SUNDERLAND — Discussion on the proposal for a 9,100-square-foot Dollar General on the corner of Route 116 and Clark Mountain Road will continue on Feb. 19, during which the Zoning Board of Appeals will look into hiring a peer reviewer of the traffic study.
During the latest and ninth hearing on Wednesday, board members discussed the results of civil engineer Bucky Sparkle’s peer review of the stormwater and drainage report, a topic of concern raised at the Aug. 27 hearing.
The proposal comes from Calito Development Group, a Torrington, Connecticut-based construction and management company. Sparkle said he initially notified R. Levesque Associates Inc., the engineering firm behind the proposal, of 83 points in the report that he believed could be improved upon. According to Sparkle, R. Levesque Associates then sent him a revised report that “satisfactorily addressed” 78 of the 83 points, leaving five remaining, most of which were typos.
“Out of the 12 pages, there’s almost nothing to talk about at this point,” Sparkle said, suggesting a steeper slope on a small section of the parking lot to curb the negative environmental effects of winter road salt, but he added that the issue is “one of the most minor things I’ve seen on a site plan in a very long time.”
To address the potential impact on three wells on the nearby Cliffside Apartments property, Sparkle said the stormwater system falls within the Interim Wellhead Protection Area of the regulated wells, where risk to the wells is based on the use of the new property. Sparkle said the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection does not list retail establishments as a use of concern, and stormwater management systems pose a low potential for risk according to these standards.
“A garden has more risk than what is being proposed here,” Sparkle said.
To test the amount of water in the soil below and surrounding the property, a licensed soil evaluator dug a dozen 10-foot-deep holes to test groundwater levels, according to Filipe Cravo, a project engineer at R. Levesque Associates. The separation between the bottom of the stormwater system to the maximum seasonal groundwater levels must be at least 2 feet to follow state standards. The soil evaluator measured a separation of 7 feet by evaluating traces of iron, which indicate the rise and fall of water in the soil.
Jennifer Unkles, who serves on the Conservation Commission, asked if the tests reflect major fluctuations in groundwater levels, from drought conditions to groundwater peaks.
In response, Sparkle said groundwater levels rarely surpass the traces of water that the tests detect, because these iron stains reflect peaks in groundwater levels over hundreds to thousands of years.
“They’re the worst-case scenario for the last centuries of time,” Sparkle explained. “It would have to be a glacial-level event to get to that level and exceed it.”
Should the ZBA approve the special permit for the proposed Dollar General, Sparkle suggested that the special permit include conditions requiring that the applicant test the soil in the infiltration basin of the property — the depression that is engineered to capture stormwater runoff — and minimize the use of winter road salt.
Traffic report concerns
Before the next hearing on Feb. 19, ZBA Chair Steve Krol and Amanda Hanley, a ZBA associate member, will research peer reviewers for the applicant’s traffic report.
The ZBA’s decision to seek a peer reviewer followed concerns members raised with the traffic report, particularly the duration of the traffic study, which presented patterns over one day.
ZBA associate member Hollis Graves described the study as a “drive-by.” Krol added that his and other residents’ experiences with traffic flow on Route 116 do not align with the report, and that the board may benefit from expert eyes analyzing the study.
Update on ongoing lawsuit
Town Counsel Michael D’Ortenzio Jr. also updated those in attendance on the ongoing lawsuit between the town and Calito Development Group regarding whether the property consists of two parcels.
According to D’Ortenzio, Michael Pill, the attorney representing Calito Development Group, filed a complaint on Oct. 9, kickstarting the legal process. Pill filed a motion for summary judgement, a request for a judge to rule on a case without a full trial, arguing that the case is simple and “not in dispute,” as D’Ortenzio described.
After the town filed a response to the complaint and opposed the motion for summary judgement, the applicant withdrew the motion on Dec. 19 and decided to amend the initial complaint, D’Ortenzio continued.
D’Ortenzio said the initial hearing for the case before a land court judge will take place next week. Town counsel will then meet with the Selectboard in executive session to discuss a response and next steps.
When asked about the relationship between the special permit review process and the lawsuit, D’Ortenzio said the lawsuit “is not relevant to the determination of [the ZBA’s] decision,” but board members may consider facts that arise during the lawsuit.
“On one track, you have the permitting process, the special permit here before the Zoning Board of Appeals. On another track, you have a set of legal questions that have been presented to a judge. Those are going to be going down different tracks. Who knows exactly what run will finish when, but they go down concurrently,” D’Ortenzio explained.
Krol said the issue of the driveway separation underlying the lawsuit will likely be the topic of discussion at the Feb. 19 hearing at 7 p.m.