These minutes are for information purposes only. For official minutes please contact the Town Clerk's office.

REGULAR MEETING

JANUARY 18, 2000

I. CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Howard Beach called the January 18, 2000 regular meeting of the Conservation Commission/Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Agency to order at 7:45 p.m. in the Simsbury High School Auditorium. The following members were present: John Yocum, Richard Miller, William Nowak, R. Pierce Clayberger and alternate Andrew Bucknam. Also present was Laurie Whitten, Conservation Officer and Staff Liaison.

II. APPOINTMENT OF ALTERNATIVES

Chairman Beach appointed Commissioner Bucknam to serve for Commissioner Wade.

III. PUBLIC HEARING - DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE

a. Application of River Bend Associates, Inc. and Griffin Land & Nurseries, Inc. for a permit to conduct regulated activities in connection with "Meadowood" planned residential development, County Road, Hoskins Road, Holcomb Street, Firetown Road, and Barn Door Hills Road.

Chairman Beach said that the presentations at the last meeting had gone on too long for any public comment. This evenings meeting will start out with public comment. Chairman Beach said all questions should be concerned only with items that are presented at this meeting. He gave the dates for the Planning and Zoning meetings. Chairman Beach asked that all questions and comments should be made through the Chairman, and he requested one person speak at a time approximately four minutes each.

Tim Hollister said that they had just received three additional memos today and even though they are prepared to go forward with responses to the earlier memo's, he feels they could more efficiently respond to the rebuttals at the next meeting.

Chairman Beach said that would be fine.

Ms. Laurie Whitten told the Commission that for the record she is submitting the memos that Mr. Hollister is referring to. The first is a one page memo from Richard Sawitzke regarding the drainage issues. This was dated January 10, 2000 and was received today. The second is an updated revised memo from Environmental Risk Limited, Gordon Brookman. This is a two page memo dated January 17, 2000 and received today. The third is a three page memo from Dr. Clemens, a wildlife biologist, who the Town has recently retained. This is dated January 17, 2000 and received today. In addition, Commissioner Sharpless is unable to attend this evening and sent out a memo to the Commission members. This says "Notes on Chlordane" dated January 17, 2000. Copies will be made and given to the applicants and Commission members.

Chairman Beach said that the North Simsbury Coalition was applying for Intervener Status.

Arnold Sholovitz, Director of the North Simsbury Coalition, Inc., handed out a number of originals of the intervener petition to the members of the Commission and to Mr. Hollister. He also said that the have with them tonight an expert witness who is a health risk Toxicologist from New Hampshire.

Chairman Beach said that for the record the attorney was reviewing this to see if it meets the criteria.

Attorney Bob Melvin of Robinson and Cole (representing the Town in this proceeding) reviewed the petition and asked Mr. Sholovitz to describe for the record who the North Simsbury Coalition, Inc. is and who their principals are.

Mr. Sholovitz said that the North Simsbury Coalition is a group of residents of Simsbury who are concerned about this particular development. He said they are pending a not for profit status and have filed as a corporation in the state of Connecticut. He said that Matthew Koch is President, Kathy Loomis is Vice President, Michael Sweeney is Secretary, David Moore is Treasurer, and Directors are Bill Mullen, Jean Miller, Joe Campolieta and himself. They all are residents of Simsbury.

Attorney Melvin advised Chairman Beach to state on the record that the North Simsbury Coalition, Inc. has filed a proper pleading to intervene under Section 22a-19 in the General Statutes and now has intervener status in these proceedings.

Chairman Beach said this is so recognized.

Kathy Loomis, Vice President of the North Simsbury Coalition, Inc., said that Dr. Barbara Callahan's presentation should take about twenty minutes. She said they would like the Commission to question Dr. Callahan after the presentation as Dr. Callahan's schedule in February is quite limited and they would like her to give testimony tonight. Mrs. Loomis said they have a court reporter there tonight who will take down Dr. Callahan's statements, any questions that are posed to her and answers that she makes. This is to get an accurate record.

