HomeMy WebLinkAbout0000 FREEZER ROAD - Health �9
0 Freezer road
-- - Barnstable
A'= 300 Ol 8
OF BA D CAPE COD COMMISSION'S
y „..
O
U 3225 MAIN STREET
t 3 P.O. BOX 226
BARNSTABLE,MA 02630 '
.(508)362-3828 ;
gCHUS FAX(508)362-3136
E-mail:frontdesk0capecodcommission.org
May 19, 1999 '}
j Emmett Glynn, Chairman I vY.
Barnstable Zoning Board'of Appeals . - t'
367 Main Street
Hyannis, MA 02601 Y`
RE: Freezer Point[Condominiums Comprehensive
rehensive Permit -
Dear Members of the Board:,
The Cape Cod Commission has received a copy of your letter dated May 3, 1999
containing the decision of the Housing Appeals Committee concerning Stuborn
Limited Partnership's application for a comprehensive"'permit under M.G.L.
Chapter 40B. Pursuant to Section 130) of the Cape Cod Commission Act, the
Commission is considered a local board'and is,providing the Barnstable Zoning
Board of Appeals with additional comments on this project through the
Commission staff. '
It is our understanding that the states Housing Appeals Committee (HAC) has
granted this project standing. Specifically, that use of the New England Fund of
Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston as the subsidy agency-was found to be
acceptable by HAC. At the same time, the HAC decision permits the town to
develop a review process, whose,standards and policies would be applied to the,
Freezer Point project. e
It is also our understanding that this review process, once established; could y
address all of the concerns contained in our May 22, 1998 comment letter. These
concerns focused on several questions concerning affordability, as well as water ,
resources, coastal resources/wetlands, 'transportation and community character '
issues. If this`is not the'case, staff recommends that these issues, other than
affordability, still be addressed in the Board of Appeal's'review of the project.
;r• 7
it
qN
r �
�" rS
1� n
We refer you to our previous comment letter for a more detailed description of the
points listed above. Commission staff is also,available to review, and comment on
the review process being considered in this instance-, If you desire such technical
assistance, please contact,our,office at 362-3828
Respectfully subm' d, " < ,• i
M go F nn` f :w',
E ecutiv Director
u•
cc: ames Tinsley, Barnstable Town'.Manager -
Ralph Crossen, Barnstable Building Commissioner
Robert Schernig, ,Barnstable Planning Director
Jackie Etsten, Barnstable Planning Department ;` E
Robert Smith, Barnstable Town Attorney, '
.Laura Shufelt, Chairman Barnstable Housing Committee T "
Thomas Lynch, Director Barnstable Housing Authority.
Steven Schuman, Chairman Barnstable Planning1 Board
Peter Freeman, Barnstable Old'King's Highway Committee` '
Tom Mullen, Barnstable.DPW Commissioner' ,} r
Rob Gatewood Barnstable Conservation Administrator
Tom McKean, Barnstable Health Agent ;
Sumner Kaufman,`CCC Barnstable representative
I
- :'e. �: }Irk.. .' i-1 : - • �_ r .. .F { "
...V. ".. �•Nr`^ 1 t, ; V 4 4N9' � �'V I s S y ;`
R ^r
e
F iti
a
t' a
w
_ u • .n �= r�:F ! '�� �� '4. x.a ". ,�4 a cr t ,z r
'0. r
rN
OF CAPE COD COMMISSION e
O r 3225 MAIN STREET „� k
U P.O. BOX 226
BARNSTABLE, MA 02630°
9�S4CHIJs� '
FAX (508) 3 288 3136E r p
E-mail:frontdesk®capecodcommission.org`
.. • .�:.,.. :fir '
May 22, 1998 '
Emmett Glynn, Chairman
Barnstable Zoning Board of Appeals l
367 Main Street u �.
Hyannis, MA 02601
n ,
RE: Freezer Point Condominiums40B
'S•: ;
Dear Members of the Board: t
The Cape Cod Commission has received"a copy of application materials submitted by Stuborn
Limited Partnership to the Barnstable Zoning Board of,Appeals for comprehensive permit under
Chapter 40B of the Massachusetts General Laws. The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive
Permit for the development of a 32-unit.condominium project on Freezer Road in Barnstable,MA:
Pursuant to Section 130)•of the Cape Cod Commission Act, the Commission'is considered a local
board and is providing the Barnstable Zoning Board of Appeals with comments on this;project .. ,
through Commission staff, which has re ared this report.,,..
