It's very frustrating that 10 people can hold up this project. I understand they have every right to do so, but we need a new high school, and this group is just holding up the process for it to start.

I think it is particularly arrogant to think that the 4000 people that voted this in did not know what we were voting on. As if we are so ignorant that we could be manipulated like that. I hope the DEP puts these 10 peoples concerns to rest so that we can move on from this once and for all.

"I think they pushed it hard" ...isn't that what you're supposed to do when you support a project and want it to pass? What is the alternative, not even mention it? What is the real problem Mr. L has, that too many people overwhelmingly voted for this? I don't think many people voted for this because they were scared. JMO

This is not about the high school it is about protecting the water resources in the area, something the town should want to do, not be forced to do. There are regulations everyone must follow, home owners, developers, and yes even the town regarding the wetlands and the rivers protection act. The town did not meet the performance standard as out lined in the Act. You say you know what you were voting on, but I don't think you did. No one knew how the town would come forward for the field. Think, don't point fingers. It is bad enough the town years ago filled wetlands, floodplain, and the Ipswich River to put these fields in in the first place, they are obligated to make it better not worse. So please know what you are talking about before you criticize others for trying to do the right thing, get the facts, and don't rush to judgement. Someone in this town has to care about and protect our water resources. It just is something that has NEVER been on this town's agenda but it does not mean it is not important and the laws say that it is important even if some can not see the forest through the trees. If the project gets delayed, which I doubt it will, blame the applicant for not doing what is required under the law, the regulations, that everyone else has to follow. The government should not be exempt. It should be something the town should want to do!!!

I'm curious if the DEP decides that there is no impact on the town water resources due to this project, who gets to foot the bill for the added delays and over-run costs? Oh. Wait a minute... that's us, the tax payers.

Here we go again.....I don't get how 10 people can cause this much of a traffic jam....the town has spoken with what it wants to do and just because there were people not happy with it they have to be the small % to derail the needs and wants of the rest of the town.

The same people who objected to every other aspect of the HS plan are now retreating to the last bastions of their fight. Suggesting this is about concern for the wetlands is disingenuous. This is another tactic by an ill-informed, poorly motivated, and otherwise inept group of malcontents. I know they enjoy their days of playing the role of a pseudo Erin Brockovich, and I excitedly await the day when they will have no motions left and are forced to deal with reality: things are fine and their crusade is not required.

I think Mr.L experiences feelings of severe withdrawals if his name isnt in the papers from time to time. You're not that relevant george!

I would just like to ask what qualifications does Mr. Lingenfelter or Ms. Sullivan have to hold up the project based on innuendo. What companies do these people work for and what "real life" experience do they really have than just showing up a meeting and writing foolish letters to editor. Get a life!

Just got a great update form a friend that this is already in the DEP's hands... so I have deleted the last comment referencing the CC's meeting because the issue has already moved on --and is awaiting a decision I believe.. thanks for theinfo!

Hey Matt, Do you have any info on what's going on at the DEP? It would be great to have some additonal info about the decision-making "process"... Given the number of wetlands in Wilmington, many might appreciate the info, best and worst case scenario..

The issue is the artificial turf, not the high school building plan. It is not wise to put a large impervious area, which has been shown to leach toxic metals and other chemicals from the crumb rubber that is an integral part of a "turf" (i.e., plastic and crumbled tires), right along the riverfront. They have said they could monitor the runoff, but realistically, no one will ever make them take it out if they find toxics and hot water (the turf fields get very hot in summer) going into the river. Having kids playing on real grass is a wonderful thing, even if it reduces the usage of the field a bit.

I find it unlikely that the DEP wasn't involved in the discussions and determinations involving wetlands so closely located to the structures and sports fields. It is the role of the DEP to determine these things. However, if there isn't proper DEP involvement and approval documentation inside the meeting minutes or packets of info that was presented to residents, then it should be sought. Their request maybe be "misinformed", but as a resident concerned about the environment I find it appalling that this could be overlooked. Whatever it takes to have this project be successful for our children's future, town budget, AND environment, should be done.

