HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012TOWN OF MANSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS
Six Park Row, Mansfield, MA 02048
September 13, 2012
Mr. Stan Feck
Christian and Feck Development Corporation
494 Stearns Avenue
Mansfield, MA 02048
Dear Mr. Feck,
At its September 13, 2012 meeting, the Board of Health voted to approve the Facility
Aggregation Plan and the unexecuted restriction documents for the Rolling Fields Village
subdivision as recorded at the Bristol County Registry of Deeds Book 486 pages 30-40.
If I may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
NG3INEK E,RI N (G, C 0 1NC,
150 North Main Street
Mansfield, MA 02048
(508)339-3731
(508) 339-3733 (FAX)
e-mail-rimengineering@verizon.net
August 6, 2012
Scott Liete, Health Agent
Mansfield Board of Health
6 Park Row
Mansfield, MA 02048
Re: Rolling Fields Village
Off Elm Street
15.216 Aggregate of Flows and Nitrogen Loading
Dear Scott and Board Members;
DRAINAGE STUDIES -PERCOLATION TESTS -SEWAGE
DISPOSAL PLANS -TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEYS -
WETLAND FILINGS -LAND COURT SURVEYS -
SITE PLANS-RESIDENTIAUINDUSTRIAL SUBDIV.
f
WN A t J 0 6
Get
I
,y,
Enclosed are 3 sets of Board of Health Topographic Plans and 6 reduced sets that are easier to review.
A "i
Rolling Fields is in a Zone II area where the state code requires that only 4 bedrooms may be placed per acre of
land due to the nitrogen loading. The alternate being proposed is a Cluster Subdivision where a section of land
labeled "Common Open Space" is being set aside to remain as permanent open space. The common open space
areas will be conveyed to the Mansfield Natural Resource Trust. The town well is south of this site and the
groundwater drops in a south westerly direction. The groundwater flows from lots through common open space
toward the well.
Total Upland Area = 1,259,845 s.f. = 28.92 A
Camden Lane = 72,244 s.f. = -1.65 A
McKenzi Land = 77,833 s.f. = -1.78 A
Upland Minus Roads = 1,109,768 s.f. = 25.48 A
1,109,768 s.f.
Total Upland Per Lot = 16 Lots = 69,360 = 1.59 A
Enclosed is a nitrate study for the area. The nitrate calculates at 4.94 milligrams per liter.
Sincerely,
RaphI111UU//1.. Maloon, P.E.
RIM/dl
Encl.
310 CMR: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
(1) Interim Wellhead Protection Areas and Department approved Zone Its of public
water supplies;
(2) Nitrogen sensitive embayments or other areas which are designated as nitrogen
sensitive for purposes of 310 CMR 15.000 shall be mapped based on scientific
evaluations of the affected water body and adopted through parallel public processes
pursuant to both 310 CMR 15.000 and in the Massachusetts Water Quality Standards -
314 CMR 4.00.
15 216-. Ag-gra Late Detempnalions of Flows and Nitrogen Loadings
(1) The 440 gallons per day per acre nitrogen loading limitation imposed by 310
CMR15.214 may be calculated in the aggregate by using nitrogen credit land in
accordance with a Department approved Facility Aggregation Plan or Community
Aggregation Plan. Applicants proposing systems to be located vMhin aeommunity
or region covered by a Community Aggregation Plan approved by the 00peatment
shall calohlate aggregate detemhinaEions of flows and nitre en loadin in
accordance with the Plan and the Department's "Guidelines for Title 5 Aggregation
of Flows and Nitrogen Loading." Ali other applicants seek'mg aggregate
determlindtion of tows and nitrogen loading shall prepare o Facility yitlgregalion Plan
in accordancewi0e 310 CMR 15 216 and the 13epartmi nfs "Guidelines for Title 5
Aggregation of Flows and 1"fitrogen Loading."
(2) To qualify as Nitrogen Credit Land, the land trust:
(a) be within the saw Mogen Sensitive Area as the Wily ifthe
facility is in a Nitrogen Sensitive Area;
(b) be within the same subdivision in an area where the use of both on -
site systems and drbakrig water wells are proposed to serve the
(c) not have any manmade sources of nitrogen, including, but not
limited to, wastewater discharges and nitrogen based fertilikerlocated
thereon;
(d) not be used for raisarg, breeding or keeping of axis;
(a) be ;pervious;
{f) be outside of Zone As, Velocity Zones and Regulatory Floodways;
(g) not be covered by any surface water body including, but not limited
to, a river, streams, lake, pond, or noean;
(h) already not cur, entty designated as nitrogen credit land; and
(i) meet the criteria set forth in the Department's Guidelines for idle 5
Aggregation of Flows anal Nitrogen Loading!
(3) I. and located within a Zone t of a public water supply well may be used as
nitogen credit land unless the well Is determined to be at risk in accordance with
the Department's"Guidelines for Title a Apgre gatim, cif Flores oneNitrt gon.
Loading" or the proposed design flow is 2W-- gallorss fen day or gre glen.
310 CMR: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
(4) Community Aggregation Plans
(a) A city or town may seek Department approval for aggregate determination of
flows and nitrogen loading across a region wide area such as, but not limited
to, a Zone 11 of a public water supply well. Department approval of a
Community Aggregation Plan may autlwrize the local Approving Authority to
approve site specific facility aggregation plans in accordance with the
approved Community Aggregation Plan.
(b) The Department may approve a Community Aggregation Plan provided that
the following conditions are met:
L. the local Approving Authority has approved the Plan;
2. the Plan contains a mechanism to protect surface and ground water
supplies within the community or region from pollutant and nitrogen
loading and a proposed mechanism for implementing the Plan;
3. the Plan meets the criteria in the Departments "Guidelines for Tote 5
Aggregation of Flows and Nitrogen Loading,"
4. for areas that include a Zone 11, the Plan includes a nitrate loading
analysis and nitrate�management plan as specified in 310 CMR 1
22 21(2)(d). and
5 any other conditions tired the Department deems appropriate_
(5) Facft Aggregation Plans
s (a) The local Approving Authority and the Department may approve a Facility
Aggregation Plan provided that the following conditions are inet:
1. the proposed facility meets the criteria in the Depadnvmts
"vuidetnes for Title 5
Aggregation of Flows and Nitrogen Loading";
2. the design gow 61440 gallons perday peracre eguivalenrcy across the
faaliity and other land areas for which nitrogen credit is sought, but not
necessarily on livery individual acre, will be met through recorded Land
use restrictions that restrict nitrogen toodir g on fe ilriy land end
nitrogen credit land. These land use restrictions mLW-. be substariWty
Identical to those contained In the Departments "Gi ddelines for Tide 5
Aggregation of Flows and Nitrogen Loading,' run in perpetwlfr, be
approved by the respective land owners, run to the benefit of the
mixicipalily arcing by and thiougkto localAppruving A€ithorilyand,
In the case of nitrogen credit land, also run to the benefit of the facility
land. The applicant shall record or register such restrictions and
easements in the appropriate Rergietry of Dee& or t rind Fr�istmflori
OMce willhin 30 days of approval of tt-ie plan by the Depa rrterit or the
expiration of the Department's 60 day constructive approval period,
pursuant to 310 CMR 15.216(5)(b), whichever occurs W and
3. wV other conditions that the Department rleerris opprop+rlale
(b) A Facky AggregaTon flan shall be deented to be approved by the
Department if, within 60 days from a determina*m of administrative
completeness, the Department has not in w+Ning:
I
310 CMR: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
1. requested additional information from the applicant which may include,
but is not limited to, additional measures the Department deems
appropriate to protect public health, safety, welfare or the environment;
or
2. granted a written approval, which may include any conditions the
Department deems appropriate to protect public health, safety, welfare
or the environment or
3, denied approval.
