Board returns focus to Sunset Ridge proposal

Last Tuesday night the Board of Health met once again with Jerry Buzanoski of Ducharme & Dillis and Vin Gately regarding the proposed development on Wattaquadock Hill Road known as “The homes at Sunset Ridge.”

This has been an ongoing issue for the board since the original proposal for a 32-unit condominium complex was first put on the table in June 2001. Originally the board found that the size of the proposed Sunset Ridge complex and the unique topographical features of the site would not support the number of proposed units on the site. In April 2002 Bolton Zoning Board of Appeals granted the group a comprehensive permit with conditions, however the applicant appealed the decision to the Housing Appeals Committee (HAC) just two weeks later. A HAC recommended mediation ensued and following extensive negotiations and numerous alterations to the proposal resulted in an amended decision in November 2006.

The parties (HAC, the developer and Bolton Zoning Board of Appeals) agreed that a 28-unit development consistent with local needs would be granted. In addition, 25 percent of the units are classed as “affordable units.”

The amended proposal sought to dispose of wastewater for the proposed dwelling units via a centralized wastewater disposal system. The developers proposed the use of a re-circulating sand filter method of wastewater disposal known as the “Elgin” septic system as it would be more cost effective and aesthetically pleasing than a conventional system.

The Board of Health meeting held on June 17 highlighted some of the outstanding issues in implementing this system. Board members were primarily concerned with the apparent discrepancies in the manufacturer’s manual regarding the ratio of pre-fabricated leaching unit chambers (a geo-pit style unit which comes in standard lengths) to bedroom to be used. The Department of Environmental Protection guideline for the size of the system is seven modules per bedroom however the manufacturer insists that 5.4 modules per bedroom are adequate. If the DEP guideline stands the developers will be forced to either reduce the number of bedrooms per unit, reduce the number of units or redesign back to a conventional system. DEP would not reduce the number of modules per bedroom without getting conditional approval from Bolton Board of Health.

Christopher Rogers, chairman of the board, asked the party for an update since the last meeting. Buzanowski clarified that although the potential for a pilot program had been discussed additional testing on the site had not gone well. It was decided that the benefits of the Elgin system were outweighed by the extra work involved in designing a pilot system that would be agreeable to all parties.

“So we returned to the conventional system which fits a lot better then originally anticipated,” he said. “The downside is that the breakout will be higher so it’ll cost more to fill.”

The breakout grade will be a foot and a half higher than it would have been if the Elgin system had been used.

Buzanowski also explained that because of the system redesign the original seven waivers requested in the “Amended Decision on Application for Comprehensive Permit” would be reduced to five. The variances requested involve Regulation 2 (involving the reserve area), Regulation 5 (involving the distance of set backs), Regulation 7 (involving the length of the sewer line), Regulation 13 (involving hydrolic loading) and Regulation 16 (involving the depth of naturally occurring pervious material above the ledge).

Mark Sprague, Board of Health, explained that the Board could not sign off on Regulation 16 because the document drawn up by the Zoning Board of Appeals clearly states that “Approval (is) subject to Conservation Commission review and assent.” Although both parties agreed that this regulation is probably not within the remit of the Conservation Commission, Sprague explained that they were bound by the agreement to follow through on the matter. He added, “The correct way (to fix the error) may be to amend the (original) document but that would mean going back to ZBA. The most efficient way would be for the Commission to sign off on it and then we can address it.”

 The variance from the well regulations was not included in the request letter to the board. This variance is being requested because the local regulations may differ from the Public Water Supply Regulations. Sprague has asked that they be more specific on this issue.

 To add fuel to the fire a further development has concerned both the Board of Health and The Conservation Commission.

The stipulation agreed that the septic system would not be sited in any area defined by the Wetlands protection Act as an isolated land subject to flooding (ILSF). The current system has been documented as compliant with this restriction but is near an area that may be an ILSF. In accordance with the “Amended Decision on Application for Comprehensive Permit,” in the event that the Conservation Commission reasonably believes that the area may be an ILSF the developer must hire an independent expert to determine the wetland delineation.

An ongoing wrangling between the developer and the commission in hiring such an individual has stunted proceedings in this area. Gately stated that he did not believe that any areas of wetlands present would impact the septic system. However an abutter countered, “there has been a lot of discussion about one area being ISFL and that was the issue that Concom (the Conservation Commission) had a problem with. I think this is a question you should be asking Concom and not the developer.” Rogers and Sprague both confirmed that they would wait for confirmation from the Conservation Commission on the matter.

Although Rogers explained, “conceptually we are OK with it,” he stressed that “we need a couple of details worked out.” The board decided that they were unable to act on the application for the waivers until the Conservation Commission issues had been resolved. Andrea Gilbert, Board of Health added that she feels that the Board has no alternative but to approve the requests due to the fact that this project is a 40B and this Board has no control over any of the variances. Sprague stated that he does still have questions with the modeling review that was done.

Buzanowski believes that “the DEP will review this project and not just rubber stamp it.” After discussion, the board voted to waive the previous requirement of an independent review. The hearing will continue on Sept. 11, at 7 p.m.