Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBETA Group NOI Review Letter - 35 Scudder Ave - 5Sept23_clean BETA GROUP, INC. 89 Shrewsbury Street, Suite 300, Worcester, MA 01604 P: 508.756.1600 | W: www.BETA-Inc.com September 5, 2023 Barnstable Conservation Commission 230 South Street Hyannis MA 02601 Re: 35 Scudder Avenue, Hyannis, MA Notice of Intent Application Review DEP File No: 003-6124 Members of the Barnstable Conservation Commission, BETA Group, Inc. (“BETA”) was engaged by Save Twin Brooks, Inc. 1 to review the Notice of Intent (“NOI”) Application and associated materials submitted to the Barnstable Conservation Commission (BCC) on and dated August 21, 2023 by Pesce Engineering and ILEX Environmental, Inc on behalf of Quarterra Multifamily Communities, LLC (“Applicant”). This NOI Application was submitted to the BCC regarding a new multi-family residential community at 35 Scudder Avenue in Hyannis, Massachusetts (the Site). This letter presents BETA’s review findings for the Barnstable Conservation Commission’s consideration in their decision on the NOI Application. REVIEW SUMMARY Based on our review of the documents identified in this letter, BETA offers the following findings summary for consideration: • The current NOI does not provide sufficient documentation to demonstrate that the Project meets the Performance Standards and Stormwater Standards under the Wetlands Protection Act and MassDEP’s Wetland Regulations (310 CMR 10.00) or the Barnstable Wetlands Protection Bylaw (Chapter 237 – the “Bylaw”). • Given the extent of the onsite resource areas and complexity of the Project, BETA suggests that the boundaries of onsite wetlands be reviewed and confirmed, as well as compliance with the Performance Standards, through an independent peer review conducted on behalf of the BCC. • The Project will fill two Isolated Vegetated Wetlands (IVWs), which qualify as Waters of the Commonwealth under 314 CMR 9.00, and at least one of which qualifies as vegetated wetlands under the Bylaw. The Project also proposes converting a portion of these two IVWs to Bioretention Area 3, which is prohibited under 314 CMR 9.00. • The Project’s documentation of compliance with the Riverfront Area Performance Standards under 310 CMR 10.58(4) and (5) should consider the 39.6 acre Site only, and be reviewed considering the lot is newly created. Work on the adjacent parcel should be evaluated for compliance with the Riverfront Area Performance Standards separately. BASIS OF REVIEW BETA reviewed the NOI Application, which included the following: • Notice of Intent, Emblem-Hyannis, 35 Scudder Avenue, Barnstable, Massachusetts– dated August 21, 2023 – including: 1 Save Twin Brooks, Inc. represents a group of Barnstable citizens advocating to save the 40 -acre property at the Twin Brooks as an open space preserve for conservation and community use. September 5, 2023 Page 2 of 8 o WPA Form 3, dated August 7, 2023. o Project Description & Design Narrative. o Emblem-Hyannis Restoration Plan, Barnstable, Massachusetts, dated December 8 , 2022, prepared by ILEX Environmental, Inc. o Nitrogen Loading Calculations, dated April 22, 2021, prepared by Pesce Engineering Associates, Inc. o Wetland Delineation Forms, dated July 7, 2023. o Isolated Land Subject to Flooding Calculations, dated June 18, 2023, prepared by Pesce Engineering Associates, Inc. • Civil Engineering Plans titled The Proposed Emblem at Hyannis Residences, 35 Scudder Avenue, Hyannis, Massachusetts (20 Sheets), prepared by Pesce Engineering & Associates, Inc., signed and stamped by Edward L. Pesce, P.E., dated February 11, 2021, revised through August 1, 2023. • Landscape Plans titled Emblem Hyannis, 35 Scudder Avenue, Hyannis, Massachusetts (10 Sheets), prepared by Michael D’Angelo Landscape Architecture, LLC, signed and stamped by Michael D’Angelo, R.L.A., dated March 1, 2021, revised through October 21, 2022. • Stormwater Report titled Drainage Analysis Report, Emblem Hyannis, 35 Scudder Avenue, Hyannis, Massachusetts, prepared by Pesce Engineering & Associates, Inc., signed and stamped by Edward L. Pesce, P.E., dated October 11, 2022, revised through August 7, 2023. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Residential Development is located at 35 Scudder Avenue in Hyannis, Massachusetts and includes the division of an existing 53.8-acre property containing the Resort and Conference Center at Hyannis and the Twin Brooks Golf Course. The proposed Development is sited within the location of the 39.6-acre Twin Brooks Golf Course portion of the 53.8-acre parcel, located south of Scudder Avenue, west of Stewart’s Creek and east of Joshua’s Brook. The Site is generally within a residential/commercial area in Hyannis, the closest point begin under 0.25 miles north of Keyes Memorial Beach. The Site contains multiple resource areas Subject to Protection under the Wetland Protection Act, its Regulations, and the Local Bylaw: • Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage, • Coastal Bank, • Bank to Stewart’s Creek and Joshua’s Brook (Perennial Streams), • Land Under Water associated with both perennial streams and ponds, • Bordering and Isolated Vegetated Wetlands, and • 200-foot Riverfront Area. The proposed Project includes construction of 312 residential units in 13 three-story apartment buildings, along with associated access driveways, parking areas (total of 493 surface spaces), utilities, infrastructure, a clubhouse with a pool, an emergency access road, stormwater management system, as well as associated grading and landscaping (the Project). REVIEW FINDINGS Based on BETA’s review of the above referenced materials, BETA offers the following comments for the BCC’s consideration. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DESIGN The Project is subject to the Massachusetts Stormwater Standards (the Standards) as outlined by MassDEP. Stormwater management systems must be designed to incorporate “Best Management September 5, 2023 Page 3 of 8 Practices” (BMPs) and Stormwater Control Measures (SCMs) as prescribed by Massachusetts Stormwater Standards and Handbook. • The soils data is not sufficient to support a determination of Estimated Seasonal High Groundwater (ESHGW) for the design of the proposed infiltration SCMs. The Geotechnical Report prepared by Lahlaf Geotechnical Consulting, Inc. (LGCI), which is included in the Stormwater Report, is a geotechnical report prepared primarily for structural purposes and not for the purpose of stormwater design. There are no soil colors documented in the soil logs, nor are there any notations of redoximorphic conditions encountered. The report states: The groundwater information reported herein is based on observations made during or shortly after the completion of drilling and excavation, and may not represent the actual groundwater conditions, as additional time may be required for the groundwater levels to stabilize. The groundwater information presented in this report only represents the conditions encountered at the time and location of the explorations. Seasonal fluctuation should be anticipated. Thus, the geotechnical data does not provide the data necessary to determine if the infiltration SCMs have been designed in compliance with the requirements of the Standards for height of above ESHGW. The actual groundwater levels encountered in the explorations conducted by LGCI were only found in Boring B-1, which was conducted in the southeast corner of the development just west of one of the IVWs, and just in front of Building 10. The boring log indicated that groundwater was encountered at Elevation 18.0 (14’ depth). No adjustment has been made or proposed for this to determine ESHGW. • No construction detail or elevation information has been provided for the proposed roof drywells. The data associated with the chamber infiltration systems is required to determine compliance with the Standards. • In accordance with the Handbook, test pits are required at all infiltration SCMs. There are no test pits documented within any of the areas proposed for Infiltration Basins. The design engineer has indicated that they will be conducted prior to construction, however, at this point there has been no efforts to ensure that the design elevations for the infiltration measures conform to the requirements of the Standards for height above ESHGW. • The Drainage Report indicated that the site is not located within a critical area. Stewart’s Creek is a tidal estuary that is tributary to a Shellfish Growing Area. In accordance with the Standards, this is a Critical Area and Standard 6 is applicable to the development. • The existing conditions analysis at the entrance driveway into the development analyzes the flows into this wetland as a single point. The flow off the existing pavement area consists of sheet flow into two depressions adjacent to the edge of the pavement, which act as stormwater control structures for this flow. The analysis should analyze each of these depressions separately. The depression closest to Scudder Avenue has been flagged as an IVW (a Water of the Commonwealth), thus maintaining flow rates and volumes into this resource is critical to ensuring that the stormwater design will not impact the resource. To maintain compliance with Standard 2, Peak Flow Rate Attenuation, the existing flow into the IVW specific to each of the depressions should be analyzed separately in the existing conditions