Dr. Barbara Callahan spoke of the problems she saw in the reports that she had reviewed, particularly the pesticides. She also showed several slides containing information on 1) Concerns Regarding Dieldrin, 2) Remediation Concerns, 3) Concerns Regarding Wetlands, 4) Concerns Regarding Pesticides Safety Factors For Children, and 5) Concerns Regarding Fire.

Mrs. Loomis asked Dr. Callahan several questions that would qualify her as an expert witness. Dr. Callahan stated her full name, address, occupation, previous employment, education, professional associations and professional publications.

Commissioner Bucknam asked Dr. Callahan to explain the significance of the detection level being greater than the RSR.

Dr. Callahan said that in this case most of the samples (52%) the detection limit was 160 parts per billion. A conclusion cannot be drawn from that kind of data.

Commissioner Bucknam asked if these were detection levels that were set by the person asking for the data to be analyzed.

Dr. Callahan said she did not know.

Commissioner Miller asked if there are labs that are capable of detecting these levels? Would this be considered the norm or extraordinary?

Dr. Callahan said that this would be considered the norm. She said if the lab could not achieve this than one could go to another lab that will achieve it. It might be more costly to do that.

Commissioner Miller thought that Dr. Callahan had suggested the options of going to another lab or take additional samples.

Dr. Callahan said that when the detection limits come back so high, usually additional samples are taken and the lab is told that they would have to achieve a lower detection limit.

Commissioner Yokum questioned if a house was built in the area and has a basement with some cracks in it, could the occupant be at risk.

Dr. Callahan said that there have been cases where chlordane has been implicated in that kind of a situation and has contaminated homes when it was spread particularly around the base of the house.

Commissioner Yokum asked if this would presumably be a much higher concentration.

Dr. Callahan said presumably so.

Commissioner Miller asked if she has any questions on other RSR's that should have been sampled for. He also asked if she felt that the direct exposure criteria is the criteria they should be looking for in this case.

Dr. Callahan said that the direct exposure criteria are important to look at in this residential situation. She also said that the sediment criteria should be considered when looking at the sediment because she knows that the residential criteria are not appropriate for sediment.

Chairman Beach spoke of Dr. Callahan's remarks about the pollutant uptake in vegetable gardens. He asked if this would be an issue in lawns.

Dr. Callahan said there might be some risk with respect to lawns, but the greater risk is with residential gardening.

Mr. Hollister had several questions for Dr. Callahan. They were 1) In preparing your testimony for tonight did you do any onsite physical testing, 2) Do you have any direct or indirect experience with the remediation of pesticides as part of a residential development or construction project, 3) Do you have any comments on the effectiveness of soil mixing as a remediation technique making the assumption that the applicant does post sampling.

Dr. Callahan responded to Mr. Hollister's questions as follows: 1) none, 2) Some experience as she worked for a remediation company, 3) Cannot address that question as she is not a remedial expert.

Members of the audience questioned Dr. Callahan as follows:

Mark McPherson, 40 County Road, questioned the effects of the tobacco barn fires. He said that the first was in 1967 (5 tobacco barns burned), and two other barns burned in either 1976 or 1977.

Dr. Callahan had no information herself on the fires, but thought that these are concerns that should be brought to the Commission's attention. She said if there were plants in those barns that burned, they could have been sprayed with pesticides. She also said if there was any storage of the pesticides or if pesticides had been sprayed around the barns, fire could have effected them.

Mark McPherson, 40 County Road, questioned ground water contamination with seepage off of the site.

Dr. Callahan said she did not find any information herself on ground water contamination and asked Mr. McPherson what chemicals were used.

Mark McPherson, 40 County Road, said he could find the information from the Farmington area Health District.

Joan Coe, spoke of her own contaminated well and is concerned with the mixing, churning and building and how it might effect the homes in the area that do not have town water but have wells. She feels this would be a burden on the town if the wells are found contaminated.

