Title V Decision Delayed on 27 Wildewood Wetland Set Back

The Board of Health, last night, decided to wait on a Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Title V determination about set backs from a water source and wetlands before it will issue a finding to a construction project’s plan.

They have been asked to approve of or suggest changes to the project’s plans to build a structure at 27 Wildewood Road. “We’d like to reach a decision on this. It seems this has been before us in several versions since late in 2009,” said Health Board director, Kristin McRae.

Board member and chairman, Richard Peinert asked why the conservation commission did not make this decision when the plans went before them. “This is the second time they have had this Title V request put before them,”? Peinert said. Ms. McRae explained that,

“They do not feel they have the termination to resolve this because they see it as a Title V problem. They don’t feel comfortable with this,” Ms. McRae said. Ms. McRae explained that whether or not the stream is an intermittent flow has a lot to do with resolving which department resolves the plan’s final design. If the stream is found to have a steady flow.

If the stream is an intermittent flow, the problem is not within their jurisdiction. If the stream has a regular flow, it then becomes a wetlands question and the conservation commission has jurisdiction of the question of set backs. In this plan, the set backs for a structure from its boundaries can go as far as 200 feet under some circumstances. In this case, the set backs in question range from 50 to 100 feet.

The nature of the water flow will determine the final distance, and Peter Ogren of Hayes Engineering in Wakefield believes that it the water flow will make it at least 100 feet. The site at 27 Wildewood has a freshwater stream running along one of its borders and near a bordering wetlands. Originally that brought the plan to the attention of the conservation commission. However, because the fresh water stream might also be a source of drinking water, that made the issue a Title V question.

Title V legislation protects Massachusetts’ water supply, and the conservation commission believed that condition made the plan’s approval a Health Department concern. “They say they don’t have the terms to handle this and they want us to decide how to finalize this,” McRae said. Asked by board member Richard inert if the board is prepared to discuss changes to the plans, once the DEP reaches a decision, Ms. McRae pointed out that she has the project organized and prepared to move ahead once the board receives the DEP decision or suggestions.

A local attorney, Theodore Regnante of Regnante, Sterio, and Osborne from Wakefield, who spoke at the original meeting at the conservation commission said, “We have some strong arguments for and against this to allow the project to move ahead.” Regnante of Regnante, Sterio, and Osborne represent the property owner at 27 Wildewood.

“The finding in this argument could make case law. It has a lot of new and different items that come together in one place,” he said. “We need more information,” Ms. McRae said, and the board will wait for the DEP’s decision before they settle on the final plan for the property.