In the event the Department requests additional information from the applicant, a new 60
day constructive approval period shall commence upon receipt of the additional
information.
15217. Systems with Enhanced Nitrogen Removal
(1) The nitrogen loading limitations established in 310 GLAIR 15.214 shall not apply to
discharge of an effluent meeting the federal Safe Orumking Water Act nitrate standard of
10 ppm through either an approved alternative system or a trealmentwoft with a
groundwater dischargepermit issued pursuant to 314 CMR 5.00 and 6.00 (groundwater
discharge pro9r+)-
(2) An increase in calculated allowable nutrient loading per acre maybe allowed with
the use of a technology approved forenhanced nublernt removal pursuant to either the
piloting, provisional or general use cerlifcation provisions in 310 CMR 15.281 through
a
152=as Mustrated by the following example:
Recirculating Sand Filter 550 gpd/aae
In the event that the Department determines that a system opprovcd for
enhanced nutrient removal using a technology approved by the Department on a piloting
,or provisional basis pursuant to 3`10 CMR 15.285 and 15.288 respectively is not
pei forming in acoordance with the Department's approval, the Department may require
the system owner to instead use an enhanced nutdont removal fechnrtogy that has boon
ceffied farveneral use by the Depadment. 'the increaseddesign flow allowed reflects
the nutrient removal porformance of the approved technology compared to a standard
system otherwise described in 310 CMR 15.100 through 15293_ A system receivrtg a
design flow c edit for enhanced nutrient removal pursuant to 310 CMR 15.217 must still
comply with the of 310 CMR 1&101) through 15.203 with respect to system
siting and design; the credit noes not affect any o#w wing or design requirement.
The plans and specifications for every on -site system shall be prepared as
follows.
(1) Every system shall be designed bye lklassanbuselts� Reglsntercd Prone,clonal
Engines or a Massachusetts Registered Sanitarian provided that suchSaniiariamashalt
not design si systorn to morel than 2,000 gallons per day pursuant to 310 CMR
16.2.0 . Any other ag'Nlt of the owner may prepare plans for the repair of a system
ENGINEERING CO., INC.
150 North Main Street
Mansfield, MA 02048
(508) 339-3731
(508) 339-3733 (FAX)
e-mail-rimengineering@verizon.net
August 6, 2012
Scott Liete, Health Agent
Mansfield Board of Health
6 Park Row
Mansfield, MA 02048
Re: Rolling Fields Village
Off Elm Street
15.216 Aggregate of Flows and Nitrogen Loading
Dear Scott and Board Members;
DRAINAGE STUDIES -PERCOLATION TESTS -SEWAGE
DISPOSAL PLANS -TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEYS -
WETLAND FIIdNGS-LAND COURT SURVEYS -
SITE PLANS-RESIDENTWJINDUSTRIAL SUBDIV.
Enclosed are 3 sets of Board of Health Topographic Plans and 6 reduced sets that are easier to review.
Rolling Fields is in a Zone H area where the state code requires that only 4 bedrooms may be placed per acre of
land due to the nitrogen loading. The alternate being proposed is a Cluster Subdivision where a section of land
labeled "Common Open Space" is being set aside to remain as permanent open space. The common open space
areas will be conveyed to the Mansfield Natural Resource Trust. The town well is south of this site and the
groundwater drops in a south westerly direction. The groundwater flows from lots through common open space
toward the well.
Total Upland Area=1,259,845 s.£ = 28.92 A
Camden Lane = 72,244 s.£ = -1.65 A
McKenzi Land = 77,833 s.f. = -1.78 A
Upland Minus Roads = 1,109,768 s.f. = 25,48 A
1,109,768 s.f.
Total Upland Per Lot = 16 Lots = 69,360 =1.59 A
Enclosed is a nitrate study for the area. The nitrate calculates at 5.62 milligrams per liter.
Sincerely,
Raph I. Maloon, P.E.
RIM/dl
Encl.
GROUNDWATER IMPACT REPORT
ROLLING FIELDS VILLAGE
MANSFIELD, MA.
Rev. September 12, 2012
Total Site Area= 1,519,261 s.f. = 34.87 Acres
Total Area of 16 Lots= 485,474 s.f. = 11.14 Acres
Average Lot Size= 30,342 s.f.
Common Open Space= 883,090 s.f. = 20.27 Acres
Road Areas Camden--- 72,244 s.f.
McKenzie= 78,453 s.f.
Site Area Minus Roads= 1,368,564 s.f.
NITRATE STUDY
Nitrate Volume
OF
RALPH
I.
MALOON
Iz zcrZ
16 Houses x 4 Bedrooms/House x 110 GallonsBedroom= 7,040 Gallons/Day
7,040 Gallons/Day x 132 Milligrams/Gallon = 929,280 Milligrams/Day
Lawns= (485,744 s.f. / 1,000 s.f.) x 25% Lawn x 933 Milligrams/Day
= 113,299.8 Milligrams/Day
Total Nitrate per Day=1,042,579.8 Milligrams/Day
Water Volume
Waste Water 7,040 Gallons/Day x 3.78 Liters/Gallon = 26,611.2 Liters/Day
Onsite Rainwater— 11.14 Acres x 5,062 Liters/Day = 56,390.7 Liters/Day
Total Water Volume = 83,001.9 Liters/Day
Onsite Nitrate Concentration Only = (1,042,579.8 Milligrams/Day) / (83,001.9 Liters/Day)
= 12.56 Milligrams/Liter
Add Common Open Space
883,090 s.f. = 20.273 Acres x 5,062 Liters/Day=102,621.9 Liters/Day
Total Nitrate per Day
= (1,042,579.8 Milligrams/Day) / (83,001.9 + 102,621.9) Liters/Day = 5.62 Milligrams/Liter
GROUNDWATER IMPACT REPORT A Hermdff
Nitrate -Nitrogen Concentration - July 31, 2012 jYl tad\
for Rolling Fields in Mansfield, MA. <1
Revised August 15, 2012
Water Supply - Town Water: j
2.5 mg/L Nitrate -Nitrogen concentration
Vtw (Volume Town Water) = 4 persons per household x 16 households x 55 GPD x365 days-`- - - - —
=1,284,800 Gallons per year
Wtw (Nitrogen Town Water) = (2.5mg/L x 8.341bs/Gal x 1,284,800 Gals) / 1,000,000
- 26.8 pounds per year
Home Septic System: .5
Vw (Volume Septic Use) = 4 persons per household x 16 households x 55 GPD x 365 days
=1,284,800 Gallons per year
Ww (Nitrogen from Septic)= 4 persons per household x 16 households x 5 pounds per person/year
= 320 pounds per year
Lawn Fertilizer:
60.5% of Total Lot Area is Lawn. Fertilizer contributes 1.2 pounds per 1,000 s.f.