Dr. Callahan said this would be a burden on the town if wells were contaminate, but as she does not have the data on ground water she could not make a judgement at this point.

Chairman Beach brought up the point that of the soil sampling they saw, no soil testing has been done on soil inside of the barns (existing barns or ones that burned). He asked Mr. Hollister to address this issue.

Commissioner Nowak asked if dioxins were formed because of a fire, would they still be present on site in the location of that fire.

Dr. Callahan said if the chemical is what she is talking about (a dioxin) it would still be present because it has a very long half life.

Dave Figone, Whitcomb Drive, asked what kind of sampling should be done to determine whether a hot spot is or is not a hot spot.

Dr. Callahan said that enough sampling has to be done to determine a hot spot. She said a Statistician will do the calculation to say how many samples must be taken so you have a 90% chance of detecting hot spots. She has not seen any data that shows this has been done.

Dave Figone, Whitcomb Drive, asked if a hot spot could be the result of a bag of fertilizer that was broken open and left.

Dr. Callahan said that this is something that could occur.

Mark Bradley, Windham Drive, questioned the likelihood of any additional distribution of existing chemical runoff during and after the construction process. He was concerned about this runoff going onto adjacent properties.

Dr. Callahan said that during the tilling process it is possible that the chemicals could be released from their tight soil bounding. She also expressed concern about possible release to air during the building.

Mark Bradley, Windham Drive, asked if during the construction process (6 to 10 years) would there be an increased risk to workers being exposed to the tilled soil.

Dr. Callahan said that it is likely there is an increased risk to the workers and the surrounding residents. She also said that she has not done those calculations, but these can be done. A risk assessment process has been defined by EPA and has been used for about 20 years. The calculations would show whether there is a risk to both workers and surrounding residents.

Mark Bradley, Windham Drive, questioned if the mixing of fertilizers, lawn pesticides, etc., which go on the lawn would have any impact going into the ground with the existing 44 pesticides.

Dr. Callahan said that if he was talking about interaction, there is none that she knows of.

Mark Bradley, Windham Drive, expressed concern about children being at risk to the exposed dirt because of the ongoing construction.

Dr. Callahan said the children at the site and surrounding the site would have increased exposure, but how much risk would have to be calculated.

Commissioner Nowak asked Dr. Callahan if she had any recommendations on once a hot spot had been identified, how the soils will be handled or removed.

Dr. Callahan said the person responsible makes the decision to remove the hot spot and to remove it off site. She said that it is one way to be sure that you will never see those numbers again.

Margery Winters, Old Farms Road, asked if a risk assessment analysis would be needed for the sediments in the wetlands. She said that the sediments have been eroding off the fields for quite sometime.

Dr. Callahan said that this would depend on what the chemicals are in the wetlands and what the concentrations are. If the concentrations are safe for the species that live in the wetlands, generally speaking they are safe for children.

Jim Alfieri, 36 County Road, questioned the harmful risk of pesticides around schools for children.

Dr. Callahan said that there is generally a higher level of risk when children are exposed both in their own yards, in their neighborhood yards and in their school yards. This would depend on how much of the school yard is sprayed, whether there are ball fields in the area, and bike trails are also a concern as they generate a lot of dust.

Jim Alfieri, 36 County Road said that for the record that there are days when the children at the school cannot go out because of spraying. He also spoke of there not being any hatching in some of the vernal pools and asked if this could be because of the pesticide level.

Dr. Callahan said that she could not say if this is because of the pesticide level, but thinks this is a question that should be considered.

Richard Afrogola, North Drive, had questions on the soil mixing process. He asked if there is any evidence that this is an accepted technique anywhere else in this region or in the Country.

Dr. Callahan said that in some states this is not allowed, Massachusetts being one of them, because they do not allow anyone to dilute pollutants in order to remediate. She also said that she has heard of soil mixing used as a remediation technique and that clean soil is brought in to cover contaminated soil.

