LETTER: Abutter Details Concerns About Proposed 40B On Nichols Street

Dear Editor,

After careful consideration of the available information regarding the proposed development for 79 Nichols St, I have the following concerns that I do not believe have been adequately addressed by the plans or process:

1. The ability for the project to control stormwater and the impact on my property. The removal of the existing mature trees adjacent to my property will dramatically alter the ground’s ability to ability to absorb rainfall into what is already a high water table. The predictions contained within the current plans do not consider the effects of removing the existing tree canopy. The existing drainage ditch currently has high flow and is fed from Ohio Street. As currently configured, it cannot tolerate the contemplated increase in water volume and will inevitably lead to devastating impacts on the surrounding areas.

2. The planned for shared forced sewer main has never been approved in the town for various valid reasons, some of which are:

a. No backup generators in case of power failure. Each individual unit will have a 500-gallon holding tank that will pump effluent into the shared sewer main. In the event of a power failure, these holding tanks will quickly fill and effluent, following the path of least resistance, will flow back into the individual units.
b. The system incorporates the use of backflow valves. These valves are not foolproof. If just one valve becomes stuck in the open position, then all the units will pump their effluent into a home not into the shared main.
c. The applicant proposes a 1200’ forced 3-inch main to connect to the existing line at Shawsheen, Lake and Hopkins. This intersection has recently been upgraded and there is a five-year moratorium in place that precludes alterations to the intersection. The Town should enforce the five-year moratorium.
d. The property is in a non-sewer district. Therefore, all Town residents can expect an increase in their individual rates.

3. Additional traffic to an already heavily congested neighborhood. No information regarding controlling construction traffic to the site has been made available to the public. Further, there is no proposed limit to active work hours or to the amount of material that may be imported to or exported from the site on a daily basis. Currently, Nichols Street experiences heavy traffic and adding construction vehicles, especially without any apparent limitation, will disrupt and endanger the lives of residents. For the safety of Nichols’ Street residents, at a bare minimum, there must be a police detail during construction.

4. No information on elevations or cut and fill amounts and where and how they transition onto my property. If, as I suspect, this construction results in significant standing water on my property, who will be liable and required to remediate the situation?

5. The Middlesex Canal is a National Historic Site and requires a 75’ setback from any buildings. The current proposal does not acknowledge or incorporate this requirement in any way.

6. There is no information available as to how these homes will be heated. The original plan called for 100-gallon propane tanks that would sit behind each unit. These propane tanks would be close to my property and home and would create a very dangerous situation.

7. The plans do not include any landscaping along the buffer zone between the development and my property. This will result in the accumulation of debris along my land that no one will be responsible for maintaining.

8. The builder’s original proposal for 5 units, which was turned down by the Town, has now become a 12-unit proposal which still does not address any of the deficiencies in the original proposal.

9. I have no reason to question the integrity of the Zoning Board of Appeals, but I do believe there is a conflict of interest involving the Board’s Chair. It is public knowledge that the Chair worked and shared office space with Applicant’s attorney. In addition, applicant’s attorney played a pivotal role in the Chairman being appointed to his position. Therefore, the Chairman should recuse himself from all deliberations and votes regarding this proposal.

Respectfully,

Hugh VanDeMark, Jr.