How sad. These 10 people have nothing better to do than be thorns in the side of the town. These same 10 people were very vocal about the cost of the new project, while this holdup is just going to cost the town more. Hypocritical much?

Who are the ten people?

I think a rule needs to be put in place on the patch. Matt, let's make is required to use real names.

Feel free if you want to but I wouldn't. Some people who read this stuff are not stable by any means.

Foghorn Leghorn & Turffield ok are fake names and shouldn't be allowed

While we ask that everyone use their real names in posting, we understand that some people may not feel comfortable in doing so on certain issues. That being said, I would like to remind everyone to please make sure that any comments you are posting are contributing to the discussion. Thanks to everyone for reading, and for your interest in the debate.

Matt, Andover Townsman and other online news sites make people register to avoid comments that are attacking etc.

Sad, spiteful people--this has nothing to do with the environment..

I would also comment that I agree with sue sul(real name?) that the town does not have a great record on the environment. Nothing really blatant or law breaking, more on the incompetent , not caring side. Planning, wastewater management, conservation, open space just isn't a priority. Half the houses built in town are really borderline skirting wetlands issues. Again maybe not breaking any laws except common sense on where to build. Alot is basic greed and and somehow there is a sucker born every minute who buys them. Then they want a deck or a pool and problems begin. I would suggest to these 10 people to concentrate their efforts there and not on the field. Or many other worthy issues for your effort. Also truly, look at your motives and are you realy trying to help or hurt? Use your abilities to do something good.

I have asked Matt Schooley to please put the appeal letter to DEP up on his website for people to read if they are truly interested instead of allowing/turning resource protection into a political football to be punted around through public opinion ( the whole purpose by the way for laws and regulations) . That way people can see that it has merit and that it is NOT about delaying or derailing the school? I, as have others, have for the last 15 years, taken the protection of the Ipswich River and our water resources seriously and I'm not going to stop now. I have sent the letter to Matt. If he choses to not post the letter I can email it to anyone that wishes to read it. It is an appeal that has merit.

I agree that people should post only if they're using their real names. To use the excuse that there are unstable people, what a bunch of crap.
Turdfield OK, you should do some homework before you make statements that you can't back up and then state them as if you're some type of authority on the subject. Your comment about the tires is foolishness and is not taken to consider the manufacturing process of this new turf.
You could put your skates on at the bus turnaround and skate to the Ipswich River. That's a fact I've done it. The Ipswich River doesn't start anywhere near Woburn, it starts on Woburn Street, by Concord Street. Every drop of rain water that hits any wetlands in Wilmington will eventually find its way to the Ipswich River.

I've read all the studies that have been posted about the artificial turf fields as with anything these days you can manipulate the data to make your case. It seems to me they are generally safe but the runoff is a concern. It's best that the DEP does review this, that way if there is a problem it can be on them. I would rather see this project that I wasn't in favor of or supported move forward without delays. That would be ideal of course. I'm never going to faults any of these people for doing what they feel is right within their own conscience as long as they're doing it in the proper way and through the proper channels, and that's exactly what they're doing.
They have every right to do that. If we built a model school on a huge flat perfectly buildable Shawsheen school field we wouldn't be having this discussion
:-) and a buddy that says that the artificial turf is safer or more environmentally friendly than natural grass, come on. Who do you think you're kidding. T

thanks, Suz Sull

http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.116-a116
quote [ Patti Wood, executive director of the nonprofit Grassroots Environmental Education, argues, “This crumb rubber is a material that cannot be legally disposed of in landfills or ocean-dumped because of its toxicity. Why on earth should we let our children play on it?”

Recycled crumb rubber contains a number of chemicals that are known or suspected to cause health effects. The most common types of synthetic rubber used in tires are composed of ethylene–propylene and styrene–butadiene combined with vulcanizing agents, fillers, plasticizers, and antioxidants in different quantities, depending on the manufacturer. Tire rubber also contains polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), phthalates, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs).] end quote

if we can not put tires into land fills.. what are we doing putting them into the turf for children to play on regardless if they are 6yrs or 16 yrs old????

