There is still no answer for residents’ concerns about low water levels at Snow’s Pond.

Decas Cranberry Products, Inc. received a permit from the town to dig a bog pond, but exceeded the depth allowed by that permit by eight feet. On Jan. 27, Rochester issued a notice of violation ordering the company to cease and desist activity at the site.

There was a continuance after the last meeting due to a procedural error, and residents again showed up in droves for part two of the public hearing with Decas. But after two hours of discussion between the Conservation Commission and the cranberry company, there is still no resolution.

Despite not being able to vote on a solution at the last meeting, the commission did request $10,000 from Decas to do a hydrogeological survey. At this meeting, Peter Newton, a longtime geologist practicing water resource operations, presented his findings to residents, Decas representatives and the commission.

Ultimately, Newton found that yes, the excavation of the bog pond is most likely having an effect on Snow’s Pond. How much of an effect, however, is at this point unquantifiable. Newton also stressed that more damaging to the pond than the excavation has been the drought in the area.

“I do believe that the very dry conditions over the last eighteen months are probably the largest source in the decline at Snow’s Pond,” he said. “It’s likely the dewatering is having some effect, but the long term dry period is likely the lion’s share of decline in Snow’s Pond’s water level.”

He also added that even once the dewatering pumps at the excavation pumps are shut off, the pond won’t fully recover until the water table rises back up.

“Even when they turn the pumps off, the effect of the project will cease but the aquifer won’t recover until we get rain,” Newton said. “That’s just the way it is. We need the rain.”

The purpose of the last two meetings were to discuss a request from Decas to fill in the over-excavated pond – an amended order of conditions request. Thus, Newton also touched upon the potential effects of the restoration plan.

“I see neither a pro of a con from my perspective of restoring to 38 feet from 30,” he said. “The more heavy equipment gets in there and move dirt around the greater chances of an environmental failure…There’s a greater risk from that than doing nothing.”

Amidst residents’ worries about Snow’s Pond’s recovery, many were also angry that the permit could have ever been violated in the first place.

“I just find this kind of hard to believe that in today’s day and age they didn’t know they were going below where they were supposed to,” resident Melanie Sherman Morris said. “Will there be someone checking in to make sure people are doing what they’re supposed to? Are there any fines?”

However, Conservation Agent Laurell Farinon said that the problem had been discovered because the commission was paying attention, but that every project will be handled differently from now on.

“Certainly we will be following [the project] very closely,” she said. “And just so everyone knows, there’s going to be a major debriefing with department heads to figure out what we can do. This project will affect how every other project is done in the future.”

Town Counsel Blair Bailey was also on hand, and said that historically the town hasn’t had many of these types of problems, but would be making sure it doesn’t ever happen again.

“The town issues a lot of permits, and for the most part the town doesn’t look over people’s shoulders,” he said. “…As a general rule we haven’t had a ton of issues with permits, but it is true that from here on in it’s going to have to change.”

After the public comment was closed, Farinon gave her recommendation for action to the commission. She recommended that the slope of the pond be regraded from a 3:1 slope to a steeper 2:1 slope so the extra material can be pushed back into the pond.

“It seems like a very viable options and is popular for pond projects,” she said. “It will bring us closer to the correct elevation.”

She also recommended the special conditions included in Newton’s report, including the installation of two wells to monitor the groundwater. It was also suggested that the machinery be required to use biofuel, something often required by the Planning Board.

However, despite the fact the plan Farinon recommended was one submitted by Decas and GAF Engineering, Decas attorney Adam Brodsky said his clients were not intending to recommend the plan.

“We haven’t presented that as something the client would be willing to do,” he said. “However if it’s the commission’s view that we should study it further we will. But we’ll need more time to do that.”

This statement confused Farinon.

“Why would you need more time to study a plan you already submitted?” she asked. “It’s a little insulting to this board to submit this plan and then pull it back.”

Chair Michael Conway said if this was the case then it sounds like an incomplete application. Commission member Daniel Gagne also said he was not comfortable voting on the project without a more complete design plan.

Soil Board Chair Gary Florindo also commented that the town’s bylaw states the grade for slopes has to be 3:1 for safety purposes.

Bailey said asking Decas to make the slope 2:1 would be asking them to violate another town bylaw.

“They’d have to go get a variance from the Soil Board,” he said. “Procedurally that’s where you’ll be.”

After the vote for the plan failed, the commission then asked Decas for $17,000 to at least get the monitoring wells and hydrogeologist services paid for. However, Nick Decas said his answer to that was no.

“We’ve spent $10,000 as a company to get the study done, we gave the money, you picked the scientist and we thought there’d be some action tonight,” he said. “I’m not telling you I’m opposed to the wells…But I can’t just say here’s $10,000 for this and $17,000 for that with no end in sight.”

Ultimately, the hearing was continued until the April 4 meeting so Decas can present more fully prepared plans.