Joan Coe, Whitcomb Drive, asked what effect the disturbing of the soil will have on the retention ponds and how is that going to effect the future of the community and the area.

Dr. Callahan said that she could not say definitely that these contaminants will be released from the soil and enter the pools, but this should be a concern.

Mark McPherson, 40 County Road, spoke of the tobacco barns and how at the end of the season they are enclosed in thick plastic and all vents are sealed off. People are seen going in and out of the barn and he said they may be fumigating. He feels the barns should be tested.

Dr. Callahan said those areas should be tested.

Joe Campolieta, North Gate, concerned about childhood asthma being on the rise. He asked about the heightened risk with these chemicals that may be found on the site and being churned into the air.

Dr. Callahan said that childhood and adult asthma is on the rise. She said any increase in dust particles will increase the risk of asthma. She cannot say that with will respect to these chemicals. The tilling itself will cause an increase in particulates in the air.

Jane Spatcher-McCalkin thought that dioxin should be tested throughout all the fields as she had read that dioxin is often an accidental by product of the pesticide manufacturing. She said whether or not you have a fire it could still be existing.

Dr. Callahan said she has not read any reports about dioxin contaminating other chlorinated pesticides. She is concerned that dioxin can be formed during a fire event with any of these chlorinated organics. She said many of these pesticides found on the site are chlorinated organics.

Jane Spatcher-McCalkin asked if a toxicologist could extrapolate what the concentrations were 20 years ago. She also asked how many years before a human being starts to feel the ill health effects associated with pesticide exposure.

Dr. Callahan said a toxicologist cannot extrapolate that, however, she did give a way to calculate when a chemical is likely to disappear. She said that regarding non-cancer health effects it is impossible to how many years before a human starts to feel ill, but with cancer it is about 20 years, except with non-solid tumors which may appear in five years.

Debbie Sweeney, Squadron Line Road, asked about pilot studies being down prior to a remediation program. She asked Dr. Callahan what the major components are of a good pilot study.

Dr. Callahan said that in a pilot study the remediation is being tested. First the type of remedial technique you are going to use is conducted. Samples are then taken at various points over time so you can get some feel as to what is going on. It is important to know what happens as time passes because those are the concentrations that people are going to be exposed to.

Jim Gazzola, Briarwood Drive, felt that the applicant did not give any real detail about what they did as far as sampling. He said the applicant said they sampled, but did they test? Mr. Gazzola feels an independent study needs to be done. He asked Dr. Callahan if she would be averse to working with a renowned statistician.

Dr. Callahan said she is not averse to working with a statistician.

Kim Rabbitt, 12 Tolland Circle, said that the applicant has said they would do their best to monitor fugitive dust, not contain it. She asked if this dust lands on her property where her children play, how real a concern is this for her and her children.

Dr. Callahan said the greatest concern is during the time when that dust is in the air.

Kim Rabbitt, 12 Tolland Circle, asked if it would be a prudent thing for her take a soil sample of her own residential soil now and again after construction begins.

Dr. Callahan said she should be more concerned with the particulates in the air.

Robert Demesky, 4 Drumlin Rd., West Simsbury, asked if Dr. Callahan would speak specifically on the effects of chemical chlordane as to its effect, migration habits and its ability to effect the ground water. He also asked what contamination effects could there be on the ground water in the aquifers.

Dr. Callahan said that chlordane and many of these other pesticides are tightly bound to the soil. She said if the ground water is deep enough, you do not see them migrating into the ground. She said she cannot speak of the migration of chlordane as she is not that type of an expert, but she spoke of the health effects. They are problems to the lung, liver and to the kidney. Information can be found on chlordane on the WEB on the EPA database. The site is called IRIS (Integrated Risk Information System). Many of these chemical are listed with a large amount of information. Dr. Callahan said she could not answer the question on the aquifers without knowing the depth of the ground water.