Wf (Nitrogen from Fertilizer) = (1.2 pounds x 293,912 sf lawn) / 1,000 sf= 352.7 pounds per year
Recharge - Rainwater:
Total Area= 1,519,261 sf
Wetland Area= 259,419 sf
Upland Area=1,259,842 sf
Impervious Upland Area- 143,034 sf
Vr (Volume of Recharge - Rainwater)
Vr = ((19"/12) x 1,116,808 sf pervious x 7.48 gals/cf) + ( (9"/12) x 259,419 sf wetlands x 7.48 gals/cf)
=14,682,070 Gallons per year
Wr (Nitrogen from Rainwater) = (0.05 mg/L x 8.34 pounds per gallon x 14,682,070 gallons) / 1,000,000
= 6.1 pounds per year
Concentration of Nitrate -Nitrogen Resulting from Subdivision Development
Nitrate -Nitrogen Concentration = (Ww + Wr + Wtw + Wf) in Pounds x 1,000,000)
(Vw + Vr + (Vtw * 0.9)) in Gallons x 8.34
= (320 + 6.1 + 26.8 + 352.7) x 1,000,000
(1,284,800 + 14,682,070 + 1,156,320) x 8.34 eSH Or 4
= 4.94 mg/L �o�� RALPH
o �
In Zone 11, The concentration cannot exceed 10 mg/L. �' MALOON
No. 2022�
The proposal is in compliance with the regulation. 's 9F _n�
oL .g?'Ar
ROLLING FIELDS, MANSFIELD
TO QUALIFY AS A NITROGEN CREDIT LAND, THE LAND MUST:
(a) be wig -sin the saw hWpger. Ser si&"ve Area as the fac4 if aze
facility is in a Nitrogen Sensitive Afea;
(a) It is in the same nitrogen sensitive area.
{b) be within ffie same subdivision in an area where the use of both on -
site systems and drinkirxg vrater wells are prq)osed to =ve the
(b) This requirement is not applicable because the houses will use Mansfield Public Water.
(c) not hav v :any Enaninade sources of nitrogen, including. bW not
limited to, caste eater discharges and nitrogen based k T¢er iocated
thereon;
(c) As a Residential Subdivision the site does not have any wastewater discharges and will have none except
what is created in each house.
t 1 •- V'f .• .;:5; d 1 LF€- .0 a F:rt .f 4. a 1.
(d) The site will not be used for animals excepting household pets.
(e) be pervious;
(e) The pervious portionsof the subdivision have been subtracted in calculation of nitrogen loading.
(t) be outside of Zone As, Velocity Tones and Regulatory t= loodways;
(f) The site is not within Zone A's, Velocity Zone and Regulatory Floodways.
(9) not be covered by any surface wa?sr body including, but not limited
to, a river, Stream , "Ke, timid, rrcceaT:
(g) The site is not covered by any water body excepting wetlands, which have been subtracted to calculate the
nitrogen study.
A; ,..auy riot as nitrogen credit tand; and
(h) The site is not currently a nitrogen sensitive land.
(i 'r' o3 . ti �t .iti erH..:.r
=:.. &� forth ortl3 ' a -a the Deparirrient's "CAideTir �es kx
AWccc",ka of Fk)ws and Wb-ogfli toa&ng '
(i) The site meets the criteria for "Guidelines for Title 5 Aggregation of Flows and Nitrogen Loading".
OF
flALPN
MALOON
Does the facility aggregation plan afford the same environmental
protection as a single acre residential house lot receiving 440
gallons per day of effluent in a nitrogen sensitive area?
15 216• Aggregate Determinations of Flows and Nitrogen Loadings
(1) The 440 gallons per day per acre nitrogen loading limitation
imposed by 310 CMR15.214 may be calculated in the aggregate by
using nitrogen credit land in accordance with a Department approved
Facility Aggregation Plan or Community Aggregation Plan.
All other applicants seeking aggregate determination of flows and
nitrogen loading shall prepare a Facility Aggregation Plan in
accordance with 310 CMR 15.216 and the Department's "Guidelines for
Title 5 Aggregation of Flows and Nitrogen Loading."
(2) To qualify as Nitrogen Credit Land, the land must:
(a) be within the same Nitrogen Sensitive Area as the
facility if the facility is in a Nitrogen Sensitive Area;
(b) be within the same subdivision in an area where the
use of both on -site systems and drinking water wells
are proposed to serve the facility;
(c) not have any manmade sources of nitrogen, including,
but not limited to, wastewater discharges and nitrogen
based fertilizer located thereon;
(d) not be used for raising, breeding or keeping of
animals;
(e) be pervious;
(f) be outside of Zone As, Velocity Zones and Regulatory
Floodways;
(g) not be covered by any surface water body including,
but not limited to, a river, stream, lake, pond, or
ocean;
(h) already not currently designated as nitrogen credit
land; and
(i) meet the criteria set forth in the Department's
"Guidelines for Title 5 Aggregation of Flows and
Nitrogen Loading."
Summary of Guidelines
The equivalency of the 440 gpd per acre standard noted in 310 CMR
15.214 must be met.
15 214: Nitrogen Loading Limitations
1. No system serving new construction in Nitrogen Sensitive Areas designated in 310 CMR
15.215 shall be designed to receive or shall receive more than 440 gallons of design
flow per day per acre except as set forth at 310 CMR 15.216 (aggregate flows) or 15.217
(enhanced nitrogen removal).
2. No system serving new construction in areas where the use of both on -site systems and
drinking water supply wells is proposed to serve the facility shall be designed to receive
or shall receive more than 440 gallons of design flow per day per acre from residential
uses except as set forth at 310 CMR 15.216 (aggregate flows) or 15.217 (enhanced
nitrogen removal).
3. It shall be the duty of the owner of the system or proposed system to ascertain whether
or not the facility to be constructed will be in a nitrogen sensitive area. The Department
will prepare and make available at locations generally accessible to the public maps
portraying designated nitrogen sensitive areas within the Commonwealth.