This is a foolish argument that cannot be won because it pretends that one is actually better than the other.. If you read articles from the DEP itself it says the lawnmower emissions, pesticides, watering issues, and fertilizers to manage grass are just as detrimental to the environment as the POTENTIAL damage caused by turf's byproducts running off over time...the problem needs to be mitigated either way if there is one...but I don't believe grass is any better than turf from what I've read...

@ Christine,= what articles did you read?? i would be interested to know.. perhaps i will agree.

The Shawsheen watershed would have very little exposure if anything in Wilmington, the dividing line is up by the intersection of 125 and 28, and to the west I would think it's mostly in Billerica.

This pathetic and desperate manuver is the last gasp of the town crazies, who have been discreditied and rejected one by one over the past ten years and are furious about it.

Kind of like the Lunatic Fringe's Waterloo. :)

here's the actual appeal in case you missed it..

http://wilmington.patch.com/articles/a-look-at-the-dep-turf-appeal-in-full

I would just like to remind people, if I felt passionate and/or even wanted to stop the High School you would all have a date on your calendars for a special town meeting. I would have been out in force against the HS. Just like i did with the library plan. This is NOT about the HS use your heads to think not to be tools. Do I think there was a better plan for the HS, yes, and as I said in letters to the editor i would go door to door to get it passed if it was at Shirrappa's but I certainly was not and still am not that passionate about being part of the opposition. I do however think the Town should do the right thing and follow the laws residents have to follow regarding the wetland protection act. The Ipswich River......... well yes i am passionate about that!

weren't there many opportunities to address the turf before the vote? It has been part of the plan all along and it was clearly stated at one of the meetings I attended that the plan was for turf....

Josephine, that is democracy. No one wanted to listen to the issue? Maybe they don't care. That is just how it goes. Or maybe they think it is ridiculous.

2 or 3 fields in 2 months? What are you even talking about? The Patriots play on this stuff. It is not some huge gamble we are taking.

And the football field is not going to catch on fire. It just isn't. Now you're just grasping at straws.

@ suz sull: (1) What are the Stream Team's plans if MassDEP confirms the original order of conditions? (2) Does the Stream Team anticipate appealing future Conservation Commission decisions if that board accepts the current plans for the new building, auxiliary playing field, parking lot, access road, etc.? (I got that impression when I was in attendance at the Conservation Commission Meeting on 2/1 and you seemed ready to argue against more than just the turf field.) (3) When and where does the Stream Team meet? Are your meetings open to the public? Thanks!

Turf was part of the plan and it was stated as such at the meeting I attended at the WHS

Josephine,

The turf field was a part of the project well in advance of the Special Town Meeting. I was at several of the information sessions and I distinctly remember discussion of the turf field. In fact, I remember a gentleman standing to voice opposition to the field's price tag at one of those meetings.

Here is a thought!. moving the softball field to where it will rest between two wetlands (national register) and really CLOSE to the wetlands.. What about the increase amt of mosquitoes?? one can NOT spray into the wetlands to control the hatching mosquitoes..

Also on other side of the cemetery, is MAJOR YIELD Aquifer

I have more maps if anyone is interested.

so i have stopped argueing about the turf.. i still object to the switch of fields and the issues of the usage.. as i stated the lacrosse field would have had less use then a softball field..

more people with more activity into the buffer zone of the wetland.. that is against state and federal laws.. the law states LIMITED activity..

also what of the mosquitoes in the hot weather.. one is Not supposed to spray chemicals to stop their growth within the wetlands.. as the wetlands are HOME to many animals and nature..

so what of that exposure to the children that play on the fields?? as well as the parents / spectators that go there also.???

what of this J. R. ??

