems OD it should be across all users right I think it's a a Val to consider particularly with you know essentially all commercial many of your industrial zones fall within the water supply protection you know it's while there's a lot of residential uh property in the district there's also a lot of uses that you know would render impervious you know a portion of the property sure uh so any you know any um alteration or anything of the like would fall into that special permit process but any rendering intersect with ms4 permitting we're not quite there yet on a parcel by parcel owner by owner but at some point I think don't we get swept up in that I know separately the select board has commissioned a study for storm water management help me out Dan Hazard mitigation you're talking no we just talked about last system whereby large um utility owners storm water utility that's is it yes storm water utility thank you so that we can charge large impervious land owners right Street sweep yeah okay um at some point the large impervious land owner has to get an ms4 permit or has to enter the district I don't know you don't want to have 14 similar but distinct permit requirements no somehow we need to incorporate I I see my big issue with the impervious is the permitted use of residential uses somebody's going out there and they're going build a house the likelihood of them being told oh you're going to render more than x% of your lot or 2500 ft impervious you need a special permit before you build a house that is likely to fall through the cracks Unless somehow incorporate impervious surface into a permitted use perect surface of less than 15% permitted and that cuz then then don't get caught otherwise in permanent process I can see somebody going out there and building a 2,000 ft house G detached garage a driveway and they have 3,000 impervious surface and they're not going to be caught until it's already done and as you all know once it's already done it's almost impossible to correct so we need to look at how to incorporate that so that gets caught up front as opposed to afterwards the definition of impervious is up to date uh it should be I believe it was in there I'm not an expert but I've heard it debated endlessly we all know what impervious means to each of us of us my my skull is impervious to your insult so I'm I'm happy to um work up some draft language Alternatives and in consultation with Mr Harris kind of determine what would be most appropriate if that's all right with board and to which point are you addressing or broadly uh for the impervious topic to avoid the issue of forcing you know residential uses into the special permit process right or or were missing them because they reasonably were not informed right so with this new definition and new uh L language is that going to be on the Building Commissioner to find out from a site plan and U the renderings where he's going to do the calculations to find out how much inovate surface there is yes um or is that going to be up to us cuz right now I one we we've approved building permits uh under 40,000 square ft of disturbance for the on the property for storm water right um well if I were the Building Commissioner I would incorporate as one of the requirements for the application is the question how much impervious surface are you Crea on your lot roadways roofs just collectively how much of it is and I say that because essentially in another town I was working with that's what the building commission did was every time know they had an issue of somebody getting a build a permit for a house here and then they're doing a house there and adjacent lot and they gr everything but nowhere in the building perment application that they require them to identify how much uh area they were going to disturb so every time one these came up he kept putting that into his application process got do that so I would suggest that'd be the best thing would be Building Commissioner for any building per application for and in planning board and any site plan review or special per application require that as one of the U questions that gets answered and Mark that's a that's a pretty easy calculation for someone to do on a site plan Fergus um question I have was is there a building permit required if I wanted to expand my driver driveway probably not um so you could exceed you could have something that was on the margin and you could um and put an addition on which could and take you over that threshold and that's that may be that um maybe there has to be some type of permit well there is a provision in the your zoning bylaw for a zoning determination I think it is and that could be where that gets C that they have to submit information to the Building Commissioner determined that they're going their activi is going to be in [Music] compliance and that could be one way of doing it um sounds but you got the but you got to point that that's those marginal things I mean somebody's got 20300 Square ft of impervia surface and they're going to add a uh 300t utility shed out back 5 do building permit but and if they do a greenhouse is that going to be I think green houses should be added into improv surface I think swiming pool should be but that's another story about swiming pools um yeah but I think your point is very valid the smaller things may very well get go by go through the cracks unless some mechanism is developed to keep that from happening oh they've already gone through the cracks all the um houses that have been the big houses that have been built here in recent years with long driveways yeah it's it's fall to the cracks long time ago and other problem you have is somebody's going to be under 2500 because they're not Paving the driveway they're going to just going to be a dirt driveway and then two years later they come back and have a contractor P for you need a building perent of hav probably not that won't get caught no uh and I'm not sure if there's any DPW permit that's required because they probably already have the existing curb cut just just expanding your parking area right can I ask a question