• For design flows of 2000 gpd or greater, the local approving authority or
DEP may require a site -specific mass balance analysis for the area of
impact. The mass balance analysis must demonstrate that the
groundwater quality standard of 10 mg/I total nitrogen and 10 mg/I
nitrate -nitrogen will be met at the downgradient credit land property
boundary, or at the nearest downgradient sensitive receptor.
• Both the facility and the credit land must be restricted in perpetuity
through either an appropriate conservation restriction or a nitrogen
loading restriction and easement.
• For a facility located in a Zone II, the Board of Health or the Department
may require an assessment using the DEP Nitrogen Loading Model for
projects that could potentially result in impacts at the public supply well.
FA
222 Z.
MUM
(5) Facility Aggregation Plans
(a) The local Approving Authority and the Department may approve a
Facility Aggregation Plan provided that the following conditions are met:
1. the proposed facility meets the criteria in the Department's "Guidelines
for Title 5 Aggregation of Flows and Nitrogen Loading";
2. the design flow of 440 gallons per day per acre equivalency across the
facility and other land areas for which nitrogen credit is sought, but not
necessarily on every individual acre, will be met through recorded land
use restrictions that restrict nitrogen loading on facility land and nitrogen
credit land. These land use restrictions must be substantially identical to
those contained in the Department's "Guidelines for Title 5 Aggregation of
Flows and Nitrogen Loading," run in perpetuity, be approved by the
respective land owners, run to the benefit of the municipality acting by
and through the local Approving Authority and, in the case of nitrogen
credit land, also run to the benefit of the facility
land. The applicant shall record or register such restrictions and
easements in the appropriate Registry of Deeds or Land Registration
Office within 30 days of approval of the plan by the Department or the
expiration of the Department's 60 day constructive approval period,
pursuant to 310 CMR 15.216(5)(b), whichever occurs first; and
2. any other conditions that the Department deems appropriate.
(b) A Facility Aggregation Plan shall be deemed to be approved by the
Department if, within 60 days from a determination of administrative
completeness, the Department has not, in writing:
1. requested additional information from the applicant which may
include, but is not limited to, additional measures the Department
deems appropriate to protect public health, safety, welfare or the
environment; or
2. granted a written approval, which may include any conditions the
Department deems appropriate to protect public health, safety,
welfare or the environment; or
3. denied approval.
0
In the event the Department requests additional information from the
applicant, a new 60 day constructive approval period shall commence upon
receipt of the additional information.
ENGINEERING CO INC.
150 North Main Street
Mansfield, MA 02048
(508) 339-3731
(508) 339-3733 (FAX)
e-mail-rimengineering@verizon.net
August 6, 2012
Scott Liete, Health Agent
Mansfield Board of Health
6 Park Row
Mansfield, MA 02048
Re: Rolling Fields Village
Off Elm Street
15.216 Aggregate of Flows and Nitrogen Loading
Dear Scott and Board Members;
DRAINAGE STUDIES -PERCOLATION TESTS -SEWAGE
DISPOSAL PLANS -TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEYS -
WETLAND FILINGS -LAND COURT SURVEYS -
SITE PLANS-RESIDENTIAL/INDUSTRIAL SUBDIV.
SEP 1,1212
Enclosed are 3 sets of Board of Health Topographic Plans and 6 reduced sets that are easier to review.
Rolling Fields is in a Zone H area where the state code requires that only 4 bedrooms may be placed per acre of
land due to the nitrogen loading. The alternate being proposed is a Cluster Subdivision where a section of land
labeled "Common Open Space" is being set aside to remain as permanent open space. The common open space
areas will be conveyed to the Mansfield Natural Resource Trust. The town well is south of this site and the
groundwater drops in a south westerly direction. The groundwater flows from lots through common open space
toward the well.
Total Upland Area = 1,259,845 s.f. = 28.92 A
Camden Lane = 72,244 s.f. = -1.65 A
McKenzi Land = 77,833 s.f. = -1.78 A
Upland Minus Roads = 1,109,768 s.f. = 25.48 A
1,109,768 s.f.
Total Upland Per Lot = 16 Lots = 69,360 = 1.59 A
Enclosed is a nitrate study for the area. The nitrate calculates at 5.62 milligrams per liter.
Sincerely,
Raph I. Maloon, P.E.
RIM/dl
Encl.
GROUNDWATER IMPACT REPORT
ROLLING FIELDS VILLAGE
MANSFIELD, MA.
Rev. September 12, 2012
Total Site Area-- 1,519,261 s.f. = 34.87 Acres
Total Area of 16 Lots= 485,474 s.f. = 11.14 Acres
Average Lot Size= 30,342 s.f.
Common Open Space= 883,090 s.f. = 20.27 Acres
Road Areas Camden-- 72,244 s.f.
McKenzie= 78,453 s.f.
Site Area Minus Roads= 1,368,564 s.f.
NITRATE STUDY
Nitrate Volume
RALPH
L
MALOON
'10 20225
/Zi Zc(Z
16 Houses x 4 Bedrooms/House x 110 Gallons/Bedroom = 7,040 Gallons/Day
7,040 Gallons/Day x 132 Milligrams/Gallon = 929,280 Milligrams/Day
Lawns= (485,744 s.f. / 1,000 s.f.) x 25% Lawn x 933 Milligrams/Day
= 113,299.8 Milligrams/Day
Total Nitrate per Day=1,042,579.8 Milligrams/Day
Water Volume
Waste Water 7,040 Gallons/Day x 3.78 Liters/Gallon = 26,611.2 Liters/Day
Onsite Rainwater— 11.14 Acres x 5,062 Liters/Day = 56,390.7 Liters/Day
Total Water Volume = 83,001.9 Liters/Day
Onsite Nitrate Concentration Only = (1,042,579.8 Milligrams/Day) / (83,001.9 Liters/Day)
= 12.56 Milligrams/Liter
Add Common Open Space
883,090 s.f. = 20.273 Acres x 5,062 Liters/Day=102,621.9 Liters/Day
Total Nitrate per Day
= (1,042,579.8 Milligrams/Day) / (83,001.9 + 102,621.9) Liters/Day = 5.62 Milligrams/Liter
GROUNDWATER IMPACT REPORT A Her it e
Nitrate -Nitrogen Concentration — July 31, 2012 %Yl e - A6j
for Rolling Fields in Mansfield, MA.
Revised August 15, 2012
Water Supply - Town Water:
2.5 mg/L Nitrate -Nitrogen concentration
Vtw (Volume Town Water) = 4 persons per household x 16 households x 55 GPD x 365 days
=1,284,800 Gallons per year
Wtw (Nitrogen Town Water) = (2.5mg/L x 8.34 lbs/Gal x 1,284,800 Gals) / 1,000,000
— 26.8 pounds per year
Home Septic System:
Vw (Volume Septic Use) = 4 persons per household x 16 households x 55 GPD x 365 days
—1,284,800 Gallons per year
Ww (Nitrogen from Septic)= 4 persons per household x 16 households x 5 pounds per person/year
— 320 pounds per year
Lawn Fertilizer:
60.5% of Total Lot Area is Lawn. Fertilizer contributes 1.2 pounds per 1,000 s.f.