Josephine, these are just a few of the hundreds of studies done by govt and other agencies saying it's AS safe or safer than maintaining grass fields...

http://www.fieldturf.com/images/downloads/Scoping_Level_EPA_Study2.pdf
http://www.fieldturf.com/images/downloads/CPSC_Guidance_on_Lead_7-30-08.pdfhttp://www.fieldturf.com/images/downloads/Latest_Attacks_Against_Artificial_Turf_2.pdf
http://www.fieldturf.com/images/downloads/Artificial_Turf_Dangers_QA.pdf
http://www.fieldturf.com/images/downloads/nysdec-report.pdf

here is a question to those that attended the smaller town meetings.. is the area that the people who meet for the meetings, is this 'wheelchair accessible'?? is there room for me to sit so that i can see those speaking? is there room for my medical alert service dog to lay at my feet?

when i first moved here 12 yrs ago, i attended the meetings for the selectman, and tried to get into the conservation meetings, and the school board, and found that they all were not accessible. has this changed in the last 12 yrs??

Many may remember me sitting in the selectman meetings, with Heather laying in the aisle. as that was all the room there was for Both of us.. in the aisle. and no accessible parking..if i got there early enough TO park in the disabled parking.. if i had to leave early i could not get IN my car.. there is still NO access aisle for the disabled parking!!

try to go to the restroom in the town hall, its impossible if you are in a wheelchair. so the bldg that is used for meetings is not that 'inviting' if one is disabled.

As far as my comments on if I wanted to derail the High School there would be a special town meeting, is because there have been so many accusations about the motive of the appeal, false accusations. The appeal does not stop anything. Yes a delay could occur but it does not have to go that way either. It is ok for people to debate what is better turf or natural grass but really that horse has left the barn. This appeal is not about this. As far as people did not know what they were voting on, the wetland filing did not take place until after the TM votes. No one knew what the filing would be, how it would be tailored, what mitigation the town would do to off set the impacts to the Riverfront. That is normal, you would not go through the process with out approval at town meeting. It is not that people did not know about the field or whether the process was upfront. People just seem to want to twist words instead of maybe learning about this issue. This is a wetland filing and falls under different sets of rules. It is a different process. I will say once again it has NOTHING to do with the High School vote or the Turf Field. It has to do with requirements the applicant has to move forward their plans. If they do not meet standards abutters and/or citizens have the right to ask for the DEP to issue a different set of conditions. The applicant just needs to do the right thing and there are no issues.

J.R.
I am responding to attacks which makes me feel not so conciliatory. If you read the article the town manager attacks us several times by making untrue erroneous comments which started the tone for commenters. For instance:
“I think it’s disappointing that a few people can usurp the decision and determination of a large, large majority of the citizens in the town,” said Caira. “They want this project the way it has been proposed. To delay that is unfortunate and contrary to the stated intentions of the residents in town.”
This is so false and inflammatory and it worked! Commenters on this site attacked based on this story. We are not usurping any decision by the residents, we are attempting to make the town follow the laws.The debate over the high school/ the field is long over, as it should be, but the TM attempts to turn this appeal into just that, this is about resource protection. The River has no voice other than us. If the TM cared even a little about the Ipswich River and its resources we would not even be having this discussion.
Re: the tone of the letter, it is an appeal, which means you do not agree. Conciliatory means you are agreeable.
There are a lot of haters in this town and the TM loves to lather them up. I have the right to defend my position. Maybe you could contact the TM and mention to him that he should be more conciliatory and to stop spreading disinformation after all he is the leadership.

Hey Tomy,
The Town Manager is listed by name as the Applicant on the Notice Of Intent, not the Town of Wilmington. Helps if you have the facts.

If anyone is interested I found Susanne Sullivan's Stream Team photo page...
http://www.pbase.com/suzsull/ipswich_river_headwaters&page=4

I pledge allegiance to the Earth and all the Life which it supports. One Planet in our care, irreplaceable, with sustenance and respect for all.

What a silly Moonbat