As a reminder, tonight's meeting will be at 8:45 at the Arlington Senior Center at 27 Maple St in the Main Room, first floor. The proposal is for new construction deep inside the protected wetlands buffer zone on previously undeveloped land.  Your presence makes a difference.  If you can attend, please register at https://linkto.run/p/DHWK05K7   If you are unable to attend, please send an email addressed to the Con Comm sharing your concerns.  Your emails should be sent to the Con Comm Administrator Emily Sullivan.  Her email is ESullivan@town.arlington.ma.us 

In your emails, please share whatever your concerns are about this matter.  In terms of important points to make, feel free to note the following:
-the value of open space in town

-the habitat destruction that will occur with the addition of a second large house to a site that currently has only one house on it
-the reality of how overloaded and fragile Spy Pond is already 
-how much the 100' buffer zone around the pond needs protection and that development in the 100' buffer zone is not a good idea
-that the building of a second home on this lot that extends well into the 100' buffer zone will require felling a mature sycamore tree on the lot  

The above said, we believe the most persuasive argument (an argument made to the Con Comm by Attorney Liz Pyle in the past re: 47 Spy Pond Lane) is that the new regulations require  an analysis of alternatives to building in the 100' buffer zone (also called the "Adjacent Upland Resource Area" or "AURA) be done.  However, over the three years of trying to gain approval to build two houses on this lot, Seaver Construction, the developer, has never done an alternatives analysis for this site that explores reasonable alternatives to building a second huge house that penetrates deeply into the 100' buffer zone.  Through Con Comm hearing after hearing, Seaver has stuck to his guns that he simply must build a very large house with a 2-car garage on this site, noting that this is what the market in Arlington supports.  Seaver also claims that since his plan is to put additional water management and infiltration systems in place given all the additional runoff from such a large house, that his big new house would actually improve conditions on the lot when it comes to managing the increased runoff.  So he is saying that since he's going to managing the extra water and improve water management on the site, he should be allowed to build in the 100' buffer zone.  However, there are other reasonable alternatives that would protect the 100' buffer zone, for example: building a smaller house that sits outside the 100' buffer zone, not building anything and allowing green space around the one house is he already approved to build, building a house with a 1-car (rather than 2-car) garage and thereby decreasing the second house's footprint, etc.

The new wetlands regulations have retained the requirement for an alternatives analysis that the old regs also had.  Here's is an excerpt from the new regs addressing the above:

"Thus, work and activity in the Adjacent Upland Resource Area shall be avoided and discouraged and reasonable alternatives pursued. Only when the Applicant proves through a written alternative analysis that reasonable alternatives are not available or practicable, the Commission may, in its discretion, allow temporary, limited, or permanent disturbance as appropriate and consistent with this Section depending on the characteristics of the Adjacent Upland Resource Area"

Thanks for your continued support on this matter.