Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Treatment Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Select Board asks Water & Sewer for site‑selection rationale after concerns over proposed treatment plant in floodplain
Summary
The Select Board asked the Water & Sewer Commission to explain why the proposed water treatment facility is sited near the Merrimack River and in a floodplain, and asked the Planning Board to consider recreation and safety impacts to the Pines as part of site plan review.
A lengthy site‑plan and stormwater application for a proposed water treatment facility prompted extensive questions from the Groveland Select Board at its June 22 meeting about the chosen location, flood risk, insurance and long‑term rate impacts.
Board members said residents had raised safety and cost concerns about siting a multi‑million‑dollar treatment plant adjacent to the Merrimack River and within mapped floodplain areas. The application documents presented to the Planning Board include cost estimates (engineer’s project estimate was discussed as roughly $29–30 million in materials presented), site plans, and an assertion by project engineers that the building elevation would exceed required flood elevation by about 3.3 feet; board members sought clarification about insurance, ongoing operational cost impacts and whether the site is effectively fixed or could be reconsidered.
Public commenters and at least one board member asked that the Water & Sewer Commission or the superintendent describe alternatives examined and explain why other parcels were not viable. The board voted to request that the Water & Sewer Commission (or project OPM/superintendent) provide a clear explanation of how and why the site was selected and whether the project remains open to alternative locations; the board also voted that the Planning Board be asked to factor recreational disruption and safety conditions for the Pines Recreation Area into any site‑plan conditions or construction schedule.
Board members and staff noted the Planning Board cannot unilaterally change a utility’s site selection, but that the Planning Board’s site plan decision can and should include conditions to mitigate construction impacts, traffic, safety and scheduling around peak recreation use. Staff offered to invite the Water & Sewer Commission or its superintendent to a future meeting to answer detailed questions about rates, insurance and project timelines.