Mark Bradley, Windham Drive, concerned about the dust that will be in the air for the six to ten year construction of the development. He asked Dr. Callahan if this adds significant additional health risks to the residents and the children in the area.

Dr. Callahan said that significantly increased exposure means significantly increased risk. It is impossible to say the amount of risk without doing the calculations to show them.

Chairman Beach asked Dr. Callahan if she had said that the EPA has already defined a risk assessment process that can be used for that.

Dr. Callahan said yes and that is has been used for many years. She said that most companies have risk assessment groups.

Kathleen Cowan-Bessette, Clifdon Drive, had questions on the list of the 44 specific pesticides from Fuss & O'Neill, Inc. (Appendix A). She said that several studies had been done on Connecticut tobacco fields since the 1950's and she asked why the applicant does not have complete records on the chemicals used during the entire period of time that they have owned the land. She said that Appendix A does not show use from beyond 10 years, but in the proposal the land ownership goes back beyond 1950. She asked the Commission to have the applicant provide the missing 30 years of pesticide use to them. She asked Dr. Callahan why the other 25 pesticides do not appear on the report?

Dr. Callahan said that given the 1/2 life of the chemicals they should have been tested for.

Kathleen Cowan-Bessette, Clifdon Drive, asked that the Commission require the applicant to do soil testing for the 25 chemicals, which are known to be used in Connecticut. She also feels that a complete sampling write-up be provided so that they know the distribution of all the chemicals including the 44 chemicals that were identified plus the additional 25.

Dave Figone, Whitcomb Drive, asked Dr. Callahan to expound a bit on her earlier comment that the approval or disapproval of the remediation method is a local issue and not a State of Connecticut issue.

Dr. Callahan said she had been told by people in the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection that for farmland contaminated by pesticides local people have control.

Dave Figone, Whitcomb Drive, asked if it was indicated whether any local board decisions in the past have been tried in court and where they have come down.

Dr. Callahan said she did not ask that question.

Jim Gazzola, Briarwood Drive, does not think this will be a State of Connecticut hands off policy because of the affordable housing issue. He also read some documentation.

Mrs. Loomis told the Chairman and the Commission that she would like Dr. Callahan to clarify a question she was asked by Attorney Hollister. He asked whether she was a remedial expert and her response had been she was not a remedial expert. Mrs. Loomis asked Dr. Callahan some questions along that line.

Mrs. Loomis asked Dr. Callahan: What is a remedial expert?

Dr. Callahan responded: A remedial expert is someone who works in this field on a day to day basis and who has the background to make expert opinions about exactly what remediation is required on different sites.

Mrs. Loomis asked Dr. Callahan: In your work as a toxicologist in your field have you in the past worked with remedial experts?

Dr. Callahan responded: I work every day to advise remedial experts about how much risk is acceptable at a site, what concentrations of toxin should be allowed to exist, by what routes people would be effected by these toxins and works with them while they are designing their remediation techniques.

Mrs. Loomis asked Dr. Callahan: You referred to a January 4, 2000 report. Could you show that to me so we can identify it properly?

Mrs. Loomis said that the report Dr. Callahan referred to earlier in the evening is entitled Soil Mixing Plan River Bend Associates, Griffin Land Meadowood Development, Simsbury, Connecticut January, 2000 prepared by Robert D. Boden Jr., and Robert S. Potterton, Jr. of Fuss & O'Neill, Inc.

Chairman Beach thanked Dr. Callahan for her presentation and asked if there were any additional questions or public comment.

Joan Coe, 26 Whitcomb Drive, had some comments and observations on EDB and vorlex. She had a contaminated well. The water from the Culbro property goes through her property and she is concerned that there will be extreme amounts of water going through her property unless they do something to divert this water. She would like to know what Culbro is going to do about retaining the water that is not going to be absorbed in the ground. She also spoke of the aerial pesticide applications that they had at one time and feels this should be looked into. Mrs. Coe also showed pictures of pesticide application from 1999. Mrs. Coe also expressed concern about ground water.

