Add Comment

18)    Support revitalization of contaminated “brownfields”
MetroFuture recommends accommodating much of the region’s growth through reuse of existing underutilized commercial or industrial sites for compact growth.  However, many such sites are affected by environmental contamination due to current or former uses.  Reuse is often obstructed by challenges with the assignment of responsibility, cost of remediation, liability concerns, and limitations on future uses.  In order to provide more opportunities for compact growth, the region needs to increase participation in existing programs and an expansion of existing programs to remediate contaminated “brownfields” and bring them back to productive use.  

Brownfield projects are complex undertakings that generally involve four steps: site inventory and assessment, site cleanup, marketing the property, and funding strategies. Active municipal participation can support each one of these steps; a municipal brownfields program can contract for site inventories, conduct public outreach and district planning, implement marketing efforts, and manage public financing.  Brownfield sites and surrounding areas should have a widely-accepted local area plan and coordinated zoning to support a predictable permitting process that will help to minimize the risk for developers.  

There are efforts underway to coordinate state policy regarding brownfields redevelopment.  The Brownfields Partners is an informal public sector effort to inventory the most critical and significant barriers to coordinated and effective public sector support for brownfields redevelopment. The Brownfields Support Team is a more formal effort recently established by the Patrick Administration; this multi-agency initiative focuses the attention and coordinated expertise of multiple state agencies on key sites.  

The Brownfields Tax Credit Program is one important financial tool to support brownfields redevelopment.  The credit is granted for up to 50% of costs incurred to rehabilitate contaminated property used for business purposes and located within an economically distressed area.  Recent legislation has extended the Brownfields credit for a longer time period; expanded eligibility to include nonprofit organizations; and allowed the sale, transfer, and assignment of credits.  Additional efforts are needed to increase participation in this program, possibly through the creation of workshops and guidance material.  

The EPA operates two grant programs for brownfield assessment and cleanup.  Municipalities that submit joint (“coalition”) applications to these programs are eligible for increased funding.  MAPC has worked with member municipalities to submit coalition applications and should seek additional opportunities to do so in the future.

State and federal actions that would facilitate brownfields redevelopment include an increase in state-level technical assistance to communities lacking staff and expertise; and an increase in funding available for assessment, cleanup, planning studies, market analysis, and demolition.  Redevelopment experts also acknowledge a need for adjustments to the 30B/municipal procurement process to expedite the transfer of public property to private developers.

18.a    Municipalities should establish a Municipal Brownfields Program

18.b    The Brownfield Partners working group should coordinate creation of a guidance document for the Brownfields Tax Credit program

18.c     The Brownfield Support Team should be given ongoing support and cooperation 

18.d    MAPC should support municipal efforts to submit “coalition” applications to the EPA Brownfield Assessment and Brownfields Cleanup grant programs

19)    Support the use of shared septic systems and small wastewater treatment facilities
Creative wastewater management solutions are needed to enable compact growth in areas where sewer service is not available.  Individual septic systems require a large area on each lot for wastewater disposal, preventing compact growth such as village development or open space residential developments.  Sites with poor soils, high groundwater, or other constraints may be rendered unbuildable, even those that are otherwise excellent candidates for compact growth.  

Shared septic systems and small wastewater treatment facilities offer the advantage of needing only one location for disposal rather than one for each dwelling unit or lot.  The total discharge area is generally smaller and can be creatively located to avoid site constraints (such as poor soils or high groundwater) or to protect sensitive water resources.  These facilities often provide better treatment than conventional septic systems and are inspected more often, helping to protect water quality.  Even in areas that have sewer service, on-site wastewater disposal may be the preferred alternative in order to promote groundwater recharge.  

Regulatory changes by the state and assistance to local boards will expedite wastewater disposal permitting and provide further options for developers while still protecting the environment and public health.  

Larger wastewater systems (more than 10,000 gallons per day) are regulated through the Groundwater Discharge Permit Regulations, administered by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.  DEP has developed draft regulations that will facilitate the use of these systems to support compact growth.  These regulations should be adopted.  

Individual septic systems and shared septic systems under 10,000 gallons per day are both regulated by local boards of health, which may not favor shared or innovative systems due to concerns about growth, accountability, or resource protection.  Some local boards of health are wary of permitting shared systems due to concerns about institutional and financial responsibility for long-term maintenance.  DEP has developed a standard Title 5 Covenant and Easement form that can be used to establish a legally binding structure, but some boards of health may require more stringent mechanisms such as a condominium association, which may discourage the use of shared systems.  DEP should establish a template for legal and institutional structures that would be automatically presumed satisfy the requirements of Title 5.

While it is important to ensure protection of water resources, DEP should also seek to expedite the review period for innovative and alternative technologies that can provide greater flexibility for compact growth.  DEP should also partner with MAPC and other organizations to provide additional education on the latest technologies, regulations, and legal requirements for innovative, alternative, and shared systems.

19.a    DEP should adopt a standardized format for the legal and financial mechanism required for shared systems and private sewage treatment plants

19.b    DEP should accelerate the review time frames for Innovative and Alternative septic technologies.  

19.c    MAPC, NEIWPCC, and DEP should educate local boards of health and planning boards on innovative and alternative systems and shared wastewater systems