Wf (Nitrogen from Fertilizer) = (1.2 pounds x 293,912 sf lawn) / 1,000 sf= 352.7 pounds per year
Recharge - Rainwater:
Total Area-1,519,261 sf
Wetland Area:-- 259,419 sf
Upland Area= 1,259,842 sf
Impervious Upland Area:-- 143,034 sf
Vr (Volume of Recharge - Rainwater)
Vr = ( (19"/12) x 1,116,808 sf pervious x 7.48 gals/cf) + ( (9"/12) x 259,419 sf wetlands x 7.48 gals/cf)
=14,682,070 Gallons per year
Wr (Nitrogen from Rainwater) = (0.05 mg/L x 8.34 pounds per gallon x 14,682,070 gallons) / 1,000,000
= 6.1 pounds per year
Concentration of Nitrate -Nitrogen Resulting from Subdivision Development
Nitrate -Nitrogen Concentration = (Ww + Wr + Wtw + Wf) in Pounds x 1,000,000)
(Vw + Vr + (Vtw * 0.9)) in Gallons x 8.34
_ (320 + 6.1 + 26.8 + 352.7) x 1,000,000
(1,284,800 + 14,682,070 + 1,156,320) x 8.34 ZH 0y'
= 4.94 mg/Lod RALPH
In Zone II, The concentration cannot exceed 10 mg/L. MALOON
No. 20225
The proposal is in compliance with the regulation. y� 9Fn ^Taff
ROLLING FIELDS, MANSFIELD
TO QUALIFY AS A NITROGEN CREDIT LAND, THE LAND MUST:
(a) be wittm the same Iftogen Sensih--ve Area as the facility if the
facility is in a Nitrogen Sensitive Area;
(a) It is in the same nitrogen sensitive area.
(b) be within the same subdivision in an area where the use of both on -
site systems and drinking water wells are proposed to serve the
lacw.
(b) This requirement is not applicable because the houses will use Mansfield Public Water.
(c) not tia_vo any n�an,rade sources of nitrogen, including, but not
i!ini!ad t0, was4euvafer discharges and nitrogen based ferlilizet iOCed
ttlereon;
(c) As a Residential Subdivision the site does not have any wastewater discharges and will have none except
what is created in each house.
(d) not be used for raising, breeds- ag or keeping of ar nnnls;
(d) The site will not be used for animals excepting household pets.
(e) be pervious;
(e) The pervious portionsof the subdivision have been subtracted in calculation of nitrogen loading.
(f) be outside of Zone As, Velocity Zones and Regulatory t=toodways;
(f) The site is not within Zone A's, Velocity Zone and Regulatory Floodways.
(g) not be covered by any surface wale; body including, but not limited
to, a river, stream, hike, pno - , o: c---a'
(g) The site is not covered by any water body excepting wetlands, which have been subtracted to calculate the
nitrogen study.
ih) >,,—nsdy not c.:w-,ntP� �oigna_tid as nitrogen credit land, and
(h) The site is not currently a nitrogen sensitive land.
(i) m� st the Crilnri:a �t forth in the Department's "Guidelines for T"dte 5
AQgriVatirn of Vkwis and Loadin "
(i) The site meets the criteria for "Guidelines for Title 5 Aggregation of Flows and Nitrogen Loading".
Does the facility aggregation plan afford the same environmental
protection as a single acre residential house lot receiving 440
gallons per day of effluent in a nitrogen sensitive area?
15.216: Aggregate Determinations of Flows and Nitrogen Loadings
(1) The 440 gallons per day per acre nitrogen loading limitation
imposed by 310 CMR15.214 may be calculated in the aggregate by
using nitrogen credit land in accordance with a Department approved
Facility Aggregation Plan or Community Aggregation Plan.
All other applicants seeking aggregate determination of flows and
nitrogen loading shall prepare a Facility Aggregation Plan in
accordance with 310 CMR 15.216 and the Department's "Guidelines for
Title 5 Aggregation of Flows and Nitrogen Loading."
(2) To qualify as Nitrogen Credit Land, the land must:
(a) be within the same Nitrogen Sensitive Area as the
facility if the facility is in a Nitrogen Sensitive Area;
(b) be within the same subdivision in an area where the
use of both on -site systems and drinking water wells
are proposed to serve the facility;
(c) not have any manmade sources of nitrogen, including,
but not limited to, wastewater discharges and nitrogen
based fertilizer located thereon;
(d) not be used for raising, breeding or keeping of
animals;
(e) be pervious;
(f) be outside of Zone As, Velocity Zones and Regulatory
Floodways;
(g) not be covered by any surface water body including,
but not limited to, a river, stream, lake, pond, or
ocean;
(h) already not currently designated as nitrogen credit
land; and
(i) meet the criteria set forth in the Department's
"Guidelines for Title 5 Aggregation of Flows and
Nitrogen Loading."
Summary of Guidelines
The equivalency of the 440 gpd per acre standard noted in 310 CMR
15.214 must be met.
15.214: Nitrogen Loadinq Limitations
1. No system serving new construction in Nitrogen Sensitive Areas designated in 310 CMR
15.215 shall be designed to receive or shall receive more than 440 gallons of design
flow per day per acre except as set forth at 310 CMR 15.216 (aggregate flows) or 15.217
(enhanced nitrogen removal).
2. No system serving new construction in areas where the use of both on -site systems and
drinking water supply wells is proposed to serve the facility shall be designed to receive
or shall receive more than 440 gallons of design flow per day per acre from residential
uses except as set forth at 310 CMR 15.216 (aggregate flows) or 15.217 (enhanced
nitrogen removal).
3. It shall be the duty of the owner of the system or proposed system to ascertain whether
or not the facility to be constructed will be in a nitrogen sensitive area. The Department
will prepare and make available at locations generally accessible to the public maps
portraying designated nitrogen sensitive areas within the Commonwealth.
• For design flows of 2000 gpd or greater, the local approving authority or
DEP may require a site -specific mass balance analysis for the area of
impact. The mass balance analysis must demonstrate that the
groundwater quality standard of 10 mg/I total nitrogen and 10 mg/I
nitrate -nitrogen will be met at the downgradient credit land property
boundary, or at the nearest downgradient sensitive receptor.
Both the facility and the credit land must be restricted in perpetuity
through either an appropriate conservation restriction or a nitrogen
loading restriction and easement.
• For a facility located in a Zone II, the Board of Health or the Department
may require an assessment using the DEP Nitrogen Loading Model for
projects that could potentially result in impacts at the public supply well.