. w ,'
Based on a review of the`application materials submitted to our office,- the project has-been
evaluated relative to the intent and purposes of the Act and the overall goals of the Regional Policy
Plan (RPP) effective on December 7, 1996.,,Staff would like to offer comments on the following
issues: affordable housing, water resources; coastal resources/wetlands, transportation, and
community character.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING: "f ` .,k '.
_} . of, ` i ,� i#� t, w f
One of the key purposes of the Cape Cod Commission Act'and the Regional Policy Plan`is to. '4`
further the development of an adequate supply of affordable housing. This purpose is to be
achieved in a manner consistent with the other goals of the RPP. The Commission's affordable:
housing specialist has reviewed,this project and offers the following comments:
The project consists of.'a total of 32 units', of which 25% or 8 units must be Faffordable.,There are
no other qualifications such'as'age'restrictions contained inAhe application materials. The .,
PP bb
application suggests that two populations are being targeted for this develo inent. The income
sugg P b b
limits for the affordable units suggest families,while elsewhere in the application people 55 and
older are listed as•the targeted population.We recommend that the town, if it agrees with this
observation,•seek.clarification on this point.- :
If elders are being targeted, tlien staff questions the marketability of these units, given their size
and cost, to such households.',Thi`would also impact the income and sales price limits for the.." ,
affordable units because,staff believesit highly unlikely that an elder household would consist of
four people.'A more appropriate reference point;`in this;regard, would be a two=person household'
Freezer Road 40B Comment Letter
May 22, 1998 . F
t
, 2
The applicanttlists the Federal Home'Loan Bank/New'England Fund as the subsidy agency,
thereby meeting one of the factors that governs standing. This is*a seldom used vehicle for
achieving standing and in the one instance where it was challenged, the'state's Housing Appeals
Committee (HAC) rejected its use. At that time the HAC rested its decision on the absence of
meaningful regulations governing monitoring, long term affordability, and other related matters. It
did not say, however, that use of the New England Fund was improper, only that appropriate
regulatory measures were not in place.
As you will see from our comments below, staff has some concerns regarding the monitoring
mechanisms contained in the Regulatory Agreement. Staff•would urge the,town to consider our
comments in this regard and try to ascertain if the.Regulatory`Agreement, as proposed, would be
deemed acceptable by the State. '.
The applicant does not indicate what the "Base'Income" will be for'a`family of four. Nor does the
application indicate what program this income limit will be based on. Without such information, it
is impossible to determine the maximum sales price for the affordable units and if the income limit;
would be.considered appropriate,Staff recommends that the town request"this information from
the applicant.
On a separate, but related matter, it is our understanding that the maximum sales price would
function as just that,but that the actual sales price would be based-on a monthly payment not
exceeding 30% of household income. Staff recommends that the town confirm this understanding
with the applicant k
It is also unclear what criteria will be used to determine the actual,income of the prospective
buyers. Staff is,unfamiliar with how the,FLHB/NEF,treats.this matter. ,For example, how are.
assets treated? Are they excluded from calculating income? If they are excluded, and given that
these units would not be restricted to first-time buyers, then a household with substantial assets,
but with low wages/salaries/retirement benefits, could qualify as an eligible buyer.`' This seems
contrary to who should benefit from the creation of affordable housing. Staff recommends that the
town seek clarification'on this,point.
The requirement of a 10%downpayment for the affordable units is also a concern. Our experience
tells us that most low-income people, who are first-time homebuyers,would have a difficult time
coming up with a'10% downpayment. Typically, no more than 5% is required when-structuring an
affordable homeownership,program for low-income homebuyers .,
Staff found it troubling that the affordable units are not being targeted to first-time homebuyers.
Typically, such targeting takes place because these are the very households who face the greatest
hardships in purchasing their first home. Intact,most of these households would not be able to
buy a home were it not for the presence of housing programs like',the Comprehensive Permit.
The application does not explicitly state what the term of affordability will be. By reference (i.e.,
Monitoring Agreement and CCB&T letter) it implies that it will be 15 years. This needs to be made -
more explicit. It should be-noted, however, that if the term'is 15'years,`itwould represent a fairly
modest commitment on.the part of the applicant. It`would seem appropriate,given the waivers that
are being sought, that'the town would want to pursue a longer'term.
