A Look at the High School Appeal in Full

Members of the Headwaters Stream Team wrote the attached letter as part of their recently filed appeal of the Conservation Commission's Order of Conditions.

As a filed by a group of 13 residents, the Headwaters Stream Team submitted that was approved by the Wilmington Conservation Commission.

In a recent article on Wilmington Patch, Headwaters Stream Team member Suzanne Sullivan said the biggest issue the group has with the project is that the plans discussed at public hearings did not match the Order of Conditions that the town submitted.

"We would like to state that we are pleased with many of the improvements made from the latest Notice of Intent/Order and the effort put forth by the town and Nitsch Engineering," the letter says in its opening paragraph. "We had hopes some of these remaining issues would have been cleared up during the public hearing process to avoid an appeal."

For interested residents, attached is the Headwaters Stream Team's complete list of issues that led to the project appeal, filed on Friday, May 25.

Karl Ian Sagal June 02, 2012 at 02:55 PM
I am anxious to hear what the state has to say about this issue. I would like to know if the town high school building committee is in compliance with what they have submitted. If they are, or if they are not, two very different paths will be revealed.
Josephine MorningStar June 02, 2012 at 03:50 PM
just looked this up on the Ma-DEP NOI database.. part 1 (wont let me post the comments that MaDep had in full!!) quote: "Stormwater: Under Standard 2 post peak discharge rates may not exceed pre-development peak discharge rates. There are not exemptions for negligible impacts. Therefore flow into DP4 must be met for the 10 year storm event. As well as for flows entering DP3 for the 2 and 10 year storm events. Under Standard 3: In order to determine soil infiltration rates, one soil boring or one test pit must be dug for every 5,000 feet of basin, with a minimum of three borings for each infiltration basin. The NOI only provides soil borings in the area of the proposed school in order to evaluate subsurface data for the design of the foundation. MassDEP also would require more information regarding the placement of porous pavement underlain with perferated pipes in the area of contaiminated soil. ....(to be continued in next comment)
Josephine MorningStar June 02, 2012 at 03:51 PM
second part of quote : "What is the depth of this contaiminated soil? Is this area proposed to be lined to prevent any interation between infiltrated flow and contaiminated soil? Standard 4: NOI must identify with Water Quality Unit is being proposed for pre-treatement. NOI is claiming an 80% TSS removal rate for this system. Information must be provided to support this TSS removal rate. Infiltration systems may only claim 80% TSS removal rate when combined with pre-treatement. Therefore the NOI cannot claim a separate TSS removal rate for the BMPs proposed to accompany the infiltration systems. Riverfront Area: The NOI has identified several areas for off-site mitigation. Detailed information on these sites must be included in the NOI as they are being approved as part of this Order of Conditions. Commission should ensure that the plans illustrate all wetland resource area delineations, include the proposed planting plans, monitoring schedules, erosion control and construction sequencing." end quote http://public.dep.state.ma.us/wetland/wetland.aspx
George Lingenfelter June 02, 2012 at 04:27 PM
The pdf file posted to the Patch represents the final comments and concerns of the Headwaters Stream Team only and IS NOT THE FULL APPEAL! The Stream Team Comments were attached to the 10 Resident Request for Superseding Order of Conditions as enclosure 7 of 9. The main appeal letter is 16 pages. Among the objections to the project described in the “current” Notice of Intent (NOI), are those directly related to the petroleum contamination within the Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) Area and stormwater discharges into the area of contaminated soil. To all the haters out there: if the second appeal is “just for spite,” please explain “technically,” why the deficiencies with the Town's first NOI for the turf field were not responsible for the Town being compelled to withdraw it!
Steven McGinley June 03, 2012 at 10:20 PM
I would like to thank Karl Ian Sagal for being such a voice of reason here. if I could I'd appeal to a higher authority about the heating and cooling system design I woud, but I don't believe I have any such rights to do so. But I would like to thank the building committee board members for hearing me out over the past few months at the many meetings. As I said before I work for many school systems and I do believe these schools I just overbuilt, especially when it comes to the heating and cooling systems. And because of that I was very vocal in my opposition to the school, some of my language at times I believe was out of line. So I state here a public apology to the town manager, Mr. Michael Ciara, the superintendent of schools Joann Benton, board member Michael Newhouse, and the entire board.