O'k
=7010
(5) Facility Aggregation Plans
(a) The local Approving Authority and the Department may approve a
Facility Aggregation Plan provided that the following conditions are met:
1. the proposed facility meets the criteria in the Department's "Guidelines
for Title 5 Aggregation of Flows and Nitrogen Loading";
2. the design flow of 440 gallons per day per acre equivalency across the
facility and other land areas for which nitrogen credit is sought, but not
necessarily on every individual acre, will be met through recorded land
use restrictions that restrict nitrogen loading on facility land and nitrogen
credit land. These land use restrictions must be substantially identical to
those contained in the Department's "Guidelines for Title 5 Aggregation of
Flows and Nitrogen Loading," run in perpetuity, be approved by the
respective land owners, run to the benefit of the municipality acting by
and through the local Approving Authority and, in the case of nitrogen
credit land, also run to the benefit of the facility
land. The applicant shall record or register such restrictions and
easements in the appropriate Registry of Deeds or Land Registration
Office within 30 days of approval of the plan by the Department or the
expiration of the Department's 60 day constructive approval period,
pursuant to 310 CMR 15.216(5)(b), whichever occurs first; and
2. any other conditions that the Department deems appropriate.
(b) A Facility Aggregation Plan shall be deemed to be approved by the
Department if, within 60 days from a determination of administrative
completeness, the Department has not, in writing:
1. requested additional information from the applicant which may
include, but is not limited to, additional measures the Department
deems appropriate to protect public health, safety, welfare or the
environment; or
2. granted a written approval, which may include any conditions the
Department deems appropriate to protect public health, safety,
welfare or the environment; or
3. denied approval.
a
In the event the Department requests additional information from the
applicant, a new 60 day constructive approval period shall commence upon
receipt of the additional information.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Scott Leite, Health Agent
FROM: Shaun P. Burke, Director of Planning and Development
DATE: March 29, 2012
SUBJECT: Rolling Fields Cluster Subdivision, Elm Sheet/Camden Lane
At its March 28, 2012 public hearing for the above -referenced subdivision, the Planning
Board was asked a variety of questions relating to the potential impact on the adjacent
town well field of the 16 existing and proposed individual septic systems.
Additionally, the Planning Board was asked about potential impacts to the well field of
the application of typical lawn maintenance chemicals on the proposed lots.
It is the opinion of the Planning Board that the Board of Health and its agent are far better
qualified to respond to these inquires than is the Planning Board or its staff.
Finally, one attendee presented the board with a 1995 memorandum discussing a
previously denied subdivision on this site (copy attached). A number of statements in the
memo have been highlighted by the attendee. In general, his question is whether those
issues pertaining to the Board of Health in the memo are still relevant to the proposed
subdivision under review and why or why not.
The Planning Board will be reconvening on this matter on May 23, 2012. Any
information you or the Board of Health can provide would be appreciated.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact my office.
Attachment
SPB/jd
"j f a
o9alth 0®���i
0 0�
MEMORANDUM
TO Conservation Agent
Fire Chief
Planning Board
Planning Director
Police Chief
Town Clerk
Town Engineer
Town Manager
Water Department
FROM: Health Agent, Scott Leite
RE : Richard Morse, Elms Subdivision, Elm Street
DATE: May 24, 1995
Attorney Dalton asked me to distribute to the appropriate departments the attached chronological
list of events pertinent to the Elms Subdivision, case. Please give a copy to the approprilte
person involved for review. Thank you.
Document List
I . April 28, 1989--Form B of Mansfield Planning Board
Application For Approval of Preliminary Plan
a. Application filed by Applicant Alexander Skene
b. Property owner is Barbara Barnes (from signature appears to be elderly/fragile)
C. (I believe Planning Board suggested this plan be combined with Sunny Hills)
b. Plat number 7, parcel 16
September 6, 1989--Form B of Mansfield Planning Board
Application For Approval of Preliminary Plan
a. Application filed by Richard Morse
b. Is an I 1 lot subdivision called Sunny Hills Farm
C. Plat number 7, parcel 80
d. This plan, per suggestion of Planning Board, is combined with above
November 20,1989--Form C of Mansfield Planning Board
Application For Approval of Definitive Plan
a. Application filed by Richard Morse
b. Application has evolved from preliminary plan submitted to Planning Board
on April 28, 1989 and September 6, 1989 and approved with modifications
on May 31, 1989 and October 11, 1989
C. (this is the 39 lot subdivision called The Elms. Is a combination of the two plans
above.)
d. Application signed by Richard Morse and Barbara Barnes
11/29/89 letter from Lt. Joseph Sarro (Fire Dept) to Shaun Burke
a. Regarding Elms subdivision
b. letter talks about requirements for fire hydrants
5. 12/11/89 letter from Ben Couture, Water Department
a. Regarding Elms subdivision
3 12/12/89 letter from Traffic Control Officer to Police Chief Earls
a. Regarding Elms subdivision
b. Elms subdivision --- 39 lot development with two access roadways off of Elm St.
C. This site occupies same area plus more as with the September plan called
Sunny Hills Farms
d. Directs traffic control officer to comments on Sunny Hills project.
12/20/89 memo from Richard Lewis (Environmental and Conservation Planner) to
Shaun Burke, Director of Planning and Development
a. Regarding his comments on The Elms
b. Notice of Intent will be required
C. Applicant should relocated roadways to eliminate any wetland alteration
d. No substantiation of accuracy of the wetland line shown on map
e. Drainage calculations should be done using SCS Tr-55 method
f. Complete Environmental Impact Study should be done with emphasis on potential
impacts of project on Town Well which is being investigated on adjacent lot
g. Subdivision clearly falls within Interim Zone II from proposed well field. EIR
should look at nitrate and nitrogen loading, and should make
recommendations for mitigating the impacts of this from the project.
6. 12/20/89 memo from Scott Leite to Planning Board
a. Regarding The Elms subdivision
b. Notes that this project abuts land town wishes to develop as water supply
and that this project "may have more impact" on public health than
other projects
C. Notes that EIS (Environmental Impact Statement?) states that "on -site sewage
disposal will have minimal effect on subsurface water". Leite believes this
incorrect. Soil and groundwater conditions are hydraulically conductive in
the extreme" and in addition to the density of the project, may
create a serious local threat to groundwater pollution
d. Threat of such a condition next to public water supply merits greater study
e. Leite recommends:
I. At least partial, if not full Zone II water study to establish a model
of the cone of depression and direction of gw flow
2, extent of aquifer supplying the well be established; including
boundaries and saturated thickness.
3. overlay map of above two items, in addition to proposed
subdivision to be used for estimating nitrate loading.
4. Estimating nitrate loading should also include time for source
destination to the well head based on precipitation gw flow and
water consumption.
5. Results should be compared to allowable limits for nitrates in
drinking water.
6. 12/20/89 memo from Robert Swanson (Town Engineer) to Planning Board
a. Regarding The Elms
b. Makes several comments regarding water lines, drain easements, etc.