analysis to ensure that the proposed outfall at the edge of the resource complies with the Standard. • There are proposed stormwater improvements indicated in the proposed conditions in the parking lot adjacent to the existing building, outside the limits of the proposed development Site. These September 5, 2023 Page 4 of 8 measures result in a new point source discharge that is required to comply with the Standards. There is no information or data presented in conjunction with this design to make that determination. • The drainage analysis for Ponds A, B, and C indicate that the water surfaces of these ponds are controlled by a sharp crested weir, however, there is no data or details presented on the existing structure which documents this assumption. The design engineer should document the existing outlet configuration. • In accordance with Volume 2, Chapter 2 of the Handbook, the infiltration basins will need emergency dewatering capability and monitoring wells, which are not depicted. In addition, the proposed roof systems should be provided with observation risers. • Each of the infiltration basins have a proposed wick that will be directly connected to groundwater. The design engineer has indicated that these are proposed to aid in the infiltrative capability of the basins. However, they will be directly connected to the groundwater regime and will bypass the treatment capability of the soils separating the bottom of the basin and ESHGW. This is in direct violation of the Handbook. • Around the proposed clubhouse, there are several area drains that will discharge to a subsurface chamber system. The Drainage Report should address the issue of whether the proposed improvements provide the 44% TSS Removal required for pretreatment for the runoff from the impervious surfaces around the clubhouse that are collected by these drains and directed to the chamber field. • The Time of Concentration for the existing conditions analysis EX DA-9 is 15.0 minutes. The corresponding proposed watershed area, PR-DA-3, is 26.1 minutes. The slope of the shallow concentrated flow in the proposed conditions is incorrect. It is indicated as 0.0021 and should be 0.021. In addition, the CN value for the proposed gravel road should be 96, not 76 as noted in the hydro-CAD analysis. These adjustments may result in an increase in peak flow rates and volumes into Pond D. • There are several double-grated catch basins included in the design. In accordance with Volume 2, Chapter 2 of the Handbook, the overall impervious area tributary to this SCM should not exceed 10,000 sq. ft. Calculations that document that this design requirement has been met should be submitted. • As shown on page 12 of the Drainage Report, the sediment forebay storage volume includes the storage volume for the bioretention areas. The bioretention areas are separate from the sediment forebay and should not be included in the calculations. Due to the lack of pretreatment, these bioretention areas will meet the Standards for a sediment forebay only. Thus, the volume provided should be calculated separately to determine that they provide the storage volume required by the Handbook. • There is an area drain in the courtyard formed by building numbers 1, 6, 7, and 9. The runoff from the sidewalk must be treated like any other impervious surface. The Design engineer has not provided any data documenting that the system will provide the pretreatment needed to meet the requirements of the Handbook for the proposed infiltration SCM. In addition, the infiltration should be limited to the area of the proposed subsurface system, and not the upper storage area above the rim of the area drain. • The mounding analysis included in the Drainage Report pages 13 and 14 is inaccurate. The duration used is only 0.041 days (1 Hr.). Based upon this duration, the recharge volume applied is not sufficient September 5, 2023 Page 5 of 8 to represent the entire infiltration volume. The design should document that the duration multiplied by the recharge rate equals the total recharge volume from the Hydro-CAD analysis. RESOURCE AREA / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Given the extent of the onsite resource areas and complexity of the Project, BETA suggests that the boundaries of onsite wetlands be reviewed and confirmed, as well as compliance with the Performance Standards, through an independent peer review conducted on behalf of the BCC. ISOLATED VEGETATED WETLANDS (IVWS) • In Section 4.8 of the NOI Narrative, the Applicant describes the areas previously flagged as IVWs as “Non-Jurisdictional Vegetated Areas”. This area is described as being approximately 4,900 sf. This area is vegetated with greater than 50% wetland