Karl Pech, 73 Hickory Hill Road, make two comments for the applicant. He asked them to identify the area where the 75' regulated buffer zone around the wetland streams or ponds are not met. He also said that the wetlands at the western end of the development act as a north/south wildlife corridor between Great Pond and Mclean Game Refuge and feels this should be protected.

Kim Rabbitt, 12 Tolland Circle, placed two concerns before the Commission. She asked the Commission to consider that this is an enormous proposal putting thousands of people in 363 acre area and would like the Commission to consider the impact of the population crunch on the wetlands and the surrounding environment. She said that considering the issue with pesticides and soil contamination perhaps the land could be allowed to lay dormant for awhile before it is disturbed.

Joe Barna, 42 Windham Drive, questioned the accuracy of the findings of the consultant who described the wetlands as being dry in June. Mr. Barna said he has never seen this dry over the past 20 plus years. Mr. Barna expressed concern about soil contamination and asked how the records were obtained by the applicant when the warehouse records were destroyed in the fire. He also read a paper on soil sampling.

Richard Durr, Hedgehog Lane, said he is a committee member of SOAR (Save Our Area Resources). Mr. Durr feels that Meadowood is bad for all of Simsbury not just North Simsbury. He is concerned that the school is so close to the development and asked if the developer is going to be responsible for health related problems 25, 30 or 40 years from now. He feels the Commission should check out the point of local control of soil tilling. He strongly recommends that the Commission vote no and stop this development.

Bill Mullen, 4 Sanctuary Drive, member of the North Simsbury Coalition. He asked Mr. Hollister if it is 210 acres that the soil tilling operations will be done on.

Mr. Hollister said that the remediation operation is less, but would have to get him the information.

Bill Mullen, 4 Sanctuary Drive, spoke of the contamination in the top 6" of soil that Mr. Potterton of Fuss & O'Neill said was locked in with little or no migration of these contaminates and the observation of Mr. Pawlik of Connecticut ECO Systems, Inc. that sediment was found on top of the organic matter in the vernal pools and wetlands. Mr. Pawlik had said that one of the possible sources of this sedimentation was run off from the agricultural operations in the area. Mr. Mullen felt that if contaminates are contained in the top 6"of soil, that run off would be coming from that same 6" of soil.

Robert Demesky, 4 Drumlin, spoke of slide #1 in Dr. Callahan's presentation. He feels that the state government with a higher set of standards and resources to do soil testing and analysis is shirking their responsibility and is delegating that responsibility to local boards with a lower expertise. He feels that the State of Connecticut Government and the Federal Government should be a part of this.

Kathy Loomis, 500 Firetown Road, asked the Commission to require of the applicant that the applicant provide evidence of the number of fires that have occurred on the property for the entire period since applicant owned the property. She also asked for the number of barns on the property, those that exist now and previously existed. She asked the Commission to require the applicant for credible information as to the source of how they determined the 44 chemicals. She asked where did they come up with the list and how long a period this record covers. She would like to know who the custodians of the records are and if they are available for the Commission and the public to review. Mrs. Loomis also asked that the applicant provide a map to the Commission showing exactly where the samples were taken in relation to existing bams and in relation to areas where previous bams were removed. Copies of Dr. Callahan's overheads will be sent to the Commission.

Jim Alfieri, 36 County Road, concerned about the initial presentation on the wildlife in the area. He said that this was based on 12 site visits in a 8 month period and does not feel these were enough visits. Mr. Alfieri also said there was no talk about the wild turkey and the deer and he also asked why the plant life was not physically observed.

Arnold Sholovitz, 10 Hampshire Lane, Director of the North Simsbury Coalition asked that the Commission ask the applicant to provide the depth of the ground water. He said that it appears that some of the tilling will be within 75' of the wetlands. His also spoke of species that were not found by the applicant and they should have been. One is the eastern ribbon snake and another is the eastern box turtle. They inhabit the vernal pools in the areas. He also spoke of a letter dated June 15, 1978 from Edward Coleman (Culbro) which he would pass out to the Commission.