C. Also comments that the applicant should be aware that his site is very likely in
Zone lI area of proposed Ash Well. Pending legislation could possibly
limit sewerage flow to a septic system to 440 gpd/acre within Zone 11
April 18, 1990 memo from Engineering Department (believe it is from David Archard)
to the Planning Board
a. Regarding The Elms
b. Engineering Department never received any corrected plans from the applicant,
therefore, Department has no comments at that time.
May 3, 1990 memo from Ben Couture, Water Dept, to Planning Board
a. Regarding The Elms
b. Memo makes 1 recommendation regarding a placement of a fire hydrant
C. Water Dept had no further objection at that time
I. May 9, 1990 letter from David Archard, Assistant Town Engineer to Paul Howard of
Anderson -Nichols
a. Regarding Environmental Impact Report submitted re The Elms
b. Town asks Paul Howard to review the report prior to May 16,1990
C. On May 16,1990 --- subdivision is on Planning Board's agenda
10. May 9, 1990 memo from Traffic Control Officer to Police Chief
a. Regarding The Elms
b. States that revised plan as submitted incorporated his safety suggestions per
12/12/89 memo. No further recommendations at this time.
11. May 11, 1990 memo from Lt Sarro of fire dept to Shaun Burke
a. Regarding The Elms
b. Recommendations for fire hydrants
C. Statement that plans meet these recommendations
12. May 11, 1990 memo from Scott Leite to Shaun Burke
a. Does not specifically mention The Elms
b. Memo simply states that Board of Health no longer allows burial of stumps
C. Therefore, no subdivision plan should show an area to dispose of stumps
13. May 15, 1990 memo from Richard Lewis to Shaun Burke
a. Regarding The Elms
b. Regarding the EIR that had been submitted per earlier request --submitted by ERC
l . Lewis states that ERC, in report, thanked the Conservation Planner,
2. Lewis points out that at no time was he or any other member of the
Conservation Commission contacted by ERC or RIM Engineering
regarding any phase of this project.
3. Lewis is skeptical of this EIR report --says that when he saw that biologist
was in charge of what should be a detailed hydrogeological study, "red
Flags" went up in his mind, and he questions whether a this EIR is the in
depth EIR that he was looking for.
4.Plan still shows roadways going through wetlands areas
5. Lewis states that it appears that applicant is ignoring ERC's
recommendation in the EIR that he reduce the number of lots
Applicant should justify this decision
6. Lewis states that some of ERC's calculations are based on three persons per
house and lawn areas of 5000 sq ft. Unless the applicant is willing to
commit to building 2 bedroom homes (realistic for 3 persons per house)
and lawn areas of 5000 sq ft, then ERC's calculations are worthless
14. May 16, 1990 memo from Engineering Department to Planning Board
a. Regarding The Elms
b. Comments regarding the EIR
I. EIR does not adequately delineate the impact of the proposed
subdivision on the proposed Ash property well site
2. Engineering Department asked ERC to contact Anderson -Nichols
regarding the Ash property. ERC was not responsive
3 Paul Howard of Anderson- Nichols reports:
a. ERC did not note any impact to the Ash property.
15. May 16, 1990 memo from Scott Leite to Planning Board
a. Regarding The Elms
b. Leite notes that ERC, within the EIR, states that an actual hydrology study
is necessary to assess impact possibilities.
(note that EIR was supposed to be a hydrology study)
C. Leite states that the EIR is too generic to comment on; he believes the EIR
does not address the concerns as requested.
16. June 7, 1990 memo from Shaun Burke to Scott Leite
a. Regarding The Elms
b. Asks Board of Health to review subdivision plan and direct any comments
to Panning Board pursuant to M.G.L.A. ch. 41, section 8 1 U
or
c. States tadj adjustments od of f plan approval,
111 thenlbe incorporated into Planningtions for
Board's
decision.
17. June 19, 1990 memo from Scott Leite to Shaun Burke
a. Regarding The Elms
90 IIOH voted to disapprove The Elms subdivision
b. States that on June 15, 19
C. Reasons:
I. applicant has not demonstrated that runoff and any subsurface
disposal of wastewater will not adversely affect adjacent well field
2. applicant has failed to supply site specific hydrogeologic
information in order to evaluate long and short term impacts of
proposed development
3. w/o preceding info, cannot determine if public health endangered
by proposed subdivision
18. June 27, 1990 memo from Shaun Burke to Planning Board Members
a. Regarding The Elms
b. Relays that BOH voted to disapprove Elms subdivision, and that pursuant to
MGLA ch 41, s. 81U, Planning Board must also disapprove
C. Burke further states that in his opinion, applicant has failed to supply Board with
definitive answers to questions. States that "nowhere in the supporting
documentation has the fundamental question of impact on the well field
been answered"
d. Burke recommends that Planning Board disapprove plan as submitted. And that
Board may wish to advise applicant to -consider re -submitting plan when
additional information previously requested has been assembled.
19. July 7, 1990 letter from William Madan, Planning Board to town clerk Judith Scott
a. Regarding the Elms
b. Letter informs Mrs Scott that Planning Board voted 4-2 to deny approval of
subdivision plan
C. Letter states that approval was denied for following reasons:
1. June 19, 1990 memo from BOH relaying its vote to disapprove;
2. June 27, 1990 memo from Shaun Burke stating that Planning Board must
disapprove if BOH has so voted;
3. 12/11/89 memo from Ben Couture
4. 5/11/99 (sic?) memo from Lt Sarro
5. 12/20/89 memo from Traffic Control Officer
6. 5/16/90 memo from Engineering Department
7, Applicant has not provided sufficient information wrt nitrate loading and
surface water runoff onto the well site.
8. Detailed vegetative screening of retention basin is not shown on plan
9. Wildlife shrub barrier is not shown on plan
10. Detail of granite curbing not shown on plan
RIM
150 North Main Street
Mansfield, MA 02048
(508) 339-3731
(508) 339-3733 (FAX)
e-mail-rimengineering@verizon.net
August 16, 2012
Mansfield Board of Health
Mr. Scott Leite
6 Park Row
Mansfield, MA 02048
Dear Scott;
DRAINAGE STUDIES -PERCOLATION TESTS -SEWAGE
DISPOSAL PLANS -TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEYS -
WETLAND FILINGS -LAND COURT SURVEYS -
SITE PLANS-RESIDENTIAL/INDUSTRIAL SUBDIV.
Stan Feck disagrees with this state filing (enclosed) and I told him it is required.
The enclosed pages spell out what must be done. I sent it to Stan and he still thinks I am wrong.
Stan intends to see you on Monday, August 20, 2012 and you may want to glance at this data first.
I could call D.E.P. for their opinion, but it makes me feel like a dope and Stan could still disagree with their
answer.
Sincerely,
Ralph I. Maloon, P.E.
"u4
Encl.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection —Title 5 Permitting
BRP WP 58a Approval of a Nitrogen
Aggregation Loading Plan
Instructions and Supporting Materials
Table of Contents
introduction
permit fact sheet
completeness checklist
Introduction
MassDEP Permit Applications, as well as Instructions & Support Materials, are available for
download from the MassDEP Web site at rnass.gov/dep in two file formats: Microsoft WordTM' and
Adobe Acrobat PDFTM". Either format allows documents to be printed.