Io
Freezer Road 40B Comment Letter
May 22, 1998
ON
tf 4
41
s '
tG{ '." , S. t t x ,w Yr x,-
�tn
fe
The Monitoring Agreement is satisfactory'with one notable exception The'agreement does not
contain any provisions for notifying the town in°'the event of a resale 'It would seem reasonable; ; ti
and in the public's best interest, if such a provision were included'.Staff-would also recommend
that such a provision include language that would'give the town the first option to selectan eligible
buyer. .
The plans and application as submitted do not indicate wherethe affordable units will be located
within the development: More specificity is required in this instance, '-For'projects subject to -
review as a Development of Regional Impact, the'Commission requires that the affordable units are:
comparable in-design and are'located throughout the„development: .Suchfari approach results in a
more integrated community. ,:Staff recommends that the town adopts siinilar,approach in its review,
of this application 1 .
The application does not propose use of a lottery system for selection of1he buyers of the
affordable units.'Our experience suggests that the best method for:ensunng that selection of'`
buyers is conducted fairly and objectively.is through use of a lottery system �Staff recommend_s i
that the town consider such an approach: ' h x.
ty� 't
e.
On a related note, the application:does not`address how solicitation of the prospective,buyers will
occur. It does addiess how,this.will take place with respect to minority buyers, but not with respect
to the general public::Staff recommends that the town'request a detailed outreach/marketingxplan ';
from the applicant E.` T,
9 4} z ¢ is
WATER RESOURCES
. -t *w ;RL£ �' ?f� i: �Y* h+r�• � 4S {{, '�bx '�p t -
The17.5 acre Freezer Point sitefis.bordered on three sides by Barnstable Harbor and its associated
wetlands. Of the 7.5 acre total;approximately,4.1 1,acres consist of land above mean'high water ,.
For more than 80 years,.the.site has been predominately used for commercial activities with
occasional accessory residential dwellings: These commercial activities have involved the storage
and use'of hazardous materials, as described'in'the "Immediate Response Action Completion='y :,
Statement Tier Classification"document that was submitted with the application:
The Classification document also describes the remedial activities undertaken on the site, including
the removal of five'underground tanks, the excavation of 692 tons of contaminated soil,,the
treatment of 7,000 gallons of contaminated groundwater,�and the installation,of a;passive soil.'
vapor extraction (SAVE) system ,According to the,Classification document;the cleanup`and
characterization of the.site has not,been finalized because complete measu'rementshave not" `
occurred on the'propei-ty,formerly'occupied by Canal Marine, due to concerns about the.structural
integrity of existing buildings (p: 16). In this area,of the property,soil concentrations exceeded the
Massachusetts Contingency Plan(MCP) regulations,S-2 soil standards (p `9 10).,The soil
standards,(S-1 through S-3)'are defined by the level ofpoieniial human contact,mith S-1 standards
being the most restncti_ve
y��i �rtw� tw..,r .a,�' :�s.�'�� �� u�-, ' + � � .
,N
' x Until this.further characterization is coin letedthe full extent.of contarrunation and" oteritial irri act r -
P P ,P
on proposed�residents cannot,be fully determined"�In.,ad'dition, staff,would suggest that the
appropriate 'standards,for the review of proposed'residential use,of th6-site should be.S-1
standards, since the soils would be potentially accessible and it is possible that children may be K
Freezer Road 40B Comment Letter � `•v
T w
May 22 1998
a'
w
present on the site (see Table 40.933(9).in-the MCP). Once the contamination characterization has
been completed, staff would urge'the applicant to ensure that all measured concentrations are below
S-1 soil standards and GW-2 groundwater standards, which are comparable to the S-1 soil
standards. If the concentrations are not below these standards, the applicant,should complete a
comprehensive Method 3 risk assessment, which would evaluate potential'health concerns of the
concentrations found. This risk assessment should assess the human risks associated with
construction of any buildings and regular'residential occupancy of the proposed dwellings. In
addition, any revised risk assessment should include an assessment of any ecological risks '
associated with the proposed remedial activities on the-site, as a small portion of the site is locatedN
within the Barnstable Harbor Area of Critical Environmental.Concem (ACEC) and the balance of _
the site is immediately adjacent to the ACEC 4,
Aa s« a
In addition to hazardous waste and remediation concerns, development of;the site presents other
water resource concerns. The proposed 40B project has 19 two-bedroom units pd.13 three-
bedroom units. The Title 5 flow from this project would be 8,470 gallons per day, which the`
applicant proposes to connect to the Town sewer system. The Town wastewater treatment facility.
has limitations on the flows'it can accommodate,Fespecially during high Groundwater conditions
✓ such as those which currently exist. Given these.limitations, it should be determined from the
Town that adequate wastewater allocation is available for the project` n,this portion of.Barnstable•
village.