is it it's it's 15% now so I'm wondering how 20% now 20% now how is it handled now in those cases right are those just things that fall through the cracks currently okay so we're trying to fix something that is a current problem I get get it thank you and the other thing that this trying to do is and I think maybe want look how do it is and thing does is right now it's a firm 20% period this lows at 15% but you can go more than 15% with a special permit M so allow people to actually do what they want to do and comply with the law yep and most people I'm going to miss most people if made aware and given the opportunity will seek to comply yep it's the 5% that well what's the what's the penalty if they don't it's a zoning violation and there's no and there's nothing on the books for that violation a statute can be 300 per day of violation but you got your bilding commissioner would have take them to court and have that levied and most building Commissioners will seek to resolve the problem and bring them into compliance as and that's the real objective is to get somebody to comply to be in compliance it's not generate money it's just to get them to comply so wouldn't it be reasonable to have a work session with our employe who charge with implementing this maybe after all this is resolved yeah well we've come up with some really good examples like the one Mark just came up with and I'm guessing that the man in the trenches woman in the trenches as it may be uh would come up with some more and we as a policy board um need to explain why we're headed in this direction and what in particular is changing because I'm sorry I don't expect most employees to sit down and read the zoning code from end to end even if it is their job I do think it's a is good idea once we get the water supply Protection District proposal crafted and once we see where chapter 280 fits in yes and get that resolved particular then possibly have a work session that involves the DP the how director Board of Health and Building Commissioner and conservation to go through through all this yeah that's up to y'all y'all know the personalities is three out of the four you would think that someone like northampton's done with their stormm water uh fee that they charge everybody depending on the impervious service you have it probably could be implemented in this town for going forward with uh new new construction if uh you know if the if the fines and the aren't going to work then say listen okay you've got this and you wanted this so you're going to have to now pay the highway department X number of an extra fee for your impervious surface and if you do establish a utility uh stor utility I would expect there be a incentive PRI for the highway department is probably that be housed to keep a breast of increases in perious surface that people create especially in the water supply Protection District okay Kyle thank you gentlemen for that discussion it was U it was very enlightening wasn't it well I think it's uh very very pertinent though and uh I think you you did speak to some general recommendations that we have for our boards you know anytime we provide bylaw uh revision recommendations having a broader working group to talk through all those imp implications clarify across boards uh identify responsible Town staff uh is always best practice and recommended so um one thing I did want to touch on before we get into that topic of enforcement that is included um in some of the best management practice language that was provided uh it runs over onto the top of page six highlighted is um the number 10 that last sentence is any infiltration basins or trenches shall be constructed with a 10t minimum separation between the bottom of the structure and maximum groundwater elevation so where in town do we have this yeah we we highlighted that number because it's um again this is a recommended best management practice the mass de P model bylaw um sets a standard of 4T of Separation minimum of 4 feet of separation between uh any containment uh structure infrastructure and maximum groundwater level the existing bylaw in zone two or just in zone two yeah so in the in uh the existing bylaw sets the standard at 5 ft minimum separation um we mentioned the 10 ft as best practice U because some of the research that we're seeing coming out of uh UMass related to groundwater uh hydrology it looks like the trend is groundwater is uh uh coming up kind of I guess that surface yeah that elevation is increasing closer to the uh surface elevation so in theory you could not build anything unless the ground was 15 ft U below ground right yeah period And there are very very few places I've dug holes all over the state there not very many places 15 ft down and not find groundwater maximum I'll tell you this we had a project that uh they had designed it at 4T and our our B required 5 ft and that was a major redesign for them to meet the 5ot right now this is one more foot and if you add additional 5T you're not going to build it that could be that could be nonstarter for that's what I thought I mean it it would be lovely but that's not the way our geology Works no no 5T is already a significant bur burden for some so you're suggesting five no he's suggesting 10 I was putting it in there as we defer to the uh groundw water specialist over here the guy that's dug all holes it sounds like 5T is a is a happy standard that the bo play Inter leing with his Lal photography all the all the stuff's been scraped off um you know even even at 4T you got you know 8 ft down to groundwater before you cuz you have to put your foundation down 4T below frost so and if you go 4T if you consider the bottom of your footing for your foundation at the bottom of your structure you're down you know minimum 8 to 9 ft to groundwater not that many places do you go I I mean you find them but so you might be if do 10t might have a 1T deep infiltration base and that's it if you can get that's that's pushing because you're not you don't have much space available that's fair thank you like 5T I think 5 ft is my comfort I think I think five