vegetation. The NOI narrative argues that because the wetlands are supported hydrologically by stormwater and irrigation, they should not be considered jurisdictional. According to the definition of Surface Water under 310 CMR 10.00, surface waters are “all water other than groundwater”. There is no exclusion of jurisdiction for stormwater-fed wetlands. • In accordance with the definitions of “Freshwater Wetlands” under the Wetlands Protection Act and “Waters of the Commonwealth” under 310 CMR 10.00, IVWs are subject to MassDEP jurisdiction under Section 401. Per 314 CMR 9.06(5), fill of Waters of the Commonwealth is not permitted for “the impoundment or detention of stormwater”. The Project is proposing to fill IVWs, and convert portions of the IVWs into Bioretention Area 3. • Impacts to IVWs were not quantified or mitigated for because the Applicant is asserting the IVWs are not Subject to Jurisdiction. • Two IVWs are shown on the existing conditions plans within the limit of the development. o Of the two IVWs identified on the plans, the larger is Subject to Protection under Section 237- 12 of the local Bylaw2, as it is approximately 4,350 sf as delineated (exceeding 500 sf). o As delineated, the second is approximately 450 sf. This IVW is close to being protected under Section 237-12 of the Bylaw. Accordingly, confirmation of the boundary of this IVW in the field is important. o Both IVWs may also be Subject to Jurisdiction under Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act. A Jurisdictional Determination from the USACE is required to determine whether these IVWs are Subject to Jurisdiction under these laws. • The total IVW fill appears to be approximately 4,900 sf for both concepts, which is close to exceeding 5,000 sf (the threshold for requiring a Section 401 Water Quality Certificate under 314 CMR 9.00). Accordingly, the accuracy of the delineation of these resources is important. Accordingly, a peer review of these resources is appropriate. • Under the Barnstable Wetlands Protection Bylaw, only 2,500 sf of wetlands may be filled, and the Project appears to fill approximately 4,350 sf of IVW. No replication mitigation is proposed for this wetland fill. 2 “Vegetated Wetlands: Any area of at least 500 square feet where surface or ground water, or ice, at or near the surface of the ground support a plant community dominated (at least 50%) by wetland species.” September 5, 2023 Page 6 of 8 • The Buffer Zones to the IVWs are not shown on the plans and it does not appear that the calculations provided to document compliance with the local regulations for Buffer Zone Mitigation Requirements include work within the Buffer Zones to the IVWs (Chapter 704-2 through -5). RIVERFRONT AREA • The majority of the Project does not qualify as Redevelopment under the Riverfront Area Performance Standards (310 CMR 10.58(5)3). The areas that qualify as Redevelopment under the Riverfront Area Performance Standards are areas that are currently paved or otherwise degraded by definition. The fairway areas and landscaped woodlands present onsite do not meet the definition of degraded under 310 CMR 10.58(5), as these areas have sufficient topsoil to support vegetative growth. The Applicant has not delineated or quantified the boundaries of degraded Riverfront Area. • It appears that the Site’s property boundary was not recorded prior to October 6, 1997. Accordingly, the Project may only alter up to 10% of the Riverfront Area onsite under 310 CMR 10.58(4), or up to the area of the total degraded RA (paved or areas lacking topsoil) under 310 CMR 10.58(5), whichever is greater. • The NOI indicates the Project will result in 163,742 sf (3.76 acres) of RFA alteration. According to Section 5.4 of the NOI narrative, there is 21.68 acres of Riverfront Area onsite. The Applicant, however, should indicate whether this 21.68 acres includes already-developed RFA associated with the Conference Center property. Based on the Applicant’s calculations, the Project may alter up to 2.17 acres of RFA. The proposed RFA alteration exceeds the allowable alteration. • Stormwater BMPs can be located within RFA if there is no alternative. The Alternatives Analysis provided in Section 5.3 of the NOI does not provide sufficient details regarding whether a less dense multifamily development that avoids impacts to RFA could be economically viable. • The Project will result in avoidable clearing within the 0 to 100 foot Inner Riparian Area (in conflict with the Massachusetts Riverfront Area Performance Standards at 310 CMR 10.58(4)(d)1.a.). Specifically, clearing is proposed associated with Infiltration Basin 2. PONDS/SURFACE WATERBODIES • The Applicant proposes 3,089 sf of alteration within