Steven McGinley June 03, 2012 at 10:20 PM
I would also like to state my opinion on Kevin McDonald's right to speak in these methods. It's as simple as this in my eyes, if he is following the rules as laid out by our bylaws and the laws of the Commonwealth, than he should be treated with respect. There's no gray areas there for me. It would be very nice if everybody were happy and content with the plan, no one would rather see the construction go smoothly and on schedule than me. But these processes there for a reason and we just have to let them play out. I'd also like to say from what I've seen at the meetings the efforts of this group of 10 to 13 have made this a much nicer project overall as it relates to the landscaping especially in the area of the existing bus turnaround.
Christine June 04, 2012 at 01:58 AM
No don't want to read the appeal, just want to know when they will be satisfied so we can move forward with the new high school.
Steve H June 04, 2012 at 02:36 AM
Christine, this very very small group will never be satisfied, that is the problem with them. They are here to just cause the town one big headache
Steve H June 04, 2012 at 02:42 AM
Steven, kevin has the right to speak, but by no means does he deserve our respect, you earn respect, and i highly doubt he ever earned anyone's resepect
Karl Ian Sagal June 04, 2012 at 03:05 AM
Some members of the 10 (13?) are very fine upstanding individuals, who care a great deal for Wilmington, and have had various levels of success in their efforts, and some have had quite a following. Some members I do not know as well. Steve H's post to Christine is simply inaccurate. His advice pretty much reminds me of him. Steve H's advice to Steven is his right to say or feel. His doubt is a personal opinion however, and I suspect it is also not accurate. On the topic of earning respect, there are many haters here, and many who say horrible and inaccurate things about their fellow townspeople, and that is surely not a way to earn my respect.
Karl Ian Sagal June 04, 2012 at 03:15 AM
Steven McGinley, I wonder at your statement that you feel you don't believe you have any such rights to speak to higher authority about the heating and cooling systems. You say you have experience in such topics from working in many school systems. I ask, if not you, then who would have such rights? I don't know you, so I am not saying you should have the final authority, but in our town, I believe that all of us bill payers (tax payers) have the right to express ourselves and the town employees (school building committee) have the responsibility to listen. I suspect that some of the haters here will try, inaccurately, to tell me that the High School building committee are not town employees, but they are. Minimally, they are special town employees, as are all the members of all the appointed boards. Additionally, I feel it is a respectable task to take responsibility for some things you have said in the past, and to atone for the statements you feel were out of line.
Kevin MacDonald June 18, 2012 at 11:32 AM
Plans are not matching. Does this surprise anyone who recognizes the major shafting of this community? No bid contracts, invitation only bids, no oil spill clean up, designing a drainage system to flow into an oil spill area, denying people their right to speak, blocking the community from hearing true information, putting people on boards that have no engineering, scientific, or construction background, conflict of interest, meetings without community television coverage are all par for the course for this disaster. Wake up Wilmington and stop the shafting !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Steve H June 18, 2012 at 08:21 PM
and then there are some who speak just to hear their own voice, sound like anyone you know Karl,
Karl Ian Sagal June 19, 2012 at 01:46 PM
Steve H, Your insult is noted, but still potentially valid. There are some who clearly get so hung up in the confrontation and argument, that they loose sight of their objective. If the objective is to allow the best building or best path for the town to take, now that the people have declared their trust in the group that wants the new High School, then people need to bring up mistakes made, or voids in the proper execution of the building plan, but also to keep the project moving forward. To argue for the sake of arguing, or to be an obstructionist for the sake of taking your piece of flesh from some perceived wrong is not productive, and needs to be curtailed. Unfortunately, we depend on the good judgement of all the players involved, and it is not easy to make a rule that controls this beyond the opportunities that are currently in law, and constitutionally supported.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something