is that one sounds good um the last section from the uh model that was in inserted into the existing bylaw uh a short Clause regarding enforcement as there was nothing uh currently existing um a short provision uh that reads the enforcement of this bylaw will adhere with uh section 3.3 of the zoning bylaw what does 3.3 say for enforcement do you have it there uh yikes I don't believe I printed that one off for Building Commissioner enforc yeah essentially uh it gets into the you know the Nuance of uh posting infractions and and all that you're not going to be happy with all the other well and he going to have state law is already given responsibility enforcement of the zone and bylaw to the Building Commissioner so by putting this in there you're not adding You're simply reinforcing that this is not a separate enforcement process yes guar I think we need to engage and someone's not enforcing the bylaw that may be that may be something for the pych board to have a session about because those parment heads are under the select board not the planning board true um broader recommendations yes uh so again I believe we've touched on some of those um that first paragraph really just relates to the the need for um considering additional regul regulatory Frameworks um acknowledging that the model is 13 14 years old at this point uh I believe if the uh guidance from the planning board is to follow the model but uh reference the best and latest and greatest performance standards I think we we'd be addressing that concern uh additionally there are sections of the municipal code that deserve mention uh and may need to be reviewed uh as mentioned earlier section 7.12 of the zoning bylaw related to soil lone sand gravel Quarry and other earth materials uh especially subsection B related to commercial activities chapter 280 of the general bylaw related to groundwater protection um again under the authority of the Board of Health and then possibly chapters 224 and 227 relating to your storm water management um second paragraph uh mentions the reality that your primary recharge Zone Zone 2 uh the town's public water supply is a natural feature that crosses Municipal boundaries as you can see in the map in front of you uh a large portion of it extends south crossing the Westfield uh Town Line um this just acknowledges that coordination and collaboration uh between the municipalities can ensure uh a equal degree of protection and we broadly recommend that a reconvening of an intermunicipal organization similar to bayac if not pack as it was uh and then Additionally you know just um acknowledging that before any of these recommendations would proceed to a town meeting for vote from the legislative body residents uh pvpc does not have the legal expertise to check everything so we always recommend that the community uh seeks Town council's review and um recommendation if there's any laring uh concerns I think you've laid this out really well for us to make informed choices so and then the last the last four pages Kyle are just all the changes uh that we've covered that are going to be edited into the new bylaw correct uh correct there um deletions and additions yeah yeah it's not extensive uh given that there are some outline or outstanding questions I was waiting for guidance um so there will be another version oh yeah with revisions couple minor nitpicking things maybe but um on Section um e um yeah E1 uh e1e it said permitted uses are maintenance repair and enlargement of any existing structure subject to section f and g and f and g do not mention anything about drainage in impervious areas H is where we mentioned percent of impervious area so in theory permanent use I can expand the size of my house any amount I want to un last that language were changed if you just add H you're okay right I would suggest H and I I look forward to reading the next Calla special permits 8 I covers enlargement intensification alteration of existing commercial or industrial use um so it could be so I could also fit fit in that so I'm not sure the F fits in because that's prohibited uses then one more minor thing we had this whole thing evolved around the gas stations um and we said now we could theoretically approve that on special condition but under prohibited uses number four it specific was U prohibited transmission of petroleum products underground so in theory if you have a gas station and they pump from the tank to the pumps it's transmitting petroleum underground I mean I mean it's it says no U you know need we don't we don't need any gray areas either we uh you're right you're right F F2 already prohibits V gas stations right but we were talking about possibly putting on special permit on their they meet performance criteria then we could allow in special permit but if it's a prohibited use it's prohibited but um if you take the gas stations out of prohibited and just address it the way the model bu law does and require special permit for both for storage of liquid petroleum as long as it's above ground don't have any underground transmission then and it has to have containment on site right then I think you you you address that issue but you if you left that Ed that item in there you cannot do transmission underground petroleum products it's prohibited and you get gas from the above ground tank to the pumps they don't pump that old above I mean it's a yeah you're right yeah they still Pump It underground yeah so it needs to be inception for that yes if we're and if we think we can prevent petroleum pipelines from being sighted through our town ni have M on but we don't really have that Authority yeah we'll pretend we did yes so in the next iteration we'll clean up some of these um fren sees that would exist or already do any further comments about this or pre-existing non-conforming it just is I mean how is that addressed somewhere else in the bylaw as long as it's staying the way they are they can continue they need no permit generally no right uh only if they're going to alter if they need no permit then there's no impact right yeah because it it is what it is if you