the 50-100 foot buffer to Ponds, with 9,267 sf of mitigation. Documentation of compliance with these regulations is required. LAND SUBJECT TO COASTAL STORM FLOWAGE (LSCSF) • The boundary to LSCSF does not follow the corresponding FEMA contour elevations, and is therefore not depicted correctly. • The project will result in impacts to LSCSF at the emergency access road. • As presented in The Coastal Manual4, if LSCSF is determined to be significant to the interests of the Act, it can be protected. Based on the Site’s locus, it appears the onsite LSCSF if significant to the flood storage, storm damage prevention, and pollution prevention interests of the Wetlands Protection Act, as well as significant to the recreation and aesthetics values protected under the Bylaw5. Construction 3 310 CMR 10.58(5): ” A previously developed riverfront area contains areas degraded prior to August 7, 1996 by impervious surfaces from existing structures or pavement, absence of topsoil, junkyards, or abandoned dumping grounds” 4 “Applying the Massachusetts Coastal Wetlands Regulations: A Practical Manual for Conservation Commissions to Protect the Storm Damage Prevention and Flood Control Functions of Coastal Resource Areas” dated August 7, 2017 (“The Coastal Manual”). 5 237-1 “The purpose of this chapter is to protect wetlands and related water resources, and their values and functions, including, but not limited to, the following: public or private water supply; groundwater; storm damage prevention; flood control; erosi on September 5, 2023 Page 7 of 8 of the proposed emergency access road in the floodplain will affect the ability of LSCSF to provide the pollution prevention and storm damage prevention interests of the Act. COASTAL BANK • The Applicant notes that the Project will permanently alter 8,227 sf through construction of the proposed access driveway. The proposed mitigation, 24,226 sf, does not meet the local performance standards, which require 25,381 sf of mitigation. • Construction of Infiltration Basins 1 and 2 will result in alteration of 22,180 sf of the 0-50’ buffer to Coastal Bank, without mitigation. The Applicant is requesting a waiver from Section 704-3.A, indicating it is unable to meet the required setbacks or provide sufficient mitigation. LOCAL REQUIREMENTS – 50-FOOT NO DISTURBANCE ZONE • The NOI documents that the Project does not comply with Chapter 704 of the Local Regulations. The Project design(s) does not propose a 50-foot No Disturbance Zone from the jurisdictional IVW(s) or the Coastal Banks onsite. While Section 4.9 indicates that the Applicant is providing 4:1 mitigation for work within the 0-50’ Buffer Zone, plans and calculations documenting compliance with Section 704- 4.B have not been provided. MITIGATION • The Applicant indicates that it will plant native plantings onsite to provide screening and improve habitat. The Landscaping plan included in the NOI Application does not include only true native species. Many cultivars are included and large areas of the golf course are shown as only being planted, without plantings specified. A detailed planting plan for the restoration areas should be provided in accordance with the local Performance Standards under Chapter 704. • The Applicant has presented protection of an approximately 19-acre Conservation Restriction (CR) as mitigation for the Project. Of the 19 acres, at least 8.25 acres is within streams, ponds, and wetlands. Additionally, at least an additional 3 acres is below the 100-Year Flood Elevation and the Limit of Moderate Wave Action. No portion of the proposed CR is outside the Jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act or the Jurisdiction of the Bylaw. Therefore, development of these areas would be prohibited or extremely limited. SUMMARY BETA respectfully requests that the Barnstable Conservation Commission include these comments in the record of review for this NOI Application and consider BETA’s comments during deliberation on this matter. Should you have any questions on the comments provided, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, BETA Group, Inc. Laura Krause Project Manager Senior Project Manager and sedimentation control; prevention of water pollution; wildlife habitat; shellfish; fisheries; recreation; aesthetics; agricultural and aquacultural values; and historical values (collectively, "the wetlands values protected by this chapter").” September 5, 2023 Page 8 of 8 e-cc: Brian Hughes, Save Twin Brooks, Inc. Nathaniel Stevens, Esq., McGregor, Legere & Stevens PC \\beta-inc.com\ri\ENVSCI\NA\Company Share\Production\Projects\BETA Projects\22.10324.00 Save Twin Brooks - Hyannis\BETA Reports\Project Review Letter - 35 Scudder Ave - 03Mar2022.docx