Snow Inn Demolition Project Gets Another Continuance

by William F. Galvin
Conservation Commission Chair John Ketchum pushed for better calculations on nitrogen removal for the Snow Inn project. WILLIAM F. GALVIN PHOTO Conservation Commission Chair John Ketchum pushed for better calculations on nitrogen removal for the Snow Inn project. WILLIAM F. GALVIN PHOTO

HARWICH – Last minute challenges and the need for clear calculations on nitrogen reductions in Wychmere Harbor resulting from the proposed demolition and reconstruction of the Snow Inn led to another delay in a final decision by the conservation commission. 
The commission voted to continue the hearing to Nov. 4.
 The project put forward by Wychmere Harbor Real Estate, LLC proposes the demolition of the historic Snow Inn and adjacent Channel House, replacing the 32-room hotel with a 72-room structure. Among the proposed improvements are the relocation of the existing wastewater treatment plant and construction of a new one that would be located out of the floodplain. Determining calculations for nitrogen reduction with the new system is one issue standing in the way of a vote by the commission.
The commission also received a last-minute filing from environmental consultants A.M. Wilson Associates, representing several homeowners along Snow Inn Road, challenging aspects of the project.
The hearing was continued from Sept. 29 at the request of commission chair John Ketchum, who was challenging calculations on the amount of nitrogen that would be reduced when the redevelopment project is completed. The estimate provided by engineers Tighe & Bond was that the project would eliminate 95 kg of nitrogen from the Wychmere Harbor watershed on an annual basis. 
According to the figures provided by the engineers, the present treatment plant has a daily flow cap at 40,077 gallons, and the proposed treatment plant would reduce daily treatment to 27,000 gallons per day. The new plant is projected to reduce nitrogen removed from the current 10 parts per million to five parts per million.
Ketchum was looking for specific calculations showing how the 95 kg annual reduction was reached. That number is important to the town as it strives to meet nitrogen reduction to comply with the total maximum daily limit under the Massachusetts Estuaries Project, he said. 
In the Oct. 21 hearing, Sean Riley of Tighe & Bond addressed a list of issues raised by the commission in the previous meeting, including removal of a shell based parking surface and replacing it with a pervious paver system in the parking area; using native plantings in and around the 50-foot wetland resource buffer; addressing coastal bank locations; and committing to no building within the buffer zone.
Conservation Administrator Amy Usowski said she has talked with the town’s public works department and they agree to place catch basins along Snow Inn Road running down to Merkel Beach to contain stormwater runoff. 
But when it came to calculations relating to the 95 kg reductions, the answer was that the groundwater discharge permit has already been approved by the state Department of Environmental Protection, and the commission’s peer review firm, Weston and Sampson, saw no reason to challenge the numbers. 
Arlene Wilson, who filed a letter challenging project assessments, said the present treatment system functions well and the new system generally gets very good results. 
 “Without actual calculations about how much flow the new project is going to generate relative to the project now, you can’t make the comparison as to whether the new plant is going to contribute less nitrogen to Wychmere Harbor,” Wilson said.
Wilson took exception to some of the resource delineations presented for the project and raised issues about access to a public rooftop deck on the north side of the former Thompson’s Clam Bar structure. She also cited the need for the commission to weigh a variance request, noting that the town’s wetland protection bylaw requires financial information to show the variance is not self imposed. 
 “There has been a lot of paperwork floating around the past couple of days. Wilson’s issues require due consideration,” said Ketchum. 
Usowski said she would like additional time to review letters that came in the two days before the Oct. 21 hearing. The commission also needs time to read and review the information before voting, she said.