got a gas station that was there prior to the zone by law and you're not changing the pumps not changing tanks you're not CH change the building you're not uh taking grass area and Paving over you're fine but if they wish to expand they're under the current rigs right yep no they wish to expand then they would have and in the water supply Protection District then they'd have to comply with the new bylaw right that's cuz cumber and came a couple years ago looking to looking to expand you know and remodel their story what they did a lot of them around the area but I believe the water supply protection stopped them cold in their tracks and that's reason you have provision for special permit for enlargement intensification or alteration of existing commercial or industrial use when do we sit down with Westfield and talk about what's going on in that part of the Zone that's a great question it's kind of a mess down there isn't it I mean potentially is that what the um I see a number of land uses that are probably on the prohibited list you got large gravel pits you've got uh very intense agricultural operations and stuff that's far enough off the road that who knows what's going on so as uh to the question of convening you know your neighboring M municipalities Representatives um the strategy that we've uh come up with is we're starting with a conversation with Southampton officials so my colleague Patty gambarini our chief environmental planner um who has a long memory of bayac uh and um uh she's the expert of this topic uh she's reached out to to Brett the water superintendent yes I forgot his last name excuse me and Scott the new town admond uh to try to get a conversation going so it's going to start with them um the intention is that Patty and pbpc would facilitate the conversation but the town would be the host you know as this is part of a DTA grant for the town of Southampton we would host the conversation in town um but really it would be Patty facilitating a conversation uh reaching out to those former members of bayac to get a sense of where each Community is and really gauging their openness to either uh reorganizing as bayac or exploring another alternative there is opportunity uh there's a current uh MVP project you Municipal vulnerability preparedness it's a great um it's a state uh funding source for climate um resilience and planning there is a regional MVP uh drinking water Focus project that Patty is um managing with various communities throughout the valley uh and directly working with water suppliers so there 's an opportunity to continue the conversation through that project uh which we would hope to to leverage that funding um but as of right now you know we're planning for one round table conversation to occur this calendar year to get a better sense of what other communities are thinking and if they're open to coming back together to protect the shared resource which is the Barnes aquifer and so the goal is Southampton would host for not just Westfield but the other cor right Holy Oak East Hampton umon Northampton yeah any of those former members I believe all of them would be invited uh I don't have the roster in the top of my head but um Patty with her U past experience convening bayac and working with that advisory committee she's got the list of important people to reach out to uh I believe the initial conversation is hopefully going to be happening uh sometime next week the last email I saw today so hopefully um it's been a bit of a struggle to uh connect with Scott uh we found some issues with the town admin email address so uh I think we've rectified that um and hopefully they'll have that first conversation in the next week or so anything else for Kyle back to the drawing board thank you uh at least it's not square one right is like a t- ball you just put the ball there and we hit it yeah good thank you Kyle thank you for all your work lot of work thank you appreciate thank you all um I'm happy to leave the maps I'm also happy to take one back he LS one I think you have one you won't you won't get his those guys appreciate it I'll get it back in December all right move that the frame that this is going straight into I wouldn't be surprised if water should have this this these were I believe generated for Bay pack communities could you email me a copy of that yes yeah something about being able to see cop the me on that and I'll s it to the board too I'll forward the the latest version Y and uh keep me informed when we can reconvene this good thank you thank you all very much have a great night thank you the only other thing I had on the agenda here were uh three approve pre-approved building permits that were under 40,000 square ft one was at 80 Cold Spring Road that's a new uh house 45 cook is a uh a garage or another um building going on that existing site in 79 Maple Street is the um house that burned there a couple years two or three years ago up there on ail Street um they're rebuilding I move we accept the report from the chair of building permits that he has issued previously second motion made in second all in favor so I don't have any other committee reports of anything of note that's uh important otherwise I'll ask what's what's next on your agenda when some of these other topics we were working at the last Mee there's issue of um short-term rentals and done some research on that I'm putting that together I'm also working on uh further revision of now they looked at site plan review I'm looking at the different parts of the Zone B that relate to that such as I believe it's so no it's U yeah Soder because one level use a site plan approv one site plan review so I'm going yeah so I'm going to bring that into consistency don't we have to revise that period though I thought that's what we were going to do I'm you want to do that as well but but I'm looking at at at a minimum bring it consistent with the S planine review language in a couple of weeks of the next meeting if the application comes in the next couple days there's another uh ground Brown Mount solar and the gal from Valley solar she was very taken