Given the ACEC designation of Barnstable Harbor, treatment of stormwater on site is also`a '
significant site development concern. The Classification document estimates that groundwater on
ft
the site exists between 3 and 6 .•below'ground surface (p. 3). This presents a relatively limited `i_'
unsaturated zone area for the disposal and treatment of stormwater on the'site. In addition,
increasing the paved area on the site by over 400070 (from 5,400 ft2 to 22,000 ft2) will result in
additional stormwater that will need to be disposed of on-site: The applicant should also document
the potential impact that disposal of this Greater quantity of stormwater will have on the potential
mobilization of hazardous materials once the final hazardous materials characterization of the site is
completed. m
COASTAL RESOURCES/WETL'ANDS.-
The proposed development area is directly adjacent to"the Sandy Neck/Barnstable Harbor ACEC,
m ,
with a small portion of the site (approximately to the limit of the V-zone) that is within the ACEC.
This ACEC was designated be of the extensive barrier beaches, dunes, and salt marsh
present, which'provide critical'habitat for 300 species of birds and,.160 species of plants. 'Without
a natural resources inventory to evaluate the habitat value of the site, it is unclear what impacts this
project may have on the•resources protected by the.ACEC. It also appears that the project may be
subject to Chapter 91 and Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction, and as such would require the
filing of an Environmental Notification Form(ENF) under the Massachusetts Environmental
Policy Act (MEPA).
According to plans submitted with,the comprehensive permit application;most of the development -
is located within the FEMA A-zone. The RPP`requires that the project plans be designed for
documented relative sea level rise of one foot pei 100 years.=The proposed development is also
located within 100 feet of the top' 'of a coastal'bank, and in some locations lies within 3=4 feet of the.
top of the coastal bank. There is no information about whether the'coasta.l bank is a sediment
Freezer Road 40B Comment Letter
May 22, 1998
w',,; a•, �, c r;.
5
source bank or a vertical buffer bank, and whether the proposed construction activities or the
longterm effects of the development itself will impact the function of this bank as a sediment
source. Staff is also concerned that the development may ultimately be structurally undermined by
erosion of the coastal bank, either gradually or by a severe storm event;'
Buildings #3  and a portion of the parking lot are located within the 100-foot buffer to ,
wetlands, and in some locations proposed new construction(portions of buildings#3 and#4) lies
within 10 feet of bordering vegetated wetland. The Regional Policy Plan requires a vegetated,
undisturbed buffer area of at least 100 feet in width to protect the natural functions of a wetland. A
buffer of 50 feet is required by the Town of Barnstable's wetlands regulations. The location of
development, including landscaped areas, in such proximity,to wetlands, poses the risk of
substantial impacts to the saltmarsh ecology.'
RPP Coastal Resources Policy 2.11.5 recommends that an'existing water dependent facilities
should not be changed to a non-water dependent facility unless an overriding public benefit is
provided to accommodate for the loss of the water dependent use; The town of Barnstable's Local
Comprehensive Plan has also identified this area as an activity center for marine business.
P ty .
TRANSPORTATION: ' '
Staff recognizes that the proposed use is describedin'the traffic impact report as TTE Land Use
Code 250, Retirement Community, and all traffic analysis is based on that use. However, as noted
above, there are no age restrictions contained in the comprehensive permit application. _
The intersection of Route 6A anddMill Way currently:operates at LOS F.during the existing summer
p.m. peak hour. Based on the comments listed below (the potential increase of traffic generated by
the site, the additional traffic from the
5-year growth projection, and the`one-lane approach on Mill Way southbound to the-Mill
Way/Route 6A intersection), the no-build and build traffic analysis should be recalculated for this -
project and resubmitted for review.; -
• Because the facility does not have age requirements:in the comprehension permit
application, staff has completed a trip generation analysis comparing the traffic generation
from a retirement community to a residential condominium complex (see Trip Generation ..
