Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Stormwater topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning board urged to adopt stormwater rules after EPA sets December deadline

Town of Blackstone Planning Board · September 5, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A Weston & Sampson consultant told the Town of Blackstone Planning Board the draft stormwater rules are intended to bring the town into compliance with its MS4 permit and that EPA issued an administrative order with a Dec. 13 deadline; the board scheduled additional review, a November public hearing and consultant/legal review before adopting the rules.

Janice, a consultant from Weston & Sampson, updated the Town of Blackstone Planning Board on a draft set of stormwater rules and regulations intended to bring the town into compliance with requirements of its MS4 permit. She told the board EPA has issued an administrative order that sets December 13 as the date by which the town must have rules in place and requires the town to respond to EPA within seven days after adoption.

"EPA did issue an administrative order for the town… they've put a date of December 13th," Janice said, explaining the administrative order tightens the timeline for adoption and follow-up with EPA. She said the consultant team has exchanged correspondence with EPA and that the town had asked for a November 30 adoption target; EPA’s order ultimately provided a formal December 13 date and a short response period.

Why it matters: the draft rules contain post‑construction stormwater management requirements the town’s existing bylaw does not currently include. Adopting rules will be the primary mechanism through which the town achieves compliance with its MS4 permit and avoids further federal enforcement action.

Board members and staff discussed the process and next steps. Gino submitted written comments that included three technical items: an enforcement-language discrepancy between the draft regulations and the town bylaw (who enforces illicit discharges vs. who issues land‑disturbance permits), a suggestion to reduce hard‑copy distributions in favor of PDF/electronic versions, and a question about which NOAA Atlas 14 rainfall dataset version the rules should cite. Janice said she had reviewed the bylaw references and expected to strike or revise language to align the regulations with the bylaw.

Janice offered to distribute the draft document to the planning board email list that already includes the planning board members so everyone could review. The board agreed to a schedule that would allow discussion in October, a public hearing at the November meeting and potential adoption before EPA’s December 13 administrative‑order deadline. The board discussed involving the town’s engineering consultant (Steve Bouley) and the town’s legal counsel in technical and legal review before sending a draft to EPA for formal review.

Janice also said the town will later update the stormwater bylaw to remove outdated references; she suggested town meeting in the spring as the venue for bylaw changes that follow rules adoption.

Next steps: Janice will distribute the draft by email to the planning board and coordinate review with Gino and Steve. The board plans to discuss the draft in October, hold a public hearing in November and aim for adoption early enough to meet EPA’s administrative‑order timeline.