Instructions & Support Materials files in Microsoft WordT'" format contain a series of documents
that provide guidance on how to prepare a permit application. Although we recommend that you
print out the entire package, you may choose to print specific documents by selecting the
appropriate page numbers for printing.
Permit Applications in Microsoft WordT" format must be downloaded separately. Users with
Microsoft Word TM 97 or later may complete these forms electronically.
Permitting packages in Adobe Acrobat PDFM format combine Permit Applications and
Instructions & Support Materials in a single document. Adobe Acrobat PDFTM files may only be
viewed and printed without alteration. Permit Applications in this format may not be completed
electronically.
wp58ains.doc • rev. 6/07 BRP WP 58a Introduction • Page 1 of 1
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection — Title 5 Permitting
j BRP WP 58a Approval of a Nitrogen Aggregation Loading Plan
Permit Fact Sheet
Note: When completing the Transmittal Form, write the "a" immediately after the space provided for the seven
digit character code at the top of the Form.
1. What is the purpose of this approval?
This approval is necessary to ensure that the aggregation of nitrogen loading for on -site subsurface sewage
disposal system(s) is performed in an environmentally acceptable manner and in accordance with the provisions
of Title 5 of the Environmental Code, 310 CMR 15.000.
You must obtain approval from MassDEP for the following plans:
Community plans to aggregate for nitrogen loading over a region wide area, such as Zone Its or Interim
Wellhead Protection Areas (310 CMR 15.216(4)) or in environmentally sensitive areas such as systems
serving new residential construction where the use of both on -site wastewater disposal systems and drinking
water supply wells are proposed, i.e., private well areas.
Facility plans to aggregate nitrogen loading for a facility, where the facility land and credit land are proposed
to be used for nitrogen aggregation (310 CMR 15.216(5)). Facility plans may apply to Zone Ils, Interim
Wellhead Protection Areas or areas of new residential construction where the use of both on -site wastewater
disposal systems and drinking water supply wells are proposed, i.e., private well areas.
2. Who must apply?
Any individual, business, organization or municipality proposing to implement a nitrogen aggregation plan for
either a community or any part thereof or a specific facility is required to obtain MassDEP approval in accordance
with 310 CMR 15,216.
If this category does not apply to you, please be advised this is not the only permit category for Title 5 on -site
sewage disposal systems or related plans. Please consult the Timely Action Schedule and Fee Provisions, 310
CMR 4.00 and Title 5 of the Environmental Code, 310 CMR 15.000, to determine whether another category may
apply to you. Note: Any and all land identified as "restricted" or "credit land" for the purposes of one application for
aggregate nitrogen loading cannot be used for another application pursuant to 310 CMR 15.216.
Note: MassDEP anticipates the preparation of either a Community Plan or a Facility Plan proposing to aggregate
for nitrogen loading may require both technical (including hydrogeologic) and legal expertise.
3. What other requirements should be considered when applying?
Plans proposing nitrogen aggregation require prior written approval by the local approving authority (310 CMR
15.216).
Plans proposing nitrogen restrictions on facility and credit land(s) require prior written approval by the property
owner(s) (310 CMR 15.216(5)).
Note: These additional requirements are intended to serve as a guide to the applicant. They do not necessarily
include all additional requirements.
4. What is the application fee?
BRP WP 58a Nitrogen Aggregation Loading Plan $1,580
wp58ains.doc • rev.6/07 BRP WP 58a Permit Fad Sheet • Page 2 of 2
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection — Title 5 Permitting
BRP WP 58a Approval of a Nitrogen Aggregation Loading Plan
Permit Fact Sheet
5. What is the Primary Permit Location? What is the Reserve Copy Location?
Primary Permit Location:
Department of Environmental Protection (2 copies)
* Regional Office
Title 5 Permitting Program
*Find your region http://www.mass.gov/dep/abouUregion/findyour.htm
There are no Reserve Copy Locations for these permits.
6. Where can I get a copy of the timelines?
The timelines are available on the MassDEP Website: www.mass.gov/dep/service/online/fees.htm
7. What is the annual compliance fee?
There is no annual compliance fee.
8. How long is the approval in effect?
This approval remains valid until MassDEP revokes or modifies the approval. In the case of a Community Plan,
the approval is in effect until there is a local land use regulation change or other action that would impact the
MassDEP approved nitrogen loading plan.
9. How can I avoid the most common mistakes made in applying for this approval?
a. Review application for completeness to be sure all questions are answered correctly.
b. Refer to the Department's, "Guidelines For Title 5 Aggregation of Flows and Nitrogen Loading (310 CMR
15216)" for further guidance.
c. For a Community Plan, attach the following:
completed application with supporting materials;
a map for the area covered by the plan;
buildout analysis under current zoning for the area covered by the plan;
440 gpd per acre equivalency calculations;
in the case of a Zone Il, results of the MassDEP Nitrogen Loading Computer Model;
approval from the local approving authority,
comments from the Planning Board, if any,
a nitrogen loading management plan.
d. For a Facility Plan, attach the following:
completed application with supporting materials;
approval from the local approving authority,
locus and site maps with relevant features;
a narrative description of the proposal and presenting facts;
440 gpd per acre equivalency calculations;
copies of current deeds for the facility and credit land(s),
copies of all unexecuted nitrogen deed restrictions on facility and credit land(s);
For facilities with design flow of 2000 gpd or greater, if either the local approving authority or MassDEP
requires a site -specific mass balance analysis, applicants must also attach:
a hydrogeologic assessment;
site -specific mass balance analysis;
wp58ains.doc - rev.6/07 BRP WP 58a Permit Fact Sheet • Page 2 of 2
LIMassachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection — Title 5 Permitting
BRP WP 58a Approval of a Nitrogen Aggregation Loading Plan
Permit Fact Sheet
a groundwater monitoring plan,
results from the MassDEP Nitrogen Loading Model, if applicable;
Planning Board comments, if any.
d. Submit fee and a copy of the MassDEP Transmittal Form to:
Department of Environmental Protection
P. O. Box 4062
Boston, MA 02211.
10. What are the regulations that apply to this approval? Where can I get copies?
These regulations include, but are not limited to:
a. Title 5 Regulations, 310 CMR 15.000.
b. Timely Action Schedule and Fee Provisions, 310 CMR 4.00.
These may be purchased at:
State Bookstore State Bookstore
Room 116 436 Dwight Street, Room 102
Boston, MA 02133 Springfield, MA 01103
617-727-2834 413-784-1376
MassDEP Title 5 Regulations and permit application packages also may be obtained from MassDEP's web site at
http://mass.gov/den
wp58ains.doc • rev.6/07 BRP WP 58a Permit Fact Sheet • Page 2 of 2