Analysis). The results show that if the condominiums are sold to general residents, the
traffic generated will,be almost three times greater than the traffic generated by a retirement
community. ' ? 14,
.,
4.e
At a minimum,'the no-build and build design year'should covera five-year traffic
projection. The traffic report used,a 2-year projection:
C -
it,'•N1
• The intersection analysis for Mill Way and Route 6A used separate left and thru/right lanes
".= for the Mill Way approach to this intersection. The Mill Way approach to this intersection
is a one-lane roadway that widens at the intersection. Therefore, the analysis should reflect
a one-lane approach..'
Freezer Road 40B Comment Letter
May 22, 1998
v 6
x
Staff has the following additional+comments
• At the request of the town; the width of Freezer Road was measured approximately every
200' along its length (8 measurements): The roadway measured approximately 17 at the
first 7 locations; at the final location, the terminus of Freezer Road, the roadway measured
approximately 18'. Per AASHTO standards, the minimum roadway width,for a local
roadway with fewer than 400 vehicles per day is 17.7 feet. Staff believes that the existing
roadway width is adequate to serve the proposed development
r '
=u N.
• The report stated that the required stopping•site.distance on Mill Way is'146 feet. Mill Way
is posted"Thickly Settled 30 MPH". Based on a 30 MPH operating speed, the required ti
stopping distance would be 200 feet.- Staff believes that the existing stopping sight on Mill
Way exceed'200•feet.
Regardless of the project type, the Regional Policy Plan would require the applicant to reduce the
average daily automobile trips by 20%, based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers average traffic
generation. The attached list (dated February 14, 1998) provides some ideas for reducing daily
automobile trips: '
COMMUNITY C11kRACTER:
The project includes the demolitionof an existing freezer building and replacement with a three- •.
story condominium building housing 15 units. An existing metal storage building is also proposed
to be demolished and replaced with a two-story,condominium building. Two additional two-story
condominium buildings and conversion of an existing residence into,two units are;also proposed.
Redevelopment of existing structures and sites'is supported by the Regional Policy Plan(RPP).
However, the RPP also requires that the height and scale of new development or redevelopment be
compatible with its site and existing surrounding buildings. While the existing freezer building
may be a similar size and scale to the proposed structure, the metal storage building is a one-story
building. The project also proposes to increase the density of development on an environmentally
sensitive site with the addition of two other condominium buildings. As such, staff questions the -
compatibility of the project with its site and its surroundings. "
r
The RPP recognizes the importance of protecting sceriic'vistas such as`Barnstable harbor. RPP
MPS 6.2.2.states,that where proposed'development and redevelopment is surrounded by buildings
with distinctive architectural styles,building height and materials shall be harmonious with the
character of thesurrounding area. Barnstable harbor is zoned for marine business and contains a
mixture of small-scale residential and commercial uses. In addition,both Mill Way and Commerce
Road which surround the site have been designated as scenic roads by the town of Barnstable.
RPP policies recommend that new development and redevelopment be designed,to maintain and
enhance views of the shoreline from public ways, access points and existing development. While
proposed building materials are compatible with those of the surrounding area,proposed building
w .height and scale" ould dramatically alter the character,arid density of development in this key•
location at.the:entran6 to3ainstable harbor '
Freezer Road 40B Comment Letter '
May 22, 1998 f r
7
SUMMARY: k1w
There is a clear and pressing need for more affordable housing m- the town of Barnstable, as well
P g as throughout Barnstable County. Presently, 4 35% of Barnstable's year-round housing is
considered affordable. The Commission has an obligation to promote those.efforts that are
designed to address the affordable'housing needs of Cape.Cod residents. However,given the, `
uncertainties associated with this application and the issues/concerns cited above Commission
staff is not in a position to say that this project, as proposed,would represent a housing benefit for,
the town of Barnstable:
Respectfully submitted,
do arbonell
Exec tiv irector -
cc: James Tinsley, Barnstable Town Manager `
Ralph Crossen,Barnstable Building Commissioner -'
Robert Schernig, Barnstable Planning Director'
Jackie Etsten, Barnstable Planning Department
Robert Smith,Barnstable Town Attorney
Laura Shufelt, Chairman Barnstable Housing Committee
Thomas Lynch, Director Barnstable Housing Authority
Steven Schuman, Chairman Barnstable Planning Board
a Old Kin s Highway Committee ,.
