April 9, 2013
Town of Framingham
Planning Board
150 Concord Street
Framingham, MA 01702
Dear Planning Board Members:
We, the undersigned residents of the Northwest Quadrant of Framingham put our
concerns and questions before you regarding the proposed development at 45 Nixon
Road.
1. Well Water Supply
Pursuant to the Massachusetts DEP regulations the local boards of health are given
jurisdiction over residential/private drinking water wells. Accordingly, since there is no
municipal water supply within the Northwest Quadrant, nor is one allowed per the
Town of Framingham’s Master Plan, the impacts associated with the introduction of a
further 30 wells must be evaluated. The aquifer that is currently used by the residents
in the Northwest Quadrant is a low yield bedrock resource.
Thus, the Board is petitioned to request that the developer provide a detailed hydrogeologic analysis of the groundwater resource that clearly establishes that the existing
residents are not unduly impacted by the proposed development.
Many of the existing wells are fragile, delivering only adequate yields under current
conditions. Supply is from ground water filtered through bedrock. Shallow soil and rock
close to the surface cause water to run off the hills into the wetlands with little ground
absorption, so these wells replenish slowly.
The plans before the Board are for Phase 1 of a bigger project. The Board was told that
the developer will be submitting plans for Phase 2 in the future. The developer has to
evaluate the impact of the whole project on existing wells before the permitting of
Phase 1. A study needs to be done beforehand that can demonstrate the continued
viability of existing wells throughout this whole project.
Notwithstanding analysis provided, the true impact of extended groundwater extraction
from low yield aquifers will only be known once the full build-out occurs. Accordingly,
the developer should be required to post bonds for the wells in the area of the Project
should well failure occur as a result. Further, the developer should also do the same for
the planned homes to be constructed.
To be clear, the residents of the Northwest Quadrant do not want, nor seek, municipal
water or sewer. Thus, it is imperative that the water resource we rely upon be
preserved.
2. Wetlands
We note that the current plan is for 8 residences. We also note that the plans indicate
a continued build-out of a road and associated drainage structures. Thus, this is Phase 1
of a larger project. While not directly under the purview of the Planning Board this
Project is being presented in a segmented manner and that is not permissible under the
requirements of the Clean Water Act. This Project and its impacts need to be
considered in its entirety from both a wetlands and planning perspective.
The wetlands downstream of this site are Class A Outstanding Resource Waters. (Note
to the north are large wetland areas that parallel Nixon Road and Wayside Inn Road
which then continue to Sudbury.) In other words, these wetlands support a rich variety
of wildlife and have been relatively unaffected by man’s activity. By that, they are
treated by DEP in a very special manner. While the direct impacts on wetlands on the
subject site by the proposed development appear to be relatively minor, the
downstream impacts as a result of this development need to be fully evaluated as part
of the Conservation Commission Review process. We note that the drainage from these
8 lots is proposed to be released into the subject Class A wetlands. Such discharge may
be permissible but impacts include runoff, increased sediment loading, increased
nutrient loading etc. Per 314 CMR:
We further note that 314 CMR also requires the protection of Class A wetlands
Thus, prior to the issuance of any permits, the developer is required to show that
drainage impact does not affect downstream Class A wetlands, while we recognize that
the Conservation Commission is responsible for upholding the regulations of the Clean
Water Act, the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, and the Framingham Wetlands
Protection Bylaw. Accordingly, the Planning Board cannot rule on the viability of this
Project until there are certain requirements of the regulations satisfied and
incorporated into the final plans. Fundamentally, based on an independent engineering
review of the drainage design elements for this Project the lack of environmental
controls such as double hooded catch basins and other state of the art water quality
structures is abundantly apparent.
3. Septic Systems
The Board of Health needs to consider the density of this proposed project and needs to
do this in concert with the Conservation Commission. As stated above, while this is for
the most part an upland project, it will release its runoff and its leachate from the septic
systems into Class A wetlands. This is not permissible under the provisions of the Clean
Water Act, see anti degradation policy above.
A complete study of nutrient loading and its impact into the Class A wetlands needs to
be performed prior to issuance of a permit. Again, this analysis needs to be performed
for the entire Project, not a segmented one.
By our reconnaissance, it is clear that this is a shallow rock site. The plans need to
provide a clear design and viability for septic systems installation. Accordingly, each site
must be designed now with in-situ subsurface data to clearly demonstrate that such
designs are indeed viable. Again, the non-segmented approach applies.
4. Fire Protection
The Framingham Fire Department is limited in its ability to protect the residents of this
area since there are no fire hydrants. The addition of additional residents increases the
probability of a fire event. While we note that there are provisions for a water tank for
fire suppression on the plans it is unclear how this tank was sized and how it’s long term
efficacy is to be relied upon. At a minimum the tank capacity needs to be defined, an
annual maintenance program needs to be put in place the costs of which should be
borne by the residents of the proposed and future development. Alternatively, the
homes should be equipped with sprinkler systems.
5. Traffic
Nixon Road has become a convenient commuter route for traffic from Route 20 to
Route 9 and the turnpike in both directions. It is an increasing burden for this country
way that has several areas with extremely limited visibility due to curves in the road.
Many cars are travelling too fast for these conditions. Trees and stone walls hug the
road side in many spots. The current proposed entrance for Phase 1 is on one of these
limited sight distance curves in the road.
While a traffic study may not be required for the current Project, the Planning Board
needs to fully understand what the impacts are for the larger Project and what
additional traffic safety measures need to be considered. Traffic calming measures in
the Northwest Quadrant are long overdue; and whatever development occurs at this
site should be reason enough to consider and implement means of slowing traffic in this
region. We would suggest all way stop signs at every intersection in the area.
6. Site Work
The project proponent is currently working on Nixon Road at No. 50. The
Implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP) at this Project per the EPA
General Construction Permit is entirely lacking. There is continued runoff of sediment
onto Nixon Road which then enters the subject Class A wetlands. This is a clear violation
of the Clean Water Act and the EPA Construction General Permit (CGP).
Per the CGP every construction project that may have a discharge into the waters of the
United States is required to have a Storm Water Pollution Plan (SWPP) in place
registered on the EPA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) web
site. There is no NPDES permit for this site.
The proposed development, by comparison, is a very difficult site-work Project. Blasting
will likely be required for the installation of roadways, drainage structures and to
establish reasonable grades into the proposed residences. None of the grading issues
and site work requirements have been fully developed on the plans. Further, such is
impossible since no mapping or study of the subsurface conditions is evident. What is
before the Board is a “wish in place” design with no assessment of the actual site
conditions and what actually may be required once construction occurs.
Fundamentally, the scope of the site work for this project is extensive. Since the
proponent has demonstrated an inability to follow BMPs on a “simple” site and not
followed the NPDES requirements, the Town and the local residents need to be assured
that they will be in the future. Accordingly, rigorous requirements and monitoring of
SWPP and BMPs by an independent storm water/wetlands engineer reporting to the
Town and funded by the developer should be required to protect the Class A wetlands
downstream of this proposed Project
Thank you for your consideration and service.
Sincerely – the undersigned: