Proposed Gas Station, Dunkin', Apartment, and Liquor Store or Dry Goods Store–
82 Old Runnells Bridge Rd.
Update 12-11-2020 This project was denied on 11-4-2020 without ever addressing the Aquifer Issues
The denial is currently being litigated. The aquifer issue still has not been addressed.
Update 10-16-2020 Detailed description of the problems with the developer's claim that this property is not in the Aquifer Protection Overlay Zone. Please attend the planning board meeting scheduled for 10-20-2020 and tell the board to protect out aquifer.
Letter explaining issues with the APOZ restrictions.
Why would the planning board allow this property to be excluded from the restrictions of the Aquifer Protection Overlay zone?
Developer's aquifer report on the property
Review of Developer's Report by a State Certified Geologist underlines added for emphasis
Do you think the developer's report satisfied the requirements of the Hollis Zoning Ordinance? Do you think the correct procedure was followed? Let the planning board know they need to enforce the ordinance as written. How important is the aquifer to our town?
Issues related to the Aquifer Protection Overlay Zone
Why would development for a property entirely within the Aquifer be allowed the same as if it were not?
Concerns with this project
This project proposes adding underground storage of gasoline in the Aquifer Protection Zone. The property was subdivided last year and the plans were signed off on Oct 1 indicating that the project is in the Aquifer Protection Overlay Zone.
A 3rd party review of the hydro geologic study indicates that there is a thin aquifer layer under the site. The third party review was conducted by a certified geologist and provides evidence that would support the board’s decision to consider this parcel part of the aquifer protection zone.
The report did not accurately determine the boundary of the Aquifer as is required
4 of 7 test wells intercepted the water table
There is a thin layer of sandy loose saturated sediments
The measured hydraulic conductivity was 18.45 feet / day which is moderately high
The applicant’s report did not include a groundwater flow map which is needed to evaluate the claim
The independent geologist anticipates that the thin aquifer on this property serves to recharge the larger aquifer to the west
The independent state certified geologist did not conclude that the site is not in the aquifer protection overlay zone. He merely stated that the applicant’s report “makes a good case” that it is not. He also pointed out that the groundwater flow study is missing. The Planning Board must do its due diligence by requiring the groundwater flow map since it is likely that groundwater flows from the thin aquifer on the property to recharge the larger aquifer to the west. This property must continue to be designated as in the Aquifer protection zone unless the boundary of that zone is accurately determined to exclude the property or portions of it.