Peter Freeman,Barnstable O y ., - _ •
g g
Tom Mullen,Barnstable DPW Commissioner w
Rob Gatewood;Barnstable Conservation�;Administrator
Tom McKean,Barnstable Health Agentf
�a•
Sumner Kaufman, CCC Barnstable representative
,� wC '¢a �� '.� a_. - � A,•• u.• � a aa. "
Freezer Road 40B Comment Letter
• May 22, 1998 �' �*
:
t TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS
J�izFE ER ROAD
'BARNSTABLE,MA.,' .y N _
Applicant y f Other. '
Land Use Retirement'Community. Residential Condo
. , "3, or Townhouse r
PIE Land Use Code
..1
Independent Variable Occupied Units '` Dwelling Units
Size 1 ` :, 32,
t
r _ _
AM Peak Hour Tnps 6 ®,,, 15 Y
PM Peak Hour Trips.' 9 18
lid
T'
Daily Trips 70 r *190*
Ix
a
xf
'a
-d
'.. t
'k
If
: 3 s.
is , .
. w s
m February 14, 1998
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT. }
Transportation Demand Management '(TDM) measures decrease the dependence on
private automobiles by encouraging altern ate'modes of. transportation.. The.
following examples -are TDM (a.k.a. trip,Jeduction) measures,,.that can be used to
reduce project traffic in an effort to comply with .Minimum '-Performance Standards
4.1.1.1 and 4.1.2.1 of the Regional Policy Plan. Applicants]-may'°propose-,a
combination of the strategies 'listed below to achieve .this standard. `In. all cases,.
applicants are encouraged to' identify and evaluate strategies that are appropriates
for their project. . Sources of data. must be identified and' methods must be
justified. Other trip reduction examples with specific credits allowed can be seen
in the "Cape Cod Commission Guidelines -for Traffic. Impact' Assessment Technical
Bulletins".. Development of TDM programs with other businesses is encouraged as. a
method to reduce area-wide` traffic. CARAVAN for Commuters, Inc., a.,non-profit
commuter services company, is available to assist applicants. in the
implementation, monitoring, and management of TDM programs. CARAVAN can. be
y
reached at 617-973-7189, or electronically at www.commute.com.
Trip Reduction Measures: -
• Car/vanpooling
• Preferential parking for car/vanpoolers ;
• Public transportation
• Shuttle -busses
• Subsidized transit passes
• Bicycle facilities
• Pedestrian facilities r
• Showers and bicycle lockers F
• Guaranteed ride home (company car, rental car, cab, designated, driver)
• On-site amenities (ATM, cafeteria, child care,, fitness, car- repair, stamps)y -
• Telecommuting
• Arrange employee work hours''to match transit schedules
• Compressed work weeks
• Flexible work ,hours for ridesharers-
• Transportation, coordinator .
• Trip reduction .monitoring program
• Mixed-use development
• Development near transit routes
• Park & ride lots
Marketing and, promotion (prize drawings for ridesharers)"
Employee incentives ,..(allowances for using' •alternate modes of transportation)
• Employee disincentives (parking pricing,- reduced parking spaces)
• Intelligent Transportation Systems (electronic TDM 'information) -
• Delivery service
Cape God Commission,,
. 2t .
d.
y
OF BARS
a� s� BARNSTABLE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
a SUPERIOR COURT HOUSE
J BARNSTABLE, MASSACHUSETTS 02630
�JAIs PHON[D *al-let i
DRINKING WATER LABORATORY ANALYSIS ! ��
Client: n_..�tabl mare of FTAAlth Name of Collector: T-aaenb
Sample Location: Polar Ice Affiliations
BAMFLtaLble Harbor Time and, date of collection: 12 noon
Type of Supply: town water Ju a 19. 1981
Date of Analysis: ,ja® 3--6, 3 981
Parameter Sample Result Recommended Limits
Coliform Bacteria (organisms/ml) 0 0
pH 6.0
Iron, (p1mi) .38 High 0.3
Nitrate,-Nitrogen (ppm) .75 10
C,,nductivity (microml os/cm) •1149 500
copper
Water sample meets tho recommended limits of all above tested parameters.,
Water sample is drinkable but han higher than average levels of
This does not represent a health hazard but future monitoring is recomended.
g Water sample is drinkable but may present atsthetie (staining, odor, or taste)
proms to users. Due to high iron content
Water sample is of por.r quality and is not recommended to be used for human
consumption.
Resampling and retesting is suggested.
Rasults only.
REMARKS: *Secondary Standard
C-c:
cc:
Analyst:. �� �✓ �