Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Artificial Turf topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wakefield commission delays decision on artificial turf after microplastic concerns
Summary
A homeowner asked to install under 500 sq ft of artificial turf adjacent to a pool; he provided PFAS testing with no detections, but commissioners raised questions about microplastics, turf lifespan (10–15 years), drainage, and potential impact to nearby wetlands and asked for full specs before taking action.
A homeowner seeking permission to install a small area of artificial turf around a new pool and patio presented product specifications and a PFAS test on July 21; the test results shown to the commission indicated no detectable PFAS in the sample the homeowner provided.
The homeowner said the area is less than 500 square feet and that the turf would reduce herbicide and pesticide use on the lawn. He described the proposed installation as a permeable turf placed over about 4 inches of compacted crushed stone with a mesh backing that allows water to percolate into the stone base and surrounding soil. "In this turf, there is none of that at all," the homeowner said when asked about PFAS test results.
Several commissioners expressed concern about microplastics and long‑term breakdown products entering adjacent wetlands even if the product is PFAS‑free. One commissioner said, "I just don't like the idea of microplastics getting filtered into the wetland," and another asked about life expectancy; the homeowner replied the turf warranty is 10–15 years and acknowledged that replacement would be required at the end of that period.
Staff said the product materials and installation details the commission needs to assess whether the turf should be considered pervious or impervious under local practice and DEP guidance are not yet consolidated in the record. Commissioners asked staff to collect full specifications, manufacturer installation details and the tests the homeowner referenced; the commission agreed to take the item up again at its August 4 meeting after members have had time to review the materials.
What’s next: staff will consolidate the turf specifications, the PFAS test results and installation details and distribute them to the commission for review prior to the August meeting.
The discussion did not result in a vote; the item was continued so commissioners could evaluate technical data on permeability, expected microplastic release, drainage and long‑term maintenance.
