MassHousing finds changes insubstantial; board and neighbors spar over peer‑review scope and safety on Sandwich Road project

The Zoning Board of Appeals heard a contested presentation for 06625 (Sandwich Road Housing LLC), where the developer’s attorney reported a MassHousing determination and the board and residents pressed for technical clarifications, including peer‑review scope, water and roadway safety, and stormwater and septic details.

Attorney Jesse Shomer told the board that MassHousing had issued a letter earlier that day finding the applicant’s proposed change "not a substantial change of the project" and that the applicant will file that letter for the record. That determination means, the attorney said, that MassHousing did not view the revisions as affecting the site eligibility they previously granted.

Shomer also said the applicant had funded peer‑review accounts and submitted scope documents, but that the applicant planned to file a letter questioning some peer‑review tasks and seeking clarity to avoid duplicative or out‑of‑scope work by consultants. Several board members and members of the public described the applicant’s written framing of potential reimbursement claims (citing a prior Housing Appeals Committee/Weston case) as a veiled threat to the town’s hiring of peer reviewers. One board member said the letter "kind of intimidates the people doing the work." Shomer replied that the intent was to set guardrails and avoid duplicative review, not to threaten anyone.

Town special counsel George Pucci advised the board to ask peer reviewers to respond in writing to the applicant’s objections before they commence substantive review so the board can confirm scope and avoid later disputes. Pucci said that peer reviewers can and should clarify whether tasks such as site visits are within scope.

Engineer Doug Hartnett (High Point Engineering) described the site as about 14.6 acres, with 19 soil test pits showing medium sand and no observed groundwater; the plan includes a 50‑unit core condominium area (mix of detached and attached units) served by an Advantex IA treatment plant sized to serve about 8,400 gallons per day for the core area, plus 14 single‑family lots in the rear with individual IA systems. Stormwater design relies on subsurface Caltech/Cultech chambers distributed across the site and roof‑drain collection to infiltration areas; in the rear single‑family area the proposal uses gravel roadways to lower impervious cover.

Residents raised multiple safety and quality‑of‑life concerns: the development would place units as close as 10 feet from some property lines, a long (about 700–750 feet) dead‑end roadway could create water stagnation in the extended water main, and the rear single‑family lots would have no sidewalks while some units are non‑age‑restricted (20% of units) and therefore may house children. Hartnett said water main looping or hydrant flushing can be coordinated with the water department and fire department, and that the applicant could provide operational and reserve‑study details in the association documents.

Board members requested additional energy‑use data for the IA systems, clarification of whether roads and utilities would be accepted by the town if built to private standards, and a clearer plan for pedestrian access. The applicant agreed to bring civil and traffic consultants to the next hearing and to try to provide revised plans and requested data ahead of the continuation.

Vice Chair James Moss moved to continue the 06625 hearing to Aug. 27 at 6 p.m.; the motion passed by voice vote. The board asked staff to coordinate peer‑review scope discussions and requested that peer reviewers confirm whether they will proceed under the revised scopes before the next hearing.