back she says I got to go all through this for a ground mount installation she says this we don't have to do this in other communities is there a bu right with a ground mount in in most towns are we ought to sink on that I think it varies because I know one Community requires s planine review residential now yeah some I know one Community require side plan review for all ground mounted they exempt uh roof mounted but ground mounted they tend to be more concerned about because ground mounted usually results in trees being removed and Neighbors being potentially concerned so they at least do a site plan review use on ground Mountain I found that hard to believe that they didn't they run into that somewhere else unless 99% of the their business is all rooftop which a lot of it is but she was and they big outfit Valley I'm happy that we are where we are because of our very last ground Mount permit application where the guy was trying to put a utility spanning a lot line well when I meant by I thought maybe if the bylaw was um revised with the it would give the building inspector uh a right to to make a judgment on it but I guess he doesn't want to get involved with tree like you say the trees and where it's located and if it's going to be screened there's there's sever reasons why some communs do site plan review for ground mounted you got the trees you got the fact that on Street a nobody's going to complain but Street B everybody's going to complain and building Commissioners and town planners typically don't want to be the one that makes the approval if they're going to get 10,000 calls from Street B they'd rather have the planning board be the ones that get list set and then you got issues of especially in communities that have septic tanks making sure that the ground Mount does not interfere with the septic field permitting but has access to the septic perit most towns they can't put their hands on the damn no but when you go to the site plan review they should be showing the septic absorption field on the site plan so find in other words you don't want it over a leech field no you don't want to have them taking trucks over the leech field to build it to install it no I don't think it's right so maybe where she's and confused in my question special permit this requires um a legal notice and notification to abundance would site plan review require the same it could yes legal notice yes or just a butter notification typically it require legal notice as well as but butter notification the difference between special per site point of view is know two major differences one you can't really deny a site plan approval as long as they meet all your criteria special permit there's far greater latitude to deny two site plan approval I got to get three of you to agree special permanent if you don't have five members I got to get all four members to agree and it's far more far easier to get three out of four people to agree to something than four out of four yeah know I'm just I can't I can't get over that she cuz she said when are you talking legal notice I said yeah it's got to be published in the paper and you going to pay the cost of the ad and she she said now some communities will do a the they would treat this maybe as as a minor site plan approval and not require the legal notice and public hearing just reviewed by the Departments put on the agenda and it goes on without notice to the butters or anybody else it's just the abutters would want to know I'm sure I think that to me that's the biggest reason for having but can you do can you do a butter notification without a legal notice yeah you can all right well if you can write the bylaw that way yes I think it's just a little too convoluted the way it is and it's an extra cost to the applicant more time involved with a legal notice in publication if we can streamlab line that somewhat but the abuts are notified okay well um I rarely when I read all the legal notices that come around I think we're the only town that I ever read read one that had f for a solar installation but this this gets into a question that I want to ask y'all now do you want to say that on all site plan review projects no legal notice or only no legal notice is a site plan riew in a residential zoning District the reason I ask is if there is a gas station run be built you want to require them and they don't require special permit just a s plan review do you want to require them to have a notice run in the newspaper two two [Music] times but if it's somebody doing something in residential district such or agriculture District such as a ground mounted residential solar they don't have to do it so I'm trying to get some gauge of how you want to do this you're talking e and oranges when you commercial entity versus something I understand that but but we're talking about what the bylaw requires for site plan review if you want to say site plane review requires public notice for any site plan viiew in a commercial setting but only requires notification of the butters in a res presential setting yeah then that's what we need to write yes absolutely yes is that what I'm reading everybody yeah that's yeah you would want to you want to separate the two you would rather have a legal notice so everybody knows about the gas station rather than someone's ground out solar anything residential don't need to have a hole right need notice I agree I think a residential site doesn't need to have a legal a butter notification I agree with yes yeah I'm in agreement with where you're headed ex I want to make sure that where um state law requires legal notice uh state law doesn't regulate site plan review at this time okay because um only special permit you know legal notices unless you subscribe to a paper paper who goes looking for that even if they've got online news nobody it is not a help I mean I'm all for the principal but it is ineffective and it's convoluted and it's expensive and so it goes back 40 50 years ago when that's how everybody got the newses from the newspaper I delivered those newspapers I get it in town hall and in this day and age it they get everything off the website of Internet yeah and and to me is actually better because I can sign I can go to most communities have their website set up that you can subscribe to get all planning board agendas and notices yeah but okay agendas notice agendas yes submissions not not you should be everybody wants you know everybody in town doesn't want to notice they only on the notice is that affect them yeah yeah I mean the city of East Hampton has all of the submissions available nicely index you can follow a project from beginning to end we have explicitly rejected uh enforcing the electronic receipt so we have emasculated ourselves we cannot provide that service when I was at South Aly uh for the last 18 years I posted every application on the website that is good Public Service not publishing it in the newspaper or record but it yeah there's some prerequisite steps that we be T so I'll say no more it used to be that if if you submitted a revision to your plan they I posted as well now I don't know I I don't know if the clerk I sent it to Lucy when these legal notices go out and I know she posted on the board here but I don't know if it's posted on the town website somewhere or am I expected to do that I I hadn't been doing uh but I would expect that any legal notices would be if I send it to the clerk they would they would go into the town website yeah I would hope they are that's but I know it's definitely posted out here because if uh if you get an electronic notice it's basically one more step to put on the website yeah I mean if I send if you send the agenda you post the agenda same step is necessary is required for posting the notice so it should be just as easy to do okay so if you get when you get your um material together or you want to present something let me know so I can put it on the agenda okay I'm Kyle didn't give me a date when he coming back so what are you expecting a few weeks yes I expect cal probably ready early November IP get some from Cal in early November is the DL their their time frame is that December yeah it's count he's got to get this done before December right he got a leg jump on to be honest with you they generally don't start it till July right and then they had do by the end of do we have our next application T they out no but I let me read chapter 280 and that may tea up the next application okay well the one oh the general general b 280 yeah I want to read that because that may depend what it says that could undo what we would try and do here and so there need to be conversations held and see we can get that be sure on the same page so read it and see where we are so the other point of Interest the town now owns 117 to 125 College Highway it took a little while um and one of the hiccups was indeed good news because um family in town prior land prior owner of this parcel uh decided to donate towards the purchase price to offset the borrowing that the town would have to do um so we waited for that gift to arrive and actually be applied um but the town now owns um one to 125 College High good and as of today we have two out of three requested proposals for land planning and public engagement and um we'll be reviewing those to see how they address our needs right but the idea is to have this work completed early in the New Year and that it would then tee up whatever um onstop expressions of Interest we might see appropriate in terms of whatever infrastructure development we might need to move forward with a parcel for senior center public safety building and then housing with and without sewer housing with and without a zoning change the zoning as it stands we know is is not entirely um friendly towards affordable housing so said our housing production plan there are a number of things that aren't as conducive as they might be and mixed use uh I think is strictly forbidden even though we're in the village commercial Village Residential so that'll be the job of the land planner to look at our wish list and and a logical arrangement of uses on the land say how far on a whack are we with current zoning and out how do we address that and the feasibility of all that already gets into can get sewer to the area yep yep uh duly noted that you feel strongly we should have a letter of intent with the uh elected officials in e East Hampton will work towards that but um both are direct personal contact and then Ty and bond working on the feasibility it's it's all been everybody leaning in the right direction and you know a letter of intent is only intent and it's always I'd i' actually go I'd actually like to see go beyond Leon actually get a in Municipal agreement to that commits them to allocating certain percentage of their or certain amount of their treatment capacity and to take uh uh tie in from the town yeah well but I think that that would require the result of at least the feasibility study because they're looking at how many residences how many businesses what kind of flow are you imagining from this distri right and hopefully your land plan will be able to come up with some information help give them information for that you know between the tools that Mass Housing Partnership is developed and any planner can double check by going through the parcel list God you could do that in a simple quick spreadsheet to generate flows um and they're going to um they're going to validate it because all of this district is served with public water so they can see at least on the res how do they want to do this the winter usage would be indicative of what might be going into the sewer the summer usage a lot of transporation from landscape anyway that's that's going forward tomorrow night is a Greenway committee I think I don't go to that one well that's that's a planning project where they've gotten encouragement from the state uh that U the state may ex the design of the Westfield and the rail trail move towards constructing it all together because State's picking up the build cost that's pretty darn cool okay I'll be quiet move to a journ second no move all in favor hi okay thank you all thank you e