Joan Coe, 26 Whitcomb Drive, questioned if Fuss & O'Neill did 3', 6' and 8' water samples. If so, what were the results of the 6 and 8 foot borings? She would like to find out all the contaminants that were applied to the soil.

Mark Bradley, 46 Windham Drive, asked what the impact is to the wetlands and animal life from this type of development? He also mentioned that shortcuts into Meadowood would increase the risk to the residents and decrease property value.

Commissioner Miller questioned the applicability of public act 99-68, which involves the amount of discussion of about state approval of this remediation. Commissioner Miller said this deals with the termination of regulated activities at a site which include the use and storage of any regulated substance. He asked if you are terminating activity at the site would the act apply and would it require the state to oversee or approve the cleanup.

Mr. Hollister said that Mr. Potterton of Fuss & O'Neill spoke to the DEP about the soil mixing plan last fall and this was not brought up. He said they would go back and take another look at that issue.

Commissioner Miller said he is speaking in terms of the regulated activity, the actual application or storage of the pesticides.

Mr. Hollister said that is was not his understanding that the public act applied to existing activities that were going on for a number of years.

Commissioner Miller said that in his view there is no time table for when you can say regulated activity was conducted. He feels this is a broad piece of legislation and would like some kind of clarification from DEP.

Mr. Hollister said they would look into that.

Bob Melvin, said that they have looked at that legislation and pulled the legislative history on it. He can provide analysis on that legislation and also what the Commission's authority is in addressing these issues.

Commissioner Miller said he is in favor of having this analysis provided.

Commissioner Nowak had a follow-up question from the first meeting when it was commented that section 6.2.b of their inland/wetland regulations was not in full compliance with the state regulations. He asked Mr. Melvin for any input on that comment or any concerns he might have about it.

Mr. Melvin said they had looked at the legislation that was distributed at the January 4th hearing and also looked at a prior public act adopted in 1995. If this interests the Commission they would like to include some analysis from these changes too and how they may or may not be relevant to the proceedings that you are reviewing in this particular matter.

Dave Figone, Whitcomb Drive, feels that there should be more testing done in looking for hot spots.

Mark McPherson, 40 County Road, said that 1974 was the last time the Smokey Ridge area was used for tobacco planting, and three years later houses were put there. He said that studies could be done on that area to see how it is 25 years later.

Kathy Loomis, asked for the location of the fires and the location of the barns.

Jane Spatcher-McCalkin, 1 Scarborough Road, spoke of chlordane. She is greatly concerned with ground water. She feels the tilling is only going to drive the contamination further into the soil and the ground water. She asked the applicant if they had ever used recycled organic sludge for pesticides. Mrs. Spatcher-McCalkin asked if the Commission has hired an independent study to determine what the cumulative effect of putting 45 homes on private septic will be on the Hop Brook aquifer. She questioned the impact of putting recreational facilities right on the comer of the wetlands? She also asked what is the long term health effect on humans?

Kathleen Cowan-Bessette, Clifdon Drive, spoke of public act number 98-134 concerning the reporting of certain significant environmental hazards. This statute came into effect in the State of Connecticut on October 1, 1999 and it outlines what specific hazards must be reported to the DEP and how they must be cleaned up. She asked the Commission to ask the applicant to test for a compound called chlorobenzine.

Chairman Beach called a recess at 10:30 p. m. The meeting reconvened at 10:40 p. m.

Chairman Beach said there is a lot of additional information and a lot of questions asked that need investigating. He also spoke of the David Lord report on the size of the project and the impact to the wetlands. Mr. Lord thought the Army Corp of Engineers may have interest in some of the information and have some input. Chairman Beach asked Attorney Hollister to check with the Army Corp before the next meeting to see what input they might have and advise the staff. He also asked the town staff to check into it.

