ZBA members question well, septic, health and safety, parking
The January 31 meeting of the ZBA was another in a series of hearings for a 40B commercial-residential complex on Ayer Road, at the site of the former Toreku tractor dealership. At hearing’s end, the board knew more, but not enough to move a vote, and the hearing was continued.
The developer, Massachusetts Housing Opportunities Corp (MHOC), had hoped for more. Asked before the hearing about his expectations for the meeting, MHOC attorney Adam Costa expressed some optimism that his client’s comprehensive permit—with conditions—would be granted. “I am hoping this is the last hearing [for obtaining the comprehensive permit],” he said. However, after almost two hours scrutinizing plans for a public well, an onsite wastewater treatment system, and the filling of 2,000 square feet of wetland, the board wanted to wait.
Member Jim DeZutter stated the board’s position: “I need to see where the Board of Health and Conservation Commission are headed before I approve anything.” Other members of the board had their own questions.
Robert Capobianco was primarily interested in issues of health and safety. Would the bus stop be in a sufficiently safe area, and might it include room for a parent’s parked car? Where were the dumpsters, mailboxes, stop signs, and lightposts? He also asked whether the wastewater drainage area would be fenced off. In answer, George Dimakarados, representing MHOC’s engineering firm Stamski and McNary, explained that storm water quickly dissipates, and that fencing around drainage areas poses more, not less, danger. Capobianco did not dispute the statement.
Chairman Chris Tracey asked if water from the septic system would flow toward the system’s direct abutter. Dimakarados said it all flows toward the wetland, not the abutter. Aesthetic issues arose when Tracey read comments from the report created by Nitsch Engineering, the ABA’s consultant, questioning “the 10-foot mound that is the septic system, visible to abutters facing the east.” The comment elicited no response from MHOC, the ZBA, or the audience.
Ted Maxant questioned the residential parking, asking whether the scheme left sufficient maneuvering room for resident and visitor parking. He wanted to avoid a situation like the one he noted in an Ayer development, he said, where residents were trapped in their parking spaces whenever visitor spots were occupied.
The most intense discussion was reserved for the well and septic system, and their proximity to wetlands. (The 13.7-acre site is bordered by wetland).
According to the plan, a “public water supply well” to provide water for the complex is sited inside the buffered vegetative wetland (BVW). Jack Guswa of the Citizen’s Advisory Committee produced a copy of a letter from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to MHOC. The letter questioned the well’s location, stating that the applicant “had not justified…why the well has to be located in the BVW,” instead of “in the buffer zone to the BVW.”
MHOC replied that the location of the well is “presently in the permitting phase with both the DEP and Conservation Commission.” Dimakarados elaborated, saying his firm also sent a letter of explanation to Harvard’s Conservation Commission justifying the location of the well. He said the letter of explanation was forwarded by the commission to the Worcester office of the DEP.
The on-site wastewater treatment system, using a recirculating sand filter, provoked further discussion. The Nitsch report asked about the “feasibility” of a sand filter at this site. The report from MHOC’s engineering firm contained a reply that said the recirculating sand filtration system adheres to Title V regulations, given the water flow of 6,100 gallons per day. Tracey asked MHOC to file with the Board of Health for a system review and approval as soon as possible.
As for the wetland-filling, the MHOC-sponsored report accounts for it as follows: “The wetland delineation has been approved by the Conservation Commission. The DEP has issued an approval for the wetland delineation.” The issue prompted no further debate.
An ongoing difference between MHOC and the ZBA, resulting from differing legal interpretations of Chapter 40B law, resurfaced in the engineering reports. The ZBA’s report claimed the project must subdivide into two parcels: one for the commercial building, another for the housing units. The MHOC report states simply, “There will be no subdivision of the property.” As proposed, the project includes eight buildings containing a total of 32 housing units, eight affordable, and 8,000 square feet of retail space. After the hearing, Costa told this reporter that varying legal interpretations of Chapter 40B law are common, and downplayed their significance in this case.
When the hearing ended without a decision, MHOC vice president Michael Ivas was philosophical, “We didn’t necessarily expect it [to be granted] but we’d like to get going. We feel we’ve worked with the abutters, and the selectmen, and made the improvements. We did sign the LIP. But the ZBA needs to do its job, too.”
An LIP, or Local Initiative Project, or “friendly 40B,” is an agreement in which the town can insert local needs into the process. For example, in this case, MHOC originally wanted to build housing only. The selectmen requested some commercial space, reasoning that the strip of Ayer Road is zoned commercial, and Harvard could benefit from the mix.
Asked for an update on potential retailers, Ivas said MHOC continues its search. Whole Foods and Donelans wanted more space than the planned 8,000 square feet, he said.
The board and developer discussed a ZBA-commissioned review of the project, focusing primarily on the well and private sewage treatment system, but also touching on details such as parking, landscaping, lighting, and the location of dumpsters, mailboxes, and a bus stop. In each case the ZBA and its consultant wanted additional information.
