Central to the discussion was the proposed development’s density, which several board members noted as being excessive compared to existing Falmouth projects. The proposal includes several units on a relatively small lot, leading to concerns about the potential strain on local infrastructure, particularly roads and septic systems. The high percentage of coverage by structures and impervious surfaces was highlighted as one of the most significant the board had ever considered, raising questions about the project’s suitability for the location.

The matter of septic systems was also pivotal. Board members expressed apprehension about the accessibility and future maintenance of these systems, particularly for lots positioned on challenging terrain. The use of Innovative Alternative (IA) systems was proposed for the affordable units, a suggestion meant to address potential nitrogen sensitivity within the watershed. However, this provoked a broader discussion about the necessity and cost implications of such systems. Some members argued that advanced systems should be preemptively installed to mitigate future expenses and regulatory changes, while others questioned the fairness of imposing these requirements on a single development.

The debate intensified with concerns about the financial burden that IA systems could place on future residents of affordable housing. It was suggested that installing these systems now would be more cost-effective than retrofitting them later. Yet, this raised issues of equity, with some questioning whether all developments should be held to the same environmental standards, particularly in the absence of clear town-wide bylaws.

A resident expressed pride in the board’s work but also voiced disappointment with some remarks, stressing the importance of sensitivity to future residents’ needs. This sentiment was echoed by the board, which acknowledged the need to balance current development goals with the long-term sustainability of affordable housing.

Further complicating the board’s task was the ongoing discussion about nitrogen sensitivity in the area. Reports from environmental organizations suggested that the region might become nitrogen-sensitive in the future, prompting a consideration of proactive measures. However, the board was divided on how to weigh these potential future issues against the immediate housing needs. Some members emphasized the importance of planning for possible regulatory shifts, while others pointed to the lack of definitive evidence requiring such measures currently.

A point of contention was the cost differential between standard and Nitro 2ks wastewater systems, with the latter being more expensive but potentially more effective in addressing nitrogen concerns. The board discussed the practicality of installing these systems for the affordable units, considering both the higher initial costs and the potential savings on future retrofitting.

The meeting also touched on administrative matters, including rapidly evolving regulations from the Board of Health concerning IIA systems, which could influence future developments and the issuance of building permits. This added an additional layer of complexity to the board’s decision-making process, as members sought to navigate these changes while ensuring compliance with existing regulations.

Ultimately, the board decided to close the hearing, with plans to review a draft decision in early January. This decision was made with the understanding that the applicant would submit further modifications, particularly regarding access to affordable units and any conditions or waivers they propose.