Chairman Beach questioned Mr. Hollister about comments from Ms. Murray of the DEP. Chairman Beach asked why they were not told of the proposed project at that time and what information has now been forwarded to them to assist in their new review. He also asked if Mr. Hollister has received any information back from them in regard to the new review.

Mr. Hollister said that they have a disagreement with Ms. Murray's wording. There was not a development plan that they could have showed her in May of 1999. At that point the development team was in a wide variety of alternatives for that site. Mr. Hollister said that Mr. Pawlik's representation at that time was correct. Mr. Hollister said that he did not review this project with the Town before they filed because he has found with developments that propose affordable housing it tends to create an adverse reaction. He said to have a fair hearing he did not feel that they should reveal a development plan until they had it all together.

Ed Pawlik said this morning he had attempted to contact Nancy Murray of DEP. He left a phone message, but did not receive a call back. Mr. Pawlik is going to have her contact Griffin Land directly to obtain any documents, maps, etc. that she might need.

Mr. Hollister said he is not clear on what Nancy Murray needs to review or why she needs to review anything. He is not sure where she is in the DEP or what her job function is. He will discuss this with her.

Commissioner Bucknam spoke of DEP representative Ms. Murray's request regarding Great Pond. He would like to reiterate her request on behalf of the Commission.

Mr. Hollister will provide that specific information to her.

Chairman Beach went over several of the questions and comments made this evening. He is not sure which are questions under the intevener status position and how many are just suggestions.

Chairman Beach asked about the references made that the building that contained all the records was destroyed by fire. He asked if this was all the records of the corporation.

Mr. Hollister said that this was a warehouse in Windsor. It burned in 1994 and it had agriculture records and ongoing operational records.

Chairman Beach said that if a complete list of all the chemicals ever used on the site cannot be produced, then they need to test for the other 25 chemicals.

Chairman Beach said he wants to see verification of testing that there is no contamination in the ground water.

Commissioner Clayberger asked the applicant to give some indication at the next meeting of other sites that have used this remedial ground turning method. He asked if they were successfull after this was done and who has done it.

Commissioner Yokum asked about the recharge of the aquifer. What is the possible long term effect on the quantity and the quality of the aquifer.

Mr. Hollister said there will be a detailed response at the next meeting.

Chairman Beach said the next scheduled hearing date is February 1st, but there is one conflict already on that date. He advised contact the Town Hall to confirm the date.

Mr. Hollister asked for a photocopy of their list. He is also concerned about Dr. Clemens and his report. Dr. Clemens is to be available at some point for some questions. Mr. Hollister said he looking for some kind of an end game for these proceedings. He does not want the hearing to go off in a brand new direction. He would like a narrowing process after the next proceeding.

Chairman Beach told Mr. Hollister that he cannot guarantee who will be presented at future hearings or what questions might come up or what direction interest may go in. He said no one wants any last minute surprises. Chairman Beach said that Dr. Clemens is not available on the night of February 1st and they are looking to reschedule that meeting so Dr. Clemens can address his concerns and answer any questions.

Commissioner Nowak made a motion to continue the meeting to February 1st. This was seconded by Commissioner Clayberger. The motion passed unanimously.

IV. PRESENTATION - DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE VOTE

NONE

V. DISCUSSION

a. Open Space Issues

Ms. Whitten to check on Sotille property.

VI. RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS

Ms. Whitten spoke of a new application at 146 Hopmeadow Street. A Public Hearing for a Map Amendment will be scheduled for February 15th.

VII. CORRESPONDENCE/ANNOUNCEMENTS

NONE

VIII. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF January 4, 2000

Commissioner Nowak motioned to approve the minutes as amended. This was seconded by Commissioner Clayberger. The motion passed unanimously.

IX. ADJOURMENT

Commissioner Nowak motioned to adjourn the meeting at 11:10. This was seconded by Commissioner Miller. The motion passed unanimously.